Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 890
January 17, 2016
Americans are “getting ripped off” on health care, Sanders exclaims in debate clash with Clinton
Health care is one of the areas in which presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton differ the most. In the fourth Democratic debate in South Carolina on Sunday night, sparks flew as the candidates pushed for their conflicting views of U.S. health care policy. Sanders has called for Medicare-for-all. Before the debate, the Sanders campaign released a plan detailing what universal healthcare in the U.S. could look like. In recent days, the Clinton campaign has attacked Sanders for this policy, claiming that his proposals will decimate existing U.S. health care systems. Sanders says this is an unfair and even "nonsensical" distortion. "What her campaign was saying, Bernie Sanders — who has fought for universal health care for my entire life — he wants to end Medicare, end Medicaid, end the children's health insurance program -- that is nonsense," the Vermont senator said. "What a Medicare-for-all program does is finally provide in this country health care for every man, woman and child as a right," Sanders said. "The truth is that Frank Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, do you know what they believed in? They believed that health care should be available to all of our people," he added. The moderators of the debate spoke of Sanders' proposal as if universal health care is an extreme policy, yet every industrialized country in the world has it. Virtually all European countries, much of Latin America, Russia and even Saudi Arabia provide universal health care. The U.S. is the only country in the OECD aside from Mexico that does not guarantee health care for all citizens. Although Clinton has recently vociferously attacked Sanders' proposal, she claimed in the debate she is "absolutely committed to universal health care." Clinton argued what differs is her approach to health care. The former secretary of state said she sees Obamacare as a step on the path toward universal health care. She steadfastly defended it, characterizing it as "one of the greatest accomplishments of President Obama." "I don't to want see us start over again with a contentious debate. I want us to defend and build on the Affordable Care Act and improve it," Clinton stated in the debate. "There are things we can do to improve it," she conceded, "but to tear it up and start over again, pushing our country back into that kind of a contentious debate, I think is the wrong direction." Sanders blasted Clinton, claiming her accusations are "absolutely inaccurate." "No one is tearing this up, we're going to go forward," Sanders said. He defended his work on the legislation, noting, "I'm on the committee that wrote the Affordable Care Act. I made the Affordable Care Act along with Jim Clyburn a better piece of legislation. I voted for it." But the senator argued the ACA does not go far enough. He levied several critiques at the program, noting that it still has left 29 million Americans without health insurance, and that it still leaves Americans who have it "with huge copayments and deductibles." "We are paying the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, getting ripped off," Sanders continued. "We are spending far more per person on health care than the people of any other country." "Tell me why we are spending almost three times more than the British, who guarantee health care to all of their people," he said. Sanders pointed out that the U.S. pays more than Canadians on health care, and 50 percent more than the French. Sanders argued his proposal would "provide health care to all people, get private insurance out of health insurance, lower the cost of health care for middle class families by 5,000 bucks." Clinton was suspicious of Sanders' policy. She pointed out that, over a period of years, Sanders has raised nine bills in an attempt to move toward universal health care, but has faced heated opposition from both parties. Clinton called for a more incremental approach. The self-declared democratic socialist Sanders, on the other hand, insisted "We need a revolution in this country in terms of mental health treatment" and health care. "People should be able to get the treatment that they need when they need it, not two months from now, which is why I believe in universal healthcare, with mental health a part of that," Sanders said. Obamacare has been a heated issue among the American left for some time now. Although both Clinton and Sanders defended the legislation, and while it is seen as a milestone victory of the Obama administration, the Affordable Care Act is, in fact, closely based on legislation proposed by 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. Left-wing critics of Obamacare have pointed out that the program does not ensure health care for Americans, but rather health insurance. It mandates that Americans purchase health insurance from corporations, rather than ensures that Americans receive health care from the government. Maryland pediatrician Margaret Flowers, an activist in the advocacy group Physicians for a National Health Program and one of the leading voices in the movement for universal health care in the U.S., has gone so far as to argue Obamacare "may be the biggest insurance scam in history." "The industries that profit from our current health care system wrote the legislation, heavily influenced the regulations and have received waivers exempting them from provisions in the law. This has all been done to protect and enhance their profits," she says. "This is what happens in a market-based system of health care. People get only the amount of health care they can afford, rather than what they need," Flowers explained. "The ACA takes our failed market-based system to a whole new level by forcing the uninsured to purchase private health plans and using the government to sell and subsidize them." Sanders has argued these problems can be circumvented by moving toward a system of universal health care, which every other major country has. Clinton has argued Obamacare is a step forward. For years, a majority of Americans have wanted universal health care. In early 2015, five years after the single-payer system was scrapped from Obamacare debates, more than half of Americans said they still support it.
Clinton piled on by Sanders and O’Malley for her “cozy relationship” with Wall Street
"Congress is owned by big money and refuses to do what the American people want them to do," Sanders said in the fourth Democratic presidential debate Sunday night in South Carolina. All three candidates spoke out against the chokehold large corporations have over U.S. politics. "The real issue is that, in area after area," Congress opposes what the American people overwhelmingly want, Sanders insisted. "Raising the minimum wage to $15 bucks an hour — the American people want it," he said. A poll conducted by Hart Research Associate in early 2015 found that 63% of Americans support raising the federal minimum wage to $15. "Rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, creating 13 million jobs — the American people want it," Sanders added. Sanders was referring to proposed a plan he says will create jobs for Americans by rebuilding U.S. infrastructure, much of which was built many decades ago and which has been referred to as a "disaster." "The pay equity for women — the American people want it," he said. A 2014 poll by Gallup found that roughly 40 percent of Americans consider unequal pay the top issue facing working women. What Americans are divided on, studies show, is whether there should be legislation in order to address this. "Demanding that the wealthy start paying their fair share of taxes -- the American people want it," Sanders added. When faced with other potential cuts to government spending, up to 61 percent of Americans said they would prefer increasing taxes on the rich. The Vermont senator and self-declared democratic socialist lambasted Clinton for her close ties to Wall Street. Clinton defended her record. "I can tell you that the hedge fund billionaires who are running ads against me right now, and Karl Rove, who started running an ad against me right now, funded by money from the financial services sector, sure thing, I'm the one they don't want to be up against," she said. Rove, the Republican politician and former Bush administration adviser, released an ad this week saying "Ever wonder how Hillary Clinton can afford so many ads? Chances are, they were paid for with Wall Street cash." In response to the attack ad, Clinton shot back, "I find that, in a perverse way, an incredibly flattering comment on their anxiety, because they know that not only will I stand up for what the country needs, I will take it to the Republicans." O'Malley interjected with some harsh words for the former secretary of state. Blasting Clinton for her "cozy relationship with Wall Street," O'Malley noted, "In an earlier debate, I heard you bring up even the 9/11 victims to defend it." Clinton has invoked the 9/11 attacks at least twice in order to defend her close ties to Wall Street. O'Malley continued, maintaining "The truth of the matter is, Secretary Clinton, you do not go as far as reining in Wall Street as I would.""Congress is owned by big money and refuses to do what the American people want them to do," Sanders said in the fourth Democratic presidential debate Sunday night in South Carolina. All three candidates spoke out against the chokehold large corporations have over U.S. politics. "The real issue is that, in area after area," Congress opposes what the American people overwhelmingly want, Sanders insisted. "Raising the minimum wage to $15 bucks an hour — the American people want it," he said. A poll conducted by Hart Research Associate in early 2015 found that 63% of Americans support raising the federal minimum wage to $15. "Rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, creating 13 million jobs — the American people want it," Sanders added. Sanders was referring to proposed a plan he says will create jobs for Americans by rebuilding U.S. infrastructure, much of which was built many decades ago and which has been referred to as a "disaster." "The pay equity for women — the American people want it," he said. A 2014 poll by Gallup found that roughly 40 percent of Americans consider unequal pay the top issue facing working women. What Americans are divided on, studies show, is whether there should be legislation in order to address this. "Demanding that the wealthy start paying their fair share of taxes -- the American people want it," Sanders added. When faced with other potential cuts to government spending, up to 61 percent of Americans said they would prefer increasing taxes on the rich. The Vermont senator and self-declared democratic socialist lambasted Clinton for her close ties to Wall Street. Clinton defended her record. "I can tell you that the hedge fund billionaires who are running ads against me right now, and Karl Rove, who started running an ad against me right now, funded by money from the financial services sector, sure thing, I'm the one they don't want to be up against," she said. Rove, the Republican politician and former Bush administration adviser, released an ad this week saying "Ever wonder how Hillary Clinton can afford so many ads? Chances are, they were paid for with Wall Street cash." In response to the attack ad, Clinton shot back, "I find that, in a perverse way, an incredibly flattering comment on their anxiety, because they know that not only will I stand up for what the country needs, I will take it to the Republicans." O'Malley interjected with some harsh words for the former secretary of state. Blasting Clinton for her "cozy relationship with Wall Street," O'Malley noted, "In an earlier debate, I heard you bring up even the 9/11 victims to defend it." Clinton has invoked the 9/11 attacks at least twice in order to defend her close ties to Wall Street. O'Malley continued, maintaining "The truth of the matter is, Secretary Clinton, you do not go as far as reining in Wall Street as I would.""Congress is owned by big money and refuses to do what the American people want them to do," Sanders said in the fourth Democratic presidential debate Sunday night in South Carolina. All three candidates spoke out against the chokehold large corporations have over U.S. politics. "The real issue is that, in area after area," Congress opposes what the American people overwhelmingly want, Sanders insisted. "Raising the minimum wage to $15 bucks an hour — the American people want it," he said. A poll conducted by Hart Research Associate in early 2015 found that 63% of Americans support raising the federal minimum wage to $15. "Rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, creating 13 million jobs — the American people want it," Sanders added. Sanders was referring to proposed a plan he says will create jobs for Americans by rebuilding U.S. infrastructure, much of which was built many decades ago and which has been referred to as a "disaster." "The pay equity for women — the American people want it," he said. A 2014 poll by Gallup found that roughly 40 percent of Americans consider unequal pay the top issue facing working women. What Americans are divided on, studies show, is whether there should be legislation in order to address this. "Demanding that the wealthy start paying their fair share of taxes -- the American people want it," Sanders added. When faced with other potential cuts to government spending, up to 61 percent of Americans said they would prefer increasing taxes on the rich. The Vermont senator and self-declared democratic socialist lambasted Clinton for her close ties to Wall Street. Clinton defended her record. "I can tell you that the hedge fund billionaires who are running ads against me right now, and Karl Rove, who started running an ad against me right now, funded by money from the financial services sector, sure thing, I'm the one they don't want to be up against," she said. Rove, the Republican politician and former Bush administration adviser, released an ad this week saying "Ever wonder how Hillary Clinton can afford so many ads? Chances are, they were paid for with Wall Street cash." In response to the attack ad, Clinton shot back, "I find that, in a perverse way, an incredibly flattering comment on their anxiety, because they know that not only will I stand up for what the country needs, I will take it to the Republicans." O'Malley interjected with some harsh words for the former secretary of state. Blasting Clinton for her "cozy relationship with Wall Street," O'Malley noted, "In an earlier debate, I heard you bring up even the 9/11 victims to defend it." Clinton has invoked the 9/11 attacks at least twice in order to defend her close ties to Wall Street. O'Malley continued, maintaining "The truth of the matter is, Secretary Clinton, you do not go as far as reining in Wall Street as I would."
