More Americans die from overdoses of pain killers than are killed in auto accidents or murdered by guns. While lawmakers and activists are demanding action to reduce the carnage on the highways and on the streets, there is little outcry to deal with the rampant rise in opioid-related deaths.
There has been scant media coverage of the escalation of both the legal and illegal opioid use by Americans. The number of legal prescriptions for opioids has skyrocketed from 76 million in 1991 to nearly 207 million in 2013, according to Congressional testimony.
Opioids are a class of drugs that include well-known prescription pain relievers such as oxycodone, hydrocodone, codeine, morphine and fentanyl. You might recognize the drug brand names: Vicodin, OxyContin and Percocet. The illicit drug heroin is also an opioid.
These drugs work on the nerve cells in the brain and nervous system to produce euphoric effects and to relieve pain. When used properly, opioids help the more than 100 million people in the United States who suffer from chronic pain.
Despite the legitimate uses, opioids are often diverted for non-medical uses by patients or their friends. In many cases, the drugs are sold on the street. It has been estimated that non-medical use of opioid pain relievers costs insurance companies up to $72.5 billion annually.
In 2012, more than five percent of the U.S. population over the age of 12 used an opioid pain reliever for non-medical purposes. "The public health consequences of opioid pain reliever use are broad and disturbing," testified Dr. Nora D. Volkow, M.D., to a Senate caucus in 2014.
Doctor Volkow is director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse at the National Institute of Health. She has been sounding the alarm about the increasing worldwide problem of opioid abuse, which affects nearly 36 million people across the planet.
Drug overdose is now the leading cause of accidental death in the U.S. There were 47,055 deaths in 2014. The most recent statistics shows gun deaths in 2015 were 13,419. Automobile accidents killed 38,300 people last year. Why is there no outrage over the drug overdose epidemic?
The answer to that question underscores the problem with dealing with abuse. Over the past 20 years, laws governing the dispensing of opioid prescriptions have been relaxed. That has led to more doctors writing scripts for the drugs to patients who often demand the pills for minor pain.
Drug companies are also complicit, aggressively marketing the the safe use of pain killers. However, there have been no studies on the longer-term affects of usage. Despite the lack of evidence, pain killers are often viewed as benign by both doctors and patients.
The American Society of Addiction Medicine reports growing evidence of a relationship between non-medical usage of opioids and heroin abuse. It estimates that 23 percent of individuals who use heroin develop an opioid addiction. Four out of five new heroin users were first hooked on opioids.
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that women more often than men become addicted to pain killers because they are more likely to have chronic pain. Studies show doctors often prescribe higher doses over longer periods of time to address the continuing symptoms.
In a 10 year period ending in 2010, 48,000 women died of prescription pain reliever overdoses, the center found in its ground breaking study entitled, "Prescription Painkiller Overdoses: A Growing Epidemic, Especially Among Women."
Urgent action is required to address this issue. Opioid addiction is the main driver of the staggering rise in drug overdose deaths in the U.S. In 2014, there were 18,893 overdose fatalities related to prescription pain killers. That is 40 percent of all deaths caused by drug overdoses.
Even more disturbing, abuse by adolescents (ages 12 to 17 years old) has spiraled out of control. A study by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration documented that 168,000 adolescents are addicted to prescription pain relievers. Many graduate from opioids to heroin.
The problem will only worsen without a declaration of war on opioid usage.
Prevention of opioid abuse begins with education. Although these drugs can be effective in reducing pain, primary care doctors and patients need to armed with more information about the dangers associated with continued use and the linkage to heroin abuse.
Other solutions include more research on the treatment of pain without the use of opioids. More clinical studies are required to develop new drugs and compounds that do not have the same risks as opioids for dependence. Prescribing opioids should be a last resort, not the first treatment option.
Lastly, treatment of opioid addiction remains in the infant stages. More research should be undertaken to help patients deal with withdrawal symptoms and to regain control of their health. New medications need to be introduced as an essential part of weaning patients from opioids.
Dealing with opioid abuse must become a national priority. If not now, when? How many deaths will it take to awaken Americans to the problem? Whatever the number, it is too high. With so many lives at stake, further delay is unacceptable.
Monday, December 12, 2016
Monday, December 5, 2016
December 7, 1941: A Day of Infamy
Navy corpsman Sterling Cale had just finished his shift at the hospital and trudged toward the main gate at the military base. Light was approaching the island of Oahu, Hawaii, and a tired Cale needed sleep. He would never make it to bed that day, December 7, 1941.
Before Cale left the base, the first wave of Japanese planes launched an assault on the U.S. Navy's Pacific Fleet anchored at Pearl Harbor. The aircraft dive bombed American cruisers, aircraft carriers and battleships. One hour later, a second wave of planes carried out deadly raids on air fields.
By 9:55 a.m, Japan's stealth blitzkrieg had ended, leaving in its wake chaos and destruction. In a a few hours, the lethal strike killed 2,403 Americans, destroyed 188 aircraft and damaged or obliterated eight battleships. Plumes of acrid black smoke hung over the island.
Cale was startled by the thrumming of scores of planes as he was leaving the base. He looked back toward the harbor in stunned disbelief. He remembered seeing the red Rising Sun painted on the aircraft's fuselage and thinking, "My God, those are Japanese planes!"
A flabbergasted Cale sprung into action. He raced to the armory building, grabbed a fire axe and smashed the door. Cale began handing out rifles to American soldiers as they ran toward the harbor. When the men reached the main gate, they commenced firing at the enemy planes.
"I don't think they ever hit anything," Cale recalled. "Just too much distance." But the soldiers wouldn't stop firing because their buddies were being torpedoed and bombed by relentless swarms of Japanese planes intent on wiping out the Pacific Fleet.
