April 1st, 2011
I’m not a big fan of mass petitions because most agencies will not count multiple signatories using a standard, suggested text. In many cases, identical letters are counted as a single submission but many disabled, ‘armchair activists’ can’t do more than press a few keys to express our wishes. To you, I commend even that effort.
Of course, we know that the level of sales for certain products like pesticides is far too great to be influenced by public opinion. Sales in 2007 reached 12.5 billion dollars in the US market share alone. Mere signatures are highly unlikely to sway such a lucrative business. Researchers, physicians and consumer have long recognized that the science of pesticides is divorced from the technology when it comes to non-agricultural applications. Science is the guiding wisdom for technological breakthroughs. After all, you don’t need an atom bomb to kill an ant, just because you happen to have one handy!
We desperately need an industry devoted to indoor pest control which doesn’t merely transplant farm chemicals to our urban spaces because they already exist. It is up to us to request/pressure industry to diversify in such a direction. The costs of treating illnesses connected with older technologies intended for farming is a heavy and unnecessary burden upon us.
It won’t happen for the asking. Just ask Representative Suzanne Smith of the New Hampshire legislature that has twice been unable to get a bill through their state legislature to reconsider their current policies for pest control in the schools. This mirrors the national barriers which permitted a federal bill to pass in the senate; all fully understood it would not be released for a floor vote in the house. Such bills are intended to both limit the use of the most toxic pesticides in school buildings and permit advance notice to be granted interested parties. The EPA is unable to intervene in such matters unless the pesticide in use is illegal or applied by unlicensed parties. Communities need to plan on how to be better consumers rather than assuming industry regulations can or would be passed by this or any other congress. It isn’t about jobs because the sick don’t work. It’s about quality employment producing products which are used wisely, with full knowledge of our needs and risks.
The EPA expects consumers to intervene on their own behalves, as per their advice to me when I became disabled in 1999. The problem is that I have been unable to do so, a process detailed elsewhere on this blog. One needs a lawyer to take it entirely through the process instead of counting upon a quick settlement. One needs to take the risks attendant upon pointing out defects of industries. I have been advised not to write about these subjects or speak of poisoning, in favor of terms like ‘chemical sensitivity’. This isn’t about regulating agriculture or denying industry their successes. It is about returning capitalism to the ‘trickle-up’ nature of its essence. Buyers are supposed to make the decisions about which products succeed or fail in the market place.
Now the authority of the EPA to regulate pollution may be discarded as part of the price of achieving a budget resolution to avoid a governmental shutdown. We have to ask ourselves if industry actually fails to benefit from reducing pollution over the long haul. Worker productivity is much reduced through increasing rates of illness and disability. Learning abilities are declining with the high numbers of children being identified as having such disabilities and adult onset ADD is being increasingly documented. Of course, such concerns compete with absolute figures and represent an investment in the global community. Industry may or may not be willing to make that investment.
We can refuse to purchase commodities that don’t reflect such intentions. It remains in our hands.
Here is the petition being sent around the internet from the Sierra Club regarding this subject. It notes that EPA powers have nothing to do with the budget resolution issue and therefore should not be a category of governmental efforts which should be held hostage to the need to pass a budget.
My comments were as follows and do include some of the suggested text of that website:
I am extremely grateful to the EPA for investigating a complaint I made in 2000 regarding pesticide use at my school, an event described in my blog called Armchair Activist. However, I have since been disappointed in many of the areas in which they lack the authority (never mind funding) to effect change.
I’m deeply disappointed to hear that you are considering sacrificing EPA pollution safeguards to strike a budget deal with House Republicans. As a former teacher, I know that asthma is the biggest cause of lost school days and the fourth largest cause of lost work days among adults. When pollution-induced cardiac and respiratory disorders leave workers disabled and ill, the costs are underwritten by the public at large.
Universal health care ought to be a shared benefit among all individuals and not the default setting for corporate relief from retaining employees over the long haul. Disability insurance was not meant to be a corporate retirement benefit. People ought to arrive at social security benefits after a long, productive working life.
I urge you to stand up to polluters and just say “no” to Congressional attempts to handcuff the EPA and put our health at risk. Several ways in which their intervention can help us all are listed at my blog in a post directed to Lisa Jackson and another to Senator Lautenberg.
I am counting on you to reject the strong-arm tactics of big polluters and their allies in Congress to dismantle clean air protections.
Barbara Rubin
Categories: Letters
March 24th, 2011
My last post described the fact that I was forced to file a complaint with the Bar Association of New York about the lack of tangible work product in the prosecution of my lawsuit (re: pesticide poisoning) over the past five years. A major area of disagreement in prosecuting the suit was my insistence that the defense be informed that I was suffering from ‘chemical battery’ or the use of pesticides and possibly other chemicals to harass and harm. I felt those attorneys should warn their clients that law enforcement agencies might inquire about these charges, should investigations be pursued. Evidence has included photographs of residues, environmental testing (personally ordered and paid for by myself), medical testing showing inflammation and bio-chemical changes typical of certain pesticide effects etc. Outright threats by known or photographed individuals finally confirmed the fact that some of my exposures to pesticides in recent years could have been malicious in nature.
Some individuals who speak badly of pesticides or any marketable poison, are acquainted with such hazards–even researchers.
The companies I sued upon the recommendation of an EPA investigator, are well insured so have no reason to wish me harm. I have never asserted that any individual connected with my suit is actually planned to intentionally inflict harm. However, the very existence of lawsuits against any branch of the chemical industry or agribusiness (pesticides) is a threat to profits garnered from putting farm chemicals inside our homes, schools and businesses. As with all cautionary tales regarding environmental protection from toxic products, there is the assumptions that jobs would be lost if we suggest that industry diversify and modify their products based upon concerns for human health.
