|
Welcome to the Official Website of James Landrith
|
Blog, Commentary and Articles -
Rape, Sexual Assault and Abuse
|
|
Written by James Landrith
|
|
Wednesday, 19 December 2012 |
|
Since I was interviewed by HuffPost Live for their segment "When Predators Are Women", I've been getting nice, gigantic truckloads of victim-blaming from both men AND women - especially on the teaser snippet of my panel comments. Yes Virginia, even women - who you'd expect would know better in this culture of victim-blaming that female rape survivors experience daily and publicly. You'd be wrong - incredibly and horribly - wrong.
I've covered most of the victim-blaming idiocy that male survivors face before here. I recently ripped apart an arrogant and ugly female victim-blamer here as well. I'm not gonna re-hash it. Read it and stop being part of the problem. Many of you ARE part of the problem in a HUGE way.
I will, however, take the time to answer the childish comments I've heard from the knuckle-dragging troglodytes who simply cannot control themselves and should probably check in with adults before going onto the internets. So, the question of the day for these mental giants seems to be (worded 8,000 different ways): "What kind of Marine gets raped by a woman, pregnant, or not?"
Hmm. Well, if you were paying attention this would have been obvious. She asked me for a ride when our mutual friend disappeared. I was under 21 and she was around 24 or 25 and bought me a few drinks - supposedly to thank me for agreeing to drive her home. The second one was clealy spiked with something, as I got disoriented and tired very quickly. That covers the how, got it? You can read the rest of it here if this is too hard for you to comprehend.
Of course, what these tough guys (and a few gals) really mean is - how does a Marine "let" a woman rape him? What kind of man can't kick a woman's ass? Yes ladies and gentlemen, rape is apparently ALL ABOUT getting jumped and beaten into submission, anything else is NOT rape. This is the level of intellectual maturity possessed by those questioning me. REALLY. Drugged drinks aside (how she subdued me), I am apparently a "wimp", "pussy", or whatever terminology the Almighty Gender Kops(TM) wish to use to try and make themselves feel better about a situation they cannot possibly comprehend with their fragile little minds and egos. This friends, is called policing the herd, and is done by insecure alpha-male wannabes when confronted with another male who lacks their chronic insecurities. Insecurity, immaturity and and inability to comprehend basic concepts like empathy feed into these people's twisted mindsets. They are a plague on modern masculinity, an affront to those of us who served with honor, and a danger to others.
I'll tell them once and then I'm never gonna address these clowns again.
I'm the type of Marine who would NEVER lay my hands on a woman - let alone a pregnant woman - even in my own defense. Rather than risk hurting or killing a CHILD IN THE WOMB, I did not put up resistance or use force in my own defense. Got it? I'm not doing it. If that makes me a "wimp" or a "pussy" then so be it. You'll have to be the tough guy in my stead.
I know, I'm such an asshole for not hurting a prergnant woman or her child. Clearly, I should be ashamed of myself because a REAL Marine would have kicked her ass. Amirite or amirite? Right?!
I have to ask those people what kind of heartless person would do otherwise? I have to live with the consequences of her decisions that night. I regret ever meeting her. I regret agreeing to help her. I regret letting her buy me drinks. You know what I don't regret? I don't regret restraining myself and choosing not to use force against a pregnant woman and her child - even in my own defense. I have to ask - what kind of sorry excuse for a "man" would proudly do otherwise? As is evidenced by the comments on the Huffington Post snippet of my panel comments, apparently, there are a lot of you out there without the courage to endure something horrible and then face it down like a man - and get the help you need. You'd rather silence another man for the sake of being a BIG, TOUGH GUY, because you think, given the same situation, you would actually hurt a pregnant woman just to prove your manhood. Maybe you would, which makes you as scary as you are sad.
To those playing that card, no, I don't think that makes you a "REAL MARINE" in the slightest. I think it makes you a REAL, SAD, MISERABLE excuse for a human being. In the Corps, we called such a person a Shit Bird.
Keep clucking birds. I'm not in your formation. I'd rather fly alone than with any "man" who would rather hurt a woman and silence other men, than admit he got hurt himself. I'm speaking out so that other men who have experienced rape, whether at the hands of a man or woman, feel less alone and more empoowered to seek the help they need. All you and your ilk have to offer are the tired old tricks of groupthink, cowardice and a miserable excuse for masculinity if you have to hurt a woman to prove you are a man.
