Layer 270 . . . Fully Evolved Humans, Charlie Gillett, Music, Barack Obama and Healthcare Reform

.
Very few people have even heard of Charlie Gillett, for two very good reasons. Firstly, they're not interested in music. Secondly, Gillett was never interested in becoming rich and famous. Or even well known. He died a few days ago, at the shockingly young age of 68. He was a good man, a spiritual man - the kind of "fully evolved human" described in Layer 20.

• Self-actualizing people are dedicated to some work, task, duty or vocation which they consider to be important.

• Self-actualizers have ‘psychological freedom’. They do not need or value unwarranted fame, celebrity or notoriety. 

• They are spontaneous, they are doing what is natural; they are merely expressing themselves.

• They have a deep feeling of kinship with the whole human race. They are capable of friendship with people regardless of race, creed, class, education or political beliefs. This acceptance of others cuts across political, economic and national boundaries.

• They have for human beings in general a deep feeling of identification, sympathy and affection . . . they have a genuine desire to help the human race.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2010/mar/17/charlie-gillett-obituary

by Richard Williams

Few people can have opened so many ears to such a variety of music over the last four decades as Charlie Gillett, the author and radio disc jockey, who has died aged 68 after a long illness. Charlie wrote the first serious history of rock'n'roll and went on to become a central figure in drawing together the confluence of international sounds that became known, to the benefit of many artists whose work might otherwise have remained in obscurity, as world music.

The radio was Charlie's medium, and from Honky Tonk, his 1970s Radio London show, to his weekly BBC World Service broadcasts in recent years, he nurtured an audience whose loyalty to him and belief in his integrity were unshakeable. He was never polished in his presentation – "I'm not very good at reading scripts," he once said, "and I wouldn't be very convincing introducing a record that I didn't personally like" – but his listeners knew that if Charlie had chosen to play a piece of music, it would be worth hearing.

Charlie studied for his MA at Columbia University. The history of rock'n'roll became the subject of his thesis, long before popular music became an acceptable topic for academic study. Returning to England in 1966, he taught social studies and film-making, another lifelong enthusiasm.

Attempting to find a niche in journalism, he wrote for New Society, Anarchy and the soul music magazine Shout before securing a column in Record Mirror, in which he could express his enthusiasm for rhythm and blues and early rock'n'roll.

Wisely, he turned down an offer to present BBC2's The Old Grey Whistle Test, realising that he would have little to say to musicians for whose work he cared nothing.

It was in the mid-1970s that he and Gordon Nelki formed a partnership which led them to manage Kilburn and the High Roads (whose lead singer was Ian Dury).

..........................................................

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2010/mar/18/charlie-gillett-legacy

Charlie had been present at the famous meeting in a central London pub in 1987, when a group of like-minded music folk decided they'd create something called "world music" to make sure that the nation's record stores would find a place to stock the latest sounds coming out of Africa and elsewhere.

He [became] the patriarch of that whole scene: not just a wonderful radio host, but a tenaciously enthusiastic figure who knew everyone that mattered and who made a point of bringing them together.

Even when the artist under scrutiny was wholly obscure, Charlie's lucid style and attention to the artist's intentions meant you'd be sure to check them out.

It's no great secret that most rock writers develop a hard crust of cynicism as the years grind by; with Charlie, who'd been at it for longer than most, that absolutely never happened.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/mar/21/charlie-gillett-world-music-patriarch

nohope4eng

What sad,sad news.

Charlie was one of the great radio voices and I too have been listening to him for 30 years or so. Mostly on the World Service when living in the Middle East but previously in his Rock and Roll incarnation on UK radio.

As someone said on the World Service this morning,he will had three amazing traits: an enquiring mind,a great ear and true integrity.

Add to that tremendous warmth and humor.


Moonset

What words are adequate to describe the extraordinary contribution Charlie Gilett made to the world of music and the joy he brought to his devoted listeners?

His voice and delivery ensured the attention of the listener was held firm. His lovely, re-assuring and mellifluous tones just made me feel that all was well, even though it was obvious that all was not well at all with our world . . . but just for that golden time whilst he was broadcasting . . . everything seemed to be put in order.

