Beyond The Political Spectrum

Religion…Enough With This S***! (…or, “You People Taking This Way Too Seriously!”), Conclusion

2012-03-09T12:48:00.008-05:00

Religion is one of those things which is something of an mystery to me. Logically, I understand that it is (supposedly) a path toward spiritual enlightenment for those whose souls cry out for some level of harmonious existence within the chaos of a world full of upheaval of every stripe. However, as I try to grasp the way it is practiced, I tend to see a manner of thinking among its adherents which makes me question its usefulness in the Grand Scheme. No doubt, many individuals like myself who question the disconnect between what supposedly religious individuals say and do see a gulf between the preaching and practice of proclaimed faith that at times seems to span infinity.
Last month, Muslims in Afghanistan—including Afghani military personnel—who took offense to the accidental burning of copies of the Koran, took their vengeance out on six U.S. servicemen (the same servicemen who helped to liberate their country from the oppressively “religious” Taliban régime) by gunning them down, while at the same time illustrating their frustration with the American presence in the country.
Recent news items have spotlighted the African-based ethnic insurgency calling itself “The Lord’s Resistance Army,” which has been engaged in human rights abuses that includes the forced conscription of male children, and the forced prostitution of female women and children since the late 1980s. Led by a self-proclaimed “spokesperson for God” Joseph Kony, the movement claims among its aims, to be working towards the establishment of a theocratic state in Uganda (although recent news reports fail to disclose that the LRA was mostly driven out of Uganda. And like many spiritually “enlightened” and “holy” movements before it, uses the most reprehensible tactics in its effort to impose its view of the world on others…the least of which include kidnapping, rape, murder, and object-lesson mutilations.
And in America, so-called “Christians” have impugned the religious convictions of President Obama to levels which transcend simple disrespect, including by those seeking to replace him as Commander-in-Chief in the upcoming November 2012 elections.
A few years ago, the president was forced to quickly distance himself from controversial words (as well as membership in the church) of his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright of Chicago, whose fiery videotaped sermons condemning America for its historical mistreatment of African-Americans led to further demonization of the president.
When it’s all said and done, like many things in American politics (and indeed, in the personal lives of many individuals), religion is a tool…a means to an end, to be used as any other. And in the hands of adept politicians and manipulators, it has become every bit as effective a weapon as mudslinging, character assassination, and labeling those to they are opposed to.
Take the current Republican primary for example. Last month, Republican presidential primary candidate Rick Santorum attacked President Obama’s worldview, stating that the president had a “phone theology,” and not a theology “based on the Bible. The ethnocentric nature of Santorum’s remarks notwithstanding, the freedom of religion right of the First Amendment in no way either promotes, nor compels the president or any American to choose one religious belief over another. But when rightfully challenged on this point, individuals like Santorum and his Evangelical brethren most often will reflect the argument back on individuals by implying a level of religious persecution against those who support and share his beliefs.
The fact of the matter is that the secular state is not anti-religious (although the same cannot be said for secular culture). The separation of church and state was designed to protect religious liberties, not promote them. However, religious zealots like Santorum tend to purposefully distort this reality, equating the absence of (any) religious influence in public policy and the effort to maintain the separation of church and state with an active effort to suppress religious liberties. It’s a disingenuous tactic at best, and it simply plays to the ignorance of those who rely on sound bites and talking heads to shape their thinking, as well as caters to those who perceptions and understanding may be similarly distorted and seeking validation of their beliefs.
Former Pennsylvania Senator and Republican presidential primary candidate Rick Santorum,

Religions and their respective doctrinal precepts among their believers—along with human emotions—have done enough to create social and political divisions all over the world since the introduction of monotheism. And sadly, most adherents do not even stop to think about their beliefs and why they embrace them. In most cases, they are merely choosing to believe what they learned from their parent, and their parents before them, and so on. And even in the rare instances where individuals are able to separate themselves from the socialization (or is it “indoctrination”) into their belief systems, they still tend to ignore the purpose of following a particular spiritual path in the first place—to enlighten their souls and to create a level of respect and co-existence with their fellow human beings. In theory, religion is supposed to make believers better individuals. But human ambitions being what they are, have spurred believers to take what are supposed to be spiritual precepts—guideposts for creating better lives and better living—and turn them into yet another means of obtaining what they want. There seems to be just as many confused, duplicitous, and troubled individuals who function under the auspices of “believers” as they appear to be among their “secular” counterparts.
And when these dynamics are thrown into the arena of politics, you get what we have today—a society fragmented along so many ideological lines where arguments and counter-arguments seems to be the goal of governing, not the creation of substantive policies that make lives better. Religion in politics has been used to justify everything from war, support of the death penalty, and abortion clinic bombings, to racism, gay marriage, and rejecting universally affordable health care. And we are the adults.And we are supposedly the adults...
Imagine if the 1962 decision to ban prayer and religious worship in our public schools had not been enacted; our children and their schools would be every bit as socially fractured as our society and our political arenas (in retrospect, great idea).
I suppose that when it comes to religion, who needs "clear thinking" when people have their faith?

Religion…Enough With This S***! (…or, “You People Taking This Way Too Seriously!”), Part 1

2012-03-02T07:49:00.022-05:00

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."
--Steven Weinberg

As an agnostic, I have to admit that I have no way of putting myself in the cultural shoes or the socialized mindsets of individuals so obsessed with, and so fanatically devoted to their religious beliefs that they often engage in behavior which—contradictorily—turns the very precepts of their beliefs on their heads. The only way that my mind can even try to grasp how people can have such myopic fidelity to their beliefs is by likening it to the unshakable certainty a small child has for believing that the Boogey Man awaits them in the room at the end of the dark hallway in which they are expected to enter…and that they are better off basking in the “safety” of what they can see. Perhaps a similarly skeptical reader can wax a more eloquent analogy on the level of understanding it takes for how and why people are able to place so much faith in the unseen, unknowable, and the unverifiable that they willingly surrender their ability to reason beyond their fears or feelings.
And although over the centuries, wiser, more intelligent individuals than myself have sought many times before to attempt to interjection some sanity into the thinking of such Godly individuals, events in recent months have compelled me—at the risk of further isolating regular readers—to write about how individuals have co-opted the already questionable concept of religion…to the detriment of informed thinking and society in general.
The current upheaval in Afghanistan provides an excellent example of how much blind adherence to religious dogma impairs judgment, reveals both intolerance and hypocrisy, and promotes social disharmony.
The recent protests and violence among Afghanis as a result of the accidental burning of Korans—the holy book of the Muslim faith—by low-ranking U.S. Army officials has been ranging for the past two weeks. As of this writing, some six U.S. service personnel have been killed by those protesting the burning of the venerated texts. And despite an apology by President Obama to both the government and the people of Afghanistan, the violent outcry continues, with protesters rejecting the apology and even burning effigies of the president.

Protesters in Afghanistan burning an effigy of President Obama, following the president's apology to the Afghani people over the U.S. military's accidental burning of confiscated Korans.

Taken from detained suspected militants, the holy books were seized by military officials because it was believed that the militants were using them to send messages among each other. The Korans were then accidentally disposed of in a manner offensive to Muslims—by burning them.
Despite the various cultural disconnects and misunderstandings surrounding the issue, the dynamics of the mistake are somewhat understandable…at least to those who are capable of thinking beyond blind devotion and an almost psychotic—if not oftentimes hypocritical—respect for a particular religious belief. Americans for the most part are not very privy to the understanding of cultures beyond our own. And sadly, this lack of understanding carries over to many within the various American military branches.
Additionally, many Americans—especially those in the military—cannot understand that many cultures see Americans as incapable of error, in a manner of speaking. Considering that no other country exports many aspects of its culture to the point where we are emulated the world over, that we are the only country to ever have put a man on the moon, have conquered many diseases which still plague countries like Afghanistan, and that we possess the mightiest military on the planet, Afghanis can—if erroneously—reasonably conclude that any country with such know-how is capable of such behavior only as a matter of intent.
But this is not to say that the Muslim people of Afghanistan are without fault. They are killing U.S. servicemen—the same soldiers who helped liberate their country from the brutally oppressive theocratic Taliban regime—because like Evangelical Christians in this country, Muslims in the Arab World worship their particular interpretation of God (and all things spiritually-related) with hair-trigger sensitivity to perceived “affronts.” So much so that many adherents forget that they owe American soldiers who sacrificed life and (in many cases) limb to give them a shot at a life outside of theocratic oppression.
And like their Christian counterparts here in America, Muslims in Afghanistan seem to embrace a level of thinking which, instead of promoting understanding, tolerance, charity, and forgiveness, seems to promote selective kind of each.
The problem I’ve observed with such single-minded adherence to these beliefs is that adherents often start to actually believe themselves as correctly representing their faiths, instead of the distortions of reality they tend to become. More so, these individuals tend to engage in questionable actions that are more often the manifestations of secular considerations rather than benevolently following spiritual precepts. Such individuals often act mostly out of anger (for not being “respected,”), fear (of being overwhelmed and/or feeling powerlessness in a world of more powerful and influential people exist), pride (in many cases, wounded by some slight), or because they presume to be following the “word/will of God. These motivations tend to reinforce a notion of self-righteousness which blinds adherents to the notion of questioning their own actions, or of seeing some contradictions in their actions. This religious soap boxing is how Muslims are able to convince themselves that those who do not share their personal convictions are “infidels” to support self-serving jihad against them.
We see this same dynamic often in America, where politically active left-leaning Progressives and Evangelical conservative Christians are often convinced of the righteousness of their various causes based on their personal religious convictions (or rather, their interpretations of such). It’s how those with politically right-leaning politics can accuse those on the left of being “Godless liberals,” while leftists can point out conservative “aspirations” of turning America into a theocracy (which admittedly at times seems that way). This is why those on either side of hot-button political issues like gay marriage can claim either that “God is gay,” or “God hates fags,” depending on one’s secular ideological—not spiritual—bent.
In America, religious beliefs tend to be more of a secondary consideration with regards to public and/or social policy. They may provide a driving impetus for these policies, but make no mistake…political power, aspirations, and one-upmanship is the primary consideration.
Just by observing the current Republican primary process, we can see how invoking the idea of divine intervention among the various candidates—both past and present—is meant to sway those who would vote for them in the name of political aspirations. Former Republican primary candidates Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, and Herman Cain all have said that “God wants/called me to run for president” (apparently, “God” wanted these individuals to just run for the highest office in the land, but not to actually assume the post).

Political commentator LZ Granderson talks about candidates "called to run by God" recently in CNN.

Simply as a matter of common sense, God cannot be on everyone’s side when it comes to beliefs, motivations, and/or actions. And as a matter of experience with human beings, invoking religious backing and/or the idea of God in matters of personal desire is usually done as a justification for actions which adversely affects others.

To be concluded...

The You Tube Father's Laptop Shooting - You Go, Boy!

2012-02-19T12:22:00.010-05:00

So by now, everyone who is interested has seen the now viral video of the North Carolina father who posted a video on You Tube of himself railing on his teenage daughter, ending with his melodramatic shooting up a laptop belonging—or rather formerly so—to her. The video, which father Tommy Jordan posted, was a response to his 15-year-old daughter’s Facebook-posted profanity-laden diatribe against her own parents for it appears, holding her to reasonable expectations as a child living under the responsibility, the authority, and the roof of her parents.

Setting aside the twin truths that: (1) I have been working with kids and teens in one form or fashion for the last decade or so, and am well aware of their narcissistic perspectives; and (2) that I am quite familiar with how often most of today’s teenagers exaggerate occurrences involving themselves, I am more than inclined to take the father at his word after watching the video—even without hearing the daughter’s side of the story. The simple fact is that today’s American youth—outside of each other’s approval—don’t respect a whole lot, especially the inherent and actual authority of adults, including their parents. To today’s teens, rules are merely suggestions and when they [routinely] break rules, they are often coddled by a justice system already overwhelmed with dealing with adult crimes.
After reading multiple online articles and posts about the shootings myself, it seems that public opinion is pretty split down the middle for support and condemnation of the father’s actions.
Regular readers to Beyond The Political Spectrum already know where I personally stand on the issue of parental disciplining of noncompliant and rebellious children; the Old School way of bringing up children is simply the best, the most result-proven way. Under the Old School regime of raising children, there was social consensus for the parent’s right to occasionally whip unruly children, including among law-enforcement and the courts…as long as parents didn’t cross the line into abuse. During those times, “abuse” was more narrowly-defined, prohibiting such blatant actions resulting in major physical trauma, such as cigarette burns, choking, broken limbs, and/or otherwise adversely affecting the child’s long-term physical health (by comparison, “abuse” today constitutes anything that may result in a broken fingernail or leaves a bad thought in a child’s head).
The direct parenting of the old ways enforced compliance with curfews, the authority of adults (especially parents and teachers), compelled school attendance and in most cases, academic performance, and cavorting with familiars (back in those days, if parents didn’t know a child’s friend or their parents, children weren’t allowed to play with them). Children didn’t expect everything to be given to them on a whim. Chores were performed based on nonnegotiable expectations. Substance abuse was the exception, not the rule, as direct parenting made parents well aware of their children’s proclivities and inclinations. Those with overly-liberal attitudes toward raising children—those who invariably condemn Jordan’s actions—can only blame themselves for how today’s children have turned out. “Sanctions” are limited to talking to children in a “therapeutic” manner (which flies in the face of logic; if such “solutions” were in fact valid, then we wouldn’t jail adults for breaking the law…we’d talk to them). We often make unjustified excuses for their actions. Half of us whine and scream, “Abuse” if parents even raise their voices at chronically unruly children, affecting the half of responsible parents who do believe in being given a free hand to raise their children in a manner they deem appropriate. It’s hard to imagine that many Americans either don’t remember, or don’t yearn for those relatively better parenting experiences.
Those who condemn the North Carolina’s father’s actions are simply not looking at the big picture; he could have just as well put the bullets in his daughter for publicly disrespecting her and his wife as responsible parents. But for showing restraint—and innovative thinking—as a parent in dealing with today's often disrespectful, ungrateful, lazy, and unmotivated youth, I say...you go, boy!

Yes Virginia, There ARE "Lazy Americans!" (Conclusion)

2012-02-18T12:12:00.002-05:00

Continued from Part 2

Let’s see now…we’ve explored the myth that Americans are not lazy from different perspectives. Americans are lazy when it comes to our children’ education. We routinely lower the educational standards instead of public school instead of raising expectations. We lazily teach for standardized testing instead of simply teaching concepts which foster academic literacy. We allow our children to routinely disrespect or even assault, teachers and staff in our public schools under the excuse that they have some sort of emotional and or/or psychological “condition.” We lazily tolerate particularly disruptive children to sap away the opportunity for the more stable children in our classrooms, under the mistaken belief that they have some sort of “right” to be there—bringing others down to their selfish level of uncaring and. We allow schools to adopt the misguided mandate to cater to students “needs’ rather than following the mandate to teach them. As a result, many students simply do not care if they pass their classes, as their poorly done work attest to.
Much of the laziness we produce in students/children is due lack of support in the home. As a former long-term substitute teacher in public schools, I witnessed many parent-teacher conference days where only one or two parents would actually show up to express concern for their children’ academic progress. Many of us lazily raise our children to embrace things rather than ideas. And they invariably develop an entitlement mentality rather than a sense of duty, an appreciation for hard work paying off, and a lack of patience; they want everything given to them now; perish forbid they’d have to actually make an effort and work for what they want. We permit them to smoke, drink, and otherwise become addicted to both substance abuse, and half-hearted efforts for most things which do not product instantaneous (and desirable) results. We defend their poor decision-making as being the result of having “issues.” We allow their intransigence to become the norm that we as adults have to adapt to, instead of the other way around.And in our relationships, laziness within ourselves prevents us—at every conceivable point—from not only finding who is good for us, but from making relationships work and/or last. The choice to personally mismanage our feelings as well as our mental well-beings has contributed mightily to our emotional laziness, which contributes to our high divorce rates and depression resulting from chronically-failed relationships.But our laziness does not stop here.

Financial/EconomicLaziness

Given how close the country—indeed the world—came to the totalcollapse of the current economic regime, our sluggishness when it comes tomatters of finance mirrors that of other aspects of our society. For starters, Americans—despite high rates of unemployment, housing foreclosures, anddiscontent with the economy—are investing in personal savings at almost historicallylow rates; some 3.6% of disposable income (“Savings Rate Is Dropping, and Experts Are Puzzled”),which was a minor contributor to the financial crisis of recent times. A major aspect of our lazy attitudes is ourpropensity to avoid putting off gratification, preferring instead to indulgeourselves in terms of raw consumption. Granted, some of the spending is done “to cover necessities like medicalbills and gasoline,” Americans also tend to spend money on frivolity such ashigh-end designer clothing and shoes, gourmet coffees, cigarettes, lotterytickets, recreational drugs, and fancy automobile trappings—money which couldotherwise easily be saved in interest-bearing accounts. The live-for-todayspending we tend to indulge in is a modern-day variation of the Ant and the Grasshopper…with no thoughtsabout not only saving for rainy days and/or retirement, but basicinvestment. This is especially true forindividuals in the lower- and lower-middle classes.

Another consequence of our laziness and our lack ofmotivation to save is that many of those who simple were not “designed” to workfor others—that is, those who desire to work for themselves—are not willing toput forth the effort that it takes to establish our own businesses (and no, I’mnot talking about internet start-ups). While it is true that national chainstores have taken some of the sting out of purchasing high costs items such agroceries for the typical family, they have done little in the way of fosteringthe sense of economic independence for the individual who simply wants to be hisown boss and control his own time. As achild growing up in both Chicago, and later in Michigan, I can remember beingable to walk to numerous stores in my neighborhood(s) and buying whatever mylittle heart so desired—when I hadthe money. Whether it was to buy a soda,pick up a drug prescription, or a quick run to buy a can of tomato paste torush back for my anxiously waiting mother, it was a given that there was alwaysa neighborhood market, store, or small shop owned and operated by Mr. or Mr.So-and-So. In many cases, they werepeople I could identify with on many levels. In some cases, I went to school with the stores owners’ children. But now, and at the risk of soundingethnically-insensitive or intolerant, most neighborhood stores are owned byrecent immigrants to America…those who have aggressively filled the vacuum of entrepreneurialmotivation once held by those born here. Unwilling to work and maintain a semblance of economic independence, manynative-born Americans, especially in urban areas, have sold their livelihoodsfor a quick monetary offer, and in short order become employees (remember, manyof us do not invest or save…we simply buy things meant to impress) instead ofemployers . Now, instead of thousands ofproud Mom & Pop shops in every neighborhood, we have a landscape dotted withforeign-owned convenience stores operated and staffed by hard working familiescomprised of first-generation immigrants.

The same can be said of wage-labor positions, once proudlyheld by individuals such as my father and myself. Such physically-demanding and labor-intensivejobs, which were often on the lower-end of the pay scale, were once the onlymeans Americans could get by economically. I myself remember working on various farms in my youth…not to acquireextra spending money, but to contribute to the overall household income (alongwith my mother and siblings). Most of us who found ourselves doing this type ofwork were black, with a sprinkle of poor whites and Latino migrants. Today,most of those doing these types of jobs are immigrants—both documented and notso—from Latin America. Now this is notto say that I do not value these individuals as contributors to the melting potof America, or that I do not admire their economic tenacity and hard-work ethic.It’s just that their presence represents how quickly someone else will workwhen Americans become lazy.

In many ways, it was this same type of laziness which contributedto the financial crisis a couple of years ago. Buttressed by greed and our proclivity to want things now, many Americans failed to follow thetraditional route toward obtaining the part of the American dream that includeshome ownership. In droves, manyAmericans opted to bypass the more traditional and economically-sound practicesof working to strengthen their credit ratings and/or levels of savings, andrushed to purchase homes with a bare minimum of savings, and with credit scoreswhich shouldn’t have allowed in a banks front doors. Unwilling to put in the work to avoidqualifying for subprime mortgage loans, many were willing brave the risks of easy(but costly) credit, high (and in some cases, variable) interest, and long-termfinancial commitment (despite an unstable economy) to purchase homes theysimply could not afford. This phenomenonoccurred en masse, and the result wasa hair’s approach to a sequel to the Great Depression similar to that of the1930’s.

Summary

Despite the flack that President Obama caught late last yearfor his taken-out-of-context remark that “Americans are lazy,” he actually tolda bold truth that many refuse to accept or see. Yes, many Americans are lazy, whether it be personally, professionally, academically,or emotionally. In addition, I suppose itwould not be too late to add that many of us are lazy mentally and civically too;too many of us are too apathetic to being a part of the political process and torationally analyzing issues affecting their lives (most would rather leave evenhow their beliefs are shaped up to talking heads on pundit TV and radio). We simply cannot delay immediate gratificationfor long-term benefit. We are fat, fullof excuses, and in ill-health, ridden with preventable maladies such asdiabetes, certain cancers, and heart disease.

Many of us routinely show up late for work, do as little aspossible, and ask for too much (especially in the case of corporate officers, CEOs,and others whose “success” is built up the backs of those who do work hard).

A successful America requires the active participation of amotivated citizenry to ensure that socioeconomic equality is at the very least achievable. Any loss of freedoms, rights, or economic viability is due in partto the laziness on the part of American citizens.A successful America requires the active participation of a motivated citizenry to ensure that socioeconomic equality is at the very least achievable.

Yes Virginia, There ARE "Lazy Americans!" (Part 2)

2012-02-09T03:13:00.013-05:00

(02/09/12 - Writer's Note: I want to extend my apologies to all of the regular readers of Beyond The Political Spectrum for the delay in posting my latest items. I have just completed a major move and career change over the past couple of months, and needless to say that affected regularly timely posting. Current issues in the news have provided me with much to post about over the past couple of months, so stay tuned for more exploration of these issues).

It’s funny how some things work out. Last posting (which seems like a lifetime ago, again apologies), I chronicled how in fact, Americans were indeed lazy when, in preparing for this follow up I came across a piece in a recent edition of USAToday. The report highlighted research revealing how the internet and related technology has enabled cheating in public schools to go high-tech (“eCheating: Students Find High Tech Ways To Deceive Teachers"). It also validated my previous observation about how lazy Americans (and our children) are.
But education is not the only area where our sloth reigns.

Relationships

Perhaps no segment in American society illustrates our laziness more than our approach to relationships. Some of us change partners with greater frequency than changing our underwear, with no time in-between romps for assessing ourselves (or what went wrong in the previous relationships). Leading the way among industrialized nations, America’s divorce rate is second to none. This reality is based on, in part our laziness toward the effort it takes to make relationships last beyond our selfish realization that our partners don’t measure up to our internalized expectations. Divorce has simply become too convenient, and is the only aspect of this insanity that we are (ironically) willing to put work into.

In a time of exaggerated self-importance—exemplified, if not spurred, by the proliferation of personal web pages, personality-driven “reality” television shows (making everyday people famous-for-nothing), and You Tube—the selfishness of the me mindset has infected relationships to the point where anyone who doesn’t cater to our selfish desires and/or expectations are summarily dismissed. The institution of marriage notwithstanding, the notion of “compromise” is usually not given even a brief consideration. Men have grown too selfish and uncaring in the consideration (or lack thereof) and respect for their female significant others. While women have grown too demanding in expecting men to cater to a Hollywood-ized sense of romance, as well as selfishness in making their feelings the primary issue in relationships.
Compromise has become one of those moralistically-attractive words used by individuals who soap box about how about how relationships can be made better, but are often just as guilty in being a part of the same mindset of lazy selfishness. When we’re fed-up with our partners, many of us are too lazy to inform them that they are about to be trashed (totally unaware, in many cases, that they themselves are perpetuating a cycle whereby the dumper is doing what was done to themselves sometime prior). The feelings of another have become disposable casualties of our laziness to see or empathize beyond ourselves, work through issues, consider our partners, and/or work through our own individual issues before jumping seeking out (another) romantic relationship (why put forth such effort when it’s so much easier to blame another for either not living up to our idealized expectations or catering to our impatience). And such sloth has created a cottage industry of “relationship experts” whose private offices, magazine and newspaper columns, and television segments have multitudes of people lining up to seek their advice—instead of looking inward and applying a little common sense effort to our relationships. As with many things, we look to others to do the work we ourselves should be doing.

Child-Rearing

How we raise our children is a subject I find myself writing about often…maybe because I have spent much of the last 13 years working with and observing them. Simply put, many Americans have put the onus for instilling desirable values in their children on elements of society rather than taking personal responsibility, as common sense dictates.
During times past, when most of society shared the same level of constructive and positive family values, America as a society—institutions outside of the nuclear family comprised of schools, neighbors, churches, and extended family—could be trusted to supplement in-home child-rearing. In school, we were taught about the negative effects of alcohol and drugs use, and corporal punishment was an occasionally-used option to keep unruly and disruptive children in-line with the rest of the class. Teachers were every bit as respected by children as their parents.
Truant (or assigned police) officers could be trusted to keep a vigilant eye out for children who suddenly forgot the direction to their school.
Neighbor s didn’t mind—indeed felt obligated to—“being nosey,” and informing responsible parents about the illicit shenanigans of their children.
Respect for adult authority was a foregone conclusion.
And in the home, parents lived up to their moral (and legal) obligations to directly parent their children. Education was reinforced (and cherished) more than sports or extra-curricular activities; school attendance was closely-monitored.
Teenage pregnancies were rare occurrences which brought a level of shame to a decent family.
Responsible parents not only knew their children’ whereabouts, but the names of their friends (or at least a family member) they ran around with. They were able to look their children in the eyes and tell whether or not they were lying, so activities like drugs and cigarette smoking were non-starters.
At the time, parents didn’t coddle children in an effort to protect them from themselves. Bruises, scrapes, black eyes, even more serious potential injuries were a part of growing up. The word "no" had meaning, and children were not allowed to question "why."
Children were raised to be tough, to accept hardships as a part of reality...without whining about every little hangnail or papercut.
Children had structure, chores, an understanding for the need to work around the neighborhood in an effort to earn extra money, and a sense of duty to help keep them out of trouble.
And parents actually did the caring and raising…not video games, not cable-music television, and definitely not other individuals.
But with lazy parenting now the norm, children today have a sense of entitlement rather than duty. This is partly because lazy parents often indulge their children in order to receive momentary compliance, or as a guilt-filler for perceived deficiencies. Parents are unable to discipline their children in the traditional manner of occasional whippings because people lack the will to collectively challenge the authority of (arguably) well-intentioned but ineffective elected officials and New Age clinicians who have revised this parental obligation.
The lack of real options in sanctioning unruly children has today’s children thinking they are the equal of adults. Indeed, many children take the vacuum created by making in-school and in-home corporal punishment illegal to assert blatant disrespect and disobedience toward their parents, even verbally threatening to call the authorities if a parents dares to exercise their right to punish their defiance. It’s no wonder why so many teens become parents, equating puberty with adulthood.

