THREE hours before the close of the presidential election on Sunday March 2nd, in which voters massively endorsed Dmitry Medvedev as Russia’s next president, a bull-necked security guard (radio in hand, legs apart) barred the entrance to polling station number 3065. The station had been set up in a vast and heaving electronics market, apparently for the convenience of traders. But the few who turned up to vote were told that the station had closed, either because of a terrorist threat or as a result of some obscure “technical” problems. A brief look inside suggested that, although almost empty, it was in fact functioning.
Outside of the polling station stood a large group of men in black leather jackets. These were the same characters your correspondent saw casting multiple votes in the December parliamentary elections. They were soon led away and a four-wheel-drive vehicle arrived. Men emerged carrying a white plastic ballot box and were allowed into the station by a guard, who then shut the door tightly. A young policeman who came to inquire was instructed to leave by figures in plain clothes and promptly did so.
These latter men (one identified himself as a “representative of the international community”) glowered, then lunged, violently throwing your correspondent and another foreign journalist on to the nearby street, with a warning never to come back. One offered a piece of advice: “Go back to England, you can ask [the self-exiled opponent of Vladimir Putin, Boris] Berezovsky and Prince Harry your questions. We’ll manage here without you.” Your correspondent and his colleague were then forced into a taxi, and the bemused driver was ordered to drive to the British Embassy.
The incident—most probably the stuffing of a ballot box—spoke volumes of the system that Mr Medvedev inherits from his former and (likely) future boss Mr Putin. (Mr Putin has promised to be Russia’s all-powerful prime-minister.) It illustrated the thuggery and brazenness of the state machine. The Kremlin did away with niceties a long time ago. Foreign observers were told to stay away and not to meddle in Russia’s domestic affairs.
The polling station, and the country, have been hijacked by security men who do not even pretend to follow the law. The location of this incident, a busy shopping area, was also symbolic. Overwhelmed by the cornucopia of foreign goods, Russian consumers have so far been distracted from the Kremlin’s shenanigans. (“Come into our shop,” suggested a tanned 20-year-old beauty in a tight scarlet dress with giant butterfly wings.)
Even so, this election has made many Russians, including those who voted for Mr Medvedev, feel uncomfortable. “There was no election,” said a young, middle-class Muscovite. “I voted for Medvedev, because there was no choice.” Opposition candidates who might have proven more of challenge to Kremlin, such as Mikhail Kasyanov, were banned from running. Those candidates allowed to compete by the Kremlin included the Communist Gennady Zyuganov, the clownish nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky and a Kremlin clone, Andrei Bogdanov.
In an election with no real opposition, Mr Medvedev was guaranteed a victory even without machinations. The fact that the Kremlin went further to massage the figures may not be so much a sign of its insecurity, but of its sense of invincibility and disregard for law. Mr Medvedev has pledged to fight legal nihilism. Yet Sunday’s election was a prime example of precisely that.
The Kremlin did not just fix the elections in favour of its candidate, it made a mockery out of the process. Russia’s slavish state television reported Mr Medvedev’s convincing victory: he won perhaps as much as 70% of votes; the turnout was nearly 70% too. The nature of the victory may not matter as long as the oil price is high and people are broadly satisfied with their living conditions. But Mr Medvedev enters into office without, in the eyes of many, legitimacy. If the economy sours, that would be a handicap indeed.
Especially Bruce. Also, I didn't know I had a correspondent, nor did I know he / she was such a push over. I hate to do this to my correspondent, but he / she is fired. I just don't have it in my budget to keep a correspondent in Russia especially one that's gonna get pushed around so easily. (Seriously though, I know they say to avoid writing in the first person for journalism, but writing about yourself in the second person is just WEIRD. If you're making the story about yourself, write in first person for christ's sake.)
NEW YORK (CNN) -- It's been a year since the parents of a severely disabled child made public their decision to submit their daughter to a hysterectomy, breast surgery and drugs to keep the girl forever small. Today, the couple tell CNN, they believe they made the right decision -- one that could have a profound impact on the care of disabled children worldwide.
