The Stir By CafeMom: Blogger Ilina Ewen

Four More Years for President Obama: Let's Move Forward TOGETHER

Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:06:00 EST

Post by Ilina Ewen

I breathed a sigh of relief and pumped my fists in the air when Barack Obama was reelected last week. I allowed myself a moment of celebration and nod of gratitude for all the hours volunteers spent toiling for a cause and a candidate they believe in.

In sharp contrast, most of my Romney supporting friends admitted to me that they were voting against Obama and cast only a half-hearted vote for Romney. This matters not in outcome, but it does matter in terms of passion and conviction. I tried to wake my sons to tell them the news as they requested, but neither boy budged. It was, after all, well past midnight, and they had been sleeping soundly for hours. My pride, relief, and celebration were extinguished pretty quickly.

For starters, local and state elections kept my home state of North Carolina decidedly in the dark. Secondly, "friends" on Facebook immediately lashed out with racist, hateful rhetoric. I understand feeling disappointed and angry, but there is no (more) room for hate in political discourse. I am a woman of color, the daughter of immigrants, the mother of first generation American sons, and an engaged citizen. Remarks about Obama's color and heritage hit close to home for me, and I am disheartened that this nonsense continues. Drunken Donald Trump certainly doesn't help matters, though he did provide unintentional comic relief.

Politics in America have created an oozing, open wound. Our nation is not just divided, we are ripped apart by the very fibers our forefathers and mothers wove. The wound is raw, and no amount of rhetoric or money will help it heal. The election season wasted an obscene amount of money, thanks to Citizens United, the most disastrous and inaptly named legislation upheld by the Supreme Court. We have Obama as a winner, but half the country still feels angry, deflated, and worse.

Sure, I'm happy my candidate won. It's not a time to gloat. In reality, we all lose if the great divide continues. Let's work together to heal our nation. People are more important than politics.

Obama Unites, Romney Divides: What Kind of America Do You Want?

Mon, 05 Nov 2012 23:00:00 EST

Post by Ilina Ewen

Financial crises and climaxes ebb and flow. One president in one term will not have made our lives better or worse. The complex financial cycle does not allow us to make such broad strokes for such a short period of time. And to be clear, the President has little control over issues like gas prices and job creation. The President is our nation's visionary leader and guide who works in concert with the two other branches of government to ensure we adhere to our Constitution. We elect the President to lead the United States of America. In tomorrow's race, only one man has a vision to unite this country that has fallen to shreds of division. Barack Obama.

I could wax about why Obama is the right choice for this country, but no amount of well-reasoned, factual arguments will influence those who seethe with hate for the man. I could list his policies and legislation, but my support for the President stems more from his philosophical approach to governing. In short, I have a great deal of respect for Obama. He leads this country with an eye on how our collective actions benefit us as a nation. He cares about more than those who can boost his own station in life. Most importantly, he sees a progressive America where equality reigns and prosperity shines for all.

Mitt Romney's vision for this country is decidedly the Divided States of America. He vision has already filed segments of this country into neat little folders...or binders. He views each segment as one who mooches or one who contributes, with no regard to paradigms, social justice, or equality in terms of rights or opportunities. We are filed away as women, the poor, the 47 percent, millionaires, business owners, shareholders. Mitt Romney does not see before him a great united land of passionate, proud citizens. He is a naysayer of government so why would he want to be a leader of government? Hubris. Mitt Romney is simply not good for America and will drive a wedge even further into our tattered fabric. In short, he is dangerous to America in a multitude of ways - women's rights, marriage equality, foreign policy, education, separation of church and state. It's alarming that so many who will vote for him will vote against their own best interests.

Financial matters rise and fall despite who sits in the Oval Office. Social matters are onerous to change or evolve once amendments are added and supreme court justices appointed. The lasting legacy of a presidency hinges on how citizens (ALL citizens) fared in terms of the manifestation of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A President serves all of his nation, not a selected few.

It's time we focus on a WE instead of ME mentality. Only Barack Obama will lead us as the United States.

Images via Ilina Ewen

Obama Is the Only Candidate for Mothers and Children

Mon, 05 Nov 2012 08:20:00 EST

Post by Ilina Ewen

Barack Obama is the only candidate who fiercely supports mothers and children. His passion is palpable because he is the father of daughters. He was raised by a single mother and grandmother so the vital role of women and mothers is cemented in his DNA. President Obama clearly values women and the roles they choose for themselves. His mindset is current, and his policies will not take us back to the 1950s. Mitt Romney’s positions on women, however, reek of the The Handmaid’s Tale.

When I think of women and children, my thoughts go first to the most vulnerable among us. I believe that we are all lifted as a community when we give others to opportunity to rise. Too often our leaders place judgement and blame. This is appalling behavior when it comes to children, who have no say on their lot in life. President Obama clearly sees that breaking cycles of poverty requires an investment in early childhood development, education at all levels, affordable and accessible health care, and job creation. He sees value in all Americans, while Mitt Romney sees value in a select few.

More importantly, Barack Obama supports fair pay. Signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was his first bill signed into law just days after taking the oath of office. At best, Romney waivers on his position on fair pay. His running mate, Paul Ryan, voted against this piece of legislation.

Most importantly, if Mitt Romney were in the Oval Office he would strip women of reproductive and contraceptive rights that our mothers before us fought for. He’s taking us backwards to a time when women were second class citizens. He has reiterated that he would repeal Roe v Wade and push for even more stringent laws that violate women and their rights. It’s a frightening time for American women. I believe that financial issues ebb and flow and tend to work themselves out. Social issues are more difficult to change, especially when it comes to laws and amendments upheld by supreme court justices that the next president will appoint. Honestly, I can think of nothing on Mitt Romney’s platform that makes him a candidate to support mothers and children. It continues to baffle me that women or those people raising daughter would vote for this man.

I can’t help but wonder if Romney would be less of a misogynist if he were the father of girls.

Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

Mitt Romney's Flip-Flop Debate Strategy Won't Woo Women

Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:00:00 EDT

Post by Ilina Ewen

It’s time Mitt Romney trades in his Bally loafers for some cheap rubber flip-flops. Am I to believe he suddenly supports women’s rights? Does he truly believe in supporting the working poor and middle class? Nah, he just wants your vote. And he's stretching and struggling to say anything that will grab your attention long enough to latch on to a sound bite to get you to check the ballot in his favor on November 6.

Mitt Romney lacks character and charisma. Most importantly, he lacks compassion. He is fueled by hubris, not by a penchant to serve. His aim is to dig a wider divide between haves and have-nots. In his view, women never have been and never will be on equal footing. His so-called “binder” of women to hire into his cabinet is case in point. For starters, he lied about that binder. He had nothing to do with proactively seeking and vetting qualified women leaders. From The Phoenix:

A bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government. There were more than 40 organizations involved with the Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus (also bipartisan) as the lead sponsor. They did the research and put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions. They presented this binder to Governor Romney when he was elected.

How generous of him to let us women have flexible working hours so we can get home to make dinner. Women will not be protected under a Romney regime. We cannot trust Mitt Romney to stand up for for our economic security. He will not be our advocate. When his campaign was asked about whether Romney would support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, their first response was “we’ll have to get back to you.” What?! He has since refused to say whether he would have signed the legislation and has also declined to take a position on the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would give women additional tools to enforce their right to equal pay for equal work. Paul Ryan, in fact, voted against it. I’m speaking here woman to woman, not Democrat to Republican. Do we really want a leader in the White House who will not regard us as equals?

