Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Your translation?
Next Post: Release some hostages, please
Posted in:
* I just don’t know what these internet trolls are thinking. Can they not edit themselves? Do they have no idea that other people are reading their words and that their stupidity will reflect on themselves? Are they just complete morons? This guy was no civil service hire. He was a political appointee who contributed money to his future boss’ campaigns. And yet he just apparently loved spewing goofiness…
The same day Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez released an Internet ad formally launching her reelection bid, word came that one of her top deputies resigned over his Internet activity – crass Facebook comments he made about Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, the Rev. Al Sharpton and others.
Daniel Gallagher, the $153,000-a-year chief of the state’s attorney’s civil actions bureau until he quit over the weekend following questions from the Better Government Association and FOX Chicago, posted a Facebook comment on a photo of the First Lady meeting Pope Francis in September. Referring to her weight and appearance, Gallagher wrote, “I think Moosechelle was hiding a secret service agent in the seat of her dress.”
Commenting on an article that accompanied a photo of Clinton, who is running for president, Gallagher wrote on Facebook, “As Eddie Murphy would say, ‘Da ***** ugly!’”
Some of Gallagher’s posts were time stamped during regular work hours, but Alvarez press secretary Sally Daly said she didn’t know whether he was on the clock. […]
Reached by the BGA/FOX, Gallagher confirmed the Facebook posts were his and, on occasion, that he’s been on the social media site while on the clock for county government. He said he regretted some of his words, saying of the Michelle Obama remark, “I probably shouldn’t have done that.”
But he also emphasized he had a right to free speech.
* Gallagher most certainly has a right to free speech. But with rights come responsibilities and he definitely doesn’t have a right to a job. And he lost it.
But, perhaps you disagree.
And not to point out the obvious here, but what’s a guy like that doing on the payroll of the state’s attorney? Also, it’s more than a bit ironic that his job title was “chief of the state’s attorney’s civil actions bureau.” Those posts weren’t exactly civil.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 9:20 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Your translation?
Next Post: Release some hostages, please
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
When you read stories like that, you just wonder how in the world people like that ever get any kind of job, period.
Comment by Big Joe Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 9:27 am
He donated 13 grand since 2007 and last year got this high-paying job.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/illinois-legal-official-quits-after-crude-posts-about-moosechelle-obama-and-btch-hillary-are-exposed/
http://www.statesattorney.org/press_AnitaNamesCivilAttorney.html
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 9:27 am
“….that he’s been on the social media site while on the clock for county government.”
Who hasn’t?
Comment by Rufus Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 9:33 am
A real meathead.
Comment by Cubs In 15 Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 9:34 am
Rocket science is probably his next career move.
Comment by Wordslinger Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 9:37 am
Come on. Million of people have said much worse about Michelle and Hillary. This guy has a right to free speech like everyone else. This looks like a case of I believe in free speech as long as I agree with what you say.
Comment by Silent Majority Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 9:38 am
When the BGA and FOX question a right wing hater and it results in a job loss (resignation), that’s almost ironic.
I’m just kidding.
The real irony is that this is a right winger working for a Democrat who resigned because he tried to severely insult Democrats and their supporters.
Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 9:39 am
Everyone has a right to free speech, that doesn’t mean they are immune from the consequences of exercising that right.
Comment by Just Me Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 9:40 am
**This guy has a right to free speech like everyone else. **
Sigh… please read up on the first amendment. You are right. He has a right to free speech. He cannot get arrested for saying what he said. But you don’t have the right to say whatever you want and automatically get to keep your job.
Comment by clerk observer Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 9:46 am
==This guy has a right to free speech like everyone else==
He doesn’t have a right to a job. You think the Constitution gives you the right to say whatever the heck you want and there can be no consequences? I’ll answer that for you. The answer is no.
==This looks like a case of I believe in free speech as long as I agree with what you say.==
Another victim heard from.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 9:47 am
==This looks like a case of I believe in free speech as long as I agree with what you say.==
No, this is a case of, don’t be a grown man making lewd comments on Facebook.
