Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Coming Of Age-The Rights Of Passage:
Rights Of Passage-Or Coming Of Age:
In some cultures young boys at the age of 16 or even 13 years of age, are inducted into the social fabric of society, via certain ceremonial practices.
In Jewish culture, young practicing Jews of Judaism are expected to perform this traditional ceremony on their male offspring, when he attains the age of 13 years. This ceremony is called 'BAR MITVAH.' This ceremony is performed to symbolically induce the young male, for the responsibility that comes with manhood.
These 'social mores' have been evident in many cultures for centuries. But today, it is mostly done in societies that adhere to stringent traditional religious, and social values. Unlike Western Christian oriented societies, where such practices are not too stringent or enforced.
Has there been a 'right of passage' for young African boys? I would imagine so, but those of us who are descendents of former slaves, living in Western European cultures, may have lost that traditional African heritage or practice. And de-facto, does not indulge in any expected ceremony that will help our young men/boys to realize how important it is to understand their role in the family, the society, and the politics that influences the way we think, feel, and act as adults.
Because of this long lost traditional teaching, most young African male descendents, find it somewhat difficult to introduce values that is peculiarly our own. That will benefit and enlighten our own kind, in their quest at attaining manhood, and manhood responsibilities. What we have as guidance, are imposed rules, handed down to us in the societies in which we find ourselves captive, or circumstantial.
Albeit, the young Black male has to determine his role in a society that has conflicting roles and expectations for it's menfolk. This causes psychological conflict within him, that forever influences how he perceives himself, and his role or roles in the society in which he operates. His relationship to other men, and to women are also affected by this lack of solid moral and social values, hitherto lost, or discontinued, as a result of slavery.
Om Shanti.
Derryck.
Political Educator & Advocate.
Saturday, September 03, 2005
What If A Dirty Bom Had Exploded In This Country?
What If a Dirty Bomb Had Exploded In This Country?
Hurricane Katrina has taught us (I hope), that America is still not yet ready to deal with a very large or horrendous disaster.
If it took one week or six days for the National Guard, to move vehicles through flooded streets, to rescue stranded citizens that had remained, or was caught there after the hurricane.
How will they respond to a terrorist attack upon any city with a Dirty Bomb, or even the sabotage of one of those LEVIES, that protects New Orleans from the Mississippi river?
It seems like the Homeland Security agencies, The State & Local authorities all failed to make the necessary preparations, that would have allowed them to respond with the imagination and expediency, that was necessary in such situations.
Furthermore, it took the President Of The United States, three days to personally visit the disaster regions. Imagine that! He is alleged to have said that he cut short his vacation by two days, in order to attend to this crisis. Now this comment bothers me, because what we have here is someone who was elected by the people, to attend to all of the people's needs in times like this. But President George W. Bush gives me the impression, that he was just OBLIGING Americans, by responding so soon!
I hope that all Americans will never forget this moment, or this disaster, and the people who were most affected by this disaster, and how their elected officials responded to them, in their time of dire need!
Om Shanti.
Derryck S. Griffith.
Political Educator & Advocate.
Monday, August 22, 2005
What Are UFO's?
What are UFO's-And how are they perceived by humans?
Definition of UFO:
An un-identified flying object.
Therefore, with this definition in mind, any un-identified flying object can be perceived as a 'UFO.' And has nothing to do with some perceived being from another planet, whose intentions are perceived to be bent on doing harm to us humans. As a matter of fact, it is only the American mentality that holds the view that ALIENS are bent on doing harm to humans!
* Firstly, why would an alien/aliens want to do harm to humans?
* Why do Americans/Hollywood producers feel that UFO's would be a threat to humankind, and that we must prepare for the worst case scenario, should they set foot on this planet?
* And what kind of weaponry would be the choice of defense of this planet?
* And what nation on this planet would be attacked first?
* And finally, how would this defense take place, if all nations do not have the knowledge of, and type of so-called enemy we would be confronting. It's ability to do us (humans harm), the type of warfare that we will be confronted with, or the place such battles will begin to unfold!
Given this lack of comprehension, the magnitude of this so-called threat, the type and nature of this so-called enemy, and the motive for such attack. I totally disagree with all those 'dooms-day' individuals who seem so obsessed and paranoid, that humans will ever be attacked by aliens from another planet.
Furthermore, we humans can barely afford to make a flight to Mars currently, we lack the where-withal to survive any planet outside our own, without the supply of oxygen, protection from extreme cold & heat, (solar winds, gamma rays from the sun), and all the other gases that planets beyond our solar system have, that would impair human survival.
And because of this lack of technology by humans, the inability to survive the way we are aclimatized here on earth, the language barrier (supposedly) that such creatures might offer, the type or nature of such creatures (if any) would pose, and the inability to communicate with such creatures or beings, (if they do exist).
I say that such a scenario is too pre-posterous to even contemplate seriously, much less envision!
Om Shanti.
Derryck S. Griffith.
Hats Off to Opra Winfry!
HATS OFF TO OPRAH!!!
I'm sure many of you watched the recent taping of "The Oprah Winfrey Show", where her guest was Tommy Hilfiger...
On the show, she asked him if the statements about racism he was accused of saying were true...Statements like "... if I'd known African-Americans, Hispanics, Jews and Asians would buy my clothes, I would not have made them so nice......
.I wish these people would *NOT* buy my clothes as they are made for upper class white people." His answer to Oprah was a simple "YES."
When Hilfiger answered in such manner, she immediately asked him to leave! her show. A suggestion: Don't buy your next shirt or Perfume from Tommy Hilfiger.
Let's give him what he asked for: Let's not buy his clothes. Let's put him in a state where he himself will not be able to afford the ridiculous prices he puts on his clothes. BOYCOTT HILFIGER!!! PLEASE SEND THIS MESSAGE TO EVERY ONE YOU KNOW.
I'm sure many of you watched the recent taping of "The Oprah Winfrey Show", where her guest was Tommy Hilfiger...
On the show, she asked him if the statements about racism he was accused of saying were true...Statements like "... if I'd known African-Americans, Hispanics, Jews and Asians would buy my clothes, I would not have made them so nice......
.I wish these people would *NOT* buy my clothes as they are made for upper class white people." His answer to Oprah was a simple "YES."
When Hilfiger answered in such manner, she immediately asked him to leave! her show. A suggestion: Don't buy your next shirt or Perfume from Tommy Hilfiger.
Let's give him what he asked for: Let's not buy his clothes. Let's put him in a state where he himself will not be able to afford the ridiculous prices he puts on his clothes. BOYCOTT HILFIGER!!! PLEASE SEND THIS MESSAGE TO EVERY ONE YOU KNOW.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
"Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Property."
August 18-2005:
Foreword:
"Thou Shalt Not Covet thy Neighbor's property"
It was only a matter of time before the Israeli government came to their senses, and do what is best for both peoples. Let my people go, said Moses to Ramses -the Pharoah, centuries ago, when the Jews were enslaved by Egypt.
Today, the Palestinians are in captivity by the Jews in more ways than one. Israel giving up COVETED lands that they squatted on, and claimed to be their own, must now be surrendered to it's righful owners, the Palestinians.
Quote:And Then I saw A New Heaven & A New Earth. For The Old Heaven & Earth Had Passed Away, And The Sea Was No More!
Derryck.
Israeli Riot Police Storm Gaza Synagogue: By RAMIT PLUSHNICK-MASTI, Associated Press Writer 44 minutes ago Israeli riot police with helmets and shields broke open the door of a synagogue in this hard-line settlement and fired water cannons at barricaded protesters, who responded by hurling debris and what police said was acid at the troops. In the most violent confrontation since the forced removals began this week, several Israeli police and soldiers, in obvious discomfort, stripped off their clothes after being doused.
Their comrades poured water over their heads and torsos to wash them off. As forces cut through the barbed wire to reach the synagogue's roof, protesters threw sand and blue-green liquid and sprayed them with foam. Some used sticks to try to push away the ladders used by security forces to reach the roof. Others reached the roof via shipping containers hoisted by a crane. A sign hanging from the roof said, "We won't forget. We won't forgive." Two officers slipped off a ladder to a ledge just below the roof because of oil thrown from above. Many policemen were covered in what appeared to be white paint. One, covered in a blanket, was carried away on a stretcher.
Eventually, protesters were pushed into the container, which had wire-mesh doors, and then carried into waiting buses. The images were reminiscent of the removal of protesters from the Israeli settlement of Yamit in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula in 1982. Israel TV ran side-by-side shots of the evacuations of Kfar Darom and Yamit.President Bush was "getting frequent and regular updates from his staff on the developments" while vacationing at his Texas ranch, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Thursday."The president continues to support Prime Minister Sharon and what he has called a very bold initiative," she said. "It's very courageous. We understand the deep sentiments that are felt and the difficulty one feels when leaving ... their home." Thursday's confrontation was one of two at Gaza synagogues used as the last bastion by settlers opposed to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza, which Israel has occupied for 38 years. No deaths have been reported in the Gaza Strip pullout, but a Jewish settler, apparently despondent over the withdrawal, opened fire Wednesday at Palestinian workers in the West Bank, killing four.
Also, Palestinians opened fire on Israeli troops on the road linking Israel to Gaza's Jewish settlements, and a soldier was slightly wounded, the army said. At a synagogue in Neve Dekalim, the largest Israeli settlement in Gaza, the crowd chanted "Jews don't expel Jews!" as police charged into the prayer hall. Protesters booed, whistled and threw water on troops. In the front rows, young men lay on the ground, linking arms, while those behind them tried to push away soldiers trying to get hold of arms and legs. Some of the protesters had their arms wrapped in leather tefilin prayer boxes and rocked fervently as they recited prayers. Rabbis in the crowd wore orange vests identifying them as clergy. Protesters chanted "Blasphemy! Blasphemy!" as soldiers dragged some of the young men away by their feet, then carried them feet first down a ramp onto a bus.
One man was taken away on a stretcher, with an intravenous drip. Another was draped in an Israeli flag. The people inside the synagogues - mostly extremist youths from the West Bank and Israel - have provided some of the fiercest resistance to the pullout. It was no coincidence that they chose synagogues to make their last stand. Many of the settlers and their supporters are devout Jews who believe the West Bank and Gaza were promised to the Jews by God. They say their eviction is sacrilege. Elsewhere, security forces dragged screaming residents out of homes, and settlers burned houses, fields and tires in protest. Security officials said they expected to clear out all 21 Gaza settlements by Tuesday, more than two weeks ahead of schedule. By nightfall, police expected 18 settlements to be empty.
Neve Dekalim was largely cleared out Wednesday. But 1,500 protesters took refuge in the synagogue and refused to leave. Soldiers burst into the building Thursday afternoon after hours of negotiations with settler leaders broke down. As the troops approached the synagogue, a bearded settler wearing a skullcap spat on an Israeli flag and ripped it into pieces. The man wore an orange Star of David on his shirt - reminiscent of the star the Nazis made Jews wear during World War II. Some soldiers involved in the operation burst into tears. In the farming settlement of Netzer Hazani, protesters set fires that sent a huge plume of black smoke into the air. Youths in Shirat Hayam, a hard-line beachfront outpost, burned tires and garbage. In nearby Kfar Yam, a settler armed with an M-16 rifle threatened to shoot troops if they attempt to evacuate him.
He later surrendered. The army declared a curfew in Al-Mawasi, a Palestinian town adjacent to Shirat Hayam and Kfar Yam, to protect settlers and soldiers during the pullout. On Wednesday, a Jewish extremist in the West Bank killed four Palestinians in an apparent attempt to disrupt the Gaza pullout. Sharon called the shootings an act of "Jewish terror." In Kfar Darom, soldiers formed cordons around Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, who oversaw the operation, to shield him from shouting settlers. Thousands of soldiers entered the settlement at dawn and quickly encircled the synagogue and two nearby buildings. After failed attempts to negotiate a peaceful surrender, troops began moving into homes. "Why did you become a soldier, to be in this crazy situation?" screamed a young mother, cradling a baby, as soldiers entered her home. In another house, a husband and wife lay on the floor, shrieking and clutching their small children. A soldier participating in the evacuation of a religious school suddenly disobeyed orders and was quickly carried away by troops.
Troops also burst into a nursery school crowded with protesters. People sang and danced as the troops entered, and about two dozen young children played with toys. Troops quickly cleared out the building. Moti Cohen, who came from Jerusalem to be with the settlers, said protesters at the synagogue hoarded sand bags and cans of foam spray for the confrontation. A large banner draped over the facade read: "For the Lord will not abandon His people or abandon His land." Residents jeered the forces throughout the day, driving several soldiers to tears. "You're right! Cry like we are crying!" a settler, still in his white prayer shawl, shouted while being loaded onto a bus. By midday, 200 people had been removed, the army said. Noga Cohen, whose three children were maimed in a Palestinian shooting attack on a bus, said Israel was surrendering to Palestinian militants.
On the door of her house was a sign that read: "In the event you knock on the door, you are a direct partner in the most terrible crime in the history of the nation of Israel." Just a few yards outside Kfar Darom, dozens of Palestinians stood on rooftops to watch the evacuation. "For the first time in the last few years I'm standing here without any fear that Israelis will shoot at me because their battle today is against themselves," farmer Mohammed Bashir said. Sharon proposed his "disengagement plan" two years ago to ease Israel's security burden and help preserve Israel's Jewish character by placing Gaza's 1.3 million Palestinians outside the country's boundaries. Israel has occupied Gaza for 38 years.
The Palestinian Authority and the United States want the pullout to be the beginning of the "road map" peace process, meant to bring about an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. Palestinian militants are portraying the pullout as a victory for their suicide bombings and rocket attacks, and some Israelis fear they will resume their violence once the withdrawal is complete. Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
END.
