I love that Rachel Maddow has a segment on her show called "Talk Me Down" because I sometimes feel like I really need to be talked down. Especially in the past 2 weeks. I haven't blogged since the middle of October, mostly because the only thing I could think of was the election, at least politically. And I didn't think that I could add anything wiser than what the pundits and journalists (at least the good ones) have been saying. But the stress has been taking it's toll on me. I was talking with my kids yesterday about how I would consider moving to Australia if McCain wins. Ok, maybe that's a little extreme, but I would at least fantasize about it. And the kids and I also had a conversation about torture (it started out with a question about what waterboarding was), war crimes committed by George W. since 9/11, the anti-intellectualism of Palin, etc. You know, the things one would usually discuss with a 9 and 12 year old.
So right now, my blog is mostly functioning to distract me from the incoming election results. But alas, it hasn't really worked, so back to the results...
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Joke the Plumber
Ok, hands up. Who here was a little bit moved to hear about "Joe the Plumber" last night, the hard-working, self-made man from Ohio, who was worried that with Obama's tax proposal, he might not be able to buy the plumbing business that he helped start 15 years ago? Who didn't feel a little twinge of understanding when the candidates described Joe's tough situation, wanting to live the American Dream and finally own his own business? But as McCain pointed out repeatedly, Joe had told Obama at a rally in Toledo that he was afraid that with Obama's tax proposal, he would have to pay significantly more taxes than he would with McCain's proposal, and he just didn't think he would be able to swing the purchase of his business if Obama was president.
Aw, shucks, everybody. Joe the Plumber is exactly what Palin refers to as Joe Six-Pack - the "average American". And he is the reason that everyone should vote for McCain - so that we Americans can all find our own American Dream.
In fact, Joe the Plumber seems almost a little too perfectly average. And his story seems just a tad too convenient from, say, a McCain campaign perspective. And if there's one thing I've learned about politics, it's that the story that's too perfect, isn't a real story.
Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher may really be a plumber - at least he claims to work for a business called "Newell Plumbing and Heating". During the debate, though, it sounded to me like Joe had worked there for his whole adult life - or "for all those years" to quote McCain. Turns out, Joe has only worked there for maybe 6 years by his own admission. And, also a little odd, Joe doesn't have a plumber's license, a fact that he himself freely put forward in an interview this morning. He states he doesn't need one because he is the employee of a plumbing contractor (who is presumably licensed himself). But someone else did some investigating, and it looks like Joe the Plumber is supposed to be licensed if he does any plumbing work in Lucas County - and he's not. Nor is his boss for that matter. It seems really unlikely that Joe is on the verge on buying his own plumbing business if he doesn't even have his own license, and his lack of one also suggests that either a) Joe isn't even a plumber, or b) Joe's working without a license, which is illegal.
Now, Joe seemed very worried about his small business taxes once he bought his company, even after Obama explained to him that his taxes would only increase if his business made more than $250,000 a year in revenue. But Poor Joe still seemed worried that he probably wouldn't be able to afford to buy his own piece of the American Dream at all if Obama is elected. It's a real tragedy that the increase that Obama proposes on businesses that earn more than $250,000 yearly in revenue will make old Joe suffer. And let's be clear - the increase that is going to trample old Joe's dream is a whopping 3%. Yep, folks, Obama's proposal would raise those business taxes from 36% (the current rate under G.W. Bush) to an absolutely unheard of 39%! Except, well, Joe admitted today that the business isn't even close to making $250,000 yearly. That's what he would pay to buy it.
So, once again, I am forced to ask, how dumb does the McCain campaign think we really are? Are we really supposed to believe that Joe the Plumber doesn't want a break in his taxes now, when our economy is tanking, the housing market is falling to pieces, and unemployment is steadily rising? He would rather vote against a possible tax increase sometime in the future, IF he manages to buy his own business, and IF it does well enough to earn revenues of over $250,000, than receive a tax break NOW. And let's face it, if Joe makes about the same income as the other folks in Holland, Ohio, he probably could use a tax break right now. The average household income in Holland in 2007 was $39,600.
And if it seems a little too convenient that Joe just happened to show up at an Obama rally, and happened to have a pressing question for Obama that had no relation whatsoever to his own situation, but was the one plausible situation a plumber might be in that would mean he would have to pay higher taxes under Obama's proposal, then it probably is. As I noted above, the fact that he doesn't have a plumbing license raises the issue of whether he is even a plumber. And, it turns out that Joe Wurzelbacher is a registered Republican. And he voted Republican in the primary. So it's pretty safe to say that he isn't undecided. He wasn't at the Obama rally to try to make an informed decision between the candidates. He was there as a plant, to try to make Obama's tax proposal look bad for Joe the Plumber Six-Pack American.
If I sound a little too cynical, it's because I am. But my cynicism is not without basis. Let's add this little fact into the mix. Joe shares his last name with a guy named Robert. Robert lives in Milford, Ohio. Robert has a father-in-law names Charles Keating. Robert worked in Keating's company, and plead guilty and served time for his part in the Lincoln Savings scandal that lost many Americans' life savings and cost the taxpayers billions. And Joe is Robert's son. Now, sure, coincidences happen. But statistical impossibilities don't.
Aw, shucks, everybody. Joe the Plumber is exactly what Palin refers to as Joe Six-Pack - the "average American". And he is the reason that everyone should vote for McCain - so that we Americans can all find our own American Dream.
In fact, Joe the Plumber seems almost a little too perfectly average. And his story seems just a tad too convenient from, say, a McCain campaign perspective. And if there's one thing I've learned about politics, it's that the story that's too perfect, isn't a real story.
Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher may really be a plumber - at least he claims to work for a business called "Newell Plumbing and Heating". During the debate, though, it sounded to me like Joe had worked there for his whole adult life - or "for all those years" to quote McCain. Turns out, Joe has only worked there for maybe 6 years by his own admission. And, also a little odd, Joe doesn't have a plumber's license, a fact that he himself freely put forward in an interview this morning. He states he doesn't need one because he is the employee of a plumbing contractor (who is presumably licensed himself). But someone else did some investigating, and it looks like Joe the Plumber is supposed to be licensed if he does any plumbing work in Lucas County - and he's not. Nor is his boss for that matter. It seems really unlikely that Joe is on the verge on buying his own plumbing business if he doesn't even have his own license, and his lack of one also suggests that either a) Joe isn't even a plumber, or b) Joe's working without a license, which is illegal.
Now, Joe seemed very worried about his small business taxes once he bought his company, even after Obama explained to him that his taxes would only increase if his business made more than $250,000 a year in revenue. But Poor Joe still seemed worried that he probably wouldn't be able to afford to buy his own piece of the American Dream at all if Obama is elected. It's a real tragedy that the increase that Obama proposes on businesses that earn more than $250,000 yearly in revenue will make old Joe suffer. And let's be clear - the increase that is going to trample old Joe's dream is a whopping 3%. Yep, folks, Obama's proposal would raise those business taxes from 36% (the current rate under G.W. Bush) to an absolutely unheard of 39%! Except, well, Joe admitted today that the business isn't even close to making $250,000 yearly. That's what he would pay to buy it.
So, once again, I am forced to ask, how dumb does the McCain campaign think we really are? Are we really supposed to believe that Joe the Plumber doesn't want a break in his taxes now, when our economy is tanking, the housing market is falling to pieces, and unemployment is steadily rising? He would rather vote against a possible tax increase sometime in the future, IF he manages to buy his own business, and IF it does well enough to earn revenues of over $250,000, than receive a tax break NOW. And let's face it, if Joe makes about the same income as the other folks in Holland, Ohio, he probably could use a tax break right now. The average household income in Holland in 2007 was $39,600.
And if it seems a little too convenient that Joe just happened to show up at an Obama rally, and happened to have a pressing question for Obama that had no relation whatsoever to his own situation, but was the one plausible situation a plumber might be in that would mean he would have to pay higher taxes under Obama's proposal, then it probably is. As I noted above, the fact that he doesn't have a plumbing license raises the issue of whether he is even a plumber. And, it turns out that Joe Wurzelbacher is a registered Republican. And he voted Republican in the primary. So it's pretty safe to say that he isn't undecided. He wasn't at the Obama rally to try to make an informed decision between the candidates. He was there as a plant, to try to make Obama's tax proposal look bad for Joe the Plumber Six-Pack American.
