Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Low-wage strike comes to Chicago, Detroit, Flint, Mich.

They are holding signs and demanding better wages and treatment by the company.
Workers in Chicago picket Whole Foods market over pay, poor treatment.

Hundreds of workers joined the nationwide low-wage strike today, walking off retail and fast-food restaurant jobs in Chicago, Detroit and Flint, Mich. to protest low wages and abuse. It marked the third day of short strikes in cities across the country, part of a nationwide movement to raise wages and end retaliation for organizing a union.

In Detroit and Flint, the low-wage strike forced restaurant closings. Large rallies were held in Chicago outside of Whole Foods, McDonald’s and Checkers, while some fast-food workers took their message to the community.
Workers in other industries have joined the revolt. Teamster paramedics and EMTs in El Centro, Calif., are in the fourth day of a strike to fight low wages paid by Gold Cross Ambulance. Teamsters are even now protesting pharmaceutical distributor McKesson’s retaliations against workers at a Lakeland, Fla., warehouse. They are engaging in a rally and shareholder action at McKesson’s annual meeting in San Francisco.

A wave of labor unrest has hit low-wage employers since last fall, when fast-food workers first went on strike in New York City. Since then, a series of short, sudden one-day strikes captured the news media’s attention and elicited sympathy from a broader public. Revelations of extravagant CEO pay have helped galvanize the movement, as worker productivity rose and wages fell since the end of the 2008 recession.
Today in the Windy City, Fight for Fifteen reported more than 200 employees picketed in front of a Whole Foods market at midday to bring attention to poverty wages and the company’s poor treatment of them. Strikers demanded higher pay and an end to Whole Foods’ arbitrary point system used to punish workers.

Circling in front of the supermarket entrance, video of the event showed energetic employees making clear they are not going to stand for mistreatment anymore. Among the chants heard were:
“Hey workers, I’ve got a story. Let’s tell the whole world this is union territory!” as well as “When workers are under attack what do we do? Stand up, fight back!”


They are demanding better pay and treatment.
Detroit workers demand fair pay at fast-food restaurant.
Earlier in the day, fast-food workers in Chicago, Detroit and Flint made their voices heard both inside and outside restaurants such as McDonald’s and Checkers. McDonald’s employees at different outlets used the same line to criticize the hamburger giant:
Hold your burgers, hold your fries, make our wages super-sized.
Workers also took the low-wage strike into the community. Workers at a McDonald’s in Chicago’s Albany Park neighborhood, for instance, began handing out leaflets in the surrounding area to raise awareness about their plight. Detroit organizers, meanwhile, used Twitter to call on the public to sign online petitions to show their solidarity with fast-food workers in their push for a living wage.
In all, employees from 80 restaurant chains in Detroit and Flint walked off the job. Organizers in Chicago said workers from 26 fast-food and retail chains were expected to strike as well. They join the low-wage strike started this week by workers in New York City, St. Louis and Kansas City who  are fighting for higher wages and the right to form a union without retaliation.
You can help out by signing the petition here and giving a “Like” to the “Low Pay Is Not OK” Facebook page here.
Any source

カネボウまだら被害者画像と倒産危機

カネボウがまだら被害者の調査に、2週間の時間がかかっています。カネボウは化粧品会社として倒産危機の不祥事と言えますが、花王ブランドに変更の可能性もありそうですね。


(1)企業不祥事と倒産

企業不祥事は、企業のイメージが大きく悪化しますので、倒産することがあります。ライオンズ歯科は、インプラント治療で有名でしたが週刊文春による報道で、顧客離れが起きており倒産しています。

カネボウ倒産と粉飾決算で倒産した理由についてまとめましたが、花王が化粧品部門の買収を行っています。カネボウは花王の子会社であるため倒産することはないですが、化粧品のまだら被害者拡大により、カネボウのブランドが消滅する可能性もありそうですね。

