MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: December 16, 2007

« December 9, 2007 - December 15, 2007 | Main | December 23, 2007 - December 29, 2007 »

December 21, 2007

Missing a Testicle? Say Goodbye to That Tour in Iraq You Were Hoping For

Hey, guess what? The Army isn't just intolerant of gays and transgendered Americans. It appears to object to anyone who has any sexual abnormality, no matter how large or small or completely unrelated to job performance. Here are examples of people who do not meet the official standards in the Army's Standards of Medical Fitness (available here):

Women who experience unusually heavy menstrual bleeding, or bleeding at irregular intervals, or no periods at all.

Women born without a uterus.

In men, "Current absence of one or both testicles, either congenital (752.89) or undescended (752.51) is disqualifying."

And, for both men and women: "History of major abnormalities or defects of the genitalia such as change of sex (P64.5), hermaphroditism, pseudohermaphroditism, or pure gonadal dysgenesis (752.7) or dysfunctional residuals from surgical correction of these conditions is disqualifying."

As Obsidian Wings puts it, "Unless I am very, very wrong about what exactly service in the military involves, I can't see that an undescended testicle would affect a soldier's ability to perform his duties."

Merry Christmas From the U.S. Military

Politically%20Incorrect%20Guide.bmp If you are a soldier in Iraq, is it alright to wish people a merry Christmas, or would "happy holidays" be better? Like, whatever dude. As Ann Coulter says on a poster hanging on the door of the military police office in Fort Riley, Kansas: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." It's Jesus time!

That, at least, appears to be the way the military is heading according to a bevy of findings released by the of Military Religious Freedom Foundation this week, just in time for the holidays. MRFF founder Mikey Weinstein (see our recent profile) believes the military has been colonized at all levels by evangelical Christians bent on converting it into an army of God. The group's recent findings certainly support the idea:

At Fort Riley, the post exchange store, run by the base, sells the Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, which photos show on display right next to The Soldiers Bible.

The Malmstrom Air Force Base, in Montana, houses a store called "Enabled By Christ: A Store for the Christian Man."

A segment of a 2003 video filmed at the U.S. Air Force Academy by the Campus Crusade for Christ proclaims that the group wants to create "government-paid missionaries." Several cadets appear in the video in uniform.

A DVD distributed in 2005 by the Campus Crusade for Christ's Military Ministry features Tommy Nelson, a pastor from Denton, Texas, telling a group of uniformed Texas A&M cadets:

I, a number of years ago, was speaking at the University of North Texas -- it happens to be my alma mater, up in Denton, Texas -- and I was speaking to an ROTC group up there, and when I stepped in I said, "It's good to be speaking to all you men and women who are in the ministry," and they all kind of looked at me, and I think they wondered if maybe I had found the wrong room, or if they were in the wrong room, and I assured them that I was speaking to men and women in the ministry, these that were going to be future officers.

The first question in the study guide that accompanies the video is: "If you are in the military, then you are also in the m__________."

Finally, see the recent Mother Jones story on Eric Horner Ministries, which performs mandatory "motivational" concerts for U.S. troops that seem to motivate people to find Christ.

What has been the response to MRFF's findings? Weinstein, when I called him just now, told me: "I got a phone call today that said somebody is going to stick a shotgun up my wife's cunt and blow her clitoris through her head." So it goes during the holidays, I guess. And then it's back to singing jingle bells.

Bill Richardson Is Pissed

Remember when Bill Richardson was calling for the Democratic candidates to lay off Hillary Clinton and generally sucking up to her as best he could? As this incident with New York Times reporter Pat Healy demonstrates, that period is ovah.

I just got a phone call — unprompted — from Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, a Democratic candidate for president, blasting Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for saying she would withdraw nearly all American troops from Iraq within a year of beginning redeployment.

"Senator Clinton's comments are a stunning flip-flop — she's been saying she would keep troops in Iraq for five years, until 2013, and now she comes up with an inconsistent, incredible turnaround," Mr. Richardson said.

Mrs. Clinton has maintained that she would leave a residual force behind in Iraq to pursue narrow missions, a position that her spokesman said she still holds. As her aides have done before, the spokesman declined to say how many troops Mrs. Clinton would leave.

Clinton has never really said that she would keep troops in Iraq until 2013. She's just said that she won't commit to pulling them all out by 2013.

Richardson, who hasn't caught fire in Iowa or elsewhere, must believe that (1) his campaign needs an adrenaline shot, or (2) his chances to be Clinton's VP pick are declining due to Clinton's lack of interest or decreasing poll numbers.

Just goes to show the trustworthiness of that old saw, hell hath no fury like a potential vice presidential candidate scorned.

Not Even Toastmasters Will Help Gonzales

After watching his lethargic public speaking engagements before the U.S. Congress, it is, perhaps, no surprise to learn that Alberto Gonzales is a wash-out on the college lecture circuit. The former attorney general has signed up with a talent agency that's been trying to gin up lucrative speaking engagements for him on college campuses, for $35,000 a pop. Gonzales needs the money to pay his legal bills stemming from the multiple investigations into his tenure at the Department of Justice, but the students aren't biting, reports the Washington Post. Not only are the schools refusing to pay his hefty fee, but when he has spoken recently on campuses, he's been greeted by hecklers. Gonzales is slated to speak in February at Washington University in St. Louis, where students are already looking forward to major protests of his appearance.

School of Shock Staff: Just Following Orders

Maia Szalavitz, who's tracked the "punishment-as-therapy" movement's origins in the discredited antidrug cult Synanon, adds an interesting historical perspective on the latest news from the Rotenberg Center, AKA the School of Shock. Over at HuffPo, she draws a parallel between the incident in which Rotenberg staffers unquestioningly shocked students at the behest of a phone call from a "prankster" to the infamous 1963 Milgram experiment, in which volunteers readily complied with orders to give simulated shocks to unseen subjects. Interestingly, the volunteers were called "teachers" while the recipients of the shocks were called "learners." Yet, as Szalavitz writes:

In that case, the "victims" were actually actors, no real harm was done to them-- and a great ethical controversy ensued over the treatment of subjects, who had been deceived by experimenters about the nature of the research. [...]

Here, however, poorly-trained staff inflicted serious and genuine emotional and physical pain on emotionally disordered children -- at the prompt of an anonymous caller, and outside an experimental setting!

It all adds to the sense that Rotenberg is a nutty science experiment gone very, very wrong.

Start Snitching, Get Killed Part II

Earlier this week, I wrote of the kind of witness intimidation (i.e. murder) that makes sense of the urban 'stop snitching' more, especially when you factor in that few states offer witnesses any protection at all. But you won't believe this:

For prosecutors in New Jersey, much about the 2004 murder of Deshawn McCray was all too familiar: Yet another key witness in a major drug case had been shot dead before he could testify in court.

But there was one aspect of the killing that especially alarmed and infuriated prosecutors. They believed that a defense lawyer — a former prosecutor — had played a role in facilitating the murder.

The United States attorney has said that that lawyer, Paul Bergrin, relayed Mr. McCray’s identity to friends of one of his clients, a gang member who was facing life in prison on drug charges. The prosecutors said he had even met with members of his client’s gang in person to make clear what was at stake....

Three months later, Mr. McCray was shot in the head by one of the gang members on a Newark street....

...In gang cases prosecuted in cities including Trenton, Newark and Camden, it is not unusual for a witness’s statement to be photocopied within days of being turned over to the defendant’s lawyer, and then be posted on telephone poles or circulated throughout the neighborhood.

Talk about full-service:

The only legal or professional scrutiny Mr. Bergrin is currently known to face, in fact, is in New York City, where prosecutors have charged him with running New York Confidential, a brothel that charged $1,000 an hour.

The office of the Manhattan district attorney, Robert M. Morgenthau, has accused Mr. Bergrin of taking over the business from a former client and using it to offer sexual favors to unnamed New Jersey law enforcement officers and jail guards — people who were in a position to keep him informed about what inmates might be planning to cooperate against his clients.

The "stop snitching" ethos may have come to mean "it's wrong to help The Man" but it may just be that it didn't start out that way. When it comes to civic-mindedness in the hood, maybe those of us who don't live there should just shut the hell up.

Chris Kelly's Hilarious Take on the Romneys and MLK

Wish I'd seen this when I posted this about Mitt and his Dad bravely marching (not) with MLK. Chris Kelly at the HuffPo made me snort my coffee laughing.

"Present" but Unaccountable: Senator Obama's Illinois Voting Record

Yesterday, the NY Times discussed Senator Obama's penchant for using a quirk of the Illinois Statehouse to sidestep contentious issues that might jeopardize his reelection chances. Or, it's simply a device that allows legislators there to voice legitimate concerns with a bill without voting either for or against it. You decide. It's called voting "present," as opposed to yea or nay, and it's pretty confusing to figure out. Is it a dirty trick or a proof that he's a smart cookie who simply knows how to be an effective politician?

In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate.

In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted “present,” effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator.

Sometimes the “present’ votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support. At other times, Mr. Obama voted present on questions that had overwhelming bipartisan support. In at least a few cases, the issue was politically sensitive

Taylor Marsh, at the Huffington Post is certainly steamed at Obama about it (and at Obama in general apparently from the tone of the piece). She's pretty sure he's a wolf in sheep's clothing using 'present' votes to focus more on ducking responsibility on serious issues than on dealing with those serious issues:

...Obama is continually talking about Clinton being a "triangulator," as do many of the Hillary haters. People talking about her calculations. I don't agree with all of her votes, especially on some foreign policy matters, particularly her Iraq war vote, but also Kyl-Lieberman. But when she's pushed she votes and puts herself on the line. She never votes "present" when it matters. When pushed at YearlyKos on lobbyists she could have pandered. She didn't. She also took the heat, including boos. She didn't back down over Kyl-Lieberman either, even though it cost her in grumbling. It's what she believes, with Wesley Clark and Joseph Wilson backing her. []

Obama got a pass when going after her on Kyl-Lieberman, even though he voted for similar legislation earlier in the year, but more importantly, skipped the vote that would have put him on the record. He also has the exact same votes as Clinton on Iraq, and when Senators Kerry and Feingold offered legislation on the floor to redeploy, Mr. Obama made a speech against it. Not to mention that he never held a hearing on his own foreign relations subcommittee. He also skipped the MoveOn.org vote too. How convenient it is just not to show up and be counted. It's a lot easier. But it's not more principled, no matter your excuse. It's triangulating. It is also quite calculating. Because what better way to hit your opponent than to duck a tough vote where she was counted, and you'd been counted months earlier, then rail against her because no one is paying attention to the facts.

So far, the issue hasn't got much traction (though Senator Clinton's team has bought attack sites with names like votingpresent.com) but these are slow news days. Come January, I'll bet the Obama folks will have spent their holidays coming up with plausible justifications for why he voted "present" rather than "no" on trying black kids as young as 15 as adults. A tough spot for any politician but this is a major part of his whole appeal - the earnest, young straight-talker versus the jaded old school Dems. Bravo for admitting to your drug use and wastrel days, now tell us why you voted "present" if you're going to keep talking about how your opponent voted for the Iraq war. I'm willing to believe he had his reasons - and that maybe they're reasons he regrets now - just tell me what they are.

Romney Lied and Lied and Lied About His Family and MLK

Not only did Mitt Romney lie about his father marching with MLK, he also used to claim that HE and his father did so:

Mitt Romney went a step further in a 1978 interview with the Boston Herald. Talking about the Mormon Church and racial discrimination, he said: "My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit."

Caught in his lie, he went all Clinton "depends on what the meaning of is is" on us:

Romney said his father had told him he had marched with King and that he had been using the word "saw" in a "figurative sense."

"If you look at the literature, if you look at the dictionary, the term 'saw' includes being aware of in the sense I've described," Romney told reporters in Iowa. "It's a figure of speech and very familiar, and it's very common. And I saw my dad march with Martin Luther King. I did not see it with my own eyes, but I saw him in the sense of being aware of his participation in that great effort."

Homey should have just decried the historic racism of his Mormon Church and used true examples of his, and his father's, anti-racist efforts. Unless there aren't any...

At least now MLK will stop rolling in his grave. That is, until February when all the racists start using his Dream to prove he was opposed to actually doing anything about racism.

December 20, 2007

Al-Qaeda's Number 2 Answers Journalists

Zawari%202.jpg

Al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgent groups are known for their media savvy. Several of them have sophisticated multi-media websites complete with videos, news updates, and manifestos in English. The Islamic Army in Iraq (IAI) for example, has a "reporter" who posts "special films" and "unique releases."

But Al Qaeda has decided to try something new: Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's second-in-command, will answer written questions from "individuals, agencies and all information media outlets" in an "open meeting" before January 16: "Anyone who would like to ask him a question must be concise and precise," said a press statement quoted in Al Jazeera. Al Zawahiri promises to respond "as much as he is able and at the soonest possible occasion."

This is a break from the past. Usually, its' a one way street —bin Laden and Zawahiri issue their communiqués, and journalists are left to dissect minute details, such as how bin Laden was "looking fit with a full beard of dark black hair, no gray at all." So what gives? Maybe by going interactive Zawahiri hopes to build credibility and accountability. Is Al Qaeda engaging in its own brand of psyops to win hearts and minds?

The war of ideas continues.

— Neha Inamdar

Huckabee: The Search for a Sobriquet

Mi·chael Huck·a·bee. It's a hell of a name, the best by far of the Republican field. And now that Huckabee is an anointed member of the top tier, the search for a viable nickname is on. Entries so far include:

The Huckster. Used by: Rush Limbaugh, various right-wing blogs. Verdict: Too obvious.

Tax Hike Mike. Used by: The Club for Growth. Verdict: Lame, uninspired.

Triple Wide. Used by: Arkansans punning on Huckabee's erstwhile heft and the extra large trailer his family lived in during renovations at the governor's mansion. Verdict: Dated.

The Huck. Used by: Headline-writers everywhere. Verdict: Scores points for simplicity.

Since none of those entries quite cuts it, I had high hopes for a new Huckabee appraisal by Paul Greenberg, grizzled Arkansas media eminence (he editorializes for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and has a Pulitzer under his belt—from 1969), and coiner of "Slick Willie." Alas, Greenberg tosses a handful of darts—"one Michael Dale Huckabee," "Brother Huckabee," "this year's Man from Hope," and, of course, "the Huck"—but none really hits bullseye. So, readers, what should we call this guy?

—Justin Elliott

Coming Soon to Texas: A Master's Degree in Creation Science

Because Baylor University is not doing enough to plumb the seas for Noah's Ark, an advisory committee of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board has recommended that the Institute for Creation Research be given the authority to grant Master's degrees in science education. Perhaps the training will help graduates stay employed in the Lone Star State, rather than getting fired like the state's former director of science curricula, a shameless Darwin booster.

Is Texas devolving? Not at all. According to the Institute's mission statement, it will only enroll the self-motivated, responsible student who "is more self-disciplined ('whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatever ye do, do all to the glory of God;' I Cor. 10:31) and takes education seriously ('And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;' Colossians 3:23)."

The Texas Observer reports that the same guys brought us the Creation Museum in Kentucky (see Adam frolic with the dinosaurs!), and are at work stumping for Mike Huckabee in Iowa.

Looking to Congress to Stop the FCC's Big Media Giveaway

Once again, the Federal Communications Commission has rolled back longstanding regulations that prevented further media consolidation, despite another round of public opposition. (For a detailed look at what this move means for the future of the media, particularly newspapers, check out this piece Eric Klinenberg wrote for us.) The last time the FCC pulled this under chairman Michael Powell, the courts stopped it in its tracks. This time, it could take an act of Congress. MoveOn and Free Press (which has been on the forefront of this issue for ages) have started online letter-writing campaigns seeking to get Congress to overturn the rule change. They may find some sympathy on Capitol Hill: A bipartisan group of 24 senators, including John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Trent Lott, and Ted Stevens, wrote FCC chair Kevin Martin [PDF] before the decision, asking him not to ignore input from the public. Now that he's done just that, will they still be listening?

Image: Kevin Martin (right) in/on bed with the industry he regulates—literally. Via StopBigMedia.com

Mitt Romney's Father Never Marched with Martin Luther King Jr.

In Mitt Romney's major speech on religion in America, he said, "I saw my father march with Martin Luther King." When discussing the Mormon faith's uncomfortable record on race, Romney absolved his family by saying, "My dad marched with Martin Luther King. My mom was a tireless crusader for civil rights."

But an investigation by the Phoenix, a Boston-area alternative paper, shows that Romney's father, George Romney, the former governor of Michigan, never marched with King, nor would Mitt have been able to see it if had, because Mitt was in France on a mission the only time King was marching in Michigan.

The Romney campaign is claiming that George Romney marched in one town on one day, and King marched in a different town on a different day, but that the towns and the days were close enough together that Mitt's statements aren't technically false.

Edwards and Obama Draw Contrasts on Health Care Reform

In my most recent article on John Edwards, I wondered if Edwards' strident anti-corporate message, courageous and admirable as it may be, would turn off voters in the general election.

Yesterday, Jonathan Alter of Newsweek answered with an emphatic yes.

How many 20th Century American presidents have been elected on a populist platform? That would be zero... millions of Americans still work for corporations or aspire to do so and bashing them wholesale is a loser politically. It works sometimes in Democratic primaries with a heavy labor vote (though not for Dick Gephardt). But not in general elections. The last two Democrats elected president—Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992—also campaigned during recessions. Both were smart enough to reject populism in favor of a responsive but upbeat message.

Alter also discusses the differences Obama and Edwards have on health care. Obama says that he will initiate health care reform by sitting down at a big table with patients' advocates, health care economists, insurance companies, and other interested parties. Everyone would have the right to state their priorities, but the meeting would be CSPAN and the American people would know who is motivated by greed, who is negotiating in bad faith, and who is working against the interests of everyday Americans. Alter writes, "having triumphed over the drug and insurance companies in the court of public opinion, the legislative victories will follow."

Edwards says it is "a fantasy" to expect insurance companies and drug companies to negotiate their power away at a table such as Obama's. The only real option, Edwards says, is to exclude these corporate interests from the discussion and "take" their power away. How he plans on doing that is never quite articulated.

It's worth pointing out that Edwards and Obama have managed to have this debate without going negative. The debate over which approach to health care reform is less realistic continues, but gently...

Clinton Campaign Disguises Negative Flier As Product of Edwards Campaign

Iowans don't like negative attacks. Time and again, when I was in Iowa chatting with attendees at Republican and Democratic events, I was told by voters that the "mudslinging" that goes on "in Washington" wasn't of any concern to them. They were less likely to vote for a candidate if he or she went negative, even if that candidate had a legitimate critique of his or her rivals.

So if you're Hillary Clinton and you want to point out that Barack Obama's health care proposal isn't as strong as yours, what can you do? How about putting out a flier that looks like it was created by the John Edwards campaign?

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) is supporting Hillary Clinton. A recent flier that AFSCME put out in Iowa says, "For those without insurance, Barack Obama's band-aid solution is no change at all." Obama "claims his health care plan covers everyone, but his proposal does not match his words... Instead, Obama took the timid way out, offering yet another band-aid solution."

That's substantially more false than true. The Obama plan represents a significant change from the status quo, and if implemented successfully, will greatly increase the number of people with health insurance while simultaneously lowering the cost of coverage. However, the plan does not have a mandate, which means that some people could wiggle out of the system and remain uncovered. The Clinton and Edwards plans do have mandates, though the Edwards plan is widely seen as having better mechanisms for enforcing that mandate.

But when the flier concludes, "Barack Obama's plan is just more of the same," that's dishonest.

Hillary Clinton won't be taking any guff for it, however, because somehow her name is left off the flier completely. Instead, the flier quotes John Edwards as saying that "as many as 15 million Americans would be without coverage" under Obama's plan. That's a figure Clinton has repeatedly used; if the campaign had wanted to (or if AFSCME had wanted to), they could have easily used a Clinton quote.

Edwards, who has attacked Clinton before but usually declines to go negative on Obama, must hate that he's being dragged into this. His campaign released a statement saying, "It's fine to have an honest debate about policy, but Iowans deserve better than planted questions and campaign fliers designed to fool them."

Would the New OPEN Government Act Really Open Anything?

After the House on Tuesday passed the OPEN Government Act to bolster the Freedom of Information Act and sent the bill to George W. Bush, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi proclaimed,

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has a vital purpose: to inform American citizens about the conduct of their government. However, the Bush Administration has greatly expanded the veil of secrecy and undermined the Freedom of Information Act. The Administration's actions run counter to the values of our democracy, the public's right to know, and the ability of American citizens to hold their government accountable. The passage of the OPEN Government Act takes a first step toward strengthening FOIA and restoring transparency and accountability to our government.

FOIA has long been broken--even before Bush. It sometimes takes years--even a decade--to get a FOIA request fulfilled. And, of course, much information is often withheld. I've had the State Department respond to requests nine years after I've submitted them--and long after I had any need for the documents. And recently I asked the Department of Interior for records related to a contract covering computer services provided to Vice President Dick Cheney's office by a company run by a fellow who paid more than $1 million in bribes to Republican Representative Duke Cunningham. (Don't ask why the Interior Department was involved.) I was told the material would be withheld under one of FOIA's many elastic exemptions. So will the new legislation make any real difference?

For an answer, I turned to Steven Aftergood, who produces Secrecy News. He says:

The new legislation makes several valuable procedural changes. It will increase pressure on agencies to answer FOIA requests in weeks rather than years. It will make it easier for requesters to track FOIA requests and to win fee waivers. It will strengthen the position of those requesters who litigate denials of their requests.

On the other hand, it does not alter agencies' ability to withhold information, which is of course the heart of the process. Whatever was withheld from requesters previously can still be withheld. So even if the law is faithfully implemented, it could just mean speedier denials.

Well, at least I won't have to wait so long to be turned down.

Thanks to Bush, America is Both Rubber and Glue

From CNN: Torture House, Mass Graves Found in Iraq.

Given our own "torture houses," the tapes of which we've illegally (not to mention, immorally) erased, how exactly is an American to process such an article? I feel myself going all Derrida and po-mo: that article is clearly meant to stimulate feelings of shock, awe, horror, disbelief etc... But how can an American legitimately muster such feelings when we, too, now are torturers and propogandists?

I read this with a clanging sense of cognitive dissonance; one the one hand - how dare they, the Iraqis, commit such overtly heinous crimes against humanity? Still, can't be too surprised; isn't that just like them? Isn't that why America gave it's ok to invade, those lowlifes?

Simultaneously, I have to think - how dare we, Americans, ask how they dare when we dare every day, apparently since two weeks after the Bushies took office?

Exactly who, and what, are we anymore?

December 19, 2007

Rotenberg Center Blasted By Gov. Eliot Spitzer and Media After A Prankster Gets Employees to "Accidentally" Shock Kids 100 Times: Will The "School of Shock" Finally Be Closed Down?

In our September/October issue, we published a 9,000 word story, "School of Shock: Inside the taxpayer-funded program that treats American kids like enemy combatants," the result of a year-long investigation into the Rotenberg Educational Center by Jennifer Gonnerman: "Located in Canton, Massachusetts, the facility, which calls itself a "special needs school," takes in all kinds of troubled kids—severely autistic, mentally retarded, schizophrenic, bipolar, emotionally disturbed—and attempts to change their behavior with a complex system of rewards and punishments, including painful electric shocks to the torso and limbs. Of the 234 current residents, about half are wired to receive shocks, including some as young as nine or ten. Nearly 60 percent come from New York, a quarter from Massachusetts, the rest from six other states and Washington, D.C. The Rotenberg Center, which has 900 employees and annual revenues exceeding $56 million, charges $220,000 a year for each student. States and school districts pick up the tab."

Gonnerman's story, which was accompanied by hundreds of pages of court testimony, a photo essay, and statements by experts decrying the methods of its founder, Dr. Matthew Israel, prompted legislators in Massachusetts to renew their efforts to shut the facility down, assemblymen in New York to reopen an investigation of the facility, and new D.C. School Chancellor Michelle Rhee to investigate why the city's special ed program was sending its kids all the way to Canton. In addition, readers of our story organized themselves through our website's comments boards. One mother went to the Rotenberg Center to see what would befall her autistic child if she enrolled him there; students from Brandeis organized themselves to investigate and protest the Rotenberg Center.

In the last few days, developments on this story have been fast and furious. D.C. School Chancellor Michele Rhee and Mayor Adrian Fenty have promised to have all nine D.C. kids still at Rotenberg pulled from the program—after the local Washington angle on our story was reported out by the D.C. Examiner, the ever incompetent and corrupt D.C. special ed program told Rhee it would remove them, only to, you know, not. Heads supposedly will roll, dear God, please let one be special ed director Marla Oakes.

But the real news is that Massachusetts just released another damning report [PDF] on the Rotenberg Center, this one detailing an incident where a former patient had called into one of the Center's residential facilities and, posing as an administrator, told an orderly to wake two students, restrain and shock them, which they did, delivering 29 (!!) shocks to one student and 77 (!!!) to the other. Via the Patriot Ledger:

According to the report, as the two students protested that they were innocent and howled in pain, other student residents awoke in the night and shouted in protest, the report said. They told staff members the calls were a prank, but were told to go back to bed.

The two students complained they were in pain and asked to see a nurse, to no immediate avail. One, who screamed that his leg was "killing him,'' was found during a hospital examination the next day to have first-degree burn from the skin shocks. The other told staff members his blood pressure was racing and he felt as though he was about to have a stroke.

The report concludes that one employee "was physically abusive toward residents,'' while six others were negligent in their duties.

Here's a WNBC-NY news report of the incident, including a statement from Governor Elliot Spitzer saying that the practices at the Rotenberg Center are "wrong, and should be ended," and promising to pull NY kids from the program if allowed "the capacity to do so." (Right now, New York City is stymied from doing just that by an injunction filed by some parents of kids at the Rotenberg Center.)

The school and its founder Dr. Israel, of course, claim that this was "an isolated, unprecedented" incident. Just as it claimed back in 1981 when it was reported that "Israel had pinched the feet of Christopher Hirsch, an autistic 12-year-old, at least 24 times in 30 minutes, while the boy screamed and cried. This was a punishment for soiling his pants." Or when another student, 14-year-old Danny Aswad, died while strapped facedown to his bed. " Or when "Vincent Milletich, an autistic 22-year-old, suffered a seizure and died after he was put in restraints and forced to wear a white-noise helmet." Or when 19-year-old Linda Cornelison, who had the mental capacity of a toddler, refused to eat and was punished by staffers: "Between 3:52 p.m. and 8 p.m., staffers punished her with 13 spatula spankings, 29 finger pinches, 14 muscle squeezes, and 5 forced inhalings of ammonia. It turned out that Linda had a perforated stomach. She died on the operating table at 1:45 a.m." You can read about these tragic incidents and many, many, many others in Gonnerman's story.

My point is this. Not only has the particular strand of behaviorism that Dr. Israel peddles been completely debunked by other behaviorists again and again and again—"He's a very smart man, but he's an embarrassment to his profession," one says. "I've never been able to figure out if Matt is a little off-kilter and actually believes all this stuff, or whether he's just a clever businessman"—but even if there were any medical or scientific justification to such extreme aversive punishment, the way that it is carried out at the Rotenberg Center would undermine any potential therapeutic application.

As Gonnerman noted: "Behaviorism would seem to dictate that staff shock students immediately after they break the rules. But if employees learn about a misbehavior after it has occurred—by, say, reviewing surveillance footage—they may still administer punishment." And: "Employees are encouraged to use the element of surprise. 'Attempt to be as discreet as possible and hold the transmitter out of view of the student,' states the employee manual." "Employees shock students for a wide range of behaviors, from violent actions to less serious offenses, like getting out of their seats without permission. In 2006, the New York State Education Department sent a team of investigators, including three psychologists, to the Rotenberg Center, then issued a scathing report. Among its many criticisms was that the staff shocked kids for "nagging, swearing, and failing to maintain a neat appearance." Israel only disputes the latter. As for nagging and swearing? "Sometimes a behavior looks innocuous," he says, "but if it's an antecedent for aggression, it may have to be treated with an aversive."

