WordPerfect co-founder: $1 million for gay marriage ban
When I covered WordPerfect back in the day, the go-to guy for the press was a fellow named Pete Petersen. He was the one who would return your phone calls and answer questions about the company and its products. But Petersen owned only 1 percent of WordPerfect. The two majority shareholders were its co-founders, Bruce Bastian and Alan Ashton.
From time to time, you could corral Ashton for a quote, but that was the exception to the rule as he much preferred to stay out of the limelight. So it was with more than passing interest that I came across news of Ashton's decision to help bankroll proponents of a ban on gay marriage in California:
The campaign issued an urgent appeal, and in a matter of days, it raised more than $5 million, including a $1 million donation from Alan C. Ashton, the grandson of a former president of the Mormon Church. The money allowed the drive to intensify a sharp-elbowed advertising campaign, and support for the measure was catapulted ahead; it ultimately won with 52 percent of the vote.
I haven't seen breakouts of how people working in California's technology business voted on the question of banning gay marriage. Still, I'd be flabbergasted if it paralleled opinion in the rest of the state--let alone Utah. Silicon Valley isn't Orem.
But while one man, one vote sounds fair on paper, it counts a lot more when you're voting as a member of the super-rich. So it is that Ashton, who hasn't been active in a significant way in California's technology industry for years, may now wind up having more impact here than for anything he did in his previous career as an entrepreneur.
Update
As many have pointed out to me, WordPerfect's other co-founder, Bruce Bastian, also got involved in the Prop 8 issue and contributed $1 million to the other side.
Charles Cooper has covered technology and business for more than 25 years. Before joining CNET News, he worked at the Associated Press, Computer & Software News, Computer Shopper, PC Week, and ZDNet. E-mail Charlie. 
I want to have the right to marry four nubile young women.
What, I can't?
How dare you deny my happiness!
Get the idea?
/P
As much as I detest the LDS Church (I have my own reasons, part of it from living in Utah for seven years), they do not allow or condone polygamy. The FLDS church (a splinter sect in Southern Utah and Northern Arizona) - does. OTOH, their leader is currently facing a whole lot of prison for his role in the 'marriages' you mentioned.
Penguinisto, You can't marry minors because we recognize them has not being able to make informed decisions or provide informed consent. they cannot enter into a legal contract for that same reason.
and Anon, taking another's (minority) group's civil or legal rights in a free country is...dispite what your religious beliefs are...contrary to the very ideals of this country. You don't advocate taking women's, black, or handicapped people's rights, do you? You don't presume to be better than all and impose your beliefs on others and codify it into the very constitution that guarantees all people to be equal under the law, right? It is you that should check your facts before your speak. Marriage has indeed evolved over history. It DID NOT start as a 1 man/1 women institution. Rather, polygamy was the norm..as well as it being a way for one man to take another man's property through arrangement of marriage of his daughter. It has been redefined by heterosexuals continuously through the ages. Some are faithful while other are not, some are sexless while others are not, and yes, marriage is not a prerequisite to have children as you think. I love the ridiculous argument that people make in that marriage exists to make and protect children. By that very definition, you would need to bar seniors past child bearing years to marry and pass a law banning out of wedlock pregnacies and prosecute parents who are not married. There are PLENTY of children being raised by gay, non married, and divorced (YES...1 ouf of every 2 marriages) parents that are doing fine. So stop arguing all this hogwash that you use to defind your bigotry and just admit that you believe that you are morally superior to everyone else and everyone should follow your beliefs...at least I could respect your argument then.
Fact is, rights != "happiness". Just because it makes you happy does not make it a right (see also illicit narcotics).
Me, I have no dog in this fight. On a personal level, I don't give a damn.
OTOH, on a philosophical level? It's a fun exercise. So what if I did want to marry more than one woman? What if one woman wanted to marry more than one man (polyandry)? What if an incestuous couple wished to marry under condition of sterilization? What if a Microsoft Fanboy wanted to marry his laptop running Vista? Sure it's a slippery-slope argument, but honestly, It's there, and in this case, it can very easily roll downhill.
/P
Marrying a child is not valid, because children are not given rights to legally consent to contracts such as marriage until they are 18. We'd have to assume unless the legal age of consent were lowered to 12 or 13, this wouldn't be an issue.