"I saw about ten of them (planes) going to hit the USS Oklahoma, so I ran down to the dock and took the officer's barge," Cale reminisced. "With so much activity in the water, we never did get there." Undeterred, Cale began plucking Navy servicemen from the chilly waters.
"I only picked up 46 people in four hours," modestly recalled Cale, a native of Macomb, Illinois. "Some of them were dead already. Some of them badly wounded, some badly burned." The wounded were rushed to the Naval Hospital at Pearl Harbor.
During the first three hours after the Japanese attack, the 250-bed Naval Hospital received 960 casualties. Ironically, Cale was not ordered to remain at the hospital with the wounded. Instead, the master-at-arms had him stand guard at the receiving station with rifle in hand.
By nightfall, an eerie glow from the harbor was a grim reminder of the day's horrific carnage. The USS Arizona was still burning because it had sustained a direct hit to its ammunition locker. The Pennsylvania-class battleship would smolder for two-and-a-half days.
On December 10, Cale was assigned to lead a team of 10 men to begin recovery operations on the hulking Arizona. Cale warned his team about what awaited them. "Men, I don't know what we're going to see on the Arizona," he told the soldiers. No one was prepared for what they found.
When they arrived at the battleship, black ashes were wafting in the air. Tragically, those ashes were what was left of sailors who perished on the fiery USS Arizona. The memory of that mission still haunts Cale, a soft-spoken man who lives on the island of Oahu with his wife of 70 years.
"About once a week I go out (to the USS Arizona Memorial) and pay my respects to the people I left on the ship," a solemn Cale said. What remains of the Arizona rests in Pearl Harbor, where a 184-foot long white memorial spans the mid-portion of the sunken ship.
A total of 1,177 crewmen on the Arizona died during the attack. Many were buried with their battleship. To date, more than 30 Arizona crewmen who survived the bombing have chosen the ship as their final resting place. Others will surely follow.
Cale's military career didn't end at Pearl Harbor. He served in the Korean War and did a tour in Vietnam. His military service allowed him to see the world, something he never imagined as an adopted Illinois farm boy who had been shunted off to an orphanage at six weeks old.
Cale, who celebrated his 95th birthday on November 29, still proudly wears his cap stitched with the words, "Pearl Harbor Survivor." He had a front row view of the battle that hurtled America into World War II. His story is one of service, sacrifice and patriotism.
America could still use more men like Sterling Cale.
Before Cale left the base, the first wave of Japanese planes launched an assault on the U.S. Navy's Pacific Fleet anchored at Pearl Harbor. The aircraft dive bombed American cruisers, aircraft carriers and battleships. One hour later, a second wave of planes carried out deadly raids on air fields.
By 9:55 a.m, Japan's stealth blitzkrieg had ended, leaving in its wake chaos and destruction. In a a few hours, the lethal strike killed 2,403 Americans, destroyed 188 aircraft and damaged or obliterated eight battleships. Plumes of acrid black smoke hung over the island.
Cale was startled by the thrumming of scores of planes as he was leaving the base. He looked back toward the harbor in stunned disbelief. He remembered seeing the red Rising Sun painted on the aircraft's fuselage and thinking, "My God, those are Japanese planes!"
A flabbergasted Cale sprung into action. He raced to the armory building, grabbed a fire axe and smashed the door. Cale began handing out rifles to American soldiers as they ran toward the harbor. When the men reached the main gate, they commenced firing at the enemy planes.
"I don't think they ever hit anything," Cale recalled. "Just too much distance." But the soldiers wouldn't stop firing because their buddies were being torpedoed and bombed by relentless swarms of Japanese planes intent on wiping out the Pacific Fleet.
"I saw about ten of them (planes) going to hit the USS Oklahoma, so I ran down to the dock and took the officer's barge," Cale reminisced. "With so much activity in the water, we never did get there." Undeterred, Cale began plucking Navy servicemen from the chilly waters.
"I only picked up 46 people in four hours," modestly recalled Cale, a native of Macomb, Illinois. "Some of them were dead already. Some of them badly wounded, some badly burned." The wounded were rushed to the Naval Hospital at Pearl Harbor.
During the first three hours after the Japanese attack, the 250-bed Naval Hospital received 960 casualties. Ironically, Cale was not ordered to remain at the hospital with the wounded. Instead, the master-at-arms had him stand guard at the receiving station with rifle in hand.
By nightfall, an eerie glow from the harbor was a grim reminder of the day's horrific carnage. The USS Arizona was still burning because it had sustained a direct hit to its ammunition locker. The Pennsylvania-class battleship would smolder for two-and-a-half days.
On December 10, Cale was assigned to lead a team of 10 men to begin recovery operations on the hulking Arizona. Cale warned his team about what awaited them. "Men, I don't know what we're going to see on the Arizona," he told the soldiers. No one was prepared for what they found.
When they arrived at the battleship, black ashes were wafting in the air. Tragically, those ashes were what was left of sailors who perished on the fiery USS Arizona. The memory of that mission still haunts Cale, a soft-spoken man who lives on the island of Oahu with his wife of 70 years.
"About once a week I go out (to the USS Arizona Memorial) and pay my respects to the people I left on the ship," a solemn Cale said. What remains of the Arizona rests in Pearl Harbor, where a 184-foot long white memorial spans the mid-portion of the sunken ship.
A total of 1,177 crewmen on the Arizona died during the attack. Many were buried with their battleship. To date, more than 30 Arizona crewmen who survived the bombing have chosen the ship as their final resting place. Others will surely follow.
Cale's military career didn't end at Pearl Harbor. He served in the Korean War and did a tour in Vietnam. His military service allowed him to see the world, something he never imagined as an adopted Illinois farm boy who had been shunted off to an orphanage at six weeks old.
