I received a letter from the folks at SAVE (Stop Abusive and Violent Environments). They’re a group of people dedicated to improving the effectiveness of America’s approach to solving the problem of domestic violence through education, training, and awareness programs. Well, they’ve expanded a little and are actively protesting against a new set of rules issued by the Department of Education regarding sexual assault on campus. I’ve decided to reprint the letter here:
When sexual morality breaks down, lives get chaotic. When lives get chaotic, the government steps in to deal with the mess – and that rarely ends well.
Two recent stories vividly illustrate this principle:
Story 1: Newsweek just released an unusual and provocative set of college rankings. One of the lists – we kid you not – is the 25 “horniest” campuses. These are the colleges “where students have the best odds of hooking up.” This is presented as an appealing feature of these campuses.
Story 2: The Department of Education recently issued new rules telling colleges, in great detail, how they must handle accusations of sexual assault or harassment. The rules in effect strip accused men (students or faculty) of the presumption of innocence and the right to confront their accuser, even when they’re facing expulsion.
So on the one hand, liberals celebrate the “hook up” culture, the ultimate expression of their precious sexual revolution. And the place where liberalism reigns supreme – the American university – is now the scene of sexual anarchy. On the other hand, college boys who have obediently “explored their sexuality” face career-ending prosecution by an academic inquisition that will probe every salacious detail of their intimate encounters. The irony couldn’t be richer.
The results are seen in an illuminating article in Philadelphia magazine: “The New Rules of College Sex.” And we now have the inevitable lawsuit, brought by a young man who was expelled from Sewanee after an obviously fraudulent accusation of rape: http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/aug/24/sewanee-lawsuit-trial-begins/
The federal rules about sexual assault on campus are such an egregious assault on basic civil rights that a backlash is brewing. (Even the American Association of University Professors has protested.) SAVE is leading the charge against these rules. We advocate for men falsely accused on domestic violence. Your listeners can find our more at our website saveservices.org.
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE)TrackBack URI
I was in Hawaii after the Transpac 2011 ocean race, doing my program from there, trying to recover, when I heard about what happened in Norway, where this piece-of-crap decided he was going to make a statement by starting a revolution similar to the Crusades to stop Muslim integration and destruction of Europe by Islam. So to do this, he blew up a government building and killed scores and scores of kids, which of course, makes everybody incredibly sympathetic to his cause. Now Norway is a liberal country like Holland and Denmark — incredibly liberal.
Yesterday morning I read that Norway’s maximum penalty for any crime you can commit (no matter how heinous) is 21 years in prison. So for killing between 80 and 100 people (the number keeps changing), if he’s found guilty, he could spend 21 years in prison which is equivalent to a penalty of 82 days — 82 days — per child’s death. I have nothing more to say.TrackBack URI
SB-242, introduced by California State Senator Ellen Corbett (D-San Leandro) would require all security setting to default to “private” and charge up to $10,000 per violation, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
I have to applaud Sen. Corbett – up one side and down the other.
These sites are not set up for privacy, and they’re complicated to negotiate. People who use Facebook and sites like it to engage in social/political activities are not necessarily posting information they want to share with the whole world. Even if information is private to other users, it’s not private to Facebook, and can still be used for marketing and advertising purposes.
As I see it, the main problem is you give all your private information before you then determine thelevel of privacy. It’s not well structured. And yes, parents also ought to have the power to remove information or photos from their children’s pages or accounts (one of the provisions of the bill). The bill would require “removal of that information regarding a user under 18 years of age upon request by the user’s parent, within 48 hours of his or her request.”
Facebook is not happy about this bill. I guess it’s a little more work for them, but it’s good PR for them to say they’ll put in the work to protect kids. When you’re not an adult, you lack the foresight to see a picture of yourself drinking beer, along with the message that “I’m so wasted,” could be problematic when interviewing for a job. It’s true 30-year-olds can also post the same nonsense, so everything can’t be blamed on youth.
