Health Care Pt. 2

First I think it is important for me to say that I commend the president for pushing health care reform. Someone had to initiate these talks and he certainly has done that. Nothing this major has been tried for well over a decade. We had a republican president and democrat congress for part of that time although there was a 2 year period where republicans had a majority in congress and nothing was done.

There is a lot of talk concerning preexisting conditions. No in order to prevent insurance from not accepting those with preexisting conditions, basically means the requirement of everyone citizen to have health insurance. Can't just let people wait till they get sick to go and get health insurance. That throws an automatic loss on to a companies books and is not fair at all. I also understand why insurance currently makes it very difficult for someone with a preexisting condition to get anything affordable. So it seems to me that you must have a public option or free health care if you make this practice illegal.

That would bring us to a public option which I am completely against. It seems like a way to a single payer system in the future. As time goes on and costs spiral for the public option the government will simply change the rules to make this system more affordable and favorable for them. Furthermore, how can a private company compete with the government? Government makes the rules. Government has an unlimited budget. Government doesn't have to make a profit. Government has far less business related costs. I heard the president say they will do things to even out the playing field. Yet, in a bill so large it seems that many loop holes will remain. And why would we believe the government can control costs of something as large as this? The president says he won't pass anything that adds to the budget but I don't see how a public option won't. You will have a heavy influx of people who you will now have to pay for. How much can those who can't afford it now really pay? And how much will you have to supplement them? We already give people money in this country when they don't make enough money. Now we will be giving them more. Also won't people try and go to the doctor more frequently? I just don't see the balanced budget occurring without all the extremely optimistic savings they expect coming to fruition.

Democrats and liberals say the public option will create competition to drive down costs. Republicans and conservatives have other methods that they think will create competition such as removing state to state borders. Neither of these answer the question I have. Why does it cost so much? If the cost of health care does not come down nothing else seems to matter. So why not just focus on bringing down cost? All this can't just be blamed on the insurance companies. I heard on the radio recently that insurance companies have relatively low profit margins compared to other industries. I hope that congress doesn't vilify CEOs of this industry like they did AIG. Their salary and bonus information was requested by congress. Seems like their is only one good reason to want that information.

This brings me to looking at tort reform. Tort is any wrongdoing for which an action for damages may be brought. Lawsuits basically. The cost of doing business for doctors is so high because of the insurance they have to pay for themselves. They often practice defensive medicine because of this. Why not cap the amount suits can be for? Or something. The law suits and things are getting out of hand. Tort reform seems like it should be one of the first things on the table.

And where are the health care providers going to come from? We already have a shortage without all the uncovered. Fewer medical students want to become primary care doctors because there is no money to be made, but primary care physicians are the first line of health care. This means there is a definite need for more primary care doctors, otherwise even if more people have insurance where will they get the care? For those who do have it, this may end up creating more of a wait for you.

I'm just bringing up things that I have thought about and that I think we should all be concerned with. In the end, no system will be perfect. We must hope that are political leaders put their differences aside and truly work together to come up with the best bill possible. At this point, they have not done that. In fact, since the new administration has come in things have been very partisan. 90% support from one side and 5% support from the other. Being the centrist that I am, legislation of this magnitude being forced through by one side would be very disappointing. It would probably cause my voting to change in the coming years.

