Yes.

The article doesn't even mention anything about his radical social agenda. Unless of course "a legendary jazz critic and civil liberties reporter" is the new code for "fundie nutball".

/fail

If I published the Village Voice, it would have a lot better comics.

You're the submitter of an article on Fark. Do you C.) Blindly submit a link you didn't bother reading with a misleading headline?

I'm not a Village Voice reader, but if they are pro-death then I may have to look into into it.

If the person has been on the staff for half a century, in all likelihood, he/she makes the most money. Probably just a simple economic decision... unfortunately.

Hentoff tore into the Bush administration like no one else. They guy hit the nail on the head time after time.

He's movin' on.

Sleeping Monkey: The article doesn't even mention anything about his radical social agenda.


You mean like freedom of speech as guaranteed by the first amdendment? It was written about in his book "Free Speech for Me - But Not for Thee" -I suppose there are two types that oppose it (as written in his book) the far left and the far right.

P.S. He's allowed to have an opinion about abortion. I (and most people) disagree with it but it's just an opinion.

He no longer fits into the Voice's writing staff. Most probably, he had a heterosexual encounter.

You publish The Village Voice and your newspaper is losing money. Do you: C.) Lay off _{the only pro-life writer on staff, who just happens to have been with the paper half a century} people.

If you want loyalty, buy a dog.

Funny, liberal farkers who don't know who Hentoff his. Morons.

According to Wikipedia:

Hentoff is known as a civil libertarian, free speech activist, anti-death penalty advocate, and fetal rights advocate but he is often critical of the ideological left. He also supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

So, yeah, maybe a little suspect. I can also understand that maybe his termination represents a solid salary savings for the paper, but it contradicts the traditional 'last hired, first fired' model showing respect for seniority. It does seem kind of shiatty of them.

Of course the Voice is losing money. It's free! Just open the door on the little box on the corner and take as many copies as you want. It's free and in a non-locked box, like those "magazines" of real estate listings. They do charge a buck or so a copy out here in the suburbs, but it's free where all the people who would otherwise buy it actually live.

Because People in power are Stupid: Sleeping Monkey: The article doesn't even mention anything about his radical social agenda.


You mean like freedom of speech as guaranteed by the first amdendment? It was written about in his book "Free Speech for Me - But Not for Thee" -I suppose there are two types that oppose it (as written in his book) the far left and the far right.

P.S. He's allowed to have an opinion about abortion. I (and most people) disagree with it but it's just an opinion.

Pro-life is not simply anti-abortion (in contrast to pro-choice which is solely pro-abortion) pro-life is also against the death penalty, and euthenasia. Read Hentoff's writings and you will more fully understand his stance.

Maybe people just got sick of reading his bullshiat?

feckingmorons: Pro-life is not simply anti-abortion (in contrast to pro-choice which is solely pro-abortion) pro-life is also against the death penalty, and euthenasia. Read Hentoff's writings and you will more fully understand his stance.

So if the child of a death row inmate wanted to kill herself because she had a painful, terminal illness... a real pro-lifer would deny her that merciful end?

Being fired by the Village Voice is hardly going to "silence" Nat Hentoff, I doubt he's going to have to resort to writing Litle League sports for the local penny-saver. On the other hand, firing one of your highest-paid employees in the midst of a recession isn't really a difficult decision to justify. It's also known as a "layoff".

The Village Voice used to be the place for people who weren't exactly eharmony.com material meet other like minded people. Also there were ads for women and men providing professional (as in world's oldest) services. A lot of it went away with the intial AIDS scare and then the ascendancy of Craigslist made it superfluous.

Believe it or not, the Voice for a few years used to have an interesting sports section. As you can imagine it was kind of lefty but they had some writers who went on to bigger and better things.

Pentaxian: The Village Voice used to be the place for people who weren't exactly eharmony.com material meet other like minded people. Also there were ads for women and men providing professional (as in world's oldest) services. A lot of it went away with the intial AIDS scare and then the ascendancy of Craigslist made it superfluous.

