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

.

Obamaville - January 30 - Florida Primary Eve

.

Any Surprises Tomorrow?

In a word, no. Romney, as expected before the media driven Gingrich surge, has equaled his surge in the polls with a retreat about as dramatic. In the process he has left a lot of people perplexed.

The volatile Republican candidate who wants to take on our Democratic President, in which there would have been a clash of wills over who is the most intelligent, most knowing and most scholarly, has fallen by the wayside in spite of media efforts to prop up his flailing campaign.

The problem is Newt can never live up to his exaggerated opinion of himself. The second problem is he might be a senior member of the establishment, but it was an establishment that lost control long ago.

While the media wants him to remain in the race to rip Mitt Romney apart and leave Romney vulnerable to the expected billion dollar attack by the president this fall, I believe the media, Obama and his Chicago gang are way out of touch with the public.

Newt's petulant and insolent attacks on Romney just make Newt look smaller and smaller in the eyes of the public. He shows no signs of being interested in what the public wants, only satisfying his raging animosity toward a candidate who is simply walloping the schoolyard bully.

Revenge, anger, and jealously are hardly becoming a GOP candidate for president and the more he sho9ws his true colors the faster his fall from grace in the eyes of the public.

As for Romney, he is getting a Harvard education in the primary because as soon as he wins the nomination, the Harvard president will try the same tactics only then Romney will have the experience and class to keep the election focused on the economy.

Barack Obama, through his mouthpieces in the media and campaign, is doing everything possible to encourage Gingrich because the biggest obstacle to his re-election is not Romney, it is the truth. This president has failed to address high unemployment, his $1.3 trillion a year deficit, and his ballooning nearly $16 trillion national debt.

As a result, there is no growth in the economy and no way health care costs can be controlled, Social Security can be saved, and Medicare can be protected. We are in a whale of trouble is the president is not held responsible for what he didn't do, and what he shows no signs of wanting to address in the immediate future.

ObamaCare does nothing to reduce health care or health insurance costs, and most certainly will not make Americans healthier. Just tell us the truth, that the problem is greater than they thought and is not being addressed.

The same with the unemployment, deficit and debt. We are not over the recession, but we could be, if the White House would admit they failed with social engineering to solve our problems and now must listen to the people who want less government, less regulation and most certainly a lot less hot air from our nation's capitol.

There is nothing wrong with admitting we still have a problem. Honesty is always better than cover ups, misinformation and distortion. We have had three years of intellectual thought. We need solutions, not theories. We need a will to take on the problems, not ignore them. We need foresight to tackle issues like Social Security and Medicare reform, not act as if they will take care of themselves.

Right now Romney is the only candidate relentlessly pursuing an agenda of the concerns of the people. Yes, he must deviate for a short time to secure the primary nomination and if that means to defeat Gingrich then so be it. But rest assured he will focus on the issues, the national issues, and that is the president's Achilles heel.

Now as I mentioned before, at this time the last campaign Obama and Hillary were in a brutal battle over the attempts (according to Obama) by Bill Clinton to use the race issue to defeat Obama. Now that sounds a lot meaner than today when Romney's tax returns showing $3 million in taxes paid and $3 million in charitable contributions seems to be the big concern?

Need I remind us all that maybe we need a president that can't be bought. Maybe we need a president who spends his time on the people's business instead of campaign fundraising. Maybe we need hope and change. Maybe we can get it this time.

clinton obama dance yard party election president us 2008 humor humour hilarious animation animated gif" title="political politicians hillary bill clinton obama dance yard party election president us 2008 humor humour hilarious animation animated gif" />

.

Do Special Interest Groups Want to Succeed? Or do They Lose Interest in Success?

.

The Abortion Issue can be Resolved Now!

Special interest success is a strange but fair question when one looks at the hundreds of millions of dollars involved in the preservation of special interests and the propagation of their cause. In plain English, are they more interested in self-preservation than success?

Of course the more hotly debated and contested special interests are the social issues which have taken a back seat this election in order to keep the focus on the economy and the Obama record. A wise tactic indeed if you are a Republican.

For example, take the most volatile and controversial of all special social interests during any normal election cycle, the interests for and against abortion. They are invisible this election having been lost in debate over the Obama economic performance.

As the advocates remain silent we have now passed over 52 million legal abortions in America, and over 1 billion worldwide. That means there have been 15 million more abortions than the entire population of California, our largest state. That is equal to over 16% of the entire population of the United States. More than the population of most European nations.

Yet there is silence in the campaign and silence in the Halls of Congress. Perhaps that is a good thing as it is a dark cloud hanging over a nation dedicated to LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of HAPPINESS of it's citizens. In truth it should not be debated as a matter of justice as neither side advocates the taking of human life.

However, the national debate has been positioned as a matter of being for or against abortion. But I have not found any pro-abortionists who advocate the death of human beings. Not even Roe versus Wade says a word about allowing for the legal deaths of infants though many people are confused about the issue.

No, Roe versus Wade only addresses WHEN LIFE BEGINS.

If we could agree on when life begins there would be no national debate, no polarization between liberals and conservatives, and no conflict between religions or political parties. Most important, there would be no systematic abortions of Black Americans at a rate almost three times higher than the percentage of population that is Black. You see, 75% of the US population is White while 12.4% is Black, yet 58% of abortions are White compared to 34% Black. Total legal Black abortions, 18 million, equals almost 50% of the total US Black population of about 37.6 million, while White abortions equal just 13% of the total White population.

When statistics become so skewed something is dreadfully wrong. Just as is this fact. For the record in America since passage of Roe versus Wade as of 2010 there have now been over 52 million legal abortions. For comparison purposes, the total people killed in all wars fought by the United States from the War of Independence through Iraq is about 1,316,000. In other words in the US there have been more than 39 TIMES AS MANY ABORTIONS IN 35 YEARS AS DEATHS FROM WARS IN 234 YEARS.

Roe versus Wade was a ruling by the Supreme Court that centrally held that a mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable'". The Court defined viable as being potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. In 1973 viability usually occurred at about seven months (28 weeks) but might occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. Medical breakthroughs since the ruling and prenatal advances have demonstrated that the ability of the fetus to live outside the mother's womb can come at a much earlier time.

In fact just recently the youngest baby in history was delivered at 21 weeks and 6 days, survived and has now gone home to live a normal life. Amillia Sonja Taylor was born October 24, 2009 in Florida. She is living proof that Roe versus Wade is scientifically wrong, a baby can survive at 21 weeks, not 28 weeks.

Clearly the language of the law is flawed, so what should it be? Here is the test for all pro abortion groups who claim they really aren't advocating taking lives. There is one medical test widely accepted and upheld by the courts to establish that a human is legally alive or dead.

The Uniform Determination of Death Act, promulgated in 1980 and supported by the President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, has served as a model statute for the adoption of state legislation that defines death. The act asserts: “An individual, who has sustained either irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brainstem, is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.”

Since brain activity is the legal measure for the cessation of life, then it must also be the legally accepted measure of the beginning of life. A fetus becomes a living baby when brain activity can be first measured. According to established science with the use of an electroencephalogram, or EEG, activity in the brain can be detected as early as six weeks gestational age (6). Whether brain activity begins at this time or started earlier but becomes detectable at this time is uncertain; it is known that neural connections begin forming as soon as neurons begin forming, as early as 14 days gestation.

A Constitutional lawyer like President Obama should embrace scientific advances that have proven when brain activity is detected, at six weeks, and since the courts accept brain activity as a reliable measure of death over life, then life can be scientifically proven at six weeks.

Roe versus Wade, adopted nearly four decades ago, is medically and scientifically obsolete in the determination that life begins at 28 weeks. Responsible members of Congress and the White House should advocate, in the interest of scientific accuracy, a change in the law to reflect the latest scientific advances. With 52 million abortions already performed, do we really want to keep terminating the lives of babies we know are living beings?

Yet there is a better way to implement this known scientific fact for the basis of when life begins and that is through the governors and their attorney generals. They have implemented and defended The Uniform Determination of Death Act and defended it in the courts. It would seem they could take action to extend the act to include when life begins since it is recognized by the courts as when life ends and it could be implemented by executive order, regulation or even legislation if necessary at the state level.

Now last March 26 in the CPT I wrote a story titled, Obama and Abortion - What Does He Really Think? Fifty Million USA Abortions and Counting, and I discussed this proposed resolution of the bitter abortion debate. The same day I sent the article to a number of major Prolife news outlets as a possible strategy to achieve their lobbying goal. As far as I know, none ever reprinted the article or mentioned the strategy in other stories. One would think they might have at least put it out for debate.

Today I am asking you, the readers, to share this article with your governors as a way to achieve a great degree of scientific resolution to this tragic debate in a way neither side of the issue can object to in the end. If no one wants to end human life then this is the solution whether you are pro-life or pro-abortion. You can make a difference and end the debate.

Abortion is not a matter of pro-choice when the baby being aborted is a living, human being in the eyes of science. Pro-Life and Pro-Choice advocates should join in seeking this correction of a flawed law through the work of informed governors, and the Obama Administration and Congress should make it the law of the land.

To share this article with anyone copy and paste the following link:
http://coltonspointtimes.blogspot.com/2010/09/do-special-interest-groups-want-to.html

.

Campaign 2008 - Defining Issues - The Catholic Vote

No religious group in America packs the political potential of the Catholic Church with over 47 million registered voters, over 25% of the eligible voters. More important, the 47 million are in 19,000 parishes, of which 146 are Latin Catholic parishes. No religious group even approaches the Catholic community in numbers, in organization, and in the ability to deliver a message to the masses through the pulpit. In total the US has over 70 million Catholics and there are over 1.1 billion worldwide.

Only once in the past 30 years have the Catholics failed to support the winning candidate for president. Once reliably Democrat, the new Catholics are 41% Independent, up from 30% in the last election. The strength of the Catholics can be even more pronounced when looking at the election state by state. There are 7 swing states identified in this election, states that total 107 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win.

In 2004 Bush pulled 66% of the Catholic vote in Florida and 65% in Ohio to capture the states and the election. With the Hispanic population the fastest growing sector of the US population and being predominantly Catholic, especially in swing states like Florida and border states, it is doubtful any current polls are reflecting the potential vote accurately.

Of the seven recognized swing states Florida, a state with over 2.3 million Catholics, was decided in 2004 by 363,000 votes. Pennsylvania has 3.3 million Catholics and was decided by 145,000 votes. Ohio has 2.2 million Catholics and was decided by 118,000 votes. Virginia has 1.1 million Catholics and was decided by 262,000 votes. Missouri has 1.1 million Catholics and was decided by 196,000 votes while Minnesota has 1.2 million Catholics and was decided by 99,000 votes. Finally Nevada has 480,000 Catholics and was decided by 21,000 votes.

So what does that mean? It means the winning margin in those states equaled just 15% of the Catholic vote in Florida, 4% of the Catholics in Pennsylvania and Nevada, 5% in Ohio, 8% in Minnesota, 17% in Missouri and 23% in Virginia. In other words less than 25% of the Catholics in two states and less than 15% in all the rest were enough to swing the swing states. That does not fare well for the Obama and Biden ticket or the Democratic party in particular. Most certainly the tracking polls in those states have not been adjusted to reflect the significant strength of the Catholic vote.

The fall from grace of the Democrats can be traced to the increasing liberal platform of the party over the years and especially the radial left moves toward pro-abortion, gay rights and same sex marriages, the favorite issues of the far left that dominate the Democratic platform. Obama, Biden and Pelosi have all adopted positions on those issues opposed by the Catholic Church. More recently major blunders by House Speaker and Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden have aggravated the schism and that could be a major factor in the election.

There are two ways to infuriate the Vatican, home of the Catholic Church. First is to adopt positions that reject the law of the Church. Second is to go on national television and invoke the names of church scholars and say those scholars support rejecting the law. Well Pelosi invoked the name of St. Augustine and Biden invoked the name of Thomas Aquinas, both on separate appearances on NBC Meet the Press where they grossly misrepresented the teaching of the church on abortion.

Such strategic blunders in the midst of an election campaign have cost the Obama ticket the support of the Vatican and the American Bishops and the television appearances of Biden and Pelosi attempting to redefine the teachings of the Catholic Church could result in the Church setting the record straight through the 19,000 parishes across the country. There is some evidence this has already begun as a pastoral letter condemning their efforts has already been issued on the subject. Will this schism between the Democratic ticket and the Catholic Church be felt at the ballot box? If so it could cost Obama the election.