"The 'Ashley treatment' has been successful in every expected way," Ashley's parents told CNN exclusively in a lengthy e-mail interview. "It has potential to help many others like it helped our precious daughter."
While unwavering in their belief in the treatment, Ashley's parents continue to insist on anonymity. In the year since Ashley's parents went public, not only did the hospital that sterilized Ashley admit it broke Washington state law, but also the doctor who treated Ashley committed suicide.
As scrutiny of the case deepens, so too does the chasm in the medical community: Is it mutilation, with doctors "playing God" -- or, is stunting growth a liberating option for caregivers and the disabled children who will need constant care for the rest of their lives?
Ashley is now 10 years old and, at 4 feet 5 inches tall, has achieved her full height and weight, 63 pounds. The treatment permanently closed her growth plates and took more than a foot off her anticipated height.
"Ashley did not grow in height or weight in the last year, she will always be flat-chested, and she will never suffer any menstrual pain, cramps or bleeding," say her parents, who felt it important to publicly address their decision after repeated interview requests, in the hopes of sharing their experience with other families.
They responded by e-mail only, to protect the family's identity. (Read the complete interview)
Ashley's current state -- to them -- is the definition of success.
She was born brain-damaged, with a condition described as static encephalopathy, or cerebral palsy. One of her doctors described her mental capacity as that of a 6-month-old, dependent upon her parents to meet every need. She does not walk or talk; she's fed through a tube and wears diapers. When Ashley was 6, her parents approached Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center in Seattle, Washington, for the operations. They believed this would make it easier to cuddle and carry a child who can do little more than lie propped on a pillow.
Weight and height are the "worst enemy," they write, for children such as Ashley, for whom they've coined the term "pillow angels."
In 2004, Children's Hospital performed a hysterectomy, removed Ashley's breast buds and gave her high-dose estrogen to retard growth and sexual maturation -- a procedure that has risks, but to date has not harmed her, her parents say.
While the "Ashley treatment" was first published in the October 2006 issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, it wasn't until the family posted its blog last year that a firestorm erupted in the blogosphere, with responses from "inhumane" and "perverse" -- to "walk in our shoes."
"If parents of children like Ashley believe this treatment will improve their children's quality of life, then they should be diligent and tenacious in providing it for them," her parents write. "We have a sacred duty to do what we believe is right for our children."
But in Ashley's case, what her parents thought was right wasn't legal.
In May 2007, Children's Hospital admitted it broke state law by giving Ashley a hysterectomy without a proper court review. To perform any such treatment today would require a court order, as well as review by a panel of experts in medicine and ethics and people with disabilities, says Dr. Douglas Diekema of Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, the consulting ethicist on Ashley's case.
So, will doctors stop the growth of more children like Ashley?
Right now, no growth-attenuation therapy is being administered by other doctors anywhere in the nation, according to pediatric experts. Supporters wonder whether another factor, the suicide in September of Ashley's endocrinologist, Dr. Daniel Gunther, may have slowed wider adoption of the treatment.
"We know from reliable sources his treatment of our daughter was a source of energy and motivation for him," Ashley's parents write. "He was frustrated about being blocked from providing this treatment to other children in need. He strongly believed this treatment should be available to them."
The family appears to be the lone voice with that opinion; CNN shared the family's comment with Children's Hospital, but did not get a response. In media reports, colleagues and family members were said to believe Gunther's suicide was not related to the treatment of the girl.
Another complicating factor -- some doctors remain adamant the treatment shouldn't be available.
"Adults can consent. But for a child, we're making decisions for them and hoping in our heart of hearts we are making the right decisions," says Dr. Nancy Murphy, chairman of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Children with Disabilities.
Murphy will push for consensus among doctors at a pediatrics conference later this year, but acknowledges strong discord as critics continue to insist that keeping children small reduces them to a permanent infant-like condition, denying the basic human right to experience an adult body, adult feelings and adult relationships. But for Ashley, that may be moot.
"[This disability] shatters the reason we become parents: to watch kids grow, to be part of their lives and to launch into their own lives," says Murphy. "When you have a child with lifelong dependency, you don't get to launch your kid, and your caregiver options are limited."