And Gonnerman's story ends when she discovers that a malfunctioning device had been randomly shocking Luigi, a mentally retarded resident who'd done nothing wrong. Just another "unprecedented, isolated" incident.

But perhaps the most chilling episode in Gonnerman's story is this one: "One afternoon, when I walk into a classroom of teenagers, a 15-year-old girl catches my eye, smiles, and holds up a sheet of paper with a message written in pink marker: HELP US. She puts it back down and shuffles it into her stack of papers before anyone else sees."

The question is now before legislators in Massachusetts and elsewhere: Will anyone help these kids?

Update: Having all but ignored the Rotenberg controversy for years, it seems that the New York Times is finally working on a story about it. Welcome, paper of record!

"Don't Tase Me, Bro!" Named Most Memorable Quote Of 2007

Fred R. Shapiro, the editor of the Yale Book of Quotations, has determined that the plea, "Don't tase me, bro!" was the most memorable quotation of the year. The plea was made by University of Florida student Andrew Meyer on Sept. 17 as he was assaulted with a taser on the occasion of Sen. John Kerry's speech at the university.

Getting the number two nod was the remark made by the Miss Teen America contest's Lauren Upton, Miss Teen South Carolina, after she was asked why 20% of Americans cannot locate the U.S. on a map: "I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because some people out there in our nation don't have maps and I believe that our education like such as in South Africa and Iraq and everywhere like such as and I believe that they should our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S. or should help South Africa and should help Iraq and the Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future for us."

Anything that comes after that is anticlimactic, but here's number three: ""In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country," a remark made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

And--in case you're wondering where it is, coming in fourth was Don Imus's "That's some nappy-headed hos there."

Here is the rest of the top ten:

5. "I don't recall," which was said repeatedly by former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales during questioning at a congressional hearing about the firing of U.S. attorneys.

6. "There's only three things he (Republican presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani) mentions in a sentence: a noun and a verb and 9/11." Bad grammar aside, this was the handiwork of Sen. Josephy Biden.

7. "I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating." said Dick Cheney of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

8. "(I have) a wide stance when going to the bathroom." This is probably my personal favorite, and was, of course, Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig's explanation of why his foot touched that of an undercover policeman in a men's room. The Logo Channel has given this wonderful quotation a place in its gay dictionary. Usage: "Sheila, Larry's just not into you--he has a wide stance."

9. Sen. Biden makes the list a second time, discussing Sen. Barack Obama: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."

10. And finally, former president Jimmy Carter: "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history."

I wish there were a few specialized categories. For instance, Chris Matthews could probably have the top ten misogynistic quotations all on his own, with remarks like these:

"[Sen. Clinton gave a] barn-burner speech, which is harder to give for a woman; it can grate on some men when they listen to it--fingernails on a blackboard."

"[House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi will] have to do the good fight with the president over issues such as the minimum wage and prescription drugs. How does she do it without screaming? How does she do it without becoming grating?"

"[Sen. Clinton's] "clapping (at a victory event). I don't get it. It's just not appealing;" It's Chinese or something."

And let's not forget that George W. Bush is still at it:

"All of us in America want there to be fairness when it comes to justice."

"I heard somebody say, 'Where's (Nelson) Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead. Because Saddam killed all the Mandelas." (This came as a surprise, I'm sure, to Mr. Mandela.)

I'm honored to be here with the eternal general of the United States, mi amigo Alberto Gonzales."

"One of my concerns is that the health care not be as good as it can possibly be."

"The best way to defeat the totalitarian of hate is with an ideology of hope -- an ideology of hate --excuse me--with an ideology of hope."

Fred Thompson: (Hilariously) Lazy as Charged

I'm not going to bother block quoting this Politico article. It is so hilarious and so damaging to Fred Thompson, you're just going to have to read it yourself.

All of the rumors about Thompson—lazy, uninterested in campaigning—appear to be 100 percent true.

Update: Thompson is either delusional or trying to spin his way to the presidency. Despite the evidence seen at the link above, he told CNN that he has the fire in the belly to win in Iowa. "I've had my mojo the whole time." Right...

U.S.'s Dirty Work Behind Pakistani Political Crisis?

The New York Times reports today that Pervez Musharraf is acting quickly to release detainees who were held and interrogated with no paper trail or legal protections to get rid of evidence of the secret program. Detainees have been warned not to talk about their experiences, and in at least one case, an Arab man was released in Gaza, a direly impoverished region surrounded on all sides by Israel.

The Times article reveals that much of the ongoing political struggle in Pakistan stems from conflicts about the detention program. The political conflict began, you may remember, as a power struggle between Musharraf and Iftikar Chaudhry, the chief justice of the Supreme Court—who, in turns out, was attempting to force the dictator to bring the detainees into the court system. Musharraf subsequently removed Chaudhry, and lawyers took to the streets—lawyers who, in some cases, were attempting to represent the disappeared suspects.