Low-paid convenient store employees are expected to expand their responsibilities and take on the role of parents to police young people looking to illegally buy cigarettes.
Truancy and dropout rates have exploded, almost reflecting a level of apathy or fatalism among adults today who are not up to the task of ensuring children are attending school
Teachers are disrespected scapegoats for irresponsible and uneducated parents who expect classroom instructors to their children without parental support or discipline from home.
Doing drugs is no longer an activity to be shied away from, but—in extreme cases that I’ve seen—an activity to be shared between young people and “cool” adults…including irresponsible parents, too lazy to bother fighting against their children’ need to fit-in.
In truth, our youth are the way they are not so much as a result of the choices they make, but because of the influences of irresponsible adults, lazy parenting, and a society that has forgotten that things were better when everyone worked to make sure that young people did what right, and not concerned themselves with children liked.
Again, our quality of collective laziness crosses beyond the lines of the family and relationships.

…To Be Concluded.

Yes Virginia, There ARE "Lazy Americans!" (Part 1)

2011-11-23T07:08:00.014-05:00

Early last week, President Obama received a moderate amount of flack because of a remark he made—within the context of a speech about whether America is doing its best to compete against other economic powers globally—about how Americans have been “lazy” in regards to focusing on our economic priorities. And naturally politicians (being the creatures of opportunity they are) and other assorted talking heads wasted no time in highlighting (or rather crafting) the president’s implied lazy American “insult” in official statements and opinion pieces. Republican Party presidential nominee candidate Rick Perry has even misleadingly parlayed Obama’s “insult” into a television campaign ad.

Sadly, predictably, and ironically, taking the president’s overall message out of context to form a straw man argument is a tried and proven method for conditioning mentally lazy Americans—those who make up a great many among the potential voting electorate who don’t objectively research issues—into believing the worst of an ideological opposite. Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of employing this tactic.
But despite the distortion of the president’s message, the reality is that Americans are indeed lazy! Part of this stems from our desire to squeeze as much economic profit from so little effort or investment of what resources we have to utilize, whether they be mental, monetary, material, or spiritual resources. The remainder of the reasons derives from the erosion of the values which propelled America to the zenith of global and military dominance.
To the contrary, those in denial are usually quick to reassure us that America is [still] #1 in virtually everything we do. Common sense (with a helpful dose of reality) dictates that this isn’t true…far from it in fact. The recent trouble with Detroit’s auto industry proves this in the realm of auto manufacturing. When it comes to health care spending as a portion of a country’s gross domestic spending, other countries spend far less than America…and manage to cover the majority of their citizens—without the pretense by some political quarters that (somehow) our “rights” as citizens will be in jeopardy if all Americans are somehow covered by affordable health insurance. And depending on which survey/study you read, there are at least 14 countries whose student’s standardized test scores—as a reflection of the quality of their education and student motivation—are far ahead of lagging American students. In many ways, American arrogance is sorely misplaced.
And when such shortcomings are pointed out by souls brave enough to withstand the predictable barrage of oncoming criticism for their “anti-patriotic” overtones, they are invariably glossed over (read: ignored) by those who would portray themselves as defenders of American idealism. These people do themselves and the country a disservice when they attempt to stir a sense of national pride in American ingenuity which is fit more for memories of a bygone era than as contemporary “proof” of what we can do as a country. Instead of being ashamed when comparing ourselves to the rest of the industrialized world, we gloss over failings with misplaced patriotism, which touts innovation which rarely applies in the current world.
Why this conclusion? In many areas, the reality speaks for itself.

Public Education

What can be said about the public education system in America which hasn’t already been said? Too much government mandate. Too little regulation. Too much or too little local control. Government control vs. private innovation. Bad teachers. Good teachers who aren’t compensated enough. Too much or too little parental involvement. The list goes on. But whatever side one takes or whatever reasoning one assumes, the bottom line is that Americans put far more effort into bickering, arguing, and comparing ideological schools of thought on how best to fix our schools than actually remedying even the most fixable of basic roadblocks hindering an effective (and competitive) education.
Anecdotally and realistically, the curriculums in most American public schools are not challenging enough, nor are the learning environments in many schools functional enough for the formation of a globally competitive citizenry. We’ve known this for the last generation, but we lack the collective will to make the hard decisions as public servants, parents, politicians, and concerned individuals to change this. We know that our public school students’ performance as a nation is well below that of other students from “second class” countries; the comparative standardized test scores don’t lie (but I’m sure that those who don’t agree will find some “flaw” in the methodology). Having spent a great deal of time in and around colleges, I know firsthand that many foreign students take their studies in American colleges far more seriously than their American counterparts. This is a reality is based in part on the fact that many—if not most—of these students hail from countries whose public/primary school systems prepare them to face education abroad with a love of learning, disciplined structure, and in many cases the cultural banking of respect for teachers (as well as authority figures). Even in countries ravaged by war, civil strife, and other calamities, there are instances of children compelled to make their way—some by a sense of duty or personal conviction—to schools some distance away from home in order for them to learn.
One the other hand, we Americans program in our children a sense of entitlement rather than duty. Working currently with at-risk teens at an alternative school, I can’t tell how many times I’ve silently sighed in exasperation as I experience daily how pampered and lazy American children are academically (and in most other ways which count). Many, if not most middle and high school students—especially in urban and city schools—view books and reading in general as a chore given as a form of punishment. Trying to get some students to write is comparable to trying to bathe a house cat. And the respect for teachers is anything but…. Our schools are brimming with lazy students, too uninspired and unmotivated to open their minds to anything beyond the misplaced sense of self-importance and self-absorption their parents helped to impart them with. American students are (somewhat in many cases) indulged by having economic and material resources diverted to creating and maintaining morally and philosophically questionable “investments” such as police/resource officers, accommodation for special needs, and so forth. Such resources are financial and material burdens placed public education by bad/lazy parents who feel they have “rights” enough to allow their disruptive children (discounting those with bona-fide handicaps. What I’m speaking of are the many students over-diagnosed with afflictions such as “Oppositional Defiance Disorder” and other similar “disorders”) to negatively impact the education of those striving to learn in otherwise challenging environments (See: Related Article).
And those students who do take their studies seriously, some are too lazy to actually take the time and effort to learn. Many American students have been socialized with a new but warped set or moral imperatives that compel them to seek the quickest, least labor-involved way to carry out their study requirements. Online term papers, cutting and pasting, and half-hearted efforts are only few of the usual ways that American students showcase their lack of initiative. Once the sole province of a relatively few “slackers,” in our public schools, cheating, taking shortcuts, and/or just laziness has become the new norm in most public schools throughout America. Just last month, several New York area university graduate students were arrested for their involvement in a scheme in which they were paid by high school students to take the SAT college entrance exam for them. In another example, law enforcement authorities and college officials have been made aware of the growing trend of high school and college students obtaining by illegal pretenses (or purchasing on the black market) the ADHD prescription drug Adderall.

---

Sometimes called the “smart pill,” abusers are taking the drug as a way of increasing concentration needed to complete multiple assignments so that, in many cases, they are able to engage in more extracurricular activities. Finally, the recent reporting of several standardized testing scandals—aided by public school officials—in public school throughout the country attest to the new culture of thinking that many of our American students have latched onto. It’s no wonder American students seek shortcuts and embrace laziness; they are learning their laziness from adults (See: "And Now A New Standardized Testing Scandal" and "A Scandal of Cheating And A Fall From Grace").

To Be Continued

Opinion: The Death of The American Marriage

2011-11-15T09:10:00.009-05:00

A little more than a week ago, USA Today printed a piece from its weekly column on religion written by author Henry Brinton, who is also pastor of Fairfax Presbyterian Church in Virginia (See: "Column: Wedding Days Are Losing Their Way"). In the opinion piece, Brinton writes about how the drift toward untraditional marriage ceremonies contributes to the shrinking significance of marriage as an institution. Conversely, the pastor argues in how traditional marriage ceremonies, those which take place in a wholly religious setting and officiated by a man/person of faith, form the basis of more enduring and durable unions, and therefore strengthens traditional family units.
But given how even individuals of considerable financial and social means (i.e., celebrities, political figures, athletes, etc.), who spend envious amounts of money on (questionably) extravagant and (also questionably) newsworthy ceremonies are afflicted by the same blistering rates of divorce, domestic abuse, and relationship stress that the average job-holding, beer-drinking, anxiety-ridden everyday Joe is, “institution” is the most apt description of the state of contemporary American marriage…because anyone left in American who takes its seriously would have to be considered crazy.
More of an exercise in devil’s advocacy than an expression of my own cynicism, the institution of marriage—with respect to Brinton’s position—has lost much of its social relevance in the last generation or so. As a child of Generation X, I can remember growing up watching television sitcoms where suspected pregnancies resulting from “flings” between main characters (usually male) inevitably brought up the subject of marriage as a way of “making things right” (these sitcoms reflected the thinking of the times with regard to marriage). This consideration, under such circumstances, was usually the way of addressing the prospect of avoiding the social stigma of bastard children. Marriage was considered an honorable symbol of commitment, even among the most philandering of cads. The ethos recognizing marriage within the context of the day was such that inveterate womanizers like Three’s Company’s Larry or Happy Days’ The Fonz cringed at the prospect of having to marry women they’d somehow managed to “sully” during their romps; it was considered a fate tantamount to death because of the implied level of commitment (combined with the relatively low occurrence of the then-seeming choice to divorce) tying the knot implied.
But now, even without the likes of Brittany Spears’ or Kim Kardashian’s latest publicity-driven stunts to see which has the shortest lifespan, a mayfly or a contemporary American marriage, the modern-day marriage ceremony has become more of an attempt to cater to a woman’s sense of fantasy, fairytale, romance, or just the culmination of bad judgment. There is some anecdotal support for my position, one being that women are far more likely to be the initiates of divorce, some 66% of the time by most studies, which would imply that they are most likely to be most dissatisfied in the resulting relationship (even if you extrapolated for incidences of domestic violence and/or infidelity on the man’s part). And on the heels of this fact is another recent survey which indicated

that up to 30% of now-divorced women actually said knew that they were not marrying the right man the moment they exchanged vows during the marriage ceremony (See: “Did You Marry The Wrong Guy?”).

This would suggest that many jump headway into doomed relationships, lured by the pageantry of the ceremony, with no forethought of pre-marriage personal introspection or consideration of the dynamics or function the relationship itself (with respect to the pre-marriage counseling which people of faith like Pastor Brinton no doubt attempt to engage in couples in).
But even more than changing attitudes is the fact that men and women are simply sociologically different when it comes to perspectives of marriage. Partially driven by our “biological clocks,” many women feel more compelled to marry. It’s made apparent anytime a woman makes the statement, I’m (fill-in-the-age) years-old and I’m still not married, or words to that effect (my personal favorite however, is It’s [fill-in-the-year] and I’m not married…as if a bad decision with regard to marriage couldn’t be made in any given year). Many women are more likely to conform to social expectations and family pressure. Most women view marriage as a form of relationship security, and rely on its legal recognitions for financial peace-of-mind—especially should the spouse dies.
Many—some would say most—men one the other hand, view the commitment of marriage as merely a suggestion, no matter how attractive, accomplished or loyal the spouse, or how privileged the life they have together. Sandra Bullock, Erin Nordegren, and Eva Longoria know this all too well. For many men, the institution of marriage has little in the way of a restraining influence on our “need” to demonstrate how quickly we are able to break the trust we are lucky enough to have earned. And demonstratively, the more privileged (or fortunate) we are, the greater the opportunities and sense of entitlement to bed swap we have (of course I’m not saying it’s right…it’s just reality).
And with the exception of the rare American male who actually marries with the intention to “make it work”—despite the disheartening odds or whatever obstacle gets in the way—many men see marriage and that implied commitment thing as more of an option rather than a publicly-declared promise between two individuals. Most of us are seemingly genetically predisposed to stepping beyond so-called “bond” of marriage and sowing our seeds elsewhere (yes, I know that there are some actual studies which point to this being a fact rather than personal choice, but the jury’s still out on this). We are seemingly designed to break our vows in a vain attempt to find that one nonexistent woman who is the “prefect” blend of femininity, but without the emphasis on “feelings;” sexual, but willing to unquestionably acquiesce to our fantasies (sick or otherwise); and loyal, but not overly submissive or needlessly attitudinal (see ladies…our fantasies are just unreal are yours). Sadly though, most of us men are only as “loyal” as our options. To us, marriage is the ultimate gamble. If we “crap out,” we stand to lose our hard-earned material possessions (or have them divvied-up by "The Man") in divorce, have a portion of our incomes (in the form of alimony, palimony, or child support) garnished, or forced to accept the sometimes inequitable terms of a child custody judgment—ultimately becoming just another loser in the game that marriage has become…with the odds seemingly stacked.
Finally, and to be clear, Pastor Brinton’s opinion asserts that the traditional marriage ceremony is a tried means of reinforcing the promise—not necessarily the notion of love—within a union. That’s a good thing, since the fragility of most modern unions would seem to answer Tina Turner’s decades-old question of What’s love got to do with it...seemingly very little! Quite simply, most of us do not even know how to love...or have no idea what the concept entails. We’re simply too self-absorbed as a culture to understand that being a part of something larger than ourselves like a relationship means that we must be willing to give up some, if not most of our much-lauded “independence” (sorry ladies and gentlemen for the bubble-burst). Too many of us are culturally-programmed to measure ourselves by what others have (and what we don’t), and too focused on the illusion of time in order to determine our individual self-worth as it relates to (potential) relationships. Most of us cannot see past the self to understand that a true union is about “us,” not “me.” Women want romance, men want respect. We as men want women to do whatever we want, while women want to do what they want. Men want women to understand, while women want to be understood. Women want security, men flexibility. Women want partners who can understand their feelings…while men want partners whose feelings won’t always be the central issue in a relationship. And neither of us are willing to compromise in what we want (See: “What Is Love?” on Beyond The Political Spectrum’s sister blog on Hubpages).
The bottom line: the institution of marriage looks to be outliving both its usefulness as a means of ensuring the survival of the traditional American family, and its meaning as way of "proving" one's loyalty and devotion to a single partner. Here's to the institution of marriage...may it rest in peace!

Americans Standing Up - Which Movement Speaks For You?

2011-11-02T08:55:00.004-04:00

Government gridlock. A shrinking middle-class. Companies sitting on billions of dollars, and refusing to reinvest in expansion. Banks seemingly inventing fees to gouge the consumer (come on, does it take that much money to manage other people’s money?). Politicians putting party affiliations and self-interests before the greater good. CEO’s, corporate officers, high-level financial decision-makers (you know…those “best and brightest” who are partly—but not exclusively—responsible for nearly tanking America’s market economy) still earning indefensible incomes and bonuses. And as a result of all of this sociopolitical chaos, people have finally taken to the streets and started putting the pressure of the voting electorate on those responsible.
But there are two distinct groups of protestors who seem to getting on their respective soap boxes and adopting the mantle of the voice of the American people. On one hand, there is the Tea Party movement, which purports to speak for the shrinking American middle class, and is opposed to larger government, the current tax structure, and for all things conservative…including social policies. In the last year, they have organized locally and even marched on Washington D.C in an effort to promote these and other conservative forms of government.
On the other hand, there is the Occupy Wall Street movement, which has targeted the banking and lending industries and local government offices by attempting to cause disruptions in day-to-day commerce and the business of government. Their primary aim is to put faces on the economic suffering of the “99%” of Americans they say they represent—those who do not command large salaries, hold public offices, and who have been “victimized” by corporate greed and government apathy toward their suffering. They are opposed to corporate greed, the Big Money influence in government, unemployment, and the current economic state of the nation.
At some points, there is a blurring of the line of policies that these two disparate groups oppose that gives the impression of a single populist uprising, such as the issue of the influence of Big Money in the political process. But with more social issues on their agenda, the Tea Party movement is distinctly different from the more ambiguous, seemingly more progressive Occupy Wall Street movement. So the question of the moment is which group and/or movement speaks you?

"Read My Lips...No New Politicians!"

2011-10-19T17:56:00.007-04:00

For the sake of simplicity, I’d like to convey the idea that our elected officials—those who, at least in theory, work for us—can be categorized into two different and distinct archetypes.
On the one hand, there are politicians. These are the self-serving types of individuals who always seem to mudsling, fear-monger, and flip-flop their way into “public service.” They are typically influenced by Big Money and Special Interests (or, in the event that an issue of particular impact cannot be ignored, the voting electorate). Most often, they are motivated by the urge to seek out influence and power as well as the [possible] long-term security of a career in public office. And more often than not, their scruples and sense of honor tends to plummet as a result of their holding onto the power of their positions (as we’ve seen so often in the scandals that happen with shameful regularity).
One the other hand, there are the statesmen. Statesmen are the rare breed who actually assumes the responsibilities of public office with the intent to work on behalf of the greater good; they actually want to do something on behalf of the country (as opposed self-gain). They are motivated by the needs and/or wants of the American public (even if their policy beliefs skirt the boundaries of dogmatic ideology), influenced (for the most part) by conscious, and tend to continue working on behalf of people even after public office.
Insofar as local and federal elected officials, sadly there are way too many of the former and a precious few of the latter (especially in Congress). As far as presidents—past and present—go, it’s pretty much a mixture in every sense of the word. Jimmy Carter was neither a statesman nor politician, but an idealist who found himself in a world run by the principle of real politicks (he more or less assumed the role of statesman after his tenure as president). Ronald Reagan (despite the fact that I didn’t/don’t agree with a few of his domestic policies, especially those which hit the poor particularly hard) was a statesman in most senses of the word. George Bush I started as a politician who morphed into a statesman. Bill Clinton became a politician by circumstance. George Bush II was a victim of circumstances who tried to be a statesman…to less than stellar results. Barack Obama—and yes, I know how many view him—I believe to be working in the interests of the greater good, despite attacked on all fronts. He has the savvy of a politician, but desires to be a statesman.
With regard to politicians, I could easily use this forum to soapbox and give them my two cents on how best they could serve the country as statesmen rather than politicians. But in lieu of giving people the benefit of my objective opinion, I will step aside and allow the words and wisdom of Black Entertainment Television founder and self-made billionaire Robert Johnson to speak to this issue. Last month, he was interviewed by the CBS Evening News in an effort to get the input on how best to deal with the impasse in executing policy and legislation, how to fix the ailing economy, and how to work for the benefit of every American.
To sum up his take on how to best approach American's problems, the self-made businessman calls for the need for those seeking positions in public service to sacrifice.

Please watch.

Race & President Obama's Congressional Black Caucus Speech...Where's The Beef?

2011-09-28T08:29:00.011-04:00

The funny thing about race in America is that it is often never raised as an issue when it should be, and ignored when it shouldn’t be. Take the field of politics for example.
Last week, President Obama gave a speech at a Washington D.C. gathering of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) which could only be described as “fiery” in both its content and delivery. Last Saturday, the president told black lawmakers to “quit crying and complaining” and to support his policy initiatives, including his latest one to create jobs.
In sounding more militant than moderate, the president’s speech was a response to the increasing chorus of discontent vocalized by many black leaders that his administration hasn’t been addressing concerns of the African-American community…especially with regards to the current economic slump, which as hit the back community particularly hard (black unemployment is nearly double the national average at 16.7 percent).
But more controversial was the assertion from some liberal-thinking individuals that the Associated Press’s (AP) transcribing of the president’s words was “racist.”
According to one such individual, African-American author Karen Hunter, the news service failed to “clean up” the speech as “other news outlets did” when it transcribed the content of Obama’s speech to the CBC. At issue was the AP’s choosing to include the “dropped ‘g’s” in the president’s chosen diction at the event, so that it’s printed version of the president’s speech appeared as followed:

"Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes," he said, his voice rising as applause and cheers mounted. "Shake it off. Stop complainin'. Stop grumblin'. Stop cryin'. We are going to press on. We have work to do." (Source: The Associated Press).

After Hunter had voiced this observation on the MSNBC cable news network the following Sunday, the issue became an instant debate in some news quarters.
And as with any non-issue related to politics, people have chosen sides. Some liberals say that printing the president’s speech by uncustomarily leaving it in its truly uttered form caters to negative racial stereotypes, while conservatives say that leaving the Chief Executive’s words shows a shameless pandering to African-Americans by using a common linguistic style among this particular group.
The truth is that what the president did in his speech is something which happens every day within the black community; ordinarily articulate—oftentimes educated—African-Americans communicating ideas and beliefs to each other in a way which lessens intrapersonal tensions, and creates a rapport among those from different backgrounds and experiences. Adopting blackspeak—for want of a better term—by blacks to address other blacks for the aforementioned purposes is no more different than African-Americans who adopt standard English in a job interview or when addressing a white crowd. It’s no more an “issue” than when former President George W. Bush’s opted to speak fluent Spanish when he addressed Latino-Americans crowds. It’s no more “pandering” than those choosing to tailor their political messages to groups like farmers, corporate CEOs, or middle-class white Christians. The bottom line is that focusing on such mundane things as this creates an issue where there really is none.
In this upcoming election season, let’s stick to the real issues—jobs, government spending, national security, and getting rid of career politicians who are more beholden to Big Money and their petty self-interests than to the American people!

Part 1 of President Obama's speech to the Congressional Black Caucus

Part 2 of President Obama's speech to the Congressional Black Caucus

Affordable Health Insurance & Politics - Separating The Ideological BS From Reality!

2011-09-20T13:45:00.023-04:00

Regular readers to Beyond The Political Spectrum know that I am a rabid proponent of universally affordable health care coverage for all Americans. After all, if America is truly to be “the land of opportunity,” then there is nothing more basic to [the] equality of opportunity than having the good health (or access to) to be able to work hard, and to have the strength to work toward better opportunities for oneself…infant-level common sense to be sure.
However, as I watched the Tea Party-sponsored Republican debate which aired on CNN last week, I came away with a clearer understanding of why America has become so politically, socially, and ethnically polarized in recent times. The short answer is that our leadership (and their individual supporters) is tainted by too many competing ideological beliefs, driven by self-serving politicians seeking to hold on to their jobs rather than working on behalf of the interests of Americans (e.g., too many politicians, and not enough statesmen), and too much special interests money which beneficiaries call an extension of “Free Speech.”
With regard to universally affordable health care, just mentioning the contentious issue conjures up catcalls of “socialism” by the politically opportunistic, the narrow-minded, and the ideologically short-sighted. And thoughts of the government should/can pay for everyone by the fiscally unrealistic and irresponsible. As an example, I cite the case of Republican Party presidential nominee candidate Ron Paul, who I—despite his staunch libertarian views—thought was more of a reasonable sort prior to last week’s debate (I even alluded to him as such in a prior posting. )
During a particular moment of the debates, CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer asked Paul:

BLITZER: Thank you, Governor. Before I get to Michele Bachmann, I want to just -- you're a physician, Ron Paul, so you're a doctor. You know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question.

A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what? I'm not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I'm healthy, I don't need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it.

Who's going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?

PAUL: Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him.

BLITZER: Well, what do you want?

PAUL: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not be forced --

BLITZER: But he doesn't have that. He doesn't have it, and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?

PAUL: That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody --

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?

(Multiple shouts of “Yes!” from audience)

PAUL: No. I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals.

(APPLAUSE)

PAUL: And we've given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it. This whole idea, that's the reason the cost is so high.

The cost is so high because they dump it on the government, it becomes a bureaucracy. It becomes special interests. It kowtows to the insurance companies and the drug companies, and then on top of that, you have the inflation. The inflation devalues the dollar, we have lack of competition.

There's no competition in medicine. Everybody is protected by licensing. And we should actually legalize alternative health care, allow people to practice what they want.

(APPLAUSE)

Source: (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/September/13/transcript-gop-debate-health-care-issues.aspx and Beyond The Political Spectrum.blogspot).

To view this segment from last weeks debate in Tampa, Florida, click on the video.

