innovative same-old

The problem is, I'll never get a chance to have a one-on-one with the president. So this will have to do.

Bush orders cut in gasoline consumption

Specifics are vague, but rules to be in effect by end of '08
Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Jennifer Loven
ASSOCIATED PRESS

President Bush's announcement yesterday came as the average national price of a gallon of gas hit a record high, $3.07.

WASHINGTON - President Bush, prodded by a Supreme Court ruling, said yesterday that his administration will decide how to regulate pollution from new motor vehicles by the time he leaves office.

That sounds like every promise ever made by someone not wanting to commit to the situation. It sounds like "We must do lunch sometime." Uh-huh.

Bush signed an executive order directing federal agencies to craft regulations that will "cut gasoline consumption and greenhouse-gas emissions from motor vehicles." He ordered the agencies - the departments of Transportation, Agriculture and Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency - to have the rules in place by the end of 2008.

The announcement came as gasoline prices hit a new record. The average national price of a gallon of gas reached $3.07 yesterday, above the previous peak of $3.06 set soon after Hurricane Katrina hit at the end of August 2005.

"When it comes to energy and the environment, the American people expect common sense and they expect action," the president said at a news conference. "We're taking action by taking the first steps toward rules that will make our economy stronger, our environment cleaner and our nation more secure for generations to come."

I'm not sure the American people expect common sense. They allowed you to get into and remain in office despite sufficient suspicion that you got in by sneaking in a craftily cut side door.

And when you say "we're taking action, just who are the "we" you're referring to? I understand "we the people." Somehow I don't get the sense I, as one of the people, am included in your use of the word "we."

You say this will make "our" economy stronger. Who is included in your use of the word "our?" Your people? You? The wealthy and powerful? The economy in my state isn't so hot. Increasingly the food pantries are depleted. Increasingly the working poor don't have affordable health care insurance. Increasingly both parents have to work full-time and find day care for their children simply in order to live in their homes. So. Who's economy are you thinking will become stronger? Will whatever "rules" "your" people dream up bring jobs back to our state? Or will the increasing costs of cleaning up the environment drive the corporations to other countries where the costs of doing business are cheaper?

What those rules would be was unclear.

White House press secretary Tony Snow said the president's position opposing mandatory emissions caps has not changed. While recognizing that greenhouse gases are a serious contributor to climate change, Bush has said that anything other than a voluntary approach would unduly harm the nation's economy.

Uh-huh. Voluntary. Every playground bully loves that. The biggest baddest bullies will continue bullying as long as there are people to bully.

"The question is: Do you try to set up a mandatory system or do you try to set up an innovation-based system?" Snow said. "The president prefers innovation."

The president has shown the world he prefers power, oil, profits, and books read in the upside down position.

But the Democratic-controlled Congress is considering a number of bills that would impose a cap on emissions of carbon dioxide, the leading gas linked to global warming, and a carbon trade system.

"It appears that the president wants to run out the clock to the end of his term without addressing our energy needs," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

I'll save my disappointment in the Democratic-controlled Congress for another time…

Last month, the Supreme Court declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases qualify as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and thus can be regulated by the EPA. The court also said that the "laundry list" of reasons the administration has given for declining to do so are insufficient, ruling that the EPA must regulate carbon dioxide if it finds that it endangers public health.

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said a draft proposal should be ready by fall, and that it will include a finding on whether carbon dioxide is a health threat. He suggested there could be no regulation if no threat is found, or if the agency determines there is "some other reason and rational explanation for why it was not necessary to regulate."

It seems the EPA hasn't been doing a good job lately of EPing. Is it true funding has been reduced?

Bush said that, in writing any rules, agency officials must take into account the views of the general public, scientific knowledge, available technology, the cost and the effect the rules would have on safety.

Hmmm. Would that be the same innovative thinking used when he decided to invade Iraq?

A report this month from a United Nations network of more than 2,000 scientists estimates that the world must stabilize the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere within eight years to keep global temperatures from spiking to disastrous levels.

The environmental group Environmental Defense said the effort "will fall far short of fixing the climate problem" without mandatory caps on carbon emissions.

