As I drive around I'm seeing enough distracted drivers that it's got me genuinely concerned. It's a real safety hazard and I'd like to see some very stringent enforcement before too many more are injured and killed. Thirty years ago drunk driving was fairly prevalent and more or less accepted by many. Mothers Against Drunk Driving was formed, public attention was focused, and those attitudes all changed. Now it's treated as a serious offense. Distracted driving, especially texting, is the contemporary equivalent: a driver is twenty-three times more likely to cause an accident while texting.
California made talking on handheld phones and sending and receiving text messages while driving illegal in 2008. A first offense got you a ticket for $20 and subsequent violations dinged you for $50. The amounts are now up to $159 and $279 respectively. These are steps in the right direction, but more is needed.
Research shows that driving while texting increases the risk of accident and death equivalent to driving above the legal limit for alcohol. This is serious stuff. Statistics from the Transportation Department found that 5,474 deaths and 448,000 injuries were linked to distracted driving in 2009. Ominously, they also show that especially among younger drivers, the practice is becoming highly common, perhaps even prevalent.
A survey of 5000 San Diego area college students released this month found that 50% reported texting while driving on the freeway, 60% while in city traffic, and 87% while at red lights. Only 12% marked that they "never" text while driving.
As of yet, the penalties do not seem to be having much effect among young people. The California Highway Patrol issued 168,000 citations in 2011. The same survey earlier cited found that majorities of the young drivers said they would curtail their proclivities if heavier penalties were imposed, such as a 3-month license revocation, adding a point to one's driving violations record, or exempting insurers from having to cover accidents in which their insured was engaged in distracted driving behavior.
I hope to see more strict enforcement of these rules and much heavier punishments for violating them. I don't know about you, but I feel quite unsafe when I'm on the road around people who are looking down at their hands rather than paying attention to me and the other cars around them. I hope soon to see the cops nailing people left and right and the violators seeing their insurance rates go through the roof. Then it will become "not ok" to text, tweet, or even chat with one hand holding a phone to one's ear while behind the wheel. Until then, I can report that I have never driven more defensively than I now do. I hope it's enough.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Saturday, April 21, 2012
BP Spill Two Years Later
We have just passed the two-year anniversary of the BP Deep Horizon oil rig blowout in the Gulf of Mexico. Despite the upbeat "Come on Down!" BP advertising blitz you may have seen recently on television, indications abound that the accident that killed 11 men and introduced an estimated 200 million gallons of crude oil into the Gulf is apparently a long way from being cleaned up. Recent reports by ABC and CBS News detail alarming abnormalities in fish, shrimp, coral, dolphins and in the mangroves that anchor the Gulf shoreline.
Fish are being found with strange sores and lesions that have never been seen by fishermen before. Some have patches of skin missing, others have bizarre skin pigmentations and others have tested positive for concentrations of napthalene in their bile. As you can read in the linked reports, commercial fishermen say incidences of the deformed and diseased animals increases as one approaches the site of the spill.
Oil that coated barrier islands remains in the sand and shore, killing off reeds and mangroves. The denuded and unprotected shoreline is thus eroding at four times the normal rate, and whole islands are rapidly disappearing beneath the waves.
BP has reportedly spent the substantial sum of $14 billion in the cleanup and as compensation for businesses and residents adversely affected by the catastrophe. Even so, the recent news would seem to indicate many billions more might need be committed to the effort, and even then numerous long-term effects would almost certainly still remain.
These findings, coming in the same month as the 100th anniversary of the Titanic disaster, serve to remind us how quickly and dramatically human hubris can be given its comeuppance. Assurances about "foolproof" safety precautions or the blithe dismissal of the possibility of serious negative consequences for inherently risky and dangerous activities are time and again humbled by nature, the unforeseen, or simple human error.
A rational policy would be directed toward ending reliance on such an energy source as rapidly as possible. In many advanced nations, including Israel, with a project underway to go to 100% electric cars, Brazil, converting to running all vehicles on ethanol from sugar cane, and Germany, which is in the process of installing solar panels on every roof in the country, vigorous efforts are in progress.
Yet here, President Obama's measured steps to encourage greener domestic sources are met with furious opposition. But then, none of the aforementioned nations has a powerful and influential
domestic oil industry to contend with.
Fish are being found with strange sores and lesions that have never been seen by fishermen before. Some have patches of skin missing, others have bizarre skin pigmentations and others have tested positive for concentrations of napthalene in their bile. As you can read in the linked reports, commercial fishermen say incidences of the deformed and diseased animals increases as one approaches the site of the spill.
