Lieberman fundraiser ran the Abu Ghraib of rehab

Have you heard about the Beyerstein-Lieberman-GOP-Beyerstein connection?

Republican big shot Mel Sembler threw a fund-raiser for Joe Lieberman this week. In addition to being a close personal friend of Dick Cheney and the chair of Scooter Libby's legal defense fund, Sembler is a major figure in the War on Drugs. He founded a chain of treatment centers called Straight, Inc. Before that, he helped run a "tough love" treatment program called "The Seed." In 1974, a congressional investigation found that The Seed was getting government money to practice experimental mind-control similar to that inflicted by the North Koreans during the Cold War. Perhaps disturbingly, experimental mind control wasn't illegal, per se. But it would have required a ton of extra paperwork for The Seed to carry on. So, Sembler founded Straight, Incorporated in 1976. Straight continued to abuse teenagers under the guise of treatment until 1993. The organization has been sued dozens of times and staff members have faced criminal charges.

My father, Barry Beyerstein, investigated Straight in the early nineties and wrote a report on the psychological abuse that was taking place under the guise of treatment.

The opening chapter of Maia Szalavitz's Help At Any Cost describes how Mel Sembler was intimately involved in the "extraordinary renditions" that some reluctant inmates endured.

I didn't realize that Holy Joe's new fundraising friend was the head of Straight until my friend Evan emailed me yesterday. He happened to find my dad's report on the internet while he was researching Sembler.

See my post at Firedoglake for more details, including Sembler's embarrassing penis pump problem.

General JC Christian is all over this thing, in a manly heterosexual way.

Comments

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

That's excellent, Phantom; then we must absolutely never offer any criticism of any action of any government of the United States, ever, period. Ah-ah-ah! Now, remember, another administration did the same thing.

Or, we could just drop the see-no-evil shit and point out that Clinton's FEMA was well-run, while W's sucks my balls. It's okay to point out things that are being badly done, especially since many of the particular things W is doing badly happen to be things that cost lives. Agreed that the ambassadorship isn't so much one of those.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

It's a pretty incredible story, and I encourage people to check out Maia Szalavitz's book on the subject, Help At Any Cost. Some really Dickensian characters emerge from the sordid stories she tells of the teen rehab industry...phony priests, crackpot mind control gurus, amazing survival stories, and the Charles Bronsonian figure of Richard Bradbury, the nothing-to-lose whistleblower who has been taking the law into his own hands after being abused at Mel Sembler's Florida franchise. (He's the guy who stole Mel's penis pump.)

Pretty blackly humourous to think of teens on drugs, being sent to rehab to get normal again, but instead being thrown into a world just like the one in the Terry Gilliam film Brazil.

[whig]

Lindsay, please check out the Drug Free America Foundation as well.

[John Gorenfeld]

Name me one President in the past thirty years or more that hasn't appointed ambassadors to countries who don't speak the language?

Name one whose pick for ambassador ran an enormous business shuttered by the authorities for abusing hundreds of children.

The first Bush appointed not one, but two STRAIGHT officers as ambassadors: Sembler and another fella, Joseph Zappala. Sembler's a repeat. Last time they sent him to Australia.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

This is just Phantom's regular MO: if Bush is criticized, a hullaballoo must be raised because the criticism wasn't evenly spread to every other president, including some liberals. This either argues that one cannot criticize Bush at all, or that one must include exactly equal criticisms of every other president, so as not to seem partisan. Phantom often claims not to be a knee-jerk Bush supporter, but as someone who has read his posts for well over a year, I have _never_ seen him criticize Bush without immediately mentioning others' mistakes, that supposedly balance out the criticism.

Unfortunately, there is absolutely no reason why we can't criticize Bush's actions. Firstly, he has made several mistakes that are unique to him, such as diverting our response to 9/11 from Al Qaeda, where it should have been, to going to war with Iraq, which threatened us not at all; installing an inexperienced friend of a crony as head of FEMA, one of the most important emergency relief organizations in the country, and failing to respond to Katrina, after even that FEMA head notified him of the serious problems and deaths that were likely to result; et cetera.

When I criticize Clinton for spearheading NAFTA, as I often do, I don't leap to criticize Bush for failing to heed the terms of NAFTA (and, I think, only brought that up once, when the subject was Canadian-US relations, which had been hurt by Bush's actions. Nor do I mention any of the Republican supporters who also helped to spearhead NAFTA. I don't see why I should. This is something Clinton did, that's been very destructive to NAFTA's constituents, so I should feel free to criticize him without a knee-jerk criticism of Bush or other Republicans as well.

Phantom, your rule, and your contention that you're not a Bush partisan, are refuted.

[whig]

I linked this article but it didn't show up in the trackbacks: Doublespeak: Straight is crooked.

[The Phantom]

1984

Its not that another administration did the same thing, its that every other modern administration has done the same thing. OK to criticize Bush for having an involvement with this freak, but lets not wring our hands about having a hack who "doesn't even speak Italian" as ambassador. C'mon.

