The NY Times presents a "debate" on whether the firing of an off-duty NJ Transit worker for burning a Koran was legal. The debate is a bit one-sided, since all the legal eagles agree that the fired employee is protected by the First Amendment. However, the Times did find one person to take the other side, however unconvincingly:
Salam Al-Marayati is executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, a public policy organization that focuses on U.S.-Muslim world relations, Middle East peacemaking, counter-terrorism and faith-based initiatives.
...Burning the American flag is also protected by the First Amendment. But I certainly would fire any of my employees who would consider flag-burning as an act of defiance. It's not. It's childish and immature behavior, and those who would do such a thing would be unworthy of public employment.
"Unworthy"? Is that the new requirement? I will agree that if I ran a public relations firm I would probably fire an employee who made it to the evening news by burning a flag, or a Koran - that is not the kind of public relations in which I would choose to engage. However, we are talking about a state employee here.
My original question about whether the employee is covered by a union contract and grievance procedures remains unanswered. And let me toss in two cents - dare we analogize to the ban on cross-burning which was upheld by the Supreme Court? It is not a good analogy, since the history is very different, as is the intended meaning (cross-burners aren't expressing disdain for Christianity, although they do lack certain Christian principles.)
And secondly, let's boo Gov. Christie, who apparently supports the firing.
Just as the Catholic Church makes it clear to it's employees that anything that brings doubt to the "organization" is grounds for becoming a "redeployable human resource", I'm sure that the Muslim Public Affairs Council, a public policy organization that focuses on U.S.-Muslim world relations, Middle East peacemaking, counter-terrorism and faith-based initiatives, does the same.
That said, it works a little differently for public employees.
Posted by: Neo | September 20, 2010 at 01:35 PM
To bad ignoring the constitution wasn't a fireable offense or we would have a much thinner government. There are thousands upon thousands of government behavior condoned by the political class that are bigger threats to the citizens of this country than burning a book.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | September 20, 2010 at 01:41 PM
If this transit worker is not covered by a union contract that would be the big story here. As a matter of public policy I could support the idea that a public employer should be able to fire people for "conduct unbecoming." Here in PA police have been fired for engaging in an adulterous affair even though such conduct is not illegal or criminal. On the other hand, my guess is that this guy gets his job back in an arbitration.
Posted by: George Ditter | September 20, 2010 at 01:49 PM
Whether he can lawfully be fired I do not know, but there is no doubt that what he did was protected free speech. The Supreme Court cross-burning case was limited to circumstances involving a clear intent to intimidate, and allowed convictions only when such intent is proved. Its ruling took note of the historical use of cross-burning as a means of threatening imminent violence.
Burning a Koran, on the other hand, is simply a means of expressing one's view that Mohammedanism is a violent, gutter religion, and that its so-called "prophet" was a disturbed pederast.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 20, 2010 at 02:02 PM
Pederasty. Why does that word sound so dirty?
Is everyone afraid of the new Mafia? Extortion, murder, kidnapping, blackmail. As a wise man once said, these things are all illegal because they work.
There is a long list of things that we find disturbing. More disturbing is the fact that those who resort to violence when disturbed are somehow placated. How Hitler would have loved this mindset.
Posted by: MarkO | September 20, 2010 at 02:32 PM
Biden thinks he's 2nd in line to be president. Wonder who he thinks is in line in front of him?
Posted by: Sue | September 20, 2010 at 02:34 PM
Biden thinks he's 2nd in line to be president. Wonder who he thinks is in line in front of him?
Michelle?
Posted by: Rob Crawford | September 20, 2010 at 02:36 PM
It's not that Biden thinks somebody is ahead of him, it's that he has trouble counting to one.
Posted by: bgates | September 20, 2010 at 02:44 PM
yeah, Mark Knoller tweeted that. I don't count that as much of a Biden gaffe because he's undoubtedly considering the current occupant as 1st in line. It certainly falls well short of President Roosevelt going on TV during the Hoover administration to talk to the American people about the Depression before TV was invented.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | September 20, 2010 at 02:46 PM
Burning a Koran, on the other hand, is simply a means of expressing one's view that Mohammedanism is a violent, gutter religion, and that its so-called "prophet" was a disturbed pederast.
I'd like to find how little it takes to set off the Mohometans. I've been thinking of setting up a YouTube account for the sole purpose of taping myself reading aloud objectionable verses I'd found in T'h'e' Q''u'"r'a'aa'a'a^'n' and printed onto a piece of paper, and then crossing each one out.