Cale, who celebrated his 95th birthday on November 29, still proudly wears his cap stitched with the words, "Pearl Harbor Survivor." He had a front row view of the battle that hurtled America into World War II. His story is one of service, sacrifice and patriotism.
America could still use more men like Sterling Cale.
Monday, November 28, 2016
Democrats Scheme To Delegitimize Election
Imagine it's 2008. Barrack Hussein Obama has been elected president. A day after his victory, protests erupt in major cities. Movie stars warn they will flee to Canada. The opposition party trashes his character. The media denigrates those who voted for a political novice.
If this sounds far fetched, then just substitute the name of president-elect Donald J. Trump for Mr. Obama in that opening paragraph. There would have been moral outrage from all quarters had President-elect Obama suffered the same slings and arrows.
Mr. Trump has not even taken the oath of office and the vicious attacks have begun. Do you recall Republicans rioting in the streets after Mr. Obama's election? Did the media seek out Mitt Romney supporters distraught over a black president? Were whites fleeing to Canada? Crickets.
After the Democratic Party and its standard bearer Hillary Clinton were thoroughly rejected by voters, the media narrative is that white racists, misogynists and homophobes are responsible for Mr. Trump's triumph. He won because he appealed to Americans' base prejudices.
We have that on the authoritative word of election expert Mr. Obama, who has jetted around the globe trying to poison foreign relations by worrying out loud about the direction of one nation under Donald J. Trump. Does anyone remember George W. Bush embarking on a similar tour? Crickets.
Electoral College members are being harassed by Clinton loyalists to ignore their state's voters and back their flawed candidate. The Green Party and the Clinton campaign have joined forces to demand recounts in several states in a thinly veiled attempt to undermine the peaceful transition of power.
As a reminder, during the presidential campaign Ms. Clinton excoriated Mr. Trump for his comments about a rigged election. "Anyone who does not accept the results of the election is a threat to Democracy," she thundered at a campaign rally. Her own words now convict her.
Meanwhile, George Soros-funded faux activist groups are flooding the streets with paid demonstrators in cities across the country. A compliant media covers the protests as if these were spontaneous reactions to a Trump presidency. The outcry is nothing more than propaganda.
Democrats are lining up on liberal media expressing their concerns over Mr. Trump's cabinet, while he still fleshes out his choices. The media is howling that Mr. Trump is dallying, although it took Mr. Obama six weeks to announce his first choices to serve on his Beltway team.
Every one of these incidents is part of a clandestine orchestrated effort by Democrats and their accomplices to render the Trump presidency dead-on-arrival. They used the same tactic against Mr. Bush, calling him an illegitimate president after his narrow win in 2000.
In an attempt to impugn Mr. Trump's victory, the Democrat Party-controlled media has reminded Americans that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. According to the current tally, she has a 1.4 million vote lead out of 123 million ballots that were cast in the election.
That means the margin is barely one percent. To put that in perspective, Ms. Clinton beat Mr. Trump by nearly four million votes in California. Without that lopsided margin in a single state, Ms. Clinton would have lost the popular vote as well as the electoral count.
Another fact you will not read in the mainstream media: Mr. Trump won 3,084 out of 3,141 counties stretching across America's heartland. Ms. Clinton rolled up big vote margins in an elite band of 52 counties located on opposite coasts of the country. The remainder of America was a sea of red.
Democrats have a lot more to worry about than Mr. Trump. Since Mr. Obama ascended to the White House, his party has lost 63 House seats, 10 Senate seats and 12 governorships. With the exception of narrow slices of the East and West coasts, Republicans are dominating elections.
Instead of using their resources to declaw Mr. Trump, Democrats would be better served to figure out why the electorate has turned on their party. Their constant harping about Mr. Trump and his supporters won't win them any converts. Hillary Clinton tried that tactic and was drubbed.
But Democrats can't help themselves. When they lose, they blame the dumb voters and brand the winner as an unlawful pretender to the presidency. This time no one is listening but their dwindling base of voters.
If this sounds far fetched, then just substitute the name of president-elect Donald J. Trump for Mr. Obama in that opening paragraph. There would have been moral outrage from all quarters had President-elect Obama suffered the same slings and arrows.
Mr. Trump has not even taken the oath of office and the vicious attacks have begun. Do you recall Republicans rioting in the streets after Mr. Obama's election? Did the media seek out Mitt Romney supporters distraught over a black president? Were whites fleeing to Canada? Crickets.
After the Democratic Party and its standard bearer Hillary Clinton were thoroughly rejected by voters, the media narrative is that white racists, misogynists and homophobes are responsible for Mr. Trump's triumph. He won because he appealed to Americans' base prejudices.
We have that on the authoritative word of election expert Mr. Obama, who has jetted around the globe trying to poison foreign relations by worrying out loud about the direction of one nation under Donald J. Trump. Does anyone remember George W. Bush embarking on a similar tour? Crickets.
Electoral College members are being harassed by Clinton loyalists to ignore their state's voters and back their flawed candidate. The Green Party and the Clinton campaign have joined forces to demand recounts in several states in a thinly veiled attempt to undermine the peaceful transition of power.
As a reminder, during the presidential campaign Ms. Clinton excoriated Mr. Trump for his comments about a rigged election. "Anyone who does not accept the results of the election is a threat to Democracy," she thundered at a campaign rally. Her own words now convict her.
Meanwhile, George Soros-funded faux activist groups are flooding the streets with paid demonstrators in cities across the country. A compliant media covers the protests as if these were spontaneous reactions to a Trump presidency. The outcry is nothing more than propaganda.
Democrats are lining up on liberal media expressing their concerns over Mr. Trump's cabinet, while he still fleshes out his choices. The media is howling that Mr. Trump is dallying, although it took Mr. Obama six weeks to announce his first choices to serve on his Beltway team.
Every one of these incidents is part of a clandestine orchestrated effort by Democrats and their accomplices to render the Trump presidency dead-on-arrival. They used the same tactic against Mr. Bush, calling him an illegitimate president after his narrow win in 2000.
In an attempt to impugn Mr. Trump's victory, the Democrat Party-controlled media has reminded Americans that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. According to the current tally, she has a 1.4 million vote lead out of 123 million ballots that were cast in the election.
That means the margin is barely one percent. To put that in perspective, Ms. Clinton beat Mr. Trump by nearly four million votes in California. Without that lopsided margin in a single state, Ms. Clinton would have lost the popular vote as well as the electoral count.
Another fact you will not read in the mainstream media: Mr. Trump won 3,084 out of 3,141 counties stretching across America's heartland. Ms. Clinton rolled up big vote margins in an elite band of 52 counties located on opposite coasts of the country. The remainder of America was a sea of red.
Democrats have a lot more to worry about than Mr. Trump. Since Mr. Obama ascended to the White House, his party has lost 63 House seats, 10 Senate seats and 12 governorships. With the exception of narrow slices of the East and West coasts, Republicans are dominating elections.
Instead of using their resources to declaw Mr. Trump, Democrats would be better served to figure out why the electorate has turned on their party. Their constant harping about Mr. Trump and his supporters won't win them any converts. Hillary Clinton tried that tactic and was drubbed.
But Democrats can't help themselves. When they lose, they blame the dumb voters and brand the winner as an unlawful pretender to the presidency. This time no one is listening but their dwindling base of voters.
Monday, November 21, 2016
Grandchildren: Giving Thanks For the Little Ones
When Thanksgiving arrives each season, it is a reminder there are few treasures in life to be cherished more than grandchildren. They tug at our crusty hearts, induce wrinkled smiles and love us even if we are creaky, old-fashioned and smell funny.
Nothing in life compares to the squeal of a grandchild. That sound of utter joy when you waddle into their room or shower them with a gift or repeat the same story you have told one hundred times before. A grandchild has the power to uplift those of us battling the indignities of age.
Grandchildren are truth tellers. Don't ask them a question unless you want an honest answer. They are incapable of political correctness. What tumbles out of the mouths of these babes is authentic, unfiltered. Unlike adults, they are uncomplicated and sincere.
These little ones know you love them, but not just because of your expressions of affection for them. Grandchildren have a sixth sense about grandparents. Somewhere in their DNA there is a gene that triggers an emotional connection with grandparents.
Grand kids make you feel special every time you are in their company. Sure, they enjoy the presents you tote to their house, but grandchildren are comforted by your mere presence. They show their gratitude by hugging your leg, clambering up into your lap or squeezing your neck.
When they kiss and hug you, all of the world's troubles evaporate. They are affectionate by nature and nothing delights them more than receiving your approval. When you least expect it, they blurt out, "I love you." The sound of those three words is like a heavenly angelic chorus.
Grandchildren offer the best gifts. A hand-scrawled drawing from a grandchild is worth more than a Picasso or a Van Gough. Refrigerators were created to hold these priceless paintings made by tiny hands. A barely legible signature at the bottom of the artwork creates a lasting memory.
Grand kids innately understand when their grandparents could use a boost. They pluck a flower from a park and hand it to you with a grin. "This is for you because you are my grandma," a grandchild giggles. What can you do but laugh and feel grateful for the experience of this small gesture?
When a toddler places his palm in your hand, there is a tenderness that is difficult to explain to those who have never felt the touch of a grandchild. In that moment, memories of your own children rush into your consciousness, kindling a longing for those days when they were under your roof.
There is something astonishing about holding your grandchild in your arms. It feels like only yesterday you clutched your children in the same way. How did those times fade so quickly? Grand kids allow you to close your eyes and dream about the way it was with your own children.
Having a grandchild spend a day or a week at your house tops any expensive vacation. It's your time alone without snoopy parents around to issue rebukes about indulging your grand kids' appetite for ice cream. When they leave, you count down the days until their next visit.
Every grandchild is born with an instruction manual telling each one how to manipulate grandparents. A pouty plea or a wistful wish from a grand kid is impossible to resist. They know it, you know it, but neither of you cares.
Reading to grandchildren is a pleasure without equal. They fidget, tilt their little heads, lean into you for warmth and mouth the words along with you. It is hard to concentrate on the text as you watch their eyelids flutter with the approach of sleep.
Best of all you can see the future by looking into the eyes of a grandchild. Their destiny is filled with light, love and high expectations. You may be experiencing your final revolution around the sun, but your grandchild has a whole life to live. It makes your future less scary.
Be thankful for your grand kids. They are God's gift to a world that could use more of their unique brand of unconditional love.
Nothing in life compares to the squeal of a grandchild. That sound of utter joy when you waddle into their room or shower them with a gift or repeat the same story you have told one hundred times before. A grandchild has the power to uplift those of us battling the indignities of age.
Grandchildren are truth tellers. Don't ask them a question unless you want an honest answer. They are incapable of political correctness. What tumbles out of the mouths of these babes is authentic, unfiltered. Unlike adults, they are uncomplicated and sincere.
These little ones know you love them, but not just because of your expressions of affection for them. Grandchildren have a sixth sense about grandparents. Somewhere in their DNA there is a gene that triggers an emotional connection with grandparents.
Grand kids make you feel special every time you are in their company. Sure, they enjoy the presents you tote to their house, but grandchildren are comforted by your mere presence. They show their gratitude by hugging your leg, clambering up into your lap or squeezing your neck.
When they kiss and hug you, all of the world's troubles evaporate. They are affectionate by nature and nothing delights them more than receiving your approval. When you least expect it, they blurt out, "I love you." The sound of those three words is like a heavenly angelic chorus.
Grandchildren offer the best gifts. A hand-scrawled drawing from a grandchild is worth more than a Picasso or a Van Gough. Refrigerators were created to hold these priceless paintings made by tiny hands. A barely legible signature at the bottom of the artwork creates a lasting memory.
Grand kids innately understand when their grandparents could use a boost. They pluck a flower from a park and hand it to you with a grin. "This is for you because you are my grandma," a grandchild giggles. What can you do but laugh and feel grateful for the experience of this small gesture?
When a toddler places his palm in your hand, there is a tenderness that is difficult to explain to those who have never felt the touch of a grandchild. In that moment, memories of your own children rush into your consciousness, kindling a longing for those days when they were under your roof.
There is something astonishing about holding your grandchild in your arms. It feels like only yesterday you clutched your children in the same way. How did those times fade so quickly? Grand kids allow you to close your eyes and dream about the way it was with your own children.
Having a grandchild spend a day or a week at your house tops any expensive vacation. It's your time alone without snoopy parents around to issue rebukes about indulging your grand kids' appetite for ice cream. When they leave, you count down the days until their next visit.
Every grandchild is born with an instruction manual telling each one how to manipulate grandparents. A pouty plea or a wistful wish from a grand kid is impossible to resist. They know it, you know it, but neither of you cares.
Reading to grandchildren is a pleasure without equal. They fidget, tilt their little heads, lean into you for warmth and mouth the words along with you. It is hard to concentrate on the text as you watch their eyelids flutter with the approach of sleep.
Best of all you can see the future by looking into the eyes of a grandchild. Their destiny is filled with light, love and high expectations. You may be experiencing your final revolution around the sun, but your grandchild has a whole life to live. It makes your future less scary.
Be thankful for your grand kids. They are God's gift to a world that could use more of their unique brand of unconditional love.
Monday, November 7, 2016
What Trump's Election Means
Political insiders, pundits, well-heeled lobbyists and pollsters were dead wrong. They were certain Hillary Clinton would win the presidency in an epic landslide. Americans would never elect Donald Trump, a man they spent 18 months dismissing as unfit to occupy the Oval Office.
The problem is every single one of these know-it-alls is out-of-touch with real Americans. The inside-the-Beltway crowd talks only to each other. Meanwhile, out in fly over country, those bitter clingers who had been mocked by the media were spoiling to rewrite electoral history
An anti-establishment tide was sweeping America and none of the political big shots took notice. Americans no longer considered the media mainstream. There was palpable anger against institutions, including Wall Street, giant banks, global corporations and the federal government.
Americans had no love for the hidebound cliques who dominated both political parties. Their distrust fueled two anti-establishment candidates, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Republican and Democrat barons pooh-poohed their chances and connived to keep them from primary victory.
Democrats rigged the primary to deny Sanders. Republican emperors savaged Mr. Trump and his supporters. The lords of the GOP had surrogates working behind the scenes to crater the Trump campaign to no avail. They never recognized their base had changed right before their eyes.
Make no mistake: this victory by Donald Trump was a rejection of the Washington establishment and everything it stands for. Americans of both parties are sick and tired of being ignored, taken-for-granted and being flimflammed by special interests who sway decision-making in Congress.
Equally as important, Mr. Trump's election means there are new rules for winning the presidency. Rule number one: money isn't everything. Ms. Clinton outspent her opponent nearly 100-to-one, raising a record $1 billion in campaign cash. Money can no longer purchase the White House.
All those bucks are needed to pay for waves of political advertising. Political consultants worship negative advertising aimed at smearing the opponent. This time it didn't work. Ms. Clinton owned television, but her vicious ads were ineffective especially in swing states.
The conventional political calculus has always been that a ground game wins general elections. Door-knocking, robot calls, yard signs and political store front offices were supposed to be an advantage. The political nobility chuckled that huge candidate rallies were nothing more than eye candy.
Mr. Trump proved his unconventional approach to campaigning not only attracted crowds, but energized voters to turnout. By comparison, Ms. Clinton spoke at half-filled venues speckled with unenthusiastic automatons. That should have been a red flag to anyone paying attention.
Mr. Trump's win also deals a blow to pollsters and their research. Americans have been brainwashed by the media about the science of taking the temperature of voters. Polling is fraught with errors, especially when the results can be skewed by those conducting the research.
Campaigns will continue to use polling, but they would be well advised to place little faith in the results. There is no substitute for hearing from real people, face-to-face. Fewer people are even willing to talk to telephone researchers, which renders traditional polling methods obsolete.
The election results also smashed to smithereens the hollowed cliche no candidate can win the presidency without the Latino and African-American vote. Eight years ago the political elite were convinced white voters no longer mattered. The "white" GOP was history.
It turns out white voters still make up 73.5 percent of registered voters. They remain the majority. Ignoring that reality is political folly. Demographics are changing and at some point the numbers may shift, too. However, right now minorities remain the minority.
The biggest loser this election was the media cabal. Every newspaper and television outlet conspired to influence voters by tilting news coverage in favor of Ms. Clinton. It utterly failed. Traditional media has lost its political clout. Social media and cable news are the new political kingmakers.
Honest historians, an oxymoron if there ever was one, should reach two conclusions about the 2016 election. Voters renounced the establishment and signaled that the old political formula is no longer relevant. Change is sweeping America, but few in the political intelligentsia saw it coming.
The problem is every single one of these know-it-alls is out-of-touch with real Americans. The inside-the-Beltway crowd talks only to each other. Meanwhile, out in fly over country, those bitter clingers who had been mocked by the media were spoiling to rewrite electoral history
An anti-establishment tide was sweeping America and none of the political big shots took notice. Americans no longer considered the media mainstream. There was palpable anger against institutions, including Wall Street, giant banks, global corporations and the federal government.
Americans had no love for the hidebound cliques who dominated both political parties. Their distrust fueled two anti-establishment candidates, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Republican and Democrat barons pooh-poohed their chances and connived to keep them from primary victory.
Democrats rigged the primary to deny Sanders. Republican emperors savaged Mr. Trump and his supporters. The lords of the GOP had surrogates working behind the scenes to crater the Trump campaign to no avail. They never recognized their base had changed right before their eyes.
Make no mistake: this victory by Donald Trump was a rejection of the Washington establishment and everything it stands for. Americans of both parties are sick and tired of being ignored, taken-for-granted and being flimflammed by special interests who sway decision-making in Congress.
Equally as important, Mr. Trump's election means there are new rules for winning the presidency. Rule number one: money isn't everything. Ms. Clinton outspent her opponent nearly 100-to-one, raising a record $1 billion in campaign cash. Money can no longer purchase the White House.
All those bucks are needed to pay for waves of political advertising. Political consultants worship negative advertising aimed at smearing the opponent. This time it didn't work. Ms. Clinton owned television, but her vicious ads were ineffective especially in swing states.
The conventional political calculus has always been that a ground game wins general elections. Door-knocking, robot calls, yard signs and political store front offices were supposed to be an advantage. The political nobility chuckled that huge candidate rallies were nothing more than eye candy.
Mr. Trump proved his unconventional approach to campaigning not only attracted crowds, but energized voters to turnout. By comparison, Ms. Clinton spoke at half-filled venues speckled with unenthusiastic automatons. That should have been a red flag to anyone paying attention.
Mr. Trump's win also deals a blow to pollsters and their research. Americans have been brainwashed by the media about the science of taking the temperature of voters. Polling is fraught with errors, especially when the results can be skewed by those conducting the research.
Campaigns will continue to use polling, but they would be well advised to place little faith in the results. There is no substitute for hearing from real people, face-to-face. Fewer people are even willing to talk to telephone researchers, which renders traditional polling methods obsolete.
The election results also smashed to smithereens the hollowed cliche no candidate can win the presidency without the Latino and African-American vote. Eight years ago the political elite were convinced white voters no longer mattered. The "white" GOP was history.
It turns out white voters still make up 73.5 percent of registered voters. They remain the majority. Ignoring that reality is political folly. Demographics are changing and at some point the numbers may shift, too. However, right now minorities remain the minority.
The biggest loser this election was the media cabal. Every newspaper and television outlet conspired to influence voters by tilting news coverage in favor of Ms. Clinton. It utterly failed. Traditional media has lost its political clout. Social media and cable news are the new political kingmakers.
Honest historians, an oxymoron if there ever was one, should reach two conclusions about the 2016 election. Voters renounced the establishment and signaled that the old political formula is no longer relevant. Change is sweeping America, but few in the political intelligentsia saw it coming.
Media: The Biggest Losers This Election
The 2016 presidential election has once and for all unmasked the mainstream media as nothing more than Democrat Party apparatchiks. There no longer is even a pretense of journalism or fairness. Most "news" organizations have coddled Hillary Clinton, while lambasting Donald Trump.
Allegations of media bias are nothing new in presidential elections. But this time reporters and editors have openly confessed they consider Mr. Trump's candidacy a threat to democracy. If you doubt that statement, then you have not being paying attention to the news coverage.
Here is what The New York Times media columnist Jim Rutenberg wrote. "If you view a Trump presidency as something that's potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that." The last vestiges of journalistic ethics have been shredded on the pages of the newspaper of record.
Objectivity and balance are no longer viewed as ethical standards by the news media. The new creed for journalists is to ingratiate themselves with the academic elite, the politically connected and the Washington power brokers, while pretending to pursue the truth.
A recent Associated Press-GfK poll confirms that most Americans are not fooled by the media's facade of unprejudiced reporting. Overall, 56 percent of likely voters told researchers that the media is biased against Mr. Trump. Just five percent believe the coverage favors him.
Even Ms. Clinton's supporters are more likely to recognize the bias against Mr. Trump. Thirty percent of her voters single out the media for unfairly hammering Mr. Trump. Sixty percent of her backers see no bias in either direction. Their brain wave patterns should be analyzed.
A Rasmussen survey found 61 percent of likely voters put no faith in the political news they see on television, hear on the radio or read in newspapers. That is a 16-point jump from the last Rasmussen research on the topic. Only 21 percent express confidence in political coverage.
Here's just one example of why voters are justifiably suspicious. When Mr. Trump was ambushed with sexual misconduct allegations, ABC, NBC and CBS used 23 minutes combined covering the story on the day the news broke. It was the lead item on all three networks.
Now compare that to the news reporting the day Wikileaks released a series of bombshell emails authored by Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta. The three television networks combined spent all of one minute and seven seconds on the revelations. And it wasn't even the top story.
The Wikileaks emails also have spotlighted the seedy underbelly of journalism. Reporters emailed copies of stories to aides of Ms. Clinton for approval. Journalists were fed stories by her campaign and reliably regurgitated the talking-points. They might as well have been on her payroll.
In an extraordinary revelation, the Clinton campaign rounded up 65 reporters and journalists for an "off-the-record dinner" on April 10, 2015, to "frame" Hillary Clinton's message for her presidential announcement. The invitation flagged that ABC's Diane Sawyer would be among the guests.
The list of attendees included a who's who of Washington journalism, including David Muir and George Stephanoplous from ABC, Norah O'Donnell with CBS and eight news people from the CNN network. Five reporters from The New York Times showed up for the cozy affair.
The dinner was hosted at the palatial home of Podesta. Background sessions with reporters are not uncommon, but it is abnormal for journalists to be wined and dined by a campaign chairman. In days past, journalists avoided even the appearance of favoritism to one party campaign over the other.
Not to be outdone, CNN contributor Donna Brazile, who doubles as chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, was forced to resign from her news position after leaked emails showed she secretly supplied Ms. Clinton with the questions at least twice in advance of presidential debates.
Social media has thrown in with Ms. Clinton, too. Google jiggered its search engine to bury unfavorable entries about her. Twitter banned vociferous supporters of Mr. Trump. Facebook was outed for its hostility toward favorable posts about Mr. Trump. The fix was in for Ms. Clinton.
But social media does not pretend to be a forum for journalism. That's supposed to be the role of newspapers, magazines, television and radio. Those outlets which claim to report the news should be guardians of objectivity, fairness and impartiality.
Journalists in this election have been exposed as lemming-like partisans who are actively involved with the Democratic Party's campaign to claim the White House. Their shabby conduct has irreparably corrupted what few tattered principles remained from this once revered profession.
America no longer has an honest media. The media is nothing more than an extension of the Democratic Party, Washington political insiders and liberal voices who champion views that many Americans consider anathema to our culture and heritage.
That's not what America's founders envisioned when they enshrined the right of free expression and an unfettered press.
Allegations of media bias are nothing new in presidential elections. But this time reporters and editors have openly confessed they consider Mr. Trump's candidacy a threat to democracy. If you doubt that statement, then you have not being paying attention to the news coverage.
Here is what The New York Times media columnist Jim Rutenberg wrote. "If you view a Trump presidency as something that's potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that." The last vestiges of journalistic ethics have been shredded on the pages of the newspaper of record.
Objectivity and balance are no longer viewed as ethical standards by the news media. The new creed for journalists is to ingratiate themselves with the academic elite, the politically connected and the Washington power brokers, while pretending to pursue the truth.
A recent Associated Press-GfK poll confirms that most Americans are not fooled by the media's facade of unprejudiced reporting. Overall, 56 percent of likely voters told researchers that the media is biased against Mr. Trump. Just five percent believe the coverage favors him.
Even Ms. Clinton's supporters are more likely to recognize the bias against Mr. Trump. Thirty percent of her voters single out the media for unfairly hammering Mr. Trump. Sixty percent of her backers see no bias in either direction. Their brain wave patterns should be analyzed.
A Rasmussen survey found 61 percent of likely voters put no faith in the political news they see on television, hear on the radio or read in newspapers. That is a 16-point jump from the last Rasmussen research on the topic. Only 21 percent express confidence in political coverage.
Here's just one example of why voters are justifiably suspicious. When Mr. Trump was ambushed with sexual misconduct allegations, ABC, NBC and CBS used 23 minutes combined covering the story on the day the news broke. It was the lead item on all three networks.
Now compare that to the news reporting the day Wikileaks released a series of bombshell emails authored by Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta. The three television networks combined spent all of one minute and seven seconds on the revelations. And it wasn't even the top story.
The Wikileaks emails also have spotlighted the seedy underbelly of journalism. Reporters emailed copies of stories to aides of Ms. Clinton for approval. Journalists were fed stories by her campaign and reliably regurgitated the talking-points. They might as well have been on her payroll.
In an extraordinary revelation, the Clinton campaign rounded up 65 reporters and journalists for an "off-the-record dinner" on April 10, 2015, to "frame" Hillary Clinton's message for her presidential announcement. The invitation flagged that ABC's Diane Sawyer would be among the guests.
The list of attendees included a who's who of Washington journalism, including David Muir and George Stephanoplous from ABC, Norah O'Donnell with CBS and eight news people from the CNN network. Five reporters from The New York Times showed up for the cozy affair.
The dinner was hosted at the palatial home of Podesta. Background sessions with reporters are not uncommon, but it is abnormal for journalists to be wined and dined by a campaign chairman. In days past, journalists avoided even the appearance of favoritism to one party campaign over the other.
Not to be outdone, CNN contributor Donna Brazile, who doubles as chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, was forced to resign from her news position after leaked emails showed she secretly supplied Ms. Clinton with the questions at least twice in advance of presidential debates.
Social media has thrown in with Ms. Clinton, too. Google jiggered its search engine to bury unfavorable entries about her. Twitter banned vociferous supporters of Mr. Trump. Facebook was outed for its hostility toward favorable posts about Mr. Trump. The fix was in for Ms. Clinton.
But social media does not pretend to be a forum for journalism. That's supposed to be the role of newspapers, magazines, television and radio. Those outlets which claim to report the news should be guardians of objectivity, fairness and impartiality.
Journalists in this election have been exposed as lemming-like partisans who are actively involved with the Democratic Party's campaign to claim the White House. Their shabby conduct has irreparably corrupted what few tattered principles remained from this once revered profession.
America no longer has an honest media. The media is nothing more than an extension of the Democratic Party, Washington political insiders and liberal voices who champion views that many Americans consider anathema to our culture and heritage.
That's not what America's founders envisioned when they enshrined the right of free expression and an unfettered press.
Monday, October 31, 2016
Who Will Win the Presidential Election?
This presidential election, unlike any other in recent history, defies conventional political calculations. For that reason, Americans are advised to ignore the polls, pundit predictions and electoral math. The truth is there are too many variables to accurately forecast the election outcome.
The latest stunning twist in this bizarre election was the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announcement last week that it was reopening its probe into Hillary Clinton's email scandal. Never in American history has a candidate for the presidency been investigated twice by the FBI.
This development and unproven allegations of Donald Trump's sexual misconduct have thrust the election into unchartered waters. For the first time in recent memory, surveys show voters are decidedly despondent and disgusted. Some Americans say they plan to vote for neither candidate.
An ABC News tracking poll identified enthusiasm gaps for both candidates. "As a percentage of voting age population, it (turnout) will be low, probably lower than the past four or five presidential elections," according to Matthew Dowd, an ABC News political analyst.
There are other variables that are even harder to quantify. Both candidates have corpulent negative favorability numbers that have never been seen in a presidential race. Will that be enough to motivate Americans to vote against one candidate or the other?
Questions also have been raised about turnout among African-Americans and Hispanics. In the 2012 presidential election, turnout among blacks topped 66 percent, eclipsing 2008's 65.2 percent. Hispanic turnout in 2008 reached a historic 49.9 percent, but slid to 48% in 2012.
These two demographics groups voted overwhelming for Barrack Obama. Ninety-five percent of African-Americans voted for the president in 2012. The president won 82 percent of the Hispanic vote that year. He racked up similar margins in 2008.
Will the record turnout and lopsided margin for Mr. Obama be the same for Ms. Clinton? Especially in swing states, African-Americans and Hispanics will hold the key to victory. Any slippage in turnout or margin will open the door for the Republican Donald Trump.
Right behind minorities in importance are young people aged 18-29. These adults turned out in record numbers in 2008 and 2012. More than half (51%) of young voters flocked to the polls in 2008, the highest since the election of 1964. Will these fickle voters remain engaged this year?
In both elections where Mr. Obama was on the ballot, young adults gave him comfortable margins. He collected 61 and 62 percent, respectively, in the elections of 2008 and 2012. Will young voters support the Democrat nominee at those same levels this year?
Answers to those questions will go a long way in deciding this presidential election. However, there is one group that has escaped media attention that likely will be the most influential in determining the next president. They are unmarried women.
According to the Voter Participation Data Center, unmarried women are the country's fastest growing demographic. More than 58 million single women are eligible to vote this year. The is the first time in American history that voting-age single women outnumber married women in an election.
In nine of the battleground states, including Colorado, Florida and Virginia, the number of unmarried women eligible to vote this election exceeds married women. That is significant because these singles have been among the most reliable Democrat Party supporters in past presidential elections.
In 2008, Mr. Obama carried unmarried women by a thirty-point margin, 66 to 34 percent. The vote for the president in 2012 was even more out of balance. Mr. Obama received 71 percent of the votes recorded by unmarried women, a 42 point margin over his Republican challenger.
Although it is never fair to generalize about an entire group, most single women have been at odds with Republican positions on abortion, contraception and female health issues. The charges against Donald Trump involving alleged sexual misconduct won't help him with these women either.
If single women turn out in droves, it will be a good sign for Hillary Clinton, if past voting patterns hold. Those are big IF's, considering Ms. Clinton's own trust issues with voters. It is just another unknown in an election sprinkled with question marks.
For that reason, the only accurate prediction about this election is that it is unpredictable.
The latest stunning twist in this bizarre election was the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announcement last week that it was reopening its probe into Hillary Clinton's email scandal. Never in American history has a candidate for the presidency been investigated twice by the FBI.
This development and unproven allegations of Donald Trump's sexual misconduct have thrust the election into unchartered waters. For the first time in recent memory, surveys show voters are decidedly despondent and disgusted. Some Americans say they plan to vote for neither candidate.
An ABC News tracking poll identified enthusiasm gaps for both candidates. "As a percentage of voting age population, it (turnout) will be low, probably lower than the past four or five presidential elections," according to Matthew Dowd, an ABC News political analyst.
There are other variables that are even harder to quantify. Both candidates have corpulent negative favorability numbers that have never been seen in a presidential race. Will that be enough to motivate Americans to vote against one candidate or the other?
Questions also have been raised about turnout among African-Americans and Hispanics. In the 2012 presidential election, turnout among blacks topped 66 percent, eclipsing 2008's 65.2 percent. Hispanic turnout in 2008 reached a historic 49.9 percent, but slid to 48% in 2012.
These two demographics groups voted overwhelming for Barrack Obama. Ninety-five percent of African-Americans voted for the president in 2012. The president won 82 percent of the Hispanic vote that year. He racked up similar margins in 2008.
Will the record turnout and lopsided margin for Mr. Obama be the same for Ms. Clinton? Especially in swing states, African-Americans and Hispanics will hold the key to victory. Any slippage in turnout or margin will open the door for the Republican Donald Trump.
Right behind minorities in importance are young people aged 18-29. These adults turned out in record numbers in 2008 and 2012. More than half (51%) of young voters flocked to the polls in 2008, the highest since the election of 1964. Will these fickle voters remain engaged this year?
In both elections where Mr. Obama was on the ballot, young adults gave him comfortable margins. He collected 61 and 62 percent, respectively, in the elections of 2008 and 2012. Will young voters support the Democrat nominee at those same levels this year?
Answers to those questions will go a long way in deciding this presidential election. However, there is one group that has escaped media attention that likely will be the most influential in determining the next president. They are unmarried women.
According to the Voter Participation Data Center, unmarried women are the country's fastest growing demographic. More than 58 million single women are eligible to vote this year. The is the first time in American history that voting-age single women outnumber married women in an election.
In nine of the battleground states, including Colorado, Florida and Virginia, the number of unmarried women eligible to vote this election exceeds married women. That is significant because these singles have been among the most reliable Democrat Party supporters in past presidential elections.
In 2008, Mr. Obama carried unmarried women by a thirty-point margin, 66 to 34 percent. The vote for the president in 2012 was even more out of balance. Mr. Obama received 71 percent of the votes recorded by unmarried women, a 42 point margin over his Republican challenger.
Although it is never fair to generalize about an entire group, most single women have been at odds with Republican positions on abortion, contraception and female health issues. The charges against Donald Trump involving alleged sexual misconduct won't help him with these women either.
If single women turn out in droves, it will be a good sign for Hillary Clinton, if past voting patterns hold. Those are big IF's, considering Ms. Clinton's own trust issues with voters. It is just another unknown in an election sprinkled with question marks.
For that reason, the only accurate prediction about this election is that it is unpredictable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)