The Facebook Blues - What Happens to Facebook When People Run Out of Things to Say?

.

Aren’t We All Suffering From 'Facebook Depression?'

So once we become a member of Facebook and achieve immortality as a viral digit what happens when we finally run out of things to say?  It sounds like a good question to me.  I've been on Facebook several years and watched a lot of people come and go although the digital world is reluctant to let go of you long after you cease to be a member.

You see those mythical clicks still generate money for the social media types and it never really mattered whether you read the advert, clicked through the adverts, withdrew from membership, or even died.  For some strange reason they expect you to notify them in the event of your death and then they may carry a tribute page for you until you return from the grave to cut it off.

Yet there is also the problem of what to do when you do run out of things to say.  I must say I thought it was impossible for some people to run out of words.  It was as if they had a bionic mind attached to bionic fingers pounding out an endless stream of sense and nonsense on social media.

However, as I tracked them over time I noticed there was an obvious sequence of steps that indicated they were slipping into a stage of intellectual constipation, followed by a bout with subject drought, each step bringing shorter and shorter messages.  Soon Tweets replace talks and life was limited to 140 characters, minus the length of your username.

Soon they were posting automatic e-birthday greetings and calling it a digital-days work.  By now, the kids were grown, details on every possible disease were painstakingly provided, they described numerous physical calamities, and by now their story was becoming boring even to themselves.  The addiction was complete but the withdrawal was a distant pipedream.

Now that is a problem.  So, they entered the Freudian stage of self-analysis and concluded that they very well might be the most boring person they knew.  Self-awareness leads directly to writers block as one debates the cause of their condition and realizes it all is a direct result of being mentally abused as a child or being a lifelong Democrat.

Either way they now turn their attention to finding a lawyer and deciding whether to sue their parents, school, siblings, or political procrastinators on television for their woes.  Then they have to decide whether to make it a class action suit on behalf of their siblings, or extend it to everyone in the entire digital world.

Unfortunately, a class action in the digital world might be hard to pull off when there are 597 million Americans on Facebook, and only 310 million Americans alive.  Obama never mentioned we could have 287 million illegal digital immigrants, or illegal aliens as Republicans like to say.

Anyway, we are reaching the point where we desperately need help for the virtual captive, digital addict, and Facebook fool.  There is always intervention, or group therapy, private counseling,  or prescription drugs.  You see, unlike illegal drugs, prescription (legal) drugs contribute to the economy and if you get enough prescriptions you are bound to find one that works.

Today the news media said that 50% of all people given legally prescribed addictive narcotic painkillers for a 30 day period are still using them three years later.

 

The painkillers in question "include things like codeine, morphine, and brand names like Percocet and Vicodin,"

"Now more people die from overdose of these prescription drugs than from cocaine and heroin overdose combined."

About 1 in 3 people taking prescription painkillers were also on some type of anti-anxiety or muscle relaxant prescription, according to the report, "A Nation in Pain," which was produced by Express Scripts.

The report found that among patients using opioids on a long-term basis, 30 percent had also filled a prescription for benzodiazepines, short-acting anti-anxiety drugs such as Xanax (alprazolam) and Ativan (lorazepam).

Nearly 30 percent of patients who took opioids also had a prescription for muscle relaxants. Approximately 8 percent of patients were taking all three medications at the same time.

Since the combination of these drugs can be lethal, meaning it kills you dead, then about 60% of people taking legal prescription narcotic painkillers are clearly suicidal since they should know the risk.

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the U.S. accounts for only 5 percent of the world's population, yet as a country we consume at least 75 percent of all opioid prescription drugs - including 99 percent of the world's hydrocodone, the opiate that is in Vicodin.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently reported that overdose deaths from these drugs quadrupled from 1999 to 2010.

Experts say most of those prescriptions are unnecessary. The United States makes up only 4.6 percent of the world's population, but consumes 80 percent of its opioids -- and 99 percent of the world's hydrocodone, the opiate that is in Vicodin.

Who is prescribing all that Vicodin? More than 600,000 doctors, from surgeons to podiatrists, are licensed by the Durg Enforcement Agency to prescribe the drug. At the top of the list of pain relief prescribers are primary care doctors, followed by internists and then dentists. According to many critics, doctors often prescribe Vicodin because it is not as tightly regulated as other narcotic pain relievers are, although it is just as dangerous.

Now just who are your friends?

. 

Echoes of the Past - the 2000 dot com bust

.

Reprint from March 2001

CYBER SPACED OUT

By Jim Putnam

The world of dot coms has seen a rather tumultuous start to the 21st millennium as the after market crashed, reality set in, and options morphed from retirement funds to wallpaper.  Most people believe it was a situation that was overdue.  There was little foundation to support the high flying stock values in the market place.  Seemingly overnight 60-70% of the value of many of these companies vanished.

What insidious dark forces were at work in the high flying tech sector to bring such chaos and devastation to the silver lining?  Well, where do I start?  Perhaps the most obvious can be found in the faces of the new tech Wizards.  Often what is not there is more telling than what is.  Their faces seemed too clean, too unblemished, and too confident.

They lacked the lines and scars of experience found etched in the faces of the Old World masters, meaning those people in business prior to 1999.  When the Wizards were still in diapers and cutting teeth, the old masters were setting in motion a sustained economic growth unparalleled in the history of the US, and the world.

Once e-mails became the staple of American leisure time, and the pc became the Source for all that is, then the Wizards declared the old economy to be a dinosaur and relegated the veterans of American capitalism to be ready for the museums.

That was how we ended the last millennium.  And now that we are halfway through the new year, we can already see the results of the wisdom of the Wizards of technology as stock prices collapse, options evaporate, losses continue to mount and the seemingly endless money pit goes dry.  Yes, the Internet has certainly speeded up everything, including failure.

Where did the e-commerce Wizards go wrong?  If blame is to be assigned at all, it should be assigned to those that bought the hyperbole in the first place.  For a short time all rules of economic logic and reason were suspended.  For a short time greed dominated the marketplace.

Look at what we forgot.  Revenues were no longer important.  Profitability vanished.  Multiples were no longer relevant.  Market caps were established by smoke and mirrors.  Executive experience was no longer considered necessary.  At times being young enough to have zits was an acceptable substitute for training.

So what if there was no market for the new product or service, the "Internet" would fix all that with its vast new market of consumers.  The principle of supply and demand gave way to the concept of creating demand regardless of need and supply.

The same with using traditional media and advertising.  The power of the Internet would fix that too.  Conventional broadcast and print media would soon be obsolete, and certainly weren't needed for the e-commerce high flyers.

As for competition, copycats flourished as the new economists determined that the Internet would create such a massive new consumer market that anything and everything could be sold.  Have faith in the digital revolution and trust the cyber gods.

In one form or another capitalism has existed in this country for about 500 years.  We fled unfair taxes, traded Manhattan for costume jewelry, and beat up the English over tax on tea, all before we even had a country.  Now our capitalist system has been a dominant world force for a couple of hundred years.  Yet in the course of 12-18 months the high-flying Wizards of the new economy were going to change all that and bury tradition in the ashes of the cyber firestorm.

By the 4th quarter of 1999 it seemed the cyber gurus might be right as greed and need sucked the masters of the old economy into the furious world of dot coms.  Suddenly the names attached to the IPOs read like a guest list to a presidential fundraiser or Board meeting of the Metropolitan Museum.  Familiar names.  The backbone of the American financial infrastructure.

Well folks, the fad flopped.  Along the way we discovered the Wizards really didn't know it all.  A lot of people got burned, and a lot of people got hurt.  Many compromised their values for the quick buck.  Those rushing to jump on the e-commerce bandwagon, despite the warnings and suspicions of the old economy warriors, found the wagon missing when they landed.

Less than a year after the spectacular ascent of the cyber gods, came the even more spectacular fall.  In the vernacular of the cyber psychics, the ascension never quite got off the ground.  It will take years for the impact to be realized.  Make no mistake, through it all the cyber revolution has forever changed the American and world landscape.  Even in many positive ways.

So in the spirit of David Letterman, perhaps we should establish the top ten misconceptions from the coming out party for the cyber revolution, sort of a new millennium report card.  Clearly these represent the views of the author and will be far from all-inclusive, but I would hope many contributions will be added by more informed readers.

Lesson #10:

            The rules of capitalism do not apply to the new economy of the cyber world.  Sorry folks, but capitalism is capitalism no matter what the industry or technology.  The same rules apply to capitalism that always applied to capitalism whether we are in the industrial age, the service age, or the cyber age.  A business still needs a product, revenue, customers and profits to succeed.

Lesson #9:

            In the cyber world experience is not necessary for success.  There is still a need for competent and experienced management.  Having Internet access to more choices and information and bigger markets does not automatically result in management knowledge and wisdom.  As always, experience is a process of learning, not declaring.

Lesson #8:

            Acceptance of new technology will happen overnight.  It took 70 years for radio to mature in America.  Fifty years for television to take hold.  Vinyl records were around for 75 years before compact discs really replaced them.  Even eight track recorders died a very slow death.  Phones became accepted in the last half-century.  Computers have been in development since the 1940's.  Cable TV has been in use since the 1950's.  And still not all homes in America have phones, personal computers or even cable television.

Lesson #7:

            Technology breakthroughs will benefit all related technologies.  So as long as the public buys a new technology, they will buy all new technology.  I don't think so.  The market explosion in video games and high tech gadgets was supposed to mean we are adapting to the cyber world.  Yet Sony sold 80 million Playstations (a high tech marvel at the time) but only 20% of the buyers had access to the Internet.

Lesson #6:

            The new economy would render traditional masters of the old economy obsolete.  This is a bold and arrogant perspective with no historical basis.  In our system of capitalism winners and losers are determined by sustained performance, adaptability, access to resources, and staying power.  Often times the traditional economic leaders let others make mistakes before embracing new concepts.  Just watch as retailing giants Wal-Mart, Target, or J.C. Pennys suddenly become the dominant forces in e-commerce.

Lesson #5:

            The millions and millions of new Internet users represent an entire new market for consumer goods and services.  This might sound logical but it is based on an unfounded assumption.  What in the world do we think these millions of new users have been doing before the Internet?  They still bought everything they needed from traditional sources.  The Internet does not represent a new market but an opportunity to shift the market share from traditional consumer sources to cyber sources.  To achieve that, the consumer must be given a reason to change buying habits.  Access to the Internet is not a reason, just an opportunity.

Lesson #4:

            The Internet will foster unlimited new opportunities in audio and video broadcasting including interactive communication.  Well guess what folks, who in the world will ever have time to surf 500 video channels, 10,000 audio broadcasts, not to mention the hundreds of interactive channels for every major retailer and cause in America?  Already the many but still limited choices on cable television have left the public in a quandary.  Interactive tests have failed miserably.  Over 5 million websites exist before the real broadcast benefits of the Internet have been felt.

Lesson #3:

            The Internet itself can provide all the advertising opportunities necessary for the new economy players.  With 80 million users in the US one would think this could be true.  But the truth of the matter is the Internet has resulted in market segmentation and fragmentation on a level never before seen or experienced.  What the technology of the Internet has done is give the consumer the chance to exit or ignore ads like never before.  Our click happy culture has discovered the ability to spend an average of a few seconds looking at a screen before zapping along.  So while we are bombarded by more cyber driven commercial messages than radio or television ever dared throw in our face, reach and frequency no longer have an impact.

Lesson #2:

            The Internet technology will render all current forms of communication technology obsolete.  This statement implies that the Internet, as well as existing communication technology, is good in the first place, which remains to be proven.  However, whether one surfs the web or works the remote, there is a furious competition for your attention.  Demographic analysis is more complex than ever.  The "knowns" of traditional media remain much clearer than the "unknowns" of the Internet.  Don't look for this to change any time soon.

