Final Thoughts on Election 2012:The Changing Face of America

So better late than never. There have been a few things on my mind since the re-election of our president on Tuesday Nov 6th. First of all-Yes!! Thank Goodness and Hallelujah that he won. Although the name of this blog is independent political thoughts, after writing my last blog entry post both conventions, I realized I had no choice but to vote for my country. Not for me. And that meant voting for our president. Election Day was stressful to say the least. I felt like I was in a fight for my life but in actuality it was for the poor and working classes, the disenfranchised, those without healthcare, for women and gay rights, for immigration reform. In the end, the country agreed with me including most swing states.

There have been many speculations as to why Mitt did not win. He has been getting bashed even by members of his own party. Was it his arrogance? His inability to connect with the majority of Americans vs. the 1%? Was it the video of him dismissing 47% of the American people as entitled? Or was it because he tried to appease the conservative base and tea party members while at the same time slipping back into his moderate views from the past IE flip flopping on so many issues it made most folks dizzy!

For me it was all of the above. Going back to my blog post "Who is Mitt Romney?" I realized he was not trustworthy. I felt he was truly the one with an entitlement problem by feeling he deserved to be president. I imagined him stomping on the floor like a 5 year old child saying "no its mine, its mine". And no one can tell me that losing to a black man didn’t make that tantrum worst. And not only for Mitt but for most of his party. The racial aspect has been, for lack of a better word, disgusting. From a T-shirt by a Romney supporter at a rally that stated "put white back in the white house" to the life like doll of the President being hung at a gas station in the south to Donald Trump and the members of the birther movement still asking for proof of his birthplace and college records to Ann Coulter calling our President a "retard" (side note-didn’t she see The Hangover? That word is not PC!)  I am not that old but I don’t recall any President being so viciously attacked and disrespected not just for his policies but for his race. That alone made me angry. That alone made me cheer for him regardless of whether I felt he was still the best man for the job. In addition there were many in the Republican Party who questioned black leaders such as Colin Powell who supported the president saying he was doing so only because he was black and so is the President. Really? Seriously? To belittle such an esteemed and educated former leader of our military was completely disrespectful and ignorant. And I ask-why is it that no one asked white leaders that supported Mitt if they were doing so because he is white? Clearly a double standard.

Speaking of race, Republicans including the republican nominee for vice president Paul Ryan stated since the election that the President won because of large turnouts in urban areas and because he received the Black and Latino vote. Mitt even stated that the President won because of gifts he gave and has promised to give to these groups. Insulting. But do they stop and ask why the President not only won these groups but also did well among women, Asian-Americans, Independents and even won Mitt’s home states of Massachusetts, Michigan and Paul's home state of Wisconsin and even the county where he is from ?! (Doubting this is one of the "urban areas" he was referring to).

So far I have heard very few Republicans address those statistics vs. pointing the finger back at the winning party. Except for Newt Gingrich. I have to say I was shocked when I saw him on The View speaking after the election. I have never been a fan of the "godfather of gridlock" but he admitted that the Republican Party needs to reach out to all of the American people and not just 53%. That the look of America is changing and there are a growing number of minority voters that can not relate to the Republican platform. That being said, it should still be made clear that if all white voters had voted for Mitt he would have won. They still make up the majority in this country so the President is not the President of minorities but represents the majority of the people shown by his undisputed victory in both the popular vote and the Electoral College.

I realize it’s hard for certain segments of this society to come to terms with the changing face of America. I saw the movie Lincoln a few days ago and it struck me to see how the white men of that era lived in fear of the mere mention of not just ending slavery but giving blacks the right to vote. During the civil rights and women's movements there was that same fear and even violence as opposing views clashed over what America would be like if equal rights were given and power put in the hands of those deemed inferior. But right prevailed. Human decency prevailed. The majority spoke loud and clear back then as it has now. Yes it may make some in the majority race who have been in power since demolishing the natives feel uncomfortable and uneasy but thank goodness that in the end most have accepted the growing diversity in this country and could look past color to vote for the man who wants the best for all and not for some.

I will support our President as he moves "Forward". I hope both parties and people across this great land can do the same. For those into percentages I found the following numbers interesting.

La times 11/10/12

Nationally, according to exit polls, Latinos gave Obama 70% of their votes, Asian Americans 73% and blacks more than 90%. Voters younger than 30 went for Obama, 60% to 37%, and unmarried women sided with him by more than 2 to 1. Each of those groups made up a larger share of the electorate in 2012 than in 2008, except for blacks, who were steady.

 

Thoughts?

 

DNC vs RNC Lessons Learned

I have to say, I felt both conventions were brilliant and informative. The speeches at both covered everything from the economy, Osama, a women's right to birth control and foreign policy.

Of course there was no speech more entertaining than that of Mr.Clint Eastwood!! Even funnier was the twitter feeds #eastwooding and the empty chair. Other notable speeches at the RNC included Condoleezza Rice, Senator Marc Rubio, Paul Ryan and of course former Governor Mitt Romney. Who for the first time I felt came across-Real. But where was the former president George W. Bush? Were they afraid to remind us of what the last republican president did? :-)
As for the democrats, I felt the current Governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick presented a very interesting take on Mitt Romney's former politics and policies. John Kerry was brilliant and of course former president Bill Clinton brought it home. But most moving to me was the speech by the FLOTUS Michelle Obama. It brought tears to my eyes and gave me chills to hear her speak of her husband and children. The president as usual brought his swag and to me made a heartfelt sincere plea for 4 more years. Unlike his previous run for the presidency in 2004, he did not make a list of promises and admitted to his mistakes and slow but current turnaround of the economy. Lesson learned? Their slogan "Forward" seems to fit.

But the main question that arose in my head was "do people vote for what affects them and their household the most or do they vote for what they feel will better the country as a whole"? Yes in an ideal world these 2 things would be the same but for many it is not. I tried to summarize the theme I got from both conventions. Republicans: "every man and state for themselves". America is a great country full of opportunities so you just have to go for it and make something of yourself. Based on the "every man for themselves", if you make it and you are successful you should get to keep most if not all of your money, not share AND get tax breaks and loop holes more than the average person. Since every American can just become successful and have money, you can pay for your own health insurance and save for your own retirement and therefore do not need assistance from the government in the forms of  medicaid and medicare.

Democrats "we are all in this together". We need to share the burden of our society. America is a great country but some people need help and not everyone is exposed to its opportunities. When you become successful you don't forget about those that are left behind. You reach back and help pull them up. The poor and middle classes need our help. The rich can afford to give back more and be taxed more to make this country a better place overall. Everyone has a basic right to health care. Some would say this sounds like socialism. I beg to differ according the definitions I have read on it http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

 

I must state that I do not think either view is terribly wrong but my heart goes out to the democrats and their mission. Eva Longoria made a great point in her speech. She said that the Eva Longoria that was a waitress needed a tax break but the Eva Longoria that is the celebrity and actress does not. It baffles me that millionaires and billionaires including Mitt Romney pay less in taxes than the middle class. Warren Buffet has even asked to be taxed more! However, I do believe my taxes should go towards helping those that help themselves and I do not believe in entitlement. I also believe that this is America and you should not be punished for your success. Mitt Romney having always been rich and never poor does not in my mind exclude him from being a good president or having the ability to help the poor and middle class. But all this leads me back to my initial question.

 

When voting, do you vote for yourself or for the country at large? Personally, most of the things I vote for have nothing to do with me. In fact most physicians will vote for the republican party and against Obamacare because we will make less money when it goes through. We will also likely be taxed less by republicans than by democrats. There is no doubt that we work hard for the money we make, have a high liability in taking care of people's lives and have enormous school loans to pay back. But I also realize that I am fortunate enough to live a comfortable life. I can afford to give back to those who need it more.

 

I read a description recently that I felt suited me far more than just saying I'm an independent. "Social liberal and fiscal conservative". I like it! In the end, I vote for what I feel will help this great country as a whole. I vote for the issues that tug at my heart more than my pocketbook which include a woman's right to choose, a person's right to love and marry whoever they please, the end to the wars in the middle east, bringing our military families back home, and the right of every American to have health care.

 

Thoughts?

The Black Republican

WOW! It has been awhile since I have blogged! I have been busy with a few major life changes like moving to a new city, getting ready to start a new job and launching my online magazine www.thesophisticatedlife.com (shameless plug) but with the republican convention underway and the election just a little more than 2 months away, there is no better time than the present to get back to political blogging.

Over the past few months I have been struck by comments by black men and women criticizing other black men and women who dare to express that they are republican or have conservative views. It is somehow a basic assumption that if you are black you are a democrat and a supporter of President Obama. When I first started this blog I was told by several friends with republican and conservative views that they did not comment on the site since they were afraid of being chastised. This saddened me. We are Americans who value freedom of speech and should not be afraid to share our political views to others especially those of our own race.

