122 Comments

      3. He’s a pitcher, part yogi and part recluse. Impressively liberated from our opulent life-style, Sidd’s deciding about yoga—and his future in baseball.

        In honor of Sports Illustrated’s 60th anniversary, SI.com is republishing, in full, 60 of the best stories ever to appear in the magazine. Today’s selection is “The Curious Case Of Sidd Finch,” by George Plimpton. It originally ran in the April 1, 1985 issue.

        Reply

        1. In other news a Super Massive Computing Project has determined the meaning of life,the universe, and everything. The answer arrived at was 42. What that means is anyones guess (to be determined later, by a continuation of the project.) The white mice could not be found for comment. 😀

    3. This is brilliant commentary on Apple, Tim Cook, diversity, sanctimoniousness, gay rights, corporate activism, tolerance, and even more, MacDailyNews. All wrapped up in a perfect April Fools’ Day joke.

      Tour de force, MacDailyNews!

      Reply

        1. Sorry fat fingers.

          Probably. But MDN has called folks out before for writing pieces that just scream click bait. Even suggesting that you think before you click on the original article to prevent the authors from getting more page views. Half of the comments on this post are political. If they didn’t craft this piece to capitalize on the recent debate of the Indiana law, they at least got the benefit the right-left debate that generates traffic.

        2. I’m not going to bother to explain the implicit meaning of MDN’s article or to whom it is directed. If you can’t figure it out, that’s your problem, but to denigrate it as “hit whoring” just because you don’t get it is bad form. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

          This article is one of the best blog entries any of us will read all year. Perfectly timed. Perfectly pitched. Perfectly pointed.

        3. It’s crap. Stick to news about Apple products or issues that affect Apple sales. The activism nonsense is fine for individuals, but leave the company out unless you’re going to be consistent and go after every country, politician, etc. rather than just scapegoating some of them.

          No real moral stand here ,just free political mileage for a certain segment of the community.

    1. Please stop spreading ignorance. Religious freedom is important, and Indiana did not codify discrimination. What Indiana did was take a cudgel out of the hands of homosexual fascists. Now the Indiana state government must tread lightly upon religious freedom (good idea), and for-profit businesses can use the first amendment as a defense in court cases. You know, the ability to freely exercise the founders’ religion? Homosexual fascists should not be allowed to drive companies out of business because they refuse to participate in homosexual “marriage” or create products that violate their beliefs. Are you a fascist too? Do you love having the state disallow people from living out their faith? Why are you so enamored with government power and force?

      Reply

        1. “Freedom from religion” is not a right protected by the Constitution, except that you cannot be coerced into believing or practicing a religion. But your personal freedom of (lack of) religion does not trump the right of anyone else to publicly practice their religion, nor the right of a religious group to receive the same consideration with relationship to the government as any non-religious organization.

          In other words, I won’t try to convert you, and you won’t try to humiliate me; I get to put up my Nativity scene, or Passover display, or Eid memorial at the public park, and you get to put up your display of why you believe there’s no God. And if we’re both there manning our displays, we’ll take turns going and getting coffee for each other, because we’re reasonable people who can disagree without getting hostile to each other.

        2. Freedom OF Religion means freedom TO HAVE or TO NOT HAVE religion as you see fit for yourself.

          So yes, it does mean freedom FROM religion. How else could you possibly be free to make your own religious choices.

        3. You do not have freedom FROM religion. You are free to practice or not practice the religion of your choice, but you do not have freedom FROM religion. Freedom FROM religion would mean telling others that they can’t practice their religious beliefs within your vicinity. That is not the case.

        4. Wrong. My downstairs neighbors were a small, quiet computer firm for years. They left and some religious group rented the space. They held LOUD revival meetings three nights a week. I complained, they were evicted.

          If they were quiet and didn’t bother anyone else, they’d still be there but apparently the being they worshipped was either deaf or narcoleptic and needed a lot of music, singing and other noise to get and keep its attention.

          In a nutshell, they were annoying others and got booted.

        5. Seriously? Are you that dense?

          You do NOT have freedom FROM religion, that is not a right enshrined in the Constitution. You have freedom OF religion, which means the freedom to practice or not practice a religion of your choice without the government forcing a particular faith (or lack of one) on you. Your neighbors got booted because of a noise ordinance or violating the terms of a lease, but NOT because of any Constitutional protection FROM religion.

