Opinion: Insurance Companies – No Good Deed Goes Unpunished (…or, “You Gotta be ****ing Kidding...”

One of the reasons that I began writing is because as an information and news junkie, I would often come across items on the newswire that seemed to garner very little coverage. What’s more, I simply cannot stand the way people tend to view news items through the prisms of their ideological beliefs. In objectively learning about what goes on around us, I find the old adage to be very true; to be forewarned is to be forearmed. Take insurance companies for example. I think most people have a love-hate relationship with them. They’re a necessary evil, but given some of their practices and policies, it’s hard to understand why their favorability rankings in the court of public opinion don’t find them sandwiched in between those of a child molester and dung beetle (personally, if it were for the law, I probably wouldn’t carry insurance on my automobile). Some insurance companies seem to go out of their way to prove how much they can rub the public (and their clients) the wrong way.
Remember the American International Group, better known as AIG? A few years ago (4 to be exact), the multibillion dollar insurance and financial services company was headline news. The reason? AIG was one of the “too-big-to-fail” financial institutions leading the near-collapse of the American (and world) financial markets due to then-commonplace excessive risk-taking with mortgage-backed securities that it had insured through credit-default swaps. On the brink of collapse due to decisions it made, AIG received a courtesy-of-taxpayers government bailout in the form of loans to the tune of some $180 billion plus dollars…at a little-more-than 14% rate of interests. AIG made news the following year when it announced that it had planned to pay executives—the same “best and brightest” that had been at the helm when the company nearly ran itself into the ground—bonuses totaling over $160 million in the wake of having received government money (as an aside note, it was later reported that Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut had received $160,000 from employees of AIG, who amended the bailout legislation to allow the AIG bonuses).

Well, AIG is in the news once again. If you haven’t heard, the company, having just finished paying off the government last month, is seriously considering suing the federal government over the effects of the low-interest loans on its shareholders. Yes, you read right. AIG is suing the same government which rescued it out collapse! On Wednesday of this week, the company’s board of directors will discuss and vote on whether it will join a 25$ billion shareholders’ lawsuit against the government. At point is not the fact that the bailout was not needed in order to save the company, but that lawsuit

contends that the onerous nature of the rescue — the taking of what became a 92 percent stake in the company, the deal’s high interest rates and the funneling of billions to the insurer’s Wall Street clients — deprived shareholders of tens of billions of dollars and violated the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the taking of private property for “public use, without just compensation" ("Rescued by a Bailout, A.I.G. May Sue Its Savior").

And as AIG contemplates whether or not to bite the hand that fed it in order to satisfy its stockholders, millions of Americans haven't been reimbursed one cent for their contribution to the collective billions they’ve lost in home values, investments, and retirement savings linked to the same industry practices which nearly drove the country’s market economy into the toilet. When companies exhibit such audacity, it’s hard to believe that there are some Americans who can defend unregulated market and/or company practices with such a straight faced blind devotion to treat-the-consumer-anyway-we-want market economics.
But when it comes to the insurance industry, AIG does exist in a vacuum when it comes to favoring shareholders over clients and customers. As I was watching the news the other day (where my inspiration came for this piece in fact), I happened across a piece spotlighting a Staten Island, New York couple who found out the hard way how shady some insurance companies are.
Back in October, Dominic and Sheila Traina lost their home to super storm Sandy. Luckily, the Trainas had evacuated their home prior to the arrival of the storm. But a neighbor who had stayed behind told the couple that the wind from the storm had blown their roof off their 2-story home. However, their insurer of record, Allstate, has alleged that the damage to the home was due to the storm’s tidal surge. In other words, Allstate says that flooding caused the damage. Instead of reimbursing the Trainas for the full loss of their home, the insurance company offered $10,000…which the elderly couple has rejected in lieu of hiring an attorney and fighting to receive full compensation under their policy. However, Allstate has stated that it encourages “our customers to consider flood insurance to protect themselves in ways that would not be covered under a homeowner's policy.”

In a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t twist to the story, the couple said they previously had flood insurance, provided by the U.S. government's National Flood Insurance Program, but that their payments proved to be more than the reimbursement amounts they received for previous incidents, so they cancelled that particular coverage (which is not a good idea if you live on a flood-prone plain. If one chooses to reside in area where nature tends to act a bit fickle, then it behooves there individuals to purchase the appropriate insurance coverage).

But in the Trainas case, the insurance company decided (I assume inadvertently) to add insult to injury; the company has used the couple’s damaged home in one of its television spots. In learning about what the Trainas were going through in New York with their insurance company, the logical part of myself considered the possibility that what that couple went through in the wake of the disaster was an aberration…a single instance of poor planning on the part of insurance policy holders.
But I found another policy holder in the Sandy-devastated region of the Northeast was treated with similar apparent contempt by the same insurance company, Allstate. After homeowner Jason Crea's house was totaled in Hurricane Sandy, he was paid the grand sum of $37.74 after the cost of the $1,000 deductable was factored in for his losses. In protest of the paltry sum offered to him by Allstate, he created a sign in an effort to shame the company into reconsidering its settlement.

According to the home’s owner,

When I bought the contents policy, I explained to [Allstate] that I have a lot of expensive stuff in the basement. They just smiled and took my money. The thing they didn't bother mentioning, and what was in the fine print, is that the basement isn't considered a room in the house (“Sandy Homeowner Gets $37.74 in Insurance for Destroyed Home”)

The bottom line is that the contents of Crea’s home were not covered by his policy. In all fairness, Crea should have read his policy more carefully…after all, Allstate is a business whose primary goal is a profit motive. But in taking the money after he had given the insurance agent the verbal caveat, the company appears to have misrepresented the policy holder’s policy. In fact, if you performed an internet search, using the name of your insurance company followed by the word, “sucks” (e.g., “_________sucks”), it would become apparent that there are far more dissatisfied people when it comes to insurance companies than there are people who are content, whether the policy is one covering health, property, or automobiles (although a few of the instances seemed to be more griping than not, many of those sample grievances I read appeared to have an air of legitimacy.
In all the recent public discourse about how certain politicians “hate business,” how companies “are people” (for the sake of applying the law), and about the “contribution” of “job creators” to the greater good, people on any side of these arguments tend to forget that in the end, businesses are not about creating jobs, creating customer satisfaction (at least not beyond that required to maintain a continual flow of customers), or even about promoting Free Market values. Insurance companies like AIG and Allstate are just like all businesses...they are all about maximizing profits, while minimizing losses. If your family benefits economically along the way of this regime, that’s fine and dandy. However, that is not their primary purpose…their interests are strictly self-serving and motivated by economics, not gallantry. Insurance companies may have their benefits, but they are every bit as self-serving as any other industry. Unfortunately, many of us don’t take notice of this reality until the moment we expect (insurance or any other) companies to treat us like “fellow human beings” (remember, companies are “people” under the law) when it comes our needs and/or interests.  And it's only the extremely rare company is above biting the hand that feeds them.

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

The Worship of Sports in America

OK, it’s once again March, and once again I find my favorite television news programs preempted by the college basketball games of “March Madness.” Personally, I find madness to be the most appropriate of titles for the way in which Americans are gripped by the infatuation with sports. I admit it—I simply don’t see, nor do I understand our collective obsession with using balls to score points between 2 opposing teams of hyper-masculine jocks. I’m probably one of 5 or 6 males in this country who doesn't get it.
It’s not enough for us to be politically and ideologically polarized as a country; we further divide ourselves by way of our individual devotions to our favorite sports teams. We play hooky from both school and our jobs in order to see our favorite teams engage in sometimes brutal, if not base competition in order to see who can gain the most points. We even become offended whenever someone slights our favorite team. I recall a moment some time ago when I made the mistake of telling a friend’s girlfriend that the Midwest-based football she cherished was overrated; she nearly bit my head off. I assumed that by her overreactions that she had some sort of financial stake in the team (and no, it wasn't the Packers that I insulted). That particular episode made me conclude that the only reason why women are just as infatuated as men with sports is because they know that nothing they can do can entice a man like the allure of competitive sports, so they bandwagon this insane obsession to see appear “normal.”
I can understand the idea of passion and being dedication to a favorite team—after all, I’m a former Cubs fans (hey, even losers get tired of losing). But as a nation, we've convinced ourselves that there are no boundaries separating fans from fanatics when it comes to sports. I’m not advocating the eradication of sports as a distraction, but it demands a time for reflection when over-obsessive fans begin making death threats over blown calls, riot when their favorite team wins (or losses), or when more people can quote the stats of their favorite players and/or teams than name the first 4 people in the line of succession for the leadership of our country. I do think we take professional sports too seriously in this country. And the sad thing about it all is that while we can cite the empiricism of statistics and observable performance when it comes to assessing who the best players or who the teams are, we invoke unproven personal beliefs, religious dogma, and/or narrow ideologies when it comes to our understanding of politics, religion, and economics. What should be issues of priorities in our daily lives have become distractions, and the distractions of sports have become our priorities.

Comedian Bill Maher gives a reality check on sports-lovers (and men) in this segment from his past special, "The Decider."

Many of us worship sport in America to the extent that it should be given First Amendment religious protections. What’s worse is that we while we equate professional (and college-level) sports to the level of divine activity, we elevate our favorite teams to the level of a divine pantheon, and we worship sports players as near deities. We overlook their bad decisions, we excuse their sense of entitlement and arrogance as natural by-products of having earned it through hard work, and we give them a pass when they engage in criminal activity. We supplement their inflated salaries by buying whatever they endorse, their inflated wallets by waiting in long lines to buy the over-priced shoes they attach to the latest footwear, and over-inflate their already inflated egos—as if such a thing were possible—by allowing our kids to emulate them without any caveats or parental interjections of reasoned reality checks.

And speaking of kids, what lessons and mixed messages do our adult obsessions with sports impart upon them? In the past generation, we’ve come to teach kids that “everybody’s a winner” by acknowledging that even those who simply do not try hard can receive a trophy, “a certificate of participation,” or some kind of undeserved accolade. In many other cases, we have removed many competitive activities like dodge ball from our school physical education curriculums because we feel that children might be somehow emotionally scarred from actually losing to a better-prepared opponent. We now don’t even keep score in games between kids to keep those who aren’t up the task of playing harder from “feeling bad.” But as adults, we quickly grow out of that New Age social-psychobabble and clearly define winners and loser in the games we (watch others) play! We not only keep mental track of our favorite teams’ scoring, but their player stats as well. We grudgingly buy and complain when we have to purchase —if we do—school supplies for our children, but have no problem feely supporting the oftentimes extravagant, party-hard lifestyles of athletes by buying whatever subpar or average product they endorse. We deny our kids the lessons of good sportsmanship, insights into their abilities, and opportunities for growth. At the same, we’re willing time chalk up bad sportsmanship in adult athletes to being bad boys,” are willing to be armchair coaches providing “analysis” of where their favorite athletes screwed up in their last performance, and cheer them on as they recover from injuries. We brainwash our kids, but love and worship our adult athletes.

Why do we obsess over sports so much in this country? I simply don’t get it. I don’t understand why we’re content with the reality of you and I being locked away somewhere between hell and Xanadu for offenses that many professional athletes receive the equivalent for a slap on the wrist for. I don’t get why many adults will stop whatever they are doing in order to rush home and watch some game on television the same way that I as a child would rush home to watch cartoons from school back in the 1970s. I can’t grasp why we overpay, over-praise, and hand over so much of our attention to sports and athletes.
While I do watch the occasional baseball game and enjoy the idea of competition, I’m not fanatical about it. I don’t riot, yell, or take it personally when a time I find myself rooting for loses. I don’t purposefully spend money on clothing with team logos or some athlete’s name written on a shoe; I’m sure they don’t need my dollars to put in an extra exotic fish in their custom-designed aquariums. I simply put things in perspective insofar as sports. An athlete is just another person doing his or her job. I don’t see anyone cheering me at my job as I type up paperwork…nor do I expect it (although it would be nice if apathetic parents would take such an interest in others trying to do their jobs, like teachers). Maybe if we our restructured our priorities and place as much emotional support, appreciation, adulation, and financial compensation to those who put up with our bratty kids (such as bus drivers, teachers, and others), then maybe our kids wouldn't grow up to be adults who worship sports and athletes who have come to rarely teach us nothing substantive in the way of social values.
See also: "Would YOU Pay $300 For LeBron's Shoes?"

Read More

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

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

Read More

The Health Care Conundrum – A Personal Narrative

Note: I realize that Beyond The Political Spectrum has many readers from various European countries. And in acknowledge of this fact, I have taken the liberty of converting American dollar values to Euros in order to give this issue some contextual clarification.

There’s a young man with whom I work with—let’s call him “John”—who happens to share the same predicament which thousands, if not millions of Americans are forced to endure. Twenty-something year-old “John” has a wife and two young children. As the only current breadwinner in his family, John is looking to purchase health insurance coverage for his entire family. The problem “John” has is that he only earns $9.00 an hour (approximately €6.70), while the health insurance offered by his employer is prohibitively expensive.
How expensive? According to the prices listed on the copy of the Benefits (Plan) Selection I obtained, the cost to “John” to cover his family of four with the basic, no-frills plan (with a high deductable between $2,500 and $5,000/€3356 and €6712) is $420.76 (€318.63), deducted from his paycheck bi-weekly. Those of you with a firm grasp of math can immediately see the problem. Earning only $9.00 an hour, multiplied by 40 hours a week, “John” brings home approximately $720 bi-weekly (€536). That means that over half of his take home pay would go to pay for health care coverage for himself and his family. From what’s left over, he has to cover rent, utilities, and basics like food. Because the particular health care option—the only option—the employer offers is so expensive, “John” and other employees have opted to go without.

This personal anecdote came to mind as I took note of the recent vote in the House of Representatives in Congress. Two weeks ago, the Republican majority in Congress’ lower chamber voted for the 40-somethingth time to repeal the 2010 Affordable Care Act we know as “Obamacare.” Ignoring for the moment that the majority of these same opponents of the new health care law were shouting to the top of their collective lungs during last year’s presidential elections that the economy was the biggest concern of the American people, it’s pretty hard for anyone to rationally reconcile how trying to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act jives with fixing our broken economy. Among some Republican leadership, this dim reality had been acknowledged. Old School Republican and former GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich recently chided the current Republican legislators in Congress when he reminded them that “congressional Republicans would have ‘zero answer’ for how to replace the president's health care overhaul when asked, despite their having voted repeatedly to repeal the measure” (See: “GOP Pushes Rising Stars Amid Calls For Solutions”).
Sure, there‘s a lot of rhetoric being bandied around about how Obamacare is a “job-killer” (and yes, there is some anecdotal instances that some jobs may be adversely affected by implementation of the new law), but the lack of any Republican-sponsored alternative to reforming the current economically unsustainable health care finance model indicates that simple economics is not at the heart of opposition to reform. It’s more likely that not allowing the president and his Democratic allies a policy victory is at the center of the opposition.
If in fact, reforming how we pay for health care in this country were an actual priority, then simply cutting government spending in expendable areas is the most obvious place to start. Both people and the leadership we elect have to consider making the hard choices when it comes to spending priorities. Do we want the ability to be able to pay for healthcare, or is funding programs like Head Start—a program whose overall effectiveness as a kick start to fostering positive childhood experiences in school (and in life) is still a matter of debate—more important? Do we take steps to eliminate the chief reason for Americans filing bankruptcy year-to-year—the inability to pay prohibitively costly medical bills—or do we continue to pay for wars on countries that aren’t an actual threat to our nation’s security and interests? Do we create an atmosphere whereby people like “John” can afford to cover his families with health insurance, or do we continue to give “job-generating” tax breaks to “job creators.” Job Creators…you know, those people who provide people like “John” with $9.00 an hour jobs that offer us health insurance options that we cannot afford to pay for?
As I think of “John” in the context of political opposition to health care affordability, it’s hard to ignore the irony that the officials we elect to craft policies such as health care affordability are comfortably covered by the government-sponsored insurance which “John’s” taxes pay for.

See also: “Universal Healthcare - How Other Countries Do It” and “The Real Health Insurance Industry -- An Insider Look At The Industry”

Read More

Open Thread: How The Middle-Class Got Screwed (Video)

The problem with sharing ideas in America--especially as they pertain to sociopolitics and/or economics--is that no matter how sound, rational, valid, or proof-driven the idea is, we have become so ideologically and politically fractured as a nation that any explanation is usually assailed by someone with a particular ideological bias by which they view the world through.  I see this on a daily basis from both the ideological left and the right (with much of it on the political right).  To hear the average "well-informed" American tell it, every explanation which we don't agree with has either a "liberal bias" or uses "selective facts" to justify their stance; rarely do we approach an issue with open minds.  Instead, we approach any and every issue with a counter-argument cocked and loaded, and ready to pull the trigger on in an attempt at discourse.
With that having been said, I recently came across a video with what I found to be a limited-bias explanation for why and how the American Middle-Class came to find itself on such a precarious position economically. Try watching with an open mind...

Read More

Gasoline Prices - A Primer

Pay attention…there will be a test at the end!

So, I’m watching the network evening news this tonight, and I take note of the report that gasoline prices have been rising steadily over the past several weeks—which is really not news if you’ve been to the pump yourself.
Interested, I decided to do a little researching on the heels of what was reported in the news. What I found to be interesting are the chief reasons why we are paying so much. One reason is understandable, while the other is one of those strange esoteric dynamics of economics.
Marginally-speaking, there is very little political leaders in this country can do to lower the prices of gas…regardless what the candidates running for the White House are telling us. Outside of a presidential release of the strategic oil reserves, it’s just out of our hands for the most part (President Obama did just that last June, which only resulted in a 3 cent drop in prices over a period of a couple of weeks). Among the most predictable of the reasons for the rise in the oil prices is the saber-rattling between nuclear-ambitious Iran and the West. These “global demand shocks,” reflecting the turmoil in the Middle East comprise the majority the reasons in the price rise.
The second reason is based on the ambitions of those seeking to fatten their incomes. Oil future traders and other market speculators invest capital in the oils markets, betting on prices—and their portfolios—to rise, which they do whenever they infuse more speculator funds into the market. When prices rise, it gives speculators more of an incentive to invest more. And round and round it goes.
Yes we could drill more (which the country has been doing for the last 8-10 years...more than under the previous administration), but between exploring suspected oil fields, research, gathering the necessary capital for investment, associated start-up logistics, licensing, government regulations/requirements, operations costs, and the like, any new addition to the available supply wouldn’t reach the market anywhere from 5 to 8 years. Simply put, proclamations of “Drill, baby, drill!” are overrated.
And given how Americans are still opting to drive expensive luxury model automobiles and SUV's--despite the already soaring prices at the pumps--it speaks more to the reality that we as a country have a fuel consumption problem, and not a supply problem. Simply put, there is no level of oil drilling that our insatiable and undisciplined appetites for it's need can't surpass.
If politicians would stop engaging in scare tactics and admit there are no simple answers other than America going back to creating something the rest of the world wants...like alternative sources of energy!

