DS-Syndicate

feed image
feed image
feed image
feed image
feed image






JamesLandrith.com is registered with the Washington, DC Registry







PositiveSingles.com - the best, most trusted and largest anonymous STD dating site!
PositiveSingles.com - the best, most trusted and largest anonymous STD dating site!


InterracialMatch.com - the best interracial dating site!
InterracialMatch.com - the best interracial dating site!


Welcome to the Official Website of James Landrith
Victim-Blaming Is Easy (or You Really Aren't A Useful Person)
User Rating: / 0
Blog, Commentary and Articles - Rape, Sexual Assault and Abuse
Written by James Landrith   
Friday, 02 August 2013

Alyson Miers on There Is No Right Way For  A Victim To Behave :

 

"People are saying stupid shit about Amanda Berry.

Burnett’s concerned astonishment was charitable compared to what the lowest form of opinion generators – Internet commenters – had to say about Berry’s newly reignited social life. “It’s just odd given the years of abuse she suffered. Normally she would not have that kind of trust or comfort. I’m sorry, but it doesn’t make sense,” wrote one concerned ABC News commenter, while another more bluntly decided, “It seems to me she was enjoying it and is gonna use her ordeal to cash in.” Many were concerned that she appeared with a man who stood behind her and warmly put his arm around her and kissed her neck while she was onstage. Or, as some of the ABC commenters decided, he was a “dirt bag hanging all over her,” who “groped” and “pawed” her. A CBS News commenter more generously decided she looked “pretty hot.” And 645 comments later on NBC, Berry had plenty of well-wishers but also comments about her eyebrow piercing, and how she doesn’t look like “a real victim….lol.” And of course, if you want to plumb the absolute bottom of the barrel, there’s YouTube, where Berry is being  accused of “milking everything she’s getting.”

I think it would be interesting (if nauseating) to press these commenters on what exactly they’re implying about her. If she doesn’t look like a “real victim,” does that mean she wanted to be locked up in Ariel Castro’s house for ten years? Do you think she enjoyed what he did to her?

 

Does she need to justify going outside, looking cute and having a good time, now that she and her daughter are free and reunited with her family? Let’s not forget that Amanda Berry has a small daughter. When moms are happy and healthy, their kids are better off."

 

I share Alyson's concerns and disgust for these victim-blamers.  Why is a survivor expected to wallow in misery and exile for the rest of their lives?  For those who are able to go out and get some enjoyment and happiness - DO IT!  Sexual violence makes no sense.  It leaves devastation, pain and agony in it's wake.  Trying to apply static rules to how a person responds to their own traumas is a massive logic failure.  If you haven't been through it yourself, what makes you think you can tell those of us who have exactly how we are expected to respond?

 

I can certainly relate to the backlash that survivors experience online.  After speaking out on HuffPostLive, I got thousands of hateful comments. Nearly every major publication who ran my story was besieged with hateful victim-blaming and mockery - both by men AND women.  Many claimed that I “must have liked it" and should have “kicked her ass” so that meant I wasn’t raped according to their incredible Because I Said So logic. Really.  REALLY. People expected me to beat up a pregnant woman to stop her from raping me after she drugged me and threatened me. This is the level of discourse and emotional maturity that you can expect to find on most rape stories.

 

I weep for all survivors who go public. You pay for it over and over and over.  It isn't enough to be raped. It isn't enough to deal with the memories, flashbacks, body memories, panic attacks, anxiety and general PTSD responses.  No, you have to listen to clueless, know-nothing assholes tell you how they would be a better victim.  Wow.

 

People who could never in a million years handle what we've endured are so quick to tell us what we should have done, how they'd have prevented it and why we aren't acting like proper survivors.  Thanks for the help pal, but we've got it.  We endured the trauma, we'll figure out the healing part without your crucial advice.  Try empathy and understanding BEFORE you open your mouth if you really want to engage with survivors.

 

Really. 

