Something To (Really) Think About

This sums up the very reason I began blogging in the first place. Most people read and/or listen to ideas, not with an open mind, but with the purpose of defending their beliefs and ideologies.  Most tend to have a counter-argument cocked, loaded, and ready to pull the trigger on as soon as they finish giving their semi-attention to the topic at hand.  Just a little something for you to digest this Sunday morning before you tune into to your favorite weekly television political news roundup or head off to church (See: ”Why I’m Not A Democrat…or Republican” and “Ideology—Something On My Mind”).

Read More

Superstorm Sandy...Devestating Everything But The Politics

Most readers to Beyond The Political Spectrum know that I am critical of both political parties for different reasons. I find the Democrats to be too incompetent, and in many ways enabling when it comes to crafting policies are which meant to help those who need it the most…and too liberal when it comes to social policies. Republicans I find to be too self-righteous, too ideologically-rigid and in denial about their ideological double-standards (that’s not to say that Democrats don’t have their own double-standards).
However, I must say that I have gained a newfound respect for Republican New Jersey governor Chris Christie. In the past few days since the destruction wrought on his state as well as other neighboring states in the Northeast, he along with Independent New York mayor Michael Bloomberg put aside political partisanship (Bloomberg to a lesser degree) to address the effects of “superstorm” Sandy on their respective communities.

My respect for them is not based on Christie’s complementing President Obama for his administration’s take-charge approach in securing federal assistance for those residents most affected by the storm. Neither is my newfound respect for Mayor Bloomberg based on his endorsement of President Obama this week for president in next week’s elections. No, my respect of them comes from their pushing aside their ideological beliefs and any animus they might hold toward their ideological foils and engage in political pragmatism rather than political partisanship. Christie has been seen multiple times with Obama since the storm ravaged many areas of his state, coordinating the efforts of recovery…a mere 2 months after giving a keynote speech at the 2012 Republican Convention blasting Obama's policies (See: "Transcript of Chris Christie's speech at the Republican National Convention"). Bloomberg, for his part gave Obama (a lukewarm) endorsement on the strength of the issue of climate change/global warming, and how the phenomenon can adversely affect weather patterns, resulting in the damage we saw this week in the Northeast (See: "New York Mayor Bloomberg endorses Obama"). It truly is a nice change-of-pace to see that there are some in the nation’s political quarters who can not only look, but see beyond partisanship and ideological allegiances to create opportunities for the American people rather than their political parties. But all is not joy in political Mudville.
 The haters have come out to play. The extreme right-wing of the Republican Party has begun slamming both Christie and Bloomberg for their embracing of independent thinking and daring to challenge sacred conservative orthodoxy. Christie has been panned for daring to break ranks and actually cooperating with Obama, even for the sake of securing federal assistance in helping the people of his own state. Perennial microphone meathead Rush Limbaugh has called for listeners on his inexplicably popular radio show “Don’t listen to Governor Christie. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” adding that Christie is “fat and a fool.” Conservative writer Matt Lewis has gone so far as to call Christie “a prop for Obama’s re-election” (See: “Conservatives Bash Christie For Cooperating With Obama Post-Sandy”). Such a practice of intolerance for independent thinking and/or actions among Republicans (and Democrats) is indicative of why our country’s political landscape has become more polarized in recent years that at any time since the Civil War. In extreme cases, extreme right-wing Republicans reserve the moniker of “RINO” (Republican In Name Only) for those who they have a particular disdain for when it comes to adherence and promotion of conservative mantra; Democrats have “DINOs.”
This criticism reflects a major cause of government gridlock we have been witnessing and experiencing in Washington over the last 10 years; individuals putting political party allegiance over initiating effective policy benefitting the American people—and yes, Democrats are guilty of this too. When I think of examples of such political intransigence and intolerance for dissent—even in the interest of the people who elect them—all I can think of are those episodes of “Star Trek” featuring the alien species known as The Borg. Similar to bees, he Borg conquer and take over other species and force them into their collective “hive mind," where they are forced to share thoughts, ideas, and feelings (or lack thereof). The Borg preface every act of assimilation of other species into their collective by prefacing every conquest with the ominous phrase, “We are the Borg. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.”

Superstorm Sandy’s arrival apparently blew apart more than sandy beaches, boardwalks, and homes of New Jersey, New York, and the Northeast. It blew away the camouflage of what’s masking the reason as to why anything resembling cooperation can’t occur among and between the Republican and Democratic Parties.  Extreme right-wing Republicans and left-wing Democrats basing their actions on (their) adherence to ideology and party allegiance rather than pragmatism of need is the problem. Surprisingly, there are still one or two politicians still around who prove that resistance is not futile.