If I sound a little too cynical, it's because I am. But my cynicism is not without basis. Let's add this little fact into the mix. Joe shares his last name with a guy named Robert. Robert lives in Milford, Ohio. Robert has a father-in-law names Charles Keating. Robert worked in Keating's company, and plead guilty and served time for his part in the Lincoln Savings scandal that lost many Americans' life savings and cost the taxpayers billions. And Joe is Robert's son. Now, sure, coincidences happen. But statistical impossibilities don't.
McCain Mocks Other People's Tragedies
A 28 year old woman is at home, talking with her husband, when she starts slurring her words. He notices it first, and asks her what is happening. Before she can answer, she collapses. He calls 911 and she is taken to the hospital, unconscious. She has been absolutely healthy her entire life. In the ambulance the paramedic discovers that her blood pressure is dangerously high. From the ER she is rushed to the CT scanner, and a scan of her brain shows that she is having a hemorrhagic stroke - she is bleeding into the brain tissue itself. Attempts to lower her blood pressure are not successful, and it is clear that the bleeding will continue, and she will die, if her blood pressure isn't brought down. Since medications aren't working, the doctors know that there is only one thing that will lower her blood pressure. She is still comatose, and her husband listens carefully to the doctor's explanation of the situation, as well as the one treatment that is still untried and is truly the only chance to save her life. He gives the doctor the permission to perform the life-saving procedure. Her 4 month old fetus is aborted. In the 24 hours following the procedure, her blood pressure falls to safe levels, and she regains consciousness a few days later. She is left with speech difficulty, as well as weakness in one leg that will require the use of a walker, probably for the rest of her life.
But she is alive.
Terminating a pregnancy for the health of the mother is no joke. No one takes the decision lightly, not the woman, the father, the doctor - no one. And for John McCain to trivialize the tragic true story that I just described tells me two things about him. First of all, he has never been that woman's husband, or father, or brother. And secondly, John McCain is incapable of compassion for his fellow human beings. If he were to have declared that he could not morally condone abortion even to save the life of the mother, but acknowledged that a circumstance in which that decision would have to be made was clearly painful and difficult for all involved, he would have at least shown that he was capable of human decency. But instead he chose to mock those women and men who must face one of the most terrible events of their lives. And I will never trust my country to a man who makes a mockery out of other people's pain.
But she is alive.
Terminating a pregnancy for the health of the mother is no joke. No one takes the decision lightly, not the woman, the father, the doctor - no one. And for John McCain to trivialize the tragic true story that I just described tells me two things about him. First of all, he has never been that woman's husband, or father, or brother. And secondly, John McCain is incapable of compassion for his fellow human beings. If he were to have declared that he could not morally condone abortion even to save the life of the mother, but acknowledged that a circumstance in which that decision would have to be made was clearly painful and difficult for all involved, he would have at least shown that he was capable of human decency. But instead he chose to mock those women and men who must face one of the most terrible events of their lives. And I will never trust my country to a man who makes a mockery out of other people's pain.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Mr. Deregulation Wants to Gamble with Your Health
Yesterday was a very frustrating day. Aside from having my lunch spoiled by some Palin Mombies on CNN (see post from 10/14) I also had what was a relaxing drive ruined by a McCain radio advertisement. McCain/Palin political ads have become like aural car accidents for me - I'm horrified at what I'm hearing, but I can't turn away. And so it was yesterday, when for the first time I heard an ad comparing the health care coverage proposals put forth by both candidates, from a McCain point of view. And what a convoluted tale it was! It was really difficult to keep from yelling at the radio in protest of all the lies, distortions, and sleaze, but since that wouldn't have amounted to anything productive, I decided to do a little research and blog about it.
Turns out that Mr. Deregulation can't limit himself to large corporations, finances, mortgages, and the stock market. Now he wants to deregulate health care coverage. His proposal would virtually eliminate regulation of private insurance companies. McCain's goal here is to allow people to buy insurance from different states, with the idea that a state other than the one you live in may have a company that offers cheaper insurance for you. Now, there's a saying used in all walks of life that is applicable here. You really do get what you pay for, even as far as health care goes. The companies that offer the cheapest insurance coverage plans today are the same ones that severely restrict what medications they pay for, which doctors they pay for, which ancillary services are covered, what hospitals you can be admitted to, and what studies are covered. It's really simple economics, my friends. If an insurance company is asking very little money from you to give you coverage, then that company has very little money to pay out for your health care. And what little money you pay them is first reduced by the percent they keep to "administer" your plan for you.
So ask yourselves. Do you want to go to the doctor that offers the cheapest medical care in your state? And if that doctor is over an hour from your home, do you want to have to drive that long to see him or her, or would you rather go to a doctor who is in your hometown? Do you want to go to the University Hospital in your area, where the doctors really are the best in the country, in order to have your cancer treated? Or is it just as good to go to a community hospital that may or may not offer high quality care, but is the cheapest for your insurance company? Do you want your doctor to make the decisions about what medical tests are necessary for you, or do you want the insurance company to do that, whose decision-makers are not trained in ANY medical field? If your doctor believes that you need physical therapy, but your insurance company disagrees so they won't cover any, is it ok that you just don't get physical therapy? If your life might be saved by an experimental cancer treatment, but your insurance won't cover it, are you comfortable with just dying instead?
Because all of these things are happening today, right now, for some people who are unable to afford better health insurance. And the only defense that patients and their doctors have against these sometimes unfair and occasionally dangerous practices is the fact that there are regulations that govern insurance companies. These regulations make it clear that some "corner cutting" measures that insurers try to implement are not legal. Today, you and your doctor can fight and usually win against an insurance company that is trying to save money at your expense. But if McCain is elected, he will eliminate these protections, and there will be nothing that you or your doctor (at least the one you used to see, who you now aren't allowed to go to) will be able to do about it. Think about the economic crisis our country is now experiencing. There is very clear evidence that deregulation of mortgage companies and banks is largely responsible for this mess. The tragedy of this deregulation is that people are losing their homes and savings. The deregulation of health insurance may have far more dire consequences.
Let's forget for right now that John McCain's health care proposal will mean that more families have to pay for their own coverage than already do, because his proposal will effectively increase the costs of health care premiums for your employer, and therefore some of them will choose not to continue to pay for any health insurance at all. And forget that his "tax credit" will simply be eaten up by the taxes you will now have to pay on the money (if any) your employer does contribute to your health care plan, as if the premiums were part of your salary. And don't worry about the fact that McCain does not feel like he needs to make sure that all Americans have health care coverage, and that after 10 years following his plan, only 2 million more Americans will have coverage than do today (and that means that 44 million of us still won't have any). And that McCain's plan, on top of deregulation, doesn't include any measures to make certain that the quality of health care in this country improves. And ignore what we all know really happens with deregulation on this country - that a few greedy people (often personal friends of John and Cindy!) get richer, while the vast majority of Americans pay the price when our lives get worse.
Right now, think about what you want to happen to your own child if they become seriously ill under McCain's health care proposal. Are you willing to gamble on your child's life, and hope that the handful of doctors that your insurance company will pay for are smart enough to figure out what's going on, especially if your insurer won't pay for some of the tests that the doctor needs in order to make a diagnosis? What if you are still one of the many uninsured Americans, and you can't afford to go to any doctor? And what if the medication that has the best chance of helping your son or daughter isn't covered by your insurance company, and McCain's deregulation means that you don't even have the chance to fight that decision? Because those dilemmas will be a part of the future for many Americans if John McCain is elected. And unlike John McCain, most of us are not ridiculously rich, so we won't be able to afford to pay out of our own pockets to get the best care available. It seems that it's quite easy for McCain to make our country's health care situation even worse when he and his children won't be affected.
I don't know about you, but my son and daughter are far too precious to me to allow John McCain to leave their fates up to the lowest bidder.
Turns out that Mr. Deregulation can't limit himself to large corporations, finances, mortgages, and the stock market. Now he wants to deregulate health care coverage. His proposal would virtually eliminate regulation of private insurance companies. McCain's goal here is to allow people to buy insurance from different states, with the idea that a state other than the one you live in may have a company that offers cheaper insurance for you. Now, there's a saying used in all walks of life that is applicable here. You really do get what you pay for, even as far as health care goes. The companies that offer the cheapest insurance coverage plans today are the same ones that severely restrict what medications they pay for, which doctors they pay for, which ancillary services are covered, what hospitals you can be admitted to, and what studies are covered. It's really simple economics, my friends. If an insurance company is asking very little money from you to give you coverage, then that company has very little money to pay out for your health care. And what little money you pay them is first reduced by the percent they keep to "administer" your plan for you.
