What the issues are (and aren't)

As campaign season heats up to a rolling boil, voters are bombarded on every side by campaign slogans and media chatter. Everybody wants to tell you how to vote. Some people complain when I am transparent about my advice (“Vote Democratic!”), yet they are oblivious to the subtle pressure emanating from newscasters, preachers, and the guy in the next cubical at work.

Subtle campaign pressure uses tactics that have nothing to do with the real issues. Consider a bumper sticker shaped like a girl’s head with a big hair bow, and the words, “Do we really want a blonde for president?” Of course, such a sticker actually means, “Do we really want a woman for president?” – with an implied no. A man’s hair color (or lack of hair) is hardly fodder for comment. In fact, I wanted to list off a few blond presidents from the past, but presidential hair color is such a non-issue that my research turned up nothing.

Obviously, hair color is not a real election issue. Neither are other fashion statements, such as the wearing of a flag pin (or not). Beyond the trivial non-issues, there lies an entire field of pseudo-issues. These issues seem so compelling that special-interest groups use them to cultivate entire blocks of single-issue voters. Yet, these issues are as empty as hair color and jewelry when it comes to presidential selection.

Consider abortion. Certain candidates are identified as “pro-life” while others are identified as “pro-choice.” Church-goers, in particular, are bombarded with the message that they are not good Christians unless they vote Republican, because Republicans are supposedly “pro-life.”

These labels are nothing but campaign rhetoric. No serious presidential contender wants abortion to be criminalized. Huckabee liked the idea, but he could not even get the endorsement of Pat Robertson. Robertson, widely viewed as a pillar of the Christian right, instead backed “pro-choice” candidate Rudy Giuliani. Robertson’s choice (no pun intended) demonstrates that abortion never was an important issue to the religious right. They just used it to control voters.

Both parties intend to keep abortion legal. The only difference is that the Democrats are honest about it.

Republican officials call themselves “pro-life” and croon about creating “a culture of life,” while they not only keep it legal, but also pass legislation that increases the demand for abortion by impoverishing our nation and cutting programs that enabled poor families to afford another child. If you look at the statistics for various countries, the abortion rate is determined primarily by socioeconomic factors, not legal issues. Then there is the utter hypocrisy of a “pro-life” president presiding over so much killing overseas.

The other big pseudo-issue is gay marriage. Far right extremists would have us believe that gays are out to destroy traditional marriage. A look at divorce statistics suggests that heterosexuals are dismantling it pretty rapidly without any help.

There is not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican plans concerning gay marriage. Both Parties recognize the issue as a big, sticky mess and they tiptoe around it hoping history will do the work of settling the question.

Voters must not be distracted by these hot-button issues that have no substance behind them. Somehow we have to turn off the chatter, the moralizing and the guilt-laden messages, and instead pay attention to the real issues.

The real issues are those that matter to Americans every day. The issue that most directly impacts all Americans is the economy. We are also intensely interested in resolving the health care crisis and the wars abroad.

Fiscal responsibility is paramount. We need a president who understands how money works. Republicans repeat the mantra of “lower taxes,” but fail to acknowledge that without decreasing spending, tax cuts only increase our national debt. They say the right things (decrease the tax burden, reduce spending, common sense fiscal policy) but they do all the wrong things. Their tax cuts provide no relief for those of us who learn less than $200,000 a year, particularly when you take the tanking economy, wage stagnation, fuel prices and medical inflation into account. They spend our money as if it were burning a hole in their pocket, even while they cut funding for education and other middle class programs.

If the Democrats win in November, they will plug the leaks in the national pocketbook. One of those leaks is the no-bid contract. Under the Bush administration, no-bid contracts more than doubled in number, with spending increasing 121 percent to $103 billion from 2000 to 2006. No-bid contracts represented over half of federal procurement spending. Is it any surprise that companies like Halliburton enjoyed record profits during this time? It’s time to end no-bid contracts. Let legitimate businesses compete for government contracts. Let capitalism work.

Democrats will also end the Iraq war and bring our troops home. Lives will be saved, and dollars, too. It is disingenuous for McCain to promise lower taxes while he admits he will continue the occupation of Iraq for 100 years or more. Wars must be funded. The debts we are racking up today will eventually come calling. Taxes will be raised, if not for this generation then certainly for the next, to fund the war in Iraq.

But will the Democrats raise our taxes? Republican Party leaders keep saying so, but that does not make it true. Clinton’s plan involves a tax cut for the middle class. Only taxpayers earning more than $250,000 per year will experience any increase.

Obama’s tax plan is similar, providing relief for lower and middle class taxpayers and senior citizens. The tax cuts are offset by closing loopholes used by the wealthy and increasing the dividends and capital gains rate for the top tax bracket.

We have to stay focused on these issues. The TV media is not helping us do that. When George Stephanapoulos and Charles Gibson moderated the ABC debate in Philadelphia, we learned more about the moderators than we learned about Obama and Clinton. We learned that the moderators think the presidential election is just a grown-up form of American Idol, where the judges (that’s voters) will select a president based on popularity, performance and style.

It is time voters set aside the marketing glitz, the non-issues, and the pseudo-issues that occupy the national dialogue. Let’s look at the real issues and elect the person who will address them in ways that boost our economy, restore our international standing and strengthen ordinary Americans.

The truth about universal healthcare

Republican Party spokespersons big and small are twisting themselves into pretzels trying to combat the positive message of the Democratic Party. Over the next few months, you will hear them call good evil and evil good in order to trick America into four more years of Bush-style fear-mongering, war-mongering and recession.

Healthcare may be the issue that shipwrecks their good-is-evil message. For years, Republicans told us that “universal healthcare” was a dangerous, wicked Democratic plan that must be opposed. They said if everyone had healthcare, there would be no healthcare at all! Back when most voters had adequate healthcare coverage, we swallowed the lies. We believed that if healthcare were extended to the masses, it would no longer be as good for us.

Times have changed. Many of us are finding ourselves under-insured, with huge deductibles to meet before our policy ever kicks in. Many more are uninsured altogether, either because we cannot afford the employee portion of the premium, or because our company can no longer afford to offer health insurance. Will people with little or no healthcare really buy the “universal healthcare is evil” mantra?

Michael Moore’s documentary “Sicko” really brought the issue to the forefront of the American conscience. It is not that Americans did not know about the crisis. Many of us have experienced it first hand. What the movie and the buzz about it revealed is that the healthcare crisis is widespread. We are not alone in our struggles.

In fact, one survey found that 30% of respondents had delayed seeing a doctor about a known and potentially serious medical condition, because of inability to pay. Medical inflation is currently twice as high as the standard rate of inflation, meaning this problem will not resolve itself. Workers are paying more but getting less, with premiums rising four times faster than wages.

Let’s consider it from another angle. Every American child has the right to an education, whether or not her parents can afford private school. There are schools on every corner – private schools, public schools, and kitchen-table home schools. To be sure, the public education system has flaws. (So do private schools and home schools, but nobody talks about that.) Despite the flaws, we can still say this: Any American child can walk through the doors of the public school house and receive an education.

Unfortunately, I know some people who would like to see public education abolished. As you can imagine, they are people who can easily afford to educate their children privately, and they do not appreciate having to foot the bill for other people’s children.

In the dreams of the selfish, their little Richie would never have to compete with the smart but poor kid down the road. Only the wealthy would be able to educate their children. As for the rest of Americans, well, they just need to be trained for manual labor and subordinate positions to little Richie.

Most of us would be appalled at such thinking. We have been raised to believe that a basic education is every child’s birth-rite. Aren’t health and life more important than education? If every child has the right to be taught to read, then does not every child have the right to receive treatment for a life-threatening condition like asthma?

Universal healthcare simply means healthcare for all. Private healthcare plans will not be eradicated any more than private schools have been eradicated. Those who are happy with their current healthcare can keep it.

Health care is at least as important as public education, public libraries, public transportation and other services that we make available to all citizens. It is time for the United States to step into the twenty-first century and provide healthcare for all Americans. To help us do that, vote Democratic!

Jeannie Babb Taylor
www.JeannieBabbTaylor.com

Soaring fuel prices force trucks off the road

Relief may come in November

Everybody knows that fuel prices are sky-high. These increases inflate the price of every single product that we purchase. Other than locally-grown vegetables, every consumable that comes into our homes has ridden on an eighteen-wheeler at least once, and often more than once. Diesel has now topped $4.00 a gallon, inflating the price of everything from the produce aisle to the dairy section.

What if consumers are paying more than their fair share of the additional fuel costs? What if the brokers who schedule trucks are up-charging the shippers, then pocketing the additional funds and requiring truckers to fund the difference? What if truckers cannot take it anymore?

On April 1st, 250 trucks crawled up I-75 from Macon to Atlanta at 20 mph. The cause of the congestion was not road construction or a traffic accident, and it certainly was not an April Fool’s joke. The owner/operators were staging a public protest against high fuel prices and tight-lipped brokers who refuse to tell truckers what they’re charging shippers for fuel.

Most of us consider the high fuel prices an unfortunate side-effect of the Iraq war, or just a part of life. We continue filling our gas tanks and driving to the places we need to go. With a helpless shrug, we assume that nothing can be done.

Diesel is cheaper to produce than gasoline. Yet diesel now sells for about 70 cents per gallon more than gasoline. Only in the United States is diesel higher than gasoline. This contradiction is very telling. From a conservation point of view, it is disastrous. The disparate fuel prices reward frivolous oil use while punishing necessary industrial oil use. Part of the price difference is the 25-cent higher federal fuel tax, but most of it is simply excessive profit saddled onto a captive customer.

Truckers are a captive customer because they have no options. They cannot choose to drive fewer miles to make up for fuel inflation. They cannot select a lower, cheaper grade like gasoline users can. They cannot carpool or use public transportation instead of filling their fuel tanks. Any drop in consumption means a pay cut.

Their livelihood is tied directly to the fluctuations of oil prices. In a free market economy, you would think that increases or savings would simply be passed along to the customer. According to the truckers, it does not happen that way.

Independent owner/operators rely on brokers who link trucks with loads. The brokers charge the shippers a fuel surcharge, which is rolled into the product price along with other freight costs. However, many brokers refuse to disclose their fuel surcharge to the truckers. Although they charge the shipper more money to cover diesel price increases, only a portion of that fuel surcharge is passed along to the actual truck driver who must purchase the fuel.

Since April 1, the truckers have been protesting the surcharge rip-off in a variety of ways. The slow parade from Macon to Atlanta is just one of hundreds of protests taking place all over the United States. Other truckers have parked their trucks, declaring that they will not carry another load until the government listens to their concerns and enacts legislation to protect them.

Alfred Teeters is an owner-operator based out of Chickamauga, Georgia. Teeters says he and his wife, who have been trucking for twenty years, have written numerous emails to US Rep. Jay Neal (R-GA), US Rep Nathan Deal (R-GA), and State Senator Jeff Mullis (R-Chickamauga.) Teeters says none of the three politicians even bothered to reply.

Independent truckers say the fuel prices and broker practices are driving them out of business. Truckers are losing their rigs. Some are losing their homes as well.
Meanwhile, the shortage of trucks on the road increases freight costs and constricts business, hurting all Americans.

How will the protest rectify this situation? The truckers hope that they can get the attention of the public, who will then apply pressure to governors, lawmakers and the President.

What exactly are the truckers demanding? The laundry list looks something like this:

Suspension of all federal and state fuel taxes until the economy recovers.
Creation of a federal oversight committee to regulate insurance premiums on Class 8 truck insurance.
Prohibition of self insurance for large trucking fleets, in order to level the playing field for smaller companies.
Federal regulations for brokers and shippers, properly enforced, with set maximums.
Standardized safety violation fines from coast to coast.

No major trucking companies are backing the protest. The Teamsters union and the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association deny organizing the protest. The association is legally prohibited from calling for a strike, because it is listed as a trade association.

Oil company executives say they sympathize with consumers regarding the high fuel price, but that they are not to blame. They claim their profits are in line with other industries. Oil profits hit another all-time high last year, totaling about $123 billion.

How long must we tolerate an economic structure that leaves us at the mercy of the oil barons? The answer may be “Only until November.” Democratic presidential candidates have unveiled detailed plans to reduce American’s dependence on foreign oil, provide stimulus for the alternative energy industry, and put bring Iraq’s oil industry back online. Hillary Clinton also wants to curtail the excessive oil profits, redirecting some of that money to fund energy research and create more jobs.

Of course, there are some voters who just do not mind paying such exorbitant prices for gasoline. They don’t care if truck drivers must pay $1,600 a week for diesel to keep their trucks on the road. They don’t mind paying $5.00 or $6.00 a gallon for milk. Those voters may try to put McCain in office.

A vote for McCain is a vote for the oil barons. A vote for McCain is a vote to escalate war in the Middle East, expanding the fighting from Afghanistan and Iraq to Iran and other areas for “a hundred years.” A vote for McCain is a vote to continue the manufactured oil shortage. A vote for McCain is a vote to put more and more truckers out of business. A vote for McCain is a vote to strangle the American economy.

Northwest Georgia Breastfeeding Coalition hosts international expert:

Breastfeeding is normal, formula is inferior, and birth makes the difference

Nurses and lactation consultants from all over the southeast convened in Dalton last week to hear the latest in breastfeeding technology from renowned expert Diane Weissinger, MS, IBCLC.

According to Weissinger, the “breast is best” tagline is a disservice to women and babies. Such slogans suggest that formula-feeding is the norm and breastfeeding is something better than the norm. Formula companies often state that breastfeeding is “the ideal.” Of course, something that is ideal is lofty but usually unattainable. None of us would claim to be ideal parents, for example. By calling breastfeeding ideal, they suggest that it is a lofty, unattainable goal.

Wiessinger says, "The truth is, breastfeeding is nothing more than normal. Artificial feeding, which is neither the same nor superior, is therefore deficient, incomplete, and inferior. These are difficult words, but they have an appropriate place in our vocabulary."

How often are we reminded that breastfeeding is simply normal? Every mammal species on the planet uses mammary glands to nurture its offspring. This is one of the defining characteristics that classifies humans as mammals. By choosing not to feed our infants in the normal way, we expose them to many known and unknown risks.

Wiessinger says there are about 13,000 studies that show problems with formula feeding. These studies are typically pitched as pro-breastfeeding (as if formula were the norm) rather than anti-formula. Thus, the experts tell us that breastfeeding reduces obesity or respiratory infections or earaches. Instead, they should simply state that formula increases obesity, respiratory infections and earaches. Likewise, breastfeeding does not reduce the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS); formula increases the risk of SIDS.

Instead of emphasizing only the benefits of breastfeeding, professionals should stress the risks of artificial feeding. Despite the “more like breastmilk” ads, formula-feeding remains distinctly inferior to breastfeeding in every aspect. Formula not only increases the risk of diseases and disorders; it also fails to adequately nurture the brain, resulting in a lower IQ. Further, formula-feeding does not foster the maternal-infant bond the way breastfeeding does, because the hormone cycle is broken.

Breastfeeding is the physiological standard for human babies. Formula-feeding is not even second best. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) formula is only a distant fourth. WHO urges that all babies be breastfed by their mothers. In cases where this is impossible, the second best alternative is to feed the baby the mother’s pumped milk. As a third best alternative, babies should be fed breastmilk from another human mother. Only in cases where human milk is impossible or the baby cannot digest breastmilk (such as with galactosemia), should formula even be considered.

If formula feeding is so inferior, why aren’t American doctors and health authorities warning of the dangers? Most will say, “We don’t want to make women feel guilty.” Yet they have no problem making mothers feel guilty for smoking around the baby, or for placing a sleeping baby on his tummy.

Instead of warning parents about the risks of formula feeding, hospitals hand out formula samples, literature and advertising gifts. They receive kick-backs from formula companies in the form of pens, notepads, and other items. While hospitals shrug off these gifts as meaningless trinkets that do not affect their work, Diane Weissinger asks why formula companies would spend huge sums of money on this advertising, if it did not work?

In return for the goodies and the donuts, the hospital sends the company’s formula marketing literature and samples home with every mother in a logo-branded diaper bag. Even those women who plan to exclusively breastfeed get the bag. The diaper bag and its contents send a clear message that the experts at the hospital approve of formula. This tacit endorsement undermines breastfeeding promotion. Research shows that women who receive the bag are more likely to resort to formula once they get home, and 93% select the formula brand associated with the bag. Obviously, the strategy works.

The diaper bags are not the only way the medical community colludes with formula manufacturers. According to Weissinger, the delivery room procedures of most hospitals unwittingly work to undermine breastfeeding long before the baby takes its first breath.

Weissinger stumbled onto the birth-breast connection while studying the nursing behavior of animals. Weissinger was an animal behaviorist before she became a renowned lactation consultant. It was this background that inspired her to put together a talk on the breastfeeding and parenting lessons that can be learned by observing other mammals. Initially she intended to cover topics like how mammal babies find the nipple on their own, how mammal mothers never look at a clock before nursing the babies, and how animals wean naturally with no formal plan.

As Weissinger prepared the material, she was inevitably drawn to the distinctions between mothers who bond with and care for their infants, and those who do not. In every mammal species, she discovered that mothers who are deprived of their chosen place, time and sensations during the birth process have difficulty bonding and breastfeeding. Mammal bonding is adversely affected if birth is too hard – and if birth is too easy. The babies are even at risk if the birth is too clean.

Whether the mammal studied is a terrier, a horse, or a rat, any interference with the birth risks the breastfeeding relationship. Interference might include something as benign as the presence of an outsider, or as radical as cesarean delivery. Veterinarians who must surgically remove a baby animal go to great lengths to normalize the experience by allowing as much labor as possible, placing the placenta with the mother she wakes, and leaving the newborns in an untouched state. They understand the risks.

Human beings are mammals. Because we are more intelligent than most other mammals, human parents will usually continue to care for a child no matter how it comes into the world. Yet, according to Diane Weissinger, medical birth is robbing mothers and babies of the easy, instinctive breastfeeding experience that results from normal birth.

Modern hospital birth generally involves an epidural. Wiessinger equates a long epidural to drinking fourteen cans of soda. Excess fluid swells the woman’s tissues, including her breasts and nipples, which makes latching on more difficult. The epidural also slows down her milk, increasing the risk of jaundice and early supplements for the baby – two responses that increase the risk of early weaning.

The epidural drugs affect the baby as well as the mother. Since breastfeeding is primarily the baby’s job, newborns need to be awake and aware. Drugged babies have more difficulty recognizing and attaching to the breast, more sucking problems, and more bonding problems. Poor initial sucking may result in nipple damage – which is not a nice event in a place filled with unfamiliar and sometimes antibiotic-resistant germs.

Wiessinger says, “Mothers in our culture haven’t given birth since the early part of the 20th century. And no mammal who has birth taken from her goes on to nurse easily, or even to mother easily. It’s not the breastfeeding that’s the problem. It’s the birth!”

-- Jeannie Babb Taylor
http://www.jeanniebabbtaylor.com/