Gadgets Can't Provide Us With Something To Say

Remember the good old days, before cell phones and the internet? Way back then, if you thought of something to tell a friend while you were waiting for the bus, you made a mental note to remember it until you got home and could give them a call. If you needed to look up a bit of information or do research for a term paper or a new purchase, you'd head to the library. Ah, those were the days.

This time of year really points up the number of new information sharing and communication gadgets available. Each store flyer has dozens of laptops, netbooks, cell phones and smart phones on sale just in time for the holidays. Now, no one has to be without the internet or some sort of communication device right at their fingertips. Anyone can send and receive email, surf the web, instant message, text message and just generally communicate his or her little heart out 24 hours a day, no matter where they are. The only thing that these amazing little gadgets don't provide is the most important of all: Something to say.

Of course, people have always used the telephone to chat or even rehash that morning's pre-breakfast argument. Regular communication is the mainstay of interpersonal relationships, and the telephone made it easier to do than did the occasional long letter. However, more communication options don't translate into more information to impart. That is why we are all familiar with the grocery store cell phone call, which usually starts with something like, "I'm at the store looking at the stuffed pimentos." Who needs to know that? By the same token, we are all now privy to the rehashed argument, sometimes with accompanying histrionics. Nobody needs to know about that, either.

The problem is that even though there is more opportunity to communicate now, people really don't have that much more to say. So, in an effort to impress others or use those "free" minutes, people walk and drive around with their cell phones pasted to their ears. What is so important that you need to make a call while you're driving?

I think people have become so accustomed to constant noise and chatter that they are nervous when they are alone with their own thoughts. When cell phones first became popular, but not common, I remember people making a big deal about talking on them. They would exaggerate their movements and speak too loudly, as if to say, "Look how popular I am!" Come to think of it, many still do. But I have a way to get back at them. Whenever someone next to me at the store starts to yell into his or her cell phone, I just start talking or singing, at just the same volume. Ha! Because, you see, despite this communication explosion, I don't own a cell phone because we still don't have service where I live. So, for now, I have to be content with annoying those who do. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it.

Airline Insecurity

Everyone is abuzz with the news that yet another militant follower of Islam attempted to destroy an airborne airliner. Luckily, tragedy was averted by luck and alert airplane passengers. Not, as one would reasonably expect, by either government or airline security.

How could this happen post 9-11? This, it turns out, is a very good question. Despite increased airport scrutiny of old women and people in wheelchairs, this particular individual slipped right past the bloodhound-like noses of these highly trained security screeners. Not only did this person, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, pay cash for a nearly $3,000 one-way ticket, but he had with him only one small bag for a trip from Amsterdam to Detroit. The two-part explosive he carried onto the plane, despite being tucked into his underwear, should have been easily detected.

Anyone familiar with the 9-11 scenario will find many similarities here. Yet, no red flags were raised. As if those missed clues were not enough, we are also informed by the media that Abdulmutallab's own father had notified both the Nigerian government and the American Embassy in that country of his son's increasingly radical outlook. This occurred only last month. Although Britain put his name on a watch list, apparently the Americans didn't think it necessary.

What happened to all the so-called "increased security" after 9-11? For the most part, it has presented itself as additional inconvenience for airline passengers, nothing more. Air marshals were to be a common presence on planes; that never materialized. Why bother taking actual precautions when all that need be done is harass passengers about their nail clippers and roll-on deodorant?

Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano was quoted as saying that the perpetrator was "stopped before any damage could be done." Well, sure he was, but not by security measures. In another eerie similarity to one of the 9-11 flights, it was passengers and crew that subdued him. But, don't worry! New air travel rules like no in-flight movies or bathroom breaks will surely solve the problem. Once again, corporate and governmental incompetence cause havoc, and now the damage control begins. Guess who, as usual, is going to pay the price? That's right. It's you and me, kid.

American Society Should Butt Out of Marriage

An editorial piece by Jennifer A. Marshall in last week's Gazette commented on a recent publication, The Marriage Index, by David Blankenhorn and Linda Malone-Colon. These authors purport to have their fingers on the pulse of the American Marriage, and they are here to tell us that the venerable institution is not doing well at all. As marriage goes, so goes the nation, they seem to say; if society does not find ways to prop up the institution, dire consequences will result.

Fear not. These brainy researchers have devised a set of indicators to test the health of the American marriage, such as duration of first marriages and birth rates to married persons. Out of a possible 100 points, today's marriages only score 60.3%, according to this model, versus a 1970 score of 76.2 I don't understand how the number of children a marriage produces relates directly to the happiness of that union, but never mind. In case you're wondering if this "research" proposes the support of all marriages, including gay ones, the publisher of this little nugget is the "Institute for American Values". So, probably not.

Marshall opines that when economic indicators take such a nosedive, as they have recently, "employers and policy makers responded accordingly". Well, sure, but their "responses" didn't support those who needed it most. She states that 70% of black children are born to unwed mothers because their fathers refused to get married. She also states that the percentage of all births to single mothers hovers around 40%. "Studies confirm", she says, that children of married parents fare much better in life than children of single parents.

This may be true, since it is easier for two people to raise children in this society than it is for a single person. However, it would be easier still for 3 or 4 people, yet there is a moral and legal ban on multiple marriage partners. Conservatives have always played the "nuclear family" card, offering the family unit up as a cure-all for society's ills. But how will sticking our collective noses into everyone else's marital business make a better society?

The authors offer a few tips. One is to form "local councils or committees that seek to strengthen marriage and family life". Another is to "teach school courses about marriage and love...through literature and art". How about a "new populist movement to empower marriage and families"? What does this gobbledygook mean, anyway? What school is going to teach "marriage" when they can't teach sex education and there's no money for gym and art classes? Will a local committee to check on the status of townspeople's marriages help strengthen society?

Poverty, lack of choices and a lack of education create more unhappy lives and marriages than lack of societal support of the institution itself. Marriages are made up of people, who have a right to work out their problems privately and for their own benefit. If entities like the Institute for American Values and the Heritage Foundation could study ways to support and empower people, I'll bet that the institutions they inhabit would benefit, as well.

Health Care Reform for the Big Interests

Our elected officials in Washington are currently scrambling to pass Obama's health care reform legislation before the Christmas holiday. This should be cause for celebration, and for some, it is--namely, the health care and insurance industries. For people like ourselves, however, it is nothing to cheer about.

Gone from the bill are most of the reforms that would have made this legislation truly historic. In place of these are giveaways to special interest groups like health care companies who, according to the latest issue of Harper's, spent $1.5 million per day lobbying Congress in 2009. The insurance industry, thanks to Sen. Ben Nelson, is another winner, with their exemption from anti-trust laws still intact. Holdouts like Nelson and Joe Leiberman can now be counted on to vote for this law, but at what cost?

Howard Dean, politician and physician, pointed out that the current bill is no friend to American taxpayers. Calling it "an insurance company's dream", he noted that not only will everyone be required to buy health insurance or face fines, but that insurance carriers will retain the right to deny those with pre-existing conditions. The White House, through spokesman Robert Gibbs, denied that insurance companies came out on top, saying that they "spent hundreds of millions...lobbying against this legislation". Just goes to show what that amount of money can buy.

The lack of a public option, combined with a requirement to buy insurance or face penalties, makes this legislation a losing proposition for the American public. We may wind up with a system that is actually worse than what we started out to reform. I don't know about you, but this is not the kind of change I bargained for when I voted for Barak Obama last November.

If Movies Need Rating, Why Don't Video Games?

It's Christmas time again, which means many hefty sales flyers in the local newspapers. Lately, I've been seeing many video games on sale, just in time for the holidays. I've noticed a couple of things about these items: They are not cheap, and they sound violent, even macabre. Not knowing a heck of a lot about these technological miracles, I did a little research to see exactly what these games entail.

With names like "Left 4 Dead 2" and "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare" (shouldn't it be Call to Duty?) I assumed that these entertainment vehicles are not for the faint of heart. Others I saw advertised are called "Borderlands" and "Dragon Age". According to Gamespot, all but Dragon Age are of the genre called "first-person shooter". These products seem to be marketed to kids, and I don't see adults finding much appeal in these games. These games, however, are big, big business. Gamespot reports the Call of Duty franchise made $3 billion as of this year, and a recent AP news article stated that "Modern Warfare 2" made $550 million all by itself, with around 9 million copies sold. That's a lot of children actively shooting at targets that look an awful lot like people.

The rating system for motion pictures has, for many years, purported to help parents decide whether or not a particular film is fit for their children to view. Of course, reading a movie review would give these parents the information they need, but the rating system does serve a purpose. The idea is that children, unlike adults, are not mature enough to separate fact from fiction. Violence, sex and drug use are all taboo subjects for very young viewers. Recently, DVDs even come equipped with warnings regarding "some language" and "smoking". Really, who would want to watch a movie without some language? Seriously, will watching an adult light up a cigarette really traumatize a child? If so, how about shooting at enemies (people) and zombies (former people) with blood, guts and brain matter spewing everywhere? How is this wholesome entertainment?

These games do come with some ratings, and the first-person shooters are generally labeled, "Mature". Since they are directly marketed to children, though, this seems an exercise in futility. At $60 a pop, these games are expensive. Even a sale price of $44 is steep for a kid, heck, it's steep for me. Presumably, parents are buying these for their kids. Surely they know what they are getting, yet there is no outcry. Why do parents think that merely watching people getting shot is worse than having your child actively doing the shooting?

I'm waiting for the holiday action game whereby kids get to shoot at Santa and his reindeer to keep their friends from receiving more Xbox games for Christmas than they themselves have. I wonder how many parents scooping up these little treasures don't allow their kids to play with toy guns?

Politicians Need To Do Their Jobs and Reform Health Care

Once again, our fearless elected leaders in Washington are busy playing politics instead of doing their jobs. To wit: The current debate in the U.S. Senate regarding the reform of our health care system.

As politicians see an opportunity to get their names in the news, they start to create roadblocks to reform and trumpet loudly about how they are the only ones with the interests of the "American People" at heart. One such lawmaker is Joseph Lieberman, I-CT. Apparently still angry with the Democratic party, he has no compunction about using the well-being of the masses to force them to see things his way. Of course, not all politicians are acting out in this manner. Ever the optimist, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was recently quoted by the Associated Press as saying, "Democrats aren't going to let the American people down". So far, not so good.

The sticking point is, again, the public option part of the reform bill. Without it, real reform seems close to impossible. But, never mind. Instead, some Democrats have suggested expanding Medicare to cover most, if not all Americans. This idea actually makes sense, and many others have also made this very suggestion. Back in September, I read an editorial piece by George McGovern, who strongly urged this very thing. It makes sense: Medicare is already a thriving concern, and, though reform of the system is necessary for its continued survival, it seems to get the job done. Root out the corruption, and it could actually be a model for other countries to emulate.

Currently, 29% of the U.S. population is covered by public insurance through either Medicare, Medicaid or the military, according to an AP article by Hope Yen and Frank Bass. Another 16 or 17% have no insurance at all. Why has it become so problematic to extend benefits to a little over half of all U.S. citizens? The percentage would probably be much less, if the new system were voluntary, since some of those persons have private insurance they are happy with, others are students covered by their college and still others are covered by various state programs. It would make much more sense, however, to have just one public system in which the rules are uniform and the paperwork less odious. Yet, no real headway has occurred in this respect. Why?

Perhaps when our lawmakers take a break from trading team members, we will find out. In the meantime, pressure from each one of us is necessary to insure that health care reform actually delivers the promise of "health care for all".

Big News: Animals Engage in Homosexuality

Our weekend newspaper comes with the usual bundle of advertisements and coupons as well as a "news magazine" called USA Weekend. I consider this a bit of a rag, but I do flip through it because it occasionally contains an interesting tidbit. Last weekend's edition contained one of these, an article titled, "The birds and the bees: Are some gay?" by Karen C. Fox. The article explained that research being done by the University of California at Riverside regarding homosexual behavior in animals shows that not only is it more widespread than the researchers thought, but the behavior appears to fulfill certain utilitarian purposes, as well. Marlene Zuk, presumably the head research biologist on this project, was interviewed and stated that an open mind is necessary in order to learn as much as possible from animal behavior research. The article's author also said that Zuk commented that the "focus" of such research shouldn't be whether the behavior of animals "justifies" that of humans. She also told the interviewer that she next would like to delve into how homosexual behavior impacts the gene pools of wild animals.

Research such this always makes me uneasy. Why is there such a concern about whether or not homosexuality in humans is innate or choice? I have heard of this before, though not recently. It appears that some people give this issue a lot of thought, and the logic goes something like this: If homosexuality is innate, then gays can't help how they are and so should not be "blamed". If it is a lifestyle choice, however, they could ostensibly choose to be heterosexual, but do not, probably just to infuriate those who subscribe to this theory. Therefore, it is all right to blame them. This "blame", it seems, is applied by institutionalizing harassment and discrimination.
Even the above research seems poised toward blame, since the behavior studied could be interpreted either way, depending on the desired outcome. Considering the use of the word "justify" in regards to human behavior, I think it is easy to guess in which direction this study is heading.

Despite the fact that homosexuality has been around for as long as humankind has existed, many cannot accept its existence. For decades it was considered a mental illness, and many a life was ruined by even a whisper of homosexual behavior. Truly, back when such was the norm, who would choose to be gay? At any rate, women and minorities in the United States have also borne the weight of discrimination, and surely no would argue that they could "help" being who they were!

In my opinion, "research" such as this is carried out simply to justify discriminatory behavior. Is there so much research money available that issues like this one merit grants? If so, I think there are more worthy projects out there. A realistic cure for cancer, perhaps?

Tiger Woods and the Burden of Celebrity

Poor Tiger Woods. His early morning one-car mishap, the reporting of which would normally be relegated to the back pages of the sports section, has mushroomed into allegations of marital discord, domestic abuse, addiction to painkillers and, of course, illicit sex. For a guy who flew under the radar for so many years, he is certainly making up for lost time. As the saying goes, still waters run deep.

Within a day of the accident, reports on TV news and in newsprint were rehashing, extrapolating and opining upon every little detail of Woods' life, both public and private. But wait, there's more! This morning, at least four more women have come out of the woodwork to declare themselves former lovers of Tiger Woods. That makes at least six, not counting his wife. Well, this stamina certainly helps explain how Woods got to be such a great athlete!

And great he is. Anyone who shows him or herself to be exemplary in this world also opens up his or her entire life to scrutiny. Herein lies the burden of celebrity. Of course, it also has it upside, such as those multi-million dollar contracts with corporate sponsors. Sports writers have been falling all over themselves postulating about how Woods will now lose those, due mostly to his lusty sexual appetite being made public. But if people are mindless enough to buy a car because Tiger the great golfer says so, why not buy it because Tiger the great lover endorses it?

These type of incidents say more about us as a society than it does about a famous person being exposed as, well, a person. Are we so intellectually and socially bankrupt that we can only live vicariously through famous individuals? What, then, gives us the right to judge them? Some say that sports figures have a special responsibility as "role models" for children and are therefore more vigorously criticized when they stray from the straight and narrow. Sure, sports stars should be expected to be role models for their own children, but no one else's. What kind of parent would abdicate that responsibility to some unknown quantity?

No one is perfect. Certainly we all know this, yet continue to expect of others what we would never demand of ourselves. The media tells us what to think, and we do so. But news media has responsibilities, too, don't they? While they were wasting everyone's time with titillating stories about Woods, what was happening with health care reform, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, regulation of the financial industry and many other pertinent topics? Let Tiger Woods and his wife work out their problems in private, where this sort of thing belongs. And if you're in the market for a new car, do yourself a favor: Turn off the TV and pick up a copy of Consumer Reports instead.

A Missed Opportunity in Afghanistan

In a televised address last night, President Barak Obama outlined his new initiative for the war in Afghanistan: 30,000 more troops will be deployed there in early 2010. He spoke of a "full review" of options before coming to this decision, and stated his belief that our national security depended upon bringing this conflict to a successful end. His plan includes an orderly exit within 18 months, and said that some of our allies have also committed troops to this purpose. The question is, of course, will it work?

If history is any indication, it will not. Obama spoke of other superpowers failing in this regard, yet still reached the decision to send more of our troops into this maelstrom. Last week, administration officials told the McClatchy Newspapers that the strategy included "greater anti-corruption efforts and political reforms" as well as a troop surge in an effort to stabilize the country. An article by Aram Roston in the November 30 issue of The Nation, however, paints a much different picture.

The article describes a complicated web of corruption, bribery and profit-making by a host of participants in the Afghan conflict. U.S. military contractors, using Pentagon dollars, regularly pay private military security firms to protect trucks carrying supplies to U.S. troops. One of the largest of these firms, Watan Risk Management, is run by president Hamid Karzai's cousins, Rashid and Rateb Popol, the latter a former mujahedeen. Another is NCL Holdings, based in Afghanistan but with an office in Washington. This company was awarded a military contract worth hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars. To keep supply trucks safe, insurgents are paid, according to the article, "hundreds of millions of dollars" not to attack them. An American military official told the author that this translates into "a big part" of the Taliban's income. All this is done, of course, with U.S. knowledge and complicity.

Is this what Obama plans to stop? It seems unlikely. Like any people up against it, the Afghans have learned to make a profit from the unending conflict that permeates their country. Escalating the chaos will only increase profits for those already getting rich from this war. People get used to living a certain way, no matter how distasteful it may seem to onlookers, and become loathe to change it. Will 30,000 more troops make them want to end their lucrative situations, and move toward peace? Not at these prices, it won't.

"Food Insecurity" and Hunger

The United States Department of Agriculture's report regarding food and hunger in the U.S. presented a dismal picture for one of the wealthiest countries on earth. Over 49 million people reported "food insecurity" in 2008, which the USDA defines as "not having enough food for an active, healthy lifestyle". This number increased from 36.2 million in 2007 and represents the highest number of people reporting problems procuring enough food for their families since the government started tracking this issue back in 1995. Does this mean that more people are starving in this great country of ours? Perhaps not, but there is definitely more hunger.

