HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Ben Carson apologizes to ...

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 04:53 PM

Ben Carson apologizes to Johns Hopkins

Source: Politico

Maryland neurosurgeon Ben Carson, the nationally celebrated physician who has become a political lightning rod in recent weeks after his criticism of President Barack Obama and gay marriage, sent an apologetic email Friday to the Johns Hopkins University community expressing regret for “hurting others” with his words.

...

In a Friday email to the Hopkins community – which a source shared with POLITICO – Carson apologized for having caused “any embarrassment” to the institutions he has been affiliated with.

“As you know, I have been in the national news quite a bit recently and my 36 year association with Johns Hopkins has unfortunately dragged our institution into the spotlight as well. I am sorry for any embarrassment this has caused,” wrote Carson, who is the director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital. “But what really saddens me is that my poorly chosen words caused pain for some members of our community and for that I offer a most sincere and heartfelt apology. Hurting others is diametrically opposed to who I am and what I believe.”

...

“There are many lessons to be learned when venturing into the political world and this is one I will not forget. Although I do believe marriage is between a man and a woman, there are much less offensive ways to make that point. I hope all will look at a lifetime of service over some poorly chosen words,” he said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/ben-carson-apologizes-to-johns-hopkins-89681.html



Other coverage:
Baltimore Sun: "Hopkins CEO says Ben Carson remarks inconsistent with medical school's culture; Carson issues his own letter apologizing" http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/maryland-health/bs-hs-carson-letter-20130405,0,3088358.story
Raw Story: "Ben Carson apologizes to Johns Hopkins community for 'poorly chosen' anti-LGBT remarks"
Think Progress: "Ben Carson Finally Apologizes For Comparing Same-Sex Marriage To Pedophilia"

I think his apology is genuine, not an empty one like he gave in the 48 or so hours after that disastrous Sean Hannity interview. Yet the doctor a few days back was crying "RACISM" in an interview with Mark Levin:



And given the "Carson for President" hype, will Carson pull a Rob Portman and turn around FOR gay marriage come 2016 more for the political points than personal convictions?

41 replies, 4122 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 41 replies Author Time Post
Reply Ben Carson apologizes to Johns Hopkins (Original post)
alp227 Apr 2013 OP
MinneapolisMatt Apr 2013 #1
ReRe Apr 2013 #2
24601 Apr 2013 #23
ReRe Apr 2013 #24
24601 Apr 2013 #25
Ash_F Apr 2013 #38
24601 Apr 2013 #39
Ash_F Apr 2013 #40
Liberalagogo Apr 2013 #3
alp227 Apr 2013 #12
Liberalagogo Apr 2013 #13
alp227 Apr 2013 #15
Sheldon Cooper Apr 2013 #16
Liberalagogo Apr 2013 #17
alp227 Apr 2013 #18
Liberalagogo Apr 2013 #20
Walk away Apr 2013 #27
Liberalagogo Apr 2013 #29
Walk away Apr 2013 #33
Liberalagogo Apr 2013 #37
Walk away Apr 2013 #26
alp227 Apr 2013 #31
Walk away Apr 2013 #32
alp227 Apr 2013 #35
hrmjustin Apr 2013 #4
randome Apr 2013 #5
Kelvin Mace Apr 2013 #6
Glimmer of Hope Apr 2013 #10
alp227 Apr 2013 #11
Liberalagogo Apr 2013 #14
Walk away Apr 2013 #28
Liberalagogo Apr 2013 #30
Kelvin Mace Apr 2013 #36
Name removed Apr 2013 #7
Journeyman Apr 2013 #8
Dawson Leery Apr 2013 #9
Hassin Bin Sober Apr 2013 #19
Zoeisright Apr 2013 #21
Blue Idaho Apr 2013 #22
TwilightGardener Apr 2013 #34
Orsino Apr 2013 #41

Response to alp227 (Original post)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 04:56 PM

1. He's an asshole and meant what he said.

What a fool. That shit don't fly anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 05:03 PM

2. Johns Hopkins should fire him...

... What are they waiting for? Christmas?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 6, 2013, 01:56 PM

23. Hopkins is a private school and they can establish their own standards. But fire him? Sure, why

not send the message to everyone, especially to an African-American world-class surgeon, that it simply is not even remotely acceptable to express a personal beliefs that fails to follow the party line. Faculty who deviate from the approved talking points cannot be tolerated or it could lead to independent thinking and freedom of thought. It's imperative that Big Brother squash these non-approved ideas before it spreads to other faculty or, God forbid, their students.

Whatever happened to, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #23)

Sat Apr 6, 2013, 03:38 PM

24. I'll tell you what happened to it....

.... Nothing, if he wasn't associated with Johns Hopkins Hospital, a non-profit institution, which accepts donations. A non-profit is required by law to be apolitical. What he said can be interpreted as political, and besides, what he said was very discriminatory. What makes it even more bizarre is that he is a black man, blatantly advocating discrimination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #24)

Sat Apr 6, 2013, 09:43 PM

25. I'll disagree regarding apolitical verses non-partisan. There's nothing prohibiting a non-profit

from taking a political stand as long as it's non-partisan. There's no shortage of legitimate political issues - take abortion and gun control as examples. There are no restrictions from a church or fraternal order of police chapter organizing for or against either side.

