Bryan

New energy sources don't get developed by magic. There is absolutely no guarantee that investments then would have led to a breakthrough more efficient than using fossil fuels, and there remains no such guarantee today. When the breakthrough doesn't happen, the investment is called a loss. Obama wants the United States to roll those dice on our future. Like what? Which highway systems and/or bridges are failing our economy? I don't think you have any idea. Most likely you're just parroting the president's line. The rhetoric you point out exposes the dishonest of this "stimulus" package. Supposedly it is supposed to provide a jolt to the economy, but the "stronger footing" takes years. So the jolt occurs in slow motion, kind of like the jolt of a slug accelerating across a sidewalk. Most of us on the right think that Obama used the pretense of emergency stimulus simply to justify instituting the same old expensive programs that liberals always want to fund. Apparently many liberals actually think that highway projects do provide rapid economic stimulus. By "paid attention to our manufacturing base" are you suggesting that investors should have speculated on U.S. manufacturing? Or what? How do you lower the percentage of GDP spent on health care without correspondingly shrinking the GDP? You do realize that health care products and service account for a large portion of the GDP in the first place, right? Don't fall for the Democrats' shell game, people. This is too much. Which of your supposed needs were ignored? You wanted other people to start paying for your health care decades ago, or what? Your post, Guest, offers the impression that you know exceedingly little about economics. It's too easy to suppose that the lack of emphasis on economics in our schools is a plot by the Democrats designed to decrease resistance to their outlandish fiscal policies.

I thought I already did that by agreeing that Clinton deserves some credit for the economic prosperity of the 1990s. But you have wholly failed to acknowledge any of the differences between Clinton policy and Obama policy, not to mention the many differences that I did not bother to add to the list. You don't think that's the only policy from Clinton that had anything to do with the economy, do you? I pointed out that Clinton dropped the capital gains tax rate by 8 percent. You have no comment on that, nor do you note that the income tax rate hike you're lauding essentially created a new bracket after its first year of implementation (initially applied at the $80,000-90,000 range, then was upped to $250,000). The greatest economic growth under Clinton occurred after the drop in the capital gains rate. Obama wants to raise that rate considerably. That is the opposite of Clinton's policy. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commer...ns-blunder.html If you ignore the very substantial policy differences between Clinton and Obama then you end up sending a hint that you're not interested in honest discussion. That's very easy to do. The federal budget is a bigger animal now than it has ever been, and the budget surplus was both moderate as a percentage of GDP and reliant on an economy that had been riding the tech bubble. Add to that GWB's willingness to spend on things like federal education bills and a Medicare drug benefit. Plus we could talk about the Bush tax cuts, but that move, ironically, is simply a smaller version of the Keynesian stimulus notion that gave us our trillion dollar stimulus bill from the Democrats. Obama, I think, will show Bush a thing or two about "jobless recovery." Like how to claim economic progress while the unemployment rate rises measurably (Pay no mind to the rising unemployment rate! I just created or saved x jobs!). Can we get back to discussing the folly of Obama's policies now?

But you're not right wing, are you? So why would your refusal to admit you don't know what "implicit" means be "right wing arrogance"? Your reasoning made no sense with respect to mine unless one supposes you do not/did not know what "implicit" means. So far you've avoided answering as to whether you know what it means. And thus you believe you can skip around my point? The opinion, however brief, hailed the lower court's opinion and underscored the importance of the city's intentions. The SCOTUS dissent, as you noted, placed particular importance on evaluating the numbers and differed from Sotomayor's panel in that respect--and that is not a particularly subtle difference. Why do you think I don't understand that conflict, to rephrase the question above that you failed to answer the first time? And I failed to note that where noting it would have been important/appropriate where, exactly? AFAICT, you've decided to double down and avoid dealing with my point. You're dodging by subtly changing the issue. Either meet my challenge to you or admit that you have no intention of trying, please. Most definitely. It was a terrible move, just like partnering with Kennedy on the massively expensive "No Child Left Behind" bill was a mistake. It's funny how some liberals are all over Bush's big-spending ways when the Democrats had more expensive ideas for virtually everything other than national defense (some Democrats claimed to have more expensive ideas respecting national defense, but got little opportunity to prove it). Not the your reply has much of anything to do with the sentence you quoted. We must read different right wing blogs.