That the debate was co-sponsored by the Tea Party was no surprise that such a response received such rousing (and heartless) support by the audience. In much the same way that extremists Muslims have co-opted mainstream Islam in areas of the Middle East, The Tea Party has hijacked the Republican Party (at the expense of reason and civility). Consequently, Republican candidates seeking the GOP’s nomination to challenge President Obama in 2012 have grown ever spineless, kow-towing to the Tea Party’s hard right-wing ideological views and political intransigence in much the same way that Obama has capitulated to the Republicans in Congress time and again.
The problem is that such beliefs (and the shameful support by those in the audience) are driven by beliefs, which in turn are driven by ideology (ies) that are active reasoning. I observed this phenomenon firsthand while preparing for this particular posting. For example, a common thread of thinking that I saw running through most posted online opposition to the notion of universally affordable health care reflected Ron Paul’s view; that people have the “choice” of whether or not to purchase health care in a free society.
It borders insanity to think that most of the uninsured in this country “choose” to go without health insurance. Speaking from personal as well as anecdotal experience—as well as the fact that most surveys and studies support this—most people who go without health insurance do so as a matter of economic pragmatism. Many must choose between paying crucial utilities, food, rent, or health care. Broken down by statistics:

The primary reason given for lack of health insurance coverage in 2005 was cost (more than 50%), lost job or a change in employment (24%), Medicaid benefits stopped (10%), ineligibility for family insurance coverage due to age or leaving school (8%). Source: National Center for Health Statistics (Source: “Health Care Statistics.” HealthPAConline.com)

And sadly, those who have been fortunate enough (especially in this economy) to afford health insurance—while opposing equal access for the rest of us—make the mistake of thinking that their good fortune or efforts are applicable to all Americans. To those, I say that life is not a one-size-fits-all experience. Extenuating circumstances vary from individual to individual, and should always be considered before making such black-and-white generalizations.
To further illustrate this point, consider the following article from USA Today, also from last week:

Amanda Hite says she felt "really healthy" when she applied recently for health insurance. But Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield denied her, because she had seen a chiropractor a few months earlier for a sore back and later had visited an emergency room because of back pain.

"I was surprised and let down," said Hite, 34, of Lexington, Ky., who didn't think her periodic back pain would be enough to keep her from buying health insurance.

Hite's case isn't unusual. Many of the plans offered by Anthem Blue Cross in Kentucky reject about one in five applicants, according to data provided by insurers to the federal Department of Health and Human Services. Rival insurers in the state have even higher denial rates: Humana rejects 26% to 39% of applications in Kentucky, while UnitedHealthcare denies 38% to 43%.

Citing its own 2009 study, America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group, says 87% of people who apply nationally for individual coverage are offered a policy. That figure, however, includes people who are turned down for one policy but offered another that may cost more or have fewer benefits.

The federal website contains denial rates in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. Territories, and is updated periodically. The most current information is for the first three months of 2011. The data show that denial rates routinely exceed 20% and often are much higher, according to a Kaiser Health News review of 20 of the most populous states and the District of Columbia. The data reflect applications that are turned down for any reason.

The information provides fresh evidence of the challenges facing people buying individual health insurance. It also shows the likelihood of whether consumers are approved for a policy depends on which state they live in and the insurer they choose.

Denial rates can vary widely within individual states. In Georgia, for example, Aetna's denial rate is 15% compared with 47% for Kaiser Permanente and 67% for John Alden Life Insurance.

Also, the same insurer can have vastly different denial rates in different states. For example, Kaiser Permanente denied 32% of applications in Maryland but 17% in Colorado. (Kaiser Health News is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.)

James Larreta-Moylan, director of individual and family plans for Oakland-based Kaiser Permanente, said the denial rates vary because of the different types of plans sold, and the age and health conditions of applicants in different markets. He said denial rates can be higher in some markets where sicker patients apply for plans with richer benefits. Medical underwriting, or reviewing an applicant's health status, "is an unfortunate reality of today's market," he said.

Mike Cantone, 27, of Orlando, was denied a health insurance policy last year by UnitedHealthcare, which considered him a risk because a doctor used a monitor to test his heart for a few days in 2007. No problems were detected, he said. "I was shocked and frustrated," said Cantone, a political director for a community organization. He is still uninsured.

Denial rates of 70% and 53%

Two companies consistently had the highest denial rates — John Alden Life Insurance and Time Insurance, both owned by Milwaukee-based Assurant Health. In nearly every market surveyed, their denial rates were at least twice the rate of competing insurers. For example, in Tennessee, John Alden turned down 70% of applicants and Time, one of the biggest individual insurers in the country, rejected 53%.

Assurant spokeswoman Heather McAvoy said her company offers alternative plans when applicants are rejected due to health status. These can include policies that require consumers to pay extra to cover a pre-existing medical condition. "Unfortunately, when consumers accept the alternative coverage — and are, in fact, insured with Assurant Health — they are classified as a 'denial' under the HHS criteria," she said.

AHIP, the trade group, says the federal data on coverage denials are misleading because they do not include people rejected for one plan but offered another. The data also include denials involving applicants who don't live in the plan's coverage area.

The Deartment of Health and Human Services acknowledged AHIP's arguments but said it was important for the data to reflect when people can't get the specific policies they apply for. The department said most of the denials are the result of medical underwriting.

Health care overhaul offers help

The difficulty of buying individual coverage was a big reason behind the 2010 federal health overhaul, which will ban insurers starting in 2014 from denying individual policies based on health status.

In the past, most consumers haven't been able to look up insurers' denial rates before sending in a check to apply for coverage. Maryland is the only state that requires insurers to report information on denial rates.

But as part of the federal health law, HHS last November started posting the coverage-denial rates, which can be searched by ZIP code at www.healthcare.gov.

Using the data from the website, a Government Accountability Office study of 459 insurers published earlier this year found an average of 19% of applicants nationally were denied coverage. But the study showed a wide range of denial rates. A quarter of insurers had denial rates of 15% or below and a quarter had rates of 40% or higher.

A House Energy and Commerce Committee investigation into four large for-profit insurers last year found that the denial rates have steadily increased from 11.9% in 2007 to 15.3% in 2009. The companies reviewed were Aetna, Humana, UnitedHealthcare and WellPoint.

The denial rates are an important tool for helping consumers select an insurer, said Deborah Chollet, a senior fellow with Mathematica, a non-partisan think tank. That's because the application process can take a month or more, and carriers typically require the first month's premium with the application.

Sara Collins, vice president of the non-partisan Commonwealth Fund, said the denial data underscore the need for the industry changes that will occur in 2014. "It's not surprising that denial rates are high, because insurers have an incentive to only enroll the healthy risks," she said. "If a person comes in with a health problem that will potentially cost (the insurer) money, they are probably not going to cover them" (Source: "Health Insurance Denial Rates Routinely 20% Data Shows," USAToday. September 12, 2011).

So aside from lack of any real choice, insurers routinely deny a percentage of Americans, some for questionable reasoning (or lack thereof). In the case of California, the high rejection rates of those residents seeking insurance coverage triggered an investigation, enjoined by the state’s attorney general in 2009 “HMO Claims-Rejection Rates Triggers State Investigation”).
For those opposed to the notion of universally affordable health care insurance/coverage, even in the face of such indisputable research which counters their claims, one can routinely expect to have sources questioned, anecdotal and personal experiences substituted for any real counter-evidence, and/or the employment of esoteric hair-splitting statistical analysis and numbers crunching (figures which usually are “solid” in the abstract, but have no real basis in reality). If all else fails, the Boogey Man of “socialism” is used as a trump card of sorts, as if maligning a policy/idea which one does not support or believe in makes is so.
In Ron Paul’s case, his obvious appeal to the Tea Party’s extremism carries with is a bit of real world conviction.

Back in 2008, Kent Snyder — Paul's former campaign chairman — died of complications from pneumonia. Like the man in Blitzer's example, the 49-year-old Snyder
(pictured) was relatively young and seemingly healthy* when the illness struck. He was also uninsured. When he died on June 26, 2008, two weeks after Paul withdrew his first bid for the presidency, his hospital costs amounted to $400,000. The bill was handed to Snyder's surviving mother (pictured, left), who was incapable of paying. Friends launched a website to solicit donations (Source: "Ron Paul’s Campaign Manager Died of Pneumonia, Penniless and Uninsured." Gawker. September 14, 2011).

This comes as no surprise, as a 2009 Harvard University medical study found that an estimated 45,000 Americans die a year from lack of health insurance ("Harvard Medical StudyLinks Lack Of Insurance To 45,000 Deaths A Year," September 17, 2009), up from the similarly estimated 18,000 a year back in 2002 ("18,000 Deaths Blamed On lack Of Insurance," USAToday. May 22, 2002).
Granted, Paul’s Tea Party pandering remarks were somewhat serendipitous with regards to the death of his former campaign chairman, it speaks to the levels to which our leaders’ (and their supporters) embrace ideology over reality, with the goal of attaining power for, and representing the interests of some Americans and not all.
I urge all Americans to speak up and speak out. Don't allow extremist elements to paint the impression that they represent the interests of every and all Americans. I urge politicians to adopt a spine and resist the false influence of those who perpetrate as though they represent all of us.
And I urge Americans who align their thinking with a narrow political and/or socioeconomic ideology to view their surroundings through a more reasoned basis.
Conservatism and Liberalism did not come into existence with the Big Bang or Creation. They are the products of mortal thinking, and no doubt individuals harboring ulterior motives and self-interests.

For The Aspiring Political Activist…The Most Politically-Charged Colleges Campuses

2011-09-19T11:35:00.007-04:00

Before I begin this week’s post, I would like to say that this post marks a milestone for me. This is my 100th post here on Beyond The Political Spectrum, and I would like to thank those who regularly visit my page and e-mail me their thoughts and suggestions (and to those who haven’t heard back from me, I am diligently working to make their issue suggestions known). It’s a labor of love that I enjoy bringing to you. And now without further adieu, my thoughts for this week…

When I began college back in 1991, I had just come out of a period of extended unemployment, and newfound purpose. I remember having spent most of my days involved with local as well as national political issues. This period culminated in many full days—hundreds of hours volunteering (that’s unpaid for those of you who cannot wrap their minds around the concept)—on the political campaigns of local candidates, attending block club meetings, and working with nonprofit organizations.
The political atmosphere of college (s) back then was/were reflective of the political atmosphere of America in general; a few politically active individuals and organizations and a level of subdued contention among competing interests in Washington and nationwide.
Twenty years later, the political (and by extension, the social) polarization is unlike that at any other time in American history except for maybe the period leading up to the Civil War or during the 1960s. Just as in those periods, we have politically-involved individuals—both unaligned activists and those affiliated with organizations and political parties—who have arrogantly (and ethnocentrically) christened themselves as “true Americans,” while maligning those who do not share their values as “un-American,” “socialists,” fascists,” “uncaring,” “elitist,” "racist," and a whole host of subjective pejoratives.
Below the surface of these accusations are sentiments of class divisions, dueling socioeconomic ideologies, and—with the first African-American in the White House—racism (although some of those most rabidly against anything Obama-affiliated will simply deny that race plays no issue…and I emphasize some, lest someone accuse me of being “elitist”). Conservatives accuse Liberals of wanting to turn America into a Socialist Utopia, while liberals routinely accuse conservatives of caring about nothing more than the Free Market (the truth of the matter is that I find both individuals ideologically umbilicaled to those particular narrow views of the world to be morally bankrupted at times).
So, thanks to Beyond The Political Spectrum reader Tim Handorf over at Best Colleges Online.com (thanks Mr. Handorf for soliciting the information for this piece), I thought it would be great to provide those aspiring to become involved in politics and political activism with a list of (some of the ) 12 Most Politically Charged College Campuses in America. And hopefully those seeking to become part of the politically-inspired in this country will become truly educated, and spur true solutions which give the American people what we need rather than what some narrow, ideologically-encircled politician and/or “activist” thinks we should have.

12. American University, Washington D.C.

11. Oberlin College, Oberlin Ohio

10. Wesleyan University, Connecticut

9. University of Wisconsin, Madison

For the rest of the list, read here.

Health News - Advances In Treating & Preventing Cardiac Arrest (...Or, "A Story With A Heart!")

2011-09-08T05:52:00.007-04:00

One of the better experiences to come from this labor of love—blogging—is that, despite the many socioeconomic ills and levels of political polarization ongoing in America, I can often bring you tidbits of hope in the sea or man’s-inhumanity-to man.
This is actually a tale of two happenstances: the first being an illustration of what happens when people can ignore differences and unite to help someone in need, and the second marking recent advances in heart attack treatment and prevention.
Back in January of this year in the small town of Goodhue, Minnesota, Howard Snitzer walked out of a local grocery store…and collapsed on the sidewalk outside. He was suffering a “massive heart attack” according to medical officials familiar with the story. Both Mr. Snitzer’s life and the story could have ended right then and there, were it not for Candice Cane, another customer in the store at the time of Snitzer’s collapse. She began to immediately administer CPR. It was at this point that an auto mechanic from across the street saw what was happening and walked over to lend assistance. When Cane became exhausted with her attempts to keep the man alive, the mechanic began to take over. When he became too tired to continue the efforts, another stranger began to take over the heart messaging technique. And then another took over after that. In all, some 20 local strangers lined up waiting to administer CPR to Snitzer, keeping him alive for 96 minutes, and long enough for emergency first responders to arrive and begin making further, more involved attempts to bring him back. He would successfully regain consciousness days later in the hospital (LA Times, 03/04/2011 - "CPR for 96 minutes...").
Just as amazing as this story was, equally as amazing was that assisting Mr. Snitzer’s revival was the new use of an existing technology.
After first responders had arrived on the unbelievable scene via medical helicopter, among them was a flight nurse who had been trained in the use of capnography. Capnography, a relative old technology, measures how much carbon dioxide is expended with each breath. It’s a procedure that helps doctors and medical personnel determine whether a patient is hyperventilating, having an asthma attack, or a heart attack. It also helps them decide—in this case—determine whether CPR is working.
During attempts to resuscitate Snitzer, his carbon dioxide levels suggested that blood was flowing to vital organs (e.g., his heart and brain), and the flight nurse thought Snitzer still had a chance. While some emergency responders involved thought the case was a lost cause, others, including Dr. Roger White, the Mayo Clinic-based anesthesiologist who came up with the solution to get Snitzer's heart beating normally again did not want to waste the valiant efforts of the strangers who worked so hard to give Snitzer a fighting chance. According to White,

...before the use of capnography, the only way of assessing blood flow to vital organs was by feeling for a pulse or by looking for dilated pupils. He says those methods are very crude and can fail. Snitzer never had a pulse despite good carbon dioxide readings. Without the information from capnography, he says, it would have been reasonable to stop CPR — and Snitzer likely would have died.

In places other than Minnesota, capnography is slowly becoming standard equipment for emergency responders. In response (or maybe because of this), the American Heart Association has added capnography to its list of 2010 guidelines for treating heart attack and cardiac arrest patients.

In other related news, last month several news organizations presented pieces about another advancement in predicting the possibility of heart attacks. Although there is some disagreement as to how these stories were presented in the media, the focus should be on how there are options being presented to the American people (see: Cardio Exchange) with regard to heart health.
In other related news, last month several news organizations presented pieces about another advancement in predicting the possibility of heart attacks. Although there is some disagreement as to how these stories were presented in the media, the focus should be on how there are options being presented to the American people (see: Cardio Exchange) with regard to heart health.
Among the other procedures being introduced to help in the early screening of heart against heart attacks is calcium imaging (CI). When used appropriately—that is, targeted toward those with increased risk, as opposed to a broad use—calcium imaging has the potential of being a useful additional great diagnostic tool in the fight to prevent the leading killer of Americans in any given year. It is a procedure which involves a cardiac CT scan to obtain information about the presence, location and extent of calcified plaque in the coronary arteries—the vessels that supply oxygen-containing blood to the heart muscle. The presence of this calcified material could be an early indicator of atherosclerosis.
The downsides of this procedure is that it is costly, may or may not be subsidized by insurance, and is not a definitive test for early onset of heart disease or of a heart attack (hence, the mention of it being an “additional great diagnostic tool”).
Finally, The NBC Evening News reports the growing, but still controversial use of a blood test called, a C-reactive protein or CRP test. As in the case of calcium on the walls of coronary arteries, the presence of CRP in the blood is a potential marker which could be an early indicator of heart disease (that is to say that CPR levels in the blood will rise in response to inflammation, which in turn has been linked to atherosclerosis). The same cautions with calcium imaging applies likewise to CRP testing, although more insurance companies are willing to pay for it rather than CI.

As with many things we do, including the thoughts/thinking we engage in, our health-related issues are a matter of choice. Being informed is simply another way of providing the ammunition to make informed choices. Now take what you’ve read to heart…literally

Opinion (Sort Of...) -- President Obama & Liberals Cause Earthquake On The East Coast!!!

2011-08-24T07:48:00.013-04:00

BREAKING NEWS--President Obama Causes Earthquake on East Coast! (Notice This Scrolls To The Left)

(The following is a message paid for by shameful politicians we allow to represent us in government!)

Near disaster was averted yesterday by the divine providence of the one-true God who our illegitimate Muslim president chooses not to believe in! An earthquake measuring 5.9 on the Richter Scale, whose epicenter was centered near Mineral, Virginia, shook parts of the greater Washington D.C metro area. The quake was measured as far west as Chicago, as far south as Atlanta, and as far north as Toronto, Canada.
This earthquake is yet another example Obama’s job-killing leftist policies, and why he and his socialist, anti-Constitutional comrades have to be stopped! This earthquake was a sign from God almighty that He wants the liberals out of office! In effect, president Obama and liberals caused this earthquake, and we can expect more natural disasters like this if true Americans like you and I do not work to return America back to the people!

Ok, tongue-in-cheek aside, this send-up of current political thinking in America is why people need to think beyond politics and take ideology and passions out of politics. Almost daily, we hear the ranting of those who embrace the most ridiculous notions and conspiratorial accusations in the name of whatever narrow little beliefs they support. Death panels, fake birth certificates, financial doomsday scenarios, and unsustainable entitlement spending not-withstanding, the American people deserve better.
It’s one thing when individuals living on the geographical and political fringe of America believe in one-world governments, generalized stereotypes, and embrace a hatred of a government (which many of them freely participate by way of public office and voting). It’s another to have these individuals represent us in the halls of government itself, hindering legislation, engaging in fear-mongering, and enacting policies based on based on their interpretation of what and how they believe we should be governed rather than by the needs of the people or by consensus.
Federal spending needs to addressed; serious and substantive hard-choice cuts as well as fair revenue intake have to be considered. Entitlements have to be fixed in a way which provides both sustainability and security. And while the deficit is important, people are more concerned with jobs. Tax cuts, especially for the financially well-heeled and politically-connected mean nothing if people lack the income employment provides to even enjoy a tax cut. People need guns--the means to protect themselves--from criminals (and not from an imaginary threats from an "oppressive" central government) without undue legislative hindrance. We need to stop involving America in foreign wars that have no bearing on American interests, and which cost too much in the way of money and lives. People need universally affordable health care (access), especially if a work-based health care regime means is to be the paradigm. Life—for most people—is a need, whether outlawing abortion and/or capital punishment is the means of ensuring it. Political ideology is a want; people want to believe in governing a certain way. But there is no Constitutional provision for wants. And government should be about ensuring needs, not wants!

America...The Lazy, Stupid, and Dumb!

2011-08-10T15:29:00.013-04:00

Back in March of this year, I went to the movies to see a somewhat decent sci-fi flick, “Limitless.” Because the movie is now on DVD, I can give you a synopsis of the movie’s premise. In the movie, the protagonist, a down-and-out writer and otherwise chronic failure comes face-to-face with a failed drug salesman with criminal affiliations. The salesman gives the loser a pill which magnifies his mental faculties and sensory perceptions a thousand-fold, which turns his life around in a kind of “The Matrix” meets Charlie Brown scenario. Beyond that, you’ll just have to either rent or buy the DVD.
Fast forward to July of this year. In one of my rare days of leisure, I was watching the news when my interest began to focus on a story on NBC’s “The Today Show.” It featured a story about the abuse of the anti-attention deficit disorder prescription drug, Adderall by otherwise normal college students. Apparently, there is a growing trend among some these students, many of them attending top-tier colleges, of taking the drug in an effort to help stimulate concentration and spur the focus needed to successfully study all night.

Watch "The Today Show's" health segment on how college students abuse the drug, Adderall by clicking on the "watch" button.

According to one female student on the “Today Show” segment,

When I’m on Adderall and I’m looking at the textbook I can forget about everything else around me. I figured if everyone else is doing it, why shouldn’t I get the advantage?”

Another male student added, “It’s given me the boost to work non-stop for 10 hours a day…Baseball players take steroids to be the best and students take Adderall to be the best. It’s steroids for school.”
Experts say that Adderall is considered safe when taken as prescribed by a doctor, but can addictive to those using it in non-prescribed ways.
Labeled “the ‘smart pill’” by those using it on college campuses, those who peddle Adderall to those looking for the edge to maintain academic performance sell the pill for as much as $5 for a 25 milligram tablet. In the case of those traditionally cash-strapped students who can’t come up with money for the pill, they are given advice on how to obtain a legally-prescribed dose of the drug for their own use; fake symptoms and go to the nearest doctor.
As I watched the report, my mind started to make connections that this abuse has to other perspectives with regard to issues like affirmative action in higher education, how we rear our children, the quality of students public schools, our collective sense of ethics (or lack thereof), the over-medication of our children, and our collective lack of appreciation for hard work.
Whenever there is talk of race and higher education, preferential treatment for minorities in admission is usually in the forefront. However, the abuse of Adderall by college students at top-tier colleges reveals how irrelevant numbers and standardized test scores can be for some. Remember, these are “the best” according to the numbers. It’s also a reflection of a larger issue…that of those having resources and the ability to via access to manipulate the system in order advance while others are condemned to “follow the rules.”
The abuse of the drug is symptomatic of a serious epidemic of faltering ethics which could be traced directly to parenting. The concept of easy fixes and quick ways out have been lost and supplanted by a win-at-all-cost mentality. We see this in many aspects of contemporary child-rearing. Parents who push their children almost from the womb to excel promote win-win-win thinking by micro-managing many aspects of their children’ lives with the focus on results.
From entering their children in “child pageants” (the worst kind of exploitation) and signing them up for every extra-curricular activity (in the hopes of finding their possible sports “niche”), to hiring college entrance “coaches” who assist in prepackaging young people in an appealing way to as to increase their chances for college admissions (including test coaching) and/or mortgaging their homes to pay for their children’ education, many middle class parents seek to cement their children’s futures at the cost of the latters’ independence and the ability to self-earn their success. Many are impressed with the thinking that money, means and quick fixes are the keys to succeeding; hard work, grit, and intestinal fortitude are the provinces of the less-than-fortunate. The “everybody cheats/bends the rules” ethic in a society of perceived one-upsmanship has become the accepted mantra of those seeking advantage as a result (what about affirmative action for the rest of us without such resources to succeed?).
With instances such as the abuse of Adderall, how we raise (and strip our children of their sense of independence), and how such extreme measures are needed to succeed in college curriculums which are not even as challenging those in other countries, is it any wonder the rest of the world considers Americans to be "soft?"
The ease by which college students can and do abuse Adderall also reveals how quick we are as a society to seek solutions to even the most common and human of afflictions…diverted attention. This is due more to the lack of self-discipline and will that we have avoided instilling in our children, and not a proliferation of ADHD. Quite simply, we have over-medicated out children (and ourselves) where they have come to accept that pills are the answer to our shortcomings.

Americans need to back to the Old School approach to rearing children...an emphasis on hard work, structure, direct involvement in their children’ education, and an occasional visitation from a leather belt worked wonders to create responsible citizens and half-way decent leaders. Overly-liberal, new age ideas about non-punitive, be-your-child’s-friend child-rearing are ruining traditional (and I think proven) methods of parenting. Two-parent households (responsible parents), clearly-defined parent-child roles and expectations, and the aforementioned Old School approaches are the only things that will put our youth back on the path of an appreciation for self-earned, self-generated success.
While Tea Partiers complain about "how our children are going to pay for our current debt," our children are selling off something even more important...their souls and the future basis for what had made America successful in the past!

See Also: "Apr. 09 - A Nation of Whiners."
"May 09 - Faith, Drugs, & Children...Bad Parenting Made Easy."

Hypocrisy In Debt Ceiling Talks...Nothing New!

2011-08-01T05:50:00.003-04:00

Breaking News! Debt Ceiling Deal Reached!

Yes, there needs to be a curtailing on government spending. Yes, the government has to adopt a full measure of fiscal restraint with regards to spending. But ever since the debt ceiling "crisis" began, I can't help but ponder why, in my recent memory, has it become such a point of contention this time, and not so much in times past.
Then I came across this little piece on Think Progress, a site that I don't normally frequent:

VIDEO: House GOP Urged Clean Debt Ceiling Hike As A Matter of Responsibility And Good Governance

By Jeff Spross on Jul 30, 2011 at 8:30 am

Under the leadership of House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and House Majority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), the Republicans continue to precipitate a stalemate over the debt ceiling and a possible economic crisis. As ThinkProgress’ Zaid Jilani and Travis Waldron have reported, not only did the Republican leadership vote multiple times for clean debt ceiling hikes under more favorable political circumstances, but no less than 98 currently serving House GOP members did so as well.

Between a vote in 2004, and another in 2002, many of these Republicans took to the floor of the House to defend a debt ceiling hike as not only necessary, but as a basic matter of responsibility and good governance. ThinkProgress has compiled the video.

At the risk of sounding like taking sides, Republican lawmakers have allowed themselves to be held hostage by the Tea Party's influence within their ranks (to put this dynamic into perspective, former President Bush II had too initiated policies which had begun a surge in deficit spending). They are so myopic and fixated on holding the ideological line against tax increases that they simply cannot see reality. Allow me to paint the picture:

1. We are in strained economic times nationally! The country cannot afford to allow interest rates to rise...even the talk of such puts strains on both domestic and foreign markets.

2. The voting electorate did not elect Republicans to Congress last November to add to Washington gridlock! Politics is about legislative compromise, not legislative hindrance. What is occurring with regards to the debt ceiling talks is proof why politicians cannot and should not be allowed to govern by ideology as opposed to pragmatically.

3. If we were focused on creating and replacing the 10 million jobs lost in the economic downturn instead of whether the economically well-heeled have to "suffer" tax increases, we wouldn't have so much revenue shortfall in the first place. This is an indication that we need a combination of revenue increases, spending cuts, fiscal restraint, and the removal of liberal and conservative ideologues in Congress (after all, I can think of at least 10 million people who couldn't care less about a tax increase).

In the simplest terms, like my mother used to say when I gave her an excuse about cleaning my room, "I don't care how you get it done...get it done...now!"

Another Police Beating Caught On Tape (…or, “Your Tax Dollars At Work.”)

2011-07-31T11:55:00.005-04:00

Once or twice, I’ve had the unfortunate duty to have to shine a light on police misconduct on Beyond The Political Spectrum’s sister page on You Tube page. But in what seems to be a seasonal occurrence in the realm of journalism, a Las Vegas newspaper is reporting the beating of citizen videographer, Mitchell Crooks (yes, I know…an ironic last name).
According to the Las Vegas Review Journal, Las Vegas police officer Derek Colling is under continual investigation by the Internal Affairs Bureau of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, after having been found to have violated several department policies. The sustained complain found that on March 20th of this year, Officer Colling used excessive force (among other violations) on the 36-year-old Crooks, who was confronted by Colling after being ordered to stop recording a police investigation of a burglary from across the street in his own driveway.

According to the internal review (and what the video tape seems to indicate), Colling used more physical force in a situation where a confrontation was simply not warranted. Department procedures mandate that findings stemming from the incident go through an arduous process which includes further review by the department’s Internal Affairs Bureau, recommendations for suggested disciplinary actions from Colling supervisors, and hearing from an internal board of review.
Las Vegas police officer Derek Colling during a previous court testimony
The possible penalties include everything from no action—if his actions were found to be questionable but not in violation of department policies—to suspension or termination. Colling is currently on paid suspension and has been since April 1st.
In all fairness, it should be reported that both Colling and Crooks have both been a part of controversy prior to this incident. Colling has been involved in 2 fatal shootings, both having been ruled justified.

In 2006, he and four other officers shot Shawn Jacob Collins after the 43-year-old man pulled a gun at an east valley gas station.

In 2009, Colling shot and killed Tanner Chamberlain, a mentally ill 15-year-old who was holding a knife at his mother's neck and waving it at officers.

For his part, Crooks made headlines in 2002 when he videotaped two Inglewood, Calif., police officers beating a 16-year-old boy. In addition, he has been arrested on drunken driving and petty theft charges, both charges being dated.

I have several problems with this entire incident. First, a paid suspension since April 1st amounts to a paid vacation, the likes I never got, even after my surgery.
Second, what was the officer’s level of training? Being a police officer, a public servant where government, people, and the courts place so much trust with, should require much more than a since-childhood desire to want to be one. Public servants with so much power and so much of the public’s trust should have more rigorous requirements, both professionally and personally. There should be at least an associates degree/2-year college degree requirement, with target focuses on Sociology, Psychology, Criminal Justice, and Civics. In addition, background checks should not be confined to sterile records checks. There should as much a level of scrutiny performed in the background checks of police officer candidates as there is for those wanting to FBI agents or similar occupations; personal interviews with family, friends, and acquaintances would be nice.
Finally, psychological testing is a must! There has to be a psychological weeding out process for police officers to limit the number of control freaks, power trippers, and other questionable types who seems to gravitate to that particular career choice.
Its something of an indefensible double-standard that police officers, with whom we place so much public trust in, have so much in the way of procedures and organizational bulkheads which prevent them from being summarily dismissed for obvious outright abuses of power, while the rest of us must live and work under the specter of “at-will” employment. We can be terminated for no given reason other than our employers feeling like it, justified or not.
Crooks’ misfortune illustrated that we need to be Watching the Watchmen!

The Federal Debt Crisis....You Vote!

2011-07-27T18:40:00.006-04:00

There is so much I can say about the looming federal debt crisis, but I'm sure that's it's all been said but other pundits and talking heads.
After Monday's talks between Congressional leaders and President Obama broke down without a hint of a compromise or solution, the president urged Americans to call their representatives in Congress and tell them in no uncertain terms to find a solution...now! And based on the way reports indicate that Congressional office phones lit up, Americans are fed-up with hearing the daily broken record of No Compromise...yet(?).
I thought it would be interesting--sans the political- posturing, pandering, partisanship, finger-pointing--to see with whom the American people find fault with insofar as responsibility for the failure to find a solution.

New HIV Treatment Breakthrough vs. Sexual Behavior

2011-07-20T16:25:00.008-04:00

Quite often, many of the behaviors which human beings engage in have had me questioning whether we are in fact the highest order of life on the planet. Politicians distort reality and craft policies which affect real lives for the sake of political power. Individuals routinely allow themselves to be manipulated for the sake of ideological conformity and to assuage their social and individual insecurities (or fears). We wage wars. We kill with inconsistent justifications. And we allow our baser desires like sex to control our higher reasoning; at least animals have primitive instincts—sans the reasoning ability—as grounds for doing so.
With regards to sex, instances like the high-profile indiscretions of former Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner and former California Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, revelations of local suburban prostitution rings (some involving teenagers) being busted up by police, and the introduction of sexual addiction as yet another in a growing list of human psychological maladies provide an insight into how sex controls our lives. Even if life and/or health are at risk, we often find ourselves victims of our own urges. Take the issue of HIV and AIDS for example.

Last week, it was reported that an experimental drug being tested among HIV-infected adults in Africa has been shown to significantly reduce the spread of the virus in their uninfected partners. The drug, Truvada, had already been shown to prevent the spread of HIV among gay men. The conclusion of the more recent study indicates that the drug is also just as effective in preventing new infections among heterosexual couples as well (The study and it’s results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine). According to the research,

At the same time, national and international health officials said it's far from clear how preventive use of these drugs will play out. How many people would want to take a pill each day to reduce their risk of HIV infection? Would they stick with it? Would they become more sexually reckless?

As with any issue involving human behavior, there are potential implications to consider surrounding the drug’s potential use. Among these concerns: how many people would want to take a pill daily to reduce their risk of HIV infection? If so, would they be consistent with its use? Would they become more sexually reckless?
If the history of our behavior with regards to sexuality is an indication, we can expect even amounts of irresponsibility and responsible behavior. While the new drug shows a great deal of promise in preventing the spread of HIV, especially in AIDS-stricken regions of the world like Africa, human behavior can be expected to be only marginally changed by the advent of the new drug. Take for example the revelation earlier this year of the link between oral sex and the increase the risk of certain types of head and oral cancers (ex: “Rise in Some Head and Neck Cancers Tied to Oral Sex: Study” and “Oral Sex Causing Increased Cancer Rate in US” ). In much the same way that this link garners high levels of skepticism among those who routinely engage in oral sex (mostly because of the irrational human propensity to defend what we like or what feels good such as cigarette smoking and drinking), the same could be expected with Travada. Continual engaging in this particular risky sexual behavior by the public has not noticeably diminished since the reporting of this story. Indeed, most have brushed aside the link in much the link between oral sex and certain cancers with the same casualness they have with many suspected carcinogens; everything causes cancer. Expect the same reckless casualness with sexual behavior under the new anti-AIDS drug regime.
And in much the same way that the pill ushered in changes in women’ sexual behavior, there is the very real possibility that people would feel that this new advancement, if made available on a wholesale scale, would give the false sense that the risk of contracting AIDS is a thing of the past, leading to even more promiscuous sexual behavior. Men, including high profile celebrities, power-shapers, and everyday joes will still engage in unprotected sex, despite the risks. Politicians, sports figures, and high-profile types in particular can and will continue to birth children from extramarital affairs (if you doubt the slackening morals of our decadent sexual decisions, you needn't look any further than rapper Lil Wayne, who has 4 children by 4 different high profile women in the entertainment world). Prison rapes will still go on. And teens will still experiment, spurred on by the implied socially-driven message that “everyone does it.” Oddly enough, the only group which anyone could be expected to responsibly use the new drug would be those who engage in sex for more pragmatic reasons…prostitutes, and maybe the possible exception of those in the adult film industry.
As for the rest of us “responsible” adults? Considering that many of us cannot even remember to take our blood pressure, vitamin supplements, or even birth control pills daily, how can anyone in their right minds expect those at-risk of spreading a dangerous pathogen like HIV to be as responsible? During the drug’s trials, it was found that 31 of the volunteers had not even taken their pills at all, while some others did not take their entire supply. These individual failures indicate that even at the risk of health and ultimately life, people will still lie about issues related to their sexual behavior as well as continue to act recklessly.
Don’t get me wrong. I like everyone who is interested in such things am excited at this new medical breakthrough in the fight against AIDS. But in opposition to the researchers and scientists involved collective declaration that it is a “game changer,” human nature being what it is leads me to believe that it will do nothing to change human sexual behavior…or the irresponsibility which causes us to make irrational decisions with regards to our health.

"Violent" Video Games Are Not The Problem

2011-07-09T12:26:00.007-04:00

Last week, the United States Supreme Court handed down a ruling in a California case which probably left irresponsible parents cringing with frustration, and video game industry executives feelings as though they’ve beaten the final boss—on the most difficult setting—of an RPG (that’s Role Playing Game for the handful of you who aren’t into video games)…without cheat codes. In the case of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, the Nine Wise Men/Women exhibited an uncustomary level of common sense (at least with this particular court lineup) and struck down as unconstitutional California’s attempt to ban the sale of violent video games to minors.
In a vote of 7 to 2, the court upheld a lower court’s decision that the state’s law, which imposed a $1,000 fine on those who sell (or rent) video games deemed “violent” to minors, violated free-speech rights. Despite the varying reasons for doing so, the justices rightfully concluded, at least implicitly, that video games are neither harmful, nor do they cultivate in those of us who play them a mindset of aggressive behavior. And while there are studies which would seem to indicate otherwise, there are an equal number of counter studies which indicate the opposite.

"Fatalities" from the original Mortal Kombat video game, considered by many to be the game which spurred concern about violent video games.

Dueling “experts” aside, California’s (and other states’) attempt to “protect” children from deleterious influences was woefully misguided from the very beginning. To even entertain the notion that violent video games (or any other form of entertainment for that matter) can potentially affect individuals in a negative way ignores history itself. Generation Xers like myself grew up with the most brutal and violent of “influences” on television, in books, and on the big screen, and psychologically speaking, we’re not any mentally worse for wear. I can remember watching the Coyote mauling himself many times an episode as he tried to put the Road Runner on a dinner plate. And I can’t count the number of times a spinach-drugged Popeye beat down Bluto daily. Television Westerns, whatever Stallone and/or Schwarzenegger flick playing at the theater, or the prior week’s episode of the A-Team (Ok, that last one was a bad example) simply did not influence us to wreck havoc on people or property. And while it’s true the video games lacked the blood and gore of today’s crop of games like Mortal Kombat and Resident Evil (my personal favorites by the way), we played our share of games which put an opponent on his (or her) keister, but they failed to cause us to walk into a crowded public venue wanting to do the same thing.
Back in the day, the difference was a culture which reinforced the demarcation between reality and fantasy. We had parents who taught us discipline, both physical and emotional…a practice sorely lacking on today’s parents. Thanks to over-doting parents, kids today are emotionally weak. They have a sense of entitlement rather than a sense of duty. They become angry over the smallest inconvenience instead of being told that life little disappointments are as inevitable as the sunrise…and then are told they have “anger management issues.” Too many parents are too inept at actually rearing independent thinkers. Today’s children are very suggestive to even the most questionable of practices and influences—just look at the beltlines of today’s urban males if you don’t believe me. So if young video game players are “influenced,” its due to parents not working to be the primary influence in their children’s lives instead of their peers. Maybe if today’s parents didn’t opt to buy their children Sony Playstations and X-Box 360s with the intent to use these marginally interactive instruments as proxy baby sitters, there wouldn’t even be an issue of a violent video game’s “influence” on the psyches of children.
Society was more responsible also once upon a time. Television programming, was punctuated by object lessons as well as educational interludes such as ABC’s “Schoolhouse Rock” and CBS’s “In The News.” There was not the over-saturation of self-indulgent “reality” television programs, “entertainers” selling sex in music and videos, and misguided adults not allowing public institutions such as schools to do what’s necessary to teach rather than what someone’s ideological stance or belief is.
If anything, it is everything but violent video games which is harming children. If states like California want to be an instrument in preventing harm to children, how about crafting laws which compel more constant, consistent, and positive parenting?

Do You Believe That Violent Video Games Influence Childrens' Behavior?online survey

Record High Black Male Unemployment -- The Non-Issue For Campaign 2012

2011-06-29T04:57:00.019-04:00

With the Republican contenders for the 2012 party nomination already lining up, one issue in the news which started the usual talk of policy and political rhetoric was—oddly enough—the issue of the high rate of unemployment among African-Americans, particularly among black males. CBS evening news reported last week that unemployment among African-American males was an astounding 17% nationally, a rate not seen since the Great Depression.

This high number seems almost welcoming when you consider that in some areas, the unemployment rate for black males is actually double this figure. According to the think tank, the Community Service Society, 34% of black men, ages 19 to 24 in New York City are not working. In Milwaukee, the rate is also 34%.

With such a tailor-made campaign season issues served up to them, some GOP candidates took the cue and began bringing attention on the problem. With an African-American Democrat in the White House, it was easy for those seeking to unseat President Obama to make the accusation that his administration’s policies were responsible for “causing” this crisis among this particular demographic, and “reveal” the failures of his policies. Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich has referred to President Obama as “the most successful food stamp president,” an all-too subtle racial jab as his being both black and [perceptually] “liberal.” Fellow contender Michele Bachmann noted that "This president has failed the Hispanic community. He has failed the African-American community" when it comes to the issue of high unemployment among these traditionally Democratic voting groups.
Ordinarily, this would be a welcome focus. But in an early election season, a time when political opportunism is seized without a second’s hesitation by those jockeying amongst a crowd of contenders for top billing in the polls, the sudden “interest” in the plight of black males is suspect to say the least. Although most Americans know all too-well this phenomenon of election season “awareness” and “concern” of voter issues by Republicans and Democrats, black males have always seemingly been an overlooked demographic, election season or not.
So when Gingrich and Bachmann blame President Obama for his inaction in addressing black (male) unemployment, they fail to mention that same lack concern from their own party in Congress is a contributing factor. Even as they accuse Obama of failing black males, “Republican leadership has not considered or introduced one single jobs bill,” according to Congressman Emmanuel Cleaver (D-MO). Democrats, whom the majority of African-Americans’ have traditionally given their voting allegiance to since the days of FDR, haven’t been that much more helpful on the issue. The pitiful few Democratic legislators supporting the even fewer number of legislative initiatives introduced in Congress attempting to address this issue reflects the near-apathetic level of concern among even their political party.
Trying to discern which action—or lack thereof—is more shameful, Republicans trying to exploit the long-existing socioeconomic troubles of black males for political gain or relative Democratic inaction with regards to addressing the issue (despite unswerving allegiance by black voters) is almost a lose-lose proposition. But whichever the more dishonorable act, many black males are unable to partake in even the most minimalist aspect of the American Dream…employment.
Why are so many black males unemployed? The answer(s) is/are a convergence of socioeconomic factors meeting on the corners of individual selfishness and market realities boulevards.

Black Males
Among the individually selfish reasons for high unemployment among black males are black males themselves. Many black men are simply not participating in the lives of young black males (who have the highest unemployment rate among the highest unemployed demographic), with whom they could be a key asset in preparing them for a competitive national employment market. Fathers, community leaders, business owners, and other otherwise
socially and economically productive male figures should be among the obvious first-liners in crafting positive images among future black men, while directly or indirectly mentoring them. Roles models for this group are desperately needed, and such civic-mindedness would go a long way towards making a difference in the numbers. Sagging pants, recreational drug use, young fatherhood, inappropriate slang use, and unprofessional behavior with regards to employment needs to be discouraged, while job/employment skills, a sense of responsibility, a professional appearance and demeanor, appreciation and emphasis on education, and training need to be instilled in these potential economic resources (and to put too fine a point on the issue, black women—despite the will, good intentions, and/or attempts by many—simply are not up to the task of helping young black boys become productive and employed adult males). Growing up in the 1970s and even into the early 1980s, it was not uncommon—at least for me—to see older black males showing younger black males how to perform work-related tasks around the house, in the neighborhood, or even taking them to work with them (as many more were more economically stable enough to do so).

Ineffective Practices & Shifting Economic Trends
After ill-preparation from lack of family and community support, perhaps the biggest factor contributing to the high unemployment rate is an outdated public education system model. An over emphasis on designating many young black males as being special needs or placement in special education does not help. Lack of direct parental participation and support (outside of the occasional visit to the principal’s office to address disciplinary problems), lack of an emphasis on discipline, strong curriculums which resist political pressure (and negative parental interference), early intervention for potential issues interfering with education, and laws which allow many young people to drop out of school are all absent in a public education dynamic more conducive to encouraging failure rather than success for many young black males. And with more and more local school districts cutting back on already substantively anemic educational curriculums, difference-makers like vocational programs, high school co-op, career-track curriculum- building and counseling have all but become extinct.
With a lack of appreciation for (or an emphasis on) secondary and higher education, many black males who graduated from public schools tended to head immediately into employment, mostly in vocations which required little in the way of education beyond the basics such as manufacturing, construction and certain segments of the service industry. Many of these jobs have evaporated, especially in the last decade due to shifting market trends. And with the lack of career diversity among many males in general and black males in particular, many simply did not and do not have other career options outside of the most menial, most low-paying offerings…or criminal activity.
On that point, many black males have criminal records, which make them undesirable as potential employees, which segues into another reason for so many black unemployed males, discrimination.
Dr. Rodney Green, chairman of the economics department at Howard University and the executive director of the university’s Center for Urban Progress sums up the situation best:

There has been a consistent pattern of black male unemployment rates that are twice the unemployment of white, even in good or bad times,” Green said. He said this is due to continuing discrimination against black males in the labor market and also a split in the labor market where job loss is greatest in industries that employ large numbers of African-Americans such as construction, service and retail.

In the final analysis, even in the best economic times, when black males manage to overcome socioeconomic disadvantages, possess education backgrounds comparable to other successful males from other ethnic groups, and lack criminal records, employers will invariably still manage to overlook these individuals based on some minor prejudice or preference—conscious or not (a reality which I can personally attest to).
In an effort to address this issue—and to prove that not all public servants are oblivious to this issue—a few in Washington have opted to tackle the issue. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) have taken up the cause, drafting and introducing some 40 bills in Congress in an effort to marshal the power of government to do what the private sector is clearly not up to task to do insofar as the high rate of unemployment among African-American males. Members of the CBC like Cleaver have introduced legislative initiatives such as his-14 House Democrat-sponsored Urban Jobs Act, mean to provide training and other related services to at-risk youth preparing to enter the work force through the allocation of federal grant money to already established programs (http://politic365.com/2011/05/18/urban-jobs-act-seeks-to-address-youth-unemployment-crisis/). But in the defense of the lack of Republican support on the issue, the support of only 14 Democrats is hardly something which Democrats can tout as “concern.” It says that there is the lack of concern is being exhibited by both parties, and that maybe there is something to the Republican accusation that Democrats take the African-American vote for granted.
The lack of legislative success has spurred the CBC to take drastic action in the form of its For the People Jobs Initiative, a cross-country roving job fair of sorts, scheduled to visit many of the most hard-hit urban areas where black unemployment is at it highest beginning this summer. With a schedule start in Chicago, the initiative will be comprised of more than just a roving job fair. Each two-day stop will also incorporate a town hall meeting in which job seekers can offer feedback and describe their employment challenges in cities like Cleveland, Detroit, and Los Angeles. And despite the lack of broad initial Democratic and Republican support, the CBC plans to continue introducing legislation based community response and feedback gathered at from its cross-country tour, and culminating in the commission of a jobs advisory council of top black economic and business experts. It is hoped that the end result will a report proposing a long-term solution for job creation and economic growth.
So while certain politicians—including members of Congress—seemed more concerned with holding town hall meetings regarding “attacks on our Constitutional rights” from health care reform, they neglected addressing an issue that had already been problematic in the black and urban communities. If conservatives want to reach out to black voters, blaming a president they voted for overwhelmingly for his lack of directly addressing such a crucial issue, all the while engaging in the same lack of concern is not the way to do so. And if liberals (actual and self-professed) want to give only half-hearted support to concerns which affect those who blindly support their political representatives, then perhaps it would be best for African-Americans to adopt a swing-block voting attitude.
Even more so, it would be sensible for African-Americans males to take to the streets and rally in much the same way they did during the Million Man March of the mid-1990s and politicize an issue of such vital importance to their economic livelihoods. At any rate, its time to make the high rate of unemployment among black males an issue for the next campaign season.

Campaign 2012 -- Let The Games Begin, Conclusion

2011-06-24T19:31:00.016-04:00

As I tuned in to last week’s first GOP debate of the 2012 presidential campaign, I couldn’t help but engage myself in deep cynical thinking about how much the political process in America is illusion designed to misdirect the casual observer. After all, as the old adage goes, nothing that happens in politics is by accident. As I watched, I observed how much of this chase for the White House (and Congress) is just theater intended to ensure the self-interests of the political class, and to manipulate both our thinking and our perceptions as voting Americans for the sake of the monied and connected few. With regards to this reality, I am often left wondering if any Republican, Democrat, Tea Partier, or wannabe political aspirant actually believes what comes out of their mouths at any given moment as they seek public office.
As an illustration, in a Washington Post article dated June 19th, reporters Dan Eggen and T.W. Farnam reveal a tactic used by those seeking high-profile political office known as the “money blurt.” The tactic works like this:

An up-and-coming [or established] politician blurts out something incendiary, provocative or otherwise controversial. The remark bounces around the blogs and talk shows and becomes a sensation. And in the midst of it all, the politician’s fundraisers are manning the phones and raking in the donations (see: "Michele Bachmann, others raise millions for political campaigns with ‘money blurts’")

In some ways, this practice illustrates how those seeking public office often give the poor dumb voter the impression that he has his/her best political interests at heart, while jockeying for position in a field of candidates usually engaged in chasing the same objectives.
Even worse are politicians so wedded to a particular ideology (such as Christianity, conservatism, or even liberalism) that they become inflexible in both thinking and beliefs, deluding themselves into thinking that this intransigence represents "convictions" shared by those who's perceptions they color with their words as they seek a public office as our representatives.
The next GOP candidate seeking the Republican nomination for president exemplifies this dynamic in spades.

Michele Bachmann

Bachmann, The first woman to represent the state of Minnesota in Congress, is another Tea Party favorite as well as an arch-conservative many times the magnitude of most of the men seeking the Republican nomination. For example on the issue of abortion, the staunchly anti-abortion (as well as staunchly Christian) candidate called on fellow candidate Mitt Romney to sign a “Pro-Life Pledge “and vow to protect life from conception to natural death.” Up till now, the GOP’s frontrunner has refused, preferring to focus on the economy as his platform issue. Her campaign’s response that “any Presidential candidate seeking our party's nomination should sign the SBA Pledge and vow to protect life from conception to natural death” reveals her ideological “convictions” as well as her political shrewdness. Granted her stance on abortion is no doubt genuine, her attempt to paint another party candidate into a corner on the issue is a transparent attempt not to create a unified ideological front on the issue, but to take a bit out of Romney’s front runner status. To this, I am reminded of Plato’s assertion that anyone who wants to be in charge shouldn’t be.
Bachmann also believes that the theory of “intelligent design” should be taught in public school science classes, supporting her stance that that evolution is a theory that has never been proven, one way or the other (forgetting that, of course, intelligent design can easily be labeled packaged pretty much the same way). Not only does such a stance laugh in the face of the doctrine of [the] Separation of Church and State, but as a lawyer, her stance puts her in a position of promoting her religious beliefs over a clear legal obligation to uphold a Constitutional principle…the same Constitution she professes to defend.

