Is ABC racist? Or USA Today? or just me because I work for Fox?…http://fb.me/H3J4Kn7D

12 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply

tommyxtopher Tommy Christopher

@ericbolling Maybe this will clear it up for you http://bit.ly/l5FRqv I don’t think ABC or USA Today did the same, did they?

11 hours ago Favorite Reply Delete

ericbolling ericbolling

@tommyxtopher I expect that treatment from the liberal blogs.. not you guys. M has always been fair, objective. nasty name was cheap shot!

11 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply

tommyxtopher Tommy Christopher

I shall humor the writer by answering them.

Ready?  Question one of thirteen approaching.

Is the military conducting an investigation into CWO4 Averhart’s decision to place Manning on suicide risk?

“Marine spokesman Villiard insisted the detention facility commander was within his rights to make the status change, but Villiard would not say why Manning’s status had been changed.”

Is it true that CWO4 Averhart did not have the authority to place Manning under suicide risk?

“Marine spokesman Villiard insisted the detention facility commander was within his rights to make the status change, but Villiard would not say why Manning’s status had been changed.”

What specific bases did CW04 Averhart have for placing Manning on suicide risk?

Because prisoners commit suicide ALL THE TIME, maybe? “Suicide ranks third behind natural causes and AIDS as the leading cause of death in Prisons within the United States (Bureau of Justice Statistics 1993).”

Were these bases shared with the brig’s forensic psychiatrist who recommended that Manning not be placed on suicide risk? If not why not?

Well, she hasn’t evaluated just yet so I don’t understand the question: “The forensic psychiatrist will meet with Manning this week, Villiard said, and make a recommendation to a classification and assignment board, which will then advise the new commander, Barnes, whether Manning should stay on that watch level. She has the final say on whether Manning comes off “prevention of injury” watch or goes into another custody level such as a less stringent medium custody, Villiard said.”

Are there any other detainees in the Brig under MAX custody or under POI?

Erm … doubtless.

Is it normal for a pretrial detainee to be under MAX custody and POI for this length of time?

“[Edward W. Brady] argued that Simpson’s confinement constitutes punishment before he has been convicted of a crime. Simpson, who is 6 feet 4, is in a 6-by-8 cell in the Special Quarters cell block. Until three weeks ago, Simpson said, he was taken anywhere outside his cell in leg and arm irons, even to his morning shower 11 steps down the corridor. Now only leg irons are required.”

I hardly think a one hour of teevee time qualifies as torture. And at least one detainee was held for 181 days. But, that was just one of the many hits Google brought me.

What is the longest an pretrial detainee has ever been held in MAX custody and under POI watch?

Can’t answer that one.  (EDIT: But the answer could be Geronimo.  Hardly anyone gets up in arms about that)

What factors were considered in determining that PFC Manning needed to be held in MAX custody?

ART. 58. EXECUTION OF CONFINEMENT.

(a) Under such instructions as the Secretary concerned may prescribe, a sentence of confinement adjudged by a court-martial or other military tribunal, whether or not the sentence includes discharge or dismissal, and whether or not the discharge or dismissal has been executed, may be carried into execution by confinement in any place of confinement under the control of any of the armed forces or in any penal or correctional institution under the control of the United States, or which the United States may be allowed to use. Persons so confined in a penal or correctional institution not under the control of one of the armed forces are subject to the dame discipline and treatment as persons confined or committed by the courts of the United States or of the State, Territory, District of Columbia, or place in which the institution is situated.

What factors were consider in determining that PFC Manning needed to be held under POI watch?

(e) A person punished under this article who considers his punishment unjust or disproportionate to the offense may, through proper channels, appeal to the next superior authority. The appeal shall be promptly forwarded and decided, but the person punished may in the meantime be required to undergo the punishment adjudged. The superior authority may exercise the same powers with respect to punishment imposed as may be exercised under subsection (d) by the officer who imposed the punishment.

Were these factors shared with the brig’s forensic psychiatrist who recommended that the POI watch be lifted?

DEEP SIGH!

“The forensic psychiatrist will meet with Manning this week, Villiard said, and make a recommendation to a classification and assignment board, which will then advise the new commander, Barnes, whether Manning should stay on that watch level. She has the final say on whether Manning comes off “prevention of injury” watch or goes into another custody level such as a less stringent medium custody, Villiard said.”

Will CW2 Barnes conduct a complete review of the need for PFC Manning to be held in MAX custody and under POI watch?

DEEPER SIGH!

the person punished may in the meantime be required to undergo the punishment adjudged.

Other than the recommendation of the brig forensic psychiatrist, what other factors are considered in determining the need for POI watch?

Okay, I’m rolling my eyes at this point.

