2016 ELECTION PLAN B: Is There A Morning After Pill for This?

 

 

2016 Election Plan B:  Is There a Morning After Pill?

 

ELECTION PLAN B AND THE MORNING AFTER

Early ballot counts inadvertently predicted the 2016 Presidential election outcome. In a nervous and surreal suspension of time, Hillary Clinton held three electors against Donald Trump’s 19 votes, flipping collective liberal stomachs.  Watching Trump’s unexpectedly potent challenge of liberal expectations became more than a bad date.  The blue condom literally broke, with no Election Plan B to prevent conception.

Rather than spending a sleepless night in conjecture, I joined the many who quit watching during the few minutes Clinton held a marginal lead. After months of foreplay, we (the previously mentioned collective of now exhausted liberals) purposefully skipped the media’s rhetorical attempts at explaining the flawed pundit predictions and Pew polls with Polly-Ana platitudes.  I awoke the next day to news of the Trump electoral win, took a Xanax, then went back to bed to ponder a 2016 election Plan B.  No morning after pill for this election night screw.  Canada, perhaps?

Metaphorically sticking my head in the sand seemed the best advice to avoid anxious apocalyptic scenarios.  Scenarios, such as a yellow fluff of hair and a screwed-up face, screaming bigoted vengefulness with a finger on the BIG button.

 

IS THIS ELECTION PLAN B OR HAS NUCLEAR WINTER ARRIVED?

Ironically, the day after the election was so dreary; even the Houston sky was sad.  Checking for signs of a nuclear winter, not a single ray of sun penetrated the overcast sky.  No apocalypse, just a grey sky in an eerie show of sympathy to Harris County’s blue feminist and minority constituency.

By late afternoon, I bravely crawled out of my sheet-tent and took the walk of shame to my computer.   Megamedia speculations analyzing the largely unexpected Trump win dominated my home page.  I searched the headlines for an implementable election morning plan B--some intelligent assessment of sheer stupidity. Radio host and author Garrison Keillor caught my attention with his Washington Post opinion. In "Trump voters will not like what happens next", Keillor analyzes the outcome and advises brooding liberals.

 

UNEDUCATED WHITE VOTERS JOIN THE PARTY

Keillor premises that The Donald's largely uneducated white male supporters joined the Trump movement for the party, small "p".  Caught up in the suddenly socially acceptable raucousness, they joined and enjoyed the madness. Let me even further surmise and clarify with a more accurate statement:  They were in it TO party.  Trump supporters were rolling on the actual festivities.  The beer, the hollering, the groping.  No one ever expected him to WIN the damn thing (2016).

Prior to the election, The New York Times reported a possible path to victory for Trump through the largest bloc of registered voters: uneducated white males. Their caveat to this hypothesis was that only half of this demographic failed intercourse with a ballot in the previous election, leaving 29 million sleeping votes. (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/07/us/how-trump-can-win.html).  Assured of Clinton’s win, the opposing party brushed aside any such threat, without the protection of an election plan B.   After the Election Day results, The New York Times reiterated their claim, and excused their caveat: The pre-election polls were simply unable to anticipate the large turnout of rural, white, working-class voters in key states (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/upshot/why-trump-won-working-class-whites.html), which begs the question, was it cognitive inability or technical inability? I boldly claim the former, positing that critical thinking processes were dismissed in favor of computer poll processing.

 

PLAN C: THE FAITHLESS ELECTORATE AND A RIGGED ELECTION

Now that he has won the Presidential election, let the Republicans deal with him, writes Keillor flippantly. Still, his benign words only temporarily comfort dejected liberals searching for an election Plan B to prevent implantation.

 “I’ll accept the election results,” Trump finally acquiesces in a pre-election stump speech, his followers clapping at the ghost of a change in his contentious “we’ll see” stance.  Then, after a long pause, Trump caveats his statement with celebrity theatrics: “if I win!”  The crowd roars as he rants of a “rigged” election process, possibly the only truthful slip of the tongue during his campaign.   That he and Putin share a bed is obvious; the depth of their affair is unthinkably unexpected.

By the first Monday after the second Wednesday in the month of December, the time for an election Plan B passed, and an intense campaign to court faithless electorates failed (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/why-i-will-not-cast-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html?_r=0).  Awaiting inauguration, Trump seems unconcerned that more than one-half of the country want's him aborted as he fills a nepotistic and conflicted cabinet with assorted billionaires. 

 

THE TRUMP CONSTITUENCY:  STUPID, SCARED OR BOTH?

