For years, our representatives and senators in the United States Congress have been talking, back talking, talking in circles about mental health insurance parity. The idea is simple: insurance companies would have to grant the same measure of treatment to someone suffering with chronic major depression as someone with diabetes, someone with schizophrenia as someone with sickle-cell anemia, someone with panic disorder as someone with pancreatic cancer.
But many people, including President Bush and certain lobbyists, are hesitant to make insurance companies do so, in part because of the costs associated with mental illness treatment. Others just believe mental illnesses are not “real” medical illnesses, despite years of scientific research, study and reports after reports after reports clearly indicating mental illnesses are just as real as other medical illnesses. I should note that I have suffered from mental illness, specifically major depression, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder and anorexia for more than 20 years. Last year, I was diagnosed with conversion disorder. I should also note that many of my friends, former colleagues and family members suffer daily with some form of mental illness.
It is absurd that in this day and age, that mental illness (also called brain disorders) would be considered anything less harmful than cancer, diabetes or high blood pressure. According to the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, some 19 million to 20 million Americans suffer from some form of mental illness every day, that’s about one in four or five people. One likely never would consider limiting treatment to cancer patients, so why is it even conceivable that those who suffer severe mental illness should be restricted to, customarily, 28 days of treatment? I ask our legislators: If a cancer patient were to be denied chemotherapy after 28 days, would that sit well with you? If someone with diabetes were given only 28 days of insulin treatments, would that sit well with you?
Mental illness can be just as deadly as cancer or other life-threatening illnesses, particularly when one suffering with mental illness feels no hope for the future, believes there is no point in even trying to receive extra treatment because of insurance limitations, and starts considering suicide a real option.
Recently, the Senate passed legislation (S 558) -HR 1424) calling for equal treatment for the mentally ill. This important legislation, known as mental illness insurance parity, has been pending before Congress for years. It is critical, if not crucial, that Congress to come to a quick agreement on this legislation, that it be approved by President Bush and that it be signed into law in 2008. Many of us who live with mental illness have for so long resisted in-paitient and/or out-patient treatment, even psychiatric and psychological visits because of out-of-pocket cost issues, because insurance companies, legislators and the general public do not seem to take our illnesses seriously enough to consider them worthy of full and fair treatment and insurance coverage. That kind of thinking must stop.
Congress again has a chance to prove that people like me will not be left hanging, that we will not be considered lesser people than those suffering with other life-threatening illnesses, that we will not be denied the same level of medical treatment than others with severe illness. Congress absolutely must seize this historic opportunity to end insurance discrimination faced by people living with serious mental illness.
If treating fairly those who suffer with mental illness is not reason enough to pass this legislation, consider these facts offered by the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill:
• Untreated mental illness costs American businesses, government and families more than $80 billion annually in lost productivity and unemployment, broken lives and broken families, 30,000 suicides annually, emergency room visits and homelessness.
• Mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder and severe anxiety disorders are real medical illnesses that require intensive medical treatment. These are not illnesses people can just "snap out" of.
• Treatment for mental illness works for most people. If accessible, treatment success rates for most severe mental illnesses exceed those for heart disease and diabetes.
• There simply is no scientific or medical justification for insurance coverage of mental illness treatment to be on different terms and conditions than other diseases.
• Discriminatory insurance coverage of mental illness bankrupts families and places a tremendous burden on taxpayers through higher expenditures for public disability and health benefits, chronic homelessness and inappropriate and unnecessary “criminalization” of mental illness.
It is of paramount importance that Congress reach an agreement on mental illness parity legislation this year. This means an agreement that can get through the Senate and is acceptable to the President so that it can be signed into law and not pushed off to next year, or the year after or the year after. Mental illness insurance parity is long overdue. Congress must act in 2008. For some people, the wait is killing us.
But in a statement issued by the Bush Administration, “Despite the consensus on the need for parity, the path toward final agreement between the House and Senate will not be easy. There is likely to be stiff resistance in the Senate to any effort to require health plans to cover every diagnosis and condition in the DSM (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, which psychiatrists and psychologists use to diagnose mental illness) in order to maintain coverage for mental illness.”
The statement goes on to list multiple reasons why it likely it will be difficult to pass a mental health insurance parity bill this year. “Among the differences that the House and Senate will have to resolve to get a bill that can be enacted this year are:
“• DSM Mandate – The requirement in the House bill dictating that if a group health plan offers coverage for any mental health or substance abuse disorder, then the plan must cover every diagnosis and condition in the DSM. The Senate contains no such mandate;
“• Preemption of State Mandates – The House bill contains a provision that would supersede state laws that require coverage of mental illness defined as less than the entire DSM;
“• Out of Network Coverage – Both bills require equity in treatment limits and financial limitations for out of network coverage. However, the House bill goes further in requiring out of network coverage for mental health and substance abuse if it exists on the medical-surgical side; and
“• Management of Benefits – The Senate bill contains language allowing group health plans to manage benefits through utilization review and medical necessity. While the House bill allows such benefit management, it goes further by requiring disclosure of plan information regarding medical necessity determinations.”
The Bush Administration goes on, saying, “It is important to note that both bills exempt from parity [those] employers and group health plan sponsors with 50 or fewer workers, and that both plans authorize a cost increase exemption that would allow plans whose premiums rise more than 2 percent as a result of compliance to waive the parity requirement for one year (after which time the plan must come back into compliance).”
In English, that means “blah blah blah.” What our legislators, and no doubt Big Pharma, are concerned about is money. “Under recently revived budget rules Congress must ‘pay for’ any change in federal law that results in higher entitlement spending or lost revenue with an ‘offsetting’ cut in another program,” the Bush administration’s statement reads. “In the case of [mental health insurance] parity, tax revenue will be lost to the government as health spending that is now made by families with after-tax dollars shifts to before-tax dollars. For example, spending now excluded from health plan coverage (e.g. because of arbitrary limits on inpatient psychiatric care that would not be allowed under parity) would be covered by health plans with pre-tax dollars.”