On the economy, Bachmann’s hard right-wing views find her criticizing even her own fellow Republican Party members—far beyond what one could consider campaign politics. In 2003 as a state senator, she disparaged an economic initiative of fellow Republican 2012 presidential candidate and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, comparing his administration’s “tax Free Zones” meant to spur economic growth to Marxist principles.
In her public appearances, she portrays herself as being rabidly against tax increases of any kind (although in 2005, she opposed Minnesota Governor Pawlenty’s proposal for a state surcharge of 75 cents per pack on the wholesale cost of cigarettes, calling it a “tax increase.” She later reversed her position and voted in favor of the cigarette surcharge). She is against minimum wage increases, and in favor of increases in exploration and drilling for oil and natural gas domestically. She is also in favor of pursing alternative forms of energy such as wind and solar (although it is unknown if she would support government economic subsidies for the latter…my guess is no).
She has called for phasing out both Social Security and Medicare, expressing that “we have to do is wean everybody else off” (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/bachmann-wean-everybody-off-social-security-and-medicare.php).
On social issues, Bachmann is consistent in her hard right-wing. Bachmann supports both a federal and state Constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage (admittedly, marriage should be recognized as a union only between a woman and a man, but based on reasons of common sense stated in part 2 of this posting and not via legal codification).
She is against abortion, except in the cases of rape or incest.
She has vehemently attacked the Obama Administration-sponsored Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act/health care reform bill, calling it “unconstitutional” (although it’s a certainty that most people who go without or cannot afford health care coverage would not agree that their Constitutional “rights” are of more paramount importance than their ability to receive health care). She has outlined her own ideas for changing the health care system, including: enabling consumers to purchase insurance across state lines; increasing the use of health savings accounts; and allow everyone to “take full deductibility of all medical expenses,” including insurance premiums; and tort reform.
On climate control, Bachmann has called global warming, a "hoax," saying that carbon dioxide is "not harmful" because it is a naturally occurring by-product of the life-cycle on earth. Personally, I have always wanted to know how those doubting the empirical evidence of global warming and climate change can reconcile their belief in an all-powerful invisible God whom they can't perceive by way of the senses, but deny what's going on right in front of their eyes (Read/Listen here for example).
On allowing would-be insurance buyers to purchase across state lines, one has to wonder how this would truly far this would to lower costs for the consumer. Increasing savings accounts sounds like a good idea on the surface, but is really a non-factor considering most service-sector jobs barely pay enough for a subsistence living, yet alone allowing for affording a luxury like health insurance; many consumers still struggle to afford even the deductibles and with more. And with more state governments demanding that their public employees contribute more to their benefits package, savings accounts just aren’t a practical solution for many. However, tort reform and deductibility of medical expense/premiums are viable solutions. Obviously, she is of the mindset that market-based solutions for socioeconomic problems are the only solutions (or the only ones which should be offered in a market-based economy), which is surprising for someone with her education background (she possess a Masters in Laws). But outside of these traditionally conservative options—by addressing costs rather than universal access—with regards to health care, she has not offered anything novel (or even substantive) in the way of a substitute beyond the rhetoric the current option’s unconstitutionality, and its effect of being a “job killer.”
Bachmann has also called for the abolishment of the Environmental Protection Agency, created under the late Republican President Richard Nixon, also calling it a “job killer” (apparently, labeling policies which don’t agree with her excessively conservative views “job killers” is enough to sway segments of the voting electorate who are susceptible to such manipulations of ideology).
Adolph Hitler once said that if you tell a big enough lie often enough, it will eventually become the truth, and that in the end, truth will not matter. The practice is all the more effective if you are able to find supporters from the gate. This is what I am reminded of in Michele Bachmann’s candidacy. She is quite vocal in her assertions that anyone [else] who doesn’t view social and political policies from her own perspective as being “out-of-touch with mainstream” views, but these loud protestations only mask the fact that her own views fit that particular bill more than others.
Adolph Hitler once said that if you tell a big enough lie often enough, it will eventually become the truth, and that in the end, truth will not matter. The practice is all the more effective if you are able to find supporters from the gate. This is what I am reminded of in Michele Bachmann’s candidacy. She is quite vocal in her assertions that anyone [else] who doesn’t view social and political policies from her own perspective as being “out-of-touch with mainstream” views, but these loud protestations only mask the fact that her own views fit that particular bill more than others.
A lawyer by profession, Bachmann is quite an elegant and polished speaker. She knows how best to persuade a group of people trying decide for themselves what is right. But most of America’s voting electorate lack the time (or patience) to look into the substance of issues for themselves, and shrewd politicians know this. They are able to take advantage of our propensity to listen to what others have to say on a particular issue, rather than self-research. And if the message is elegant and persuasive enough—fact checking and intentional distortions notwithstanding—expect even the most marginal candidate for office to have a level of legitimacy.
Although clearly competent, her views on how best to govern the country simply do not have the best interests of all Americans at heart. In fact, her view of America seems to reflect the views of a select few whose social, economic, and ideological interests would benefit. And although this is not the case with Obama’s Administration, it appears that at least his attempts to craft policies which the majority can benefit from are more in line with the country’s promise.

Note: Beyond The Political Spectrum will continue throughout the 2012 presidential campaign to look at other contenders for both the Democratic and Republican nominations

Campaign 2012 -- Let The Games Begin! Part 2

2011-06-21T17:32:00.019-04:00

As mentioned in Part 1 of this particular posting, last week’s Republican debate signaled that our country is about to enter another long presidential campaign season (or is that seasons?). And as a dyed-in-the-wool cynic when it comes to political observation, it would be nice to see a change of pace from the usual big money influence, series of spoken half-truths, lies, political pandering, sanctimony, and the implication that my ideology is better than yours when it comes to running the country. As I’ve always said, America should be governed based on the principles of need, not by ideology. To that effect, government has the potential as well as the resources to help in some quarters, but can be a hindrance in others. Despite this reality, the politicians we elect either adopt or reject this reality—extremely in some cases—due to their inability to think beyond the narrow ideological interpretations they hold, self-interests, the interests of whatever socioeconomic, political, or organization they belong to, and/or a combination of these reasons. Additionally, with most elected officials at the federal level seemingly betrothed to Special Interests and the dollars they flood into the coffers of these politicians, we Americans are left with the non-choice of candidates that know will inevitably work against the collective interests. So all we can do is watch debates like the GOP presidential debate in New Hampshire last week and make a best guess which candidate will make a half-way decent president based on their performance and the stances they take on various issues.

Ron Paul
Polling at only 7% likely Republican voters (NBC/Wall Street Journal Pool, week of 06/11/11), Texas Congressman Ron Paul’s libertarian-tinged message has some support among elements of conservative voters as well as some independents tired of [the] more traditional choices when it comes to presidential contenders. Perhaps his overall message is best summed up as libertarian with hints of pragmatic conservatism; the “legalization of freedom.” His low polling among conservatives overall, but popularity among segments (exemplified by his win of the straw poll of likely Republican candidates at last week’s Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans) gives him a half-hearted appeal among likely voters. Admittedly, much of his message makes a great deal of sense, so its understood why of the individuals his message resonates with adopt a “I-like-this-about-him-but-not-that” attitude.

For example, on the subject of marriage—both gay and straight—he refuses to support legislation which bans or legalizes gay marriage because he believes that marriage should be sanctioned through a church. In fact, he believes that anything having to do with relationships should definitely not be dealt with on the federal level, and that states should decide what they want. Ultimately, he is of the opinion that a license for any marriage through government should not be necessary because marriage is a religious matter. However, not only does this position put him at odds with Christian Conservatives, a main constituent base for Republicans, but is not practical (at least for heterosexual couples) given that government recognizes the partnership of marriage for legalities involving consideration of financial benefits, inheritance, asset division/recognition, etc. As I stated in part 1, common sense dictates that the Founding Fathers could not have remotely considered that two adults of the same sex would want to marry one another, so in that respect, Paul is correct. There should not be any federal legislation in regards to the recognition that a marriage is between a man and a woman…it just goes without saying. He believes that government has no business in economic or social relationships.
While on the subject of homosexuality, Paul is on record as being against laws at the federal level restricting rights to individuals thus he voted to repeal "Don't Ask Don't Tell" in the military (he believes that homosexuals shouldn't be discharged if they are not causing a disruption. His “legalization of freedom” approach towards homosexuality carries over to other libertarian beliefs he holds, and he has called for the legalization of drugs and prostitution.

On abortion, he believes that aborting a child is an act of violence and should not be funded on a federal level. But unlike most political conservatives, he believes that states should decide whether or not abortion should be legal. I become nervous whenever a politician passes the buck to states to determine laws which have such far reaching social impact as abortion; handing states a disproportionate amount of power to make such laws is why the Articles of Confederation didn’t work, as such an extreme practice of federalism renders the central government impotent. This would have to be the inevitable result of Paul’s view of America, as he proposes to eliminate many federal agencies, including the Departments of Education, Energy, and Homeland Security. States, many of them already financially strapped, cannot handle so much implied delegation of traditionally federal responsibilities.
On the economy, Paul said that he would cut military spending and foreign involvement in order to trim the deficit. In addition, he believes that we could eliminate the income tax (I’m loving this) if we drastically cut spending, which would cut the influence of special interests in government.
On health care, he has stated that he would repeal the new health care law signed under President Obama, as he thinks it represents more unnecessary “big government.”
Paul, for all the sense he makes on some of the issues, would probably best be served if he were running on a third party. It would detract from his legitimacy as a serious candidate for the presidency, but it would also add to elements of his appeal, such as the perception that he is not the typical Washington insider.

Herman Cain
For all intents and purposes, Herman Cain is what I consider to be the “Anti-Obama.” He’s African-American. But he’s not as politically astute, polished, nor does he project a noticeable amount of the President’s Charisma. He’s pretty much self-made, having worked in business most of his post-Navy life (compared to Obama, who cut his chops working as an activist among Chicago’s politically disenfranchised before being elected to the U.S Senate). He also, like Palin, is adored by many within the Tea party movement as well as many within the Republican Party as a whole. To be totally honest, its hard to consider him a serious contender without the name recognition of other Republican challengers, or having held any political office (his most notable forays into organized politics was his failed 2004 campaign for the U.S. Senate seat representing Georgia, and as an advisor on the 1996 presidential campaign of former Senator Bob Dole during his failed run). On some issues, he is quite the conservative, but seems to take a moderate cautious tone on others, especially on foreign affairs.

On abortion, he is steadfastly against the practice, even in cases or rape or incest (although I feel its not my place in such a situation to tell a woman what to do, abortions due to rape and/or incest account for only 1% of the total number of abortions in a given year, so using such a justification to defend the other 99% of women who undergo abortions as a form of retroactive birth control doesn’t seem to hold water. In this respect, Herman’s view may be valid). Furthermore, he believes that Planned Parenthood should not be funded, and has called it a “racist” organization since “75% of their organizations are located in black communities.”
On same-sex marriage, Cain opposes legal recognition of same-sex unions (he believes that marriage is a union between a man and woman only), and believes that homosexuality is a “sin,” as well as a choice. He is on record as opposing the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
On the economy, he embraces the long-held and long-ago debunked myth of trickle down economics; cutting taxes for all businesses will stimulate growth and create jobs. He also thinks that economy stimulus involves eliminating entire programs rather than just trimming budgets.
On health care, he has been opposed to any form of “nationalized” health care since then president Bill Clinton proposed it back in the early 1990s. Like most, he holds the private market sacrosanct when it comes to resolving the dilemma of the millions of uninsured Americans who simply cannot afford protection against the prohibitively expensive health costs.
On foreign policy, Cain has been supportive the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, while opposing withdrawal timetables.
He favors a “diplomatic approach” toward Iran with regards to nuclear disarmament. But he opposes any negotiation with North Korea and opposed the New START treaty with Russia, stating that the US reserves the right to maintain freedom to develop nuclear weapons while maintaining peace through a show of strength.
Finally on energy, Cain favors offshore drilling, while allowing the consumer to choose alternative forms of energy through the private market. This is not an easy position to support, as continual drilling maintains a stagnant technological status quo where America would still be dependent on “black gold” as a primary energy source, and in which we would have to inevitably continue to have to rely on politically unstable regimes in equally unstable regions to supply us.
Cain seems to be an individualistic thinker, but seems to be too driven by his religious convictions (he is an active minister and active member of the National Baptist Convention). Caution should be had here. The last time religious fervor impacted secular government policy, we got Prohibition…and we see how well that worked…
Cain seems to need more experience in affairs of the state before he can be considered a competent contender as a representative of the people. And for goodness sake, leave the religious out of affairs of the state!

To Be Concluded...

Campaign 2012 -- Let The Games Begin! Part 1

2011-06-18T12:57:00.017-04:00

I make the following declaration knowing full well that some of you are simply not going to agree with me; I like President Obama. What's not to like? He's polished, eloquent, intelligent, accomplished, comes from a tradition of activism among the poor and disenfranchised, and his life's journey makes a great narrative for those seeking to strive in an America of promise. And no, I don’t agree with every policy of his administration (his opposition to the use of enhanced interrogation techniques to elicit useful information from detained terror suspects comes immediately to mind). But despite the ridiculous accusations from [individuals who delude themselves into thinking they represent] mainstream and fringe-minded individuals who accuse Obama of being all but a spearhead for a Socialist fifth-column within the American government, some of us realize that he comes from an activist-tradition, and is trying his best to undo—within four years yet—circumstances which took more time than that to create. Quite simply, these economic woes were in place before his being voted into office by the American people, and despite the intellectual handicaps of many Americans who apparently suffer from short-term or selective memory issues, he cannot cross his arms and blink away these economic issues as fast as a genie obeying the will of her master; it took time to create this economic beast and it will take time to undo it.
That’s bit of open-minded reality I kept in mind as I watched the first GOP political debate of the 2010 presidential elections campaign, hosted by CNN. As I watched and listened to the various stances the candidates took on the various issues, most of the debate was more Obama-bashing than substantive counter-ideas for how to fix the ailing economy. As I listened, I also kept in mind that many of the anti-Obama policies that the candidates railed against tend to magically become adopted by Republicans whenever a Republican-controlled administration takes the White House, such as the decision to take military action against Libya, as its own military engages in a brutal offensive against rebel insurgents seeking to topple the regime of longtime leader Muammar Gaddafi (granted, I agree that this action should not have been taken considering there are other instances of equally brutal government suppressions of dissent/popular uprising ongoing elsewhere in the Arab World). So ignoring how (for example) “interventionist” policies suddenly morph into “American interests” whenever there is a change in party control, I continued to watch the debates.
As I continued to listen, I was waiting to hear something fresh from conservatives [who at least gave lip service to the notion of] wanting to take America in a “new” direction. I heard Minnesota Congresswoman and Tea Party favorite Michelle Bachmann’s assertion that the government spends too much (now tell me something I don’t know), as well as her pledge to repeal the Obama-sponsored health care bill should she become president.
I also heard the always insightful Ron Paul’s revelation that the U.S. hasn’t developed any new jobs in the last decade to keep up with population growth.
There was Republican front-runner and former Massachusetts Mitt Romney touting his contributions to the example of the economic Shangi-La that is his home state.
And then there were more of the usual political truth-stretching, reality distortions, and outright lies you would find with most Republican (or Democratic) candidate debates (see analysis of debate points from Monday night's debate at factcheck.org. http://www.factcheck.org/2011/06/gop-new-hampshire-debate/).
And as I continued to watch, I found myself imagining that these Republican [and the inevitable Democratic] candidates running for the White House would actually be idea candidates who the American people would actually look forward to voting for simply because they are serving the people. I imagined them actually not flip-flopping on issues come election time, serving the people and not special interests, and actually being influenced by the will of the people, and not Big Money. I fantasized about how narrow-minded social-political ideologies would not be the basis for how they would govern, but rather focus on what people needed. I actually thought about how I would love for politicians to embrace and talk about ideas and policies based on truth, not beliefs. And I considered how much they could accomplish if they focused less on political posturing for the benefit of political advantage, or their libidos for the sake of their egos.
So in lieu of embracing a fantasy dream about how politics and candidates should behave, I took the time to look into where the various (and presumed) candidates stand on various issues of importance, and put them into the perspective of who’s actually presidential material.

Mitt Romney
Probably the most presidential material among the 7 from Monday night’s debate. He’s polished, experienced, but vulnerable on his propensity to change his stance on various issues. For example, in 2002 on the issue of abortion he endorsed the use of RU-486, the so-called “morning after” abortion pill. Furthermore, as governor of Massachusetts, he was vocal in his position on preserving a woman’s right to abort. Currently, he’s taken the traditional conservative stance against a woman’s right to abort her child (as well as it—and the death penalty—should be illegal if one is to promote himself as being “pro-life”).
Romney has also been on record as having been more liberal on the issue of gay rights back in the mid 1990s (he favored gays serving openly in the military and being able to work with the Boy Scouts of America). So despite his political likeability, he can be seen as a typical politician who changes position with the wind (but in his defense, you show me a politician who doesn’t change his/her stance on issues, I will show you an alien, a unicorn, and a ghost).
Current Republican frontrunner and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney
Romney is a staunch supporter near-unrestricted gun ownership for qualified Americans (he does support rigorous background checks and automatic weapons ban when it comes to ownership. Personally, I wouldn’t feel safe in a house without a gun).
On foreign policy, Romney asserts that Americans should stand up to Muslim extremism and terrorism abroad. He believes that we can best protect America by first using economic sanctions on terrorist states first, but would not be averse to using military options if all else fails in protecting American interests.
On the economy, he supports the Bush era tax cuts and would make them permanent if he were president, but believes the flat tax (which many conservatives favor) is unfair and that the Fair-Tax would encourage illegal trading of goods. In addition, Romney believes that government waste is the biggest problem facing the economy in 2012 and that we should make drastic cuts for special programs and ultimately fixing the deficit. Sensible advice, which makes far more sense than promoting the fantasy of tax cuts as being a panacea for what ails American economically.
On health care, Romney believes that states should decide about health care and that the Obama health care plan is illegal and unconstitutionally illegal and is bad for the American people. I take serious personal fault with this stance, especially after having gone years without affordable health care. So apparently, my “constitutional rights” are more important than the ability to maintain my good health? I beg to differ, and I’ll wager that many others Americans in similar situations would agree. But he has faced a much criticism for endorsing a similar government run health care bill on the state level while he was governor, which he continues to. He has a solid record of being a business man as well as having executive level public office experience. Overall, the most moderate and likable candidate on the GOP’s rooster of candidates who could probably pull off a modicum of favorable policies under optimal political conditions.

Sarah Palin
The darling of the Tea Party, the ubiquitous Mrs. Palin seems for the moment, to be more content with promoting the Tea Party’s interpretation of what constitutes positive “change” by gallivanting all over the country and robbing headlines through speeches and personal appearances. And given her much documented gaffes verbal missteps—and there have been many—she could hardly be considered a conservative ideologue. Dan Quayle in a skirt comes to mind. For those reasons alone, I’m hardly at a loss for words in trying to understand Sarah Palin’s appeal among some of the American electorate.
Former Alaska Governor Sara Palin. Leadership material?
On gay marriage, Palin supported Alaska being among the first state to in the country (ok, among the fringes—pun intended—of the country) to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage. In fact, her first veto as governor of Alaska blocked a bill which would have barred granting state benefits to partners within same-sex partnerships. But more recently, she stated that she would support a ballot measure overturning the standing state Supreme Court decision that mandates benefits for domestic partners of state employees.
However, Palin is on record as being in favor of as supporting federal legislation banning gay marriage. It’s funny how Palin and the Tea Party asserts that there is too much government…up until its an issue that they support. While protecting the traditional American family is a laudable goal, does it really require legislation when so many social factors as well as individual choices are causing its implosion anyway (and yes, I do believe that the Founding Father could not have even imagined that marriage between two people of the same sex would or could have been an eventual issue when they were crafting the Constitution, and should not be a legal issue…at least it was conceived that blacks could have been considered citizens).
On abortion, she adopts the typical conservative paradox of being against abortion, but being pro death penalty. She believes that abortion rights should be left up to the individual states.
Being a hunter, she does support gun ownerships rights.
On foreign policy, her lack of experience holds her legitimacy to the level of opinion on certain issues, such as her assertion that
dictators who hate America…hate what we stand for, with our freedoms, our democracy, our tolerance, our respect for women’s rights. Ah Mrs. Palin, if it were only that simple an explanation.
On the economy, she has displayed a crippling lack of substance and/or depth. Its hard, outside of Tea Party-favored rhetoric to pinpoint what or how she would improve the economy.
On her experience, the fact that she resigned from her position of governor of the state of Alaska speaks volumes. The presidency is a different level of pressure, and if the executiveship of the least populated state proves overwhelming…
Does America really need someone in the White House who believes in the legitimacy of medical care death panels? Who’s to say that she wouldn’t believe that the Cold War with Russia were not still ongoing? After all, she can see it from her front door.

To Be Continued...
http://beyond-the-political-spectrum.blogspot.com/2011/06/campaign-2012-lets-games-begin-part-2.html

Power Perverts (...and Absolute Power Perverts Absolutely!)

2011-06-13T19:16:00.011-04:00

Last week when I was originally going to write on the subject of sexual promiscuity among politicians, elements of the scandal involving Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner and an adult movie actress ware still coming to light (now there are allegations that Weiner has been trading sexually explicit cell phone texts and pictures with a 17 year-old female teen). The direction I would have chosen for the post would have been one of condemnation of Weiner’s actions, along with other politicians within both the Democratic and Republican parties who were literally caught with their pants down.

Democratic New York State Congressional Representative Anthony Weiner in one of the cellphone photographs in question (courtesy of TMZ online).

Anthony Weiner. John Edwards. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Bill Clinton. Newt Gingrich. Kwame Kilpatrick. I could use up the bandwidth of this blog with a complete list politicians have been embroiled in sex scandals, particularly those of the extramarital persuasion. What I wanted to do was put this list of cheating politicians in the perspective of questionable decision-making; Weiner has been around the proverbial political block long enough to have witnessed first-hand that such behavior among high profile politicians rarely goes unnoticed…or unrevealed. This is behavior that I can’t understand, even as a member of the male species.
And of course, we all know what happens after such personal indiscretions come to light. We can expect Weiner (or whichever future politician who will find himself in the same predicament) to check into some type of rehab clinic for whatever “help” he feels that he will need. We can expect a public apology in front of a room full of cameras, maybe with a should-be embarrassed wife standing (defiantly?) at his side. And maybe some high-profile counseling by an equally high-profile spiritual advisor.

New York State Congressional Representative Anthony Weiner, in a more official photograph.

But then, National Public Radio (NPR) aired a piece on its daily All Things Considered segment last Friday which forced me to reconsider how harsh my judgments would be. The piece, “Power May Increase Promiscuity” was an eye-opening examination of research delving into the link between sexual promiscuity and powerful people, and by extension politicians. The psychological research examined in the piece revealed that the sometimes unbelievable brazenness of politicians engaged in sexual peccadilloes is not as hard to understand as it would appear.
It seems that there is a lot of truth to the adage that power is the ultimate aphrodisiac, for both men and women. The research concludes that
…the more men and women had power, the more they likely that they were to engage in an adulterous relationship. In fact, they were found that the most powerful people to be 30% more likely—both men and women—to have affairs than the least powerful people. The most powerful people were having many more affairs (http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.htmlaction=1&t=1&islist=false&id=137112887&m=137112867) To hear the piece in its entirety, click on the link and listen.

As I listened to [the] summaries of the experiments and research behind the findings, I gained a greater level of understanding into human nature. But I didn’t gain any sympathy; I wont yield in my judgments. The research link between power and promiscuity notwithstanding, Weiner should put his ego and selfishness aside and stop resisting the calls to step down.
Whenever public figures—especially politicians—such as Weiner engage in lewd sexual behavior and/or extramarital affairs, the fact that they are so willing to casually throw away the trust of their wives, families, and constituents, as well as make such reckless decisions fully aware of the personal costs indicates that they lack the character to represent We The People. Anyone in Weiner’s position should be big enough, responsible enough to both themselves and those who’s trust he/she violates to step down and avoid further embarrassment to themselves, their families, and to the principles office they swore to uphold.

The Chickens Come To Pakistan To Roost (Or Osama Says, "I Should Have Considered The Law Of 'Karma' Instead Of Sharia Law!")

2011-05-06T13:20:00.013-04:00

In what has to be a combined vindication (of sorts) for former President George W. Bush, redemption (also of sorts) for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and a popularity boost for current President Barack Obama, the United States finally got its man. Public Enemy No. 1, that Master of Mid-Morning Mayhem, that status quo shaker-upper extraordinaire, leader…that is former leader of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden was killed in a surgical military operation by US Special Forces last week.

The success of the long-awaited operation, part of the larger War on Terror began in Afghanistan by former President Bush, was the result of intelligence acquired by the CIA via the “enhanced interrogation techniques” of high value detainees of Al Qaeda, and which have often been criticized by opponents of the use of torture by the U.S. (but endorsed by Beyond The Political Spectrum in a previous posting for the sake of extracting information to prevent another potential terrorist attack on the scale of September 11th - http://beyond-the-political-spectrum.blogspot.com/2009/04/whats-wrong-with-doing-right-part-1.html). To no one’s surprise, Bin Laden and a couple of trusted cohorts were found in a reinforced compound located in an area of Pakistan known as a retirement haven for former soldiers of the Pakistani military, an arrangement which could conceivably reinforce the belief Bin Laden and Al Qaeda has/have sympathizers within elements of the Pakistani government (including the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI). Further fueling this speculation is the fact that the Pakistani government was not informed by the American government in regards to having knowledge of Bin Laden’s suspected whereabouts in its country, or that an impending strike was to be shortly underway on its soil in an effort to capture the worlds most (formerly) wanted man.

This action was a welcome (and rare) successful accomplishment by the CIA, which had been stained for years by failures, the least of which was the connecting of the intelligence clues and the sharing of information with other government law-enforcement agencies of the impending September 11th attacks. But much of this operation’s success can be directly attributed to the streamlining of intelligence gathering and sharing by America’s security apparatus initiated by the Bush Administration following the intelligence failure resulting in the success of the attacks by Al Qaeda. In addition to Bin Laden's death, the raid on the terrorist leader's hideout yielded a treasure trove of electronic and hand written notes regarding the late leader's terrorist organization and potential terrorist plots. Government officials hope that this combined eradication and information windfall will go far toward breaking the back of Al Qaeda in the long run.
The news of Bin Laden’s death touched off celebratory cheering in both Washington DC and New York Cities, both locations the sites of the 2001 attacks which Bin Laden ordered. While in certain quarters of the Middle East, Bin Laden’s death elicited threats of retaliation from among his supporters, although to date, there have been no particular threats—credible or otherwise—known to be underway as a result of the terrorist leader’s demise. Still, the specter of retaliation, especially by so-called “lone wolf” radical adherents to extremist Muslim doctrines is an issue. While Bin laden lived, he was an inspiration to such individuals such as Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be airline bomber thwarted on Christmas Day in 2009 in Detroit by both passengers and his own incompetence. As a potential martyr, he could become a rallying symbol for a greater effort on the part of America’s enemies to (potentially unrelentingly) attack American interests, including those here on American soil.
As of this writing, details of the raid are still trickling into various media outlets. It is suspected however, that execution of the raid itself was carried out by U.S. navy SEAL commandos.
With the symbolic victory of Osama Bin Laden’s death is something of a boost for America’s beleaguered military, intelligence, and current presidential administration, the true victory still lays ahead…successful vigilance against foreign foes hell-bent on bringing mass bloodshed to the shores of America.