Besides, Daniel…bro…you should not be spewing hate with that pathetic excuse of a moosetache on your face. #trolling
Comment by Under Influenced Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 9:49 am
There’s a bit of an analogy here with CapFax caption contests, which I usually take part in.
Rich has proven himself a gentleman, and I’m glad he keeps the site civil. Making fun of people’s appearance, as Gallagher did, should be dropped from everybody’s agenda in junior high.
We post under screen names, but that protection demands we behave ourselves and refrain from vicious attacks.
I compare CapFax caption contests to editorial cartoons. The best ones make a point and make you laugh too.
As far as Mr. Gallagher goes, we expect more from our well-paid public servants than wasting taxpayer time, and being rude while doing it. When somebody says, “I probably shouldn’t have done that,” it proves they still don’t get it.
Comment by Streator Curmudgeon Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 9:53 am
I don’t know if his comments rise to the point of losing his job, but they are certainly not appropriate. But I’m always surprised by the gumption of some people to post things of that nature on Facebook.
Comment by Just Observing Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 9:54 am
@underinfluenced, now that was funny!
Comment by Moosetache Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 9:55 am
Daniel Gallagher also doesn’t seem to understand the First Amendment.
Good lawyer.
Comment by LizPhairTax Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 9:58 am
Glad Fox and the BGA remain on the cutting edge of investigative journalism protecting taxpayers and committed to good government. This smacks of their typical story: packaged and thrown over their transom by a lobbyist/PR firm/political opponent seeking revenge, payback, or some other private interest.
Comment by Maguffin Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 10:07 am
Second story this week from the BGA.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 10:08 am
Although I think this is dumb, if he was using his own device and did this on breaks or lunch, he would have been O.K.
Comment by pool boy Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 10:17 am
“Come on.”
So far so good.
“Million of people have said much worse about Michelle and Hillary.”
That is not the standard one must meet for continued employment as an attorney.
“This guy has a right to free speech like everyone else.”
And that is why he has not been, and will never be, criminally prosecuted for his protected speech.
“This looks like a case of I believe in free speech as long as I agree with what you say.”
This looks more like a case of “How in the world did this vulgar dullard get a $153,000-a-year job as Anita Alvarez’s civil actions bureau chief?”
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 10:22 am
In general people should stay off face book.
Comment by Niblets Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 10:23 am
Did he use the County’s computer or his cell phone to do make such post about H. Clinton?
Comment by Mama Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 10:25 am
==When you read stories like that, you just wonder how in the world people like that ever get any kind of job, period. ==
hmmm…
===He was a political appointee who contributed money to his future boss’ campaigns.===
Comment by Robert the Bruce Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 10:26 am
Free speech sure, if he was a lower level employee or someone not actually representing the State’s Attorney’s office - okay maybe not fire the guy. But he’s a political appointee who represents his boss and heads an important division. What a moron. Even if it wasn’t Hillary Clinton, if he was just posting calling any woman fat - he deserved to be disciplined. It’s called shaming and bullying and the State’s Attorney’s office has an obligation to take that sort of rhetoric seriously. Sorry guy you should have known better.
Free speech was not written into the constitution as a blanket protection against all types of consequences. It is there to protect us against being thrown in jail for criticizing our government.
If you work for a private company you know that you cannot represent them or act like a buffoon in public or your job may be at risk. Why should government employees not be held to the same standard?
Don’t just blurt out any old comment. Take a moment to think before you post! People need to think more and type less.
Comment by siriusly Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 10:26 am
“Although I think this is dumb, if he was using his own device and did this on breaks or lunch, he would have been O.K.”
No. Read the average employee manual. Everything you post on a company computer or say on a company phone is usually recorded and can get you fired regardless of if it during work hours.
Comment by a drop in Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 10:29 am
A drop in- “his own device”, not company’s device. Many people carry two devices for this very reason, their personal one and a company one.
