Wondering on Wednesday (v175)

Right off the bat, I'm wondering where the heck summer colds come from, and I'm wondering why they're so much worse than other colds?
Seriously, I've not been able to string together enough words to make a single sentence in four days.

More importantly, though, I want to do some wondering about the president, and women. Now, I'm not going to go back and relive the 'grab them by the pussy' stuff or the porn stars or the creepy beauty pageant owner stuff, because that's so yesterday's news.

I want to wonder about new news, as it were.  News like this, which I found in a fact sheet issued yesterday on the White House website.

Today, the Trump Administration released a Strategy on Women, Peace and Security, which aims to increase women's meaningful leadership in political and civic life. This Strategy implements the Women, Peace and Security Act signed by President Trump in 2017.

Another thing the fact sheet tells us?

The United States will promote the protection of women and support humanitarian assistance efforts that address women's economic security, safety, and dignity. The United States will work with partner countries to remove barriers, laws and regulations that impede women's access to justice and participation in the peace and security process.

So, I wonder, if we are supporting "humanitarian assistance efforts that address women's economic security, safety and dignity," why have we

• gutted funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), including not only their core family planning activities, but also specific services UNFPA is providing in humanitarian crises in Syria, Iraq and Yemen? And yes, we did that - on International Women's Day in 2018.
• expanded the Mexico City Policy to include "nearly all bilateral global health assistance" including maternal and child health, the WASH program (household-level water, sanitation and hygiene, nutrition, HIV under PEPFAR, tuberculosis, malaria, neglected tropical diseases, and global health security, and certain types of research activities?
• dramatically slashed "life-saving financial assistance" in areas of humanitarian crisis around the world?  Trump's 2018 budget, for example, included unprecedented cuts to international humanitarian funding for food, shelter, global health, maternal/child health and international peacekeeping measures, and while funding was restored by Congress, the 2019 budget came back with more cuts for refugees, disaster assistance, food aid, global health programs and more?

How can pretend we are concerned about women's "security, safety and dignity" if we are actively trying to strip away Temporary Protected Status  for folks who were allowed to come to the US from 10 countries, among them El Salvador, Haiti, and Guatemala, to avoid "disease, violence, starvation, the aftermath of natural disasters, and other life-threatening conditions" - including women with American-born children?

And more importantly still, I wonder how it is that we can not just once ($12B), but twice (another $16B), come up with billions of dollars in welfare aid to farmers, in response to a completely manufactured crisis - one caused directly by the president - but we can't figure out a way to finance a fund to take care of 9/11 first responders?

Or, how is it that we can make the United States Postal Service pre-fund decades of benefits - the only agency required to do this, by the way - but we can't figure out a way to finance a fund to take care of 9/11 first responders?

This piece has the long and winding history of getting the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act passed. Zadroga was a NYPD officer and the first whose death was attributed to his exposure to toxins at Ground Zero. The bill only included a little over $4B, and passed despite the best efforts of Republicans who thought it was "too expensive." Funding had been extended only through the end of next year, which is atrocious.

If you didn't see Jon Stewart's testimony yesterday before a congressional subcommittee, you missed a gut-wrenching 10 minutes. It's worth watching, or watching again if you've already seen it.

And it seems that Stewart and the first responders who also went to Washington to plead their case may have made a difference, according to the NY Post.

The bill that permanently authorizes the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund passed out of the House Judiciary Committee unanimously Wednesday...  At the full committee markup Wednesday, a handful of lawmakers were absent, but (Chairman Jerry) Nadler dismissed calls to make the committee vote a roll call vote. 

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), will likely need to be scored by the Congressional Budget Office before it can get a full vote in the House, but it is expected to pass, as the legislation has 313 bipartisan co-sponsors.

Kudos to Stewart, but boy, it's hard to imagine that this needed a hard sell that generated tons of  negative media coverage for Congress as a whole.

I mean, if we can't get this right, who are we?

