MORE
IDOL PUNCH Violence Pop 1999
19 minutes ago
Thursday, 6 May 2010
The Terminator's only chance at a presidential run is to go back time and change the country of his birth
US school for disabled forces students to wear packs that deliver massive electric shocks
Mental Disability Rights International (MDRI) has filed a report and urgent appeal with the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture alleging that the Judge Rotenberg Center for the disabled, located in Massachusetts, violates the UN Convention against Torture.
The rights group submitted their report this week, titled "Torture not Treatment: Electric Shock and Long-Term Restraint in the United States on Children and Adults with Disabilities at the Judge Rotenberg Center," after an in-depth investigation revealed use of restraint boards, isolation, food deprivation and electric shocks in efforts to control the behaviors of its disabled and emotionally troubled students.
Findings in the MDRI report include the center's practice of subjecting children to electric shocks on the legs, arms, soles of feet and torso -- in many cases for years -- as well as some for more than a decade. Electronic shocks are administered by remote-controlled packs attached to a child's back called a Graduated Electronic Decelerators (GEI).
The disabilities group notes that stun guns typically deliver three to four milliamps per shock. GEI packs, meanwhile, shock students with 45 milliamps -- more than ten times the amperage of a typical stun gun.
A former employee of the center told an investigator, "When you start working there, they show you this video which says the shock is 'like a bee sting' and that it does not really hurt the kids. One kid, you could smell the flesh burning, he had so many shocks. These kids are under constant fear, 24/7. They sleep with them on, eat with them on. It made me sick and I could not sleep. I prayed to God someone would help these kids."
Noting that it believes United States law fails to provide needed protections to children and adults with disabilities, MDRI calls for the immediate end to the use of electric shock and long-term restraints as a form of behavior modification or treatment and a ban on the infliction of severe pain for so-called therapeutic purposes.
"Torture as treatment should be banned and prosecuted under criminal law," the report states.
The U.S. Department of Justice opened a "routine investigation" of the center in February of this year in response to a September 2009 letter signed by 31 disability organizations claiming that the center violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Judge Rotenberg CEO and founder Dr. Matthew L. Israel began his first program in California back in 1977. In 1981, a 14-year old boy died face down, tied to his bed, while living in the California center. Dr. Israel was not held responsible for the death. After an investigation by the State of California, Israel relocated to Rhode Island, and then to Massachusetts, where his facility still operates today.
Mother Jones magazine published an extensive investigative report on the Rotenberg Center in 2007 titled "School of Shock." Reporter Jennifer Gonnerman asked, "How many times do you have to zap a child before it's torture?"
Children at the Judge Rotenberg Center are often shackled, restrained and secluded for months at a time, the report says. Social isolation, and food deprivation as forms of punishment are common. Mock and threatened stabbings -- to forcibly elicit unacceptable behaviors resulting in electric shock punishments (Labeled as Behavioral Research Lessons or BRLs, by the center) were reported to MDRI as well as state regulatory bodies.
A former student of the center reportedly tells MDRI, "The worst thing ever was the BRLs. They try and make you do a bad behavior and then they punish you. The first time I had a BRL, two guys came in the room and grabbed me – I had no idea what was going on. They held a knife to my throat and I started to scream and I got shocked. I had BRLs three times a week for stuff I didn't even do. It went on for about six months or more. I was in a constant state of paranoia and fear. I never knew if a door opened if I would get one. It was more stress than I could ever imagine. Horror."
Behaviors that the center deemed "aggressive," as well as those considered "minor," or "non-compliant" -- such as raising one's hand without permission -- are all considered punishable by electric shocks, restraints, and other punishments to students.
"One girl who was blind, deaf and non-verbal was moaning and rocking," a former teacher says in the report. "Her moaning was like a cry. The staff shocked her for moaning. Turned out she had broken a tooth. Another child had an accident in the bathroom and was shocked."