It seems unbelievable that anyone, particularly children, should go hungry in America. The Great Recession, however, is taking its toll on almost everyone. People living on the edge are easily pushed into poverty by job loss, illness or any economic hardship, no matter how temporary. Indeed, in an AP article by Henry C. Jackson, the government cited a "lack of money and other resources" as the reason for the increase in hunger.

Some, like a recent editorial in the Washington Post, pooh-pooh the idea that any people in this country are really hungry. They note that the report is based on a survey of 44,000 U.S. households and that both the questions and answers could be misleading. For instance, they posit that being "worried" about having enough food is not the same as not actually having enough. They cite the obesity epidemic as proof that food is easily available. The article noted that "only .1% of children in 2008 went without food for an entire day, down from .2% in 2007". An entire day without food? Well, that's progress.

The very idea that so many people were worried about having enough food to eat is untenable. Tom Vilsak, secretary of the USDA, told reporters that it is "time for America to get...serious about food security and hunger", and congress laudably increased funding for food stamp programs as part of the stimulus bill. However, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization summit in Rome broke up with 192 nations refusing to pledge $44 billion in agricultural development aid per year to address global hunger. The director of this agency dourly noted that much more than that amount was eagerly handed over to financial entities during the global fiscal crisis.

It is interesting that he mentioned that issue. Printed right next to an article on the hunger report was another that described how the Federal Reserve Bank of New York mismanaged the AIG rescue by paying more than necessary for the insurance giant's outstanding contracts. Even when banks were willing to pay less, Geithner wouldn't hear of it. It is estimated that billions were needlessly paid out during this debacle. Is there anyone who wouldn't rather have seen those funds go to the hungry? I think not.

Here Comes Black Friday, Again

Earlier today, my husband and I were discussing the origin and meaning of the term, "Black Friday". He said he has heard this term since his childhood, while I thought it was a far more recent phenomenon. Personally, I associate the term more with stock market crashes than store and market rushes. I also thought that the Friday after Thanksgiving might be labeled so since retailers tend to use it as a yardstick of how successful the Christmas shopping season will be. According to Wikipedia, we were both right on each count.

According to that online encyclopedia, the use of the term Black Friday dates back to around 1966, just as my husband thought. It has been used much more frequently over the last decade, however. Also, the term was used to describe a stock market crash, back in 1869. It is referenced as the heaviest shopping day of the year, although Wikipedia states that this is not necessarily so, at least according to SEC data. Many retailers still declare it the day they begin making their profits for the year, however.

When it comes to capitalists, money and the consumer, there is never enough propaganda to go around, it seems. In their yearly quest to post the biggest profits ever, hawkers of all manner of widgets and gizmos do their darndest to make us believe that without these things they sell, our lives are nothing more than empty shells. They use sales, price reductions, psychology and, when all else fails, guilt toward this end. Watch the news reports on Saturday and just see if they don't whine interminably about how their sales did not meet their projections. And why didn't they? Because you, the selfish consumer, refused to buy their useless thingamajigs so they could have themselves a merry little Christmas. For shame!

Am I being too hard on them? I don't think so. Think about the stupidity of a system that relies so heavily on the last five or six weeks of the year to make the bulk of one's profits. What do these merchandisers do for the previous ten-and-a-half months of the year? Well, they do make money, of course. But they still feel the need to make the working Joes and Janes feel small when they don't mortgage the house in order to splurge on Christmas gifts. Anyway, who ever decided that basing 70% of any economy on consumer spending is a rational idea?

If you're like most people, the recession has tapped out your resources and you're not planning to go on any Christmas spending sprees. Stand your ground, and don't let the profit makers make you feel guilty. Remember the basic tenet of capitalism: If they are unable to make a profit in a competitive environment, the government will bail them out. There, now don't you feel better?

Mammograms: An Unnecessary Evil?

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a government study panel, has just recently turned the yearly-mammogram-after-40 conventional wisdom on its head. Its panel of doctors, whose opinions influence both private insurance and medicare coverage, has stated that screening women in their 40s is not good medicine. As Dr. Diana Petitti, Vice Chair of the panel said, "The benefits are less and the harms are greater when screening starts in the 40s".

Personally, I have never understood the efficacy of traumatizing breast tissue and then irradiating it--and on a yearly basis, at that. Both radiation and breast trauma have been indicated in breast tumors, so when my doctor told me I would start having yearly mammograms eleven years ago, I said, "No, I won't." We discussed it, but I stood my ground. Turns out, I had a good point after all.

Not surprisingly, many medical doctors and the American Cancer Society have come out against this new advice. The Deputy Chief Medical Officer of this organization fears that women might become so confused that they opt out of screening altogether. Not only is that insulting to the intelligence of women, but one can't ignore the financial interests of this entity. I've often wondered where the money from all those pink brooms and scrubbie pads goes to, haven't you? In my opinion, the ACS has helped turn breast cancer into a circus sideshow, rather than a disease that merits serious research.

Our local paper had a large article in which they interviewed doctors from a nearby hospital. They were all outraged that the panel suggested these new guidelines. They spoke of very early stage cancers being found and "saving women's lives" and their belief that cumulative radiation risk is nothing compared to the benefits of mammography. Right next to this article is a very big advertisement from this very hospital. As a matter of fact, the only doctors ever interviewed by this paper for any health issue seem to work for this hospital. Hmmmm.

In January of 2009, the AARP Bulletin reported a study of 200,000 Norwegian women divided into two groups matched for age and reproductive history. One group had one mammogram in six years' time, the other had three. The tumor rate was 22% lower in the group that had only one screening. Could early stage cancers have resolved themselves? Of course, and that was the conclusion of the study. But those who make their living off the the Great American Cancer Scare don't want to hear that. Women need to be given all the facts before they submit to dubious medical testing. It's literally a matter of life and death.

Time to Reform the U.S. Health Care Delivery System

Much of the health care reform debate has centered around insurance carriers, prescription drug benefits and even tort reform. One important aspect of the health care system in this country, though, has been left out of the discussion: Health care delivery. This issue is at least important as all of the aforementioned topics and is arguably part of them, as well. It seems obvious that even the most advanced health care in the world is virtually worthless if there is no workable system with which to deliver it to those who need it. I believe that our current system is broken, and badly in need of reform.

A current family crisis is illustrative of this problem. My husband's 92-year-old father, G., was recently admitted to a South Florida hospital near where he lives. A helpful neighbor saw him trying to drive himself to the emergency room and sent him back to his house where she called an ambulance for him. If not for this good Samaritan and a phone call my father-in-law placed to my husband's sister that morning before setting off in his car, his three children would not have even known that he had been hospitalized. He had not been feeling well for two or more weeks, but did not check in with his doctor. Perhaps he believes, like many Americans, that the emergency room is the best method to get care in a timely manner.

The neighbor, despite being the person who called the ambulance and followed it to the hospital, was not allowed to see G. until evening. She called my husband with the phone number of the hospital, and its name; no one from that facility contacted any of G.'s children, however. When they called the hospital, they were handed off to several people, none of whom would give them any information on G. Finally, my husband was able to speak with his father, who had minimal knowledge of what was going on. He was being told nothing, as well.

My husband remembered the name of one of G.'s doctors and we found his office number on the hospital's website. He did return the call, but was very reluctant to give any real information other that they needed to run "tests" to find out what the problem was. Today, I spoke with my sister-in-law who was understandably livid to hear that they were planning to give G. a colonoscopy! How can a 92-year-old with no information on his condition and separated from his family give informed consent?

In a state that should cater to the health needs of seniors more than any other, this is obviously the norm. Did anyone think to ask this man if there were family members that should be contacted? Apparently not. Are they aware that he had a life-threatening reaction to anesthesia two years ago? If they are, they are ignoring this fact. It appears that hospitals have become Medicare-bilking machines, running test after useless test on isolated seniors without involving their family members in any treatment decisions.

When I spoke to my sister-in-law earlier today, she said she saw a news program just last night on this subject. Elderly are being tested for every problem known to man, when mostly what they need is communication between themselves and their health care practitioners. This poor man has been in this hospital for nearly a week now, with no answers or results. Could this really be what all those "town meeting" anti-reformers are trying to preserve?

No More Recession, Just a "Slow Recovery"

I saw a news blurb a couple of weeks ago in which "analysts" stated that the recession is over. Well, that's comforting, isn't it? It's also really nice to know that economic analysts, at least, don't have to worry about losing their jobs, since they seem to be in higher demand during down times than when the economy is humming along at full steam.

For the rest of us who live in the real world, though, the recession is still here. The only thing that seems to have changed is that economists are now calling it a "slow recovery" rather than what it really is. A report released last week by the New England Economic Partnership tries to be upbeat, but paints a picture of lingering economic doldrums, particularly for the New England states. Maine and New Hampshire seem to be faring the best, but will still experience sluggishness for at least another year. Vermont and Massachusetts' economies will supposedly "bottom out" this quarter, with slow improvement over the next year. Connecticut is facing problems until 2013, and Rhode Islands' economy is so bad that the report did not even offer a projection for recovery.

An Associated Press article by Judy Lin delivers even more good news. She cites a study by the Pew Center that declares 10 states on the verge of economic disaster. Not surprisingly, Rhode Island is one of them. The others are California, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Wisconsin. These 10 states represent more than one-third of the nation's economic output. Goodness! Imagine if the recession wasn't over, the mess we'd be in!

So, the next time you are feeling down because of the Great Recession, just remember that those who really know what's going on have declared it "over". And if you live in New England and have lost one of the nearly 400,000 jobs that have disappeared in our region since early 2008, take heart. You can always retrain to become an economist.

The Catholic Church Interferes With Health Reform

The Catholic church has now jumped on the bandwagon of those entities who, for some reason or another, feel entitled to dictate the terms of the health care reform legislation. Not only are these "special interests" being given a hands-on role in shaping laws that will affect every single one of us, they are supplanting the voices of regular Joes and Janes.

Unlike the insurance industry, big pharma, the Chamber of Commerce, etc. who put their money where their mouths are, the Catholic church is wielding clout without spending a penny. According to an AP article by Julie Hirschfield Davis, bishops managed to get language restricting abortion coverage into the legislation merely by threatening to influence the voting behavior of Catholics.

I have never liked the way the Catholic religion treats women. I am sure that there are many of the opinion, like myself, that the true position of this church and many "pro-lifers" is less a genuine concern for the zygote/embryo/fetus in question and more a desire to control the woman harboring it. Even though these bishops are all old men who will never have to face such an issue, they certainly seem to consider themselves experts on the subject. There are other niggling concerns about their involvement: Since they don't pay taxes, what gives them the right to try to influence legislation? Also-and this is a biggie-have they never heard of the "separation of church and state"?

This concern for "innocent life" comes from an organization that knowingly allowed and enabled pedophiles to masquerade as clergy in order to satisfy their perverted cravings, ruining countless young lives in the bargain. For decades after, as well, the Catholic church used parishioners' donations to pay out as hush money to keep this whole sordid affair secret. Only when victims reached adulthood and decided to seek redress through the courts did the whole business get a good airing. So much for saving innocent lives.

Of course, none of these interests could have such influence if they were not allowed to by our own government. Obama promised change, but so far Big Industry and Big Government are still indistinguishable. Now we can add Big Religion. I don't know about you, but this isn't exactly the type of change I'd envisioned.

It Takes a SWAT Team to Raid a Massage Parlor

A week or so ago, our local paper, the Daily Hampshire Gazette, reported that two small massage therapy businesses in Hadley, MA had been raided because of reports of "sex for pay". The articles, written by Ben Storrow and Owen Boss, described a multi-agency effort to put a stop to this illicit behavior. Not only were Hadley police involved, but also MA State Police, U.S. Immigration and Customs, the U.S. Department of Diplomatic Security as well as at least one Agawam police Detective. A neighbor and eyewitness described the raid as consisting of "20 cruisers, guys with shields...and guns drawn". All this manpower to arrest two middle-aged Chinese women. Is it just me, or does this seem like overkill?

Often, police do not know what they are getting into, so it is best to be prepared. In this case, however, they knew exactly what they were up against. The raids were the culmination of a sting operation in which two officers, one the Agawam Detective and the other a state trooper, posed as customers at two separate locations in Hadley. Both officers reported getting a massage, then being asked about "being happy" or "getting more massage". Each of these questions was enhanced, according to these officers, by "suggestive gestures" (perhaps of the nudge-nudge, wink-wink variety) on the part of the two Chinese women. Some talk of compensation for these additional services was discussed, but since the officers refused, the services were not rendered.

The paper showed a photo of these women leaving the courthouse after their arraignments. They looked to be about 98 pounds apiece, at the most. So, what were the guns and shields for? Were the police afraid the women might lunge at them, fingers poised to massage their nether regions against their will? Certainly, they knew they were up against masseuses, not drug dealers. It doesn't appear that they wore armor when they visited the sites prior to the raid.

How did this investigation start? Presumably, someone must have complained, though the articles made no mention of this. Anyway, I can't imagine why a customer on the receiving end of these "massages" would report them. It wasn't the neighbors interviewed, either, as none of them had any idea that anything of that sort was going on. Hopefully, our tax dollars aren't being spent sending officers to massage parlors on the off chance that they might be offered a "happy ending"!

I realize that selling sex is illegal, even though this was not sex, per se (at least not according to Bill Clinton's definition). Some would consider this a "victimless" crime. I believe that in the absence of oversight and regulation that legal standing would provide, however, all prostitutes are victims. Who would make a career choice like that, if there were other options? I do hope that the myriad of law-enforcement agencies use their vast resources to find out who is using these women for their own gain. I wonder how many cops it will take to arrest them?

Senate Refuses to Consider Health Care Bill

Now that the House has finally passed the landmark health care bill, the Senate has stopped it dead in its tracks. Why? Because it contains the dreaded "public option", which would give all Americans a publicly-funded alternative to those vultures we call "private health care insurers". Why is this a bad thing? In the words of Joe Lieberman, I-CT, it's "a matter of conscience". Is this the same "conscience" that allowed Lieberman to accept approximately $1.5 million from the health care industry over the past few years? Give us a break.

According to an Associated Press article by R. Alonzo-Zaldivar, the problem that many Senators see with the bill is the idea of a government-sponsored insurance plan competing with private insurers. Well, it's about time they have some competition, wouldn't you think? Since they've been protected by their friends in high places from just such a debacle up to now, it certainly seems overdue. Of course, we never heard any conservatives railing against that issue during tirades about the "socialist" tendencies of a public option health insurance entity.

Earlier today, I heard yet another conservative senator stating that a public option would cause such a crippling national debt that successive generations would never be able to pay it off. Well, maybe our congresspeople could donate their contributions from lobbyists toward that end. Seriously, though, do you remember hearing any of this kind of talk while the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were being planned? Or when our elected representative handed over nearly $800 billion in corporate welfare checks to inefficient, mismanaged mega-corporations? They passed that package so fast, I'm not sure there was even time to print all the rules and regulations involved. Which, I guess, is why there weren't any.

Lieberman also stated that he was against a public option for fear that it would become a large, expensive entitlement program. Well, shame on us for feeling as if we, as citizens of one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, are entitled to guaranteed health care coverage--even though we would be paying for it ourselves. Corporate bailouts? Now, there's an entitlement program!

It's Official: The Bailout of GM Was a Bad Idea

The Government Accounting Office released a study last week that officially stated what many have known for months: The $50 million given to General Motors to get the company back on its feet may as well have been flushed down the toilet. Since GM has been in bankruptcy since summer, I suppose we taxpayers shouldn't be very surprised. And, compared with the gigantic bailout of the financial industry, GM's freebie seems like peanuts. However, every million counts in this economy, and I know I wouldn't turn down 50 million big ones because the amount seemed too measly. I'll bet you wouldn't, either.

If GM had actually made an effort, perhaps this news wouldn't sting so much. Besides hammering its employees to give up pay and benefits (not a requirement for the financial bailout, mind you), the automaker seemed anxious to accelerate its downfall. Right off, GM began closing 20% of its dealerships. Now, if you need to make money fast, does it make sense to close down the purveyors of your product? Next, it forced those with dual dealerships to choose between GM and the other product. Our local paper interviewed one of those dealerships, who, exercising good business sense, choose Volkswagen over GM. Much has been made over Chevy's new Volt, a plug-in hybrid. Remember, though, that GM is also the car maker who had the brass to market a vehicle like the Hummer. In my opinion, that alone should have made them ineligible for taxpayer assistance.

Now the government tells us that even as they were handing out these funds, they knew they would never be repaid. To do so would have required GM to attain a market value that they couldn't sustain even in better times. At 61% (versus 10% of Chrysler), the government's holding is too large for it to simply break even on this "investment".

Meanwhile, Ford Motors, the only automaker to decline a handout, is turning itself around, and showing a profit. It seems that there is a lesson to be learned here. The question is, will anybody pay attention?

Another Step Back for Gay Equality

Yesterday's popular vote in Maine which essentially killed legislation allowing gay marriage in that state was yet one more defeat to those who believe that the legalization of same-sex marriage is long overdue. David Crary, reporting for the Associated Press, states that this has been the result in each of 31 states that have put this issue to a popular vote. The states that currently allow such marriages--Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Iowa--have legalized it through court decisions or legislation. The article goes on to say that 30 other states have enacted bans on gay marriage through the referendum process.

This begs the question of why Americans are using this process to force their opinions on the life choices of others. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that this was not the purpose of referendum voting. The separation of church and state keeps the dominant religions from interfering in others' personal choices regarding worship. Why, then, should the dominant paradigm of heterosexual marital unions be portrayed as the only true and legal "marriage"?

As this country struggles through the worse economic crisis since the Great Depression, one also wonders why this is an issue at all. Why should I care if the two men or the female couple down the street get married? It wouldn't impact my life at all; I would still be married, other straight persons would continue to marry or not, as they saw fit. It simply is not a problem, social or otherwise. Could it be that the majority of Americans are so mean-spirited and spiteful that simply keeping others from experiencing rights that they have always enjoyed is the only way that they can feel alive? Gee, I hope not.

Change is always on the horizon, but not completely in the grasp of those who demand equality. Obama has pledged to rescind the "don't ask, don't tell" military policy in effect since Clinton, but has yet to do so. The House recently voted to add assaults on gays to the list of hate crimes, but that is just the first step. Those who now want to dissolve their same-sex marriages find they cannot do so in 45 of these United States, thus being prevented from making another decision about their own lives. Gay rights are simply human rights. When will Americans realize this?

Time to End the Insurance Industry's Free Ride

Very recently, I read a small blurb in the local newspaper regarding legislation being put forth by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. His bill would overturn the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 which gives the insurance industry freedom from anti-trust laws. Oh, and lest you think that these guys ever had to play fair, this act was passed to continue this exemption after a Civil War era court decision was overturned, threatening the industry with having to endure competition.

I like to think of myself as pretty well-informed, but this was the first I heard of this little nugget. Not a great admirer of the industry, I've always assumed that they've gotten to where they are today by merely flouting laws that regulate them, much like every other large, PAC-stuffing corporation. But, no. All the time that they have been doing things like refusing to pay claims stemming from Hurricane Katrina and squealing about how "unfair" a public health insurance option would be, they've been playing with a stacked deck. When they were threatening the Obama administration with health care premium spikes if his version of reform went through, they weren't kidding. They can do whatever they want.

It was annoying enough when I thought that this industry played by the same rules as everyone else, but now I'm doubly incensed. How did they get so powerful? Since many laws, both federal and state, require everyday persons to buy insurance for all manner of things, this industry has enjoyed a perquisite like no other. Guaranteed income, and no niggling free-market worries. If you ever wondered why insurance companies are consistently housed in the most opulent buildings, here's your answer.

It's about time that these titans get knocked down a peg or two. Try to imagine how much health care would cost without the insurance companies in the mix. Quite a bit less, I think, since these guys wouldn't have embedded themselves so deeply into an industry that wasn't very, very lucrative. How will we ever find out? A public option, of course. Let's hope that our elected officials can finally see their way through the waves of cash the insurance industry will send their way and put an end to this undeserved special treatment.

Retailers Using Psychology to Boost Christmas Sales

This year, it seems as if stores have decked their malls earlier than ever. Immediately after the first frost, Christmas decorations bloomed at various retailers, nearly squeezing out the Halloween wares. Could it be that merchants, always concerned with the state of the consumer's psyche, are just trying to cheer us up during this deep, dark recession? Alas, no. Apparently, they are trying to "psych" us out in an effort to persuade us to spend those last few pennies on Christmas purchases even as the economy continues to spiral downwards.

An article by Associated Press writer Anne D'Innocenzio describes this marketing strategy. Last year's dismal year-end sales have spawned a new marketing campaign to revive holiday spending: Retro-Christmas. Well, that's what I call it, anyway. Retailers are bringing back memories of Christmas of yore in order to get us to spend more (I'm waxing poetic). Nostalgia sells, as merchants well know. Therefore, it's out with the new and in with the old: Gingerbread houses, classic glass tree ornaments and tartan plaid everywhere you look. This is their plan to make us spend money we don't have. Brilliant!

Actually, I find this all a bit insulting. Unemployment is closing in at 10%, one-third of those applying for loans are getting refused and the U.S. income gap is widening every day. These are undeniable facts, yet these marketing geniuses seem to think that most of us will just throw caution to the wind and stock up on useless do-dads to put under the tree. Perhaps they haven't noticed that consumers have been steadily cutting back on debt and the use of credit cards, two behaviors that bode ill for retailers at Christmas time. More likely, they have noticed and hope to reverse that trend despite the sad fact that there won't be any more money in consumers' wallets come January, when these type of bills come due.

The article quotes a "professor of consumer psychology" at San Fransisco's Golden Gate University as saying, "Nostalgia is a way for people to feel safe". Well, maybe it does if you have a nice cushy academic job teaching "consumer psychology", whatever that is. For the rest of us, however, it's a bit less academic and more real-world. People who are unemployed and can't pay their bills aren't going to be conned into spending funds they don't have simply by walking by a display of pine cones and dripping tinsel. What we really need is Santa to bring us the sort of bonus our government gave the big guys around this time last year. Let's see...$787 billion divided amongst 200 million households... Ho Ho Ho! Now there's a Merry Christmas!

Elizabeth Smart on "Overcoming the Unimaginable"

Elizabeth Smart spoke to a women's conference in California recently not to discuss details of her 9-month ordeal at the hands of two psychotic kidnappers, but to give other women a heartfelt message: You can move on.

It is well known that Smart, kidnapped at age 14 and subjected to daily tortures and abuse, has kept her own counsel for the last six years regarding that harrowing experience. Unbelievably, she has been criticized for that decision. In 2006, Smart had to put in her place an interviewer who tried to pry such information from her. The news media, in its vulgar scramble to be the first in line to adulterate news headlines with issues that titillate rather than educate, seem to have a sense of entitlement when it comes to other people's personal lives.

In a society where teenagers whine when their first car is a used model rather than new, this brave young woman certainly stands out. She decided, on her own, when to break her silence and refused to be pressured to do so before she was ready. When she did speak, it was not to play the victim or make millions selling her story; it was to deliver a message of hope to others who may not have the innate strength she apparently has. No matter what she does after this, she deserves kudos for giving her first words to those who needed to hear that there is life after living "the unimaginable".

Toward a Greater Understanding of Afghanistan

The Today show featured an interview with New York Times reporter David Rohde, who, with two other colleagues, was kidnapped seven months ago by the Taliban and was just recently liberated. Rohde has published a 5-part article in the Times recounting his months of incarceration. At the start of the interview, Rohde attempted to get right down to business. He spoke of western misconceptions regarding Afghanistan in general and the Taliban in particular. Unceremoniously, he was interrupted by Ann Curry so that she could ask inane questions such as, "Did you miss your family?" and, "Were you afraid you were going to die?" As usual, a news program zeroed in on the fatuous and insipid rather than make use of information that would benefit its viewers. Not only did Rohde have such information, he was just bursting to share it but, of course, was not allowed to.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite being of several years duration, have not brought us any closer to understanding the people of either country. We are not alone in this, of course. Neither the British nor the Russians, both of whom suffered stunning defeats while attempting to vanquish Afghanistan, did any better than we. Why did we not learn from their mistakes? The simple fact of the matter is that no one ever wins in Afghanistan. In an article reprinted in the November issue of Harper's, Andrew J. Bacevich writes, "Not for nothing has (Afghanistan) acquired the nickname Graveyard of Empires." He goes on to say that, as Americans, we tend to learn everything the hard way, due to an egocentric notion that only we are capable of putting the world to rights. So far, not a good attitude to hold, yet still we persist.

Could it be that a new posture toward Afghanistan might help bring about the changes we desire? President Obama has been receiving flak in recent weeks as he tries to make sense of the muddle we have created in Afghanistan before deciding on the next course of action. He has been accused of being wishy-washy and indecisive, among other things. But, perhaps he is on to something. What's wrong with trying something else, when what you've been doing has only made the situation worse? Invasion, violence and repression have never worked in Afghanistan (or anywhere else, for that matter), so let's try a new tact. As the song goes, what's wrong with peace, love and understanding?

Addressing Big CEO Pay, Finally

The other day, I caught a snippet of a news program about the huge bonuses Wall Street was paying itself with our money. Some titan of financial industry was bleating that these payouts were necessary so that they could hold on to the people who were going to turn their companies around. If they didn't, they would go elsewhere. Where is that, do you suppose? To the other bailed-out firm down the street, maybe?

We've heard this silliness espoused before, of course. Before the meltdown, the bonuses were meant to reward those who helped create those big profits. But even as these monoliths were sinking into insolvency, packets of cash and other perks were being handed out willy-nilly. For what, exactly? For helping sink the global economy?

It is interesting that these guys seem to think that they, more than anyone else, are deserving of special treatment. They do have a point. As early as December 2008, questions regarding how the banking industry was using the bailout funds were being ignored. Not only that, many bank officials were flat-out refusing to say what they were doing with the money. Elizabeth Warren, Chair of the congressional committee charged with overseeing the bailout, decried the fact that the money was handed over, no strings attached. Taxpayers should be able to find out how their money is being spent, she said. Have we found out any more, nearly a year later? No.

Others, not so well acquainted with the glam lifestyle, would surely be appreciative of just a smidge of the Wall Street firms' special status. Automakers, also recipients of taxpayer-funded "help", required their union workers to take a sharp cut in pay. Do you think they are now in line for bonuses? I don't. Their bosses, however, are currently in negotiations with the Obama administration over their out-sized pay packages. In September, congress finally voted for an extension of unemployment insurance, though they had threatened not to. Why? Too expensive! Alas, they did not see their way clear to grant extensions in states with lower levels of "joblessness" and some magic number of long-term unemployed. Well, there aren't many high-flying financial district jobs in Utah, North Dakota and Nebraska, apparently.