 

Go drag your knuckles somewhere else.   We don't need your input nor your approval, but thanks again.  You're truly the best!

 

 

About James A. Landrith

James Landrith is a healing rape survivor, public speaker, internationally syndicated blogger, civil liberties activist and the notorious editor and publisher of The Multiracial Activist (ISSN: 1552-3446) and The Abolitionist Examiner (ISSN: 1552-2881). Landrith can be reached by email at:  This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it  or at his personal website/blog.

 


 

Last Updated ( Saturday, 03 August 2013 )
 
How to Help Fast-Food Workers
User Rating: / 0
Blog, Commentary and Articles - Economics and Financial Services
Written by Sheldon Richman   
Thursday, 01 August 2013
How to Help Fast-Food Workers
by Sheldon Richman
 
Doubling the minimum wage may seem like a good way to help fast-food workers, but it would hurt them instead. So what should we do? We must sweep away the government-created barriers to income earning, barriers that protect established businesses from competition and rob the most vulnerable people of options.
 
This week, fast-food workers have engaged in 24-hour strikes throughout America to bring attention to their struggle to make ends meet. They have been demanding an increase in the minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour and the right to organize unions.
 
The low minimum wage, however, is not the cause of their problems; it’s a sign of deeper factors holding them back. In fact, the minimum wage distracts us from the radical changes we must make if low-income workers are to advance. Those who fixate on the minimum wage unwittingly do struggling workers a disservice.
 
What workers need is greater bargaining power, and that comes primarily from having options. Unfortunately, the corporate state, which people mistake for the free market, closes off options. Anything less than removal of these obstacles is a cruel hoax on those seeking better lives.
 
What’s wrong with simply doubling the minimum wage? The answer is that wages are not arbitrarily set. Even in a corporatist economy, they result from supply and demand. This can be seen in an extreme hypothetical example, in which the minimum wage in the fast-food industry is raised to $100 an hour. What would happen to employment? It’s easy to see that it would plummet as the industry itself faded away. Why? Because, given the price of fast food, workers can’t possibly produce $100 worth of value for their employers in an hour.
 
Employers don’t hire people as a favor. Businesses exist to make money for their owners. If hiring someone is to be worthwhile, that person will have to produce more than she is paid. If she can’t, she won’t have a job.
 
Couldn’t a restaurant raise prices to cover the higher wages? It could try, but this would drive away customers, who would seek out cheaper meals at other restaurants. (Franchisee profit margins are already thin.) If they all raised prices, people would eat at home instead. What happens to the jobs then?
 
The point is that wages aren’t set by picking numbers out of the air. Set them too high relative to value created, and the business disappears. Set them too low, and workers will look for alternatives.
 
So the spotlight should be on alternatives. On first glance, someone working at a fast-food restaurant seems to have alternatives. McDonald’s faces competition from Burger King, Wendy’s, and more. Low-skilled jobs can also be found in other kinds of businesses, such as Walmart. The problem is that the demand for such labor is more than matched by the supply. That’s the thing about low-skilled work: lots of people can do it, especially when an economy has not fully recovered from a (government-induced) recession. That’s why it pays to acquire marketable skills. (Rotten government schools handicap the most vulnerable Americans.)
 
Government aggravates an already bad situation anytime it erects artificial barriers to employment alternatives, including self-employment. But governments at all levels do this routinely, usually by protecting the well-connected from market competition.
 
How so? I couldn’t possibly count the ways here. But we can mention the most common: Occupational licensing restricts entry into many kinds of work by raising the cost of going into business. Zoning restrictions prevent people from using their homes for commercial purposes. Restrictions on street vendors and cabbies quash small-scale entrepreneurship.
Intellectual-property law inhibits or harasses those whose products might be construed as violating patents or copyrights. Government land holdings make land artificially more costly. Taxes and regulations impose greater burdens on would-be entrepreneurs than on large, established businesses.
 