One rationale Musharraf gave for imposing emergency rule in November was that the court was releasing suspected terrorists. In fact, it was simply demanding that detainees be charged or freed. You may also recall that Musharraf wasted no time rounding up and jailing human rights workers—who were also quite plausibly advocating for detainees. (The Times' sources are identified as "lawyers and human rights officials.")

A week into his emergency rule, Musharraf reinvigorated amended the 1952 Army Act "to allow civilians to be tried by military tribunals for general offenses. The tribunals are closed to the public and offer no right of appeal," according to the Times. For good measure, the amendment was made retroactive to January 2003, leaving no way to track any criminal charges since then.

To justify the move, a government spokesman said, "Sometimes it becomes difficult to prove a case, but you have reasons that a person poses a threat to humanity and to society."

Pakistan was almost certainly working with the United States in its efforts to interrogate, if not prosecute, the suspected terrorists. One recently released detainee reports that a white, English-speaking interrogator was in the room as his Pakistani captors tortured him.

Although the idea of U.S. officials presiding over the detention and torture of suspected terrorists may not scandalize you anymore, their participation in the detention and torture of ethnic minorities whose only crime is to support regional autonomy ought to. Among the disappeared are thousands of Baluchi and Sindhi nationalists who they have nothing to do with the war on terror.

Congress Looks to Tighten Military Contractor Accountability

Since her appearance last week on ABC's 20/20, former KBR contractor Jamie Leigh Jones has received a lot of attention, and understandably so. The 23-year-old Houston native alleges that in late July 2005, just four days after arriving in Baghdad's Green Zone, several of her KBR colleagues slipped drugs into her drink and, after she'd passed out, took turns raping her. The following morning, KBR security officers escorted Jones to a U.S. Army hospital, where a military physician confirmed she'd been sexually assaulted. A rape kit was assembled, including doctors' notes, photographs, and tissue swabs—the kind of evidence Jones would need to pursue criminal charges against her assailants. Then, without explanation, the physician handed the evidence over to the KBR security officer. Jones says that for the next 24 hours she was locked in a shipping container against her will and kept under armed guard, and was only rescued after the Gurkha guarding the door allowed her to use his cell phone to call her family in Texas, who, with the help of Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas), arranged for her return to Houston.

Such was the story recounted today as Jones, Poe, and expert witness Scott Horton, a Columbia University law professor who specializes in contractor accountability issues, testified before the House subcommittee on crime, terrorism, and homeland security. As the three witnesses explained, no criminal charges have been brought in the case, in part, because much of the rape kit evidence—presumably while in the custody of KBR officials—has been lost. (Another contributing factor is that Jones' employment contract included a binding arbitration agreement, preventing her from filing suit against the company. More on this subject is forthcoming from our own Stephanie Mencimer.)

As KBR employees working on contract for the U.S. Army, Jones' attackers are almost certainly covered under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, more simply known as MEJA, which subjects all civilians working abroad with U.S. armed forces to a defined legal code. But in today's hearing, several members of Congress drew attention to loopholes in the law, which may have enabled certain contractors to escape punishment for serious crimes. One obvious example involves the Blackwater contractors involved in the September 16 shooting in Baghdad's Nisoor Square, which left 17 Iraqi civilians dead and another 24 wounded; the shooters were in Iraq under a State Department contract and therefore may not be prosecuted under current MEJA regulations.

In Jones' case, MEJA seems to have fallen short for a different reason: a lack of investigative muscle in the Green Zone. According to Poe, the Department of Justice lacks investigators in Baghdad with responsibility for looking into crimes committed by private contractors against their own. Horton agreed, saying that the Justice Department "is effectively not present on the scene, does not have personnel deployed charged with conducting investigations, collecting evidence, and making preliminary decisions as to whether incidents are suitable for prosecution. This would require a team of FBI agents with appropriate training, including access to forensic labs and personnel."

Shortcomings in the current law stand to be closed by an amendment to MEJA, sponsored by Rep. David Price (D-N.C.). The bill, approved by the House and now awaiting consideration by the Senate, would bring all civilians, no matter their contracting agency, under MEJA's umbrella. More relevant to the Jones case, it would require the FBI to create "Theater Investigative Units" to look into civilian crimes and would mandate an annual FBI report to Congress, detailing the number of contractor-related complaints received, the number of cases referred to the attorney general for prosecution, and any recommended changes to the law that would better enable investigators to do their jobs.

For its part, the Justice Department refused to send a witness to today's hearing despite being invited to do so, claiming that Jones' case remains under investigation. Subcommittee members questioned the pace of the department's efforts, suggesting that official inattention has allowed KBR to sweep things under the rug. Near the end of the hearing, Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) seemed to speak for both sides of the aisle when he said, "There's something rotten in Denmark, and we better take care of it."