Alexandra

Banned UN Speech

2007-12-18T06:32:30Z

This was in March of this year. Super late, I know. Though I may be slow, I get the job done...eventually. Perhaps, one day, when I manage to get off my ass and cease being such a procrastinator, this blog may actually give someone information they hadn't already acquired. ANYWAY, this is Hillel Neuer of UN Watch giving a little (banned) speech to the UN Human Rights Council. You've all probably seen this by now, but as I said before, a good amount of my info tends not to make it here in a very timely manner.

I Love German Boys

2007-10-14T07:10:18Z

Because everyone loves a German.

and the one from Kiel is adorable

School of Shock

2007-10-13T04:42:27Z

By Jennifer Gonnerman

August 20, 2007

Rob Santana awoke terrified. He'd had that dream again, the one where silver wires ran under his shirt and into his pants, connecting to electrodes attached to his limbs and torso. Adults armed with surveillance cameras and remote-control activators watched his every move. One press of a button, and there was no telling where the shock would hit—his arm or leg or, worse, his stomach. All Rob knew was that the pain would be intense.

Every time he woke from this dream, it took him a few moments to remember that he was in his own bed, that there weren't electrodes locked to his skin, that he wasn't about to be shocked. It was no mystery where this recurring nightmare came from—not A Clockwork Orange or 1984, but the years he spent confined in America's most controversial "behavior modification" facility.

In 1999, when Rob was 13, his parents sent him to the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center, located in Canton, Massachusetts, 20 miles outside Boston. The facility, which calls itself a "special needs school," takes in all kinds of troubled kids—severely autistic, mentally retarded, schizophrenic, bipolar, emotionally disturbed—and attempts to change their behavior with a complex system of rewards and punishments, including painful electric shocks to the torso and limbs. Of the 234 current residents, about half are wired to receive shocks, including some as young as nine or ten. Nearly 60 percent come from New York, a quarter from Massachusetts, the rest from six other states and Washington, D.C. The Rotenberg Center, which has 900 employees and annual revenues exceeding $56 million, charges $220,000 a year for each student. States and school districts pick up the tab.

The Rotenberg Center is the only facility in the country that disciplines students by shocking them, a form of punishment not inflicted on serial killers or child molesters or any of the 2.2 million inmates now incarcerated in U.S. jails and prisons. Over its 36-year history, six children have died in its care, prompting numerous lawsuits and government investigations. Last year, New York state investigators filed a blistering report that made the place sound like a high school version of Abu Ghraib. Yet the program continues to thrive—in large part because no one except desperate parents, and a few state legislators, seems to care about what happens to the hundreds of kids who pass through its gates.

In Rob Santana's case, he freely admits he was an out-of-control kid with "serious behavioral problems." At birth he was abandoned at the hospital, traces of cocaine, heroin, and alcohol in his body. A middle-class couple adopted him out of foster care when he was 11 months old, but his troubles continued. He started fires; he got kicked out of preschool for opening the back door of a moving school bus; when he was six, he cut himself with a razor. His mother took him to specialists, who diagnosed him with a slew of psychiatric problems: attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Rob was at the Rotenberg Center for about three and a half years. From the start, he cursed, hollered, fought with employees. Eventually the staff obtained permission from his mother and a Massachusetts probate court to use electric shock. Rob was forced to wear a backpack containing five two-pound, battery-operated devices, each connected to an electrode attached to his skin. "I felt humiliated," he says. "You have a bunch of wires coming out of your shirt and pants." Rob remained hooked up to the apparatus 24 hours a day. He wore it while jogging on the treadmill and playing basketball, though it wasn't easy to sink a jump shot with a 10-pound backpack on. When he showered, a staff member would remove his electrodes, all except the one on his arm, which he had to hold outside the shower to keep it dry. At night, Rob slept with the backpack next to him, under the gaze of a surveillance camera.

Employees shocked him for aggressive behavior, he says, but also for minor misdeeds, like yelling or cursing. Each shock lasts two seconds. "It hurts like hell," Rob says. (The school's staff claim it is no more painful than a bee sting; when I tried the shock, it felt like a horde of wasps attacking me all at once. Two seconds never felt so long.) On several occasions, Rob was tied facedown to a four-point restraint board and shocked over and over again by a person he couldn't see. The constant threat of being zapped did persuade him to act less aggressively, but at a high cost. "I thought of killing myself a few times," he says.