Health Care Pt. 1

President. Get it together playa. From where I sit your leadership is looking real suspect. You champion this cause yet you hadn't read the bill while you were out promoting it. Though no specific bill exists yet. But in the press conference I watched, you had no answers. You just stated the problem and why there was a need for change. IS that what a leader does? Is that what one does about a topic that is supposed to be so important? You came with no answers. You were just a salesman. Very disappointing. Furthermore you like all the other politicians continue to lie or use misleading information. For example, the AARP was not behind your plan yet on several occasions you said they were. You like others continue to throw this misleading number of 46 million uninsured. In reality, this number only includes those who were uninsured at any period during the year. So that includes those in between jobs. That also includes illegal aliens and those who can afford to buy health insurance but choose not not. That number also includes those who are eligible for other government care but either have not applied, are unaware, or don't care. So that number is probably half of that. Also Mr. President, please stop using the example of the post office and ups and fedex. That is a silly example to me. Sure those are private companies doing well against a public option. I think their target business is a bit different first of all. But your example is perfect for showing how government can't run something right and the private sector can. The post office is always losing money and constantly raising stamp costs. So why would that argument with a little thought, want me to go with the idea of you creating a public option that would be just like the post office? Point to a government program that works financially if there is one. (And if someone knows a major federal program that runs under budget consistently please let me know).

A big misconception out there to me is that health care is the problem. Really, health insurance, access, and cost are the problems. The quality of our health care is some of the best in the world. The problem lies in getting more access to people and controlling the rising cost. These should be the main issues that we focus on. Coming up with ways to change these problems. I've heard several ideas that seem plausible from both sides (rep. and dems). I can even understand doing a major over haul with the thought that some things will only work in conjunction with others. What I don't understand is with this being such a major thing, why rush it? I've always heard the haste makes waste. Only reason I can think of is that you wanted to avoid what is happening now. A lot of scrutiny on the topic. But something this major should be scrutinized. Will it make it more difficult to pass? Yes. It will also hopefully make the bill better for all of us at the same time if it does pass. What I hope is that you and your party don't just push it through because you have the votes. Republicans have good ideas too.

Speaking of republicans. Ya'll are ridiculous. Stop all the whining and complaining about everything. I hear more complaints than ideas from you. All you should be pushing is your ideas and explaining why they are better. When there is only one idea being heard it certainly sounds better than anything else. I know you don't want single payer and public options. Neither do I. But what is it that you want and why will it work the best? The other party are using your words talking about creating competition to lower costs. Show other ways to do that if you have them.

Town Hall Anger.

There are some lively people out there right now at these town hall meeting to discuss health care. Seriously upset people. Nice to see that Americans can be as passionate about this type of thing in the same manner we tend to be about sports or American Idol. I personally think they are getting out of hand. I just don't see what is productive about anyone protesting the way they are. There is a time and place for everything. These town halls are supposed to be for discussion and education. How can that get done when everyone wants to just scream and chant stuff. You aren't even taking the time to fully understand what you are for or against.

The behavior of politicians condemning and exciting these people is disappointing. Typical politics though. Democrats call them angry mobs and un-American. Refer to them as using brown shirt tactics, which is a reference to nazi tactics. Really? Remember our citizens in New Orleans being called refugees? They also choose to say this is all being organized by republicans. All this really does is distract the talk from the facts which I think they want because they don't have all the facts now. They also fear people won't like what they hear. The administration is even asking for people to start snitching on anyone they hear or see putting out what may be false information or information against the bill. For what? They gonna make a list? Sounds very controlling to me. What do they need that information for. Scary to me that they would even start something like that.

Now the republicans aren't much better. Their leadership doesn't exactly denounce the behavior. They slyly say things like its wrong but I can't control them. That sentiment comes from the RNC head Mr. Steele. Others just come out and put lies out there about euthanasia, courtesy of Sarah Palin. Radio talk hosts seem to encourage the behavior as well. Their motivation? I don't know. I guess to get people to see how angry people are about the bill. Get the attention of others to see what all the fuss is about.

It seems they just play upon the public. Most people lie somewhere in the middle of all this and just want to know what is really going on. They want there representation to read and understand what they are voting for. Simple things to ask of elected officials. But they like to play both sides against each other in the media. I really wish we didn't have parties. Then maybe people would just vote on what they felt was right or what their constituents wanted them to vote for. But that just doesn't seem realistic.

Legalize marijuana!