Foreword:
"Thou Shalt Not Covet thy Neighbor's property"
It was only a matter of time before the Israeli government came to their senses, and do what is best for both peoples. Let my people go, said Moses to Ramses -the Pharoah, centuries ago, when the Jews were enslaved by Egypt.
Today, the Palestinians are in captivity by the Jews in more ways than one. Israel giving up COVETED lands that they squatted on, and claimed to be their own, must now be surrendered to it's righful owners, the Palestinians.
Quote:And Then I saw A New Heaven & A New Earth. For The Old Heaven & Earth Had Passed Away, And The Sea Was No More!
Derryck.
Israeli Riot Police Storm Gaza Synagogue: By RAMIT PLUSHNICK-MASTI, Associated Press Writer 44 minutes ago Israeli riot police with helmets and shields broke open the door of a synagogue in this hard-line settlement and fired water cannons at barricaded protesters, who responded by hurling debris and what police said was acid at the troops. In the most violent confrontation since the forced removals began this week, several Israeli police and soldiers, in obvious discomfort, stripped off their clothes after being doused.
Their comrades poured water over their heads and torsos to wash them off. As forces cut through the barbed wire to reach the synagogue's roof, protesters threw sand and blue-green liquid and sprayed them with foam. Some used sticks to try to push away the ladders used by security forces to reach the roof. Others reached the roof via shipping containers hoisted by a crane. A sign hanging from the roof said, "We won't forget. We won't forgive." Two officers slipped off a ladder to a ledge just below the roof because of oil thrown from above. Many policemen were covered in what appeared to be white paint. One, covered in a blanket, was carried away on a stretcher.
Eventually, protesters were pushed into the container, which had wire-mesh doors, and then carried into waiting buses. The images were reminiscent of the removal of protesters from the Israeli settlement of Yamit in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula in 1982. Israel TV ran side-by-side shots of the evacuations of Kfar Darom and Yamit.President Bush was "getting frequent and regular updates from his staff on the developments" while vacationing at his Texas ranch, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Thursday."The president continues to support Prime Minister Sharon and what he has called a very bold initiative," she said. "It's very courageous. We understand the deep sentiments that are felt and the difficulty one feels when leaving ... their home." Thursday's confrontation was one of two at Gaza synagogues used as the last bastion by settlers opposed to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza, which Israel has occupied for 38 years. No deaths have been reported in the Gaza Strip pullout, but a Jewish settler, apparently despondent over the withdrawal, opened fire Wednesday at Palestinian workers in the West Bank, killing four.
Also, Palestinians opened fire on Israeli troops on the road linking Israel to Gaza's Jewish settlements, and a soldier was slightly wounded, the army said. At a synagogue in Neve Dekalim, the largest Israeli settlement in Gaza, the crowd chanted "Jews don't expel Jews!" as police charged into the prayer hall. Protesters booed, whistled and threw water on troops. In the front rows, young men lay on the ground, linking arms, while those behind them tried to push away soldiers trying to get hold of arms and legs. Some of the protesters had their arms wrapped in leather tefilin prayer boxes and rocked fervently as they recited prayers. Rabbis in the crowd wore orange vests identifying them as clergy. Protesters chanted "Blasphemy! Blasphemy!" as soldiers dragged some of the young men away by their feet, then carried them feet first down a ramp onto a bus.
One man was taken away on a stretcher, with an intravenous drip. Another was draped in an Israeli flag. The people inside the synagogues - mostly extremist youths from the West Bank and Israel - have provided some of the fiercest resistance to the pullout. It was no coincidence that they chose synagogues to make their last stand. Many of the settlers and their supporters are devout Jews who believe the West Bank and Gaza were promised to the Jews by God. They say their eviction is sacrilege. Elsewhere, security forces dragged screaming residents out of homes, and settlers burned houses, fields and tires in protest. Security officials said they expected to clear out all 21 Gaza settlements by Tuesday, more than two weeks ahead of schedule. By nightfall, police expected 18 settlements to be empty.
Neve Dekalim was largely cleared out Wednesday. But 1,500 protesters took refuge in the synagogue and refused to leave. Soldiers burst into the building Thursday afternoon after hours of negotiations with settler leaders broke down. As the troops approached the synagogue, a bearded settler wearing a skullcap spat on an Israeli flag and ripped it into pieces. The man wore an orange Star of David on his shirt - reminiscent of the star the Nazis made Jews wear during World War II. Some soldiers involved in the operation burst into tears. In the farming settlement of Netzer Hazani, protesters set fires that sent a huge plume of black smoke into the air. Youths in Shirat Hayam, a hard-line beachfront outpost, burned tires and garbage. In nearby Kfar Yam, a settler armed with an M-16 rifle threatened to shoot troops if they attempt to evacuate him.
He later surrendered. The army declared a curfew in Al-Mawasi, a Palestinian town adjacent to Shirat Hayam and Kfar Yam, to protect settlers and soldiers during the pullout. On Wednesday, a Jewish extremist in the West Bank killed four Palestinians in an apparent attempt to disrupt the Gaza pullout. Sharon called the shootings an act of "Jewish terror." In Kfar Darom, soldiers formed cordons around Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, who oversaw the operation, to shield him from shouting settlers. Thousands of soldiers entered the settlement at dawn and quickly encircled the synagogue and two nearby buildings. After failed attempts to negotiate a peaceful surrender, troops began moving into homes. "Why did you become a soldier, to be in this crazy situation?" screamed a young mother, cradling a baby, as soldiers entered her home. In another house, a husband and wife lay on the floor, shrieking and clutching their small children. A soldier participating in the evacuation of a religious school suddenly disobeyed orders and was quickly carried away by troops.
Troops also burst into a nursery school crowded with protesters. People sang and danced as the troops entered, and about two dozen young children played with toys. Troops quickly cleared out the building. Moti Cohen, who came from Jerusalem to be with the settlers, said protesters at the synagogue hoarded sand bags and cans of foam spray for the confrontation. A large banner draped over the facade read: "For the Lord will not abandon His people or abandon His land." Residents jeered the forces throughout the day, driving several soldiers to tears. "You're right! Cry like we are crying!" a settler, still in his white prayer shawl, shouted while being loaded onto a bus. By midday, 200 people had been removed, the army said. Noga Cohen, whose three children were maimed in a Palestinian shooting attack on a bus, said Israel was surrendering to Palestinian militants.
On the door of her house was a sign that read: "In the event you knock on the door, you are a direct partner in the most terrible crime in the history of the nation of Israel." Just a few yards outside Kfar Darom, dozens of Palestinians stood on rooftops to watch the evacuation. "For the first time in the last few years I'm standing here without any fear that Israelis will shoot at me because their battle today is against themselves," farmer Mohammed Bashir said. Sharon proposed his "disengagement plan" two years ago to ease Israel's security burden and help preserve Israel's Jewish character by placing Gaza's 1.3 million Palestinians outside the country's boundaries. Israel has occupied Gaza for 38 years.
The Palestinian Authority and the United States want the pullout to be the beginning of the "road map" peace process, meant to bring about an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. Palestinian militants are portraying the pullout as a victory for their suicide bombings and rocket attacks, and some Israelis fear they will resume their violence once the withdrawal is complete. Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
END.
Monday, July 25, 2005
The Definition Of A Trade Or Worker's Union & It's Purpose:
July 25-2005:
Definition of A Trade Or Workers Union:
A body or collective of workers who earn wages or salaries: Do not own property that is used to accrue profit therefrom: And has specific employment interests, such as the following:
* Wants secure or permanent employment:* Medical Benefits:* Vacation leave with pay:
* Medical/Sick leave with pay:
* Pension/Retirement Plan:
* Maternity and Paternity leave:
* A contract Of Service That Guarantees Equal Pay for Equal Work/Tasks:
* Non discrimination policy for Gay-Lesbian-Ethnic-Religious, or Political reasons:
These are just some of the CORE dictates of an organized Trade Union.
Forming a Trade or Workers union has statutory approval according to The National Labor Act:
Before any union can be recognized by an employer or potential employer, it first must have the following:* A written petition from the majority of the workers in a particular undertaking, which will attest to this desire when shown to the employer by the worker's representative union.
* When this petition is brought to the employer by the Union representatives, they will ask the employer to accept the petition as bona-fide and voluntary.
* If the employer is progressive, and is inclined to engage in collective bargaining with this Union about the contract for employment, and all the other benefits so demanded. And if they both agree to this contract, it must be brought back to the collective for ratification.
* If the collective or members agree, then it will be accepted by both parties as a bona fide contract. This may include, amount of wages per category, per week, number of hours to work per week, and who will be the House Worker's representatives for the Union. In normal circumstances, the election of Union representatives on the job is done among workers themselves. This process follows the Democratic process of elections, balloting, and the one man/woman one vote process.
Rationale for Trade Unions:
* Individual bargaining with an employer for increase benefits, eg wages, medical, vacation etc, have been proven to be futile historically. More often than not, un-successfully by the employee.
* Having a collective bargaining process involved in this process, shows strength, unity of purpose, and collective will.* Workers have the right to Strike or Go Slow, as a means to make their employer pay attention to their needs.
Finally: According to Karl Marx: All the workers have to lose are their chains!
This remark was made in his dossier on Capitalism, and the concept that The Capitalist wants to maximize their incomes or profits at the workers demise or expense.
Special Note:All the worker has to offer is his/her personal skills, education, and availability to sell his labor. But does not own anything to accrue profit or income. Because of this reliance on wages or salaries, most employers or capitalists will use the employment reservoir to chose who they will exploit, for more or less wages!
Workers International-Unite:
Derryck S. Griffith.
Political Educator & Advocate.
Definition of A Trade Or Workers Union:
A body or collective of workers who earn wages or salaries: Do not own property that is used to accrue profit therefrom: And has specific employment interests, such as the following:
* Wants secure or permanent employment:* Medical Benefits:* Vacation leave with pay:
* Medical/Sick leave with pay:
* Pension/Retirement Plan:
* Maternity and Paternity leave:
* A contract Of Service That Guarantees Equal Pay for Equal Work/Tasks:
* Non discrimination policy for Gay-Lesbian-Ethnic-Religious, or Political reasons:
These are just some of the CORE dictates of an organized Trade Union.
Forming a Trade or Workers union has statutory approval according to The National Labor Act:
Before any union can be recognized by an employer or potential employer, it first must have the following:* A written petition from the majority of the workers in a particular undertaking, which will attest to this desire when shown to the employer by the worker's representative union.
* When this petition is brought to the employer by the Union representatives, they will ask the employer to accept the petition as bona-fide and voluntary.
* If the employer is progressive, and is inclined to engage in collective bargaining with this Union about the contract for employment, and all the other benefits so demanded. And if they both agree to this contract, it must be brought back to the collective for ratification.
* If the collective or members agree, then it will be accepted by both parties as a bona fide contract. This may include, amount of wages per category, per week, number of hours to work per week, and who will be the House Worker's representatives for the Union. In normal circumstances, the election of Union representatives on the job is done among workers themselves. This process follows the Democratic process of elections, balloting, and the one man/woman one vote process.
Rationale for Trade Unions:
* Individual bargaining with an employer for increase benefits, eg wages, medical, vacation etc, have been proven to be futile historically. More often than not, un-successfully by the employee.
* Having a collective bargaining process involved in this process, shows strength, unity of purpose, and collective will.* Workers have the right to Strike or Go Slow, as a means to make their employer pay attention to their needs.
Finally: According to Karl Marx: All the workers have to lose are their chains!
This remark was made in his dossier on Capitalism, and the concept that The Capitalist wants to maximize their incomes or profits at the workers demise or expense.
Special Note:All the worker has to offer is his/her personal skills, education, and availability to sell his labor. But does not own anything to accrue profit or income. Because of this reliance on wages or salaries, most employers or capitalists will use the employment reservoir to chose who they will exploit, for more or less wages!
Workers International-Unite:
Derryck S. Griffith.
Political Educator & Advocate.
Friday, July 22, 2005
Are You Over 50 Years Of Age & Still Looking For Love Or Companionship?
* Are you over 50 years of age and at PEACE with yourself?
* Are you still trying to accumulate the basics for the home. No skills or education, still trying to find companionship or love, and is depressed because of these factors?
Many of us over fifty Gay & Bisexual men, or some time thereafter have to come to terms with these issues. They say life begins at forty, but I never accepted or subscribed to that assumption! So many of us men and women over fifty are still trying to make ends meet financially. Still trying to get the basic essentials in the home for comfort or convenience. And still have not been able to make any true friendships, find love, or companionship.
This is a period in every one's life when you are expected to become mellow or matured enough to accept all that life has thrown at you. Make amends for past animosities with people, forgive wrongs done to you, (perceived or actual), and find peace within yourself. If you are still grappling with all of the above, chances are you will not be able to achieve much at this stage in your life.
Some people feel that being over fifty is a time for abstinence from sexual activities. I say, when you are over fifty, you should at least understand what sex is all about. And be able to differentiate between a one night stand, or a trick. Expecting true love from anyone under fifty at this stage of your physical & emotional development, has to be contemplated very carefully.
The possibility of finding true love at this stage in your life is possible, but not all of us seniors will ever do at this stage. However, friendships based on sincerity, companionship, mentoring, and good buddies, is possible. But be on guard for those who feel that older men or women are to be exploited, because they are most vulnerable at this stage.
There are predators who seek out men and women at this time in their life for exploitation. Especially if they know of perceive that you are financially well grounded. As for those seniors who need personal assistance to do certain household chores, like shopping, or a personal Home Health Aide. Be very careful when you seek out these services.