Oil that coated barrier islands remains in the sand and shore, killing off reeds and mangroves. The denuded and unprotected shoreline is thus eroding at four times the normal rate, and whole islands are rapidly disappearing beneath the waves.
BP has reportedly spent the substantial sum of $14 billion in the cleanup and as compensation for businesses and residents adversely affected by the catastrophe. Even so, the recent news would seem to indicate many billions more might need be committed to the effort, and even then numerous long-term effects would almost certainly still remain.
These findings, coming in the same month as the 100th anniversary of the Titanic disaster, serve to remind us how quickly and dramatically human hubris can be given its comeuppance. Assurances about "foolproof" safety precautions or the blithe dismissal of the possibility of serious negative consequences for inherently risky and dangerous activities are time and again humbled by nature, the unforeseen, or simple human error.
A rational policy would be directed toward ending reliance on such an energy source as rapidly as possible. In many advanced nations, including Israel, with a project underway to go to 100% electric cars, Brazil, converting to running all vehicles on ethanol from sugar cane, and Germany, which is in the process of installing solar panels on every roof in the country, vigorous efforts are in progress.
Yet here, President Obama's measured steps to encourage greener domestic sources are met with furious opposition. But then, none of the aforementioned nations has a powerful and influential
domestic oil industry to contend with.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Earth Day Cleanup
Yesterday I participated in the Visalia City Earth Day Mill Creek cleanup activity. For those of you who know Visalia, the meetup was at the corner of Lovers Lane and Mill Creek. A good turnout of probably 150 people showed up.
I got to see my good friends Louie Campos, Mary Ann Bringhurst and City Councilman Greg Collins, among others, and work with them for a good cause. We pulled many tons of detritus out of the creek bed, including mattresses, shopping carts, a satellite dish, bottles, PVC pipe, lumber, a good heavy chain, and lots of tires. Nearly a mile of the creek was cleared. Meanwhile, others were busy spreading mulch, clearing out invasive plant species such as bamboo, and going to another location on Riggin St. near the St. Johns River to plant trees and shrubs.
The city had commemorative green shirts for participants, as well as water, gloves and plenty of tools. There were even sandwiches, contributed by Subway, for those who stayed until noon. Click here to read a story on Visalia conservation programs.
At one point I remarked to Louie how surprising it was to find so much trash and junk thrown into a natural watercourse. He said that what amazed him was how quickly a group of concerned citizens could restore a natural setting to attractiveness when they showed up in force with a readiness to work.
It felt good to be a part of this activity. I felt like I did something wholesome and worthwhile on my Sunday morning after church. I guess it's representative of life in general. A lot of people each doing a little can make a difference and the world a better place!
I got to see my good friends Louie Campos, Mary Ann Bringhurst and City Councilman Greg Collins, among others, and work with them for a good cause. We pulled many tons of detritus out of the creek bed, including mattresses, shopping carts, a satellite dish, bottles, PVC pipe, lumber, a good heavy chain, and lots of tires. Nearly a mile of the creek was cleared. Meanwhile, others were busy spreading mulch, clearing out invasive plant species such as bamboo, and going to another location on Riggin St. near the St. Johns River to plant trees and shrubs.
The city had commemorative green shirts for participants, as well as water, gloves and plenty of tools. There were even sandwiches, contributed by Subway, for those who stayed until noon. Click here to read a story on Visalia conservation programs.
At one point I remarked to Louie how surprising it was to find so much trash and junk thrown into a natural watercourse. He said that what amazed him was how quickly a group of concerned citizens could restore a natural setting to attractiveness when they showed up in force with a readiness to work.
It felt good to be a part of this activity. I felt like I did something wholesome and worthwhile on my Sunday morning after church. I guess it's representative of life in general. A lot of people each doing a little can make a difference and the world a better place!
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Tulare Councilman Spouts Racism
The following quote comes from Hillary Meeks, the Target Content Editor for the Visalia Times-Delta newspaper.
It seems the neighborhood in question, Matheny Tract, has bad water, a common problem especially in unincorporated areas of the Central Valley. They desperately want to get annexed into the city of Tulare to get on its municipal water system. The city councilman was expressing his views about why he is opposed to their request.
The councilman's statement does rather speak for itself. It also suggests that those who try to maintain that racism is no longer a problem in our society really aren't paying much attention.