The music he introduced to us was SO varied and memorable. He would take one on a journey, not just around the World, but through many emotions, at all levels of heightened perception. A real light show, the sense of colour through the music was vivid, somehow tangible.

georgearmanni

Such sad news, such a loss. As a student at Sussex University in 1968, discovering socialist politics and that Rolling Stones tunes were not original but covers of original black tunes from the US (yeah, I know) these two tracks were coming together as I became interested in black history and culture, including blues, r n b and soul music.

Charlie came to Sussex to speak to us about music, playing tunes as he went along. His presentation chimed in exactly with the direction of my own growing passion, and left me with an indelible memory which I will always treasure.

"Sound of the City". Changed my life. Thank you, Charlie.

Scousetone

Shall miss him, his voice and his recommendations. There's very little integrity left these days in the music business, which is probably why one of the most important proponents of new, exciting and undiscovered music from around our Earth didn't make the Grauniad's front page.

Well, you made my front page Charlie; and I and the world are a better place for it.

...............................................................

Barack

And talking of making the world a better place, and fully evolved human beings, we come back to a young man of mixed race, who has lived in different countries, who has the potential to be one of the exceptional human beings of all time. He probably already is, but given half a chance and a fair wind he has the potential to achieve amazing things.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/mar/22/health-care-reform-vote-congress-obama

Healthcare reform vote: sweet victory for Obama

Winning the vote for healthcare reform in Congress last night showed that Obama was right to keep fighting

by Richard Adams

Some myths got slain last night in Washington DC. For one thing, the Democratic party rediscovered its vertebrae and used it, for a change, to pass healthcare reform. For another, the myth that the US political structure is broken and cannot digest fundamental issues … well, it took a dent.

Minutes after the final passage of the bills through the House of Representatives, President Obama got on with selling the reforms to the American public, going live on television despite the late hour. "This is what change looks like," Obama said, minutes before midnight, tying together his election promises of change with his commitments to reforming healthcare. "We proved that this government of the people and by the people still works for the people."

The key fact from last night's vote is not what the margin was or the procedure used. The fact that it happened at all that was the real miracle. "Tonight at a time when the pundits said it was no longer possible, we rose above the weight of politics," Obama said in his late-night post-vote address.
...............................................................

LSEscientist

Not ideal but the US has rejoined the civilized nations. Shame so long absent.

Antipodean1

Obama delivered on his promises where Clinton couldnt; 95% of Americans will get coverage. Only time will tell if USA can afford any of this, but seems that its a huge step forwards with regards to equity and cost control. It may not be perfect, but Obama will rightly claim victory. He (& we) can now move on with one huge and controversial job well done, and look forward to closing out the deal on a second term with his credibility stature & authority massively enhanced.

KrustytheKlown

    "Honestly, I have never been for the life of me been able to figure out why so many so called Christians most strongly oppose any measure to help the disadvantaged in the US."

It's not that strange when you remember what brand of Christianity the US was founded on, and which is still practised by many of its citizens. The religion of the founding fathers was a particular strain of Protestantism, or Puritanism, where poverty was seen as a sign of being unfavoured by god and where self-reliance was a great virtue. The idea is that if you're poor, it's your fault for not being among the chosen. Sounds bizarrre, but how else to explain the fact that millions of 'ordinary Americans' with no connection to the insurance or pharmeceutical industries, oppose national health care with a passion?


SeattleOrca

There is a mythology - the "Horatio Alger" idea - that is deeply woven in the American psyche. Americans believe strongly in the ideal of the autonomous individual. In modern times, corporate interests have learned to exploit that ideal to avoid sensible community obligations like universal health care. The Republican party has been remarkably successful in convincing ordinary working class folks that the government only steals from them and if they could just be left alone, they'd thrive.

It's a ridiculous point of view, of course, but it's very prevalent.

.

Layer 261 . . . Return to Bankers, Reform, Progressive Solutions and Obama's Democrats

.
There are lots of things to catch up on this week, and three good pieces in the Guardian today.

Simon Jenkins wrote another superb column -

The bankers lied. And Darling, a mere puppet on their string, knows it

Britain has paid a horrific price for allowing the City to dictate credit policy. Yet there is no inquiry, no questioning, only silence

Still no inquiry. Still no answers.

