Friday, June 13, 2008 - Posts
-
Last week, John McCain made a comment that still has everyone scratching their heads. During his speech in New Orleans, he described ways in which our country should prepare for natural disasters, including this one: “We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies.” (Video here.)
The questions are so numerous, it’s hard to know where to start. Why give hot water to babies? Wouldn’t they prefer cold water if they’re dehydrated? Would you heat the water before bottling it, or after? Wouldn’t that melt the plastic slightly? These questions and more have been pondered across the blogs.
It’s especially bizarre because the word hot isn’t in the text of the speech. McCain inserted it himself.
We asked around for possible explanations. Perhaps babies need to have their liquids hot before a certain age? “No,” said Dr. Jeffrey W. Hull, a pediatrician in Decatur, Ala. “Babies don’t need to drink their stuff hot. … He might be thinking in terms of warm water for cooking food for babies.” But not to drink.
In fact, babies under six months aren’t supposed to drink water at all. Babies’ kidneys aren’t mature, which means sodium can get flushed out when they drink, putting them at risk of water intoxication, Dr. Jennifer Anders told Reuters last month.
But maybe disaster relief organizations sometimes deliver hot water, right? Red Cross spokeswoman Lesly Simmons, who was in New Orleans during the Hurricane Katrina relief effort, says she’s never heard of that. “Bottled water, that’s something we tend pass out,” she said. “But hot water’s never been a focus of a disaster relief operation.” Emergency-relief vehicles will drive around distributing food, snacks, and drinks. Sometimes the water is chilled, but it’s never hot. “It’s always too hot to be giving out hot water,” Simmons said.
Maybe McCain meant to say boiled water? “You certainly want to give babies clean things,” said Jane Crouse of La Leche League International, an organization devoted to breast-feeding. “So if there is a question as to the water’s purity, what are you supposed to do in an emergency? Boil your water.”
Of course, that doesn’t explain the bottles. Or the babies. Or the fact that he said “hot,” not “boiled.”
The McCain campaign did not respond to e-mails asking for comment.
Update June 16, 3:03 p.m.: Fray contributor Arthur Ether offers a plausible explanation:
Older Americans know what a "hot water bottle" is...it's rubber, you
fill it with hot water and use it to ease your aches and pains at
night. Perhaps McCain saw the words "water" and "bottle" and scrambled
it up from there.
-
Ralph Nader rocketed back into the spotlight Wednesday after disgraced ex-NBA ref Tim Donaghy alleged that Game 6 of the 2002 Lakers-Kings series was rigged—a charge Nader (and, well, just about everyone with a pair of eyes) has been making since it happened. Now, with his umpteenth presidential campaign gearing up, Nader has managed to turn his moment of vindication into a media tour. He announced via press release that “even when it comes to the NBA playoffs, Ralph was right.” He spoke to ESPN about his crusade to reform sports officiating. He even found time to share some thoughts with Trailhead.
Nader slamming the NBA sounds much like Nader slamming any malfeasant company: It’s a “corporate dictatorship” that cares more about the bottom line than its consumers—or in this case, fans. The problem, he explains, is “there’s no process to explain to the fans when the line has been crossed.” Players can be fined for objecting to a ref’s call. Coaches and owners get penalties, too. “If you have pattern of behavior not inscribed by law,” he says, “it becomes insidious, there’s no way out.”
Nader has a solution. He’s urging the NBA to create an independent panel that would review referee selections. Company men would be sussed out; fans would feel reassured. But should the NBA really have the government meddling in its officiating? Nader says it’s all about the consumer: “Without the fans, there wouldn’t be an operation.” Likewise, he recommends that the nondisparagement clause—the NBA rule that prohibits players from complaining about a call—should only apply during the season, not the finals.
The timing for Nader couldn’t be better. A recent survey showed the independent presidential candidate polling at a not-inconsiderable 6 percent. It looks as if he’ll be on the ballot in Colorado, and he has applied to appear on the ballots of at least three other states as well.
Nader doesn’t expect to make sports officiating a big part of his platform—at least no more than any other local issue. But it’s certainly higher on his priority list than on his opponents’. “They’d never get involved in a local sports issue,” he says. “That’s considered a total loser. Hillary was for the Yankees and the Cubs, right?”
Meanwhile, Nader is pushing to be included in this year’s debates, particularly the summer town halls being negotiated by Obama and McCain, as well as debates hosted by Google. He dismisses concerns that he’d be a spoiler for the Dems: “I’m concerned about the votes I lose to them,” he says. “If I have an equal right to run for election, there’s no concern. None of us are spoilers or all of us are spoilers.”
And this year, Democrats can’t blame Nader alone for upsetting the two-party system. Bob Barr is running on the Libertarian Party ticket, which could presumably suck away GOP voters. Nader points to a double standard: “How can liberals say Nader shouldn’t run without saying Bob Barr shouldn’t?”
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?