So ask yourselves. Do you want to go to the doctor that offers the cheapest medical care in your state? And if that doctor is over an hour from your home, do you want to have to drive that long to see him or her, or would you rather go to a doctor who is in your hometown? Do you want to go to the University Hospital in your area, where the doctors really are the best in the country, in order to have your cancer treated? Or is it just as good to go to a community hospital that may or may not offer high quality care, but is the cheapest for your insurance company? Do you want your doctor to make the decisions about what medical tests are necessary for you, or do you want the insurance company to do that, whose decision-makers are not trained in ANY medical field? If your doctor believes that you need physical therapy, but your insurance company disagrees so they won't cover any, is it ok that you just don't get physical therapy? If your life might be saved by an experimental cancer treatment, but your insurance won't cover it, are you comfortable with just dying instead?
Because all of these things are happening today, right now, for some people who are unable to afford better health insurance. And the only defense that patients and their doctors have against these sometimes unfair and occasionally dangerous practices is the fact that there are regulations that govern insurance companies. These regulations make it clear that some "corner cutting" measures that insurers try to implement are not legal. Today, you and your doctor can fight and usually win against an insurance company that is trying to save money at your expense. But if McCain is elected, he will eliminate these protections, and there will be nothing that you or your doctor (at least the one you used to see, who you now aren't allowed to go to) will be able to do about it. Think about the economic crisis our country is now experiencing. There is very clear evidence that deregulation of mortgage companies and banks is largely responsible for this mess. The tragedy of this deregulation is that people are losing their homes and savings. The deregulation of health insurance may have far more dire consequences.
Let's forget for right now that John McCain's health care proposal will mean that more families have to pay for their own coverage than already do, because his proposal will effectively increase the costs of health care premiums for your employer, and therefore some of them will choose not to continue to pay for any health insurance at all. And forget that his "tax credit" will simply be eaten up by the taxes you will now have to pay on the money (if any) your employer does contribute to your health care plan, as if the premiums were part of your salary. And don't worry about the fact that McCain does not feel like he needs to make sure that all Americans have health care coverage, and that after 10 years following his plan, only 2 million more Americans will have coverage than do today (and that means that 44 million of us still won't have any). And that McCain's plan, on top of deregulation, doesn't include any measures to make certain that the quality of health care in this country improves. And ignore what we all know really happens with deregulation on this country - that a few greedy people (often personal friends of John and Cindy!) get richer, while the vast majority of Americans pay the price when our lives get worse.
Right now, think about what you want to happen to your own child if they become seriously ill under McCain's health care proposal. Are you willing to gamble on your child's life, and hope that the handful of doctors that your insurance company will pay for are smart enough to figure out what's going on, especially if your insurer won't pay for some of the tests that the doctor needs in order to make a diagnosis? What if you are still one of the many uninsured Americans, and you can't afford to go to any doctor? And what if the medication that has the best chance of helping your son or daughter isn't covered by your insurance company, and McCain's deregulation means that you don't even have the chance to fight that decision? Because those dilemmas will be a part of the future for many Americans if John McCain is elected. And unlike John McCain, most of us are not ridiculously rich, so we won't be able to afford to pay out of our own pockets to get the best care available. It seems that it's quite easy for McCain to make our country's health care situation even worse when he and his children won't be affected.
I don't know about you, but my son and daughter are far too precious to me to allow John McCain to leave their fates up to the lowest bidder.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Another Good Meal Ruined by Palin "Mombies"
Ok. I'm sitting at the bar of this place that I love, eating a fantastic burger and hot chips, when a piece starts on CNN about Palin supporters. All wearing "McCain/Palin" t-shirts, and all with oddly blank looks on their faces, these women were talking about the evils of Obama. The "spokesperson" of this mindless group proudly proclaimed that she didn't want anyone in the White House who has been "pallin' around with terrorists". Talk about ruining a great meal.
To paraphrase Ripley in Aliens, "Did IQ's sharply drop while I was away?" What reasonably sane person could actually still believe that Obama's involvement with Ayers in any way could be construed as "pallin' around"? It's not as if they have been seen hanging out at their corner bar, swapping tales about the good old days over beers. There is no indication that Obama has drawn any of his social or political beliefs from Ayers, or that he has ever taken advice from him. Nor does Obama have anyone advising him that used to work with or aid Ayers in any way. That sort of "terrorist pal", shall we call them, doesn't work for Obama - he works for McCain.
Yes, folks, John McCain has hired a man who worked (thru two agents) with Saddam Hussein himself, trying to get our government to relax its sanctions against Iraq, and get himself a really fat oil deal in the process. And this was after the Gulf War, in case any slow-minded McCain/Palin supporters are having trouble following this. That means that Saddam was a bad guy then. We had just been at war with him. So trying to help Saddam out, while making a little dough for yourself, could perhaps be seen as treason (if one was cynical, that is). Yes, the man I am talking about is one William Timmons, a lobbyist, whom McCain himself hired to be the head of the team that would help McCain make the transition to the presidency if, god help us, McCain actually wins.
So, let's just sum this up so that we all understand. McCain will put a man who used to pal around with Saddam Hussein in charge of setting up the next presidency of the United States. Did everyone get that? Do I need to repeat that?
Now I am not saying that Mr. Timmons' past associations necessarily mean that he is corrupt, anti-American, or untrustworthy (but, duh, obviously he is). But a candidate "pallin' around" with Saddam Hussein's old friend seems a hell of a lot more scary than one who is "pallin around" with Bill Ayers. So if McCain has any brains left (though I am concerned that his are mostly gone given his actions of the past month) he would drop his ridiculous tirades against Obama over Ayers. After all, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Sadly, though, I doubt that any action on the part of McCain now will quiet his mindless supporters. They no longer seem capable of independent thought, and at this point are just spewing out whatever propaganda Palin and McCain articulate. Who would have guessed that hockey moms throughout the United States could be so easily zombified (or "mombified" as I like to say) just by the sound of McCain's high-pitched desperate slurs or Palin's power-hungry mantras.
Next time, I'm watching ESPN while I eat.
To paraphrase Ripley in Aliens, "Did IQ's sharply drop while I was away?" What reasonably sane person could actually still believe that Obama's involvement with Ayers in any way could be construed as "pallin' around"? It's not as if they have been seen hanging out at their corner bar, swapping tales about the good old days over beers. There is no indication that Obama has drawn any of his social or political beliefs from Ayers, or that he has ever taken advice from him. Nor does Obama have anyone advising him that used to work with or aid Ayers in any way. That sort of "terrorist pal", shall we call them, doesn't work for Obama - he works for McCain.
Yes, folks, John McCain has hired a man who worked (thru two agents) with Saddam Hussein himself, trying to get our government to relax its sanctions against Iraq, and get himself a really fat oil deal in the process. And this was after the Gulf War, in case any slow-minded McCain/Palin supporters are having trouble following this. That means that Saddam was a bad guy then. We had just been at war with him. So trying to help Saddam out, while making a little dough for yourself, could perhaps be seen as treason (if one was cynical, that is). Yes, the man I am talking about is one William Timmons, a lobbyist, whom McCain himself hired to be the head of the team that would help McCain make the transition to the presidency if, god help us, McCain actually wins.
So, let's just sum this up so that we all understand. McCain will put a man who used to pal around with Saddam Hussein in charge of setting up the next presidency of the United States. Did everyone get that? Do I need to repeat that?
Now I am not saying that Mr. Timmons' past associations necessarily mean that he is corrupt, anti-American, or untrustworthy (but, duh, obviously he is). But a candidate "pallin' around" with Saddam Hussein's old friend seems a hell of a lot more scary than one who is "pallin around" with Bill Ayers. So if McCain has any brains left (though I am concerned that his are mostly gone given his actions of the past month) he would drop his ridiculous tirades against Obama over Ayers. After all, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Sadly, though, I doubt that any action on the part of McCain now will quiet his mindless supporters. They no longer seem capable of independent thought, and at this point are just spewing out whatever propaganda Palin and McCain articulate. Who would have guessed that hockey moms throughout the United States could be so easily zombified (or "mombified" as I like to say) just by the sound of McCain's high-pitched desperate slurs or Palin's power-hungry mantras.