Read More

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

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

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





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

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

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



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

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



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

Read More

Taxes...You Decide!

Over the last couple of years--and especially in this current election season--there's been a lot of talk about taxes: who pays the most, is the current tax structure fair, and do the rich pay their fair share?
I thought I'd let you, the voting American, decide based on the consideration of all relevant factors, including the consideration of average household expenditures (i.e., the cost of living)...

Click on graphic to enlarge

...which portion of the the federal income derive from which particular tax...

Click on graphic to enlarge

...who actually pays taxes...

Click on graphic to enlarge (The often cited Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates "that 46 percent of households will owe no federal income tax for 2011" and Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that "51 percent of households paid no federal income tax in 2009" are, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "anomalies that reflect the unique circumstances of the past few years, when the economic downturn greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes. The figures for 2009 are particularly anomalous; in that year, temporary tax cuts that the 2009 Recovery Act created — including the “Making Work Pay” tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits — were in effect and removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired. Source: "Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes").


...and a few facts about the link between tax cuts and economic growth, using several individual low-tax states as an illustration:

A few states—Alaska, Nevada, Florida, Wyoming, and New Hampshire—impose very low tax rates yet their residents enjoy solid mid-range incomes. Do these states blaze a trail that other states can follow?

Unfortunately these states' success is tough to copy. Both Alaska and Wyoming have abundant and valuable natural resources (energy and minerals) coupled with small populations and little need for public services. Nevada, Florida, and Wyoming benefit greatly from tourism as well. And New Hampshire gets a free ride from Massachusetts-based high tech companies without paying the corresponding taxes.

There are no guarantees when it comes to taxes and economic development. But without abundant natural resources or heavy tourism or the generosity of a neighbor, no state in the United States has been able to sustain high prosperity without a robust tax base (Source: "Do Lower Taxes Create Jobs? Let’s Look at the States?" and the Institute on Taxation and Economy Policy).

Click on graphic to enlarge


Conclusion: Outside of those who subscribe to Keynesian economics, and unless there are a certain economic conditions present, most economic experts assert that tax cuts--in and of themselves--do not directly spur economic growth (which is not to say that under other conditions, they don't have their place. Personally though, I would favor an income increase rather than a tax decrease. Why, because only the working poor would even notice the change.
A February poll by the National Foundation for Credit Counseling showed that 66 percent of workers did not realize their paychecks were larger after the government reduced the payroll tax by 2 percentage points. Source: "Economic Illiteracy: The Candidates' Best Friend.").


OK...here is where you decide...

Read More

Obamacare & The Lack of Loyal (Or Smart) Opposition

I have been, and always will be a proponent of the idea that health care should not be a marketable commodity, but a basic right in the same vein as a compulsory public education. Opponents of this notion seem to be missing a clear view of the Big Picture. Sure, it would be nice if we could live in a society where people were allowed to “decide for themselves” to forgo necessary services like health care insurance without tangible repercussions—the ostensible argument made by universal health care opponents. But allowing individuals the “freedom” to make decisions that on the surface don’t seem capable of affecting others flies in the face of sound fiscal economics. For instance, allowing individuals the right to drop out of school will invariably cost society more in the long run. Study after study points to a lack of basic education (opportunities) tends to result increased chances of becoming reliant of welfare, fewer job prospects, and higher probabilities of being incarcerated—all of which have a burdensome economic impact on society as a whole.
The uninsured tend to cost everyone—insured and uninsured alike—more in the long run due to their propensity to allow minor health concerns to evolve into major health issues, their lack of engaging in preventative health care regimes, and the higher cost they incur for later attending of health care concerns—all of which resulting in higher costs for health-related services, insurance premiums, and percentage of government’s part subsidizing these increased costs.
President Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act (ACA) was the first major attempt in decades to provide a sizable chunk of uninsured Americans a modicum of health care coverage, and address this financially unsustainable health care regime. As radical an idea as it is, Obamacare is something of a compromise; it leverages aspects of the open market to attempt to increase coverage for more Americans while avoiding the stigma of “socialism” inherent in the European model of a single-payer plan—despite passing the initiative with a “supermajority” of Democrats in Congress. Naysayers' predictable doom and gloom for the ACA from the start. Supporters reluctantly embraced the hope that the ACA would be a welcome alternative to unaffordability and arbitrary rejection for those with preexisting conditions (which the ACA prohibited). But let’s just say it…Obamacare (as it had been dubbed) seems to be headed due south in the popularity department. And the issues regarding the government-sponsored online insurance sign-up registry hasn’t helped its likability.
And while I certainly don’t need the likes of Sarah Palin to inform me that Obamacare doesn’t seem to be finding its successful footing, the fact she manages to continue to secure airtime in her attempt to maintain political relevancy says a lot about why we in America cannot provide a serious application to revamp health care affordability. Sure, Palin and her ilk love to chant “get rid of Obamacare,” but when asked to provide an alternative to doing so, the crickets take over. We got a chance to witness this reality last week on NBC’s Today show when host Matt Lauer allowed Palin to once again-seemingly successfully I might add—hit the snooze button on her 15 minutes of fame. Predictably, Palin engaged in so many oppositional talking points that the “interview” (for want of a better term) seemed like two people in the same room having 2 different conversations at times (watch below).

