I am concerned that something is being missed here. Mr Sykes is acknowledging (as many did) having misjudged Bennett. There seems to be some 4 legs good/2 legs badism at work here. Making mistakes is human and taking ownership is a good thing left or right. Heaven knows I have many good-hearted left pals who simply can not accept that the SPLC wandered from its original mission into a fundraising megatron, demonizing at will, much justified, some not. The left leaning magazines had a field day carving them up. Dees resigned. Nuance, tou jours nuance. Yes the Republicans have behaved abominably in the main, then again Huey Long was a democrat. We all have feet of clay.
John Greenleaf Whittier's bitter poem about Daniel Webster provides us with a fitting epitaph 172 years later for Bill Bennett's reputation:
So fallen! so lost! the light withdrawn
Which once he wore!
The glory from his gray hairs gone
Forevermore!
.....
Then, pay the reverence of old days
To his dead fame;
Walk backward, with averted gaze,
And hide the shame!
I'm sorry you were taken in by him, Charlie. Some of us were lucky enough to realize that he was a charlatan from his first days at Boston University. The later revelation that he was a pathological gambler simply confirmed our suspicions about his character or lack thereof.
On the Lueder's article, that's heartbreaking, and I sincerely hope the Bulwark will not host any articles by any of its authors on the idea women often make up these stories like Cathy Young, even children as young as 10.
No one knows whether a god exists. If it exists, no one knows the nature of it. No one knows if a god wants something from humans. What we call religious beliefs are simply opinions, of no greater value or merit than opinions on any topic. There is no reason to privilege opinions about an unknowable topic, of all things.
The framers wanted freedom of religion precisely because history taught them how monstrously cruel one religion's adherents can treat other religions' adherents and nonbelievers. Burning people alive comes to mind.
If the website creator is in the stated business of creating Christianity-oriented wedding websites, that's fine. It's akin to a Christian bookstore. But as a public accommodation she should sell the websites to anyone who wants one. Can a Christian bookstore put up a sign saying "no gay people"?
" The New York Times BREAKING NEWS The Trump Organization has been found guilty in a tax fraud scheme in which executives were offered off-the-book benefits. "
The noose is coming closer. Waiting for the FFG to say he didn't know who those people were. And when that fails - "IT'S ALL LIES!!!!!!"
The email that Charlie received is horrific! I’m sorry that you guys are subject to that kind of hatred and abuse. I’m sorry we live in a country where people feel entitled to send emails like that. Hurt people hurt people and we live in a country *full* of hurt people. It may be a small comfort but just wanted to say that and to thank you guys and remind you all how much we appreciate your courage.
'They desperately want Joe Biden to be corrupt and for the whole family to be, in Stefanik’s words, “a crime family” '
Hell, this is just the day in day out forever psychological projection the Trumps and GOP bootlickers revel in. Oh! Oh! Wait...wait. Breaking. Just in. GUILTY! On all counts. The entire family. Criminals each and every one. You guessed it.
Ya know, this whole pedo crap, as a gay man it's not the first time we've been through this shit. You would think however, at this point someone would point out how misogynistic this all is as well. It's always about little boys being molested when the unfortunate reality is little girls are more often the target of groomers and pedophiles. Of course that would turn the conversation away from the demonization of gay men which is really the point. Also, when they talk about grooming, they never talk about kiddie beauty pageants. Those things that REALLY sexualize children. Sigh, just thinking out loud
I became a Republican voter because of Bill Bennett. 'Character matters' , he said, and in my late 20's I thought about it and thought about it and said, 'Dammit, That man is right.'
Let's get the story correct, Trump in fact did NOT say he wanted to "terminate the Constitution," he said: "A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of ALL rules, regulations, and articles, EVEN those found in the Constitution" (emphasis added). He doesn't just want to terminate any parts of the Constitution that he thinks are getting in his way, he is admitting in writing that he wants to terminate ALL "rules, regulations, and articles" he doesn't like, REGARDLESS of whether they are in the Constitution or elsewhere. If that's not a definition of "above the law," I don't know what is!
And over what? Allegations that dems may have had some interactions with Twitter regarding blocking a story about Hunter Biden's laptop? How does that compare to pressuring a foreign government to find dirt on the Bidens? Or pressuring a Secretary of State to "find votes"? At Trumpy's, we have the calls! When there is wrongdoing, we don't "terminate ... rules, regulations, and articles", we APPLY them, that's what they're there for!