It is unfortunate that there is no manufacturer of chemicals dedicated solely for use in the area of indoor pest control. It would be hugely profitable as the evidence for harm to non-targeted life forms from residentially used pesticides includes you and your family pet. The reduction in health care costs from such industry advances could well rival or exceed figures cited in savings attained through tobacco regulation. Farm chemicals have never been tested for their unexpected effects when enclosed by walls and floors/ceilings. Their persistence can range from months to years and certain banned pesticides have yet to break down in the environment decades after their applications. The financial stakes are great.
My lawyer did tell me that few pesticide cases actually made it to court in the US, most being dismissed for lack of evidence. He accepted my case based upon the heavily documented circumstances of their use, including my identification of such chemicals as present in the building through testing and documentation of my ‘sudden onset’ injuries corresponding with their appearance. That made it all the more puzzling for me when my case survived more than one motion to dismiss yet progress in the discovery progress ground to a halt in 2007.
In 2009, I became aware that I was experiencing the crime of chemical battery following my increased activity towards completing the preparations required to bring the court case to completion. However, a crime as sophisticated as chemical battery requires a great deal of investigative effort. A crime without evidence cannot be prosecuted and law enforcement agencies in the US today will rarely collect forensic samples in order to test for even a small range of possible substances. In numerous reports of cases where visible residues were present on my car from noxious substances applied from passing cars/trucks, officers declined to collect it for the following reasons:
1. They don’t know how to collect samples.
2. It costs their departments too much money to conduct such testing.
3. The victim doesn’t know the precise chemical used in order to narrow down the range of needed testing.
4. The officer can’t ‘smell’ anything and decides to attribute visible residues by unknown substances on your property or your car to naturally occuring substances. These might be attributed to accumulated moisture from rain, solids resembling bird droppings or residues of decomposing trash discarded by careless individuals tossing it into the streets.
5. Labs don’t have the necessary equipment for testing particular chemicals. This is the case with current use pesticides purchased in any grocery store and a significant problem hampering the medical profession in diagnosing environmentally induced illnesses. Without such testing, doctors can never have complete exposure histories on their patients and assess the degree to which pesticides contribute to common illnesses (e.g. Parkinson’s, cancer, asthma). We already know they cause a huge range of health problems but, as a society, often fail to class the purposeful infliction of harm upon others with these easily obtained products, as a crime to be prosecuted.
Today my car was sprayed with a substance by a passing motorist. The car rapidly filled with acrid fumes, forcing me to pull off the road and get out of the car. I watched the liquid drops on my window dry to a gelatinous consistency before my eyes while waiting for an officer to arrive at the scene. When he did arrive, we began to discuss the above mentioned problems in collecting the evidence. Reason number ’4′ prevailed. The officer grasped some of the material and peeled it off the window. He then declared it was ‘tape’ and dropped the evidence in the street, which rendered the material unsuitable for lab testing. My complaint then became non-existent in the annals of crime analysis. Given the absence of evidence, no perpetrator needed to fear any accusations.
Evidence is needed to support criminal charges placed by individuals. However, the absence of evidence does not invalidate the possibility that a crime was committed. In the United States, every child can speak the jargon of shows like “NCIS”. We adults may also enjoy scenes of oddball scientists conducting forensic testing for obscure substances which makes it seem as if it were routine in law enforcement.
Well, that’s fiction.
Local authorities do not have such laboratory facilities readily available to them, nor do they typically seek the assistance of federal agents to conduct such investigations. I realized even before dialing 911 on that afternoon, that nothing would be done in my case. However, like my lawsuit which will never see trial, readers of this blog can learn from such injustices and perhaps feel justified in reporting such instances for the ‘record’ under similar circumstances.
The reality is that US citizens are unlikely to be able to register a complaint of assault and battery via hazardous chemicals unless it happens within sight of a police officer or is recorded on film. These crimes continue to be reported by individuals in the industry, by activists and litigants like myself. They would be better known if people spoke out about them and law enforcement geared up for a modern age in which violence doesn’t require blunt-force trauma with a hammer. Yes, the act of speaking out about such issues may come with a heavy price but that is only for as long as such reports remain a rarity among affected persons.
The crimes of the ‘modern’ age require proper data collection. No law enforcement agency should be without the requisite equipment needed to conduct air testing for particulates and specific gasses. Homeland security requires it as the abuse of toxic substances is a form of domestic terrorism. Call your government representative and demand bills which mandate appropriate lab facilities be made available to local governments. Certainly, our representatives need to look at law enforcement’s quandary of how to prepare their agents to protect citizens from such harm. Our law enforcement personnel are happy to do whatever is possible so we need to make this form of investigation feasible and affordable.
Your safety does depend upon it. Your rights as a US citizen demand it.
Categories: EPA
Tags: environmental effects of pesticides, environmental justice, litigation, neurotoxic substances, undue corporate influence, violence
March 16th, 2011
My case, cited here, disappeared before the court in an unusual decision made in 2007. As my (then) five year old case was still missing the lion’s share of discovery documents and a witness list, it was marked ‘disposed’ with leave to renew once we’d done our homework. In a highly unusual move, the court made no provision for an end date by which this homework would have to be completed. Generally, a year is set for completion or the case is dismissed entirely.