All this and more shrink the options of those with limited skills and meager resources, forcing them to vie with one another for the remaining, perhaps less-desirable jobs with reduced bargaining power. This gives an unfair advantage to employers, who know there are others eager to take the place of any “troublesome” worker.
 
A higher minimum wage granted by a condescending ruling elite can’t help people trapped in this situation. Only a radically freed market can.
 
Sheldon Richman is vice president and editor at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va. (www.fff.org).
 
What the Immigration Bill Overlooks
User Rating: / 0
Blog, Commentary and Articles - Immigration
Written by Sheldon Richman   
Tuesday, 09 July 2013
What the Immigration Bill Overlooks
by Sheldon Richman
 
In passing the monstrosity known as immigration “reform,” the Senate overlooked a few things of importance. This is unsurprising. A bill on immigration that is backed by leading Republicans and Democrats, big business, and government-co-opted unions is bound to have missed some things.
 
The bill, whose fate in the House is uncertain, would appropriate $40 billion over the next decade to “secure the border.” This would entail hiring 20,000 more border patrol agents and building 700 more miles of fence along the U.S.-Mexican border. The spending would include $4.5 billion on technology for surveillance. As the Washington Post reported, “The border security plan … includes unusual language mandating the purchase of specific models of helicopters and radar equipment for deployment along the U.S.-Mexican border, providing a potential windfall worth tens of millions of dollars to top defense contractors.”
 
The bill would also set up a procedure under which the 11 million human beings who are in the United States without government permission could become citizens in 13 years. To come “out of the shadows,” so-called illegal immigrants would have to pay fines and taxes. The New York Times notes that the “tough border security provisions … must be in place before the immigrants can gain legal status.”
 
In conventional terms, the bill seems fairly complete. So what does it overlook? Several things:
 
First, by nature all individuals -- not just Americans -- have rights. Specifically, they have a natural right to engage in any peaceful activity, that is, any conduct that does not aggress against other people. Among those rights, therefore, is the right to travel and settle anywhere, so long as no one else’s rights are violated. Considering that plenty of Americans would eagerly rent apartments to and hire, say, Mexicans, migration is included among the freedoms all people possess.
 
Second, and closely related, an ancient and honorable principle holds that an unjust law is no law at all (lex iniusta non est lex). The idea is that no one should be compelled to do what is unjust or be prevented from doing what justice requires or allows — such as freely moving about. Conservatives and progressives alike are vexed that the 11 million U.S. residents without papers violated the law to get here. How dare they! But according to the ancient principle, what they violated was a not a law but a mere legislative decree,  which conflicts with the natural law and hence is contrary to justice and freedom. It is an established maxim that no one is obligated to obey an unjust law. Since that’s the case, we should not be talking about amnesty for residents without papers; amnesty implies wrongdoing, and these human beings did nothing wrong. They should be left free to go about their lives. Incidentally, there also should be no amnesty for the government officials who have harassed residents without papers rather than leaving them in peace. “I was following orders” is no excuse.
 
Third, the free-enterprise system, which conservatives claim to support and pretend that we have, necessarily includes the freedom of business owners to hire whoever is willing to work for them. It is the height of hypocrisy for conservatives to call for harsh penalties on businesspeople who hire “illegal workers.” When it’s a choice between free enterprise and border control, most conservatives choose border control — and that speaks volumes. The flip side, of course, is that any individual should be free to accept a job offer from any business owner. The government — and all those who want a border lined with armed agents and barbed wire-adorned walls — should butt out.
 
Finally, if we mean what we say when we express sympathy for the world’s poor, we cannot in good conscience maintain barriers to free immigration. The foreign-born are people too, as deserving of a shot at the good life as any American. When individuals move from capital-poor to capital-rich societies, their productivity increases, enabling them to better provide for themselves and their families. (They also present new opportunities for exchange to the indigenous population.)
 
It is cruel and hypocritical for America not to do the one thing that would best lift the fortunes of the world’s poor and oppressed.
 