I know this column is not about Musk, only the cheap shot, but I still find it ironic Musk speaks out about "woke" this and that, and the horrors of California and his new love for conservatives and conservative places like Texas. Ironic because Tesla would not exist but for the so-called "woke" liberals and progressive ideas that are welcomed and accommodated in places like California. We forget that conservatives spent years railing against progressive green subsidies, with the poster child being Solyndra, but we forget the flip side of Solyndra on that same woke green agenda that conservatives attacked throughout the Obama administration was Tesla.
So...sidestepping the legal philosophizing on cakes and websites for people someone doesn't like or is religiously opposed to...a pretty simple pragmatic question should arise: "Why patronize people who don't like you?" The wedding website problem is risible, in a sardonic sort of way, because the person bringing the case apparently is not business to offer services yet. So it's interesting and critical on a philosophical basis, though, and yes, important.
Problems arise for bakers and website designers--and other sorts of folks--when they're asked to do something they don't want to do. If the Colorado law is upheld, then I reckon that they'll have to do what they don't want to do. Do you want, truly, to pay for the work of a reluctant, even hostile producer? What are you going to do? Sue for redress if you don't like the result? And you may well not like it.
The whole situation is silly, unless--maybe--unless the service wanted is critical and/or lifesaving, such as healthcare--and there's no recourse. But the Internet is vast, with lots of website designers, and there are other talented bakers who want your money. Maybe you can make the reluctant serve you. Will you be satisfied? And why bother?
Wouldn't all this be settleable without cost and drama if the vendor simply said, "The law says I have to serve you, so I will. I'll do my best, because I always do my best. But that best may be unavoidably tainted by my unwillingness and unhappiness about being force to do something I don't want. Let me refer you to someone who'll do a great job for you without reluctance, and we'll part amicably."
"In August 2016, Bennett wrote..."Our country can survive the occasional infelicities..."
A Public Defender Lawyer at the time mentioned,
"When I have a client up on charges of sexual assault, I will have to I will have to use the "occasional infelicities" defense. Such actions did not hurt a sexual predator from being elected, should be easier for a subway pervert."
Jeez. A cynical man might conclude that Bennett never meant any of it, and was just saying words for money. And to hurt his political enemies, presumably.
The Bulwark seems to be the last bastion of American conservatives with integrity. Three cheers! Hip-hip...
I am concerned that something is being missed here. Mr Sykes is acknowledging (as many did) having misjudged Bennett. There seems to be some 4 legs good/2 legs badism at work here. Making mistakes is human and taking ownership is a good thing left or right. Heaven knows I have many good-hearted left pals who simply can not accept that the SPLC wandered from its original mission into a fundraising megatron, demonizing at will, much justified, some not. The left leaning magazines had a field day carving them up. Dees resigned. Nuance, tou jours nuance. Yes the Republicans have behaved abominably in the main, then again Huey Long was a democrat. We all have feet of clay.
John Greenleaf Whittier's bitter poem about Daniel Webster provides us with a fitting epitaph 172 years later for Bill Bennett's reputation:
So fallen! so lost! the light withdrawn
Which once he wore!
The glory from his gray hairs gone
Forevermore!
.....
Then, pay the reverence of old days
To his dead fame;
Walk backward, with averted gaze,
And hide the shame!
I'm sorry you were taken in by him, Charlie. Some of us were lucky enough to realize that he was a charlatan from his first days at Boston University. The later revelation that he was a pathological gambler simply confirmed our suspicions about his character or lack thereof.
On the Lueder's article, that's heartbreaking, and I sincerely hope the Bulwark will not host any articles by any of its authors on the idea women often make up these stories like Cathy Young, even children as young as 10.
No one knows whether a god exists. If it exists, no one knows the nature of it. No one knows if a god wants something from humans. What we call religious beliefs are simply opinions, of no greater value or merit than opinions on any topic. There is no reason to privilege opinions about an unknowable topic, of all things.
The framers wanted freedom of religion precisely because history taught them how monstrously cruel one religion's adherents can treat other religions' adherents and nonbelievers. Burning people alive comes to mind.
If the website creator is in the stated business of creating Christianity-oriented wedding websites, that's fine. It's akin to a Christian bookstore. But as a public accommodation she should sell the websites to anyone who wants one. Can a Christian bookstore put up a sign saying "no gay people"?
" The New York Times BREAKING NEWS The Trump Organization has been found guilty in a tax fraud scheme in which executives were offered off-the-book benefits. "
The noose is coming closer. Waiting for the FFG to say he didn't know who those people were. And when that fails - "IT'S ALL LIES!!!!!!"
The email that Charlie received is horrific! I’m sorry that you guys are subject to that kind of hatred and abuse. I’m sorry we live in a country where people feel entitled to send emails like that. Hurt people hurt people and we live in a country *full* of hurt people. It may be a small comfort but just wanted to say that and to thank you guys and remind you all how much we appreciate your courage.