Dem debate: Sanders blasts mass incarceration, asks why millions of black Americans are in prison, but not Wall Street CEOs
"Who is satisfied that millions of people have police records for possessing marijuana when the CEOs of Wall Street companies who destroyed our economy have no police records?" Bernie Sanders declared Sunday night in the fourth Democratic presidential debate. The Vermont senator blasted mass incarceration and the prison-industrial complex. "We have a criminal justice system which is broken," Sanders said. "Who in America is satisfied that we have more people in jail than any other country on Earth, including China?" Earlier in the day, Sanders tweeted about the issue, noting that China has four times the population of the U.S., but significantly fewer prisoners. https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/sta... The U.S. has just 5 percent of the global population, but one-fourth of the world's prisoners. Sanders lamented that these prisoners are also "disproportionately African American and Latino." Hillary Clinton also noted "One out of three African-American men may well end up going to prison. That's the statistic." "I want people here to think what we would be doing if it was one out of three white men," Clinton said. Sanders also addressed the structural inequalities black Americans face. "Who is satisfied that 51% of African American young people are either unemployed, or underemployed?" Sanders said. Studies show that black candidates for jobs who are equally qualified with white candidates are less likely to get offered an interview. Black Harvard graduates are just as likely to get a callback as white Americans who graduated from a state college. In fact, studies show racism is so prevalent, white former felons have the same chances of getting hired as black candidates who have no criminal record. Sanders called for "investing in jobs and education, not in jails and incarceration." No Wall Street CEOs were imprisoned for their role in crashing the economy in 2008. "It's not that federal government tried to prosecute a bunch of them but lost the cases," the Washington Post reported. "There were no serious efforts at criminal prosecutions at all."Who is satisfied that millions of people have police records for possessing marijuana when the CEOs of Wall Street companies who destroyed our economy have no police records?" Bernie Sanders declared Sunday night in the fourth Democratic presidential debate. The Vermont senator blasted mass incarceration and the prison-industrial complex. "We have a criminal justice system which is broken," Sanders said. "Who in America is satisfied that we have more people in jail than any other country on Earth, including China?" Earlier in the day, Sanders tweeted about the issue, noting that China has four times the population of the U.S., but significantly fewer prisoners. https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/sta... The U.S. has just 5 percent of the global population, but one-fourth of the world's prisoners. Sanders lamented that these prisoners are also "disproportionately African American and Latino." Hillary Clinton also noted "One out of three African-American men may well end up going to prison. That's the statistic." "I want people here to think what we would be doing if it was one out of three white men," Clinton said. Sanders also addressed the structural inequalities black Americans face. "Who is satisfied that 51% of African American young people are either unemployed, or underemployed?" Sanders said. Studies show that black candidates for jobs who are equally qualified with white candidates are less likely to get offered an interview. Black Harvard graduates are just as likely to get a callback as white Americans who graduated from a state college. In fact, studies show racism is so prevalent, white former felons have the same chances of getting hired as black candidates who have no criminal record. Sanders called for "investing in jobs and education, not in jails and incarceration." No Wall Street CEOs were imprisoned for their role in crashing the economy in 2008. "It's not that federal government tried to prosecute a bunch of them but lost the cases," the Washington Post reported. "There were no serious efforts at criminal prosecutions at all."Who is satisfied that millions of people have police records for possessing marijuana when the CEOs of Wall Street companies who destroyed our economy have no police records?" Bernie Sanders declared Sunday night in the fourth Democratic presidential debate. The Vermont senator blasted mass incarceration and the prison-industrial complex. "We have a criminal justice system which is broken," Sanders said. "Who in America is satisfied that we have more people in jail than any other country on Earth, including China?" Earlier in the day, Sanders tweeted about the issue, noting that China has four times the population of the U.S., but significantly fewer prisoners. https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/sta... The U.S. has just 5 percent of the global population, but one-fourth of the world's prisoners. Sanders lamented that these prisoners are also "disproportionately African American and Latino." Hillary Clinton also noted "One out of three African-American men may well end up going to prison. That's the statistic." "I want people here to think what we would be doing if it was one out of three white men," Clinton said. Sanders also addressed the structural inequalities black Americans face. "Who is satisfied that 51% of African American young people are either unemployed, or underemployed?" Sanders said. Studies show that black candidates for jobs who are equally qualified with white candidates are less likely to get offered an interview. Black Harvard graduates are just as likely to get a callback as white Americans who graduated from a state college. In fact, studies show racism is so prevalent, white former felons have the same chances of getting hired as black candidates who have no criminal record. Sanders called for "investing in jobs and education, not in jails and incarceration." No Wall Street CEOs were imprisoned for their role in crashing the economy in 2008. "It's not that federal government tried to prosecute a bunch of them but lost the cases," the Washington Post reported. "There were no serious efforts at criminal prosecutions at all."Who is satisfied that millions of people have police records for possessing marijuana when the CEOs of Wall Street companies who destroyed our economy have no police records?" Bernie Sanders declared Sunday night in the fourth Democratic presidential debate. The Vermont senator blasted mass incarceration and the prison-industrial complex. "We have a criminal justice system which is broken," Sanders said. "Who in America is satisfied that we have more people in jail than any other country on Earth, including China?" Earlier in the day, Sanders tweeted about the issue, noting that China has four times the population of the U.S., but significantly fewer prisoners. https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/sta... The U.S. has just 5 percent of the global population, but one-fourth of the world's prisoners. Sanders lamented that these prisoners are also "disproportionately African American and Latino." Hillary Clinton also noted "One out of three African-American men may well end up going to prison. That's the statistic." "I want people here to think what we would be doing if it was one out of three white men," Clinton said. Sanders also addressed the structural inequalities black Americans face. "Who is satisfied that 51% of African American young people are either unemployed, or underemployed?" Sanders said. Studies show that black candidates for jobs who are equally qualified with white candidates are less likely to get offered an interview. Black Harvard graduates are just as likely to get a callback as white Americans who graduated from a state college. In fact, studies show racism is so prevalent, white former felons have the same chances of getting hired as black candidates who have no criminal record. Sanders called for "investing in jobs and education, not in jails and incarceration." No Wall Street CEOs were imprisoned for their role in crashing the economy in 2008. "It's not that federal government tried to prosecute a bunch of them but lost the cases," the Washington Post reported. "There were no serious efforts at criminal prosecutions at all."Who is satisfied that millions of people have police records for possessing marijuana when the CEOs of Wall Street companies who destroyed our economy have no police records?" Bernie Sanders declared Sunday night in the fourth Democratic presidential debate. The Vermont senator blasted mass incarceration and the prison-industrial complex. "We have a criminal justice system which is broken," Sanders said. "Who in America is satisfied that we have more people in jail than any other country on Earth, including China?" Earlier in the day, Sanders tweeted about the issue, noting that China has four times the population of the U.S., but significantly fewer prisoners. https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/sta... The U.S. has just 5 percent of the global population, but one-fourth of the world's prisoners. Sanders lamented that these prisoners are also "disproportionately African American and Latino." Hillary Clinton also noted "One out of three African-American men may well end up going to prison. That's the statistic." "I want people here to think what we would be doing if it was one out of three white men," Clinton said. Sanders also addressed the structural inequalities black Americans face. "Who is satisfied that 51% of African American young people are either unemployed, or underemployed?" Sanders said. Studies show that black candidates for jobs who are equally qualified with white candidates are less likely to get offered an interview. Black Harvard graduates are just as likely to get a callback as white Americans who graduated from a state college. In fact, studies show racism is so prevalent, white former felons have the same chances of getting hired as black candidates who have no criminal record. Sanders called for "investing in jobs and education, not in jails and incarceration." No Wall Street CEOs were imprisoned for their role in crashing the economy in 2008. "It's not that federal government tried to prosecute a bunch of them but lost the cases," the Washington Post reported. "There were no serious efforts at criminal prosecutions at all."Who is satisfied that millions of people have police records for possessing marijuana when the CEOs of Wall Street companies who destroyed our economy have no police records?" Bernie Sanders declared Sunday night in the fourth Democratic presidential debate. The Vermont senator blasted mass incarceration and the prison-industrial complex. "We have a criminal justice system which is broken," Sanders said. "Who in America is satisfied that we have more people in jail than any other country on Earth, including China?" Earlier in the day, Sanders tweeted about the issue, noting that China has four times the population of the U.S., but significantly fewer prisoners. https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/sta... The U.S. has just 5 percent of the global population, but one-fourth of the world's prisoners. Sanders lamented that these prisoners are also "disproportionately African American and Latino." Hillary Clinton also noted "One out of three African-American men may well end up going to prison. That's the statistic." "I want people here to think what we would be doing if it was one out of three white men," Clinton said. Sanders also addressed the structural inequalities black Americans face. "Who is satisfied that 51% of African American young people are either unemployed, or underemployed?" Sanders said. Studies show that black candidates for jobs who are equally qualified with white candidates are less likely to get offered an interview. Black Harvard graduates are just as likely to get a callback as white Americans who graduated from a state