Monday, January 16, 2012

Bruce Springsteen’s latest studio album captures meaning of Occupy Movement

Apparently the Boss is angry again and his new album will vent some of this anger which closely parallels the emotions of the Occupy Movement.  Starting with Occupy Wall Street protests in New York, the crusade has literally moved all over the world.  But Springsteen remains grounded in his concern for the blue-collar group and liberal causes.  Although most of the album was written and recorded before the Occupy Movement started, it still reflects the sentiments of the fight for equality.

In an article where Princeton professor Cornel West describes the Occupy Movement as an “idea whose time has come,” Tea Party crackpot Michael Prell compares Occupy with the Berkeley Free Speech movement that took place in 1964-1965, “right down to the babbling incoherence of the participants.”  Now this takes the cake considering this man, who is a strategist for the TP Patriots, represents a bunch of blithering blockheads with double-digit IQs.



So what was wrong with the Berkeley demonstrations that resulted in the University backing off and allowing academic freedom with open political activity on the campus, with the Sproul Hall sit-ins eventually creating a place of open discussion?  Liberal, yes, and perhaps contrary to a conservative approach that hides its ideology behind the dogmas of religion and worship of big business.  Berkeley has gone on to represent a progressive attitude that has become a solid foundation of the left.

Sidney Tarrow, a visiting professor at Cornell Law School, believes the Occupy Movement will emerge as a “more potent national force” after cities get past the “encampment” issue.  And this may be the real connection between the Berkeley Sproul Hall sit-ins where you have to take a physical position to make your point.  Tarrow calls it the creation of a “communal basis for future social movement.”  So where do the “Occupiers” go and how do they make their voice heard without the bivouac?  Tarrow says they should “Move on” and “march to Washington.”

Bryan Boydston in The Humanist wants to know, “What Exactly Does the Occupy Movement Want?” when he refers to the Lennon/McCartney song, “Revolution.”  He also refers to the ideology “rebel without a cause” when commenting on the disorganization of the movement so far.  Boydston quotes Naomi Wolf in the Guardian asking the same question, receiving numerous responses she capsuled into the following three:

1.    Reverse the Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court further allowing the influence of money in U.S. elections.
2.    The movement wants fraud and manipulation taken out of the U.S financial system.
3.    Prevent politicians from using their positions in Congress to benefit corporations they have invested in.

In addition to Wolf’s three Boydston has three of his own which he thinks may be more directly focused on what occupiers want:

  1. Reversing Citizens United is good but he thinks the Movement is more about the total economic inequality that exists in the U.S.
  2. He questions regulation as the “fix-all” for the financial community and thinks more of it would not have prevented the recession.
  3. With little evidence of insider trading by Congress and because they are already prohibited from passing laws that impact companies in which they hold any significant interest, this problem is probably already covered.

So one might assume from all this exposition that you can boil down what the Occupy Movement wants into one simple phrase: Balance the inequity of the economic system so that a more equitable arrangement exists for all.

I’ll leave you with Boydston’s quote from the Lennon/McCartney song, “Revolution,” which is actually appropriate for the Occupy Movement.
You say you want a revolution?
Well, you know, we all want to change the world.
…You say you got a real solution?
Well, you know, we’d all love to see the plan.

Friday, January 13, 2012

New Hampshire GOP Primary 2012 compared to 2008…Obama’s opposition

Mitt Romney
Newt Gingrich said that if Mitt Romney didn’t get a 50 percent win in New Hampshire, it wouldn’t be a mandate for his nomination.  In 2008 in NH, John McCain received only 37.71 percent of the vote and went on to win.  Mike Huckabee came in third with 11.44 percent.  This week Romney came in with almost 40 percent of the NH vote compared to 32.17 in 2008.  The Iowa Caucus took place on the same date, Jan. 3rd, both years.

For the Democrats, Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire by 39.09 percent in 2008, beating Barack Obama’s 36.45 percent, but Obama went on to win the nomination.  John Edwards came in third at 16.94 percent.  There will obviously be no Democratic primary in 2012 but what this says is that New Hampshire isn’t always a clincher.  When Obama became the Democratic presumptive nominee on June 3, 2008, New Hampshire then cast all its 30 votes for him, one of only three states to do so.



