Coach fired for writing country-western song...

Jim Thompson
Guest

Thu Aug 26, 2010 12:31 am

Coach fired for writing country-western song...

He was a little man, just turned three

Took the present from his daddy’s hand

A genuine toy hammer

He started beatin’ to beat the band

He hit the floors and the wall, broke a lamp in the hall,

Started swinging at the puppy’s tail

When you’re holding a hammer

Everything looks like a nail.

He was the president, number 44

He says, “Trust me, I’m here to help you

I have got some big big plans

You’re gonna love what I’m gonna do.”

There’s no problem too big or small

He thinks he’s got an answer that just can’t fail

When you’re holding a hammer

Everything looks like a nail.

He thinks big thoughts and he dreams big dreams

But it’s another man’s sweat that pays for those schemes

He don’t care how the little people feel

‘Cause saving the world is a big freaking deal

So he does his business behind closed doors

And pretends that the world is just begging for more

When the stuff hits the fan he says, “Don’t look at me

If you got trouble, blame 43.”

Now Congress is saving Wall Street

While they’re watching Main Street fall

They got health care all figured out

But it don’t seem to care much at all

As soon as they save the planet

They’ll put the fire out in hell

When you’re holding a hammer.

Everything looks like a nail.

He thinks big thoughts and he dreams big dreams

But it’s another man’s sweat that pays for those schemes

He don’t care how the little people feel

‘Cause saving the world is a big freaking deal

So he does his business behind closed doors

And pretends that the world is just begging for more

When the stuff hits the fan he says, “Don’t look at me

If you got trouble, blame 43.”

There’ll be a party come this November

When we’re gonna set things straight

All good people gonna gather ‘round

Gonna show what made this country great

We’ll run off the schemers and backroom dealers

So the Red, White and Blue will prevail

When we’re holding the hammer

When we’re holding the hammer

Everyone of them looks like a nail.

Read more:

http://radio.foxnews.com/2010/08/23/coach-fired-over-anti-obama-song/#ixzz0xfBo111H

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

"What would happen to [Obama's] vanity if he didn’t have us to
throw alms to? What would become of his strength if he didn’t have
weaker people to dominate? What would he do with himself if he
didn’t keep us around as dependents? It’s quite alright, really,
I’m not criticizing him, it’s just a law of human nature."

-Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"

Joe
Guest

Thu Aug 26, 2010 3:45 am

In article <lo9b7699e0vs7cc60d88f521t6pov8qo4r_at_4ax.com>, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon_at_On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

<Snip more deep thoughts from GOJ>

Take a nap, Jim.

--- Joe

ian field
Guest

Thu Aug 26, 2010 10:20 pm

"Joe" <none_at_given.now> wrote in message
news:none-2508101945020001_at_dialup-4.231.172.250.dial1.losangeles1.level3.net...

Quote:

In article <lo9b7699e0vs7cc60d88f521t6pov8qo4r_at_4ax.com>, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon_at_On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

Snip more deep thoughts from GOJ

Take a nap, Jim.

He was - the meds mean he don't stay down!

Jim Thompson
Guest

Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:37 pm

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 22:20:24 +0100, "ian field"
<gangprobing.alien_at_ntlworld.com> wrote:

Quote:

"Joe" <none_at_given.now> wrote in message
news:none-2508101945020001_at_dialup-4.231.172.250.dial1.losangeles1.level3.net...
In article <lo9b7699e0vs7cc60d88f521t6pov8qo4r_at_4ax.com>, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon_at_On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

Snip more deep thoughts from GOJ

Take a nap, Jim.

He was - the meds mean he don't stay down!

I haven't had any urges to nap since my mid-40's... not quite sure
what that means.

And, nope! I don't have any trouble keeping "it" up Wink

flipper
Guest

Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:45 pm

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:31:56 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon_at_On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

<snip>

Quote:

Read more:

http://radio.foxnews.com/2010/08/23/coach-fired-over-anti-obama-song/#ixzz0xfBo111H

...Jim Thompson

So much for the first amendment.

Joel Koltner
Guest

Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:43 am

"flipper" <flipper_at_fish.net> wrote in message
news:2lrd769jsfiqkc3q4lfkic326112d9spt7_at_4ax.com...

Quote:

Read more:
http://radio.foxnews.com/2010/08/23/coach-fired-over-anti-obama-song/#ixzz0xfBo111H

So much for the first amendment.

Well, the school board maintains the guy's dismissal had nothing to do with
the song.

If it did, what you can and can't say on and off the job and how it effects
what your employer can can't do to you gets very murky. See, e.g.,
http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/labor . (Obviously a "blog" isn't a
"song e-mailed to friends," but you get the idea.)

I do find it a bit ironic that a conservative guy would be threatening a
lawsuit when conservatives would generally be the ones to advocate employers
being able to fire anyone for any arbitrary reason whatsoever vs. the liberals
who want lots of worker protection laws.