Next time, I'm watching ESPN while I eat.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Kimberley Strassel's Amazing Imagination
Just this morning I was lucky enough to read an op/ed piece by a woman named Kimberley Strassel. I suppose I never heard of her before because she is a member of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, and I do not often peruse its pages. And while I usually disagree with the opinions of the members of the editorial board of that paper, I can't really dispute the fact that the writers are very smart and well educated, which combined means that I have to begrudgingly acknowledge the intelligence of their arguments.
But Ms. Strassel is quite a different story. Her opinion piece published today oh-so-cleverly compares Obama to a magician. And she manages, inexplicably and tediously, to construct a full 11 paragraphs devoted entirely to elaborating upon her witty idea. The trite content of her piece - filled with catchy phrases like "Abracadabra!", "Presto!", "a flick of his finger", "Hocus Pocus!" and "Tada!" - is overshadowed only by her elitism and utter disdain for the people of this country who actually have to work hard to get by today. She states (and please excuse the insulting use of sarcasm - it's a direct quote):
What Ms. Strassel fails to mention is that, first of all, the "40% of Americans who don't pay taxes" includes all of the dependents of adults who are not required by the current tax code to pay federal taxes. So apparently your 3 children under the age of 12 are seen by Ms. Strassel as people who should be paying taxes. Readjusted to reflect reality, then, the number of American earners who don't pay taxes is actually about 20%. She also fails to mention that the vast majority of people who fall below the cutoff for paying federal income taxes (93% of them at least), make less than $30,000 yearly. And another 4% earn under $40,000 yearly.
She does have a point when she states (again, pardon the condescending language - hers not mine):
However, I feel I need to point out that first of all, not all of the people included in the top 1% of taxpayers are small-business owners. Some of them are CEOs of large corporations, attorneys, overpaid members of editorial boards, etc. And to be in the top 1% of taxpayers, you had to have an adjusted gross income of over $388,806 (that figure is from 2006 - I doubt it has changed much since then). Let me repeat that - one has to earn over $388,000 to be in the top 1% of taxpayers. And yes, they do indeed shoulder the majority of the federal tax burden in this country. But who, if not those people, can afford to pay taxes? Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution based on the desire to create a unified country and society, not to benefit 1% of the population. As John Adams wrote in 1776:
And although Ms. Strassel tries to make us feel sorry for the corporations in this country who pay such high corporate tax rates, she fails to mention an important fact. IT IS THE INDIVIDUAL AMERICAN TAXPAYER WHO SHOULDERS THE MAJORITY OF THE CORPORATE TAX BURDEN, in the form of higher prices, lower wages, and poorer returns on investments. The average American household in fact pays $3,190 yearly for corporate income taxes, to the tune of $370 billion total in 2007. That amount accounts for 70% of the total corporate tax burden for the year, which means that the corporations themselves (i.e. shareholders) pay only 30% of those taxes. Thus the "highest corporate tax rates in the developed world" aren't even paid for by the corporations. They are paid for by us, the American taxpayers. And it gets even better. It turns out that the poorest households are the ones who share the largest burden of those corporate taxes (based on percent of income).
I could go on for quite a while longer pointing out the other distortions, half-truths, and lies contained in this article, but it's getting really irritating to have to keep reading her article. Before I end, though, I have to wonder how it is that Ms. Strassel came to write such a piece. Yes, it is an opinion, and therefore she is entitled to say whatever she wants in it. But I would have hoped that there was at least a small amount of attention to actual facts. Ms. Strassel throws out all sorts of "facts" in the article, but neglects to cite any references. That in itself makes all her information suspect. So is it that she is intentionally deceptive, lying simply to try to sway people to her opinion? Or is it a matter of not understanding the information? She received a Bachelor's Degree from Princeton, but hasn't pursued any graduate level work. This may explain why she uses data that are patently wrong, applied incorrectly, or misinterpreted by her. She may not have the background to analyze complex issues like tax burden, foreign policy, and politics.
Either way, her opinion piece would be called more appropriately "fantasy fiction". At least I could laugh about it then.
But Ms. Strassel is quite a different story. Her opinion piece published today oh-so-cleverly compares Obama to a magician. And she manages, inexplicably and tediously, to construct a full 11 paragraphs devoted entirely to elaborating upon her witty idea. The trite content of her piece - filled with catchy phrases like "Abracadabra!", "Presto!", "a flick of his finger", "Hocus Pocus!" and "Tada!" - is overshadowed only by her elitism and utter disdain for the people of this country who actually have to work hard to get by today. She states (and please excuse the insulting use of sarcasm - it's a direct quote):
To kick off our show tonight, Mr. Obama will give 95% of American working families a tax cut, even though 40% of Americans today don't pay income taxes! How can our star enact such mathemagic? How can he "cut" zero? Abracadabra! It's called a "refundable tax credit." It involves the federal government taking money from those who do pay taxes, and writing checks to those who don't. Yes, yes, in the real world this is known as "welfare," but please try not to ruin the show.
What Ms. Strassel fails to mention is that, first of all, the "40% of Americans who don't pay taxes" includes all of the dependents of adults who are not required by the current tax code to pay federal taxes. So apparently your 3 children under the age of 12 are seen by Ms. Strassel as people who should be paying taxes. Readjusted to reflect reality, then, the number of American earners who don't pay taxes is actually about 20%. She also fails to mention that the vast majority of people who fall below the cutoff for paying federal income taxes (93% of them at least), make less than $30,000 yearly. And another 4% earn under $40,000 yearly.
She does have a point when she states (again, pardon the condescending language - hers not mine):
For his next trick, the Great Obama will jumpstart the economy, and he'll do it by raising taxes on the very businesses that are today adrift in a financial tsunami! That will include all those among the top 1% of taxpayers who are in fact small-business owners, and the nation's biggest employers who currently pay some of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world.
However, I feel I need to point out that first of all, not all of the people included in the top 1% of taxpayers are small-business owners. Some of them are CEOs of large corporations, attorneys, overpaid members of editorial boards, etc. And to be in the top 1% of taxpayers, you had to have an adjusted gross income of over $388,806 (that figure is from 2006 - I doubt it has changed much since then). Let me repeat that - one has to earn over $388,000 to be in the top 1% of taxpayers. And yes, they do indeed shoulder the majority of the federal tax burden in this country. But who, if not those people, can afford to pay taxes? Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution based on the desire to create a unified country and society, not to benefit 1% of the population. As John Adams wrote in 1776:
Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.
And although Ms. Strassel tries to make us feel sorry for the corporations in this country who pay such high corporate tax rates, she fails to mention an important fact. IT IS THE INDIVIDUAL AMERICAN TAXPAYER WHO SHOULDERS THE MAJORITY OF THE CORPORATE TAX BURDEN, in the form of higher prices, lower wages, and poorer returns on investments. The average American household in fact pays $3,190 yearly for corporate income taxes, to the tune of $370 billion total in 2007. That amount accounts for 70% of the total corporate tax burden for the year, which means that the corporations themselves (i.e. shareholders) pay only 30% of those taxes. Thus the "highest corporate tax rates in the developed world" aren't even paid for by the corporations. They are paid for by us, the American taxpayers. And it gets even better. It turns out that the poorest households are the ones who share the largest burden of those corporate taxes (based on percent of income).
I could go on for quite a while longer pointing out the other distortions, half-truths, and lies contained in this article, but it's getting really irritating to have to keep reading her article. Before I end, though, I have to wonder how it is that Ms. Strassel came to write such a piece. Yes, it is an opinion, and therefore she is entitled to say whatever she wants in it. But I would have hoped that there was at least a small amount of attention to actual facts. Ms. Strassel throws out all sorts of "facts" in the article, but neglects to cite any references. That in itself makes all her information suspect. So is it that she is intentionally deceptive, lying simply to try to sway people to her opinion? Or is it a matter of not understanding the information? She received a Bachelor's Degree from Princeton, but hasn't pursued any graduate level work. This may explain why she uses data that are patently wrong, applied incorrectly, or misinterpreted by her. She may not have the background to analyze complex issues like tax burden, foreign policy, and politics.
Either way, her opinion piece would be called more appropriately "fantasy fiction". At least I could laugh about it then.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Cindy McCain's Memory Lapse
I just saw that Cindy McCain has accused Obama of waging "the dirtiest campaign in American history". This stunning comment comes out of the mouth of the woman whose husband had his campaign decimated in 2000 by vicious mud-slinging from the Bush campaign prior to the primary. In that year, McCain was referred to as a coward who collaborated with the Vietnamese, a weak-minded fool driven insane by his years as a P.O.W., a "gay sympathizer" (which I guess is bad if you're a Republican), an unstable person with a violent temper who couldn't be trusted with the control of nuclear weapons, and the father of an illegitimate black child by a prostitute.
Compared to those smears, Obama's referral to McCain as "erratic" seems really mild. And the recent discussion of McCain's role in the Keating 5 scandal by Obama's campaign isn't a smear because, well, it's the truth. John McCain was investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee for his role in the scandal, and McCain himself referred to his involvement as "the worst mistake of my life".
Cindy's apparent memory lapse suggests a couple of possibilities. Maybe her stroke has left her with long-term memory loss, and she no longer recalls anything from the years prior to 2001. Her history of drug addiction also brings up the possibility that she was, um, high throughout her husband's 2000 bid. That would definitely have made 2000 seem like a pretty good year.
Compared to those smears, Obama's referral to McCain as "erratic" seems really mild. And the recent discussion of McCain's role in the Keating 5 scandal by Obama's campaign isn't a smear because, well, it's the truth. John McCain was investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee for his role in the scandal, and McCain himself referred to his involvement as "the worst mistake of my life".
Cindy's apparent memory lapse suggests a couple of possibilities. Maybe her stroke has left her with long-term memory loss, and she no longer recalls anything from the years prior to 2001. Her history of drug addiction also brings up the possibility that she was, um, high throughout her husband's 2000 bid. That would definitely have made 2000 seem like a pretty good year.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
You Are No Christian, Sarah Palin
I have to first state that I have never been a fan of Sarah Palin. Heck, I didn't even know she was the governor of Alaska before she was hurled into the spotlight as a potential leader of the USA by John McCain's selection of her for his running mate. And there has been nothing about her that impressed me. To champion mediocrity as a desirable quality in a candidate for Vice-President of what is arguably the most powerful country on earth is absolutely ridiculous. She has very little experience, if any, in any the most touchy issues facing our country at this very moment, specifically our foreign policies and economic woes. And for a woman who graduated from college with a degree in journalism, she clearly hasn't ever read any news source for any information. The implication of that tidbit is that indeed, she HAS no information about issues important to our country and the world (at least not until her recent crash courses in all areas political given by her posse of tutors). Because face it, anyone who follows any news is able to name what sources they obtain their information from, even if the only source they can list is Fox Cable News.
But her less than impressive education, her obvious lack of concern about the environment, her average intelligence, all pale in comparison to the deplorable tactic she is now employing in what seems to be a nasty and desperate attempt to gain power. For a woman who calls herself a Christian, who champions all life (including that of the fertilized ovum), and who points her finger disdainfully at others for what she perceives as lack of morality, she is herself encouraging a despicable lack of concern for other's lives.
At recent rallies for Palin (and McCain for that matter), audience members have shouted comments such as "Terrorist!" "Treason!" and (my personal favorite) "Kill him!" all in reference to Obama. While the "kill him" speaks for itself as far as its meaning, the implications of the other two interjections are only thinly veiled. We all know what happens to people convicted of treason and terrorism in this country, don't we? And Palin stood by and said nothing about these comments. No admonishment of the crowd member, no remark about refocusing energy on implementing change or into helping her get elected.
We all know exactly what her lack of reaction means. Her refusal to condemn those types of comments for their outright hatred instead condones them. She encourages that sort of mindset by not addressing it, and our history shows that blind hatred and prejudice are very catching, especially when they occur in a crowd of susceptible people. And world history also makes clear that harder times make people more likely to turn anger into violence, without logic or reason tempering it.
So shame on you, Sarah Palin. How dare you call yourself a Christian? How dare you make the claim that you are in favor of the protection of "all life", when you do nothing to address your supporters' suggestions that another human doesn't deserve to be alive for nothing more than his political views or acquaintances? You are no Christian, Ms. Palin, if you cannot show the same tolerance and love for all people that Jesus Christ did in the Bible.
But her less than impressive education, her obvious lack of concern about the environment, her average intelligence, all pale in comparison to the deplorable tactic she is now employing in what seems to be a nasty and desperate attempt to gain power. For a woman who calls herself a Christian, who champions all life (including that of the fertilized ovum), and who points her finger disdainfully at others for what she perceives as lack of morality, she is herself encouraging a despicable lack of concern for other's lives.
At recent rallies for Palin (and McCain for that matter), audience members have shouted comments such as "Terrorist!" "Treason!" and (my personal favorite) "Kill him!" all in reference to Obama. While the "kill him" speaks for itself as far as its meaning, the implications of the other two interjections are only thinly veiled. We all know what happens to people convicted of treason and terrorism in this country, don't we? And Palin stood by and said nothing about these comments. No admonishment of the crowd member, no remark about refocusing energy on implementing change or into helping her get elected.
We all know exactly what her lack of reaction means. Her refusal to condemn those types of comments for their outright hatred instead condones them. She encourages that sort of mindset by not addressing it, and our history shows that blind hatred and prejudice are very catching, especially when they occur in a crowd of susceptible people. And world history also makes clear that harder times make people more likely to turn anger into violence, without logic or reason tempering it.
So shame on you, Sarah Palin. How dare you call yourself a Christian? How dare you make the claim that you are in favor of the protection of "all life", when you do nothing to address your supporters' suggestions that another human doesn't deserve to be alive for nothing more than his political views or acquaintances? You are no Christian, Ms. Palin, if you cannot show the same tolerance and love for all people that Jesus Christ did in the Bible.
Monday, October 6, 2008
McCain / Fey for President
I told my daughter that I was tempted to put up one of those wire and cardboard candidate signs in my front yard. But my sign was one I would have to make myself. I doubt that McCain will actually drop Palin as his Vice-Presidential candidate. He's not the kind of guy who admits defeat, even if his continued battle brings him to ruin. And it has become painfully obvious that he has a tremendous ego, and admitting mistakes isn't something he does voluntarily, but only when forced to by disciplinary action of the Senate.
But just think about it. Tina Fey is so much smarter than Palin it doesn't seem fair to even compare them. Fey is more qualified to be Vice-President simply on the basis of her superior intellect, but her lack of the blind, arrogant ambition that propels Palin recklessly forward makes her a far wiser choice as well.
So say it with me - McCain/Fey 2008! Well, alright, I still wouldn't vote for John McCain, but at least I wouldn't have lost all my respect for him.
And if you aren't convinced yet, here's a little evidence that people may not even notice if McCain switches fey for Palin.
But just think about it. Tina Fey is so much smarter than Palin it doesn't seem fair to even compare them. Fey is more qualified to be Vice-President simply on the basis of her superior intellect, but her lack of the blind, arrogant ambition that propels Palin recklessly forward makes her a far wiser choice as well.
So say it with me - McCain/Fey 2008! Well, alright, I still wouldn't vote for John McCain, but at least I wouldn't have lost all my respect for him.
And if you aren't convinced yet, here's a little evidence that people may not even notice if McCain switches fey for Palin.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Tragedy of Tasers Extends Beyond the Victim
The last blog I posted was one I had been mulling over for a while. I have had enormous concerns about Tasers for years, and most of those I didn't even include in my blog (but it was getting too damn long, so I had to wrap it up). I believed that were a tool that, like many others, has been abused by law enforcement agents since its introduction.
We have all heard at least some of the horror stories involving the use of a Taser in really questionable circumstances - on the guy in a diabetic coma on the bus in Great Britain; on the blind old lady who thought the police were intruders in her home; on the 16 year old kid (19 times!) on the ground already with a broken back after a fall; on the 18 year old man in Florida who was tied to a hospital bed at the time. And there are many more.
Tragically, the most recent Taser death has affected more than the family members and friends of the mentally ill Brooklyn man who fell after being Tased by police while he stood on a ledge. Yesterday the lieutenant who gave the order to use the Taser committed suicide. No one can truly know what his thoughts were in the days before his suicide, but I suspect they centered around profound guilt and remorse. Yet Lieutenant Pigott's order was simply a reflection of the pervasive casual attitude that has permeated police forces around the world. Tasers have become the easy way out for officers, replacing the verbal means that used to be employed to safely resolve some dangerous situations. They are fast, effective, and simple to use. And they allow the user to be utterly detached from the person they are targeting, both physically and, more significantly, emotionally. That is the most profound danger of Tasers. And it was only a matter of time before someone who uses Tasers, or directs others to do so, was forced to try to reconcile their integrity and morality with that detachment and its consequences.