Bush and administration officials said the process will take time because it is so complicated. Johnson indicated that, at the least, the new rules could implement the president's plan for reducing gas consumption by 20 percent over 10 years.

Simplifying our individual lifestyles isn't complicated, and eventually that's what it comes down to. What's complicated is for the big boys and girls to figure out how to maintain their stranglehold on our country and its economy…legally. Morally.

As announced in Bush's State of the Union address in January, this plan envisions increasing the country's use of alternative fuels to 35 billion gallons by 2017. It also would give the administration the ability to rewrite mileage rules for passenger cars.

Ohio's clean air fight

Air pollution
Smog
Asthma
…and so on.

Welcome to Ohio, I guess, which is not quite as bad as "Welcome to Texas," according to a dirty air chart printed in The Columbus Dispatch. We are ranked fourth in the nation overall, and second in the nation based on coal-powered emissions. Texas is ranked #1, as worst in both categories. Not that I need to talk about Texas, but given our political preferences, it doesn't hurt to bring up certain connections.

As I read the article and add it to the bookshelf in my brain of all the other articles I've read, it leaves me with more questions than answers.

"…heavy industry,…warns that new carbon limits could batter a state economy that never recovered from the 2001 recession."

As I understand things, heavy industry is "conservative", and the conservative money making policies have driven jobs out of our state and into other countries without it having anything to do with clean air.

So. Why can't we cut back on manufacturing? Have you seen all the crap that's sold in all the stores? Crap that nobody wants or needs but gets bought and given as birthday and Christmas presents, if nothing else? Crap that gets tossed out sooner rather than later? Plastic crap? How much of this stuff do we need?

Clothing. Granted most of it is made overseas, but just how many clothes do we need at one time, anyway? And why do we buy clothes and throw them out or give them away after only a couple of seasons? And why do we care what "they" are wearing in the first place?

What if we just lived simpler lives? What if we just stopped the consumer addiction? Can we both clean up the manufacturing process and just not manufacture so much stuff in the first place?

Steven Crisp, guest columnist

WTFO?


People who know me understand that Big Pharma is not on my Christmas list. I am not the type of person that gets too worked up (these days) about the various dramas going on out there in the real world, and that I believe tend to be over-sensationalized by our media (the OTHER group that's not getting a card from me).

But when I read this NY Times article this morning, I was taken aback.

The thrust of the story is that there is a legal rebate program, where drug companies pay doctors to use their products. But that wasn't the point of the story. The point was that in so doing, they might be using excessive dosages that are proving to be unsafe.

But wait a minute here. Can we back up the truck? Why is there a legal rebate program in the first place?

Federal laws bar drug companies from paying doctors to prescribe medicines that are given in pill form and purchased by patients from pharmacies. But companies can rebate part of the price that doctors pay for drugs, like the anemia medicines, which they dispense in their offices as part of treatment. The anemia drugs are injected or given intravenously in physicians’ offices or dialysis centers. Doctors receive the rebates after they buy the drugs from the companies. But they also receive reimbursement from Medicare or private insurers for the drugs, often at a markup over the doctors’ purchase price.

Medicare has changed its payment structure since 2003 to reduce the markup, but private insurers still often pay more. Combined with those insurance reimbursements, the rebates enable many doctors to profit substantially on the medicines they buy and then give to patients.

The rebates are related to the amount of drugs that doctors buy, and physicians that agree to use one company’s drugs exclusively typically receive higher rebates.

Does this make any sense? So apparently, we have the same thing going on in our hospitals and with Big Pharma, that we have in fast food restaurants and soda machines around the country -- negotiated prices for exclusive use of a specific brand (e.g., Coke vs Pepsi), and increased payments with larger usage patterns.

I don't know about you, but my hope/expectation was always to get the minimum amount of drugs pumped into me, and to have the selected drug reflect the best thinking of the medical community, and not be profit motivated or corporately incentivised.

Now I'm not that naive, and I have also always had some aversion to Western medicine in general for being too prescription-happy, and not holistic enough in concept. But to imagine there is a legal program that lets rebates be paid to doctors that provide financial incentive to select one drug brand over another, and to use more rather than less medication, strikes me as something of an outrage. Am I missing something here?

Dr. Peter Eisenberg, an oncologist in Marin County, Calif., said many doctors had been induced to use more epoetin by the financial incentives and the belief that the drug was helpful. “The deal was so good,” he said. “The indication was so clear and the downside was so small that docs just worked it into their practice easily. “Now it’s much scarier than that,” he said. “We could really be doing harm.”
Frankly, I'm saddened that the only way this is a reportable "story" is that there are harmful effects now being detected. The fundamental practice itself is just rife with conflict of interest. So where shall I place my blame for this -- FDA or Congress? Somewhere else? Let me know what you think.

(Oh, and the picture? Yes, that is a giant spider sculpture in Roppongi Hills, Tokyo, Japan, and yes, it is carrying "eggs", and yes, that is just about what I think of when I think of Big Pharma ;-)

Edward Pickersgill, guest columnist

That Far, Far Better Thing

by Edward Pickersgill, 9 May 2007

The old Chinese curse "may you live in interesting times" does appear to have been visited on us. It is uncanny how many of us seem to be sitting spellbound at the horror and the uncertainty -- almost afraid to open our mouths in case we do not make sense -- apparently awaiting an historic hero to step out of the woods to lead us to a profound victory of peace, justice and the enlightened way.

Charles Dickens wrote an eloquent version of that Chinese curse in the opening paragraph of his Tale of Two Cities: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way."

It seems to me we are in one of those cusp moments.

Out in the shadows I'm sure there are some who believe a Fidel or a Mao or a George Washington will appear from the mountains or the far plains leading the way to an internal national regime change of a deeply systemic nature and the Good Ship America will be bathed in a soft glow as if caught in a Frank Capra closing scene. Out past the shadows in other countries there is not so much of the passive-aggressive audience approach to change.

In France there was an 86% turn out of the electorate and a right wing Hungarian is now President of that Republic. Sometimes the bizarre cross breeds with the surreal and we can see from whence an Edvard Munch might envision a Scream. If the 50% turn out in America's elections produces a President Bush what would an 86% turn out produce. Those electoral activists who work like Trojans to engage more people in the process may in fact be horrified that indeed it could be worse.

Surely the litmus test for each of is not what might happen when others speak or write or act. Surely the litmus test is whether we speak or write at all in the midst of these interesting times. How do we answer our children and their children when they ask what we said in the midst of those interesting times. What do we do when they ask to see copies of our statements or the positions we took in the midst of the madness.

Will we answer, "well youngster I joined a group and sort of stayed quiet in case someone noticed me and I lost my job and was unable to feed you." Or will we be able to say that we fell into the habit of being grateful somebody was willing to be Cindy Sheehan. Or will we lie as tens of millions have and boast that we were among the hundreds of thousands who were at Woodstock in 1969....

Reports are now on the record that the Nixon regime ordered National Guardsmen to fire live bullets into crowds of demonstrators at Kent State in 1970. Is the Bush regime capable of less deadly force than the Nixon regime? Is that what we're afraid of?

If we are afraid to speak up, to take positions, to argue our political case on behalf of future generations then there will never be any need for another Kent State. At least there will not be such a need inside America. "It was the best of time, it was the worst of times...." those words are impossible to read without getting a sense of one's personal adrenalin pump starting to hum. And what do we remember of the time when Dickens was writing those serialized novels?

I remember hearing that massive crowds of readers flocked to the New York harbour when the ship would arrive carrying the latest issue of the newspaper in which the next chapter could be found. What do we have today to rival that kind of cultural excitement. In our passive-aggressive culture we're more likely to be pinned to CNN breaking news as reporters speculate on whether the shadow in the doorway is Charles Dickens emerging with an envelope which will be taken on horseback to the publisher. And there would be widespread speculation on what he was wearing and whether he would just this once glance over at the cameras.

America, for better or for worse, is a nation that was formed by the energy of citizen activists. That season of activism may have been brief but it did occur. The spirit of that revolution may have been buried and ossified in the machinations of constitutional obfuscators but it did burn bright and hot long enough to cause a change. But what of now? What of our time?

When Charles Dickens (or Chuck as he'd be called by America's current President) drew his tale of two cities to a close he gave us another set of memorable words.... "It is a far, far better thing I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest I go to than I have ever known." In the balance of competitive powers today -- between brutal regime, on one hand, and the people on the other -- the brutes count on people being unwilling to stake it all on waging active opposition.

What I suggest is that in this moment we will each be placing our words and our actions into a virtual time capsule which our grandchildren and their children will open in the hope we, their ancestors, were women and men of courage and determination -- who chose to do our own far, far better thing.

half mast

Seeing the flag at half mast, I can respect the pain the families and friends of those students killed at Virginia Tech must feel. I can also wonder about the pain in the heart of the young man who could only see his way out of his own pain by killing the others before taking his own life.

I wonder, too, how the familes and friends of our military sons and daughters and friends must feel seeing the flag bowed for the students but not bowed daily for those who come back from Iraq in body bags. Or, perhaps sometimes worse, coming back alive but with permanent head injuries. Or coming back with the poison of depleted uranium lodged in their bodies, waiting to strike their children yet to be born.

And, to acknowledge the widening ripple of violence, I wonder how the families and friends of those who die because they have no health insurance to pay for their medical needs must feel? Especially when those who have the power to initiate change - don't, because they say private coverage works.

The ripple continues to grow in circumference, and now the flag needs to honor the deaths of those in other countries due to starvation, disease, violence, all of which to one degree or another have our fingerprints on them.

No, not that we are each of us personally responsible for the deadly decisions of others, but as members of the (recently) wealthiest, most powerful nation on this planet, we aren't exactly innocent, either.

Maybe the flag should be at permanent half mast.
Mourning our friends and family members who have died needlessly.
Mourning our own hearts that can't see past "patriotism" and "capitalism."

What's up with El Paso?

I don't look for monsters under the bed, in the closet, or behind the drapes. I don't think I'm paranoid. But you've also heard that just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you…

Reading my local newspaper, I see Smucker acquires Eagle brands. Not that I would know the difference between one owner and another, but I noticed that 45 local workers will lose their jobs, though some will supposedly be able to transfer to Orrville, OH. Smucker will continue Eagle brand operations in Seneca MO and El Paso TX.

The last paragraph was troubling to me. I quote: "Smucker's size provides bargaining power with food retailers such as Wal-Mart and Kroger,who have grown in recent years, Steinke said."

I understand that in this way: a large company becomes larger. That has consequences.

Turning the page, I read Hoover will cut 750 jobs, owners say. Now get this. 650 union positions will be lost. Hong Kong based Techtronics Industries Co.Ltd. acquired Hoover from Whirlpool. And get this, too: the manufacturing work will be consolidated into operations in El Paso, TX, and Juarez, Mexico.

There's so much I don't know about all this, and I suspect the big boys like it that way. I have no quarrel with the Chinese, but why do they own a company here? What's the economics of that? And what about El Paso? What's the economics of THAT, too?

Somehow, without understanding the details, I suspect this does not bode well for the little guys, but will definitely enhance the incomes and lifestyles of the power and greed monsters.

Assuming there's a sucker punch in this story that will affect us in time, the only thing I know is to avoid buying their products. Smucker is easy. Jelly, sweetened condensed milk and all that aren't real foods anyway. We're already out of control in terms of healthy choices, so this choice could become a blessing. But Hoover? Well, we've got to clean our floors, right? On the other hand, we don't have to emulate Martha Stewart, do we? Perhaps the day will come when we'll have to do what the majority of people on this planet have to do. Live on bare floors. That's OK. I've never read in the obits that anybody died because of bare floors.

things are heating up

The Crunch

Global warming. The arguments I hear close to home are echoed outward.

Arguments about whether we are causing it or if it's a natural phenomenon. Does it matter? How are we going to protect our children and grandchildren? How are we going to protect life on earth?

Or don't we care? We shrug our shoulders so often about so many things. As "The Crunch" points out, most of the things we shrug our shoulders about have time to work themselves out. Slavery, poverty, economic tyranny - these things will eventually be confronted by revolution or maybe by just growing up as human beings. I'm guessing it'll be revolution, though.

But apparently our global warming situation is like cancer. Once it has presented itself, you either face it head on and endure the cure, or die. All the talk about lifestyle, whether diet, exercise, pollution, stress, or genetic mutation doesn't change the fact that it's do or die time.

And what can I do? I've already adopted many of the lifestyle changes. As I can, I make more changes. My next step will be involvement at the community level. I live in a middle class suburb that prohibits clotheslines in our yards, and gardens must be within a relatively modest size. All this is to protect "property values." It's easy enough to get around the garden limitations. Just develop several small garden plots, each within the size limitations. That's actually a good way to garden anyway, and is aesthetically pleasing. But clotheslines? That'll be a tougher nut to crack. Since nobody wants to take the time to hang their clothes out anyway, they're not going to be inclined to change the neighborhood association regulations.

Well, just musing a bit. When I'm gone and when my grandchildren are struggling with a changing climate, I want them to know I was thinking of them and doing what I could. This being Good Friday, I think of the traditional thinking that Jesus died on the cross for us. I wonder what kind of lifestyle dying I can do for my children and grandchildren.

Or will they recognize the "dying" to self, turn me into an icon that is prayed to weekly, and go about doing their own climate destruction? What kind of thanks will that be? Does that let me off the hook? Simply, no.

Is the sky going to fall?

Deep space explorer facing the deep-six

From the time I was a little girl and would gaze up at the stars with my dad and shared the wondering if there was a dad and daughter on another planet looking at us and wondering the same thing, I've been fascinated with astronomy.

I'm beginning to hear, even in the news, about an asteroid of significant size that will whiz disconcertingly close to our planet in 2027, and possibly even more dangerously close a few years later. I hope to be alive at that time to see just what comes of it.

Neil de Grasse Tyson, astrophysicist, explained on C-Span recently that this asteroid, if it did collide with Earth and landed in an ocean, would completely wipe out coastal cities. However, nobody need die, because we'd have sufficient warning and would be able to go somewhere else. The second fly-by is the one to be more worried about, he says. Even now scientists are working on plans to nudge the asteroid into a different orbit when it comes close the first time. But the nudge better be a good one, because the wrong nudge will just make it collide somewhere else on earth. Can you picture that? American scientists nudge an asteroid to land in, oh, say, well, whatever country we feel like invading but don't have the funds or manpower at the time to do the job.

We think we're safe. We're not. I think we know that at an intellectual level. Some of my fiber artist colleagues are concerned about using only materials that will last at least 200 years. In the art world, you learn to speak the language of archival, acid-free, and other terms. I don't have a problem with that. Yet at the same time, we might have under fifty years left as a species, and that's only looking at things from the point of view of a certain asteroid already discovered. Though many of us will have already gone, most of our children and grandchildren will still be here.

I don't have any answers. I don't even know what the questions might be. It's just interesting to think that our immediate heirs might have to deal with something we can't even imagine.

What's sad is the lack of available funding for the best equipment to track this asteroid. I suppose that is just part of the larger picture where we don't find the funds for things that really matter. Global warming, education, poverty, starvation…

Funny thing, that. The funds exist. And the gap between the wealthy and the poor continues to widen, and we continue to support a lifestyle that makes that possible.

in our own back yard

Sitting at my kitchen table again, sipping my first cup of coffee, this time I'm reading about Circuit City dumping its highest paid employees. Highest paid? Oh, about $15/hour is what I'm hearing. In general, that amounts to $30,000 a year. That's not bad, unless you want to buy a house, or raise a family, or even afford an apartment. As I understand it, the newly fired folks will be able to reapply for their jobs again after ten weeks, and at a lower pay, about $10/hour.

A bit later, sipping my second cup of coffee, I mused on terrorism. It may just be me, but loss of income is terrifying, much more so than car bombs and…well, whatever else our esteemed leaders want us to think is threatening us. Circuit City is based in Richmond, Virginia, so maybe that means one of the terrorists organizations we need to fear is right in our back yard.

But wait. Is it terrorism if there are laws written to protect activities that nevertheless threaten and terrorize law abiding citizens here? Oh, what a dilemma.

It would be so easy to fight the legalized terrorism in our back yard, and it wouldn't even be violent, nor would it be expensive. In the case of Circuit City, all we need to do is boycott them. That's all. Shop elsewhere. Or, if we're really brave, we simply won't shop at all. And, if they say we're hurting the economy, or tempting them to lay off more of our brothers and sisters, well, if we wanted to, we could take care of our own and bring a terrorist organization to its knees, all without bloodshed. What a concept.

