This web site contains copyrighted material and information which is governed under the following statute:
Click on the link below to read 17 USC CHP. 1. §107
20070217
I am not sure what to title this story...
This is exactly what is wrong with the litigation rules in this country. The fact that he was even allowed to file the lawsuit baffles the imagination.
Man Sues IBM for $5 Million After Being Fired for Visiting Adult Chat Room at Work
Saturday, February 17, 2007
--Associated Press
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. — A man who was fired by IBM for visiting an adult chat room during the workday is suing the company for $5 million, claiming he is an Internet addict who deserves treatment and sympathy rather than dismissal.
James Pacenza, 58, of upstate Montgomery, says he visits chat rooms as treatment for traumatic stress incurred in 1969 when he saw his best friend killed during an Army patrol in Vietnam.
In papers filed in federal court in White Plains, Pacenza said the stress caused him to become "a sex addict, and with the development of the Internet, an Internet addict." He claimed protection under the American with Disabilities Act.
His lawyer, Michael Diederich, says Pacenza never visited pornographic sites at work, violated no written IBM rule and did not surf the Internet any more or any differently than other employees. He also says age discrimination contributed to IBM's actions. Pacenza, 55 at the time, had 19 years of IBM service and said he could have retired in one more year.
International Business Machines Corp. has asked Judge Stephen Robinson for a summary judgment, saying its policy against surfing to sexual sites is clear. It also claims Pacenza was told he could lose his job after an incident four months earlier, which Pacenza denies.
Click here to view the entire story at FOXNews.com
Man Sues IBM for $5 Million After Being Fired for Visiting Adult Chat Room at Work
Saturday, February 17, 2007
--Associated Press
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. — A man who was fired by IBM for visiting an adult chat room during the workday is suing the company for $5 million, claiming he is an Internet addict who deserves treatment and sympathy rather than dismissal.
James Pacenza, 58, of upstate Montgomery, says he visits chat rooms as treatment for traumatic stress incurred in 1969 when he saw his best friend killed during an Army patrol in Vietnam.
In papers filed in federal court in White Plains, Pacenza said the stress caused him to become "a sex addict, and with the development of the Internet, an Internet addict." He claimed protection under the American with Disabilities Act.
His lawyer, Michael Diederich, says Pacenza never visited pornographic sites at work, violated no written IBM rule and did not surf the Internet any more or any differently than other employees. He also says age discrimination contributed to IBM's actions. Pacenza, 55 at the time, had 19 years of IBM service and said he could have retired in one more year.
International Business Machines Corp. has asked Judge Stephen Robinson for a summary judgment, saying its policy against surfing to sexual sites is clear. It also claims Pacenza was told he could lose his job after an incident four months earlier, which Pacenza denies.
Click here to view the entire story at FOXNews.com
20070201
Teachers, sex, and underage students...
Recently on Hannity & Colmes, over at FOXNews.com, I read several stories about female teachers having sex with underage students all of whom either received little or no jail time. These stories were also carried on a number of other networks and Internet news pages --including MSNBC, and CNN. These stories occurred over the last 6 months and some date back even farther.
It amazes me that after all the publicity about child molestation in this day and age we as a society are still willing to allow these light sentences to come down from the judicial system. Almost all in the media and in law enforcement agree that if the roles were reversed and it was a male teacher and a female student, the male teacher wouldn’t see the light of day. Recently there has been a mass media blitz over the stories on Dateline NBC about Internet predators and the types of things are they are attempting with young females. In all of the cases that I saw on Dateline NBC, all of the predators were male and the potential victims were female. What exactly is the difference between these types of case? In actuality the only difference is the venue in which the abuse (or alleged abuse) took place. Prior to this the big story in the news was that of Roman Catholic priests who had been abusing children (and in some cases adults) in their parishes. The priests, who were of course all male, were vilified to the Nth degree and in some cases threatened with physical harm. Again the only difference was the venue in which this abuse took place.
All of these case involved adults who, while in positions of power took advantage of young children. Whether or not the person was a priest, teacher, parent, or other professional they all abused their position of power and sought to severely harm a young child; male or female these individuals are predators and are pedophiles. To allow female predators to go free, or give them sentences which are so absurd it goes beyond normal comprehension is to say that we as a society are indorsing this type of behavior in our society. The idea that a young boy doesn’t get harmed from this type of activity because young boys are looking for it is equally absurd. Children are called children for a reason and that is because they don’t have the capacity to think and act as adults do. Judges need to stop using the double standard in these cases that they themselves have created, and start following the law.