The legal line is drawn, however, when they move from issues to support for a candidate in an election where at least one candidate represents a political party, or is even endorsed by a party. Supporting a candidate in a strictly non-partisan elections, for example many school boards, aren't prohibited.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #25)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 02:20 PM

38. This is a political issue that might as well be partisan.

Save 4 dumb Dem senators.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #38)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 04:24 PM

39. The official rules aren't always what seems intuitive. In 1998, I was Chief of Staff to a level 3

Senior Executive Service Office Chief. One day he came back from a meeting and was really steamed because someone at the meeting was wearing an "Impeach Clinton" button. My boss said he almost told the guy to take it off but wasn't sufficiently up on the rules - and asked me to check it out, I called out Agency Designated Ethics Officials. They said this question was outside their jurisdiction and I had ti directly call the US Government Office of Special Counsel (OSC) - the folks who keep civil servants from prohibited partisan activity and enforce the Hatch Act.

OSC told me that it was a good thing that my boss had not intervened because, although it might be in bad taste, wearing the "Impeach Clinton" button was completely legal. They said that Impeachment is not partisan but is instead a Constitutional process. They explained also that Bill Clinton was no longer a candidate in a partisan election so the button could not reasonably be interpreted as supporting a candidate, and, that advocating his impeachment was constitutionally-protected speech.

So the take-away was that even when politics align with party positions, if it's an issue instead of advocating the election or defeat of a candidate in a race with party affiliation, then the advocacy is officially nonpartisan and is protected by the Constitution.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #39)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 10:07 PM

40. Thanks for sharing

I am aware of the legal boundaries, as I volunteer for a non-profit and the rules are the same. I was merely making an observation.

That said, it is funny how the "impeach Clinton" guy's favorite party is the one that is in love with "at will" employment, and the ability to fire someone for whatever you please, as policy.

Another observation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 05:22 PM

3. Let's see...

Although I do believe marriage is between a man and a woman, there are much less offensive ways to make that point.


Translation:

I'm still a bigot, but I just got caught.


Guess what, jackass......what you said is STILL offensive no matter HOW you say it.

Believe how you want, just don't go broadcasting it to the entire country and then whine and pule when you find out the country does not agree with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberalagogo (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 06:50 PM

12. Well, Obama has expressed similar viewpoints on marriage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #12)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 06:58 PM

13. Yes he was.

And he changed. And admitted he was WRONG.

Can you say the same about the jack ass Carson?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberalagogo (Reply #13)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 07:16 PM

15. I cannot say the same about Carson.

He is a great doctor with a compelling life story but his choice to pursue right wing political buzz by crashing the Natl Prayer Breakfast then running his mouth on Fox shattered his reputation. He'll have to do what Obama did to get my support. I'm just questioning the idea it's bigoted to hold the personal belief on marriage being between a man and woman while not opposing gay rights as public policy. Hell, the Democratic Party only endorsed marriage equality THIS YEAR. It wasn't a long time ago when even a significant # of Democrats held this misguided "marriage is between a man and a woman" belief (DOMA a prime example).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #15)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 07:19 PM

16. I read his book and was so impressed.

What a disappointment he turned out to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #15)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 07:30 PM

17. ACTIONS speak louder than words.

Okay, so if I said that only women or white man should be able to vote, then that''s not bigoted?

If I say I believe should only be housewives and have babies, uit's not biogted as long as I don't try to enforce it as law?

If it's my personal belief is to have all African American people shipped to Africa, but I don't enforce that as law, I'm not a bigot?

Sorry...it's still bigoted, like it or not.

Just because something was accepted in the recent or far past as okay, doesn't mean it isn't bigoted now.

Slavery was okay once. If I still believe that institution, does that make it okay?

Is this part of that hate the sin, love the sinner BS? Cause that's what it smells like to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberalagogo (Reply #17)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 07:36 PM

18. These positions are all bigoted.

The problem is that "marriage is between a man and a woman" seems to the last acceptable bigotry. I think it's because that message is so widely preached in churches (even left-leaning ones) that people like Obama embrace a lot of Democratic/liberal ideals but still hold on to their religious belief about marriage. And think about why a lot of Democrats had to tread in the civil unions compromise in their campaigns in the last decade, as it would be a NIGHTMARE to contend with the anti-gay lobby. We've got to learn from the nation's past and confront the truth behind "traditions" sometimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #18)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 08:01 PM

20. I'm sure there'll be others

The change is happening now. I'm shocked to see it progress as fast as it has in my lifetime. Too late for me to benefit from it. But bigotry against gays, Trans, people of color, anyone with a difference will be with us for probably a few more generations. And globally, it'll take longer. But bigotry in whatever form, should be confronted, a bright light shown on the person/people guilty of it. Whether shaming those people is a good idea, is another thing. The act of shaming might just make it worse. Education and exposure is the key.

