Coffee with Carol

Why Obama can't win if he tries if the present conditions remain

2010-12-18T12:36:00.001-06:00

2011 is the year for planning. That means folks planning for the Presidency and unseating the incumbent, Barack Obama; and in this case both parties have him in their sights, so it's likely he can't win if he tries if the present conditions remain.

The latest decision on passing the taxes for the rich and famous and the rest of us scored no friends for Obama. For Republicans, like Rush Limbaugh, determined for Obama to fail, anything good is no good for these folks.

For Democrats nothing is enough, that's for sure. Pass a health care reform bill, and it's not enough for those who want national health care, and the Democrats rail about that. For Republicans a little more for the rest of us is always too much for the rich folks to bear, who claim socialism for anything socially good much of the time.

So while Obama is beaten up left and right by those from both parties; it is likely just to get worse in the race to win in 2012. The problem is what will it leave the country open to but rule by the elite once again, and the political divide only widen, as compromise continues to prevent anyone from doing anything reasonable and well.

How the left's boom of Obama will keep the right wing in power

2010-12-07T13:31:00.001-06:00

It isn't just Obama the party faithful has decided to indict, on opinion blogs and articles that dominate every news site. This has been the pattern of the press and the Democratic party's damage to itself, as those who find it fashionable lower the boom on their leadership so visibly and continuously, they provide the ammunition to lose elections.

Democratic party faithlessness will potentially lose 2012 election for Obama

It was common during the Bush - Gore election for the left and the independents (although independents are more Republican than anything else) to repeat the mantra that there was so little difference in the candidates, it really didn't matter. Many people didn't go to the polls in that presumed "the lesser of two evils" premise. The result was a virtual dead heat of a contest, with the ultimate decision made by the Supreme Court. But Al Gore had been favored far beyond the stats on the election results. It's just that it was fashionable to utter those words of indictment, that he was either dull or too much the same as the politician he was running against, to make much difference in vote.

Barack Obama is decidedly different than the right-wing group he opposes. Yet the nature of politics is compromise, especially at a time when he's damned if he does or he doesn't. Besides that, the impulsivity of the American public, the need to have everything done right now regardless of complications, makes it difficult for any President to function. Add to this a right wing mantra that proclaimed that Obama had to be made to fail in the Rush Limbaugh call to arms. The Republican party faithful proceeded to help do just that. But the worse thing of all was the Democrats falling in line, like Little Sir Echo in multiples, to do much the same thing, criticize everything frequently, that created a negative atmosphere that set up Democratic candidates to lose and lose their agenda as well.

The problem is the Democrats are far more faithless to their leadership than the Republicans. Most of the latter sided with Bush long after the former President began to crumble in the polls.

The party of no isn't just the Republicans, it's the party of Democrats too. The media pattern has been criticizing the President as sport, not as fact all the time. How many newspapers, for example, carried detailed coverage of the President's declarations on the oil spill and how many sought the sensational instead, which was all the bad press they could find.

The liberals help lose the last election, and they are poised to do it again. It's easy for commentators and reporters to write opinion pieces negative to the President's policies. They simply create a herd and follow themselves, without examination of specifics if those don't agree with their readers and the popular stance at the time. They too want their fixes right now.

The article boxes of citiizen sites and online media organizations receive constant opinion articles, virtually all of them politically negative and mostly reciting the obvious. Few offer anything new, but it gives the average Joe a place to rant and feel important all at the same time. These rants, however, clog airwaves and Internet digits to the extent that more and more people get only the most negative news.

Those who must consistently find fault with the leader of their party and progressive views, that need to be dampened a bit so the President can find the middle ground suitable to govern, will likely cause progressive ideas and agenda to fail in the next election. It won't take the President's mistakes as much to create a possible upset in 2012 with a Republican win. It will be the foolishness of Democrats instead, who for the sake of prating fashionable politics, help deliver up for sacrifice the lamb they wanted for peace.

Avatars taking over the social media communities for some folk's security's sake

2010-12-06T00:20:00.002-06:00

The move of folks to have avatars to represent themselves has taken over Facebook with more and more people using cartoons or pictures of shrubs or flowers as representing their image. It's one thing to take on a persona as a real cartoon or new character for fun, but some say it's for security, which is a different issue entirely.

Twinky Avatar is one of the sites where people can create their own avatars and use them on social media sites

Facebook is simply moving forward into its new territory, which isn't really new for some sites have been doing in for some time. Zing.com began with some hoopla, where people could build their own pages, with posts, pictures, full articles and a range of possibilities, but it did not have the momentum Facebook has now. Furthermore a site called Second Life uses avatars where people can build a second self that can be and do almost anything. The imaginary world becomes more comfortable than one's own in some instances, that's what the message might say.

This is a different process than creating a Mary Poppins character or a Peter Pan who flies with children or an Uncle Remus who tells children stories. The new way is to use a picture to hide one's own image for some just for fun but for others because of anxiety about security and safety issues. As Facebook expands its reach, how much more risk is caused by what it does vs. the entire Internet process that is being abused left and right?

While some people are concerned about Facebook's expansion and believe in having restrictions, many of these same people support a Julian Assange who exposes everything right down to the government's underwear with the Wikileaks business, that many people believe is the practice of free speech. Yet that same openness on another platform is questioned.

The use of avatars for communication is more than just a story that it happens on Facebook but the underlying reason people decide to do it. While some people think it is fun and enjoy it, others worry about security and reduce their information because of such things.

The facts really are that the Internet provides the best and worst of times for users and abusers and is the world we have created right now. It isn't just Facebook that does this. So no one should wonder that responsible people are beginning to consider some rules of the game, because not having them might get more folks into trouble than aid them. But for others it is only just fun.

The end justifies the means and entitlement beliefs risk ethical boundaries

2010-12-04T09:33:00.003-06:00

"The journalists that are out of work deserve it. Its a new world now, and the alternative media has took up the task because the journalists you admire so much failed to do their job."

Doctor's office in a mess - wikimedia commons

This is the response of a "citizen journalist" to Wikileaks. He goes on to say that Julian Assange, the founder, is a "hero to many, and his courage has put him in the line of fire."

There is little that hasn't been said in the debate about Julian Assange, who has leaked 250,000 documents of information that was stolen from a fellow computer hacker of classified U.S. documents.

So what was Assange's purpose? To really educate, inform, hold power to account on matters that elevate man? Or was it to serve his sense of entitlement and to set a dangerous precedent, already manifested in many ways that lead not to enlightenment but the reverse.

For if anyone can take the responsibility for disseminating classified documents by initially stealing them, it is a statement certainly the end justifies the means. The other dark precedent is the statement that says I need no education, training, review or control to do what I do. This is manifested in many areas outside of journalism as well, and the problems are much the same thing. The fellow who takes a weekend course on a multilevel marketing scheme of a product overnight presents himself or herself as an authority on wellness, usually denigrating the medical profession as irresponsible and not up to the task. The argument is that the medical profession makes mistakes, doesn't resolve all the problems and therefore is not up to the job.

Furthermore, If Assange has the protections afforded the press, than why not give these protections to everyone else? Why not arm everyone with a notepad to report on everyone else, willy nilly, since the chances are your neighbor has secrets to hide.

Institutions certainly have issues and fail in what they should do, but opening floodgates against them abruptly rather than in ways that protect people too can create worse conditions in the future as all hell breaks loose everywhere from Chicken Little.

While citizen journalists and overnight health experts, both point to the arrogance of doctors, lawyers, and trained journalists, the arrogance of the citizen practitioner is simply far worse, in believing he or she can get something for nothing, a sense of entitlement that has brought down the economy and political stability at large, creating chaos for everyone else.

Facebook video posting of the 'birther' issue shows value of pairing traditional and citizen media

2010-12-02T10:53:00.002-06:00

This week Anderson Cooper of CNN took down Leo Berman, a Texas politico, for the birther business and a video of the event was posted on Facebook by a citizen from Texas, proving once again the value of citizen journalism as an adjunct but not replacement for the news.

Anderson Cooper of 360 on CNN

Anderson Cooper made his presentation and his arguments from a serious investigation over time and with the support of others on the CNN staff. Leo Berman, State Representative in Texas, has been trying to get a bill passed in his state, requiring people to produce original copies of their birth certificate before running for any political office.

What Cooper pointed out, however, is that the State of Hawaii maintains the original on file and sends a typed copy with the information, something that is done for everyone.

Despite this type of evidence, the report of Linda Lingle, the Republican Governor of Hawaii, that she had seen the original form on file in Hawaii records, the declarations made by hospital staff of President Obama's birth at Kapiolani Hospital, the rumors that the President is not a natural born citizen have continued with Berman and others.

But Anderson, in a video now on YouTube, takes the birther argument apart. He also intimates the racial issues involved as well.

It is in the South one can hear the angry voices about the birth certificate and anything else that can be used to put down the President. It began before the election and intensified. It is incorporated in Republican anger and debate and John McCain's insistent blocking of anything Obama.

But it is a similar argument to that raised on integration, with the same language and focus. For the South to continue this ugly response, and for people to vote for them in large numbers, as occurred with Dr. John Fleming, a Representative to Congress from Louisiana, points out the poison is taken and begins to destroy the inside of the person and the community taking it before an antidote can be found.

It was a citizen today, Justin McMurtry, with the video on Facebook that reminds us of the value of folks in our midst who take the time to remind people of very important events. That act is the proper, and needed, accessory to our media today. Yet Justin McMurtry would not presume to replace Anderson Cooper nor maintain his work is as good. Cooper, on the other hand, were he to see what McMurtry did today, would applaud it as important, necessary and good.

