Thursday, June 13, 2013
Left Side of the Aisle #112
Left Side of the Aisle
for the week of June 13-19, 2013
This week:
Progress on marriage equality
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865581389/Legal-experts-lay-odds-on-gay-marriage-decision.html?pg=all
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/10/local/la-me-poll-gay-marriage-20130610
http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/06/07/same-sex-marriage-legalization-seen-as-inevitable-to-most-americans/
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2013/06/10/same-sex-marriage-considered-inevitable.html
http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/06/gay_marriage_vote_may_come_to.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/biblical-marriage-iowa-scholars-op-ed_n_3397304.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130603/OPINION01/306030016/Iowa-View-1-man-1-woman-isn-t-the-Bible-s-only-marriage-view?gcheck=1
http://www.suntimes.com/news/brown/20664816-452/brown-catholic-church-playing-hardball-with-groups-that-supported-legalizing-same-sex-marriages.html
Clown Award: Bill O'Reilly
http://fox6now.com/2013/05/24/gender-bender-day-causes-controversy-at-tippecanoe/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/28/gender-bender-day-homosexuality_n_3346285.html
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/04/bill-oreillys-parenting-advice-punish-boys-who/194335
Frustration about Obamacare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/05/28/healthcarepoll.pdf
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/poll-54-percent-against-obamacare-91902.html
Outrage of the Week: Privacy? What's that?
http://boston.com/metrodesk/2013/05/20/mass-transportation-secretary-people-are-going-need-pick-zpasses/fhhxtQAQRx5RulYGpv1zcI/story.html
NSA spying
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/nsa-verizon-phone-records-white-house_n_3395423.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_1.html
http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/06/report-nsa-collects-data-directly-from-servers-of-google-apple-microsoft-facebook-and-more/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-10-2013/moment-of-zen---joe-biden---government-surveillance
https://twitter.com/nbcnightlynews/status/342771225195597824
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/07/obama-nsa_n_3403389.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/verizon-phone-records-nsa_n_3397058.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/lindsey-graham-nsa_n_3396223.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/jim-sensenbrenner-nsa_n_3397440.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/07/clapper-secret-nsa-surveillance-prism
Saturday, June 08, 2013
Weekly reminder
This was already said in the post just below this one, but I still wanted to give my weekly reminder:
As of June 4, at least 4,720 people have been killed by gunfire in the US since Newtown, 45 of them in Massachusetts.
That total is 234 more than the number of American soldiers killed in the entire eight years of the Iraq War.
As of June 4, at least 4,720 people have been killed by gunfire in the US since Newtown, 45 of them in Massachusetts.
That total is 234 more than the number of American soldiers killed in the entire eight years of the Iraq War.
Friday, June 07, 2013
Left Side of the Aisle #111 - Part 9
The dirty secret of gun control: handguns
As of June 4, at least 4,720 Americans - including at least 45 in Massachusetts - have been killed by gunfire since Newtown. That is 234 more than the number of American soldiers killed in the entire eight years of the Iraq War.
This deserves more time than I'm going to give it. But every time I try to start it, I'm sorry, my stomach knots up. But I had to at least mention the dirty little secret of gun control.
That secret is that there is one way in which the gun nuts are right: All of the proposals, at least the "serious" proposals, the ones that the political and social elites will dare to raise for fear that going beyond them is "not politically feasible," those "serious" proposals will do little to control our shocking rate of death by gun. If every one of those proposals passed - and they should pass, make no mistake about it - but if every one of them passed, it would make only a small difference in the gun murder rate and the overall gun death rate.
Why? Because those proposals arise from and are driven by the events that shock us, that are large enough to move us from our torpor. The mass shootings. The Auroras. The Newtowns. But those are almost exclusively done with weapons like assault rifles, semi-automatics, using large-capacity magazines. Such events might take the lives of hundreds of innocents over the course of a year - but that is but a fraction of the thousands of deaths, both by murder and by accident, that occur every year in this country as the result of handguns. And beyond the standard answer of "background checks," handgun control is not even on the agenda.
It was at one time; in fact, not even handgun control, a ban on handguns. In 1959, 60% of Americans told a Gallup poll that they supported a ban on handguns except for people who actually could show a need for them. By 2011, before Aurora and Newtown managed to sufficiently shock our national conscience, Gallup said that support for gun control as an issue had fallen to its lowest level in 50 years - but even then, at that lowest point, still 26% of the people of this country favored a handgun ban.
So even though if you suggest it now you'll be made to feel it's a fringe position, don't let anyone fool you: It's really not.
And it shouldn't be. We are an incredibly violent nation. We have whole neighborhoods terrorized by guns, by handguns, whole neighborhoods where people dream of being able to just go for a walk in the evening without risking their lives. And that's not going to change, it's not going to stop, until we do two things: one, realize just how much crime is rooted in economic injustice and inequality.
And two, ban handguns.
Sources:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html
http://www.icasualties.org/Iraq/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66874.html
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/05/01/gun-violence-the-norm-for-some-south-florida-students/
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/05/08/booker-t-washington-hs-students-live-with-learning-in-a-war-zone/
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/05/02/in-the-aftermath-of-violence-a-neighborhood-is-torn/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/02/new-orleans-violence-documentary-shell-shocked_n_3202560.html
http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/AmericaUnderTheGun-4.pdf
As of June 4, at least 4,720 Americans - including at least 45 in Massachusetts - have been killed by gunfire since Newtown. That is 234 more than the number of American soldiers killed in the entire eight years of the Iraq War.This deserves more time than I'm going to give it. But every time I try to start it, I'm sorry, my stomach knots up. But I had to at least mention the dirty little secret of gun control.
That secret is that there is one way in which the gun nuts are right: All of the proposals, at least the "serious" proposals, the ones that the political and social elites will dare to raise for fear that going beyond them is "not politically feasible," those "serious" proposals will do little to control our shocking rate of death by gun. If every one of those proposals passed - and they should pass, make no mistake about it - but if every one of them passed, it would make only a small difference in the gun murder rate and the overall gun death rate.
Why? Because those proposals arise from and are driven by the events that shock us, that are large enough to move us from our torpor. The mass shootings. The Auroras. The Newtowns. But those are almost exclusively done with weapons like assault rifles, semi-automatics, using large-capacity magazines. Such events might take the lives of hundreds of innocents over the course of a year - but that is but a fraction of the thousands of deaths, both by murder and by accident, that occur every year in this country as the result of handguns. And beyond the standard answer of "background checks," handgun control is not even on the agenda.
It was at one time; in fact, not even handgun control, a ban on handguns. In 1959, 60% of Americans told a Gallup poll that they supported a ban on handguns except for people who actually could show a need for them. By 2011, before Aurora and Newtown managed to sufficiently shock our national conscience, Gallup said that support for gun control as an issue had fallen to its lowest level in 50 years - but even then, at that lowest point, still 26% of the people of this country favored a handgun ban.
So even though if you suggest it now you'll be made to feel it's a fringe position, don't let anyone fool you: It's really not.And it shouldn't be. We are an incredibly violent nation. We have whole neighborhoods terrorized by guns, by handguns, whole neighborhoods where people dream of being able to just go for a walk in the evening without risking their lives. And that's not going to change, it's not going to stop, until we do two things: one, realize just how much crime is rooted in economic injustice and inequality.
And two, ban handguns.
Sources:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html
http://www.icasualties.org/Iraq/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66874.html
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/05/01/gun-violence-the-norm-for-some-south-florida-students/
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/05/08/booker-t-washington-hs-students-live-with-learning-in-a-war-zone/
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/05/02/in-the-aftermath-of-violence-a-neighborhood-is-torn/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/02/new-orleans-violence-documentary-shell-shocked_n_3202560.html
http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/AmericaUnderTheGun-4.pdf
Left Side of the Aisle #111 - Part 8
Outrage of the Week: SCOTUS and DNA
You know what's one of the worst things about the Supreme Court? On too many issues, the members of the Court are faced with cases involving scientific and technical issues and called on to make decisions which they are not competent to make.
By the narrowest majority, 5-4, the Supreme Court has cleared the way for police at all levels to take a DNA swab from anyone they arrest for a serious crime and use that to check a database of DNA from unsolved crimes, and do this without evidence that they are suspected of a different crime, without a warrant, and directly contrary to the long-standing understanding that the Fourth Amendment means that the police cannot search for evidence of a crime without individualized suspicion – and, as Steven Shapiro of the ACLU noted, all nine justices agreed that DNA testing is a search.
But for the majority, that didn't matter because, according to the opinion written by Anthony Kennedy, a DNA swab is no different from a fingerprint or a photograph. It's just a routine part of the booking procedure, he said, just a way to identify the prisoner. He actually called it, as such things are invariably called, a “minor intrusion.” No big deal.
But of course it's not minor and the majority showed itself to be abysmally ignorant of just how revealing DNA is. Your face is your face. Your fingerprints are your fingerprints. Your DNA is who you are. Advocates of swabbing - and you know there are advocates, there are always advocates for whatever new violation of your rights is proposed because we just must have this because otherwise the world will fall apart; as one said in this case, "DNA is a tool we could not afford to lose."
Anyway, advocates of swabbing insist that a cheek swab is deliberately chosen because it doesn't tell anything about you beyond your identity. Which is flatly untrue: It can, for one thing, reveal who you may be related to. In fact there is a whole growing industry of collecting and storing voluntary cheek swabs in order for people to find relatives. For that same reason, they are used in determining paternity and in some immigration cases. They are also used in and in matching patients for bone marrow transplants and other medical matches. They can be used to reveal your racial characteristics, your ethnic heritage, and at least some of your medical history, including to what conditions you may be more susceptible. Yes, several of those uses are basically voluntary - but that doesn't change the fact that the claim that a cheek swab is only for for identifying the particular individual and has no other use is complete nonsense if not a deliberate lie.
The fact is, calling a cheek swab just a "booking procedure" and a "minor intrusion" demonstrates that the majority of the Supreme Court doesn't know what it's talking about and is incompetent to reach the decision it did. And now, because of their ignorance, another slice has been taken out of the 4th Amendment and our privacy.
That's especially true because the court's decision contains no limits. The particular case involved someone arrested of a violent crime in Maryland, but in an insightful dissent, Antonin Scalia - and there are six words I never thought I'd say together in that order - in an insightful dissent, Antonin Scalia noted the slippery slope: There is nothing in the decision to prevent this from being applied to every arrest, no matter how minor the infraction.
"Make no mistake about it,” he said, writing for the minority, “as an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA data base if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.”
Maryland state officials agree: State Attorney General Doug Gansler agreed that there's nothing stopping his state from expanding DNA collection from those arrested for serious crimes to those arrested for lesser ones like shoplifting.