The rights group investigation found that the Rotenberg center is the only known facility in the United States, "Or perhaps the world," that employs the use of electricity, long-term restraints and other punishments to deliberately inflict pain upon its children and then refer to it as "treatment." The electric shocks alone are cited as having possible long-term effects such as muscle stiffness, impotence, damage to teeth, scarring of the skin, hair loss, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), severe depression, chronic anxiety, memory loss and sleep disturbances.
The MDRI report states that more than any other source for its information, they relied upon information readily obtained from the Judge Rotenberg Center's own website.
In response to MDRI's report, the Judge Rotenberg Center said, "There is no credible evidence that for these most severe forms of behavior disorders, there is any pharmacological or psychological treatment that can effectively treat these students or even keep them safe. JRC is the only program willing to address the reality of these children’s disorders and endure the political firestorm in order to save these children and give them an education and a future."
The complete response from the center can be read in full at JRC's website
Diana Sweet @'Raw Story'
STL - The Quest For Sound
The mysterious Harz-based producer breaks his silent state: RA's Todd L. Burns tracks down Stephan Laubner for his first English language interview, finding that there's much more than house music to talk about with the multi-faceted artist and label owner.
paul__lewis Labour's private polling shows "more than 20%" voters in marginals still undecided. Turnout set to be highest since '97.
David Cameron accused of being dishonest over links with 'Conservative madrasa'
A screengrab from Conor Burns's website, showing him with David Cameron. Burns was until recently the vice-president of the Young Britons' Foundation
David Cameron has been accused of being "completely dishonest" about his links to a controversial Conservative party affiliate whose leadership has described the NHS as the biggest waste of money in the UK and suggested that the waterboarding of prisoners can be justified.
In an interview prior to the election campaign, the Tory leader denied all knowledge of the Young Britons' Foundation, which has been dubbed "the Conservative madrasa" because of its radical views and role in training young party activists, including some parliamentary candidates.
Asked about his links to the group last month, Cameron said: "I don't know anything about the Young Britons' Foundation."
But Cameron had already contributed to a YBF-branded guide to essential reading for young Conservatives, according to the YBF's chief executive, Donal Blaney, a Kent-based solicitor. The Guardian has also obtained photographs of him meeting the organisation's director of strategy, vice-president, and then operations director before he denied knowledge of the group. Its director of research, Alex Deane, was formerly Cameron's chief of staff.
The YBF's leaders promote a version of free-market liberalism in line with the US neoconservative movement and some of its residential camps for young party activists involving visits to shooting ranges to fire sub-machine guns and assault rifles. In an article on his own website, entitled Scrap the NHS, not just targets", its chief executive, Donal Blaney, wrote: "Would it not now be better to say that the NHS – in its current incarnation – is finished?"
Its president is Daniel Hannan MEP, a staunch critic of the NHS, which Cameron has claimed is his top priority should he become prime minister.
Senior members of the shadow cabinet have repeatedly tried to distance themselves from the YBF despite having spoken at YBF events. Eric Pickles, the party chairman, and Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, spoke at the YBF's parliamentary rally in March, but tried to distance themselves from the group afterwards. Fox was listed as a member of the YBF's parliamentary council on its website until the page was removed recently.
"The YBF's tentacles reach deep into the shadow cabinet and show the influence of the extreme anti-NHS, pro-torture, neocon wing of the party," said Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman. "If Cameron claims not to know who they are he is being completely dishonest."
In a circular email about a planned YBF-branded manual called Reading the Right Books: Essential Reading for Young Conservatives, Blaney wrote to YBF supporters on 8 January 2009 stating: "I have so far received some 50 suggestions from MPs including from David Cameron, William Hague, Michael Gove, Damian Green, David Davis, Jeremy Hunt, Oliver Letwin and David Willetts." He repeats his assertion about Cameron's involvement on the YBF website.
Cameron has also been photographed endorsing the Conservative candidate for Bournemouth West, Conor Burns, who until recently was the YBF's vice-president, shaking hands with Paul Osborn, the YBF's director of strategy and presenting an award for political activism to Christian May, who was then YBF operations director.
Cameron's spokesman could neither confirm nor deny whether he had worked with the YBF on the planned book.