Women’s issues are family issues. Family issues are economic issues. American issues. We need leaders in the Oval Office, in Congress, and in every municipal seat who sees the world this way. Cronyism does not help the masses any more than it helped Massachusetts.

Image via Katy Warner/Wikimedia Commons

First Presidential Debate: Romney Wins on Polish, Loses on Substance

Thu, 04 Oct 2012 11:23:00 EDT

Post by Ilina Ewen

The big loser in last night’s debate was Jim Lehrer. I grew up with my dad watching the MacNeil/Lehrer Report back in the day. I know Jim Lehrer is articulate and intelligent. But last night leaves me wondering what the heck happened? Moderator aside, I think each candidate “won” in his own way. Romney won the theater points, while Obama took the lead with substance.

Romney was poised for the most part, despite some intermittent frat boy smirking. He seemed more confident than I have ever seen him. Obama, on the other hand, lacked his usual confidence and fire. I suppose spending your 20th wedding anniversary with Mitt Romney would sort of dampen your constitution. The public keeps weighing in on how Romney took this debate even though he is the wrong choice for America. It wasn't Obama's best performance, but our president is not elected by American Idol standards. As if theater is the only thing that matters. It’s important to look beyond the body language and composure and really examine the words each man spoke.

This is where Obama wins on the substance front, hands down. For starters, Romney was flip-flopper extraordinaire. He hailed his health care reform in Massachusetts while dissing Obamacare. Romney’s plan was indeed a template of sorts for the Affordable Care Act. His flip-flopping amounts to (more) dishonesty. He talked an awful lot about “my plan” but failed to share anything specific. He was a winner when it came to artfully dodging the question. Clearly he was well rehearsed. President Obama called him on it:

And at some point, I think the American people have to ask themselves is the reason that Governor Romney is keeping all these plans to replace secret because they’re too good? Is it because that somehow middle class families are going to benefit too much from testimony no, the reason is, is because when we reform Wall Street, when we tackle the problem of pre-existing conditions, then you know, these tough problems and we’ve got to make choices and the choices we’ve made have been ones that ultimately are benefiting middle class families all across the country.

Presidential debates are not about performance and theatrics. The meat is in what they say, how they will lead, and the principles that govern them, which in turn govern our country. And come on, Romney would slaughter Big Bird?! Romney has proven once again that what he has in dollars, he lacks in substance. Sure, his rhetoric sounded polished, and he had good posture. But truthfully, what did he say? Can you honestly articulate his plan for taxes, education, healthcare, jobs? If Massachusetts has such great education, maybe Mitt Romney could go take a math refresher. His claims just don’t add up.

Image via Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia

The Romneys Lack Compassion for Women in Poverty

Wed, 26 Sep 2012 09:38:00 EDT

Post by Ilina Ewen

I don’t think Mitt Romney thinks much of women. He has outdated views of our bodies, our minds, our capabilities, and our voices. His proposed policies will drive an even larger wedge between the haves and have-nots in our country, with an especially hard blow to mothers, who face unique dynamics as citizens who earn less than men, grapple with working outside the home versus staying home to raise children, living in poverty, and depending on assistance while struggling as working poor. It’s as if Mitt Romney wants to make Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale come to life. Haven’t read it? You will see it’s horrifyingly closer to home than the sci-fi dystopian novel it was set out to be when it was published in 1985. Mitt Romney has been tripping over his words for some time now. It’s not that he’s inarticulate; he’s woefully out of touch.

"I'm not concerned about the very poor, there is a safety net there." - His crass, icy disregard for families living in poverty in this country is inexcusable. Such a severe lack of empathy is a character flaw I don’t want in my neighbor, much less my president.

“Well, we do provide care for people who don’t have insurance, people—we—if someone has a heart attack, they don’t sit in their apartment and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care. And different states have different ways of providing for that care.” - Um, so the emergency room counts as a reasonable solution to treat the uninsured and underinsured? Does this great Bain financial mind not understand what ER visits cost to the healthcare system annually?

“... who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement ...” - Wow, so families that are trying to provide food, housing, and care to their children are nothing but mooches in the scheme of things.

The blithe manner in which he disregards about half the nation is disgusting on many levels. For starters, it’s a tacky, insensitive way to pander to his cronies. He’s running for President of the United States -- that means people from all walks of life with their own unique histories, paradigms, experiences, cultures, and socioeconomic barriers and boons. The real Mitt shone through in the notorious 47 percent video.

I’ve been saying for a while now that Romney is fueled by hubris, not service. His comments are laden with a lack of character, compassion, and courage. It’s easy to stroke your gimme supporters; it’s another thing entirely to stand up for the disenfranchised, something Mitt Romney is unwilling to do. I had hopes for his wife to grab him by the collar and shake some estrogen laced sense into him, especially considering that more women are likely to be living in poverty or struggling among the working poor. Sadly, her views are just as out of whack and unfeeling as his.

“We can be poor in spirit, and I don’t even consider myself wealthy, which is an interesting thing. It can be here today and gone tomorrow.” - Says the woman whose husband is richer than the last eight presidents combined in an interview on Fox News.

“I love the fact that there are women out there who don’t have a choice and they must go to work and they still have to raise the kids. Thank goodness that we value those people too. And sometimes life isn’t easy for any of us.” - Because going to work is such a fun, novel concept. Whee! And there she goes with the skin cringing term “those people” again.

The Romneys would represent our nation as the “haves and have-nots.” Neither Romney shows compassion, and worse, those 47 percent comments might not show disdain as Ann Romney claims, but they demonstrate gross ignorance. And by the way, 8 of the top 10 states with citizens that pay the lowest income tax are Republican-leaning states. Seems like another case of constituents voting against their own best interests.

Image via cletch/Flickr

Americans: We Are 'The' People, Not 'Those' People

Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:45:00 EDT

Post by Ilina Ewen

American values are difficult to define succinctly. There are the wild west boot straps ideals, the immigrant tenacity, and Mayflower archetypes. American values are a mosaic of cultures, religions, and stories. What brings us together and defines us as decidedly American is different person to person. We do not look alike or sound alike or worship alike. We do, however, share in some basic manifestations of our American privileges. We vote. We speak out. We worship freely. We pursue a happiness we define for ourselves.

There is no better way to make American values come to life than to engage in our government and democracy. For the people, by the people. We are the people. It is so easy to take our rights for granted. I tell my sons that voting and speaking out against oppression and injustice are privileges as well as rights. I tell them how so many people around the world are not free to vote in open elections and participate in their government. It’s more than rights and civic engagement. It’s more than the don’t-complain-if-you-didn’t-vote mentality. Taking an active role in our participatory democracy is a privilege, one that many around the globe will never experience.

This includes our ability to pray and celebrate our heritage. This is about how we respect each other’s religions, cultures, and paradigms. We sustain our American values through our faith and family, but the way to light it up in a banner of star spangled fireworks is to take part in our system. We enjoy a freedom of speech and prayer like no other. It is our voices, no matter how different, that make us all American.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, see "How Do We Best Sustain American Values?"

Image via TheRightClicks

Democrats Trump Republicans in Representing America

Wed, 12 Sep 2012 09:31:00 EDT

Post by Ilina Ewen

The political conventions are over and but a blip on our collective memory at this point. News of other events have replaced convention coverage, 9/11 tributes have us reconsidering our priorities, and life has carried on. I watched parts of the Republican National Convention, the main events at least. I think it’s important to know what all sides are talking about so I can make decisions based on facts, my own experiences, and the paradigm I come from. I admittedly watched the RNC with skepticism and found myself yelling at the television a lot. My political counterparts would likely say the same thing. See, we do have things in common! I was fortunate to go to the Democratic National Convention, so my personal experience certainly skews my perspective on both affairs.

