Werthless wrote:Can you imagine if the Court had ruled the other way, and that she couldn't be fired because she was good looking? I think that would open up a huge can of worms, and I don't think we'd be in a better position as a society. I'm glad that gender is a protected class of people, but attractiveness is not.

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:his wife was upset that there might be some sexual woo woo going on, but NOOOO, there was no sex-discrimination going on here in her firing. the wife would've been just as mad if he had a male employee texting back and forth. so, firing someone for putting the moves on them and them saying no is illegal; firing someone because you WANT to put the moves on them but didnt is completely fine.

i understand the idea of precedent, but doesnt precedent usually start somewhere?

I was thinking this yesterday because my wife sent me a different (more one-sided) article.

Most employees can be fired for absolutely no reason at all. That he told her that it was because of the strain their personal relationship had on his marriage doesn't make it illegal, for the reasons that the court gave. It clearly wasn't because of gender, because all of the other employees were females. I'm guessing that it wasn't even due to pure attractiveness, as there were likely other attractive hygienists in his office. It was due to their personal relationship.

Can you imagine if the Court had ruled the other way, and that she couldn't be fired because she was good looking? I think that would open up a huge can of worms, and I don't think we'd be in a better position as a society. I'm glad that gender is a protected class of people, but attractiveness is not.

Knight admits that he once told Nelson if she saw his pants “bulging” then she would know she was dressed in too sexy a manner. He texted her once to complain that the shirt she wore that day was too tight. Nelson replied that she thought his complaint was unfair. His surreply? He told her it was a good thing she did not wear tight pants too, because then he would get it coming and going.

drsmooth wrote:
speaking of fraud & other shenanigans, how about that goofy gus Bob McDonnell? He would have given Honest John Rowland a run for his money

('run for his money', whadda kneeslapper)

I mean, Cuccinelli is dog nuts, but McDonnell, he's got a hair outta place, maybe a few

thephan wrote:

drsmooth wrote:
speaking of fraud & other shenanigans, how about that goofy gus Bob McDonnell? He would have given Honest John Rowland a run for his money

('run for his money', whadda kneeslapper)

I mean, Cuccinelli is dog nuts, but McDonnell, he's got a hair outta place, maybe a few

Hey, Richmond and I have an exclusive on busting these cheese eaters balls.

So, without promising any huge amount of insight, I’ll make a few observations:

* I don’t think Nate Silver ever really fit into the Times culture and I think he was aware of that. He was, in a word, disruptive. Much like the Brad Pitt character in the movie “Moneyball” disrupted the old model of how to scout baseball players, Nate disrupted the traditional model of how to cover politics.

His entire probability-based way of looking at politics ran against the kind of political journalism that The Times specializes in: polling, the horse race, campaign coverage, analysis based on campaign-trail observation, and opinion writing, or “punditry,” as he put it, famously describing it as “fundamentally useless.” Of course, The Times is equally known for its in-depth and investigative reporting on politics.

His approach was to work against the narrative of politics – the “story” – and that made him always interesting to read. For me, both of these approaches have value and can live together just fine.

* A number of traditional and well-respected Times journalists disliked his work. The first time I wrote about him I suggested that print readers should have the same access to his writing that online readers were getting. I was surprised to quickly hear by e-mail from three high-profile Times political journalists, criticizing him and his work. They were also tough on me for seeming to endorse what he wrote, since I was suggesting that it get more visibility.

BAGHDAD/MOSUL, Iraq -- Hundreds of convicts, including senior members of al Qaeda, broke out of Iraq's Abu Ghraib jail as comrades launched a military-style assault to free them, authorities said on Monday.

The deadly raid on the high-security jail happened as Sunni Muslim militants are re-gaining momentum in their insurgency against the Shiite-led government that came to power after the U.S. invasion to oust Saddam Hussein.

Suicide bombers drove cars packed with explosives to the gates of the prison on the outskirts of Baghdad on Sunday night and blasted their way into the compound, while gunmen attacked guards with mortars and rocket-propelled grenades.

Other militants took up positions near the main road, fighting off security reinforcements sent from Baghdad as several militants wearing suicide vests entered the prison on foot to help free the inmates.

By that time, hundreds of inmates had succeeded in fleeing Abu Ghraib, the prison made notorious a decade ago by photographs showing abuse of prisoners by U.S. soldiers.

"The number of escaped inmates has reached 500, most of them were convicted senior members of al Qaeda and had received death sentences," Hakim Al-Zamili, a senior member of the security and defense committee in parliament, told Reuters.

"The security forces arrested some of them, but the rest are still free."

David Brody: Talk me about your son and his rise. This must be a thing of God. It's meteoric.

Rafael Cruz: (Ted Cruz's Father) Yes, but you know something, this is not something that started a couple of years ago. Let me go back to when he was maybe four. When he was four I used to read Bible stories to him all the time. And I would declare and proclaim the word of God over him. And I would just say, ‘You know Ted, you have been gifted above any man that I know and God has destined you for greatness’.

And I started making declarations about the Word of God over him every day. When he was eight years old I was very active in an organization called the Religious Roundtable. This was a coalition of Christians and Jews who was very instrumental in helping Reagan get elected. I was on the state board of the Religious Roundtable, so when my son Ted was eight years old, all we talked about around the dinner table was politics because I was so involved with the Reagan campaign.

So during that time is when I asked him so many times, ‘You know Ted, when I lost my freedom in Cuba I had no place to come to. If we lose our freedoms here where are we going to go? There is no place to go.’ As Ted enters high school the Free Enterprise Institute organizes a group of five kids, called them the Constitutional Corroborators, now Ted is reading the The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, and each of the five kids memorized the entire U.S. Constitution.

So before my son left high school he was passionate about the Constitution. He was passionate about freedom and free markets and limited governments. And before he left high school he knew without a shadow of a doubt what his purpose was. And it was to defend and protect freedom and the Constitution, to fight for free markets and limited government.

And it became a passion in his life. So this is not a trajectory of three years, this is a trajectory of 30 years.