Coach fired for writing country-western song...

JT > be running thru the neighborhood shooting
JT > them in the ass.  That shuts 'em up :-0

Richard > Typical sicko neocon - violence as a solution to everything.

Do you REALLY think liberals don't do that?

Are you REALLY a Libertarian, Richard?

They Attempted to violate Jim's 1st Amendment Rights.
What's the allowed punishment for conspiracy
to violate civil rights?

That's a LIBERTY interest, Richard!

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:13:31 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
zapwireDASHgroups_at_yahoo.com> wrote:

"Jeff Johnson" <Jeff_Johnson_at_Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i58teb$nts$1_at_news.eternal-september.org...
"Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:q_Ddo.89557$Ua4.18121_at_en-nntp-09.dc1.easynews.com...
Agreed, that's why they probably got him on some technicality such as
unauthorized use of the school's equipment.
So that makes it ok? Does that deserve a firing or a repremand? Would a
liberal have gotten the same treatment?

No, it doesn't make it OK (assuming it was somewhat motivated by his writing
the song -- and I can believe it could have been). But as a practical matter,
if your employer doesn't want you around -- even if it's for a completely
ridiculous reason -- sooner or later they'll find a legally defensible reason
to fire you.

You mean, as long as you're a non union white male in a private sector
job.

All bets are off in any other set of circumstances.

And you also have to consider -- even if you can somehow force
an employer to keep you around, do you really want to work for people you know
don't really want you there?

Might depend on whether 'they' don't want you there or are just PC
caving to a raucous minority.


I'm making a bunch of wild assumptions here,

And that's my objection.

but I'd be willing to bet that
even if you were a lawyer looking to take on a bias case, this guy's
particular situation wouldn't be partiuclarly attractive.

Because it isn't PC to defend 'conservatives'?

He used
"privileged" information (the e-mail lists of the parents) for
non-work-related activities (strike one), I'm guessing he used the school's
equipment to send those e-mails (strike two), etc. -- once it all comes out in
court it'll get messy fast.

Care to place any bets on whether he'd still be there if he'd done
exactly the same thing to notify folks Bill Maher was going to be in
town?


I hope some private school that's run by somewhat more conservative folks
offers him a job -- it'd be best for everyone.

I see. It's perfectly fine for the public schools to be run by 'not
conservative' folks. In fact, it's "best for everyone" if we get those
'conservative' folks out of there.


The fact of the matter is that the liberal principle didn't like it and
fired him... and liberals are suppose to be soooo tolerant of other peoples
views. After all, just look how hard they try to understand muslims.

Plenty of folks from all sides of the political spectrum are hypocrites. :-)

That's a hypocrite's straw man excuse.


But you can't judge any group -- liberals, conservatives, or Muslims -- from
the actions of a few of their members.

That's another straw man as no one is judging from the actions of 'a
few members'.

This is particularly true of groups
where the official stance is to try to accomodate as many as possible...
there's a fascinating discussion of this here:
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-democrats-are-doomed-or-how-a-big-tent-can-be-too-big/

You are confusing "big tent," where the premise is one does not let
non essential differences obscure common core principles, with trying
to hold a mob together through fear mongering, pandering, and payoff.

E.g. The 'Republican plan' is "die quickly"... *you*, and not the evil
'they', will get a tax break... and what's a secret ballot? (to name
but a few).

Not to mention saying one thing, to 'shift the line', while fully
intending to do something else. Such as candidate Obama advertising
clean coal "yes we can, yes we can" while simultaneously telling his
enviro pals to ignore the ad because his cap and trade bill will put
anyone foolish enough use it out of business. The line has a tendency
to 'shift' again when people find out the words and deeds have little
to nothing in common.

The above 3 paragraphs are very poorly written, the second in
particular is amphibolous.

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 07:01:22 -0500, flipper <flipper_at_fish.net> wrote:

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:13:31 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
zapwireDASHgroups_at_yahoo.com> wrote:

"Jeff Johnson" <Jeff_Johnson_at_Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i58teb$nts$1_at_news.eternal-september.org...
"Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:q_Ddo.89557$Ua4.18121_at_en-nntp-09.dc1.easynews.com...
Agreed, that's why they probably got him on some technicality such as
unauthorized use of the school's equipment.
So that makes it ok? Does that deserve a firing or a repremand? Would a
liberal have gotten the same treatment?

No, it doesn't make it OK (assuming it was somewhat motivated by his writing
the song -- and I can believe it could have been). But as a practical matter,
if your employer doesn't want you around -- even if it's for a completely
ridiculous reason -- sooner or later they'll find a legally defensible reason
to fire you.

You mean, as long as you're a non union white male in a private sector
job.

All bets are off in any other set of circumstances.

And you also have to consider -- even if you can somehow force
an employer to keep you around, do you really want to work for people you know
don't really want you there?

Might depend on whether 'they' don't want you there or are just PC
caving to a raucous minority.


