Whoppers of Campaign 2010
The biggest falsehoods of the midterm elections.October 26, 2010
Summary
Midterm elections are an embarrassment of riches for fact-checkers — this year more than others. With Democrats fighting desperately to keep control of the House and Senate, and a torrent of money from corporations and other undisclosed, unaccountable sources adding fuel to the Republican attack, the amount of deceit in political advertising is at least as high as we’ve ever seen.
Some candidates slung whatever mud they thought would stick, regardless of the facts. One falsely claimed his opponent had been a Vietnam draft dodger who "doesn’t love his country" — and then compared his opponent to the Taliban.
Republicans accused Democrats of favoring cuts in Medicare benefits, while Democrats claimed their opponents would cut Social Security benefits. Republicans accused Democrats of planning to unleash a huge tax increase on ordinary families and on small-business owners, while many Democrats accused Republicans of wanting to slap a 23 percent national sales tax on everything from groceries to medicine, as though that would come on top of all existing taxes. We found fault with all those claims, on both sides.
For our round-up of the campaign year’s most widely repeated misstatements — and the wildest — read on to the Analysis section.
Analysis
Health Care Retreads
Misrepresentations of the new health care law have been a staple of Republican campaigns. Some ads go so far as to claim (falsely) that the law would cause Medicare patients to lose their doctors, or (also falsely) that Democrats favored giving Viagra to sex offenders, or (false again) that typical families will pay $2,100 more in premiums.
A common theme is that the law contains a $500 billion Medicare "cut" that will translate into less benefits, but that’s misleading. The law calls for reducing the future growth of Medicare spending over the next 10 years by about 7 percent. Plus, the law stipulates that guaranteed Medicare benefits won’t be reduced, and it adds some new benefits, such as improved coverage for pharmaceuticals. Those seniors on Medicare Advantage plans (one out of four beneficiaries), however, will likely see their extra benefits reduced. These private insurance plans currently receive higher payments from the government than traditional Medicare, and the law decreases those payments over time. In addition, the law calls for reducing the future growth in payments to hospitals and other providers. While experts say some hospitals will have trouble coping with the new spending restraints, ads go too far in claiming that the law will "gut Medicare" or "hurt the quality of our care."
Misleading Onslaught by 60 Plus, Sept. 17
Misdirection from Crossroads GPS, Aug. 30
Pataki’s Bogus Health Care Claims, Oct. 6
Angle’s Shocking — and Misleading — Viagra Claim, Oct. 8
Benton’s Bogus Viagra Ad, May 11Social Security Hyperbole
A number of Democratic candidates — in Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Kentucky,
Colorado and other states — have claimed that their opponents want to abolish or "privatize" Social Security. In most cases that’s a serious overstatement. At one point, the president himself claimed that Republican leaders were as eager to "privatize" Social Security as they were to repeal his health care law, which isn’t true.
Some Republican candidates and incumbents do favor allowing younger workers to invest some portion of their payroll taxes in the stock market, but few if any have supported replacing the current system entirely with a fully privatized system, like the one in Chile. And even voluntary, partial privatization is far from the top of the GOP agenda. The idea died for lack of GOP support when President Bush tried to push it through a Republican-controlled Congress in 2005.
Obama’s (Latest) Social Security Whopper, Aug. 16
Toss-Ups: Nevada, Sept. 23
Social Security: (Mostly) in Their Own Words, Sept. 21
Democrats Misfire on Social Security — Again, Sept. 2
AFSCME’s Big, Brazen Attack, Sept. 1Taxing the Truth, Part I
Another misleading Republican theme is that Democrats are about to unleash a huge tax increase on the typical family, or on small-business owners. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said "Democrats are poised now to cause this largest tax increase in U.S. history." Similar claims have been spread by Republican TV ads, by widely forwarded chain e-mails, in interviews and even by "tweets" and other social media.
It’s true that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are set to expire at the end of this year, under
terms set in law by a Republican Congress and President George W. Bush. But Democrats have said all along that they don’t intend to let all of the tax cuts expire, or even most of them. President Obama and most House and Senate Democrats favor keeping all the cuts that apply to taxpayers who earn less than $250,000 as a couple, or $200,000 as single filers. In addition, a number of conservative Democrats (or those nervous about reelection) even say they favor extending the cuts for everybody — including those at the top — at least for another year or two. A lame-duck Congress will decide, after the election.
As for the claim that Democrats favor "a huge tax hike on small business," in the words of one ad, that’s also wrong for the vast majority of small-business owners. Only about 3 percent of those with any business income showing on their personal returns would see a tax increase. Republicans retreated to claiming that half the small-business "income" — as opposed to business owners — would see an increase. But that’s wrong, too. Much of the "small"-business income they are counting comes from businesses with yearly income of $50 million or more — which is big business income in just about anybody’s book.
Toss-Ups: Wayward Ads in Washington State, Oct. 15
2011 Tax Increases, Sept. 3
Thompson Wrong on Tax Cuts, Too, Aug. 5
Sunday Replay, Aug. 2
Mis-Tweets on Twitter, April 28Taxing the Truth, Part II
In dozens of TV ads, Democrats or Democratic-leaning groups accused Republicans of favoring a 23 percent national sales tax, as though such a thing would come in addition to existing taxes. The attacks (which were also made in fancy mail pieces) amounted to a misrepresentation of the "FairTax" proposal. The claims failed to mention that the sales tax would replace — not add to — existing federal income and payroll taxes. Democrats also left out any mention of offsetting rebates designed to mitigate the increased cost of essentials like food and medicine — a main feature of the FairTax proposal.
In the past, we’ve written about the FairTax from the other side: In 2007, we pointed out misleading claims by FairTax proponents. We noted that a bipartisan panel of tax experts — put together by President George W. Bush — had rejected the idea and said the tax would have to amount to at least 34 percent (not 23 percent) of the sales price of goods and services to raise enough revenue to replace other federal taxes. But that’s no excuse for misrepresenting the proposal, so this year our darts are pointed the other way.
Sales Tax Spin, Oct. 20
AFSCME’s Misleading Tax Attack, Aug. 12
Another False Tax Attack (And One That’s Just Deceptive), April 21Stimulus Spin
Ads by Republicans in Connecticut, Florida, Washington, South Dakota, Ohio,
Pennsylvania and elsewhere have claimed that the economic stimulus has failed to create jobs. We heard the same claims on talk shows and in speeches. House Minority Leader John Boehner even said in an address that the stimulus had harmed the job situation, since "America’s employers are afraid to invest in an economy stalled by ‘stimulus’ spending and hamstrung by uncertainty."
In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the stimulus increased employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million people, compared with what employment would have been otherwise. Observers may differ on whether that’s a reasonable return on investment, but it’s not accurate to say that the stimulus harmed employment or that it didn’t help.
Another Black Hole, Oct. 6
Crossroads Jam-Up, Oct. 1
Did the Stimulus Create Jobs?, Sept. 27
Sunday Replay, Sept. 7
Spinning the Stimulus, Aug. 24
Toomey’s Stimulus Charge Doesn’t Add Up, Aug. 13Far Out on Bailout
Everybody took the Wall Street bailout’s name in vain this campaign season. Democratic House incumbents in nine states claimed that they voted against "the bailout" — meaning the Troubled Asset Relief Program — when in fact they weren’t yet in office when it was enacted. (They voted against a later bill to allow release of the second half of TARP funds, a purely symbolic and futile vote. The Senate had already approved release and only disapproval by both houses could freeze the funds under terms set by the original bailout legislation.)