I am always equally baffled by the age of consent. If the legal age for an adult is 18 years old then the age of consent is 18 years old. In some states the age of consent is as young as 14 years of age. Some one needs to explain that one to me. Lord have mercy upon us all!
It amazes me that after all the publicity about child molestation in this day and age we as a society are still willing to allow these light sentences to come down from the judicial system. Almost all in the media and in law enforcement agree that if the roles were reversed and it was a male teacher and a female student, the male teacher wouldn’t see the light of day. Recently there has been a mass media blitz over the stories on Dateline NBC about Internet predators and the types of things are they are attempting with young females. In all of the cases that I saw on Dateline NBC, all of the predators were male and the potential victims were female. What exactly is the difference between these types of case? In actuality the only difference is the venue in which the abuse (or alleged abuse) took place. Prior to this the big story in the news was that of Roman Catholic priests who had been abusing children (and in some cases adults) in their parishes. The priests, who were of course all male, were vilified to the Nth degree and in some cases threatened with physical harm. Again the only difference was the venue in which this abuse took place.
All of these case involved adults who, while in positions of power took advantage of young children. Whether or not the person was a priest, teacher, parent, or other professional they all abused their position of power and sought to severely harm a young child; male or female these individuals are predators and are pedophiles. To allow female predators to go free, or give them sentences which are so absurd it goes beyond normal comprehension is to say that we as a society are indorsing this type of behavior in our society. The idea that a young boy doesn’t get harmed from this type of activity because young boys are looking for it is equally absurd. Children are called children for a reason and that is because they don’t have the capacity to think and act as adults do. Judges need to stop using the double standard in these cases that they themselves have created, and start following the law.
I am always equally baffled by the age of consent. If the legal age for an adult is 18 years old then the age of consent is 18 years old. In some states the age of consent is as young as 14 years of age. Some one needs to explain that one to me. Lord have mercy upon us all!
William Arkin...America's newest traitor!
I heard about this story tonight on FOXNews.com and on FOXTV News. I looked on the other networks and web pages but I couldn't find the story anywhere else; except of course over on the web page of origin: The Washington Post.com Perhaps the story will be picked up tomorrow but I doubt it, people rarely care about the military as much as they claim too.
I have re-posted the entire article from William Arkin's blog, so you can read his trash talk without having to go to the Washington Post site. I have also included a link to the WP web site incase you care to read the responses; of which there are hundreds. He bashes the military calling them mercenaries and other choice phrases. I am so disgusted about this so-called reporter, and his blog that my skin is crawling at the moment. I knew this was coming, the bashing of the troops, but knowing it is coming doesn't make it any easier to deal with.
It usually begins with the liberal politicians (which has been on going), then Hollywood, which happened earlier this week as well (actually it came to the forefront this past week), and now it will continue into the main-stream media. I am predicting that from this point forward, you are going to see more and more of this type of military bashing, especially towards the troops, from not only Internet bloggers, but other media outlets as well. The fact that none of the major media outlets (except FOX News) covered the post, tells me that these so-called media outlets see bashing the military and the troops as something worthwhile; my hat off to FOX News for denouncing the story and the writer. I have long held the opinion that those who claim to support the troops but not the war are full of ‘bull-pucky’. Perhaps I will post some further reflections about this hack and his views of the military and her members latter. See also this post by hack Arkin; his update to his post.
William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
The Troops Also Need to Support the American People
I've been mulling over an NBC Nightly News report from Iraq last Friday in which a number of soldiers expressed frustration with opposition to war in the United States.
I'm sure the soldiers were expressing a majority opinion common amongst the ranks - that's why it is news - and I'm also sure no one in the military leadership or the administration put the soldiers up to expressing their views, nor steered NBC reporter Richard Engel to the story.
I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people.
Friday's NBC Nightly News included a story from my colleague and friend Richard Engel, who was embedded with an active duty Army infantry battalion from Fort Lewis, Washington.
Engel relayed how "troops here say they are increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the war. Many take it personally, believing it is also criticism of what they've been fighting for."
First up was 21 year old junior enlisted man Tyler Johnson, whom Engel said was frustrated about war skepticism and thinks that critics "should come over and see what it's like firsthand before criticizing."
"You may support or say we support the troops, but, so you're not supporting what they do, what they're here sweating for, what we bleed for, what we die for. It just don't make sense to me," Johnson said.
Next up was Staff Sergeant Manuel Sahagun, who is on his second tour in Iraq. He complained that "one thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops, but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way."