Read More

Mitt, This Video Doesn't Help You!

Just when you thought Mitt Romney couldn't think of anything else to say to sabotage his chances to win the White House in November, a new videotape of the Republican challenger to President Obama has surfaced revealing Romney making disparaging remarks about potential Obama supporters. The tape, alleged to have been shot secretly at a recent private donor event in Florida, was obtained by Mother Jones magazine and shows the quasi-conservative Romney reinforcing sociopolitical stereotypes of an entire segment of the voting electorate...not how one goes about "uniting America."

Watch and listen to the video below:


There are so many things I could say about this emerging issue, but I'll leave it up to you, the reader to choose a catchy tagline for this video:

Choose the best tagline for this video:
(a) INSTRUCTIONS FOR HOW TO LOSE AN ELECTION: (1) "Open Mouth. (2) Insert foot.
(b) "I knew the rich ate better than everybody else...but BOTH feet...?"
(c) "Where's an 'Etch-A-Sketch' when you need one?"

Read More

The Most Honest 3 & A Half-Minutes On Television!

I really can’t stand so-called “reality television.” I consider it junk-food for the mind of the simple. I don’t find it the least bit engaging, appealing, nor fulfilling.
I much prefer the days of scripted television (although some would argue that “reality TV” is scripted to a major extent), where ideas were generated by talented writers, who engaged our imaginations and gave us something to think about. Back in those good ‘ol days of responsible and artistic television, writers, producers, directors, and other production staff actually contributed something to the political and social discourse (e.g. “All In The Family” & “Good Times” from the 1970s) of the country. After the mid-90’s, television, the artistic aspect of broadcast television as well as our collective mental capacities plummeted; not coincidentally at the same time. Since then, we are spoon-fed opinions and ideologically bound (e.g., Melissa Harris-Perry--too liberal--and such pundits on the left, and Rush Limbaugh and his crowd--too stupid--on the right).
Enter: HBO’s new scripted series, the Newsroom. Although I haven’t watched this series, if it is anything as intellectually compelling as the first 3-or so minutes of the series first airing, I may have gained a small bit of hope with regard to engaging, thought-provoking television. I’m not going to bother with a set-up for this first scene. I will just that you watch it and open your mind to the overall message of actor Jeff Daniel’s character.



Adding to the video's message, we live in a politically (and socially) polarized society where solutions—any solutions—and /or proposed policies tend to be either interpreted or characterized as “bad” or even “job killing” if they go against someone’s ideological bent. We are no longer the nation of venturing pioneers, whether in the realm of the geographical or the intellectual.
Those of us with a particular belief system rarely expand our minds wide enough to allow our beliefs to be challenged by additions to our understanding of the way the universe (or even our country) works. We spout party lines just because—much like religion—we heard someone else say it, and/or it validates a preconceived mindset that we bring to the table, instead of bringing the empty plate of an open mind to the table and asking to be served.

Just a little food for thought this early AM.

Read More

This Is Not Your Father’s Republican Party!

I know from personal experience that debating hard-core political right- or left-wingers about inconsistencies in, and questions about the effectiveness of their respective ideologies is often an act of futility worthy of a Saturday morning knock at the door by a conversion-minded Jehovah’s Witness. In fact, one would do better trying to talk to a tree; at least when the wind blows, a tree will actually sway, resembling an actual response. For extreme and/or die-hard conservatives and liberals, their near religious adherence to their beliefs stands as a testament to why we have become so both politically and socially polarized as nation (e.g., The Tea Party & Christian Fundamentalists on the Right, and Gay Marriage & Rabid Feminists on the Left).
While doing a little research, I came upon a bit of political history from the election season of 1964, when current Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s father, George Romney also sought the Republican nomination for the White House). At the time, George Romney was a moderate conservative, supporting call for Civil Rights, and rejecting the rigid ideology of those supporting his one-time rival for the ’64 nomination—and standard-bearing symbol of ideological conservatism—Barry Goldwater (who opposed, among other things, the cause of Civil Rights). In protest of the staunch ideologues support of their ideological champion, Goldwater, Romney walked out of the 1964 Republican Convention, and warned:


As if those prophetic words weren’t enough, Goldwater himself warned about Fundamentalist Christians’ potential influence within the party…


If you want to know whether or not the warnings of these two moderate (by today's standards) Republicans were heeded, look at the platform adopted this week during the 2012 Republican Convention from Tampa, Florida...

Subtitled “We Believe in America,” the platform keeps its focus on the party’s traditional support for low taxes, national security and social conservatism. And it delves into a number of politically charged issues. It calls state court decisions recognizing same-sex marriage “an assault on the foundations of our society,” opposes gun legislation that would limit “the capacity of clips or magazines,” supports the “public display of the Ten Commandments,” calls on the federal government to drop its lawsuits challenging state laws adopted to combat illegal immigration, and salutes the Republican governors and lawmakers who “saved their states from fiscal disaster by reforming their laws governing public employee unions.” (Source; "Platform’s Sharp Turn to Right Has Conservatives Cheering," NYTimes, 08-28-12).

The message here is simple: (1) Not all change is good change; (2)The Republicans (as well as the Democrats) need to purge their ranks of the extremist elements, and get back to a time when the traditional family—not business—was the nucleus of policy and social influence in America; (3) Father knows best!

Read More

Does This Familiar? Spotting Lies & Weak Logic On The Campaign Trail, Conclusion

Politicians. In America, they are the epitome of contradiction…in every sense of the word. As a group, we tend to place them in an area of social value between used car salesman and sexual predator. They make grandiose promises, stretch the truth to the level of strained credibility, and seem to remember the value of the voter around only around election time. We all know this, but for some reason, we tend to favor one politician over another, simply because he or she shares—or validates—our particular ideological perspectives.
And in the rare instance where an individual actually seeks to enter the realm of politics with the intention of “changing the system,” that person invariably becomes drawn into the culture of privilege, the cycle of perpetually seeking re-election funds (while forgetting the voting electorate), and partnering up with Big Money…all to maintain their political positions. Even rarer, when an individual actually does work to avoid becoming a part of the political culture, we are quick to sling arrows and barbs at that person, simply because he/she doesn’t make the instantaneous changes we want them to, ignoring the fact that those beholden to the political status quo (i.e., political culture) are unyielding to the prospect of substantive systemic changes in the culture of business-as-usual, and simply will not allow it.
In seeking public office, politicians “reveal” perspectives, intentions, and policies of their opponents which, to be honest, insults the intelligence of the American electorate. Actually, what politicians tend to say about their opponents and their beliefs play into the subjective and willful ignorance the average voting American; they know we will not research beyond our preexisting, preconceived notions and/or beliefs. We tend to gravitate toward those politicians who support our beliefs rather than give us something to ponder.
We all know this, but we still play into this perennial sad comedy with all the predictability of tomorrow’s sunrise. And why should politician be straight with us, when we aren’t straight with ourselves? None of us wants to even consider that we are on the wrong side of a particular debate or policy. Knowing this, politicians continue doing what they do best…appeal to our sense of willful ignorance in relying on canned statements which validate what we already believe rather than what will actually make us think.
In part 1, I began reprinting a piece previously chronicled on National Public Radio (NPR), “A Guide To Spotting Pretzel Logic On The Campaign Trail” as a means of showcasing how We The People allow ourselves to be taken advantage of by politicians who manipulate our ignorance to their benefit by focusing on the stretches of truth exemplified by the current Presidential Election of 2012.

The NPR piece continues below:
*************************************************************************************

ARGUMENTUM AD LOGICAM, aka 'Straw man argument'

What it means: Falsely creating an overly simplistic or undesirable argument because it's easier to defeat than the real argument.

Why it works: "It basically works like an inoculation," Nelson says. "Just like a vaccine uses a weakened version of a virus to stimulate an immune response, you tell the person a weakened version of an argument so that when the real thing appears, they have an idea how to answer it. You explain someone's argument in a way that doesn't give it full strength, and then you knock it down."

Examples from the campaign trail:

Mitt Romney, July 18

[President Obama] said something ... which really reveals what he thinks about our country, about our people, about free enterprise, about freedom, about individual initiative, about America. ... I just want to say it exactly as he said it, speaking about small business and business of all kinds, he said this, 'If you've got a business, you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen.' "

The Take-Away: In his speech, Romney takes Obama's remark out of context to reduce a complex argument about the collective nature of success to a simple straw man, Clayton says. He adds: "So, he is characterizing the argument that Obama did make, but he's taking the worst possible, least relatable version of what Obama was saying and defeating that."

President Obama, Aug. 9

"We're certainly not going to follow Mr. Romney's lead and go back to the days when women didn't have control of their own health care choices."


The Take-Away: Obama hyperbolizes Romney's position, "making it sound like you're going back to the 1300s and that women would have no control over their health care choices whatsoever," Clayton says. "So, he's making the most dramatic, worst-case version of the argument. Then it's easy for him to make the case that his policies are better."

ARGUMENTUM AD TERROREM — 'Appeal to fear'

What it means: This is pretty self explanatory. It plays on someone's fear of a (real or imagined) undesirable consequence.

Why it works: "Fear motivates people, especially if they're already nervous," says Nelson. "If you've just lost your job or think you are going to lose your job and someone says, 'Things are going to get worse.' That will get your attention."

Examples from the campaign trail:

President Obama, Aug. 14


"Last week, we found out that Gov. Romney expects you, middle-class families, to pick up the tab for this big tax cut. ... [Economists say] Gov. Romney's tax plan would actually raise taxes on middle-class families with children by an average of $2,000."



The Take-Away: "He's basically playing off the fears of the middle class and saying Romney's going to saddle you with a larger and larger tax burden," Clayton notes.

Mitt Romney, May 28

"I wish I could tell you the world is safe today. It's not. Iran is rushing to become a nuclear nation. ... Pakistan is home to some 100 nuclear weapons. China's on the road to becoming a military superpower."


The Take-Away: "Not only are you telling your story, but you're trying to saddle your opponent with another narrative. So, the narrative you're trying to saddle Obama with is he's weak because he just wants to get along," Nelson says. "You're saying he's naive about the real threats and he's not minding the store."

*************************************************************************************
To be sure, government cannot solve every individual problem related to social and economic ills, but neither can the market. Our problems tend to be complex, begging complex solutions as well. The problem is that politics do not allow for substantive solutions of any kind as long as Americans continue to allow our own ignorance and inability to see beyond our beliefs to be manipulated by those individuals and groups seeking to secure their own political and/or economic interests.
I'm a firm believer in the power of education as a means of uplifting one's insight and perspective on the way the world works. As you ponder that thought, allow me to leave you with this:



If this offends you because you are an adherent to the thinking represented by these two individuals, then don't blame me...look inside yourself and ask if you are on the side of critical thinking!

Read More

Does This Familiar? Spotting Lies & Weak Logic On The Campaign Trail, Part 1

Some time ago, I posted what I felt to be an informative piece based on my observations explaining how and why people structure their particular political ideologies ("Our Political Ideologies Explained...").
Strictly speaking, there are two reasons why many Americans have such a difficult time trying to understand policy issues and their implications: (1) Politicians, when asked by reporters about a policies' particulars, tend to provide familiar programmed rhetoric, which amount canned answers spouting the party line; and (2) most Americans don't take the time to objectively (as opposed to subjectively--look for or at "facts" which support one's already presupposed beliefs) research issues. And as the latter reason is concerned, even when confronted with indisputable proof, people will reflexively question the "bias" of the research, or attack the bearer of the bad news.
Recently, National Public Radio (NPR) did a piece on the weak logic often employed in political campaigns, in particular the election campaign of 2012 for the office of the White House between President Obama and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney ("A Guide To Spotting Pretzel Logic On The Campaign Trail"). More to the point, the piece focused on why such hole-ridden statements of non-thinking are absorbed as fact by Democratic- and Republican Party loyalists...without any objective (there's that nasty word again) fact-checking on the parts of would-be voters.
I thought the article was so informative that I decided to reprint it here, as a service to those rare few who would like to actually think beyond the campaign rhetoric of both sides, and let the facts--so to speak--speak for themselves.

***************************************************************************************

It's a good thing presidential campaigns aren't college debates because politicians routinely spout arguments on the stump (and in their ads) that would never pass muster on the university rostrum.

Campaigns are rife with logical fallacies aimed at whipping up voters and herding them to the polls. Some are deceptively difficult to recognize, while others are familiar but no less seductive.

"Fallacies are used all the time in campaigns," says Sam Nelson, director of forensics at Cornell University's school of Industrial and Labor Relations.

"Human beings are busy. We have all kinds of information around us all the time, we don't have time to logically think through every argument, so we're looking for short cuts," Nelson says. "The issue is whether you can recognize these short cuts that are really fallacies and avoid falling for them."


As we head into the final months before November elections — with party convention bluster, brutal ad wars and debate posturing — Americans will almost certainly be exposed to a lot more pretzel logic. So with the help of Cornell's Nelson and Storey Clayton, a debate coach for Rutgers University Debate Union, here's an election-season primer to help people at home spot the top five logical fallacies so far in this year's presidential campaign. The Latin is optional.

ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM — 'Appeal to Authority'

What it means: There's nothing like name-dropping a Founding Father, a former U.S. president or a Nobel laureate to boost your argument. But that still doesn't change the substance of the argument.

Why it works: "It's the devil we know as opposed to something new, which we've never tried," Nelson says. "There's always risk in change. Some people are big risk takers, but most people seek safety."

Examples from the campaign trail:

Mitt Romney, July 29
"Ronald Reagan was one of our great foreign policy presidents. He did not come from the Senate. He did not come from the foreign policy world. He was a governor."

The Take-Away: "As Reagan's presidency has grown more distant, his star has sort of grown. He's a very appealing authority figure," Clayton says.





President Obama, Aug. 1
"You do not have to take my word for it. Just today, an independent, nonpartisan organization ran all the numbers on Gov. Romney's plan. This wasn't my staff. This wasn't something we did. An independent group ran the numbers."

The Take-Away: "This is a shortcut for most citizens who aren't willing to do the hard policy analysis. Obama is saying these people did the work so you don't have to," Nelson says.

POST HOC ERGO PROPER HOC — 'After this, therefore because of this'

What it means: The argument attempts to turn simple correlation into false or questionable causation. A textbook example: Because the birds sing every morning before the sun rises, the birds' singing causes the sun to rise.

Why it works: "It's a very appealing, intuitive fallacy," Clayton says. "A lot of the arguments that people make around presidential campaigns, for example, are essentially drawing the inference that whatever happened in one's time in office is their responsibility, whether or not they were actually responsible."

Examples from the campaign trail:

Mitt Romney, Aug. 1
We have fewer jobs under President Obama. Then there's unemployed and underemployed. That's gone up, that's in red, because that's a bad direction. Then we have the unemployment rate, that's bad too, that's why that's in red."



The Take-Away: "What you're trying to do in a presidential campaign is take relatively complex issues that there's a lot of division on and simplify it so that everyone understands what you're trying to say," Nelson says. "Everyone understands the idea of a report card. Holding it up visually even makes it better. Now, is that report card based on reliable information? We don't know."

Ex-Steel Plant Worker Joe Soptic, Speaking In Obama-Affiliated PAC Priorities USA Ad
"When Mitt Romney and Bain closed the plant, I lost my health care. My family lost their health care. A short time after that, my wife became ill. ... She passed away in 22 days."



The Take-Away: "Someone responsible for a business is not necessarily responsible for every single decision or every single aspect that's made within that business," Clayton says. "But that's exactly what this ad is trying to argue. It's a classic example of giving someone responsibility over foreseeing every possible effect or every possible outcome."

ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM — 'Argument to the man'

What it means: Anyone who's ever been verbally taunted or bullied in a schoolyard is familiar with argumentum ad hominem — basically a fancy debate term for name-calling. Its purpose, like that of all fallacies, is to divert attention away from substantive arguments.

Why it works: "It short-circuits the thinking part of your brain and makes you think, 'This guy's an idiot,' " says Rutgers University's Clayton.

Nelson of Cornell agrees, saying ad hominems are "funny and memorable" and that the person launching one often benefits from being perceived as a fighter. "It appeals to aspects of American culture that we got on the schoolyard and we still have when we're adults," he says.

The Take-Away: "These examples basically reduce everything to name calling," Clayton says. "They cut through the logic and all the rational arguments."

Examples from the campaign trail:

President Obama, Aug. 6



Gov. Romney "would ask the middle class to pay more in taxes to give another $250,000 tax cut to people making more than $3 million a year. It's like Robin Hood in reverse. It's Romney Hood."

Mitt Romney, Aug. 7


"We've been watching the president say a lot of things about me and my policies, and they're just not right. And if I were to coin a term, it would be 'Obamaloney.' "

Needless to say, that in the realm of election politics, there are so many more logical fallacies, little white lies, structured inaccuracies, and outright lies, that it's easy to understand why Americans would rather spout the party line and anecdotal "proofs" than spend the major effort it would take to search out the facts.

To Be Continued...

Read More

Why I'm Not A Democrat...Or Republican! (...Or, "Who Am I?")

In the past week of expressing my opinions in and on various forums around the internet, I have come across a great deal of criticism, mostly from conservatives who accuse me of being a closet liberal (when they pick and chose postings which criticize aspects of their ideology), and of being “self-righteous” when others actually read instances where I slam both ideological branches (thus, not leaving them with a leg to stand on when then cannot accuse me of being “liberal”). And because I’m forced to deal with such narrow-mindedness from the intellectual Peanut Gallery on a daily basis, I thought this would be a great time to express my disdain for both Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans…and why.
In order to understand why project a certain amount of perceived arrogance in my observations and conclusions, you have to understand a thing or two about my background. Politics were rarely discussed on my house growing up, so there was not the direct influence of traditional political allegiances which tends to shape the thinking of many of my fellow Americans. Growing up as a black male within a fluctuating but limited range of class identities—between lower working-to lower-middle-classes—I came from a mostly single-parent structured household. Most of those around me tended to vote Democrat…with the assumption that my parents did too (although it was not really a certainty). Because of my always shifting economic and social stations, I have had the fortune—or misfortune, depending on one’s perspective—to have lived (or would that be “survive”) a myriad of experiences which helped to shape my outlook and perspectives on a great many issues.
Just to provide a frame of reference for those of you with limited life experiences, I will post a bit of chronology. The day I turned 13, my mother quietly woke me and my siblings up around 4 in the morning, and we were told to quietly bag our clothes, and stole away from the home we had known…leaving our father behind (you do the math) in Michigan, and headed to Chicago, where I was born and raised part of my life. We stayed with relatives, and needless to say, public housing in a large Northern city is nothing like life in gated suburbia (where oddly enough, some people still feel the need to carry guns in such relative tranquility). Later the next couple of years, when my mother was forced—much to her bitter resentment—to accept food stamps, I found myself working alongside my other and younger brother in the fruit and vegetable fields back in Michigan…which is how we would pay the rent, and keep the lights on (to this day, I have nothing but respect for Migrant workers, who we’d peacefully worked side-by-side with). Growing up with economic uncertainty, I’d been forced to take a series of jobs, and to be honest, I thank my lucky stars for having the fortune of learning flexibility. I ended up signing up for the U.S. Army—infantry (when you’re 18 and poor, a $2,000 signing bonus sounds like manna from heaven), working on another farm for another 3 years (enduring the weather extremes alone is enough to make me more arrogant than most people), a series of factory jobs, and then long-term unemployment, courtesy of the late 80s, early 90s recession.
I’d gotten into community volunteering and voter registration during a time when I was particularly depressed about my economic situation, which led to my enrolling in local college courses…with the intent to enter law school and practice Human Rights and Civil Rights law (I was the first and only college graduate in my family, graduating with more honors and academic distinctions than you can shake a stick at. I recall during this time, I how myself and a friend managed to con our way into a closed affair to see the first George Bush. I was also proud to have had dinner with Cornel West in Detroit later in my college tenure). My stint in law school was all-too-brief, much to my regret. But afterwards, I had had a series of other nowhere jobs, including waste hauler, long-term substitute teacher, teacher’s assistant, truck driver (yes, I possess a Commercial Driver’s License), rest area cleaner, janitor, grant writer, and a host of other experiences which life forced me to adapt to via economics. And I am totally leaving out the best, most impacting experiences (such as having been a practicing Buddhist, despite growing up Christian, brief marriage, being victimized by feminism, personal loss, working 2 years as a youth counselor in the woods of the South, temporary homelessness, etc.).
The upshot is that I have lived a rather rich—if not regrettable in some circumstances—life. And as you would expect, having lived such a life where I was not afraid to try new things, step outside my personal comfort zones, and adapt to changing fortunes, I’ve learned to see the world with so much clarity…sans the ideological rhetoric of those who adopt confined political (and social) thinking. And as someone who spends his time writing and reading (while most others are hanging in bars, on dance floors, and basking in dream vacations), who better to make objective observations about life than someone who’s managed to cram the experiences of 2, possibly 3 lifetimes in only 45 years? So, with the background having been laid, allow me to chronicle how my experiences have shaped my outlook on social and political policies—more objectively than I believe most have been.

Democrats:
There is a great bit of truth to the conservative view that the black vote has been taken for granted by Democrats. This is part and parcel of a larger issue that I have with Democrats, namely that the coalition of multiple (group) interests that comprise the Democratic Party leaves the organization politically impotent at times. Affirmative Action is often at odds with the values and beliefs of Middle-Class white voters, especially males. President Obama and the NAACP’s stance on gay marriage has divided black thinking and given support on the issue pause (yes, I am against gay marriage. The black family, as many other families in America has enough problems with dysfunction without having the notion gay marriage try to redefine the definition of a traditional family…please don’t bother posting nasty comments with this regard; it won’t change my mind). Race-baiting (while ignoring personal responsibility)? I could talk about this ad naseum, but since the Republicans do it too (and like with many things, with a great bit more subtlety and style), I will just say that Jesse Jackson can be as every bit of a racial opportunist as Newt Gingrich.
And unquestioned defense of entitlements is a bit problematic for me (entitlements should be limited to the neediest of individuals, not to anyone who shows they have a splinter which keeps them from working).
Liberal attitudes with regard to child-rearing have created a generation of monsters and defiant ne’er-do-wells. For liberal Democrats, the world tends to stop whenever an issue with a child comes up. All logic and reason goes out the window, and emotions take over (not only do I believe in the power of the hickory switch in order to help a child maintain discipline and respect, but that paddlings should be brought back into schools…and no parent should be allowed to sue unless it’s a situation where discipline crosses the line into obvious abuse).
Democrats have to perform more of a balancing act with regard to these often competing interests than Republicans. They have so many individual platforms that they have no general platform whatsoever.
Democrats have terrible selling points (Republican are far better at shaping arguments and selling BS), some I find personally antithetical to clear thinking and a sense of morality, such as the case with abortion. I believe all life to be sacred, and abortion should be outlawed every bit as much as capital punishment (yes, I believe in women's rights, but not at the expense of men' rights. In reproductive policy, men typically have no rights, and are at the mercy of the courts and women motivated purely by self-interests.
Extremist elements within the party have exemplified this by reframing domestic violence as federal hate crime against women [see: The Politicization of Gender of Gender]. Common sense dictates we cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. Placing a higher value on gender, or race, than the ability to make rational decisions is inherently biased, and potentially disastrously. However, rational adults should be allowed to end their life on their own terms in cases of unbearable incapacitation and/or terminal illness.
And despite having grown up among gunplay to the extreme, I still cannot abide by talk or discussion of gun control; I wouldn’t feel safe living in a house without a gun given what I’ve witnessed in life (obviously, lunatics, fanatics, criminals, children, and paranoid-fearful neighborhood watch volunteers should be exempt from gun ownership). Limiting gun ownership will only limit access to legal gun owners...criminals don't follow the laws anyway.
Democrats seem to want to defend to the death the failing American educational system. Our schools lack discipline, partly because irresponsibly apathetic parents are flooding our schools with undisciplined children with distorted, pop-culture-fed values who then infect other children (who actually want to learn). Every child with even a hint of a “disability” (that includes insane “diagnoses” such as Oppositional Defiant Disorder…are you kidding me?) has “rights,” while the children of responsible parents have to content themselves with getting what they can from a day’s instructions because teachers are forced to spend inordinate amounts of time trying to maintain discipline in the classrooms rather than actually teach (want to blame teachers? While granted some are not competent, you try teaching a room full of brats who’s parents think each is individually “special…”).
Liberal attitudes about political correctness go way too far at times (I want to be able to say what I want...when I want...and without censor or sanction. Don’t like what I have to say? TS!).
I’ve always been a rabid proponent of universally affordable health care and I sympathize with aspects of the Occupy movement, but Democrats have failed to sell it properly. They've also failed to seize on the discontent the Occupy movement represents and parlay it into an intra-party movement like the Republicans have the Tea Party discontent (although the extremists within the Occupy movement need to leave the destruction and aggression alone).
And let’s not go into government spending...
No, I don’t fully trust government, but I trust the unforgiving market even less. Sometimes, government has to tinker with the market in order to ensure some stability. No, I don’t buy that nonsense that if you allow the market to “correct itself,” it will all balance out in the sweet By-And-By. We tried that once. And what did we get for our laissez faire mentality? The Great Depression.

