Understanding Social Power

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

Introduction

What does it really mean when we say, "that person is very powerful." Or what is it about an organization or corporation that makes us think of it as being powerful. The word "power" has clear meaning when we are talking about a car motor, or water crashing down a cliff side. Yet when we apply the word to people or organizations it is more difficult to pin point just what we mean. The power we are speaking of is social power, and why a person has it and how it operates often seems mysterious.

My purpose here is to describe in brief my understanding of social power, what it is and how it operates. I have read books and articles on the subject but have not been very satisfied. I found the language of these works to be somewhat inaccessible or ambiguous. Also, the focus is often too narrow for such a broad topic. 

I have no special credentials to bring to this task beyond a lifetime of observation as a social worker in the fields of mental health and child welfare. I consider myself privileged to have observe people on many different levels from the intimacy of their homes to the halls of government power. This discussion, then, is intended more as a personal reflection than a scholarly pursuit and a hopeful effort to raise a productive discourse on this topic.

While each of us understands social power and responds to it in our daily lives, it remains difficult to define. This is partially because it is so pervasive and takes so many forms. It operates on every level of human interactions from the intimate to the geopolitical. For social beings, social power is our atmosphere. It surrounds us like an ocean, is essential for our survival and yet as invisible and ever changing as the wind.

Social power is often expressed in symbols. We all recognize obvious symbols of social power, like an American flag or a corporate logos. We bestow social power on our politicians when we elect them to govern. We ascribe power to people who attain "powerful position" in their company or organization. There are also very clear status symbols of power, such as a police uniform, or a Gucci handbags or the Armani suits worn by successful business people. We recognize social power when we see the skyline of great cities or the grandeur of beautiful cathedrals and synagogues. Social power is often very evident in religion. It is seen in religious symbols of worship. The special attire of priests, ministers or rabbis confer a measure of social power in the form of respect or prestige. The ornate garments of the Catholic pope during a high mass still invoke the power of ancient Roman.

But the absence of power is just as evident. We see it in the beggar or the homeless woman on the street. We sense the absence of power in the ghettos or in the desolation of small, redundant rural towns in far flung places. We sense it in young children or in the elderly living out their lives in a nursing home. We even sense it in our pets.

We all recognize and respond to social power every day. We know there is a certain pecking order in our families, among our friends or among our colleagues at work. We often exercise or respond to social power without giving it much thought. We acquiesce to authority figures such as a parent, a teacher, a rabbi, a boss or a judge. We often accede to the requests of a trusted friend or a loved one and expect the same in return. Conversely, we are very aware of social power when it is imposed on us or we are imposing it on others.

Aware of it or not, in big ways and small, we are constantly exercising or responding to social power. How we experience it goes by many names; respect, duty, obligation, intimidation, pressure, fear, expectation, demand, request. We also experience our own social power as internal feelings. We might feel empowered, entitled, privileged, respected, or even feared. On the other hand, we feel weak, vulnerable, shamed or disempowered when we are ignored, rebuked, humiliated or abused. Suffice it to say, we are a massively social species. We have evolved keen social instincts and most of us develop significant social skills throughout our lifetime.

In future installments I will define social power and trace its many forms over the spectrum of human activity. At every stage, after each post, I hope that you, the reader, will provide your reactions, insights and ideas to help improve this project. No contribution is too small or too grand, so please take the time to comment and share your thoughts and ideas. Thank you.

Is Obamacare Helping Anyone Stay Healthy?

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

Let's say you really want to know if Obamacare has had a positive effects on keeping people healthy. Partisan politics makes it difficult to get any concrete or objective answers to this or any questions regarding the Affordable Care Act (ACA). So how would you go about finding the answer?

You could find out by designing your own study. You might start by looking at diseases that are silent killers because these have permanently damaging effects long before there are physical symptoms.

Diabetes is just such a disease. According to medical sources, as many as one person in four have diabetes and don't know it. The longer it goes undetected the more it damages your internal organs, yet a simple blood test and doctors visit is all it takes to uncover and control this disease.

Now imagine that you have results of 400,000 diabetes blood tests nationwide from which you could pull out all the newly diagnosed cases. First you sort the new case in 2013, before any Medicaid expansion, from the 2014 cases after the expansion. Next you sort the new diabetes cases from each period by the 26 states that expanded Medicaid from the 24 states that refused. A concrete measure of an improved healthcare outcome would be finding that there was an increased rate of diabetes detection in the expansion states over the non-expansion states.

Just such a study was done and published this week (March 21, 2015) by Qwest Diagnostics, a national medical laboratory. What their analysis discovered was a 23% increase of newly diagnosed cases of diabetes in the states that expanded Medicaid in 2014. There was only a 0.4% increase in new diabetes cases from states that did not expand Medicaid. What's more, they were able to see a trend towards earlier detection of diabetes in the expansion states. Earlier detection means fewer heart attacks, strokes, kidney transplants, amputations, blindness and premature deaths. This, in turn, means a healthier population and lower health care costs over time.

Thousands of people will now lead healthier lives and live to their full potent in those 26 states that expanded Medicaid under the ACA. The number of people who could have been covered by the expansion roughly equals the number who got coverage in 2014. This means an almost equal number of people will likely experience needlessly declining health due to undiagnosed diabetes. The states that don't expand Medicaid will have higher healthcare costs in the future resulting from a less healthy population.

The news isn't all bleak for the poor or elderly in states that didn't expand Medicaid. A report by the Avalere Health organization recently found that there are 550,000 new enrollees in standard Medicaid in 15 states that have not expanded Medicaid. They attribute this rise in enrollment to the "woodwork effect," caused by increased public awareness and publicity surrounding Obamacare. These are individuals who were eligible for standard Medicaid but hadn't applied. It is safe to presume that some of them will benefit from the early detection of diabetes.