Wow, JVL's defense of Bill Bennett's gambling "problems" sure hasn't aged well:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/bill-bennetts-gambling-problem
Yup, Hunter is GOP lifeblood.
'They desperately want Joe Biden to be corrupt and for the whole family to be, in Stefanik’s words, “a crime family” '
Hell, this is just the day in day out forever psychological projection the Trumps and GOP bootlickers revel in. Oh! Oh! Wait...wait. Breaking. Just in. GUILTY! On all counts. The entire family. Criminals each and every one. You guessed it.
The TRUMPS.
Ya know, this whole pedo crap, as a gay man it's not the first time we've been through this shit. You would think however, at this point someone would point out how misogynistic this all is as well. It's always about little boys being molested when the unfortunate reality is little girls are more often the target of groomers and pedophiles. Of course that would turn the conversation away from the demonization of gay men which is really the point. Also, when they talk about grooming, they never talk about kiddie beauty pageants. Those things that REALLY sexualize children. Sigh, just thinking out loud
I became a Republican voter because of Bill Bennett. 'Character matters' , he said, and in my late 20's I thought about it and thought about it and said, 'Dammit, That man is right.'
I want my money back.
A jury just found the Trump organization guilty of criminal tax fraud on all counts.
There’s your crime family.
Let's get the story correct, Trump in fact did NOT say he wanted to "terminate the Constitution," he said: "A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of ALL rules, regulations, and articles, EVEN those found in the Constitution" (emphasis added). He doesn't just want to terminate any parts of the Constitution that he thinks are getting in his way, he is admitting in writing that he wants to terminate ALL "rules, regulations, and articles" he doesn't like, REGARDLESS of whether they are in the Constitution or elsewhere. If that's not a definition of "above the law," I don't know what is!
And over what? Allegations that dems may have had some interactions with Twitter regarding blocking a story about Hunter Biden's laptop? How does that compare to pressuring a foreign government to find dirt on the Bidens? Or pressuring a Secretary of State to "find votes"? At Trumpy's, we have the calls! When there is wrongdoing, we don't "terminate ... rules, regulations, and articles", we APPLY them, that's what they're there for!
I know this column is not about Musk, only the cheap shot, but I still find it ironic Musk speaks out about "woke" this and that, and the horrors of California and his new love for conservatives and conservative places like Texas. Ironic because Tesla would not exist but for the so-called "woke" liberals and progressive ideas that are welcomed and accommodated in places like California. We forget that conservatives spent years railing against progressive green subsidies, with the poster child being Solyndra, but we forget the flip side of Solyndra on that same woke green agenda that conservatives attacked throughout the Obama administration was Tesla.
So...sidestepping the legal philosophizing on cakes and websites for people someone doesn't like or is religiously opposed to...a pretty simple pragmatic question should arise: "Why patronize people who don't like you?" The wedding website problem is risible, in a sardonic sort of way, because the person bringing the case apparently is not business to offer services yet. So it's interesting and critical on a philosophical basis, though, and yes, important.
Problems arise for bakers and website designers--and other sorts of folks--when they're asked to do something they don't want to do. If the Colorado law is upheld, then I reckon that they'll have to do what they don't want to do. Do you want, truly, to pay for the work of a reluctant, even hostile producer? What are you going to do? Sue for redress if you don't like the result? And you may well not like it.
The whole situation is silly, unless--maybe--unless the service wanted is critical and/or lifesaving, such as healthcare--and there's no recourse. But the Internet is vast, with lots of website designers, and there are other talented bakers who want your money. Maybe you can make the reluctant serve you. Will you be satisfied? And why bother?
Wouldn't all this be settleable without cost and drama if the vendor simply said, "The law says I have to serve you, so I will. I'll do my best, because I always do my best. But that best may be unavoidably tainted by my unwillingness and unhappiness about being force to do something I don't want. Let me refer you to someone who'll do a great job for you without reluctance, and we'll part amicably."
Per Bennett...
"In August 2016, Bennett wrote..."Our country can survive the occasional infelicities..."
A Public Defender Lawyer at the time mentioned,
"When I have a client up on charges of sexual assault, I will have to I will have to use the "occasional infelicities" defense. Such actions did not hurt a sexual predator from being elected, should be easier for a subway pervert."
Jeez. A cynical man might conclude that Bennett never meant any of it, and was just saying words for money. And to hurt his political enemies, presumably.
The Bulwark seems to be the last bastion of American conservatives with integrity. Three cheers! Hip-hip...