Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania are three states that lean toward social conservatism even if (at least in the case of Ohio and Pennsylvania) they sometimes combine this with leftish economic populism. Now, a new Quinnipiac University poll in these "Big Three" electoral swing states shows that voters are, by large margins, more likely to see the endorsement of a gay rights group as a reason to vote against, rather than for, a candidate.
Based on their religious upbringing, I'd wager that a majority of these voters reflexively answer that they believe homosexual behavior is "morally wrong." But at the same time, more than half in each of these states say they favor some form of legal recognition for gay couples.
Make of this what you will, but I'd say there is clearly room to advance gay equality here-but not if gay rights comes across as socially antinomian ("anything goes" abandonment of moral foundations) or part of a wider agenda that undercuts personal religious conviction.
And knee-jerk, government-mandated political correctness-such as forcing uniformed, municipal firefighters to participate in gay pride parades-certainly diminishes the argument for gay legal equality and makes gay rights look like part of a lefty movement that puts The State and The Collective above an individual's right to choose the political views they wish to express, based on their individual beliefs and conscience.
Actually, an endorsement by the Human Rights Campaign, the big gay fundraising lobby, doesn't necessarily make me more likely to vote for a candidate, either, given that HRC's support requires a commitment to abortion on demand and other positions that I personally find questionable (and which are net negatives in states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania).
23 Comments for “Gay Activists’ Kiss of Death?”
posted by Brian Miller on
I love it when people from outside my state, Pennsylvania, try to “explain” it — especially with language like that used in the poll (and this article).
Pennsylvania is a great place to be gay, especially the greater Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Scranton/Wilkes-Barre areas. Harrisburg is another gay-friendly mecca.
I wouldn’t want to be an openly gay man living in Lancaster County, or central Pennsylvania (affectionately known as “Pennsyltucky”), but the old “PA is an economically socialist, socially conservative” canard has been around for decades and it’s just plain wrong.
posted by Avee on
If it’s wrong, please explain the election of a Democratic U.S. senator who favors big spending but is anti-abortion?
posted by Randy on
Avee, I can answer that in two words: Rick Santorum.
So what happens when the HRC endorses the Democratic guy, and the Log Cabins endorse the GOP guy? Everyone votes for Ralph Nader?
This is so obviously worthless as a study as to hardly warrant any discussion.
posted by Carl on
-And knee-jerk, government-mandated political correctness?such as forcing uniformed, municipal firefights to participate in gay pride parades?certainly diminishes the argument for gay legal equality and makes gay rights look like part of a lefty movement –
Did any of that even happen in Florida, Ohio, or Pennsylvania? I really doubt voters in those states are fuming in outrage over what happened in some other state.
This poll seems like a lot of bunk to me. Of course if you ask people if their opinion is swayed by a gay rights group, they aren’t going to say yes. Many people automatically recoil at the idea of any big lobbying group telling them how to vote.
All these states saw major gains for Democrats in 2006 elections, even thought Democrats in those states were endorsed by gay rights groups.
If we go by the logic of this poll, then we would basically be encouraging candidates to completely ignore talking about gay issues and to shun support of ALL gay people, not just gay rights groups. That’s the path we start to go down when we go on this “see what happens when gays endorse!!!” path.
posted by arthur on
As an Ohioan, I call it the Cher syndrome. Remember how Cher, who ?loves? gay people, but had a problem when Chastity came out?
It is ?OK? for the two middle aged guys down the street to be gay; it?s none of my business, as long as they are good neighbors. BUT, if the government or a politician publicly supports that lifestyle, my own kid might think its ?OK? to be gay. That is not going to happen.
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
As a native Ohioan & someone who still pays attention to and cares about what’s going on there, I can say that Arthur’s assessment seems pretty on track. Ohio (and I suspect PA is the same way) has a “duality” — if you’re gay & live in one of the big cities (especially Columbus, my hometown, which has one of the largest gay populations in the country), life is pretty good. But, if you live in rural Putnam county, as an example, you’d better keep things very low key. And Brian, in Ohio, as I am sure is the case in PA, there are still many, many people living out there in the “hinterlands.” Are OH & PA “Deliverance country?” Certainly not, and I take great offense when people (especially those on either coast) try to portray them in that light. But, they ain’t exactly San Francisco, either.
