Former gymnast Jennifer Sey, in line to be the next CEO of Levi’s, refused to dial back her views on COVID policy in schools. Now she’s out, but she spurned the golden parachute because it would have been a golden muzzle. Will other corporate leaders follow her example?
Stephen Green, Bill Whittle and Scott Ott — veteran news commentators — have created five new episodes of a panel discussion show since 2009. Our Members make it all possible. To join them, hit the big green button above. If you’d rather give without joining, use the big blue button.
Listen to the Audio Version
25 replies on “Good Genes: Next CEO of Levi’s Out Over COVID Remarks, Rejects the Golden Muzzle”
Love you like a brother, Bill, but you broke a cardinal rule. Never diminish the courage and sacrifice of someone who stands up for the right thing just because other people have sacrificed more. Her circumstances are what they are. Yes, I know you put the caveat that it wasn’t to downplay what she did… but then you went and downplayed it.
I think a better take is that she joined those who gave up a lot to stand up for her beliefs – and the fact that she did it from a better position has no place in the discussion. The comparison needs no contrast.
Hmmm… Seems to me that THE cardinal rule is to speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. An accurate portrayal of the actual degree of someone’s sacrifice is a relevant aspect of the truth.
I don’t know if you’re a Biblical minded person or not but when a widow gave the last two small coins she owned Jesus said she had given more than anyone else. The fact that others gave higher amounts and were in a “better position” is germain to the story. Whether you’re a religious person or not, it’s a good illustration of the importance of degree of sacrifice.
On the Left someone among the elite rich might sacrifice more in gross taxes than someone working an hourly wage. The difference is that the rich elitist won’t feel any pain over the sacrifice and the hourly wage earner sure could use as much of his paycheck as he can get. This is why those ‘in a better position’ do not heed the degree of sacrifice of those they see as beneath them.
They say “I don’t care if gasoline costs $10 a gallon or the tax rate is at 50% because those things still leave me plenty. It’s not a hardship.” That they might have to buy an Omega this month instead of a Rolex or a Cadillac instead of a BMW is the sort of thing they see as hardship.
Your thinking reminds me of parents who only praise and never correct their kids. Of the “everyone wins a trophy, don’t speak a word that might hurt someone’s feelings” politically correct mentality.
Even Reagan’s “11th Commandment” doesn’t go that far. Ronnie’s point was to not destroy each other, to not say things that would harm the Republican brand and be used by adversaries.
The idea that someone who does something right should only ever be praised for it and all other factors, including mitigating ones, shouldn’t even be brought up is absurd because it’s an omission of facts. It is a shading of truth …
You’re entitled to your opinion even when that opinion is “correcting” Bill Whittle for speaking the truth. I’m entitled to my opinion even when my opinion is that you’re mistaken in doing that. Each to his own ‘druthers I suppose.
Had I my ‘druthers I’d ‘druther have the truth, all of it, uncut and raw. Unfiltered by your well meaning “cardinal rule” or any other filter.
This woman in question should be praised for the right thing she did, not ensconced in holy sainthood and all mitigating factors ignored.
She did the right thing for the right reasons this time but she’s done an awful lot of wrong things that led up to that point. She supported the system of Social Marxism that snuck up from behind and bit her in the ass. Then acts all surprised and righteous when she finally had to stop going along with that particular part of the system she helped build.
Once that happened she didn’t repent of the other stupid policies of the stupid system she stupidly helped create. Nor is her “standing up for what’s right” going to cause her any particular discomfort let alone any sort of grievous hardship.
None of which would anyone know about if they followed some ridiculous “cardinal rule” of only heaping praise and ignoring the entire truth.
If it’s THE cardinal rule to speak the whole truth – every last bit of it, regardless, than we would probably only have time to express one thought in our entire lifetime, and wouldn’t get through all of that one.
Beyond that, just because something is true doesn’t mean it’s relevant or appropriate. For instance, if your nephew comes home from overseas with a Purple Heart and a Silver Star, I would hope you wouldn’t look at him and say “that’s nice, but you know, some people earned Navy Crosses and Medals of Honor.” Is it true? Sure. Does it need to be said? Absolutely not!
As for Jesus’s lesson, don’t forget that He did not mean that to detract from what other people gave, but to elevate what she gave. He didn’t say that when others were giving. He didn’t wait until the next person tithed and say “See? Only 10%. That other lady gave more.” He praised her when it was appropriate. (I really wanted to find a way to turn that text red…)
Beyond that, Sey didn’t just give the minimum. She gave far more than we have a right to ask and far more than anyone would have expected. In fact, within the context, she gave all she had to give. All they could take from her was her job, and she shoved it in their faces. What more would you ask of her, if that isn’t sufficient?
If my words seem to you like the “everyone gets a trophy” mindset, then either you have red them with a jaundiced eye, or are interpreting them as you please in order to take a right-winger-than-thou stance. She deserves her “trophy” because she won the race. You’re taking the stance that her trophy should be a bit smaller because she didn’t have to put in quite so many hours training as someone who won a different event. I guess, to you… “from each according to her means; to each according to her needs.”
Hey, that’s just the untarnished truth.
As a leftists, has she taken causes that should be condemned? Certainly. Should she be criticized for them? Absolutely. Should her good actions be diminished because other people have done more in other circumstances? HELL NO! Because if that’s the standard, every time we commend someone, we should start it out with “He’s no Jesus, but…” since nobody has given more than He, all of our sacrifices fall short.
But you know… I think that’s kind of a stupid standard.
Anyways, that’s all I’ve got. Goo away noow. (with apologies to Critical Drinker)
Really?
That’s just silly and I think you know just how silly it is. A hyperbolic, silly, silly way to begin a reply. This isn’t a flame war, unless that’s what you want to make it. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t justify rampant raging ridiculousness like that.
Obviously “The Truth, The Whole Truth and Nothing but The Truth” is a standard we’re all familiar with and it doesn’t involve anything as nonsensical as you posit. It’s what the Judge tells you when you’re sworn in during court proceedings and I assure you most sincerely he’s not asking you “to only express one thought in your entire lifetime”. That would just be dumb, wouldn’t it?
Or … You’re not smart enough to understand that the expression I used applies to pertinent, related information only and does not invite anyone to waste their life away in such a preposterous fashion. Dummies of that gauge are rare in here on BillWhittle.com but not totally absent so time will tell.
Spending the rest of your life behaving in such a manner is ridiculous. I wasn’t ridiculous to you, it’s insulting that you think you can expectorate ridiculous hogwash like that at me.
I didn’t read the rest of what you had to say because that initial response is so infernally absurd that clearly you either are completely uninterested in a serious discussion of an adult nature or … You’re not capable of rising to that standard.
If you want to come back down to earth, speak to me in a manner that does not humiliate yourself and insult my intelligence — Then try again and I’ll read what you have to say. If all you’ve got is the imbecility you began your reply with, don’t bother as we have naught to say to each other.
However that goes, here’s a newsflash for you. Bill Whittle is a pretty conscientious, moral man. It’s not your place to set Cardinal Rules for his behavior or the manner in which he expresses his thoughts and opinions on his own website. Doing that doesn’t make you look like anything but less then bright.
The next time you think about talking down to and holding yourself in a stance of morally superior authority over one of the most moral, most astute, most cogent Conservative voices in America … Think again. Keep thinking again, and again, and again until you realize what a dumb move that is.
BTW. I like The Critical Drinker too, stop plagiarizing his stuff and come up with your own.
Really? Then I’m not sure you’ve given it enough thought. Although I do find it interesting that you imply that you might consider starting a flame war because you don’t agree with the point I put forward, while saying that we shouldn’t take it so hard that someone disagrees with us. Confession through projection?
If a judge tells you to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and then asks you if you cheated on your wife, he doesn’t want to hear that yes, you did… and your neighbor cheated on his wife, and your boss cheated on her husband, and your dad cheated on your mom, and which presidents cheated on their wives and what the Bible says about infidelity. You see, when you use your “whole truth” canard as your only source of guidance, that’s where you end up – you can justify anything under the color of “I was just telling the truth.” Well, not all truths need to be gushed out at once. Because, as you said, that would just be dumb, wouldn’t it?
Funny how you talked about not needing to start a flame war, then you question my intellect. I wonder when Bill and Zo will do a Virtue Signal on sanctimony. They could have you on as Exhibit A. But fear not, I’m pretty sure I could put my intellect up against yours any day.
What was that you wrote about not being upset because others disagree with you? Have you considered taking your own advice? And maybe be a little less sensitive because people don’t see the world the way you do? Just a thought.
Again, what was that about not needing to resort to a flame war? But since you’ve taken the position of questioning peoples’ intellects, I will point out that it is a lazy brain that can’t read the rest of what someone wrote because it’s too feeble to understand the first line.
Fear not… your intelligence would be very hard to insult. No bar could be set low enough to cover the shallowness of your thinking.
Oh, my idiotic little friend – I have plenty to say to you… but it’s all mockery.
I agree – Bill is a conscientious, moral man. He can handle someone criticizing his words without you coming in on your high horse and low brow.
You know, idol worship is still a sin.
You know, Bill Whittle also quotes people. Maybe you should tell him to come up with his own stuff. You have got to be the most dim-witted, thin-skinned, self-righteous so-called conservative I’ve ever had the misfortune of having on my side of the political aisle.
YYSSW
Aww, poor ACTS. Smarting from getting your bullshit thrown back in your face?
You chose the flame war. Don’t be hurt when you’re the one who got burned. Maybe next time, before you Stan for Bill, make sure you’re on solid ground. And maybe… just maybe drop the sanctimony – because you’re reminding me a lot more of Barack Obama than Bill Whittle.
The Rugged brand of Wranglers cargo and jeans and VERY nice and not prohibitively expensive. Like a good pair of boots, they’ll last you longer than 3-4 pairs of the cheap stuff.
Wranglers are good enough for George Straight and Chris LeDoux, so they’re good enough for me.