college. In fact, studies show racism is so prevalent, white former felons have the same chances of getting hired as black candidates who have no criminal record. Sanders called for "investing in jobs and education, not in jails and incarceration." No Wall Street CEOs were imprisoned for their role in crashing the economy in 2008. "It's not that federal government tried to prosecute a bunch of them but lost the cases," the Washington Post reported. "There were no serious efforts at criminal prosecutions at all."Who is satisfied that millions of people have police records for possessing marijuana when the CEOs of Wall Street companies who destroyed our economy have no police records?" Bernie Sanders declared Sunday night in the fourth Democratic presidential debate. The Vermont senator blasted mass incarceration and the prison-industrial complex. "We have a criminal justice system which is broken," Sanders said. "Who in America is satisfied that we have more people in jail than any other country on Earth, including China?" Earlier in the day, Sanders tweeted about the issue, noting that China has four times the population of the U.S., but significantly fewer prisoners. https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/sta... The U.S. has just 5 percent of the global population, but one-fourth of the world's prisoners. Sanders lamented that these prisoners are also "disproportionately African American and Latino." Hillary Clinton also noted "One out of three African-American men may well end up going to prison. That's the statistic." "I want people here to think what we would be doing if it was one out of three white men," Clinton said. Sanders also addressed the structural inequalities black Americans face. "Who is satisfied that 51% of African American young people are either unemployed, or underemployed?" Sanders said. Studies show that black candidates for jobs who are equally qualified with white candidates are less likely to get offered an interview. Black Harvard graduates are just as likely to get a callback as white Americans who graduated from a state college. In fact, studies show racism is so prevalent, white former felons have the same chances of getting hired as black candidates who have no criminal record. Sanders called for "investing in jobs and education, not in jails and incarceration." No Wall Street CEOs were imprisoned for their role in crashing the economy in 2008. "It's not that federal government tried to prosecute a bunch of them but lost the cases," the Washington Post reported. "There were no serious efforts at criminal prosecutions at all."Who is satisfied that millions of people have police records for possessing marijuana when the CEOs of Wall Street companies who destroyed our economy have no police records?" Bernie Sanders declared Sunday night in the fourth Democratic presidential debate. The Vermont senator blasted mass incarceration and the prison-industrial complex. "We have a criminal justice system which is broken," Sanders said. "Who in America is satisfied that we have more people in jail than any other country on Earth, including China?" Earlier in the day, Sanders tweeted about the issue, noting that China has four times the population of the U.S., but significantly fewer prisoners. https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/sta... The U.S. has just 5 percent of the global population, but one-fourth of the world's prisoners. Sanders lamented that these prisoners are also "disproportionately African American and Latino." Hillary Clinton also noted "One out of three African-American men may well end up going to prison. That's the statistic." "I want people here to think what we would be doing if it was one out of three white men," Clinton said. Sanders also addressed the structural inequalities black Americans face. "Who is satisfied that 51% of African American young people are either unemployed, or underemployed?" Sanders said. Studies show that black candidates for jobs who are equally qualified with white candidates are less likely to get offered an interview. Black Harvard graduates are just as likely to get a callback as white Americans who graduated from a state college. In fact, studies show racism is so prevalent, white former felons have the same chances of getting hired as black candidates who have no criminal record. Sanders called for "investing in jobs and education, not in jails and incarceration." No Wall Street CEOs were imprisoned for their role in crashing the economy in 2008. "It's not that federal government tried to prosecute a bunch of them but lost the cases," the Washington Post reported. "There were no serious efforts at criminal prosecutions at all."Who is satisfied that millions of people have police records for possessing marijuana when the CEOs of Wall Street companies who destroyed our economy have no police records?" Bernie Sanders declared Sunday night in the fourth Democratic presidential debate. The Vermont senator blasted mass incarceration and the prison-industrial complex. "We have a criminal justice system which is broken," Sanders said. "Who in America is satisfied that we have more people in jail than any other country on Earth, including China?" Earlier in the day, Sanders tweeted about the issue, noting that China has four times the population of the U.S., but significantly fewer prisoners. https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/sta... The U.S. has just 5 percent of the global population, but one-fourth of the world's prisoners. Sanders lamented that these prisoners are also "disproportionately African American and Latino." Hillary Clinton also noted "One out of three African-American men may well end up going to prison. That's the statistic." "I want people here to think what we would be doing if it was one out of three white men," Clinton said. Sanders also addressed the structural inequalities black Americans face. "Who is satisfied that 51% of African American young people are either unemployed, or underemployed?" Sanders said. Studies show that black candidates for jobs who are equally qualified with white candidates are less likely to get offered an interview. Black Harvard graduates are just as likely to get a callback as white Americans who graduated from a state college. In fact, studies show racism is so prevalent, white former felons have the same chances of getting hired as black candidates who have no criminal record. Sanders called for "investing in jobs and education, not in jails and incarceration." No Wall Street CEOs were imprisoned for their role in crashing the economy in 2008. "It's not that federal government tried to prosecute a bunch of them but lost the cases," the Washington Post reported. "There were no serious efforts at criminal prosecutions at all.
Fireworks at Dem debate: Sanders accuses Clinton of lying about his record on gun control
Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders butted heads Sunday night in the fourth Democratic presidential debate in Charleston, South Carolina. Consistent with their public battles over the last couple weeks, Clinton slammed Sanders on gun control, claiming he has been inconsistent on the issue. Lester Holt, debate moderator for NBC News, noted that, last week, Clinton called Sanders "a pretty reliable vote for the gun lobby." "I think Secretary Clinton knows that what she says is very disingenuous," Sanders shot back. "I have a D-minus voting record from the NRA." In 1988, Sanders recalled, "there were three candidates running for congress in the state of Vermont, I stood up to the gun lobby and came out and maintained the position that in this country we should not be selling military-style assault weapons." "I have supported from day one and instant background check to make certain that people who should have guns do not have guns. And that includes people of criminal backgrounds, people who are mentally unstable," he added. "I support what President Obama is doing in terms of trying to close the gun show loop holes and I think it should be a federal crime if people act as dormant." An animated Clinton responded. "I have made it clear based on Senator Sanders' own record that he has voted with the NRA, with the gun lobby numerous times," she maintained. Clinton noted that Sanders voted against the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act five times. She also pointed out that he voted for the Charleston Loophole, and for immunity for gun makers and sellers. Before the debate, Sanders slightly modified his position on legislation devoted to punishing gun manufacturers. In the debate, he stressed hat he doesn't oppose punishing gun manufacturers on principle, but simply took issue with the particular legislation that was proposed. "I am pleased to hear that Senator Sanders has reversed his position on immunity and I look forward to him joining with those members of congress who have already introduced legislation," Clinton noted. Sanders emphasized that he felt gun control is too politicized and partisan of an issue in the U.S. "This should not be a political issue," he said. "What we should be doing is working together." Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley hit both Sanders and Clinton on gun control. "I would have to agree with both of them," he said. "They've both been inconsistent when it comes to this issue."Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders butted heads Sunday night in the fourth Democratic presidential debate in Charleston, South Carolina. Consistent with their public battles over the last couple weeks, Clinton slammed Sanders on gun control, claiming he has been inconsistent on the issue. Lester Holt, debate moderator for NBC News, noted that, last week, Clinton called Sanders "a pretty reliable vote for the gun lobby." "I think Secretary Clinton knows that what she says is very disingenuous," Sanders shot back. "I have a D-minus voting record from the NRA." In 1988, Sanders recalled, "there were three candidates running for congress in the state of Vermont, I stood up to the gun lobby and came out and maintained the position that in this country we should not be selling military-style assault weapons." "I have supported from day one and instant background check to make certain that people who should have guns do not have guns. And that includes people of criminal backgrounds, people who are mentally unstable," he added. "I support what President Obama is doing in terms of trying to close the gun show loop holes and I think it should be a federal crime if people act as dormant." An animated Clinton responded. "I have made it clear based on Senator Sanders' own record that he has voted with the NRA, with the gun lobby numerous times," she maintained. Clinton noted that Sanders voted against the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act five times. She also pointed out that he voted for the Charleston Loophole, and for immunity for gun makers and sellers. Before the debate, Sanders slightly modified his position on legislation devoted to punishing gun manufacturers. In the debate, he stressed hat he doesn't oppose punishing gun manufacturers on principle, but simply took issue with the particular legislation that was proposed. "I am pleased to hear that Senator Sanders has reversed his position on immunity and I look forward to him joining with those members of congress who have already introduced legislation," Clinton noted. Sanders emphasized that he felt gun control is too politicized and partisan of an issue in the U.S. "This should not be a political issue," he said. "What we should be doing is working together." Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley hit both Sanders and Clinton on gun control. "I would have to agree with both of them," he said. "They've both been inconsistent when it comes to this issue."Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders butted heads Sunday night in the fourth Democratic presidential debate in Charleston, South Carolina. Consistent with their public battles over the last couple weeks, Clinton slammed Sanders on gun control, claiming he has been inconsistent on the issue. Lester Holt, debate moderator for NBC News, noted that, last week, Clinton called Sanders "a pretty reliable vote for the gun lobby." "I think Secretary Clinton knows that what she says is very disingenuous," Sanders shot back. "I have a D-minus voting record from the NRA." In 1988, Sanders recalled, "there were three candidates running for congress in the state of Vermont, I stood up to the gun lobby and came out and maintained the position that in this country we should not be selling military-style assault weapons." "I have supported from day one and instant background check to make certain that people who should have guns do not have guns. And that includes people of criminal backgrounds, people who are mentally unstable," he added. "I support what President Obama is doing in terms of trying to close the gun show loop holes and I think it should be a federal crime if people act as dormant." An animated Clinton responded. "I have made it clear based on Senator Sanders' own record that he has voted with the NRA, with the gun lobby numerous times," she maintained. Clinton noted that Sanders voted against the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act five times. She also pointed out that he voted for the Charleston Loophole, and for immunity for gun makers and sellers. Before the debate, Sanders slightly modified his position on legislation devoted to punishing gun manufacturers. In the debate, he stressed hat he doesn't oppose punishing gun manufacturers on principle, but simply took issue with the particular legislation that was proposed. "I am pleased to hear that Senator Sanders has reversed his position on immunity and I look forward to him joining with those members of congress who have already introduced legislation," Clinton noted. Sanders emphasized that he felt gun control is too politicized and partisan of an issue in the U.S. "This should not be a political issue," he said. "What we should be doing is working together." Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley hit both Sanders and Clinton on gun control. "I would have to agree with both of them," he said. "They've both been inconsistent when it comes to this issue."Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders butted heads Sunday night in the fourth Democratic presidential debate in Charleston, South Carolina. Consistent with their public battles over the last couple weeks, Clinton slammed Sanders on gun control, claiming he has been inconsistent on the issue. Lester Holt, debate moderator for NBC News, noted that, last week, Clinton called Sanders "a pretty reliable vote for the gun lobby." "I think Secretary Clinton knows that what she says is very disingenuous," Sanders shot back. "I have a D-minus voting record from the NRA." In 1988, Sanders recalled, "there were three candidates running for congress in the state of Vermont, I stood up to the gun lobby and came out and maintained the position that in this country we should not be selling military-style assault weapons." "I have supported from day one and instant background check to make certain that people who should have guns do not have guns. And that includes people of criminal backgrounds, people who are mentally unstable," he added. "I support what President Obama is doing in terms of trying to close the gun show loop holes and I think it should be a federal crime if people act as dormant." An animated Clinton responded. "I have made it clear based on Senator Sanders' own record that he has voted with the NRA, with the gun lobby numerous times," she maintained. Clinton noted that Sanders voted against the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act five times. She also pointed out that he voted for the Charleston Loophole, and for immunity for gun makers and sellers. Before the debate, Sanders slightly modified his position on legislation devoted to punishing gun manufacturers. In the debate, he stressed hat he doesn't oppose punishing gun manufacturers on principle, but simply took issue with the particular legislation that was proposed. "I am pleased to hear that Senator Sanders has reversed his position on immunity and I look forward to him joining with those members of congress who have already introduced legislation," Clinton noted. Sanders emphasized that he felt gun control is too politicized and partisan of an issue in the U.S. "This should not be a political issue," he said. "What we should be doing is working together." Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley hit both Sanders and Clinton on gun control. "I would have to agree with both of them," he said. "They've both been inconsistent when it comes to this issue."Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders butted heads Sunday night in the fourth Democratic presidential debate in Charleston, South Carolina. Consistent with their public battles over the last couple weeks, Clinton slammed Sanders on gun control, claiming he has been inconsistent on the issue. Lester Holt, debate moderator for NBC News, noted that, last week, Clinton called Sanders "a pretty reliable vote for the gun lobby." "I think Secretary Clinton knows that what she says is very disingenuous," Sanders shot back. "I have a D-minus voting record from the NRA." In 1988, Sanders recalled, "there were three candidates running for congress in the state of Vermont, I stood up to the gun lobby and came out and maintained the position that in this country we should not be selling military-style assault weapons." "I have supported from day one and instant background check to make certain that people who should have guns do not have guns. And that includes people of criminal backgrounds, people who are mentally unstable," he added. "I support what President Obama is doing in terms of trying to close the gun show loop holes and I think it should be a federal crime if people act as dormant." An animated Clinton responded. "I have made it clear based on Senator Sanders' own record that he has voted with the NRA, with the gun lobby numerous times," she maintained. Clinton noted that Sanders voted against the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act five times. She also pointed out that he voted for the Charleston Loophole, and for immunity for gun makers and sellers. Before the debate, Sanders slightly modified his position on legislation devoted to punishing gun manufacturers. In the debate, he stressed hat he doesn't oppose punishing gun manufacturers on principle, but simply took issue with the particular legislation that was proposed. "I am pleased to hear that Senator Sanders has reversed his position on immunity and I look forward to him joining with those members of congress who have already introduced legislation," Clinton noted. Sanders emphasized that he felt gun control is too politicized and partisan of an issue in the U.S. "This should not be a political issue," he said. "What we should be doing is working together." Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley hit both Sanders and Clinton on gun control. "I would have to agree with both of them," he said. "They've both been inconsistent when it comes to this issue."Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders butted heads Sunday night in the fourth Democratic presidential debate in Charleston, South Carolina. Consistent with their public battles over the last couple weeks, Clinton slammed Sanders on gun control, claiming he has been inconsistent on the issue. Lester Holt, debate moderator for NBC News, noted that, last week, Clinton called Sanders "a pretty reliable vote for the gun lobby." "I think Secretary Clinton knows that what she says is very disingenuous," Sanders shot back. "I have a D-minus voting record from the NRA." In 1988, Sanders recalled, "there were three candidates running for congress in the state of Vermont, I stood up to the gun lobby and came out and maintained the position that in this country we should not be selling military-style assault weapons." "I have supported from day one and instant background check to make certain that people who should have guns do not have guns. And that includes people of criminal backgrounds, people who are mentally unstable," he added. "I support what President Obama is doing in terms of trying to close the gun show loop holes and I think it should be a federal crime if people act as dormant." An animated Clinton responded. "I have made it clear based on Senator Sanders' own record that he has voted with the NRA, with the gun lobby numerous times," she maintained. Clinton noted that Sanders voted against the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act five times. She also pointed out that he voted for the Charleston Loophole, and for immunity for gun makers and sellers. Before the debate, Sanders slightly modified his position on legislation devoted to punishing gun manufacturers. In the debate, he stressed hat he doesn't oppose punishing gun manufacturers on principle, but simply took issue with the particular legislation that was proposed. "I am pleased to hear that Senator Sanders has reversed his position on immunity and I look forward to him joining with those members of congress who have already introduced legislation," Clinton noted. Sanders emphasized that he felt gun control is too politicized and partisan of an issue in the U.S. "This should not be a political issue," he said. "What we should be doing is working together." Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley hit both Sanders and Clinton on gun control. "I would have to agree with both of them," he said. "They've both been inconsistent when it comes to this issue."Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders butted heads Sunday night in the fourth Democratic presidential debate in Charleston, South Carolina. Consistent with their public battles over the last couple weeks, Clinton slammed Sanders on gun control, claiming he has been inconsistent on the issue. Lester Holt, debate moderator for NBC News, noted that, last week, Clinton called Sanders "a pretty reliable vote for the gun lobby." "I think Secretary Clinton knows that what she says is very disingenuous," Sanders shot back. "I have a D-minus voting record from the NRA." In 1988, Sanders recalled, "there were three candidates running for congress in the state of Vermont, I stood up to the gun lobby and came out and maintained the position that in this country we should not be selling military-style assault weapons." "I have supported from day one and instant background check to make certain that people who should have guns do not have guns. And that includes people of criminal backgrounds, people who are mentally unstable," he added. "I support what President Obama is doing in terms of trying to close the gun show loop holes and I think it should be a federal crime if people act as dormant." An animated Clinton responded. "I have made it clear based on Senator Sanders' own record that he has voted with the NRA, with the gun lobby numerous times," she maintained. Clinton noted that Sanders voted against the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act five times. She also pointed out that he voted for the Charleston Loophole, and for immunity for gun makers and sellers. Before the debate, Sanders slightly modified his position on legislation devoted to punishing gun manufacturers. In the debate, he stressed hat he doesn't oppose punishing gun manufacturers on principle, but simply took issue with the particular legislation that was proposed. "I am pleased to hear that Senator Sanders has reversed his position on immunity and I look forward to him joining with those members of congress who have already introduced legislation," Clinton noted. Sanders emphasized that he felt gun control is too politicized and partisan of an issue in the U.S. "This should not be a political issue," he said. "What we should be doing is working together." Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley hit both Sanders and Clinton on gun control. "I would have to agree with both of them," he said. "They've both been inconsistent when it comes to this issue."
Everything is terrible: How to watch “The Big Short,” “Making a Murderer” and “Concussion” without losing your mind
Pop culture is drenched in bureaucratic corruption right now. Between “Making a Murderer,” “Concussion” and “The Big Short,” we have three portraits of flawed institutions, seemingly lacking in a clear villain. None point to a single figure responsible for the unethical nonsense on display. Instead, in each distinct yet eerily similar story, it’s clear that unquestioning cooperation is required for corruption to prosper. It takes a village to induce depravity. First off, we have “Making a Murderer,” which presents a police force so irrationally hellbent on putting a man away for a crime, they practically brainwash themselves into believing their suspect is guilty. It’s worth noting that there’s certainly an alternative way of presenting the content of Stephen Avery’s trial. Like most documentaries, “Making a Murderer” has a clear opinion that it doesn’t work to obscure. Still, in the effort of proving Avery and his nephew Brendan Dassey were framed for the murder of Teresa Halbach, the potential for unethical behavior quickly spans the Manitowac County hierarchy. From Lt. James Lenk to prosecutor and “Fraggle Rock” monster Ken Kratz or Dassey’s own lawyer Len Kachinsky, few hands are left clean. In order to simplify things for the jury, the defense would like to argue that one or two people could have planted the pieces necessary to convict Avery. Perhaps they’re right. But, as the case unfolds, we see a system built on unethical practices like coercing testimony and concealing evidence. It’s little wrongdoings from a laundry list of people that add up to a sentencing that will more than likely rob a man of his life. In, “Concussion,” a similar phenomenon is at play. In light of Dr. Bennet Omalu’s discovery of chronic traumatic encephalopathy, the National Football League convinces itself that its precious hobby is not dangerous to its players (or, depending on your level of cynicism, deliberately covers up the fact that it is). Since “Concussion” is a dramatization of real-life events unlike “Making a Murderer,” there was certainly more of an opportunity to send up a clear antagonist. Yet, while NFL chairman Roger Goodell leads the public charge against Omalu’s condemning findings, it is clear that the effort to conceal the possible side effects of the sport straddles the business of football in its entirety. Press reps, suits and the doctors they hire are all partially responsible for allowing the condition to remain hidden. This is not Goodell huddling up employees and telling them to keep quiet about evidence of CTE; it’s a system of people each doing their small part to prevent Omalu from disrupting the status quo, if only by staying quiet. Structural corruption is at its most brazen in “The Big Short.” The film reveals crookedness so far-reaching it extends through entire companies, ultimately poisoning the whole of the American banking system. It’s tough to explain the way the housing market falls apart (and Adam McKay goes out of his way to simplify things, recruiting Anthony Bourdain and Margot Robbie in a bathtub to break it all down). Put most simply, by the end of the film it’s clear the banks likely knew mortgages would fail and didn’t bother to fix things, assuming the taxpayers would bail them out. As Steve Carell's character puts it, creasing his brow into the depths of his dramatic role, “They knew, they just didn’t care.” The “they” in that simple statement hits on how entrenched and far-reaching the issues lie. Again, it’s not some awful, mustachioed CEO directing his company to destroy the lives of millions of Americans, because “Muahaha, profit anyway.” It’s an industry holistically complicit in accepting crookedness as the way business that is done. Finishing “Making a Murderer” or leaving the theater after “Concussion” or “The Big Short,” the questions of “who’s responsible?” and “how could they let this happen?” linger. The knee-jerk reaction looks to the dark psychology of authority, the banality of cogs in the machine following orders, but there’s no Hitler stand-in in any of the three stories. Rather, we see a structural lack of ethics built on the sum total of individual ethical infractions. Each scenario seems like an implausibly malicious case, leading to false imprisonment, fatal injuries or our country’s near-financial ruin, but lining them up reveals more mundane forces fueling the devastation. And so, the question turns to our own culpability. In order to watch each film without descending into despair, we have to look at how the portraits of corruption they reveal reflect back on ourselves. We are all susceptible to the phenomenon we see on-screen. These are often perfectly "normal," often boring people, going about their day without asking questions. The takeaway should be that there is not always going to be a horned creature demanding you "do your job." We all play a role in the systems that allow for these horrors, sometimes just by letting things be. In Manitowoc County, the NFL, Wall Street and far outside the boundaries of each, evil can be as simple as going with the flow.Pop culture is drenched in bureaucratic corruption right now. Between “Making a Murderer,” “Concussion” and “The Big Short,” we have three portraits of flawed institutions, seemingly lacking in a clear villain. None point to a single figure responsible for the unethical nonsense on display. Instead, in each distinct yet eerily similar story, it’s clear that unquestioning cooperation is required for corruption to prosper. It takes a village to induce depravity. First off, we have “Making a Murderer,” which presents a police force so irrationally hellbent on putting a man away for a crime, they practically brainwash themselves into believing their suspect is guilty. It’s worth noting that there’s certainly an alternative way of presenting the content of Stephen Avery’s trial. Like most documentaries, “Making a Murderer” has a clear opinion that it doesn’t work to obscure. Still, in the effort of proving Avery and his nephew Brendan Dassey were framed for the murder of Teresa Halbach, the potential for unethical behavior quickly spans the Manitowac County hierarchy. From Lt. James Lenk to prosecutor and “Fraggle Rock” monster Ken Kratz or Dassey’s own lawyer Len Kachinsky, few hands are left clean. In order to simplify things for the jury, the defense would like to argue that one or two people could have planted the pieces necessary to convict Avery. Perhaps they’re right. But, as the case unfolds, we see a system built on unethical practices like coercing testimony and concealing evidence. It’s little wrongdoings from a laundry list of people that add up to a sentencing that will more than likely rob a man of his life. In, “Concussion,” a similar phenomenon is at play. In light of Dr. Bennet Omalu’s discovery of chronic traumatic encephalopathy, the National Football League convinces itself that its precious hobby is not dangerous to its players (or, depending on your level of cynicism, deliberately covers up the fact that it is). Since “Concussion” is a dramatization of real-life events unlike “Making a Murderer,” there was certainly more of an opportunity to send up a clear antagonist. Yet, while NFL chairman Roger Goodell leads the public charge against Omalu’s condemning findings, it is clear that the effort to conceal the possible side effects of the sport straddles the business of football in its entirety. Press reps, suits and the doctors they hire are all partially responsible for allowing the condition to remain hidden. This is not Goodell huddling up employees and telling them to keep quiet about evidence of CTE; it’s a system of people each doing their small part to prevent Omalu from disrupting the status quo, if only by staying quiet. Structural corruption is at its most brazen in “The Big Short.” The film reveals crookedness so far-reaching it extends through entire companies, ultimately poisoning the whole of the American banking system. It’s tough to explain the way the housing market falls apart (and Adam McKay goes out of his way to simplify things, recruiting Anthony Bourdain and Margot Robbie in a bathtub to break it all down). Put most simply, by the end of the film it’s clear the banks likely knew mortgages would fail and didn’t bother to fix things, assuming the taxpayers would bail them out. As Steve Carell's character puts it, creasing his brow into the depths of his dramatic role, “They knew, they just didn’t care.” The “they” in that simple statement hits on how entrenched and far-reaching the issues lie. Again, it’s not some awful, mustachioed CEO directing his company to destroy the lives of millions of Americans, because “Muahaha, profit anyway.” It’s an industry holistically complicit in accepting crookedness as the way business that is done. Finishing “Making a Murderer” or leaving the theater after “Concussion” or “The Big Short,” the questions of “who’s responsible?” and “how could they let this happen?” linger. The knee-jerk reaction looks to the dark psychology of authority, the banality of cogs in the machine following orders, but there’s no Hitler stand-in in any of the three stories. Rather, we see a structural lack of ethics built on the sum total of individual ethical infractions. Each scenario seems like an implausibly malicious case, leading to false imprisonment, fatal injuries or our country’s near-financial ruin, but lining them up reveals more mundane forces fueling the devastation. And so, the question turns to our own culpability. In order to watch each film without descending into despair, we have to look at how the portraits of corruption they reveal reflect back on ourselves. We are all susceptible to the phenomenon we see on-screen. These are often perfectly "normal," often boring people, going about their day without asking questions. The takeaway should be that there is not always going to be a horned creature demanding you "do your job." We all play a role in the systems that allow for these horrors, sometimes just by letting things be. In Manitowoc County, the NFL, Wall Street and far outside the boundaries of each, evil can be as simple as going with the flow.
I’m ready for “The X-Files” now: How Mulder and Scully won me over, with a little help from terror and time
My original take on "The X-Files" was akin to Andy Warhol’s dismissal of “Saturday Night Live”: “If you’re home on a Saturday night,” the Pop artist once asked, “Why are you home on a Saturday night?” The suspense hit, co-starring David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson as mismatched FBI agents, premiered on Fox on a Friday, Sept. 10, 1993, and that night, decades before the advent of the DVR, I was far too busy to watch. I was celebrating my 24th birthday, which was not until Oct. 2. Of course, I became aware that there was a show called “The X-Files” that was something of a to-do, because this was an era when it was harder to avoid a pop phenomenon, an album or a film once it moved to the cultural fore, but I could not have been less interested in it. I was too young and having too much fun. The only X that I cared about was something that we Brooklyn hipsters all called “E” (only cops and housewives on TV called it “X”) and the only file that mattered was the one I used to carve out lines on the top of a hand-drying blower in the bathroom of some graffiti'd Lower East Side bar. If I happened to catch an episode, and I did watch a few, it was either because I was in the hospital or waiting in a taxi station in Williamsburg (where I lived in a $300-a-month loft on Grand Street … talk about the supernatural). Maybe I was still in some woman’s apartment after going home with her — on a Thursday. Some Fridays it was on while I was talking about religion or why Jon Spencer Blues Explosion sucked (or were great) in a strange, cramped kitchen with several other young men and women since the Thursday before that. Cocaine, a — not the — drug of choice at the time, did not make me paranoid; in fact, it accomplished the opposite effect. Blow made me 100 percent certain that I was right about everything: politics, sports, music, my own talent. The only truth that was out there was the guy with more coke. I wouldn’t be able to spot a UFO because we had no sky in New York in the ‘90s, anyway, just a banner of filmy, starless blue black tarpaulin (perfect for the flying of black helicopters but fly away, just don’t blow away the pile with your rotors, por favor). A freakin’ werewolf could have been sitting next to me on a stool at the Library Bar on Avenue A, but that too would require looking left or right instead of straight at the cute, blond art student/bartender. Cut to nine seasons, 202 episodes, and a few dramatized Chupacabra sightings later, and I was no longer in my carefree 20s. Mulder and Scully were gone and so was my youthful bravado: disappeared in an instant like Mulder’s poor sister. My once-flourishing writing career was about as successful as that of the Smoking Man’s. Post-9/11, which happened some months before the show’s original run ended in the spring of 2002, and it was suddenly a Doggett/Reyes world — I was home every night now behind a double-locked door and inside a pillow fort of my own jitters. Most of my friends had gone off and gotten married, had kids, moved to Seattle or Portland or Los Angeles. New York City was now on perma-terror alert. I owned a fish and two Radiohead albums, but even those didn’t make sense like they used to. But that was OK, because I had my new friend The Internet, and sometimes he brought his pal Valium and her buddy cheap red wine — red the color of Gillian Anderson’s flowing hair. We hung out. Together, we scurried into various rabbit holes trying to figure out whether Sirhan Sirhan was brainwashed into becoming a Manchurian candidate, why Sharon Tate was present at RFK’s last supper, whether or not the Loch Ness Monster photo was doctored and if my phone was being tapped (as if anyone would tap a flip phone). I used to rock well; now my life felt like that video by Rockwell. I drew the line here and there. I was not a truther, I was a Tsuris-er. Everything worried me without inspiring the commitment of a fanatic. Now, I am in my 40s and I’ve gotten a little bit of a handle on my nerves. I still won’t walk under ladders and I throw salt over my shoulder. I carry a medical ID and pepper spray. If I do drugs, I feel at the very least guilty about it, but the king-hell hangover is enough penance. I am … a cautious, lonely gun man. And I have caught up, thanks to DVDs and Netflix, on the back 202, largely because of fuck-all else to do with myself. So … this coming weekend when “The X-Files,” now iconic, returns as a six-part miniseries gift to Comic-Conners everywhere (after one failed spinoff, one excellent Catatonia song and one iffy movie in which a bee ruins the long-awaited kiss between Mulder and Scully, possibly the last act of a live bee on this planet, not to mention the entire run of “Californication” in which Duchovny plays a debauched L.A. writer named Bukowski Sadness … I mean Hank Moody), I am finally ready to be a real fan. We are meeting in the middle, Benjamin Button-style, “The X-Files” and I. I not only want to believe now, but in my dreadful 40s, scorched of anything that can effectively numb me or be identified even under a top secret government microscope as fun, I admit it — I need to.My original take on "The X-Files" was akin to Andy Warhol’s dismissal of “Saturday Night Live”: “If you’re home on a Saturday night,” the Pop artist once asked, “Why are you home on a Saturday night?” The suspense hit, co-starring David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson as mismatched FBI agents, premiered on Fox on a Friday, Sept. 10, 1993, and that night, decades before the advent of the DVR, I was far too busy to watch. I was celebrating my 24th birthday, which was not until Oct. 2. Of course, I became aware that there was a show called “The X-Files” that was something of a to-do, because this was an era when it was harder to avoid a pop phenomenon, an album or a film once it moved to the cultural fore, but I could not have been less interested in it. I was too young and having too much fun. The only X that I cared about was something that we Brooklyn hipsters all called “E” (only cops and housewives on TV called it “X”) and the only file that mattered was the one I used to carve out lines on the top of a hand-drying blower in the bathroom of some graffiti'd Lower East Side bar. If I happened to catch an episode, and I did watch a few, it was either because I was in the hospital or waiting in a taxi station in Williamsburg (where I lived in a $300-a-month loft on Grand Street … talk about the supernatural). Maybe I was still in some woman’s apartment after going home with her — on a Thursday. Some Fridays it was on while I was talking about religion or why Jon Spencer Blues Explosion sucked (or were great) in a strange, cramped kitchen with several other young men and women since the Thursday before that. Cocaine, a — not the — drug of choice at the time, did not make me paranoid; in fact, it accomplished the opposite effect. Blow made me 100 percent certain that I was right about everything: politics, sports, music, my own talent. The only truth that was out there was the guy with more coke. I wouldn’t be able to spot a UFO because we had no sky in New York in the ‘90s, anyway, just a banner of filmy, starless blue black tarpaulin (perfect for the flying of black helicopters but fly away, just don’t blow away the pile with your rotors, por favor). A freakin’ werewolf could have been sitting next to me on a stool at the Library Bar on Avenue A, but that too would require looking left or right instead of straight at the cute, blond art student/bartender. Cut to nine seasons, 202 episodes, and a few dramatized Chupacabra sightings later, and I was no longer in my carefree 20s. Mulder and Scully were gone and so was my youthful bravado: disappeared in an instant like Mulder’s poor sister. My once-flourishing writing career was about as successful as that of the Smoking Man’s. Post-9/11, which happened some months before the show’s original run ended in the spring of 2002, and it was suddenly a Doggett/Reyes world — I was home every night now behind a double-locked door and inside a pillow fort of my own jitters. Most of my friends had gone off and gotten married, had kids, moved to Seattle or Portland or Los Angeles. New York City was now on perma-terror alert. I owned a fish and two Radiohead albums, but even those didn’t make sense like they used to. But that was OK, because I had my new friend The Internet, and sometimes he brought his pal Valium and her buddy cheap red wine — red the color of Gillian Anderson’s flowing hair. We hung out. Together, we scurried into various rabbit holes trying to figure out whether Sirhan Sirhan was brainwashed into becoming a Manchurian candidate, why Sharon Tate was present at RFK’s last supper, whether or not the Loch Ness Monster photo was doctored and if my phone was being tapped (as if anyone would tap a flip phone). I used to rock well; now my life felt like that video by Rockwell. I drew the line here and there. I was not a truther, I was a Tsuris-er. Everything worried me without inspiring the commitment of a fanatic. Now, I am in my 40s and I’ve gotten a little bit of a handle on my nerves. I still won’t walk under ladders and I throw salt over my shoulder. I carry a medical ID and pepper spray. If I do drugs, I feel at the very least guilty about it, but the king-hell hangover is enough penance. I am … a cautious, lonely gun man. And I have caught up, thanks to DVDs and Netflix, on the back 202, largely because of fuck-all else to do with myself. So … this coming weekend when “The X-Files,” now iconic, returns as a six-part miniseries gift to Comic-Conners everywhere (after one failed spinoff, one excellent Catatonia song and one iffy movie in which a bee ruins the long-awaited kiss between Mulder and Scully, possibly the last act of a live bee on this planet, not to mention the entire run of “Californication” in which Duchovny plays a debauched L.A. writer named Bukowski Sadness … I mean Hank Moody), I am finally ready to be a real fan. We are meeting in the middle, Benjamin Button-style, “The X-Files” and I. I not only want to believe now, but in my dreadful 40s, scorched of anything that can effectively numb me or be identified even under a top secret government microscope as fun, I admit it — I need to.My original take on "The X-Files" was akin to Andy Warhol’s dismissal of “Saturday Night Live”: “If you’re home on a Saturday night,” the Pop artist once asked, “Why are you home on a Saturday night?” The suspense hit, co-starring David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson as mismatched FBI agents, premiered on Fox on a Friday, Sept. 10, 1993, and that night, decades before the advent of the DVR, I was far too busy to watch. I was celebrating my 24th birthday, which was not until Oct. 2. Of course, I became aware that there was a show called “The X-Files” that was something of a to-do, because this was an era when it was harder to avoid a pop phenomenon, an album or a film once it moved to the cultural fore, but I could not have been less interested in it. I was too young and having too much fun. The only X that I cared about was something that we Brooklyn hipsters all called “E” (only cops and housewives on TV called it “X”) and the only file that mattered was the one I used to carve out lines on the top of a hand-drying blower in the bathroom of some graffiti'd Lower East Side bar. If I happened to catch an episode, and I did watch a few, it was either because I was in the hospital or waiting in a taxi station in Williamsburg (where I lived in a $300-a-month loft on Grand Street … talk about the supernatural). Maybe I was still in some woman’s apartment after going home with her — on a Thursday. Some Fridays it was on while I was talking about religion or why Jon Spencer Blues Explosion sucked (or were great) in a strange, cramped kitchen with several other young men and women since the Thursday before that. Cocaine, a — not the — drug of choice at the time, did not make me paranoid; in fact, it accomplished the opposite effect. Blow made me 100 percent certain that I was right about everything: politics, sports, music, my own talent. The only truth that was out there was the guy with more coke. I wouldn’t be able to spot a UFO because we had no sky in New York in the ‘90s, anyway, just a banner of filmy, starless blue black tarpaulin (perfect for the flying of black helicopters but fly away, just don’t blow away the pile with your rotors, por favor). A freakin’ werewolf could have been sitting next to me on a stool at the Library Bar on Avenue A, but that too would require looking left or right instead of straight at the cute, blond art student/bartender. Cut to nine seasons, 202 episodes, and a few dramatized Chupacabra sightings later, and I was no longer in my carefree 20s. Mulder and Scully were gone and so was my youthful bravado: disappeared in an instant like Mulder’s poor sister. My once-flourishing writing career was about as successful as that of the Smoking Man’s. Post-9/11, which happened some months before the show’s original run ended in the spring of 2002, and it was suddenly a Doggett/Reyes world — I was home every night now behind a double-locked door and inside a pillow fort of my own jitters. Most of my friends had gone off and gotten married, had kids, moved to Seattle or Portland or Los Angeles. New York City was now on perma-terror alert. I owned a fish and two Radiohead albums, but even those didn’t make sense like they used to. But that was OK, because I had my new friend The Internet, and sometimes he brought his pal Valium and her buddy cheap red wine — red the color of Gillian Anderson’s flowing hair. We hung out. Together, we scurried into various rabbit holes trying to figure out whether Sirhan Sirhan was brainwashed into becoming a Manchurian candidate, why Sharon Tate was present at RFK’s last supper, whether or not the Loch Ness Monster photo was doctored and if my phone was being tapped (as if anyone would tap a flip phone). I used to rock well; now my life felt like that video by Rockwell. I drew the line here and there. I was not a truther, I was a Tsuris-er. Everything worried me without inspiring the commitment of a fanatic. Now, I am in my 40s and I’ve gotten a little bit of a handle on my nerves. I still won’t walk under ladders and I throw salt over my shoulder. I carry a medical ID and pepper spray. If I do drugs, I feel at the very least guilty about it, but the king-hell hangover is enough penance. I am … a cautious, lonely gun man. And I have caught up, thanks to DVDs and Netflix, on the back 202, largely because of fuck-all else to do with myself. So … this coming weekend when “The X-Files,” now iconic, returns as a six-part miniseries gift to Comic-Conners everywhere (after one failed spinoff, one excellent Catatonia song and one iffy movie in which a bee ruins the long-awaited kiss between Mulder and Scully, possibly the last act of a live bee on this planet, not to mention the entire run of “Californication” in which Duchovny plays a debauched L.A. writer named Bukowski Sadness … I mean Hank Moody), I am finally ready to be a real fan. We are meeting in the middle, Benjamin Button-style, “The X-Files” and I. I not only want to believe now, but in my dreadful 40s, scorched of anything that can effectively numb me or be identified even under a top secret government microscope as fun, I admit it — I need to.
