Economic Aspects of "Love"

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:42 am

How Creepy Conservative Christian Modesty Doctrines Harm Young Women

By Sierra , RH Reality Check
Posted on November 27, 2011

http://www.alternet.org/story/153227/ho ... oung_women

This isn’t a story about how modest clothes allowed me to “let myself go” and conceal a growing figure. It’s not even a story about how wearing modest clothes kept my self-esteem at rock bottom and thrust me into a too-close relationship with Ben & Jerry. It’s a story about how modesty doctrines impacted my mind, in ways that had real, negative effects on my body. Modesty was one of the reasons my defining relationship with my body became whether or not I was “fat.” Modesty was one of the engines that pushed me into a full-blown eating disorder. It’s not just a dress code: it’s a philosophy, and it’s one that destroys young women, mentally and physically.

Image

Modesty taught me that my first priority needed to be making sure I wasn’t a “stumbling block” to men. Not being sexually attractive was the most important thing I had to consider when buying clothes, putting them on, maintaining my weight (can’t have things getting tight!), and moving around (can’t wiggle those hips, or let a little knee show). Modesty taught me that what I looked like was what mattered most of all. Not what I thought. Not how I felt. Not what I was capable of doing. Worrying about modesty, and being vigilant not to be sexy, made me even more obsessed with my looks than the women in short shorts and spray tans I was taught to hate.

Modesty taught me that I was always on display. There was no occasion in which it was acceptable to be immodest. Not the beach, not at the pool with friends, not in my own backyard (sunbathing was out because a neighbor might glance over and see me). This took my normal self-consciousness as a teenage girl and amped it up to an impossible degree. I once had a bee fly down my (acceptably loose) shirt and, in flailing around to get it out, had a family member comment that I’d just “flashed” my own grandfather. I was horrified for the rest of the week. That’s not normal. The normal order of priorities is getting dangerous animals out of your clothing first, and then worrying about making your own relatives perv on you second. Not so with the modesty doctrine. I should have let it sting me, apparently. Getting stung was the lesser risk.

Modesty was not just about dress. It was also about moving like a lady. Knees together, butt down, breasts in, arms down. It is impossible to get physically fit while adhering to ladylike movements only. You might be able to run, but only if you wear two sports bras to keep anything from jiggling inappropriately. You certainly can’t do anything with weights. In college, I had the chance to join a horseback riding team for a couple of semesters. I soon realized that staying on the horse required starting some kind of fitness regimen. In the gym, I found a couple of hip abductor/adductor machines that were handy for building the thigh strength necessary to grip the horse. The problem? I was so embarrassed that somebody might walk in front of me while I was on the machine with my legs spread that I started going to the gym the moment it opened in the morning and avoiding exercise when men were present. In this instance, modesty was literally keeping me weak. Eventually, I grew comfortable enough with my own body to exercise without worrying about other people happening to look at me. Now, I do an exercise routine that would have scandalized my old self: squats, deadlifts, and barbell rows. I have so much more energy and my mood is so much improved – plus, I can move my own furniture! But I couldn’t have got to this point without dumping the modesty doctrine. Because I couldn’t concentrate on hauling iron while worried that some perv behind me might happen to glance my way and pop his gym shorts. That’s not my job anymore. I’m not responsible for men’s souls, because I no longer think of myself as an object to be looked at and evaluated.

Backing up to before I got to college, modesty contributed to my eating disorder. How? Because I noticed that the best way to keep men from staring at my ass was not to have one. Ditto boobs. The skinnier I got, the less womanly I looked, and the more “modest” I felt, until I was 25lbs underweight. I was perpetually “fat” in my own mind – because in my own mind, the only acceptable body type was an androgynous one – one that could not possibly provoke a man to lust. I’m sure I don’t need to explain why that was a bad thing.

Modesty taught me that I was a decoration. Everything about my life was governed by whether or not a man was watching. How I moved and what I ate or wore all depended on the male gaze. Modesty taught me that nothing I did mattered more than avoiding sexual attention. Modesty made me objectify myself. I was so aware of my own potential desirability at all times that I lost all other ways of defining myself. I couldn’t work out or get fit without worrying about attracting men. I couldn’t relax my eating habits for a moment lest my shirts start to pull a little in the chest. I couldn’t grow like a normal human adolescent because staying slim and sexless was the biggest priority in my world.

When you argue that what’s modest and what isn’t is a valid concern for women, you tell them that their appearance matters most. You objectify them. You tell them that whether or not you are sexually aroused by their actions or their dress is more important than anything they want to do or wear. You tell them that they must, at all times, be thinking about you when they are making decisions about their own lives. That’s arrogant. That’s immoral.

When you argue that modesty is just a “debate” that must be won by those whose arguments are strongest in the abstract, you ignore the fact that the “debate” has consequences you don’t have to live with. Women have to live with the consequences of modesty debates. Those debates impact every sphere of their lives: work, play, even their own health and wellbeing. If you think that, as a man, you can somehow argue “objectively” about what women should or shouldn’t wear and “win” a debate fair and square, let me remind you of a few things. If a man “loses” a modesty debate, nothing about his life changes. If a man “wins” a modesty debate, nothing about his life changes. But if a woman loses a modesty debate, the entire fabric of her existence changes. If a woman loses a modesty debate, she has lost whole areas of freedom in her life. She now has more things to worry about not doing so that men will not get aroused. There is no such thing as an “objective” argument in which the stakes are astronomical for one side and nonexistent for the other. Furthermore, by even accepting modesty as a valid area of concern for women, you have accepted a premise that defines women by their looks and objectifies them. Women have already lost the moment a modesty debate begins.

Modesty made me “fat” because it defined my relationship with my body in terms of appearance. Not action. Not gratitude. Not the joy of movement. Just appearance. It also defined my relationship with men as one of predator and prey. It was my job to hide from men so that their sex drive would lie dormant, like a sleeping wolf. But if that wolf ever awakened, it was not because it had been sleeping for a long time and its circadian rhythm kicked in, or it was just naturally hungry. It was my fault because I had done something to “bait” the wolf. Just by being visibly female, or by moving in “unladylike” ways. You cannot consider women full human beings unless you recognize that their lives do not revolve around the male sex drive. Modesty is a philosophy that dehumanizes. It incites constant fear and vigilance in one sex while excusing the other of all responsibility. It’s immoral.




Sierra is a PhD student living in the Midwest. She was raised in a “Message of the Hour” congregation that followed the ministry of William Branham. She left the Message in 2006 and is the author of the blog The Unspoken Words: A Non-Prophet Message.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Mon Nov 28, 2011 1:10 pm

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/11/28/ ... mr-clorox/

NOVEMBER 28, 2011

The Strange Career of Dr. Richard Carmona

Dr. Taser / Mr. Clorox

by DARWIN BOND-GRAHAM



On November 16 about two-hundred and fifty Oaklanders convened a general assembly in the city’s central square, Frank Ogawa/Oscar Grant Plaza. It was yet another experiment in direct democracy, one of many public meetings held since the city’s encampment was established a month earlier. Buoyed by a massive march to UC Berkeley’s campus the day before, Oakland’s occupiers floated proposals to guide the movement’s next steps.

A national day of action against the coordinated police crackdown on various occupy encampments around the nation received 90% of votes. An occupation of a park on 19th and Telegraph got another 90% of votes cast. Before adjourning, the assembly opened the floor to general announcements. Protesters from San Francisco spoke last. They were worried the police were coming for them again, armed with batons and pepper spray. “Please come help us defend ourselves,” they asked. Taking this into consideration, the Occupiers adjourned.

Just a block away on the same day another kind of “assembly” was taking place, the Clorox Company’s annual shareholders meeting held in the corporation’s office tower at 1221 Broadway. While a contractor tallied proxy votes, Clorox’s executives, directors, and representatives of its major shareholders huddled to chart their future.

Clorox’s board of directors was re-elected. It’s directors in turn recommended a package of executive compensation for the year ahead. Chair and CEO Don Knauss was paid $9.1 million. VP Lawrence Peiros was approved for $2.9 million in pay and stock. Most of the other executives received similar seven figure packages.

It’s likely that Clorox’s leadership also talked about the Occupy encampment, rallies, and assemblies occurring just steps outside their building. It’s quite likely they had been worrying if the protests would disrupt their annual meeting. Clorox, like other major corporations with offices in Oakland, is a member of the Oakland Chamber of Commerce, one of several business organizations that had pressured the Mayor to send in the cops on a mission to violently evict the movement.

On the Clorox committee making recommendations regarding compensation is one “Dr.” Richard H. Carmona. Carmona has been a board member of the Oakland-based Clorox since 2007. In that time he has been paid several hundred thousand in fees, and has obtained an option on upwards of 7,000 shares in the company. Carmona is a wealthy man.

Guiding aspects of Clorox’s corporate decision making is only one of Carmona’s jobs, however. He’s much more involved in a different company headquartered in his home state of Arizona.

Dr. Carmona joined the board of Taser International in the same year he joined Clorox. Not coincidentally, that was just after he left office as the 17th Surgeon General of the United States under the administration of George W. Bush. Taser International is what you think it is; the company that makes and sells the electronic guns popularly known by their most famous brand name. Taser’s biggest customers are police departments.

According to various accounts, Carmona joined the Army in 1967, just as the Vietnam War was getting hot. He quickly became a member of the Army Special Forces known as the Green Berets, and learned medicine by treating fellow soldiers in the battlefield. After the war —in which he became a highly decorated combat veteran— he attended medical school, earning a bachelors degree from UCSF in 1979. Carmona’s early medical career was spent mostly as a nurse and paramedic.

In 1986 Carmona joined the Pima County Sheriff’s Office where he would become a leader of the SWAT team, and also worked as a police medic. Carmona killed in the line of duty in 1999, shooting a mentally ill man who fired at him. The deceased had reportedly killed his father earlier that day with a knife.

In Pima County, Carmona served in different management roles in the healthcare system while working as a cop. Lacking the advanced research and education that such jobs require, he obtained a Masters in Public Health from the University of Arizona in 1998.

It was out of this context, somewhat out of the blue, that George W. Bush nominated Carmona for the post of Surgeon General in 2002. Physicians from the University of Arizona Medical School, where Carmona lectured, even criticized the nomination. Against Carmona’s confirmation, Dr. Charles Putnam wrote to Senator Ted Kennedy saying the nominee’s work as a sheriff’s deputy was in direct conflict with his oath as a doctor to do no harm. Putnam concluded that Carmona’s “panache in the face of objective danger has on occasion overwhelmed his identity as a physician.” Even so, Carmona was eventually confirmed, and by some reports was competent in office, even emerging as a critic of the Bush administration after his departure.

As a board member of Taser International Carmona sits at that table with other retired military officers and representatives of major investors, some who specialize in investing in weapons manufacturing companies. In 2010 Carmona was paid $30,000 in fees and given another $58,000 in stock options as compensation by the company. All told he owns about 25,000 shares of Taser International stock.

In the world of corporate governance Carmona is considered an “independent” director of Taser because he is not an official employee, and because his equity stake is less than 1% of outstanding shares. Nevertheless, Carmona has a stake in the company’s fortunes. His compensation there is ultimately linked to how many Tasers the company sells.

It should come as no surprise to readers that the Oakland Police Department is a major customer of Taser International. According to the OPD’s 2010 Training Section Report, the department currently owns and fields 530 model X-26 Tasers. The City Council authorized purchasing most of these weapons in 2008 with $645,000, and tacked on an appropriation of another $55,000 every subsequent year for training and other costs associated with fielding them. The Oakland City Council even chose to waive the normal competitive bid process, apparently because Carmona’s company, Taser International is the only authorized distributor of the weapons in California.

In Taser International’s 2010 annual report the company notes that one of its primary problems is the possibility that local governments will not buy their X-26 weapons, which account for the bulk of sales revenues. The company states:

“Most of our end-user customers are government agencies. These agencies often do not set their own budgets and therefore, have limited control over the amount of money they can spend. In addition, these agencies experience political pressure that may dictate the manner in which they spend money. As a result, even if an agency wants to acquire our products, it may be unable to purchase them due to budgetary or political constraints.”

In the case of Oakland, neither the city’s dire fiscal situation, nor widespread opposition within the community scuttled the 2008 Taser deal. Officers wielded Tasers during the several evictions of Occupy Oakland.

In March of 2010 San Francisco’s Police Commission again rejected spending upwards of $1 million to outfit officers with Taser weapons.

The Pima County Sheriff’s Department, Carmona’s old stomping grounds, is a Taser International customer.



Darwin Bond-Graham is a sociologist who splits his time between New Orleans, Albuquerque, and Navarro, CA. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, forthcoming from AK Press.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Mon Nov 28, 2011 1:50 pm

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/11/28/ ... -of-stuff/

NOVEMBER 28, 2011

Don't Wait for the Government to Give You Permission

Two Cheers for “The Story of Stuff”

by KEVIN CARSON



If you haven’t watched Annie Leonard’s “The Story of Stuff,” I suggest you do. These videos include detailed examinations of the waste economy, subsidized inefficiency and planned obsolescence.

A recent installment, “The Story of Broke,” itemizes wasteful government spending on things like the military and enormous subsidies to prop up the well-named “dinosaur economy.” But this is only a preface for Leonard’s argument that the government really isn’t broke: If it stopped wasting money on bad stuff, it would have more than enough for “building a better future.”

Her laundry list of good things the government should spend money on includes energy efficiency projects, retrofitting homes, subsidies to alternative energy and green technology, and millions of college scholarships. But her vision of a “better future” reflects the internal contradictions of progressivism.

On one hand, we have the mid-20th century, conventional liberal vision of government intervention to build giant blockbuster infrastructure projects, spur creation of new industries, and “create jobs.”

On the other, we have the green, “small is beautiful” sensibility which emerged in the hippie era, of eliminating waste and mass consumerism.

The two just don’t go together.

When Rachel Maddow stands in front of a giant hydroelectric dam, or talks about the Interstate Highway System, as examples of doing “great things,” she channels the mid-20th century managerialist liberalism that made Galbraith’s heart go pitty-pat. That vision really isn’t compatible with the “green” and “small is beautiful” stuff that progressives also talk about.

You simply can’t have a capital-intensive economy based on large-scale, centralized infrastructures, unless you can guarantee a revenue stream to service all those overhead costs. Which brings us to the Galbraith’s dark side: Creating social mechanisms to guarantee the output of industry will be absorbed so that the wheels of industry don’t get clogged up with unsold inventory. It was precisely that imperative that gave us subsidized waste, sprawl, the car culture, and all the rest of it in the first place.

The “progressive” capitalism model of Gates and Warren Buffett is a greenwashed version of Leonard’s dinosaur economy. There’s an inherent contradiction in her dismissal of that archaic economy, while calling for government policies to provide “good jobs.”

Expansionist government activity to utilize industrial capacity and keep everyone working full-time is the old 20th century model. But it requires an ever-diminishing amount of capital and labor to produce a given standard of living. If we eliminate the portion of industrial capacity and labor that goes to waste production, we wind up with lots of abandoned mass-production factories, and lots of people working fifteen hour weeks and buying stuff from relocalized garage factories close to where they live. And that’s not the sort of thing Gates and Buffett like, because they can’t make money off it.

Another problem is Leonard’s prescription: “Who has the real power? We do.”

Really? Barack Obama is the most progressive Democrat in at least two generations. He garnered the largest Democratic majority since LBJ defeated Goldwater, entering office with an apparent mandate from the financial collapse. Congressional Democrats picked up a super-majority. If “we” didn’t have the power to do these things with this once-in-a-lifetime alignment of the political stars, it’s safe to say it will never happen.

A government powerful enough to “build a better future” will almost certainly — on the principle that power is drawn to power — use that power benefit the few, the rich and the powerful. A continent-sized representative government, by its nature, is not amenable to control by a majority of millions of people. That’s why we had all those “dinosaur economy” subsidies in the first place.

If we want to build a better future, contesting the corporate oligarchy’s control of the government is probably not the best way to go about it. Fortunately, there are millions of people out there who really are building a better future, and they’re doing it by treating big business and big government both as obstacles to be routed around.

They’re building a new society within the decaying old society of dinosaur capitalism and its pet government, ready to replace it with something better when it collapses under its own weight.

They include Wikileaks, the file-sharing and free-culture movements, and Occupy Wall Street.

They include Linux developers, micromanufacturers in projects like Open Source Ecology and Hackerspaces, permaculturists, and community-supported agriculture.

They include the builders of encrypted currencies, barter systems, encrypted routers, and darknets.

And they’re not waiting for a government to give them permission.


Kevin Carson is a research associate at the Center for a Stateless Society. his written work includes Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, Organization Theory: An Individualist Anarchist Perspective, and The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto, all of which are freely available online.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:02 pm


"Order, as it is understood today, means nine-tenths of humanity working to procure luxury, pleasure, and the satisfaction of the most execrable of passions for a handful of idlers. Order is the deprivation for this nine-tenths of humanity of all that is necessary for a healthy life. Order is poverty; it is famine become the normal order of society. Order is...the worker reduced to the state of a machine. Order is a tiny minority, elevated into the seats of government, which imposes itself in that way on the majority and prepares its children to continue the same functions in order to maintain the same privileges by fraud, corruption, force, and massacre. Order is the continual war of man against man, of trade against trade, of class against class, of nation against nation. Order is servitude, it is the shackling of thought, the brutalizing of the human race, maintained by the sword and the whip. It is the sudden death by fire-damp [flammable gas], or the slow death by suffocation, of hundreds of miners blown up or buried each year by the greed of the employers, and shot down and bayonetted as soon as they dare complain. That is order.

"And disorder? What is this you call disorder? It is the uprising of the people against this ignoble order, breaking its fetters, destroying the barriers, and marching towards a better future. It is humanity at the most glorious point in its history. Disorder is the abolition of ancient slaveries, it is the uprising of the communes; it is the destruction of feudal serfdom, the effort to make an end to economic servitude. Disorder—what they call disorder—is all the ages during which whole generations sustained an incessant struggle and sacrificed themselves to prepare a better existence for humanity by freeing it from the servitude of the past. Disorder is the blossoming of the most beautiful passions and the greatest of devotions, it is the epic of supreme human love."


— Peter Kropotkin, Words of a Rebel, 1885


"[T]he social war, the war of each against all, is here openly declared... [P]eople regard each other only as useful objects; each exploits the other, and the end of it all is that the stronger treads the weaker under foot; and that the powerful few, the capitalists, seize everything for themselves, while to the weak many, the poor, scarcely a bare existence remains."

— Friedrich Engels, Condition of the Working Class in England, 1845


American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:04 pm

Image
Sitting Bull - Tatanka Iotake

Hunkpapa Lakota
1831-assassinated, 1890



"The love of possessions is a disease with them . They take tithes from the poor and weak to support the rich who rule. They claim this mother of ours, the Earth, for their own and fence their neighbours away. If America had been twice the size it is, there still would not have been enough; the Indian would still have been dispossessed."
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby semper occultus » Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:34 pm

Mel & Charlie's Women-The Souring of Street Life

Some reflections on Ed Sanders' The Family,
Mel Lyman's Mirror at the End of the Road

by Ellen Herst

Boston After Dark
p. 1, (12, 13). Vol. III, Number 7
February 15-21, 1972

http://www.trussel.com/lyman/women.htm

This isn't a book review. It's my response as a woman to reading all the gossip about Charles Manson and Mel Lyman. And, more than that, a response to the whole of hippie / freak culture and the "place" of women in it. I mean, it may be total drag to spend your life at the dishwasher, washing machine, supermarket etc, — and of course we know that — on the other hand it's not exactly a groove to hustle on the street, bake bread for your hippie farmer, serve the God incarnate, commit murders: to name a few options.
Sanders can say "in his universe women had no soul. They were to be slaves of Man" (p. 198), he doesn't see that Manson is not a universe unto himself. Shocked as I am by the particular viciousness of Manson's treatment of freak women (or by Calley's and other Gl's torture of Vietnamese), I'm not really surprised. Nor am I at a loss to understand why women take it. When I was 21 I had a boyfriend who reminds me of Manson and Lyman in more ways than I care to remember, and I still carry with me the fear that I, like Susan Atkins, etc., could be dominated by some man.

You see, Ed Sanders is stuck with the idea that Manson is some kind of evil genius. Or that he was under the influence of various evil cults — like the Process or other obscure California Satanists. But satanists are, just as Manson is, the symptoms of a diseased culture, not its causes. To use them to explain him is like using the Hell's Angels to explain Altamont.

Sanders' horror at Manson is a relief after the initial response to all the trial publicity, which led people to feel protective of him as a "freak like us." In fact, certain sectors of the Left, grooving out on his offing some rich white people, were big apologists for Manson; and Stew Albert, one of the original Yippie leaders, (writing, thank God, in the New University Review where not too many people will read him), still sees Manson as a "real victim," totally ignoring the ways he victimized women.

Now I know that Charlie's working class and has been an outcast all his life and that Nixon's even worse. But I still think he's a bad guy, just as I think that the Hell's Angels and Rusty Calley are bad guys. On the other hand, I don't think focussing on Manson or Lyman as evil geniuses is useful. The evil they practice is the evil of sexism that each has adapted to his own needs. In the case of Manson I was struck by his early history as a pimp - since that is how he operates throughout his career. Sanders says that when Manson was first in jail he spent a lot of time hanging out with pimps, trying to learn from them how they controlled their women. His first arrests, as a "common" criminal, were for transporting women across state lines for purposes of prostitution. The way women were used in the Manson family was a freak version of prostitution; they were sexual bait to get bikers and other men to join the family; loving care from 15-year-old girls kept 65 year old George Spahn from kicking the family off his ranch. To an incredible extent Manson thrived off the resources of women: they scrounged for food in the garbage behind supermarkets, did ripoffs, etc. To say nothing of the endless list of women with money and connections who turned them over to Manson: a stockbroker's daughter; a teacher with an $11,000 trust fund; a divorcee who contributed a good part of her $2 million settlement; Linda Kasabian, who was welcomed into the family after ripping off $5,000 from one of the men she had been travelling with, to name a few.

Living off women, is of course, what pimps do. How progressive of hippie men to have liberated themselves from the confines of straight jobs so that they can go and do likewise. How fortunate for Mel Lyman to have fallen in love with Jessie Benton, falling heir to a great deal of Thomas Hart Benton's property in the bargain. On a less lavish scale, freak women everywhere end up doing the same: in the country turning over their welfare checks; in the city, turning tricks. A worker from Project Place said:

"Place had a sort of hostel here at one point which was really bad and had a whole prostitution ring going... There's a group of kids, and what they do is the women come over to the runaway house and try to get women to go out prostituting. Somebody has done that to them, some guys, and that's what they're into for money."
Since there is practically no way for women on the street to get money (dope dealing — the basic hustle — is the exclusive province of men), many women do end up being prostitutes, although this is mainly the case with junkies. And that hardly means an "independent income." Jobs are very hard to get and, as one worker from Bridge said, "some women do get jobs, but then after all the other shit they end up supporting the men down there."
It's your basic no-win situation. Women with money and resources of their own are trapped by the promise of love and sexual gratification which some male holds out; younger women, especially runaways, have no recourse except to turn to men for some kind of security, [line unreadable]. Manson, the security, as lethal and imprisoning as it turned out to be (two women walked 28 miles barefoot to escape from the Death Valley hideout, since leaving voluntarily was not permitted), was quite real. Mary Brunner, Lynne Fromme, Patricia Krenwinkel and Susan Atkins had a "home" with Manson for over two years. Compared to the experience of many runaway girls — a different crash pad every few days and as many, if not more, men as pads — the Manson family was some sort of haven. What a straw to clutch at. In fact many of the younger women that Manson picked up had along history of kicking around and being kicked around in hippiedom. And Manson, at 33, took them out of all that.

In the street the pattern of older, more experienced men preying on younger women seems typical. A Bridge worker said:

"The women tend to be much younger than the men; they're a lot of men who're in their 20's and really been out there along time, and they've learned things about the world ... women on the other hand are young, they're frightened." (Bridge)
But it isn't just the men's experience (a lot of male runaways have their parent's permission to leave home and so end up living on the streets longer than women) that puts them in a position of control. It's their access to money (through dealing) and thus to apartments that makes women totally dependent on them for survival, more so even than women in straight society, who aren't hassled by the cops if they walk out. I talked with C—, a 17 year old who first ran away from home at 15, and who has now gotten out of that scene:
"Guys have apartments and they just take in chicks, especially runaways, cause they know you can't do anything about it... It happens to a lot of girls... I was in Texas and I was [line unreadable] and I was really tired. I had just had a miscarriage... he decided he's not going to let me crash unless I ball him ... it's three o'clock in the morning: 'you ball me or you go out in the street' ... I couldn't go out in the street, I had that court warrant on me, and I couldn't go out in the street at three o'clock in the morning. So I had to do it. You don't get any choice: you either do it or you get busted."
What becomes painfully clear after even minimal investigation of the street scene is that it's a perfect set-up for men. Women have absolutely no alternative. Which is not to say that male freaks have it "easy" ("guys sometimes have a harder time finding a place to crash cause the other guys are out taking the women in" —Bridge worker), but that in life at the bottom, men always seem to end up on top:
"A lot of them are on these power trips trying to control you... a lot of girls fall under the guy's power... there's a girl I know right now she's 16, she living with this guy. She doesn't want to live with him, but she doesn't want to go home. And it's a choice of living with this guy or going home... usually you'll pick living with the guy. I always did." (C—)
Now a dealer with an apartment (who will generally control the other people crashing there) is not on the same level as a guru with a quasi-empire. It takes a lot more money and more permanent surroundings than the street provides to get a full-scale family operation going. But the real specialty of Manson, Lyman and other gurus, is the fantastic philosophy and practice of control and ego obliteration. Manson's dicta for women included. cutting off all their hair; renaming them (well, that's not so new); forbidding them to speak anything but gibberish to their children; forbidding them to ask questions and to use the word "why"; and, of course, the age-old use of violence and threats of it. Sanders' book is full of accounts of incredible beatings and abuse. The rationale always being that in some way the women wanted it.
What I find most insidious is the extent to which Manson used sex — by all accounts he was some kind of super stud — to dominate women. This form of control is frightening because it's so hard to see through — since pleasure, itself, which is hard to come by, becomes used against you. How many of us have run into those types who tell you, "you'll never leave me, cause you'll never find anyone else as good." It's interesting to note how other men seem to identify with Manson's prowess: Nick Tosches, in Fusion (Dec. 24), after having praised Sanders, which would seem to indicate that he shares his indictment, can find nothing more fitting to say in conclusion than, "They say he was a really good lay though." Stew Albert equates Charlie's sentence with sexual deprivation, labelling it "compulsory masturbation." Well you know that just confirms all my basic suspicions about your typical male heavy, or your typical male — that he thinks that being cut off from a supply of willing and helpless females is a terrible and unjust fate. It's enough to make many of us choose a course of voluntary masturbation: better sticky fingers than bloody hands.

Image
"Anna" of Fort Hill and a portrait of Mel Lyman:
free sex and dishwashing


Boston's own happy family, the Fort Hill commune, under the supreme guidance of Mel Lyman, shows striking similarities to the Manson menage: total submission to the will of one male and total subjugation of women. Lyman's method is softer than Manson's, since the mode of control is romantic, rather than violent. He has worked out a whole myth about woman as slave:

"If a woman is really a woman, and not just an old girl, then everything she does is for her man and her only satisfaction is in making her man a greater man. She is his quiet conscience, she is his home, she is his inspiration and she is his living proof that his life, his labors, are worthwhile. A woman who seeks to satisfy herself is the loneliest being in God's creation. A woman who seeks to surpass her man is only leaving herself behind. A man can only look ahead, he must have somewhere to look from. A woman can only look at her man ... "

(from Avatar, quoted in Rolling Stone, December 2, 1972 [sic])

I find men like Mel Lyman, who dress up their total contempt for and exploitation of women with a whole poetic trip and who palm themselves off as romantics, rather than tyrants, among the most sinister. It made a whole lot of sense to me when blacks said they would rather deal with the Klan than with Southern Liberals.

In his book, Mirror at the End of the Road, Lyman, with incredible self-pity, depicts himself as the hopeless romantic, the victim, rather than the predator:

"If ever it can be said that I have any outstanding weakness it is a weakness for beautiful women... It DEVOURS me, that certain look in the eye of the female... I become a quivering tortured ravenous hunk of jelly."

(April 11, 1966, Cambridge)

The myth of the helpless male provides a convenient rationale for responding to each new infatuation, for deserting the present female companion in favor of the new, all-consuming love. Of course it's Lyman that gets to do most of the consuming:
"My advice is to hold still while I devour you.
My advice is to give me everything you have.
My advice is for you to crawl inside of my
aching heart and soothe this gnawing need."

(Sept. 1965, Woodstock)

Lyman hasn't cultivated the harem in the same way as Manson, but he does have four wives (according to Rolling Stone, Jan. 6, 1972) at present and an innumerable list of past affairs and marriages, all chronicled by him, as manifestations of his undying love for the human race. Mirror at the End of the Road is dedicated to "Judy, who made me live with a broken heart," and we are all meant to share in his grief at the loss of his own true love (perhaps all the successive ones have been necessary to make up for this incalculable tragedy). Since we have no report from Judy, who ended up in a mental institution in Kansas — apparently she wasn't "ready" to appreciate what a good thing they had going — we can only imagine what the affair may have been like for her:
"Baby I'm very very sick, sick at heart, sick wholly... All our problems and now my disease build from the same sore. Tonight you had to leave me to go study, yesterday there was a reason, tomorrow there'll be two reasons: School, parents, friends, justifications, lies. I want you wholly... you must once again put me off another day for your trifles... You're spread much too thin for my taste. You're a spoiled child who wants everything... You fear motherhood, being a wife, anything that will demand anything of your selfish self."

(March, 1963, Waltham, Mass.)
Now your average hippie guy and street freak doesn't have the elaborate poetic and financial power of Mel Lyman (8 homes at Fort Hill, a brownstone and loft in NYC, a duplex in Buena Vista, two houses in LA, 280 acres in Kansas, according to Rolling Stone — pretty good for an ex-folkie who just wants to be God), nor the satanic mystery of Manson, but he can make the myth of love work for him. Despite the incredible toughness and seeming emptiness of street life, most women who stay in it still hope to find some new man, some new pleasure that will make it bearable.

...

User avatar
semper occultus
 
Posts: 2974
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:01 pm
Location: London,England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:56 pm

The main Brussell thesis, if I dare risk commit the sin of summary on her complex work, was that an ex-Nazi scientist-Old Boy OSS clique in the CIA using Mafia hit men changed the course of American history this past quarter-century by bumping off one and all, high and low, who became an irritant to them. She believed the Manson family was set up by counterintelligence types to blacken the image of anti-war-music-and-youth longhairs who were becoming a threat to the dominant culture and that Jonestown was a medical and mind-control experiment in getting rid of undesirables.

- CIA-Mafia conspirators can rest easier (1988 Mae Brussell Obituary), by Warren Hinckle
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:17 am

Image
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:38 pm

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/11/30/ ... king-gang/

NOVEMBER 30, 2011

"The crime was … the theft of life, defrauding the wretched of the earth of their spare kidneys, stealing from the poor to supplement the bodies of the well-insured and well advantaged.”

The Rosenbaum Kidney Trafficking Gang

by NANCY SCHEPER-HUGHES

A CounterPunch Exclusive


On October 27, 2011 Levy Itzhak Rosenbaum, 60, a portly, sometimes risqué, “self-described” kidney matchmaker, pleaded guilty in a Trenton, NJ federal courtroom to three counts of acquiring, brokering and transferring for “valuable consideration” organs from the bodies of poor Israelis trafficked into the US to service the transplant needs of New Jersey residents, and an additional count of conspiring to do the same.

The Rosenbaum case was the first prosecution of organs trafficking under NOTA , the 1984 National Organ Transplant Act that established altruism as the principle underlying organs sharing among US citizens, whether from living related or deceased donors. Rosenbaum admitted that his modus operandi was to recruit (through extensive networking) local kidney patients willing to pay $140,000 for whom he would arrange kidney sellers from among ethnic minority and new immigrants , mostly Eastern Europeans, to Israel who were paid $10,000 to undergo nephrectomy (kidney removal) in one of several hospitals from NYC to Baltimore willing to harvest and transplant the foreign kidney into the bodies of Rosenbaum’s clients.

The original complaint against Rosenbaum and his plea bargain concern only the illicit transfer of kidneys. There is no mention of the real crime hidden between the lines, the recruitment and trafficking of poor and minority Israelis into the United States for the sole purpose of procuring their organs. The US is not party to the 2000 UN Palermo Convention on human trafficking that includes human trafficking for organs. The Convention has been applied in successful prosecutions in Brazil, South Africa, India, Moldova and elsewhere to prevent human traffickers, some of whom are surgeons and doctors, from exploiting the bio-available bodies of immigrants, refugees, prisoners, the mentally deficient and others from being harvested while still alive.

Under NOTA the only object of concern is the detachable organ, that precious commodity exchanged for “valuable consideration for use in human 2 transplantation”. The person who is trafficked to provide the fresh commodity that is carried across borders is an invisible non-entity, less significant than the “mules” used in transnational drug trafficking. All that is known about two of Rosenbaum’s victims is their names. “They returned to Israel long before we began our investigation”, a federal prosecutor involved in the Rosenbaum case told me.

Transplant trafficking has been going on for many years in the US, as it has elsewhere in the world. The individual cases in my Organs Watch research files run to the hundreds. Some of the victims of US organs trafficking are bonded servants from Syria and Jordan brought into the US to provide kidneys to their patron royal families from the Gulf States. The Cleveland Clinic has a transplant wing that for many years has catered to these so-called “transplant tourists.” UCLA had its heyday with wealthy Japanese Yakuza crime “family members” who were given priority for liver transplants from the UNOS waiting list, livers that technically belonged to US citizens.

So, Rosenbaum’s network, though extensive, represents only one of many forms of transplant trafficking into and out of the United States. Transplant trafficking is a public secret within the transplant profession, something that everyone knows about but which within the corporatist culture of the transplant profession — as secretive as the Vatican — is never discussed. Rosenbaum plea bargained, admitting that he’d arranged three other illegal transplants for New Jersey patients. In fact, he had arranged more than a hundred such transplants in hospitals along the east coast corridor from Boston to Newark to NYC to Philadelphia to Baltimore since 1999.

I first heard about ‘Rosenbaum’ in Israel in the late 1990s among ‘transplant tourists’ who were looking for a safer, if more expensive option than India, a more familiar site than Istanbul, and less distant than Durban, South Africa among the many transplant destinations offered by commercial crime brokers for backdoor transplants abroad that were reimbursed (until 2008) by Israel’s universal health care system. Following my research informants I located Rosenbaum’s home office in Brooklyn, communicated with two of his brokers, and identified the US hospitals that welcomed Rosenbaum’s kidney -matchmaking skills. I also traveled to the communities in Israel and in the former Soviet States that were providing the kidneys – mostly new immigrants and ethnic minorities in Israel, but also trafficked sellers from rural Moldova, Romania and Brazil where local kidney hunters worked for international networks of transplant traffickers.

I won’t discuss here the damages to the bodies and the communities of the kidney sellers or the damages to the kidney buyers, not all of whom survive beyond the first year of their reckless gamble. Caveat emptor! But these ‘consequences’ of the kidney trade forced me to realize that what I was studying on the ground was not a problem in medical ethics, in morality, or even in medical malpractice. It was human trafficking, the recruitment of the wretched of the earth – to provide a so-called ‘spare’ kidney – to very sick and equally desperate buyers. But my attempts to get the attention of transplant societies, to alert health officials at US Health & Human Services, UNOS, Medicare, The New York Commissioner of Health, the media – The New Yorker Magazine , 60 Minutes, and, finally, ( at the suggestion of the NY Commissioner of Health) a NYC FBI agent in 2002… led nowhere.

Nobody, it seemed , cared about transplant trafficking. And, in the meantime, Rosenbaum’s organ trafficking business run out of his classic two story Brooklyn brownstone in Borough Park was growing, despite setbacks from restless sellers from abroad who would panic on arrival in NYC and sometimes had to strong-armed by “enforcers” ( “hey – a deal’s a deal, buddy”) to get them up on the operating table.

Mr. Rosenbaum’s downfall came with the infamous “Jersey Sting” of July 2009, when just about everybody who was anybody – 44 prominent people – were arrested , among them three mayors, a deputy mayor, 2 state legislators, 5 Orthodox Rabbis, a stripper or two, and Rabbi Rosenbaum, who as it turns out, was not a rabbi at all but an Israeli immigrant to the orthodox Jewish community in Borough Park, Brooklyn. He was caught red-handed, so to speak, when he accepted a cash deposit of $10,000 to arrange an illicit transplant at a NYC hospital for an undercover agent posing as a kidney buyer. The essential missing piece – the “fresh” commodity – would be trafficked into the hospital from Israel, where transplant tours usually went the other way – that is, with well-insured Israeli patients traveling into the US, South Africa, Turkey, Moldova, Azerbaijan and Medellin, Columbia and China for kidney and liver transplants, provided by desperate, indebted, disgraced , displaced sellers or 4 executed prisoners (in the case of China).

Caught in the dragnet Rosenbaum admitted that he charged a lot to set up these illegal transplants in some of the best hospitals on the east coast, including Mount Sinai in NYC , Albert Einstein in Philadelphia, and Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. Of course it was costly, Rosenbaum defended himself, because a lot of people had to be “schemered” (paid off). Just who had to be paid off to expedite Rosenbaum’s kidney express was never part of the legal case against him. It is nowhere in the court records. The prosecution assumed that the hospitals and transplant staff had been “deceived” by the broker and his clients who had agreed to lie. In his guilty plea Rosenbaum admitted to the minimum, to having arranged two other illegal transplants with purchased kidneys for residents of Deal, a Syrian-Jewish enclave in New Jersey. Presumably, Medicare paid for the surgeries of both the transplant patient and their counterfeit ‘kidney kin’, the foreigners described in their patient charts as ‘emotionally related, altruistic living ‘donors’.

Did I see the medical charts? No, but without that statement in the medical files a transplant cannot proceed. It is easy to become ‘emotionally related’ very quickly when a tower of crisp $100 bills ( cash only) is involved in the kidney exchange. One of the “Israeli sellers brokered by Rosenbaum was an African-American Israeli whose parents had immigrated some years ago to Israel, possibly joining the small enclave there of Black Hebrew Israelites founded by a steel worker from Chicago in the 1960s. The other kidney seller is only a name. The prosecution has not tried to find either one. However, we know that they were each paid “$10,000″, the going price in Israel for the kidneys of ethnic minorities, Arab-Israelis, and so-called “Russian” immigrants from the former Soviet countries.

The only middle class Israeli seller in any of the several prosecutions in several countries, was a young man who needed $25,000 (in 2003) to save his restaurant business and was offered a ‘lifeline’ by Ilan Perry, an Israeli organs trafficking crime boss, who made an exception to allow an Ashkenazi to sell his kidney to another middle class Israeli in Durban, South Africa. The young man changed his mind just as he was being prepped for the kidney removal and he escaped down the back stairs of St Augustine’s Hospital in Durban. “It wasn’t worth $25,000”, he said. “I’d rather go to jail than go through the surgery’, he told the airport police who picked him up before he could escape. Palestinians, Arab-Israelis, and Russian immigrants are the primary providers of ‘spare’ kidneys in Israel and to other locations arranged by Israeli organs brokers.

So, if the transplant surgeries of Rosenbaum’s clients and of their “altruistic” kidney donors are paid for by Medicare, as they are for all US citizens, regardless of age or the nationality of the donor, and $10,000 goes to the invisible kidney seller, who else gets paid? Some was paid to the “baby sitters” of the frightened transplant tourists and the foreign sellers who were kept in different accommodations according to their status. There was a safe house in Brooklyn and a minder to make sure the sellers wouldn’t flee. There were the airfares to be purchased, meals, visas, and passports, blood tests to assure that at least the blood type was compatible.

Were the surgeons, transplant coordinators, and nurses given a bonus for taking the risks they did, as happened in other linked Israeli-organized transplant tour schemes that were prosecuted? Rosenbaum’s lawyers argued at his plea bargain hearing and they will likely argue again at the sentencing that their client is a soft-hearted Robin Hood who was saving the lives of his desperately ill clients. The lawyers are also likely to pull at the heart strings of the judge by saying that thousands of people are stranded on the UNOS waiting list, and that every fifteen minutes someone dies waiting for an organ that could save their lives. They won’t say that the fastest growing demographic of patients on the organs queue are patients over 70 years old with multiple diseases who would not be waitlisted for organ transplant in most European nations where reason rules over individual passions and desires to survive at any cost.

Rosenbaum’s clients include those who are too old or too sick to get a UNOS kidney and those who are impatient and those who refuse dialysis altogether. One of his New Jersey kidney recipients was close to 80 years old, not an ideal candidate for the UNOS waiting list. He could be waitlisted but it would be better to suggest that at his age dialysis is the best option. But US doctors, unlike doctors in other countries, do not want to appear ageist or supporting “death lists” even though we are all on one of those lists.

What hasn’t been revealed in the indictment and guilty-plea in the Trenton courtroom was that Rosenbaum and his associates had been setting up illegal transplants in hospitals from Baltimore to NYC to Philadelphia to Minneapolis to Los Angeles since 1999. His Israeli transplant tourist clients described Rosenbaum as greedy but also as jovial, upbeat and a little bit off color. “He put you at ease; he made you relax”, one of his clients told me. Another said that he was a kibitzer, but also a no-nonsense guy. He didn’t like to hear that people were nervous or had reservations. “He had a lot of money riding on these deals, so naturally he kept his eye on us. I realized he was worried that one of us might lose our courage, might change our mind, and then what?”

One client said of Rosenbaum, “He looked very orthodox, dressed in black pants and coat, white shirt, black hat, but he wasn’t so worried about Halacha (Jewish Talmudic law), and that was fine with me because I am an atheist and the Doctor is God enough for me.” Neither was Rosenbaum very concerned about US laws, NOTA or US laws against smuggling illegal workers into this country, or laws against defrauding Medicare, all of which came into play. Asher A., a recovering kidney patient who was transplanted in a famous hospital in Philadelphia with a trafficked kidney seller via Rosenberg and his associates, told me in an interview in 2001 that quite naturally he was afraid of many things going into the transplant deal: his life was at stake; what they was doing was “not exactly legal”. What if he was questioned going in and out of the US? Would he say he was visiting relatives or that he was having medical treatments?

Would the story that Rosenbaum had concocted to link Asher with an Arab-Israeli woman from Haifa be accepted at face value by the transplant staff. “I said that we were classmates as children”, Asher told me, and no one batted an eye. So, I guessed that everything was normal, out in the open…At least every few days Rosenbaum would pop his head in the special apartment they kept for us. I though that he was very worried that we weren’t taking care of the apartment he had rented for us, but I think he was making sure that we were OK”. Asher appreciated that Rosenbaum “didn’t try to get inside your head, or inside your soul, like some orthodox people. He made everything seem normal.”

In the 1990s Rosenbaum was the man to go to among Israeli ‘transplant tourists’ looking for a safer, if more expensive, option than India or Romania , more familiar than Istanbul, and less distant than Durban, South Africa, among the dozens of destinations offered by Israeli brokers arranging ‘back door’ transplants abroad. Rosenbaum and his gang, worked through an Israeli boss named “Tevye” (a name that was always whispered) who was the big shot who organized the Israeli patients and matched them to strangers who would pose as altruistic donors. “Tevye” employed kidney hunters, a lower strata of intermediaries, some of them previous sellers themselves, who were paid by the head to troll immigration offices, jails, unemployment offices, factories, Arab markets, and public housing on the urban periphery, looking for the bioavailable — the debtors, the displaced, the desperate and the cognitively disabled. Ads were placed in Hebrew, Russian, and Arabic in bold letters “as if they were yelling at you”, a new Ukraine immigrant kidney seller told me in 2009 in Jerusalem. “Here you are, like, alone, lonely, and sad, you don’t know anybody, you have a stigma like a black man in America. Everyone here hates Russians. They say, you [Russians] brought crime into Israel. Your people are all drunkards. You are not really Jews. And you have a strong accent that always betrays you. Then, suddenly you see this ad in the newspapers or posted on a wall or on the Internet that is saying “We want you! We need you!” and you feel like at least somebody cares about you. So, I called and I went through the medical exam and the blood matching tests, but I never got to meet the guy who would get my kidney, except in the airport. He was an old man, very sick, very feeble and in a wheelchair. He was being pushed into the first class section. I was stuck in the back of the plane in third class. Just before we got on the plane, the rabbi from [Bellinson Hospital] came and blessed him, the old man, the patient, but he didn’t come over to bless me. He didn’t say a prayer over my head.”

The transplant tourists paid $160,000-$180,000 for their transplant tour via Tevye and Rosenbaum. They came over in groups of four and five. Asher told me that “there were four other Israelis were in the transplant unit at Albert Einstein Hospital in Philadelphia at the same time. The money was raised through Israeli sick funds (insurance) and in part raised by campaigns run by Jewish charity foundations, some of which laundered the money and somehow cycled it back to Rosenbaum and his group. In the 1990s United LifeLine was the primary charity that opened an account for each transplant tourist.

Somewhere around 2002 or 2003 Rosenbaum changed his tactics and began operating more discreetly and with US citizens as his primary transplant clients. On one of my Organs Watch visits to hospitals in NYC, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, I met with transplant surgeons whom I knew to be involved in transplants arranged by Rosenbaum and I confronted them with the facts as I knew them. I also met with a New York Daily News reporter who published a front page and center piece based on a few comments I made to him about Brooklyn organs brokers trafficking displaced Eastern Europeans, and smuggling them into some of New York City’s finest hospitals, where they posed as the loved ones of affluent transplant tourists from Israel. The story, lacking any details, which I did not provide, interrupted a carefully orchestrated visit to the Rosenbaum headquarters accompanied by one of his associates from another east coast city. When I telephoned to confirm the visit I was told that Rosenbaum and his agency did not exist.

Then, in the fall of 2003, police stings in Recife, Brazil and in Durban, South Africa arrested two dozen brokers, surgeons, transplant coordinators, translators, blood lab workers, and private medical companies who were charged with human trafficking, organized crime, fraud, conspiracy, medical malpractice, and even in the case of Durban-Netcare, of trafficking minors as kidney providers. Perhaps Rosenbaum was becoming a bit desperate. I received a series of e-mails throughout the summer of 2002 from a man who identified himself with an alias “David Hamilton” asking for my help in extracting himself from an organization that he described as “the primary link between Israel and the United States in the illegal kidney trafficking business”.

He was employed, he said, by the NYC office that handled all the medical arrangements. He handled the medical files, the insurance claims, and the blood work files. He explained that while there was a totally legal aspect to the organization which was established to help Israelis get the medical care they needed anywhere in the world, that when “kidneys’ got into the mix it became a criminal outfit, and he, a young Jewish seminarian, wanted no part in it. He had complained to the ‘management’ and they had docked his wages. He began to dislike the people he worked for. They presented themselves as religious people and humanitarians when in fact they were motivated, he wrote, by one thing only, greed for the money they could make from the kidneys of people who sometimes arrived frightened to death and trying to back out of the deals. Whenever that happened, David wrote, his employer would push them against a wall, and stick a finger to their head screaming at them that this was a serious deal and there was no backing out after all the money had been spent in setting up the transplant and bringing the donor and the recipient together.

It didn’t help, said David, that two of the employees carried guns, registered, but guns all the same. He asked me to identify a safe way to alert the appropriate officials. I told him that I knew the organization he was with and that we could meet and see if anyone from the office of the Health Commissioner or US Health and Human Services could assist us. He wrote a final email in the fall saying that he was backing out altogether, that he and his fiancé were moving to another state. When I learned on a documentary film trip to Moldova that some young men recruited from economically demolished rural villages there ended up supplying kidneys to hospitals in New York City I reported this information (verified by officials at the US Embassy in Chisinau) to US Visa Control in Arlington, Virginia, to UNOS, to HHS, to The New York Commissioner of Health, the American Transplant Association and, finally, to a NYC FBI agent — to no avail.

Nobody cared about, or even believed in, human trafficking for organs. I went to the media, to CBS, to 60 Minutes and then to 48 Hours which did send an investigative reporter, Avi Cohan, to meet me in Israel where we spoke to patients who had had “undercover” transplants at hospitals in NYC Philadelphia, the Bay Area, and Los Angeles. CBS decided not to do the exposé. I was stumped. No one wanted to accuse surgeons, or prevent a suffering patient from getting a transplant, even with an illegally procured kidney from a displaced person from abroad. The Israeli origins of the trafficking network did not help either. It smacked of bias, blood libel, or worse. “Don’t Indians and Pakistanis broker more kidneys than Israelis”, I was asked? Why pick on Israel?

Thus, it took seven more years for New Jersey FBI to arrest Rosenbaum in 2009 as part of a much larger organized crime sting. One of the fish they caught in their dragnet was a ‘kidney broker’, a job most people had never heard of. And even the prosecutors did not seem to understand that the crime was not simply corruption, greed, and organized crime but rather the theft of life , defrauding the wretched of the earth of their spare kidneys, stealing from the poor to supplement the bodies of the well-insured and well advantaged. Whatever else he is, Isaac Rosenbaum is no Robin Hood. The reluctance to investigate the international dimensions of the crime, to make visible the suffering of the sick, while obscuring the suffering of the manipulated and sometimes coerced kidney sellers, to ignore the defrauding of Medicare which covers US transplant patients with “false” donors on the grounds that everyone was lying and the hospitals and surgeons were all deceived is preposterous.

Kidney trafficking is indeed the perfect crime. Empathy is displaced. Unless the complicit hospital records are subpoenaed we will never know how many illegal transplants were performed through the Rosenbaum gang. A surgeon at one of the major hospitals who wishes to remain anonymous suggests that it would be in the range of one hundred or more during Rosenbaum’s heyday. At $140,000 (low) to $180,000 (high) paid for each of 100 transplants (even with lots of people to bribe along the way), that’s a lot of money to launder, at least 150 million dollars, a profitable business for Mr Rosenbaum.

I interviewed several of the surgeons involved in the criminal dealings and if they did not know it was because they chose not to know. One of the hospitals I confronted acknowledged as much. The prosecutions of the Israeli- Brazil- South Africa transplant business involved many surgeons who, according to one of the convicted brokers, were paid bonuses by the scheme in cash each month for the number of illegal transplants they performed. In Brazil, a retired military doctor pocketed several hundred dollars from the Israeli scheme for each blood matching test he did to enable poor men from the slums of Recife to sell a kidney to an Israeli transplant tourist in Durban, South Africa. The donor’s blood was tested for matching the recipients by Dr. Silvio Bourdeaux, but the donors’ weight and height, blood composition and nutritional status were not measured. Some were severely anemic, most were poorly nourished. Were they willing to sell? For $8,000 or $6,000, yes they were.

But there are some contracts that are null and void when the power differential between the buyer and the seller (of labor) is too great. Kidney sellers are easily exploited and have no form of collective bargaining or even of their well-being (or not) represented in the court transcripts. They are the invisible global men ( and some women). What I imagine is that the complicit surgeons loved the Rosenbaum option because they didn’t have to go through UNOS, the United Network for Organ Sharing, which until 2007, had nothing to do with living donors, related or unrelated. Hospital administrators loved it because foreign patients paid cash so there was no waiting for Medicare or insurance premiums. And there was minimal responsibility for the aftercare of the recipients or their kidney providers. Both were speedily returned to their respective communities and countries. Should they ever get caught red-handed, surgeons can cite patient confidentiality (their privacy oath), the hospitals could pretend they had been duped, the transplant coordinators could say that they followed the transplant protocols for living donors, but they are not, after all, detectives. Everybody wins. Lives were ‘saved’, transplant surgeons got to do what they do best, poor people got a ‘bonus’ for being charitable with their ‘spare’ kidneys, and everybody was happy.

Or were they? It was a nice mythology. Who would begrudge a kidney patient saving or improving his life at any cost, even breaking the law, or (for the American recipients of trafficked kidneys via Rosenbaum’s scheme), defrauding Medicare which covers the cost of kidney transplant no matter the age of the patient or identity of the living donor. Medicare was happy because transplants got US kidney patients off expensive 3x weekly dialysis machines. Everyone knew what was going on, of course, but nobody wanted to spill the beans. As for the kidney sellers, I don’t have to imagine. I know how they fare in Moldova, in Israel, in Brazil, in Romania, in the Philippines and in Egypt. The kidney providers are neither healthy, nor happy nor wealthy as a result of their ‘free’ choice. Today, some want revenge. All want restitution for having been swindled in one way or another.

Meanwhile, complicit transplant doctors collude and protect each other, while the best ones tried to fix the problem from inside the profession without the help of the DOJ or the courts getting involved. Bioethicists argue endlessly about the “ethics” of what is in fact a crime and a medical human rights abuse. Economists and moral philosophers launch arguments based on rational choice theory for regulation rather than prosecution, as if prosecutions were going on every day. In fact, as the Rosenbaum history shows so well, human trafficking for organs is a protected crime. It is protected by the charisma and awe-inspiring ‘ miracle’ of transplant. The Rosenbaum guilty plea is the first prosecution in the United States for organs trafficking. On February 2nd Rosenbaum could be sentenced to five to 12 years in prison and a fine for illegally brokering organs in New Jersey. But the larger and deeper story of his international kidney dealings, his hired traffickers, kidney hunters, ‘enforcers’, money laundering operations, false charity organizations, Medicare fraud is yet to be told. And in the meantime, “life saving” for some at the cost of diminishing the lives of others ,the invisible kidney sellers of Chernobyl, Kiev, Nazareth, or the Negev desert, will continue undeterred.



NANCY SCHEPER-HUGHES is the author of several books on poverty and health, including Death Without Weeping: the Violence of Everyday Life in Brazil – listed by CounterPunch in its top 100 non-fiction books published in English in the 20th Century. Since 1996, she has been involved in active field research on the global traffic in human organs. She is a co-founder of Organs Watch, an independent, medical human rights, research and documentation center at UC Berkeley. Last year CounterPunch published her investigation, “The Body of the Terrorist: Body Parts, Bio-Piracy and the Spoils of War at Israel’s National Forensic Institute.”
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:19 pm

American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:04 pm

July 6th, 2011 COREY PEIN

Death of a Yogi
The battle for a corporate empire, hundreds of millions of dollars and the meaning of a faith.

Image


In downtown Portland, across Southwest 5th Avenue from City Hall, stands a tall glass and aluminum tower. Inside this building, the Pacwest Center, is a safe.

This safe keeps many secrets, but this story is about the disputed contents of a single envelope. Inside the envelope were the last wishes of a holy man, instructions to be revealed after his death.

Many of the holy man’s followers were successful entrepreneurs: One founded Kettle Chips, a Salem-based company whose owners sold it in 2006 for a reported $320 million; others co-founded Golden Temple foods in Eugene, a company famous for its Yogi Tea brand. More than a few of his followers were practicing lawyers. But the holy man trusted one lawyer in particular with the most sensitive matters of money, family and legacy.

The holy man was Harbhajan Singh Khalsa Yogiji. Most people called him Yogi Bhajan (pronounced Budg’un). He looked the part, wearing robes and a spotless white turban, his handsome face hidden behind a long, wavy beard. Yogi Bhajan was often photographed looking into the distance; something in his eyes revealed intelligence.

Beginning in the 1970s, Yogi Bhajan helped introduce white America to Kundalini yoga, and recruited thousands of seekers into a new religious movement, Sikh Dharma. Today the group has thousands of followers around the world and hundreds in Oregon.

The trusted lawyer was Roy D. Lambert, a tax specialist and partner at the Portland firm of Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt. Lambert is not a member of Sikh Dharma. But Lambert had come to know Yogi Bhajan in the 1990s through some legal work he had done for Golden Temple. His square, clean-shaven face and neatly parted hair marked him as an outsider among his turbaned, bearded clients.

When Yogi Bhajan died in October 2004, Lambert asked that the safe be opened and the envelope brought to him. It contained Yogi Bhajan’s will.

Yogi Bhajan’s last wishes would shape the fate of thousands of people, the control of corporations worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and the future of a unique religious group with thousands of followers across the United States and the world.

What Lambert says were in Yogi Bhajan’s last wishes put the control of Sikh Dharma’s holdings into the hands of a few men and women who have since become instantly wealthy, and who have paid Lambert handsomely to do their legal work. Those who lost control of the group’s holdings, including members of the clergy and Yogi Bhajan’s own widow and children, believe they were the victims of a fraud.

Six years after Yogi Bhajan’s death, on a late spring day in 2011, Lambert took the stand in a courtroom in downtown Portland, a key witness in a civil trial fraught with alleged deception, theft, sex and sacrilege.

The civil suit, brought by a group of Yogi Bhajan’s followers from New Mexico and later joined by the Oregon attorney general, does not name Lambert as a defendant. (He is a named defendant in a separate civil complaint filed by Yogi Bhajan’s widow and children, in U.S. District Court in Portland, alleging racketeering; he is also the subject of a related Oregon State Bar complaint.) Instead, the suit targets a few Portland Sikhs who have assumed control of the corporate and nonprofit empire built over four decades by Yogi Bhajan’s followers.

The legal cases are extraordinarily complex, with over 800 trial exhibits and thousands of pages of filings aimed at sorting out the byzantine structure of Yogi Bhajan’s organization. It’s all the more confusing given that nearly all the parties share a surname taken after their religious vows: “Khalsa.”

Despite the complexity, this is a familiar kind of story: A family argues over a will.

Yet because the will belonged to the head of an obscure church—and because this church has a great deal of money—the legal disputes represent much more.

Many members of the faith are pained by the disputes, but also amazed. The legal process has, for the first time, opened a window into opaque business dealings at the highest levels of their church.

“This is a huge corruption case. It really reads like a spy novel,” says Hari Nam Singh Khalsa, a longtime Portland Sikh convert now living in New York City.

“It’s like the Catholic Church,” Hari Nam adds. “My mother-in-law was an absolutely saintly person, but the people running her church were basically criminals.… They may look like they’re saints, and talk like they’re saints—but you dangle 5 cents in front of them, and what do you know?”

The defendants insist they’ve done nothing wrong. They say they earned every penny of the raises they bestowed upon themselves. And they claim Yogi Bhajan left them rightfully in charge after his death.

Depending on who tells his story, Yogi Bhajan was either a charismatic spiritual leader who rescued young hippies from the 1970s drug culture, or a huckster who concocted a woo-woo sect in order to support a lifestyle he could never otherwise have attained. Or both.

He was born with the name Harbhajan Singh Puri to middle-class parents in the Punjab region, in an area that is now part of Pakistan. Certainly, his first few decades did not hint at the prominence he would achieve: Yogi Bhajan worked as a customs agent for 15 years before emigrating to North America to teach yoga.

“He started teaching yoga in 1969. By 1972 there were people [in America] wearing turbans,” says Sat Hanuman Singh Khalsa, a Troutdale TSA agent who joined Sikh Dharma in 1971.

Bhajan later made friends with U.S. senators, governors and Hollywood stars. In a day before Bollywood and Slumdog Millionaire, he helped introduce America to traditions from the Indian subcontinent.

Sikhism is only 500 years old, but it is the eighth-largest world religion, with more than 30 million followers. (See sidebar, page 20.) Yogi Bhajan added a New Agey twist to traditional Sikh practice, with his embrace of yoga (more of a Hindu thing), astrology and “tantric numerology.”

But the most obvious difference between Punjabi Sikhs and followers of Yogi Bhajan is that most of the latter are American converts. If you meet a white hippie in a Sikh turban who practices Kundalini yoga, odds are pretty good he or she is a member of Sikh Dharma.

“What Yogi Bhajan accomplished,” says his nephew, Surjit P. Soni, “is truly remarkable. He came without a dime in his pocket. He started teaching yoga, and formed a series of nonprofits. He encouraged entrepreneurialism among a bunch of people that were basically disenfranchised and lost, and created at least two significant businesses to perpetuate the nonprofits.”

Under Yogi Bhajan’s guidance, and over a period of decades, the new American Sikhs established a real community.

They built temples; today, there are Sikh Dharma gurdwara in Eugene, Salem and Beaverton, and across the river in Vancouver, Wash. Yogi Bhajan’s followers also established themselves in California, Maryland, New York City, North India and South Africa, but the place Yogi Bhajan and his closest advisers called home was Española, a small town north of Santa Fe, N.M.

They married—sometimes, in pairings arranged by Yogi Bhajan—and raised Sikh children.

And, just as importantly for the furtherance of Sikh Dharma, they started profitable companies.

According to Kamalla Rose Kaur, a former Sikh Dharma member in Washington state who now runs a website denouncing the group as a cult, “Yogi Bhajan just slammed the men [in the group] to make money…. With the money, they could buy more stuff for Yogi Bhajan.”

Although it appears Yogi Bhajan had little in the way of money or assets, he had a luxurious lifestyle, with a private chauffeur and a large personal staff of secretaries, attendants and nurses who worked as much as 16 hours a day, according to courtroom testimony, interviews with Sikh Dharma members and published reports.

In the rugged high desert of northern New Mexico, members of Sikh Dharma founded Akal Security. At first, the company hired only Sikhs to guard shops and restaurants. Today, Akal is a $500 million-a-year company that protects federal courthouses across the country (and at least one U.S. embassy overseas), has more than 1,000 guards at government buildings in Washington, D.C., and, two months ago, expanded its transportation security business with a $150 million baggage-screening contract at the Kansas City airport. The founders donated the company to the church in 1980; it is now controlled by the defendants in the Portland lawsuit.

Meanwhile, in the lush, green valley of Eugene, a group of about 15 Oregon Sikhs founded Golden Temple foods. Having purchased a bakery and a granola recipe in the early 1970s, the Eugene Sikhs woke up about 3 am for prayers—as devout Sikh Dharma practitioners still do today—and shared the work: mixing granola, baking bread and making deliveries.

Although members came and went, both companies grew steadily, a real achievement considering that the converted Sikhs had little access to outside capital. In addition to individual tithing, members sometimes donated their companies to the church, with the understanding that profits would be used for the good of the community.

“Many have suffered discrimination because of their appearance,” says Hari Nam Singh Khalsa, a longtime Portlander and Sikh convert. “If you have a family business, it’s a place where people can find work.”

For the next three decades, Yogi Bhajan and his white Sikhs kept a low profile. There were headlines now and then.

(After 9/11, a number of Sikh cab drivers and business owners suffered violence and vandalism in a wave of xenophobic retribution; presumably the culprits mistook the Sikh turban for a form of Islamic dress. In response, members of Sikh Dharma joined Punjabi-American Sikhs and Muslim groups in public appeals for tolerance. )

For the most part, though, Yogi Bhajan’s followers focused on growing their revenues and chanting their mantras. They kept to themselves and avoided confrontation like they avoided meat and alcohol.

Until he died.


Yogi Bhajan was, by all accounts, mindful of his legacy, and careful to ensure that the movement he founded would continue after his death.

But if he’d hoped to avoid the internal conflicts that tend to follow when an organization loses a powerful leader, it didn’t quite work.

Whether Yogi Bhajan expressly chose successors among anyone in his inner circle—apart from a religious authority—is a matter of dispute. Who should rightfully serve on the boards of the corporations that hold Sikh Dharma’s assets is at issue in at least two separate lawsuits in Portland.

What is clear is this:

None of the people who wound up in control of the Sikh Dharma organization are Yogi Bhajan’s wife, Bibiji Inderjit Kaur Puri, and children in Los Angeles, who have filed a federal lawsuit against the people who did wind up in charge.

None of them are the spiritual authorities of Sikh Dharma in New Mexico.

And most of the people who wound up in charge of the Sikh Dharma empire no longer look like the other Sikhs.

The four people who control the Sikh Dharma organization, through their seats on the board of a corporation called Unto Infinity, include former members of Yogi Bhajan’s personal staff, plus the chief executive of Golden Temple. Three of the four now live in Portland. They are Golden Temple CEO Kartar Singh Khalsa; his domestic partner, Peraim Kaur Khalsa, who was a member of Yogi Bhajan’s personal staff; Sikh Dharma’s longtime comptroller, Sopurkh Kaur Khalsa; and the organization’s strategic and legal planner, Siri Karm Kaur Khalsa, a New Mexico resident.

Those four, who could either not be reached or declined to be interviewed, are at the heart of the lawsuits.

The gist of the complaints against them is that they breached their fiduciary duties by selling off the cereal division of Golden Temple to Hearthside Food Solutions last year for $71 million, of which $21 million went to the Golden Temple managers, including $10 million to Kartar, the CEO. The plaintiffs also say the Unto Infinity board and Golden Temple managers paid themselves inflated salaries even while they reduced support for the Sikh Dharma religious organizations, and for Yogi Bhajan’s widow and children.

The court testimony showed that within three years of Yogi Bhajan’s death, the four began preparing to restructure Golden Temple in a way that would transfer ownership from the church to a company controlled by Unto Infinity’s board. Not long after, Kartar, Peraim and others with Unto Infinity and Golden Temple management traded their robes for business suits. They doffed their turbans and cut their hair.

They allegedly started eating meat and drinking alcohol, both forbidden. Kartar left his wife for Peraim.

Kartar left sleepy Eugene behind, and purchased a $550,000 waterfront condo just north of the Fremont Bridge, where he now lives with Peraim. Earlier this year, Portland police ticketed his Porsche.

Kartar, who bears a passing resemblance to the actor Liam Neeson, now wears his hair short and braided tightly in the back. Born Tom Burns, he met Yogi Bhajan in 1973, at a Kundalini yoga class in Corvallis, and went to work for Golden Temple in Eugene soon after.

He and the three others in charge of Sikh Dharma are, in the minds of many who devoted themselves to Yogi Bhajan for decades, no longer Sikhs.

Soon, a judge in Portland will decide if they deserve the power they attained.

The Oregon Attorney General’s office joined the case this year. The state’s involvement was all but unprecedented.

“We do not typically intervene in litigation when we believe the charitable interests are being sufficiently represented or protected by private individuals. But given the concerns regarding the private parties’ standing, the size of the disputed transaction and some questionable aspects of the transaction, we felt it was appropriate to get involved,” Oregon Department of Justice spokesman Tony Green says.

That trial began on May 23, concluded on June 17, and both sides—along with dozens of Sikhs who traveled from all over the world to watch—are awaiting a decision from Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Leslie Roberts.

Roberts gave signals during the course of the trial that she sympathized with the plaintiffs and the state—at least insofar as she believes the cereal division of Golden Temple should not have been sold. But she also made clear that she is uncomfortable with the attorney general’s proposed remedy—that she appoint a receiver to take charge of the Sikh Dharma organization. As the defendants have noted, such a decision would result in court-appointed clergy, a clear First Amendment problem.

If she only had to decide whether or not the new leaders of Sikh Dharma breached their duties, Roberts’ decision might be simple. But the plaintiffs’ argument goes deeper than that. They also argue that the new Sikh Dharma leaders in Portland should never have attained their positions in the first place.

There is some evidence to back them up. But the truth of what Yogi Bhajan wanted may never be known.

It all comes back to what was—and what was not—in that envelope in the safe in Roy Lambert’s office downtown: the yogi’s last secret.

What was in the envelope?

Nothing. At least, not the thing that everyone expected.

According to Lambert’s own testimony, Yogi Bhajan was supposed to leave two sets of instructions to be followed after his death. The first was to be the name of his chosen successor as spiritual leader of Sikh Dharma. The second was to be a list of directors who would oversee the corporate side of things.

In his court testimony, Lambert claimed that when he opened the envelope containing Yogi Bhajan’s will, he found only one name: that of Sikh Dharma’s religious authority, Guru Amrit Kaur Khalsa. She was promptly appointed.

But according to Lambert, the second list of names was not in the envelope. As a consequence, control over Yogi Bhajan’s and Sikh Dharma’s affairs fell to an Oregon nonprofit corporation, Unto Infinity, which is controlled by the four people who are now defendants.

Bizarrely, one year after Yogi Bhajan’s death, Lambert wrote an email to a Golden Temple manager in Europe, which was introduced as evidence in the circuit court case. In the email, Lambert states that there was a list of names that Yogi Bhajan intended to run the companies—and that those names included Yogi Bhajan’s wife, one of his sons, and 11 others, some of whom are plaintiffs in the Portland circuit court case.

Yet, by 2007, Lambert had switched stories, claiming that the names he wrote about in 2005 were not really the people Yogi Bhajan intended to run the companies.

“I have no basis for understanding why I thought that [2005 list] was true,” Lambert said at trial.

In the past years, those who control Sikh Darma’s affairs have done well; according to an analysis of the tax returns of the four Unto Infinity board members, from 2007 through 2010, Sopurkh made $515,000, Peraim made $502,000 and Siri Karm made $545,000, while plaintiffs figure Golden Temple CEO Kartar made $15.8 million as a result of the company’s asset sale and restructuring. Unto Infinity’s lawyer, Lambert, who was originally hired by Kartar in 1992, did well, too.

Lambert claimed at least $300,000 in hourly billings for his work advising Unto Infinity and the Golden Temple executives; more importantly, he has a director’s seat on the Legacy of Yogiji Foundation, which manages Sikh Dharma’s considerable real estate holdings, and a powerful advisory role with the Unto Infinity board.

Surjit P. Soni, the widow’s lawyer, believes Lambert hid or destroyed evidence—the missing list of directors. He wants Lambert stripped of the right to practice law.

“He is as bad an apple, if not a worse apple, than the other four” defendants, Soni says. “I’m absolutely convinced of that.”

Lambert denies all such criticism and calls the bar complaint “a joke,” but won’t say much more.

“I’m not going to spread this through Willamette Week,” Lambert says.


Sikh and Ye Shall Find

The first Sikh, born some 500 years ago in Punjab, was Guru Nanak. He taught that Hindus and Muslims could liberate themselves by abandoning the outward trappings of their respective religions and worshipping one god, whose name is Truth.

Nine other gurus followed, and their teachings constitute Sikh theology. Yogi Bhajan is not one of the 10 Sikh gurus. The movement he founded in America, Sikh Dharma, is to traditional Punjabi Sikhism something like an African Christian folk church is to the Vatican—same basic idea, different execution.