In fact, Scalia said, why should this stop with people arrested? Why not, he said, take your DNA when you fly on an airplane? Quoting again, "surely the TSA must know the 'identity' of the flying public. For that matter, so would taking your children's DNA when they start public school."
Getting DNA swabs from people convicted of crimes is already common: All 50 states and the federal government take cheek swabs from convicted criminals. According to court documents, the FBI's Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) - a coordinated system of federal, state and local databases of DNA profiles - already contains more than 10 million criminal profiles and 1.1 million profiles of those arrested but not convicted. According to the FBI, the DNA samples from people whose charges have been dismissed, who have been acquitted or against who no charges have been brought are to be expunged from the federal system.
However, those rules do not apply to states and municipalities, which can keep the records as long as they want.
Open wide.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/03/supreme-court-dna-samples_n_3378379.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-dna-20130604,0,2983670.story
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/supreme-court-upholds-minor-intrusion-of-arrestee-dna-swabs/
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/04/privacy-experts-supreme-court-ruling-on-dna-swabs-could-lead-to-big-brother-scenario_print.html
http://www.familytreedna.com/dna-test-kit.aspx
http://www.dnatesting.com/blog/dnatesting/tag/cheek-swab/
http://www.dnadrugts.com/service.html
http://www.sgvtribune.com/ci_15223744
You know what's one of the worst things about the Supreme Court? On too many issues, the members of the Court are faced with cases involving scientific and technical issues and called on to make decisions which they are not competent to make.By the narrowest majority, 5-4, the Supreme Court has cleared the way for police at all levels to take a DNA swab from anyone they arrest for a serious crime and use that to check a database of DNA from unsolved crimes, and do this without evidence that they are suspected of a different crime, without a warrant, and directly contrary to the long-standing understanding that the Fourth Amendment means that the police cannot search for evidence of a crime without individualized suspicion – and, as Steven Shapiro of the ACLU noted, all nine justices agreed that DNA testing is a search.
But for the majority, that didn't matter because, according to the opinion written by Anthony Kennedy, a DNA swab is no different from a fingerprint or a photograph. It's just a routine part of the booking procedure, he said, just a way to identify the prisoner. He actually called it, as such things are invariably called, a “minor intrusion.” No big deal.
But of course it's not minor and the majority showed itself to be abysmally ignorant of just how revealing DNA is. Your face is your face. Your fingerprints are your fingerprints. Your DNA is who you are. Advocates of swabbing - and you know there are advocates, there are always advocates for whatever new violation of your rights is proposed because we just must have this because otherwise the world will fall apart; as one said in this case, "DNA is a tool we could not afford to lose."
Anyway, advocates of swabbing insist that a cheek swab is deliberately chosen because it doesn't tell anything about you beyond your identity. Which is flatly untrue: It can, for one thing, reveal who you may be related to. In fact there is a whole growing industry of collecting and storing voluntary cheek swabs in order for people to find relatives. For that same reason, they are used in determining paternity and in some immigration cases. They are also used in and in matching patients for bone marrow transplants and other medical matches. They can be used to reveal your racial characteristics, your ethnic heritage, and at least some of your medical history, including to what conditions you may be more susceptible. Yes, several of those uses are basically voluntary - but that doesn't change the fact that the claim that a cheek swab is only for for identifying the particular individual and has no other use is complete nonsense if not a deliberate lie.
The fact is, calling a cheek swab just a "booking procedure" and a "minor intrusion" demonstrates that the majority of the Supreme Court doesn't know what it's talking about and is incompetent to reach the decision it did. And now, because of their ignorance, another slice has been taken out of the 4th Amendment and our privacy.
That's especially true because the court's decision contains no limits. The particular case involved someone arrested of a violent crime in Maryland, but in an insightful dissent, Antonin Scalia - and there are six words I never thought I'd say together in that order - in an insightful dissent, Antonin Scalia noted the slippery slope: There is nothing in the decision to prevent this from being applied to every arrest, no matter how minor the infraction.
"Make no mistake about it,” he said, writing for the minority, “as an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA data base if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.”
Maryland state officials agree: State Attorney General Doug Gansler agreed that there's nothing stopping his state from expanding DNA collection from those arrested for serious crimes to those arrested for lesser ones like shoplifting.
In fact, Scalia said, why should this stop with people arrested? Why not, he said, take your DNA when you fly on an airplane? Quoting again, "surely the TSA must know the 'identity' of the flying public. For that matter, so would taking your children's DNA when they start public school."
Getting DNA swabs from people convicted of crimes is already common: All 50 states and the federal government take cheek swabs from convicted criminals. According to court documents, the FBI's Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) - a coordinated system of federal, state and local databases of DNA profiles - already contains more than 10 million criminal profiles and 1.1 million profiles of those arrested but not convicted. According to the FBI, the DNA samples from people whose charges have been dismissed, who have been acquitted or against who no charges have been brought are to be expunged from the federal system.
However, those rules do not apply to states and municipalities, which can keep the records as long as they want.
Open wide.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/03/supreme-court-dna-samples_n_3378379.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-dna-20130604,0,2983670.story
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/supreme-court-upholds-minor-intrusion-of-arrestee-dna-swabs/
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/04/privacy-experts-supreme-court-ruling-on-dna-swabs-could-lead-to-big-brother-scenario_print.html
http://www.familytreedna.com/dna-test-kit.aspx
http://www.dnatesting.com/blog/dnatesting/tag/cheek-swab/
http://www.dnadrugts.com/service.html
http://www.sgvtribune.com/ci_15223744
Left Side of the Aisle #111 - Part 7
The Little Thing #2: Lindsey Graham's Freudian slip
So recently President Hopey-Changey announced as how he wants to end the global war on terror - but of course he doesn't, since the secrecy remains, it appears the biggest change is moving control of the drone program from the CIA to the Pentagon, and Bradley Manning is still on trial. But leave that aside for the moment to enjoy one of the more delicious Freudian slips you'll hear:
In response to the Amazing Mr. O's speech, Senator Lindsey Graham, member in good standing of the Brotherhood of Perpetual Smirk, had this to say:
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/28/us/politics/in-terror-shift-obama-took-a-long-path.html
So recently President Hopey-Changey announced as how he wants to end the global war on terror - but of course he doesn't, since the secrecy remains, it appears the biggest change is moving control of the drone program from the CIA to the Pentagon, and Bradley Manning is still on trial. But leave that aside for the moment to enjoy one of the more delicious Freudian slips you'll hear:In response to the Amazing Mr. O's speech, Senator Lindsey Graham, member in good standing of the Brotherhood of Perpetual Smirk, had this to say:
At the end of the day, this is the most tone-deaf president I ever could imagine, making such a speech at a time when our homeland is trying to be attacked literally every day.Yep, Lindsey Graham says the "homeland" is "trying to be attacked every day.” And if such an attack were ever to happen, just whose interests would that serve?
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/28/us/politics/in-terror-shift-obama-took-a-long-path.html
Left Side of the Aisle #111 - Part 6
The Little Thing #1: Starbucks knows no limits
Once in a while, there is a news item that strikes me in an odd way - specifically, there is something, some little thing, that the coverage just doesn't seem to address. Calling it "little" doesn't mean it's something unimportant, although sometimes it is, sometimes it's something that just bugs me a little, or even amuses me. But what it really means is that it's something glossed over, maybe mentioned in passing, but deserves more notice than it got.
So this is a new and very occasional feature, The Little Thing. I have two of them this week, just to get things going.
First up is the news that Starbucks adopted a policy as of June 1 of requiring smokers to stand at least 25 feet away from its businesses when lighting up. The company already bans smoking indoors. A company representative said about 7,000 stores will be affected - both those that have outdoor seating and those that do not. However, the rule won't apply to Starbucks that are housed in other stores, such as Target.
So here's the thing: Most all of the coverage was about how affecting outdoor seating is a kind of new area and wondering how, or even if, it will affect Starbucks' business.
But none of the coverage asked the obvious question: Starbucks, just who the hell do you think you are?
You want to ban smoking in your palaces of overpriced lattes? Fine. You want to extend that to property you control outside where you have seating? Fine. Your place, your rules.
But where do you get off even thinking that you can control the actions of people on a public sidewalk? Who the hell do you think you are?
And it's utterly creepy how, if you read the news accounts, this is apparently taken as a matter of course at least among our journalistic elite that yes, a corporation can do that, can tell people on a public sidewalk in an area not under the control of the corporation what they can and can't do, it if wants to.
It shouldn't be necessary to say this, but in case some think it is: This has nothing to do with smoking. It has to do with corporate power.
Sources:
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/05/30/starbucks-shoos-smokers-away-cigarettes-banned-within-25-ft-of-entrance/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/starbucks-bans-smoking-june-1_n_3365544.html
Once in a while, there is a news item that strikes me in an odd way - specifically, there is something, some little thing, that the coverage just doesn't seem to address. Calling it "little" doesn't mean it's something unimportant, although sometimes it is, sometimes it's something that just bugs me a little, or even amuses me. But what it really means is that it's something glossed over, maybe mentioned in passing, but deserves more notice than it got.So this is a new and very occasional feature, The Little Thing. I have two of them this week, just to get things going.
First up is the news that Starbucks adopted a policy as of June 1 of requiring smokers to stand at least 25 feet away from its businesses when lighting up. The company already bans smoking indoors. A company representative said about 7,000 stores will be affected - both those that have outdoor seating and those that do not. However, the rule won't apply to Starbucks that are housed in other stores, such as Target.
So here's the thing: Most all of the coverage was about how affecting outdoor seating is a kind of new area and wondering how, or even if, it will affect Starbucks' business.
But none of the coverage asked the obvious question: Starbucks, just who the hell do you think you are?
You want to ban smoking in your palaces of overpriced lattes? Fine. You want to extend that to property you control outside where you have seating? Fine. Your place, your rules.
But where do you get off even thinking that you can control the actions of people on a public sidewalk? Who the hell do you think you are?
And it's utterly creepy how, if you read the news accounts, this is apparently taken as a matter of course at least among our journalistic elite that yes, a corporation can do that, can tell people on a public sidewalk in an area not under the control of the corporation what they can and can't do, it if wants to.
It shouldn't be necessary to say this, but in case some think it is: This has nothing to do with smoking. It has to do with corporate power.
Sources:
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/05/30/starbucks-shoos-smokers-away-cigarettes-banned-within-25-ft-of-entrance/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/starbucks-bans-smoking-june-1_n_3365544.html
Left Side of the Aisle #111 - Part 5
Clown #2: John Stossel
Our other red nose this week goes to a man who is not only a clown, I believe he's also a self-serving hypocrite and a phony. He's Fox Business host John Stossel.
