"...I was sick - heartsick over the beginning of the war, nauseated by the lies and the arrogance and the stupidity that led to it, and deeply depressed by the death and destruction it would bring."

HAHAHAHA! Incredible!!!

Norr, you ass. Unless your contract includes "mental rot" and "deceptive accounting tactics," you screwed up by faking that sick time. Stop complaining.

Aww... Poor guy must not understand that all actions have consequences. Seems like lying on your time sheet might get you fired. Amazing! I guess personal repsonsibility and accountability is still an affront to some people.

Are we sure this wasn't published in The Onion?

ROTFLMAO!

Firable offense. Or in Iraq, death by firing squad. I vote to send him there.

Most insurance plans do not cover self-inflicted wounds....

What an Idiot, He deserves to be fired. Fraud is fraud.

My environment is polluted by the S.F. Chronicle, NY Times, Al Reutera, and BBC Betty. Perhaps I should file a long-term disability claim!

I sent him this email

------------------------

Mr. Hnorr;

> I'm only sorry that the Chronicle feels it has to retaliate against me, on a patently ridiculous technicality, for demonstrafor demonstrating my opinion on the most important issue of the day.

Welcome to the real world. All of us regular people would suffer the same fate if we claimed a sick day but our boss catched us attenting some type of outdoor event. That you are surprised by this, demonstrates that you are disconnected from reality.

Your excuse of being "heartsick" is so ridiculous, it barely deserves even mention in a serious discussion. I have people I know (one Marine) that are in danger over there, and everytime I hear one of our men or women die, I get really sad. By your logic, I could take a couple of days off because of this.

Finally, as an immigrant from Central America who protested a real repressive governemnt and was tear gassed and shot at a couple of times (at the age of 13), it doesn't look impressive when you belittle your cause this way. I'm all for people protesting, but don't use the protest and what you believe is a serious and just cause as an excuse for being irresponsible. Again, you diminish your cause.

Good luck, and hope you can fix or find employment soon (specially since you have a family).

He really needs to take one for the team here, because that is what commitment is all about. Sure it hurts to be without a paycheck, but conviction does come first. Thinkof the time he has on his hands know that he can direct toward his beliefs.
Sad to say he may also be "Shocked...Shocked" to find out that unemployment benefits are for the "laid off" and do not cover "terminations"...I am sure we have not heard the end of this story...CNN should dispatch a reporter: "but...but...I am unemployed!"
I am heartsick over the harshness of lifes choices...

Actually, Capsu, unemployment benefits DO extend to terminations as long as it wasn't the fault of the employee - which, of course in this case, it would be the employee's fault.

still... just clarifying. :-)

The guy asked for a one month sabbatical in order to engage in anti-war activities, didn't get permission to leave his job, got himself arrested on purpose, and now he's complaining. Incredible. Amazing levels of stupidity. He should stay in jail.

Lie. Get fired. How hard is that? Especially when you work for a newspaper. For a journalist to believe that lying should have no consequences is particularly piquant.

What incredible narcissism! The world revolves around me and my political beliefs, and fraud and irreponsibility are justifiable.

I think we need a little perspective on the timesheet "lie".

I doubt many timesheets have a category for "in jail". It would seem reasonable to me, therefore, to report the time in the best way I could imagine and tell my supervisor what really happened. This is exactly what Norr claimed he did.

I know we don't have the newspaper's side of the story, and it's entirely possible Norr is lying. But, given the facts at hand, I don't see justification for some of the accusations being made.

I doubt many timesheets have a category for "in jail"

How about, "personal time", or "no pay", or heck even "vacation".

He was definetly not sick, and to say he was heartsick is insulting everybody's intelligence. Sorry.

Perspective on the timesheet issue? In my company, if you're arrested and you claim sick time, it's near-automatic termination as well. Take a personal day. Same for the protest: it's your beliefs and convictions, fine, that's /why/ you have personal days: to take care of personal matters, whether that's signing paperwork or protesting. Being fired for being arrested at a protest might be controversial (journalism issues aside), but being fired for flagrantly ignoring absence policies shouldn't be.

If you read the Mercury article, you see that he advised the paper in advance of what he was doing, that he would have taken a vacation day if they wanted him to do that instead, and that they had time to advise him on how to deal with the time he was taking off work.

Also, he was suspended, not terminated. Those of you who have ranted here about his behaviour would be well-advised to actually RTFArticle. Geez. Talk about reactionary.

Why are so many 'patriotic' Americans so threatened by other Americans who disagree with them?

"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist leadership. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacificsts for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." -- Herman Goering, Reich-Marshal at the Nuremburg Trials, 1945-46.

Frankly, what amazed me most about the posts in that forum was just how many reporters were openly (at least among other reporters) hostile to the war, the military, and the administration.

And yet accusing someone in the media of "bias" is somehow beyond the pale....

To my mind the technicalities over whether Norr should be suspended for claiming sick days when in fact he was not physically (nor probably mentally) sickare not as clear cut as they might at first seem. If you read the Mercury News article, it _is_ plausible that Norr did notify his employers as to the real reasons for his imminent absence and that in that particular work culture of that particular organization, it was common practice for employees to take "sick" days to cover personal absences. I work for a private office, and I know that here, an employee can do exactly that, and overtly without fear of retribution from the employers. Whether or not that's the case at the Chronicle is open to debate. If it is, then Norr has a case (independent of his admittedly silly claim of emotional "sickness"). If it is not the case, then technically, he should be suspended for falsification.

More interesting, however, are the larger issues raised by this case. Should journalists and other "public" figures be prevented by their employers from publically taking a political position? And in the case of journalists assigned to cover political topics, should they express bias towards one side or the other? Conventional wisdom, backed up and codified in conventional legal contracts, says no. A more honest assessment, though would say yes: not only _should_ journalists, even and especially those assigned to political topics, express their own political bias, but it is inevitable that they do. The notion that they should not is based on the underlying assumption that objectivity is still possible, an assumption that has been systematically debunked since the 50's, even in the natural sciences, not to mention the social sciences.

To "personalize" this point, as it were, notice that literally _none_ of the mainstream coverage of the Iraq issue are willing to question the assumption that we, the US, have the right to determine whether or not Iraq meets our lofty standards for "democracy", and furthermore that we have the right to demand a regime change if Iraq doens't comply. The only premissible debates are on the grounds of tactics: will the inspections work? And if not, how should we disarm SH? Nobody questions our right to carry out the test, to determine Iraq's success or failure, and to act on our assessment. And certainly nobody asks the very simple question that if we have the right to do this to iraq, do other countries have the equivalent right to do the same to us? That is, to determine whether or not we pose a menace to the rest of the world (which we most certainly do, and have done for decades), and whether or not it is at all possible to disarm us by peaceful and diplomatic means; and if it is not, then aren't an invasion and the takeover of Washington DC is in order?

Notice that by sharing these assumptions, _all_ of the mass media are extablishing a framework for discussion of the topic, a framework which is _not_ a natural law, and which in an honest and open society would be part of political debate. Consequently, _all_ mainstream discussion of the Iraq matter is automatically politicized and is automatically profoundly biased. Therefore, by insisting that journalists can be and are "objective", the mass media serve as instruments of propaganda, although in a manner far less vulgar but infinitely more effective than the crude efforts of their iraqui counterparts.

I think it would be more honest if evryone admitted that they have a political bias and that their reporting reflects that bias. At least then assumptions like the one I've just mentioned, which is deeply ingrained among the shapers of opinion, and which, incidentally is not a small part of the answer to the "why do they hate us" question, would be out in the open and subject to examination.

Everyone knows most sick days are taken by the well... not the sick. Pro-war people here are just jumping at the chance to bash someone against the war. I bet everyone here has called in sick when they were not actually sick.

Still, he did lie.. its his fault. He should not have given them such an easy way to get rid of him.

"Land of the Free" ...yeap well. Wake up America, you're making the final transition into Nazi Germany.

"Land of the Free" ...yeap well. Wake up America, you're making the final transition into Nazi Germany.

It's too laugh, Christiaan. When people get thrown into concentration camps and brownshirts are roaming the streets, talk to me about Nazi Germany. A guy gets suspended from work for breaking a company policy, that's Nazi Germany? Wow, so what is Iraq then? Ultra-super-extreme Nazi Germany?

All legitimate newspapers strongly, and I mean strongly, discourage journalists from public enunciations of political views. That includes standing up a city council meetings to debate the latest housing development.

Journalists are supposed to be neutral, unbiased in their professional lives. They are, like the President and the military, held to higher standards of behavior by their peers. That's how it's supposed to be. I know. I've been in mainstream journalism for 30 years. Norr knows it too.

That's why he got nailed for the fake sick day.

But don't worry too much about Noor. He will NEVER be fired. The SF Chronicle doesn't fire ANYONE. It has powerful, hard left unions. One of those unions, the typsetters, has a member who is one of the leaders of the Stalinist Worker's World Party, the group behind ANSWER, which is the group that runs all the anti-war protests.

Norr isn't someone most people would want to "hang" with. He is the epitome of the arrogance, has a rancid personality, and on top of that is none too picky about personal hygiene...in short the perfect street protestor.

yeah most people have taken illegitimate sick days.. and some have gotten caght and been fired... take personal or vacation days...

if company does allow this then they're legally screwed...

as for deterimining who threatens the US... well actually every country has the right to determine who is a threat to its security and then act accordingly. it would be completely legitimate for saddam, nk, france whoever to try to get sanctions placed on the us and setup a blockade... won't succeed but they have that right.

there's no ref in diplomacy.. its pick up boxing... everyone's free to do what they like.. they just might not succeed!

All the SFC has to do after he returns is to either put him in the sports, food or fluff section where his personal bias can't be reflected in his work.

He's a journalist. What better job to oppose the war and do your job at the same time? And as far as I know there weren't anti-war protests in Nazi Germany. Why is it leftists always end up resorting to the whole Nazi/Hitler/Fascist analogies? Jeez.

A news agency must be devoted to truth above all else, yet perfect neutrality is not a luxury of a human being, it is the behaviour of a machine. If you believe in a totally random existence, then yes, striving for that clinical limbo might be justified, since in such a universe, negative and positive are merely opposites without further meaning. Unbiased balance might then be the ideal state of perfect sanity. Do you believe we live in such a place?

If you're not prepared to suffer and die for your beliefs, then they're not beliefs. There's a negative and a positive side to this; on the one hand, there's Yeshua ben Joseph, on the other hand, there's a militant suicide bomber. Both types of individuals are fully dedicated to their causes, I suspect.

Truth can seem to be totally individual. I don't understand how this can be real, but perhaps dealing with the presence of that doubt is the true challenge of this plane of existence.

I also don't understand (but have great respect for) people who choose to look after families, knowing that certain compromises of individual conviction must be made for the sake of the welfare of those in their care.

Re: the Hermann Goering quote above, see

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

won

Look, I'm about as "pro" war as they come and unsubscribed from Apple's enews when they sent out the pap from B. Clinton and his "we didn't need to go to war right now" speech to promote QT, but let's get real, here.

The guy EARNED the sick time by working. HOW he decided to take it is of absolutely no concern of his employer. Should he have worked the next "x" number of years and not taken the time off, it would have been credited to his record and he would have been paid.

This time off with pay is a negotiated BENEFIT.

I DON'T like his politics, but he should be able to use his EARNED benefits ANY DAMNED WAY HE WANTS TO USE THEM. This is America. The RIGHT to disagree is part of being in America.

So long as you defend to the death that right, you support America, when you stop defending that RIGHT, you become nothing less than that which you CLAIM to resist.

Fascists LOVE someone that demands another agree with them to suppress an opposing view.

L.A.

Actions have consequences. I've been reading Henry Norr's columns about Mac technology in various publications for probably a decade, but I have to side with his employers here. Mr. Norr wasn't suspended because of his beliefs, he was suspended because his beliefs interfered with his job, because he lied, and because he asked his employer to endorse his beliefs by paying him for missed days of work.

Here he basically makes their case for them:

"On Wednesday, March 19, after the bombing of Baghdad began and I got home from a long protest march in the rain, I sent e-mail to my immediate supervisors informing them that I planned to get arrested the following morning and wouldn't be in until I got out of jail."

"Nevertheless, claiming sick pay for the day wasn't a point of principle for me. My supervisor knew exactly why I was out of work that day."

Protesting for a cause is not the same as serving in the National Guard, your employer is under no legal obligation to honor your 'commitment' and keep your job open when you return. If you cut work with the intention of being arrested, then claim that day as a sick day, you lied and should face the consequences. Having a job means going to work. Keeping a job means you protest on the weekends or after hours. At very least you do not claim a day missed because you willingly broke the law as a sick day and ask your employer to pay you. That's essentially asking them to endorse your behavior and political agenda, and that's just plain wrong. Additionally, although not explicitly stated, Mr. Norr apparently missed more than just Thursday, having spent Wednesday the 19th protesting in the rain.

Mr. Norr needs to step back and reevaluate these events. Regardless of his beliefs, in this situation he's clearly in the wrong.

Also posted on my site