September 16th, 2009
Last Sunday’s Op-Ed column by the usually engaging Frank Rich was typical of the disturbing transition of journalism into just another form of theater. Entitled Obama’s Squandered Summer (NYTimes, 9/12/09), it completely misses the lessons our learned President has been trying to teach his constituency during these past months. Call it Civics 101, in which we’ve been provided with an astonishingly clear view of how legislative and corporate agendas ‘play’ in the town halls of America, on network television and in the newspapers. It appears that spam isn’t limited to the internet.
I went to a town hall meeting to see how the public both digested and regurgitated the facts being discussed by our Commander-in-Chief. Northern New England tends to be more disciplined than most places so the audience was politely divided into the usual ‘pro’ and ‘con’ camps. Only a very small minority were annoying us with completely fatuous fables about non-existent legislative bills, death panels planning to “off” grandpa, and complaints that more insurance means more pay for ‘baby-murderers’.
These spurious tales have been authored by the sharp minds representing extremely dangerous special interests, in a manner that ridicules genuine concerns by real citizens. End-of-life planning should not be considered a synonym for euthanasia. Access to birth control and decent pre-natal care should be celebrated instead of universal insurance being condemned as a cheap way to deliver birth control via abortion to every underage girl in America. These slogans can be dismissed with a view to basic common sense and were given short shrift by the representative running this particular town hall meeting.
On the other hand, fears of important legislative proposals can be eased with a basic review of their constitutionality. Having a President who used to teach constitutional law is quite a plus. Still, the media would have Obama spend every waking minute arguing with idiots who’ve likely never even read that document. There’s an old saying that one should never argue with a fool because observers have a hard time telling one from the other. Unfortunately, it makes for great entertainment and sells as another form of reality T.V.
Sorry, Frank but the summer was extremely educational. The public has now had a taste for the desperate lies of the rabid right. When Wilson called the President a liar while he was speaking, it exemplified the fact that reasoned opposition was now absent in this new theater of the absurd we refer to as government. Between Palin and Wilson, it is time for the American people to begin scrutinizing the educational resumes and behaviors of their candidates before voting. I certainly don’t want to vote for anyone who didn’t surpass my own educational achievements. And Wilson’s name isn’t even ‘Joe’. I like a representative who can remember his name even if I forget mine occasionally.
Please, media moguls! Bring back journalism worthy of the solemnity of the task of bringing the NEWS to the public so our representatives won’t need to act like reality T.V. characters to get attention. The President of these United States should not have to play to the 24-hour news cycle. The cycle should present what they have and let the networks offer reruns of Survivor during the remaining hours. It is preferable to turning the legislative process into a show where only the boring, smart and sane representatives get voted off the Island.
This was my disappointed response to that article in the NY Times blog.
(more…)
Categories: NY Times, Newspaper Commentary, Published
Tags: Newspaper Commentary
September 11th, 2009
There has been very limited coverage of the prosecution of women for non-compliance with dress codes for Muslim women. A recent New York Times Article, “Sudan Fines Woman Who Wore Pants” by Jeffrey Gettleman and Waleed Arafat (9/7/09) breaks that silence. The woman, Mrs. Lubna Hussein, was found guilty but spared flogging. She has refused to pay the fine levied for wearing pants, claiming no religious law is violated by that type of garment. Imprisonment is likely to follow.
Women in the US have long been fighting the issue of ‘provocative dress’ while arguing our own degree of culpability in male sexual aggression. Men have long been granted a tacit permission to be ‘overcome’ by the sight of female flesh and driven to violence in consummating their justifiably intense desire. ‘Dress’ has been addressed most prominently in court transcripts of rape trials, to the point of being included in the hard-won ‘rape shield laws’. These bar the prior sexual history of victims from being introduced into evidence. However, attorneys can still get matters of dress placed before juries under issues of implied ‘consent’ and, failing that argument, for purposes of evidence of struggle and semen/blood residues. They know the power of the universal acknowledgment that men are strong – except when confronted by feminine pulchritude. As reward for being the warriors of society, it should be theirs for the taking, given any degree of ‘encouragement’.
When we examine current norms for modest dress around the globe, the above article should tell the whole tale. Men will arbitrarily choose any degree of cover for a woman as sufficient or insufficient ‘assistance’ for them to avoid damnation by salacious thoughts and impulses. Be it sleeves below the elbows, skirts below the knee or a complete absence of flesh showing beneath volumes of fabric, men are at war with themselves in matters of sexual violence.
