Why did two Missouri Democrats in Congress vote against a disaster relief bill?
The Kansas City Star, Dec. 22
The sad use of federal disaster aid as a political football continues.
On Thursday, the House passed an $81 billion disaster relief bill designed to help victims of 2017 hurricanes and wildfires. The vote was 251-169.
Nine out of 10 Republicans from Kansas and Missouri voted for the measure. That’s interesting since most of them opposed a much smaller disaster relief bill in September.
At the time, most said they voted no because the disaster money was attached to a bill raising the debt ceiling. They wanted to use the vote to reduce Washington’s red ink, not expand it.
The excuse was ridiculous. It seems doubly suspicious now because the $81 billion wasn’t offset by other spending cuts, either.
The Democrats from Missouri? Reps. Emanuel Cleaver and William Lacy Clay voted against the $81 billion, which is shameful and hypocritical. Kansas City and St. Louis have sought federal disaster relief in the past and will do so again.
Lawmakers offer explanations for these votes, but they’re really just excuses for abandoning Americans in need. It’s a horrible way to run a government and particularly tragic when it threatens essential help for our neighbors. Congress should knock it off.
Editorial: Administration censors science for the sake of ’community standards and wishes’
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Dec. 26
The Trump word police are knocking at the door of science with a troubling list of usage do’s and don’ts. Top Trump administration officials have suggested that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention scrub seven supposedly hot-button words in budget proposals that will be circulated in the federal government.
The goal isn’t to improve communication or ensure better health care outcomes. Given the list of words, it’s clear the administration seeks to muddle meanings and censor language based on pure politics.
The prohibited words and phrases are “fetus,” ’’vulnerable,” ’’transgender,” ’’diversity,” ’’entitlement,” ’’science-based” and “evidence-based.” For the last two phrases, the suggested alternative is: “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes.”
We shudder to think what that means, because it suggests that science and research-driven evidence alone might no longer govern policy within the nation’s premier source of health and science information. If an ill-defined “community” wishes for a policy that differs from science, the censors suggest, the community’s wishes could ultimately hold sway. Which community decides? Will there be a poll?
It’s doubly disturbing that the CDC is being told to avoid specific words to appease conservative lawmakers who control the budget.
The dean of Boston University’s School of Public Health said the censorship also reveals the administration’s priorities. “If you are saying you cannot use words like ’transgender’ and ’diversity,’ it’s a clear statement that you cannot pay attention to these issues,” said Dr. Sandro Galea.
Some State Department documents now refer to sex education as “sexual risk avoidance,” The Washington Post reports.
Even before censors stepped in, the CDC enjoyed strong bipartisan support on Capitol Hill because its mission has been to save lives by responding to infectious disease outbreaks, such as Ebola and Zika, and tracking chronic diseases and health problems. The administration appears to be telling researchers and scientists not to explore certain areas and not to work too hard to save certain lives.
CDC’s $7 billion discretionary budget faced dramatic reductions of more than $1 billion under a White House budget proposed in May. More than 12,000 people work for the CDC around the world.
Officials at the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the CDC, said accusations of censorship are a mischaracterization of discussions about the budget process.
But a clear pattern of behavior by the Trump administration preceded this: persistent fabrications, unwillingness to acknowledge shared facts and efforts to minimize the significance of science. At the same time, Environmental Protection Agency employees’ emails are being monitored to determine whether they have mentioned agency administrator Scott Pruitt or Trump or have communicated with Democrats in Congress.
Intimidating scientists and skewing word choices for political purposes marks a dangerous step that even a president as unrestrained as Donald Trump takes at his peril.
Just say no to bland anti-drug messaging
Springfield News-Leader, Dec. 20
It’s difficult for an adult to convince teenagers of just about anything, but the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse seems an especially steep climb.
Parents certainly have the leading role in that mission, but schools have an opportunity to lend a powerful helping hand.
Most in-school programs over the years have proven to be ineffective. Eyes rolled during lessons in health class and classmates snickered during DARE presentations.
Scientific studies have backed up that seemingly universal anecdote.
The Center for Prevention Research studied 23 elementary schools in the DARE program - which stands for Drug Abuse Resistance Education and typically involves specially trained police officers explaining the risks of drug use.
Those schools, along with others that are not using the DARE program, were studied for five years, and the center found no difference in cigarette, alcohol or marijuana use approximately one year after completion of the program.
Even when there were short-term improvements, the study found there was a “general tendency for curriculum effects to decay over time.”
The National Institute of Justice also reviewed the program and found that while it was very effective at “placing drug use education” in schools, it was not very good at “accomplishing its mission to prevent drug use among 5th- and 6th-grade pupils.”
Experts have further studied why similar programs haven’t been successful, and the consensus is that the warnings were often over the top and thus didn’t seem credible.
And while repetition can help information stick in a student’s memory, many programs were so repetitive as to become white noise.
Those kinds of programs are not much like what Kickapoo High School students experienced last week, when a former NBA player and addict talked about his lifelong struggles with drugs and alcohol.
As he explained how cocaine, prescription pills and heroin stunted his career and nearly ended his life, the audience was captivated.
A News-Leader story about the event noted it was “so quiet at times, (Chris Herren) didn’t need the microphone. The sounds of students crying could be heard.”
No one is under the assumption that every student who listened to Herren’s presentation will avoid the traps of substance abuse, but there’s some evidence - through the students’ attention - that it was more impactful than the usual programs.
Schools probably can’t bring in powerful speakers, let alone former professional athletes, each month to deliver anti-drug messages. But that’s kind of the point.
For years, we’ve seen how the drumbeat of “just say no” has become memorable but uninspiring.
Perhaps what we need in anti-drug education is less quantity and more quality.
That idea was wrapped up neatly in the response of one student, Destinee King, who was among those students crying during the speech.
“I definitely came in expecting it to be another drug assembly,” she said.
We’re glad King got more than she hoped for, and we hope school leaders take that to heart as they continue to find the right messages.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.