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.

Jimmy Carter Speaks Out on Racism

It's finally happened. No less an important personage than Jimmy Carter has, at last, voiced what many of us have been giving considerable thought: Many of Obama's critics are fueled by racism. Almost immediately, right-wing talking heads popped up to state unequivocally that there is no longer any racism in America. Is this a case of "Methinks the (conservatives) doth protest too much" or what? Next, they'll be claiming there's no sexism, ageism, anti-Semitism or discrimination against gays.

One would have to be living in a cave to believe this statement. Of course, the ones saying it don't believe it either, but in the time-worn American tradition of "if we say something ridiculous often enough people will believe it", they are saturating the media with this nonsense. Most of the most vocal deniers are white guys. Personally, I'd like to see a few more black people speak up, preferably those who make less than six figures a year.

I agree with Jimmy. Every time we turn around Obama is getting lambasted for one thing or another. Now, Clinton also took a beating when he tried to reform the health care system. He was harangued by the Republicans for pretty much his entire two terms. But let's face it: He really did give them fodder for the mill. His tendency toward philandering, and his refusal to hold it in check, really helped the Republican cause. I often wondered how such a smart man could act so foolishly.

There are no such skeletons in Obama's closet, however, and I'm sure a thorough search has been conducted. He hasn't lied about anything and he's actually gone out of his way to set the record straight when rumors get out of hand. He's trying to fulfill campaign promises, for which Presidents are often chided for not doing. He's been criticized for giving a speech to schoolchildren, just like his predecessors have done without such scrutiny. He's been called a socialist, Nazi, the believer in "death panels" for the elderly. And for attempting to expand access to medical care, no less. Then there's the Joe Wilson factor. Can you think of any other President (read: white) to have suffered such disrespect?

People love to hate each other. They can be taught not to, but it takes time and work. Denying that discrimination still exists is not going to alleviate the problem. Hopefully, Jimmy Carter has been the catalyst for a discussion about racism that will help this country move forward. Can we learn from this? Yes We Can!

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Throws its Weight Around

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is using its considerable clout to prevent forward motion on two issues of import to American workers:  Health care reform and the filling of three vacancies on the National Labor Relations Board.

The conservative Chamber is using television ads to promote its website, ResponsibleHealthReform.org.  I checked it out and found it to be full of misinformation, stating a a government-run health plan would "control costs...by limiting access to health care treatments and delaying access to physician and hospital care". It states that a public option would increase costs for those with private insurance, if indeed those poor companies could survive in such an environment.   Now, never mind that these and other erroneous myths have been debunked by no less an expert than President Obama himself.  Or that mega-corporation Wal-Mart has recently come out in favor of health care reform.  The Chamber still persists in spreading these lies.  Why?

Well, it seems that they are worried about additional taxes on business.  All right, but business generally passes on those costs to consumers, so where's the problem?  If they are really concerned with fiscal pressure being put on average Americans, then why do they oppose a plan that would alleviate spiraling health care costs?

On the labor front, the Chamber of Commerce has become obstructive as Obama tries to fill three vacant seats on the National Labor Relations Board.  Since January of 2008, the NLRB has been stymied due to its lack of membership.  The Democrats would not fill those seats during the last part of the former administration, fearing appointments that would shift the Board entirely against labor.  Now the Chamber is calling for a hearing on one appointee, a former labor lawyer.  Gee, I wonder why.

The mission statement of the U.S.Chamber of Commerce is as follows:  "To advance human progress through an economic, political and social system based on individual freedom, incentive, initiative, opportunity, and responsibility."  I think its members need to remember that trying to influence lawmakers to see their point of view through obstruction, lobbying and PAC contributions is probably not a responsible interpretation of its "mission".

Do Coupons Really Help Save You Money?

