The Verizon Foundation has produced a frightening video titled Monsters. The video's perverse message can be summed up in this slide: "She's afraid of her dad."
The video revels in powerful yet destructive stereotypes: fathers as abusers, wives as victims, and young boys as future abusers. The video tells the impressionable viewer:
"The child who lives with domestic violence... is afraid of the monster just down the hall," a girl's voiceover intones, while frightening images of a hunchbacked monster-dad flit across the screen: http://www.multivu.com/mnr/52044-verizon-foundation-national-domestic-hotline-video-launch-monsters click here
To be honest this video is not just biased, it's awful. Tell Verizon (politely) to clean up its act.
Contact Bob Varettoni, Executive Director of Media Relations:
•Telephone: (908) 559-6388
•Email: robert.a.varettoni@verizon.com
Please call today - thanks!
Sincerely,
Teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
It's really bullshit that Verizon did this and we should definitely give Verizon a piece of our mind on this issue by letting them know a video like this is unacceptable.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Monday, November 28, 2011
The good and the bad at Demand Progress
I received the following from Demand Progress:
Great news: 100,000 people have asked Senator Wyden to read their names during his filibuster of the dreaded PROTECT IP Act.
Worse news: This legislation could come to a vote as soon as later this week.
But the nastier we make this prospective filibuster look, the better the chance that Senate leadership won't even call for a vote.
Will you help us muster more troops? Please consider posting a link to StopCensorship.org on your blog or website, and share it with your friends:
Here's the message Senator Wyden's office issued to Demand Progress a few days ago, asking for more support from Internet users:
The filibuster affords senators an opportunity to stand up for what they believe in and there are few things I believe in more than ensuring that every American has a voice and an opportunity to get ahead.
Right now, the Internet gives every American that voice while making it possible for every entrepreneur, thinker and innovator to compete alongside the biggest and most moneyed interests.
It is my hope that -- with your help – my colleagues in Congress will realize that a free and open Internet is something that we as Americans should celebrate and not allow those special moneyed interests to quash.
It is my hope that – with your help – my colleagues in Congress will realize that PIPA/SOPA are the wrong way to protect intellectual property because the price they exact on the Internet is too high.
With your help, I believe we can get that word out and prevent these misguided bills from every reaching the House and Senate floor, but if they do reach the floor you can count on me to stand up and make our voices heard.
Let's make it clear to the Senator that we have his back, and that we plan to stand with him on the floor of the Senate.
I believe they are talking about this. If you haven't signed the petition then please do so.
Great news: 100,000 people have asked Senator Wyden to read their names during his filibuster of the dreaded PROTECT IP Act.
Worse news: This legislation could come to a vote as soon as later this week.
But the nastier we make this prospective filibuster look, the better the chance that Senate leadership won't even call for a vote.
Will you help us muster more troops? Please consider posting a link to StopCensorship.org on your blog or website, and share it with your friends:
Here's the message Senator Wyden's office issued to Demand Progress a few days ago, asking for more support from Internet users:
The filibuster affords senators an opportunity to stand up for what they believe in and there are few things I believe in more than ensuring that every American has a voice and an opportunity to get ahead.
Right now, the Internet gives every American that voice while making it possible for every entrepreneur, thinker and innovator to compete alongside the biggest and most moneyed interests.
It is my hope that -- with your help – my colleagues in Congress will realize that a free and open Internet is something that we as Americans should celebrate and not allow those special moneyed interests to quash.
It is my hope that – with your help – my colleagues in Congress will realize that PIPA/SOPA are the wrong way to protect intellectual property because the price they exact on the Internet is too high.
With your help, I believe we can get that word out and prevent these misguided bills from every reaching the House and Senate floor, but if they do reach the floor you can count on me to stand up and make our voices heard.
Let's make it clear to the Senator that we have his back, and that we plan to stand with him on the floor of the Senate.
I believe they are talking about this. If you haven't signed the petition then please do so.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
A Thankgiving message from SAVE
I received the following from SAVE:
During this season of gratitude we realize that all of the things SAVE is thankful for are due to your efforts.
We want you to know how much we appreciate your calls and emails to legislators. We want to thank you for your generous donations. And we want to honor all of the volunteers who have joined the Domestic Violence Legislative Project (DVLP), the Countering Abuse Misinformation Project (CAMP), and Campaign 2012.
Your many calls and emails have already improved Senator Leahy's discussion draft of VAWA. Your generous donations have allowed us to distribute press releases, give dozens of radio interviews, and sponsor two public events in the last year, Hoax! and False Allegation Awareness Summit. Every one of your gifts, from $5 on up make a difference.
I want to take this moment to give a heartfelt "thank you" to each and every one of you who have committed yourselves to our success by joining the DVLP, CAMP, and Campaign 2012.
Your many calls and emails have already improved Senator Leahy's discussion draft of VAWA. Your generous donations have allowed us to distribute press releases, give dozens of radio interviews, and sponsor two public events in the last year, Hoax! and False Allegation Awareness Summit. Every one of your gifts, from $5 on up make a difference.
I want to take this moment to give a heartfelt "thank you" to each and every one of you who have committed yourselves to our success by joining the DVLP, CAMP, and Campaign 2012.
Each month I am amazed by the number of people who join our DVLP conference calls. I love reading the articles, letters to the editor and op-eds written by our CAMP crew. And I get a kick out of seeing photos of Campaign 2012 members wearing their t-shirts and hearing how the public reacts.
Know that you are a valuable part of SAVE. We do.
Know that you can make a difference...you already have, and together we will continue to do so!
Sincerely,
teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
When it comes to the MRM I am thankful that we have turned things around and that we're making the feminazis take us seriously. I am thankful for the work Paul Elam is doing and how working together we can combat institutionalized misandry. Yes there is more work to be done but we should take time out and look back at what we've accomplished and be proud of it.
During this season of gratitude we realize that all of the things SAVE is thankful for are due to your efforts.
We want you to know how much we appreciate your calls and emails to legislators. We want to thank you for your generous donations. And we want to honor all of the volunteers who have joined the Domestic Violence Legislative Project (DVLP), the Countering Abuse Misinformation Project (CAMP), and Campaign 2012.
Your many calls and emails have already improved Senator Leahy's discussion draft of VAWA. Your generous donations have allowed us to distribute press releases, give dozens of radio interviews, and sponsor two public events in the last year, Hoax! and False Allegation Awareness Summit. Every one of your gifts, from $5 on up make a difference.
I want to take this moment to give a heartfelt "thank you" to each and every one of you who have committed yourselves to our success by joining the DVLP, CAMP, and Campaign 2012.
Your many calls and emails have already improved Senator Leahy's discussion draft of VAWA. Your generous donations have allowed us to distribute press releases, give dozens of radio interviews, and sponsor two public events in the last year, Hoax! and False Allegation Awareness Summit. Every one of your gifts, from $5 on up make a difference.
I want to take this moment to give a heartfelt "thank you" to each and every one of you who have committed yourselves to our success by joining the DVLP, CAMP, and Campaign 2012.
Each month I am amazed by the number of people who join our DVLP conference calls. I love reading the articles, letters to the editor and op-eds written by our CAMP crew. And I get a kick out of seeing photos of Campaign 2012 members wearing their t-shirts and hearing how the public reacts.
Know that you are a valuable part of SAVE. We do.
Know that you can make a difference...you already have, and together we will continue to do so!
Sincerely,
teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
When it comes to the MRM I am thankful that we have turned things around and that we're making the feminazis take us seriously. I am thankful for the work Paul Elam is doing and how working together we can combat institutionalized misandry. Yes there is more work to be done but we should take time out and look back at what we've accomplished and be proud of it.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Identify the SCUM members and get paid $1,000.00
You read right,that is $1,000.00 American money to whoever can provide the facts we request. That is why I'm joining in with A Voice For Men in promoting this message so we can shine the light of truth to make the cockroaches scurry about but afford them no hiding places. Not anymore.
She and her friends did the following:
Our second culprit is this woman:
Here is where she is guilty of bigotry:
If you know of the identities of the profiled women then contact A Voice For Men immediately. One more outed misandric bigot is one less that can hide behind an anonymous label.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Oppose blacklist bill in the Senate and get officially recognized
The above video is from Senator Ron Wyden who like the rest of us is opposed to internet censorship and he has promised to vigorously oppose this bill he will even filabuster if necessary. Wyden will read the names of those of us who are opposed to this bill into congressional records (that's a million + BTW) recording our opposition to this bill. Sign the petition to let your Senators know where you stand on this issue. Sign that petition today.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
The TSA is 10 years old and still groping
I received the following from Campaign For Liberty:
Everyone’s “favorite” bureaucracy is growing up.
Today marks 10 years since the TSA’s creation.
And if I could make a birthday wish on their behalf...
... it would be that this is the last holiday season we have to put up with their poking, groping, and scanning.
In what should be “the most wonderful time of the year,” the path home for many Americans begins with a long wait at the airport – and dealing with people who think a government ID gives them the right to put their hands where they don’t belong.
Remember the joyous, exciting holiday travel of yesteryear?
“Over the river and through the woods…”
Well, no one will be writing Christmas carols about modern holiday travel – though we may hear some blues about how miserable the experience can be.
Since its inception, perhaps no other agency has been more flagrant in its violations of our civil liberties and as flippant toward Americans’ constitutionally protected rights as the TSA.
As you may remember, in March of 2009, a C4L staffer found himself temporarily detained and interrogated by the TSA after attempting to fly back after our first Regional Conference with the event’s proceeds in his carry-on.
It’s not illegal to fly with cash and checks on domestic flights, but these agents made it their business – something the TSA does far too often to too many people.
Since that time, the situation has only gotten worse.
For the past year, the TSA has been installing potentially dangerous backscatter imaging machines across the country to perform virtual strip searches on airline passengers.
This leaves passengers the “option” of either being scanned and possibly exposed to dangerous radiation or enduring the very public humiliation of receiving one of their infamous “pat-downs.”
When the policy was first implemented, Senator Claire McCaskill downplayed the invasive groping that makes up one of the TSA’s “enhanced pat-downs,” referring to them as “love pats.”
The senator apparently no longer feels that way (after selling her private jet), and she recently complained about their invasiveness to TSA Administrator John Pistole.
"I try to avoid a pat-down at all costs," McCaskill told Pistole. "There are many times women put their hands on me in a way that if it was your daughter or your sister or your wife, you would be upset."
And as people continue to make their mistreatment and abuse at the TSA’s hands public by sharing their stories online, more members of Congress are beginning to take notice.
Others, unfortunately, still don’t see the bigger picture.
Without immediately reining in the unaccountable TSA and eliminating their procedures of scanning and groping passengers at the airports, I’m afraid the situation will only continue to get worse.
In the past, we’ve warned about the TSA’s plans to expand its scanning beyond our nation’s airports – to our highways, train stations, and bus stops.
Unfortunately, this is already happening.
Last month in Tennessee, the TSA’s VIPR teams were deployed to conduct random searches of vehicles on the highways.
This has to stop.
And you and I are the ones who can fight back.
Members of Congress may think this issue has blown over, but it’s up to Campaign for Liberty to remind them that we’re more outraged than ever at what’s taking place every day in our airports.
Please, as soon as you can on Monday, call Congress at 202-224-3121 and demand they rein in their Frankenstein creation.
Don’t let them sell you a bill of goods, either.
They can force the TSA to abandon their policies of scanning passengers (in what amounts to a virtual strip search) or groping them (in a manner that would constitute sexual assault were it coming from a regular individual).
Ultimately, Congress should abolish the TSA altogether and return the responsibility for security to the private sector.
Just like other federal government overreaches, the TSA believes telling us this is necessary for “our safety” allows it to do whatever it wants, including shredding our Fourth Amendment rights.
We must expose this lie, and I hope we’ll have your help to do so.
The responsibility for airline security lies with the airline industry in the first place.
Since 9/11, only alert passengers and flight crews have thwarted additional terrorist attacks on airplanes, not the TSA!
Tell Congress to pass appropriate, common-sense legislation like H.R. 2438, the “American Traveler Dignity Act,” and to cut off funding for the maintenance of existing scanners and implementation of new ones.
Even the European Union has banned the use of these scanners because of the possible health risks!
So please, reach out to Congress as soon as you can on Monday at 202-224-3121 and urge them to rein in the TSA by outlawing their scanning and groping.
Or you can email them,just look them up here. Perhaps emailing the Senate will help too. No harm in trying to so let's do it.
Throw out the cake and presents because this is one birthday that SHOULDN'T be celebrated.
Ever since the Senator sold her private jet and has to fly commercial along with the rest of us peons she's had a change of heart and is now complaining. But Senator I thought those were just "love pats" (which would make them sexual harassment and sexual assault) and now they're "violations of our bodies". I guess things are different when the queen is forced to live under her own rules.
Chivalry:nature vs nuture
I've heard the argument that men are hard-wired to be chivalrous toward women thus protecting them but I wondering if that is all bunk. If being chivalrous is hard-wired such as breathing is then why do MRA's exist? If the preceding is fact it would be impossible to be an MRA because men would not be able to resist being chivalrous anymore than they can resist breathing. Also take into consideration it is women who condition the young boy to grow up to embrace chivalry,often through repeated reinforcement. When the young boy cannot or will not acquiesces to their demands then they shame him to make him comply and it is through their shaming that they reinforce chivalry. The conclusion we come to is that chivalry is a form of subservience rather than a form of power. We may look at the man guarding the woman (white knighting) and conclude that since he is physically stronger he has the power. What very few people do is realize that the woman in question may have used manipulation (reward/shame) tap his "protect women" programming that was propagated to him when he was a child. So let's take a look at it again: the man is guarding the woman and some will say he has the power. Others will say she goaded a stranger to fight her battles for her and she has the power. Who really has the power: the overt or the covert? Let me put it this way: Who has the most chance of getting injured or kill? Who has the best chance of walking away without a scratch? That should tell you who has the power.
Friday, November 18, 2011
The blacklist bill is close to being toast
I received the following from Demand Progress and it's good news. Enjoy.
More Than 700k Have Acted: Let's Finish Strong
It's been a show of force like no other: More than 700k anti-censorship contacts have been delivered to Congress so far this week, as the Blacklsit Bill gets heard in committee.
What an amazing day -- let's top it off with one more push. Please send one more message to Congress -- even if you already have -- touting our numbers and telling them they need to back down. Let's make it clear that the Internet has risen up, and won't back down until Congress heeds our calls.
Please just use the form at right to send one more message to Congress.
The Stop Online Piracy Act would ruin so much of what's best about the Internet: It will give the government and corporations new powers to block Americans' access to sites that are accused of copyright infringement, force sites like YouTube to go to new lengths to police users' contributions, and put people in prison for streaming certain content online.
Just use the form at right to send one more message to Congress to help us finish strong today.
And please use the links below to ask your friends to join -- and if you ahve a website, please link back to our petition page.