(2)カネボウ化粧品が白斑の原因調査を放置

カネボウ白斑原因と倒産危機について、2013年7月31日の毎日新聞が、<カネボウ>「白斑」調査せず 医師報告から2週間を報じているので見てみましょう。
カネボウ化粧品の美白化粧品で、肌がまだらに白くなる「白斑」の症状が出ている問題で、カネボウ化粧品が今年5月中旬に症状が出ていることを医師からの連絡で把握していたにもかかわらず、調査を始めるまでに2週間かかっていたことが31日、分かった
カネボウは、まだらの報告が医師からあった後も放置しており、原因調査が遅れたことで被害者が拡大していることが分かります。
  • 2013年5月13日 医療機関から、まだら被害者の指摘
  • カネボウは2週間情報を放置
  • 2013年5月27日 カネボウ化粧品が調査開始
カネボウ倒産と粉飾決算により、花王が買収していますが、日本有数の化粧品ブランドとして有名な企業ですね。カネボウのような大企業が、2週間情報を放置すれば、利用者数が多いので被害が拡大することは言うまでもないですね。

カネボウ白斑被害の隠蔽と倒産危機で説明しましたが、8月になって、2012年10月に情報を把握していたことが報じられています。カネボウの初動が遅いのは、このときと同様に、自主回収するつもりがなかったのか気になりますね。

(3)カネボウは皮膚科医からの症状の連絡放置

消費者庁によると、カネボウ化粧品は、5月13日に皮膚科医から「製品を使用して肌がまだらに白くなった人が3人いる」などと症状に関する連絡を受けていた。しかし、同社研究員がこの皮膚科医を訪問したのは2週間後の5月27日で、この直後から調査を始めたという。
カネボウは、皮膚科医から製品の症状について具体的な報告を受けていますが、皮膚科医を訪問することが遅れています。カネボウのまだらの原因は、ロドネノールと呼ばれる白樺の樹皮などを原料にして独自開発した製品ですので、皮膚科医では成分が分からなかった可能性が高いですね。

カネボウ自主回収商品その後と倒産危機を見ると、これ以前に報告があるという話もありますが、製品回収は20%台であり、ほとんどの化粧品が使用済みですね。カネボウの初動の遅れにより、情報集が行われている途中であり、まだら被害者の原因は、まだ分かりませんね。

(4)カネボウは電話連絡や医師を訪問したのか

これに対し、カネボウ化粧品の広報担当者は「医療機関から連絡を受けた研究所が、医師に直接会って詳細を伺いたいと判断し、すぐに面会を申し込んだが、結果的に医師に会えたのが27日だった。それまでは、研究所の中でしか情報が共有できていなかった。遅いと言われればその通りで申し訳ない」と話している。
カネボウはまだら被害者の把握が遅れた理由の言い訳を行っていますが、電話連絡やメールでのやりとりがどのようなものであったのか公開すれば信憑性が増しますね。

カネボウは面会を申し込んだとしていますが、医師が忙しい場合でも2週間の間に、直接訪問して休憩時間や勤務後に接触を試みたのか気になりますね。

(5)カネボウの化粧品ブランド消滅の可能性も

  1. カネボウ化粧品のブランド価値が失墜
  2. まだら被害の事後対応の不祥事
  3. 8600人超から健康被害や不安の申し出 2013年7月25日時点
  4. 4061人に被害 2013年7月31日発表
  5. カネボウ化粧品のまだら被害の症状を訴える人が増加中
カネボウはロドネノールが、まだらになった原因も解明できておらず、皮膚でのテストが不十分であった可能性もあります。

カネボウは、まだら被害者の把握が遅れたことで現在も被害者の把握が終わっておらず、被害者が増加しています。カネボウのイメージは大きく悪化しており、ブランド消滅の可能性もありますが、花王の子会社でなければ倒産危機となっていたでしょうね。

カネボウ白斑画像 自主回収と倒産の可能性でまとめましたが、対象商品一覧と販売先を見ると海外にも販売しています。カネボウは現状、保険外治療を認めておらず、今後の対応に注目している方が多いでしょうね。Any source

Disciplinary Commission Gave Gov. Mitch Daniels A Pass When He Publicly Attacked The Integrity Of A Judge

Former Gov. Mitch Daniels is a licensed attorney in the state of Indiana subject to the same rules of professional conduct just like any other attorney admitted to practice law in this state, although Daniels has maintained his license in an inactive status for a number of years during his public service. Unlike fellow attorney and blogger Paul Ogden, who faces the potential suspension of his license to practice law in this state because of comments he made in a private e-mail critical of a judge's handling of a probate estate matter in Hendricks County, the Indiana Attorney Disciplinary Commission took no action against then-Gov. Daniels when he didn't like a Court of Appeals' decision declaring Indiana's Voter ID law unconstitutional and publicly attacked the integrity of the judge who authored the opinion. As WISH-TV reported at the time, Daniels had particularly sharp words for Judge Patricia Riley:
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels called the ruling "transparently partisan", and promised an appeal.  He said, "It's a preposterous decision, an extreme decision and came in this case from a judge who's been reversed before and I expect it to happen again."
The governor went on to call the ruling an act of judicial arrogance.
The Indiana State Bar Association responded swiftly to Daniels' comments by releasing the following statement:
On Thursday, Sept. 17, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued a ruling in Indiana League of Women Voters v. Rokita, the “voter ID” case, and Gov. Mitch Daniels commented on the decision and the judges who heard the case. While the Indiana State Bar Association (ISBA) recognizes that Gov. Daniels has championed the cause of judicial independence, the State Bar is nevertheless compelled to emphasize that comments such as those attributed to the governor are not helpful in advancing appropriate respect for the courts and the judicial process, and honoring the separation of powers doctrine.
The ISBA respects the governor’s, and every citizen’s, right to disagree with the decision. There are rules, however, that govern judicial conduct and appropriate procedures for dealing with complaints about the judiciary. Comments about individual judges are not the way to express disagreement with any court opinion.
What Ogden is accused of doing doesn't come close to approaching the potential harm Gov. Daniels' comments had on the public's respect for the judiciary as the state's highest elected official responsible for administering its laws and an attorney admitted to practice law in this state. Yet Ogden faces the destruction of his professional career, while Gov. Daniels goes on to be hired by the Purdue University Trustees he appointed as the university's president earning nearly a half million dollars a year. Fellow blogger and attorney Sheila Kennedy hits the nail on the head with her observations in a post titled, "Trading the First Amendment for a Law License?":
The facts are fairly simple: Ogden represented a client before Hendricks Superior Court Judge David H. Coleman. In a private email,  he criticized the Judge, opining that he had a conflict of interest. At the time he wrote the email–and again, I note that this was a private communication–the judge had already been removed from the case for failing to act within an appropriate period of time.
It is unclear how the judge even found out about the email, but he did, and demanded an apology. Ogden refused. ( Paul is one of those people who will stand on principle even when doing so will clearly cost him.) Had he apologized, that would have been the end of it. Since he didn’t–he faces loss of his license to practice law.
Think about that for a minute. A “transgression” that could be cured by a simple apology is nevertheless so serious that the Disciplinary Commission can respond by destroying a lawyer’s ability to make a living. And what is that transgression? “Defaming” a judge by criticizing him in a private email.
As a recovering lawyer, I find this seeming vendetta very troubling. As a lifelong civil libertarian, I find it dangerous.
The Disciplinary Rule prohibiting certain criticisms of courts and the justice system is there for a reason–it is meant to avoid statements that might prejudice a case, or demean the legal process and thus respect for the rule of law. Imposing that rule in a case where a lawyer has publicly cast aspersions on a judge or court can be justified–although even then, there are limits imposed by the free speech provisions of the First Amendment . . .
In this case, the argument that criticisms of the court undermine public confidence in the justice system is simply not tenable, because the criticism was not public. And a comment in a private communication, made after the judge no longer sat on the case, could hardly prejudice the outcome . . .
 The larger question, of course, is whether the receipt of a license to practice law comes with a condition that the recipient relinquish the future exercise of his or her First Amendment free speech rights. If so, those considering the practice of law might be well advised to rethink that choice.
This disparate treatment in the enforcement of rules governing attorneys is nothing new in Indiana. Former Indiana Attorney General Jeff Modisett was allowed to stand on the federal courthouse steps and tear apart a decision written by a federal court judge dismissing a lawsuit he brought on behalf of the state against tobacco companies, telling reporters words to the effect that the opinion wasn't the worth the paper on which it was written. Indiana Supreme Court Justice Mark Massa was given a pass during his campaign for Marion Co. Prosecutor when he questioned his opponent's qualifications, Terry Curry, because he had represented a child molester in a case earlier in his career. The Indianapolis Bar Association criticized the comments of both Modisett and Massa, but the Disciplinary Commission found nothing about their comments that rose to the level of a disciplinary complaint, even though their comments were made publicly and not privately as Ogden's comments were made.

Chew on these additional tidbits. In January, Indianapolis criminal defense lawyer Paul Page entered a federal courtroom in South Bend, Indiana and entered a guilty plea reached with federal prosecutors whereby he admitted to defrauding a federally-insured institution to obtain a loan for a building he purchased with former Marion Co. Prosecutor Carl Brizzi to lease to the state's Department of Child Services under a sweetheart deal with the administration of Gov. Daniels. Page's crime is a felony offense carrying a sentence of up to 20 years in prison. In May, Brizzi's former chief deputy prosecutor, David Wyser, reached a plea agreement with federal prosecutors in the Southern District of Indiana whereby he admitted to accepting a bribe in the form of a campaign contribution for his prosecutor's campaign from the father of an incarcerated woman who had been convicted of hiring another man to kill her husband. Wyser agreed to a sentence modification that sprung his benefactor's daughter from prison early in exchange for the campaign contribution. Wyser's guilty plea to a single felony count of bribery carries a maximum prison sentence of ten years. What action has the Disciplinary Commission taken against the law licenses of Page and Wyser to date? Nothing according to the Indiana Roll of Attorneys.

UPDATE: The Indiana Lawyer's Dave Stafford has a lengthy story here discussing Ogden's hearing yesterday, which was open to the public only because Ogden insisted that it be.

Here are some facts to chew on regarding the handling of this estate. You decide whether you would be satisfied that Judge Coleman handled the case properly:
  • The unsupervised estate was open for nearly five years before Judge Coleman was removed from the case after Ogden, who entered an appearance at the tail end of Coleman's handling of the case on behalf of one of the heirs, filed a lazy judge motion to remove him from the case after he failed to timely rule on a motion, leading to the appointment of a special judge, who got the case closed within about another year after continuously prodding the estate's attorney and personal representative to act.
  • The first judge assigned to the case had it for only about four months before it was reassigned to Judge Coleman, who had it for the next 4 1/2 years.
  • Under the Indiana Probate Code (IC 29-1-7.5-3.8), an unsupervised estate is supposed to be closed "as promptly as possible", or "within one year" of it being opened. If it is not, the personal representative is required to file a statement with the court explaining why the estate hasn't been closed. "Coleman acknowledged under cross-examination that he had not filed notice of an estate open longer than one year," the Indiana Lawyer's Dave Stafford reported. In Marion County, one-year deadline notices are automatically sent to the attorney and personal representative by the court. If no explanatory notice is filed with the court requesting additional time, the court will set the case for a show cause hearing and repeat that process until the estate is closed. Bob York, the attorney hearing the case for the Disciplinary Commission, claims judges never issue orders sua sponte. "York challenged Ogden on why he didn’t file motions on those matters and asked him to show a case in which a judge had issued such orders sua sponte," Stafford wrote. "It doesn’t happen," York said.
  • Under the Indiana Probate Code (IC 29-1-7.5-3.2), the personal representative is required to prepare a verified inventory of the estate's assets within 60 days after his or her appointment. In the case of this estate, no inventory was prepared until 28 months after the estate was opened.
  • There was conflicting testimony about the extent of Judge Coleman's relationship with the Carr family. Ogden's client, Randy Carr, insists that Judge Coleman "was a friend of his family who’d joined his father at Christmas parties in the past, and that his father had millions of dollars squirreled away. Robert Carr Jr. testified none of those accusations were true and that his brother has 'issues.'" "But Randy Carr had informed Harris of conflicts he said Coleman had, and Harris conveyed those concerns to Coleman," Stafford reports. "The judge declined to recuse himself, saying he could find no conflict. Randy Carr said the judge also denied his request for an outside accounting of the estate."
  • The e-mail of Ogden's that Judge Coleman found offensive, among other things, according to Stafford stated "that Coleman 'should be turned in to the disciplinary commission for how he handled this case. If this case would have been in Marion County with a real probate court with a real judge, the stuff that went on with this case never would have happened.'" "Ogden claimed, among other things, that the estate’s value dwindled from about $1 million to almost nothing due to improper oversight." "The opposing attorney on the trust case, Steven Harris of Mooresville, denied there were problems with the estate and instead characterized questionable disbursements as honest mistakes that were repaid when discovered," Stafford wrote. 
  • According to Ogden, the estate's attorney billed over $40,000 for his fees, while the heirs received a distribution of only about $8,000 a piece after he claims the personal representative laid waste to the estate. I would note that the attorney's fees in this case exceeded the maximum fees recommended by the Probate Committee of the Indiana Judicial Conference for supervised estates absent extraordinary circumstances and the necessity of undertaking certain transactions based on Ogden's assertions concerning the size of the estate.
  • “I don’t know of anything I did wrong on this case,” Coleman testified.
Any source

SECRET DARPA MIND CONTROL PROJECT REVEALED: LEAKED DOCUMENT

Whistleblower Reveals Military Mind Control Project At Major University
Activist Post
July 28, 2013
What if the government could change people's moral beliefs or stop political dissent through remote control of people's brains?
 

ED Noor: Make it fun! Suddenly the idea of wearing a tin foil cap is not so bad sounding after all!
 
Sounds like science fiction, right? Well, a leaked document reveals that the US government, through DARPA research, is very close to accomplishing this.

Activist Post was recently contacted by an anonymous whistleblower who worked on a secret ongoing mind-control project for DARPA. The aim of the program is to remotely disrupt political dissent and extremism by employing "Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation" (TMS) in tandem with sophisticated propaganda based on this technology. TMS stimulates the temporal lobe of the brain with electromagnetic fields.

The program, conducted by The Center for Strategic Communication, is based at Arizona State University. The DARPA funding for this project can be confirmed on the ASU website here. The head of the project, Steve Corman, has worked extensively in the area of strategic communication as it applies to terrorism and "extremism" ~ or what could be called "the war of ideas."

Corman’s latest project Narrating The Exit From Afghanistan and his many presentations make it quite obvious that the mission is to shape the narrative and literally change people's minds. Lest one believe it will be contained to overseas extremists, we should keep in mind that the word extremist is increasingly used domestically. The dissenters of yesterday could easily become the terrorist sympathizers and supporters of political violence tomorrow.
This DARPA research brings about many ethical questions and dilemmas.

Mainly, this research aims to literally induce or disrupt the operation of narratives within the brain.

In other words, this research aims to stop individuals from thinking certain thoughts and make others believe things they normally would not believe.
This research has tremendous interrogation possibilities and could potentially be used to more successfully spread propaganda or stop political upheaval to an unsuspecting public.

This research is being conducted by The Center for Strategic Communication at ASU and is entitled “Toward Narrative Disruptors and Inductors: Mapping the Narrative Comprehension Network and its Persuasive Effects”  A detailed overview of the project can be found in the document below. Highlights include:
In phase 3 of the research, the research group will “selectively alter aspects of narrative structure and brain functions via Transcranial Magnetic Simulation (TMS) to induce or disrupt selected features of narrative processing.” (Page 16, emphasis added)
TMS is a very powerful tool used to impair the brain functioning of individuals. See the videos below for a brief demonstration of the effects of TMS

~ Once the research group determines which parts of the brain are associated with cognitive reasoning and narrative comprehension, they will be attempt to impair those sections in order to “create a fundamental basis for understanding how to disrupt or enhance aspects of narrative structure and/or brain functioning to minimize or maximize persuasive effects on subject proclivity to engage in political violence.” (Page 23) 
~ Once it is determined that disruption of certain portions of the brain can enhance persuasive messaging, individuals can be persuaded to do things they normally would not do and believe things they normally would not believe. This could include something as simple as telling a closely guarded secret, to believing in government propaganda, or even committing a violent act. The group writes on page 26, “once we have produced a narrative comprehension model [i.e., how individuals comprehend stories and persuasive messages], end users [aka the government] will understand how to activate known neural networks (e.g., working memory or attention) and positive behavioural outcome (e.g., nonviolent actions) nodes with strategic communication messages as a means to reduce incidences of political violence in contested populations.” The group will investigate “possibilities for literally disrupting the activity of the NCN [narrative comprehension network] through Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation.” (Page 30) [Text added] 

~ The group is so confident that they will be able to induce or disrupt the operations of narratives in the brain, that they say on page 26 that the research “offers the capability to induce or disrupt the operation of narratives in the brain, and develops the capability to induce narrative validity [i.e., the believability of a particular narrative/message], transportation [i.e., the ability to be engaged by a narrative], and integration [i.e., associating a particular narrative with a larger, more culturally specific narrative] with certainty.” [Text added
The group gives the following example of this projects usefulness: “If it is the case that activation in one particular neural network enables people to connect personal narrative to master narratives [i.e., cultural narratives], by disrupting activity in that brain area, we should be able to selectively impair that specific aspect of narrative processing while holding other meaning making processes constant, effectively creating a ‘narrative disruptor.’ Not only would this be an important finding in the science of neural networks and narrative persuasion, but would also have considerably practical and strategic importance.” (Page 40) [Text added]
Essentially, the research aims to literally disrupt how people think and comprehend ideas and messages.
~ Further, and perhaps even more terrifying, on page 40, the group writes, “Mechanical disruptions of narrative processing may be, ultimately, replicated in through targeted strategic communication campaigns that approximate the narrative disruptions induced via magnetic stimulation.” 

So, after figuring out which parts of the brain are activated by particular persuasive messages and propaganda, the government can test out messages that only activate particular portions of the brain and not others, in order to persuade individuals to believe or not believe something. 

Essentially, they are attempting to modify brain functioning without TMS, and only words. One can only imagine the strategies the government could use with this technology. They could make the public believe almost anything that suits their needs. It could literally lead to mass brainwashing.
But what does this mean, practically?
It means that if this research succeeds, the government will be able to modify how one personally thinks. They could strap you in a chair, put a machine to your head, turn off parts of your brain, introduce a persuasive message, and make you believe it.

Further, through extensive research, they may be able to replicate the machine’s brain disrupting functioning simply through carefully crafted and researched persuasive messages and propaganda. They can use brain imaging to determine which portions of the brain are activated when a particular message is presented to an individual, and if the “right” portions are activated, they know the message will circumvent one’s mental reasoning and lead to almost automatic acceptance.
With enough data, the government could spread propaganda through the media that people will almost automatically believe, whether it is true or not.

In terms of interrogation possibilities, Transcranical Magnetic Stimulation can be forced upon individuals to make them believe certain things, say certain things, and perhaps admit to acts they did not actually commit (as the TMS can induce narrative validity), or commit acts they normally would not commit.

The government is literally trying to brainwash the public. This is not science fiction. Technology has made it possible to induce and disrupt cognitive functioning in individuals. In the future, your thoughts may not be your own, but ones that have been implanted into your brain through exceedingly successful and validated propaganda.

Meeting notes indicate concern about how the project will be perceived, particularly the focus on the Christian/Muslim element.

We encourage you to embed these documents on your own website or blog and share them with everyone you know.Page numbers listed above are based on Scribd conversion below; enter the page number you wish to view in the Scribd search box.




ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

In 2002 The Economist noted that neuroscience would be the future of mind control. Well, now we're evidently here. This area of study has received $100 million in funding via Obama's ten-year BRAIN Project, as well as a $1.3 billion commitment from Europe.
The human brain is seen as the final frontier, and is being explored from every angle conceivable.
The above investments are openly discussed. The same is true for the National Nanotechnology Initiative 2011 Strategic Plan. This 60-page document lays out a projected future "to understand and control matter" for the management of every facet of human life in the areas of environment, health and safety. Twenty-five U.S. Federal agencies are participating. 

Concurrently, there is heavy military funding through agencies such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). This raises the question of transparency when a "black budget" often justifies total secrecy in the name of national security. 

Advancements in neuroscience are coming at an exponential rate, as each day seems to headline a new breakthrough. For example, it recently has been announced that: 
~ "Neural Dust" is being researched, which could enable remote spying on the human brain. 
~ A new microchip can mimic the brain and imitate the brain's information processing in real time.
These are mainstream announcements
and can no longer be dismissed as conspiracy theory.

For now, there appears to be a lot of parsing of words within the ASU project to stress that this is about "persuasion" not "influence" which can be seen in the meeting notes. It's also repeatedly mentioned that there is not a desire to organically change the brain itself, but to focus on the story being told and how to properly disseminate information ~ propaganda, in other words. 
Finally, there is the troubling note about focusing on the Christian/Muslim narrative as exemplary of the extremism which needs to be reprogrammed.
Given what we know about the other military research into direct mind control, any benign assertions of this project at ASU must be called into question. The fact that members of this group were divided into teams red and blue to construct arguments for and against if word were to get out to "activists" and the public is additionally troubling.

If we combine all of this information with other releases about The Pentagon's work with "narrative networks," reported on by the BBC, it becomes clear that now is the time to discuss ethics, as no one in the scientific and military communities seems eager to bring possible attacks on our free will to the forefront.

Will you take the red pill or the blue pill? We would love to hear your thoughts about what has been revealed. Activist Post would also like to call on all experts in this field of research and/or other whistleblowers to come forward and bring out into the open what is being covered up. This technology could affect us all.

NOTE: An e-mail sent to the program director at ASU requesting comments on this research did not receive a response.

Other important research links:
Any source

Nicklinson-Lamb euthanasia ruling welcomed but 'Martin' assisted suicide ruling carries danger for disabled people

SPUC Pro-Life www.spuc.org.uk has welcomed the fact that the murder law has been upheld in today’s judgment in the Nicklinson and Lamb euthanasia cases.

However, the majority judgment in the case of the anonymous third man, 'Martin', is deeply disturbing. Commenting on this, Paul Tully, SPUC Pro-Life's general secretary, told the media earlier today:
"If implemented it could encourage the pro-euthanasia lobby to recruit paid medical and legal professionals to organise the suicides of suffering and disabled people. The majority judges have done a disservice to disabled people by suggesting that the DPP’s prosecution guidance for assisted suicide should be amended based on Martin’s situation. 

This is the kind of outcome that pro-euthanasia campaigners were seeking, and it is clear that if it is put into effect, many more disabled people could be channelled towards assisted suicide.

The present prosecution guidance has been criticised by disability rights groups for being too lax. Low prosecution statistics suggest that it is in need of tightening, rather than further relaxation. However, despite the DPP’s reluctance to bring prosecutions for criminally assisted suicide in recent years, the number of cases, mainly abroad, has remained low. There is little to show for the huge media support and vast legal expenses incurred by the pro-euthanasia lobby.

The DPP’s published guidance omitted a highly contentious point, which had been included in a draft version, saying that disability in the victim would be a factor tending against prosecution of someone trying to help that person commit suicide. Many disability rights groups had objected to being singled out in this way.

The guidance also holds that if any individual is involved in assisting suicide in a professional or paid capacity it should weigh in favour of prosecution. 

In the 'Martin' judgment, the court appears to challenge these elements of the policy, calling Martin a 'paradigm' instance of why this should be allowed. 

Care and support for severely disabled or paralysed people who express a wish to die should be shown in the same way as for those without disability – by practical expressions of solidarity with them, such as working to improve pain control. The truly compassionate response to people with severe disability means helping them overcome any sense of worthlessness, not confirming such feelings by unethically (and illegally) helping to kill them."
Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacyAny source

Ethical campaigners saddened by final approval of Wales opt-out organ bill

Ethical campaigners have expressed their sadness following final approval of a bill in Wales to create an opt-out system for organ transplantation.

Members of SPUC's Wales region are saddened that the Secretary of State for Wales has decided not to use his powers to block the Human Transplantation (Wales) Bill from being sent to Her Majesty the Queen for Royal Assent (see note below). 

Michael Wendell Thomas, vice-chairman of SPUC's Wales region, told the media earlier today:
"A collective weight of opinion has demonstrated that implementation of the Bill will be fraught with risk. This opinion has been presented by medical and ethical professionals, faith communities (Christian, Muslim and Jewish), patient care organisations, plus the vast number of people who made individual submissions to the Welsh Government during three years of consultations.

"The case for 'deemed consent' as a valid form of consent was not investigated by the Welsh Assembly's Health or Legislative Committees. The only basis for this kind of law is that the Welsh Government has deemed it so. This is probably the most important law that the Welsh Assembly has ever passed, seeing that it deals with the rights and lives and health of every Welsh resident. It therefore reflects very severely on the reputation of Wales, of devolution, and of all Welsh Assembly members, as well as the current Wales Government. To the ordinary non-lawyer, 'deemed consent' is a meaningless idea; to many eminent or expert people, such as the Archbishop of Wales, it is a "fiction". True consent is explicit and voluntary, and is the only sound basis for laws concerning personal autonomy and permission to remove someone’s organs.

