National traffic safety agency (NHTSA) causes thousands to die by hiding safety data

From a bureaucrat's perspective, it's just much easier to hide inconvenient information. That doesn't make it right to hide important information. Not at all. Heads should roll for the recently disclosed cover-up by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. People died on the highway because of this cover-up, and not just a few people. Back in 2003, federal government researchers estimated that 955 people died and 240,000 accidents occurred in 2002 due to cell phone use. Extrapolate those numbers out to 2009 and we can reasonably assume that 5,000 people needlessly died in highway wrecks because the government didn't release this shocking cell phone usage data and issue a stern warning that people shouldn't talk on cell phones while they drive, because it's as bad as driving while drunk. This cover-up by the U.S. government means that more people died because of the government's corrupt ways than the number of people who died in the 9/11 attacks. Shouldn't we declare "war" on safety officials who cause people to die by intentionally withholding safety information? I would have a commission get to the bottom of this to find out who made this piss poor decision to withhold the date. All the people involved should (but won't) spend many years in prison for manslaughter. And let's connect the dots. Why would Congress get mad because of the release of this accurate data? Let's see . . . maybe it's because the telecoms, who contribute massive amounts of money to Congress, would see their profits cut if their customers could run up cell phone minutes while driving. Could that be it? Note: The telephone utilities pour more than $40M annually into lobbying Congress and many millions more into political contributions. These politicians and government employees apparently forget who they work for. Here's a hint: their top priority should not be the telecoms and other monied contributors. They work for us. If they would have asked themselves this simple question ("Who do I really work for?"), maybe they would have felt compelled to release important safety data, which could have saved thousands of lives. This recent disclosure is unbelievable and very very sad. The NYT reports:

The former head of the highway safety agency said he was urged to withhold the research to avoid antagonizing members of Congress who had warned the agency to stick to its mission of gathering safety data but not to lobby states. Critics say that rationale and the failure of the Transportation Department, which oversees the highway agency, to more vigorously pursue distracted driving has cost lives and allowed to blossom a culture of behind-the-wheel multitasking. “We’re looking at a problem that could be as bad as drunk driving, and the government has covered it up,” said Clarence Ditlow, director of the Center for Auto Safety.

Continue ReadingNational traffic safety agency (NHTSA) causes thousands to die by hiding safety data

Our insane drug war, revisited

Mother Jones has hammered our drug war with undeniable facts . . . well, undeniable unless you are a government official in charge of the "drug war." In fact, as authors Monika Bauerlein and Clara Jeffery advise us, the entire history of the U.S. "war on drugs" is actually a governmental war on truth.

[T]he drug war has never been about facts—about, dare we say, soberly weighing which policies might alleviate suffering, save taxpayers money, rob the cartels of revenue. Instead, we've been stuck in a cycle of prohibition, failure, and counterfactual claims of success. (To wit: Since 1998, the ONDCP has spent $1.4 billion on youth anti-pot ads. It also spent $43 million to study their effectiveness. When the study found that kids who've seen the ads are more likely to smoke pot, the ONDCP buried the evidence, choosing to spend hundreds of millions more on the counterproductive ads.) What would a fact-based drug policy look like? It would put considerably more money into treatment, the method proven to best reduce use. It would likely leave in place the prohibition on "hard" drugs, but make enforcement fair . . . And it would likely decriminalize but tightly regulate marijuana, which study after study shows is less dangerous or addictive than cigarettes or alcohol, has undeniable medicinal properties, and isn't a gateway drug to anything harder than Doritos.

If you want to see a bunch of demoralized people wasting time, park yourself at your local drug court and watch a judge slapping faux sentences on marijuana users and small-time peddlers. Everyone involved knows that the system is a joke--a money sucking time-wasting absurd joke that ruins lives, because every so often someone gets ripped from his or her family, thrown into prison for years. The crime (just to remind you) is that these users wanted to feel pleasure. And sometimes its more absurd: the criminal wanted to escape stress or anxiety and he didn't have a fancy health insurance policy that would allow a doctor to hand him legal pills that do the same thing. And maybe he didn't want to legally rot out his liver with alcohol, which is the other way of getting a similar high. As I've made clear many times, I am not promoting drug use of any kind. I just had serious surgery and I could have loaded up on narcotics that were made available to me, but I didn't because I don't want that or need that. I'm a lucky person in that regard. I am not interested in altering my mind through chemicals. I am trying to convince my daughters that they should strive for clean drug-free living. But I am aware that many people want or need relief from stressful lives (or from their own misfiring brains) or maybe they want the option to simply chill out. I certainly don't want to stand in their way any more than I would tell a patient to not take those pills prescribed by her doctor. It's time to stop spending billions of tax dollars on a drug war that doesn't stop drug use and only ramps up violence, destabilizes governments and steals critical services from taxpayers. The drug war is highly immoral, but we won't be able to fix the situation until we have the courage to have an honest conversation. Related posts:

The most harmful thing about marijuana is jail (reporting on the opinion of a conservative judge).