I'll bet you a nickel what really happened is that while, sure, he used his
personal e-mail account, he was using school-owned equipment at the time he
did it. I suspect there's probably some clear-cut rule about that not being
acceptable use of his employer's equipment, so unless he's able to demonstrate
that, e.g., other employees were using equipment for similar activities,
administrators were informed and did nothing, I doubt he'd have much of a leg
to stand on in court.

Or maybe it really doesn't have anything to do with the song whatsoever, as
the school maintains -- it's a pretty benign song, if you ask me; I sure
wouldn't fire anyone over it.

---Joel

Jim Thompson
Guest

Fri Aug 27, 2010 1:01 am

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:43:10 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
<zapwireDASHgroups_at_yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

"flipper" <flipper_at_fish.net> wrote in message
news:2lrd769jsfiqkc3q4lfkic326112d9spt7_at_4ax.com...
Read more:
http://radio.foxnews.com/2010/08/23/coach-fired-over-anti-obama-song/#ixzz0xfBo111H

So much for the first amendment.

Well, the school board maintains the guy's dismissal had nothing to do with
the song.

If it did, what you can and can't say on and off the job and how it effects
what your employer can can't do to you gets very murky. See, e.g.,
http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/labor . (Obviously a "blog" isn't a
"song e-mailed to friends," but you get the idea.)

I do find it a bit ironic that a conservative guy would be threatening a
lawsuit when conservatives would generally be the ones to advocate employers
being able to fire anyone for any arbitrary reason whatsoever vs. the liberals
who want lots of worker protection laws.

I'll bet you a nickel what really happened is that while, sure, he used his
personal e-mail account, he was using school-owned equipment at the time he
did it. I suspect there's probably some clear-cut rule about that not being
acceptable use of his employer's equipment, so unless he's able to demonstrate
that, e.g., other employees were using equipment for similar activities,
administrators were informed and did nothing, I doubt he'd have much of a leg
to stand on in court.

Or maybe it really doesn't have anything to do with the song whatsoever, as
the school maintains -- it's a pretty benign song, if you ask me; I sure
wouldn't fire anyone over it.

---Joel

But you're not a sicko liberal.

I've had liberals in my neighborhood write to the newspaper saying the
newspaper shouldn't print my letters.

I retort that, when this sicko liberalism government collapses, I'll
be running thru the neighborhood shooting them in the ass. That shuts
'em up :-0

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Spice is like a sports car...
Performance only as good as the person behind the wheel.

flipper
Guest

Fri Aug 27, 2010 1:30 am

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:43:10 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
<zapwireDASHgroups_at_yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

"flipper" <flipper_at_fish.net> wrote in message
news:2lrd769jsfiqkc3q4lfkic326112d9spt7_at_4ax.com...
Read more:
http://radio.foxnews.com/2010/08/23/coach-fired-over-anti-obama-song/#ixzz0xfBo111H

So much for the first amendment.

Well, the school board maintains the guy's dismissal had nothing to do with
the song.

His tale explicitly states he was 'told' the song was the reason and
their deafening silence about what any other 'good reason' might be
doesn't help their claim.

Quote:

If it did, what you can and can't say on and off the job and how it effects
what your employer can can't do to you gets very murky. See, e.g.,
http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/labor . (Obviously a "blog" isn't a
"song e-mailed to friends," but you get the idea.)

Last I heard the "public schools" were considered a 'government job'
and, so far, no one has offered any insight as to how his song could
'disrupt the workplace'. Not to mention that, even if no state law to
the effect exists, one would think at least a hearing and chance to
discuss the matter would be common sense prudence.

Quote:

I do find it a bit ironic that a conservative guy would be threatening a
lawsuit when conservatives would generally be the ones to advocate employers
being able to fire anyone for any arbitrary reason whatsoever vs. the liberals
who want lots of worker protection laws.

You are conflating a whole range of issues. For one, dictating who
can, or must, be hired or fired based on nothing more than racial head
count, as one example, is an entirely different matter than freedom of
speech but the even bigger issue is 'public schools' are not private
enterprises and if the First Amendment means anything at all it's to
protect individuals from 'government' attempting to control criticism.

Quote:

I'll bet you a nickel what really happened is that while, sure, he used his
personal e-mail account, he was using school-owned equipment at the time he
did it. I suspect there's probably some clear-cut rule about that not being
acceptable use of his employer's equipment, so unless he's able to demonstrate
that, e.g., other employees were using equipment for similar activities,
administrators were informed and did nothing, I doubt he'd have much of a leg
to stand on in court.

If it's such a clear cut and plainly stated common policy then how
come no school official seems able to mention it?

Not only that, but from the accounts I've read, the superintendent of
schools was unable, or unwilling, to articulate any reason even after
saying he had talked to them and was 'satisfied' they had handled it
'appropriately'.