          You literally scare me and the idea that you might be allowed to vote, and that you may have already graduated high school and yet still made a statement like that.

        6. People are willing to send schizophrenics for psychiatric treatment when they espouse wacky beliefs, hear voices or see visions, but as soon as they claim that it’s God talking to them, the wacky beliefs are their deeply held faith or the visions are of saints or angels, it’s no longer schizophrenia but religion and psychiatric help is off the table.

          People should treat religion as a mental illness, not excuse childish beliefs or an ignorance of science as “faith”. A 5 year old with an imaginary friend is cute, a 50 year old with one is just pathetic.

        7. emmayche, freedom of religion does include no specific religion. religion of science, etc. its general.

          And you can put up what every display you like. But I do not like my government sources spending my money for Muslim, baptist, catholic or other wise religious icons.
          And that is where the problem lies.

          Schools can no longer MAKE you PRAY. But they can have a minute of quiet time so each child can pray or think in their own way. Remember, if you want schools etc to have the power to make you pray, that goes the same for muslim schools. Just saying.

        8. You will note in my post, please, that I did mention that one is personally free to choose to have no religion, but that does not mean that one can assert a right to be free from the presence of religion in society. I agree with you that no tax monies should be spent on specifically religious purposes, with the caveat that a religious organization should be treated no differently in its rights to use public facilities (and funds) that would any other organization. (In other words, if the city is going to give the Chamber of Commerce access to city land for a display for a given charge, any church should have the same or equivalent access for the same charge; no discrimination either for or against religious groups.)

          And while I disagree with the tenets of Islam, I would defend their right to require prayers of their students in their schools, just as I would defend similar rights of a Catholic or Protestant school, or the rights of a student in a public school to pray in a non-disruptive manner either alone or with others in that school and using school facilities to the same extent that any non-religious grouping of students would.

        1. No, they are right. The law in Indiana does NOT codify discrimination, it’s no different than similar existing laws at the state and federal level. This is a free publicity stunt by a certain political subset of the nation to get the stage.

  8. Apple should boycott Indiana by closing all it’s stores. Let’s see if Apple’s money is where their mouth is.

    Indianapolis, The Fashion Mall at Keystone
    Mishawaka, University Park Mall

    Otherwise, it a rainbow colored apple logo against the people of Indiana. Big deal.

    Reply

    1. And put how many loyal Apple employees out of work? Better yet hang the new logo on the two stores as large as it can be. Do the same in all those southern states that have passed similar garbage law in the name of religion.

      Reply

      1. Better yet, take your company out of the culture wars completely and do what you do best – make user-friendly and powerful computers. Funny how successful Apple was when it wasn’t getting involved in ancillary debates.

        Reply

      2. What are you talking about? The only reason those loyal Apple employees go to work is for greedy money. Apple could still pay them for staying home and doing nothing. That would be the liberal consistent thing to do.

        Reply

        1. If you see some idiot proposing Apple employees be paid to stay home, then by all means call them out. If they call themselves a “Liberal” then you can too.

          But politicizing and name calling based on imaginary people/arguments doesn’t shed light on anything.

      1. Your ad hominem attacks do not convince me. In any case, the government has no business in making people violate their own faith. Apple can take any stance it wants to, but I doubt that preaching to the 3% is a viable business model. The blowback is only just beginning.

        Reply

        1. Yeah, ask those two Governors how they like the blowback. Selling a product in the public venue is not making people violate their faith. They use public infrastructure to sell their goods, they don’t get to discriminate against a class of people. Kudos to Apple and Wal-Mart for standing up against these bigot bullies.

        3. You’re being deliberately obtuse. These laws do not allow you to do anything under the sun in the name of religion and they don’t mean you will win a court case, but it does allow you to bring it as a defense. There are literally tons of articles online that show how this law is being completely mischaracterized.

          As for your example, no, I don’t support that because you are HARMING someone. Bodily injury, death, harming someone financially by not providing a service they paid for, those are all obviously different to anyone who can see (or cares to). In the Oregon case, there was NO harm. None. The baker simply said they didn’t want to participate in it because it violated their religious convictions and they didn’t want to participate in something that they see as aiding someone in committing a sin. Whether you or I believe in that or not is immaterial, there was no harm.

          This whole controversy is just free political mileage for some activists, who apparently are “tolerant” only when people agree with them. The following article shows that not even the entire gay community agrees with the controversy. http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/gay-rights-advocates-back-indiana-law/.