What might also have occurred, and would have reinforced McMurtry's valuable contribution, would be a fully developed response to the video from his standpoint as a voter in the State of Texas. That kind of citizen response allows an even wider view of the issues involved, again one of the best contributions a citizen like McMurtry can make.

On the matter of serious issues, having a journalist do serious research to "keep them honest" is important. Despite the fact Cooper is often more theatrical than necessary and sometimes makes assumptions himself with little foundation, he has been exposed to the ethics of journalism, has the CNN editorial staff, and the power and presentation to get to the facts as well.

Having citizens who responsibly report information like this with their comments, as Justin McMurtry did today, is an invaluable contribution to news and to all of us who believe in a free democracy. It says once again where one of the aims should be and takes place, in the Cooper - Berman presentation, that holds power to account by both a citizen and traditional media response.

The risks of journalism as the facsimile of America's Got Talent

2010-12-01T09:44:00.001-06:00

The Huffington Post uses for its journal of progressive articles, the written posts of several thousand unpaid bloggers, many of whom are quoted as reliable sources, which many can be, but like many outlets who's picked for the stable and who stays in it is like America's Got Talent.

Arianna Huffington - founder of the Huffington Post

The television show America's Got Talent allows people to rise to the top and perhaps win the contest and receive a recording contract and other perks. It selects people at each level based on the judge's selections and audience response. This means a balance of popularity and merit, although the judges also consider audience potential in casting their vote.

The outcome of a given contest might offer a serious surprise, as in the case of 10-year-old Jackie Evancho, when many people believed she would ultimately win on America's Got Talent because of her uniquely gifted voice and presentation on the show, that everyone agreed was special. She lost, however, to Michael Grimm, a talented fellow for sure but didn't have the accolades and YouTube views that Evancho had had all along. But America likes to be contrary too, a form of defiance that sometimes is used just to upset the odds in a fashion that says "you can't control what I do." Even when the audience favors a contestant, the person actually picked to proceed may simply be a result of this contrariness that often occurs when there is a dispute and people want to voice their independence.

Popularity picks may not, therefore, foster the best talent but the most popular for a segment of the culture that happens to vote. But there are many people who enjoy the talent of those who perform who never cast votes in these contests. So the potential of picking the best talent is lessened by those who don't participate in the voting process. The cream may not rise to the top.

The same strategy is now used for news sites as well, both citizen and traditional, if we could call Huff Post either. Huff is a mix of both professional journalists and thousands of bloggers, making it difficult for the public to sort out what is fact-checked and responsible information and what is not.

Guiding the front page by picking the popular, based on a select few who vote, means front page news, and news that lingers, often focuses on the trivial not the headline material that may be most important.

Picking the popular also means those with enough Facebook friends and other contacts on the Internet are at great advantage to a writer who has focused on the news item and writing it well, not marketing the article too. There are those who write well and those who sell well, and sometimes they are both very different.

America's Got Talent is balanced at least in some reasonable way because the talent that moves up to the next level after each show at least has judges in the entertainment business who make an assessment. This is not true with Huffington Post, the top of the food chain in citizen and traditional news combined. Nor is it true with most citizen sites.

The most relevant and original news may linger awhile, disappearing with no 15 minutes of fame and support, while the petty, irrelevant or popular productions remain.

No more is that used as an addictive strategy for developing markets than in the many "citizen" news sites, popping up all over the Web. Some of these are part of article collection sites, which may or may not be managed by journalists at all. Some are managed by journalists with the aim of attention perhaps more than the aim of good news.

A citizen news site, where anyone can write news and be called a "citizen journalist" on any given day, relies on votes for its articles on the front pages. Digital Journal is one of the citizen news sites run by professionally-trained journalists, but not in the fashion traditional news bureaus are done.

The focus on the citizen news sites are the votes articles receive, identified by person since the inception of the site several years ago. The argument, however, is not whether voting should be the criteria for selecting the headline stories but whether they should be identified by name. The issue is not whether voting itself is a reasonable way for the news.

The risks to using the system of votes to determine how headlines are made takes away from the premise most pronounced by those who wrote the protections for the press in the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution, in terms of its guarantee of freedom of the press, is one form of providing the press its own platform, but other free governments have their protections as well. Those protections relate to the relevance of the material and the primary role of the press. That primary role is not entertainment but education and information relevant for living one's life. This, and holding power to account, were the three main goals of journalism, according to Thomas Jefferson.

Polls and popularity votes and cliques that gather together to foster a friend's success do not protect democracy but in fact jeopardize the education democracy needs to succeed. If your neighbor boy with an opinion on Barack Obama, gleaned by overhearing his parents conversation, has enough friends at the start, he can attract many readers, no matter the errors in the article produced. This is a simplistic explanation in some ways, but in real life this event really happens to the detriment of knowing the truth.

Traditional journalists are encouraged these days to "get with it" but that's the message of modern world changes that aren't always the better idea. Sometimes it takes time to find out that what might be popular in the short run, might not be good for all time.

America's Got Talent is surely good entertainment, but the news is the need of our world. When anyone can do it with a YouTube video, enough friends, and a few words, how reliable can the information be for people to vote with integrity and live safely in a difficult world?

Ellsberg and Wikileaks Assange raise risks of Internet copycat 'crimes' by amateur journalists

2010-11-30T10:12:00.004-06:00

If you overheard someone give all the details for killing his wife, you'd have a duty to warn, but if that fellow told stories about girls he slept with, should you put a note on the bulletin board he has AIDS? Releasing classified information to the public raises issues like this as well as about who is the press.

Julian Assange, the "bulletin board" owner of Wikileaks

In the first case, you'd be stopping a fairly certain death if you heard all the information. You would notify the police as well as your employer. It would be the right thing for a citizen to do so that it could be investigated, especially if you had heard sufficient details that led you to believe someone could be killed.

In the second case, you'd be destroying someone's reputation; and although the fellow who sleeps with all the girls certainly exposes them to STDs, a bulletin board report could cause harm to the girls' reputations, as well as that of the fellow involved. If any of the girls had slept around, the reputation of other men might be imperiled by someone reading that board. The information could potentially hurt the company's employees and all of the families involved.

There would be many other things you could do in that instance, if someone was sleeping around and risking others lives and health. Posting the information, however, without all the facts, could be seriously harmful. That harm would multiply if the company was struggling with financial problems or other concerns.

This is the Julian Assange saga. He is not a trained investigator or journalist. He neither had all of the details nor the right critical background to assess that information and make it public during time of war.

Journalism has rules, and a level of sophistication about ethics and proof that traditionally is required for folks to use when reporting critical information that could potentially harm others. Those who have no background, training, supervision or guidance can potentially do very bad things. Those rules of journalism are to protect the greater community while at the same time allowing a journalist to get out facts needed to educate and inform, as its mission.

These rules, however, are violated by Assange, the owner of Wikileaks, by claiming protection of the press for releasing classified documents to the public. This raises additional concerns about how many amateur bloggers and journalism sites will decide to do much the same thing, as some have already done, although on a much smaller scale. Are there not enough lies and trouble caused already by those without conscience or care?

Daniel Ellsberg, who released the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times and the Washington Post, is making the rounds of talk shows, invited to speak about Wikileaks and the leak of classified documents to the press. An anti-war activist for many years, Ellsberg cut his teeth on the biggest leak of all, the Pentagon papers, classified information about the conduct of the Vietnam War.

As an educated man with a Ph.D from Harvard, Ellsberg earned his stripes as someone who knows the military, having been in the Marines as a commander during the period 1953-56. He has been a Rand Corporation scholar, a consultant on nuclear weapons to the Pentagon and Kennedy White House, and during the Vietnam War served as special assistant to the assistant secretary of defense responsible for Vietnam policy. His extensive government experience continued with two years service in South Vietnam as a State Department adviser (1965–67), then another stint at Rand where he was one of the contributors to the Pentagon's internal classified history of the war ordered by Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara.

Ellsberg in October 1969,tried to release the secret Pentagon history to Congress, but according to documentation at the time members of the government refused to accept his material. He then gave it to the newspapers.

The Pentagon Papers provided a detailed description of Presidential failures and lies in a fashion that led to the public's opposition to the Vietnamese War. President Nixon and his inside group tried to silence Ellsberg by breaking into his psychiatrist office. This was the same group called the "Plumbers" unit that broke into the Democratic offices during the Watergate scandal.

Ellsberg was charged with espionage, but because of the White House tactics, the judge threw out the case.

The old man, as he was born in 1931 and now is nearing 80, Ellsberg has kept his status as the grandfather of leakers in modern history; but questions continue about the need of the public to know and the state of the world and what might bring it harm. This is a different world from that of the Vietnam war.

The liberal left embraced Ellsberg in 1971, as they were against the war. The right condemned what had happened. The rest of the folks simply wondered, and some years later forgot.

Now Ellsberg is back in the public, defending the release by Julian Assange, the owner of Wikileaks, of 250,000 documents of classified material without reviewing all of their contents, on a website for the public to read. This again brings up the question of balance between the public's need to know and the security the government needs to do business.

It is not, however, a liberal vs conservative issue at all. It is instead an issue that gets to the heart of where the line has to be between what is reasonable and necessary for the public to know and what might cross the line.

When release of information is done because an individual wants to prove a point, the end does not justify the means, which is the argument used by those who support folks who release classified information to the public in an incoherent fashion..

Ellsberg set the stage for Assange, a citizen journalist as opposed to a professional one, to do what he did, that creates legal tangles for everyone involved in the case, including the very definition of who is a journalist and what is a free press. Ellsberg's world was a different one than the one of today, with the lack of Internet controls and where anyone can say anything at anytime, and many people might not know the difference among them of who checks the facts and who doesn't.