Politicians, nowadays at least, just judge which waqy the wind is blowing before committing to anything. Accepting marriage equality is the new flavor currently. Gun control may become a flavor, but that's still going back and forth too much to say. I always hated the civil union thing, because of the "separate but equal" history everyone was so keen to ignore. The entertainment media did hep with this, especailly with more high-profile people coming out unrelated to AIDS. That and the ability of the Internet to give wide exposure in debunking bigoted beliefs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberalagogo (Reply #20)


Response to Walk away (Reply #27)

Sat Apr 6, 2013, 10:14 PM

29. You need to check who you are replying to

I NEVER said ANY such thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberalagogo (Reply #20)

Sat Apr 6, 2013, 10:31 PM

33. Sorry, it was meant for the post above yours. I'll remove it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #33)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 10:16 AM

37. No biggie. Thx n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #12)

Sat Apr 6, 2013, 09:48 PM

26. Really? The President compared being gay to raping children and having sex with animals????

Let's see that link please!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #26)

Sat Apr 6, 2013, 10:17 PM

31. Obama has ONLY expressed his belief "marriage is between a man and a woman"

as i've said, just stopping at that with a religious explanation rather than going the Santorum route

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #31)

Sat Apr 6, 2013, 10:30 PM

32. You clearly asked if Obama was a bigot because he stated the same beliefs as Dr. Ben

Then you failed to prove it. Did you even listen to the good doctor comparing gays to pedophiles???? Have you heard a Democrat do that??? Have you heard the President do that???
I think your comparison is false, nasty and smacks of teabagger lies through omition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #32)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 12:24 AM

35. By beliefs I mean the definition of marriage not the Santorum-type vitriol! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 05:23 PM

4. He meant his words.

If he was really sorry he would admit he meant the words and say I was wrong to think it and I want to change. Then people could accept his apology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 05:25 PM

5. Is he still giving the commencement address?

Hopefully, student protests will take that away from him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 05:51 PM

6. Nope, a qualified apoology is a non-apology

He talks about his "poor choice of words".

He chose the words. The words accurately reflect his beliefs, so they are hardly poorly chosen.

He also limits his apology to "some members of our community" who suffered pain. Again, this limits the scope of the apology to only those it caused pain, instead of those it offended, those it brought discredit upon, etc.

Also, this line:

"Although I do believe marriage is between a man and a woman, there are much less offensive ways to make that point."

He simply wished to be "less offensive" while still being offensive.

And this line:

"I hope all will look at a lifetime of service over some poorly chosen words."

This is not a plea for forgiveness, but a statement of suggested mitigation.

Sorry, no dice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #6)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 06:40 PM

10. And you bet he ony did this after being pressured by the JH PR team.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #6)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 06:45 PM

11. Well, was Obama just as bigoted for saying he believes marriage was between a man and a woman?

At least Obama avoided the crazy innuendo of Santorum and Carson in expressing so.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/timeline-of-obamas-evolving-on-same-sex-marriage/

OCTOBER 2004: " What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman … What I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God, and it's not simply the two persons who are meeting," then-U.S. Senate candidate Obama said in an interview with WTTW Chicago public television.

"That doesn't mean that that necessarily translates into a position on public policy or with respect to civil unions. What it does mean is that we have a set of traditions in place that, I think, need to be preserved, but I also think we need to make sure that gays and lesbians have the same set of basic rights that are in place.

So while I think Dr Carson is being self serving and is speaking more for PR than moral courage, he may have a point with his "less offensive" remark, unless it is inherently bigoted to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #11)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 06:59 PM

14. It IS inherently bigoted

to say one one group of people can have a right that others do not.

What PART of bigotry are you incapable of understanding?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberalagogo (Reply #14)

Sat Apr 6, 2013, 09:53 PM

28. Still waiting!!!! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #28)

Sat Apr 6, 2013, 10:16 PM

30. And again

check who you are replying to. I never sent any link, or said such a horrible thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #11)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 12:29 AM

36. Yes,

yes he was.

Just as it was offensive when people claimed they believed that marriage was only valid when practiced by members of the same race.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 06:14 PM

8. So when will he apologize to us, for blaming his ignorant bigotry on "leftists, whom he castigated…

for pointing out what he now acknowledges are his own thoughtless, carelessly chosen words of hate.

He may be good with a scalpel but he's the pits when it comes to people.



"And he wants to be our latex salesman. I don't think so."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 06:32 PM

9. Some apology.

He still believes what he said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 07:42 PM

19. He can go fuck himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 08:48 PM

21. Too little, too late, you bigot Carson.

Fuck off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 09:37 PM

22. Another non-apology apology...

An apology includes the words "I was wrong" and "it won't happen again."

This is just spin from his new political handlers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sat Apr 6, 2013, 10:59 PM

34. Ben Carson will now always make me think of NAMBLA and sex with animals.

I guess Little Ricky Santorum needed some man-on-dog rivalry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 10:17 AM

41. "I want to discriminate on the issue of marriage...

...but I don't want to cause anybody any pain."

"Shut up and take it" rather undercuts the notion that he's apologizing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread