Opinion: The Death of The American Marriage

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

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

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

Read More

Americans Standing Up - Which Movement Speaks For You?

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

Read More

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

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

Please watch.

Read More

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

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

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

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




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


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

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

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

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


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

12. American University, Washington D.C.

11. Oberlin College, Oberlin Ohio

10. Wesleyan University, Connecticut

9. University of Wisconsin, Madison

For the rest of the list, read here.

Read More

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

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

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

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




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



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

Read More