The lack of accountability, the sheer lack of curiosity from the political community, is amazing.

 Advised by bankers, surrounded by bankers, obsessed with bankers, Darling paid.

I would like to know why. Ask those involved and they go wide-eyed and mutter "Armageddon", rather like Tony Blair explaining the Iraq invasion. To these people, not letting banks fail was not an option but a creed. They cannot explain what is "wrong" with taking hold of a reckless bank in trouble, guaranteeing its deposits (and cash machines) and continuing to lend against a Treasury guarantee, while dumping the casino activities into administration. Shareholders lose out, but that's capitalism. Talk of bank doors closing is rubbish.

So why were RBS and Lloyds/HBOS not fully nationalised, rather than given unconditional largesse?

An Economist headline put it pithily: "Banks fine: pity about the customers."

Darling did not even require banks to curb their extraordinary bonuses, even when they consumed a large share of reported losses. The American financier, Warren Buffett, famously protested that banks were "being run for their employees… with lucrative paydays that enriched people who are not particularly intelligent and add little value". Since he claims to own them, Darling might at least explain why he was further enriching them at public expense.

At a time when consumer demand was collapsing, the government found itself unable to respond with more VAT cuts, pensions bonuses, higher social security and more public projects, in other words a classical Keynesian answer to a slump.

That is what Germany and many far eastern countries did, with benefits rises, tax holidays and consumer scrappage schemes. The British government did the opposite.

Why did Darling not let HBOS or Lloyds fail, merely guaranteeing their deposits? Alternatively, why did he not nationalise and split up the ailing banks in October 2008? Again, if they really were too big to fail, as they alleged, why has he not made them emphatically smaller, so when they fail next time they do not drag the economy down with them?

Gillian Tett's book on the psychology of credit greed, Fool's Gold, shows the corrupting effect of unfettered derivatives trading on the whole financial system. Darling has done nothing to mitigate that effect. The world is alive with talk of curbs on bonuses, hedge funds, short trading, proprietary dealing and transaction taxes. There is talk of stress tests, living wills and higher reserve ratios. In almost all these arguments, Labour ministers are on the side of unregulated banking and against further controls. They are the wildest of free-marketeers. Brown and Darling have gone native and become puppets on a banker's string.

Britain has paid, and will go on paying, a horrific price for this government allowing bankers to dictate credit policy after 2008. To avoid ministers suffering the ideological odium of proper nationalisation (as opposing to bailing-out), Britain is being forced to lose jobs, firms, infrastructure, prosperity and the happiness it brings.

Too big to fail has taken a savage toll on the economy. If it was worth it, I would like to see the account. If not, someone should pay. Yet because the policy was backed by all three main parties, there is no questioning, no inquiry. All is silence.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/11/banks-lied-darling-puppet-city
..............................................................

Mehdi Hasan wrote this:

It's defeatist nonsense to talk of a crisis of leftwing thinking

Progressives have been vindicated. The public are far ahead, and to the left, of government on the reforms we need

The left never seems to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Social-democratic political parties across the west are in danger of allowing the financial crisis to "go to waste". Instead of seizing this once-in-a-lifetime chance to promote a radical, progressive and even populist political and economic agenda, much of the left has retreated into a familiar and introspective comfort zone, in which navel-gazing and self-flagellation become substitutes for action.

Eighteen months on, few, if any, of the leading neoliberal ideologues have recanted their belief in the sort of market fundamentalism that unleashed the worst financial crisis in human history.

The irony is that leftist analyses, for example, of the fragility of financial markets and the corrosive effects of inequality, have been vindicated by events. Never before in living memory have such large swathes of public and expert opinion endorsed policies and positions long advanced by the progressive end of the political spectrum. The public is to the left not simply of New Labour, but the political and media classes as a whole.

The reality is that the public are far ahead, and to the left, of the government on financial and economic reform. Polling by YouGov in February, for example, revealed that 76% of those surveyed wanted the government to introduce a law to cap bonus payments; 51% said they backed the so-called Robin Hood tax, or Tobin tax, on financial transactions; and 68% said they supported rules to split retail and investment banking. The latter view is backed by the Trotskyist governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, and the former by "Red" Adair Turner of the Financial Services Authority.

