Sunday, October 31, 2004
Friday, October 29, 2004
illegal rubber duckie
You are reading http://viridianariverstone.blogspot.com/.
Associated Press
Oct. 14, 2004
Ken York,
City Admin.
(931) 486-2252
Extension 215
Email: ken@ springhilltn.org
SPRING HILL, TN -- Katherine Williams says the yellow ducky sponge she put on sale at a flea market is merely a child's toy. City officials say the vibrator inside makes it a sex toy.
But officials in this Nashville suburb backed off from citing Williams for violating the city's sexually oriented business ordinance because she had already taken down her display by the time police responded to complaints Saturday. Nearby vendors also refused to be witnesses in the case.
"We've declined to prosecute because of a lack of evidence," City Administrator Ken York said Tuesday.
Williams, whose Passions & Pleasures business sells lotions and adult novelties at in-home parties, described her product line as "PG-13" and said she got only two negative comments at the flea market.
"Nothing we do is nasty, unless you have a nasty mind," she said, turning a knob on the yellow ducky's tail to make the sponge vibrate. "My 3-year-old son loves to play with this duck in the bath. He puts it on his neck and on his head."
Williams said she'll be back at the flea market next year.
"If she does, she'll be cited into court," York said. "That duck is a sexual toy, and it was on display. That was a vibrator on display in public view."
Published by
Associated Press
Is this the rubber duckie that's banned in Spring Hill, TN?
What do you think?
This material is copyrighted by its original publisher.
It is reprinted by Unknown�News without permission, solely for purposes of criticism, comment, and news reporting, in accordance with the Fair Use Guidelines of copyright material under 107 of U.S.C. Title 17.
http://www.unknownnews.org/041029rubberduckie.html
Associated Press
Oct. 14, 2004
Ken York,
City Admin.
(931) 486-2252
Extension 215
Email: ken@ springhilltn.org
SPRING HILL, TN -- Katherine Williams says the yellow ducky sponge she put on sale at a flea market is merely a child's toy. City officials say the vibrator inside makes it a sex toy.
But officials in this Nashville suburb backed off from citing Williams for violating the city's sexually oriented business ordinance because she had already taken down her display by the time police responded to complaints Saturday. Nearby vendors also refused to be witnesses in the case.
"We've declined to prosecute because of a lack of evidence," City Administrator Ken York said Tuesday.
Williams, whose Passions & Pleasures business sells lotions and adult novelties at in-home parties, described her product line as "PG-13" and said she got only two negative comments at the flea market.
"Nothing we do is nasty, unless you have a nasty mind," she said, turning a knob on the yellow ducky's tail to make the sponge vibrate. "My 3-year-old son loves to play with this duck in the bath. He puts it on his neck and on his head."
Williams said she'll be back at the flea market next year.
"If she does, she'll be cited into court," York said. "That duck is a sexual toy, and it was on display. That was a vibrator on display in public view."
Published by
Associated Press
Is this the rubber duckie that's banned in Spring Hill, TN?
What do you think?
This material is copyrighted by its original publisher.
It is reprinted by Unknown�News without permission, solely for purposes of criticism, comment, and news reporting, in accordance with the Fair Use Guidelines of copyright material under 107 of U.S.C. Title 17.
http://www.unknownnews.org/041029rubberduckie.html
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
O'Really?
You are reading http://viridianariverstone.blogspot.com/.
Date: 10/25/2004 15:22:32 -0700
Reply-to:fair
Subject: O'Reilly on Sexual Harassment: In His Own Words All headers � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � FAIR-L
� � � � � � � � � �Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
� � � � � � � Media analysis, critiques and activism
here
MEDIA ADVISORY:
O'Reilly on Sexual Harassment: In His Own Words
October 25, 2004
Andrea Mackris, an associate producer for Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly
Factor, filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against host Bill O'Reilly on
October 13. �O'Reilly has countersued Mackris and her attorney for
extortion, claiming that they demanded $60 million to settle the case out
of court-- a claim Mackris's attorney rejects. �As some news accounts have
pointed out, O'Reilly's lawyers are not denying that the sexually explicit
phone calls and conversations O'Reilly is alleged to have initiated
actually happened; instead, they are arguing that such behavior does not
constitute harassment (New York Times, 10/14/04).
According to some news reports, an out-of-court settlement is still a
possibility; if that does not happen, O'Reilly is of course entitled to
his day in court. �But over the years, O'Reilly has expressed some very
strong opinions about sexual harassment and the moral responsibilities of
public officials. �These comments should be taken into consideration as
viewers and reporters consider the case, no matter what the outcome.
