His Truth is Marching On

Wait 'til they find out Danny Glover is on those Pilates infomercials.

Comments

[Croesus]

joe,

The Germans were not really all that "popular," in that people were happy to see them, though they were feared (and some were awestruck by them), however Petain was popular (partly because a lot of Frenchmen thought he was a double-agent, and they also thought him more liberal than he was), though often the support he got at speeches was more of a chance to show the French national flag and sing "La Marseillaise" than simply a blanket endorsement of the Vichy government. Ad into this mix the fact that there were pro-fascist elements in France prior to 1939, that many Frenchmen did hate Jews (though many also heroically defended and protected Jews), and it becomes really hard to characterize Vichy France as one thing or another. In fact, the fact that one could be pro-Vichy and anti-German seems like an anomaly (and illogical for that matter), but it was a very common response. And of course you also have to throw into the mix the varied experiences of people in occupied France vs. those in Vichy France.

Anyway, the Vichy period, aside from the Revolution/Napoleonic period, is the most intensely researched period of French history these days in France (despite myths to the contrary), so there is a lot of work on the subject.

The classic work on Vichy France is Paxton's _Vichy France: Old Guard and New Order, 1940-44_. It goes into detail on how the Petain/Laval cabal that ran Vichy France and was willingly followed by many Frenchmen down to some of its most nefarious actions. It goes overboard in downplaying the resistance however, and sometimes, at least in my mind, smacks of anti-French prejudice. As a counter-weight there is Julian Jackson's _France: The Dark Years, 1940-1944_. One of Jackson's observations of the French during the period is that many Frenhcmen appeared to hate the Germans so much, that this may be one of the reasons why so many Frenhc Jews survived WWII in comparison to other occupied areas of Europe. He also goes into detail on German security reports and their pessimistic view of ever winning the hearts and minds of the French.

As far as why France fell, you can read May's _Strange Victory: Hitler's Conquest of France_; Bloch's _Strange Defeat_; Williams _The Ides of May_; and Shirer's _The Collapse of the Third Republic_ and figure out who you believe. 🙂 Why France fell, if it was inevtiable, etc. has become somewhat of a hot topic in military history, especially since May's book was published.

[junyo]

Eric,
I don't think anyone here is saying Glover doesn't have a right to express his opinions about Castro.
Sure they are.
Scarborough is clearly trying to engineer the idea marketplace, by making sure Glover is "held accountable for his comments." Instead of countering Glover's bad ideas with good ones, he's cutting Glover's financial legs out from under him.
And the financial penalty that is being levied against Mr. Glover right now is not only de facto censorship (let's cut to the chase; the man's being penalized for expressing an opinion; whether the government, the courts or private industry was the weapon of choice is moot) but is also preemptive censorship against others, in that it serves as a warning; express an opinion, pay the price. With Danny Glover it probably doesn't matter, but where does it end? If I recognized a vendor's saleman from seeing him on TV getting arrested at a rally for a cause I oppose am I now justified in flexing my purchasing power with his company to have him fired? What about one of my employees? Can I fire them because they are supporters of a cause I find reprehensible? While it would be nice to believe that people would value their ability to express themselves over purely financial considerations, not everyone has that luxury. Scarborough's "accountability" seems a lot like economic intimidation, burning a dollar sign instead of a cross in the yard of those with differing views.

[PLC]

"If I recognized a vendor's saleman from seeing him on TV getting arrested at a rally for a cause I oppose am I now justified in flexing my purchasing power with his company to have him fired?"

YES.

[Lazarus]

junyo: Choosing not to buy a product is not a "financial penalty."

Again, I hate Carrot-Top and think he is a terrible comic. In my opinion he doesn't deserve a dime of my money. Have I "censored" him then? If I give negative reviews of his act, influencing others not to see him, have I "forced" him to pay a "penalty"? By expressing how shitty and annoying his "dial down the middle" commericals are, have I "economically intimidated" anyone?

