Hillary, Hillary, Wherefore Art Thou, Hillary?

Former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is campaigning to become President of the United States; and if she is successful in her efforts she will be the country's first woman president. The sheer historicity of this potential and possibility of such accomplishment is exciting, to say the least. Thus far, however, Sec. Clinton's role in the 2016 election cycle has been blemished by an ever-widening gap among Democrat women voters. The press and various pundits recognize this phenomenon as occurring in two camps--women older than 45 years of age and women younger than 45 years. Women over 45 years are inclined to support and vote for Clinton; while younger women express a strong preference for Senator Bernie Sanders. Many have speculated as to the impetus behind this divide; Gloria Steinem offered that younger women weren't drawn to support the Sander's campaign for any reason based in intellect or politics or altruism, rather the attraction was simply one of pheromones and the boys to which they belong. Ms. Steinem, who has since apologized for her overwhelmingly sexist statement, must think that younger women are incapable of objective thought and reason; and as such, grade a candidate based on the physical attractiveness of his/her campaign workers. While former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told us about a special place in hell for those women who choose not to support women; comments that not only rely upon a less than subtle equating of free-thought with heresy but are also reminiscent of attitudes generated during the Inqusition of the 13th century, in that they are devoid of either objectivity or reason.
Was the purpose of the 19th Amendment and the Women's Suffrage Movement to have all women vote as a block with little or no thought given to issues, candidates, etcetera?  Unlikely. In fact, that perspective does strike one as more than a bit sexist, anathema to the entire suffrage movement.
Does it seem so far-fetched to Ms. Steinem and Secretary Albright that younger women represent a sophisticated demographic, independent and unbound by the shackles of a mentality more closely akin to that of a 1960's UAW union member? And by that I mean simply, that both Steinem and Albright seem to advocate for voting preferences and political palettes that are dictated to and determined by a group to which one has pledged economic fealty or in this instance gender fealty.
I would submit that so many younger women have turned away from the Hillary campaign as a result of priorities: their priorities this election cycle do not coincide with those of the current female presidential candidate. Where is the discussion about women's health issues? Genetically modified organisms (GMO's)? Fossil fuels? Universal voting suffrage? In all fairness, she did not assume the gauntlet regarding the increasingly oppressive financial burden of student loan debt until Senator Sanders insisted it was an issue of enough gravity to merit reshaping the national conversation. Still another, some might say, even more poignant aspect of this divide amongst women is the struggle between two philosophies--entitlement versus altruism.
On the campaign trail,  Hillary Clinton insists that, as President, two of her earliest actions will include mandating equal pay for equal work and a moratorium on coal, oil and natural gas drilling on public land. I want to believe her but find it difficult; as Clinton has already redacted from her platform earlier statements regarding coal, oil and natural gas. She now supports drilling on public lands. Will her intentions soon cool on the issue of equal pay?
Clinton's sense of altruism as a candidate versus her sense of entitlement regarding ascension to the position POTUS becomes even more opaque when one looks at her big-ticket supporters, the PAC supporting her candidacy and her tie-in to global agrichemical ventures, like Monsanto, Dow Chemical and Syngenta. For example, Clinton enjoys the support of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, on the order of $25M in campaign donations, thus far. Bill Gates owns millions of shares of Monsanto and Cargill stock, roughly $23M worth. The intersection of interests is unavoidable. The potential for a superimposition of Monsanto priorities onto those of the Clinton campaign becomes increasingly more likely when one realizes the influence of former Monsanto executives on any future administration, because they have certainly influenced those previous. Please consider the following: Michael Taylor, the FDA's current Deputy Commissioner of Foods, is a former Monsanto executive; Clarence Thomas, current Supreme Court Justice, was formerly a Monsanto corporate attorney; and Jeremy Crawford, a law and lobbying specialist, previously in the employ of Monsanto, is now employed as a campaign advisor for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential bid.
According to data compiled by Greenpeace, Secretary Clinton's campaign and the superPAC supporting her, Priorities USA, have received in excess of $4.5M from the fossil fuel industry. Relative cheap-skates compared to the agrichemical interests, but substantive none the less. In fact, more than eleven registered oil and gas lobbyists have given a combined total to her campaign of more than $1M. A fair percentage of the fossil fuel contributions to Hillary's campaign have come from two donors: Donald Sussman and David Shaw. Sussman is the founder and chairperson of Paloma Partners; $2.5M of this hedge fund is invested in energy companies, i.e. Phillips 66, AGL Resources and Occidental Petroleum. Incidentally, Paloma Partners received $200M in US taxpayer money as part of the AIG bail-out. David Shaw, chief scientist at DE Shaw Research, has given $750,000 to Priorities USA and another $50,000 to Clinton's Ready PAC, (formerly Ready for Hillary PAC). Shaw, in fact, served on the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) in both Bill Clinton's administration as well as that of Barack Obama's; and he has major holdings in the Marathon Petroleum Corporation.