Like everyone else, the recession has caused my husband and myself to squeeze every little bit of value out of a dollar.  Which was why, when I saw that the weekend newspaper contained six coupon flyers, I was elated.  Surely, I thought, I would be able to find one or two money-saving coupons for items that I normally buy.  I scrutinized each and every page and came up with:  Zero.  Not a single coupon for me!  Now, I admit that we are not the best consumers in the world.  My husband is a vegetarian, we buy organic whenever possible and rarely buy ready-made meals, industrial-strength household cleaners or anything with tons of packaging.  Guess what?  Those are exactly the kind of items coupons are targeted for.  Here's a few examples.

There were many coupons for yogurt products, but not the vanilla quart-sized containers we buy.  These were individual servings, already flavored, sold in six-packs.  Not only are these products loaded with sugar and other additives, but you wind up throwing away six plastic containers, plus a cardboard box.  Sure, a lot of this can be recycled, but why bother? Not only is is healthier to add your own flavorings to the vanilla style yogurt, but you get this nifty reusable container in the bargain!  Even if you don't reuse it, it's still a lot less packaging to dispose of!

Another product consists of a chocolate pudding-cake type of treat, again in six plastic, individual-sized portions.  Now, I have a killer recipe for chocolate pudding cake that I make from scratch.  As a matter of fact, I only make it once in a while because we would just gorge ourselves on it and turn into houseboats.  It doesn't have refined flour or sugar, preservatives or hydrogenated oils and it tastes heavenly.  There is also no waste.  And don't get me started on laundry detergent--I have yet to see a coupon for the scent-free, vegetable rather than petroleum-based kind that I use.

It makes me wonder if most people really aren't aware that we are drowning in our own waste, our health is being compromised by additives in prepared foods and that petroleum is a finite resource.  Manufacturers wouldn't offer these promotions if people didn't use them, so I can only assume that they are popular.  If you don't delve too deeply into the dollars and cents issue, I guess it looks as if you are saving money.  But all that packaging and convenience has a cost, not only in money but in the toll we are taking on the earth. 

The next time you're tempted to use that coupon for Hamburger Helper, instead try this:  Buy a pound of ground beef, a bag of noodles and use the seasonings you have on hand to create a meal instead.  I'll bet you'll not only save yourself some money, but you'll also reduce the mound of refuse you have to drag out to the curb every week.  Kind of gives you a warm and fuzzy anti-coupon, money-saving feeling, doesn't it?

Obama Tells Congress Like It Is

Last night, Barak Obama addressed the U.S. Congress and the nation to "set the record straight" on the issue of health care reform.  Since then, the talking heads have been discussing ad naseum every little detail of that speech, not that that's unusual.  There were a couple of unusual things about this speech, however, not the least being that Obama made it at all.

Obama, as he himself admitted, is not the first President to attempt this Herculean task.  Truman tried in the late 1940s as did the Clintons, disastrously, in the early 1990s. The difference between those former heads of state and Obama is this:  He's not backing down.  Not that I blame the other two for doing so, considering the flack they encountered.  But this is a different time, and Obama is a different person.  He gets out there and tells it like it is, in no uncertain terms.  If he says he'll "be the last" President to reform this nation's health care system, well, dang it, I believe him.

The other unusual occurence was the lack of courtesy shown Obama by  Republican Representative Joe Wilson.  I can't remember any other congressperson acting out in such a manner during a Presidential address.  Even Clinton, who was hounded non-stop by Republicans during his two terms in office, was never publicly shown such disrespect during a televised speech.  And all Obama is trying to do is reform the health care delivery system not for himself or those in congress, but for the American populace.

Even after the speech's concessions (it looks like the "public" part of "public option" is out) the Republican rebuttal by Rep. Charles Boustany still exuded peevishness.  Not willing to admit that the administration had ceded ground, Boustany's speech mostly bleated that both parties should "start over".  Well, sure.  I guess if I was getting paid whether or not I delivered any results, I'd feel that way, too.  What we need is for these guys to stop wasting taxpayer money and get the job done.  Let's hope Obama's speech will have that effect.