While in Charlotte I was wrapped in the folds of shared sensibilities. It was refreshing to be among so many like-minded people, fierce advocates, risk takers, and regular people who simply want to be heard. I was admittedly a bit smitten when I saw Chris Matthews, Barbara Mikulski (who has been my hero since I was a teenager), fellow mothers on a mission, and of course, the President and First Lady themselves. It’s a trifle embarrassing to geek out over political figures, right? What floored me the most at the DNC was the diversity in the crowd, on the streets, in the stadium, at every single venue. I saw men in turbans, women in red hats, gentlemen in seersucker suits, young mothers, grandfathers, veterans, college students, and people of every shade in the Crayola box of multicultural crayons. The faces represented the kaleidoscope of people that make up America. To be in a sea of people from all walks of life was profound, especially since I am often the one brown face everywhere I go in my corner of the world.

More From The Stir: Best Joe Biden Quotes From the DNC

The RNC lacked diversity on so many levels. I found it unnerving when the camera panned the crowd. I even heard some foreign correspondents from Europe talking about this very thing. They too were alarmed at the lack of diversity in Tampa. Their vision of America was different than what they saw. Based on visuals alone, I cannot help but wonder if the Republican party really is the party to govern, lead, and represent all Americans. My sense is that it has become a party for the white and wealthy. Many who identify themselves as Republican are going to vote against their own best interests. Party affiliation and convention hoopla aside, we should be examining both parties based on issues, not just the branding of the party.

Republicans are faced with showing Americans that they truly are the party of inclusiveness rather than exclusivity. If it’s not a genuine assertion, this shall prove difficult. Democrats need to stick a steel rod in their backbones and speak authoritatively on the issues that weigh down America. Jobs. Economic growth. Military support and veteran services. Education. Health care. Equal rights. We don’t need cheerleading as much as we need leadership.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, see Which Convention 'Won'?

Image via Ilina Ewen

Best Joe Biden Quotes From the DNC

Fri, 07 Sep 2012 13:56:00 EDT

Post by Ilina Ewen

I had the privilege of seeing Joe Biden give his Democratic National Convention speech in person. I was just rows away from the stage and had a perfect view. I saw his facial expressions, hand gestures, and confident gait. His delivery, a blend of hushed tones that made us all lean in to listen and forceful conviction, was spot on. But more than than, his words, his message, moved me. I must admit, I was waiting for the typical "Jaux pas" and was both relieved and admittedly a tish disappointed that he was on his A game. However, a speech with no gaffes means that we can focus on the meat of his words.

Here are a few of my favorite clips from Vice President Joe Biden's speech at the Democratic National Convention:

Barack and I have been through a lot together. And we’ve learned a lot about each other. I learned of the enormity of his heart. And he learned of the depth of my loyalty.

The rest of my life, my dad never failed to remind me -- that a job is about a lot more than a paycheck. It’s about dignity. It’s about respect. It’s about being able to look your children in the eye -- and say honey, it's going to be okay, and believe it was going to be okay.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm here to tell you, bravery resides in the heart of Barack Obama. And time and time again, I witnessed him summon it. This man has courage in his soul, compassion in his heart, and steel in his spine. And because of all the actions he took, because of the calls he made--and because of the grit and determination of American workers -- and the unparalled bravery of our special forces--we can now proudly say -- Osama Bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive.

Governor Romney looks at the notion of equal pay for equal work in terms of a company’s bottom line. President Obama knows -- that making sure our daughters are paid the same as our sons for the same job must be every father’s bottom line.

We see a future where America leads not only by the example of our power, but by the power of our example.

Oh, and the whole "hinge of history" metaphor rocked me. I wish I had thought of that. Joe Biden's speech cemented my passion, dedication, and conviction. His tone was earnest but powerful, and his storytelling resonated with so many of us who saw our parents lose jobs, accumulate college debt, make tough choices, and come out on top. Biden was right when he said that Americans are looking for a hand up, not a hand out. His speech humanized the Democratic party in a folksy way that harkens back to our roots and channels our grit.

To be in the arena, surrounded by the spark of like minded voters was exhilarating. Joe Biden didn't disappoint. He ignited that spark and got us fired up.

You might say I've drunk the Kool Aid. To that I say, cheers.

Images via Ilina Ewen

Mitt Romney Missed His Chance to Support Women

Wed, 29 Aug 2012 07:54:00 EDT

Post by Ilina Ewen

You must read the book Half the Sky by Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn and consider the fate of women around the world. It's a hell we cannot imagine in this country. We don't really want that sort of second class citizenship here, do we? We live where we all have a voice and rights. Many in the GOP want to change that.

It's horrifying, and if you really believe there is no war on women, you must also believe there was no Holocaust. It's that extreme and real IMHO. The inimitable Eve Ensler captures it perfectly. Todd Akin is an offensive, ill-informed extremist. Few people on either side of the political aisle would disagree. Many of my conservative friends have decried his stance on rape and pregnancy. However, what many people don’t realize is that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, though quick to write off Akin to separate themselves from his extremism, have an inextricable link to his ideologies.

In fact, Mitt Romney trumpeted the endorsement of Dr. Willke in 2007, the same doctor behind Akin’s original claim that women can’t get pregnant from “legitimate” rape. Romney and Ryan have both supported banning abortion in all instances, and Ryan even tried to narrow the definition of rape. Ryan co-sponsored a bill with Akin that would re-define rape. Let me tell you from personal experience, rape needs no redefinition. Click over to Violence Unsilenced and spend some time reading firsthand accounts from victims of sexual and domestic abuse. The stories are harrowing, heartbreaking, and worse than anything Hollywood could write.

Romney simply denounced Todd Akin’s remarks but missed an opportunity to comment on ways he supports women or even underscore what a horrific crime rape is. He really had a chance to speak up and out for women; instead he spoke out to protect his own campaign. His words were empty because they were simply water on the fire that evaporated instantly. Where is this supposed call for exceptions? Certainly not in black and white on Romney’s website. But of course the hot buttons like defunding Planned Parenthood and overturning Roe v. Wade are front and center. The simple fact is that Mitt Romney does not really support women’s issues. The Republican platform, penned under Romney’s eye and to be ratified at his crowning this week, cements the GOP’s sharia-like philosophy to relegate women to second class citizens.

It just seems ironic (and disingenuous) that Romney and Ryan are now trying to seem somewhat moderate on women’s health, while at the same time their party is voting on an extreme platform. Be informed. Please. The women and girls in your life are counting on us. In closing, I just want to share some words from my 60-year-old friend, who has had her own religious, social, and political epiphanies. She has raised two daughters and now has two granddaughters. Her paradigm is different from mine, yet her words carry a weight and power and credibility that stem from experience.

In her words:

It would totally boggle my mind (and disappoint me greatly) if any woman I know would vote for ANY republican in ANY race this November. I lived through the sixties and the fight for women’s rights, and these people are trying to take it all away. I won’t tell you what they called us back then, but it wasn’t even as polite as today. Our fight was so that you could be able to make decisions about your own body and be anything you wanted and not be pigeon-holed by men. Sandra Fluke is my new hero. I left the Catholic Church (joined the Lutheran Church -- Martin Luther & I had so much more in common than the Pope and I) because of the oppression of women. I had two daughters, and they were relegated to the “back of the church.” So when these candidates try to make the contraception issue a religious freedom issue, I cannot contain my anger. The Church must have been giddy to have all this support from Republicans.

Ryan's Medicare Proposal Is Another Scam to Swindle the Elderly

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:41:00 EDT

Post by Ilina Ewen

I am not well versed in the inner workings of Medicare. I do know that the plan, like all things related to health care and health insurance, needs some tweaking. We face an aging population and swelling health care needs. There is always room for improvement. What strikes me most about the terminology we use is the irony; there is very little focus on “care” when it comes to all things health related. Patients become numbers, statistics, and actuarial data. Doctors and insurance companies see dollars. More energy is spent caring about money than caring about people. And now we’ve come to a point in our country where our choices can impact the most vulnerable among us, the elderly. I encourage you to read what the Brookings Institute has to say on the issue of Medicare reform.

I am not here as an insurance expert, but as I write about the topic of Medicare from a lay perspective, I cannot help but cringe at the thought of a voucher system. Something about this system seems sketchy to me. We continue to implement consumer compromises in an effort to reduce costs, but have yet to hold insurance companies accountable. Unfortunately, there are no lobbyists for regular people, and we don’t have the muscle to throw our weight around Congress.

The voucher system sounds good on paper alone. It does not take into account realistic increases in health care costs that seniors would have to pay out of pocket. The plan on paper would have you think seniors would actually make money by pocketing the difference between coverage and actual costs. The truth is, coverage would be eroded over time as health care costs and premiums rise.

There are no guarantees.

Vouchers are supposed to fuel competition. There is still no solid evidence on how that plays out. The crux of the challenge continues to be the insurance companies. How can we ensure they are regulated and not participating in deceptive practices? The fleecing of the elderly is rampant in all things financial. I spent almost 10 years working in the financial services industry and worked a great deal with the elderly population. Policies, tax codes, investments, and such are confusing to the most knowledgeable among us. The complexity is simply mind-numbing and exponentially so for many seniors.

This is how I see it from a purely human perspective ... We are talking about one of our country’s most vulnerable populations here. There are stories in the news everyday about people who try to swindle the elderly. Why would our own government be a part of that treachery? We are talking about 50 million Americans here. Not numbers, not statistics. People. The question to ask is this: Do our leaders care more about the financial deficit or the moral deficit our country faces? We must take care of our people.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, see Should Medicare Be Replaced by Subsidies?

Image via James McTaggart

The Romney/Ryan Ticket Is Bad for Americans

Thu, 16 Aug 2012 09:17:00 EDT

Post by Ilina Ewen

Mitt Romney’s advisors are no fools. He has chosen Paul Ryan, the ideologue of the Tea Party, as his running mate. And let’s be clear, in the veep vetting process, Ryan and others provided the Romney camp with several years of tax returns. Ahem.

I was hoping Mitt Romney would offer the American people a political olive branch to demonstrate his willingness to work across party lines to boost our nation. Instead, he has chosen a staunchly conservative political ally who is more concerned with beating Barack Obama than helping fellow Americans.

This tunnel-vision mentality continues to fuel the hubris of this ticket. We don’t need more entrenched partisanship, especially as vehement as Paul Ryan.

Paul Ryan has been a Yes Man for the Republican party since he headed to Washington at an admirably young age. In his 13-year term he has successfully passed two bills; he renamed a post office and lowered excise tax on arrow shafts (how apropos coming from a man who partakes in bow hunting). Under both Democrat and Republican controlled houses, no one has embraced Paul Ryan’s new social contract. The deep thinker, budgetary expert, charismatic Midwestern father cloak is nothing but theater. Political posturing has been Ryan’s MO since hitting the Hill. He has simply shown no willingness to reach across party lines and compromise with his Democratic peers, instead focusing on his own self aggrandizement. Is saying no to compromise really an admirable trait? In short, both men are rich in hubris and bankrupt when it comes to humanity.

The Romney/Ryan ticket is simply bad for Americans, young and old. Their ideals represent an unwavering and blind allegiance to the uber rich while punishing the poor and middle classes. Their disdain for socioeconomic classes beneath them is deplorable. Their budget and ideals further boost the wealthy on the backs of the rest of us. Trickle down economics doesn’t work! The budget must be balanced and it must help all Americans.

The middle class cannot -- and should not -- bear the burden for the gaping hole left by the nation’s wealthiest few who do not pay taxes.

No jobs will be borne of the Ryan budget plan. In fact, the U.S. could lose a million jobs under this plan. Drastically cutting Pell Grants and Head Start would damage the future U.S. job market and compromise our intellectual capital, rendering us worthless in an expanding, complicated global economy. Cutting Medicare hurts the elderly, a segment of our population that has paid into the system and represents a generation we should nourish rather than neglect. Fair pay for women. Equal rights. DOMA. Birth control. Non discrimination protection. Hate crime prevention. Say goodbye to it all with Paul Ryan tugging on Romney’s puppet strings.

The silver lining is this: the Romney/Ryan ticket has opened up dialogue in this country to discuss real issues and the people they affect rather than typical political ideology. Let’s take this opportunity to talk about the people affected, not just the statistics as faceless numbers. Let’s open up the floor to talk about our country’s moral compass, where we envision ourselves as a nation, what it means to take care of one’s own, what education can do to help the impoverished, how stable health care can bring peace of mind to the elderly, what a little girl’s life will look like as she grows into a woman in this country, how we view civil rights, human rights, and the Bill of Rights.

If there were ever a time to fully examine the issues, the time is now. Too many people are blinded by campaign and party rhetoric or a candidate’s charm and good looks and vote against their own interests. I’ve been doing my homework. In my estimation, Paul Ryan cannot be underestimated.

Nor can he be trusted.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, see "Romney Picks Paul Ryan as VP."

Image via Tony Alter/Wikimedia

Hey Missouri, Americans Already Have the Right to Pray (Or Not)

Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:08:00 EDT

Post by Ilina Ewen

Let's talk about the Right to Pray amendment in Missouri. Don’t we Americans already have the right to pray (or not pray)? I just returned from a family vacation to Boston where we walked the Freedom Trail. The guide spent much of his time (in character as a settler) talking about religious persecution and religious freedom. I was reminded of our country’s tenuous beginnings in vivid 3D that only the bricks and gilded domes of Boston can unleash. I grew up in Charlottesville, Virginia, where Thomas Jefferson penned the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. Congress looked to this Virginia law, passed in 1786, when drafting the Bill of Rights in 1789. Freedom is more than rhetoric, more than a buzz word, more than an idea. The biggest fallacy in the freedom argument these days is the concept that granting freedom to one means taking it away from another.

I believe in one’s right to pray (or not to pray). It is a common sight where I live to see people bow their heads in the middle of a restaurant to say a prayer before a meal. I’ve worked in an office where prayer was de rigueur before meetings (which carried with it other implications). I grew up with a moment of silence in my school each morning. I keep hearing from Christian friends that they feel persecuted, judged, and under attack. Really? Last I heard, a Christian church wasn’t the site of a hateful bullet riddled attack. I’m not clear who’s under fire here. I haven’t seen any hostility and hate aimed at Christians. Will Amendment 2 in Missouri also protect those who face Mecca to pray? Does this protect those who abstain from prayer? Is this a Christian only amendment? Something reeks of an attack on the separation of church and state here.

I don’t understand this intersection of government and religion. How does government dictating religious freedom create smaller government? Surely there's something clever to add here about old adage “my body is my temple," but I'm not witty enough to come up with it. But I digress ... We already have religious freedom, and our ancestors fought for it. We take it for granted and now interpret religious freedom as Christian only, or worse, “thinking just like me or you’re wrong and should be persecuted.” Missouri’s Amendment 2 is shrouded in something sinister, veiled as religious freedom. Sounds like lawyers will be the real winners here. Missouri should focus instead on boosting its weak economy, one that has shown lackluster improvement compared to the rest of the country in recent years. Simply praying for jobs in a public square isn’t going to be enough.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, see Do States Need Right to Pray Amendments?

Image via US National Archives and Records Administration

Mitt Romney's Trip Abroad Shows He Isn't Fit to Be President

Sun, 05 Aug 2012 22:15:00 EDT

Post by Ilina Ewen

The worldwide press has not been kind to Mitt Romney upon his return from Europe. Romney's overseas show and tell has erupted into something of a debacle for his campaign. I'm not one to thrive on schadenfreude so I don't sit back and laugh at his expense. Nor do I grin about his shortcomings while abroad because at the end of the day, he is still a face of our country. As he travels overseas he represents America, for better or for worse.

His foibles and demeanor simply further represent the fact he hasn't the heart, grace, compassion, or tact to be President. The same faults he carries Stateside were amplified overseas. I happened to be traveling out of the country while Romney was on his European tour. Many folks I met stated their interest in our upcoming election and voiced concern for not who Mitt Romney is, rather what he represents. Hubris seems to be a common theme.

My mother is active in Democrats Abroad in Germany, where she lives much of the year. Candidates often campaign in countries where there are U.S. interests or a large population of expatriate voters. It is a common campaign strategy to appeal to voters abroad while engendering confidence in foreign populates, but this strategy does not usurp activities at home. The American people come first; our jobs, education, health, and well being take priority.

I hope to see less time dedicated to overseas campaigning this year. There is so much discord at home right now that our leaders owe it to us to demonstrate how they will bridge that divide. The strife at home is getting dangerously heated. Who is going to finally step in and shift our paradigm so this election is focused on compromise and working in harmony instead of battling to win? Wow, now *that's* a foreign concept!

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, see Should Mitt Romney Be Campaigning Abroad?

Image via jnn13/Wikimedia Commons

Focus on Gun Control Is Misdirected

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:16:00 EDT

Post by Ilina Ewen

I am not a fan of guns. In fact, I am scared of them. I would make a terrible gun owner. That’s why I don’t own one. I don’t begrudge (legal) gun owners. My niece’s husband is an avid hunter on his own plot of farm land and took my son out for some winter deer hunting. (My son was decked out in orange and protective gear but did not carry a gun. I should also note that my niece’s husband did not shoot at anything in an effort to be as safe as possible while my son was under his watch. For that, I am grateful.). I do grapple with gun laws and marvel at how guns hold a certain glory among some people. I question our current laws, the state of our society, and the vehement rage that ensues from both sides when the issue of gun control crops up. And I can’t help but wonder why assault weapons are necessary, enjoyable, or legal. The hobbyist sportsmen and women among us do not need such weapons in their arsenal.

It's an obscene twist it seems that after mass killings like the one in Aurora, Colorado last week, gun owners spin themselves as the victims. There are rants in defense of guns all over the media and blogosphere. My own Facebook feed is full of statistics supporting gun owners and various interpretations of the Second Amendment. We should be bowing our heads for the real victims and their families, not reaching for our beloved weapons and espousing what we woulda shoulda coulda done had we been on the scene. Now is not the time for the “what if” game. Now is not the time for blaming or judging. We should be coming together to mourn the loss of innocent lives at the hands of a sick man whose name needs no further mention. It is worth noting, however, that it is easier to get a gun in this country than sound mental health care. We are up in arms about the wrong issue here, folks.

My paradigm for the horror in Aurora centers on my friend’s experience couple years ago. He was shopping the aisles of Target with his 6-year-old daughter when an armed gun man rampaged through the store. He wrote of his experience, and the scene is chilling. His words move me as a parent more than as a gun control advocate. My first reaction is not how I would have fought back or been a hero. I cannot stop thinking about what I would do if my own young sons were caught in the line of fire. Honestly, I don’t think firing a concealed weapon would have done the job. The darkness, the chaos, the sheer emotion of it all would be crippling. I live in a state that allows concealed weapons ... in parks and in establishments that serve alcohol. Booze and guns are an especially bad combination, regardless where you fall in the gun control debate.

It seems a strange paradox to “fight fire with fire,” something akin to spanking a child for hitting his sibling. I simply cannot wrap my head around it.

But for now, my head and whatever thoughts of gun control are swirling around in it are not important. It is my heart that’s heavy.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, see Where Do You Stand on the Gun Control Debate?

Image via Francois Polito/Wikimedia

Let's Hope Mitt Romney's VP Candidate Isn't an Arrogant 'Ken Doll' Too

Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:21:00 EDT

Post by Ilina Ewen

It is no secret that I loathe Mitt Romney. I think his campaign is fueled by hubris. He is disingenuous and crooked. Romney cares more about his cronies than the American people. He has no sense of what it is to be a working American and does not value the so called 99 percent. He is hopelessly out of touch. Romney has made disparaging comments about many segments of our population and continues to plaster on his Ken doll grin and coif his ever-so-perfect mane and stand on stage after stage berating Barack Obama. It seems all he can do is say “Obama sucks!” without filling in anything compelling, original, or productive. Sounds like a weak campaign strategy to me. And for the record, I do not begrudge the man his financial success. What he has in dollars he lacks in empathy and ethos. Mitt Romney needs to face up to his shortcomings and choose a running mate who will more than compensate for his dire lack of perspective.

So who will it be? Campaign advisors are tirelessly vetting a slew of Republican party darlings.

A woman?

A Latino?

An African American?

Or another Bain-esque crony?

Senator Marco Rubio might be his closest bet, but I have a hunch Mr. Rubio has his own political aspirations and won’t risk being tarnished by the bane of Mitt Romney. He is a rising star with a new book to promote. His appeal for Romney are his immigrant heritage, religious fervor, and Tea Party leanings. Rubio presents a more charismatic "American Dream" package to counter Romney's privileged prep school persona. I can’t begin to make a vice presidential prediction, but I can tell you that the vetting process requires the potential candidates to disclose more than Romney himself has.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, see Who Is Your Republican VP Pick?

Image via Gage Skidmore

Corporations Are More 'Tin Men' Than People

Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:35:00 EDT

Post by Ilina Ewen

Every golden nugget from my childhood has been remade, retold, reworked. There is one tried and true thing I cherish from my childhood that I share with my sons -- Schoolhouse Rock. American rock has actually been helpful in sparking some great teaching moments and springboard for discussions. I’m just waiting for some jingle writers to get in on rewriting the lyrics to all the old Schoolhouse Rock songs I loved as a kid. If folks like Mitt Romney have their way, a new song would follow a new Constitution: “We the corporations, in order to form a more perfect union ...” Not quite the same ring to it ...

Help me understand how our universe became so twisted that a man running for President of the United States takes corporate personhood so literally. Sometimes I feel like David Byrne is singing over my shoulder. How did I get here? America has turned into a kaleidoscopic distorted image of its former self.

Despite the intricacies of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, corporations are entities, not human beings. We are not yet in a Jetsons robotic age where the two blur to become synonymous. Justice John Paul Stevens had it right:

... corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their 'personhood' often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of ‘We the People’ by whom and for whom our Constitution was established. ~Supreme Court, 2010

So corporations are to be regarded as people but unions are not? I just cannot seem to grasp the absurdity of this in general. Corporations put shareholder return above employee and citizen well being. The sheer nature of corporate structure makes it a perfect host organism for Greed. Shareholders and citizens are different animals. It starts to get really murky when you’re talking about foreign corporations and foreign shareholders. I’m not saying corporations are inherently evil (I have worked for some of the world’s biggest and most powerful and had great experiences), but the nature and role of a corporation is not the same as a human being. You’ve been hornswoggled if you argue that corporate wealth translates to citizens’ prosperity. Trickle down economics has been failing those of us who are not corporations.

I’m not a lawyer or a Constitutional law scholar. But I am an educated voter. In my assessment, Romney’s love affair with corporations and big business just stinks. There’s something unsavory lurking here, and lifting up the American people is not on this man’s agenda. I can’t help but wonder if corporations are people, are they male or female? I’m going with male. They whip out their big compensation packages and screw the rest of us.

A corporation isn’t a person; it’s more of a tin man like Romney himself. It lacks heart.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, see Are Corporations People?

Image via U.S. Lithograph Co./Wikimedia

American Women Deserve Paid Maternity Leave

Wed, 04 Jul 2012 11:45:00 EDT

Post by Ilina Ewen

Help me understand how America is a nation of purported “family values” yet mothers do not get paid maternity leave. This abomination is not a partisan issue. If there is one thing unites women (and men) across party lines, it’s motherhood. We all love our children fiercely and value that time at the beginning to bond with and nurture our babies as we grope our way through those sleepless nights and zombie days. The United States is among the world’s richest nations - rich in terms of financial wealth, military muscle, world power, intellectual capital, and opportunity. It’s shameful we don’t value motherhood as much as we value wealth.

Women in America today can take up to 12 weeks leave through the Family Medical Leave Act. My husband, in fact, used the benefits of this act to take off a month when our first son was born. It was a joy for him to have that bonding time. Other women have to use sick days and disability to cover “maternity leave.” Let me be clear here, motherhood is neither a sickness nor a disability. We must not treat it as such, making the whole concept of maternity leave seem punitive.

The modern woman’s Sophie’s Choice is paycheck or baby. There are so many unsavory dynamics that go into becoming a mother in America. When I was pregnant with my first son I was laid off from my job (under sketchy circumstances), bullied by the managers in my new job about being pregnant (though I disclosed I was pregnant in my interviews), and dragged through legal ordeals about health insurance when I left the bullying company. In my second pregnancy, I was dropped from my husband’s health insurance in his new job because pregnancy was considered a pre-existing condition. I was engaged in battle before my babies were even born!

Why do we make it so difficult for people to start a family?

Remarkably, we have legions of people who fight to give more rights to unborn fetuses than to living mothers. It’s not a matter of either/or here; it is a matter of providing support to families and children and mothers. Many issues that ail society and stress out families and marriages are due to lack of support. The issues are complex and gargantuan, but in simple terms, American values, standards, and budgetary priorities do not care about women and families, for which society pays the price. Exactly what standards are we using when we puff out our chests and proclaim to be the greatest nation on earth?

To reiterate, the United States is the ONLY industrialized nation in the world to provide no paid maternity leave. This must change, regardless who sits in the Oval Office.

Image via Think Progress

It's Time to Rein In Campaign Contributions

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:35:00 EDT

Post by Ilina Ewen

It is so easy to balk at other countries’ tainted elections. We grimace and groan when we talk of unethical politicians (a redundancy, right?), corrupt infrastructures, and bought elections. Oh, the mighty United States is above all that. Or is it?

We do have “clean” elections. I do not believe voter fraud is rampant. I believe our system is orderly and fair. But ... there is this little issue of campaign finance. It’s too big a beast to wrestle, and its rules are as dense as corporate tax code. There are enough loopholes (and lawyers) to dance around the rules. Campaign contributions have skyrocketed, and the advent of the Super PAC has landed elections squarely into the deep pockets of the people who have the means and hubris to buy an election.

While we might believe we have clean elections in America, our system is tainted with corruption in the form of campaign contributions. Wealth translates to power any way you look at it. Unfortunately, those who wield the power haven’t an ounce of Utopian ideals and focus instead on locking in their own station in life. Those who can volunteer and toil and work. Those who can’t contribute money to buy their way.

There needs to be a limit on campaign contributions. Period. Elections and campaigns have been guided by obscene wealth, and the very people our civil servants are supposed to serve have been brushed aside. We even have foreign companies investing in our political system now. The bartering of money for special interest favors isn’t new, nor is it newsworthy. But it is worth noting that special interests will eventually usurp national interests in the tit for tat exchange of campaign contributions for votes. Votes are indeed being bought in America, and it’s foolish to think otherwise. Let me be straight, this is happening on ALL sides of the political spectrum.

Our citizens are not being served, lifted, or protected. The everyday people who are in pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness are not bettered by the greedy exchange of money for votes. Political power belongs in the hands of citizens, not corporations, foreign interests, or one percent of the population.

Image via Una Smith/Wikimedia Commons

President Obama's Immigration Directive Gives Relief, Not Immunity

Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:11:00 EDT

Post by Ilina Ewen

The issue of “American-ness” is a heated one. I am an immigrant myself. My parents moved our family to the United States when I was a baby. I’ve lived here for 43 years. I know no other home and I would not fit in back in the country of my birth. I look Indian, but nothing about my paradigm is Indian. I have been back to Calcutta, the city of my birth, and it is alarming to be a brown face among my people and feel so glaringly different. I am more accustomed to being one brown face in a sea of white faces where I live, yet I feel like I fit in more here. Though I was not born American, I was raised one. For the record, my family’s immigration was legal, and we have all since become United States citizens. My sons are first generation American. It's kind of a big deal.

My paradigm as a naturalized American sheds a different perspective on President Obama’s recent announcement to grant deferred action process for children of illegal immigrants. It’s a tough call because those children are victims of their parents’ choices. They have lived here their whole lives and consider America home. It is, in fact, the only home they know. Such is my life. These are the same kids who sit next to mine in school and frolic in the swimming pool on summer vacation with my sons. They are not the stereotypical visions of illegal immigrants people conjure up. Whether people admit it or not, there are shadows of racism and discrimination peeking through the veil of "patriotism" and the barking about what's fair and just. I can’t help but feel pangs of compassion and sympathy for these children.

Note that President Obama is not granting full blown citizenship rights to the children and their families. He is simply stating that in the scheme of things, this segment of illegal immigrants is a lower threat to our national security. I concur. Dealing with immigration issues must be handled in a logical, cost effective, compassionate manner. In terms of prioritization, the people whose parents brought them here as children pose no threat to our nation’s safety. There is the argument of illegal immigrants “taking our jobs.” From where I sit, I don’t see a whole lot of legal citizens lining up to take the same sort of jobs illegal immigrants are taking on to pay their way. The mantle of entitlement is not one worn by immigrants, for they are grateful to be in a country that is the purported land of opportunity.