By your argument, should I be FORCED to pay someone I disagree with? Are my beliefs (expressed with my money) irrelevent? Such IS the case in Cuba -- but it shouldn't be.

[Croesus]

Lazarus,

Do you really loathe Carrot Top?

Anyway, I'm forced to spend money on ideas I don't agree with all the time, and I don't live in Cuba.

[Lazarus]

Croesus: Saw his act TWICE (don't ask why). Stink-a-roo! My 5 year old cousin is a better prop comic.

Ditto on the rest of your comment.

[Croesus]

Lazarus,

And here I thoought he just did commercials. I didn't know that he was a stand-up comedian.

[junyo]

"By your argument, should I be FORCED to pay someone I disagree with? Are my beliefs (expressed with my money) irrelevent?"

You're misinterpeting my argument. No one is forced to switch to MCI. However people were induced, not merely to express displeasure with MCI's choice of spokesperson but to call for his dismissal for opinions expressed not on MCI's time or payroll, but in his own private life. There's a far cry between merely opting not to support something and actively threatening the livehoods of that something's supporters or that of those around them. On one side is your freedom to choice and on the other is the mob's power to coerce. Sure, you have every right to spend your money as you see fit, however you're an idiot if you chose a long distance company based, not on rates, service, or reliability, but on what their pitchman says or believes on his free time.

[PLC]

You're an idiot if you choose a long distance company at all...

And I personally often make product choices based upon commercials/marketing. Given that there are generally plenty of equivelant substitutes available, why not support clever commercials and punish stupid ones.

I can guarantee that I will never use 1-800-CALL-ATT simply because Carrot Top should not be earning a paycheck. It offends me as a human being that he is not begging in a gutter somewhere.

[Croesus]

I using Working Assets to piss off the religious right. 🙂

[PLC]

Oh - and has anyone seen Arby's new marketing campaign, centered around a talking oven mitt? I love their chicken fingers and curly fries, but I may have to start eating at Quiznos instead, just to punish them for hiring the imbecile behind that idea....

[Lazarus]

junyo: Economics 101 -- If enough people opt out of your services, you will not make money. This is especially true if you have just one customer (in this case, your employer). If I don't want to buy your crap, how is that a "threat" or "coercion"?

PLC: junyo will accuse of you "economic police brutality" and "putting him in the financial gulag" or some other metaphor -- but I agree with you: That red-haired no-talent freak must be stopped.

[Red]

They cross to the other side of the road when they see me coming in Ireland, spread rumor's about my sister's privates smelling extra strong, now they're going after Carrot-top...when will the prejudice stop?

[JDM]

Switch to Jack in the Box. They have some good commercials. The odds of you being the next one to get E. Coli poisoning are infinitisimally small...

[Croesus]

JDM,

Vermont is lucky (hmm, do I really mean that?) to have McDonalds. 🙂

[PLC]

Croesus - when I'm in Vermont I live on Maple Sugar candy and Ben&Jerry's. What more do you need?

[Croesus]

PLC,

Protein? 🙂 What I would give for a fucking Arby's.

[david f]

hey Croesus!

a green mountain libertarian? that's pretty rare over there in "west virginia north"... (my sister and bro-in law moved out there (he's from mass, but the adjustment was noticable for her, as a midwesterner)

and speaking of choosing different products based on political preferences: may ben and jerry's go down in a smouldering mass of twisted unicorn horns...

cheers!
drf

[geophile]

One thing I wondered about is the relationship between Glover and Mel Gibson, who apparently is some variety of conservative. Must be some friction there.

I'm guessing there won't be a Lethal Weapon 17: The Legend of Riggs' Gold, or whatever the hell they're up to at this point.

[Croesus]

drf,

I'm not a libertarian, at least not in the "pure" sense. Ben & Jerry's isn't owned by Ben & Jerry anymore, BTW.