Other issues include Medicaid rebates for mental health treatment, including those for prescribed medications. And to make it even more difficult for the mentally ill to be treated fairly by insurance companies, the House added a separate and completely unrelated piece of legislation to the parity bill, called the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA, HR 493), according to NAMI. This bill is designed to address the misuse of personal genetic information and has been floating around Congress for years. Without this addition, it is possibly mental health parity could become reality sooner. But, as many of us know, legislative add-ons often pop up after a bill has been passed and such add-ons can delay passage of the primary legislation for months, even years.
So, at what point will mental health parity become reality? Right now, no one knows. But with suicide rates climbing each year, one would hope that Congress takes action sooner rather than later to pass fair and meaningful legislation. According to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2005 (the most recent data available), there were 32,637 reported suicide deaths in the United States. “Based on the 2005 data, suicide remains the 11th leading cause of death in the United States,” according to the AFSP/CDC report. “It remains the third leading cause among our nation's youth, the fourth leading cause of death among adults 18 to 65. Individuals aged 65 and older account for 16 percent of all suicides.”
The AFSP reports that every 16 minutes someone dies by suicide. Though suicide attempts are not reported, it is estimated that close to one million people make a suicide attempt each year. Research has shown that 90 percent of people who die by suicide have a diagnosable psychiatric disorder at the time of their death, most often unrecognized or untreated depression.
If that’s not a case for mental health parity insurance legislation that would help those who need any level of psychiatric or psychological care, I can’t imagine what is.
-30-
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Friday, August 24, 2007
Gov. Blagojevich’s ego, craving for power go too far in Illinois budget process
There is a reason there are three branches of government in this state and across the country: to ensure checks and balances happen when necessary.
To say that checks and balances are necessary right now in Springfield is putting things politely. Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s enormous ego and desire for power have put Illinois and its residents in a horrific situation. Not only does the state legislature look like a three-ring circus, its members are acting like clowns.
Our elected lawmakers have been working an overtime session that has lasted more than 70 days in an effort to pass a budget. And while a budget was passed Aug. 23, additional work on the budget is expected to last past Labor Day. That is ridiculous, preposterous. It’s not as if legislators did not know the state needed a new budget. Yet still they have been playing silly games that put the state’s school districts at risk of not receiving much-needed aid. Our legislators in Springfield held hostage state employees, who until just this week were not sure if there would be a government shut-down and were not sure if they were going to get paid.
Unbelievably, though, in the budget Blagojevich simultaneously accepted and rejected on Aug. 23, he gave legislators a 3.5 percent pay raise. In addition to that, Blagojevich last week approved a 9.6 percent pay hike, increasing our legislators’ salaries 13.1 percent. For what? For not doing what they should have done more than three months ago and pass an acceptable budget?
By the way, the governor who consistently has refused to live in the governor’s mansion and reportedly spends some $6,000 a day to fly to Springfield and back to Chicago, is eligible for a pay raise that would mean he would be--depending on your definition of the word--“earning” $170,918 a year. Perhaps he could use some of that money to pay for those daily flights or to help keep the electricity running in the Springfield home he refuses to use.
Blagojevich seems to think he can do whatever he pleases, for whomever he pleases, which more often than not is his own self, his close friends and whomever will support his proposed initiatives. He took it upon himself to slash more than $430 million in “pet” or “pork” projects from the budget--something that may not even be allowed by the state Constitution--to fund his own pet projects, including several health care initiatives. Talk about nerve. While talking about how important it is for all Illinois residents to have adequate health care, Blagojevich cut spending for veterans’ care and hospital health care, including millions slated for Cook County’s Oak Forest Hospital, according to Friday’s Chicago Tribune.
The Tribune also reported that Blagojevich cut about $90 million in spending for hospitals and nursing homes, programs that provide meals to home-bound AIDS patients and programs to assist indigent mental health patients. Blagojevich also cut $16 million in cost-of-living pay raises for substance abuse workers and workers who provide care for the developmentally disabled.
Blagojevich’s health care plans call for changes that would make every uninsured woman in Illinois eligible for breast cancer and cervical cancer screening, as well as allow poor adults not eligible for Medicare a chance to see a doctor and get needed medications. His plan also would provide more of the state’s working- and middle-class families a chance to have health coverage through the Family Care program. There’s also the governor’s All Kids program, which would give kids with pre-existing medical conditions access to affordable health care.
Blagojevich is talking out of both sides of his mouth, something for which he has developed a great talent. It makes no sense to make it more difficult for AIDS patients, the mentally ill and veterans to get the health care they need and to cut hospitals’ budgets. It’s akin to robbing Pete to pay Paul. In an effort to make himself look good and to placate some of the state’s residents, he ultimately makes himself look worse to other residents. Does he see himself as some sort of Robin Hood by taking money from some health-care programs and shifting that money to his own health care initiatives? If so, he’ll be making some people’s lives worse, not better.
“A budget should reflect the priorities of the people who elected us to make their lives better,” Blagojevich said in a statement available on the state’s Web site. “That’s why I’m removing almost $500 million in special pet projects and other spending that we simply can’t afford. And at the same time, we’re preparing new rules and administrative changes that will give half-a-million Illinoisans access to healthcare.”
In other words, he cut his foes’ pet projects from the budget and inserted his own. Blagojevich’s cuts are little more than a “screw you” to those legislators who dared not support the governor's own pet projects, and that includes not just health care but his desire to bring gambling to the state to help fund transit issues. Oddly, he cut many of his fellow Democrats’ projects, reportedly because they did not support his health-care initiatives.
Illnois House Speaker Michael Madigan was one of Blagojevich’s targets. It is widely known that Blagojevich and Madigan are not friendly to each other. Blagojevich's verbal judo with Madigan will be remembered by many watching this budget process as little more than delay and power-play tactics. And Blagojevich’s contempt for Madigan could not possibly be more transparent.
Blagojevich cut Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s budget; she is Michael Madigan’s daughter. Blagojevich also cut funding for the Illinois Arts Council, which is headed by Shirley Madigan, the speaker’s wife. Those actions show just how big a megalomaniac Blagojevich is and why he just really has no business running this state. If his actions are determined by who supports him and who doesn’t, who gives in to his power-play tactics and who doesn't, he and this state are in serious trouble.