O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you.Think that would be enough?
Posted by: bgates | September 20, 2010 at 03:16 PM
Some of y'all were talking about Hillary's hair...
LUN
Posted by: Stephanie | September 20, 2010 at 03:17 PM
Stephanie,
You call that hair? Looks like something out of Avatar. I am expecting "corn rows" next - ala Bo Derek in 10.
Maybe its needed for tonight's seance.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | September 20, 2010 at 03:24 PM
Muffer getting a head-start on Halloween.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 20, 2010 at 03:37 PM
Everything fron the '60's can work:
Mohammedanism: if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
Posted by: MarkO | September 20, 2010 at 03:37 PM
Taranto's takedown of Nick Kristof and his apology to Islam is at the LUN for those interested. Kristof's moral equivalency is breath-taking, as Rummy would say.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | September 20, 2010 at 03:38 PM
Posted by: Neo | September 20, 2010 at 03:40 PM
Christie--
actually if I were governor I'd fire any state employee who burns a koran, bible,buddist prayer book, the US flag, a NY yankee penant etc-- those are obnoxious hateful acts aimed at citizens of NJ, that person has no business being on the State payroll. They have a 1st amendment right to speak obnoxiously, but they have to take the consequences.
Posted by: NK | September 20, 2010 at 03:50 PM
Fouad Ajami brings to our attention an Arab poll which shows they agree with the GZM critics--it is wrong to build the mosque there. Further, they say (by 2 to 1) that the US is a tolerant, not Islamophobic, country.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/09/islamaphobia_another_political.html>IslamophobiaBS
Posted by: Clarice | September 20, 2010 at 04:07 PM
Wonder how this dude has avoided a major fatwa. Or as he might inquire, how has he avoided being murdered by some hysterical, self-righteous rug-chewing book-burning moppet with shit for brains?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 20, 2010 at 04:15 PM
A better link.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 20, 2010 at 04:18 PM
NK:
"They have a 1st amendment right to speak obnoxiously, but they have to take the consequences."
While far too many people seem to believe that the 1st Amendment is supposed to shield them from any unpleasant repercussions for uninhibited speech, there is a substantive difference between what an employee does at work, and what he does on his on time & dime.
The list of legal but "obnoxious hateful acts" is a whole lot longer than you suggest, and differs depending on the eye of the beholder -- not to mention the eyes of office holders.
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 20, 2010 at 04:23 PM
And those who enjoyed the discussion of Islam linked above will no doubt want to hear some straight talk about the Ground Zero Mosque.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 20, 2010 at 04:32 PM
OT, but I think it's too good to let slip through the cracks. Check out the song, "When You're Holding a Hammer"
LUN
Posted by: Ralph | September 20, 2010 at 04:45 PM
Was the CBC dinner a black tie affair or is O just dressed up like Farrakhan for the hell of it?
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | September 20, 2010 at 04:46 PM
Yeah Ralph...it is great! Thanks for posting it.
Posted by: Janet | September 20, 2010 at 04:51 PM
NK, you had me at "fire any state employee".
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | September 20, 2010 at 04:57 PM
Drudge says Congress may adjourn three week early.
I hope they all go home and have a lot of interaction with the voters.
I hope the WH shuts down, too.
Posted by: Clarice | September 20, 2010 at 05:14 PM
Drudge says Congress may adjourn three week early.
Hmmmm.... leaving lots of things on the table for the lame-duck session?
Posted by: Rob Crawford | September 20, 2010 at 05:16 PM
I wonder where in the code of conduct describes the proper conduct that this transit worker violated.
Looks like a nasy lawsuit.
But the taxpayers will have to pay for the offenses of the ignorant Left.
Posted by: Ellie Light | September 20, 2010 at 05:28 PM
The Denver Post, at the LUN, has news on the "front-loaded benefits" of Obamacare, some of which take effect on Thursday of this week.
Among the benefits: "No more refusal of policies to children with pre-existing conditions."
Could there possibly be unintended consequences to such regulatory interference in the workings of the insurance market? Let's see: "At least six major companies — including Anthem, Aetna, Cigna and Humana — have said they will stop writing new policies for individual children not covered by their parents' or other plans."
At the end of the article is a list of all the mandates that go into effect on Thursday.
Posted by: BobDenver | September 20, 2010 at 05:32 PM
Clarice, it will be the earliest that they've adjourned in 50 years. Can you say "panic campaign"?
