Response to another email from someone who is confused on the definition of socialism.

Having received another email claiming to be a "concerned citizen fed up with the way this country is headed," I've decided to once again go to my keyboard and push back against thinly veiled racism and class warfare. The letter supposedly was written by a woman named Cyndy Miller to the executive director of the AARP. In it she explains why she and her husband are not renewing their membership to the association. The full letter can be read by clicking here. To summarize its contents, she basically is in complete disagreement with the AARP's continued support of the Obama administration and their "Socialist Mindset." She doesn't like illegal immigrants because, according to her, they get too many handouts. Actually, she seems to be opposed to everything the government does, and doesn't like tax money going to anyone or anything. She supports political gridlock and partisan strife by stating that "DIVIDED WE FAIL presents neither an impartial view nor the one we have come to embrace." Mrs. Miller seems to prefer inequity and total self reliance. She takes into consideration neither the racism that still plagues this country or the social obstacles that the disadvantaged face. While the letter has apparently been correctly attributed to Cyndy Miller, it could have easily been produced by a computer algorithm set to write with a strong right-wing bent and strident hatred of the president. "Obama is a socialist. Socialism is bad. Obama is bad. (I'm not too keen on minorities either.) God bless America. I'm angry. Grrrr." Standard drivel that gets passed onto everyone and shouldn't be read by anyone. Anyway, what follows is my response.

I know ad hominem attacks should be avoided, but this is just a stupid diatribe of an uniformed and racist (against immigrants for sure) woman who is "afraid of what this country has turned into." What exactly that means is unclear; she simple calls Obama a "socialist," and she assumes that explains everything. Her rant against immigrants is ludicrous. This country was founded on immigrants, and the current animosity towards "those illegals" is referring solely to those coming from Mexico and other countries in the southern hemisphere. At one time, the same type of paranoia surrounded the Polish, Italians, Germans, etc. The only difference is that then we didn't really have the concept of "illegal American." Our current immigration policy is the problem, and contrary to what this lady claims, illegal immigrants pay into the tax system more than they receive. For example, say an undocumented individual works under the table for cash only. Well, he or she still has to pay sales tax on purchases. If they are using a false social security number, then they are paying into a system that they will never receive any benefits from. There are plenty of citizens who treat the emergency rooms as a doctor's office, and 47 million citizens on food stamps (again something illegals are not eligible for). If her concept of "Socialist Mindset" refers to a government that looks out for the least of us, then I'm all for it. She doesn't like seeing people (i.e. minorities) receiving handouts. Perhaps if she noticed the shitty life circumstances that many of them have been born into she would have a little more compassion. When the remnants of racial segregation and increasingly, class segregation give rise to impoverished neighborhoods and substandard schools, the children raised in these areas never have a chance. Sure they try to excel, and some do, but the road they have to take is littered with obstacles. How can they afford to go to college? Without college, what kind of jobs are they going to get? If someone has to bust their ass just to make ends meet, don't they deserve a little help from others? But as a "little old, white lady" she's never faced the kind of discrimination that the lower class have. She sure can dish it out though.

I understand that there are government inefficiencies that lead to mistakes. Some people game the system in order to get more out a disability check than they should. Others abuse the food assistance programs. But these are rare occurrences. Simply put, the United States is the wealthiest country in the world, and there is no excuse for the kind of financial inequity that is oppressing so many of its citizens (and non-citizens). What scares me is that some people are perfectly fine watching this country become a land of the "haves" and the "have nots." If all you care about is not paying taxes and cutting all government spending, then be prepared to live in an uncaring and uncompromising nation. Medicaid? Nope, sorry. If you're old you should have saved in life. But you're only 72, why not get a job? Lost your job? Can't help you. You're going to have to find a way to take care of your family and find a job in this terrible job market. You get my point? It's great if you can make it life without ever needing someone's help, but there is a significant portion of this country who have been given a raw deal from the beginning. Are we all a bunch of heartless bastards who care nothing for others? Why are we essentially equating as criminals the people who are down on there luck or never had any luck at all?

Sorry Mrs. Miller, but you aren't mad; you are scared because you perceive this country as shifting away from white dominance. You think something is being taken from you, but it's not. You see social equity is not a zero sum game. Raising up the poor does not make the rich less wealthy; it makes the county stronger. Immigrants come to the U.S. because it is still a great nation and a land of opportunity, but we can stand to open even more doors of opportunity. So you're afraid of "20 million" immigrants becoming citizens? That's about a 6% increase in the U.S. population. 6%! Now is that really so scary? Sure the country is going through changes, but it shouldn't make you paranoid. If you don't like the AARP's political stance fine. Just try not to confuse socialism with democratic compassion, and try to keep your racism more concealed.

Response to a hate filled woman.

Like most, I have received more than enough emails expressing disdain for President Obama and his administration. Some are nothing more than cherry-picked examples of things that he has done wrong or gaffs he has made. Many are simply racist. Most are made up of lies. Recently, I was forwarded an essay written by someone named Maureen Scoot that was so ridiculously constructed and filled with such vitriolic drivel that I felt compelled to respond. If you want, take a moment to read her essay here: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/scott/130301. It is hard to read through it without laughing, and she basically repeats the same thing over and over again. In any event, Ms. Scott is clearly uniformed and does not seem inclined change her close-minded and false views. She is deliberately malicious, and as I will reveal, a liar. I want to be clear that I am not an Obama devotee. He has done many things that I find deplorable, but my issues are with his policies. I disagree with some of things he has done; I do not hate the man nor do I think that he is out to destroy our democracy. Any person who can get elected as President is so thoroughly vetted by the primaries and actual election campaigns that the notion that an "anti-American" is now in the Oval Office is beyond belief. Apparently, Ms. Scott needs to be reacquainted with reality, assuming that she was ever familiar with it in the first place.

