?

Log in

No account? Create an account
GOOD GOD - alyburns' (aka sideburns & alyjude) Hiding Place
If you spoke faster than David Hewlett you’d travel back in time: Michael Shanks
alyburns
alyburns
GOOD GOD
Even as we have people all over the country protesting the greed of American businesses/stock market gamblers/paid-for-politicians, we have a man running for the Republican nomination for President of the United States accused of sexual harassment. This same man calls the victims, "anonymous accusers" even though two have allowed themselves to be vilified because they were strong enough to allow their names to be released (and one to give a press conference). And in spite of the fact that settlements - as in more than ONE - were made due to complaints against Mr. C's (I refuse to say his name since he manages to get it said more than enough all by himself) actions, this man still uses the phrase "anonymous" and blames it all first on Rick Perry and then, of course, the Democrats. And in spite of all facts, this man is gaining in the polls and in money.

But if that weren't bad enough, we now have protesters at and around Penn State because of a sexual assault scandal. Are they protesting the man who committed the assaults? NO. They're protesting the fact that Coach Paterno was fired. And why was he fired? Because he followed a law that said when informed of a sexual assault, he need only report it to the university.

So. Is America screwed up or what? One man gains support in spite of numerous complaints of sexual harassment while at the same time, people are protesting the firing of a man who could have STOPPED the sexual assault of boys.

I wonder what ex-Senator Weiner is thinking right now? He had to step down (at the behest of his own party) and all he did was send sexually suggestive pictures to woman he was conversing with online and on a cell phone, none of whom asked him to stop sending said photos!

Evidently, at Penn State, football is far more important than stopping sexual assaults. Far more important that it's okay for a coach to drop the ball because he's protected by antiquated laws. Oh, and the assistant coach who actually witnessed one of the assaults (against a 10 year-old boy) wasn't fired at all even though he's the one who reported the assault to Paterno!

So - should anyone be fired for failing to do more than tell university personnel of a "possible" *snort* sexual assault (which resulted in allowing Coach Sandusky to continue assaulting boys) when that was all their state law required? Should a coach know better? Should McQuery, the asst. coach who witnessed one of the assaults have done more than simply tell Paterno? Should he have done more when NOTHING happened? Should Paterno have done more when nothing happened?

Should You-Know-Who permit the National Restaurant Association to release the women from their non-disclosure agreements? Should he stop the whole 'hiring of a defamation lawyer' who then tells everyone they'd "better think twice" before coming forward?

I may only be a female and not a football fanatic or a You-Know-Who fan, but still, I feel these aren't even questions that need asking. The answer is too simple. The answer is YES.

The answer is always yes. Yes, report it. Yes, stand up and tell the world. Yes, risk everything (and you will be), but DO THE RIGHT THING. Always.

Tags:

6 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
cluesby4 From: cluesby4 Date: November 11th, 2011 04:52 am (UTC) (Link)
I have always felt the values of this country was screwed up due to it's obsession with sports. I saw its effect on the educational system firsthand.

Right now I am put out with OWS. At least the one here in Charleston. Though I am not a fan of Bachmann, the woman was not doing a campaign speech but a patriotic speech for the veterans at the Yorktown. The OWS was out and out rude and ugly interrupting the service. My uncle's name is on that ship. He was killed in the Pacific. And I would have been at that service if I was not taking care of mom. It was rude, uncalled for.

OWS you do not represent 99% of the US.
alyburns From: alyburns Date: November 13th, 2011 05:13 am (UTC) (Link)

I feel the need to kind of put Thursday in perspective?

In the case you cited, Bachmann was *not* doing a patriotic speech. This was a stop on her campaign trail and the speech, as reported by every news media, was on Foreign Policy; the Defense Budget in particular, which is why she chose the decommissioned Yorktown as her venue and why, in the videos, you see Bachmann tents etc. It was a campaign stop.

As for the protestors, IMHO, they weren't disrespectful; they were there in reaction to a specific speech Bachmann made on November 3rd (in Ames, Iowa) where she said, "A vocal minority called Occupy Wall Street believes that the problem we face is capitalism or free markets. It's not. The problem is government doing what both the Constitution and decent morality prohibit, that is crony capitalism." (BTW: You can find the entire speech here)

Needless to say, many would argue that the OWS is no longer a minority - not by any means - and the OWS would staunchly argue that it is NOT capitalism they're protesting, but the greed of Wall Street that gambled on failure, thus nearly destroying us and ruining millions of lives across the country. Most of her November 3rd speech was the usual rhetoric towing the typical tea party line regarding "Job Creators" and how helpless they are against our mean old Federal government whom she blames (for 'government' read: Democrats and Obama) for hobbling the so-called "Job Creators". But the truth is, our 'job creators' chose profit over the American worker and sent our jobs overseas for one reason and one only:

It was CHEAPER.


Big Business doesn't care about the American working man or woman, and neither does Bachmann or any other Republican currently vying for the Presidential nomination. Big Business doesn't care about the jobs they destroyed by shifting them to third world countries - they care about only one thing: profit. The bottom line. And by sending all our manufacturing jobs (and other types) overseas, they no longer have to worry about paying a fair wage (let alone our Federal 'minimum wage' which most of the Republicans running say they would abolish) or creating a safe environment (thanks to an agency - the EPA - which they all want to abolish as well). Unfortunately, such agencies and laws are expensive for businesses and interfere with profits and bonuses the owners, CEO's etc. so dearly treasure. Hence, a few very powerful men (those backing these politicians and yes, some Democrats too), want these 'impediments' to go away. That's why the attack on collective bargaining, the EPA, and all Federal agencies charged with ensuring that businesses - all types of businesses - don't cheat in ways that would endanger our lives or this planet.