Palin’s positions lacked substance, suggestions, or anything beyond the assertion that Obamacare was in fact an exercise “socialism” that was worthy of shutting down the government in an effort to repeal the new law. As Lauer struggled to get Palin to nail down a less ambiguous alternative to addressing the unaffordability of health care insurance, Palin responded with more talking points and counter policy ambiguities. It was like listening to a child explain why cooties are bad…totally unable to define what they are, but speak a great deal as to why they are “bad.” And this exchange is a testament as to why health insurance affordability and/or coverage will always be an issue that probably won’t be addressed substantively any time soon.—the lack of loyal opposition to what we have now.
What passes for opposition to the ACA currently is nothing more than vague references to “socialism,” and how bad it is. There are no alternatives coming from the opposition. The 1 or 2 there are involve nothing “tax credits” and “other suggestions offered by Republicans” that fail to address the issue at heart. Anything remotely tied to the old, outdated system of employer-based health insurance—when our service-based economy doesn’t pay the average worker enough to afford getting sick, yet alone paying for any hospitalization—isn’t going to work…tax credits notwithstanding. Allowing “job creators” to maintain the freedom to decide who they will cover and who they will not doesn’t allow for “spreading risks” needed to lower costs. And allowing self-serving dullards like Palin, who have nothing more to contribute to the discourse other than vagueness, ambiguities, and ideological talking points that don’t amount to anything more than ramblings of political opportunists who profess to “love America” doesn’t do anything other than continue to entrench our country in political fragmentation.

Read More

Thinking About African-Americans & The Democratic Party, Part 1

The problem with aligned thinking—that is, identifying one’ self with a particular ideological way of thinking such as “liberal,” “conservative,” “anarchist,” etc.—is that no one wants to believe the worst of whatever associated group they affiliate themselves with. Take for example last year’s Pew Research study, “Muslim-Western Tensions Persist:”

A new poll by the Pew Research Center finds the majority of Muslims from Egypt, Turkey, the Palestinian territories, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Indonesia and Pakistan do not believe the 9/11 attacks were carried out by Arabs. The highest rate being in Egypt where 75 percent of Muslims do not believe Arabs were responsible. 

Despite the exhaustive investigative endeavors of American and many foreign law enforcement and investigative agencies, this thinking continues to shape Muslim perceptions about America and the West.
We find examples of this same phenomenon of selective thinking here in the states. Another Pew study found that “Only 49 percent of voters know that (President) Obama is a Christian, and 17 percent continue to say that he’s a Muslim. Among conservatives, 30 say that he is a Muslim” (see: “Many Conservatives Still Think Obama is a Muslim”). Oddly enough, and despite the reality that President Obama has for years attended (and continues to attend) a Christian church, many of these individuals do not consider themselves “crazy” or “fringe” for embracing such baseless thinking.
In 2005, a survey published in the February edition of the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes that year revealed that a substantial number within the African-American community believe that, among other things, “AIDS was produced in a government laboratory, and…was created and spread by the CIA” (“Study: Many Blacks Cite AIDS Conspiracy”).
The point is that we live in a world where it’s too easy to believe the worst of others, and not question whether our allegiances are of a higher moral or ethical caliber. It’s simply too easy for Muslims to believe that Americans are such a duplicitous people that its government would conspire to kill thousands of its own people. Or that all whites are racists. Or that blacks are lazy and intellectually inferior. Rarely do we every question ourselves, or are willing to believe that members of the various groups that we identify with or belong to can commit transgressions every bit as callous as those we slander or are believe the worst of. It’s simply too intellectually burdensome for black people to believe that O.J. murdered, for Muslims to believe that some among their number could have been responsible for taking 3,000 American lives, or for conservative whites to believe that their politicians are every bit the “race-baiters” as traditional black leaders they accuse of the same…ignoring the remote molecule of reality each conspiracy has its basis in.
As an African-American, I find such a propensity to be an impediment to both the political and social well-being of the black community. I see this most evident in how the black community devotes its collective allegiance to the Democratic Party. I say this because during my own years-long history of working with special needs and at-risk population groups, while I have seen some indications of hope I have also been able to put things in a bigger-picture perspective. Many of the same socioeconomic ills which currently plague large segments of the African-American community existed to some degree during the 1964 election season—the year African-Americans began voting en masse for and identifying with the Democratic Party, buttressed mostly by Lyndon Johnson’s support (and Republican opposition) to the Civil Rights Act of that same year (OK Conservatives…now you know why).
This fact is not meant to imply that the Democratic Party as a whole took an enlightened view of race relations when blacks started gravitating toward it during this period. Many Southern segregationists were every bit as conservative—if not more—as Republicans. The difference then was that the majority of Republicans were nowhere near as ideologically-driven or polarized from the moderate mainstream as they are today…the presence of the Civil Rights Act-opposing Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater and his far-right supporters in the party notwithstanding. Republicans were more politically-pragmatic than inherently racist in seeking to court Southern white conservatives who typically identified themselves with the party of the common man rather than the GOP. Many blacks also identified themselves with the common man thread of the Democrats to the point where they were willing to overlook the segregationists and racists who formed in many aspects the nucleus of the Democratic Party to embrace its stance toward potential integration and Civil Rights. Intolerant whites within the Democratic Party, seeing the writing on the wall in the form of blacks all-but whole-heartedly aligning themselves with the party, fled it in typical white-flight fashion in favor of the now-almost all white Republican Party. This is why you have blacks caught between a rock in a hard place in regards to race-related issues. Some Democratic black leaders often insert race into political discourse when it’s not an issue (or use race-related issues to gain media notoriety), while not playing up personal responsibility in addressing black socioeconomic ills. And while other white Republican figures can make remarks like Newt Gingrich’s notion to talk “to the African American community should demand pay checks and not be satisfied with food stamps,” and Rick Santorum’s play to white fears about not wanting to “make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money" without seeing themselves as “race baiting.”  Seeing others as being "bad" is easier than seeing ourselves the same way.

Even if you discount the racial history and the different racial perceptions between the two parties, one still has to wonder whether black allegiance to the Democratic party has meant a being in a better place overall.  Take the area of economics.
For the last 50 years, there has been a persistent disparity between black unemployment rates and that of white Americans. Last year, “the African American unemployment rate averaged 15.8 percent – twice the white average of 7.9 percent” a figure representative of the reality of a 5-decades long average of black unemployment being twice the rate of that of whites (For African Americans, 50 Years of High Unemployment). While the alliance between the Democratic Party in the big Northern cities and manufacturing industries benefited many blacks economically during the majority of this period when America still had a viable manufacturing industry, the gulf between black unemployment and white unemployment has remained steady for a large segment within the black community. Some short-term Democratic-sponsored fixes (such as government-funded summer employment programs and the defunct CETA program) helped to mitigate the employment problem to a minor degree, but failed to address the root causes of this particular problem, which tend to be more sociologically than political. The bottom line is that the unemployment woes of African-Americans have not gotten any better since we started throwing in our lot with the Democratic Party…worse I you take into account that the highest unemployment rate of any demographic belongs to black males (See:  Record High Black Male Unemployment...A Non-Political Issue).
Part of the problem is that local Democratically-controlled administrations were so busy schmoozing up to the major manufacturers (i.e., job providers for many African-Americans) in the areas they dominated that they allowed themselves to be blinded to changing economic realities, and were caught flat-footed when many American industries either folded or moved overseas due to increased global economic competition from abroad.  Over-relying too much on the idea that their economic bases would never change, many Democratic administrations on the local level lacked the foresight and/or vision to sense how local economies were quickly changing, and failed to replace failing business models with rising business models.  This is why China manufactures more "green energy" commodities like solar panels, which could be both an economic and employment boon to urban areas like Detroit or Toledo, than America.  And although it may be easier to believe that the Republican Party simply doesn't give a damn about black employment as an issue, we might want to stop and ask ourselves has the Democratic Party benefited blacks any better?

Black teenage pregnancy rates, although lower than in most periods over the last 50 years, continues to lead those of every other demographic in America. I can recall growing up in the 70s and early 80s a time when teenage pregnancy was something of a social Scarlet Letter…a symbol of personal moral failure and shame. Quite simply, it was considered a grave wrong, with easily comprehended negative consequences which the mother-to-be would have to suffer with for her foreseeable future. Liberal-leaning women’ groups and related organizations’ allegiance to the Democratic Party—in their zeal to empower women—helped to remove the social stigma from teenage motherhood, to the detriment of the black community. I can recall how when a young teen became pregnant, she would simply “move away” to some relative’s distance house to avoid the social stigma attached to premature motherhood at the time. Today, combined with liberal New-Age parenting philosophies which emphasize “getting to know your child” rather than the traditional model of being a parent first, the current liberalizing view of teenage pregnancy is that it is something of a group pathology among poor African-Americans rather than an individual lapse in judgment with no forethought of consequences. Stories like the 2009 revelation of 115 teenage mothers/mothers-to-be (out of 800 girls) located in one Chicago high school would seem to give this view some credence (See: 115 Moms, Moms-to-Be at South Side High).
And as you would expect, the pundits on both the left and the right have things wrong.  Poor black teens are not as much pathological as they are making the best “rational” choices that they are able to considering their sociological circumstances. Many black teenage females live under harsh socioeconomic conditions which—in the same way they fail to see the importance of learning algebra or history—do not allow they to see the practical costs of teenage motherhood. Unlike many of their white (and/or conservative) counterparts, many do not see college, the prospect of a high-paying job/career, social status, marriage/a stable monogamous relationship as being realistic or even attainable goals. As such, the prospect of “ruining their lives” via an early pregnancy is just not a factor in their judgment lapses. They simply view themselves as not “giving anything up” by engaging in risky behavior which could result in premature motherhood…or even worse. This may sound far-fetched until you consider that we saw the same phenomenon occur in the sole high school in the small fishing village of Gloucester, Massachusetts back in 2010. According to the principal of Gloucester High School and news reports, some 17 girls formed a pact to become pregnant on purpose. The link: “The once thriving fishing community has seen jobs drift overseas. Economic depression has left many teens trying to fill the void” ("Teens' Pregnancy Pact Shocks Mass. Town").

Seeing teenage pregnancy as a pathology among a particular demographic rather than an error in judgment tends to feed into the ethos of seeing others are capable of engaging in behavior which we can't see ourselves engaging in.  Just ask Bristol Palin.
On a related issue, as exemplified by the Chicago teachers’ strike in recent weeks, many schools in Democratically-dominated large urban cities are in trouble in every way imaginable. Yes, teachers unions hold some responsibility, but not as much as one might think. Teachers unions have always been acting as teachers unions do, and compared to now, their culpability was not always considered an issue back in earlier decades when our public school were relatively functional and turning out talented students. And those who like to blame unions solely as the problem for failing urban school don’t think about teachers unions operating in more affluent districts, often Republican-leaning districts where test scores and student performance seems to weaken any argument of union impairment of potentially high-performing schools; it’s only in the areas where Democrats are heavily linked to unions where unions are perceived as solely being the problem; thank the Republicans for scaring up this anti-union bandwagon.
However, the Democratic Party’s penchant for creating well-meaning programs which end up having the opposite intended effect are an issue. For example, expanding social security entitlements to include students who are identified as “at-risk” creates a whole host of problems related to “bad schools.” These kids, who are more often than not simply over-diagnosed with “mental impairments” rather than identified as teens in need of home-based discipline, and forced upon public school teachers by virtue of “their right” to the same educational accommodations as other students. These often disruptive special needs children add another burden to teachers who are expected to bear many other responsibilities—with none of the authority—such as social worker, counselor, part-time parent, disciplinarian, tutor, baby-sitter, maid, and advocate just to name a few. Democrats aligned with the public school systems are acting as appeasers to the real problem with African-Americans in black-dominated public schools, lack of parent support for students in these schools…preferring instead to support programs which keep poorly-performing schools barely functioning. Many of these Democrats are afraid that if they adopt the Republican mantra of personal responsibility that they might alienate African-Americans as a voting bloc. This is not to say that charter schools, the “solution” Republicans love to promote, is the answer; most poor and urban areas are over served by the charter schools, which are not fully or empirically proven to be better than public school in educating black youth (“10 Things Charter Schools Won’t Tell You”). If charter school are so much better at educating students, why don’t they appear—or rather why aren’t they allowed—in more affluent areas in the same numbers as they appear in urban/black areas?
Again, it's always easier to see "those people" as the flawed individuals rather than consider that we are just as capable of being "those people" under a similar set of circumstances. The situation has not improved much for the black community under the African-American/Democratic Party alliance.


To be concluded...

Read More