The 48-hour deadline might be tight, but I don’t care – they’ll just have to figure out a way to set up programs to make that work. If a parent is calling up every day, however, then the site probably should just terminate that account, because that means the parents aren’t really “parenting.”
In fact, a lot of parents are ignorant, unresponsive, uninvolved, unaware, and “unsupervisory” when it comes to their children:
- 81% of parents with children who go online say kids aren’t careful enough when giving out information (which is why I don’t think kids should be online at all without parental supervision)
- 44% of teens online with social networking profiles say they have been contacted by a stranger, compared with 16% of those without social networking profiles.
- 14% of kids have actually met face-to-face with a person they first met on the Internet.
- When asked how they responded when contacted online by a stranger, only THREE percent of online kids said they told an adult or authority figure. Most kids said they didn’t report the contact because they were afraid of losing Internet privileges.
- Between 2007 and 2009, MySpace deleted 90,000 accounts because they were created by registered sex offenders.
Parents are always the first line of defense. Check up on everything. Never, never worry about losing your kid’s trust. They don’t trust you anyway.
Think about it. Most of the time they don’t want to tell you the truth, because they’ll get punished or they’ll lose some privilege. They’re not going to tell you something bad happened on the Internet. They’re afraid you won’t let them use the Internet if they mention it. And kids will lie to do what they want to do or do what their friends are doing or what they think they should be allowed to do.
So don’t be naïve. Don’t think “My kids wouldn’t do that. My kids are wonderful.” They’re kids! I’m not saying they’re criminals, but I am saying they’re kids, and kids can make very unwise choices.
UPDATE on bill SB242: Unfortunately, it has stalled in the Calfornia legislature after aggressive lobbying by Facebook, Google, Twitter and other firms. The bill failed to pass in the California State Senate just this past Friday, May 27. The measure was deadlocked with a 16-16 vote. State Sen. Ellen Corbett (D-San Leandro) said the bill had been “fiercely” lobbied against by opponents, but she plans to bring the bill back for another vote later this week.
I have had it with Berkeley, California, that anti-American bastion of disloyalty to the values and existence of the United States of America.
In February, 2008, the Berkeley City Council approved a measure calling for Marine recruiters to leave Berkeley, because they “are not welcome in our city.” If recruiters chose to stay, they would do so as “uninvited and unwelcome intruders.”
The Council also applauded any residents or organizations that “volunteer to impede, passively or actively, by non-violent means, the work of any military recruiting office located in the City of Berkeley.” And a handful of folks did just that – some held up signs which said “No Military Predators in Our Town,” or “Join the Marines. Travel to Exotic Lands. Meet Exciting and Unusual People – and Kill Them.”
Closing down military recruiting stations actually disallows freedom – the freedom of choice of young men and women to volunteer for military service if they’re so inclined – without having to go out of town to do it.
And now it comes to the point where I’ve had it, and I am calling for Berkeley, to secede from California and the United States and go form their own pathetic country:
The Berkeley City Council is entertaining a resolution to declare than an Army private accused of leaking some classified information to Wikileaks is….(brace yourselves)…a HERO. City “Peace and Justice” Commissioner Bob Meola, who authored the resolution told the San Francisco Chronicle that PFC Bradley Manning, 22, is a patriot who deserves (brace yourselves again) a MEDAL!
Manning is accused of leaking hundreds of thousands of secret cables to Wikileaks. He compromised American interests across the globe, and put the very lives of Afghan allies at risk of torture and death by the Taliban and comprised America’s relationships with its allies around the world.
My research into Manning suggested a kind of unhappy misfit with a huge ego about being smarter than his superiors. I don’t believe for a moment that his motives were benevolent to any cause but his own self-aggrandizement. But that just my opinion.
Nonetheless, what he did is treasonous.