Although we cannot change America's 2016 choice without changing our country’s founding premise of free elections, we can ignore the 2016 electoral choice…at least for the moment.  Then, Americans must examine the decline in intelligence and the rise in fear of our populace; or more concisely, how Americans went stupid with fear.  This socio-political phenomenon, first defined by Thomas Hobbes in the 17th century, explains how a frightened and neglected citizenry will choose a despotic leader rather than enter into a “state of nature” (1651) [i].

This is not news, yet the news missed it.  Liberal politicians and the educated electorate missed it, too.  Statistical demographics of this election largely support the hypothesis that illiteracy, ignorance and fear rule too many American lives.  By capitalizing on the seething anger of under-educated eligible voters who suffered most in the 2008 recession, Trump re-enfranchised this previously quiet demographic with loud propaganda and undefined promises to "Make America Great (Again)".   

NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL FAILURE IS NO SURPRISE

"I am now going to pay more attention to teachers," Keillor writes in his concluding sentence, positing that Trump won the presidency through the unexpected turnout of uneducated white voters.  Keillor’s conclusion supports inductive reasoning of educational failure and fearful ignorance. Presently, there is plenty of support for this implicit claim.

Our educational system is broken, has failed us, and we know it.  American students rank 23^rd in math and 31^st in science compared to other industrial countries.  Greater than one out of every four adults read below a fifth-grade level (http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/09/opinion/bennett-stem-education/index.html). In September 2016, the Pew Fact Tank reported that uneducated white males preferred Trump over Clinton by 14 points. The same study found that educated white males favored Clinton by a 25-point margin. If the spread holds, researchers then prophesized, the 2016 election “…will be the widest educational divide in any election in the last several decades” (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/15/educational-divide-in-vote-preferences-on-track-to-be-wider-than-in-recent-elections/)

But for now, let the Republicans in power worry about Trump; roll out your yoga mats, grow some heirloom tomatoes, and read Jane Austen one more time, Keillor advises.  Not necessarily the election Plan B that many would prefer, and so I caveat that advice with this thought: another election cycle is in four years.  Liberals, start now to secure impenetrable protection, and have a Trump Re-Election Plan B ready.

 

[i] Thomas Hobbes' (1588-1679) socio-political theory defines the "state of nature" as "the war of all against all

".  Only a strong, undivided political system could provide the social structure to prevent a "state of nature”, claims Hobbes. Hobbes explains this behavior by concluding that man’s greatest fear is a violent death at the hands of

 another [human being] (1651, Leviathan).  [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellum_omnium_contra_omnes

]

*Title inspired by @MxTr3y social media comment.

 

GARRISON KEILLOR: Trump voters will not like what happens next 

 

 

 

DEFINE, EXAMINE and PROMOTE
Join other Extremely Intelligent Followers at The Green Association for Sustainability
Advocate for Your Cause, Ashes for Your Phoenix, y Queso por su Tortilla

Treatment of Disease with Cannabis and Restrictions to Research

DISORDERS TREATED WITH CANNABIS

Since the medicalization of cannabis in seventeen states, the number of disorders and diseases that have been legitimately found to respond to the use of medical marijuana has grown exponentially.  While the medical community originally assigned those with Cancer and AIDS as most benefited, and therefore the first to be prescribed medical marijuana, other diseases quickly followed, such as Hepatitis and Multiple Sclerosis.

Only because of social media has the anecdotal evidence of the many diseases helped by cannabis become so prolifically available.  In fact, many social phenomenons have been discovered through the study of social media. Some studies claim that the largest demographic of social media is the 30+ age group, which is also the age group most likely to be parents of school-age children.  Therefore, the largest number of "social" posts would be related to the lives of this demographic. On searching the internet, it is obvious that social media goes beyond Facebook and Twitter and into very specific issues, including medical information. 

ADHD, AUTISM

Searching the term "ADHD BLOGS" on BING brings up nearly eleven million results.  Simply "ADHD" has nearly twenty six million results.  The search for "AUTISM BLOGS" resulted in 16.6 million responses.  That is 16 million social media sites for the collection of anecdotal data on Autism (www.bing.com ) .  A search for "AUTISM" alone resulted in 42.2 million sites that discuss Autism.  According to the Autism Research Institute,  Marijuana has been used successfully to treat autism in many patients.  Their only warning to cannabis use is regarding the legality.

California's renewed medical distribution regulations in 2004 placed the determination of benefit at the discretion of the prescriber; Arizona's regulations allow for a strict schedule of qualifying diseases.  Until the regulation of cannabis is either removed or becomes universal (Federal), no standard usage and prescribing protocol can be implemented.

 

CANNABIS RESEARCH

The lack of reliable research is one primary reason for the variance in states' prescribing regulations. "Current restrictions on marijuana research are absurd" wrote the editors of Scientific American.  Explaining the process, they argue: 

Any researcher attempting to study marijuana must obtain it through the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). The U.S. research crop, grown at a single facility, is regarded as less potent--and therefore less medicinally interesting--than the marijuana often easily available on the street. Thus, the legal supply is a poor vehicle for studying the approximately 60 cannabinoids that might have medical applications.

Even with medicalization, and even should state-level permission and funding be provided for such research, the working institution would be at risk of seizure of assets and prosecution by the Federal Government.  Still, the University of California hosts the Center for Medicinal Cancer Research (CMCR), a three year project funded by state legislation.  Just this week, the Governor of Arizona signed a bill into law allowing for Marijuana research at the three Arizona public universities (2013 Brewer signs...). Besides removing a regulation that prohibited marijuana on any of the universities, even if by a registered medical patient, the new law will allow University of Arizona physician Susan Sisley, to perform a rarely approved federal research project on the effect of cannabis on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  It is hoped this will pave the way for further federally approved research on cannabis treatment and other pschological and psychiatric disorders (2013 Arizona Governor...).  








The Green Association for Sustainability

Digital Media, The I-Pad, and Bloggers’ Copyrights and Protections.

1 27 10 Apple released the I-Pad, allowing us to “hold the internet in (our) hand”. What affect will this have on print media? Are current media laws adequate for a paperless society?How will the ability to “hold the internet in your hand” affect writers’ protections under current copyright laws?



Apple announced the release of the ½” thick digital reader and internet, the I-Pad, said to be “as transformative to culture…as the printed book” ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#35110330  ) . With wide applications for use in education, business and government, how can content contributors monitor and maintain the ownership and usage rights to their internet published works?


At the start of the computer revolution, a debate raged as to the effect that computers and the internet would have on print media. Although we have not yet seen the “paperless” society foretold by analysts, the publishing industry has changed dramatically, from the cancellation of “evening edition” newspapers to the ability for anyone to self publish both written and audio-visual works for digital download via the internet.
With Steve Jobs’ dream to “hold the internet in your hand” becoming reality with the popularity of I-Phones, Blackberry’s, and other emerging smart phones, the I-Pad, in some version, will no doubt have a great impact on media production and publishing. With touch screen technology the I-Pad will be mostly an information retrieval and storage system, and not an alternative to a fully functioning computer. It also does not use Flash or Adobe applications, which are both entrenched in digital multimedia. David Carr of the New York Times, writes about the unveiling and agrees that the I-Pad is a device for consuming media, not creating it, and asks “are media companies ready to deliver?” Carr points out that although book publishers appear to be on-board, magazine publishers have not yet embraced the I-Pad. Still, Carr believes that the I-Pad may “open up a whole new frontier for developers and publishers”, depending on the success of the business models used to present the content. CNN also notes that the I-Pad may even save “old” media, should newspapers and magazines develop models that will drive both people, advertisers and content to the screen. Primarily, it appears that the media industry is still searching for ways to make money by displaying on the I-Pad.


Price and availability to the device will be a determining factor in the success of the I-Pad, and also how it will change media. As a separate and new application apart from I-phones and computers, it will not replace either, but be an additional method of retrieving media. In addition to the practical issues of transmitting and consuming media digitally, there are also many legal and rights issues surrounding digital media, and with each new application, new regulations to protect content producers must be examined. While print media has the advantage of being permanent, information contained in blogs and other digital sites is often transitory, and while it may be available at one time, unlike printed books, the information can disappear into cyberspace as quickly as it appeared. The success of the I-Pad will depend on this ability of the content producers to profit by presenting media that advertisers will be willing to invest in and that consumers will be willing to pay for.

©Kim Rojas


www.sustainablygreen.blogspot.com

DIGITAL MEDIA: Literacy Without Books?

HOME LIBRARY ATTRITION: Literacy without Books?



DISCUSSION: Is printed media in danger of becoming obscure in the wake of computers and digital media? Is a transition to digital media a slippery slope to illiteracy?


Before I became a writer, I was a reader: The two are unavoidably connected. As a child I spent my summers at the public library; as a teen I devoured the entire JRR Tolkien Trilogy (plus The Hobbit) at least three times; and even in College, I found most of my texts to be as engrossing as the latest chick-lit page-turners. I always had a book with me, that I would pull out while standing in line or riding the bus. I collected books, old ones, new ones, texts and fiction, biographies and novels. I’d find books at library sales, used book stores, and garage sales. I received books as gifts, ordered new releases, and cherished signed copies. Dog-eared pages, tattered volumes, and dusty texts remained singly valuable to me, a lover of words, and to part with even the most obscure publication would be heretical! I hoarded books, and dreamed someday of having a large library of my own, with wooden bookcases, collector’s editions, a comfortable reading chair with the perfect lighting, and the comforting aroma of published pages and hardbound covers filling the room.

Unfortunately, a disparaging realization has manifested: Rather than expand, my personal library has dwindled over the past ten years.

Frequent moves across the country often forced me to choose only the most imperative works, a choice often impossible to make and filled with regrets and misgivings. I never returned a single text at the end of a college semester, because “I might need it someday”. I had quite a collection built up after Grad School…but my obsession blinded me to the fact that I would have to pay by the pound to move them all! Those hardbound books are heavy, indeed.

Still, this doesn’t account for the lack of new, or even used, additions to my library. Although rough financial times have reduced my trips to the bookstore, to say that the economy has kept me from collecting more books would be a fallacy, an excuse, because as any true booklover knows, the number of works collected has nothing to do with the amount of money spent. As I examine this attrition of literary works in my own home, I wonder if the same is true around the Country, across race and class, and through education levels.

As I started some preliminary research on literacy rates in America, I became more intrigued with the idea of a world without books, remembering Ray Bradbury’s book burning scenes in Fahrenheit 451. It is a scene that both frightens and saddens me. I have so many questions and so few answers! But they are questions that need to be answered. This debate is not new, and has extended to other forms of media such as music and video.

Is printed media in danger of becoming obscure in the wake of computers and digital media? Is digital media as effective as printed media in educational settings? In marketing or consumer settings? How can access to digital media become equal across social and financial classes? Is a transition to digital media a slippery slope to illiteracy?


To begin this discussion, I thought of several things in America’s culture that may be contributory:

1) 32 million people speak a language other than English

2) The Technology Revolution, as seen in day to day life.

3) The creation of the Internet, and it’s growth, especially in Social Media.

4) Technology in education, requiring new paradigms for teaching.
2010 is a National Census year, and think-tanks will churn out new reports on American life including how many toilets in the average U.S. home, and hopefully, new reports on literacy in the first decade of Social Media. In the meantime, while the data is being collected and analyzed, do you think that LITERACY can exist WITHOUT BOOKS?

©Kim Rojas




The Green Association for Sustainability

I Don't Like What You Wrote

Ellen Brandt, Ph.D., talks about her experience with the dark side of social media in this humorous article from June 12, 2009, at (www.elleninteractive.wordpress.com ).
Click here to read Dr. Brandt’s article:
I Don’t Like What You Wrote. You Should Be Poisoned, Garrotted, Stabbed With Stiletto Heels, Thrown Off A Tall Building, and Have Vultures Eat Your Liver June 12, 2009 by Ellen Brandt, Ph.D.
The vast majority of those one meets on the Internet through social networking are sane, well-educated, interesting, and often thoroughly delightful people one would be happy to meet for a hamburger or beer without bodyguards, one’s mother, or the Secret Service present.
But there are notable exceptions.

My response:


Dear Ellen,
Do you feel better? lol...that's quite a rant, luckily you have a gift for this gab, whereas many yahoos on social networking sites are still dragging their knuckles, let alone able to understand the value of your media research, and how lucky your followers were to be able to take the journey with you. And hey -- you won, soooo...you really get the last laugh.

I naively joined Facebook, thinking it would be a good professional networking site, but very quickly found out that the object of Facebook is to get the most "Friends". Not so with Linked In, and to keep it from turning in to "Facebook", I try to keep my contact list small and important. Although there are several contacts that I don't actually have personal contact with, they are (like you), at the top of their field. I, admittedly, am a life-long scholar, and as such want to surround myself with those who can inspire me and teach me. I thank you for offering this to so many. But when something becomes detrimental to my primary focus, it is time to re-examine my tactics.

One of the drawbacks to blogging, and submitting comments on blogs, is that people often feel bolder in expressing how they feel when they do not have to confront you face to face, and when they are "anonymous", while you have maintained full disclosure. They also tend to digress and rant on, when a concise and reasoned debate would be more effective. I try to avoid this by first writing my blog or comment in Word…and on that note, I respectfully close!