« THE REPUBLICAN | Wattree's Blog | An Open Letter to President Obama »

Lofty Ideals are Only as Meaningful as The Backbone that Supports Them


BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Lofty Ideals are Only as Meaningful as the Backbone that Supports Them

Is it just me, or is anyone else curious about how the GOP managed to suspend the United States Constitution, thrust us headlong into a costly and unjustified war, ravage the global economy, and destroy America's moral credibility throughout the world, while the Democrats, even after being handed the White House and a huge majority in both houses of congress, can't even manage to pass a healthcare bill that would benefit every family in America?

If like me, you've been curious about this issue, scratch your head no more. The answer is screaming at us right before our eyes, but like the angry medicare recipient boisterously demonstrating against socialism, we simply refused to believe our lying eyes.

The fact is, while it is clear that the Democratic party desperately needs to get its act together, there are two issues in particular that need to be addressed immediately. The first is that there are too many Republicans-in-drag on the Democratic side of the isle. These people have been playing both ends against the middle for years, and their unconscionable treachery is destroying the party. They keep a constant tug-of-war going that makes Democrats seem indecisive, and cause the American people to doubt the resolve of the Democratic party for its own initiatives.

But the debate on universal healthcare could be a blessing in disguise in that regard. It's a debate that so clearly separates what's in the best interest of America from the greed of private interests that it's forcing the hypocrisy of these self-interested politicians to the forefront.

America's healthcare is one of those seminal issues - like civil rights, social security, and the G.I. Bill - that clearly delineates the difference between the Democratic and Republican agendas. Thus, it can, and should be used to separate the wheat from the chaff, and flush out those so-called Democrats who pay lip service to progressive principles while working subtly in the background to maintain and protect the status quo.

Healthcare provides the Democratic party with an excellent opportunity to reveal, and then openly rid itself of its dead weight - and it is essential that the party do just that, just as Democrats had to weed out the Dixiecrats during the civil rights movement. So instead of begging, whimpering, and compromising for the vote of politicians who have already been bought and paid for by the insurance companies, Democrats should stand firm and force these turncoats into the open.

These Bluedog and conservative Democrats serve no useful purpose other than helping their Republican conspirators to dilute the Democratic agenda. They're also disillusioning the Democratic base. As a result, they're having a weakening effect on the party that far exceed their numbers. So the DNC needs to take a page from the Republican playbook and use the primary system to replace these neo-crats with Democratic candidates who are loyal to the party and Democratic principles.

While the GOP is atrocious when it comes to governing, there are none better when it comes to keeping their troops in line. That's why even though the Republican base has dwindled to it lowest numbers in years, recent polls clearly demonstrate that they're still destructively effective. The reason for that is quite simple - they stick together. And they stick together because they all know that any member who falls out of line will be targeted for removal in the very next election.

As progressives, most Democrats are wedded to independent thought, so they tend not to want to adopt the Republican tactic of forcing members to toe the party line. But the GOP is using the Democratic party's idealism against them, so if the Democratic Party wants to survive in this cut-throat political environment, they're going to have to get use to adding practical political tactics to their lofty ideals.

As distasteful as this jingoistic practice is, tactically, there's a lot to be said for it. After all, in spite of the fact that the GOP has dwindled down to a regional party, its diminutive wingnut base has managed to remain in firm control of the nation's political dialogue. The Democratic party seems to be more concerned about them than it is its much larger Democratic base.

It's time to start playing hardball. If the DNC fails to take immediate action against these thinly veiled Republicans, and start running loyal Democrats against them, it's not only going to perpetuate the neo-crats' rebellious behavior, but these so-called "Bluedogs" and conservative Democrats are going to bring the entire Democratic party to its knees. There's a lot of money to be had in being a rebellious Democrat in a Democratically control congress.

Which brings me to the second issue that needs to be addressed - backbone.

For the most part, President Obama was elected based on his rousing oratory, his ability to lift the American spirit, and his inspirational ideals. But if we look back through history we'll find that while the American people will eagerly embrace these characteristics initially, what they respect most is strength. We're a scrappy bunch - we always have been, and we always will be. So while rousing oratory will often bring a tear to the eye, in the final analysis, here in America lofty ideals are only as sturdy as the backbone that holds them up, and President Obama needs to learn that lesson in a hurry.

Being from Chicago one would think that he would have already learned that, but obviously he hit the windy city a little too late in life. But Michelle grew up there, so I sure she's telling him nightly that while patting your enemy on the back has its place, kicking them in the ass is also appropriate on occasion. That's what the American people want to see in a leader, and we only need glance at history to see their attitude in that regard.

History will one day look back upon Jimmy Carter as a president who was ahead of his time. Actually, he was a very good president. He came very close to establishing peace in the Middle East, he was one of the smartest presidents we've ever had, and he was genuinely a nice guy. It was the latter that brought him down. He was too nice, and the American people saw that as a weakness.

The issues the GOP use to bring down Jimmy Carter had no more to do with him than the fall of the Soviet Union had to do with Ronald Reagan. Yet, while Ronald Reagan was clearly incompetent, and should have been both impeached and jailed on several issues, many remembered him as a great president. On the other hand, Jimmy Carter served with competence, honor and distinction, yet he's remembered by many as weak.

It was all about image. Ninety-nine percent of the American mystique involves image over substance. The Ronald Reagan mystique is based on pure fluff. Reagan is remembered fondly for one reason, and one reason only - he reminded the American people of John Wayne. That was his function, and that was all he was required to do - remind America of a silver screen fantasy that bore no relationship to reality. On the other hand, Jimmy Carter is remembered as weak because he was a nice guy, he tried to do what was morally correct, and he represented reality - something that America is determined to escape at any cost.

The American people don't want reality - they want to live in a fantasy. They don't want to hear about the bestial brutality of what it took to wipe out close to an entire population of Native Americans; they want to hear about the Manifest Destiny, and how God wanted them to take this land. And they don't want to hear about the gross immorality of slavery; they want to talk about American exceptionalism as that shining light on the hill that serves as a beacon to all of humanity.

So if I could relay just one message to President Obama it would be the following:

Ok, Mr. President. You've shown me that you can be a nice guy. Now let me see you grab the GOP by the scruff of the neck and throw 'em out the saloon. That's what the American people are waiting to see. Sucking up to the Republican party is not helping your image at all. Have you ever seen Randolph Scott sucking up to the bad guys? America wants a gunslinger.

I know, Mr. President. Your ears are gonna look kinda funny in a Stetson. But that's all right, the American people will overlook that. Just hit your spot, get your lines right, and do what you got to do when the clock strikes High Noon.



     Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everybody who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

35 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

One of your best, Eric.

user-pic

Ted Kennedy brought down Jimmy Carter, not the republicans. Without Teddy dragging the nomination to the convention, we never have Saint Ronnie as president.

I will assume you know my thoughts on the rest of this rant. I agree that democrats are having issues with messaging, but it certainly isn't the Blue Dogs or moderates fault. That is the make-up of your party and they are needed to actually bridge the gap between our conservative and liberal mindsets.

This country is bi-polar and no matter how progressive we may become as a nation, we will never get rid of the essential duality. It's been there since the beginning of the country and is the reason for your very first question. It is also the same reason democratic presidents got away with the same sort of shit.

user-pic

No, Jimmy Carter has no one but Jimmy Carter to blame for his political demise. Not Ronnie, not Teddy, not the republicans...just Jimmy.

user-pic

Wrong. Teddy should have never challenged a very progressive and embattled sitting president for the nomination. Jimmy Carter could have rebounded brilliantly had his party actually stood behind him.

user-pic

I disagree Jason. It wasn't what caused Carter's presidency to fail it was a by-product of it. Carter was a lot of things but progressive wasn't one of them...he would be considered a Blue Dog in today's vernacular. The hostage crisis and an economic slump were what doomed Carter's political career.

user-pic

I guess I imagined the solar panels he put on the roof and this speech.

The Carter presidency is emblematic of why "liberals" have been failing to accomplish truly progressive policies for more than forty years now. Carter was the most progressive democrat to sit in the White House since LBJ and was much more progressive in a lot of ways with regards to matters of national security and foreign relations.

I am quite sure he would not have been willing to use the Gulf of Tonkin incident to escalate the war.

user-pic

Blaming Kennedy is really a stretch, JEM. The MSM brought down Jimmy Carter. I was in high school during his term and our history class had a single bonus question on every quiz and we had a lot of quizes. The question was simply this, "How many days?"

Do I have to remind you of the hostage crisis to explain the reference? Do you recall how, no matter what network one was watching, and I believe there really were four major networks with cable and CNN just beginning to emerge, every newscast would provide the number of days the hostages were in Iran.

I'm with Wattree, Jimmy Carter was an exceptional President. JC [ohmigod, did I just write that?!?] was the light shining on the hill. He was an outstanding progressive accomplishing much, the least of which was providing Israel a safe western border that has remained for decades. His 200 mile border saved our fisheries for decades, although we are managing to destroy them just the same as Japan was. Solar panels, fuel standards, daylight savings, even the freaking metric system!

Despite the harassing daily messages of the MSM, JC was vital to the survival of all the hostages. Despite the failed effort or rescue those hostges, no retribution was exacted. No hostages were slain. This was done in the nation that takes pot shots at unarmed women merely observing a protest! Is there a greater example of statesmanship in our history?

Carter lost because of all the things the media did not wish to mention in the news. He lost because of the inability of the American people to recognize what they had and their insatiable appetite for fantasy. Yes, Carter lost to John Wayne and we lived on a movie set for eight years watching one of the finest performances ever. We went from reality to fantasy. We are bipolar!

This comment went further then I intended. All I wished to say was that Kennedy did not defeat Carter. Carter was so bright that we had to put on our shades. Then we self-destructed into delusional thinking that we were all Top Guns.

user-pic

If Kennedy hadn't challenged the sitting president, chances are he would have been reelected. It was the democratic nomination process that allowed Reagan to gain traction.

I am not arguing against those other factors as having something to do with it, but I still think they are immaterial against the larger issue that a republican shouldn't have been able to get elected dog catcher for a generation after Nixon, but Carter was abandoned by his own party long before the press had at him. Had the democratic party rallied around the president, chances are he would have been reelected. That never happened.

Even now, many democrats think he is a Blue Dog or some sort of religious nut first and great humanitarian second. Despite the Nobel and a long history as one of our most distinguished ex presidents as well as the one with most unrealized potential from the time he was in office.

user-pic

If one describes Carter as a religious nut, it is a stereotype they dispense to anyone with a religion emphasis in their lives. To me, Carter walked the walk. Even AFTER he was President he devoted himself to Habitat for Humanity and a host of other causes, but it's HfH that really puts him on-scene with helping people, hammer in hand!

A Dem operative here in Portland once shared that he felt Carter was too much of a control freak and had to have his hands on EVERYTHING and that was why the Dems abandoned him. They could not do whatever they pleased. Sure, the Dems could have done a better job circling the wagons, but it was not the Party who voted for Reagan, it was the people who were mesmerized by John Wayne.

user-pic

Perhaps you are right, but no other president in modern history had to battle his own party going into reelection. I am not quite ready to abandon the idea that America would have done the right thing given a different set of circumstances.

user-pic

Either one of us could be right. Arguing about speculation is pure entertainment because there is no way to prove the "winner". We both have good points to make in this situation.

user-pic

I am just happy to see people talking about this sort of stuff again.

user-pic

It's no longer my party but at least I have the objectivity to know that it was not Kennedy who elected Reagan. It was the almost universally perceived ineffectiveness of Jimmy Carter.

Kennedy and Reagan shared a quality that is totally absent from the heartless, soulless, amoral beancounting wonkism of the centrists -- they both could speak passionately and positively about this country. They could create a word picture of what is best in us and what we aspire to leave to our children.

Progressives cannot do that. They are too timid to be liberals. They fear the emotion necessary to reach people at the gut level.

user-pic

No real surprise that I see it differently. Until Kennedy decided to take the nomination to the convention, Reagan was barely a blip on the polls. A united democratic party behind an incumbent president that close to Watergate would have been a done deal. We got Reagan instead.

user-pic

Obama is a progressive, and I think he does pretty well in that area. But whether or not a politician can inspire you is totally dependent on your attitude towards that politician. Reagan didn't do a thing for me, because I knew he was all all Brill and no Cream.

user-pic

rec'd.

it is twice as hard for liberal policies to be enacted because they rarely result in benefit to our corporate rulers.

it's what's wrong with kansas on a national level.

liberals are not and have never fought on a level playing field.

as FDR put it, progressives have always

[sic] had to struggle with the old enemies of peace; business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me and I welcome their hatred.

user-pic

History will one day look back upon Jimmy Carter as a president who was ahead of his time. Actually, he was a very good president.

I too liked Carter. His debate with Ford was my first--okay second after Watergate--interest in and with National politics. I followed the hostage crisis even though I wasn't required to do so in school.

I think he was ahead of his time as far as energy and the environment goes. We are paying the price for failing to heed his call.

I think he forged ahead in the Middle-East where most other American presidents have fallen short. I was shocked when Anwar Sadat was assassinated.

Any of his shortcomings as president seem to have fallen to the wayside as he has been a truth-teller when it comes to the Middle-East and as an advocate for and with Habitat for Humanity.

I think my first impression of him was off a little bit. I think I admire more than when I first saw him debate Ford.

user-pic

Carter is a good man but he was a terrible President. He couldn't lead.

user-pic

Jimmy Carter was brought down by the mini 911 environment brought about by the hostage crisis that the Reagan people treasonously collaborated with the Iranians to prolonged until seconds after Reagan was inaugurated. That was what established the relationship between the Reagan administration and Iran that led to Iran/Contra.

The GOP leadership has repeatedly demonstrated that they are more concerned with maintaining power than they are the well being of the American people. First, you have the Reagan administration collaborating with the Iranians to draw out holding American citizens hostage, then you have Dick Cheney outing Valerie Plame for political purposes, and now you have the GOP spreading disinformation, and encouraging reactionary wingnuts to insurrection in an attempt to sabotage an American president’s attempt repair the damage that they did to the American people.

The GOP leadership is un-American. They are unabridged fascists, and progressives need to stop biting their tongue on the matter.

user-pic

Absolutely right, Mr. Wattree. I believe Ray Mcgovern has exposed the pre-election connections between Regan's camp and Iran.

And then we aid Israel's invasion of Lebanon where Sharon abets his own terrist attacks in Palestinian refugee camps there, killing 2,000-3,000 old men, women, and children. So the Iranians, led by Mir-Hussein Mousavi's Hezbollah (he's the man whose street demonstrations over a stolen election that wasn't really stolen we vociferously supported recently) car-bombs the US Embassy (58 dead) and our restricted-to-barracks marines (240 dead) in Lebanon.

Nothing is said; we just slink out of there only to later send Mousavi 500 tow missiles to ostensibly gain release of more hostages but also to illegally fund support our own little terrist army against a democratically elected government in Nicaragua. So hard to tell who the real terrorists are- they all act alike.

Can anything be stupider than that a man has the right to kill me because he lives on the other side of a river and his ruler has a quarrel with mine, though I have not quarrelled with him? -Pascal

user-pic

Reagan and his followers understood that you need a sharply focused agenda, you need to relentlessly sell it, never stop selling it and never compromise on your goals. The Republicans are ruthless in pursuit of their goals.

I don't know if the Democratic Party even has any goals they can agree on.

user-pic

Except that the House health care bill would hurt the vast majority of American families and benefit insurance companies (who would have a Federal law ordering everyone to buy their product).

CBO estimate of the amount of additional quasi-taxation as a result: $815 billion... AFTER subsidies are applied.

user-pic

El Pres. You said:

"Except that the House health care bill would hurt the vast majority of American families and benefit insurance companies (who would have a Federal law ordering everyone to buy their product."

That's exactly why we need a public option and the GOP is dead set against it.

user-pic

HR 3200 includes a public option. That is where the cost comes from because it doesn't fix some of the more glaring problems with current government-run health insurance plans.

user-pic

That's true.

But since the public option is funded by premiums, we have no reason to believe it would be less expensive than private insurance (and you can't point to Medicare, which isn't an insurance option at all - it doesn't have to do a lot of the things the public option would - and it has a lot of advantages the public option wouldn't).

The objection that "subsidies" would cover insurance for those who can't afford it is well placed but basically false. The CBO report stated (in 2015, after the programs have phased in, I choose 2015 because that year has the lowest absolute number of uninsured in teh CBO projection) that payments by people who do not have insurance now, for mandated health insurance, would be substantially above $900 billion. Subsidies are somewhat above $100 billion.

The vast majority of the bill is footed by the people who currently cannot afford, or do not want, health insurance.

user-pic

I think you make a lot of assumptions here that are based on the CBO's rather gloomy predictions that always turn out to be much more dire than the actual numbers. Further, the vast majority of the legislation making its way through committee is revenue neutral, in that they are designed to curtail insurance company abuses. Of the 49 million who are uninsured, many of those will be allowed to get insurance under these new rules.

The CBO focused in on HR 3200 to exclusion of all the other reforms being considered. That is why I think they use a fatally flawed methodology to "score" bills.

The coops or public option is simply giving millions of Americans who would rather not deal with the crap that private insurers offer and prefer the government-managed plan. Rates will be lower because the combined group will be ten times the size as the rates for the biggest group plans among private insurers. Not sure what this criticism was really about.

As for Medicare, it needs to be reformed all on its on, because it places all kinds of stresses on the medical system as whole - public and private - based on how it operates from a financial standpoint. What I would prefer to see is a Medicare reform bill that addresses its structural difficulties while allowing it to become the public option for millions of Americans who have no other option, but can certainly afford the health insurance most of us know is totally necessary to have.

user-pic

A larger risk pool doesn't reduce costs, it only reduces risk. We have, to date, no reason to beleive that a insurance program operated by the government would actually undercut private insurer pricing. Indeed, we have no logical reason to believe it would.

Turning Medicare into a premium-accepting program would obviate many of the advantages of the program as it stands now. The main advantage of Medicare is that it doesn't have to worry about the price and risk side of the business at all. As a result, it has lower administrative costs than an actual insurance plan (government or otherwise).

"Of the 49 million who are uninsured, many of those will be allowed to get insurance under these new rules."

They're already allowed to get insurance, they just can't, or don't want to, pay for it. It may be that some of them will pay less, but others will pay more to make up for it. Those 49 million insured are the very people hurt most by HR 3200.

They are the "targets" of the individual mandate.

user-pic

Bigger groups demand lower premiums from insurers. Since the nonprofit coop will be purchasing the actual coverage from private insurers with defined benefits the only way they can compete is price. See Holland or Switzerland for examples of this in actual practice.

Ultimately, though, I agree that nothing in the current legislation will lower our long-term costs because demand keeps going through the roof. Until Americans start leading healthier lifestyles and quit eating shit, the trends in medical costs rising will be unstoppable by anything our "representatives" in Congress care to bring up for a vote.

As to the uninsured and underinsured, they most certainly cannot get insurance or we wouldn't be having this discussion. They are routinely denied through the flimsiest of excuses if any hint of a preexisting condition is anywhere in the patient's history. Not sure where you get the idea that anyone who can afford a reasonable premium can get coverage.

Some can't get coverage no matter how much they are prepared to spend.

user-pic

Unlike some people, I do take costs seriously, and I agree with you that the escalating costs of health care are not a result of the insurance system. That isn't to say that the current system has a lot to recommend it! It's just to say that if you argue that a lot of people are "frozen out" of coverage because insuring them is so expensive, you can't simultaneously say that insuring them will reduce costs.

I question the idea that lifestyle contributes meaningfully to long term health care costs though; after all, the way to avoid health care costs is to drop dead right now from a massive heart attack.

...and I don't mean that as a caricature. I recognize that the United States food system is a concern of yours (and while I don't necessarily share it entirely, I think it is a reasonable position to take). I just haven't seen evidence that lifestyle affects overall costs. It isn't entirely convincing that it should as a matter of common sense; after all, dying sooner cuts off costs, and people who die of "lifestyle" illnesses aren't necessarily more expensive in end-of-life care.

user-pic

That's nothing but a GOP talking point. Whenever Re[publicans start talking cost, it's nothing more than obfuscation. They didn't worry about cost when they got us involved in Iraq to enrich their cronies, or when they passed a bill disallowing the government to negotiate for cheaper drugs for medicare recipients, or when they voted for the bridge to nowhere. But now that we want to do something to benefit the American people, all of a sudden they're re-discovered their fiscal conservatism.

That talking point is a lot of crap. The top ten healthcare executives make over $10 million a year - before bonuses. They've raised insurance rates 1000% in the last five years, and it is projected, based on the current trend, that the average person will be paying over $24,000 a year for health insurance within the next seven years.

And if that's not bad enough, as we speak, the insurance companies are lobbying for the public to pay 35% of their own healthcare costs, and that's after having paid premiums. And even with that, your coverage may be cancelled if you contract a catastrophic disease.

Give me a break! Better yet, give America a break.

user-pic

You didn't even reply to what I wrote, so I am not entirely sure what it is you think is a talking point, GOP or otherwise. I am not big on dogma, though you are certainly free to level the charge independent of proof.

Simple facts are that Medicare/Medicaid is unsustainable in its current form and adds massive costs to everyone else based on the the low rates they demand as well as the fact that only 80% that is billed will actually be covered. Those costs are passed on to everyone else in the ecosystem. The "public option" as it stands right now will be subsidized for a certain percentage of its participants and that adds costs to a bill that has mostly revenue neutral measure to reign in the abuses you mention.

Frankly, I am a little tired of everything I have to offer being turned into a caricature that has nothing to do with the nonsense coming from most of the republican leadership.

user-pic

Well, since I take costs seriously, period, I'm not sure what you mean. I think Iraq was a terrible idea too. Terrible waste of money and lives.

What does that have to do with anything going on in this thread? Oh, you were trying to tar anyone who was concerned about healthcare costs with a generic Republicans-who-got-us-into-Iraq brush.

The problem is not that health insurance companies make too much money. The problem is that regulation, unions, and the tax system have allowed them to extract an economic rent (one which would be massively magnified by HR 3200). I'd like health insurers to make more money (I'd like to see everyone make more money). But I'd rather they did it by providing a better product.

And neither the know nothing reforms currently proposed nor petty rhetoric will acheive that.

Health care costs are out of control because people don't have to pay them. Want to control healthcare costs? Outlaw health insurance. When people have to think about how much care they're buying (with their own money) rather than just seeing premiums vanish or paychecks reduced, they'll start making better choices.

Of course, they'll get less care. My point is, people want something for nothing, and they're not going to get it.

user-pic

That's all speculative obfuscation. Let us remain focused. The primary reason for the exploding cost of healthcare is insurance company greed. Period.

Why do you think they're spending so much money to maintain the status quo? It's certainly not because of their deep concern for the American. Anyone who buys into their transparent propaganda is being incredibly naive.

I defy anyone to name just one area of public consumption where the business community places the public good before profit and greed.

user-pic

That simply isn't true. If the reason for health care costs increasing was the greed of insurance companies, then a substantial portion of the increase in costs would be captured by insurance companies as profits.

This isn't the case. Health insurers aren't meaningfully more profitable than other enterprises. There is an economic rent involved (they are somewhat more profitable, because they share in the benefit of the tax exemption for employer-provided insurance, among other things). But it isn't even on the same order of magnitude as the cost increases... and it doesn't scale over time.

Also, the health insurers are supporting the current reforms, because they would increase the economic rent opportunity benefiting their stockholders. They're only fighting the public option.

The basic reason medicine is progressively more expensive as a function of time is that it is -better- as a function of time. [That and the fact that as more foreign countries adopt single payer systems, the United States foots a broader portion of the overall R&D bill]. Technological, educational, and engineering advances make medicine more effective, but also more expensive.

The days of a doctor with a black bag are over. That's a good thing! But it costs money.

user-pic

It's not hard to focus greed and a gross disregard for others. You can find that kind of focus throughout any penitentiary in the world.

Leave a comment

Wattree

user-pic

Following: 9
Followers: 41

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

Bio

Eric L. Wattree is a writer, poet, and musician, born in Los Angeles. He’s a columnist for The Los Angeles Sentinel and The Black Star News. He’s also the author of A Message From the Hood, and a contributing writer to Your Black World, and The Huffington Post.

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address