| |
A blog of all section with no images
|
From The Editor
|
|
Written by James A. Landrith
|
|
Friday, 02 November 2007 |
|
I was interviewed on Tuesday by a National Enquirer reporter for the print version of their expose on Duane "Dog" Chapman's racist rant. The reporter played two tapes for me that appeared to have been made on different occasions. The short of it: Chapman ordered his son to break it off with his girlfriend for fear she would hear him or other family members uttering racial slurs in casual conversation. He dangles loss of the son’s job in the family business and his home as consequences for continuing the relationship. Chapman claims his use of such slurs are not meant to be hurtful or racist and deployed the old “we just talk like that” defense. Later he uses the same terminology to describe his son’s girlfriend. I wanted to vomit afterward. Kudos to A&E for moving quickly to suspend further production of the show pending their own internal investigation. They have a business to run and an image to maintain and as a libertarian, I respect their property rights to do so. A&E has a right to disassociate themselves with anyone who hurts their business or tarnishes their reputation. Apparently, a bunch of conservatives who do not understand the concept of free speech feel differently. Following the breaking of this story, I've been reading some of the forum and blog reactions to the Dirty Dog scandal. Wow! I'm shocked at all of the people who have confused "Freedom of Speech" with "Freedom from Criticism" and "Freedom from Consequences." For those who still don't get it, I'll spell it out plainly and simply for those who are genuinely confused or simply pretending because they agree with the man's racist views: The right to hold and express an opinion is not being suppressed when others criticize or disassociate. You can say what you want, but you cannot force others to subsidize said expression or provide you a forum in which to express your views. Yes, Dog has a right to free expression and to be a racist ass-clown. And A&E has a right to decide not to provide him access to their platform. Those willfully confusing the two need to drop the emotion and hero-worship of the man and start grasping these simple, basic concepts. You want to use filthy, racist language? Fine. Just stop your sobbing when the good people around you distance themselves or vomit uncontrollably. Does that cover it foks? Good. Now cut it out and start acting like big boys and big girls.  Be first to comment this article |  Add as favourites (101) |  Quote this article on your site | Views: 1362
|
|
|
From The Editor
|
|
Written by James A. Landrith
|
|
Tuesday, 23 October 2007 |
|
I wanted to comment on this as it will be mentioned over and over again by the Democratic National Committee (as it was 4 years ago and in elections prior). In 1998, I contacted Bob Jones University regarding their anti-miscegenationist dating/marriage policy. I received a letter from BJU, which I promptly posted online here:
http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1023/49/
Then, being the agitator I am, I decided to test their policy and applied for admission - with no intention of attending. Their online application actually asked for both the race of a student AND spouse. I dutifully filled in such data, as the experiment would not work if I didn't. I received the following response:
http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1024/49/
After posting this online, it was picked up by NPR, LA Times, several wire services and was mentioned in a dozen or so books - and even in testimony by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/te011601sjl.htm).