"Amongst the many hundreds of letters and emails David Cameron's office receives every day, they occasionally include requests for book recommendations," a spokesman said. "The YBF is independent of the Conservative party."
Labour MP Jon Cruddas said: "At best, Mr Cameron has been elusive about his links to the YBF, at worst he is systematically involved in a 'madrasa' for far-right views which he has again and again attempted to disguise. This doesn't bode well if he becomes prime minister on Friday."
On Monday, the YBF launched a nationwide leaflet and video campaign against a hung parliament, which suggested such an outcome could cause unemployment to hit 5 million, Britain to lose its place on the UN security council, and the BNP to eventually win 20 seats in the House of Commons if proportional representation is introduced as a result.
Huhne said yesterday it was a "coordinated, expensively funded and probably illegal smear operation with links right to the top of the Conservative party".
The Lib Dems believe the 500,000-leaflet campaign would have cost more than £10,000, the limit before you have to register with the Electoral Commission, and could therefore be illegal.
Robert Booth @'The Guardian'
Wednesday, 5 May 2010
Zoo magazine advises cutting women’s faces
Zoo Magazine (UK) has published an ‘advice’ column suggesting that a guy who can’t get over his ex should cut her face “so then no one will want her”
Tories are bashing banks in public. Behind the scenes, though, they're striking a more conciliatory tone with London's financial community.
British opposition Conservative party Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, delivered his address to delegates at the Institute of Directors Annual Convention in London on April 28, 2010.
George Osborne, the Conservatives' candidate to become Chancellor of the Exchequer, has been reaching out to top U.K. bankers to assure them that, despite the party's populist rhetoric, a Conservative government won't declare war on banks, according to people who have heard his pitch.
To be sure, all three major parties have had to walk a fine line with the U.K.'s powerful financial community during this intensely tight campaign, which culminates in national elections on Thursday.
While the Labour party has decried excessive banker bonuses, it also had to oversee such payouts for employees of state-owned Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC. Moreover, Labour has long enjoyed a chummy relationship with the City of London and championed the now derided "light-touch" regulatory approach.
The Liberal Democrats, perhaps the most vocal critic of London's financial community, have at least three "shadow ministers" who worked in the banking industry and received funding from the heads of large London hedge funds.
But the Tories have historically had a tighter relationship with the City of London than the other major parties, and that is seen as a potential vulnerability in an election where bankers have become the bad guys.
Thus, the Conservatives have sought to establish their populist bona fides with strong words. In Thursday's televised debate, Tory leader David Cameron assailed "appalling bonuses" and blasted Labour for being too cozy with the financial industry. "They did very much hitch the whole fortunes of the economy to the City of London," Mr. Cameron said.
Given the potency of the rhetoric, Mr. Osborne lately has tried to mend fences with bankers after lambasting them in public, according to people familiar with the matter. In a televised debate last month, for example, Mr. Osborne lashed out at Barclays PLC President Bob Diamond.
"It really beggars belief that two years after we all bailed them out, we get the Barclays Bank chief paying himself £63 million," Mr. Osborne said.
When Barclays officials called Mr. Osborne's office to complain that the £63 million figure was inaccurate, Mr. Osborne relayed an apology to Barclays, according to people familiar with the matter.
A person familiar with Tory thinking said Mr. Osborne is being consistent with his public and private remarks.
All the same, people in the City say Mr. Osborne's quiet outreach efforts have been frequent. For instance, in phone conversations and private meetings, senior banking executives say Mr. Osborne has tried to allay their concerns that a Tory government would try to force giant banks to shed their investment banking and trading divisions.
Mr. Osborne's assurances come even as the Conservatives publicly back international rules that would restrict risky banking activities. Mr. Cameron reiterated Thursday that retail banks "should not be behaving like casinos" and endorsed the Obama administration's proposal to separate proprietary trading from traditional banks. Such rules could force major U.K. banks to rein in or divest their investment-banking divisions.