Let me begin with the actual definition of a demagogue. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary a demagogue is "a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power," or "a leader championing the cause of the common people in ancient times." In other words, it is someone who uses peoples' fears, prejudices, or popular opinion to obtain and hold onto power. Based on the description provided by Ms. Scott, President Obama is anything but a demagogue. According to her, Obama works against the popular ideas of the people and advocates for the decline of the country. Clearly, this is not a demagogue. Rather, her message is that the President of the United States hates America and wants to destroy it. This is patently false, and her claims are unsupported by any evidence. Moreover, despite her claims to the contrary, Ms. Scott's essay is nothing more than thinly veiled racism. It is the classic example of "he is different, therefore he is not to be trusted." 

Instead of simply being forthright and saying that she just doesn't like the President, Ms. Scott uses an ad hominem attack against Obama in a poor attempt to portray him as a bad President. Not once does she mention any actual policies, laws, or actions. She begins by planting the false idea that President Obama was raised by a family that taught him to hate America. Nothing can be further from the truth. First, for the first 10 years of his life, Obama was raised by his white Mother, Ann Dunham, who was from Wichita, Kansas. True, Obama's father was a Kenyan, but his father left before Barack was a year old and only visited his son once before he was killed in a car accident in 1982. Barack was born in Hawaii, but his mother (after divorcing Barack's father) remarried and moved to Indonesia to be with her new husband. For two years, Barack went to a Catholic School and then went to a secular, public school. At no point did he ever receive any indoctrination against America. When he was 10, Barack went to live with his maternal grandparents (again, they are white), Madelyn and Stanley Dunham. Stanley Dunham served in World War II with the 1830th Ordnance Supply and Maintenance Company. I doubt that a WWII vet would teach his grandson to "hate" America. Barack went to a college prep school from age 10 until he graduated high school. Remember, this was in Hawaii. Where along this time would he have been exposed to negative ideas about the U.S.? Who would have taught him to be resentful of America? The answer: no one.

As for Ms. Scott's claims that the President is "void of emotion" when it comes to the U.S., I'd like to offer several examples that refute this idea. First, as a community organizer in Chicago, Barack showed great compassion for the poor and under-served. He set up job training programs, tutoring programs, and other types of assistance. At the time he was earning a pittance, and only someone who truly cares would make the kind of financial sacrifice that Barack did. After law school, Barack taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago and was also a civil rights attorney, again showing his commitment to both the rules of the country and the citizens themselves. During his first presidential campaign, Mr. Obama praised the U.S. and its people many times. Here are just a few examples from some of his speeches (emphasis added):

"It is that promise that has always set this country apart - that through hard work and sacrifice, each of us can pursue our individual dreams but still come together as one American family, to ensure that the next generation can pursue their dreams as well."

"We measure progress by how many people can find a job that pays the mortgage; whether you can put a little extra money away at the end of each month so you can someday watch your child receive her college diploma."

"Instead, it is that American spirit - that American promise - that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend."

"Thank you, and God bless America."

"This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people."

True, President Obama pointed out the short-comings of the U.S. and things that could be improved. That's because he wanted to improve them. "Yes we can!" meant that we as people can work to make this country even better than it is. If you think that this country is perfect then you are delusional. When Barack states that something is wrong with the country, he is not saying that everything is wrong with the country. When you love something you want to see it succeed and achieve its potential, and the U.S. still has so much more potential. The President knows this and works towards making America better. He has made mistakes, even lied, but what president hasn't? Remember the Iran-Contra Affair? Watergate? How about "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Or WMDs in Iraq. President's aren't perfect, but screwing up doesn't mean you hate the country. President Obama has never done anything to compromise America's dominance over every other country on the planet. 

Ms. Scott calls the President "haughty," but his apparently "cold" demeanor would be called "stoic" in anyone else. Make no mistake, the President has shed tears for the people of this country. He was visibly tearful after the school shooting in Connecticut, as he was at the late Senator Inouye's funeral. He clearly was emotional when he thanked his campaign staff after the election. With heartfelt words, he praised the troops at Arlington Field on Memorial Day. The list goes on. 

Ultimately, the reason President Obama is called the most divisive president in our history (which in itself is ridiculous considering that the country split in two under Lincoln), is that the people are so divided. Most Republicans never gave him a chance and allowed their own prejudices to color their view of the President. Obama's detractors don't listen to his words or policies; they just see an angry black man. It is one thing to disagree on politics. This is fine and is a healthy part of the democratic process. But when a large portion of the country refuses to see past their own biases and would rather see the country immobilized on nearly every front, things have gone past the point of normal, political disagreement and entered into the realm of intractable hatred for anyone who holds an opposing view. 

The President did not and does not want to divide the country. The people did that on their own. Ms. Scott is just another knife in a drawer full of extremists seeking to further cleave this country in half. Her words are destructive, false, contradictory, and misguided. She herself seems to be filled with the vitriol and spite that she attributes to the President. Patriotism is not some blind devotion to a mythical, idealized notion of what America once was. Patriotism means putting aside our differences in order to work together for the betterment of the country. That is love for the U.S., and it is something that the President has advocated since day one.

Why the Increase in Suicide Rates? Looking Beyond the Numbers.

Suicide is a difficult subject to talk about because of the discomfort and unease it evokes in people. So many negative connotations surround the issue that it has become somewhat of a taboo to discuss it in public. Those that do speak out, often do so too late, after a tragedy has befallen someone they love or were close to. But suicide is a matter of public health and needs to be confronted as such.

A recent report from the CDC (link to the report) states that suicide rates among U.S. adults between the ages of 34 and 64 have increased nearly 30% between 1999 and 2010. This translates into about 38,000 suicide deaths a year, a number that now surpasses the number of people killed in traffic accidents annually. As the report mentions, these numbers are more than likely an underestimate because many suicide deaths are reported as due to some other cause. In addition, these numbers do not take into account the number of suicide attempts that occur each year. By some estimates, for every “successful” suicide there are between 10 and 20 “unsuccessful” attempts, and even this is simply a best guess determination.

There has been relatively more attention payed to suicides in the military, but coverage is still inadequate. In 2012, military suicides outnumbered combat deaths (link to NPR article), and it is estimated that one U.S. veteran kills him or herself every 65 minutes. Undoubtedly, the horrors of combat contribute to these alarming statistics, but most of these deaths occur after the soldiers return from fighting. This seems to indicate that there is inadequate mental health care for the troops, and without proper treatment, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other psychological disturbances push some veterans over the edge.

Military suicides are sometimes dismissed as an unfortunate consequence of our prolonged “war on terror,” and as previously stated, there is some validity in this statement. But what then accounts for the surge in the number of suicides among civilians? There has to be some larger societal cause for the increase, but it seems as if very few attempts have been made to identify this cause. In an editorial that followed the CDC’s report, the authors state the following:

Possible contributing factors for the rise in suicide rates among middle-aged adults include the recent economic downturn (historically, suicide rates tend to correlate with business cycles, with higher rates observed during times of economic hardship); a cohort effect, based on evidence that the "baby boomer" generation had unusually high suicide rates during their adolescent years; and a rise in intentional overdoses associated with the increase in availability of prescription opioids. Additional research is needed to understand the cause of the increase in age-adjusted suicide rates and why the extent of the increase varies across racial/ethnic populations.

In essence, they attribute the rise in suicide rates to the poor economy, the indication that “baby boomers” are just more prone to commit suicide, and increased drug use. As to the racial and ethnic variations, suicide rates increased across all groups, but was greatest among Native Americans and Whites (+65.2% and +40.4%, respectively). Irrespective of these variations, the causes listed by the CDC offer an unsatisfactory explanation as to why suicide rates have shot up over the past decade. Yes, the economy has impacted the lives of millions of Americans, and there is a documented, statistical correlation between economic depression and suicide deaths (abstract of journal article, another journal article with a more global perspective). However, the increase began well before the most recent downturn, and rates have continued to go up even as the economy improves. In addition, the U.S. has a higher suicide rate than many European countries that suffered a far greater and more sustained economic downturn. It therefore seems unlikely that economics are the majority factor in suicide deaths. The so called “cohort effect” isn’t really an explanation at all. Stating that “baby-boomers” are more likely to kill themselves because their generation had higher rates of suicide in adolescence is circular reasoning. Finally, while there is definitely greater access to potentially fatal drugs, suicidal individuals generally resort to the most accessible means to end their life. Take away the prescription pills, and they will turn to Tylenol (yes, you can kill yourself with Tylenol, but don't get any ideas), or guns, or whatever. Someone set on killing him or herself will find a way, so again, increased drug usage doesn’t fully explain the uptick.

Of course, the justification that a person uses to take their own life will vary among individuals, and there is almost always an underlying mental disorder that contributes to the sense of terminal hopelessness that precedes suicide. A certain subset of the population may have a psychological predisposition to interpret negative life events as more onerous, but people with such an inclination do not universally commit suicide. From an evolutionary perspective, any genetic factors that contribute to suicidality would tend to be self-limiting, assuming that the person kills him or herself before having children. Even when a suicidal person does have children, there is no guarantee that his or her children will have the same tendency. While there is a correlation between a parent committing suicide and an increased likelihood that their children will also kill themselves (article describing linkage), it is arguable that this risk factor is purely experientially based, i.e. not hereditary.  

So we are back to external factors. What has changed in the last decade or so that would lead to increased suicide rates? Perhaps, the more appropriate question is “what hasn’t changed?” I believe that rise in suicide deaths is attributable to societal changes that have negatively impacted the individual’s sense of belonging and overall contentment with life. This is not a novel supposition by any stretch. In 1897, Emile Durkheim used the word “anomie” to describe the breakdown of social norms and the disconnect between personal beliefs and societal expectations and standards. Alienation, either real or perceived, can give rise to helplessness and hopelessness, and lead the abandoned soul down dark roads. Modern society is set up in such a way to simultaneously crush individuality and isolate the individual; it tells a person to conform with the masses and cut the ties to those closest to them. Societal expectations are unachievable in that they literally cannot be achieved; one can never be rich enough, or successful enough, or powerful enough, or own enough stuff. The inevitable failure to attain the absolute in everything leads to a sense of failure and rejection.

Some blame can be placed on mankind’s own creations. Technological advancements have led to incredible societal changes and vice versa. The explosion in cell-phone use, high speed internet access, texting, tweeting, and other social media has giving rise to an always on, hyperconnected world. We can be bludgeoned by information and overwhelmed with news (typically bad) to the point of emotional disturbance. At the same time, people can have a thousand or more “friends,” and at the same time have no one to talk to face to face.

