A job well done: Oscar Munoz not only alienated a big portion of his customers and shareholders, but a lot of his employees, too . . .
So what do United’s employees think of all this? I heard from a couple of dozen of them, obviously not a scientific survey, but the replies were running about 4:1 against both Munoz’s answer and United’s decision to drop the NRA discount. For example:
- “It is a political decision,” said one retired United employee who is also an NRA member. [A]irlines are very leftist.”
- A current United employee: “If it was political then he doesn’t speak for us that do support the NRA. If it was personal, then I suggest he step down since he [can’t] seem to separate personal decisions from business decisions.”
- “It’s a discount not a ban. People are getting upset over a discount?” said a United ramp agent.
- “It was his personal opinion Not mine! Shame on him,” said a current program manager.
- Another current employee: “He doesn’t speak for me and he is NOT my family!”
- A current United first officer: “All these mass shootings and now in our schools, and we still have an NRA.”
No one is forcing them, but plenty of the do . . .
Are teachers a bunch of gun nuts? Is this the root of a hidden conspiracy where school teachers are really the secret strength of the NRA? I doubt it. Fortunately we have real data so we don’t need to rely on opinion. Facts show that a surprisingly large percentage of teachers want to carry a firearm at school. The fraction of teachers who want to go armed is several times higher than the average concealed carry rate across the US. That makes sense once we dig into it.
The conventional talking point is that teachers don’t like guns. Unionized teachers are broadly considered to be more liberal than the general populace. The president of the National Education Association said, “Bringing more guns into our schools does nothing to protect our students and educators from gun violence.” If guns are not the answer, then perhaps the teachers union president wants us to call animal control when a school is attacked? Most of us would call a cop; a good guy with a gun.
Lefties are simply incapable of acknowledging when a good guy with a gun prevails . . .
The situation, however, may be more complex than the NRA and conservative figures have claimed, and may not be the best evidence for the “good guy with a gun” theory.
While the civilian’s actions were no doubt heroic, they should be taken in context. According to eyewitness Ron Benton, interviewed by KFOR, the alleged shooter exited the restaurant and began walking erratically on the sidewalk, still armed and with ear and eye protection on his head. Benton said another car exited the parking lot at that point, then turned around and stopped. A man — the “good guy with a gun” civilian — got out, went to his trunk, and began to exchange fire with the alleged shooter after Benton pointed him toward the gunman.
After the shooting stopped, Benton said he emerged from behind the car he had ducked behind and saw that the civilian had “taken [the alleged gunman] down,” but noticed the police were also pulling into the lot at that same moment.
I forgot to ask this last night @ArtAcevedo : when you told me that “we will be watching” (as a result of you disliking my remarks on your reported-on support of sanctuary city policies), are you using the resources of the Houston PD to watch me? AM I under surveillance? https://t.co/VG5U2M5rdu
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 23, 2018
Chief Art, in all his impotence, picked a fight with the wrong woman . . .
Acevedo hilariously responded like a child to some of the tweets put out by NRATV that featured comments made by Loesch, writing: “Bye forever or until we meet in court.”
Not intimidated, Loesch continued to call him out over his policies, which led to Acevedo saying that he and his department “we will be watching” her.
Acevedo was ill-prepared for what came next, as Loesch called out his insinuation that he might be having her surveilled. Loesch responded with the following series of tweets . . .
We’re guessing they’ll try . . .
Texas has laws designed to force parents to keep their firearms out of their kids’ hands. Prosecutors can charge parents even if a child doesn’t ever fire the gun or cause an injury; just allowing access to firearms is a violation. (However, in the case of Santa Fe High School, the shooter was already 17. The law applies only to children under 17 years old.)
As Texas begins to grapple with how to stop mass shootings — particularly in schools — politicians are struggling to come up with solutions that will curb violence while fitting into the state’s gun culture and commitment to the Second Amendment. The idea of holding parents responsible is already on the books (though rarely enforced) and could be one option to engage gun rights advocates who also support the conservative value of parental responsibility. So why aren’t these laws more popular with conservatives?
— Kaitlin Bennett (@KaitMarieox) May 25, 2018
Camera Hogg mau maus Publix into ending support for pro-NRA Adam Putnam:
BREAKING: @Publix suspends corporate funded political contributions after coming under fire for giving money to gubernatorial candidate Adam Putnam. Planned “die-in” protest is now cancelled. @nbc6 pic.twitter.com/qlW5TTLP2S
— Jamie Guirola (@jamieNBC6) May 25, 2018