By proceeding to use the argument, the end justifies the means, Ellsberg allows folks like Assange to poison the process everyone uses in a democratic government, opening the door for copycat crimes. Assange is not the New York Times that has traditional journalists who have been trained to properly review materials before releasing them for public view. By supporting Assange in releasing classified documents, Ellsberg creates the potential for collateral damage for both the press and the government too, at a time when the potential for serious, widespread hurt lurks in every corner of the world and the people need a free press it can trust.

The START Treaty must not be stopped by Republican tactics of targeting Obama

2010-11-28T23:38:00.017-06:00

In spite of the support of Hillary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice as well as primary military officials and past and present officials in the Department of State across party lines, there are Republicans ready to block the START Treaty, which poses problems for national security.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Putting the START treaty forward as something to veto as another way of turning down any legislation proposed by President Barack Obama is not only foolish but downright dangerous as well.

By way of defining what the START treaty is and some of its particulars, the following is a lengthy quotation from the Department of State website with Hillary Clinton's explanation of the value of the treaty and why she supports it:

"This is a treaty that, if ratified, will provide stability, transparency, and predictability for the two countries (Russia and the United States) with more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons. It is a treaty that will reduce the permissible number of Russian and U.S. deployed strategic warheads to 1,550, a level not seen since the 1950s.

In addition, each country will be limited to 700 deployed strategic delivery vehicles and 800 deployed and non-deployed strategic missile launchers and heavy bombers. These limits will help the United States and Russia bring our deployed strategic arsenals, which were sized for the Cold War, to levels that are more appropriate for today’s threats.

This is a treaty that will help us track remaining weapons with an extensive verification regime."

Condoleeza Rice, according to a Yahoo News article has already stated her support for the Senate to ratify a new arms control treaty with Russia. So also has Henry Kissinger and Madeline Albright, two other previous Secretaries of State

On the Republican side Sen. Dick Lugar, top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, supports it as does Sen. Sam Nunn, a Georgia Democrat, who once worked in conjunction with Lugar for a program to dismantle nuclear weapons.

With all that support from many of the nation's security officials, however, there remains a cadre of Republicans who have already stated their opposition and consider it their patriotic duty to block anything Obama attempts to do.

Sen. Jon Kyl,, R-Ariz., the leader of the opposition on the Senate Republican side as the party representative, has already said he will vote for a block on the pact.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has declared emphatically that the most important goal for Senate Republicans is to stop Obama from being elected a second time.

'Are we really putting U.S. security first?'" The Faster Times quotes Nunn as saying. Nunn is presently involved with a group of non-partisan individuals on what is called the Nuclear Threat Initiative.d, non-partisan outfit called the Nuclear Threat Initiative. "Those who are trying to shoot Obama, the bullet is going to go right through Obama and shoot U.S. credibility in the world."

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has called the treaty "essential to our future security." The old treaty expired in December, and since then there has been no agreement allowing each country to inspect the nuclear arsenal of the other.

The arguments against the START treaty is partisan politics at its worst. It has nothing to do with the Republican view of foreign policy. Instead they are targeting it because it is being presented by a Democratic executive.

The Republicans won the midterm election by vilifying Obama for every decision he made, regardless of the President's attempts to include them in the debate. When the loyal opposition immediately after the election maintains it will follow nothing Obama decides, then the possibility of passing any meaningful legislation is gone. That win at any cost strategy brought the Republican the House this last election, but it will bring down the United States like a window fan on a deck of cards if the opposition blocks the Treaty.

Standing against the President on a matter of national security is a serious precedent, and one wonders if similar partisan politics and opposition would hold the hand of the Chief Executive at a time of full-fledged war. It also sets a very dangerous precedent by basing opposition to a foreign policy simply on partisan politics.

Plutocracy, not socialism, fosters economic crisis, Reagan's guru declares

2010-11-28T11:00:00.001-06:00

As the new Congress takes over in January, one of the biggest questions to ask is if politicians should be responding to what America wants or what it needs and how to balance both, something David Stockman, Reagan's former budget director, agrees is the critical issue to prevent the final evolution of the country to a plutocracy.

President Ronald Reagan, whose former budget director says tax cuts for the wealthy should not continue in crisis

This is the essence of the political debate in the mean season, the season where big elephants have taken over the debate, big because of bucks that control the direction of government. The outcries of socialism against requiring the rich to pay their fair share of taxes has really moved the country not closer to democracy or socialism but plutocracy, or rule by the rich instead.

David Stockman, who forged President Ronald Reagan's economic policy, declared strongly on Reliable Sources that his intent about tax cuts was not meant to be the panacea for financial problems nor the absolute plan for the future. It was meant as a stimulus then, something he believes was not a necessary plan during the Bush administration. Instead, he said, it reinforces what America wants and the baby boomers approach of rather than solving the problems simply borrowing because they want more.

Stockman underlines the urgency of the Congress to make financial decisions immediately because of the crisis at hand. Democrats need to cut spending, and the rich Republican base needs to cough up its share of the dough. That's through raising the taxes on the highest wage earners, because the budget solution won't ever take place and the needs of the middle class and poor in our midst will never be met unless redistribution takes place. Stockman, proud of his Republican orientation and conservative principles, declares it's time to talk common sense.

Focus on needs is the direction that is most critical at a time when 1 out of 6 Americans in the country go hungry while the rich get richer daily. People can't lose their jobs and the programs to help them by reducing entitlement programs while the rich walk off with the cash.

While the Republicans bluster to get attention off the serious problem of where the chips have landed so they can win the game, the focus must remain on needs not wants at a time when people need the essentials of jobs and food and places to live. And President Barack Obama needs to pay close attention, not to fighting the right-wing arguments he never was likely to win, but acknowledging middle class primary needs where the problems are now most acute.

So what does America need? The first and most important need is serious critical debate, where people on either side of it recognize the value of discussion in the resolution of problems. But once the debate has ended with the passage of a bill, the result in a democracy needs to be pulling together to move the country forward, regardless of political belief. By the opposition forever pulling in the opposite way, there will never be the movement needed to get America back on its feet. That first need is critical because without it none of the rest of the needs can be met.

The needs from there should be clear enough. The resolution of how to meet them becomes the tangled web we weave so tight the solutions for getting out of our mess will become fewer and fewer still. The resolution can't be done by journalists, but the light can be shone on where the needs exist. A journalist cannot resolve the problems from outside the inside track. It is, however, the direction for Congress that has the information, however, to focus on basic needs first, rather than finding ways to undermine one another as the country suffers along. To do that each individual member must be brave and willing to spend the political capital earned by winning elections back home. The focus has too long been on what America wants, with politicians catering to that while more and more people are needy.

That's the approach that is needed, as David Stockman, a long-term conservative, says the Congress needs to take to solve the present economic crisis.

Those needs are first sources of income. If businesses with tax cuts they've now had for years don't hire, then who will? There have been enough excuses and bailouts for business to have given them all they need to hire workers. Yet more and more of these businesses become wealthy while continuing to complain of abuse. It is a way of taking attention away from the fact corporations ask Americans to work longer and harder for less and less money, then cut the payrolls to preserve capital, and target programs designed to help the unemployed. The basic need for folks is the income to help them feed, clothe and shelter themselves and their families. If businesses won't do it, the question remains then, who will? Because if government does, then the right wing will scream socialism and drive more folks down the hole.

The bailouts don't help the direction American needs to go. The focus on bailing out banks and Wall Street was initiated by George W. Bush. The average Joe, however, not being part of that focus, clings to Republican claims that President Obama was responsible for it, rather than simply extending a plan that was likely to fail in the long run. This made the middle class angry and removed a political base of folks from the Democratic party and reinforced Republican strength to secure a midterm election win. The result of tax cuts and fostering a belief that to have more means spend more while paying less for it has created more wealth for the rich folks while the poor and middle class struggle to meet daily needs.

The media must shine the light on needs of America rather than focusing on wants somewhere else. The needs are the basics of food, shelter, and jobs that provide the essentials for living in freedom, that without it the middle class will only become smaller and the community become angrier still.

If the focus does not change, and change very soon, the money shift will continue to happen and along with it the power as well. Instead of a democracy America will return to the serfdom it fled, with the wealthiest folks in control, which is the definition of plutocracy and closer to the form of government we have. If it continues, the middle class will be like folks before the Industrial Revolution in back alleys fighting and foraging for food . They will be the Oliver Twist characters, looking through windows at the rich feasting inside, who laughing in splendor in well-lighted rooms never once cast the hungry a glance.

Reincarnated Joseph McCarthy is a woman brandishing a rifle

2010-11-27T10:42:00.001-06:00

Forget about Elvis sightings. It's Senator Joseph McCarthy alive and well and living in Wasilla, Alaska in the guise of a woman with a rifle, declaring how anyone who disagrees with her ideas is a socialist and un-American, with the same passion and purpose as the Senator of yore.

Sen. Joseph McCarthy holding a memorial plaque of World War II - wikimedia commons

The woman with the rifle ran for Vice President on the ticket with John McCain, calls the President a socialist, and undermines others as not being patriotic if they question any of her views. Sarah Palin in many ways was media-created like McCarthy and uses the same playbook to achieve her aims. She also uses similar props of guns and flags and platitudes about the Constitution, as she uses fear of foreigners to gain followers and support.

Those people much under 70 years of age would know little of McCarthy, unless from history books. They wouldn't have the experience of the atmosphere of hate that developed from his political diatribes aimed at unseating his enemies in the most deceptive ways. For seniors over 70, they would have an inkling of the political air, the kind of less involved interest folks in their early 20's usually have at best, because McCarthy's heyday was more than 50 years ago.