So why is there that basic assumption that blacks are and should be democrats? Is it based on our history in this country and the feeling that democrats are more likely to look out for the poor and disenfranchised? Is it because there are many more black democrats therefore the black community can identify better with that party? Is it based on the idea that republicans are the rich and only care about protecting their assets? Or is it based on actual beliefs about issues such as health care, taxes, abortion rights, gay rights, gun control and foreign affairs?

In terms of the issues, most democrats have liberal political views, are anti war, pro-choice, supports gay rights inc gay marriage, universal health care, a tax system that does not shelter the rich and allows sufficient funds to take care of the poor, supports gun control and immigration reform inc the Dream Act which allows certain illegal immigrants ie undocumented immigrants to remain in this country with a path to citizenship. While most republicans are conservative, pro-life, against gay marriage instead believing marriage should only be between a man and a woman, against entitlement, believes in the right to carry arms with little or no restrictions, against universal health care, believes in less taxes including for the rich, smaller government, believes we should close the borders and are against the Dream Act, supports going to war, even if needed to protect the interests of allies and not just our own. There is also an assumption that most republicans vs democrats are more religious, "god-fearing" and follow the bible more than Democrats do. Of course this is a simplification of both parties ideals and beliefs. But the question I have is-do any of these issues or categories scream black or white? Isn't it possible to be black, have those republican views and also support the advancement of blacks and minority causes in this country? Is there something wrong with being black and having "strong family, christian values" as conservatives like to say? Although that does somehow imply that Democrats do not have those same values.

One of the recent figures that caught my attention was Mia Love. She is a 36yo black female of Haitian descent from Utah who is a congressional candidate. She converted to the Mormon religion, is married to a white Mormon man and is mayor of a predominantly white town in Utah. If she wins her election, she would be the first elected black republican female to serve in Congress. She has emphasized what Condoleezza Rice has in interviews. That her parents believed in working hard and fulfilling the American dream of a better life for their family (anti-entitlement). She will be speaking at the republican convention tonight and some see it as a ploy to get blacks to vote for Mitt Romney when most polls show that he has garnered  0% of likely black voters. 0%-harsh!! Black republicans like Clarence Thomas are often thought of as "Uncle Toms" and despised by many in the black community. Reasons for this include 1)feeling that once certain blacks reach a certain level of success they turn their back on and cant relate to those that are left behind 2) that most white republicans are racist and only accept black republicans into their party and promote them in order to use them to get black votes. How much of this is true is not clear to me. But I have to admit-I have never been a fan of Clarence Thomas :-)

Besides Mia Love, in recent years there have been many famous black republicans. As noted above, Condoleezza Rice, also Colin Powell and most recently, Herman Cain who until his sexual harassment scandal was winning over black, white and Hispanic voters in the republican party. Many people do not realize there have been other famous black republicans including Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth. There has also been strong mention that Dr.Martin Luther King Jr. was a republican.

Based on all of the above, I continue to hope that in the future there will be stronger independent candidates. That like myself share views and beliefs of both parties. But in the end, the bottom line is to allow people of all races and colors to join whichever party they feel best represents their core values and beliefs. One should not be afraid to express his or her views, be called names by people of their own or any race, be ridiculed and chastised especially after having the courage to go public and run for office. Also, be sure that you are aware of the issues and how they affect you, your family, and the country as a whole. Do not support or vote for anyone simply based on race.

Thoughts?

The Wisconsin Recall-Governor Walker projected winner

10pm-CNN projects that Republican Governor Scott Walker is the projected winner of the Wisconsin recall election! He ran against his former competitor in the 2010 election-Democratic Mayor of Milwaukee-Tom Barrett.

The road to the recall election began when the new Governor passed legislation to limit the bargaining rights of unionized government workers. In layman's terms it means that union dues became voluntary, unions had to re certify every year, most state workers, including teachers, had to pay more for health insurance and pension plans and had a limit on pay raises. This was all done to help the state's deficit. Of note, Governor Scott of Florida experienced backlash last year when he proposed that Florida teachers contribute to their pensions. He suggested that teachers who received free pensions be forced to contribute 5% into their pension funds. This did not seem unreasonable to me since along with most Americans, regardless of income, contribute 95-100% towards their pension plans. But back to Wisconsin....

The state has obviously been divided on this issue. Democrats and Unions held rallies in the statehouse-a statehouse that was run by a republican majority-elected along with Governor Walker in 2010.They obtained almost 1 million signatures to force a recall vote. They obviously felt strongly that the new legislation infringed on union rights. Republican supporters felt that the new legislation was reasonable to help the state as a whole financially. Pollsters asked Scott Walker supporters how they felt about the main issue at hand. They stated it was time for state workers and unions to "feel the pain" so to speak of private sector workers who have had wages and benefits cut in a tough economy.

This was also felt to be a precursor to the presidential election in the fall. President Obama won the state in 2008 and it is considered a swing state. Does the failure of the recall mean a win for Mitt Romney in the state in the fall? Many would say yes.

I have to say in general I do not believe in recall elections. Unless in cases of  complete fraud or federal crimes (not indecent exposures:-), everyone should have to accept the decisions made by the governor, president, congress and senate that they elected. Once the person gets in office, you should not get to kick them out because you do not agree with a law they have passed. If that was the case then there would be pure chaos in states and in the white house with elections being recalled and overturned every month or every year. There have only been 2 other recall elections of governors in this country's history and they have both failed. This will make the third.

Thoughts?

Mitt Romney Finally Clinches the Nomination

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-calls-obama-economic-record-twig-hang-onto-180809549.html

It seemed like an eternity but the former Governor of Massachusetts finally accumulated enough votes to be the Republican presidential nominee.
Maybe now the race will get more exciting? I am admittedly a bit bored. The initial phase of the republican nomination process including the many debates were quite entertaining but now all I read about are polls that show President Obama and the former Governor are neck and neck in many states. The only big stir up lately was when mayor Cory Booker of Newark-a Democrat-stated that he was "nauseated" by the President's attack on Mitt Romney's career at Bain Capital. Cory Booker was soon defending himself and refusing to let Republicans use him as a Democrat attacking the President. Really? Is this all we got? It is clear that most voters main concern is the economy (duh) and Independent voters will likely be the deciding factor in November.

Thoughts?

Words of Admiration for First Lady Michelle Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton

Strong, Smart, Successful, Powerful, Influential. Oh- and wife and mother.  Even if you do not agree with their political views, it is hard to not admire these 2 women. Both women have high approval and favorably ratings of roughly 66%. Here is why....

Most are aware that Michele Obama was raised on the south side of Chicago but has an Ivy league education with an undergraduate degree from Princeton and a law degree from Harvard. After law school she returned to Chicago to work at the law firm Sidley Austin where she met her future husband. She campaigned brilliantly for him during the race for the presidency in 2008 and gave the keynote address at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. She is the mother of their 2 beautiful daughters and has become a fashion icon often compared to former first Lady Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis.

The First Lady has had two main focuses while in office. Along with the vice president's wife-Dr.Biden, they have been touring the country promoting "Joining Forces". An organization that assists military families. It showcases ways ordinary Americans can support and  help these families by pledging service hours and sending messages of thanks, ensuring veterans get the opportunities they have earned, supporting military spouses and creating a stronger connection between the American public and military families.

Her other main focus has been the fight against childhood obesity. With her "Let's Move" campaign she has promoted exercise as well as healthy eating and living for children and families. She has made appearances on TV shows such as "The Biggest Loser" during which she exercised with the trainers and contestants. She has also planted a vegetable garden at the White House.

Besides all of the above attributes, The First Lady is to me just a basic likable human being. She is simply radiant. In every speech or TV appearance that I have viewed, she is eloquent, funny, supportive of her husband and this country and speaks with love and pride when discussing her children and her husband. When asked what is her most important role, she always states its being a mother. She is a great example of multitasking at its best fitting the image that most of us have of a First Lady.

Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton. Yes the Clintons are well known and have been in the news for decades. Rightfully so as President Bill Clinton served 2 successful terms as President amid scandals and impeachment. Even as Governor prior to his presidency, the rumor mill of improper conduct had begun but the former first lady stood by her husband. She most definitely has lived up to their wedding vows of "for better or for worse" :-) During this time she also raised their daughter Chelsea who is successful in her own right having attended Stanford and Columbia, who worked at a consulting firm in NYC, the Clinton Foundation and as a NBC news special correspondent and is also now a wife. I am sure Hilary Clinton had her own agenda in being a loyal wife to her controversial and successful husband including her failed attempt to get health care legislation passed during her husband's presidency. She then ran against the current president in 2008 for the Democratic nomination. Ironically, her approval ratings were lowest around that time. Many Americans, including Democrats, saw the Clinton's as very polarizing figures. Democrats were afraid that they were so disliked that Republicans and Independents who don't normally vote would turn out in droves to vote against Hilary Clinton for President. I felt this overshadowed her talents and intelligence and her platform. I was very pleased that she was chosen by the President for a cabinet position as Secretary of State. Only the 3rd woman in US history to do so. Finally, Hilary has had her chance to shine in front of and not behind her husband.