Comment by pool boy Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 10:35 am
If we want to teach children to stop bullying other kids on the Internet, we have to stop the adults from doing it. An attorney should be smart enough to know better.
Comment by Mama Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 10:35 am
How quick liberals are to abandon free speech.
Comment by Liberty Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 10:36 am
“No. Read the average employee manual. Everything you post on a company computer or say on a company phone is usually recorded and can get you fired regardless of if it during work hours.”
This includes the company wifi connection as well.
Still, meh. There’s much worse that I’ve heard in real life than what this guy posted on the internet. I get it’s during hours, but there’s Facebookers everywhere. I hope there was more reason to fire him than just Facebook.
Comment by Timmeh Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 10:38 am
He would have been able to keep his job if he had his own private server.
Comment by Gone, but not forgotten Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 10:38 am
I think some of you folks are a bit unclear on the concept.
If he gathered a group of people together during office hours and said what he wrote, there’d be no question that he’d be fired.
If he sent out an email with that crud to office workers and hundreds of other folks on county time, he’d be fired.
Posting on social media isn’t done in a vacuum. He wasn’t muttering to himself. There’s a reason why they call it “social” media.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 10:41 am
===“….that he’s been on the social media site while on the clock for county government.”
Who hasn’t? ===
Yes, and now your employer has justification for a “for cause” firing whenever.
Comment by GraduatedCollegeStudent Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 10:45 am
== Also, it’s more than a bit ironic that his job title was “chief of the state’s attorney’s civil actions bureau.” Those posts weren’t exactly civil.==
It is really ironic when “civil” has two distinct meanings there?
Comment by Shoe Searer Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 10:54 am
===How quick liberals are to abandon free speech. ===
Another Internet gadfly who claims to be a Constitutional scholar but actually knows so very little about it.
Comment by Deep South Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 10:58 am
A couple of things were crude and childish, but the reactions here are hilarious.
“DID HE DO THIS ON COMPANY TIME?!?” - where are you at this moment, with this web browser open, typing this?
“HOW DARE SOMEONE LIKE THIS POST SUCH REPULSIVE THINGS?!?” - you mean how dare someone fail to recognize that you and other civilspeak members will use every effort to punish him and strip him of his employment for saying things on FACEBOOK that bothered you. And how dare he fail to be prudent enough to just *think* bad things like you do, instead of memorializing them. Thinking them is acceptable.
I just really would like to know when we can expand this and begin firing people for all the other things that inexplicably get a pass - cheating on a spouse, being a high functioning alcoholic, and so on. We really have work to do folks.
Comment by Shoe Searer Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 11:11 am
It’s sad that he even got the job if he is no smarter than the behavior and his response indicates. I think we just uncovered some ‘waste’ in government - his salary and benefits.
Comment by Lincoln Lad Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 11:12 am
siriusly made an important point that Gallagher’s position made put him at a higher expectation of Internet propriety. A low level employee saying such things might be overlooked. But Gallagher was the “chief of the state’s attorney’s civil actions bureau.” That position comes with a lot more scrutiny, and this is a result.
Comment by PolPal56 Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 11:13 am
I think a bigger issue is that he probably was friends on FB with his coworkers, who probably read these posts, and said nothing. Would this have been brought to attention if not for BGA/FOX?
Comment by Jockey Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 11:15 am
===“….that he’s been on the social media site while on the clock for county government.”
Who hasn’t? ===
The first thing I was told 40 years ago was not about what I could do and not do but… “don’t get caught!” Still applies.
Comment by a drop in Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 11:18 am
==It’s sad that he even got the job if he is no smarter than the behavior and his response indicates.==
I love when people do this. You are probably the type of person who thought that the rocket scientist with the scantily-clad-women shirt was poorly qualified.
Comment by Shoe Searer Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 11:20 am
Can you spell KNUCKLEHEAD?
Either he is a knucklehead or he had a subconscious wish to work in the private sector.
Comment by Austin Blvd Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 11:21 am
Maybe Sandack can hire him as a personal assistant so he can make a living zinging Democrats.