Not so in Rubin V Marathon and Pro-Tech Pest Control. No end date was set and there was no further tangible work product forthcoming despite my best efforts to ensure completion of this preliminary phase of prosecution. It is now 2011 and I still have yet to obtain any new information not already in my possession since 2005. As this state of affairs violates rules which say litigants are entitled to a zealous and timely prosecution of their complaints, I have filed a complaint with the NYS Bar Association regarding my representation. There, I hope to learn whether or not my expectations for legal services are realistic and representative of what the legal system is supposed to offer the public.
I have also filed a complaint with the New York State Office of Attorney General because the proceedings in my case have been most unusual. That office has kindly agreed to investigate apparent irregularities in this process and related matters. At present, I hope to obtain the services of an activist-minded attorney to take over the case and, if possible, complete it. My attorney informed me at the outset that few pesticide cases ever make it to trial and I now understand the reasons for it. I don’t expect to find anyone willing to complete my case.
In actuality, I don’t object to corporate interests. Business makes the world ‘turn’, so to speak and many who read my blog are often disappointed that I am not a fan of socialism. However, current corporate structures do not represent capitalism either. Corporate funded opposition to ‘Big Government’ is actually an opposition to a ‘corporation’ run by the public. The use of tax funds make any government a business which must be open to some degree of scrutiny and participation, even by those without monied influence. Every voter is a share holder. Such checks and balances alter the course of leadership from one of harsh rule to benevolent rule. Leaders of any entity must regard the public ‘good’ as a sustainable concept. A government devoid of social policy (e.g. medical care, poverty supports, senior care, congressional oversight of the military and corporate activity, FOIA rules etc.) can have no hope of striking a balance for its citizens and will be ripe for take-over by those without conscience or benign intent.
Governments can’t operate successfully without corporate-run societal infrastructures offering jobs, products and services. However, corporate short-sightedness also depletes society of highly productive individuals who can build sustainable social structures to reach into the next century. We are rapidly depleting our physical, intellectual and yes, moral, resources among the general populace. It takes government oversight by government shareholders (the taxpayers and voters) to monitor the corporations. Greenpeace is currently prosecuting a RICO case based upon the surveillance and harassment of its activist membership by corporate entities that didn’t need to go to such lengths in operating their businesses. Altering a business plan to ensure that corporate interests are not diametrically opposed to consumer safety or the interests of their own labor pool is not an impossible task. I’ve challenged agribusiness to form a new branch devoted to indoor pest control, replacing the use of farming chemicals in our homes, schools and offices. No one appears to have taken that seriously as yet despite the huge profits to be made. Perhaps some environmental group might convince them eventually without court actions.
The courts are ‘the great levelers’ as Harper Lee’s famed character Atticus Finch said in his closing arguments to a jury in a small southern courtroom in the novel, “To Kill A Mockingbird”. Another disabled teacher, Nancy Swan has also worked hard to keep the courts free to act as ‘great levelers’ in society. I urge you all to review her blog and work. She too, was disabled by toxic chemicals applied in her school many years ago. Her court case took a record fifteen years to complete and had the unexpected side effect of exposing corruption in the judicial system. The sentences of convicted parties are currently under re-consideration making this a very timely post. Civil injustices are as important as criminal cases to every citizen.
This isn’t a discussion about theory. What happens in one state (e.g. Wisconsin) is happening in your own state. What happens in any courtroom in this land, is happening in your backyard. Harper Lee told a story about societal views of (in)justice being institutionalized in our courts. A black man was wrongly convicted of a rape in court because it momentarily served the convenience of that small town’ suffering under depression era conflicts. Discrimination against African Americans remains institutionalized in the justice system despite constitutional guarantees of equality. Nancy Swan proved that commercial interests are institutionalized in our courts and is still seeing to it that governmental checks and balances apply to our court proceedings.
In my case, the ‘jury’ is still ‘out’. And will likely never be convened, at least in my lifetime.
Categories: Letters
Tags: Bar Complaint, environmental justice, litigation, politics, undue corporate influence
March 2nd, 2011
The NY Times sports this editorial in today’s paper entitled, “Mr. Obama’s Health Care Challenge“. The President, a socialist to the ‘Far Right’ and an appeasement president as far as ‘The Left’ is concerned, threw out a reasonable offer to the rabid dogs hellbent upon denying Americans health care. This is problematic in principle since statistics show most Americans will be dealing with some form of chronic illness or disability long before reaching the age of retirement. Therefore, health care is not a luxury to be enjoyed by only by the wealthy. That road leads to tax hikes covering care for the disabled, homeless and unemployable “youth” of America. The lack of early identification and intervention in largely preventable health conditions is a serious barrier to productivity. As noted before in this blog, Obama’s style of responding to naysayers is simple and revealing: cough up a better alternative that doesn’t keep Americans from obtaining medical care and he’ll okay it (my less polished version of his challenge).
Here was my commentary on the editorial praising President Obama for addressing those ‘conscientious’ objectors to medical care for the masses. Perhaps ‘conscienceless’ might be a better term.
**************************
23. Barbara Rubin, Ca.
March 2nd, 2011
10:03 am
President Obama is severely hobbled by a corrupt system. He has shown a great talent in allowing the nature of that system come to the attention of every American citizen. His campaign and subsequent election led to a far more revealing dialogue with those in charge of running and defending a flawed system. Perhaps ‘dialogue’ is too generous a term. We’ve been privileged to hear the ‘diatribes’ that continue to obstruct our march towards a more civilized country honoring its constitutional foundations.
During the years in which we had a CEO in charge, rather than a President, the United States of America became America Ltd. Our congress and governors became our board of directors. We citizens were demoted to the level of mere consumers, chattel to our nation-states as federalism became reviled. Labor, as demonstrated in the latest legislative agenda of the Wisconsin state house, is just another commodity.
Health care is either a right or a commodity to be purchased by those with the means. President Obama presumes it is part of the federal constitutional promise that we have the right to life. Unable to block the bill, conservatives settled for turning it into a less efficient form than existing single-payer options would offer in order to convince Americans to refuse it. I once heard Rush Limbaugh compare the various tiers of his dog’s veterinary services plan with his ideal for human care – just pay for the level of coverage you can afford. Of course, he didn’t specify which level covered the charges for having Uncle Ed ‘put down’ if you couldn’t afford his chemotherapy. However, the very analogy makes us wish for the old title of ‘consumer’, rather than ‘pet’.
Americans must decide if they want health care. If the answer is yes, demand your elected leadership repair the current law for the benefit of all United States Citizens. If repealed, there won’t be another one. America Ltd. won’t permit it for their pets.
Barbara Rubin
www.armchairactivist.us
Recommended by 36 Readers
Categories: NY Times, Published
Tags: constitution, health care, Newspaper Commentary, President Obama
February 27th, 2011
The New York Times published an impressive article on ‘fracking’ or the extraction of gas fuel from deep underground wells by “…injecting huge amounts of water, mixed with sand and chemicals, at high pressures to break up rock formations and release the gas.”. Entitled, “Regulation Lax as Gas Wells’ Tainted Water Hits Rivers” by Ian Urbina, it continues the traditional attempt at creating change through manipulating public opinion. Regaling us with specific tales of suffering by those sickened by the fracking chemicals and the additional natural hazards flushed from our underground places (e.g. radon, radium), it leaves Americans with the prospect of suffering through decades of research while corporations pretend to investigate this obvious problem.
Government will collude in this process through the expenditure of tax revenues to treat the sick. More will be spent conducting the tests that industry should have conducted during their R&D process, merely to certify the trauma that fracking creates under the earth and in our homes. By the time it is no longer profitable to collect fuel in this manner (through depletion or health costs), the EPA will threaten to end the practice. Ultimately, industry will voluntarily ‘drop’ it, ostensibly to avoid litigation and without admitting fault. In the meantime, politicians will build reputations by endlessly debating the matter threatening job losses while the opposition touts environmental degradation.
Maybe, someone will mention the children at various medical conferences and many petitions will be signed. It isn’t cynical to point out that billions of dollars in profits can never be countered through petitions, demonstrations or dialogue with politicians whose campaign funds are richly supplemented by these companies. It is also the reality of our history in marketing poisons with unanticipated health effects and the marketing of others with highly predictable effects. It simply isn’t possible not to expect horrendous adverse effects when marketing chemicals originally invented for purposes of chemical warfare like pesticides.
Just as our economy collapsed through the ‘trickle-down’ model of economics, so has the health of our citizens by expectations that essential research and development for safe products and services will come from industry. The demand for relegating large numbers of the population to illness, disability and death is not a trade-off for jobs but a defense of overly inflated profits. The ‘cult of never-enough’ is a tangible reality and its members are quick to designate those suffering illness as either being ‘too sensitive’ to chemicals or genetically defective. Given the national cancer rate is over 40%, the march towards complete insolvency through bending to such propaganda is close at hand.
The facts relating to the various diagnoses of those suffering from the intrusion of industrial chemicals into our personal environments offers an entirely new take upon this problem. Discussing the amounts of benzene in water will always be derailed by discussions of the extensive investment being made in water treatment. People are still sick. Why not test our own personal air and water quality? It is far cheaper to do so as a check upon industrial activity than to wait for decades to pass in which a few sites will ultimately be targeted for clean-up. The time for trusting we will be told what is necessary is over.
This blog is full of stories pertaining to the toxicity of pesticides, substances I have measured in offices and residences through certified laboratories in order to determine health risks. Yet, this is a rarely performed service apart from agricultural soil samples. It took the deaths of two children in Utah before outdoor applications of pesticides were openly acknowledged as resulting in indoor contamination and confirmed through such indoor testing. Chemicals travel through doors, walls and windows. Typically, we are concerned about radon entering through foundations and indoor fuels releasing carbon monoxide into our air. The Tooney family of Layton, Utah had their lawn treated with a pesticide. Most of the family suffered illness following this application and carbon monoxide detectors sounded their alarms. However, no measurable concentrations of CO were found by firefighters called to the scene. After the tragic deaths of two little girls, readings for the active ingredient of the chemical used were finally taken and found to be elevated. The surviving family members returned to the home when readings were no longer in evidence.
The reader is urged to note that the fines for contaminating property are cited at a much higher amount than those for endangering human health. The ability to detect such causation of human health problems is due to our lack of testing facilities and protocols. Residues of chemicals can be assessed through air testing and by their absorption by furnishings, carpet or sheet rock. Porous materials capture toxicants and re-release them into the air as temperatures rise or cleaning is attempted, like baseboard heaters which are often the target of exterminator wands as an entry port for insects. Is there any reason to believe that chemicals released through ‘fracking’ would leave less of a signature than pesticides? We have only to conduct tests of the homes of the more obvious sufferers to find out.
Chemicals behave differently in enclosed spaces. We lack an industry truly devoted to indoor pest control. Such chemicals have never been subjected to a re-approval process to determine the degree to which they behave differently indoors. Toxic chemicals emitted by many products we purchase such as insulation, paint, furniture, carpets and air fresheners are of equal concern. We can make wiser choices as consumers if we know the hazardous ingredients used in many of these and, should symptoms develop, could test for them and ensure physicians have a fully accurate exposure history for their patients.
The public is responsible for citing dangers to our own health. Corporations have the rights of citizenship in the US, no matter where they are based. We must therefore accept that our elected leaders have a duty to guard corporate interests, however much in conflict this stands with our own rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
My comment on this article:
(more…)
Categories: NY Times, Newspaper Commentary, Published
Tags: fracking, indoor air quality, pesticide poisoning, politics, undue corporate influence
January 31st, 2011
Nobel prize-winning economist Professor Paul Krugman wrote his opinion of where the President might take the theme of his State of the Union address. The theme of concern was “competitiveness”. The column was of particular interest to me because my entire life was disrupted by a myth that we practiced capitalism in this country even as goods and services here were entirely similar in composition, quality and consumer ignorance regarding their contents.
Economics, misunderstood, can kill. Boring as you may think it, economics is the stuff which dictates whether or not YOU become a manager of employees or merely their overseer; whether a skilled worker will be sought out by employers to better their quality of production or merely another disposable commodity to be picked off the shelves for an indeterminate period of employment. It’s about whether or not there is a penalty to be paid in reduced sales for risking the lives of your workers or customers. Unfortunately we are told by all concerned that we don’t need to know product ingredients or how to diagnose related ailments. Since product bans aren’t permitted under NAFTA rules anyway, there is no penalty to be paid by disgruntled consumers. The number one premise of capitalism is that the rewards go to he who builds a better mousetrap. Instead, the reward goes to he who can buy out the better mousetrap company and then discard the product in favor of inferior commodities with higher profit margins. There won’t be much in the way of competition and if other companies spring up, trade associations can ensure no one leads the pack in innovation leaving the others behind.
It is easy to throw around the concept of an either/or system of economics—everything that isn’t capitalism is socialism. We haven’t progressed very far since McCarthy was our King and the worst epithet of the 1950′s was the term, ‘communist’. We’ve recently adopted ‘socialism’ as our buzz work for today, labeling everything and everything that might be considered a right or necessity for life to be a commodity for sale to the fiscally solvent. Would you charge someone for air necessary to breathing? Then why penalize them for needing additional oxygen if they lack healthcare coverage? Do you object to controls upon air pollution? The cost of reducing it to ‘safer’ levels is actually socialism at work as taxes are directed to making the air breathable and the water, potable.
Unless you believe in the ‘polluter pays’ policy, being zealously opposed by industry when congress considers the huge savings obtained through such a policy.
Avoiding the label of socialism is more important to everyone than determining the best label for a product or service. Is it a commodity or a necessity? Do you want heart attack victims being turned away from the ER door for lack of insurance? If not, then health care is a right and not a commodity. Hence, it is exempt at some basic level from being unobtainable to anyone. There will always be premium levels of goods and services for the well-heeled but that doesn’t mean everyone in society doesn’t benefit from healthy neighbors and productive workers. This is why property taxes of individuals without children go to pay the costs of educating all children.
It’s a case of ‘Sticks and stones may break YOUR bones but I will not let others call me a socialist!”. Peer pressure and semantics shouldn’t constitute a moral basis for depriving any citizen of antibiotics for pneumonia or blood pressure medicine for the elderly. True, people are deprived of life for heinous criminal actions in places practicing capital punishment. Is poverty among those listed as capital crimes?
Another ‘label’ war is the misuse of the ‘free market’ term. Who can object to anything with the word ‘free’ attached to it (well, other than healthcare)? Yet it is the antithesis to capitalism which allows consumers to determine ‘the winner and champion’, rather than who can borrow the most money and crush other vendors of similar products until you have a monopoly on that market. Any big dog can best a smaller one. Anti-trust laws, long ignored, were put into effect to restrict such abuses and protect small businesses. Socialism? Perhaps but it’s about evolving a society to match its vision for itself regardless of the label. It ensures competition lives.
Government will never be irrelevant to business. Particularly when we learn that businesses sometimes lie to us. Would you believe Monsanto if they said Round Up herbicide was a safe poison? Hopefully not because the courts in France, and in our own state of New York, examined those claims and found them false. The fines were paid and business not much disrupted. But it should have been. Maya Angelou said “”The first time someone shows you who they are, believe them.”
Krugman graded the speech here, unimpressed with the lack of specifics but then the President wasn’t addressing a classroom of Princeton students studying the economy. Still, the statements made about competitiveness were referencing the kind which takes the form of individual achievement and flexibility, in an age of changing employment patterns and reduced scholastic accomplishments by our young people. The President did not equate business with ‘free markets’ and went as far as noting that Big Oil could afford to do quite nicely without government subsidies.
It’s a beginning.
My comment:
80.
HIGHLIGHT (what’s this?)
Barbara Rubin
Ca.
January 24th, 2011
11:06 am
Forgive my economic naivete, but it would appear that ‘competitiveness’ is effectively being quashed by industry itself. The monopolization of major industries by transnational corporations appears to view the world as a single trough from which only their approved subsidiaries can feed. Trade associations agree to offer inferior products of a uniform nature to the public at prices set for declining levels of income. Falling wages are arranged by the same groups which serve as major employers around the world. If true competitiveness were the goal, wages would reflect the desire for consumers to have more disposable income.
Until farmers can re-use seeds and their own crops (potatoes are grown from potatoes), they aren’t able to compete with one another. Their revenues are always going to belong largely to the vendor of those seeds and attendant technologies required to bring them to ‘fruition’ in chemically laden fields. Feudalism lives in modern times.