Marrying an inanimate object is not valid, because an inanimate object is not alive and can not give its own free consent to enter into a binding contract like marriage. In the future, if artificial intelligence gets so good that we could argue some robots are "alive," this argument might gain more weight. But right now, you might be able to program a computer to say "I Do" but under law, an inanimate object is not give the rights to enter into a legal contract.
The argument for marrying animals is the same - they can not legally give their consent to enter into a contract with humans. If at some point, some animals evolve the intelligence to freely communicate with humans, this might become more of an argument, although there would be some serious biological/genetic issues to consider.
The polygamy argument is the only valid one on this "slippery slope" as you call it, and if you take religion completely out of it, there are some biological/genetic reasons why it can be harmful to society. We'll use 1 man marrying multiple women as an example, because that seems to be more common. If 1 man marries multiple women, he's reducing diversity in the gene pool, by taking women "off of the market" so to speak that would have been available to mate with other men, thereby increasing diversity and speeding evolution. One could argue what if the man and all women were sterile? If the women and man were to freely sterilize themselves on their own free will, this could make sense, but it'd be a lot of oversight for the government to regulate. There'd need to be new divisions created to ensure anyone marring more than one person either only mates with one of them or doesn't mate with any of them. You still are reducing diversity in the gene pool though, as those women won't now mate with anyone else.
Sill though, gay couples CAN'T mate on their own. There are ways for gay couples to have babies, but that still propagates diversity in the gene pool when they do.
One man marrying one man or one woman marrying one woman doesn't push the law like polygamy would, mostly for biological/genetic reasons. Therefor polygamy shouldn't even be in the argument against gay marriage.
Was your life torn apart when the government forced white kids to share the same school room as a black person?
Can I donate to the people who made this video? I want to expose the rest of that book. It probably said stupid things like "Jews have a right to life," or that "Muslim people have feelings." I bet that book even discourages the use of the N word. That school is stepping over the line! What happened to the days when we could whip the devil out of a left handed child?
------------
Seriously, the book was probably just saying there are lots of different types of people in the world and not to point at them or make fun of them or call them names just because they are different from you.
It was probably created by someone who's son is in jail because he made fun of a foreign person, so they are just trying to stop kids from getting worked up because someone is different. And hopefully you won't teach your kids to make fun of gay people, or someday they might try to kill a gay person "in the name of god" and end up in that same 6x8 dirty jail cell.
I just want to say 1 more thing: My God has the ability to love everyone, even gays. It's too bad that your god is limited in his amount of love.
If liberal Christian (oh, what an oxymoron!) Americans had been reading their Bibles, they would have learnt that it says homosexuality arose because of the unrestrained pursuit of pleasure. Romans 1:18-26.
Strident words, but true nevertheless, and it marks the state of any society which embraces current Western values.
There is supporting data that suggests prenatal stress results in a higher level of homosexual offspring in humans. Homosexuality occurs in most mammals. In a study of rats, increasing the population to a level beyond what could be supported by available resources resulted in a higher number of rats exhibiting homosexual tendencies. The biological imperative to breed is obviously necessary to the survival of any species. However, in times of limited resources, over population can adversely threaten the health of a set population. A natural check to overpopulation would increase the chances of localized group survival in the face of limited resources. Homosexuality at a percentage of the population directly related to the availability of resources (food, water, etc.) as determined by the stress level of pregnant mothers within that species' population (famine causes stress) might act as a natural 'optimizer' for population control in addition to death. Any group reproducing at it's unchecked biotic potential has a high level of probability that it will use up local resources needed to support itself. A percentage of that group that will not reproduce fluctuating in numbers relative to the amount of sustaining resources improves the chances for survival of that group. Therefore, it can be theorized that homosexuality is an evolutionary survival mechanism serving the purpose of overriding the normal 'wired' imperative to reproduce in a naturally select few individuals to assist in the survival of the group as a whole.