Comment by Austin Blvd Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 11:23 am
I just saw a photo of him.
He is the last person who should be commenting upon another’s weight or attractiveness.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 11:24 am
I cannot believe there are people attempting to justify these comments. Whether or not on “county time” they are racist, misogynistic, and really stupid. Not the least bit funny, unless you are ten years old. His boss is running for reelection in a tough race and he thinks this won’t hurt him, or her. That alone shows such poor judgment he does not belong in a position of authority making $153,000. This has nothing to do with the First Amendment–he can make his stupid comments to his knucklehead friends all day long, but I’ll be damned if I want this idiot representing the citizens of Cook County in any proceeding. Good freakin’ riddance
Comment by Orzo Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 11:25 am
Should a police officer who reads or posts at Second City Cop be dismissed? It is raw and not politically correct.
What warrants discipline for the Asst. State’s Attorney is the fact that Gallagher allegedly posted offensive comments while on the clock.
Judging from the newspaper photo, Gallagher is in no position to cast stones at others based upon their appearance.
Comment by After Further Review Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 11:28 am
These comments weren’t just harmless political statements but reflect poorly on his position of employment. Say his underlings sued him for gender discrimination these hateful comments about women on facebook could surely cone up.
A lawyer should know better. A public official should know better.
This isn’t about political correctness. It’s common sense. If this fool needed to get out these utterances against people he didnt like its not like he couldnt have sought an anonymous message board or something.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 11:29 am
==What warrants discipline for the Asst. State’s Attorney is the fact that Gallagher allegedly posted offensive comments while on the clock.==
And yet, that was apparently not a factor here in his forced resignation.
Comment by Shoe Searer Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 11:35 am
Shoe:
Contrary to the belief of some here (and it’s an inexplicably goofy belief) you don’t get to say whatever the heck you want to say and expect that there won’t be consequences. It shouldn’t be a hard concept to understand.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 11:40 am
If it’s a question of doing it on the clock, then he has no argument. If it’s a question of he’s fired because he posted political rants, then yes that is a first amendment argument. It’s a government job, and a a government entity has to be content neutral when wading into those waters. Contrary to above, the First Amendment does not merely deal with criminal prosecution for speech.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 11:42 am
AFR, is Second City Cop public? Has there been anything publicly released from that site?
Comment by a drop in Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 11:44 am
A morbidly obese man who looks like he’s hiding the 19th Ward in his shirt takes a swipe at Michelle Obama’s fitness. Michelle could wipe the floor with this slob. He should have been fired for being stupid.
Comment by Chicago PR Guy Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 11:48 am
==Contrary to the belief of some here (and it’s an inexplicably goofy belief) you don’t get to say whatever the heck you want to say and expect that there won’t be consequences. It shouldn’t be a hard concept to understand.==
Why are you telling me this? I am perfectly aware there are consequences for something like this. I am saying the consequences are mostly idiotic, and that those imposing them are mostly hypocrites of the highest order.
It shouldn’t be that hard to understand.
Comment by Shoe Searer Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 11:50 am
Oh yikes. Just when you think “dumb” has been redefined to it’s greatest degree, someone comes along and sets a new record. Just. wow.
Comment by A guy Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 12:03 pm
When my rabid leftwing Facebook “friends” post asylum-grade rants and attacks, I either (a) ignore it (b) mute them (c) unfriend them or (d) copy and paste in an email to buddies so we can make fun of them.
Never once have I thought - maybe I should feed this to his firm’s HR department or the press and get him fired.
What in the hell is wrong with people?
Comment by Shoe Searer Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 12:17 pm
Did he do it on his phone or work computer?
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 12:27 pm
==Did he do it on his phone or work computer?==
No one seems to know. But I find it mostly irrelevant at this point given he was terminated for the content and not for when/how it was posted.
Comment by Shoe Searer Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 12:31 pm
Why couldn’t she promote from within? No one qualified or they hadn’t donated enough?