Republicans:
What can I say about Republicans that I haven’t said before? Conspiracy theories among the extreme right of the party (e.g., Birthers, One-world governments, Trilateral Commissions? And I thought liberals were supposed to be the potheads…).
I like the idea of protecting the rights of gun owners, but just because we’ve elected a black president doesn’t necessitate a run on guns and ammunition. There has been no talk of curtailing gun ownership, despite the recent mass shootings so please stop with the hair trigger rhetoric, thinking, and actions you rabid gun owners!
On that note, conservative Republicans have far better mastered the art of political language, rhetoric, and propaganda with the skill of a Joseph Goebbels. Even every day people who identify with the political conservatism which Republicans are supposed to represent have adopted their politicians' penchant for selective memories, denial of facts, and favoring ideology over reality (the Democrats as a group look woefully inept by comparison when it comes to framing a coherent argument).
Trickle-down economics wasn’t very successful under the Reagan Administration, and just because it’s a new century doesn’t mean it will work any better…despite you’re dressing the notion up in the garb of “job creators.” With the very rare exception, there are no such thing as job creators; they are profit-creators who, if it were possible to create and turn a profit without incurring the labor costs in creating employment, they would in a heartbeat. The market is not sacrosanct. It is not above reproach or questioning. It is a man-made institution, subject to the same level of maintenance requirements as that of any man-made institution.
As an agnostic, I find the way Republicans have allowed Christian fundamentalists to co-op the Christian faith to be every bit as disturbing as the way Muslim fundamentalist (i.e. radical Muslims) have co-opted Islam. The Bible states, “Judge not least ye be judged.” The same hold true for those who would paint the religion of Islam (or any other religion) with a broad stroke; some of us are just as willing to do the same with your beliefs! Your perspectives and perception of the Christian interpretation of spirituality is just that…your perceptions. And no…not every political candidate for office is “told by God” to “run for the office of president" (get real…take your meds, and stifle the sanctimony while you're at it).

On a similar note, just because someone isn’t a conservative doesn’t automatically makes them a “liberal.” It’s one sociopolitical ideology among many. Conservatism didn’t come into being with the Big Bang. It’s not a flawless ideology, and following it’s beliefs to the letter will no more bring about a utopia than liberal Kumbaya-ism will. Stop with the dreaming and ideological delusion. Most of the current crop of Republicans have more of an allegiance to conservative ideology and the Republican Party than to reality. Sensible Republicans like the late Jack Kemp, Alan Keyes, and Colin Powell have no influence on this current brand.
Government spending…you want to stop it? Then let’s end pork barrel/pet project spending on both sides of the aisle. If local districts want another park or museum dedicated to lima beans, then let the locals fund it. If you’re going to talk about cutting spending…all spending must be on the chopping block. Also, every American must be willing to share sacrifice if the federal deficit is such an issue…that includes the 1-Percenters/”job creators.” Cutting taxes will not yield a balanced budget, nor has there ever been any proof that it will spur economic growth except under a particular series of conditions (that’s an unproven economic theory, much like that other theory conservatives can’t seem to swallow, that of evolution, which rank-and-file conservatives love to repeat without the benefit of research or context).
“Limited” government? You can’t claim to want “limited government” when it comes to matters of the market and/or economic equality, but then want to use the power of government to interfere with matters of social policy, such as gay marriage, abortion, and end-of-life determination. Either you’re for limited government or you’re not…otherwise, be as prepared to be labeled “hypocrite” as you are quick to label Democrats (for example, extremist Tea Party elements within the G.O.P. have called for privatizing entitlements, such as George Bush's 2005 proposal to tie Social Security to the stock market. Can you imagine how many people would have suffered if social security pensions were tied to, say the hot commodity of the market then, mortgage-backed securities? You say "You don't trust government?" Well, I don't trust the market!).
Climate change? If you are willing to believe in an all-seeing, all-knowing, invisible man hiding somewhere in the sky—without proof other than “faith”—then why is it hard to believe the science (which, by the way has been winning over skeptics) of man’s impact on the environment?
I could continue, but I will shorten my list of gripes with both parties due to fact that I know most of you will who are dedicated to these particular political parties will want to get started on you denials and finger-pointing towards the other camp.

The fact is that ideological views of these two parties have polarized our political system, almost beyond the prospect of repair. Government gridlock has paralyzed the legislation process. Many discontented individuals such as myself view both political parties as being, corrupt to their respective cores, and no longer capable of governing. The politicians of these entities have teamed up with corporations to place profit and the market above people and have decided that the richest 1% deserve tax breaks and preferential treatment while the rest of us pay the unbalanced tax burdens and are forced to live on less and less.
Some of us have had rich experiences in life, which have given us a unique insight and perspective on reality. because of that, some of use understand that ideology is often a smokescreen to clearer perceptions. That is why I write.

Now that that's been said, let’s not hear any more of this BS about how some of us cannot think beyond the spectrum...that's probably your hang-up!

Read More

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

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

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

Read More

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

To be concluded...

Read More

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLITZER: Well, what do you want?

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

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

(Multiple shouts of “Yes!” from audience)

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Denial rates of 70% and 53%

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

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

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

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

Health care overhaul offers help

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More