Choice? Many, if not most homosexuals at one point or another struggle with their own identity. Many if not most attempt to reject it early in their lives for the sake of 'fitting in' and to avoid the ridicule and often violence that being who they were born to be brings. Many people love chocolate. Some are obsessed with it. If liking chocolate were to suddenly make one a member of a group as persecuted as homosexuals, most chocolate lovers would easily and gladly turn to vanilla. For those basing opinions on the subject by cherry picking from the bible, it's worth noting that the bible is full of contradictions. It calls for capital punishment for sex outside of wedlock and for men who touch the bed of menstruating women be put to death. Look it up, it's in there. There is good reason for the separation of church and state when it comes to passing legislation (unless you're for killing a man who sleeps in the same bed as his wife during all stages of her 'cycle'). Legislating the rights of others away because they are different is never good for any society. People use to quote from the bible to justify slavery. Slavery was the will of the majority for a very long time. It was still very wrong. Our form of democracy is built on protecting the rights of the minority. The 'slippery slope' argument is the argument of a simple mind. Homosexuals are not asking to mary multiple partners, animals, children, or the moon. They wish to engage in exactly the union conservatives say they value in relationships between humans, that being a life long commitment to one person to the exclusion of all others, to take care and nurture said person, to desire the same in return, to maintain property and joint rights based on that commitment, and to be able to take legal responsibility for each other in times of need.
What happened to California and the computer industry there doing stuff like this?
I cant stand that absurd statement. "create more jobs" WE GAVE OUR JOBS AWAY! And along with them, our tax base and economic spending on a local, regional and national level.
We deserve to have our nation working at Walmarts now.
That makes people pushing homosexual agendas on everyone else bigots too.
On the one hand you have a guy who funded advertising against a bill that would force the public acceptance of a fetish that the majority of people find objectionable (even in CA where the proposition died). This being a political issue since it make it to a vote. Then there is you who has written off an entire person based on how they feel about a fetish.
Homosexuality is a fetish. It's not love, kindness, companionship, intimacy, friendship, or any number of other things that people have outside of marriage. It's also not a 3rd sex, race, religion, or a new species.
"It's also not a 3rd sex, race, religion, or a new species."
Agreed.
AbiWord is much better and free as is OpenOffice.Org and also other free and open source programs.
I am not sure what Mormons have against Homosexuals, but it will turn around and bite them later.
The answer: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
CNet... please go back to the business of technology!
I take offense at gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with technology. I prefer you stay off Cnet than continue to read its free service to the public. This guy has his hand involved in technology and he used the money he earned from technology to promote his enslavement agenda. The guy is from the tech sector and should be traced to the activity he is doing.
This is the same thing if Steve Jobs is dying. Steve Jobs is a tech guy. Even though jpmays can see the connection of Steve Jobs dying has any impact in the tech industry, but most people do.
Lay off the absolutely nothing stuff.
Neither Obama, nor the blacks or latinos invested tens of millions of dollars. 'Nuff said
-----------
But homosexual supporters spent even more than the Yes side. Homosexuals played and lost, now they are out rioting in the streets, and in one case caught by TV news attacking an old woman who diagreed with them.
Say anything you want about homosexuals... except that they support the democratic process. They think they are above the law, and that's wrong.
http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2008/07/bruce-bastian-d.html
Why are you singling out folks one side?
No, the homosexuals are "above the law" not for protesting, but for vandalism and attacking old ladies. The point is, whilst they throw a tantrum about losing, they are breaking the law and causing thousands of dollars of damage to private property. That sure sounds to me like they think they are above the law.
Of course, I should expect this kind of liberal claptrap coming from a guy who's happy gas is expensive. http://news.cnet.com/8301-10787_3-10086979-60.html
I wouldn't be thrilled to learn that other corporate fatcats underwrote a political campaign with million dollar checks either. If you have any information about that, send it my way. I'd be quite interested to see that. But here's my bigger point: I don't want outsiders sticking their big noses into my affairs. Alan Ashton doesn't live here and has nothing to do with my region. He's entitled to his own beliefs, so let him do politic all he wants in Utah. I doubt he would be thrilled if I underwrote a million dollar campaign to push a law for Utah residents.
Yes, big money does make a difference in almost any election. That doesn't mean I have to take it in silence. And It particularly ticks me off when outsiders wade in. And that's what you have here.
Acutally no. By exercising my 1st amendment right, I gave my opinion about CNet's off-track reporting on non-technology topics. And, I feel I called Charlie on his poor justification for the story. Now, you on the other hand, added nothing of value to the topic what so ever. So, if you have nothing of value to say, then say nothing. :-)
Did it ever occur to you that maybe he is doing this for Utah? Consider the premise that he wants to stop something from happening in a neighboring state, so that Utah is not forced (under the Full Faith and Credit clause) to accept something that its own constitution has banned. You see, Utah amended its constitution against gay marriages in 2004. Utahns who wish to circumvent their state's laws can easily take a trip to, say, California, get married, then come back and demand to be recognized as married, which raises a whole lot of legal thickets.