Last October, the Bank of England's governor, Mervyn King, delivered a speech in which he advocated separating high-risk activities from retail banking. Mr. Osborne applauded the remarks as "powerful and persuasive."
Further aligning the Conservatives with Mr. King, the party's platform calls for the Bank of England to gain control over supervising the U.K. banking industry, a duty now held by the Financial Services Authority.
The Conservatives' tough talk has alienated some traditional supporters. Last year, for example, Jon Moulton, a private equity fund manager and former Conservative donor, said that while a degree of "banker bashing" was justified, the Tory attack is "merely opportunistic" and could damage the City's long-term prospects.
When bankers have phoned Mr. Osborne to seek clarification about his views on splitting banks' retail and trading businesses, people familiar with the matter say he has tried to ease their concerns and said the Conservatives have no intention of breaking up giant banks.
"They've said, 'We've got an election to win. Things will be said in the heat of an election. We believe it's a good thing for the economy that we have strong, profitable banks','' said a person who has heard Mr. Osborne's private remarks.
The person familiar with the Tories' thinking stressed that the Tories have never advocated a wholesale breakup of big banks.
Mr. Osborne also has sought to quell concerns that Mr. King's support for forcing banks to shrink—an unpopular stance among much of London's financial community—would become official Bank of England policy, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Osborne recently has been telling senior banking executives that Mr. King wouldn't be responsible for banking supervision in a Conservative government, these people said.
The person from the Tory camp said such comments about Mr. King are consistent with the party's official position on financial regulation. A July 2009 Conservative "white paper" proposes restructuring the Bank of England so that it takes "a collegiate approach" to overseeing financial stability, which will "reduce the institutional reliance on the position of governor." A Bank of England spokesman declined comment.
Murdoch takes a different stance in the US
The Black Dog Podcast 07
Here we collect some of our early favourites along with cuts from the Downwards label run by our friend Karl. We’ve also included a couple of new cuts from Raudive (Oliver Ho) that just happened to land at the same time as the mix was being made. Enjoy.
Tracklist:
01. Automotivation 2 – Cabaret Voltaire – Sheffield
02. Birth – Raudive – Ealing
03. It Slipped Her Mind – Sandra Electronics – Downwards
04. Victims – Tropic Of Cancer – Downwards
05. Revox Love – Machinagraph – Sheffield
06. TV AD – Machinagraph – Sheffield
07. Do The Mussolini (Head Kick) – Cabaret Voltaire – Sheffield
08. The Set Up – Cabaret Voltaire – Sheffield
09. Entrance (Machinagraph Edit) – Raudive – Ealing
10. Chemistry (Machinagraph Edit) – Antonym – Downwards
11. Spread The Virus – Cabaret Voltaire – Sheffield
12. New Girls Neutron – Vice Versa – Sheffield
13. Being Boiled – Human League – Sheffield
Download
HERE
HERE
Or subscribe to the Podcast
Support the artists and buy their stuff.
Better the devil you know. Vote Labour
This is only a snapshot. What are the issues that affect your life? And what are the policies that prospective Governments will employ to deal with them? That is how to choose a Government and a leader.
And as you ponder your ballot box decision, do not ignore the claims of an outstanding candidate in your constituency on purely party political reasons. If they will deliver what you need, through hard work and determination, then they are priceless, even in opposition.
For those who would be Prime Minister, skills in the glare of TV debate are peripheral. What we gained from the Debates was entertainment not enlightenment. Brown was dreadful. Cameron not as good as expected. Clegg better than anticipated.
Cameron is good on his feet – better than he showed at debate. He has energy and toughness but is utterly and fundamentally the wrong man for Liverpool and places like it.
He is 43-years old and hails from a long line of stockbrokers. He was educated at Eton College and Oxford University. He will inherit multi-millions from both sides of his family. He is a direct descendant of King William IV and is the fifth cousin twice removed of our present Queen. He’s worth an estimated £3m.
His right-hand man, the Shadow Chancellor George Osborne, is another Oxford University man and stands to inherit the Baronetcy of Ballentaylor in Ireland, as well as a huge slice of his dad’s luxury wallpaper company. Not that he needs the money as he already benefits from a company trust fund and is reckoned to be worth £4.3m.
What empathy can these guys REALLY offer a single mum in Norris Green or a pensioner in the North End of Birkenhead?
In their entire, comfortable lives they will never once have to worry about how they’re going to pay the gas bill, or whether they can afford a holiday. Never once.
Never once will they worry about gangs of yobs creating havoc in their street or junkies leaving needles where their kids might stand on them.
A new, modern and inclusive Tory party is to be welcomed and encouraged. This though, isn’t it.
Clegg has begun to sound like a broken record as he offers “genuine change”. Change is fine – as long as it’s change for the better. There is nothing behind Clegg’s polished public persona to suggest policies that will deliver a better Britain.
And to revert again to a football comparison: What are England’s chances in the World Cup? Take out Rooney and Gerrard and the answer is not very good. Beyond Clegg and the redoubtable Vince Cable, who do the Lib Dems have to form a cabinet of quality?
Which leaves Brown. He is a shrewd and decent politician with a conscience and a flair for the spread sheets of economic analysis. A communicator? You wouldn’t fancy him to successfully place an order at McDonalds.
He has though, shepherded this country through the worst of the economic crisis. The recovery is fragile though, and we share Brown’s concern that the Tories or the Lib Dems risk that recovery with a more cavalier approach to savings and spending.
And beneath Brown are some wonderfully gifted lieutenants, notably the brilliant Alistair Darling and Prime Minister-in-waiting Ed Balls.
Brown has done well with the economy and superbly well with our system of Education. He has fallen short on Crime and horribly short on Health. If we elect him as Prime Minister these last two must be improved hugely and rapidly or Brown’s extended stay will be short and bleak.
On balance, though, he has done enough to earn a new mandate (his first from the electorate) and an extended run at creating the fair and prosperous society we all crave.
Sometimes, it’s better the devil you know. That’s why, for now, it must be Brown and Labour.
Alastair Machray [Editor] @'Liverpool Echo'
Remember 1983? I warn you that a Cameron victory will be just as bad
On the eve of the 1983 election – which, until this year, seemed destined to represent for ever the low watermark of Labour performances – a young member of the party's shadow cabinet delivered what was to be one of his most compelling speeches. Neil Kinnock knew a landslide defeat was imminent so, speaking in Bridgend, he sketched the world to come. "I warn you," he began, addressing a nation about to descend into the bitterest stretch of the Thatcher era. "I warn you not to be ordinary. I warn you not to be young. I warn you not to fall ill. I warn you not to get old."
It was a rhetorical masterpiece from a man whose oratory would later be much mocked. But its power was its prescience. Kinnock saw the Thatcherite tsunami that was coming and warned of the deluge that would follow.
This time even the most pessimistic Labourite cannot feel the certainty Kinnock had then: all kinds of permutation are still possible. But if the Labour vote crashes close to, or even below, 1983 levels, then David Cameron in Downing Street is the most likely outcome, whether governing as a minority, in alliance with the Lib Dems, or with a narrow majority of his own. What would he do if he gets there? What cautionary message might a 2010 Kinnock issue? For those still weighing their vote, here are a few salutary thoughts.
I warn you that a chance some have waited for all their adult lives will slip away, perhaps taking another generation to come around again: the chance to reform our rotten, broken electoral system. If Cameron wins, he will not only thwart any move to fairer voting, he will act fast to rig the system in his favour. Even neutrals agree that his plan to cut the number of MPs by 10% – presented as a mere cost-cutting measure – will be one of the grossest acts of gerrymandering in British political history. Cameron will redraw the boundaries so that his rivals lose seats and he gains them, locking in a semi-permanent Conservative majority. Reform of our absurd, unelected second chamber will be postponed indefinitely, enabling Cameron to pack the Lords with his mates and sugar daddies, including perhaps a few more of those businessmen who so obligingly sided with the Conservatives in condemning Labour's plans for national insurance.
