You Have a Voice

By Girl Talk | August 02, 2018 at 01:44 PM EDT | No Comments

Whatever the faults and failings of our nation, democracy has always triumphed.  Nevertheless, it is currently being challenged like never before.   Subsequently, those who are not in tuned to what’s happening in our nation and the world around us can easily find themselves ill-informed, disillusioned or bamboozled.  As such, complacency is not an option, nor is depending on others to govern ones path or articulate ones story.  Moreover, it’s imperative that all Americans take ownership of what they want for their future.  For instance, stand by what’s acceptable and what’s not, stand by what you see and the impact you feel, not what others dictate.  Recognize that regardless of the opinions of others, you are in control and in tuned to what’s happing around you.  Perfect example being, whether facts are misrepresented or not, you know if fuel prices are rising and how it impacts you, you pump gas, you know whether your wages are stagnant, you receive a paycheck, you know if housing is becoming less affordable, you see the steady rise of interest rates and assisted living programs being dismantled; You can attest to the distribution of wealth gap simply by paying attention to your pay stubs and income tax returns in comparison to the massive tax reductions for the wealthy, corporate ball-outs, bonuses for CEOS and the types of legislation being passed- who benefits? You know if your rights are being ignored- you witnessed the Supreme Court strike down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, repeal of the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order and the rise of hate crimes and unjustifiable killing of black and brown men by some police officers.

Similarly, there are other numerous illustrations.  For instance, you’ve observed in horror how Wall Street (Dodd Frank) and EPA regulations meant to protect the American people have been rolled back and climate change denied; you’ve witnessed the continuous battle to retain access to affordable health care as laws are enacted to dramatically compromise the Affordable Care Act, Medicare/ Medicaid and Social Security. You feel the backlash of discrimination as diversity is slowing being annihilated and your religion, race, citizenship constantly being challenged and demoralized. You don’t need anyone to explain these things to you because you live, see and feel its affects every day.  Don’t let those who don’t care tell you otherwise.  Don’t allow confusion to set in to divert or reshape the “truth” or dictate what is acceptable and what is not.  It’s up to the American people to decide what kind of future they want for themselves, not big money, power, business, deceit or corruption.

Lastly, it’s imperative that all Americans vote based on policy issues, not “Red” or “Blue”, but what is true, what is just and what is morally right for “everyone”- which make no mistake is being distorted, tested and challenged like never before.  I am of the opinion that “truth” is not always found in the direction that validates ones theory or selfish desires, but in places where the most resistance resides and the least challenged.  I welcome the day when the “Me 2 victims” the economically disadvantaged, the disfranchised, the poor and hungry, the voiceless, the suppressed, the wealthy and the powerful can unite and speak as one voice, one America.

When Did We Stop Seeing the Difference?

By Girl Talk | February 05, 2018 at 12:34 AM EST | No Comments

Why is it that corporate welfare is defensible and social programs are deemed indefensible?  Why does “massive” corporate profits exclude worker wage equality? When did we begin focusing more on red versus blue?  When did alternative facts become the new normal?  When did corruption become laissez-faire and justice cease to prevail (or so it appears)?  When did money and power become more honorable than integrity and character?  When did transparency become a mere distraction rather than a way of life? When did “excessive” greed become the rule rather than the exception? Why is it expectable that Americans have 30% impact on public policy while companies have 100%? When did we stop seeing what we saw and hearing what we heard (Gas lighting)? When did we start ignoring tradition and values and adopt an “anything goes” attitude.  When did we start focusing solely on our imperfections rather than our strengths? When did we lose sight of what’s good and acceptable behavior? When did corporations become people?  When did diversity become one color? When did it become ME vs. YOU?  When did the Golden Rule become a thing of the past?

What’s Next

By Girl Talk | January 24, 2017 at 07:16 PM EST | 3 comments

On the hills of the startling results of the 2016 presidential election many Americans were left overwhelmingly mystified and began doubting that their vote counted? After all it was Hillary Rodham Clinton who won the Popular Vote by 2.6 million, yet woefully lost the election to Donald Trump by 97 Electoral College votes (304 to 227).  Moreover, it’s important to note the primary difference between the Popular Vote and the Electoral College is that the Popular Vote represents the actual votes received by a candidate and the other represents the votes cast by a state.  Typically whoever wins the popular vote wins the Electoral College vote. However, astonishingly this is not always the case, which has led many Americans to begin questioning the relevancy the Electoral College has in our presidential elections specifically in the twenty-first century.  The notion that Electors officially represent our states and cast our votes appear to undermine the “collective” nationwide votes of the American people.  How is this possible?  To answer this question it is necessary to understand how the Electoral College works and how it came to be:

The Electoral College consists of 538 electors.  A majority of 270 electoral votes are required to elect the President.  Each state’s entitled allotment of electors’ equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation.  One for each Member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators.  Read more about the allocation of Electoral votes.  Electors may be state elected officials, state party leaders, or people in the state who have a personal or political affiliation with their party’s Presidential candidate.

Furthermore, the United States Constitution was written in 1787 during the Philadelphia convention.  It was during that time our founding fathers established the Electoral College as (1) a buffer or fail-safe, yet this is clearly no longer the case given Electors are not bi-partisan; in fact it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than “their” party’s candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.  Can someone explain to the American people how this is a buffer or fail-safe process?

(2) our founding fathers also established the Electoral College as a way to give each state, no matter the size of the population, an equal voice in elections and the Senate as well.   With that being the case, one must recognize that the constitution was written when the US consisted of 13 states- Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island.  Therefore, it appears implausible that 37 more states later the Electoral College count still determines the presidential winner, instead of the statistical plurality or majority of a nation-wide total vote count. Most Americans are of the opinion that state electors should not be used as a tool to represent the people of the United States; the people should represent the people independent of the state they reside in.

It is surprising to learn that over the years many different proposals to alter the Presidential election process have been offered, such as direct nation-wide election by the People, but none have been passed by Congress and sent to the States for ratification as a Constitutional amendment. Why is this?  In addition to this, reference sources indicate that over the past 200 years, over 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. Wow, unbelievable!

To sum things up, during the Women’s March on Washington, on January 21, many women asked, what’s next?   To that I say, let’s stand in solidarity to effect real change in future elections by petitioning Congress to amend the constitution. The Electoral College has no place in our democracy.  Under the most common method for amending the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the States.

I urge you to get involved; this is not a Republican or Democratic issue, but an American issue that should concern us all.  Public opinion polls have shown Americans favor abolishing the Electoral College by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981. Your petition to eliminate the Electoral College will go directly to Congress, urging them to take action! Our minimum goal is to send 100,000 signatures!                                                                                 Note: Electoral College source data: National Archives & Records

One Nation or A Nation Divided?

By Girl Talk | November 30, 2016 at 07:52 PM EST | No Comments

One Nation or a nation divided?  How you perceive this question to be deeply hinges on what you envision for yourself and for generations to come.  Nevertheless, one thing is for certain, the consensus is all Americans yearn for change, but differ in terms of what that actually means or even looks like. We call that a democracy.  Similarly, in terms of the recent presidential election, democracy was based on two very different ideologies, unify and build up and dismantle and revert back.

Half of America appears to have adopted the latter. Consequently, America is functoning as a country divided against itself where political ideology and polarization is fueled by blatant racial undertones, sexism and hostility.  A country where facts, integrity, intellect, inclusion, empathy and truth are no longer considered the rule of law, but rather the exception -even when competing for the highest office of the land; America appears to have become a country where restraint and tact is the days of old and replaced with “tell it like it is”.  An attitude that is considered politically correct and perceived as strength regardless of who it offends; America appears to have become a country where half believe that mass killings are an unacceptable reason to consider reforming gun laws while buying into the falsehood that doing so would somehow take away a person’s right to carry or violate the 2nd amendment.  America appears to have become a country where there is no shame, intolerance or indifference to or association with racism and bigotry, a country where it seems easier to believe a lie rather than seek out the truth, A country where hate appears to trump love; a country where lies go unchallenged or ignored even when self-contradictory; a country where diversity is seen as a threat rather than an asset and a country where a woman’s rights are constantly tested rather than respected.

Is this the new face of America? Half of America hopes not.  The United States was founded and built by a nation of immigrants; its rich heritage is also partly due to the successive waves of settlers from around the world.  Unfortunately, over the years diversity has been tested and challenged time and time again.  Nevertheless, America has held true to the belief that “in our uniqueness lies our strength” and no race, sex or gender is superior to the other.

Likewise, despite those who contest the very thing that defines us, I believe that policies or actions that promote unification, fairness, hope, colorless/sexless/ageless, accountability, diversity, mutual respect, and opportunity will always overshadow those that foster the idea of dismantling, reverting back, oppression, exclusiveness,  unaccountability, boundless, unequal, , impractical, confusion, discrimination or indifference.   I remain confident and inspired by the words echoed by our forefathers “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”.

Change Starts with You

By Girl Talk | October 12, 2016 at 11:37 PM EDT | No Comments

It is not only our obligation to vote, but our constitutional right: The 14th Amendment states– All persons born within the U.S. are citizens and guaranteed rights and privileges (1868); 15th Amendment– No citizen denied the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude (1870); 19th Amendment No citizen shall be abridged of their right to vote based on sex (1920); 24th Amendment – No poll tax is allowed or failure to pay any other tax shall prevent a person from voting (1964); 26th Amendment – All persons 18 or older shall not be abridged of their right to vote (1971); Voting Rights Act of 1965 –Applied a nationwide prohibition against the denial or abridgment of the right to vote on the literacy tests on a nationwide basis

It is important to remember the 2017 presidential election is not about Democrats or Republicans, race or gender, but about who is qualified to be the LEADER of the FREE world and represent our interest. The choice is up to you…..

To find about voter registration deadlines and early voting dates state click HERE  

Verify Your Registration Status + Find Your Polling Place HERE

Don’t Make The Same Mistake

By Girl Talk | July 27, 2016 at 01:04 AM EDT | 1 comment

The million-dollar question after the British decided to leave the European Union (EU) was, what is the EU?  According to Euintheus.org, it’s not a government, an association of states, or an international organization.  Rather, it is made up of 28 Member States who have relinquished part of their sovereignty to EU institutions, with many decisions made at the European level.  The 28 (now 27) member states include: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom.  In essence, all actions taken by the EU is founded on treaties that have been approved voluntarily and democratically by all EU member countries (Europa EU).  There are more than 40,000 legal acts in the EU, but according to Europa EU, the main treaties are: Treaty of Lisbon, Treaty of Nice, Treaty of Amsterdam, Treaty on European Union – Maastricht Treaty, Single European Act, Merger Treaty – Brussels Treaty, Treaties of Rome: EEC and EURATOM treaties, Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community.  To learn more about each of these treaties click here

What prompted this history lesson?  Well, the day after the Britain’s voted to leave the European Union Google searches revealed that many Americans and nations around the world did know the purpose of the EU including citizens of the United Kingdom who in fact voted 53.4% to 46.6% to withdraw from the Union without fully knowing what they were voting for or the full impact of their decision beforehand.  That is astonishing and compels me to think about my own country and how we are currently selecting the leader of the free world.  As such, I asked myself, who votes for someone or something they know very little about?  I mean really, think about it, would you purchase a house without considering the pros and cons like the location, year built, square footage, condition, amenities ect?  Definitely not.  Likewise, shouldn’t that same due diligence be applied when voting for a presidential candidate, state or local official, policy, issue, or law?  Absolutely, but unfortunately, that is not always the case.  Don’t make that same mistake.

For example, we have a presidential candidate who rarely speaks on policies and when confronted to do so unlike his opponent, his responses often appear impractical and of no real substance.  For instance, he insist on building a wall and claiming Mexico is going to pay for it without the consent or blessing of the Mexican government, in fact just the opposite; the candidate says he believes in women rights, yet he states that a women who has an abortion should receive some form of punishment; the candidate states that he is against increasing the minimum wage, while at the same time claiming to help the those in poverty and create more jobs- well what good is a job if it doesn’t pay a fair living wage? The candidate states that he is going to be a unifier while excluding Muslims from this country and preventing Mexicans who have been here for years a pathway to citizenship; the candidate claims that his policies will reflect his business savvy and accomplishments which are impressive, but irrelevant to being a commander and chief not to mention the multiple bankruptcies and cases of blatant fraud- does this sound trustworthy.  Should his name also include crooked in front of it?  He states that he is all about family, which I don’t doubt, yet don’t blame Hillary or criticize Bill for infidelity when you yourself have been married three times.

Given these examples, one can’t help but wonder if voters who say they will vote for this candidate did their homework? Do they seriously know what they are voting for and what the impact of their decision will have on the United States and other nations around the world? This post is not meant to suggest or influence whom anyone should vote for by any means, but rather ensure that before anyone goes to the polls, they have done there due diligence beforehand and feel confident in the return they will get on there investment come January 2017.  Unfortunately, there are no do-overs! All too often people get caught up in the hype and vote based on just that, the hype.  Others vote based on emotions and anger not logic and what’s best for the country as a whole, hatred not love, appearance and smooth talk, not intelligence and experience and others just don’t vote at all, they believe they are the forgotten ones and sadly their vote won’t count/make a difference or change their circumstance.