Conservatives to Obama: Stay Away from Our Kids

The wailing and gnashing of teeth by conservatives in response to Obama's speech to the nation's schoolchildren seems to be another attempt to discredit the current administration.  Not content with spreading disinformation about his health care reform plan in order to incite pandemonium where understanding should prevail, they have now moved to the other end of the age spectrum to try to make school-aged children fear their President.  Or, more specifically, the parents of those children.

Once again, I am in awe of the maelstrom they have been able to foment on the flimsiest of ideas.  The notion that schools are no place for the "indoctrination" of young children is a  case in point.  Let's see...we take a large population of blank slates and fill them with knowledge and new ideas...well, I guess Republicans are using a different dictionary than I am.  I wonder:  How would conservatives characterize their preoccupation with re-instituting creationism and school prayer in public schools?  Another is the idea that Obama is trying to push a "socialist" agenda.  Don't these naysayers know that the "public" in public school means taxpayer-funded and therefore available to all?

Obama is not the first U.S. President to address schoolchildren in this manner.  Both Reagan and the elder Bush did, as well.  But for some reason, this time is different.  What, for heaven's sake, is wrong with exhorting kids to work hard and stay in school so that they can help both themselves and their country?

Not all Republicans have joined in this ridiculous campaign.  Laura Bush, a former schoolteacher (and First Lady!) lent her support.  Others, after reading the text, withdrew their opposition.  It still rankles, however, that this latter group had the egotism to screen Obama's speech at all.

When Obama first took office, there was much talk of the end of bipartisanship and touchy-feely speeches about everybody working together.  Well, the honeymoon is over.  There is a boisterous contingent that would love to see this administration fail, and will use any method they can to make it happen.  I guess that what happens when a politician has the nerve to try to change the status quo.

The Public's Option to Deny the Truth About Health Care Reform

Recently, the media has been full of the "town meetings" that congressional representatives have been participating in for the purpose of discussing health care reform.  Instead of disseminating much-needed information on the subject, these meetings have mostly been free-for-all shout-fests in which citizens deride their congresspeople for attempting to "bankrupt the country", foster a "government takeover of health care", and create "death panels" with the proposed reforms.  Lawmakers have faced hostile crowds that burn them in effigy, equate President Obama with Hitler and, outside a public forum in Connecticut, loudly suggest that Christopher Dodd take a "handful of painkillers" with a whiskey chaser to treat his prostate cancer.  Nice.  All because this administration is trying to come up with an alternative to the current health insurance status quo.

I've noticed something about the people who attend these meetings:  they are, for the most part, older.  By "older", I mean that they are Medicare recipients.  Is it possible that they do not know this?  If they do, do they not know that Medicare, in fact, is a government-sponsored, single-payer insurance plan?  That seems unlikely.  What then, is the genesis of their battle cry, "Keep government hands off of my health care"?  How can the government stay out of a plan that they administer?  Additionally, Medicare is not a choice; if you are 65 years of age, you participate, period.  As far as I know, the current reforms have never required anyone to segue onto the public option insurance, if it ever comes to pass.

Of course, if these persons are so fond of the Medicare program that they shout down any suggestion of change, then why wouldn't they want the same for their children, and their grandchildren?  Another question is why each forum seems dominated by the elderly.  Are these meeting being held during the day, when only retired people can attend?  Or has there been some quiet organizing going on, by parties unknown?  I really don't understand why these people are so intent upon derailing this issue, since it doesn't affect them directly.  Not that there is anything wrong with voicing your opinion about current events, whether they touch your life or not.  However, the vitriol being aired suggests that Obama is considering outlawing the Early Bird Special, rather than trying to make health care affordable for working-age people.