But like many other people with disabilities, 43-year-old Anne Rader, who also has cerebral palsy but in a much less severe form than Ashley's, sees the treatment as dehumanizing -- and perhaps most significantly -- irrevocable.
"The parents are not seeing the potential of the child; they are seeing a baby," says Rader. "People with disabilities have to look at the potential of our lives: of available new technology, new equipment, medical advances. Things can change so quickly now."
Some ethicists, too, remain staunch in their assessment that the "Ashley treatment" is a violation of not only human dignity, but also of a physician's oath to do no harm.
"I think mutilating surgery involving removal of breast buds is indefensible under any circumstances," says Arthur Caplan, the chairman of the Department of Medical Ethics and director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. "Growth retardation is not a substitute for adequate home aides and home assistance."
Ashley's parents remain convinced what they did for Ashley is the most loving choice they could have made for their daughter and want that for other disabled children.
"We feel that if our time and effort ended up helping a single pillow angel... then it is worthwhile."
So, is this ethical? Ashley has the mental capacity of a 6-month old, and the parents did this because she will never understand menstrual cramps and the pains of being a woman, and since they have to move her all the time anyway, a bigger size is harder to work with.
Well...I certainly understand the frustration that can come with having a severely mentally disabled child.. I see it all the time at work. Some of the girls we have, while not at the level of a 6-month-old, are still mentally low, and are incapable of normal human interaction. Sex and pregnancy are out of the question for these girls, and I have always thought it was a cruel irony that these girls are forced to suffer through periods.
But a hysterectomy to prevent that? I don't know. This is one aspect of this article that I'm ambivalent about. It certainly would make their futures a lot easier, as their caretakers would not have to deal with another bodily function. But at the same time, is it right to do something so irrevocable and major just to avoid some hassle and minor pain?
As for stunting her growth, I disagree with that. I help lift adults on a daily basis, and they can be heavy, but it's really not that big a deal. An overweight person is a potential problem, but lifts specifically designed for people are available, and are probably a lot less expensive than growth stunting surgery.
And as for removing her breast buds, that just pisses me off. What is so wrong with this girl growing breasts? They wouldn't have any negative impact on her caregivers: they don't weigh much and they won't secrete anything. The ONLY reason I can see that these parents removed her breasts was because they wanted their daughter to remain a little child for the rest of her life. This is unacceptable. I can see some argument when surgery would result in a much easier load for this girl's caregivers, but not when the surgery is only used to make this girl conform to some image her parents have.
This story has creeped me out since I first heard about it a year ago. If the parents' only reasoning is that it makes her more comfortable into adulthood (why not just do it to every young girl then?) and more manageable for them in their ability to take care of her (talk about selfish), then they don't have much ground to stand on. The fact of the matter is that this girl was mutilated for her parents' convenience. It's sickening and I hope the hospital that authorized the treatment is severely reprimanded for breaking Washington law.
Well... I guess I can see that as an argument. Some people might think that molesting or raping a nearly brain-dead woman is the perfect crime. This girl would never be able to tell anyone what happened. If she never grows breasts and remains really small, it might lessen the chances that she will be abused. But I'm not sure that's worth the complicated surgery.
One of our speech pathologists said that she understood the hysterectomy. What happens if this girl gets pregnant from someone raping her? That would totally suck. It's still a hard situation, but, again, I can see the argument, a lot more so than the "stop sexual abuse" argument.
MUNCIE, Ind. - A man was jailed Thursday on charges he forced his 7-year-old daughter to kill the family cat by holding a knife in her hand and making her stab the pet.
Danield J. Collins, 39, told his children during a visit to his home on Sunday that he wanted them to "learn how to kill" and gave his 11-year-old son a knife to do it, according to an affidavit filed in the case.
The boy tried to save the cat by hiding it under a sofa bed and putting ketchup on a knife when Collins went to the bathroom. But when the father realized the cat was not dead, he forced his daughter to hold the knife and then held her hand tightly as he drove the knife into the animal, Muncie police Detective Jami Brown said.