Make every effort to research credentials, work history, personal credibility, and criminal history. If you use Home Health Agencies for these services, always ensure that they are certified to provide such services in your State.
Finally, maintain good health at all cost.
Exercise as often as you are physically able to, and seek advice before from your Doctor, about the risks involved before doing such exercises at your age. A personal nutritionist is a must, especially if you prepare your own meals. Some men and women look very good physically at fifty and over. If you eat well, sleep well, exercise regularly, maintain good nutrition, and does not smoke cigarettes.
Chances are, you will be around for a long time!
Om Shanti.
Derryck.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/derryckgrifith
* Are you still trying to accumulate the basics for the home. No skills or education, still trying to find companionship or love, and is depressed because of these factors?
Many of us over fifty Gay & Bisexual men, or some time thereafter have to come to terms with these issues. They say life begins at forty, but I never accepted or subscribed to that assumption! So many of us men and women over fifty are still trying to make ends meet financially. Still trying to get the basic essentials in the home for comfort or convenience. And still have not been able to make any true friendships, find love, or companionship.
This is a period in every one's life when you are expected to become mellow or matured enough to accept all that life has thrown at you. Make amends for past animosities with people, forgive wrongs done to you, (perceived or actual), and find peace within yourself. If you are still grappling with all of the above, chances are you will not be able to achieve much at this stage in your life.
Some people feel that being over fifty is a time for abstinence from sexual activities. I say, when you are over fifty, you should at least understand what sex is all about. And be able to differentiate between a one night stand, or a trick. Expecting true love from anyone under fifty at this stage of your physical & emotional development, has to be contemplated very carefully.
The possibility of finding true love at this stage in your life is possible, but not all of us seniors will ever do at this stage. However, friendships based on sincerity, companionship, mentoring, and good buddies, is possible. But be on guard for those who feel that older men or women are to be exploited, because they are most vulnerable at this stage.
There are predators who seek out men and women at this time in their life for exploitation. Especially if they know of perceive that you are financially well grounded. As for those seniors who need personal assistance to do certain household chores, like shopping, or a personal Home Health Aide. Be very careful when you seek out these services.
Make every effort to research credentials, work history, personal credibility, and criminal history. If you use Home Health Agencies for these services, always ensure that they are certified to provide such services in your State.
Finally, maintain good health at all cost.
Exercise as often as you are physically able to, and seek advice before from your Doctor, about the risks involved before doing such exercises at your age. A personal nutritionist is a must, especially if you prepare your own meals. Some men and women look very good physically at fifty and over. If you eat well, sleep well, exercise regularly, maintain good nutrition, and does not smoke cigarettes.
Chances are, you will be around for a long time!
Om Shanti.
Derryck.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/derryckgrifith
Sunday, July 10, 2005
LOVE, LUST, & LIES:
July 09-2005:
Hell, It is "Love-Lust & Lies" once again:
Today's topic is:
What Is Your Opinion On Being Friends With Your Kids."
* Do You Believe In Disciplining Your Kids?
First of all, let me deal with the first part of this question: No parent can be COOL, or be a buddy to their offspring, regardless of the age of the offspring. Cultivating from the earliest years of child-rearing that you are his or her mother or father, must be established. And telling him or her to address you as Mom, Mother, or Mummy, must also be established, in order for those kids to know the difference in parameters, and respect for you!
Secondly, we all want to be "Cool" or on friendly terms with our kids or offspring, but allowing you kid/s to address you by your "FIRST NAME" in the home, or abroad, is creating the precedence for dis-respect, and embarrassment to you, your friends, and your authority over them, in the home, or outside the home.
I do not believe in any kid calling his father "SIR." That is for the workplace, and is too formal. Dad, Father, or Daddy would be most appropriate in the home, or outside the home. And every parent must ensure that their children understand what they are allowed to do in their presence, the home, or when friends or relatives visit them. And what is not allowed in these circumstances, from very early in the up-bringing process.
Failing to set these parameters, will create the foundation for disrespect to you, your friends, your relatives, and strangers, when they visit your home, or you visit them!
Children must be SPANKED on the Butt, The Hands, or Feet, with reason and without excesses. They must be disciplined in this manner when they get out of line with you, your parents, your relatives, or strangers. Ensuring that children understand the respect that is expected to be shown to authority figures, or seniors, will help to mold them in preparation for the school years, and the world of work. Failing to do these things will cause your children to be unable to fully comprehend the rules of society, social decorum, authority, and the self-discipline to maneuver in these situations, with relative ease and self-assurance.
Finally, regardless of whether your kid/s are living in the same home with you or with his or her mother. You the mother or father must ensure that they know who you are. Why you are setting these parameters. What are your expectations from them to you, as parent. And the reason/s why you are teaching them these rules. Because failing to do so, may send the signal that you are only trying to dictate, or curtail their activities, to suit your own personal desires.
Also it is vitally essential to tell your kids that you LOVE them Regularly, and sound like you mean it. Because children pickup on hypocrisy very quickly. They may not tell you so, because of the fear of discipline from you. But they know when you are true or false to them. Let them feel like you can be trusted with anything they tell you. Encourage them to discuss any subject with you. And tell them that you may or may not have the answers, for everything, but will listen, and advise them on your personal experiences when necessary, as a frame of reference.
Om Shanti.Derryck.
Hell, It is "Love-Lust & Lies" once again:
Today's topic is:
What Is Your Opinion On Being Friends With Your Kids."
* Do You Believe In Disciplining Your Kids?
First of all, let me deal with the first part of this question: No parent can be COOL, or be a buddy to their offspring, regardless of the age of the offspring. Cultivating from the earliest years of child-rearing that you are his or her mother or father, must be established. And telling him or her to address you as Mom, Mother, or Mummy, must also be established, in order for those kids to know the difference in parameters, and respect for you!
Secondly, we all want to be "Cool" or on friendly terms with our kids or offspring, but allowing you kid/s to address you by your "FIRST NAME" in the home, or abroad, is creating the precedence for dis-respect, and embarrassment to you, your friends, and your authority over them, in the home, or outside the home.
I do not believe in any kid calling his father "SIR." That is for the workplace, and is too formal. Dad, Father, or Daddy would be most appropriate in the home, or outside the home. And every parent must ensure that their children understand what they are allowed to do in their presence, the home, or when friends or relatives visit them. And what is not allowed in these circumstances, from very early in the up-bringing process.
Failing to set these parameters, will create the foundation for disrespect to you, your friends, your relatives, and strangers, when they visit your home, or you visit them!
Children must be SPANKED on the Butt, The Hands, or Feet, with reason and without excesses. They must be disciplined in this manner when they get out of line with you, your parents, your relatives, or strangers. Ensuring that children understand the respect that is expected to be shown to authority figures, or seniors, will help to mold them in preparation for the school years, and the world of work. Failing to do these things will cause your children to be unable to fully comprehend the rules of society, social decorum, authority, and the self-discipline to maneuver in these situations, with relative ease and self-assurance.
Finally, regardless of whether your kid/s are living in the same home with you or with his or her mother. You the mother or father must ensure that they know who you are. Why you are setting these parameters. What are your expectations from them to you, as parent. And the reason/s why you are teaching them these rules. Because failing to do so, may send the signal that you are only trying to dictate, or curtail their activities, to suit your own personal desires.
Also it is vitally essential to tell your kids that you LOVE them Regularly, and sound like you mean it. Because children pickup on hypocrisy very quickly. They may not tell you so, because of the fear of discipline from you. But they know when you are true or false to them. Let them feel like you can be trusted with anything they tell you. Encourage them to discuss any subject with you. And tell them that you may or may not have the answers, for everything, but will listen, and advise them on your personal experiences when necessary, as a frame of reference.
Om Shanti.Derryck.
Bloggers Legal Rights & The National Labor Act:
July 09-2005:
Bloggers Legal Rights & The National Labor Act:
Bloggers' FAQ: Labor LawThe Bloggers' FAQ on Labor Law addresses legal issues arising from workplace blogging, including union organizing, protections for political blogging away from the workplace, and whistle-blogging.
If I am fired for blogging while at work, do I have any legal recourse? Maybe.
That depends on a number of factors, including whether you work for a private
or government employer, whether your job is covered by a union contract or any other employment agreement, and what you were blogging about. In general, in California and most of the other states, if you work for a private employer and you have no union contract or other agreement that provides you with additional protections, you are considered an "at will" employee and the employer may fire you for any reason that is not specifically prohibited by law. (For discussions of some reasons that are specifically prohibited by law, see below. A union contract or another employment agreement may protect you by requiring "just cause" for termination and/or by addressing electronic privacy and/or computer use issues. In some very limited circumstances, even if you don't have a written employment agreement, personnel policies or promises made to you over the course of your time on the job may establish some additional protections.
Do I have more protection if I work for the government?
Yes. If you work for any level of government (also called a "public employer"), your employer's right to fire you is also limited by the First Amendment's protection of your right to free speech. However, your free speech rights as an employee are more limited than they are as a member of the general public. If you were to challenge your termination on First Amendment grounds, courts would balance your employer's legitimate interest in delivering efficient government services against your interest as a citizen in commenting on a matter of public concern. So if you blog about something important to the public, you have greater protection. But if your blog's content could disrupt the workplace, your protection diminishes. Government employees also enjoy some legal protections against being disciplined, which vary based on the level of government you work for. In California, for example, a public employee is entitled to notice and a hearing prior to termination. See Skelly v. State Personnel Board, 15 Cal.3d 194 (1975). You may also find the Federal Employees Legal Survival Guide helpful.
What if I am fired for something I wrote in my blog when I wasn't at work?
Some states provide legal protection for activity outside the work place. For example, California Labor Code Sections 1101 and 1102 prohibit employers from interfering with their employees' political activities. If you blog about something political in California, these laws may protect you.
In addition, we believe that two relatively new provisions of the California Labor Code that address "lawful conduct during nonworking hours away from the employer's premises" could be used to protect employee bloggers. On their face, the provisions prohibit employers from disciplining employees for anything that goes on outside of work so long as it's legal (including, presumably, blogging). See Cal. Labor Code §§ 96(k); 98.6. So far, however, courts have not construed the law so broadly. Some courts and the Attorney General have ruled that these provisions merely help enforce existing rights -- such as the right to privacy -- rather than give employees any additional rights. See Grinzi v. San Diego Hospice Corp., 120 Cal.App.4th 72, 86-88 (2004); Barbee v. Household Automotive Finance Corp., 113 Cal.App.4th 525, 534-36 (2003). While the issue is not settled, these rulings suggest that Section 96(k) and 98.6 apply only if, in the course of terminating you, the employer violated some right that you have under other laws (for example, by interfering with your political activities, or libeling you).
Some states other than California (Colorado, New York, and North Dakota) have also enacted statutes that prohibit employers from terminating employees for engaging in lawful activities outside of work, including political activities. But these laws also have broader exceptions than California's and some do not apply to disciplinary actions other than firing. The District of Columbia, Connecticut, and some cities (for example, Seattle, Lansing, and Madison) also prohibit discrimination on the basis of political or expressive activity. For links to these laws and a discussion of the protections they provide, see the Workplace Fairness FAQ on Retaliation for Political Activity.
Can my employer read my blog?
If you don't restrict access to your blog with a password or other scheme, your employer probably does not violate the law by reading it. But if you restrict access and your employer reads it anyway, this may violate provisions of federal and state laws that prohibit the unauthorized interception of communications. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 et seq. (Wiretap Act), 2701 et seq. (Stored Communications Act) ; Cal. Penal Code §§ 631-32. However, many of these laws exempt some employer monitoring. And some laws have been interpreted to ban only the interception of communications during transmission – not interception of any stored communications (your posts are "stored" on a server). See, e.g., Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 302 F.2d 868 (9th Cir. 2002).
If, however, you use work computers to blog, your employer has a much stronger claim to being able to legally read it even if you restrict access. See below.
On the other hand, if you're blogging about something deeply personal on your restricted-access blog, you may be able to claim that your employer has violated your right to privacy by unreasonably "intruding upon your seclusion." I have a personal blog, but I don't tell my work colleagues about it.
Should I expect my employer to find it?
Yes. Search tools are becoming more and more powerful and effective. If you open your blog to the public, you should expect that anyone and everyone could find and read it. Not just your employer, but also your mother, that guy in middle school who used to steal your lunch money, potential future colleagues and employers - anyone. So if you wish to blog about controversial topics, consider blogging anonymously or restricting access to your blog.
Can my employer monitor my blog if I use work computers or the company network?
Some courts have ruled that if you are using your employer's equipment (even at home, after work hours) or computer network (even on your own personal computer), your employer's freedom to monitor your electronic communications is not limited by any reasonable expectation of privacy. See Smyth v. The Pillsbury Co., 914 F. Supp. 97 (E.D. Pa. 1996); TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Ct., 96 Cal.App.4th 443 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). If your employer told you (perhaps in fine print when you were hired) that you could potentially be monitored, your privacy claim is even weaker. So make sure that you are not using your employer's computer or network when you engage in blogging activities that you would prefer to keep private.
Is it legal for my boss to monitor my blogging at work if I'm on a break?
The privacy protections that an employee enjoys at work are limited, especially in public areas of the workplace and while using employer equipment. (See the American Management Association (AMA) and the ePolicy Institute, 2005 Electronic Monitoring & Surveillance Survey ).
However, if you are communicating with fellow employees about unionizing or another issue related to your employment, employer surveillance may violate federal labor law by having a "chilling effect" on your right to engage in protected, concerted activities. (See, e.g., NLRB v. Unbelievable, Inc., 71 F.3d 1434 (9th Cir. 1995). In NLRB v. Unbelievable, an employer who eavesdropped on employee conversations in the break room was found to have committed an unfair labor practice. So if you're blogging about unionizing during your break and your boss listens in, you could file an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board.
