Discord Among the GOP

I have often considered a key difference between Democrats and Republicans the range of opinion expressed in the respective camps.  The D's tend to have a whole host of opinions on matters of foreign policy, social issues, strategy, you name it.  This can be counterproductive for obvious reasons, but I figured it just meant they were smarter and thought things through.  Meanwhile I thought the GOP were all taking marching orders and have zero difference of opinion on anything.

The Republican Primary has changed my thinking on this matter significantly.  Most of us are familiar with the universals within GOP talking points: no taxes (on rich people) government is "the problem" and a scary disdain for the separation of church and state.  However, I think that the coalition between religious fundamentalists, greedy business types, wacky libertarians, and disgruntled blue collar workers is ripe for collapse.

The PTB do a great job of getting factions within the Democratic Party and even progressives outside of it to work against their common interests.  The most famous example I can think of is Nixon's Southern Strategy.  The game plan was to stoke the fears and racism of southern whites (reliable Democratic voters for decades) and get them to vote for Republicans after the victories of the Civil Rights movement.

My point is not that the Dems should have been more racist (probably what some Blue Dog Democrats would conclude today), but that Nixon and his cronies did a remarkable job of getting the Democrats to work against each other.

It goes without saying Democrats are often their own worst enemies, whether you think they are actively on the same team as the Republicans or that they are just weak/ineffectual.  That being said I do think things in this country would be remarkably better with the Republican coalition split up.

One example of this split is Mitt Romney Republicans and Michele Bachmann Republicans.  The Romney-type are wealthy, establishment Republicans, some of whom even "get it" on social issues (even a blind squirrel gets a nut sometimes).  However, most are so filled with greed that they could not care less about climate change, workers rights, or economic populism.  They kind of hate stuff that helps regular people without making them a quick buck (see Social Security) but don't rationalize it with some bizzare reading of Ayn Rand, instead it's framed as technocratic "reform".

In the other corner there are people perhaps best typified by Michele Bachmann.  These are the full-blown wing-nuts, who think evolution and climate change are schemes of evil scientists. They are birthers, biblical literalists, and anything that government can do to help is "unconstitutional".  Incredibly many of these people are not in the top 1% in terms of wealth, but reliably vote Republican only to get screwed on economic issues.

Obviously there is overlap between these 'factions', but I can't believe these people are in the same party.  If Democrats could consistently play these groups against one another, I believe the GOP Convention in 2012 could look like the Democratic Convention of 1968.  But I'm not holding my breath.

Realigning Election?

First things first, I actually would not mind if Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination for President in 2012.  I think that a Mitt vs. Barack match-up means that Obama actually has to appeal to his base to differentiate himself from a moderate Republican like Willard.  Although the President has "caved" on any number of important issues, I believe he would at least have to vocalize support for liberal ideas and try to reduce unemployment, instead of rest on his laurels and win big against kooky right-wingers like Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann.

***

One of the biggest issues I have with Obama is his constant platitudes to "bipartisanship"  (drinking game material).  When the President describes the current political situation he likes to say that partisanship is to blame and that both sides need to take a balanced approach.

Applying this rhetoric in a campaign against a Perry or Bachmann would only embolden their supporters, shifting the Overton Window to include their batshit ideas.

***

However, my dream scenario would be a 2012 campaign of Democrats running on the preferences of 80% of the population and going all-out to crush the Republican Party at the polls.  Obama would stop giving any degree of legitimacy to the GOP, and expose them as the delusional, marginal party they are.

Sure, the teabaggers who don't give a shit about facts would vote against the D's but they ALWAYS will.  Plus almost everyone agrees that jobs should be the main priority of our government right now, and the GOP's ideas on how to create them have been routinely
refuted.

Of course Obama continually fails to put together a narrative that helps the Democratic Party and is identical to Bush in far too many areas.  He is totally beholden to Wall St. and perhaps even likes it that way.  But for all the Obama apologists who bemoan that the President is only unable to pass meaningful legislation because of the Republicans in Congress, they should realize that this President's rhetoric and policies continue to breath life into a zombie party that should enjoy electoral success comparable to the Federalist Party in 1816 or the Republican Party in 1932.

Changing Childhood Obesity

Patrick Cooney

Journalism

Dr. Kozlowski

May 4, 2011

Getting Kids to Eat Right

       Getting America's children to eat better has been an important issue for some time.  With the advent of shows such as Jamie Oliver's,  “Food Revolution” on ABC and the Obama Administration's  $400 million Healthy Food Financing Initiative, improving the eating habits of our nation's youth is an issue that has enjoyed increasing media focus and promising policy initiatives.  However,  experts say much work still needs to be done in order to build sustainable efforts aimed at getting kids to eat well, particularly at school.