Even when women have become accustomed to having no region of flesh exposed to view, it can still be deemed inadequate by males to keep them sinless with regard to sexual attraction and behavior. Then comes the mandated protection of travel only with a male relative or other ‘owner/protector’ figure. That declares a woman as unavailable for one’s lust and thereby helps tame the sexual urge. Fear of other men, rather than respect for the woman appears to be the guiding impulse.
In the US where a large part of the country experiences very warm temperatures, will shorts or halter tops be considered normal garb or as a too-great temptation for male libidos? If it is bared, is it available to touch? If a part of a man is bare, would a man find it acceptable to be touched there…, by another man? If not, why assume it is acceptable to touch a woman without an explicit, verbal invitation to do so?
This news article is no less relevant to American women than to Sudanese women. Equality in the US will be denied us as long as men can point to other nations and extol the virtues of what has been marginally attained here. Freedom by comparison is a very dangerous way to conceptualize an absolute.
The following letter was sent to the editor:
(more…)
Categories: Letters, NY Times
September 1st, 2009
The Stamford Advocate recently reported the discovery of elevated levels of pesticides in wells for a few homes, demonstrating how persistent these chemicals are environmentally. (“Stamford health tests find pesticides in wells near Scofieldtown Park” by Magdelene Perez.). The problem is by no means localized although contaminated residences are infrequently identified, revealing the hit and miss nature of our recognition for the widespread impact of pesticides in our daily lives. We are no less affected by older, banned pesticides than we are by those in current use. In fact, government agencies like the ATSDR inform us that over 50 million people have lived/are living in chlordane treated homes. Primary sources of exposure continues to be the ingestion of food grown on farms where chlordane was used prior to the ban on agricultural uses – back in 1983. A final ban on all uses was issued in 1988 but we are still doing battle with this persistent pollutant.
These agency resources tend to emphasize the frequency of pesticide use in southern states but northerners should not sit smugly in their contaminated homes. Chlordane was used quite frequently as a termite and ant control in construction as well as home maintenance throughout northern states. I found high concentrations of this highly toxic pesticide still present in two homes in Massachusetts – one built long after the ban on this poison went into effect.
(more…)
Categories: Newspaper Commentary, Stamford Advocate
August 30th, 2009
The Senate appears to be considering the ramifications of pretending we live in a democracy instead of a republic. Tired of the health care battle, in which there will assuredly be no survivors of that old, ‘wheel and deal’ process, there may actually be an old-fashioned vote in which the majority rules.
Fancy that.
The NY Times discusses it in their latest editorial, “Majority Rule on Health Care Reform.” It is past time our Senators were introduced to the concept that the people who voted for them actually hoped their will would be the guiding force behind the actions of the individuals designated to make our decisions for us.
The flaw in the process by which a republic operates is best demonstrated by the editorial’s quotation from South Carolina Senator James DeMint (referred to as ‘Jim,’ except that I have no intention of getting that informal with this character.) Apparently, his views take no notice of his constituents’ needs for medical services, but is solely concerned with ending any chance of Obama presiding over a nation that can actually consult a physician when the need arises.
Perhaps if such a privilege were called the “DeMint Prerogative,” we’d have a better chance of obtaining that goal with his extra vote? Hard to say, when elected officials only address issues one can not even call partisan at this point. The Republicans are no longer recognizable as a party. Instead, they appear to be buffoon-like caricatures of their former old boys’ network of well-educated, if exclusive (in all senses of the word), club of wealthy conservatives who once had some investment in the stature of their country in the world community.
Here is the comment left on the NY Times blog about this today:
(more…)
Categories: NY Times, Published
Tags: Newspaper Commentary, Rant
August 29th, 2009
The author of the story about the Scotts company entering the ‘naturals’ market replied to my letter to her editor most generously (see my last blog entry). She discussed her understanding of the issues I had raised and I have no doubt that she grasps many of the issues involved. However, not being a particularly skilled writer myself, I evidently hadn’t made my point adequately regarding the need for balance in articles about issues few readers will comprehend. As Ms. Bounds’ email was personal to me, I will not post it here. However, here was my reply to it.
For those who have not seen the original article, it is here.
—————–
Dear Wendy,
I appreciate your editor passing along my letter to you, as well as your reply. Unfortunately, I failed to make my point adequately. I certainly expect a WSJ contributor to have a working knowledge of the industry you are covering so am not surprised you have covered issues about this in the past. Unfortunately, this article fails to offer that same balance of knowledge to your readers. My critical look at this article is about what the reader fails to learn, rather than what you may or may not know. A brief mention of the facts about the absence of regulation in the ‘natural’ market sector and a line about this particular company’s track record was needed, given your assertion that Scotts is somehow doing something extraordinary through expanding their marketing into a realm that has a name with no meaning attached to it. The pursuit of profit is not new nor extraordinary. It is a positive step taken by all businesses for their expansion. Whether or not it is a positive step within a marketplace which respects the consumer as a partner in capitalism, is another issue entirely.
(more…)
Categories: Letters
Tags: correspondence
August 23rd, 2009
Even the most enthusiastic of capitalists knows the truth behind the Latin phrase, “Caveat Emptor’ or “Buyer Beware.” Street-smart people have always touted the wisdom of carefully evaluating the quality of the products you acquire in sale or trade. One of our older American-English idioms warns us against buying something sight unseen: a pig in a poke.
Most of us aren’t buying pigs these days, but products containing pig parts abound, a hundred times further down the line from the porker’s origins as a farm-dwelling mammal. Good old Porky is transformed, not just into sausage but also medicine, floor wax, glue, crayons, lipstick, buttons and antifreeze.
That raises the question of why we put our trust in salesmen who not only lack solid scientific understanding about their own products but have no legal obligation to provide it to us. The Wall Street Journal recently demonstrated this form of folly in an advertisement masquerading as a news article. (more…)
Categories: Letters, WSJ
August 17th, 2009
but some of us feel it ought to be a primary care physician first, instead of a coroner.
Categories: Letters
Tags: Rant
August 16th, 2009
It is fitting that my 200th post to this blog be about President Obama’s op-ed column in today’s N.Y. Times regarding health care reform. My submitted comments to that forum were as follows in comment #567. Last time I looked, there were over 700 comments on this article. It is wonderful to see so many citizens tracking the important issues after decades of outright disinterest in the governing of our nation.
My specific experiences add another dimension entirely to the need for universal health care in this country, expressed at the end of my statement below.
B.R.
August 16th, 2009
6:09 am
Yesterday I went to a town hall meeting held by Senator Bernie Sanders in Vermont. Senator Sanders is highly qualified to run such a meeting given his very thorough investigation of the huge ‘inventory’ of material about proposed legislation, which includes the myths being disseminated about various proposals.
Vermonters tend to be civil even in disagreement, and disruptions by dissenting groups were minimal and brief. Those on the ‘pro’ and ‘con’ sides were given equal time for comments and questions, with Senator Sanders swift to correct the misconceptions so irresponsibly handed to the public by those with vested interests in fear-mongering. There is sufficient anxiety in the fiscal aspects of sweeping reforms without adding such idiocies as the concept that the government wishes to kill off our senior citizens!
After all, who was Medicare actually intended to save? Extending Medicare benefits to those needing/wanting them hardly alters the purpose for which such coverage was intended.
I am grateful to Bernie Sanders for bringing facts and civil discussion to a public venue, as well as for his diligence in the study of such volumes of material for objective analysis and interpretation. I am grateful to my adopted state of Vermont for the civility of its people under very difficult conditions of high rates of unemployment and the fact that many rural regions are medically underserved.
I have been fortunate to have had Medicare provided to me after becoming disabled at the age of 45 by pesticide poisoning. The fact that I had affordable health care also permitted the necessary reporting of my condition to authorities by medical personnel, laboratories, etc. Such identification and reporting is essential to the compilation of statistics for future regulation of toxic chemicals.
My medical care today, therefore, affects the health of your children tomorrow.
Categories: NY Times, Newspaper Commentary, Published
Tags: Newspaper Commentary
August 7th, 2009
The American Medical Association informs us that our rates of poor health in this country are highly correlated with ‘life-style’. That message really refers to choices in diet, exercise and personal habits like drinking or smoking. Yet, that is just the tip of the iceberg if we really look at the science and listen to experts in the field of indoor air quality (IAQ).
The EPA tells us our indoor air quality is a greater threat to our health than even the industrial releases sending pollutants into the outdoor air of our urban environments. There is some sense to this claim if we examine what we bring into our homes from a trip to the store or home ‘improvement’ center. The irrationality of purchasing air-polluting materials unnecessary to our lives can only be accomplished by sales campaigns rich in disinformation. Such advertising is designed to maximize the profits of vendors without obliging them to justify their selections in product ingredients through objective measurements of air quality following the use of their products (air fresheners, pesticides, construction materials, etc.). There is no way for the average person to comprehend the potential harm posed by the simplest of products adorning our grocers’ shelves when the labels and even the MSDS documents of the manufacturers aren’t required to list all ingredients.
A ‘lifestyle’ based upon the introduction of air fresheners and perfumes, pesticides and paints, polyurethanes and adhesives, attaching garages to our living and working spaces – these methods of introducing serious and continuous sources of poisons into our bodies are indeed ‘lifestyle’ issues. If we spent a fraction of the time considering our surroundings that we spend pondering our intake of fat and calories, the cost of health care in America would drop like the proverbial stone. We are even learning that obesity can result from exposure to certain chemicals in our products. Many toxins are lipophilic, requiring us to produce more fat cells to store them where they won’t have an ongoing, adverse effect upon our systems.
Test it out in your own home. Literally. You may not be at fault for what lurks in your air, but you are living with the consequences of those unknowns.
Let it be known.
Sent to the LA Times:
Re: LA Times article, “How to Have Healthier Air in your Home” by Karen Ravn (7/27/09)
To the Editor,
Our bodies are excellent at informing us of danger — unless we pop analgesics, anti-inflammatories or anti-depressants without ever looking for the cause of our discomforts. Toxicity reactions (as opposed to allergies), are year-round and have helped health care grow to an obscene 16 percent of the GNP.
Many carbon monoxide detectors won’t ring until an hour after detecting levels at 70 ppm. Harm begins at 35 ppm, so purchase meters allowing you to read current and peak levels at a touch.
Your home could harbor higher concentrations of pesticides and herbicides than outdoors if windows are open while landscapers apply weed killers or trucks drive by spraying for mosquitoes. These chemicals remain active for years where there is no sunlight to degrade them. Stay alert to events which will pollute your home, even as you ventilate it.
You can’t know if your home was built on old farmland, was renovated using toxic materials, or otherwise badly treated by prior owners. Test your home via air filter analysis, baseboard swipes or other method recommended by qualified toxicologists, if family members (including pets) are suffering from health problems. I have uncovered levels of various chemicals which would be prohibited by law in the workplace.
It is less painful and expensive to prevent illness than to treat it. Lower your risks through testing.
Barbara Rubin
Categories: L.A. Times, Published
Tags: Environment, Newspaper Commentary
July 28th, 2009
Bob Herbert summed it up nicely in his column, “Chutzpah on Steroids” (7/14/09) in which he marvels at the engineers of our economic meltdown who now insist no meaningful oversight of their nefarious activities is required.
Interesting choice of words for your title, Mr. Herbert. The rush to economic prosperity for the few is also at the expense of the many when it comes to health care costs. Steroids are right there at the top of the prescription drug list as Americans rush to alleviate symptoms of inflammation, the result of coming in contact with pollutants and which results in illness of both minor and major proportions. From migraines and asthma to Parkinson’s and cancers, we may as well begin a chain of stores called, “Poisons R-U.S.” to buy our quota of toxic materials directly from the manufacturers!
Our population has no recourse in the matter of how toxic materials proliferate in our day to day environments. Introduced into airtight, energy efficient homes and offices, fumes from toxic materials are the quintessential gift that keeps on giving as they recirculate through ventilation systems and permanently bond to porous materials such as carpets and sheetrock. Like the Sorcerer’s Apprentice, we can’t turn off the accumulation of formaldehyde, pesticides, flame retardants, endocrine disruptors and other substances which simply aren’t compatible with human biochemistry. Instead we are told it is our patriotic duty to take these materials into our homes and bodies. Removing them from our bodies, while storing the rest for ’safe-keeping’ in our fat cells, takes a lot of time and energy out of our lives. We truly do ’shop until we drop’ and that is not at all economically sound. Many countries have banned toxic substances like formaldehyde from building materials, and carcinogens from cosmetics, without the collapse of their economies. Ours collapsed without such controls while rates of illness and disability soared.
Submitted to the paper:
Re: “Chutzpah on Steroids”, op-ed column by Bob Herbert (NYT, 7/14/09)
To the Editor,
The past decade saw we, the people, re-defined as consumers under the
leadership of a CEO. Terrorism was met with pleas for all of us to
respond with aggressive consumerism instead of intelligent
citizenship. Respirator masks and chemical detectors, desperately
needed by New Yorkers in the days following 9/11, were a low priority
next to executive pleas for us to shop our way to freedom.
Whose?
Our officials are sworn to defend the Constitution. The term ‘citizen’
appears repeatedly throughout that document but never the word
‘consumer’. ‘Caveat Emptor’ may apply to consumers, but citizens are
entitled to equal protection under the law for both their persons and
their assets. A ‘government’ should not be synonymous with the role of
’sponsor’. Let’s restore honesty to capitalism with requirements for
full disclosure in all products, manufactured goods as well as
financial products. Knowledge is power.
Barbara Rubin<
Information on steroids: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/steroids.html#cat1 /blockquote>
Categories: Letters, NY Times