The governor’s money shifting is going to be examined to determine if he actually has the Constitutional power to move money from one category of the budget to another simply because he wants to.
Meanwhile, legislators still need to address funding for the CTA and the RTA and other mass transit issues. “I look forward to working with them on a capital bill to provide funding for mass transit, and aging infrastructure like roads and bridges,” Blagojevich said.
One must wonder how much haggling there will be on those funding issues, how much longer legislators will be working “overtime,” and how much longer they will be wasting commuters’ time playing “I’ll give you this if you give me that” and “You’re my best friend forever...wait, wait, no you’re not.”
Blagojevich has abused his power and has turned the Illinois Legislature into a power-point presentation on stupidity, arrogance and stubbornness. He is an embarrassment to the office he represents and he is an embarrassment to this state.
News stories about the way Blagojevich, Madigan, Illinois Senate President Emil Jones (who has flip-flopped in his support for Blagojevich during the past few months) have handled these budget negotiations could and should be used as a tutorial on how not to behave, how not to represent your constituents and how not to keep hold of your office in the next election.
-30-
To say that checks and balances are necessary right now in Springfield is putting things politely. Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s enormous ego and desire for power have put Illinois and its residents in a horrific situation. Not only does the state legislature look like a three-ring circus, its members are acting like clowns.
Our elected lawmakers have been working an overtime session that has lasted more than 70 days in an effort to pass a budget. And while a budget was passed Aug. 23, additional work on the budget is expected to last past Labor Day. That is ridiculous, preposterous. It’s not as if legislators did not know the state needed a new budget. Yet still they have been playing silly games that put the state’s school districts at risk of not receiving much-needed aid. Our legislators in Springfield held hostage state employees, who until just this week were not sure if there would be a government shut-down and were not sure if they were going to get paid.
Unbelievably, though, in the budget Blagojevich simultaneously accepted and rejected on Aug. 23, he gave legislators a 3.5 percent pay raise. In addition to that, Blagojevich last week approved a 9.6 percent pay hike, increasing our legislators’ salaries 13.1 percent. For what? For not doing what they should have done more than three months ago and pass an acceptable budget?
By the way, the governor who consistently has refused to live in the governor’s mansion and reportedly spends some $6,000 a day to fly to Springfield and back to Chicago, is eligible for a pay raise that would mean he would be--depending on your definition of the word--“earning” $170,918 a year. Perhaps he could use some of that money to pay for those daily flights or to help keep the electricity running in the Springfield home he refuses to use.
Blagojevich seems to think he can do whatever he pleases, for whomever he pleases, which more often than not is his own self, his close friends and whomever will support his proposed initiatives. He took it upon himself to slash more than $430 million in “pet” or “pork” projects from the budget--something that may not even be allowed by the state Constitution--to fund his own pet projects, including several health care initiatives. Talk about nerve. While talking about how important it is for all Illinois residents to have adequate health care, Blagojevich cut spending for veterans’ care and hospital health care, including millions slated for Cook County’s Oak Forest Hospital, according to Friday’s Chicago Tribune.
The Tribune also reported that Blagojevich cut about $90 million in spending for hospitals and nursing homes, programs that provide meals to home-bound AIDS patients and programs to assist indigent mental health patients. Blagojevich also cut $16 million in cost-of-living pay raises for substance abuse workers and workers who provide care for the developmentally disabled.
Blagojevich’s health care plans call for changes that would make every uninsured woman in Illinois eligible for breast cancer and cervical cancer screening, as well as allow poor adults not eligible for Medicare a chance to see a doctor and get needed medications. His plan also would provide more of the state’s working- and middle-class families a chance to have health coverage through the Family Care program. There’s also the governor’s All Kids program, which would give kids with pre-existing medical conditions access to affordable health care.
Blagojevich is talking out of both sides of his mouth, something for which he has developed a great talent. It makes no sense to make it more difficult for AIDS patients, the mentally ill and veterans to get the health care they need and to cut hospitals’ budgets. It’s akin to robbing Pete to pay Paul. In an effort to make himself look good and to placate some of the state’s residents, he ultimately makes himself look worse to other residents. Does he see himself as some sort of Robin Hood by taking money from some health-care programs and shifting that money to his own health care initiatives? If so, he’ll be making some people’s lives worse, not better.
“A budget should reflect the priorities of the people who elected us to make their lives better,” Blagojevich said in a statement available on the state’s Web site. “That’s why I’m removing almost $500 million in special pet projects and other spending that we simply can’t afford. And at the same time, we’re preparing new rules and administrative changes that will give half-a-million Illinoisans access to healthcare.”
In other words, he cut his foes’ pet projects from the budget and inserted his own. Blagojevich’s cuts are little more than a “screw you” to those legislators who dared not support the governor's own pet projects, and that includes not just health care but his desire to bring gambling to the state to help fund transit issues. Oddly, he cut many of his fellow Democrats’ projects, reportedly because they did not support his health-care initiatives.
Illnois House Speaker Michael Madigan was one of Blagojevich’s targets. It is widely known that Blagojevich and Madigan are not friendly to each other. Blagojevich's verbal judo with Madigan will be remembered by many watching this budget process as little more than delay and power-play tactics. And Blagojevich’s contempt for Madigan could not possibly be more transparent.
Blagojevich cut Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s budget; she is Michael Madigan’s daughter. Blagojevich also cut funding for the Illinois Arts Council, which is headed by Shirley Madigan, the speaker’s wife. Those actions show just how big a megalomaniac Blagojevich is and why he just really has no business running this state. If his actions are determined by who supports him and who doesn’t, who gives in to his power-play tactics and who doesn't, he and this state are in serious trouble.
The governor’s money shifting is going to be examined to determine if he actually has the Constitutional power to move money from one category of the budget to another simply because he wants to.
Meanwhile, legislators still need to address funding for the CTA and the RTA and other mass transit issues. “I look forward to working with them on a capital bill to provide funding for mass transit, and aging infrastructure like roads and bridges,” Blagojevich said.