Businesses want to go back to the 'good old' days when there were no regulations that paid for overtime, paid a fair wage, ensured safety protocols were followed, etc. And definitely back to the days when unions couldn't protect workers. And they sure don't want to continue having to consider women, blacks and other minorities for jobs instead of just white men, even though the others may be more qualified. No, sir!

But hey, if they *do* win and those 'good ol' days' return, they say the jobs will come back too. Unfortunately, the cost may be a bit too high and one the OWS don't think we should pay. I tend to agree. *shrugs*

Now if the videos I've seen show something that isn't accurate (and I've watched both 'right' and 'left' versions *G*), please point me in another direction :)

And btw: Based on what the OWS is about, namely the fact that 1% of the population controls the wealth (and thus the country), which leaves 99% - you *are* part of the 99% *G* well, unless you've become a billionaire overnight, anyway! :)

Edited at 2011-11-13 05:13 am (UTC)
cluesby4 From: cluesby4 Date: November 13th, 2011 02:04 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: I feel the need to kind of put Thursday in perspective?

Don't care why OWS was reacting...to what speech. Yes, it was part of her campaign trail. But the service was NOT part of her campaign, was not set up solely for her speech. Every year the Yorktown has patriotic speakers on Veterans Day Eve. I would have been there as in prior years if I had had the chance.

And again, I am angry to the point of saying "I am not part of the 99%." Not due to wealth, but view and methodology. Each day I become more and more personally angry at the OWS and their 'sit-ins'. Just because I am not part of the 1% wealthy, does not mean I share the ideals of this group. And I refuse to clump all of the 1% together. Some people of the 1% use their wealth for the good, some not. That's what I hate about things like this. Everything is NOT black or white, either or.

And in the case of some of the sit ins, when they start rioting and destroying personal property, do you really think it is of the 1%? I don't. Granted these riots are actually started by outsiders as is many times the case for any protest, but still people are injured or killed. Property is still destroyed.

Edited at 2011-11-13 02:13 pm (UTC)
alyburns From: alyburns Date: November 13th, 2011 05:21 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: I feel the need to kind of put Thursday in perspective?

But the service was NOT part of her campaign, was not set up solely for her speech.

You're right, however, this was not her first visit to the Yorktown nor the first by a politician running for office. In fact, "Since 2000, every presidential candidate has used the site as a backdrop, according to the Patriots Point Naval & Maritime Museum." She wasn't there for patriotic reasons, she was there as a possible nominee for her party (and to sell her book at a booth you can see in some of the videos).

Oh, and Susan, please, trust me when I say that I'm not making light of the events taking place on Thursday or of the Yorktown and what it means, but her appearance and speech were just one activity taking place at the museum and she paid a fee to be there; to have a tent just like any other vendor. And yes, the protestors paid to board the ship too, just like all tourists and visitors.

On another note, I'd like to understand your anger regarding the OWS protestors - I mean, maybe it's the slight difference in our ages? Or what you've experienced there in SC? Something more drastic than in other states? Of course, I'm older than you but not by much, right? And yes, my past does include protesting, afros (Oh, GOD, you should me in that afro *shakes head at self*) carrying signs, sit-ins; the works - both in high school and college (protesting the war and protesting for Civil Rights), and yep, the woman's movement too, albeit late *G* (yes, I burned my bra and to this day --- ssh, don't tell --- but I rarely where them *G*). So for me, this is...kind of like old times which is maybe why I can't understand your anger? As far as I've seen, and I've seen a lot on the news and web, etc., the protestors around the country are made up of people of all ages, religions, color and backgrounds. They're Republicans, Democrats, Independents, the Green party, and people with no party. Men in suits, kids in the old tie-dyed jeans, all standing and sitting side-by-side as they protest. Heck, this movement is far more diverse than anything we experienced in the 60's and 70's! LOL! And far more polite (not counting the few troublemakers)

And in the case of some of the sit ins, when they start rioting and destroying personal property, do you really think it is of the 1%? I don't. Granted these riots are actually started by outsiders as is many times the case for any protest, but still people are injured or killed. Property is still destroyed.

So are you saying people shouldn't protest because of the possible actions of a few? Should we really allow those few incidences - out of the thousands who are protesting quietly and safely - taint any movement whether we agree with the principles or not? Doesn't that kind of fly in the face of what we're founded on? I mean, in many cases, members of the OWS actually *stopped* protestors who turned violent (like starting to topple a police car) and asked them to leave because that wasn't their way or message.

Now, I can't speak for others, but I sure don't blame the OWS for the actions of the few, whether legit and carried out by truly hurt and angry people (who should know better) or by outsiders with their own agendas. I just can't do that, can't throw out the baby with the bathwater, you know?

But hey, it's all cool - we can agree to disagree and still love each other. :) Different strokes for different folks makes the world what it is, right? And the more we dialog, the more we learn. :) Always a good thing. *HUGS*

Edited at 2011-11-13 05:22 pm (UTC)
cluesby4 From: cluesby4 Date: November 11th, 2011 01:37 pm (UTC) (Link)
LJ is being a pain in the butt for me!

I just wanted to add the following link to my comment.
http://www2.counton2.com/news/2011/nov/10/7/occupy-wall-street-crowd-disrupts-bachmann-speech-ar-2685312/
kenitra_canada From: kenitra_canada Date: November 11th, 2011 10:22 pm (UTC) (Link)
Here in Ontario, Canada it is legislated that ANYONE (not just teachers and those who work with kids) must report suspicions directly to an authorized organization ie CAS, rather than just to a supervisor. But what gets me is that we have to be legislated to do the right thing. Obviously common sense is not enough.

K
6 comments or Leave a comment