Then there is the role of the state. The right could offer no real alternative to the de facto nationalisation of the banks in 2008 – and the late Michael Foot went to his grave having seen a key section of his 1983 "suicide note" manifesto implemented by a (New) Labour government. But the hankering for state ownership of the so-called commanding heights of the economy is not restricted to the financial sector. Polls show voters in favour of the renationalisation of electricity, gas, water, the railways and the telecommunications industry.

In fact, throughout the Thatcher era, more people voted for high-spending, tax-raising parties than voted for Thatcher. Despite three decades of tacking to the right, under Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown, the public has remained rather collectivist in its attitudes. Happily, recent events have only served to entrench this British mindset – and Labour's belated semi-conversion to a populist, Keynesian social democracy surely explains the narrowing of the Tory lead since the new year.

To talk therefore of a crisis of leftwing thinking is defeatist nonsense. It is the market-worshipping right that should be in crisis. But there is a serious question as to whether, after a decade-long Faustian pact with the City, Labour, as it is currently constituted, is capable of delivering the radical, progressive agenda voters crave.

The left should be much more confident, triumphalist even; for this is a progressive moment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/11/defeatist-nonsense-leftwing-thinking
.............................................................

Michael Tomasky wrote this very depressing piece about the state of the nation in the USA:

A disgrace for the Democrats

Obama's congressmen will sabotage the health bill to keep their seats. It is stomach-churning

The players in this drama are participating in the destruction of their own party. They know this. And they persist.

They live in fear of being tarred by a future Republican opponent of having abetted the march of socialism. So they voted no on the most important piece of social legislation that body has had before it in probably 40 years.

Living in mortal fear that they might lose their seats. But are they thinking about how to fix the bloated mess that is American healthcare, or serve their uninsured and underinsured constituents? Maybe in private, but certainly not in public.

Disgraceful. Virtually all of them have tens of thousands, or sometimes more than 100,000, adult constituents with no private insurance. If they're not in Washington to do something about that, then what are they there to do? Please don't answer that question.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/mar/11/disgrace-democrats-sabotage-health-bill.

Layer 159 Towards A New Politics: Bring It On.

.
As I was saying yesterday before running out of time and energy - hopefully people are waking up and realising that the only thing they have left to believe in and trust is themselves. Not the City. Not Westminster. Not the Queen. And not God either.

In yesterday's Guardian, Jonathan Freedland was saying something similar:

The Speaker exits with revolution in the air. I say, bring it on

The essence of the piece is summed up in his final paragraph:

“In the 21st century, we can no longer accept that 646 individuals plus an unelected monarch are sovereign. Power should belong to all of us. And if that means revolution, bring it on.”

He also makes these key points:

“For years, those of us who yearned for a radical shakeup of our constitution were told we could dream on. Save it for the seminar room, the critics said: what people care about are jobs and services, not dry, academic discussions about governance.

Well, guess what. They care now.

Michael Martin the first Speaker of the House of Commons to be forced out since Sir John Trevor in 1695 . . . in the age of revolution.

It is revolution that is in the air now, as voters share a sense of revulsion that has no recent precedent. When the nation loathes not this individual or even that political party, but the entire governing class – yearning to throw out the whole rotten lot of them – then the ground begins to tremble.

That is why the expenses affair dwarfs the sleaze episodes of the 1990s. Then the outrage focused on the Tories alone, allowing Labour to present itself as the clean, unsullied alternative. It's different now. People revile the party of Elliot Morley, Hazel Blears and Shahid Malik, with their bogus mortgage claims, flipping and home-cinema systems – but they can hardly hail the men of moats and manure in the Tory party. All they feel is contempt for the system itself.

They're right too. For the great expenses fraud is not some freak ailment in an otherwise healthy body politic. It is a symptom of a system that is wholly dysfunctional, diseased to its very heart.

Speaker Martin's fate was to embody several aspects of that rottenness. Its secrecy, fighting through the courts to keep expenses hidden; its profligacy, claiming £4,000 for his wife's taxi fares and spending £700,000 refurbishing Speaker's House, as well as its antiquated procedures and clubbishness.

