I am invited today to attend a political meeting with the presidential candidate, John Edwards, in Merrimack, NH. I am looking forward to seeing him and hearing his program for re-building the US. There are so many problems with our domestic and foreign policies, after two series of two-term presidents with Clinton for 8 years, and Bush for also 8 years.
The US need a president with a fresh look on things, a willingness to question the status quo, a drive to unify again this country... The US is polarized 50-50 between liberals and conservatives. The Bush presidency has heightened this polarization. We need a leader that will unify, tackle the problems (whether it is Iraq, medical insurance reforms, or global warming), and will present solutions instead of band-aids, well-intentioned, but with no funding attached like a number of Bush policies.
I intend during this campaign to participate in the public debate and engage candidates about their opinions, programs, plans for the future of this country in the community of "civilized" nations.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
God's Warriors
I watched last night this amazing program produced by Christiane Amanpour on CNN about the religious fundamentalists in the three major monotheist religions that are sharing the same holy grounds in Jerusalem, and draw on similar prophets like Abraham and others. The segment last night was on the establishment of the jewish state of Israel and how the Israelis are establishing religious fundamentist settlements in the middle of the occupied territories belonging to the palestinians. Some of these settlements have been authorized by the Israeli governement for security reasons against legal opinions that these settlements were illegal. These settlers are claiming that these lands have been given to jews by their God, Yaveh, as it is written in their holy books and the Bible. They are also claiming that arabs should be re-settled to other arab countries in the area. Politics has been hijacked by religion.
The segment was also extremely interesting in terms of its focus on the Israeli support lobby in Congress, and how this has influenced US foreign policies. There is aven a combined lobbying effort and financial support being provided by christian fundamentalist groups linking with US jewish support groups.
Every US administration since the 1967 war, and the 1973 war, has condemned these israeli settlement but these very public position statements in the UN or through presidential press conferences have not modified the level of US support in terms of military aid to the gross level of $3 billion a year. The US/Israel connection could be on reason an mong many for the negative feelings toward the US throughout the Middle East. When is the US political leadership going to recognize that this strong alliance is detrimental to the safety of US interests? The US should put pressure on Israel to return to its pre-1973 war borders, and to accept the Palestinian aspirations for statehood. Israel is an occupier of arab lands. This situation has no future and they should understand that this is a strong factor against lasting peace in the area.
The program will present tonight a segment on arab fundamentatlists. Stay tuned.
The segment was also extremely interesting in terms of its focus on the Israeli support lobby in Congress, and how this has influenced US foreign policies. There is aven a combined lobbying effort and financial support being provided by christian fundamentalist groups linking with US jewish support groups.
Every US administration since the 1967 war, and the 1973 war, has condemned these israeli settlement but these very public position statements in the UN or through presidential press conferences have not modified the level of US support in terms of military aid to the gross level of $3 billion a year. The US/Israel connection could be on reason an mong many for the negative feelings toward the US throughout the Middle East. When is the US political leadership going to recognize that this strong alliance is detrimental to the safety of US interests? The US should put pressure on Israel to return to its pre-1973 war borders, and to accept the Palestinian aspirations for statehood. Israel is an occupier of arab lands. This situation has no future and they should understand that this is a strong factor against lasting peace in the area.
The program will present tonight a segment on arab fundamentatlists. Stay tuned.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Franco-American Culture and Heritage in New Hampshire
It was interesting to see that the new French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, chose New Hampshire for his two-week summer vacation. There was controversy about this location and about the cost of his family vacation because some people in France were arguing that he should have stayed in France for his vacation. Some were also upset about the reported cost of $30,ooo.00 for one week at the home he used for his vacation.
Sarkozy indicated that he was there at the invitation of two family friends, one reported to be the French General Manager of Tiffany in France, the other reported to be one of the managers of Prada, the fashion design house.
My purpose here is not to pass judgement on the costs of his vacation and/or his friends or acquaintances. I would like however to draw the attention to the mostly unknown fact that the State of New Hampshire is home to a very sizable minority of French-speaking residents, descendants from French-Canadian immigrants. It is estimated that about one-third of state residents are of French-Canadian descent. Between the years of 1860 and 1920 (roughly from the American Seccession War to the Great Depression), about one million French-Canadians immigrated to the new industrial mill towns of New England. During that period, because of ample water resources used for energy, all major towns of New England saw the construction of textile and paper mills that employed thousands of workers primarily female workers to weave cotton blankets and linens. At that time, Quebec 's economy was mostly rural and the Quebec population, with the active support and encouragement of the very powerful Catholic church, was trying to fight assimilation by the English by engaging in what has been called the "cradle war."
French-Canadian families were very large with 16, 18 or more children. Obviously, farms could not sub-divided among so many children: One or two of the oldest but not more. The other children had only two other options: Join a Catholic religious order, or emigrate to the United States.
Active recruiters were sent north by US mills to hire workers, and rail links were used to bring this "army" of workers to man the numerous mills all over New England.
Whole areas of these towns were called "Little Canada" or "French Hill." These emigrants lived together fearful of other immigrant groups and socialized among themselves. Their attachment to the French language, the Catholic faith, the French-Canadian culture in terms of food and music, is truly amazing.
Manchester, named for the English industrial city, had the largest cotton mills in the world.
Today, we still can see beautiful churches, and whole districts in towns like Nashua, NH and Manchester, NH, that have been built by the savings and the sacrifices of the French Canadians.
Today, leafing through the phone books of every large city, we can only notice the French last names of their descendants. We still have Catholic masses in French, and weekly radio programs of French or French Canadian music on Sundays.
Obviously, the children and grandchildren descendants have slowly but surely assimilated into the US melting pot with the english pronunciations of last names, and the loss of the French language. Only the older generation (50 years of age and older) still can use French because their primary and secondary education was done in both English and French. Their descendants are unilingual English, in spite of the still existing family ties and the physical proximity of Quebec (which is only a few hours from New England by car.)
The French government and other countries that have membership in the International Francophone Community need to actively protect and celebrate this French heritage by sponsoring youth exchange programs, and sponsoring cultural and art events. We need to keep this heritage alive and nurture and celebrate it. Otherwise, a huge minority of the New England population will lose their roots, and will therefore be ill-equipped to face the challenges of this century. It is only by a full awareness of our roots that we can move forward to face the challenges of the present times.
Sarkozy indicated that he was there at the invitation of two family friends, one reported to be the French General Manager of Tiffany in France, the other reported to be one of the managers of Prada, the fashion design house.
My purpose here is not to pass judgement on the costs of his vacation and/or his friends or acquaintances. I would like however to draw the attention to the mostly unknown fact that the State of New Hampshire is home to a very sizable minority of French-speaking residents, descendants from French-Canadian immigrants. It is estimated that about one-third of state residents are of French-Canadian descent. Between the years of 1860 and 1920 (roughly from the American Seccession War to the Great Depression), about one million French-Canadians immigrated to the new industrial mill towns of New England. During that period, because of ample water resources used for energy, all major towns of New England saw the construction of textile and paper mills that employed thousands of workers primarily female workers to weave cotton blankets and linens. At that time, Quebec 's economy was mostly rural and the Quebec population, with the active support and encouragement of the very powerful Catholic church, was trying to fight assimilation by the English by engaging in what has been called the "cradle war."
French-Canadian families were very large with 16, 18 or more children. Obviously, farms could not sub-divided among so many children: One or two of the oldest but not more. The other children had only two other options: Join a Catholic religious order, or emigrate to the United States.
Active recruiters were sent north by US mills to hire workers, and rail links were used to bring this "army" of workers to man the numerous mills all over New England.
Whole areas of these towns were called "Little Canada" or "French Hill." These emigrants lived together fearful of other immigrant groups and socialized among themselves. Their attachment to the French language, the Catholic faith, the French-Canadian culture in terms of food and music, is truly amazing.
Manchester, named for the English industrial city, had the largest cotton mills in the world.
Today, we still can see beautiful churches, and whole districts in towns like Nashua, NH and Manchester, NH, that have been built by the savings and the sacrifices of the French Canadians.
Today, leafing through the phone books of every large city, we can only notice the French last names of their descendants. We still have Catholic masses in French, and weekly radio programs of French or French Canadian music on Sundays.
Obviously, the children and grandchildren descendants have slowly but surely assimilated into the US melting pot with the english pronunciations of last names, and the loss of the French language. Only the older generation (50 years of age and older) still can use French because their primary and secondary education was done in both English and French. Their descendants are unilingual English, in spite of the still existing family ties and the physical proximity of Quebec (which is only a few hours from New England by car.)
The French government and other countries that have membership in the International Francophone Community need to actively protect and celebrate this French heritage by sponsoring youth exchange programs, and sponsoring cultural and art events. We need to keep this heritage alive and nurture and celebrate it. Otherwise, a huge minority of the New England population will lose their roots, and will therefore be ill-equipped to face the challenges of this century. It is only by a full awareness of our roots that we can move forward to face the challenges of the present times.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Sicko Point-of-View
I cannot wait to see this new film from Moore. It was shown at the Cannes Festival. As a Frenchman who has lived and worked in the US since 1973, with 15 years at a pharmaceuticals company, I am now working as a college professor. I am deeply aware of the disparities in coverage, and premiums across different employers with this private insurance system used in the US.
Because of the US cultural traits of individualism, ethnocentricism, and a belief in the positive aspects of capitalism, americans think that they have the best health care sytem in the world because they have freedom of choice in terms of which doctors and which health care facilities to use. They also are very doubtful of their doctors' diagnostics and will not hesitate to obtain a second or third opinion if they are questioning the reputation or opinion of their doctors. This freedom of choice is great but it comes at a huge "cost" of inequal access to care, as well as inequal level of coverage. Two different individuals working for two different companies (one being a Fortune 100 company, the other a small to mid-size company, privately-owned) will receive totally different insurance coverage based on the size of the company, its mission of providing for its employees, the current number of medical claims, etc.) They could be working in the same state, using the same heath-care insurance provider but could have totally different premiums, specific coverages, and co-payments.
When you think that the US is perceived by americans as the best country in the world, a movie like Sicko, and the questions raised by Michael Moore, should make us think and consider whether we do have the best system in the world.
I would argue that this individualized system is highly discriminatory in nature: In other words, poor segments of the population, low-wage earners are at a disadvantage against more wealthy segments of the population. This is a crime of injustice when you take into account that between 35 to 40 millions of americans do not have even health insurance coverage, or are denied access because of pre-existing conditions.
I have personal experience (because my wife's illness who is on a long-term drug treatment for the last three years... and the next two) of the continuous dealings that we have with our insurance provider concerning the filling of her monthly prescription that is recurring and yet goes through the same monthly, one or two day-delay because it requires approval by the insurance company. It is mind-boggling, and our thoughts every month go to the elderly that need the perseverance to go through this careless system of approval denials, payment delays, and questioning of all and every treatment as if we were thieves taking advantage of the system.
I heard from the President of our college that the college, in view of the sharp increases last year in insurance premiums from its current provider, approached the other two companies doing business in the state of New Hampshire to negotiate what the premiums would be. These other two companies on the basis of the existing medical conditions of the college's employees refused simply to bid on the college's business.
The present system needs a complete overhaul and strong government oversight of this privately-funded system of insurance. I applaud the questions raised by Michael Moore and I wait to see how this very important issue will be addressed by the presidential candidates from both sides of the aisle.
Because of the US cultural traits of individualism, ethnocentricism, and a belief in the positive aspects of capitalism, americans think that they have the best health care sytem in the world because they have freedom of choice in terms of which doctors and which health care facilities to use. They also are very doubtful of their doctors' diagnostics and will not hesitate to obtain a second or third opinion if they are questioning the reputation or opinion of their doctors. This freedom of choice is great but it comes at a huge "cost" of inequal access to care, as well as inequal level of coverage. Two different individuals working for two different companies (one being a Fortune 100 company, the other a small to mid-size company, privately-owned) will receive totally different insurance coverage based on the size of the company, its mission of providing for its employees, the current number of medical claims, etc.) They could be working in the same state, using the same heath-care insurance provider but could have totally different premiums, specific coverages, and co-payments.
When you think that the US is perceived by americans as the best country in the world, a movie like Sicko, and the questions raised by Michael Moore, should make us think and consider whether we do have the best system in the world.
I would argue that this individualized system is highly discriminatory in nature: In other words, poor segments of the population, low-wage earners are at a disadvantage against more wealthy segments of the population. This is a crime of injustice when you take into account that between 35 to 40 millions of americans do not have even health insurance coverage, or are denied access because of pre-existing conditions.
I have personal experience (because my wife's illness who is on a long-term drug treatment for the last three years... and the next two) of the continuous dealings that we have with our insurance provider concerning the filling of her monthly prescription that is recurring and yet goes through the same monthly, one or two day-delay because it requires approval by the insurance company. It is mind-boggling, and our thoughts every month go to the elderly that need the perseverance to go through this careless system of approval denials, payment delays, and questioning of all and every treatment as if we were thieves taking advantage of the system.
I heard from the President of our college that the college, in view of the sharp increases last year in insurance premiums from its current provider, approached the other two companies doing business in the state of New Hampshire to negotiate what the premiums would be. These other two companies on the basis of the existing medical conditions of the college's employees refused simply to bid on the college's business.
The present system needs a complete overhaul and strong government oversight of this privately-funded system of insurance. I applaud the questions raised by Michael Moore and I wait to see how this very important issue will be addressed by the presidential candidates from both sides of the aisle.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Welcome to the blogsphere
This is my first attempt at creating this blog in the english languauge... It is exciting to be participating in this web adventure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