       According to Center for Disease and Control and Prevention, “Childhood obesity has more than tripled in the past 30 years. The prevalence of obesity among children aged 6 to 11 years increased from 6.5% in 1980 to 19.6% in 2008. The prevalence of obesity among adolescents aged 12 to 19 years increased from 5.0% to 18.1%.”

The statistics are startling, a clear indication of the increasing prevalence of childhood obesity.  The CDC also notes that obesity can break down considerably according to different demographics.  “There are significant racial and ethnic disparities in obesity prevalence among U.S. children and adolescents. In 2007—2008, Hispanic boys, aged 2 to 19 years, were significantly more likely to be obese than non-Hispanic white boys, and non-Hispanic black girls were significantly more likely to be obese than non-Hispanic white girls.” 

       The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, lists causes of childhood obesity, including: overeating, family issues, and lack of exercise among primary factors.  The American Academy of Pediatrics describes health risks associated with childhood obesity.  According to their website, “Overweight or obese children and adolescents are at risk for many health problems. Some of the negative health outcomes that may be more obvious to children and their parents are asthma, sleep apnea, skin infections, and complaints of joint pain. All of these are significant health problems and need attention by a doctor; however, in addition to these there are other serious health risks associated with obesity that may be less obvious to the child or parent, such as high blood pressure (hypertension) and Type 2 Diabetes.”

       The risks and increase of childhood obesity are well-documented, and most experts agree that the issue must be addressed on multiple fronts.  Many of the young professionals I spoke with discussed the changes that need to be made in terms of the children's learning institutions.

       Laura Thornton, founder and director of Sustainable Urban Development, a nonprofit in Philadelphia, said, “[we need to] teach kids good food can be healthy food.” Thornton also discussed the need to change the archaic guidelines in terms of which foods are considered healthy. She argued some officials could abuse these.  “It’s absurd, some of them try to argue French fries are legitimate vegetables, even though they’re deep-fried.”

Laura Buerger, a student of Nutrition and Dietetics at Saint Louis University, also spoke about the need to “teach cooks/lunch ladies ways to make healthy foods taste better.  Not all health food tastes bad but people need to know how to properly prepare them.”  She also discussed the need to teach kids how food is grown and prepared, which can make them more likely to embrace healthy foods.

       Michael Neal, a relationship specialist at Big Brothers Big Sisters St. Louis, talked about the need to decrease the student-teacher ratio in many schools and provide support for more “health professionals, parent outreach workers and ancillary teachers.  Currently most are shared in large districts and can't form strong relationships with students.”  Neal suggested following the example of some Scandinavian countries, where teachers are social workers are better compensated.   With stronger relationships between students and teachers and other social workers, tackling issues of how children eat could become more manageable.

In addition, Kylie Lynch, a Kindergarten Summer School Teacher in Dallas, thinks using food as an incentive sends the wrong message to kids.  “They need to be taught food is something we need for health, not necessarily a reward for good behavior.”

Changing how kids eat obviously will not happen overnight, but in addition to family involvement, experts agree that significant changes in how our schools teach our children about food is necessary. 

           

Michael Neal mneal@slu.edu

Kylie Lynch klynch6@slu.edu

Laura Thornton laura@sustainableurbandevelopment.org

Laura Buerger lbuerge1@gmail.com

The video I would include would show classrooms in Finland and South Korea, comparing how students and teachers relate there, and how their cultures treat food in schools, as opposed to the policies we have in the United States.

It’s great to see a lot of facts that supported your story.  -Meron Fitsum 

Culture of Death:My Generation's Reaction to Osama Bin Laden's Death

As a college senior, I witnessed perhaps the greatest rapid
mobilization of young people concerning political events since the
election of Barack Obama.  However, I was generally appalled by what I
saw and have become quite cynical about the possibility of collective
action by my peers, even after having worked on three political
campaigns in the past few years and feeling the thrill of actively
participating in our democracy.

 I saw purported Christians celebrate the taking of a man's life.  I
saw self-described strident opponents of Obama's "big government"
accept his description of events without question, heralding him as a
visionary committed to justice. I saw steadfast defenders of the
Constitution  come to champion the practices of extraordinary
rendition, torture, extrajudicial assassinations, and undeclared wars
as necessary and noble, effectively substantiating the most egregious
crimes of the Bush years.  Not only am I sickened by the bloodlust and
palpable bigotry surrounding OBL's death, comparable to the psychotic
rantings of any backward nation, I saw a huge blow to the anti-war
movement and general challenging of our empire abroad. This religious
fanatic and CIA collaborator's death will not bring back the innocent
people killed on 9/11, nor those who died in subsequent military
misadventures.  But to hell with context of his life and our
complicated role in it, hand me a Bud Light since we "got the
bastard".

I'm no stranger to being called anti-American for expressing my
political viewpoints, and no doubt I have resorted to ad hominem
smears against others in my frustration and immaturity.  But for
perhaps the first time in my life, I was truly ashamed of my fellow
Americans' pathetic response.  What frustrates me most is when I
compare this mobilization to the student uprisings in Egypt or
Bahrain. There, against all odds, youth organized against horrifyingly
repressive regimes peacefully, becoming politically-aware and ardently
striving for genuine democracy.  Meanwhile in the United States,
despite all our privileges, talents, and idealism, the best we can do
is cheer for this monster's death, cloaked in the flag.  It feels like
we don't care about rule of law, human rights, our civil liberties -
just some John Wayne bullshit sense of frontier justice.

Perhaps there is a silver lining, that the Wars in Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and God knows where else can stop now
since Osama bin Laden has been apprehended.  The massive
redistribution of wealth from American taxpayers to weapons
manufacturers will cease, and our innumerable military bases abroad
can be shut down.  The killing of civilians by our drone strikes and
"kill teams" will be a dark chapter in our history, but one that is
closed.

A boy can dream, can't he?

SLU Health Law Program

Morgan Hermanson & Pat Cooney

     

Growing concerns of future employment have plagued graduates across the country because of the recession and high unemployment rates. The government implemented a new health care law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in March 2010, and countless industries are examining its details and flocking to benefit from its existence. The health law program at Saint Louis University Law School is no exception, as this community continues to experience success in the world of academia.

       SLU has the number one health law program in the country for the eighth straight year, according to U.S. News & World Report.  The rankings appear in the magazine’s “Best Graduate Schools 2012 Edition” and are based on votes from health law scholars. Many applicants to the health law program at SLU include medical professionals such as doctors and nurses returning to school to study the law, said Assistant Dean of Admissions Michael Kolnik.

However, Kolnik and others in the law school say it is still uncertain how much impact the PPACA has had on admission interest.

       What is for certain is that the new law will require attorneys to translate details involved in the 2,700-page document, which is generally good news for the health law profession.

       “Many of the business operations, whether they’re contracts, joint ventures or mergers, are going to require the assistance of lawyers to put the deal together,” said Professor Tim Greaney, director of the Center for Health Law Studies at SLU. Attorneys will be needed to help “new organizations, new structures and new arrangements” transition into a more integrated system, said Greaney.

       Oversight of the new regulations in the law by attorneys will allow the government to have more supervision over suspected fraud, said Greaney.

        “That requires legal assistance of both the prophylactic point of view, preventing harm, and from the remedial point of view,” correcting harm, he said.

       Admittedly, he said the recession has also affected the legal job market, which is at an all-time low in his 20 years of experience in teaching. However, he characterizes the health law students at SLU as likely doing better than average in comparison to other graduates because of the consistent growth for physician and hospital practices.

       At SLU, students select from a variety of health law classes to complete their health law certificate.  The health law certificate signals to employers that graduates are serious about the subject and have studied it in-depth, said Amy Sanders, assistant director of the Center for Health Law Studies.  

         SLU Law offers dual-degree programs including Master's of Public Health and Master's of Health Administration, said Sanders, which include following a general, versatile law degree but also explore questions of bioethics, business and policy.

       There are many opportunities for students at SLU to gain experience in the health law industry before graduation, such as internships in Washington D.C. and St. Louis, said Kolnik. Students can also compete in moot court, a prestigious extracurricular activity in law schools.

It is a simulated courtroom experience for law students. Additionally, they can write an editorial for the Journal of Health Law & Policy, published bi-annually by the Center for Health Law Studies.

       Kolnik and Sanders suggested that the PPACA inevitably will have an impact on job opportunities for health law graduates at SLU, although exact statistics have not been reported.  The PPACA must survive the numerous lawsuits pending that challenge its constitutionality.  One thing is for certain: Health law will continue to be a sought-after field for future law graduates.

Michael Kolnik      kolnikmj@slu.edu

Tim Greaney         greanetl@slu.edu

Amy Sanders       sanderan@slu.edu

The video we would include would feature lawmakers in Congress debating the Health Care law, followed by a cut to SLU Law students in moot court discussing similar topics.

Boy, I hope Donald Trump Wins the GOP Nomination

I recently received an email from President Barack Obama.  He wrote, "We're doing this now because the politics we believe in does not start with expensive TV ads or extravaganzas, but with you -- with people organizing block-by-block, talking to neighbors, co-workers, and friends."


What a joke.  It is predicted that Obama will spend over $1 billion on his reelection campaign, primarily for expensive TV ads.  It's how you winelections after all.  Sure, the veneer of Grassroots organizing will be maintained, and people WILL canvass, phonebank, put out yard signs.  But the reality is that Obama administration has been anything but responsive to the small donors and people going to door-to-door. It's all about the corporate donors and Washington establishment.  That's who Barack really cares about, and is  why he will probably win the election.


And that's exactly why I'm rooting for Donald Trump to win the GOP nomination.  His larger-than-life caricature will make this election FUN, an expensive TV extravaganza like none the world has seen before.  Trump could potentially raise Obama's bet of $1 billion and piss away $2 billion to take a shot at the Oval Office. 


I shudder at the thought of Obama running against Tim Pawlenty, possibly the only person in American politics more boring than the president himself.  Trump is totally over-the-top and his inevitable loss to Obama will be hilarious to watch. Picture the blowhards in our media like Brian Williams, Wolf Blitzer, and Bill O'Reilly being forced to take this clown's quixotic campaign seriously!  


We have not had someone this woefully unqualified to run for POTUS since Ronald Reagan, but if he proved a simple-minded movie star can become Commander-in-chief, then why not a simple-minded TV star?  Hell, he could follow in Reagan's footsteps reusing clichés from his past career while president.  Imagine The Donald telling our vicious Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, "You're fired!" 


Best of all Trump reflects what many Americans perceive as important in their President.  He is a successful businessman.  He is a "Washington outsider". He has a hot wife.  He has a reality TV show.  He is White. 


Does he make serious critiques of the Obama Administration's policies? No, he prefers to clamor for Obama's Birth Certificate and question his religion.  But hey, so does a sizable segment of the American public.  


Trump would reveal the campaign for President of the United States as the charade it truly is: shady corporate funding, bogus rhetoric, cult of celebrity, constant TV appearances, a spineless Mainstream Media, and colorful spectacle.

Richard Gabriel Speech

Richard Gabriel, Ph.D., said that the United States has no vital interest in Afghanistan, and that the current strategy is clouded by domestic concerns as well as a failure to understand the region's history and culture, in his speech: “Afghanistan: A Strategic and Tactical Analysis,” Monday.

       Speaking to a crowd of over 100 students, faculty, and concerned citizens in Saint Louis University's Pius Library, Gabriel explained why he believes President Obama has increased U.S. Military presence in Afghanistan.

       “Obama understands that if [he] let people perceive [him] as weak [militarily], he will be attacked by the right-wing in this country.”

       Gabriel, a retired Army officer, is the author of more than 30 books concerning all things military. He discussed how a president's foreign policy is often informed by domestic concerns, for better or worse.

       “No sitting president could allow the [9/11] attacks to go unanswered and remain in office.  But Bush, to his credit, understood that the

U.S. had no strategic interest in Afghanistan and switched priorities.”

       Obama, in contrast to his predecessor, has made Afghanistan a focal point of his administration; a fact that Gabriel believes has more to do with winning independent voters than winning the War on Terror.

       Gabriel argued the mission is shortsighted and ineffective, “[The mission is] to stop the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan and [not allow them to] make a base for terrorism.  But there is no need for bases to plot a terrorist attack, any hotel will do.” 

       He brought up that American anger at the attacks was directed at the Taliban regime, with dubious rationale.

       “By no means can we claim that the Taliban would have supported terrorism against the U.S.…There is no evidence to suggest that the

Taliban trusted al-Qaida.”

       Gabriel alluded to U.S. support for the Taliban regime in the late 1990s and claimed, “[The U.S.] paid [the Taliban] some $230 million a year to destroy opium in Afghanistan.” 

       The speaker noted that in addition to domestic concerns, ignorance about Afghan history and culture has plagued U.S. Military objectives there.

Gabriel stressed the tribal culture of Afghanistan, and U.S. failure to understand its implications.

       “The largest tribal society in the world was split in half... The border between Afghanistan and Pakistan was drawn by a British bird watcher.”

       Gabriel pointed out that U.S. allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan had recognized the Taliban's Islamic Fundamentalist regime and that Pakistan continues to support the Taliban.  

In addition, he discussed the crucial role the U.S. played in providing training, funding and weaponry to militant Islamic jihadists during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Gabriel contends that ignorance of this context has severely hampered U.S. military objectives.

Gabriel thinks it is likely the U.S. will return home and that Afghanistan will revert to a patchwork of regional and local militias.  Reflecting on the role of the American military going forward,

Gabriel said, “No one ever made the military better by covering up mistakes.”