I'm making a bunch of wild assumptions here,

And that's my objection.

but I'd be willing to bet that
even if you were a lawyer looking to take on a bias case, this guy's
particular situation wouldn't be partiuclarly attractive.

Because it isn't PC to defend 'conservatives'?

He used
"privileged" information (the e-mail lists of the parents) for
non-work-related activities (strike one), I'm guessing he used the school's
equipment to send those e-mails (strike two), etc. -- once it all comes out in
court it'll get messy fast.

Care to place any bets on whether he'd still be there if he'd done
exactly the same thing to notify folks Bill Maher was going to be in
town?


I hope some private school that's run by somewhat more conservative folks
offers him a job -- it'd be best for everyone.

I see. It's perfectly fine for the public schools to be run by 'not
conservative' folks. In fact, it's "best for everyone" if we get those
'conservative' folks out of there.


The fact of the matter is that the liberal principle didn't like it and
fired him... and liberals are suppose to be soooo tolerant of other peoples
views. After all, just look how hard they try to understand muslims.

Plenty of folks from all sides of the political spectrum are hypocrites. :-)

That's a hypocrite's straw man excuse.


But you can't judge any group -- liberals, conservatives, or Muslims -- from
the actions of a few of their members.

That's another straw man as no one is judging from the actions of 'a
few members'.

This is particularly true of groups
where the official stance is to try to accomodate as many as possible...
there's a fascinating discussion of this here:
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-democrats-are-doomed-or-how-a-big-tent-can-be-too-big/

You are confusing "big tent," where the premise is one does not let
non essential differences obscure common core principles, with trying
to hold a mob together through fear mongering, pandering, and payoff.

E.g. The 'Republican plan' is "die quickly"... *you*, and not the evil
'they', will get a tax break... and what's a secret ballot? (to name
but a few).

Not to mention saying one thing, to 'shift the line', while fully
intending to do something else. Such as candidate Obama advertising
clean coal "yes we can, yes we can" while simultaneously telling his
enviro pals to ignore the ad because his cap and trade bill will put
anyone foolish enough use it out of business. The line has a tendency
to 'shift' again when people find out the words and deeds have little
to nothing in common.

The above 3 pargraphs are very poorly written, the second in
particular is amphibolous.

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 01:28:09 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47_at_gmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 27, 2:57 pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
freedom_...@example.net> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:27:10 -0700, Greegor wrote:
JT > be running thru the neighborhood shooting
JT > them in the ass.  That shuts 'em up :-0

Richard > Typical sicko neocon - violence as a solution to everything.

Do you REALLY think liberals don't do that?

Are you REALLY a Libertarian, Richard?

They Attempted to violate Jim's 1st Amendment Rights.
What's the allowed punishment for conspiracy
to violate civil rights?

That's a LIBERTY interest, Richard!

I wasn't the one advocating violence - and I know there
are violent sickos at both extremes of the statist party.

What was that saying about the tree of Liberty
needing to be fertilized with the blood of Patriots?

Isn't that in YOUR Libertarian playbook?

Libertarians suffer from the same disease as leftists. They both believe, to
the bottom of their souls, that people are perfectible.

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 11:55:04 -0500, krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 01:28:09 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47_at_gmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 27, 2:57 pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
freedom_...@example.net> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:27:10 -0700, Greegor wrote:
JT > be running thru the neighborhood shooting
JT > them in the ass.  That shuts 'em up :-0

Richard > Typical sicko neocon - violence as a solution to everything.

Do you REALLY think liberals don't do that?

Are you REALLY a Libertarian, Richard?

They Attempted to violate Jim's 1st Amendment Rights.
What's the allowed punishment for conspiracy
to violate civil rights?

That's a LIBERTY interest, Richard!

I wasn't the one advocating violence - and I know there
are violent sickos at both extremes of the statist party.

What was that saying about the tree of Liberty
needing to be fertilized with the blood of Patriots?

Isn't that in YOUR Libertarian playbook?

Libertarians suffer from the same disease as leftists. They both believe, to
the bottom of their souls, that people are perfectible.

No, merely that Freedom is better than slavery.

But, you've already decided what's on my mind, so there's no use trying
to confuse you with any facts.

On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 13:03:08 -0700, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian

But, you've already decided what's on my mind, so there's no use trying
to confuse you with any facts.

You've decided that you don't need to think, so there is no need in trying to
convince you otherwise. ...another trait you have in common with leftists.

On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 18:19:21 -0500, krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 13:03:08 -0700, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian

But, you've already decided what's on my mind, so there's no use trying
to confuse you with any facts.

You've decided that you don't need to think, so there is no need in trying to
convince you otherwise. ...another trait you have in common with leftists.

Yeah. I'm not a neocon anti-choice war addict, therefore I'm a liberal.

You sound a lot like Al Sharpton - I don't like Obama's politics,
therefore I'm a racist.

All-or-nothing thinking like that is what got the country into the mess
it's in now.