I don't set the agenda on this blog. Some of the criticisms of Bush here in posts or coments are just silly ( he hired an ambassador to Rome who doesn't even speak Italian! ) , how can not any thinking person respond to that? It's a counterpunch.

I've had ferocious arguments over an extended period of time in 1999-2000 when I did not want Bush to be the nominee. I wanted McCain.

I think that Bush has been fiscally irresponsibe, has run up the budget, until recently had never used his veto power, incl in the context of the Bridge to Nowhere, sponsored by GOP Senator Stevens.

I've criticized the strategery in Iraq, having too light a force there.

I've criticized the level of antiterrorism funding for NYC.

I've roasted him alive on energy policy, or more accurately the complete lack of an energy or conservation policy.

You haven't seen any of this because like most here you probably never look at what you would regard as right wing blogs. Like most here, you probably only look at blogs ( or publications ) that will never challenge your political and social prejudices in any way.

For anyone who wants to look outside the echo chamber, I will be updating the links section on my blog in the next few days. I will leave the liberal links up and will grow them ( how sad to see only links from one point of view on a blog ) ; I will expand the conservative listings also.

But also I will comment a --bit-- less and post a bit more.

You've refuted absolutely nothing mon ami. I reach out across party lines ( see my post of Sept 14 ) and I call 'em like I see 'em. An exclusively liberal or conservative point of view is proof positive of an unexamined mind.

But you've inadvertently made a good suggestion. A bit less commenting and a bit more posting. I owe you a beer, which can be right after Joe Lieberman victory night on Election Day.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Whig, good point. The DFAF rose from the ashes of Straight, just as Straight rose from the ashes of The Seed (itself a retread of Synanon). The reason I haven't posted today is that I've been intensely researching Sembler. This guy's tentacles reach everywhere: Plame/Libby, Jeb Bush/Florida, and beyond.

[whig]

Phantom, I checked your blog out and I'm on the opposite side of the country from Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, being in the outskirts of Berkeley here. Frankly I don't see much to interest me on your site but if you point me to one or two articles I'll be happy to take a look and comment on my blog, though I don't promise the comments will be flattering. Somehow I doubt you'd link to liberal blogs like mine,

Do you want to "reach out across party lines" and say something about your Mel Sembler? Because isn't that the point of this particular post? Condemn the Drug Free America Foundation or praise them, where do you stand?

[The Phantom]

whig

I'm not fishing for praise. And unlike liberals, I don't mind being talked back to.

I used to run two blogs- The View from 103 and
Bay Ridge Blog. The first dealt with some political issues , War on Terror, as well as general fooling around, and the other was comments dealing with my neighborhood in Brooklyn.

I never had the time to make sustained contributions to both --what the hell was I thinking? Who has the time?-- so I elected to fold View into Bay Ridge Blog. Which will remain a localized thing with the occasional comment on other matters.

Some postings would include:

this on on Anne Coulter
On Coney Island

Governor Ahnold tells Graz to drop dead, which was linked to an Austrian paper and let to a lot of activity
and
New Orleans/Katrina

Hope you like 'em, but if you don't, it's cool. I don't want an echo chamber such as many blogs are. I won't call you a troll if you dare disagree! Debate is supposed to be the f***ing point.

[The Phantom]

whig

I don't know enough about Sembler, the foundation or Scared Straight to say a great deal. It sounds terrible in the post here, but this description of Straight, Inc. sounds less bad.

[whig]

The Wikipedia article you posted doesn't seem to have been very well formatted, so it probably hasn't been through a lot of review. The note on the Discussion page is pretty clear about what Straight, Inc. is.

[Alex]

"It sounds terrible in the post here, but this description of Straight, Inc. sounds less bad."
Yeah, but can Wikipedia really be considred a valid source?

[The Phantom]

Alex

The more that I use Wikipedia, the more I'm impressed by its breadth and by the objectivity I normally see. There have been abuses by partisans who have posted on it, but in general...it ain't bad.

[Alex]

Phantom- Right; despite its inevitable shortcomings, I'd have to agree, and I do use it a lot. I guess I could have been more thorough with my criticism. However, having been in Straight this is no doubt an example of a Wiki page not telling the whole truth.

[Kris]

Phantom, that Wikipedia entry is nothing more than the propoganda that Straight promoted any chance it got, to the media, prospective unsuspecting parents, etc. That is what Straight was on paper/in theory only. I assure you that the reality in Straight Inc. was not pretty. The entry does correctly outline the phases. However, the reality of how Straight implemented these theories is notably absent from this entry. For example "positive peer pressure," which sounds very nice and pleasant in the entry, was really in your face verbal assault, yelling, screaming insults, name calling, profanity, humiliation, etc. The "para-professional staff" was nothing more than program graduates, many of who were still in high school or had no higher education at all. Kids were in charge of kids, which was a very dangerous situation that I believe allowed much of the abuse to happen in Straight.

If you are so inclined, please read the numerous personal accounts located at the following website.

www.geocities.com/surviving_straight_inc/index.htm

Kris
Cincinnati Straight Survivor 84-86

[Alex]

Straight was a mind-control behavior modification facility that followed the tough love philosophy. It masqueraded itself as a drug rehab that professed to help kids (and their families) deal with a *supposed* addiction. Everyone there was required to admit to the group their "powerlessness over drugs" or remain on what was known as first phase until they "got honest". According to them, I needed a "higher power" which equated to the group and its corrupted 12-step dogma (the 12 steps had been reduced to 7 steps) to save myself from "jail, insanity or death". I had a lot of difficulty admitting to myself (or to them) that I was a drug addict or an alcoholic. It took a while for me to convince myself of this.

The inmates were overseen by staff whose only credentials were having gone through this mind rape mill themselves! This made them anything but qualified for what they were supposed to be doing; the program was far from a valid treatment facility for drug addiction. They took anyone that they could get on absurd pretenses and with very little discrimination.

[The Phantom]

Kris

I must go now but promise I will read what you've referred to.

[Alon Levy]

And unlike liberals, I don't mind being talked back to.

Do you want to start a firefight about Redstate's banning DarkSyde for posting about evolution?

[The Phantom]

Alon

Good night. Sleep tight.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

The "positive peer pressure" bit, essentially screaming, insulting browbeating sessions designed to break people's spirit, were portrayed in the Deb Swisher play as well.

OK Phantom. Well I liked your last post, with the exception of this bit:

You haven't seen any of this because like most here you probably never look at what you would regard as right wing blogs. Like most here, you probably only look at blogs ( or publications ) that will never challenge your political and social prejudices in any way.

For anyone who wants to look outside the echo chamber,

The fact is, actually, that I rarely look at any other blogs than this one at all. I've mentioned, however, that I read the Economist religiously, and while not a right-wing echo chamber, the Economist takes a completely different stand than mine on economic liberalism. I also sometimes read Foreign Affairs, which often features essays that stand very much to the right of me (although, of course, I am often to be found rolling my eyes and scoffing at it, as you do here at Majikthise). But I rarely scoff much at the conservative Economist.

I have studiously avoided referring to you as a "troll," although I have often wondered if you're employed by someone (though not, of course, as a blog agent provocateur, but in some other capacity, which causes you to be biased). And I think it's clear that you should retract saying that I am "nostalgic" for Saddam Hussein, which you've done more than once, in spite of both my clear refutation of that statement, and the supporting evidence that I counsel avoiding his methods (i.e., torture and aggressive, ill-founded war). That pissed me off the first time, and I consider it almost inexcusable to say a second time, after I've refuted it. However, I have carefully nursed the feeling that you are a thinking person, who, though you may be affiliated with the military or the government, are someone that has some concern for America, and with whom I might strike common cause, if the Iraq War or torture weren't getting in the way.

I hope to have that beer or three with you someday. It's a shame to break with people.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

DS got banned for posting about evolution? Damn. That makes me want to register to comment at Red State just so I can get banned, too, on general principle.

I got banned from Dawn Eden's website on my very first comment.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

>who, though you may be affiliated with the military or the government, are someone that has some concern for America,

OK, that sounded weird. I mean, though you may be _biased_ because of your affiliation with the military or the government, etc.

>Dawn Eden

Was it an abortion comment? It has to be that or something about atheism. Banning people like that is weak, unless they're insult trolls or spambots. I never heard of her, but when I went just now, there was some comment about "illustrating the abortion mentality." I didn't realize there was an abortion mentality.

[Alon Levy]

DS got banned for posting about evolution? Damn. That makes me want to register to comment at Red State just so I can get banned, too, on general principle.

Yes, he did.

[The Phantom]

1984

I shouldn't have said that you were nostalgic for Saddam Hussein. That was an ad hominem thing that could have been done without, and I take it back.

It was meant to provoke --I feel that many, left and right-- who profess great concern about the situation in Iraq now were pretty damn content with the horrible state of affairs pre-invasion, but were largely OK with it because it was "an internal affair". But here, it provoked too much, in an unfair way, and it won't be used again. To you that is, as I reserve the right to use it with my smug European friends/blogs when they get all unctious on me.

---

Naw, I'm not in military or law enforcement directly or indirectly, nor do I work for the government. The closest that I came to that was when I was a squid ( Navy enlisted man ) back years ago. And that's not very close.

I'm a security hawk. A native New Yorker, lifelong news and foreign affairs junkie, very affected by September 11. But I don't even personally know any police or active military now.

Count me as a very interested civilian.

---

I'd feel that troll is a word that's used almost exclusively by know-nothings who are horrified that people have opinions that differ from theirs. It's probably coincidence, but I have never seen the term on any right wing sites...only on left wing sites.

---

I subscribe to The Economist as well. I probably should trim back on other subscriptions and get Foreign Affairs, which I think is a great magazine with no peers. It's an immense problem in that there is never enough time to read the quality publications that are out there.