Police said Collins stabbed and strangled the cat himself, and told his son to throw the dead pet in the trash. Officers retrieved the carcass to be used as evidence.
The children told family members on Monday, the day after the alleged killing, according to the affidavit. The children told police their father was drunk when they arrived at his home and that he's a different person when he's drunk, it said. The siblings live with their grandparents.
Collins was being held in the Delaware County Jail on $40,000 bond. He's charged with one count each of animal cruelty and battery and two counts of neglect of a dependent. The battery charge alleges the girl was injured because Collins held her hand so hard that her hand ached.
The jail had no record of an attorney representing Collins and there were no published phone listings for him in Muncie.
Muncie police Detective Jami Brown said the case was particularly troubling because Collins involved his children in killing the cat, an 8-month-old tuxedo type-cat named Boots.
"I've been doing investigations for 10 years and this is really bothering me," the detective said
A Camarillo High School employee has been jailed for stealing snack money from a disabled student.
Ventura County Superior Court Judge James Cloninger sentenced Kristen Rene Santoyo on Tuesday to six months in jail, followed by three years' probation. She was also pay $285 restitution to the student.
The student's parents put $5 a day in her lunch box along with her food. The money was for snacks, but her parents say she came home from school hungry.
The 37-year-old Oxnard woman earlier pleaded guilty to felony petty theft and misdemeanor cruelty to a child by inflicting injury. Defense attorney James Harmon says Santoyo took the money to feed a methamphetamine habit.
I never thought I'd find stingrays scary, but now they're attacking us above water. Soon they'll master self-powered flight, and we'll all be screwed. Don't say I didn't warn you.
But not to worry. Humanity will evole too, and those who survive will develop amazing dodging abilities, super speed, and maybe even the ability to shoot lightning out of our fingertips.
Dude, they've gone from underwater to above water combat capability in less than two years, and we humans took hundreds of thousands of years to get where we are today. They're evolving faster than us. I propose we take them out before they gain the ability to breathe oxygen and wield chainsaws.
Comments
But they're not American. Anyone who's not American wants to kill you and your family.
So, is this ethical? Ashley has the mental capacity of a 6-month old, and the parents did this because she will never understand menstrual cramps and the pains of being a woman, and since they have to move her all the time anyway, a bigger size is harder to work with.
Discuss.
But a hysterectomy to prevent that? I don't know. This is one aspect of this article that I'm ambivalent about. It certainly would make their futures a lot easier, as their caretakers would not have to deal with another bodily function. But at the same time, is it right to do something so irrevocable and major just to avoid some hassle and minor pain?
As for stunting her growth, I disagree with that. I help lift adults on a daily basis, and they can be heavy, but it's really not that big a deal. An overweight person is a potential problem, but lifts specifically designed for people are available, and are probably a lot less expensive than growth stunting surgery.
And as for removing her breast buds, that just pisses me off. What is so wrong with this girl growing breasts? They wouldn't have any negative impact on her caregivers: they don't weigh much and they won't secrete anything. The ONLY reason I can see that these parents removed her breasts was because they wanted their daughter to remain a little child for the rest of her life. This is unacceptable. I can see some argument when surgery would result in a much easier load for this girl's caregivers, but not when the surgery is only used to make this girl conform to some image her parents have.
Wow.
Definitely not condoning or anything. Just saying is all.
Also, the wikipedia article on this says that they want to do it to help stop sexual abuse. What the fuck?
One of our speech pathologists said that she understood the hysterectomy. What happens if this girl gets pregnant from someone raping her? That would totally suck. It's still a hard situation, but, again, I can see the argument, a lot more so than the "stop sexual abuse" argument.
School worker jailed for stealing from disabled student
What the hell....
I never thought I'd find stingrays scary, but now they're attacking us above water. Soon they'll master self-powered flight, and we'll all be screwed. Don't say I didn't warn you.
But not to worry. Humanity will evole too, and those who survive will develop amazing dodging abilities, super speed, and maybe even the ability to shoot lightning out of our fingertips.
We can win this, people.