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

Last night on the  PBS News Hour, Gwen Ifill spoke with Tamara Keith of NPR and Susan Page, the Washington bureau chief of USA Today, about Hillary Clinton's pneumonia, the "basket of deplorables" comment Clinton made at a fundraiser, and about two related Trump scandals: his $25,000 bribe of the Florida Attorney General to encourage her to not join an action against Trump University, and about his propensity to donate other people's money and take credit for it.

Discussion on the health issue were standard issue -- why didn't she come clean last week when she was diagnosed, why won't she tell us everything under the sun that we need to do, and, oh yeah, there was that little mention of Donald Trump and Clinton's health.  Here's Tamara Keith (emphasis added):

There was already a lot circulating about her health that was completely unsubstantiated, a lot of rumors, conspiracy theories, and Donald Trump talking about her stamina. So this was floating in the ether, when yesterday at the 9/11 commemoration she faltered as she  was leaving...

Note the emphasis: completely unsubstantiated, rumors, conspiracy theories and Donald Trump, who merely had to raise the question in a speech for it to become an issue, that he wondered whether Clinton had the stamina to be president. As if she herself would be charging into battle to fight the issues facing our country. Trump drove the point home in mid-August, at his 'major foreign policy address' when he read this off the teleprompter:

Importantly, she also lacks the mental and physical stamina to take on ISIS and all of the many adversaries we face, not only in terrorism, but in trade and every other challenge we must confront to turn our great country around. 

So now it's September, and she's had some allergy-related coughs, laughingly telling people she was allergic to Donald Trump.  And then the 9/11 commemoration happened, and all media hell broke loose. For several hours, the press knew not where Clinton was, why she had left the remembrance ceremony, or what was wrong.  Later, (again, NPR's Tamara Keith):

It was the end of the day (after 5:30 PM) when the doctor, her doctor, released a statement saying she was overheated, dehydrated, and oh, by the way, on Friday, three days earlier, was diagnosed with pneumonia and they hadn't told anyone about that before. 

Gwen Ifill tries to get some discussion going on what we, and by "we" I mean the media and the talking heads, are really concerned about.

Ifill: Well, that's the point Susan. Was this really about -  is our concern really about her health or is it about the fact of the failure to disclose in a timely fashion?

Page: I think both things are issues. I think she will now need to come out and show that she's healthy and vigorous and has stamina.  She has -- the fact that she was diagnosed with pneumonia, and we didn't know about it, and had this incident caught on a video has legitimized some of the critiques that Trump and Rudy Giuliani in particular have been making that she's -- that there's some question about her health.  

Ifill: Donald Trump, who has not released his...

 Page: His own health records.. That's right.

Ifill: OK, just to make that point.

Page: Yes, absolutely.  But I think her failure to disclose it is also an issue. And it goes to a different vulnerability she has, which is, is she straightforward with the Americans whose votes she wants to get?

Ifill:  And they say there is a higher standard for the woman candidate. That's what the Clinton people say.

Keith: Yes. They do. They do say that. And they say they are going to meet that higher standard.... But there was a tweet today from David Axelrod, the adviser to President Obama back when he was running for President, that really sums up what Susan is talking about. He says "Antibiotics can take care of pneumonia. What's the cure for an unhealthy penchant for privacy that repeatedly creates unnecessary problems?"

A bug planted about Clinton's stamina, which Trump had been pushing since June, similar to his 'low energy' attack on Jeb! Bush. A higher standard for the female candidate, which the reporters talk about as if it doesn't exist. Completely unsubstantiated rumors and conspiracy theories, promoted by Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani, being 'legitimized' because Hillary Clinton didn't tell anyone that she had been diagnosed with pneumonia.