According to what I'm reading, the newly fired employees were making at least 51 cents an hour above a pay range acceptable to the company. If they laid off 3,400 employees across the country, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out just how much these highly paid workers were costing the company, and it should be even easier to compare that figure with however much the CEO of Circuit City makes yearly. Would you like to take a guess at how those figures compare?

Sure. I think terrorism is a real thing. I suspect there really are "terrorists" who hate the United States and are figuring out ways to blow themselves up over here on our soil. But it seems to me we're blowing ourselves up in slow motion every time we cluck in passive dismay over some stranger's job loss. Kinda makes you wonder who else hates the United States, or at least hates the patriotic citizens here.

Hate? Did I say they hate us? Nah, they don't hate us any more than herd animals are hated. Herd animals are tolerated, even cared for, as long as they're giving their owners fresh meat, or blood, or toil.

p.s. After posting this, I discovered that the yearly income by the Circuit City CEO was posted by The Washington Post, but not by The Columbus Dispatch, my own local newspaper of a certain conservative bent. How interesting.

Sugar blues

I sit at my kitchen table in the morning, reading the newspaper, and wonder about monster toads caught in Darwin, Australia. Is this just another curious bit of frivolous information, or does it have some actual significance to this suburban grandmother? Google may help me, here, since the newspaper doesn't.

Cane toads, as they're called, were imported from South America during the 1930s in an attempt to control beetles on Australia's sugar cane plantations. The thought of plantations reminds me of our cotton plantations, slavery, and ruinous farming practices in the early days of our country.

My first stop on the Google express was here. Coke benefiting from Child Labor in Sugar Cane Fields in El Salvador. This was reported in 2004; children, some as young as eight years old, were laboring in dangerous and unhealthy conditions, and were forced to miss the first several months of school. In addition, they had to pay for their own medical care when they were injured by the machetes.

Ah, our friend Coca Cola, found on practically every street corner, either in a dispensing machine, a store shelf, or a can thrown onto the sidewalk.

Next, putting it into some historical context, I read that in the late 1800s Australian sugar producers kidnapped unsuspecting Kanakas to use as cheap labor so the producers could compete with overseas producers.

So slavery isn't just an American blotch, and of course we know it's not, given some very grim figures available today. What this says to me is we didn't invent greed, powerlust, ignorance, and self indulgence, but we sure haven't walked away from them, have we, as we toss our Coke cans and candy wrappers?

Unfortunately, the damage goes further than the atrocities of slavery and forced child labor. It seems we are damaging the earth itself.

Late last year, in Uganda, the owner of a sugar cane plantation attempted to gain permission to clear a rare rain forest in order to expand the plantation's operations. At this point, I don't know who the owners are, what country funds them, or whether they were successful.

All I know is we go through a lot of sugar consumption in this country, much to the delight, I'm sure, of some wealthy plantation owners and their stockholders. Of course, as disease attacks our bodies, in part due to our unhealthy eating habits, we can always get medical assistance, much to the delight of drug company owners and their stockholders.

I think it's time to ditch the Coca Cola again, among other things.

Who's the winner and what does everybody else lose?

Group's Pepsi deal goes flat. Cute title. I approve.

What interests me about this is something most of us of a certain age either don't care about or don't know, which is Pepsi advertising in the schools. I'm not currently walking through the schools, but as long ago as twenty years ago I walked through a high school and was both surprised and dismayed to see attractive posters in the halls, compliments of one soft drink company or another. For that matter, soft drink dispensing machines were a surprise, too. And so on. No, I'm not a purist. I just finished a Coca Cola myself. Yes, I know it doesn't have any health benefits and the company itself is highly suspect. I guess I have some issues of my own to address, but right now I'm addressing something else.

In our competitive world of winners and losers, anybody who lives in Dublin, Ohio, the location of interest here, is an economic winner by almost any standard. Of course, "winning" is relative, wouldn't you say?