Public employees are also protected by the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, although whether or not your employer is permitted to monitor your communications still depends on whether a court determines that you had a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
If my co-workers and I start a blog about our workplace, are there any laws that protect us from being fired for what we say on it?
Yes. The National Labor Relations Act not only protects employees who are trying to unionize, it also any employee who "engage[s] in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." 29 U.S.C. § 157. Activities are "concerted" if multiple employees are acting together, or if the activity is part of one employee's effort to instigate collective action. Activities are "for the purpose of . . . mutual aid or protection" if they relate to employees' interests as employees (in other words, wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment). Efforts to change your employer's corporate disclosure policies or shareholder meeting practices, for example, would not qualify as protected under this provision.
What safeguards do I have for blogging with co-workers for mutual aid or protection?
An employer is not allowed to retaliate against employees (for example, by demoting or firing them) for engaging in concerted activities for mutual aid or protection. Thus, for example, an employer probably cannot discipline an employee for blogging about the company's inadequate pay scale with other employees, or for using a blog to urge other employees to challenge the company's vacation policy. See Timekeeping Sys., Inc., 323 NLRB 244, 247-49 (1997).
Can I be fired for using my work computer to blog about working conditions?
Not if that's the reason for terminating you. You can be fired based on a generally applicable policy, such as a rule prohibiting personal use of the employer's computer equipment. But the termination may be unlawful if the policy is being administered in a way that discriminates against protected, concerted activities (for example, if the employer has tolerated blogging about other subjects during work time, but takes action against an employee who blogs about low wages). In addition, while the issue is unsettled, a "no personal use" email policy may violate federal labor law even if applied in an even-handed manner, if it serves to restrict speech about protected, concerted activities. An employee fired for such activities can file an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board.
State laws provide some additional protections. For example, California law prevents employers from maintaining or enforcing rules prohibiting employees from disclosing their wages. Cal. Labor Code §232.
Are there limits to these protections for work blogging for mutual aid or protection?
Yes. For example, false or defamatory statements, statements that disclose an employer's trade secrets, and similarly unlawful statements will generally not qualify for protection. Also, independent contractors, supervisors, and other categories of employees are exempted from the National Labor Relations Act's protections. Public employees are also excluded, but many states have laws that are modeled after federal labor law and protect government employees against retaliation for protected, concerted activities.
Are there certain topics I can blog about that are protected by law, so that no employer can fire me for saying them?
Certain speech about unionization or terms and conditions of employment is protected.
In some circumstances it might also violate the law for an employer to fire or discipline you for blogging about matters that are protected by statute. For example, if you were blogging about your experience with sex discrimination at work, it may violate the law for the employer to take action against you. State and federal laws prohibit discrimination based on race, national origin, sex, pregnancy, religion, disability, age, serious health condition, and, in some states, sexual orientation or family/marital status. These laws also prohibit retaliation for complaining about discrimination or harassment based on these characteristics. It also may violate the law for an employer to retaliate against you for complaining about workplace safety issues.
If you are fired for blogging about issues that relate to your membership in these protected groups, you may have a legal basis to challenge your termination. Keep in mind, however, that it may be difficult to prove that your employer fired you for these reasons. You are much more likely to be protected if you formally complained about the matter at issue before your employer took action against you, either to your employer or to the appropriate state or federal agency. The complaint should be in written form, to make it easier to prove later that you actually did complain.
What should I do if I was terminated in retaliation for protected activity?
If you believe that your termination was discriminatory or retaliatory, you will need to file a complaint with the appropriate federal and/or state agency before filing a lawsuit. These laws often have strict time limits, so you may need to act quickly. Also keep in mind that these laws apply only to employers of a certain size (based on the number of employees) and do not protect independent contractors. For more details, refer to these fact sheets by the Legal Aid Society-Employment
Law Center: Employment Discrimination Wrongful Termination Health and Safety Protections in the Workplace
How can a union protect my right to blog at work?
Union contracts, reached in bargaining sessions with the employer, typically contain a provision prohibiting discipline or termination of employees except for "good cause." Whether your blogging activities constitute such "good cause" would depend upon whether they violate the employer's work rules, whether the union contract places limitations on those work rules, the specific conduct involved, and your employment record. If you are disciplined or terminated without good cause, the union can file a grievance on your behalf. Typically the grievance process has a final step of arbitration, where an independent arbitrator decides whether the employer violated the union contract and, if so, may order the employer to reverse the disciplinary action and compensate you for your harm.
In addition, more and more unions are negotiating specific protections for workers' use of electronic means of communications. For example, some union contracts contain provisions that allow reasonable personal use of an employer's computer equipment, or that prohibit terminating an employee for off-duty conduct. And even if the union contract doesn't contain anything specific, an employer will be required to bargain with the union before making a unilateral change in a workplace computer or email policy.
Can I be fired if I create a blog about unionizing my workplace?
No. Employees' right to self-organization, including by forming or joining labor unions, is protected by federal law. See 29 U.S.C. §157. An employer may not fire you for blogging about unionization and, if you are fired for such activity, you can file an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board. If you are working with an already established union, that union may be willing to help you file and prosecute the charge. See above (link to "certain topics") for more details about whether an employer who claims to be applying a generally applicable workplace policy can take action against you for union-related speech.
Can I be fired for whistle-blogging about my company's violation of the law?
No, if you report the violation before whistle-blogging about it. Many federal and state laws protect "whistleblowers" – employees who reveal their employers' unlawful activities. Typically these laws protect employees against retaliation even if the employer was not actually doing something unlawful, so long as the employee reasonably believed that it was. Some of these laws protect blowing the whistle about specific matters, like reporting violations of the Securities and Exchange Commission rules or other fraud against shareholders. Others confer more general protections. But whistle-blogging about unlawful activity without reporting it to a government agency may not be protected. See below [link to next question].
Should I report the violation before whistle-blogging about it?
Yes. Whistle-blowing laws will typically protect you only after you have actually blown the whistle, by reporting the unlawful activity to a government agency. Some laws also protect employees who report illegal activity to their supervisor or employer, but you are better protected if you also make a complaint to a government entity. If you are a public employee, reporting the unlawful activity to your employer may suffice to give you whistleblower protection. Public employees may also report to the Office of Special Counsel's Disclosure Unit.
Whistleblower protection laws often have strict time limits for complaining that you were retaliated against for whistle-blowing activities. See e.g. Occupational Safety & Health Administration's whistleblower program , or, for more detail, see the Workplace Fairness FAQ on Whistleblowing and Retaliation . What can I do to protect myself from employer retaliation? Blog anonymously. EFF's How to Blog Safely (About Work or Anything Else) offers a few simple precautions to help you maintain control of your personal privacy so that you can express yourself without facing unjust retaliation. If followed correctly, these protections can save you from embarrassment or just plain weirdness in front of your friends and coworkers.
Do some companies permit employee blogging?
Yes. A number of companies permit or even encourage workplace blogging. For example, Sun has 1,300 employee blogs -- including company President Jonathan Schwartz. Many companies that permit blogging have guidelines for their employees. Toby Bloomberg of Diva Marketing Blog, has compiled a list of company blogging guidelines, and Fredrik Wackå's CorporateBlogging site provides a guide to corporate blogging.
Where can I get more information on workplace blogging?
CNet has published an FAQ about blogging on the job. Workplace Fairness provides a detailed overview of your rights under labor law, as does the Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center. For the corporate audience, the law firm Howard Rice published a newsletter article, Corporate Blogging - Seize the Opportunity, But Control the Risks.
Thanks to Stacey M. Leyton, an attorney with Altshuler, Berzon, Nussbaum, Rubin & Demain, for her work on this FAQ.
Bloggers Legal Rights & The National Labor Act:
Bloggers' FAQ: Labor LawThe Bloggers' FAQ on Labor Law addresses legal issues arising from workplace blogging, including union organizing, protections for political blogging away from the workplace, and whistle-blogging.
If I am fired for blogging while at work, do I have any legal recourse? Maybe.
That depends on a number of factors, including whether you work for a private
or government employer, whether your job is covered by a union contract or any other employment agreement, and what you were blogging about. In general, in California and most of the other states, if you work for a private employer and you have no union contract or other agreement that provides you with additional protections, you are considered an "at will" employee and the employer may fire you for any reason that is not specifically prohibited by law. (For discussions of some reasons that are specifically prohibited by law, see below. A union contract or another employment agreement may protect you by requiring "just cause" for termination and/or by addressing electronic privacy and/or computer use issues. In some very limited circumstances, even if you don't have a written employment agreement, personnel policies or promises made to you over the course of your time on the job may establish some additional protections.
Do I have more protection if I work for the government?
Yes. If you work for any level of government (also called a "public employer"), your employer's right to fire you is also limited by the First Amendment's protection of your right to free speech. However, your free speech rights as an employee are more limited than they are as a member of the general public. If you were to challenge your termination on First Amendment grounds, courts would balance your employer's legitimate interest in delivering efficient government services against your interest as a citizen in commenting on a matter of public concern. So if you blog about something important to the public, you have greater protection. But if your blog's content could disrupt the workplace, your protection diminishes. Government employees also enjoy some legal protections against being disciplined, which vary based on the level of government you work for. In California, for example, a public employee is entitled to notice and a hearing prior to termination. See Skelly v. State Personnel Board, 15 Cal.3d 194 (1975). You may also find the Federal Employees Legal Survival Guide helpful.
What if I am fired for something I wrote in my blog when I wasn't at work?
Some states provide legal protection for activity outside the work place. For example, California Labor Code Sections 1101 and 1102 prohibit employers from interfering with their employees' political activities. If you blog about something political in California, these laws may protect you.
In addition, we believe that two relatively new provisions of the California Labor Code that address "lawful conduct during nonworking hours away from the employer's premises" could be used to protect employee bloggers. On their face, the provisions prohibit employers from disciplining employees for anything that goes on outside of work so long as it's legal (including, presumably, blogging). See Cal. Labor Code §§ 96(k); 98.6. So far, however, courts have not construed the law so broadly. Some courts and the Attorney General have ruled that these provisions merely help enforce existing rights -- such as the right to privacy -- rather than give employees any additional rights. See Grinzi v. San Diego Hospice Corp., 120 Cal.App.4th 72, 86-88 (2004); Barbee v. Household Automotive Finance Corp., 113 Cal.App.4th 525, 534-36 (2003). While the issue is not settled, these rulings suggest that Section 96(k) and 98.6 apply only if, in the course of terminating you, the employer violated some right that you have under other laws (for example, by interfering with your political activities, or libeling you).
Some states other than California (Colorado, New York, and North Dakota) have also enacted statutes that prohibit employers from terminating employees for engaging in lawful activities outside of work, including political activities. But these laws also have broader exceptions than California's and some do not apply to disciplinary actions other than firing. The District of Columbia, Connecticut, and some cities (for example, Seattle, Lansing, and Madison) also prohibit discrimination on the basis of political or expressive activity. For links to these laws and a discussion of the protections they provide, see the Workplace Fairness FAQ on Retaliation for Political Activity.
Can my employer read my blog?
If you don't restrict access to your blog with a password or other scheme, your employer probably does not violate the law by reading it. But if you restrict access and your employer reads it anyway, this may violate provisions of federal and state laws that prohibit the unauthorized interception of communications. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 et seq. (Wiretap Act), 2701 et seq. (Stored Communications Act) ; Cal. Penal Code §§ 631-32. However, many of these laws exempt some employer monitoring. And some laws have been interpreted to ban only the interception of communications during transmission – not interception of any stored communications (your posts are "stored" on a server). See, e.g., Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 302 F.2d 868 (9th Cir. 2002).
If, however, you use work computers to blog, your employer has a much stronger claim to being able to legally read it even if you restrict access. See below.
On the other hand, if you're blogging about something deeply personal on your restricted-access blog, you may be able to claim that your employer has violated your right to privacy by unreasonably "intruding upon your seclusion." I have a personal blog, but I don't tell my work colleagues about it.
Should I expect my employer to find it?
Yes. Search tools are becoming more and more powerful and effective. If you open your blog to the public, you should expect that anyone and everyone could find and read it. Not just your employer, but also your mother, that guy in middle school who used to steal your lunch money, potential future colleagues and employers - anyone. So if you wish to blog about controversial topics, consider blogging anonymously or restricting access to your blog.
Can my employer monitor my blog if I use work computers or the company network?
Some courts have ruled that if you are using your employer's equipment (even at home, after work hours) or computer network (even on your own personal computer), your employer's freedom to monitor your electronic communications is not limited by any reasonable expectation of privacy. See Smyth v. The Pillsbury Co., 914 F. Supp. 97 (E.D. Pa. 1996); TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Ct., 96 Cal.App.4th 443 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). If your employer told you (perhaps in fine print when you were hired) that you could potentially be monitored, your privacy claim is even weaker. So make sure that you are not using your employer's computer or network when you engage in blogging activities that you would prefer to keep private.
Is it legal for my boss to monitor my blogging at work if I'm on a break?
The privacy protections that an employee enjoys at work are limited, especially in public areas of the workplace and while using employer equipment. (See the American Management Association (AMA) and the ePolicy Institute, 2005 Electronic Monitoring & Surveillance Survey ).
However, if you are communicating with fellow employees about unionizing or another issue related to your employment, employer surveillance may violate federal labor law by having a "chilling effect" on your right to engage in protected, concerted activities. (See, e.g., NLRB v. Unbelievable, Inc., 71 F.3d 1434 (9th Cir. 1995). In NLRB v. Unbelievable, an employer who eavesdropped on employee conversations in the break room was found to have committed an unfair labor practice. So if you're blogging about unionizing during your break and your boss listens in, you could file an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board.