The bottom line is that there surely is a higher standard for the woman candidate - and that's magnified because it's Hillary Clinton. She must be smart but not too smart. Kind but not too kind or she'll appear fake. Empathetic, but not too empathetic or she'll be seen as using people to get votes. She must be personable, and bake cookies. She must be energetic and fiery but not sound harsh and or shrill or show emotion. She must be strong, but she can't be too strong.

She must never make a misstep, whether that's an actual misstep, or a fashion faux pas or a verbal scuff in a speech or, heaven forbid, have to pee - because those make the woman look unpresidential.

I agree with Axelrod that Clinton and/or her team of advisers repeatedly create unnecessary problems - I think that's been proven any number of times. But on this issue, she had two choices: tell, take time off, and be seen as weak, knowing that the media will mention over and over and over that "Trump said" she's not healthy enough to serve. Or, don't tell, and get through it as best you can, as long as nothing goes wrong. And know that something will go wrong.

Between a rock and a hard place, that's where she was. 

What would you have recommended she do about the pneumonia diagnosis? What would you have done in her shoes?

Channeling Andy Rooney

Andy Rooney

Did you ever wonder...

...if the Hobby Lobby folks (who are suing because having to provide certain contraceptive medicines as required under the Affordable Care Act violates their religious beliefs) should interview potential customers to see what the customer's beliefs are before allowing them to spend money in the store?

Because I'm kinda thinking that if the religious beliefs of the company's owner by extension also apply to all of the company's employees, I would think that they would also extend to the customers.

And there certainly would be no reason for a moral business to accept money from people who don't subscribe to the same beliefs, right?  I mean, if I don't agree with the business, why would they want my money?

Here's what that interaction would look like if I was the customer:

HL employee:  Thank you for coming to our store today.  Before I give you this shopping basket, I'd like to ask you a few questions, is that OK?

Me: Uh, sure, go ahead, but I really just wanted to pick up a couple of cheesy picture frames.

HL employee: No problem, we have lots of those.  But first, do you believe that it's OK for a woman to receive the morning after pill if she needs it?

Me:  I don't really think it's any of your business, and I'm not sure what that has to do with me getting a couple of cheesy picture frames from your store?

HL employee: Well, our owners believe that those medications are morally wrong, and we want to make sure that we don't take money from anyone who doesn't share the same beliefs. So to make it possible for our company owners to sleep at night, we need to ask this question of all our customers. Your money is important, of course, and we'd love to take it, but our company owners' beliefs are more important. 

Me: No problem, I completely understand.  I'll go get my cheesy picture frames from the Christmas Tree Shops. I think I remember seeing them right near the Christmas tampons and Christmas toothpaste. You have a nice day.

HL employee: Thanks for almost shopping at our store. You have a nice day too.

Yeah, that would be fun to do, wouldn't it? Or maybe instead of asking customers the question, the store could just post a sign on the window?  Let me know if that's happening at HL now, will you? I went to the store once, long before this whole 'my religion is your religion' issue came up, and finding nothing to buy, haven't gone back.  Although I certainly would give them credit for honesty if they did something like this.

Speaking of honesty, remember the wing-flapping over Chik-fil-A and their support of anti-gay programs and charities over the years? Here's a compilation of issues if you're interested. There's been a lot of noise about these folks, particularly when the head of the company tweeted his thoughts last summer after the SCOTUS released its decision on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California's Proposition 8.

In a refreshing burst of of honesty, here's what the company said about the (now-deleted) tweet:

Yesterday, President and COO of Chik-fil-A Dan Cathy tweeted a personal comment upon hearing the Supreme Court decisions on DOMA and Prop 8.  Dan recognizes his views do not necessarily represent the views of all Chik-fil-A customers, restaurant owners, and employees so he removed the tweet to eliminate any confusion. At Chik-fil-A, we are focused on providing great-tasting food and genuine hospitality to everyone. 

Good for Chik-fil-A for appreciating the difference between the owner, the people who work there, and the customers who eat there.

And, did you ever wonder...