From my perspective, Berkeley has a long history of anti-American sentiments and acts such as attempting to keep its own citizens from having access to volunteer for military service, providing a refuge for illegal immigrants, and ignoring the sovereignty of this nation. It has been a sanctuary for military who are AWOL, and a haven for potheads.
I believe in freedom of speech – not freedom to break laws which put Americans and others at risk for their lives. To call for a medal for a private who betrayed everything he committed to is beyond disgusting.
My contempt for the city of Berkeley knows no bounds. My feet won’t touch their soil again. Besides, I’m certain that if I publicly made it known that I was planning a trip to Berkeley, they would be sure to put together a quick resolution to ban relatively short, sorta blonde, outspoken, conservative mothers of military sons.TrackBack URI
Something very scary is starting in this country – in the land of the free that you and I all love – so you need to pay attention.
Four months ago, I said I was ending my terrestrial radio show at the end of the year because I wanted to regain my First Amendment rights. A lot of intellectuals snickered and said I didn’t know what I was talking about – only the government can take away First Amendment rights. I was only being threatened by non-government organizations like Media Matters.
Well, where do you think fascism and censorship start?
They start when one person or one group of people demands another person or another group of people be silenced.
On Monday, I did a lot of interviews. In every interview, I talked about how free speech on radio is in jeopardy, in danger of being regulated – censored – by people who are offended – personally and politically offended – by opinions with which they do not agree. Rather than debate the issues, certain people in this country are suggesting the opinions which offend them should simply be silenced.
You’ve heard how CNN fired Rick Sanchez because he voiced his opinion about Jon Stewart being a bigot.
You’ve heard how NPR fired Juan Williams because he voiced his personal opinion about Muslims and 9/11.
And you say, “Well, that’s still not the government censoring opinion.” Well, listen up, because that’s only the beginning.
On November 17, on the floor of the United States Senate, Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) proposed that the FCC pull the plug on Fox News and MSNBC. He said:
“There’s a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to Fox and to MSNBC, ‘Out. Off. End. Goodbye.’ It would be a big favor to political discourse; to our ability to do our work here in Congress, and to the American people….” That’s what a United States Senator said. Censorship: a big FAVOR to the American people.
Two days after Senator Rockefeller dropped that bomb, Al Sharpton joined the fight for censorship. Al Sharpton, on his radio show (where he has the right to free speech), said “the FCC needs to give guidelines of what is permittable or permitted” to say on radio, and the FCC should “set standards” to make sure “groups of Americans” cannot be offended.
And on Monday, on MSNBC (which, if Senator Rockefeller had his way would NOT exist – I simply exercise my American right not to watch it), Al Sharpton on “The Ed Show” [with Ed Schultz] talked about…ME…and how terrible it was I should still be on the air, and that it was unfortunate I was going to satellite radio where I can’t be REGULATED.
Then, Al Sharpton said this about Rush Limbaugh:
“I’m in Washington tomorrow….we’re going to the FCC. We’re not going to let this go. He [Rush Limbaugh] is not on uncensored satellite. He’s on regulated radio.”
That’s a threat!
Do not kid yourselves. My mother grew up in Fascist Italy and taught me all about it. This is scary. Satellite is uncensored. Radio is regulated and, according to Al Sharpton, regulated means the FCC can censor someone because their opinions are offensive.
- I’ve offended people throughout my career. When I said:
- Abortion that is not for the purpose of saving the life of the mother is killing a baby, some people were offended.
- Interracial adoption (indeed, any adoption) is a blessing, some people were offended.
- Interracial dating and marriage is fine, some people were offended.
- Parents should not excommunicate their gay offspring, some people were offended.
- Children are best served by a married mommy and daddy, some people were offended.
- Women who “shack up” out of wedlock are “unpaid whores,” some people were offended.
- Activist groups are largely tyrannical, destructive groups who cause people to be angry and to isolate themselves, some people were offended.
- The feminist movement (especially the National Organization of “I Don’t Know What Kind of” Women) betrayed women’s nature, some people were offended.