“All these states saw major gains for Democrats in 2006 elections, even thought Democrats in those states were endorsed by gay rights groups.”
Well, in Ohio, start with eight years of an incredibly, astoundingly incompetent and corrupt Taft (Republican) administration (he had the lowest approval numbers in the history of the state); add a zealous and inarticulate right-wing Republican on the ballot (Blackwell), and sprinkle with general anger and fatigue at the Bush administration for the bungling of the war, and you create a recipe for a Democratic victory that even Bozo the Clown could have won. Thus, I wouldn’t make the correlation that therefore, this poll is somehow inaccurate. I think it’s just telling us all some things we may not necessarily want to hear. Remember, Ohio passed one of the strictest anti-gay marriage laws in the nation — by an 80+% margin.
posted by Carl on
-I think it’s just telling us all some things we may not necessarily want to hear.-
The problem is that the poll is a confusing mess. So many people are likely to respond to what they think a pollster wants to hear. So if they think “oh well I’m going to show my independence and show how I oppose those big gay groups!!”, then they will say they don’t support a candidate who is endorsed by a gay group. But in the real world, how many people pay attention to that?
All the problems you mention in Ohio that caused Republicans to lose, but what about Mike DeWine? He had done nothing wrong. He lost to an extremely liberal Democrat who had voted against DOMA.
posted by Mark on
Yes, a fire battalion chief’s stupidity in the San Diego pride parade has very little to do with Florida, Ohio, and Pennsyvania voters. However, the link to this story is an amusing sidebar. Specifically, I am entertained by the thought of an inept battalion chief issuing orders instead of asking for volunteers. And I wonder since when is the mainstay of heterosexual male bonding, the “taunting” and “teasing” from colleagues, horrific enough to warrant a lawsuit? That’s a scene from I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, not grievous moral tort. I would suggest to these big strong strapping firemen, trying hide behind judicial skirts, that they watch North Country or review the landmark 1984 lawsuit to understand what sexual harrassment REALLY IS and then reconsider their petty circumstances in light of actual history. Until then, this story exemplifies the social undercurrents of a right wing idiocracy: baffled fear-biting white men appropriating the furthest extreme of “PC” nanny-style protectionism for themselves while whining about “lefty” PC excess. To the journalist, I would welcome your conservative arguments for gay legal equality alongside individual rights, beliefs, and conscience. They would be welcome additions to gay political discourse, but most of what you’ve actually said about the poll, the parade, and the left is a high fevered fantasy of admonition, like, “If those flaming gay lefty communists would just shut up, those voters would listen to me, and then we’d all have rights.” I’m glad that we at least want the same thing.
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
“All the problems you mention in Ohio that caused Republicans to lose, but what about Mike DeWine? He had done nothing wrong.”
Not in the eyes of most Ohio Republicans. You’re vastly discounting the tremendous anger over him being one of the “Gang of 14” that found the compromise solution to the “nuclear option” in the Senate. He was also viewed by many as “straying from the reservation” when it came to environmental issues, like ANWR.
Also, people were very fed up with Republicans at the state level (let alone at the national level), and that, combined with his membership in the “Gang of 14” was enough to do him in. One other point — Brown already had statewide recognition from being a former Secretary of State.
When Rep. Deborah Pryce has re-election problems (where, in previous elections, she was elected by wide majorities) in a solidly Republican district, I’d say the issue is not the “strength” of the Democratic Party so much as it is the failure of the Republican Party.
“The problem is that the poll is a confusing mess. So many people are likely to respond to what they think a pollster wants to hear. So if they think “oh well I’m going to show my independence and show how I oppose those big gay groups!!”, then they will say they don’t support a candidate who is endorsed by a gay group. But in the real world, how many people pay attention to that?”
I don’t think the poll is as much a confusing mess as it is only asking a couple of pointed questions. Nevertheless, my point is that these results seem to be accurate given evidence such as the vote in the gay marriage amendment. Agreed that I doubt people enter the voting booth to vote for/against someone primarily on their stance on gay rights issues. Nevertheless, I think it’s accurate to extrapolate that if the majority of voters are prone to vote against gay rights, an endorsement of a candidate by a gay rights organization will only be a further “black mark” against them.