Believe it or not, the Voice for a few years used to have an interesting sports section. As you can imagine it was kind of lefty but they had some writers who went on to bigger and better things.

And you had to walk uphill in the snow, barefoot, to school.

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: I can also understand that maybe his termination represents a solid salary savings for the paper, but it contradicts the traditional 'last hired, first fired' model showing respect for seniority.

"Last hired, first fired" is a dumb, dumb, dumb way to run a business. Screw seniority.

The Voice is worthless, and I see it on the sidebar, but its a crap paper. And this guy probably wasn't the first and won't be the last to be fired.

Wow...first the left wing NY Times reports cat.5 financial fail and now the commie Village Voice?

libbynomore2 2008-12-31 11:21:57 PM
Wow...first the left wing NY Times reports cat.5 financial fail and now the commie Village Voice?

Just like a modrn-day Republican to applaud the collapse of American business enterprises, at a time when that's the last thing America needs.

He's against euthenasia? That's far more offensive than being against abortion, IMO. fark him.

Crap! I missed the Little Ball of Hate^TM.

Tens of thousands of people are being laid off for no reason. Why doesn't subby give a shiat about them?

his stuff on jazz is pretty good

Sleeping Monkey: The article doesn't even mention anything about his radical social agenda. Unless of course "a legendary jazz critic and civil liberties reporter" is the new code for "fundie nutball".

/fail

he's an agnostic and/or atheist. he argues that if the state can ok the death of some people then it will logically be impossible to stop it from killing others. kind of a slippery slop sort of thing.

i'm relying on my waning powers of memory and i'm probably missing nuances to his argument

Bucky Katt: Sleeping Monkey: The article doesn't even mention anything about his radical social agenda. Unless of course "a legendary jazz critic and civil liberties reporter" is the new code for "fundie nutball".

/fail

he's an agnostic and/or atheist. he argues that if the state can ok the death of some people then it will logically be impossible to stop it from killing others. kind of a slippery slop sort of thing.

i'm relying on my waning powers of memory and i'm probably missing nuances to his argument

I don't know him. But subby seems to be claiming the liberal Village Voice is persecuting him because he is a giant righty. If what you say is true...subby is kinda dumb.

Sabyen91: Bucky Katt: Sleeping Monkey: The article doesn't even mention anything about his radical social agenda. Unless of course "a legendary jazz critic and civil liberties reporter" is the new code for "fundie nutball".

/fail

he's an agnostic and/or atheist. he argues that if the state can ok the death of some people then it will logically be impossible to stop it from killing others. kind of a slippery slop sort of thing.

i'm relying on my waning powers of memory and i'm probably missing nuances to his argument

I don't know him. But subby seems to be claiming the liberal Village Voice is persecuting him because he is a giant righty. If what you say is true...subby is kinda dumb.

He calls himself a Jewish atheist.

Link (new window)

Bucky Katt: Sabyen91: Bucky Katt: Sleeping Monkey: The article doesn't even mention anything about his radical social agenda. Unless of course "a legendary jazz critic and civil liberties reporter" is the new code for "fundie nutball".

/fail

he's an agnostic and/or atheist. he argues that if the state can ok the death of some people then it will logically be impossible to stop it from killing others. kind of a slippery slop sort of thing.

i'm relying on my waning powers of memory and i'm probably missing nuances to his argument

I don't know him. But subby seems to be claiming the liberal Village Voice is persecuting him because he is a giant righty. If what you say is true...subby is kinda dumb.

He calls himself a Jewish atheist.

Link (new window)

I looked at his Wiki entry. He seems like a New Republic "liberal". A Joe Klein type. I would fire his ass first thing, too.

ceejayoz: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: I can also understand that maybe his termination represents a solid salary savings for the paper, but it contradicts the traditional 'last hired, first fired' model showing respect for seniority.

"Last hired, first fired" is a dumb, dumb, dumb way to run a business. Screw seniority.

This is why the sociopolitically conservative business model manages to burn itself out over and over. It makes sense on paper, but in the real world, all human enterprise ultimately relies on people working together for common interests. If you don't value your employees as people, you can't ever get the best and the most out of them, which over time undermines the business -- resulting in layoffs, which accelerates the problem, until it finally implodes.