“A Quantico spokesman, First Lt. Scott Villiard, said that he did not know why Averhart recommended the suicide watch, but that the determination was “based on input from more than one person.” That included medical professionals, mental health professionals and the Marine guards who watch detainees, he said.”

Does the brig consider in the long-term effects of MAX custody and POI on the pretrial detainee? IF so, how?

Probably no more than any other prison.

Look, I relayed this ‘controversy’ to my mother and she said CITY JAIL is worse than what Manning is enduring. Personally, I’d rather be in solitary with books and teevee time than be in a mental institution where you’re woken every half hour to check on your well being or being accompanied on a leg shaving expedition.  Good grief! <<pdf

Here’s the deal! If you disapprove of the military, DON’T FREAKIN’ join! I seriously don’t understand why people do.  Manning continues to be fed, get exercise, read books, watch teevee and be comfortable if in isolation. US prison is usually not as nice.  Deal with it, move on until his trial.

If young Brad is ACTUALLY tortured, then I’ll complain.

You failed to renew your tags, admittedly.  You failed to carry insurance for your vehicle.

You were not detained, but your vehicle was – according to the standards and laws of most cities, counties, states, and military posts – lawfully seized if authorities so choose:

A spokesman for Quantico, First Lt. Brian Villiard, tells TPM that the incident was “certainly not political” and that the two weren’t detained per se.

“Standard operating procedure for the Marines that work at the gate is, if the vehicle has an invalid registration or cannot prove insurance, then that vehicle will be towed off base,” Villiard said, adding that the vehicle would be “inventoried” — that is, searched — first. “That kind of stuff takes time.”

He said guards do random registration and insurance checks, but in this case, they saw the license plates on Hamsher’s car were out of date as the car pulled up.

Villiard also said that Hamsher was ticketed and has a court date in civilian court in Alexandria.

The onus lies on you. No one else. You are not a victim, Manning is not a victim aside from poor judgment from a Marine at Quantico for a short amount of time:

The officials told NBC News, however, that a U.S. Marine commander did violate procedure when he placed Manning on “suicide watch” last week.

And I’m ASHAMED, from a journalistic perspective (having worked in both television news and print) that no journalist asked you about your expired tags and lack of auto insurance on the air.  Deeply, deeply ashamed.

It took all of the schizophrenia from ‘Fight Club’ and added more.

This film was perfect, in my opinion.  No more disturbing than ‘Fight Club’ itself, but it added a feminine twist.

The seemingly innocent character is seduced into wanting to be exceptional … good for her.

She drifts between innocence and adulthood.  And, she fails.  Because as her journey begins, she can’t break away from reality and the story, as her dance instructor advises. She’s caught in a tie she can’t untangle.

Instead, she’s stuck in a dreamworld, where in the end, she performs beautifully, but in real life she performs badly.  It’s as if she can’t join righteousness with reality.  We all know how that feels.

It’s really a feminist story.  When undermining from a mother leads a young woman to an uprising and thusly a ‘slut shaming’ and after a young woman is sexually awakened, comes into her own, takes charge, and in this case comes into her own resulting in the death of her former self.  I think it’s beautiful.  Like a rebirth.

In my opinion, antagonists are fabulous, like her dance instructor. They open eyes. They may rile, but they will make you think.   Portman came into her own in each and every sequence with the ‘instructor.’ It was like a learning experience, literally and figuratively.

This film is well worth the watch for not only the opening sequence of the muscles in their FEET (for god’s sake) but for what, in my opinion, is the beauty behind the movie is what gives more than the label of ‘Thriller.’

I may be writing from a dancers perspective, but this movie is pretty spot on when it comes to letting go.

By Kate Doak.

As if Grogs-gate wasn’t enough, it appears as if News Corporation’s Oceanic flagship paper “The Australian”, is lobbing yet another salvo of fire towards Australia’s bloggers and media academics.

During a conference for media academics at the University of Technology in Sydney on Thursday the 25^th of November, Julie Posetti tweeted a comment on climate change that was made by Asa Wahlquist, who was a member of one of the panels that were interviewed throughout the day. Wahlquist, who is a former rural reporter for “The Australian” was alleged by Posetti to have said “in the lead up to the election, the Ed(itor) in Chief was increasingly telling me what to write”.

Low and behold a short time later, The Australian‘s Editor-in-Chief Chris Mitchell announced that he was going to pursue legal action against Posetti, who is a highly respected academic at the University of Canberra and journalist.

Now while Chris Mitchell may claim that he’s suing Julie Posetti for defamation against both himself and his paper, this case isn’t as clear-cut as what it may seem. Mitchel’s actions reek of the stench of revenge, which isn’t surprising given the bloody nose that Posetti gave The Australian during the “Grogs-gate” affair back in early October. This occurred after The Australian’s James Massola decided to “out” the identity of popular Australian blogger, Grogs Gamut after both individuals had been invited to a Media140 Conference organised by Julie Posetti on the 23^rd of September, 2010.