For years now the New Hampshire Primary and the Iowa Caucus have received more media attention than all the other primaries combined.  This publicity and resulting momentum by a decisive frontrunner can have great impact on the future of his or her candidacy.  According to one report, a win in New Hampshire can increase that candidate’s share of the resulting primary count by 27 percent.

Former NH Gov. John Sununu said that people in Iowa pick corn, people in New Hampshire pick presidents, referring to the race to be the first primary.  From the late 1980s the NH primary has been considered an early measurement of the national attitudes toward candidates.  One of the major reasons the state is a good representation of political sentiment across the U.S. is that Independents are allowed to vote in the primary, although with some manipulations at the time of voting.

What isn’t representative in New Hampshire, and which will be a significant factor in 2012, is that the state is only 4 percent Hispanic compared to 25 percent nationwide.  If Latinos get themselves organized and continue their efforts to register qualified voters, this block could be awesome and throw the NH Primary results into a quandary.  In other words, it’s all up in the air and nothing is really certain until the fat lady sings in November.

Forty percent of voters in New Hampshire are Independent which is in keeping with their representation nationally and this is a major reason it is considered a swing state in national elections.  But as far as predictions go, Bill Clinton, Geo. W. Bush and Barack Obama came in second in the NH Primary and all went on to become President.  So go figure for November.

But does this mean that Ron Paul, who came in second this year in New Hampshire with 23 percent, has a chance at the presidency?  I think not, and this just confirms what a crazy year for politics this has been so far, and will continue to be until the November elections.  I think it is also a solid sign that voters will both register and come out in droves in November, emerging from an apathetic population that has decided it isn’t going to take it anymore. 

Of course the outcome will be heavily favored toward progressives.

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Crime down across U.S. but not because of more guns on the street

Except for the killing of police officers, crime is dropping in all other major categories, a trend that has now lasted four-and-one-half years.  Of course the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) would like to have you think it is due to the recent proliferation of guns on the street, which they are responsible for.  Not so.  According to the WSJ/Online, “Police officials and some criminologists attribute the persistent crime drop to more-sophisticated policing methods, such as targeting hot spots with extra officers.”

CNN reported nearly 500,000 criminal background checks during the last week before Christmas 2011.  The NRA told CNN that this is due to scared citizens afraid that cuts in police coverage will result in less protection.  This is the same kind of bullshit this organization of crackpots has been spreading for years.  It sounds like someone is equipping an army, and some of those guns will end up in irresponsible households like the one recently in Mesa, Arizona where a 7-year-old kid took a gun to school. 

"You keep any special interest group alive by nurturing the crisis atmosphere," is the statement of former NRA chief Ray Arnet.  And it is something they have done well for years working their membership of yahoos into a frenzy over any issue even slightly related to gun control.  The best recent example was when Barack Obama was elected President, the NRA told its members he would take away all their guns.  Thousands went out and bought more.


The $1 million Wayne LaPierre

Any intelligent individual can see this lobbying effort is designed for two reasons.  One, to encourage more gun sales for their high contributing gun manufacturers, and two, to support the NRA’s annual budget of over $200 million.  A pathetic membership provides people like its Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre “lavish benefits,” as the Democratic Underground puts it, with $1,000,000 in yearly salary and benefits.

The Christian Science Monitor lists six key reasons crime is down and not one of them mentions having more guns on the street.  They are:

1.    More incarceration of criminals meaning fewer are on the street.
2.    Better policing through being more proactive through surveillance.
3.    Social programs working with community groups to keep youths engaged.
4.    Simple demographics of a smaller population of the young people who commit more crime.
5.    Unemployment benefits through more government support that reduces stress-related crimes.
6.    Fewer opportunities with unemployment high and more people at home to protect their property.



But there is still the tragedy of more officers dying and the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund says 2011 could be the first year in ten years that more officers have died from gunshot wounds than from traffic accidents.  I say that is due entirely to loose gun laws and the fact that guns are everywhere in this country.  And in Arizona, hardly a day goes by that someone is not shot and in many cases killed.  This state has the loosest weapons laws in the nation.

The NRA will never change its methods or philosophy on gun rights, and advocates like myself will never change when it comes to our viewpoint on sane gun control.  Should the 2012 elections provide some relief from the oppression of the conservative right, in particular the Tea Party, and we see changes to a more progressive Supreme Court, it will be time to challenge the 2nd Amendment to define just what the specificity is of the term, “right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

Visit the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence here.

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Obama up with Hispanics, down with youth

It was both the youth vote and Latinos that helped get President Barack Obama elected in 2008.  One is still hanging in there and the other has real reservations over what he has done for them.  Even though Hispanics are concerned that the President hasn’t done enough for their people, they still support him.  Considering the way the GOP looks down on this group, that’s a wise choice.  The younger vote is something else, and unless Obama puts them back to work soon, they may just skip the elections.

Only 55.3 percent of Americans age 16 to 29 have jobs.  According to Brad Chase, Barack Obama missed the boat on two issues.  Rather than create jobs for the young unemployed, he talked about it in community forums.  Rather then really providing a bailout on the huge burden of college loans, he only reduced rates by a pathetic 0.5 percent.  This has led to an approval rate by the 18 to 29 age group of less than 50 percent.

But the Prez just may have his sights on the burgeoning Latino voting population to carry him through in 2012.  Combining this with running against a Republican Congress that has done everything they can to defeat anything he proposes, but has done nothing of their own in the last three years may be a winning combination.  At the end of the year, Hispanics favored the President over GOP front-runner Mitt Romney by a margin of over 2 to 1.



According to a Pew survey, two-thirds of Latino registered voters supported Democrats where only 20 percent were for Republicans.  However, Obama’s deportations are an issue where 77 percent who knew of this disapproved of the administration’s policy.  But in a recent proposed change in migrant policy where immigrants closely related to U.S. Citizens would not have to leave the country to apply for legal status, the President got their attention again.

There is a group up for grabs, the Millenials, in their early 20s, and Brad Chase says they have a short memory, but they have experienced hard times in Obama’s last three years.  They aren’t yet leaning to the right, but neither are they enthused with the left.  They are currently in the middle, and The Center for the Study of the American Electorate says they can be had by a candidate that focuses on answers to their issues.

Chase says the President or a presidential candidate might do or talk about doing three things for the youth vote.  First, create a limited student debt forgiveness program for those over $30,000.  Second, Place control on “Predatory lender/services” where servicers like American Education Services (AES) resort to bullying tactics with parents.  Third, allow the discharge of a student loan in bankruptcy.

With two-thirds of registered Hispanic voters favoring the Democratic Party, there is good reason to believe this could translate into more Democrats elected to the U.S. Senate and House, as well as state legislatures.  This will be more prominent in border-states like Arizona, New Mexico and Texas that have hefty Latino populations.  Once this trend gets rolling it will be hard to stop considering the boom in the growth of Hispanics throughout the U.S.

One thing is certain, with a 9 percent favor rating of Congress, which is primarily focused on the GOP, and early signs that these yahoos aren’t about to change their tactics—specifically because the Tea Party won’t let them—progressives in the next few months leading up to November must emphasize this to the public.  If we, starting with President Obama, don’t take full advantage of this golden opportunity, it will be a loss that goes down in history.

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

More…gun sense and nonsense

TSA gun inspection
Here’s the latest.  The gun freaks now want to be able to extend their concealed right-to-carry privileges to airplanes.  J.D. Schechter from, where else but gun-totin’ Arizona, who runs the Arizona Citizens Defense League, says some of his readers think, because of the relaxing of guns laws in many states, this could become a reality. 

Just what we need.  Some yahoo from Arizona where anyone can own a gun and who probably has absolutely no training in firearms, to protect us on an airplane.  I’ll take the train.  Some lame brain gun owners still continue to end up at the airport daily with guns packed in carry-ons that they claim they forgot were there.  In the week before Christmas, the T.S.A. discovered 31 guns with rounds actually in the chamber.  National Rifle Assn. (NRA) education at its best.



And what happened to the uproar over improved gun control following the shooting of U.S. Representative Gabby Giffords.  The one year anniversary was last Sunday and immediately following the incident a year ago President Obama sounded as if he might be willing to move forward on the issue.  We also have heard nothing from Giffords herself. 

Jared Loughner
Jared Loughner, the shooter in the Tucson massacre has been judged mentally ill by many and at least we should be addressing that part of the problem.  But over one year later only a small number of states pass along records of those judged to be mentally ill.  Loughner killed six in Tucson, and another mentally unbalanced gunman Seung Hui Cho killed 32 at Virginia Tech U. in 2007.  Why doesn’t the NRA, which supports reporting, lobby for more state participation?

But there is definitely a wave in this country toward looser weapons laws, and gun control advocates like me are fast becoming the minority.  It makes sense that the more guns that are available, the more likely they are to get in the hands of the Loughners and Chos.  Having a gun in the home as a means of protection for an emergency is one thing, but some rube walking around on the streets with a gun in his pocket with no training or background check is preposterous.

If you think these relaxed gun laws is what has reduced violence across the U.S., think again.  Although it isn’t completely clear, the experts say it is due in part to higher rates of incarceration, and a decrease in the number of teenagers who commit a disproportionate share of offenses.  In New York City, as an example, their gun laws have not changed and there are still problems such as oppressive poverty, but murders have declined to 1950’s levels.


Old West cowboy

No matter how you view the loose weapons issue, Arizona is the leader in making guns available to anyone who wants them.  During a very somber period this past Sunday when a vigil was being held in Tucson for those killed in the Arizona shooting, the Tucson Gun Show decided to hold its annual event at the Pima County Fairgrounds.  This can only be described as tasteless beyond reasoning, devised by a bunch of double-digit IQs that have absolutely no feelings for the six dead.  Next, same state, the Republican legislature has renewed its push for legalizing guns on campus.

If there is anything I learn from all this show of masculinity it is that these gun wackos have to pack heat to feel like a man.  It’s an attempt to revive the days of Wyatt Earp when every cowboy carried a gun.  The big difference is in those days they knew how to use them.

Monday, January 9, 2012

ALERT: Senior citizens must support Medicare doctors in pay reductions

The time has passed when you consider becoming a doctor and all your friends assume right away you will be making tons of money.  I am not sure that was ever the real case, although there were a lot of docs driving around in Mercedes automobiles, and the general agreement was that specialist doctors were the ones who made the real money.  According to CNN Money, many docs today are just trying to survive, many hiding the fact they are about to go bankrupt.

This includes casualties from all fields including cardiologists, oncologists and the family physician.  To keep Medicare financially able, federal law says that annual reimbursement rates to doctors be reduced annually based on a formula that is connected to the health of the economy.  And even though Congress has blocked these cuts for ten years, the possibility still hangs over the heads of the docs creating an uncertain financial future for them.  The current cut is 27.4%.

Our family has witnessed this concern with every doctor who treats us and I was able to actually interview one recently on just where she stands on the issue.  I had heard her comments before about how little Medicare paid her for office visits, medical procedures and surgery.  Having seen the reports of payments, I agree.  But she really unloaded when asked about the current 27.4% cut.  She led with “many people think doctors are rich, but most are fighting the same battle as middle-class Americans.”

But she really got serious when reacting to the reduction, above, saying that most docs would have to drop Medicare patients if there is a reduction in payments of any percentage.  Her assessment was that special clinics would have to be set up for these folks for them to receive care.  And wouldn’t that cost taxpayers more than straightening out the Medicare and Medicaid entitlements?  Her judgment was that with a reduction of any amount would mean that it would cost most doctors to treat Medicare patients.

There are 45 million Medicare beneficiaries and that figure is certain to grow measurably in the future.  The aging population is most prominent in the rural areas, and those are the places that can least afford to lose their docs.  Since rural areas tend to be more conservative, and the conservative right has tried already to meddle in Medicare, even reduce benefits, these people had better rethink their politics if they want to keep their physicians.



Dr, Robert Wergin, a family physician in Nebraska, says that based on what Congress might do, he might be forced “to pick up his business and move to a community with a smaller Medicare population.”  Some doctors have as many as 80 percent of their patients on Medicare.  One group of family physicians did a survey and found that 62 percent of their members would drop their Medicare patients if any cuts are made.  Some docs are even considering leaving medicine. 