One must wonder how much haggling there will be on those funding issues, how much longer legislators will be working “overtime,” and how much longer they will be wasting commuters’ time playing “I’ll give you this if you give me that” and “You’re my best friend forever...wait, wait, no you’re not.”
Blagojevich has abused his power and has turned the Illinois Legislature into a power-point presentation on stupidity, arrogance and stubbornness. He is an embarrassment to the office he represents and he is an embarrassment to this state.
News stories about the way Blagojevich, Madigan, Illinois Senate President Emil Jones (who has flip-flopped in his support for Blagojevich during the past few months) have handled these budget negotiations could and should be used as a tutorial on how not to behave, how not to represent your constituents and how not to keep hold of your office in the next election.
-30-
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Commutation, possible Libby pardon raises questions about truth, justice, the American way
To whom should the laws of this country apply? Drug dealers, murderers, pedophiles, rapists, thieves, adulterers? Definitely. What about liars and people who obstruct justice? Should application of laws about lying to police, to grand juries, to juries and judges, be on a case-by-case basis? What about laws regarding obstruction of justice? Should those laws be enforced in cases involving regular folk like you and me? What about government officials?
President George W. Bush announced on July 2 that he had decided to commute the 30 month prison sentence of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. Libby, former security aide to Vice-President Dick Cheney, was convicted earlier this year of charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in the case of leaking information to the press about undercover CIA Agent Valerie Plame. Libby still must pay $250,000 in fines and serve two years' probation. Plame’s career is finished.
Still, there remains a possibility that Bush may pardon all charges for which Libby was convicted.
Some people, including Sen. Barak Obama (D-Ill.) consider Libby’s decision to “out” Plame a violation of national security. “The decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division,” Barak told The Chicago Tribune. Some people think otherwise: “By acting here, he [Bush] is showing to conservatives the kind of leadership that made conservatives loyal to Bush once and could make them loyal once more,” William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, told the Tribune.
Bush said Libby’s prison sentence was “harsh” for a first-time offender who devoted many years to public service. But the president’s decision easily could set a precedent for other “first-time offenders” convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. If 30 months in prison is too harsh for lying and obstructing justice in a case that put our national security on the line, what should be an appropriate punishment for lying and obstructing an investigation of a murder? A couple weeks? A few months? What is an appropriate sentence for someone caught lying on the stand in a drug-related lawsuit? A day or two? How about three?
Bush told the Tribune that “our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth.” Does he really believe that? Former President Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about having an affair a White House intern. If Bush applied the same “first-time offender” rule to Clinton, then shouldn’t Bush pardon Clinton? After all, lying about having sexual relations with an intern is not a breach of national security. Stupid, yes. Scandalous, absolutely. But putting national security at risk? Not even close.
So what does “justice,” what does “truth” really mean for our elected officials? If Bush’s pardoning of Libby is used as a benchmark, then perjury and obstruction of justice both are serious but not major crimes, even in cases involving national security, and should not demand prison time of anything more than 30 months, if any time at all. Perhaps justice is something we Americans no longer can expect when it comes to crimes committed by the Bush Administration, or any presidential administration for that matter. Perhaps expecting the truth from our elected officials is old-fashioned, naive.
Think about it: Everyone lies. Everyone tries to cover one’s own behind, especially when that behind is about to be spanked. But should not our elected officials be held to a higher standard? If our elected officials are allowed to lie about anything and everything from extramarital affairs to leaking confidential information to the press to fabricating reasons to go to war, should we not wonder what other lies they may be telling? What other falsehoods are being passed off as truths?
Truth is a funny thing; it can be turned and twisted to fit our opinions, our reasons for doing one thing or another or not doing something. If our elected officials, if our president and his aides continually are allowed to get away with twisting the truth or outright lying about this, that and the other thing, should we not wonder where this country is headed? Or is this kind of behavior just the new American way?
-30-
President George W. Bush announced on July 2 that he had decided to commute the 30 month prison sentence of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. Libby, former security aide to Vice-President Dick Cheney, was convicted earlier this year of charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in the case of leaking information to the press about undercover CIA Agent Valerie Plame. Libby still must pay $250,000 in fines and serve two years' probation. Plame’s career is finished.
Still, there remains a possibility that Bush may pardon all charges for which Libby was convicted.
Some people, including Sen. Barak Obama (D-Ill.) consider Libby’s decision to “out” Plame a violation of national security. “The decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division,” Barak told The Chicago Tribune. Some people think otherwise: “By acting here, he [Bush] is showing to conservatives the kind of leadership that made conservatives loyal to Bush once and could make them loyal once more,” William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, told the Tribune.
Bush said Libby’s prison sentence was “harsh” for a first-time offender who devoted many years to public service. But the president’s decision easily could set a precedent for other “first-time offenders” convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. If 30 months in prison is too harsh for lying and obstructing justice in a case that put our national security on the line, what should be an appropriate punishment for lying and obstructing an investigation of a murder? A couple weeks? A few months? What is an appropriate sentence for someone caught lying on the stand in a drug-related lawsuit? A day or two? How about three?
Bush told the Tribune that “our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth.” Does he really believe that? Former President Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about having an affair a White House intern. If Bush applied the same “first-time offender” rule to Clinton, then shouldn’t Bush pardon Clinton? After all, lying about having sexual relations with an intern is not a breach of national security. Stupid, yes. Scandalous, absolutely. But putting national security at risk? Not even close.
So what does “justice,” what does “truth” really mean for our elected officials? If Bush’s pardoning of Libby is used as a benchmark, then perjury and obstruction of justice both are serious but not major crimes, even in cases involving national security, and should not demand prison time of anything more than 30 months, if any time at all. Perhaps justice is something we Americans no longer can expect when it comes to crimes committed by the Bush Administration, or any presidential administration for that matter. Perhaps expecting the truth from our elected officials is old-fashioned, naive.
Think about it: Everyone lies. Everyone tries to cover one’s own behind, especially when that behind is about to be spanked. But should not our elected officials be held to a higher standard? If our elected officials are allowed to lie about anything and everything from extramarital affairs to leaking confidential information to the press to fabricating reasons to go to war, should we not wonder what other lies they may be telling? What other falsehoods are being passed off as truths?