I think I know your true identity. You're Humpty Dumpty. Admit it. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."

Wow. Does that mean that all politicians are right wing?

There are problems with Clinton's economic record (tampering with the subprime market via bank intimidation, tech bubble), but I'm happy to give Clinton some credit for a pretty good economy during the 1990s. Clinton's economic policies were fairly conservative. Clinton, for example, lowered the capital gains tax rate from 28% to 20%. The big problem here is that once we get past the "Democrat" label, Clinton and Obama have little in common. Clinton made mistakes when he first came into office and the Democrats lost control of Congress early in his administration. The conservative Congress pushed Clinton to fulfill his more moderate tendencies, and much of what Clinton accomplished in office was part of the GOP's "Contract With America." So Clinton ended up governing as a moderate once HillaryCare and his own initial economic plan hit the fan. Obama, apart from one aspect of foreign policy (Afghanistan) has not governed as a moderate. He has taken a hard left course and pursued a bevy of traditional liberal causes and justified the expense as economic stimulus. You're simply not going to see the deficit shrink under Obama simply because he and President Clinton wore the same political label. Obama doesn't claim that the deficit will shrink while he's in office. And that's one area where he can be believed. Have a look at the graph, particularly the White House estimates of future deficits. http://moderateinthemiddle.wordpress.com/2...a-bigger-graph/

You can't use partial agreement to contradict my statement. The problem is panel's claim that what the city did was okay because it was "simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII." That reasoning was not used in the SCOTUS dissent (but it was used in the lower court's decision). You do know what "implicit" means, right? When the SCOTUS dissent uses different reasoning than was used by the panel then it has implicitly rejected the reasoning that it did not use. And where have I mixed those two things up, other than in your imagination? Whereas the panel was satisfied with the city's intent to meet its obligation under Title VII (and avoid an associated lawsuit). It's in the panel's decision, which you would have read. Now look for it in Ginsburg's dissent. People tend to agree with the SCOTUS majority on Ricci. But their representatives will thumb their collective noses at them and undermine the decision? He'll have one or two, I think, since he'll last only one term as a result of his overreaching agenda. That might change if he gets health care reform passes, since making people dependent on the government is a great way to control voting blocs. Just look at the way the Dems wrangled seniors to protect the Medicare status quo by calling measures that slowed the growth of Medicare spending "cuts." Some people won't take a joke as a joke even with the smiley attached. Oh, well. I suppose I should not have made light of my own displeasure at Obama having the opportunity to fill Supreme Court vacancies. Mea culpa.

We have an extensive collection of photographs representing museum exhibits at our disposal. Can you be specific about the dishonesty you're talking about? Well, he could be smart enough to equip himself with safety features. Unless he's one of those idiot YECs? It doesn't ultimately come down to bigotry, does it? At this point you're stepping on the toes of scientists and science teachers. They often end up teaching things as true that are not true, as though they poorly understand the limitations of science (one reason why I favor giving greater emphasis to the philosophy of science in the science curriculum). Is it significantly easier to excuse the dishonesty of naturalistic scientists than it is the dishonesty of YECs? What type of thing are you talking about with the reference to "can't explain the parts where it discards science"? They would say (fairly, in my view) that they are still doing science but with different presuppositions. You should explain what you mean by that in a way that helps resolve the demarcation problem. You need to put more meat on that accusation in order to make it seem fair. Deal with the demarcation problem. Even Paul LaClair has popped by from time to time to downplay the supposed rigors of the scientific method by referring to science as an "art." His argument (accidentally?) dovetails nicely with my observation that your side seems to know science when they see it, even if they can't explain what it is (art/obscenity parallel). Nope. As long as you continue to dance around the demarcation problem your argument seems to pass as "I know science when I see it, and that isn't science."

Thanks for the pop theology.