"Obamacare is a socialist plot" are the intimated and direct accusations of Palin's Fox News pronouncements. That's a clue to the reincarnated Joseph McCarthy, with fans and followers echoing those words, in quite the same pattern that the wide support McCarthy received from his political fans followed his.

McCarthy was born in Appleton, Wisconsin, a farm town in the Midwest, so his roots are similar to those of Palin in Wasilla, Alaska. Family values were touted not as values but as shields to hide the planned attack on unsuspecting crowds with the verbal violence of calling enemies socialist or Communist, with similar associations.

On February 9, 1950, Senator McCarthy appeared before a Republican women's group in Wheeling, West Virginia, making his initial pronouncements about socialism and communism and un-Americans in government groups. In 1959 he claimed the State Department knew of 205 communists and refused to remove them, but he never once offered real proof. He did it in the same way that Palin spoke of death panels and socialism in relationship to the healthcare programs, for taking over the discussion and winning at any cost.

But Palin will never admit she's McCarthy, and her followers will attack anyone who says that she's anything other than a victimized, small town apostle. But she's an apostle with a plan like McCarthy, with symbols for subterfuge in the way her predecessor used them and with the same aim for power he had.

Sarah Palin with prop of plaque on Aviation Day - wikimedia commons

It might look like a whole different thing, this association between McCarthy and Palin because the package is different, but inside the goods are the same. This time McCarthy's target, in the person of Palin, begins with President Obama himself. The fact Obama is black simply adds to the flavor of things. After all, calling black leaders like Martin Luther King communists or socialists worked in the 1950's and 1960's and continues to pull the same strings. And by denouncing dissent as having no basis in fact, as Palin does by saying anyone complaining of racism is racist, the attention is pulled away from the agenda of power for Palin to irrational thinking instead.

By way of rally and support for the Tea Party, of which Palin is the titular head, the extreme right-wing takes up the cause as its echo, observing that Democrats are the Devil indeed, violating all of the ten commandments and never to be supported because of their evil intent. This is led and followed by Biblical quotes out of context and using the name of the Christ.

McCarthy is back with applause and with honor among too many people today. The patterns of Palin reflect that McCarthy fervor. Yet McCarthy, who was eventually censured some time after he had caused irreparable damage to lives and careers, has always been under our noses, waiting for the right physical form to unleash his agenda full force.

So he's back--well she-s here---in this female form, writing books and on television shows where fans can still fawn once again. The rifle, the flag, and our country are used to entice people to join a crusade still led by a foe of Democratic principles, principles that must stand on dissent and debate rather than the ruinous "cross" of McCarthy's reincarnation as Palin.

'Sicko' attacks led to right-wing sabotage of health care debates and mid-term election win

2010-11-26T09:20:00.001-06:00

Republicans are poised to undo the new healthcare legislation, after creating a platform to do so through fear-mongering and reference to needed legislation as socialism, having muffled a film called "Sicko", which informs folks about the problems. They also used these attacks as the strategy to win the mid-term election and potentially the 2012 Presidency.

Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican Party at the vanguard of healthcare opposition

Michael Moore's film "Sicko" was designed to expose insurance company corruption, the fact that claims are routinely denied and people left to bankrupt themselves from medical bills they can't afford to pay. It exposes in detail the long-held practice of denying medical coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

The new healthcare bill is designed to remedy these problems. Because of Republican maneuvers and lack of support, most of the changes will not take place until 2014, but before that time the new legislation will be so stripped of its effectiveness there will be little of that promised help left.

The initiation of the sabotage was demonstrated by the attacks on Michael Moore's film "Sicko." In Louisiana, a state that has one of the highest uninsured populations, the film was only shown in New Orleans. It was never shown in the cities and towns in the north and central areas of the state, where large pockets of poverty exist and many folks uninsured.

Later the Republicans used a specific playbook that outlined the key words and tactics to upset healthcare debate and prevent the legislation from being passed in the first place.

The Republicans are poised to undo the healthcare bill, leaving the new benefits for seniors behind that could help seal the "doughnut hole" for medications that costs older folks thousands of extra dollars in medication costs. They may undo the portions of changes that allow all people to be insured regardless of their health condition and other protections designed to help the poor. But it will not be an easy task because they don't quite have the numbers. But the attacks are designed to win them additional favor with the public, as they look for other issues as well to underline their protection of the public as a guise for undoing critically needed social and healthcare programs.

Even the born-again, preachers-turned-politicians, politicians-turned-pundits like former Governor Mike Huckabee support denial of coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, comparing healthcare issues to the insurance of material goods in a fashion that reveals the level of thinking and planning designed to upset the healthcare plan. Perhaps he will go further and find a Biblical verse that he can twist to further support the agenda.

But most folks will neither understand what there was in the healthcare bill designed to help them nor what they will lose when the legislation is attacked and possibly undone. Republicans have promised to begin the task of undoing this legislation when the new Congress meets for the first time at the beginning of 2011. They will use the fear they promoted by attacks on the bill as the fuel for debate to undo Democrats and help them also win the Presidency back in 2012.

It all began with a film director's exposure of the truth, that much of the public failed to see. What happened to Michael Moore's "Sicko" is told in an interview on the Keith Olbermann show, which reveals the demise of decency in the right-wing's devious schemes. These schemes were described by Wendell Potter, former executive with CIGNA, in his frank apology to Michael Moore concerning the attacks made on the film. He declared those attacks were planned and purposeful from insurance companies and set up to prevent the public from knowing the devious practices they use to keep Americans from knowing how they manipulate facts for profit.

Those schemes by the right-wing groups, funded by the insurance company giants, will continue to unfold as right-wing foes leap forward as conquering heroes in a fashion where people will vote against their self interest, even as they continue to be impoverished by healthcare costs. And the education of the public that could have kept that fear from growing was never allowed to be shown in places where the people needed to know the truth the most.

Healthcare remains a high priority, as basic to life itself. Those lies about the "death panels" in the healthcare bill by people like Sarah Palin will be replaced by the real ones with insurance company executives continuing to make those decisions they have made for decades through manipulation about who deserves to live or die the most, if the right-wing Republicans get their way.

Thanksgiving: bring back the politics of inclusion

2010-11-25T07:35:00.001-06:00

Today the United States celebrates Thanksgiving and reflects upon its past. It recognizes the welcome early settlers had from Native Americans and how they prepared a feast to share in recognition and respect for one another in the politics of inclusion.

The first Thanksgiving at Plymouth - wikimedia commons

All of this is a good example for today's Thanksgiving and also for the nation's future, when we can welcome others, strangers to our country with the same embrace those early settlers had when they arrived in America from many of the Native Americans, who put down fears and suspicions in order to make new friends. They did this when like today times were hard, food in short supply, and there were worries about the risks and dangers each new day would bring.

Let us then today in the America of 2010 greet those who are different from us with love and harmony, instead of the suspicion and rancor that comes from fear, generated by those who seek power for themselves rather than community harmony and progress for us all.

Let's remember what truly made our country great and that can protect and shelter it tomorrow and for every day to come and that is love and respect for each other. Let us open the doors of our homes to welcome friends and strangers alike today and as long as our nation lives from this day forth. And bring back the politics of inclusion.

Happy Thanksgiving from Carol Forsloff

Pledge of Allegiance symbolizes debate about socialism

2010-11-24T11:02:00.000-06:00

For more than a century the word "socialist" has been used as an epithet to undermine help for desperate groups and to deny serious discussion at a time it's needed most in arguments against the national banking system, public education, Social Security, Medicare and Obama's health care plan.

students reciting the Pledge in 1899 - wikipedia commons

Before the Civil War the debate about collectivism or socialism was over the national banking system. While slavery is remembered as a major cause for war, the provocation most pronounced at the outset was the South's rejection of the national banking system and other economic issues. The argument of states rights and the notion of forced collectivism was posed in hostile language, name-calling, and aggressive tactics that instigated war.

Around the turn of the 20th century public education was also indicted as socialism too, with the proposal for a uniform practice for public schools in order to raise literacy rates and to afford more and more children an education with some standards. The opposition called it socialist instead.

Using the word socialist has also been done to undermine Social Security, Medicare, and Obama's health care program, denying needed help to desperate groups and preventing discussion by issuing epithets instead. The tactic is most used by right-wing groups, those supported by the wealthy whose tactics of fear spread throughout the culture, creating tension during difficult economic times or periods of unrest.

Before Barack Obama's election for President, and during his two years in office, the barrage of accusations about his being a socialist is only equaled by pronouncements that he's facist, racist, and a Muslim with intention to do harm. All of these arguments, however, remain a subterfuge for legitimate debate. But few people know that the symbols they admire, like the Pledge of Allegiance, was written by a man who with his brother were both called socialists.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in response to concerns about opposition against public education. It was composed by Francis Bellamy, (1855 - 1931) a Baptist minister and author who composed the Pledge in 1892 as part of a quadricentennial program celebrating Columbus Day and for an educational journal called The Youth’s Companion.

Bellamy's ideas were considered socialist and radical for his time, similar to those of first cousin, Edward Bellamy, who had written several American socialist novels including Looking Backward and Equality. Both Francis and Edward Bellamy believed in a planned economy that would provide political, social and economic equality, beliefs which caused Francis to be asked to leave his position as minister of a Baptist church in Boston.

During the Columbus Day Program Bellamy addressed state superintendents of education in the National Education Association as well as a large gathering of young people and other celebrants. He knew many Americans considered public schools to be socialistic and that President Harrison was worried about the backlash.

Bellamy also recognized the nation continued to struggle with its identity as a republic, something that had been declared established by the Civil War that had taken place thirty years before but that continued to be tested by certain social struggles.

At that Columbus Day presentation, Bellamy began his presentation by talking about how the public schools could unite the nation. He went on to say: "The coming century promises to be more than ever the age of the people; an age that shall develop a greater care for the rights of the weak, and make a more solid provision for the development of each individual by the education that meets his need…... Our fathers in their wisdom knew that the foundations of liberty, fraternity, and equality must be universal education. The free school, therefore, was conceived as the cornerstone of the Republic. Washington and Jefferson recognized that the education of citizens is not the prerogative of church or of other private interest; that while religious training belongs to the church, and while technical and higher culture may be given by private institutions - the training of citizens in the common knowledge and the common duties of citizenship belongs irrevocably to the State.”

Following these statements Bellamy unveiled his Pledge of Allegiance. The original Pledge was as follows, “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Bellamy had considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans.

When the Pledge was changed from “my flag” to “the Flag of the United States of America,” Bellamy protested and was ignored.

The words “under God” were added in 1954 in response to issues raised during the McCarthy era of anti-Communism when many loyal Americans, including another great African American of intellect, Paul Robeson, had their patriotism challenged. Many of Bellamy’s descendants have said that Bellamy would not have liked the addition of the words “under God,” particularly since he had to leave his position as minister and his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons.

So what was Bellamy thinking when he wrote the original pledge? Writers about Bellamy and the Pledge seem to agree that he wanted to stress the importance of the nation as a republic, one nation indivisible. Although Bellamy was to show some ambivalence to immigrant groups and to African Americans in his later writings, he was considered to be a social liberal with respect to the ideals he held at the time he wrote the Pledge.

So do symbols and how we use them make us Americans? Not according to the experts and not according to the one who made one of the most powerful contributions to America’s repository of valued sayings and symbols recited at important meetings and school events across the United States, the Pledge of Allegiance.

Indeed the conclusion seems to be that being an American has more to do with standing for an indivisible republic and recognizing the values of liberty, equality and justice within it. These are the values espoused by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Gettysburg Address and the Pledge of Allegiance. The principal authors of these documents would likely agree with modern scholars on etiquette that respectful attention to the symbols, however that might be demonstrated, is more important than some outdated specified practice that doesn’t reflect at all on whether or not a person is a true patriotic American.

They would certainly be worried that the old arguments continue to be dredged up in the same way all the time, in efforts to negate the efforts to help the greater community and to bring the nation together in progressive ways.

References

Associated Press, June 2002, Pledge writer probably wouldn't mind removal of under God, family says,”

Baer, John. The Pledge of Allegiance, A Revised History and Analysis, 2007

Baer, John, The Life and Ideas of Francis Bellamy, 1992

John McCormick, Obama in Red, White and Blue, Chicago Tribune, June 30, 2008
Miller, Margarette S. Twenty-Three Words, Portsmouth, Va. Printcraft Press, 1976.

Snopes.com

Worley, Stephen L., SMSgt. USAF (Ret). Prairie Ridge US History "The Pledge of Allegiance- Francis Bellamy." 1998.

Susan Boyle, Jackie Evancho vs public defiance, a platform for Palin presidency

2010-11-23T09:47:00.002-06:00

Susan Boyle and Jackie Evancho, neither of whom won the top prize for their talents on the famous British or America's Got Talent Shows, remain favorite, first-line entertainers now, while a tumbling act and a singer, Michael Grimm, are seldom heard from, in a phenomenon Sarah Palin might be using to secure the Presidency against Barack Obama.

Susan Boyle, Scottish singer and runner-up on Britain's Got Talent - wikimedia commons

What is that phenomenon? It is one that capitalizes on the defiance of the public on either side of the proverbial pond, as demonstrated by the loss of first prize of Boyle and Evancho, great singers, an older woman and a little girl, both with unusual talents.

The public defiance comes from an in-your-face response to media and pollsters that makes those original predictions. Even if the public favors a Boyle or Evancho, the anger from what the public perceives as control over its responses comes out in these surprises. It's the kind of surprise that could mean an upset in the Presidential election.

An example of how that plays is what occurred during the Governor's race in Minnesota in 1998 where the pundits took sides on the various candidates, including Hubert Humphrey III, son of the former Vice-President under Lyndon Johnson, who was favored to win that year and Norm Coleman, the Republican challenger. Instead the public chose a former wrestling champion, Jesse Ventura, a fellow full of one-line blusters without serious administrative or political experience. That defiance of the pollsters could well foretell the Palin future in much the same way. Her statement that she could win a Presidential contest with Barack Obama just may have potential in using this public's attitude toward absolutes and pollster favorites to win.

The assumption that the best might win, the best of experience, education and political persuasion can be upset by that defiance during the Presidential election of 2012. Just as folks found out the best of talent didn't win, despite the predictions and the public's fondness of it too, neither Evancho or Boyle got the final vote, at the time it really counts. The same could be true of a contest between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, with the former candidate upheld as the alternative for the hostile far right, the disillusioned in the middle and even the liberal left in defiance.

If the pollsters and political factions on all sides continue the barrage of criticism of Sarah Palin, the public might just turn its nose up again and in defiance vote her in. Palin's public forays into entertainment, political and social venues provides that consistent folksy drama of the everyday person the public often favors. This indeed could make Sarah Palin President with the public's middle finger making it possible for 2012.

Prayer or pot for pain? Folks need options now.

2010-11-22T10:10:00.001-06:00

Response to helping people with pain depends on economy, culture, physical differences, supply of medications and religious views. So those in severe or chronic pain are treated differently in different regions of the country as well as the entire world, so will it be pot or prayer as a solution?

marijuana now legal for medical purposes in 14 states, none of those in the South

Studies show there are great variations in pain perceptions. The lifestyle issues of pain put people at odds. Some folks are able to manage pain very well, just based on their particular level of actually feeling pain. They have found, as an example, that those with redhead complexions tend to feel pain more acutely than other groups.

Because of lifestyle and cultural issues some people just don't "feel your pain."because they have an entirely different threshold for physical perception or social or religious views that require them to minimize its impact when they discuss it with others.

Statistics reveal an increased use in prescription drugs, and much of this has to do with pain control. There are varied uses for pain medication, for the extreme kind as well as for chronic pain. For doctors it's an ongoing dilemma, especially for those in chronic pain with little hope of living for any reasonable period of time. The concerns about addiction still remain, along with physician's own perception of physical pain based upon his or her physical characteristics and religious views.

It is chronic pain often at issue. That's because of the questions regarding addiction as well as the culture message that says, "You've been sick long enough. Now get over it." That's especially true when practitioners and medical supplies are in short supply. Folks like to talk about dear Aunt Hattie, 75 years old, and still working hard at washing windows in spite of two herniated disc and a cancer diagnosis. This is the view that seems to say to folks, "I'm better because me and my family deal with pain better."

A year ago a glaring example of lack of quality medical care was reflected by the response in Kuwait, where the problem was described about how doctors are responding to the problem of pain. Kuwaiti doctors, according to the The Kuwait Times, are said say, in response to complaints about medical mistakes or lack of care, “just live with it” with regard to pain.
Medical personnel are also in short supply relative to population needs in many places in the world. This gives rise to reliance on alternatives or even no help at all, an orientation that Kuwait has taken to its populations in need.

A study, entitled "Measuring the Health of Nations: Updating an Earlier Analysis,"set up and carried out by a team of researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, found that the United States is last among the developed nations for quality of medical care and France is tops. To obtain these results the research examined individuals younger than age 75 who had died but whose deaths might have been prevented by effective, quality and timely medical care. Although France has been rated high in comparison with other healthcare programs, Businessweek says the French system isn’t quite as sterling as Moore maintains but that it indeed is “pretty good.”

The fact is also that France can also play the machismo game of "grin and bear it" given the tough approach taken towards minority groups to save money. Not dealing with pain issues is also another way to save money.

More and more states in the United States are allowing the use of medical marijuana for pain control, especially for those groups having neurogenic pain related to diabetes or pain or nausea from cancer. On the other hand, groups point to the power of prayer in some studies that suggest that those prayed for heal more readily. But the scientific studies are inconsistent for both ideas, yet they have seen to work for many.

So will prayer or pot take precedence in the control of pain in the coming years? Given the fact that many religious groups stand in the political door, the options for marijuana are limited to those states where it is legal for medical purposes. At the same time these state laws conflict with federal legislation outlawing marijuana for any uses at all. The Deep South has deep six-ed the notion so far, and most folks have opted for prayer.

Given the cost considerations, the growing numbers of elderly and others with chronic pain, the choice might end up a serious debate and reality of prayer to help folks handle it or marijuana instead.

Growing older? Better take precautions for your health care right away.

2010-11-21T14:56:00.001-06:00

Back to that $1 million retirement you thought could last through retirement and the woes presented in an earlier piece on this blog. There is a bit more to be said, because with the Republican plan to downsize or eliminate Medicaid, the "fail safe" plan for seniors won't be there.

Lyndon Johnson signing Medicare bill in 1965

Retirement and estate planners have ordinarily talked with seniors about living trusts and special wills to allow the use of income during one's lifetime, until those funds are gone. It is then assumed, and planned for, Medicaid programs to kick in, since children or others assigned in a trust fund have most of the senior's material goods in time for them not to be counted when determining the qualifications for Medicaid plans.

Millions of seniors depend upon Medicaid during the final years of their lives, because it is easy enough to run out of funds paying out of pocket for "donut hole" expenses in the Medicare coverage and other extra expenses related to the diseases of growing old.