Truth is a funny thing; it can be turned and twisted to fit our opinions, our reasons for doing one thing or another or not doing something. If our elected officials, if our president and his aides continually are allowed to get away with twisting the truth or outright lying about this, that and the other thing, should we not wonder where this country is headed? Or is this kind of behavior just the new American way?
-30-
Friday, June 8, 2007
Common courtesy not so common anymore
I’m cranky. Aaarrgghhh! You know how one thing sets you off, and then something else happens and then something else and pretty soon the mood you were in, good, bad, other, takes the Autobahn Express to cranky.
It started this morning, when my husband and I were out running errands. All seemed fine until we hit downtown Naperville, also known as the Land Where People Do Not Know How to Drive. Basic four-way stop sign situation. If the Driver’s Ed rules I learned more than 20 years ago still are the rules, the person on your right goes first, then the person on that person’s right and so on until all the cars have moved through the intersection. Should not have been a problem.
But throw in several pedestrians, every other person on the cell phone and suddenly what should have been basic common sense becomes the spatial relations section on the ACT or the SAT, whichever test is harder. It’s not rocket science, people. So the guy on our right (we’re headed north), takes a left (without using a turn signal) and nearly nails the pedestrians. He was on his cell phone. Then the person on Cell Phone guy’s right goes without incident and the next person makes a left, apparently not seeing the five or six pedestrians in the crosswalk and has to stop. Then we start to go and the new person on our right starts to go at the same time and honks at us. Hey! It was our turn, buddy! What the...? Of all the...! I gave the driver that “What kind of idiot are you?” look, but I don’t think he saw me. He was on the cell phone.
Cell phones are wonderful. I don’t know how we as a society got along without them. Especially in the car. Now, I use mine in the car, but I try to dial when the light is red or I’m stuck in heavy traffic and the prospect of moving even three feet is nil. Most of the time I don’t even answer it because by the time I’ve figured out what that ringing is, the call’s gone into voice mail.
Being in the car makes me cranky. Even if I’m not driving. I used to enjoy driving. Now, not so much. People are rude. They cut you off and then honk at you as if it were your fault they had to zoom through the yellow light to turn into the very same lane you’re occupying. People whiz back and forth from the left lane to the right lane to the left lane to the right lane to the left and, look at that, stuck at the same stop light as me. This is what driving was like today for my husband and me. Thank God he was driving; I probably wouldn’t have been as patient or polite as he. Let's just say that it's a good thing for much of the motoring public that I'm not a traffic cop.
You know what also made me cranky today? I was going for a walk, which I thought would calm me down. I’d just enjoy the scenery at a nearby forest preserve, listen to the birds and let the peacefulness drown out the chatter in my cranky head. But on my way there, walking through my little neighborhood, three people had parked their cars square on the sidewalk. I hate that. It’s called a sidewalk for a reason: it’s for people to walk on. It’s not called a carwalk. So, what’s a polite person to do? Walk around the front of the car, through the yard? Or walk behind the car into the street? Since I was cranky, I walked around front of the cars through the yards. It made me feel better, for about two seconds. What is the deal with that? Couldn’t that person have parked on the driveway apron or in the street (where permissible)? Common courtesy. It’s just common courtesy when parking in your driveway to think that it’s possible that someone might be walking along on the sidewalk and...car parked on sidewalk...can’t walk through car...can’t walk over the car. Sometimes cranky gets the best of me and I wonder how hard would I have to throw myself against this offending vehicle to make the car alarm sound? Pretty hard, considering I’m kind of small.
And here's another thing....Being a small person, wouldn’t you think that if I were to be carrying a tray full of Starbucks, my purse and another bag, someone would open the door for me as I left Starbucks? Maybe hold it open for me? Guess not. I remember when people used to open doors for each other. I hold the door open for people, especially moms with strollers. Don’t know why that stopped. It’s not difficult; just push or pull open the door and let the bogged down person through. It’s a little thing, but in a way a big thing, too.
Not helping someone with the door, honking at other drivers because you’re in a hurry to get to the same red light as everyone else, parking on the sidewalk. Doesn’t it say in the Bible something to the effect of “Do unto others as you would have done unto you?” Isn’t that just another way, a nice way, of saying, “Hey, you! Use your head, will ya?” Common courtesy. Just think how much nicer everyone’s day could be if we all did something common, something courteous for someone else.
-30-
It started this morning, when my husband and I were out running errands. All seemed fine until we hit downtown Naperville, also known as the Land Where People Do Not Know How to Drive. Basic four-way stop sign situation. If the Driver’s Ed rules I learned more than 20 years ago still are the rules, the person on your right goes first, then the person on that person’s right and so on until all the cars have moved through the intersection. Should not have been a problem.
But throw in several pedestrians, every other person on the cell phone and suddenly what should have been basic common sense becomes the spatial relations section on the ACT or the SAT, whichever test is harder. It’s not rocket science, people. So the guy on our right (we’re headed north), takes a left (without using a turn signal) and nearly nails the pedestrians. He was on his cell phone. Then the person on Cell Phone guy’s right goes without incident and the next person makes a left, apparently not seeing the five or six pedestrians in the crosswalk and has to stop. Then we start to go and the new person on our right starts to go at the same time and honks at us. Hey! It was our turn, buddy! What the...? Of all the...! I gave the driver that “What kind of idiot are you?” look, but I don’t think he saw me. He was on the cell phone.
Cell phones are wonderful. I don’t know how we as a society got along without them. Especially in the car. Now, I use mine in the car, but I try to dial when the light is red or I’m stuck in heavy traffic and the prospect of moving even three feet is nil. Most of the time I don’t even answer it because by the time I’ve figured out what that ringing is, the call’s gone into voice mail.
