Run, Elizabeth Warren run, Betty Run: A Reflection

Keywords and Terms: Media Ecosystem; Elizabeth Warren for 2016; Moveon.Org; bespectacled Bankruptcy Law Professor; Equal Employment for All Act, HR 645; Des Moines, Iowa; Des Moines Register; Sick Burn; Liberals and Progressives; Embarrasses Bank Regulators; and White House Oval Office.

The advent of the internet has changed everything in politics; yet, some politicians are ignoring the very obvious. The media ecosystem is now diversified; and, drives so many unknowns in the political arena. Politicians must now be circumspect of this dynamics as they campaign or refuse to campaign; complement past conquests or curry support for their candidacy; and, probably yield to pressure to get into a real life and death political fight. According to twitter, the 2015 State of the Union Address of President Obama generated more than 2.6 million tweets per minute! No one may deny the relations between instant populism comments and social media response; and, in some cases, the inventor or speaker of those words is hardly aware of the spontaneity of their comments or utterance on the net. Imagine the: “ I have no more campaigns to run.... I know, I won both of them. #SOTU: pic.twitter.com/ejtq1RuDOO”; so abyss, not even President Obama could anticipate the ripple on twitter. So is the current campaign for the White House; politicians and or their supporters, must anticipate ripple effect, justifiable or unjustifiably, across social media of their intention. Such are the changing times.

This brings me to an email in my inbox, calling for support of Elizabeth Warren; and possibly hosting a house party to implore or encourage the honorable senator from Massachusetts to run as Democratic presidential Candidate in 2016. This is grassroots politics, community-based campaign efforts rallying round a candidate or course; a new coalition of like-minded men and women seeking to make a difference on the national stage from a local perspective or insurgence. Through a media ecosystem, sponsored by MoveOn.org, like-minded people are about to draw into the foray of national politics, a candidate who has once intoned she was rather interested in continuing her current service to the people of the State of Massachusetts; and, would likely be running for the reelection into that seat. Notwithstanding her current preference, supporters of a more national presence for the bespectacled former Harvard law professor are finding new ways and means of reaching and garnering support for her candidacy.

Many candidates in the past have signaled a preference for other offices or ventures; and, have often been dragged from their solo quay into a national political drama. Seething ambition for its own sake is often frowned on; however, when there is widespread clamor to drag a potentially viable candidate, the odds might be better. Money and persuasions have often done the trick: Find Betty a moneybag and you never can tell? Jokes apart, the first term Massachusetts senator’s performance and records on bills, seem a compelling argument for Senator Warren’s case. Her Equal Employment for All Act, HR 645, introduced by Congressman Steve Cohen (TN-9) in 2011, is quite representative of her liberal political slant and germane to the interest of her current supporters for a national office as that of the US Presidency. Although the bill has not progressed in Congress as she might want, it is rather telling that 40 organizations, including American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Relations (AFL-CIO), National Organization for Women (NOW),  American Association for Affirmative Action (AAAA), NAACP, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), Black Women's Roundtable, Black Justice Coalition, National Women's Law Center,  Campaign for Community Change (CCC), National Council on Independent Living, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund, Public Citizen , Consumer Action,  Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race & Justice, Dēmos, Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project (NEDAP), National Fair Housing Alliance, MFY Legal Services , Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF), National Work rights Institute, Job Opportunities Task Force, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, National Partnership for Women and Families, Legal Action Center, Americans for Financial Reform, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, U.S. PIRG, National Association of Consumer Advocates, American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD),  National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, AFGE Women's and Fair Practices Departments, Poverty and Race Research Action Council, National Consumer Law Center,  Disability Rights Legal Center, National Employment Law Project, National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA), National Network to End Domestic Violence, National Council of La Raza, Asian American Justice Center,  New York Legal Assistance Group, Policy Link, Public Justice Center, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and 9to5,  have all given a thumbs up for the bill. If only broad-based public support of a bill can change the minds of Republicans?

For now, maybe Massachusetts Democratic Senator Warren would make a better impact on the society in US Senate than in a national office. Maybe her current effort to hold fire to corporations’ feet, would better the welfare of ordinary workers and consumers in America. Maybe her current preference to retain her seat from Massachusetts seems a splendid, but hardly convincing answer, to those who would like her to run for the Presidency in 2016. However, her widely voiced reservation or objections for now, seem vulnerable to liberal like-minded group’s pressure, who want her in a head to head fight with that former Secretary of State and the big boys who continue to see the White House oval office as the hugest trophy of all times.

It is easy to say NO at first; but with great and good persistence, supporters of Elizabeth Warren for 2016, may convince the Senator who is committed to reversing Citizen United, who recently twitted, we don’t run this country for corporations; who believes that medical research is good for people and the economy; and, would rather build an economy that works for all families than for a few rich folks, may be persuaded or drawn to the national political battle for the oval office. Because the human mind is subject to zillions of emotions, the call to duty at the national level is sometimes seen as being drawn from other important causes or issues; however, some of her supporters, a few in my neck of the woods, are about to host a flag-off for Elizabeth Warren for 2016 Presidency this weekend in my humble hometown, Federal Way, Washington.

Certainly, her supporters in my home town wish so much that Senator Warren will join the fray of candidates when the final roll call is up. There is no way to verify how much pressure groups can draw a candidate into an election exercise. However, considering the frenzy around my neck of the woods, you’ll assume that Senator Elizabeth Warren is already a candidate for the 2016 Presidential Elections or nominations. The logic is, if you can count the number and show her the money, maybe the honorable Senator from Massachusetts would bow in. However, I am not that sure considering her current commitments and the stride that Hillary has made in the progress towards declaring a candidacy. My reservations apart, there may be an answer to the wishes of her supporters in Federal Way, Washington; but her answer has not been given.

There is a separate development to the weave of story surrounding drawing the erstwhile senator into the Presidential race. On her rounds campaigning for Democrat Bruce Barley for senate in Des Moines, Iowa, the Massachusetts senator Des Moines Register called a passion-filled liberal stem-winder, who has made her mantra, economic equality, may be seen more as a populists and progressive, with a grand theme of indicting Wall Street. This is one thing, the money bags do not like; since according to them: the business of America is the business of business. To introduce a progressive academic with a flair for fairness and opportunity for families and average worker, skirts the wishes of corporations and big businesses. When a Senator is into big red button national issues like comprehensive immigration reform, support for same-sex marriage, raising the minimum wage, abortion rights and contraception, corporations begin to skittle and may go so far to scuttle her chances for the US Presidency; if not destroy her message. That is the nature of the beast!