Hillary Clinton appeared at a fundraiser in January of this year, which was in large part under-written by the fracking lobby; the event was co-hosted by Michael C. Forman, founder and CEO of Franklin Square Capital Partners. Franklin Square is a $17B investment firm which holds significant interests in scores of Pennsylvania fracking companies. Secretary Clinton obviously supports fracking; as evidenced by her actions while at the State Department--she lobbied against fracking bans throughout Eastern Europe. In addition, when asked during a recent debate about her support of fracking she responded: I don't support it when any locality or state is against it, number one...I don't support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present. I don't support it, number three, unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using. Sounds like a fracking endorsement to me! And still it continues--Clinton states that she supports a Department of Justice investigation into ExxonMobil as she continues to accept campaign contributions from the Exxon lobby!?
At the start of the 2016 campaign season, more than 20 environmental organizations, human rights organizations, etcetera, asked the Democrat and Republican presidential candidates to sign a pledge to #FixDemocracy. This #FixDemocracy pledge asked candidates to support the following legislation: 1) The Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would help to restore as well as increase protections against voting discrimination; 2) The Voter Empowerment Act, to modernize voter registration and ensure equal access to polling stations, voting opportunities for all Americans; 3) The Democracy for All Amendment, to overturn SCOTUS decisions like those of Citizens United and limit the influence of money/corporate contributions in politics; 4) The Government by the People Act/Fair Elections Now Act, would place an emphasis on the small campaign contributions of ordinary citizens while working to de-emphasize the influence of big-business/big pharma in political campaigns. Of all the candidates asked, only Senator Bernie Sanders signed the pledge. Hillary Clinton acknowledged the request but did not sign. No Republican candidate responded nor did any sign the pledge.
Why does any of this matter? It is near impossible to deny the influence that corporations have upon our political process. It might be one person, one vote; but it is also one company, ($)4.5M votes or one company, ($)17B votes. The depths to which such corporate power can penetrate into our legislature is almost impossible to fathom. The companies and corporations involved in this presidential campaign are not altruistic; if anything they are dangerous and destructive to the very foundation of a democratic society. Money for influence in the context of government is the antidote to Jeffersonian democracy.
In support of this contention please consider the following information about several of the companies mentioned earlier, Monsanto, Dow Chemical and Syngenta.
 Founded in 1901, Monsanto is a publicly traded American multinational agrichemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. At present it is best known for its production of GMO's including genetically engineered seeds, and RoundUp. RoundUp is a glyphosate-based herbicide used to eradicate "weeds"; lymphoma and leukemia are known side effects of exposure to this product. Monsanto has also brought us such gems as DDT, PCB's, Agent Orange and Bovine Growth Hormone. Dow Chemical is also an American multinational corporation, that develops agrichemicals, plastics, etcetera. According to the EPA, Dow is responsible for 96 Superfund toxic waste sites, including a former UCC uranium and vanadium processing facility near Uravan, Colorado. Dow has a number of subsidiaries and joint ventures, i.e. Arabian Chemical Company, Dow Chemical Kuwait, Sadara Chemical Company, the Kuwait Styrene Co KSC, the Kuwait Olefins Com KSC, Map Ta Phut Olefins Co Lmtd. Syngenta is a global Swiss agribusiness which produces agrichemicals and seeds. It was formed in 2000 after a merger between Novartis agribusiness and Zeneca agribusiness. In February 2016 ChemChina offered to purchase Syngenta for $43B. Syngenta currently is the primary producer of the herbicide atrazine. Atrazine is banned in the EU but still used across the US. It is a known endocrine disrupter in all animals, including humans; and is responsible for decimating the amphibian population of North America. The EU recently suspended the use of Syngenta's herbicide, Cruiser (thiamethoxam TXM) on all bee-pollinated crops. Of course, Syngenta in collaboration with Bayer is formally challenging this ban in court.
These are the sorts of companies that buy our politicians and hijack the political process. These are the companies that have systematically and without evidence of remorse neutered our democracy. We vote for candidates that are little more than mouth-pieces for chemical interests both foreign and domestic. Maybe, Ms. Steinem and Secretary Albright, young women have pulled away from Hillary Clinton because she has allowed herself to become someone who is owned by corporate interests; she is no longer an advocate nor is she an activist for women's rights and a human rights agenda, she is an atavism, representing a time and place from which young women have been liberated. Someone who has sold their very soul, their identity to the promise of fiduciary gain and financial kickback is little more than a slave to the paymaster and as such that person is wholly incapable of understanding the workings of a free mind. And maybe that's the difference right there, Ladies.

Please reference: signforgood.com, naturalsociety.com, althealthworks.com, news.vice.com, greenpeace.org, democracyawakening.org.

Is the Popular Vote a Popular Myth?

The DNC's structure of super delegates has become an issue this campaign season as it has just about every presidential election cycle since that of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. The continued and unflagging support of the Democrats' party elite, including that of DNC national chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, for the super delegate system stands in complete opposition to the concept of one-person, one-vote and the basic tenets of government by the people for the people; it unfailingly demonstrates the need for a multi-party system. Our current two party system bears the jaundice of political elitism. And if one listens to the rhetoric coming from the Dems' power structure this election cycle it is becoming increasingly similar and politically symmetrical to the Republican agenda. Crossing the aisle in Congress on matters of social and economic policy, historically was akin to swimming the Atlantic; today, it is an endeavor much more closely aligned with stepping over a day-old rain puddle.
The Dems' super delegates wonderfully represent the corruption of ideas and agenda that has taken hold of the Party. The distinct anti-grassroots stance which the Party has of late become extremely comfortable in espousing is strong and damning testimony. It is important to realize that the concept of unpledged and/or super delegates is little more than a construct of our two-party system. No mention of super delegates in the Constitution. 
The Dems' super delegates can also be referred to as PLEO's or political leaders and elected officials; as they include former as well as the current President (i.e. Bill Clinton is a pledged super delegate for Hillary, Pres Obama is a currently undetermined super delegate), past and present Vice Presidents, current members of Congress, Democratic Governors, etcetera. Of the 5,083 delegates attending the Dem National Convention, 747 are unpledged or super delegates and can vote for whomever they prefer at that particular moment. Super delegates are able to vote for whichever candidate they personally support; their vote is neither influenced nor constrained by the primary results of the state which they represent.
Simply stated, 15 percent of the Dems' delegates for this election cycle are independent operators, put in place for the sole purpose of protecting the interests of the Party elite. It would appear, then, that those individuals granted the title of super delegate can, in theory, vote twice during any one election. And they can also then, in theory, vote twice during the same election for the same individual. A super delegate who pledges his/her support for Hillary at the convention, can also vote for Hillary at home in their assigned voting precinct or via absentee ballot. This only further mocks the concept of a popular vote. We the People vote as an exercise in political organization--it is of little consequence to and has even weaker influence over any election's ultimate outcome. The People's choice is always in danger of having too few delegates and subsequently losing the election. It would appear to this registered voter that the Democrats' super delegates enjoy much more influence over who becomes the Party's nominee than those of us who essentially ARE the Party. A multi-party system would necessitate that this poorly designed system be revisited, revised and hopefully relocated to the confines of election history.
The Republicans also have unpledged delegates, however, this group is not nearly as significant, representing less than 7 percent of Republican delegates at the convention. In addition, an unpledged Republican delegate CANNOT cast a vote in contradiction to those they represent--they must vote how their state voted.
Irrespective of party, it becomes increasingly difficult to deny that the expiration date on the super delegate packet of promises sold to the Democrats decades ago, has arrived.

Please reference: washingtonpost.com, politico.com, votesmart.org, al.com, bustle.com, uspresidentialelectionnews.com

The More I Know the Less I Understand

It seems as though everyday one can find an article on the internet or some news service web site that speaks con brio about the advances in medicine against cancer, chronic disease, etcetera. Popular media regularly extols physicians and the country's health care network as conquering heroes, rivaled only by the likes of Charlemagne and Julius Caesar. In truth, the coverage afforded to the world of health and medicine is often very vague and generalized--neatly packaged for consumption by the average American who wants to be wooed by success and who desperately wants to believe that irrespective of lifestyle choices, treatment options will always be there. Doc can fix it. There's probably a drug for that. Very rarely are the contradictions explored. Even more infrequently, are those contradictions examined, questioned and ultimately addressed.
Please consider this contradiction: the United States is the only developed nation in which the maternal death rate is steadily increasing. (Maternal death rate is defined as the number of registered maternal deaths due to birth or pregnancy-related complications per 100,000 registered live births.) In fact, the Nation's maternal death rate has doubled in the past 25 years. American women are still dying (and at higher rates than the previous generation) of hemorrhage and amniotic fluid emboli. In 2013, the US maternal death rate was 28 deaths for every 100,000 live births. Many readers may feel unimpressed or fail to grasp the sense of urgency this rate conveys. Without any context, admittedly, the numbers may fail to impress.
Now please allow for some context: the US and Uzbekistan share the same maternal mortality rate, 28 deaths for every 100,000 live births. Romania and Albania fare slightly better at 27 deaths for every 100,000 live births. Our neighbors to the north, Canada, are able to boast of only 12 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births. The UK also has a rate of 12 deaths/100,000 live births. Norway and Germany can both claim rates as low as 7 deaths/100,000; while Belarus and Italy each have roughly 4 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births. These numbers are not put forth to ridicule, demean or diminish any country; rather these figures are submitted to draw a stark and frightening contrast.
Uzbekistan, Albania and Romania three countries with very similar maternal mortality rates to the US, spend $306, $506 and $982 per capita, respectively, on health care. The United States spends $8,845 per capita on health care. Now superimpose this comparison onto the country's current election cycle and the Republican promise to systematically defund Planned Parenthood.

Where are the physicians? Where is the American Medical Association (AMA)? Where is the American Osteopathic Association (AOA)? The women represented by the numbers provided above are their patients.
With all of this country's wealth, why are we unable to put the pieces together in a way that makes sense?

(please reference: worldbank.org, the Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation, cdc.gov, odh.ohio.gov, medicinenet.com)