Tulare City Councilman Skip Barwick: "We up here, we keep our yards watered and mowed, we try to keep our house exteriors looking nice, and a lot of Hispanic people, those are not their priorities, whereas it is ours, because of where we come from and how we’re raised. And sometimes we think, ‘Why would you want to live like that?’ …They don’t want a nice, clean home and no animals in their yard. They want to park their cars in the grass and do what they want to do. They don’t have the same values, and trying to impose those values on them is very difficult. That’s one problem when you have a diverse community.”
It seems the neighborhood in question, Matheny Tract, has bad water, a common problem especially in unincorporated areas of the Central Valley. They desperately want to get annexed into the city of Tulare to get on its municipal water system. The city councilman was expressing his views about why he is opposed to their request.
The councilman's statement does rather speak for itself. It also suggests that those who try to maintain that racism is no longer a problem in our society really aren't paying much attention.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
My Friend Has a Close Call
About 15 of us celebrated my friend Newell's 70th birthday at Rosa's Italian Ristorante in Visalia last night. I taught with Newell in the College of the Sequoias Social Science Divison until he retired about 6 years ago. My wife and I have kept up with Newell and Mary Ann, since we belong to a group that goes to the Tulare County Symphony. They have some nine concerts a year and the group gets together for dinner on symphony nights.
Last month Newell and Mary Ann didn't show up. We're lucky to still have Newell with us. As it turned out, he had a heart attack that day. He had ignored some signs that we all ought to keep in mind. He has always kept himself in good shape, walking, running and going to the gym. But he hadn't had a physical in a long time, about 10 years since his last stress test. He counsels to keep up with those regular checkups. And the month before he had been experiencing a lot of tightness in his chest when exercising. It was really hard to catch his breath after levels of exertion that were usually well within his comfort level. But he shrugged it off.
So he was out walking the dog and just collapsed into a ditch beside the road. Here's another tip he passes along: when you go out exercising don't forget to bring your cell phone! When he came to he didn't have his and had to walk back home. He drove himself over to his doctor's office, and when the doc learned what had happened and examined Newell he personally drove him right over to the ER for emergency treatment. As it turned out three stents were needed to reopen coronary arteries that were up to 98% blocked!
So yes, keep up those good diet and exercise habits. But while you're at it, don't forget to schedule an annual physical, pay attention to changes in your body and feelings, and carry your phone with you wherever you go. Hopefully we'll enjoy Newell's company for many years to come. But he knows he was lucky this time and wants his friends to learn from his experience. I hope I can keep his advice in mind and that readers will also take it "to heart!"
Last month Newell and Mary Ann didn't show up. We're lucky to still have Newell with us. As it turned out, he had a heart attack that day. He had ignored some signs that we all ought to keep in mind. He has always kept himself in good shape, walking, running and going to the gym. But he hadn't had a physical in a long time, about 10 years since his last stress test. He counsels to keep up with those regular checkups. And the month before he had been experiencing a lot of tightness in his chest when exercising. It was really hard to catch his breath after levels of exertion that were usually well within his comfort level. But he shrugged it off.
So he was out walking the dog and just collapsed into a ditch beside the road. Here's another tip he passes along: when you go out exercising don't forget to bring your cell phone! When he came to he didn't have his and had to walk back home. He drove himself over to his doctor's office, and when the doc learned what had happened and examined Newell he personally drove him right over to the ER for emergency treatment. As it turned out three stents were needed to reopen coronary arteries that were up to 98% blocked!
So yes, keep up those good diet and exercise habits. But while you're at it, don't forget to schedule an annual physical, pay attention to changes in your body and feelings, and carry your phone with you wherever you go. Hopefully we'll enjoy Newell's company for many years to come. But he knows he was lucky this time and wants his friends to learn from his experience. I hope I can keep his advice in mind and that readers will also take it "to heart!"
Sunday, March 25, 2012
High Court to Try Health Law This Week
The stakes will be high this week as the Supreme Court devotes three days of hearings to challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Not since the civil rights cases of the 1960s has the high court set aside so much time for oral arguments on a single topic. The issues fall into three categories: jurisdiction, mandates and severability. These issues will be argued successively by attorneys attacking and defending the Health Law, and when the court rules it will both determine the future of the Act passed two years ago this month and enter the middle of the election battle being contested this year. Any decisions the justices reach will be rendered at the end of the court's session, probably in late June.