Meanwhile, some Republican ads accused Democratic House members of voting to give huge bonuses to Wall Street employees. That’s a misleading reference to the stimulus bill — its final version contained looser restrictions on bonuses than the version originally passed in the Senate. But the actual funds used by companies for those bonuses came from TARP, not the stimulus, and nothing in the bill the Democrats supported called for or supported bonuses. The enacted bill simply failed to prevent as many of them as the Senate version might have.
Democratic Bailout Baloney, Sept. 3
More Bailout Baloney, Sept. 8
Bailout Bonuses are Back, Sept. 16Assorted Absurdities
Some of the ads we saw stood out for their egregiously false claims:
Whopper: Daniel Webster is un-American. Webster’s opponent for the House seat in Florida’s 8th Congressional District, Democrat Alan Grayson, falsely claimed that Webster was a draft dodger who "doesn’t love his country." In fact, Webster dutifully reported for the draft after finishing his undergraduate degree, but was rejected for medical reasons. Grayson then launched an ad calling his opponent "Taliban Dan" and misrepresenting a quote in which Webster talked about a woman’s role in marriage. The ad’s misleading editing changed "don’t pick the [Bible verses] that say, ‘She should submit to me’ " into "she should submit to me."
- Whopper: Rick Scott loves prisoners. And pornography. An outside group in Florida ran an ad claiming that gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott, a Republican, had a plan to close prisons that would "release tens of thousands of prisoners early." In fact, Scott proposed cutting prison spending per prisoner. That led a state official to speculate that "you would have to close prisons," but that’s not what Scott proposed. Another group accused Scott of "profiting from porn." The weak backup? Scott has an investment in a Latin American social networking site that has partnered with Playboy Mexico to find the Playmate of the Year.
- Whopper: Mark Kirk single-handedly stopped the bridges to nowhere. The Illinois Senate race between Republican Kirk and Democrat Alexi Giannoulias has given rise to a number of false accusations, but for our money the most eyebrow-raising was Kirk’s claim on "Meet the Press" that an amendment he wrote put a stop to the "bridges to nowhere," long a symbol of government pork. In fact, one of the bridges is being built even now. The other wasn’t felled by Kirk’s amendment either — the earmark for the bridges had been stripped from a transportation appropriations bill a year earlier. The Kirk amendment never even made it into the final version of the legislation to which it was briefly attached.
Outside Groups
Outside groups have proliferated in Campaign 2010, many raising tens of millions
from undisclosed sources, including business corporations, and funding ads that mostly attack Democrats. These front groups adopt names that — while not exactly whoppers themselves — seldom give any inkling of the groups’ highly partisan missions. In our 2010 Players Guide we report on who’s really behind groups such as the Committee for Truth in Politics, Revere America and American Crossroads. Labor unions are spending heavily, too, defending Democrats. Our guide covers such big union players as the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union, which together pledged to spend $100 million.
Ads by outside groups have often been misleading, and we’ve already covered some examples above. In addition, we note some whoppers told about these groups, on both sides.
- Embattled Democrats strained to discredit the U.S. Chamber of Commerce with an unproven allegation, claiming that it was "stealing our democracy" by funneling secret, illegal contributions from foreign corporations. The truth is that the chamber gets only a tiny fraction of its money from foreign corporations, and has more than enough from domestic companies to legally fund its planned $75 million election spending.
- Republican strategist Karl Rove, who helped set up one of the largest corporate-funded, Republican-leaning groups, falsely claimed that labor unions aren’t disclosing where they get the millions they are spending. The truth is that their money comes overwhelmingly from dues collected from members, as their annual reports to the U.S. Department of Labor clearly show.
Foreign Money? Really? Oct. 11
Sunday Replay, Oct. 25Viral Favorites
The claims we’re asked about most often don’t always come from the mouths of politicians, or even their TV ads. Maybe because these claims are pure bohonkey. The falsehoods circulate widely by e-mail, forwarded by people who either don’t know or don’t care that they are spreading misinformation the way a virus spreads disease.
- Whopper: The health care law puts a 3.8 percent tax on all home sales. Actually, the new health care law’s tax only applies to the sale of a primary residence in rare cases. For individuals, it falls on profit that exceeds $250,000, if the individual’s income exceeds $200,000. For couples, the tax falls only on profits exceeding $500,000, if joint income is more than $250,000.
- Whopper: Obama plans a 1 percent tax on all bank transactions. That’s based on a single House member’s bill that isn’t supported by the White House, has no cosponsors, and has never even gotten a hearing in committee.
- Whopper: Congress voted itself a pay raise at the expense of the Social Security Cost of Living Adjustment. It’s true that there has been no COLA for 2010 and 2011, but the COLA is calculated automatically based on inflation rates. And Congress voted to freeze its pay for 2010 and 2011.
– by Jess Henig, Viveca Novak and Brooks Jackson
-->Posted by Jess Henig, Brooks Jackson and Viveca Novak on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Filed under Articles, Players Guide · Tagged with 2010 midterm elections, Bailout, FairTax, health care law, Social Security, stimulus, taxes, whoppers
Friday, October 29, 2010
Whoppers of Campaign 2010
German electric car sets world record - Upi.com
German electric car sets world record
Published: Oct. 26, 2010 at 10:20 AMBy STEFAN NICOLA
UPI Europe Correspondent
BERLIN, Oct. 26 (UPI) -- An electric car developed by a German company Tuesday set what organizers said is a world record when it drove 375 miles without recharging its battery.GALLERY: Nissan launches new Fuga Hybrid
Mirko Hannemann, 27, drove the yellow and purple all-electric Audi A2 in seven hours from Munich to Berlin, where he arrived Tuesday morning.
German Economy Minister Rainer Bruederle, who jumped inside for a quick drive in the courtyard of his ministry, called Hannemann's trip a technological quantum leap.
"No other electric car has gone to such a distance," he said.
Japanese scientists drove a 1-person electric car more than 600 miles around a track, but that was at 25 miles per hour and with a vehicle that was basically all battery.
"Today, we have shown what everyday cars can do," said Hannemann, the chief brain behind DBM Energy, a startup from Berlin that developed the powerful battery pack that made the long trip possible.
Consumers have so far been put off by the short driving range of electric cars, usually at between 60 and 100 miles, and by the cost and size of the batteries.
The four-seat Audi A2, funded by German utility lekker Energie and the German Economy Ministry, has all features of a regular car, including a fully usable trunk.
Hannemann drove the 375 miles at 55 miles per hour on average, had the heat on and was able to whisk around a few more miles in the city.
The battery, based on what DBM Energy calls the KOLIBRI AlphaPolymer Technology, comes with 97 percent efficiency and can be charged at virtually every socket. Plugged into a high-voltage direct-current source, the battery can be fully loaded within 6 minutes, Hannemann said.
"This is a great success," said Andreas Goerdeler of the German Economy Ministry. "We are in a fierce global competition and this proves that we're technological leaders."
Eager to reduce the dependency on imported oil and cut carbon dioxide emissions from road traffic, the German government last year said it wants to have 1 million electric cars cruise its highways by 2020.
Germany's powerful car industry has been criticized for being a tad late to the electric car game, with rivals from France and mainly Asia one to two years ahead when it comes to launching serial production.
To speed up this process, the German government has earmarked around $700 million for sustainable mobility research and development, including programs to develop the charging station infrastructure and boost battery technology, an area of expertise that has long belonged to Asia. Berlin supported Hannemann's record project with $380,000.