With both parties against this bill it is sure to die. You,me,we did it and I want everyone out there to celebrate. But before you celebrate fill out the petition and let them know that we are serious about preserving our freedoms and that we won't allow them to be taken from us.
More Than 700k Have Acted: Let's Finish Strong
It's been a show of force like no other: More than 700k anti-censorship contacts have been delivered to Congress so far this week, as the Blacklsit Bill gets heard in committee.
What an amazing day -- let's top it off with one more push. Please send one more message to Congress -- even if you already have -- touting our numbers and telling them they need to back down. Let's make it clear that the Internet has risen up, and won't back down until Congress heeds our calls.
Please just use the form at right to send one more message to Congress.
The Stop Online Piracy Act would ruin so much of what's best about the Internet: It will give the government and corporations new powers to block Americans' access to sites that are accused of copyright infringement, force sites like YouTube to go to new lengths to police users' contributions, and put people in prison for streaming certain content online.
Just use the form at right to send one more message to Congress to help us finish strong today.
And please use the links below to ask your friends to join -- and if you ahve a website, please link back to our petition page.
With both parties against this bill it is sure to die. You,me,we did it and I want everyone out there to celebrate. But before you celebrate fill out the petition and let them know that we are serious about preserving our freedoms and that we won't allow them to be taken from us.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
The death of due process at Brown University
The following comes from John The Other from a A Voice For Men in which he talks about the death of due process at Brown University. I guess Brown views its female population as pure angels that must be protected from its male population which it views as sex crazed fiends who unable to control their impulses:
Brown University is a private, Ivy League university located in Providence, Rhode Island. It’s also where the school’s faculty and administration have endorsed the eradication of due process – and where the school’s newspaper, the Brown Daily Herald printed the following statement.
“You need to check your behavior carefully before you enter into a relationship with a woman. There will be no due process if you are accused of rape. The woman’s version of what happened will always be accepted over the man’s account.”[1]
Do I need to keep writing, or is that enough?
For context, I’ve included the fifth and sixth amendments of the Bill of Rights.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Do not skip over those two short paragraphs. Please don’t simply bypass them, because without them, the only redress of accusation, injury or grievance devolves to the use of force, the jurisprudence of a mob, or a vendetta.
The ideology driving the “thinking” at universities like Brown has gone beyond being a parody of itself and has crossed deep into the territory of Kantian nightmare.
I hesitate to call this feminism – although I know it is that victim cult taken to a logical extreme by blind progression without opposition. What I don’t hesitate to call it is stupid, hate-driven bigotry on par with the set-of-mind which led in recent history to late-night lynchings. It is the most craven abdication of ethics by academicians, and were it not happening now, a parody containing such events would be rejected as too absurd.
I have written many times that human society, in the absence of a viable system for nonviolent redress of grievance – such as the due process of law – will always adapt an alternative system of redress. The simplest such alternative being retributive violence. Im am surely not uniquely prescient to see this. Academicians at institutions like Brown University cannot possibly be so stupid they fail to grasp this simple concept.
For the moment, I will setting predictions of upheaval aside. A student, or parent who reads the words published by the Brown Daily Herald, and sees the school as anything but a free-fire zone where young lives are destroyed must be equally stupid.
“There will be no due process if you are accused of rape. The woman’s version of what happened will always be accepted over the man’s account.”
A university is a business, it sells a service. The students of a university are the customers. They’re the ones who buy the university’s product.
Male students : you have just been told that a business you pay, that you are customers of – this business will cheerfully ignore the law. That this business will constitute its own laws along lines of sexual ideology, and that you have no rights should you ever be accused of by any female customer of the business.
There will be no due process if you are accused of rape.
Brown University used to be a private, Ivy League university located in Providence, Rhode Island. Now it is a private fiefdom run along the lines of a female supremacist victim cult. If you are male, and you attend this school, then you may simply be too stupid to help, and your life’s purpose may be to serve as a warning to others.
you are culpable.
If you are female, and you attend this school, and you say nothing, and do nothing, and sit quietly as your institute of higher learning pursues the policies of sexual apartheid, you are culpable.
Following the lead set at Brown University, the future is not a feminist utopia of women carried in gilded thrones on the backs of chained men. Utopian dreams are always false. What’s coming has the shape of a mad-max future of wastelands, and universal application of the warlord model of local government. Unfortunately, before we arrive at any outcome so sunny, cities will burn, and bodies will litter the streets. This is not a threat, nor a promise. Despite what detractors of men’s rights writing in general, and my writing in particular say, I have no sympathy for violence. America has been the most prosperous and affluent cultures in history, and when the great dream becomes the failed state, it will be very ugly indeed.
But don’t worry ladies, that bad outcome could be as much as 50 years away. Lots of time for somebody else to solve the problem.
Back in the present, graduates of Ivy League schools tend to a degree of pride on the subject of their alma matter, and even now – this is justified. Post baccalaureate degrees can be a draining program of lost sleep and hard work. However, there’s not much of altruism in attaining academic credentials, people do this for their own benefit, as they should.
I had intended to include and then examine a quotation from the Russian novelist Tolstoy.
“All that is required for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing”
The Russian didn’t say so, but his good men includes good women. I’m not convinced either animal exists, except as defined in each moment by their acts. However, in the context of animals doing nothing, there’s reason to examine the pride of an ivy league graduate, whose framed papers adorn their office wall.
Humans tend to be obtuse when faced by their own inaction – so Ill state this again in explicit terms. If you are a female student or staff of Brown University, and you benefit from a female-favouring climate while your alma mater discards the human rights of men, you are culpable. It will not be forgotten.
The Russian was famously verbose in his work, but I’ll leave just one more comment of his.
I sit on a man’s back, choking him, and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by any means possible, except getting off his back.
[1] http://www.browndailyherald.com/letter-in-defense-of-u-s-handling-of-mccormick-1.2670225#.TsK3AetWL6g
Source:click here
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brown University President Ruth Simmons
Did Brown Force Out An Innocent Freshman, Or Let A Rapist Go Free?
ERIC TUCKER | 05/31/10 01:48 PM |
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — William McCormick III crossed the wrought-iron gates of Brown University on a full scholarship, a champion wrestler from Wisconsin who expected four years at an Ivy League institution known for educating generations of bright and enterprising minds.
He lasted mere weeks.
In September 2006, he was accused of stalking, harassing and ultimately raping a female acquaintance – allegations he says are false. The accuser was a third-generation legacy student who, when first reporting trouble with McCormick, also mentioned that her father was an "alum and a big supporter of Brown."
The day after the rape allegations were made, McCormick was called into a meeting with administrators, barred from campus and put on a flight home pending a disciplinary hearing.
The following month, McCormick was gone for good.
Before the hearing, he signed a confidential agreement – under pressure, he says, from a lawyer for the accuser's family – in which he agreed to withdraw from Brown. In exchange, the accuser agreed to let the matter drop.
A Brown administrator agreed to reflect on his transcript that he had withdrawn for "medical reasons" but also told him he was ineligible for readmission, even though he had never been found responsible for rape. McCormick transferred to Bucknell University, which says he's a student in good standing.
The school allowed the matter to be closed through a private contract instead of a traditional fact-finding hearing that could have vindicated McCormick or established that an assault had actually occurred. The arrangement was meant to provide a tidy outcome to a dispute fraught with emotion and wildly divergent accounts.
Brown insists it acted properly. But a federal lawsuit from McCormick and e-mails reviewed by The Associated Press raise messy questions about the handling of the case.
The lawsuit alleges that administrators failed to adequately investigate the accusations, and permitted a blameless student to be railroaded from campus to placate a major donor.
There is another possibility, though – that Brown administrators deemed the allegations credible but allowed the complaint to be quietly disposed of, freeing someone accused of rape to wipe the slate clean as he transferred to another school.
___
Will McCormick is, by all accounts, a physically imposing man.
Six-foot-five, more than 250 pounds and a force on the wrestling mat, he went 43-0 and was a state champion in his senior year at Milwaukee's Heritage Christian School. He was bulky but also bookish, more focused on making the honor roll than on partying or flirting with girls, recalled teammate J.P. Janik.
The Waukesha, Wis., native was accepted early decision at Brown. Among his early residence hall acquaintances was a freshman from an affluent, suburban New York City background – an accomplished student who in high school helped establish a charity. Her father was in finance, a Brown alumnus and generous donor to and fundraiser for the school.
The AP generally does not identify people who say they were sexually assaulted, and is not naming the family to avoid identifying the woman.
His lawyer says the relationship was friendly, though not romantic. It soured quickly.
On Sept. 5, 2006, the first day of classes and one week after orientation, the woman and her roommate approached their resident adviser – a fellow student – to complain that McCormick was acting "creepy" and following her around. At 2 the next morning, the adviser spoke with Carla Hansen, an associate dean of student life.
The young woman said McCormick was telling people they were dating when they weren't, calling her up to 20 times a day and once punched a wall in anger and made a threatening remark – "I could have hurt you" – after seeing her hug another guy, Hansen wrote administrators in a Sept. 6 e-mail recapping the allegations.
In court papers, McCormick's lawyer, J. Scott Kilpatrick, calls the accusations "exaggerations and half-truths" without responding to specific allegations. McCormick, himself, refused to be interviewed for this story.
The student spoke with Hansen later in the morning of Sept. 6, refusing to name her alleged stalker for fear of getting him into trouble. She also referenced her father, though it's unclear why.
"She said that her father was an alum and a big supporter of Brown, and that she wanted to love Brown, too, and did not want to have anything bad happen to this other student," Hansen wrote in the e-mail.
Conversations between Hansen, the accuser and the resident adviser continued throughout the day.
The student spoke that afternoon with a campus victim rights' advocate, and later that evening, asked to temporarily drop the matter so she could study and attend a friend's birthday party.
That night, she spoke to her father, who urged her to identify her alleged stalker – which she did. At 10 p.m., the father also called the home of Brown administrator Russell Carey, according to an e-mail from Carey.
The following day, McCormick was formally barred from contacting her. She was directed to avoid him, as well.
Soon new problems arose.
A Sept. 13 e-mail to administrators from the student's resident adviser accuses McCormick of having violated the no-contact order by visiting the woman's room and trying to speak with her.
But for the first time, the e-mail – sent to various administrators – also describes an encounter the woman said had occurred on Sept. 6. the day after she first complained to her RA.
On that evening, she said, William McCormick entered her room as her friends were at dinner. As she tried to study, she said, he forced her onto the bed, pushed her up against a wall, tore through her boxer shorts and raped her.
She complained of bruising and sore ribs.
After word of the e-mail circulated, Michael Burch, the then-assistant wrestling coach who acted as McCormick's adviser throughout the process, was told by the head coach to pick McCormick up at his dorm and host him for the night.
Burch served him a glass of orange juice, told him they would straighten out the matter in the morning and gave up his bed so McCormick – who would tell Burch he was never even alone in the same room with the woman – could rest for what figured to be a difficult day ahead.
"I remember walking by my room and just seeing him laying in my bed, with his eyes wide open and staring at the ceiling," Burch said. "He was really scared, really terrified."
On Sept. 14, Burch accompanied McCormick to a meeting with administrators, where he was told he was accused of "sexual misconduct" – on top of earlier harassment charges. A letter from Margaret Klawunn, dean of student life, said he was barred from campus, effective immediately and until further notice.
"This action has been taken for your best interests and that of the community," Klawunn wrote.
Brown administrators involved in the case either didn't return messages or declined comment.
University spokeswoman Marisa Quinn wouldn't discuss specifics but cited Brown policy allowing for students to be immediately suspended if they're considered a danger. She said the university is obligated to act when there's evidence of potential harm to a student.
Brown says students are presumed not responsible for disciplinary violations until their hearing. But Burch said McCormick was denied a chance to explain himself. An administrator pulled out a plane ticket, and Burch accompanied McCormick in a van to the airport.
He was put on a plane to Wisconsin.
___
Brown faced national scrutiny nearly 15 years ago in its handling of another sexual dispute that roiled the campus.
Two students had sex after a party. The female student, a freshman, later said she was too drunk to consent and accused the young man of rape. She spoke out at a rally, while his supporters said he was unfairly branded a rapist over unsubstantiated allegations. Critics accused the Brown disciplinary process of bias against men.
The accused student was put on probation and temporarily left school, later suing his accuser and Brown and reaching a confidential settlement.
Accusations of sexual assault on college campuses, historically, pose thorny issues for administrators. The accuser and accused can present irreconcilable versions; alleged victims often don't want to involve police or pursue a campus complaint; and a civil disciplinary hearing can be an ill-suited forum for dealing with criminal accusations.
In McCormick's case, Brown considered the allegations credible enough to immediately suspend him but says it followed the accuser's wishes in not calling the police. Though college administrators say they routinely defer to self-identified victims on involving law enforcement, the judge hearing McCormick's lawsuit said he was troubled police weren't called.
"The thought that with all of the people involved in this matter at different levels, a determination is made to not tell law enforcement, even the Brown Police – I'm having trouble getting that," U.S. District Judge William Smith said at an April hearing.
Brown, like most colleges, affords disciplinary hearings for students accused of campus violations. But the agreement McCormick reached with his accuser short-circuited the traditional disciplinary process.
Gary Pavela, academic integrity director at Syracuse University who consults with colleges on disciplinary issues, says such agreements shouldn't be the end of an accusation. He said regardless of police involvement, and even independent of the wishes of the accuser and the accused, universities must get to the bottom of sexual assault allegations to determine if a crime occurred on campus or, conversely, if a student has been falsely accused.
A hearing could even be conducted after a student has left campus.
A college's philosophy, Pavela said, should be, "Once you brought it to our attention, we're going to investigate it as best as we can even if you don't pursue it."
Not necessarily, says Scott Coffina, a Philadelphia lawyer who advises colleges on campus security issues, arguing that there's no need to hold a hearing for an accused student after he or she leaves and when the accuser no longer wants to press the issue. "If they're gone, there's not really a case to bring."
Burch, the coach and adviser, began preparing for McCormick's hearing after McCormick left campus. He requested the accuser's phone logs to see how she spent the day and evening of the alleged rape, but says he never got them.
He asked for a police report, but there was none.
In one e-mail, he complained he wasn't allowed to see the boxer shorts the accuser said she was wearing during the alleged rape and that he couldn't take DNA testing or fingerprints. An administrator said the boxers wouldn't be entered as evidence – but that references to them were fair game at the hearing.
As the month progressed, Burch said he and the McCormicks grew concerned that McCormick wouldn't get a fair shake, convinced the accuser's father had the ear of the administration. The father, as an alumnus, donor and parent, has over time "been periodically in contact with Brown administrators," a lawyer for the university wrote in court papers.
E-mails from Burch reflect growing frustration, even anger, with the process, as he accused administrators of stonewalling efforts to gather evidence and of failing to help make McCormick's classmates available for questioning.
"I am doing my best to advocate for a student who has been put at a tremendous disadvantage in this hearing process responding to charges that carry with it the possibility of a life sentence in prison. I trust you understand how William and his family must be feeling at this time," Burch wrote in a Sept. 28 e-mail to administrators.