Levi’s 501’s were all I wore from teenage to I think late 30’s when I found out … that they were big donators to anti-gun efforts. And I have had a LOT of trouble finding jeans I like as well … frankly I haven’t found them … BUT … I still won’t buy them. Found some at a used clothing market a few years ago and the material is thin and you’re right. They’re crap.
Why does Levi’s have a corporate position on vax mandates? They should stick to their own knitting. The left brings politics into everything.
As I’ve aged my body has changed – a LOT. Wore out my last 3-4 pairs of real jeans, bought thru amazon 4 pair of different cuts to see which will fit best. ALL of them were the ‘new’ style – thin, wishy-washy feeling, look and fit like lady’s jeans used to except for the holes all over the place. Very disappointed. I will be checking out Wrangler and Lee, but of which I’ve worn before, neither of which I had any complaints about.
I like my Wrangler jeans
Scott, YES!
I-Cube turned down 9 MILLION in a m0vie deal because he didn’t want the shot.
Scott Ott in his usual habit of trying to be reasonable and avoid hyperbole … Hit the nail on the head and drove it in.
No Employer, no matter if your job is making sandwiches at Subway or the CEO of IBM, has any right telling you, or in any way trying to influence or pressure you, about your political speech outside the boundaries of their work environment. That’s an infringement of your First Amendment Right.
Which is an unlawful denial of your civil rights as an American Citizen.
A lot of the people in here are probably old enough to remember the Rodney King Riots. The four cops who beat King were brought up on charges and tried for their use of excessive force. They all got off. Three were acquitted and one had a hung jury. It doesn’t matter to my point, which I’m getting to, what you think about that, it’s a fact.
After they were released the City of Los Angeles and surrounding suburbs went up in flames. That riot lasted 6 days and killed 63 people. It took the California National Guard, the U.S. Army and the United States Marine Corps to quell the violence.
Subsequently the Federal Government brought charges against all four officers. Two were convicted and sentenced to prison terms, two were acquitted.
The Feds couldn’t prosecute for the violence the officers inflicted on Rodney King. That would be double jeopardy. They prosecuted those officers on a charge of denying Rodney King his civil rights.
I’m pointing to this well known example of how and why it is illegal and criminally prosecutable for anyone to deny you your civil rights.
If you are denied your civil rights by an employer the Feds absolutely should be prosecuting that employer.
Even if they don’t prosecute, you have ample grounds to sue and you should do so. If there’s a good reason to bring a lawsuit this is way up there at the top of the list.
This freedom from having your civil rights denied does not solely apply to government entities …
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).
Federal charges on civil rights grounds are BS it’s double jeopardy plain and simple and then there’s a civil case on top of that triple jeopardy. If you’re acquittered in state court that should be the end of it.
Uh huh … I just knew when I wrote that comment that there would be someone out there who would not be able to avoid getting hung up on a detail and completely miss the whole point. Good job, Sport.
Cynically speaking, The $$$ she will reap from Levi’s from the lawsuit make the settlement offer pale in comparison.
Jah, concur. She’s a far left virtue signalling supporter of the policies that have now come back to take a bite out of her own jeans and she isn’t happy about it. Though she and people like her caused the situation to exist in the first place I haven’t heard anywhere that her “victimhood” has taught her a lesson about that sort of thing.
I’m glad she stood up and spoke out against a wrong. I’m not upset that she’s not going to experience a significant hardship over doing that. She’s not really making any sacrifice in doing so and she hasn’t repented of her support for the Social Marxist Leftism that she advocated and propped up that caused the problem in the first place. She’s just upset that the monster she created is taking a bite out of her. She’ll still end up with piles of cash either way.
I guess my first question would be, did the Levi company share their woke views? If yes, then for them to tell her to shut up was wrong.
If her golden parachute required her to keep her mouth shut – sharing her anti-woke views after she was no longer employed by them – that is also wrong.
So kudos to her for standing her ground.
I’ve been wearing whatever’s been on sale at JC Penney for decades now. Yes, I am that stereotypical middle-aged white dad…
I ditched Levis years ago when the Jewish company went anti-gun.
I stopped wearing Levi’s more than 26 years ago when I discovered Wranglers were half the price and fit my scrawny frame. Looking back, that seems to be a fortuitous decision in that I’ve avoided supporting at least one woke company.
Yeah, me too. Except for the frame which is no longer scrawny part.
I gave up on Levi’s a long time ago
For decades my “work uniform” in IT/Comms was black Lee or Wrangler jeans, a white dress shirt, black belt, black Dan Post or Tony Lama boots and a black leather vest, leather blazer or bomber jacket when the weather called for it.
I’d mix it up a bit from time to time but that was pretty much my daily work wear. It looked sharp enough to be respectful, was utilitarian enough for crawling around under counters, desks, server racks and attic and roof spaces where cables run. It’s easy to clean, not so expensive that if I stained or ripped something I felt bad about it, didn’t make me look like a computer geek (no pocket protectors), etc. I carried a spare of everything in my vehicle “just in case” of a disaster.