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | September 20, 2010 at 05:56 PM
Here's hoping most of them don't come back.
Posted by: MarkO | September 20, 2010 at 05:58 PM
Also, from Taranto today (same LUN as above):
" Princess Lisa
Maybe it's time to reconsider Take Your Daughter to Work Day. Frank Murkowski, Alaska's former senator and governor, took little Lisa to work in 2002, and now she refuses to go home. Shortly after taking office as governor, Mr. Murkowski appointed Miss Murkowski to the Senate seat he had just vacated. She was elected in her own right in 2004, but this year Alaska Republicans decided it was time for a new direction and handed her a primary defeat.
Well, listen up, Alaska voters: You didn't put Miss Murkowski in the Senate, and she'll be damned if she's going to let you throw her out."
Posted by: Frau Pfui! | September 20, 2010 at 06:07 PM
Watching CNN this second: Headline:
DEVELOPING STORY:
O'Donnell on the Defensive:
Questions about "witchcraft, finances."
Volume is off.
They're doing their part nicely to destroy her.
Boycott the MSM, Conservatives.
Posted by: daddy | September 20, 2010 at 06:07 PM
Aren't they just pushing the 'party of no' meme ahead by a few weeks? The tanned guy from Ohio has asked for an up or down vote on extension of all cuts. If he doesn't get it, then the Dems are all alone. Again.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | September 20, 2010 at 06:08 PM
She tried to conjure up some money?
Don't tell Obama, he might fire his economics team and give it a try.
Posted by: RichatUF | September 20, 2010 at 06:10 PM
Adjourning early to avoid showing their colors and too chicken to present a budget. What a bunch of cowardly bureaucrats. Double Pfui!
Posted by: Frau Pfui! | September 20, 2010 at 06:10 PM
Now it's on to questions about Joe Miller on CNN:
OUT OF NOWHERE IN ALASKA
Joe Miller challenges establishment
Get the full story right this section from Wold Blitzer.
Posted by: daddy | September 20, 2010 at 06:11 PM
Now it's Jack Cafferty on CNN
"If Taxes Increase On the Wealthy Would you consider leaving the US?"
E-mail Jack at blah, blah, blah
Oh Boy! Now here's David Gergen "Senior Political Analyst" on the Stock Market:
"Why do things still seem so bad?
A JOBLESS RECOVERY
Recession was longest since World War II.
It's painful to endure CNN even with the volume off.
Up soon..."Bill Clinton on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer."
Posted by: daddy | September 20, 2010 at 06:23 PM
Obama once again tells Ahmadinejad that he's open to "engagement."
Good God...
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 20, 2010 at 06:26 PM
DoT -- maybe that's the reason for the missing wedding ring?
Posted by: Rob Crawford | September 20, 2010 at 06:50 PM
Daddy,
You'll like this from Murkowski...
Finally. Republican leaders got something right.
Posted by: Sue | September 20, 2010 at 06:50 PM
Spread the word! These reports need to go national to counter the free Democrat anti O'Donnell propaganda published by the leftist MSM.
Chris Coons has raised taxes 3 times.
"Still think Coons is a fiscal conservative? The County's spending has increased 10% since he took over and the county budget has grown by a DRAMATIC 33%!"
Chris Coons is a totally out of control tax and spend Democrat. In Nov Delaware has a chance to stop the insane tax and spend Democrats. There are more of these stories about the out of control tax and spend Chris Coons every day. Spread the word every where you can- Stop the out of control tax and spend Democrats-Stop Chris Coons. Vote O'Donnell for US Senate this Nov.
Posted by: Pagar | September 20, 2010 at 06:51 PM
Donald, Jim RSE and all others in the Atlanta area... I heard back from Bmoe at PW and he is in. JD has also expressed interest. We are also trying to arrange to play golf beforehand that day 1:00 or so. If anyone is interested in playing let me know. We can play at my club or Stone Mountain for $40 including cart fee.
We are talking about meeting at Emory for Andy McCarthy (7:00 pm) and then eating at Everybody's after. Pizza, beer and politics on a liberal campus - should be a hoot!
Posted by: Stephanie | September 20, 2010 at 07:09 PM
"Drudge says Congress may adjourn 3 weeks early!"
Mark Levin says Every time Congress meets you lose a little bit of your Liberty.."
“Every time Congress meets you lose a little bit of your Liberty.”
Posted by: Pagar | September 20, 2010 at 07:10 PM
Rock and Roll inspiration Leonard Skinner died today. R.I.P.