Next was Specialist Peter Manna: "If they don't think we're doing a good job, everything that we've done here is all in vain," he said.
These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President's handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect.
Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.
Sure, it is the junior enlisted men who go to jail. But even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We don't see very many "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon.
So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?
I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those in the national security establishment feel these same frustrations. In my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don't get it, that they don't understand that the threat from terrorism, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice and is very real because it is so shadowy, that the very survival of the United States is at stake. Those Hoovers and Nixons will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If it weren't about the United States, I'd say the story would end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, would save the nation from the people.
But it is the United States, and the recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.
The notion of dirty work is that, like laundry, it is something that has to be done but no one else wants to do it. But Iraq is not dirty work: it is not some necessary endeavor; the people just don't believe that anymore.
I'll accept that the soldiers, in order to soldier on, have to believe that they are manning the parapet, and that's where their frustrations come in. I'll accept as well that they are young and naïve and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them.
America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in uniform. I don't believe America needs a draft though I imagine we'd be having a different discussion if we had one.
By William M. Arkin | January 30, 2007; 8:51 AM ET
I have re-posted the entire article from William Arkin's blog, so you can read his trash talk without having to go to the Washington Post site. I have also included a link to the WP web site incase you care to read the responses; of which there are hundreds. He bashes the military calling them mercenaries and other choice phrases. I am so disgusted about this so-called reporter, and his blog that my skin is crawling at the moment. I knew this was coming, the bashing of the troops, but knowing it is coming doesn't make it any easier to deal with.
It usually begins with the liberal politicians (which has been on going), then Hollywood, which happened earlier this week as well (actually it came to the forefront this past week), and now it will continue into the main-stream media. I am predicting that from this point forward, you are going to see more and more of this type of military bashing, especially towards the troops, from not only Internet bloggers, but other media outlets as well. The fact that none of the major media outlets (except FOX News) covered the post, tells me that these so-called media outlets see bashing the military and the troops as something worthwhile; my hat off to FOX News for denouncing the story and the writer. I have long held the opinion that those who claim to support the troops but not the war are full of ‘bull-pucky’. Perhaps I will post some further reflections about this hack and his views of the military and her members latter. See also this post by hack Arkin; his update to his post.
William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
The Troops Also Need to Support the American People
I've been mulling over an NBC Nightly News report from Iraq last Friday in which a number of soldiers expressed frustration with opposition to war in the United States.
I'm sure the soldiers were expressing a majority opinion common amongst the ranks - that's why it is news - and I'm also sure no one in the military leadership or the administration put the soldiers up to expressing their views, nor steered NBC reporter Richard Engel to the story.
I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people.
Friday's NBC Nightly News included a story from my colleague and friend Richard Engel, who was embedded with an active duty Army infantry battalion from Fort Lewis, Washington.
Engel relayed how "troops here say they are increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the war. Many take it personally, believing it is also criticism of what they've been fighting for."
First up was 21 year old junior enlisted man Tyler Johnson, whom Engel said was frustrated about war skepticism and thinks that critics "should come over and see what it's like firsthand before criticizing."
"You may support or say we support the troops, but, so you're not supporting what they do, what they're here sweating for, what we bleed for, what we die for. It just don't make sense to me," Johnson said.
Next up was Staff Sergeant Manuel Sahagun, who is on his second tour in Iraq. He complained that "one thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops, but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way."
Next was Specialist Peter Manna: "If they don't think we're doing a good job, everything that we've done here is all in vain," he said.
These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President's handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect.
Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.
Sure, it is the junior enlisted men who go to jail. But even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We don't see very many "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon.
So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?
I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those in the national security establishment feel these same frustrations. In my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don't get it, that they don't understand that the threat from terrorism, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice and is very real because it is so shadowy, that the very survival of the United States is at stake. Those Hoovers and Nixons will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If it weren't about the United States, I'd say the story would end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, would save the nation from the people.
But it is the United States, and the recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.
The notion of dirty work is that, like laundry, it is something that has to be done but no one else wants to do it. But Iraq is not dirty work: it is not some necessary endeavor; the people just don't believe that anymore.
I'll accept that the soldiers, in order to soldier on, have to believe that they are manning the parapet, and that's where their frustrations come in. I'll accept as well that they are young and naïve and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them.
America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in uniform. I don't believe America needs a draft though I imagine we'd be having a different discussion if we had one.
By William M. Arkin | January 30, 2007; 8:51 AM ET