I argue that Mr. Miller is trying to find a “silver lining” where there is none. We still have MUCH more to do in these (and other) states.
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
Mark, harassment is harassment and should not be tolerated. You seem to forget the claim that they were subject to sexual taunts both on the parade route and by coworkers. It seems like you’re quite comfortable with a double standard — vigorously go after those who harass gays, but let the straights fend for themselves? What if a gay firefighter was ordered to participate in a “right-wing fundamentalists are great” parade, where he/she was subject to verbal abuse? If we expect justice for some, we should be prepared to expect justice for all.
One last point — since I and (presumably) you were not there, we have no idea of what exactly was said and done, and thus neither one of us is qualified to accurately and fairly comment on the validity of the case. That’s what a trial is all about, and I hardly see that as being “nannying,” as opposed to being told by the state that I have to wear a seat belt, stop eating foods made with trans fats, etc.
posted by Mark on
To LotMG:
You are right on your last point. I don’t know the circumstances exactly. My reaction to that case is based on generalization from prior experience. Parade route spectators probably used the same language with the firemen that firemen use with strippers. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
About your first point, the idea is laudable, and I agree with your intent. I disagree slightly in nuance. First, the story says that the bystanders “taunted” and the co-workers “teased.” It did not say the co-workers taunted. Second, harrassment is not always so immediately self-evident. There are limits to be discerned. It is a norm-referenced subjective idea: threatening or disturbing behaviors not sanctioned by society. How many sensitivites should the law protect? Should we protect these men from flattery from other men, from screams of “Take it off!” Should we protect them from insults against their masculinity? If so, then why not protect religious believers from insults against Islam? In both cases, most conservatives would agree that the aggressor is crass, but also that the victim vastly overstates their right to protection under law. In this case, a “conservative (sic) Christian legal organization from Michigan is helping represent the plaintiffs.” Their case acquires more substance when considering the behavior of the battalion chief. Should the law protect these men from the fear of an implicit or imagined threat of suspension or punishment if they did not participate in a gay pride parade? I’m surprised if it does, but again I could be wrong. As much as I agree that these men should by all means have the opportunity to refuse participation in a pride parade, it seems they should have great difficulty proving they didn’t, and it seems like a big stretch for the IGF journalist to cite their case as an example of PC coersion. Considering the many real, actual, damaging physical, emotional, and financial consequences stood down by actual survivors of gross sexual harrassment, I think these men’s case is petty and ideologically motivated.
posted by Brian Miller on
Avee, I can answer that in two words: Rick Santorum.
So what happens when the HRC endorses the Democratic guy, and the Log Cabins endorse the GOP guy? Everyone votes for Ralph Nader?
This is so obviously worthless as a study as to hardly warrant any discussion.
Hammer, nail, head.
Heck, I know pro-abortion Green Party activists who supported Casey, just to send Santorum packing.
forcing uniformed, municipal firefights to participate in gay pride parades
In Philadelphia, the firefighters participate voluntarily.
Brian, in Ohio, as I am sure is the case in PA, there are still many, many people living out there in the “hinterlands.”
Pennsylvania has a tick under 11 million people. Five million live in the Pennsylvania part of greater Philadelphia, three million live in Greater Pittsburgh, and 1.5 million live in the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre area. That’s most of the population.
The rest is thinly distributed throughout the state with a couple of larger pockets like Harrisburg-York-Lancaster and Erie. Not enough to make that big a difference, though.
And Pennsylvania isn’t Ohio, not by a longshot! For one thing, its economy is modernizing (unlike OH’s), and for another thing, it remains firmly within the path of the northeastern megaplex, which influences the state’s values and priorities.
Ohio passed one of the strictest anti-gay marriage laws in the nation — by an 80+% margin.
What was the turnout for the election?
I’m willing to bet it was under 40%.
All this talk about “80% margins” doesn’t mean jack if the turnout is low. Lots of people in “maturing” states like OH and PA have no reason to go to the polls, since ballot access laws and cushy backroom political deals ensure that no matter who wins the actual election, it will be a Republicrat who will continue “business as usual.”