LUN
Posted by: BobDenver | September 20, 2010 at 07:10 PM
Didn't Mark Twain, have a similar retort,
Posted by: Burton Cooper | September 20, 2010 at 07:12 PM
Finally. Republican leaders got something right.
Where have you been Sue?
Posted by: Jane | September 20, 2010 at 07:16 PM
Jane,
Literally?
Posted by: Sue | September 20, 2010 at 07:18 PM
"Without the shield of religion to hide behind, Islam would be banned in the civilized world as a political ideology of hate, and we'd have no obligation to make allowances for it any more than we do for Nazism."
Posted by: Extraneus | September 20, 2010 at 07:20 PM
Wouldn't it be a hoot if they adjourned 3 weeks early - clearly due to fear - and then some national emergency arose during the time they were supposed to be working for a living rather than trying to save their asses? Even Boehner and McConnell would be able to flay them over that.
Posted by: Extraneus | September 20, 2010 at 07:27 PM
--and then some national emergency arose during the time they were supposed to be working for a living rather than trying to save their asses--
I'm trying to think of a national crisis worse than having them in session.
Posted by: Ignatz | September 20, 2010 at 07:31 PM
They are the National emergency
Posted by: Burton Cooper | September 20, 2010 at 07:32 PM
--Obama once again tells Ahmadinejad that he's open to "engagement."--
Why don't they just elope and get it over with?
Posted by: Ignatz | September 20, 2010 at 07:32 PM
Obama's just not that smart and he's a liar.
Mohammedanism: if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
Posted by: MarkO | September 20, 2010 at 07:33 PM
I'm trying to think of a national crisis worse than having them in session.
Agree 100%. Wish they took the whole year off, in fact. But it's still a pretty easy lay-up.
Posted by: Extraneus | September 20, 2010 at 07:37 PM
Literally?
Yeah, you haven't been around much - or is it me?
Posted by: Jane | September 20, 2010 at 07:38 PM
I think Andrew Breitbart deserves a medal. He is a one-man protector of our freedom.
I am so impressed.
Posted by: Jane | September 20, 2010 at 07:40 PM
I was on vacation last week. I've been around since Sunday. Mostly reading all the great comments from all the great posters around here.
Posted by: Sue | September 20, 2010 at 07:41 PM
So let me get this straight - the democrats in congress who, during their August recess went into hiding to avoid the voters in public forums so they could avoid being castigated and ridiculed for not listening to their voters, are now talking of going back home 3 weeks early so they can go on
campaign stopslistening tours?Am I missing something?
Posted by: Stephanie | September 20, 2010 at 07:44 PM
Is there something in the water in Delaware, honestly they can't be this stupid, in the LUN
Posted by: Burton Cooper | September 20, 2010 at 07:44 PM
No kidding, Jane - about Breitbart. Those idiot protesters may not even know what Beck looks like.
Posted by: centralcal | September 20, 2010 at 07:50 PM
It's true, Jane. That video is wonderful. A perfect birthday gift for CCal from Andrew.
Posted by: MayBee | September 20, 2010 at 07:51 PM
"Just when you thought, it was safe to go back into the water"
Posted by: Burton Cooper | September 20, 2010 at 07:52 PM
Concur Jane,
Breitbart is one courageous fellow. Excellent link.
Sue,
As for Lisa Murcowski, I am scratching my head at who she is listening to and what those folks are telling her. Each day I am more and more convinced Lisa needs to shed her skin and just go Democrat. I do know something is going on with some favored Legislation she is proposing for some massive land swap of something like 88,000 acres up here. I need to get educated on that, as she was really pushing for that and seems to consider it essential. I just have a hard time imagining that she is speaking honestly and actually thinks she is doing this whole thing on principle.
Posted by: daddy | September 20, 2010 at 07:53 PM
Daddy, someone trolled through Lena Merdecowskis' trailer park waving land swaps? Say it ain't so!
Posted by: Stephanie | September 20, 2010 at 08:04 PM
I absolutely loved watching the Andrew Breitbart video. Name one thing...LOL. They are sheep. When told to get back, they get back. One of the comments at the blog really hit home. How on earth did we allow these people to gain power over us?
Posted by: Sue | September 20, 2010 at 08:10 PM
daddy, start printing up cards making sure voters know how to spell Lisa Mikulski when they write in her name.