As has been the case in the past, the rotten affair is renewed with each election cycle:
While I don't endorse the sabre-rattling, can't make a decent retraction of her prior support for big-ass wars Senator from New York, I won't be losing sleep if the Freshmen Senator from Illinois wins the nomination. I granted Vice President Gore's campaign permission to use the letters and my name in their PR during his campaign against Gov. Bush, and eventually the DNC started to do so as well - which is fine. But, my permission to use said materials does not constitute an endorsement of certain people either. It is merely factual - and this issue has no legs if idiots like Romney stop kissing the ring at BJU. Further, as an agnostic heathen and long-time nonconformist, and in the interest of full disclosure - I had zero intention of attending BJU. I did, however, intend to cause mischief and create awareness. Mischief managed. P.S. - I spelled it out in greater detail in 2004. See: http://jameslandrith.com/content/view/2257/79/ Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (98) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 1253 |
|
Last Updated ( Saturday, 17 November 2007 )
|
|
|
Press Releases Sent By Other Organizations
|
|
Written by Democratic National Committee
|
|
Friday, 19 October 2007 |
|
DNC: Romney Doesn't Get It: Bob Jones Endorsements About Principle, Not Politics
WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following is being issued by the Democratic National Committee:
Mitt Romney tried to smooth talk reporters yesterday about why he decided to turn a blind eye to the racist, anti-Catholic, anti-Mormon, and homophobic statements and policies of Bob Jones III and Bob Jones University when he accepted their endorsements. According to Romney, he's "happy to have" Bob Jones III's support because "we have the same things we want to fight for on issue after issue" and because "We love this country. We love families." (Boston Herald, 10/19/07; AP, 10/18/07)
Romney failed to say whether the issues he agrees with Jones on include Jones' divisive rhetoric and the university's shameful history of denying admission to African-American students, banning interracial dating until 2000, refusing to honor Martin Luther King, publishing textbooks that called Catholicism a "false religion," and banning gay alumni from campus. Despite the school's history, and despite the fact that Bob Jones III himself calls Catholicism and Mormonism "cults which call themselves Christian," Romney decided that his political ambitions are more important than sending a clear message that those policies and statements are wrong.
"Loving our country and families means respecting every American and our differences, not discriminating against them and not putting politics ahead of our country by embracing organizations or individuals who support divisive policies," said Democratic National Committee Communications Director Karen Finney. "It is time for Mitt Romney to give a clear answer about precisely which racist, discriminatory and anti-gay policies and statements he is so happy to be associated with."
Mitt Romney Proud of Bob Jones Endorsements...
Romney "Happy" To Have Jones Endorsement. Romney on endorsement from Bob Jones III: "We love this country. We love families. We want marriage before babies...We have the same things we want to fight for on issue after issue, so I'm happy to have his support." (AP, 10/18/07)
Romney: Bob Jones Endorsements "A Positive Step." Romney, making his first public appearance of the campaign in Columbus, told reporters that Jones' backing was "a positive step" in his effort to reach out to evangelicals who disagree with Mormon doctrine, although he conceded that he didn't know whether it's "100 percent resolved yet" that evangelical voters would support a Mormon for president. (Columbus Dispatch, 10/18/07)
Romney South Carolina Campaign Manager "Proud" of Jones' Support. Terry Sullivan, Romney's South Carolina campaign manager, said he doesn't think Jones' endorsement will turn off voters who may be wary of Jones' religious views. "We're proud to have the support of Dr. Jones and look forward to his help in delivering Gov. Romney's conservative message to the voters," he said. (Greenville News, 10/16/07)
What Exactly is He Proud Of?
BOB JONES III'S ANTI-CATHOLIC, ANTI-MORMON RHETORIC
Bob Jones III Protested Catholicism, Other Religions. In 1994, Jones III protested an agreement between evangelicals and Catholics in the south, saying that "The Christian Church has as much reason to separate from Catholicism as it does from Islam, Mormonism, or any other of the world's religious deceptions." The university's website referred to Catholicism as "a cult which calls itself Christian." Former university president and founder Bob Jones Jr. called the Pope the antichrist and referred the University's collection of Catholic art as false, saying that "There is not a lot of good Protestant Christian painting. I had to buy Catholic pictures, despite the falsehoods in them." (Associated Press, 4/8/94, 9/11/87; Christian Century, 5/5/93; Atlanta Journal Constitution, 6/30/91; Arizona Star, 3/7/00)