...why so many of us, particularly those who scream and shout about getting government out of business, and letting the free market rule the world (with corporate welfare contributions, of course) get so up in arms when a business does what it wants without a lot of interference from the government?

We all know about the Duck Dynasty case, where the A and E Network decided to put the main Duck Dude on suspension because of his intolerant comments about gays and happy black people in the deep south. Suspension, while the show was on hiatus. Which is kinda like the fraternity on Animal House being on double secret probation or something. Or, as I noted previously, like a baseball pitcher being suspended and having games they were officially scheduled not to pitch count towards their suspension.

cvs.com

I'm guessing you've heard the news from CVS/pharmacy, the nation's second-largest well-stocked corner store that happens to have a pharmacy in the back. Like any good corner store, they have all the stuff we need -- sunglasses, sugary and salty/crunchy treats, personal hygiene items for folks of all ages, beer, cigarettes and what not.

Oh yeah, and they have that pharmacy, and they also do flu shots and the like, which in their business model qualifies them as a health care provider. And if you're a health care provider, it doesn't make sense to sell cigarettes. So, CVS  has announced plans to phase out tobacco products by October of this year. Let the games begin, folks.

A classic 'you can't win for losing', they are getting hammered as much as they're being supported, in some cases by the same subset of the population: doctors, business experts, college students, and of course the anonymous chatterboxes on social media.

• You've got the "I'll never shop there again, the bastages, since they took my cigarettes away" theme, as if there weren't a gazillion places to get smokes if you need them. Some 90% of all cigarette sales happen at convenience stores, people, not at CVS and Walgreen's.  And probably some 90% of CVS customers don't get their cigs at CVS.
• Then there's the "what about beer and junk food?" contingent, as if a person (and by person I mean corporation, of course) who makes one positive step deserves to be chastised for not making a million positive steps at the same time.  Can you even imagine the audacity of them, the bastages, not emptying their shelves EVERYTHING? Right NOW?!
• Then there's the 'Nanny state' group, those who believe this is some kind of black-helicopter, NSA-type plot, part of the government take-over our lives. As if this was done by law, edict or fiat, by some Obaman stroke of the pen. This was a business decision, not a government regulation. This was a company decision, not a Bloomberg big gulp chomp out of your personal freedom.
• And that of course leads to the next contingent, the people who question the real motive of CVS in making the decision. Some folks don't believe that this has anything to do with 'health care' and totally has to do with marketing and trying to be more competitive.  

Um, does it really matter why they're doing it?  I mean, if they had come out and said, "after much soul-searching, we bastages at CVS have decided to change our business model and stop selling cigarettes so we would look more like Target" would that make you happy?

If you think they're bastages for stopping selling tobacco, you have the right to stop shopping there, just as a person has the right to stop buying lunch at Chik-fil-A or shopping at JC Pennney or Abercrombie or  watching the Duck Dudes or stop buying knick-knacks at Hobby Lobby.

And that leads me to wonder about the deafening silence from the folks who are always Right There in support of businesses making changes on their own, without being forced to make them, without the government getting involved. Where the heck is Sarah Palin on this?  I checked her Facebook page, but she's pretty busy promoting her new TV show and wishing Ronald Reagan happy birthday, so she probably doesn't have time to jump in here in favor of free enterprise.

Where's John Boehner, chest-thumping and sobbing his eyes out, championing the 'certainty' that CVS has put out there in the market? That's what the Republicans in the House have been crying about for the past five years, isn't it?  The 'lack of certainty' that Democrats made happen?  Well, Crying John is focused on immigration, and the IRS, and the Keystone extra-large pipeline, not on free-market business certainty, apparently.

And Mitch McConnell? He supports "insurance policies tailored to those with preexisting conditions, promoting wellness and reigning in junk lawsuits" in this post on his website. I think the CVS move hits all three of those right on the head, don't you? Smokers with lung disease, cardiovascular disease and other smoking-related health issues fall right in his first bucket, and stopping cigarette sales is in the second bucket, and everyone knows that tobacco lawsuits are junk, right?  This is right up his alley, but he's a little busy focusing on getting the IRS to stop investigating 501(3)(c) organizations and on getting support for hemp-growing in Kentucky to pay attention to CVS right now, I guess.