What portion or portions of this make something in what I wrote "Not true" IYO? And do you still regard telecommuting arrangements as "illegal" for some unknown reason? This bears repeating: You're funny. You've got nothing, so you just make noise. Pay more attention to the grammar. I was referring to a previous response, before you descended to the equivalent of "Nyah-nyah! We won! We won! We won!" That doesn't exactly explain the criticism she endured from her mentor on that selfsame court as a result of that decision, does it? Both of your predictions are remarkably optimistic. The first radically undercuts Obama's own projections, which would put the deficit at about $600 billion for 2012 (the CBO thinks that's a low figure). Apparently you're expecting Obama to either break his pledge not to raise taxes on families making under $250,000 per year, or you're expecting more and more tax hikes on families making more than that. If the latter is true, then the 7 percent unemployment prediction is particularly fanciful. Did you hear that a second "stimulus" bill is under consideration? It's because the first one was such a rousing success. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/10/dem...f=ib_topstories There's no fun in that. Except that Obama's ambitious first term has a good chance of precluding a second one. He can't command the media as Roosevelt did. Not that the mainstream media do much to resist (Want to promote your health care reform on our network? Please?). Even Helen Thomas is offended.

So where's the supposed spin? Do you claim that this dissent matches the decision reached by the panel that included Sotomayor? You argument seems about as mixed up as it could be. The above is the dissent from the SCOTUS majority opinion, something that Sotomayor has had no opportunity to do. Sotomayor's panel said the lower court got it right. The SCOTUS dissent would have remanded the decision back down to the lower court. There's no reason to do that if the lower court got it right. Obviously. The sticking point was the panel's reliance on the city's intent (following the lower court). The dissent from the SCOTUS does not follow that line of reasoning. Next time explain why it's supposedly spin instead of just claiming it. Unless you're chicken.

Oh. And I should just accept that without explanation? So why aren't you dealing with the demarcation problem that throws a huge spanner in the works of your argument? Is it just easier to say I'm like a little kid and leave it like that? Kind of like what people do when they're in middle school?

Hmmm. Apparently you're willing to dictate to them what they can and cannot do. Shall we go ahead and amend the First Amendment while we're at it? Do you think that uniformitarian assumption is unfairly cited as part of the method used in the evolutionary account of origins? If not, how can you claim that science's methods are completely ignored? Without lying, of course. If it were the case that the scientific method is directly attacked, then what of the use of science to the extent that the Bible isn't contradicted? Does that magically no longer count? And thus any correct answers given were not through reliance on math and the first half of the canyon jump no longer count for anything? Why do you think it is a letter? My reading of the letter, quite frankly, is brilliant. Take the portion that I said would fit the standards at the NYT and tell me where I'm wrong. Unless you're chicken. It's fun just saying something is "clearly" there instead of pointing to specifics, isn't it?

I've given counterexamples and you are ignoring them. Not very scientific of you. Then you haven't been paying attention. Where did you disagree that dinosaurs hold their tails aloft for balance? Or have you taken my comment out of context? Great. Then since this thread is still a relatively short seven pages in length, it should be relatively easy for you to link to one of those many times and thus prove me wrong. Hopefully you won't have to rely on one of the miserably failed attempts. Good luck to you. An analogy is by definition different in at least some respects from the situation to which the comparison is intended. It is a rhetorical trick to establish the supposed opposition by analogy instead of via the actual situation, and attempts at the latter have been notably weak. Look up "genetic fallacy." And if you're already familiar with it, it would be appropriate for you to redden with embarrassment. Pardon me for editing out the portion where you delve more directly into ad hominem. Aha! The dreaded stealth attack! That's what makes it so hard to pin down the anti-science bits! Those devious Xtians r stealthy. But you are smart enough to see past the stealth, enough, perhaps (assuming it wasn't another "Guest" who said it) to pronounce the obviousness of the stealth attack. Anyone can see it except for me. Give you folks enough time and it's a pretty sure bet you'll talk yourselves in circles. Have you been to the museum, that you can unequivocally state that they never mention the scientific method? AIG certainly does, and they do a reasonably good job of presenting it: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science