Quote:

Or maybe it really doesn't have anything to do with the song whatsoever, as
the school maintains -- it's a pretty benign song, if you ask me; I sure
wouldn't fire anyone over it.

Neither would I, even if you substituted 42 for 43 and 43 for 44.
Which makes the additional charge it's 'racist' all the more absurd.

On the other hand, racist racist racist is the new mind numbed robot
knee jerk substitute for liar liar liar.

Quote:

---Joel

Joel Koltner
Guest

Fri Aug 27, 2010 1:51 am

"flipper" <flipper_at_fish.net> wrote in message
news:eo1e76hchhjq6lif6tr0b5fuh3snje1h2k_at_4ax.com...

Quote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:43:10 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
Well, the school board maintains the guy's dismissal had nothing to do with
the song.
His tale explicitly states he was 'told' the song was the reason and
their deafening silence about what any other 'good reason' might be
doesn't help their claim.

Yes, it's his word against theirs as to why he was fired.

Few businesses will speak to the media regarding why someone was terminated
these days; there's a lot of risk doing so, and generally no upside.

Quote:

Last I heard the "public schools" were considered a 'government job'
and, so far, no one has offered any insight as to how his song could
'disrupt the workplace'.

Agreed, that's why they probably got him on some technicality such as
unauthorized use of the school's equipment.

Quote:

Not to mention that, even if no state law to
the effect exists, one would think at least a hearing and chance to
discuss the matter would be common sense prudence.

Not an unreasonable request, but it doesn't bother me if an employer chooses
not to offer such a process either.

Quote:

I'll bet you a nickel what really happened is...
If it's such a clear cut and plainly stated common policy then how
come no school official seems able to mention it?

See above. It's just S.O.P. for both private businesses as well as the
government these days.

It's just like calling for job references today -- most businesses will only
verify that someone worked for them for a specified period of time in a given
position but will refuse to provide infomration any regarding their
performance or reason for termination.

Quote:

Neither would I, even if you substituted 42 for 43 and 43 for 44.
Which makes the additional charge it's 'racist' all the more absurd.

Yes.

Quote:

On the other hand, racist racist racist is the new mind numbed robot
knee jerk substitute for liar liar liar.

Yep, absolutely correct. A lot of people apparently didn't pay quite enough
attention in school to learn what "racism" is; plenty of folks who disagree
with (1) Obama and (2) immigration policy are unfairly tarred with the
"racist" brush.

---Joel

flipper
Guest

Fri Aug 27, 2010 4:46 am

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:51:32 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
<zapwireDASHgroups_at_yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

"flipper" <flipper_at_fish.net> wrote in message
news:eo1e76hchhjq6lif6tr0b5fuh3snje1h2k_at_4ax.com...
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:43:10 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
Well, the school board maintains the guy's dismissal had nothing to do with
the song.
His tale explicitly states he was 'told' the song was the reason and
their deafening silence about what any other 'good reason' might be
doesn't help their claim.

Yes, it's his word against theirs as to why he was fired.

Actually, it's his word against nothing as they've given no reason
whatsoever.

Quote:

Few businesses will speak to the media regarding why someone was terminated
these days; there's a lot of risk doing so, and generally no upside.

Government is not a business and government agencies have no such
luxury unless it's specifically a "serves at the pleasure of"
position.

Quote:

Last I heard the "public schools" were considered a 'government job'
and, so far, no one has offered any insight as to how his song could
'disrupt the workplace'.

Agreed, that's why they probably got him on some technicality such as
unauthorized use of the school's equipment.

Your automatic blind faith and eagerness to invent an excuse despite
not one word of explanation is touching but unsupported.

Quote:

Not to mention that, even if no state law to
the effect exists, one would think at least a hearing and chance to
discuss the matter would be common sense prudence.

Not an unreasonable request, but it doesn't bother me if an employer chooses
not to offer such a process either.

Out of curiosity, how long are you going to hold onto the canard that
public schools are a 'business'?

Quote:

I'll bet you a nickel what really happened is...
If it's such a clear cut and plainly stated common policy then how
come no school official seems able to mention it?

See above. It's just S.O.P. for both private businesses as well as the
government these days.

Government is not private business and if they think silence will
avert a lawsuit they are obviously mistaken.

Quote:

It's just like calling for job references today -- most businesses will only
verify that someone worked for them for a specified period of time in a given
position but will refuse to provide infomration any regarding their
performance or reason for termination.

That's because they worry about potential defamation lawsuits but
these folks have already guaranteed a lawsuit by, if nothing else,
their timing.

Quote:

Neither would I, even if you substituted 42 for 43 and 43 for 44.
Which makes the additional charge it's 'racist' all the more absurd.

Yes.