Afraid the accuser might seek criminal charges if he returned to campus, or that he might be labeled a rapist or denied a proper defense at a disciplinary hearing, McCormick sought alternatives.
His family's attention turned toward an arrangement, negotiated between the accuser's lawyer and their own attorney, that would close the case and permit McCormick to withdraw while maintaining his innocence.
The agreement presented to McCormick required him to leave school immediately.
He would agree not to return to Providence for as long as she lived there – unless it was for a wrestling competition with whatever new college he planned to attend.
She would agree to drop the matter.
Both would agree not to speak disparagingly of each other or discuss the deal outside their families.
McCormick signed the contract even as he wavered on the terms. He wrote his lawyer, Walter Stone, on Oct. 4 – the day he signed the contract in Wisconsin – to express reservations.
"This is a huge decision for me to make, and I need more time to consider, reconsider, and then go over everything again to make sure that I make the best possible decision regarding this matter," he wrote.
"There has been an awful lot of pressure put on me throughout this whole process, and for once, I would like to have the full perspective to properly make a decision of my own."
The message was forwarded to Joseph Cavanagh, the lawyer for the accuser's family, who replied the next day that it would be "unconscionable" for McCormick to attempt to renege on the deal.
He said the disciplinary hearing would proceed without a signed agreement, then in a follow-up e-mail, made what the McCormicks interpreted as a thinly veiled threat of possible criminal charges.
"The resolution we worked out would be exactly what he would need to give him the best chance to move forward with his life," Cavanagh wrote Stone. "I can only hope that you are able to persuade him and his family of what a mistake this is. As you well know, the Brown disciplinary matter is the least of his possible perils."
The contract was returned for the accuser's signature.
Cavanagh has declined to comment, other than to say that his client maintains she was raped.
Around the same time, Burch asked administrators if they had sent McCormick, who suffers from seizures, paperwork for his requested medical leave.
A Brown administrator, Robert Samuels, replied: "My understanding is that there is an agreement being made between the parties involved that supercedes (sic) any and all other processes."
On Oct. 18, McCormick wrote Brown to withdraw for medical reasons "due to the stresses caused me while I was a student at Brown." He said he would not return, a condition of the contract with his accuser.
Though colleges generally allow students withdrawing for medical reasons to return when their condition improves, McCormick was not offered that opportunity.
"Given the circumstances of your initial separation from the University," replied Klawunn, the dean of student life, "you will not be eligible for readmission to the University. Per your request we will have your transcript reflect that you withdrew for medical reasons with an effective date of Oct. 13, 2006."
___
William McCormick enrolled in 2007 at Bucknell, where he wrestled until being sidelined by injuries. An English major, he just completed his junior year.
Federal education privacy laws permit but do not require disclosure of disciplinary information about transfer students to their new school.
Bucknell Dean of Students Susan Hopp said she has no record Brown notified Bucknell of the rape allegations.
Bucknell wrestling coach Dan Wirnsberger said he didn't know the circumstances behind McCormick's departure until he received a vague anonymous phone call during McCormick's first year from someone opining as to what might have happened. Even then, Wirnsberger said, he made only minimal inquiry.
"He just said, `It's a personal, private matter that I'd like to keep personal and private,'" Wirnsberger recalled. "And I said, 'I totally respect that.'"
McCormick sued last fall, before the three-year statute of limitations expired, alleging the school failed to follow its own disciplinary policies, bent to the influences of a donor and failed to conduct an investigation that could have vindicated him.
Brown President Ruth Simmons told AP the allegations are "utter poppycock" but declined further comment.
A judge in April whittled the case down considerably, dismissing individual Brown administrators from the case, but left in claims of breach of contract, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the university. The accuser, a member of Brown's 2010 graduating class, and her father also remain defendants.
Nearly four years after McCormick left Brown under the cloud of rape allegations, the lawsuit represents an opportunity for him to start clearing his name, his lawyer, Kilpatrick, wrote in court papers. Though of course the case never would have come to light if McCormick had not made it public.
"The public," Kilpatrick wrote, "has the right to know about this case."
___
Eric Tucker is a writer for The Associated Press, based in Providence, R.I. He can be reached at features(at)ap.org.
Source:click here
Brown University is a private, Ivy League university located in Providence, Rhode Island. It’s also where the school’s faculty and administration have endorsed the eradication of due process – and where the school’s newspaper, the Brown Daily Herald printed the following statement.
“You need to check your behavior carefully before you enter into a relationship with a woman. There will be no due process if you are accused of rape. The woman’s version of what happened will always be accepted over the man’s account.”[1]
Do I need to keep writing, or is that enough?
For context, I’ve included the fifth and sixth amendments of the Bill of Rights.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Do not skip over those two short paragraphs. Please don’t simply bypass them, because without them, the only redress of accusation, injury or grievance devolves to the use of force, the jurisprudence of a mob, or a vendetta.
The ideology driving the “thinking” at universities like Brown has gone beyond being a parody of itself and has crossed deep into the territory of Kantian nightmare.
I hesitate to call this feminism – although I know it is that victim cult taken to a logical extreme by blind progression without opposition. What I don’t hesitate to call it is stupid, hate-driven bigotry on par with the set-of-mind which led in recent history to late-night lynchings. It is the most craven abdication of ethics by academicians, and were it not happening now, a parody containing such events would be rejected as too absurd.
I have written many times that human society, in the absence of a viable system for nonviolent redress of grievance – such as the due process of law – will always adapt an alternative system of redress. The simplest such alternative being retributive violence. Im am surely not uniquely prescient to see this. Academicians at institutions like Brown University cannot possibly be so stupid they fail to grasp this simple concept.
For the moment, I will setting predictions of upheaval aside. A student, or parent who reads the words published by the Brown Daily Herald, and sees the school as anything but a free-fire zone where young lives are destroyed must be equally stupid.
“There will be no due process if you are accused of rape. The woman’s version of what happened will always be accepted over the man’s account.”
A university is a business, it sells a service. The students of a university are the customers. They’re the ones who buy the university’s product.
Male students : you have just been told that a business you pay, that you are customers of – this business will cheerfully ignore the law. That this business will constitute its own laws along lines of sexual ideology, and that you have no rights should you ever be accused of by any female customer of the business.
There will be no due process if you are accused of rape.
Brown University used to be a private, Ivy League university located in Providence, Rhode Island. Now it is a private fiefdom run along the lines of a female supremacist victim cult. If you are male, and you attend this school, then you may simply be too stupid to help, and your life’s purpose may be to serve as a warning to others.
you are culpable.
If you are female, and you attend this school, and you say nothing, and do nothing, and sit quietly as your institute of higher learning pursues the policies of sexual apartheid, you are culpable.
Following the lead set at Brown University, the future is not a feminist utopia of women carried in gilded thrones on the backs of chained men. Utopian dreams are always false. What’s coming has the shape of a mad-max future of wastelands, and universal application of the warlord model of local government. Unfortunately, before we arrive at any outcome so sunny, cities will burn, and bodies will litter the streets. This is not a threat, nor a promise. Despite what detractors of men’s rights writing in general, and my writing in particular say, I have no sympathy for violence. America has been the most prosperous and affluent cultures in history, and when the great dream becomes the failed state, it will be very ugly indeed.
But don’t worry ladies, that bad outcome could be as much as 50 years away. Lots of time for somebody else to solve the problem.
Back in the present, graduates of Ivy League schools tend to a degree of pride on the subject of their alma matter, and even now – this is justified. Post baccalaureate degrees can be a draining program of lost sleep and hard work. However, there’s not much of altruism in attaining academic credentials, people do this for their own benefit, as they should.
I had intended to include and then examine a quotation from the Russian novelist Tolstoy.
“All that is required for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing”
The Russian didn’t say so, but his good men includes good women. I’m not convinced either animal exists, except as defined in each moment by their acts. However, in the context of animals doing nothing, there’s reason to examine the pride of an ivy league graduate, whose framed papers adorn their office wall.
Humans tend to be obtuse when faced by their own inaction – so Ill state this again in explicit terms. If you are a female student or staff of Brown University, and you benefit from a female-favouring climate while your alma mater discards the human rights of men, you are culpable. It will not be forgotten.
The Russian was famously verbose in his work, but I’ll leave just one more comment of his.
I sit on a man’s back, choking him, and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by any means possible, except getting off his back.
[1] http://www.browndailyherald.com/letter-in-defense-of-u-s-handling-of-mccormick-1.2670225#.TsK3AetWL6g
Source:click here
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Did Brown Force Out An Innocent Freshman, Or Let A Rapist Go Free?
ERIC TUCKER | 05/31/10 01:48 PM |
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — William McCormick III crossed the wrought-iron gates of Brown University on a full scholarship, a champion wrestler from Wisconsin who expected four years at an Ivy League institution known for educating generations of bright and enterprising minds.
He lasted mere weeks.
In September 2006, he was accused of stalking, harassing and ultimately raping a female acquaintance – allegations he says are false. The accuser was a third-generation legacy student who, when first reporting trouble with McCormick, also mentioned that her father was an "alum and a big supporter of Brown."
The day after the rape allegations were made, McCormick was called into a meeting with administrators, barred from campus and put on a flight home pending a disciplinary hearing.
The following month, McCormick was gone for good.
Before the hearing, he signed a confidential agreement – under pressure, he says, from a lawyer for the accuser's family – in which he agreed to withdraw from Brown. In exchange, the accuser agreed to let the matter drop.
A Brown administrator agreed to reflect on his transcript that he had withdrawn for "medical reasons" but also told him he was ineligible for readmission, even though he had never been found responsible for rape. McCormick transferred to Bucknell University, which says he's a student in good standing.
The school allowed the matter to be closed through a private contract instead of a traditional fact-finding hearing that could have vindicated McCormick or established that an assault had actually occurred. The arrangement was meant to provide a tidy outcome to a dispute fraught with emotion and wildly divergent accounts.
Brown insists it acted properly. But a federal lawsuit from McCormick and e-mails reviewed by The Associated Press raise messy questions about the handling of the case.
The lawsuit alleges that administrators failed to adequately investigate the accusations, and permitted a blameless student to be railroaded from campus to placate a major donor.
There is another possibility, though – that Brown administrators deemed the allegations credible but allowed the complaint to be quietly disposed of, freeing someone accused of rape to wipe the slate clean as he transferred to another school.
___
Will McCormick is, by all accounts, a physically imposing man.
Six-foot-five, more than 250 pounds and a force on the wrestling mat, he went 43-0 and was a state champion in his senior year at Milwaukee's Heritage Christian School. He was bulky but also bookish, more focused on making the honor roll than on partying or flirting with girls, recalled teammate J.P. Janik.
The Waukesha, Wis., native was accepted early decision at Brown. Among his early residence hall acquaintances was a freshman from an affluent, suburban New York City background – an accomplished student who in high school helped establish a charity. Her father was in finance, a Brown alumnus and generous donor to and fundraiser for the school.
The AP generally does not identify people who say they were sexually assaulted, and is not naming the family to avoid identifying the woman.
His lawyer says the relationship was friendly, though not romantic. It soured quickly.
On Sept. 5, 2006, the first day of classes and one week after orientation, the woman and her roommate approached their resident adviser – a fellow student – to complain that McCormick was acting "creepy" and following her around. At 2 the next morning, the adviser spoke with Carla Hansen, an associate dean of student life.
The young woman said McCormick was telling people they were dating when they weren't, calling her up to 20 times a day and once punched a wall in anger and made a threatening remark – "I could have hurt you" – after seeing her hug another guy, Hansen wrote administrators in a Sept. 6 e-mail recapping the allegations.
In court papers, McCormick's lawyer, J. Scott Kilpatrick, calls the accusations "exaggerations and half-truths" without responding to specific allegations. McCormick, himself, refused to be interviewed for this story.
The student spoke with Hansen later in the morning of Sept. 6, refusing to name her alleged stalker for fear of getting him into trouble. She also referenced her father, though it's unclear why.
"She said that her father was an alum and a big supporter of Brown, and that she wanted to love Brown, too, and did not want to have anything bad happen to this other student," Hansen wrote in the e-mail.
Conversations between Hansen, the accuser and the resident adviser continued throughout the day.
The student spoke that afternoon with a campus victim rights' advocate, and later that evening, asked to temporarily drop the matter so she could study and attend a friend's birthday party.
That night, she spoke to her father, who urged her to identify her alleged stalker – which she did. At 10 p.m., the father also called the home of Brown administrator Russell Carey, according to an e-mail from Carey.
The following day, McCormick was formally barred from contacting her. She was directed to avoid him, as well.
Soon new problems arose.
A Sept. 13 e-mail to administrators from the student's resident adviser accuses McCormick of having violated the no-contact order by visiting the woman's room and trying to speak with her.
But for the first time, the e-mail – sent to various administrators – also describes an encounter the woman said had occurred on Sept. 6. the day after she first complained to her RA.
On that evening, she said, William McCormick entered her room as her friends were at dinner. As she tried to study, she said, he forced her onto the bed, pushed her up against a wall, tore through her boxer shorts and raped her.
She complained of bruising and sore ribs.
After word of the e-mail circulated, Michael Burch, the then-assistant wrestling coach who acted as McCormick's adviser throughout the process, was told by the head coach to pick McCormick up at his dorm and host him for the night.
Burch served him a glass of orange juice, told him they would straighten out the matter in the morning and gave up his bed so McCormick – who would tell Burch he was never even alone in the same room with the woman – could rest for what figured to be a difficult day ahead.
"I remember walking by my room and just seeing him laying in my bed, with his eyes wide open and staring at the ceiling," Burch said. "He was really scared, really terrified."
On Sept. 14, Burch accompanied McCormick to a meeting with administrators, where he was told he was accused of "sexual misconduct" – on top of earlier harassment charges. A letter from Margaret Klawunn, dean of student life, said he was barred from campus, effective immediately and until further notice.
"This action has been taken for your best interests and that of the community," Klawunn wrote.
Brown administrators involved in the case either didn't return messages or declined comment.
University spokeswoman Marisa Quinn wouldn't discuss specifics but cited Brown policy allowing for students to be immediately suspended if they're considered a danger. She said the university is obligated to act when there's evidence of potential harm to a student.
Brown says students are presumed not responsible for disciplinary violations until their hearing. But Burch said McCormick was denied a chance to explain himself. An administrator pulled out a plane ticket, and Burch accompanied McCormick in a van to the airport.
He was put on a plane to Wisconsin.
___
Brown faced national scrutiny nearly 15 years ago in its handling of another sexual dispute that roiled the campus.
Two students had sex after a party. The female student, a freshman, later said she was too drunk to consent and accused the young man of rape. She spoke out at a rally, while his supporters said he was unfairly branded a rapist over unsubstantiated allegations. Critics accused the Brown disciplinary process of bias against men.
The accused student was put on probation and temporarily left school, later suing his accuser and Brown and reaching a confidential settlement.