We have all heard at least some of the horror stories involving the use of a Taser in really questionable circumstances - on the guy in a diabetic coma on the bus in Great Britain; on the blind old lady who thought the police were intruders in her home; on the 16 year old kid (19 times!) on the ground already with a broken back after a fall; on the 18 year old man in Florida who was tied to a hospital bed at the time. And there are many more.
Tragically, the most recent Taser death has affected more than the family members and friends of the mentally ill Brooklyn man who fell after being Tased by police while he stood on a ledge. Yesterday the lieutenant who gave the order to use the Taser committed suicide. No one can truly know what his thoughts were in the days before his suicide, but I suspect they centered around profound guilt and remorse. Yet Lieutenant Pigott's order was simply a reflection of the pervasive casual attitude that has permeated police forces around the world. Tasers have become the easy way out for officers, replacing the verbal means that used to be employed to safely resolve some dangerous situations. They are fast, effective, and simple to use. And they allow the user to be utterly detached from the person they are targeting, both physically and, more significantly, emotionally. That is the most profound danger of Tasers. And it was only a matter of time before someone who uses Tasers, or directs others to do so, was forced to try to reconcile their integrity and morality with that detachment and its consequences.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Thomas A. Swift's Electric Rifle
I've been thinking about the use of Tasers by police a lot recently, especially since a mentally ill man in Brooklyn was Tasered as he stood on a second story ledge and then plunged head-first to his death last week. I have believed for several years that Tasers are far more dangerous in the hands of cops than the statistics of injury that stems from their use would suggest. If you read "authoritative" sources, Tasers don't seem so bad. After all, the risk of death with their appropriate use is actually quite low. There have been several studies that have shown no cardiac rhythm problems, no respiratory problems, and no serious side effects from the use of a taser. And there was a large study published in 2007 by Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center physicians that looked at the previous uses of Tasers (almost 1000 total) by police officers in 6 different law enforcement agencies around the country. In that study, only 3 people subjected to taser use by police in real-life situations had "serious harm" documented. Two of those three people died, but autopsies showed that the deaths "were not related to taser use". There has also been approval given for numerous police agencies to use tasers on children, and the Taser company (the manufacturer of Tasers) states that studies have shown that Taser use on pregnant women is safe, as well as use in children over 60 lbs. In fact, there are school systems in the U.S. that have approved use of Tasers for subduing children.
On the surface, it might seem that proponents of Taser use may have a point - Tasers really seem to be safe (if used correctly) according to all the studies and claims out there.
But let's back up just a second. I am a firm believer that anyone can prove anything, if you just manipulate or report the data to your advantage. So why don't we take a look at the "evidence" on the pro-Taser side.
- Studies done to show that Taser use on humans is safe have used volunteers as subjects. Volunteer police and military personnel. Which would suggest that the subjects are in good to excellent physical health, and (hopefully) not under the influence of drugs, mentally ill, under the age of 18, on medications that would make Taser jolts particularly risky, or under duress (at least before they are zapped). And most volunteers were hit with a Taser blast lasting 1.5 seconds; fewer endured jolts up to 5 seconds. None were Tased more than once. And none were subjected to prolonged use of voltage.
- When police officers use Tasers, we can safely assume that the subjects are under duress - after all, they are in need of subduing. And the majority of suspects who are resisting arrest, or behaving violently, are under the influence of drugs - often cocaine, crack, meth, or alcohol. And statistically, although most suspects are men between the ages of 18 to 35 (like the healthy volunteers in the studies), there are certainly plenty who are younger, or older, or female.
- It is well documented that the use of Tasers to subdue suspects doesn't always follow the protocol that the study volunteers enjoyed, i.e. one jolt of brief duration. There are numerous cases documented that have involved the use of prolonged Taser jolts (up to 30 seconds at a time), and/or multiple Taser jolts by police, sometimes on suspects aready in handcuffs, already on the ground, already in jail, or only questionably violent or resisting arrest.
- Multiple people have died after being subjected to the use of a Taser by law enforcement officials. There is no disputing this fact. However, many claims have been made that those people, on autopsy, didn't die because of the use of a Taser. Rather, the cause of death was often attributed to "heart disease". But I couldn't find any indication that those people had just happened to have heart attacks. Because if they had, then their deaths could really have been linked to the Taser jolt. Instead, it appears that these men (because all deaths thus far have been in men) had EVIDENCE of heart disease on autopsy. In medical-speak, I believe this means that they all had some degree of atherosclerosis (clogging of the arteries). Funny thing is, when autopsies were done on soldiers who died in Vietnam, doctors were surprised to find that the vast majority of them (and these were mostly men ages 18-22) had already developed some atherosclerosis! And I don't think anyone would dare to argue that they died of "heart disease".
- As I already pointed out, lots of people who are violent or resisting arrest are under the influence of drugs. So when one of then dies, even after the use of a Taser, it seems easy to point to the drug as the cause of death, and many studies have done that. But drugs don't mysteriously cause death (at least almost never) just because they are in your system. They kill you if they cause some other catastrophic medical condition, like a stroke, a heart attack or a cardiac arrhythmia, a suppression of your ability to breathe, or a metabolic crisis. And say, aren't those the same things that have been seen in animals who died following excessive doses of electricity, just like those delivered by Tasers? What a coincidence!
- The Taser company claims that studies show the weapon is safe for use in pregnant women and children (over 60 lbs). Yeah, well, I couldn't find any of those studies. And I can guarantee there aren't any. Why am I so confident? Because there is no way that a study like that would ever take place. First of all, you would need pregnant women to volunteer to be zapped with Tazers, and we all know that no pregnant woman (at least no sane pregnant woman) would risk her pregnancy for the chance to experience excruciating pain. And I really doubt that any parent would volunteer their child for said experiment. That would constitute child abuse, as would the performance of such a study. Now, Taser may be referring to the anecdotal articles that look at pregnant women who have been zapped by a police officer, been evaluated by medical personnel afterwards, notified said personnel that they were pregnant, then followed up sequentially with a physician who was aware of the situation. Oh, and that doctor would then have to publish an article about that woman and the outcome of her pregnancy. So, how many women meet these criteria? Well, four. I could find four women who met all those criteria, including making public the outcome of their pregnancies. There are a few others who have been subjected to a Tazer jolt while pregnant, and got into the news somehow, but didn't have outcomes that were easy to discover. Oh, and the four women who we know about? Three of them miscarried, after being Tazed at anywhere from 7 weeks to 4 months along in their pregnancies. The fourth, who was Tased at 8 months along, delivered a healthy full term baby. Now, there is no way to prove that a Tazer jolt was responsible for the miscarriages. But there is no proof that it was due to anything else either.
- There are multiple incidents in which Tasers have been used on children. I have found cases of their use on children as young as six. First, I have to wonder in what circumstance a grown adult, trained to physically subdue people with minimal harm to themselves and their subject, would be unable to easily overpower a child with a minimum of risk. Most 8 year old children will submit to an authoritative adult if pressed - they have been socialized to do so, and children are very aware of the power inequity between themselves and an adult, especially a police officer. So, for example, a 6 year old child who is holding a piece of glass, poised to cut himself, would most likely have been easily convinced to surrender the glass. And if that wasn't possible, an adult male would have needed to use little effort to gently restrain that child to prevent him from hurting himself. I don't think any rational person would even consider using a Taser on that 6 year old child. Oh, wait a sec... And I don't think there is any way to quantitate the emotional and psychological trauma that those children sustain from the use of a severely painful, terrifying electrical shock that causes paralysis in a child who is obviously already under significant emotional duress. Post traumatic stress disorder has resulted from less physically painful and similarly brief experiences. Adults who have been subjected to the use of a Taser by law enforcement officers have described symptoms consistent with PTSD. And I am not even touching the physical harm and risks of that type of electrical shock on a child.
- Everyone who has been subjected to a Taser jolt (even the willing volunteers) describes excrutiating pain. Ok, technically the Taser company notes that there are two ways to use the Taser - in "drive mode" or "probe mode". Drive mode is specifically for causing pain to subdue a subject. The Taser is applied directly to the skin, and while there is severe pain, there is little in the way of involuntary muscle contraction. Probe mode refers to the use of the Taser from a distance, in which the weapon fires 2 long wires that are barbed at the end. The barbs penetrate the skin, thus ensuring excellent contact with the target, and the 50,000 volts are delivered from a potential distance of 21 feet. This mode causes the target's muscles to seize, usually rendering them incapable of voluntary movement for the duration of the jolt. Oh, and it also causes excruciating pain. Essentially, with both modes you are beating someone into submission, but without the pesky visible marks that fists, knees, shoes, and batons tend to leave behind. And with probe mode, the law enforcement agent doesn't even need to have physical contact with the target, thus avoiding any scuffing of shoes or dirtying of uniforms.