Did you ever wonder if some of these folks are really just self-serving opportunists? Here's a thought: if CVS had made even the remotest connection to religion in their decision, these three would be all over this.

Let me know what's got you doing the Andy Rooney thing these days.

Goodbye, trans fats

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced yesterday that it is looking to have 'partially hydrogenated oils' (PHOs) classified as food additives, meaning they couldn't be used in food without authorization from the FDA.  PHOs, according to the FDA's press release, are the primary dietary source of trans fats in food.  Having the PHOs classified as a food additive would mean those wishing to use them would need to meet a pretty heavy burden of proof of benefit to get approval, so if approved this new policy could pretty much eliminate trans fats.

Trans fats, in case you didn't know, are the things that make certain foods taste good. What kinds of food? Well, let's see: crackers, cookies, frozen pies, other baked goods, microwave popcorn and other snacks, frozen pizza, creamers, refrigerated dough products, ready-to-use frosting, vegetable shortening, margarine... there's some good, convenient, tasty stuff there in the list which could contain trans fat. I admit to enjoying many of the items on the list. Sadly, as much as they make things yummy, the pesky trans fats actually can raise bad cholesterol and lower good cholesterol. 

Trans fat content has been included on food labels for several years, and consumption has decreased over time, by almost 80% in the past decade, because of increased education, the labeling, local restrictions (such as those in New York City), and actions by the food industry to reduce trans fats in foods or the oils used to cook them.  For example, many of the more prominent restaurant chains have already eliminated trans fats; for some smaller restaurants and stores, it might be harder and more costly to make the transition.

Ultimately, the hope is that further restrictions on PHOs and trans fats will help save lives. As FDA Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg notes,

The FDA's action today is an important step toward protecting more Americans from the potential dangers of trans fat.  Further reduction in the amount of trans fact in the American diet could prevent an additional 20,000 heart attacks and 7,000 deaths from heart disease each year - a critical step in the protection of Americans' health.

The projected benefits of this change may not seem huge in the overall scheme of things, but every little bit helps. There should also be some reduction in health care costs, which can have implications beyond those directly affected.

As with most government regulations, there's a comment period, during which interested parties can chime in.  Already, some in the industry are starting the conversation.  For example, the Giant Eagle grocery store chain, with stores in the Pittsburgh and Cleveland areas, issued a statement noting that they  

...work diligently to ensure that our stores follow all relevant Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules and regulations.  We are aware of today's FDA announcement regarding their preliminary determination that partially hydrogenated oils are not "generally recognized as safe" or "GRAS" for use in food, and are awaiting further detail from the FDA before reviewing the potential impact on our locations during the coming years. (emphasis added)

The FDA and the food industry need to be reasonable about implementation, should this proposal go forward.  For example, it could be a 'from this day forward' rule, so that nothing new can have trans fats, but food already on the shelves could be allowed to be sold for a certain period of time. Another alternative would  be some kind of buy-back period, where the FDA could purchase inventory to get it off the shelves, and keep manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers from losing everything on these currently legal products.  On the industry side, aggressive efforts could be made to speed up the transition.

I hope the comment period gives people on both sides a chance to come up with a viable plan. Kudos to those who have fought for this for so long; and kudos as well as to the food industry for the progress they've already made, willing or unwillingly, to get these fats out of their products.  

Extreme Healthcare: Erectile Dysfunction

In response to the various anti-contraception bills circulating across the land, a state senator in Ohio has proposed legislation that would require men desiring a prescription for ED drugs to undergo a series of extreme and potentially embarrassing steps before being allowed to purchase the drug.  Essentially, the bill would require men to ‘take their medicine’ before they could take their medicine.  

