This is my take of the famous Laska of Southeast Asia. The difference is that I turn this into a curry that is eaten with rice, as opposed to a soup. And I use chicken instead of sea food.
INGREDIENTS
Grind to a fine paste either in a blender or mortar and pestle.
3 to 6
Green chilies. Use either serranos or Thai green chilies, depending on your tolerance to heat. Chop fine.
3 stalks
Lemon grass. Cut off and dispose the bottom inch. Use the next six inches. Toss the top portion of each stalk. Chop fine.
15 leaves
Kaffir lime leaves. Chop fine.
2-inch piece
Fresh ginger, chopped fine
4 Cloves
Fresh garlic, chopped fine
1 tsp
Shrimp paste
1
Juice of 1 lime
½-tsp
Turmeric powder
2
Shallots, chopped fine
2 tblspns
Vegetable or peanut oil
2 tblspns
Water (keep to a minimum, only use to facilitate grinding)
Other ingredients
8 oz can
Coconut milk
8 oz can
Low sodium chicken stock
1 lb
Chicken breast cut to bite size pieces, or chicken tenders
1 tblspn
Vegetable or peanut oil
Salt to taste
METHOD
Heat a frying pan or wok over medium high heat. Add oil.
Add the ground spice paste and stir fry till fragrant. Make sure that it does not burn!
Add coconut milk and chicken stock and bring to boil over high heat.
Add chicken. Cover with lid. Simmer over medium heat for 10 minutes.
OPTIONAL: Add diced Thai eggplant, carrots, and green beans.
Remove lid and continue to simmer over medium heat for another 10 minutes.
Taste and add salt if needed.
Serve hot with jasmine rice.
NOTE: You can adjust the “richness” of the curry by adjusting the proportions of the coconut milk and chicken stock. For rich curry, use all coconut milk and no stock.
Please stop by my stores for superb fashion jewlery and high-quality inexpensive MP3 players.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Ginger Chutney
This is a simple recipe for tasty and spicy ginger chutney.
INGREDIENTS
1½-inch ball
Seedless raw tamarind (Indian/Asian grocery store)
3-inch piece
Fresh ginger, chopped fine.
3 Nos
Dried red chilies
1 tspn
Mustard seeds
1 tspn
Urad dal (Indian/Asian grocery store)
1½-inch cube
Jaggery (raw sugar, Indian/Asian grocery store)
¼-tspn
Asofoetida
1 tblspn
Peanut oil
1 tspn
Fenugreek seeds
½-tspn
Turmeric powder
Salt to taste
METHOD
Place 2 cups of water in a sauce pan and heat over medium high heat. Add the tamarind ball, and simmer for 15 to 20 minutes. Use a fork or spoon to carefully break down the tamarind ball. Cool, and strain to remove the solids, retaining liquid extract. Discard the solids.
Clean the sauce pan and wipe dry.
Place the sauce pan on medium-high heat. Add peanut oil.
Add urad dal, fenugreek seeds, mustard seeds, and dried red chilies. Fry till the dal turns light brown/golden. Make sure not to burn!
Add asofoetida, and then immediately add the tamarind liquid extract.
Add fresh ginger, turmeric and half the jaggery. Boil over low to medium heat for 15 minutes. Taste and add more jaggery if needed.
Turn off heat and allow to cool. Grind to a medium to fine paste in a blender or food processor.
Add salt to taste. Mix well and serve with dosas or other Indian snacks.
Please stop by my stores for superb fashion jewlery and high-quality inexpensive MP3 players
INGREDIENTS
1½-inch ball
Seedless raw tamarind (Indian/Asian grocery store)
3-inch piece
Fresh ginger, chopped fine.
3 Nos
Dried red chilies
1 tspn
Mustard seeds
1 tspn
Urad dal (Indian/Asian grocery store)
1½-inch cube
Jaggery (raw sugar, Indian/Asian grocery store)
¼-tspn
Asofoetida
1 tblspn
Peanut oil
1 tspn
Fenugreek seeds
½-tspn
Turmeric powder
Salt to taste
METHOD
Place 2 cups of water in a sauce pan and heat over medium high heat. Add the tamarind ball, and simmer for 15 to 20 minutes. Use a fork or spoon to carefully break down the tamarind ball. Cool, and strain to remove the solids, retaining liquid extract. Discard the solids.
