Tag Archives: federal

Rapper Young Buck: I’m Bankrupt … Not Broke!

Filed under: Young Buck , Celebrity Justice , Music TMZ has learned … platinum rapper Young Buck has filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, but dude insists it’s “not because I am broke.” Buck — whose Nashville home was raided by Federal agents over a tax debt earlier this month — tells us, “I have to get… Read more

Go here to see the original:
Rapper Young Buck: I’m Bankrupt … Not Broke!

Eating Local, Organic, Or Vegetarian Can’t Stop This – Only The Federal Government Can

” Corn falls into the East Nishnabotna River in Montgomery County, Iowa. Severe row crop land erosion is occurring along the river. ” Caption/image credit, this and subsquent images:Gannon, Desmoines Register The dramatic pictures you see in this post speak for themselves: Iowa crop land and even corn falling directly into a river. They symbolize mismanagement of the land by farmers, the Federal government, and corporations which lobby for the policies which lead to this… Read the full story on TreeHugger

Read the original here:
Eating Local, Organic, Or Vegetarian Can’t Stop This – Only The Federal Government Can

NYT’s Kate Zernike Does It Again, Suggests Tea Party Opposition to Minimum Wage Racially Suspect

New York Times reporter Kate Zernike, whose book on the Tea Party movement,”Boiling Mad,” is due out next month, led off Saturday’s National section by suggesting racism on the part of Fox News host Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally at the Lincoln Memorial later that day. Beck has outraged the left with the timing of the rally, the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s March on Washington and the “I Have a Dream” speech. Although Zernike and others in the media use “Tea Party faithful” as shorthand to mark the rally, the actual gathering on Saturday turned out to be far more religious than political, with Zernike herself likening it to a “large church picnic” in her Sunday coverage. But Zernike led her Saturday preview of the rally, ” Where Dr. King Once Stood, Tea Party Claims His Mantle ,” with accusations of racism: It seems the ultimate thumb in the eye: that Glenn Beck would summon the Tea Party faithful to a rally on the anniversary of the March on Washington, and address them from the very place where the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his “I have a dream” speech 47 years ago. After all, the Tea Party and its critics have been facing off for months over accusations of racism. But many of the busloads of Tea Party activists expected in Washington this weekend do not see any irony or offense. In fact, they have come to see the Tea Party as the aggrieved — its loosely affiliated members unfairly characterized, even persecuted, as extremists. Those same “accusations of racism” foisted on the Tea Party movement by hostile reporters like Zernike. (The rally itself turned out to be a largely apolitical celebration of patriotism and religion.) Zernike has a very sensitive ear for linking conservatism and racism, notoriously finding racial undertones where they don’t exist, as when she accused conservative speaker Jason Mattera of using a “Chris Rock voice” in a February 18 post for the Times’ political blog, ” CPAC Speaker Bashes Obama, in Racial Tones .” Mattera was in fact speaking in his usual thick Brooklynese. Zernike has long employed unsubstantiated racial accusations to boost her hostile coverage of the movement. On Saturday she made some stunning guilt-by-association leaps, one being that opposition to the minimum wage makes you racially suspect. In the Tea Party’s talk of states’ rights, critics say they hear an echo of slavery, Jim Crow and George Wallace. Tea Party activists call that ridiculous: they do not want to take the country back to the discrimination of the past, they say, they just want the states to be able to block the federal mandate on health insurance. Still, the government programs that many Tea Party supporters call unconstitutional are the ones that have helped many black people emerge from poverty and discrimination. It is not just that Rand Paul, the Republican nominee for Senate in Kentucky, said that he disagreed on principle with the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that required business owners to serve blacks. It is that many Tea Party activists believe that laws establishing a minimum wage or the federal safety net are an improper expansion of federal power. Critics rightly note that Dr. King spoke over and over of the need for this country to acknowledge its “debt to the poor,” calling for an “economic bill of rights” that would “guarantee a job to all people who want to work and are able to work.” In Mr. Beck’s taxonomy, this would make him a Marxist. Even if Tea Party members are right that any racist signs are those of mischief-makers, even if Glenn Beck had chosen any other Saturday to hold his rally, it would be hard to quiet the argument about the Tea Party and race. Leaving aside the questionable assumption that minimum wage laws actually benefit blacks, the idea of King as a leftist or Marxist is hardly a new or controversial idea. King was an admirer of Marx, as reported on page 537 of the Pulitzer Prize-winning biography by David Garrow, ” Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference .” Garrow encapsulated King’s discussions during a retreat with his SCLC staff: “Actually, he went on, there was much to admire about Karl Marx, who had ‘a great passion for social justice” but had fallen afoul of the theoretical errors of materialism.” Note that Zernike concluded that the “argument about the Tea Party and race” wasn’t going away, which is certainly true if reporters like Zernike fan the flames. In addition, liberal columnists Charles Blow and Bob Herbert both went after Beck on Saturday. Blow’s ” Glenn Beck’s Nightmare ” was more in sorrow: “Beck wants to swaddle his movement in the cloth of the civil rights movement, a cloth soaked in the blood and tears of the innocent and oppressed, a cloth his divisiveness and self-aggrandizing threatens to defile.” On the same page, Herbert’s criticism came more in anger : “Beck is a provocateur who likes to play with matches in the tinderbox of racial and ethnic confrontation. He seems oblivious to the real danger of his execrable behavior.”

View original post here:
NYT’s Kate Zernike Does It Again, Suggests Tea Party Opposition to Minimum Wage Racially Suspect

New MRC Report Exposes The Real Radio Hatemongers

The so-called “news” media have spent much of the past two decades demonizing the rhetoric of conservative radio talk show hosts as mean-spirited, divisive or a menace to civil discourse. But these same journalists — who gleefully castigate Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and other conservatives — are silent about the vile and vicious rhetoric that spews from the Left’s leading radio talk show hosts. Since late 2007, the Media Research Center has collected numerous examples of the outrageousness of left-wing radio hosts. And, unlike the Left — which attempted to smear Rush Limbaugh with phony quotes — readers can find an audio or video of every one of these quotes (46 in all) posted at our Web site: www.MRC.org . MRC’s new report includes examples of over-the-top rhetoric from left-wing hosts Mike Malloy, Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhodes, Ron Reagan, Jr., Ed Schultz and Montel Williams, all of whom currently or at one time broadcast to a national audience on either the Air America network or via XM and/or Sirius satellite radio. A few of the choicer examples: ■ Conservatives Want to Kill Barack Obama: “I really think there are conservative broadcasters in this country who would love to see Obama taken out.” – Ed Schultz, August 11, 2009. (Listen to the MP3 audio ). ■ Conservatives Are Terrorists: “Do you not understand that the people you hold up as heroes bombed your goddamn country? Do you not understand that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly are as complicit of the September 11, 2001 terror attack as any one of the dumbass 15 who came from Saudi Arabia?” – Mike Malloy, January 19, 2010. (Listen to the MP3 audio ). ■ Conservatives Want You to Die: “If, in fact, the GOP doesn’t like any form of health care reform, what do we do with those 40 to 60 million uninsured?…When they show up in the emergency room, just shoot ‘em! Kill them!…Do we have enough body bags? I don’t know.” – Montel Williams, July 21, 2009. (Listen to the MP3 audio ). ■ Conservative Congresswoman Would Have Liked the Holocaust: “[Representative Michele Bachmann is] a hatemonger. She’s the type of person that would have gladly rounded up the Jews in Germany and shipped them off to death camps….This is an evil bitch from Hell.” – Mike Malloy, October 17, 2008. (Listen to the MP3 audio ). ■ Dick Cheney Eats Babies: “Cheney, by the way, looks very ruddy. I couldn’t get over that. Like, he must have feasted on a Jewish baby, or a Muslim baby. He must have sent his people out to get one and bring it back so he could drink its blood.” – Mike Malloy, October 22, 2009. (Listen to the MP3 audio .) ■ Dick Cheney Should Die: “He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion. Dick Cheney is an enemy of the country….Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you? See, I don’t even wish the guy goes to Hell, I just want to get him the hell out of here.” – Ed Schultz, May 11, 2009 (Listen to the MP3 audio ). ■ Rush Limbaugh Should Die: “I’m waiting for the day when I pick up the newspaper or click on the Internet and find that he’s choked to death on his own throat fat, or a great big wad of saliva or something, whatever. Go away, Limbaugh, you make me sick.” – Mike Malloy, January 14, 2010. (Listen to the MP3 audio ). ■ Michele Bachmann Should Die: “So, Michele, slit your wrist! Go ahead! I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to — or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.” – Montel Williams, September 2, 2009. (Listen to the MP3 audio ). Even more disturbing quotes can be found in the full report posted at MRC.org , some with very strong language. Keep these examples in mind the next time you hear a liberal huff and puff about how conservative radio hosts are supposedly ruining the quality of American public discourse. They need to clean up their own house, first.

Read this article:
New MRC Report Exposes The Real Radio Hatemongers

NYT: ‘More Americans – Not Just the Rich – Will Have to Pay More Taxes’

The New York Times on Tuesday declared what most conservatives knew would happen if Democrats took control of both Congress and the White House: “more Americans – and not just the rich – are going to have to pay more taxes.” In its editorial comically titled ” A Real Debate on Taxes ,” the Times predictably argued for a total elimination of the Bush tax cuts, although it favored some partial delay to this given the precarious state of the economy. That in itself was humorous as the Times clearly seems to get that raising taxes is indeed economically damaging. Yet maybe more telling was how this “real debate” didn’t once involve the spending side of the budget: President Obama is right when he says the country cannot afford to extend all of the tax cuts. He wants to let the tax cuts expire on the top 2 to 3 percent of American households (couples making more than $250,000 a year, individuals making more than $200,000) and permanently extend them for everyone else. The problem is that a permanent extension of the so-called middle-class tax cuts is also unaffordable. It makes sense to extend them temporarily, because the weak economy needs the boost. But more revenue will be needed in years to come to keep rebuilding the economy and meet health care and other obligations to retiring baby boomers. That means more Americans – and not just the rich – are going to have to pay more taxes. For all the politicians’ talk about deficits, no one is saying that. Hmmm. So, tax cuts for low, middle, and upper-middle income wage earners boosts the economy? But more “revenue” is needed to “keep rebuilding the economy and meet health care and other obligations to retiring baby boomers?” Why not just continue to allow Americans to keep more of their own money to give the economy a “boost” while working on ways for the federal government to exist on less revenue? How about exploring avenues to reduce the “obligations to retiring baby boomers” for example? As is typical from left-leaning publications, such logic was never broached. In fact, the words “spending,” “expenditures,” and “outlays” were nowhere to be found in this “real debate”: An honest debate needs to start with the numbers. The tax cut packages of 2001 and 2003 – heavily skewed to high earners – cut taxes by $1.65 trillion. In 2001, supporters argued that with the budget in surplus, the cuts were affordable. In 2003, they argued that the cuts would spur investment and growth and pay for themselves.   How does one have an “honest debate” by completely misrepresenting who benefited from the Bush tax cuts? As NewsBusters reported on August 11, the liberal think tank the Brookings Institution has concluded that 82 percent of the Bush tax cuts would go to low, middle, and upper-middle income wage earners in the next ten years if they were extended. Only 18 percent goes to couples making over $250,000 a year and singles over $200,000. With this in mind, it is certainly not “honest” of the Times to depict the Bush tax cuts as “heavily skewed to higher earners.” In fact, it’s an out and out lie! But there’s more: Since 2002, the federal budget has been chronically short of revenue. According to calculations by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, if the tax cuts of the Bush years had never been enacted, publicly held debt at the end of 2009 would have been about $5.2 trillion, or 37 percent of gross domestic product. Instead, it was $7.5 trillion, or 53 percent of G.D.P. (it now stands at 60 percent).   Don’t you love that phrase “short of revenue?” Let’s examine just how “short of revenue” our government has been since 2002. Total unified tax collections that year were $1.853 trillion with outlays of $2.011 trillion.  By 2007 just prior to the beginning of the recession, revenues grew to $2.568 trillion, a 39 percent jump in only five years. Does that sound “short of revenue” to you? After all, if spending during this period had only grown at the rate of inflation, we would have had a $250 billion surplus! Heck, spending could have increased by five percent per year during this period and we still would have had a balanced budget! Yet, according to the Times, the problem was that we were “short of revenue.” BUT, there was even more fun to come: Tax cuts for low-, middle- and upper-middle-income taxpayers should be temporarily extended because those taxpayers tend to spend most of their income and the economy needs consumer spending. That would cost roughly $140 billion next year, but the spur to the economy is more important than the budgetary impact. Tax cuts for the rich can safely be allowed to expire because wealthy taxpayers tend to save rather than spend their tax savings. The revenue from letting these expire – nearly $40 billion next year – would be better spent on job-creating measures. Remember how the Times earlier said the Bush tax cuts were “heavily skewed to high earners?” If this were true, then how coming extending these cuts to low, middle, and upper-income taxpayers would cost roughly $140 billion next year while extending those for “the rich” would cost nearly $40 billion? Using the Times’ own numbers, these combined cuts would cost about $180 billion next year with only $40 billion – or 22 percent – going to “the rich!” Doesn’t that mean that 78 percent goes to low, middle, and upper-middle income taxpayers? So exactly how were the Bush tax cuts “heavily skewed to high earners?” Unfortunately, that’s a question the shills at the Times will likely never answer!

Read the original:
NYT: ‘More Americans – Not Just the Rich – Will Have to Pay More Taxes’

The Greens Are The Only Winner From Australia’s Federal Election

Images: Sydney Morning Herald (left), and The Greens (right). You may recall that just eight weeks ago Australia found itself with a new Prime Minister , it’s first female one at that, in Julia Gillard. She had ousted Kevin Rudd , who although sweeping … Read the full story on TreeHugger

Read the original here:
The Greens Are The Only Winner From Australia’s Federal Election

BP Fined a Record $50 Million for Texas Refinery Explosion

Photo via SymonSez To all those who’ve voiced concern that the federal government is just being too hard on poor ol’ BP (here’s looking at you Rep. Barton), perhaps you should take note of the following: There’s a reason that BP needs to be held accountable for considerable damage its caused. It’s called gross negligence, and not just in beginning a deep-water drilling operation it had no contingency plan for — but also in cases like that its Texas oil refinery, where safety protocol was treated like a joke, and subsequently, a 2005 explosion left 15… Read the full story on TreeHugger

Follow this link:
BP Fined a Record $50 Million for Texas Refinery Explosion

Fed Leads America “To The Brink Of Collapse”

When even the New York Times and CNN are admitting that the United States faces not only a double-dip recession but potentially a new great depression, any alarm bells that have not been rung should now be sounding loudly. Following in the footsteps of the New York Times’ Paul Krugman, who in June wrote that the United States had entered a third depression similar to the Long Depression of the 19th century, CNN Money carried an article yesterday brazenly entitled, Is this finally the economic collapse?. The piece, written by Keith R. McCullough, points out that the Fed’s announcement that it will start buying Treasury debt, is a “crossing the Rubicon” moment and “could lead the country to the brink of collapse”. “Crossing the 90% debt/GDP threshold is the equivalent of crossing the proverbial Rubicon of economic growth. It’s a point from which it’s almost impossible to return,” states the article, adding that the market has not responded to quantitative easing so to engage in more of the same would be completely futile. “With 40.8 million Americans on food stamps (record high) and 45% of the unemployed having been seeking employment for 27 weeks or more (record high), what’s left if (or when) QE2 doesn’t kick start GDP growth? Should we start begging for QE3? Should we cancel the bomb of the National Association of Realtors’ existing home sales report, scheduled for public release on August 24th? Or should we bite the bullet and accept that current economic policy dictates 0% returns-on-savings, even as Washington continues to lever-up our future to the point of economic collapse?” writes McCullough. The Dow Jones slipped by 265 points yesterday as both the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve indicated that, as we predicted all along, the happy clappers who blithely talked of “robust recovery” were in fact completely wrong and now that the futile and transitory life-support machine of quantitative easing has been turned off, the picture looks almost as bad as when the crisis began in 2008. Predictions on GDP growth seem to be shrinking by the day as Ben Bernanke greases the skids for QE2 – a fresh round of printing money out of thin air, destroying the long term value of the dollar which has already had 9 consecutive down weeks since June but ensuring the central bankers that run the United States continue to reap lucrative interest payments on the spiraling national debt. The U.S. government, via the taxpayer, paid out nearly $20 billion in interest on debt last month alone, as the Federal Reserve enjoys record profits, only 20 per cent of which is returned to the Treasury…. Continued at: http://www.prisonplanet.com/fed-leads-america-to-the-brink-of-collapse.html added by: Dagum