Rob's mother Jo-Anne deLeon had sent him to the Rotenberg Center at the suggestion of the special-ed committee at his school district in upstate New York, which, she says, told her that the program had everything Rob needed. She believed he would receive regular psychiatric counseling—though the school does not provide this.

As the months passed, Rob's mother became increasingly unhappy. "My whole dispute with them was, 'When is he going to get psychiatric treatment?'" she says. "I think they had to get to the root of his problems—like why was he so angry? Why was he so destructive? I really think they needed to go in his head somehow and figure this out." She didn't think the shocks were helping, and in 2002 she sent a furious fax demanding that Rob's electrodes be removed before she came up for Parents' Day. She says she got a call the next day from the executive director, Matthew Israel, who told her, "You don't want to stick with our treatment plan? Pick him up." (Israel says he doesn't remember this conversation, but adds, "If a parent doesn't want the use of the skin shock and wants psychiatric treatment, this isn't the right program for them.")

Rob's mother is not the only parent angry at the Rotenberg Center. Last year, Evelyn Nicholson sued the facility after her 17-year-old son Antwone was shocked 79 times in 18 months. Nicholson says she decided to take action after Antwone called home and told her, "Mommy, you don't love me anymore because you let them hurt me so bad." Rob and Antwone don't know each other (Rob left the facility before Antwone arrived), but in some ways their stories are similar. Antwone's birth mother was a drug addict; he was burned on an electric hot plate as an infant. Evelyn took him in as a foster child and later adopted him. The lawsuit she filed against the Rotenberg Center set off a chain of events: investigations by multiple government agencies, emotional public hearings, scrutiny by the media. Legislation to restrict or ban the use of electric shocks in such facilities has been introduced in two state legislatures. Yet not much has changed.

Rob has paid little attention to the public debate over his alma mater, though he visits its website occasionally to see which of the kids he knew are still there. After he left the center he moved back in with his parents. At first glance, he seems like any other 21-year-old: baggy Rocawear jeans, black T-shirt, powder-blue Nikes. But when asked to recount his years at the Rotenberg Center, he speaks for nearly two hours in astonishing detail, recalling names and specific events from seven or eight years earlier. When he describes his recurring nightmares, he raises both arms and rubs his forehead with his palms.

Despite spending more than three years at this behavior-modification facility, Rob still has problems controlling his behavior. In 2005, he was arrested for attempted assault and sent to jail. (This year he was arrested again, for drugs and assault.) Being locked up has given him plenty of time to reflect on his childhood, and he has gained a new perspective on the Rotenberg Center. "It's worse than jail," he told me. "That place is the worst place on earth."

This is a six page article, the other pages are VERY interesting and they give you an overview, purpose, and history of the school, etc...I HIGHLY recommend at least skimming through the rest; here is the link:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/school_of_shock.html

My personal comments about this matter are unneeded, as I believe this article speaks for itself. That, and I am pretty sure most people (most, not all...scary thought) would be equally as appalled at this as I am, so the most I would be saying is unintelligible drivel.

US Senate censure of MoveOn.org: An attack on free speech in the service of militarism

2007-09-30T06:29:30Z

Excuse my absentmindedness; this article came out a week ago and I've been meaning to share it ever since, but I keep getting sidetracked. Though I may be slow, I eventually get the job done! Here it is, and perhaps a bit long, I strongly urge everyone to read the whole article. As an added bonus I have limited my personal commentary, as I am more interested in reading your comments about it. So please, post your reactions, whatever they may be!

US Senate censure of MoveOn.org: An attack on free speech in the service of militarism

By Bill Van Auken
22 September 2007

The US Senate’s 72-to-25 vote in favor of a resolution condemning the liberal antiwar group MoveOn.org for publishing a newspaper ad questioning the credibility of Iraq war commander Gen. David Petraeus represents a chilling attack on freedom of speech and a further undermining of the bedrock constitutional principle that subordinates the military to democratic civilian control.

The vote follows two weeks of agitation by the Republican right over the ad, which appeared in the New York Times on the eve of congressional testimony given by General Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the American ambassador in Baghdad, defending the Bush administration’s military surge, which has sent an additional 30,000 US troops into the war in Iraq.