The first issue to be discussed concerns jurisdiction, or more precisely, timing. Since the parts of the law the plaintiffs object to haven't even taken effect yet, the court wants to hear why it is required to act now, since no one has yet been "injured" by the legislation. An 1867 law, the Anti-Injunction Act, prevents court action on new taxes until they have begun operating. Most court watchers do not expect this concern to derail the proceedings.
Next the justices will hear the meat of the oppenents' case, their objection to mandates. The Act says almost all individuals and larger employers will have to buy health insurance or suffer financial penalties. (Individuals already covered under employer-purchased plans will not need to make any changes.) Subsidies are to be made available for people with incomes below $80,000 on a sliding scale. There are also mandates on states; they will have to cover everyone under medicaid who makes 133% or less of the poverty level, or suffer cuts in federal aid. The Medicaid arguments will be heard Wednesday. The Administration will contend that the Act adheres to the Constitution's grant of congressional power to "regulate commerce among the several states" and to do what is "necessary and proper" to "promote the general welfare." For instance, the uninsured used $116 billion in health care in 2008, a cost that insurers pass on to the insured through higher premiums. They will say the new law rights this inequity and serves a clear public interest. Opponents will contend the mandate is a power not expressly granted by the Constitution and thus void. If the court goes against the Medicaid mandate it will be overturning a principle it established earlier, when it allowed the federal government to threaten to withhold highway funds from states if they had legal drinking ages under 21.
Finally, the severability issue will determine whether the whole law must survive or fall as an indivisible whole, i.e. whether certain issues can be "severed" from the law and separately thrown out while keeping the rest in force. If the court rules against the insurance mandate, what about the other requirements? Will that strike down the provisions requiring insurers to cover children on their parents' plan until their 26th birthday, the bans on excluding people from coverage due to pre-existing conditions and of dropping them from coverage if they get sick, or the percentages insurers must actually spend on health care? Those are the kinds of things that will be decided on the severability question.
All in all, the case and eventual ruling figures to be one of the most momentous in decades. Health care for 50 million people and the scope of congressional authority are clearly at stake. The principles allowed or curtailed will shape policy and people's lives for many years to come.
The first issue to be discussed concerns jurisdiction, or more precisely, timing. Since the parts of the law the plaintiffs object to haven't even taken effect yet, the court wants to hear why it is required to act now, since no one has yet been "injured" by the legislation. An 1867 law, the Anti-Injunction Act, prevents court action on new taxes until they have begun operating. Most court watchers do not expect this concern to derail the proceedings.
Next the justices will hear the meat of the oppenents' case, their objection to mandates. The Act says almost all individuals and larger employers will have to buy health insurance or suffer financial penalties. (Individuals already covered under employer-purchased plans will not need to make any changes.) Subsidies are to be made available for people with incomes below $80,000 on a sliding scale. There are also mandates on states; they will have to cover everyone under medicaid who makes 133% or less of the poverty level, or suffer cuts in federal aid. The Medicaid arguments will be heard Wednesday. The Administration will contend that the Act adheres to the Constitution's grant of congressional power to "regulate commerce among the several states" and to do what is "necessary and proper" to "promote the general welfare." For instance, the uninsured used $116 billion in health care in 2008, a cost that insurers pass on to the insured through higher premiums. They will say the new law rights this inequity and serves a clear public interest. Opponents will contend the mandate is a power not expressly granted by the Constitution and thus void. If the court goes against the Medicaid mandate it will be overturning a principle it established earlier, when it allowed the federal government to threaten to withhold highway funds from states if they had legal drinking ages under 21.
Finally, the severability issue will determine whether the whole law must survive or fall as an indivisible whole, i.e. whether certain issues can be "severed" from the law and separately thrown out while keeping the rest in force. If the court rules against the insurance mandate, what about the other requirements? Will that strike down the provisions requiring insurers to cover children on their parents' plan until their 26th birthday, the bans on excluding people from coverage due to pre-existing conditions and of dropping them from coverage if they get sick, or the percentages insurers must actually spend on health care? Those are the kinds of things that will be decided on the severability question.
All in all, the case and eventual ruling figures to be one of the most momentous in decades. Health care for 50 million people and the scope of congressional authority are clearly at stake. The principles allowed or curtailed will shape policy and people's lives for many years to come.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
GOP Driving Women's Vote to Democrats
President Obama, by the conventional wisdom, ought to be vulnerable this November. The economy is getting better, but more slowly than almost everyone had hoped. While we have left Iraq, our forces remain in Afghanistan and developments there seem to get messier and more complicated all the time. The deficit remains high and most of the Bush tax policy is still in place. Gas prices have been going up. None of these goings on are particularly advantageous for an incumbent seeking a second term. Never mind that all of these problems either began on his opponents' watch or have been made worse by their obstruction during his tenure. The top dog tends to suffer the blame when things are not going as folks would wish.