Deborah Chollet, senior fellow and health economist at Mathematica Policy Research comments that this standoff between doctors and Washington could go on for years.


Today's Senior Citizens

There are 34.1 million Americans age 55 to 64, that will be collecting Medicare in the not-too-distant future.  There is another 45.1 million from 45 to 54 that are on Medicare’s horizon.  There were 60.6 million beneficiaries of Social Security as of November of 2011.  The U.S. must decide soon just how far we want to go in paying entitlements like these programs, and more important, how we plan to pay for them. 

Several ideas have been spun by both progressives and conservatives, neither of which will probably address the issue in an election year.  I like the one that changes the payment structure upward for the wealthy along with that elusive tax increase on the rich. 

Senior citizens should contact their congressional representatives now to let them know how you feel.  House of Representatives here; Senate here.

Friday, January 6, 2012

Canada grades the U.S. for its 2011 politics

Do you care?  If you don’t, I wouldn’t bother reading this article.  But I think it is important to know what our neighbors to the north think about us since they are more progressive in their approach to issues like gun control, consumer rights and health care than we are.  Considering just those aspects of Canada’s government, you would be right if you assume their attitude toward American politics is that 2011 was, as they describe it, a year of “lowlights.”

Gabby Giffords
The article from the Montreal Gazette starts with the assassination attempt on Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, which one year holiday will pass this coming Sunday.  As the paper put it, the year began with good intentions by President Obama in his State of the Union Address but basically ended there.  If there was ever a time in recent history where a reevaluation of gun control was called for, and just might have been demanded by the American public, it was then.

It was soon after that a Republican controlled House decided that it would block anything the Obama administration did just for the purpose of insuring that he wouldn’t be a two-term president.  The dysfunction commenced and lasted right down to the last day of December, 2011.  GOP House Speaker John Boehner was quickly reigned in by the radicals of the Tea Party, led by Rep. Eric Cantor, House Majority Leader, and remained under their thumb until the end of the year.



The Keystone XL pipeline from Canada produced a flip-flop on the part of Obama, just when environmentalists thought they had won a major battle.  The President decided to allow earlier consideration of the project when the GOP became obsessed with its approval because of their claim it would create jobs.  Critics think Republicans did harm to its eventual passage by their insistence that it be included in the tax relief bill.

And then there was the birther controversy over whether Obama’s birth certificate was valid.  Canadians considered Donald Trump the “crackpot” he is when using the issue to discredit the President.  Even today there are still two fruitcakes pursuing this stupid theory after the President already provided evidence of his birth in Hawaii.  There was also Rep. Anthony Weiner’s tweeting photos of his genital to a woman.  A Democrat from New York, he first denied, then admitted what he had done, and the resigned in disgrace. 

Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin was around for a while, goading her pathetic followers into thinking she would run for President, when she had no intention of giving up the lucrative speaking engagements these feeble-minded people pay dearly for.  Canadians saw the sadness in the ineptitude of the 112th Congress to accomplish anything, including what they consider “one of the worst pieces of kitchen-sink legislation,” the 2-month payroll tax cut.

House Speaker John Boehner gets the nod as the “weakest political leader’ due his complete lack of control over the Tea Party in the GOP caucus.  He simply could not deliver the votes ending up in a loss of credibility with the White House, Democrats, even Republicans in the Senate.  It almost seemed at one time that Boehner wanted to work with President Obama on a range of issues, but then the Tea Party jerked him back to reality through moves by Eric Cantor.

Regardless of what Canada thinks of U.S. politics, the important thing is what do Americans think of their political situation.  With Congress at its lowest favorability rating ever, 9 percent, that seems painfully obvious.  Andrea Mitchell of NBC News said it best: she commented that only the military has a favorable rating in government.

Thursday, January 5, 2012

Facebook, Google help potential suicides…will they sell your data?

It is commendable that Facebook and Google have set up procedures to identify people who are contemplating suicide, passing them along to help lines that are geared up to help these folks.  Facebook has designed a system that promotes the flagging of “suicidal or otherwise violent messages.”  If there is a post about someone doing harm to themselves, friends can click on a “report suicidal content link.”