Republican lawmakers took to the floor in the House and Senate, brandishing copies of the ad and demanding that the Democrats repudiate it. Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani took out his own ad in the Times, extolling Petraeus’s record and attacking Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton for failing to rebuke MoveOn.org. Not to be outdone, Giuliani’s Republican rival, Senator John McCain, expressed the opinion that the liberal lobbying group should “be thrown out of the country.”

Finally, on the same day that the Senate approved the resolution, President Bush declared at a White House press conference that the MoveOn.org ad was “disgusting” and attacked the Democrats for failing to denounce it. Most Democrats, he declared “are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org—or more afraid of irritating them than they are of irritating the United States military.”

The vote in the Senate, however, proved Bush’s accusation against the Democrats completely wrong. In the end, virtually every Democrat in the Senate cowered before the military, voting in favor of one of two resolutions defending Petraeus and condemning the MoveOn.org ad.

The first of these was approved by an overwhelming, 72-to-25 vote, with as many Democrats voting for it or abstaining as voting against. Among those who abstained were Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

This bill “strongly condemns” the MoveOn.org ad, declaring that it “impugns the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces,” while citing at great length the US commander’s military record.

The second measure, which failed, was a slightly watered-down version of this act of censure, offered by California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer. Its stated purpose was to “strongly condemn all attacks on the honor, integrity and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization.”

It endorsed the condemnation of the MoveOn.org ad, but added that Republican-backed attack ads, such as the Swiftboat Veterans’ campaign against Democratic 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry and right-wing attacks on former Georgia Senator Max Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, should also be repudiated. All but two Senate Democrats—Biden, who again abstained, and Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold, who voted “no”—supported this measure.

The phony furor whipped up over the newspaper ad served largely as a distraction from the Republican support for continuing unchanged a criminal war in Iraq that is opposed by a large majority of the US population. It also served to divert attention, if only momentarily, from the abject failure of the Democratic majority in both the House and Senate to enact a single piece of legislation altering the course of the war.

The Senate on Friday ended the week of debate that followed the Petraeus-Crocker report with the defeat of an amendment to the Pentagon appropriations bill sponsored by Democratic senators Carl Levin (Michigan) and Jack Reed (Rhode Island) calling for the “redeployment” of a portion of the present US occupation force within nine months. Like other Democratic “antiwar” proposals, the measure envisioned tens of thousands of US troops remaining in Iraq to continue the suppression of national resistance and secure US interests in the region.

Nonetheless, the bill went down to defeat, with only 47 Senators voting in favor, 13 short of the 60 needed to secure a straight up-or-down floor vote. Three Democrats (as well as the so-called independent Democrat Joseph Lieberman) joined Republicans in opposing the measure.

The defeat followed the overwhelming rejection Thursday of a bill sponsored by Senator Feingold that would “transition the mission” of US troops in Iraq by June of 2008, withdrawing some forces while continuing to fund a US military presence in Iraq that would supposedly be limited to “counterterrorism” operations, protecting American assets and training Iraqi puppet forces. This measure picked up only 28 votes.

Finally, there was the failure Wednesday of the Democratic Senate leadership to secure passage of a bill that they had touted as their best chance for success. Sponsored by Senator James Webb (Democrat of Virginia), it demanded that troops returning from Iraq be given “dwell time” at their home bases equal to the length of their combat deployment. The proposal was supported by 56 senators, including six Republicans, leaving it four shy of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate and proceed to a floor vote.

The string of defeats signals the end of the Democratic Party leadership’s false pretense that it is seeking to legislate an end to the war. This claim is belied by the fact that from the outset this leadership has ruled out the use of the only power that Congress has to end war: the cutting off of military funding. Now, Levin and others are reportedly preparing a new round of meaningless legislation that would include “goals” for withdrawal, with no binding power over the actions of the White House.

While serving largely as a political diversion, the MoveOn.org controversy nonetheless has grave political implications.

For the overwhelming majority of the US Senate to support resolutions condemning political speech in the name of upholding the “honor, integrity and patriotism” of the US military amounts to telling the population to keep their mouths shut and defer to the authority of the generals.