Last week, he told the hosts of Fox & Friends that government programs should be cut, in fact whole whole departments should disappear. To show the intellectual depths of his analysis, he said "Why do we have a Commerce Department? Commerce just happens!" Which doubtless would seem like a solid argument to anyone who thinks the government is saying that there would be no such thing as commerce absent the department. The Department of Agriculture is likewise unnecessary because "farmers do that!" He also wants to dump the Department of Education, apparently thinking that education is something else that "just happens."
But his receipt of the big red nose comes from his astonishingly lamebrain assertion in that same appearance that before the modern "welfare state" came into existence, "no one" died of starvation. Literally:
Malnutrition was a much larger problem. One 1933 study of 514 children in New York found that more than one-third were in "poor" or "very poor" health.
And the fact is, many more died as the result of starvation, deaths by starvation that do not appear on the records. Starvation is rarely listed as a cause of death because few people actually literally die of starvation, that is, literally die directly from lack of food. Rather, they die of some immediate cause, some injury or illness which would not have killed them if they were not starving. They did die of starvation, but the cause of death will be listed as the disease.
Stossel later made what has become for him a typical non-apology when challenged: He said - on his twitter account and his blog, not on the air where most people heard the original statement and most would hear the not-really-but-kinda-sorta retraction - he said it was "dumb" to say "no one" died. But he then claimed that governors at the time said there was no starvation and cited a study claiming that - get this - the Depression was, and recessions in general are, actually good for public health. In other words, his "retraction" was actually a way of making the same anti-government claim in a different way. As clownish as they come.
And by the way, why do I call John Stossel a self-serving hypocrite and a phony as well as a clown? Because I remember him from WCBS-TV in NYC, where - at a time when consumer protection was a hot topic - he was the hotshot consumer reporter, uncovering misfeasance and malfeasance by corporations and local businesses alike.
But right around 1980, when the right came to power in the form of the Reagan administration and right-wing media was on the rise, he claimed with remarkably career-convenient timing to have discovered "the magic of the market" and became the extreme "business good, government bad" fruitcake he is. Bluntly, I think that if the pendulum swings the other way soon enough, he will have a new awakening to the "necessity of close regulation of the market" and government assistance.
Sources:
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/fox-business-host-cut-government-because-no-
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/children_depression/depression_children_menu.cfm
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/john-stossel-issues-correction-for-dumb-statement-claiming-no-one-starved-during-great-depression/
Our other red nose this week goes to a man who is not only a clown, I believe he's also a self-serving hypocrite and a phony. He's Fox Business host John Stossel.Last week, he told the hosts of Fox & Friends that government programs should be cut, in fact whole whole departments should disappear. To show the intellectual depths of his analysis, he said "Why do we have a Commerce Department? Commerce just happens!" Which doubtless would seem like a solid argument to anyone who thinks the government is saying that there would be no such thing as commerce absent the department. The Department of Agriculture is likewise unnecessary because "farmers do that!" He also wants to dump the Department of Education, apparently thinking that education is something else that "just happens."
But his receipt of the big red nose comes from his astonishingly lamebrain assertion in that same appearance that before the modern "welfare state" came into existence, "no one" died of starvation. Literally:
Think about the [Great] Depression. That was before there was any welfare state at all. How many people starved? No one.In fact, the number of cases of starvation in New York City alone went from 20 in 1931 to 110 in 1934. There were so many accounts of people starving in New York that the West African nation of Cameroon sent $3.77 in relief.
Malnutrition was a much larger problem. One 1933 study of 514 children in New York found that more than one-third were in "poor" or "very poor" health.
And the fact is, many more died as the result of starvation, deaths by starvation that do not appear on the records. Starvation is rarely listed as a cause of death because few people actually literally die of starvation, that is, literally die directly from lack of food. Rather, they die of some immediate cause, some injury or illness which would not have killed them if they were not starving. They did die of starvation, but the cause of death will be listed as the disease.
Stossel later made what has become for him a typical non-apology when challenged: He said - on his twitter account and his blog, not on the air where most people heard the original statement and most would hear the not-really-but-kinda-sorta retraction - he said it was "dumb" to say "no one" died. But he then claimed that governors at the time said there was no starvation and cited a study claiming that - get this - the Depression was, and recessions in general are, actually good for public health. In other words, his "retraction" was actually a way of making the same anti-government claim in a different way. As clownish as they come.
And by the way, why do I call John Stossel a self-serving hypocrite and a phony as well as a clown? Because I remember him from WCBS-TV in NYC, where - at a time when consumer protection was a hot topic - he was the hotshot consumer reporter, uncovering misfeasance and malfeasance by corporations and local businesses alike.
But right around 1980, when the right came to power in the form of the Reagan administration and right-wing media was on the rise, he claimed with remarkably career-convenient timing to have discovered "the magic of the market" and became the extreme "business good, government bad" fruitcake he is. Bluntly, I think that if the pendulum swings the other way soon enough, he will have a new awakening to the "necessity of close regulation of the market" and government assistance.
Sources:
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/fox-business-host-cut-government-because-no-
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/children_depression/depression_children_menu.cfm
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/john-stossel-issues-correction-for-dumb-statement-claiming-no-one-starved-during-great-depression/
Left Side of the Aisle #111 - Part 4
Clown #1: Marsha Blackburn
Now for the Clown Award, given for acts of meritorious stupidity.
This week I had two leading candidates, so close and such sterling examples that ultimately I couldn't decide between them, so I declared it a tie and gave the big red nose to each of them.
Our first winner is Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. She embraces all the usual right-wing jackassery, such as opposing Hurricane Sandy relief after accepting federal aid for her district in the wake of floods, claiming action against global warming will "destroy millions of American jobs and damage our economic competitiveness for decades to come," and trying to defund Planned Parenthood. But she goes above and beyond the required norm: For example, in 2011 she gave lightbulbs as Christmas gifts because of a wholly fictitious supposed government plan to ban incandescent bulbs and she wanted people to have stockpiles of them before they were banned.
So her status as a clown is well-established. But she is the gift that keeps on giving, and she gets her award for her appearance on Meet the Press on June 2, where she declared that women "don't want" equal pay laws:
Oh, maybe she means women want companies to on their own, just out of the sheer goodness of their hearts, to just decide to pay them the same as men. Right. Just look how well that worked out so far: Despite literally decades of pushing, the gender pay gap remains; in fact, it has expanded in recent years. In 2012, women earned less than 81% of what men earned for the equivalent work. According to a recent analysis, over the course of a 40-year career, the average US woman now stands to lose out on $443,000 in pay.
Which will pay for a lot of clown make-up for Marsha Blackburn.
Sources:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/rep.-marsha-blackburn-offers-bill-to-defund-planned-parenthood/article/2517576
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/12/12/rep_marsha_blackburn_delivers_gop_address_on_climate_change.html
https://southernbeale.wordpress.com/category/rep-marsha-blackburn/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/02/marsha-blackburn-equal-pay-laws_n_3375167.html?ref=topbar
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/07/gender-wage-gap-2012_n_2830173.html
Now for the Clown Award, given for acts of meritorious stupidity.This week I had two leading candidates, so close and such sterling examples that ultimately I couldn't decide between them, so I declared it a tie and gave the big red nose to each of them.
Our first winner is Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. She embraces all the usual right-wing jackassery, such as opposing Hurricane Sandy relief after accepting federal aid for her district in the wake of floods, claiming action against global warming will "destroy millions of American jobs and damage our economic competitiveness for decades to come," and trying to defund Planned Parenthood. But she goes above and beyond the required norm: For example, in 2011 she gave lightbulbs as Christmas gifts because of a wholly fictitious supposed government plan to ban incandescent bulbs and she wanted people to have stockpiles of them before they were banned.
So her status as a clown is well-established. But she is the gift that keeps on giving, and she gets her award for her appearance on Meet the Press on June 2, where she declared that women "don't want" equal pay laws:
They don’t want the decisions made in Washington. They want to be able to have the power and the control and the ability to make those decisions for themselves.Um, just what decisions is she talking about? What, what women want is the power to decide for themselves to be underpaid? To get paid less for equal work, equal worth? Or what? I guess that's what she means, since Blackburn voted against the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act.
Oh, maybe she means women want companies to on their own, just out of the sheer goodness of their hearts, to just decide to pay them the same as men. Right. Just look how well that worked out so far: Despite literally decades of pushing, the gender pay gap remains; in fact, it has expanded in recent years. In 2012, women earned less than 81% of what men earned for the equivalent work. According to a recent analysis, over the course of a 40-year career, the average US woman now stands to lose out on $443,000 in pay.
Which will pay for a lot of clown make-up for Marsha Blackburn.
Sources:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/rep.-marsha-blackburn-offers-bill-to-defund-planned-parenthood/article/2517576
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/12/12/rep_marsha_blackburn_delivers_gop_address_on_climate_change.html
https://southernbeale.wordpress.com/category/rep-marsha-blackburn/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/02/marsha-blackburn-equal-pay-laws_n_3375167.html?ref=topbar
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/07/gender-wage-gap-2012_n_2830173.html
Left Side of the Aisle #111 - Part 3
Update: marriage equality bill delayed in Illinois
I have to give an update to something I said last week. I said, as was reported at the time, that supporters of same-sex marriage in the Illinois House of Representatives were confident they had the votes to pass a bill to that end before the legislative session ended May 31.
It didn't work out that way. State Rep. Greg Harris, the bill's sponsor, addressed the House on the evening of the last day and announced that he would not be calling the vote because House colleagues asked for more time to consider it. The marriage equality bill had already been approved by the state Senate and Gov. Pat Quinn has promised to sign it, so the House vote was the last remaining obstacle to final passage and approval.
Now it won't be considered until the fall at the earliest.
“I’ve never been sadder,” Harris said. He teared up as he made the announcement. However, he added that “We will be back and we will be voting on this bill in this legislature, in this room. Until then, I apologize to the families who were hoping they would wake up tomorrow as full, equal citizens of this state.” And he remains confident it will pass. Until then, however, the sting of defeat is felt by many.
But even now, there are good signs on the issue as a whole: Across the nation, one of the driving forces behind the opposition to marriage equality has been the Catholic Church. But as a recent article points out, the evidence is that the Church's influence is waning: Recall, for example, that just last month Rhode Island became the last of the six New England states to approve same-sex marriage, a victory in the most Catholic state in the most Catholic region of the country.
A good part of the reason is that according to polls, the Church hierarchy is increasingly out of touch with the feelings of rank-and-file Catholics: For example, a CBS News/New York Times poll in February found that 62 percent of American Catholics think same-sex marriages should be legal.
There are still battles to be fought, losses to endure. But I say again: On this one, if on nothing else, we are winning.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/illinois-gay-marriage-hou_0_n_3367329.html?ref=topbar
http://chicagophoenix.com/2013/05/31/no-vote-on-illinois-marriage-equality-bill-held-until-fall-session/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/01/catholic-influence-gay-marriage-_n_3371052.html
I have to give an update to something I said last week. I said, as was reported at the time, that supporters of same-sex marriage in the Illinois House of Representatives were confident they had the votes to pass a bill to that end before the legislative session ended May 31.It didn't work out that way. State Rep. Greg Harris, the bill's sponsor, addressed the House on the evening of the last day and announced that he would not be calling the vote because House colleagues asked for more time to consider it. The marriage equality bill had already been approved by the state Senate and Gov. Pat Quinn has promised to sign it, so the House vote was the last remaining obstacle to final passage and approval.
Now it won't be considered until the fall at the earliest.
“I’ve never been sadder,” Harris said. He teared up as he made the announcement. However, he added that “We will be back and we will be voting on this bill in this legislature, in this room. Until then, I apologize to the families who were hoping they would wake up tomorrow as full, equal citizens of this state.” And he remains confident it will pass. Until then, however, the sting of defeat is felt by many.
But even now, there are good signs on the issue as a whole: Across the nation, one of the driving forces behind the opposition to marriage equality has been the Catholic Church. But as a recent article points out, the evidence is that the Church's influence is waning: Recall, for example, that just last month Rhode Island became the last of the six New England states to approve same-sex marriage, a victory in the most Catholic state in the most Catholic region of the country.
A good part of the reason is that according to polls, the Church hierarchy is increasingly out of touch with the feelings of rank-and-file Catholics: For example, a CBS News/New York Times poll in February found that 62 percent of American Catholics think same-sex marriages should be legal.
There are still battles to be fought, losses to endure. But I say again: On this one, if on nothing else, we are winning.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/illinois-gay-marriage-hou_0_n_3367329.html?ref=topbar
http://chicagophoenix.com/2013/05/31/no-vote-on-illinois-marriage-equality-bill-held-until-fall-session/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/01/catholic-influence-gay-marriage-_n_3371052.html
Left Side of the Aisle #111 - Part 2
RIP: Frank Lautenberg
Just a quick RIP. New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg has died at the age of 89. I mention him for two reasons: One is that he was the oldest Senator, in fact the only remaining World War II veteran and probably the only remaining child of the Depression in Congress.
Lautenberg was always a liberal in the classical sense, not a radical by any means but a good, Democratic party liberal at a time when the term still meant something rather than a cause for sneering. Among his last acts was being brought to the Senate chambers in a wheelchair to vote in favor of gun control and filing a bill for background checks on the sale of explosive powders in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing.
Maybe it was just the contrast between him and Shrub, but it seemed to me that he moved at least a little to the left in his time in office, perhaps especially on environmental issues.
Which raises the other reason I have for mentioning his death: I recall saying of him one time that he stood as proof that it is not necessarily true that you grow more conservative as you grow older. In fact, it's possible get more liberal.
Yes, there were a lot of reason to criticize him from the left, lots of reasons, but that's not the point here and I'm not going to deal with that. I prefer, at least for today, to remember him as, again, proof that progressivism is not a matter of age, but of insight and understanding.
RIP, Frank Lautenberg.
Sources:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/RIP_Frank_Lautenberg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/sen-frank-lautenberg-five-term-new-jersey-democrat-dies-at-89/2013/06/03/c8b60c8e-c5da-11df-94e1-c5afa35a9e59_story.html
Just a quick RIP. New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg has died at the age of 89. I mention him for two reasons: One is that he was the oldest Senator, in fact the only remaining World War II veteran and probably the only remaining child of the Depression in Congress.Lautenberg was always a liberal in the classical sense, not a radical by any means but a good, Democratic party liberal at a time when the term still meant something rather than a cause for sneering. Among his last acts was being brought to the Senate chambers in a wheelchair to vote in favor of gun control and filing a bill for background checks on the sale of explosive powders in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing.
Maybe it was just the contrast between him and Shrub, but it seemed to me that he moved at least a little to the left in his time in office, perhaps especially on environmental issues.
Which raises the other reason I have for mentioning his death: I recall saying of him one time that he stood as proof that it is not necessarily true that you grow more conservative as you grow older. In fact, it's possible get more liberal.
Yes, there were a lot of reason to criticize him from the left, lots of reasons, but that's not the point here and I'm not going to deal with that. I prefer, at least for today, to remember him as, again, proof that progressivism is not a matter of age, but of insight and understanding.
RIP, Frank Lautenberg.
Sources:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/RIP_Frank_Lautenberg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/sen-frank-lautenberg-five-term-new-jersey-democrat-dies-at-89/2013/06/03/c8b60c8e-c5da-11df-94e1-c5afa35a9e59_story.html
Left Side of the Aisle #111 - Part 1
Good news: fast-food workers demand better pay
Last week, fast food workers in Seattle walked off their jobs in a one-day strike. That made Seattle the seventh city where fast food workers have gone on strike in recent months.
Workers from chains including McDonald’s, Burger King, Taco Bell, Subway, Arby’s, Chipotle, Qdoba, and Jack in the Box participated.
Cities affected previously were New York, Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Detroit, and Washington, DC. Note that in the case of Washington, not all the strikers were fast-food workers.
The Seattle strike comes two weeks after New York’s fast food workers campaign released a report alleging rampant wage theft in the industry. Wage theft can include employees being made to work, without pay, before or after their shift; employees working overtime without being paid time-and-a-half; employees working during their breaks or not receiving breaks at all; and delivery employees not being reimbursed for expenses like gasoline or safety equipment. A huge portion of fast food workers reported having experienced some form of wage theft.
The strike also came just hours after the Congressional Progressive Caucus announced plans for a nationwide tour intended to “highlight the problem of stagnant and low wages for American workers.”
The workers in these strikes are looking for wages to be raised to $15 an hour and the right to form unions without intimidation.
So why are low wages and exploited workers good news? They're not. But the fact that some American workers are finally fed up enough to do something about it - and the fact that in each of these cases they have acted with the support of community groups - is good news. Very good news.
Sources:
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/05/30/seattle-fast-food-strike/
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/04/12/mcdonalds-employees-rude-service/
http://www.thenation.com/blog/174577/fast-food-workers-striking-seattle
http://www.thenation.com/blog/174375/84-percent-nyc-fast-food-workers-report-wage-theft-new-survey
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/05/29/congressional-progressive-caucus-to-launch-campaign-on-behalf-of-low-wage-workers/
Last week, fast food workers in Seattle walked off their jobs in a one-day strike. That made Seattle the seventh city where fast food workers have gone on strike in recent months.Workers from chains including McDonald’s, Burger King, Taco Bell, Subway, Arby’s, Chipotle, Qdoba, and Jack in the Box participated.
Cities affected previously were New York, Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Detroit, and Washington, DC. Note that in the case of Washington, not all the strikers were fast-food workers.
The Seattle strike comes two weeks after New York’s fast food workers campaign released a report alleging rampant wage theft in the industry. Wage theft can include employees being made to work, without pay, before or after their shift; employees working overtime without being paid time-and-a-half; employees working during their breaks or not receiving breaks at all; and delivery employees not being reimbursed for expenses like gasoline or safety equipment. A huge portion of fast food workers reported having experienced some form of wage theft.
The strike also came just hours after the Congressional Progressive Caucus announced plans for a nationwide tour intended to “highlight the problem of stagnant and low wages for American workers.”
The workers in these strikes are looking for wages to be raised to $15 an hour and the right to form unions without intimidation.
So why are low wages and exploited workers good news? They're not. But the fact that some American workers are finally fed up enough to do something about it - and the fact that in each of these cases they have acted with the support of community groups - is good news. Very good news.
Sources:
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/05/30/seattle-fast-food-strike/
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/04/12/mcdonalds-employees-rude-service/
http://www.thenation.com/blog/174577/fast-food-workers-striking-seattle
http://www.thenation.com/blog/174375/84-percent-nyc-fast-food-workers-report-wage-theft-new-survey
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/05/29/congressional-progressive-caucus-to-launch-campaign-on-behalf-of-low-wage-workers/
Left Side of the Aisle #111
Left Side of the Aisle
for the week of June 6 - 12, 2013
This week:
Good news: fast-food workers demand better pay
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/05/30/seattle-fast-food-strike/
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/04/12/mcdonalds-employees-rude-service/
http://www.thenation.com/blog/174577/fast-food-workers-striking-seattle
http://www.thenation.com/blog/174375/84-percent-nyc-fast-food-workers-report-wage-theft-new-survey
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/05/29/congressional-progressive-caucus-to-launch-campaign-on-behalf-of-low-wage-workers/
RIP: Frank Lautenberg
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/RIP_Frank_Lautenberg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/sen-frank-lautenberg-five-term-new-jersey-democrat-dies-at-89/2013/06/03/c8b60c8e-c5da-11df-94e1-c5afa35a9e59_story.html
Update: marriage equality bill delayed in Illinois
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/illinois-gay-marriage-hou_0_n_3367329.html?ref=topbar
http://chicagophoenix.com/2013/05/31/no-vote-on-illinois-marriage-equality-bill-held-until-fall-session/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/01/catholic-influence-gay-marriage-_n_3371052.html
Clown #1: Marsha Blackburn
http://washingtonexaminer.com/rep.-marsha-blackburn-offers-bill-to-defund-planned-parenthood/article/2517576
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/12/12/rep_marsha_blackburn_delivers_gop_address_on_climate_change.html
https://southernbeale.wordpress.com/category/rep-marsha-blackburn/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/02/marsha-blackburn-equal-pay-laws_n_3375167.html?ref=topbar
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/07/gender-wage-gap-2012_n_2830173.html
Clown #2: John Stossel
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/fox-business-host-cut-government-because-no-
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/children_depression/depression_children_menu.cfm
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/john-stossel-issues-correction-for-dumb-statement-claiming-no-one-starved-during-great-depression/
The Little Thing #1: Starbucks knows no limits
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/05/30/starbucks-shoos-smokers-away-cigarettes-banned-within-25-ft-of-entrance/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/starbucks-bans-smoking-june-1_n_3365544.html
The Little Thing #2: Lindsey Graham's Freudian slip
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/28/us/politics/in-terror-shift-obama-took-a-long-path.html
Outrage of the Week: SCOTUS and DNA
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/03/supreme-court-dna-samples_n_3378379.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-dna-20130604,0,2983670.story
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/supreme-court-upholds-minor-intrusion-of-arrestee-dna-swabs/
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/04/privacy-experts-supreme-court-ruling-on-dna-swabs-could-lead-to-big-brother-scenario_print.html
http://www.familytreedna.com/dna-test-kit.aspx
http://www.dnatesting.com/blog/dnatesting/tag/cheek-swab/
http://www.dnadrugts.com/service.html
http://www.sgvtribune.com/ci_15223744
The dirty secret of gun control: handguns
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html
http://www.icasualties.org/Iraq/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66874.html
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/05/01/gun-violence-the-norm-for-some-south-florida-students/
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/05/08/booker-t-washington-hs-students-live-with-learning-in-a-war-zone/
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/05/02/in-the-aftermath-of-violence-a-neighborhood-is-torn/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/02/new-orleans-violence-documentary-shell-shocked_n_3202560.html
http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/AmericaUnderTheGun-4.pdf
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Weekly reminder
As of May 28, at least 4,437 people have been killed by gunfire in the US since Newtown, 38 of them in Massachusetts.
Left Side of the Aisle #110 - Part 6
Patriotism
So we just had the Memorial Day weekend and the semi-official start, if not the actual astronomical start, of summer.
And of course, as always, the weekend was festooned with flags and bunting and celebrations of things military and effusive expressions of thanks to all our men and women in uniform linked to declarations of patriotism that seem invariably to involve swirling flags and martial music.
I want to raise a dissenting voice. I want to talk about patriotism.
When I've talked or written about this general subject before, I've always noted at the beginning that I know that what I say will be misunderstood by some and deliberately twisted by others - and I've never been disappointed in that expectation. So I say it again here. I will try to be clear but I know that no matter how hard I try, for some I will fail.
To start: I am not a patriot.
And right away, I have to amend that. I am not a patriot in the shallow way the term is usually understood. I do not wear a flag pin. I do not put my hand over my heart during the national anthem (which, I’ll note in passing, I was taught as a child was something that some folks did but was not required). I do not sing along with the national anthem. In fact, I don’t even stand up for the national anthem. I will note that I certainly don't intend to give offense that way, so I usually manage to be out of the room at the time.
And I don't celebrate soldiers, nor do I, as candidate Barack Obama called on us to do, "always express our profound gratitude for the service of our men and women in uniform. Period," thus exempting those folks from any and all moral judgment. I can and do celebrate individual soldiers - but not "soldiers" as a category. As I have said and written several times, soldiers are not heroes. They can be heroes, they can act heroically, they can do heroic things - but the act of putting on a uniform does not make you a hero, it does not make you or your life more worthy of honor or respect than anyone else's.
Joseph Darby, the soldier who revealed the abuses at Abu Ghraib, is a hero. The soldiers in his unit who in response threatened him to the point that he had to be shipped out early for his own safety, are not. Bradley Manning, the man who revealed war crimes committed by US troops in Iraq, is a hero. The soldiers who committed those crimes, such as those in the video called "Collateral Murder," are not.
So, I say again, I am not a patriot. Except that I am. How? Let me explain.
Patriotism that consists in, that is measured in terms of, wearing flag pins, singing the national anthem, and the like is worthless and even dangerous. It is a shallow, a hollow “patriotism,” a shell that prefers form to substance and too easily, as we have seen over the last years, slides from “patriotism” into jingoism. If, as someone said a while back, “patriotism requires no apologies,” neither should it require conscious demonstration.
And to try to head off some of that misunderstanding I expect, don’t bother claiming I said wearing a flag pin or whatever is itself “hollow.” I said that a patriotism measured or defined in those terms rather than by a deeper commitment is hollow. And it is.
But that obviously raises the immediate question of "what deeper commitment." What does it consist of - or, more exactly here, what do I think it consists of?
Well first, saying it consists of a commitment to "flag and country" is meaningless, empty, it's the vapid patriotism of bumper stickers and needlepoint homilies. It doesn't mean anything. Saying it's based on the supposed fact that "this is the greatest country in the world" is nothing short of absurd - unless, that is, you want to tell me which country is the 7th greatest or the 14th greatest or the 63rd greatest. Because to say this is the greatest country means you must have some objective standard by which countries can be judged and ranked. I can't imagine what such a standard could be since on so many social scales - inequality, poverty, child poverty, access to health care, the list goes on - we rank so embarrassingly low and even on some of our proudest achievements, such as the Bill of Rights, we are losing ground.
And a patriotism based on calling out Stephen Decatur's famous line "my country, right or wrong" is downright dangerous. Unless, that is, you want to amend it to the version of then-Senator Carl Schurz, who said in the 1870s "our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: Our country - when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right."
BTW, look up Carl Schurz. Interesting guy. And his quote about "true patriotism" points toward my own convictions.
In addition to embracing the comment I read some years ago that “it is natural to have an abiding affection for the land of one’s birth,” I say being an US patriot means being dedicated to the ideals on which the country was supposed to have been founded and which, at its best moments, it strives to uphold to as full a measure as possible: Ideals such as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” as the right to rebellion against oppression, as “promot[ing] the general welfare,” as political freedoms, as representative government “of, by, and for the people” - the ideal of, to sum up in a single phrase, an intent to “establish justice,” a justice I say must include the economic and the social as well as the political if it is to have real meaning.
Patriotism means embracing those ideals; it means striving to hold this country to the highest of those ideals instead of the lowest of its prejudices, as committing to a notion of what the US, of what we as a people, can be and have at times approached being.
Patriotism, that is, lies in the devotion to the ideals, not in any symbolic outward expression of it. Further, patriotism thus does not lie in support for or opposition to any particular administration or any particular policy except insofar as that support or opposition is an expression of that internal commitment to those ideals. Someone who during the Bush administration who opposed the Iraq War and was angered by Bush's usurpation of power was much more patriotic than the war supporters who kept referring to Bush as “the commander-in-chief” as if we were all soldiers expected to obey orders rather than citizens with an obligation held by any free people to “question authority.” And someone during the Obama administration who denounces his unprecedented attacks on whistleblowers and is outraged by his mad claim that he can on his own authority order the assassination of Americans without trial or charge is more patriotic than the Obamabots who stand silent in the face of the drone war and are incapable of seeing the very obvious distance between dissent based on political rejection and dissent based on racism.
So on that basis, on that understanding of patriotism, I submit to you that I am as patriotic as they come. And I have neither patience with nor tolerance for those who would make patriotism a matter of gestures and decorations rather than conviction. And I have even less of either patience with or tolerance for those who would try to prove their patriotism by impugning mine.
I am not a patriot. Except that I am.
Sources:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-2238188.html
http://www.bradleymanning.org/
http://collateralmurder.com/
http://www.bartleby.com/73/1641.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schurz
So we just had the Memorial Day weekend and the semi-official start, if not the actual astronomical start, of summer.
And of course, as always, the weekend was festooned with flags and bunting and celebrations of things military and effusive expressions of thanks to all our men and women in uniform linked to declarations of patriotism that seem invariably to involve swirling flags and martial music.
I want to raise a dissenting voice. I want to talk about patriotism.
When I've talked or written about this general subject before, I've always noted at the beginning that I know that what I say will be misunderstood by some and deliberately twisted by others - and I've never been disappointed in that expectation. So I say it again here. I will try to be clear but I know that no matter how hard I try, for some I will fail.
To start: I am not a patriot.
And right away, I have to amend that. I am not a patriot in the shallow way the term is usually understood. I do not wear a flag pin. I do not put my hand over my heart during the national anthem (which, I’ll note in passing, I was taught as a child was something that some folks did but was not required). I do not sing along with the national anthem. In fact, I don’t even stand up for the national anthem. I will note that I certainly don't intend to give offense that way, so I usually manage to be out of the room at the time.
And I don't celebrate soldiers, nor do I, as candidate Barack Obama called on us to do, "always express our profound gratitude for the service of our men and women in uniform. Period," thus exempting those folks from any and all moral judgment. I can and do celebrate individual soldiers - but not "soldiers" as a category. As I have said and written several times, soldiers are not heroes. They can be heroes, they can act heroically, they can do heroic things - but the act of putting on a uniform does not make you a hero, it does not make you or your life more worthy of honor or respect than anyone else's.
Joseph Darby, the soldier who revealed the abuses at Abu Ghraib, is a hero. The soldiers in his unit who in response threatened him to the point that he had to be shipped out early for his own safety, are not. Bradley Manning, the man who revealed war crimes committed by US troops in Iraq, is a hero. The soldiers who committed those crimes, such as those in the video called "Collateral Murder," are not.So, I say again, I am not a patriot. Except that I am. How? Let me explain.
Patriotism that consists in, that is measured in terms of, wearing flag pins, singing the national anthem, and the like is worthless and even dangerous. It is a shallow, a hollow “patriotism,” a shell that prefers form to substance and too easily, as we have seen over the last years, slides from “patriotism” into jingoism. If, as someone said a while back, “patriotism requires no apologies,” neither should it require conscious demonstration.
And to try to head off some of that misunderstanding I expect, don’t bother claiming I said wearing a flag pin or whatever is itself “hollow.” I said that a patriotism measured or defined in those terms rather than by a deeper commitment is hollow. And it is.
But that obviously raises the immediate question of "what deeper commitment." What does it consist of - or, more exactly here, what do I think it consists of?
Well first, saying it consists of a commitment to "flag and country" is meaningless, empty, it's the vapid patriotism of bumper stickers and needlepoint homilies. It doesn't mean anything. Saying it's based on the supposed fact that "this is the greatest country in the world" is nothing short of absurd - unless, that is, you want to tell me which country is the 7th greatest or the 14th greatest or the 63rd greatest. Because to say this is the greatest country means you must have some objective standard by which countries can be judged and ranked. I can't imagine what such a standard could be since on so many social scales - inequality, poverty, child poverty, access to health care, the list goes on - we rank so embarrassingly low and even on some of our proudest achievements, such as the Bill of Rights, we are losing ground.
And a patriotism based on calling out Stephen Decatur's famous line "my country, right or wrong" is downright dangerous. Unless, that is, you want to amend it to the version of then-Senator Carl Schurz, who said in the 1870s "our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: Our country - when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right."BTW, look up Carl Schurz. Interesting guy. And his quote about "true patriotism" points toward my own convictions.
In addition to embracing the comment I read some years ago that “it is natural to have an abiding affection for the land of one’s birth,” I say being an US patriot means being dedicated to the ideals on which the country was supposed to have been founded and which, at its best moments, it strives to uphold to as full a measure as possible: Ideals such as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” as the right to rebellion against oppression, as “promot[ing] the general welfare,” as political freedoms, as representative government “of, by, and for the people” - the ideal of, to sum up in a single phrase, an intent to “establish justice,” a justice I say must include the economic and the social as well as the political if it is to have real meaning.
Patriotism means embracing those ideals; it means striving to hold this country to the highest of those ideals instead of the lowest of its prejudices, as committing to a notion of what the US, of what we as a people, can be and have at times approached being.
Patriotism, that is, lies in the devotion to the ideals, not in any symbolic outward expression of it. Further, patriotism thus does not lie in support for or opposition to any particular administration or any particular policy except insofar as that support or opposition is an expression of that internal commitment to those ideals. Someone who during the Bush administration who opposed the Iraq War and was angered by Bush's usurpation of power was much more patriotic than the war supporters who kept referring to Bush as “the commander-in-chief” as if we were all soldiers expected to obey orders rather than citizens with an obligation held by any free people to “question authority.” And someone during the Obama administration who denounces his unprecedented attacks on whistleblowers and is outraged by his mad claim that he can on his own authority order the assassination of Americans without trial or charge is more patriotic than the Obamabots who stand silent in the face of the drone war and are incapable of seeing the very obvious distance between dissent based on political rejection and dissent based on racism.So on that basis, on that understanding of patriotism, I submit to you that I am as patriotic as they come. And I have neither patience with nor tolerance for those who would make patriotism a matter of gestures and decorations rather than conviction. And I have even less of either patience with or tolerance for those who would try to prove their patriotism by impugning mine.
I am not a patriot. Except that I am.
Sources:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-2238188.html
http://www.bradleymanning.org/
http://collateralmurder.com/
http://www.bartleby.com/73/1641.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schurz
Left Side of the Aisle #110 - Part 5
Update 2: Kaitlyn Hunt
The second update refers to the case of Kaitlyn Hunt, the 18-year-old high school senior facing felony charges with a possible 15-year term over a same-sex relationship with a 15-year-old classmate.
Persecutors had offered her what they claimed was a "very generous deal" under which she would have been labeled a sex offender and been under house arrest for two years. The deal has been refused.
Hunt’s lawyer, Julia Graves, said that “If this case involved a boy and girl, there would be no media attention to this case. If this incident occurred 108 days earlier when Kaitlyn was 17, we wouldn’t even be here.”
There are those who claim that homophobia is not the driving force here despite the rarity with which charges are ever brought in cases of high school sex, citing two cases where a teenage boy was successfully prosecuted for having sex with a younger girl. Unfortunately for those folks, both those cases involve a black boy and a white girl, which would seem to re-raise the question of bigotry in the decision to prosecute which they had hoped to put aside.
Sources:
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/24/kaitlyn_hunt_refuses_plea_offer_will_go_to_court_over_high_school_relationship/
http://www.wpbf.com/news/south-florida/treasure-coast/kaitlyn-hunt-will-not-take-a-plea-deal/-/8882916/20290912/-/kwrq5k/-/index.html
The second update refers to the case of Kaitlyn Hunt, the 18-year-old high school senior facing felony charges with a possible 15-year term over a same-sex relationship with a 15-year-old classmate.Persecutors had offered her what they claimed was a "very generous deal" under which she would have been labeled a sex offender and been under house arrest for two years. The deal has been refused.
Hunt’s lawyer, Julia Graves, said that “If this case involved a boy and girl, there would be no media attention to this case. If this incident occurred 108 days earlier when Kaitlyn was 17, we wouldn’t even be here.”
There are those who claim that homophobia is not the driving force here despite the rarity with which charges are ever brought in cases of high school sex, citing two cases where a teenage boy was successfully prosecuted for having sex with a younger girl. Unfortunately for those folks, both those cases involve a black boy and a white girl, which would seem to re-raise the question of bigotry in the decision to prosecute which they had hoped to put aside.
Sources:
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/24/kaitlyn_hunt_refuses_plea_offer_will_go_to_court_over_high_school_relationship/
http://www.wpbf.com/news/south-florida/treasure-coast/kaitlyn-hunt-will-not-take-a-plea-deal/-/8882916/20290912/-/kwrq5k/-/index.html
Left Side of the Aisle #110 - Part 4
Update 1: DOJ vs. media
I've got updates on two things I've noted recently.
First is that the real Obama scandal of recent weeks, the Justice Department's investigation and surveillance of the Associated Press and Fox News, has led to a sustained wave of criticism of the administration's media policies.
Last week, the Committee to Protect Journalists declared that the DOJ's secret subpoenas for over 20 AP phone lines "represent a damaging setback for press freedom in the United States." Over 50 media outlets signed a letter to the DOJ which made similar arguments.
Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank called labeling Fox reporter James Rosen a "co-conspirator" in court papers "a flagrant assault on civil liberties."
Even the New York Times got in on the act, charging in an editorial that the White House "has moved beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press."
One additional observation: This business also serves to point up - again - the utter amoral hypocrisy of the right wing. They have been screaming about the surveillance of James Rosen. But a few years ago, when New York Times reporter James Risen was being pursued in court first by the Shrub team and then the Obama gang over a leak involving the massive, secret surveillance of international communications by the National Security Agency and another leak about a botched intelligence operation in Iran, the parts of the right wing that didn't stand mute were calling for the NYT to be prosecuted for printing Risen's story about the NSA.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/nytimes-obama-white-house-doj-investigations_n_3318748.html
I've got updates on two things I've noted recently.First is that the real Obama scandal of recent weeks, the Justice Department's investigation and surveillance of the Associated Press and Fox News, has led to a sustained wave of criticism of the administration's media policies.
Last week, the Committee to Protect Journalists declared that the DOJ's secret subpoenas for over 20 AP phone lines "represent a damaging setback for press freedom in the United States." Over 50 media outlets signed a letter to the DOJ which made similar arguments.
Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank called labeling Fox reporter James Rosen a "co-conspirator" in court papers "a flagrant assault on civil liberties."
Even the New York Times got in on the act, charging in an editorial that the White House "has moved beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press."
One additional observation: This business also serves to point up - again - the utter amoral hypocrisy of the right wing. They have been screaming about the surveillance of James Rosen. But a few years ago, when New York Times reporter James Risen was being pursued in court first by the Shrub team and then the Obama gang over a leak involving the massive, secret surveillance of international communications by the National Security Agency and another leak about a botched intelligence operation in Iran, the parts of the right wing that didn't stand mute were calling for the NYT to be prosecuted for printing Risen's story about the NSA.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/nytimes-obama-white-house-doj-investigations_n_3318748.html
Left Side of the Aisle #110 - Part 3
Clown Award: Springboro, Ohio, school board
Now for the Clown Award, given regularly for acts of meritorious stupidity. This week, the big red nose goes to the school board of Springboro, Ohio, a suburb about midway between Cincinnati and Dayton.
In 2011, the board considered a proposal to allow teaching of creationism as "supplemental instruction" in the schools. That plan was scrapped due to public opposition.
But far be it from clowns to give up in the face of reason, so they're at it again. The board is currently considering a proposal that would allow the district to teach creationism as part of a larger proposal about controversial issues in the classroom.
Parents who spoke at the school board meeting about it are against it. The ACLU of Ohio has pointed out that creationism has repeatedly been found by the courts to be inherently religious and so teaching it in public schools is an unconstitutional violation of church-state separation. The board doesn't appear to care and three members of the five-member board are in favor of it.
One, who is also head of the local Tea Party, called creationism "a significant part of the history of this country" and "an absolutely valid theory." Another said “we’re pointing out evolution is a controversial issue.”
Evolution, of course, is not controversial among scientists but only among the yahoos and know-nothings who can't stop thumping their Bibles long enough to gain some clue as to what the hell it is they're talking about. Ohio, unfortunately, seems to have an overabundance of them - at least among the clowns on the Springboro, Ohio, school board.
Oh, by the way, there's a footnote to this: The 2012 platform of the Texas GOP, in discussing education, says the party is opposed to "critical thinking skills and similar programs." Now, leaving aside the observation that it's easy to understand why right-wingers are opposed to critical thinking, I wonder what that means for all those various dodos who use a claim of "advancing critical thinking skills" as a means to attempt to lever creationism into the schools? It's apparently a case of the right hand not knowing what the other right hand is doing.
And by the way, there actually is some good news on this front: As reported by the National Center for Science Education, two antievolution bills died in the Missouri House of Representatives on May 17, when the legislature adjourned. One of those bills referred to, yes, helping students "develop critical thinking skills" by discussing creationism. In all, eight antievolution bills were introduced in six states in 2013: Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, and Oklahoma. None passed.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/24/springsboro-creationism_n_3333047.html
http://www.whiotv.com/news/news/local/creationism-discussion-slated-in-springboro/nXz5F/
http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/news/creationism-debate-back-in-springboro/nXzWQ/
http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2012Platform_Final.pdf
http://ncse.com/news/2013/05/antievolution-bills-die-missouri-0014848
Now for the Clown Award, given regularly for acts of meritorious stupidity. This week, the big red nose goes to the school board of Springboro, Ohio, a suburb about midway between Cincinnati and Dayton.In 2011, the board considered a proposal to allow teaching of creationism as "supplemental instruction" in the schools. That plan was scrapped due to public opposition.
But far be it from clowns to give up in the face of reason, so they're at it again. The board is currently considering a proposal that would allow the district to teach creationism as part of a larger proposal about controversial issues in the classroom.
Parents who spoke at the school board meeting about it are against it. The ACLU of Ohio has pointed out that creationism has repeatedly been found by the courts to be inherently religious and so teaching it in public schools is an unconstitutional violation of church-state separation. The board doesn't appear to care and three members of the five-member board are in favor of it.
One, who is also head of the local Tea Party, called creationism "a significant part of the history of this country" and "an absolutely valid theory." Another said “we’re pointing out evolution is a controversial issue.”
Evolution, of course, is not controversial among scientists but only among the yahoos and know-nothings who can't stop thumping their Bibles long enough to gain some clue as to what the hell it is they're talking about. Ohio, unfortunately, seems to have an overabundance of them - at least among the clowns on the Springboro, Ohio, school board.
Oh, by the way, there's a footnote to this: The 2012 platform of the Texas GOP, in discussing education, says the party is opposed to "critical thinking skills and similar programs." Now, leaving aside the observation that it's easy to understand why right-wingers are opposed to critical thinking, I wonder what that means for all those various dodos who use a claim of "advancing critical thinking skills" as a means to attempt to lever creationism into the schools? It's apparently a case of the right hand not knowing what the other right hand is doing.