What can supporters, especially those who want her in the race, do for now? The need to emphasis her qualities in the context of growing a larger middle income class in America is a palatable. Emphasis on the message of a new America that represents not only a few; but also, many who are not necessarily underclass; but who have worked all their lives and continue to work, without reaping the full benefits of successes of the economy, is in order or better. Statistically, this is about 90 percent of the voters; and probably the work force. Re-engineer the message of her candidacy in the context of heart felt needs to change the atmosphere of greed that has permeated the American Corporations. Mention her sponsorship of legislation that allow students to refinance their student loans and emphasize that this for one, will not break the pockets of taxpayers. It ought to seem that the widely held reservations to progressive values or programs, come from how to pay for them. Warren’s supporters must now do a better job of communicating the means of defraying costs of their programs or initiatives. Once they are able to articulate their message in political campaigns and media splash, they are better prepared to advance the lots or chances of their choice candidate.

Much more, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren is in a unique situation, she comes with the soulful combative spirit of a ‘can-do’ progressive. A good team of democratic Strategists may cast her as the ultimate candidate without the baggage of being the wife of a former President. It is much easier to torpedo any Republican offensive with the argument of dynamism or capability; and, not much record in a national office to shoot political cruise missiles into. The compatibility of her message to the outgoing President Barak Obama may meet some resistance. If this occurs, her strategists should have alternative but mutually convincing communication that would counter those perceptions. And there may be an opening to tag on the band wagon of President Obama’s success in social media and some media market. It just depends.

The first tasks for progressives seeking to draw the senator who Huffington post once headlined, Elizabeth Warren Embarrasses Bank Regulators at First Hearing, who was once a Republican but now a Democrat, who was once a Harvard law Professor specializing in Bankruptcy law and now a US Senator, and who will probably revisit the scandal that many of those crooks who brought America to its financial knees or ruins in 2008 but are yet to be locked up, you may continue to campaign, romanticize, and implore the dynamic Senator from the state of Massachusetts to throw in her cap. For courtesy purpose and pressure calls to change hearts and mind of  Senator Betty Warren (D-MA), Circulate her Washington Office Phone number: Phone: (202) 224-4543; and, reemphasize how you are going to be on the long walk and hog with her in the enterprise you are about to set on together.

Next weekend, supporters across the country will gather at Run Warren Run house parties, in the next stage of this grassroots campaign to encourage Sen. Warren to enter the presidential race, and we need all hands on deck to pull this off. We still need someone to host a party in Federal Way. Can you step up and share Sen. Warren's story with your hometown? Yes, I'll Host a House Party!

Dear MoveOn member,

We're just one week away from one of the most action-packed weekends of 2015. And I'm not talking about Super Bowl Sunday.

Next weekend, MoveOn members and our friends at Democracy for America and Ready for Warren will be hosting Run Warren Run house parties in cities large and small, to kick off the next stage of this inspiring grassroots campaign.

Already, more than 150 gatherings are being planned to introduce Run Warren Run to their neighborhoods and to demonstrate to Senator Elizabeth Warren that she has the broad support she needs to run for president and win. We're getting close to holding house parties in every state in America.

If we can pull this off, it'll show everyone—including the media, which have been closely tracking this effort—that the movement to draft Sen. Warren has growing support all across the country. 

To go big, we still need someone to host a party in Federal Way. Can you sign up now to bring Run Warren Run to your hometown?

Yes, I'll put Federal Way on the map and sign up to host a Run Warren Run house party January 31 or February 1.

ROMNEY 3.0: the relentless pursuit of a mirage by a flawed Republican!

Keywords or Terms: 2015 State of the Union Address; White House oval Office; Virtual Obsession; Mitt Romney; Fatal Ambition; Tax Cheats; Foreign Investments; Outsourcing American Jobs; Robert Murdoch; Social Media and Networking; American, British and Australian political Campaigns; Early voting States; Never, Never again;

Coming to grips with a loss on a national stage is one thing, dealing with two in a row and ignoring the writings on the wall, is something else. If even so perplexing for a politician, losing two in a row is enough for others. If winning the White House oval office has not been avowed goal of Governor Mitt Romney prior to 2008, it is clearly becoming a virtual obsession. At the core of this obsession, is probably a religious slant, a slant that promotes one prophesy of the Latter-day Saint’s religion. Maybe not?

The rumbling in the news that Mitt Romney is contemplating another run for the White House in 2016 is dramatic; in the sense that, usually many politicians would understand the implications of that ambition and what they spell on the national stage for the Republican Party. On many instances, such obsessions are frowned on even among die-hard party faithful; and probably, that was the reason Robert Murdoch indicated that the former Massachusetts governor has had his chance; he should let others do the bidding! Quite an observation, if you ask me; and a grandeur one for someone who is known to have put a lot of his millions in American, British and Australian political campaigns. A few money bags across America who have once put their millions towards campaign consider Romney’s new push, or obsessive ambition, fatal! May be not?

2016 Presidential election is certain to be different from the last two. The jostling for power and the dynamics of campaigning for the highest office in the land have undergone continuous transformation, driven by many factors – internet technology, social media and networking, and the relevance of the out-going President’s initiatives and policies. As we head towards the 2016 National Elections, political observers are already thinking about how many ways, President Barack Obama is probably working behind the doors to reshape the Democratic Party, consolidate his achievements and probably legacy.  Often underestimated, out-going Presidents or lame ducks, often work hard to ensure their legacy is intact, their implemented policies lasting. If in doubt, kindly read the State of the Union Address given by President Obama, yesterday. It is not only full of the affirmation of progresses and achievements of his administration; it came close to defiance and combativeness, even in the face of a predominant Republican Congressional Representation since the last mid-term election. This has often been the trend in the last century; that is why Romney’s old, or obsessive ambition is a little mystifying to some.

Other ambitious Politicians and voters are not just onlookers, they understand why they voted against 2012 Mitt Romney’s candidacy and are not oblivious to them just after four years, a few of which are: 1) his contempt for the socioeconomically disadvantaged and larger indifference to the plight of middle income earners; 2) his foreign investments, outsourcing of American jobs and off-shore accounts; 3) his failure to be transparent regarding his tax filings; 4) penchant for de-regulation and tax write-off for the rich; 5) probable adherence to the white horse prophecy from the Mormon religion; 6) flip-flipping on many issues of national concern; 7) foreign policy blunders - his pronouncement to allow Israeli’s political agenda to guide US foreign policy; and, 8) that recorded tape about those 47% “mochas” that remain with that brown skin guy!

Romney like many ambitious prospective candidates for the White House oval office is courting donors and making trips to the early voting States of New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina. He is probably ignoring the reality that voters have evolved in accordance with their preferences and qualities of a President. New voters, with their ideals and interests, are probably looking into the backgrounds of all these candidates and saying: what are the fresh ideas coming out of these politicians? One of the Gen X in a Starbucks coffee shop was heard saying, is this man not the same Romney that Grover Norquist offered, “We don’t need a thinking person in the White House, we only need someone to sign the bills republicans in Congress pass?” he may be tenacious, but I don’t think America is going to go for his smug!