Being in the car makes me cranky. Even if I’m not driving. I used to enjoy driving. Now, not so much. People are rude. They cut you off and then honk at you as if it were your fault they had to zoom through the yellow light to turn into the very same lane you’re occupying. People whiz back and forth from the left lane to the right lane to the left lane to the right lane to the left and, look at that, stuck at the same stop light as me. This is what driving was like today for my husband and me. Thank God he was driving; I probably wouldn’t have been as patient or polite as he. Let's just say that it's a good thing for much of the motoring public that I'm not a traffic cop.
You know what also made me cranky today? I was going for a walk, which I thought would calm me down. I’d just enjoy the scenery at a nearby forest preserve, listen to the birds and let the peacefulness drown out the chatter in my cranky head. But on my way there, walking through my little neighborhood, three people had parked their cars square on the sidewalk. I hate that. It’s called a sidewalk for a reason: it’s for people to walk on. It’s not called a carwalk. So, what’s a polite person to do? Walk around the front of the car, through the yard? Or walk behind the car into the street? Since I was cranky, I walked around front of the cars through the yards. It made me feel better, for about two seconds. What is the deal with that? Couldn’t that person have parked on the driveway apron or in the street (where permissible)? Common courtesy. It’s just common courtesy when parking in your driveway to think that it’s possible that someone might be walking along on the sidewalk and...car parked on sidewalk...can’t walk through car...can’t walk over the car. Sometimes cranky gets the best of me and I wonder how hard would I have to throw myself against this offending vehicle to make the car alarm sound? Pretty hard, considering I’m kind of small.
And here's another thing....Being a small person, wouldn’t you think that if I were to be carrying a tray full of Starbucks, my purse and another bag, someone would open the door for me as I left Starbucks? Maybe hold it open for me? Guess not. I remember when people used to open doors for each other. I hold the door open for people, especially moms with strollers. Don’t know why that stopped. It’s not difficult; just push or pull open the door and let the bogged down person through. It’s a little thing, but in a way a big thing, too.
Not helping someone with the door, honking at other drivers because you’re in a hurry to get to the same red light as everyone else, parking on the sidewalk. Doesn’t it say in the Bible something to the effect of “Do unto others as you would have done unto you?” Isn’t that just another way, a nice way, of saying, “Hey, you! Use your head, will ya?” Common courtesy. Just think how much nicer everyone’s day could be if we all did something common, something courteous for someone else.
-30-
Update: Secret senator revealed
This just in, straight from the Society of Professional Journalists: Now that we’ve unmasked Senator Secrecy, also known as Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), let’s help ensure the OPEN Government Act of 2007 (S.B. 849) has a fighting chance for Senate approval.
The OPEN Government Act has bipartisan support. The bill won unanimous approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee. A similar bill was passed by a strong majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill’s supporters include more than 100 civic organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
SENATOR SECRECY EXPOSED -- NATIONWIDE. In light of last week’s news concerning Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) admitting that he placed the secret hold on the OPEN Government Act (S 849), Charles Davis, an SPJ member and executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition at the University of Missouri School of Journalism wrote an op-ed about it. Visit SPJ.org for the link to Davis' column. You also can visit www.spj.org/blog/blogs/foifyi/
The OPEN Government Act has bipartisan support. The bill won unanimous approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee. A similar bill was passed by a strong majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill’s supporters include more than 100 civic organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
SENATOR SECRECY EXPOSED -- NATIONWIDE. In light of last week’s news concerning Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) admitting that he placed the secret hold on the OPEN Government Act (S 849), Charles Davis, an SPJ member and executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition at the University of Missouri School of Journalism wrote an op-ed about it. Visit SPJ.org for the link to Davis' column. You also can visit www.spj.org/blog/blogs/foifyi/
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Mystery senator blocks effort to expand public’s right to know
On April 12, the Senate Judiciary Community unanimously (unanimously!) passed the Open Government Act. The Act was sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). The bill would strengthen the federal Freedom of Information Act, according to the Society of Professional Journalists. The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a similar measure in March — but that bill was blocked from reaching the Senate, according to the SPJ. If approved, the Open Government Act would reduce delays in releasing government records and hold public officials accountable when they break the law.
Imagine...a public official being held accountable by law for breaking the law. Considering the roadblocks the current Administration has erected to prevent the public, journalists, even CIA agents, from learning the truth about everything from what led to the attack on Iraq to what happened in U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ office, the OGA would be a godsend.
Currently, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) allows journalists, everyday citizens, students...everyone, access to public records such as police reports, public officials’ voting records, financial records of public bodies, financial contributions to candidates for public office. The FOIA also allows any citizen access to information regarding campaign contributions. Essentially, the FOIA allows you to know what your government--be it local, state, federal, even your local library board--is doing. Everyday citizens have the right to know how public officials are spending taxpayer dollars and how those decisions will affect you, the guy down the street in the green truck and your dry cleaner, down the line.
“It refers to your right to examine records and documents and to your right to observe – and participate in – your government’s decision-making processes,” according to the Society of Professional Journalists. “Government processes, activities and decisions may affect you directly or indirectly. They determine the amount of taxes you pay and the kinds of government services you receive. Governments and their agencies regulate many activities in your home and business life. Your ability to participate in, monitor and, perhaps, protest government decisions relates directly to your ability to know what your government is doing,” SPJ says.
Unfortunately some governmental bodies make it as difficult as possible for you and for journalists to access the information you need. By putting a hold on the Open Government Act, the mystery senator not only is blocking access to determine who put the brakes on the act, but is making a mockery of the FOIA. The FOIA is one of the most important pieces of legislation ever passed; it offers everyone the chance to make sure their government is playing by the rules, it gives us all the chance to make sure “checks and balances” are being used properly. FOIA gives us all the chance to be government watchdogs.
You might remember a document called “The Bill of Rights.” The very first amendment to the bill reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
By putting a secret hold on the Open Government Act, is this “secret” senator not, in effect abridging the rights of the freedom of the press? If journalists are not allowed to know who put the hold on the OGA, does that not abridge their rights to inform the public of what our government is doing? Obviously, I am biased toward journalists, being one myself. But I also am an American and it just strikes me as unconscionable that a person elected by the public to hold public office would behave in such a way as to make himself or herself look, for lack of a better word, chicken. An as un upstanding (I’m giving this person the benefit of the doubt, here) member of our federal government, why would one choose to so flagrantly mock the Bill of Rights and FOIA?