Sheldon Richman is vice president and editor at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va. (www.fff.org).
 
Grill of Honor: Lowe’s Thanks Troops with Charity Grill-Off and $100,000 Donation to USO
User Rating: / 0
Advocacy and Letters - Press Releases
Written by Lowe’s Companies, Inc.   
Saturday, 29 June 2013

Carson Daly, Brooklyn Decker join those saluting military guests at 4th of July celebration

WASHINGTON–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Lowe’s and the USO treated hundreds of servicemen and women and their families to an all-American event headlined by a charity grill-off today at Nationals Park to thank the U.S. armed forces and celebrate the Fourth of July. “Grill Sergeants” from each branch of the military put their grilling skills to the test during the all-star grilling competition.

The winning Grill Sergeant, Lance Cpl. Noah Bratcher of the U.S. Marines and his wife Cassandra, created the best burger among six branch chefs who fired up their Master Forge grills. The Marines won bragging rights, and Lowe’s donated $100,000 to the USO on its behalf.

Chefs from the Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, National Guard and Navy were given 40 minutes to turn a recipe with surprise ingredients into a burger worth saluting. Celebrities Carson Daly and Brooklyn Decker attended the event in support of the troops and served as judges alongside Elaine Rodgers, President and CEO, USO of Metropolitan Washington, and Tom Lamb, Lowe’s chief marketing officer. Each team won gift cards and a grilling prize package for participating in the event.

The invited guests cheered on their favorite military branch and then enjoyed a day at the ballpark. Military families participated in free activities, including movie-themed Build & Grow clinics, face painting, cornhole tournaments, behind-the-scenes tours of the ballpark, a picnic-style cookout and more.

Hi-res photography and b-roll from the event can be downloaded here and used for media purposes: http://a-1broadcast.com/project/usocelebritygrill.html#.

“Today, Lowe’s gave military families a chance to have a great time,” said USO President and CEO Sloan Gibson. “Their generous donation also makes it possible for the USO to continue providing important programs and services to those who need us most. On this Fourth of July, we are grateful to Lowe’s for joining us as we show our troops that their service and sacrifice are appreciated.”

Lowe’s support of the U.S. armed forces spans more than 60 years. Founded in 1946 by World War II Army veteran Carl Buchan, Lowe’s is proud to be a military friendly employer and a longtime supporter of the USO. Lowe’s employs more than 16,000 military veterans.

ABOUT THE USO

The USO lifts the spirits of America’s troops and their families millions of times each year at hundreds of places worldwide. We provide a touch of home through centers at airports and military bases in the U.S. and abroad, top quality entertainment and innovative programs and services. We also provide critical support to those who need us most, including forward-deployed troops, military families, wounded warriors and families of the fallen. The USO is a private, non-profit organization, not a government agency. Our programs and services are made possible by the American people, support of our corporate partners and the dedication of our volunteers and staff.

ABOUT LOWE’S

With fiscal year 2012 sales of $50.5 billion, Lowe’s Companies, Inc. is a FORTUNE® 100 company that serves approximately 15 million customers a week at more than 1,750 home improvement stores in the United States, Canada and Mexico. Founded in 1946 and based in Mooresville, N.C., Lowe’s is the second-largest home improvement retailer in the world. For more information, visit Lowes.com.

Contacts

Lowe’s Companies, Inc.
Jaclyn Pardini, 704-758-4317
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
or
Lowe’s Companies, Inc.
Tara Gudger, 704-758-4152
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
or
USO
Kenya Friend-Daniel, 703-908-6491
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

 

 
Big Brother, not Snowden and Greenwald, Is the Story
User Rating: / 0
Blog, Commentary and Articles - Civil Liberties and Advocacy Efforts
Written by Sheldon Richman   
Thursday, 27 June 2013
Big Brother, not Snowden and Greenwald, Is the Story
by Sheldon Richman
 
“Instead of being adversaries to government power … [the media of Washington, D.C., are] … servants to it and mouthpieces for it.”
 