In my opinion, none of these people employed at the bailed-out firms should get a bonus until every penny is paid back to the U.S. Treasury, with interest. My reasoning is this: Since the recipients' companies are now partly owned by the government, they are all now federal employees. Public employees don't get bonuses and stock options (well, at least not legally). It's as simple and fair as that. Oh, and they also don't pay lobbyists to interfere with the democratic process. I'd be willing to bet that just that last restriction would cause the treasury to be inundated with repaid bailout funds in short order.

Phthalates Linked to Increase in Autism

An Associated Press article by Carla K. Johnson reports some sobering news about autism. Two government studies show that the incidence of this disorder, thought to be 1 in 150 U.S. children, is actually 1 in 100. Even though experts, as they usually do, cite increased awareness and better diagnosis as accounting for some of the increase, they readily admit that these numbers are going up.

What could be causing this increase? For years, many parents have claimed that additives in vaccines, particularly mercury, are complicit in the genesis of this disorder. Although I have read many studies that refute that claim, there is still much debate on this issue, with good reason. Toxic levels of mercury cause behavioral changes, confusion, irritability and depression. Like lead, it accumulates in the body. Studies disproving adverse effects of vaccines generally allow for a 10-14 day window after vaccination for negative effects to appear. Any that show up after that time, even after multiple vaccinations, are not counted. It is no wonder that parents' fears are not quelled by these studies.

Recently, the magazine Natural Solutions cited a Swedish study on indoor air pollution that came up with an interesting correlation: Children who crawled around on vinyl floors were twice as likely to develop autism as children whose homes had either linoleum or wood floors. This research was investigating the link between phthalates, which is used in vinyl flooring, and respiratory problems. This chemical, used widely in plastics manufacturing, gives products like polyvinyl chloride added flexibility and resilience. Like bisphenol A, it is an endocrine mimic that has been tied to many health problems, is used in many consumer applications and is not required to be listed on product labels.

It will be interesting to see what the plastics industry's reaction will be to this new information. The increased incidence of autism is alarming and real. While the government is handing out money to the big guys, perhaps they could fund some independent research to help identify and halt the industrial practices that are leading to this childhood health crisis.

Applying the ACORN Standard to Everyone

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has introduced an amendment to the latest defense authorization bill that will scrutinize contractors who have committed fraud while lapping up public money. According to a recent editorial in The Nation, Sanders would like to see the same standards applied to other entities receiving federal funding as was recently used to defund ACORN. He's not the only legislator upset about the double standard. Florida Representative Alan Grayson has been vocal on this issue, also saying that military contractors who commit fraud should have their funding canceled.

There is quite a bit of evidence to back up these positions. The Project on Government Oversight released a report citing the fact that at least 100 government contractors making almost $300 billion in federal contracts also collectively paid fines totaling $26 billion since 1995 for 676 cases of "misconduct". Well, it doesn't take a math whiz to figure out that wasting public dollars is a lucrative side business!

Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrup Grumman are three top defense contractors that are spotlighted in the report. Together they were awarded a total of $77 billion in federal contracts despite having paid $3 billion in fines since 1995 for 108 infractions. Another big recipient of government largess, the drug firm Pfizer, paid $2.3 billion in settlements just last month to make various court cases go away, including at least one alleging Medicaid fraud. Kind of makes ACORN's $53 million in federal money awarded since 1994 look piddling in comparison.

Of course, ACORN should not have advised anyone to defraud the government, even if it was a setup. But, fair is fair. Even without this recent report to put this whole issue into perspective, everyone has heard about the waste, ineptitude and fraud committed by firms such as Bechtel Corp and KBR subsidiary Halliburton. Oh, and let's not even get into the dodgy business practices of "we only hire sociopaths" contractor Blackwater. At least ACORN has a track record of actually helping people. Could that be what this is really all about?

Wall Street Thumbs its Nose at Taxpayers

The news of huge corporate profits as well as massive bonuses being paid out by the same entities that came begging for help last year boggles the mind. Knowing full well how both the Obama administration and the tax-paying public feels about the attitude of the financial industry, they went right ahead and parceled out huge bonuses, again.

The announcement of $140 billion in bonus money was met with outrage. When pressed, these titans of industry merely said that it was money well spent on these employees who helped turn the industry around. Well, actually, those "employees" were the U.S. taxpayers, something these guys are ignoring. Therefore, these bonuses should be paid to us. Where's our bailout?

This behavior is the height of arrogance. Everyone's outraged. But anger alone won't help. Social Security is in the red, the country still hasn't recovered from hurricane Katrina, unemployment is at a 30-year high. The list goes on and on. Why did the banking industry get so much of our money? And where are these "profits" coming from?

Not from lending, apparently. Banks are still not lending, which is hurting the economy. How are they making these profits? My bet is that they are still doing pretty much the same things as before the crash. No new regulations have been passed, despite much talk. Only last week did the House Financial Services Committee vote to regulate derivatives, those nasty little instruments that no one really understands but wreaked havoc on our economy. Banks have been steadfastly fighting legislation that would give states more leeway in restricting banking practices that prove injurious to consumers, and legislators are knuckling under.

If you are wondering why this is taking so long, consider this: The financial sector stepped up its congressional lobbying this year to keep regulation at bay. Michael Moore said in a recent Today show interview that they spent $200 million on this issue. I did a bit of checking on The Center for Responsive Politics site and found that Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan and the American Bankers Association are all in the top 30 for consistently having the biggest lobbyist "payouts". Is it any wonder that our elected officials have stagnated on the issue of banking reform?

As long as big money rules our lawmaking process, nothing will change. But, who will change the system that works so well for the people at the top?

Health Reform in Jeopardy, Thanks to Big Insurance

Once again, just as it looks as if this country might actually enact some semblance of health insurance reform, special interests restart their interminable bleating. Of whom am I speaking? Why, the health care insurance lobby, of course!

A Washington Post article by Ceci Connolly reports that, on the eve of a Senate Finance Committee vote on the $829 billion, 10-year health care reform bill, big trouble has erupted. Not among legislators, but between the Obama administration and the insurance industry lobby. They are claiming, for the hundredth time, that enactment of the bill will cause private insurance premiums to skyrocket. How can they possibly know that? Because they set the rates, that's how. Oh, and by the way, who made them such an integral part of this discussion, anyway?

The article says that Obama has spent much time and energy bargaining with various special interest groups. The carrot has been the promise of nearly 50 million new subscribers. That, apparently, is not enough. Lobbyists are complaining that not enough of these additional customers will be young and healthy (read: pure profits). They are worried because the bill would reduce penalties on those who don't immediately participate in the new insurance "requirements". To them, this means more older, sicker people will sign up, thus driving up costs (read: drive down profits).
Oh! Not that! Excuse me, but where is is written that government is required to guarantee private industry high profits?

Why are these lobbyists being given a spot at the bargaining table? Why are they privy to information that we, the taxpayers, are not? Here's the reason: Money. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the health care industry has stepped up its charitable giving to legislators and won the number one lobbying spot. Nearly $134 million has been donated to the cause of the moment, health care reform. Or, more specifically, ensuring the failure of same. Well, I guess that explains their having such influence! Meanwhile, the rest of us poor stiffs, who surely have contributed more en mass to the federal coffers than those guys, get no say, it seems.
What a country!

It's common knowledge that the health care lobby, which include pharmaceuticals and insurance, was the reason for the Clinton's failure at health care reform 15 years ago. Have we learned nothing? Apparently. We are going down the same road, once again. The health care industry will preserve its stranglehold on this country and continue to collect obscene profits in the bargain. Millions of people will continue to suffer needlessly over the inability of this nation to create a workable health care delivery system. Now, that's what I call a victory.

Is There Such a Thing as a "Jobless Recovery"?

Last month, the Federal Reserve released a report stating that the economy is creeping toward a "jobless recovery". To prop up this hypothesis, the report pointed to the fact that manufacturing and business investment is up. Unemployment is also "up", though, but, no matter. We're on our way!

We've heard this one before. The last recession, at the beginning of the 2000s, was just such a recovery. Older and wiser now, we all know what a load of hooey that was, as the entire house of cards came crashing down around us. Still, consumers managed to spend their way out of that recession. How did they do it? On borrowed money, of course.

Back then, credit was unencumbered by the restrictions of today. Credit cards arrived like clockwork in everyone's mail. Since housing was strong, values stayed high and home equity loans were the order of the day. No one worried too much about paying all these loans back, least of all the banks. People spent these borrowed funds, adding another smoky and reflective layer to the already teetering facade that we called an economy. Probably, consumers were just waiting until things improved, at which time they would be able to pay it all back. Well, we all know how that turned out.

Things are a little different now. Unemployment is expected to reach 10% any day now, the highest in nearly 30 years. Home values have fallen. People without jobs can't spend without credit, which remains incredibly tight. In an economy that is 70% consumer-driven, how exactly does that translate into a "recovery"?

The small upward glitches caused by the "cash for clunkers" program and Obama's stimulus program do not a sustainable recovery make. If businesses are reinvesting, then they are doing it on the backs of laid-off workers. A Jobless Recovery? Don't you believe it.

Can We Really Afford NASA?

When I was a junior in high school, I read an article in Newsweek magazine about the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Specifically, the piece spoke about the costs associated with every launch, as well as the tons of pollutants that were spewed into the atmosphere with each one. From that time on, I have considered NASA a stupendous waste of resources.