The young inventor hopes that his battery pack can challenge the Asian dominance. Key will be if it's affordable.
Hannemann couldn't give an exact price for his battery -- he said that was dependent on scaling effects -- but vowed it wouldn't just be more powerful, but in the end also cheaper than conventional lithium ion batteries.
A logistics company has put the DBM Energy battery packs into their forklifts, which are now running 28-hour shifts without recharging.
Hannemann hopes that the world record attracts more industry investors to launch mass-scale production of batteries to be put in future German-made electric cars.
"We are open for talks with the car sector," he said.
Asked when his company would be able to launch large-scale production, Hannemann replied: "Optimistically? Now."
© 2010 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Color Blindness Myths and Misunderstandings | Joe Dolson Accessible Web Design
Blog » Accessibility » Color Blindness Myths and MisunderstandingsColor Blindness Myths and Misunderstandings
Filed under Accessibility on October 25, 2010
Related Posts
-->I’ve always believed that web site accessibility depends on an understanding of accessibility issues — not on technical issues. Obviously, knowing the technical side of web site construction and how it impacts accessibility is very important. Some decisions are fundamentally technical, but a huge part of web site accessibility is purely visible — and just understanding accessibility issues will make a huge difference.
To that end, here are a few quick comments about color blindness. Color blindness (or color perception deficiency) is an issue for approximately 1 in 12 people, mostly men. However, color perception problems are not always very effectively diagnosed, so these numbers could be low.
Color blindness is an inability to see certain colors.
Color blindness is really a misnomer. People with various types of color blindness are better described as being color vision deficient: it’s an inability to distinguish colors, not an inability to see color. People at the furthest limits of color deficiency, however, may have such an extreme inability to discern colors that this can be a fairly accurate description.
Individuals with color vision deficiencies can’t see red.
Well, no. Assuming we’re discussing Protanopic or Deuteranopic color blindness, in which the individual is missing either the red or green sensitive cones, the actual problem is that they may not be able to distinguish the color red. The color isn’t readily differentiated from other hues of the same shade or tint. Red perception deficiency is certainly the most common type of color vision deficiency, but it’s certainly not true of all individuals with poor color vision.
You have normal color vision
Not really. In fact, color perception is a spectrum for all of us. What’s commonly referred to as color blindness is actually only the portion of that spectrum which is considered anomalous — where the ability to perceive color begins to impinge on normal interactions with the world. Having “normal” color vision simply means that you don’t generally experience problems because of your color vision. You may well still fail an Ishihara test.
Color perception deficiencies are inconvenient, but don’t pose any serious problems
Particularly in our modern, technological society, color perception is a critical part of comprehending the world around you. From LED indicators which blink red, green, or yellow; to weather maps which a spectrum from red to green indicating storm severity; to knowing what color a traffic signal is showing if you’re in a location with a different signal orientation than what you’re familiar with. Outside of technology, color deficiencies can impact recognizing that you’re developing a severe sunburn or knowing whether you’ve actually cooked that hamburger enough to be safe.
People with Color Perception Deficiency have better Night Vision
Actually, I couldn’t definitely verify this one way or the other. There are a number of claims that this is true, but the reasoning is highly variable and not particularly evidence-based. It’s possible that certain types of color perception deficiency may give people better night vision, but it’s also possible that since some types of color perception deficiencies cause people to be photosensitive, those people may feel like their night vision is better, simply because it’s much better than what they’re accustomed to. Regardless, any evidence which is reasonably definitive would be appreciated.
Additional Resources
Have something to Contribute?
Want an image avatar yourself? Create one here!
12 Comments to “Color Blindness Myths and Misunderstandings”
Vivek R (new comment) says:
I am color blind (fail 3 on the test) and my wife is not. We have frequent power outages at night and I am the first to find the lighter / candles. She’d have no clue they were where I picked them up from. I wear glasses too (shortsighted) but she has perfect vision. This is the first time I am reading about others who experience this.
Loren Pechtel (new comment) says:
I will definitely agree with color vision problems and camouflage, although my understanding is that the military has figured out how to make camouflage that works against those with color problems also. I have some red-green weakness and I think I was like 12 or 13 before I understood what camouflage was supposed to be — most every example of it I saw stood out like a sore thumb to me.
Just because it blends in well for someone with normal color vision doesn’t mean it blends in with abnormal color vision.
ColoUr Blind Pete (new comment) says:
I’m colour blind, in the sense that i can’t tell the difference between brown, red and green. i can sometimes make correct intelligent (or so i think!) guesses. However I really do see better at night than my girlfriend for example. It’s little consolation for not fully enjoying the full spectrum of colour nature provides, but at least if i get stuck down a mine it might help!
Hey Joe!
I must say that I’ve never heard about colour blindness and having better night vision. Interesting.
It would also be interesting to see if there’s a correlation between the severity of colour blindness to more effective night vision. Get snopes on the case
I personally fail in only one circle on the Ishihara test (the 6). I do know that my eyes adjust quite quickly to the dark. As well, I’ve never had a problem driving at night time.
Stephani Roberts says:
@Matthew My husband is color blind and he was able to spot deer in the fields last weekend as we drove home at twilight. They were almost invisible to me as they blended into their background but he saw them easily as distinct shapes. He speculated that it was a result of his color blindness. I think so. There are advantages, this could correlate with sharp shooting. He mentioned that color blind men were put at the front of the lines because they were able to spot camouflage. Here’s a short article about the upside of color blindness: http://discovermagazine.com/2007/apr/the-upside-of-color-blindness
marlene frykman says:
@joe: wonderful. that is a fantastic tool. thanks for sharing!
@marlene Thanks for the tip! I’ve fixed the link.
hi joe, just letting you know the link to the vision simulator is broken
@Matthew I’ve read that as well; but again, without any definitive evidence.
@Karl What I wonder about that is whether that perception is because you’re more accustomed to identifying what you can see with reduced color or because you can actually see better. Given that one of the characteristics of low-light conditions is a significant reduction of color definition, I’m wondering whether the real issue is in the ability to understand what you’re seeing, rather than actually having improved perception in low-light conditions. From a subjective perspective, this may give you better understanding of your surroundings in low-light, but not actually mean that you have better vision. Does that make sense?
Karl Groves says:
re: Night Vision. I have no evidence, but I am very color blind (as in usually can’t get any of the items in the Ishihara tests) and I seem to have much better night vision than most people.
Thanks for clearing things out. Very good and interesting read.
Matthew says:
I’ve heard a similar rumor that colorblind individuals are better sharpshooters, with the justification being that your retina packs in more rods, which give you a higher resolution image. I’d like to see the Snopes on that one (although I still like to repeat it
Page 1 of 11
Divided We Fail: Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Barring a huge upset, Republicans will take control of at least one house of Congress next week. How worried should we be by that prospect?
Not very, say some pundits. After all, the last time Republicans controlled Congress while a Democrat lived in the White House was the period from the beginning of 1995 to the end of 2000. And people remember that era as a good time, a time of rapid job creation and responsible budgets. Can we hope for a similar experience now?
No, we can’t. This is going to be terrible. In fact, future historians will probably look back at the 2010 election as a catastrophe for America, one that condemned the nation to years of political chaos and economic weakness.
Start with the politics.
In the late-1990s, Republicans and Democrats were able to work together on some issues. President Obama seems to believe that the same thing can happen again today. In a recent interview with National Journal, he sounded a conciliatory note, saying that Democrats need to have an “appropriate sense of humility,” and that he would “spend more time building consensus.” Good luck with that.