- Unmarried women should not “make babies,” intentionally robbing them of a daddy, some people were offended.
- Getting drunk, going off with some guy, getting naked and getting it on is not date rape, some people were offended.
- Wearing low-cut, tight, revealing sexy clothes and flaunting your sexuality to men, who respond approvingly is not harassment, some people were offended.
- Feminist women who treat their husbands poorly and then complain when husbands stray or leave when it is largely their own doing, some people were offended.
- Focus “studies” courses in colleges and universities are breeding grounds for intolerance, anger, and hate, some people were offended.
- Children who are out of control due to medical and/or psychological conditions, age, or poor parenting should not be present at wedding ceremonies, some people were offended.
Apparently, I just can’t help but offend people!
But these are my opinions. And this is America. And we should all have the right to express our opinions or else this will cease being America as it was envisioned and created.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.TrackBack URI
I am very big on the concept of tolerance. I tell folks every day on my radio program to “tolerate” the eccentricities of others as they tolerate yours. However, I fear that in the private and public sectors, tolerance is being spelled “C-O-W-A-R-D-I-C-E.”
There isn’t a day that goes by you don’t hear from someone that making a generalization about world terrorism and Islam is a display of intolerance, in spite of the fact that Islamic world terrorism is a fact. You are brow-beaten down from facing reality because, when you do, an organization like CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) comes after you with a vengeance. People in the media have lost their jobs over stating reality, because it was deemed “intolerant.”
When you don’t want a monument to Islam to be built in the sight of the fall of the World Trade Center, well, you are intolerant and racist.
Our own President avoids connecting the words Islam and terrorism.
We have a woman journalist in America who is in permanent hiding because of an international fatwah (hit list) against her for suggesting that people participate in a “draw Mohammed day.” I don’t see the world’s moderate Muslims tracking down the perpetrators of this fatwah or offering her protection.
Recently, we had a middle school boy in Sacramento, California ride to school with an American flag on his bike in order to recognize Veteran’s Day. The school district forbade him to do that lest it show “intolerance.” Truth was some Hispanic students threatened to harm this little boy.
It turns out the principal was afraid of the violent Hispanic children and, instead of protecting this little boy, cowardly backed down and forbade the showing of the flag of the United States of America. The principal commented the Hispanic students would want to fly the Mexican flag and this would turn into violence. The school district reversed the decision when this became a national story.
Moreover, politicians have become disgustingly un-American with their commentaries on the heartlessness and bigotry of those who support legal immigration. Some politicians and pundits act like having national boundaries and sovereignty is a crime against humanity. Some politicians and pundits have the gall to call people who support legal immigration “bigots,” “hate-filled,” or “racists.” This is utterly horrendous, and is an example of one party attempting to get power in America by catering to those who disdain our laws and sovereignty simply to gain power, power, power.
America used to stand for something, and was such a symbol France gave us the Statue of Liberty as a gift!
We are having our tolerance used against us by forces that would destroy us.TrackBack URI
In the election last week, Missy Reilly Smith ran for Washington DC delegate to the United States House of Representatives (she lost to Eleanor Holmes Norton). Smith ran largely as an anti-abortion candidate.
She ran 30 second ads which aired 24 times on local broadcast network affiliates across the greater Washington, DC metropolitan area, preceded by a 15 second warning (added by the station management) due to the shocking content.
What was the ad?
It was 30 seconds of still photos of aborted babies. Dead babies ripped apart and sucked out of a mother’s womb aren’t very pretty, but they are real and should be shocking to a civilized society. We can have daily abortions by the thousands, but we can’t look at exactly what is happening?
If you can’t look at it, perhaps you shouldn’t do it.
Ms. Smith’s 30 second ad was pulled from YouTube, which posted a notice that the video amounted to “a violation of YouTube’s policy on shocking and disgusting content.”
Ahhh. Well, you should know what, for years, YouTube has not found shocking and/or disgusting content.