Public employees are also protected by the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, although whether or not your employer is permitted to monitor your communications still depends on whether a court determines that you had a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
If my co-workers and I start a blog about our workplace, are there any laws that protect us from being fired for what we say on it?
Yes. The National Labor Relations Act not only protects employees who are trying to unionize, it also any employee who "engage[s] in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." 29 U.S.C. § 157. Activities are "concerted" if multiple employees are acting together, or if the activity is part of one employee's effort to instigate collective action. Activities are "for the purpose of . . . mutual aid or protection" if they relate to employees' interests as employees (in other words, wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment). Efforts to change your employer's corporate disclosure policies or shareholder meeting practices, for example, would not qualify as protected under this provision.
What safeguards do I have for blogging with co-workers for mutual aid or protection?
An employer is not allowed to retaliate against employees (for example, by demoting or firing them) for engaging in concerted activities for mutual aid or protection. Thus, for example, an employer probably cannot discipline an employee for blogging about the company's inadequate pay scale with other employees, or for using a blog to urge other employees to challenge the company's vacation policy. See Timekeeping Sys., Inc., 323 NLRB 244, 247-49 (1997).
Can I be fired for using my work computer to blog about working conditions?
Not if that's the reason for terminating you. You can be fired based on a generally applicable policy, such as a rule prohibiting personal use of the employer's computer equipment. But the termination may be unlawful if the policy is being administered in a way that discriminates against protected, concerted activities (for example, if the employer has tolerated blogging about other subjects during work time, but takes action against an employee who blogs about low wages). In addition, while the issue is unsettled, a "no personal use" email policy may violate federal labor law even if applied in an even-handed manner, if it serves to restrict speech about protected, concerted activities. An employee fired for such activities can file an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board.
State laws provide some additional protections. For example, California law prevents employers from maintaining or enforcing rules prohibiting employees from disclosing their wages. Cal. Labor Code §232.
Are there limits to these protections for work blogging for mutual aid or protection?
Yes. For example, false or defamatory statements, statements that disclose an employer's trade secrets, and similarly unlawful statements will generally not qualify for protection. Also, independent contractors, supervisors, and other categories of employees are exempted from the National Labor Relations Act's protections. Public employees are also excluded, but many states have laws that are modeled after federal labor law and protect government employees against retaliation for protected, concerted activities.
Are there certain topics I can blog about that are protected by law, so that no employer can fire me for saying them?
Certain speech about unionization or terms and conditions of employment is protected.
In some circumstances it might also violate the law for an employer to fire or discipline you for blogging about matters that are protected by statute. For example, if you were blogging about your experience with sex discrimination at work, it may violate the law for the employer to take action against you. State and federal laws prohibit discrimination based on race, national origin, sex, pregnancy, religion, disability, age, serious health condition, and, in some states, sexual orientation or family/marital status. These laws also prohibit retaliation for complaining about discrimination or harassment based on these characteristics. It also may violate the law for an employer to retaliate against you for complaining about workplace safety issues.
If you are fired for blogging about issues that relate to your membership in these protected groups, you may have a legal basis to challenge your termination. Keep in mind, however, that it may be difficult to prove that your employer fired you for these reasons. You are much more likely to be protected if you formally complained about the matter at issue before your employer took action against you, either to your employer or to the appropriate state or federal agency. The complaint should be in written form, to make it easier to prove later that you actually did complain.
What should I do if I was terminated in retaliation for protected activity?
If you believe that your termination was discriminatory or retaliatory, you will need to file a complaint with the appropriate federal and/or state agency before filing a lawsuit. These laws often have strict time limits, so you may need to act quickly. Also keep in mind that these laws apply only to employers of a certain size (based on the number of employees) and do not protect independent contractors. For more details, refer to these fact sheets by the Legal Aid Society-Employment
Law Center: Employment Discrimination Wrongful Termination Health and Safety Protections in the Workplace
How can a union protect my right to blog at work?
Union contracts, reached in bargaining sessions with the employer, typically contain a provision prohibiting discipline or termination of employees except for "good cause." Whether your blogging activities constitute such "good cause" would depend upon whether they violate the employer's work rules, whether the union contract places limitations on those work rules, the specific conduct involved, and your employment record. If you are disciplined or terminated without good cause, the union can file a grievance on your behalf. Typically the grievance process has a final step of arbitration, where an independent arbitrator decides whether the employer violated the union contract and, if so, may order the employer to reverse the disciplinary action and compensate you for your harm.
In addition, more and more unions are negotiating specific protections for workers' use of electronic means of communications. For example, some union contracts contain provisions that allow reasonable personal use of an employer's computer equipment, or that prohibit terminating an employee for off-duty conduct. And even if the union contract doesn't contain anything specific, an employer will be required to bargain with the union before making a unilateral change in a workplace computer or email policy.
Can I be fired if I create a blog about unionizing my workplace?
No. Employees' right to self-organization, including by forming or joining labor unions, is protected by federal law. See 29 U.S.C. §157. An employer may not fire you for blogging about unionization and, if you are fired for such activity, you can file an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board. If you are working with an already established union, that union may be willing to help you file and prosecute the charge. See above (link to "certain topics") for more details about whether an employer who claims to be applying a generally applicable workplace policy can take action against you for union-related speech.
Can I be fired for whistle-blogging about my company's violation of the law?
No, if you report the violation before whistle-blogging about it. Many federal and state laws protect "whistleblowers" – employees who reveal their employers' unlawful activities. Typically these laws protect employees against retaliation even if the employer was not actually doing something unlawful, so long as the employee reasonably believed that it was. Some of these laws protect blowing the whistle about specific matters, like reporting violations of the Securities and Exchange Commission rules or other fraud against shareholders. Others confer more general protections. But whistle-blogging about unlawful activity without reporting it to a government agency may not be protected. See below [link to next question].
Should I report the violation before whistle-blogging about it?
Yes. Whistle-blowing laws will typically protect you only after you have actually blown the whistle, by reporting the unlawful activity to a government agency. Some laws also protect employees who report illegal activity to their supervisor or employer, but you are better protected if you also make a complaint to a government entity. If you are a public employee, reporting the unlawful activity to your employer may suffice to give you whistleblower protection. Public employees may also report to the Office of Special Counsel's Disclosure Unit.
Whistleblower protection laws often have strict time limits for complaining that you were retaliated against for whistle-blowing activities. See e.g. Occupational Safety & Health Administration's whistleblower program , or, for more detail, see the Workplace Fairness FAQ on Whistleblowing and Retaliation . What can I do to protect myself from employer retaliation? Blog anonymously. EFF's How to Blog Safely (About Work or Anything Else) offers a few simple precautions to help you maintain control of your personal privacy so that you can express yourself without facing unjust retaliation. If followed correctly, these protections can save you from embarrassment or just plain weirdness in front of your friends and coworkers.
Do some companies permit employee blogging?
Yes. A number of companies permit or even encourage workplace blogging. For example, Sun has 1,300 employee blogs -- including company President Jonathan Schwartz. Many companies that permit blogging have guidelines for their employees. Toby Bloomberg of Diva Marketing Blog, has compiled a list of company blogging guidelines, and Fredrik Wackå's CorporateBlogging site provides a guide to corporate blogging.
Where can I get more information on workplace blogging?
CNet has published an FAQ about blogging on the job. Workplace Fairness provides a detailed overview of your rights under labor law, as does the Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center. For the corporate audience, the law firm Howard Rice published a newsletter article, Corporate Blogging - Seize the Opportunity, But Control the Risks.
Thanks to Stacey M. Leyton, an attorney with Altshuler, Berzon, Nussbaum, Rubin & Demain, for her work on this FAQ.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
The New York City Subway System Today-2005!
The New York Subway System Today!
A new law has been passed that will prohibit the drinking of coffee, or eating on the subway trains. This law also prohibits passengers from moving from one carriage to another while the train is in motion. Anyone found doing any of the above, can get a ticket or charged for these violations.
Imagine, New York City. A place where foreigners come to experience the Big Apple, spend their money, visit our museums, and theaters, and have to comply with these ridiculous regulations on our transportation systems.
First it was the X Rated Video Stores or Book-Shops that were legally shut down. Then the National Parks & The Piers came into focus for sanitization. Then the streets are now policed day and night, by over zealous cops, harassing Black & Latino youths mostly, for standing in groups, walking with a bottle that may be construed as having alcohol, and being FRISKED on a regular basis on the grounds of suspicion.
Even the New York City Greenwich Village Piers have their own Police/Security guards that harass our youths every day. They claim that the youths are 'making too much noise while there As for the bathroom facilities, you have spies watching you all the time while you are relieving yourself there too!
What next are we going to experience in the so called FREE LAND OF America?
OM Shanti.
Derryck.
A new law has been passed that will prohibit the drinking of coffee, or eating on the subway trains. This law also prohibits passengers from moving from one carriage to another while the train is in motion. Anyone found doing any of the above, can get a ticket or charged for these violations.
Imagine, New York City. A place where foreigners come to experience the Big Apple, spend their money, visit our museums, and theaters, and have to comply with these ridiculous regulations on our transportation systems.
First it was the X Rated Video Stores or Book-Shops that were legally shut down. Then the National Parks & The Piers came into focus for sanitization. Then the streets are now policed day and night, by over zealous cops, harassing Black & Latino youths mostly, for standing in groups, walking with a bottle that may be construed as having alcohol, and being FRISKED on a regular basis on the grounds of suspicion.
Even the New York City Greenwich Village Piers have their own Police/Security guards that harass our youths every day. They claim that the youths are 'making too much noise while there As for the bathroom facilities, you have spies watching you all the time while you are relieving yourself there too!
What next are we going to experience in the so called FREE LAND OF America?
OM Shanti.
Derryck.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Cannabis & What Teenagers Need To Know:
Cannabis: what teenagers need to know !
Panorama explores the latest scientific research on the effects ofcannabis on the human mind. In particular, the programme will look atthe growing evidence of links between cannabis and psychotic illness inyoung people.
British youngsters are using Cannabis earlier and smoking more of itthan any previous generation. Most don't even think of it as a drug, andthe popular perception is that it has no serious long-term effects.However, the truth is that, until very recently, very little was knownabout how cannabis actually affects developing brains.
The programme meets young people who have developed psychotic illnessesafter heavy cannabis use and speaks to the psychiatrists who have foundlinks between users' genetic makeup and the risk of developing mentalillness.
Featuring the work of scientists who have used the latest technology tolook inside peoples' heads and see - quite literally - how cannabischanges the way people think. It meets the scientist whose unpublishednew research suggests that cannabis can cause long-term chemical changesin users' brains and supports the idea that it can be a "gateway" makingusers more likely to take other drugs.
Watch the programme trailer: http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/40629000/rm/_40629476_trail_vi.ram
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/pn/-/1/hi/programmes/panorama/default.stm------------------------------------------------------------
GET MORE FROM PANORAMA
Panorama explores the latest scientific research on the effects ofcannabis on the human mind. In particular, the programme will look atthe growing evidence of links between cannabis and psychotic illness inyoung people.
British youngsters are using Cannabis earlier and smoking more of itthan any previous generation. Most don't even think of it as a drug, andthe popular perception is that it has no serious long-term effects.However, the truth is that, until very recently, very little was knownabout how cannabis actually affects developing brains.
The programme meets young people who have developed psychotic illnessesafter heavy cannabis use and speaks to the psychiatrists who have foundlinks between users' genetic makeup and the risk of developing mentalillness.
Featuring the work of scientists who have used the latest technology tolook inside peoples' heads and see - quite literally - how cannabischanges the way people think. It meets the scientist whose unpublishednew research suggests that cannabis can cause long-term chemical changesin users' brains and supports the idea that it can be a "gateway" makingusers more likely to take other drugs.
Watch the programme trailer: http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/40629000/rm/_40629476_trail_vi.ram
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/pn/-/1/hi/programmes/panorama/default.stm------------------------------------------------------------
GET MORE FROM PANORAMA
Where Have All The HIV & AIDS Advocates Gone?
May 12-2005.
TO: greggg@gmhc.orgCC: jdavo@msn.com
Hello Everyone!
I read your concerns with some trepidation. I also agree with most of what you have outlined below, specificly the concern for the seeming lack of advocacy by HIV + people. And the seeming lack of HIV positive Decision Makers and Providers within our communities. This reality has always bothered me, ever since the advent of HAART medications. I know for a fact that some of us have concentrated our advocacy work (In House) so to speak. We sit on The City & State Levels, as advisors, planners and frontline people, where certain decisions regarding Funding for HIV Prevention & Related Services are made.
But we are very few, in comparison to the volume of VISIBLE ADVOCATES we had prior to the advent of HAART medications. And I feel (just like you said), that we have become (by & large) very complacent. We are now almost totally reliant upon the decisions of those who are not HIV positive. Is not personally impacted by this pandemic in any real way. And we are saddled with organizational bureaucrats, who seem bent on CONTROLLING the HIV Positive population, equated to that of A Correctional Facility/Prison!
Of course this attitude differs from culture to culture. The politics invariably hinges upon who is in control of the financial resources for research, funding Service Oriented Providers, and the cultural stigmas that are still evident internationally about HIV and AIDS. And yes, we have also a very big problem with personal responsibility within our communities. Some of us are back into unsafe sexual activities (Big Time): Others cannot wait to attend the next Sex Party Revelry: Drinking & Drugging seem to be on the rise within our communities: And last but not least, BARE-BACKING seem to be the next best thing to indulge in these days!
So what can us Advocates, (who are still active do to encourage involvement)? I say, bring these realities to the fore, via The Internet: The Public Media: The Tabloids: And in any way that will grant us publicity. By doing so regularly, maybe-just maybe, from the conscience of some of us, will emerge some consideration, for a return to the movement of advocacy.