I think this directive makes sense. Are there political underpinnings here in hopes of winning the critical Hispanic vote? Sure. Everything is political, even more so in an election year. Nonetheless, I think it makes sense to approach immigration on a case by case basis and target the real threats first. If we have committed, patriotic, productive members of society who came here illegally as children but contribute to our country in some fashion, let’s find a way to help them, not punish them. Punishing children for the “sins of their fathers” is ludicrous. Those who oppose this directive are up in arms about details that are simply not true. No one gets a fast pass to citizenship. No one moves to the front of the line for scholarships and college admissions. This directive allows legions of illegal immigrants to apply to work legally in this country. That means more people paying taxes, spending money, and boosting our economy. President Obama’s directive is about relief, not immunity. It makes sense from both a human and economic perspective.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and see what all the bloggers had to say, read What Do You Think of President Obama's Immigration Decision?

Image via Jnn13 Wikimedia Commons

Politicians Are Too Out of Touch With Moms' Economic Woes

Wed, 13 Jun 2012 10:02:00 EDT

Post by Ilina Ewen

My idealistic views are shaken out of whack in every election cycle. I hate that only the uber rich hold office, and those who live in the trenches stay there. We elect representatives to serve us, yet most of those people haven’t a clue about our paradigm. I’m talking about people who would suck at Cliffhangers, Hi Lo, or the Check Out game on The Price Is Right.

Politicians on all sides talk about the “economy” in big business, lofty terms. They never speak of personal experience and only know the “common man” as an allegorical character in a stump speech. Michelle Obama has been known to shop at Target, so she probably has a better handle on how we everyday Joes and Janes live. Ann Romney, not so much. Remember how she spoke of tough times when she and Mitt were in college? "They were not easy years ... Neither one of us had a job, because Mitt had enough of an investment from stock that we could sell off a little at a time." Yeah, because most of us are in a position to sell off stock that we inherited to pay for college.

Mitt Romney stated he is not concerned about the very poor and, in fact, thinks the very poor are “doing fine.” Barack Obama thinks the private sector is “doing fine.” So who’s right?

No one.

In my own life, things are fine. We are not struggling or in debt or fearful of providing for our sons. We pay more for goods and gas, but I know that the President wields little control over those things. My husband and I both have a good education and work experience. He is gainfully employed in the private sector, and I have my own marketing consulting and writing business. We live within our means and pinch pennies, but I am still in a position to buy organic milk for my kids and pay for a couple weeks of summer camp. We are not scrimping, but I did admittedly sell some gold a while back. I used the proceeds to pay my student loan. Life for us is less decadent than in years past, but our hardships are laughable compared to what many Americans are facing (including those who share the same education and upbringing we enjoy). My consulting business has faltered, and I earn less than half of what my income was five years ago. It’s a huge hit to our lifestyle, but we are not hurting.

I know what it is to live so that getting rid of the cleaning lady and not traveling to Europe every other summer as planned isn't real hardship. I realize what a charmed life we live, and our cuts have been to discretionary spending. For this I am grateful, and in a show of gratitude, I have pledged to speak out and support those less fortunate. Luckily we do not have to make the Sophie’s Choice of finances every month -- food or rent. My family has health insurance, a lovely house, and food to grace our table. We are healthy. Most importantly, we know life can change in an instant so we save, we invest, we live within our means. In a word, we are responsible, which is more than I can say for corporations.

Private sector businesses will tell you about cuts and losses and hardship. They will wax on about expenses and difficult times. The whole woe-is-me act is disingenuous at best, full blown lying at worst. CEOs continue to take home obscene amounts of money on the backs of hardworking, dedicated Americans. In an unseemly twist of irony, they get paid bonuses for laying off workers. It’s criminal really. It’s proof that trickle down economics doesn’t work. So from this perspective, private sector businesses, rather the head honchos in the C-suites, are doing fine. They are sorely out of touch, just like our politicians. All I can do is continue to be a voice for so many disenfranchised and suffering among us. Though I don’t live in the same paradigm, I do have an appreciation for those struggles because I have been there.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and see what all the bloggers had to say, read How Has the Economy Affected You?

Image via FremantleMedia/Wikimedia

Lessons on Leaving Rhetoric Behind

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:09:00 EDT

Post by Ilina Ewen

There is a cliche about politics being dirty business. I spent some time interning on the Hill and for a lobbyist. That brief experience scorched my dreams of working in public service. I learned then that there’s not much service involved in being a public servant. Working in politics was not going to assuage my grandiose idealism. The egos, the suits, the handshakes, and the winks just didn’t settle my gut. Being forced to wear pantyhose in the humid Washington, D.C. summer didn’t help the situation.

What I wanted then, as I do now, was to speak up and out for the disenfranchised and silenced among us. I wanted to make the world just and joyful. I have yet to figure out how to do that, but politics surely isn’t the way. I still tote my Shangri-La values around and sprinkle them like stardust on everything I touch. I am admittedly compassionate and idealistic to a fault.

Counter to my Shangri-La fairy dust is Jay Townsend’s acid that he wants to “hurl at those female democratic senators.” Do you need a moment to read that again? Hollywood can’t even make this stuff up. But real life sheds light on this horror in the film Saving Face. I have read the book Half the Sky, and it profoundly moved me. I was left breathless and teary after reading it. In a nutshell, the book is about the plight of women and girls all over the world. There are atrocities happening to females of all ages, including in my native India. Among those atrocities is throwing acid in women’s faces. Do you have any idea what harm that causes? To speak of “hurling acid” is not rhetoric or hyperbole. This is happening to women right this very second. It is an unspeakable act that leaves no room for jokes or an avenue to make emphatic point. Jay Townsend is unfit for public service, especially as a GOP spokesman.

It is NEVER appropriate to instigate violence against women. If we disagree with each other should we resort to vicious violent attacks? This vernacular of violence must stop. Is this the American way? Are our leaders not role models? While I saw dirty business in Washington, I never experienced anything close to what Jay Townsend has spurred. Even Sarah Palin’s crosshairs pale in comparison. Surely all sides of the political spectrum can agree on this. The lesson of values starts at home. We must equip our children to learn how to navigate their way when faced with dissenting opinions. Striking out is unproductive and harmful.

As parents, we owe it to our children to model and teach how to speak out in a respectful manner. Rage as an emotion is natural. Rage in action is unacceptable.

For starters, let’s leave the rhetoric behind. Rhetoric is inflamed speech that is not necessarily grounded in fact or logic. Argue points based on reason. Emotion adds fuel and passion, but emotion alone provides no foundation for an argument. Stop the name calling. Bullying isn’t just physical; verbal assaults are a form of bullying. Choose our words wisely. Accept that compromise and defeat are not synonymous. Respect other viewpoints. Think of other’s paradigms.

I have worked hard to state my views and share my stories while respecting differences. I work hard to avoid finger pointing and incendiary language in my writing. My idealistic ways are very much still a part of me. I haven’t been too jaded over the years (and believe me, those internship days were back when Madonna still used her last name). I want my sons to value differences and learn to compromise, not bully their way through life. I have pledged to work in unison. I hope you do too.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and see what all the bloggers had to say, read Can Moms Set a Higher Standard When It Comes to Talking Politics?

Image via US Senate

The Electoral College Is a Good Idea -- In Theory

Wed, 30 May 2012 14:57:00 EDT

Post by Ilina Ewen

Every election season I tell myself that this is the year I am going to understand the electoral college. I am college educated but cannot figure out the electoral college. I resorted to watching the Schoolhouse Rock explanation with my 8-year-old son who is in third grade. We watched the cartoonish explanation, and he looked at me and said, “Huh?” I sheepishly shrugged in shared confusion.

Remember in 2000 when Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote? That landed George Bush in the White House, and I just didn’t get it. I can’t seem to reconcile that outcome, and not because I didn’t vote for Bush. I cannot wrap my head around the system; it’s not the politics I’m fretting about. It’s the math.

We have 50 states plus the District of Columbia voting for President (never mind the United States citizens living abroad and in territories like Guam and Puerto Rico). Each state gets a minimum of three electoral votes. The total number of electoral votes is a simple formula of number of senators (2) plus number of House representatives (13 in my home state of North Carolina). This is where census data and Congressional districting come into play. There are 538 total electoral votes, and a candidate needs a simple majority to win (270). The mathematical reality is that the popular vote does not mirror the electoral vote, giving us the Gore/Bush situation of 2000. So the question begs to be asked, should popular majority vote rule? Should we abolish the electoral college?

I say no on both counts. But the truth is, I am confused enough that my opinion could be swayed here.

The electoral college is our country’s representative democracy, giving states equal representation. Basically, this was our founding fathers’ antidote to balance state power so one heavily populated state doesn’t control the election. One might argue that the system means that every vote doesn’t really count equally. In essence, an individual casts a vote for a candidate. That vote isn’t really for the candidate; it is for the electors to determine how they vote as a state. Technically, it is not the voters who elect a president, it is the electorate acting on behalf of the voters. But the catch is that there are no rules or laws or guidelines that require electors to vote based on how the citizens voted! Sure, that might not actually happen, but my point is that it can. This is my big beef with the electoral college that needs to be remedied.

I do fundamentally agree with the underlying premise of the electoral college, confusing as it is. The electoral college boils down to a numbers game. It is mathematical lunacy that ensures that every state is represented fairly based on population. While I did graduate from college (and graduate school), I didn’t major in math. Looks like yet another year of chasing the elusive electoral college.

Image via Gage (Wikimedia Commons)

Nothing Right About Jeremiah Wright

Thu, 24 May 2012 10:20:00 EDT

Post by Ilina Ewen

Jeremiah Wright is so 2008. Look, I don’t support this man and his incendiary rants, but he is old news. Nothing about this dated story is relevant. This story didn’t even get much traction four years ago. Obama cut his ties with Wright’s church during the last campaign and has not looked back. I’m pretty sure he has not been secretly skyping with Reverend Wright to get his church on. Let’s focus on issues and character and values and action. Mud slinging is messy business.

If the GOP and its funders like Joe Ricketts want to face their opponent head on, digging up old news isn’t the way to do it. Seems to me like they are scavenging for scraps and scrounging for dirt. The last ditch effort has begun mighty early. Even Mitt Romney and Karl Rove think invoking Reverend Wright is a dumb idea. So there, you can mark this as the day that I agree with those two men.

Republicans are ranting about the “false” war on women and high gas prices (which, by the way, no president controls; it’s much more complicated than that), yet their plan of attack focuses on the least relevant issue out there. I can’t help but wonder whose bright idea this was. Even Joe Ricketts, who wanted to spend tens of millions of his own money to fund these Obama + Wright ads has pulled the plug. He has a vendetta, but super PAC advisors steered him in the right direction to ditch the ad. Fred Davis, some Hollywood strategist, conjured up this ad concept, basically regurgitating a failed idea from the last campaign, cementing the notion that nothing original comes out of Hollywood anymore.

I am frankly disgusted by a system that values spending tens of millions of dollars on dirty politics when so many people are hurting in this country. It’s obscene, and both parties are guilty. Joe Ricketts and his ilk are focusing their energy and resources in the wrong direction. Super PACs are destroying what little integrity our campaign system had. Let’s focus on issues and people. Enough division already. We are after all, the United States of America. We can’t let money and power divide us, and we can’t let dirt drive us.

It’s wrong to dredge up Jeremiah Wright. Propaganda will get us nowhere in a hurry. Facts matter. The truth matters. As Fergie would say, Jeremiah Wright is so 2000 and late.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, read Does Jeremiah Wright Matter in This Election?

Image via White House

Obama's Support of Gay Marriage Will Drive Voters to the Polls

Sat, 19 May 2012 16:23:00 EDT

Post by Ilina Ewen

I don’t recall a presidential announcement to proclaim support of straight marriage. I don’t recall waking up one morning declaring I am straight. Why are we still talking of marriage equality in 2012? Please don’t talk to me about the sanctity of marriage. The likes of John Edwards, Larry Craig, Mark Sanford, Mark Souder, and Tim Mahoney have already made a mockery of marriage vows. Don't talk to me about homosexuality being a sin. I have seen firsthand the worst iteration of this mentality. Have we not yet determined that all citizens of the United States deserve the same rights? Keep in mind that I am in an interracial marriage, one that my state did not see as legal until 1976 when the Supreme Court forced it to. As a North Carolinian, the gay marriage wound is raw for me. It shall be interesting to see how Obama's recent support of gay marriage turns the election in my state, one that he narrowly won in 2008.

My home state just voted to pass Amendment One, banning gay marriage and all other unions other than the marriage between a man and a woman from our state constitution. Note that gay marriage is already illegal here. Amendment One hurts heterosexual couples too, not to mention the small issue of the populace voting for civil rights. Let's just grant all our citizens rights and move on to other important issues like healing our economy, caring for our citizens, bringing home our troops, educating our children, and cleaning up our act! We cannot in good conscience move forward to put our economy back on track in an age that reeks of discrimination. In light of Obama's "evolution" to support gay marriage, I should think that the topic of equality is front and center of citizens' minds as they cast their ballot. The tenets of freedom and equality are ones we take for granted until we are stripped of them ourselves.

I believe in providing and protecting equal rights for all of our citizens. I applaud President Obama for stating the same. Marriage is more than a religious or cultural declaration. Despite what reality televisions tells us, marriage is certainly more than a white dress and over-the-top catered affair. With marriage come certain benefits, rights, and privileges that are being denied to our gay citizens. If marriage were simply “in the eyes of God,” then by all means, to each church its own. But the matter is not so cut and dry. In fact, religion plays no role whatsoever in our government. The separation of church and state afford us all the right to worship and pray and believe what we wish with no repercussions.

The President took a risk speaking in favor of gay marriage. Politicking colors everything in an election year, and it’s no secret this was a calculated maneuver. Heck, as President, everything is calculated. Obama has leaned as far left as he can on this topic, alienating some while bringing others into his fold. I am curious if the black churches that supported him in the last election will favor or flee him now. Many historically black churches led the charge in North Carolina to vote for Amendment One, but many of those congregants are (were?) Obama supporters. This shall add another layer of election year drama to an already heated year. No wonder North Carolina is a battleground state.

I hope my sons come of age at a time that one’s sexuality has nothing to do with rights, civil or otherwise. There was a time women could not vote. There was a time African Americans could not vote. There was a time that blacks and whites could not marry. With the President’s declaration in support of gay marriage, there will come a time we say “There was a time gay couples could not wed.” We are taking the first step, with our President leading us down the aisle.

I am confident that Americans will see through the rhetoric and hate and judgement from Romney's camp to see that equality and freedom are the cornerstones of what makes this country unique. President Obama's risky, yet applaudable, move to speak out in favor of gay marriage will hopefully make people think about the very principles that make us the land of the free. I think with every conservative he turns off, he gains an independent and will drive even more people to the polls in November.

Image via Ryan Georgi