--On public officials, their private lives and moral judgment (7/16/01):
"There is a strong movement in America to remove any kind of value-based
argument. We see this all the time.... Public officials have the right to
lie about sex because it is no one's business what they do in private,
even if sexual harassment suits are lodged against them, i.e., President
Clinton, or even if a young girl disappears shortly after talking with a
congressman she was intimate with. Hello, Gary Condit. Many Americans
simply cannot or will not make judgments about behavior. And this is a
tremendous change in our society. The danger here is that the absence of
value-based judgments breaks down justice and discipline."
--On Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky (8/7/01):
"I was screaming this, nobody else really drove the nail. But under the
federal guidelines, as you know, if you have more power than a subordinate
and you both work in the federal system, it's sexual harassment for you to
have even a consensual affair with that person."
--When Ohio TV anchor Catherine Bosley resigned after photos of her
participating in a wet t-shirt contest were posted on the internet,
O'Reilly thought she should be let go (1/23/04):
"Let's be realistic. Politicians, news people, clergy all have images, and
all depend on the trust of the public to succeed. So we have a young woman
here who-- anchoring the news, and her pictures are all over the
Internet..... So it intrudes on her ability to communicate the news, does
it not?"
"The station has an obligation to put on people who are going to bolster
their news image. This woman, in a community like that particularly, but
in -- I think in any city in the USA, becomes a joke, and, therefore, the
station becomes a joke, and you can't be a joke if you want to compete in
the news area."
"Are you aware that in every newscaster's contract, there's a moral clause
that says, if you embarrass the station publicly in any way, they can let
you go.... Once you go public and do something like that, although it's
not illegal, it embarrasses your employer because your employer operates
on credibility."
-- Discussing an Elle magazine survey about sex in the workplace
(5/13/02):
"I have to explain to the audience that there is no sex allowed at Fox on
the job. We can't have sex here at Fox. �But MSNBC apparently have lots of
sex over there, which is why we beat them in the ratings. �Because as
we're working to give you programs, they're all having sex."
When one guest-- a human resources expert-- expressed skepticism about how
widespread workplace sex could be, O'Reilly responded:
"You know, I do know some people who do that. And here's why they do it.
It's a sense of danger. And a lot of people like that danger element in
sex. So they want to have sex and maybe they'll get caught. And that kind
of heightens their-- whatever."
--On October 21, 2003, O'Reilly said the following:
"Put yourself in this position. You make an enemy. That person accuses you
of some sex crime, maybe harassment. You're totally innocent, but the
accusation is made public. Your life will never, ever be the same. Talking
Points believes society must rethink how this sex stuff is handled and
that those who do bogus charges should be punished. Raping a person's
character is a crime, too. And evil people who do that should be held
accountable."
O'Reilly then posed these questions to his guests:
"There's no real stats on how many sex charges, sex harassment charges,
all of that, molestation, are bogus, is there?"
"This new sexual harassment can be used as a weapon, can it not?"
--On March 23, 2004, O'Reilly interviewed Linda Mills, author of the book "Insult to Injury: Rethinking Our Responses to Intimate Abuse." O'Reilly
previewed the segment this way: "In a moment, a professor of social work
says women may bear some responsibility for sexual harassment." �During
the interview, O'Reilly explained his take on the law this way:
"Look, I think that the sexual harassment thing is used as a club, as I said, by many women, all right. It's something they have against men, a
threat to keep men at bay in a very competitive marketplace.... You know,
there are women who manipulate themselves and use their sexuality to get ahead, all right. And then these women will turn around and file a sexual
harassment.... But how do you prove it? It's very difficult to prove it."
O'Reilly continued: "Well, it's changed my life. I'll tell you, when I was
a thug coming up, I mean I would say almost anything around women, and now
I don't say anything, you know, that could be remotely taken-- you know,
because, obviously, I'm a big target, and any kind of a thing like that
stigmatizes you, whether you're guilty or not, doesn't it? So it's --
women -- that's a big power source for them, and I think some women use it
ruthlessly."
FAIR produces CounterSpin, a weekly radio show heard on over 130 stations in the U.S. and Canada. To find the CounterSpin station nearest you, visithere
Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair@fair.org ). We can't reply to everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate documented examples of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of your email correspondence with media outlets, including any responses, to fair@fair.org .
You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site:here . Our subscriber list is kept confidential.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �FAIR
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � (212) 633-6700
� � � � � � � � � � � �here
� � � � � � � � � � � � �E-mail: fair@fair.org
Date: 10/25/2004 15:22:32 -0700
Reply-to:
fair
Subject: O'Reilly on Sexual Harassment: In His Own Words All headers � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � FAIR-L
� � � � � � � � � �Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
� � � � � � � Media analysis, critiques and activism
here
MEDIA ADVISORY:
O'Reilly on Sexual Harassment: In His Own Words
October 25, 2004
Andrea Mackris, an associate producer for Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly
Factor, filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against host Bill O'Reilly on
October 13. �O'Reilly has countersued Mackris and her attorney for
extortion, claiming that they demanded $60 million to settle the case out
of court-- a claim Mackris's attorney rejects. �As some news accounts have
pointed out, O'Reilly's lawyers are not denying that the sexually explicit
phone calls and conversations O'Reilly is alleged to have initiated
actually happened; instead, they are arguing that such behavior does not
constitute harassment (New York Times, 10/14/04).