But both branches of the religion share some key tenets. Baptized Sikhs, known as Khalsa, pledge to abstain from consuming meat, alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, as well as having sex outside of marriage. Not all Sikhs are Khalsa, but Khalsa by definition are Sikhs. Khalsa don’t cut their hair. The men also traditionally carry a dagger, known as a kirpan. Today, so the joke goes, many Khalsa have traded their sacred daggers for a sharp tongue.




More documents available at original:http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-17701-death_of_a_yogi.html
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby Allegro » Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:14 pm

.
War On Christmas
Right-Wing Group Creates ‘Naughty Or Nice’ List Of Companies That Do Not Mention Christmas Enough
— ThinkProgress.com
— AFA link mine, of course :wink:

    Tis’ the Season to be jolly, or if you are the American Family Association, to construct a list of aberrant companies out to destroy Christmas. Offering up their yearly “Naughty of Nice” list, the religious-right organization is branding companies according to whether they recognize Christmas enough. If a company uses the term Christmas “on a regular basis, we consider that company Christmas-friendly,” AFA says. If a company “refers to Christmas infrequently, or in a single advertising medium,” then they’re listed as “marginal” and are bordering on delinquency. But if a company uses Christmas “sparingly in a single or unique product description, but as a company, does not recognize it,” then that company is “censoring” (or waging all out war on) Jesus’s birthday. Here is AFA’s list, updated Nov. 30:

    Image

    UPDATE: Incidentally, AFA should be kinder to the lingerie models of Victoria’s Secret and consider an upgrade to “marginal” as they did wish Americans “a Merry Christmas” in their holiday video. They are “Angels,” after all. Watch it.

Art will be the last bastion when all else fades away.
~ Timothy White (b 1952), American rock music journalist
_________________
User avatar
Allegro
 
Posts: 4456
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 1:44 pm
Location: just right of Orion
Blog: View Blog (144)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:53 am

American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:21 pm

This kind of thing really, really pisses me off- military dolphins too- and all the animals they have harnessed for war- human included!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/us/mo ... wanted=all

After Duty, Dogs Suffer Like Soldiers

Bryce Harper for The New York Times



Image
Dereck Stevens bonds with his military working dog before a practice drill at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio.


By JAMES DAO
Published: December 1, 2011

SAN ANTONIO — The call came into the behavior specialists here from a doctor in Afghanistan. His patient had just been through a firefight and now was cowering under a cot, refusing to come out.

Post-traumatic stress disorder, thought Dr. Walter F. Burghardt Jr., chief of behavioral medicine at the Daniel E. Holland Military Working Dog Hospital at Lackland Air Force Base. Specifically, canine PTSD.

If anyone needed evidence of the frontline role played by dogs in war these days, here is the latest: the four-legged, wet-nosed troops used to sniff out mines, track down enemy fighters and clear buildings are struggling with the mental strains of combat nearly as much as their human counterparts.

By some estimates, more than 5 percent of the approximately 650 military dogs deployed by American combat forces are developing canine PTSD. Of those, about half are likely to be retired from service, Dr. Burghardt said.

Though veterinarians have long diagnosed behavioral problems in animals, the concept of canine PTSD is only about 18 months old, and still being debated. But it has gained vogue among military veterinarians, who have been seeing patterns of troubling behavior among dogs exposed to explosions, gunfire and other combat-related violence in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Like humans with the analogous disorder, different dogs show different symptoms. Some become hyper-vigilant. Others avoid buildings or work areas that they had previously been comfortable in. Some undergo sharp changes in temperament, becoming unusually aggressive with their handlers, or clingy and timid. Most crucially, many stop doing the tasks they were trained to perform.

“If the dog is trained to find improvised explosives and it looks like it’s working, but isn’t, it’s not just the dog that’s at risk,” Dr. Burghardt said. “This is a human health issue as well.”

That the military is taking a serious interest in canine PTSD underscores the importance of working dogs in the current wars. Once used primarily as furry sentries, military dogs — most are German shepherds, followed by Belgian Malinois and Labrador retrievers — have branched out into an array of specialized tasks.

They are widely considered the most effective tools for detecting the improvised explosive devices, or I.E.D.’s, frequently used in Afghanistan. Typically made from fertilizer and chemicals, and containing little or no metal, those buried bombs can be nearly impossible to find with standard mine-sweeping instruments. In the past three years, I.E.D.’s have become the major cause of casualties in Afghanistan.

The Marine Corps also has begun using specially trained dogs to track Taliban fighters and bomb-makers. And Special Operations commandos train their own dogs to accompany elite teams on secret missions like the Navy SEAL raid that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. Across all the forces, more than 50 military dogs have been killed since 2005.

The number of working dogs on active duty has risen to 2,700, from 1,800 in 2001, and the training school headquartered here at Lackland has gotten busy, preparing about 500 dogs a year. So has the Holland hospital, the Pentagon’s canine version of Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Dr. Burghardt, a lanky 59-year-old who retired last year from the Air Force as a colonel, rarely sees his PTSD patients in the flesh. Consultations with veterinarians in the field are generally done by phone, e-mail or Skype, and often involve video documentation.

In a series of videos that Dr. Burghardt uses to train veterinarians to spot canine PTSD, one shepherd barks wildly at the sound of gunfire that it had once tolerated in silence. Another can be seen confidently inspecting the interior of cars but then refusing to go inside a bus or a building. Another sits listlessly on a barrier wall, then after finally responding to its handler’s summons, runs away from a group of Afghan soldiers.

In each case, Dr. Burghardt theorizes, the dogs were using an object, vehicle or person as a “cue” for some violence they had witnessed. “If you want to put doggy thoughts into their heads,” he said, “the dog is thinking: when I see this kind of individual, things go boom, and I’m distressed.”

Treatment can be tricky. Since the patient cannot explain what is wrong, veterinarians and handlers must make educated guesses about the traumatizing events. Care can be as simple as taking a dog off patrol and giving it lots of exercise, playtime and gentle obedience training.

More serious cases will receive what Dr. Burghardt calls “desensitization counterconditioning,” which entails exposing the dog at a safe distance to a sight or sound that might set off a reaction — a gunshot, a loud bang or a vehicle, for instance. If the dog does not react, it is rewarded, and the trigger — “the spider in a glass box,” Dr. Burghardt calls it — is moved progressively closer.

Gina, a shepherd with PTSD who was the subject of news articles last year, was successfully treated with desensitization and has been cleared to deploy again, said Tech. Sgt. Amanda Callahan, a spokeswoman at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado.

Some dogs are also treated with the same medications used to fight panic attacks in humans. Dr. Burghardt asserts that medications seem particularly effective when administered soon after traumatizing events. The Labrador retriever that cowered under a cot after a firefight, for instance, was given Xanax, an anti-anxiety drug, and within days was working well again.

Dogs that do not recover quickly are returned to their home bases for longer-term treatment. But if they continue to show symptoms after three months, they are usually retired or transferred to different duties, Dr. Burghardt said.

As with humans, there is much debate about treatment, with little research yet to guide veterinarians. Lee Charles Kelley, a dog trainer who writes a blog for Psychology Today called “My Puppy, My Self,”says medications should be used only as a stopgap. “We don’t even know how they work in people,” he said.

In the civilian dog world, a growing number of animal behaviorists seem to be endorsing the concept of canine PTSD, saying it also affects household pets who experience car accidents and even less traumatic events.

Dr. Nicholas H. Dodman, director of the animal behavior clinic at the Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tuft University, said he had written about and treated dogs with PTSD-like symptoms for years — but did not call it PTSD until recently. Asked if the disorder could be cured, Dr. Dodman said probably not.

“It is more management,” he said. “Dogs never forget.”
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Sun Dec 04, 2011 9:18 pm

http://deanejuhanblog.blogspot.com/2011 ... alism.html

EROS AND CAPITALISM

By Deane Juhan



The conflicts between eros and capitalism, and the degradation of both their higher purposes, are at the heart of the central dilemmas of our time. Eros, a love of flesh and spirit, a joyful engagement with all their sensuality and their kaleidoscope of delights and wisdom, is not faring well in our culture of scientific abstraction, religious dogma and lack of the social graces of touching one another’s bodies, hearts and minds. Capitalism, which once offered a promise of abundance and prosperity for all, has degenerated into manipulative self-serving acquisitiveness with eros as its slave.

God as love has been rooted out by the money-changers in the temple. Love is ultimately the stronger and more enduring force, but without a robust celebration of ecstacy, co-creation and compassion it is proving to be no match for the ruthless minions of amassed wealth and the heartbreaking demands of raw survival. The only things naked in our world today are power and greed. We worship the Golden Calf.

The underlying ethos of capitalism might indeed be useful to humanity, and it may well potentially hold all the virtues that economic conservatives have claimed--a creative market place that rewards innovation, a healthy Darwinism that winnows out the viable seeds of success, the challenge to produce things that genuinely serve the human values of the collective, the reliance upon our native wits, the accumulation of resources for wise investment, and so forth. If the fruits of all this did in fact trickle down, modern economics would have a fecund power. Material prosperity could indeed be a progressive force which Eros could welcome in a mutual delight for the common good.

But the practical machinations of capitalism can all too easily be separated from the human well-springs of eros, to become a compulsion unto itself. “Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers...”

The displacement of the heart and flesh of eros by the abstractions of capitalism is the very heart of Mammonism, and it has become our religion. When human aspirations become smelted and cast into the cold metal of gold, the tribe has lost its way on the path to the garden and has fatally strayed into the industrial wasteland. When wealth loses sight of its primary utility of creating abundance, it transforms itself into covetousness, envy, lust, greed, moral sloth, the dishonoring of ancestral values, the pillaging of our children’s legacy, and a selfish adulteration of the covenant. It will justify homicide and perfect it to further its own ends. It is in this sense that money generates the root of all other evils. And among these evils, whether they are done by us or to us, eros loses any place in our lives. This is a human catastrophe, the fall from grace. If we fall far enough--and our descent is palpably picking up speed--it will not end only in our expulsion from the Garden, but in the destruction of the Garden itself. Such a destruction cancels all hope of redemption and return. It is the irredeemable loss of this hope that congeals mere desperation into Satan, whose primary impulse then becomes the destruction of all others, even himself, in the mad dream of a prevailing that cannot be. There is no poison to eros deadlier than this spite that bubbles in the last fetid lees of unholy ambition. Nature has no endgame. The perversion of eros and humanity just might.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Data & Research Compilations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest