There are roughly 306 million Americans, more than 47 million of whom have no health insurance. That's 1 in 6 Americans, who only seek medical attention in Emergency Rooms, when their stuation is dire. They do not receive preventive care, which is ultimately a fiscal disaster. 60 million Americans have inadequate access to primary health care. 100 million don't have dental insurance. Last year, 116 million ailing Americans fore-went care because they couldn't afford the deductables, were under-insured, or had a lapse in coverage. In 2008, over a million Americans lost their homes, directly attributable to medical bills. Did you know that 2/3 of all personal bankruptcies are related to medical bills? Who pays in the end? We all do.
The US spends $2.3 trillion each year on health care, 16 percent of our GDP. Americans spend $7,129 per person on health care, 50 percent more than other industrialized countries (including those with universal care). Canada spends 10% of it's GDP on health care, England 9%, and France 11%. Yet, we rank roughly 37th in the world, in regard to the quality of our health care (France ranks #1, England #18, and Canada #30). 30% of every insurance dollar goes to paperwork and administration fees. Still, in 2006, the six largest insurance companies made $11 billion in profits, even after paying for direct health care costs, administrative costs, and marketing costs. The number of health insurance industry bureaucrats has grown at 25 times the growth of physicians in the past 30 years. We all know that much of the industry profits come from the arbitrary exclusion of "pre-existing conditions", and terminating people's insurance once they experience a serious illness.
Barack Obama's health insurance plan purports to reduce insurance costs by 30% (more than $350 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive coverage to every uninsured American). He plans to eliminate "pre-existing condition" restrictions. And most criticaly, provide a public health care option. The current Republican tactic, is to call this plan socialism, because it is a loaded term, calculated to scare people. The fact is, police and fire departments are socialized. And your health is a more fundamental right than both of those. Sooner or later, we will all need help from social safety nets, such as Social Security. With health insurance, what we are effectively talking about, is broadening the OPTION of a form of Medicare and Medicaid to everyone. This will cause private insurance companies to respond more reasonably to their clients, and to reduce their rates to be more competitive. The GOP says that Medicare is expensive. The fact is, that Medicare's administrative costs are far lower than any private health insurance plan. The GOP also complains that government run programs are a disaster. Funny they don't feel that way about the government run insurance plan that Congressmen have.
Keep in mind, that privatised health care, introduces the model of profit (with expensive ads that we ultimately pay for). The whole point of profit, is to give as little as possible, for as much as possible. That's no way to address your health. Fun fact: The pharmaceutical industry is the single largest advertiser in America. This might be why the health care industry is spending 100 MILLION DOLLARS (1.4 million dollars a day) to lobby against and kill the public health care option. Their latest tactic is the "trigger option". Don't buy it.
And don't be fooled. Public health insurance DOES work well in Canada, England and France. Yes, one can always find an exception to harp on for political ends. When you research it, it becomes clear that the vast majority of people in these countries are quite satisfied with their health care. Notice that the opposition to public health care, is all about fear, scare, pessimism, status quo, defeatism. Ask about alternative ideas, and you hear silence. Fact is, approximately 73% of Americans want some version of a public health care option "like Medicare/Medicaid".
Another Republican talking point, suggests that a public healthcare option would take health care out of the hands of patients and their Doctors. In fact, that's exactly what we have now. We all know that insurance companies routinely deny coverage for tests, surgeries, and medications. I have personally experienced insurance company kangaroo appeal decisions, where they are the sole arbiturs of a judgement. As I write, though I'm insured by Aetna, I have to wait 6 weeks to see a neurologist that will accept my insurance.
You want to put a human face on this? My daughter was born this past September 28th with a recessed jaw. Her medical bills thus far are over a half MILLION dollars. She easily has another half million in surgery ahead of her. This is insanity. My 6 month old daughter should not be forced to live an obscene legacy of helplessly and unwittingly running her family into poverty. It simply breaks my heart.
It is woefully overdue for people to have a public health choice available to them. Yes, lobbyists and other rats are lining up to fight it, because lower costs, means lower profits for them. It's time they stop running the show. People have suffered enough. My wife and I have suffered enough. Damn the politics. It's time to act civilized. It's time for decency. People need to support Barack Obama's public health option, NOW.
But no person, including Barack Obama, can do this alone. He needs the will of the people. This means that he needs your two cents. A "letter to the editor", blogging, signing petitions. Many people putting in two cents will create the foundation, momentum, and mandate that Barack needs to press his case. We can do this historic thing. Yes we can. Let's go get em.
All Good Things,
Greg
PS - How countrys rank in health care;
I've just posted the full remarks, as prepared, of Dr. Carol Temple on the School Voucher Tax Credit and Choice issue from the May 4, 2008 NAACP forum in Charleston, SC. There are a lot of facts and research here which may be of interest and use to others.
It's posted, with a precious image of Senator Ford's empty chair on the Indigo Journal South Carolina Progressive blog site.
http://www.indigojournal.com/diary/759/carol-a-tempels-thoughts-on-school-vouchers-and-choice
I am tired of this misinformation campaign on our current healthcare system. In 1991 during an examination for hemorrhoids, I was diagnosed with polyps. The doctor I was allowed to see by my insurance carrier at the time cauterized the hemorrhoids during the polypectomy procedure, painlessly and cheaply (less than $500).
In 1995 my company changed insurance carriers and I was not allowed to see this doctor anymore. I could not find one in the new system that performed this procedure, After several followups for the polyps without this treatment my hemorrhoids developed to the point of requiring surgery in 1998. Beside the pain invovled in the recovery, it took over a month out of work and cost thousands for the surgery.
Where is the choice of doctors? Where is the choice of procedures? Where is the cost savings by not allowing this problem from being treated in a preventative manner?
This is where my hope lies with Pres. Obama's reform of healthcare. Procedures like this will be promoted as part of the preventative measures they are talking about. This is another area where savings can come from. In my case for this one problem that amounts to thousands.
you are coming of age my little girl born to occupy a place in this worlda boom of youth in world populationwhile who seeks control sees exploitationin the realms of life that deal with powerthose who steer the platform and the altardo know within you lies passionate drivewith desires to be seen and heard, aliveoften twisting your fate with rebellionof these youths, you are one in a billionthat swiftly lash out at Authorityhaving not yet reached full maturityas it is, don't be found pawns in their gameconquer impulse if your world you'd reclaimfrom who would distort their word to defeatif you but see that life lies at your feet with reason listen to words and cautionparents have no gain by your subjectionthat slow burns away flights of love insideunion your spirit seeks while you dividelittle girl, see the world as it changeswith a heart like yours, it ebbs and surgestrying to find its place to a shared peaceit grows in pains and sorrows for releaseit will happen with or without you herewhether open to the truth you hold dearor spent hidden to pursue shallow pridesthe now or better good, its you decidesthough we're cast within a similar framemy time belongs to a past filled wth blameas your own, but still tied to circumstancechoices will give you the dreams you romancebe free to leave go of shame little girlbreak open the shell and shine up your pearlbring others to come alongside to ridegrow powerful spirit and sense of pridea billion, you are one or a portionbe insipred to find your true volitionchoices not made or those made unwiselywill dim your light and darken your journeydeep inside your heart is a love that's purehonest and sure and sweet for its liqueri do mean for you to follow your dreamsa blessed union, peace, the stars and moonbeams
Written 4/16/2009 copyright MEWilson
Trying to retain the old Republican base while recruiting new members, Steele's double-talk on abortion may just alienate everyone.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/12/abortion-a-choice-steele-tells-gq/In remarks sure to cause consternation among the pro-life Republican base, party Chairman Michael S. Steele called abortion "an individual choice" during a GQ magazine interview, though he also said the Supreme Court "wrongly decided" the 1973 case that struck down state limits on abortion and made it an individual right. In an exchange with reporter Lisa de Paulo, transcribed and posted Wednesday night on the GQ Web site, the new Republican National Committee chairman described his background as an adopted child as showing him "the power of life ... and the power of choice." "The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other," Mr. Steele said. The exchange then went as follows, starting with GQ: "Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?" "Yeah. I mean, again, I think that's an individual choice." "You do?" "Yeah. Absolutely." Mr. Steele then elaborated that he thought "Roe v. Wade — as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter," which prompted Miss DePaulo to ask: "But if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?" Mr. Steele responded. "The states should make that choice. That's what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide."
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/12/abortion-a-choice-steele-tells-gq/
In remarks sure to cause consternation among the pro-life Republican base, party Chairman Michael S. Steele called abortion "an individual choice" during a GQ magazine interview, though he also said the Supreme Court "wrongly decided" the 1973 case that struck down state limits on abortion and made it an individual right.
In an exchange with reporter Lisa de Paulo, transcribed and posted Wednesday night on the GQ Web site, the new Republican National Committee chairman described his background as an adopted child as showing him "the power of life ... and the power of choice."
"The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other," Mr. Steele said.
The exchange then went as follows, starting with GQ: "Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?" "Yeah. I mean, again, I think that's an individual choice." "You do?" "Yeah. Absolutely."
Mr. Steele then elaborated that he thought "Roe v. Wade — as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter," which prompted Miss DePaulo to ask: "But if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?"
Mr. Steele responded. "The states should make that choice. That's what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide."
Henry M
KCUF, 128 Kb/s of the Most Eclectic Music on the Internet, now on Shoutcast Unlimited: http://tinyurl.com/kcuf-on-shoutcast-limited/ to play, http://www.urdomain.us/playing.html to see what's playing, and now available on RECIVA Internet-Radio receivers, http://tinyurl.com/kcuf-on-reciva
KCUF can now be listened to using a Windows Vista Sidebar Gadget:
http://gallery.live.com/results.aspx?bt=1&q=KCUF
This editorial was in the Wall Street Journal today. As a concerned Democrat who wants better schools and more choice this article makes some great points
Obama and the Schools
It's time to stand up to the teachers' unions.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan said last week that poor children receiving federally financed vouchers to attend private schools in Washington, D.C., shouldn't be forced out of those schools. Bully for Mr. Duncan. But the voice that matters most is President Obama's, and so far he's been shouting at zero decibels.
His silence is an all-clear for Democrats in Congress who have put language in the omnibus spending bill that would effectively end the program after next year. Should they succeed, 1,700 mostly black and Hispanic students who use the vouchers would return to the notoriously violent and underperforming D.C. public school system, which spends more money per pupil than almost any city in the nation yet graduates only about half of its students.
The D.C. voucher program has more than four applicants for every available slot. Parental satisfaction is sky high. And independent evaluations -- another is scheduled for release later this month -- show that children in the program perform better academically than their peers who do not receive vouchers. This is the kind of school reform that the federal government should encourage and expand.
The Senate hasn't yet approved the spending measure, and there's nothing stopping the popular President from asking Democratic leaders to reconsider their voucher phase-out. Mr. Obama signed a stimulus bill last month that spends some $100 billion on education. But by not asking unions for anything in return for the money, he missed an historic reform opportunity. This time he could at least publicly back Mr. Duncan and D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee, who's also expressed concern that ending the program would relegate low-income kids to failing schools.
It's no surprise that the Obamas opted out of D.C. public schools for their own daughters and instead chose an exclusive private institution. Come on, Mr. President, find your voice for families of lesser means.
Welcome President Elect Barack Obama and your administration, as you align with millions of people around the world laser focused on creating a higher vibration reality! And thank you George Bush and your administration, for leading us through the dark night of Soul; inviting us to witness what we DO NOT want, causing many global communities to unite in a desire to create something better. As pioneers in the illusion of separation, human systems created in limited consciousness serving few at the expense of many are no longer sustainable. The global economic crisis, severe and threatening climate changes, escalating unemployment and chaos, signal it is time for Earthlings to consciously awaken within. In other words, it is time for humans in physical form to GRADUATE to the next planned phase of EVOLution and I suggest we are in the middle of writing our final exams now. Einstein encouraged us to go beyond the familiar when he said, ‘Problems cannot be solved at the same level of Consciousness [thinking] that caused those problems in the first place.” It is more than coincidence to learn frontier science now reveals that our inner and outer environments respond to one another. Oneness is eternal; known by many names including God, Spirit, Universe, Allah, Yahweh, Source, Consciousness, Light, Love or Other Name. Some sparks of Consciousness shine brighter than others; however there is only the One; no matter how dim lit a being appears to be or do. Ponder this ... the root cause of all pain, suffering, fear, judgment, criticism, blame, lack, limitation, war and the like is our belief in separation ... believing our body separate from Soul or spark of the One within each of us; separate from one another, Earth and other kingdoms and separate from Consciousness Itself. It is said there is no blueprint for Earth beyond 2012. I suggest in this freewill zone, we script tomorrow with every today choice. If graduation in this Uni-verse is one song in the hearts of many, or unity in conscious community, what will we choose?
The Source of Energy to power our global economy and bring distortions to lasting correction is Consciousness, creative intelligence within each of us preparing to re-member, before we take ourselves over the edge. Imagine physicality on Earth at this point in EVOLution, where we experience duality as light or dark; up or down; cold or hot. To illustrate this duality further, take a large round elastic band and twist it in the center causing an infinity symbol or number 8. Now imagine the two circles or ovals represent life in limited consciousness; high vibration light on one side and low vibration dark on the other side. Untwisting the center creates a circle of oneness, causing the light of full consciousness to transform darker limited consciousness. What if consciously embracing darkness, you know what I mean, looking at people, events and circumstances that we judge, criticize or blame when they mis-align with our belief system ... another way? Belief systems created in limited consciousness that imprison us until we choose otherwise. We do indeed reap what we sow; it is the natural law of cause and effect just like gravity. What if every time we embraced darkness we untwist the illusion of separation allowing the light of new awareness to flow into the darkness? And what if, as more of us courageously embrace dark parts of ourselves we do not yet understand, which is low vibration ENERGY in the form of limiting beliefs we inherited from past generations; absorbed from individuals we trusted and admired, or from unpleasant experiences in cellular memory causing the e-motion [energy in motion] of fear in our body ... what if loving those dark parts of us, allowed the twist to reverse a little bit more and more until there is only light? Killing in the name of limiting beliefs is a choice. The new currencies are willingness to look at what we truly are another way; courage to re-member inner truth aligning with Soul within to bring distortions to lasting correction [SOULutions] and love without conditions allowing us to go where NO HUMAN RACE HAS GONE BEFORE; loving the dark into brilliant light. When we consciously embrace all as One and reach critical mass, the tipping point or 100th Monkey, I believe our LIGHT WILL SHINE SO BRIGHTLY THAT OUR BRILLIANCE WILL CHANGE THE NATURE OF PHYSICALITY FOREVER! The HOPI prophesize, “We are the One we are waiting for.” What we truly are cannot be taught, only experienced. In the doing comes the knowing.
"Break the silence on women's ordination"
Does anybody know the official position of President(elect) Obama and Joe Biden on Freedom of Religion in the workplace and support for the WRFA?
Super Tuesday February 12thhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfuJAmCF3UIprogress regarding the Workplace Religious Freedom Act (WRFA). http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=1674better viewed above ^House Panel Hears Adventist, Others on Sabbath ProtectionBY MARK A. KELLNER, News Editor, Adventist Reviewn a 90-minute portion of a hearing on workplace protection, a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee heard an unmistakable message from a Seventh-day Adventist representative: the future of religious liberty in the workplace is in lawmakers' hands, and that legislation is needed to protect the rights of Sabbathkeepers and other religiously observant workers.“These are my daughters,” James Standish, legislative affairs director in the General Conference Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Department, told the February 12 Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee hearing, holding aloft an enlarged photo of his children. “If my daughters grow up and they want to follow the faith of their mother, their two grandmothers, and their four great grandmothers, how are they going to be treated in the workplace? Are they going to be marginalized? Are they going to be harassed? Are they going to be fired when they could easily be accommodated? … The answer to that question is largely in your hands.”Advancing the CauseBoth Representative Rob Andrews (D-NJ), chair of the subcommittee, and Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), a member of the panel and an original cosponsor of legislation aimed at solving the dilemma, told Adventist Review the measure has a good chance of advancing this year.In comments opening the hearing, Andrews noted, “Although Congress amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in 1972 to require employers, in cases of religious discrimination, to provide a reasonable accommodation for employees’ religious beliefs, individuals continue to get fired, demoted, or not hired by an employer due to their religious affiliation without recourse.”Asked whether any or all of the leading 2008 U.S. presidential candidates could sign the bill, Andrews told Adventist Review “I’d like to think President Bush could sign this bill, or any of the … candidates. It’s a constitutional issue, not a political one.”In comments prepared for the hearing, McCarthy explained, “I felt the need to get involved… in favor of this legislation because I have heard of many individuals who are forced to choose between their job and their religion. Nowadays we have a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week work environment that clashes with religious observances. … Asking a person to leave their religion at their door is impossible and something they should not be asked to do.”In his written testimony, Standish called for passage of the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, first introduced in the 109th Congress of the United States. The bill has had numerous cosponsors in the House and Senate, but has yet to advance out of either chamber’s responsible committees.“Enough American workers have been humiliated and marginalized for no crime other than remaining faithful to their understanding of God’s requirements,” Standish said in his written testimony. “It is vital that Congress address this very real, well-documented problem. Americans from all religious faiths need protection. WRFA provides a modest level of protection to ensure that American workers are no longer arbitrarily forced to choose between their faith and their livelihood.” More than 40 Seventh-day Adventists from the Washington, D.C., area attended the hearing, many sporting bright red, white, and blue buttons reading “WRFA Now!” A letter-writing campaign organized by the North American Religious Liberty Association generated close to 40,000 letters and e-mails to members of Congress in advance of the hearing.Faith and WorkThe choice between faith and work continues to confront Seventh-day Adventist Christians and others. In January, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld a lower court ruling and said the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority did not prove that asking other bus drivers to substitute shifts with David Marquez, an Adventist who couldn’t work from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, would create an “undue hardship” for the public transit agency. Marquez, who since found other employment, won $50,000 in damages and an offer of the MBTA position. The court also ordered the agency to pay Marquez’s legal fees. In another January 2008 case, a federal appeals court upheld a ruling that a Seventh-day Adventist worker was discriminated against for not working on Sabbath. The eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a former driver for United Parcel Service (UPS), Todd Sturgill of Springdale, Arkansas, will keep his award of nearly US$104,000 in lost wages and court fees from an earlier district court ruling and will get his job back. “The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reports that claims involving religious discrimination in the workplace increased 83 percent between 1993 and 2006,” Standish told lawmakers. “In contrast, racial discrimination claims declined by 8 percent during the same period, and other major categories of claims have held roughly steady or declined.” One person who found a conflict between her faith and her career was Judy Goldstein, an Orthodox Jewish woman from New Jersey. Seeking to put her master’s degree in speech and language pathology to use, she applied for, and was offered, a job working with elementary school students near her home. The offer was withdrawn when she asked for a Sabbath accommodation during winter months when the sun sets early on Fridays: “The bottom line is that, in the end, I was not hired because of my religious observance–and that is wrong,” she told the lawmakers. Not everyone who testified at the hearing supported WRFA. Attorney Michael J. Gray, representing the HR Policy Association, which he said was a group of “more than 250 of the U.S.’s largest employers,” said the bill would hurt, and not heal. “WRFA will elevate the rights of employees seeking to avoid a company policy or practice based upon his or her religion over other employees and their beliefs,” Gray said. “Indeed, the law goes too far in demanding that companies provide accommodation, including financial support, for one employee while risking unfairly burdening other employees in the process. … Ultimately, WRFA leaves employers, and their employees, with more questions than answers.” While Gray asserted that employers do accommodate many workers’ religious needs, Richard Foltin, legislative director for the American Jewish Committee, disagreed. In the years since a 1975 Supreme Court decision against a Sabbatarian’s request for accommodation, Foltin said, the record has been clear: religious employees often get less than what they asked for. “It would be an overstatement to say that employees seeking a reasonable accommodation of their religious practices never prevail in court, to say nothing of the many whose cases we never hear about because they and their employers work out an accommodation amicably. But a brief overview [of litigation since 1977] demonstrates that for the most part, to borrow the title of one law review article on the subject, ‘heaven can wait,’” Foltin said. Religious AccomodationsFoltin also addressed business critics of WRFA who suggested that spurious claims for religious accommodation would skyrocket under the measure. “Historical precedent indicates that bogus claims are much more prominent in the minds of WRFA opponents than in reality,” Foltin said. “New York State has had a holy-day accommodation law for many years, yet there is no record of people bringing cases for failure to honor their ‘Church of the Super Bowl’ or ‘Mosque of the Long Weekend.’ For that matter, there has been no epidemic of these fanciful claims under existing federal religious accommodation law.” McCarthy, after hearing both sides on the issue, cited her recent work in getting a firearms bill passed and signed into law, something she did by working with the National Rifle Association. Such cooperation among those with opposing views, she suggested, could be employed to make WRFA a reality. “We’re not that far apart,” McCarthy told the witnesses. “The committee will continue to work on this.” Zainab Al-Zuwaij, a woman who was persecuted in her native Basra, Iraq, by the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein, offered some of the most poignant testimony of the hearing. “As someone who grew up under hard repression and religious intolerance, I recognize how precious American freedoms are,” she said. “By coming together to promote religious diversity here in the U.S., we will offer a shining example to countries and societies around the world of how people of diverse religious outlooks can work together to advance a tolerant and free society.” Many steps remain before WRFA can become law. It will have to be passed by the parent Committee on Education and Labor, then by the full House. Similar action in the senate, subcommittee, committee, and a full senate vote would precede the bill being sent to the president for his signature. Additional information on WRFA’s progress and how readers can get involved is available online at www.religiousliberty.info Any reactions ?
We have been through a lot together.
From the primaries, where we were tested to the bone. To the run up to the general election, now only 4 days away, where we have seen the worst of the worst.
This campaign has been the most inspiring experience I have ever had. From my childhood, living in Florida, where I saw the 'difference' between how one color lived from another, to the world I've traveled since, it is clear to me that on November 4, we have a chance to realize a dream. The choice is ours.
We have become a new family, formed for a common purpose. And through this journey, we have connected deeper than many of us may have ever thought. I've made friends with people in every state. (I've even eaten the foods of every state during my primary phonebanking.) What we have achieved thus far has never been seen before.
Not only have we reached out to each other, we have reached out to Americans all around the nation. We have been like mini-Barack's, calling and canvassing in multiple states - meeting people who have told us their stories. And, in that experience, we have been humbled.
This truly is a great nation.
For the last eight years, something went terribly wrong. The people were ignored. Our President and Vice President and their crew decided to put their own interests ahead of ours. And look where that has gotten us. Lives lost for nothing. Homes lost for nothing. Jobs lost for nothing. Billions of dollars wasted - for nothing. An economy driven by greed. Greed which spread like a cancer - and nearly killed us.
In 4 days, we can change all that.
In 4 days, we can begin the healing. We can restore the trust. We, the people, can once again feel we have a say in our country's future - which, is OUR future.
If we fail. If we do not do what we have to do over the next 4 days, then we will only have ourselves to blame. Our dreams, our hopes, our time and money spent, will have been wasted.
In these last 4 days, let's not leave anything to chance.
The choice for change is clear. And now we must make sure everyone makes that choice a reality on November 4.
-Kevin Michael Winterfield Going Positive, Staying Positive
I felt Change in the Air quite some time ago...and decided to write about it--knowing that in this election, Choice would be a major factor for all of us...written late 2006
_CHOICE__ _______________________________________________________
Curly-hair ed Choice,Patchouli-reeking Choice,Honk-if-you-hate-Bush Choice...tap dances on nerves and does pilates with indecision...Sleek-tressed Choice,Power-seeking ChoicePunch-your-mama-for-Obama Choicewhores nightly for whining and goes blueballed for silence...Choice is a dragqueen, a flaming kingthat murkily distinguishes gems and cut glassChoice raps randy freaknasty lyricismChoice hums classical lovejoy rhythmI've witnessed Choice caress the throats of pro-liferswhile mimicking the voices of capitalist punishersI've witnessed Choice taunt adult masses withChildish 'she loves me...he loves me not' gameseasily accomplished with sarcasm and samenessAnd all play with Choice at one time or anotherunder the guise of freedom, truth, and possibility.
(c)2006 J.E.Well
Not too long ago I was forwarded another one of the those emails created by stodgy conservatives. This one contained a letter written by Mark Gregg to Mr Obama. Stodgy conservatives have been circulating it out on the internet via email and blogs for about a month now. I felt compelled to write back to Mr Gregg. Here is my letter.
Dear Mr Gregg,
One of the greatest things about this country is that we can have vastly different opinions and still be Americans. We can question our leaders, (apparently with the exception of vice presidential candidates), and hold them accountable. I respectfully disagree with your statements and here is why. I hope you will reconsider your vote.
Obama has already changed the political and spiritual landscape in the United States and in the world, for the better. As a candidate, he is subject to the fantastic smear attacks of his warlike opponents. As a President, he will be able to restore ethics and moral values in the United States of America and beyond.
oh my goodness... I've never heard such vicious bile thrown at me... ever.
Here's the story:
by David Walbert
No, the electoral college is not the worst team in the ACC. It's the group of people who actually elect the president of the United States. How the electoral college works is one of the more complicated parts of the American electoral process — or can be, at least, when things don't go smoothly. This guide will explain how the electoral college works; discuss the origins and development of the electoral college as some controversial elections; and examine how much your vote actually "weighs" in an election.
The people of the United States elect a president every four years, but not directly. Here's how it works.
What does this mean in practice? It means, as everyone learned or was reminded in 2000, that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide does not necessarily become president. There is no national election for president, only separate state elections. For a candidate to become president, he or she must win enough state elections to garner a majority of electoral votes. presidential campaigns, therefore, focus on winning states, not on winning a national majority.
It also means that — at least in theory — electors can thwart the popular will and vote for a candidate not supported by the voters of their state. In practice, however, electors are pledged to cast their votes in accordance with the popular vote, and "faithless electors" who go against the popular vote are extremely rare. Had there been a faithless elector in 2000, however, Al Gore might have become president! (See the historical perspective below for more about this.)
A number of websites provide more detailed information about the electoral process.
When you're finished, put away all of your reading material (including this handout) and write a one-paragraph summary, in your own words, of how the electoral college works. Really write it out — don't just think about it! You may find, when you try to write it down, that you don't understand it as well as you thought you did. If that happens, go back and re-read the materials. Because it's organized by Frequently Asked Questions, the National Archives' website may be most helpful for this.
When we're debating whether some aspect of the Constitution makes sense, it's useful sometimes to think of the Constitution as an experiment — as a work in progress. Some of its original framers referred to it that way, as a Great Experiment in democracy. In 1787, no republic like the United States existed anywhere in the world. The "founding fathers" were making things up as they went along, looking at history, philosophy, and what they did and didn't like about existing governments in Europe and America. And not all of them agreed — in fact, many of them disagreed completely, even on important issues such as how much power the people should have.
The electoral college was a compromise on two important issues. The first was how much power the people should have, and the second was how much power small and large states should have.
In 1787, it wasn't at all clear whether democracy would work. In fact "democracy" was a bit of a dirty word in some people's minds: it raised fears of mob rule, as in fact had happened in a few places during and after the Revolution. The United States was intended as a republic, in which the people would govern themselves only through elected representatives.
Because the role of the president was so important, most of the framers thought that the people couldn't be trusted to elect the president directly. Instead, they should elect electors, who would convene as a "college of electors" to consider the available candidates and pick the best man for the job.
Before the Revolution, the British colonists didn't have much consciousness of being Americans. They may have identified themselves instead with the British Empire and with their own colonies. Even after the Revolution, loyalty to one's state often still came first. The Constitution was intended to unite the states under a single national government — but not entirely. Small states like New Jersey feared that if they formed a union with the other twelve states, they'd be swallowed up under the influence of more populous states like Virginia and New York. Virginia and New York, of course, thought that they should have the most influence. That's why the states have equal representation in the Senate but representation by population in the House of Representatives: it's a compromise that allowed large states to get their due but still allowed small states to keep their identities and fight for their interests.
When it came to voting for president, the framers of the Constitution decided that the states should do the voting, not the people. Remember, there was no consciousness of the United States as a single nation; it was, literally, a union of separate states. So voting for president was to take place by state, so that each state could have its say. The compromise between big and small states was extended to the electoral college, so that each state has as many electors as it has senators and members of the House of Representatives combined. Big states still have the most influence, but small states aren't completely lost in the national vote.
It was up to the states to decide how they ought to vote for their electors — and to a great extent still is, in fact. There is no national election for president, but rather fifty-one separate elections, one in each state and one in the District of Columbia. In the beginning, state legislatures voted for electors, who in turn voted for the president and vice president. Electors were free to vote for the candidate of their choice, but over time they were increasingly elected because they supported a particular candidate. By 1832, every state but South Carolina held direct elections for president, and electors were effectively bound to vote for a particular candidate. (South Carolina held out until 1864.)
Today, of course, every state allows citizens to vote directly for electors — as represented on the ballot by the candidates with which they are associated — but the electors are still not legally bound to vote for any particular candidate. An elector could, in theory, throw his or her vote to any candidate! Since each candidate has his or her own slate of electors, however, and since the electors are chosen not only for their loyalty but because they take their responsibility seriously, this almost never happens. (It last happened in 1988, when it had no impact on the outcome of the election.) Some states have laws requiring electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote.
In addition, a state doesn't have to throw all of its electors behind the candidate that receives the most popular votes in that state. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, assign one elector to the winner of each Congressional district and the remaining two electors to the candidate with the most votes statewide. After the 2000 election, there was some debate about whether that system would be more fair than the winner-take-all system used by the other 48 states and the District of Columbia.
The original Constitution also didn't take into account the development of political parties. Electors were to vote for two candidates for president. The man with the highest number of votes that was a majority became president, and the man with the second highest number of votes became vice president. In 1800, however, the Democratic-Republican Party nominated Thomas Jefferson for president and Aaron Burr for vice president, and because there was no separate voting for the two offices, the two men tied in the electoral college. The House of Representatives had to decide the issue. Afterwards, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution was passed, changing the system to the one described in part I, above.
In the Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton, who drafted the compromise electoral process that was included in the Constitution, explains why the president should be elected indirectly, rather than directly by the people.
As everyone learned or was reminded of in the election of 2000, the Constitution doesn't say that the candidate with the most popular support has any claim on the Presidency. It says that the candidate with the most electoral votes will become president. So George W. Bush won the election fair and square, by the rules set forth in the Constitution.
Actually, the last president to be elected by a majority of the voters was George H. W. Bush in 1988. In 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton won with a plurality — more than any other candidate, but less than half of the total vote — because there were three major candidates. Because the third candidate, H. Ross Perot, failed to win a majority anywhere, he didn't win any electoral votes, and Clinton was able to win a majority of the electoral votes without winning a majority of the popular vote.
George W. Bush wasn't the first candidate to become president despite losing the popular vote, either. It also happened in 1824, 1876, and 1888, and each time, a debate ensued about whether the outcome was fair or right.
In the further reading section below you'll find some good articles about those elections with arguments about whether the outcome was fair and why the electoral college should or should not be blamed.
These websites provide background information about the controversial elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000.
As you read, ask yourself whether the outcome in each case was fair — and ask yourself what is really "fair." Should the candidate with the most votes nationwide always become president? Or should we be concerned about the power of a few states to swing a popular vote to a candidate that doesn't really have national support? There's no one right answer, and you'll be asked to explore these issues in more depth later on.
Yes, your vote counts. Some people have complained since 2000 that if the winner of the popular vote doesn't become president, their vote doesn't really count, so why vote at all? But every vote does count; it just counts in a more complicated way. When you vote for president, remember that you're voting in a state election, not a national election. So your vote counts just as much as anyone else's in your state — but it may count more or less than that of someone living in another state!
Why does the actual weight of your vote vary by state? Remember that every state gets a number of electors that is the total of all of its representatives in Congress, both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. The House of Representatives is divided approximately by population — big states have the most representatives, small states have the fewest — but every state has exactly two senators, regardless of size. That means that while big states have more electors than small states, they don't have as many more as they would based on population alone.
Consider three states: California (the state with the biggest population), North Carolina (a medium-sized state), and Alaska (with one of the smallest populations). This table shows their population and number of electoral votes in 2000. The fourth column shows the number of residents per elector (population divided by electoral votes), and the last column shows the weight of an individual vote in the given state — that is, how the number of residents per elector compares to the national average.
California
33,871,648
54
627,253
0.83
North Carolina
8,049,313
14
574,951
0.91
Alaska
626,932
3
208,977
2.50
United States
281,421,906
538
523,089
1.00
As you can see, Alaska, a very small state, has far fewer residents per electoral vote than the national average, so individual votes cast in Alaska count more than the national average — twice as much, in fact! A voter in California has a little less influence than the average American, about 83% as much. A voter in North Carolina has about 91% the influence of the average American. (You can calculate weight of vote in a given state by dividing the national average of residents per elector by that state's residents per elector. Since we're comparing each state to the national average, the weight of vote for the entire United States is exactly 1. Don't get it? Read more about the math.)
While every American's vote counts, then, your vote counts more if you live in a small state like Alaska than it does if you live in a big state like California. This seems like a paradox, because clearly a big state as a whole has more influence than a small state. If you're running for president, you are more concerned about winning California, with its 54 electoral votes, than you are about winning Alaska with its 3 electoral votes. As a matter of strategy, you'd probably spend more time and money campaigning in the big states than in smaller states. As a result, residents of big states tend to get more attention in presidential elections than residents of small states, and so small-staters may feel left out and unimportant. Yet in reality, each individual voter has less influence in a big state than in a small state.
Ah, that's the question! It certainly doesn't seem fair that a voter in Alaska effectively has more say about who becomes president than a voter in California. But Alaska is a perfect example of why the electoral college was created. Because it's such a big state geographically, and because it is so far from the 48 contiguous states, Alaska has unique interests that, many would argue, deserve representation equal to the interests of New York or California. Other big western states with small populations, such as Montana and North Dakota, would make similar arguments. Of course, it's hard to argue that Delaware, which had 3 electors and only 783,600 residents in 2000 (for a weight of vote of 2.00), really has unique interests that deserve special consideration. The fairness of the electoral system has been debated for more than 200 years, and it doesn't appear that the debate is going to die down anytime soon.
Let's look at a single state, North Carolina, which in 2000 had a population of 8,049,313 and 14 electoral votes. By dividing population by electoral votes, we get 8,049,313 ÷ 14 = 574,951 residents per elector.
I could have done the math the other way, and listed electors per resident. For North Carolina, that would be 14 ÷ 8,049,313 = .00000174, or 1.74 × 10-6 in scientific notation — less than one-five-thousandth of an elector. I didn't do it that way because I find it easier to think about whole numbers of residents per elector than to think about tiny fractions of an elector per resident. The meaning is the same, either way; the only difference is in how we represent the data.
To calculate how much a single citizen's vote is worth in the big picture, we have to calculate its weight. In mathematical terms, its weight is its value compared to some standard — in this case, the national average. In North Carolina, the value of a single vote is .00000174 of an elector. Nationwide, there were 281,421,906 people in 2000, and 538 total electoral votes. So the national average value of a single citizen's vote is .00000191 (or 1.91× 10-6) of an elector. The weight of a North Carolinian's vote as compared to the national average, then, is .00000174 ÷ .00000191 = 0.91. (The national average weight of vote, of course, is 1 — the standard.)
Since the number of residents per elector (which I used in my table above) is the inverse of the number of electors per resident — that is, one divided by the number of electors per resident — the weight of a North Carolinian's vote is also equal to the national average of residents per elector divided by North Carolina's residents per elector, or 523,089 ÷ 574,951 = 0.91. (I'll leave you to convince yourself that this is true.)
Note: There might be a small problem with my calculations: the number of residents of a state isn't the same as the number of voters. You could argue that the weight of your vote should be based on the number of voters, not the number of residents. But would you base the weight of vote on the number of eligible voters (all citizens age 18 and over), the number of registered voters, or the number of people who actually voted in 2000? I decided that it was easier simply to use total population (and perhaps more fair, since all residents, not only those over 18, deserve representation.)
This document is part of the lesson plan "Does my vote count? Teaching the electoral college" by David Walbert, available on LEARN NC at http://www.learnnc.org. It may be freely reproduced and distributed for educational use, but commercial use is strictly forbidden.
Rumors were flying on the blogs recently about Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s five-month old son actually belonged to her unmarried teenaged daughter. To quell the rumors that her son, Trig was indeed hers, she made public the announcement that her 17-year old daughter Bristol was indeed pregnant.
However, her quote and the response of the Republican pundits and evangelical supporters expose a glaring dual standard.
“Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents," Sarah and her husband Todd Palin were quoted in the released statement. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_daughter)
Note the use of “proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby”? That phrase begs the question: was there ever a decision? If so, why? Gov. Sarah Palin is proud to proclaim her right to life and elimination of choice. If there’s no choice, what is there to decide in the Palin family?
I think the heart of the matter about Palin is that it informs us of John McCain's decision making ability. There are more qualified women in the Republican party, but he went with her because she looks good ... and from that aspect, his selection is working. But it stops there. All form, little substance. She is no better qualified than Dan Quayle or Ross Perot's ill-fated decision to have Vice Admiral James Stockdale as his running mate.
And to prove my point, this from Rich Lowry, the conservative pundit, waxed poetic about Palin's debate performance:
"I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, 'Hey, I think she just winked at me.' And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it."