The simple answer is FOIA does not cover Congress, the federal judiciary or the President. It does, however, cover the Executive Office of the President, according to the SPJ.
SPJ officials say that this is not the first time a secret hold has been used to prevent open government legislation from reaching the floor. In August 2006, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) put a hold on a bill to create a searchable public database of all federal grants and contracts. Stevens' role was revealed only after online public advocates and journalists forced senators to go on the record about whether they placed the hold, according to the SPJ.
Thankfully, another federal law, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), mandates that meetings of special federal task forces be open to the public. But that has not stopped some such task forces from violating FACA. According to an SPJ report, in July 2001 Congress’ General Accounting Office sued Vice-President Dick Cheney, alleging that Cheney’s energy task force met in secret in violation of the FACA.
Also in 2001, according to SPJ, provisions of the Presidential Records Act were changed by an Executive Order signed by President George W. Bush. That order requires the National Archives to inform a former president (or his/her estate) that records are eligible for release. It also gives the sitting president and the former president the power to block release of records covered by the Presidential Records Act.
Too many, and too often, public bodies and public officials are either ignoring the public’s right to know or doing the best they can to make it nearly impossible to obtain information that is by law available to the public. This has been going on in this country since its conception and continues to this day. Has the public, have we just come to accept that this is the way things are? Has the Patriot Act made us so wary that we’ve become too afraid to actually question the government? If so, what a sad state affairs we have entered. We have a right to know what our government is doing; we have to take back that right.
-30-
Imagine...a public official being held accountable by law for breaking the law. Considering the roadblocks the current Administration has erected to prevent the public, journalists, even CIA agents, from learning the truth about everything from what led to the attack on Iraq to what happened in U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ office, the OGA would be a godsend.
Currently, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) allows journalists, everyday citizens, students...everyone, access to public records such as police reports, public officials’ voting records, financial records of public bodies, financial contributions to candidates for public office. The FOIA also allows any citizen access to information regarding campaign contributions. Essentially, the FOIA allows you to know what your government--be it local, state, federal, even your local library board--is doing. Everyday citizens have the right to know how public officials are spending taxpayer dollars and how those decisions will affect you, the guy down the street in the green truck and your dry cleaner, down the line.
“It refers to your right to examine records and documents and to your right to observe – and participate in – your government’s decision-making processes,” according to the Society of Professional Journalists. “Government processes, activities and decisions may affect you directly or indirectly. They determine the amount of taxes you pay and the kinds of government services you receive. Governments and their agencies regulate many activities in your home and business life. Your ability to participate in, monitor and, perhaps, protest government decisions relates directly to your ability to know what your government is doing,” SPJ says.
Unfortunately some governmental bodies make it as difficult as possible for you and for journalists to access the information you need. By putting a hold on the Open Government Act, the mystery senator not only is blocking access to determine who put the brakes on the act, but is making a mockery of the FOIA. The FOIA is one of the most important pieces of legislation ever passed; it offers everyone the chance to make sure their government is playing by the rules, it gives us all the chance to make sure “checks and balances” are being used properly. FOIA gives us all the chance to be government watchdogs.
You might remember a document called “The Bill of Rights.” The very first amendment to the bill reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
By putting a secret hold on the Open Government Act, is this “secret” senator not, in effect abridging the rights of the freedom of the press? If journalists are not allowed to know who put the hold on the OGA, does that not abridge their rights to inform the public of what our government is doing? Obviously, I am biased toward journalists, being one myself. But I also am an American and it just strikes me as unconscionable that a person elected by the public to hold public office would behave in such a way as to make himself or herself look, for lack of a better word, chicken. An as un upstanding (I’m giving this person the benefit of the doubt, here) member of our federal government, why would one choose to so flagrantly mock the Bill of Rights and FOIA?
The simple answer is FOIA does not cover Congress, the federal judiciary or the President. It does, however, cover the Executive Office of the President, according to the SPJ.
SPJ officials say that this is not the first time a secret hold has been used to prevent open government legislation from reaching the floor. In August 2006, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) put a hold on a bill to create a searchable public database of all federal grants and contracts. Stevens' role was revealed only after online public advocates and journalists forced senators to go on the record about whether they placed the hold, according to the SPJ.
Thankfully, another federal law, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), mandates that meetings of special federal task forces be open to the public. But that has not stopped some such task forces from violating FACA. According to an SPJ report, in July 2001 Congress’ General Accounting Office sued Vice-President Dick Cheney, alleging that Cheney’s energy task force met in secret in violation of the FACA.
Also in 2001, according to SPJ, provisions of the Presidential Records Act were changed by an Executive Order signed by President George W. Bush. That order requires the National Archives to inform a former president (or his/her estate) that records are eligible for release. It also gives the sitting president and the former president the power to block release of records covered by the Presidential Records Act.
Too many, and too often, public bodies and public officials are either ignoring the public’s right to know or doing the best they can to make it nearly impossible to obtain information that is by law available to the public. This has been going on in this country since its conception and continues to this day. Has the public, have we just come to accept that this is the way things are? Has the Patriot Act made us so wary that we’ve become too afraid to actually question the government? If so, what a sad state affairs we have entered. We have a right to know what our government is doing; we have to take back that right.
-30-
Friday, May 25, 2007
Bush passes on step to help curb global warming
President Bush again has rejected a plan that would help curb global warming.
According to a May 25 Reuters News Service report, Bush has rejected a suggestion by German government officials to cut global climate warming carbon emissions. Bush’s rejection of Germany’s bid to get the Group of Eight to cut emissions comes less than one month before the G-8 summit is to be held in Germany. Reuters said, “G8 president Germany wants the meeting [of members] to agree [to] targets and timetables for steep cuts in emissions and increases in energy efficiency in transport and power generation.”
For years, Bush has said he does not believe in global warming, despite scientific research that shows temperatures across the globe are rising, contributing to or causing everything from droughts to the quickening of iceberg melting. In 2001, Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol on cutting carbon emissions, calling the pact “economic suicide because it was not binding on boom economies China and India,” according to the Reuters report. Bush also is adamantly against any binding targets or timetables, the report said.