As agribusiness and energy cartels dictate changes to our very eco-system, other industries deal with that ‘fall-out’. Developers are dealing with contaminated lands and diminishing supplies of clean water. Building trades are dependent upon inexpensive toxic construction materials from the US and China to house increasingly impoverished populations with low budgets for housing units. These materials can’t be exported to Europe where they’ve learned the costs of ignoring safety (largely through providing universal health care).
Clothing manufacturers, producers of processed foods – what industry can actually boast a large array of competitive businesses falling under these major umbrellas? Competition lies in who can pay the least to workers, offer the fewest benefits and substitute cost-saving chemical treatments to make products look shiny. Worker benefits are provided by the public in medicaid and housing vouchers for working families! Low ‘competitive’ prices of toxic goods and services are made up with costs paid in physician offices and tax funded disability insurance.
I hope President Obama speaks to competitiveness among ‘modest’ businesses which will benefit from employing local residents. Seeing that transnational corporations pay taxes in every nation offering them markets is a start. Ending NAFTA requirements that nations pay companies for losses of profits, if harmful products are banned, is another way to end the stranglehold of monopolies ready to sue nations for such reasonable measures.
Competitiveness lies with dreams of earning a mere million in profits rather than billions. Companies used to compete to achieve sustainability of their operations for future generations. Now a golden parachute rewards those aiming to make a ‘quick killing’ and get out while they can do so.
Quick killing indeed. The cemeteries are filling up quite nicely.
Barbara Rubin
www.armchairactivist.us
Recommended by 240 Readers
Categories: NY Times, Newspaper Commentary, Published
Tags: Economics, Free Market, health care, politics
January 20th, 2011
The New York Times published their tepid account of the actions of the House of Representatives actions to pass a ‘repeal’ of health care even though all involved knew that it would not become law. Where is the outrage? Why is the bid to remove, rather than improve health care for the masses considered to be ‘symbolic’? The politicians telling us they want it ‘gone’ rather than repaired are telling us they have no qualms whatsoever of being the instrument by which the uninsured and the under-insured will be killed through the lack of access to health care that this country can afford to provide.
How is it different from categorizing the actions of Loughner as merely constituting a ‘repeal’ of the lives of those poor people in Tuscon, Arizona last week? Just as the state is currently determining the fate of that criminal, so our society must determine the fate of his surviving victims. Shouldn’t all of them have access to life-saving technology and rehabilitation services without mortgaging their homes and futures? Should only Congresswoman Giffords rate access from among all of the injured because of her position?
Wherefore is it written in the capitalist manifesto, that health care is a commodity? The determination of medical care as something to be bought and sold in a capitalist country is a conscious decision on our parts. Semantics is currently ruling the rabid fervor of our Republican legislators (and three Democrats) who wasted taxpayer funds on ‘symbolically’ repealing it. We are actually being informed that our access to medical care is entirely based upon the political dictionary used to define it – is it capitalism or socialism? Since they chose to ‘symbolically’ repeal it instead of symbolically ‘passing’ another bill to reform it, we have to recognize that those legislators have made this decision without consulting us. They have defined medical care in the absence of debate about the political and economic labels under which doctors labor when performing an emergency appendectomy.
Semantics doesn’t appear to enter into the debate of whether the socialized practice of constructing bridges to facilitate commerce is permissible in America. However, the proper setting of a broken arm in a young adult to promote his increased productivity as a laborer apparently isn’t as desirable. This can only be a function of labor being defined as a commodity—we all know there’s plenty of laborers on the market with two good arms. No, our Republican legislators (and three Democrats) feel a recent high-school graduate must first be privileged to acquire a job with an employer able to afford the privatized version of the Hippocratic Oath: First Do No Harm to the Profit Margin of the Practice Plan. If a practice plan were constructed by physicians to be ‘non-profit’ in nature, is it somehow superior to the same non-profit structure of the medical plan called ‘Medicare’? Non-profit organizations are not socialist in nature – everyone involved is still getting a salary and benefits while competing against other similar businesses for consumers. I worked in non-profit special education school programs for most of my career. They were often better managed than the ‘for-profit’ schools with whom they competed for students not covered by public education programs (due to their young ages).
Words are symbols by definition but hold enormous power as we’ve seen in the recent, post-Tuscon debates about violent rhetoric. In this country we are so concerned about worker productivity that we have regulated the use of symbols, i.e. words, in the workplace. Yes, ‘un-civil’ and violent words may not be used to describe a co-worker’s beliefs or behavior. This is because it creates a hostile working environment. Shouldn’t political parties be concerned when their spokespeople create a hostile ‘living’ environment? That is the only way to term a country in which people are supposed to envision their neighbors as enemies more powerful than Al Queda, merely for wishing all of their neighbors to have health care.
There have been numerable articles written about this subject but I wrote a commentary on one of them over at the NPR website the other day as follows:
Barbara Rubin (agasaya) wrote:
It is time for us to discuss the fact that ‘un-civil’ rhetoric is actually illegal in the work-place. The drive for productivity has made hostile work environments something which are legally actionable. Employees are not required to endure comments personal to their cultures, appearances or religious and political beliefs. References to violence can get you arrested in a post office or airport.
When will political parties REQUIRE their ‘esteemed’ spokespersons to adopt speech styles that convey information without creating a hostile national ‘living’ environment? Are we supposed to change countries as if citizenship was some job held under a poor employer?
Our politicians do NOT employ us. We employ them. Stop paying them to speak at political events if their speeches disparage rather than educate listeners about the choices available to Americans in governmental policies. You can express any sensible concept just by combing through a dictionary or thesaurus and learning new words which aren’t laden with overtones of hate, violence or discrimination. Being specific to conditions or actions you criticize is also helpful in intelligent discourse.
Barbara Rubin
www.armchairactivist.us
Tuesday, January 18
Recommended by 61 readers
Categories: NPR, NY Times, Newspaper Commentary, Published
Tags: health care, politics, Repeal of healthcare act, Violent rhetoric, Words have meaning!
January 14th, 2011
I wrote an article in 2002 about the forms of pest control typically used in schools to the detriment of both children and adults. Titled, “Getting the Bugs Out”, it was the first article I published after losing my ability to work from the effects of pesticide poisoning suffered in a school I was supervising in 1999. It spoke to the ingenuity of committed school personnel and responsible pest control professionals who were determined to protect buildings from health threats presented by vermin and insects. They knew they could do so without sacrificing the health of human occupants.
I did my own language and occupational therapy primarily from a bed in a garage apartment using a Web-TV. Selling that article was an incredible achievement for me and the product of around a year of rehabilitation work. Having it published marked the successful return of a significant portion of my impaired literacy skills. Yes, it took an editor days to reduce my six page story submission to three, well organized and grammatical pages for her publication. It was true that I would never again produce a good composition completely independently or with any speed that would adequately serve the needs of an employer or client. However, the cause for celebration was that I could once again research and formulate answers to basic questions, such as how a developmental disabilities specialist could lose 24 IQ points, becoming ADD and mildly aphasic, from working in her own school. The answer is pesticides. That leads to the next question of why anyone actually thinks that putting neuro-toxic chemicals in a school represents sound science or good social policy. That question hasn’t received the consideration it is due despite a decade of ‘study’ regarding the School Environment Protection Act, buried deep in the bowels of some legislative committee.
I saw that article referenced on a website just yesterday. The internet address, commonly called a URL read:
http://pestcontrol.omgletsbbq.com/the-armchair-activist-%C2%BB-getting-the-bugs-out-pesticides-and-your/
In case you missed the abbreviated references, they read as, “pest control – oh my god let’s barbecue.com/the armchair activist”. Yes, that’s me. Well, any industry website that would refer so disparagingly to the author of an article lauding its most responsible members as mine does, just might not boast enough professionals to deserve the public’s trust.
Perhaps the EPA needs to rethink the supervision of any industry that allows poison to be sold on store shelves right next to food without the can being shrink wrapped. Cigarettes and liquor are poisons only sold to adults but any child can buy a can of pesticide along with a chocolate bar (and hope the can doesn’t leak as the items are placed in a bag together).
Perhaps the EPA needs to rethink the supervision of an industry that sprays occupied buildings with chemicals developed for use outdoors on farmland. Considering the fact that both the EPA and the CDC are unable to tell physicians how to test patients for pesticide exposures, supervision might need to come from a higher authority. I continue to hope that Administrator Jackson will personally intervene in this egregious violation of the FIFRA laws.
Perhaps the pesticide industry needs to adopt better policies for educating its membership. There certainly needs to be stricter policies developed for protecting vulnerable occupants of schools, hospitals and households from toxic chemicals. If they do this independently, Congress might have one less industry to regulate.
Barbara Rubin
The Armchair Activist
Categories: Articles
Tags: environmental effects of pesticides, industry regulation, integrated pest management, learning disability, litigation, neurotoxic substances
January 9th, 2011
Charles Blow of the NY Times wrote a column about religious affiliation being a requirement for those aspiring to hold political office. His research spoke to the fact that huge numbers of Americans are ‘unaffiliated’ with any religious organization, regardless of their theology. Mr. Blow admirably points out the unfairness of the unaffiliated being forced to move down the food chain of political aspirants for such a reason. However, he also errs in calling unaffiliated individuals part of yet another demographic among Americans. Since these diverse citizens reject being grouped within any particular religious denomination, must they qualify as yet another group?
Religiously affiliated Americans aren’t labeled as such in order to describe a segment of the population. The designation is market research for potential consumers of a brand of politics being sold on the American market today.
Here was my reply:
2. Barbara Rubin Ca.
January 8th, 2011
12:51 am
Thank you for pointing out that it is useless to ask a politician questions about their religious beliefs and practice because it is a strong part of their campaign appeal among their voting constituency.
I long for the day when a candidate answers the question thusly:
“I’m sorry but the constitution prohibits my discussing this as an aspect of my candidacy. However, you are invited to examine my past actions and compare them with my stated positions on subjects which are truly part of American politics. You can then reach your own conclusions about my state of ‘grace’.”
Barbara Rubin
www.armchairactivist.us
Recommended by 370 Readers
Categories: NY Times, Newspaper Commentary, Published
Tags: constitution, politics, religion
January 7th, 2011
Several articles stood out in recent weeks as typical of the manner in which public opinion can be swayed by a press corp which is overly impressed with the dramatic license taken by news figures. In an astonishing lack of respect for the intelligence of its audience, journalists today feel compelled to allow ‘news-worthy’ individuals to guild the lily and distract us from the full impact of the actions being taken. For instance, many congressional members have decided that Americans don’t deserve health care unless unnamed employers for the fortunate few who are endowed by generous employers with adequate coverage. This view of health care as something which must be earned despite the impossibility of the typical, middle class worker being able to afford comprehensive coverage for him/herself and children. The insistence that access to affordable care by the masses is disguised as precious ideology (capitalism versus socialism) and implies that only Republicans stand between the American people and a state in which we will all refer to one another as ‘comrade’.
My personal favorite is that ever-popular show of gladiatorial heroics in which grandstanding politicians state their intention of taking health care away from Obama!
Obama and his family have guaranteed health care coverage. I checked.
It isn’t really news reporting if it strictly adheres to the scripts of the actors and actresses over-playing their parts as elected or appointed government officials. If it were actual news, the effects of each statement and action would be described in real terms. Isn’t it already ‘sensational’ that we live in a country having huge numbers of uninsured and under-insured Americans suffer severe medical problems for lack of physician services?
What are the actual implications of the rash statements in our headlines today?
-Health care is a commodity to be bought and sold rather than a practice steeped in tradition. The obligation to heal the sick, as per the Hippocratic Oath, must be restricted to insured individuals, wealthy patients or recipients of charity in free clinics.
-Health care is a rationed service for employed Americans with employers willing to reduce their own profits by varying amounts to supply such insurance. In return for these health benefits, employees are basically tied to their jobs in a feudal manner because health care insurance isn’t particularly portable.
-In reserving health care to the tender mercies of the private sector, an unofficial governing body in the form of provider associations, determines what will be offered to consumers along varying tiers of coverage. The public has a choice of that privatized ‘government’ making such choices without their input or of our elected, public government making such choices with their input. There will always be a government of some type to ‘ration’ care based upon costs.
-In reporting claims of impassioned actors that over-usage of services is to blame for high health care cots, where are the statistics defining this position? Are healthy individuals making physician visits part of their recreational agenda? Monday – Grand Canyon. Thursday – Mayo Clinic. Why not report over-usage as a situation in which the actual number of services necessary for control of a particular conditions like diabetes or cancer are actually exceeded? Overuse is a term requiring a context.
Of course, that would require reporters to ask public figures to define terms like ‘socialism’ and ‘capitalism’. Our representatives in Congress would have to explain the meanings behind their simple slogans. It would also require journalists to comprehend the adequacy of the responses their questions received. Attendance in school is compulsory in America. Unfortunately, acquiring an education is another matter entirely.
The New York Times and the Associated Press (as published on NPR) both discussed the effort by the Republicans to repeal ‘Obamacare’ as part of their war on the President. Any and all legislation which might seem positive in the eyes of the voting public must be rendered as distasteful as possible prior to enacting it. Then repeal is indicated, lest his reign be favorably remembered some day whether or not this presidency is restricted to a single term.
In the real world, all actions lead to other actions or reactions. Journalists need to inquire into the intentions of ‘actors’ who compartmentalize positions with such broad strokes. If they feel health care is a form of socialism, they should be asked if dropping health care is a prelude to repealing social security in their vision for the country. The public needs to know the path their current legislators are mapping for them unless assured this is an issue independent of all others. Again, it requires some degree of preparation on the part of the interviewer. All insurance is a form of socialism.
Combined premiums cover some of the insured subscribers who suddenly need help (car repair from a fender bender; cost of having your gall bladder removed, fixing up the house after a broken water pipe floods the basement etc.). Who’s paying for it? All the subscribers who don’t need help. Insurers are gambling that fewer people will need help than not while unused funds become profits in a stunning screenplay we might title, “Karl Marx runs off to Las Vegas to Marry Dr. Welby.”
So, when you read the typical news stories covering these subjects, ask yourselves what the reporters are actually telling you. We are seeing stories being played out before our eyes but it isn’t news.
————————————–
Commentary left on these news stories:
GOP Sending Obama A Message On Health Repeal
by The Associated Press
Barbara Rubin (agasaya) wrote:
You are doing the American public a great disservice by writing/publishing articles which makes vital legislation even more removed from the voters. By labeling it a battle between Obama and legislators, it makes it seem as if health care was passed without a mandate from the voting public which overwhelmingly sent the President and many legislators to Washington for the purpose of passing it.
Please tell the news accurately and state that the Republicans intend to take universal health care away from Americans. Make it personal and help keep citizens interacting with their government. How else will change occur unless the public demands legislators actually govern, rather than commit sedition by halting these processes and keeping the same questions in play year after year.
Barbara Rubin
www.armchairactivist.us
Monday, January 03, 2011 6:43:18 PM
Recommend (22)
GOP Faces Uphill Climb To Undo Health Law
by Julie Rovner
Barbara Rubin (agasaya) wrote:
Health care isn’t socialism if one defines it as a right and not as a commodity. No society operates in any pure system of politics or economics. We aren’t a democracy but a constitutional republic – does that frighten anyone? We don’t practice capitalism because that is a ‘trickle-up’ form of economics, not our ‘trickle-down’ mode in which corporations determine what we buy and how much we pay for it. We aren’t allowed to know what is in our products either. Funny, but consumers in Europe are offered full labeling. The continent which offers free health care practices a more honest form of capitalism, without having children dying of brain infections because they can’t afford to get abscessed teeth extracted.
Don’t worry,there will always be a ‘tier’ for a premium level of health care with no waiting -just as there is today. But 43,000 people won’t die for lack of it in 2014 as they do presently. I refer you to the statistics of what this nation has to pay out in lost productivity and disability benefits for those who become too sick to work. Health care will pay for itself in such savings.
It isn’t Obama that congress is depriving of health care. It is US.
Barbara Rubin
www.armchairactivist.us
Tuesday, January 04
Recommend (60)
Categories: NPR, Newspaper Commentary, Published
Tags: health care, Newspaper Commentary, politics, Rant