And by the way, there actually is some good news on this front: As reported by the National Center for Science Education, two antievolution bills died in the Missouri House of Representatives on May 17, when the legislature adjourned. One of those bills referred to, yes, helping students "develop critical thinking skills" by discussing creationism. In all, eight antievolution bills were introduced in six states in 2013: Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, and Oklahoma. None passed.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/24/springsboro-creationism_n_3333047.html
http://www.whiotv.com/news/news/local/creationism-discussion-slated-in-springboro/nXz5F/
http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/news/creationism-debate-back-in-springboro/nXzWQ/
http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2012Platform_Final.pdf
http://ncse.com/news/2013/05/antievolution-bills-die-missouri-0014848
Left Side of the Aisle #110 - Part 2
Outrage of the Week: corporate-defined health
Time for one of our regular weekly features, the Outrage of the Week.
This week, it's another assault on our privacy and another example of how corporate America wants to control more and more of our personal lives. Various corporations are demanding that employees meet certain health goals or face some sort of punishment.
For example, CVS, one of the country's largest pharmacy chains, expects its workers to go to their doctor and have them determine their height, weight, body fat, blood pressure, and other health indicators, then to allow that personal data to go not only to the insurance company but also to yet another company, one that provides benefits support to CVS.
CVS's health insurance plan will pay for this “wellness review,” but workers who don’t take part in this supposedly "voluntary" program will have to pay an annual $600 penalty on their insurance premiums - a meaning of the word "voluntary" of which I was previously unfamiliar.
Michelin North America is another one. The tire manufacturer plans to monitor employees’ Body Mass Indices, blood pressure, glucose levels, triglycerides, and waist sizes. If your waist size is larger than 35 inches for women, or 40 inches for men, or if other "metrics" fall outside of what the company decides is the “acceptable” range, penalties kick in that will cost you $1000 more per year for health care coverage. No word on if Michelin is planning on changing its corporate logo.
Other large companies including Walmart and Home Depot have similar policies.
Now remember, the whole idea of group health insurance, of any group insurance in fact, is to spread the risk over the whole population, population here meaning everyone in the group. Treating some members of the population differently based on particular characteristics denies the whole notion of group coverage.
But that's okay, really it is, because these corporations and others are, of course, claiming that all this is actually for the benefit of the employees, nothing at all to do with cutting benefits or advancing corporate profit margins, oh no, perish the thought. Michelin claims, for example, that the new policy “helps us help our employees.” Do it our way or pay $1000 a year. Just look at all we do for you!
CVS was even worse: A corporate flack claimed that “Our benefits program is evolving to help our colleagues engage more actively to improve their health and manage health-associated costs.” The company even labeled the "wellness review" as done "so that colleagues know their key health metrics in order to take action to improve their overall health." It's all for you, don't you see? That's why it'll cost you $600 a year if you don't go along: It's for you.
And by the way: colleagues? What kind of corporate-speak double-talk is that? I'm really sick of that business. "We're all colleagues here; we're all members of the team." Just for the fun of it, I looked up "colleague" in a thesaurus. This is what it said:
You want to tell me where in that list would you fit in "bosses empowered to penalize you 600 bucks a year if you don't do what we say" as a synonym for "colleague?" No matter what BS they hand you, you are not your boss's "colleague."
CVS also lied about its program, saying it's “a common practice.” The company relied on a survey from 2011 that claimed that 80% of large employers who offer health benefits include a health assessment as part of that. But a 2012 survey found that only 18% of employers specifically asked their workers to take part in a health risk assessment, and only half of those penalized employees for failing to do so. What CVS is doing is not common practice.
On the other hand, it may not be common now, but it will become more common. Obamacare specifically allows employers to penalize workers who don’t participate in company wellness programs with higher premiums or higher deductibles or both. The same applies in some cases to workers who don’t meet certain health targets. As a result, another survey indicated that six in ten employers may decide to impose penalties on employees who fail to meet some arbitrary fitness criteria which they set.
So we have the invasion of privacy, we have the cold exercise of corporate power, we have the stigmatizing of people with physical conditions as if every problem was their own fault, their own personal failing, we have the penalizing people who fail to meet arbitrary standards, we have the cutting of benefits, we have the lies, we have the bull about "colleagues," and on top of all that we have the fact that these "wellness programs" just don't work!
The RAND Corporation performed a Congressionally-mandated analysis for the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services. And it found that wellness programs have at best a modest effect.
The report found, for instance, that people who participate in programs for weight loss lose an average of only one pound a year for three years. Participation "was not associated with significant reductions in total cholesterol level." Smoking-cessation programs only work "in the short term." Wellness programs did not catch warning signs of disease or prevent emergencies. No statistically significant decreases in cost or use of emergency department and hospital care was found.
Some experts not involved with the new report say even the modest benefits RAND found may be overstated for the population as a whole because most of these programs are still voluntary, which means that participants tend to be the most motivated people.
And this is not the only recent study to find much the same thing. This year researchers at the University of California conducted an analysis of dozens of existing studies of workplace wellness programs on behalf of the California state senate. It found that participating in work-based wellness programs does not lower blood pressure, does not lower blood sugar, does not lower cholesterol, and rarely leads to weight loss, and even where it did lead to weight loss, it was not always sustained. A different study out of the University of Arizona, also earlier this year, found no overall decrease in health care spending as a result of wellness programs.
Wellness programs are fine when they are voluntary. It's not the programs that are to blame, it's the absurd expectations placed on them and the demands placed on employees by corporations which think that their soaring profits have not soared enough and never will. So offering wellness programs in fine. But demanding participation, slashing employee benefits by punishing those not willing to participate and penalizing those who do not meet corporate-defined health standards, all while demanding our personal health information be handed over to yet another set of eyes, all for something that doesn't even work, that is truly an outrage.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/cvs-workers-insurance_n_2915006.html
http://www.care2.com/causes/fat-michelin-will-cut-your-pay-and-others-might-follow-suit.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/06/employers-adopt-stricter-health-care-policies_n_3029720.html
http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/2012/8346.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/25/workplace-wellness-programs_n_3333974.html
Time for one of our regular weekly features, the Outrage of the Week.This week, it's another assault on our privacy and another example of how corporate America wants to control more and more of our personal lives. Various corporations are demanding that employees meet certain health goals or face some sort of punishment.
For example, CVS, one of the country's largest pharmacy chains, expects its workers to go to their doctor and have them determine their height, weight, body fat, blood pressure, and other health indicators, then to allow that personal data to go not only to the insurance company but also to yet another company, one that provides benefits support to CVS.
CVS's health insurance plan will pay for this “wellness review,” but workers who don’t take part in this supposedly "voluntary" program will have to pay an annual $600 penalty on their insurance premiums - a meaning of the word "voluntary" of which I was previously unfamiliar.Michelin North America is another one. The tire manufacturer plans to monitor employees’ Body Mass Indices, blood pressure, glucose levels, triglycerides, and waist sizes. If your waist size is larger than 35 inches for women, or 40 inches for men, or if other "metrics" fall outside of what the company decides is the “acceptable” range, penalties kick in that will cost you $1000 more per year for health care coverage. No word on if Michelin is planning on changing its corporate logo.
Other large companies including Walmart and Home Depot have similar policies.
Now remember, the whole idea of group health insurance, of any group insurance in fact, is to spread the risk over the whole population, population here meaning everyone in the group. Treating some members of the population differently based on particular characteristics denies the whole notion of group coverage.
But that's okay, really it is, because these corporations and others are, of course, claiming that all this is actually for the benefit of the employees, nothing at all to do with cutting benefits or advancing corporate profit margins, oh no, perish the thought. Michelin claims, for example, that the new policy “helps us help our employees.” Do it our way or pay $1000 a year. Just look at all we do for you!
CVS was even worse: A corporate flack claimed that “Our benefits program is evolving to help our colleagues engage more actively to improve their health and manage health-associated costs.” The company even labeled the "wellness review" as done "so that colleagues know their key health metrics in order to take action to improve their overall health." It's all for you, don't you see? That's why it'll cost you $600 a year if you don't go along: It's for you.
And by the way: colleagues? What kind of corporate-speak double-talk is that? I'm really sick of that business. "We're all colleagues here; we're all members of the team." Just for the fun of it, I looked up "colleague" in a thesaurus. This is what it said:
Main Entry: colleague - associate, fellow worker
Synonyms: aide, ally, buddy, chum, co-worker, coadjutor, cohort, collaborator, companion, compatriot, comrade, confederate, confrere, crony, friend, helper, pal, partner, teammate, workmate
You want to tell me where in that list would you fit in "bosses empowered to penalize you 600 bucks a year if you don't do what we say" as a synonym for "colleague?" No matter what BS they hand you, you are not your boss's "colleague."
CVS also lied about its program, saying it's “a common practice.” The company relied on a survey from 2011 that claimed that 80% of large employers who offer health benefits include a health assessment as part of that. But a 2012 survey found that only 18% of employers specifically asked their workers to take part in a health risk assessment, and only half of those penalized employees for failing to do so. What CVS is doing is not common practice.
On the other hand, it may not be common now, but it will become more common. Obamacare specifically allows employers to penalize workers who don’t participate in company wellness programs with higher premiums or higher deductibles or both. The same applies in some cases to workers who don’t meet certain health targets. As a result, another survey indicated that six in ten employers may decide to impose penalties on employees who fail to meet some arbitrary fitness criteria which they set.
So we have the invasion of privacy, we have the cold exercise of corporate power, we have the stigmatizing of people with physical conditions as if every problem was their own fault, their own personal failing, we have the penalizing people who fail to meet arbitrary standards, we have the cutting of benefits, we have the lies, we have the bull about "colleagues," and on top of all that we have the fact that these "wellness programs" just don't work!
The RAND Corporation performed a Congressionally-mandated analysis for the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services. And it found that wellness programs have at best a modest effect.
The report found, for instance, that people who participate in programs for weight loss lose an average of only one pound a year for three years. Participation "was not associated with significant reductions in total cholesterol level." Smoking-cessation programs only work "in the short term." Wellness programs did not catch warning signs of disease or prevent emergencies. No statistically significant decreases in cost or use of emergency department and hospital care was found.
Some experts not involved with the new report say even the modest benefits RAND found may be overstated for the population as a whole because most of these programs are still voluntary, which means that participants tend to be the most motivated people.
And this is not the only recent study to find much the same thing. This year researchers at the University of California conducted an analysis of dozens of existing studies of workplace wellness programs on behalf of the California state senate. It found that participating in work-based wellness programs does not lower blood pressure, does not lower blood sugar, does not lower cholesterol, and rarely leads to weight loss, and even where it did lead to weight loss, it was not always sustained. A different study out of the University of Arizona, also earlier this year, found no overall decrease in health care spending as a result of wellness programs.