That’s certainly the case in Philadelphia, where the outcome is always continued corruption and patronage regardless of which old party control City Hall. So lots of people who don’t agree with the anti-gay stuff just drop out of the system altogether, and the parties and candidates who could excite them are shut out of the electoral process by the corrupt elements who support the anti-gay legislation.
Those folks are hardly a reflection of the majority, however.
posted by dalea on
From: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1089
The actual data:
‘In Ohio, 10 percent say the endorsement of a gay rights group would make them more likely to support a candidate while 34 percent say less likely and 54 percent say it would make no difference. In Pennsylvania, 11 percent say it would make them more likely, with 28 percent saying less likely and 59 percent saying it would make no difference. Among Florida voters, 10 percent say more likely, while 28 percent are less likely and 60 percent say it would make no difference.’
So the actual poll says that in Ohio 64% would vote for a gay endorsed candidate. In Pennsylvania the number is 70%. In Florida also 70%.
Or consider this another way: the net impact. In Ohio it is 24%, in Pennsylvania 17%, in Florida 18%. All of these are net negatives obtained by subtracting the more likelies from the less likelies.
In short the study does not show what the article at Politico says it does. It shows that there is still a remnent of anti-gay sentiment, which looks very much like GWBII’s approval numbers. This number probably also overlaps the numbers for the Christianist Right.
What the poll actually shows is that a solid majority in each state does not regard gay endorsement as a negative. The numbers for this are strong.
IMHO the Independent Gay Forum would really be aided by having some sort of minimal intellectual standards. Like the Leftist idea of actually checking figures before putting up right wing lunatic analysis. Probably just me though. This has been here for 20 hours and I am the first to look at the actual results of the study. This says something very powerful about the ‘gay right’.
posted by Bobby on
Can anyone explain to me why should any city workers be forced to march in a gay pride parade? That’s seems very wrong to me. Like forcing employees to contribute to United Way.
posted by Mark on
Yes, it’s totally wrong. But can these men really claim they were “forced?” In fact, the battalion chief had previously asked for volunteers, so the precedent existed for firefighters to refuse. Here’s the story: “Fire department spokesman Maurice Luque said the four men, who were assigned to a fire station in the parade route area, were called in after another crew that had volunteered to participate canceled at the last minute because one firefighter had a family emergency.” Again, an unfortunate situation, and a bad experience, but a frivolous lawsuit to grind an ideological axe.
posted by Brian Miller on
Suppose your private sector employer, to show pro-gay tolerance, ordered you to march in a gay parade or be disciplined/terminated.
Would your employer be “forcing” you? Of course not. You can get another job.
Same deal with city employees.
I’m constantly amazed by Republicans who talk the “free market” talk but love their socialist entitlement employment rhetoric on the side when it comes to government employees who agree with them.
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
Mark, I still get the impression that you are comfortable with a double standard, and you’re trying to split hairs to cover this. I totally agree with your premise that we don’t want people running to the courts every time someone looks at someone cross-eyed in the office; nevertheless, if the allegations are true (and that’s precisely what a court case is designed to vet), then those firefighters are, IMO, entitled to redress, no matter who they are.
One other point — are you a lisping, purse-carrying, mincing queen? If not, then I suggest you stay away from generalizations that all firemen are beer-swilling, stripper-ogling, hypermasculine men.
I think some here are missing the point. Why should any employer be allowed to force an employee to participate in ANY activity that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with their job??
Brian, I agree with you on many things (especially about the failure of BOTH major parties), but I can’t even fathom what the world would be like if your philosophy on employment laws (or the lack thereof) ever saw the light of day. Sweatshops, anyone?!? And I know you & I have talked about this before, but the turnout percentage doesn’t mean “jack.” If there’s a “silent majority,” as you keep insisting, it doesn’t matter as long as it remains SILENT.