Sure, I know, we've learned tons of great things about space, other planets and solar systems, and the big bang theory. But, really, except for paving the way for telecommunications companies to cram space with pay-TV satellites, what has NASA done for the little guy? Okay, its behemoth operations have kept many engineers and physicists off of the unemployment line. And, of course, it allowed us to show the Russians that anything they could do, we could, too. But, really! That was fifty years ago. Can we please just get over Sputnik?

I wouldn't mind keeping NASA around if it didn't cost so much. Eighteen billion dollars a year is not chump change, particularly when Republicans are complaining about the extra money being doled out to help people devastated by the recession. The "back to the moon" initiative begun by former President Bush five years ago is estimated to cost well over $100 billion by 2020. The Obama administration has stated that even that amount won't do the trick.

Even NASA's contribution to entertainment is slipping. Remember those TV news reports we watched in school, showing launches and astronauts doing their space thing? Compare the thrill of those moments with the recent televised "plop" created when NASA wasted more of our tax dollars by deliberately crashing not one but two space craft into the moon's surface. The purpose of these crashes? They were looking for ice, of course. Despite the disappointment of many observers, NASA's scientists were "thrilled". Well, it's nice to know that the project wasn't a total waste.

It appears that the Obama administration might clip NASA's wings a bit. I certainly hope so. Some of those billions would do a lot more good going into health care reform. Sure, space exploration is cool. But you know what's cooler? Being able to take your kids to the doctor without worrying about how to pay for it. Now there's a giant step for mankind!

Declaring War on Germs

On the Today show this morning, I saw yet another news segment regarding germs lurking in every corner of the home. Can you guess the germiest room in the house? If you said, "the bathroom", you are wrong (as long as you lower the toilet seat when you flush and keep your toothbrushes off of the counter top). It's the kitchen! Not a real surprise, since food is prepared there. They profiled the stereotypical dirty dish sponge, then implicated remote controls, bed pillows--well, let's face it, everything people touch have germs on them! Who would have guessed?

I realize that this is the beginning of cold and flu season, so these types of warnings are a kind of rite of passage these days as we move into late fall and winter. It does seem to me, though, that those who produce things to protect us from or cure us of these nasty germs (chemical and drug companies, perhaps?) are banding together to make us all germaphobes. OK, I promise not to lick the rims of the tea cups before I bring the service out to the parlor anymore (joke), but really, making people think that they can avoid or kill all germs in their environment is just plain inaccurate. And, biologically speaking, not the best idea, anyway.

As with most everything in life, immunity is a use-it-or-lose-it proposition. Coming into contact with pathogens is like jazzercise class for your immune system. How else will it recognize an invader when it encounters one? Just as you need a little sadness to appreciate the good times, every immune system needs to do battle once in a while to stay on top of things. Purity is not always best. Remember what happened to indigenous Indian populations when they came into contact with germy European invaders? Obviously, being a human bacteria-storage unit has its advantages.

That is not to say that this news program did not offer useful advice, the best of which bears repeating: Wash your hands thoroughly after using the toilet and several times throughout the day. Do not touch your hands to your nose, mouth or eyes unless you have just washed them. And remember this the next time you are shopping at a store with a public restroom: Research shows that only about 40% of people wash their hands after using the toilet. Now there's something to get squeamish about.

Electric Cars: A Great Idea, Though Not a New One

In recent weeks, the news media has been abuzz with a "new" idea from automakers: The mass-production of electric cars. The Chevy Volt (technically a plug-in hybrid), the Ford Focus EV and even the top-end Tesla have all been given quite a bit of press lately. While the concept of mass-marketing these vehicles is new, the technology is not. I'm not just referring to hybrids, either.

My father-in-law, aged 92, remembers electric cars from his boyhood. The state university at which I worked for 20 years purchased a fleet of electric cars and trucks in the early 1990s, many of which are still being used today. Most famously, California's Zero Emissions Mandate of 1990 resulted in hundreds of electric vehicles being produced and put into everyday use in that state. So, why aren't we driving these cars right now?

According to the documentary, Who Killed the Electric Car?, in the early 1900s,the electric automobile was the precursor of the gasoline-powered vehicle that we all know and love today. The latter won out due to its convenience, reliability and ability to drive greater distances. Of course, the technology had improved greatly by the time California took the bold step of requiring a percentage of cars sold in the state to be zero-emission vehicles in order to battle its significant smog problem. Automakers fought this mandate, but did produce electric cars and SUVs and leased them to several hundred drivers. Most of these people, according to the film, absolutely loved these cars.

All was well until the oil industry began funding an ad campaign critical of these vehicles. They claimed that electric rates would rise if these cars became widely utilized, despite the fact that a full charge cost the equivalent of $.65 per gallon of gasoline. They also questioned their cost, even though they were being leased at a very affordable $250-$500 per month. Despite these glaring inaccuracies, the car companies began to question the viability of the product. They stopped marketing them and sued the California Air Resources Board that passed the original mandate. With the Bush administration solidly in their corner, the automakers prevailed. CARB rescinded the mandate in 2003 and the car companies recalled every last leased electric car. What did they do with them, you may ask? They had them destroyed, of course.

Now, nearly 20 years later, the notion is being hailed as the newest idea to help cure our energy woes. Well, what the heck. If they want to claim innovation here, I guess we might as well let them, if it means that this time the concept will stick. A little white lie is a small price to pay for a giant step toward efficiency and loosening the stranglehold that foreign oil has on this country. As long as they don't start building nuke plants to power all these electric cars, I'm all for it!

The Arrest of Roman Polanski, 30 Years Later

The arrest of director Roman Polanski at his home in Switzerland several days ago has all the ingredients necessary for tabloid staying power: Illicit sex, flight to avoid sentencing and a Hollywood director haunted by horror and violence in his own past. Despite all these juicy tidbits, the big question now being asked is: Why did the U.S. pick this particular point in time, over thirty years after the crime, to finally nab Polanski?

There is no doubt that Polanski committed the crimes in question. Certainly, no reasonable person would ever infer that it is acceptable for an adult to have sex with a 13-year-old child, even if she claimed it was consensual. No child has the emotional or legal wherewithal to make that kind of a decision. However, 30 years is a long time for no great effort to be made on the part of law enforcement to bring him to justice. He spent the entire summer in Switzerland, presumably not for the first time. So, why now?

Some postulate that an an appeal by Polanski last December to have his case dismissed on the grounds of misconduct by prosecutors angered law enforcement. I wonder, though, if something else didn't prompt this raid on an unpunished child molester. Something like, perhaps, the Jaycee Lee Dugard case.

This young woman was held for 18 years in the backyard of Phillip Garrido, a convicted sex offender on lifetime federal parole after serving a sentence of 17 years for kidnapping and rape. Not only was she kept in the same state in which she was kidnapped, but she was very literally right under the noses of local police, who ostensibly never stopped looking for her. Not only that, Garrido's parole officer visited the home on several occasions and never suspected a thing. To top it all off, a neighbor claims that he knew about the girls in Garrido's yard, told the cops, and nothing was done. Hmmm.

Could it be that authorities could be trying to polish their tarnished star with the arrest of another, more high-profile sex offender? Why are they pushing for a sentence of 15-50 years, when Garrido was released after only 17, and he had a kidnapping charge tacked on, as well? Why indeed, especially when the victim herself says she has no interest in seeing Polanski jailed.

Putting Polanski behind bars at this late date doesn't seem to serve any purpose except to create a circus so that some law enforcement personnel and prosecuting attorneys can make a name for themselves. He's obviously not a danger, so why bother? He is, however, rich. If he is to be punished, -and why shouldn't he be?- why not slap him with a fine of $100 million or so to set up a program to counsel victims of sexual abuse? Here's another idea: Ask his victim what she thinks about an apt punishment. Has anyone yet though of that?

The Downfall of Van Jones

Now that the Van Jones affair is fading a bit, it seems fair to examine the incident and its aftermath with a cooler, more objective eye. Despite the fact that signing the truth.org petition was not smartest move Jones ever made (particularly in light of his political ambitions), it hardly seems the caliber of scandal necessary to unseat a staffer on the Council of Environmental Quality, a fairly mundane position. More to the point, it seems it would have been a bigger coup for the right to have him apologize profusely, and stay put. Apparently, that wasn't going to be good enough.

Certainly, Jones had been under fire by conservatives for some time, mainly for his participation in Color of Change, as well as his promotion of "green" jobs. The discovery of his 2004 petition signature was really just icing on the cake. For all the outrage, however, no one seems to be addressing the state of this nation's psyche back then, barely three years since 9/11 shattered our sense of security.

This is not the first time that a national tragedy, particularly one so obviously aimed at the United States, has caused us to question everything we thought we knew (remember Pearl Harbor?). People are shocked, angry and fearful. Questions of "Why?" and "How could this happen?" quickly morph into "Who knew?" and "When did they know?" People want someone to blame. They have questions, and these questions will be answered by someone, not always those who actually have the credentials to do so. In this state of high emotionality, people say things they never thought they would. That's human nature.