Along those same lines, erosion or personal relationships and group belonging has cast many people into a sea of despair. While I do not lament the general shift away from religion, I must give credit to the more traditional religious institutions’ almost unparalleled ability to provide a sense of belonging and cohesiveness.  Modern religion is superficial and self-serving, providing temporary reprieve from the outside world, but not fostering and real personal development. Humanist and other secular groups have had difficulty establishing themselves as credible alternatives. As a result atheists and agnostics may encounter profound isolation even though more people reject religious beliefs everyday.

It seems that a person can be beholden to everyone yet cared for by no one. We are expected to be everywhere at once, to excel at work while cherishing the family, to absorb everything that is thrown at us, to not complain, and to never show any sign of weakness. And so we silently break inside. Some manage to hold the pieces together, but an increasing number of people crumble to the ground. Their broken selves are viewed as worthless in their own eyes, and then what is the point, really? In some terrible sense they are right to think in such a way; there is no clear-cut and easy solution to society’s ills. But to simply give up when one has the ability to at least attempt to transform his or her immediate situation? This is shortsighted and selfish. If a person stops and honestly thinks, they will most often find that they don’t want to kill themselves, but instead only want to end their current life situation. Not finality but change. This is what needs to be promoted: that each person has the ability to alter their own life in some way, no matter how seemingly minuscule, and even if it is simply by reframing their way of thinking. Seeking help is change in itself, and should be lauded not looked down upon. If life seems like a fight, then consider it a challenge where winning takes the form of persevering through each daily struggle; to endure is to succeed. These messages may be lost in the constant noise of our lives, but the more we address the issues that are causing suicide rates to increase the greater chance that they will be heard.

The Cost of Fear

In the whirlwind of events that followed the tragedy in Boston, the United States abandoned the principles it was founded on. We, as a people, gave up our liberty in pursuit of the suspected bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Albeit it was a momentary forfeiture of our freedom that was confined to the city of Boston and its surrounding area, but it revealed just how willing we are to allow fear to take over our lives.

After 19 year old Dzhokhar and his 26 year old brother Tamerlan were identified as suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing, it was understandable that a forceful response would be implemented in trying to apprehend them. If guilty, they are the culprits of a cowardly terrorist act that took the lives of three and injured nearly 200 others. And in fairness the manhunt was rightfully intensified after the two brothers were involved in the killing of an MIT police officer. A shootout with the police left the older brother dead and wounded Dzhokhar went on the run. At this point things began to spiral out of control, and a major metropolitan area was brought to a standstill by a single, injured teenager.

Millions of innocent citizens were “asked” to remain indoors and it was requested that businesses remain closed while the authorities scoured the city. But is it really a suggestive question when the people doing the asking are heavily armed police officers? Under the guise of being in “hot pursuit” of the suspect, police trampled peoples’ private property, conducting door to door searches, and in some cases pulling people out of their homes. It is somewhat dubious that this emergency pursuit rose to a level that it could supplant the the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. There is a legally recognized exemption to the Fourth Amendment called “exigent circumstance,” but probable cause is still necessary for a search of private property to take place.

Ostensibly, the police could argue that they had sufficient reason to invade people’s privacy and that they were acting in the public’s best interest. It should also be noted that no one seems to have objected to this authoritarianism, but that does not excuse such sweeping action. Panic and fear were sown by the authorities in order to obtain the acquiescence of the people.

In the end, Dzhokhar was apprehended due to the diligence of a citizen and only after the stay-indoor-restrictions were lifted. Venturing outside, David Henneberry noticed blood on the tarp that was covering his boat. He peeked inside, saw what looked like a curled-up body in a pool of blood, and called 911. Although Dzhokhar initially responded to the arrival of the police by shooting at them, he eventually gave himself up and was then taken to the hospital for his injuries. From the SWAT teams carrying assault rifles, to the roaming bands of police, to the strategically placed sharpshooters, all of them proved ineffective to the task of capturing one person.  

Yet the people applaud this show of force, and officials give patently false statements like “Americans refuse to be terrorized.” Is there not terror when one of the largest cities in the country comes seemingly under siege? Even more chilling are these words from President Obama. “If anyone wants to know who we are; what America is; how we respond to evil and terror – that’s it.” It was essentially an announcement to the world that if violence is committed against the U.S. we will shelve our principles of liberty and freedom and cower under the bootsteps of authority.

America is not some authoritarian state, and to witness military style vehicles rolling down the streets of Boston was disgraceful. No one should cheer this sort of de facto martial law, regardless of how safe it makes us feel. Benjamin Franklin put it best when he wrote, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

A Truly Divided Government

Recent events have given us a study in contrast between governmental abuse of power and governmental dereliction of duty. 

The suppression of Constitutional Rights by the authorities in Boston represents government overreach at its worst. Beginning with the “stay-in-door” restrictions that were imposed upon millions of residents to the failure to read the bombing suspect his Miranda rights, multiple organizations have shown their willingness to trample on the principles this country was founded on whenever it suits them. Now there is even talk of holding Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as an “enemy combatant,” which could result in his imprisonment for years without trial. However grievous his crime, this teenager is still a U.S. citizen and is entitled to the same due process as any other American. While this government power grab is troubling it is more frightening that the public is so willing to accept it. To acquiesce to authoritarianism is to surrender not just Dzhokhar’s rights but everyone’s rights as well. If the government is not challenged on this issue then the next time an act of terrorism occurs we may find ourselves in a foreign land of militarism and martial law. 

On the opposite end of the spectrum, the explosion of the fertilizer plant in the town of West, Texas reveals what happens when the government neglects its responsibility to ensure to the safety of the people. I will come back to how the situation in Boston was an assurance of public safety in name only, but now the issue is how the lack of government oversight led to the deaths of 14 people and injuries of nearly 200 others. The fertilizer plant that violently shattered a small town was a ticking time bomb that failed to report to the Department of Homeland Security that it held approximately 270 tons of ammonium nitrate. Over half a million pounds of the same explosive substance that was used in the Oklahoma City bombing, yet the DHS was completely unaware of the situation. At the same time, the EPA was notified that the plant was storing ammonium nitrate when the company filed a risk management plan. This interdepartmental communication breakdown is inexcusable, but even more galling is the fact that the company’s risk management plan blatantly whitewashed the danger it posed to the surrounding area. They reported that the worst case scenario would have been a short term leak of ammonia gas that would not pose a serious health risk to anyone. In addition, they incredulously stated that there was no risk of fire or explosion at the plant. 

Texas state agencies were similarly deficient. State environmental regulators found no reason for concern after several inspections of the plant between 2002 and 2007. Nevermind the fact that the company was operating without the required air permit; the sheer amount of anhydrous ammonia and ammonium nitrate being stored in a single location should have triggered multiple alarm bells. Furthermore, the plant was built in 1962, so why were residential areas allowed to crop up so close to such a dangerous facility? One reason is that Texas has no statewide zoning laws, instead leaving such building restrictions up to local government bodies. But if local governments are unaware of any potential danger due to the failure of state and federal agencies to do their job, why would they feel the need to prohibit the building of apartments, schools, and nursing homes within the blast radius of a fertilizer plant? 

It is likely that the tragedy in West will lead to at least some policy changes and increased safety measures surrounding chemical manufacturing and storage, but it unfortunate that it took such a terrible event to do so. The people’s rights to life and liberty demand that the government act to protect them from industries that have grown accustomed to little government oversight. 

This leads back to the actions of the police and FBI in Boston. Under the guise of “ensuring public safety,” they temporarily robbed the people of their freedom. To most this was simply an inconvenience, but it was also a time of great fear. Law enforcement officials created an atmosphere of terror that allowed them to impose upon the people without the worry of facing any public opposition. A scared populace had no objections as a city was brought to its knees by a single, injured teenager. The government continued with its ruse as it prattled on about how resilient and tough the people of Boston are. But the public was nothing of the sort because they simply cowered in their homes instead of asking why the agencies meant to protect them were now preying on their fears. Again, what will happen next time? What will we allow the government to take from us when a lone madman or group of terrorists commits the next atrocity? When martial law is declared, how long will we accept it? 

What parts of the Constitution are we willing to throw away simply because the government intimidates us into submission?

Attention to Over-diagnosis: A.D.H.D. and the mislabeling of childhood.

If one believes recently released estimates, millions of school-age children are affected by a diagnosable mental disorder that impairs their ability to learn and even function in daily life. But if one sees through the recent trend to medicalize everything, this same group of children is simply behaving normally. What twenty years ago would have been passed off as kids being kids is now labeled as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or A.D.H.D. As the NY Times reported (link to article), nearly 1 in 5 high-school age boys has been diagnosed with A.D.H.D. and nearly 1 in 10 are being medicated for the condition. In the past decade alone there has been a 53% increase in A.D.H.D. among school-age children in general. Either kids are rapidly losing their ability to function, or the medical establishment is recklessly pathologizing normal behavior as deviant. Contributing to this overdiagnosis are parents and teachers who find it easier to pump kids full of medication rather than address behavioral issues directly. Increasingly, children themselves are to blame. As the pressure to excel academically increases, high school and college students have become desperate for anything that can offer them an advantage. They are well aware that medications used in the treatment of A.D.H.D. can increase focus and mental stamina, and students will sometimes fake symptoms in order to obtain them. The ever increasing numbers of kids diagnosed with A.D.H.D. is not an indication of a worrisome epidemic. Instead, it is an indication of society’s desire for quick fixes and easy excuses. Certainly there are some children who are genuinely impaired by A.D.H.D. For them proper medical care can make the difference between making decent grades and failing out of school completely.

Arguably however, the majority of children diagnosed with this condition do not need medication. While they do have an attention deficit, it is a deficit of attention to the children from adults. Parents and teachers can remedy what is viewed as problematic behavior by addressing children individually. But this takes actual time and effort, and with short-cuts made available by all to willing doctors, medication becomes an enticing alternative.

However freely available these medications become, the fact remains that they are powerful psychostimulants with the potential to cause real harm. Adderall is one of the most common drugs prescribed for A.D.H.D., and it is essence nothing but brand name amphetamine. There have been numerous reports of Adderall induced psychosis, and symptoms of addiction often manifest in children trying to taper off usage of the drug. Adderall dependency can develop, and children who begin on a low dose may need to continually increase the amount taken in order to simply function. Other drug choices have similar profiles. Even non-stimulant medications such as Atomoxetine pose a danger. In a 2009 drug safety report, the British Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency found that "Atomoxetine is associated with treatment-emergent psychotic or manic symptoms in children and adolescents without a history of such disorders." By treating an illusory disease, doctors may be inducing genuine mental disorders.

America has a predilection towards reclassifying normality as disordered. This tendency is driven by the pharmaceutical industry that is all too eager to market its latest cure for some manufacture disease. It is further abetted by adults who prefer automatons over children and lack the patience of inclination to deal with kids directly. Again, A.D.H.D. is a legitimate disability, but it has become the diagnosis dejur, recklessly given to far too many children. The term A.D.H.D. is simply a greenlight to medicate the masses at an early age, get them hooked into the medical-pharmaceutical complex, and perpetuate legalized drug dependency. Perhaps if adults were more attentive to these facts, they would again recognise that the behavior of most children isn’t all that much of a problem. Besides, there is already a cure for short attention spans and hyperactivity among kids; it’s called growing up.

A Matter of Rights.

I am going to make this brief, because so much has already been said on the subject of same-sex marriage. There are no arguments that can be made against the legalization of same-sex marriages that are constitutionally valid, and most are simply ridiculous.

Looking at the dominate types of opposition in turn, first is the idea that marriage is a sacred rite that has historically been between a man and a woman. Right away this objection runs afoul of the first amendment's guarantee of a separation of church and state. Marriage is a social construct that has been largely regulated by religious institutions for most of history. It wasn’t until the Protestant Reformation that marriage became a state affair with unions simply recorded by government officials. But marriage never shed its religious overtones. Governments merely codified religious doctrine into law because it was commonly accepted. What we have in existence today is religion imposing itself onto civil law, ergo, it is a violation of the constitution.

Another common argument made is that the main purpose of marriage is the production or protection of children. If this was the case, infertile people, postmenopausal women, couples who chose not to have children, etc. would all be barred from marriage. More to the point, this argument suggests that after a couple is done raising children, their marriage should be dissolved. This is an example of the ridiculousness opponents of same-sex marriage have resorted to. Regarding two-sex marriage’s place as a more favorable to children than same-sex unions, the notion is not supported by recent scientific studies or even anecdotally. It has been shown that two-adult households are more “successful” raising children, but this is stating the obvious. What matters is a stable home-front with adequate resources, i.e time to spend with the children, not the gender of the parents.

In civil law, marriage is a contractual agreement of mutual support and responsibilities between two consenting adults. Period. Nowhere within this framework is mention of gender, as that would be patently discriminatory against an entire class of people. Within the U.S., civil rights take precedence over religious doctrine masquerading as law. Let the churches marry who they wish, but let the law recognize personal liberty and allow same-sex couples the same rights as everyone else.

The Law According to Bloomberg.

Someone needs to remind New York Mayor, Michael Bloomberg what type of country he is living in. He’s been on such an autocratic rampage recently, that apparently he believes that he resides in a dictatorship, and he’s the dictator.

Let’s start with his ill-fated attempt to ban the sale of large, sugary drinks (for the sake of simplicity I will from here on refer to them as “sodas”).  Mr. Bloomberg was troubled by the obesity epidemic in the U.S., and he correctly identified sodas as being one of the main culprits behind its prevalence. But instead of using his vast monetary resources to further educate the public on the hazards of drinking sodas, he decided it would just be better if he took large sodas away from the public. So, with the support of his hand-picked Board of Health, Mr. Bloomberg put for an ordinance that would prohibit the sale of any large soda over 16 ounces in size. At least that was his intent. As with most laws, there were plenty of loopholes and work-arounds so that large sodas wouldn’t have been prohibited completely, but the ordinance would have greatly curtailed the sale of them within the city limits. I am sorry Mr. Bloomberg, but you do not have the authority to prohibit the sale of legal goods simply because they are unhealthy when consumed in excess. What the Mayor attempted to do was rule by fiat, never putting the issue to a vote by the citizens of New York or even the City Council that was elected to represent the people. Unsurprisingly, a local judge ruled that Mayor had overstepped his authority and went further to declare the proposed ordinance “arbitrary” and “capricious.” Indeed it was. Why 16 ounces? Why not 20? The Mayor simply decided on a number that fit his idea of a healthy portion and set out to impose his view on the public. I admit, his intentions were good, and I completely agree with the Mayor that sodas are a scourge on society. Personally, I don’t think any amount of regular soda should be consumed, but the decision to do so is left to the individual. Until the people decide the issue by voting on it, the sale of sodas cannot have size restrictions imposed upon them.

This of course brings up an earlier ordinance issued by Mayor Bloomberg that banned the sale of food made with trans-fats. Restaurants and food dutifully complied, and most people weren’t even aware that any change took place. Consumption of trans-fats in New York is negligible, and the ban spurred the entire food industry to reformulate many of products that are sold nationwide. Everyone is healthier, but everyone had the rule shoved down their throat. Again, let me be clear, trans-fats are unhealthy and should not be consumed by anyone, but the Mayor and his trusty Board of Health were acting beyond their authority when they imposed the ban. It is unclear why the Mayor thought that the people would be unable to pass a ban on trans-fats by voting on it, but he seems to have a deep-seated distrust of the people’s ability to take care of themselves.

For the Mayor, people can’t even be trusted to avoid making rash, impulse-driven decisions to buy things that are simply on display in a store. I am referring of course to Mr. Bloomberg’s recent attempt to ban the public display of cigarettes. Essentially it prohibits stores from showing tobacco products in the open, including behind or over the counter, and requires sellers to keep these products in discrete, concealed spots. The theory “out of sight, out of mind” comes to hand, but it is questionable if this ordinance would achieve its stated goal of discouraging young people from smoking. Under this logic, all smoking should be censored from movies and people who smoke should only be allowed to do so if they are not visible by anyone under the age of 18. But whatever the reasoning or intent, this ordinance is in violation of the manufacturer’s rights to sell a legal product. Unlike pornography, there is no immediate harm if a child sees a pack of cigarettes. Banning the display of tobacco products would however immediately harm the manufacturer’s and seller’s ability to earn a profit. Of course, I am all for reducing smoking rates, but I am not for government officials implementing decrees with no public oversight.