YouTube has been the long-term home for videos featuring calls to jihad by Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born, Yemen-based cleric, who has played an increasingly public role in inspiring violence directly at….YOU.
He has literally hundreds of videos preaching and urging Muslims everywhere to join in a worldwide holy war against…YOU. And his videos have had millions of views.
So, let’s get this right. Actually seeing the results of an abortion are unacceptable on YouTube, but years of videos calling for the deliberate murder of Westerners is….what, free speech? Terrorist recruitment videos featuring Islamic fighters with guns and rockets is free speech?
A YouTube spokesperson said they are trying to distinguish videos that are merely offensive from those that cross the line of their rules prohibiting “dangerous or illegal activities such as bomb-making, hate speech and incitement to commit violent acts” or that come from accounts “registered by a member of a designated foreign terrorist organization” or used to promote such a group’s interest. That rule seems clear enough. So why did it take years and years of international begging for YouTube to remove last week some – some – of the hundreds of videos featuring calls to jihad by a creep playing an increasingly public role in inspiring violence directed toward….YOU?
I wish I knew the answer. I wish I understood why a video of aborted babies got axed immediately, while several governments and individuals have struggled for years to get these jihad videos off YouTube. I wish I knew why there is so much tolerance for this jihadist hate and violence, and so little for the fate of aborted babies.
I wish I knew.
Missy Smith is running for Washington D.C. delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives. She is running against incumbent Eleanor Holmes Norton and claims to have the backing of the Tea Party movement.
What is most interesting about this candidacy? She is running largely as an anti-abortion candidate. She runs a 30 second ad which will air 24 times on local broadcast network affiliates across the greater Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, preceded by a 15 second warning that was added by the station’s administrators.
Her 30 second ad was pulled from YouTube, posting a notice that it amounted to a “violation of YouTube’s policy on shocking and disgusting content.”
What is the ad? It’s 30 seconds of still photos of aborted babies. Missy Smith’s voiceover admits to her having had two abortions:
“I was told it’s not a baby. They lied to me. They exploited me. Then I learned the truth and I’ve suffered for years. And believe me, I am angry. My heart has been ripped out. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Norton…they all support the murder of babies and the abuse of women by abortion. It’s time to make child-killing illegal again.”
I’ve been rolling around in my mind YouTube’s comment on “shocking and disgusting.” Yes, the murder of innocent babies in the womb is shocking and disgusting in a civilized society. Dead babies ripped apart aren’t really pretty. But it is the truth.
If it’s really that gruesome, should it be a “right?”
We can have daily abortions by the thousands. Why can’t we look at what it is exactly that’s happening?
I went on YouTube and explored by using words like “shocking,” “disgusting,” “vulgar,” “mean,” and others. And what happened? Videos appeared with subjects like atrocious sexual exploits with links to sites with “more more more,” fart compilations, squeezing pus from boils, and a snake eating a hamster.
I agree with YouTube that using stills of aborted children amounts to “shocking and disgusting content.” I challenge every single Planned [un]Parenthood clinic to show women coming in for abortions these photos, and THEN let them choose. I challenge every high school to show photos of aborted babies the same way they show horrible shots of car accidents to alert young people to the dangers of drunk driving.
It is shocking and disgusting to me and many others that people find it just fine to murder babies in their bodies without seeing the sonograms of their babies moving in their womb, without looking at photos of the baby at the level of development of theirs, and without seeing the final result of the abortion.
Choosing without being totally informed is not really make a choice. It is hiding from actually making a choice.
Unwanted babies are wanted by some other family.
If a continuation of a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, abortion would be reasonable in self-defense. If a continuation of a pregnancy will result in a baby that will certainly die shortly after birth, in compassion, an abortion would be reasonable. But to waste a perfectly good baby over disinterest, inconvenience, embarrassment, and even economics is really shocking and disgusting.
You can find Missy Smith’s website at www.missysmith2010.com. Check it out.
Sometimes truth hurts.TrackBack URI