Or change some of our reckless behaviour!
Om Shanti.
Derryck S. Griffith.
Political Educator & Advocate.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/derryckgrifith
TO: greggg@gmhc.orgCC: jdavo@msn.com
Hello Everyone!
I read your concerns with some trepidation. I also agree with most of what you have outlined below, specificly the concern for the seeming lack of advocacy by HIV + people. And the seeming lack of HIV positive Decision Makers and Providers within our communities. This reality has always bothered me, ever since the advent of HAART medications. I know for a fact that some of us have concentrated our advocacy work (In House) so to speak. We sit on The City & State Levels, as advisors, planners and frontline people, where certain decisions regarding Funding for HIV Prevention & Related Services are made.
But we are very few, in comparison to the volume of VISIBLE ADVOCATES we had prior to the advent of HAART medications. And I feel (just like you said), that we have become (by & large) very complacent. We are now almost totally reliant upon the decisions of those who are not HIV positive. Is not personally impacted by this pandemic in any real way. And we are saddled with organizational bureaucrats, who seem bent on CONTROLLING the HIV Positive population, equated to that of A Correctional Facility/Prison!
Of course this attitude differs from culture to culture. The politics invariably hinges upon who is in control of the financial resources for research, funding Service Oriented Providers, and the cultural stigmas that are still evident internationally about HIV and AIDS. And yes, we have also a very big problem with personal responsibility within our communities. Some of us are back into unsafe sexual activities (Big Time): Others cannot wait to attend the next Sex Party Revelry: Drinking & Drugging seem to be on the rise within our communities: And last but not least, BARE-BACKING seem to be the next best thing to indulge in these days!
So what can us Advocates, (who are still active do to encourage involvement)? I say, bring these realities to the fore, via The Internet: The Public Media: The Tabloids: And in any way that will grant us publicity. By doing so regularly, maybe-just maybe, from the conscience of some of us, will emerge some consideration, for a return to the movement of advocacy.
Or change some of our reckless behaviour!
Om Shanti.
Derryck S. Griffith.
Political Educator & Advocate.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/derryckgrifith
Youth's Blog Stirs Uproar Over Ex-Gay Group:
Youth's blog stirs uproar over 'ex-gay' camp
Larry Buhl, PlanetOut Network Thursday, June 16, 2005 / 05:45 PM
SUMMARY: A youth's online postings about being sent to a rigid "ex-gay" program has troubled LGBT leaders and sparked daily protests at the ministry's Tennessee headquarters.
Editor's Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly placed Love in Action in Alabama, rather than Tennessee. We regret the error.
Sixteen-year-old "Zach" is apparently enduring a rite of passage still too common for gay youth: His parents say he must change. When they enrolled him last month in a Christian camp-like program to turn him straight, he documented his fears in his online diary, or blog.
The PlanetOut Network could not confirm Zach's identity or his story, but the blog has sparked a firestorm of protest against the program, known as Refuge, and renewed scrutiny of similar "ministries."
A residential program run by Memphis, Tenn.-based Love in Action (LIA), Refuge "ministers to adolescents struggling with broken and addictive behaviors, such as promiscuity, alcohol and drug addiction and homosexuality," according to its Web site.
An estimated total of 150 people -- including parents, children, psychiatrists and other concerned Memphis residents carrying signs that have slogans such as "This is Child Abuse" -- have gathered over eight consecutive days outside LIA headquarters. On Thursday LIA held a press conference in response to the protests.
For LIA, homosexuality is not an orientation but a set of behaviors that lies at the root of all dysfunction. And homosexual desires can supposedly be reprogrammed, through Refuge, at a cost of $2,000 for two weeks, or $4,000 for six weeks. Patterned after teen drug and alcohol programs, Refuge minimizes contact with familiar things that it claims encourage homosexual behavior: no secular music, no more than 15 minutes per day behind a closed bathroom door, no contact with any practicing homosexuals, no masturbation, no secular music, and -- for reasons not explained -- no Calvin Klein underwear.
The rules above were posted on Zach's blog, which has been inactive since June 3. The policies were confirmed by Alex Polotsky, a spokesman for Queer Action Coalition, a Memphis group formed to provide alternative information for struggling youth. "Nobody can be straight enough in the program," said Polotsky, whose group staged the protests outside LIA. "We're outraged at the treatment youths receive [in Refuge]."
Exodus International, an umbrella organization for nearly all regional "ex-gay" ministries, provides funding and marketing support for groups such as LIA, Lifeguard Ministries, New Hope Ministries and others. Although "reparative therapy" for homosexuality has been denounced by the mainstream psychological community as tantamount to abuse, "ex-gay" ministries offer hope to conflicted parents (usually devoutly religious and conservative) who are unwilling or unable to accept their kids' sexuality or seek traditional counseling.
Youth (and adults) who enter "ex-gay" programs may suffer from genuine self-destructive behaviors that go far beyond their struggle with same-sex attraction, said Wayne Besen, who wrote the book "Anything But Straight" about the "ex-gay" movement.
"To get help they have to swallow the lie that it's because they are gay that they're having these problems. It works by confusing people. It doesn't matter to them that they don't get results. They get a lot of money from people who really believe this stuff."
"Love in Action seems to be the worst of these reckless religious activities," said Craig Bowman, executive director of the National Youth Advocacy Coalition.
These programs are dangerous because they systematically work on a young person's psyche using junk science as a foundation."
Jack Drescher, M.D., a New York-based psychiatrist and chair of the American Psychiatric Association Committee on LGBT Issues, told the PlanetOut Network that such programs do far more harm than good for impressionable teens. "They may delay the child's coming out for many years, but by the time they are ready to come out, there's been a lot of psychological damage."
Shawn O'Donnell spent eight years in and out of therapy to change his sexual orientation. As a depressed and suicidal 18-year-old, O'Donnell was referred by his pastor to a three-year residential program, New Hope Ministry, located 10 miles from San Francisco. O'Donnell said it only made his issues worse.
"It was hell, very controlling.
We couldn't be alone. We were always told to pray harder, and it made us feel ashamed that we weren't using the program correctly," he recalled.
Peterson Toscano spent 17 years and $30,000 to get straight as an adult, but nothing worked. Now a "performance activist" in Connecticut, Toscano has toured the United States and Europe with a satirical theater piece about his two years in LIA. "'Ex-gay' programs use the term 'gay lifestyle,' which to them includes unsafe sex [and] emotionally dependent relationships," Toscano said.
"They know they can't really turn anyone straight, but they can make them not live the 'gay lifestyle.' They are purposely deceiving people."
Though relatively few people participate in 'ex-gay' programs, Drescher believes their influence goes far beyond changing individuals. "They are a pawn in the culture war," he said. "They support the idea that homosexuality can be changed, therefore it is a lifestyle and not worthy of civil rights legislation."
Drescher pointed to an 'ex-gay' convention called Love Won Out, organized by the anti-gay Focus on the Family and held in Texas to coincide with the state legislature's biennial sessions.
"The timing is not a coincidence," he said. "Their purpose is to shape public policy."
END:
Larry Buhl, PlanetOut Network Thursday, June 16, 2005 / 05:45 PM
SUMMARY: A youth's online postings about being sent to a rigid "ex-gay" program has troubled LGBT leaders and sparked daily protests at the ministry's Tennessee headquarters.
Editor's Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly placed Love in Action in Alabama, rather than Tennessee. We regret the error.
Sixteen-year-old "Zach" is apparently enduring a rite of passage still too common for gay youth: His parents say he must change. When they enrolled him last month in a Christian camp-like program to turn him straight, he documented his fears in his online diary, or blog.
The PlanetOut Network could not confirm Zach's identity or his story, but the blog has sparked a firestorm of protest against the program, known as Refuge, and renewed scrutiny of similar "ministries."
A residential program run by Memphis, Tenn.-based Love in Action (LIA), Refuge "ministers to adolescents struggling with broken and addictive behaviors, such as promiscuity, alcohol and drug addiction and homosexuality," according to its Web site.
An estimated total of 150 people -- including parents, children, psychiatrists and other concerned Memphis residents carrying signs that have slogans such as "This is Child Abuse" -- have gathered over eight consecutive days outside LIA headquarters. On Thursday LIA held a press conference in response to the protests.
For LIA, homosexuality is not an orientation but a set of behaviors that lies at the root of all dysfunction. And homosexual desires can supposedly be reprogrammed, through Refuge, at a cost of $2,000 for two weeks, or $4,000 for six weeks. Patterned after teen drug and alcohol programs, Refuge minimizes contact with familiar things that it claims encourage homosexual behavior: no secular music, no more than 15 minutes per day behind a closed bathroom door, no contact with any practicing homosexuals, no masturbation, no secular music, and -- for reasons not explained -- no Calvin Klein underwear.
The rules above were posted on Zach's blog, which has been inactive since June 3. The policies were confirmed by Alex Polotsky, a spokesman for Queer Action Coalition, a Memphis group formed to provide alternative information for struggling youth. "Nobody can be straight enough in the program," said Polotsky, whose group staged the protests outside LIA. "We're outraged at the treatment youths receive [in Refuge]."
Exodus International, an umbrella organization for nearly all regional "ex-gay" ministries, provides funding and marketing support for groups such as LIA, Lifeguard Ministries, New Hope Ministries and others. Although "reparative therapy" for homosexuality has been denounced by the mainstream psychological community as tantamount to abuse, "ex-gay" ministries offer hope to conflicted parents (usually devoutly religious and conservative) who are unwilling or unable to accept their kids' sexuality or seek traditional counseling.
Youth (and adults) who enter "ex-gay" programs may suffer from genuine self-destructive behaviors that go far beyond their struggle with same-sex attraction, said Wayne Besen, who wrote the book "Anything But Straight" about the "ex-gay" movement.
"To get help they have to swallow the lie that it's because they are gay that they're having these problems. It works by confusing people. It doesn't matter to them that they don't get results. They get a lot of money from people who really believe this stuff."
"Love in Action seems to be the worst of these reckless religious activities," said Craig Bowman, executive director of the National Youth Advocacy Coalition.
These programs are dangerous because they systematically work on a young person's psyche using junk science as a foundation."
Jack Drescher, M.D., a New York-based psychiatrist and chair of the American Psychiatric Association Committee on LGBT Issues, told the PlanetOut Network that such programs do far more harm than good for impressionable teens. "They may delay the child's coming out for many years, but by the time they are ready to come out, there's been a lot of psychological damage."
Shawn O'Donnell spent eight years in and out of therapy to change his sexual orientation. As a depressed and suicidal 18-year-old, O'Donnell was referred by his pastor to a three-year residential program, New Hope Ministry, located 10 miles from San Francisco. O'Donnell said it only made his issues worse.
"It was hell, very controlling.
We couldn't be alone. We were always told to pray harder, and it made us feel ashamed that we weren't using the program correctly," he recalled.
Peterson Toscano spent 17 years and $30,000 to get straight as an adult, but nothing worked. Now a "performance activist" in Connecticut, Toscano has toured the United States and Europe with a satirical theater piece about his two years in LIA. "'Ex-gay' programs use the term 'gay lifestyle,' which to them includes unsafe sex [and] emotionally dependent relationships," Toscano said.
"They know they can't really turn anyone straight, but they can make them not live the 'gay lifestyle.' They are purposely deceiving people."
Though relatively few people participate in 'ex-gay' programs, Drescher believes their influence goes far beyond changing individuals. "They are a pawn in the culture war," he said. "They support the idea that homosexuality can be changed, therefore it is a lifestyle and not worthy of civil rights legislation."
Drescher pointed to an 'ex-gay' convention called Love Won Out, organized by the anti-gay Focus on the Family and held in Texas to coincide with the state legislature's biennial sessions.
"The timing is not a coincidence," he said. "Their purpose is to shape public policy."
END:
Blogs Lauded In Freedom Awards:
June 19-2005:
Blogs lauded in 'freedom awards!
The best weblogs on the net which have defended freedom of expression have been recognised in the Freedom Blogs awards, voted for by the public. The seven best blogs out of 60, shortlisted by Reporters Without Borders, represent six locations.
Winners included Shared Pains, an Afghan blog which comments on daily political and social life there. Blogs, diary-like websites where people publish thoughts or news, are popular because they are easy to use and free. Also highlighted in the winners' list is Mojtaba Saminejad. He is an Iranian whose blog, published in the Farsi language, earned him a two-year prison sentence in June 2005.
The other Iranian bloggers nominated in the separate Iran category all voted for him too, as a sign of solidarity. In oppressive regimes, they are the only source of information so deserve be highlighted Julien Pain, Reporters Without Borders The Asia category was won by the Malaysian blog, Screenshot, published in English. Its editor, Jeff Ooi, was threatened with imprisonment in October 2004 for allowing a comment on his blog which "insulted Islam", according to the authorities.
English bias
It is the first time the awards have run, but Julien Pain from Reporters Without Borders (RSF) told the BBC News website that the campaign group wanted them to be an annual event. RSF tracks press freedom across the globe. While there is a huge debate in the US and Europe about whether bloggers should be afforded "journalist" status, with the protections and respect that go with that, the problems facing bloggers in oppressive regimes are much more pressing.
FREEDOM BLOG WINNERS Asia: Screenshot (Malaysia, published in English) Joint winner Africa and Middle East: Shared Pains (Afghanistan, Farsi) Joint winner Africa and Middle East: Al Jinane (Morocco, French) Europe: ICT lex (Italy, Italian) Americas: Press Think (US, English) Iran: Mojtaba Saminejad (Iran, Farsi) International: Netzpolitik (Germany, German)
"Blogs are great a tool in repressive regimes. In countries like China and Nepal, setting up a blog is the only way to be a real journalist," said Mr Pain. "We wanted to attract attention to how important blogs have become in terms of freedom of expression," he added. "In oppressive regimes, they are the only source of information so deserve be highlighted."