The slow, insidious march of emasculating coverage, under those insurance plans the Republicans tout will treat seniors so much better than the government, is seen in changes to Medicare right now, where fewer and fewer medications are being covered. Needless to say, there are other changes as well.

The Los Angeles Times recommends seniors check their Medicare plans annually, but it might be reasonable for those planning retirement during the next decade to be aware of these painful changes, that will be even more painful if the Obama's health care plan is undone. The article in the L.A. Times recommends a widget at http://www.planpresciber.com, which the writer says seems to use many of theaspects of the Medicare widget on the government's page.

Since seniors have only until the end of December to examine their coverage, this is the time for everyone to look at the outlines of retirement, Medicare and Medicaid and make any personal changes while there is enough time to avoid complications later.

Haiti: America's greatest modern blunder and serious shame

2010-11-20T14:02:00.003-06:00

Georgianne Nienaber, of the Huffington Post, writes frequently about the serious crises in Haiti, documenting at the present time the suffering of the island's citizens from cholera. She does so not from armchair but from on-the-ground experience related to America's great modern blunder and its present shame.

Haiti camp

Haiti is an island put together by freed slaves under colonialism in a haphazard fashion that meant its governance would be fragmented and inept, often violent, as it has been throughout its history. One after the other island puppets would assume control, rape the island of its minimal economic benefits, until another one of them came to do it again, in a never-ending fashion.

Boatloads of Haitians, hoping for a better life, followed the path of the Cubans, escaping to America in boats badly put together but with hopeful folks inside. These boats were met with aggressive tactics to turn them back, which caused even greater suffering for the many who were lost at sea, who died in their attempts to land on U.S. shares, or who returned to face the island's dismal future again.

Haitians were escaping poverty and the rule of terror that occupied Haiti for many years, so the hopes of those who fled were turned around and replaced with fear instead. By comparison, Cubans were welcomed, extended families too, embraced by a country willing to give its all to save people from the Communist rule back home. But Haiti's people, whose oppression was as great, if not greater, were left nowhere to go.

A similar occurrence had come earlier with Hungarian refugees, again from Communism, swept up in the bosom of America and treated as arriving heroes wherever they would land, just as the Cubans had been. Their hopes of new -found freedom reached fruition, as many settled to begin new lives and settled in white communities, where they blended in well, even as the Cubans were able to do, not standing out too different from other folks of European stock.

For Haiti now the potential is so late that chaos, lack of structure and of hope make saving the country a very hopeless task. As hundreds die and thousands are at risk from cholera, how many will die at America's doorstep, and how many folks will remember those boatloads turned away?,

The articles of a journalist, Georgianne Nienaber, who has spent time in Haiti and has worked as a volunteer, address the uncertainty, the pain and suffering of these people. Her work is unique by comparison with many traditional papers. For them Haiti is a paragraph or minutes sandwiched between political soundbites, commentaries and entertainment news. The task of helping Haiti in some concrete, reasonable way has not had dialogue and ongoing media support in some concrete, reasonable way.

At the same time, the international organizations who gathered funds and supplies from people all over the world following Haiti's earthquake January disaster, hold money they have never yet dispersed, knowing the prediction about diseases medical folks had made right after the earthquake struck.

The responsibility the United States avoided over many years has returned when our country's resources are stretched to limits never conceived as happening in our modern world, but nevertheless a responsibility that should evoke quick action, for international efforts that are consistent, focused on the reconstruction and support of Haiti before it's near collapse becomes its final death.

Why Republicans display anger openly and Democrats use sarcasm instead

2010-11-19T13:59:00.001-06:00

Cynicism and sarcasm have been described by those in mental health as a form of anger, sometimes the face of depression; but it appears most visible in political discussions where these emotions surface and get in the way of the facts.

Joe Biden, Vice President of the United States, an intellectual type, has often used sarcasm in discussions

The media creates personalities, whether that's of an entertainment celebrity like Mel Gibson or a politician like Sarah Palin. Sometimes those personalities reflect what the media generates about them, by consistent statements about themselves with the addition of random, but reasonable facts. Other personalities are media-created, then destroyed in much the same way. Heroes of any persuasion destroyed brings hurt and apathy, and certain emotions rise up in response.

What happens as a result is that cynicism and sarcasm surface in response along with red-faced anger. People of the liberal persuasion are often on that mea culpa bent, taking the cynical emotional sector of response, which is demonstrated by the intellectual sorting of any event that seems to destroy their ideals.

Liberals use cynicism and sarcasm as a tool often used by intellectual types as a way of managing feelings that come from knowing something and being angry that another person doesn't. On the other hand, it is also an emotion that drives other people away. Unlike Republicans, the anger is displayed in the guise of the mind of the Democrat whose do-gooder nature is thwarted in some way when elections and issues are not going the way they believe.

Republicans use less cynicism and sarcasm than outright, visible, red-faced, anger, as demonstrated at health care forums and debates. The frustrated, cynical, tight-jawed appearance of John McCain during the debates with Barack Obama during the Presidential election of 2008 was a clear demonstration of that anger displayed.

But that anger, more visible, is also easier to counter than the guise the liberals may choose. That subtle, pointed, incisive pitch divides liberals into those of the better and less when it comes to knowing what's up.

We all take the garments of either party we choose at some times. But it also means we need to know when we do it the reasons we do and admit where we personally need to change so that mediation and real communication can effectively happen.

Sarah Palin: the woman who would be Queen

2010-11-17T23:36:00.009-06:00

Sarah Palin announced today in an interview that she is looking at running for President of the United States and believes she can win over Obama in 2012, but royalty doesn't need to know much about government in order to be elevated and adored, so it's likely she wants to be Queen rather than President.

Palin family

Palin's television show "Sarah Palin's Alaska" combines with her Fox News position as a commentator to provide a free forum for fierce politics that no other likely Republican candidate now has. This will allow her to continue the face of the tough lady just responding to anti-American accusations rather than someone ignorant of most facts.

The hypocrisies of some of the "family values" crowd in relationship to events regarding this woman played out in the Palin family, where Bristol Palin during the 2007 Presidential campaign was the 16-year-old unwed mother that Republicans once indicted as reflecting no values they embraced nonetheless for Sarah Palin, the would-be Queen. The latest twists about Willow Palin, now 16 herself, whose homophobic slurs have taken media attention everywhere will likely be, as they already are in some places, excused as just that mother-type action, protecting the family brood rather than a teenager out of control.

These issues might just be the kind that folks disregard because, after all, teenage America is exposed to aggressive and foul language at every turn. There are those people, however, who remain the kind who want the first family to have the poise and decorum representative of the best, not the worst, of American values, which are reflected in the whole Palin family lot.

The Sarah Palin crowd will likely continue to ignore the litany of racial and homophobic slurs made either by the Palin family or followers prominently displaying their prejudice on signs. They will accept the excuse it is "mavericky" antics, rather than serious dysfunction instead.

Sarah Palin has maintained families should be off limits in political discussions or criticisms, yet puts her children out front with her full force in the public during key events and provides an arena for their behavior to be shared. Her daughter, Bristol , has lately been highlighted on "Dancing with the Stars" and prior to that made the rounds of the talk shows, first to oppose her mother's position on sexual abstinence and then again to promote it, after telling folks she had changed her mind.

Now comes this on Facebook, as reported by TMZ and AOL and other media outlets, "Willow Palin reacted with fury to the comments, branding the poster, named as Tre, a ‘f**got’ and ‘so gay’.Tre, who is believed to have gone to school with the Palin children had updated his status to read: ‘Sarah Palin’s Alaska is failing so hard right now,’ TMZ reported.

Willow’s immediate response was: ‘Haha your so gay. I have no idea who you are, But what I’ve seen pictures of, your disgusting … My sister had a kid and is still hot.’

She added: ‘Tre stfu. Your such a f**got.’

Elder sister Bristol, who is currently taking part in "Dancing With The Stars," also waded into the row, telling Tre: ‘You’re running your mouth just to talk sh*t.’

Willow then chipped in with: ‘Sorry that you guys are all jealous of my families success and you guys aren’t goin to go anywhere with your lives."

One must wonder, however, how right-wing pundits would handle an unwed mother, daughter of an African American male running for high political office, who casually ignored supporters' signs with obvious racial slurs and then excuse a daughter's Facebook postings of homophobic language and obscenities, excusing it as simply defending the family name. They would make hay of it even if the sun wasn't shining on them at the time.

But then Obama promised to be President not King, and whether you like his policies or not the collaboration with members of his cabinet and the Congress has continued throughout his two year term. This is most unlike the behavior of Sarah Palin, who walked off the job as Governor of Alaska, writes books, makes public pronouncements and forays in the public in her effort to be crowned the country's Queen.

Oregon, Louisiana small towns can stop federal government gridlock from the grassroots

2010-11-17T11:22:00.001-06:00

Most people, regardless of political party, are annoyed with the serious divisions within the national government that prevent agreement on critical issues, but it's at the local community level where true mediation can occur.

Folks in Natchitoches, Louisiana at annual food festival - CF

census rally in La Grande, Oregon - CF

Local communities have close common interests because there are fewer degrees of separation socially. People have long-standing relationships and marriage among families that fosters permanent bonds. Political dissension occurs, but only goes just so far, because of the potential of hurt to one's immediate friends. Furthermore the toxicity that occurs when parties don't agree, and take an angry stance, presents unique problems the higher up the food chain of government that we go.