I'm done with such "men" and I have no use for their violence, hatred, false bravado and utter lack of empathy. I served with pride and earned my stripes and every medal that got pinned on my chest - and I didn't need to hurt a woman to do it. My masculinity is not defined by my ability to perform violence, but my my desire to do the right thing, even at the expense of my own security.
Sincerely,
Sergeant James A. Landrith, Jr.
United States Marine and Gulf War Veteran
|
|
Last Updated ( Monday, 31 December 2012 )
|
|
|
Blog, Commentary and Articles -
Rape, Sexual Assault and Abuse
|
|
Written by James Landrith
|
|
Saturday, 15 December 2012 |
|
I fully expected some idiots and clowns to say evil things after my appearance on The Huffington Post's HuffPost Live (When Predators Are Women) on November 30th. Then, The Huffington Post put up a snippet of my comments as a teaser (When Predators Are Women - James Landrith's Story). Sheesh. I didn't expect the horrible mockery and victim-blaming on the second video they posted though. I'm not going to engage the idiots who posted there. They don't deserve my time or any part of my life spent on them. They can rot it whatever purgatory they personally believe exists. However, I did decide to engage one of my critics and mockers. This one required a response. Advice blogger Cristina Robinson recently watched part of my interview with HuffPost Live on "When Predators Are Women." For those of you who are new readers, this is my story with more detail: http://jameslandrith.com/content/view/3854/79/ Posted by Cristina on Twitter: A pregnant woman drugged and raped him. I wonder how was he able to get an erection and be raped more than once. #liar
https://twitter.com/Ask_Cristina/status/276367084114571264
Posted on her Facebook profile:
A pregnant woman drugged and raped him. I wonder how he was able to get an erection drugged and be "raped" at different times .... SUPERMAN!!!
http://www.facebook.com/cristinarobinson.sf/posts/173723926107413
Posted on her Facebook Page:
I see ... she was pregnant ... drugged him ... then raped him. He was drugged and he was able to get it up and be raped. Listening to this guy, I was laughing so hard .... poor baby. And he call himself a survivor of rape. Then he woke up of his wild dream.
http://www.facebook.com/askcristina/posts/566188393396705
I really fucking love how she used scare quotes around the word raped to minimize what I experienced. Clearly, there is a lot of compassion in this woman. Oh, and she "was laughing so hard." Wow. Fucking wow. And she likes to give people advice? Here's some advice for Cristina. DON'T FUCKING LAUGH AT RAPE SURVIVORS. Got that? Then she goes on to say "poor baby", implies I am not really a rape survivor and calls my rape a "wild dream."
So, let's start with erections. Yes, I was able to get an erection. It is basic biology. It happens to men in comas as well. Use your favorite search engine and your brain. Try to be an actual human being some day instead of someone who makes jokes about rape survivors and promotes mythology in ignorance.
Cristina, and people like her who KNOW EVERY FUCKING THING ABOUT ERECTIONS YET DON'T HAVE PENISES, need to understand that male survivors are CONSTANTLY belittled, laughed at and told they wanted it - not just by men, but often by women - like Cristina Robinson, for instance. Put yourself in the place of a man who was raped by a woman and spoke about it publicly. I really don't think I'll ever be able to accurately explain how hard it is to be met with not only skepticism, but open mockery. I have heard enough of that garbage over the years and it is extremely triggering and unacceptable. Wild Dream? Really Cristina? REALLY? Having a baby used against me as a human shield was not a "wild dream" to me. Being drugged and overpowered through a nasty threat and treated like a piece of property, not a human being, was not a "wild dream" to me. Knowing that I'd be openly mocked by knuckle-dragging troglodytes for the rest of my life if I even mentioned is not a "wild dream" to me. It was, and in some ways, still is a fucking nightmare. How dare you?
In response to my comments on her Facebook Page, she offered the following: Actually, I received a lot of flak in private for this one and since then, I have done some research and learned a few things that blew my mind. Thanks for commenting publicly. Sometimes is good that we show ignorance, and if we have our minds open, afterward, we can learn from it. It can be very enlightening.
She actually did apologize as well, which is something most victim-blaming assholes don't do: Now, I do. My sincere apologies.
Cristina didn't just show ignorance, she showed an utter lack of compassion and OPENLY MOCKED a rape survivor. She did that and seemed quite pleased with herself in her initial comments. Laughing so hard? LAUGHING SO HARD? For fucking real?