Don’t be “that” person! Do your research, make sure you are well informed, recognize the difference between fact and fiction, trust your instincts- if it walks like a dock, talks like a duck, then guess what, it’s a duck; don’t settle for hogwash or allow anyone to insult your intelligence, don’t vote against yourself/or the wellbeing of your family for generations to come; distinguish between intelligence and arrogance, understand in detail who and what you are voting for, know that no one is forgotten and everyone’s vote counts.

My Thoughts on the Black Lives Matter Movement

By Girl Talk | March 02, 2016 at 12:22 AM EST | 1 comment

Black Lives Matter is a chapter-based national organization working for the validity of Black life (blacklivesmatter.com). According to the organization, “Black Lives Matter means broadening the conversation around state violence to include all of the ways in which Black people are intentionally left powerless at the hands of the state.  The Black lives matter brings to the forefront the ways in which they believe Black lives are deprived of their basic human rights and dignity”.

While Black Lives do matter, I believe we (African American community) do ourselves a grave disservice when we implement a movement that appears to be exclusive rather than inclusive.  The importance or relevance of a life is not based or measured by the color of one’s skin just as poverty, injustice, bigotry, violence and murder is not a color or race but an intolerable act or a unacceptable state of being.

I believe that All Lives Matter and uniting on that front makes our nation stronger. Martin Luther King did not rally just the African American Community in getting his message across during the civil rights movement, he said injustice and poverty anywhere is injustice and poverty everywhere.  Likewise, under no uncertain circumstances does the concept “All lives matter” nullify or diminish the need for legislative reform and accountability in terms of fair sentencing and unjustifiable shooting in the African American community; oh the contraire, statics, facts and history speak to that.

Unlike Black Lives Matter, an All Lives Matter movement is inclusive and signifies Americans not only care about police brutality, but the relentless murders in impoverished communities; it means Americans care about the mass shootings, like Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn, the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting and SC Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church shooting… It means collectively we mourn the injustice of Trayvon Martin, John Crawford III and the killings of the Mansion murders in DC.

“We are only as strong as we are united, as weak as we are divided.”

One of The Best Speeches Ever!

By Girl Talk | January 13, 2016 at 04:13 PM EST | No Comments

President Obama delivered his final State Of the Union Speech yesterday, January 12, 2016 and I thought it was of the best! Say what you will about this president, but I don’t have to wait for history to tell me that he is one the greatest presidents that has held office.  When I look at all he’s accomplished despite all the obstacles, opposition and pure hate set before him I am inspired and humbled beyond words. He is a true testimony of what God can do. Check out his speech if you missed or just want to hear again:

Click Here: BEST SPEECH EVER

Socialism or Capitalism, Do We Have to Choose?

By Girl Talk | October 24, 2015 at 05:26 PM EDT | 1 comment

Capitalism versus Socialism is one more principled than the other.  In this day in age oddly Socialism appears to be a dirty word to those who do not realize they are direct benefactors of many of the services it creates, instead Socialism becomes synonymous with inefficient, distain, defective, weak, incapable and lazy.  In contrast, Capitalism appears to be held in high regard, synonymous with respect, determination, purpose, hard work, strength and admiration. How did these assumptions come to be; the influx of opinions from the news media, selfishness, politics, emergence or sustainment of a caste system, the struggle for class superiority, a distraction to real issues or merely a lack of understanding?

To innumerate, when did the coexistence of Socialism and Capitalism “appear” in the minds of some American as no longer admirable, viable or tolerable?  For example, during the 2012 campaign, President Obama was ridiculed and mocked by opposition via rallies, social media and news outlets for his socialistic work as a community organizer, a advocate of change for the common good or betterment of a community.  Comparatively, presidential elect Mitt Romney was praised for his capitalistic role as a successful entrepreneur to include his lead role at Bain Capital.  Not to minimize his accomplishments for they were irrefutable, but at the same time “Bain’s modus operandi was to invest in companies, leverage them up with debt, and then sell them off for scrap, allowing Bain’s investors to walk away with huge profits while the companies in which Bain invested wound up in bankruptcy, laying off workers and reneging on benefits.  22% percent of the companies in which Bain invested wound up either in bankruptcy or shutting their doors entirely, while Bain itself made billions of dollars for its investors” (Wall Street Journal).

Notably, does this illustration prove one ideology grander than the other?  Before answering, there is something true and honorable to be said of those who seek truth and understanding before advocating for a cause that impacts or changes the dynamics of one’s livelihood.  As such, let us first “broadly” examine the definition of Socialism and Capitalism.

Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a “whole”.   Whole is none discriminatory, it’s all-inclusive and recognizes value in everyone -workers and entrepreneurs.   It essentially suggest that everyone shares in a piece of the pie, some a little larger than others, but not to the extent that it defines winners and losers or creates massive gaps in the distribution of wealth.

How is it that the richest 1% in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90%?  There is something gravely alarming about those numbers, even more so when a large portion of the 90% are in denial or feel doomed or forced to except the reality of their circumstances.  Moreover, refuting the need for some form of socialism rejects the notion that inequality exist or on the rise, it denies restitution to those who have contributed years into a system that evades certainty on a return on their investment.  Finally, it dishonors or devalues the legacy and contributions of Martin Luther King, Theodore Roosevelt, Mary Wollstonecraft, Nelson Mandela, Helen Keller, ect.

As Americans we revere anyone who engineers an idea and brings their vision into fruition.   Nevertheless, no man or woman works in vacuum.  In direct of opposition of Socialism is Capitalism, Capitalism is a political and economic theory where production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.   Producers compete to maximize their profits and those who also invest back into the very people that contribute to their success fairly (employees and managers) help make our economy economically viable and honors the contributions of great Entrepreneurs like Bill Gates, Madam C.J. Walker, Henry Ford, Larry Page/Sergey Brin, Oprah Winfrey, Walt Disney etc.   Capitalism produces wealth “which is usually not used for daily expenditures or factored into household budgets, “wealth provides for both short- and long-term financial security, bestows social prestige, and contributes to political power, and can be used to produce more wealth.  Hence, wealth possesses a psychological element that awards people the feeling of agency, or the ability to act”. (Wikipedia)

Capitalism is crucial; it is what this country was founded on and what contributes to the vitality and fluidity of the American economy.   Yet at the same time, capitalistic views can often lead some Americans to feel that there struggle is not real and if they just work a little longer, a little harder, a little smarter, obtain more education opportunities and the accumulation of wealth is limitless.  This idea can be misleading.  For example, “inheritances and gifts also play a major role in the distribution of wealth, accounting for an estimated one-quarter of total household wealth accumulation in the United States. Such wealth transfers are also an important source of both business and home ownership. The conventional wisdom is that inheritances contribute to the overall inequality of household wealth. Moreover, it is commonly believed that inheritances impede intergenerational wealth mobility and play an important role in accounting for the intergenerational transmission of economic and social privilege?  (Monthly Labor Review, M. Gittleman).  Similarity, it is the accumulation of wealth that grants more options and eliminates restrictions about how one can live- in other words wealth produces more wealth.  Theoretically this appears sound until theory meets reality where the richest 1 percent in the US owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.

Unremarkably, the growth of income inequality has long been a hot topic around the globe.  As such, I trust in both, Capitalism and Socialism, and believe one is meant to balance out the other, not drown out or take over, to do so is counter productive.  I believe the balance of both powers lead to a greater good, it means no one is left behind, and it is what breaths life to the second paragraph of the United States Declaration of Independence “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Bamboozled!

By Girl Talk | August 31, 2015 at 11:29 PM EDT | No Comments

Don’t get bamboozled by public opinion polls! For those readers who are not familiar with the term bamboozled, it means don’t be deceived, don’t let someone or something get the better of you by trickery or flattery.  Currently there are 17 declared Republicans and 5 declared Democrats who are running for the 2016 presidential election, yet out of the 22 it appears that the news media predominantly covers Donald Trump.  Why is this, is it his proclaimed poll numbers? Incidentally, should Americans take public opinion polls for face value?  In theory, when done correctly polls consist of strict rules about sample size, random selection of participants and margins of error.  However, even the best public opinion poll is only a snapshot of public opinion at a particular moment in time, not an eternal truth [source: Zukin].  Nonetheless the results of polls are reported by the news media quite often; more specifically public opinion polls that attempt to predict the front-runner or the possible outcome of an election; polls they assert represent the American people.  How is that even plausible, there are 50 states and 3,007 counties with populations one cannot even guess?  Consequently, it wouldn’t be farfetched to question whether public opinion polls adequately “represent” everyone. For example, if you ask a fraction of Latino’s, African Americans, the middle class and underserved low-income communities, the majority would say the results of current GOP public opinion election polls don’t represent them; with that being said, don’t just succumb to the appearance of defeat or get discouraged if it “looks like” your opinion is outnumbered- ultimately an election is only final when the last pallet is counted!

Don’t get bamboozled by repetitive jargon that has no merit! Remember repetition “can” have an underlying motive, “it is the prime conduit for shaping belief, negative or positive; studies have shown that repetition leads to familiarity, which is the key to fostering trust.  Moreover, frequent exposure to an opinion is often a valid cue that many people share the same belief.” (Source: Realclearscience.com).  For instance, the news media reports on Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails nearly everyday- relentlessly and they are “coincidently” repeatedly referred to as the Clinton “Scandal “ or the Clinton “Controversy”.   Words associated with- disgrace, dishonor, confusion and dispute.    To seal the deal, media outlets also constantly recount the “public opinion poll” results associated with the email jargon.  For example, statements like “unfavorable views of Hillary Clinton are on the rise and the perception of her as honest and trustworthy”.   This is mind boggling simply because Ms. Clinton has stated on numerous occasions that she did not send classified information from her private email account and she has not been found guilty of violating any law(s) which back her assertions…..yet the repeated use of negative, accusatory words embolden people to believe the hype regardless of the facts.

Lastly, the most important thing in communication is hearing what isn’t being said. The art of reading between the lines is a life long quest of the wise.”― Shannon L. Alder.  Subsequently, don’t get bamboozled by open-ended promises with no solutions or polices to back them up!  For example, catering to just your base, class, race or gender is not a solution or policy, a promise to solve world problems and be the best leader Americans have ever seen (if elected) is not a solution or a policy, an unrealistic resolution is not the answer to a solution or policy, tearing other presidential candidates down to lift oneself up is not a solution or policy, avoiding “real” issues or providing opened-ended gibberish is not a solution or policy, statements like “taking America back” is not not a solution or policy.  In fact it’s rather insulting to many Americans who lived through or have ancestry who lived through slavery, the great depression, segregation, World War I and II ect.  I can go on and on, but my point is, do your do diligence on all 22 candidates, use all the resources available to you in order to make an informative decision on Election Day; don’t just depend on social media or one specific news outlet to shape your opinion or determine the outcome of the election for you.  To help jumpstart your research click on any of the following links:

2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN WEBSITES

or

Republican Party (Ballotpedia)

Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz,Carly Fiorina, Jim Gilmore, Lindsey Graham,Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich,George Pataki, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, Donald Trump, Scott Walker

Democratic Party 

Lincoln Chafee 

Facebook

Twitter

Ballotpedia

Hillary Clinton

Facebook

Twitter

Ballotpedia

Martin O’Malley

Facebook

Twitter

Ballotpedia

Bernie Sanders 

Facebook

Twitter

Ballotpedia

Jim Webb

Personal Site

Facebook 

Twitter

Ballotpedia

It’s Deeper Than That

By Girl Talk | June 25, 2015 at 12:57 PM EDT | 4 comments

I was recently moved by a speech I heard given by a remarkable Michigan State graduating senior.   I suspect the powerful words uttered that day will resonate in me forever.  Here is a partial insert from that astonishing speech:

“In our uniqueness’ lies our strength………

No amount of money will combat poverty only education can do that.  No amount of violence will ever bring us peace only love can do that… no amount of prejudice will bring us understanding only diversity can do that. No amount of conversation can spring us into action only “will” can do that.”

As I pondered over this young mans speech I couldn’t help but wonder, as a nation are we diversified enough in the workforce- public and private sectors, specifically top management positions?  I also questioned the legitimacy of “Separate but Equal” in the historic case “Brown vs the Board of Education” and by this I mean are we still separate, are we yet equal?  Many Americans would say the answers are unequivocally yes; schools have been desegregated, “all” Americans can vote (although new voter id laws arguably mirror the Jim Crow era), “white and black only” signs have been eradicated, minorities hold prominent positions, African Americans can ride public transportation without having to give up their seats or ride in the back of the bus, women hold high powered positions and a small sample of middle class or below poverty exceptionally smart/gifted children are awarded full scholarships.

To this I say look deeper than that, just because you redesign or change the face of a watch doesn’t mean the detailed interconnecting parts are different or the complete maker overs” are simply limited additions.  We have not ended economic inequality or the racial caste in America; but merely reshaped it.  Likewise, we live in a society where a person’s zip code is one of the pre-determining factors or the right of entry to equitable resources, an exceptional education, above average health care and access to opportunities that lead to promising futures for children. All the while a struggling middle class is currently forced to take out Parent Plus loans at an accrued interest rate equating to $3-$4 a day just so their kids will have a fighting chance to even the playing field.