After all, that era of partial cooperation in the 1990s came only after Republicans had tried all-out confrontation, actually shutting down the federal government in an effort to force President Bill Clinton to give in to their demands for big cuts in Medicare.
Now, the government shutdown ended up hurting Republicans politically, and some observers seem to assume that memories of that experience will deter the G.O.P. from being too confrontational this time around. But the lesson current Republicans seem to have drawn from 1995 isn’t that they were too confrontational, it’s that they weren’t confrontational enough.
Another recent interview by National Journal, this one with Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, has received a lot of attention thanks to a headline-grabbing quote: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
If you read the full interview, what Mr. McConnell was saying was that, in 1995, Republicans erred by focusing too much on their policy agenda and not enough on destroying the president: “We suffered from some degree of hubris and acted as if the president was irrelevant and we would roll over him. By the summer of 1995, he was already on the way to being re-elected, and we were hanging on for our lives.” So this time around, he implied, they’ll stay focused on bringing down Mr. Obama.
True, Mr. McConnell did say that he might be willing to work with Mr. Obama in certain circumstances — namely, if he’s willing to do a “Clintonian back flip,” taking positions that would find more support among Republicans than in his own party. Of course, this would actually hurt Mr. Obama’s chances of re-election — but that’s the point.
We might add that should any Republicans in Congress find themselves considering the possibility of acting in a statesmanlike, bipartisan manner, they’ll surely reconsider after looking over their shoulder at the Tea Party-types, who will jump on them if they show any signs of being reasonable. The role of the Tea Party is one reason smart observers expect another government shutdown, probably as early as next spring.
Beyond the politics, the crucial difference between the 1990s and now is the state of the economy.
When Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, the U.S. economy had strong fundamentals. Household debt was much lower than it is today. Business investment was surging, in large part thanks to the new opportunities created by information technology — opportunities that were much broader than the follies of the dot-com bubble.
In this favorable environment, economic management was mainly a matter of putting the brakes on the boom, so as to keep the economy from overheating and head off potential inflation. And this was a job the Federal Reserve could do on its own by raising interest rates, without any help from Congress.
Today’s situation is completely different. The economy, weighed down by the debt that households ran up during the Bush-era bubble, is in dire straits; deflation, not inflation, is the clear and present danger. And it’s not at all clear that the Fed has the tools to head off this danger. Right now we very much need active policies on the part of the federal government to get us out of our economic trap.
But we won’t get those policies if Republicans control the House. In fact, if they get their way, we’ll get the worst of both worlds: They’ll refuse to do anything to boost the economy now, claiming to be worried about the deficit, while simultaneously increasing long-run deficits with irresponsible tax cuts — cuts they have already announced won’t have to be offset with spending cuts.
So if the elections go as expected next week, here’s my advice: Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Marie Claire Blogger Grossed Out by Obese TV Lovers | TIME Healthland
Fat is a dirty word in America. “Overweight” or “obese,” of course, is the politically correct term. Yet Marie Claire blogger Maura Kelly threw tact to the wind and called it like she sees it earlier this week when she voiced her online disgust with CBS sitcom Mike & Molly. The show, which chronicles the relationship of a couple who meet at Overeaters Anonymous, has garnered criticism from two camps: those who bridle at the plentiful fat jokes and those who squirm watching intimacy between obese actors.
Kelly, to her credit, points out that obesity is costing our nation a bundle. But, besides that, she's just grossed out. Though she insists she's not a “size-ist jerk,” this is how she really feels: “To be brutally honest, even in real life, I find it aesthetically displeasing to watch a very, very fat person simply walk across a room — just like I'd find it distressing if I saw a very drunk person stumbling across a bar or a heroine [sic] addict slumping in a chair,” writes Kelly. (More on Time.com: Study: Obese Workers Cost Employers $73 Billion Per Year).
Ouch. Most parents have had occasion to blush a rainbow of reds when their child notices something unusual and asks the obvious: Mommy, why does that person have one leg? Why is that boy wearing make-up? Why is that woman so fat?
We're obligated to tell our kids — and ourselves — the truth: large folks are a fact of life. One-third of Americans are obese and another third are overweight. The U.S. recently snagged the dubious distinction of being named the heaviest of 33 economically advantaged countries by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (More on Time.com: America is Officially the Fattest Nation)
Kelly takes issue with the show, claiming it promotes obesity. But does Mike & Molly really promote obesity any more than Seinfeld promoted wacky humor? Isn't Mike & Molly really just a reflection of our society?
Apparently so. Kelly has since reconsidered her take on tubbiness. In an apologia appended to her post, Kelly, who has a history of anorexia, says she regrets what she wrote: “And for whatever it's worth, I feel just as uncomfortable when I see an anorexic person as I do when I see someone who is morbidly obese, because I assume people suffering from eating disorders on either end of the spectrum are doing damage to their bodies, and that they are unhappy. But perhaps I shouldn't be so quick to judge based on superficial observations.” (More on Time.com: Special Report: Overcoming Obesity)
Last time I checked, thin people didn't have a monopoly on happiness. In fact, many obese people think they look just fine the way they are, according to a story published last week on Healthland.
More on Time.com:
Explaining the Gender Gap: Obesity Costs Women a Lot More Than Men
Health Care Spin — Again
Health Care Spin — Again
Wild new claims top off a major campaign to discredit the law with misrepresentations.October 28, 2010
Summary
As the election draws near, some conservative groups are making ever-wilder claims about the new health care law:
- An elderly man in a Crossroads GPS ad makes the death-panel-esque claim that the law “threatens our lives.”
- The 60 Plus Association has a World War II veteran evoking the Normandy invasion and claiming that “your freedoms will be chipped away,” unless the legislation is repealed.
- The American Action Network made the false statement that “jail time” would be the punishment for not having insurance, when the law in fact forbids any criminal penalties.
In addition, we continue to see claims from the Republican side that the law creates “government-run” health care, or will cause a steep rise in premiums for typical families, or will give health insurance to illegal immigrants, or will lead to widespread cuts in Medicare benefits. As we’ve written before, none of that is true. We also see claims that the law allows tax dollars to be used to fund abortions, despite specific language in the law forbidding that.
Misrepresenting the health care law has been perhaps the single most dominant theme of attack ads by GOP candidates, party groups and independent conservative organizations. A record estimated $4 billion is being spent on both sides in this midterm election, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And from our observations, a large part of that is being spent to discredit the health care legislation and the Democrats who voted for it. In this article we wrap up all this health care spin, examining both the latest claims and those that have been repeated most often.
Analysis
The midterm campaigns have been ripe with false and misleading claims about — what else? — the health care law. By our count, this is the fourth roundup of claims about the legislation that we’ve written. And it very well may not be the last.
A Government-Run Threat to Life and Freedom?
Some of the more outrageous recent claims appear in ads that call the new law "government-run" health care or a "government takeover." But much to the chagrin of a minority of lawmakers who wanted a true, government-run, single-payer system, that’s not what the law delivers. Yes, there’s an expansion of Medicaid, but the law builds on the country’s private insurance system, creating more business, in fact, for those private companies by requiring individuals to have coverage.
That hasn’t stopped opponents of the law from making this claim — and going much further than that. In an ad attacking Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, Crossroads GPS harkens back to pull-the-plug-on-grandma claims by having an elderly man say the law "threatens our lives."
How exactly does it do that? A spokesman for the group told us this was a reference to $500 billion in Medicare cuts in the law. That’s $500 billion in cuts in the future growth of spending over 10 years — more on this later — and the move, if it happens, puts Medicare on much better financial footing. The program’s board of trustees reported that [t]he financial status of the [hospital insurance] trust fund is substantially improved by the lower expenditures and additional tax revenues instituted by the Affordable Care Act," and that the savings would extend the life of the trust fund by 12 years. But there’s a big caveat. That’s only if Congress sticks with the reductions in the legislation and previously scheduled cuts in payments to physicians, set up by a late 1990s law, and that’s not likely. Legislators postponed the physician cuts until December this year, and they’ve repeatedly canceled them in recent years.
So, either the cuts the man in the ad fears won’t happen, or Medicare would be in much better shape financially. Either way, we fail to see how this "threatens" anyone’s life, so we judge this claim to be false.
Crossroads GPS ad attacking Sen. Patty Murray of Washington: "Problem with Patty," first aired Oct. 7
⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full transcript ⬏
Speaking of over-the-top claims, this week the 60 Plus Association launched a minute-long spot that has a World War II veteran claiming "your freedoms will be chipped away" if the health care law isn’t repealed. Philip Storer tells viewers that he "was one of thousands that landed on D-Day. We fought to protect something we all hold very dear, our freedoms." Now, Storer says, those freedoms are "threatened" by this "government takeover of health care." We contacted 60 Plus to ask what basis the group had for those claims. We haven’t yet received a response.
This is the same group, readers may recall, that had former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop on camera making the bogus assertion that the United Kingdom considers seniors "too old" to qualify for artificial joints, pacemakers and coronary stents. We put the "freedoms" claim in the growing category of unsubstantiated hyperbole.
60 Plus Association Ad: "Still Believe"
⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full transcript ⬏
No ‘Jail Time’ Here
A group called American Action Network resurrected an old falsehood that the law calls for "jail time" for anyone who fails to get health insurance. It doesn’t. As we wrote in May, the law nullifies the possibility of prison time for those who don’t get coverage and refuse to pay a fine. It specifically says: "In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure." The AAN ad ignores what the final law said, instead referring to an outdated news item from Politico from September 25 of last year. The bill was amended soon after.
The false "jail time" claim appeared in an ad that first aired Oct. 22 against Democratic Rep. Chris Murphy of Connecticut. And the assertion raised eyebrows at one TV station. AAN Communications Director Jim Landry told us that a station questioned the ad, prompting AAN to revise it to remove the reference to "jail time." Landry told us the ad was updated sometime on Oct. 26 or 27. According to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, a unit of Kantar Media, the original "jail time" version aired 92 times through Oct. 25. CMAG hadn’t captured a revised ad yet. That version says that those who didn’t get insurance would be subject to "penalties." That’s true.
The ad also says the law requires "thousands of IRS agents." That’s based on a partisan analysis using false assumptions. We knocked down that whopper in an earlier item, pointing out that the law requires the IRS mostly to hand out tax credits, not collect penalties.
American Action Network Ad: "Mess"
⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full transcript ⬏
Coverage for Illegal Immigrants?
We haven’t heard much about this claim since Republican Rep. Joe Wilson’s "you lie" moment. But American Action Network’s ad above, and another from the group, resurrects the charge, saying the health care law provides "free health care" or "spends our tax dollars on health insurance" for illegal immigrants. The ad below is airing against Reps. Mark Critz of Pennsylvania and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota.
The law doesn’t provide any "health insurance" for illegal immigrants. In fact, it stipulates that insurance plans sold on the state-based exchanges are available only to citizens and lawful residents.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: ACCESS LIMITED TO LAWFUL RESIDENTS.—If an individual is not, or is not reasonably expected to be for the entire period for which enrollment is sought, a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully present in the United States, the individual shall not be treated as a qualified individual and may not be covered under a qualified health plan in the individual market that is offered through an Exchange.
It also doesn’t provide any subsidies for illegal immigrants or any new "free" care for them. What American Action Network objects to is Senate Democrats’ rejection of an amendment to require some type of verification system of legal status. AAN also points to the fact that citizens are required to have insurance, while illegal immigrants aren’t — but those here illegally can still get emergency care at hospitals. However, that was the case before the health care law was passed. Illegal immigrants, and others who aren’t insured, are able to get treatment for emergencies (but not non-emergencies, unless they pay for it). U.S. law requires that.
The change that might occur is which pot of government money is used to reimburse hospitals for this uncompensated care. We called the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and talked with spokeswoman Mary Kahn, who explained how this works. Hospitals either get payments for emergency care through what’s called Emergency Medicaid (for patients who would be eligible for Medicaid but don’t have it) or the disproportionate share hospital (DSH) funds, provided for hospitals that treat a lot of uninsured people, Khan explained. The health care law expands Medicaid eligibility, so hospitals may find themselves filing paperwork for more money through Emergency Medicaid than DSH, whether those who are treated are illegal immigrants or not. Either way, it’s government money. And either way, illegal immigrants get treatment for emergencies and hospitals get reimbursed.
AAN also referred us to two news reports that undercut its own claim. A 2007 Reuters report said: "Less than 1 percent of Medicaid spending went to health care for illegal immigrants, according to a study that the researchers said defied a common belief that they are a bigger drain on taxpayer money." And the group cites a January 2008 USA Today article (yes, that’s a year before Obama was even sworn in) that states: "The sweeping overhauls of the nation’s health care system proposed by Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards would not provide coverage for illegal immigrants."
By the way, about half of illegal immigrants actually had health insurance before the law was passed, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.
American Action Network Ad: "Repeal"
⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full transcript ⬏
Medicare Cuts
This might be the most common line of attack of them all. We’ve seen many versions of the claim that the health care bill cuts Medicare by $500 billion. That’s actually a reduction in the future growth of spending over 10 years, not a slashing of the current budget, as we’ve pointed out. To put that in context: The Congressional Budget Office estimates that federal Medicare spending will be $519 billion this year, and $929 billion in fiscal year 2020, even with these cuts. The health care law calls for a reduction in the currently projected growth of federal outlays of about 7 percent over the decade.
Claims that these cuts will "hurt the quality of our care" — like the one below from the 60 Plus Association — ignore the fact that the law adds some benefits to Medicare, such as free preventive care and more prescription drug coverage. And the law (section 3601) says that guaranteed Medicare benefits can’t be reduced. But one group of seniors — those on Medicare Advantage plans, about 10 million beneficiaries — will likely lose the extra benefits they receive, such as gym memberships or spare eyeglasses. These private plans currently get paid more by the government per enrollee than traditional Medicare, and the law brings those payments in line with the regular program, over time. 60 Plus ran ads similar to this one, which targets Rep. Steve Kagen of Wisconsin, against 15 other House Democrats.
60 Plus Association Ad: "Hurts – Kagen"
⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full transcript ⬏
More Expensive Premiums?
Other ads, such as these from Revere America and American Crossroads, have claimed that under the law "costs will go up" or families will see "higher insurance premiums." But for most Americans with health insurance, premiums are expected to stay the same or decrease a bit, compared with what would have happened to costs without the new law.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, those in the large group market would see between no change and a 3 percent decrease in the average premium in 2016. The small group market would see between a 1 percent increase and a 2 percent drop in the average premium. Again, that’s in comparison to what premiums would do without the health care law.
For those who buy insurance on their own, the average premium would go up by between 10 percent and 13 percent. Why? Because the benefits in this non-group market would improve. Plus, 57 percent of those in this market would get federal subsidies — the extra money would entice them to buy more expensive plans than they normally would, says CBO.
On one point the ads make a valid criticism: The overall cost of health care is projected to rise because of the new law — but barely. In April, the chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Richard Foster, projected an increase of less than 1 percent in overall health spending over the next decade:
CMS Chief Actuary Foster, April 22: "[W]e estimate that overall national health expenditures under the health reform act would increase by a total of $311 billion (0.9 percent) during calendar years 2010-2019.
Foster predicted that the slight increase would come about largely because 34 million persons who would otherwise be uninsured will gain coverage under the new law, and that others will gain improved coverage, and all will make greater use of health care services.
This is one area where President Obama has conspicuously failed to meet campaign promises that his health care overhaul would reduce costs in addition to expanding coverage. Foster noted: "Although several provisions would help to reduce health care cost growth, their impact would be more than offset through 2019 by the higher health expenditures resulting from the coverage expansions."
Revere America Ad: "Defeat Hall"
⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full transcript ⬏
(For more on the Revere America ad, see our article "Pataki’s Bogus Health Care Claims.")
American Crossroads: "Far Enough"
⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full transcript ⬏
Taxpayer-funded Abortions?
This emotional issue was a major point of contention in the final days of debate on the health care bill, and neither the anti-abortion or pro-abortion rights camp walked away happy. Does the law use ”our tax dollars” to pay for abortions, as claimed by the following ad from CitizenLink, a family advocacy group, and the anti-abortion rights group Susan B. Anthony List?
As we’ve said before, strictly speaking, it does not, except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the mother’s life, the same government restrictions that have applied to Medicaid recipients, federal workers and the military. The controversy stems from how the law aims to guarantee those rules are followed when the government provides subsidies to purchase insurance.
The law says that those receiving subsidies to buy insurance through state-based exchanges must submit a separate payment to cover abortion services (if they choose a plan that covers abortions), and insurance providers must keep federal money separate from private payments to ensure the federal money does go toward abortion coverage. President Obama also signed an executive order reaffirming the federal rules on only funding abortion in cases of rape, incest and danger to the mother’s life. Does that go too far or not far enough? That depends on one’s viewpoint, and we’ll let readers be the judge.
The CitizenLink/Susan B. Anthony List ad (this one, targeting Rep. Joe Donnelly of Indiana) also makes the unfounded claim that the law is the "biggest expansion of abortion in decades.” But that’s conjecture. We looked at the question of whether more women would get abortions if more had insurance that covered the procedure, and we found the evidence didn’t support that claim.
CitizenLink/Susan B. Anthony List Ad: "Choice"
⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full transcript ⬏
— by Lori Robertson
Sources
2010 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 5 Aug 2010.
Lillis, Mike. "Trustees report finds healthcare reform to extend Medicare’s life." The Hill. 5 Aug 2010.
Kaiser Health News. "Obama Signs 6-Month Fix For Medicare Reimbursements To Doctors." 25 Jun 2010.
Henig, Jess. "Imprisoned for Not Having Health Care?" FactCheck.org 13 Nov 2009.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Thomas.gov, Government Printing Office. 2010.
Brown, Carrie Budoff. "Ensign receives handwritten confirmation." Politico. com. 25 Sep 2009.
Jackson, Brooks. "IRS Expansion." FactCheck.org. 30 Mar 2010.
Landry, Jim, American Action Network communications director. E-mails to FactCheck.org. 27 Oct 2010.
Jonathan Collegio, American Crossroads communications director. E-mails to FactCheck.org. 28 Oct. 2010.
U.S. Senate. S.Amdt. 3701, amends H.R.4872. proposed 25 Mar 2010. Thomas.gov
Kahn, Mary, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services spokeswoman. Phone interview with FactCheck.org 28 Oct. 2010.
Dunham, Will. "Medicaid spends 1 pct on illegal immigrants: study." Reuters. 13 Mar 2007.
Wolf, Richard. "Rising health care costs put focus on illegal immigrants." USA Today. 22 Jan 2008.
Congressional Budget Office. "Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals." Dec 2008.
Congressional Budget Office. "The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update." Aug 2010.
Congressional Budget Office. Letter to Sen. Evan Bayh. 30 Nov 2009.
Foster, Richard. Estimated Financial Effects of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” as Amended. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 22 Apr 2010.
Obama, Barack. Executive Order — ENSURING ENFORCEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ABORTION RESTRICTIONS IN THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. 24 March 2010.
Side-by-Side Comparison of Major Health Care Reform Proposals. Kaiser Family Foundation. accessed 1 Apr 2010.
Robertson, Lori. "The Abortion Issue." FactCheck.org 1 Apr 2010.
-->Posted by Lori Robertson on Thursday, October 28, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Filed under Articles · Tagged with 60 Plus Association, abortion, American Action Network, Crossroads GPS, health care, health care reform, illegal immigrants, jail, medicare
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Olbermann: If the Tea Party wins, America loses
Now as promised a Special Comment on the madness of the Tea Party and the elections of next Tuesday.
It is as if a group of moderately talented performers has walked on stage at a comedy club on Improv night. Each hears a shout from the audience, consisting of a bizarre but just barely plausible fear or hatred or neurosis or prejudice.
And the entertainment of the evening is for each to take their thin, absurd premise, and build upon it a campaign for governor or congressman or senator. The problem is, of course, when it turns out there is no audience shouting out gags, just a cabal of corporations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and political insider bloodsuckers like Karl Rove and Dick Armey and the Chicken Little Chorus of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
And the instructions are not to improvise a comedy sketch, but to elect a group of unqualified, unstable individuals who will do what they are told, in exchange for money and power, and march this nation as far backward as they can get, backward to Jim Crow, or backward to the breadlines of the '30s, or backward** to hanging union organizers, or backward to the Trusts and the Robber Barons.
Result: the Tea Party. Vote backward, vote Tea Party. And if you are somehow indifferent to what is planned for next Tuesday, it is nothing short of an attempt to use Democracy to end this Democracy, to buy America wholesale and pave over the freedoms and the care we take of one another, which have combined to keep us the envy of the world.
You do not think your freedom is at stake next Tuesday?
The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate for senator from Nevada, Sharron Angle, compared rape to, quoting, "a lemon situation in lemonade." She would deny an abortion even to a teenaged girl who had been raped by her own father.
The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate to be the only Congressman in Delaware, Glen Urquhart, said "there is no problem that abortion can't make worse. I know good friends who are the product of rape."
Mr. Urquhart also does not believe the phrase "separation of church and state" was said by Thomas Jefferson.
He thinks it was Hitler: "The next time your liberal friends ask you about the separation of church and state, ask them why they are Nazis."
Advertisement | ad infoThe Tea Party-and-Republican candidate in the Ohio 9th, Rich Iott, not only ran around in a Nazi uniform celebrating their military tactics, but implies he is a Veteran and as late as this March listed his occupation as "soldier" even though the volunteer militia to which he belongs has never been called, will never be called, to any active service, in the 29 years in which he has belonged to it.
It's more than just dress-up. They mean business - literally. The Tea-Party-and-Republican-candidate for New Jersey's 3rd House seat, Jon Runyan, defended corporate tax loopholes: "Loopholes are there for a reason. They are to avoid people from really having to pay too many taxes."