If, on the other hand, Cameron is kept from Downing Street courtesy of a Labour vote tomorrow strong enough to make a Lib-Lab coalition plausible, then there's a clear chance for the 55%-plus majority who regularly vote for liberal or left parties to prevail and reform the system – ensuring that, from now on, the Conservatives hold power only as often as their minority status suggests they should. (They were always a minority party, even in the Thatcher heyday.) In other words, the victor tomorrow will get to set the rules for decades to come. This is a winner-takes-all election and the stakes could not be higher.
I warn you that the economy could slide back into despair. Maybe people have not paid attention to this argument because Gordon Brown has been making it, but the danger is real. A sudden shut-off of the public spending tap could well send a frail recovery staggering back into recession: the dreaded double-dip. It's happened elsewhere and could happen here. The US and other economies are seeing the tide turn, but that's because they've kept the public cash coming. Cameron's aim, played down in the rhetoric because it polled so badly, is to cut spending immediately, ushering in what he once proudly trumpeted as an "age of austerity".
If Britain were to return to recession, then brace yourself. For many, this last downturn has not quite felt like the worst since the Great Depression, whatever the economists say. Unemployment, house repossessions and bankruptcies are all fractions of what they were in the 1990s recession. That's not by accident. It's a function of Labour's active interventionism, which has sought to reduce the impact of the downturn on those at the sharpest end. Such state activity clashes with every Conservative instinct. Cameron still describes government as more problem than solution. Last time the Tories were in charge, dealing with a recession that was actually much less severe, the pain was greater and the weakest suffered most. There is nothing in current Tory policy – despite Cameron's final debate plea to the camera that it's "the most vulnerable, the most frail and the poorest" he truly cares about – to suggest it won't be like that again.
Indeed, there are at least three signs that point in a gloomy direction. First, despite all the austerity talk, the Tories have clung to their promise to give an inheritance tax break to the 3,000 richest families in the country. In the words of Nick Clegg, it's the "double-millionaires" Cameron wants to help. And yet, given the hole in the public finances, cash will have to come from somewhere. The obvious source – not that the Conservative leader has ever been challenged on it – is an increase in VAT. That's the most regressive of all taxes, inflicting disproportionate pain on the poorest: pain that will only deepen with the coming Tory assault on tax credits. A third cause for alarm can be expressed in three words: Chancellor George Osborne.
I warn you not to have an urgent need for the NHS. Sure, the Tories say they've ringfenced health spending, but check the small print. They plan to drop Labour's guarantee on waiting times. No longer will any patient be sure to see a cancer specialist within two weeks: under the Tories, that decision will be left to the consultant. Fine for the sharp-elbowed middle class, who are used to barging their way to the front of the queue. Not so good for the poorest who, all the data shows, struggle to get the most from public services.
I warn you not to be a single mother or widow. You'll get less than those who are married. Not that much less – about £3 a week – but just enough to know that the tax system regards you as a second-class citizen and to remind you of how life used to be under the Conservatives, when single parents were a routine target for public mockery and scolding.
I warn you that we will be back to the sterile relationship with Europe of the 1990s, a British government once again on the margins, but aligned this time with homophobes, rank antisemites and assorted apologists for fascism. Prepare within weeks for a Cameron stunt, demanding negotiations to "repatriate" powers back to Westminster. Britain is set once again to become the club bore of the EU, happily swallowing the agenda of economic liberalisation but moaning about sovereignty in the abstract, annoying the other members but never having the courage to up and leave.
Cameron won't have much choice in the matter. He'll be answerable to the newly-strengthened backbench hard right of his party, who will have veto power over his programme: he won't be able to govern without their votes. With their loathing of Europe, their disbelief in man-made climate change and their disproportionate ties to the City and finance, they will ensure Cameron sticks to the right and narrow.
Of course, it would feel better to make a positive case for Labour, echoing its promises on a living wage and a cap on predatory chargecard interest rates or its plans for green jobs. But the hour is late. Tomorrow is the day of decision. And we have been warned.
Jonathan Freedland @'The Guardian'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
