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?