The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate for the Senate in West Virginia, John Raese, explained, "I made **my** money the old-fashioned way, I inherited it. I think that's a great thing to do. I hope more people in this country have that opportunity as soon as we abolish inheritance tax in this country."
The inheritance tax applies only to estates larger than $3.5 million. For the 99.8 percent of Americans not affected by the estate tax, there is the minimum wage, which Mr. Raese also wants abolished. Or there is Social Security.
The Tea-Party-and-Republican-candidate in the Indiana 9th, Todd Young, says "Social Security, as so many of you know is a Ponzi scheme."
The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate in the Wisconsin 8th, Reid Ribble, disagrees. Social Security "is, in fact, a Ponzi scheme."
The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate in the Arizona 8th, Jesse Kelly, wants to resurrect President Bush's scam to transform Social Security into private investment accounts so the government can force you to spend part of your paycheck on Wall Street commissions, and so that market manipulators can wipe out your retirement money.
The Republican candidate in the Wisconsin 1st, Congressman Paul Ryan, has a more sophisticated plan: Personal investment Social Security, guaranteed dollar for dollar by the government. A fiscal fountain of youth, until you find out its cost: Ryan would pay for it by taxing the health insurance you get from your employer.
If you are not employed, Mrs. Angle of Nevada says unemployment benefits can neither be increased nor extended because that "has caused us to have a spoilage with our ability to go out and get a job… There are jobs that do exist. That's what we're saying, is that there are jobs."
The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate for Senator in Alaska, Joe Miller, says this is academic, because unemployment insurance is unconstitutional. His own wife received unemployment insurance after losing a temp job he got for her. Mr. Miller also called Medicaid unconstitutional. It proved his entire family had received Medicaid funds.
Mr. Miller also claims Social Security is unconstitutional, yet hypocritically he says it should still be paid out, and then the issue dumped into the laps of the states.
Advertisement | ad infoThe Republican-and-Tea Party candidate for Senator in Colorado, Ken Buck, would not stop at butchering just Social Security. [He said] "would a Veterans Administration hospital that is run by the private sector be better run then by the public sector? In my view, yes."
The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate in the Pennsylvania 4th, Keith Rothfus, has promised to overturn anything the Supreme Court decides, with which he disagrees: "Congress's ultimate weapon is funding. If the Supreme Court rules you have to do something, we'll just take away funding for it."
Back in Nevada Mrs. Angle decries health care - not reform, but health care itself. "Everything that they want to throw at us now is covered under 'autism'," she said. As to educating those children Mrs. Angle won't pay for, Mr. Buck of Colorado, waxes nostalgic: "In the 1950's, we had the best schools in the world, and the United States government decided to get more involved in federal education…well, since, we've made education worse, we're gonna even get more involved."
In Ken Buck's America of 1957, fewer than one in five Black children graduated high school. Fewer than half of white children did. To the Tea-Party-and-Republican-candidate in the California 11th, David Harmer, Mr. Buck is a wild-eyed liberal. Mr. Harmer once advocated eliminating public schools altogether, and return education in this country to where it was before 1876: "People acting in a free market found a variety of ways to pay for a variety of schools serving a variety of students, all without central command or control." And without girls, blacks, or even the slightest chance you could go to college.
How Candy and Halloween Became Best Friends - Food - The Atlantic
Corey Ann/flickr
Editor's note: This is the first piece in a series on the history of candy in America. Check back between now and Halloween to read the remaining articles.Wherever you turn this October, candy beckons. Americans will spend an estimated $2 billion on candy during the Halloween season this year, and here's a fun fact from the California Milk Processors Board: "an average Jack-O-Lantern bucket carries about 250 pieces of candy amounting about 9,000 calories and about three pounds of sugar."
Phew. My molars are hurting just thinking about it. If treats are a temptation you hope to avoid, October is the cruelest month. And I can think of only one place in America where your Halloween composure is unlikely to be ruffled by endless quantities of cheap and glittering candies: the past.
Given the ubiquity of candy at this time of year, it is hard to imagine that 100 years ago, Halloween looked quite different from the candy debauch of today.
The biggest difference was trick-or-treating. This seemingly timeless custom is actually a quite recent American invention. The ritual of costumes, doorbell-ringing, and expectation of booty appeared for the first time in different locations throughout the country in the late 1930s and early 1940s. It wasn't until the late 1940s that trick-or-treating became widespread on a national scale. And even then, candy wasn't the obvious treat.
Kids ringing a stranger's doorbell in 1948 or 1952 received all sorts of tribute: Coins, nuts, fruit, cookies, cakes, and toys were as likelyKids ringing a stranger's doorbell in 1948 or 1952 received all sorts of tribute: Coins, nuts, fruit, cookies, cakes, and toys were as likely as candy. In the 1950s, Kool-Aid and Kellogg's promoted their decisively non-candy products as trick-or-treat options, while Brach's once ran ads for chocolate-covered peanuts during the last week of October that didn't mention Halloween at all.
as candy.It took a while for candy to become what it is today, the very essence of Halloween. Going back even farther to the early decades of the century, before trick-or-treating spread across the land, candy didn't have any special role to play in Halloween observance.
For youth, and especially boys, Halloween was the one night of the year when communities generally tolerated pranking, which might range from the clever or playful to the dangerous or destructive. Mailboxes, fences, streetcars, and gravestones were popular targets. The point was to cause mischief, not to gather treats. Halloween also wasn't a gift-giving holiday, which in the case of Christmas and other early candy holidays provided the candy "hook."
While the hooligans were out wreaking havoc, the more genteel would celebrate Halloween with parties. The menus and décor for these early Halloween festivities emphasized seasonal fruits. Pumpkins and apples were especially important. Making popcorn balls and fudge was sometimes part of the festive activities, but if there was purchased candy along the lines of candy corn or jelly beans, it was an afterthought, just a something over there with the nuts and favors.
When candy makers in the 1910s and 1920s looked for ways to grow their fall sales, Halloween barely registered as a potential marketing opportunity, even though they were already using holidays as opportunities to sell seasonal confections. Christmas and Easter were big candy events, already established with their candy traditions by 1900: boxed chocolates and hard candies for Christmas, jelly eggs and molded bunnies for Easter. Lagging not far behind in importance on the candy holiday calendar was Washington's Birthday, to be celebrated with special marzipan cherries and cocoa-dusted logs. But special candies for Halloween? Not a one.
It was during the 1950s that candy made decisive inroads in dominating Halloween. The rise of trick-or-treating made the holiday the perfect occasion for marketing a product associated with children and fun. But the push from candy sellers was met with equally enthusiastic demand. Candy was easy to buy and easy to distribute, making it a convenient choice for Halloween hosts. And as the numbers of trick-or-treaters swelled, candy was also economical. Small, inexpensive candies became popular, and major candy manufacturers began making smaller candy bars or bags of candy corn.
Through the 1960s, it was still conceivable that some other treat might be offered. It wasn't until the 1970s that candy came to be seen as the only legitimate treat. And while the candy industry reaped the benefits, the immediate impetus was not brilliant marketing so much as rising fears that unwrapped or homemade Halloween treats posed risks of tampering and poisoning. Commercial wrapped candy was the only safe choice.
All of which raises the question: What was the candy industry up to during all those years before we had the license and opportunity to indulge in enormous quantities of Halloween candy? It turns out that in 1916, candy promoters did come up with an idea to launch the fall candy season and boost sales and consumption, but it wasn't Halloween. It was a new holiday invention, uniquely American in its entrepreneurial spirit: Candy Day.