According to some news reports, an out-of-court settlement is still a
possibility; if that does not happen, O'Reilly is of course entitled to
his day in court. �But over the years, O'Reilly has expressed some very
strong opinions about sexual harassment and the moral responsibilities of
public officials. �These comments should be taken into consideration as
viewers and reporters consider the case, no matter what the outcome.
--On public officials, their private lives and moral judgment (7/16/01):
"There is a strong movement in America to remove any kind of value-based
argument. We see this all the time.... Public officials have the right to
lie about sex because it is no one's business what they do in private,
even if sexual harassment suits are lodged against them, i.e., President
Clinton, or even if a young girl disappears shortly after talking with a
congressman she was intimate with. Hello, Gary Condit. Many Americans
simply cannot or will not make judgments about behavior. And this is a
tremendous change in our society. The danger here is that the absence of
value-based judgments breaks down justice and discipline."
--On Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky (8/7/01):
"I was screaming this, nobody else really drove the nail. But under the
federal guidelines, as you know, if you have more power than a subordinate
and you both work in the federal system, it's sexual harassment for you to
have even a consensual affair with that person."
--When Ohio TV anchor Catherine Bosley resigned after photos of her
participating in a wet t-shirt contest were posted on the internet,
O'Reilly thought she should be let go (1/23/04):
"Let's be realistic. Politicians, news people, clergy all have images, and
all depend on the trust of the public to succeed. So we have a young woman
here who-- anchoring the news, and her pictures are all over the
Internet..... So it intrudes on her ability to communicate the news, does
it not?"
"The station has an obligation to put on people who are going to bolster
their news image. This woman, in a community like that particularly, but
in -- I think in any city in the USA, becomes a joke, and, therefore, the
station becomes a joke, and you can't be a joke if you want to compete in
the news area."
"Are you aware that in every newscaster's contract, there's a moral clause
that says, if you embarrass the station publicly in any way, they can let
you go.... Once you go public and do something like that, although it's
not illegal, it embarrasses your employer because your employer operates
on credibility."
-- Discussing an Elle magazine survey about sex in the workplace
(5/13/02):
"I have to explain to the audience that there is no sex allowed at Fox on
the job. We can't have sex here at Fox. �But MSNBC apparently have lots of
sex over there, which is why we beat them in the ratings. �Because as
we're working to give you programs, they're all having sex."
When one guest-- a human resources expert-- expressed skepticism about how
widespread workplace sex could be, O'Reilly responded:
"You know, I do know some people who do that. And here's why they do it.
It's a sense of danger. And a lot of people like that danger element in
sex. So they want to have sex and maybe they'll get caught. And that kind
of heightens their-- whatever."
--On October 21, 2003, O'Reilly said the following:
"Put yourself in this position. You make an enemy. That person accuses you
of some sex crime, maybe harassment. You're totally innocent, but the
accusation is made public. Your life will never, ever be the same. Talking
Points believes society must rethink how this sex stuff is handled and
that those who do bogus charges should be punished. Raping a person's
character is a crime, too. And evil people who do that should be held
accountable."
O'Reilly then posed these questions to his guests:
"There's no real stats on how many sex charges, sex harassment charges,
all of that, molestation, are bogus, is there?"
"This new sexual harassment can be used as a weapon, can it not?"
--On March 23, 2004, O'Reilly interviewed Linda Mills, author of the book "Insult to Injury: Rethinking Our Responses to Intimate Abuse." O'Reilly
previewed the segment this way: "In a moment, a professor of social work
says women may bear some responsibility for sexual harassment." �During
the interview, O'Reilly explained his take on the law this way:
"Look, I think that the sexual harassment thing is used as a club, as I said, by many women, all right. It's something they have against men, a
threat to keep men at bay in a very competitive marketplace.... You know,
there are women who manipulate themselves and use their sexuality to get ahead, all right. And then these women will turn around and file a sexual
harassment.... But how do you prove it? It's very difficult to prove it."
O'Reilly continued: "Well, it's changed my life. I'll tell you, when I was
a thug coming up, I mean I would say almost anything around women, and now
I don't say anything, you know, that could be remotely taken-- you know,
because, obviously, I'm a big target, and any kind of a thing like that
stigmatizes you, whether you're guilty or not, doesn't it? So it's --
women -- that's a big power source for them, and I think some women use it
ruthlessly."
FAIR produces CounterSpin, a weekly radio show heard on over 130 stations in the U.S. and Canada. To find the CounterSpin station nearest you, visit
here
Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair@fair.org ). We can't reply to everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate documented examples of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of your email correspondence with media outlets, including any responses, to fair@fair.org .