Accusations of sexual assault on college campuses, historically, pose thorny issues for administrators. The accuser and accused can present irreconcilable versions; alleged victims often don't want to involve police or pursue a campus complaint; and a civil disciplinary hearing can be an ill-suited forum for dealing with criminal accusations.
In McCormick's case, Brown considered the allegations credible enough to immediately suspend him but says it followed the accuser's wishes in not calling the police. Though college administrators say they routinely defer to self-identified victims on involving law enforcement, the judge hearing McCormick's lawsuit said he was troubled police weren't called.
"The thought that with all of the people involved in this matter at different levels, a determination is made to not tell law enforcement, even the Brown Police – I'm having trouble getting that," U.S. District Judge William Smith said at an April hearing.
Brown, like most colleges, affords disciplinary hearings for students accused of campus violations. But the agreement McCormick reached with his accuser short-circuited the traditional disciplinary process.
Gary Pavela, academic integrity director at Syracuse University who consults with colleges on disciplinary issues, says such agreements shouldn't be the end of an accusation. He said regardless of police involvement, and even independent of the wishes of the accuser and the accused, universities must get to the bottom of sexual assault allegations to determine if a crime occurred on campus or, conversely, if a student has been falsely accused.
A hearing could even be conducted after a student has left campus.
A college's philosophy, Pavela said, should be, "Once you brought it to our attention, we're going to investigate it as best as we can even if you don't pursue it."
Not necessarily, says Scott Coffina, a Philadelphia lawyer who advises colleges on campus security issues, arguing that there's no need to hold a hearing for an accused student after he or she leaves and when the accuser no longer wants to press the issue. "If they're gone, there's not really a case to bring."
Burch, the coach and adviser, began preparing for McCormick's hearing after McCormick left campus. He requested the accuser's phone logs to see how she spent the day and evening of the alleged rape, but says he never got them.
He asked for a police report, but there was none.
In one e-mail, he complained he wasn't allowed to see the boxer shorts the accuser said she was wearing during the alleged rape and that he couldn't take DNA testing or fingerprints. An administrator said the boxers wouldn't be entered as evidence – but that references to them were fair game at the hearing.
As the month progressed, Burch said he and the McCormicks grew concerned that McCormick wouldn't get a fair shake, convinced the accuser's father had the ear of the administration. The father, as an alumnus, donor and parent, has over time "been periodically in contact with Brown administrators," a lawyer for the university wrote in court papers.
E-mails from Burch reflect growing frustration, even anger, with the process, as he accused administrators of stonewalling efforts to gather evidence and of failing to help make McCormick's classmates available for questioning.
"I am doing my best to advocate for a student who has been put at a tremendous disadvantage in this hearing process responding to charges that carry with it the possibility of a life sentence in prison. I trust you understand how William and his family must be feeling at this time," Burch wrote in a Sept. 28 e-mail to administrators.
Afraid the accuser might seek criminal charges if he returned to campus, or that he might be labeled a rapist or denied a proper defense at a disciplinary hearing, McCormick sought alternatives.
His family's attention turned toward an arrangement, negotiated between the accuser's lawyer and their own attorney, that would close the case and permit McCormick to withdraw while maintaining his innocence.
The agreement presented to McCormick required him to leave school immediately.
He would agree not to return to Providence for as long as she lived there – unless it was for a wrestling competition with whatever new college he planned to attend.
She would agree to drop the matter.
Both would agree not to speak disparagingly of each other or discuss the deal outside their families.
McCormick signed the contract even as he wavered on the terms. He wrote his lawyer, Walter Stone, on Oct. 4 – the day he signed the contract in Wisconsin – to express reservations.
"This is a huge decision for me to make, and I need more time to consider, reconsider, and then go over everything again to make sure that I make the best possible decision regarding this matter," he wrote.
"There has been an awful lot of pressure put on me throughout this whole process, and for once, I would like to have the full perspective to properly make a decision of my own."
The message was forwarded to Joseph Cavanagh, the lawyer for the accuser's family, who replied the next day that it would be "unconscionable" for McCormick to attempt to renege on the deal.
He said the disciplinary hearing would proceed without a signed agreement, then in a follow-up e-mail, made what the McCormicks interpreted as a thinly veiled threat of possible criminal charges.
"The resolution we worked out would be exactly what he would need to give him the best chance to move forward with his life," Cavanagh wrote Stone. "I can only hope that you are able to persuade him and his family of what a mistake this is. As you well know, the Brown disciplinary matter is the least of his possible perils."
The contract was returned for the accuser's signature.
Cavanagh has declined to comment, other than to say that his client maintains she was raped.
Around the same time, Burch asked administrators if they had sent McCormick, who suffers from seizures, paperwork for his requested medical leave.
A Brown administrator, Robert Samuels, replied: "My understanding is that there is an agreement being made between the parties involved that supercedes (sic) any and all other processes."
On Oct. 18, McCormick wrote Brown to withdraw for medical reasons "due to the stresses caused me while I was a student at Brown." He said he would not return, a condition of the contract with his accuser.
Though colleges generally allow students withdrawing for medical reasons to return when their condition improves, McCormick was not offered that opportunity.
"Given the circumstances of your initial separation from the University," replied Klawunn, the dean of student life, "you will not be eligible for readmission to the University. Per your request we will have your transcript reflect that you withdrew for medical reasons with an effective date of Oct. 13, 2006."
___
William McCormick enrolled in 2007 at Bucknell, where he wrestled until being sidelined by injuries. An English major, he just completed his junior year.
Federal education privacy laws permit but do not require disclosure of disciplinary information about transfer students to their new school.
Bucknell Dean of Students Susan Hopp said she has no record Brown notified Bucknell of the rape allegations.
Bucknell wrestling coach Dan Wirnsberger said he didn't know the circumstances behind McCormick's departure until he received a vague anonymous phone call during McCormick's first year from someone opining as to what might have happened. Even then, Wirnsberger said, he made only minimal inquiry.
"He just said, `It's a personal, private matter that I'd like to keep personal and private,'" Wirnsberger recalled. "And I said, 'I totally respect that.'"
McCormick sued last fall, before the three-year statute of limitations expired, alleging the school failed to follow its own disciplinary policies, bent to the influences of a donor and failed to conduct an investigation that could have vindicated him.
Brown President Ruth Simmons told AP the allegations are "utter poppycock" but declined further comment.
A judge in April whittled the case down considerably, dismissing individual Brown administrators from the case, but left in claims of breach of contract, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the university. The accuser, a member of Brown's 2010 graduating class, and her father also remain defendants.
Nearly four years after McCormick left Brown under the cloud of rape allegations, the lawsuit represents an opportunity for him to start clearing his name, his lawyer, Kilpatrick, wrote in court papers. Though of course the case never would have come to light if McCormick had not made it public.
"The public," Kilpatrick wrote, "has the right to know about this case."
___
Eric Tucker is a writer for The Associated Press, based in Providence, R.I. He can be reached at features(at)ap.org.
Source:click here
Let's send Congress a reminder
I received the following from Demand Progress:
More Than 700k Have Acted: Let's Finish Strong
It's been a show of force like no other: More than 700k anti-censorship contacts have been delivered to Congress so far this week, as the Blacklsit Bill gets heard in committee.
What an amazing day -- let's top it off with one more push. Please send one more message to Congress -- even if you already have -- touting our numbers and telling them they need to back down. Let's make it clear that the Internet has risen up, and won't back down until Congress heeds our calls.
Please just use the form at right to send one more message to Congress.
The Stop Online Piracy Act would ruin so much of what's best about the Internet: It will give the government and corporations new powers to block Americans' access to sites that are accused of copyright infringement, force sites like YouTube to go to new lengths to police users' contributions, and put people in prison for streaming certain content online.
Just use the form at right to send one more message to Congress to help us finish strong today.
And please use the links below to ask your friends to join -- and if you ahve a website, please link back to our petition page.
Source:click here
Good news indeed but there is still another petition that needs to be signed so if you are believer in the Constitution and the protections it affords the people you may want to sign it.
More Than 700k Have Acted: Let's Finish Strong
It's been a show of force like no other: More than 700k anti-censorship contacts have been delivered to Congress so far this week, as the Blacklsit Bill gets heard in committee.
What an amazing day -- let's top it off with one more push. Please send one more message to Congress -- even if you already have -- touting our numbers and telling them they need to back down. Let's make it clear that the Internet has risen up, and won't back down until Congress heeds our calls.
Please just use the form at right to send one more message to Congress.
The Stop Online Piracy Act would ruin so much of what's best about the Internet: It will give the government and corporations new powers to block Americans' access to sites that are accused of copyright infringement, force sites like YouTube to go to new lengths to police users' contributions, and put people in prison for streaming certain content online.
Just use the form at right to send one more message to Congress to help us finish strong today.
And please use the links below to ask your friends to join -- and if you ahve a website, please link back to our petition page.
Source:click here
Good news indeed but there is still another petition that needs to be signed so if you are believer in the Constitution and the protections it affords the people you may want to sign it.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Judge apologizes for insensetive remark that should have never been mentioned
Judge Calls Man in Court for Traffic Violation a ‘Sexual Predator’
By Kevin Dolak | ABC News Blogs – 16 hrs ago.. .
A Florida judge is apologizing after he referred to a man who was in court for a traffic violation as a “sexual predator.”
Judge Carmine Bravo was arraigning 33-year-old Rodrakus Hooks, an ex-convict who has been seen in court before Bravo many times, on charges of driving without a license. Bravo encouraged Hooks to plead guilty to the charge and take a 15-day jail sentence, but he told the judge that he can’t do any time because he has a baby on the way.
“I got a baby mama back there … a baby fixing to be born,” Hooks said, referring to his pregnant 21-year-old fiancée Gwen Brown, who was sitting in the courtroom. When Bravo asked if the couple were married, Hooks said no.
“You ain’t got a baby. You’re just a sexual predator with a younger girl. How old are you?” he asked Brown. “15? 16?”
“I’m going to tell you straight up, man-to-man,” Bravo said to Hooks. “You and I know each other. We’ve been around. If you’re not married to the mother, she’s having a baby. You’re just someone she likes to visit.”
Courtroom video captured the entire exchange, which took place last week in a Seminole County, Florida courtroom.
“He made me feel useless, like I was just a nobody — like I’m having a baby from just anybody or something. It was upsetting and I know everyone in the courtroom was like, ‘Wow,’” Brown told Central Florida ABC News affiliate WFTV.
Though he has never been charged with a sex crime, records show that Hooks has been sentenced over a dozen times with charges including possession of cocaine, possession of marijuana, domestic violence, theft and driving without a license.
Since seeing the courtroom incident on camera Judge Bravo, who has been on the bench in Seminole County for 15 years, said he owes Hooks and Brown an apology.
“I’m embarrassed by how it sounds. I just did not come off in a very nice way. I owe them big time in terms of an apology,” the judge said.
Judge Bravo, whose current term ends next year, has offered to let another judge hear Hooks’ case.
Source:click here
The judge was man enough to apologize and that is admirable but this is something that shouldn't have been said in the first place. If the defendant were put behind bars and someone else who is also locked up heard the judge making the "sexual predator" remark might have taken it seriously and told others who will also act on it or if he doesn't like the person hit with this label this will be just the excuse he was looking for. Either way it's bad news for the young man who was the receiptant of the judge's careless remark. Would the judge have called a female defendant "a prostitute"? Would he have looked over to her boyfriend and asked him how much she charges? Hell no,he wouldn't have and the feminists would have gone crazy if he had.
By Kevin Dolak | ABC News Blogs – 16 hrs ago.. .
A Florida judge is apologizing after he referred to a man who was in court for a traffic violation as a “sexual predator.”
Judge Carmine Bravo was arraigning 33-year-old Rodrakus Hooks, an ex-convict who has been seen in court before Bravo many times, on charges of driving without a license. Bravo encouraged Hooks to plead guilty to the charge and take a 15-day jail sentence, but he told the judge that he can’t do any time because he has a baby on the way.
“I got a baby mama back there … a baby fixing to be born,” Hooks said, referring to his pregnant 21-year-old fiancée Gwen Brown, who was sitting in the courtroom. When Bravo asked if the couple were married, Hooks said no.
“You ain’t got a baby. You’re just a sexual predator with a younger girl. How old are you?” he asked Brown. “15? 16?”
“I’m going to tell you straight up, man-to-man,” Bravo said to Hooks. “You and I know each other. We’ve been around. If you’re not married to the mother, she’s having a baby. You’re just someone she likes to visit.”
Courtroom video captured the entire exchange, which took place last week in a Seminole County, Florida courtroom.
“He made me feel useless, like I was just a nobody — like I’m having a baby from just anybody or something. It was upsetting and I know everyone in the courtroom was like, ‘Wow,’” Brown told Central Florida ABC News affiliate WFTV.
Though he has never been charged with a sex crime, records show that Hooks has been sentenced over a dozen times with charges including possession of cocaine, possession of marijuana, domestic violence, theft and driving without a license.
Since seeing the courtroom incident on camera Judge Bravo, who has been on the bench in Seminole County for 15 years, said he owes Hooks and Brown an apology.
“I’m embarrassed by how it sounds. I just did not come off in a very nice way. I owe them big time in terms of an apology,” the judge said.
Judge Bravo, whose current term ends next year, has offered to let another judge hear Hooks’ case.
Source:click here
The judge was man enough to apologize and that is admirable but this is something that shouldn't have been said in the first place. If the defendant were put behind bars and someone else who is also locked up heard the judge making the "sexual predator" remark might have taken it seriously and told others who will also act on it or if he doesn't like the person hit with this label this will be just the excuse he was looking for. Either way it's bad news for the young man who was the receiptant of the judge's careless remark. Would the judge have called a female defendant "a prostitute"? Would he have looked over to her boyfriend and asked him how much she charges? Hell no,he wouldn't have and the feminists would have gone crazy if he had.
Senator Leahy removes DED provisions from VAWA bill
I received the following from SAVE:
It's time for high-fives and, "Congratulations on a job well done!"
Your calls and emails have caused Senator Patrick Leahy to remove the Dept. of Education's (DED) new sexual assault policy from his draft of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). See: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20111111/NEWS03/111111020/Leahy-scraps-provision-upcoming-bill-following-complaints Great job! Enjoy that sweet smell of success.
One down, many more to go...
Unfortunately, Sexual Assault was not the only section of VAWA with civil rights violations. Sen. Leahy's draft:
•Continues funding mandatory arrest policies.
•Provides legal assistance to accusers, yet not for the accused.
•Perpetuates sex-based discrimination through biased predominant aggressor policies.
•Doesn't distinguish between those making allegations and those with probable-cause evidence.
See our Special Report, Are Domestic Violence Policies Respecting our Fundamental Freedoms?: http://www.saveservices.org/downloads/SAVE-Assault-Civil-Rights
Today we're asking you to contact Senator Leahy to tell him to remove all civil rights violations from VAWA.
Contact Senator Leahy today!
