The comments left by readers posted below that NY Times Op-Ed are certainly proof of the conditioning that the mega-corporatocracy (as opposed to actual businesses which compete to offer goods and services in the marketplace) has imposed on our society. How many hours of radio do they buy up for the Limbaughs and Becks whose vast fund of well-compensated hatred is only exceeded by the absence of logic in their statements. Who was it that equated the practices of ‘Capitalism” with the phrase, “Free Market Economy”? A marketing genius, no doubt since the two are not at all the same. However, the term, “Free” is a buzz-word that automatically spurs positive feelings and condemnation of those who spurn the misuse of the term in that context.

Capitalism is an economic practice with governmental restrictions upon it to ensure fair competition. Monopolies and trusts (the actual inhabitants of the Free Market zone) are forbidden, not that anyone bothers to enforce anti-trust laws any longer. Capitalism is neither a form of government nor is it a replacement for government. The constitution for our Republic actually empowers Congress to intervene in business to preserve constitutional freedoms for citizens. The framers were well able to conceive of robber barons gaining undue influence over government and trampling the rights of citizens.

Capitalism carries a lot of responsibilities for both businesses and for consumers. It’s a contract through which satisfied customers reward good businesses with their hard earned dollars. Bad businesses are supposed to fail as good ones expand and can take on the losses of workers created in a changing marketplace. However, when bad businesses form agreements to conform to policies which place them in adversarial roles with labor, the contract with capitalism has failed. Multiple businesses may be technically separate entities but competition has effectively ended. It represents a decision that the trough is large enough for all to feed. Trough, indeed.

But what happens when the drive to rake in another penny per unit so that a supplier can meet the demands of larger entities who don’t realize there is a ‘bottom line’ beyond which profits turn into losses for the populace? It results in hazardous products which harm the workers who make them and the consumers who buy them. It leads to low wages, importing illegal labor and exporting local jobs into the hands of people who will not in turn, be consumers of US businesses by and large. It means increased underemployment and unemployment to be remedied by tax funded means to prevent starvation and homelessness. It means poor educational experiences for children living in poverty, diminishing hopes of future generations to surpass the last one.

Everyone is a consumer, including our mega-corporations. What happens when the largest institutions refuse to examine the practices of the smaller ones with whom they trade? Here, the firing of janitorial staff earning under $14 per hour, was of no interest to the giant who referred to the matter as belonging only to another ‘vendor’. Too many providers of essential services (such as cleaning) are forced to sacrifice their more experienced employees for cheaper workers in order to underbid for a contract which further threatens their stability as a business. This practice ensures a smaller pool of trained, secure workers which makes up a stable society. It basically renders the entire workforce a disposable commodity. Were we less of a capitalist society when good workers enjoyed longevity and advancement within their employment settings? Now that the workforce has increased in diversity, the fund of useful knowledge and willing hands is larger than ever. It eradicates the independence of labor which is essential to the growth of a large (politically active) middle class.

There is one circumstance in which “trickle-down” economic theory does work. If the upper echelons of the business world refuse to think about the source of their wealth, mindlessness proceeds the rest of the way down the chain.

How can a violation of sound business practices be made to sound acceptable in society? Simple. You begin to use the term ‘Free Market Economy’. That makes it seem as if corporations work alone in creating a healthy marketplace. If someone refers to capitalism at all, just throw out that ‘other’ phrase, “Socialism” and be sure you sneer as you say it. It can misdirect the conversation admirably and no one has to learn anything new. Ever. Let people infer that if business were just free of all regulation and taxes, there would be two jobs in every pot. Or some such rhetoric (I’m not old enough to recall the New Deal). We’ve had that for quite awhile now. How’d that turn out? Anyone? Bueller? Despite incentives to hire, businesses kept the profits from those incentives and got more for less out of their workers. As we already know, you get ‘less’ for ‘less’ and this has led to a slower recovery and poorer quality of production practices and merchandise.

In the meantime, make business work for their money. To the largest extent possible, patronize ethical businesses which pay a living wage while producing quality products and services with full disclosure of ingredients. Mindlessness may work for industry moguls with golden parachutes but citizens have to eat today and plan for tomorrow. There is a reason why we refer to working as ‘making a living’. The demand that one work only so that others can live (high on the hog if we go back to the trough analogy), is against every principle of capitalism. Unless mindlessness is contagious, citizens should think of the consequences for their consumer choices.

My commentary on this article:

179.
Barbara Rubin, Ca.
September 4th, 2010

Mr. Herbert,

Thank you for bringing this to the attention of NY Times readers. This would have been a bit more effective if the information offered at the end of the column had been stated first. We have been left in the dark about the reasons for the lay-offs of janitorial staff at this huge enterprise.

Once businesses accepted a closer relationship with the general public, (e.g. issuing stock, accepting public monies for bail-outs or relying upon provision of public services for under-employed or underpaid employees), a need for greater transparency arose.

The public should not have the right to demand any company retain incompetent employees or hire more individuals than are needed for their employment rolls. However, what we have seen is that corporations are freely dispensing with necessary jobs and satisfactory workers in order to inflate the bottom line from ‘healthy’ into a form of corporate obesity which harms all consumers and tax payers. Businesses taking advantage of leaner times have seen additional profits in maintaining low staffing levels while requiring unrealistic levels of productivity for remaining workers.

Fearful of losing their minimal incomes or protesting the absence of benefits, protests are few as employees are reduced to the level of serf. Some part time work schedules are always changing, preventing many workers from obtaining second jobs, ensuring consistent child/family care practices or allowing for schedules to accommodate those seeking higher education and job training.

It is nice to think that a free market economy requires no awareness of such internal corporate workings. Unfortunately, the truth is that the corporations look to the public sector to provide health care, housing vouchers and other vital services which used to be part of the reward for putting in a day’s good labor. Does anyone know the high rate of asthma and occupational illness among janitors? It is quite high and tax payers have been paying the price for the use of harmful cleaning and maintenance products janitors are required to use because they are cheap and reduce the time which is actually needed to effectively and safely manage occupied properties.

The Free Market Economy has termed workers to be commodities instead of integral parts of the business culture. No one denies the rewards at the top will rightfully surpass the rewards of lower echelon workers with less training and responsibility. However, there are no unimportant jobs and none which should require any worker to live below the poverty line, depending upon public assistance for the basic necessities of life.

The Free Market Economy has become another code word for feudalism with a larger castle and deeper moat. Worker ‘ownership’ can only be stopped by public awareness of company policies so we can put the more obese corporations on diets of integrity and fairness.

Most of you likely think this substance has been banned by now. Many of us recall the scandal of so many military personnel exposed to it at naval bases, on ships etc. Flame resistant, we chose it as a form of insulation for hot water pipes. School teachers recall ceiling tiles composed of the stuff. No, it has not been banned. Its use in this country has been greatly reduced but is still likely to be found in the brakes of your car or some other product you’ve not suspected. In fact, you may have it in your home but not realize it because many real estate deals included indemnification clauses (“I don’t know if it’s there and you can’t sue me later on if it turns up or you get cancer. So there!”).

Perhaps you know its encasing your older pipes but don’t realize it’s reached the friable stage requiring removal. I once rented a house on Long Island, only to find it all over the basement on my first day there. I camped out in the yard that month until I got a new place. Conditions were such that the home couldn’t be rented again until professional remediation was performed and the owner was very regretful. Probably more for her expense than my enforced period of camping but that’s the real estate game for you. Luckily for me, it was high summer. And it was just a little hurricane. I’ve never looked at the phrase, “Shelter from the storm”, in quite the same way since then.

This isn’t in the least funny. Nothing is more vital to our well-being than our dwellings. The substances in our homes, offices, schools and libraries; our clothing, food, fuels and other accouterments to our lives can contain some appalling materials. When are we going to take it seriously enough to hear all of those voices calling to us that they are literally ‘sick to death’ of vendors being allowed to sell frankly lethal products? We pay the costs of the associated losses in health care expenses, lost work productivity and benefits to survivors of those who die in the cause of what is mistakenly referred to as a ‘free marketplace’. NOTHING comes free. Everything comes with some responsibility attached to it and freedom of choice isn’t one of them when you are forced to ingest, breathe and absorb toxic materials.

While this post interrupts the thread on litigation, just look at what Jim Morris has to say about the legal costs of asbestos related suits. Not quite so unrelated as it might seem.

My commentary on this pieces was as follows:

Thank you for this analysis which infers a great deal about what Americans are prepared to tolerate in this country at our own expense. First, why is any asbestos still being sold today when we’ve known of its lethal properties since the sixties? Few consumers even know this substance is in current use in their cars. Apart from risk to workers, are fibers entering cars through vents or being inhaled on the streets by pedestrians?

Many real estate rental/sale agreements include indemnities for asbestos and chlordane contamination in a property. Why wouldn’t an owner be required to know about these two, potentially lethal conditions in their homes? I’ve personally tested residences with high levels of chlordane shown to be present and asbestos has no safe level of exposure at all. If consumers shared responsibility for acquiring property contaminated with such substances, a ban would be in high demand. Mortgage companies should be asking for proofs of this type just as they do for termite inspections. Invisible property damage exists if building conditions will produce illness in some of its occupants.

We must also ask the identities of those companies still marketing asbestos ‘aggressively’ overseas so we can boycott them. Such willful imposition of harm upon their customers would seem to make any of their products suspect in terms of safety. Under capitalism, consumer dollars should only reward the makers of the best products which means we all have an obligation in such matters.

Another trail of money to follow is in legal costs. This article cites industry losses of 70 billion in total, with 49 billion to victims and lawyers. Why don’t we have a registry for claims requiring medical proof alone and a basic judicial review? This would end costly court battles as lawyers are currently occupied with re-try the same cases over and over again and take large percentages of awards from needy victims. Lawyers would then be available to take more complex claims for those who might be excluded from the expedited process as well as fight new battles on the consumer health front.

That would save billions of dollars and likely make bans on patently harmful products more desirable.