I do understand that it is crucial to offer police an alternative to the use of handguns in order to deal with violent suspects, without using a potentially lethal means of force like a bullet. So Tasers have been the answer in the past decade. But they are far too easy to use. Since there are few visible marks following Taser use, there are fewer chances of incrimination for the user, especially in the setting of a jail, where they are often employed. And they usually completely incapacitate the subject without much effort at all for the police person, so causing excruciating pain starts to seem like the easy choice - much easier than negotiating with someone, "talking them down", or diffusing a difficult situation verbally.
There is another alternative to either handguns or Tasers. Pepper spray is an effective method for subduing someone with little risk to the target. Studies have shown that it causes fewer lasting harmful effects than the use of Tasers or batons, rarely requires the person to require medical treatment, and infrequently affects the person spraying it. But of course, this too has been misused by police, who have used it on children, the very elderly, and most notoriously on non-violent protesters throughout the world. It too has become an "easy way out", but with far fewer associated deaths. Ultimately, I believe that the police could find a way to misuse a can of Silly String if given the opportunity.
And here's a few more details about the study done by Wake Forest physicians that looked at all those people who had been Tasered, and concluded that Tasers were incredibly safe. Well, as it turns out the study data actually showed that 23% of the Tasered people were indeed injured enough to require medical treatment. And the data were collected from police files by "tactical physicians" who were affiliated with the law enforcement agencies being reviewed. The funding of the study was provided by the Justice Department, who I suspect had a significant interest in an outcome that was favorable to the use of Tasers. And lastly, there was another article that the same researchers published in conjunction with their "safety study". That article was a report of the use of a Taser on a healthy police officer who volunteered to endure a 5 second Taser jolt. Unfortunately that man suffered a fracture to one of his vertebrae during the experiment that has resulted in a permanent disability. But I doubt that the Justice Department, law enforcement officials, or the Taser company executives want anyone to hear about that little tidbit.
So much for the safety of Tasers.
On the surface, it might seem that proponents of Taser use may have a point - Tasers really seem to be safe (if used correctly) according to all the studies and claims out there.
But let's back up just a second. I am a firm believer that anyone can prove anything, if you just manipulate or report the data to your advantage. So why don't we take a look at the "evidence" on the pro-Taser side.
- Studies done to show that Taser use on humans is safe have used volunteers as subjects. Volunteer police and military personnel. Which would suggest that the subjects are in good to excellent physical health, and (hopefully) not under the influence of drugs, mentally ill, under the age of 18, on medications that would make Taser jolts particularly risky, or under duress (at least before they are zapped). And most volunteers were hit with a Taser blast lasting 1.5 seconds; fewer endured jolts up to 5 seconds. None were Tased more than once. And none were subjected to prolonged use of voltage.
- When police officers use Tasers, we can safely assume that the subjects are under duress - after all, they are in need of subduing. And the majority of suspects who are resisting arrest, or behaving violently, are under the influence of drugs - often cocaine, crack, meth, or alcohol. And statistically, although most suspects are men between the ages of 18 to 35 (like the healthy volunteers in the studies), there are certainly plenty who are younger, or older, or female.
- It is well documented that the use of Tasers to subdue suspects doesn't always follow the protocol that the study volunteers enjoyed, i.e. one jolt of brief duration. There are numerous cases documented that have involved the use of prolonged Taser jolts (up to 30 seconds at a time), and/or multiple Taser jolts by police, sometimes on suspects aready in handcuffs, already on the ground, already in jail, or only questionably violent or resisting arrest.
- Multiple people have died after being subjected to the use of a Taser by law enforcement officials. There is no disputing this fact. However, many claims have been made that those people, on autopsy, didn't die because of the use of a Taser. Rather, the cause of death was often attributed to "heart disease". But I couldn't find any indication that those people had just happened to have heart attacks. Because if they had, then their deaths could really have been linked to the Taser jolt. Instead, it appears that these men (because all deaths thus far have been in men) had EVIDENCE of heart disease on autopsy. In medical-speak, I believe this means that they all had some degree of atherosclerosis (clogging of the arteries). Funny thing is, when autopsies were done on soldiers who died in Vietnam, doctors were surprised to find that the vast majority of them (and these were mostly men ages 18-22) had already developed some atherosclerosis! And I don't think anyone would dare to argue that they died of "heart disease".
- As I already pointed out, lots of people who are violent or resisting arrest are under the influence of drugs. So when one of then dies, even after the use of a Taser, it seems easy to point to the drug as the cause of death, and many studies have done that. But drugs don't mysteriously cause death (at least almost never) just because they are in your system. They kill you if they cause some other catastrophic medical condition, like a stroke, a heart attack or a cardiac arrhythmia, a suppression of your ability to breathe, or a metabolic crisis. And say, aren't those the same things that have been seen in animals who died following excessive doses of electricity, just like those delivered by Tasers? What a coincidence!
- The Taser company claims that studies show the weapon is safe for use in pregnant women and children (over 60 lbs). Yeah, well, I couldn't find any of those studies. And I can guarantee there aren't any. Why am I so confident? Because there is no way that a study like that would ever take place. First of all, you would need pregnant women to volunteer to be zapped with Tazers, and we all know that no pregnant woman (at least no sane pregnant woman) would risk her pregnancy for the chance to experience excruciating pain. And I really doubt that any parent would volunteer their child for said experiment. That would constitute child abuse, as would the performance of such a study. Now, Taser may be referring to the anecdotal articles that look at pregnant women who have been zapped by a police officer, been evaluated by medical personnel afterwards, notified said personnel that they were pregnant, then followed up sequentially with a physician who was aware of the situation. Oh, and that doctor would then have to publish an article about that woman and the outcome of her pregnancy. So, how many women meet these criteria? Well, four. I could find four women who met all those criteria, including making public the outcome of their pregnancies. There are a few others who have been subjected to a Tazer jolt while pregnant, and got into the news somehow, but didn't have outcomes that were easy to discover. Oh, and the four women who we know about? Three of them miscarried, after being Tazed at anywhere from 7 weeks to 4 months along in their pregnancies. The fourth, who was Tased at 8 months along, delivered a healthy full term baby. Now, there is no way to prove that a Tazer jolt was responsible for the miscarriages. But there is no proof that it was due to anything else either.
- There are multiple incidents in which Tasers have been used on children. I have found cases of their use on children as young as six. First, I have to wonder in what circumstance a grown adult, trained to physically subdue people with minimal harm to themselves and their subject, would be unable to easily overpower a child with a minimum of risk. Most 8 year old children will submit to an authoritative adult if pressed - they have been socialized to do so, and children are very aware of the power inequity between themselves and an adult, especially a police officer. So, for example, a 6 year old child who is holding a piece of glass, poised to cut himself, would most likely have been easily convinced to surrender the glass. And if that wasn't possible, an adult male would have needed to use little effort to gently restrain that child to prevent him from hurting himself. I don't think any rational person would even consider using a Taser on that 6 year old child. Oh, wait a sec... And I don't think there is any way to quantitate the emotional and psychological trauma that those children sustain from the use of a severely painful, terrifying electrical shock that causes paralysis in a child who is obviously already under significant emotional duress. Post traumatic stress disorder has resulted from less physically painful and similarly brief experiences. Adults who have been subjected to the use of a Taser by law enforcement officers have described symptoms consistent with PTSD. And I am not even touching the physical harm and risks of that type of electrical shock on a child.
- Everyone who has been subjected to a Taser jolt (even the willing volunteers) describes excrutiating pain. Ok, technically the Taser company notes that there are two ways to use the Taser - in "drive mode" or "probe mode". Drive mode is specifically for causing pain to subdue a subject. The Taser is applied directly to the skin, and while there is severe pain, there is little in the way of involuntary muscle contraction. Probe mode refers to the use of the Taser from a distance, in which the weapon fires 2 long wires that are barbed at the end. The barbs penetrate the skin, thus ensuring excellent contact with the target, and the 50,000 volts are delivered from a potential distance of 21 feet. This mode causes the target's muscles to seize, usually rendering them incapable of voluntary movement for the duration of the jolt. Oh, and it also causes excruciating pain. Essentially, with both modes you are beating someone into submission, but without the pesky visible marks that fists, knees, shoes, and batons tend to leave behind. And with probe mode, the law enforcement agent doesn't even need to have physical contact with the target, thus avoiding any scuffing of shoes or dirtying of uniforms.