Now, I'm not one who gives these conspiracy theories an ounce of credence. Therefore, I am not being an apologist for these persons, I am only stating that I understand the genesis of such theories. I also respect the rights of those to speak these things, regardless of how lunatic they may sound. Why? Because this is a democracy, and it is their (and our) right to do so. Since when is it a bad thing for us to question and criticize our "government of the people", even when the criticisms seem unfounded?

There's something else. During the uproar over this issue, a news program aired a snippet of Jones giving a speech a few years ago. During this speech, he refered to Republicans as "a--holes". Could this be the real reason he had to go? Just asking.

Industry Fights Ban of Bisphenol A

Since the publication of various studies and warnings concerning bisphenol A, representatives from the food packing industry have become worried not only that consumers will cease buying products packaged in plastic, but that the chemical will be banned outright. According to the Washington Post, who obtained notes from an industry meeting last spring, these titans moaned about the future of their industry and the fact that consumers don't appreciate just how important BPA really is.

According to the article's author, Lyndsey Layton, these industry hacks brainstormed about various propaganda campaigns designed to buoy bisphenol A's reputation. Among these were "scare tactics" in which ads would infer that consumers would not be able to buy their favorite foods anymore if BPA were banned to employing a pregnant, female "spokesperson" who would spend her time trumpeting the "benefits of BPA".

Do these guys really believe bisphenol A is safe? Not on your life. There have been scores of articles decrying the negative health effects of BPA, many of them since the 2007 scientific consensus statement. Yet, our own Food and Drug Administration still considers it safe. Based on what, you may ask? Well, based upon two studies funded by the chemical industry, of course.

Personally, I have seen the effects of this controversy in my local stores. Stainless steel has become a viable alternative to plastic for coffee and water containers, for example. Unfortunately, I have also had to cross a couple of items off of my grocery list because they are no longer packaged in glass, but plastic. Danger, schmanger, who cares about health when shipping costs are decreased (without a commensurate drop in price, I might add)?

The evidence is changing minds, though. Japan, who only two years ago said there was no compelling reason to restrict BPA, is now using an alternative, and has cut down significantly on its use of the chemical. In 2008, Canada banned its use in baby bottles, and several baby bottle manufacturers have agreed not to use it in their products.

Legislation is pending in Washington to ban bisphenol A in food containers, and the FDA is taking another look at the science supporting its toxicity to humans. Let's hope that this time, the hundreds of voices decrying the use of this harmful chemical will drown out those few who support it.

Bisphenol A: A Toxic But "Safe" Chemical?

Two years ago, a warning regarding the toxicity of bisphenol A, or BPA was endorsed by scores of scientists, including four members of federal health agencies. According to an article by the Los Angeles Times, this document was published online by the scientific journal Reproductive Toxicology. Approximately 700 studies were reviewed, and the findings were dire: Almost everyone is exposed to levels of this chemical over and above those found to cause harm to lab animals. As is usually the case with toxic chemicals, infants and fetuses are most at risk.

At this point in time (August 2007), no restrictions on the use of BPA were in place anywhere in the world. The publication of this consensus of opinion, however, seemed to be sparking an effort in the United States to consider regulating the chemical, something that the industry wanted to avoid at all costs.

This was certainly not the first time I had heard of the deleterious effects of bisphenol A. Over 20 years ago, I started having disruptions in my monthly cycle. I went to my doctor, who had no answers but wasn't overly concerned. Luckily, I read an article in a magazine not long after about an estrogen-mimicking chemical called BPA and the effects it had on women's menstrual cycles. We immediately stopped buying bottled water in the hard plastic containers, switching to opaque gallon jugs. The problem resolved itself right away! Obviously, the effects of BPA have been known for many years.

This past spring, I read another article about bisphenol A, this time in regards to industry's plan to brainwash the public into thinking that BPA is safe. This chemical is big business, apparently, and industry hacks would rather spread lies saying it is not toxic than bother trying to find alternatives.

How are they getting away with this? Tune in tomorrow!

Paying for Health Care Reform

The current debate about health care reform seems to have moved from lies and scare tactics (finally) to concerns about cost. How, conservatives ask, are we going to pay for this project? This is a pertinent question, since the current legislation calls for $900 billion over a ten-year period. Well, I have a suggestion: Let's cut back on war.


Without getting into whether the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were warranted or perceived to be winnable, let's just look at the numbers involved. A Los Angeles Times article from March 2003 describes the contractor feeding frenzy regarding federal contracts to rebuild Iraq. Right off the bat, these were offered as "cost-plus-fee" meaning, it seems, that the sky was the limit on profit margins. Bidding was done in secret, with most bidders enjoying close ties to the Republicans and the Bush White House.


An editorial in our local paper in August of 2006 speaks to the skyrocketing bills associated with the Iraq war. The Special Inspector for Iraq Reconstruction had just released a report, which featured Rep. Henry Waxman commenting, "We've squandered $50 billion". Equipment and weapons disappeared and meals never materialized ($88 million down the tubes right there) as Bechtel, Halliburton and their subsidiaries enjoyed feeding at the public trough.


Stuart Bowen Jr.'s 2008 audit brought even more good news: $100 billion had been spent on reconstruction efforts in Iraq, many of them of dubious quality. Some were never started, many more were terminated early. The money, apparently, was still paid despite the lack of results.


The National Priorities Project presents the grand total so far: $915.1 billion spent on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, with a request for $130 billion more pending in the 2010 federal budget. Let's see...over $900 spent in eight years, so the same amount spent over ten should be a breeze!


I know that war will always be with us, unfortunately. If we had saved only half the cost of these two conflicts over the past eight years, however, we would not be worrying about how to pay for health care reform now. This year, I suggest that we fund health care and use whatever is left over for war. Sounds like a plan.

Clinton's "Empowerment" Initiative

This morning's Today show featured a live interview with Bill Clinton, and I happened to catch a bit of it. The usual questions were asked, generally centering around the idea, So, as a former U.S. President, how do you think this new guy is doing? Clinton dutifully answered with deference to the new incumbent, measuring his words so that, in true political spirit, he actually said nothing. Well, that's OK, what do you expect the man to say? At the very last, Matt Lauer asked Clinton about the Clinton Foundation and its "Global Initiative". Well, he really came alive then! Smiling and squirming like a kid in a candy shop, Clinton talked about one particular aspect that he's especially committed to: The education and empowerment of adolescent girls and women in developing countries.


Now call me crazy, but I've always liked this guy. I didn't like a lot of things he did as President, but he himself was always witty, jocular and so boy-next-door. And so smart. Anyway, to hear him talk about this program made me feel vindicated; the guy really isn't bad at all.


Clinton knows, as research has shown time and again, that educating women benefits not only their immediate family, but whole communities. Education is empowering not only because of its ability to lift women out of poverty, but also because it gives them economic independence. Educated, wealthier nations also tend to have lower birthrates, since women have more control over their own fertility. Then there's the fact that education of children can begin in the home, well before school-age. This also instills in families the value of education, and they will be less apt to delay their children's entry into school or pull them out before graduation.

Of course, there are many forces against this particular initiative. Many have made money from the dependence of women, from families collecting dowries to white-slave traders. It's difficult to imagine women succumbing to these situations if they had free choice. Therefore, the struggle continues.


My first supervisor at the University always said, "Educate a mother and you educate a whole family". She was an educated woman herself, and knew the value of knowledge and independence. Clinton stated that his initiative has garnered many more commitments this year than last. This is great work, and merits acknowledgment. With Bill Clinton behind it, I believe it will get the recognition it deserves.

Texting, Cellphones and Driving

Is it possible that there are a few people out there that don't realize that texting while driving is hazardous? Apparently so. A recent study by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute reported that truck drivers increased their risk of collision by 23% when they indulged in this behavior. The study used cameras to show that drivers took their eyes off the road for about 5 seconds right before a crash or close call. Yikes.


I admit that I am one of those holdouts who does not own a cellphone. If I ever get one, though, I think I will have enough common sense not to take one hand and both eyes off the road while behind the wheel of a two-ton vehicle! While I am sure that many people who use cellphones do so responsibly, there are just as many who do not.


This past summer, accidents that occurred while the driver was texting were all over the news. Seventeen states, as well as the District of Columbia, have outlawed texting, according to a Washington Post article by Ashley Halsey III. The aforementioned study stated that collision risk increases six times when drivers dial a cellphone or are otherwise distracted by the device. Approximately 1 million persons are using a cellphone while driving at any point in time, according to the National Safety Council. That's a lot of distracted drivers.


I believe these numbers. It seems that whenever I venture out to shop, almost every driver I see is struggling to park, back up or turn a corner without taking off my front end--all the while chatting up a storm on his or her cellphone. A friend has jokingly said that everyone else drives like a jerk whenever he's driving around using his cellphone.


Are people that lonely and starved for conversation that they absolutely can't wait until they've at least parked the car to whip out the portable phone? Another survey mentioned in the Post article says that 8 out of 10 drivers admit to using their phones while driving. Some congressmen are considering withholding federal highway dollars unless states get serious about regulating these devices. Let's hope this happens sooner rather than later.