Black Males - Hopelessness & Hope

2011-04-18T00:14:00.007-04:00

It’s funny how some of the issues which stand in the way of [the] equality of happiness (or at least reasonable contentment) for all Americans pretty much chronicle themselves. Take for example the laundry list of socioeconomic pathologies which black males in America tend to lead amongst many demographic groups. In many cases African-American males tend to be far and away leading the rates—in the negative sense—in many categories, from high unemployment and school dropout rates to high rates of health-related issues such as hypertension, particular cancers, and diagnoses of various Attention Deficient (and related) Disorders. We’ve all either read the occasional news articles or have seen the special report news segments spotlighting the “plight of the black male.” Indeed, many of us can almost recite the sad statistics by heart. And given the various and, for the most part ineffective bandage-over-hemorrhage approaches toward addressing the plight of the black male in America, and the resulting expectation among many Americans of the black male’s connection with (or is that participation in?) all things pathological, its easy to conclude that this sad reality has become an accepted part of life in contemporary America. In fact, so much has this view become part of our perceptual realities that many, if not most of today’s crop of black musical “entertainers” (for want of a better word) themselves irresponsibly cater to the worst of sociological beliefs and racial stereotypes with their lyrics and their associated videos. If one was a foreign visitor to this country casually observing the culture, the likes of Trey Songz, R. Kelly, and 99% of Southern Rap-dominated music would indicate that African-American males are nothing more than a group of pants-sagging, sex-obsessed partying potheads with ingrained criminal tendencies, and have no aspirations beyond being “thugs,” “players,” and/or “G’s” (that’s “Gangstas” for the un-hip among you). As a further illustration of how much society has adapted to this particular socioeconomic pathology of being, I point to a recent article which was e-mailed to me. In a recent edition of the online liberal news magazine, the LA Progressive dated last from month, an article appeared with a most ominous declaration in its title; “More Black Men Now In Prison System Than Were Enslaved In 1850.” In the March 27th edition of the weekly, Ohio State University law professor and author of the best-seller, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration In The Age of Colorblindness Michelle Alexander made that numbers-backed pronouncement, which is actually a slight bit of mathematical common sense given the natural rate of population increase among the African-American population (http://www.laprogressive.com/law-and-the-justice-system/black-men-prison-system/ [Part 1] http://www.laprogressive.com/law-and-the-justice-system/boiling-hot-mad/ [Part 2]).

The somewhat convoluted explanation of a prison-industrial complex perpetuating this unprecedented black male incarceration rate notwithstanding, Alexander chronicles the story of her eventual “awakening” to this “phenomenal prison growth...as it relates to black” inmates to the time she spent as a civil rights attorney and as active legal counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, and how “she was blind to the magnitude of this problem.” In the article, the legal scholar implies that the 35.4% of black males being held in custody are there due to the farcical policy known as the War on Drugs “waged almost exclusively in poor communities of color,” despite studies showing that “whites use and sell illegal drugs at rates equal to or above blacks.” Alexander conluded that

As a consequence, a great many black men are disenfranchised…prevented because of their felony convictions from voting and from living in public housing, discriminated in hiring, excluded from juries, and denied education opportunities.

This is the current state being for many African-American males which America has come to perceive as an inevitable reality—the perception of a hopelessly burdensome group of individuals. The actual reality is that in many locales across the country, there are many unsung instances where black males are attempting to shatter this negative imagery of themselves. Two weeks ago in Harlem (yes, that Harlem), the Harlem Millennium Dance Company hosted a local dance at the Alhambra Ballroom. But this was not an ordinary dance of the garden variety fare. There was no bumping and grinding—no simulated sexual gyrations or pelvic thrusts—to profanity-laden rap music. There were no alcohol-spiked punchbowls filled with beverages usually associated with an over 21 crowd passing as simple libations. And absent was a rambunctious crowd of curfew-bending/breaking teenagers expressing their insecurities, trying to fit in, even at the expense of violating whatever household rules their parents set forth for them to follow. Instead, more than 40 black fathers and their daughters danced the night way, dressed in tuxedoes and evening gowns to classics like The Temptations’ “My Girl” and Luther Vandross’ “Dance With My Father.”
The event, which started as a simple fund-raiser with modest expectations, eventually grew into a newsworthy affair of some more than 40 black fathers and their daughters. Both organizers and participants had hopes that the event would deliver “a message that men, especially in the black community are playing a role in the lives of their daughters” and by extension, of their children. This was an observation which was bared-out in the varying ages of the participating daughters, ranging from 3-years to older teenagers. What was most inspiring about the dance was, as voiced by the organizers and participants, that it was an example of how little notice we take of things and events which could change our overall negative perceptions of the black male. Paradoxically, the fact that such an event was even newsworthy speaks volumes as to how entrenched our negative perceptions of African-American men have become. But it also showcases the hope that black men are willing to break—or at least weaken—the bonds of negative imagery, and change the way which society perceives them.

Intolerance On Parade (Or "April Fools")

2011-04-07T09:27:00.011-04:00

Guess Who’s Not Coming To Dinner? Glenn Back

In what one could only describe as a convergence of circumstances which benefit sound reasoning, arch-conservative (although I think “conservative” is too tame a label) and demagogue extraordinaire Glenn Beck shocked his viewers on his Fox News Channel show yesterday when he announced that his show on the network would end later this year. As a result of a combination of the increasing divisiveness of his conspiracy-laden far right-leaning rhetoric, plummeting ratings, and an increasing number of advertisers jumping off the sinking ship that is his show, Fox and Beck opted to practice the better part of ideological valor and part company, although it is unclear which party initiated the separation (funny thing is thought, the word “amicable” has not even been mentioned in the reports surrounding the affair). During his run on Fox, Beck—in spite of his millions of loyal viewers—has often found himself the target of mainstream as well as leftist criticism as a result of his often incendiary remarks. But despite the controversy which continues to orbit both his words and his media presence, he was and still remains the darling of Tea Party activists, as well as others with less vehement ideological leanings.

Glenn Beck, during one of his sarcastic promotional photo ops.

Who would have thought…in a nation full of right-wing as well as left-wing lunatics, I guess even vitriol has a ceiling!

Ignore That Previous Statement…Thou Will Judge!

In yet another instance in a long list of proofs that religion and stupidity are a dangerous mix, controversial Florida pastor Terry Jones publicly last month burned a copy of the Quran, the sacred book of scripture among the world’s billion or so Muslims. According to Jones, his reasoning (or lack thereof) was “to raise awareness of this dangerous religion and dangerous element.” Jones went further in defense of his actions, citing that "We decided to put the Quran on trail…I was the judge but I did not determine the verdict. I was just a type of referee so that people got their time to defend or condemn the Quran….a ‘jury’ of people from all over Florida debated the radicalism of Islam, and the ‘Quran was found guilty.’" (http://abcnews.go.com/CleanPrint/cleanprintproxy.aspx?unique=1302180053583&pfurl=http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=13281689).

In response to this, what adherents to Islam deem as sacrilege of the highest order, violent protests have erupted in Afghanistan, culminating with the deaths of 11 people, including an attack on a United Nations compound where 7 UN workers were killed. Jones is no stranger to controversy. This action was actually a postponement of his previous threat to burn a copy of the Quran on the anniversary of the Sept 11th terrorist attacks last year, but chose not to after intense criticism and public pressure which included a personal plea from President Obama. In response to the deaths in Afghanistan, the Florida pastor has remarked that he feels that he bears no responsibility…of course. He’d rather bear the notoriety of publicity, not the burden or responsibility for his actions.

In most cases, the Constitution asserts that both freedom of speech and religions are absolutes, even demonstrative speech such as flag burning and religious ethnocentrism such as asserting that “My God can beat your God up!” But there is also that caveat/exception about shouting fire in a burning theater. And a religiously intolerant Southern American religious figure (for want of a better term) burning a Quran while Westerners are working in a hostile environment, which is the ancestral home of the religiously xenophobic Taliban amounts to literally shouting fire and a theater (of war). One has to wonder what similar level of outrage was going through Jones’ mind when Robert Mapplethorpe sank that crucifix into that jar of urine back in the 80s and called it “art?”

Another Military intervention (Libya)...Here We Go Again!

2011-03-25T16:31:00.008-04:00

Let me jump right into the conclusion first: the “allied” (hardly an accurate affiliation since America is providing the lion’s share of the effort in terms of material and cost) air strikes against Moammar Gadhafi’s forces are ill-advised. My bad. I didn’t mean to state my position so cryptically, as if I were either running for public office or were a career politician trying to avoid being pinned to a policy position which could go either way…good or bad.
I am stating for the record that I am firmly against the American military intervention going on in Libya. And before any critics out there start popping off at the mouth about how its unlike you to be against a policy which is at essence a humanitarian endeavor, there are several practical reasons why the country needs to reconsider its direct intervention in the growing political (and now civil) unrest in the Middle East.

Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi from earlier this month (AP photograph)

For one thing, America simply does not know the identities of all of the Libyan rebel movement’s key players. This reflects the reality that going into a political/military hotbed without knowledge of who or which organized faction(s)is/are leading the opposition against the longtime leader of the North African nation was a hastily-crafted (and executed) opportunistic foreign policy endeavor. And such an undertaking under these circumstances could be perceived as questionable decision-making at best. Who after all, jumps feet first into a fight where the combatants are someone who is a longtime enemy, and an implied opponent whose intentions are likewise implied? The last time this happened with regards to American foreign policy, we got the quagmire that was and continues to be Iraq.
Another reasonable justification as to why America should not be involved in what is essentially an internal affair of Libya is that being so gives off the more-than-valid perception—to both would-be friends and foes alike—is that America’s Middle Eastern policy is inconsistent, and biased…no matter the White House administration in authority. With regards to the current wave of popular uprisings throughout the Arab World, and up until the very moment the first million-dollar-apiece cruise missile began hitting targets on Libyan soil, America kept its interventions to the level of democratic (small “d”) rhetoric. Even when America’s regional ally Saudi Arabia—whose own popular protests helped topple longtime pro-American president Hosni Mubarak—sent its own troops into neighboring Bahrain to help quell political unrests there which threatened to unseat the unpopular Bahrainian king, very little in the way of calls for any kind of Western action was heard from within the Obama Administration. Granted the level of brutality brought to bear by (the) Arab governments under siege against their respective opponents varies, the fact of the matter is that there seems to be an unspoken line of demarcation in Middle Eastern sand with regards to suppression of protests against unpopular leaders/leadership; in one country it’s an internal affair, while in another it’s a violation of human rights. Even this morning, Syrian authorities have been shooting protesters down in the streets as reported by CNN and other news outlets, with no word of calls for action coming from Washington as of this writing.
The final reason against military intervention is simply cost. With the estimated cost of just one Tomahawk cruise missile at $100 million dollars each, one can only estimate how much money this little excursion into ill-advised geopolitical territory is costing the American taxpayer. And one would think that with the conservative political wolves (i.e., The Republican Party and their Tea Party patrons) already at the door, President Obama would be a little more discriminating about how to best spend the American taxpayer dollar, especially in light of the often-cited justification against the president's propensity to "spend wildly"as a result of his domestic policies.

Indeed, one could conceivably argue that Libya’s brutal actions against opponents of its ruling regime could have been nipped in the bud if American military intervention were consistently applied based on human rights instead of the concept of real politick, and if we were clearly stating our positions and telegraphing our intent to intervene with regards to such. It seems that America’s foreign policy, especially with regards to the Middle East reflects its domestic political policies of inconsistency and ideological cherry-picking…which results in nothing in the way of substantive change.

National Heathcare - How Other Countries Do It

2011-03-13T19:42:00.006-04:00

Anyone who's a regular to this blog knows that I am a huge proponent of universally affordable health care. It has nothing to do with conspiracy-level "Socialist agendas" or any such narrow thinking; its simply about something that the American people need. After all, health is more important than wealth. Even more so, its a ridiculous reality that in the most materially abundant nation (as well as the premiere economic powerhouse on earth) that the inability to pay soaring medical costs is the leading reason for personal bankruptcy filings in any given year.
Despite organized opposition to the Obama health care plan (and admittedly, the plan is far from perfect but at least its a starting effort that opponents didn't seem willing to make and/or to confront on the issue), many Americans, including those precariously entrenched within the Middle Class continue to struggle with being able to not only pay but simply afford medical coverage for themselves.
Back in 2008, the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) aired a piece on its long-running documentary program, Frontline entitled "Sick Around The World: Five Capitalist Democracies & How They Do It" (Notice these countries were described as Capitalist, not Socialist in the title). In an effort to separate fact from fiction when it comes to whether or not other countries struggle with their attempts to bring health care affordability to their citizens, Beyond The Political Spectrum has opted to bring you that program in its entirety so that you can judge for yourself (and to potential critics of this particular post, yes...both the good and bad in these systems are chronicled).
I invite you to watch with an open mind.

Watch the full episode. See more FRONTLINE.

Hope -- An Unreported Human Interest Story

2011-02-26T05:47:00.010-05:00

Whenever I think about the state of the American people as I observe my surroundings and absorb daily media reports, I am reminded of the Old Testament story of God telling the prophet Jeremiah that He would hold back His wrath if Jeremiah could find “even one righteous person” in the ancient city of Jerusalem. Between my own personal experiences in dealing with downright dishonest, unscrupulous individuals and what I see in America, I can’t help but think of the myriad of issues and policies that affect Americans negatively. And when I think about the seemingly endless number of individuals, policymakers and organizations—both in the governmental and private sectors—who aren’t able (or willing) to think beyond the walls ideology in order to work toward substantive (and positive) change, I wonder could I myself find one good (or even worthy) person in America to give me pause to believe that there is simply no hope for America. Then, over the last 2 weeks, a couple of news items were brought to my attention which made me believe that there is hope for the people of America to take their individual (and collective) destinies into their own hands and effect positive change for the nation. The first one was more of a human interest story which reminded me how for some, the human spirit can rise above circumstances in order radiate an unlimited capacity for positive thinking…and even a capacity to thrive despite those circumstances. The focus is on Blair Griffith, the current Ms. Colorado who through a series of unfortunate circumstances found both herself and her mother evicted from their home last November—a month after winning the coveted crown—and have been homeless since (and still are as of this writing). To make matter worse for the reigning state beauty champion, the Saks Fifth Avenue store where she works is closing this month. During one recent interview, the young woman joked, saying how "It seems to happen once a month. Something new is being thrown at me." That type of gallows humor as it were seems to be part and parcel of this remarkable young lady’s remarkable optimism. Despite her current trials, she still finds the time to spend her days making appearances at schools and children’s hospitals, where she openly talks about being homeless to the younger audiences. She plans to enter the Miss USA Pageant in June of this year, where she is hoping to parlay her plight into a crusade to bring a face to the issue of the homelessness in America. The second story involves how an act of kindness can overcome both long-held symbols of hatred and acts of responsive brutality. Last week, and African-American reporter found himself in the middle of a story, partially of his own making. Shomari Stone, a news reporter for a Seattle-based television station was in a local park filming a report when he and his cameraman noticed a fight breaking out several feet away from their location. Ignoring his training to be objective to events, he rushed in to break up the fight between an imposing black male dressed in a hat and coat, who was beating away on an equally imposing white man with a shaved head and covered in tattoos. “I didn't want to jump in, but "when you see [the] suspect just pounding the victim while he's laying on the concrete, instinct just snapped in" Stone said of his decision. As Stone struggled to separate the two combatants, he was aided by one of the several bystanders who stood watching the events unfold. After the fight was broken up and police were called, it was discovered that the tattoos the white male was covered with were Nazi-related, and that he seemed to be a racist skinhead. Despite Stone’s skin color, the man thanked Stone, who it was reported responded by telling the victim, "Remember to judge a man by his character, not the color of his skin."
Both of these examples display the idea that the human capacity for hope and compassion for our fellow man is well within our individual as well as collective grasps. And that we could, if we are willing to exercise the will, work together and make practical and substantive policies which could benefit all Americans—and not just a selective group—if we are able to overcome the imagined barriers, namely prejudicial personal beliefs, which often get in the way of doing what’s needed and what’s right. (http://clutchmagonline.com/newsgossipinfo/black-reporter-saves-white-supremacist-what-would-you-do/ or http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-03-02/news/28666806_1_white-supremacist-white-supremacist-victim)

The Real Health Insurance Industry -- An Insider Speaks

2011-02-18T08:01:00.020-05:00

For anyone who has vehemently defended the status quo when it comes attempts to address the lack of universal affordable health care in coverage in America, BTPS invites you to listen to a podcast featuring former health insurance industry insider Wendell Potter.
Potter, who spent years as the head of corporate communications (Public Relations) for both Humana and CIGNA, left his successful career after witnessing first-hand how his former employers' unethical tactics worked against the interests of their policy holders...and by extension, potentially endangering policy holders' health. He subsequently turned his disenchantment into a public crusade against abuses within the insurance industry, even testifying before Congress.
According to Potter, "insurers have every incentive to deny coverage — every dollar they don't pay out to a claim is a dollar they can add to their profits, and Wall Street investors demand they pay out less every year."
I invite you to listen to listen to the words of this whistle blower and determine for yourself if the current system of health care coverage is worth defending.

http://wunc.org/tsot/archive/Deadly_Spin.mp3
(download the mp3 of this podcast here)

Opinion -- If I Were Conservative, Would I Be Right?

2011-02-17T06:52:00.005-05:00

As I write and blog about important political and social issues, I suppose that it’s a matter of general principle that people will invariably rant and rage against whatever conclusions I arrive at (and yes, I know that sentence ends with a preposition). Despite the fact that my observations are based on—arguably so by some of you—what I consider reason (sans the passions, emotions, and political ideological dogma), there are those who still insist on making judgments based on their efforts to try to fit their perceptions of reality into rubrics which adhere to conservative ideology rather than what reality says about itself. Granted I have been accused by both liberals of not understanding the nature of a particular issue, and by conservatives of being a liberal in sheep’s clothing, I find conservative individuals’ lack of tolerance for any assessment of a particular social, economic, or political issue which isn’t routinely espoused by right-of-center ideologues to be particularly disturbing. While liberals can be as every bit as acerbic as conservatives when it comes to defending their beliefs, conservatives tend to resort more to vitriol and ad hominem attacks on given issues.
I cite as an example an instance where on another well-known site’s political section, one conservative commentator attacked my blog as “more liberal crap” simply because he took note of the last posting, which supports the idea of universally affordable health care/access in America. Obviously without even reading the article, the poster predictably went into reactionary mode and attacked the idea of universally affordable health care by stating his own esoteric “understanding” of how market realities in America should be (because of the conservative assertion that the idea of universal access to health care is a “socialist” concept, and an anathema the notion that Free Market-driven competition between providers is more than enough to provide universal access). My own support for this idea is not only borne out of personal experience, but the factual reality that the numbers simply support that the economic strain of the current system, which shortfalls some 30-50 million Americans without affordable health insurance, is not sustainable for the nation economically.
If the commenter had been more in control of their faculties, they would have been able to withhold such stinging criticisms of my post/blog until they had actually taken the time to read…and respond with informed persuasion rather than inflamed passions. If they had been more in control, they would have taken note that, for equally pragmatic reasons, I have assailed the policies of abortion (along with the capital punishment—murder is simply wrong), gun control (people have an inherent right to defend themselves and others—and no, that doesn’t include lunatics killing to “protect the rights of the unborn”), government interference in a parent’s right to use corporal punishment on unruly children, and unnecessary government spending (which I will address more in an upcoming posting). As an African-American, I find this notion of having one “liberal” idea making one a “Liberal” to be analogous to the traditional (and somewhat outdated racist) belief that having one drop of black blood makes one black; one idea does not what a Liberal (or Conservative) make. Both notions reflect a lack of tolerance for one doesn’t agree with.
I’m sure that blind adherents (as opposed to those who are open but adherent) to conservative beliefs will respond to this by claiming that “liberal ideas simply don’t work.” The truth of the matter is that both liberal and conservative policies and ideas have a mixed track record for being effective in remedying the nation’s social and economic ills. Fiscal restraint and controlled budget spending has been proven effective when it comes to economic policies; trickledown economics has not so. Cutting taxes (along with a commensurate level of spending cuts) is good for individuals and families and has tangible benefits; cutting taxes for those who already have the ability to shelter their abundant assets from taxes in order to spur the economy is only beneficial from an ideologically abstract perspective. And one can only imagine how much individual economic chaos was averted by opposition to former president George W. Bush's proposal privatize the Social Security and tie it to stock market.
What most conservatives don't see is that rabidly attacking someone who's ideological beliefs are to the left of Pat Buchanan doesn't help their own cause; they seem as every bit as "elitist" as they claim leftist ideologues are. And just as there is a tolerance for varying degrees of conservatism among conservatives themselves, the same level of tolerance should be extended to those outside and beyond that particular ideological block. Blinding one's self to another ideological perspective based simply on the fact that it goes against one's core beliefs is not an example of how beliefs and ideas are exchanged. Its how possible policy remedies are avoided on the strength of opposing stubbornness. Having an allegiance ideology rather than reality itself reveals more about an individual and their political affiliations than how "enlightened" they would like to think others to think they are.

For The Last Time, Affordable Health Care Is Not Leftist…It’s A Right!

2011-01-28T10:08:00.004-05:00

It’s no secret that I am a huge proponent of affordable health care for all Americans. It’s a belief that I’ve held since I was a child, and no, it’s not an ideological stance; it’s a belief borne based on what is simply a pragmatic need for the nation and its people. So suffice it to say that I am—outside of the knowledge that the fight against universally affordable health care is really a conflict of power between opposing parties—left scratching my head as to why individuals would be so vehemently opposed to such a laudable goal.
Obamacare. Socialism. And now job killing. There are just a few of the politically-charged pejoratives that opponents of health care overhaul use to slander the notion that all Americans should be covered by the best health care system in the world.
Last week, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted to repeal the Affordable Health Care for America Act (House bill - H.R. 3962) with their own act, the
Job-Killing Health Care Law Act (H.R. 2). Without control of neither the Senate or White House, this act was a largely symbolic measure meant to play to those constituents who are on record as being vocally opposed to health care reform, and who supported last year’s Republican electoral trouncing of the Democrats as they swept into power in the House.
The sad part about this affair is that outside of ideology, the Republicans don’t have a leg to stand on. First, in order to have brought this endeavor to the floor of the one chamber of Congress they control, they had to ignore the findings of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Earlier this month the CBO, which calculates the projected cost of legislation, concluded that repealing the health care overhaul act would increase the federal budget deficit to the tune of some $230 billion dollars for the projected period between 2012 thru 2021 (http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/cbo-health-care-repeal-797015.html). Needless to say, political foes against health care reform have taken a “figures-lie-and-liars-figure” stance in discrediting these numbers. In fact, Speaker of the House John Boehner told reporters, "I do not believe that repealing the job-killing health care law will increase the deficit” (naturally, any figures which opposition uses to justify its/their arguments are somehow “more accurate”).
The truth of the matter is that most analysts agree that health care reform does not “kill job” as claimed by opponents. In fact, the opposite is proves to be in evidence even now (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jan/20/eric-cantor/health-care-law-job-killer-evidence-falls-short/). Just this month, Forbes magazine has published two articles which demonstrate how small businesses have already benefited from the health care reform act. Based on preliminary results, major insurance companies are reporting increases in small businesses offering health care to their employees due in part to tax cuts created by the new law What’s more, the fact that many private insurers are apparently increasing the number of clients they are serving, and that small businesses are taking advantage of the tax benefits in order to shore up the number of employees they offer health care to also kills the argument that the law is a slippery slope to the road to “socialism’ (http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/06/more-small-businesses-offering-health-care-to-employees-thanks-to-obamacare/). This fear mongering slandering of health care reform is predicated on the argument by opponents that mandating that Americans purchase health care insurance “un-Constitutional.” History would disagree.
In 1798, the 5th Congress of the United States drafted and passed the Act for The Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen. Signed by non other than President John Adams—one of the Founding Fathers of the Constitution—the law created

the Marine Hospital Service, a series of hospitals built and operated by the federal government to treat injured and ailing privately employed sailors. This government provided healthcare service was to be paid for by a mandatory tax on the maritime sailors (a little more than 1% of a sailor’s wages), the same to be withheld from a sailor’s pay and turned over to the government by the ship’s owner. The payment of this tax for health care was not optional. If a sailor wanted to work, he had to pay up
(http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/).

This very similar to how truly socialized medicine operates in European countries today. Keep in mind that many member of that Congress were comprised of some of the drafters of the Constitution. Hence, the argument that “no where in the Constitution does it state that government has such authority” (or intention) is moot.
Such related arguments have been used by the dozen or so Republican state governors who have filed lawsuits in federal courts seeking to block enactment of the new law. These governors assert that the new federal health care mandate is an “unprecedented encroachment on the liberty of individuals” and “on the sovereignty of the states.” So does that mean that if a state mandates that its citizens must have insurance that they are similarly “encroaching on the liberty of individuals?” What then is the difference between whether a state government or federal government makes such a mandate? Massachusetts Republican governor Mitt Romney apparently has no issues with government mandates, as he was the brainchild behind his state’s requiring nearly all of its citizens to purchase health care insurance in an effort to cover them. In the early 1990s, in an effort to counter the plan then-President Bill Clinton was proposing, Arizona Senator John McCain (yes, that John McCain) first proposed “individual mandates” with regards to federal health care coverage for every American. And more recently under Bush II, proposed mandates were not a problem when they were proposed by former Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson (http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/23/1544321/individual-health-insurance-mandate.html)
However, if you want a real anecdotal example of how health care reform is more of a political ideological jockeying for power by opponents, you needn’t look any further than the Republican-controlled House itself. Late last year, newly-elected House Congressman Andy Harris (R-Maryland), an anesthesiologist who defeated his incumbent Democratic opponent by riding an anti-Obamacare platform into office made a small media wave. When informed that there would be a one month lag in time before his federally-mandated, tax-payer-funded medical healthcare insurance plan kicked into gear after his January 3rd swearing in, he questioned why it took so long for his insurance benefits to kick in. He then asked if he could “purchase insurance from the government to cover the gap.” According to reports, he was “incredulous” and stated that “this is the only employer I’ve ever worked for where you don’t get coverage the first day you are employed” (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html). The eye-opening magic of Karma in action.