Reuters further reported that German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Bush ally outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair, want G-8 members to agree to curb the rise in average temperatures this century by 2 degrees Celsius, to cut global emissions by 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 and to raise energy efficiency in power and transport by 20 percent by 2020.
When is the Bush Administration going to realize, recognize and respond to the fact that the United States must take more responsibility in the effort to slow global warming? When will Bush acknowledge that climate changes will only worsen incoming years, affecting not just this country but countries everywhere? When is the Bush Administration going to prove to the rest of the world that the United States - the most powerful nation in the world - is ready to add global warming to the list of wars, the list of evils we must fight?
Global warming is real; the science cannot be denied. Study after study shows that if governments worldwide do not do something now to reduce the effects of global warming, water levels will continue to rise, rainforests will continue to die out, some island countries will completely disappear, people with health conditions such as asthma will become sicker.
During the last century, the average temperature has climbed about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 of a degree Celsius) around the world, according to a National Geographic fact sheet. NG also reports that the spring ice thaw in the Northern Hemisphere occurs nine days earlier than it did 150 years ago, and the fall freeze now typically starts 10 days later.
Since scientists started keeping records of temperatures, the 1990s was the warmest decade since the mid-1800s. The hottest years recorded: 2003, 2002, 2001, 1998 and 1997, according to NG reports.
Furthermore, if world governments do not work harder together, people across the globe are more likely to be subjected to frequent extreme weather conditions. Intense hurricanes and storm surges could threaten coastal communities, while heat waves, fires and drought also could become more common.
Yet Bush continues to argue that global warming is not the horror the majority of the world believes it to be. So what are we to do? People everywhere must take steps to reduce pollutants of all kinds, by carpooling or by using public transportation to get to work. If possible, those who are able could ride a bike or walk to work.
We must make sure we are recycling everything we possibly can as permitted by our cities, towns and villages. We must start using earth-friendly products to clean our homes, do our dishes, wash our clothes. We must examine the products we use to take care of our lawns and our gardens. Do they contain harmful pollutants, pesticides?
More and more designers and retailers are offering organically made and earth-friendly clothing that is actually biodegradable. We need to read clothing labels to see what materials are used to make them. And we need to recycle our clothes, shoes and accessories, by donating them to the Salvation Army, Goodwill, women’s shelters - anywhere that will take them.
Switching from plastic bags to paper bags at grocery and other stores also will help.
We must do whatever we can, whatever we can think of to help the environment, and we must do it now. If we wait for our government to take the steps necessary to curb emissions, to reduce pollution, to reduce greenhouse gasses, it will be too late.
-30-
According to a May 25 Reuters News Service report, Bush has rejected a suggestion by German government officials to cut global climate warming carbon emissions. Bush’s rejection of Germany’s bid to get the Group of Eight to cut emissions comes less than one month before the G-8 summit is to be held in Germany. Reuters said, “G8 president Germany wants the meeting [of members] to agree [to] targets and timetables for steep cuts in emissions and increases in energy efficiency in transport and power generation.”
For years, Bush has said he does not believe in global warming, despite scientific research that shows temperatures across the globe are rising, contributing to or causing everything from droughts to the quickening of iceberg melting. In 2001, Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol on cutting carbon emissions, calling the pact “economic suicide because it was not binding on boom economies China and India,” according to the Reuters report. Bush also is adamantly against any binding targets or timetables, the report said.
Reuters further reported that German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Bush ally outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair, want G-8 members to agree to curb the rise in average temperatures this century by 2 degrees Celsius, to cut global emissions by 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 and to raise energy efficiency in power and transport by 20 percent by 2020.
When is the Bush Administration going to realize, recognize and respond to the fact that the United States must take more responsibility in the effort to slow global warming? When will Bush acknowledge that climate changes will only worsen incoming years, affecting not just this country but countries everywhere? When is the Bush Administration going to prove to the rest of the world that the United States - the most powerful nation in the world - is ready to add global warming to the list of wars, the list of evils we must fight?
Global warming is real; the science cannot be denied. Study after study shows that if governments worldwide do not do something now to reduce the effects of global warming, water levels will continue to rise, rainforests will continue to die out, some island countries will completely disappear, people with health conditions such as asthma will become sicker.
During the last century, the average temperature has climbed about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 of a degree Celsius) around the world, according to a National Geographic fact sheet. NG also reports that the spring ice thaw in the Northern Hemisphere occurs nine days earlier than it did 150 years ago, and the fall freeze now typically starts 10 days later.
Since scientists started keeping records of temperatures, the 1990s was the warmest decade since the mid-1800s. The hottest years recorded: 2003, 2002, 2001, 1998 and 1997, according to NG reports.
Furthermore, if world governments do not work harder together, people across the globe are more likely to be subjected to frequent extreme weather conditions. Intense hurricanes and storm surges could threaten coastal communities, while heat waves, fires and drought also could become more common.
Yet Bush continues to argue that global warming is not the horror the majority of the world believes it to be. So what are we to do? People everywhere must take steps to reduce pollutants of all kinds, by carpooling or by using public transportation to get to work. If possible, those who are able could ride a bike or walk to work.
We must make sure we are recycling everything we possibly can as permitted by our cities, towns and villages. We must start using earth-friendly products to clean our homes, do our dishes, wash our clothes. We must examine the products we use to take care of our lawns and our gardens. Do they contain harmful pollutants, pesticides?
More and more designers and retailers are offering organically made and earth-friendly clothing that is actually biodegradable. We need to read clothing labels to see what materials are used to make them. And we need to recycle our clothes, shoes and accessories, by donating them to the Salvation Army, Goodwill, women’s shelters - anywhere that will take them.
Switching from plastic bags to paper bags at grocery and other stores also will help.
We must do whatever we can, whatever we can think of to help the environment, and we must do it now. If we wait for our government to take the steps necessary to curb emissions, to reduce pollution, to reduce greenhouse gasses, it will be too late.
-30-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)