| |
 |
Thursday, April 24, 2003 |
Henry Norr Fired
I had the honor of writing for Henry Norr for many years at MacWEEK; he edited the first piece I wrote for them, and many others over the years. It's been a couple of years, anyway, since I've spoken with him, but I really enjoyed reading him in the SF Chronicle. He's always clear-eyed, and enthusiastic about the products without losing his skepticism. It's disgusting that the Chronicle has fired him for getting arrested during an ant-war demonstration. Since he covers technology, not politics, I can't see that there's any sort of conflict of interest, and the Chron's excuse about it being because he put "sick day" on his time card instead of the real reason is a smoke screen -- ''If they had a column on the timecard for `jail day,' I would have put that,'' he said, according to this piece.
As a reader of the Chronicle I'll miss Henry there. He brought a clear, interesting voice to the paper. The other technology writer there has always struck me as something of an mishap and is never interesting, though he tries to be cute. As someone who had the privilege to work with Henry, I feel for him, but am proud of him for standing up for what he believes.
5:20:30 PM Permalink
|
|
Bruce Springsteen Defends The Dixie Chicks. Bruce Springsteen has spoken out in support of the Dixie Chicks! And he did it using his blog (of sorts): Bruce On The Dixie Chicks The Dixie Chicks have taken a big hit lately for exercising their basic right to express themselves. To me, they're terrific American artists expressing American values by using their American right to free speech. For them to be banished wholesale from radio stations, and even entire radio networks, for speaking out is un-American. The pressure coming from the government and big business to enforce conformity of thought concerning the war and politics goes against everything... [On Lisa Rein's Radar]
4:34:05 PM Permalink
|
|
More Republicans and Small Government
Classical, real conservatism is opposed to big government. Modern Republicans seem to be opposed to big government unless it's prying into what your'e readng or who you're sleeping with. Here's the full text of Rick Santorum's remarks about sodomy, incest, and adultery. As Andrew Sullivan says, it's much worse than the quotes first appeared. From his point of view, it looks like we should have laws against adultery as well as homosexual acts, and that the cops should be able to come into your bedroom to make sure you're practicing religiously correct sex.
Sullivan makes the point really well:
Now let me turn the slippery slope argument around. Santorum argues that I should be jailed for having private consensual sex with my boyfriend in my own home. (He lets it slip at the end of the interview when he says: " If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right..." [My italics.]) Why does he believe this? Because, somehow, my relationship prevents others from forming "strong, healthy families." I have no idea how my relationship has such a bad effect on others - but leave that for a moment. If that is the criterion for the government to police our bedrooms, then why should not adultery be criminal? It has a far, far more direct effect on "strong, healthy families". It's far, far more common than gay sex - hurts children, destroys families, wounds women, and on and on. To argue that gay sex should be illegal but adultery shouldn't be, makes no sense at all. Again, Santorum must be asked if he believes adultery should be criminalized. Will anyone ask that? Not on Fox News.
8:08:49 AM Permalink
|
|
© Copyright 2004 Steve Michel.
|
|
|
|
|