Clean the sauce pan and wipe dry.
Place the sauce pan on medium-high heat. Add peanut oil.
Add urad dal, fenugreek seeds, mustard seeds, and dried red chilies. Fry till the dal turns light brown/golden. Make sure not to burn!
Add asofoetida, and then immediately add the tamarind liquid extract.
Add fresh ginger, turmeric and half the jaggery. Boil over low to medium heat for 15 minutes. Taste and add more jaggery if needed.
Turn off heat and allow to cool. Grind to a medium to fine paste in a blender or food processor.
Add salt to taste. Mix well and serve with dosas or other Indian snacks.
Please stop by my stores for superb fashion jewlery and high-quality inexpensive MP3 players
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
More on the Health Plans
The Los Angeles Times (LA Times) has an article comparing the Obama and McCain healthcare plans. This article uses plainer English than the WSJ article did! So I think I have a better idea of what the candidates have to offer.
“McCain would rely on market forces to expand coverage. Obama would widen public safety-net programs, subsidize coverage for the poor and make public insurance similar to that offered to federal employees (including members of Congress) available to all.”
The McCain plan relies on deregulation of the healthcare industry to stimulate these “market forces” to expand and improve healthcare coverage. Seeing how well deregulation has served the banking industry, I am not sure I feel comfortable with less regulation!!
The second major difference between the two plans is that the McCain plan will remove the tax exclusion for healthcare costs paid by employers. For example – if it costs your employer $12,000 for health insurance for your family, under the McCain plan, that amount would no longer be a tax exclusion for the employer. If the employer continues to provide you with health insurance, presumably your employer would make you pay the additional tax – say $3000. McCain’s plan would turn around and give you $5000. So your family would come out ahead, provided your employer continues to provide you with health insurance. If the $5000 in McCain’s plan is indexed to the rising costs of healthcare, then your family will continue to benefit under the McCain plan. On the other hand, if the $5000 is kept constant, or even indexed to inflation, your advantage under the McCain plan will erode with time, because increase in healthcare costs outpaces inflation.
If your employer chooses to eliminate your healthcare insurance, then your family is in big trouble under McCain’s plan!! An average health insurance policy for your family costs about $12,000 to $15,000. So the $5000 that you get under McCain’s plan will not come close to offsetting your new insurance cost! Under Obama’s plan, if you like your current health insurance, and if your employer continues to provide you with coverage, then you can keep your existing coverage, and nothing changes for you or for your employer. On the other hand, if your employer drops your coverage, then you fall back upon government-sponsored coverage, and your employer pays a tax that helps offset the cost of the government-sponsored coverage. Obama’s plan will mandate minimum insurance coverage standards, and insurance companies will not be allowed to deny coverage based on pre-existing or other conditions.
In keeping with McCain’s commitment to deregulation, his healthcare plan places no constraints or minimum requirements on healthcare insurance providers. Under this plan, healthy, young individuals can buy policies with high deductibles and minimal coverage, and save money. High risk individuals, especially those with pre-existing conditions will likely have to pay exorbitant premiums, if they can get coverage at all! McCain plans to address this by developing insurance for “high risk pools” and providing assistance to States to cover healthcare costs for these high risk pools.
The LA times concludes:
“The Tax Policy Center projected that by 2018 the uninsured would number 66.8 million without any reform. The McCain plan would reduce that figure by 2 million, while Obama's would cut the number by nearly 34 million, the center said.The analysis concluded that the costs of both plans over 10 years were similar: $1.6 trillion for Obama's and $1.3 trillion for McCain's. But the benefits were distributed differently. The center found that Obama's plan would provide relatively greater benefits to low- and middle-income families, while McCain's would deliver larger financial incentives to high-income families, at least in its early years.”
If what the LA Times writes, and my interpretation of the two plans is incorrect, then the McCain campaign better get on the stick and explain their plan with greater clarity and detail, because right now their plan does not look particularly enticing!