•Call: (202) 224-4242
•Email: leahy.senate.gov/contact
Thank you. We make a great team, don't we?
Sincerely,
Teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
Yes,Teri we certainly do. It looks like we need to get some more email out but for us that is no problem. Let's tell Leahy the rest of the provisions aren't going to cut it with us either. Tell him it's time to end the thrashing of men to gain political clout because it won't work,not anymore.
It's time for high-fives and, "Congratulations on a job well done!"
Your calls and emails have caused Senator Patrick Leahy to remove the Dept. of Education's (DED) new sexual assault policy from his draft of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). See: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20111111/NEWS03/111111020/Leahy-scraps-provision-upcoming-bill-following-complaints Great job! Enjoy that sweet smell of success.
One down, many more to go...
Unfortunately, Sexual Assault was not the only section of VAWA with civil rights violations. Sen. Leahy's draft:
•Continues funding mandatory arrest policies.
•Provides legal assistance to accusers, yet not for the accused.
•Perpetuates sex-based discrimination through biased predominant aggressor policies.
•Doesn't distinguish between those making allegations and those with probable-cause evidence.
See our Special Report, Are Domestic Violence Policies Respecting our Fundamental Freedoms?: http://www.saveservices.org/downloads/SAVE-Assault-Civil-Rights
Today we're asking you to contact Senator Leahy to tell him to remove all civil rights violations from VAWA.
Contact Senator Leahy today!
•Call: (202) 224-4242
•Email: leahy.senate.gov/contact
Thank you. We make a great team, don't we?
Sincerely,
Teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
Yes,Teri we certainly do. It looks like we need to get some more email out but for us that is no problem. Let's tell Leahy the rest of the provisions aren't going to cut it with us either. Tell him it's time to end the thrashing of men to gain political clout because it won't work,not anymore.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Censorship proponents try to censor free speech advocates
I received the following from Demand Progress:
Don't Censor Censorship Opponents: Let Us Testify!
Irony Alert: The House is holding hearings on sweeping Internet censorship legislation this week -- and it's censoring the opposition! The bill is backed by Hollywood, Big Pharma, and the Chamber of Commerce, and all of them are going to get to testify at the hearing.
But the bill's opponents -- tech companies, free speech and human rights activists, and hundreds of thousands of Internet users -- won't have a voice.
As if you need a reminder: This is the most offensive Internet legislation we've seen in years. It will give the government and corporations new powers to block Americans' access to sites that are accused of copyright infringement, force sites like YouTube to go to new lengths to police users' contributions, and put people in prison for streaming certain content online.
This sham of a hearing represents everything that's broken about our political system. Will you sign the petition at right, demanding that opponents of the Blacklist Bill be allowed to testify this week? (It'll generate an email to them too.)
PETITION TO JUDICIARY CHAIRMAN LAMAR SMITH AND RANKING MEMBER JOHN CONYERS: The so-called "Stop Online Piracy Act" will kill innovation and undermine free speech rights. You need to give the hundreds of thousands of Americans who've spoken out against it a chance to make our case at this week's hearings.
Just fill out the form at right to send a message to the leadership of the Judiciary Committee.
This is sneaky and underhanded and we have to fight it. Sign that petition and tell Congress not trample on our rights.
Don't Censor Censorship Opponents: Let Us Testify!
Irony Alert: The House is holding hearings on sweeping Internet censorship legislation this week -- and it's censoring the opposition! The bill is backed by Hollywood, Big Pharma, and the Chamber of Commerce, and all of them are going to get to testify at the hearing.
But the bill's opponents -- tech companies, free speech and human rights activists, and hundreds of thousands of Internet users -- won't have a voice.
As if you need a reminder: This is the most offensive Internet legislation we've seen in years. It will give the government and corporations new powers to block Americans' access to sites that are accused of copyright infringement, force sites like YouTube to go to new lengths to police users' contributions, and put people in prison for streaming certain content online.
This sham of a hearing represents everything that's broken about our political system. Will you sign the petition at right, demanding that opponents of the Blacklist Bill be allowed to testify this week? (It'll generate an email to them too.)
PETITION TO JUDICIARY CHAIRMAN LAMAR SMITH AND RANKING MEMBER JOHN CONYERS: The so-called "Stop Online Piracy Act" will kill innovation and undermine free speech rights. You need to give the hundreds of thousands of Americans who've spoken out against it a chance to make our case at this week's hearings.
Just fill out the form at right to send a message to the leadership of the Judiciary Committee.
This is sneaky and underhanded and we have to fight it. Sign that petition and tell Congress not trample on our rights.
Senator Leahy scraps parts of VAWA
Leahy scraps provision in anti-domestic violence bill following complaints
5:04 PM, Nov. 11, 2011
written by
NICOLE GAUDIANO, Gannett Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - Sen. Patrick Leahy will scrap a provision in draft legislation reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act following complaints that it would compromise due-process protections for college students accused of sexual harassment or violence.
“Because of the feedback he has received concerning this proposal, he does not plan to include it in the bill he later will introduce,” Erica Chabot, spokeswoman for the Senate Judiciary Committee, said this week.
Leahy, D-Vt., is the committee’s chairman.
His draft measure would have required federally funded colleges and universities to apply a lower standard of proof — a “preponderance” of evidence rather than “clear and convincing” evidence — in cases of alleged domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The provision would codify controversial guidance from federal education officials.
Academic, civil libertarian and victims groups said it would undermine the constitutional rights of people accused of campus crimes.
“These provisions are fatally flawed and do not belong in federal law,” Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said on Oct. 31. “Reducing protections for students who are accused of serious misconduct will not increase justice.”
A group called “Stop Abusive and Violent Environments” issued an Oct. 27 news release headlined, “Leahy Bill would turn every college male into a rape suspect.”
“If Sen. Leahy’s version is passed, we can expect travesties of justice at every college in the nation,” said Phillip Cook, a spokesman for the group.
Source:click here
This is indeed great news and we all made it happen so give yourselves a pat on the back and find some way to celebrate because we all earned it. Way to go. This is how we effect change.
5:04 PM, Nov. 11, 2011
written by
NICOLE GAUDIANO, Gannett Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - Sen. Patrick Leahy will scrap a provision in draft legislation reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act following complaints that it would compromise due-process protections for college students accused of sexual harassment or violence.
“Because of the feedback he has received concerning this proposal, he does not plan to include it in the bill he later will introduce,” Erica Chabot, spokeswoman for the Senate Judiciary Committee, said this week.
Leahy, D-Vt., is the committee’s chairman.
His draft measure would have required federally funded colleges and universities to apply a lower standard of proof — a “preponderance” of evidence rather than “clear and convincing” evidence — in cases of alleged domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The provision would codify controversial guidance from federal education officials.
Academic, civil libertarian and victims groups said it would undermine the constitutional rights of people accused of campus crimes.
“These provisions are fatally flawed and do not belong in federal law,” Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said on Oct. 31. “Reducing protections for students who are accused of serious misconduct will not increase justice.”
A group called “Stop Abusive and Violent Environments” issued an Oct. 27 news release headlined, “Leahy Bill would turn every college male into a rape suspect.”
“If Sen. Leahy’s version is passed, we can expect travesties of justice at every college in the nation,” said Phillip Cook, a spokesman for the group.
Source:click here
This is indeed great news and we all made it happen so give yourselves a pat on the back and find some way to celebrate because we all earned it. Way to go. This is how we effect change.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Ex security officer keeps abreast of situation
Man on trial over breast slicing
Zoe Hancock | November 9th, 2011
A FORMER Gold Coast security guard is on trial for allegedly slicing open his girlfriend's breasts to try to remove the implants that he partially funded.
Darryelle Arthur Dixon, 44, is charged with unlawful wounding and unlawful disfigurement of his former girlfriend Nicole Earthrowl.
The exotic dancer met Dixon in the 1990s and Southport District Court heard they had a history of violence.
Crown prosecutor Isaac Munsie told the court about an incident in March 2003 in which Dixon had cut Ms Earthrowl's hair off because he had paid for her hair extensions and believed he had a right to recover them.
Mr Munsie said the incident Dixon was on trial for happened in September 2004.
He said Ms Earthrowl and Dixon were not living together but she was staying at his house at the time.
"She came home at 11pm from work and he was drunk and wanted to have sex with her," Mr Munsie said.
"He accused her of sleeping with other people and the argument escalated throughout the night."
Mr Munsie said the arguing continued the next morning when Dixon allegedly cut Ms Earthrowl's clothes and told her he did not want her to go to work.
"She saw a small knife in his hand and thought he was going to cut her hair," he said.
Dixon allegedly stabbed her left breast and said: "You can't dance without boobs."
She told him he "had the wrong breast" and he allegedly stabbed her right breast and dragged the knife through her right nipple.
Dixon allegedly went outside and told a tradesman working nearby that his girlfriend had cut her breasts.
Ms Earthrowl later required plastic surgery.
The trial continues.
Source:click here
The feminists who supported Lorena Bobbitt,Aerial Machias and Katherine Kieu Becker will viciously attack this guy,watch. Meanwhile let's come with some jokes about this story:
Gold Coast-a cut above the rest.
Keeping abreast on the Gold Coast.
Let's come up with some more. Feminists demanded equality and now one Austrailan man has given them that. Let's see how they like it for a change.
Zoe Hancock | November 9th, 2011
A FORMER Gold Coast security guard is on trial for allegedly slicing open his girlfriend's breasts to try to remove the implants that he partially funded.
Darryelle Arthur Dixon, 44, is charged with unlawful wounding and unlawful disfigurement of his former girlfriend Nicole Earthrowl.
The exotic dancer met Dixon in the 1990s and Southport District Court heard they had a history of violence.
Crown prosecutor Isaac Munsie told the court about an incident in March 2003 in which Dixon had cut Ms Earthrowl's hair off because he had paid for her hair extensions and believed he had a right to recover them.
Mr Munsie said the incident Dixon was on trial for happened in September 2004.
He said Ms Earthrowl and Dixon were not living together but she was staying at his house at the time.
"She came home at 11pm from work and he was drunk and wanted to have sex with her," Mr Munsie said.
"He accused her of sleeping with other people and the argument escalated throughout the night."
Mr Munsie said the arguing continued the next morning when Dixon allegedly cut Ms Earthrowl's clothes and told her he did not want her to go to work.
"She saw a small knife in his hand and thought he was going to cut her hair," he said.
Dixon allegedly stabbed her left breast and said: "You can't dance without boobs."
She told him he "had the wrong breast" and he allegedly stabbed her right breast and dragged the knife through her right nipple.
Dixon allegedly went outside and told a tradesman working nearby that his girlfriend had cut her breasts.
Ms Earthrowl later required plastic surgery.
The trial continues.
Source:click here
The feminists who supported Lorena Bobbitt,Aerial Machias and Katherine Kieu Becker will viciously attack this guy,watch. Meanwhile let's come with some jokes about this story:
Gold Coast-a cut above the rest.
Keeping abreast on the Gold Coast.
Let's come up with some more. Feminists demanded equality and now one Austrailan man has given them that. Let's see how they like it for a change.
Victory
I received the following from Demand Progress:
Some great news: We pulled off a huge victory a couple of days ago. After Demand Progress members sent 70,000 emails to their lawmakers, the Senate beat back a challenge to Net Neutrality rules, on a narrow 52-46 vote.
This win proves that our voices can have a real effect on policy choices in DC -- and affirms that we need to keep up our work on that most significant threat to online freedoms: The Internet Blacklist Bill.
For more information on Net Neutrality click here
This says a lot,it says that ordinary people can beat back large corporate interests. This is a great victory but there is still more work that needs to be done. For more information:click here
Some great news: We pulled off a huge victory a couple of days ago. After Demand Progress members sent 70,000 emails to their lawmakers, the Senate beat back a challenge to Net Neutrality rules, on a narrow 52-46 vote.
This win proves that our voices can have a real effect on policy choices in DC -- and affirms that we need to keep up our work on that most significant threat to online freedoms: The Internet Blacklist Bill.
For more information on Net Neutrality click here
This says a lot,it says that ordinary people can beat back large corporate interests. This is a great victory but there is still more work that needs to be done. For more information:click here
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Boys sacrificed for female vanity
The following is from John The Other at a Voice For Men. I've been in the MRM for close to 19 years so there is very little that is going to make my jaw drop. Well suffice to say this article made my jaw drop. Read on and you'll see what I mean:
Here is an infant. This newly formed human being is full of promise, and is a locus of joy and pride to parents, siblings, and an extended community. This tiny, miraculous bundle is the object of all of our adoration, even the flintiest of stoics are mesmerized by the ancient wired-in response to love and protect this infant.
Here is a sharpened steel instrument. A doctor will use this tool to partially flay this tiny baby – mutilating a sensory organ. This pseudo-medical procedure has, according to almost every major medical association in the world; no therapeutic value. In fact, it is a procure popularized by a breakfast cereal salesman and medical crackpot. John Kellog described it as a method of preventing sexual pleasure in boys in his 1877 book, “Plain facts for old and young”.
A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anaesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment.
We’re living in a culture which sees this as normal, so I’ll provide a little comparison by telling you what Dr. Kellog said about girls 2 pages later in the same book he extolled the virtues of boy-mutilation.
“In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement.”
In the modern context – promoters arguing for the continuation of infant mutilation claim it reduces the transmission incidence of aids.
The studies from which this claim are drawn are widely disputed, based on questionable methodology, but for the moment, lets assume transmission rates of communicable disease can are actually reduced by some percent in circumcised populations. Condoms are more effective, and don’t require cutting off part of a human’s body.
This argument is the equivalent of cutting out your eyeballs to prevent eye injury rather than wearing safety glasses. The claim of prevention of infection is asinine, but it continues to distract from a much more realistic reason for continuing the practice.
Women’s cosmetic make-up products, and some medical products utilize foreskin tissue harvested from circumcised infants. This provides a profit motive for advocacy research from “medical” companies profiting by the ongoing mutilation of baby boys.
One example of this is the company called Advanced Tissue Science (A.T.S.)[1]. This corporation is based in La Jolla, CA. They are the makers of a product sold under the brand name Dermagraft-TC, which is an artificial skin created from harvested foreskins from infant circumcision.
A.T.S. is also the makers of NouriCel, another product made from harvested foreskins, and one of the main ingredients of SkinMedica’s ( a cosmetics company ) TNS Recovery Complex product.
Infant mutilation is driven by women who want a better wrinkle-cream[2]. SkinMedica isn’t the only company selling beauty products made from mutilated children. Its merely a famous example, publicly endorsed by celebrities like Oprah Winfrey and Barbara Walters who bragged about the use of mutilated infant’s body parts before this turned out to be a bad public-relations move for each of them. Oprah’s web-site has subsequently removed the bragging claims of skin rejuvenation through harvested foreskin products. She has not yet aired a show or written a word about the ethicacy of the use of infant tissue in women’s beauty products.