During the conference, Massola was on a panel that debated the status of the media as the gatekeepers of democracy. On the other hand, Gamut had been invited on the provision that Julie Posetti would do her best to protect his identity as an anonymous, non-leaking public servant.

Within days of the event, Massola and The Australian‘s media editor Geoff Elliot leaked Gamut’s identity, while ridiculing various critics of their story via both Twitter, columns in “The Australian” and via podcast.Not to be left out, they were soon joined by a few other predominantly male News Ltd journalists via Twitter, who are members of the Canberra Press Gallery.

Not surprisingly, this culminated in people being threatened both publicly and privately via a sustained campaign of tweets, sarcasm and invasions of privacy, after a journalist from The Australian uncovered the contact details of the employers of some of the paper’s most vocal critics over this story. As a result of her prominent stature within the media industry, Posetti was awarded the further “honour” of being targeted with a series of vicious tweets and emails, as well as an editorial within The Australian.

In response to this, Posetti published the following via The Drum on the 5^th of October:

“After the editorial was published, I received many messages from people concerned for me and describing the piece as a shameless act of bullying in the #groggate tradition. Perhaps, but all it ultimately achieved was a further undermining of The Australian’s editorial credibility and a determination on my part not to be cowed out of expressing a professional opinion about that newspaper’s journalistic standards.”

There is no doubt that this article would have been considered a massive professional slap-in-the-face to many of The Australian’s political reporters and editors in Canberra, particularly given the influence that Mitchell enjoys exerting over Australian political discourse. Furthermore, it raises questions over how the media executives at The Australian view the place of bloggers, academics and part-time journalists, given their predominantly conservative contingent within the Canberra Press Gallery.

With the release of audio from the UTS conference by the ABC, it is evident that Posetti was directly quoting Whalquist in her tweets. As a result of this, it is surprising that Mitchell hasn’t retracted his claims of discrimination against Posetti and instead focused them upon Whalquist. Instead in an attempt to save face, Mitchell has attempted to force Posetti to concede and apologise to The Australian via written legal correspondence, while also publicly criticising her via his publication and sub-editors.

This in turn raises an extremely poignant question:

If a conservative, male journalist had tweeted the comments that Julie Posetti supposedly relayed, would Chris Mitchell have still instantly started legal proceedings, or is this a witch-hunt with the sole intention of weeding out critics and competitors that The Australian finds undesirable?

Only Chris Mitchell can provide these answers.

________________________________

Woken up in the middle of a deep rest.

It comes from the right, it comes from the left, and it’s haunting.

It’s annoying.

It’s like a gnat flying and hovering above my wine that  I have to shoo away and then dump down the sink drain.

It’s an annoyance.

Lately that’s what I hear in the news.

This week, Rachel Maddow pointed out the hypocrisy of John McCain on DADT.  Then, the Daily Show did (and while I’m sure both were happening at the same time, still … ), THEN  AC360 pretty much showed exactly the same clips. And this was my week so far.

No original content, no following up and pretty much the exact bullshit I’ve come to expect.  No one will go on record, which both the NYT’s and Wapo has complained about … Politico.com apparently has no problem whatsoever.

Reporting has been nothing more, lately, than what Rachel said it is … publicity.   And I keep waiting for something more.

The Australian media went into hysterics Wednesday morning over the story of Hannah Williams, an Ivanhoe Girls’ Grammar student who was barred from inviting her 15 year old girlfriend, Savannah Supski, to the school’s annual formal dance and dinner for senior students. Within hours of the news being announced, social media, radio and even the newspapers went into overdrive, with a range of comments calling the school’s decision an act of bigotry, through to “Oh boy…. Here we go again” from LGBT advocates and conservatives alike.

Being a “Teacher’s Brat”, I can partially see where Ivanhoe Girls Grammar is coming from. Having seen my Mum organize similar events in the past, I agree that disruptive events are to be avoided at such functions, particularly when minors are involved. More often than not, students will attempt to sneak either alcohol or cigarettes into the venue, or try to disappear into a secluded area for a “pash”. In that regard, schools have got to be on their guard, as they are responsible for the duty of care of students during such events.

On the other hand, I think that the administration of Ivanhoe Girls have a lot to answer for. Like it or not, Teenagers are sexual beings and no school should have the right to enforce either a sexual or gender identity upon students. As evidenced by medical science, hormones will often start influencing a child’s mind and body from the age of 10 onwards. By the time that they are 15, they normally have a firm grasp of what their sexual identity is and how they would like to pursue it. Everybody is born with a per-determined sexual and gender identity,and no amount of formal events or private education will ever change that.