The traditional system has its own weaknesses and limitations, but it is more durable in the long term, and less likely to result in complete failure. People are what makes it work. A few good, loyal people can be as successful as a carefully calculated 'workforce' of more people -- and cost less, and deliver more and better. This is why family businesses routinely outperform and outlast formally organised businesses.

The answer is B; Ricky Ponting.

So.... the rugged individualists are B-n-Ming because someone lost their job?

Anyone else just shaking their heads?

yes.
/I came to say this but I was boobied.

I think everyone is "pro life". The difference is that some people are anti choice.

saintstryfe: So.... the rugged individualists are B-n-Ming because someone lost their job?

Anyone else just shaking their heads?

Well, they're responding to the troll headline, which suggests that Hentoff's "pro-life" views had something to do with his being let go - and not the fact that he is way past retirement age, ceased to be relevant years ago, and specializes in writing about a form of music that virtually no one listens to any more. Welcome to Fark.

kenposan: I think everyone is "pro life". The difference is that some people are anti choice.

Man, I wish people in this country could actually talk about abortion without name calling and labelling. Honestly, everyone who approves of abortion isn't a baby killing monster, and people like me who find the practice abhorrent aren't misogynistic jerks(well I might be, but for completely different reasons).

The very labels of pro choice, anti choice, pro life, they all have this stupid connotations that close people's minds to legitimate conversation about why we all make the decisions that we do. Maybe I'm just lamenting the state of discourse, I dunno.

ANYWAY, what's the deal with his stance on euthanasia, anyway? It seems like that's a common sense thing to be OK with?

This is odd. Hentoff is a big time leftie and the Voice is a Leftie
paper.


Good luck, Nat!

pro-life anti-abortion
/fixed

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: This is why the sociopolitically conservative business model manages to burn itself out over and over. It makes sense on paper, but in the real world, all human enterprise ultimately relies on people working together for common interests. If you don't value your employees as people, you can't ever get the best and the most out of them, which over time undermines the business -- resulting in layoffs, which accelerates the problem, until it finally implodes.

The traditional system has its own weaknesses and limitations, but it is more durable in the long term, and less likely to result in complete failure. People are what makes it work. A few good, loyal people can be as successful as a carefully calculated 'workforce' of more people -- and cost less, and deliver more and better. This is why family businesses routinely outperform and outlast formally organised businesses.

Here's the thing, though. "Last in, first fired" doesn't get you employees who are good and loyal. It gets you a bunch of employees who don't have to work hard or innovatively because they have seniority, and a bunch more employees who don't have to work hard because they're getting fired no matter what the next time layoffs come.

People should be hired and fired based on performance, not length of time with a company. If employee A works twice as hard as employee B at the same tasks, employee A should be the one to stay, even if employee B has been with the company for fifty more years.

The newspaper industry is struggling in part because there are so many people unable or unwilling to adjust to the world of new media they find themselves dropped into. Those people have to go, so new, innovative minds can start digging us out of the hole we're in.

The Voice is losing ad revenue?
Is the NYC she-male population using there budget to advertise elsewhere?

Maybe he was fired because he's OLD, not because he's a fetus lover. 50 years? Christ, time for retirement.

Hot Lunch: Man, I wish people in this country could actually talk about abortion without name calling and labelling. Honestly, everyone who approves of abortion isn't a baby killing monster, and people like me who find the practice abhorrent aren't misogynistic jerks(well I might be, but for completely different reasons).

The very labels of pro choice, anti choice, pro life, they all have this stupid connotations that close people's minds to legitimate conversation about why we all make the decisions that we do. Maybe I'm just lamenting the state of discourse, I dunno.

I have my own position which I call "Pro-Rights." It has its own rationale, is not dependent on religion nor Roe vs. Wade, and would work out as a sort of compromise in effect, but not in intent.