In local communities like Natchitoches, Louisiana and La Grande, Oregon there are not just long relationships but bad blood in the towns too. Within these factions are further splits, all of which work against the community interest and all bemoaned by the majority of citizens who want these things resolved.

But good things don't trickle down. Indeed the process of having good things begins with grassroots coalitions that support the growth upwards of benefits that exist for everyone.

Sometimes that mediation and reconciliation takes place in simple ways, when two people from diverse groups agree on a problem that affects the greater good, as Pat Todd and this writer are doing right now on vote solicitation through paid canvassers and "haulers."

Can reconciliation and mediation truly take place in ways that work? It did during integration in Natchitoches when quiet negotiations took place among black and white business and community leaders who had never been schooled together but knew each other by reputation or in passing at large gatherings, usually involving immediate physical needs. These negoitations allowed integration to occur between the Steel Magnolia ancestors and those of Uncle Tom's cabin with little violence or recrimination. Ben Johnson, a prominent African American businessman and Arthur Watson, the town's most high-profile attorney were two of those taking leadership in days where other places had serious violence during integration. These men helped keep the town intact, the voices of hate and dissension down, that allowed black and white children to begin attending school together in relatively peaceful ways.

La Grande, Oregon developed from the settlement of various factions of predominantly European groups into Indian territory under harsh conditions. Out of this settlement came negotiations that remain part of the town's underpinnings, the type that can serve the nation at a time it needs this type of effort the most. In La Grande, the mediation with Native American groups made a difference in the life of the town, so that Indian blood in one's veins became valued, not denied as a way to succeed. Sacajawea, who was the famous Native American woman accompanying the Lewis and Clark expedition on the Oregon trail that bonded Louisiana and Oregon in the Louisiana Purchase, is widely revered in La Grande where an apartment building, and once an old hotel, were named after her.

It is that type of movement that works towards mediation among individuals, small groups and small towns that is now required to move the larger community forward, when people of good faith, regardless of political view, sit down together and examine the issues that are common to most folks in their daily lives. These resolutions support the potential of a movement up the chain where major government entities now sit so far removed from ordinary folk they seldom understand the local community plight.

That's the root of anti-government feeling at a time when the nation needs better bonding as a shield against outside attack and the breakdown of the culture from within from drugs, crime and acts of hate.

With grassroots bonding and the work of coalitions that cross racial and political groups, Natchitoches and La Grande will be able to take great steps in maintaining their economic base and likely can improve it by accenting the values these towns have.

Grassroots mediation and working together on common issues can improve local communities, but this process can also form the basis of improving government at the national level where it doesn't seem to work.

These two small towns, Natchitoches and La Grande, can become examples of how political differences can be bridged and how government entities can learn to respond appropriately to people's needs and interests rather than their own. It makes sense also because of their histories, with Natchitoches, Louisiana the oldest settlement in the Louisiana Purchase, and Oregon, a principle waystation near the end of the Oregon Trail.

Vote-buying and patronage politics being outed by community activist in Louisiana

2010-11-16T09:37:00.002-06:00

Racial issues continue to be the topic of debate in both local and national politics, whether people think the issue is just too much or believe that the black man is the white man's burden, slaves in a way to be bought in elections.

Taylor Townsend, former State Representative from Natchitoches Parish, one of those who, like most other politicians, has used patronage and canvassing in the African American community

Politics in places like Natchitoches means getting votes through paying canvassers to take people to register or to vote and then to suggest how to cast that vote. It is a practice done by both Republicans and Democrats in places like Natchitoches, Louisiana and aimed specifically at the African American community.

A community activist in Natchitoches tells Green Heritage News it's long past the time just to ask folks kindly to give up the plantation-style policy toward vote-getting and patronage that dominates towns with large African American communities. The problem is that policy is so much a part of the fabric of how things are done, it's hard to remove the ugly stain left by it after the election is over and the garments are thoroughly washed. His insight into the politics of Louisiana has been hard earned, but his identity is reserved for the election.

How does that vote-getting, vote-solicitation, patronage system work? This community activist points to evidence widely available about well-known politicians and leaders of the African American community who are part of this system. It treats black folks as underlings, who are paid for canvassing votes in a fashion not done in the white communities, no matter how poor they may be. Preachers are paid also to help influence votes and to be leaders in keeping the system in place.

The activist explains that this corrupt, entrenched system of politics in places like Natchitoches, and New Orleans, robs democracy of its most credible value and foundation, the right of each man to vote based on his individual knowledge and conscience. Instead it's a game played with money and the more that is spewed, the more passionately played is the game.

Experts say questions surrounding race need to be examined seriously for an authentic community to build and work together for the benefit of everyone in every culture. Education about the issues, apart from the noise of television commercials paid to antagonize rather than to inform, is important for politics to be fair. Education is far better than a system of patronage that downgrades the black and the poor and maintains the plantation system of slave master and "house nigger"shuffling for choosing leaders or voting on major issues.

But politicians, both black and white, in towns like Natchitoches have relied too long on a system that works in its way, but that undermines positive change and honest government as well, the activist explains. It continues a long line of politicians who hand over their offices, one to another, without worry about how folks will vote so long as there is money to pay.

In 2011 Louisiana will have a major election for local and state officials, including for the office of Governor. It is likely before that election the ugly traditions in Louisiana politics will be seriously exposed, if a community activist does what he says he will do next year, as he has done in more minor ways at previous times at community forums.

The issue of family values, heard frequently by voices for change, might find its voice, says this activist, in giving an example to children of how honest and fair folks need to be in practicing their Constitutional right to vote by doing away with vote-influencing, patronage ways.

Is Jindal of Louisiana the great brown hope of the Republican Party for a fight with Obama?

2010-11-15T13:40:00.002-06:00

On the surface, Bobby Jindal has all the tickets. He is brown, like Obama, attractive with a photogenic family, has solid Harvard education, and the youthful look and ways that people can admire, but these traits just cover extremism and blind ambition.

Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana

In Louisiana Jindal handily won election for Governor in 2007, with accolades from the right and the left of the political spectrum. For a state that historically has categorized people of color into a forbidden basket, Jindal showed the promise of change.

His inauguration was celebrated as a new day for Louisiana, but there were questionable issues in the Jindal background.

Jindal, rejecting his Buddhist background and origins, became Catholic early in his political career. Using this religious base, he was poised to make changes consistent with his personal beliefs, not necessarily for the electorate at large.

The new Governor had been an outspoken critic of Kathleen Blanco and her management of the Hurricane Katrina crisis and of Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans for his ineptness during the evacuation of folks from the city and his inability to respond appropriately. Jindal was quoted as saying that everyone in New Orleans should be armed as a way to curb the violence, something gun lovers and non-thinking supporters embraced enthusiastically. He did this in spite of police rejection of the notion as a dangerous one.

Governor Jindal, a fresh-faced political figure with promise and power gained from his election, was selected to respond to President Obama's inaugural address and was ridiculed for his fumbling delivery and stilted presentation. But it isn't Jindal's elocution that gets this fellow votes. It's his recitation of primitive political beliefs in the Louisiana tradition, and his cover-up of where he gets his backing, that makes him a sinister foe.

Jindal was on the Today show Monday morning, on the stump in promoting a new book critical of President Obama's handling of the oil spill crisis. The book is also said to criticize BP as well. But it was the oil companies, although not BP specifically, and legal defense firms that were heart and soul of Jindal's backing for the Governorship. So by taking a hardline against Obama, and his moratorium on deep ocean drilling, Jindal maintains his following with the oil companies that do business in the state along with the legal defense firms that support them.

During his election for Governor, Jindal was known to use the voting list of David Duke, the former Klan leader in Louisiana, who ran for Governor of Louisiana in 1991 and won the white vote of the state. This allowed him to target specific areas with the right messages for his campaign.

The 2007 election found Jindal favored by the same right-wing thinking that catapulted Duke to a near victory to take the reins of government against Edwin Edwards, the former Governor of Louisiana, who won the election and is now in jail. In fact Obama took none of the white-dominated parishes of Louisiana in the election, winning only three parishes that had large black majorities.

Along with this political baggage, Jindal's religious take on social issues is extreme, as he advanced creationism and intelligent design for the science curriculum of Louisiana schools. He favored the recent law for guns to be carried to church. He also put forward legislation allowing no exceptions for abortion, including rape or incest. He applauds capital punishment as a punishment given by God.

While Jindal may seek the Presidency, as some media pundits and Republican forecasters maintain, the rest of the country needs to take a serious look at what could be a real blunder if Jindal is held up as an icon to counter Obama, with his agenda distinctively different than the majority of Americans but his rich handlers blowing enough fairy dust around to detract folks from knowing his plans.

A funeral dirge, the Grand Old Party is gone

2010-11-14T07:44:00.003-06:00

It's a time for mourning, not just for a divided nation in its economic woes but for the Grand Old Party many of us knew and do not recognize any more from that base of history, and its courage represented by dear old Abe Lincoln, the Republican hero of a President who likely grieves with some of us in silence in his grave.

Mark Hatfield, former Governor and Senator from Oregon

It was the 1960’s. John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon debated on television. These were two gentlemen statesmen, each with a point of view, Democrat and Republican. Neither thought the other was anything less than a loyal American. Each fought hard to secure votes, to challenge the other. Through the molten steel of Congressional argument, the nation moved soundly along, as both parties respected the other.

But what does it mean when leading Republicans refer to the opposition as socialists and evil and demonize the party leader, the President himself?

The Republican Party had a history of openness and change. It once stood for human justice, with Abe standing on the platform of the party that advocated the nation change and give up slavery, standing up for freedom, unity and the wholeness of the nation.