What DOJ directive on telecommuting? Advances in information and computer technology, the development of the Internet, and the growth of wireless and digital products have given some Federal employees the ability to telework, or work anytime from almost any place. Management considerations, such as productive and satisfied workers; environmental considerations, such as reduced traffic congestion and improved air quality; and quality of life considerations, such as accommodating the short- or long-term health needs of employees, require the establishment of telework programs. Telecommuting provides Federal agencies with a viable option to ensure continuity of operations in the event of an emergency. Following Hurricane Katrina, lapses in the Federal government's performance could have been mitigated by telecommuting. The Committee is aware of businesses that were able to continue operations following Hurricane Katrina due to telecommuting programs already in place. By reducing automobile trips, telecommuting helps to reduce dependence on foreign oil and to reduce car emissions. In light of the benefits of telecommuting, the Committee remains concerned about the lack of progress being made by Federal agencies in this area. The Committee believes that agencies should be taking extensive measures to certify more Federal employees as eligible to telecommute. The Committee directs the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation to provide a report to the Committee in no less than six months from enactment of this legislation detailing plans to increase the eligible number of telecommuters as well as what major obstacles exist. http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&am...=TOC_22223& http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&...=TOC_22223& Mr. Walpin says he cleared the arrangement with the board's chairman, vice chairman and a third board member. Our witness was not present at that meeting but says he was present at more than one subsequent meeting of the full board during which Mr. Walpin mentioned his telecommuting arrangement without a single objection being raised from the board. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/j...to-walpin-gate/ There's more at the link about the telecommuting arrangement (approved by general council according to Walpin before it came up before the board). Feel free to check it out. Duh. "Klan." You may be interested to learn that it is also the third K after Ku and Klux. You're funny. You've got nothing, so you just make noise. "Rolling Stone," eh? Well, at least you'll be comforted that Grassley is at the forefront of those questioning the behavior of the executive branch in this case. He probably also objects to the proposal crafted by Congress to abandon its oversight of the inspectors general and turn it all over to the executive branch. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9070502519.html So you say, but you haven't really addressed the reporting from the Times except with your own petty response to which I had replied. Does it seem the least bit odd to you that Congress now wants to release its share of IG oversight? Right ... Sotomayor. Isn't she the nominee whose recent decision in the Ricci case was flogged when it reached the Supreme Court? The liberals who dissented all implicitly rejected her reasoning. Whereas she accepted in full the reasoning of the lower court, the dissent would have remanded the case so that critical issues might have been addressed. You must be so proud! Just for fun, try to predict the budget deficit and the unemployment rate for the end of Obama's first term.

One can almost take that statement as an indication that the challenges from me (the ones you quoted for some reason) will go unmet. The latter is my point, and it represents a partial defense of the museum. That point does not obligate me to defend positions with which I do not agree. The associated point is that the museum is not offensive to me even though I disagree with YEC, and that I think Paul is essentially silly for making a big deal about it. A weekend at a museum is very probably not going to have a significant effect on a student's understanding of science, in spite of the Chicken Little response one sees from some of the folks here. Had a rough time composing that one, eh? The use of science with implicit approval, as seen, for example, with the physical representations of the dinosaurs, indicates a pro-science attitude, at least in part. I don't agree that its core premise is contrary to "all" scientific methods, and that point should have been obvious since I have pointed out more than once that Popperian criteria are often excepted here and there in accepted science. In case you don't see the importance of that point, I'll spell it out for you: An exception to scientific criterion is not a dependable indication that something is anti-science, let alone unscientific. Meh. The report says the scientists traveled on school buses. Most universities charter buses, and if the school in this case had chartered buses then there was no good reason to call them "school buses." So there is an indication that the scientists rode on public school buses. I can certainly understand how you would want to ignore that, of course. Pretending otherwise might just get you off the hook for backing up the unambiguous claim of your twin ("Guest"): "The scientists didn't go there on a public school bus." Most colleges and universities receive public funding, and regardless of that I have explained to you why it is reasonable to think that the scientists may have used public school buses. What letter? You mean this? http://www.theobserver.com/articles/2009/0...5d700078863.txt Read the URL: "articles" "news"--it looks like a student-submitted story to me based on the URL and the content (no "Dear editor" among other things). The author says nothing about the students traveling to the museum to examine the theme that evolution does not merit belief. Here is the mention of evolution: The Creation Museum features exhibits, planetariums and outdoor life that actively challenge evolution and intelligently support the Biblical account of creation. That line meets the requirements of objective news reporting except for "intelligently support," which amounts to an editorial judgment. Take out the word "intelligently" and the New York Times might print the same line in a story about the museum. Your conclusion, in short, is illogical. You have a tendency to resort to ad hominem. Now keep avoiding my challenge, you hear?