From this one Quest diagnostics study alone the answer is clear. The Affordable Care Act is having a positive effect on the health and well-being of citizens in those states that expanded Medicaid. There are other silent killers that can easily be detected early while treatments and cures are still possible, such as high blood pressure and many types of cancer. If earlier detection of these diseases are also resulting from Medicaid expansion, this would be overwhelming evidence that the ACA is improving health outcomes.

Expanding Medicaid doesn't cost the states any additional revenue for the first few years. After that there is significant reimbursements from the Federal Government. Refusing Medicaid expansion actually costs states millions of dollars in uncompensated care right now. Doing this on ideological grounds is not a principled position, not when it clearly results in a less healthy population and increased medical expenses for the foreseeable future.

I close with a quote from the actual Quest Diagnostics study findings:

Actual Study Findings:

"We identified 215,398 and 218,890 patients who met our definition of newly diagnosed diabetes within the first 6 months of 2013 (control period) and 2014 (study period), respectively (a 1.6% increase). We identified 26,237 Medicaid enrolled patients with new diabetes in the control period vs. 29,673 in the study period: an increase of 13%. The number of Medicaid-enrolled patients with newly identified diabetes increased by 23% (14,625 vs. 18,020 patients) in the 26 states (and District of Columbia) that expanded Medicaid compared with an increase of 0.4% (11,612 vs. 11,653 patients) in the 24 states that did not expand Medicaid during this period. Similar differences were observed in younger and older adults and for both men and women."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quest Diagnostics Diabetes Study: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2015/03/19/dc14-2334.full.pdf+html

Avalere Health Report: http://avalere.com/expertise/managed-care/insights/avalere-analysis-medicaid-non-expansion-states-experience-up-to-10-enrollme

Lake Hopatcong in New Jersey Needs Your Vote

by Brian T. Lynch

I grew up a few blocks from Lake Hopatcong and the experience has stayed with me all my life. I learned to swim here. I learned to fish and ice fish here. It was fun and exciting in the summer. But the best gift of all was discovering my inner calmness in the reflections of countless sunsets and the gentle lapping of its waves. This is where I feel most at home.

A view from tiny Snake Island on the North end of Lake Hopatcong in the Fall of 2013 looking over to a nature preserve.

Which is why I am asking you to help the Lake Hopatcong Foundation win a small public grant. By casting a vote to win this grassroots grant from the Boat U.S. Foundation you may enable us to create a public guide map of this beautiful lake. To vote, please must click on the following link to vote for Lake Hopatcong to receive this grant:

THE VOTING IS OVER, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT. WE ARE WAITING TO HEAR IF WE WON THE GRANT.  STOP BACK FOR THE ANSWER.

"But how does a guide map help this lake", you ask?

New Jersey politics is heavily comingled with the interests of developers. Over the years this beautiful lake has been transformed from summer resort and recreation area to largely a residential lake. Lake access has become too limited due to over development, so tourism is down. (I would love to see the State open another state park.) This gives the New Jersey State government less incentive to support environmental stewardship of our largest lake and natural attraction. Encouraging more tourism will help attract more attention to preserving and maintaining the lake.

If they win the grant, the Lake Hopatcong Foundation will create a Lake Hopatcong Guide Map. The map will include information on invasive species and the location of pumpout stations. The map will be available for free and printed on water-resistant, tear resistant and durable 12” x 18” paper. They will also update the Lake Hopatcong Guide app which is available for free download for iPhone, iPad and Android. Information on how to prevent aquatic hitchhikers and the locations of pumpout station will be added to the app and their website. This will facilitate visitor, encourage tourism and it would be good for the health of the lake in the long run.

Putting this small grant towards some great environmental issue would be a little bit like throwing a pail of water on a burning house. The impact would be negligible. So please help out and cast a vote for help the Lake Hopatcong Foundation win this small grant. Here is a little history of Lake Hopatcong. Please come visit it if you are in the vicinity some day.

LAKE HOPATCONG, NEW JERSEY

Lake Hopatcong is New Jersey's largest lake. It is about 4 square miles in area. It is in the water shed area know has the New Jersey highlands about 30 miles from the Delaware River and 45 miles from New York City. Lake Hopatcong was created by damming and flooding two ponds that were known as Great Pond and Little Pond. It is substantially spring fed while the Musconetcong River flows out from it.

The Big and Little Ponds in the Hopatcong basin were form during the last glacier. They were about two miles apart with some wetlands between. It is believed that these lakes were first settled by the Lenape Indians. Here they found that the lakes provided abundant fish and forested shores with plenty of game. The word "Hopatcong" is believed to be a derivative of the Lenape word "hapakonoesson", meaning Pipe stone".

Sometime between 1750 and 1765 the Brookland Forge and mill built a damn where the Musconetcong River flows from the lake in order to supply greater water power for the forge. This damn raised the water level by six feet and connected the two ponds. 

In the early 1800's plans were made to build the Morris Canal to connect the Delaware River with New York Harbor. The 900 foot elevation of Hopatcong basin was perfectly suited to supply water for the canal.

In 1831, the Morris Canal Company purchased the Brookland forge site and replaced the dam with one that raised the water 12 ft above the original level of Great Pond creating the lake as it exists today.








Lake Hopatcong is home to the greatest variety of game fish of lake in New Jersey.

Each spring it is stocked with brown trout, rainbow trout, and brook trout. It is home to Largemouth and smallmouth bass, rock bass, chain pickerel, channel catfish, bullheads, hybrid striped bass, walleye, muskellunge as well as perch, crappie, bluegill and carp.

I have never been skillful or lucky enough to catch one of the monster fish that inhabit the lakes depths, but I have always been inspired by those who do seem to catch these great fish.

Once a first class resort destination for the rich and famous, today Lake Hopatcong is largely a residential lake with limited public access. There is the New Jersey State Park in Landing and a number of marinas and restaurants on the lake and two yacht clubs. Many of the restaurants can be accessed by boat. You can simply dock and dine at any of these classic lakeside restaurants.

Jefferson House restaurant outdoor view

So again, Please help the Lake Hopatcong Foundation win this small grant, Click on the following link to vote for Lake Hopatcong to receive this grant: http://www.boatus.org/grants/vote.asp and Thank YOU!

Republicans Having a Selma Moment

by Brian Lynch, MSW

It's been fifty years since marchers seeking voting rights were beaten on the Pettus Bridge in Selma Alabama, yet Republican leaders still can't join hands with African Americans on that bridge without offending bigots in their base. Fifty year later and a show of unity on that bridge is still the wrong message coming from the Republican Party? Really?

This begs further questions. Just how much of Republican politics is driven by the desire to preserve white privilege? What percentage of their base feel hostile towards inclusion and justice for all? And who can be surprised after this missed opportunity to learn that 90% of African Americans vote for Democrats, or that Latinos are increasingly turning to the Democratic Party?

Media pressure was put on the Republicans when it was learned that no leaders were planned to go to Selma. At the last minute House Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy announced he will to join in the 50th anniversary events. McCarthy is a close friend of Democratic Congressman John Lewis who was beaten on that bridge 50 years ago. The cynical view is that McCarthy is the best Republican representative since his attendance can be forgiven by the bigots on the grounds that he is Lewis' personal friend. This isn't to impugn McCarthy's motives for attending, which I'm sure are genuine.

Political spinners can say whatever they want, but no rational citizen who wants our society to advance can accept any more excuses from those who hold us back. The Republican Party has clearly chosen the wrong side of history. This time it is Republicans who are beating themselves on the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

_________________________________________________

Historical foot note: The Edmund Pettus Bridge is named for Edmund Winston Pettus, a former Confederate brigadier general, U.S. Senator from Alabama and Grand Dragon of the Alabama Ku Klux Klan.

The Plot to Kill Public Employee Pensions

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

In war and politics, if you pick your battlefield you win. The current pension fight in New Jersey is a classic example. Nearly everyone in the state sees it as a battle between a broken pension system and cash strapped citizens, but this is all just a setup.

Governor Chris Christie cut $1.5 billion in pension payments from the latest budget proposal while also cutting modest tax increases on the rich to pay for it.  When the unions squealed, he offered the public a false choice between tax hikes on the middle class or cuts to popular and essential programs.  His framing of the problem this way pits average citizens against civil servants and their unions.  This is the battlefield of choice for national conservatives.

This fight could have been between government solvency and any other public obligation of the state, but it's not.  It's against public employee unions because killing public sector unions and fix pension systems has been a conservative priority for decades.  This is a grand plan playing out in many other states.  Starving public pensions was always a choice, not a necessity.  If all those missed pension payments had been made the system would be awash in cash today given the huge growth in the investment markets over the past twenty years. 

But Gov. Christie almost blew this plan to destroy public employee pensions in New Jersey when he enacted pension reforms that might actually fix the system.  His reform plan could still fix it if implemented, but not without seriously upsetting his potential conservative backers.

In order to keep his presidential hopes alive Governor Christie had no choice but to sabotaged his own reforms and further degrade the state pension system by not paying what he promised.  A state judge has seen through his shallow plan and ordered him to restore the cuts, and he has appealed. I hope the New Jersey Supreme Court will uphold the lower court's decision.  

I hope everyone else in New Jersey sees though his sham and demand that that he stick to the pension reform plan he has been boasting about on his trips out of state.  And if the reader here happens to live in a conservative state with public pension woes, take a lesson from New Jersey.  Take a step back and look around to see in whose battlefield you may be standing.

See also: Civil Service Pensions - A Marker for What We've Lost

HERE IS WHY GEORGE WASHINGTON IS WORTH CELEBRATING

HERE IS WHY GEORGE WASHINGTON IS 

WORTH CELEBRATING

George Washington warned this Nation about political parties that,"alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities." He called political parties.."a frightful despotism."

He called plutocrats (wealthy, controlling capitalists) ,"powerful engines" of cunning and ambition that "subvert the power of the people and usurp, for themselves, the reins of government."

Because a democratic government is compelled to enact the will of the people he gave this advice: "Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge." He said, "In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened."

He denounced war that is coerced by "habitual hatred" and those who profit from it. He said "The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy... The government... makes the animosity of the nation [towards war] subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition and other sinister and pernicious motives."

And he made all of these comments in his Farewell Address, with the hope that we would still  be listening.

https://www.senate.gov/…/his…/resources/pdf/WashFarewell.pdf
HT: StarLedger of NJ

A Best of Times, Worst of Times Economy

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

How is it possible that the investment economy is booming while the economy of ordinary citizens is still in such a slump? Stock prices are at an all time high and big time investors are getting high rates of returns while worker wages have declined and are just starting to rise. The raises in wages so far is still not keeping up with inflation. It seems like there are two separate economies not entirely connected to each other. Right?

To understand what's happening we have to begin by acknowledging that most of the richest billionaires today have gotten much of their wealth increases at the expense of lower wages for the rest of us. This trend is more than thirty years old now in the United States. There is plenty of evidence supporting this fact for those who care to look. And this wage suppression is a global phenomenon, not just a U.S. feature.

In order to increase consumer spending while wages remained flat we have had to make a series of changes, beginning with mothers entering the workforce, longer work hours followed by layaway plans, credit cards and then home equity loans to pay for spending beyond our means. These have run their course and the long hard pay down of personal debt (including college loans) means that consumer spending will be sluggish for the foreseeable future.

The impact on the economy of stagnant wages is ever slower consumption of goods and services over time. There isn't as much money to buy things. This slower rate of consumption suppresses demand. Lower demand means fewer jobs and even lower wages for the rest of us. This is the cycle were we find ourselves today.

The consumption of goods produces the profits from which owners of capital collect returns on their investments. Lower demand due to suppressed wages would normally also lower returns on capital investments but for the factors that have kept consumption afloat. Now there are no hours left in a day, fewer household members available to work and no more capacity to borrow against future earnings. The impact of low wages has come home to roost and it means fewer sales and less profit to be made.

Before the 1970's this situation would right itself as owners shared a portion of their wealth by offering productivity raises to reward their workers. Productivity wages are based on growing productivity, hourly GDP, It is separate and apart from cost of living increases. Productivity raises, along with cost of living adjustments, allowed the labor/consumers to increase their spending thus boosting demand. Increased demand would spur on manufacturing and stimulate the whole economy.

But today's billionaires have found another way to profit without sharing their wealth with wage earning consumers. They spotted the growing ownership stake that many in the middle class have accumulated and they created opportunities to take it from them.

It is hard for most of us to see in our lifetime, but this is the first time in modern history that the middle class (upper-middle mostly) has accumulated a significant share in capital ownership. Prior to the vast destruction of property caused by the world wars in the last century, wealth was extremely concentrated at the top, and it's happening again today. Middle class gains in the 20th Century directly correspond to capital losses by the wealthiest owners during the two world wars. Now many of us have retirement accounts, money market funds, stock holdings, etc. People in the upper-middle class, such as doctors, lawyers and middle-managers, have become mini-investment capitalists.

Billionaire capitalists, the "true heirs" to wealth ownership, have responded to middle-class ownership of capital by creating a massive financial investment casino filled with elaborate new investment vehicles. The object is to entice new wealth owners to play in the billionaire's casinos. Mortgage backed securities and swaps are just two small examples that nearly bankrupted the economy in 2008.

These new and incomprehensible investment products has spawned a whole new class of hucksters, like Bernie Madoff, who use these bewildering new instruments to create slick ponzi schemes. But the bulk of these new investment opportunities are just big casino games in which the house (billionaire owners) always wins. Billionaires are quickly siphoning away middle class ownership stakes through high finance games of chance. In this way they boost their own return on investments and entertain themselves without having to share their wealth by offering higher wages.

Because these billionaire owners, who make up less than .01% of the population, control the investment odds, they are sure to win back all the capital their families lost in the war years of the last century.

This explains why the stock market and investment economy seem to be booming while the worker economy on Main Street slumps. Billionaire capitalists don't have to share wealth to make wealth like they use to. There are enough small investors with an ownership stake who are willing to gamble what little they have in this new investment casino. It is enough to keep billionaire fortunes growing faster than the economy as a whole.

If you, the reader, are still with me at this point let me assure you that the geometrically rising gains by the wealthiest owners of capital are not an inevitability. There are difficult but concrete steps we can take to bring capitalism back into balance for everyone. A discussion of these solutions, however, does require a much deeper understanding of problems that I can provide here. I firmly believe it is in everyone's best interest to acquire a better understanding of the forces creating our two economies; Forces that are threatening our democratic institutions. For a fuller understanding I recommend Thomas Piketty's excellent book, Capitalism in the 21st Century. I encourage you to strike up conversations with others and share your thoughts and questions.

_______________________________

Image Credit: (and recommended site) http://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/is-doing-something-about-inequality-just-a-choice-between-bash-the-rich-v-tackling-poverty-some-thoughts-for-blog-action-day/#prettyPhoto-img/0/

Brooklyn Police Murders Don't Erase Decades of Differential Justice

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

Eleven cops were killed in 2013 at the hands of black minority alleged perpetrators. Sixteen cops were killed by white alleged perpetrators last year. Half of all cop murders that have take place in the last ten years happened in the Southern United States.  (See table below)

One problem with the FBI statistics is they don't distinguish between African-American vs. black Latino or other black skinned minorities. Even so, African-American's make up 13% of the population but make up 28% of all arrests nationally and 40% of all US prison inmates. In some communities a black person is more than 10 times as likely to be arrested than a white person in the same town.

There clearly is differential policing in this country, but not in every community. There clearly are areas where police departments exhibit racial bias, but not everywhere, in every case by every officer.

Since the 1970's there is a significant decline in police fatalities, yet, with less than half of all law enforcement agencies reporting, there are about 400 civilian deaths caused by police each year. These are deaths considered to be justifiable police homicides. That number could be well over 1,000 per year if national reporting was mandatory for law enforcement. (see this petition)

I am horrified at the brutal murders of officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos in New York City. I am fully supportive of police and sympathize with their families. This is a sacrifice they should not have to bear.

The killer in this case appears to be mentally ill, having shot his ex-girlfriend before coming to NYC to kill some cops before killing himself. He wasn't one of the recent police protesters nor was he connected with any nefarious organizations that might considered "anti-law enforcement." (For the most part those organizations are far rightwing in their politics and Ismaaiyl Brinsley doesn't fit that profile) . The police are rightfully investigating this possibility as I write, but so far Brinsley seems to have acted alone.

The evidence so far suggests that this terrible killing was the result of mental illness and an anti-social personality disorder, not revenge. It should not be politicized in any way or used by the police or law enforcement officials as a reason to alter policing tactics towards those people who are lawfully protesting policing policies. blatantly unequal application of justice against minorities over the past 4 decades is a well documented fact. This incident should not be used by police departments across the country as a reason not to challenge them to change.

----------------------------------------------

Related Stories on this Blog

Three People Die in Police Custody Every Day

http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2015/04/three-people-die-daily-in-police-actions.html

Police Action Fatalities in America

http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2015/04/police-action-fatalities-in-america.html

New Data Exposes Racial Bias in Fatal Police Encounters Nationwide

http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2015/04/new-data-exposes-racial-bias-in-fatal.html

Police Homicides, What We Know and Don't Know

http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2014/09/police-homicides-what-we-know-and-dont.html

Serve and Protect or Enforce and Collect, The Changing Character of Local Police

http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2014/06/serve-and-protect-or-enforce-and.html

Police Killings Not Uncommon, Exact Numbers Are Unknown

http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2014/08/police-killings-not-uncommon-exact.html

Consequences of Militarized Police Departments in America

http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2012/05/consequences-of-militarized-police.html

Stop-and-Frisk and Racial Profiling, What We Should Know

http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2012/06/stop-and-frisk-and-racial-profiling.html

Is Rachel Maddow a News Anchor?

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

Here is what a bias news watch organization has to say. I've added my comments. What's yours? Please feel free to comment here.

MSNBC Thinks Rachel Maddow Is A News Anchor?

Over the past several years, MSNBC has run a series of “Lean Forward” ads promoting its various liberal hosts’ television shows as well as the network's numerous liberal causes. While many of them have been downright ridiculous...

NEWSBUSTERS.ORG

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2014/12/04/msnbc-thinks-rachel-maddow-news-anchor

I think of her more as a news commentator, or news synthesizer, who occasionally breaks important stories that are ignored by the mainstream news media. She and her producers report conventional news items, but they also search the internet for local news stories that should be of national interest, stories that are too often ignored. They do their fact checking and they develop their own news gathering contributions to these stories. They serve as both a filter and amplifier. The choice of stories they pursue does reveals a liberal bias which they take pains not to hide. But most importantly, they almost always get their facts right. They don't make stuff up to fit a biased political narrative as happens on the Fox News network
.
But if you criticize Dr. Maddow for not being a serious news anchor, than what must we say about the utterly silly and insignificant news that serious "news anchors" toss out to their fickle public every day? Doesn't this low information drivel make them illegitimate news anchors as well?

I no longer watch the "legitimate" news shows because these outlets are not providing me with the critical information I need every day to understand what's really happening in our world. Too often they report as news the bias statements of people in power. They fail to connect the dots when local stories form national patterns. This latter problem is what allowed ALEC to fly so long under the radar of the main stream press,

Corporate national news outlets have their own agenda, and it is usually about market share and advertising dollars, not reporting news that might anger key market segments. If viewer share on the Rachael Maddow Show grew significantly, so would the pressure to conform to standards that would not risk loosing those viewers.

More Evidence Organically Grown Food is Healthier

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

More and more people are looking to purchase organic foods in the belief that organically grown food is healthier. There has been growing concern about possible health impacts from the agrochemicals used in traditional crop production. These chemicals have included pesticides growth regulators and various petrochemical fertilizers. Many of these synthetic chemicals are not permitted in organically grown food. This often requires organic farmers to adopt different methods of crop production including mechanical weeding and different schedules of crop rotation. The question has been whether the absence of agrochemicals and the differing methods of food production actually produce safer or more nutritious crops.

A recent meta-analysis of 343 peer reviewed studies was published in the British Journal of Nutrition. This analysis uncovered that there are indeed significant differences between organically grown and traditionally grown crops. It was found that organically grown crops have higher antioxidants and lower concentrations of trace metals such as cadmium. I higher intake of antioxidants, such as those found in organic foods in this study, have been found to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and certain types of cancer such as colon cancer. Antioxidants have also been linked to a lower risk of certain degenerative neurological conditions.  Low dose, long-term exposure to cadmium can be damaging to the kidneys and can lead to the formation of kidney stones.[http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/wastemin/minimize/factshts/cadmium.pdf]

For more detailed information on this study the abstract has been appended below along with a link to the original study.

News that organically grown food is richer in antioxidants is especially encouraging news since there continues to be little evidence that antioxidant supplements have a beneficial effect on health. it appears that not all substances with antioxidant properties have beneficial effects, and in some cases the effects of certain anti-oxidant chemicals can be harmful. What seems to be important for receiving health benefits from antioxidant substances is to obtain them through fresh fruits and vegetables rather than through supplements.

The school of Public health at Harvard has published a good review of the benefits of antioxidants, the just of which reads:

Free radicals contribute to chronic diseases from cancer to heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease to vision loss. This doesn’t automatically mean that substances with antioxidant properties will fix the problem, especially not when they are taken out of their natural context. The studies so far are inconclusive, but generally don’t provide strong evidence that antioxidant supplements have a substantial impact on disease. But keep in mind that most of the trials conducted up to now have had fundamental limitations due to their relatively short duration and having been conducted in persons with existing disease. That a benefit of beta-carotene on cognitive function was seen in the Physicians’ Health Follow-up Study only after 18 years of follow-up is sobering, since no other trial has continued for so long. At the same time, abundant evidence suggests that eating whole fruits, vegetables, and whole grains—all rich in networks of antioxidants and their helper molecules—provides protection against many of these scourges of aging. [ http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/antioxidants/ ]

British Journal of Nutrition

Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence

of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: a systematic literature

review and meta-analyses

Abstract;

Demand for organic foods is partially driven by consumers’ perceptions that they are more nutritious. However, scientific opinion is divided on whether there are significant nutritional differences between organic and non-organic foods, and two recent reviews have concluded that there are no differences. 

In the present study, we carried out meta-analyses based on 343 peer-reviewed publications that indicate statistically significant and meaningful differences in composition between organic and non-organic crops/crop-based foods.

Most importantly, the concentrations of a range of antioxidants such as polyphenolics were found to be substantially higher in organic crops/crop-based foods, with those of phenolic acids, flavanones, stilbenes, flavones, flavonols and anthocyanins being an estimated 19 (95 % CI 5, 33) %, 69 (95 % CI 13, 125) %, 28 (95 % CI 12, 44) %, 26 (95 % CI 3, 48) %, 50 (95 % CI 28, 72) % and 51 (95 % CI 17, 86) % higher, respectively.

Many of these compounds have previously been linked to a reduced risk of chronic diseases, including CVD and neurodegenerative diseases and certain cancers, in dietary intervention and epidemiological studies. Additionally, the frequency of occurrence of pesticide residues was found to be four times higher in conventional crops, which also contained significantly higher concentrations of the toxic metal Cd.

Significant differences were also detected for some other (e.g. minerals and vitamins) compounds. There is evidence that higher antioxidant concentrations and lower Cd concentrations are linked to specific agronomic practices (e.g. non-use of mineral N and P fertilisers, respectively) prescribed in organic farming systems. In conclusion, organic crops, on average, have higher concentrations of antioxidants, lower concentrations of Cd and a lower incidence of pesticide residues than the non-organic comparators across regions and production seasons.

[ http://csanr.wsu.edu/m2m/papers/organic_meta_analysis/bjn_2014_full_paper.pdf ]

The Authors 2014. The online version of this article is published within an Open Access environment subject to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution licence http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
-----------------------
Image credit: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Culinary_fruits_front_view.jpg

Declaring War on the Poor

Brian T. Lynch

Thom Tillis is now Senator elect from North Carolina, having beaten Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan in the 2014 election. During his campaign Tillis berated the poor and suggested that those people who can't help being poor, like the truly disabled, should rise up and opposed welfare for the unworthy poor. What he actually said was:

“What we have to do is find a way to divide and conquer the people who are on assistance,” 

North Carolina has 1.1 million poor. That's 13.1% of its population. If these folks voted it would be hard to imagine Tillis getting elected, but Hagan and the Democrats have abandoned the poor and working class in this country as well. Now the poor are under attacks like this:

“We have to show respect for that woman who has cerebral palsy and had no choice, in her condition, that needs help and that we should help. And we need to get those folks to look down at these people who choose to get into a condition that makes them dependent on the government and say at some point, ‘You’re on your own. We may end up taking care of those babies, but we’re not going to take care of you.’ And we've got to start having that serious discussion.” - Thom Tillis

Watch for the U.S. Senate to put Tillis on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to replace Kay Hagan. He is destine to become the chair of the Children and Families Sub-committee with his attitudes. His appointment would amount to a declaration of war on the poor.

So how should sensible people respond to divisive attacks like this on the poor and vulnerable? Should we begin making similar distinctions between the worthy and unworthy rich? Should we affirm those who earned their great wealth and provide social benefit but rescind all advantages given to those who use their inherited wealth to squeeze the people and their government for still more?

How we respond to these questions will define who we are as a nation.

How Free is "Free Will"

by Brian T. Lynch

In my opinion "Free Will" should be very narrowly defined compared to how most people think about it. I see it as something that emerges incrementally along a continuum of actions ranging from autonomic or purely impulsive to counter intuitive and rationally planned. Free will isn't an all or nothing phenomenon. 

For starters, neuroscience tells us that desires and urges are completely separate processes in our brain. Each has its own distinct origins and separate neural pathways. We experience these two processes as indistinguishable drivers of behavior when we accede to them, but their separate nature is quickly apparent when we attempt to consciously defer or delay satisfying them. Urges are far more powerful, and in some cases nearly irresistible. They are at the root of addictions. 

Desires are based on our brains emotional systems. They can also be powerful drivers of behavior, but they can be more easily controlled or differed by our rational brain processes. And, of course, both desires and urges can operate in concert, the perceived strength of our desires often masking the strength of underlying urges. For this reason the early signs of substance addiction is perceived by the addict as a free will choice to participate. It is only when they attempt to change their behavior and refrain from substance use that they discover the power of their addictive urges. We have to take care here to recognize that urges are biologically adaptive drivers of behavior. They help assure survival by powerfully motivating us to fulfill our primary needs, including sexual reproduction and eating. Needless to say urges and desire are often hopelessly co-mingled in areas of primary survival needs further masking the power of urges in control of our behavior. 

I exclude free will from any actions that are driven in part by impulse because it is virtually impossible to know if actions that satisfy an impulse are free will choices or not.  Actions that spring from emotions, including desires, may or may not involve conscious rational though. How ever you might define free will, some element of conscious rational thought must be a component. So actions that arise purely out of raw emotion, without forethought, I would also exclude from free will actions. It is here that the gradual blossoming of free will is most evident. 

When we act to satisfy urges or emotions we really cannot distinguish "free will" from the actions taken since acting on a urge feels identical to acting by choice. That is why people don't even know the extent to which they are addicted until they discover they can't simply stop. Addiction is insidious in that way. No one can say for sure that they smoke by choice after that first cigarette because even six months later the brain can trigger powerful urges for another cigarette.

The same holds true, by degree, with our emotions. We can't know for certain if we are acting on free will when we acquiesce to our feelings since emotions can also overpower free will. We even say we are "acting on our emotions" to explain certain behaviors, but it still feels exactly like a choice, even if we can't help it. So inwardly speaking, we can only no for sure that we are acting on free will when our actions are contrary to both our urges and our feelings. It is only when we place them in check that we can know for sure we are acting on our own free will.

What about free will in circumstances where our only available options for action are proscribed by others, or by circumstances out of our control? If we have no choice but to act, do we have free will? If we have only bad choices, are we exercising free will by making that bad choice? Was Socrates exercising free will when he choose to drink hemlock rather than face a public execution? It so, and I believe he was exercising free will, then a limited form of free will must exist even under extreme forms of coercion.

How we define "free will" has enormous social and political implications because we assess the free will choices of others when judging their actions. It is especially within the Justice system that we see free will emerge as a continuum of responsibility. It is reflected in the various levels of proof and it sentencing guidelines and levels of criminal intent. Jurors are often asked to weigh mitigating and aggravating circumstances. We punish people more harshly when they show criminal intent, which is a level of free will in the commission of a crime. We find people not guilty by reason of insanity when their mental state prevents them from knowing right from wrong, and there are all gradations in between.

These are just examples. In fact, we use these sort of calculations everyday with each other or our children in judging their actions and in modulating our responses. So the idea that free will is an all or nothing phenomenon just isn't born out in our every day experience.

Anyway, here is an interesting article on the subject. http://www.slate.com/…/free_will_debate_what_does_free_will…

Yes, You Have Free Will. This Is Why.

It has become fashionable to say that people have no free will. Many scientists cannot imagine how the idea of free will could be reconciled with the laws of physics and chemistry. Brain researchers say that the brain is just a bunch of nerve cells...

SLATE.COM

Why Democrats Keep Losing!

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

May I rant? It helps me to think out loud. Maybe you will find it helpful too. (or just ignore this if you like.) 

Democrats are loosing in state after state and in federal elections because they are acting too white and wealthy for their base, the REAL latent base of the party. And this base is NOT its liberal donors. Dem donors are nice folks, but they can't compete with the GOP donor machines. (Nor should they try)

According to OpenSecrets.org, from the prior election, two-thirds of corporate donations go to the GOP and one-third to Dem's. That's more than enough money to distract Democratic candidates.  But that's not the whole story.

We already have a party of wealthy white guys, so we don't need another party of wealthy (relative term here, not pejorative) white gals or guys to oppose them. As badly as the GOP is exploiting and marginalizing woman (treating them like subordinates), woman's issues are not winning over woman like it should, not even female Democrats. But that's not the whole story either.

We need a Democratic party that gets intimately in touch with the needs of the ordinary people who haven't been voting lately, people who, from their distal vantage, can't tell the two parties apart. Their issues are literally bread and butter, not theoretical or ideological economics. They live in a deflationary universe where wages are flat and a dollar keeps shrinking. Their daily sweat has been sanitized and turned into a market commodity. There is no profit left in labor for them. They know their children will have no inheritance because everything they own can be sold at a flee market. 

The middle class that we usually picture in our mind is not the middle income folks of today. Popular culture's view, reinforced by network TV's portrayals of middle-class lifestyles, matches people making more than $100,000 a year, twice the median wage. Which politicians for federal office speak openly and bravely for this half of our hard working citizens who make less than $50,000 per year? You can't reach them by talk of job creation! Most of them have more jobs than they can handle. 

If we think of the lower half of wage earners as being made up of those who are working and those looking for work, then 7% unemployed minus the 50% who earn less than a middle wage leaves 43% of the wage earners who are not being represented by either party. Of this group, those who call themselves Democrats aren't showing up to vote. Why should they? What will change when no one seems to notice them? 

Republican in this same low income group do show up to vote, but that's because they are cynically manipulated by the wealthy wing of the GOP. They are voting out of fear, anger and pain. The wealthy wing of the GOP hears their pain even as it twist the knife.

Democrats in public office, or running for office, don't want to ruffle the feathers of the powerful minority groups (Wall Street, CEO's, Billionaires, etc.) even though these folks aren't voting for them.  Money is tight. I get that. 

Let me give you just two examples from two New Jersey congressional races that were below the national radar, The incumbent Republican, Rodney Frelinghuysen, raise 7 times more money than his Democratic challenger, Mark Dunec in the 11th District. Incumbent Republican Leonard Lance raised 8 times more than his Democratic challenger, Janice Kovach in the 7th District. All this money did not come from the 43% of hard working American's who still need some form of government subsidy to survive. 

And what help did these Democratic candidates get from their party elders? Very little! A decision was made to write off these districts. The slick election strategy that carefully targets resources to the most competitive races writes off the needs of millions of people who have every right to be represented. The big get out the vote strategy touted by the party fizzled because they didn't have an explosive message to motivate the 43%ers. 

People who live below the median wage level have one thing in common with the richest billionaires... their vote is just as powerful. One person! One vote! It isn't how corporations operate; It's how democracies operate. And until Democrats start collecting those uncast vote, instead of appeasing the rich, Democrats will continue to loose.

It is time to stop playing the Republican's game. 

Here is a helpful article by Robert Reich that says in fewer word what I am trying to say above. 

http://m.dailykos.com/stories/1342950

Anyway, I'm done with my rant. Thanks for listening, even if you didn't make it this far. All the best in the future.

________________________________

Image Credit: http://news.yourolivebranch.org/2011/05/24/iec-declares-election-free-and-fair/

Should Living Wage Minimums be Based on Individuals or Families?

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

“No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country... By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of a decent living.” (1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act - Franklin Delano Roosevelt)

Question:  In looking at the Living Wage calculator, I see that $10.83 for a single adult in Morris County, New Jersey where I live. This seems fair to me for a single person, but when you add one child to that scenario the rate jumps to $22.12 per hour. This raises a serious question.  Does the Living Wage Movement suggest that wages should be adjusted according to need? [ http://livingwage.mit.edu/ ]

Answer:  That's a great question. I am not a spokesman for, or advocate of, the living wage movement as an organization. I do believe that living wages should be the minimum wage in this country.  Minimum living wages should be what we pay summer college help or student interns, not full-time employees. It might also be appropriate for part-time seasonal help. It shouldn't be what we pay permanently hired employees.

To answer your question, I researched what a living wage is in the 130 cities that have living wage laws. It turns out that their wage base is for a single employee, not including any dependents. A living wage in Manchester CT equals $15.54/hour (the highest) while it is $8.50 in Orlando FL (the lowest).  It would appear that the Living Wage Movement is looking to index a minimum living wage minimum to local economies based on one adult with no dependents.

That said, the minimum wage in 1986 was $10.86/hour  as opposed to its current level of $7.25/hour.  If it had been indexed to inflation in 1986 the current minimum wage today would be $23.59/hour today. That clearly was intended to provide for a worker with a family. The current median family size is 2.54 persons per household. That inflation adjusted wage equals about $47,000 per year while the current median family wage is a little over $51,000 per year (and still declining, I might add).

Here's the thing, we have only been talking about wage adjustments to keep pace with inflation. We have not been talking about raising wages to reward workers for our growing productivity. We haven't been talking about sharing the wealth that workers help create so everyone keeps pace with America's growing economy. Cost of living adjustments are important, but they shouldn't be confused with a productivity, or merit raise.

America is $1.7 trillion richer today than it was in 1976. Our economy has doubled, yet the share of all that new wealth created by American workers in this same period is insignificant.

In the 1960's my father was an appliance repairman at Sears. His salary was enough that my mother could stay home and raise my sister and me. Her role as mother to the next generation of citizens was valued. Today, a typical family of four earns about $51,000 only because both parents work. They are only able to make ends meet because of easy access to credit to shift their financial burdens onto their future earnings.

When I speak about a living wage I dream of getting back to a point where one breadwinner can hold one full-time job and still raise a small family without needing government assistance to do it. That's what we had, and that should be our goal for America.

Minimum Wage is a Moral Question

EDITORIAL

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

“No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country... By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of a decent living.” (1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act - Franklin Delano Roosevelt)

The White House put out a brief video on why we should raise the minimum wage to $10.10/hour. It is OK as far it goes, but it is still a little disappointing to me.

Click here to see the video. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqtLQgkcUFM ]

Even the White House is looking at minimum wage law though the modern day pro-business bias that has infected all of civil government. Even though raising bottom wages creates an economic stimulus that would boost spending, increase demand for goods and services and create more jobs, this isn't the most important aspect. The main reason to raise minimum wages is because it's simply the right thing to do.

The question of minimum wage is actually a moral question. There is no good rationale for paying a full-time employee less than a self-sufficient wage. What is almost half of a human beings waking moments worth? What is the minimum compensation they should receive for devoting that time to enrich their employers? Why should it be less than what is required to survive with human dignity?

From a social perspective, should profitable businesses be held in high esteem as models of efficiency for paying wages so low that full-time employees require taxpayer subsidy to keep from becoming homeless or having their children taken away from them? Should we have to subsidize the labor force of wealthy corporations like Walmart? Should the federal income taxes of those who make more than minimum wage have to be used to supplement the other employees who takes out the trash at night or mow the lawn? Why should any healthy corporation be allowed to boost their profits at public expense through subsidized labor?

If small businesses or start-up company need government subsidies or tax breaks to help pay their help, let these business owners apply for government assistance rather than make their employees feel inadequate by having to beg for government assistance. No man or woman who works hard all day long should have to apply for housing assistance or SNAP or KidCare or childcare assistance or HEAP or any other government subsidy. Let the business owners apply for government aid to help pay employees the self-sufficient wages all full-time workers should have. Let the means testing process for government subsidy programs fall to the employers. Let's get it off the backs of the working poor and eliminate the social stigma they don't deserve. Let the minimum cost of self-sufficient labor wages be part of the cost of doing business in America.

Profits for CEO's and share holders should not come before self-sufficient wages for laborers. Exploiting workers and taxpayers to boost profits for investors and chief executives is immoral.

Data Driven Viewpoints: Why I blog

Data Driven Viewpoints: Why I blog:

Why I blog

I spent my entire career listening to the personal, often tragic stories of children and parents in need.  I did my best to help families make sense of the pain and confusion they experienced.  I tried to help them make plans, to take steps to regain control over their lives and pursue their dreams.  I advocated to marshal the assistance they needed from the larger social service community and their government.   It wasn't easy work. 

My work brought me into contact with all the major social issues or our day and all of our basic institutions such as law enforcement agencies, courts, prisons, schools, hospitals and medical professionals, county social services and welfare agencies, psychiatric hospitals, universities, non-profit service agencies and governments on the local, state and federal levels.

This was a privileged vantage point from which I observed every level of our human ecology, from the lives of individuals to the operations of government institutions.   The impact of state and federal policy on the unique lives of ordinary people was amazing, and often disturbing to see.  The rising tide of political conflict and the clash of ideologies has real, observable and sometimes devastating consequences.

An old African proverb says:  "When elephants fight the grass dies."  This sums up what inspired me to create this blog.  I want to share my perspective on issues that impact the lives of ordinary Americans.  I want to give voice to those who are too often ignored.  I want to help inform our political dialogue with the best data I can find, data that can be independently verified. 

Ideology is no substitute for reason.  Our political leaders can agree or disagree on principles, but when there is no agreement on facts there can be no common understanding and no effective action to help strengthen families and our communities.

What I do here is completely non-commercial.  I don't, and will never, take a time in advertising for this site. Everything I publish here is free for you to use or republish so long as you properly attribute it to me and this Website. I am very grateful to you for taking the time to read my posts, and I encourage you to engage with me through comments. Feel free to contact me directly via email at brilyn37@aol.com.  Thank you!

Brian T. Lynch, MSW