What’s wrong with this – the National Education Association (NEA), NAACP, National Association of Latino Elected Officials (NALEO) all invited the Presidential candidates of both parties to speak before them, in each only one Republican candidate appeared. Why would that be?

While each group is considered ‘liberal’ that is not an absolute fact. To take the NEA, it’s 1/3 Republican in its membership. Mike Huckabee appeared and was well received by the group which had 10,000 members attending. Considering the 3.2 membership in the NEA, this was a big coup for Mr. Huckabee and one that no other Republican was able to share in.


Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo was the only Republican to appear before the NAACP. At the NALEO event, Representative Duncan Hunter of California made the only showing. They were the only ones. Why?

I understand that the ‘understanding’ among pundits is that these organizations are all Democrat-leaning and that they are liberal groups. I understand that the focus at the moment is to gain the win at the Primaries of each party. But I have to believe that one of the most important goals for any Presidential candidate is to be able to win the Presidency of the United States. If the public is for a candidate, then what party would stop them from going forward?

I hate to see political math in action. It annoys me. I may have used the recent actions of Republicans here, but the same is true of Democratic candidates in the reverse. All because there is a theory out there that gaining the best electoral math determines the winner. That just makes me come to the conclusion that none of the candidates feels they are strong enough to appeal to the majority of the American citizenry.

I mean, if you believe you have the right position to move America forward, why would you be afraid to explain your plans to those that have a political viewpoint that is not the same as yours, and are likely unaware of your stance on the issues? It’s one thing to preach to the converted, it’s another to convert those that disagree. But a President should be able to do that. At least in my opinion.

I find it insulting that ANY candidate presumes that talking to any group of Americans is a waste of time. If you wish to lead this nation, you must be willing to speak to this nation. The President is the leader, but only so far as the public wishes to go in one direction or another. I think far too many candidates and pundits forget that. The public elects the President (yes, through the convoluted electoral election process) and the public backs the decisions the President makes. For the public to elect the best person we need to know what they stand for and what their plans are.

Dodging this group or that is not Presidential. I see it as a weakness. I said the same of the Democrats that turned down a debate sponsored by Fox News. If ANY candidate can’t answer tough questions for their political opposites, how good could they be at answering Al Quida? Or any nation that opposes the United States? Or achieving the goals they state are their agenda?

Speaker Pelosi is an example of this I think. She talked a great game speaking to her supporters, but due to her failure to convince her detractors the 100 day plan has failed, the Congress wastes time and money on fishing expeditions on matters where no crime exists, and the American public is angered. As low as the President’s approval rating may be, the Speaker and Congress are even lower.

The candidates need to step up. So much has been said about the women’s vote in this upcoming election. A lot is being said about African Americans and Hispanic/Latino Americans as well. Any candidate that assumes that these groups will or will not vote for them, without speaking to them creates a self-fulfilling wish, and that may not be the best thing for the nation.

I would hate to have to write a post 3 years from now saying, ‘I wish so and so stepped up and spoke more about this or that. We might be in a better place today if they did.’ I don’t anyone wants to be living in that situation, do you?

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: African American, Fox News, Hispanic American, Mike Huckabee, NAACP, NALEO, NEA

Continuing from Talking about Cancer Part 2...

Nothing is worse than suddenly knowing you have a tumor, especially when it’s the size of an orange or more. Nothing affects your loved ones more than knowing that you have an affliction that could have been worked on years earlier if someone just checked and paid attention. It just shouldn’t happen. Yet the mortality rates prove that it does.

Politicians may want to talk about national healthcare and affordability, but no one seems willing to talk about quality of care and accuracy. No one mentions that there hasn’t been a cure to anything since Polio. No one mentions that many studies find that the care given to African Americans, Latinos/Hispanics and other minorities is not the same as to Whites. No one mentions that various medications do not affect men and women the same. Having healthcare is not the same as getting good healthcare. It’s not about money, at least not from what I have observed in those close to me.