Google added something to its U.S. search engine in 2010 showing a red telephone plus the telephone number for a suicide help line to call.  They have a similar program for poison-control providing a hotline.  The latter was prompted by an actual incident of a mother unable to find the right number after her child had consumed something poisonous. 

These are good things being done by two high-profile companies in the business of providing and sharing information between their customers.  The question is whether we can trust either with this most personal of private information, that, if used against us, could be disastrous.  As an example, both companies are known to collect marketing information from online use of their sites, and what if Google or Facebook decided to sell suicide data to a life insurance company?



After all, Mark Zuckerberg, the bad-boy founder of Facebook, has been known in the past to push the limit on how he uses your personal data.  As late as November of 2011 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) lodged a complaint against Facebook for assuring customers their data was secure from ad networks or FB apps, while at the same time this information was merrily streaming on its way to both. 

It’s as if Zuckerberg, genius that he may be, comes completely dumb when it gets down to your privacy.  Or is it that he just doesn’t care because he thinks your private information belongs to him?  I spent 35 years in the junk mail industry selling your personal data, but for the last seven years I have been fighting for your rights in this matter.  The problem is the average person is completely apathetic about this issue, allowing the Facebooks and Googles to do their thing.

Google has mellowed over the years since they were accused of holding search data for too long a period of time.  However, in March of 2011, Google settled a complaint with the FTC that its Google Buzz social network violated user privacy.  With a fanfare introduction, Google failed to tell users their personal information might be shared.  These oversights are frequent in businesses who apparently don’t understand the full value of privacy.  Unlike junk mailers, who understand but either don’t care or favor profits over customer data security.

Let me leave you with yet one more example of how Facebook and Google might share this data with advertisers.  Pharmaceutical companies thrive on any means to hawk new and old drugs to the public and have little regard for consumer privacy.  Anti-depressant drug-makers could use a list like this to sell their wares, although some experts in the past say anti-depressants actually cause suicides. 

You may think this is all far-fetched but we are currently in an information-driven society and in my 35 years selling this personal data it was obvious just what a gold mine it is.  And because everything anyone needs to know about you is out there with easy access, it just may be too late to even think about your privacy anymore.

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Americans favor the IRS and communism over the present Republican Congress

Yes, I said Republican Congress.  It is less popular than the dreaded tax folks and the political ideology that is a direct opposite to democracy.  In this CBS rating, the IRS comes in at a colossal 40 percent, communism at 11 percent, the lowly Congress at 9 percent.  Only Fidel Castro ranks lower at 5 percent.  These ratings are taken by major polling services like Gallup and Rasmussen, and reflect the growing feeling that the people in Washington must be replaced in 2012.

In a release from CBS of the approval rating, it is clear that the GOP is continuing to block everything that would help jump-start the economy because they want the President to fail.  It is a blockade Barack Obama has been up against since his inauguration, conceived by a deranged Tea Party and implemented by fanatics like Eric Cantor, (R-VA) House Majority Leader with help from House Speaker, Rep. John Boehner and Sen. Minority leader, Rep. Mitch McConnell.

Communist symbol
According to the Addicting Info site, this is what the Republican Congress has done: “…spent their time passing anti-women bills, bills against birth control and contraceptives, anti-abortion bills, bills declaring pizza a vegetable, bills re-affirming ‘In God We Trust,’ as the national motto, anti-tax bills, anti-environmental bills.”  There is more but just as ludicrous. 

This gang of brainless GOP bullies has frittered away three years trying to convince the American public to hate President Obama and vote him out of office next November.  What they have accomplished is raising the ire of a majority of the voting public, including many Republicans and a number of Independents.  The country is fed up with their shenanigans and they’re not going to take it anymore.  The question is how to make sure voters remember this subterfuge on November 6, 2012.



Maybe it would help to illustrate more cases where the unfavorable is favored over the Republican Congress.  The airlines, which have raised rates and curtailed benefits for several years now comes in at 29 percent.  Keep in mind now Congress is at 9 percent.  Banks, one of the most hated institutions and the target of the Occupy movement rank 23 percent.  The oil and gas industry, often accused of raising the price of gasoline just to improve their bottom line, 20 percent.  And Hugo Chavez, Pres. of Venezuela, ties Congress at 9 percent.