Barbara Rubin

These days, the litmus test appears to be more along the lines of whether a justice will abide by existing constitutional law or be willing to dispense with it altogether. That isn’t limited to their views of Roe V Wade, which made abortion legal, but now involves decisions about whether businesses–already considered to be citizens–can be considered beyond the realm of US law-makers. This was the subject of this New York Times editorial, “The Republicans and the Constitution”. The clause referred to is the one granting Congress the right to make laws affecting commerce. The concepts of ‘capitalism’ and the ‘free-market economy’ may infer a hands-off approach to business, but Congress does retain legislative powers over commercial enterprise. Before you take umbrage with such interference, consider your teen-aged sons and daughters who are looking for summer jobs. Now how do you feel about child labor laws and minimum wage guarantees? It isn’t just about the privilege to tax businesses but also safeguarding consumers through passage of product safety laws which is at stake in this debate.

Here was my posted commentary:

25.
HIGHLIGHT (what’s this?)
Barbara Rubin
Ca.
July 20th, 2010
10:44 am

This brilliant editorial returns us to a more sane view of government for, and by, the people. The states fought for a Bill of Rights to restrain lawmakers from overly restricting the life options of citizens, including their ability to climb the ladder of success in any way they chose to define it. Republicans (and many Democrats) continue to regard the citizens of the United States as threats from which the more important paper citizens, (corporations), must be defended. The commerce clause is the only defense left for citizens who have become used to being defined as consumers and laborers. Laborers are mere assets belonging to businesses now rather than an integral part of their operations. Consumers are restrained from putting too many businesses out of business through restrictions upon information about product ingredients and any potential health hazards they pose.

Labels matter if we are to restore our government to its constitutional origins. Language shapes thought and citizens have to reclaim their identities again if we are to reclaim our eligibility for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Are we citizens or not? Do corporate claims to citizenship automatically put human citizens on a less equal footing with them?

Regulation of commerce is the only thing permitting many Americans to access the essentials of life. The minimum wage offers access to food and shelter although some businesses believe they can limit the hours of employees so that taxpayers cover traditional benefits which used to accompany full time employment. Now a benefits package is eligibility for Medicaid, housing vouchers and food stamps. Caps have even been suggested on labor’s potential to increase income beyond a particular level through exemptions from minimum wage mandates- if there were outside sources of income like tips based in the largess of restaurant patrons. Apparently corporate citizens must benefit from any expenditure of effort on the part of a laborer lest they earn a place above their assigned ‘stations’ or class membership.

Life and liberty are surely threatened by leaving allowable pollution levels to the discretion of producers while tax payers cover the costs of its morbidity/mortality. Should that cost become excessive, it is always possible to reduce it by having tax payers pay for the clean-up, and cover charges for catastrophic illnesses like cancer, as the lesser of evils.

What if we experimented by defining corporations as something other than citizens with the right to sue the government for any loss of profits (under NAFTA, chapter 11) should restrictions be imposed? You know, the rules which might benefit those ‘other citizens’; the ones with beating hearts.

Barbara Rubin
www.armchairactivist.us
Recommended by 207 Readers

Far from the image of an objective reporter, Nicholas Kristoff is a journalist immersed in documenting the moral failures of men which drive them to unspeakably destructive acts. He doesn’t only report but also intervenes, comprehending that some things cannot be encountered with the professional passivity of a paid observer. The violence he describes around the globe is directed both externally and inwardly, as is the usual case with aggression. External battles between nations are most easily documented, such as that between Israel and it’s neighbors. Much of Kristoff’s reporting is devoted to civil divisions in which men seek to subjugate or exterminate portions of their own societies, as seen in his visits to African nations. Unlike most reporters, his attention is draw to the inevitable targeting of women who constitute the lowest rung of all societies. He chronicles these atrocities, and the occasional modest victory, very well.

Kristoff continued his series on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in a piece called, “Waiting for Ghandi”.
While a previous column discussed below advised men to forget the past and begin anew in an area where history–and mythology– reign supreme, this column expresses the hope that males immersed in violence might be shamed into negotiations. That shame would be instigated by the sight of women engaged in passive resistance and filmed for posterity as they are met with violence. Yes, it would put a powerful image before many cameras.

But what of the women?

Kristoff, like Ghandi, appears to regard women as if we hold the answer to all of societies ills. As a matter of fact, we do. But, we aren’t going to share these most ‘un-secret’ of all strategies because we’re exhausted. Not only is the demand for these ‘secrets’ unceasing, but we are also expected to be impervious to the retribution exacted by men who fail to meet their own expectations of evolving to that sought-after, higher level of being. There is always a ‘reason’ for continuing their violent games.

And what of the women?

Women are indeed practiced at this because passive resistance (there is nothing ‘civil’ about flagrant disobedience) is a major strategy by which women stay alive in their own homes or retain their places in the work-force. However, passive resistance is not really a model of revolution. It is a protective shield to guard the spark of repressed humanity within oppressed humanity. It impresses others for only a very short time. Then the women will be left to pay the price of their demonstration.

Kristoff demonstrates the usual struggle of all men with the ‘Madonna/Whore’ division in which women are idealized. Nonetheless, that idealization of women still results in punishment for the assigned role of receptacles for male expression of sex and seed; of power and need. And sometimes of love, which is never returned as powerfully as required by the ‘thwarted’. Still, I had to question the very nature of the suggestion and read a bit about Ghandi’s view of women. It was very much the same. Women are necessary to save men from themselves.

