OK, maybe if you bring the pardons in, I have an easier time understanding the position of the protestors... but I still can't agree with it. The best way for MSDW to handle this would have been to state that they understand the position of those opposed to Clinton's speech, but that the corporation a) neither endorses nor opposes Clinton or his political policies and that b) speakers from a broad political spectrum are welcome to address MSDW employees on motivational subjects. In other words, Clinton's not being invited to spin his lies about Bush stealing the election or whine about what a bummer it is being expected to follow ALL of the laws instead of just following the convenient ones. He is (I would assume) being invited to talk about business-related subjects like consensus building, team building, project planning, and motivation. The same things Rick Pitino would be invited to speak about, in other words. One more thing to add: it is amusing to me, though, because refusing to permit speech with which you disagree has long been a favorite tactic of the left (especially on college campuses). It's a tad ironic to see it turned against Billy Boy since I've long been frustrated by the patent refusal on the part of the left to even acknowledge the right of conservative speakers to appear on campuses. ------------------ "Corpses are icky." --Chris Robinson [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited February 13, 2001).]
Well, I am as staunch a proponent of the First Amendment as you'll find, but sometimes I wish it could be repealed just so I would never again have to listen to the political, social, or economic opinions of those who make their living by portraying fictional characters and whose sole qualification for the role of spokesperson is a square jawline or bouncy breasts. ------------------ "Corpses are icky." --Chris Robinson
Brian -- I don't see how the First Amendment is pertinent. The First Amend. limits the govt from putting unreasonable restrictions on free speech. This is a private company in this situation. And they did let the man speak..they just said afterwards it was probably a mistake. I would tend to agree. There are certain people who are inappropriate to speak at certain conventions or events. Having Vince McMahon speak to crowd of priests about integrity might be a good example. In the same sense..having a president who just pardoned Mark Rich, probably isn't the greatest possible speaker for a group of financial consultants. My understanding is that not only the customers/clients complained, but that also many of the employees, themselves, complained. The very people he was speaking to. So I don't think it's out of line to issue a statement saying it was probably a mistake to bring the guy in as a speaker. The fee to be paid is completely secondary...I hope everyone understands that. It's not the issue. Just like sex wasn't the issue in impeachment...the fee he earned here is an entirely different issue...and not really much of an issue at all since tons of people receive huge amounts of money to speak. As Jim Rome says, as long as the check doesn't bounce, he's worth it. ------------------
Max, I was kidding. I was implying that I could live with seeing the 1st Amdt repealed and totalitarian thought/speech control imposed if it meant I never had to heard Martin Sheen, Barbra Streisand, or Ted Danson open their mouths again.
Brian, For what its worth, I totally agree with you about actors trying too push themselves off as political spokespersons. They should stick to what they do. ------------------ Everything you do, effects everything that is.
I could also live with the 1st Amendment being repealed...if it meant Rush Limbaugh would be off the radio, FOX News would be off the air, and Matt Drudge would be back to doing what he does best....selling T-Shirts at the Disney Store! ------------------ "Blues is a Healer" --John Lee Hooker
Tex, if that's your idea of an analogy, I'm betting you got into college via your GPA and not your SAT verbal.
Well, if you want to get nit-picky.... By "SAT-verbal", do you mean the "english" rather than "math" portion of the SAT? I've never heard the term "SAT verbal" used before. Then again, I took it many years ago. Fortunately for me , UT-Austin was easier to get into back then...and it cost a helluva lot less as well. You could even count the yuppies in Austin on one hand back then! But I'm glad you understood my drift anyway. If we're going to kill the 1st Amendment, let's make sure we kill it across the board. I'm all for it if it means I never have to hear either Barbara Streisand or Rush Limbaugh speak again! ------------------ "Blues is a Healer" --John Lee Hooker
Huh. I'd like to see a clutchcity.net poll on that one; that's the only thing I've ever heard it called. Interesting. We can trade some idiots from the right for some idiots from the left; I just don't think the three ostensibly conservative sources you've mentioned are as shrill, omnipresent, or ill-informed as the three lefties I picked.
Yet another reason why I truly believe I am the oldest frigging poster on this BBS. Either that or the fact that I must be freaking out about turning forty two weeks from tomorrow. I'd love to trade idiots, but I disagree with you. The three idiots you mentioned and the three idiots I mentioned are equally shrill, omnipresent & ill-informed. It's just that three of them are on the left, and three of them are on the right. I would like all six to be placed into a spacecraft and launched to Pluto, never to be heard from again...as long as my tax dollars didn't pay for it! ------------------ "Blues is a Healer" --John Lee Hooker [This message has been edited by RocketMan Tex (edited February 15, 2001).]