You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site:
here . Our subscriber list is kept confidential.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �FAIR
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � (212) 633-6700
� � � � � � � � � � � �
here
� � � � � � � � � � � � �E-mail: fair@fair.org
O'Really?
You are reading http://viridianariverstone.blogspot.com/.
Date: 10/25/2004 15:22:32 -0700
Reply-to:fair
Subject: O'Reilly on Sexual Harassment: In His Own Words All headers � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � FAIR-L
� � � � � � � � � �Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
� � � � � � � Media analysis, critiques and activism
here
MEDIA ADVISORY:
O'Reilly on Sexual Harassment: In His Own Words
October 25, 2004
Andrea Mackris, an associate producer for Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly
Factor, filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against host Bill O'Reilly on
October 13. �O'Reilly has countersued Mackris and her attorney for
extortion, claiming that they demanded $60 million to settle the case out
of court-- a claim Mackris's attorney rejects. �As some news accounts have
pointed out, O'Reilly's lawyers are not denying that the sexually explicit
phone calls and conversations O'Reilly is alleged to have initiated
actually happened; instead, they are arguing that such behavior does not
constitute harassment (New York Times, 10/14/04).
According to some news reports, an out-of-court settlement is still a
possibility; if that does not happen, O'Reilly is of course entitled to
his day in court. �But over the years, O'Reilly has expressed some very
strong opinions about sexual harassment and the moral responsibilities of
public officials. �These comments should be taken into consideration as
viewers and reporters consider the case, no matter what the outcome.
--On public officials, their private lives and moral judgment (7/16/01):
"There is a strong movement in America to remove any kind of value-based
argument. We see this all the time.... Public officials have the right to
lie about sex because it is no one's business what they do in private,
even if sexual harassment suits are lodged against them, i.e., President
Clinton, or even if a young girl disappears shortly after talking with a
congressman she was intimate with. Hello, Gary Condit. Many Americans
simply cannot or will not make judgments about behavior. And this is a
tremendous change in our society. The danger here is that the absence of
value-based judgments breaks down justice and discipline."
--On Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky (8/7/01):
"I was screaming this, nobody else really drove the nail. But under the
federal guidelines, as you know, if you have more power than a subordinate
and you both work in the federal system, it's sexual harassment for you to
have even a consensual affair with that person."
--When Ohio TV anchor Catherine Bosley resigned after photos of her
participating in a wet t-shirt contest were posted on the internet,
O'Reilly thought she should be let go (1/23/04):
"Let's be realistic. Politicians, news people, clergy all have images, and
all depend on the trust of the public to succeed. So we have a young woman
here who-- anchoring the news, and her pictures are all over the
Internet..... So it intrudes on her ability to communicate the news, does
it not?"
"The station has an obligation to put on people who are going to bolster
their news image. This woman, in a community like that particularly, but
in -- I think in any city in the USA, becomes a joke, and, therefore, the
station becomes a joke, and you can't be a joke if you want to compete in
the news area."
"Are you aware that in every newscaster's contract, there's a moral clause
that says, if you embarrass the station publicly in any way, they can let
you go.... Once you go public and do something like that, although it's
not illegal, it embarrasses your employer because your employer operates
on credibility."
-- Discussing an Elle magazine survey about sex in the workplace
(5/13/02):
"I have to explain to the audience that there is no sex allowed at Fox on
the job. We can't have sex here at Fox. �But MSNBC apparently have lots of
sex over there, which is why we beat them in the ratings. �Because as
we're working to give you programs, they're all having sex."
When one guest-- a human resources expert-- expressed skepticism about how
widespread workplace sex could be, O'Reilly responded:
"You know, I do know some people who do that. And here's why they do it.
It's a sense of danger. And a lot of people like that danger element in
sex. So they want to have sex and maybe they'll get caught. And that kind
of heightens their-- whatever."
--On October 21, 2003, O'Reilly said the following:
"Put yourself in this position. You make an enemy. That person accuses you
of some sex crime, maybe harassment. You're totally innocent, but the
accusation is made public. Your life will never, ever be the same. Talking
Points believes society must rethink how this sex stuff is handled and
that those who do bogus charges should be punished. Raping a person's
character is a crime, too. And evil people who do that should be held
accountable."
O'Reilly then posed these questions to his guests:
"There's no real stats on how many sex charges, sex harassment charges,
all of that, molestation, are bogus, is there?"
"This new sexual harassment can be used as a weapon, can it not?"