On the other hand, racist racist racist is the new mind numbed robot
knee jerk substitute for liar liar liar.

Yep, absolutely correct. A lot of people apparently didn't pay quite enough
attention in school to learn what "racism" is; plenty of folks who disagree
with (1) Obama and (2) immigration policy are unfairly tarred with the
"racist" brush.

I made a similar comment about the lack of dictionary use with those
hurling liar but it's clear those who do so don't give a tinker's dam
what the words mean. They're just rocks to throw at whoever they feel
like stoning this week.

>---Joel

Joel Koltner
Guest

Fri Aug 27, 2010 5:09 pm

"flipper" <flipper_at_fish.net> wrote in message
news:l3ce76pio3s2oun2ekq74i0njlemm04jf6_at_4ax.com...

Quote:

Yes, it's his word against theirs as to why he was fired.
Actually, it's his word against nothing as they've given no reason
whatsoever.

You're right, I worded that poorly -- it's his word that he was fired due to
the song vs. their word that he wasn't fired due to the song.

Quote:

Few businesses will speak to the media regarding why someone was terminated
these days; there's a lot of risk doing so, and generally no upside.
Government is not a business and government agencies have no such
luxury unless it's specifically a "serves at the pleasure of"
position.

Really? I can't imagine that if you call up some random government office
they're legally required to immediately give you a reason as to why someone
was fired. Eventually, maybe, but certainly not right away.

Quote:

Out of curiosity, how long are you going to hold onto the canard that
public schools are a 'business'?

Apparently indefeinitely. :-)

---Joel

Richard the Dreaded Liber
Guest

Fri Aug 27, 2010 5:41 pm

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:01:38 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

Quote:

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

Typical sicko neocon - violence as a solution to everything.

Thanks,
Rich

Jim Thompson
Guest

Fri Aug 27, 2010 6:36 pm

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:27:10 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<greegor47_at_gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

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!

Simple solution: Shoot Richard in the ass as well Wink

Jeff Johnson
Guest

Fri Aug 27, 2010 6:42 pm

"Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:q_Ddo.89557$Ua4.18121_at_en-nntp-09.dc1.easynews.com...

Quote:

"flipper" <flipper_at_fish.net> wrote in message
news:eo1e76hchhjq6lif6tr0b5fuh3snje1h2k_at_4ax.com...
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:43:10 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
Well, the school board maintains the guy's dismissal had nothing to do
with
the song.
His tale explicitly states he was 'told' the song was the reason and
their deafening silence about what any other 'good reason' might be
doesn't help their claim.

Yes, it's his word against theirs as to why he was fired.

Few businesses will speak to the media regarding why someone was
terminated these days; there's a lot of risk doing so, and generally no
upside.

Last I heard the "public schools" were considered a 'government job'
and, so far, no one has offered any insight as to how his song could
'disrupt the workplace'.

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?

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.

Quote:

Not to mention that, even if no state law to
the effect exists, one would think at least a hearing and chance to
discuss the matter would be common sense prudence.

Not an unreasonable request, but it doesn't bother me if an employer
chooses not to offer such a process either.

Does anyone know a case where a liberal was fired for a similar incident?

Quote:

I'll bet you a nickel what really happened is...
If it's such a clear cut and plainly stated common policy then how
come no school official seems able to mention it?

See above. It's just S.O.P. for both private businesses as well as the
government these days.

It's just like calling for job references today -- most businesses will
only verify that someone worked for them for a specified period of time in
a given position but will refuse to provide infomration any regarding
their performance or reason for termination.

Possibly but lets be serious here for a moment. Isn't the most likely cause
that some liberal got "offended" because someone said something about their
messiah? They complained and this person was fired... mind you, FIRED. Not
repremanded but fired. This reaks of bias.

Now, it is possible that this guy is a total loon and they've been looking
for something to get rid of him. But we all know how liberals in power
behave as we have our prototypes Pelosi, Reed, and Obsama.

Quote:

Neither would I, even if you substituted 42 for 43 and 43 for 44.
Which makes the additional charge it's 'racist' all the more absurd.

Yes.
On the other hand, racist racist racist is the new mind numbed robot
knee jerk substitute for liar liar liar.

Yep, absolutely correct. A lot of people apparently didn't pay quite
enough attention in school to learn what "racism" is; plenty of folks who
disagree with (1) Obama and (2) immigration policy are unfairly tarred
with the "racist" brush.

Maybe this is the new tolerance liberals have? If they don't agree with you
they simply tolerate you by making you into a racist? After all, they seem
to have no problem with tolerating muslims.

Joel Koltner
Guest

Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:13 pm

"Jeff Johnson" <Jeff_Johnson_at_Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i58teb$nts$1_at_news.eternal-september.org...

Quote:

"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. 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?

I'm making a bunch of wild assumptions here, 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. 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.

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

Quote:

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. :-)

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

---Joel