In 2000 in Iran, for instance, the regime shut down almost all independent newspapers. "Real journalists could not publish anymore so had to find other ways to keep working. They turned to blogs and started their own. "Then others, like people with other jobs, realised that they could do it too. They had information that the journalists didn't. "One blogger in Iraq went to jail because he criticised his local government about a very local problem, for instance." Groups, such as the Committee to Protect Bloggers, have been set up to rally global blogger support for those who are repressed for what they say.
English bias
There is no doubt blogs have caused ripples across the net. Many people are confused about why blogs have exploded in the way they have. "Blogs make things so much easier for non-technical people to publish. Anyone can be a publisher now," explained Mr Pain. "The real difference is that it is really easy for everyday people to do it. That is a revolution. Everyone can take the opportunity to be online publishers and speak out. "We are talking about 50-year-old Iranian journalists with no HTML skills, who would not be able to do real website.
The real problem, he said, was that the main blog tools that make self-publishing easy tended to be Anglo-Saxon and English-language based. Blogging took off in Iran when Hossein Derakhshan, who blogs under the name Hoder, integrated Farsi into blogging tools. "Iranians want to talk first to Iranians, then the rest of the world," said Mr Pain. But Mr Derakhshan does not live in Iran anymore, and now publishes in English. RSF said it was important for people still in countries like Iran to blog and reach out to and inform people who speak their own language.
RSF is trying to help bloggers set up their sites in Nepalese, for instance. They are having enormous difficulties because the blogging tools are just not able to handle the kinds of characters used in Nepalese. Mr Pain said RSF that working with organisations like Civiblog, which describes itself as a blogging tool for the "global civil society", could help alleviate the problem.
China is the most sophisticated in terms of web censoring tools and systems in place. Last week, the Chinese authorities said that all blogs had to register with them or face being shut down. And in a widely criticised move, Microsoft's MSN China site said it was starting to censor blog entries with certain terms in them. Microsoft said the company abided by the laws, regulations and norms of each country in which it operates.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/technology/4099802.stm
Published: 2005/06/17 07:48:59 GMT
Blogs lauded in 'freedom awards!
The best weblogs on the net which have defended freedom of expression have been recognised in the Freedom Blogs awards, voted for by the public. The seven best blogs out of 60, shortlisted by Reporters Without Borders, represent six locations.
Winners included Shared Pains, an Afghan blog which comments on daily political and social life there. Blogs, diary-like websites where people publish thoughts or news, are popular because they are easy to use and free. Also highlighted in the winners' list is Mojtaba Saminejad. He is an Iranian whose blog, published in the Farsi language, earned him a two-year prison sentence in June 2005.
The other Iranian bloggers nominated in the separate Iran category all voted for him too, as a sign of solidarity. In oppressive regimes, they are the only source of information so deserve be highlighted Julien Pain, Reporters Without Borders The Asia category was won by the Malaysian blog, Screenshot, published in English. Its editor, Jeff Ooi, was threatened with imprisonment in October 2004 for allowing a comment on his blog which "insulted Islam", according to the authorities.
English bias
It is the first time the awards have run, but Julien Pain from Reporters Without Borders (RSF) told the BBC News website that the campaign group wanted them to be an annual event. RSF tracks press freedom across the globe. While there is a huge debate in the US and Europe about whether bloggers should be afforded "journalist" status, with the protections and respect that go with that, the problems facing bloggers in oppressive regimes are much more pressing.
FREEDOM BLOG WINNERS Asia: Screenshot (Malaysia, published in English) Joint winner Africa and Middle East: Shared Pains (Afghanistan, Farsi) Joint winner Africa and Middle East: Al Jinane (Morocco, French) Europe: ICT lex (Italy, Italian) Americas: Press Think (US, English) Iran: Mojtaba Saminejad (Iran, Farsi) International: Netzpolitik (Germany, German)
"Blogs are great a tool in repressive regimes. In countries like China and Nepal, setting up a blog is the only way to be a real journalist," said Mr Pain. "We wanted to attract attention to how important blogs have become in terms of freedom of expression," he added. "In oppressive regimes, they are the only source of information so deserve be highlighted."
In 2000 in Iran, for instance, the regime shut down almost all independent newspapers. "Real journalists could not publish anymore so had to find other ways to keep working. They turned to blogs and started their own. "Then others, like people with other jobs, realised that they could do it too. They had information that the journalists didn't. "One blogger in Iraq went to jail because he criticised his local government about a very local problem, for instance." Groups, such as the Committee to Protect Bloggers, have been set up to rally global blogger support for those who are repressed for what they say.
English bias
There is no doubt blogs have caused ripples across the net. Many people are confused about why blogs have exploded in the way they have. "Blogs make things so much easier for non-technical people to publish. Anyone can be a publisher now," explained Mr Pain. "The real difference is that it is really easy for everyday people to do it. That is a revolution. Everyone can take the opportunity to be online publishers and speak out. "We are talking about 50-year-old Iranian journalists with no HTML skills, who would not be able to do real website.
The real problem, he said, was that the main blog tools that make self-publishing easy tended to be Anglo-Saxon and English-language based. Blogging took off in Iran when Hossein Derakhshan, who blogs under the name Hoder, integrated Farsi into blogging tools. "Iranians want to talk first to Iranians, then the rest of the world," said Mr Pain. But Mr Derakhshan does not live in Iran anymore, and now publishes in English. RSF said it was important for people still in countries like Iran to blog and reach out to and inform people who speak their own language.
RSF is trying to help bloggers set up their sites in Nepalese, for instance. They are having enormous difficulties because the blogging tools are just not able to handle the kinds of characters used in Nepalese. Mr Pain said RSF that working with organisations like Civiblog, which describes itself as a blogging tool for the "global civil society", could help alleviate the problem.
China is the most sophisticated in terms of web censoring tools and systems in place. Last week, the Chinese authorities said that all blogs had to register with them or face being shut down. And in a widely criticised move, Microsoft's MSN China site said it was starting to censor blog entries with certain terms in them. Microsoft said the company abided by the laws, regulations and norms of each country in which it operates.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/technology/4099802.stm
Published: 2005/06/17 07:48:59 GMT
Friday, June 17, 2005
Consumers Please Boycott Walmart Stores:
Boycott Walmart Stores!
Boycott International a program of 1world communication:
1world communication has decided to launch Boycott International in recognition of the power of individuals in situations where governments have chosen to, or are unable to, influence companies that exploit children and/or violate basic human rights of their workers.
Global trade and lending organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund have made it harder for organizations in any one country, or even governments to protect the interests of their citizens from the greed of multinational corporations. The assets of some of the largest corporations exceed those of many nations.
Only as a united global community can we stop them from destroying the environment, violating the most basic human rights of their workers, and exploiting children as a source of cheap labor.
The pages of Boycott International (BI) will serve as a clearinghouse of information. Occasionally BI will call for a boycott of a company not yet subject to an actual one but, due to it’s gross violations of human rights, we believe should not be patronized.We have chosen Walmart as the target of our primary call for a boycott because of the company’s unfair labor practices around the world.
Not only does this chain mistreat many employees that work for them, it also sells goods made by suppliers that grossly violate the rights of their workers around the world. Despite protests and a law suit they have refused to correct these problems.
The following article will give you some examples of how Walmart does business.
Special Note:
Walmart as an organization believes that selling merchandize to the consumer at a low price, is the best offer one can get. But at the same time, they fail to tell consumers that if a retailer is going to sell his merchandise cheaply, he has to pay wages cheaply. And doing that will make it impossible for workers to make a decent livlehood, pay rent, buy clothing, save for his child/chidren's college education, and put something away for a rainy day.
Walmart buys most of it's stock from China at a very cheap rate, undercutting the agreed upon fair trade agreement that China as a partner has signed. This is a blatant violation of fair trading practices. You see friends, China has a very large reservoir of labour to access. Plus that state subsidizes most of the local industries, in keeping with the communist system of state control.
And China does not allow Trade Unions to operate within it's borders. That conflicts with socialist thinking of collective ownership of the mode of production!
Therefore, taking strong action like boycotting Walmart stores, is just a start in the right direction.
Om Shanti.
Derryck S. Griffith.
Political Educator & Advocate.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/mimbari2003
Boycott International a program of 1world communication:
1world communication has decided to launch Boycott International in recognition of the power of individuals in situations where governments have chosen to, or are unable to, influence companies that exploit children and/or violate basic human rights of their workers.
Global trade and lending organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund have made it harder for organizations in any one country, or even governments to protect the interests of their citizens from the greed of multinational corporations. The assets of some of the largest corporations exceed those of many nations.
Only as a united global community can we stop them from destroying the environment, violating the most basic human rights of their workers, and exploiting children as a source of cheap labor.
The pages of Boycott International (BI) will serve as a clearinghouse of information. Occasionally BI will call for a boycott of a company not yet subject to an actual one but, due to it’s gross violations of human rights, we believe should not be patronized.We have chosen Walmart as the target of our primary call for a boycott because of the company’s unfair labor practices around the world.
Not only does this chain mistreat many employees that work for them, it also sells goods made by suppliers that grossly violate the rights of their workers around the world. Despite protests and a law suit they have refused to correct these problems.
The following article will give you some examples of how Walmart does business.
Special Note:
Walmart as an organization believes that selling merchandize to the consumer at a low price, is the best offer one can get. But at the same time, they fail to tell consumers that if a retailer is going to sell his merchandise cheaply, he has to pay wages cheaply. And doing that will make it impossible for workers to make a decent livlehood, pay rent, buy clothing, save for his child/chidren's college education, and put something away for a rainy day.
Walmart buys most of it's stock from China at a very cheap rate, undercutting the agreed upon fair trade agreement that China as a partner has signed. This is a blatant violation of fair trading practices. You see friends, China has a very large reservoir of labour to access. Plus that state subsidizes most of the local industries, in keeping with the communist system of state control.
And China does not allow Trade Unions to operate within it's borders. That conflicts with socialist thinking of collective ownership of the mode of production!
Therefore, taking strong action like boycotting Walmart stores, is just a start in the right direction.
Om Shanti.
Derryck S. Griffith.
Political Educator & Advocate.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/mimbari2003
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
US Supreme Court-Patients May Not Smoke POT Legally!
Supreme Court: Patients May Not Use Pot Legally!
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press WriterTue Jun 7, 2:10 AM ET
Anyone who lights up a joint for medicinal purposes isn't likely to be pursued by federal authorities, despite a Supreme Court ruling that these marijuana users could face federal charges, people on both sides of the issue say.
In a 6-3 decision, the court on Monday said those who smoke marijuana because their doctors recommend it to ease pain can be prosecuted for violating federal drug laws, overriding medical marijuana statutes in 10 states.
While the justices expressed sympathy for two seriously ill California women who brought the case, the majority agreed that federal agents may arrest even sick people who use the drug as well as the people who grow pot for them.
The ruling could be an early test of the compassion Attorney General Alberto Gonzales promised to bring to the Justice Department following the tenure of John Ashcroft.
Gonzales and his aides were silent on the ruling Monday, but several Bush administration officials said individual users have little reason to worry. "We have never targeted the sick and dying, but rather criminals engaged in drug trafficking," Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman Bill Grant said.
Yet Ashcroft's Justice Department moved aggressively following the Supreme Court's first decision against medical marijuana in 2001, seizing individuals' marijuana and raiding their suppliers.
The lawsuit that led to Monday's ruling, in fact, resulted from a raid by DEA agents and local sheriff's deputies on a garden near Oroville, Calif., where Diane Monson was cultivating six pot plants.
"I'm going to have to be prepared to be arrested," said Monson, an accountant who has degenerative spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants.
Javier Pena, the DEA agent in charge of the San Francisco field division, said Monday his agency took part in the raid only at the request of local authorities.
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said Monday that "people shouldn't panic ... there aren't going to be many changes."
Local and state officers handle nearly all marijuana prosecutions and must still follow any state laws that protect patients.
The ruling does not strike down California's law, or similar ones in Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state. However, it may hurt efforts to pass laws in other states because the federal government's prosecution authority trumps states' wishes.
It was unclear whether any medical marijuana users ever have been arrested by federal agents. They typically are involved only when the quantities are substantial.
Tom Riley, spokesman for the White House drug policy office, said federal prisoners convicted of marijuana possession had on average more than 100 pounds.
Growers of large amounts of medical marijuana and people who are outspoken in their use of it could face heightened scrutiny.
"From an enforcement standpoint, the federal government is not going to be crashing into people's homes trying to determine what type of medicine they're taking," said Asa Hutchinson, a former DEA administrator. "They have historically concentrated on suppliers and people who flaunt the law. There should not be any change from that circumstance."
Allen St. Pierre, executive director of NORML, which favors legalization of marijuana, said the benchmark for federal intervention has been 50 plants.
But he said the larger point is that the ruling could stymie efforts in other states to pass laws allowing for the use of medical marijuana.
The Bush administration, like the Clinton White House before it, has taken a hard stand against state medical marijuana laws, arguing that such statutes could undermine the fight against illegal drugs. John Walters, director of national drug control policy, defended the government's ban. "Science and research have not determined that smoking marijuana is safe or effective," he said.
St. Pierre said the decision points up a large difference between the administration and the public. "The disconnect is so wide here," St. Pierre said. "In no circumstance where voters have the opportunity to weigh in have they said no to medical marijuana." Justice John Paul Stevens, an 85-year-old cancer survivor, said the Constitution allows federal regulation of homegrown marijuana as interstate commerce. But he noted the court was not passing judgment on the potential medical benefits of marijuana.