The unnecessary mutilation of infant boys has another cost besides the the fact that circumcised men are denied a major sensory organ. The procedure is fatal to about 117 infants in the US every year[3]. Although the practice of sexually mutilating male infants is increasingly criticized, the procedure continues to be trivialized as a minor, harmless procedure in mainstream media. It would be impolite to tell women, the demographic controlling 65% of disposable income that their beauty products come at the cost of the sexual mutilation, and in some cases – the killing of infants.
Not yet, at least. In light of the recent public celebration by woman in the mommy-blogging community of adult male sexual mutilation such as the Catherine Becker case – a women’s make-up product openly flaunting damage to male infants might even outsell competing products which don’t publicize the source of harvested human flesh.
Then there’s the religious apologists.
In July of 2011, while California debated a ban on infant circumcision, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, leith Anderson said[4]:
“While evangelical denominations traditionally neither require nor forbid circumcision, we join Jews and Muslims in opposing this ban and standing together for religious freedom [...] Jews, Muslims, and Christians all trace our spiritual heritage back to Abraham. Biblical circumcision begins with Abraham. No American government should restrict this historic tradition. Essential religious liberties are at stake”.
Sexual mutilating an infant is, according to the the National Association of Evangelicals, an essential religious liberty. The right of a child to freedom from harm is apparently not.
Between the profits of corporations, the frivolous self interest of female consumers, and the fairy tails of stone age desert dwelling goat-herders, male children will likely continue to be mutilated and killed.
These reasons are all worthless.
An ethical human being does not abide the dismemberment of children.
Meanwhile, enjoy looking years younger, and don’t trouble your pretty head about the price payed.
From Source 2:
Foreskin-derived skin, sourced from circumcisions (now considered by many experts to be painful and also unnecessary) is still often considered the "cruelty free" alternative to testing cosmetic products on animals.
WTF??? Again WTF??? I guess animals count and baby boys don't. What a fucked up society.
But not all uses of foreskin fibroblast are "medical" in nature. One of the most publicized examples of the foreskin-for-sale trend involves a skin cream that has been promoted by none other than Oprah Winfrey. SkinMedica'sa face cream, which costs over $100 US for a 0.63 oz bottle, is used by many high-profile celebrities (such as Winfrey and Barbara Walters) as an alternative to cosmetic surgery. Winfrey has promoted the SkinMedica product several times on her show, and her website, which raves, there's "a new product that boosts collagen production and can rejuvenate skin called TNS Recovery Complex. TNS is comprised from six natural human growth factors found in normal healthy skin...the factors are engineered from human foreskin!"
During the show, the doctor promoting SkinMedica cream warned that some people may have ethical questions regarding using a product that is made from the derivative of foreskins (to which Winfrey made no response). Why ethical questions? The foreskins come from circumcisions, and male circumcision is now a controversial topic. In a discussion on Mothering.com, one querent asked, "If the cream was made from the bi-product of baby afro-American clitoral skin, would Oprah still be promoting it?" There's no answer to that question on Mothering or Winfrey's site, and Winfrey declined The Tyee's request for an interview.
Oprah is not only evil she is a coward as well. Fuck her.
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4
For more information on circumcision click here
This society protest female genital mutilation but keeps up male genital mutilation and now we know why. Boys are sacrificed for female vanity. Something to remember the next time you apply your facial cream,ladies.
Here is an infant. This newly formed human being is full of promise, and is a locus of joy and pride to parents, siblings, and an extended community. This tiny, miraculous bundle is the object of all of our adoration, even the flintiest of stoics are mesmerized by the ancient wired-in response to love and protect this infant.
Here is a sharpened steel instrument. A doctor will use this tool to partially flay this tiny baby – mutilating a sensory organ. This pseudo-medical procedure has, according to almost every major medical association in the world; no therapeutic value. In fact, it is a procure popularized by a breakfast cereal salesman and medical crackpot. John Kellog described it as a method of preventing sexual pleasure in boys in his 1877 book, “Plain facts for old and young”.
A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anaesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment.
We’re living in a culture which sees this as normal, so I’ll provide a little comparison by telling you what Dr. Kellog said about girls 2 pages later in the same book he extolled the virtues of boy-mutilation.
“In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement.”
In the modern context – promoters arguing for the continuation of infant mutilation claim it reduces the transmission incidence of aids.
The studies from which this claim are drawn are widely disputed, based on questionable methodology, but for the moment, lets assume transmission rates of communicable disease can are actually reduced by some percent in circumcised populations. Condoms are more effective, and don’t require cutting off part of a human’s body.
This argument is the equivalent of cutting out your eyeballs to prevent eye injury rather than wearing safety glasses. The claim of prevention of infection is asinine, but it continues to distract from a much more realistic reason for continuing the practice.
Women’s cosmetic make-up products, and some medical products utilize foreskin tissue harvested from circumcised infants. This provides a profit motive for advocacy research from “medical” companies profiting by the ongoing mutilation of baby boys.
One example of this is the company called Advanced Tissue Science (A.T.S.)[1]. This corporation is based in La Jolla, CA. They are the makers of a product sold under the brand name Dermagraft-TC, which is an artificial skin created from harvested foreskins from infant circumcision.
A.T.S. is also the makers of NouriCel, another product made from harvested foreskins, and one of the main ingredients of SkinMedica’s ( a cosmetics company ) TNS Recovery Complex product.
Infant mutilation is driven by women who want a better wrinkle-cream[2]. SkinMedica isn’t the only company selling beauty products made from mutilated children. Its merely a famous example, publicly endorsed by celebrities like Oprah Winfrey and Barbara Walters who bragged about the use of mutilated infant’s body parts before this turned out to be a bad public-relations move for each of them. Oprah’s web-site has subsequently removed the bragging claims of skin rejuvenation through harvested foreskin products. She has not yet aired a show or written a word about the ethicacy of the use of infant tissue in women’s beauty products.
The unnecessary mutilation of infant boys has another cost besides the the fact that circumcised men are denied a major sensory organ. The procedure is fatal to about 117 infants in the US every year[3]. Although the practice of sexually mutilating male infants is increasingly criticized, the procedure continues to be trivialized as a minor, harmless procedure in mainstream media. It would be impolite to tell women, the demographic controlling 65% of disposable income that their beauty products come at the cost of the sexual mutilation, and in some cases – the killing of infants.
Not yet, at least. In light of the recent public celebration by woman in the mommy-blogging community of adult male sexual mutilation such as the Catherine Becker case – a women’s make-up product openly flaunting damage to male infants might even outsell competing products which don’t publicize the source of harvested human flesh.
Then there’s the religious apologists.
In July of 2011, while California debated a ban on infant circumcision, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, leith Anderson said[4]:
“While evangelical denominations traditionally neither require nor forbid circumcision, we join Jews and Muslims in opposing this ban and standing together for religious freedom [...] Jews, Muslims, and Christians all trace our spiritual heritage back to Abraham. Biblical circumcision begins with Abraham. No American government should restrict this historic tradition. Essential religious liberties are at stake”.
Sexual mutilating an infant is, according to the the National Association of Evangelicals, an essential religious liberty. The right of a child to freedom from harm is apparently not.
Between the profits of corporations, the frivolous self interest of female consumers, and the fairy tails of stone age desert dwelling goat-herders, male children will likely continue to be mutilated and killed.
These reasons are all worthless.
An ethical human being does not abide the dismemberment of children.
Meanwhile, enjoy looking years younger, and don’t trouble your pretty head about the price payed.
From Source 2:
Foreskin-derived skin, sourced from circumcisions (now considered by many experts to be painful and also unnecessary) is still often considered the "cruelty free" alternative to testing cosmetic products on animals.
WTF??? Again WTF??? I guess animals count and baby boys don't. What a fucked up society.
But not all uses of foreskin fibroblast are "medical" in nature. One of the most publicized examples of the foreskin-for-sale trend involves a skin cream that has been promoted by none other than Oprah Winfrey. SkinMedica'sa face cream, which costs over $100 US for a 0.63 oz bottle, is used by many high-profile celebrities (such as Winfrey and Barbara Walters) as an alternative to cosmetic surgery. Winfrey has promoted the SkinMedica product several times on her show, and her website, which raves, there's "a new product that boosts collagen production and can rejuvenate skin called TNS Recovery Complex. TNS is comprised from six natural human growth factors found in normal healthy skin...the factors are engineered from human foreskin!"
During the show, the doctor promoting SkinMedica cream warned that some people may have ethical questions regarding using a product that is made from the derivative of foreskins (to which Winfrey made no response). Why ethical questions? The foreskins come from circumcisions, and male circumcision is now a controversial topic. In a discussion on Mothering.com, one querent asked, "If the cream was made from the bi-product of baby afro-American clitoral skin, would Oprah still be promoting it?" There's no answer to that question on Mothering or Winfrey's site, and Winfrey declined The Tyee's request for an interview.
Oprah is not only evil she is a coward as well. Fuck her.
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4
For more information on circumcision click here
This society protest female genital mutilation but keeps up male genital mutilation and now we know why. Boys are sacrificed for female vanity. Something to remember the next time you apply your facial cream,ladies.
Senator Amy Klobuchar wants to censor the net
I received this heads up from Demand Progress and it leaves me with one question: what are they putting in the Washington D.C. drinking water? Anyway here it is:
Crazy and awesome story: Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) is the lead sponsor of the bill that would make it a felony to post certain streamed content online -- meaning ordinary Americans would risk getting locked up for posting karaoke videos, cover band performances, video game play-throughs, and more to YouTube. It's now been rolled into the House's version of the Internet Blacklist Bill.
Love him or hate him, Justin Bieber got famous by posting videos of his covers of other artists' songs on YouTube, so he could go to jail if this legislation passes. He was asked what he thought about her proposal, and his answer couldn't have been more dead-on:
"Whoever she is, she needs to know that I'm saying she needs to be locked up - put away in cuffs." He added, "People need to have the freedom... people need to be able to sing songs. I just think that's ridiculous."
Let's make sure everybody in Minnesota knows that their senator is wasting her time on punitive Internet censorship legislation -- and losing her public spat with the Beebs.
Source:click here
Click on the link above to see the video targeted to her constituents letting them know what she is up to and what they can do to let her know their displeasure about her stance on this issue. Don't do this for me,do it for the Biebe.
Crazy and awesome story: Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) is the lead sponsor of the bill that would make it a felony to post certain streamed content online -- meaning ordinary Americans would risk getting locked up for posting karaoke videos, cover band performances, video game play-throughs, and more to YouTube. It's now been rolled into the House's version of the Internet Blacklist Bill.
Love him or hate him, Justin Bieber got famous by posting videos of his covers of other artists' songs on YouTube, so he could go to jail if this legislation passes. He was asked what he thought about her proposal, and his answer couldn't have been more dead-on:
"Whoever she is, she needs to know that I'm saying she needs to be locked up - put away in cuffs." He added, "People need to have the freedom... people need to be able to sing songs. I just think that's ridiculous."
Let's make sure everybody in Minnesota knows that their senator is wasting her time on punitive Internet censorship legislation -- and losing her public spat with the Beebs.
Source:click here
Click on the link above to see the video targeted to her constituents letting them know what she is up to and what they can do to let her know their displeasure about her stance on this issue. Don't do this for me,do it for the Biebe.
Boys don't matter
The most controversial topic in the news right now is the Penn State child abuse scandal and everyone is up in arms,from the students protesting openly to those that issue anonymous death threats. Do the boys matter? I certainly hope they do but they only matter when accused is a man. Male victims certainly don't matter when the perpetrator is a woman aka Mary Kay Letourneau or Debra Lavebe. Even worse is that the female rapists can turn it back on the victim and claim "rape" when the true male victim threatens to go to the police. Imagine going through the hell of being a male rape victim only to have your rapist say that you raped her and now you are in a prison cell. Imagine going through the hell of being raped then ending up in a prison cell where you can be raped further all with society's blessings. Also feminist propaganda makes boys and men expendable. Feminist propaganda also paints boys as terrorists that terrorize little girls and that they need to be drugged to be compliant. This society basically treats boys like guinea pigs to be experimented on with new drugs. In other words,boys are expendable.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Brett Sokolow gets even richer off your son's misfortune
Does everybody remember that scumbag Brett Sokolow? Well he's getting more money fucking men over. Read this:
How federal regulations are making college ‘risk management’ lawyers rich
Published: 12:45 PM 09/02/2011 | Updated: 10:13 AM 09/06/2011
By Robert Shibley
Senior Vice President, FIRE
In our increasingly regulated society, seemingly small changes in government regulations can imperil some businesses and enrich others. Here’s a story about how a 19-page letter from the Department of Education is making a small number of people a large amount of money.
A recent article in Philadelphia magazine by reporter Sandy Hingston has provided a rare glimpse into the college “risk management” industry and one of its leaders, a Malvern, Pennsylvania, lawyer by the name of Brett Sokolow. The founder of the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management (NCHERM) and several other higher education-focused groups, Sokolow and his group are hired as consultants by many schools seeking advice on how to limit their liability in lawsuits and reduce the risk that the federal Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) will yank a school’s federal funding. With as much as half a billion dollars a year on the line for schools like Yale or Berkeley, colleges pay dearly for this advice.
NCHERM boasts more than 800 college and university clients. It also puts on training seminars and conferences for the administrators who run those colleges. This is a very profitable business. As the Philadelphia magazine article pointed out, “In August, NCHERM hosted a seminar for college administrators on the role of the newly required Title IX coordinator. One hundred seventy people attended, at $2,500 a head. Gross revenue: $425,000.” That’s from a single four-day conference (the price doesn’t include meals, travel or lodging), and they’re doing it again in October. Attendance nets participants a “Title IX Coordinator Certification,” which is convenient for meeting the government’s vague requirement that administrators be trained in some way.
October’s conference lists five “faculty” members, three of whom are the partners of NCHERM. If attendance is the same as last time, that’s $85,000 per person. Even after subtracting overhead, that’s not too shabby for four days’ work. But why are colleges and administrators willing to pay so much money for this training?
The answer is found in the increasingly Byzantine laws and regulations that govern higher ed. Indeed, new regulations issued by OCR this April massively increased the risks for colleges dedicated to traditional ideals of American justice (such as presuming innocence before guilt is proven) and the students that attend them. The federal government now mandates that campuses use a “preponderance of the evidence” (roughly a 50.01% or “more likely than not” level of certainty) standard for determining guilt in sexual misconduct cases, and that both sides must be able to appeal a panel’s verdict, even if the accused is found not guilty. Most of the nation’s top schools provided much better protections for the accused before these regulations arrived, and college lawyers must be cursing the arrival of even more complicated regulations to wrestle with.
One would think “risk management” lawyers would be opposed to increasing the risks their clients face, but one would be wrong. As the Philadelphia article reports about Sokolow:
For more than a decade, the genial 39-year-old has been warning colleges and universities — he’s of counsel to more than 20, and has advised thousands — that the day was coming when courts would allow Title IX claims against them for sexual assaults. “The ‘Dear Colleague’ letter [that contained the new federal regulations] was one of the most important moments of my professional life,” he says.
