May 5, 2006
New Articles
TeenScreen - Stealing Our Children's Future
http://www.newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/guest89.htm
by Jeanyne Wanner
AIM Cameras at Post Meetings?
http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff94.htm
by Cliff Kincaid
TEEN-SCREEN - STEALING OUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE
By Jeanyne Wanner
May 5, 2006
NewsWithViews.com
Preamble
Our next generation of children is in grave danger. TeenScreen is working insidiously in schools to find children who can become the psychiatric/pharmaceutical industry's next cash cow. Bolstered by Bush's very stupidly named "New Freedom Commission," TeenScreen is being pushed secretly into schools. This may be good for the drug business but is very bad for our children and, factually, for the future of this entire society.
Article
How do you disable an entire generation? Truth be told, it's actually very simple. You just have to get to the children while they are young, before they are able to speak for themselves. You convince the parents of these children that their children are victims, victims of something not under their control, something sinister yet not scientifically measurable.
You create "disorders" and catalogue them in authoritative tomes that no one would dare question. You heavily promote these vague "disorders" or "mental illnesses," whose symptoms are general enough to encompass almost anyone at any time. You then offer dangerous drugs as the solution to these "mental disorders." You downplay the host of terrible side effects attendant to these drugs, up to and including death, according to the latest FDA warnings. You hide the fact that the drugs will destroy the children's spontaneity, decisiveness, and their right to experience life unfettered by chemical constraints.
With the creation of unfounded, unproven disorders you would have eliminated the trail of accountability and opened the doors to all manner of subjective evaluation, speculation and outright hypocrisy. It is then easy to create panic - "look what might happen to your child if you don't take action. He or she could be learning disabled, never have a normal life, commit suicide, harm others etc. If you don't put him on mind-altering, deadly drugs, he'll certainly turn to street drugs."
You would then assume an air of authority and respectability unearned, but most times unquestioned to carry out your seemingly humanitarian tasks, claiming fraudulently that you alone understand the intricate workings of the mind.
Sound like a plot out of a science fiction or political conspiracy novel? Look around. This is real. It is happening in our society at this time in broad view, publicized, promoted, heavily funded and backed by one of the largest lobbying forces on Capital Hill. It is the psychiatric/pharmaceutical cartel intent on drugging our entire nation for profit, starting with our children. The latest foray into our society is the insidious TeenScreen, a suicide screening program, put forth as a solution to save our younger generation from what psychiatry is promoting as an epidemic of teen suicides.
However, TeenScreen lies. There is no epidemic. In actuality, in my state, Florida, there have been a total of 250 child and teen suicides in the last 5 years. That's an average of 50 a year out of millions of young people. Each one is a tragedy but this is hardly an epidemic.
What the psychiatric community has also failed to mention was that a majority of those 250 who committed suicide had received psychiatric treatment, with most of them on one or more psychiatric drugs. Some of these drugs carry black warning labels from the FDA stating that they can cause violence and suicide in young people. If psychiatry failed those young people and maybe even contributed to their death, why would we deliver more children into their clutches?
TeenScreen, no matter their claims, is just part of a machine intent on feeding our children, through the schools, into the giant psychiatric/pharmaceutical system, from which many will never escape.
After your child answers the personal and decidedly invasive questionnaire about themselves and your family, that is TeenScreen, the next step on their journey is the interpretation of that questionnaire by a "mental health expert" who, more often that not, is able to identify a "real risk," which has somehow escaped that child's well-meaning parents.
Oh my God, my Bobby or Jenny at risk of possible suicide? What kind of a parent would I be not to act on this news? I should take them to an expert!
Of course, this is just psychiatric subjectivity. There is no trail of evidence, no science, no medical testing and no proof as to what might be wrong with your child. But they are the experts! And they are concerned about your children to the tune of tens of billions of dollars a year! Perhaps that is why the only deference the psychiatric community has ever made to real medicine or actual medical tests comes in their official disclaimer that "it might be a chemical imbalance in the brain." Of course, there are no tests to determine a biochemical imbalance in the brain of a living individual. And contrary to what the psychiatric community would have us believe, real, lasting happiness does not come in a pill at the cost of real and workable solutions.
So now, like the emperor with no clothes, TeenScreen and its minions are roiling the cauldrons of fear, flaunting their authority and parading their duplicitous cures before an unsuspecting nation.
And we, like the little boy who questioned why the emperor wore no clothes, need to question TeenScreen, loudly and emphatically, and make our views known to the lawmakers and anyone who will listen. Parents must not sit idly by while schools are turned into pharmaceutical clearing houses. We must not tolerate the disabling of an entire generation of our children by turning them into human guinea pigs, to satisfy the egos of psychiatric charlatans and line the pockets of drug czars.