So as if to make the point that they really don't want to win this year, the Republicans have chosen this time to try to infuriate women on health issues. The Republican House doesn't want contraception to be covered in health plans even when insurance companies offer to provide it for free. Their Presidential candidates want to end Planned Parenthood entirely, even though hundreds of thousands depend on it for regular checkups. The GOP legislature and governor of Arizona want women to have to prove that if they are taking birth control pills it is not for contraceptive purposes. Otherwise their employer would be able to fire them. The GOP legislature of Virginia passed a provision mandating vaginally invasive procedures for women considering abortions. Republican governments in Texas and Pennsylvania similarly want to get out the shaming sticks to try to control women's behavior. Republican chairmen hold congressional hearings on women's health and bar any women from testifying. When a woman complained about this Rush Limbaugh called her a "slut" and a "prostitute." Without commenting on the sentiment behind them, the Republican presidential front runner said only that he "would not have chosen those words."
In 2008 women supported Obama over McCain by 13 points--56% to 43% while men only preferred Obama by 1%--49% to 48% (source). Instead of working to improve on that deficiency, Republicans seem intent on exacerbating it. A Washington Post survey now shows Democrats with a 25-point lead in "caring about issues that are important to women." There are various explanatory theories for the current Republican thrust. The motive could be to respond to the zeal of the conservative fundamentalist wing of their Party. It might spring from an irresistible streak of innate sexism they can no longer discipline themselves to suppress. It has even been suggested it could be some sort of political death wish by which they are intent on permanently alienating the 53% of the electorate that is female. It's not as though much male support is engendered by these positions. The Post poll shows the requirement to include contraception in health insurance is supported by all respondents 61% to 33%, nearly two to one.
Whatever the intent, Republicans have resurrected issues thought settled for 50 years that enjoy overwhelming public support. (They also look to be writing off the Hispanic vote. A Fox poll released last week shows Obama beating Romney 70% to 14% among Latinos.) If a drastic course correction is not made soon, the approach bears all the signs of political suicide.
To sign Senator Dianne Feinstein's petition against these regressive attitudes and policies click here.
So as if to make the point that they really don't want to win this year, the Republicans have chosen this time to try to infuriate women on health issues. The Republican House doesn't want contraception to be covered in health plans even when insurance companies offer to provide it for free. Their Presidential candidates want to end Planned Parenthood entirely, even though hundreds of thousands depend on it for regular checkups. The GOP legislature and governor of Arizona want women to have to prove that if they are taking birth control pills it is not for contraceptive purposes. Otherwise their employer would be able to fire them. The GOP legislature of Virginia passed a provision mandating vaginally invasive procedures for women considering abortions. Republican governments in Texas and Pennsylvania similarly want to get out the shaming sticks to try to control women's behavior. Republican chairmen hold congressional hearings on women's health and bar any women from testifying. When a woman complained about this Rush Limbaugh called her a "slut" and a "prostitute." Without commenting on the sentiment behind them, the Republican presidential front runner said only that he "would not have chosen those words."
In 2008 women supported Obama over McCain by 13 points--56% to 43% while men only preferred Obama by 1%--49% to 48% (source). Instead of working to improve on that deficiency, Republicans seem intent on exacerbating it. A Washington Post survey now shows Democrats with a 25-point lead in "caring about issues that are important to women." There are various explanatory theories for the current Republican thrust. The motive could be to respond to the zeal of the conservative fundamentalist wing of their Party. It might spring from an irresistible streak of innate sexism they can no longer discipline themselves to suppress. It has even been suggested it could be some sort of political death wish by which they are intent on permanently alienating the 53% of the electorate that is female. It's not as though much male support is engendered by these positions. The Post poll shows the requirement to include contraception in health insurance is supported by all respondents 61% to 33%, nearly two to one.
Whatever the intent, Republicans have resurrected issues thought settled for 50 years that enjoy overwhelming public support. (They also look to be writing off the Hispanic vote. A Fox poll released last week shows Obama beating Romney 70% to 14% among Latinos.) If a drastic course correction is not made soon, the approach bears all the signs of political suicide.
To sign Senator Dianne Feinstein's petition against these regressive attitudes and policies click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)