There's a lot more to it than this, but in a nutshell:

1. Determine when Personhood, not human life, begins (for any sexually reproducing species including H. sapien sapien, life begins at conception, and at no other time -- that's very basic biological science, and any scientist who says otherwise ceases to be a scientist the moment s/he says so -- but then again, the Declaration, Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. all go out of their way to make it clear that Rights are the sole province of Persons [either individually, or collectively as "the People" -- no other entity is ever stated to have Rights in any of this Nation's founding documents [sorry, fellow Southerners, but yes, that means that there is not now, nor was there ever, nor was there ever intended to be, any such thing as "States' Rights." And before you bring up the Tenth Amendment, read it again: it does not say what you think it does, and the use of the specific term is not mere semantics [note the use of the other term in the Ninth Amendment, barely an inch above on the same piece of parchment, written by the same hand -- they are not synonyms!] -- so the real relevant question that people should be asking is, when does Personhood begin?). I personally draw the line at the onset of brainwave emission, since (A) in our species, the brain is the center of sapience, and sapience is the salient point of Personhood and the ability to possess and use Rights; and (B) we already use the converse as the legal demarcation of the end of Personhood. Unlike "viability," this would not be a moving target. I would also consider any non-human entity that demonstrates true sapience (e.g. extraterrestrials, A.I.s, artificially or naturally evolved versions of cetaceans or simians in the future, etc.) to be a Person (right now, legally, they wouldn't be!), and, for them, Personhood would begin when whatever organ or structure generates their sapience begins functioning, and ends when it permanently stops functioning.

2. The Rights of all Persons, including the unborn after the onset of Personhood, would be equal. That means that the unborn Person has Rights that are equal to, but not greater than, those of the mother.

3. Given the above, it would be legal and justifiable to kill a pre-Person unborn child (zygote, embryo) for any reason at all, or even no reason at all. On a whim, if desired. There is no Person, and thus no Rights, including any "Right to Life." Once a Person exists, it would still be legal and justifiable to kill it for any reason that would apply just as well to an already born person -- e.g. self defense (thus covering life/health of the mother being endangered), trespassing (thus covering rape and other involuntary pregnancy [e.g. failure of birth control used in good faith]), euthanasia (thus covering severe genetic or otherwise congenital conditions detected post-brainwaves), etc.

if you read the village voice you should c) kill yourself.

/i don't know what the village voice is, but who reads periodicals in print these days?

ceejayoz: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: This is why the sociopolitically conservative business model manages to burn itself out over and over. It makes sense on paper, but in the real world, all human enterprise ultimately relies on people working together for common interests. If you don't value your employees as people, you can't ever get the best and the most out of them, which over time undermines the business -- resulting in layoffs, which accelerates the problem, until it finally implodes.

The traditional system has its own weaknesses and limitations, but it is more durable in the long term, and less likely to result in complete failure. People are what makes it work. A few good, loyal people can be as successful as a carefully calculated 'workforce' of more people -- and cost less, and deliver more and better. This is why family businesses routinely outperform and outlast formally organised businesses.

Here's the thing, though. "Last in, first fired" doesn't get you employees who are good and loyal. It gets you a bunch of employees who don't have to work hard or innovatively because they have seniority, and a bunch more employees who don't have to work hard because they're getting fired no matter what the next time layoffs come.

People should be hired and fired based on performance, not length of time with a company. If employee A works twice as hard as employee B at the same tasks, employee A should be the one to stay, even if employee B has been with the company for fifty more years.

The newspaper industry is struggling in part because there are so many people unable or unwilling to adjust to the world of new media they find themselves dropped into. Those people have to go, so new, innovative minds can start digging us out of the hole we're in.

Good points, all. Thanks. Obviously, there are issues with both/all approaches. I guess that's what the bosses get paid to figure out. And I agree that ossification in media has been a problem in the Information Age. I do hope that it's still possible to balance experience and wisdom with flexibility and vision.

atomic-age

Yes.

Win

Why is this sad?

I'm waiting for the government to legalize the eating of babies so I can finally publish my cookbook.

Cradle to Ladle: 101 Recipes That'll Make You Say 'Oh, Baby!'