While I accept and appreciate her apology and understand she has learned a few things since then (like basic fucking human biology), my forgiveness is not going to be forthcoming anytime soon. I'm still too pissed off at the arrogant ignorance and outright MOCKERY she displayed in her callous and immature comments.
From her Facebook Page, after she read about Judge Derek Johnson's incredibly ridiculous claims regarding rape that women's bodies "will not permit that to happen": My God ... to think that a man who is supposed to be educated, can utter such a garbage ......
http://news.msn.com/us/judge-says-victims-body-can-prevent-rape
Yeah, you would think that people in the 21st Century would be past thinking that biology is a magical panacea to preventing a rapist from commiting a rape. You'd be wrong and quite surprised at how many people seem to know NOTHING about biology and yet are quite eager to throw that ignorance in your face without shame.
You know, like assuming that an erection equals consent and then "laughing so loud"? Fascinating how that shit works one way for some people, but not the other...
From her Facebook page it says, "Cristina writes about affairs of the heart. Hopefully the posts will help people make permanent changes in their lives and in their success!"
She has certainly made an impact in my life. Perhaps she should stick to what she knows, given her extreme and gleeful ignorance with regard to male rape. Please, just pick a different topic next time. Pretty please?
Yeah, I'm a little triggered and a lot pissed off. I think I've earned the right.
|
|
Last Updated ( Saturday, 15 December 2012 )
|
|
|
Blog, Commentary and Articles -
Civil Liberties and Advocacy Efforts
|
|
Written by James Landrith
|
|
Saturday, 01 December 2012 |
|
I've been involved in many advocacy efforts and worked with a lot of organizations on a wide variety of issues over the years, starting with the multiracial movement, libertarian and anarcho-libertarian philosophies, a plethora of civil liberties issues and now with various sexual violence efforts. I've earned my "doing something" stripes over and over again with the requisite lost friendships, haters and death threats to go along with it.
I don't do hero worship and have no time for the cultishness that pervades many ideological conversations and communities. I'm in it for change and the outcomes. Where I agree with an organization or person's views or advocacy work, I tend to agree strongly. Where I disagree, I will not mince words or whitewash my disagreement simply because an organization or person is respected or in a position as a figurehead in said community or ideological movement.
When in disagreement with a particular stance or action, my philosophical beliefs trump any admiration I may have for any organization or individual or their influence in said community or ideological movment and always will, without apology. Period. |
|
|
Blog, Commentary and Articles -
Civil Liberties: Drug Prohibition
|
|
Written by Sheldon Richman
|
|
Tuesday, 27 November 2012 |
|
Nullify the Drug War! by Sheldon Richman Thomas Jefferson said a revolution every 20 years would be a good thing. Regardless of what one thinks of that, perhaps a little constitutional crisis every now and then would have its benefits. One such crisis may be brewing now. On election day, solid majorities of voters in Colorado and Washington voted to make marijuana a legal product, not just for people who are certified as ill, but for everyone. Several states already allow marijuana use for medical purposes. These two states, however, are blazing trails by recognizing the freedom of all adults to smoke or otherwise consume the plant. The problem, of course, is that the federal government forbids the manufacture, sale, and use of marijuana (and many other substances) for any purpose. So what happens now? We already have some idea: 20 states and the District of Columbia currently permit (or refuse to penalize) medical marijuana in defiance of federal law. Despite early assurances to the contrary, the Obama administration has cracked down on legal state-licensed marijuana dispensaries in California to a far greater degree than the Bush administration ever did. During the Bush years, Californians challenged federal anti-marijuana policy against the state, but the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Raich (2005) sided with the central government, ruling that the Constitution’s Commerce Clause empowers the feds to prohibit marijuana manufacturing and consumption even when a state law permits it for medical purposes. Is the Obama administration going to stand by and permit the recreational use of pot in Washington and Colorado when it tries to stop its medical use in California? It hardly seems likely. But does it want to ignite open resistance by cracking down? The feds are in a bind. So it looks like a conflict is in the offing — maybe even a constitutional crisis. What about the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause? It says, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” That would seem to seal the deal for the feds. But maybe not. What if a law is not “made in pursuance” of the Constitution, at least in the judgment of people in the states? Do they have the authority to nullify it? Thomas E. Woods Jr. says yes in his book Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century. As Woods notes, nullification proceeds from the premise that an unconstitutional law is not properly regarded as law, and therefore the states may ignore it. “Nullification provides a shield between the people of a state and an unconstitutional law from the federal government,” Woods writes. Without nullification, the feds would define their own powers, which should be intolerable to people who love liberty. Nullification has a high pedigree. “It was Thomas Jefferson, in his draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, who