The GOP Congress has done absolutely nothing to create jobs, improve the foreclosure crisis, and they want to repeal the health care bill that has already helped many needy Americans.  Stephen Foster of Addicting Info says, “Hell, Republicans have turned Congress into such a joke that even King George III was more popular during the Revolutionary War.”  He was the British monarch during the American Revolution, his favorability coming in between 15 and 20 percent.

I cannot remember a time in my life where the hallowed halls of Congress have been looked on with such contempt for the people who are supposed to be running our country but yet have let a small group of wacko radicals dictate their actions.  I would be talking about the Tea Party, of course, and until the GOP breaks the umbilical cord with these certifiable maniacs, there will be no breakthrough in Washington.

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Iowa caucus is a group of religious extremists' much ado about nothing

I lived in Iowa at one time; still have family there that will no doubt roast me alive after this post.  But I am sick and tired of seeing religion, not just making its impact on politics like any other politicking body, but in actual control of the outcome.  And that is exactly the position the Iowa evangelicals are in when it comes to caucus results.  They are able to do it because of their numbers in the state and also because of their unlimited passion over what they believe.

University of Akron’s expert on religion and politics, John Green, says, ““Relatively few people participate in the Iowa caucuses, so it’s ideal for a group of highly committed activists to have a big influence.”  The need to attend area get-togethers is a requirement, and since evangelicals thrive on sharing their devotion, it is easy for the churches to initiate this kind of participation.  And there is nothing wrong with this loyalty to their cause.

 

What is wrong is the influence the Iowa Caucus has on voters’ opinions across the country of the candidates and their qualifications to be president.  What would the evangelicals do if someday this country elected an agnostic to the highest office in the land?  He or she would believe in a God, but not share the normal Christian beliefs such as the crucifixion.  This new president would have all the capabilities to perform the necessary duties, and he or she would possess all the real values of good people.  The latter is possible, you know.

 A U. of Iowa journalism professor, Stephen G. Bloom, a New Jersey transplant, has wreaked havoc in the state with his statement: "Whether a schizophrenic, economically depressed, and some say, culturally challenged state like Iowa should host the first grassroots referendum to determine who will be the next president isn't at issue. ... In a perfect world, no way would Iowa ever be considered representative of America, or even a small part of it. Iowa's not representative of much." 

When I lived in Des Moines in the late 60s, it was a dingy place, very cliquish, and when I left, knew I would never want to live there again.  Apparently a lot of people still feel the same way as Forbes magazine ranked Iowa in the top ten states losing population in 2010.  That doesn’t mean those who stay are bad, just that it is an environment in which they feel comfortable.  Perhaps many who desert the state are just not “evangelical” enough to fit in and decide to go elsewhere.

To illustrate what I feel to be the complete absurdity of the Iowa Caucus, evangelist Pat Robertson in 1988 finished second, ahead of then-Vice President George H.W. Bush.  Now I am far from being a Bush fan but finishing behind Pat Robertson, come on!  It’s like having the big “E” before his name qualifies Robertson to be president of the United States and that is ridiculous.  But this seems to be the only criteria of the current caucusers. 


Iowa caucus GOP
 As another example, former Penn. Senator Rick Santorum’s latest surge in the polls might be explained by the fact he landed on Time’s list of America’s 25 most influential evangelicals; he is also a devout Catholic.  But as the vote becomes even more fractured, Iowa’s evangelicals have become worried that it will lessen the importance of the caucuses nationwide and have yet another trick up their sleeve. 

They are attempting to get either Santorum or Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry to drop out so as not to dilute the vote for the chosen evangelicals.

At least we have a real election to look forward to in New Hampshire a week after the Iowa fiasco.  With any luck in 2012 we’ll sweep Congress clean of conservative extremists like the lunatics of the Tea Party, and the religious right that puts faith before country, and bring in some progressives that will again concentrate on what is good for America.  Hell, we might even elect an agnostic after President Obama’s second term.