The most recent instance of New York’s Mayor forcing his will upon the people is entirely within the law, unfortunately. Mr. Bloomberg has just launched a $12 million campaign, financed entirely with his own money, to influence senatorial elections in 13 states. His goal is to promote candidates who favor gun-control measures, and persuade incumbent senators to support the same issue. The Supreme Court ruled that private campaigns like Mayor Bloomberg’s are allowed. While legal, they are nonetheless antithetical to democracy. Now, I am not naive; I know that money and politics are inseparable. However, Mr. Bloomberg crosses a line by trying to influence elections entirely outside of his area of residence. His money has bought him undue control of affairs that are not his to decide. Once again, his intentions are noble. There is an absolute need of stricter gun laws, and senators everywhere would be wise to support this issue. However, kowtowing to a rich bureaucrat should not be condoned. The is simply another instance of the wealthy ruling over the masses, and it disempowers the citizen vote.

Michael Bloomberg envisions a utopia of his own design, and is determined to trample the democratic process to achieve. What he seeks to create is a country lost to the people, and it is up to the people to cry foul when an autocratic Mayor oversteps the bounds of his authority.

Degrees Oversold.

When I entered graduate school, I was not sure what career path I would ultimately pursue, but I was fairly certain that I would at least have a career. Unfortunately, my certainty was misplaced. According to a recent story on NPR (link to NPR article), the unemployment rate for someone with a Ph.D. is approximately 30%, and there is a less than 50% chance that they will have full-time employment. With the nation’s overall unemployment rate now standing at 7.7%, someone with a doctorate is 4 times more likely to be unemployed than the average worker. Further worsening the situation, more Ph.D.’s are finding that the only full-time work they can find is as a post-doc. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, a post-doc position is essentially an extension of graduate school that pays slightly better but is usually a dead-end job. I will use myself as an example. I graduated with a Ph.D. in cell biology in December of 2012. The professor that I worked for as a student then immediately hired me a post-doc. I now do the same exact work that I was doing as a student and make an insultingly small salary. Admittedly, my situation is not the norm. Most Ph.D. graduates go on to a different lab, and usually a different institution to work as a post-doc. But I considered myself lucky to have any job at all, so I gratefully  accepted the offer to stay in the same lab. In any case, a post-doc is a dead-end because there are very few faculty positions available at the University level. A person can do two, three, sometimes four post-docs, all in different labs, and all in the hopes of eventually becoming an actual tenure-track professor. And now we’ve come to the problem: tenure.

Tenured faculty are essentially faculty for life. Once the position is locked in, it is essentially removed from the job market until the professor retires or more likely dies. Universities have a backlog of applicants for an ever shrinking number of faculty positions, yet they continue to churn out Ph.D. graduates as if there was some unmet demand for them. They perpetuate a lie, i.e. the country needs more scientists with advanced degrees. I will plainly state the contrary. The country needs less people with Ph.D.s and more people who will do the grunt work of science for menial pay. Universities subsist on the work of graduate students, lab assistants, and post-docs. The work they do does not require much more skill than can be acquired with a two-year associates degree or in some cases simply a high school degree. Lab work is monotonous and does not require that a person actually know the theory behind what they are doing or why they are even doing an experiment. Of course, in order to earn a Ph.D. a person must demonstrate that they have a deep understanding of the scientific theory behind their work, but the work itself can be done by anyone who can follow simple instructions. I understand that being able to follow instructions is becoming a lost art, but the science fields should not try to play-up the difficulty of what they do. Again, I know that it requires a high level intelligence to design the experiments and make sense of the data that is acquired. These jobs are usually left to the faculty, so we are back to the original problem. There are just not that many jobs that require a Ph.D.

During my time as a graduate student, I found that I both enjoyed and was good at teaching. I decided that I would ultimately like to teach at the college level, so I knew that I would need to obtain a Ph.D. But universities usually do not hire “teachers;” they hire “professors.” Professors are expected to conduct research and teach a few classes here and there. It’s great if they happen to be good teachers, but it doesn’t matter all that much to the Universities if the professors are ineffective and dull in the classroom. What counts is their research, the grant money they bring in, and the number of publications they can crank out, thereby circling back again to the people who do the actual work, i.e. the graduate students and post-docs. Everything comes back to the minions, but compensation is disproportionate given to the professors. While your average post-doc earns maybe $40,000 a year (a figure that I don’t even come close to), a full professor can get anywhere between $90,000 and $250,000. Both have a Ph.D., yet one earns at least 2 times and sometimes more than 6 times the salary.

I didn’t get into this field for the money, but I did enter it under the hopes that I would eventually get a job doing something I enjoy. I wouldn’t mind if I was making $20,000 a year if I was happy, but I am stuck doing research that I hate. It is beyond the mere loathing I feel towards research; it is also the fact that what I am doing now in no way advances my career or will help get the job I want in the future. Yes, I could quit tomorrow, but there are several problems with this scenario. First, I am now “over-qualified” for many jobs. Employers are reluctant to hire someone that they feel obligated to pay more than someone with less education. Why should they hire someone with a Ph.D. and pay them $50k if they can hire someone with a bachelor’s degree for $30k? Second, the jobs that I am suitably qualified for are few and far between. Community colleges have found tremendous savings by only hiring adjunct faculty, which are part-time jobs that pay a genuine pittance (think $12,000 a year). Third, and perhaps the most daunting, is that if I quit I will infuriate some people in high places that have the very real ability to destroy my chances of ever getting a teaching position anywhere. Universities are incestuous monsters, and a negative evaluation from one professor can blacklist a potential job candidate for life. So if I jump ship, I will be doing so with an anchor shackled to my leg.