And Dalea, while I am not a member of the “gay right,” I did read the ENTIRE REPORT. Guess you stopped at question #18, because had you bothered to read question #22, here’s what you would have found:
22. In general, do you personally believe that homosexual behavior is morally acceptable or morally wrong?
Acceptable: 35%(FL), 30%(OH), 34%(PA); Wrong: 51%(FL) 55%(OH), 53%(PA); DK/NA: 14%(FL), 15%(OH), 13%(PA)
Even with your inexplicable, yet amusing interpretation, if you add up all of the “acceptable” and “DK/NA” responses (a BIG stretch), the “wrongs” are still the majority.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d love it if we lived in a world where we were all treated with equality & respect. I just don’t think we’re doing ourselves any favors by desperately looking for any shred of evidence (whether real or imaginary) that the majority of people are there at this point in time.
posted by Jimbo on
Frankly, I don’t care if voters think my homosexuality is morally wrong. It has nothing to do with how I live my life. For those that are bothered by those numbers: grow a skin & let it roll off your back.
posted by Brian Miller on
I can’t even fathom what the world would be like if your philosophy on employment laws (or the lack thereof) ever saw the light of day. Sweatshops, anyone?!?
Nice hyperbole, but it doesn’t reflect reality. Sweatshops in modern economies don’t exist, because modern economies employ individuals unwilling to work in such poor conditions.
Heck, Americans are so spoiled they won’t even pick veggies or clean hotel rooms anymore — hence the flood of “illegal immigrants” to take those jobs.
“Sweatshops without labor laws” is one of my favorite fallacies. 😉
the turnout percentage doesn’t mean “jack.” If there’s a “silent majority,” as you keep insisting, it doesn’t matter as long as it remains SILENT.
The reason it remains silent is because of the unwillingness of gay activists, women’s activists, black activist, conservative activists, etc. to shake up the system a bit.
Indegayforum suffers from this as much as any left-wing group. As long as people continue to insist that we “must work within the (corrupt and uncodified) two-party system,” a majority of Americans will continue to tune out of the politics game.
I don’t blame them. Why should they play in a game where the rules are stacked against them, when it’s easier to just vote with your feet and your pocketbook?
Take a look at the population of cities like Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia to see what happens.
The alternative is actually reaching out to the disenfranchised with a message of involvement and empowerment, but whenever Libertarians or Greens are successful with that, the Republicrats just change the rules again to clear the field of competition — justifying the rationale of the silent masses as to why they don’t bother playing the game in the first place.
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
“Nice hyperbole, but it doesn’t reflect reality. Sweatshops in modern economies don’t exist, because modern economies employ individuals unwilling to work in such poor conditions.”
Hyperbole, eh?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5408446
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/he95029.pdf
If you honestly believe that if we abolished all of the labor laws & left business to their own devices that most (but not all) would not revert to “their old ways,” then I have some fabulous beachfront property in Kansas I’d like to interest you in.
You’re completely ignoring the historical precedents like the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire, Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle,” and on and on.
“The alternative is actually reaching out to the disenfranchised with a message of involvement and empowerment . . . ”
No, it’s not about politics. It’s about changing hearts and minds. It’s about convincing your neighbor that not all gay people prance around in leather shorts looking for that next sexual conquest. It’s about convincing your coworkers that your sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with your abilities to do the job. In other words, it’s not an easy or fast process.
I agree with you that we Americans are a pretty spoiled lot. But it’s because we have become expectant of the “quick fix.” Since changing peoples’ hearts and minds is not going to happen via a “quick fix,” it’s going to take much longer than some are prepared (or equipped) to handle. This is a marathon; it ain’t a sprint.
posted by Mark on
To LotMG: 1) You said, “I totally agree with your premise that we don’t want people running to the courts every time someone looks at someone cross-eyed in the office.” Then we agree.
2) Keep in mind that this case seems to be using sexual harassment law to protect the firemen from an ideological conflict. The fireman said, “I was forced into a situation that would compromise what I hold true and what I believe in.” That seems like a very slippery slope! When and if cases like these win and form precedent, couldn?t anyone anywhere with a purpose driven life and an ax to grind have access to the courts for their petty complaints?
3) These firemen had no actual threat and no actual consequence for refusing to participate. It was imaginary. There was also NO RECURRENCE. It seems to me that recurring actual behavior and actual punishing consequences should be the standard for having a case.