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 12:38 pm
Shoe, he resigned he wasn’t terminated. Read before ranting.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 12:39 pm
==Shoe, he resigned he wasn’t terminated. Read before ranting.==
Sorry, I took more care to be accurate earlier with “forced resignation”.
And while he signed a resignation letter, we all know what it was. You really want to quibble on this?
Comment by Shoe Searer Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 12:49 pm
Yup. Alvarez has been tone deaf on many other matters, I wouldn’t assume she would terminate.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 1:04 pm
==What in the hell is wrong with people?==
I wonder that about the people here who think this guy didn’t get what he deserved.
==Never once have I thought ==
That’s the problem. People don’t think when they post online.
Those of you who think there should have been no consequences obviously don’t have a clue about how the world works.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 1:17 pm
==Oh yikes. Just when you think “dumb” has been redefined to it’s greatest degree, someone comes along and sets a new record. Just. wow.==
Some here apparently think otherwise. To that I also say. Wow. Just wow.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 1:18 pm
Maybe I should be more careful about what I post on this site - but I have never been given a “time out” or banned from commenting.
Granted, my snark is not nearly as good as many others posting here, but I try to be relevant to the topic being discussed.
Comment by illini Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 1:53 pm
“he was terminated for the content and not for when/how it was posted.”
Daniel Gallagher quit.
And it’s very likely quit Gallagher because he wanted to protect his retirement and, therefore, he didn’t want an investigation into “when/how it was posted.”
If so, that was Gallagher’s first smart move.
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 2:10 pm
You are still at work when you are at lunch or on break. That doesn’t exempt you from the employee rules of conduct.
Comment by Emily Booth Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 2:13 pm
==I wonder that about the people here who think this guy didn’t get what he deserved.==
Please tell us more about the world you live in where your default reaction to a crude political Facebook comment is “this guy should be stripped of his employment” - employment that has essentially nothing to do with the online commentary. Would love to hear more, sounds like a lovely and normal place.
====Never once have I thought==
Don’t take my words out of context to make a point. This was the start of a sentence noting that I would never do precisely what you are advocating, in response to something I find foul.
==Those of you who think there should have been no consequences obviously don’t have a clue about how the world works.==
No. This might be accurate if you said “those of you who think there *would* not have been consequences…”. We get exactly how the world works — where everyone who’s thought/said/written far worse than this guy will form a mob to ruin his life as much as possible when the thing thought/said/written differs from the mob’s ideology. We get it perfectly.
Comment by Shoe Searer Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 2:36 pm
==differs from the mob’s ideology==
Another victim. Just what we need.
==employment that has essentially nothing to do with the online commentary==
Doesn’t matter. Anybody that thinks making goofy comments on Facebook is a good idea when they are in a position such as his needs their head examined. I’m not on Facebook. I’ve told others in certain jobs to get off as well. Facebook never leads to anything good.
==Please tell us more about the world you live in==
In the world I live in it matters if you are in the position this guy was in. If he were a stock boy then I would say it’s no big deal. An attorney for the government making goofy comments on Facebook? That’s a different story.
But, I get it. You are a victim. Everyone is out to get you and your ideological buddies.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 2:56 pm
==Daniel Gallagher quit.
And it’s very likely quit Gallagher because he wanted to protect his retirement and, therefore, he didn’t want an investigation into “when/how it was posted.”==
My whole point was that there was almost certainly a termination with his name on it had he chosen not to resign.
People think this was brought to his attention, and he just resigned because he felt bad about it? OK.
Comment by Shoe Searer Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 2:59 pm
==Another victim. Just what we need.==
Are you going to be Rich for Halloween?
==In the world I live in it matters if you are in the position this guy was in. If he were a stock boy then I would say it’s no big deal. An attorney for the government making goofy comments on Facebook? That’s a different story.==
I’ve heard precisely zero details about his actual job performance. Only that it’s incredibly crucial that this guy in this job not post goofy things on Facebook…to uphold the Standards of Government…or something.
