Antisemitism

Reason Guilty of Anti-ANTI-Semitism: Sub Teacher Fired

|

Patricia McAllister in better days.

Patricia McAllister, the Los Angeles substitute teacher who called for Jews to be "run out of this country" in a Reason TV interview, has been fired by the Los Angeles Unified School District. 

As a parent with two young children under the LAUSD's jurisdiction, I applaud McAllister's firing. I have so far been appalled at the amount of racism that exists in the Los Angeles public schools, and I am happy that the LAUSD at least takes seriously the most overt and undeniable expressions of this ugly tendency. I also note that McAllister's shocking comments do not appear to be a slip of the lip

As the journalist who interviewed McAllister in her career-ending TV appearance, I have more mixed feelings. In my experience there is no political movement that has no anti-Semites within its ranks. Our drawing attention to McAllister's comments (which as I noted, was not the only strange opinion about The Jews we heard in a single day covering Occupy L.A.'s City Hall adventure) was part of our coverage of a broad spectrum of opinion, sane and insane, at Occupy L.A. 

While the history of anti-capitalism is infused root and branch with racism, I do believe that at least a minority of participants in the Occupy movement are not racists or anti-Semites. 

That having been said, this attempt by one MJ Rosenberg in the Jewish Journal to downplay the racism on display at the Occupy events is contemptible. An excerpt, courtesy of LAist

An ugly old tradition is back: exploiting anti-Semitism to break the backs of popular movements that threaten the power of the wealthiest 1 percent of our population. It is being used to undermine the Occupy Wall Street movement, which has conservatives in a state of near panic.

[…]

Because utilizing anti-Semitism directly would not succeed in this country today, the reactionary defenders of the economic status quo are using the flip side of the coin: the fear of being labeled anti-Semitic. They are accusing Occupy Wall Street of anti-Semitism, relying on the old myth that Wall Street is Jewish and hence that opposition to Wall Street's agenda is just opposition to Jews. 

I read and enjoy the Jewish Journal every week, and I appreciate a contrarian argument probably better than most people. But this is really a disgusting display. Either you take anti-Semitism (and the countless illiberal tendencies that are its eternal handmaidens) seriously, or you don't. If I'm guilty of taking it seriously, MJ, it's because I trust my own two eyes before I trust you. 

Update for the L.A. Times copy desk: Commenter Mr. FIFY points to a blog post by Rick Rojas in the Los Angeles Times (a newspaper that has been strangely uninterested in the Occupation occuring a block away from its headquarters), wherein Rojas makes an overly scrupulous hash of the tricky word "allege." The post's title reads "Teacher who allegedly made anti-Semitic remarks fired" and the body refers to "the alleged anti-Semitic remarks by a district employee." 

I don't have the LAT stylebook handy, but Rojas is violating at least two of AP's rules for "allege." First, he fails to specify the source of the allegation, which can include "an arrest record, an indictment or the statement of a public official." He also uses "allege" in adverbial form to modify "made" and as an adjective to modify "remarks." AP clearly states, "Do not say: He attended the alleged meeting when what you mean is He allegedly attended the meeting." If Rojas needs a source for the allegation, I'm happy to be the allegator. But he'd be better off avoiding the word entirely, since the only doubt about the anti-Semitic nature of McAllister's comments is whether only calling for "Zionist Jews" to be run out of the country lets Neturei Karta members off the hook.  

And I know I sound like a broken record, but really: When they were alleging that the Tea Party was a racist movement, I just can't remember the L.A. Times engaging in this kind of double talk. Nor, for that matter, do I remember CNN, The Washington Post, NPR or The New York Times giving Tea Partiers the benefit of any doubt.  

As for the comment discussion of whether Reason is joining or leading a "witch hunt," that seems like a stretch to me. As I said, I applaud McAllister's termination in my capacity as a parent, because I don't want my kids around people who espouse such ideas, especially people who don't have the sense to modulate their delivery when speaking on camera to total strangers. There are many LAUSD teachers I'd like to see shitcanned — starting with a teacher at my kids' school whom I have seen on two occasions in the hallway discussing teachers union business on the phone during class hours. Unfortunately, the only full-time teacher I've actually seen terminated was my oldest kid's dedicated and beloved first grade teacher, who got laid off because she didn't have seniority in the union.  

While I share the reservations about firing teachers for out-of-school comments, my concerns are strictly utilitarian: that limiting your hiring pool to people who never say anything offensive will soon leave the schools without teachers. McAllister has no right to be paid by the taxpayers, and I don't see any free speech principle at stake here. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Reason Staffers Live Tweet the Las Vegas Republican Debate!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. God damn Timmeh, you’re good.

    1. Tim does not like to brag, but he got Gilad Shalit freed too.

      1. That’s ridiculous. There are no anti-semites in Hamas.

        1. The state fires an employee for what she said on her own time, and libertarians…rejoice?
          Yay speech codes? Huzzah political correctness?
          What the.

          1. She’s a public school teacher. Her firing is just a good start on firing all of them.

            1. Why stop with the teachers? Kids come into contact with all kinds of racists, and it’s all about the children, isn’t it? I propose that all employees, public and private, be forced to sign a Pledge of Anti-Racism. But in keeping with libertarian principles of fairness, it should be voluntary and uncoercive. If you don’t sign it, you don’t work. It’s your choice.

              1. “I am as ignorant of the simple concept of ‘at-will employment’ as a meal worm is of Boolean algebra.”

                1. Right. This is about mundane principles of “employment,” not political correctness, revenge, schadenfreude.

                  1. “See? Told you.”

  2. While the history of anti-capitalism is infused root and branch with racism, I do believe that at least a minority of participants in the Occupy movement are not racists or anti-Semites.

    How generous of you.

    1. “How generous of you.”

      My exact thought.

    2. Just deserts are just that. Good for TC for not being mincy with his words (very rarely is, though often verbose).

    3. How generous of jew.

      I kidd, I keed.

  3. They are accusing Occupy Wall Street of anti-Semitism, relying on the old myth that Wall Street is Jewish and hence that opposition to Wall Street’s agenda is just opposition to Jews.

    Yes, we put those words into Patricia McAllister’s mouth!

    1. Or: They are accusing Republicans of anti-black racism, relying on the old myth that Barack Obama is black and hence that opposition to the President’s agenda is just opposition to African-Americans.

      Sounds about right.

  4. Down with the Jew Cavanaugh!

    1. Oy, not that ASSes.

  5. WOAH! A union teacher in LA actually got canned?

    Now we know what it takes, I guess.

    -jcr

    1. Are subs in the union?

      1. Are subs even human?

        1. It’s a dying world.

      2. According to the LAUSD Superintentent:

        As a day-to-day substitute teacher, Ms. McAllister was an at-will employee. As of today, she is no longer an employee of the LAUSD.

    2. I wonder if Stormfront will use this as evidence that Jews run the LA school system?

      1. I love the sound of goose-stepping in the morning.

        1. STOP THROWING YOURSELF ONTO ME!!!

          1. Get ’em, boys!

        2. I love the sound of goose-stepping in the morning.

  6. “They are accusing Occupy Wall Street of anti-Semitism, relying on the old myth that Wall Street is Jewish and hence that opposition to Wall Street’s agenda is just opposition to Jews. ”

    That, and people actually talking shit about Jews.

    I mean, that “old myth” is most popular with anti-Semites. So, it sort of stands to reason that any attack on banking is going to draw anti-Semites, given that they equate the two.

    1. I haven’t seen that in the End the Fed movement. Given it is a critique of government created centralized banking, and not of wealth creation through legitimate banking practices that should not be surprising. The better bankers of all stripes do in a non crony market the better off we all are.

      1. I am sure that author will claim you are blind to it because of your Anti-Semitism and say they are just crafty and clever in hiding it.

  7. Just imagine the uproar if a Hispanic teacher from LA had stated stated on film that whites need to get out of her homeland.

    1. Tim would get her fired!
      Wouldn’t he?

    2. ML75, what would happen if a Hispanic teacher from LA stated on film that the Native Americans should get out of her homeland?

      1. I was born in North America, so by the rules of the English language, I am Native American. Did you mean various tribes of American Indians?

        1. No, by the rules of the english language, you are a native American.

        2. I agree. Though commonly accepted, it is definitively in error. The Canadians use Indigenous American. It has the advantage of not being based on illiterate language, so I try to work it in where I can.

          1. I thought the correct term was injun.

    3. Imagine if some white guy posed as an Indian to become a professor of Indian Studies.

      1. Imagine if that same guy also lied about being an Army Ranger, falsified and fabricated research, and plagiarized other people’s work.

    4. There’d be such an uproarious uproar that they’d elect me mayor.

      1. Not sure that name panders enough…hmmm maybe Anthony Villaraigosa would get me some brown votes!

        Full Disclosure: As a non-Angelino, I only know of this ridiculous man’s antics through Adam Carolla’s lovely rants

        1. Oh…Antonio is even better at luring unsuspecting race based voters.

  8. Holy shit, am I the only one who will defend that asshole’s right to say and think whatever the hell she chooses?

    I don’t get this free speech libertarian disconnect.

    1. Dude, its a public school teacher that’s why. You don’t want teachers saying slavery is cool and the indians should be wiped out do you?

      1. Girl, I don’t care what they say. The sooner your kids know adults can be full of shit the better. Was she teaching their curriculum?

        I don’t care what she does in her private life.

        1. I don’t care what she does in her private life.

          +1
          Smacks of a witch hunt to me. Does the First Amendment not apply to teachers who say stupid things on their own time?

          1. The point is that it should apply to the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick-maker.

            They better have their paperwork in order to show just cause.

            1. If we had private butchers, bakers, candlestick makers, and teachers this would not be a big deal. The employer would have the right to fire for any reason at all.

          2. Does the First Amendment not apply to teachers who say stupid things on their own time?

            It does. That’s why she’s not going to jail or getting fined.

            Losing your job is not coercion.

            1. Losing your job is not coercion

              It is if someone fires you.

              “Losing” your job (being fired) is not the same thing as losing a sock.

            2. Holy shit, “Losing your job is not coercion”. I’d say the fact that she can no longer pay her bills, received healthcare through her employment, and use her last job as a reference is whatyacall: fucking coercion

              1. Coercion and harsh aren’t the same thing. Grabbing someone by the wrist is coercion, but not very harsh. Firing them is pretty harsh, but not coercive.

                Even if you’re dumb enough to think that people have a right to a job, that doesn’t mean they have a right to a specific job despite publicly embarrassing their employer (by referencing their job and then proceeding to act like an asshole on camera).

                1. It will go to court, and I bet epi’s ass that I am right

                  1. You think a California court is going to set a precedent allowing white teachers to publicly join KKK marches in their spare time without repercussion? And in fact turning them into a protected group that can sue everyone if they get fired for any reason?

                    1. White teachers joining the KKK? No. Non-whites joining equivalent organizations like MEChA? Si.

                  2. Where’s that Constitutional right to employment, rather? I have three different paper copies, and The Interwebz has many more… nope, not in anything I can read at my fingertips.

                    So, c’mon, Spunky! Post that Rosetta Stone of Thou Shalt Not Fire People.

                    1. Oh, and good call, cynical.

                    2. I bet she sues, and they settle; those email trails can lead to other disclosures.

                    3. “I bet she sues, and they settle”

                      Where would you like to escrow and how much do you want to lose.

                    4. Where’s that Constitutional right to employment
                      Right next to the Constitutional right to murder a baby?

                    5. Evidently, you can kill it; you just can’t FIRE it.

                  3. where would you like to escrow the money and how much do you want to lose?

              2. Ok, rather, so just so we’re being consistent, you’d ban an employer from firing a KKK Grand Wizard covered in swastikas who volunteers at Westboro Baptist Church on the weekend and makes international headlines calling for the immediate execution of all gays, Jews and blacks?

                I’d defend that person’s legal freedom of speech to the hilt, but that doesn’t mean others should be required to bear all the real world consequences for their awful speech. Especially in this case, where she stated clearly she was a teacher in a school where it would be illegal for Jewish public school students to boycott her class. Employment is not a right, its a contract for which she obviously violated the conditions.

                Reason did a service by posting this video. A free market can respond rationally when the media exposes racists and racist business practices. Cry me a river when these assholes starve to death for their own stupidity.

              3. You can’t “coerce” someone out of teaching kids under coercion, while being paid with taxmoney extracted through coercion.

                Firing government employees should not even NEED a reason. It’s a justice in itself. Not “coercion”.

                1. Firing government employees should not even NEED a reason.

                  And it used to be S.O.P. As soon as the “new” elected officials took office, the hires from the previous office holder were all fired. I don’t remember which law put an end to that practice, but no more cynical piece of legislation was ever passed IMO.

                  The entitlement of a public job was the beginning of the end of liberty.

              4. Can’t she get another job, one that will tolerate her anti-semitism?

                1. Can’t she get another job, one that will tolerate her anti-semitism?

                  Depends. Is the United Nations hiring this week…?

              5. Coercion? If I give you money for work, then I no longer give you money, but you no longer work for me, that is not corcion, but normal life.

                Also, the idea the 1st amendment means you can say anything you wish without any recourse from your employer is idiotic. IIRC it states ‘congress shall make no law…’

                Not ’employers must employ racists or else.

            3. So next year when a government employee gets fired for owning a gun, converting to Islam or Mormonism or doing anything else that has nothing to do with their job but is not approved of by local politicians, you will be OK with that?

              1. “So next year when a government employee gets fired for owning a gun, converting to Islam or Mormonism or doing anything else that has nothing to do with their job but is not approved of by local politicians, you will be OK with that?”

                I repeat:
                “Firing government employees should not even NEED a reason. It’s a justice in itself. Not “coercion”.”

                I don’t give a shit why a thief needs the money he steals from me, because it doesn’t change the fact that he got his money through coercion.
                Similarly, i don’t give a shit why a government employee gets fired, because it doesn’t change the fact that his job was financed by forcibly extracted personal property (tax money).

                Government employees are never “victims” of unjust firings. Because they never should have had a government job to begin with. Forcibly extracting private property is evil, because it doesn’t matter if the robber has a government uniform.

                If you think otherwise, then your handle is fitting.

            4. Tulpa, public school teachers do have First Amendment rights in their employment, but it’s a balancing test. the big case was Pickering.

              That said, talking shit about some race or religion is a guranteed way to lose every factor in the balancing test.

          3. Oh, for fuck’s sake….repeat after me…
            Congress shall make no law

            1. Only a racist would say that, Mulatto.

              1. Well-stated, HM.

        2. Girl, I don’t care what they say. The sooner your kids know adults can be full of shit the better. Was she teaching their curriculum?

          I don’t care what she does in her private life.

          I have the solution!!!

          No more public schools!!

          Problem solved.

          God I love being a libertarian some times.

        3. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of your speech.

          1. “”Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of your speech.””

            Then what makes it a right, and who would that play out for other rights.

            Freedom of speech to own a firearm does not mean freedom from the consequences of your speech owning a firearm.

            I guess the LA school district could fire you because you one a gun too.

            1. “”and who would that play out for other rights.”‘

              oops, that who should be a how.

            2. In the Soviet Union, you have freedom of speech. In America, you have freedom after speech.

            3. She wasn’t fired because of what she said. She was fired because she was dumb enough to believe what she said. Intelligence is a basic qualifier for being a teacher. She proved that she lacked intelligence and thus showed she was unqualified for the job.

    2. She has no right to “free speech” as long as tax payers are forced to both pay her salary and forced to send their kids to schools that employ people like her.

      In the marketplace, people are free to boycot people with overt reprehensible ideas or expressions, so they can vote with their wallets.
      With public school teachers they can’t, therefor they can demand the government only employs people without racial bigotry or other irrational bigoted beliefs.

    3. It’s a grey area. A government teacher can’t be fired for speech outside working hours unless the teacher presents his views as representative of the school. This teacher said that she works for the LA Unified School District, but she also said that she was there on her own representing her own views. She will probably get her job back on appeal.

      1. Note, this rule only applies to regular teachers. Substitutes are another matter.

      2. Ah, the representin’ defense.

        1. It works for me!

    4. She wasn’t smart enough to soften her words while she was talking on camera in front of total strangers.

      Ergo, I don’t want her teaching my kid.

  9. Wow Tim, now that she’s had her ass fired you won’t have to explain to your kids that some adults have POS viewpoints; all racism, sexism will go poof!

    1. Is it cold in here?
      Brrrr.

      1. I think she’s still free to speak her mind.

    2. How hard it must suck to be cranio-rectally inverted and suffering delusions of adequacy.

  10. I guess this means blacks are not at the top of the PC totem pole.

    1. I think the current Underrepresented Oppressed Minority configuration goes Jews>Gays>Indians>Blacks>Hispanics>Asians

      Combinations default to the highest rung, so a Gay Hispanic person, for example, has more political sympathy than a straight Black person.

      1. No, I’m pretty sure it’s Gays>Blacks>Palestinians>Jews>Native Americans>Hispanics>Asians, at least for standard white progressives and liberals. Which might be a backronym in the making…

        1. I think transgendered people trump gays now.

          1. 23. I will likely have $50,000 or more to spend or save for retirement.

            I doubt that being transgendered is what is keeping this he/she from accruing some retirement savings, maybe its:

            24. I can’t imagine spending months and $1000s of dollars on a therapist so they can tell me something I already knew.
            25. If I am physically healthy, I don’t think about having a hysterectomy, a mastectomy, massive hair removal, contra hormone therapy, vocal surgery, facial reassignment surgery, or genital reassignment surgery.

            Elective surgeries/chat sessions tend to have a detrimental effect on your bank account. Just ask your local Housewives of _____ County.

        2. You guys are forgetting women.

          1. You guys are forgetting Gyno-Americans.

            There, FIFY

        3. No, I’m pretty sure it’s Gays>Blacks>Palestinians>Jews>Native Americans>Hispanics>Asians

          As we can personally attest: Muslims, first and foremost.

          1. What about gay black Muslims?

            1. They can fly, and transmute base elements into gold.

              1. Muy Bueno. We can use them in Aztlan.

                1. You mean the territories formerly known as “Texas” and “California”…?

      2. The Black race card trumps the Gay card significantly. Just ask residents of “Boystown” when they tried to get something done about the increasing black on white gay crime in their neighborhood. Not to mention, there is no gay affirmative action, let alone protection under the Civil Rights Act.

        Gays were simply created the new victim group in the 90’s when the Democrats/Marxists were losing the white vote.

        1. The Black race card trumps the Gay card significantly.

          Tracy Morgan might disagree with this.

      3. Muslim trumps gay and Jews. Otherwise, Liberals would be protesting the lack of rights for gays in Muslim majority countries. It also trumps Black, otherwise Clinton would object to the new Libyan government’s detention and torture of Blacks.

        1. But that’s a cowardice trump, not an outrage trump.

  11. The one time I actually wanted to see a reason.tv video, and there is no embed of the video and no link. What the hell? you guys never missed an opportunity for self-promotion “synergy”.

  12. No, you’re not – you just beat me by a minute. I love that the LAUSD statement was all about the fact that she expressed her personal views and that it was not done in the context of her LAUSD duties – and they fired her ass anyway.

    1. reply to rather

    2. “At-will” employment means just that. Based on what she chose to do during her off time, the school district lost the “will” to employ her.

      1. No one said that they couldn’t. Obviously they could.

      2. teacher contracts are for the full school year -they pay full salary if they need to dump you

        1. teacher contracts are for the full school year -they pay full salary if they need to dump you

          She’s a substitute teacher, they get paid weekly or bi-weekly. I subbed all through grad-school, I should know.

      3. I have worked jobs where I was employed at-will. In Illinois that means my employer could fire me at-will with no notice for any or NO reason. I knew those terms before I accepted employment. It also meant I could quit at-will for any or NO reason with no notice. When asked if she was given a reason for her termination McAllister said she was given no reason. I assume she agreed to the same at-will terms as I have in the past when she accepted employment.

        1. It also meant I could quit at-will for any or NO reason with no notice.
          – What a deal! No Indentured Servitude for you.

          1. You got that right! My last job offer was for $95.00/Hr.

  13. “They are accusing Occupy Wall Street of anti-Semitism, relying on the old myth that Wall Street is Jewish and hence that opposition to Wall Street’s agenda is just opposition to Jews.”

    There is something to be said for the suggestion that a lot of people still see “Wall Street” as a codeword for Jews. To the point that it’s probably unreasonable to ignite a movement against “Wall Street”–and be genuinely surprised to find anti-Semites among them.

    I think it’s incumbent on the protestors to make their own case–if they’re not against Wall Street for the same reason so many disgusting anti-Semites have been against Wall Street for generations, then that’s for them to say.

    Not some third party to make that case for them.

    When I opposed the Iraq War, it was my responsibility to communicate that my opposition was to our leadership–not the troops. In opposing the Iraq War, I could find myself in a group of people who were against the Iraq War for reasons that didn’t necessarily overlap with mine at all. My responsibility to differentiate myself.

    No, just because I’m against torture–doesn’t mean I’m in favor of the terrorists. See? It’s not that hard.

    If they’re not anti-Semites, let them say so. It’s not that hard. There must be some of them that can figure out how to make a sign that condemns antisemitism.

      1. Do we know why that guy was an asshole?

        I mean, sure, it might the antisemitism, but maybe he was just a fucking jerk.

    1. At the risk of starting a similar situation to when the Tea Party was accused of using codewords for blacks, if you really want to examine the blurring of terms “capitalists” and “Jews”, go no further than the depiction of the Ferengi in Star Trek.

      1. If you think of Jews when you see the Ferengi, it’s you who’s got a problem, not Gene Roddenberry.

        1. Nope, he got it right…I totally hate those bloodsucking, pointy-nosed, greedy, ethnic…capitalists.

        2. You say that, but when you look at the names of the actors who have portrayed Ferengi on the shows…well….it gets kinda weird.

          Armin Shimerman – Quark, Bractor, Letek
          Aron Eisenberg – Nog
          Max Grod?nchik – Rom, Glint
          Lee Arenberg – Gral, Prak, Bok
          Peter Slutsker – Nibor, Reyga, Birta
          David B. Levinson – Broik, unamed Ferengi
          Michael William Rivkin – Nunk

          Jus’ sayin’….

          1. I guess Klingons are supposed to be African-American then?

            1. No, Siberian/Mongoloid Russkies.

              1. Yep. And the Romulans were Japs…with the yellow skin and the eyebrows that remind one of slangy eyes.

                I think the Cardassians represent either Australians or Costa Ricans in some way, but am yet to figure out how.

                1. Never saw a Cardassian with an oilcan Fosters in his hand, and I watched every episode.

                  1. Never saw a Cardassian with an oilcan Fosters in his hand, and I watched every episode.

                    LIES!!

                    http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.ne…..0&a=t&q=89

                    1. What episode was SHE in?

                      :drool:

                    2. D’oh… KARDASHIANS.

                      Well-played, Misters Corning.

                      [strokes white cat in lap]

                2. The Cardassians represent people who are always on TV and always getting married to someone.

                3. “Yep. And the Romulans were Japs…”

                  My understanding is that the Romulans were modeled on the Chinese communists.

                  There’s a Fu Manchu thing going on there with the Romulans, with a Sci-Fi pedigree going back, at least, to Ming the Merciless.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu_Manchu

                  Oh, and a bonus link!

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zko7pBeHkk

                  Can’t mention one Fu Manchu without mentioning the other.

                  1. And, ironically, the Borg are hipsters.

                    1. I thought the Borg were Swedes.

                  2. Awesome band. I used to party with those dudes waaaayyyy back in the day.

        3. That the Rules of Acquisition have numerous commentaries that are portrayed as nearly as important as the rules themselves, strikes me as a reference to the Torah.

    2. And this is a ridiculous standard anyway: must anyone who supports welfare reform also declare that they’re not doing it because they’re racist?

      The burden of proof should be on the people making the accusation of ulterior motives. Always assume good faith until proven otherwise, the first rule of civilized discourse.

      1. No, but if people who are racist against blacks tend to assume they’re mostly on welfare, it shouldn’t be a shock that a non-racial anti-welfare movement would still draw positive attention from racists. It isn’t a condemnation of the non-racists, it’s just how things are.

    3. When I opposed the Iraq War, it was my responsibility to communicate that my opposition was to our leadership–not the troops.

      Don’t the troops enable the leadership to be horrible? It’s not like the troops were coerced into enlisting. The troops signed up to support any reprehensible action of leadership.

  14. I don’t know any conservatives who have been driven to panic by OWS or its copycats. The only concern I have is how long it’s going to take to get the BO and urine smell out of the grass in these parks.

    1. BO = Barack Obama?

      YOU RAAAAAAAACCCCIIISSTTT!!111!!!1

      …and I guess the uring smell is supposed to be Biden ‘cos he is old

  15. What’s worse: racism (e.g. anti-Semitism) or the exploitation of racism for political advantage?

    1. I’m not sure what you mean about exploiting racism for political advantage.

      If Reason is exploiting anyone’s racism here, they’re exploiting it the same way they exploited an official in Bell practically ripping off his constituents.

      If the Occupy Wall Street movement is using old deeply ingrained racism to inspire people to protest against Wall Street? Then they’re virtually indistinguishable from racists.

      1. exploiting racism for political advantage

        How’s this: Exploiting racism for propaganda value. Better?

        1. Oh, no doubt, if you’re talking about a black woman blaming JOOOZ for all her problems…

        2. If your hypothetical is supposed to be some gotcha…. well, exposing racist statements by tax payer funded employees is not exploitation. Its journliasm.

          However…. wouldn’t exploiting racism infer racism?

          IE – aren’t they the same?

  16. Oh, and that lady being unapologetic in her follow up interview?

    Amazing.

    I’d say to her the same thing I always said to Archie Bunker types back when I was young–just ’cause y’all believe your racism is really true? Doesn’t mean it isn’t racism.

    1. Why stop at the teachers? Fire all the bigots and stupid people.

      And the Irish, of course.

      1. If you say something anti-Semitic like that to a journalist on camera, and mention who you work for? You’re effectively associating who you work for with antisemitism.

        If the LAUSD didn’t fire her, they would essentially be condoning her statement. What’s more, the LAUSD has a responsibility to all its students–some of whom happen to be Jewish.

        Even apart from that, I happen to believe that employers should be able to fire their employees whenever they think it’s in their best interest to do so–just as I think employees should be free to quit their jobs whenever it’s in their best interest to do so.

        At any rate, comparing antisemitism to an ethnicity like “Irish” is absurd. She isn’t being fired because of her ethnicity. She’s being fired because she hurt her employer by saying something stupid on camera that makes it impossible for them to put her into a classroom where some of her students are likely to suffer discrimination.

        And here’s some Libertarianism 101 for you–“libertarian” doesn’t mean you’re free to do what you want to do without having to take any responsibility for your actions. Free speech, for example, doesn’t protect perjury, fraud, threatening to kill someone if they don’t empty the register, breech of contract, etc.

        We are free to the extent that we are responsible for what we do. You are free to own a gun, but that doesn’t mean no one can hold you responsible for how you use it. She’s free to speak her mind into the TV camera, but if what she says makes her unemployable by her present employer, then her employers should be free to do what’s in their best interests too.

        If that means they hold her responsible by firing her for what she said, then there isn’t anything un-libertarian about that.

        Imagine an antisemitic waiter at a restaurant, who continues to spout antisemitism to all the customers. …to the point that the restaurant’s Jewish clientele–among others–will no longer patronize the restaurant.

        Are you suggesting that the restaurant’s owners in that situation have no recourse–because the waiter has a right to free speech?

        Because that’s absurd.

        1. “”Imagine an antisemitic waiter at a restaurant, who continues to spout antisemitism to all the customers. …to the point that the restaurant’s Jewish clientele–among others–will no longer patronize the restaurant.

          Are you suggesting that the restaurant’s owners in that situation have no recourse–because the waiter has a right to free speech?””

          If the resturant lost business due to that speech, the resturant might have a claim for damages. If the LA school district suffers damages as a result of the teachers speech it would be different.

          You have a right to speech, you don’t have a right to cause damage.

          1. Keeping the an antisemitic teacher on the payroll would have hurt the LAUSD.

            And, besides, you don’t have to prove damages in a court of law in order to do what’s in your own best interest.

            Anybody should be free to fire anybody if they think doing so is in their best interest–just like anybody should be free to quit working for anybody whenever they think it’s in their best interest.

            Nobody owes you a job. Not even the government.

          2. “You have a right to speech, you don’t have a right to cause damage.”

            The government isn’t prohibiting her free speech.

            She’s still free to talk to anyone she wants to. And she took advantage of that by talking to a news crew about being fired for what she said–and she took the opportunity, or so it seemed to me, to repeat some of it!

            No one has infringed on her right to free speech.

            Her right to be an employee of the LAUSD?

            That isn’t a right. Firing somebody for saying something that hurts the LAUSD is not infringing on the right to free speech.

            Freedom does not mean freedom from the responsibility for what you do. There is a fundamental inherent connection between freedom and responsibility to the point that one doesn’t really exist without the other.

            If you’re not free to make your own choice, you’re generally not responsible for what you do. For example, shooting people is generally frowned upon as a crime. Unless? It was done in self-defense. In which case–because you didn’t have any choice in the matter–you are not held responsible for shooting someone in that situation.

            No freedom; no responsibility.

            It works the other way too. You are free to do those things for which you take the responsibility–and you willingly take responsibility for everything you choose to do.

            This lady willingly chose to say some stupid shit on camera. There are consequences for everything we choose to do. We should all take those consequences into consideration when we choose a course of action.

