Mozilla and the Wingnuttian Backlash

Corporate Armor surreal

I’ve been amused by the wailing and gnashing of teeth today from Wingnuttia, who finally have found a corporation that they do not want to give full personhood to. To be blunt, last week Wingnuttia cheered on Hobby-Lobby for exercising its First Amendment rights to deny slutty-slut-sluts their slut pills, but wail about how Mozilla is taking away the free speech rights of Brendan Eich. (Which as we all know is patently untrue, only governing bodies like legislatures and Congress can write laws that infringe on First Amendment rights; the employee handbook cannot.)

So Corporations Are People (My Friends), except when they do something you don’t like, eh?

But the larger point that I think everyone is missing is this: Mozilla made a business decision. They were losing the all-important mind-share of Silicon Valley. They would have trouble recruiting employees, they were losing marketshare via a backlash, and the so-called eco-system of third party developers stopped in its tracks. When the Board of Directors started resigning, it was a company in free-fall. I mentioned this once before, but if you believe in the so-called Invisible Hand of the Marketplace, this was a self-correcting moment.

There are some interesting reads on this topic via Memeorandum, and you might find any of them interesting.

So much for my claim…

"It's for you!" (Stolen from Dr. Zaius)

“It’s for you!”
(Stolen from Dr. Zaius)

…that I didn’t get your phone call:

The National Security Agency has built a surveillance system capable of recording “100 percent” of a foreign country’s telephone calls, enabling the agency to rewind and review conversations as long as a month after they take place, according to people with direct knowledge of the effort and documents supplied by former contractor Edward Snowden.

Well, this seems intrusive. I suppose all those mistresses in foreign lands are kinda laughing it off, but the diplomats are probably a little red in the face.

And let’s face it: if they can (and did) do it there, then they can (and have) done it here.


Rich ‘Sparkle Pants’ Lowry has a sad

Tiger Beat on the Potomac has given voice to the voiceless once again: Rich Lowry, editor of The National Review for some inexplicable reason is guest writing there. (Reminder to self, see if Mike Allen’s email thingy has ads for the National Review.)

Lowry’s thesis is that Jan Brewer blew it and should have legalized discrimination in the name of liberty, because: Jeebus. Now, given that the National Review’s long and well-documented history is, um, rather un-nuanced about bigotry, this should not come as a surprise. It’s another exercise of the variety that notes, “but it doesn’t say ‘Gay’ anywhere in it!”

And then there is the tell, as the card sharps say:

The market has a ready solution for these couples: There are other bakers, photographers and florists. The wedding business is not exactly bristling with hostility to gay people. If one baker won’t make a cake for gay weddings, the baker across town can hang a shingle welcoming all couples for all types of weddings.

Woolworth lunch counter

I might be wrong, but I don’t think the Woolworth’s Lunch Counter has been in bidness for years, so maybe this offensive separate but equal argument is not worth fighting, Rich.

UPDATE 1: This post at The Teabagging Nation is the most over-the-top, rend the garments drama club angst piece I’ve read yet.

l33t Haxors

via C&L, NSA data is safe, citizen. They have changed the passwords.

“Clearly the system did not work as it should have,” Alexander said. “This is an individual with top secret clearance whose duty it was to administer these networks. He betrayed that confidence and stole some of our secrets. We are now putting in place actions that would give us the ability to track our system administrators, what they’re doing, what they’re taking, a two-man rule. We’ve changed the passwords.”

Some say the password changed from “123456″ to “654321″. Tricky. The series of tubes is on lock down.

Have an opinion on airport body scans?

Here’s an opportunity for you! The TSA’s body imaging scan policy is open for public comment.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is proposing to revise its civil aviation security regulations to clarify that TSA may use advanced imaging technology (AIT) to screen individuals at security screening checkpoints. This proposed rule is issued to comply with a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which ordered TSA to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking on the use of AIT for screening. The Court decided that TSA should provide notice and invite comments on the use of AIT technology for primary screening.

Offspring of failed politician says something political

Tagg Romney (person who has never held a political office) on the Boston bombing:

There’s going to be a period of grief, I’m sure there will be some anger. And we’re going to want to figure out how to keep this from happening again. Not just here but all over the country.

(via Wapo)

TSA! TSA! TSA! Brace yourself for Patriot Act 2: Electric Boogaloo.

Get ready as this tragic event is used as a reason to pass all sorts of terrible laws. But it’s okay if you can make money enacting terrible laws. Note Norway’s policy response post 2011 massacre.

Get off the cross, we need the wood

The trailer warns “If homosexual activists achieve their goal, it will be the criminalization of Christianity.” It goes on to claim that: ”Time and freedom are running out”, and that if ”gays win, Christians lose.”

Because no one is more discriminated against and put upon than the Xristian Xrazies.

It’s not a real movie trailer, look at the end, it is the default stuff from Apple’s iMovie software. RightWingWatch tells us that the last film project by Porter (in 2010), True 2 Life, never made it off the ground. Porter is the author of the book The Criminalization of Christianity, which was published in 2009. So… maybe she is trying again?

The Afternoon Quote

“If the Republican Party abandons traditional marriage there is no Republican Party,” he said. “You drive the social conservatives out and throw them to the side of the road, there’s no republican party. They’ll go start a third party.”

–Brian Brown, president of NOM.

First off: do you promise me that, Brian?

Secondly, I’m fine with the GOP breaking into two separate parties that have absolutely no ability to elect anyone again. Please be right, Brian.


We’ve seen this movie before

Progress is progress, but the Sen. Portman evolution thing this morning is just another example of how shallow and hollow all the family values stuff is.

Portman tells us now that,

“[His son Will coming out as gay] allowed me to think about this issue from a new perspective and that’s as a dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister have,” Portman said.

He never walked a mile in someone else’s shoes? He never thought about it before? The Golden Rule?

I’m always a sap for happy endings in movies, but this one still begs the question: if that’s all it took for a death-bed conversion, then doesn’t that prove the pettiness of his previous position?

The cynic in me also wonders if this is an opening gambit for a 2016 Goat Rodeo bid: he’s getting in front of an issue that the changing demographics like.

I’m all for common decency, and it must be new to a life-long Republican, so huzzah for Portman. Now what is he going to do about it? Let’s see him fight for his son’s rights, maybe stand up for ENDA so his kid cannot be fired for being gay, then I’ll be impressed.

UPDATE 1: Read the interview. This is as shallow as it gets (emphasis mine):

Portman, who backed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act now under review by the U.S. Supreme Court, said he now thinks parts of that bill should be repealed, though he hasn’t considered introducing such legislation himself because economic policy issues are his specialty.

Portman said he believes that same-sex couples who marry legally in states where it’s allowed should get the federal benefits that are granted to heterosexual married couples but aren’t currently extended to gay married couples because of DOMA, such as the ability to file joint tax returns. Family law has traditionally been a state responsibility, Portman says, so the federal definition of marriage should not preempt state marriage laws.

If Ohio voters were to reconsider the gay marriage ban they adopted in 2004, Portman said he might support it, depending on its wording, though he would not be likely to take a leadership role on the issue just as he didn’t take a leadership role in 2004. He stressed that he doesn’t want to force his views on others, and that religious institutions shouldn’t be forced to perform weddings or recognize marriages they don’t condone.

He doesn’t want “to force his view on others,” says the man who voted for a Constitutional Amendment. Yeah, this is political calculation and opportunism at its finest.