          I also suspect this is prepping for 2016 and the attempt to use it as a devisive issue to scare people into voting one way or the other.

    3. How about China? Russia, Iran? Where is all the outrage over the conditions of ALL people in these countries, let alone workers of Apple products.

      I’m not saying the Indiana Law is good, nor am I saying it is bad, but it is HYPOCRITICAL to say boycott Indiana, when you make profit off of the backs of the oppressed in other parts of the world.

      Reply

        1. Asserting “Person or company X isn’t in process of fixing ALL problems worldwide, therefore they can’t do or say anything about THIS issue” is mind-blisteringly stupid.

  10. Is this going to be the logo on the products as well? I’m not sure I’m ok with that. I support gay rights, but I don’t want to have my gear I carry around shout out that I too am gay when I’m not.

    Reply

        1. Actually, no, I don’t actually – The idiocy is everywhere.

          Automatically associating “rainbow” with “gay” is a demonstration of personal prejudice. Especially since, the Apple logo was designed before the LGBT Flag.

        4. You think the identification of rainbow stripes with gay rights is “a triumph of homosexual militant marketing”?

          Boy are you going to be upset when you realize how many other kinds of corporations, parties and other movements use colors in their marketing.

        5. OHHH Yes, starting with “hoffbegone” above. Doesn’t this jerk know that many states have passed similar legislation? How and why Indiana got pick to have this discourse on is a mystery, but it by no means is limited to Indiana.

        6. Thank you for pointing this out. I think the number is above 30 that have similar laws, modeled after 1993’s Defense of Marriage act, passed at the federal level by Clinton. After DOMA was struck down on a technicality, many states followed suit in passing their own laws to safeguard religious freedom.

        7. Actually not modeled after DOMA, but after the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). It was originally intended to apply to both States and to the Federal government, but the Supreme Court limited the application of the Federal law to the Federal government, which required States to pass their own versions in order to have the same protections at the State level.

        8. Thanks for pointing that out. Apple should shut down completely (ie boycott the 30 states and the whole world for that matter) until everyone thinks the way Tim Cook thinks.

          That will show them who’s boss.

          Isn’t that what Apple does? If Apple’s suppliers don’t conform, Apple will stop buying from them. Why not the other way around?

          But it will never happen that way because …

          Money speaks louder than words. You’re all hypocrits which is worse than me being a jerk.

  21. For people who wants to boycott Starbucks or  for supporting diversity aren’t the target market for these companies to begin with. They should just change United States of America to United “Countries” of America for the way things are ever since the British left. Prejudice and discrimination is rampant in America

    Reply

    2. You don’t understand what the United States of America is – the United States, meaning many states (originally each just shy of sovereign) united.

      And please stop with the America bashing. Look at the rampant anti-semitic tendencies in mainland Europe and even in Britain. America is much, much friendlier to Jews than is Europe, for instance.

      Reply

      1. *YOU* don’t understand what the United States of America *IS*.

        The USA *WAS* a collection of many shy-of-soveriegn states. It also WAS bound by a wonderful set of ideals recorded into its Constitution and original Amendments.

        States today bear no resemblance to that model. If you disagree, I point you to the many intrusions of federal power and coercion into state affairs, which the right have been fighting against for decades.

        Like the Bible, the Constitution has been perverted, misinterpreted, “modernized”, select passages elevated while inconvenient ones ignored.

        The founding fathers would be horrified of the USA as it currently exists.

        Reply

      2. here. On the contrary with your comment, I am aware of what “UNITED” states means, at the same time I’m rather expressing an opinion. However, about the Jews in Europe, I concur, having said that America has not been much much much friendlier to their non white citizens. Especially the African-Americans to this day. If you’re offended by my comment it was not intended.

        Reply

  24. The logo was supposed to mean the connection between the sky and the earth (and Apple), but it’s not right. The blue should be on top and the green on the bottom. Then it looks like a nice sunset.

    Reply

  25. A close look at the rainbow Apple logo will reveal that the sequence of colours differs from an actual rainbow in that it starts at green instead of red (and is in reverse order). This is logical as the apple’s leaf should be green. It also belies any consideration that it was designed specifically to support the gay rights movement.

    Using it at this point in history to support diversity in all its forms is sheer brilliance.

    Reply

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,