In the end, this has all been just a futile rant against a system that is broken and stacked against the very people it depends on most. I hope that this is also a warning to anyone thinking of pursuing a Ph.D. As a friend once said, “You know what Ph.D. stands for? Permanent Head Damage.”

Damn right.

A Racket Revealed

Yesterday, the New York Times ran an article detailing how some law schools are now opening up in-house law firms to place graduates that otherwise would be unemployed (link to NY Times article). Due to the fact that law schools have been churning out graduates at numbers that surpass available jobs, the schools have taken it upon themselves to create a continued "need" for more lawyers. In actuality, they have exposed themselves for the money-hunger enterprises they are. Instead of curtailing enrollment until the job market can absorb the existing number of law graduates, the schools stubbornly refused to kill their cash-cow, i.e. student enrollment. In order to avoid outrage from an increasing number of unemployed graduates, law schools have invented a convenient dumping ground for would be lawyers. The graduates are thus doubly wounded. While the salaries they are offered in these contrivances are far below those of the free market, at the same time they have to begin paying off their massive amount of student loan debt. Once again, the students are bled dry while the schools feast.

This sets a dangerous precedent, as universities may see this as an avenue for continuing to increase student enrollment beyond what is necessary or warranted. For example, say a major university is graduating an excess number of people with liberal arts degrees. The school could invent "creativity centers" where graduates could churn out meaningless pabulum while earning a pittance salary. Naive students would continue to enroll in droves under the notion that there will always be a job waiting for them, regardless of the fact that the job is essentially  an artifice.

Schools validate their importance by promoting the fallacy that everyone needs a college education; not everyone does. But employers have been brainwashed into thinking that only college graduates are capable of doing even the most menial of jobs. Another Times article (link to article), titled "It Takes a B.A. to Find a Job as a File Clerk," describes how such degree inflation has run amok. In one instance, an employer required a college degree for a $10 per hour job carrying legal papers between adjacent buildings. This is insulting to the very intelligence of the job applicants. Furthermore, with students incurring an average debt of nearly $25,000 dollars for a bachelor's degree alone, this level of compensation ensures that graduates are saddled with debt for an even greater portion of their adult lives.

There needs to be a public rebuke of the way universities have been corrupted from institutions of learning into financial corporations. Otherwise universities may continue their deceptive practices in order to ensnare more money and enslave more graduates with crushing debt and unfulfilled dreams.

Cured by Negligence, Still in Danger.

At one time, HIV was viewed as one of, if not the greatest threats to global health. Due to advancements in antiretroviral therapy and earlier diagnoses, the virus is now viewed as a manageable disease that is no longer the death sentence it once was. The medical field continues its progress towards finding a cure for the disease, and news that a young child was given a “functional cure” for an HIV infection acquired at birth is cause for hope that similar results can be achieved in adults. However, this optimism should be guarded by the fact that the infant responded to standard antiretroviral drugs that are routinely used in adults already. Furthermore, it should also be noted that the infant was started on this drug therapy a mere 30 hours after birth, well before the virus could establish itself in the child’s system. Adults are unlikely to be aware of being infected with HIV at such an early state, and by the time they receive medical care, the virus will have had time to infiltrate the immune system and set up reserves in the CD4 white blood cells. Nonetheless, if this “cure” can be reproduced in other infants, it marks a legitimate turning point in preventing HIV from become established in children that are born infected with the virus.

Which brings me to the focus of the this article. Everyday, approximately 1,000 infants are born infected with HIV. The majority are born in developing countries where access to medical care is limited at best and prenatal screening of the mother is uncommon. Some may be unaware of the fact that a woman who has HIV can give birth to a child free of the disease. In the U.S. and other developed countries most pregnant women are tested for HIV, and if the results are positive, preventative measures can be taken to ensure that the virus is not passed on to the child.

The mother of the “cured” child did not receive such prenatal screening, and was unaware of her disease status until she delivered the child in hospital. This in itself is troubling. The mother either did not know that she was pregnant, which is not as rare as you would think, or she was not concerned enough for the well being of her child to seek routine medical care during her pregnancy. The issue of cost could have been an obstacle to her getting this care, but most cities have a Planned Parenthood clinics that provide low-cost, and sometimes free, maternal care and prenatal testing. So either ignorance or lack of concern by the mother led to her child being born with HIV.

Fortunately, the child received prompt medical treatment. The child continued to receive antiretroviral therapy for 18 months, until the mother stopped bringing her to the clinic. I repeat, the mother stopped bringing her child to get treated. At this point, no one knew that the child was cured; she could just have well been setting up her child for a lifetime of dealing with HIV. Look at it this way, if the kid had been born with cancer, and the mother stopped getting her baby care, the child would have likely died.

Five months went by before the mother and child returned to the clinic. The physicians were appropriately worried that the child would now have an established HIV infection. Tests revealed this not to be the case, and after several follow up tests, the child was declared “functional cured.” The kid was lucky. The mother, on the other hand, was simply reckless, and should be charged with child endangerment at the minimum. She has shown a pattern of disregard for the health of her child, and the future well being of the child is questionable. These facts have been overshadowed by the news of a “cure” for HIV, but the mother needs to be held accountable for her actions (or inaction as the case may be). The child escaped harm this time, but maintaining that health is in jeopardy as long as she is in the “care” of a negligent mother.