Please feel free to stop by and take a look at some beautifully crafted and affordable fashion jewelry, and some high quality yet inexpensive MP3 Players.
“McCain would rely on market forces to expand coverage. Obama would widen public safety-net programs, subsidize coverage for the poor and make public insurance similar to that offered to federal employees (including members of Congress) available to all.”
The McCain plan relies on deregulation of the healthcare industry to stimulate these “market forces” to expand and improve healthcare coverage. Seeing how well deregulation has served the banking industry, I am not sure I feel comfortable with less regulation!!
The second major difference between the two plans is that the McCain plan will remove the tax exclusion for healthcare costs paid by employers. For example – if it costs your employer $12,000 for health insurance for your family, under the McCain plan, that amount would no longer be a tax exclusion for the employer. If the employer continues to provide you with health insurance, presumably your employer would make you pay the additional tax – say $3000. McCain’s plan would turn around and give you $5000. So your family would come out ahead, provided your employer continues to provide you with health insurance. If the $5000 in McCain’s plan is indexed to the rising costs of healthcare, then your family will continue to benefit under the McCain plan. On the other hand, if the $5000 is kept constant, or even indexed to inflation, your advantage under the McCain plan will erode with time, because increase in healthcare costs outpaces inflation.
If your employer chooses to eliminate your healthcare insurance, then your family is in big trouble under McCain’s plan!! An average health insurance policy for your family costs about $12,000 to $15,000. So the $5000 that you get under McCain’s plan will not come close to offsetting your new insurance cost! Under Obama’s plan, if you like your current health insurance, and if your employer continues to provide you with coverage, then you can keep your existing coverage, and nothing changes for you or for your employer. On the other hand, if your employer drops your coverage, then you fall back upon government-sponsored coverage, and your employer pays a tax that helps offset the cost of the government-sponsored coverage. Obama’s plan will mandate minimum insurance coverage standards, and insurance companies will not be allowed to deny coverage based on pre-existing or other conditions.
In keeping with McCain’s commitment to deregulation, his healthcare plan places no constraints or minimum requirements on healthcare insurance providers. Under this plan, healthy, young individuals can buy policies with high deductibles and minimal coverage, and save money. High risk individuals, especially those with pre-existing conditions will likely have to pay exorbitant premiums, if they can get coverage at all! McCain plans to address this by developing insurance for “high risk pools” and providing assistance to States to cover healthcare costs for these high risk pools.
The LA times concludes:
“The Tax Policy Center projected that by 2018 the uninsured would number 66.8 million without any reform. The McCain plan would reduce that figure by 2 million, while Obama's would cut the number by nearly 34 million, the center said.The analysis concluded that the costs of both plans over 10 years were similar: $1.6 trillion for Obama's and $1.3 trillion for McCain's. But the benefits were distributed differently. The center found that Obama's plan would provide relatively greater benefits to low- and middle-income families, while McCain's would deliver larger financial incentives to high-income families, at least in its early years.”
If what the LA Times writes, and my interpretation of the two plans is incorrect, then the McCain campaign better get on the stick and explain their plan with greater clarity and detail, because right now their plan does not look particularly enticing!
Please feel free to stop by and take a look at some beautifully crafted and affordable fashion jewelry, and some high quality yet inexpensive MP3 Players.
Monday, October 27, 2008
McCain's Healthcare Plan
The Wall Street Journal recently published an article on the McCain health care proposal. I must confess that I do not fully understand the implications to the tax code, and how that would affect me. However, there are several aspects that raise serious doubts in my mind:
“He would replace the current income tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance with a refundable tax credit -- $5,000 for those who purchase family coverage and $2,500 for individual coverage.”
I am single, and I pay about $30 a paycheck for health insurance through my employer. This amounts to about $780 per year. Supposedly, it costs my employer about $3120 to pay the rest of my health insurance premiums. So that total cost is about $3900. Under McCain’s plan, my employer would no longer get a tax exclusion on the premium paid by the employer. Because of this loss of tax incentive it is likely that employers would stop providing health insurance. In return, according to the McCain plan, I would receive a tax break of $2500. For me to get the same coverage that I currently have, I would have to pay an additional $1400! How is this good for me??