As stated above, as Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has had her highest approval ratings. So much so that there is talk of her running for the presidency in 2016. She is currently 64 and therefore would be 69 in 2016 if she decides to run. But she doesn't look it!! If anything I think she looks younger and more alive than she has in years. This year there were photos published of her literally "letting her hair down", drinking a beer and dancing in Columbia after several long days of work there with the President and her cabinet. The pics went viral! I think most people like myself were happy to see someone who has endured so much negativity in the press, due to her personal and public life, get to just simply-have fun. She has also been photographed recently without makeup and wearing her glasses vs contact lenses. Again, good for her. She has earned the right at her age and service to feel comfortable and relaxed on occasion. Most women can relate to this feeling. The antidote to feeling like you always have to be "on" and "made up". There were also the "texts from Hilary" tumbler in which she took part in comedic texts sent out from a "fake" Hilary Clinton.

All that aside, she has traveled the world tirelessly as a successful Secretary of State. She has done so with a strong hand and negotiating constantly on our President's behalf and with our country's best interest at heart. Going up against world leaders who are mostly still male is not an easy feat especially as a petite woman and in countries in which women are still considered to be second class citizens.
For all this and more I say-Bravo Hilary!! Bravo!

Thoughts?

To be or not to be Entitled.

The definition of entitled:to give a person or thing a title, right or claim to something.

Recent media stories and my current work experience keeps bringing this word into my head. I have also heard republicans mention it in debates stating that they are against entitlement. I cant say I blame them.

Being born in America does entitle you to A LOT. Once you are born in this country, you are considered a citizen. That entitles you to free education, free health care (if you can not afford it-more on that in a minute), the right to vote, the right to government services such as WIC, food stamps, social security, subsidized housing, medicaid and medicare.

But should being born here or legally residing in this country be all the criteria that's needed to feel entitled? Lets cut to the chase-I mean-is being a citizen or legal resident all the criteria that's needed to expect hand outs?

I currently work with a large migrant population composed of illegal-aka undocumented workers. I am sure they struggled to get to America in hopes of a better life for them and their children. Some have even left a number of children back home in countries such as Guatemala. However, even though they speak no English and are below the poverty line, they continue to have several children as many as 8, 9,10. Since the children are born here and are citizens, even though both parents are in the US illegally, they receive all of the benefits listed above. This includes free health care and vaccines at local health departments and the mothers also receive free prenatal and postnatal care at these clinics. In addition, many white, black and Spanish American women with little education, no job, and dependent on public assistance have child after child expecting everything to be handed to them. I did say many-not all. A few have even mentioned to the hospital staff that they will be back the following year since they get more money for each child. The mothers ask me to sign WIC forms that entitles them to free formula. When I mention that they need to have it signed by their primary care physician in a week, they ask me how are they supposed to get or pay for the formula for a week. I'm sorry-did you not think of that prior to having the baby? Shouldn't you have some responsibility for the child or children you created? Plus, breastfeeding is free :-)

All I'm simply asking is what happened to being responsible? If physically and mentally able, why not work hard to provide for yourself and your family and make rational choices as to how big that family should be. Nadia Suleman aka Octomom comes to mind. She chose to have 14 children and is now in jeopardy of losing her home. Because she stated several times that she would not ask for public assistance, she has posed nude and is considering porn to save her home and keep her kids. Also, a man was in the news recently that is asking for a break from paying child support for his 30 children!! No, he is not a sperm donor. He just willingly had 30 children with different women and he is not a millionaire.

Here in lies the problem. This is America and I do not think any American with a heart could stand by and watch a child go without food, shelter or an education. Also, we can not stand by and see a pregnant women without offering medical care if needed. We can not see someone who is sick and is in need of medical attention to save their life and not do so. But who pays for these services? Taxpayers. Hard working taxpayers including working class individuals that can barely provide for their own families and go without health insurance since they may be at that precarious line where they make too much to get free health care, food stamps etc but they don't make enough to pay for it. Even for those that are in the so called "high tax brackets" but not in the elite 1%, that did not inherit their money but instead worked long and hard for it, why should their tax dollars go towards paying for those that do not think before they act? To those that assume, rightfully so, that they don't have to since it will be given to them no questions asked? Shouldn't there be some punishment for such actions? After the fact, shouldn't there be some law that forces people to learn a trade and work to help provide for themselves and their families? I was struck last year by the fact that different families-2 single mothers each with 4 children- applied to rent my mother's home using section 8 vouchers. They were given a large enough amount based on how many children they had that would allow them to rent a single family house with 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 2 car garage in a quiet gated suburban community. There were several working class families with 2 working parents and less children that could not afford it. Isn't there something wrong with this picture?

I will always agree with taking care of children, the disabled, veterans who are brave enough to serve this country and the mentally ill. But for able bodied individuals, shouldn't they want to or be forced to contribute to society, work hard and make responsible decisions vs doing whatever they want knowing the rest of the country "got their back" at whose expense? Taxpayers.

Thoughts?

Gay Marriage

Unprecedented. A sitting President has verbalized his support for gay marriage. President Obama previously stated that he was in support of civil unions but in a televised interview with ABC news he expressed that his opinion has evolved over the past few years. He mentioned things such as his daughters having friends with same sex parents and service men and women finally being able to be open about their sexuality while serving in the military but still not being able to marry the ones they love.

I will admit that I was surprised when Vice President Biden openly expressed his support of gay marriage recently. I am quite aware that the Vice President often speaks before thinking things through   leading to damage control by the President and the White House. I knew it would look bad if the President did not come out soon with a response or support of the same. But maybe they had a discussion about it and this was all a strategic plan to win over voters in an election year. Regardless, this is a huge deal for gay rights supporters!

In terms of the upcoming election, pollsters have mentioned that this was a risky call for the President. It will definitely make the liberal base of the Democratic party pleased. And let's face it, those opposed to gay marriage, social conservatives, were never going to vote for the President in November. However, it becomes an issue in many swing states including North Carolina. The citizens of North Carolina recently voted to pass an amendment banning gay marriage and domestic partnerships. Wow. But it is the south so can we be that surprised?

The country is roughly evenly divided in support of or against gay marriage. However, independent voters who were a major factor in electing the President the first time and will  play an important role again this year, are mostly for gay marriage.

I was surprised when I looked at the map of states that have laws allowing gay marriage and counted roughly 10. Only 10 out of 50?! This is America. Everyone has a right to their opinion. Everyone has a right to fight for what they believe is right including feeling that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Similar to Santorum's stance that sex should only be between a married man and a woman in order to procreate. Yeah Ok.  Personally, I do not see how two men or two women getting married has anything to do with me or the breakdown of our society. If two people love each other and want to spend  their life with each other with all the benefits of marriage allowed under American law, then so be it. I know many gay couples that have been together longer than straight couples and raise happy healthy children. Isn't that what the goal of marriage should be?

Thoughts?

The Bold and the Beautiful:The John Edwards Trial

I have to say. The phrase that first comes to mind is "You can not make this ish up!"
I have found the trial of the former Senator to be quite entertaining. Soap opera and TV writers must be drooling over the turn of events. For those of you that have not been keeping up with the trial, I will introduce you to the cast of characters.

John Edwards. We all know him as an attorney and a former Senator from North Carolina. He is charismatic, tall and handsome with piercing blue eyes and of course-great hair!  He was married to the much loved Elizabeth Edwards who died of breast cancer in 2010. They were married for 33 years and had four children together. Their son Wade died in a car crash in 1996. In 2004 Senator Edwards was the democratic vice presidential candidate alongside John Kerry. In 2008 he ran for the democratic presidential nomination. While his wife was battling stage 4 cancer and campaigning for him, the former Senator was having an affair with his campaign videographer Rielle Hunter. According to Ms.Hunter, the affair started in 2006 and in 2008 she had a daughter which the former senator denied was his until 2010. During the campaign, he conspired with his equally attractive aide Andrew Young to hide the affair and subsequent birth of a daughter using campaign contributions. He reportedly stated that Ms.Hunter was a "slut" and there was only a 1 in 3 chance that the child was his.
Classy.

Andrew Young. I don't recall seeing his picture until recently. He is, as my older relatives would say, easy on the eyes! He is the former aide to John Edwards. Apparently the most loyal aide that ever was!! He was so devoted to the candidacy and campaign of the former Senator that he was willing to not only assist in covering up the affair but he also claimed the affair and the baby was his doing. Now why would anyone go to such extremes? Is it because he believed John Edwards would be the best president ever? Or was it because there was some financial benefit to him and his family? Well maybe both. He did admit on the stand that most of the money collected from donors to hide the affair and take care of Ms.Hunter was kept by he and his wife and a large amount went towards additions to his million dollar mansion in North Carolina. He also wrote a book about his experience. What he didn't write about was the accusation that he stole a sex tape of John Edwards and Rielle Hunter to use for personal gain.
ChaChing.