Comment by Shoe Searer Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 3:26 pm
==I’ve heard precisely zero details about his actual job performance==
I don’t care about his job performance. I care that he didn’t have the common sense to think that maybe it’s not a good idea to post goofy things on Facebook given his position.
And yeah, you are playing the eternal victim right now. You should look for that Halloween costume.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 3:30 pm
It amazes me that so many people are so uninformed that they think the First Amendment protects a person not just from criminal prosecution or political oppression, but also that it protects everything about them, including their employment. Consider for a moment if this person had been involved in spewing white power or neo-Nazi speech. Would you defend his right to employment then?
More to the point, everyone seems to be focusing on Danny boy. What this whole episode shows me is just simply another colossal failure by Anita Alvarez - this reflects on her and her sorry management, poor policies, and generally terrible tenure.
Comment by Joe Bidenopolous Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 3:33 pm
If Gallagher’s subject matter had been Rauner, Trump or Bush, would the reaction be the same?
Comment by Gone, but not forgotten Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 3:39 pm
==If Gallagher’s subject matter had been Rauner, Trump or Bush, would the reaction be the same?==
And it wouldn’t be why?
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 3:42 pm
==I don’t care about his job performance. I care that he didn’t have the common sense to think that maybe it’s not a good idea to post goofy things on Facebook given his position.==
So we will take your job away, regardless of your job performance, if you said dumb things on Facebook unrelated to your job.
Comment by Shoe Searer Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 3:44 pm
jumped before he was shoved. happened with another attorney a few years ago who had some ARDC issues. glad both are gone.
Comment by Amalia Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 3:52 pm
==So we will take your job away, regardless of your job performance, if you said dumb things on Facebook unrelated to your job.==
Don’t say dumb things on Facebook. Problem solved. It’s why I’m not on Facebook. And it’s why I recommend to my friends who are in certain jobs not to be on Facebook either.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 3:54 pm
==Don’t say dumb things on Facebook. Problem solved. It’s why I’m not on Facebook. And it’s why I recommend to my friends who are in certain jobs not to be on Facebook either.==
That solves Mr. Gallagher’s problem of being unemployed. It does not solve the underlying problem of how we ended up in a world where someone LOSES HIS JOB over some sophomoric Facebook comments. Comments that someone likely had to scavenge for so BGA could come up with content. What does this accomplish? The whole mumbo jumbo about “someone in his position” - give me a break, no one knew about him or his position before today.
If he made some crude posts that were not so abhorrent that once brought to the attention of coworkers, they were no longer able to work with him, then it’s a pretty easy case of unfriending Daniel Gallagher on Facebook. I have no doubt some needed the fainting couch after reading these posts. I did not feel they were particularly egregious, though they were unkind and immature.
The difference comes down to — you find it to be a good and necessary thing that this man has no job right now over these comments. I do not.
Comment by Shoe Searer Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 4:09 pm
To Shoe Searer’s last remark: I find the part about “not able to work with him” and needing a fainting couch rather interesting. People have done worse in government positions, ie a Bureau Chief at IDOT arrested on Peeping Tom charges. People still had to work with him. I guess if he had bragged about his activity on Facebook, it would count and a lot of people could have been spared of the aftermath when he kept his job.
Comment by Gone, but not forgotten Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 4:16 pm
He was there only a year, no pension to protect by resigning.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 4:31 pm
Who hired this guy? Ugh.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 4:35 pm
== I find the part about “not able to work with him” and needing a fainting couch rather interesting.==
My point was just that I was trying to think of a situation where a Facebook comment who could be so egregious, or threatening, or related to work in some way, that it could impact others being able to do their job. I think these would be extreme examples, and it’s tough to even come up with many. My eyes would roll out of their sockets at someone who said they couldn’t work with Mr. Gallagher because of his comments on Michelle Obama, e.g.
Comment by Shoe Searer Friday, Oct 16, 15 @ 4:49 pm