--On March 23, 2004, O'Reilly interviewed Linda Mills, author of the book "Insult to Injury: Rethinking Our Responses to Intimate Abuse." O'Reilly
previewed the segment this way: "In a moment, a professor of social work
says women may bear some responsibility for sexual harassment." �During
the interview, O'Reilly explained his take on the law this way:
"Look, I think that the sexual harassment thing is used as a club, as I said, by many women, all right. It's something they have against men, a
threat to keep men at bay in a very competitive marketplace.... You know,
there are women who manipulate themselves and use their sexuality to get ahead, all right. And then these women will turn around and file a sexual
harassment.... But how do you prove it? It's very difficult to prove it."
O'Reilly continued: "Well, it's changed my life. I'll tell you, when I was
a thug coming up, I mean I would say almost anything around women, and now
I don't say anything, you know, that could be remotely taken-- you know,
because, obviously, I'm a big target, and any kind of a thing like that
stigmatizes you, whether you're guilty or not, doesn't it? So it's --
women -- that's a big power source for them, and I think some women use it
ruthlessly."
FAIR produces CounterSpin, a weekly radio show heard on over 130 stations in the U.S. and Canada. To find the CounterSpin station nearest you, visithere
Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair@fair.org ). We can't reply to everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate documented examples of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of your email correspondence with media outlets, including any responses, to fair@fair.org .
You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site:here . Our subscriber list is kept confidential.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �FAIR
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � (212) 633-6700
� � � � � � � � � � � �here
� � � � � � � � � � � � �E-mail: fair@fair.org
Date: 10/25/2004 15:22:32 -0700
Reply-to:
fair
Subject: O'Reilly on Sexual Harassment: In His Own Words All headers � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � FAIR-L
� � � � � � � � � �Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
� � � � � � � Media analysis, critiques and activism
here
MEDIA ADVISORY:
O'Reilly on Sexual Harassment: In His Own Words
October 25, 2004
Andrea Mackris, an associate producer for Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly
Factor, filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against host Bill O'Reilly on
October 13. �O'Reilly has countersued Mackris and her attorney for
extortion, claiming that they demanded $60 million to settle the case out
of court-- a claim Mackris's attorney rejects. �As some news accounts have
pointed out, O'Reilly's lawyers are not denying that the sexually explicit
phone calls and conversations O'Reilly is alleged to have initiated
actually happened; instead, they are arguing that such behavior does not
constitute harassment (New York Times, 10/14/04).
According to some news reports, an out-of-court settlement is still a
possibility; if that does not happen, O'Reilly is of course entitled to
his day in court. �But over the years, O'Reilly has expressed some very
strong opinions about sexual harassment and the moral responsibilities of
public officials. �These comments should be taken into consideration as
viewers and reporters consider the case, no matter what the outcome.
--On public officials, their private lives and moral judgment (7/16/01):
"There is a strong movement in America to remove any kind of value-based
argument. We see this all the time.... Public officials have the right to
lie about sex because it is no one's business what they do in private,
even if sexual harassment suits are lodged against them, i.e., President
Clinton, or even if a young girl disappears shortly after talking with a
congressman she was intimate with. Hello, Gary Condit. Many Americans
simply cannot or will not make judgments about behavior. And this is a
tremendous change in our society. The danger here is that the absence of
value-based judgments breaks down justice and discipline."
--On Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky (8/7/01):
"I was screaming this, nobody else really drove the nail. But under the
federal guidelines, as you know, if you have more power than a subordinate
and you both work in the federal system, it's sexual harassment for you to
have even a consensual affair with that person."
--When Ohio TV anchor Catherine Bosley resigned after photos of her
participating in a wet t-shirt contest were posted on the internet,
O'Reilly thought she should be let go (1/23/04):
"Let's be realistic. Politicians, news people, clergy all have images, and
all depend on the trust of the public to succeed. So we have a young woman
here who-- anchoring the news, and her pictures are all over the
Internet..... So it intrudes on her ability to communicate the news, does
it not?"
"The station has an obligation to put on people who are going to bolster
their news image. This woman, in a community like that particularly, but
in -- I think in any city in the USA, becomes a joke, and, therefore, the
station becomes a joke, and you can't be a joke if you want to compete in
the news area."
"Are you aware that in every newscaster's contract, there's a moral clause
that says, if you embarrass the station publicly in any way, they can let
you go.... Once you go public and do something like that, although it's
not illegal, it embarrasses your employer because your employer operates
on credibility."
-- Discussing an Elle magazine survey about sex in the workplace
(5/13/02):
"I have to explain to the audience that there is no sex allowed at Fox on
the job. We can't have sex here at Fox. �But MSNBC apparently have lots of
sex over there, which is why we beat them in the ratings. �Because as
we're working to give you programs, they're all having sex."
When one guest-- a human resources expert-- expressed skepticism about how
widespread workplace sex could be, O'Reilly responded:
"You know, I do know some people who do that. And here's why they do it.
It's a sense of danger. And a lot of people like that danger element in
sex. So they want to have sex and maybe they'll get caught. And that kind
of heightens their-- whatever."