Maryland Republican Senator Andy Harris after his November election win

In much the same way that many laws are passed yearly, opponents of affordable universal health care coverage need to give the political opposition a rest. Under the old system of every-American-for-himself, the prior system was simply unsustainable on both cost and individual coverage levels. And lastly, the lack of any proposed alternatives only proves how politically self-serving repeal is for those trying to do so.
Granted, the new law is not perfect—no where near being so—it does provide benefits to both individuals and businesses which the old system failed to do. Small businesses benefit by way of tax credits (up to 35%) which help in the costs for providing coverage for their employees. Young adults can now stay on their parents’ policies until the age of 26. Children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be excluded from health care coverage. And seniors have benefited from having the “donut hole” in coverage for prescription drugs from the Bush-era prescription drug overhaul (2003) filled. Finally, insurance companies get to bring on 30 million more people to insure. It’s simply hard to understand how when so many can benefit from an overhaul in health care affordability why opposition remains. Even more puzzling, how political interests groups and opponents of health care reform can manage to mobilize so many Americans to think and vote against their own their own self-interests.
If opposition to health care reform is a stance meant to protect my “rights,” you can have it; I’d much rather prefer my good health and an ability to maintain it without going broke.

Homelessness...It's Not As Big As You Think.

2011-01-08T02:35:00.010-05:00

Now that I’ve gotten your attention by fueling your outrage with such an inflammatory implication in the title of this posting, allow me to state for the record that homelessness is a problem, a major one in this, the most materially gifted and wealthiest country on Earth. The issue was brought to the public’s awareness a couple of weeks ago via the remarkable story of Ted Williams.
For those of you who have been off-planet during the last two weeks, Williams was the down-on-his-luck homeless man in Columbus, Ohio whose luck changed when he was approached by a local television videographer while panhandling on a freeway off-ramp. As is the case with most similar scenarios, the man carried a piece of cardboard placarded with a plea for monetary assistances from passing motorists. In Williams’ case, he advertised a unique gift; a radio-friendly “golden voice” as a special talent which set him apart from other highway beggars. The videographer’s curiosity piqued, he took out his camera, began to roll tape, and gave Williams a chance to demonstrate his radio-friendly speaking abilities on camera. The resulting encounter was posted on You Tube and became a viral sensation, having been viewed over a million times and counting.
As a result of one chance encounter, the once unknown and homeless man with the unnervingly smooth baritone radio speaking voice became an instant celebrity, having been interviewed on dozens of different television news programs, and showered with an equal number of job offers from a moved public. But as usual with sensational news stories, we tend to miss the Big Picture when we allow ourselves to be swept up in cheering for an improbable turn of fortune such as Williams’.

What about the million or so other homeless people in America—men, women, and children—who lack a special talent which could conceivably spur the same outpouring of material sympathy by the more fortunate which Ted Williams was shown…what about them? Sadly, what the Williams story illustrates is how selective our memories are, and how we like to insulate ourselves from the harsh realities of life. Every year, particularly around the holiday periods, the usual stream of doom-n-gloom we are treated to via the evening news is punctuated by the obligatory human interest news story about the less fortunate, the final lessons being how the rest of us should be thankful for what we have…and how things could always be worse for us. What such a practice does is that while human faces are put on the tragedy of homelessness in America, we become somewhat desensitized to its reality, and invariably come to accept it as a death- and taxes-like given in our society. This in turn eats away at our resolve to potentially eradicate the problem (or at least try to).
The truth of the matter is that homelessness is not as insurmountable an obstacle as me might think to combat. So, in David Letterman style, I present the 3 top ways which Americans can help confront homelessness.

3 -- Personal Responsibility. This is perhaps the most effective means to combat homelessness (and potential homelessness) in America. We Americans have a strange tendency in this country of opportunity to try to escape our harsh individual circumstances—both real and imagined—by indulging in drugs, alcohol, and other counter-productive activities…and it needs to stop. I’ve personally never quite understood the concept of going through an experience as hard as life with one’s faculties inhibited by chemically-induced attempts to numb our perceptions. Quite simply, any plan of action to change one’s negative heading in one’s life requires a clear head, and attempting to escape the only reality there is—outside of death—is the surest path to sleeping on a concrete pillow. In addition, Americans need to adopt better lifestyle habits altogether, such as dietary, having children which one cannot afford, and financial literacy. It's all tied together.

2 -- Stop Criminalizing Misfortune. It sickens me that some local municipalities take the time to legislatively criminalize activities such panhandling and begging, while not giving a second thought to how to actually combat the problem of homelessness in their cities/towns; half-heatedly treating the symptom and not the problem.
While tightening local budgets are a reality, there is very little reason why towns and cities couldn’t work with their state governments (as well as the federal government) to create a different kind of shelter…one that has a concentration of resources such as employment staffing specialists, clinical/drug counselors, and other volunteers/staff which would actually work toward the interests of the homeless (this is afterall, how federalism is supposed to work in America).
If space is a problem, the federal government could provide emergency trailers for office space, or even temporary shelter until shelter services yielded results.
What we need less of are private, religiously-inspired “shelters” which often refuse service to individuals who wont adopt their way of religious thinking.

1 -- Systemic Changes. We Americans still need to decide what level of poverty we are willing to accept…sleeping in cars or sleeping on sidewalks? Most homelessness is a symptom, not the problem itself. It is simply a manifestation of larger societal problems. Lack of education, lack of family support, poor health, and unmoral concentrations of wealth in the hands of the few (no, I’m not talking about people who work for their money. I’m talking about CEOS and other cooperate types who run companies and banks into the ground and are rewarded with golden parachutes) are representative of misplaced priorities. We pay sports figures millions of dollars a year for entertaining our children, but throw peanuts at teachers who we put in charge of teaching them to read (and for putting up with their unruliness and disrespect).
Then there are the drug laws. It only takes 1 felony drug conviction to hamper any employment opportunity, and by extension housing and bank loans.
We also need to stop demonizing any attempt to help the less fortunate from the federal government as “socialism,” and look at it from a more realistic perspective as being an investment in human capital (such as the $1.5 billion in federal resources distributed through the Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program). Such politicized thinking is a chief reason why the resolve to help stem the tide of homelessness is absent among us. At the same time, we must closely monitor every cent aimed at such endeavors and ensure that spending goes to substantive local resources which yield tangible successes, and not those which only look great on paper.

North Korea - The Cure For Our Complex World…A Cold War Imagination!

2010-12-15T18:31:00.004-05:00

Two weeks ago, North Korea engaged in a military attack on South Korea, a long-time American protectorate…of sorts.
Now close you eyes for a moment and imagine that we were still living in Cold War America, a time when the world was more or less divided into three major political/ideological bloc: the greedy capitalism-driven, but free West; the evil state-controlled economies of the various communist East nations, and the self-interested states—often run by dictators—who often played both blocs against the middle in an effort to carve out their corner of that geopolitically bi-polar regime. In this world, very few of those smaller self-interested states are willing or even capable of challenging neither the resolve nor the policies of the leaders of these blocs, the United States and the Soviet Union, for fear of some kind of substantive response. In this world, military commitments are limited, military spending and constant nuclear weapons testing telegraphing to the world the resolve of both blocs is evident, and lesser adversaries know their place; major acts of terrorism were limited to areas of the Middle East, Africa, and parts of Europe.
Now imagine that a country, firmly entrenched within either bloc decided to attack another within the opposing bloc…say North Korea, under the leadership of Kim Il-sung, opting to stage an attack on U.S.-allied South Korea. Understand that in this world, political leaders within each country have to appear to be either “tough on Communism” or “stand up to the Capitalists” so as not to appear “weak.” And since these two countries have a history as a military flashpoint for the ideological clash between the two opposing blocs, the resolve to defend either by other members within each opposing bloc emphasizes how easily such an attack by one country on another can easily lead to a regional, if not global conflagration.

But that time is gone

No longer do we live in an America governed by a myopic, if not marginally accurate view of the world in terms of a democracy vs. dictatorship ethos, powered by resolve—both actual and that perceived by its adversaries.
Now come open your eyes to the world we live in today, a generation or so after the waning days of the Cold War.
Today’s world is one where America’s reign as the lone superpower is under an almost relentless series of challenges by small nations aligned with larger more powerful nations, as well as individual nations seeking to increase their influence in the post-Cold War multi-polar world. This is because these challenger countries have been shrewd enough to take advantage of America’s recent foreign policy blunders, some of which have resulted in a weakening of resolve to secure the nation’s interests. Faulty intelligence, arrogance of leadership, questionable single-mindedness, and a lack of intimate knowledge of whom were dealing with have all combined to squander America’s readiness on irrelevant “threats” which America’s enemies have used as a window of opportunity embolden themselves to do what North Korea did 2 weeks hence…attack American interests without fear of significant reprisal(s).

A photo of the North Korean leadership, with a doctored image of ailing leader Kim Jong Il superimposed on the image

The open defiance and belligerence out of the Middle- and Far East could have been avoided if America had maintained some of the more useful, more static policies from our Cold War experience with the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc.
Primarily, America should have kept its nuclear option open in dealing with Afghanistan after 9/11. A tactical nuclear strike (or two) on Taliban strongholds in the more remote regions of the then-lawless country could have gone a lone way to signaling to would-be pretenders to the throne how far America is willing to go to protect its interests in this new world.
Imagine being in Tehran, Kabul, Baghdad, Pyongyang or any number of regions around the world and knowing where you were and what you were doing when you heard from state-run television/radio about the first—actually second, Japan was the first—nuclear attack on a country harboring an organization responsible for an attack on the financial and political centers of the lone global superpower…that’s the impact such a policy would have had on those who would threaten American interests. Imagine how many American service personnel lives could have been saved by not having to invade countries who realized that a mushroom cloud umbrella could be their fate if they do not, say, allow United Nations weapons inspectors unfettered access to suspected facilities…or who unilaterally accede from nuclear non-proliferation treaties and then proceed to create nuclear weapons in violation of international law.
In a world where America’s enemies are growing by the numbers daily, and where countries are openly challenging America and it interests to the point of acting with impunity, maybe American leaders should go back to the old policy of Mutually Assured Destruction…a policy that projects the resolve that we give as good as we get.

Its 2010...Do You Know What Your Kids Are Smoking?

2010-12-04T04:10:00.002-05:00

In working with at-risk teens, I find that both that their parents as well as those of us working to save them have to be more than vigilant…we have to virtually sleep with one eye open. Today’s youth seem more inclined engage their free time by pursuing questionable “pleasures,” most notably the fixation on getting high.
In regards to this to teenage fixation on pursuing chemically-induced altered states of perceptions, the methods of choice include illegally-obtained prescription medicines, “huffing” chemical inhalants, and smoking marijuana—by no means an exhaustive list. But with many institutions increasing their emphasis on drug testing and [the] increasing legal restrictions limiting access to excessive amounts of over-the-counter medicines (often used to concoct mixtures to chase cheap highs), teenagers are constantly seeking and exploring other alternatives to momentarily escaping reality.
One of these alternatives are plants and other exotic herbs that have been treated with synthetic chemicals, so that when smoked mimic both the form and function of marijuana. The way this “legal weed” works is that when rolled in smoking paper and smoked, produces a euphoric high similar to that of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the chief psychoactive chemical in real marijuana. Instead of THC, this synthetic marijuana contains a mixture of synthetic chemicals known as JWH-018, JWH-073, and/or CP-47 that act on cannabinoid receptors in the brain in much the same way that true marijuana does.
This totally legal marijuana substitute (in most states) is manufactured abroad, shipped to the states, sold mostly in local convenience stores/corner markets, and marketed as “herbal incense” in order to disguise its true purpose as a way of obtaining a marijuana-like high…without the legal ramifications. Sold under the popular brand names such as “K2,” “Kush,” “Spice,” “Mr. Nice Guy,” and a host of others, these herbal blends have dangerous, potentially deadly heath issues attached to their use. Earlier this year, an Iowa teen who had smoked K2 died after suffering a panic attack caused by its use and shooting himself (http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/article_877e5512-aae0-58bc-b88b-8e3124f198dc.html).

As illustrated, smoking small amounts of the more potent synthetic marijuana can cause an increased heart rate, loss of consciousness, paranoia, hallucinations, and psychotic episodes. Regarding these health issues, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) calls these herbal plants a “drug of concern” and has moved to have these drugs placed in the same category as traditional illegal drugs such as cocaine and heroin. Additionally, some 13 states as well as the military have banned either their sale and/or use (importation and/or use have also been banned abroad in the UK, Russia, Poland, France, and South Korea). However, in the jurisdictions that have been slow to respond—for whatever reasons—synthetic marijuana’s use continues to grow as young users take advantage of this legislative oversight (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/24/national/main7086373.shtml).
Besides the fact that legal loopholes help encourage access to this drug, the fact that it doesn’t show up as a positive reading in traditional drug screenings make it an even more attractive substitute for young people looking to get an easy and cheap high; small packets of these herbs cost between $15 to $40 dollars.
In cities and areas across the country, authorities should make themselves aware of this potentially deadly substitute for marijuana and move quickly to ban its import, sale, and use…or the federal government should speed up its efforts to ban the importation and/use of any product with these particular (or even similar) chemical makeup(s).
Given the level of talk and bragging I hear daily by teens who share stories about their particular experiences with artificial marijuana use, perhaps some enterprising future entrepreneur could create a drug screening which could detect this new drug, and make himself/herself a multimillionaire in the process…and help those of us who spend our time trying to keep young people keep their heads on straight.

A Few Items In The News…

2010-11-05T07:27:00.014-04:00

The Mid-Term Elections

Years ago, Adolf Hitler said that if you tell a big enough lie often enough, it will eventually become the truth…and that truth will eventually not matter. Keep that in mind as reality has declared the mid-term elections of 2010 to now be history. And after all of the usual pre-election insanity of campaign lies, slanders, half-truths, opponent misrepresentations, and shifty campaign contribution, we have projected winners and losers.
Now that America has a divided Congress—between the now Republican-controlled House of Representatives and the Democrat-controlled Senate—as well as a Democratically-controlled executive branch (i.e., that’s the White House to those of you who failed Civics 101), we can expect ideological intransigence, political gridlock, party-bashing, and ultimately legislative inaction to run Washington for the foreseeable future.
Even as the landslide-victorious Republicans are preparing to take control of half of the federal government’s legislature, the presumed new Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-OH) had already started to engage in the usual Washington political hyperbole by declaring that “there seems to be some denial on the part of the president and other Democratic leaders of the message that was sent by the American people."

Last week’s election victories on the part of the Republicans (in both national and local races across the country) were not so much as bringing the Democrats face-to-face with some presumed denial on their parts as much as it was greater organizing among the conservative rank-and-file, a more effective public relations machine, and better image-projecting. Combine this reality with the fact that Democrats were ideologically split over support for policies promoted by the White House and you get the pasting that Democrats suffered at the polls almost 2 weeks ago.
Most informed Americans already know the conservative platform of the Republican Party, so to call this election “the most historic election in over 60, 70 years” is something of a stretch of reality, and reeks of political spin…trying to make more of the elections than they were (come on…the election of the first African American president and the accompanying one-party control of the federal government during the previous election cycle doesn’t count as more “historic?” Even the Republican shift of Congress in 1994 was more meaningful historically). More to the point, its not as if the American electorate has much of a choice when it comes to party/ideological representation in Washington anyway…Brand X or Brand Y.
Taken altogether, these events harbinger what is to come for the American people…the ultimate loser in the elections of the past couple of weeks. Until either one party effectively (the key word here) controls one aspect of the legislative process, decides to work in the interests of their constituencies—us—and not instead hold allegiance to their political parties and their respective ideologies, or until both parties either learn to work together or the American people opt to create a viable third political alternative (the Tea Party totally withstanding), we can expect the same a three-ring circus in Washington in the coming term instead of functioning three branches of government.

Corporal Punishment In Schools

A high school basketball coach in Jackson, Mississippi is in legal hot water after images of him “paddling” students during a basketball practice went viral over the ‘net this week, courtesy of another student’s cell phone camera.
Coach Marlon Dorsey defended his practice of paddling basketball team members who failed “to run basketball plays correctly" as a way of trying to "save these young men from the destruction of self," according to court documents filed recently.
In further defense of his actions, Dorsey issued a statement which read,

"I paddled my students... today, some of [sic] students have lost pride in their school and in their (sic) selves. Students are disrespecting teachers, administrators and other students by stealing cell phones, leaving off campus without permission, disrupting classroom teaching time, late for class and not following dress codes by wearing the pants on their butts and house shoes to school and on-court behavior. I took it upon myself to save these young men from the destruction of self and what society has accepted and become silent to the issues our students are facing on a daily basis."

As of this writing: Dorsey is still employed with the district, but is on active suspension without pay for 28 days; students who were alleged to have been paddled still attend classes and are still playing on the boy's varsity basketball team; and a lawsuit has been filed in court naming the school district, Dorsey, and the school principal as defendants who failed to safeguard the rights of the players (http://mw.cnn.com/snarticle?c=cnnd_us&p=0&aId=20101111:mississippi.coach.whippings:1).

Having worked with young people myself for over 10 years (including currently as a counselor for at-risk teens), I not only empathize with Dorsey’s position, but support it 110%. Today’s youth are simply out of control, especially urban youth. Part of this is because we as a society have adopted an overly liberal attitude toward dealing with both their issues and their actions. We have adopted a New Age form of thinking which asserts that paddling, whippings, and other forms of “abuse” are more harmful than helpful to youth in dealing with their delinquency. But an argument can be made that removing these (and other such) sanctions as options when it comes to bringing up our children does more harm to society as a whole.
Most of us who comprise Generation X, Baby Boomers, and prior generations received such sanctions regularly in both the home and in schools (from 3rd grade through high school), and we are no worse for our experiences. In fact, it could be argued that such actions reinforced our generation’s superior social value of duty, while the absence of such actions has resulted in this current generation’s sense of entitlement.
Even if you don’t agree with bringing back corporal punishment in public schools, one thing no one can disagree with is that there was no where near as much violence, disrespect for teachers, and lack of self-respect back in my public school days as there is today with the absence of such measures. Also, people were not chomping at the bit to sue for any perceived violation of one’s “rights” back in the day as they are now…as if awarding monetary “compensation” somehow miraculously gives one back his/her dignity.
In fact, who needs Corporal Punishment? I say bring in Sergeant Slaughter!

Black Unwed Motherhood Reaches A New High

This week, the Washington Post featured a story about the extremely high—an understatement to be sure—rate of unwed motherhood among black women in America. According the both the article and the latest government figures, black single motherhood among black women is an astounding 72%, far and away shadowing the demographic group, Native Americans at 66% (“Blacks Struggle With 72% Unwed Mothers Rate,” The Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/06/AR2010110602362_pf.html ).

To emphasize the point, the article focused on the experience of a Houston-area OB-GYN and her low-income–serving practice. The government’s statistics closely mirrors the daily experiences of Dr. Natalie Carroll, who gives a level of personal counseling emphasizing the need for single mothers to bring stable male figures into the lives of their children…in addition to medical care she provides to expectant mothers.
For many within the black community, this fact is no surprise, although the numerical percentage is still shocking. The black community also knows all-too well the correlative outcomes that such a high rate of single-parent households tends to yield—children of unmarried mothers (of any race) “are more likely to perform poorly in school, go to prison, use drugs, be poor as adults, and have their own children out of wedlock.”
It’s a well-know but little-discussed norm within the black community that, even when is criticized for the sociological pathology that it is by high profile figures such as entertainer Bill Cosby on the left and former Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes on the right, it becomes a matter of loping off the head (s) of the bearer(s) of bad news rather than an issue to be addressed.
It’s a complex problem with equally complicated solutions. Yes, black males could learn to step up and accept more responsibility insofar as family and their children are concerned, but when the economic climate creates more impediments than opportunities, how is he supposed to become “marriage material” if he cannot even acquire gainful employment? And what woman is going to “take care of a man” (a prospective taboo among many black women)?
And what about idea of marriage as a solution to this problem? Given the almost daily reports about how many high profile couples such as entertainers—individuals of more-than-adequate financial means—are splitting up almost as soon as they get together, how is any man supposed to take the institution of marriage seriously when it seems no one else is? As a solution to the high rate of single motherhood in and of itself, marriage seems to be an outdated institution that no one takes seriously. Indeed, depending on whose numbers you buy, more than half of them will end up in divorce anyway. So there is obviously no sense of security in matrimony. More so, if it comes down to divorce, the man is far more likely to receive the short end of the stick insofar as rulings (spousal/child support, the dividing of assets, etc.) are concerned, so where is his incentive to get married?
It would seem that many aspects of the socioeconomic system in America have to change in order for facilitate an incentive for black males become more responsible, and for black women to accept them as potential marriage partners. Then again, these were non-factors for black family cohesiveness during both slavery and in the century of Jim Crow following slavery. As mentioned earlier, it’s a complicated issue.

Juan Williams, Free Speech, and Something To Think About

2010-10-29T19:02:00.009-04:00

America witnessed a bona fide, honest-to-goodness miracle. Liberals and Conservatives alike found common ground in their free defense of quasi-Liberal commentator Juan Williams after he was fired from National Public Radio (NPR) after remarks on FOX News’ O’Reilly Factor, hosted by Bill O’Reilly. Given the depth of news coverage which this story received, we should all know those now-infamous words which Williams spoke on the conservative commentator’s news show:

"I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot,” Williams said on the "The O'Reilly Factor" Monday. “But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

Granted it’s easy to see how such ideas could further religious intolerance in post 9/11 America, Williams’ firing from NPR last week speaks a great deal about how much free speech has become a target by those who political sensitivities cannot stand to be challenged. Take Republican South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint’s response to the firing of Williams. The Conservative senator has vowed to introduce legislation calling for the elimination of federal funds used to supplement NPR’s mostly donation-funded operating budget. In defending his stance, DeMint stated that

"Once again we find the only free speech liberals support is the speech with which they agree. The incident with Mr. Williams shows that NPR is not concerned about providing the listening public with an honest debate of today’s issues, but rather with promoting a one-sided liberal agenda."

The ironic thing about such political posturing is that any legislation to cut NPR’s federal funding (only 10% of its total funding anyway) will go a long way toward doing the same thing which DeMint accuses NPR of doing...curtailing free speech. Go Figure.

Free speech—any free speech—should be protected at all cost"

What's Wrong With The Traditional American Family (...or, "Let's See If I Can Pi-- Off Everybody!)"

2010-10-15T18:14:00.012-04:00

Being a spiritual (as opposed to “religious”) person, I do so recognize and admire how circumstances create a convergence of serendipity in daily life. In this case, the fact that I work with at-risk teens, recent news items, and contemporary social issues have merged to create a ready-made focus of observation, specifically with regards to the American family as a functional institution.
Every day, I witness first-hand the effects of the disintegration of the nurturing nature of the American family through the behavior of (the) children. Sadly, the dysfunction of today’s youth, characterized by substance abuse, criminal activity, and teenage parenthood, has become more of the socially pathological norm—especially during the last quarter century. The reasons for this growing breakdown in the traditional American family’s function to nurture each other has many socioeconomic causes, both valid and speculative. However, even as shifting socioeconomic forces have indirectly affected changes within the traditional family’s structure to weaken it, shifting roles of the individual family units—that is men, women, and children—are most directly at fault. Consider how each member’s role in the traditional family have caused its disintegration from within:

Women
Perhaps no individual unit within the traditional family unit—at its overall expense—has benefited most from (the) shifting roles than women. According to the most recent observations, women have been steadily outpacing men in many areas of modern society. Last month for example, it was revealed for the first time that more men than women are earning PhDs (granted me still dominate being awarded doctoral degrees in the hard sciences such as mathematics and computer science, the rate of representation for women in most other disciplines has grown to surpass that of men). In the African-American community, this growing gender gap in education is even more pronounced.
(http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-09-15-womenphd14_st_N.htm).
Similarly, the wage gap—the earning of dollars for the same work performed—between women and men has also begun to shrink (although women still age behind in dollar-for-dollar earning). This is due in part to the erosion of once male-dominated jobs (such as construction-related labor) during the current recession. And given the previously ongoing trend in rising female representation in traditionally male-dominated fields, the effect is that women now are increasingly earning more money than their husbands in many instances (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33196583/ns/business-careers/). In other instances, women are the sole breadwinners in many families in the wake of the current recession. Combine these gains with the other widely-known gains for women in the fields of politics, economics, and society as a whole over the last generation and you have the basis for what is the current status quo in America—a society in which traditionally-held values—the same traditionally-held values which helped to make the traditional family unit’s cohesion the basis for America’s rise as the sole global superpower—have become feminized.
We needn’t look further than our television sets to see this shifting dynamic in the family unit in action. Long gone are the days where the image of the traditional father figure in the American family was depicted as the sometimes stern, but still loving and sensible head of the family unit. Today on most television sitcoms, the father/man is typically portrayed as a bumbling oaf displaying more lack-of-wit than common sense, while the mother/woman is contrarily rendered as the intelligent soul of tact and all things sensible (e.g., Tim Taylor from the ABC’s “Home Improvement” or Homer Simpson from FOX’s “The Simpsons”). This is a role-reversal that was hardly reciprocated in previous times; even when women were depicted as the doting stay-at-home, stand-by-her-man helpmate, she was not so caricaturized as the male is now (with the possible exception of Lucy Ricardo’s character from the syndicated “I Love Lucy” show). This depiction of new family roles has transcended the family unit and infected society on a wholesale level (view the video “Bill Maher on Feminism” below).