Now, I am of the opinion that, after 65 or more years on the planet, one should be able to discern truth from lies better than, say, an 18-year-old with much less life experience.  Ellen Goodman, in a recent editorial, has shed a little light on why elders are behaving this way.  I have always liked Goodman, who seems able to tell it like it is without being nasty or insulting.  She points out that the senior contingent was the only group not supportive of Obama's presidency.  Knowing that, Republicans have been courting them in an effort to overturn this latest attempt at reform.  A Republican-sponsored "Seniors' Health Care Bill of Rights" is feeding this frenzy, inferring that the reforms on the table would provide health care for everyone younger than 65 only at a cost to Medicare.  Sure, Medicare reforms are also underway, the most positive of which entail closing the costly "doughnut hole" in  drug coverage.  There are no plans to ration coverage of any kind for older folks, or to force life-or-death choices on the frail.  These inferences are just untrue.

So, to older Americans, I say:  Please be a driving force for Medicare reform.  You know better than the rest of us what works and what doesn't in that program, and your voices should be heard.  But, please, please don't use your collective power to deny better health care delivery to those younger than you.  Your grandchildren will thank you for it.

Public Option: Here Today, Gone Tomorrow

One of Barak Obama's key campaign proposals was the overhaul of the current health care system.  Like many others, he recognized not only the need for change in this area but also the American citizen's desire for it.  Back then and even as recently as this past July, a publicly-funded insurance alternative to the current system was a cornerstone of this proposal.  Then the ranting and raving started (not that there's anything wrong with ranting).  This important piece of the puzzle went from being, in Obama's words, "...the best way...to force insurance companies to compete and keep them honest", to, less than one month ago, "...not the entirety of health care reform (but) one tiny sliver of it".  What happened?

Well, to put it simply, the Republican Party happened.  Or, more precisely perhaps, pressure on the GOP to scuttle this proposal in favor of "health insurance cooperatives" in lieu of a government-sponsored, single-payer system.  Do you smell a lobbyist here?  Now, I don't know that such a system wouldn't work, and I know that other countries use them with success.  However, according to T.R. Reid, author of "The Healing of America", his research of these co-ops has shown that the heavy hand of regulation is what actually makes them workable.  In other countries, these co-ops are not allowed to refuse coverage for pre-existing conditions or deny payment for needed care.  If they try, the insured gets the next month's premium for free.  Now, there's a concept!  They are also not allowed to raise premiums on their own; if they do, they face steep fines. Have you heard of anything like this falling from the lips of those pushing this notion, though?  I sure haven't.

I admit that, besides this core issue, I'm in the dark as to what else is being considered in the arena of "health care reform".  Besides prescription drug negotiations to close the "doughnut hole" in Medicare, I really don't know what other reforms of our health care system are being discussed, and I've actually been paying attention.

Since no real reform seems imminent without a public alternative to private insurance, I think that all the other stuff (whatever it is) should be pushed to the back burner, at least for now.  Change coming in small steps is usually more palatable to most people, so, I say, just concentrate on the public option segment right now.  Too bad if the insurance companies and  "big pharma" don't like it--it's the one thing that will make the biggest, most positive change in the lives of most people.  And, ahem, isn't that supposed to be what this is all about?

Apostrophes, Fonts and Pet Peeves

I admit that I'm one of those people who is constantly grumbling about the lack of proper grammar and spelling in newspapers, leaflets and signs. So I laughed out loud when I read an article recently presenting the concerns some other "Grammar/Punctuation Nazis" have with the fact that many signs denoting public places are missing key apostrophes. Famous places like Pikes Peak (see?) have had their possessive stature demoted. According to an article by Dave Gram for the Associated Press, the U.S. government has has a policy of not using apostrophes in signage for at least the last 100 years. Are people just now noticing? Guess so. Gram also notes that agencies like Veterans Affairs, trade publications such as Publishers Weekly and even credit cards like Diners Club follow this example. Personally, I don't think it's a big deal. You want to know why? Because I'm someone who gets annoyed about the overuse of the apostrophe.