Sokolow’s interest in campus safety stems from his sophomore year at the College of William & Mary, when he began dating a fellow student who’d been sexually assaulted: “She became an activist, and I became one as well.” He thought then that Title IX should have provided her redress, but “everybody said, ‘Title IX is just athletics.’”
Do Sokolow’s clients know that the eventuality he has been warning schools about is the very one he says he has been working as an “activist” to bring about? Activist or not, Sokolow and NCHERM are wasting no time in taking advantage of the new regulations to bring in some new money. On August 15, he formed ATIXA, the Association of Title IX Administrators. It costs $599 per person to join (or $2,500 per campus), and it’s cosponsoring the $2,500-per-head October NCHERM seminar. Brett Sokolow is its executive director and it has the same address as NCHERM.
NCHERM is also bankrolling a new group called SCOPE, the School and College Organization for Prevention Educators, which, according to its website, “embraces an ecological, inclusive, holistic, feminist, public health, evidence-based and multi-disciplinary vision of prevention.” It’s based in another Philadelphia suburb and includes all three NCHERM partners on its board, and you pay to join that too.
And then there’s NaBITA, the National Behavioral Intervention Team Association, another organization that 1.) you pay to join ($169 per year); 2.) is based at the same address as NCHERM and ATIXA; 3.) is run by the partners of NCHERM; and 4.) runs expensive conferences you pay to attend. (Although, for the 2010 conference, you just went ahead and made your check out to NCHERM.) It also has “partners” (i.e., advertisers) that pay a fee to be featured on its website.
Robert Shibley is the senior vice president of FIRE.
Source:click here
These vultures don't care who gets hurt just as long as they get paid. If they can turn a buck off someone else's misfortune they are happy. It would be great if someone they cared about got snared by the Frankenstein they created.
How federal regulations are making college ‘risk management’ lawyers rich
Published: 12:45 PM 09/02/2011 | Updated: 10:13 AM 09/06/2011
By Robert Shibley
Senior Vice President, FIRE
In our increasingly regulated society, seemingly small changes in government regulations can imperil some businesses and enrich others. Here’s a story about how a 19-page letter from the Department of Education is making a small number of people a large amount of money.
A recent article in Philadelphia magazine by reporter Sandy Hingston has provided a rare glimpse into the college “risk management” industry and one of its leaders, a Malvern, Pennsylvania, lawyer by the name of Brett Sokolow. The founder of the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management (NCHERM) and several other higher education-focused groups, Sokolow and his group are hired as consultants by many schools seeking advice on how to limit their liability in lawsuits and reduce the risk that the federal Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) will yank a school’s federal funding. With as much as half a billion dollars a year on the line for schools like Yale or Berkeley, colleges pay dearly for this advice.
NCHERM boasts more than 800 college and university clients. It also puts on training seminars and conferences for the administrators who run those colleges. This is a very profitable business. As the Philadelphia magazine article pointed out, “In August, NCHERM hosted a seminar for college administrators on the role of the newly required Title IX coordinator. One hundred seventy people attended, at $2,500 a head. Gross revenue: $425,000.” That’s from a single four-day conference (the price doesn’t include meals, travel or lodging), and they’re doing it again in October. Attendance nets participants a “Title IX Coordinator Certification,” which is convenient for meeting the government’s vague requirement that administrators be trained in some way.
October’s conference lists five “faculty” members, three of whom are the partners of NCHERM. If attendance is the same as last time, that’s $85,000 per person. Even after subtracting overhead, that’s not too shabby for four days’ work. But why are colleges and administrators willing to pay so much money for this training?
The answer is found in the increasingly Byzantine laws and regulations that govern higher ed. Indeed, new regulations issued by OCR this April massively increased the risks for colleges dedicated to traditional ideals of American justice (such as presuming innocence before guilt is proven) and the students that attend them. The federal government now mandates that campuses use a “preponderance of the evidence” (roughly a 50.01% or “more likely than not” level of certainty) standard for determining guilt in sexual misconduct cases, and that both sides must be able to appeal a panel’s verdict, even if the accused is found not guilty. Most of the nation’s top schools provided much better protections for the accused before these regulations arrived, and college lawyers must be cursing the arrival of even more complicated regulations to wrestle with.
One would think “risk management” lawyers would be opposed to increasing the risks their clients face, but one would be wrong. As the Philadelphia article reports about Sokolow:
For more than a decade, the genial 39-year-old has been warning colleges and universities — he’s of counsel to more than 20, and has advised thousands — that the day was coming when courts would allow Title IX claims against them for sexual assaults. “The ‘Dear Colleague’ letter [that contained the new federal regulations] was one of the most important moments of my professional life,” he says.
Sokolow’s interest in campus safety stems from his sophomore year at the College of William & Mary, when he began dating a fellow student who’d been sexually assaulted: “She became an activist, and I became one as well.” He thought then that Title IX should have provided her redress, but “everybody said, ‘Title IX is just athletics.’”
Do Sokolow’s clients know that the eventuality he has been warning schools about is the very one he says he has been working as an “activist” to bring about? Activist or not, Sokolow and NCHERM are wasting no time in taking advantage of the new regulations to bring in some new money. On August 15, he formed ATIXA, the Association of Title IX Administrators. It costs $599 per person to join (or $2,500 per campus), and it’s cosponsoring the $2,500-per-head October NCHERM seminar. Brett Sokolow is its executive director and it has the same address as NCHERM.
NCHERM is also bankrolling a new group called SCOPE, the School and College Organization for Prevention Educators, which, according to its website, “embraces an ecological, inclusive, holistic, feminist, public health, evidence-based and multi-disciplinary vision of prevention.” It’s based in another Philadelphia suburb and includes all three NCHERM partners on its board, and you pay to join that too.
And then there’s NaBITA, the National Behavioral Intervention Team Association, another organization that 1.) you pay to join ($169 per year); 2.) is based at the same address as NCHERM and ATIXA; 3.) is run by the partners of NCHERM; and 4.) runs expensive conferences you pay to attend. (Although, for the 2010 conference, you just went ahead and made your check out to NCHERM.) It also has “partners” (i.e., advertisers) that pay a fee to be featured on its website.
Robert Shibley is the senior vice president of FIRE.
Source:click here
These vultures don't care who gets hurt just as long as they get paid. If they can turn a buck off someone else's misfortune they are happy. It would be great if someone they cared about got snared by the Frankenstein they created.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Safeguard the rights of men on college campuses
Changes to Violence Against Women Act Would Threaten Student Due Process Rights
October 31, 2011
WASHINGTON, October 31, 2011—Congressional legislation reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) may include new provisions sharply reducing due process protections for college students accused of sexual assault, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has learned. A draft of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011 circulated by Senator Patrick Leahy's office effectively requires that colleges and universities receiving federal funding must employ a "preponderance of the evidence" standard—a 50.01%, "more likely than not" evidentiary burden—when adjudicating student complaints concerning sexual assault. The draft also includes a provision requiring universities to allow alleged victims of sexual assault to appeal the results of college disciplinary hearings, subjecting accused students to a form of "double jeopardy" not allowed in our nation's courts.
Deeply concerned about these threats to campus due process, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is urging citizens to contact their Senators and ask them to reject these provisions in the draft bill. FIRE holds no position on any other section of VAWA or the draft bill.
"These provisions are fatally flawed and do not belong in federal law," said FIRE President Greg Lukianoff. "Reducing protections for students who are accused of serious misconduct will not increase justice."
The draft bill provides that colleges adjudicating student complaints concerning sexual assault must "apply the standard of proof recommended by the most recent Guidance issued by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights" (OCR). OCR is the federal agency tasked with enforcing federal civil rights laws, including Title IX, in educational programs and institutions that receive federal funding. In an April 4, 2011, "Dear Colleague Letter" from Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Russlynn Ali, OCR mandated that colleges and universities receiving federal funding must employ a preponderance of the evidence standard under Title IX when adjudicating allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault—a requirement the 39-year-old law had not previously been interpreted to contain. OCR's new regulations have already coerced colleges and universities across the country to abandon their commitment to due process protections for students accused of sexual assault.
Supreme Court precedent argues strongly against using the preponderance of the evidence standard in campus hearings concerning allegations of sexual harassment or sexual violence. FIRE pointed out in an open letter to OCR on May 5, 2011, that preponderance of the evidence is our judiciary's lowest evidentiary standard and provides insufficient protection to students accused of serious misconduct. FIRE explained that lowering the burden of proof in sexual assault cases will reduce confidence in campus judiciary systems and inevitably result in more incorrect guilty verdicts. OCR has failed to respond to FIRE's letter or to two letters from the American Association of University Professors in defense of due process rights.
Codifying OCR's new requirement in VAWA would cement OCR's errors into federal law, ensuring further injustices like those suffered by University of North Dakota (UND) student Caleb Warner. Under the preponderance of the evidence standard, Warner was found guilty of sexual assault and banned from campus for three years. However, the same evidence led North Dakota law enforcement to charge Warner's accuser with making a false report to law enforcement—a charge for which she is still wanted by the police. After 18 months, UND finally re-examined Warner's case only after the university's injustice was exposed by FIRE. Earlier this month, FIRE announced that UND had vacated Warner's suspension.
The draft bill also provides that colleges must maintain "procedures for the accused and the victim [emphasis added] to appeal the results of the institutional disciplinary proceeding." The requirement contradicts the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on "double jeopardy," whereby someone accused of a crime cannot be tried again for the same charge once the original hearing has properly ended in either acquittal or conviction. For the same reasons of fundamental fairness that our criminal justice system does not allow the accused to face double jeopardy, Congress should not force college students to face a second hearing for the same charge. Further, allowing accusers to appeal a not-guilty finding amplifies the due process problems introduced by the preponderance of the evidence mandate.
These new provisions in the VAWA reauthorization draft bill stem from the draft's incorporation of elements of the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination (SaVE) Act. (Section 304 of the draft is titled "Campus SaVE Act.") The Campus SaVE Act, introduced in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, contains nearly identical requirements and similarly restricts fundamental due process rights. The proposed new rules dangerously tip the scales toward finding more innocent students guilty.
"Colleges have both a legal and a moral duty to address sexual assault on campus, but working to eliminate such crimes does not require colleges and universities to forsake fundamental student rights," Robert Shibley, FIRE's Senior Vice President, said. "FIRE asks Senator Leahy and his colleagues to retract these ill-advised provisions, lest the newest generation of college students learn the wrong lesson about the crucial importance of due process."
FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process, freedom of expression, academic freedom, and rights of conscience at our nation's colleges and universities. FIRE's efforts to preserve liberty on campuses across America are described at thefire.org.
TAKE ACTION: Contact your Senators and ask them not to co-sponsor or support Senator Leahy's bill so long as these proposed changes threaten fundamental due process rights on campus.
Source:click here
If you are college student or a friend or relative of one you may want to sign this petition to save your son's (or any male relative) chance of attending higher education. Why should a night with the wrong woman ruin a man's chance to better himself? It shouldn't. Sign the petition today.
October 31, 2011
WASHINGTON, October 31, 2011—Congressional legislation reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) may include new provisions sharply reducing due process protections for college students accused of sexual assault, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has learned. A draft of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011 circulated by Senator Patrick Leahy's office effectively requires that colleges and universities receiving federal funding must employ a "preponderance of the evidence" standard—a 50.01%, "more likely than not" evidentiary burden—when adjudicating student complaints concerning sexual assault. The draft also includes a provision requiring universities to allow alleged victims of sexual assault to appeal the results of college disciplinary hearings, subjecting accused students to a form of "double jeopardy" not allowed in our nation's courts.
Deeply concerned about these threats to campus due process, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is urging citizens to contact their Senators and ask them to reject these provisions in the draft bill. FIRE holds no position on any other section of VAWA or the draft bill.
"These provisions are fatally flawed and do not belong in federal law," said FIRE President Greg Lukianoff. "Reducing protections for students who are accused of serious misconduct will not increase justice."
The draft bill provides that colleges adjudicating student complaints concerning sexual assault must "apply the standard of proof recommended by the most recent Guidance issued by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights" (OCR). OCR is the federal agency tasked with enforcing federal civil rights laws, including Title IX, in educational programs and institutions that receive federal funding. In an April 4, 2011, "Dear Colleague Letter" from Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Russlynn Ali, OCR mandated that colleges and universities receiving federal funding must employ a preponderance of the evidence standard under Title IX when adjudicating allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault—a requirement the 39-year-old law had not previously been interpreted to contain. OCR's new regulations have already coerced colleges and universities across the country to abandon their commitment to due process protections for students accused of sexual assault.
Supreme Court precedent argues strongly against using the preponderance of the evidence standard in campus hearings concerning allegations of sexual harassment or sexual violence. FIRE pointed out in an open letter to OCR on May 5, 2011, that preponderance of the evidence is our judiciary's lowest evidentiary standard and provides insufficient protection to students accused of serious misconduct. FIRE explained that lowering the burden of proof in sexual assault cases will reduce confidence in campus judiciary systems and inevitably result in more incorrect guilty verdicts. OCR has failed to respond to FIRE's letter or to two letters from the American Association of University Professors in defense of due process rights.
Codifying OCR's new requirement in VAWA would cement OCR's errors into federal law, ensuring further injustices like those suffered by University of North Dakota (UND) student Caleb Warner. Under the preponderance of the evidence standard, Warner was found guilty of sexual assault and banned from campus for three years. However, the same evidence led North Dakota law enforcement to charge Warner's accuser with making a false report to law enforcement—a charge for which she is still wanted by the police. After 18 months, UND finally re-examined Warner's case only after the university's injustice was exposed by FIRE. Earlier this month, FIRE announced that UND had vacated Warner's suspension.
The draft bill also provides that colleges must maintain "procedures for the accused and the victim [emphasis added] to appeal the results of the institutional disciplinary proceeding." The requirement contradicts the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on "double jeopardy," whereby someone accused of a crime cannot be tried again for the same charge once the original hearing has properly ended in either acquittal or conviction. For the same reasons of fundamental fairness that our criminal justice system does not allow the accused to face double jeopardy, Congress should not force college students to face a second hearing for the same charge. Further, allowing accusers to appeal a not-guilty finding amplifies the due process problems introduced by the preponderance of the evidence mandate.
These new provisions in the VAWA reauthorization draft bill stem from the draft's incorporation of elements of the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination (SaVE) Act. (Section 304 of the draft is titled "Campus SaVE Act.") The Campus SaVE Act, introduced in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, contains nearly identical requirements and similarly restricts fundamental due process rights. The proposed new rules dangerously tip the scales toward finding more innocent students guilty.
"Colleges have both a legal and a moral duty to address sexual assault on campus, but working to eliminate such crimes does not require colleges and universities to forsake fundamental student rights," Robert Shibley, FIRE's Senior Vice President, said. "FIRE asks Senator Leahy and his colleagues to retract these ill-advised provisions, lest the newest generation of college students learn the wrong lesson about the crucial importance of due process."
FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process, freedom of expression, academic freedom, and rights of conscience at our nation's colleges and universities. FIRE's efforts to preserve liberty on campuses across America are described at thefire.org.
TAKE ACTION: Contact your Senators and ask them not to co-sponsor or support Senator Leahy's bill so long as these proposed changes threaten fundamental due process rights on campus.
Source:click here
If you are college student or a friend or relative of one you may want to sign this petition to save your son's (or any male relative) chance of attending higher education. Why should a night with the wrong woman ruin a man's chance to better himself? It shouldn't. Sign the petition today.
Monday, November 7, 2011
From a feminist forum
Read about how feminists want to eradicate men from the face of the earth. I can't make this stuff up,here are several snapshots from a feminist site:
page 1
page 2
page 3
page 4
We also see that Vliet confirms her plan of the extermination of men. This should also prove that feminism is an hate organization.
page 1
page 2
page 3
page 4
We also see that Vliet confirms her plan of the extermination of men. This should also prove that feminism is an hate organization.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Radical feminist advocates for the extermination of men
I've posted feminist quotes in the past but here is an essay written by a radical feminist (is there any other kind?) who would love to see men dead. In fact here is what she wrote:
Radical Feminism Enters the 21st Century
by FCM
Guest Post by Vliet Tiptree
“…you may hiss as much as you like, but it is comin’.”
–Sojourner Truth in 1853 at the Women’s Rights Convention in New York
I am a woman and I’m no superheroine. I don’t have an academic or other institutional connection, the strength behind me of a life-affirming culture, faith, a clear understanding of my situation, or a firm idea what to do. What I do have is an ongoing intolerable experience that this life I and other women live is blighted by male oppression, and that this blight diseases the trunk of our species’ existence, not just the branches, not just the leaves. Every moment of our existence, this blight injures us. It kills our spirits, ruins our bodies, destroys our happiness, twists our children. It has thrived for so long it sometimes seems ineradicable. This blight has many names: the Patriarchal System, Misogyny, Male Supremacy, Women’s Subjugation. I just call it the System at the moment.
I also have this: the conviction, based on all that I am, that the System can be eradicated. And I have one other thing: the experience, action, and theory of other women around me now and living before me, who have exposed and attempted to eradicate this blight. Right now, I am learning from and contributing to the RadFem Hub, a new center of thought and action on the Internet for Radical Feminist women and women interested in their work.
Just who does she think runs the system? Men (and women yet the women aren't faulted) so men are to be blamed and eradicated.
I have become radicalized in the 21st century by the realization that the reformist strategies I have devoted much of my working life to are being absorbed by the System as a cost of doing business, that our successes over the last century and a half are being managed and quietly dissolved, and that the System is successfully resisting the changes in the public sphere by tightening its controls in the private sphere: the sphere of personal life, of sexual politics, of cultural mores, of psychology, of socialization of children. A tacit balance is being maintained. As we wrest for ourselves the vote, literacy, access to the legal system, we are brainwashed through the use of social controls into using these rights not for our own benefit, but to continue propping up our own oppression.
It’s an efficient and ruthless adjustment. The System gets subtler, dangles carrots, lets a few women in, gives up some of its most oppressive manifestations, and lets women burn themselves out. Reformist feminists give their money and time to setting up shelters, places for women to lick their wounds and be relatively safe for a little while. They try to get a few more percentage points in the futile effort to fully equalize the pay of women. They use themselves up filing lawsuits that go nowhere. They dilute their resources fighting for other groups who are also oppressed, leaving little for their own liberation. In short, they act as if the System is fundamentally sound. We have been reforming the System for a hundred fifty years in the Eurocentric countries, and we are trying to reform the entrenched System in the rest of the world, but wherever we are, the minute the King magnanimously lets us vote in municipal elections, arrests for daring to drive increase. We save a leaf here, lose a leaf there; the blight rages on.
You've got to be shitting me. Feminists got the following past: VAWA,IMBRA,The Family Leave Act,pro-female affirmative action laws,pro-female special protections such as sexual harassment,redifining rape to be whatever a woman wants it to be,female only criminal defenses that excuse women when they commit the most vile of crimes.
Some women have always radicalized; they achieved as much as could be achieved then, great steps forward. I think of the Women’s Suffrage Movement in England. It began as an attempt at reform, but it turned radical as it had to. Emmeline Pankhurst in 1913 described women cutting the lines for telegraphs and telephones between London and Glasgow, vandalism, arson, and prison resistance. She said, “Now I want to say to you who think women cannot succeed, we have brought the Government of England to this position, that it has to face this alternative: either women are to be killed or women are to have the vote…”
Yet they call men "aggressive". Let's update the following:
either women are to be killed or women are to decide men's fate.
If that is the choice they are not deciding our fate. So that gives us only one choice.
What is Radical Feminism as it enters the 21st Century? I’d say it’s the vanguard in the Feminist movement generally. I’d say it’s oriented to the future as a philosophy. I’d say it’s an ever-increasing global movement among women to live fully and freely, without further ado. We have a superb new tool in that endeavor, namely, the Internet, and we’re beginning to use it. We are seeing much potential in scientific research and related technologies.
I mentioned before that the System doesn’t have a single name. I think Radical Feminists have come to understand that many of these names lead to a mistake in thinking; the disease is not named, only its effect, the subjugation or oppression of women. The disease hides itself even in the name given to it. What causes the blight?
As Sheila Jeffreys has put it, and I think we all agree, it has to start with this: there is something wrong with men. It is a pathology with both physical and psychological features. I personally think it is as old as our evolution as hominids. I think it’s a biological adaptation which is now rotten, dangerous, and vestigial. I think we have to force the scientific establishment to take a clear look at this colossal sick old mammoth taking up all the space in the living room, and make it stop distracting itself with sexy cosmologies and particle accelerators. I don’t quite have a name for this pathology. Let’s give it a real name together.
Here they come out and say it. Gendercide. These are the REAL feminists and the quotes prove it. There is no "feminists over there" arguement when you come to the realization that feminism is feminism is feminism and it is all evil.
1. Our Tradition. Eurocentric (or Northern, or Western, or industrial-society, or educated, whatever you want to call them) feminists now have a specific tradition of leaders and visionaries who have moved beyond reformism, including feminist groundbreakers like Sojourner Truth, Emmeline Pankhurst, Susan B. Anthony, Simone de Beauvoir, Germaine Greer, Kate Millett, and many others. For their times and circumstances, they are all great radicals. Women in all parts of the world have our resisters, our sisters who have died or been destroyed in life because they are female. Their names and actions are being retrieved and honored in each culture.
A broad, strong line of thinking has developed from the Eurocentric line through Mary Daly, Adrienne Rich, Audre Lorde, Simone de Beauvoir, Shulamith Firestone, James Tiptree Jr./Alice Sheldon, Andrea Dworkin, Valerie Solanis, Catherine MacKinnon, Octavia Butler, Joanna Russ, Sheila Jeffries, Ursula K. LeGuin, Monique Wittig, and many others. Some of these women are philosophers, some are poets, some are scientists, some are writers. Some are, to many of us, giants, like Dworkin and Daly.
A lot of these feminists are mentioned in feminist quotes and feminist quotes 2 I'm sure the author of this shit I'm responding to would love to know that not only are Dworkin and her dead ilk loving the evil unleashed but the entire forces of hell are as well.
2. Our Willingness to Speak the Unspeakable. So much of the work that has to be done is disgusting, ugly. I call it Cleaning the Toilet. Radical Feminists have rolled up our sleeves. We speak, no, we shout, the unspeakable. We address the taboo subjects that control us at a deep and horrible and soul-destroying level of social control; sexual perversion, incest, rape, the sickness in marriage, the hidden horrors of growing up female. We speak over and over; we de-sensitize so others can stand to speak also. We take on this pain because we have to get close to the sickness to see it and describe it and eradicate it. The RadFem Hub is a crucial part of this endeavor. To speak unvarnished truth is a radical act for women.
This is getting uglier and uglier. Unfortunately there is more.
3. Our Uncompromising Attitude. We have given up the polite, diplomatic, politic, earnest, logical, legalistic approach in favor of Realpolitik. We accept revolutionary attitudes and emotions; rage and despair, unflinchingness, uncompromisingness as motivational and curative. We see that compassion, empathy, a willingness to work with men, is seized upon and perverted by the System as it has always been, a weakness when dealing with the amoral. We don’t make the mistake of wasting our energies trying to persuade men to do anything. We are not naïve or idealistic, and we work to avoid falling into denial. There is no romanticization possible of the System. As painful as it is, we choose to act without illusions, especially the illusion that the System can be fundamentally changed from within.
What she is saying is "close your hearts to compassion close your hearts to pity."
4. Our Emphasis on Fundamental Change. We have moved beyond palliation (negotiation, mediation, reform, compromise, engagement with the System) to exploring effective means of extirpating male pathology, including being open to biological explanations and treatment of such psychopathy. We are concerned with the overall structure of male oppression. We are open to going wherever the evidence and experience lead us.
In recent years, studies of male hormones and aggression, the development of the science of social dominance theory, primate studies, and genetics have begun in my opinion to take us very close to the etiology of the underlying sickness. This emphasis on looking at the pathology of male hormonal mechanisms is a new kind of “essentialism” that offers hope, because treatments can be developed to mitigate the death-drive of men, their hierarchical psychology, their insensitivity to the pain of living creatures, their pleasure in violence and intimidation, their acquisitiveness, their rape and phallic obsessions. It’s an exciting development, though the science involved it goes hand in hand with new dangers to women which must be resisted.
Plans are laid out. Male hormones and aggression? So Katherine Kieu Becker is a man? Lorena Bobbit is a man? The persons who attacked Rayon Mcintosh were men? I don't think so.
6. Our Exposure of Manufactured Confusion about Gender identity vs. Performance of Conditioned Sex Roles. One inventive strategy of the System has been to encourage the notion that sex, male and female, is entirely culturally conditioned. Some feminist academics, especially in the fields of psychology, philosophy, and literature were duped into following this seductive thread and claiming too much: that women are only social constructs, ignoring the reality that men know exactly who we are and oppress us accordingly.
Victomology. The only thing feminists turn out that is manufactured is the data they disseminate.
7. Our Insistence that Cultural/Personal Control is More Malignant than Legal/Public Control. Let me introduce my use of this word, “malignant”. It’s a frightening word, isn’t it? It means to me the energy that causes a disease to progress. It is often stealthy, this energy. Radical Feminists are seeing the Malignant. It is metastasizing in a new form, insidious, abandoning the legal system, sneaking into our personal lives in a way we have not seen in our lifetimes. We are subject to it every time we turn on the TV, read about fashion shows or the wedding industry, see girls wearing less and less in the media photographs, see women heroized who announce that their sole purpose in life is to sexually please and be dependent on men for the rest of their lives. The pressure is intense and appears to be a reaction to Feminism’s legal gains.
One mechanism to control women is the pornography industry. It tortures, de-humanizes, and objectifies women, and yet it is being presented today to young women as harmless or even positive. This mechanism extends much more broadly than pornography media in the traditional sense; it includes the “sex-positive” idea, in which women are brainwashed to follow traditional male patterns of sexual objectification and usage. We are conned into sexual enslavement, encouraged to cater to male sex fantasies by publicly appearing in seductive clothing (slutwalks), told to accept multiple male sex partners without adequate protection,
Not only does she want to eradicate men but she wants to blame men for what women have done. Talk about adding insult to injury.
8. Our Exposure of Psychological Controls of Women such as Malignant Romanticism/Denial Control Mechanism, Stockholm Syndrome, Intimidation, Divide-and-Conquer, Confusion, Psychological Invasion. Again, the word “Malignant” is needed to describe these fantastically successful psychological controls on women. Many millions of women on this earth still don’t have more than an uneasy feeling regarding our oppression; we can’t imagine freedom; we love our oppressors. Many of us are attached by strong bonds to boys and men in our families. How to deal with this love and attachment is often a central and painful issue for feminists.
Attempts by women to separate ourselves even partially are met with the usual spectrum of intimidation: social controls, ridicule, hostility, violence. I think we need a reality-based psychology for women that explains and treats these mechanisms rather than training us to accept them. Beyond that, we must continue identifying them everywhere, but not merely to fight each individual manifestation. The ongoing focus of Radical Feminists is to stop them permanently from infecting men’s relations with women as a whole.
Separate men from women and demonize heterosexuality.
9. Respect for Other Strategies Attacking Male Oppression (Legal, Academic, Marxist). Radical feminists appreciate the work of feminists putting out the fires and relieving the immediate pain. We help when we can. We are all women, and we do want to ally with other women. We are sorry to see English and psychology and philosophy departments of universities still influenced by phallocentric theory, but we also have nothing but admiration for other professors like Donna Harroway and Sandra Harding for investigating the phallocentrism of epistemologies underlying various sciences, for instance, and others for developing some of the scientific and non-phallocentric theories I have mentioned above. White radical feminists support our sisters struggling with racism and sexualized racism, the effects of Eurocentric colonialism on women, and the damage to their cultures. Marxist/socialist feminists are close to our hearts; we do see how the economic systems we are drowning in are closely intertwined with the oppression of women. We aren’t rivals, any of us.
This is one of those doubleheaded dildo parties they like to hold.
10. Our Development of Inspirational Visions of the Future. One of the saddest and most difficult areas of feminist thought has to do with women’s invisible ancient history. Our failure thus far to dispositively show that woman-dominated societies, or even unoppressive societies, once existed has been a blow. It makes it seem as if such societies could not occur in the future. Reformist Feminists are much concerned with resurrecting this uncertain, invisibilized past.
Radical feminists, I believe, point to the future. If there are no such societies found, Monique Wittig said, invent them. There were never societies without legal slaves until recently. But legal slavery is no more.
What will the future look like? Radical Feminism is especially prominent in developing many visions of societies in which women are no longer, as Germaine Greer put it, a subjugated caste. Visions and goals stimulate the methods for reaching them. Joanna Russ presented us with an early vision of a woman-only society. James Tiptree, Jr. wrote a story in which the women characters flee earth entirely. Some say an earth with only 10% men will be a safe earth free of oppression. We need more of these visions.
My own personal vision is that women will cure the sickness that ails men and that men will stay around, hunkered in their man-caves playing the ukelele, leaving us in peace at last. As to what that cure may be, my best bet is that what’s wrong with men is that their androgens need genetic modification.
Source: click here
If they don't kill us off they will do medical experiments with us. Strange how matriarchy conviently disappeared the moment history started being recorded. Slaves? Ask any man who just got out of family court if he feels like a "slave" as in "wage slave" to someone he is no longer married to.
Want to turn in a misandrist and have it payoff? Literally.
Paul Elam is promoting a $1,000.00 reward for the identity of the author of this article,Vliet Tiptree. If you know Vliet Tiptree's real identity and want to make some money click here. This is NO JOKE. It is simple turn her in and get paid. If you know who she is turn her in and give your family a wonderul holiday season with that extra money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)