Dust in the Wind

Senate Republicans attempted to filibuster the bill but the “9/11 First Responders Health Care Bill” was passed by the Senate this month and the president is expected to sign it into law. Republicans, philosophically opposed to increasing the Deficit, were cornered into looking like the Grinch who stole Christmas through their opposition for the bill which provides medical coverage, to the tune of $4.3 billion, for September 11th emergency response workers.

The underlying claim is that, in working continuously around the toxic dust and chemicals surrounding the collapsed World Trade Center buildings, emergency responders have suffered a myriad of health related issues. It certainly is not a stretch to conclude that asthma and other pulmonary conditions could result from working in such conditions. However, it appears that pretty much any and all health issues arising with emergency responders working at the site, such as cancer, are now being tied to those hazardous conditions.

I recall the years of litigation regarding the Dow-Corning and the leaking silicone breast implants. Women were claiming a broad range of illnesses on the defective product. Dow paid out millions of dollars in damages after losing their case in court. However subsequent studies have since shown that the illnesses claimed by the women occur no more frequently in the implant recipients than in the general population at large who did not receive the implants.

Though scientific advances in detecting and curing cancer have increased in recent years, various cancers are still one of the largest causes of death in our society. How are we to objectively evaluate that all the claims of diseases suffered by the 9/11 first responders stem directly from their working at the World Trade Center site?

Science will take a back seat to emotional appeals, in this situation, as the "heroes" we all love to love ask of us to acknowledge their sacrifice. But in the run-up to this legislation, I have not seen any independent studies which compare the types of diseases (excluding pulmonary related) claimed from the WTC site exposure and comparing them to the prevalence of the same diseases in the general population.

"Doctors aren't sure, though, exactly how many people are ill, and scientific doubt persists about just how many of the hundreds of illnesses are actually linked to the trade center dust. Doctors still don't know whether there is any connection between the dust and potentially fatal illnesses like cancer" ¹

The political irony here is that police and fire fighters generally tend to lean politically conservative and usually support Republican candidates. During the upcoming election cycles I hope these workers remember which party was the one arguing AGAINST their interests.

For me, the bottom line is that the controversy over this bill would be completely unnecessary were we to have in place a National Health Care System which would take care of ALL sick people, whatever their cause or reason. Why do a few select Americans, who by the way chose a hazardous profession, get to have their health care covered and not their fellow citizens who worked in fields or factories or have simply had the unfortunate luck of having been a victim of probability? Who in Congress speaks for these "heroes"?

The legislation is named for James Zadroga, a police detective who died at age 34. His supporters say he died from respiratory disease contracted at ground zero, but New York City's medical examiner said Zadroga's lung condition was caused by prescription drug abuse. ¹

1. 9/11 First Responders Health Care Bill Faces Key Test Vote In Senate - Huffington Post, December 24, 2010

Big Oil and Slick Politicians

American oil companies made no effort to hide the fact that they made over $123 Billion in net (1) profit this last year. What a surprise.

These obscenely high profits, though, pale in the light that congress has bestowed on these robber-barons close to $18 Billion in tax breaks. You see, as the oil companies will explain it, if they don’t have the tax “incentives” how can they afford to reinvest in developing more sources of energy, or alternative energies for that matter?

Uh... well how about using SOME of the Goddam $123 Billion profit!?! Hey, Mr. CEO, remember from your freshman year Business 101 class; “profit” is the money you made AFTER your expenses... you know, the cash you get to take home to your wife.

Oh wait… using “profit” to pay for your private helicopter, the vacation house in Bimini and the diamond broach for your mistress doesn’t leave you much discretionary income left over to, say, lower your prices a bit or reinvest in your company. For that, you need ME, and the rest of working-schmuck America, to chip in and help you out. You need ME to pay more taxes so YOU don't have to. Right!

To its credit, Congress hauled the oil executives in front of hearings to have them explain this orgy of profit obscenity. Or was this action perhaps more of a dog-and-pony show for public consumption than any truly substantive effort to curb yet another display of corporate excess at consumer expense.

These congressional hearings brought to mind a memory from my childhood. My father was a Public Utility Commission staffer for the State of California. One time he took me to work with him on a day when they were having a trial. In this case, the State was trying to get the Southern Pacific railroad to install safety gates at a dangerous railroad crossing. I watched as the attorneys for Southern Pacific grilled my dad on the witness stand. The attorneys were very aggressive, forcing my dad to defend his position and attacking every iota of his testimony. I worried, “These guys must really hate my dad!”

The judge interrupted the proceedings - the trial would continue after lunch break. As everyone packed their briefcases getting ready to head out, the same attorney who had been grilling my dad walked over, put his hand on my dad’s shoulder and amicably asked, “Well, Clyde, where do we want to go for lunch today?” I sat speechless as I watched my father and his adversaries laugh and talk like weekend buddies over lunch.

So I can picture, at the end of the congressional hearings about oil company profits, when the cameras ware switched off and the reporters leave, the oil company CEOs walking over to their supposed public inquisitors and asking, “Well, Senator, where would you like to go for lunch?”

So why are oil companies completely and totally unconcerned about disclosing their unrestrained bleeding of the American public? Because there is nothing anyone can, or will, do about it... and they know it!

(1) http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/01/news/companies/oil_hearing/index.htm?cnn=yes