--On October 21, 2003, O'Reilly said the following:
"Put yourself in this position. You make an enemy. That person accuses you
of some sex crime, maybe harassment. You're totally innocent, but the
accusation is made public. Your life will never, ever be the same. Talking
Points believes society must rethink how this sex stuff is handled and
that those who do bogus charges should be punished. Raping a person's
character is a crime, too. And evil people who do that should be held
accountable."
O'Reilly then posed these questions to his guests:
"There's no real stats on how many sex charges, sex harassment charges,
all of that, molestation, are bogus, is there?"
"This new sexual harassment can be used as a weapon, can it not?"
--On March 23, 2004, O'Reilly interviewed Linda Mills, author of the book "Insult to Injury: Rethinking Our Responses to Intimate Abuse." O'Reilly
previewed the segment this way: "In a moment, a professor of social work
says women may bear some responsibility for sexual harassment." �During
the interview, O'Reilly explained his take on the law this way:
"Look, I think that the sexual harassment thing is used as a club, as I said, by many women, all right. It's something they have against men, a
threat to keep men at bay in a very competitive marketplace.... You know,
there are women who manipulate themselves and use their sexuality to get ahead, all right. And then these women will turn around and file a sexual
harassment.... But how do you prove it? It's very difficult to prove it."
O'Reilly continued: "Well, it's changed my life. I'll tell you, when I was
a thug coming up, I mean I would say almost anything around women, and now
I don't say anything, you know, that could be remotely taken-- you know,
because, obviously, I'm a big target, and any kind of a thing like that
stigmatizes you, whether you're guilty or not, doesn't it? So it's --
women -- that's a big power source for them, and I think some women use it
ruthlessly."
FAIR produces CounterSpin, a weekly radio show heard on over 130 stations in the U.S. and Canada. To find the CounterSpin station nearest you, visit
here
Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair@fair.org ). We can't reply to everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate documented examples of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of your email correspondence with media outlets, including any responses, to fair@fair.org .
You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site:
here . Our subscriber list is kept confidential.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �FAIR
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � (212) 633-6700
� � � � � � � � � � � �
here
� � � � � � � � � � � � �E-mail: fair@fair.org
Monday, October 25, 2004
89-year-old Quaker woman jailed for anti-war protest
You are reading http://viridianariverstone.blogspot.com/.
89-year-old Quaker woman jailed for anti-war protesthere
89-year-old Quaker woman jailed for anti-war protest
here
Friday, October 22, 2004
Green Belt Movement
You are reading http://viridianariverstone.blogspot.com/.
Daughter of 2004 Nobel Peace Prize Winner Wangari Maathai Discusses
her Mother, Kenya and the Environment
We speak with the Wanjira Maathai, daughter of Kenyan environmentalist
Wangari Maathai who was recently awarded the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize.
Wanjira is the international liaison for the world-renowned Green Belt
Movement which was founded by her mother.
Listen/Watch/Read
here
Daughter of 2004 Nobel Peace Prize Winner Wangari Maathai Discusses
her Mother, Kenya and the Environment
We speak with the Wanjira Maathai, daughter of Kenyan environmentalist
Wangari Maathai who was recently awarded the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize.
Wanjira is the international liaison for the world-renowned Green Belt
Movement which was founded by her mother.
Listen/Watch/Read
here
Green Belt Movement
You are reading http://viridianariverstone.blogspot.com/.
Daughter of 2004 Nobel Peace Prize Winner Wangari Maathai Discusses
her Mother, Kenya and the Environment
We speak with the Wanjira Maathai, daughter of Kenyan environmentalist
Wangari Maathai who was recently awarded the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize.
Wanjira is the international liaison for the world-renowned Green Belt
Movement which was founded by her mother.
Listen/Watch/Read
here
Daughter of 2004 Nobel Peace Prize Winner Wangari Maathai Discusses
her Mother, Kenya and the Environment
We speak with the Wanjira Maathai, daughter of Kenyan environmentalist
Wangari Maathai who was recently awarded the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize.
Wanjira is the international liaison for the world-renowned Green Belt
Movement which was founded by her mother.
Listen/Watch/Read
here
Stamping out rampant Lesbianism, one stall at a time
You are reading http://viridianariverstone.blogspot.com/.
Steve Horowitz: 'They're here, they're queer, let's vote on it'
Date: Friday, October 22 @ 10:19:29 EDT
Topic: Conservatives And The Right
By Steve Horowitz, CounterBias
Conservatives are always looking for new things to get worked up about. And Republicans are always looking for new ways to exploit their paranoia for political gain.
If it's not evolution, it's allowing women to vote and own property. Or the mixing of races and the end of prayer in public schools. Or the possibility that someone, somewhere, might take a match to the flag.
Yes, as Roseanne Rosannadanna used to say, it's always something. More often than not, it's something that requires a constitutional amendment to fix. And now it's gay marriage.