introduced the term ‘nullification’ into American political discourse,” Woods writes. “And … Jefferson was merely building upon an existing line of political thought dating back to Virginia’s ratifying convention and even into the colonial period. Consequently, an idea that may strike us as radical today was well within the mainstream of Virginian political thought when Jefferson introduced it.” Nullifying the central government’s destructive war on drugs would be appropriate, because in the past Americans used this principle (or something similar) against other laws that violated personal liberty, such as the Alien and Sedition Acts, which suppressed criticism of government officials, and the Fugitive Slave Acts, which required the return of runaway slaves. Nullification should not be conflated with states’ rights. This issue is about the real rights of individuals, not the alleged rights of state governments. History demonstrates that decentralized power tends to pose less of a threat to freedom, if for no other reason than that the smaller the jurisdiction, the cheaper it is to vote with one’s feet. What possible objection can there be to letting the people of the states decide when to ignore federal laws that violate their liberty? And what better place to start than with the feds’ abominable war on people who make, sell, and use disapproved substances? Washington and Colorado may be the new birthplaces of freedom. Sheldon Richman is vice president and editor at The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org ) in Fairfax, Va. |
|
|
Advocacy and Letters -
Press Releases
|
|
Written by Coalition
|
|
Tuesday, 27 November 2012 |
|
Nov. 27, 2012
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Advocates Laud President Obama’s Signing of Federal Whistleblower ReformsAfter a Campaign Waged Over More Than a Decade, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act Becomes Law President Obama signed the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA, S. 743) into law today, marking the finale of a more than decade-long campaign by the Make It Safe Coalition to restore and modernize federal whistleblower protections. The President’s unwavering support of the WPEA, paired with Congress’ sweeping endorsement by unanimous consent, demonstrates the strong mandate for a new day of accountability in the federal government. These reforms expand protections for federal employees who disclose wrongdoing and protect the public trust. Whistleblower advocates from organizations with diverse interests and ideologies who together waged a historic campaign for this landmark government accountability reform are enthusiastic about this victory for whistleblowers and taxpayers: Beth Moten, Legislative Director for American Federation of Government Employees, commented: “AFGE applauds the bipartisan, collaborative work of members of Congress, a diverse coalition of worker advocates and good government groups, and the Obama Administration resulting in the bill signed into law today. The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act provides many of the changes in law necessary to protect federal workers when they come forward to report fraud, waste, and wrongdoing in the workplace and to hold managers accountable when they retaliate. AFGE is especially pleased that the law applies to Transportation Security Officers, the federal workers dedicated to the safety of the flying public, and provides them with the same whistleblower protections as other federal workers.” Tom Devine, Legal Director of Government Accountability Project, commented: “This reform took 13 years to pass, because it can make so much difference against fraud, waste and abuse. Over the years, earlier versions of this law had been called the Taxpayer Protection Act. Nothing could set a better context for fiscal cliff negotiations than a unanimous, bipartisan consensus to protect those who risk their careers to protect the taxpayers. The mandate for this law is that the truth is the public’s business. The victory reflects strong bipartisan teamwork, as well as advocacy within the party, as Republicans often had to work harder at convincing wary colleagues. And it reflects relentless pressure from conservative stakeholders to whistleblowers and their champions throughout the last 13 years. Unique support came from President Obama, who was committed from day one of his term to signing this bill into law. Most Presidents have offered lip service for whistleblower rights, but President Obama fought to give them more teeth.” Michael D. Ostrolenk, National Director of Liberty Coalition, commented: “With a lack of cooperation as a starting point in our present day political system, it’s good to see a positive bi-partisan effort come to fruition. One cheer for President Obama, the Republican held House, and Democrat controlled Senate, and two cheers for the American people.” Pete Sepp, Executive Vice President of National Taxpayers Union, commented: “Today an important chapter in the struggle to recognize whistleblowers for the tremendous service they provide taxpayers has been concluded. This bipartisan effort is proof positive that fiscal responsibility can be restored to Washington, one step at a time. We look forward to helping write the next chapter in the vital national conversation over how best to make government more efficient and accountable.” Colleen M. Kelley, National President of National Treasury Employees Union, commented: “This bi-partisan effort represents a big step forward in restoring and modernizing whistleblower rights for federal workers. For example, it creates specific legal protection for scientific freedom, providing whistleblower protection rights to employees who challenge censorship, and makes it an abuse of authority to punish disclosures about scientific censorship. By protecting those who speak out, this law increases accountability and transparency in