Prop 8 | Decision on Stay Expected in California’s Same-Sex Marriages Case

Decision on stay expected in California same-sex marriages case By the CNN Wire Staff August 12, 2010 1:57 a.m. EDT Los Angeles, California (CNN) — A federal court in California will rule Thursday on whether to keep a temporary stay in place in the case that overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriages. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California will announce its decision between 9 a.m. and noon (12 p.m. and 3 p.m. ET). If the stay is lifted, same-sex marriages will be legal in California. Last week, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage, ruling that voter-approved Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution. The 136-page opinion is an initial step in what will likely be a lengthy fight over California's Proposition 8, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. At question in the trial was whether California's ban on same-sex marriage violates gay couples' rights to equal protection and due process, as protected by the U.S. Constitution. The high-profile case is being watched closely by both supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage, as many say it is destined to make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. If it does, the case could result in a landmark decision on whether people in the United States are allowed to marry people of the same sex. Same-sex marriage is currently legal in five U.S. states — Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa and New Hampshire — and in the District of Columbia, while civil unions are permitted in New Jersey. “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples,” Walker, who was appointed to the federal bench by former President Ronald Reagan, wrote in his opinion. “Race restrictions on marital partners were once common in most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre,” he added. “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.” After the ruling, elated supporters gathered to celebrate the judge's opinion in San Francisco's Castro district. People waved rainbow flags and U.S. flags, and carried signs that read, “We all deserve the freedom to marry,” and “Separate is Unequal.” Similar rallies unfolded in Los Angeles and San Diego. “For our entire lives, our government and the law have treated us as unequal. This decision to ensure that our constitutional rights are as protected as everyone else's makes us incredibly proud of our country,” said Kristin Perry, a plaintiff. Perry and Sandy Stier, along with Jeffrey Zarrillo and Paul Katami, are the two couples at the heart of the case, which, if appealed, would go next to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals before possibly heading to the U.S. Supreme Court. Opponents of same-sex marriage have said their best bet lies with higher courts and have vowed to appeal the federal judge's ruling. In a national survey conducted by Gallup in May, 53 percent of respondents said same-sex marriages should not be recognized by law, while 44 percent said they should. Proposition 8 is part of a long line of seesaw rulings, court cases, debates and protests over the controversial issue of same-sex marriage. It passed in California with some 52 percent of the vote in November 2008. “Big surprise! We expected nothing different from Judge Vaughn Walker, after the biased way he conducted this trial,” Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, said last week. “With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman.” added by: EthicalVegan

What it Says About Us When a 17-Month-Old Boy Is Beaten to Death for "Acting Like a Girl"