4) To be clear, I made no generation about beer-swilling firemen. You did. Additionally, in our culture, your phrase “lisping, purse-carrying, mincing queen” IS an emasculating insult, while “beer-swilling, stripper-ogling, hypermasculine men” is the gold standard of flattery: every day media outlets everywhere sell commercial spots for millions of dollars each to corporations who make millions more marketing their products to men who consume that image of themselves AND ENJOY IT. Even so, I made no such assertion. It’ll be interesting to see this case play out, and to read the reaction of experts and other observers.
posted by ARealModerateGay on
So-called “LotMG”: I checked out your first reference, the NPR one, and I have to say I wasn’t impressed. It was an utterly one-sided report; it didn’t even pretend there could be 2 sides or mitigating facts on anything. It threw around bugaboo words like “sweatshop” and “indentured servitude” almost without defining them. It did eventually describe the Marianas factory conditions a little bit, at which point it became clear that the foreign guest workers flocked to the factories because conditions and pay were so much BETTER than in China (or wherever). After barely registering that fact, the reporters went back to hurling their ill-defined, charged terms. Then they bemoaned the fact that, under increased competitive pressure from China where wages might be 60 cents a day, the Marianas factories were CLOSING. Think about that: Isn’t it contradictory to criticize the factories on the one hand for providing jobs that foreigners flock to and want to work, despite the strangeness to our ears; then turn around and criticize the factories for no longer being able to provide jobs? And if U.S. “reforms” (wages and laws) were introduced at the factories, wouldn’t that simply accelerate the process of destroying the factories and jobs? So in the end, the report makes no sense, except to communicate a message that the world sucks, sucks, sucks, in every way, no matter what anyone does. But we’re not supposed to question the reports’ negativity and self-contradictions. It’s a left-wing NPR report, so we’re just supposed to be good little sheeple who nod our heads with “concern” – and feel angry at the real targets, evil Republicans and corporations that try to produce clothes and create jobs. Well, LothMg, if that is how you get your knowledge of the world, good luck to you.
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
Mark:
2) While there, most likely, is ideology involved, if true, this is a case about harassment by coworkers and the public while in their role, on-duty, as firemen. Again, agreed, that we don’t want people with an ” . . . ideological ax to grind” to create a workplace ridden with litigation. Nevertheless, when you keep bringing up code words like ” . . . purpose-driven life,” it makes me believe that you are more interested in preventing people you don’t like & agree with from litigating against people with whom you most likely agree. Again, what if the situation was reversed? Would you feel the gay firefighters were engaging in an activity that was ” . . .not (a) grievous moral tort?”
3) “These firemen had no actual threat and no actual consequence for refusing to participate. It was imaginary.” How do you know this? What proof do you have? Again, that’s why we have courts — to vet this out. Perhaps you’re right. But what if you’re not? I’d say that most employees who disobey a superior are, at the very least, opening themselves up for insubordination charges, wouldn’t you? Also, nowhere in the article does the San Diego Fire Department offer a denial. If this was not the case, why not come out publicly & deny it? As far as recurrence, obviously, the parade is a once-a-year event. But, what the article leaves unclear is how often — and, just as important — how “harsh” the alleged harassment was. Sometimes, it’s not the frequency, it’s the intensity.
3) “To be clear, I made no generation about beer-swilling firemen.” True, you did not mention beer. What you did mention was ” . . . big, strong, strapping firemen,” and “Parade route spectators probably used the same language with the firemen that firemen use with strippers.” Your words, not mine. and as much as many in the gay community squawk about stereotypes, they should not then turn around and do that which they so vociferously decry. Since the article did not show photos of the plaintiffs, nor did it elaborate on their personal lives, I’d think it would be wise to stay away from generalizations.
“RealModerate:”
I find it interesting that you apparently did not bother to read the GAO report . . . or, apparently, to do even a cursory search (try looking to see how some in the restaurant delivery business in NYC are faring) of other incidences. I’d be interested in hearing where you get your supposed “unbiased” news? Perhaps from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce web site? But, hey . . . as long as your life is good, who gives a crap about others, right?
Perhaps you should get a job at Northwest Airlines?:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/News/TryDumpsterDivingAirlineTellsWorkers.aspx
I think your self-described moniker is quickly losing its veracity . . .