Be-Kos it's not about the pies

Comments

10 comments posted
Excellent points by both you

Excellent points by both you and trubledum.

Especially the last bit.

Jenny K's picture
Posted by Jenny K (not verified) on 8 June 2005 - 6:42pm
A lot to say
Can a woman have an idea without a man's permission?

You most certainly can not. So there.

I'm sorry. I can't resist sarcastic answers to sarcastic rhetorical questions.

Actually, I have quite a bit to say about this whole Kos schism ... and I'll probably say so on my own blog in the next couple days. You have anything I should address in particular?

--|PW|--

pennywit's picture
Posted by pennywit on 8 June 2005 - 8:55pm
I would say

There's quite a lot here to draw from already, wouldn't you say?

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 8 June 2005 - 9:38pm
Topics

A plethora of topics, indeed. Among other things, I see an interesting parallel between the feminists in the current Kos imbroglio and some of the rumblings from, of all places, the Christian right.

Essentially, the Christian right has started rumbling lately that it feels unappreciated by the Republican leadership ... and has said it might strike out on its own or withdraw its support of the Republican Party in the future because it perceives indifference to Christian causes.

Any thoughts in that direction? Do you see a parallel? Or no?

--|PW|--

pennywit's picture
Posted by pennywit on 8 June 2005 - 11:25pm
I'm no Democrat by blood oath

If the Christianists pulled out, and the GOP became socially liberal and fiscally conservative, I could live with that.

I was talking with a friend tonight, and we were speculating on the next presidential election. Maybe I'll just write a short blog about that.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 8 June 2005 - 11:36pm
How they handle it is the issue

The core issue is that concerns are dismissed.

In Customer Relations 101, one of the best things to do is to listen. When I call up my customer service rep., I have something to say. A good listener will truly hear and without being patronizing, reflected back the situation and I, the caller, will either agree that the facts have been conveyed or will I say same more. The important things is that the caller feels she's been heard.

Once the two understand the facts, dealing with the problem happens. Sometimes a caller just wants to get it off their chest. There are few things that would enrage a caller more than someone saying, "why you whining little sissy! Calling us with your idiotic complaints about our product. We have better thing to do here at National Widget than to listen to your foolish belly aching."

Is the caller going to listen to National Widget's point? No. Will they buy again? No. Will they tell all their friends that National Widget is a bunch of arrogant jerks? Yes!

Kos would have been better to say, "I think I understand how you feel. If I hear you right, you feel the ads are not appropriate and that they are insulting. The reason I went ahead with the was . . ."

Instead the person(s) who are already feeling demeaned have more heaped into them.

Thus it is no longer about the Ad, it is the palpable contempt for someone who is asking for at least an explanation

Have you read McCullough's biography of Truman? I learned several things that caused me to admire Truman more than I might have supposed. He was racially prejudiced, but he was the one who integrated the Armed Forces - not Roosevelt. He understood, and said, that he was President of ALL of the people. Being human, sometime he showed human weaknesses, but when I was a Board Moderator some time back, I strove to tolerate spirited disagreement - especially with my positions and my decisions.

Voltaire is credited with having said "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Board monitors should be wise in dealing the dissent, otherwise, what's the point?

Matsu's picture
Posted by Matsu on 9 June 2005 - 8:07am
I was quite surprised to see

I was quite surprised to see the pie ad on Kos, and on some other blogs. I didn't give it a second thought untill I heard the uproar. Kos's responce was aragant to say the least. Kind of reminded me of dubya with his excuses and blame and never admitting any wrong. Ads for escort services wouldn't be out of line with, what I preceive as Kos's advertising ethics.

I'm a male lurker. (just online)

I can"t truly understand what it"s like to be female.

I do know that when I walk down the street at nite, I have to be in a very rough neiborhood to feel any fear.

I don't think this is the same for women. Some women I know are always afraid to walk alone at nite.

Maybe Kos will come out with some breast enhancement and plastic surgury ads, so you ladies can look more like Maryanne and Ginger.

da lurker's picture
Posted by da lurker (not verified) on 9 June 2005 - 1:00pm
"and activist" pharmacist

"and activist" pharmacist who have the blessings of Kerry and Hilliary to discriminate against women buy birth control.... enough is enough... this is not a "pet issue"."

I think you might be a little confused about what the bill that Kerry has cosponsored with Sanatorum would do. Kerry by no means supports discrimination against women who buy birth control. He's trying to prevent that from happening. Say what you like about Hillary, but the Kerry facts speak for themselves -

Kerry and Santorum Propose Compromise on Religion and Pharmacies

If the bill becomes law, a pharmacist who does not wish to dispense certain medications would not have to do so long as another pharmacist is on duty and would dispense the medications.

The Workplace Religious Freedom Act provides a sensible solution to the potential conflict between an employee's religious conviction and the needs of pharmacy customers.

(Senator) Rick Santorum

(Senator) John Kerry Washington, April 7, 2005

The writers are, respectively, Republican of Pennsylvania and Democrat of Massachusetts.

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp...

Pamela's picture
Posted by Pamela (not verified) on 10 June 2005 - 12:49am
"activist" soldier bill?

This was a helpful post. I see the trend better, now. It all has to do with pandering. I started to think of someone who was a soldier and had taken the oath to fight. But one day the soldier was called upon to do his job and he said it was against his principles. Would this be allowed, provided there were other soldiers in the unit who were on duty who could carry out the mission?

If I was on the job and my belief system prevented me from associating with those of another faith, would that be tolerated, provided someone else was on the job would did not have that limitation? I wonder if any of this is any way to run a railroad?

I suppose it gets down to loyalties and in The Jesus Factor on "Frontline," Bush tells a school girl there is a higher law than the constitution. He said this, essentially as the President, and though he tells it to the school girl, Bush is playing to the cameras.

What is troublous, here, are two issues which grow out of a double standard. Take, for instance, the example of the soldier who pulls a Bartleby on his unit. "I prefer not to." If the unit were under attack, at what point does the soldier's judgment outweigh the unit commander's who wants all his troops ready to repulse an enemy? Media girl suggested this, much short and better, when she asked who the doctor was. Is the soldier who follows his own set of orders really a part of the unit at all?

It gets more problematic when the person is the Chief Executive of the nation and Commander-in-Chief. He can't sit it out. He's got the job. Can he act wisely if he has church and state swirling around in his head.

The second part of this has to do with so-called religion, but the bedrock rests on personal codes. For example, going back to soldiers, if someone could not perform in combat, that individual might choose the status of conscientious objector, CO. During Vietnam it was a big negative with draft boards granting CO status to have someone come before them who was not affiliated over a long period with a traditionally pacifist group That it was okay not be believe in God and still be a CO was tested and it seemed that a person could be a CO without having to embrace the concept of a supreme being.

Thus, stripped away from the supreme being ruse, what is at issue is a personal code. Again, the supreme being (sincerely believed or not) is a bit of a ruse to hide behind. No one knows if there is a supreme being or not and while a person might be fervent about what scripture says, scripture is not the law of the land. Thus, to let someone bring a person code into the professional environment or where people have a fiduciary or legal responsibility under the law, undermines the law.

More and more we see the Bush administration and the radical elements of the right openly suggest that "this is a government of men and not laws."

It is indeed a sad day for the Republic.

Matsu's picture
Posted by Matsu on 10 June 2005 - 6:21am
I call it

I call it the "You don't need to be a doctor to play doctor" bill.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 10 June 2005 - 12:54am