With his departure, though, he has performed a valuable service. The fact that nothing like it has happened for more than three centuries confirms that these are indeed revolutionary times – and that radical, convention-breaking change is possible.

That does not mean simply dealing with the specific business of allowances, though of course that is necessary.

It's the attitude that says, "We're in charge: who are you to challenge us?"

It is this, not the mechanics of expenses, that has to change. It will require MPs to see themselves not as masters of their own universe, who expect the taxpayer to pamper them with silk cushions and country houses as if that is their divine right – but as employees of the people who elect them.

Rhetorically, our politicians have nodded to this notion: Blair promised Labour would be "servants of the people." But now we know they never truly saw themselves that way. If they did, they would have had to undertake the revolutionary move our ancestors shied away from more than 300 years ago – and which has eluded us ever since.

It is the shift from our current system – which rests on the belief that the crown-in-parliament is sovereign – to the simpler notion that it is the people who are sovereign in their own land.

Plenty of other nations have made that move, most famously the US, whose founding document asserts that power starts with "We the people". But we never did. Instead, in Britain, power still belongs at the top – with the crown and the palace of Westminster

Today the Guardian launches online A New Politics, a call for a radical shakeup of our constitution, arguing for reform of everything from party funding to the role of the attorney general. But the common thread that must run through any new constitution for Britain has to be the shift from parliamentary to popular sovereignty. Once you understand that in a true democracy the people are sovereign, the next moves become obvious.

Of course the second chamber has to be elected: a sovereign people chooses who writes the laws that govern them.

Keep applying the same logic and it all becomes pretty obvious. Of course there should be fixed parliamentary terms: it's the boss who decides when the employee's contract terminates. Yet in our system it's the other way around, with the prime minister telling us when he plans to "go to the country".

Should there be a written constitution? Naturally. If you own a house, you have a copy of the deeds; if you buy a car, you get an owner's manual explaining how it works. And we are the owners.

Attached to that document could be a full statement of our rights. Not the "Bill of Rights and Responsibilities" proposed by the two main parties, because that implies our rights are handed down by our masters, conditional on good behaviour. But fundamental rights are ours unconditionally – because we are in charge.

All the flummery and archaic language should be banished too: it shrouds parliament in a cloud of mystique, opaque to all but a select priesthood. But if it belongs to us it should be conducted in a language and a style any one of us could understand.

This is the simple rule that should be run over every part of our constitution. Right now it is shaped by the assumption that the crown, today represented by the executive, is in charge, in harness with a parliament it dominates. Any change must rest on a different premise, that the people are sovereign.

This is why Gordon Brown's statement was disappointing . . . Twice he made the ritual bow before "respect for parliamentary sovereignty". He doesn't yet understand that it is this very idea that lies at the heart of the problem.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/19/speaker-constitutional-reform-mps-expenses

------------------------------------------------------

The problem with simply replacing the Queen with a president is that we end up with George W Bush, aided and abetted by a compliant legislature pretending to be representatives of “we, the people”, when in fact they're the puppets of their parties, which in turn are the playthings of corporate and billionaire funding.

Still, having an elected head of state and an elected Upper House would be progress, providing we had a media and an Internet-linked electorate that kept them all under proper scrutiny and analysis, providing we have a political culture that people are able and willing to engage with.

-------------------------------------------

Here are some extracts from Seamus Milne's piece in the Guardian yesterday:

Purge the professionals and let party democracy breathe

This meltdown creates opportunities as well as dangers. But more than technocratic fixes, we need real political choice.

"What started as a political scandal has tipped over into a full-blown crisis of Britain's entire political system. There's no doubt that the Commons Speaker's resignation was long overdue. But if MPs imagine that by scapegoating Michael Martin for their own scams they will appease popular revulsion, they are dreaming. The drip-drip revelations of help-yourself entitlement have only entrenched a gulf between the political elite and the public that's been widening for two decades: the product of narrowing political choice, professionalisation of politics, shameless government deceit about war and peace, and devastating financial collapse.

Now both Britain's governing and business classes are discredited. And what the Daily Telegraph, orchestrator of the expenses leaks, yesterday called "a very British revolution" is going to have to go a good deal further than a change of guard in a largely ceremonial post of fake feudal flummery to steady the horses. Gordon Brown seems at last dimly to perceive what has to be done.