The question was whether it was reasonably called "anti-science" if it presents some of the conclusions of current scientific theories. I've used a number of examples. Once, I cited the representations of dinosaurs using their tails aloft for balance. There is no apparent disagreement on this point at all, and nothing distorted so far as I can tell. Paul's analogy conveniently uses politicians, where the antagonism may be assumed even if all policy positions are identical (as may happen in a primary). It's a slick rhetorical trick, even if it is a tad transparent. The museum isn't using "human reason" to mean "science" in terms of the scientific method generally speaking. As I have earlier explained, "human reason" is Christianese for flawed thinking. Human reason is viewed as limited by the fall of mankind, and will thus tend to err. Well, if we make a straw man out it, yeah. But the museum's statement is not that the Bible is more reliable than science in learning about the natural world, it is simply that the Bible is accurate as to its statements about the natural world. If the Bible says nothing about dinosaur tails, then by all means use science to learn about dinosaur tails. And that's "thoroughly anti-scientific"? Or is it just humanist zealot Paul LaClair frothing at the mouth at least to the point of utilizing hyperbole to make his point? Mad dog! Rrrrrruff!

I didn't say anything about a public school bus. But while we're at it, please provide the evidence you have that the scientists did not ride on a public school bus since that is what you claimed. If you don't really know then you can admit it. I won't make fun of you. Of course it does. And anyone who disagrees is ignoring the obvious evidence that you coincidentally refuse to specifically share. Isn't that always the way. It helps protect your illogical inferences, you suppose, behind a handy-dandy smokescreen.

Meh. I asked for an Allosaurus. One would think the "ALMIGHTY" would remember the difference.

Let's try this again: Says who? http://jobs.lovetoknow.com/Telecommute_Job...eral_Government If Kennedy and Kerry did not have last names beginning with "K" then you might have a case. It was obviously a joke, not any type of serious reference to racism or anything else negative. The use of the incident to tar Walpin should repulse any fair minded person. Nice try, but that was Schumer's first run for the Senate. If you want to try to make the case that Walpin held a special dislike for Schumer than go ahead--but Ferraro is no conservative. You offer no reason to think that Walpin wasn't simply supporting his preferred candidate among those with a chance to win. Ms. Ferraro was first elected to Congress from New York's Ninth Congressional District in Queens in 1978 and served three terms in the House of Representatives. During her six years in Congress, she compiled a liberal voting record in Congress, but stayed in touch with conservative voters in her district. http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=4940 Agreed, which is why I focused on the reporting from the New York Times. The Walpin firing may be a legitimate scandal (a bit early to tell), but it looks bad for Obama on the surface. The president did succeed in timing the firing fairly closely with the conclusion of Walpin's investigation of an Obama political pal, and the administration is having a tough time answering the hard questions about the case. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics...--49767217.html You misspelled "spin." It has four letters, not nine.

How do you know they think evolution is nonsense? Did you take a poll? The article you linked says nothing about the students' attitudes toward evolution. Just another case where your side likes to make things up without any backing evidence. With all due respect, you're the one doing that. Paul LaClair objected to the use of school buses for the creation museum trip by students. It seems reasonable to suppose that he would similarly object to the use of public funds used to send scientists there, and if he would not then there should be some principled reason behind it. The principled reason seems to be bigotry or something like that, judging from the "Guest" commentary. But it was just pointed out to you that evolutionary scientists took the trip to the museum. So you're the one avoiding the facts. Unless, of course, you have determined that the scientists simply did not know enough about evolution to avoid going to the creation museum.

You'd have much better reason for that remark if I had quoted a long post and simply replied with a one-line answer that cannot be distinguished from simple insult. Especially if I did it under a pseudonym. Not that I doubt you're god. If you don't intend to address what you quote then why waste the space by quoting it?