Ghandi put women on pedestals to induce men to control themselves by example. By opening the door to females as voters, he assumed they would elect more reasonable individuals among the male half of the population. Females elected to any position of power would be expected to minimize the degree to which they visibly exercised it. Ghandi didn’t actually endorse social equality for women, fearing they would become equally violent and immoral with such freedom. This circular reasoning merely places men at the mercy of their atavistic impulses and makes women responsible for altering men’s goals. None of this requires the necessary and radical shifts in the gender hierarchy within society.

Hopefully, women will be permitted the garb required for their appointed task as peacemaker. A cape and tights, as provocative as the latter might appear, would seem necessary.

Wistful notions by men of peace making and describing huMan history. This reply was posted to Mr. Kristoff’s blog:

254.

July 11th, 2010
3:54 pm
Mr. Kristoff,

You disappoint today with this easy discharge of responsibility from warring, patriarchal factions to solutions which will result in some transient shame to men through the public abuse of women. Women are at the lowest rung of the ladder of oppression in that even an oppressed male can own one. Female lives should not be risked for lack of clear written agreements by men to end their armed conflicts and respect the rights of other men to exist.

You have seen how women are weapons of war in Africa through rape; how women become human shields in Middle Eastern villages occupied by terrorists needing bases for their guns and rockets. Yet now you propose women risk their lives in an effort to shame men whose customs preclude women from appearing in such a public manner for subversive purposes. How should they dress and comport themselves to avoid condemnation and punishment by their own leaders? Their own husbands?

Women can’t solve the problem, when we are even denied equal rights under the constitution – any constitution. Equal rights of citizenship in this country are even granted to paper entities – corporations – as for its human, male residents. Those corporate, paper citizens reap profits from war and provide its weapons – propaganda, money and instruments of violence. Remove those weapons of war instead of placing women between those weapons and their primary targets. Make war unprofitable and refuse recognition to terrorist-led governments.

Having women lie at the feet of armed men with the responsibility of disarming them is simply unfair. The State Department should instead grant women political asylum to leave their men to enjoy their battles and flee to safer environs. Deprivation of the sex class might serve to end war since shame is nonexistent. And, if wars are to be won by media influenced opinion, have journalists travel en mass to these battlefields.

You get paid for it and have medical insurance.

Barbara Rubin

Post Script: A post regarding the column by David Brooks written about Mel Gibson’s case has been postponed pending verification of the content of the tapes by law enforcement.

Many Americans learn their history through movies and animated Disney films about our pasts. It has led us to celebrate victories. Violent acts become crime dramas and ‘movies-of-the-week’, to be replayed over and over again. People enjoyed the sight of (attractive) heroes and heroines triumphing over evil. They were often vanquished by evil warlords but animated people could be shot, stabbed and fall off cliffs and still be reconstituted with a dash of water. Those who weren’t animated, all had medical insurance and would eventually recover from their comas.

Unfortunately, humans are not that resilient and survivors of violence (or merely violent times) often pass on little more than their traumas to future generations. Triumphant and tragic events are both remembered and oral knowledge eventually becomes archived as history. However the repetitive facts and themes contained in the history of men are transformed into mythology. Belief replaces facts and cannot easily be fought with reason. As women have only been rarely accounted for in recorded history, at least outside of mythology, I refer to the subject as huMan history – which tells a story all its own.

Most of the triumphs in historical records of one group are actually tragedies in the records of another. For some reason, success is equated with victory, meaning one can only advance at some cost to another with violence usually in evidence somewhere along the way. The error is actually one of reasoning. We regard each circle of aggression and defense as a closed chapter in group or individual histories. The allies won a war in 1942. A man was executed for killing another man. A wife left an abusive husband . None of these circles have been completed because history has been mistaken as something which is part of the past. The allies have since met the same evil occur within and between countries and executions, oddly, did not appear to deter other murders. Women return to abusive men when they realize they have no other way to raise their children without neglecting vital aspects of their health and safety regarding food, housing, supervision and medical care. Sometimes it is the mythology about two parents always being preferable to one.

HuMan history doesn’t repeat itself but merely continues. How we view history is key in many conflicts where mythology has replaced reason and is used to justify any amount of brutality. “Who did what to whom first?”, is a never ending question huMans ask one another. This first column by Kristoff, “Burrowing Through A Blockade”, attempts to remove huMan history from the equation entirely. He optimistically called for an end to memories of injustices on all sides, yet never addresses the nature of the participants involved. Change requires an alteration of more than circumstances. It calls for a huMan revolution of beliefs about the past and new ways of viewing progress as something other than winning which ensures a loser. Seeking a victory instead of a draw in which all coexist to the detriment of none is the temporary fix we are all condemned to replay. As long as only victories count, huMan history will continue as it is at present.

My posted comment was as follows:

144.

July 4th, 2010

Dear Mr. Kristoff,

Having just read your latest piece about the Middle East, I take issue with your recommendation to “… start over again.”. This is a form of wishful thinking that perpetuates violence around the globe. People tire of repetitive cycles of egregious harm done to various groups, be it to women or entire cultures in genocidal acts. Rather than persevere through the complexities of ending such evil, everyone wants to first wipe these dirtiest of slates ‘clean’.