[junyo]

Lazarus: People didn't opt out of MCI's product, their "crap", as you so eloquently put it. They opted out of the private views and opinions of an MCI employee. Glover didn't end his MCI commercials with a hearty "Viva Fidel!" On the other hand, Scarborough used his bully pulpit to hurt someone who's viewpoint differed from his, and it's clear from his language that it was also intended as a warning to others. Harangue all you want,that's pretty much how you define coercion and intimidation.

Also, please don't presume to speak for me. I agree 100% that Carrottop is a no talent hack. Fire him now. But that's judging the quality of the man's work, what he's paid to do. You haven't said anything about Mr. Top's views on Iraq, or what petitions he has or hasn't signed, which is what you're using as a basis of judgement against Mr. Glover.

[Lazarus]

junyo:

1. Mr. Glover's views are hardly private. How could they be if we all know what they are? Spokespeople are hired to sell product. Unpopular politics work against this. Remember Mr. Glover made the choice as well on being outspoker. He can't have his cake and eat it too.

2. The character of a salesperson is most definately a factor in my buying decisions. If I saw a dude a KKK rally then later saw him at a Walmart checkout lane, I would take my business elsewhere. No doubt a manager would understand this and send our blueshirted klansmen packing. Explain how this is wrong.

3. I disagree that he "hurt" Mr. Glover, if you mean injure in a moral sense. It is Scarborough's choice to endorce or buy the product or not, on whatever reason he wants. Mr. Glover works for the MCI customers, they decide. If they decide that Scarborough makes a valid argument (or not), that is their prerogative. In enough customers want Mr. Glover back, rest assured he will be back.

4. I do not define this as "coercion" and "intimidation" because Mr. Glover should know that is the way the business world works. It is common sense that speaking results in consquenses.If a guy insults my wife on the subway and later I see him working the bar, he will not be tipped. Intimidation? Please...

5. I already said I judge Mr. Top's commercial work based on the unfunny views he expresses in his "commedic" act. I also don't watch the Oscars or buy Dixie Chicks albums, based on the fact I find the artists' (and I mean that loosely) viewpoints detestable. If Mr. Chomsky wrote a novel I wouldn't buy it. So am I guilty of "economic baseball bat to the skull" or some other thoughtcrime because I as an individual dislike certain people and won't buy their products?

[JDM]

Croesus,

What makes you think there is any protein in what Arby's serves? Have you seen their slogan: "What are you eating today?" I kid you not.

[Anonymous]

if the arby's oven mit was black and supporting cuba, no doubt you guys would be burning a dollar sign instead of a cross in the yard of those with differing views

free speech means you shut up

[junyo]

1. Private in the sense of being his own, not the companies, and not promoted on the company's dime.

2. And that Klansman wouldn't buy from me because I'm black, or a Jew, or Catholic, and the manager understands that a decent portion of his customers feel this way, and so I'm sent packing. Explain what's wrong with that.

Further, I'm sure you asked for ID both at that Klan rally and at Walmart and confirmed that he doesn't have a twin, wasn't at the rally merely to observe (after all, you saw him there which means you were there and unless you're a Klansman...) or that there wasn't some perfectly reasonable explanation, just as I'm sure that all of Mr. Scarborough's viewers took the time to independently examine the record of Mr. Glover's politics, as well as the reason behind them, so as to avoid jumping to a conclusion.

Now if that Klansman comes to work in the hat and sheet, or a Confederate flag t-shirt, that's on my dime. Fire away.

3,4. First, Mr. Glover works for the shareholders of MCI, not the customers, and it's telling that the Scarboroughs and O'Riellys of this world rarely take their arguments to shareholder meetings. Instead, as you said, they take their argument to the customer. They take the argument there because this conveniently bypasses debate and argument and goes straight to the revenue stream. In American today I can get a million yahoos to make a phonecall or send an email in support of any viewpoint. If I'm an MCI shareholder, after getting shelled the last couple of years, seeing my mutual funds and 401K dwindle, am I honestly taking a hit, any kind of hit for Danny Glover? If I'm an institutional investor am I gambling the funds I manage on some actor's ability to do spin control on a controverstial viewpoint? And if I'm a MCI executive, am I risking my job on being able to ride out shareholder reaction to their perception of a potential consumer backlash? That's not the free market at work, or a consumer making their own moral choice. It's a shakedown, a corporate protection racket. Fire 'em or your fourth quarter profit projections swim with the fishes, see? The net result is the next celebrity spokesperson has all of their public statements checked for anything that might cause a problem and the ones with potential issues are discarded. People in the public eye learn to be bland (too late) and make no statement of substance if you want to protect your earning potential. Tell me how that contributes to the free marketplace of ideas that Scarborough claims to extoll.

5. If moral purity and/or intelligence were prerequisites for artistry there would be precious little entertainment in this world. And you can do what you like with your own money, and since I don't like country I can't tell you if you're missing anything by not listening to the DC's. But here's what has been accomplished. Crappier long distance service. A chilling effect on speech. And the next time Mr. Glover endorses a product guaranteed it'll be for a nice privately held company, working for people sympathetic to his viewpoint. This episode has likely polarized him and his ilk and made them less likely to participate in or to be persuaded by debate.

[Eric Hanneken]

I have no interest in defending Danny Glover's views, and I understand that asking MCI to fire him is not the same as forcing him to shut up. Still, Joe Scarborough demonstrated little respect for the free market in ideas when he took his fight with Glover to the economic market. That was low.

[omnibus bill]

Yeah. It was nearly as low as Glover pushing for a boycott of those companies that were investing in South Africa during Apartheid. And heck, that was nearly as bad as the boycotts that Martin Luther King led during the desegregation battles. In fact, it's almost as awful as "Take Back the Media" and their spam / letter writing campaign to get companies to stop advertising on the Rush Limbaugh show. How low.

What scummy tactics. The nerve of that Joe Scarborough...

[Lazarus]

junyo:

1. So what? He still said it publically while publically representing MCI. Danny Glover supporting Cuba and Danny Glober, MCI employee are the same person, no?

2. Nothing wrong, though Klansmen are a very tiny market to serve and doubtless once a seller has a rep of being racist most decent people will not buy.

Further, maybe I am just walking by or counter-protesting and see you wearing your racist politics on your sleeve (or your white hat). Now I have two eyes, so ID isn't neccesary. And your politics are very clear (such as supporting a ruthless dicatator). Maybe you are polite to customers. Maybe you are the best damn cashier ever. But YOU still still support racism and I hate racists, so I would not buy anything from you and would tell others to do the same -- and you are stuck selling to other racists. So what is wrong with that?

3,4 You are putting the cart before the horse. In all enterprises, the company works for the customers (capitalism 101), the shareholders only provide capital. The free market doesn't exist for stockholders or pay saleries -- It exists to serve paying customers, they hold all the cards. MCI must gamble that those thousand of yahoos are customers or not. Their income statement proves how correct they are.

Further, the "free marketplace of ideas" is a nonstarter. Ideas are not traded like phone service or doo-dads. They are adopted or not adopted by ideas on their own merit. Nobody controls your brain and society protects your life, liberty and property in case you say something unpopular. But if you want money$ for your ideas, you must have a market. Apparently supporting dictators is unmarketable.

5. Nope, it accomplishes that Mr. Glover isn't profiting as much from his support of dicators as he would before. He should pick better markets, such as endorsing the makers of Che T-Shirts.

[Eric Hanneken]

omnibus bill,

I don't know anything about Take Back the Media, but if I were to judge them solely from your report of them, I would say they are just as bad as Scarborough. Does that surprise you?

As far as I know, MLK boycotted bus companies who treated blacks as second-class customers, and, according to you, Glover boycotted some companies who invested in South Africa. Neither of these boycotts were to punish a company for expressing an opinion.

[Anonymous]

"Neither of these boycotts were to punish a company for expressing an opinion."

opressing people of color is an opinion

[Lefty]

As the Irishman once said, "Is this a private fight or can anyone join in?"

Junyo, I am probably giving you the kiss of death, given my moniker, but you are my hero. You did a nice job of elucidating how a personality can legitimately express their political opinions, just as us assholes do here. We do it for free; they risk big money and, more importantly, their reputation.

I think all of us have a corner of the world (some corners are bigger than others) and we are obligated to try to make our corner better. Those that make no attempt at all deserve more contempt than those that try but differ from our view.

Oh, and Worldcom and MCI both suck.

[Eric Hanneken]

"opressing people of color is an opinion"

No, that's an action.

[Anonymous]

Viva Dr. Laura!

[Eric]

"Scarborough Country has spoken, and MCI had listened. It?s time for The Real Deal."

It seems like Scarborogh Country had more of an interest in proving it has viewers and generating buzz about its show than in actually holding Danny Glover "accountable."

This guy wants to prove he can make things happen, like Bill O'Reilly did with Ludacris and Pepsi. It's all for the ratings. And that kind of sucks.

[Anonymous]

Glvoer supports Castro who treats everyone as a "second class citizen"

[junyo]

Glvoer supports Castro who treats everyone as a "second class citizen"
And it is Mr. Glover's right to hold that opinion. That still doesn't rise to the level of an illegal or immoral action. You're arguing that someone face punishment for their words and/or opinion, a "thought crime". Prove that Glover's raising funds illegally for the Castro regime, or gathering weapons for the violent overthrow of the American government, then you've got an action that he can and should be prosecuted for. Until then he's just another citizen with an opinion, and has every right to hold that opinion.

[Croesus]

Oh no! An actor has a screwball idea! Stop the presses! Throw them out of work! Raise the victory flag for our glorious triumph! 🙂

This is what my grandmother would call a "tempest in a teapot." Glover and Scarborough both appear to be mistaken or downright delusional.

[Eric Hanneken]

junyo,

I don't think anyone here is saying Glover doesn't have a right to express his opinions about Castro. I even think Scarborough and his fans acted within their rights when they persuaded MCI to fire Glover. My point was that Scarborough's campaign speaks poorly of his regard for the value of the free exchange of ideas.

[Anonymous]

No one's talking about prosecuting anyone. Just as Glover has the right to lead boycotts against companies to force them to change a policy or fire someone he finds offensive, others can do the same to him. For example, we all know what happened with Rush and Dr. Laura. Well, Glover supports Castro whose treatment of homosexuals is far more appalling than anything proposed by Dr. Laura, as repugnant as she is.

[PLC]

"he's just another citizen with an opinion, and has every right to hold that opinion." And everyone else has the right to think he's an idiot/devil and boycott his work.

And in case anyone else is confused - expressing an opinion IS an action.

[Croesus]

Does this mean I have to burn my copies of "Grand Canyon" and "Predator II?" If I do, will I hear Satan's voice screeching and howling as they burn? 🙂

[google]

the innate contradiction of goo-goo liberalism: everybody has a right to an opinion, but most especially those who would destroy this very right.

this is the weimar republic, 1930, all over again.

"I defend to the death your right to the opinion that I must be put to death as an infidel" liberalism, 2003

[Croesus]

google,

Oddly enough the Weimar Republic was undone by conservatives, not liberals. Funny thing that.

[Eric Hanneken]

"Expressing an opinion IS an action."

That's right, PLC. But I assume you don't believe that any action can justify a campaign to get someone fired. Does that action justify one?

[PLC]

I don't know about "justify"... but any action can precipitate a campaign to get someone fired. It's America - you're free to boycott/protest anyone you want. If you can get enough people to agree with you, then you'll have some impact. If Danny Glover expresses an opinion repugnant to a majority of people, then a mass marketing corporation probably does not want him as a spokesman - because he has FAILED in his duties, which are to associate a likeable public image with a corporation.

[Croesus]

PLC,

You start talking about duty, and the re-animated corpse of Ayn Rand will strike you down. 🙂

[PLC]

I've always been more of a fan of Kant than Rand - not that either would object to the concept of duties as related to terms of employment.

[RS]

He paid all that dough by MCI because he is popular. That's all he is expected to do - use his popularity to MCI products and services. He's not going to fix your phone or help settle your account. If he's not popular with the consumer, then he's not doing the only thing he was hired for.

[Croesus]

google,

I knew you would try to come back with some faux historical account. Let me fill you on some details.

Several days after the November 1932 elections, the Reichstag rejected the program of the incumbent Chancellor, Franz von Papen, for a "government of national concentration." In response, von Papen resigned. Hitler asked President Paul von Hindenburg to appoint him chancellor, but the president refused, feeling that Hitler would use the office to amass dictatorial power. In early December 1932, he appointed the Minister of Defense, Kurt von Schleicher, to the premiership, but he, too, resigned less than two months later. Now Hindenburg chose Hitler by recommendation of the Conservatives, who thought they could manipulate him for their purposes. The Weimar Republic, as I wrote, was undone by conservatives.

[Croesus]

PLC,

Kant? The great evil one? The most evil man in the history of the world? 🙂

[joe]

Google,

The Social Democrats were the main opposition to the Nazis in the 1932 election. Read your Shirer.

[Anonymous]

it's just cause and effect. guy has trouble getting a taxi, so he supports regimes where he can get a taxi and a bj for $5, no matter what else that regime does.

[Croesus]

joe,

Its slightly bizarre that the most conservative parties in Germany, France (Petain for example), and the UK (the Tories under Chamberlain) all thought it was better to deal with the Nazis (up to a point at least), than too fight them. I guess the question is was their fear of the left so justified as to jump into the mouth of the other lion.

[RS]

the French left only opposed Hitler when he broke his pact with Stalin.

[Joe L.]

Germany: Many people killed Weimar. Had the Catholic Party and the SDP collaborated the Centre could have held. For historical reasons they would not. Had the Catholics and the Conservatives formed a united Right mayhap they could have excluded the Nazi's. They did not. It was easier for people to follow their fears and prejudices than to oppose the Nazi's or the KPD.
As to the original subject: Why is it wrong to get Glover fired? Life is not just thought it is also action. What good does it do me or my society to think good thoughts but not act on them? If Glover is wrong about Bush, Iraq, and Castro why can't I act on my belief? Why can't I boycott MCI or the movie he appears in? Why can't I ask like-minded people to do the same?
The phrase that springs to mind is, "He's not just a God you wind up on Sundays." If I have a moral philosophy but don't act on it, do I have a moral philosophy? So, I say boycott the Baldwins or Dr. Laura OR Rush. Let he with the most "votes" win.

[joe]

Again, google, you're wrong. The NSDAP did not gain its widespread support from disaffected SDs. In fact, the SDs maintained their large base even after the 32 elections, until they were stamped out by the government. SD voters did not defect to the Nazis in large numbers, unlike the conservative parties you're so fond of. Nor did the SDs ever ally themselves with the Nazis, unlike your beloved conservatives, but fought them tooth and nail until their defeat.

Now the Communists, many of their supporters went over the Nazis (as many of the Nazis went over to the Communists post-war). But the SDs, the closest thing to modern American libruls in Weimar Germany, were the only significant German mass movement to stand up to the Nazis. Too bad they and their nation were betrayed by the conservatives.

[Lazarus]

Joe L.: Of course you can boycott what you wish. It is YOUR money. Is not buying 1-800-COLLECT because you hate Carrot-Top's act "censoring" him? Of course not. Anyone who disagrees with Scarborough has the right to boycott HIM if they wish. Or buy a ton of MCI products and tell them Danny Glover sent you. The "free market of ideas" and the free market are one in the same.

[Croesus]

google,

Its not my fault you were hung by your own petard. The conservatives aided Hitler's rise to power when the Nazi party was faltering (t was broke and losing electoral strength by Janaury 1933 when Hitler was appointed Chancellor). In fact, their aid was a neccessary and sufficient condition of said rise; given the Nazi party's inability to gain a victory at the polls (even March 5, 1933 election, one marred by political violence, voter intemidation, etc., they could only garner 44% of the vote, and had to depend on the nationalists to get them over the top). Germany's conservatives bear the brut of this largely because they put him into power, and they also supported his various martial law measures (against unions, the left, etc.) in the months. after becoming Chancellor.

What you are guilty of is a false historical analogy. Liberals didn't destroy Weimar, if what you mean by this is an open democratic society which respects the rights of individuals to engage in open political discourse and the like, it was the conservatives who feared the left more than they feared the Nazis that did. They gave him the reigns of power; they acquiesced when he used that power in clearly un-democratic and dictorial ways.

[Croesus]

RS,

Well, I never said anything about the French left, accept to say that French conservatives like Petain perferred the Nazis over the French left.

[Lazarus]

What would a conversation be like here without the endless (mindless) discussions of abstractions and labels? The Germans hung themselves as a culture in the 1930s, they are all guilty. It was a national shame, not a partisan squabble. We should learn from it and move on.

[joe]

Croesus,

Those European conservatives didn't acquiese because they feared "the left." They feared having their country bombed and shelled (even more), and sending millions (more) of their young men to die on the battlefield. I don't see how "the left" played into Petain's decision at all, or into Chamberlain's (other than agreeing with a pacifistic sense that was widely shared across the spectrum.)

[Croesus]

joe,

What's funny is that the NAZIs often described the SD's as run by a cabal of Jews and the like and constantly maligned the party as a whole. In fact, along with the Communists, the SDs were the main opposition to the Nazis right up to the March 5, 1933 election.

[joe]

Croesus,

I think there's an important difference between the SDs and Reds at the end of Weimar Germany; the Communists had lost a lot of their support, largely to the Nazis. The SDs were still a strong party.

[D. Glover]

Hello! hello? I'm over here...anyone care to talk about me? Hello!?

[Eric Hanneken]

"If Glover is wrong about Bush, Iraq, and Castro why can't I act on my belief?"

There are several actions you could take, but not all of them are praiseworthy. We agree that killing Glover would not be. I'm saying that getting him fired, while not nearly as bad, is still a reprehensible response, because it undermines the free exchange of ideas that helps all of us get closer to the truth.

[Joe L.]

D. Glover... No I won't talk to YOU!!! I am boycotting you, La la la I'm not listening!

[Thales]

The whole debate over liberals and conservatives in Weimar reminds me of Orwell's pointing out the uselessness of the term "fascist" in "Politics and the English Language."

As for Scarborough, he is truly blowing up a tempest in a teapot--and I believe he incorrectly attributes the marketplace of ideas metaphor to Jefferson. I think it emerged from Holmes's and Brandeis's dissents in the World War I free speech cases, which perhaps makes a telling connection to what Scarborough is trying to do with MCI and Glover. As Mill pointed out, social pressure can be even more suppressive of ideas than government censorship.

[joe]

I'll defer to you on that one, France-lover.

He he he he he.

[Lazarus]

Eric: Buy how is your of the "truth" worth more than MCI selling phone service and ultimately the satisfaction of MCI customers? As a Danny Glover fan it is perfectly within your rights to buy the lost marketshare from dissatisfied customers who dislike Grover's politcs. Or even to purchase enough of the company's stock to influence the spokespersons of the company. Hell, influence AT&T to hire him.

Ultimately the choice is the consumers. MCI just profits or loses by guessing what the consumer's preference really is (and maybe they are incorrect and will lose marketshare, lots of Lethal Weapon fans out there).

[Croesus]

joe,

Well, the communists had lost support, and of course a lot of them were in prison or dead by March 5th, 1933.

As far as France is concerned, I suppose they were more aware, afraid of, etc. of the danger of the Communists partly because of Russia's experiences with communism and because it was a far older political ideology than that of the fascists. The latter also seemed to be more on the ball, romantic, etc. as well. People tend to forget that in the 1930s the Nazi party even had a significant foothold in the US. Ever see those "Life" photos of Nazi party summer camps in the US? It was a fairly bizarre time when collectivist ideologies of all stripes were seriously followed (think of Long's redistribution campaign).

As for France post-surrender, there was a tendecy by many to view Germans as, well, supermen. A natural response to an invader perhaps who has occupied your country. Relatives who were children or teenagers at the time told me that's how they looked in 1940; when they played "war" they even took on the roles of German soldiers (which I find totally bizarre). Those attitudes changed after 1940, as the resistance gained a foothold (as people saw that a German could die just like any other man) - historians now date its start to sometime in early 1941 (much earlier than was though say twenty-thirty years ago).

[Eric Hanneken]

Lazarus,

I don't think it's wrong for someone to drop MCI because they hate the thought of supporting Glover. And I don't think it's wrong for MCI to drop Glover, if they think his beliefs make him unpopular, or even if they just don't like his beliefs. But Scarborough is clearly trying to engineer the idea marketplace, by making sure Glover is "held accountable for his comments." Instead of countering Glover's bad ideas with good ones, he's cutting Glover's financial legs out from under him.

[Croesus]

Isn't MCI really WorldCom?

[joe]

Croesus,

Any recommendations for books on the French experience in WW2, or the Resistance?

[Lazarus]

Eric: Don't worry, I am sure old Danny Boy will be fine financially. If not, there is always Lethal Weapon 5...

But how is Scarborough acting any different than simply asking MCI customers to "to drop MCI because they hate the thought of supporting Glover"? Scarborough certainly *also* has a right to say what he wants and to convince various outlets to give him a forum.

How is holding people accountable for what they say a bad thing? I certainly would't purchase a product with a racist as a spokesperson. If he was fired it was because he wasn't deemed an effective salesman for MCI -- it has little to do with his ideas.

[Lazarus]

Lefty: Nobody is arguing against Mr. Glover legitimately expressing his political opinions. This ISN'T a civil liberties issue, it is a MARKETING issue. And the choice belongs to the market. Those who argue against are: A) mistaking the real issue, B) whining, C) being lazy, as one could start a campaign to rehire Mr.Glover, or buy up the lost marketshare or ask a competitor to hire him as a spokesperson, or D) authoritarian, arguing that MCI and its customers should be FORCED to pay a millionaire supporter of dictators even though they do not want to.

No doubt of Charlie Heston was fired from MCI, Leftie would be cheering this as a victory. Same deal if was an outspoken Zionist. But an african-american who supports Fidelist communism and is anti-war...this musssst be crushing of dissent! Leftie, your screen-name shows your argument before you even make it. How boring.

[fredH]

Croesus:

Sorry to refer to something so far back in the thread, but I just got around to reading it this morning. Anyway, you can't hang somebody with a petard. A petard is a kind of mortar developped in the early days of gunpowder for blowing down castle doors. The phrase is "hoist on one's own petard." It refers to the artilleryman being thrown in the air like a mortar projectile when the petard accidentally explodes, a common occurance in those days of bad metallurgy. BTW, the name of this device comes from the french word for fart.

[Ong Brandon]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.RAPID-PENIS-ENLARGEMENT.NET

DATE: 12/10/2003 09:21:42
'May you live all the days of your life.' - Swift

[Wilson Julie]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://make-penis-bigger.nonstopsex.org
DATE: 12/20/2003 11:50:35
Communism has nothing to do with love. Communism is an excellent hammer which we use to destroy our enemy.

[Thomas Jennifer]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 68.173.7.113
URL: http://big-breast.big-breast-success.com
DATE: 01/09/2004 11:48:08
The meaning of life is that it stops.

[Rojas Pablo]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 193.251.169.169
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/19/2004 06:48:59
Government is too big and too important to be left to the politicians.