At approximately 8:25 p.m. last Sunday night, the New York State Police on Long Island logged a 911 call about a toddler in cardiac arrest. The boy, 17-month-old Roy Jones, was rushed from the Shinnecock Indian Reservation in Southampton, N.Y. to Southampton Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 9:11 p.m. According to authorities, the toddler had endured a savage beating. His tiny body had been repeatedly punched with closed fists and grabbed by the neck. By the time 911 had been called at dusk, he was already in cardiac arrest from the sheer brutality of the assault and it was too late to save his life. Charged with manslaughter in the first degree and held without bail is the toddler's mother's live-in boyfriend, 20-year-old Pedro Jones, who was babysitting. The pair lived together on Shinnecock Nation tribal land, though Jones himself was not a member of the tribe. They were reportedly to marry, and Jones called the toddler “my baby,” though Roy was not, in fact his baby. “I was trying to make him act like a boy instead of a little girl,” Jones explained. “I never struck that kid that hard before. A one-time mistake, and I am going to do 20 years.” He told troopers that the little boy had been too feminine and that he'd been trying to toughen Roy up by literally beating the life out of him. “I'm sorry,” he said “That's my baby. I loved him to death.” A nominally civilized society such as ours can only recoil in horror at any news of a child's death at the abusive hands of an adult. Infanticide is the ultimate forfeiture of our humanity, rightly seen as a perversion of the very essence of the natural order and the circle of life. The act is a declaration of such abject monstrosity that is very nearly beyond forgiveness. But it happens every day, and we guiltily avert our eyes to these stories when we read them because, on some level, we realize that the children could easily be our own and the pain is too much to bear. In 2008, in the U.S. alone, the Department of Health and Human Services reported 772,000 cases of child abuse, resulting 1,740 fatalities–a sharp rise from 1,330 in 2000. But there is an added and significant dimension to the tragedy. The reason given for the beating is that, even at 17 months, the toddler was perceived by his killer to be effeminate. Madhouse logic indeed, but to Pedro Jones there was a way that little boys should act and a way little girls should act. While Jones is a tragic example of the paradigm taken to deadly lengths, society's discomfort with gender variance permeates nearly every part of the national dialogue and runs through every part of the culture. It's present in the heightened male objectification of women inherent in certain types of music videos that present them as “bitches” and “hoes” who crave an answering violent thuggishness from their men. It's present in advertising that teaches young women that they're essentially a life support system for their physical assets, that the ideal woman is a weak-willed, mindless consumer of frivolity, whereas a “real man”–stronger, but stupider–is waiting for nothing more than the arrival of the Swedish Women's Nude Basketball Team with cold beer. There are coded echoes of it in the leading and prejudicial questionnaire put to servicemen and women this spring by the Pentagon regarding the viability of openly gay soldiers serving side-by-side with heterosexual ones. The document is mined with phrases that seem crafted with unease on the part of straight male soldiers as a goal, fears that their gay counterparts might not be “real” men but something inferior, less masculine, less reliable in a firefight. It was there in June of this year when the Family Research Council hailed Republican Governor of Rhode Island Don Carcieri for vetoing hate crimes legislation that would have included transgender-identified persons as a protected class. Gloated Tony Perkins, the president of the organization, “[Governor Carcieri] deserves praise for his strong stance for the Families of Rhode Island, and other Governors can learn from his example.” Perkins neglected to explain how excluding transgender people from hate crime legislation had anything to do with protecting families. It was there in the Hieronymus Bosch-level grotesquery of the lies, distortions, and misrepresentations of the lives of gay and lesbian couples used by the Proposition 8 supporters in their now-failed battle to make their horror of sexual and gender variance the law of the land in California by codifying their bigotry at the ballot box and in the courts. It's endemic in fundamentalist Christianity, which claims Biblical authority for rigid gender roles and, more importantly, the appearance of rigid gender roles. Psychologist and Southern Baptist minister George Alan Rekers, co-founder of the Family Research Council and formerly of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) who, until he was caught this year flying a gay rent-boy to Europe to “lift his luggage” and give him nude sexual massages, was best known for sharing his wisdom on how to “cure” homosexuality. A May 2010 article in the Miami News by Penn Bullock and Brandon K. Thorp reported on Rekers' 1974 “Feminine Boy Project” at UCLA. The article highlighted the story of a 4-year-old-year old “effeminate boy” named Kraig was subjected by his parents to Rekers' aversion therapy. Part of the therapy involved putting Kraig in “play-observation room” with his mother, who had instructions to avert her eyes from her child when he played with “girly” toys. An essay by Stephanie Wilkinson published in Brain, Child magazine in 2001 recounts that, during one of the sessions, Kraig became so distraught and hysterical at what must have seemed to the 4-year-old like the withdrawal of his mother's love, that he had to be carried out of the room by the staff. At home, the “treatment” continued, with Kraig being rewarded for “masculine” behavior and spanked by his father for “feminine” behavior. …full article at link added by: animalia_libero