politics


Second edit:  I really have no clue as to what happened to the first edit.  And I could have sworn it was published, and it wasn’t.  And that’s kind of pissing me off.

Also, I will probably update this as I think more about it.

OK, the facts, as they currently are.

Mozilla hires Brendan Eich as CEO.  Because of a $1,000 donation supporting California’s Proposition 8, certain individuals, homosexuals in this case, get upset with Mozilla, which I will point out, they are free to do, with.some people outside of Mozilla, and some people inside Mozilla.  Mr. Eich makes a decision to resign the position, for whatever reason, and again, it must be noted that this was his decision, there was not a board vote to fire him, although there may well have been board pressure for him to do so.  Still, ultimately, it was his decision.

It can be argued that the amount donated, $1,000 isn’t really all that much.  It can be argued that people need to be a little more thick skinned.

But I’m not arguing those here.

Dave writes about it here, and comments are closed.

Dave is correct in that politics are by their very nature divisive.  Although I could argue that, in the US, once you go just under the skin, the differences are gone, and what is divisive is pretty fucking trivial, only minor details are different between Democrats and Republicans, but politics being politics, molehills can be made to appear as Mount Everest. And that really only has to do with Republicans and Democrats.  Libertarians, big or small l, and other parties certainly would not fit that, but, for whatever reason, the political reality is that >95% of the elected officials are going to be a D or an R.  But exactly where they become divisive, that is the issue.

I think Dave is wrong.

My argument is about differences of opinions that lead to inclusivity, and those that lead to exclusivity.  Those are differences that matter.

As an example of inclusivity, say a CEO is an atheist, but that CEO has no problems with others being theists, Catholics, Muslims, Pagans, and encourages them to practice their religion by make sure that the Catholics are able to worship on Sunday, giving time for Ash Wednesday, the Muslims praying on their time schedule, and the pagans doing whatever it is the pagans do.  Dance naked at the solstices for all I know or care.  Or the reverse can be true, a Catholic CEO can be tolerant of other different theists and atheists.

Exclusivity would be where an atheist CEO has people working on Sundays in a regular matter for Christians or Friday night and Saturday for the Jews, having award luncheons during Ramadan.  I think you see the picture at this point.

Those are two different approaches.  I would hope that people see the inclusivity as the better option.  And it certainly is an option.

Back to the Mozilla and Eich issue.  Proposition 8 is an exclusive type of choice that was forced upon the entire state of California.  Yes, it was passed by a sufficient number of voters in California to be made into a state amendment, but it has been found to be in violation of both California and US constitutions.  I guess it can be argued that by making it an amendment, it would supercede what is written in the state constitution, but considering what I’ve seen just here in Florida and the overturning of amendments for not following the Florida constitution, that is not a viable argument.  It also shows that just because a majority of people vote for something, doesn’t necessarily make it the correct thing to do, even in a democracy/republic/representative what-the-hell…

My question to Dave would be, if there was a company that had a considerable number of Jews as workers had a board that decided to hire a CEO that wasn’t just a Holocaust denier, but had actively given money, amount not being a detail, to a Holocaust denier organization, what does Dave think the outrage would be, both internally and externally?  Does Dave think that the Jews should just shut up about the issue?  Yes, this is treading very close to Goodwin’s Law.

Dave also talks about another political point, specifically Republican and Democrat, and starts his post with a Democrat switching parties to Republican.  The difference here is that neither the Republicans or the Democrats can put language into a law or amendment to blatantly outlaw the other party from doing such things as raising money, spending money on advertising, vote for a particular party, or preventing the other party from actually registering to be put on the ballot.

The last two are problematic, because Republicans certainly are trying to affect Democrat votes with their Voter ID laws.  And sorry, it’s up to the Republicans to show that there is real voter fraud going on, preferably that fraud that isn’t being committed by those in the Republican Party to try and show that it is going on.  Also, since the two major parties control who does get on the ballot, third parties will never be a major force in US elections anyway.  Despite what the libertarians think.  And maybe that’s why people think that something like Proposition 8 was valid because it only affected such a minor number of people.  But the fact still remains that even those laws do not name the people that they are trying to harm/disenfranchise/whatever.  Proposition 8 did name names.

In the end, Mr. Eich bet wrong on putting his money on that proposition, despite thinking that it was a real win at first.  And when you consider that the states are falling down like dominoes in their efforts to keep such laws and amendments on the books, it makes his bet look even worse.

But then, if Mr. Eich had bet on inclusivity and lost, would anybody really care at that point?

Slashdot picks up the conversation.

Some of the comments are good reading as well.

Especially the one about race, and how today, if a CEO was racist and was all about treating blacks as second class citizens, would they even be in any kind of management position, regardless of how brilliant they might be otherwise?  Not in today’s supposedly post-racial society.

 

On one of my mailing lists, I tried to raise a little awareness of what I thought was going on with the political process.

Nobody could tell me what I was wrong in, or where I was wrong. I did get called an elitist. And at least one person said that they thought I was wrong, but at least he wasn’t combative about it.

Here’s what I don’t understand. I’ve pulled a decade of civil service. Nobody else on the list has done ANY civil service, at least none that will claim it. I’ve had some people claim that working for a candidate for a couple of hours — in total! — made them something of an expert on the subject.

I don’t claim to be an expert in politics, certainly since I was never in a political type position, although I reported to a number of people who were. Let’s call it close exposure.

Also, this idea, that money, given by interested concerns running to the candidates, and when elected, running out of the taxpayers’ pockets right back to those interested concerns, was something to have some attention paid to it, wasn’t my original idea either.

But I find looking at this as idiots who think they can run the Iraqi War from their quaint little homes in the US acting as generals without having any real understanding of the war going on over there, because all they know is second hand, first off, and secondly, what information they have, is so highly scrubbed, focused, and distorted as to be pretty damn worthless.

The current “discussion”, if you could actually call it that, is how revenue can evidently be raised without raising taxes. Without any attempt at explaining how. As far as I am able to determine, it’s nothing but “and something magical happens” and revenues increase. Now how to deal with the reality of making the cuts that are supposed to happen in the mean time.