To make a relatively boring article as short as possible, Dublin schools contracted with Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of Columbus Ohio to receive a portion of sales proceeds in exchange for advertising and an exclusivity contract. Apparently how it was handled on the Dublin schools end has caused some difficulties with the school administration.

I don't want to get bogged down in the specific details, contracts, legalities, and misunderstandings and assumptions here. You can read the article for that. Instead, let's look at something else.

Why is it acceptable to have soft drinks sold and advertised in the schools in the first place? Can the school district not raise the funds needed to run the schools? Remember, this is Dublin, Ohio, wealthy by most standards. Who is the real winner in this acceptable practice?

I have a gut feeling it's Pepsi. They dangle a bit of money at people in exchange for…what? I suppose Pepsi doesn't really care how the school district spends the money it will get from them. Pepsi will obviously make more than what the school district will receive.

I don't think Pepsi gives a rat's *ss about the judged unconstitutional ways Ohio has funded its schools, nor about the incredible discrepancies between the richest and the poorest school districts. I'm guessing Pepsi doesn't care, either, about what's taught, (and not taught) in the classrooms.

All I know is Pepsi makes a deal with a school district to advertise in their schools, and sell their product without competition. In return, the school district gets some money. There is just something about this that stinks, and I don't care that the practice is widespread and "everbody does it." It still stinks in a state that hasn't figured out how to fund the schools fairly and adequately in the first place.

You go, girl!

Good for you, Elizabeth Edwards. I'm not making a judgment call on anybody's intentions. I'll leave that to the self-righteous know-it-alls who prefer spewing venom to solving problems.

But good for you. You are showing us that you can live while you're alive. If it were me, I'd do the same. The comments about stress being bad for recovery? True enough. As I see it, keeping my spouse from doing what he believes to be important would also be stressful, especially if I, too, believed it was important.

Brunner begins to clean house

Something I enjoyed reading in the 20March07 Columbus Dispatch written by Mark Niquette:

Our new Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner has issued an ultimatum to Cuyahoga County's board of elections: resign or be fired. The board chairman, Robert T. Bennett, is also chairman of the Ohio Republican Party. He says Brunner hit the wrong target and he won't resign.

Yada, yada, yada. Given everything that has gone on in Ohio regarding voting, Bennett should be glad he was given a choice.

We can read the story 'til the cows come home, and we'll never know for sure who did what, most likely. But we do know the voting system was highly suspect in Ohio, that recount volunteers met with hostility, that J. Kenneth Blackwell effectively threw up roadblocks that prevented examination of voting records and machines, that, well, we know the drill. At this point, like it or not, if you're a Republican in Ohio, especially a Republican who has worked your way up into a position of "importance" in the party, chances are you aren't a wrong target.

How about this. Mr. Bennett, if it helps ease your pain, consider yourself to be collateral damage…

dilemma

The car ahead of me had two stickers on its backside.

The first proclaimed these words:
Protect America.
No amnesty for
illegal aliens.

The second was the Chrisian symbolic fish with the name of Jesus inside.

The first is the language of law.
The second is the language of love.

Who will win the heart of this driver? It cannot be both. Jesus had a few things to say about Pharisees.

Unconstitutional school funding in Ohio

I'll be upfront about this. Most of the legalities and behind the scenes dancing by personalities I don't know are beyond me.

But this is what I do know. Too much of funding for schools is dependent on property taxes within the school districts. Thus, wealthy districts have wonderful schools, poor districts get indoor plumbing that usually works.

Also, as the problem of school funding was addressed, I could hear the folks in the wealthy districts not wanting any of their money going to the poorer districts. Well, so much for lip service to the principles of Christianity, upon which so many folks like to say is the basis of our entire country's laws.

Ten years ago this topic hit the big screen, and it's not done yet. Joe Hallett wrote an interesting summary of the process of addressing this problem here in Ohio in the March 18, 2007 Columbus Dispatch.

Sixteen paragraphs down something he wrote hit me between the eyes: "He (Douglas) and Pfeifer, two maverick Republicans who nurtured reputations for siding with the little guy…"

I read that again and chewed on it. Somebody said that. Outloud, more or less. In the Columbus Dispatch, a newspaper that is by and large a voice of the Republican party here. Is he saying that Republicans who side with the little guys are mavericks? Well, I won't act like I'd never considered that possibility myself, but it was so nice to see it in print, even if it was printed deep in the bowels of the Sunday paper where half of the front page was devoted to basketball. Oh well.