Lesson #1:

            Thanks to the Internet, the world will never be the same.  Instant worldwide communications has indeed given us the opportunity to be better informed, better educated, and easier misled than at any other time in our history.  High technology has given us a new way to communicate.  But communications without morality and standards has created a whole new playing field for purveyors of fraud, deceit and corruption.

I count this as a misconception, but with positive leanings, for the power of information and education will, in time, result in a world with more truth.  In a Biblical sense, the Internet will finally bridge the horrible gaps in communication between people and races and maybe even religions.  Ever since we were cursed with multiple tongues as a lesson in ancient Babylon, we have been separated by language.  The cyber world is at least tearing down those barriers.

.

The Facebook IPO - A Billionaires Delight and Forbearer of the Next Internet Stock Collapse

.

The culmination of greed in America

Tomorrow the boys of Facebook become billionaires as they cash out just before millions of new stockholders are left holding another Internet stock that lost half it's value.

Make no mistake, the billions to be made over a 48 hour period will be the last profits from the Internet for years to come because there is no business model for pure and simple greed.  This IPO and every other Internet company surviving on revenue from Internet advertising will crash because the truth slipped out of the bag too early.

Yes, the speculators who control the IPO and have purchased all the offering before the public even had access to it, will simply let the value increase since the IPO was over subscribed and that means fewer shares are available for purchase.  In a day or two they will sell into the market, take their billions of cash and walk away.

GM created a huge potential problem for the IPO when it announced just a couple of days before the IPO release that it was stopping all Internet advertising on Facebook and everyone else because after spending billions of dollars on Internet ads over the past few years because the ads have no impact on consumers.

For years the Coltons Point Times has warned of the foundation of quicksand when it comes to valuing Internet stocks and advertising revenues.  In fact a year before the last Dot.com bust in 2000 we published a column outlining why the market was about to collapse.

For those who don't remember, it has now been twelve years since the dot com bubble began to seriously deflate.  The financial climax had its high water mark on March 10, 2000 when the NASDAQ peaked at 5132.52.

The subsequent stock market crash caused the loss of $5 trillion in the market value of companies from March 2000 to October 2002, and those parts of the world which were the epicenters of the dot com boom, such as the San Francisco Bay Area, were plunged into a financial nuclear winter.

More than a decade later we still haven't learned.  Facebook is going public with over 97% of their revenue from Internet ads, ads General Motors, the largest car company in the world, says are worthless.  American's and foreigners driven by greed will purchase the stock, not from Facebook but from the financial institutions who already bought  stock before the people had a chance.

Now that's fair President Obama, our first president to embrace the Internet speculators as economic wonders not to mention huge financial contributors to the President's reelection campaign.  You don't suppose Obama has some of that Facebook stock do you?

There is no financial basis to say Facebook is bigger than Exxon, Proctor & Gamble or GM when the sole basis for revenue is advertising which recent polls indicate 83% of Facebook users never click on.  The other 17% say they occasionally click on one if it is of interest.

Don't be surprised if another five trillion dollars is lost and that most of it comes from Internet stocks, or should I say stockholders.  Of course the Internet executives will cash out starting tomorrow leaving you holding the bag.

.

America's Love for Jennifer Aniston - Cheering for America's Sweetheart

.

From animal rescues to sex tapes she can do no wrong

Okay, so maybe the title is a tad bit misleading as her sex tape advertises water, shows no sex, and is a classic viral video, but that just goes to show how Jen can do no wrong in the eyes of her fans.

Regarded as "America's sweetheart" since she first joined the Friends television ensemble in 1994, what is unusual about this young woman, and she will always be a young woman in my mind, is how she has never faded in popularity after 18 years.

Now Jen had a lot of advantages in life most of us never know.  Her parents were actors, her godfather was Telly Savalas, one of her dad's best friends, and she lived in Southern California and New York City, not to mention Greece for a year, which are pretty much where you have to be to get into television or movies.

With her father's Greek ancestry and her mother's Scottish and Irish ancestry she had great genes to fill out the jeans one might say, but it was her youthful good looks and innocence which caught my attention.

In spite of the advantages she had Jen was still just like the rest of us, holding a series of part time jobs while working on her Broadway and television careers including being a waitress, telemarketing and being a bike messenger.

This was the cute girl next door who grew up, entered the brutal world of entertainment in the doubly brutal worlds of New York's Broadway and Hollywood's television and film industry where innocence is always lost and heartbreak is the norm.

Like Marilyn Monroe, Natalie Wood and many other stars the price was far too great and the ending was always tragic.  At least that is what some of us thought.  So the kid next door enters the domain of demons and what happens, they did indeed try to devour her.

There was a brief marriage to Brad Pitt, the storybook book wedding of the glamorous superstars but it had the same tragic ending all Hollywood scripts seem to like, deceit, deception, desertion and divorce.

Poor Jen had her prince charming stolen by the beautiful yet deliciously malicious bad girl Angelina Jolie.  America was outraged.  Aniston was heartbroken,  The evil witch was now richer.  And no matter how hard she tapped her shoes together, Jennifer was stuck in the dark side of Oz.

Well it sounds like a best selling Hollywood script or maybe a Greek tragedy but in the end it was most likely better for all involved.

Jen, the innocent girl we met through Friends, was now a tragic figure and there is nothing Americans like more than the downtrodden, the underdog, the outsider because we are a nation founded by outcasts and revolutionaries, the little people of the world, or as I state in my book The Joshua Chronicles, the Raggedy People.

Cheerleader, girl next door or tragic victim we simply cannot get enough of America's Sweetheart.

She took the divorce with far more class than most would.

Her work on behalf of numerous charities includes adoption, fostering, orphans, cancer, children, disaster relief, education, family/parent support, gay/lesbian support, health, homelessness, human rights, hunger, peace, poverty, rape/sexual abuse and women.

The girl next door was the highest paid television actress by 2003 receiving $1 million per episode at Friends and her movie career has been reasonably successful considering the scripts have often lacked depth.

Her body, well to this day she dominates the Twitter, Tweets, Facebook and every other celebrity puff piece written or Internet social site in existence.

Just this year her "legs" were named the most beautiful in the world, people really do win those kind of awards, which might be a little more significant after the buzz at the Oscar Awards over Angelina Jolie's "leg" at the podium.

I particularly like Jen's adoption of normal dogs rather than obsession with pedigrees like most starlets, and her love of man's best friend which just goes to prove Hollywood and heartbreak have not gotten the best of her.

Her face dominates every celebrity photo page and her fashions sizzle on every magazine cover she does so obviously Jennifer delivers the marketing strength of her adoring public.

Of course my most significant link to Aniston is on my Nashville Bound band site on MySpace where Jennifer Aniston is a Friend of my band and we are one of only 390 friends of hers.  For comparison we are also one of 2,228,271 friends of Taylor Swift but that is another story.

So keep it up Jen America will always be cheering for you.

For a treat check out the following Jen Aniston Sex Tape from YouTube.  There is no sex.

Jennifer Aniston Legs: Most Perfect in Hollywood

How hot are Jennifer Aniston‘s legs? According to a "scientific" study, Jennifer Aniston has the most perfect legs in Hollywood. Scientists came up with a specific formula, which involves multiplying the proportions of the leg and thigh, and the texture of skin, to calculate the perfect pair of pins.

Aniston scored an impressive 14.67, the highest score of anyone tested because of her "ideal" proportions of her legs and her smooth skin. Dr. Aric Sigman, who conducted the study for electronics giant Braun., said: "For men, the ideal leg is shapely, full and smooth with a semi-gloss sheen. Women want the same thing – only two sizes smaller."

.

America's Biggest Social Issue - Social Media - Facing the Facebook Psychology

.

When is a Social Issue a Social Issue?  When the media says so!

I've always been intrigued by the public perception of social issues.  What makes something a social issue in your eyes?  Why does a social issue become political?  Is it possible to ever solve a social Issue?

There are many social issues in America covering the entire spectrum of possibilities.  They range from child and female abuse to abortion, legalizing marijuana to poverty, gun control to contraceptives.

It is not often they come to the forefront of political campaigns but this year seems to be an exception.  The Republican primary and President Obama's White House have both raised social issues when they saw a political opportunity to exploit them, and that is rather common in politics.

How can social issues push the recession and economic recovery off the font pages?  Why are social issues dominating our national debate?  What makes health care reform more important than foreign aid or defense spending?

I believe it is the proliferation of social media like Facebook that drives the debate over social issues.  With social media everyone in American can comment on just about anything.  We no longer need to know what we are talking about or even back up what with say with facts.

Truth has been destroyed by unethical and predatory practices of the Internet masters who create all kinds of vehicles for expression but care less about the accuracy or validity of what is discussed.  These avenues of expression, free expression if you really want to buy the bull, are nothing more than ways to increase the ability of Internet service companies to bill clients for clicks.  I believe the driving force behind Internet use is greed, not good, profits, not progress and hits, clicks and cash.

Math & Methodology

But first of all let me qualify my interest.  Back during the Great Society days of President Lyndon Johnson I did some work for the US Census and the US Department of Labor.  Both dealt with statistical analysis and methodology.  Sound boring?  It wasn't.

At DOL I worked with the Bureau of Labor Statistics to develop a methodology for identifying high pockets of unemployment within urban areas.  We found an acceptable solution and the problem was solved.  At the time in the late 1960's this was a big social issue.

At the Census Bureau I was involved in computerizing the Address Coding Guide for Americans which collected the information needed on a national basis that could be converted to block by block data.  The ability to instantly sort data for 250 million people all the way down to a block by block level changed forever the way problems like poverty, unemployment, health and education were identified.

Political Polling

Later I worked in 32 political campaigns at the local (mayor and city council), state (both governors and state senators), and federal (presidential, senate and house races).  Working with all three levels of government gave me the opportunity to understand the inter-relationship and inter-dependence of each level from the executive branch, legislative branch and judiciary which exist at every level.

Beyond that, involvement in the campaign allowed me to play with more statistics as I then had access to polling information.  Once I got into the development of newer and more accurate ways to measure for political purposes I was in heaven.

It was amazing to measure how people reacted to polls, how to make the polls totally objective and representative of the diversity of the public, and how to interpret the results.  A real pollster does not try and confirm anything, but measures the true thoughts of the voter.

Over the decades social issues were almost always an integral element of the polling activity and measuring the true public feeling for an issue could help win elections, especially in limited geographic areas like Congressional Districts.

Through this experience it was always the intent of the polling to maintain absolute integrity over the results.  In other words, the intent of the poll was never to influence people but to understand people.

Focus groups, a key element of comprehensive polling and analysis, became a world of fascinating human reactions and emotions and led us into human response monitoring, an electrical monitoring method of verifying emotional response to any issue, word, phrase, image or color.

I offer this overview to show I've been aware and involved in polling and measuring public response to public issues, often social issues, for over four decades.

Becoming a Social Issue

I believe the point a concern becomes a "social issue" as defined by the media and political parties, is when there is sufficient public interest in any issue to create a reservoir of support for and against the issue.  In other words, when the interest becomes a "special" interest to those for and against something, you have a "social issue".

We searched for a "radical fringe", both for and against an issue, and when it was discovered suddenly the issue could cause polarization.  It was a science to predict the impact on the voting public of a politician taking a side for or against that issue.  There was much research exhausted to find this formula.

In the end you really couldn't, there were simply too many valid variables.  Many consultants tried to capitalize on their version of the truth but trying to manage reaction to social issues is a political time bomb and fraught with dangerous consequences.  There were always exceptions to a rule.

Ronald Reagan could take almost any side of any issue and people still supported him because they trusted him to look out for our overall good.  Reagan never wavered on his patriotism and never wavered on doing what was best for all Americans, not just those who agreed with him.  Few politicians have the trust of people, especially those from all political parties and independents.

Measuring the Importance of Social Issues

This changes from neighborhood to neighborhood, even block to block in some areas.  A strong local church can generate interest in issues that might otherwise never see the light of day.  Urban areas differ from suburbs, cities from farming areas.

In the end there are always two key considerations.  First, the person you represent, the politician you are trying to get or keep elected, better have a clear standing on the issue in the minds of the voters.  And second, if you open Pandora's Box by introducing the social issue to a campaign, you better make sure your opponent thinks the opposite so a clear distinction can be drawn.

Can the social issue ever be solved?

If the wounds of polarization and the emotional pain associated with it are an indication of the consequence of failing to resolve the issue then we better make it a priority.  We were put here to help and serve, not hate and kill.  There can be no higher purpose for mankind.

So we must get beyond the social issues that inspire anger and hatred.  In truth, many social issues have their grounding in religious belief and teachings.  Yet most social issues involve judgment, a function most religions agree is left to God in whatever form you recognize the Deity.

Government cannot legislate God's Law nor take God's place.  Free will, a gift to us from God in most religions, gives us a choice and makes judgment between God and us, not big government and us.  Freedom of religion must be protected, but religion cannot be legislated.

According to the King James Bible, Cambridge Edition, in Mark 12:17, "And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marveled at him."

Well judging spiritual morality is God's work, not ours.

We must make the laws of man clear, concise and unmistakable in their intent.  But we must not usurp the laws of God.

Social issues, a liberal term for matters of religion, are compromised when they are codified into man's law.  When we try to legislate gay marriage, contraception, abortion and similar issues under our law there is conflict, disagreement and polarization.  There is the conflict between socialism which wants to controls religion and democracy which respects individual rights and freedom.

Man's law can accommodate both sides of most issues if used to achieve fairness and freedom for all.

For example, civil marriage need not specify sex, leave that to the participants.  But marriage in the church, any church, should conform to the dogma of that church.  If you don't agree with the civil law get married in the church where a marriage between man and woman can be required.

Contraception is similar.  The government can make it available but it cannot make it mandatory for those religions that oppose it.  Much is said about the Roman Catholic stand on contraception.  The church is opposed.  Yet many Catholics in America support the use in spite of the efforts of the Bishops to encourage church dogma.

In the end, that is a matter between the individual Catholic and God come Judgment Day.  The individual has the right to use free will and can decide either way.  If they are wrong on their decision, a just God will let them know and pass judgment.

What is the truth about contraceptive use in America?

Here is a recent report by the Guttmacher Institute that attempts to document contraceptive use.

Facts on Contraceptive Use in the United States

June 2010

WHO NEEDS CONTRACEPTIVES?

• There are 62 million U.S. women in their childbearing years (15–44).

 • Seven in 10 women of reproductive age (43 million women) are sexually active and do not want to become pregnant, but could become pregnant if they and their partners fail to use a contraceptive method.

• The typical U.S. woman wants only two children. To achieve this goal, she must use contraceptives for roughly three decades.

WHO USES CONTRACEPTIVES?

• Virtually all women (more than 99%) aged 15–44 who have ever had sexual intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method.

• Overall, 62% of the 62 million women aged 15–44 are currently using a method.

• Almost one-third (31%) of these 62 million women do not need a method because they are infertile; are pregnant, postpartum or trying to become pregnant; have never had intercourse; or are not sexually active.

• Thus, only 7% of women aged 15–44 are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives.

• Among the 43 million fertile, sexually active women who do not want to become pregnant, 89% are practicing contraception.

WHICH METHODS DO WOMEN USE?

• Sixty-three percent of reproductive-age women who practice contraception use nonpermanent methods, including hormonal methods (such as the pill, patch, implant, injectable and vaginal ring), the IUD and condoms. The remaining women rely on female or male sterilization.

• Contraceptive choices vary markedly with age. For women younger than 30, the pill is the leading method. Among women aged 30 and older, more rely on sterilization.

• The pill and female sterilization have been the two leading contraceptive methods in the United States since 1982. However, sterilization is the most common method among black and Hispanic women, while white women mostly commonly choose the pill.

• Female sterilization is most commonly relied on by women who are aged 35 or older, women who are currently or have previously been married, women with two or more children, women below 150% of the federal poverty level and women with less than a college education.

• Half of all women aged 40–44 who practice contraception have been sterilized, and another 20% have a partner who has had a vasectomy.

• The pill is the method most widely used by women who are in their teens and 20s, women who are cohabiting, women with no children and women with at least a college degree.

• Some 6.2 million women rely on the male condom. Condom use is especially common among teens and women in their 20s, women with one or no children and women with at least a college education.

• Dual methods (most often the condom combined with another method) are used by 13.5% of contraceptive users. The proportions using more than one method are greatest among teenagers and never-married women.

TEEN CONTRACEPTIVE USE

• Teenagers (aged 15–19) who do not use a contraceptive at first sex are twice as likely to become teen mothers as are teenagers who use a method.

• Twenty-three percent of teenage women using contraceptives choose condoms as their primary method. Condom use is higher among women aged 20–24 and is lower among older and married women.

• Of the 2.9 million teenage women who use contraceptives, 54%—more than 1.5 million women—rely on the pill.

TRENDS IN CONTRACEPTIVE USE

• The proportion of women aged 15–44 currently using a contraceptive method increased from 56% in 1982 to 64% in 1995, and then declined slightly to 62% in 2002 and 2006–2008.

• Among all women, 7% were at risk of unwanted pregnancy but not using a method in 2006–2008, an increase from 5% in 1995.

• Among just those women who are sexually active and able to become pregnant but do not want to become pregnant, 11% are not using contraceptives. That number is much higher among teens aged 15–19 (19%) and lower among older women aged 40–44 (8%).

• The proportion of women using contraceptives who rely on condoms decreased between 1995 and 2006–2008 from 20% to 16%. However, use was still higher in 2006–2008 than it was in 1988.

• Between 1995 and 2002, the share of users relying on the pill increased slightly, from 27% to 31%, but it declined slightly, to 28%, in 2006–2008.

• In 2006–2008, 27% of contraceptive users relied on female sterilization, compared with 23% in 1982.[funded family planning clinic.

• The proportion of all users relying on the IUD has increased substantially, from less than 1% in 1995, to 2% in 2002, to 5.5% in 2006–2008.

Data Sources

• The information in this fact sheet is the most current available. All of the data are from research conducted by the Guttmacher Institute and the National Center for Health Statistics or from Contraceptive Technology.
• U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 2: annual estimates of the resident population by sex and selected age groups for the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008, no date, , accessed May 25, 2010.
• Mosher WD and Jones J, Use of contraception in the United States: 1982–2008, Vital and Health Statistics, 2010, Series 23, No. 29.
• The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Fulfilling the Promise: Public Policy and U.S. Family Planning Clinics, New York: AGI, 2000.
• Piccinino LJ and Mosher WD, Trends in contraceptive use in the United States: 1982–1995, Family Planning Perspectives, 1998, 30(1):4–10 & 46.
• Frost JJ, Trends in US women’s use of sexual and reproductive health care services, 1995–2002, American Journal of Public Health, 2008, 98(10):1814–1817.
• Dailard C, Contraceptive coverage: a 10-year retrospective, Guttmacher Report on Public Policy, 2004, 7(2):6–9.
• Sonfield A et al., U.S. insurance coverage of contraceptives and the impact of contraceptive coverage mandates, 2002, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2004, 36(2):72–79.
• Guttmacher Institute, Insurance coverage contraceptives, State Policies In Brief (as of May 2010), 2010, , accessed May 25, 2010.

Go to Guttmacher Institute website for more information.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html

.