Toews, Blackhawks beat Canadiens 5-2 for 11th straight win
CHICAGO (AP) — The Chicago Blackhawks matched a franchise record with their 11th straight victory, using two goals from Jonathan Toews to beat the slumping Montreal Canadiens 5-2 on Sunday night.
Marian Hossa had an empty-net goal and two assists for Chicago, and Patrick Kane had a goal and an assist. Richard Panik scored his first goal of the season, and Corey Crawford, a Montreal native, made 27 saves while improving to 5-0-2 in seven career starts against his hometown team.
The Blackhawks (31-13-4) also won 11 straight from Feb. 15 to March 6, 2013, and then went on to the second of three Stanley Cup titles in the past six seasons. The defending NHL champions, who won 2-1 at Montreal on Thursday night, go for 12 in a row at Nashville on Tuesday night.
Montreal (24-18-4) has lost four in a row and five of six. The Canadiens also dropped to 6-15-2 since star goaltender Carey Price was shelved by a lower-body injury in November.
Lars Eller and Max Pacioretty scored for Montreal, and Ben Scrivens made 28 stops in his first start since Jan. 5 at Philadelphia. Scrivens, who was acquired in a Dec. 28 trade with Edmonton, is winless in three starts on the season.
Pacioretty's power-play goal at 10:22 of the third got the Canadiens within one, but Kane responded for the Blackhawks just 71 seconds later. Kane got a great pass from rookie Artemi Panarin and scored on a one-timer for his NHL-best 29th goal.
Kane, who also leads the league with 40 assists, has eight goals and 11 assists in the last 11 games.
Toews gave Chicago a 2-1 lead with his 18th goal at 13:38 of the second, punching it home from in front of the net. The captain made the most of a fortunate carom right to him with 1:21 to go in the period, bringing the puck out from behind the net and beating Scrivens with a backhander.
Toews, who also got an assist on Hossa's empty-netter, has 10 goals and nine assists in his last 16 games.
The Blackhawks got rookie defenseman Erik Gustafsson back from a lower-body injury, and he made a great pass to Panik to set up his first goal in his fourth game since he was acquired in a trade with Toronto on Jan. 3.
Eller got it back for Montreal at 6:16 of the first, poking home a rebound of Jeff Petry's shot for his eighth of the season.
NOTES: The Blackhawks improved to 28-3-2 when they score the first goal of the game. ... Canadiens RW Dale Weise played in his 300th NHL game. ... Chicago reassigned slumping forward Bryan Bickell to Rockford of the American Hockey League. The 29-year-old Bickell has no goals and two assists in 23 games with the Blackhawks this season.
___
Jay Cohen can be reached at http://www.twitter.com/jcohenap
“It scared everybody”: How Jenny McCarthy and anti-vaxxers actually helped autism awareness
Autism has been in the news so much over the last few years that it’s amazing to think that a bit more than 80 years ago, it didn’t exist. Or rather, it didn’t have a name or identity of any kind. That changed when a Mississippi boy named Donald Tripplett took a train to Baltimore to meet the child psychiatrist Leo Kanner. Between then and now, autism has become better known and understood. Recent years have also seen a fascination with people who are “on the spectrum” and their mathematical and musical abilities (see this new Atlantic story). But there have also been strange episodes along the way: Children being dosed with LSD, mothers being told they had caused their child’s autism, and, most recently, the anti-vaccination movement led by Jenny McCarthy and other paranoids who insist that children’s shots are provoking the disorder. A new book looks at the whole span of it: “In a Different Key: The Story of Autism” comes from the ABC correspondent John Donvan and television news journalist Caren Zucker. We spoke to Donvan; the interview has been lightly edited for clarity. Is the large narrative of autism, from Donald Tripplett to the present, largely one of social progress, with zigs and zags along the way? Yes, I think the arc, the really big tidal pull, is in the direction of things getting better, in terms of understanding and acceptance – with some potholes along the way. One of those was the way people shamed mothers. How long did that last, and how did it work out? There was a 35-year-long dominance of why children had autism: It kicked off in 1949, which can be spotted in a Time magazine article, quoting Leo Kanner… He said the odd and cold behavior he’d seen in the parents was quite likely responsible for causing the kids to experience such extreme emotional traumas that they withdrew from the world as a defense mechanism. This was an essential driver in autism. That idea fit in very neatly with psychiatry in general: All psychiatric illness was considered to be traumatic interactions with other people. Mothers were blamed also for schizophrenia, so it fit in with the times. Kanner suggested that kids were born with autism, but it didn’t get much traction. So he moved to this other position – that the parents played a role. The idea grew and grew, and it finally faded out. The impact that this accusation had on the mothers was absolutely devastating, because not only do they have a child who’s got such challenges, but they’re told that it’s their “fault,” that they did something wrong. Women who had the money and were in a milieu like New York were told they had to get themselves analyzed: They had to go to therapy themselves. So the mothers were treated instead of the kids… It was a total nightmare scenario. Speaking of gender, autism is rumored to be more common in boys. Is that so, and why might that be? Yes – it’s about 4-to-1 in boys versus girls. There’s some thinking that autism presents in more subtle fashion in girls. But the rule of thumb is that 4-1 ratio that was observed in 1942 and is still observed today. Over the last decade or so we’ve heard a lot about Asperger’s syndrome. Can you tell us what makes it distinctive, and its relationship to artists? Do lay people understand it, or are there misconceptions about Asperger’s? I think the popular conception has a lot of validity to it: It’s not only a disability, that can be limiting in life, but can also come with some real gifts – intellectual talents, musical talents, creative talents, originality in thinking. It’s a kind of brain wiring that one might want to consider a good way to be, in some ways. The experience of a lot of people with Asperger’s syndrome is that it’s hard to get along socially; that’s definitely a negative for it. The anti-vaccination movement has been strange to watch, as the public reaction and the science have gone in two different directions. How does this fit into the larger story of autism and its history? The vaccine episode was basically a negative, with one exception: It gave the general public an awareness of autism that it had never had before, because it scared everybody. It got them to think, “My family doesn’t have anything to do with autism, but maybe it will if I get my kid vaccinated.” The one positive thing about that story is it popularized awareness of autism. All of the rest was negative in that it eroded confidence in the vaccine program; it eroded trust in science, it was a highly contentious and divisive issue in the autism community. There was no real vindicating research when the question [of autism’s relationship to vaccination] was first raised. But then research began to be undertaken, between 2004 and 2008, to show that vaccines were not causing autism. So the story sort of stops and ends with the science as far as we’re concerned. And unfortunately it stole a lot of attention from much more important things that needed to be talked about.Autism has been in the news so much over the last few years that it’s amazing to think that a bit more than 80 years ago, it didn’t exist. Or rather, it didn’t have a name or identity of any kind. That changed when a Mississippi boy named Donald Tripplett took a train to Baltimore to meet the child psychiatrist Leo Kanner. Between then and now, autism has become better known and understood. Recent years have also seen a fascination with people who are “on the spectrum” and their mathematical and musical abilities (see this new Atlantic story). But there have also been strange episodes along the way: Children being dosed with LSD, mothers being told they had caused their child’s autism, and, most recently, the anti-vaccination movement led by Jenny McCarthy and other paranoids who insist that children’s shots are provoking the disorder. A new book looks at the whole span of it: “In a Different Key: The Story of Autism” comes from the ABC correspondent John Donvan and television news journalist Caren Zucker. We spoke to Donvan; the interview has been lightly edited for clarity. Is the large narrative of autism, from Donald Tripplett to the present, largely one of social progress, with zigs and zags along the way? Yes, I think the arc, the really big tidal pull, is in the direction of things getting better, in terms of understanding and acceptance – with some potholes along the way. One of those was the way people shamed mothers. How long did that last, and how did it work out? There was a 35-year-long dominance of why children had autism: It kicked off in 1949, which can be spotted in a Time magazine article, quoting Leo Kanner… He said the odd and cold behavior he’d seen in the parents was quite likely responsible for causing the kids to experience such extreme emotional traumas that they withdrew from the world as a defense mechanism. This was an essential driver in autism. That idea fit in very neatly with psychiatry in general: All psychiatric illness was considered to be traumatic interactions with other people. Mothers were blamed also for schizophrenia, so it fit in with the times. Kanner suggested that kids were born with autism, but it didn’t get much traction. So he moved to this other position – that the parents played a role. The idea grew and grew, and it finally faded out. The impact that this accusation had on the mothers was absolutely devastating, because not only do they have a child who’s got such challenges, but they’re told that it’s their “fault,” that they did something wrong. Women who had the money and were in a milieu like New York were told they had to get themselves analyzed: They had to go to therapy themselves. So the mothers were treated instead of the kids… It was a total nightmare scenario. Speaking of gender, autism is rumored to be more common in boys. Is that so, and why might that be? Yes – it’s about 4-to-1 in boys versus girls. There’s some thinking that autism presents in more subtle fashion in girls. But the rule of thumb is that 4-1 ratio that was observed in 1942 and is still observed today. Over the last decade or so we’ve heard a lot about Asperger’s syndrome. Can you tell us what makes it distinctive, and its relationship to artists? Do lay people understand it, or are there misconceptions about Asperger’s? I think the popular conception has a lot of validity to it: It’s not only a disability, that can be limiting in life, but can also come with some real gifts – intellectual talents, musical talents, creative talents, originality in thinking. It’s a kind of brain wiring that one might want to consider a good way to be, in some ways. The experience of a lot of people with Asperger’s syndrome is that it’s hard to get along socially; that’s definitely a negative for it. The anti-vaccination movement has been strange to watch, as the public reaction and the science have gone in two different directions. How does this fit into the larger story of autism and its