I also don't know whether Joe Hallett was trying to put a positive or negative spin on his words. It was enough for me to hear maverick, Republican, and siding with the little guy all stitched together. Again, it reminds me of what I've heard before. The test of any law is the effect it has on the poorest among us.

Working Sick

A study published by ACORN shows a pattern of companies not providing paid sick leave to their employees, and those employees are the least likely to be able to afford to take days off without pay in the first place. Cruising through the list of stingy companies, I saw that many of them are the traditional landmarks around our town.

Look at these examples…
Outback
Cracker Barrel
Burger King
Jack in the Box
Kohl's
McDonald's
Wendy's
Ruby Tuesday's
Applebee's

Now just to throw a little balance into the mix, take a look at CEO pay in 2005 for these same companies:
Outback: $22,000,000
Cracker Barrel: $8,800,000
Burger King: $7,900,000
Jack in the Box: $2,800,000
Kohl's: $1,600,000
McDonald's: $3,400,000
Wendy's: $5,300,000
Ruby Tuesday's: $5,300,000
Applebee's: $2,900,000

I certainly don't fault employees who come to work sick, especially if they have families to provide for. Oh, did you think it was only teenagers who flipped burgers at McDonald's? But think about what gets sneezed onto your food as it's being prepared.

Do you suppose the CEOs of these companies are concerned about their own health care? Oh how silly of me to ask such simple questions!

biological sin?

Mohler Says Gay Gene Should Be Manipulated, If Possible

So now the Rev. Albert Mohler Jr. wants to "fix" defective babies still in the womb who are biologically disposed to be gay? This is making a lot of noise in some circles, including the group of those who snoop around in the back pages of the third sections of newspapers.

I have a better idea. Let's find the biological basis for homophobia and fix that problem right at the two cell stage. We could snoop into the wombs of all women and eliminate fear and hate before our new brothers and sisters even reach the blastula stage. Oh my. Then, maybe we can find that the biological basis for homophobia is actually the result of sinful thinking on the part of those who have contributed the DNA in the first place. Oh, what a purge of the sinful that would be, tee hee.

I mean, well, after all, following the lead of those who believe "gay" to be sinful, well, since what we "believe" carries more weight than the facts, then I can believe homophobia is sinful, too. God told me. Who's gonna argue with God?

State of the State, well stated

I don't usually listen to State of the State addresses, figuring it's all about posturing and hot air. I'm more interested in the action end of things. However, reading today's newspaper, I see I missed some action. Governor Strickland got a gasp out of the Republican side when he announced a budget recommendation of a moratorium on new charter schools and elimination of almost all school vouchers. I'm sure one of the reasons they gasped was because they were surprised, and, delightfully, one reason they were surprised was because Ted Strickland didn't distribute his speech ahead of time. I like that.

Joe Hallett, a reporter for the Columbus Dispatch, noted, "And there was a lot for those who view government as a guardian for children, the aged and the poor."

This focus is crucial, in my opinion.

This from the vision of our new governor, and noted by a reporter of a conservative newspaper. I am pleased, at least in this moment. We'll see how it all plays out.

beemused

Honeybees in Ohio are endangered.

I wonder, sometimes, if the bullet that finally does us in is a lot closer than terrorists from the other side of the world. Could it be the bees? Without pollination, we lose a significant amount of our food supply. We know that, or at least many of us read it in our textbooks. But do we really care? How many of us actually have gardens of our own? How many of us actually think about our food supply any deeper than clipping coupons or zipping through the drive-thrus? When I taught, I had students who had no idea what beef was. It just came wrapped in plastic, don'cha know?

I think about disease in our bodies, how bacteria and germs can make us sick, then we get better. We'll get sick again sometime, and recover again. Except not always. One day, unless we get run over by a truck, we'll die from a disease, most likely, because we're old and unable to ward off the disease any more, even with help.

How healthy is our environment?

That's what concerns me. I don't think we know enough yet to know which straw is the last one. And, I don't think, as a population, we're mature enough to care.