As far as this so-called anti-conservative talk show bill, how far did it get among the Democratic house members? How precisely was it worded, anyway – not that I would ever doubt your interpretation of it, of course. I grant you that this is an unfair question is some ways because it does take focus and discipline to move a bill through congress and we are discussing Democrats here. But you single out a couple of whack jobs, and I’m talking about behavior endemic to an entire party. Again, a subtle difference. Don’t hurt yourself thinking about it because tectonic activity is subsuming this thread under about three thousand others already.

Sorry, Dan. Lest you believe that your postings here should be shown to your boss with demands that you be demoted for wasting company time and whatnot. Anonymous folks sure do like to shout.

There is a vast difference between organizing for a cause being a part of a cause that uses its strength in numbers to suppress the voice of dissenters. I am a part of what would be considered a special interest group. I am a member of the IAFF firefighters union. What we do is fight for what is in our best interests. I fail to see how the destruction of Ozzie Guillen’s career does anything positive for the Cuban community. That is the difference between what you are arguing for and what I am arguing for. Just because you have the freedom to do something, that doesn’t make it right. I have the absolute freedom to stand on a street corner holding a sign that says “I hate niggers.” That doesn’t make it right. I’m not saying that the government has the authority to intervene and tell Cubans that they don’t have the right to protest. I’m simply saying the response to the comments that Ozzie Guillen made have been so completely far over the line that I can’t help but think that Cubans have done themselves more harm than good in this case.

And by the way, I’m still waiting for an explanation for your “they should run him out of Florida” comment.

Why does Guillen necessarily need to explain his statement? This isn’t a case of the President or some other political figure saying “you know the one thing Hitler got right? The extermination of the Jews.” It was largely innocuous statement made by a baseball manager. Why can’t people either say they disagree with him, or simply ignore him? Why is it ok for Cubans to ask for his head on a stick but Guillen offering respect for Castro’s ability to survive is going way over the line?

Again, I don’t think some dumb, offhand comments merit his firing. But neither do I see how these comments can be easily explained away.

Yes, calling for the ruination of a persons career over a single statement is absolutely repugnant. And that’s completely glossing over the fact that what Guillen actually said wasn’t nearly as inflammatory as it’s being made out to be. To turn what Guillen said into a controversy is to be actively searching for a reason to be offended. Why is it that people can’t simply disagree? Why is it that every single comment that may or may not be controversial has to end with someone being fired?

This is not about free speech but about the appropriate action to take in response to what he said.

Look, of course I know that Democrats can be just as big a bunch of nincompoops as Republicans, just not nearly as given over to mindless jingoism and definitely not as well organized. Give me the Democratic equivalent of a Michelle Bachmann or a Sarah Palin or, Buddha be merciful, Christine O’Donnell when it comes to declaring opponents’ values or economic policy “unpatriotic” or “socialist” (by which they really mean “communist,” knowing their core constituencies aren’t nearly bright enough to tell the difference anyway). There’s a big difference between ridicule and ostracism.

On the other hand, when it comes to being a bunch of whores for their big corporate pimps, there’s no doubt that it’s a dead heat. Just a few minor variations in who the pimps are.