4 ms·

So we pivot from "he's just a private citizen supporting his friend on his own time, nothing to do with Facebook!" back to "he's representing Facebook in his pr

by paulmd 8y ago

So we pivot from "he's just a private citizen supporting his friend on his own time, nothing to do with Facebook!" back to "he's representing Facebook in his professional capacity as a senior management figure"? You can't have it both ways. Being honest here, there is no direct connection to Facebook's interests. This is not a court case in which Facebook has some stake, at best they would just be there to "show the colors". Either way you take it, someone is supporting Kav here. It's either Kaplan personally, or Facebook professionally. (and again, I am also not commenting here about whether he should be confirmed or not, but let's not pretend that everybody just showed up for a free 8oz bottle of water. Whether Kaplan's interest is personal or official, there is an interest.)

dvtrn 8y ago
I'm not trying to have it both ways, I'm remarking that there may be a very simple and good reason for Kaplan to appear while recognizing there could be very interesting outcomes if-as you put it-he or anyone else were to lose their job for it. This isn't a remarkably difficult exercise of mental plurality. Nor is it one of partisan critique. If someone attends a government function as a private citizen and is fired for it, I think that would make for an interesting set of legal questions with regards to employment law. If someone were fired for doing the same even in an official capacity, that-to me-would be even more interesting. Since you brought up strict standards for certain levels of employees, I responded to that. You can't very logically say my response to this is trying to have it both ways if all I've done is respond to your talking points. That's all there is to that, imo. Don't read between the lines here because there's really nothing there to read; I am positing that one really doesn't need to connect many dots for Kaplan's attendance at these hearings, but I can entertain the idea you presented: that being fired for attending a government function would make for interesting legal theater as an impartial and dispassionate onlooker.

by paulmd 8y ago

dvtrn 8y ago

I'm not trying to have it both ways, I'm remarking that there may be a very simple and good reason for Kaplan to appear while recognizing there could be very interesting outcomes if-as you put it-he or anyone else were to lose their job for it. This isn't a remarkably difficult exercise of mental plurality. Nor is it one of partisan critique. If someone attends a government function as a private citizen and is fired for it, I think that would make for an interesting set of legal questions with regards to employment law. If someone were fired for doing the same even in an official capacity, that-to me-would be even more interesting. Since you brought up strict standards for certain levels of employees, I responded to that. You can't very logically say my response to this is trying to have it both ways if all I've done is respond to your talking points. That's all there is to that, imo. Don't read between the lines here because there's really nothing there to read; I am positing that one really doesn't need to connect many dots for Kaplan's attendance at these hearings, but I can entertain the idea you presented: that being fired for attending a government function would make for interesting legal theater as an impartial and dispassionate onlooker.