government.” Angela Canterbury, Director of Public Policy for the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), commented: “Today marks a tremendous victory for a historic campaign for more government accountability. The reforms signed into law today will go a long way to change the fact that for far too long the truth about government wrongdoing could easily be suppressed through intimidation and retaliation against the truthtellers. Federal workers will now have a fighting chance at justice when they face retaliation for blowing the whistle on waste, fraud, abuse, and other illegalities. Americans should be encouraged by this law’s passage—it demonstrates extraordinary support for a better government that transcends the partisanship that so often characterizes Washington today. Today, the public’s trust, health, and safety were put before politics.” Keith Wrightson, Worker Safety and Health Advocate for Public Citizen’s Congress Watch, commented: “President Obama and the 112th Congress have made a significant contribution to how civil employees will be treated when they identify workplace hazards. Civil employees can now live without fear of retaliation from their supervisors when disclosures are made.” David Williams, President of Taxpayers Protection Alliance, commented: “This is a historic day for whistleblowers and taxpayers as the President signs the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. Bi-partisan common sense prevailed and the country is one step closer to being a government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Celia Wexler, Senior Washington Representative, Center for Science and Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists, commented: “At a time when science seems to be routinely under attack in Congress, this legislative success is a breath of fresh air and a reminder that bipartisan cooperation is still possible. Passage of this bill will help American families, who depend on federal agencies to protect them from unsafe drugs, defective consumer products, hazardous workplaces, and polluted air and water. But it also strongly supports the role of independent science as the foundation for federal policymaking. It sends a strong signal that federal scientists deserve respect.” The WPEA includes critically important upgrades to the broken system for federal whistleblowing to better serve taxpayers. Though it does not include every reform that we have sought and will continue to seek, the bill will restore and modernize government whistleblower rights by ensuring that legitimate disclosures of wrongdoing will be protected, increasing government accountability to taxpayers, and saving billions of taxpayer dollars by helping expose fraud, waste and abuse. Overall, the WPEA’s provisions will restore free speech rights closed through arbitrary loopholes and create new protections for federal scientists and Transportation Security Administration officers. The bill also will strengthen due process rights, such as a two-year experiment in normal access to appeals courts (effectively breaking the Federal Circuit’s monopoly on appellate review); provide compensatory damages; create whistleblower ombudsmen at Inspectors General offices; and strengthen authority by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel to help whistleblowers through disciplinary actions against those who retaliate and to file briefs in court supportive of whistleblower rights. This hard fought victory could not have been achieved without the steadfast support of whistleblowers, advocates and nongovernmental organizations alike, who demonstrated a marathon commitment to the restoration of federal whistleblower protections throughout this more than a decade-long campaign. Congressional champions and their staff deserve praise and appreciation, especially retiring Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) and Rep. Todd Platts (R-Pa.), as well as Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), Joseph Lieberman (I-Ct.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Carl Levin (D-Mi.), and Reps. Darrell Issa (R-Ca.), Todd Platts (R-Pa.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Elijah Cummings (D-Md.). A full list of Congressional sponsors can be viewed here: http://bit.ly/TqyJCe. We cannot thank the whistleblower community and these Congressional offices enough for their resolute commitment to the WPEA. A menu of key reforms can be viewed here: http://bit.ly/PwafFC The bill can be viewed here: http://bit.ly/UDaepU Contacts: Chelsea Bland, American Federation of Government Employees,
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Tom Devine, Government Accountability Project,
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Michael Ostrolenk, Liberty Coalition,
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Pete Sepp, National Taxpayers Union,
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Dina Long, National Treasury Employees Union,
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Angela Canterbury, Project On Government Oversight,
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Keith Wrightson, Public Citizen,
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
David Williams, Taxpayers Protection Alliance,
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Celia Wexler, Union of Concerned Scientists,
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Make It Safe Coalition The Make It Safe Coalition is a non-partisan network whose members pursue a wide variety of missions that span defense, homeland security, doctors and patient advocates, natural disasters, scientific freedom, consumer hazards, and corruption in government contracting and procurement. We are united in the cause of protecting those in the public and private sector who honor their duties to serve and warn the public. ### |
|
| << Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
| | Results 1 - 5 of 3340 |
|
|
