My most charitable guess is that Rogers' remarks come from desperation. As chair of the House Intel Committee it's his job to oversee the NSA et al. After months of Snowden leaks, plus the White House panel's own report criticizing NSA, it's all to obvious that Rogers failed at his job (as did Feinstein on the Senate side). He'd rather slander the messenger than admit that.
Yes it's amusing to point out right-wing hypocrisy (like, opposing affirmative action because you believe in freedom of association, but crying about A&E firing Phil), not to mention the spectacle of white Christian Americans acting persecuted when of course they're about the most powerful people on the planet.
But if A&E can fire Phil for his views (or indirectly for his views, which is what happens if they say they do it because he hurts their ratings...on account of his views), then can't they fire non-Christians for expressing un-Christian views, lefty folks for expressing progressive views, and so on? As Corey Robin points out in his blog, in the US much of the actual oppression that's taken place over the years has not been done by the government by by employers, who have free reign thanks to "at will" employment laws to fire people for most any reason or no reason at all. For every person jailed for being communist in the McCarthy era, many more were fired.
A&E's right to fire Phil, then, represents a wider right of all employers to fire anyone they're uncomfortable with (with some statutory exceptions, like race).
My most charitable guess is that Rogers' remarks come from desperation. As chair of the House Intel Committee it's his job to oversee the NSA et al. After months of Snowden leaks, plus the White House panel's own report criticizing NSA, it's all to obvious that Rogers failed at his job (as did Feinstein on the Senate side). He'd rather slander the messenger than admit that.
I agree there's a problem here.
Yes it's amusing to point out right-wing hypocrisy (like, opposing affirmative action because you believe in freedom of association, but crying about A&E firing Phil), not to mention the spectacle of white Christian Americans acting persecuted when of course they're about the most powerful people on the planet.
But if A&E can fire Phil for his views (or indirectly for his views, which is what happens if they say they do it because he hurts their ratings...on account of his views), then can't they fire non-Christians for expressing un-Christian views, lefty folks for expressing progressive views, and so on? As Corey Robin points out in his blog, in the US much of the actual oppression that's taken place over the years has not been done by the government by by employers, who have free reign thanks to "at will" employment laws to fire people for most any reason or no reason at all. For every person jailed for being communist in the McCarthy era, many more were fired.
A&E's right to fire Phil, then, represents a wider right of all employers to fire anyone they're uncomfortable with (with some statutory exceptions, like race).