According to recent Nation article:  “In suburbs across the region, elites have been seceding from their inner- city school districts and setting up academic laagers of their own. The result is a concentration of race and class disadvantage in a system with far fewer resources. In a 2012 report, UCLA’s Civil Rights Project noted: “Nationwide, the typical minority student is now in a school where almost two out of every three classmates (64%) are low-income. ”The discrepancy between black and white unemployment is the same as it was in 1963. According to the Institute on Assets and Social Policy at Brandeis University, between 1984 and 2007 the black-white wealth gap quadrupled. The Supreme Court is dismantling affirmative action and gutting voting rights. Meanwhile, incarceration disparities are higher than they were in the 1960s.”

Notably, America was founded in 1776, yet we still are identifying “first.”  For example, first woman Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, first black President, Barack Obama, first Hispanic US. Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Solomayor, first black US Attorney General, Eric Holder or first black woman US Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, First black and first black woman mayor of San Antonio, TX, Ivy Taylor, First woman and first Hispanic U.S. Surgeon General, Antonia Coello Novell, first chairwoman of the Federal Reserve Board, Janet Yellen- you get the picture, to say this is the norm would be an oxymoron.

Similarly, we still identify with “separate but equal” ideologies by acknowledging and supporting Black Entertainment Television (BET), historically black colleges, black student unions in non HBCU’s, Congressional Black Caucus, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), BET music Awards and magazines like Essence and Ebony that solely address current issues in the African-American community.  This is not to insinuate that there is not a need, but my point is why is there still a need, this country was founded over 239 years ago, how long does it take to diversify or break the cycle of isolation. Demand that the “UNITED” States of America live up to its name..

Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything. George Bernard Shaw 

To simply ignore the existence of inequality or race does not negate the fact that it exist; even if it is socially constructed, its effects are real.  Since 1992, the annual number of charges alleging color- based discrimination in the workforce has steadily risen. In fiscal year 1992, EEOC received 374 charges alleging discrimination based on color. By fiscal year 2006, that number had increased to 1,241 charges. (EEOC)

Additionally, despite the Equal Pay Act men are still paid more than women over the course of their lifetimes.  An articlewritten by Pew Research pointed out:   “According to the White House, full-time working women earn 77% of what their male counterparts earn. This means that women have to work approximately 60 extra days, or about three months, to earn what men did by the end of the previous year. However, our own estimate, which is based on hourly earnings of both full- and part-time workers, finds women earn 84 percent of what men earn. Based on our estimate, it would take approximately 40 days, or until the end of February, for women to earn what men had by the end of last year.  Even though women have increased their presence in higher-paying jobs traditionally dominated by men, such as professional and managerial positions, women as a whole continue to work in lower-paying occupations than men do. And some part of the pay gap may also be due to gender discrimination – women are about twice as likely as men to say they had been discriminated against at work because of their gender (18% vs. 10%).”

In light of the current media buzz over the controversy surrounding the confederate flag.  To that I say dig deeper than that: Since the end of the American Civil War, confederate flags have stained our country for years, they have been displayed in states, cities, counties and towns, schools including colleges and universities, private organizations and individuals, yet we as a nation are just now actively holding meaning conversations to remove them from state grounds.  I shudder at the thought that it took this long and a recent racially motivated massacre to spark the conversation when in fact there has been countless others and the flags still stood without question.  For example: The Greensboro Massacre in Greensboro, North Carolina, the 16th street Baptist Church bombing in Birmingham Alabama, the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting in Oak Creek Wisconsin ect…  On 12/8/14 FBI released its annual Hate Crime Statistics report, which revealed that out of 5,922 48.5% were racial and 11.1% were due to ethnicity.

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, Martin Luther King,

Now that we have dabbled a little deeper into issues that woe our country, the defining question would appear to be is there hope for change? Legislatively yes, political candidates who are not addressing these issues should not be voted into office? We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them, Albert Einstein

Yes there is hope, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead”.  Our workforce and our entire economy are strongest when we embrace diversity to its fullest, and that means opening doors of opportunity to everyone and recognizing that the American Dream excludes no one, Thomas Perez

We Are Better Than That

By Girl Talk | April 30, 2015 at 09:22 PM EDT | 2 comments

Congress is the vocal point of our country (introduces legislation) and the President sets the tone (signs legislation into law/Commander & Chief of Military).  Therefore, when the President is constantly disrespected by a fraction of members of Congress without accountability then what message does that send to the rest of the country?

For instance, up until 2008 all Americans, regardless of their political party rallied around the leader of the free world: It was as if once the oath of office was taken, all bets were off, campaign contributions dissolved, political attacks diminished and the term “live to fight another day” meant the next election, not immediately following the inauguration, that is until President Obama was elected to office.  Why is this, it certainly can’t be based on ideology because Republicans and Democrats have debated and disagreed on policies for centuries, it’s what makes our country a democracy, no this appears to be something much more cynical.

For example, how do you explain an unopposed allegation of a plot devised by senior GOP members pledging to repeatedly block President Obama on all legislation before his term even began- all Americans can attest to this because it appears they have remained true to there pledge even at the detriment of the country at times.  Subsequently, during the President’s State of the Union address Joe Wilson; a congressional representative from South Carolina called the president of the United States a liar during his speech.  In contrast, lets not forget the “Birthers” who assert that the President was not born in the United States.  I mean seriously, what are they really insinuating because the last time the American people checked Hawaii was definitely part of the United States, but Canada is not, yet know one including Donald Trump challenges Senator Ted Cruz who is from Canada and running for the 2016 presidential election.  These are only a few examples of a massive archive of occurrences that have taken place over the last 6 years, yet nothing can be more mind blowing than the past two recent occurrences simply because it makes the US appear un-unified:

(1) On March 3, 2015 John Boehner along with other house leaders openly invited Israeli’s Prime Minister, Netanyahu to speak at a joint meeting of Congress to essentially campaign against the president’s Iran policy.  Chris Mathews from MSNBC had these words to say, “GOP assisted a “takeover attempt” by a foreign government.  Think it through, what country in the world would allow a foreign leader come in and attempt to wrest from the president  control of the U.S. foreign policy?” (view)

(2) On March 9, 2015 in what appeared to be an attempt to sabotage nuclear diplomacy without even knowing the details of the negotiation, a letter spearheaded by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and signed by a total of 47 Republicans to include Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.), Rand Paul (Ky.), Ted Cruz (Texas) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.) warned Iran leaders not to be too optimistic about ongoing negotiations with the Obama administration over Tehran’s nuclear program (view).  Minority Leader Harry Reid had these words to say “it’s unprecedented for one political party to directly intervene in an international negotiation with the sole goal of embarrassing the president of the United States”.

Vice President Joe Biden had these words to say, “In thirty-six years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country—much less a longtime foreign adversary— that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them. This letter sends a highly misleading signal to friend and foe alike that that our Commander-in-Chief cannot deliver on America’s commitments—a message that is as false as it is dangerous”. (view)

For the past six years a fraction of congress has exposed the country to constant gridlock, venomous attacks against the president and side shows of one party divided against itself. What’s even more disconcerting to many Americans is the notion that this is acceptable behavior.  If there are no lines drawn between what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior towards how Congress openly addresses the leader of our country, then others will also see no boundaries.  A divided congress breeds a divided nation, we are much better than that…..

Progress or Back to Square One

By Girl Talk | February 18, 2015 at 02:43 AM EST | 3 comments

If asked to share a profound lesson in politics it would be  “watch what a person “does” before testifying to what they “say”.  If the two don’t align then the assumption is something’s not adding up and the elected official should be held accountable.  After all two plus two always equals four, if not, educators have a lot of explaining to do (smile).   My point is, for the past two terms Democrats have continuously campaigned on job creation and issues that support the middle class.  Therefore, it’s safe to conclude once in office or reelected, the American people should expect to see policies that support those claims right?  Absolutely, and for the most part while Democrats held control over the Senate and House of Representatives the American people would say they did.  For example, to their credit they passed the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act and repeatedly passed legislation to increase funding for student financial aid/ Pell Grants program.

The Republican’s have also campaigned on job creation which they have equated to approximately 54 attempts to repeal/defund the Affordable Care Act, unwavering grid lock in Congress for six years, passed restrictive voting laws that the VRA had previously blocked in states with large minority populations, and yet to their credit winning full control of the House and Senate.  As a matter of fact some GOP members have even jumped on the 2016 campaign ban wagon promising to implement policies that support the middle class. Fantastic right!!  Absolutely, if what they say aligns with their actions. Two months into the 114th Congress, let’s review how they are faring on a few key policies.

Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

On July 21, 2010, the president signed into law the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.  Section 716 of this act requires that some derivative transactions be “pushed-out” from the part of banks that have deposit insurance (run by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) and other forms of backstop (provided by the Federal Reserve) – essentially forcing big banks to keep their derivatives business somewhat separated from their insured deposits.  Derivatives are used by firms to hedge or speculate on everything from bumps in interest rates to the cost of fuel, stocks, bonds, commodities, currencies and market indexes.  Similarly, to insure taxpayers aren’t on the hook if trades go bad as they did in the 2008 financial crisis, the act requires banks to conduct their riskiest trading with money that is not insured by the government.

Banks, such as JP Morgan Chase and Citicorp have lobbied Congress to appeal the rule since the onset of Dodd-Frank.   As a result, their efforts received a breakthrough when Republicans gained full control over the House and Senate to which they slipped a provision in the 2015 “appropriations bill” that repeals the “push out” requirement.  The bill was signed into law and according to Mother Jones appears to be only the beginning efforts to dismantling Dodd Frank. According to Mother Jones “Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), introduced a bill called the Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small Business Burdens Act, but its name obscures what it would actually do. The legislation is a compilation of deregulatory bills that failed to pass the Democrat-controlled Senate in the last Congress. It would alter nearly a dozen provisions of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law, loosening regulation of Wall Street banks” to include (1) Delay the Volcker rule (2) Water down rules on private equity firms (3) Loosen regulations on derivatives (4) Weaken transparency rules. Click here to assess Mother Jone’s link that details what the bill would do.  Although the president would never sign such a bill, this clearly demonstrates whose side the GOP represents.

Affordable Care Act

It should be of no surprise that the House voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act on February 3, 2015.   The bill passed on 239-186 vote and most likely only the beginning attempts to introduce legislation that will change or undo parts if not all of the Affordable Care Act.  The legislation will go next to the Republican-controlled Senate, but even so President Obama has threatened to veto the legislation.  It will be interesting to see how this develops given the fact on February 17, 2015 Sylvia Burwell, the Secretary of Health & Human Services announced 11.4 million Americans have signed up for or re-enrolled for affordable health insurance.

Immigration

Due to immigration policy disagreements with the President’s executive order the Republicans have refused to fund the Department of Homeland Security.  Although the deadline of February 27, 2015 is near they still do not appear to be acting with urgency nor have they introduced immigration reform bills that would address the undocumented immigrant population.  It will be interesting to see how this develops given the fact on February 17, 2015 a Texas federal judge blocked President Obama’s immigration action a day before it was to go into effect.

The American people are not quite sure how the Republican actions thus far support the middle class or jobs, but remain optimistic that GOP will hold true to it promises.

By Girl Talk | September 12, 2013 at 08:05 PM EDT | 2 comments

History- Chemical Weapons Treaties

At the 1925 Geneva Conference for the Supervision of the International Traffic in Arms, the United States took the initiative of seeking to prohibit the export of gases for use in war. At French suggestion it was decided to draw up a protocol on non-use of poisonous gases and at the suggestion of Poland the prohibition was extended to bacteriological weapons. Signed on June 17, 1925, the Geneva Protocol thus restated the prohibition previously laid down by the Versailles and Washington treaties and added a ban on bacteriological warfare (Dept. of State): The Geneva Protocol, is a treaty prohibiting the first use of chemical and biological weapons in international armed conflicts. It was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on 7 September 1929 (Dept. of State).  To see treaty (text) & countries who signed click here

Before World War II the protocol was ratified by many countries, including all the great powers except the United States and Japan. When they ratified or acceded to the protocol, some nations — including the United Kingdom, France, and the USSR — declared that it would cease to be binding on them if their enemies, or the allies of their enemies, failed to respect the prohibitions of the protocol. (Dept. of State)

1993 Chemical Weapons Convention was signed.  The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and their precursors.  The main obligation under the convention is the prohibition of use and production of chemical weapons, as well as the destruction of all chemical weapons.

Syria signed the Geneva Protocol….What is the purpose of a treaty or agreement if not enforced? Syrian Chemical Weapons Use Videos: Intelligence has released these videos, which were compiled by the U.S. Open Source Center:  Warning: These videos contain disturbing images of dead bodies, including children. VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED

Moving forward to today, situation in Syria

The President addressed the nation on Tuesday, September 10, 2013:

“Early hours of August 21, more than 1,000 Syrians– including hundreds of children– were killed by chemical weapons launched  by the Assad government.  What happened to those people– to those children– is not only a violation of international law– it’s also a danger to our security.  Here’s why:

If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban against these deadly weapons erodes, other tyrants and authoritarian regimes will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gases and using them. Over time, our troops could face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield. It could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons and use them to attack civilians. If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten our allies in the region.”

After careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them, and make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use. 

President Obama Put Strike On Hold Due To Recent Developments

Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin and Syria has recently indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons.  The Assad regime has also now admitted that it has chemical weapons, and even claimed they would join the Chemical Weapons Convention.  Hum…would we have seen a reaction like this if our Commander and Chief had not exposed Assad and threatened a military strike against Syria- despite opposition by many members Congress? I think not!

Although it appears there’s been a bit of a “break through” the American people are leery given the fact (1) Putin recently called Secretary Kerry and the Obama administration liars, claiming Syria did not have or use chemical weapons on it’s people (2) Putin undermined the US by providing asylum to Edward Snowden, an Ex-NSA employee accused of espionage for disclosing in June secret American internet and telephone surveillance programs (3) Russia is Syria’s ally- Putin supplies the Syrian army with advanced weapons in substantial quantities enabling Assad to kill thousands of its people.  Can the American people trust Putin or believe Assad?  We will know in the following months to come- actions speak louder than words.

March On Washington- Has Things Changed?

By Girl Talk | August 23, 2013 at 08:30 PM EDT | 3 comments

On August 24 & 28, 2013 citizens from across the country will converge upon our nations capital to commemorate the 50^th anniversary of the March on Washington.  In 1963 the march for jobs and freedom attracted 250, 000 and featured Martin Luther King Jr. who gave his riveting “I have a Dream  SPEECH”  at the Lincoln Memorial,

“One hundred years later the Negro still is not free.  One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination.  One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity.  One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself and exile in his own land.  And so we’ve come here today to dramatize a shameful condition”.

Has things changed?  This rally should signify much more than just retracing the steps of earlier activists to the National Mall, but serve as a reminder to all of us, white, black, purple and yellow how far we’ve come as a nation, yet how much further we have to go: American’s are still facing some of the same issues they were 50 years ago: affordable housing, a system where equal access to a quality education and fresh produce is not determined by your zip code, the right to vote, affordable college tuition, job opportunities with fair and decent wages.  How much longer do the American people have to accept a system where policies favor the rich and enable them to get richer while the poor get poorer? American’s are not asking for a handout, but a fair shake.

If the American people want change they have to demand change and not stop until they see it come to fruition- this has to be a grass root effort.  To start they must petition Congress to implement policies that would “even the playing field” where everyone has a fair shot at the American Dream.  They must vote in all elections not just Presidential elections- its equally imperative that they elect state and local officials who have the same vision of equality and vote members of Congress who do not out of office in the 2014 election.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self evident that all mean are created equal.” Martin Luther King, Jr. 

“One Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”. The Pledge Allegiance. 

Crank Up The Heat & Demand Congress Act- Voter Rights Act

By Girl Talk | July 26, 2013 at 07:03 PM EDT | 3 comments

The 5-4 ruling striking section 4, a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, authorized by Chief Justice John Roberts was not just another devastating blow to the American people, but a blow that could potentially impact the results of future presidential election(s) if Congress does not act.

While Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act still remains intact in its pre-clearance authority over states with a history of discrimination and voter suppression, Section 4 is essential in its calculus of determining which states are subject to federal pre-clearance. Therefore, Section 4 is critical in its efforts to make Section 5 viable, otherwise there is no mandate or formula for determining which states would be subject to pre-clearance of Section 4. (Empower Magazine)

What next?  The American people need to crank up the heat and demand Congress Act: Congress was given the authority to pass legislation with oversight stipulations where they feel voting discrimination continues. Justice Roberts also encouraged Congress to update its data and provide new evidence of ongoing discrimination in the “pre-clearance states.  The question is will Congress act? Here’s a snap shop of the GOP’s record since winning the House in 2010: the Affordable Care Act appealed 38 times, countless abortion bills introduced, gun control bill blocked, no deal on Immigration Reform,  223 Presidential executive and judicial appointees blocked.

Justice Thomas and the other conservative justices seem to believe that racism in voting is over, or at least that Southern states have made enough progress that the preapproval requirement is no longer justified. The Court faulted Congress for continuing to use a jurisdiction’s history of voting discrimination prior and up to 1965, when the Voting Rights Act was passed, to determine the application of the preclearance rule. In his opinion for the Court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the pre-1965 history of discrimination is no longer relevant. “Today the Nation is no longer divided along those lines.”

Such comments lead me to believe the justices live in a different reality or weren’t around down during the 2012 presidential election when voter suppression was rapid-  battle over early voting, new ID requirements ect….  In a speech given by Attorney General Eric Holder, on January 24, 2012 he said the DOJ had opened up over 100 investigations into possible voting rights violations across the country.  Also in the 2012 election, House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R-Allegheny) openly suggested that the House’s end game in passing the Voter ID law was to benefit the GOP politically. Here are his exact words spoken, “We are focused on making sure that we meet our obligations that we’ve talked about for years,” said Turzai: Voter ID Will Allow Romney to Win Pa”.

According to Empower Magazine, peeling back the Voting Rights Act erodes the preventative safeguards for ensuring that states with a history of racial discrimination and voter suppression will in fact be fair and free to all those who participate in the American electoral process. The 5-4 ruling will make the battles we saw in the 2012 election something that will now be subject to what the New York Times article called “after-the-fact litigation- making it much harder to fight prior to the election as we did and will most likely be fought after the damage is done”.  It’s up to the American people to crank up the heat and demand Congress act to insure that doesn’t happen!

Snubbed By The Supreme Court On Affirmative Action

By Girl Talk | July 12, 2013 at 02:18 PM EDT | 3 comments

If you, your parents, or grandparents lived through the civil rights movement you felt the sting handed down by the Supreme court in Fisher vs. Texas that punted the question of affirmative action in higher education back to the Federal Court of Appeals.  The decision appeared to be spineless with no affirmation to the relevance of Affirmative Action. What message does that send to the American people?

Southern Oklahoma State University: Affirmative action policies and programs are designed to ensure that qualified individuals have equal access to opportunity and are given a fair chance to contribute their talents and abilities.  These policies and programs encourage positive action to make certain that qualified candidates for jobs, admission to schools or contracts are given fair and equal consideration. And the word “qualified” is important to underscore – affirmative action programs are designed for qualified individuals.

Affirmative action has a critical connection to creating diversity in our workforce and in our student communities – positive goals supported in businesses and campuses across our nation. Discrimination still exists. Now more than ever, the continued use of affirmative action is needed to address existing discrimination, to break down barriers and to ensure that all individuals have an equal opportunity to demonstrate their talents and abilities.

We have made progress, but there is a long road ahead.  Ending affirmative action would end the dreams of opportunity for many. Policies and programs to ensure equality of opportunity provide the only assurance that many women, people of color, veterans and the disabled have that they can compete – and be evaluated fairly – for jobs and educational opportunities.

America is a stronger country today because of affirmative action. Diversity pays – economically and psychologically. Our country is strong because of the rich diversity of our culture, not in spite of it. Educational institutions benefit from the contributions of diverse populations, as does our workforce.

Affirmative action calls for fairness. Under affirmative action, those who make hiring and admissions decisions are only responsible for giving all candidates a fair chance to be evaluated, regardless of gender or race. The essence of affirmative action is opportunity.

Its disappointing when the struggle and sacrifice of those who helped pave the way for equal rights “appear” to be snubbed by the United States Supreme Court.

Is Edward Snowden a Traitor or Whistleblower?

By Girl Talk | June 21, 2013 at 09:34 PM EDT | 5 comments

The National Security Agency (NSA) is a cryptologic intelligence agency, employees who violate the oath to safeguard national security secrets entrusted by its programs is a serious offense, even traitorous.  The word “traitor” may be interpreted to describe a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, country, family, friend or other group to which they may belong.  Many Americans believe traitor adequately describes National Security Agency leaker, Edward Snowden.  While other media outlets refer to Snowden as a whistleblower- Really!  A whistleblower is heroic, a person who fights for what they believe. In legal terms, a whistleblower is anyone who has and reports insider knowledge of “illegal” activities occurring in an organization? Snowden is not a whistleblower simply because there is nothing illegal about the two NSA programs he leaked, one was designed to track the use of U.S. based Internet servers by foreigners with possible links to terrorism while the other program gathers U.S. phone records- the data is collected legally under a system of safeguards, and has helped to avert serious crime/terrorist attacks.

Snowden’s second wave of leaks involved purported American cyber-intelligence activities globally and against China. Snowden claimed there were more than 61,000 US hacking operations globally, with hundreds of them directed at China and Hong Kong, and implied the existence of numerous other activities to survey and counter Beijing’s growing cyber-warfare capabilities (Guardian, June 2013).

Is Snowden claiming that China and other countries do not hack into American intelligence systems?  Is Snowden insinuating that he didn’t know NSA’s mission before he applied for his position? If Snowden believed that leaking national security information was the right thing to do, then why did he flee to Korea? Why didn’t Snowden report his suspicions to the Inspector General or submit a whistleblower claim if he thought NSA was indeed conducting illegal activities. Who gave Snowden (what appears to be) inherently governmental roles? How can we be certain Snowden is not leaking other National Security information to other countries? Who is funding Snowden since he is no longer employed? The American people want to know the answers to these questions and more.

June 21, 2013 Federal prosecutors filed a sealed complaint against Snowden and now has 60 days to file an indictment to secure his extradition from Hong Kong (unless he flees to another country) for a criminal trial in the US (Washington Post).

Benghazi A Scandal, Absolutely Not!

By Girl Talk | June 05, 2013 at 11:36 PM EDT | 1 comment

Since when did semantics become a scandal?  The GOP continues to argue that President Obama and his administration “initially” described the Benghazi attack as growing spontaneous demonstration rather than a terrorist attack.  Really, I think President Obama addressed those accusations quiet well during the second presidential debate as well as release more than 100 e-mails for those who claim he and his aides played politics with national security- click HERE to see emails.

Unfortunately, there are still those who live in a constant state of dilution and hate, they refuse to let the facts be. Some on the “Right” such as Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) have even stooped to the ultimate low- going as far as arguing that the President could be impeached for his handling of the attacks in Benghazi, Libya.  Well the American people know this is utterly ridiculous, unjustifiable and sad!

Seriously though, what do Americans really care about?  I believe they care that Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans lost there lives, I believe they want assurance that Congress will concentrate on what went wrong instead of asserting self serving political agendas, I believe they want Congress to approve more funding to help strengthen security and focus on catching those responsible for the killings and brought to justice.

The State Department released a report of 29 (24 of which were unclassified) recommendations issued to them by the independent Benghazi Accountability Review Board (ARB). The Department accepted each of the ARB’s recommendations and stated they are committed to implementing them.  Below are just a few of the Department’s actions on the 24 unclassified recommendations, to see all click HERE.

OVERARCHING SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS

1. The Department must strengthen security for personnel and platforms beyond traditional reliance on host government security support in high risk, high threat posts.

The Department established a High Threat Board to review our presence at High Threat, High Risk posts; the Board will review these posts every 6 months.

We created a Deputy Assistant Secretary for High Threat Posts in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS), who is responsible for ensuring that such posts receive the focused attention they need.

2. The State Department must work with Congress to restore the Capital Security Cost Sharing Program [for embassy construction] at its full capacity, adjusted for inflation to approximately $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2015.

The FY14 President’s Budget included a request for $2.2 billion in the Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance account.

3. The Board supports the State Department’s initiative to request additional Marines and expand the Marine Security Guard (MSG) Program – as well as corresponding requirements for staffing and funding.

Along with the Congress and Department of Defense, we are working to increase the number of Marine Security Guards at U.S. diplomatic facilities, and have requested (and received) more resources to build facilities at additional posts to host Marine Security Guards in the future.

STAFFING HIGH RISK, HIGH THREAT POSTS

4. The Board strongly endorses the Department’s request for increased DS personnel for high- and critical-threat posts and for additional Mobile Security Deployment teams, as well as an increase in DS domestic staffing in support of such action.

With Congressional support, the Department is creating 151 new Diplomatic Security positions — 113 are expected to be hired this fiscal year. The remainder will be hired in FY14.

5. The Department should assign key policy, program, and security personnel at high risk, high threat posts for a minimum of one year. For less critical personnel, the temporary duty length (TDY) length should be no less than 120 days.

All high threat posts now have a minimum of a one-year tour of duty. We are planning to ensure overlap between incumbent and incoming positions to facilitate continuity of operations at high threat posts.

Temporary duty assignments are set at a minimum of 120 days.

6. The Department needs to review the staffing footprints at high risk, high threat posts, with particular attention to ensuring adequate Locally Employed Staff (LES) and management support. High risk, high threat posts must be funded and the human resources process prioritized to hire LES interpreters and translators.

The Department surveyed every post to review the numbers of interpreters and translators on staff, and found that there was adequate staffing.

7. With increased and more complex diplomatic activities in the Middle East, the Department should enhance its ongoing efforts to significantly upgrade its language capacity, especially Arabic, among American employees, including DS, and receive greater resources to do so.

The Department is ramping up the language capacity of its American employees, including Diplomatic Security agents, especially in Arabic. Increasing language capacity takes time – certain languages take up to 2 years to learn. In the short term, the Department is committed to better equipping the growing cadre of security experts to engage local populations and cooperate with host nation security forces.

Crisis In Syria

By Girl Talk | May 15, 2013 at 12:11 PM EDT | No Comments

What started out as a peaceful demonstration against Assad a few years ago has since escalated into a civil war killing at least 70,000 people affirms the United Nation.  The crisis has caused major concern around the globe prompting nonstop media coverage and continuous heated political debates. Islamist militants have emerged as the most potent of the anti-Assad rebels.

Today, May 15, 2013 the United Nation General Assembly will vote on a draft resolution that condemns Syrian authorities and accepts the opposition Syrian National Coalition as party to a potential political transition.  According to the Jerusalem Post, “the draft resolution condemns “all violence, irrespective of where it comes from,” continued escalation in the use of heavy weapons by Syrian authorities, the shelling and shooting by Syrian troops into neighboring nations and human rights abuses. It also demands that the Syrian authorities grant unfettered access to a UN team investigating allegations that chemical weapons have been used in the conflict. The draft resolution further welcomes Arab League decisions relevant to reaching a political solution, but does not reference an agreement by the league that member states have the right to provide military support to Syrians fighting Assad’s troops.

Russia, a close ally of Syrian President Bashar Assad, is opposed to the resolution, which was drafted by Qatar and other Arab nations and circulated among the 193 UN member states. Some Western diplomats said it was unlikely to win as many votes as a resolution that passed last year with 133 in favor: 12 votes against the previous Syria resolution and 31 abstentions and some countries did not participate. Russia was among those that opposed it. China, Iran, North Korea, Belarus, Cuba and other states that often criticize the West also voted against it” (REUTERS).

In response to the current crisis in Syria, the State Department announced on May 8, 2013 that the United States will provide an additional $100 million in humanitarian assistance to support those affected by the violence within Syria and the more than 1.4 million refugees across the region. This new funding is in addition to the nearly $25 million in food assistance for Syria announced by Secretary Kerry in Istanbul April 21. The United States remains the single-largest contributor of humanitarian assistance for the Syrian people, and with today’s announcement, is now providing nearly $510 million in humanitarian assistance.

The United States reaffirms our support and appreciation to those countries hosting refugees, and commends their efforts to provide protection and assistance to all who are fleeing the violence inside Syria. The United States recognizes the significant strains on local populations and the economic impacts of providing aid to refugees, and commends the hospitality of the citizens and governments who are welcoming refugees into their communities. We call on all governments to continue keeping their borders open to all who are fleeing the violence in Syria.

The $100 million will support the activities of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), both within Syria and as part of the regional refugee response in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon. The funding will support: Jordan: Nearly $43 million; Lebanon:$32 million,Turkey: $9.5 million and inside Syria: nearly $16 million.

To see more of the press release click HERE

Gun Control, Round 2

By Girl Talk | April 30, 2013 at 04:43 PM EDT | 3 comments

It seems unconceivable that an amendment yielding a “something better than nothing” or a hair line victory for gun control advocates while giving concessions to gun lobbyist couldn’t even pass in Congress 54-46- April 17, 2013 marked the date the U.S. Senate defeated a measure that would require background checks for individuals purchasing guns, despite the fact that roughly 90% of the nation favors them. What message does this send to the American people and what does this say about our democracy? President Obama called it a shameful day for Washington while the NRA called the defeat a “positive development”.

Did 41 Republicans and 4 Democrats forget about Columbine, Sandy Hook Elementary; Sikh Temple; Aurora, CO; Cafe Racer Espresso; Korean Christian College; Former Rep. Gabby Gifford/Arizona or did the power and money of the NRA supersede taking steps to help potentially save the lives of innocent women, men and children against senseless gun violence?  Are the American people not worthy of such protection? Is choosing to do absolutely nothing a better solution? Senators who voted against the bill insist their constituents asked them to vote no—Really? The last time the American people checked 90% was greater than 10%.  Lets also be clear that out of the 45, 24 of Senators preside over states where voters overwhelmingly support background checks (Mother Jones). To see a list of these Senators click here. To see a list of all the Senators who voted to block the amendment click here

Advocates for gun control vow that although the amendment proposed by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) failed to capture the 60 votes needed to advance does not signify defeat but only marks the beginning of a grueling battle ahead.

President Obama stated “this effort is not over and only represents the end of ROUND ONE”- and yes the President knows a little something about rounds after being defeated in the first 2012 presidential campaign debate, yet coming back stronger, harder, wiser and going on to not only win the next two debates but the election. He’s in it to win it and it appears the majority of the the American people are with him.

Rand Paul Speech at Howard University

By Girl Talk | April 12, 2013 at 05:01 PM EDT | 2 comments

You can’t just give any old speech at Howard University and not expect feedback!  As a very proud Howard University Alumni I feel compelled to comment on Congressman Rand Paul’s speech held on campus this week, April 10, 2013.  My comments are not meant to criticize, but enlighten and I encourage others to read his transcript and follow suite….

I was very disappointed in the Congressman’s speech not because I wasn’t open to hear what he had to say, but because he didn’t challenge my views, I didn’t feel compelled to question or reevaluate some of the policies I believe in.  Additionally, his speech did not feel sincere or genuine.  Another fellow Alumni also expressed her disappointment,“ He presented a horrible speech with odd jokes, awkward comparisons to black civil rights leaders and weird pop culture references in his struggle to sound relatable”.

I would like to commend the Congressman for his efforts to reach out to the African American Community as outlined in the Republican Party’s initiative, but I do suggest he reevaluate he his presentation before he gives his next speech to the minority community.  Here are just a few suggestions I thought would help:

Lesson 1: Know Your Audience…

• If you knew your audience you would have known police officers, bodyguards, campus security guards and a barricade in front of the podium was excessive and unnecessary.
• If you knew your audience you would have never gone to a historical black college, especially one as prestigious as Howard University and question their knowledge of black history nor attempted to give them a lesson on it either.
• If you knew your audience you wouldn’t have compared yourself to Jessie Jackson and assumed no one would be offended or quoted Toni Morrison, as if you really read anything she wrote- if you did my apologies
• If you knew your audience you wouldn’t have started your speech with “my trip will be a success if the Hilltop will simply print that a Republican came to Howard but he came in peace… SERIOUSLY…. or “my purpose for being here is I want government to leave you alone” REALLY…
• If you knew your audience you would have known that it’s really not important what the Republican Party stood for in the early to mid-1900’s, but it’s what they stand for now that matters to them
• If you knew your audience you would address policies that matter to them, not policies your party associates them with, like prison or handouts as referenced in your speech

Lesson 2: They Remember

• You stated that the “The Big Bad Government is always in our business, well they remember if there was no government there would be no Civil Right Act of 1964, no Brown v Board of Education decision, no Voting Rights Act of 1965, no Executive Order 11246 enforcing Affirmative Action ect….
• You stated your party backs education, but they remember it was your party that supported the Ryan budget plan in 2012.  This plan would have cut Pell Grants back to 2008 levels, eliminating recent increases for low-income college students.
• They remember what happened to the housing industry before Dodd-Frank, yet your party wants to deregulate and appeal Dodd-Frank and the Consumer Protection Act, which brought the most significant changes to financial regulation in US history.
• They remember when after age 19 young adults/students could no longer be covered under their parents insurance, but since the Affordable Care Act, which your party wants to appeal, adults/students are now covered until age 26
• Although you stated that you support the Civil Rights Act, they remember during your interview with the Louisville Courier Journal in 2010 your answer was not an unequivocal yes, but that you didn’t like the idea of telling private business owners to abhor racism and in your interview with MSNBC with Rachel Maddox where she asked whether you thought a private business has the right to say we don’t serve black people, your response was yes.  Additionally when an HU student ask that you elaborate you stated that you were only concerned with the ramification and extensions of the Civil Rights Act….
• They remember that although your party runs on “balancing the budget”, the GOP hasn’t balanced a budget since 1960 under Dwight Eisenhower, a time when the Democrats held the majority in the House and Senate.
• In your speech you point to the Reagan years when “the economy grew at nearly 7% and millions upon millions of jobs were created and you point out that today, after four years of the current policies, one in six Americans live in poverty”, but they also remember the Bush years which you don’t reference.
• In your speech you state that “Jim Crow laws were a product of bigoted state and local governments”, but they remember the  long lines during the previous election, and the attempt to implement voter ids laws in many Republican held states and gerrymandering laws put in place after the 2010 census
• They remember the GOPs position on gun control, immigration, gay rights and the Fair Pay Act

I think when the Congressman can begin to address these issues; the minority community will feel they matter.  I would like to thank Howard University for always providing opportunities to ensure there students stay well grounded, continuously grow and challenge their way of thinking. To view Congressman Paul’s speech click HERE

Women in the Arab World – Do They Matter?

By Girl Talk | April 05, 2013 at 03:47 PM EDT | 1 comment

Women in emerging and developing countries particularly women in the Arab world have been subjected to restrictions of their rights and liberties based on religion, culture and traditions for centuries.  Such impediments have created bearers in areas reflected in the legal system, the economy and education.   The speech by Terry Soneshine given on April 4, 2013, under Secretary for Public Diplomacy & Public Affairs captivated me and I thought I would share with others….

“Should we really care about increasing the role of women in the Arab world—beyond just feeling good about ourselves? If so, why should we? Will the full inclusion of women – practically speaking, politically speaking, economically speaking make a difference amid this uncertain, even chaotic transition? And how will we know what success looks like?

On the first issue – why care? Let me start by saying, fairness and human dignity are universal values. We tend to embrace those values, easily when it comes to talking about the global economy – level playing fields, fairness and transparency are essential, so men and women can compete on the basis of their talent and drive.

As First Lady, former Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton put it so simply yet so memorably: “Human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights, once and for all.”

And when it comes to human rights, there is a common set of liberties to which all human beings are entitled. Governments must enshrine, protect and enforce those liberties, so everyone is represented and all citizens are treated equally under law, regardless of creed, color or gender.

But let’s move a step beyond fairness and human rights. There is also an evidence-based reality. Study after study has confirmed that any country or region that ignores half its population undercuts its chances of success, politically, economically and certainly democratically.

And there are demographic realities in the Arab world. Young people—including girls – are a disproportionate majority, with youth unemployment being among the highest numbers globally. This youth bulge will continue at least until 2030. These facts put empowering young people of both genders at the top of any agenda.

Another fact: Young women are the largest cohort in higher education in many countries in the region and represent the next generation of human capital. If we limit that pool of emerging problem solvers, we will limit their unique perspectives and experiences, skills, and solutions.

According to a World Bank study, women in the Arab world have the lowest rates of employment of any region. The economies of the Middle East will never reach their potential without women playing a significantly more active role in the work force.

But let’s go beyond economics. Women are frequently the ones most intimately connected in their communities and with their families – and thus uniquely positioned to prevent extremist ideology creeping in. They are the community’s most frequent teachers of respect and tolerance. But they can also bring their attributes to more than so-called “women’s issues,” including conflict resolution, economic policy, and political leadership.

All across the region, women are already taking the initiative – women like Tawakkul Karman, now a 34-year-old mother of three from Yemen, a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2011 for her nonviolent efforts to enhance women’s safety and human rights, and peacebuilding. Or in the UAE, Minister of Development and International Cooperation, Lubna Al Qassemi. Or scientists like Dr. Ansam Sawalha, whose science camp “GO Girls” is bringing educational opportunities and scholarships to girls and women in the Palestinian Territories.

Imagine the effect on the entire region, if the Tawakkuls, Lubnas, and Ansams are no longer individual exceptions, but regular citizens – building infrastructures of democracy, freedom, dignity, prosperity, and innovation in their countries.

It is essential in today’s Arab world that women actually govern. In Yemen, you could say that 28 percent of the delegates at the National Dialogue are women. But the truth is: Women hold very few seats in decision making circles. Women only have three out of 72 seats in the new Syrian Opposition Coalition.

And in Egypt, where the abuse of women has violated not only their bodies, but also their right to free expression and their right to take part in their country’s transition, only nine women legislators won seats in the parliamentary elections.

It has been left to women in civil society – such as the National Council of Women – to stand up against recent official pronouncements that distort religion to deny rights to women.

There is an inherent conundrum here: Women are needed in decision making circles to bring about political change. But, until there is change, women will have difficulty in attaining influential political positions.

I am building for you a solid case. The evidence couldn’t be more clear-cut: Women are the bellwether, the barometer and the building bricks of greater economies, democracies and countries. So, yes, we should care – because when we stop talking about women in the Arab World, governments and economies backslide. Women are sidelined. And there is a retreat.

With retreat come failed expectations, violence, and suppression of rights—everyone’s rights. The cost of this systemic discrimination – and failure to harness women’s contributions – has consequences for prosperity, stability and even violent extremism.

Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to hear from 16 young women from the Middle East and Northern Africa, who were participating in one of the State Department’s International Visitor Programs. We invited them to the United States – as we do through our Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs – to experience our culture, meet with American counterparts, get training in their fields, and build networks that can enhance their futures.

They were parliamentarians, members of civil society, professors, and election monitors. They were fighting in the trenches of pushback, hostility, and institutionalized resistance – and they did not believe in retreat.

The women from Egypt were particularly moving when discussing their challenges. They talked about the tear gas they face every single day. It comes in different colors. Sometimes, it’s the kind that burns your skin. Or takes your breath away. One woman joked: We’re addicted to it.

What they didn’t joke about was the horrific rape and sexual violence in their country. They described how – during demonstrations – men surround women like a pack of football players in a huddle. Then one by one, they take their turns. Raping.

We are following these developments in Egypt very closely. And none more so than Secretary Kerry – who has shown his commitment to women throughout his 30 years in the Senate – and who vowed at his confirmation hearings to carry forward Secretary Clinton’s work to institutionalize women and girls at the center of American foreign policy.

As Secretary Kerry said this week – and I quote: “President Obama and the Administration share real concerns about the direction that Egypt appears to be moving in. It is our hope that there is still time to be able to turn the corner. But the recent arrests, the violence in the streets, the lack of inclusivity with respect to the opposition in public ways that make a difference to the people of Egypt, are all of concern today.”

As we condemn the attacks and urge the government to prosecute those responsible, we also recognize that sexual violence is endemic across society – and not only in Egypt, but across the region.

I’m pleased to note: The 16 women also shared positive stories. One Moroccan woman told me she was the youngest female parliamentarian in Morocco. She was the first girl in her village to go to school, to attend university, and to become elected to public office. She said she was determined to make sure her exceptional story would become every Moroccan girl’s normal story.

Another woman from Iran escaped from her country during the Green Movement demonstrations and the subsequent regime-led crackdown. Since then, she said, she has been working to reach out to other women – to produce democratic change.

Those are the stories that transform societies. And they were echoed in other ways by the other women who were there – a minister of social affairs in Sudan working to protect children and women. A legislator from Iraq fighting for women widowed or disabled by three decades of conflict. A Palestinian woman working to support higher education in her community.  They were unanimous about what they are fighting for: Freedom and dignity. And as I found out, certain words are more than abstractions to them. When I told them that – I preferred to say the “gender space” instead of  “women’s space,” one women said: “In my world, you can’t say the word ‘women’ enough times.”

Their message was clear: They want the world to pay attention. And they refuse to be sidelined, abused, and marginalized even violent extremism.”

To read more of Terry Soneshine speech click HERE

Cyprus Bailout

By Girl Talk | March 29, 2013 at 01:57 PM EDT | 2 comments

The US has had their fair share of “too big to fail” companies and bailout fiascos.   We are sympathetically watching as the crisis in Cyprus unfolds effecting innocent Cypriot taxpayers/depositors: The Cypriot banking system was insolvent and desperately in need of a bailout.   Like Ireland, this island banking system has expanded rapidly over the years and currently has assets equal to almost 7 times its GDP, making the system too big to fail, but also “too big to save.” Funding needed to recapitalize the banks was estimated to be around 17B euros (almost 100 percent of Cypriot GDP) making it impossible for Cyprus to resolve its crisis alone (Asli Demirgüç-Kunt).

According to the Washington Post “European leaders on Monday, March 25, 2013 hailed a last-minute bailout for Cyprus as an important step in defending their unified currency, but some officials and analysts questioned whether the deal raised new problems that could still threaten the survival of the euro. The arrangement will grant Cyprus $13 billion in emergency loans from an international group of lenders but will force the country to shutter its second-largest bank and will push massive losses on large depositors there. The deal effectively wipes out Cyprus’s appeal as an international banking haven but saves Europe from cutting off support to one of the 17 nations that use the euro currency”.

On Thursday March 28, 2013 Cyprus’s banks reopened from a nearly two-week hiatus with little sign of disorder among depositors, even as the country’s politicians pointed fingers over who was to blame for the financial sector’s meltdown.  President Nicos Anastasiades ordered the creation of a three-member committee to investigate the roots of the economic malaise engulfing the island.

Chained CPI, Good or Bad?

By Girl Talk | March 15, 2013 at 07:09 PM EDT | 2 comments

Why has CPI or in particular Chained CPI been a topic of discussion on the hill and a major concern for most Americans.  How many American’s are familiar with CPI and Chained CPI?

CPI stands for Consumer Price Index (CPI).  It is a measure of the average change over time in the prices paid by urban consumers for a market basket of consumer goods and services.  The CPI affects nearly all Americans because it is used as an economic indicator, a deflator of other economic series and a means of adjusting dollar values.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics gives and excellent explanation:

CPI is the most widely used measure of inflation and is sometimes viewed as an indicator of the effectiveness of government economic policy. It provides information about price changes in the Nation’s economy to government, business, labor, and private citizens and is used by them as a guide to making economic decisions. In addition, the President, Congress, and the Federal Reserve Board use trends in the CPI to aid in formulating fiscal and monetary policies.  The CPI and its components are used to adjust other economic series for price changes and to translate these series into inflation-free dollars. Examples of series adjusted by the CPI include retail sales, hourly and weekly earnings, and components of the National Income and Product Accounts.

An interesting example is the use of the CPI as a deflator of the value of the consumer’s dollar to find its purchasing power. The purchasing power of the consumer’s dollar measures the change in the value to the consumer of goods and services that a dollar will buy at different dates. In other words, as prices increase, the purchasing power of the consumer’s dollar declines.

The CPI is often used to adjust consumers’ income payments (for example, Social Security) to adjust income eligibility levels for government assistance and to automatically provide cost-of-living wage adjustments to millions of American workers. As a result of statutory action the CPI affects the income of millions of Americans. Over 50 million Social Security beneficiaries, and military and Federal Civil Service retirees, have cost-of-living adjustments tied to the CPI. In addition, eligibility criteria for millions of food stamp recipients, and children who eat lunch at school are affected by changes in the CPI. Many collective bargaining agreements also tie wage increases to the CPI.

To learn more click HERE

What is Chained CPI? Chained CPI is one of many ways to approximate the impact to consumers’ pocketbooks of rising or falling prices. Although many economists believe that it is an improvement over conventional CPI measures, some lawmakers are hesitant to entertain it due to its impact on fixed-income seniors. During the recent federal budget and debt ceiling talks in Congress, the term “chained CPI” was raised as a possible way to reduce the deficit. The concern is that the change in accounting procedures would affect how much is paid out in future Social Security benefits and the amount of tax revenue generated.  Dylan Mathew explains how Chained CPI works in his article “Everything you Need to Know About Chained CPI in One Post”:

Numerous government programs, most notably Social Security benefits and the income thresholds for tax brackets, are indexed for inflation. But inflation can be measured in a number of ways. The tax code, for instance, uses CPI-U (Consumer Price Index – Urban), which measures prices for consumers in urban areas, to adjust the income cutoffs for different tax brackets. Social Security uses CPI-W, which is like CPI-U but only counts prices paid by urban wage-earners, not all consumers.

Various deficit-reduction frameworks, including Bowles-Simpson, Domenici-Rivlin and the Gang of Six plan, would convert all programs using CPI-U or CPI-W to a third measure — called C-CPI-U, or chained CPI. Most inflation measures, including CPI-U and CPI-W, track the price of a certain basket of goods. That basket could include, say, a year’s supply of propane. When propane costs go up, CPI-U and CPI-W include that as an increase in the cost of living.

But some people would just stop using propane if its price went up. They’d switch to electric heating, or a geothermal system, or a wood stove. So their actual heating costs wouldn’t go up as much as CPI-U and CPI-W would suggest. Chained CPI attempts to take “substitution effects” like this into account. Thus, its number generally rises more slowly than other metrics.

That adds up to a big cut in Social Security benefits. Imagine, for example, a person born in 1935 who retired to full benefits at age 65 in 2000. According to the Social Security Administration, people in that position had an average initial monthly benefit of $1,435, or $17,220 a year. Under the cost-of-living-adjustment formula and 2012 inflation, that benefit be up to $1,986 a month in 2013, or $23,832 a year. But under chained CPI, the sum would be around $1,880 a month, or $22,560 a year. That’s a cut of over 5 percent, and more as you go further and further into the future

The results by using chained CPI for taxes are also striking. The Tax Policy Center calculated the income tax increases that would be caused by a switch to chained CPI. They’re not big — a little more than $100 a year for most families — but they’re oddly regressive.  The group getting the biggest tax hike is families making between $30,000 and $40,000 a year. Their increase is almost six times that faced by millionaires. That’s because millionaires are already in the top bracket, so they’re not being pushed into higher marginal rates because of changing bracket thresholds. While a different inflation measure might mean that the cutoff between the 15 percent and 25 percent goes from $35,000 to $30,000, the threshold for the top 35 percent bracket is already low enough that all millionaires are paying it. Some of their income is taxed at higher rates because of lower thresholds down the line, but as a percentage of income that doesn’t amount to a whole lot.

All told, chained CPI raises average taxes by about 0.19 percent of income. So, taken all together, it’s basically a big (5 percent over 12 years; more, if you take a longer view) across-the-board cut in Social Security benefits paired with a 0.19 percent income surtax. You don’t hear a lot of politicians calling for the drastic slashing of Social Security benefits and an across-the-board tax increase that disproportionately hits low earners.

To read more of this article by the Washington Post click HERE

Now that you have had a chance to learn a little more about Chained CPI, what do you think, is it bad or good for America?

Sequestration, Another Self Manufactured Crisis

By Girl Talk | February 27, 2013 at 09:06 PM EST | 4 comments

The world is watching, yet here we go again, self manufactured crises! Americans are frustrated with the relentless gridlock imposed by Congress, particularly the GOP’s unwillingness to compromise on anything- hence a 15.6% approval rating according to a Gallup pole conducted by RCP.  How can Congress kick not one, but multiple critical issues down the road- sequester, continuing resolution and debt ceiling, meanwhile, do nothing to actively resolve  the issues.  This is unacceptable and unheard of in the everyday workforce. Yes sometimes a manager will allot additional time to resolve a complex issue or complete a project, but that extra time is spent on actively working the issue and submitting a  final solution/product on time if not before…. Anything less would be grounds for termination.

How did we get to this point of sequestration?  Back in 2011, Republicans demanded spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, which was unprecedented.  Democrats on the other hand wanted a more balanced approach to include revenue and spending cuts instead of just cutting critical programs that boost our economy, help the middle class and poor.  Both parties decided if they couldn’t make a deal by 2013, they would just do these automatic cuts that nobody likes- the cuts were supposed to be a tool to pry open the gridlocked political process. According to an article written by Melissa Block, “the whole design of these arbitrary cuts were to make them so unattractive and unappealing that Democrats and Republicans would actually get together and find a good compromise of sensible cuts as well as closing tax loopholes ect. This was all designed to say we can’t do these bad cuts; let’s do something smarter. That was the whole point of the Budget Control Act- this so-called sequestration .”  Well so much for that idea, it’s now 2013 and gridlock remains at an all time high and Congress is no closer to reaching a deal to reduce the national debt than they were in 2011.

The American people are smart and do not buy the ridiculous insistence made by some that sequestrations not all gloom and doom- Well I guess if you consider furloughs, termination of contracts, compromising national security, domestic investments and core government functions un-alarming then your right. According to Politico, “Sequestration is a blunt and indiscriminate instrument. It is not the responsible way for our nation to achieve deficit reduction.”

To See the Potential Impact of Sequestration on Federal Agencies (Washington Post)….

Click HERE

Why are Local & Statewide Elections Important?

By Girl Talk | February 21, 2013 at 12:57 AM EST | 2 comments

During reconstruction the path to “full” voting rights for “all” American citizens was long, often brutal, unfair, and very challenging. Unfortunately, particularly in the last election some of those challenges have resurfaced. The 15th Amendment (Voting rights) ratified in 1870 is specifically dedicated to protecting the right of all citizens to vote, regardless of their race; The 19th Amendment: (Women’s voting rights), ratified in 1920, gave all citizens the right to vote, regardless of sex; 26th Amendment (Voting age), ratified in 1971, gave all citizens age 18 or older the right to vote.  If we truly value these rights and are determined to make a difference, we must participate in not just presidential elections but local and state elections as well.

Americans appear to have become so distracted with the enormous media coverage of general elections that they have lost focus on local and statewide elections.  These elections are just as important as presidential elections if not more because they affect how we live and how tax dollars are spent in our communities. In the 2010 elections most districts reported less than 50% turnout rates.  Why is that?  Did Americans forget that state elections impact national legislation?

As a consequence to very low turnout, Republicans where overwhelming sent to our state legislature.  This enabled them to draw the congressional map in their favor through redistricting until 2020 (when the next census is taken). They campaigned on job creation, yet appear to have become the party of NO, blocking virtually every proposal or piece of legislature that even remotely looks like a job creator or a compromise.

Federal elections occur every two years, on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Every member of the House of Representatives and about one-third of the Senate is up for reelection in any given election year. Therefore, if we are tired of the gridlock in Congress and want to ensure that our voices are heard, we must start preparing now for future elections which all start with our local municipal and county elections.

Gun Control, Shouldn’t That Be A No- Brainer

By Girl Talk | February 08, 2013 at 04:54 PM EST | 2 comments

With all the outrage and media coverage over gun violence, I hadn’t felt the need to write/blog about it simply because I thought doing something about gun control was a no brainer.  That is until I heard the President of the NRA and some Republicans respond with just plain crazy talk.  How can anybody ignore that theres been 31 school shootings in the US since Columbine or 20 children and 6 adults killed in Sandy Hook elementary; Six Sikh temple members killed; 12 people killed during the midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, CO; 5 killed at Cafe Racer Espresso in Seattle, WA; 5 black men shot in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in racially motivated shooting spree, 3 died;  7 killed at Oikos University, a Korean Christian college in Oakland, CA; Former Rep. Gabby Gifford (D-AZ) was shot in head, 19 others shot and 6 died.. Unfortunately, it doesn’t stop there, the list goes on and this doesn’t even include everyday homicides that aren’t covered by the media.

To suggest that gun control violates the Second Amendment is simply not true.  When I hear this statement thrown around so carelessly I have to wonder if those who make such accusations know what the 2nd amendment  says because there is no relation between the right to bear arms and implementing measures to control violence.  I applaud the President’s courage and unwavering determination to act quickly- On January 16, 2013 he unveiled aggressive proposals for curbing gun violence while pressing Congress to pass universal background checks and bans on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.  He also used his presidential powers to enact 23 measures that didn’t require the backing of lawmakers.  The president’s executive actions include:

Ordering federal agencies to make more data available for background checks; appointing a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (which he did on); Directing the Centers for Disease Control to research gun violence; Ending limits that make it more difficult for the government to research gun violence, such as gathering data on guns that fall into criminal hands; Requiring Federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations; Giving schools flexibility to use federal grant money to improve school safety, such as by hiring school resource officers and giving communities grants to institute programs to keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them.

What’s not to like about this proposal!  Nearly 6 in 10 Americans want stricter gun laws in the aftermath of the Newtown shooting (Associated Press-GfK poll).  For David Keene to flat out state the President’s measures are all feel-good proposals and they don’t prevent mass shooting is ridiculous and void of compassion.

I was moved by Former Rep. Gabrielle Gifford’s (D-Ariz.) testimony urging Congress to Act, “Violence is a big problem. Too many children are dying. Too many children. We must do something. “It will be hard, but the time is now. You must act. Be bold, be courageous, Americans are counting on you.” I stand with Ms. Gifford and urge all American’s to call their Congressman and Congresswomen to pass legislation now….

Kicking the Can Down the Road- The New Normal

By Girl Talk | January 28, 2013 at 10:16 PM EST | 4 comments

Raising the debt ceiling does not, as many on the Right would suggest, give the President a blank check to continue spending whenever he wants, however he wants. The debt limit is merely the maximum amount that the U.S. government can borrow, it doesn’t authorize new spending; instead, it provides the funding to pay for spending commitments that Congress has already incurred. So why are Republicans holding the debt-ceiling hostage with budget issues unrelated to paying our country’s bills?

In the past, the process of increasing the debt ceiling has largely been a formality that occurred frequently but took place outside of the public eye that is until Obama became President. Coincidence? I often wonder since the current debt is partly a result of obligations incurred long before he came into office?

For now the debt ceiling issue has been kicked down the road like many other demanding issues.  This seems to be the new normal. Why isn’t Congress, specifically Republicans who appear to be the obstructionist party held to the same standards of everyday Americans- if you don’t do your job or continuously miss deadlines you get fired?  I suppose that is the reason for Congressional elections except it appears that the odds are against Democrats in 2014 through 2020 elections due to redistricting and the polarization of the electorate that will probably limit the number of pickups Democrats can get even in a good Democratic year. Translation- that can either mean more gridlock and kicking cans down the road or some serious sole searching done by the Republican Party.

The American people long for the days of true bipartisanship where a political action consisted of a compromise or joint effort between the two parties.  Where decisions were made all for the good of the country/people- black, white, blue, purple, old, young, rich and the poor… I believe in a two party system, but I also believe that if  “Today’s” Republican Party want to continue to be a relevant force in the future they must make sincere strides to reach mainstream Americans which include women, African Americans and Latinos without cheating or changing the rules of the game during elections.  The divisive political climate manufactured by the GOP needs to also cease. This will not only benefit their party, but the country as a whole.

Colin Powell’s Interview with Meet the Press

By Girl Talk | January 14, 2013 at 09:47 PM EST | 2 comments

I have always had profound respect for Colin Powell and value his opinion on various issues that effect our nation.  He appears to be a straight shooter. He doesn’t just go along to get along with his party, but speaks what he believes to be truth and what he believes to be wrong/inaccurate.  Hence the reason I am providing the link to the video/transcript of the interview he did with David Gregory on Meet the Press Sunday, 1/13/13.. I think it is an absolute must see/hear or read:

To view full video or read entire transcript click HERE

Meet the Press also provided a few excerpts from the interview:

Regarding Senator Chuck Hagel:

“First, I think he’s had a very, very distinguished public service record that he can stand on..this man overall, a young man who volunteered to go to Vietnam. They wanted to send him to Europe, a nice, safe place. He said, no, I want to go to Vietnam. He and his brother went. They both were wounded. He was wounded twice… He knows what war is, and he will fight a war if it’s necessary. But he’s a guy who will do it with great deliberation and care. … He is a fellow he speaks his mind. He sometimes gets in trouble with those who thinks he should not speak his mind, but he says what he believes and he sticks with it.”

Asked about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Benghazi, he said:

“I think she’s had a distinguished record and I don’t think that this one incident, which is one of these– one of these things that those of us in– in government have been through many, many times, where suddenly an action happens late at night, you’re surprised. Somebody gets killed. Something gets blown up. And then the after-action reports start and everybody wants to know who was at fault, who was responsible?

As for whether Clinton would be a good president, he said, “I think she’d be good at whatever she does, whether she is interested in it or not, I will let her opine on that.”

Regarding the Republican Party:

” There’s also a dark– a dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the Party. What I do mean by that? I mean by that is they still sort of look down on minorities. How can I evidence that? When I see a former governor say that the president is shuckin’ and jivin’, that’s a racial era slave term. When I see another former governor after the president’s first debate where he didn’t do very well, says that the president was lazy. He didn’t say he was slow, he was tired, he didn’t do well, he said he was lazy. Now, it may not mean anything to most Americans but to those of us who are African-Americans, the second word is shiftless and then there’s a third word that goes along with it Birther, the whole Birther Movement. Why do senior Republican leaders tolerate this kind of discussion within the Party? I think the Party has to take a look at itself.”

Is Rape Just An International Problem? VAWA, Expired?

By Girl Talk | January 09, 2013 at 11:24 PM EST | 1 comment

Rape is a major global issue…Eastern Congo has been called the “rape capital of the world- reports record that 48 women are raped every hour; in Europe Sweden has the highest rape rate, yet the lowest conviction rate. In the US it is estimated that every two minutes someone is raped (Rainn Organization).

One rape is one too many: This list contains the % of rapes (% of total population) against women by country.

1. New Zealand- 1.3 %
2. Austria: 1.2%
3. Sweden: 1.1
4. Finland: 1.1%
5. Australia: 1%
6. United Kingdom: 0.9%
7. Netherlands: 0.8%
8. Slovenia: 0.8%
9. Canada: 0.8%
10. France: 0.7%
11. Italy 0.6%
12. Switzarland: 0.6
13. Denmark: 0.4%
14. United States: 0.4%
15. Belguim: 0.3%
16. Saint Kitts and Nevis: 0.3%
17. Portugal: 0.2%
18. Malta: 0.1%
19. Japan: 0.1%

SOURCE: UNICRI (United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute). 2002. Correspondence on data on crime victims. March. Turin via NationMaster DEFINITION: victimized by sexual assault (as a % of the total population). Data refer to female population only. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence.

Many people are unaware of these startling statistics because sexual assaults are often quieted or go under-reported unless the incident is so heinous it manages to reach the media like in the recent case in Ohio: Two high schools football players were charged with sexually assaulting an incoherent high school girl and posting the video online shortly after the attack and joking about it.  Or the horrific case in India where a 23-year-old university student was raped for hours on a bus as it drove through its capital and then thrown off the bus afterwards.

It is because of the overwhelming public response to these two cases and the recent rhetorical attacks on women and their rights that I am troubled and utterly shocked that the 112^th Congress failed to renew the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).  This is a major concern because VAWA is credited with improving the criminal justice response to violence against women by:

• Holding rapists accountable for their crimes by strengthening federal penalties for repeat sex offenders and creating a federal “rape shield law,” which is intended to prevent offenders from using victims’ past sexual conduct against them during a rape trial;
• Mandating that victims, no matter their income levels, are not forced to bear the expense of their own rape exams or for service of a protection order;
• Keeping victims safe by requiring that a victim’s protection order will be recognized and enforced in all state, tribal, and territorial jurisdictions within the United States;
• Increasing rates of prosecution, conviction, and sentencing of offenders by helping communities develop dedicated law enforcement and prosecution units and domestic violence dockets;
• Ensuring that police respond to crisis calls and judges understand the realities of domestic and sexual violence by training law enforcement officers, prosecutors, victim advocates and judges; VAWA funds train over 500,000 law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, and other personnel every year;
• Providing additional tools for protecting women in Indian country by creating a new federal habitual offender crime and authorizing warrantless arrest authority for federal law enforcement officers who determine there is probable cause when responding to domestic violence cases. 
VAWA has ensured that victims and their families have access to the services they need to achieve safety and rebuild their lives by:
  • Responding to urgent calls for help by establishing the National Domestic Violence Hotline, which has answered over 3 million calls and receives over 22,000 calls every
  • Improving safety and reducing recidivism by developing coordinated community responses that bring together diverse stakeholders to work together to prevent and respond to violence against women,
  • Focusing attention on the needs of underserved communities, including creating legal relief for battered immigrants so that abusers cannot use the victim’s immigration status to prevent victims from calling the police or seeking safety, and supporting tribal governments in building their capacity to protect American Indian and Alaska Native women.  To see White House Fact Sheet in its entirety click HERE

How could Congress allow VAWA to expire? According to MSNBC

“House Republicans made VAWA a partisan issue even though previous Congresses have twice renewed the law without a fight, but not this time. In April, the Senate passed its own version of VAWA that preserved programs and extended protections to victims who are lesbian, gay, transgender or who live in tribal areas, where rape has increased 55% from 2000 to 2010, according to federal data. Under current law, tribal courts don’t have the authority to prosecute domestic violence when carried out on tribal land by non-Native Americans.

The House, however, adopted its own version in May that rolled back established programs and stripped away protections for immigrant women, and made it harder for those who are illegally in the country and victims of abuse or crimes to obtain legal status as part of a special program known as the U Visa.  The Eric Cantor refused to budge, and the Senate insisted existing protections remain in place. An eleventh-hour attempt by Vice President Joe Biden to revive negotiations failed largely because GOP leaders rebuffed the Senate’s expanded protections”.   See article in its entirety HERE

Failure to reauthorize VAWA is heartless, inexcusable and sends a negative message across the globe. We are better than that- No woman should be denied protection regardless of who she is or where the assault took place.  The American people are urging House Republicans to pass the Senate version.

Women Elected to 113th Congress!

By Girl Talk | December 31, 2012 at 02:09 AM EST | 2 comments

Happy New Year and Congratulations to all our newly elected female members arriving to Congress! “After a wave of unprecedented legislative attacks on women’s reproductive rights, pay equality and medicare, “the 2012 election will go down in history as a groundbreaking, glass-ceiling-smashing milestone for women” (Huffington Post).  The 113th Congress will have 102 female members to include: 78 women in the House (58 Democrats & 20 Republicans) –An increase of 5 more than the previous year of 73; 20 in the Senate (16 Democrats & 4 Republicans)- an increase of 3 from the 17 women in the previous year (12 Democrats & 5 Republicans).  Thanks to the power of the vote, nearly a quarter of the women serving in the 113th Congress are freshmen, I trust they will represent the will of the people, (which by in large concurs with the message the President campaigned on) and accomplish great things that disproportionately affect women including helping to reduce gridlock in Congress…

Democratic Newcomers to the House

Arizona – Ann Kirkpatrick, Kyrsten Sinema

California – Julia Brownley, Gloria Negrete McLeod

Connecticut – Elizabeth Esty

Florida – Lois Frankel

Hawaii – Tulsi Gabbard

Illinois – Cheri Bustos, Tammy Duckworth

Nevada – Dina Titus

New Hampshire – Ann McLane Kuster, Carol Shea-Porter

New Mexico – Michele Lujan Grisham

New York – Grace Meng

Ohio – Joyce Beatty

Washington – Suzan DelBen

Republican Newcomers to the House

Indiana – Susan Brooks, Jackie Walorski

Missouri – Ann Wagner

Democratic Newcomers to the Senate

Hawaii – Mazie Hirono

Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren

North Dakota – Heidi Heitkamp

Wisconsin – Tammy Baldwin

Republican Newcomer to the Senate

Nebraska – Deb Fischer

Incumbents Re-elected to the Senate (all Democrats)

California – Dianne Feinstein

Michigan – Debbie Setabenow

Minnesota – Amy Klobuchar

Missouri – Claire McCaskill

New York – Kirsten Gillibrand

Washington – Maria Cantle

U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice

By Girl Talk | December 18, 2012 at 01:20 AM EST | 2 comments

On Thursday, December 13, 2012 U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice withdrew her name from consideration for the Secretary of State candidacy after weeks of relentless unfair attacks by Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and many other Republicans for the her role covering the Sept. 11 attack on a U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

I am deeply saddened by the GOP’s inability to acknowledge that the ambassador was speaking from unclassified talking points given to her by the CIA at a very early stage in the investigation: This type of gross disregard for the facts demonstrates how people hear what they want to hear to sometime mask other underlying motives….

I for one know how it feels to work hard, advance in education and become an expert in a field only to have someone come along and question your professional experience, discount your education, assassinate your character and stunt the advancement of your career.  I pulled threw my experience by drawing energy/strength from President Obama’s commitment and dedication to our country despite countless, relentless undeserved attacks from his critics.  I figured if he continued to be the best he could be for others then I could too.

Susan Rice was President Obama’s senior foreign policy advisor during his presidential campaign and now our U.N. Ambassador. She started her government career in 1993 with the National Security Council as the director of international organizations and in 1997 assistant secretary for African affairs. Rice attended Stanford University in Palo Alto, California where she received her bachelor’s degree in history.  In 1986, she went on to attend University of Oxford in Oxfordshire, England where she earned her M.Phil. and D.Phil. in international relations, and wrote a dissertation that examined Rhodesia’s transition from white rule. Her paper won the Royal Commonwealth Society’s Walter Frewen Lord Prize for outstanding research in the field of Commonwealth History, as well as the Chatham House-British International Studies Association Prize for the most distinguished doctoral dissertation in the United Kingdom in the field of International Relations (Biography.com)….

For anyone to state that Ms. Rise is unqualified to be Secretary of State, I think, is a gross misstatement and a great disservice to our country.  I agree with the President “ her decision to remove her name demonstrates the strength of her character, an admirable commitment to rise above the politics of the moment to put our national interests first.”  I don’t know about anyone else, but despite what has happened, I believe the best of Susan Rise is yet to come!

Senseless Shooting in Connecticut

By Girl Talk | December 15, 2012 at 02:40 AM EST | 2 comments

Friday, December 14, 2012, during an emotional address to the nation on the horrific mass shooting in Connecticut that killed 20 children and 8 adults the President stated, “We’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics,” President. Obama said, listing the devastation wrought by other gun violence, from a recent attack in an Oregon shopping mall to the shootings in a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., in July (New York Times).

My heart goes out to the victim’s loved ones and I join the President and the world in sending prayers and condolences to all of them

Toni Edwards

Where did Democrats and Republicans Come up with the Elephant and Donkey Symbols?

By Girl Talk | December 13, 2012 at 12:56 AM EST | No Comments

Ever wonder where on earth the Democrats got the donkey as a symbol of their party, and how the Republicans got the Elephant?  Well according to an interesting article I came across they didn’t pick there mascots- they got stuck with them! Here’s the story:

Their origin as symbols for the parties is attributed to a political cartoonist, Thomas Nast, who used the donkey and the elephant in cartoons drawn for Harper’s Weekly in the 1870’s. Why Nast chose the donkey and the elephant is a pretty complicated story, and requires some understanding of the politics of that day.

Nast combined these two symbols together for the first time in an 1874 cartoon for Harper’s Weekly, called “The Third Term Panic.” He drew a donkey disguised in a lion-skin, trying to scare away the animals in a forest. One of the animals frightened by the donkey’s roar was an elephant – a symbol for Republican voters, who were abandoning President Ulysses S. Grant’s quest for a 3rd term, and in Nast’s view, were falling into a trap set by the Democrats. You can see the original Nast cartoon on by clicking HERE

The cartoon was based on a scandal of the day –  a hoax which had been foisted on its readers by the New York Herald newspaper. The Herald ran a deliberately false story about animals breaking out of the zoo and foraging for food throughout Central Park. Around the same time, the Herald was running a series of editorials against a 3rd term for President Ulysses S. Grant, calling the possibility “Caesarism.” In Nast’s cartoon, the donkey disguised as a lion is roaring out “Caesarism,” and scaring away the elephant.  The donkey was a stand-in for the Democratic-leaning Herald newspaper, and the elephant stood for the Republican party.

Other cartoonists of the time picked up the idea of the timid elephant representing Republicans, and that symbol for the party became widely recognized and accepted by the general public. Nast’s cartoon showing a duplicitous donkey attacking a weak-minded elephant, became a handy symbol for other cartoonists wanting to represent Democrats attacking Republicans.

Popular recognition of the image overrode the party’s own wishes – the Democratic party has never officially adopted the donkey as its emblem, but came to accept the reality that the symbol had stuck.  The donkey had been used earlier in our history as a political symbol. In the 1828 presidential campaign, Andrew Jackson was labeled a “jackass,” for his populist views. Jackson proudly seized the label and began using donkeys on his campaign posters. During his presidency, cartoonists sometimes used the donkey to illustrate President Jackson’s stubbornness on certain issues. After Jackson, the donkey symbol largely faded, only to be revived again by Thomas Nast in his 1870’s cartoons.

Over time, Republicans came to view the elephant emblem as a sign of strength and intelligence, and officially adopted it as their emblem, while their opponents portrayed it as a timid and clumsy behemoth. Democrats seized the “jackass” label, and transformed it into a clever and courageous donkey. As is still true today, it’s all in the spin!

Click HERE to see original article

Does the Grover Norquist Pledge Supersede the Will of the People?

By Girl Talk | November 27, 2012 at 10:25 PM EST | 3 comments

The pledge began in 1986 under the endorsement of Ronald Reagan where Republican candidates and elected officials would solemnly bind themselves to oppose any and all tax increases. The pledge has since become a de rigeur for Republicans seeking Federal and State offices and is a necessity for Democrats running in Republican districts (Braynard Group).

During the 112th Congress, 236 Representatives and 41 Senators signed the pledge and for the upcoming 113th Congress, 219 Representatives and 39 Senators have signed the pledge.

As the fiscal cliff draws near and the deficit continues to balloon, a growing number of Americans are concerned and frustrated with the GOP’s commitment to the Norquist Pledge.  Many question why such a pledge even exists given the fact that it is not a legal requirement to hold or run for office.

The only oath our elected officials should be obligated to make is to the American people; a piece of paper should not supersede what’s in the best interest of our country… I often find myself wondering how does such a pledge sustain such power and longevity- especially after its opposition by the American people in the recent presidential election?

The Republican’s “non-negotiable stance and unwillingness to raise taxes on the top 2% is unacceptable and unjustifiable. The President’s proposal to raise taxes on those making over $250k is a proven strategy that will “help” to reduce the deficit and create shared responsibility- currently the middle class pays more than their fair share…

As the fiscal cliff looms ahead and the battle for a tax increase continues, the American people will remain vigilant and remember those elected officials in the 2014 election who retracted their pledge, honored the will of the people and put country before politics.

Click HERE to view the 112th Congressional list of those who signed the pledge

Click HERE to view the 113th Congressional list of those who signed the pledge

Don’t Forget About the Horns of Africa

By Girl Talk | November 14, 2012 at 09:00 PM EST | No Comments

The Horns of Africa is the world’s most vulnerable region, beset by extreme poverty, hunger and global climate change, notable a drying and warming of climate during the past quarter century.  These scourges are leading to the spread of violence and war, and war is contributing to global instability (The Guardian, 2012).

Earlier this year, after experiencing the worst drought in 60 years famine ended in Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Djibouti and Uganda, yet millions of people are still fighting for their lives .  A press release issued by Hillary Clinton revealed that more than 2 million people in Somalia and 9 million people overall need urgent humanitarian assistance.  The Secretary also stated that the US will add $58 million in assistance to the approximately $1.3 billion in emergency sent in 2011.  “The US is fighting chronic food insecurity by helping communities diversify and adapt their livelihoods, improve smallholder agricultural and other efforts so they can become resilient.”

It’s important to note that a CRS Report to Congress revealed that “the humanitarian emergency is complicated by political and security pressures within, between and among the various countries in the region.  The recent deterioration of security conditions along the Kenya-Somalia border security incidents within the Dadaab refugee camp complex in northeast Kenya and increasing restrictions by al Shabaab, an Islamist insurgency led by Al Queda affiliate, on humanitarian access in Somalia all have had impact on the relief effort.”

We are thankful to the US and the International community for their efforts and response to the crisis thus far and understand that there is still much more work to be done.  To read more about the crisis and how to help or donate click HERE.  To see the Secretary of State’s entire press release click HERE.

The Best is Yet to Come!

By Girl Talk | November 08, 2012 at 10:23 PM EST | 3 comments

The American people officially and overwhelmingly echoed the words of 2008 “we want Barack Obama to be the President of the United States.” On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 with record number turnouts, his marching orders were solidified, stay the course and complete the mission that God has called you to do.

Despite rumors of low momentum, his supporters stayed the course and true to the mission “FORWARD”.  I can show you better than I can tell you was clearly the strategy. Thanks to will power and determination 53% of women voters, 71% of Latinos, 93% of African Americans, 60% of young adults, 73% of Asians, 39% of white voters and others carried him to victory, winning the popular vote and all battle ground states with the exception of North Carolina.  If that wasn’t momentum then I don’t know what is.

During the President’s powerful victory speech he told the nation “the best is yet to come.” “Our economy is recovering” A decade of war is ending.  A long campaign is now over. And whether I earned your vote or not, I have listened to you. I have learned from you. And you’ve made me a better President. With your stories and your struggles, I return to the White House more determined and more inspired than ever about the work there is to do, and the future that lies ahead.”

The American people overwhelmingly back the President of the United states and concur with his statement “we are all in this together”.  We will remain engaged and will not re-elected officials who wish to ignore the will of the people and impose their own agenda without compromise.

Congratulations to the American people and the President on a victory well deserved.  I look “FORWARD” to four more years of great leadership.  Here are a few accomplishments in the President’s first term, particularly in the first two years when Democrats controlled both houses:

• Passed Health Care Reform- signed Affordable Care Act (2010)
• Passed the Stimulus- signed $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009)
• Passed Wall Street Reform- signed Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2010)
• Ended the War in Iraq
• Began Drawdown of War in Afghanistan
• Eliminated Osama Bin Laden
• Turned Around U.S. Auto Industry- GM & Chrysler
• Recapitalized Banks
• Repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
• Toppled Moammar Gaddafi
• Told Egypt Hosni President Mubarak to Go
• Reversed Bush Torture Policies
• Improved America’s Image Abroad
• Kicked Banks Out of Federal Student Loan Program
• Expanded Pell Grant Spending
• Created Race to the Top
• Boosted Fuel Efficiency Standards
• Coordinated International Response to Financial Crisis
• Passed Mini Stimuli
• Began Asia “Pivot
• Increased Support for Veterans
• Tightened Sanctions on Iran- Signed Accountability, and Divestment Act (2010)
• Created Conditions to Begin Closing Dirtiest Power Plants
• Passed Credit Card Reforms- Signed Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, & Disclosure Act (2009)
• Eliminated Catch-22 in Pay Equality Laws- Signed Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in (2009)
• Protected Two Liberal Seats on the U.S. Supreme Court
• Improved Food Safety System- signed FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (2011)
• Achieved New START Treaty: Signed with Russia (2010)
• Expanded National Service- Signed Serve America Act (2009)
• Expanded Wilderness and Watershed Protection: Signed Omnibus Public Lands Management Act (2009)
• Gave the FDA Power to Regulate Tobacco- Signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (2009)
• Pushed Federal Agencies to Be Green Leaders
• Passed Fair Sentencing Act (2010)
• Trimmed and Reoriented Missile Defense
• Began Post-Post-9/11 Military Builddown
• Let Space Shuttle Die and Killed Planned Moon Mission:
• Invested Heavily in Renewable Technology
• Crafting Next-Generation School Tests
• Cracked Down on Bad For-Profit Colleges
• Improved School Nutrition- In coordination with Michelle Obama, signed Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act (2010)
• Expanded Hate Crimes Protections: Signed Hate Crimes Prevention Act (2009)
• Brokered Agreement for Speedy Compensation to Victims of Gulf Oil Spill
• Created Recovery.gov
• Pushed Broadband Coverage
• Expanded Health Coverage for Children: Signed  Children’s Health Insurance Authorization Act (2009)
• Recognized the Dangers of Carbon Dioxide
• Expanded Stem Cell Research
• Provided Payment to Wronged Minority Farmers- signed Claims Resolution Act (2009)
• Helped South Sudan Declare Independence

Click HERE to see details of each accomplishment in Washington Monthly article written By Paul Glastris, Ryan Cooper, and Siyu Hu