And Congress could change federal law if it desires, Stevens said, although that is not considered likely.
The case is Gonzales v. Raich, 03-1454.
The ruling in Gonzales v. Raich is available at:
http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050606raich.pdf
SPECIAL NOTE:
If the highest court in the land (The Supreme Court) ruled that smoking marijuana is a Federal offense. Then who can be guaranteed safe from prosecution by the law, regardless of the individual state's laws?
If the Federal authorities want to arrest anyone on charges for that offense, and he/she is a known grower and user of marijuana, then who is to stop them from doing so, or planting more marijuana on that person's property, in order to make a bust?
How can we be assured as a people that in the future this law will not be used willy nilly to arrest people on terrorist charges, using the marijuana Federal Law to validate federal actions in this regard. eg, promoting the sale of marijuana?
Om Shanti.
Derryck S. Griffith.
Political Educator & Advocate.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/derryckgrifith
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press WriterTue Jun 7, 2:10 AM ET
Anyone who lights up a joint for medicinal purposes isn't likely to be pursued by federal authorities, despite a Supreme Court ruling that these marijuana users could face federal charges, people on both sides of the issue say.
In a 6-3 decision, the court on Monday said those who smoke marijuana because their doctors recommend it to ease pain can be prosecuted for violating federal drug laws, overriding medical marijuana statutes in 10 states.
While the justices expressed sympathy for two seriously ill California women who brought the case, the majority agreed that federal agents may arrest even sick people who use the drug as well as the people who grow pot for them.
The ruling could be an early test of the compassion Attorney General Alberto Gonzales promised to bring to the Justice Department following the tenure of John Ashcroft.
Gonzales and his aides were silent on the ruling Monday, but several Bush administration officials said individual users have little reason to worry. "We have never targeted the sick and dying, but rather criminals engaged in drug trafficking," Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman Bill Grant said.
Yet Ashcroft's Justice Department moved aggressively following the Supreme Court's first decision against medical marijuana in 2001, seizing individuals' marijuana and raiding their suppliers.
The lawsuit that led to Monday's ruling, in fact, resulted from a raid by DEA agents and local sheriff's deputies on a garden near Oroville, Calif., where Diane Monson was cultivating six pot plants.
"I'm going to have to be prepared to be arrested," said Monson, an accountant who has degenerative spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants.
Javier Pena, the DEA agent in charge of the San Francisco field division, said Monday his agency took part in the raid only at the request of local authorities.
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said Monday that "people shouldn't panic ... there aren't going to be many changes."
Local and state officers handle nearly all marijuana prosecutions and must still follow any state laws that protect patients.
The ruling does not strike down California's law, or similar ones in Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state. However, it may hurt efforts to pass laws in other states because the federal government's prosecution authority trumps states' wishes.
It was unclear whether any medical marijuana users ever have been arrested by federal agents. They typically are involved only when the quantities are substantial.
Tom Riley, spokesman for the White House drug policy office, said federal prisoners convicted of marijuana possession had on average more than 100 pounds.
Growers of large amounts of medical marijuana and people who are outspoken in their use of it could face heightened scrutiny.
"From an enforcement standpoint, the federal government is not going to be crashing into people's homes trying to determine what type of medicine they're taking," said Asa Hutchinson, a former DEA administrator. "They have historically concentrated on suppliers and people who flaunt the law. There should not be any change from that circumstance."
Allen St. Pierre, executive director of NORML, which favors legalization of marijuana, said the benchmark for federal intervention has been 50 plants.
But he said the larger point is that the ruling could stymie efforts in other states to pass laws allowing for the use of medical marijuana.
The Bush administration, like the Clinton White House before it, has taken a hard stand against state medical marijuana laws, arguing that such statutes could undermine the fight against illegal drugs. John Walters, director of national drug control policy, defended the government's ban. "Science and research have not determined that smoking marijuana is safe or effective," he said.
St. Pierre said the decision points up a large difference between the administration and the public. "The disconnect is so wide here," St. Pierre said. "In no circumstance where voters have the opportunity to weigh in have they said no to medical marijuana." Justice John Paul Stevens, an 85-year-old cancer survivor, said the Constitution allows federal regulation of homegrown marijuana as interstate commerce. But he noted the court was not passing judgment on the potential medical benefits of marijuana.
And Congress could change federal law if it desires, Stevens said, although that is not considered likely.
The case is Gonzales v. Raich, 03-1454.
The ruling in Gonzales v. Raich is available at:
http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050606raich.pdf
SPECIAL NOTE:
If the highest court in the land (The Supreme Court) ruled that smoking marijuana is a Federal offense. Then who can be guaranteed safe from prosecution by the law, regardless of the individual state's laws?
If the Federal authorities want to arrest anyone on charges for that offense, and he/she is a known grower and user of marijuana, then who is to stop them from doing so, or planting more marijuana on that person's property, in order to make a bust?
How can we be assured as a people that in the future this law will not be used willy nilly to arrest people on terrorist charges, using the marijuana Federal Law to validate federal actions in this regard. eg, promoting the sale of marijuana?
Om Shanti.
Derryck S. Griffith.
Political Educator & Advocate.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/derryckgrifith
Monday, May 30, 2005
Developing your vocabulary:
Developing your vocabulary!
Vocabulary:
The cognitive process of acquiring skill or knowledge!
Cognition is a process of acquiring certain skills/language, be it (spoken or written), which enables us to communicate more effectively.
For example, "The boy stood on the burning deck, when all but he, had fled."
The question you may be asking yourself is, why did he not flee the flames?
And you may be presuming too, that he might have been so scared, that he became transfixed. Fear may have been the reason why he did not automatically respond, or remove himself from that situation.
And why did someone not try to rescue or save him, from the flames of the burning ship? Had everyone abandoned ship without noticing him? Or was he left behind in the general panic and confusion?
Whatever it was, that statement 'the boy stood on the burning deck, when all but he, had fled,' has induced endless speculation about his dilemma or predicament. And that is what vocabulary enables us to do in spoken or written language!
Imbedded:
To fix or set secretly or deeply!
Today on Manhattan Neighborhood Television, someone was asked in an interview on the street, what does it mean to be imbedded? This was in relation to news reporting in Iraq by journalists. And surprisingly, no one knew the answer. Even though this was being mentioned/explained time and again, on television during the war in Iraq.
I think it all comes down to the regular or frequent use of certain words or language in our day to day experiences. When you incorporate a wide array of vocabulary in your daily life, the tendency to pluck out the appropriate word from your mental archives comes naturally. Much more so that those who do not explore or expand theirs!
Om Shanti.
Derryck S. Griffith.
Political Educator & Advocate.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/Mimbari2003
Bloggers have rights too!
By Rep. John Conyers, Published on ZDNet News: March 24, 2005, 12:09 PM PT
BLOGGERS HAVE RIGHTS TOO!
CommentaryThe Internet has proved to be the greatest advancement in our ability to disseminate news and information since the invention of the printing press by Gutenberg in 1450. Web Loggers, or bloggers, have already broken several major stories, including those that led to the resignation of a Virginia congressman, a shake-up at CBS news over the "60 Minutes" Bush National Guard story the firing of a CNN executive over remarks criticizing the U.S. military, and the White House granting Jeff Gannon inappropriate access to White House daily press briefings.
Unfortunately, today in two separate arenas--campaign finance laws and the legal privileges accorded to journalists to protect confidential sources bloggers' free speech rights are at risk. It is incumbent on the Federal Election Commission, legislatures, and the courts to ensure these rights are protected for Internet-based media. The FEC is currently considering bloggers' role as journalists as it intersects with the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, or BCRA. Late last year, the District Court for the District of Columbia overturned the FEC's blanket exemption of the Internet from campaign finance law.
The FEC must therefore decide whether to characterize Web reporters asmembers of the press warranting a BCRA exemption similar to that of theprint and broadcast media. I recently wrote a letter along with 13 of mycolleagues urging the FEC to apply the press exemption to the Internet,and Sen. Harry Reid has introduced legislation to this effect. The state courts have also considered the issue of bloggers' First Amendment rights. Last month,
Apple Computer sought a California court's permission to serve subpoenas on three Web sites for publishing Apple's trade secrets. Bloggers argued the subpoenas violated their First Amendment rights to maintain confidential sources. The Superior Court judge eventually ruled against the bloggers , however, and in doing so the court did not reach the issue of whether they should be considered journalists and entitled to First Amendment protection. So the legal issue of journalist privileges for bloggers is still unresolved. The confluence of these two cases indicates that we are at a turning point in the evolution of Internet-based media. I believe bloggers have shown they warrant
First Amendment protection for several reasons.
First, bloggers have become widely accepted as legitimate news gatherers and disseminators. Columbia University's Project for Excellence inJournalism reports that 32 million Americans are currently turning to blogs for their information. Bloggers were granted press passes to both theDemocratic and Republican national conventions last summer, and theWhite House recently approved the first blog press pass to a day's gaggle.Bloggers should be classified as journalists and given First Amendmentprotections based on the function they perform, not the form of theirtransmissions. Properly understood, the First Amendment applies to allthose who report with journalistic integrity--offline or online.
In a prescient 1993 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appealsfound that an author had standing to invoke a reporter's privilege whenthe court ruled that "what makes journalism journalism is not its formatbut its content." The same principle and rights should apply to bloggers if they are producing similar content and using similar journalistic techniques as the mainstream media. Ironically, many of the "established" media outlets have also migrated online, with some even running their own blogs.
For better or worse, we operate in an environment where majorconglomerates such as News Corp., General Electric, Disney, Viacom,Gannett, Knight-Ridder and Clear Channel dominate the nation's airwavesand print media. Whenever a potential story criticizing a powerfulpolitical figure or corporate parent is squelched, questions are raisedconcerning the independence of the mainstream news media. Bloggers, bycontrast, are not subject to these same constraints or concerns, andhave shown their independence over and over.
I agree with Thomas Jefferson's sentiments when he wrote, "The basis ofour government being the opinion of people, the very first object shouldbe to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter."
In Jefferson's era, print newspapers revolutionized the way the countryread and processed the news. Today we stand on the precipice of a newmedia revolution with the advent of the Internet. We need to protectbloggers' First Amendment rights so they can help us protect our owncitizens' rights.
Biography.Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., is the ranking member on the House JudiciaryCommittee.
END.
Beware Of The Bloggers!
Beware of the Bloggers!
Definition: A person who shares his or her personal diary or journalOnline!
The Internet-A Free Medium For Expression!
Gone are the days when if you had something to say of substance, orwanted to reach large volumes of readers, you had to purchase space in anewspaper, time on radio, or publish a book.
With the advent of The World Wide Web, all you need is an Internetconnection, a computer & modem, and all of your wishes (almost), will berealized via this medium.
There was a time when I wanted to publish my Poetry, and the voluminousarticles that I had written and accumulated over the years, but couldnot afford a periodical publication in the local press. Nor could I haveimagined the possibility of reaching thousands, all in one go, or withthe click on a button.
Today, this opportunity via the Internet has provided me with volumes ofreaders from all over the world. I have chatted and made friendshitherto impossible with Pen Pals or local postal mailing. The costwould have been too great. And the time for letters and responses takestoo long, to move from person to person in the traditional fashion.
So I welcome The Web with open arms, and has been exploiting it to thebest of my ability. But caution must be observed, Today there is so muchinformation being disseminated via the Internet, that it is verydifficult to ascertain "truth from fact." However, with experiencedeyes, vigilant and analytic minds, one could in time decipher differenttypes of propaganda, from objective reporting, to journalistic information.
Let us respect this medium, and be mindful of our fellows, all of whomhave something to say at some time or another. Move on if we do notappreciate someone's opinion. Debate issues, welcome different opinions,and encourage participation at all times. And remember, even The Dull &Ignorant have a Role To Play in this Cosmic Drama!
Om Shanti.
Derryck S. Griffith.
Political Educator & Advocate.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/derryckgrifith
The world's largest Gay Pride parade:
Monday, 30 May, 2005:
World's Largest Gay Pride march:
Brazil hosts huge Gay Pride march Organisers say the march is the world's biggest Gay Pride parade Hundreds of thousands of people have converged for a huge Gay Pride parade in the Brazilian city of Sao Paulo. Crowds carrying rainbow flags danced through one of the main avenues, as floats blasted music from loudspeakers.
Organisers said nearly two million people were at the march. If the figure is confirmed, that makes the parade the biggest of its kind in the world. The event's managers said the parade was not just a party, but also a demonstration for equal rights. One of the parade organisers, Antonio Carlos da Silva, told the BBC Brazil had a long way to go in overcoming homophobia. "This is a very macho country, especially some parts of the country," he said.
"We also rank first in violence against gays so from gay bashing to murder we have a lot of problems in this country." Another organiser, Pedro Almeida, told AFP news agency: "A homosexual is murdered here every two days - just for being homosexual."
Demanding equal rights
Demanding equal rights
Gay, lesbian and bisexual Brazilians were joined by about 400,000 visitors from around the world for the ninth annual parade along Avenida Paulista. Gay and heterosexual Brazilians took part The marchers' main demand was the legalisation of gay unions in Brazil, where a proposed law has been debated in Congress for 10 years.
The Roman Catholic Church opposes gay marriage in the country, which is the world's largest Catholic nation.
The Roman Catholic Church opposes gay marriage in the country, which is the world's largest Catholic nation.
"We have the same commitments, we want the same rights," a banner read. It is not easy in our daily lives," a drag queen named Paola said. "We have to end the prejudices that society has against us."
END:Derryck.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/derryckgrifith
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)