But the public doesn't want apologies, cheques or promises of further inquiries – it wants heads on a platter without further delay. That's why the only way to restore some confidence in Labour MPs – the most damaged by the scandal – is to drive through a sweeping round of reselections by local parties.

To avoid the kind of stitch-ups by regional officials which have packed parliament with New Labour clones, the normal procedures would have to be opened up. But putting all but the most blameless MPs through a process of reselection would offer the chance both to revive local democracy and replace some Tweedledum career politicians with more independent, rooted and working-class candidates.

But Brown is still balking at sacking his communities secretary Hazel Blears for her expenses profiteering, letting it be known he has "full confidence" in her while at the same time describing her behaviour as "totally unacceptable".

A purge of miscreants, however, is clearly not enough. What has become a crisis of democracy can only be overcome with a programme of democratic reform. Both Brownite and Blairite members of the cabinet are now talking about launching a constitutional convention to reshape the whole political structure, covering everything from an elected Lords and independent select committees to electoral reform and an overhaul of party funding.

Anything that cracks open the system and dispenses with perennial British complacency about the "mother of parliaments" has got to be welcome. But technocratic fixes won't by themselves solve the problem. Unless parliamentary democracy is about choice, it's meaningless. The legacy of New Labour is a contest over the narrowest of political and economic options, presided over by highly centralised party machines, where internal democracy has withered and party members have drifted away.

There is no reason why any of the reforms being discussed would automatically overcome that dismal inheritance. Unless new parties are able to break the existing political monopoly – a mountain to climb under first-past-the-post even in current circumstances – that would require an end to authoritarian party control, space for internal pluralism, and the local right to choose election candidates freely.

For Labour in particular, such an upheaval would mean a reconstitution of the party. But without a profound change in the kind of people who are chosen as MPs and a reconnection between electors and elected, underpinned by a right of recall, this crisis of representation will not be overcome.

The political crisis triggered by the Commons expenses scandal is itself linked to the economic crisis that preceded it. Both are the product of an economic model that brooked no alternative, was built on greed and drove people to see themselves as consumers rather than citizens. And just as in the case of the economic crash, the constitutional meltdown creates opportunities as well as dangers for progressive and radical politics.

By bringing to a head long-running alienation from mainstream politics at a time when the economic system is seen to have failed, the crisis offers a chance to bust the cosy political cartels that have underpinned it, and create new alliances for a real change of direction. Everything is potentially in play, including the survival of the parties in their current form. If Brown were able to seize the moment, the government could shape the direction of reform.

But there is also a risk that disgust at the antics of the political class can feed a reactionary mood that rejects the idea that politics can improve people's lives and embraces the call for a small state at a time of retrenchment. Not surprisingly, the atmosphere in Downing Street is febrile. As one close ally of the prime minister told me yesterday: "There is a dangerous void. If the governing elite doesn't grab the opportunity, the people will overthrow them."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/20/speaker-mps-expenses-party-democracy

--------------------------------------------------

For anyone needing some gen on Hazel Blears here's a very comprehensive piece by John Harris:

'It will take years for my reputation to recover'

The sight of Hazel Blears brandishing her cheque on TV may prove the most enduring image of the whole expenses furore. But how did this straight-talking, working-class MP become the focus of the scandal? And can she possibly survive it?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/21/hazel-blears-expenses-cheque-labour

Surely the real question is, what reputation? Surely her reputation is for being a hideous Blairite unprincipled conniving NuLabour clone? No recovery necessary.

--------------------------------------------

A New Politics website.

The “A New Politics” section of the Guardian's website can be accessed here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/series/politics-and-reform

Lots of good stuff, and lots of responses and contributions from readers.

-----------------------------------

The Christian Brothers and Sisters.

For anyone who can stomach it, the Guardian's report on the abuse of children in Ireland by The Christian Brothers and The Sisters of Mercy can be seen here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/20/child-abuse-catholic-schools-ireland

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_of_Christian_Brothers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_to_Inquire_into_Child_Abuse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisters_of_Mercy
.