            If this lady didn’t want the consequences of her speech, then she should have chosen to say something different. She still has a right to say pretty much whatever she wants. She just doesn’t have a right to inflict the consequences of her choice of words on the LAUSD–against the wishes of the LAUSD.

    2. The part when she was talking about “weird” phone calls and e-mails at 2 a.m. drawing her to the rally, suggests to me that she might be a bit on the schizophrenic side…

      1. Haven’t we been told by Wizened, Learned Black Men that only white people can be racist?

        1. Hey! I’ve been spouting that for years. Don’t I count?

  17. There must be some of them that can figure out how to make a sign that condemns antisemitism.

    There was the “ASSHOLE” sign guy, who I mocked because he asked for it, but who apparently doesn’t go in for all the JOOS stuff. So there’s one.

    But here’s the thing. We’re talking about a group that, as polled (and also ipso-facto-and-QED based on their TEAM! affiliation), is far more supportive of “Wall Street bailouts” than the general public is.

    And they’re protesting “Wall Street.”

    So what the hell are they actually raging at?

    Jews. Just like they fucking say.

    1. You can oppose Wall Street greed and at the same time recognize that letting them collapse would have hurdled us into a Bush Depression.

      The greedy institutions of the past have to go, but there has to be a smooth transition. In the mean time we need to make sure the banks work for people instead of profits.

      1. What do you think profits are for, Great Old Ones?

        1. Much as I despise Bush, it would have been the “Obama Depression”, mustard.

          1. Three year in Obama still blames his problems on Bush and doesn’t get called out on it by most of the press. He could blame the poor scoring of the CLASS Act on Bush and it would go unremarked upon.

      2. “You can oppose Wall Street greed and at the same time recognize that letting them collapse would have hurdled us into a Bush Depression.”

        They need to say that.

        How long are we supposed to suspend disbelief? How long are we supposed to guess at their motives?

        The fact is that individuals–even when they’re in a crowd–often similar things for individual and different reasons. I suspect there’s a significant antisemitic contingent in that crowd.

        I hope they prove me wrong. Maybe we should ask them about who they think is controlling U.S. foreign policy. I suspect you’ll find a lot of them who think it’s “Zionists”. Maybe we should ask them about how much and what kind of influence the bankers of Wall Street buy…

        Just because they don’t think we should support Israel because of Israel’s actions with the Palestinians, that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re antisemitic. Just because they think Wall Street’s relationship with regulators is too cozy, that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re antisemitic.

        But IF their positions on those issues just happen to accidentally coincide with ancient antisemitic conspiracy theories about how Jews are secretly pulling the strings behind the economy and the foreign policy of the world? Then maybe they should take a moment out to acquit themselves of antisemitism.

        Why not?

    2. I went down there yesterday ( I fact to visit two left-wing Jews! who have been camped out for a week or so, and check it out). There were several anti-anti-antisemitism signs. It is shocking that Reason hasn’t sent anyone to make a video about it.

      Surprising, how little you hear with cotton in your ears.

      1. “No, seriously though: some of my best friends…”

  18. If every public school teacher with bigoted views was fired, there wouldn’t be enough left to teach half the kids in the district. Let’s be realistic here and stop nitpicking.

    1. If every public school teacher one with bigoted views was fired…

      1. Most bigots are smrt enough not to give TV interviews about their bigoted views while discussing their employer.

        It shouldn’t need to be said, but… the idiot did NOT get fired for her views, she got fired for expousing them in a public interview while simultaneously impressing all with her job title.

        You can attempt to rewrite the truth any way you please, just as Al Gore can continue to claim he’s an environmental hero with only facts at hand, but it will always be what it is.

    2. Oh, I didn’t get that you were satirical, my bad. I guess the “tard” part should have clued me in.

      1. So, mustard… you’re okay with bigoted views, as long as it’s coming from Old Rich Straight Christian White Guys?

    3. If every public school teacher with bigoted views was fired, there wouldn’t be enough left to teach half the kids in the district. Let’s be realistic here and stop nitpicking.

      Sure there would. Start school at 6 instead of 5 like they do in Sweden. Graduate kids at 16 instead of 18 like they did in the 19th Century. That reduces the student population by 23%. Raise the class size from 20 students to 30 students, like we had in the 1950s. Then you can teach the remaining students with half the teaching staff.

      1. Raise the class size from 20 students to 30 students

        Isn’t the average class already at/over 30 kids?

    4. If every public school teacher with bigoted views was fired, there wouldn’t be enough left to teach half the kids in the district.

      (1) So?

      (2) Sounds like a good start.

  19. Rosenberg’s tract is high-larious… Mcallister’s on-camera comments weren’t some broad, generalized anti-baker screed about capitalism that were interpreted as veiled racist code words. She said she wanted the fucking jew bankers run out of the country… How tone-deaf can Rosenberg be?

    1. …when libertarians become censors, judges, juries and executioners.

      1. Funny. I thought the libertarians at reason just gave her a platform. If you want to call anyone a censor, then it’s gotta be the LAUSD. Those right-wing bastards with their limits on free speech are at it again.

        1. As a parent with two young children under the LAUSD’s jurisdiction, I applaud McAllister’s firing. I have so far been appalled at the amount of racism that exists in the Los Angeles public schools, and I am happy that the LAUSD at least takes seriously the most overt and undeniable expressions of this ugly tendency.

          Platform? I guess you’d call a Salem witch test a swim badge?

          1. She did herself in, “high-larious”. She provided her own means of unemployment, and she should have to live with the outcome AND her disgusting, racist views.

            IF she has a grievance, it’s with her former employers, not those who pointed out her bigotry.

            Fuckin’ bigots.

            1. sloopy for the win, by the way, for pointing out it’s the LAUSD who fired her – blaming the press she got for saying stupid “Zionist” bullshit* is, itself, bullshit.

              * Yes, she had the right to say stupid anti-Zionist shit, fucktarded as that may be.

          2. Platform? I guess you’d call a Salem witch test a swim badge?

            Clutch those pearls any harder, and you’re going to garrotte yourself.

            1. We can dream, can’t we?

            2. Promises, promises.

      2. Ouch, that race card hurts when it’s being played against you. Draw four, bitch.

      3. Rather, in my libertarian paradise I’ll still remember to set up a welfare program for mental castratas like yourself.

        Of course, before we give you any tax money, we’re going to have to ask you to tie your tubes, so you don’t drag the human species down the path of reverse evolution.

        1. I really don’t think it will be an issue, the sight of her would wither a turkey baster.

  20. McCallister should know saying the word Jews in reference to anything is verboten in this the 4th reich. But the *(word that shall not be spoken)* should know that when the destroy, through their insatiable greed and corruption western civilization then bribe themselves bailouts and bonus’ at tax payer expense that not everyone will welcome them with open arms. In fact as McCallister implied …. history might just repeat again! (Will they ever learn?)

    1. “My dad used to blow Jewish guys on street corners for five cents a throw, after his previous job as the ‘catcher’ in a Tijuana donkey show finally fell through. Eventually, he stopped asking for the nickels.

      “Not that I’m bitter, mind you.”

      1. I remember that guy! We kids in the neighborhood used to call him “The Gargler!”

        1. Lips like a pair of satin pillows coated in Vaseline.

          Ah… memories.

          1. Si. We had to let heem go. My burro lost interest. Like throwing a churro down a hallway.

  21. In my experience there is no political movement that has no anti-Semites within its ranks.

    What about Hadassah?*

    *Assuming self-loathing does not count as anti-Semitism.

    1. In my experience there is no political movement that has no anti-Semites within its ranks.

      Zionism is the one exception. That explains why it annoys anti-Semites so much.