The problem with recognizing an entity like Hamas must begin with their own stated goals. Have you looked at their charter? I recommend you seek out a person fluent and literate in Arabic to objectively review it. You should also review the failure of the former ruling party, the PLO, to make changes to their charter stating their intentions to destroy Israel until the late 1990s. Such provisions in their charter existed even after the Oslo Accords (I and II) in the early portions of that decade.

How do you ask any nation to negotiate with others whose stated intention is your eradication? The assumption of ‘good faith’ in such negotiations is not just ‘silly’ but ‘suicidal’. The Palestinians will always be deprived of political legitimacy until a governing body dedicates itself to the transformation of that territory into a nation able to respect the standing of other, non-Islamic nations in the world community. We must not mistake the offering of relief to a beleaguered populace as offering legitimacy to its rulers.

Humans suffer under governmental mandates to pursue bad policies. The US went bankrupt pursuing war in Iraq on pretenses of weapons of mass destruction being stockpiled there. Military and civilian casualties in that effort will remain a permanent blot on our record forever, which could not be halted for many years despite protests by citizens free to speak out about the issue. Who can speak in repressive environments by voice or vote? Our July 4th celebration of our Constitution is useless if we allow any of our temporary elected leaders to violate its written provisions.

Slates, like memories, cannot be wiped clean. Slates must boast written proof of current beliefs and future intentions regarding their principles and methods for governing. Aspiring governments must acknowledge that they will be taking their place among a community of nations with diverse beliefs.

Barbara Rubin

Note: A tag of feminism was added to this post since the eradication of women from much of history is symptomatic of the denial which is the basis for so much huMan misery as we see in the next two posts.

This is another case of drug makers enlarging the pool of patients to treat without thought to the consequences of such actions. According to reports by Alan Roses of GlaxSmithKline earlier in the decade (referenced above), Alzheimers drugs—like many others– are ineffective for half of patients due to genetic diversity within the population. On the other hand, earlier identification of cognitive decline and brain cell death is extremely valuable if findings are not dropped into an overly broad overly broad category of of ‘ Disease’. The bulk of it may well be due to injury. Exposures of citizens,(not patients), to neurotoxic substances occupationally and residentially, will have to be identified and ruled out as sources contributing to declining cognitive functions. Dr. Kaye Kilburn, former professor of medicine at the Keck School and VA epidemiologist, saw that occupational asthmatics frequently displayed such signs of central nervous system decline with changes in memory, learning and motor skills. Unfortunately, he also found the majority of ‘normal control’ subjects were also showing signs of CNS degradation far earlier than age-related decline should appear. His paperback , “Endangered Brains” and a medical text on chemically induced brain damage (no financial interest) indicates that neurologists begin to look for signs of preventable, and not just premature, losses in function.

The only interventions mentioned in this news article – unless that is the fault of the reporter but I doubt it—are drugs which can actually damage the central nervous system (CNS) through hyperactivating it with anti-cholinergic pharmaceuticals. Earlier in the decade,. the EPA banned the most commonly used pesticide–Dursban–from residential use because it acted in such a manner. It killed insects through destruction of nerve cells firing themselves to death through suppression of the enzyme, acetylcholinesterase. Not only are those pesticides still in use in proximity to people but their replacement chemicals known as pyrethroids and pyrethrins also hyperactivate the nervous system by damaging neurons directly and amplified their toxicity with synergists. Those prevent the body from clearing such toxic substances from the body before they can do their killing work.
Alzheimer’s drugs would further damage the body’s ability to counter those substances. The CDC tells us our exposure to pesticides, primarily a class of neurotoxic substances, is ubiquitous. California is even now applying them aerially in the northern part of the state while many building owners have exterminators applying them 12 to 24 times per year to their buildings. Landscaping relies on numerous pesticides and herbicides with their multiplicity of actions.

It is time to stop counteracting chemical damage with more and earlier administrations of yet more chemicals. Occupational therapy to stimulate skills in decline, healthier diets and safer environments are what will halt the huge incidence of damage and disease. Technology has advanced. Exterminators have a wealth of profitable options in safer pest control now and drug makers are well aware of the hazards and limitations of various classes of drugs.

I was prematurely disabled by such substances and the cost to society of preventable illness is unsupportable.

Barbara Rubin

Public perception of today’s societal burdens is largely the product of media presentation. Objective reporting goes out the window when the tactic of appealing to the ‘human interest’ readership portrays abusive viewpoints as legitimate (e.g. blowing poisonous fumes into communal airspace). Would you expect reporters to present a ‘side’ by a serial killer about why his victims ‘made him do it’? Does it honestly matter that smokers don’t like leaving a nice warm bar to smoke outside before returning to their fun when non-smoking patrons and bar employees will live to enjoy a new dawn because of such bans? My comment at that site contains links to mainstream research which should help the hapless victims of drifting tobacco smoke to explain the urgency with which the non-smoking public requires protective legislation.

Enforcing it would be nice, too.