A Republican member of the House, Thomas Davis of Virginia, has taken this approach to its logical conclusion, calling for the convening of McCarthyite-style hearings on the politics of MoveOn.org.

The facts of the case, however, substantiate the substantive charges made against Petraeus in MoveOn.org’s ad. It said he was “cooking the books for the White House” in order to claim that the escalation of the US intervention in Iraq has produced “progress” and a reduction of violence. It went on to cite the numerous independent reports indicating that the civilian death toll has actually mounted.

The thrust of the attacks on the ad have centered on its headline: “General Petraeus or General Betray US?” which has been portrayed as an unconscionable attack on the unimpeachable record of a great military commander as well as an attack on every member of the armed forces.

The reality, of course, is that Petraeus is directing a criminal, colonial-style war against the Iraqi people that has produced untold killings and suffering. While the Senate staged its obscene debate over a newspaper ad, the Iraqi authorities were still counting casualties from last Sunday’s massacre by Blackwater mercenaries in central Baghdad, which has produced a death toll placed at 28 and still rising.

Moreover, Petraeus is a political general who was placed in his position because he accepted the policy of escalation advocated by the Bush White House, under conditions in which other military commanders rejected it. He was then brought back to Washington to serve as an advocate for this policy, allowing Bush and the elements of the American ruling elite that support an unending occupation of the oil-rich country to hide behind his uniform. Crying foul over political attacks on a political general used for openly political purpose represents a hypocritical and sinister attempt to silence all opposition to the war itself.

The attempt to equate criticism of Petraeus and his political role with the denigration of every working class youth in uniform is equally deceitful. The fact is that Petraeus serves as an advocate for a policy that keeps these young soldiers killing and dying in Iraq for years to come.

More fundamentally, the thesis that the military is above criticism from either elected officials or the general public—a conception that is enthusiastically promoted by the Republicans and cringingly accepted by the Democrats—fundamentally serves to subvert the essential constitutional principle that the military is subordinate to civilian control.

This principle has already been gravely weakened by the transformations in the military itself, which has become a largely mercenary force of professionals, commanded by a predominantly conservative Republican officer corps and provided with vast funding to wage multiple wars of aggression. Under these conditions, to promote the conception that the military is above reproach and anyone daring to criticize it must be formally rebuked is tantamount to greasing the skids towards a military dictatorship in America.

The Senate resolution is but the latest sign of the deep-going corrosion of democratic processes in the United States. Nor is the inability and unwillingness of the Democrats to defend elementary democratic principles a new development.

A major factor in the theft of the 2000 election, in which the Democratic candidate Al Gore won the popular vote, was a Republican-led drive to marshal absentee military votes for Bush in the disputed Florida contest, including those illegally cast after the voting deadline. When Florida Democrats sought to challenge the illegal military votes, the Bush campaign launched a witch-hunt, attacking Gore as unpatriotic and hostile to the military. Gore quickly capitulated, agreeing to allow the invalid votes to be counted.

Later, Democratic Party officials and Gore campaign aides revealed that the then-vice president decided to allow the invalid military votes for fear of alienating the military brass. The Democratic National Committee’s general counsel at the time told the New York Times: “I can give you his exact words. ‘If I won this thing by a handful of military ballots, I would be hounded by Republicans and the press every day of my presidency and it wouldn’t be worth having.’”

Another Gore aide was quoted as saying, “Gore got very stuck on the notion that if he became president, it was not in the national interest that he have a relationship characterized by his mistrust of the military.”

If anything, the flaw in MoveOn.org’s provocative headline stems from its pro-Democratic politics. Petraeus is merely an instrument of a policy crafted by others. If one wants to look for “traitors,” a good place to begin is with the Democrats and those who promote illusions in the Democratic Party. It was, after all, the Democratic leadership of the US Senate that provided the unanimous vote in the Senate last January confirming the general as the commander of American occupation forces in Iraq.

The aim of MoveOn.org is to influence and pressure this party to carry out a policy to end the Iraq war. The deeds of the Democrats in the 10 months since they gained their congressional majority, thanks to an election dominated by the antiwar sentiments of the American people, have amply demonstrated the bankruptcy of this perspective.