States don't exist in a vacuum, after all.
"corporate fatcats" can underwrite any political campaign they want - this does not preclude or remove the fact that even the "fatcat" can only cast one vote of many.
"I wouldn't be thrilled to learn that other corporate fatcats underwrote a political campaign with million dollar checks either."
So what is your opinion of George Soros? Warren Buffet? You've been IIRC silent on those two gents...
/P
Marriage is a personal matter until the government forces people to get a marriage license and provide better benefits to married couple. This, under the eyes, of the government should have the equal protection of the law and provide individual the right as man to marry. The Constitution always refer to man, not woman, as it is now an expansive understanding man refers to all of mankind.
Your bigotry is one that in the past caused black lynching, japanese american interim camp, etc.
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, I should give up?
Reread the 14th amendment - the equal protection clause. Perhaps gays will not get to marry, per se, but under the laws of this land - which supersede a proposition by any state - they must get equal protection and rights under the law. Civil unions can only be constitutional if they are treated exactly like marriages and are treated exactly the same state to state. Unfortunately, because of persistent bigotry in states like Florida and Virginia, it's likely that those states, eventually, will be forced to accept a far-reaching gay marriage statute -- just as they were forced to abolish Jim Crow when they couldn't or wouldn't develop equal protection for blacks on their own.
Second, the initiative didn't take away anyone's "rights" the way slavery does, since the right to marry someone of the same gender never existed until a few CA judges arbitrarily decided that it was a "right".
Lastly, how about if I start telling you how to spend your money? Would you like that?
You may want to check your history sometime, y'know? Here, I'll start you off:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States
Whether you agree or disagree with prop 8, Technology columns should cover technology ? *NOT* someone?s political contributions toward social issues. Is this really what CNET has come to? And to single out someone that hasn?t been relevant to the technology world for ages ? well, who cares about him ? write about something that CNET should be covering! You?ve wasted my time and I?ll certainly look to avoid your columns in the future.
Must be slim pickens in the executive editor world if we have to read garbage like this from CNET.
On a side note, Cooper gets a +1 liberal point for throwing an insult in there about the "super-rich." :P
Shame, shame!
Of course, everyone who disagrees with your opinions is un-American.
Is this the argument the bigots are reduced to now?
The US and California constitutions enumerate zero rights concerning marriage. None. So, the whole "rights!" argument is stupid to begin with.
Now if one wants equal legal benefits, there are equivalents: Power of Attorney, joint ownership, custody papers, Living Wills, Final Will... they give you the same benefits (often stronger ones) without all the bother of a divorce court when/if things go sour.
That's the real funny part... back in the 1970's and 80's, most gay culture sneered at marriage as a patriarchal form of chattel or even slavery - a curse of the "breeders". So why all the hubbub now?
To top all that off, nothing prohibits a gay or lesbian couple from getting married in any church that is willing to. Nothing.
Sorry, but the issue certainly isn't anywhere near as clear-cut, or even civil-rights as the prop 8 opponents make it out to be. To be fair, the issue also isn't the 'attempt-to-gayify-america!' that the prop 8 proponents make it out to be, either.
*Dishonest and biased efforts included:
1) Jerry Brown changing the title of Proposition 8 to prejudice citizens against it
2) nearly every major newspaper and city council in the state voting to endorse the No on 8 side, even though that didn't represent the opinions of the people living in their areas
3) media reports of stolen and damaged No on 8 signs with hardly any mention of the thousands of stolen and vandalized signs on the Yes on 8 side, including cars and homes of Prop 8 supporters vandalized
4) No on 8 ads claiming same-sex marriage wouldn't be taught in the schools even though school codes specifically require the teaching of marriage in schools AND it happened in Massachusetts and was already happening in CA
5) A despicable No on 8 ad that came out on election day against the Mormon missionaries and the Mormon church, even though there are only 250,000 adult Mormons living in California
6) Lies reported about how much money was being raised for the Yes on 8 side from out of state when in reality much more of the No on 8 money was raised from outside of California.
7) Every time there was a Yes on 8 rally or demonstration, the media would show only a few people (even when there were hundreds or thousands present), but when reporting about No on 8 rallies, the numbers were greatly exaggerated.
And many more such stories...
Snipets from Genesis 19 (New International Version)
Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom?both young and old?surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it."
Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the LORD. 28 He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace.
So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that overthrew the cities where Lot had lived.
Try Kneeling before the LORD more often like Abraham.
It' such a shame that its not 100% obvious that GAY marriage is 100% wrong.
I do believe there is a being that is more advanced than we are, however, I don't think it's "God." For all we know, God is the Hindu diety Ganesha.
I also believe man is simply just a glorified animal - we all have instincts just like animals. Some instincts probably tell us to mate with someone of the same sex - I'm just glad I don't have any of those same-sex instincts.
Be that as it may, marriage has been defined by religions all over the world - a pairing between a MAN and a WOMAN...and that's probably the only tangible concept they can agree upon.
@State of California: Change your marriage licenses to say "Husband" and "Wife," not "Party A" and "Party B." That's the biggest waste of ink in the budget you have to date.
BTW, Mormonism isn't a religion. It's a hash-up of many that was also created by a "man."
To quote South Park: "dumb-de-dumb-de-dumb..."
remind me again where in the constitution religious groups aren't to be involved in gov't? So by that standard no one can be involved because even atheism is a form of religion.
dictionary.com
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
And you clearly have no idea what is meant by "New International Version".
Sodom and Gomorrah were slated to be wiped out long before the incident with Lot's guests and the crowd as well - for general "wickedness" (with no specificity).
Sorry 'mano, but if anyone needs to actually read the Bible...
Off-topic, but maybe you could help me with this one: I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
Depends on how big your bills are and if the debtor is willing to complete the transaction.
You see, Hebraic slavery = debt slavery, nothing more. Oh, and you also get her back in seven years.
...may want to take your own advice there ;)
/P
t it??? Well, it also is silly to judge an entire group of human beings ( yes, human beings equal to you in every way,good or bad; with needs and feelings that matter as much as yours ) by some old story, in some old book. Or, is it just a good feeling you get inside to be able to discount those human beings you find offensive to your sensibilities as worthless; OH! and with the justification that MY OLD BOOK IS INFALLIBLE, AND THAT GIVES ME THE RIGHT!!!!!!
The infallable truth is; that the Bible is a Story Book, yes a Story Book, an account of people's lives in Biblical times, and is NOT the word of God. Only the Ten Commandments is the KNOWN word of God!!!
It is legal to marry your cousin here in California. Well as long as your are of the opposite sex, gay cousins can't marry under Prop 8.
" Therefore, under the "equal rights protection" they are being discriminated against because they aren't allow to marry. How far to you want to carry this?"
Somewhere farther than allowing gay to marry, cousins or not.
It always amazes me when followers of the beautiful Jesus twist and destort his teachings. It is equally amazing when they believe that Christianity is the only religion practiced here and also forget the distinctions between religion and government.
I don't know what percentage of his wealth the $1 million represents but it would not surprise me if others that are probably much less affluent than Ashton have given (percentage wise) a comparable amount of their net worth to causes they believe in.
On a personal note I've been told that with a Civil Union gay people have all of the rights that marriage affords heterosexual couples. If this this the case then I really don't understand what all of the fuss is about.
Also, the vote was raised and people cast their ballots. Seeing footage of streets full of homosexuals voicing their anger over the outcome reminds me of a bunch of 9 year olds throwing a tantrum over not getting desert after dinner.
There is nothing about religious rights here there was a issue and it was put on the ballot for the people to decide it and they decided.
If the streets full of women hadn't voiced their anger over their situation, they'd be stuck at home like chattel to this day.
Call civil rights demonstrations "a tantrum" if you like, but without those "tantrums" we'd be a white-skinned version of Iran today. Civil rights have only come to those who were willng to stand up and fight for them. Gay people have spent the last 50 years trying to be accepted by trying to be liked by those who would oppress them. This is the turning point in their struggle, where they shed the "mr. / ms. nice guy" and don't take the abuse anymore. It worked for women and blacks, and it will work for them. You can content yourself by knowing that if you voted for Prop 8, you created the beginning of the end of the era of inequality for gay people.
Our society is one of the most successful in the world and in the history of the world. Why would we want to play with what works? You can deride Christianity or Mormonism all you want, but the morals and social structures adopted and followed that stem from these religions have been important to the success of this country.
Traditional marriage and families have been deemed as vital to the base of the American society. Why would we want to experiment with what has already been established for the last 25,000 years? Are we really that smart? Doesn't the success of the historical base of society mean anything to anyone? Traditional marriage, as adopted by Christianity and formalized in our society, is fundamental. We must not rush to change an institution such as marriage without another two hundred years of careful social observation so as not to screw it up.
After all, the Great Society looked pretty awesome when passed as law. Looking back, that was a disaster. Let's not rush in to change a fundamental institution simply because it is cool or popular. What is popular today usually looks stupid in years to come.
That is wrong. Many of the founding fathers weren't Christians and despised organized religion.
This is a lie perpetrated by the ironically hateful fundie, extremist, right wing nutbags.
This is why, I say again, these homosexuals marching in the streets seem to me like 9 year olds throwing a tantrum because they didn't get their desert after dinner. Actually, make that a 4 year old. Most 9 year olds would show more maturity than that.
I will disclaim my comments with this statement. I've been told by both heterosexuals and homosexuals that Civil Unions in my state afford homosexuals equal rights to heterosexuals. If this is not universally true then I would add that this should be the case.
If you really could marry and keep it between you, your god, your partner, and your faith who the heck would really care? The thing is. You can't. Thus like it or not, it's a public issue. You were, are, and remain, free to have a marriage recognized by you, your god, and your faith.
Something to ponder. If a kid is propositioned by a same sex kid for sex, resulting in confusion and self castigation because they wonder what they did wrong to draw that kind of unwanted attention to themselves.
Was it the straight kids civil right to not be put through that?
Was it the gay kids civil right to make the proposition?
Before you protest, yes it works that way. It's a common reaction to relationship situations that are for the most part taboo. This includes rape.
This could easily apply to the Mormon's past stance on polygamy or Islam's claim that a man can marry up to 4 woman.
If you wish to apply this to some other situation then please feel free to. After all, it's a free country.
Seems like the Gay community is unwilling to accept the voice of the people when it comes to their new and unprecedented social institution -- one having no historical basis beyond the last five years. Society has modified laws of inheritance and the rights associated with living wills to help the gay community avoid outright discrimination, but has drawn the line on disrupting traditional man/wife marriage. So be it. the people have spoken very loudly and very resolutely on both the issue of polygamy and homosexual marriage. Law-abiding citizens now need to follow the law.
- by snapelicious November 15, 2008 2:56 PM PST
- Mr. Cooper, as an "executive editor," don't you think it's time you learn the difference between "your" and "you're"?
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- by bdaughtry November 15, 2008 3:18 PM PST
- Careful, if you criticize Mr Cooper....they'll sensor your comments.
-
-
- by rquinn7 November 15, 2008 6:08 PM PST
- I only see one instance of the word "you". I would say it is used correctly.
-
-
- by TxTom21 November 15, 2008 6:25 PM PST
- @rquinn7
-
-
- by rquinn7 November 15, 2008 6:47 PM PST
- "it counts a lot more when your voting as a member of the super-rich."
-
-
- by charlie cooper November 16, 2008 10:02 AM PST
- actually, years ago:) was a typo.....(he said, red faced beyond belief)
-
-
- by gpenglase November 17, 2008 4:58 PM PST
- Yes, Mr Cooper made a typo. But surely, snapelicious. Call him out on a journalistic issue, but let's be a bit bigger than posting because a journo's made one typo. Personally I'd much rather have your input on the matter at hand.
-
-
- by gpenglase November 17, 2008 5:01 PM PST
- If one must criticise (Aussie spelling OK?) the journalist for something let's make it about the only thing that really matters in journalism - how the story is written and presented. That's his job, not to make the news, probably not to decide which news is published, or to decide which side is right or wrong, but to report fairly the situation, occurrence, etc.
-
-
Showing 1 of 7 pages (271 Comments)"it counts a lot more when your voting as a member of the super-rich."
Used incorrectly. snapelicious is 100% on the money.
I stand corrected. Missed that one.
Whether Charlie has done that is a more reasonable topic for debate.