      1. Some non-Jewish Zionists are that way because they didn’t want any Jews in their neighborhood and would prefer that they all just move to Israel.

  22. Dig the headline at this link:

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.co…..lanowblog+(L.A.+Now)

    “Alleged”

    FUCK, y’all… she SAID it. On camera.

    Stupid bitch dug her own grave.

  23. Callous libertarians put a teacher out of work.

    1. Damn, now I *really* wanna become a Zionist.

      Where do I sign up? I can’t find a recruiting station anywhere!

      1. You could always become Rastafarian.

        1. Or Pastafarian!

          1. I’d settle for being those, too, but I want a Zionist Club membership card.

            Oh, and I’ve been circumsized, Old Mohel.

      2. Come on over, I can take care of it for you. I have a new X-Acto knife and everything. It’ll just hurt for a few minutes.

        1. You can be a Zionist without being Jewish. Actually, the majority of Zionists aren’t Jewish. The majority of Americans support Israel, so that’s at least 150 million. There are a bit under 15 million Jews worldwide. So 85% to 99% of Zionists aren’t Jews.

    2. I’d like to think the integrity of the minds of more kids would be safe now.

      Unfortunately she’ll just be replaced by someone else.

  24. She said, “The Zionist Jews, who are running these big banks and our federal reserve, which is not run by the federal government, they need to be run out of this country.”

    If anything, she’s stereotyping bankers and federal reserve employees. NOT Jews.

    You got this one backwards Tim.

    1. You realize that the stereotype of the greedy banker Jew is over a millenia old and has been used by just about everyone, from the medieval Christians to the Nazis to justify pogroms and genocide, don’t you?

      Or are you that fucking ignorant?

      1. I’m aware, but the fact is that what she said implies a stereotype of bankers as jews, not jews as bankers.

        The percentage of bankers who are jews is a question of fact. If you, or anyone, does not think that she is correct about there being a large number of bankers who are also jews, then you can simply refute her claim with some evidence.

        The problem with racial stereotyping is that it limits the ability of members of the stereotyped race to get along well in a given society.

        Stereotyping bankers will result in no such problem.

        It is quite clear to me that she didn’t mean to say that all jews are a problem or that she couldn’t get along with any jews. She was pointing out a problem with “zionist jew bankers.”

        Of course, she might just be wrong about all or most bankers being jews, but who gives a shit if we stereotype bankers. Is it really going to hurt their ability to get along?

        1. …you’re supporting her?

          Figures.

        2. Ah. So if someone said, for example, that 99% of murders in the U.S. are committed by blacks, we’re not actually saying that most blacks are murderers. That’s a negative stereotype of murderers as black, not blacks as murderers. So that isn’t really racist. I mean, just because you don’t like murderers isn’t going to change the opinion of random presumably law abiding young black men you meet at night on the sidewalk on the bad side of town.

          1. Ah. So

            “RACIST!!!”

    2. She’s saying Jews (Zionist Jews specifically, but for all we know she thinks they’re all Zionists) need to be run out of the country. The stereotypes are a lesser concern.

      1. That is not at all clear to me.

        She is saying that the zionist jews, WHO ARE RUNNING THE BANKS AND THE FED, need to be run out.

        1. …what if they’re “running the banks and the Fed”?

          So.

          Fucking.

          What?

          IF they are, that is.

        2. You see that thing you’re doing with the comma? It means that the sentence is just as true with the part in between taken out.

          “She is saying that the zionist jews, WHO ARE RUNNING THE BANKS AND THE FED, need to be run out”

          is the equivalent of

          “She is saying the Zionist Jews need to be run out. The Zionist Jews are running the banks and the fed.”

          If you meant to say “the Zionist Jews who are running the banks and the Fed need to be run out”, that would be different, since the running out would only apply to a subset of Zionist Jews. Still anti-Semitic, though, since it either assumes everyone running the banks and fed are Zionist Jews (anti-Semitic and easily disproved with one counterexample) or that only those bankers and central bankers who are Zionist Jews should be run out (also anti-Semitic).

          1. and you still haven’t addressed the question of whether that tiny .0001% of bankers who are NOT jewish get to stay in the country. Presumably yes?

          2. Exactly. If your problem is with the bankers, then you wouldn’t specify only the Jewish ones. You only do that when your problem is that they’re Jewish.

        3. She has a goddamn anti-semitic (of the “jews use the blacks as muscle” ala Blues Brother’s Illinois nazis variety) book on her fucking facebook page.

          She stepped in a pile of shit and tracked it all over her workplace, for that she was fired. Should we hold a moment of silence for this unemployed nazi cow?

        4. That is not at all clear to me.

          No one doubts this.

        5. That is not at all clear to me.

          She is saying that the zionist jews, WHO ARE RUNNING THE BANKS AND THE FED, need to be run out.

          Now that I see it this way, I’m more relieved. Put her back into the classroom teaching children.

    3. What a fucking idiot. She only wants the Zionist Jews running the banks thrown out, every other person running a bank to ruin the country is A-OK with her.

      And she apparently wants the government to centrally plan the economy which means she’s OK with the government firing people for nearly any reason as part of its plan.

  25. I’LL take the case!

    *slobber*

  26. …wouldn’t anti-ANTI-Semitism = PRO-Semitism?

    Damn double-negatives!

  27. We can’t wait to defend Ms. McAllister!

    1. We should give her an hour a night to do commentary!

      Uh, would we have to fire Sharpton?

  28. Senators urge baseball to ban tobacco
    “When players use smokeless tobacco, they endanger not only their own health, but also the health of millions of children who follow their example,” the senators wrote to union head Michael Weiner.

    The letter was signed by Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, and fellow Democrats Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Senate Health Committee Chairman Tom Harkin of Iowa.

    sympathy rising …

    1. Hey, how come you didn’t highlight Durbin or Harkin? Turd.

      1. I did at first and started writing a whole micks and kikes tobacco conspiracy theory. It was pretty awful, but I had already taken the time to copy and paste and html so I wasn’t going to just abandon the whole thing.

        1. OK, whether this is Sidd or someone using a sockpuppet, this is funny as hell.

          1. I’m going with sockpuppet. This is too damn funny.

            1. No, it’s me. I even took the time to verify that they’re really Irish and Jewish. It turned out however that I’m not creative enough to connect the Irish, the Jews, baseball, chewing tobacco, OWS, and Wall Street. Thankfully that became obvious pretty quickly.

              1. Normally I don’t agree with jacking someone else’s handle, but whenever the results are this hilarious, I think we can all agree it’s the right thing to do.

                1. You like jacking peoples’ handles?

                  You nasty.

  29. Mostly off-topic: I’m trying to remember the last time I read a story that sounded like someone was making up a biblical allegory.

    “The toddler was gravely injured in two successive hit-and-run incidents last Thursday not far from her father’s hardware store in the nearby city of Foshan… Gruesome security camera footage of the accidents and the girl, lying in her own blood, ignored by more than a dozen passersby in a busy market has outraged the nation… Chen Xianmei, a 58-year-old scavenger who was seen in the video moving Wang to safety, became an instant symbol of understated decency in a nation that many netizens say has become obsessed with climbing up the economic ladder.”

    1. Word up. Sounds like a straight-up parable.

    2. *insert stereotype about Asian drivers*

  30. “Jews have been run out of 109 countries throughout history and we need to run them out of this one.”

    Fuck this bitch.

    1. Sentiment seconded.

  31. reason gets results.

    Can you promise an incompetent teacher fired for every dollar donated?

    1. Dunno. She might have been good at teaching math.

      However, she was an Anti-Semetic nutbag.

      1. On second thought, she was a substitute (strike one) teacher in L.A. public schools (strike two), so if she actually is any good, she’s weirder even than I’d guess.

  32. F….Occpuying the world with truth…

  33. Damn. Now Zuo’s mom is on the welfare. Again.

    1. Don’t worry, Ron Paul will hire her for his campaign.

  34. Amazing post .Useful blog website, keep me personally through searching it, I am seriously interested to find out another recommendation of it. As the largest corporate parka in the world, That [url=http://www.canadagoosesalg.com]Canada Goose[/url] in the top area of ??the market. With intense competition worldwide. Canada Goose sales high in the coming winter, but fashion changes these years, heavy cloth not satisfy what people want, so the innovation of [url=http://www.canadagoosesalg.com/canada-goose-frakker-c-23.html]Canada Goose Frakker[/url] become. [url=http://www.canadagoosesalg.com/canada-goose-parka-c-22.htm]Canada Goose Parka[/url] also down. also the unique design and wonderful colors makes your more fashionable in the winter. Abandon heavy dress .come on, check http://www.canadagoosesalg.com to join us. we will never let you down .

  35. Am I the only one who will bring up the fact that she signed a contract and received a description of her responsibilities as an employee that in many places prohibits creating a hostile work environment, respecting diversity, not making disparaging remarks about another’s ethnicity, etc. I’m pretty sure blaming the problems in banking on Jews and saying they should be run out of the country would qualify. It’s one thing for the government to prohibit you from saying those things, and quite another to choose not to pay you for failing to meet the basic standards of civility required for your job.

    1. She didn’t say any of those things in her classroom. A private citizen speaking her mind and getting canned for it smacks of petty, politically correct ass-covering, the kind of action libertarians usually decry.

      1. But she herself said she was a teacher for LAUSD before making anti-semitic comments that made headlines, thus guaranteeing many parents, especially Jewish parents, will be concerned that any day could be a hostile environment for their kids in schools they’re forced by law to attend.

  36. I wonder how much support the employer would get if they fired someone for claiming to be a libertarian?

    1. Her employment contract explicitly allows participation in political activities. Advocating ethnic cleansing just strikes me as a bit different.

      Also, private employers should have the right to prohibit public political advocacy, or associating your political beliefs with the company. I would never work for one because it’s a stupid practice that would say many other things about the company. But a company could acceptably fire someone for being a libertarian.

      But you knew this.

    2. Her employment contract explicitly allows participation in political activities. Advocating ethnic cleansing just strikes me as a bit different.

      Also, private employers should have the right to prohibit public political advocacy, or associating your political beliefs with the company. I would never work for one because it’s a stupid practice that would say many other things about the company. But a company could acceptably fire someone for being a libertarian.

      But you knew this.

    3. Libertarians who take government jobs are hypocrites and don’t have any more of a claim on plunder than non-libertarians do.

      A libertarian gets fired from a government job?
      Fuck him.

      Is that the answer you expected?

      1. So libertarians shouldn’t run for political office?

  37. Am I the only one who will bring up the fact that she signed a contract and received a description of her responsibilities as an employee that in many places prohibits creating a hostile work environment, respecting diversity, not making disparaging remarks about another’s ethnicity, etc. I’m pretty sure blaming the problems in banking on Jews and saying they should be run out of the country would qualify.

    Yeah, well. It’s not like we’re actually people, after all.

  38. I have so far been appalled at the amount of racism that exists in the Los Angeles public schools, and I am happy that the LAUSD at least takes seriously the most overt and undeniable expressions of this ugly tendency.

    So, Tim, how does the work of someone like Charles Murray or Steven Pinker fit into this emotional release, or are you just getting your Irish up?

    1. Whether one agrees with Murray or Pinker or not, I doubt either advocated running so-and-so (group) out of the country. I mean, c’mon.

      If they did, they are also turds.

  39. As soon as anybody says anything against the jews they are accused of antisemitism, even if they’re in the right. This knee jerk reaction has to stop so that proper debate can return.

    1. “… and they all have these big, hooked noses, too. Ever notice that?”

    2. That’s mighty collectivist of you, remove_the_banksters.

      1. “Collectivist?” Hah! Joke’s on you, buddy. I don’t even know what that word means!

    3. As I recall, Hank Paulson is a Christian Scientist. David Viniar is Cuban, not a lot of Jews from Cuba.

      But we all know the Christian Scientists and the Cubans have been co-opted by the Jews.

      1. not a lot of Jews from Cuba.

        But those that are are HOT.

      2. Vikram Pandit, however, is clearly a secret Jew. Also Ken Lewis, Ken Thompson, John Stumpf, John Mack, Robert Steel, Jamie Dimon, Robert Kelly, Robert Steel…

        The only prominent Jews off the top of my head in investment and central banking are Blankfein, Bernanke and Yellen.

        1. Talking about the heads of institutions that received and handed out bailouts, of course.

  40. You take it for granted that it’s appropriate to fire a public school teacher for views expressed outside the classroom. How does this square with freedom of speech? Unless I’ve missed something, this teacher hasn’t engaged in any anti-semitic behavior or promoted those views within a school context. It’s not the business of a government to monitor its employees’ beliefs and employ only those who hold acceptable ones. In fact, LAUSD Superintendent John Deasy _emphasized_ that she was terminated for expressing “private opinions and were not made in the context of District services.”

    If teachers can be terminated for their “private opinions,” then school districts can make sure that only people conforming to their political orthodoxy can teach.

    1. Oh, they’d LOVE to have that kind of political orthodoxy hegemony, Gary…

    2. What you are missing, Gary, is that she is not a “public school teacher”. She was a substitute teacher, a non-contract employee of the school district. Technically, she is not responsible for teaching, because her job was to follow the lesson plan of the teacher she’s filling in for.

      So to argue that her termination was unjust for 1st Amendment reasons or tenure is comparing Malus domestica to
      Citrus ? ?sinensis.

    3. You should read amukadari’s comment above, and the string below.

      https://reason.com/blog/2011/10…..nt_2578317

    4. “If teachers can be terminated for their “private opinions,” then school districts can make sure that only people conforming to their political orthodoxy can teach.”

      Have you heard of something called a curriculum? They already ensure that the orthodoxy is taught. The gravest threat public schools present is to diversity of opinion and worldview, and they do that just by existing.

    5. She SAID she was a LAUSD teacher, then went on an anti-semitic rant. She might have more of a case if she did not mention her employer, but even then I have no sympathy for her.

      Shocking that LAUSD would have to either fire her or withstand thousands of parents complaining about how little Ephraim might be forced to attend classes taught by a teacher who hates them for their race/religion.

  41. What I think is funny is that this stupid bitch probably thinks that it was jews behind her getting fired. Not her bat-shit insane political ideas.

  42. So, Tim, even though you know that they employ imbeciles like this, you STILL send your children to public school?!

  43. Call the a black president’s actions poor or bad and you’re a racist. Call bankers evil jews and you’re fighting the man.

  44. it’s easy to prove that Israel is the greatest country in the history of the Earth.

    it’s also easy to prove that the Arabs are sand monkey subhumans who should be nuked.

  45. In my experience there is no political movement that has no anti-Semites within its ranks.

    There’s a difference between people who happen to be anti-Semites hanging around, and supporting anti-Semitic policies as part of your program.

    An ugly old tradition is back: exploiting anti-Semitism to break the backs of popular movements that threaten the power of the wealthiest 1 percent of our population.