Smile.dk

2007-09-23T04:11:10Z

So, this song, Butterfly, by Smile.dk, is really catchy. I've been saying "I'm your little butterfly" and bouncing my head all day long...without even noticing. People at the bus stop thought I was crazy...er than usual.
Damn you catchy, Swedish bubblegum dance music! Damn you!
and because I'm just so damn nice, I will share my agony with all of you :D I knew there was a reason I wanted friends...

Albuquerque: Anti-War Rally Turns Testy

2007-09-18T01:31:02Z

Saturday, the 15 of September, between 150-200 anti-war demonstrators gathered at the gates of Kirtland Airforce Base, carrying signs with such catchy slogans as "Impeach Bush and Cheney" and "Bring Home our Troops Now-No More War!" A relatively small, peaceful demonstration-unfortunately, the events of this day turned out to be anything but peaceful; demonstrators and the Albuquerque Police were at odds. Police were hassling the demonstrators, telling one woman to "shave your armpits and call me later," another told a man to "take a bath" after they had gone up to the police to ask them why they were harassing them. Six APD officers marched their horses down a sidewalk packed with people.Several vehicles bearing bumper stickers with anti-war slogans were slapped with parking citations on an adjacent street where there were no signs visible saying parking was prohibited.Two vehicles with no stickers parked in the same area were not cited. Demonstrators, obviously angered at the fact they were being harassed for what the believe in, were shouting at the police to "go arrest real criminals" and one demonstrator retorted "this is real patriotic, hassling a bunch of old hippies." A woman wearing a burqa— a garment worn by women in some Islamic traditions for the purposes of covering the entire body—was asked by police to remove it. After speaking to an APD sergeant asking what law she had violated, he said "none" and she was allowed to put the garment back on. Oops, got caught there, didn't ya?

Ah, but wait, here's the kicker: as the demonstrators were cleaning up, a bullhorn in one of the passing police cars came on and shouted, “GO BUSH!” You must be fucking kidding me. The atmosphere was markedly different from protests of similar size at the same location the past few years. Many demonstrators said they felt afraid and described an increased police presence;some of the 15 or so police officers on hand seemed tense. "The police came here with a definite different approach today,"organizer Jeanne Pahls said."It took us completely by surprise. We spoke with the police beforehand,and the protests we have here are always quiet and peaceful." One person said that the way the police treated the demonstrators that day amounted to suppression of free speech, and they were right. The police have the power to detain and arrest and many people, who simply want to exercise their right to free and peaceful speech, are becoming more and more intimidated by this kind of behavior-enough so that some choose not to exercise that right for fear of undue persecution. Someone who wants to voice their opinions on peace should not have to live in fear that they will be harassed by the people who are supposed to protect their rights. What kind of bullshit is that? (That was a rhetorical question). The police are in no way obligated to support what these people are demonstrating for, or agree with them on any level, however, it is their responsibility to protect these people and make sure nothing goes awry...not to instigate verbal fights and try to cause disruption. Jesus Christ, let the people gather in peace! Stories like this are getting rigoddamndiculous!

Way to go APD, way to proudly display your idle belligerence.5

Rove says goodbye!

2007-09-03T04:32:47Z

Karl Rove, arguably Bush's most powerful white house aide, has resigned as Deputy Chief of Staff. Rove's reign of terror has finally ended. He's been fucking shit up since he stepped onto the political playing field nearly 40 years ago. Rove claims to be resigning to spend more time teaching, writing, and with his family...I bet. Rove has become too much of a liability for the white house and everyone knows it. He's not fooling anyone...but hey, he has a perfect track record of deceit, why start being honest now? He just gets to walk right out...never even going to be indicted for the Valerie Plame (Wilson) CIA leak...or the US attorney scandal...or anything else. How typical. Too bad you can't be arrested for just being an all around asshole.

GOOD RIDDANCE, ASSHOLE!

Alexandra

Banned UN Speech

I Love German Boys

School of Shock

US Senate censure of MoveOn.org: An attack on free speech in the service of militarism

US Senate censure of MoveOn.org: An attack on free speech in the service of militarism

By Bill Van Auken 22 September 2007

Smile.dk

Albuquerque: Anti-War Rally Turns Testy

Rove says goodbye!

By Bill Van Auken
22 September 2007