Jones III Reposts Anti-Catholic, Anti-Mormon Column on School Website. After it was reported that the message referring to Catholicism and Mormonism as cults in the "President's Corner" of the Bob Jones University website was removed, school President Bob Jones III reposted the attacked. Jones III reposted the comments to show that nothing had changed about his views, he said. Reports about the removal were "totally misleading" Jones III said, because they implied the removal was "for suspect reasons or because of embarrassment or cowardice." "In order to leave no doubt in anyone's mind of the university's integrity and absolute commitment to its biblical principles, the article in question has been reposted," Jones III said. (Associated Press, 3/16/00)
-- Website Statement: The statement which Jones III removed and then reposted stated the following: "The diminution of evangelistic enterprise to cults which call themselves Christian, including Catholicism and Mormonism, is frightening." (Associated Press, 3/16/00)
Bob Jones Textbooks Condemn Catholicism. Bob Jones University's textbooks speak out against Catholicism. One book states that "Luther and other Protestant reformers exposed the false doctrines of Roman Catholicism that had clouded God's truth for centuries." A fifth-grade social studies book produced by the school said that Roman Catholics practice a "false religion" (San Francisco Chronicle, 12/17/96; Virginian Pilot and Ledger Star, 3/19/93)
BOB JONES UNIVERSITY'S RACIST HISTORY
Bob Jones University Lost Tax-Exempt Status Because of Racial Discrimination. Bob Jones University lost its tax-exempt status in 1970 for refusing to admit African-Americans. The school then changed its policy but still prohibited any interracial dating or marriage. In 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court supported an IRS decision to remove tax-exempt status from the school for its dating policy, which included rules such as "students who date outside their own race will be expelled." (The Tax Lawyer, Winter 1984; World News Digest, 5/27/83)
University Still Banned Interracial Dating in 1998. In 1998, James Landrith, who is white, tried to apply to the school even though he is married to an African American woman. According to NPR, Landrith received this response to his application: "I noticed on your application that you are interracially married. Bob Jones University does not endorse this. It would be no problem for you to be a student here as long as your wife was not or vice versa." (NPR, 4/15/99)
Bob Jones University Dropped Ban on Interracial Dating in 2000. On "Larry King Live" in March 2000, Bob Jones III said that the university had dropped the ban on interracial dating as of March 3, 2000. Jones said the national scrutiny the school has received since Bush's appearance led to the decision to drop the policy. Jones III also said that the foundation for the ban was still true -- "that God made the races separate for his own purpose, and it is wrong to break down the barriers God erected, that it could lead to dangerous 'one-worldism,' just like globalism ..." according to the Globe and Mail, but that students and alumni were coming under too much criticism for the policy. The ban was put in place in the 1950s, when an Asian family threatened to sue the school after their son, a student there, almost married a white student. (Larry King Live, 3/3/00; Associated Press, 3/5/00; Globe and Mail, 3/9/00)
-- Interracial Dating Still Requires Parental Permission. Three days after announcing that the ban on interracial dating was dropped from school policy, BJU President Bob Jones III announced that students must tell their parents if they become involved in an interracial relationship. "We will carry out the will of your parents," Jones III said at the school's chapel service. "They will need to have a say in this." The new policy says that parents must send a letter to the dean of men or women approving the relationship before the school will allow it. Jones also said that most people disapprove of interracial dating and marriage. "I think that's evidenced by the fact that so few people are interracially married," Jones said to students. "When you date interracially or marry interracially, it cuts you off from people. (Associated Press, 3/7/00)
Bob Jones University Refused to Honor Martin Luther King, Jr. According to a former student of Bob Jones University, the school refused to fly the campus flag at half-mast after Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, and the president referred to King as an "apostate," one who abandons the Christian faith. (Chicago Tribune, 6/4/92)
BOB JONES UNIVERSITY IS ANTI-GAY
Bob Jones University Threatened to Arrest Gay Alumni. In October 1998, Wayne Mouritzen, a retired minister and Bob Jones University graduate, received a letter from university officials telling him to not return to the school because he is gay. The letter from the school's dean said that "as long as you are living as a homosexual, you, of course, would not be welcome on the campus and would be arrested for trespassing if you did visit." Bob Jones spokesman Jonathan Pait said the policy applies only to graduates, and also covers cult members, unrepentant criminals, or other alumni who are believed to have strayed from the school's teachings. "We can't tell our alumni what they can and can't believe," Pait said. "But we can say, 'You've made your decisions; please do not return.'" The school did allow those banned alumni to visit its religious art gallery so the gallery does not lose its tax-exempt status. (Boston Globe, 10/24/98; Christianity Today, 12/7/98)