In light of the recent spate of teen suicides amongst the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender community in the US, it is crucial that we give all kids the same opportunities, regardless of their sexual, gender or ethnic identity. Soon after The Agepublished this story, Hannah’s father appeared on Melbourne radio via 3AW Breakfast, claiming that the school’s heterosexual students were allowed to attend the function with their dates, regardless of their age. Meanwhile, Ivanhoe Girls Grammar claimed that it was a co-educational, age-restricted event specifically for Year 11 students, where Girls are supposed to bring “Guests” rather than “partners”.

That raises the question: Is a student being open about themselves disruptive to the students around them, or is only disruptive to a conservative private school that requires Anglican donations to survive?

In many ways, Hannah’s story is just the latest battle of a war that’s being fought worldwide within the Anglican Communion over the issue of LGBT rights. If Ivanhoe Girls Grammar had allowed Hannah to take her date to their annual dance and dinner, many parents and alumni would have undoubtedly heard about it. That in turn would have resulted in a short-term drop in funding to the school, which for the school’s administrators would have been like having a nightmare for Christmas.

Furthermore, if Ivanhoe Girls Grammar had have truly wanted such an event to be co-educational, they could have made the function a co-educational event with an all-boys school within the Melbourne area, such as either Melbourne or Brighton Grammar for students between years 10 and 12. In doing so, neither straight or gay students would have been discriminated against, while students in a relationship (as well as supervising staff) would have been less likely to have been involved in any incidents. When you take all of this into consideration, the school’s argument that it was supposed to be a co-educational event without “partners” doesn’t hold water.

From a personal perspective, I think that Hannah’s story also highlights the level of institutionalized bullying within Australia’s academic system. As many of my regular readers would know, I am openly Transgender and have been so for the last 3 years. Having grown up within a conservative social environment where I wasn’t allowed to explore who I was as a person, I can say with certainty that having something forced upon you that doesn’t feel personally normal or natural can be extremely traumatic. A school should be a place where everybody feels safe, rather than alienated or abused.

I sincerely hope that the youth involved in this story both directly and inadvertently, haven’t been traumatized as a result of the school’s decision. Life is too short to be unhappy, and as even President Obama has said: “It Gets Better”.

___________________________

No barrios, (added) at least in the American sense of the word.

Strange comment.

Here’s the quote:

She’s not in a barrio anymore, she’s on the set of the view.

Please correct me if I misheard.

(I even googled ‘Obario’ and ‘Abario’ just to be sure)

(adding) Nevertheless, to even bring that up! Behar is an educated woman who likely did NOT grow up in the ‘barrio’ and to use that word is SO silly. She may have a gut punch sense of humor, but she ain’t ‘ghetto’ if you will. That seems absurd.

“And now they have used an honest statement of feeling as the basis for a charge of bigotry to create a basis for firing me. Well, now that I no longer work for NPR let me give you my opinion. This is an outrageous violation of journalistic standards and ethics by management that has no use for a diversity of opinion, ideas or a diversity of staff (I was the only black male on the air).”

TOTAL BALONEY!

Not only is he not the only black male on the air, he is not the only black PERSON on the air. That’s absurd. In fact, if you look at the on air bios, it appears to be a pretty proportionate group to the United States, and has of people with an abundance of women, in fact.

Here’s some black on air personalities:

Korva Coleman

Audie Cornish

Cheryl Corley

Vertamae Grosvenor

Danyell Irby

Allison Keyes

Al Letson

John Murph

Ofeibea Quist-Arcton

Shay Stevens

Gwen Thompkins

Glynn Washington

Cornel West

Nancy Wilson

Each of these people appears to be black, but ‘I don’t see color’ (Colbert).  And, several of them are men.

So, I guess because black men were not in the studio when Juan Cole was, there aren’t any? If a tree falls in the forest I suppose …

Edited to add: Never would I say that there couldn’t be MORE diversity in on-air reporting in teevee and radio, but I’m just saying Juan is wrong.

Despite the fact that Bill was totally wrong and totally bigoted, it was the fact that Bill tried to ‘educate’ who he thought, it seems, was his lesser.

Frankly, I’m used to hearing bigoted pronouncements from white men with a measure of power, but what I’m not used to is this hateful tone toward women literally saying ‘maybe you’ll learn something.’

ON ALL LEVELS THAT IS OFFENSIVE. on.every.single.level.

I gave you a pass recently, Bill, but THAT was offensive beyond religious stereotypes.  That was downright, dare I say, ‘extremist?’

I’m afraid that in the United States of America you are not permitted to dictate my role or my freedom of speech you ass!