Here are the proposed requirements:  an affidavit signed by at least one sexual partner certifying the erectile dysfunction; an assessment by an approved sex therapist to determine that the dysfunction is truly erectile, not psychological; a stress test ensuring the patient is healthy enough for sexual activity;a signature certifying the patient was informed of the risks of the medicine; awritten statement from the doctor on the necessity and reason for the drug; a repeat stress test every 90 days to ensure continued good cardiac health; outpatient counseling sessions within 90 days of the initial prescription ; and maintenance of all written documentation in the patient’s medical records for not less than seven years.

I appreciate that there is no requirement to pay for erectile dysfunction drugs in group health insurance benefit packages, as was the plan for contraceptives.  But since most plans do cover these drugs, I’m concerned that the Ohio approach doesn’t go far enough.  

It may address the medical issues, but it doesn’t get to the heart of the moral issues which are apparently integral to health care decision-making.  I would make the following suggestions:

·         The signed documents in the initial requirements must be kept on file with the state government for at least seven years, not just held in the patient's medical record.

·         A photo of the men receiving the prescription must be updated and filed with the state each time the prescription is refilled.

·         ED drugs would only be available to men who are married to women of child-bearing age with no reproductive health issues.

·         The women would not be allowed to use any medical or barrier method of birth control during the man’s course of treatment with the drug.  An attestation to this effect would need to be signed by both the husband and the wife, under penalty of perjury.

·         An attestation of reproductive health from the wife’s gynecologist must be signed and kept on file by the state. This document would require renewal each time the prescription was refilled. Should the woman's health change such that she was no longer able to conceive a child, the ED prescription would immediately be voided and any unused medication returned for disposal.

·         The wives of the men seeking the prescription must also sign a document, with renewal every refill, indicating continued consent to their husband receiving the ED prescription.

·         The men must only use the drug when contemplating sexual intercourse with their wives.  Any other use of the drug would be subject to criminal penalties. A signed notice of understanding of this requirement must also be kept on file.

·         Physicians must maintain and file with the state, at least quarterly, a list of all patients receiving ED medications.

Oh, one more thing.  The couples have to video themselves, and we get to watch.

Looking Forward to 2010

Before we get too far into the year, I thought I’d capture some of my hopes for 2010. I don’t do any kind of formal New Year’s resolution, but I do think about the future. With thanks to my boycat Galway who I happened to catch in this great pose, here are some of the things on my list:

• Let 2010 be the Year of Cooperation between all levels of government including village, town, city, county, region, state and national jurisdictions. They should learn to play well with each other, consolidate services where possible, and think about what is truly best for their constituents in these trying economic times.


• Let 2010 be the Year of Accountability. I’m less interested in what we call this year (twenty-ten, two-thousand-ten, two-oh-one-oh, or whatever the other options are) than I am in hoping that this is finally the year that people become accountable for themselves, and act accordingly, whether it’s professionally or personally.


• Let 2010 be the Year of Not Defining Beauty by Dress Size. We need to focus less on how big a person is, and more on whether or not we’re healthy. There is a difference between the two, even if we’ve managed to convince ourselves that ‘healthy’ and ‘skinny’ are synonyms.


• Let 2010 be the Year of Fiscal Responsibility. We cannot continue to spend our tax dollars the way we do. There have to be politicians out there who can see the bigger picture and help us find our way back to some level of sanity.


• Let 2010 be the Year of Politicians Finding Ethics. That we need this is a no-brainer. If we have folks with the brains or the stomachs to fix it is a whole ’nother question.


• Let 2010 be the Year of The Demise of Reality TV. OK, we can keep American Idol, The Amazing Race, and maybe Survivor, but the rest of it has got to go.


• Let 2010 be the Year the Red Sox Regain the World Series title. I just never get sick of asking for that one.

We'll be talking about these again down the road, I'm sure. What’s on your list?