I believe that all those missing apostrophes have been migrating from signs identifying famous or public places and things to ordinary, everyday signs. "Free Kitten's" and "Computer's on sale all week", are just a couple of examples of the abuse of the apostrophe that irks the heck out of me everyday. Oh, and have you noticed that signs and advertisements involving acronyms are notorious for apostrophe overuse? TV's, DVD's, VCR's...the list is endless. In fact, I don't think I've seen these terms used without the possessive form in years. Now, that's something to get peeved about! And don't even get me started on the apostrophe's poor, overworked cousin, the comma. I have read articles that use so many commas in one paragraph that I literally have trouble understanding the meaning of the text. Offenders should be required to read multiple sections of the MA General Laws (a shining example of poor sentence form) until they learn some respect for punctuation.


Just the other day, I read another amusing article, this time on the brouhaha that has ensued after Ikea released its (note no apostrophe) newest catalog in a different font. Stephen Nasstrom reported that people were "outraged" and "sad"; some were even filled with "disgust". Ha! I thought. Now,THAT is a silly thing to get upset about.

"Death Panel" Propaganda Attempts to Derail Health Care Reform

As commonly occurs during debate surrounding legislation that would actually benefit the majority of Americans, a vocal minority creates a catch-phrase to try to tilt the scales of the discussion in their favor. Who are these people? Usually they are groups that stand to lose something (read: money) if the legislation goes forward without their input. The health care reform debate is no different.


I don't know who came up with the term "death panel" to refer to language regarding end-of-life counseling. I do know that somehow Sarah Palin, never afraid to say the most nonsensical things in a public arena, has become their poster girl, claiming that "bureaucrats" will be empowered to deny health care to persons such as her "...parents and ...baby with Down's Syndrome", based on how much these panelists feel such persons contribute to society. Huh?


Now, the foregoing is silly enough to be laughable if not for the fact that, apparently, people are believing this nonsense. Notwithstanding Mark Twain's famous comment on the American populace, I'm still reeling from the realization that educated adults actually think that their government is drafting laws to decide who lives or dies based on cost considerations. The language only requires that Medicare cover this counseling, which I understand to be things like pain management, hospice care, living wills, etc., if it is desired. How is this wrong or "evil"? Notable, too, is the fact that this language is not new, and has been supported by Senate Republicans. So, what's the problem?


Hopefully, those behind this ridiculousness will be exposed for the muckrakers they are sooner rather than later, so that the rest of us can get back to the necessary task of making health care available for all.

We Don't Have to be Fair, We're the Phone Company

My neighbor, Ms. R. came over Saturday morning to use our phone to call Verizon. Their telephone was not working, so we found a number and she spoke to a representative who, despite admitting that the problem was with their equipment, said that the earliest someone would be out to fix the problem would be Tuesday at 6 p.m. Fair? They don't have to be fair, as Lily Tomlin's character on Laugh-In always said. They're the phone company!

Last December, the Northeast sustained quite an ice storm. Power was out for several days, as was the telephone. When everything was turned back on, I called the phone company to say that I didn't want to be charged the daily base rate for the time we had no service. I don't remember the exact conversation, but I'll reproduce it as best I can for you, just for chuckles.

Verizon: I'm sorry ma'am, but you need to call us as soon as your service is out so that we know you're not lying.

Me: I couldn't call, the phone was out.

Verizon: Ma'am, do you have a cellphone?

Me: No, but even if I did, there's no service here. I would have to drive somewhere IN AN ICE STORM to be able to use it.

Verizon: Could you have used a neighbor's phone?

Me: Duh. They were out, too. You know this. Verizon had crews up here working on the problem. It was in the newspaper. Don't say you didn't know!

Verizon: All right, ma'am, I'll do it for you this time as a courtesy (!). But next time, you need to call.

Me (under my breath): Stupid cow.

This was embellished a bit, but not much. Imagine millions of people paying for several days of service they didn't receive, for one reason or another. That's a lot of free money for the phone companies. Deregulation, ah, what a joke. At least one thing is the same as before the break-up of Ma Bell: They're still not fair. And they don't have to be.