FLASHBACK: Romney Opposed Discrimination Against Gays. Romney said, "'I'm not in favor of discrimination. I do not oppose and I very much support equal opportunity in education, equal opportunity in employment, in housing and so forth for gay people.' He added that as Governor one of his cabinet members was gay. Romney's statement of support for 'equal opportunity in employment' might serve to remind his Democratic critics that he once was a supporter of the Employee Non-Discrimination Act during an earlier, more moderate, period of his career but has more recently become an opponent of the federal legislation which would protect gays and lesbians from employment-based discrimination." (ABCNews.com, 10/10/07)
Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee, http://www.democrats.org. This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
SOURCE Democratic National CommitteeBe first to comment this article | Add as favourites (90) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 1092 |
|
|
Press Releases Sent By TMA and Coalition Partners
|
|
Written by Coalition for Patient Privacy
|
|
Thursday, 18 October 2007 |
|
For Immediate Release October 18, 2007
Contact: \n
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it 512.732.0033 or 512.897.6390 Download as PDF
47 State & National Organizations, Health IT Companies Join Forces to Demand Consumers Regain Control of their Personal Health Records. The Tipping Point for Health IT is not about funding or even bureaucracy: it’s about PATIENTS trusting that their most personal information will be protected. Washington, DC The bi-partisan Coalition for Patient Privacy is back on the steps of the Capitol urging Congress to restore basic privacy protections; only this year they have doubled their membership and included health IT corporations, big and small. As everyone races to build electronic health records systems without ironclad federal privacy protections, the ACLU, AIDS Action, the American Association for People with Disabilities, American Conservative Union, Family Research Council, Patient Privacy Rights, Consumer Action, Microsoft Corp., Inc. and many more ask Congress to step to the plate and set national privacy standards. Three-fourths of the American public want Congress, not unelected bureaucrats or the whims of the market, to ensure our right to health privacy is protected in electronic systems and yet we still have no Federal statutory right to health privacy. Read the Coalition for Patient Privacy’s letter. The letter to Congress will be revealed at a press conference Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. EST in the Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2456. “Today the Coalition for Patient Privacy has transformed the debate on privacy and health IT: a major multinational technology corporation, Microsoft, has joined the American people in urging Congress to build ironclad privacy protections into electronic health systems up front” said Dr. Deborah Peel, Founder of Patient Privacy Rights. “The false arguments that consumer control of access to health information is too expensive or will obstruct the flow of health information have been laid to rest. Privacy--every American's right to control access to personal health information---is the key to building a successful electronic health system.” Congressman Edward J. Markey will join the Coalition as they advocate for strong privacy protections at the press conference. “The great Irish poet William Butler Yeats once wisely observed, ‘In dreams begins responsibility.’ The dream of a nationwide, seamless, effective health IT system is enticing. Let us hope that we can realize this dream. But today Congress has a responsibility to ensure that patients’ personal medical secrets are not put at risk in the process. If we fail to build in tough privacy principles and strict safeguards, we run the risk that the dream of health IT will turn into a nightmare. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress, and privacy leaders such as Dr. Peel, to craft legislation that both promotes the use of health IT while also preserving patient privacy,” said Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), a Co-Chairman of the House Privacy Caucus. Frank Torres, Director of Consumer Affairs, Microsoft added: “Microsoft joins the Coalition for Patient Privacy in urging Congress to include basic privacy protections for electronic health records in any health IT bill it considers. Such protections are needed to ensure the creation of a health IT eco-system that consumers can trust. We can empower people to lead healthy lives, while putting them at the center and in control of their health information.” The letter is being released at a crucial time as the Senate and House are preparing to consider legislation that will establish an Electronic Health Information Network. The Wired for Health Care Quality Act (S. 1693) pending in the Senate provides for a national electronic health information system and does not recognize or protect Americans' right to health privacy. In fact, the bill authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue standards eliminating the individual's right to health privacy without even providing an opportunity for public comment.