Lincoln worked hard as President to keep the country united, to stand for principle, to help men become free. He told the nation that a nation divided could not stand. Now the party he once stood for has become the one that divides the nation, intentionally, bitterly and with hatred aforethought. To be right and to crush opposition, to betray truth, as with the “birther” and tea bagging movement, to destroy the opposition in every way possible has become the way of the party that once was the way to bring freedom and principal to governance.

The history of the demise is far too long for an opinion article, but much has been written about how the Republican Party was invaded by the Christian evangelicals and by the right wing and the Southern Democrats, now said by some to control the party. The Christians have hardly been Christian and the Democrats hardly representative of their faction either, as the tent has become so narrow only the slender white majority can sneak in.

The worst came with the election of 2008, from monkey signs representing Barack Obama at Republican soirees and special events, in full view of both the Presidential candidate John McCain and his teammate Sarah Palin. Anything to win regardless of insult, half-truths or no truths at all has been the way of the Republicans, leaving the tent flapping from the stout wind of bigotry and bluster by such stalwarts as Rush Limbaugh, thought b y some to be the mouthpiece and celebrated grandly in Republican circles.

Political party members are neither saints nor sinners; they are shades of gray like anything or anyone else, but lately those shades are darker from the right, ominous and ugly. The voices are shrill; the tone sarcastic, mean-spirited and separating friends and families. Liberal, a term once owned by John and Abigail Adams, has become a Republican swear word to the extent that people duck and run when it is heard.

I voted Republican in my youth, and over the years and gladly many times, with equal doses of Democratic votes. I voted for a Republican for Governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, and cheered on a young senator, Mark Hatifield in Oregon for his sound principles and strong government leadership in representing my home state of Oregon.

I am grieved, as many are but cannot speak because the tent once wide and open has a litmus test for conservative. If one is not conservative enough, one must be voted out. But conservative has become something the Grand Old Party members of its history would not recognize were they alive today.

I am grieved by the party so troubled it no longer is an asset, and I must now oppose it. For it stands against the needs of the poor, the elderly, the disabled, although those many do not know what they have lost and what more they stand to lose. For the shouts of fear have been so loud and long they halt the daring of all those who would oppose.

For the sake of those who love democracy and believe in the balance of power and the two-party system, the extreme views of the Republican minority, the racial epithets, the destructive speech, and the ugly tone of hate must end so folks can get down to the business of governing this nation so people can live in peace.

‘Lying eyes and witness mistakes cause most wrongful convictions

2010-11-13T12:41:00.009-06:00

The death penalty is favored by most Americans and the numbers increasing in the several states, all while experts tell us how witness mistakes create wrongful convictions. Yet the right-wing and conservative Christian coalition, part of the Republican agenda, continue to stress the value of the death penalty, despite legal and criminal justice experts concerns.

lethal injection chamber for administration of the death penalty

As folks who stand at the bar of justice wait for honest decisions, sometimes the balance is swayed by witness error. Experts maintain it’s a major cause of wrongful convictions, and innocent people languishing in jail for years. How does it happen?

Various research studies have indicated that witnesses err when making judgments about crimes. It has been found that in 75 percent of cases overturned by DNA testing, eyewitness accounts were wrong, according to the Innocence Project.

Research conducted at Pennsylvania University by Mary Beth Oliver, a media studies professor found people often get details wrong when race is a factor. She examined viewer’s memory of black and white criminal suspects in a newcast. When these viewers watched a news story with both black and white suspects, then given a wanted poster of either an African American or white suspect, they later more often identified the African Americans as the ones guilty.

“Over time,” Oliver wrote in a report published in the Journal of Communications, “participants who had seen the Caucasian suspect in the news story were increasingly likely mistakenly to identify African-Americans. In addition, endorsement of anti-black attitudes was associated with decreases in mis-identification of Caucasian photographs and increases in misidentification of African-American photographs.”

That type of wrong eyewitness testimony has led to wrong convictions, as in the case of someone discussed in the article about the Penn State research. A man by the name of Ronald Cotton spent 11 years in prison for a rape he didn’t commit, having been picked out of a lineup by victims, one ambivalent but persuaded by the earlier identification. Both of these witnesses misidentified Cotton, which led to his sentence. He was found guilty even though physical evidence at the scene indicated another man may have committed the crime. That other man, Bobby Poole, eventually confessed to both rapes.

A review of 53 cases of wrongful convictions in New York State revealed the following to be the paramount causes, according to a study presented by the New York Bar Association. These were the causes found:

• Government Practices: one or more general errors by a government actor (a prosecutor,member of law enforcement, or judge). • Identification Procedures: the misidentification of the accused by the victim and/or one or more eyewitnesses. • Mishandling of Forensic Evidence: errors in the handling or preservation of key forensic evidence and/or the failure to use DNA testing. • Use of False Confessions: the extraction and use of what turned out to be a false confession by the accused

There have been 241 wrongful convictions in the United States according to the Innocence Project. This is the breakdown according to race: 143 African Americans 70 Caucasians 21 Latinos 2 Asian American 5 whose race is unknown.

Only about half of those wrongfully convicted have been financially compensated, although 27 states are presently working on this issue. Still it is telling that given the information about wrong eyewitness accounts, specifically about African Americans when compared to white suspects, the large number of African American convictions certainly shows race to be an issue in the criminal justice system, with an imbalance in how justice is meted out, sometimes wrongfully.

With these facts in mind, one wonders why the clamor for the death penalty continues loud and long, even in questionable cases.

Retirement age 65 at $1 million fails under Republican agenda

2010-11-12T13:25:00.002-06:00

Retire with a million dollars net worth at age 65, and you likely won't make it to the end of your life; and if the stats remain as they are, you could be impoverished as well, if the Republicans put through their agenda.

Rand Paul, one of newly elected Republican members of Congress

Let's examine some salient facts to see what the future could bring.

The facts are that Social Security, according to the last formal report of the agency, is solvent and will remain so for the next several decades. So the big lie about its imminent failure is wrong. Without it a million dollars will not likely keep the proverbial wolf from Grandma's kitchen and even with it, the problems increase.

There's a lot to this story, of course. Let's examine that $1 million and estimate a 7% return, because there are annuities that provide that guarantee for 15 years. Beyond that there is no guarantee because the only one is to guarantee the principal which would be exhausted in that 15 years.

Some of that million dollar net worth is your house. An average value of $200,000 for that house should suffice for our calculations. That 7% return pays $56,000 annually on the hypothetical annuity. Add to that the average Social Security, which is approximately 40% of the income of the elderly. Furthermore, 20% of married couples and 41% of single folks receive 90% of their income from Social Security. The average Social Security benefit for the retiring worker as of August 2010 is $1,197 monthly. The average benefit for a married couple is for couples both receiving benefits is $1,876 or $22,512 annually. The average life expectancy for an individual age 65 is 18 years.

Now here are additional facts for this narrative of why your million won't make it. Your hypothetical income with Social Security is $78,512, but that 7% income doesn't change for those 15 years. Your Social Security benefit, if it remains, under the Republican plan, will not keep up with inflation, if there are no benefit changes on a regular basis and no tax increases. So as prices increase, benefits are likely not to improve. Your income will need to be $105,667.04 to live at the same level you would at your original amount at the end of those 15 years.

Just imagine, however, if you don't have that Social Security for income and how that impacts this picture.

Let's assume, however, that as a couple you don't live on that $78,512 annually. Perhaps you decide to live instead on $60,000. You will need more than $80,000 annually in 15 years with the rate of inflation. Part of the difference you keep will be taxable income, reducing the annual savings.

This scenario takes you out 15 years. After that the model shows the annuity funds are gone or worth little given the present guaranteed rate of return. Hypothetically you have what you can save from $78,512 annually, but inflation will increase annually, requiring more of these savings.

From your annual income, consider the cost of health care, because Medicare doesn't pay all the costs. Furthermore the Republicans are considering reduction of coverage by 30% In 2005 the per capita healthcare cost was $5,267. The rate of growth of healthcare costs in 2005 was 14.5%, a rate federal officials declare has increased significantly since then, although these are the last detailed figures from a major report.

At the rate of increase of 14.5% annually for healthcare, that means individual cost of healthcare will be more than $11,000 annually in 15 years. For the average couple the cost of healthcare will be $22,000, a respectable increase on an income reduced by inflation.

With these facts, and no healthcare program that will reach the indigent, your safety net of Medicare is imperiled by costs and by numbers using the system. At the same time your income is reduced, to terminate by estimates at age 80, unless you save additional money from unused funds at the outset of retirement at age 65 and if your healthcare costs do not exceed the usual estimates for the ordinary American. However, the elderly are not ordinary Americans with diseases such as heart disease, stroke, cancer and diabetes costs that significantly increase seniors' per capita expenditures.

Maybe Republicans assume the family will take you in once those funds are gone. However, 20% of you are childless. Add to this fact that 1/3 of seniors are poised for a major disease, including Alzheimers disease, before their 80th birthday.

Medicaid presently pays for seniors who have exhausted personal funds. In Texas Republicans have geared up to terminate the state Medicaid program.

Your future realities will require you to have social programs to compensate for the deficits once you exhaust your funds. But the Republicans don't want to raise taxes on the wealthy, a large segment of the potential for additional funds to maintain social programs in the future. The average nursing home costs annually range between $60,000 - $100,000, not including medicines and medical procedures. The average stay in a nursing home is 2 1/2 years.

Want to change your vote? You can't, but you might want to pay attention to how you vote in 2012 to prevent your future from complete erosion over a bunch of untrue statements. There is this fact most to consider, if the Republicans implement plans that didn't work out before, requiring social programs following the depression, they just might not be there for you.