If you're like me, you've been too busy raising kids, paying bills and wondering how long it's been since you rotated your tires to worry about who carries who across the threshold. But conservatives aren't like us. Things like gay marriage are important to them. And with same-sex marriage bans on the ballot in 11 states, they could turn out in enough numbers on election day to affect issues that really matter.
Like which Yalie sits in the Oval Office.
At this point, my friends, I'm going to ask you to suppress the contempt you feel for these people and ask yourself:
What is it about homosexuals filing joint tax returns that frightens them so? Why, in the words of a Republican Senate candidate in Arkansas, is gay marriage "the most important issue, I believe, in America"?
Okay, I'm not sure either. But I know it has something to do with "the sanctity of marriage," which apparently would be violated if "best man" gets a whole new meaning. And I know it has a lot to do with "activist judges."
Activist judges, as the President has patiently explained to us, are "redefining marriage" to suit their personal views. And that would be wrong, just as it was when earlier judicial activists took it upon themselves to strike down segregation, poll taxes, literacy tests, interrogation without counsel, and laws forbidding birth control.
So groups like the Family Research Council tell us that the anti-gay referendums in 11 states were not "cooked up" just to ensure the turnout of likely Republican voters -- even though they and like-minded groups are distributing "scorecards" with legislators' gay-marriage voting records. No, they're doing it to "stand up for traditional marriage."
We should be thankful. Without the efforts of these sanctimonious people, anything could happen. Just look at Oklahoma, where, according to GOP Senate candidate Tom Coburn, "lesbianism is so rampant in some of the schools... that they'll only let one girl go to the bathroom" at a time.
And Oklahoma's a red state!
You may now return to your previous levels of contempt.
Steve Horowitz is a freelance advertising and political writer living in Hollywood, Fla. His blog is Love America, Hate Bush.
� 2004 CounterBias.com
Reprinted from CounterBias:
CounterBias
This article comes from The Smirking Chimp
SmirkingChimp.com
The URL for this story is:
here
Steve Horowitz: 'They're here, they're queer, let's vote on it'
Date: Friday, October 22 @ 10:19:29 EDT
Topic: Conservatives And The Right
By Steve Horowitz, CounterBias
Conservatives are always looking for new things to get worked up about. And Republicans are always looking for new ways to exploit their paranoia for political gain.
If it's not evolution, it's allowing women to vote and own property. Or the mixing of races and the end of prayer in public schools. Or the possibility that someone, somewhere, might take a match to the flag.
Yes, as Roseanne Rosannadanna used to say, it's always something. More often than not, it's something that requires a constitutional amendment to fix. And now it's gay marriage.
If you're like me, you've been too busy raising kids, paying bills and wondering how long it's been since you rotated your tires to worry about who carries who across the threshold. But conservatives aren't like us. Things like gay marriage are important to them. And with same-sex marriage bans on the ballot in 11 states, they could turn out in enough numbers on election day to affect issues that really matter.
Like which Yalie sits in the Oval Office.
At this point, my friends, I'm going to ask you to suppress the contempt you feel for these people and ask yourself:
What is it about homosexuals filing joint tax returns that frightens them so? Why, in the words of a Republican Senate candidate in Arkansas, is gay marriage "the most important issue, I believe, in America"?
Okay, I'm not sure either. But I know it has something to do with "the sanctity of marriage," which apparently would be violated if "best man" gets a whole new meaning. And I know it has a lot to do with "activist judges."
Activist judges, as the President has patiently explained to us, are "redefining marriage" to suit their personal views. And that would be wrong, just as it was when earlier judicial activists took it upon themselves to strike down segregation, poll taxes, literacy tests, interrogation without counsel, and laws forbidding birth control.
So groups like the Family Research Council tell us that the anti-gay referendums in 11 states were not "cooked up" just to ensure the turnout of likely Republican voters -- even though they and like-minded groups are distributing "scorecards" with legislators' gay-marriage voting records. No, they're doing it to "stand up for traditional marriage."
We should be thankful. Without the efforts of these sanctimonious people, anything could happen. Just look at Oklahoma, where, according to GOP Senate candidate Tom Coburn, "lesbianism is so rampant in some of the schools... that they'll only let one girl go to the bathroom" at a time.
And Oklahoma's a red state!
You may now return to your previous levels of contempt.
Steve Horowitz is a freelance advertising and political writer living in Hollywood, Fla. His blog is Love America, Hate Bush.
� 2004 CounterBias.com
Reprinted from CounterBias:
CounterBias
This article comes from The Smirking Chimp
SmirkingChimp.com
The URL for this story is:
here
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
US says women's rights are wrong
You are reading http://viridianariverstone.blogspot.com/.
http://www.unknownnews.org/041019sdrr.html
U.S. won't sign U.N. statement on women's rights
Associated Press
Oct. 14, 2004
UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The United States has refused to join 85 other heads of state and governments in signing a statement that endorsed a 10-year-old U.N. plan to ensure every woman's right to education, health care, and choice about having children.