Men
What can be said about the poor American male? Without a doubt, men have been the biggest individual losers insofar as the disintegration of the American family. Between the rise in the overall influence of women throughout every aspect of society, the decimation of his earning potential by trending and current economic forces, and his own intractable nature to avoid changing with the times and/or to embrace irresponsibility with regards to the family, the modern man in America has all-but become emasculated. This observation was validated in the September 20th edition of Newsweek magazine. In the article “Men’s Lib,” writer Andrew Romano asserts (to his and most men’s regret) that the American male has resisted the same socioeconomic makeovers that women have undergone, resulting in his sliding reduction to second-class citizenship both within the family and in society (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/20/why-we-need-to-reimagine-masculinity.print.html).
Women for their part have quickly taken to the (new) role of head of household…in some families because she’s had to due to the absence of males/fathers, while in others because the rise in female influence in society has translated into her increased influence within the family unit. In many families, especially in those made up of common-law arrangements and those among the working class, women have become emboldened enough to use her newfound strength of authority to challenge men living under the same roof rather than support him. Needless to say, men who have already had their egos crushed by the unforgiving shifting in economic and employment trends, find themselves on the verge of “bitchhood.” And men feel the sting of this new reality.
Writer Hanna Rosin illustrates this seething resentment among men in her eye-raising article, “The End of Men” in the July/August edition The Atlantic Monthly (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135/). In the article, Rosin recounts one particular day in the weekly gathering of a class for delinquent (and unemployed) fathers in Kansas City. Lead by social worker and teacher Mustafaa El-Scari, he recounts that

Like them [his students]…he grew up watching Bill Cosby living behind his metaphorical “white picket fence”—one man, one woman, and a bunch of happy kids. “Well, that check bounced a long time ago,” he says. “Let’s see,” he continues, reading from a worksheet. What are the four kinds of paternal authority? Moral, emotional, social, and physical. “But you ain’t none of those in that house. All you are is a paycheck, and now you ain’t even that. And if you try to exercise your authority, she’ll call 911. How does that make you feel? You’re supposed to be the authority, and she says, ‘Get out of the house, bitch.’ She’s calling you ‘bitch’!”

The result is a new norm comprised of disjointed compromise and misunderstanding in both potential and actual relationships between men and women (Comedian Dave Chappelle lampoons this misunderstanding between men and women below).

Children
The verdict for children within the modern American family is mixed. In many families, children no longer have the structure or close supervision they once had due in part to the upheaval among parents and their shifting roles within the family unit. The result is a rising trend in juvenile delinquency, teenage pregnancy, and poor academic performance in school that many erroneously attribute to “bad schools/teachers” (the real culprit with regards to the latter issue is the lack of direct parental involvement in many children’ education).
And of course it doesn’t help that New Age/Liberal thinking on issues such as punishment vs. spankings vs. vocal admonishment have taken away a parent’s right to intervene in the lives of their own children in order to ensure proper behavior. In fact, this new wave of thinking on rearing children has emboldened children to challenge their own parents—creating a sense of anxiety in them—in how they are to be punished for doing wrong. Many are the instances where I have heard children threaten their parents with police intervention for daring to spank them. As a result, virtually everything we could potentially do to our children now a days to correct their behavior is considered a virtual “abuse.” We’ve given children the same rights and privileges as adults, which is a serious mistake considering that many lack impulse control or the wisdom of foresight to anticipate consequences. We’ve made children our friends instead of our charges (Comedian Chris Rock’s mother, who has successfully raised 10 children including Chris himself, offers up her take on being an old-fashioned “strict” mother on National Public Radio’s program Tell Me More. Click on the link to listen: (http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=125344896&m=125344887)

In addition, the late comedian Bernie Mac lampoons how he deals with unruly children, in a performance (from 2000's Kings of Comedy) which brings back memories of Old School discipline (below).

Summary
Changing roles due in part to economic forces have disrupted the functionality of the American family. Women have become the heads of households in many families, which has caused resentment among men, who cannot reconcile their new roles as financial and influential subordinate. And among the segment of men who seem destined for chronic absenteeism and irresponsibility, their actions only serve to reinforce to women that men are growing incapable of assuming (or rather resuming) the role of family head and contributing breadwinner he once was.
For their part, too many women have taken to their new roles a little too readily, as their attitudes reflect an inability to compromise with the men in their lives, as if they are all that matters within the family unit. This creates a source of disharmony within the family, which results in rampant number of breakups and single parent-led households.
At the same time, our children have seemingly developed a crippling sense of direction. Although not an epidemic (yet), they have taken to engaging in sex, drugs, and crime seeming to pass the time. Their lack of structure and discipline has affected their schoolwork, and with working mothers being the only parental force in many families, they act out with both impunity and alack of appreciation for authority.
Men need to broaden their horizons and consider making themselves open to new professions which would aid in their getting their groove back (so to speak). Employers have to be as open and willing to accepting men in traditionally female roles as readily as they have women who have done the same with traditionally males professions. Men also need to develop some sense of responsibility from within to regain the respect of women.
The welfare of children needs to be the primary focus for any family, not just paying the bills. As women become career seekers in their quest to “have it all,” their absence as nurturing mothers in the home has a profound effect on both children in need of structure in order to help keep them out of trouble, and men who would need their emotional support in these harsh economic times (children are not the equal of adults and therefore do not merit the same protections, at least from their own good-intentioned parents).
Women need to learn to not to be so touchy when it comes to sharing influence within the family. To a traditional man, no amount of money she earns will make her the head of the household; the best she can hope for is a co-chair position within the family. If influence is shared, and respect is mutual, then the family can regain its role as the nurturing unit it has been in times past.

“Our Politicized Thinking Explained” (…or “Half-Wit Will Travel”)

2010-09-06T13:35:00.004-04:00

Most non-aligned political analysts—a rare commodity to be sure—will agree that the American public has become politicized more in its collective thinking than it ever has in recent memory. Everything from our foreign policy to our favorite flavor of ice cream seems to be divided between red and blue states. Take for example a recent news item…
I like I was astounded at the news of the young New York City man who fell 39 stories and survived after a failed suicide attempt. The 22 year-old had the mathematically-improbable luck to have landed on the trunk and rear window of a car parked on the street below…a happenstance which saved his life and angered the owner of the severely damaged auto. As I read the various online news accounts of this story,

I began reading the reader commentary section of one particular daily online newspaper. On USAToday’s site there were public comments posted blaming this episode on, of all things, President Obama’s economic policies…thus turning a not-so-simple human interest story into a battle of political ideologies. Personally, I have always wondered about the upbringings, if not the overall mental health of individuals who cannot see reality outside purely dichotomous perspectives…as if Conservatives and Liberals were the only two known life forms in the known universe.
But I was harkened yesterday when I read a very interesting article from the August 16th edition of Newsweek. In “The Limits of Reason,” author Sharon Begley argues that the often irrational thinking we apply to our political (and social) beliefs and understanding of those beliefs have a basis in science. According to Begley

“…psychologists have been documenting since the 1960s, humans are really, really bad at reasoning. Its not just that we follow our emotions so often, in contexts from voting to ethics (page 14).”

The upshot is that, according to modern philosophers and cognitive scientists, there is a purpose for the kind of confirmation bias (seeing and recalling only evidence that supports your beliefs) and willful blindness to sound opposing views which leads us to stick to our beliefs. Failures of logic are simply “ploys to win arguments.” Simply put, arguing is more about overcoming opposing views and using our biased beliefs to persuade others more than it is about seeking truth or finding a common ground. It also explains the idea of motivated thinking, another faulty reasoning attribute that people employ. Motivated thinking forces individuals with certain political/social beliefs to look harder for flaws in studies when they don’t agree with their conclusions, which forces them to become more critical of “evidence” that undermines their initially-held beliefs.

This is why the notions of impending One-World Governments, health reform “death panels,” 9/11 government-backed conspiracies, and issues surrounding President Obama’s fake birth certificate remain so entrenched in the political discussions of many Americans, despite their proven invalidity.
This particular approach to our thinking on political and social issues is ridiculously easy to remedy…don’t believe everything you think! As I have alluded to so often in past postings, we Americans emote way too much and reason way too little. It is simply not practical to “feel” our way through life, especially when it comes to concepts and issues that beg that we use reason, which according to Begley “is supposed to be the highest achievement of the human mind and the route to knowledge and wise decisions.” When it comes to thinking which may affect social, economic, and political policies in America, we should think rather than feel.

Change We Can Set Our Watches By (Or…”Let’s Do It Again Like We Did Last Election!)

2010-09-01T17:26:00.005-04:00

The American electorate is a marvel to behold at times. It has just the right combination of (the) occasional public weariness with incumbent political officials, collective short-term memory/selective memory, and often misplaced optimism which leads it to every couple of election cycles, vote in political party representatives who seem to offer a better alternative to the party in power. This is especially true if the representatives if of the political party in power fall out of public favor due to corruption of some other type of malfeasance. It’s a sad cycle that has unfortunately become of how our democracy operates and governs.
During the 2006 election season, Democrats were swept into control of Congress in nearly unprecedented numbers due in part to the various scandals which plagued the Republican Party prior to those elections. Given the current growing—some say unfair—discontentment with the Obama Administration’s economic (and social) policies as well as events in Congress within the past couple of weeks, it looks as if the see-saw of Congressional representation will soon start to tilt in back in favor of the Republicans.
A couple of weeks ago, three Democrat members of Congress, Maxine Waters of California, and Charles Rangel of New York found themselves facing ethics charges by the Office of Congressional Ethics in Congress (on a side note, 2 Republican members of Congress are also under the ethics probe gun. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/08/congress-ethics-fundraising/1)

The fact that such alleged ethics violations/accusations occur with sad regularity among elected representatives such as Waters and Rangel should not be fully faulted with those facing the legal process of accountability or even Congress itself…the fault lies with us, the American people. Americans proudly—and rightfully—boast about the advantages and joys of having free and fair elections in a democracy. But what good is electing representatives at the federal (or even local) levels if we are forced to choose between the lesser of 2 evils every time voter disenchantment reaches critical mass every other election cycle? The cycle we tolerate—become “fed-up” with one party representative, vote in another party’s representative, vote back in the party which peed us off in the first place—only proves how much we should just sit back and take our lumps by representatives who violate the public’s trust.
Congressional perks that smack of entitlement, ethics charges on an annual basis, influence peddling (i.e., “lobbying”), and our own collective short-term memories are what we deserve. Why? Because we have forgotten that Congress works for us, and are not meant to be an autonomous political class.
If the conservative-leaning Tea Party and liberal-leaning organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union can mobilize and help crank out support and successfully put into public office candidates who support their ideological beliefs, then why can’t the rest of us follow their examples and shake off our apathetic fatalism and take more of an active role in a government which is supposed to represent us?
As someone who has spent inordinate amounts of hours volunteering in various political causes, I can find no viable excuse for any American not to become more involved in a process which affects us on a daily basis on a myriad of levels. So get off your collective butts and hold to the fire the feet of those who violate the trust of we who send them to represent us!

The Law, Lies, and Videotapes

2010-08-17T07:18:00.007-04:00

A few weeks ago, USAToday ran an opinion piece about an American citizen’s right to videotape a police office performing his duty (ies), while being free from both persecution and prosecution for doing so (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-07-15-editorial15_ST_N.htm).
In an illustrating case, a Maryland man named Anthony Graber was pulled over on his motorcycle for speeding and pooping wheelies earlier this year. Either unknown or unnoticed by the intercepting plainclothes Maryland state trooper, Graber was wearing a helmet camera which recorded the resulting encounter; the trooper cut off Graber on an exit ramp in his unmarked vehicle, “and drew his gun before announcing that he was a law enforcement officer.” Graber posted (the) video of the encounter on YouTube a week later.

But among the throngs of those who viewed the video on the site were authorities from both the police and the Maryland State Attorney’s offices. The police obtained warrants to search Graber’s home and seized his computers. The state attorney general filed 4 felony charges against him for “violating Maryland’s wiretap law.” Graber, if convicted of the charges could be looking at up to 16 years in prison, as well as the loss of his security government clearance, and gaining all of the rights and privileges that go along with being a convicted felon.
While there is clearly enough absence of common sense to go around in this particular case, in other cases police and prosecutors sometimes abuse their authority by either misapplying, misinterpreting, or—in the most grievous of instances—maliciously prosecuting individuals who are well within their implied as well as Constitutional rights to monitor public servants.
We’ve all seen the television shows showcasing instances where police dashboard-mounted cameras have yielded exciting footage of harrowing police encounters with criminals, or news reports where the same camera setup reveals police misconduct—all are newsworthy episodes. In such instances, neither the producers of these television shows nor news directors have been known to have been threatened with such legal actions. What makes this instance any different? The only conclusion is that some government officials are potentially peed-off that any American citizen would have the presence of mind to post his police encounter online for the world to see, and in the process take away some of their power and/or discretion.
Make no mistake people…we are the ones who watch the watchers. Its every American citizen’s right to legally observe—and if necessary record—those who work for us, as we are the one who pay their salaries. It matters not if we use our cellphone cameras, a pen and pad, our blogs, or just our eyes while alerting would-be malefactors to our presence. Obvious scare and/or intimidation tactics by those threatened by the power of the people should not only be revealed on a routine basis, but challenged to the best of our ability.

Policy Vs. Facts -- The Economy in Perspective

2010-07-04T17:56:00.010-04:00

In the last few days, an interesting article has been making the rounds on various news-oriented websites. Its a piece written by the Wall Street Journal 's Personal Finance columnist, Brett Arends revealing the biggest myths (read: lies/misconceptions) about the American market economy. As I read the article, I couldn't help but be reminded of two things: how much We The People and our elected representatives shape our political policies, beliefs, and actions based on misconceptions, and how much religion—which has managed to creep its way into our national politics—functions in similar ways.
Before I present my point, first read the article in question, reprinted below.

The three biggest lies about the economy
Commentary: The truth about jobs, the market and U.S. socialism

By Brett Arends, WSJ.com and MarketWatch

BOSTON (MarketWatch) -- The counter-revolution is underway.

The G-20 calls for members to slash their budget deficits. The U.S. Senate ices further aid for the unemployed. The head of the Business Roundtable slams President Obama for undermining American capitalism. Wall Street succeeds in watering down reform.

Depending on your politics, you'll love this or hate it.
But there's just one problem.
We're still living in a fantasyland. Most people have no idea what's really going on in the economy. They're living on spin, myths and downright lies. And if we don't know the facts, how can we make intelligent decisions?
Key updates on the economy this week
Economists worry that jobs, consumer confidence readings won't support hope for economic recovery, Barrons.com's Bob O'Brien reports.
Here are the three biggest economic myths -- the things everything thinks they know about the economy that just ain't so.

Myth 1: Unemployment is below 10%

What nonsense that is. The official jobless rate, at 9.7%, is a fiction and should be treated as such. It doesn't even count lots of unemployed people. The so-called "underemployment" or U-6 rate is an improvement: For example it counts discouraged job seekers, and those forced to work part-time because they can't get a full-time job.
That rate right now is 16.6%, just below its recent high and twice the level it was a few years ago
And even that may not tell the full story. Many people have simply dropped out of the labor force statistics.
Consider, for example, the situation among men of prime working age. An analysis of data at the U.S. Labor Department shows that there are 79 million men in America between the ages of 25 and 65. And nearly 18 million of them, or 22%, are out of work completely. (The rate in the 1950s was less than 10%.) And that doesn't even count those who are working part-time because they can't get full-time work. Add those to the mix and about one in four men of prime working age lacks a full-time job.
Dean Baker, economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C., says the numbers may be even worse than that. His research suggests a growing number of men, especially in deprived, urban and minority neighborhoods, have vanished from the statistical rolls altogether.

Myth 2: The markets are panicking about the deficit

To hear the G-20 tell it, the U.S. and other top countries had better slash those budget deficits before the world comes to an end.
And maybe the markets should be panicking about the deficits.
But they're not. It's that simple.
If they were, the interest rate on government bonds would be skyrocketing. That's what happens with risky debt: Lenders demand higher and higher interest payments to compensate them for the dangers.
But the rates on U.S. bonds have been plummeting recently. The yield on the 30-year Treasury bond down to just 4%. By historic standards that's chickenfeed. Panicked? The bond markets are practically snoring.
They aren't seeing inflation either. On the contrary, they're saying it will average just 2.3% a year over the next three decades. That's the gap between the interest rates on inflation-protected Treasury bonds and the rates on the regular bonds. By any modern standard the forecast is low. Instead of worrying about inflation, some are starting to worry about something even more dangerous: deflation, or falling prices.
If that takes hold, cutting spending and raising taxes would be a bad move.
It's certainly possible the lenders buying these bonds are being foolish. And it's worth noting that the Treasury market is also subject to political distortions, because foreign are among the heavy buyers of bonds. So it's worth treating its apparent verdicts with some caution. Nonetheless, the burden of proof, as usual, is on those who argue the market is wrong.

Myth 3: The U.S. is sliding into "socialism"

For a system allegedly being strangled in its bed, U.S. capitalism seems to be in astonishingly robust shape.
Numbers published by the Federal Reserve a few weeks ago show that corporate profit margins have just hit record levels. Indeed. Andrew Smithers, the well-regarded financial consultant and author of "Wall Street Revalued," calculates from the Fed's latest Flow of Funds report that corporate profit margins rocketed to 36% in the first quarter. Since records began in 1947 they have never been this high. The highest they got under Ronald Reagan was 30%.
The picture is also similar when you exclude financials.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DOW:DJIA) is above 10,000. Small company stocks have rallied astonishingly since early last year: The Russell 2000 index is back to levels seen not long before Lehman imploded. Meanwhile Cap Gemini's latest Wealth Report notes that the North American rich saw an 18% jump in their wealth last year.
Meanwhile, federal spending, about 25% of the economy this year, is expected to fall to about 23% by 2013. In 1983, under Ronald Reagan, it hit 23.5%. In the early 1990s it was around 22%. Some socialism.
These days, three-fifths of the entire budget goes on just three things: Insurance for our old age (through Social Security and Medicare), defense, and debt interest.

Conservatives don't want to cut the $700 billion-plus we spend on defense. We can't cut debt interest payments. And while Social Security and Medicare certainly need reform, the main "problems" are simply rising life expectancy and health care demands. If we didn't provide for the insurance through our taxes we'd have to do it individually.
What about the rest of the budget? It's jumped from around 7% of GDP a few years ago to about 10% now. Out of control? It's been in the 6% to 9% range for decades. It's forecast to fall to about 8% again in a few years.
So much for a revolution. But here comes the counter-revolution just the same.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/story/print?guid=4CAD4B15-F472-4009-88AF-719A7CD7F5B4

If you're among the few socially and politically astute in America, you may have received an epiphany as you read this piece. If not, think about how liberals on one end and conservatives on the other base and shape their political beliefs on how their misconceptions and/or mis- interpretations of facts; issues like the death penalty, social spending, and gay rights are promoted and/or defended by both sides based religious interpretations of the Bible.
The Tea Party movement is active and engaged in national politics based on how it as a politically conservative organization interprets the economic picture. The Obama Administration, in the wake of its recently passed economic stimulus package, similarly interprets (or misinterprets) the facts about our economy in the realm of reported vs. real unemployment numbers (those of us who are experiencing the pain of being unemployed know all-too well that the monthly reported unemployment numbers don't tell the whole story)
The point is that the American people need to be more well-read and discriminating when it comes to what's real, and what's political spin. Sadly, most of us would rather listen to talking heads spouting and validating our political beliefs than pick up a book, newspaper, or log onto news websites to ascertain the facts for ourselves. We rally, vote, and—to our collective detriments—think based on beliefs rather than facts. And we should never believe everything we think...at least without individual (and objective) research. THINK, don't "feel!"

Muslim Group To Build a Mosque at Ground Zero

2010-05-17T01:57:00.004-04:00

From the “What The **** ” Department, it was revealed during the last few days that a Muslim group are in the final stages of preparing to build a mosque in a building just a few hundred feet from Ground Zero, the site of the former World Trade Center attacks of September 11th.
News outlets including the New York Post and the Fox News Network (overlooking the ideological inclinations of the latter) have revealed that the mosque will be a part of a 13-story Muslim community center which has billed as a cultural center, and will house “not (only) a mosque but a community center for all faiths that will include recreational facilities.”

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/mosque_madness_at_ground_zero_OQ34EB0MWS0lXuAnQau5uL
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/14/plan-build-mosque-near-ground-zero-riles-families-victims/

Needless to say many Americans are up in arms. The anger behind building a mosque, a shrine to the religious ideology—or rather a perversion of it—which provided the impetus for the 9/11 attacks so close to the site of the attacks themselves smacks intolerance all around.
On the one hand, Muslims are allowing their dedication and adherence to their religion to blind them to the sensitivities surrounding the issue…to the families of those who lost loved ones on that day, and Americans in general. While a spokesperson for the American Soeciety for Muslim Advancement defends the building of the center as a “need to take the 9/11 tragedy and turn it into something very positive” by “amplifying the silent voice of the majority of Muslims who have nothing to do with extremist ideologies,” the uproar by those against the project—most vocally the families of those lost that day—is being ignored in favor of what the Muslim group wants. Combine this with the intent by the center's sponsors/operators to open the center on September 11th 2011—the 10th anniversary of the attacks—only adds salt to the still festering wounds, and feeds the atmosphere of insensitivity surrounding this issue.
One the other hand, victims families in particular and Americans in general, still feeling wounded by the events of that day, are potentially painting all Muslims with a broad paintbrush. It is causing a failure to understand that not only were planes hijacked that day, but so was the Muslim ideology…by extremists.
As opposed to looking for possible solutions to the issue, more thought should have been put into the brainstorming and communications stages of this predicament. Groups with such potentially conflicting motivations and missions should take the time to communicate with one another whenever something of this magnitude of sensitivity, such as when a vendor wants to erect a liquor shop near a school.
In much the same way that a neo-Nazi organization (and no, I am not comparing Islam to Nazism as an ideology) would not be allowed to build a headquarters near Aushwitz, or a Japanese naval memorial near Pear Harbor, why would zoning officials in New York not consider the sensitive nature of permitting such a structure near such a site?
Local governmental departments such as those responsible for zoning should stop blindly engaging in the bureaucratic routine of simply approving or building , and actually put some consideration into the effects of proposed projects of this nature.

The Financial Crisis, Bankers, And What To Do (Or, “Go Directly To Jail, Do Not Collect Any Money!”)

2010-05-16T11:55:00.000-04:00

When it comes to the economy in general, and the economic crisis of last year in particular—and the jury’s still out on whether or not the crisis over—there are two schools of thought, one favoring (and/or blaming) the lack of government regulation of the marketplace economy, and the other favoring (and yes, blaming) more government regulation. To be sure, ebbs and flows within the marketplace are a part of the cycle which gives it life, although it’s a little hard to appreciate this fact abstractly when one considers that real people, real families are often affected adversely by these cycles. But to the credit of each argument, common sense rather than economic ideology tells us that there are times when government regulation can increase the intensity of these ebbs and flows, to the greater detriment or benefit of the economy. Still, the loyalists to the government-need-to-interfere and the laissez-faire beliefs remain unwavering to their respective ideological beliefs.
So it should come as no surprise that there will still be some who disagree with one way the government of Iceland is dealing with the economic crisis within its banking community…a crisis whose effect has been infinitely worse in terms of profound damage to its overall economy. This week, it was reported in the news (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.4090f16a5abf84c5a5adff0665cbc792.3a1&show_article=1 as an example) that the government of Iceland has begun to initiate both civil and criminal proceedings against banking executives related to the collapses of the country’s 3 largest banks, Kaupthing, Landsbanki and Glitnir. After the findings of a government inquiry concluded that the banks collapsed due mostly to former banking heads taking "inappropriate loans from the banks," the government of government agencies initiated a $2 billion lawsuit in a New York court against former shareholders and executives for alleged fraud. In addition to the lawsuit(s), Iceland has taken the further step of freezing the assets of other banking executives both in the US and in Europe (such as in the United Kingdom and Luxemburg) where many have fled and live lavish lifestyles. Finally, the police have begun rounding up still some other former bankers while issuing arrest warrants for others.
With respect to the outcomes of the Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco International criminal trials of earlier this decade, the Icelanders seem to have mastered not only certain Olympic sports, but how to properly deal with those most responsible for the economic crisis in its country. In America, the financial community makes no bones about justifying big bonuses to “retain the best and most talented” within the lending community, extravagant lifestyles that are were/are “earned,” and asking for and receiving government loans with no sense of shame…all despite the “best and brightest” causing the near-economic collapse of the American economy due to questionable lending practices. While many banking executives and leaders have made off like (pardon the pun) bandits, many Americans have seen the values of their retirement packages plummet to levels that will force many to work well past the age where age has reduce their physical limitations to do so. But as I have often said before, there is a great many things that Americans can learn from other countries about how to deal with socioeconomic problems. Instead of rewarding willful ineptitude, risk taking, and out-and-out greed with bonuses and an implied Its ok to engage in questionable lending practices…we’ll subsidize you both socially and economically, we should be taking a page out of the government of Iceland’s book and start a criminal (and civil) roundup and prosecution of those most responsible for nearly doing what terrorists couldn’t do…bring the country to its economic knees. The government of the United States should the seizure of assets, the initiation of lawsuits, and bringing of charges against those who put potential of personal advancement ahead of the welfare of their institutions, investors, and of the average American who has been invested in many aspects of the lending industry due to changing trends in funding potential retirements.
Stealing a line from the now-classic 1983 Eddie Murphy-Dan Aykroyd movie Trading Places, “The best way to hurt rich people is to turn them into poor people.”