Maybe the reductio ad absurdum will just go away if you ignore it. 1) You disagree that that museum includes a "human wisdom" account of origins? Is the photographic evidence not enough for you? http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2332.html 2) Where have I ever claimed that I am wise? Do you feel comfortable lying about that? So now "human wisdom" is no longer equal to "science"? Let me know when you make up your mind. It's pretty easy to type that, isn't it? Be specific. Is the evidence the "Speed Racer" lamp next to my keyboard? Do you find it in one of the photos of the museum? Here's the thing: Every time we've looked for the supposed evidence in one of the photos, your side ends up fibbing, just like when "human reason" was science for awhile until you changed your mind and converted "human reason" into the type of thinking that kept Aristotle from coming up with a good account of origins. And you try to bury the failure by simply repeating that the evidence is there but that I refuse to see it. Perhaps if you copy and paste that a few hundred times it will make up for your failure to present evidence. As previously noted, many things commonly accepted as science abandon Popperian criteria here and there. Why is this exception not as forgivable as other exceptions? Do we determine scientific truth via popular vote of scientists, now? Which step of the scientific method is that? As usual, you're repeating yourself without presenting the evidence that I am supposedly ignoring. Right. We've been over that. You can't reveal the differences because I wouldn't understand. And no doubt your dad can beat up my dad. You don't acknowledge the point and you don't respond to it. How is asking you what the differences are not acknowledging the point? Or by "acknowledging" do you simply mean that I have to take it on faith that the (relevant) differences you claim exist do, in fact, exist even though you won't present them? Rather than me not acknowledging the point, we seem to have a case where you will not support the point. As always, you falsely call the other person on your own flawed illogic. What specific example do you have in mind? Because it sounds like you're just making stuff up. And it may not be the first time, if you've posted as "Guest" prior to now. Furthermore, you have claimed you aren’t a YEC. So why do you keep defending them? I already explained that. Even if someone is wrong about certain things it does not grant license to others to lie about them. Just because you fancy yourself a philosopher doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. You may have read some things about the philosophy of science, but you don’t understand science. It’s not a rigid set of philosophical constructs, but a proven method for learning about the (natural) world. Good imitation of Paul LaClair, there. You say that I don't understand science. What is the evidence of that? You say that science is not a rigid set of philosophical constructs. Let's suppose that's true for a moment. Have I ever said otherwise? If not, then what is your basis for claiming that I don't understand science? Shouldn't you need some basis for claiming that I don't understand science? If you're going to keep saying that and we're supposed to take you seriously, that is? What you call fatally flawed is what scientists accept as inevitable – and yet somehow they have revolutionized our lives. It sure looks like you took my "fatally flawed" statement out of context. I'd prefer if you would not do that. I was not talking about science but about the attempts to argue that the Creation Museum is "anti-science." http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=97526 If we were to take your statement as treating mine in its original context, then we have science taking its own particular finding as inevitable, which runs directly contrary to one "Guest"'s earlier claim that science keeps all questions open. Could that have been you? It's as though you live in a hypothetical universe that isn't real. That's not how things are. We have a mountain of real data to work with. You completely ignore it. I don't see how I can do anything other than ignore data that others refuse to provide on the grounds that I would not understand it. It is more than slightly disingenuous to refuse to provide evidence and also claim I'm ignoring the evidence.

Good use of our tax dollars, then? Could high school students use school buses to go to the museum to see what kind of nonsense is being spread about evolution? How about if they passed a test proving that they were in no danger of being "duped"? Would that make it okay?

Hmmm. That must mean that Geraldine Ferraro is a Republican. Walpin contributed to her run for NY senator back in the 1990s, IIRC. There are two kinds of political appointments. There are those done by a particular political figure, such as a president. There are also appointment to jobs that are innately political, such as federal attorneys and Cabinet members. Judges and IGs are historically of the former type but not the latter type. It's undisputed that Walpin has done his (job) via telecommute. It is considerably less clear that it is honest to equate the two. You've skipped your opportunities to make that point thus far. But you're doing a great job of getting the thread away from the topic of the New York Times. That has to count for something. Slate's getting quite the reputation for running hatchet-job stories against Republican targets. Though of course even Bill Clinton thought that Slate had savaged him in the story they did on him. The treatment of the joke about the KKK should be sufficient for one to detect the patent unfairness coming from the author. Walpin's politics are properly irrelevant to the issue of his termination except as it may impact the performance of his job. You haven't suggested any particular relevance, unless you perhaps consider it a peculiarly Republican trait to telecommute.