history? The vaccine episode was basically a negative, with one exception: It gave the general public an awareness of autism that it had never had before, because it scared everybody. It got them to think, “My family doesn’t have anything to do with autism, but maybe it will if I get my kid vaccinated.” The one positive thing about that story is it popularized awareness of autism. All of the rest was negative in that it eroded confidence in the vaccine program; it eroded trust in science, it was a highly contentious and divisive issue in the autism community. There was no real vindicating research when the question [of autism’s relationship to vaccination] was first raised. But then research began to be undertaken, between 2004 and 2008, to show that vaccines were not causing autism. So the story sort of stops and ends with the science as far as we’re concerned. And unfortunately it stole a lot of attention from much more important things that needed to be talked about.Autism has been in the news so much over the last few years that it’s amazing to think that a bit more than 80 years ago, it didn’t exist. Or rather, it didn’t have a name or identity of any kind. That changed when a Mississippi boy named Donald Tripplett took a train to Baltimore to meet the child psychiatrist Leo Kanner. Between then and now, autism has become better known and understood. Recent years have also seen a fascination with people who are “on the spectrum” and their mathematical and musical abilities (see this new Atlantic story). But there have also been strange episodes along the way: Children being dosed with LSD, mothers being told they had caused their child’s autism, and, most recently, the anti-vaccination movement led by Jenny McCarthy and other paranoids who insist that children’s shots are provoking the disorder. A new book looks at the whole span of it: “In a Different Key: The Story of Autism” comes from the ABC correspondent John Donvan and television news journalist Caren Zucker. We spoke to Donvan; the interview has been lightly edited for clarity. Is the large narrative of autism, from Donald Tripplett to the present, largely one of social progress, with zigs and zags along the way? Yes, I think the arc, the really big tidal pull, is in the direction of things getting better, in terms of understanding and acceptance – with some potholes along the way. One of those was the way people shamed mothers. How long did that last, and how did it work out? There was a 35-year-long dominance of why children had autism: It kicked off in 1949, which can be spotted in a Time magazine article, quoting Leo Kanner… He said the odd and cold behavior he’d seen in the parents was quite likely responsible for causing the kids to experience such extreme emotional traumas that they withdrew from the world as a defense mechanism. This was an essential driver in autism. That idea fit in very neatly with psychiatry in general: All psychiatric illness was considered to be traumatic interactions with other people. Mothers were blamed also for schizophrenia, so it fit in with the times. Kanner suggested that kids were born with autism, but it didn’t get much traction. So he moved to this other position – that the parents played a role. The idea grew and grew, and it finally faded out. The impact that this accusation had on the mothers was absolutely devastating, because not only do they have a child who’s got such challenges, but they’re told that it’s their “fault,” that they did something wrong. Women who had the money and were in a milieu like New York were told they had to get themselves analyzed: They had to go to therapy themselves. So the mothers were treated instead of the kids… It was a total nightmare scenario. Speaking of gender, autism is rumored to be more common in boys. Is that so, and why might that be? Yes – it’s about 4-to-1 in boys versus girls. There’s some thinking that autism presents in more subtle fashion in girls. But the rule of thumb is that 4-1 ratio that was observed in 1942 and is still observed today. Over the last decade or so we’ve heard a lot about Asperger’s syndrome. Can you tell us what makes it distinctive, and its relationship to artists? Do lay people understand it, or are there misconceptions about Asperger’s? I think the popular conception has a lot of validity to it: It’s not only a disability, that can be limiting in life, but can also come with some real gifts – intellectual talents, musical talents, creative talents, originality in thinking. It’s a kind of brain wiring that one might want to consider a good way to be, in some ways. The experience of a lot of people with Asperger’s syndrome is that it’s hard to get along socially; that’s definitely a negative for it. The anti-vaccination movement has been strange to watch, as the public reaction and the science have gone in two different directions. How does this fit into the larger story of autism and its history? The vaccine episode was basically a negative, with one exception: It gave the general public an awareness of autism that it had never had before, because it scared everybody. It got them to think, “My family doesn’t have anything to do with autism, but maybe it will if I get my kid vaccinated.” The one positive thing about that story is it popularized awareness of autism. All of the rest was negative in that it eroded confidence in the vaccine program; it eroded trust in science, it was a highly contentious and divisive issue in the autism community. There was no real vindicating research when the question [of autism’s relationship to vaccination] was first raised. But then research began to be undertaken, between 2004 and 2008, to show that vaccines were not causing autism. So the story sort of stops and ends with the science as far as we’re concerned. And unfortunately it stole a lot of attention from much more important things that needed to be talked about.Autism has been in the news so much over the last few years that it’s amazing to think that a bit more than 80 years ago, it didn’t exist. Or rather, it didn’t have a name or identity of any kind. That changed when a Mississippi boy named Donald Tripplett took a train to Baltimore to meet the child psychiatrist Leo Kanner. Between then and now, autism has become better known and understood. Recent years have also seen a fascination with people who are “on the spectrum” and their mathematical and musical abilities (see this new Atlantic story). But there have also been strange episodes along the way: Children being dosed with LSD, mothers being told they had caused their child’s autism, and, most recently, the anti-vaccination movement led by Jenny McCarthy and other paranoids who insist that children’s shots are provoking the disorder. A new book looks at the whole span of it: “In a Different Key: The Story of Autism” comes from the ABC correspondent John Donvan and television news journalist Caren Zucker. We spoke to Donvan; the interview has been lightly edited for clarity. Is the large narrative of autism, from Donald Tripplett to the present, largely one of social progress, with zigs and zags along the way? Yes, I think the arc, the really big tidal pull, is in the direction of things getting better, in terms of understanding and acceptance – with some potholes along the way. One of those was the way people shamed mothers. How long did that last, and how did it work out? There was a 35-year-long dominance of why children had autism: It kicked off in 1949, which can be spotted in a Time magazine article, quoting Leo Kanner… He said the odd and cold behavior he’d seen in the parents was quite likely responsible for causing the kids to experience such extreme emotional traumas that they withdrew from the world as a defense mechanism. This was an essential driver in autism. That idea fit in very neatly with psychiatry in general: All psychiatric illness was considered to be traumatic interactions with other people. Mothers were blamed also for schizophrenia, so it fit in with the times. Kanner suggested that kids were born with autism, but it didn’t get much traction. So he moved to this other position – that the parents played a role. The idea grew and grew, and it finally faded out. The impact that this accusation had on the mothers was absolutely devastating, because not only do they have a child who’s got such challenges, but they’re told that it’s their “fault,” that they did something wrong. Women who had the money and were in a milieu like New York were told they had to get themselves analyzed: They had to go to therapy themselves. So the mothers were treated instead of the kids… It was a total nightmare scenario. Speaking of gender, autism is rumored to be more common in boys. Is that so, and why might that be? Yes – it’s about 4-to-1 in boys versus girls. There’s some thinking that autism presents in more subtle fashion in girls. But the rule of thumb is that 4-1 ratio that was observed in 1942 and is still observed today. Over the last decade or so we’ve heard a lot about Asperger’s syndrome. Can you tell us what makes it distinctive, and its relationship to artists? Do lay people understand it, or are there misconceptions about Asperger’s? I think the popular conception has a lot of validity to it: It’s not only a disability, that can be limiting in life, but can also come with some real gifts – intellectual talents, musical talents, creative talents, originality in thinking. It’s a kind of brain wiring that one might want to consider a good way to be, in some ways. The experience of a lot of people with Asperger’s syndrome is that it’s hard to get along socially; that’s definitely a negative for it. The anti-vaccination movement has been strange to watch, as the public reaction and the science have gone in two different directions. How does this fit into the larger story of autism and its history? The vaccine episode was basically a negative, with one exception: It gave the general public an awareness of autism that it had never had before, because it scared everybody. It got them to think, “My family doesn’t have anything to do with autism, but maybe it will if I get my kid vaccinated.” The one positive thing about that story is it popularized awareness of autism. All of the rest was negative in that it eroded confidence in the vaccine program; it eroded trust in science, it was a highly contentious and divisive issue in the autism community. There was no real vindicating research when the question [of autism’s relationship to vaccination] was first raised. But then research began to be undertaken, between 2004 and 2008, to show that vaccines were not causing autism. So the story sort of stops and ends with the science as far as we’re concerned. And unfortunately it stole a lot of attention from much more important things that needed to be talked about.
January 16, 2016
Baby born in Hawaii with Zika virus
HONOLULU (AP) — A baby born in an Oahu hospital has tested positive for the mosquito-borne Zika virus.
Health officials say there is no risk of transmission in Hawaii, where there has never been a case of a person acquiring Zika in the state. Six people have acquired the virus in other countries since 2014.
Common symptoms can last up to a week and include fever, rash, joint pain and conjunctivitis.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the mother was likely infected while in Brazil in May 2015.
Voice of America News reports (http://bit.ly/1WjnD2r ) that the baby has suffered brain damage. The virus has been linked to a recent surge in birth defects including microcephaly, a rare condition in which newborns have smaller than normal heads and their brains do not develop properly.