Cheri Young. Cheri is the wife of former aide Andrew Young. She was asked by her husband to go along with the lies in order to keep the campaign going. On the witness stand she claims that John Edwards told her that using the money to hide and take care of Ms.Hunter was legal as told to him by his campaign attorneys. She also testified that she was told the entire campaign would fall apart if she did not go along with the plan. Many of the checks from donors were written to Cheri Young and her husband admitted that she handled the family's finances. What came out in the trial that I had not been aware of was that Ms.Hunter lived with Mr. and Mrs.Young and their 3 children. "now say what now?" One of their residences was a $20,000 a month rental house in Santa Barbara paid for by a campaign donor. At least Mrs.Young got a home theater and pool out of it as additions to a family home that was being built in North Carolina.
Dazed and Confused

Rielle Hunter. I will admit I do not know much about Ms.Hunter. I hate to say it but she may be the only one that doesn't fit the title above :/) She is a former television actress and film producer. She met John Edwards in a bar in NYC and pitched an idea to him of informational behind the scenes campaign videos. He was obviously impressed with...something and she was soon hired by the campaign.  What I do recall is that in a televised interview after the birth of her daughter she stated that her and John Edwards slept together without protection the first night they met. Really? And why exactly would you say that on television especially while John Edwards was still married and his wife was fighting for her life? She also stated that they were in love and he only stayed with Elizabeth because of his political aspirations. Hmmm. I wonder how she feels hearing John Edward's description of her stated above. And it gets more seedy. There is a sex tape of her and John Edwards that was made during the presidential campaign. Andrew young is accused of stealing the tape to sell it and to threaten John Edwards with as the lies were unfolding. During the cover up, besides living in various mansions, Ms.Hunter reportedly received $5-12,000 as a monthly allowance along with thousands for housekeeping, shopping and a BMW. She gave birth to her daughter at age 43 (wow) and did not list a father on the birth certificate. Since John Edwards claimed their daughter and is a millionaire, I am sure Ms.Hunter continues to live quite well.
Entrepreneur?

Rachael "Bunny" Mellon. Mrs.Mellon is the widow of banking heir Paul Mellon. Andrew Young testified that he was asked by John Edwards to approach Mrs.Mellon to ask for money for non campaign expenses that would be used to help him along the campaign. Such expenses were described as expensive haircuts that Mr.Edwards was ridiculed for. (he is now apparently getting his hair cut at supercuts lol). On the witness stand Andrew Young stated that Mrs.Mellon made checks out to her interior decorator who cosigned the checks with Cheri Young's maiden name. Mrs.Young would then deposit the checks into the Young's account and distribute accordingly.
SugarMama

Fred Baron. Mr Baron who is deceased, was a millionaire, lawyer, former partner of John Edwards and an avid supporter. He also supplied cash and paid the bills once Ms.Hunter and the Youngs went into hiding. In court a note from Mr.Baron was presented that apparently accompanied cash for expenses. The note read "Old Chinese saying. Use cash, not credit cards".
Smart Friend

The movie Ides of March came to mind as I was writing this. It is definitely worth a rental. It amazes me the lengths that people will go in order to obtain and maintain power, money and control. Not to mention greed being an evil motivator. I do not think anyone is shocked by news of an affair or a child out of wedlock. However, what continues to shock me is doing so while in the public eye running for President and while your wife, who is battling cancer, is campaigning on your behalf. I haven't been able to look at Mr.Edwards the same since. But I have not heard his story. It is a good sign that his eldest daughter and parents have been supporting him in court. If convicted he faces up to 30 years in prison and 1.5 million dollars in fines for 6 charges of violating campaign finance laws and for conspiracy.

Thoughts?

Ilegal Immigration

"I am not against immigration. I am against illegal immigration". I do not remember who said this in one of the republican primary debates but I agree. I honestly think that people confuse the two. I often hear people say this country was built on the back of immigrants and America is and should be proud of being a melting point. No one can deny that. But, someone can be a champion of immigration and the melting pot and be against illegal immigration. They are not the same thing.

Although I was born in NYC ("concrete jungles where dreams are made of. There is nothing you cant do") Sorry. I digress. Most of my family immigrated here from Jamaica including my parents and my brother. Members of my family waited years to come to America one by one after being sponsored by different family members. Mothers were separated from their children and husbands from their wives. Some members of my family, unable to get "alien" or "green" cards for the US immigrated to England and Canada. My family came with hopes of fulfilling the American dream. Working hard and sending their children to college and therefore having opportunities they could only dream of. Based on this, I am sensitive to immigration issues and the desire of parents struggling in their own countries coming here to provide for their families and giving their children better hope for the future.

I do believe America needs immigration reform. If we are not going to deport individuals immediately upon knowledge that they are here illegally, then we must provide them with education and resources to be productive members of society. Sidebar- I often wonder why we do not deport swiftly and immediately individuals that we are aware of are here illegally. Yes- I know we are America and we are more compassionate about such social issues. But our country is in crisis mode. We can not even provide for the residents and citizens that are struggling and losing their homes and jobs so who could blame us for not wanting to spend resources on individuals who are in this country illegally? I work in a hospital in which at least half of my patient population is known by the administration and staff to be here illegally yet nothing is done. I have heard the argument that you cant separate mother's from their children that are born here in the US and are therefore citizens. But why wouldn't the child be returning with their mother to their native country? I have also heard of laws that would require at least one parent to have legal residency status or citizenship in order for a baby born in the US to be considered a citizen. I cant say I disagree. I do believe that people take advantage of doing whatever they have to to get to the US in time to have a child on American soil therefore "entitling" them to live here and obtain free government services including wic for infant formula, food stamps, housing, health care and education.

Based on the premise that all illegal immigrants or if I am being totally PC-undocumented immigrants (I am not sure why illegal isn't acceptable when it is accurate. although I do not like "aliens" lol) will not be deported and instead be knowingly allowed to live in the United States, we must revisit the Dream act. The Dream act is legislation that would allow undocumented immigrants to have a pathway to citizenship. Components of the legislation state that the individuals must have entered the US before age 15, must have lived in the US at least 5 years before enactment of the law, must spend at least 2 years in an institution of higher education or the military and be of good moral character. Individuals would be eligible for citizenship after 5 1/2 years of gaining conditional permanent residency and completing the above requirements. Although I agree with some opponents view that the age minimum of 15 and the age maximum of 35 are too old and that the law rewards those that have entered the country illegally and may encourage others, I feel it can and should be amended to satisfy both parties.

I must end by mentioning that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Arizona immigration law. It is one of the toughest illegal immigration bills in the country and one aspect allows police to ask suspected criminals to show proof of residency status or citizenship. I do agree that it will likely lead to unnecessary racial profiling however I do understood the state being overwhelmed with the cost of providing for illegal immigrants as well as concerns about crime which has supposedly dropped since the law was enacted. I do feel a bit uneasy about that. I am not sure that illegal immigrants commit more crime than legal immigrants but I would have to do some more research on that. However, the federal government feels they are responsible for governing immigration laws and practices. It will be interesting to hear the high court's decision on this as well as other cases including the PPACA which I discussed under my "Universal Health Care" post.

Thoughts?

The Latino Vote

The Latino vote will play a crucial role in the 2012 presidential election especially in the swing states of Colorado, Nevada, Arizona and yes-my home state AKA the "hanging chad" state of Florida. The Latino vote has been the deciding factor in several close national elections in the state of Florida including the infamous Gore vs. Bush election. Due to this, both parties have already started courting Latinos in several states. Rolling out the red carpet so to speak. Both candidates had round table discussions this past week with Latino voters and leaders. The republican strategy-appeal to their pockets. Stress what they feel is a failure of the President to improve the economy. The national unemployment rate for Hispanics is 11%-higher than the roughly 8-9% for the general public.They will also remind them of President Obama's failure to pass his promised immigration reform. The irony of that is they are the reason the DREAM act failed to move through Congress. The DREAM act allows for certain undocumented children and adults up to age 26 to seek citizenship through several paths including education and military service. The democratic party on the other hand will remind Latinos of the improving economy, republican protests to immigration reform and the President will re pledge to passing legislation in his next term.

What fascinates me most about the Latino vote, especially since I live in Florida, is the Cuban American vote. Cuban Americans tend to vote republican compared to Mexican and Puerto Ricans who overwhelmingly vote democratic. But why? I have heard many theories. First of all, the subject close to heart for many Latino voters is immigration reform. This is not a factor for Cubans based on the wet foot dry foot policy. Any Cuban who reaches American soil is allowed to stay in the country since they are fleeing a communist regime. Other theories are as follows. Latinos feel that historically republicans have had a more anti Castro, pro embargo stance against Cuba. There is also the older generation that remembers the failed Bay of Pigs invasion by democratic President-John F. Kennedy. Then in 1983 President Reagan visited Miami wearing a guayabera (Latin style shirt) and addressed the crowd in Spanish. A street in Little Havana was soon named after the President. And who can forget the Elian Gonzalez drama in 2000. Our democratic president, Bill Clinton, authorized the raid and return of Elian to his biological father in Cuba. President Clinton's approval ratings dropped in the Cuban community as a result.

In the end, most polls show that for voters of all races and backgrounds, the economy is their main concern and determining factor in how they will cast their votes. Other top issues include health care and education. For Latinos whose friends and family members are affected by immigration laws and policies, immigration reform will also be a consideration. For Cuban Americans, pollsters find that while the older generation primarily votes republican due to the factors listed above, the younger generation is more concerned about matters here on American soil vs toppling and punishing an aging dictator on an island they have never seen.

Thoughts?

Silly Politics: The "working" woman debate.

This week I was once again reminded of how silly and senseless politics can get. Not long after the ridiculous "etch a sketch" fiasco created by a Romney spokesman, we are dealing with another fake scandal of words which will likely blow over in a week. In the meantime, the republican party is juicing it for all they can while the democrats are doing damage control. All over a misconstrued, misinterpreted comment made by a democratic strategist who does NOT work for the Obama campaign. Hilary Rosen stated on CNN in regards to working women  that Ann Romney would not be able to give proper advice to her husband since Ann Romney " had never worked a day in her life". UhOh. Did I hear all the stay at home Moms shudder at once? Ann Romney, who states that she chose to be a stay at home Mom of 5 sons as her career, took offense to that statement as well as the statement that her husband is not sensitive to women's issues.
Here is the thing. Hilary Rosen did not say in the interview that being a stay at home Mom is not considered work. In my opinion she didn't even imply it. She was referring to women in the work force. Women whose daycare benefits may get cut under the Romney economic plan. Women who work just as hard as men in the workforce but get paid less. With all due respect to Mrs.Romney who is worth 250 million dollars, you are not one of these women. I am sure living on 21 million dollars a year affords some luxuries in raising 5 children that the average American can only dream of.
While reading on this "controversy", I came across an interesting statistic from the 2007 census. It found that 23% of married women with children below the age of 15 are stay at home Moms. Most of these stay at home Moms were Hispanic, foreign born and women without a high school diploma. Why is this? I was reminded of my interview with a low income Hispanic family in the emergency room. One of my standard questions that I ask everyone is if their child attends daycare (daycare being a haven for germs and illnesses). This father laughed at my question and said "Of course not. He is only 10 months old. He stays at home with his mother". I couldn't help myself, it had been a long tiring day. My response " Well Dad, he is lucky because a lot of families have to put their children in Daycare in order to go to work and make a living". If I'm being honest, I do notice in my profession that the majority of low income and a substantial amount of high income Moms stay at home with their children. Financially speaking, for low income families it probably makes more sense if you have several children to stay at home vs paying for daycare. For high income families, parents can afford to have not only the Moms at home but nannies that provide assistance. What happens to working families? What about the mothers that are struggling to hold down a job to help support the family while also taking care of the household, husband and children. These families fall on that precarious line between making too much to qualify for federal assistance and making too little to pay all the bills. These are the women my heart bleeds for. These are the families that need our help including providing affordable daycare, affordable tuition for higher education to advance their careers and salaries and teaching a trade or skill set to do the same.
So to all the politicians out there, can we please get back to the real issues??!!

Thoughts?

Current Events 1)Zimmerman update 2)Presidential foot in mouth? 3)The Buffet Rule 4)Santorum 5)Arizona Abortion law

1) Zimmerman. It was announced today that the man who admitted to fatally shooting Trayvon Martin is in police custody and has been charged with second degree murder. For most people this equals Justice-Finally. I am impressed at the nationwide protests that pushed and led to an arrest. But before today's news conference, it was announced yesterday that Zimmerman's lawyers had resigned since they had not been able to make contact with him in days. Even more bizarre was the website Zimmerman set up over the weekend allowing his supporters to make donations to him. He confessed to not being able to work, go to a store, and having to leave his home out of fear for his life. Is it wrong that I felt a little bit sorry for him? I cannot imagine the mental and emotional anguish he must be going through. If what his friends and neighbors have said about him is correct, he is not racist and is a good man. Did he just make an awful and fatal mistake? In the end, he may be in fear for his life but at least he has a life.

2) Presidential foot in mouth? In reference to the Supreme Court's pending decision on The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the President stated that the high court would not invoke "judicial activism" by overturning a law put in place by an elected Congress. Some saw this as a sort of threat towards the high court. However, the supreme court justices had already cast their vote on the issue although the decision will not be made public for weeks. The justices had to decide if the law was constitutional. But is there anyone that believes the justices are impartial and will base their decision solely on its constitutional merits? The justices are often described as conservative, liberal or as "swing voters". Decisions by the court are often made along those lines similar to party lines in the Senate and Congress. Plus,the justices are appointed by a conservative or republican president or a democratic or liberal president. And isn't the constitution similar to the Bible? Open to interpretation.

3) The Buffet Rule. I do not get it. I do not get the opposition to this rule. The current tax system stinks. I was once again reminded that former Governor Romney's income is 21 million a year but he only pays 14% in taxes. Why am I paying 34%???!!!! I am far far far FARRRR away from making the million dollars that would be the cut off of having to pay 30% with the Buffet rule. I would be happy to make 1 million dollars a year and pay 30% in taxes since it would still be less than what I pay now!

4) Rick Santorum. Yesterday the former senator announced that he was suspending his campaign. Ahhh-Mr.Santorum was my first blog post. I was so shocked by his conservative views-well really I was shocked that someone not only had such conservative views but also felt that with those views he could be elected president of this country. Well he made quite a run for it and lasted longer than I thought he would. But what I can say for the former Senator, I can not say for Mitt Romney. He never wavered from his views no matter the criticism. I truly got a sense of who he is, what he
believes in and therefore what he would stand for as President. For all those things, I ended up having respect for someone with polar opposite views to mine. Ain't America grand? :-)

5) Arizona Abortion law. Arizona's senate recently passed a law banning abortions over 20 weeks gestation except in cases of harm to the mother.  The law also requires graphic images of abortions  on a state website and an ultrasound to be performed at least 24 hours prior to the abortion. The republican Governor is expected to sign it. Although I am pro-choice, I am not opposed to the 20 week ban. If an abortion has to be done, it should be done as soon as possible and 20 weeks is late in the growth and development of the fetus. 4 more weeks and it is viable-meaning it could live on its own outside the womb-in an ICU of course. I do not believe abortion should be used as a form of birth control. Women who are having unprotected sex should be vigilant about keeping track of their periods and taking regular pregnancy tests or consider the morning after pill which is available without a prescription. However, I think the ultrasound and pics are unnecessary scare tactics. I also think there should be more leniency in cases of rape, incest or if the fetus is found to have a life threatening illness.

Thoughts?

Who is Mitt?

Although I have been following the republican primary as I did 4 years ago when Mitt Romney was also running, I still do not have a clear idea as to who he is or where he stands on the issues. Maybe I have been thrown off by his Ken doll appearing good looks :-) or maybe it is because he seems to change his stance on things to fit popular opinions from state to state and from month to month. I will admit that if I was to play a word association game and someone said Mitt, I would respond Mormon. The next few things that come to mind are-he is rich, he is a former Governor of Massachusetts that passed health care reform during his term and he played a leading role in planning the Winter Olympics in Utah. But since it has become more obvious that he will be the Republican presidential nominee (someone please tell Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul), I felt it was time to take a closer look at Mr.Romney.
Basic facts:
1) He is from a political family. His father George W. Romney was a former Governor of Michigan and was also a CEO of American motors in Detroit. He was reelected twice as Governor. His father was considered a moderate republican and served as the United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under Richard Nixon. The Governor had a failed presidential run in 1968. His mother Lenore Romney had an unsuccessful 1970 campaign for US Senator in Michigan.
2)Education. He attended Stanford University for a year then received his undergraduate degree from Bringham Young University and earned a JD AND a MBA from Harvard University.
3)Early career. He worked in the management consulting business and eventually became the CEO of Bain and Company and co founder of Bain Capital- private equity investment firms. Under his leadership, Bain Capital was one of the largest in the country and as such he amassed great wealth.
4)Religion. He is a fifth generation member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.One of his great great grandfathers was an early leader of the church. Mitt spent 30 months of his early adult years in France as a Mormon missionary. He is therefore fluent in French.
5)Personal life. In 1969 he married his high school sweetheart Ann Davies and they have 5 sons. Mrs.Romney suffers from Multiple Sclerosis.
6)Wealth and Philanthropy. It is reported that Mr. and Mrs. Romney are worth approximately $250 million. Most of this wealth is held in trusts and the couple reportedly receives about 21 million a year for income. In 2011 they paid 3 million in taxes (only about 14%!) but they also gave over 3.5 million to charities including their church.
But what I think most people are interested in is Mr.Romney's political career and his stance on major issues.
7)Political career. In 1993, Mitt Romney changed his political affiliation from Independent to Republican and in 1994 ran against Senator Ted Kennedy for a Massachusetts senate seat. Ironically, he ran on the same platform in 1994 as he did in 2008 and 2012-a businessman who could create jobs and as a Washington outsider. He also stated he was an Independent during the Reagan-Bush era and did not plan to imitate their policies. He lost the election to Senator Kennedy.  In 2002 during his run for Governor, he stated he was not a partisan republican but a moderate with progressive views. He won the election and served one term ending in 2007. During the last 2 years of his term, Massachusetts had surpluses of $600-$700 million based on strategies such as spending cuts and removal of corporate tax holes (not very republican of him :-) and raising fees for things such as a gas retailer fee and driver's license fees.
8)Health Care Reform. This I found to be very interesting. Governor Romney decided to make a case for universal health care in the state based on the idea that people without insurance still received expensive health care and the money used to cover those expenses could be better used to pay for health insurance for the poor. He pushed for an individual mandate but did oppose a raise in taxes to cover the new plan. In the end, a new payroll tax was added and on April 12, 2006, Governor Romney signed the Massachusetts health reform law which requires the majority of residents in the state to buy health insurance or face penalties. Does any of this sound familiar? In 2010 when the President signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Act, Mr.Romney stated it was "an unconscionable abuse of power". (hmmm hypocrite?)
9)Gay marriage and civil unions. In 2004 Governor Romney supported an amendment that banned same sex marriages but would allow for civil unions. However in 2006 he supported an amendment  that banned both same sex marriages and civil unions. He then supported the Federal Marriage amendment that limits marriage in the United States to a union between one man and one woman. So no polygamy! Again interesting considering sects of the LDS church do practice polygamy.
10)Abortion. In 2002 he ran with pro-choice views but in 2005 he stated he changed to a pro-life position. As Governor he vetoed a bill that was overturned allowing for emergency contraception in hospitals and pharmacies.
11) Presidential aspirations. I think most of us remember this race. Part of the former governor's downfall was Senator Mccain and former Governor Mike Huckabee's characterization of him as a "flip flopper". (you think?). He also faced many questions about his faith that did not sit well with the conservative christian republican base. Are we in 2012 or 2008? This all sounds too familiar. He lost the nomination to Senator McCain but is now the front runner and likely soon to be the official Republican nominee.
12)Immigration-he supports legal immigration but is against illegal immigration and in state tuition for illegal immigrants. He opposes the DREAM act. He supports English as the official language with English immersion classes. He supports the idea of a border fence.
13)The Economy. He recently stated "Apply Reaganomics to the current recession:cut taxes and grow" (didn't I write somewhere above that he previously ran on a platform of being against Reagan-Bush policies?) "Corporations are people. Cut the corporate tax rate". In 2010 he stated the US didn't bail out wall street- that we prevented financial failure. But he later stated the government should have forced the auto industry into managed bankruptcies.
I could go on and on..... but I think author Daniel Gross summed it up quite well. He sees Romney as "approaching politics in the same terms as a business competing in markets, in that successful executives do not hold firm to public stances over long periods of time, but rather constantly devise new strategies and plans to deal with new geographical regions and ever-changing market conditions".
I have no problem with his wealth or his religion. He seems like a nice guy. I admire his success because that is what all Americans should strive to be-successful. Also, I do not disagree with his previous stances on spending cuts, removal of corporate tax holes and being pro-choice. And I definitely agree with and commend his passage of health care reform in Massachusetts and his current stance on illegal immigration. But herein lies my issue with the former Governor. It appears that for his presidential runs in 2008 and presently, he has become more conservative by the minute to appeal to his party's base. He continues to "flip flop" on issues. Everyone has a right to change their opinions, but are these new opinions sincere or does he have his eye on the prize and will do and say anything to get there? If he is elected, which Mitt Romney will the country be getting? The pre 2007 Mitt or the post?
Again I ask-Who is Mitt?
Thoughts?

Universal Healthcare IE "Obamacare". Why Not???

This week the United States Supreme Court will be hearing arguments for and against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) aka "Obamacare" that was passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by President Obama in March of 2010. Side note- I had to look up the origin of the term "Obamacare". It has been used by the right in such a derogatory way and now by people in general when referring to universal health care. In turns out that in March of 2007 a lobbyist used several similar terms in a health care article-"Giuliani-care", "Edwards-care", "McCain-care" and a revamped "Hilary-care" etc. Mitt Romney later described "Hilary-care" and "Obama-care" as socialized medicine. President Obama and Democrats are now trying to "take back the word"  by saying "Yes, Obama Cares". Lol! The point is, why has this idea been met with such criticism? Recent polls show that as many as 60% of Americans are against the "individual mandate" part of the law that requires everyone to pay for and acquire health insurance if not provided by their employer or face a penalty. 26 states have filed lawsuits against the law calling it unconstitutional.
I will not pretend that I have read every page of the PPACA and some of what I have read, I do not understand. I do know that from personal experience, I was shouting from the rooftops that insurance companies cannot deny coverage based on preexisting conditions. Isn't it the sick and disabled that need insurance the most? But what I am most confused about comes from those opposed to "big government" stating that the government should not be able to tell us that we must have health insurance.
But the government has told us that we must do a lot of things and buy a lot of things that people do not seem to be opposed to. For instance,
1) Children are required to go to school. This may be public, private or at home but every child must attend school or parents can be arrested. Well what if parents don't believe in school and would prefer to raise their children without any knowledge and unable to read or write? Hmm, that would be detrimental to society on a whole so it wouldn't be a good idea.
2) Everyone is required to have automobile insurance. Even if you are the safest driver in the history of driving and you have never been in a car accident, you must spend hundreds or thousands of dollars every year for car insurance. Some states have minimums that you must purchase for collision, bodily injury etc. But why? Isn't this wasted money since you don't plan to ever be in an accident? Well, since there is no guarantee that you wont cause or be involved in an accident, you must purchase it or face penalties or arrest. And what about wearing seat belts? Should you be forced to wear one or get a ticket? Why? You will probably only harm yourself if you are in an accident and get thrown the car so why should it matter to anyone else and be made into a law?
3)Home insurance. You are required by your mortgage dealer/banks to have home insurance. Why? What if you plan to take good care of your home therefore nothing bad would ever cause damage to it? And what if you do not live in a hurricane, tornado, mudslide or earthquake area? Why should you have to spend money you may not have paying a home insurance bill every month just in case something happens? I lived in a townhouse on a small lake that had no history of  flooding but I was required to purchase and have flood insurance. It made no sense to me but it was the law.
So now back to universal health care. You could be the healthiest person in your family or state, get a clean bill of health from your doctor, walk out of the doctor's office and be hit by a car. Sad but true. You are then rushed to the hospital and require emergency surgery and a long hospitalization to save your life but you have no health insurance. Who pays for it? Those that DO have health insurance.
Being in the health care industry, everyday I see the drain uninsured "self pay" patients put on the system. Those that have health insurance often pay higher premiums in order to cover the expenses of those that do not. Or, the hospitals and clinics eat up the cost and stay in the red for providing services to those that do not have health insurance.
At the heart of the matter is whether Congress, protected by the Constitution, can regulate "interstate commerce" by enforcing an individual mandate requiring everyone to have minimal health insurance coverage. Again, if it is not covered by your employer, medicaid or medicare, you will have to purchase it. There are subsidies that would be in place to help with such costs and a max that individuals and families would have to spend. Of course both sides have credible arguments for and against the individual mandate but from what I have read, since individuals not having insurance in any state can affect the national economy, I say the government has every right to pass such a law.
In conclusion, I feel the more people learn about the benefits of universal health care and the full details of the PPACA, the term "Obamacare" will elicit much less fear. For more information go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act
Also, although Michael Moore's views are far more liberal than mine, I thought his documentary "Sicko" was very informative. Why should prisoners and detainees at Guantanamo Bay be the only ones in this country that have universal health care with medical, dental and visual coverage? To make it worst, they get it for free. But for those that can afford it, let us all contribute to and lessen the costs of health care by all of us having health insurance.
The Supreme Court will render a decision by June. Will the majority say yeah or nay?
Thoughts?

Poor Trayvon. Please sign the petition at www.change.org/trayvon?

These are the words that keep going through my head this past week. I appreciate the "?" at the end of the petition link. It is a question. Why did this young boy have to die?
Although it is a legal vs political issue, how can I not post about something that has truly affected me along with this entire nation.
For those of you that have been living under a rock :-), Trayvon Martin is a 17year old black teen that was shot to death by a neighborhood watch captain in a gated community in central Florida. He was a cute teen, small in build that had never been in any trouble. His only crimes were being black, wearing a hoodie and walking through his own neighborhood on his way back from the convenience store. He was carrying ice tea and a box of skittles. Mr.Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch captain, saw him walking through the neighborhood and called 911. Even though Trayvon was not committing a crime. He then followed him against the advice of the 911 operator, got out of his car with a gun and approached Trayvon. He claimed an altercation occurred and he shot him in self defense. He was taller and about 100 pounds heavier than Trayvon. He has not been arrested which has led to a public outcry including school walkouts, marches, vigils and even the President and players in the NBA making a stance and posting pictures of themselves in hoodies (sweatshirts with hoods).
This case has brought up several issues that I would like to discuss. 1)Racial profiling 2)Hate crimes 3) "Stand Your Ground" laws.
1) Racial profiling. The police are often accused of doing this. Everyone has heard the stories of black men in expensive cars being pulled over. Why? Because they are black men in expensive cars. Minorities of both races in rich all white communities are also often targets. Why? Because it is felt that they don't belong. How many black people have been followed around by security guards-sometimes also black-in expensive stores such as Gucci or Louis Vuitton? Why? Because the thought process is-since they probably cant afford such items, they will steal them. But this behavior is not unique to security guards or police officers. We all have prejudices based on race, age,sex and culture. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. I know it is true even of myself. If I am in my car alone at 2am, stopped at a red light and a bright turquoise "hooptie" car on high wheels, with thick rims, blasting loud music pulls up next to me, I would not think twice about running the red light out of fear of being car jacked or followed. Yes, I said it because it is true. I think the best example of racial profiling and prejudice is the Oscar winning film- CRASH. Everyone should watch that movie. Everyone should own up to their own prejudices and deal with them. Everyone should be aware of how they may affect how you treat others. Be aware that such treatment could unknowingly turn out deadly.
2) Hate crimes. Over the years I have been torn about this issue. Harsher and longer penalties given to those who commit crimes due to hatred of a particular race or creed. For instance, killing someone because he or she is gay and you hate gay people vs killing someone just because it was part of a robbery, rape, or you just felt like it. To me, somehow getting more jail time for one murder over the other felt as if one life was worth more than the other. I personally feel any murder or horrific crime warrants life in prison or the death penalty no matter what the motive is. However, recent cases have made me realize that we must take a stance that this nation will not stand for crimes against anyone solely out of hate. To make the penalties harsher or longer may deter those that target a particular group of people. In Mississippi, 3 men recently plead guilty to federal hate crimes after running over and beating a black man to death. A black man that they randomly found and attacked in a hotel parking lot because they hate N***. A Rutgers University student was recently found guilty of a hate crime for spying on his gay roommate via a web cam and discussing it on twitter. He denies doing so out of hate or that he is homophobic. His roommate committed suicide a few days later. And now the Trayvon Martin case. The man who admits to shooting and killing him is half Hispanic and denies being racist. How then can he explain his suspicions of this young teen, his decision to call 911, hunt him down and kill him without provocation? So yes, I now believe in the federal hate crime legislation that was passed in 2009. We must make it clear that in America these obscene behaviors and crimes will not be tolerated.
3) The "Stand Your Ground" law. Florida was the first to pass this law in 2005 (why am I not surprised). Since then 16 more states have passed similar laws. It allows someone to use deadly force if they "reasonably believe" they must defend themselves from a threat. Since 2005, there has been an increase in shootings of unarmed individuals were self defense was claimed and therefore the shooter was not arrested or prosecuted. Proponents of the law state that it was intended for people to protect themselves from home invasion or real physical danger such as rape or a serious physical attack. None of the above is the case with this watch captain who was warm and safe in his car with his gun who chose to follow Trayvon and get out of his car with such gun to approach and antagonize the smaller unarmed teen. Even supporters of the law have spoken out against Mr.Zimmerman's actions and state shooting in self defense must require a real fear that your life is in danger.Those who oppose the law basically call it a license to kill and based on the statistics, I somewhat agree. In the end, if this neighborhood watch captain is able to get away with murder based on this law, it surely needs to be revisited and reworded or revoked!
Thoughts?

Habla Ingles?!

This may be my most controversial blog post but if I can not speak my mind on my own blog, where can I speak it? So here goes...
This is for "frustrated" based on many conversations we have had on the topic which was recently brought back to our attention thanks to former Senator Rick Santorum. While campaigning in Puerto Rico, he stated that if PR wished to become a state, they should adopt English as their official language. lol! I thought this was yet another comical statement by Mr.Santorum. Since Puerto Rico is a Spanish country, why would they make English the official language? But it also made me rethink the idea of English being the official language of the United States. In many countries such as the Australia, United Kingdom and the United States, English is the predominant language spoken and used in government but it is not the official language. However, it is the official language in certain states. I just read on wikipedia that 96% of the US population claims to speak English "well" or "very well". Seriously?
Spanish is the second most common language in the US and is spoken by 12% of the population. So why does it feel more like 50%?! I know. I know. I am biased since I live in the Miami area but honestly, even when I lived in the Northeast, I had the same feeling.
There have been several attempts to make English the official language in the United States but the bills have been met with opposition and have not passed. Why? I do not understand the resistance to this. It is a fact that America is a melting pot. Built on the backs of immigrants (and slaves-yes I had to go there) from all over the world. And what happened when they came from different countries all speaking their native tongue? They learned English to communicate with one another. How can we be the best country we can be if we do not have one common spoken and written language?
I do think it is wonderful to be fluent in different languages. During the times I have been in Europe, I envied travel companions who were fluent in French, Italian and Spanish. However, before I went to those countries, I learned basic words and phrases. Also, my foreign language handbooks never left my side. On the contrary, I have never seen Spanish speaking people in the US with an English translation handbook.
In addition, I will admit it. I get a bit annoyed when people suggest I become fluent in Spanish due to the population I serve. But isn't that enabling? Why isn't there any expectation or obligation from all immigrants to learn English? And should I also become fluent in Creole since there is a large Haitian population here? If I move to an area with a large Vietnamese population, will I also be told to learn that? Although the Hispanic population is now the largest minority population in the US, is it fair that Spanish is the language most people expect Americans to learn and speak forsaking all others? I think not.
I totally understand that it is not easy as an adult to learn a new language. I am sure it is even more difficult if there is a low level of education achieved. But in my opinion, there are many missed opportunities. For instance, why cant Spanish TV channels in the US have English subtitles? Since driving is a necessity for most people, how about a temporary driver's license requiring the exam be taken in English within a year in order to have a permanent license? When patients are admitted to hospitals there are many educational channels in Spanish. Why not have channels that teach English? Is there any one who can deny that having bilingual everything in this country, including customer service messages, allows a person to live their entire life in this country without ever learning English?
In addition, on a personal note, I do not think it is OK to have a job requirement in America of being fluent in Spanish. Unless that occupation is teaching English! lol. I have seen many such listings in my medical journals and have thought to myself- I went to school for 11 years after high school, sacrificed a great deal, spent an enormous amount of money but I am limited as to where I can work as a pediatrician because I am not fluent in Spanish. I cannot imagine being a parent and having to take my child to the hospital for an emergency but not being able to tell the doctors what the problem is. I could not live in a foreign country and not make every attempt to learn their language if only for that reason alone. I could not rely on or assume that wherever I went, someone could be found in person or over the phone that spoke English. Which brings me to my next point...
Is there any other country that would allow this? Based on just vacationing there, I dare anyone to move to France and expect the French to learn your language! Immigrants from non-Spanish speaking countries find a way to learn English in America because they have no choice. Shouldn't that be our strategy? For now, I would at least like for my Spanish speaking patients to say to me "no comprende" or "no habla ingles" instead of looking at me and listening to me speak English for a full 5 minutes saying nothing. Forcing me to ask- "habla ingles?".
Thoughts?

Bring Our Troops Home.

I was so incredibly saddened to hear of the American soldier who is accused of shooting 16 civilians including 9 children in Afghanistan. In his 10 years of military service he has served 3 tours in Iraq and was  upset, along with his family, to learn that he would be deployed to Afghanistan. Everyone that knows him is shocked by his actions and one can only assume he was pushed to his breaking point and possibly suffering from post traumatic shock disorder.
I have absolutely no idea what it must be like to serve in a war. Hero is not strong enough of a word for men and women who volunteer to serve and give their lives protecting our country and freedom. I personally feel enough is enough. To expect any of them to serve 4 tours in war zones seems excessive. Either we need more soldiers or we need to scale back our presence in so many countries. And we definitely do not need to start any more wars. Going to war in Afghanistan after 911 to bring down the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden has in my opinion been too costly in dollars as well as in lives. Yes I am glad Osama is dead but have we really done anything to deter Al Qaeda? The Iraq war based on "weapons of mass destruction" was a farce. And now there is talk of going to war in Syria and Iran. Is it completely naive of me to believe "leave us alone and we will do the same"?! I understand we have to protect our interests abroad and I understand that we can not sit back as Americans and watch horrible dictators kill and slaughter their own people. But why is it always the US that is the leader in such causes and therefore with the most lives lost? And no one likes to admit this but isn't it true that our actions abroad and interference in other countries is what leads to actions by terrorists like 911? We have military bases in hostile territories all through the Middle East. We are not modest about our western culture and Americans feel our democratic system is a must for all. But I do not believe it is. I can understand why many countries hate the arrogance of Americans and want them out of their country to the point of attacking us here on our own.
As you can tell from above I am no Condoleeza Rice. I am not well versed in issues of National Security. I am just a citizen who is heart broken by the effects of these wars. I want all world leaders to think hard and long before attacking each other. I want our troops home and safe with their families.
Thoughts?

The truth about gas prices! (not President Obama's fault)

I am sick of the politicizing of gas prices. I found the following article to be very helpful. The blame game is just not cute especially when educated people know better. AND, why would any world leader cause gas prices to go up or not do everything in their power to bring them down during an election year?! SMDH
http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2012/02/28/president-obamas-role-in-current-gas-prices/

Voter ID Law

The Justice Dept blocked a law in Texas that would require voters to show a photo ID. They felt the law could disenfranchise thousands of Hispanic voters in the state. The case will now go to a federal court in Washington DC. Hispanic voters in Texas are twice as likely as non-Hispanic voters to not have some form of photo identification. Apparently other states have similar laws pending final approval and most have been created by republican legislators and governors. Democrats feel these laws discriminate against people who usually vote democratic such as the poor, African-Americans, Hispanics and college students.
But what am I missing here?! I had no idea you did not need some type of photo identification to vote!!
Two days ago I reminded my 20 year old cousin to register to vote. She does not have a drivers license but she does have a school photo ID.
You need a photo ID to order an alcoholic drink or buy liquor in a store, buy tickets for an R rated movie (well back in the day you did ;-), enter a bar, buy cigarettes and to drive an automobile. New travel laws require a passport, not even a photo ID or license, in order to go in and out of the country. Shouldn't you need some type of photo ID to vote?
My bigger question is, how would you know the person voting is actually that person? How would the pollsters know if you are really 18 years of age or older and an American citizen with the right to vote? If an ID is used that does not have a photo, what stops that person from sharing that ID and passing it on to other people to use to vote? Is there a system that checks that that person has already voted in some other part of the city, county or state?
I understand that it may be too close to the election to make such a requirement for this year but I see no reason for this not to be a requirement in the future.
Thoughts?

Is there such a thing as being too PC??

There have been many news stories that have made me question the fine line between freedom of speech and being politically correct. These include descriptions of Jeremy Lin as "chink in armor", having a picture of him coming out of a fortune cookie, Roland Martin tweeting about smacking guys at Super Bowl parties that liked David Beckham's TV commercial, Karl Lagerfeld saying Adele was "a little too fat" and Kirk Cameron saying being gay was "unnatural and detrimental to society".
I think Bill Maher had the right idea to name his show "Politically Incorrect". It warns viewers in advance if you can't handle his freedom of speech, don't watch. The same goes for tuning into any known shock jock radio show. No one can act surprised if they tune into Howard Stern and hear him talking about sex or listening to a conservative shock jock that illustrates the "absurd with absurdity". Unfortunately that is not the case if someone is watching mainstream television, reading the newspaper or following someone on twitter.
As a black woman I have been victim to many racial slurs and hateful acts as a child due to my skin color. Therefore, I am very sensitive to the matter. I do believe no one should say things that are meant to be purposefully cruel. But how about people who say things without the intention of being racist? Yes they should be educated but should we rush to judgement that they are racist? Are there comments that in the spur of moment are meant to just be funny and should be overlooked vs getting an immediate suspension from your job? IE Roland Martin's comment. I do agree that if you are a journalist or TV personality you have to always choose your words more carefully but he did not make his comments on CNN. He did so on his personal twitter account.
As for freedom of speech-doesn't everyone have a right to their opinions along with the right to express them? Is there anyone who looked at Adele and didn't think as Karl Lagerfeld did? Granted I do not see a reason to have been vocal about her weight since she is not a personal trainer. She is a singer with enormous talent which Mr.Lagerfeld also mentioned. But did his comments really warrant a call to boycott Chanel? And I can not help feeling bad for Kirk Cameron. Even though I do not agree with him, he has the right to express himself just as the supporters of gay rights do.
In the end, I think we could all stand to loosen up a bit and laugh more. For those that are known to have racist views and use inappropriate and derogatory terms on a regular basis, then I say "off with their heads". (Kidding).
Thoughts?

Super Tuesday!

Mitt Romney wins Ohio and is the clear winner of the day however the other candidates have committed to fighting until the end. Really? Seriously? I can understand Rick Santorum staying in the race but can anyone explain to me why Newt Gingrich, even if he did win Georgia and hopes to win more southern states, is staying in the race? not to mention Ron Paul? Do we really have to wait until the convention in August for a winner to be declared?
Some have said this is good for the President and the democratic party since the republican primaries have been a bit ugly and millions of dollars have been spent on negative ads that are leaving a bad taste in the mouth of most voters. Others have said that this fight will make the ultimate winner stronger and better able to take on the president in the fall. Also, having several candidates remaining in the race raises various issues and generates useful debates. Could it also be a ploy by the candidates to gain cabinet positions or a selection for vice president if one of them is elected? That seemed to work well for Hilary Clinton.
After all of this fighting will the candidates be able to come together and support the eventual nominee?
I am not quite sure where I stand on this but I do I think August to November is too short a period to have the republican nominee and the president debate and campaign against each other.
However it goes, I do hope the extreme partisan politics that currently exists improves over the next 4 years. I truly hope there can be some middle ground on the issues and get bills, laws and doctrines passed that can benefit this country as a whole.
Thoughts?
P.S. Sarah Palin w her hubby on CNN casting her vote in Alaska wearing a NRA shirt. Visions of the SNL weekend update skit comes to mind. Hilarious!

A Rare Apology!

I will not mention his name on my site but a conservative radio talk show host made a rare apology today about the remarks he made this past week directed at a Georgetown Law school student that testified at a congressional hearing about the cost of birth control. I will not mention his name since I believe he is an extreme conservative shock jock that spews hateful and insulting words on a regular basis. It is hard to believe anyone can truly feel this way. It is also hard to believe he is so judgemental after so many failed marriages and after being addicted to prescription drugs.
But as shocking as this was for me, I have to admit that for the first time EVER I agree with what he said in his apology. An apology however that I am sure was not done out of sincerity but out of fear of losing his radio show after several sponsors have pulled out due to his comments.
His statement is below:
"I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in any one's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.
My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices"
Thoughts?

The Great Birth Control Debate

Debates, disagreements and division. It is a wonder anything ever gets passed in Washington these days. "Can't we all just get along?" :-) or at least meet somewhere in the middle?
Today the Senate voted to uphold the President's birth control policy and against a republican plan to allow employers and health insurance companies to deny "specific items or services" for women, including birth control, if they felt it went against their religious or moral beliefs.
President Obama's health care law that passed in 2010 stated that most insurers must cover preventative services for women including all contraceptive drugs and devices without a copay or deductible. Churches were exempt but not church-affiliated schools, hospitals etc. There was an uproar about it last month with protests from the Catholic church. (sidebar-how did the President or his administration think that there wouldn't be? Just like the Susan G.Komen/Planned Parenthood debacle. I wonder how these decisions come about in a meeting without the majority realizing that it ain't gonna fly! That there will be backlash and unnecessary bad publicity?! Who are their PR reps?!))
Anyway, President Obama offered a compromise in which the church-affiliated organizations/employers would not have to foot the bill but that the insurance companies must provide these services at no cost to the patients. But the republicans are not in agreement of such compromise hence the debate and vote today.
I remember being a resident at Georgetown University hospital. I am also Catholic but yes I was having premarital sex in a committed relationship. I was doing what I thought was the responsible thing by taking birth control and preventing an unwanted pregnancy. I do remember how costly it was since my health insurance through this Jesuit university did not cover it. But I understood where I was and understood why it was not covered. I preferred the cost over the consequence.
I wish the church and others would see that allowing free and easy access to different types of birth control would lessen the use of the morning after pill, would lessen the amount of abortions performed and the amount of unwanted babies born. But first they would have to be convinced that premarital sex is not a sin and that abstinence programs don't work. Soooo, I need another plan.
However, I am not sure why employers or insurance companies have to provide FREE contraception. It is a choice to have sex. If you are doing so without the intent to procreate then duh-you should use birth control and you should contribute to the cost of such birth control. I see nothing wrong with there being a copay or deductibles applied for birth control in those that can afford to do so.
Thoughts?