I hope I am wrong. I hope these are exceptions and not the rule. But somehow I don’t think so. I’d love to hear someone ask this of the various Presidential candidates. Perhaps a question similar to one posed by myself to Senator Barak Obama (who has not to date responded in any manner):

What would you do to motivate institutions and individuals to seek out new innovations with the profit motive removed? How would you ensure that a national program would not function in the same manner most feel other government institutions do, such as the education system (which most feel is a failure)?

[To be fair, none of the Presidential candidates has formed any response to any of the questions I have sent to them. The reason for this lack of response is open to question, but the fact that they were sent these questions months ago is a fact. You can see all of the questions I have asked at Letters to Presidential candidates.]

This is a serious subject. I hope it has provided some thoughts. I will be discussing it more in the future.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Talking about Cancer Part 1

Talking about cancer Part 2

Labels: African American, Hispanic American, national healthcare, presidential candidate, Senator Barak Obama

Continued from part 1...

The fact is that there is a massive bias out there that no one wants to address. In 2005, it was found that 71% that earned 153,000 dollars or more had high mortgage rates as opposed to 9.4%
of Whites. For Black Americans and Hispanic/Latino Americans that earned between $92,000 and $132,000 (hardly a low income and indicating steady work habits I believe), 70% paid a high interest rate vs. 17% of Whites in the same bracket. You may wonder where these rates might be at, perhaps a small town in an isolated or economically challenged portion of the nation? Actually these are figures for the greater Boston area.

In fact the system is so skewed that when an experiment was conducted in that area with a White and an African American potential homebuyer the results were consistent to the above. The fact that the White homebuyer had a lower credit score and lower income, indicating greater risk which should guarantee a higher rate, had no reflection in the rate received. Does your face feel red, because mine feels like it was just slapped.

So given the unspoken fact that a minority citizen will be forced to pay a higher mortgage rate in the best of situations on average, it’s no surprise that many are facing the loss of their homes due to sub-prime mortgages today. That verges on the criminal if you ask me. Lenders are supposed to know better. They are supposed to evaluate the risks involved and the potential impact higher rates can have on the potential homeowner. They are supposed to follow one of the guiding principles of all investments – the ‘best man’ rule. That is essentially placing yourself in the clients position and acting in the best interest given the higher advantage the professional has versus the common person. While I have no doubt some have, the above data (that I have no doubt can easily be found and reproduced around the nation) indicates to me that many used this educated position to reap profit for themselves.

Yet not a word is mentioned on this. Millions are being systematically abused, stripped of funds they should have, stressed with the threat of losing the home their family lives in; and as a by-product contributing to the potential for severe economic consequences they may not fully understand. As regulators face Congress explaining why such bad loans were made, I have yet to hear one question to ask why there is such an extreme disparity. I have yet to hear why this situation was allowed to become so extreme.

And it won’t be asked. Because if it were Wall Street could not deny that they are ‘taking money from widows and orphans.”

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: African American, Hispanic American, mortgage rates, Wall Street

So everyone is scared about losing their homes, or the stock market crashing, because of the sub-prime loans made for years. Since the blip in the Dow Jones Index in February, and comments by Mr. Alan Greenspan, there has been constant news about the status of these loans that represent more than a million homes in the nation. And there is good reason to worry.

As teaser rates on mortgages are replaced my adjustable rates, many over 3 points higher than the market rate, late and missed payments are growing. Forclosures are growing and banking institutions of all sizes face drops in profit or worse as the year progresses. The ramifications go on and on. Virtually any nightly news will catch you up on all of this. Of course there are a few ‘minor’ things that are being left out.

By minor I mean minority, and when I say left out I mean overlooked. It’s a situation that is a blatant abuse, in my opinion, that is obvious to anyone that can count to 100. Now I’m sure you are wondering what I am talking about. You didn’t hear anything like this on the evening news, or your favorite cable news channel. That’s because the markets hate to mention an abuse that targets the poor, uneducated, and minorities. It’s like investing money for an elderly widow(er), take their money and you will get sued and lose guaranteed.

Specifically I mean that many sub-prime lenders swooped in on African Americans and Hispanics worse than vulture investors. This isn’t an opinion, though it’s not wholesale fact. I’ll explain.

It’s known, though not officially acknowledged, that an African American or Hispanic will virtually always be given a higher mortgage rate than a White person. To quote Mr. Jim Campen of the University of Massachusetts, “Blacks and Latinos have lower incomes and less wealth, less steady employment and lower credit ratings, so a completely neutral and fair credit-rating system would still give a higher percentage of subprime loans to minorities.”

The statement assumes that both groups are being given higher rates currently, and that the system is unfair or hardly neutral, which Mr. Campen does admit. It relies on the statistics of the census rather than individual data. It’s a great excuse to overlook what sub-prime lenders have done. It gives credibility to why a Black American is 3.8 times more likely to have a higher rate than a White, and 3.6 times more likely for Hispanic/Latinos.

That is both ludicrous and insulting. I am not a general statistic. I deserve better than an assumption that I cannot maintain a job, or that I will be paid less than another man, especially when being considered for a piece of the “American dream.” Loan originators are supposed to evaluate the person, based on the factual data before them. Mr. Campen’s statement seems to clearly state that this doesn’t happen, and you might imagine my shock being underwhelming by this.

Continued in part 2...

Labels: African American, Alan Greenspan, Dow Jones Index, Hispanic American, mortgage rates, sub-prime loans

I was reading an article recently [Hispanics Have Unique Cancer 'Profile'] when I noticed something. Why is it that in various documents from the government Hispanics are compared to non-Hispanic whites? I’m Hispanic (Black African American and Puerto Rican) but the government classified me African American, so does my doctor. Mexicans, Cubans, Brazilians, Ecuadorians and dozens of others are ‘Hispanic’ and many are not light skinned enough to be white. I also know many of all the Hispanic groups that are white skinned, including parts of my family. But none of them are white either.

In fact the only ‘white’ Hispanics I know of are Spaniards from Spain. Of course anyone who has paid attention to medieval history is aware that the Moors controlled Spain for 100+ years. The Moors were from Africa, need I say more? But I’ll take Spaniards as a given regardless. So who else are these Hispanic whites the government is referring to me not being? I just find that whole category annoying, but perhaps it’s just my ignorance on the subject.

By the way, the term Hispanic is dumb and misleading. It is derived from the word Hispania – an old word used to describe Spain. While the old Spanish did do a lot of ‘getting to know the natives’ (or ‘bringing them civilization/Christianity’ whichever you prefer) the native peoples/Indians of the various areas are as much part of the equation as Spain. Why such a term is used I do not know. It’s like the term Latino, which is better applied to Italian since Latin came from the Ancient Romans. While it is a pet peeve, it does annoy me that a more fairly descriptive term was never used. And why would it be a bad thing to call me a Black African American Taino Indian.

As for the above-mentioned article, read it and look at my post The health of this Puerto Rican Black African American. “If you don’t have your health what have you got?” (Bonus for those that know where that quote is from – hint, it’s a movie)

Another interesting article [Rising college fees will cost us in time] is one that hits home. I can definitely attest to the fact that college tuition has been raising since 1986. I recall the increase at Rutgers University; that would ‘only’ cause 11% of the student body to no longer be capable of affording the college as the school board of directors said. Not a big deal if you can afford it I suppose, I for one could not. And that was after taking into account the fact I maintained 3 part-time jobs while going to school.

Higher education has always been difficult to attain for minority students, especially those that are Black African American and Hispanic. Between less support from a family with lower incomes, less disposable income, fewer homes or assets, more difficult social backgrounds, worse elementary through high school systems and other factors – getting to college is hard enough. Of course that is a blanket statement, some of those factors apply to some people others don’t. But they do exist in abundance to many.

So with that said it’s no surprise that America is again becoming an elitist society in terms of education. One based on those with better education, and thus generally better pay, and those without. Not a new revelation, it has been happening since well before the 1980’s. It’s just far more apparent with the advances in technology in the last 20 years.

But that does not mean that higher education is impossible. Nor that anyone should give up. Some education is better than none. Such was true for me. It doesn’t mean that we should open up the colleges to everyone either. There should be some challenge, it makes the journey worthwhile. Making it attainable is a challenge; letting tuition prices continue on this path makes it a dream.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: African American, college tuition, Hispanic American, puerto rican, Taino Indians