The American Spectator

The Spectacle Blog

Look out, the thought police are hard at work. From Slate's Dear Prudence column:

Albuquerque, N.M.: I manage an accounting department. Recently, my boss showed me an e-mail from a worker who reports to me. The e-mail indicated that the writer believed my boss was of the same opinion and would enjoy a rant by Ben Stein against the president of the United States. She was sufficiently savvy as to NOT send me a copy. My boss, a very kind and gentle man who does not like conflict, was appalled, as was I. How could this employee be so misguided as to think my boss would enjoy that e-mail? [...] I now think very differently about this reliable worker. I hesitate to clue her in that sending this type of e-mail is, well, just plain stupid, because I have been protecting her against layoff. Knowing her true political opinions, I am no longer inclined to protect her. I would not want her to suspect the true reason for being part of the next layoff. Am I being reasonable?

Too bad the flag@whitehouse.gov is no more; the underling's email is exactly the kind of "fishy email" that they would have loved.

My only hope is that "Albuquerque"'s boss's boss hates Dear Prudence, and decides to fire her ("Albuquerque") upon being forwarded this Dear Prudence column.

I'm guessing that the Ben Stein article in question was this one, "We've Figured Him Out," from July. It was the most widely-read article we've this year, I think, so I hope that there aren't vast legions of readers out there in danger of losing their jobs because they forwarded the article in the workplace. 

But Prudence comes through in the clutch:

.... How insidious to maneuver to lay her off because you realize you have the chance to punish someone whose views you find repugnant. I assume this would be the kind of thing that would appall you if people on the other end of the spectrum were doing it.