Monday, January 2, 2012

Drug companies want to convince you that you are sick

Americans are going without necessary drugs to fight major aliments like cancer with no alternative available according to a new report, while pharmaceutical companies play with a new business model that emphasizes profitability.  Lipitor was the culprit when it went generic and its maker, Pfizer, was faced with losing the $13 billion in annual revenue.  The current model of betting on everyday afflictions required high priced screening programs that took up to 15 years to reach success, and requiring enormous facilities and numbers of people.

Not sure what was wrong with the old model since over the last 20 years, drug companies have been the world’s most profitable.  Pfizer, itself, is ranked 21st in the Fortune 500 with sales of $8.257 billion in 2010; Johnson & Johnson was 9th; Eli Lilly was 29th; Abbott Laboratories was 33rd.  But Scott Gottlieb writing in the Wall Street Journal says, “There’s something unanticipated in drug research that can’t be industrialized.”  The new focus of drug makers are the more serious conditions such as cancer and Alzheimer’s.

Pharma pushing drugs
The concentration is now on more finite accuracy over wide-scale experiments, but much depends on government regulation.  The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) is not known for being the best at what it does, although it is the only game in town.  Gottlieb comments, “Regulatory requirement have grown enormously over the past few decades, increasing costs and deterring new investment.  But it would seem that we are being led to believe that, in spite of being the highest profit industry in the world, drug companies should be pitied.

The same report says that if pharmaceutical companies were forced to report potential shortages to the FDA in a timely manner, the agency could find alternatives to deal with the issue.  Like the situation 61-year-old Renee Mosier faced with her ovarian cancer this past June.  She needed the drug Doxil, which has no generic equivalent, and has not been available for several months.  It is a life and death thing for Mosier, particularly since this is a recurrence of her cancer.  Currently there is no legislation requiring the reporting of shortages.



But the above isn’t even the worst of a pharmaceutical industry gone bonkers.  Ever hear of disease mongering?  It’s a term that’s been around 20 years and refers to the way drug companies promote their blockbuster drugs to those who are “sick.”  Lynn Payer, author of Disease-Mongers: How Doctors, Drug Companies, and Insurers Are Making You Feel Sick, lists four disease mongering tactics:

  • taking a normal function and implying that it is potentially dangerous and should be treated, preferably for a long time
  • taking a common symptom that could mean anything and making it sound as if it is a sign of a serious disease    
  • saying that a large percentage of the population might be suffering from the “disease”
  • recruiting doctors to spread the message

To me the last one is the most alarming, assuming some docs would recommend a drug just because the salesman is pushing it because the company wants to promote it at all costs.  And Dr. Andrew Weil adds yet another contrivance: allocating a clinical-sounding name to what is really an everyday malady like heartburn, which becomes “gastro-esophageal reflux disease or GERD.”  In the article done by David Wallechinsky, he says, “Aggressive and creative marketing has permitted drug manufacturers to convince millions of people they have a problem that requires treatment and medication.”  Like depression.

But when depression became passé, pharmaceutical companies switched to adult ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder).  ADHD cases skyrocketed; doubling, even tripling among important age groups 20 to 44 and 45 to 65.  Disease mongering has also led to “cooked up” diseases like female sexual dysfunction leading over 60 percent of women to think they had it.  Pfizer even tried promoting Viagra to women until it was proven it was no more effective than a placebo. 

Wallechinsky adds, “Sometimes, the therapy being pushed can be more harmful than the condition it’s supposed to treat.” Like exploiting rheumatoid arthritis with immune suppressors such as Remicade, Enbrel, and Humira.  “Taking these, however, can ‘invite cancers, lethal infections, and activate TB [tuberculosis],’” according to Martha Rosenberg at AlterNet. 

There’s more to be said about the shenanigans of large pharmaceutical companies like shady lobbying and how they use your personal data that I will cover in a later post.  In the meantime, isn’t it nice to know that these big corporations have the consumer’s best interest at heart, and that we have the FDA to protect us if something happens?  Yeah…right!

Donald Trump Says He Will Be Indicted On Tuesday

  THAT'S TODAY... Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has brought the case to this point, now looking at a possible indictment. Trum...