While I yield to no one in my detestation of Christian dingbats, as a feminist I demand respect for the agency of Ginni Thomas. How I was converted:
Many years ago, I worked for an editor who had, earlier, been groomed to become editor of The Wall Street Journal. While serving in one of the top editorial slots, he and a copy editor fell in love and married.
The big boss called him in and said, "You know, Mike, the anti-nepotism policy. We cannot have married couples on staff."
"OK," said Mike. "I quit."
And that marked the end of the WSJ anti-nepotism policy.
Mike never did become editor of the Journal, but he did become head of some other bigtime news organizations, one of which was where I met him.
The story, however, was not as clearcut as it ought to have been. When the afternoon paper was closed, about 140 reporters and editors were RIF'd. Those papers not only never had a nepotism policy, they had rather prided themselves in their family hiring. There were as many as 4 members of a family working in the newsroom, over three generations.
When it came time to lay people off, all the drunks were gone. Briefly, for the only time in my half-century of newspapering, everybody was sober. But if you were kin of a drunk, you got canned, too.
And the veneer of feminism turned out to be a sham as well. I found out only last year that women were paid substantially less than men in that organization.
As Henry Howell, sometime liberal lieutenant governor of Virginia, used to say, there's more things going 'round in the dark than Santy Claus.
I’m not assuming anything. Merrick Garland been known as an institutionalist LONG before he took the job as AG. It was one of the main reasons why Obama nominated him for the SCOTUS in the first place. I’m simply extending his well established motivations to his investigation of Trump.
You’re the one constantly trying to fit a square peg in a round hole by making him out as some tireless champion of justice who isn’t going to be dissuaded by his idealogical views and assuming he’ll do whatever it takes to hold Trump accountable.
The point is not whether Ginni Thomas has a right to free speech. It's whether basic judicial ethics demand that her husband should not sit in judgement of his own spouses ACTIONS, which are explained (exposed) by her speech. It's not complicated by feminist ideology or anything else, actually.
"Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war ..." IIRC, that hymn is a special fave of the church factions that don't seem to be able to read their own bible.
I'll tell you how: absolutely.
There's a lot of people signing onto that who used to be very important.
That was the one portion of the transcript (or sections chosen by Liz) where she sounded like a lawyer.
Time for Clarence to resign.
What a hag.
While I yield to no one in my detestation of Christian dingbats, as a feminist I demand respect for the agency of Ginni Thomas. How I was converted:
Many years ago, I worked for an editor who had, earlier, been groomed to become editor of The Wall Street Journal. While serving in one of the top editorial slots, he and a copy editor fell in love and married.
The big boss called him in and said, "You know, Mike, the anti-nepotism policy. We cannot have married couples on staff."
"OK," said Mike. "I quit."
And that marked the end of the WSJ anti-nepotism policy.
Mike never did become editor of the Journal, but he did become head of some other bigtime news organizations, one of which was where I met him.
The story, however, was not as clearcut as it ought to have been. When the afternoon paper was closed, about 140 reporters and editors were RIF'd. Those papers not only never had a nepotism policy, they had rather prided themselves in their family hiring. There were as many as 4 members of a family working in the newsroom, over three generations.
When it came time to lay people off, all the drunks were gone. Briefly, for the only time in my half-century of newspapering, everybody was sober. But if you were kin of a drunk, you got canned, too.
And the veneer of feminism turned out to be a sham as well. I found out only last year that women were paid substantially less than men in that organization.
As Henry Howell, sometime liberal lieutenant governor of Virginia, used to say, there's more things going 'round in the dark than Santy Claus.
This self-important, self-entitled battle-ax needs to go down HARD for this.
My point is the fact you feel so confident in Garland doesn’t change who the man is or what he’s going to do one iota.
And that also applies to how anyone might assume he’s doing nothing, right?
I’m not assuming anything. Merrick Garland been known as an institutionalist LONG before he took the job as AG. It was one of the main reasons why Obama nominated him for the SCOTUS in the first place. I’m simply extending his well established motivations to his investigation of Trump.
You’re the one constantly trying to fit a square peg in a round hole by making him out as some tireless champion of justice who isn’t going to be dissuaded by his idealogical views and assuming he’ll do whatever it takes to hold Trump accountable.
The point is not whether Ginni Thomas has a right to free speech. It's whether basic judicial ethics demand that her husband should not sit in judgement of his own spouses ACTIONS, which are explained (exposed) by her speech. It's not complicated by feminist ideology or anything else, actually.
Your exaggerations don’t actually make your case. And I think you’re trolling.
Yeah, well, wake me up when that happens.
Sure. If you actually took 5 minutes to look up Garland’s history, you might learn something.
But I guess it’s just easier to say mindlessly say “trolling”
Telling me that my unwillingness to automatically assume Garland is bad is the same as me championing him as perfect and godlike, is trolling.
Everything about her is phony baloney. Have you seen the avatar she uses as a profile pic?
"Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war ..." IIRC, that hymn is a special fave of the church factions that don't seem to be able to read their own bible.