Posted by: Clarice | September 20, 2010 at 08:11 PM
daddy,
One of her comments was less than x% of Alaskans voted for Joe Miller. Which was an odd thing to say since even less voted for her. I think she just feels the seat is hers. I hope Alaskans show her the error of her ways. Again. Maybe the 2nd time around will do the trick. If a democrat wins that seat, Katey bar the door.
Posted by: Sue | September 20, 2010 at 08:13 PM
Is 88,000 acres truly massive by Alaskan standards? Or is it 88,000 sq. miles or 88 parsecs (I know, the parsecs are a long way, not a big area, just wanted to throw in some sifi for Hit, et. al ) Anyway, down here in Salvo with Ivan's big waves. Wind s'posed to drop off tomorrow.
Posted by: Hugh Dudgeon | September 20, 2010 at 08:17 PM
Have you all been following what has been going on with Prof Todd Henderson, who wrote that he did not feel like he could pay more taxes?
Brad Delong attacked him. Krugman attacked him. Ezra Klein mentioned him. He took that post down, and now commenters are attacking his blog mates.
What people will not do when a politician has promised them some of your money.
Posted by: MayBee | September 20, 2010 at 08:23 PM
What people will not do when a politician has promised them some of your money.
I think in Krugman's case, he's just kow-towing to his lefty wife.
Posted by: peter | September 20, 2010 at 08:25 PM
I'm sorry to hear that, but if he's afraid of those wee wee'd up journolist types he might as well pay more taxes--In fact he can get the Univ of chic to just send his check straight to D.C.and they can send back to him whatever they think he deserves.
Posted by: Clarice | September 20, 2010 at 08:27 PM
Reading some of the comments on the old Henderson post, I came to the conclusion that some people would be happy with a "National Lifestyle". It would be a law saying people could buy a house of XX value, have XX brand of car, send their XX children to public school, and send the rest to the government.
Posted by: MayBee | September 20, 2010 at 08:32 PM
Oops, Clarice, another typo. I'm sure you meant Leesa Mikulski.
Posted by: Frau Pfui! | September 20, 2010 at 08:33 PM
MayBee,
Where does he blog?
Posted by: Sue | September 20, 2010 at 08:35 PM
Krugman has a wife?
Daddy, What are the chances Ms Muckowski takes the election from Miller and gives it to the democrats?
Posted by: Jane | September 20, 2010 at 08:36 PM
Here Sue.
Posted by: MayBee | September 20, 2010 at 08:40 PM
Thanks, MayBee.
Posted by: Sue | September 20, 2010 at 08:46 PM
What a twat to apologize to those vermin. I'd have kicked their asses one by one.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 20, 2010 at 08:50 PM
I think people object more to genetically modified salmon than they do genetically modifying people (fetal stem cells, etc).
Is anybody going to accuse people of being anti-science?
Posted by: MayBee | September 20, 2010 at 08:50 PM
More reasons not to want Chris Coons in the Senate.
Posted by: Pagar | September 20, 2010 at 08:58 PM
He should have figured out how much his taxes would go up, then written a post saying that's how much his health insurance premiums are going up (not due to ObamaCare).
Or he could have written that his employer is going to start taking that much from him, and his union is considering striking.
Posted by: MayBee | September 20, 2010 at 09:00 PM
The mind of a liberal is a sight to behold.
Posted by: Sue | September 20, 2010 at 09:03 PM
I'd be a terrible professor and a worse professor's wife.
And, yes, maybe, everytime I hear someone use that stupid word "Frankenfoods" my mind goes to "stupid peasants".
Posted by: Clarice | September 20, 2010 at 09:06 PM
Ahem **MayBee***
Posted by: Clarice | September 20, 2010 at 09:10 PM
I think people object more to genetically modified salmon than they do genetically modifying people (fetal stem cells, etc).
They usually base their luddite-isms on self-hatred and vanity; yes it sounds oxymoronic but those neuroses are about the only complex thing about the simpletons.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 20, 2010 at 09:10 PM
It would be a law saying people could buy a house of XX value, have XX brand of car, send their XX children to public school, and send the rest to the government.
I have some liberal friends who, while they would say "yeah, that probabably isn't a very good idea," they secretly would think it was a good idea, as long as the "National Lifestyle" was the same as their lifestyle.
Or maybe they would be okay with a choice of 5 different lifestyles. Let's see, we could have 1) suburban liberal soccer mom & dad, 2) urban liberal artsy no-kid couple, 3) inner city liberal community organizer of color, 4) neo-hippie organic liberal farmer family, and 5) Hollywood liberal actor or director or producer.
There could even be action figures.