President Bush's administration withheld its signature because the statement included a reference to "sexual rights."
U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kelly Ryan wrote to organizers of the statement that that the United States was committed to the plan of action adopted at a 1994 U.N. conference in Cairo and "to the empowerment of women and the need to promote women's fullest enjoyment of universal human rights."
"The United States is unable, however, to endorse the world leaders' statement," Ryan said, because it "includes the concept of 'sexual rights,' a term that has no agreed definition in the international community."
The 1994 Cairo program, signed by 179 countries, including the United States, says women have the "right to make decisions concerning reproduction, free of discrimination, coercion and violence as expressed in human rights documents."
While the Bush administration refused to sign the followup statement, the United States under Clinton did endorse the platform adopted a year after Cairo at the U.N. conference in Beijing that specifically mentioned sexual rights.
The United States took a leading role in drafting the Beijing document, which states: "The human rights of women include their right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence."
Bush has blocked $34 million in congressionally approved annual assistance to the United Nations Population Fund, alleging the U.N. agency helped China manage programs that involved forced abortions. China calls the charge baseless.
Published by
Associated Press
http://www.unknownnews.org/041019sdrr.html
U.S. won't sign U.N. statement on women's rights
Associated Press
Oct. 14, 2004
UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The United States has refused to join 85 other heads of state and governments in signing a statement that endorsed a 10-year-old U.N. plan to ensure every woman's right to education, health care, and choice about having children.
President Bush's administration withheld its signature because the statement included a reference to "sexual rights."
U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kelly Ryan wrote to organizers of the statement that that the United States was committed to the plan of action adopted at a 1994 U.N. conference in Cairo and "to the empowerment of women and the need to promote women's fullest enjoyment of universal human rights."
"The United States is unable, however, to endorse the world leaders' statement," Ryan said, because it "includes the concept of 'sexual rights,' a term that has no agreed definition in the international community."
The 1994 Cairo program, signed by 179 countries, including the United States, says women have the "right to make decisions concerning reproduction, free of discrimination, coercion and violence as expressed in human rights documents."
While the Bush administration refused to sign the followup statement, the United States under Clinton did endorse the platform adopted a year after Cairo at the U.N. conference in Beijing that specifically mentioned sexual rights.
The United States took a leading role in drafting the Beijing document, which states: "The human rights of women include their right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence."
Bush has blocked $34 million in congressionally approved annual assistance to the United Nations Population Fund, alleging the U.N. agency helped China manage programs that involved forced abortions. China calls the charge baseless.
Published by
Associated Press
Friday, October 08, 2004
military abortions
You are reading http://viridianariverstone.blogspot.com/.
Hi,
I thought your readers might be interested in this outrageous injustice
to our women in the military, particularly those serving in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Might you consider posting something about International Planned
Parenthood Federation's petition to Congress about this topic on your
discussion Blog?
The petition is online at:
here [personal note: I never sign online petitions; it's too easy for spammers to harvest email addresses that way].
�
Please let me know if you'd like to know more (more information is also
available at:
here).
Thanks,
Mara
Stop Mistreating Women in the Military!
here;
Did you know that the military won't cover the cost of abortion, even if
the servicewoman has been raped? But the military does cover the cost of
cosmetic surgery, including breast implants, nose jobs, and liposuction!
A ban on military abortions forces soldiers who become pregnant while
serving overseas to seek abortions at private clinics and to pay for the
procedure themselves, making it difficult and costly to end a pregnancy.
Worse yet, the ban leaves women serving in countries where abortion is
illegal - like Iraq and Afghanistan - nowhere to turn, effectively
depriving them of freedom of choice.
Hi,
I thought your readers might be interested in this outrageous injustice
to our women in the military, particularly those serving in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Might you consider posting something about International Planned
Parenthood Federation's petition to Congress about this topic on your
discussion Blog?
The petition is online at:
here [personal note: I never sign online petitions; it's too easy for spammers to harvest email addresses that way].
�
Please let me know if you'd like to know more (more information is also
available at:
here).
Thanks,
Mara
Stop Mistreating Women in the Military!
here;
Did you know that the military won't cover the cost of abortion, even if
the servicewoman has been raped? But the military does cover the cost of
cosmetic surgery, including breast implants, nose jobs, and liposuction!
A ban on military abortions forces soldiers who become pregnant while
serving overseas to seek abortions at private clinics and to pay for the
procedure themselves, making it difficult and costly to end a pregnancy.
Worse yet, the ban leaves women serving in countries where abortion is
illegal - like Iraq and Afghanistan - nowhere to turn, effectively
depriving them of freedom of choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)