I do understand that it is crucial to offer police an alternative to the use of handguns in order to deal with violent suspects, without using a potentially lethal means of force like a bullet. So Tasers have been the answer in the past decade. But they are far too easy to use. Since there are few visible marks following Taser use, there are fewer chances of incrimination for the user, especially in the setting of a jail, where they are often employed. And they usually completely incapacitate the subject without much effort at all for the police person, so causing excruciating pain starts to seem like the easy choice - much easier than negotiating with someone, "talking them down", or diffusing a difficult situation verbally.
There is another alternative to either handguns or Tasers. Pepper spray is an effective method for subduing someone with little risk to the target. Studies have shown that it causes fewer lasting harmful effects than the use of Tasers or batons, rarely requires the person to require medical treatment, and infrequently affects the person spraying it. But of course, this too has been misused by police, who have used it on children, the very elderly, and most notoriously on non-violent protesters throughout the world. It too has become an "easy way out", but with far fewer associated deaths. Ultimately, I believe that the police could find a way to misuse a can of Silly String if given the opportunity.
And here's a few more details about the study done by Wake Forest physicians that looked at all those people who had been Tasered, and concluded that Tasers were incredibly safe. Well, as it turns out the study data actually showed that 23% of the Tasered people were indeed injured enough to require medical treatment. And the data were collected from police files by "tactical physicians" who were affiliated with the law enforcement agencies being reviewed. The funding of the study was provided by the Justice Department, who I suspect had a significant interest in an outcome that was favorable to the use of Tasers. And lastly, there was another article that the same researchers published in conjunction with their "safety study". That article was a report of the use of a Taser on a healthy police officer who volunteered to endure a 5 second Taser jolt. Unfortunately that man suffered a fracture to one of his vertebrae during the experiment that has resulted in a permanent disability. But I doubt that the Justice Department, law enforcement officials, or the Taser company executives want anyone to hear about that little tidbit.
So much for the safety of Tasers.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Is Palin Smarter Than a Fourth Grader?
I missed the Couric-Palin interview televised this week. Fortunately we live in the age of the internet, so things like conflicting time slots do not mean that you can't see 2 things scheduled at the same time - you just may not be able to see one of them until later.
Anyway, Saturday morning, while perusing all the news sites I like to keep up with, I found clips of the interview. I put one on to listen to while in the kitchen, and I admit it was the morning, and I had only had about half of a pot of coffee, so when I heard Palin's answer to Couric explaining why she believed the $700 billion bailout was better funneled to Wall Street firms than the middle class, I just assumed I didn't hear her correctly. Or, being under-caffeinated, I just hadn't understood her.
But no.
It wasn't my lack of brain-stimulating chemical, it was Palin's lack of brain cell utilization. Because earlier today I read the response, and I still couldn't understand what she was saying. And I guess that's not surprising, since half of it consists of either incomplete or run-on sentences. And I'm not going to address the content - I wouldn't even know where to start.
" . . . where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh -- it's got to be all about job creation too. Shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track. So healthcare reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, um, scary thing, but 1 in 5 jobs being created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that."
My 9 year old son is working on sentence structure and composition in 4th grade right now. He wrote better constructed sentences for his homework last weekend.
Dan Quayle may not have been a good speller, and his blunders were great for a laugh, but at least he could put a subject, verb, and direct object together. And sometimes he'd even throw in a prepositional phrase or two.
Anyway, Saturday morning, while perusing all the news sites I like to keep up with, I found clips of the interview. I put one on to listen to while in the kitchen, and I admit it was the morning, and I had only had about half of a pot of coffee, so when I heard Palin's answer to Couric explaining why she believed the $700 billion bailout was better funneled to Wall Street firms than the middle class, I just assumed I didn't hear her correctly. Or, being under-caffeinated, I just hadn't understood her.
But no.
It wasn't my lack of brain-stimulating chemical, it was Palin's lack of brain cell utilization. Because earlier today I read the response, and I still couldn't understand what she was saying. And I guess that's not surprising, since half of it consists of either incomplete or run-on sentences. And I'm not going to address the content - I wouldn't even know where to start.
" . . . where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh -- it's got to be all about job creation too. Shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track. So healthcare reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, um, scary thing, but 1 in 5 jobs being created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that."
My 9 year old son is working on sentence structure and composition in 4th grade right now. He wrote better constructed sentences for his homework last weekend.
Dan Quayle may not have been a good speller, and his blunders were great for a laugh, but at least he could put a subject, verb, and direct object together. And sometimes he'd even throw in a prepositional phrase or two.
Why McCain Lost Women Friday Night
I have to admit I haven't been able to watch an entire presidential debate since 1980 and the "Cleveland Clash" between Reagan and Carter. I was just a kid watching it with my parents, but even at my young age it was easy to tell who was the brighter, more competent man (ok, I may have been young but I was really smart back then). Carter proved himself to be a thoughtful and intellectual statesman, knowledgeable about most of the issues broached during the debate. Reagan proved himself to be, well, pretty stupid. But imagine my amazement when the next day, most people were talking about how handily Reagan had won! I guess I was too young to notice and be wooed by Reagan's outward persona, but instead paid attention to what he was actually saying. But obviously I was in the minority in this country. As Reagan's campaign manager William Timmons apparently stated before that debate, "appearance is far more important than a bunch of facts". And so was the reality back then, and in virtually every presidential race since. For myself, knowing that appearances trump all else makes these debates so painful to watch - the candidates side by side, direct comparisons unavoidable, combined with the frustrating knowledge that the more attractive or charismatic candidate will win regardless of the candidates' actual performances makes these spectacles really hard for me to sit through.
But I managed to sit and watch most of the debate last night (well, I did have to leave the living room and my boyfriend a couple of times) and I was struck by something that has barely been covered by the news media. Aside from the actual knowledge base of each man, accuracy of statements, and their political views (because after all, the debates are not about content but presentation), I was thunderstruck by McCain's demeanor towards Obama. McCain treated Obama with absolute condescension, referring to Obama as one would refer to a child, correcting him with a patronizing tone (even when Obama was actually right and McCain wrong), and refusing to even look at him.
And it felt way too familiar.
I don't know a single woman who has NOT been treated at some point in her life just like McCain treated Obama. We have all had the experience of being made to feel unimportant by a man who believed he was better than us, just because he was a man. We have all had the guy who has less education than we do talk to us as if we had just learned that the alphabet ends with the letter "z". And who hasn't had the older man say kindly "you don't have to worry yourself about all those facts, honey" in order to exclude us from a process that we are more than capable of understanding? As a white woman, I can't comment as to whether or not blacks (both male and female) might have had some of the same experiences with white men in their lives, but I suspect that many have.
So based on the demeanor of both men, their body language, and the tone of their words, it is no surprise to me that women didn't like John McCain in the debate as much as they did Barack Obama. McCain presented himself as a condescending jerk, and we all felt it.
And for once, I think evaluating the candidates' performances based solely on their appearance is just the ticket.
But I managed to sit and watch most of the debate last night (well, I did have to leave the living room and my boyfriend a couple of times) and I was struck by something that has barely been covered by the news media. Aside from the actual knowledge base of each man, accuracy of statements, and their political views (because after all, the debates are not about content but presentation), I was thunderstruck by McCain's demeanor towards Obama. McCain treated Obama with absolute condescension, referring to Obama as one would refer to a child, correcting him with a patronizing tone (even when Obama was actually right and McCain wrong), and refusing to even look at him.
And it felt way too familiar.
I don't know a single woman who has NOT been treated at some point in her life just like McCain treated Obama. We have all had the experience of being made to feel unimportant by a man who believed he was better than us, just because he was a man. We have all had the guy who has less education than we do talk to us as if we had just learned that the alphabet ends with the letter "z". And who hasn't had the older man say kindly "you don't have to worry yourself about all those facts, honey" in order to exclude us from a process that we are more than capable of understanding? As a white woman, I can't comment as to whether or not blacks (both male and female) might have had some of the same experiences with white men in their lives, but I suspect that many have.
So based on the demeanor of both men, their body language, and the tone of their words, it is no surprise to me that women didn't like John McCain in the debate as much as they did Barack Obama. McCain presented himself as a condescending jerk, and we all felt it.
And for once, I think evaluating the candidates' performances based solely on their appearance is just the ticket.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