I am all about legalizing weed. In fact, I would probably help campaign for it. The fact that it is not legal makes absolutely no sense. NONE! All arguments are false. For the record, I have never smoked weed in my life and probably never will. But our last 3 presidents definitely have, and one of them even admits to using cocaine. If I had it my way all drugs would be legal in some regulated fashion but that is another story.

It is simply absurd that alcohol and cigarettes are legal but not marijuana. I have been around all three heavily in my lifetime. Weed is definitely the best of the three. Weed doesn't damage your liver or lungs. Weed isn't addictive. There is no serious withdrawal affects. Alcohol related crimes are way higher than weed. I've rarely seen an angry high person, but I frequently see angry and violent drunks. That kourage koolaid ain't nothing to play with. Yet, weed is the one that is not legal.

Some have the argument that weed is a gateway drug. Bullshit. Most people I know that smoke don't do more than smoke. They don't get high as much as I see smokers toting. Hell, if anything is a gateway it is alcohol or cigarettes. I don't know a single cheefer that doesn't smoke cigarettes or drink, or have done those at some point in the past. The gates are opened with either alcohol or cigarettes.

Financial considerations. How much money could we bring in if we taxed weed like we do cigarettes and alcohol? A ridiculous amount. How much would we save from not having to prosecute, monitor, and incarcerate? Another large sum. Maybe we wouldn't be losing lives at the borders in Mexico right now. How would the peace pipe help negotiations with our leaders? But seriously, if weed was legal right now in America it would easily be in the top 5 agricultural products out there. At first there may be some cost to crack down on your neighborhood dealer, but eventually that would go away. I mean, why buy it illegally and risk trouble when it is right at the corner store? How often do we go get moonshine now?

Then comes the kids. Whatever. Beer commercials are everywhere. They say kids who smoke do worse in school. How many of those did bad before they started smoking? They don't tell that stat though. I understand there are studies that show weed affects a developing brain just like alcohol and most other drugs would. Weed makes people lazy. This is one of the things I tend to believe from what I've seen. But really, those people were just as lazy before they started smoking. We have already seen you can make it to the highest office after smoking weed. Entertainers smoke. Some of the richest and brightest people in the world smoke. Hell, our president can't quit smoking cigarettes but he stopped smoking weed.

I truly don't get all the high and mighty feeling about weed being so bad. If someone can give me some good reasons why it is not then I am willing to listen. Only reason I can think of is that the government hasn't figured out a good way to control it and tax it.

AIG - After It's Gone ...

You can't be trying to take it back. This of course is in reference to AIG and all the "outrage" about bonuses people their are owed. I think a majority of the people in this country would want money they are owed. If you take a job or remain at a job because of a contractual agreement to be paid some amount of money you would expect that money to be paid if you meet your obligation. Many of the bonus' at AIG are retention bonuses. These are given if you remain at a company over an agreed upon time period. This bonus has nothing to do with performance. Whether you agree with this practice or not doesn't matter. They are given in hopes that critical people remain in difficult times or in transition. If their performance is not up to par during this period then fire their ass. If you don't, pay them what they are due. The money they are owed should be part of that company's operating cost. Why Americans are mad at these people for getting what they are due is beyond me. Most of us would want ours. I know I would and America's anger wouldn't make me lose one bit of sleep.

Any anger that is there should be directed towards Congress. Yet they are managing to turn this around on the executives and AIG. They (Congress) rushed the bill that gave them the money with the stipulation in it which says the bonuses can be paid from those funds. It has also been shown that many of those in the administration and congress are former employees of companies that have received bailout money and have friends who probably are getting these bonuses. Geithner was the head of the NY Federal Reserve which gave the first bail out money. They were informed (depending on who you believe). Yet he didn't know? OooooK. Then he says he didn't know until the 10th of March, but there is footage of someone directly asking him about said bonus' at least a week in advance. He is a liar. Most of them are. Our treasury secretary doesn't even want to pay his own taxes. Or he made a mistake. But surely that would make him unqualified to be over the treasury right? How he got the job and still has it at this point seem questionable. Hope he is as valuable as they say. I will continue to pray for him to make good decisions for this country. Anyways, both parties have received millions in contributions from these companies and AIG in particular. None of this strikes us as odd?

But it is taxpayer money. Okay, renegotiate with those people about their money. Don't just tell them they can't have it. And if it is about waste, let us look at Congress and how much they blow with pointless trips and meals. Before Obama first spoke to Congress some of them waited in excess of 8 hours to get good seats. That is good spending of our money though. These people are funny. Taking this as a chance to grand stand and point fingers.

How about we just gut congress and start fresh? This all goes back to Congress and the administration making a mistake in the first place. Own up to it. If any normal person lends someone money and they don't spend it how they thought it would be spent you can't just tell them they can't do that. The money is gone at that point. But no, we are going to let government do whatever they want. Forget the sanctity of a contract as a legal document. We are the government, we do what we want. No one sees this as a problem? But hey, they rushed TARP through and the second stimulus bill. See what that is getting us? Surely there will be more stories of money going places citizens wouldn't want it. We already see companies AIG owed double dipping because they got money directly from the bailout and now indirectly from debt owed to them from AIG. I guess the best solution is to rush something else through congress to fix their mistake because rushing has worked so well in the past. They use fear and anger marvelously. Already these huge bills are just becoming common and we are desensitized to the amounts. It is just like, "oh, they are spending another trillion. Okay."

Fortunately today I heard something from our president along the lines of let us not pass something in haste because of anger. I am writing this post out of anger/frustration. Frustration because people think it is okay to say someone can't have something they are contractually obligated to receive. I don't care who gave the money. They are owed that money. And then for that money to amount to such a small percentage of the total given (.001%). Whether or not these people get their money won't cause them to recover faster or slower. It just looks good to not let them have and makes those of us who are struggling feel better.

The government felt/feels compelled to bail out AIG. Part of that includes money owed to employees just the same as money owed to other companies AIG is in debt to. They didn't want to pay that then they should have stipulated that money could not go there or not bail them out. But we have to bail them out? Really? Are they sure? Do they really understand how all this works? They don't have time to understand the damn legislation they write themselves.

Chimp to Guerrilla

First off, I had to go look up how to spell guerrilla. Akeelah would kick my ass.

Of course everyone is now aware of the chimpanzee incident and the NY Post cartoon which followed. As for the incident, what the hell would make a person think having a 200lb chimp as a pet makes sense? They are like 2x the strength of humans. You should never have a pet which if things go bad you can't handle. If any of my friends or anyone I know has a pet like this, I'm not going in your damn house. I know this is ignorant to say, but these people could not have been black. Although we are starting to do more and more of the things one would tend to think blacks don't do.

Now for the Post. WTF. This magazine first of all is all about shock journalism and things like that so to give them too much credit is a mistake. This is the same paper that had "A-Hole" on the front. The person who drew the cartoon could be racist, but I don't know and don't think so. I really think they were just trying to get attention and sell papers at a time when papers aren't doing so well. But, to try and justify it as if people wouldn't associate the chimp with the president is trying our intelligence. Someone at the paper thought about what someone might infer from the picture. True, Obama did not write the bill but the bill is associated with him and everyone knows that. That stimulus bill will define his presidency. So I don't believe for a second they didn't figure someone would take that cartoon that way. If they wanted to poke fun at congress they could have had more chimps, or put a sign on the chimp with congress written on it. The whole thing just lacked taste. Because of the history with blacks and monkeys they could have picked a different animal even though the chimp story was out there.

Honestly I'm not upset though. Not offended either. For those who are, I understand. I'm just tired of every time something happens black people making it into something big. Or how the world is against us and blah blah blah... Sometimes it is very necessary for us to take note of these things. Obama is the president people. He is going to get jabs from people. Everyone doesn't love the man or think he is the greatest thing ever. Bush was hated. Bush got drawn as a monkey. Bush got called many things. Same for Clinton and any other president. It comes with the job. So before you get all riled up about this cartoon I just challenge you to look at some of the things that have been drawn about other presidents? Other things said about other presidents? If this is so far out of the ordinary and not close to things that have been done before, then outrage is warranted. I just think at some point we have to move past these things even upsetting us. Hell, instead of boycotting these advertisers, take your ass to a school and volunteer. Use that effort to do things to better black communities. Just like with the Imus thing. Big to do about some comments (which honestly I was thinking those girls looked rough the night before) from a show but what perspective did you have of the man's show? I listened to him later and he says crap like that about all kinds of things. Pretty intelligent and kind of funny at times actually. The same thing can go for the sermons of Pastor Wright. Can't just take clips of a sermon and judge the whole man from that. You have to get some context.

I wonder at times what it is like to be a white person in this country. Are the comments, statements, and actions of whites held to the same standards as others? I challenge you to listen to comments your friends make. Listen to what radio personalities say that are minorities. Think about the callers to talk shows and what they say. Then think about would that be accepted coming from a white person about another race. I'm not saying it should be okay for them to say all things, but at the same time it shouldn't be okay for minorities to get a pass either.

The Post should be ashamed, but that is what they do. People should feel however they do, but keep it moving. Don't buy the paper anymore. This isn't worth some kind of movement. It isn't something to look at and say this is how they do blacks. Everything isn't because someone is black. But people will take it that way and continue to carry the baggage with them into their day to day lives. This only fuels their beliefs. Whites will continue to think blacks just make everything racist. And that is why we will never in my lifetime move past racism.

President Obama

There is a song on Young Jeezy's album that I have suddenly fallen in love with: My President. I just like the first part of the hook, "My president is black". Its just nice to be able to make that statement. And to be perfectly honest, I'm not a big fan of Obama nor was I excited/overwhelmed/etc... about the inauguration. There is just a sense of pride in the fact that this day has come.

I can't imagine how those that paved the way for this are feeling right now. So many suffered and fought in this country, a country where they were treated as second class citizens. I'm so happy for those like my mother and others in her generation who experienced hate just because of their skin color. I see photos of my elders crying and it truly touches me.

For the black community, I hope that this moment inspires. If you felt there was a ceiling for you before, then maybe now you will feel that ceiling is no longer there, or it is higher, or it's something you can simply push through. Hopefully many will see Obama and his family as role models. A successful black family and it is not the Cosby's! Maybe now the rest of the world will view American Blacks differently. The "Change" that I hope for is in the black community. President Obama can't do that.

To Barack Hussein Obama II, I send my prayers out to you and your family. I wish you the best in these next four years. Your success will mean success for this country in coming out of tough times. Every true American wants that. And with majorities in both the House and Senate you have the opportunity to leave your imprint on this country for years to come. God Bless You!

From Republican to Race conversation

Now I have stated before that I am new to politics so there is much that I do now know or understand. I work with all republicans. They also happen to all be christian and white. I constantly mess with them about losing the past election and about being republican. They try and pull me over to Republican thought a.k.a. the darkside. I don't care for either party more than the other. Anyways, I was asked why I'm not republican or what I think about them. I have stereotypes about them. The joke I say is old crusty whites are republicans. I began to tell him that fiscally I tend to agree more with republicans, but socially not. He wanted me to elaborate. I told him that I perceive that most republicans are just like they are. They see the world as all rosy right now and that if as an individual you work hard you will be fine in life simple as that. You get what you work for. An idea that I agree with and want as everyone's attitude and belief. The problem I said is that everyone is not playing on a level field. So because of that I think more money or efforts need to be put into certain rural and urban areas, and not just for blacks. Also hiring practices and things need to be monitored. This is where the conversation got going.

They say that you get hired off of your efforts and resume. I said I disagree somewhat. There is some nepotism that exist out there. I then said that people hire and want to work with people they are comfortable with and relate to. I believe that if there are equally qualified candidates and one is white, one black and one mexican that the white would get the job. I should have extended it to an equal pool of people of all the races and said that more whites than the other two pools would get hired. Of course, they did not agree. And I don't think they are racist and maybe they are right it would be no factor. So I brought up college football. 119 top level schools and only 5 black coaches. I said in a sport with a lot of black players and coaches only that many are head coaches. So I asked, if it is not racist then what is it? My coworker responded that he didn't think when Alabama hired coach Saban that they cared what color he was but that they thought he could win the most games. Okay I said, then what about Auburn? They hire a guy who in the two years he was coach at a school the team got worse. Turner Gill, a black coach, turns around a program in a few years and wins his conference and has a winning record gets interviewed and doesn't get the job. How he didn't get the job over that guy is beyond me if it had nothing to do with race. Again he is basically saying that is who they thought was best but they are just stupid. I brought up Notre Dame and how they extend a white coach to a ten year deal, but did nothing and fired there black coach. At the time of the extension the coaches had the same record. One got an extension and one didn't. I said I don't know if it was racist, but it is interesting. He also said they were stupid and are now paying for it. Then it gets to him saying that there aren't enough qualified candidates maybe or that all the good black coaches go to the NFL for money. I said no that there are plenty of black assistant coaches, coordinators and position coaches in college football. I said the Auburn guy goes out and hires like 5 to his staff. I said so they are good enough to coach the team in many areas but never improve enough to be head coaches while the white coaches do improve to be head coaches? He threw in a well there you have it they have black coaches on the staff. Now I almost lost it here but it is my job so I remained calm. I simply told him being on the staff is not the same as being in charge. But he kept going back to what I think of as the republican attitude, that if they were the best coach and candidate to give the school a chance to win they would get hired. And I kept saying it is odd to me that in all those jobs with so many blacks out there coaching only that many make it to be head coaches. I also included other races. So then I started saying that by default, you are saying that the black coaches are not good enough (qualified) to be in charge. He says no, but I repeat what he said and that is that the best get hired and therefore the black coaches must not be good enough. After a while he just says so how many would be enough. I don't know, if I have to give a number it should at least have two digits in it. My other coworker ask what percent of America is black. Somehow we just through 30 out there and I pointed out that percent was no where near 5/119.

I tried to take this same attitude and apply it to corporate America. They all still felt the same way. I told them my point in bringing up college was that the people in charge and a lot of the boosters are of one race and they happen to be white. And whites get the coaching jobs. Is it racist? I don't know, but there has to be something there. I said the same goes for corporate America. Because of slavery, we started off on the bottom floor and all those in power were white. So I just ask, why would the same sort of thing not take place in other areas of life be it that they are racist or not? Is it that there just are enough qualified blacks and we aren't as good as the whites? I told them by their thinking that has to be what it is, because if you are deserving and qualified you get the job. I don't think they got what I was saying. Maybe if you are reading you don't either. To them racism really isn't a problem anymore. Of course, look at who is president came up at some point. Not that I didn't know when he was running that from this point forward no one will care what reasons you may try and have because the president is mixed. One person getting through doesn't fix anything or many the problem is solved.

In a last ditch effort, before we left for the day I asked them all if there church was predominantly white. They said yes. And I said mine was predominantly black. Then I said that I don't think any of you are racist and neither am I nor are your churches. But, in a place that is supposed to represent the most important aspect of our life, we remain segregated. So if it is not racism then what is it? They kind of had blank looks on their faces for a second as they thought. Then they asked me if I thought it was because of racism. I said no, and I don't really know why. I know there is a history to it, but if everything is so rosey as they say then surely this area of our lives would not be so heavily separate. I told them that I thought it was a comfort thing. And to me, if in this area we remain separate for whatever reason, why would it not be fair to think that this phenomena would not spread over into other parts of society like corporate America? Between us no one had a good reason why church was like that and they just pointed out they had invited me to church before and that all people are welcome they just seem not to come back. Then my coworker as we were walking out talked about their pastor search. He said he was sure there were no blacks applying and wondered if they would even truly consider a black pastor at his church. He knows that it wouldn't happen. Then we discussed ways churches could change this by coming together across racial lines with things like the youth doing things together. What I should have said but didn't because I had thrown a lot out there that day, was that at your predominantly white church they would have trouble following someone of another race. They may not be racist, but something does still remain here in America.

I know this was long, but I just wanted to hit most of the highlights. It was just so interesting to me talking to them about this stuff. Me being the lone black, and them all white. I'm always throwing stuff out there. I threw in stuff about me and cops (which one said he gets pulled over, and I responded like dude I've had a gun in my face twice for nothing and been in cuffs several times for nothing.) and racist experiences. Not sure if they can understand how these things can shape my view of the world but its nice to have a forum and people I can discuss this stuff with.

A Joy I Missed

Not too long ago we elected a new president of the United States. This man is black as am I, yet I don’t feel the same joy and excitement that I hear from others. Am I just against blacks? A hater? Too logical at times for my own good? Whatever the reason, I don’t feel some barrier or milestone that is so great has been reached. I get the impression from other blacks that I speak with that this was like the best thing since sliced bread.

On the one hand I can understand feelings coming from the older blacks, but from my age group and younger it is not so obvious to me. Do we feel that oppressed? Has the world held us back from opportunities because of our skin color? A lot of times I think our perception becomes our reality. I have a chip on my shoulder as many blacks do. But in truth, I’ve gotten opportunities in my life because I was black. Before President Obama, we have had two secretaries of states that were black yet got no love from the black community. They weren’t acceptable blacks. I’ve heard blacks on TV refer to Obama as a real black man who is cool and all this other stuff. I guess Mrs. Rice and Mr. Powell don’t meet black standards.

So now we have a black president? Is the world different now? First thing I start getting from people is stuff like tell the whites to report to the cotton field or how the whites at work didn’t speak the next day and they mad etc.. And surely all of this was coming from whites in the reverse as well. I have coworkers who do not like Obama at all, but I honestly feel it is because of his policies and record more than anything else. From what I see the same separatist attitudes remain, if in fact they have not also gotten stronger. I realize I’m not white and they may say many things when I’m not around in the same manner I hear things from blacks when whites are not around. I also realize that the whites I’m around mainly are educated people and I tend to think the ignorant racial attitudes don’t persist in more intelligent people. So I can only assume that whites do the same but I have no real first hand proof.

Now will we be able to be objective with a black president? Or will the black community cry foul at criticism towards him? Or will the media be scared to go at him for fear of being called a racist? During the campaigning I heard several people tell me Obama was being treating unfairly because he was a black man? How so? He seemed to be the media darling on every news outlet other than FOX. A few jumped on Palin because her daughter was pregnant and how if she was a black woman the story would be totally different. Why does it even have to be about black or white?

I was asked why I wasn’t excited about Obama and him being a “black” president. My response was first that I am really not that big a fan of his. Just seems like another politician to me especially the way he answers questions. Second and foremost, I will be excited when something like this is not a story. When MLK’s dream is truly a reality.

Political Slaves

Why is it that blacks vote so heavily democrat? This is something I have wondered for a while. I started voting that way because that is what mom and many people around me did. But there was no real reason for my voting that way. Someone asked me this question the other day and the only reason I can think of is based on the social programs and sympathizing to black issues by democrats (Whatever today’s black issues are). If it has to do with social issues, I sure hope not. Stop looking for help and handouts. Teach a man to fish, he eats on his own forever. Keep feeding a man and he continues to need your help to eat. So maybe this is a good way to keep blacks down. Help people help themselves.

Historically speaking, republicans were on the forefront of civil rights. The democrats fought integration. That governor in AL, Wallace? He was a democrat. Mr. King Jr. was a republican. Now right around the time he went on to glory, blacks started voting heavily democrat beginning really with the 64 election of Johnson. The republican candidate (Goldwater) failed to sign the civil rights act of 64 which probably is the reason things happened the way they did. Of course he gave some reason about why he didn’t sign the bill the same way politicians do today, but whatever his reasoning I think that started the trend we see today. Obama being considered black, which I still don’t understand completely, and getting 96% of the vote including mine does make sense. But giving our loyalty to a party so greatly consistently?

I thought blacks were a diverse group of people, but our voting does not seem to reflect this. No other race is so heavily one sided (at least that I know of). Some will say that Catholics or Gays give their votes heavily to either party, but that is not the same. Those aren’t diverse groups. They are groups that share similar plights, issues or beliefs. So then the question is, do we still have the same struggle throughout? I mean what do we share? That we are black and the world is against us? We need social help to get out of our situations? Slavery affects us still and is the cause of our problems today? Yet we are not all poor. Blacks probably are some of the most religious people percentage wise, yet the party associated with that ideology gets very little of our vote.

I can’t say there is anything wrong with this, except that our vote and needs don’t need to be catered to. Why would they when they know the black vote is a given? I just don’t understand this fact. The popular vote is always ~50% to both sides, so most other sectors must vote more evenly between the parties. It is just hard for me to imagine that a diverse people would not vary more on how they believe the country should be run; one way no more right or wrong than the other.

If someone has the answer or why they think things are so, please let me know.

Stop the VOTE!!

The right to vote is something we should all cherish because so much has been done for every American to have he opporunity to vote. I am all for every American voting. What I get tired of is the get out to vote stuff. We are all taught in school that we have the right to vote and should register when we come of age. Beyond that, if you don't care enough to go out and vote, then fine. The idea that the vote of an uniformed uniterested voter counts the same as someone who has gone out and informed themselves and is really into the voting process bothers me. I look at it like this: If you need to be told/begged to go vote, then you really don't care in the first place. Someone who is interested in voting doesn't need a get out to vote campaign. Stop polluting the system with those who truly don't care. I'd rather have concerned citizens voting for those who will hold public office and initiate policies that will affect my life. So going out and getting bums/homeless people to vote with your name and picture everywhere is crap. Really, who are they going to vote for? I guess that is a good reason though. By any means necessary to win I right?

If a person wants to vote and needs a ride I would be the first one to take them there. But you shouldn't have to be asked, pushed, begged, bugged, etc... to vote. Leave the voting to those who want to vote.

My Political Cherry

I've been trying to become more informed about politics and news in general for years now. This past year or so I have really begun to pay attention. What I have found is that it is what I expected and somewhat dissapointing at the same time. For some reason it interests me now though. I'll chalk that one up to age.

What I found this past year is that politics isn't all that different from a high school election. A lot of it is based on popularity. How many posters you have or how often they see you. How many calls to people you can make or what promises you can make. Basically there isn't much substance behind what they give you. It is like a beauty contest. Some people just vote for their team, republican or democrat. This voting along party lines thing I don't understand. Just vote for who you think is the best. But like someone told me, it is like rooting for your favorite team no matter if they are the best that year or not.

I've known this for a while, but the contests that we should be more educated on are the ones that we tend to ignore, the local elections. Those affect are lives a lot more directly than the presidential election, but we know far less about those people running.

So now that the empty slogans are done, I can get back to just keeping up with what our new president will actually do. This country is in a bad time right now so I don't think I will be turning my head away from the news anytime soon. Next time elections come around I want to be fully educated on what these politicians have done. So though I may be weary of all the political games I am determined to stay informed. Who knows, one day I may run for office! But then again I don't know if I want my skeletons coming back out. It's like a graveyard back there.