Related Article:
TeenScreen Shuns Medical Science
© 2006 - Jeanyne Wanner - All Rights Reserved
E-Mail: jeanynewanner@...
By Cliff Kincaid
May 5, 2006
NewsWithViews.com
The Washington Post complained in an April 18 editorial about the Supreme Court resisting the use of television cameras to cover its proceedings. The paper found irony in the justices barring cameras “from proceedings that are open to the public.” Well, it just so happens that Washington Post annual shareholders meetings are open to the public, in the sense that they are covered by members of the press, but television cameras are banned from them, too. The Post, which owns television stations and is a media company based on the First Amendment right to free speech, doesn’t want a video record of shareholders such as Accuracy in Media quizzing Post chairman Donald E. Graham and Post publisher Bo Jones about newspaper operations.
The main topic this year is the paper’s coverage of national security issues, which some commentators say borders on treasonous, but which has also been challenged on a factual basis.
Accuracy in Media has put in a request to cover the upcoming May 11 Post shareholders meeting with a television camera. But we have been told it is against an unwritten policy of not allowing such devices. This is unfortunate because AIM had hoped to capture on video tape the responses of Post company officials to questions and concerns that have been raised about the controversial Pulitzer Prize awarded to Post reporter Dana Priest for a story about CIA “secret prisons” that has not been confirmed. AIM says the prize ought to be returned because of the lack of evidence supporting the controversial article and because some of the information in it was clearly exaggerated for political impact.
According to the Associated Press, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana has told a special European Parliament committee that he has no information that CIA agents interrogated suspected terrorists at “secret prisons” in Europe, as Priest alleged. He is the latest European official or investigator who has declared no evidence or knowledge of the accuracy of the allegations that Priest made. In the latest twist in this controversy, we have learned that Priest gave an interview to an alternative paper in Minnesota, in which she seemed to accept the characterization of the “secret prisons” as “secret gulags,” implying that U.S. antiterrorism officials behave like Soviet communists. This was taking the story to another ridiculous extreme.
It appears that some aspect of the Priest story was true, in the sense that she was on the trail of a covert CIA operation that transferred terrorists through Europe. She also apparently had the names of some of the countries that assisted the U.S. in this effort, which was designed to save the lives of American and European citizens. But the transformation of this valuable and life-saving program into one about “secret prisons” or even “gulags,” which is what Priest herself implied in her article, turns out to be completely unsubstantiated and probably a deliberate distortion. One of Priest’s sources, a partisan CIA official fired for unlawful conduct, makes the controversy even more troubling.
For those who doubt that Priest could get such a story so wrong, remember that Newsweek, a property of the Washington Post Company, had published the false Koran-in-the-toilet story. That story, which Newsweek apologized for running after it provoked riots and at least 16 deaths, was also based on supposedly informed but anonymous sources.
Playing the role of company man, Post media reporter Howard Kurtz is doing his best to avoid the growing scandal over Priest’s reporting, but AIM will persevere. It’s better for the paper, we believe, if it opens its annual meeting to cameras so that a video record can be made and the public can determine whether the paper can mount any kind of coherent defense of what Priest has done. It won’t be better for them only if they can’t.
It’s interesting to note that the Post editorial on cameras in the courtroom was followed by an April 25 Post column by Senator Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also arguing that cameras should be covering the Court. Specter urged “a televised light on the justices.”
We urge a “televised light” on the annual meetings of media companies. AIM has long advocated opening stockholders meetings to television cameras. It is ironic, to say the least, that media companies which have urged that television cameras be admitted to courtrooms and Congressional proceedings bar television coverage of their own annual meetings.
Some companies have banned coverage on the pretext that their meetings are held in outside facilities, such as theaters, which have a general policy of prohibiting recording devices. That policy, of course, is designed to prevent people from recording films or plays and selling pirated versions for a profit. Such a policy is not meant to apply to media companies renting the place on a once-a-year basis. In the case of the Post, however, the shareholders meeting is being held in the Post building itself. So there’s absolutely no excuse for a policy prohibiting recording devices. We have not been prohibited in the past from taking tape recorders to the meeting. Why should a camera be that much of an issue?
We have asked the Post to reconsider its policy of banning television cameras from its annual shareholders meeting. Let’s see if the rest of the media join our call. If they don’t, their commitment to freedom of information and the public’s right to know will be seen as nothing more than a late-night-TV joke. And a bad joke at that.
© 2006 Cliff Kincaid - All Rights Reserved
E-Mail: kincaid@...
================= http://groups.msn.com/RaptureImminent/messages.msnw
http://groups.msn.com/RaptureImminent/general.msnw?action=get_threads&Dir=0&ID_Last=255
http://groups.msn.com/RaptureImminent/general.msnw?action=get_threads&Dir=0&ID_Last=96
(Don't try to join Rapture Imminent Group, the joiner doesn't work!)
Offline 
Send Email