    See, I thought the ugly old tradition that was back was exploiting anti-Semtism to gain support for your “popular” movement.

  46. I agree with her. They stole they cheated and they laughed about it… claimed they’re doing “gods” work. They’re incorrigible. They should be run out (or locked up… either you dicide) Those banksters who are not joooos get the same same treatment. See there’s no philosophical discord here. You’re guilty you go. (I would say ethnic but genetic studies show mosts joooos have no semitic blood in them; they’re eastern Europeans. (We’re talking banksters here not the rest of joooooery of course)

  47. I tend to be glad she got canned, but on the other hand I wonder how far school districts should be free to fire even “at-will” employees for exercising their First Amendment rights. Would it be OK to fire her for being a member of the Communist Party? For saying that Stalin was right to liquidate the kulaks? For saying that there are kulaks in the United States who ought to watch out? For burning an American flag? For saying (in 1967) that she hopes the Viet Cong win the war? For saying (today) that she hopes the Lord’s Resistance Army whips the asses of the soldiers Obama has sent to Uganda? For supporting Proposition 8?

    1. It’s always OK, as long as the it’s the kind of people who have opinions we disapprove of that get fired.

    2. I can’t believe how many idiots exist that assume that “freedom of speech” means that one has the right to say whatever one wants and be protected by government from any real world consequences. That’s not what the First Amendment says – it protects your life, liberty and property from being taken away by government because of your speech, but it doesn’t protect your job, your standing in the community, your friendships, etc.

      I don’t think any of us believe she should be thrown in jail, killed, have her property seized or “run out of this country” for her godawful beliefs, but we can still hate her guts for them and support her employer firing her for showing that LAUSD might be a hostile environment for students of a certain race or religion that are forced to be there by law.

      1. So she should be punished for what she thinks? And for expressing her opinion (however vile) on her own time? You’re OK with that?

        1. Get with the 21 century, all of your time is your employers time. 😉

        2. Coercively? No. But we don’t believe you have a right to a job any more than you have a right to a girlfriend. It’s a consensual relationship, and either side can break if off the other side decides to be insane or an asshole.

          Now, it’s true that that the state is much more dangerous in that respect than private individuals or businesses, since it has such disproportionate influence on some industries (like education). Some limited form of first amendment protection might indeed be appropriate. But in this case, her “opinion” directly called into question her ability to do her job properly (that is, to treat her Jewish students fairly), which should place it outside of that protection.

          1. Even assuming she’s completely fair to her Jewish students in class, that does not preclude Jewish students from rightly feeling like they’re in a mandatory hostile environment with a teacher who they now know wants to run them and their families out of the country.

            1. “hostile environment”

              Classic! Libertarians become lefty progressives when somebody’s speech offends them!

              1. Libertarians can believe or be as judgmental of assholes as we want to be. Employers have the right to hire or fire at will and we hope they use that with logical discretion.

                The lefty progressive is the monosynaptic cretin who believes a job is a right.

        3. Despite being a government system, in their agency as an employer, the LAUSD has freedom of contract and can choose and terminate employees based on many factors, as long as it is not based on race, gender, religion, nationality and other protected classes.

          In fact, the assumption would be that her statements inherently create a hostile environment for Jewish students who whose parents would be truant if they boycotted her classes. If I make national headlines claiming women should be sex slaves and my boss fires me for being an idiot after complaints from female co-workers, how has that action violated my individual rights? Do you believe jobs are property and/or liberty that people are entitled to have by the constitution?

          If LAUSD fired someone simply for being an outspoken libertarian or socialist outside of work, I would be critical of their decision and might consider protesting the action, but still admit they have the right to do so. There’s nothing contradictory or hypocritical about being glad they fired her for her anti-semitism, and being upset that they fired theoretical libertarian but admitting they have the right to do so as employers. Nuanced arguments are difficult for people with room temperature IQs.

          1. If I make national headlines claiming women should be sex slaves and my boss fires me for being an idiot after complaints from female co-workers, how has that action violated my individual rights? Do you believe jobs are property and/or liberty that people are entitled to have by the constitution?

            Some of the putative “libertarians” hereabouts are sounding more like pouty, clueless OWS trustafarians (“SHE HAS A MORAL RIGHT TO THAT JOB, IN PERPETUITY, REGARDLESS!”) than they are principled believers in the inherent economic liberty of the employer.

            Pathetic.

      2. The first amendment goes beyond just protecting people from being thrown in jail. You might want to check out Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), about the right of government employees not to be fired for expressing their political views.

    3. I think the litmus test should be whether the speech is indicative of an inability to properly meet the demands of the job. And only for government or subgovernment jobs — the first amendment doesn’t bind the people.

      A DA saying that he thought the president was a cocksucker has no bearing on his job. A DA saying that every black person ought to be put in jail even if the police have to manufacture evidence definitely does.

  48. Here’s to the good old days, when Reason was against “repressive faculty speech codes.”

    https://reason.com/archives/199…..peech-code

    1. No comments? Reading is hard?

  49. limiting your hiring pool to people who never say anything offensive will soon leave the schools without teachers.

    Feature, not bug.

    1. Right. This isn’t about speech. It’s about revenge.

      1. – Speech is a protected right.
        – Employment is a private contract to which both parties agree.
        – Any party can void the contract for whatever reason, except in very specific, legally protected cases like whistleblowing or on the basis of gender/race/etc.

      2. As you seem to have been too ignorant to read the other comments directed toward you, it isn’t about revenge it’s about getting government out of the education business.

        If this had been a private school teacher spewing this shit I “might” have a different opinion. But again, if you have a problem with the concept of “at will employment” then direct your comments to that subject.

        1. Who is this “Will” guy, anyway?

          1. C’mon, spoofing me now? So sad.

        2. “it’s about getting government out of the education business”

          Gee, I thought “it” (Tim’s post) was about a person being fired for her speech. Sarcasm aside, you prove my point. “Libertarians” take great joy in seeing a person lose her job, not necessarily because of what she said, but because she was a public school teacher, a class of individuals whom “libertarians” openly despise. Pathetic, yet predictable.

    2. I know, I almost used that one as an aside. But I’m trying to make my syntax less labyrinthine, not more so.

  50. Sheesh, we get so tired of this. It’s like saying Jews controlled Hollywood. We had nothing to do with it!
    Zukor and Warner? Coincidence!
    Goldwyn? Overrated!

  51. Tim, can’t you guys find any better place to have Reason HQ/Batcave than Los Angeles? Move the operation to Florida. We still have our share of craziness, but at least you know what you’re getting. And our Governor will give any businessman $100 Million and a big sloppy blowjob just for moving here.

  52. I’m amazed at the comments over at the Fox page, which seem to be almost universally in support of Ms. MacCallister. I have to wonder if they really thought about what she said.

    1. what she said

      Ignorant witch nigger. Burn her!

    2. They’re not libertarians.

      They’re not much different from our progressive adversaries either.

      They didn’t object to the shit Obama did back when Dubya was doing it.

      They’re the idiot masses–what did you expect?

      …a lot of them believe what she said about the Fed. These are the people Ron Paul’s newsletter was pandering to way back when.

  53. “I don’t see any free speech principle at stake here” Lord Tim Cavanaugh Has Spoken

    http://rctlfy.wordpress.com/20…..as-spoken/

  54. I’d like to have the teachers like Patricia McAllister for my kids, but they already graduated from the school.

    There is too much school garbage in their brain we have to clean up.

  55. She can’t be fired for her political views, it was on her own time. The LAUSD can fire her for a myriad of other reasons.

    1. To repeat: Since she is employed at-will she can be fired for NO reason.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.