Posted by: Porchlight | September 20, 2010 at 09:13 PM
Jane,
Good question but I have no real input yet to make an educated guess. I need to get home and catch the talk radio folks tomorrow.
The Dem candidate so far has been very weak, refusing to answer even the most basic questions, such as "Are your for or against the Obamacare health Plan?" That one he couldn't answer. Unless he gets an awful lot better within the next 60 days I doubt the election will swing to him.
Lisa is a tougher question. Her campaign will focus on saying she can bring home the Federal bacon to all the folks up here who can't imagine not having Federal handouts, and she will paint Miller as the extremist guy who will kill all Federal spending up here, plus destroy Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare to boot. I'm more concerned with her winning currently than I am with the Dem, but need to see how the comments on the radio and the ADN pages are trending, and see some of the polls from folks I respect.
FWIW, am told that 80% of the Federal spending up here is military related, and Miller isn't touching that, so it may partially turn on how successful Lisa or Joe are at getting out that Federal spending message. I do know there is hugh anger up here at just wanting to get the Feds, the Epa, the regulators and the Salazar's the heck out, and just letting the State itself manage its assets. Miller is a States Rights guy and I hope he pounds that message over and over again. From what I've seen so far that message really resonates with folks up here. I think we are sort of a split personality between "give us Federal Dollars (the Lisa-ites), and the "Fed's get the heck out of Alaska yesterday" Miller supporters.
Thats why I really need to learn about this Federal land swap business Lisa's pushing in order to see if anyone's palms are being greased.
Posted by: daddy | September 20, 2010 at 09:14 PM
BTW Breitbart was tremendous in that video. What a bunch of tools at that "protest." None of them had a clue. The flags were all brand new and the signs look like they were all made by the same handful of people.
Posted by: Porchlight | September 20, 2010 at 09:19 PM
If she loses all of her committees, which is what I understand is going to happen or already happening, how is she going to promise anything? She will have to get some promises from democrats won't she?
Posted by: Sue | September 20, 2010 at 09:20 PM
I love the Mack O'Ski riff! I'm making her Irish.
Posted by: Janet | September 20, 2010 at 09:21 PM
Nevermind, seems she still has her positions.
Posted by: Sue | September 20, 2010 at 09:25 PM
And speaking of split personalities---
To a very Lib relative today I read that about the UK wanting the paychecks sent to the Govt first, and then they'd take what they want and dole the rest out to their "subjects" (not citizens any longer).
Relative realized that was awful--has lost massive respect for Obama etc and doesn't want to talk about it.
But then asked about the Govt wanting to know about every prescription drug given by a Doctor to a patient, and responded that that was sensible as the reasoning was that some patients get prescription drugs by faking being sick or in pain, the Doc signs the prescription, and then the fake patient sells the presecription drug on the street for cash. This was viewed as sensible reason for Govt intruding into the Doctor Patient relationship on not just a state but a Federal level.
Oh Well...At least faith is lost in one half of the Government with that relative. Thank goodness the relative can't vote in Alaska, but NC folks (Hit, JMH, Deb) you're in trouble!
Posted by: daddy | September 20, 2010 at 09:27 PM
Honestly, she can't get a clue, even if she gave it to her a gift
Posted by: Burton Cooper | September 20, 2010 at 09:32 PM
Genius, Porch.
The only lifestyle that might have a hard time under the JIS salary plan would be liberal suburban soccer mom and dad. Perhaps they can get a subsidy if they promise to at least consider being vegan.
Posted by: MayBee | September 20, 2010 at 09:32 PM
Daddy,
Slip over to Hot Air and watch the new Murkowski ad. It's a hoot.
Posted by: Sue | September 20, 2010 at 09:32 PM
Will do Sue. Back in a couple hours.
Posted by: daddy | September 20, 2010 at 09:36 PM
"I think people object more to genetically modified salmon than they do genetically modifying people (fetal stem cells, etc)."
Well, there are a lot of mysterious experiments going on, after all.
"They are -- they are doing that here in the United States. American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains. So they're already into this experiment."
republican candidate O'donnell.
More Urban Legends from the Teabagger alternate reality.
Posted by: Burnt toast | September 20, 2010 at 09:38 PM
Way OT, unless you count the salmon thing.
FANS OF RAW MILK not cowed by safety warnings. But would you resort to “cow-sharing?”
I grew up on it and I love it. Of course, I probably didn't have any salmon until I was in law school.
Posted by: MarkO | September 20, 2010 at 09:40 PM