What President Obama did in his state of the Union Address of January 20^th, 2015, is to recast the future in light of the perceived progress of his administration: America’s recent Economic Growth and Progress has not been broad-based enough or as expected; only about ten percent of the people have benefited from the health care and financial reforms that were ushered in through his insistence. This is why Romney’s relentless pursuit is without cognizance of the reality of an outgoing President’s Efforts to re-shape the future by ensuring his legacy is permanent. After fighting with the Republicans for most part of his administration, President Obama concluded in his State of the Union Address: “America, for all that we have endured; for all the grit and hard work required to come back; for all the tasks that lie ahead, know this: The shadow of crisis has passed.” That seems a tough one to breach or argue on based on the changes the nation has seen since the Democrat took office in 2008.

Romney since 2012 Elections

In light of President Obama’s 2015 State of the Union Address and conclusion, the perception of Romney’s candidacy is worrisome; however, not as worrisome as an article about what Romney has been unto since his loss of 2012 elections. David Corn, Washington Bureau Chief for Mother Jones, introduces his prose in a January 16^th write-up with the following:

 “In 2012, Mitt Romney's career as a businessman who earned many millions of dollars became a net loss, as political foes slammed him for running Bain Capital, a private equity firm that invested in US companies that downsized and shifted jobs overseas and that obtained financial stakes in foreign companies that depended on US outsourcing for profits. At the same time, Romney, who refused to do a full release of his tax returns, was hit with questions (he didn't answer) about mysterious personal investments in offshore accounts. Should he mount a third presidential effort, as he has told GOP funders he is considering, all of these issues are likely to return. But there's another matter that will be be added to the pile of financial controversies for Romney to face: Solamere Capital, the $700 million private equity firm cofounded by his son Taggart that Romney has helped run since March 2013. Who has Romney been investing with, and what has he been investing in? These are questions that Romney 2016 will confront and that, no doubt, the firm will not want to answer.”

This prose reiterates the already known facts: the leopard never changes his spot. Mitt Romney remains Mitt Romney, a hard-nosed businessman out to make a fortune for himself at the expense of taxpayers and average American. He could be ruthless, unconcerned and probably unforgiven of the disadvantage and underprivileged. This is Mitt Romney that every voter in America must know; not the repackaged and refurbished candidate, if indeed he is aspiring to run for the oval office in 2016.

His relationship between the current occupant of the White House, including constant put-downs and bad mouthing, is well documented. Some criticisms are quite familiar – liberal, communist, gun grabbers, and leading from the back philosophy have received wide attention. Other criticisms, especially among his sycophants and rich buddies are more obscure. Much of his support in the Republican Party is a side-show to his main interest and intentions for America. Believing he is a messiah for his church’s prophesy, he has provided support for relatively unknown candidates for congress and in some gubernatorial elections; he has traveled around the country to give speeches to hardly diversified population, but rather his small notch of donors and money bags, who are seeking to avoid paying taxes. His relentless ambition is to become the President of the United States at the expense of the average American. What American voters must do is to really take a good look at this man and say: Never, never again!

2016 Presidential Elections Series: The Candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton - What Feminists Want?

Keywords or Terms: US Presidency; head-to-head match; institutional and political structure; Gender bias; feminist paradigm; leadership positions; Federalism; Hillary Rodham Clinton; Jeb Bush; Tom Cruz; Cris Christy; Mitt Romney; and, new organizational structure within government institutions.

This blog and the coming twenty-two months are about to test the hypothesis that male voters are less receptive of a female candidate if they lived in US Southern States than in the Mid-West or Northern States. The outcome of this exercise is likely to help Secretary Clinton evaluate her chances of winning the White House, once crowned the Democratic Nominee or flag bearer. There are some assumptions here: 1) that Hillary Rodham Clinton is running for the Presidency come, 2016; 2) there is not going to be a female candidate favorably valued as a Democratic Party flag bearer over Secretary Clinton; 3) that Hilary Rodham Clinton is a front-runner among the pack; and, 4) the Democratic Party is ready for a female flag bearer in national elections.

Could Ms. Clinton overcome gender bias, sexism or prejudices in a head-to-head matchup of a female to a male nominee in the Democratic Party? Could the female vote make the difference; or, could American Females change the course of history by flocking to Hillary Clinton’s candidacy? What could happen if certain rules were changed at the party level; or, if ingrained presumption of gender bias is factored out of the equation? Without reformed political institutions, is America ready for a female Presidency? Would the shifting sands of federalism hamper the chances of success of a female Presidency? These are all the questions and hypotheses to be tested in the coming twenty-two months as we move towards the 2016 national elections. Our discussions would be predictably refreshing and probably fascinatingly fluid. Our answers and discussions of these questions would form the basis of what may culminate as Essays in American Presidential Elections, 2016

Role Model or What?

To paraphrase the outgoing female Utah State House Speaker, Becky Lockhart, there is something to the visual, to actually see a female as a President. “There is something powerful to that, because other young female say, I can do that now because I’ve actually seen a female in that shoe or office.” How about the opinion of Jennifer Seelig, Utah House Democratic Leader: “Women in politics and business respond to images of other women in leadership positions and that is huge for Clinton to be the first Female President of the United States just as it was for Lockhart, as the first female Utah State House Speaker in modern times.” Can the presumptive Democratic Presidential candidate or nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton, change the game at the national level?  Some say, If Hillary Rodham Clinton is able to maintain the campaign momentum to ensure that her message fits the news cycle in the internet age, she may just end up in the oval office. Are these observations and, or comments factual or representative of the female agenda on national politics? Is this what American feminists want; or, are there more than can be captured in visceral? In the context of the office of the Presidency, are American female really underselling themselves when they doubt the possibility of rising up to the office of Mrs. President?

Here are some raw statistics: Center for the American Women and Politics at the State University of New Jersey concluded in 2012 that: “Even when women and men favor the same candidates, they may do so by different margins resulting in gender gap. In every presidential election since 1980, a gender gap has been apparent, with a greater proportion of women than men preferring the Democrat in each case… In 2004 and 2008, women and men also preferred different candidates. In 2004, a majority of female voters supported democrat John Kerry, while majority of male voters favored Republican George W. Bush. In 2002, a majority of women voted for democrat Al Gore, while male voters supported republican George W. Bush.”

When women political attitudes and voting preferences are in consideration on national issues, including issues of immigrations, same sex marriage, health insurance, healthcare law, protection of Medicare, women are bound by the same want as their male counterparts, only with slight differences on prerogatives and preferences. Incidentally on the 2012 survey by the Center for the American Women and Politics, women were, and are probably still, lukewarm on deportation of illegal immigrants; gun ownerships or controls; legalization of same-sex marriage; and, the role of women in national political life. Some say women favor health insurance and the health care law more than men; and, the issue of making college more affordable and cutting insurance premiums resonate with them far more, because they have often borne the weight of these issues. Others maintain that women preferences are not really different from men’s; however, the urgency of need sets the preferences differently.

