freedom of speech rapidly eroding? or status quo?

cranrab

Star
BGOL Investor
tim hardaway's comments against homosexuals falls along a spectrum distant from those of jim zumbo, but where does it end?

freedom of speech extends a right of protection from interference and punishment from the government, but what about protection from those who would use our LAWFUL words to interfere with our ability to earn a living?

WP: Gun remark kills outdoorsman's career

Criticism of hunters who use assault rifles puts writer’s career in jeopardy
By Blaine Harden

The Washington Post
Updated: 9:22 p.m. PT Feb 23, 2007

SEATTLE - Modern hunters rarely become more famous than Jim Zumbo. A mustachioed, barrel-chested outdoors entrepreneur who lives in a log cabin near Yellowstone National Park, he has spent much of his life writing for prominent outdoors magazines, delivering lectures across the country and starring in cable TV shows about big-game hunting in the West.

Zumbo's fame, however, has turned to black-bordered infamy within America's gun culture -- and his multimedia success has come undone. It all happened in the past week, after he publicly criticized the use of military-style assault rifles by hunters, especially those gunning for prairie dogs.

"Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity," Zumbo wrote in his blog on the Outdoor Life Web site. The Feb. 16 posting has since been taken down. "As hunters, we don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them. . . . I'll go so far as to call them 'terrorist' rifles."

Squarely in the crosshairs
The reaction -- from tens of thousands of owners of assault rifles across the country, from media and manufacturers rooted in the gun business, and from the National Rifle Association -- has been swift, severe and unforgiving. Despite a profuse public apology and a vow to go hunting soon with an assault weapon, Zumbo's career appears to be over.


His top-rated weekly TV program on the Outdoor Channel, his longtime career with Outdoor Life magazine and his corporate ties to the biggest names in gunmaking, including Remington Arms Co., have been terminated or are on the ropes.

The NRA on Thursday pointed to the collapse of Zumbo's career as an example of what can happen to anyone, including a "fellow gun owner," who challenges the right of Americans to own or hunt with assault-style firearms.

From his home near Cody, Wyo., Zumbo declined repeated telephone requests for comment. He is a 40-year NRA member and has appeared with NRA officials in 70 cities, according to his Web site.

Shot across Congress’ bow
In announcing that it was suspending its professional ties with Zumbo, the NRA -- a well-financed gun lobby that for decades has fought attempts to regulate assault weapons -- noted that the new Congress should pay careful attention to the outdoors writer's fate.

"Our folks fully understand that their rights are at stake," the NRA statement said. It warned that the "grassroots" passion that brought down Zumbo shows that millions of people would "resist with an immense singular political will any attempts to create a new ban on semi-automatic firearms."

Some outdoors writers drew a different lesson from Zumbo's horrible week.

"This shows the zealousness of gun owners to the point of actual foolishness," said Pat Wray, a freelance outdoors writer in Corvallis, Ore., and author of "A Chukar Hunter's Companion."

Wray said that what happened to Zumbo is a case study in how the NRA has trained members to attack their perceived enemies without mercy.

"For so many years, Zumbo has been a voice for these people -- for hunting and for guns -- and they just turned on him in an instant," Wray said. "He apologized all over himself, and it didn't do any good."


Circling the wagons
Zumbo's fall highlights a fundamental concern of the NRA and many champions of military-style firearms, according to people who follow the organization closely. They do not want American gun owners to make a distinction between assault weapons and traditional hunting guns such as shotguns and rifles. If they did, a rift could emerge between hunters, who tend to have the most money for political contributions to gun rights causes, and assault-weapon owners, who tend to have lots of passion but less cash.

The NRA appeared to be saying as much in its statement Thursday, when it emphasized that the Zumbo affair shows there is "no chance" that a "divide and conquer propaganda strategy" could ever succeed.

"Jim Zumbo Outdoors" was not broadcast as scheduled last week on the Outdoor Channel and will not air next week, said Mike Hiles, a spokesman for the channel. He said sponsors have requested that they be removed from the program. The show "will be in hiatus for an undetermined period of time," he said.

Zumbo's long career at Outdoor Life, which is owned by Time Inc., also came to a sudden end in the past week. Zumbo was hunting editor of the magazine, which is the nation's second-largest outdoors publication. He wrote his first story for Outdoor Life in 1962.

‘Living in very delicate times’
The magazine's editor in chief, Todd W. Smith, said that Zumbo submitted his resignation after hearing of the large number of readers (about 6,000, at last count) who had sent e-mails demanding his dismissal. Smith dismissed as "conjecture" a question about whether Zumbo would have been fired had he not resigned.

"Jim is a good guy, and I feel bad about this unfortunate situation," Smith said. "We are living in very delicate times. For someone to call these firearms 'terrorist' rifles, that is a flash-point word. You are painting a bunch of enthusiasts with the word. They don't like being called terrorists."

When he wrote his now-notorious blog entry, Zumbo was on a coyote hunt in Wyoming sponsored by Remington, a detail he noted in the entry.

That mention -- as it bounced around in recent days among a number of assault-weapon Web sites -- triggered a call for a boycott of Remington products.

That prompted Remington to issue a news release, saying that it has "severed all sponsorship ties with Mr. Zumbo effective immediately."

Remington chief executive Tommy Millner issued a personal appeal to gun owners who might be thinking about boycotting the company's products: "Rest assured that Remington not only does not support [Zumbo's] view, we totally disagree," Millner said. "I have no explanation for his perspective. I proudly own AR's and support everyone's right to do so!"

