Did you like the ideas the President proposed for our economy during the address?

copyright © 2012 Betsy L. Angert.  Empathy And Education; BeThink or  BeThink.org

Dearest Representative . . .

My answer to your survey question, “Did you like the ideas the President proposed for our economy during the address?” is No.  In truth, for me it is not that simple.   I know from our conversations and abundant experiences, the query is not meant to close doors; nor will you draw erroneous conclusions from the “data” collected.  I understand that you wish to hear from your constituency.  Therefore, I write.  I will present support for my opinion.  The Economic Policy Institute, CaRDI, a Multidisciplinary Social Sciences Institute of Cornell University, and Michael Winerip, Education Journalist for the New York Times will serve as my surrogates. I understand that the immediate opinion polls show broad support for the President’s speech.  However, I suspect a more nuanced look may reveal that more feel as I do.  Perhaps, my words will also speak for the people who merely marked “Yes,” “No,” or “I do not have an opinion” on your and other surveys.  I can only hope that you might take a moment to ponder.

The President proposed many ideas that I believe relate to our economic health.    He spoke of taxes, the energy policy that has taxed our nation.  As a father, he addressed what I know concerns you too, education.  Indeed, I thank you once again Congressman for your active support of public education.   Enrolling your children in our local community schools speak volumes.  I believe to be one with the people is to live amongst us.  Sadly, few in Congress chose the life of the common man.  

In regards to health care, which Mister Obama also touched on in the State of the Union speech, last evening, the Congress’s separation from society-at-large is evident in policies passed and again in the President’s speech.  Possibly, he too has forgotten how the real people live.  

The President did propose one plan I endorse I think The Buffet Rule enacted would be beautiful.  I believe this might help to more fully embody an actual Democratic Progressive tax structure.

Indeed, I actually think an increased tax rate for all is the ultimate in wisdom.  Even Conservatives such as Commentator-Columnist Ben Stein and former Reagan Economic Advisor, David Stockman are in favor of this more realistic plan. President Eisenhower too would applaud this way of doing taxes.  You likely recall under Ike, the tax rate for wealthiest Americans was ninety-one percent.  Republicans are not alone in their support of a Buffet Rule.  Progressive policy wonks, such as Robert Reich, advocate for higher taxes over all.  Right, Left, and Middle, we might have a consensus.  I sincerely endorse such mutual sagacity.  

Many Economists regardless of political affiliation see the correlation…Services require salaries, supplies, and a tax structure that supports all that are needed to sustain the health of a nation.

However, this aspect of the State of the Union speech was, for the most part, the only point I applauded.  The Buffet Rule aside, overall the ways in which the President proposes we build a nation, for me, only furthers the folly.

I have long been troubled by the belief that we can eat cake endlessly; yet never buy the ingredients to make it let alone bake it.  Some may ask, “Where is the beef?” I yearn to learn where are the eggs needed to bring the cake into being.  For that matter, do we have any butter, flour, or milk?  As the President does, I ponder what is spilled.   It seems all our society thinks it takes to make batter, is sugar.

We want gas to power our cars.  However, we want the price to be low.  I loathe the idea that we might invest in more fossil fuels!  The process is quick for it is familiar.  Nevertheless, it is extremely dirty.  Quick and dirty is not as I desire.  Mother Nature tells us daily that she believes as I do.  Climate change costs us dearly; still, the President’s energy related positions push for more oil and gas.  Please allow me to offer a portion of a comprehensive Cornell University study.

The Economic Consequences of Shale Gas Extraction

The Boom-Bust Cycle of Shale Gas Extraction Economies. The extraction of non-renewable natural resources such as natural gas is characterized by a “boom-bust” cycle, in which a rapid increase in economic activity is followed by a rapid decrease. The rapid increase occurs when drilling crews and other gas-related businesses move into a region to extract the resource. During this period, the local population grows and jobs in construction, retail and services increase, though because the natural gas extraction industry is capital rather than labor intensive, drilling activity itself will produce relatively few jobs for locals. Costs to communities also rise significantly, for everything from road maintenance and public safety to schools. When drilling ceases because the commercially recoverable resource is depleted, there is an economic “bust” — population and jobs depart the region, and fewer people are left to support the boomtown infrastructure.

Congressman, as I listened to and read the State of the Union text, I cringed.  George W. Bush was all I saw and heard.  Mister Obama spoke of our energy policy and how investments in “clean power” would improve our economy.  I believe our continued investment in fossil fuels, foreign and/or domestic hurts us.  Be it income distribution, equal access to goods and services, or more importantly to me, the harm done to the planet, our continued commitments to natural gas, petroleum, “Clean coal,” and nuclear energy are anathema, as is the President’s education agenda.  

As energy does, education relates to the economy.  You may recall this an issue near and dear to me.  For as long as he has been in office, in respect to schools and learning Barack Obama baffles me.  He speaks of the need for creativity and curiosity in the classroom, and then quashes the possibility!  Often, Mister Obama refers to how teaching to the test is counterproductive to learning.  Yet, all that he and the DOE put in place are Race to the Top and Waivers. Programs.  Each encourages more and more examinations and commercialization!  

While the public is led to belief that the President understands why programs established under President Bush failed, it seems, in deed, this Head of State has only furthered the stress felt in schools.

In truth, I never understood why President Obama appointed Arne Duncan, a man whose work the business community and the Grand Old Party admired.  Again I think of George W. Bush and Jeb!  Economically we move further away from a Democratic Progressive system and closer to the regressive realities of privatization.  Public Schools are closed in favor of “Choice” Learning Centers.  Charters, while labeled public, more often drain dollars from the more egalitarian school system.  These institutions rarely provide the performance statistics promised.  Many, in reality, are privately run management firms.   Education is not their mission; earnings are!

We need only look at who is invited to the White House Education Round Tables.  Pedagogues are not welcome.  Their voices are intentionally absent from the conversation.  Influential “investors” sit with the President and his Secretary of Education.  These same persons now occupy our public schools.  Thus, economically speaking, education is now a growth industry!  

The President said in his speech, “For less than 1 percent of what our nation spends on education each year, we’ve convinced nearly every state in the country to raise their standards for teaching and learning, the first time that’s happened in a generation.”  I inquire Congressman, how do we evaluate the minimal cost to the federal government and the so-called rise?   Hmm?

In Obama’s Race to the Top, Work and Expense Lie With States:

By adding just one-third of one percent to state coffers, the feds get to implement their version of education reform.

That includes rating teachers and principals by their students’ scores on state tests; using those ratings to dismiss teachers with low scores and to pay bonuses to high scorers; and reducing local control of education.

Second, the secretary of education, Arne Duncan, and his education scientists do not have to do the dirty work. For teachers in subject areas and grades that do not have state tests (music, art, technology, kindergarten through third grade) or do not have enough state tests to measure growth (every high school subject), it is the state’s responsibility to create a system of alternative ratings.

In New York, that will have to cover 79 percent of all teachers, a total of 175,000 people. The only state tests for assessing teachers are for English and math, from fourth grade to eighth.

Yet, the President and Arne Duncan have persuaded the public and policymakers that the invisibles, learning and the effect a mentor has on our offspring, can be measured in a day, an hour, or on one single assessment.   I know not of you; however, in my life, even when I scored well on a test, the results did not reflect my learning.  Guesstimates, short-term memory, the fluke that is a coincidence, these are not calculated in our high-stakes assessments.  However if it were possible to accurately evaluate these, then perhaps the reliance on test scores might make some sense, although still very little.

I am reminded of a statement President Obama made in his speech last evening that I do agree with. “Every person in this chamber can point to a teacher who changed the trajectory of their lives.” I think every individual outside the Hall can also point to a Professor or Academic who transformed what would be. Yet, we punish our mentors when their students do not perform on command.

I cry for the young and the old.  In truth, tears flow for every American.  The reason, in a society such as ours, there is no reverence for humanity, nay-human health.  Congressman, please indulge me as I reflect on health care coverage.  President Obama stated, “That’s why our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a government program.”

Oh, my.  Once more regression is our nation’s reality.  May I present a bit to ponder…This quote is taken from an Economic Policy Institute Report.

Medicare Privatization: A Cautionary Tale

The private plans are only competitive because they play on a tilted playing field. When that is not enough, they resort to hard-sell tactics that take advantage of vulnerable seniors-practices that prompted an ongoing congressional investigation. They also create road blocks and traps that prevent seniors from being fully reimbursed for care.

Medicare privatizers spend a lot of taxpayer money lobbying Congress, and their story keeps changing. The original rationale for private plans was that competition would lower costs, so payments were capped at 95% of the average Medicare cost for each county. The plans still prospered by cherry-picking healthy seniors, a problem that was only partly abated through risk adjusting. Since it is now established that these plans are actually less efficient than the public one, the current claim is that they help minorities and other underserved groups, an argument that also has little merit, according to research by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.”

Oh Representative, I lived in California when Proposition 13 and the “No New Taxes” hymn were born.  Today, I realize through President Obama’s speech, this tune grows louder.  The nation, and our democracy die.  Free Enterprise thrives.

Having read to the end, I hope you will understand.  All the information I offer in my missive to you and so much more influenced my answer to your survey question Congressman.  “Did you like the ideas the President proposed for our economy during the address?” No, I did not.  I wonder; did you?

I look forward to future conversations.  May we discuss what for me is the greatest dilemma; The State of the Union divides us as do the plans the President proposed.

Sincerely . . .

Betsy L. Angert

January 25, 2012

Occupy Wall Street; Woes and Words

TrDwnWllStrtsAct

copyright © 2011 Betsy L. Angert.  Empathy And Education; BeThink or  BeThink.org

Occupy Wall Street?  I will not.  However, I am there in spirit.  I believe in the cause, the many grounds protesters have posited.  Countless Grievances, One Thread Howard Zinn stated this shared truth ever so succinctly years earlier, “It is not only Iraq that is occupied. America is too.”  Wall Street,Schools, Classrooms, Hospitals, and Banks, these “Occupations” have gone on for far too long. People in Zuccotti Park and at the Chase Manhattan Plaza understand as most Americans do.  The myriad movement reflects the ninety-niners thirst for dignity.  The cravings are deep.  

I  am one with the unemployed, the scholars, skilled, and service workers who only seek a job.  Independent Laborers and Union folks, your pain is mine. Private Industry and public institutions converted to corporate holdings have hurt me as they have you.  I too, have countless tales to tell.  Consultants, your woes are mine.  Gone are the days of companies being loyal to the workforce.  Pensions went with the wind.

401ks have replaced these for some.  More are less fortunate.  The statistics are startling.  What has occurred in the last year is more astounding. States Cut Public Pension Benefits In Massive Funding Shortfall.  Personal dollar deficits, I have known more than a few, as have those who physically Occupy Wall Street.

In spirit, I am you “Occupiers” of Wall Street.  Homeowners, Renters, and those who have lost a place to live, let alone the will to live, I relate. After a score and eleven years, I purchased my first home. I did so during the boom. The cost was great, the interest high.  I thought I could make do.  Times changed and so too did my circumstances.  Nonetheless, I soon discovered the Banks did not care.  Even employees of financial institutions chose not to lend a friendly ear.

I hear you “Occupiers.”  In many ways, on countless occasions, since Middle School, I have stood against the absurdity of Capitalism out of control.  The Military Industrial Complex is as the Privatization craze.  Each permeates and punishes society.  The powerful have used our nations as their playgrounds.  We see it in policies and practices.  Political realities only further the reason for your, my, our rants and rage.

Indeed, Corporate and Civic Complexes have brought about fear and loathing. Conjoined, these have left our nation’s people poorer.  Over and over again, Americans have done as President Eisenhower warned us against.  We did not “peer into society’s future” when we acted on greed and immediate gain.  When we allowed the affluent and those of authority to divest and divert funds necessary for the common good, we — you and I, and our government – did not “avoid the impulse to live only for today.” We plundered “for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow.”

Contrary to Eisenhower’s cautions, Americans “mortgage[d] the material assets of our grandchildren.” We did more than risk the loss of our “political and spiritual heritage.” We successfully vanquished what was ours, a “democracy” thought strong enough “to survive for all generations to come.”  Our country has “become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.”

The gloom and sense of doom felt by the masses who speak out is one I share, only the words differ.  We did not “avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate.”  That is why I ask for a reality once yearned for.  May we be “a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.”

Rather than “occupy” might we integrate ideas on an American Avenue, two or three; perhaps more.  Let us “Tear Down Wall Streets.” We need not infiltrate, invade, or emulate the ways of Wall Street.  There has been too much of this.  Internationally, monetary and military Industrial complexes “Occupy.”  We do not liberate, as is evidenced by Iraq.  Nor will we bring freedom to Afghanistan or Wall Street. We occupy.  

United States citizens speak of the German occupation of France, or of Europe. After World War II we spoke of Soviet-occupied Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and eastern Europe. It was the Nazis, and the Soviets, who occupied countries. The United States liberates all others from occupation. Indeed, today we are the occupiers.  The number of small, medium and large oversea military installations combined, as documented in the Department of Defense Base Structure Report (BSR) 2003 Report, totals at least 702. Bases, buildings owned and leased, as stated a decade ago . . .”Ongoing additions to the base structure, including in- transfers, are often not officially recorded until well after the decision.”

Indeed, in recent years alone, the number of occupations has grown substantially.  Some may say, we have been occupiers since settlers first colonized this land.  Tim Wise spoke of this “truth” only days ago.  Wise injects linguistics into the debate.   Language, the use and abuse, or might I say manipulation of a message, looms large in our lives.  I think of DoubleSpeak

“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. ~ George Orwell. [Author of 1984]

Be it Corporate Doublespeak, political, or philosophical jargon. Euphemisms expand. This land is your land. This land is my land?  What might the natives of this or any other territory think?

Might we reflect on the words, the wisdom, and our adopted ways?  “Occupy” Wall Street.  Instead, may we “Tear Down Wall Streets.” These exist everywhere in our country and outside our borders.  It is mused worldwide we live within an oligarchy.  Government Establishments and Corporate Enterprises, each and either, have been “Occupied” or “Liberated” [you choose] by an ideology that insists control must be granted to the few, the proud, the elite.  

The notion of all, equality, and as a collective, is void. Equality has been marked “canceled” on bills of fare. Fairness is far from our reality, for worldwide, the rich rule.

We see this in our schools. Privatization has long been in progress.  In 1995, the title appeared prominently, Public Schools: Make Them Private. Domination, the deed done, began decades ago in health care.  “Markets” are closed.  Economic and war policies are not “democratic.”  The question is, has democracy ever been in action. Certainly, Main Street attempted to bring social equality about.  However, classlessness has long been a cause never fully realized.

Thus, “Occupy” Wall Street, I rather not, thank you.  Oh, I intend to travel to the location, from New York to New Jersey.  I will stand on the streets and express my serious disco9ntnt.  From Connecticut to California, I will walk, fly, drive . . . I will strive to speak in support of our shared contentions.  North or South, I will be there.  Midwestern missions will be, is as mine.  

Indeed, I even now sit and take vigil.  I “Tear Down Wall Streets.” Still, I desire to do other than was done to me.  I will not “occupy.”  “occupations” are all that I disdain.  I would not wish to repeat the rape that is America’s history.  Violent destructive doings, be these in words, or in deed, are not me!

Thus, I invite you to do other than inhabit an institution or an ideology that had destroyed democracy.   “Democratization” might be nice; however, that word too has come to mean an occupation.  Integrate, perhaps?  Yet, to assimilate by force, or with the use of forceful language, is but an invasion. “Decolonize” what was captured, possibly?  Yet, I ask, can we grant independence to what never was truly ours . . . Wall Street, Schools, Medical Services, Banks?  

I will “Tear Down Wall Streets” regardless of the configuration.   Please join me; expand horizons so that all might see a glorious vision. . Together, we can and will reach beyond the sky.  

References and Resources . . .

businesscard.aspx

Shooting Safeguards. A Society Armed

GnSctyArmd

copyright © 2011 Betsy L. Angert.  Empathy And Education; BeThink or  BeThink.org

Once again, Americans are up in arms or perchance, better armed and dangerous.  Only little more than a week into 2011, citizens have had to confront their fears, feelings, all at gunpoint.  It began on a calm, clear Saturday.  In a Safeway Store Tucson parking lot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords held one of her customary Congress on the Corner events.  It was January 8, 2011.  Friends and admirers from each political Party turned out.  Suddenly, cordial chatter turned icy cold. gunshots shattered the calm.  People were slaughtered.  Some survived.   However, as a nation, we were all wounded.

Retorts followed.  Seemingly, a culture was changed, or was it?  Just as has occurred, many times in the recent past, people quickly took sides.  Blame was ballied about.  Solutions were also presented.  Some argued for stricter gun control laws.  Others used the occasion to validate a need for less restrictive restraints on gun ownership.  Persons who held a position similar to the most prominent victim proposed a need to protect themselves.

On January 14, 2011, Grand Old Party Representative, Louie Gohmer of Texas, Proposed a Bill that would allow members of Congress to carry guns on Capitol Hill.  Days earlier, after the infamous Tucson, Arizona  shooting, several congressmen vowed to keep the weaponry they already own closer to their chests.  In light of the recent event in Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords home District, one that cast a permanent dark shadow over the lives of many,  Utah Representative Jason Chaffetz expressed his firm belief, it would be best to bring his Glock 23 with him when he meets with constituents.  This long time gun-owner is not alone in his position.  Other members of Congress chimed in.  

Indeed, this distinctive stance is not solely a Republican posture.  Heath Shuler, a Democrat from North Carolina, Vice-Chairman of the House Sportsmen’s Caucus stated that he too would pack heat when on the city streets, even when he strolled the streets of a the highly secured Capitol.   Steve Cohen, another Congressman who sits on the Democratic side of the aisle offered his reflection.  “It’s not that I’m going to be like Wyatt Earp,” declared the Tennessee Representative.  However, he noted, he would reapply for his permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Questioned about lawmakers’ decision to take matters into their own hands, to carry concealed weapons, Terrance Gainer, the Senate’s Sergeant-At-Arms and former Washington, District of Colombia Police Chief, offered his concern.   Gainer told ABC’s “Good Morning America,” “I don’t think it’s a good idea,” The “peace officer” avowed, ”I don’t think introducing more guns into the situation is going to be helpful.”  Nonetheless, just as Educators did only a few years ago, Congresspersons stand strong against gun restraint.

Original © copyright 2006 Betsy L. Angert

School Shooting Safeguard; Arm Educators

In the last few weeks, [Fall of 2006], school shootings have dominated the news.   The frequency of these seems to be increasing.   People throughout the nation are panicking; what are we to do?   President George W. Bush spoke of this situation in his Saturday, October 7, 2006, radio address.   He proclaimed, “We will bring together teachers, parents, students, administrators, law enforcement officials, and other experts to discuss the best ways to keep violence out of our schools.”   Conferences have been called.   The problem has been discussed for years.  

President Bill Clinton convened such a forum in 1999.   Educators, policy-makers, law enforcement officials, and adolescent-development specialists came to the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study on May 21, 2002.   Each group was equally intent on investigating the causes and effects of Lethal School Violence.   In the symposiums, experts sought solutions.   Everyone wanted [and wants] to protect our progeny.  

At the time, programs were initiated; yet, the violence continued.   In the last month or more, we as a nation are wondering; is there no end?   Will our children, our Educators, we, as a society, ever be safe?

Citizens again ask how can we secure our schools and shield our offspring from societal harm.   Finally, an answer comes from a Wisconsin lawmaker.   Representative Frank Lasee proposed that Teachers and Administrators carry guns daily and use these when necessary.  “In the wake of school shootings in Wisconsin, Colorado, and Pennsylvania” he would “introduce legislation that would allow teachers, principals, administrators, and other school personnel to carry concealed weapons.”  At the time, the Republican Representative believed our communities will be safer if everyone were armed.

Unrelated To Gangs

We know that communities have long been concerned with gang violence.   However, what has occurred in recent years differs.   On January 29, 1979, individual outbursts came into our collective consciousness.   According to the Indianapolis Star, “Brenda Spencer, 16, opened fire with a .22-caliber rifle at an elementary school across the street from her San Diego, California home.   She killed two people and wounded seven because she `didn’t like Mondays.'”

Upon hearing this story, our country held its breath as it does now.   Jointly we release a communal sigh.   Still the violence increases as is evident in these last five weeks.   There is talk.   What measures can we take to guard against weaponry?

Cable New Network reported, metal detectors were introduced in educational institutions after a 1992 shooting.  

In 1994, the federal government began requiring school safety programs in an attempt to crack down on violence on school grounds.   Many schools introduced metal detectors to check for guns, knifes and other weapons . . . although the Supreme Court eventually overturned the federal requirements, most school safety measures remained in place.   In Los Angeles, California for instance, [as of 1997] all high schools still use some sort of metal detectors.

However, it is clear, these actions do not secure the premises.   Zero tolerance campaigns were invoked.   Violations are and were numerous.  

Parents, administrators, teachers, and staff were told to observe student behaviors; they were asked to attend to warning signs.   Discipline problems were considered predictors; yet, this was not always the case.   Offenders did not only come from within the school system, they enter and exist throughout society.   Witness the killings within the last month or more [before and during September 2006.]

Machines and Mandates

Whatever we choose to reflect upon, when looking at violence in our schools, our homes, or in our airports I ask us to bear in mind that traditional methods for preventing violence are not working.   I think we must look at why people do what they do.

Violent crime continues to be a major problem and I suspect this will continue as long as we look for simple solutions.   I observe, when we as a country, focus on machines and mandates as a means for deterring violence in schools and within society at-large, we ignore the violator.   I believe the life of the perpetrator is most telling. This is the key component in a crime that can be influenced and altered.   If we address it early enough and treat root causes sincerely and seriously we can make a difference.

More Are Killed

However, instead, we look at guns, knifes, box cutters, gels, powders, matches, lighters, and bombs as though these are the killers.   We work tirelessly to prevent these from entering the systems, schools, airports, office building, and prisons.   Rarely do we address the authentic reason for killings.   People and what goes on in their heads, hearts, and souls cause death.

I propose we look at life, at our daily existence and the stress our culture promotes, rather than hypothesize; how might we use technology and authority to control the minds and misdeeds of men and women.   I theorize if we assess the way in which we live and the life standards we choose to accept, then, we might be able to prevent these carnages.  

I request that you, dear reader, consider what passes for the “common wisdom.”   Is it sensible?   Please ponder accepted theories and simple solutions with me.   Then ask yourself, what might we do to truly change what comes?

On Monday, October 2, 2006, a deeply distressed man entered a one room Amish schoolhouse.   He excused all the male pupils and personnel.   He was interested in only the young female students.   It is not known whether the church-going milkman intended to molest the girls; though there is evidence to suggest that he did.   However, what is certain is that the perpetrator shot these little lovelies before taking his own life.   Pennsylvania schoolhouse killer Charles Carl Roberts IV revealed in a telephone call to his wife, at the age of twelve he molested two young relatives.   Events of 20 years past haunted the man throughout his life.   Guilt took Roberts’ life and the lives of several young innocent Amish girls.

Five days earlier, in Bailey, Colorado an armed drifter walked into Platte Canyon High School.   He then entered a classroom.   The transient demanded that all the men leave the area.   He wanted to be alone with the girls he corralled into a classroom.   According to a student and her mother, Duane R. Morrison seemed to prefer smaller, blonde girls.   This disturbed wanderer with his quarry of petite flaxen hair maidens proceeded to sexually assault some of the six young girls he held hostage.   Ultimately, he shot one before killing himself.   Some social scientists theorized `girls are the targets in school violence.

MSNBC News reports revealed, after the crime, “at their home in Tulsa, Oklahoma, Morrison’s stepmother said she and her husband, Bob Morrison, have no record of him being, having any trouble before.”   “We just know the way he was raised,” Billie Morrison said, declining to elaborate.  “How was he raised?   Some experts think the relationships established in the lives of the killers might offer answers.   In the series of recent rampages there is a seemingly notable consistency.  An article in the Christian Science Monitor observed . . .

“The predominant pattern in school shootings of the past three decades is that girls are the victims,” says Katherine Newman, a Princeton University sociologist whose recent book examines the roots of “rampage” shootings in rural schools.

Dr. Newman has researched 21 school shootings since the 1970s.   Though it’s impossible to know whether girls were randomly victimized in those cases, she says, “in every case in the US since the early 1970s we do note this pattern” of girls being the majority of victims.

A Complex Problem

Prior to these two incidents, the focus and fantasy was on troubled adolescents.   These were thought to be the persons responsible for such horrendous school crimes.   Some behavior experts hypothesized; violent young persons had been bullied in school.   They were browbeaten at home.   These youthful aggressors were tormented by their own inner struggles.   They act out after years of deep-seated frustration.  Might we consider the cause and effects of troubles early in life.

Forensic psychiatrist Keith Aldo says mental health problems, especially among young people, too often go ignored and untreated.   “Everybody in the class often knows who the troubled kids are.   Parents know.   Teachers know,” he says.   “And if anything we should know that there is a preventative bit of medicine, psychological medicine to be dispensed in our classrooms earlier than we have been doing.”…

He says unresolved issues can continue to haunt a child throughout life.   “The more that you can express your feelings of fear, the more that you can talk about your reactions to terrible events, the less that those events are going to be toxic to you later on.”

Aldo says airing such concerns helps build a stronger and safer community.   Kenneth Trump, president of National School Safety and Security Services, agrees.   He says the community must work at making schools safe places.   “It happens by making sure that the first and best line of defense is a well-trained, highly alert school staff and student body who are aware of changes in behavior of other students as well as strangers who are walking around in parking lots and the hallways of our schools.”

I believe the more recent incidents confirm the quandary has many causes.   The dilemma is not limited to youth acting out against their harassing, haranguing, or hounding classmates.   These incidents are not only a reaction to discrimination from peers.   Parents are not the central problem.   This transgression is as all others, complex.  

The complexities that cause violent crime in our nations schools are similar to those that create terrorism. Rex A. Hudson reflects in a report prepared under an Interagency Agreement for the Federal Research Division..

Terrorism usually results from multiple causal factors – not only psychological but also economic, political, religious, and sociological factors, among others.   There is even a hypothesis that it is caused by physiological factors, as discussed below.   Because terrorism is a multi-causal phenomenon, it would be simplistic and erroneous to explain an act of terrorism by a single cause, such as the psychological need of the terrorist to perpetrate an act of violence.

For Paul Wilkinson (1977), the causes of revolution and political violence in general are also the causes of terrorism.   These include ethnic conflicts, religious and ideological conflicts, poverty, modernization stresses, political inequities, lack of peaceful communications channels, traditions of violence, the existence of a revolutionary group, governmental weakness and ineptness, erosions of confidence in a regime, and deep divisions within governing elites and leadership groups.

International terrorists, sadistic student rebels, and lone executors have a common bond; society and stressors impact their lives severely.

Student’s killers are often exposed to frequent slights from peers or parents, just as some terrorists feel slighted by our treatment of their culture and religious practices.   These snubs are evident if society as a whole and those functioning within the system choose to recognize them.   The stress in young lives can be reduced or eliminated if we attend to these grievances quickly.

Frustration and Persecution

We might realize that lone shooters, those that walk into our schools also are victims of a fragile upbringing.   There are reasons that these solitary shooters might aim at young girls, blondes, or the most innocent among us.   Again, if we as a community choose to be aware of what we are creating for our children, we can save them before they become adult or adolescent killers.

Religious or political zealots, the defiant, defensive, and the righteous also are products of their environment.   They may act out against nations or peoples; still, the source of their rage is apparent if we choose to look for it.   Each of these executors feels persecuted and why not.

In a world where frustrations are ignored or attributed to authority figures, women, or circumstances beyond our control, there is much to feel frustrated about.   Students feel stuck in school, at home, or in lives that demand much of them and give little in return.   Adults, loners and cult followers alike, feel lost in the unresolved circumstances of their past and present.   They want to affect the future.   However, in the future, as in the present, and the past, people are not the focus.   Folly and failed systems are.

We evaluate preventive mechanized and legal measures.   We disregard the fact that these are not effective.

I propose we look at life, at our daily existence and the stresses our cultures promote.   I theorize if we assess the way in which we live, the life standards we accept, then, we might be able to prevent these mass and individual tragedies.

Can we as a nation protect ourselves from aggressors?   I contend, guns cannot prevent a crime.  Only if we face the genuine pain that prompts their reactive behaviors will our children, our Educators, and our communities be safe.

References For Reflections . .  .



businesscard.aspx

Doctor; Your Diagnosis. My Death



DrDgnssDth

copyright © 2010 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

Dearest Doctor, I have come to my senses.  Days ago, when you offered your diagnosis, I died.  No, not literally.  Had you done me in, I would not be here to write what I hope will help inform your bedside manner.  Well, in my case only the way in which you approach a patient who merely sits in an examining room chair near you is the concern.  You may recall our time together began so innocently. We sat down to review the results of annually scheduled blood-work.  I had not felt sick all year or on that day.  You had even expressed, it had been so long since we last saw each other.  You scanned the pages, and proclaimed, that I must have returned to my bulimic ways. My spirit perished.  I had done nothing of the sort!  Yet, you said you were sure I had.

The pain you inflicted killed what could have been a relationship built on trust.  Today, I realize your proclamation was but part of a pattern.  Indeed, you reminded me that during our last consultation, a year ago, you also decided that I must be near death.  In August 2009 you insisted that I arrange for an appointment, which you openly stated, would affirm your fears. I must be seriously ill. Yet, once that test was done, it affirmed that I was as I am better, than fine.

Upon further reflection, and after the telephone conversation I initiated hours after my appointment, I thankfully, feel more serene.  No, you did not change your diagnosis nay your assertion that I must be vomiting.   Still, the talk helped me, although it seemed to alienate you.  I wonder if you now have a sense of how I felt and feel since you pronounced me dead and a liar, or do you merely believe of me, “The lady doth protest too much.”

Might you ponder that my grievance is grounded.  Oh, how little you know of bulimia, and me.  In the two plus years we have had an acquaintance, I see you for maybe, ten minutes a visit.  Since only once did I come to your office for other than a check up, what you observed this week is true. I rarely visit.  When I do, you are booked.  Patients arrive back-to-back.  We chat for a bit, but not really.  All is said and done rapidly.  I wonder, might the speed of conversation and the shallow nature of a consultation affect your appraisal.  After all, you too are human; although from what you said to me today, it seems at times such as this you define yourself as a trained medical professional, more perceptive than a mere mortal.

During my most recent appointment you admitted, you did not even recall what I had shared so often; I disdain exercise.  I was never amongst the anorexic/bulimics who think they must work out endlessly. Only injuries incurred late in life took me to my current routine, a daily swim in the pool.

I know you recall that I swim, only because I often come dressed to swim.  Even that concerns you, exposure to the sun.  Do you remember that I switched to an indoor facility.  Probably not.   While the truth of the locale and my loathing exercise may not be memorable or visible in an office visit, what can be seen is a sign of bulimia.  My teeth.  

Doctor, did you notice what my Dentist and Dental Hygienist have?  My once translucent boney choppers are now denser.  The color has returned to white.  For so long, even when you and I first met, the hue was dark gray.  Other dental conditions were already on the mend when I first entered your sphere.  Deep groves, once etched into the enamel, gone.  With my tongue, or a look, I can tell, the surface is smooth once more.  As I said in our phone conversation, less than twelve hours after you declared me dead,   Charlene stated with delight, “Your teeth finally look alive.”

Funny. Charlene, my dental hygienist, detects a difference in my body and being since I left bulimia behind.  Yet, you are intent on my being ill.  Charlene sees and speaks of how my life without food benders and bile has helped me be healthier.  Yet, you dear Doctor, only see standards, the stats that you think are real, more real than me.  

You do not see, hear, or open your mind to who I might be.  I marvel as recall the day Charlene had expressed a doubt.  She offered, in Dental School professors taught the conventional wisdom.  Teeth do not substantially re-mineralize.  Enamel and density loss are permanent.  However, Charlene wonders aloud.   She has come to accept that what she learned may not be valid.  Months earlier she mused, “Well” after much assessment, “I have witnessed the metamorphosis.”  There is a change.  

Transformation from bulimia to health has occurred for Charlene, for me.  Then there is you, dear Doctor. Apparently, what was, will always be in your mind.  Oh, Doctor, if only you had truly engaged me in the past two years . Had you looked and listened or even spent more than a scant few minutes with me in any of our sessions, just maybe you would have learned that supposed facts and figures may not mean whatever it is medical professionals teach.  

Might you think to speak to me rather than seek the “expertise” of more and more specialists [sic] before you declare me to be on my deathbed?  I know not what to say.

I tried to talk to you, to share my reality, my family history, and myself.  My words fell on deaf ears. You so sweetly fight me at every turn.  When I worked to offer an analogous story, you scoffed.  Might I assume that you see me as less knowledgeable, credible, or just crazed.  Perchance, I might try to tell the tale again?  Perhaps, the read will help you to authentically relate.  

As I said, the day after you delivered your diagnosis I traveled to the dentist to have my teeth cleaned.  By the way, dental visits last for well over an hour and I go every few months.  Charlene and I talk the entire time.  This week, since I had just seen you and was so devastated, my exam and your evaluation were the topics of discussion.

Charlene smiled and stated she is all too familiar with Doctors such as you.  While she has had her own experiences her Mom’s was most worrisome to her.  While under the care of her Doctor, Charlene’s mother’s organs were forever damaged.   The Doctor thought it wise to bring this adult female’s blood levels to “normal.”  However, with age her heredity set in.   What had been usual for the patient was no longer as it was.  

Yes Doctor, I acknowledge that you listened to this story, for seconds, and then, abruptly interjected your disregard of my attempt to share personal accounts, or the details of my family history.  Doctor, you preferred the argument, “Charlene is not a Physician.”  Might you trust the words of others Physicians, those who have misdiagnosed me or correctly assessed my well-being?

Please indulge me.  Allow me to present a nonfictional narrative.  Eight years ago, after a serious automobile accident, an Orthopedic Surgeon told me I would not be able to walk for at least a half a year, probably more.  He assured me that one leg would be shorter than the other for the rest of my life.  I needed full bed rest for at least six months, maybe seven.  The specialist said he could not speak to the pain I had in my chest and ribs.  He saw nothing in the X-Rays.  Weeks later, another bone MD whom I thought it wise to consult, was shocked to discover my broken sternum and four fractured ribs.  

That Surgeon, I will call Doctor Thom, was more than a second opinion; he saved my leg, heel, my life.   Dr Thom told me that I needed to begin an exercise regime immediately!  He then showed me exactly what he wanted me to do as soon as possible.  While he concurred, I could not walk or bear even the slightest weight on my heel, I could get around on my hands and knees.  My father, relieved went to the store and purchased the best fluffy-filled cotton kneepads money could buy.

Dr Thom helped me realize that the pain in my chest was very real.  He helped me to feel safe, secure in the knowledge of what I could to.  Dr Thom spoke of a means for stability, and provided time frames.   Most importantly he attended to my needs, not as just another “patient,” but as me, Betsy!

Thankful that this physician asked of my history, and accepted that two past injuries necessitated a regular daily swim, I was able to feel comforted by his care.  Indeed, months before I was authorized to walk, with a promise from me that I would not place my leg on the ground, not even in water, Dr Thom prescribed a return to the pool.  Yes Doctor, he wanted me to swim unlike you who said, stop the swim or at least cut the time in the water done to near nil.  Fifteen minutes or less a day?  Doctor, have you read the research and recommendations for minimal daily exercise? Perhaps you have no desire to do other than prove yourself right.

For me, what is right is a healthy relationship with one’s body and other beings.  If only we had genuine caring, sharing exchanges.  I believe we do not.  In each of our talks, your trepidation for what you feel is my impending death, is inescapable.  It seems to shade your every diagnosis..

Doctor, I know you are not G-d. You do not have the power to give me life.  However, a professional such as you, can cause my demise.  The innumerable reports that document a patient’s passing at the hands of his or her physician cannot be ignored.  

Certainly, I may have over-reacted or reacted as any healthy person would to your decree; I lie or I die, possibly both.  Imagine my surprise, I entered your office the picture of health, and was pronounced a perishable commodity.   You said, were you to review my chart in a hospital, you would order a full body transfusion.  Until you were certain why results of the blood tests were so dire, you wanted me to see four specialists and a therapist.  A therapist?  

That statement alone spoke volumes; however it was a hush in comparison to the stated accusation.  You were concerned that I had returned to the world of bulimia.  Oh had you, or most any Doctor who diagnoses, what professionals call an eating disorder, experienced the thrill of leaving that past behind, you might understand how wonderful it is to have my life back.  

For years now, days, weeks, months, decades, devoted to food do not consume me.  Close to a decade has passed since I spent more time bingeing and purging than you do sleeping or working. Can you imagine? What might you feel if you were finally free of all that constrained your very being?

Oh Doctor, I know you cannot conjure up such a connection.  Were you able to relate to my reality you would not have said and done as you did.

You dismissed my words, my truth, all that I had learned, felt, and experienced in the twenty-five years and three months that I battled with the bulimia.  More significantly, you concluded that the many years since I last vomited were null and void.  In your infinite wisdom, you decided that a Doctor knows much more about an individual than the person, his or her self, does.

With few visits in our past, and little conversation, you know what is real for me?  You think practitioners who have never met me before will assess my health more accurately.    Based on what, more standards of “normal.”

Your counsel crushed any sense of a connection.  Your stated distrust of me is as a surgical knife; it cuts to the core.  When a Doctor doubts a patient, the effect is profound.  At least it has been in my experience.  However, it seems you are not truly interested in my experience or that of others.  Oh, how I wanted to explain my truth when we spoke on the telephone today.  Your response, “He, she, or I am not a trained medical Physician.” may have cured me of that desire.

However, happily I was able to sneak in one thought whilst we chatted.  A Doctor I am acquainted with has often expressed, medical school is like a technical college.   Practitioners and Surgeons are analogous to Mechanics.  For each, diagnosis is the greatest challenge.  An educated guess, or “evaluation” only captures what is typical.  You offered no thought on what another Physician pronounced his truth.  Perchance, you are still of the mind that you know what you know.  

As an Educator and an observer of humanity, I share what I believe.  Knowledge is not power!  Empathy empowers.  If only you chose to be empathetic, to consider what is beyond book knowledge. Perhaps, then, people, patients, might be real to you rather than fall into one or two categories. Terminal or test-proven fit as a fiddle.

Dear reader, you may wish to peruse Chapters One through Seven. Please do. These reflective diaries discuss my life as an anorexic, bulimic, a person.

Or Similar Discussions . . .

Reference for review and reflection . . .

Santa Claus Has Come To Health Care Reform



Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy



copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

“Tis the season to be Jolly” This was the sentiment expressed by President Barack Obama.  The actual words were, the health care Bill passed on Christmas Eve was “the most important piece of social legislation since the Social Security Act passed in the 1930s.” Together with the proposed regulations our Representatives approved weeks ago, citizens of this country can rest assured “the toughest measures ever taken to hold the insurance industry accountable” will soon be law. This would be wondrous news if only the legislation brought joy to the land or authentic health care coverage to the American people.  

Millions muse; it will not.  The American people are reminded of the professionally wrapped gift boxes left under the tree or stashed on a shelf near a Menorah, Kinara, or near the Fanouz, These too, may glitter like gold.  Still, the contents can be as lackluster as the new directive, meant to better manage America’s medical system, would seem to be. Whether we celebrate traditional holidays or only observe those who do, most of us have learned, all is not as it appears to be.  

Sure, some may wish to reassure the public in the same way they would if a lad or lass learned that Mommy and Daddy not Saint Nicolas, bought the presents, and they will return what the tot thought a disappointment.  The conference committee has yet to meet. Congress seems posed to impose initiatives, that establish every individual must be insured.  Allowances will be made for those who cannot reasonably afford medical coverage.  Only Americans who experience an extreme hardship will qualify for government assistance. For the masses, a substantial financial penalty (2 to 2.5 percent of a persons income) will be charged to citizens who violate the mandate.  

People who now think themselves comfortably ensconced in an employer paid policy may be fine with the bequest, for now.  However, once they learn, what they thought beautiful ribbons and bows are strings attached to the package, sorrow might set in.  If a forty percent [40%] proposed excise tax is adopted almost two-thirds of the employers recently surveyed by Mercer, a benefits consulting firm, said they expect to reduce employee benefits rather than pay the levy.  

Nevertheless, an ebullient Barack Obama asserted Americans need only  Trust us.”  The White House is as Santa’s Workshop.  Good gifts are made here.

The American people are skeptical.  Today, throughout the land many wonder whether they can trust that life is lovely in this holiday season or that the President can produce as he promised.  The country’s Chief Executive appears certain he can; indeed, he has.  The Obama family delayed their traditional Christmas departure to Hawaii until the President was sure his health care reform plan was safely secured in the Senate.  Sadly, for common citizens, this legislation was as a Christmas stocking full of coal.  It was not wondrous or reason for a celebration.  For the American people rest and relaxation was not possible.  The sense of good cheer was lost.  It went the way of Single Payer and the public option. Average Americans had awaited the treats President Obama pledged to provide.

Few recognized that in 2003, the precedent was established.  Then, in an Illinois campaign speech, in front of an AFL-CIO chapter, the candidate declared his dedication, “I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.” (applause) “I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see.”

All those years ago, just as Mister Obama had done more recently in his presidential bid, after he offered reason to believe in the best of possibilities, did he dash all hope.  He articulated his angst and said, “But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”   Before Americans knew him well Barack Obama “presented” reasons that passed for resolve.  As his momentum increased so too did the mission.  Give the gift of hope and then withdraw it.  

It was September 7, 2009.  As President Obama stood with union members, who gave him an enthusiastic reception at Cincinnati’s Coney Island Park, he stated his commitment “I continue to believe that a public option within the basket of insurance choices would help improve quality and bring down costs.”  This pronouncement was not an exact proposal offered for execution.  

Later, Senator Obama espoused the need to insure everyone affordably in Iowa, at the The Heartland Presidential Forum.  A Plan for a Healthy America appeared prominently at his website during his Presidential bid.  Even after he took residency in the White House, Mister Obama sang the praises of the “public option.”  He did so in a speech given in front of a confrontational crowd, the American Medical Association.  

These stalwart supporters remembered what the President has now presumed was but history buried long ago.  In a Cable News Network interview, aired on Super Tuesday Primary Election Day 2008, Senator Barack Obama stated, “If a mandate was the solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody buy a house.”

The Presidential aspirant articulated what millions of Americans avow; “The reason they don’t have a house is they don’t have the money. So, our focus has been on reducing costs, making it available. I am confident that if people have a chance to buy high quality health care that is affordable, they will do so. And that’s what our plan does, and nobody disputes that.”  

No one, except perchance, President Barack Obama.  After less than six months in the White House, the once seeker, and speaker of a much-admired truth, disputed his own plan.   Nonetheless, just as little ones do during the holidays, those devoted to the dream retained hope.  

Whilst Mister Obama called the public option his preferred choice and stressed his want to ensure broad coverage, he has never demanded that it be part of a final bill. The need for competition, or a choice other than private insurers policies would be nice, however, Mister Obama did not require these.

Earlier and now again, Barack Obama waved the possibility that pleased the American people, and then did not fully work to make the dream come true.  

As summer began, and the spring was no longer evident in Barack Obama’s steps.  It was then that Obama first explained he was Open to a Mandate on Health Insurance. Independents and the more Progressive began to understand; the Emperor wore no clothes.  Perchance, it was thought by the more enchanted, Santa’s bright red suit was only a bit soiled, stained, and worn

One need only ponder the duality of words dispensed.  President Obama acknowledged that his acquiescent approach to health care legislation had likely been a mistake and that he had “probably left too much ambiguity out there” by allowing the House and the Senate to draft bills.  Yet, just as the mythical reindeers and the Claus’, Mister Obama has chosen to do nothing other than let the narrative lie.

Definitive details, or even a refined design, were not outlined.  Not in the Presidential campaign; nor from the halls of the White House.  He did venture out on occasion and give voice to his signature issues: hope and change.

However, only days before the President bequeathed his gift on the American people, in the White House, President Obama defended himself against abundant criticism.  In an Oval Office interview with The Washington Post, Mister Obama rejected the notion that he has compromised too much to secure health-care reform. He said that it was not true that he anointed Congress the sole authority to pursue what was thought to be his broad legislative agenda.

In the dialogue, Obama vigorously sanctioned the soon to be health care reform law. He said it was just as he pledged to deliver.  Like Santa Claus, President Obama had looked at his list.  He had checked it twice.  The President postured that he was not naughty.  Indeed, he had been very, very nice.  Mister Obama had no misgivings, and offered I am  “not just grudgingly supporting the bill. I am very enthusiastic about what we have achieved.”

“Nowhere has there been a bigger gap between the perceptions of compromise and the realities of compromise than in the health-care bill,” Mister Obama said. “Every single criteria for reform I put forward is in this bill.”  Challenged by the claims that he had not done as he vowed to do, the President stated,  “I didn’t campaign on the public option.”

With an abundance of contradictions many muse, that, just as children, the American people have been carefully led through the Santa lore, Americans slowly and surely came to believe in “change.”  Barack Obama, as a Senator swayed the malleable minds of those desperate to believe in a dream.  He offered opportunities.  He showed us why it was vital that we serve someone or a cause greater than ourselves.  

As a candidate, Mister Obama presented the American people with possibilities.  As he spoke, unimaginable sugarplums that would satisfy a nation hungry for health care improvements danced in the heads of voters.   On Christmas Eve morning, as Mister Obama celebrates his transformative triumph, citizen cry out. “Is this the health reform Obama promised?” The answer is indubitably “No!” What has been passed in the Halls of Congress is not even close to the change Americans were led to believe in.

In an Albuquerque town hall, August 2008, heard the poised United States Senator speak.  Then, and there, he was eager to please, He offered “If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,”   However, he added, there is a distinction between his desire and what he would do.

Little more than a year earlier, Candidate Obama concluded what he now says he never did.  With circumstances as they are, there would be widespread opposition.  In his days as a candidate, Barack Obama deduced; we must tread lightly and carry the big stick called change.  Such was the pattern on the path to the Presidency.

The “fierce urgency of now” was prominent in the Obama rhetoric Mister Obama proclaimed. “People don’t have time to wait,” Obama said, “They need relief now.”  Then, in the same breath, careful not to claim that he could convert the current health care behemoth, the Presidential challenger relented. , “So my attitude is let’s build up the system we got, let’s make it more efficient, we may be over time-as we make the system more efficient and everybody’s covered-decide that there are other ways for us to provide care more effectively.”

Back then that was the rationalization,  believers bellowed with Barack Obama.  There is a Santa Claus.  Fairy tales can come true.  It can happen to you if you are young at heart and elect Mister Obama to serve as President.  The public trusted the person who now occupies the Oval Office, when he said we will not fail.  There will be change “Not this time.”  

With words warped in time and space, the thought is President Barack Obama has become practical, or perchance he is as he always was, anything but Santa.

Yes, there is a Santa Claus?  Reality, Reform, References and a Skewed Reality  . . .

Kill The Health Care Bill



Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy



copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

Kill the Bill or be killed by the Senate Health Care Reform Bill.  That is the choice Americans face.  Death looms large in the United States today. The Single-payer health care plan died in the Senate.  Bernie Sanders, Senator from Vermont, and the father of the more recent Single Payer Plan “which eliminates the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste, administrative costs, bureaucracy, and profiteering that is engendered by the private insurance companies” was brought to his knees on the floor of the Senate.  As he tried to cope with the loss of common sense and what the citizens crave, reluctantly Mister Sanders acknowledged the proposal did not have the votes to pass.  

Former supporter of the President’s medical insurance improvement agenda, Doctor, Presidential candidate, Democratic Party Chair and former Governor Howard Dean asserted, Kill The Senate Health Care Bill  It is better to Start Over.  Correspondent Keith Olbermann, who months ago offered a heartfelt sympathetic commentary in favor of the reform, also suggested that the legislation would be better left alone.  

Former supporter of the President’s medical insurance improvement agenda, Doctor, Presidential candidate, Democratic Party Chair and former Governor Howard Dean asserted, Kill The Senate Health Care Bill, it is better to start over.  Correspondent Keith Olbermann, who months ago offered a heartfelt sympathetic commentary in favor of the reform, also suggested that the legislation would be better left alone. The American people, weary, worried, and unable to find work that pays, do not have the energy or enthusiasm to join in the ostensibly futile fight for the right to choose a medical plan,  Common folks, whose conditions are critical,  have not provided the passion necessary to reach their Congressional Representatives.  Those most in need of improvements are overly exhausted.  Economic woes weigh heavily on their shoulders. Besides, average Americans are not afforded access to the Halls of Congress or the President.  Only Insurance and Pharmaceutical Lobbyists, those with lots of loot, can persuade the policymakers.  Thus, the forces of obstructionists rule and regulate.  

Aware of this essential truth, Senator Tom Coburn, Republican from Oklahoma, whose major contributors benefit from the status quo, exercised his prerogative.  The well-funded friend of insurers required Senate clerks to read the 767-page plan aloud.   An effectively empty chamber, for three hours, echoed with the utterance of 139 pages until, Bernie Sanders could no longer take the pain.  With much sorrow, the Senator from Vermont surrendered.  Once again, the American people are sacrificed.  This was not the first time that the electorate was forsaken.

What the President thinks would be his most glorious accomplishment, health care reform, was abandoned right from the beginning.  Before the seed was firmly planted and a foundation for changes in the health care system was formed, the father of the comprehensive change movement chose to forego his commitment.  Never actively involved, admittedly, Mister Obama turned the keys over to Congress and a clamorous Conservative community.

President Obama acknowledged on Wednesday that his hands-off approach to health care legislation had likely been a mistake and that he had “probably left too much ambiguity out there” by allowing Congress to take the lead in drafting a bill.

Mister Obama held on to hope and dreams.  Yet, he did next to nothing to bring these to fruition.  Observers, stated, months ago, in August, President Obama made a Mistake when he left health care reform in the hands of the House, the Senate, and people with the interest, investment, time, and money to massacre true health care reform.

It was not always like this, or so some believed.  Six years earlier, at an AFL-CIO, the now President definitively declared, “I happen to be a proponent of single-payer, universal health care plan.”  At the time he said, before we could achieve, we must not only conceive, we must act.  As a United States Senator, Barack Obama audaciously asserted, “We may not get there immediately.”  He proposed that, “First we need to take back the White House.  We have got to take back the Senate.  We have to take back the House”  Done.  Done. Done, and then . . . Barack Obama has deliberately left undone, Health Care for All. That was thought to be the original objective.

Today, the uninsured, underinsured, and overcharged Americans are left to wonder. The realization is rampant, as are the statements submitted by members of Congress. Major modifications to our medical system were dead on arrival.  The one person given the power to put a forceful agenda forward killed revision, or the vision.  Barack Obama did not use his persuasion acumen.  Nor did he deliver as he promised and as the American people desire.

Regardless of the abundant evidence, the public longs for reform, the President did not heed the call.  Perchance, once in Office he forgot that on October 19, 2003, an ABC News, Washington Post Poll affirmed Growingg Health Care Concerns Fuel Cautious Support for Change.  “In an extensive ABC News/Washington Post poll, Americans by nearly a 2-1 margin, 62- 33 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system.”  

Perchance, all these years later, Mister Obama dismissed what he had observed, at the time. Then, he stated, the Executive and Legislative Branches of government were not compassionate enough to provide the people with what they craved.  The implication in oft-heard Obama rhetoric was, someone who could feel the pain of an average American, such as a President, Barack Obama would give the people what they wanted and what the still yearned for.

It is impossible to know what drives his decision to abandon virtually all that he once advocated. for,  yet, as he wields the weapons that does the patient in, or does not, today, Mister Obama tells lawmakers not to allow disagreements to kill health reform,  He himself seems oblivious to what he has destroyed. The possibility of real reform was in his hands.  Yet, he chose not to give birth to the program he once promoted and pledged to support.

“I, out of an effort to give Congress the ability to do this thing and not step on their toes, probably left too much ambiguity out there, which then allowed opponents of reform to come in and fill up the airwaves with a lot of nonsense,” said the President.  

The American people, left forlorn, hopeless, and unable to believe in the change they had once embraced and the change candidate they elected could only respond. “Kill the Bill, or be killed by the Senate Health Care Reform Bill.”

The Bill.  The Blunders . . . .

Prescriptions



Lieberman: I Won’t Vote for a Health Care Reform Bill with Medicare Buy-In, Public Option

copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

On the eve of what was thought to be, perhaps, a sign of progress in the six-decade long health care reform debate, joblessness mounts.  Depression increases.  The intensity of illness is on the rise.  Few if any can afford to visit a doctor.  People are unemployed, under-employed, and if an individual has an income, hours are reduced.  There is barely enough to pay the most basic bills. let alone insurance premiums.  Yet, staffers have been asked, no told, by business owners, workers must pay a larger portion of their health care coverage.  Bosses bellow in unison; with profits down, certainly the corporations cannot continue to offer perks.  Medical indemnities are a privilege, not a guarantee.  If you feel ill, if you are injured, take two pills and call no one in the morning.  

Do not dare telephone the Democrats.   They have made their peace with the health care crisis. Republicans will not respond to the cries of a public, and Independents are, as you know independent! The decree; health care reform was dead on arrival.

Each of these bodies assures the American people.  A prescription for the cost of exceedingly high health care in America, well essentially, there is none.  Any cure will be but a compromise.  That is the way Congress works.   Representative are comfortably covered.  Senators are too.   The American people can suffer, and they do.

Universal Single Payer, Not for Profit programs as an idea was scrapped before it ever reached the Halls of Congress.  The possibility of a Public Health Insurance Option?  Tea Party protesters, who were persuaded by advertisements bought and paid for by Pharmaceutical companies, Insurers, and an Ex-Chief Executive Hospital  Entrepreneur eliminated any hope for that opportunity.  

Should the poor, the poorly covered, or the persons who cannot possibly pay for policies become sick, magnate, underwriters, and makers of medicines will worry not.  Illness and accidental injury will add to their shared incomes.  Drug manufacturers, those who assess risks, and moguls will all be fine.  Each will be financially made more comfortable if nothing changes.  Senator Joseph Liebermann, Independent, [in name only] “Democrat,” from Connecticut will also be firmly fixed if prospects for reform are dashed.

For less than a week, there was chance, the slightest potential, that the ever-popular Medicare program  would be  expanded.  While Medicare For All was another unfulfilled dream, swiftly dropped from the Congressional debate, it was proposed that the program as it exists today, could be enhanced.  The thought was persons ages 55 through 64 could begin to collect benefits if only the Democrats and Republicans agreed to this compromise.  That would help twelve percent of Americans who are without health insurance.  That amounts to 4.3 million people, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Yet, as of late, Monday, December 14, 2009, the word was that Medicare Buy In Plans may also be dashed.  Senator Lieberman would see to that.  On the weekend, the Connecticut independent Democrat, indicated he would not vote for it.  Tonight, a closed-door meeting was held, or perchance, the “Progressive” Party was held hostage from within the Chamber.  

Mister Lieberman understands that the majority  cannot move without his support.  The American people will not procure a health care reform Bill unless Joe votes for, rather than against any proposal.  

Some consider what might have motivated the Senator.  Granted, Connecticut has the highest U.S. concentration of insurance jobs.  However, the Senator pledges, this, and ample contributions from these corporations, do not play a role in his decision.  Lieberman says, he is concerned solely for the citizens of this country.

Regardless of what is true for the Connecticut Senator, the expansion of Medicate depends on him.  Hence, the Democrats relent.  Those who most desire a radical transformation have resigned themselves to the reality, without Joe, resolutions are a “no go.”

As he exited the Monday evening meeting, Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana was heard to murmur, “If dropping the Medicare expansion is necessary, that’s what should be done.”

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia said that it was not yet clear if there would be enough votes to pass the bill, but that he believed Democrats would rise to the challenge. The American people wonder as they ponder all that has occurred so far.

Meanwhile, with the memory of a breakthrough behind us, the number of unemployed grows.  Misery and melancholy amongst the masses multiplies.  infirmity increases, and wounds go unattended.  Time with a physician is thought too pricey.  People are out of work, without adequate wages, and earnings have eroded.  Essentials are expensive and many have been eliminated. Dollars for insurance dues?  Only Congressmen and woman can afford those, or the time to dilly-dally with the destiny of those who long ago lost the power to govern.  Thus, the prescription remains the same.  Take two pills, or none, and call no one in the morning.

Health Care Reform, and the Reality of Party Politics . . .

Common Sense Health Care; Individualism or the Commonweal

CmmnSns

copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

Democrats dance in the streets and declare success.  An ABC News-Washington Post poll released on October 18, 2009, found that only twenty percent of the population defines themselves Republican.  Progressive assert this result will work in the their favor if the public option is to pass.  However, the now ecstatic portion of the electorate discounts the “disconnect” discussed in the aforementioned study and also addressed in a Pew Research Center report published only a week earlier.  The overjoyed overlooked the Independents (42%), the leaner’s, Left and Right (39%), and the less than inspirational number who proclaim themselves proud Democrats (33%).   For these individuals, the topic of health care reform is a complex issue.  Trust in Congress is near nil.  People are engaged in the subject, albeit a bit overwhelmed.  Sixty-six percent (66%) say they do not understand the proposed policies.  Personal matters move most people, more so than Party politics does.  Possibly, that is the problem, or the predicament that precludes authentic medical insurance reform in America.

Health care concerns consume every American and $1 out of every $6 [six dollars] citizens and the country spends.  Currently, in the United States, 17.6 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) is devoted to medical costs.  In 2007, a national study, revealed more than sixty-two percent of bankruptcies were the result of expenditures related to illness and injury.  This total reflects a twenty percent increase in financial defaults due to medical bills since 2001.   Eighty percent of the persons who filed insolvency claims had health insurance.

Nevertheless, countless citizens cry our; our current health care coverage system is the “best in the world.”   Several of those who think medically speaking, the American people are not well-served say reform would make matters worse.  All crave what they believe to be common sense.  However, there are as many definitions of good judgments as there are people, politicians, pundits, and regular people.  Personal preferences have power over our opinions.  Perchance that is why so many believe “common sense” in the health care coverage debate is crucial.

When Senator Max Baucus, and the Finance Committee he chairs, unveiled their version of a Bill, they titled the remedy a common sense cure.  However, hours before the measure passed, uncommonly candid assessments appeared.  “Unfortunately, the bill would leave 17 million citizens and legal residents without insurance in 2019.”  Authentic appraisals frequently conflict with assertions.  Consider the notion called common sense.

For months, in town halls, tea parties, and at kitchen tables nationwide talk of health care reform triggers cries for “common sense.”  America’s Chief Executive asserts a need for it.  Cable News Correspondents and Commentators, such as Glenn Beck calls for it.  Magazine Publisher Larry Flynt offered his thoughts on the topic. Columnists Peggy Noonan states, “Common Sense May Sink ObamaCare.”

Entrepreneurs’ enter the fray. Whole Foods Chief Executive Officer, John Mackey addressed the common sense axiom as it relates to our wellbeing.  “Every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.””  Then, there are the American people.  They too are very familiar with what passes for lucid logic.  However, few ponder the variance in veracities.  The subject that supersedes sound judgment is the slant, “Individualism or the Commonweal.”  The two contradictory “ideals” together in a single mind cause conflict, or cognitive dissonance.

Recent Realities

Still, some “truths” remain solid.  Statistics show the rise in health care costs is steady.  Those families and individuals unable to acquire insurance for medical treatments has also increased.  Only two short years ago, measured data from the U.S. Census Bureau showed that there were 46 million Americans without health insurance in 2007.  Newer research released by the North Carolina Institute of Medicine stated that in January 2009 almost 52 million Americans were uninsured.  These numbers do not take into account the persons with inadequate coverage or those whose policies are canceled retroactively.  .  Recission is profitable and the preferred practice for many insurers.

Cancelation of policies is a popular notion. Employers consider personal compensations to be of greater value than the health of their personnel or the wellbeing of the common folk.  Perhaps the philosophy in practice explains why, in late 2007, Employer-provided insurance continues to decline.  Poverty is on the rise.  The median income is less than in the past.  Job-based health insurance has become but a dream.

Employee contracts are also now easily eliminated.   In a fifteen-month span, from February 2008 through May 2009, employers have shed 5.1 million jobs.  Many of these laborers cannot expect to be re-hired.  Professionals and business personnel are not exempt from these numbers.  In what was once the most prosperous country on the globe, the losses are great.

Only six months ago, Americans learned, in a single month “more than 320,000 Americans lost their employer-provided health insurance.”  This “amounts to approximately 10,680 workers a day.”  The authors of an investigation analysis avow, “Middle Class families, frequently collapse under the strain of the health care system that treats physical wounds, but inflicts fiscal ones.”   Possibly, that is why in Common Sense 2009 Larry Flint argues, “Wall Street, the mega-corporations and the super-rich . . . decide our fate.”

Thus, the average American struggles with a sense of destiny.  Those who think themselves stable and secure, gainfully employed and covered, are happy with the current health care system.  For the few who believe they are solid citizens, the uninsured as merely careless.  Their thought is, control is best when it is in the hands of commoners with common sense.  Hence, with posters held high in their hands countless have chosen a path of civil disobedience.  Protesters rally.  Everyday people rant.  Collectively, throngs of citizens who oppose the “ObamaCare” chant words first penned by writer Thomas Paine.  However, much is lost in the translation.

Thomas Paine; Reflections From the Past

Essayist, Pamphleteer, Radical, Inventor, and intellectual Philosopher Paine, some say, is the only voice of reason. Voters resolve Paine speaks to the rights of individuals.  He understood and addressed the necessary apprehension for Administrative rule.  Rarely remembered or recited is the founder’s resolve to embrace an elected Legislative and Executive Branch.

In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest, they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought.

A thousand motives will excite them thereto, the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labor out the common period of life without accomplishing any thing.  This necessity . . . will point out the necessity, of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue.

Perhaps, in our shared hours of physical and fiscal pain we might wish to recall the words Paine penned when the New World was young, rather than rely on what in recent years has become the New World Order.  Our forefather, Thomas Paine stated a need for government,.  He understood; human frailties, such as greed, necessitate rules and regulations.  The role access to authentically adequate medical treatments plays in the broader community, would not have been lost on a man who recognized we all share responsibility for societal ills.

Paradigm of Perception; Thomas Paine Text Transformed

Today, those who rant against an official health care policy reason that in this republic elected officials are the enemy.  A person has rights, they shout. People who rage in opposition to plans that would transform the insurance cartel frequently quote Thomas Paine as though he would have supported their contentions, “We are all responsible for our own lives.”

Individuals intolerant of government have a great support system.  The Press, who loves to stir the pot, pours out prose to incite.  Glenn Beck, who thinks himself inspired by the original work of Thomas Paine makes “A Case Against an Out-of-Control Government.” This independent maverick ignores the words written by the man he, and other anti-Administration protagonists, thinks a prophet.   Perchance, the Broadcaster missed the passage,

“Many circumstances have, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all lovers of mankind are affected, and in the event of which, their affections are interested., is the Author.”

A fondness for one’s fellow man is rarely found in Mister Beck’s rhetoric.  Indeed, he has arguably fueled the flame of fury, divided the people, and contrary to the case for a central government, Glenn Beck has ignited a fire in defiance of the Paine doctrine.  In the name of a need to preserve and protect the public’s rights, the modern Author misconstrued Paine’s original text.  Announcer Beck has chosen individualism. He ensured that his economic future is secure and rejected the reality of the commonweal.

Writer Peggy Noonan, on the other hand while not a supporter of causes that advocate for the common welfare, did at least speak of the public as a whole.  She muses; American’s are reluctant to accept reforms.   “Resistance” explains the disdain for a policy change.  Countrywide the mood has been altered.  “The crash gave everyone a diminished sense of their own margin for error. It also gave them a diminished sense of their country’s margin for error. Americans are not in a chance-taking mood.” Perhaps, Ms Noonan is [politically] correct.  Ostensibly, it would seem the former Ronald Reagan speechwriter is “right.”

Today, few Americans have faith.  What they once thought was common sense has proven not to be the case.  The people trusted what earlier Administration’s proclaimed.  However, contrary to what a past President and authoritative candidates said, all was not well in the United States. The Economy (was not) Strong Enough to Handle Turmoil.   The number of uninsured Americans increased by nearly 8 million during the Bush Administration.  Perhaps, cognitive dissonance is contagious.

The Commonweal Crumbles As Individualist Chide

Citizens live in a country.  The American people reside in communities, and yet, most are concerned with only me, myself, and I.  People ponder their personal circumstances, and those of their corporations.  What is truth for persons in the business world affects us all.

No longer willing to believe in government, let alone a new Administration, proprietors who invested in smaller companies think to save themselves from Federal control.  Shop owners say they do not want Uncle Sam to oversee or own insurance options.  For these tycoons, competition in the private insurance industry is preferred.  As individuals these Chief Executives ignore the veracity that they too will pay for the pain they reap onto the public and their personnel.  The cost to companies will be nearly $2.4 trillion dollars for workers health care costs in the next decade.

The decision to emphasize earnings will have other effects. The Congressional Budget Office concluded “Employers who offer to pay for health insurance pay less in wages and other forms of compensation than they otherwise would, keeping total compensation about the same.”

The phenomenon known as “job lock” is also often lost in critical conversations related to health care reform.  The American people, supervisors, and subordinates are disconnected from the details until the day when thy suddenly are affected or afflicted.  A healthy staffer rarely thinks of the time when he or she might become ill or be injured and feel imprisoned by a job that provides health care benefits.   Professional passageways may be closed when insurance coverage becomes more important than the quality of life.  Nor, does a vigorous staffer remember medical care coverage can be retroactively removed.

Recipients Receive Government Medical Care and Reject Reform

Recipients of Medicare also disregard associations.  Rather than think of the generations they gave birth to people who benefit from the Federal plan speak loudly of their opposition to government managed health care programs. This seems contrary to common sense,, since these same individuals are joyous with what they receive.  This dichotomy offers little but a larger puzzle.  Where is the Common Sense? Many love what they have and loathe the possibility that others may profit from a similar or identical program.  

In America, our countrymen have adopted an alternative democracy, one devoid of universal concerns.  Unlike centuries ago, when a now popular Pamphleteer professed the need for a collaborative collective, in recent decades, by design, Americans have come to think of “me” first. Citizens are critical of the text that advocates for the commonweal, while they embrace its original author, Thomas Paine.

How might this have occurred?  Children in the “United” States no longer study civics. The subject has been removed from schools curriculums..  The cost of such classes was thought too high. The lessons were not learned at home.  Parents had to pay the price for a culture that does not cultivate a strong sense of community.  Much of our common history, and perchance, common sense has been lost.

Awareness for the predicament of our fellow Americans is absent.  Frequently,, people in this “affluent” country are detached from what they rather not believe exists.    Prosperous people, those who are, for now, content with their health care coverage, believe that those who lack medical insurance are impoverished.  The general public presumes people who do not work are by choice without coverage. Few can fathom what occurs when a free clinic opens its doors for a day.  In Houston, thousands of employed individuals turned out in search of medical treatment that they could afford.

Salvage Common Sense

If Americans are to embrace common sense as they say they wish to, we, the people must decide.  Does duplicity define us?  Will we choose to work as one; or we once again serve only our self-interest.  

Reform can expand the options for all and sacrifice none.  If Americans again hold dear the notion of the social equality, some citizens could state, I am happy with my employer-provided health care plan.  Others may prefer to opt for a government program.  A few could conclude, I will cover myself, eat well, exercise regularly, and escape most every illness.  It matters not which plan individuals choose.  When we work together we serve the commonweal and act on the axioms Thomas Paine set forth.

In America, should we decide to conserve the commonweal, retain consumption as the rule, establish that indeed we are rugged individualists, or reform our ways.   Will Americans waste not and want not?  Could the original thought transcribed in Common Sense once again be our greater truth? What will 2009 bring; more rants, rallies, or reason?  Only the approved insurance reform Bill will reveal which common sense approach Americans are willing to adopt.

Health Care Reform References . . .

Glenn Beck; Race Relationships or Health Care Reform



Glenn Beck calls Obama racist

Americans may recall, it began with a Sweet aside and grew into a [Glenn Beck] beckon.  Now, the stage is set.  The audience is explosive.  Words of woe are shouted from every hall.  For more than a month the media has given rise to the troublesome message.  The reason for health care reform; the Obama Administration yearns to provide a platform for “stealth reparations.”

Reporters, Lynn Sweet and Glenn Beck, as well as the corporations who support their work have helped refocus the nation’s attention.  What the country imagined would be a time to talk of health care reform has become an era of ethnic erosion.  Pundits pose the possibility as a reality; it is “us against them,” white against Black, or perhaps, the American people in opposition to President Barack Obama.  Since, a press conference held many weeks ago, claims of racism have filled the airwaves.  The victim, or according to Fox News host Glenn Beck, the purveyor is the Commander-In-Chief, Mister Obama.

Mister Beck was given the stage, amidst all the hoopla over health care reform; when Chicago Sun Times Columnist Lynn Sweet opened the door.  Ms Sweet offered a not so sugary treat.  In late July she created a distraction from the crucial debate over medical insurance.  It would seem that Ms Sweet had no time or interest in how a broken health care system might be fixed.  Nor did the profundity of the debate appeal to Fox News Announcer Beck.  However, as a source of entertainment Mister Beck thinks the topic truly fine.

The flamboyant Fox News broadcaster does not relate to the fear of a sudden recission. At least for now, Mister Beck feels certain that his health care costs are covered.  The possibility of a legal retroactive cancelation of his or his entire family’s policy is not an “option” Glenn Beck considers.  The opinionated Anchor boasts only of the advantages of the current private health care system, as he links health care reform to Nazis.  Mister Beck suggests any alteration in our insurance system would kill elderly and newborns.  Surely, he surmises our very survival depends on maintaining the status quo.

Pride and prejudice; these are the qualities that work well for Glenn Beck.  He has realized people respond when he speaks of the President’s supposed bigotry.  Popularity and the prosperity fame reaps are a far more pleasant endeavor for each of these Reporters. Tis true for the two; the treatment of Black persons at the hands of law enforcement is a more titillating theme than the cost of medical services. Perchance, that is why these members of the Press thought Professor Gates, the Cambridge, Massachusetts police officer, and a beer summit, were food for their fodder.  

Lynn Sweet.  who in the past promised analysis is not her preference.  “Product.” Is Ms Sweet’s penchant.  Glenn Beck concurs; “topical talk” is his trademark.  The drier subject of an American health care crisis is not as dicey as overt discrimination might be.  

The subject of segregationists offers a superior slant to those who wish to garner attention.  Indeed, separatism has allowed for much sensationalism.  Couple these with Socialism and succession, and what a wonderful stew Sweet and Beck have brewed.  These themes have helped to ignite fires and fury in many a town hall meeting.

Currently, Americans can speak of nothing else.  Some say, the first African American President wants to take over the country.  Others offer beware of a Black nation..  

Some terrified citizens coalesce around the Glenn Beck battle cries, the volume increases.  Fans of, the boisterous Broadcaster say Beck represents us.  Thus, the man behind the “people’s” movement is in demand..  Special appearances are arranged.  The American people want to know what the man who offers the “Fusion of Entertainment and Enlightenment” thinks. Beck opines, any and all of the President’s proclamations prove Barack Obama to be . . .  “a racist.” [sic].

However, once this accusation was publically posed Announcer Beck did not receive the reception he had hoped for.  Sure, Glenn Beck has his followers.  He also has his detractors.  Some of these were once partners.  Embarrassed by the snide, rude, and crude criticism, “the President is a racist,” many advertisers withdrew their financial backing for the Glenn Beck Program.  While the corporations may not have had a problem with the popular performer or his sharply pronounced bigotry, these businesses understood the power Glenn Beck’s words would have.  

Perhaps, entrepreneurs’ worried of their earnings.  Possibly, public relation became the priority.  Outright racially charged outbursts do not make for the popularity of a product.  Capitalist comprehend the truest concern the public might be offended by what seems more pronounced than a simple offhand remark made in private.  In America, it is important to maintain an image.  Colorblind is the politically correct manner of the day.

Complaints did indeed pour in.  It is not polite to call the President of the United States a bigot.  Heaven forbid, or more accurately, the Almighty dollar dictates decorum.  Hence, companies, which did not wish to be associated with such  vile criticism, took contracted commercials off the Glenn Beck Program schedule.  A petition drive demonstrated approval for the move.  “More than 180,000 of “the people”, us, have stood up and 62 companies have pulled their support.”

Now, another appeal has appeared.   Add your voice  The contention is . . .

Our campaign has been a huge success so far. As Beck’s show decreases in value, FOX will do everything possible to reverse the trend.

It’s time to thank those advertisers who dropped Beck and keep them from returning, while calling on more advertisers to pull back as well.

It takes just a moment to sign, seal, and deliver a thought.  Perhaps the American people can still reclaim the conversation, and health care can again take center stage.  Rather than allow Glenn Beck an opportunity to rant, rage, and call the President of the United States a racist, the people can call for calm.  Citizens need only pen a paragraph as I, Betsy L. Angert did in the following.

Dearest News Corporation President, Chief Executive Officer, and Fox Board of Directors. . .

Please do not let Glenn Beck continue to yell, “Fire in the theatre,” or to state the President started the blaze.  A fearful audience is quick to anger.   A person who feels threatened by the inferno will do more than blame the individual they are led to believe started the combustion.  People will pummel the being even if that that man, woman, or President is innocent.  

Please News Corporation executives, ask yourself; would you wish to be responsible for providing a raucous instigator a platform.

If you would, reflect upon the public fury Glenn Beck incites, and do not allow him to be the source of a stampede.

Perchance, if, we the people insist on more than a Sweet; yet sour aside, if we eschew persons or products whose sponsors pay for slice and dice discussion, than the cultural divide will not dominant our policies, practices, and programs.   Should we speak up and speak out civilly, the chaos in the amphitheatre called America will be calmed.  Shun racist rhetoric, then, perhaps, we, as a nation would become as our forefathers envisioned, one, indivisible . . . . . and fully insured regardless of race, color, or creed.

References for the racial, media prompted rants . . .

We Can’t Afford to Wait



We Can’t Afford to Wait

copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

Only today Cable News Network aired a report that suggests most of those who want a public option health care plan are African Americans,  Persons in this population are more likely to be uninsured.  Statistics show dark skinned individuals also seem  predisposed to poor health.  News broadcaster Kyra Phillips continues.  Black people, when surveyed, say they think Mister Obama has performed well in office.  In contrast, far fewer white Americans approve of what the Obama Administration has done on the job.  Subtly, Ms Phillips reminds the audience, the current President of the United States is the nation’s first Black Commander-In-Chief.  The implication is obvious.

Yet, the tale is not necessarily as told.  Witness the stories shared in a MoveOn.org video, study the faces, and consider the situation of those who say they cannot afford to wait for health care reform,  Mostly white faces fill the screen.  

Of course, someone may surmise, this presentation was staged.  It was not.  Days ago, this author received a request to do as these individuals have done.  An electronic message was sent to millions of Americans.  The appeal was, Please share your story on a sign.  Hold the poster up and photograph yourself for all to see.  Send the snapshoot to MoveOn.org, and our organization will compile what we collect.  

Common everyday citizens responded en mass.  The people, informed of the intent saw this venture as an avenue to further their personal cause.  Each considered what was a potential presentation, perhaps the most powerful means to give voice to their message.

Here they are; real persons who openly say they cannot afford to wait for a public health care coverage option.  Be they affluent, ill, an average American, or the strong who fear for family, the plea is palpable.

Caucasian small business propitiators offer the words, “We cannot wait for affordable medical insurance coverage.”

Pink persons who had policies that were canceled once they were diagnosed with a life threatening illness tell us as a country, we have delayed a public option plan for far too long.  

Fair-haired families, forced to spend a large portion of their income on medical insurance say the nation cannot continue to over any real choice.  Coverage too costly does no one any good.  Inevitably, someone pays for the burden others bear.  Only insurance offered at a reasonable rate or free access to treatment for those who , for a time, have no funds will benefit Americans from all walks of life.

Certainly, people of every color need adequate and affordable medical treatment plans.  Americans yearn for policies that do not bar people with a pre-existing condition.  Citizens, no matter the race crave for a program that will not be canceled if they find themselves in poor health. People of all creeds cannot postpone access to pragmatically priced medical coverage.

Please pass this message on.  Send the video and the text to any Anglo who believes only the poor or brownish purplish persons burden the “phenomenal,” private, American health care system.

Read the references . . .