117. B.R.
January 2nd, 2010
4:40 pm

The media is contributing to the continuing confusion on the part of the public about the crucial nature of anti-smoking legislation. It wasn’t intended to reduce the number of people who are addicted to smoking but to first protect citizens from bearing the costs of smoking-related illnesses and to prevent the unnecessary disability and death that smoking causes in millions of non-smokers. Stories of this nature require simple citations of why the laws were even put on the books.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/15/health/main5385879.shtml

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/09/28/heart_attack_rates_fall_after_smoking_bans/

The data as summarized by the Centers for Disease Control and the Institute of Medicine indicates that over 125 million non-smokers are enjoying unprecedented relief since this legislation was implemented in so many communities without incurring financial losses to businesses. University of California (San Francisco) researchers pooling data found that in just three years, cardiac events were reduced by a third in participating communities. That translates into huge societal benefits. The debate presented in these articles should be about how to accommodate the needs of smokers since the practice is legal and quitting is an impossibility for so many. However, their addictions don’t’ warrant a death sentence – or death tax via medical costs – being assigned to non-participants in the practice.

The data on asthma indicates it is the fourth largest cause of lost work productivity (and largest cause of missed school days in children). With over twenty million asthmatics in the country, how would any employer find it financially rewarding to allow smoking in their facilities?

The dramatics of wealthy bar patrons agonizing about being deprived of nicotine while indoors is simply not news but a sad commentary on a society disinterested in human suffering. The real drama of bar employees having to choose between their jobs and their health is news – not that they are free to complain if they want to retain their jobs.

Lest the smokers continue to feel put upon in this matter, recall the 2001 attempt by Phillip Morris to lobby against legislation of smoking restrictions in the Republic of Czechoslovakia. Government officials were told of the fiscal benefits they might enjoy by permitting smoking to continue. Their statistics showed that the premature deaths of smokers reduced government expenditures in retiree pensions and health care.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1120774/

NY Times, some stories really don’t have ‘two’ sides.

GETTING THE BUGS OUT: Pesticides and Your Child’s School by Barbara Rubin

Michael Eash went through the first grade in his Pennsylvania school with frequent flu-like illnesses. His pediatrician noted that he missed 30 days out of the school year. His mother, Connie, watched his symptoms worsen during the week, only to improve on weekends and holidays when he wasn’t in school. The cycle began to repeat itself the following fall. Connie and two other mothers noticed an insecticide odor in the classroom. The teacher reported that many in her class were suffering from symptoms similar to MIchael’s.

Michael’s doctor tested him for exposure to organophosphate pesticides, finding him abnormally low in concentrations of the red blood cell cholinesterase, an indication of pesticide poisoning. Connie removed Michael from the classroom and began to teach him at home. In time, his blood levels returned to normal, but he showed a heightened sensitivity to pesticides, fragrances, cleaning products and other household chemicals. It was clear to Connie that Michael required a school environment that was free of toxins in order to remain well.

Doesn’t every parent want a toxin-free school for their child?

THE TRUTH ABOUT PESTICIDES

Pesticides, like the organophosphate product used in Michael’s school, are designed to kill targeted pests by destroying their central nervous systems. Non-targeted organisms, such a beneficial insects,pets and humans , can also be adversely affected. Acute and chronic exposure to pesticides has been associated with many major and minor health problems, eliciting asthmatic and dermatological reactions, as well as symptoms of toxicity affecting gastrointestinal, endocrine, immune, reproductive and/or neurological systems. Exposure to pesticides is also linked to increased rates of cancer.

According to Dr. Sheldon Wagner of the Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology at Oregon Stte University, the organosphosphate class of pesticides is of the highest order of toxicity. Dr. Wagner has served in a variety of advisory capacities to EPA and is now administrator of the National Medical Monitoring Program. “Misapplied organophosphate pesticides can mimic asthma,” says Dr. Wagner, emphasizing that more serious effects are possible under conditions of chronic exposure.

Lower toxicity pesticides, like the natural pyrethrums, are not without their own dangers. “Pyrethrum is a known allergen which can cause asthma and skin reactions,” Wagner said, adding that too little is known about the possible adverse effects of pyrethroids, the synthetic versions of pyrethrums. “Certain groups of children, such as the ‘atopic’ or allergic youngster, are at greater risk for adverse effects from contact with both the active and inert ingredients of these chemicals.” He recommends that parents be informed before these material are used on school sites, so they can make choices regarding undesirable exposures.

ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM

Recognizing that we are all exposed to pesticides in multiple ways in our day-to-day lives and that this exposure is problematic, particularly for vulnerable groups like children, the chronically ill, pregnant women and the elderly, Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act in 1996. The Act requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to review and reduce permitted levels of pesticide residues on foods. The Act’s focus is on foods, however; it does not address pesticides use in homes, gardens, offices and schools.

The U.S. Senate has twice passed the School Environment Protection Act (SEPA), which contains a policy known as “integrated pest management” or IPM. IPM promotes pest control using a variety of least toxic methods, such as blocking pests’ entry into buildings with caulk and window screens and cleaning up likely sources of food and water. It recommends common sense solutions to pest control problems which do not necessarily involves the use of poisons, such as removing pests with a HEPA vacuum or using gel baits and other materials which do not become airborne. If stronger pest control is warranted, IPM allows targeted applications of more toxic pesticides but requires that special precautions be taken, such as notifying affected people within the vicinity. Opponents argued that the bill is expensive, burdensome and unnecessary, and SEPA died in a House Committee.