Zumbo, in his public apology, said that when he wrote the blog entry that criticized assault rifles, he was at the end of a long day's hunt.

"I was tired and exhausted," he wrote, "and I should have gone to bed early."

© 2007 The Washington Post Company
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17307316
 

COINTELPRO

Transnational Member
Registered
I heard some idiot conservative talk show host say it is capitalism. A company can choose to hire and fire based on what you say.

Pure Capitalism is based on your ability to do your job at an acceptable wage. I have never seen anything in Adam Smith or an Economic Theory that gives a capitalistic basis to fire somebody based on their personal views. If anything, it is anti-democratic and defeats the purpose of the Bill of Rights and Constitution since a company can dictate the freedom you have on and off the job.

These companies like Walmart are turning into anti-capitalistic despots with firing employees for blogging, firing people who organize a union, blacklisting, spying on employees, and forcing people to work off the clock. I see why companies are comfortable going to communist China where the government planners sets the wage, provides cheap capital to industry, and doesn't allow workers to form a union (they can join a government union only). Providing an employee a wage doesn't mean a company is not treating them like a slave. Even some slaves in this country were given some money from time to time.

When a company gets to Walmart monopolistic size, there is no way a person apply for a job and ask a free-market wage to work at the company. The only way to set a free-market wage is to form a union that negotiate on all the worker's behalf.
 
Last edited:

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
If you didn't know it before, you should know it NOW. The NRA has long held a take-no-prisoners stance in protection of its "expansive view" of the Second Amendment's right to bear arms clause. The NRA sees ANY erosion whatsoever of those expansive interpretations as a threat and moves quickly to stiffle them before they have any hope or chance of materializing into even a weak challenge. Hence, realistic gun control in this country doesn't stand a damn chance.

CR, I see your point clearly. There are probably other organizations with the power to black-ball, but I can't think of many off hand like the NRA. I didn't agree with Reagan's shot to the gut of the Air Traffic Controllers, but I would sure as hell like to see someone stick it up the NRA's ass, albeit as you said, its non-governmental. Nevertheless, the less than veiled threat it leveled at the "new congress" is just another reason, in my opinion, why its wings need to be clipped. There are probably a lot of things the so-called "new congress" will touch upon leading up to the 08 election, but fucking with the NRA ain't one of em. Sad. A lobby with that much power.

If only WE had that kind of power. Forget it ... despite the rhetoric, the 14th & 15th Amendments and the Voting Rights Acts (including the interests of the "right-to-lifer's") are far less important and pale in comparison to the right to bear arms to snuff out life, liberty and someones pursuit of happiness by the gross proliferation of guns in this country.

QueEx
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
COINTELPRO said:
When a company gets to Walmart monopolistic size, there is no way a person apply for a job and ask a free-market wage to work at the company. The only way to set a free-market wage is to form a union that negotiate on all the worker's behalf.

Probably beyond the scope of this thread, but since you raised the issue: can a union price itself OUT of the market ???

QueEx
 

COINTELPRO

Transnational Member
Registered
QueEx said:
Probably beyond the scope of this thread, but since you raised the issue: can a union price itself OUT of the market ???

QueEx

Unions create an equal basis for a worker to sit down with a big company and negotiate a wage. If the company offers an unreasonable wage or benefits, than they have no workers. If the Unions demand an unreasonable wage than they get no jobs.

Unions force asshole companies like Walmart to respect their workers. If they had a union, they wouldn't even think twice about having people work off the clock. How much money does the Walton family need? 200 billion?

There are some companies that don't need a Union since they have a environment, wages, and benefits that treat their workers fairly. Than you have some companies like Wal-mart that will never be on the best places to work list anywhere.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
COINTELPRO said:
Unions create an equal basis for a worker to sit down with a big company and negotiate a wage.
How about a little "Real World".

You assume each, the union and the company, occupy "equal bargaining positions" and, all things considered, are each equally adept at negotiations and representing the interest of their principals. In real life, such is often not the case and somebody gets screwed. Employees or the Company ???

If the company offers an unreasonable wage or benefits, than they have no workers. If the Unions demand an unreasonable wage than they get no jobs.
Simplistic but not realistic.

Its usually a hellava lot more complicated and sometimes sinister. Though reasonable to labor, if the wage/pension/benefit package is unreasonable to management; maybe labor strikes; maybe management hire scabs; maybe labor wins;maybe the product suffers or becomes unprofitable; and maybe everybody goes home forever, empty handed. Maybe compromise; somebody gets some of they want and some of what they don't; and maybe everybody goes home and lives to fight another day. Of course, all of this is oversimplified as well.

Unions force asshole companies like Walmart to respect their workers. If they had a union, they wouldn't even think twice about having people work off the clock. How much money does the Walton family need? 200 billion?
I don't know how much money the Walton family needs, but I do know the last time I checked Wal Mart was a publicly traded corporation. In 2003 there were 4,385,693,565 shares outstanding. Seems to me, there are some owners who are not Waltons, ya think ???

There are some companies that don't need a Union since they have a environment, wages, and benefits that treat their workers fairly.
Name em.

Than you have some companies like Wal-mart that will never be on the best places to work list anywhere.
Wally World has some issues, no question. But I also see a lot of cheery-glad to be working mofos too -- so, maybe its not as bad as you say either?

QueEx
 
Top