The Bill as described by successive Assembly Health Ministers and the First Minister was for a 'soft' opt-out option, with a family veto on 'deemed consent' cases, as supported by the First Minister (see note 2 below). However, the version of the bill passed by the Assembly on 2 July is for a 'hard' opt-out system. Public and expert submissions had therefore been made on a false premise.

Evidence has shown the current voluntary organ donation system to be successful. However, the number of organs available for transfer has fallen recently. Some feared that the new legislation could lead to more patients on the waiting-list dying before organs became available. It is highly unlikely that, even if the bill does produce more organs, it will save the lives of those Welsh people on the waiting-list.

There is also a myriad of cross-border and human rights issues which will arise once the legislation is implemented.

Members of SPUC's Wales region will remain vigilant regarding this ill-considered piece of legislation. We will campaign wherever possible to mitigate the effects that it may have on the weak and vulnerable in our midst. We shall also seek to ensure that the professional standards of clinicians involved in organ removal are not eroded by pressures from unscrupulous people to produce ever-more organs for transplant, irrespective of the dangers to those dying. We remain committed to real, voluntary and informed organ donation by the individual dying patient."
Notes:

1. Powers granted under section 114 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, under which, after receiving legal advice, the Secretary of State can make an order prohibiting the Clerk from submitting the bill for Royal Assent.

2. "We have decided on soft presumed consent, where relatives can veto organ donation", Observer, 9 May 2010.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacyAny source

Multiple Personality Spiv Spills Beans

Of all the people that could have been made chairman of the Tory Party, some bright spark must have thought that Grant “Spiv” Shapps (aka Michael Green) was a good choice. Sadly, this amateur human being turned out to be the modern day equivalent of Joe Walker, Flash Harry, and Arthur Daley rolled into one. But chairman he is, and so chairman’s speech he had to give today.
Roll up ladies and gents, on sale today only

Sadly, Shapps may be good at selling the dodgiest of motahs, but sounding coherent and sincere in his role as Tory chairman is beyond him. But his clumsy delivery today has been most useful in confirming one thing: Lynton Crosby is calling the shots behind the scenes. Shapps underscores this at the beginning, with a call for his party to rise from their collective slumber.

I know the summer is not a traditional time for political speech, so apologies for rousing you from your deck chairs, but there is a certain urgency to what I want to say and less than two years left to get this message across”. As Benedict “famous last words” Brogan revealed yesterday, Crosby has been imposing earlier starts and longer hours on the Tories. That’s where Shapps’ reference comes from.
Man with hand up chairman's back

Another Crosby tell-tale is the direct and blatant use of dishonesty, and Shapps pulled this one next: “I’m not making this up – Labour has actually been working on this policy, which, taken to its logical conclusion, could allow prisoners, serving a life sentence at Her Majesty’s Pleasure, to be entitled to housing benefit[and] exploit the Human Rights Act to secure their newfound human rights to claim welfare”.
Yes folks, he’s not making this up, one careful owner, lovely runner, I’ll even throw in six months’ tax, now you can’t say fairer than that. But seriously, that’s the same kind of crap that Crosby was pulling with Bozza’s re-election campaign, with such corkers as “Ken admits Boris has built many more affordable homes than he ever did. A record 50000 in first term” (the net, and verified, number was rather less).
Then there is the exhortation not to go back to some horror story revision of what the previous Government did: with the London Mayoral election, it was “Imagine going back to the days when ...”. Now, it’s “handing the keys right back to the people who crashed the economy in the first place. Same Old Labour forcing Brits to live the pain again”. And Free Schools would be closed, to which many will respond “Meh”.

So there you have yet more evidence that Lynton Crosby is driving the Tory policy van. And, talking of vans, I do hope the UKBA staff and their “Go home” vans are spreading their search for those overstaying their visas across all racial groups. Like Australians. Not that I’m suggesting Lynt might not have got his visa up to date, you understand. I mean, imagine going back to that sort of thing!

Or, in other words, exactly what Crosby has got the Tories doing right now.
Any source