Wellness programs are fine when they are voluntary. It's not the programs that are to blame, it's the absurd expectations placed on them and the demands placed on employees by corporations which think that their soaring profits have not soared enough and never will. So offering wellness programs in fine. But demanding participation, slashing employee benefits by punishing those not willing to participate and penalizing those who do not meet corporate-defined health standards, all while demanding our personal health information be handed over to yet another set of eyes, all for something that doesn't even work, that is truly an outrage.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/cvs-workers-insurance_n_2915006.html
http://www.care2.com/causes/fat-michelin-will-cut-your-pay-and-others-might-follow-suit.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/06/employers-adopt-stricter-health-care-policies_n_3029720.html
http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/2012/8346.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/25/workplace-wellness-programs_n_3333974.html
Left Side of the Aisle #110 - Part 1
Good news: BSA, Joe Arpaio, A&F, Pope Francis, strikes
As ever, I like to start with good news where I can. This week I've got a few things which I'm going to run through rather quickly.
1. The Boy Scouts of America has voted to allow gay Scouts. The organization has chosen to eliminate sexual orientation as a criterion for youth membership.
It's only a partial victory, since under the new ruling, gay Scout leaders are still banned, leading to the obvious question of at just what age, in the collective minds of the group's leaders, do gays turn from innocent youths into dangerous sexual predators. But for the moment, take what we got.
2. On a different sort of good news, the self-aggrandizing, power-hungry, self-promoting Arizona lawman Joe Arpaio has been found by US District Court Judge Murray Snow to have violated the constitutional rights of Latino drivers in his supposed "crackdown on illegal immigration." Snow ordered him to stop using race or ancestry as a factor in law enforcement decisions. It's about time someone started seeing Arpaio for the bigot he is.
3. It appears that Abercrombie and Fitch may be seeing some real pushback as a result of renewed attention to statements made back in 2006 by CEO Mike Jeffries. In that interview, Jeffries said that "In every school there are the cool kids, and then there are the not-so-cool kids. We go after the cool kids. A lot of people," he said, "don’t belong in our clothes."
This came up again when Robin Lewis, co-author of the recent book "The New Rules of Retail," said in a recent interview that Jeffries doesn't want larger people even to be shopping in his store.
Jeffries' sneering dismissal of the worth of, let's just say, an extremely large number of people did not go over well. In response, Jeffries issued this laughable excuse for an apology: "I sincerely regret that my choice of words was interpreted in a manner that has caused offense."
You know those non-apology apologies, the ones where someone says "I'm sorry if anyone was offended," supposedly "apologizing" without actually admitting you did anything wrong? This one does not even rise to that level. It's pathetic.
The good news is that it's possible there has been some impact: The company's US sales fell 17 percent in the first quarter of the year and future profit forecasts have been cut. How much of that is due to anger over Jeffries' culturally-bigoted stupidity can't be told, but still there is likely some.
By the way, that is Mike Jeffries in the photo and in case you're wondering, yes, he dyes his hair blond. Why this guy is so convinced he understands "cool" escapes me.
4. Pope Francis has declared that everyone was redeemed through the death of Jesus, including atheists. All, he said, of all faiths and of no faith can do good and have the duty to do good. Why is this good news? Because it's a heck of a lot more open-minded than his predecessor was.
5. Finally, it's appearing more and more that at least some American workers have finally just had enough. The latest one-day strike by low-wage workers, which took place on May 21, wasn't by employees of Walmart or McDonald's. It was by people who work for companies who are contracted by the federal government to provide staff at landmark Washington, DC, buildings such as Union Station and the Smithsonian. They are among the nearly two million people working for federal contractors around the country at near poverty-level wages while their CEO's can legally be reimbursed by taxpayers for total compensation of over $760,000 per year.
Strikers are calling on President Hopey-Changey to lift their wages, which he could do with an executive order - but hasn't.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/boy-scouts-gay-ban-ruling_n_3328541.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/pope-francis-good-atheists_n_3320757.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/24/arpaio-racial-profiling_n_3333907.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/24/abercrombie-sales-ceo-controversy_n_3332601.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
http://www.salon.com/2006/01/24/jeffries/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/abercrombie-fitch-ceo-controversy_n_3286502.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/abercrombie-and-fitch-homeless-brand-readjustment_n_3272498.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/21/1210638/-Obama-could-give-these-striking-low-wage-workers-the-raise-they-need#
http://www.demos.org/publication/underwriting-bad-jobs-how-our-tax-dollars-are-funding-low-wage-work-and-fueling-inequali
http://www.thenation.com/blog/174448/hundreds-non-union-workers-taxpayer-supported-jobs-plan-strike-today#
As ever, I like to start with good news where I can. This week I've got a few things which I'm going to run through rather quickly.1. The Boy Scouts of America has voted to allow gay Scouts. The organization has chosen to eliminate sexual orientation as a criterion for youth membership.
It's only a partial victory, since under the new ruling, gay Scout leaders are still banned, leading to the obvious question of at just what age, in the collective minds of the group's leaders, do gays turn from innocent youths into dangerous sexual predators. But for the moment, take what we got.
2. On a different sort of good news, the self-aggrandizing, power-hungry, self-promoting Arizona lawman Joe Arpaio has been found by US District Court Judge Murray Snow to have violated the constitutional rights of Latino drivers in his supposed "crackdown on illegal immigration." Snow ordered him to stop using race or ancestry as a factor in law enforcement decisions. It's about time someone started seeing Arpaio for the bigot he is.
3. It appears that Abercrombie and Fitch may be seeing some real pushback as a result of renewed attention to statements made back in 2006 by CEO Mike Jeffries. In that interview, Jeffries said that "In every school there are the cool kids, and then there are the not-so-cool kids. We go after the cool kids. A lot of people," he said, "don’t belong in our clothes."
This came up again when Robin Lewis, co-author of the recent book "The New Rules of Retail," said in a recent interview that Jeffries doesn't want larger people even to be shopping in his store.Jeffries' sneering dismissal of the worth of, let's just say, an extremely large number of people did not go over well. In response, Jeffries issued this laughable excuse for an apology: "I sincerely regret that my choice of words was interpreted in a manner that has caused offense."
You know those non-apology apologies, the ones where someone says "I'm sorry if anyone was offended," supposedly "apologizing" without actually admitting you did anything wrong? This one does not even rise to that level. It's pathetic.
The good news is that it's possible there has been some impact: The company's US sales fell 17 percent in the first quarter of the year and future profit forecasts have been cut. How much of that is due to anger over Jeffries' culturally-bigoted stupidity can't be told, but still there is likely some.
By the way, that is Mike Jeffries in the photo and in case you're wondering, yes, he dyes his hair blond. Why this guy is so convinced he understands "cool" escapes me.
4. Pope Francis has declared that everyone was redeemed through the death of Jesus, including atheists. All, he said, of all faiths and of no faith can do good and have the duty to do good. Why is this good news? Because it's a heck of a lot more open-minded than his predecessor was.
5. Finally, it's appearing more and more that at least some American workers have finally just had enough. The latest one-day strike by low-wage workers, which took place on May 21, wasn't by employees of Walmart or McDonald's. It was by people who work for companies who are contracted by the federal government to provide staff at landmark Washington, DC, buildings such as Union Station and the Smithsonian. They are among the nearly two million people working for federal contractors around the country at near poverty-level wages while their CEO's can legally be reimbursed by taxpayers for total compensation of over $760,000 per year.Strikers are calling on President Hopey-Changey to lift their wages, which he could do with an executive order - but hasn't.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/boy-scouts-gay-ban-ruling_n_3328541.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/pope-francis-good-atheists_n_3320757.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/24/arpaio-racial-profiling_n_3333907.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/24/abercrombie-sales-ceo-controversy_n_3332601.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
http://www.salon.com/2006/01/24/jeffries/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/abercrombie-fitch-ceo-controversy_n_3286502.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/abercrombie-and-fitch-homeless-brand-readjustment_n_3272498.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/21/1210638/-Obama-could-give-these-striking-low-wage-workers-the-raise-they-need#
http://www.demos.org/publication/underwriting-bad-jobs-how-our-tax-dollars-are-funding-low-wage-work-and-fueling-inequali
http://www.thenation.com/blog/174448/hundreds-non-union-workers-taxpayer-supported-jobs-plan-strike-today#
Left Side of the Aisle #110
Left Side of the Aisle
for the week of May 30 - June 5, 2013
This week:
Good news: BSA, Joe Arpaio, A&F, Pope Francis, strikes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/boy-scouts-gay-ban-ruling_n_3328541.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/pope-francis-good-atheists_n_3320757.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/24/arpaio-racial-profiling_n_3333907.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/24/abercrombie-sales-ceo-controversy_n_3332601.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
http://www.salon.com/2006/01/24/jeffries/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/abercrombie-fitch-ceo-controversy_n_3286502.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/abercrombie-and-fitch-homeless-brand-readjustment_n_3272498.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/21/1210638/-Obama-could-give-these-striking-low-wage-workers-the-raise-they-need#
http://www.demos.org/publication/underwriting-bad-jobs-how-our-tax-dollars-are-funding-low-wage-work-and-fueling-inequali
http://www.thenation.com/blog/174448/hundreds-non-union-workers-taxpayer-supported-jobs-plan-strike-today#
Outrage of the Week: corporate-defined health
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/cvs-workers-insurance_n_2915006.html
http://www.care2.com/causes/fat-michelin-will-cut-your-pay-and-others-might-follow-suit.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/06/employers-adopt-stricter-health-care-policies_n_3029720.html
http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/2012/8346.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/25/workplace-wellness-programs_n_3333974.html
Clown Award: Springboro, Ohio, school board
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/24/springsboro-creationism_n_3333047.html
http://www.whiotv.com/news/news/local/creationism-discussion-slated-in-springboro/nXz5F/
http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/news/creationism-debate-back-in-springboro/nXzWQ/
http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2012Platform_Final.pdf
http://ncse.com/news/2013/05/antievolution-bills-die-missouri-0014848
Update 1: DOJ vs. media
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/nytimes-obama-white-house-doj-investigations_n_3318748.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
Update 2: Kaitlyn Hunt
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/24/kaitlyn_hunt_refuses_plea_offer_will_go_to_court_over_high_school_relationship/
http://www.wpbf.com/news/south-florida/treasure-coast/kaitlyn-hunt-will-not-take-a-plea-deal/-/8882916/20290912/-/kwrq5k/-/index.html
Patriotism
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-2238188.html
http://www.bradleymanning.org/
http://collateralmurder.com/
http://www.bartleby.com/73/1641.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schurz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