Contextually, women are passionate about politics, candidates and national issues; and, if historical data are what to go by, Hillary Clinton may as well be sitting on the throne come 2017. Using parameters of data collected on 2012 presidential elections by the Center for the American Women and Politics of the State University of New Jersey, women favored Democrats and their flag bearer, Barack Obama, by 10 percentage points over the Republican Party candidate, Mitt Romney; thus, they would likely favor Hillary Rodham Clinton over, Jeb Bush, Tom Cruz, Chris Christy, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum or whoever ends up as the Republican Party nominee? This is a very tricky assumption; but, one well preferred if you are a feminist and routing so badly for the first female president at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC, come the morning of January 8, 2017.

Fore-runner candidacy, Republican or Democrats?

A background survey of the press would give you a glossary of names and rankings of potential candidates for the 2016 White House. Going by a 2013 Conservative Republican Party Ranking of who is who among Republicans that may be eyeing the highest office in the land as précised by Nate Parkhouse, the order of ranking is as follows: 1) Paul Ryan; 2) Scott Walker; 3) Chris Christie; 4) Marco Rubio; 5) Jeb Bush; 6) Bob McConnell; 7) Kelly Ayottee; 8) Rand Paul; 9) Rick Santorum; and, 10) John Boehner. These are the first ten that were known at that time; more recently, other faces are coming out of the wood works; including some familiar past players, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum; and, its seems by more recent activities, formation of an exploratory committee, PAC and APAC group, Jeb Bush, the brother of a president and son of one, may be in line for history making. For one, Governor Jeb Bush is probably a front runner on basis of name recognition; assuming his skillful distance from Governor Romney’s campaign in 2012 and the albatross of his brother’s miss-rule do not come to hunt his ambition. Secondly, his recent initiative to jump out-front other Republicans in fund raising and creating aura of inevitability, may probably work well for him in the race to the White House. For now, we must keep our ears to the ground and see who else comes out of the wood work in the next twelve months.

Among Democrats, here are some potential names circling around, all but one, being probably the possible nominee: 1) Hillary Rodham Clinton; 2) Elizabeth Warren; 3) Jeff Boss; 4) Vermin Supreme; 5) Robby Wells; and, 6) Jim Webb. This list is hardly sacrosanct or exclusive. We must expect other candidates to show up, if only in name. Of all these potential candidates, Hilary Rodham Clinton has kept a momentum of her earlier run for the White House in 2008. Incidentally, for nine year’s running, she has been named in Gallup polls as the most admired American woman in most spheres of life. Admirers say she’s got the brains, smarts, energy, celebrity, and a well-worn credit of being a great US secretary of State. The tricky nature of her meritorious service as US Secretary of State could blow either way. Skeptics may raise one or two setbacks of her service to the Obama Administration: 1) the Benghazi fiasco; 2) the Af-Pak Escalation; and probably, 3) Emboldened ISIS, despite ripple of reforms and unexpected upheavals in the Middle East towards the end of her service. Barring these, one can affirmatively say that Secretary Clinton is a shining star and has the potential of bagging the Democratic Party nomination for 2016. Interestingly, her gestures and spontaneity in the situation room during the take down of Osama Bin laden, by the outgoing administration of Barak H. Obama, epitomizes a leader in waiting, ready and capable to make and change history. One huge feminist backer says: “She will make history if elected the 45^th and first female President of the United States”

The case for Hillary Rodham Clinton Candidacy for US Presidency

Within the feminist paradigm, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s candidacy for the highest office in the land will dramatically challenge perceived women marginalization, real or unreal, in national politics. The trend and argument are for all-inclusiveness of the female specie in local, state and nation governance. If anyone raises doubts regarding how a female leader can remain positively engaged in national governance, one may only look to the scores of success at the State Department during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s stewarding as US Secretary of State. Just as Secretary Clinton was ahead of the curve on many foreign issues during her tenure, her Presidency may lead to equality of sexes on a national pedestal, with the inclusive doctrine that has permeated the feminist agenda since that movement began in 1960, being prominent.

Women are often clear about their intention or preferences on national issues even when their male counterparts are skeptical; for this and other reasons, the ascendancy of Hillary to the US Presidency is expected to bring clarity to decision making at the national level. For example, the events of the 2012 Arab Spring made Secretary Clinton give a clear and concise speech at a conference in Qatar, where she affirmed that the “region’s foundations are sinking into the sand.” Imagine the vibrant follow-up of what may be perceived as a Domino effect after that speech in the region (Cairo, Libya, Oman, Bahrain, Yemen and Jordan). The clarity of her language and the spontaneity of events that followed may stand as a precursor to her decision-making ethos as US first female President; and, probably ginger Congress to act with a sense of purpose, rather than the current stagnation and limbo that has beclouded the process of lawmaking in both chambers. Just as Hillary emphasized inequality of treatment of women in many parts of the world, Africa and Asia, the long touted structural inequality in American life by feminists, may get the attention it deserves; as long held institutional reforms to avert continued sexism or inequality between male and female, will be addressed not only through legislation but also in attitude and behavior.

Conclusively, the participation of women in politics has been acclaimed as one step towards remaking perceived social inequality between American male and female. The commitment to empowerment of women to eclipse or reduce perceived men’s domination, which has often been the focus of many feminist movement or groups since the sixties, may ultimately be settled with the rise of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s candidacy to the US Presidency. For some feminist activists, ascendancy of Hillary Rodham Clinton to US Presidency is an essential step towards equality of sexes in the American narrative experience as embodied in US constitution. It celebrates the dream of the Constitutional framers and America’s fore-fathers: that America is a nation of people on equal Plato sic: “We hold this to be self-evident that all men and [women] are created equal.”. This is probably the reason for the new call to women and other progressives to rally round her candidacy.

P.S.*

Could the rise to Presidency of Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton challenge perceived American gender inequality and bring about genuine reform in institutional and political structure? Would her candidacy lead to a new structure of understanding of the binary role of male and female in the national experience? Could her presidency redefine the role of a President’s spouse or partner; or could it lead to a new organizational structure within government institutions? All these questions will be out focus in the coming months.

AMERICA'S HEALTH CARE REFORM III: Documenting the Litigation over OBAMACARE

Keywords or Terms: Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act; OBAMACARE; US Court of Appeals, Washington DC; Richmond Virginia; Contradictory Rulings; Litigations and Suits; Americans For Prosperity; Heritage Foundation.

Probably no law in the history of US health policy has undergone more scrutiny than OBAMACARE. Part of the reasons for this has to do with politics; and, maybe on the substance or foundation of the reform: allowing federal funds to be used as subsidy for the millions of Americans without health care insurance.

What OBAMACARE afforded, first in US History, are opportunities for direct subsidy for the purchase of health insurance policy from state exchanges. The number of US citizens without health insurance had risen in the past few decades, so too had the number of emergency room visitation – something advocates of health care reform reminded congress during the long debate over the passing of the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Much of the current outrage from Republicans over OBAMACARE has centered on the use of federal dollars for financing health subsidy for the more than forty million Americans without healthcare. The passing of the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act has been considered an affront to the Republican hegemony in Congress; and more than ever, Republican lawmakers have introduced bills to overturn, derail funding and implementation, or scrap the law in totality since its inception in 2010.

Recent effort at killing or undermining the law may be found in ongoing legal battle before the courts. In what would probably be considered another conflicting and misunderstood rulings, are two determinations yesterday before federal appeals court, where it seems the ruling of the courts are conflictual. The US Court of Appeals, Washington DC, struck down IRS rule providing tax subsidies to low income families purchasing healthcare insurance on federal exchanges, maintaining that as the law stands, subsidies are only due purchasers of health insurance policies on state exchanges. Contrarily, a panel of three judges in Richmond, Virginia, ruled that the spirit of the law encompasses subsidies for the same group, whether purchasing health insurance policies on state or federal exchanges.

While accepting the argument that the language of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act seems ambiguous, it is the opinion of the Virginia Court that the Internal Revenue Service has discretion of writing rules for OBAMACARE, with respect to award of subsidy write-offs. Now, if the ruling of the Washington DC Court stands, despite petition from OBAMA White House, the decision from the Washington DC Court of Appeal has the potential of crippling the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

The Federal Exchange subsidy, just as the States Exchange subsidies, is crucial to the survivability of the law. The law articulates that there has to be a critical mass of participation, which could be ensured or guaranteed with more Americans carrying a health insurance policy. The thorny part of these contradictory decisions is simply this: there are dire consequences for lower participation of individual in the federal and state exchanges; and, since only fourteen states have exchanges, the remaining 36 states’ residents depend strictly on the use of the Federal Exchange. If participants obtaining their policy on the Federal Exchange cannot receive tax credits, ultimately, there are going to not only be a gap in number of participants, but also, a dithering health insurance market, due to this aspect of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

While still on these rulings and their implication for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, it is important to take into consideration that the law was passed without a Republican vote of support in March, 2010. Further, the Supreme Court ruled in a June 2012 decision that the law is constitutional; yet acrimonious disastisfaction still persists among the far right. For example, Republicans have introduced over sixty bills in the US House of Representatives to kill the law. Part of the opposition to the passing of the law, emanating from conservative think tanks and work groups in Washington DC, including far right groups as the Americans for Prosperity and the Heritage Foundation, has been summed up as vindictive by many independent keen observers and elevators.

As of recent, the Conservative group Americans For Prosperity was running media advertisement in various US markets, spreading the message that the law is unworkable; that the technological failures that marred the roll-out of the law, is emblematic of the convolution of the provisions in the law; that current litigation challenges in the court are indication of why the law is better written off; and or, symbolic of the type of weaknesses in the law. In the past, just about the time of the debate over passing the health care law, the conservative group, Heritage Foundation, distributed a self-interest research finding listing the following as the case against OBAMACARE, among others: 1) advocating individual mandate; 2) it as a form of new taxes; 3) gutting or overloading the federal budgets; 4) putting a heavy burden on the employer through the employer mandate; 5) it is a form of healthcare subsidy or transfer payment that the nation can’t afford; 6) the federal health exchanges are additional federal bureaucracy; 7) the insurance benefits mandate is an unusual burden;  8) the law has greater implication for the CLASS Act; and 9) the law has possible provision for funding of abortion. There are likelihood that all these reservations and probably anomalies from conservative groups as the Heritage Foundation and American For Prosperity will surface in future litigation over the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act. There are also the solid expectations that the White House and Democrats in Congress will fight tooth and nail to protect and preserve the law as passed.

There are current perceptions that the contradictory rulings from the two courts apply only to the issue of subsidies for income-qualified or low-income groups that depend on federal subsidies to be able to purchase health insurance. In other words, the fight for abrogation of the law has more to do with denying equality of opportunity for carrying health care insurance in America.  To put it crudely as one can, the fight is against people with low or middle incomes — up to $94,200 for a family of four, who benefit from tax credits to help pay for an health insurance policy through OBAMACARE. The Republicans want the free market system to adjudicate who carries health care insurance and who doesn't. They are hardly interested in the merits of the law and would continue to horn the flaws in the law. 

                       

The former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, alluded to the intricate nature of OBAMACARE in front of 200 national leaders in mental health field, during the 29th Rosalynn Carter Symposium on Mental Health Policy, holding at Carter Center in Atlanta in November 2013. Discussing how mental health could improve with the implementation of OBAMACARE, how the law offers subsidies and opens up new avenue for expanding mental health care, the former Secretary insists that the Law has brought a new lease of life for health delivery to many who may be suffering from mental issues. The litigation battle cry against the law from the extreme right must now be seen as an affront, not only to low income groups in the country but also, to mental health counselors, physician and health providers, who have welcomed the law as another avenue for helping the mentally ill. Now, if you have been reading the newspapers or watching the news on the television or internet lately, you would have concluded that the number of gun related shootings have come from people with mental incapacity or illness, who truly need mental health care. The current legal ambushes or litigation coming upstream from those who could hardly careless about the health of anyone, is an eye-opener of what America has become. Imagine, if the law is gutted; and the third stool on which the law stands is derailed? Your guess is as good as mine regarding the future of healthcare, especially, mental health.

An Open letter to Climate Change Skeptics in Congress: Resolving a long gridlock?

Keywords of Terms: US Congress; Attitudinal change; Bi-Partisanship; Stalled Climate Change Bill; Advocacy Groups; Congressional Hearings and Testimonies; New Beginnings

How can Congress know whether or not we have issues with climate change? How can congress weigh scientific against non-scientific information on climate change when several bills are sitting on congressional docket without attention? How were water quality issues impacting fish kills in many watershed traced to phosphate discharges from several point and non-point sources, if setback regulations on water waste systems were not in place; regulations, traceable to the act of congress? How can congress identify the specific risk factors of climate change if it refuses to open communication to body of proofs? How can Americans have the information on the risk factors specific to climate change; and probably quality of life that will reduce medical costs? How can advocacy groups tender their justification for policy enactment or regulations to combat potential human activities impacting climate change? How can congress know whether to fund some parts of the climate change bill or all? How can we resolve this long gridlock? For most of us, it’s simply not practical to assume that opposing views on the subject of climate change are incredulous; thus, congress will not look more carefully to the opposing views coming from several interest groups.

In 1969, the United States manned mission moon landing, opened up the benefits of today’s information age or society. Over several decades, we invested human and non-human capital in space travels, advanced science to a degree never before imagined, solidified lunar advances to the envy of the rest of the world. Our investments in pioneer and ranger space missions not only afforded us to read and understand our solar environment, they made our understanding of air (winds), land and water movements around the globe, less of a guess work. For starters, there are some of us who believe there are enough data in the nation’s kitty from space experiments, either from Lyman-alpha telescope, rubidium-vapor magnetometer or particle detectors, to junk or support a case for climate change, period. United States Congress nonpartisan 1965 NASA budget appropriation not only landed a manned Apollo rocket on the moon, it laid the foundation for Ranger 8 and 9 successes. All through these successes, it took a non-partisan congress to act and attain the dream of a President and the ordinary American.

The debate over whether man landed on the moon or not, emanating from conspirators’ theorists, were put to rest through empirical evidence garnered from dialogues and conversations. The resolution pictures of NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance orbiter were not only mind blowing, they essentially made a believer even of astute hoax theorist; and if that was not enough, when the conspirators’ theorists saw the astronaut’s walking paths in the lunar dust in the 2009 pictures, many probably blamed themselves of ignorance. And, as the saying goes, Time of ignorance God overlooks! In the same light, if US Congress opens up debate over climate change, empirical and non-empirical evidence will likely open up our minds or make us junk the advances. Shutting the door against dialogues and debates only muddle up the whole process and issues.

Holding series of congressional hearings and testimonies helped the nation continue conversations and dialogue over whether we take the route of manned space or robot-based space program. Congressional hearings and testimonies have a way of exposing the truth about proposals, advances or heated debates. The US Space program has been successful so far, because there is a constant congressional updates over the developments on the programs and funding for the program has remained mostly nonpartisan. We have built the bridge to far away galaxies through experimental explorations and empirical evidence, including heated debates among our scientists. Despite the fact that we realize how challenging some of our endeavors or explorations are for the limits of human body, despite the fact that some of the empirical evidence called to question our initial misconceptions or position, we have remained open to robbing our minds against each other, to deliver truth. That is why the hold up on many of the bills on climate change in congress, hardly serves the interest of the people

.

With congressional acquiescence, the climate change bills that are lagging in congress may be tabled. Yes, the Senate defeat of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, after passing the House on a vote of 219 to 212 in the 111^th US Congress (H.R. 2454) was a blow to some interest groups on emissions standards; Yes, there are biologists and ecologists against legislation set to destroy wildlife habitat by setting aside US environmental laws protecting Yosemite National Park and National Forests;  Yes, the American meteorological society believes that global temperature will rise in the next one hundred years by about 7 degrees Fahrenheit’s, and this shift in temperature may trigger widespread disasters for rising sea levels, violent and volatile weather patterns, water shortage and desertification, among others; and, Yes, Australia, a country with probably similar dynamics with carbon-based burning to the US has been able to pass a bill through their lower and upper house of parliament that curtails carbon emissions. Getting into tit-for-tat dynamics with President Obama’s choice to use executive power to reverse the new coal-fired powered plants guideline of US EPA that was rolled back by the Republican led US House Energy and Commerce Committee vote of 29-19, is essentially, not the way out of this quagmires.

We must remember that most of our accomplishments and successes in the space program have been through dialogues and conversations. Holding fastidious to one’s position is often not a characteristic of a team player. Offering opportunities to testify by those who know more about the issue of climate change, in a transparent congressional hearing and testimony, is probably the best standard, to avert mistrust and misconceptions of many interest groups on the debate over climate change. There has to been room for us to look at issues in a nonpartisan way, whether those issues are in agreement with our beliefs or not; however, with the Republican/Tea party controlled House of Representatives, it has been difficult for us to confront our fears, lately. There is room for us to give each other the benefit of doubt on the debate over climate change; we owe ourselves the opportunity to talk over our doubts with those holding opposing views to our position. The choice now is not to continue in the soloist flight of my way or the highway.

Attitudes have to change; lawmaking and debates in congress need to take a new tune and turn; things in congress have to change. The nation needs to begin the debate somehow, congressional lawmakers who are the proxy for the will of the people, need to take action on the floods of climate change bill on congressional docket. Funding is not the only issue on several congressional dockets on climate change. So, with this appeal and pleading for bipartisanship in United States Congress, there has to be a new movement to do the work of the people, not only with climate change! We need a new start, beginning once again, with the climate change bills.

Can America fix its cyclical Unemployment Problem: Revisiting an old debate?

Keywords and Terms: Unemployment Compensation; Cyclical; Relational; Disillusionment; Stigma Disenfranchisement, Congress, Free-Market Enterprise, Corporate America; Re-engineering; Mental Health Raved Homes; Coding and Algorithm; Machine Power; Globalization; Off-shoring; Change

 

I am confused; not so much about what is broken in American Politics; but, about what is fixable but which congress has paid little attention. The phenomenal perennial unemployment problem that characterize the free market economy continues to ravage many American homes. The recurrent nature of unemployment in the free market economy has made some economists diagnose this problem as endemic of capitalism; and somewhat, relational. To the untrained mind, the question is: what does cyclical or relational mean? In a lay man’s mind, cyclical means occurs every now and then or ever so often; some say every ten years, others claim five years. Relational, in the construct of an economist: unemployment and inflation are inverse variables. Simply put: when inflation is down, unemployment is often up. Depending on what data is used, unemployment continues to be a handicap to a completely free market economy; and the conventional approach of addressing the unemployment problem has woefully failed with globalization and hyperventilating revolutionary advances in Information Technology.

 The social implication of unemployment has been damaging: broken marriages and families, increasing mental health issues, domestic violence, drug use and college dropout, disenfranchisement and disillusionment and much more! Call them what you may, the devastating impact on American life, especially among the middle income group, has been horrendous. The stigma of waiting on unemployment line, food bank rotational roasters and public health services has promoted many stereotypes; a few of which has been used by politicians to ride into office. How about the slogan: Washington is broken and is going to fix it? Did anyone in congress do anything significant lately in solving America's unemployment problem except to fight over whether to extend unemployment compensation to the long-term unemployed?  Did any of our lawmakers contemplate a fresher look at the problem of unemployment rather than fight over the impact of unemployment compensation on the nation’s budget? Your answers to these questions are as good as mine. Interestingly or shamefully, the helplessness of the devastation of associated problem of unemployment on our neighborhoods has made a few of us in policy making, wonder: what in the world are we doing calling ourselves policymakers, when we cannot solve a problem that has, and continues to ravage American homes. Americans deserve answers to the cyclical problem of unemployment and men and women in United States Congress cannot continue to use the unemployment compensation issue as ping-pong to rising into office; or, humiliating another 40 million of our citizens, who for other reasons, may not have been victim of laziness. The downturn or stigma of not having enough education hardly suffice these days, where the labor force is rapidly being ravished by advances in information technology; and the odds of holding on to your job is partly determined by how quickly advances in information technology impacts your occupation.

Loss of self is professed by psychologists as the core component of schizophrenia. Many unemployed have identified with loss of self as a component of depression that they find themselves, after a loss of job or being unemployed for far too long. No one is adducing unemployment to schizophrenia or using the term, economic schizophrenia; however, unemployment schizophrenia is not far away from the question. Maybe that is why I am simply saying, I am confused. Confused in the context of being schizophrenic of unemployment problem; yet convinced that as a nation, we have the wherewithal to solve this problem, but has refused to do so for whatever reason. For many in the baby boomer generation, if America can send a man to the moon, there is hardly any problem that she cannot solve here on earth? When a neighbor of ours lost his home due to long term unemployment last year, to say the least, I was very worried and terrified. Worried and terrified, because I know many of us in the labor force are just a paycheck away from unemployment psychosis or schizophrenia. A paycheck away from unemployment psychosis is as bad as a paycheck away from mental health problems, seriously!

Taken together, unemployment and associated psychoses can influence the state of mind and welfare of families, communities, state and nation. To promote safety net in term of unemployment insurance checks is probably not the complete answer to the unemployment problem.  If it has been since FDR; that solution is outdated; and what variables existed during the thirties and forties that led to a prescription of this temporary solution as a panacea to unemployment, hardly exists anymore. The characteristic nature of industrialization that led to unemployment in the thirties and forties have taken a different shape or form because of advances in information technology and globalization. It is time that we as a nation take a deeper look at unemployment compensation; and seek to prescribe more evolutionary or attentive solution to the cyclical unemployment problem, to forestall the ravages of unemployment psychosis. Advances in information technology have revolutionized the way industries are ran and managed by corporate executives. It is time for change, not only in the convoluted acceptance of unemployment insurance as a temporary solution to unemployment problem; but rather, in terms of the realities of advances in information technology and how it has sped up production levels and allowed corporate America to make zillion of dollars, while millions of Americans remain on the soup line. It is time to consider other alternative solutions to unemployment insurance compensation as a way to smitten temporarily associated problems of unemployment.

The known stereotypes of blaming Americans for being lazy, looking too much for handouts or seeking easy access to services at the expense of taxpayers or the national deficit, hardly hold anymore. Here are some concrete eye opener: there are many more Americans between the ages of 24 and 62 who remain in long term unemployment, despite the fact that they own college degrees; many more Americans are obtaining social security disability benefits as a substitute for gainful employment, because they have remained unemployed for far too long, despite active search; there are more significant proportion of Americans who have lost their jobs because their kind of work has been shipped overseas by corporate America, under the pretext that labor cost is exorbitant if those goods are produced here; the rapid advances in information technology have been at a growth pace never before imagined or contemplated, that in some cases, many jobs have been killed and some professions obsolete because machine power has practically taken over; the range of factors that had facilitated  growth during the early era of industrialization, are much different from those that we are seeing in the information age.

Current research in the field of information technology is suggestive that it is feasible for many more professions, going obsolete because of coding and algorithm advances; and, the potential these technologies have in revolutionizing efficiency of production and manufacturing, must never be underestimated. Current political regulations and legislative constraints in some states have made it difficult for some recently laid-off unemployed to retrain in other professions, because of the added costs. Worse still, some state governments are jostling and getting into tax-right-off competition for some Fortune 500 companies moving into their state, without imaging or imagining what depletion the move may have on the 'looser-state' labor force of the migrating corporation. Furthermore, some states are looking at unemployment compensation from the prism of potential fraud, without investigating alternatives to unemployment compensations as solution to unemployment problems. Despite the ravages of unemployment on our neighborhoods, the reality of machine power, consequence of increased production efficiency, is probably outstripping the management's ability to retain more on the job. Some might view the increasing advances in information technology as needed energy for growth without contemplating reforms to the old solution of unemployment compensation. We beg to differ and are calling for visitation of a solution that is probably archaic considering advances in information technology and how they are rapidly changing the face of the economy. 

It is important to understand that the nation cannot afford to undermine the welfare of its people because of the failure to act; or, advances in one area of America's economy, information technology. Whether we like it or not, the tsunami of change that is coming to the production processes and the possible impact of machine power taking over many more professions are real. It is time to start looking at alternatives for many more Americans that will be turned out to pastures because of advances in information technology.  The fragments of disorder to human welfare from threats of advances in information technology are potentially going to quadruple in the coming years, as production processes continue to be stream lined with advances in machine language and its ability to replace man in the labor force. Change is here and its consequences are making old economics paradigm questionable, if not on shaky grounds.

In this article, we have argued for new approaches to solving the cyclical unemployment problem in America's Economy, absent the conventional unemployment insurance payment to the long term unemployed. The serious threats of machine power to the continued employment and welfare of many Americans are real. Advances in computer coding and algorithm are going to bring a wave of change that has the potential of eradicating many more professions and getting more Americans out of work. The argument here is not to kill the machine or slow down pace of how information technology is revolutionizing production processes or impacting employment; rather, the argument is to find a newer solution to an old problem that is not going to go away. We are suggesting that Congress revisit unemployment compensation as a panacea to solving structural unemployment problem, because the nature of the problem or factors that precipitate long term unemployment, while still similar somewhat during the rapid industrialization of the forties, fifties and sixties, are hardly the same, consequent from what we are experiencing in the economy. The reasons for economic recession are compelling; the revolutionary change from quadrupling advances in coding and algorithms are even more compelling and the potential they have in impacting long-term unemployment, deserve a second look. Adoption of newer solutions to combating long term unemployment and practical solutions to shoring up unemployment insurance are probably in order just, considering what is to come.

Before being labeled as an alarmist, it is imperative that you look at the various illustrative examples of how people have lost their jobs or been displaced or replaced by machines; or, how corporate decisions have off-shored some production processes, vis-à-vis, jobs. The vexing problem of unemployment is not going to go away by itself; and, the divided congress isn’t affording a more concrete look at social welfare programs, not from the prism of cost, but from a more holistic and practical way that may bring succor to those who have lost their jobs and those about to.  Corporate America would continue to look out for its bottom line, just as it should rightly do; however, our government has the obligation to remain the government of the people and by the people. For this and other reasons, we are calling for a revisit of using unemployment insurance compensation as the primordial solution to structural unemployment.  In conclusion, we are suggesting that the consideration of other methods of addressing structural and cyclical unemployment, endemic of the free market economy, is evidential and not out of order, considering the potential change around the corner. The alternative methods of ameliorating unemployment problems will contribute newer knowledge to understanding how to better address this nagging problem; and, significantly assist American families through recovery of imminent unemployment and its associated problems.

Enough Propaganda about how Obamacare is leading to Political meltdown for Democrats!

Keywords or Terms: Affordable Care Act; OBAMACARE; First-Phase; Search Engines; WEBSITE Usability; Algorithm; Antagonists; Protagonists; Racists and Racism; President Barack Hussein OBAMA. 

In America’s Political experience, the word ‘meltdown’ as a consequence for passing a bill designed to restructure the delivery of health care and accommodate the challenges of having too many citizens without health insurance and care, is better reserved for those faint at heart and for politicians perceived as weak, legislatively unproductive, and or, personally or behaviorally flawed. It is hardly a word anyone would attach to ground breaking legislation in health care, despite its teething problem at launching. Despite current acrimonious statements regarding how badly the launching of the first phase of Affordable Care Act of 2011 has been, recall the same acrimonious statements beclouded the passing of the law, there are certainly some hope for the law and its future; and, if we all give the law the credit it deserves, it will ultimately triumph over petty criticisms and unqualified failures said to doom the law from antagonists.

So how has it, that so many criticisms and possible failure of a law can be projected, just by mere launching of a Website; one federal site, said to be the vessel for delivering the law (health care insurance) to millions of Americans? When the success and failure of a WEBSITE define gloom for a law in modern lawmaking, then we truly have a problem in this nation. Since when did the launching of a website define the relevance and essence of a law to better the welfare of the people?  Critics of OBAMACARE may have to look in the mirror. They set the tone for the current criticisms about how the launching of the WEBSITE is synonymous with the failure of the law, long before the launching of the Website. Except I am missing something, thousands of laws passed United States Congress for close to a quarter century, where a WEBSITE was neither part of the equation or associated with the law or its success or relevance. As a matter of fact, except for the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, anyone can count on their finger tips, laws in the past quarter of a century that were implemented or phased in, with a WEBSITE.

Visitor Usability and or usability friendliness of a WEBSITE, with all its problems, may not be intentional, but may be adduced to flawed information retrieval algorithm, which any Information Retrieval Guru, will respectfully tell you can be corrected with a few thwacks and multilevel pretests or post-launch; and, could actually be relative in all scheme of things or long run. Please get Professor Efthi Efthidiamis and Terrence Brooks back to the classroom at the University Of Washington Information School! No WEBSITE designer can consciously design a WEBSITE for the ultimate failure of the content. The HTTP, XHTML or what have you, may have tag loss or need some re-engineering; may suffer retrieval efficiency, compromised by the nature search engine; or, thwart user motivations and moral. However, it may hardly doom completely all the content or define the intent of congressional lawmakers who took several months and days to look over many and several parts of the Affordable Care Act.

For all to digest, No Website designer has the skills to effectually predict the complete future use of any Website. Technically speaking, WEBSITE designers only have two resources they can invest in designing a functional WEBSITE: time and the potential to write flexible tags that affords search engine queries or increases functionality or efficiency. But, we have seen politicians and the media, criticizing the Federal WEBSITE for the purchase of the health insurance package, as the ultimate failure of the Affordable Care Act. How about several states purchase exchanges websites that have been doing fantastic business and returning value for the time spent in purchasing a health care package? Website developers’ use of finite resources may impede the development of a perfect site. Creating a friendly usability of a WEBSITE remain the responsibility of the developer, not necessarily an illustration of the weakness of a law; or, the time-tested delegation of responsibility regarding a function better suited to skilled professionals. Taking on OBAMA’s Administration for the failure of a website belongs to the gutters of history; for the initiative of the Affordable Care Act remain appropriately with Congress who passed the law in the first place, for the President’s signature!

Instead of demonstrating the need for more user friendly WEBSITE(S) regarding the sale of health care insurance packages, antagonists of the Affordable Care Act, including many Congressional Republican Lawmakers who hardly lifted a finger in the passing of the law, are today running propaganda messages across the nation that the law is already a failure. Worse still, I see some Democrats, who were once supporters of the law, who for political reasons are worried about their chances in the 2014 elections, falling pray to mostly unfounded criticism of the law because of the glitches in the launching of the WEBSITE. Take it from an Information Manager, who completed researches in the realm of Information Retrieval, the glitches with the federal website are fixable and really, a piece of cake if you consider what is at stake if the law is railroaded. Frankly, I see racism here, I feel racism here, I smell racism here and I’ll tell all those who want OBAMACARE to fail: health is neither a respecter of color! If you do not like President Obama because he is multi-racial, deal with it! President Obama is a Hodge podgy of black and white; and, after his Presidency, his race will hardly be an issue. It is an issue today, because those rightists, who are flawed in behavior, who are prejudiced to the teeth, will hardly see anything good about having Barack Hussein Obama as the 44^th President of the United States!

Visitors to OBAMACARE WEBSITE, and or purchasers of the health care policies on the state health exchanges, Be vigilant! The extremists never wanted you to have the opportunity to shop for reasonably priced health insurance package(s) in the first place; as a matter of fact, they don’t want you to have health insurance, they’ll rather we return to the broken health care system where over 40 million Americans had no health care insurance and hospital emergency rooms were over subscribed. We are in a delicate balance or situation here; we can either allow ourselves to be fooled again by our oppressors, or stand up to the critics of OBAMACARE and say: Enough is enough! Taking the opportunity away from individual health insurance policy shopper sends a bad message that the average American has a low expectation for him or herself and can neither make good judgment regarding his or her healthcare needs.

What we have learned historically is that criticisms can undermine a very good initiative or law. Unfounded criticisms can keep Americans from visiting the health care website or state exchanges, or kill the implementation process; however, it will never take care or eradicate the initial problems that led to the passing of the law. Potential health care insurance purchasers may see current situation of usability friendliness as a suitability issue of the law; however, the truth is: The antagonists of the law are doing all in their power to kill this fine law! Don’t let them do it! Cry out foul and tell them to buzz off! Like my grandma said: “Deity, if you can’t help me, do not complicate the process of my chances and choices.”

Good health care system can keep many people alive; however, inability to own or carry health care insurance can ruin the chances of Americans from receiving health care at reasonable cost to the taxpayers. Antagonists of Affordable Care Act can easily develop low expectations of the WEBSITE intended to sell health insurance policies; and believe me, their current criticism of the functionality of the federal WEBSITE on OBAMACARE; reflect their inner negative voice and biases to the passing of the law in 2011! Sometimes criticisms of the first phase in the implementation of a law may attempt to derail the full potential of the first launch; but never a complete failure. I could remember similar criticism of the Part D Medicare reform under Republican President George Bush. Today, many seniors will rightly inform you that the program and law works, because we gave it a chance. This is what supporters of the Affordable Care Act are calling for: just a chance!

Inappropriate criticism of the Affordable Care Act website may be creating an aura of ineffectiveness or inefficiency in the law; or, may be creating mistrust among the populace, even the propaganda of the rightists regarding the law, may be holding sinking sand around the faint at heart, however, conviction and personal responsibility for the future of one’s health and how to buy and hold an health care policy, in case of an emergency, is the ultimate arbiter of the current diatomic of the user-friendly  problem regarding the OBAMACARE website. What all vigilant Americans shopping for health care policies need are: 1) enough time to learn the basic usability tabs and queries on the website; 2) opportunity to cruise the website and other state exchanges to make better choice of health insurance package(s); and 3) trust that the WEBSITE(s) is designed to facilitate easy use, foster discretionary choices for the buyer and promote solutions to the challenges of prior healthcare system.

To have a faster and more user friendly WEBSITE, the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, Governor Kathleen Sebelius, and White House management, have employed a few of the best hands in WEBSITE development and search engines management. Their current assignments and future efforts will address the initial impediments to the WEBSITE usability. The onus of the initiative to purchase and the responsibility to buy and hold on to a health insurance policy will remain that of each American. Appropriate participation in the Health Care Exchanges, especially from teaming youths in the not-so-risky pull, can help ensure the success of the implementation of the first phase of OBAMACARE; and, may all well counter the current criticisms of the naysayer regarding the Affordable Care Act of 2011.