The Economist's argument to stop the war on drugs. (includes the mind-scrambling statistic that the U.S. spend $40 B each year trying to stop the use of illegal drugs).

Johann Hari's argument that It's time to stop the drug war. (more shocking statistics)

It isn't dangerous to use marijuana. (Really, no more dangerous than Doritos)

Continue ReadingOur insane drug war, revisited

Note to most mourning journalists: You are not like Walter Cronkite

Glenn Greenwald offers yet another column sharply critical of many of today's so-called journalists. It is well worth reading the entire thing. Here's an excerpt:

[M]edia stars will spend ample time flamboyantly commemorating Cronkite's death as though he reflects well on what they do (though probably not nearly as much time as they spent dwelling on the death of Tim Russert, whose sycophantic servitude to Beltway power and "accommodating head waiter"-like, mindless stenography did indeed represent quite accurately what today's media stars actually do). In fact, within Cronkite's most

[caption id="attachment_8158" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Image: public domain: Library of Congress"]Image: public domain: Library of Congress[/caption] important moments one finds the essence of journalism that today's modern media stars not only fail to exhibit, but explicitly disclaim as their responsibility. Greenwald also quotes New York Magazine's Yada Juan, quoting Harper's Lewis Lapham:

The new tradition is that the press speaks on behalf of the government.” An example? “Tim Russert was a spokesman for power, wealth, and privilege,” Lapham said. “That’s why 1,000 people came to his memorial service. Because essentially he was a shill for the government. It didn’t matter whether it was Democratic or Republican. It was for the status quo.” What about Russert’s rep for catching pols in lies? “That was bullshit,” he said.

Greenwald includes a short clip of an interview where Walter Cronkite expresses his greatest regret. And here is one of his best moments, when he forcefully spoke truth to power. Note:, Even Cronkite got caught up on the power and patriotism of war, a fact that is documented in the transcript of the excellent documentary, "War Made Easy," which I reviewed here.

NORMAN SOLOMON: Every war, we have US news media that have praised the latest in the state-of-the-art killing technology, from the present moment to the war in Vietnam.

WALTER CRONKITE: B-57s -- the British call them Canberra jets -- we're using them very effectively here in this war in Vietnam to dive-bomb the Vietcong in these jungles beyond Da Nang here. Colonel, what’s our mission we're about to embark on?

AIR FORCE COLONEL: Well, our mission today, sir, is to report down to the site of the ambush seventy miles south of here and attempt to kill the VC.

WALTER CRONKITE: The colonel has just advised me that that is our target area right over there. One, two, three, four, we dropped our bomb, but now a tremendous G-load as we pull out of that dive. Oh, I know something of what those astronauts must go through. Well, colonel.

AIR FORCE COLONEL: Yes, sir.

WALTER CRONKITE: It’s a great way to go to war.

You can watch the entire documentary here (1 hour and 10 mintes) .

Continue ReadingNote to most mourning journalists: You are not like Walter Cronkite

Jon Stewart explains Goldman Sachs bonuses

With the help of some cute graphics, Jon Stewart explains how it is that Goldman Sachs can pay its average employee a $700,000 bonus during the American economic collapse.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Pyramid Economy
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorJoke of the Day

Continue ReadingJon Stewart explains Goldman Sachs bonuses

Modern credit card agreements: 29 pages of “tricks and traps”

Elizabeth Warren, the TARP Oversight Chair was on the Rachel Maddow's show discussing the aggressive anti-consumer practices of credit card companies, and warning that the credit card industry is about to try to kill federal efforts to regulate the industry. She reminds us that in 1980 a credit card agreement was only about a page long. Now credit card agreements are 30 pages long, full of "tricks and traps."

MADDOW: Are you worried that the [credit card] industry's going to be about to kill [credit card reform legislation] in the crib? Reporting is that it's their top priority to get rid of it. WARREN: My gosh! I have to tell you, it's like they're stampeding in the halls already in Washington. the Gucci loafers. These guys have built up a huge war chest, they've been interviewing public relations firms to see who can come up with the next Harry And Louise ad to explain to the American people why they're better off with credit cards that nobody can read, hundreds of pages of mortgage documents that nobody can read...the idea is you're better off with how things are...forget all that stuff the happened over the last few years. And we promise to keep things up just like we did before. I just can't believe they're trying to sell that to the American people.
You can read much more on this topic at Jason Linkins' post at Huffpo's new Lobby Blog.

Continue ReadingModern credit card agreements: 29 pages of “tricks and traps”