According to the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides, four states- Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan and Pennsylvania- now have regulations which contain all the SEPA provisions. Other states have one or two of the EPA requirement, but there is no uniformity among them.

Until now, pesticides have been a ubiquitous, if unconscious part of the national landscape. The SEPA debates have helped to increase public awareness of this issue, and concern about pesticide use is growing internationally. Canada has taken a leadership position in adopting a precautionary approach to chemical exposures. Many communities there have passed laws that restrict the cosmetic use of pesticides and herbicides on public lands and privately owned lawns where children and other bystanders can be affected.

SAFE SCHOOLS

The Eash family moved to Connecticut , where they enrolled Micheal in a school district that uses strategies to promote a healthy school environment. Facility managers maintain school grounds and buildings using a careful selection of “least toxic” products. For example, the use of pesticides and herbicides on turf is reduced by sowing multiple seed types in high concentrations to help ensure survival of healthy grasses. Application of certain soil amendments, along with a variety of aeration and mowing techniques, all promote lawn health and reduce pest infestation. in addition, effective water management (e.g. reducing amounts used for irrigation during humid weather) limits the growth of fungi.

The same thoughtful attention is given to indoor maintenance. The entry of pests into buildings is prevented by sealing cracks in foundations and installing screens. The facility managers keep buildings in good shape and promptly repair leaks. They make certain that all food is properly stored and disposed of and that facilities are kept clean. As a result, the school provides necessary maintenance while it reduces the costs normally associated with pest control. A pest control company inspects school buildings every month. If pests are noted in large number, the least toxic measures, such as gel baits or boric acid, are used. In rare cases where a more toxic product is recommended, advance notification goes out to all concerned staff and parents.

Applications are then made outside of school operating hours. When the state of Connecticut adopted laws to reduce pesticide use in its schools, this district already exceeded the provisions of the new statutes.

Advance notification of chemical applications on school property is still not required in most states. Fortunately for Micheal Eash, such notification had become policy in his new school district. However, until such policies become standard, parents are well advised to be aware of school maintenance policies and procedures. only a healthy school environment can foster learning and personal growth.

Unfortunately, the media is just another form of ‘show biz’, further separating people from important direct and concise summations of issues. The NY Times demonstrates how little can be learned from participating in the pomp and circumstance of a 24 hour news cycle when journalists reiterate their diametrically opposing points in ‘counterpoint’. You don’t really have a conversation that way but just fill more space with the same signatures.

So, when this weeks NY Times Op Ed columnists, David Brooks and Gail Collins each posted their views of the current health reform nonsense – that bipartisan race to preserve medical care for the healthy and wealthy – it is impossible not to recognize how this country turns a basic philosophical premise about how we view human life into a comedy sketch. I keep expecting Brooks to address Collins as “Gail, you ignorant slut.”, in a parody of the old Saturday Night Live take-offs of similar debates to the ‘Conversations‘ of these two writers.

In her column this week entitled, “The New Perils of Pauline“, Gail Collins demonstrates the classic dilution of feminist theory and rhetoric as she competes for attention with male colleagues in this still mostly-male domain. David Brooks presented us with his ‘views’ in another colunm, “The Hardest Call“. Brooks is the Times’ resident conservative who continues to make abject apologies to the Republican party for breaking faith with them and voting for Obama.

Let’s get down to the basics. Women in this country are far more likely to be uninsured due to underemployment and therefore more likely to fall into unemployment and disability/homelessness than our male compatriots. Women raise children and are essential to the workforce. How is depriving women of health insurance contributing to the economic stability of the United States? As far as looking for equity in medical care for women (e.g. reimbursed for birth control or coverage for abortion as men are covered for Viagra prescriptions), we have to start with a woman’s right to coverage for a simple appendectomy. The rest will come through legislation or litigation by healthy women in active pursuit of that goal.

Don’t ask David Brooks for answers, Ms. Collins. He cited his fears that a vote to allow another thirty million Americans access to health care will lead to overconsumption of services which will then raise health care costs. Should we assume Mr. Brooks is going to forgo health care when he gets sick in order to prevent such a rise in costs? Never mind, that’s another ‘conversation’ which shouldn’t take place.

Health care costs cannot be studied in the same manner as other relationships between goods/services and consumption. This is because consumption of health care services is not dictated by a positive leaning towards a product like that second TV gracing so many households. It is dictated by a problem which likely shouldn’t exist – that of enormous rates of sickness in the population. The mapping of health care provided to the population is a map for understanding the nature of illness itself and the actual key to reducing need, and therefore demand, for medical services.

Legislation to ban smoking in workplaces and public places was based in the high costs of medical services to people with tobacco-related ailments. The controversy surrounding this landmark legislation meandered around the block many times into the land of ‘free choice’, Big Brotherdom and loss of income to bars and restaurants where smokers gather to, well, choke together over coffee or gin and tonics.

Even physicians were among the doubting Thomases despite knowing how harmful smoking is to their patients. To everyone’s astonishment (okay, not mine but I’m an asthmatic who can detect cigarette smoke from a block away), passage of this legislation led to a reduction in heart disease/cardiac events in the population by one third! Non-smokers were dropping like flies because they became secondary consumers of tobacco products without such legal protections. Imagine the savings in health care costs, not to mention human suffering!

Here is my comment to Ms. Collins as she wanders through the labyrinth of corporate America’s road blocks with her fellow journalists.

368. B.R.
West Lebanon, NH
December 19th, 2009
3:04 pm

Ms. Collins,

Perhaps you are having too many ‘conversations’ with David Brooks. Your writings are becoming more ‘centrist’ than objective views of reality. America is owned by corporations. Corporate interests don’t want universal health care in the U.S. for two reasons:

1. Provision of health care is profitable when given to the privileged at high premiums. I call it a privilege since the corporations can revoke the contract seemingly at will.

2. Universal health care means accurate statistics regarding illness and better tracking of causation for those ailments. That has led the EU to implement such remedies as REACH in which new and untested chemicals must be studied for potential harm to consumers before marketing. The requirement for complete product labeling is also a huge aid to consumers there in making healthy choices. Our corporate owners need to retain their veil of secrecy about how the pollution of air and water, and our adulterated foods and other consumer goods taken into our homes has been responsible for driving up the need for health care services. Fears of overconsumption driving up health care costs (Brook’s position) is completely misleading to the public.

A third of adult Americans (16-64) have a chronic illness or disability according to the CDC; one in six children a developmental disability according to pediatrician, Dr. Phillip Landrigan of Mt. Sinai. Three of ten workers can expect to file for disability according to the Social Security Agency.

Overconsumption of services has its base in the need for said services, all courtesy of corporate America. Please address your sharp journalistic eye to the real underpinnings of our failure to pass health care in any form. There is no debate here and passage of a bill authorizing access to health care is the thin end of the wedge which will lead to further refinements/improvements over time.

Right now, too many are flat out of time. Women are disproportionately affected as well, being more prone to autoimmune diseases provoked by environmental causes. Let’s not pander to the predominantly male game players who are confident they will win while pretending ambivalence in the matter.

Thank you,
Barbara Rubin

First is this column by Charles Blow of the NY Times. Mr. Blow read a blog entry by Tyler Perry, detailing his horrendous childhood experiences at the hands of a drunken father.  Reading the words of this survivor of child abuse made it clear that Perry lost his opportunity to escape his father’s influence because his fleeing mother had been returned to that abusive man, much like the other ‘property’ he’d declared stolen – the family car. Perry was additional baggage, not even separated from his mother during her incarceration while waiting to be ‘claimed’, and a witness to his mother being beaten throughout that endless drive home. 

Being forced to witness abuse is also abuse. Children, by their egocentric natures, feel they are integral parts of the problems surrounding them, requiring tremendous reassurance of their blamelessness. That balm is simply unavailable in the face of overwhelming pathology. This leaves the children of such homes forever marked not just by fear, but the sense of shame and guilt accompanying inaction. That inaction on the part of all who know or suspect abuse extends that helplessness into an all-pervasive characteristic of society.

How convenient for those in authority.
 
Here was my comment (minor corrections added), posted in reply to the column, “No More Suffering”, by Charles Blow (NY Times, 10/10/09):

13. October 10th, 2009

Mr. Blow,

Law enforcement forced Tyler Perry’s mother to return to her violent husband. Violence against women is a way of life, sanctioned in nearly every society, if not actively endorsed. We have only recently seen an end to foot binding in the last century after billions were abused. Female genital mutilation remains a common occurrence in some cultures even where there has been specific legislation against such practices. Here in the US, with our culture of violence, women plead in vain for protective measures against known and unknown parties. Our own rape shield laws are one example of how pervasively society blames violence upon the violated, pursuing them into the court room on the rare occasions sexual assault cases make it to trial. Such assaults are a crime against society, not just the woman (or man) in question.

The CDC notes that a quarter of women endure partner violence, an overt measure of subjugation which makes no mention of the day to day mental cruelty endured prior to physical brutality. Children growing up in the climate of emotional and physical abuse may learn to accept it as normal and repeat the cycle. Those who manage to avoid passing on that legacy of violence are its only true survivors.

One factor is rarely included in the serious issue of violence being ‘under-reported’. Many victims do not initially consider remaining silent. Law enforcement personnel often refuse to record complaints by women of stalking, harassment and assault (never mind investigating or prosecuting them), automatically consigning them to nuisance calls. From there we move on to the insufficient availability of housing options for abused women and children to escape retribution and the need to endure in silence.

Additional benefits stem from ignoring violence. All of societal ills can then be blamed upon histories of self-reported trauma. It conveniently replaces the need for concrete social services with prescriptions of anti-depressants for adults and children (assuming the parties are insured). It continues to ignore a lack of parity in employment between the genders and access to safe, affordable childcare which can go a long way towards preventing and identifying child abuse.

Thank you for keeping this topic in the public eye but it is largely preventable if its roots in misogyny are recognized.

Recommended by 55 Readers