This article available online at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/food/archive/2010/10/how-candy-and-halloween-becam...
Click the image to read the full article.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Sunday, October 24, 2010
11/2/1991: Post reporter Williams apologizes for 'innappropriate' verbal conduct
Post reporter Williams apologizes for 'innappropriate' verbal conduct
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 2, 1991; 12:01 AM
Washington Post Magazine reporter Juan Williams said yesterday that the newspaper has disciplined him for what he called "wrong" and "inappropriate" verbal conduct toward women staffers and he apologized to his colleagues.
In an open letter to the newsroom, Williams said: "It pained me to learn during the investigation that I had offended some of you. I have said so repeatedly in the last few weeks, and repeat here: some of my verbal conduct was wrong, I now know that, and I extend my sincerest apology to those whom I offended. I have committed to Post management, and I commit to you -- and to myself -- to change my ways."
Williams's letter came several hours after about 50 female employees met with Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. and said they objected to The Post's refusal to say how the paper had resolved allegations of verbal sexual harassment against Williams. The newspaper's management has maintained that such personnel inquiries must remain confidential.
Downie said in a letter to the staff, which was posted in the newsroom with Williams's letter last evening, that "the complaints about Juan's verbal conduct with a number of women in the newsroom were thoroughly investigated. The complaints were found to be serious, and, as Juan acknowledges, he was disciplined for his conduct and intends to apologize to women he offended." Downie declined to answer questions about his statement.
The Post disclosed the internal inquiry involving Williams, 37, in an editor's note and news story Oct. 15.
The disclosure came five days after a Williams column on The Post's op-ed page in which he said that Anita Hill had "no credible evidence" for her allegations of sexual harassment by Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, but that Hill was "prompted" to make her charges by Democratic Senate staffers. The Post's personnel inquiry had begun more than two weeks earlier, but the column angered many women in the newsroom, and several came forward to say that they had also had problems with Williams. Post editors say they decided to make a public statement after WRC-TV aired a report on the controversy.
Williams returned to the newsroom Monday after working away from the office for two weeks, and the controversy seemed to have died down. But emotions began running high again Wednesday when Williams was quoted in USA Today as saying the complaints stemmed from "my attempts at being friendly" and saying "Hi. How are you? . . . Hey, did you have a date? How was your weekend?" He also said The Post had "said basically, 'Come back to work. We're sorry this happened.' "
A letter to Downie signed by 116 newsroom employees yesterday said: "We feel Juan's unrefuted false statements to the national media continue to cause anguish and professional harm to the women involved. They have also left many people inside and outside The Post with the impression that either the complaints were not serious or were not taken seriously . . . . The Post has an obligation to set the record straight by refuting such comments."
In a letter to The Post, 11 female employees, including senior reporters and editors, dismissed the notion that "the women bringing the complaints were victims of some sort of mass hysteria perpetrated by an identification with Anita Hill." They said the recent complaints were made "before the world ever heard the name 'Anita Hill.' "
In his letter, Williams, a frequent television commentator, said that "there was no suggestion that I ever engaged in offensive physical contact, or that I attempted to abuse my position at The Post, or that I discussed pornographic materials, or called women employees at home, or the like." But, he wrote, "I do not mean to belittle the inappropriateness of the verbal conduct which I have acknowledged."
Williams expressed hope that his letter "will be seen as the first step toward restoring those relationships."
Seven women said in on-the-record interviews yesterday that Williams had repeatedly made hostile and sexually explicit comments to them, in some cases over a period of several years. All of them said they believed the comments were meant to embarrass them, not an attempt to date them, and most said that Williams persisted despite their protests.
Jo Ellen Murphy, art director of the Weekend section, said that "he was obsessed with my sex life and that's all he wanted to talk to me about . . . . I raised my voice at him and said, 'Just don't talk to me again.' "
After Williams made some "hostile remarks" in late September, Murphy said, a male co-worker reported it to an editor, which triggered the personnel inquiry.
Nancy McKeon, the magazine's features editor, said she told Williams that "you've got a little problem here" after she complained about a sexual remark he made to her. Karen Tanaka, an assistant photo editor, said Williams had been "nothing but nasty to me." Deborah Needleman, the magazine's photo editor, said that when she objected to Williams's "demeaning" comments, he said: "What's wrong with a little flirting?"
In the Oct. 15 editor's note, The Post said that Downie and other top news editors "mistakenly failed to inform" Editorial Page Editor Meg Greenfield about the inquiry before Williams's column on Thomas was published. Downie said he regretted that he did not read the column before publication.
Williams, who was told about the allegations after he wrote the column but before it was published, said at the time that his view of the Thomas nomination was "completely unconnected" to the Post inquiry. He also called the allegations "absolutely false."
Downie said in his letter yesterday that "we normally keep such newsroom disciplinary matters confidential," but that "maintaining confidentiality does not mean that the seriousness of the charges is being minimized or that discipline is not being applied when warranted."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Trees Eat Pollution Better Than Expected : Discovery News
Some common and dangerous air pollutants found in cities can be absorbed by plants at far greater rates than ever suspected.
The discovery has big implications for modeling how vegetation affects pollutants, as well as how particles in the atmosphere affect human health and global warming.
The finding comes from a fruitful and unusual collaboration of plant geneticists and atmospheric scientists. The plant scientists found the genes used by plants and the conditions under which they are activated to allow more volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to be absorbed, while the atmospheric scientists lugged equipment around the globe to verify that the plants were indeed sucking up pollutants in the real world.
"It's been hard to measure this in the real world," said Thomas Karl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "That's why we hauled this instrument all around the world."
Karl led the field work which involved gathering and immediately analyzing air samples in remote forests using a 200-pound, washing machine-sized mass spectrometer. He is also the lead author on a paper reporting the discovery in the Oct. 21 issue of Science Express.
"Our goal was to really be in places that were undisturbed to mimic the most natural case," said Karl. That took them to seven locations in more than six years.
Among the specific discoveries is that deciduous plants take up about a third more oxygenated VOCs -- a form of pollutant that has reacted with oxygen -- than previously thought. These oxygenated VOCs come from burning gasoline, forest and other biomass fires and are e even released by some kinds of trees.
"The trees actually clean up more than we thought," said Karl.
That's extremely useful information when trying to figure out what's happening globally. The work will be used by modelers, Karl said, working on Earth systems models which attempt to try to take into account and simulate as many processes as possible.
"This paper is very interesting to me because we want to understand the sources and the sinks" of VOC pollutants, said researcher Qi Zhang of the University of California at Davis.
Of particular interest are particles, called secondary organic aerosols (SOAs), that are created by oxygenated VOCs. These SOAs are extremely important, Zhang said, because they can serve as seeds for cloud droplets, affect the way the atmosphere holds heat and they are major cause of disease and death in urban areas.
"(SOAs) are more deadly than car accidents," Zhang told Discovery News.
Now that the plant genes for grabbing VOCs are understood, there could be a future application for them in helping to clean cities, said Chhandak Basu of the University of Northern Colorado, a co-author on the paper. He envisions a day when plants with these VOC-sucking genes line highways, or other sources of pollution, sucking the harmful compounds out of the air.
As for the unusual cross pollination that produced the discovery, it was not easy, said Brenda Thornton, of the University of Northern Colorado, who identified the plant genes at work.
"It's really difficult to get different fields working together," said Thornton. They often seemed to be speaking separate languages, she said, but they managed to bridge the gaps.
Arbor Day takes on a whole new meaning!