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!