"Medical care is one of the most intimate, personal services in every individual's life. It is an art form requiring complete honesty and absolute confidence in the good intentions and discretion of the attending physician. Infringements on that relationship are among the most destructive things the state can possibly do to its citizens,” said William Westmiller, National Chairman, Republican Liberty Caucus. “Every patient has a right to absolute privacy and totally confidential treatment, just as fundamental as the right to their own life," Westmiller said. Despite the intent of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and its “Privacy Rule”, the current regulations leave all Americans’ personal health information completely vulnerable and exposed. State laws, common laws and the Constitution are there for protection. Yet the HIPAA “Privacy Rule” is really a “Disclosure Rule” that authorizes more than 4 million entities to use and disclose an individual’s health information. This disclosure is without the individual’s consent and over their objections. “All Americans have a right to privacy, and that right doesn’t stop at the doctor’s office door. Medical privacy is a mystery to most Americans. After signing their HIPAA forms, most Americans don’t think about what happens to their information, and worse, most would be shocked to know that their most personal information is not as safe as they would hope. Congress must ensure that Americans’ medical information will not be used without their consent and that their privacy rights will not be trampled, whether their health information is kept on paper or electronically” said Michael W. Macleod-Ball, American Civil Liberties Chief Legislative and Policy Counsel. "If Congress is going to force health IT on the American people with their foolish mandates, subsidies and grants, then at the very least there needs to be privacy protections included as well as the ability for sane citizens to opt out," added the National Director for the Liberty Coalition, Michael Ostrolenk. As we move toward one of the most important elections in the nation's history, all Americans should ask political candidates a simple question: ‘Do you believe we as Americans have a right to health information privacy, and if so, do you believe that right should be recognized and protected in any national electronic health information system?’ “This is not a partisan issue: the right to health information privacy is a fundamental right of all Americans recognized in Constitutional law, standards for the ethical practice of medicine and the physician-patient privilege. The voters should know where the candidates stand on this critical issue," said Jim Pyles, Principal in health law firm of Powers, Pyles, Sutter & Verville, P. C.. The Coalition for Patient Privacy first formed in 2006 and represents millions of Americans. Dr. Peel leads the Coalition and is the founder of Patient Privacy Rights, a national consumer health privacy watchdog organization based in Austin, TX. Background Materials: The Coalition for Patient Privacy includes:
AIDS Action
American Association of People with Disabilities
American Association of Practicing Psychiatrists
American Chiropractic Association
American Civil Liberties Union
American Conservative Union
American Psychoanalytic Association
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law
Bob Barr (former Congressman R-GA)
Citizens for Health
Citizen Outreach Project
Clinical Social Work Association
Consumer Action
Consumers for Health Care Choices
Cyber Privacy Project
Doctors for Open Government
Ethics in Government Group
Fairfax County Privacy Council
Family Research Council
Free Congress Foundation
Georgians for Open Government
Gun Owners of America
Health Administration Responsibility Project, Inc.
The Liberty Coalition
The Multiracial Activist
Microsoft Corporation, Inc.
The National Center for Transgender Equality
The National Coalition for Mental Health Professionals and Consumers
National Whistleblower Center
The Natural Solutions Foundation
The New Grady Coalition
Pain Relief Network
Patient Privacy Rights Foundation
Privacy Activism
Privacy Rights Now Coalition
Private Citizen, Inc.
Republican Liberty Caucus
The Student Health Integrity Project (SHIP)
TexPIRG
Thoughtful House Center for Autism
Tolven, Inc.
Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.
Universata, Inc.
U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation
You Take Control, Inc.
Just Health (California Consumer Health Care Council) #### Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (51) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 921 |
|
| << Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
| | Results 13 - 16 of 1553 |
|
|