So said the Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald, who broke the story of Edward Snowden’s disclosure of NSA spying on the American people, after Greenwald’s confrontation with Meet the Press’s David Gregory. Greenwald needn’t have limited his observation to the D.C. media. Plenty of reporters and cable-news talking heads are playing the same role in the NSA drama.
 
Indeed, if they spent half the time investigating Obama’s Big Brother operations that they spend sneering at Snowden and Greenwald, Americans might demand that the government stop spying on them.
 
But to much of the mainstream (and not-so-mainstream) media, Snowden and Greenwald — not the NSA, the Obama administration, and the supine Congress — are the story — a story of villainy.
 
The examples are endless. The day after Snowden revealed himself as the whistleblower, Joe Scarborough, the former Republican congressman and host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, ordered his director to take the image of “that weasel” off the screen. The other day, his sidekick, Mika Brzezinski, asked, “Is there anything we can do to track him down?” (Emphasis added.) She meant the government.
 
Brzezinski went on to accuse Snowden of taking the job with NSA contractor Booz Allen Hamilton “to screw over our government.” That’s how one who speaks power to truth spins it. Snowden’s service to the American people is hardly undercut by his having taken the job intending to expose government violations of the Fourth Amendment.
 
MSNBC’s self-identification as a progressive network is hard to square with its unrelenting assaults on Snowden and Greenwald, and its de-emphasis of NSA surveillance. Andrea Mitchell, who functions as the network’s chief diplomatic stenographer, wondered why the NSA was hiring contractors when it could be recruiting people with the “right value system” from the military. (She's forgotten that whistleblower Bradley Manning is in the military.) Chris Matthews of Hardball says that any foreign government that won't turn Snowden over to the U.S. government is “no buddy of ours.”
 
MSNBC personnel routinely describe Greenwald as “defensive,” which apparently is their code word for people who push back at stupid questions. For example, when Gregory asked Greenwald if he could be indicted for “aiding and abetting” Snowden, and Greenwald asked in return how a journalist could equate reporting with criminal activity, he was treated with disdain. Gregory even questioned Greenwald’s journalistic credentials, as did Paul Farhi of the Washington Post.
 
I’ve focused on MSNBC because it has so egregiously and persistently circled the wagons around the government. It’s an old story: TV hosts and reporters need access to government officials, but access is jeopardized if they antagonize those officials. Better to play it safe and sneer at Snowden and Greenwald.
 
You don’t have to work for MSNBC to suck up to power. Op-ed writers from conservative David Brooks to progressive Richard Cohen have tried to portray Snowden as an alienated oddball, as though no one could have a legitimate purpose in unmasking government surveillance. (Brooks thought it relevant to write that Snowden “has not been a regular presence around his mother’s house for years.” Really!) Pundits repeatedly refer to Snowden’s having dropped out of high school, which apparently signals some serious moral or mental defect in the young man. More likely he was bored with the dull and regimented curriculum so typical of government high schools.
 
Others have tried to read much into Snowden’s stops in Hong Kong and Moscow. He might be a spy, they suggest. But wouldn’t a spy have kept his identity secret while selling his information to “the enemy”? It doesn’t occur to the pundits that Snowden’s priority right now is to stay out of the clutches of the U.S. government. Snowden has no moral obligation to be a martyr. Let’s not forget how Bradley Manning has been treated for his disclosures of government wrongdoing. He faces life imprisonment.
 
Snowden and Greenwald have not “aided the enemy” — unless the American people are the government’s enemy. What they have done is embarrass the Obama administration by exposing criminal activity.
 
For the media’s defenders of power against truth, that’s inexcusable.
 
Sheldon Richman is vice president and editor at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va. (www.fff.org).
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Results 41 - 45 of 3435
Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left
Ring Owner: Thomas Knapp Site: Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left
Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet
Get Your Free Web Ring
by Bravenet.com
escort bayan escort escort istanbul