“Mr. McCain would also reform insurance markets to stem the growth in health insurance premiums.”
This I believe is the key to the problem. Yet the article says nothing more about reforming the insurance markets. If a politician – any politician – thinks they can actually take on the powerful healthcare lobby, why not do this first with the current system in place? If and when you are able to implement meaningful reforms, then take the next step and encourage individuals to buy individual insurance.
“This [the current tax exclusion for employers] creates an incentive for people to purchase policies with low deductibles, or which cover routine spending. These policies look a lot less like insurance and more like prefunded spending accounts purchased through employers and managed by insurance companies. Consider homeowners and auto insurance policies. Do these cover routine spending on cleaning the gutters or tuning up a car?”
Here is the big difference that I see between car insurance and maintenance, and health insurance. On average, I have the oil in my car changed about 4 times a year at $25 each. I get a minor tune up done once a year for about $100. Every 3 years, I have a moderate tune up for about $400. Every 6 years (roughly 60k miles) I have a major tune up at about $1000. Throw in a set of new tires every 3 years ($400) and other maintenance of $1000 every 6 years. So considering a six year period, my average annual cost is about $800. Contrast this $800 with “routine” medical costs – annual physical = $1200. Monthly prescription medication cost without insurance = $100 or an annual cost of $1200. Two routine dental appointments a year = $400. Total = $2500. Bottom line – routine maintenance on your car costs much less than “routine” health care, and that’s why people need health insurance that covers routine issues, while you pay for routine maintenance on your car.
“The Lewin Group, a respected private health-care research outfit, recently estimated that the McCain credit would increase the number of insured by as much as 21 million. It is true that many may no longer get their insurance through their employer, but they will be given the resources to purchase insurance on their own.”
Here is where I get lost! The article uses an example of a family of four, and a health insurance policy that costs $14,000. If this family loses employer-paid insurance, then they go out and purchase a plan for $14,000. Assuming that they are in a 30% tax bracket, the policy would effectively cost them about $9800. McCain gives then $5000. The family is still out $4800, are they not?
The article concludes that McCain’s plan will reduce the national spending on healthcare. I agree with that comment. However, it appears to me that the burden of the healthcare cost is then passed on to the individual. More importantly, the article fails to discuss the implications of McCain’s healthcare plan on people with pre-existing health conditions, if employers stop providing healthcare coverage. Today, insurance companies refuse to cover pre-existing conditions, or charge exorbitant premiums for these individuals. The number of Americans with pre-existing health conditions is high. Here are a few numbers: People with diabetes = 21 Million. People with some form of heart disease = 85 Million. Americans with cancer = 10 million. Americans who are HIV Positive = 1 Million. No doubt, there probably are patients with multiple existing conditions, so simply adding up these estimates is not correct. Nonetheless, the numbers do illustrate that there are a very large number of Americans – in the tens of millions – who have existing medical conditions. McCain’s plan, and the Wall Street Journal article really do not address them.
Please stop by for superb fashion jewlery and high-quality inexpensive MP3 players.
“He would replace the current income tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance with a refundable tax credit -- $5,000 for those who purchase family coverage and $2,500 for individual coverage.”
I am single, and I pay about $30 a paycheck for health insurance through my employer. This amounts to about $780 per year. Supposedly, it costs my employer about $3120 to pay the rest of my health insurance premiums. So that total cost is about $3900. Under McCain’s plan, my employer would no longer get a tax exclusion on the premium paid by the employer. Because of this loss of tax incentive it is likely that employers would stop providing health insurance. In return, according to the McCain plan, I would receive a tax break of $2500. For me to get the same coverage that I currently have, I would have to pay an additional $1400! How is this good for me??
“Mr. McCain would also reform insurance markets to stem the growth in health insurance premiums.”
This I believe is the key to the problem. Yet the article says nothing more about reforming the insurance markets. If a politician – any politician – thinks they can actually take on the powerful healthcare lobby, why not do this first with the current system in place? If and when you are able to implement meaningful reforms, then take the next step and encourage individuals to buy individual insurance.
“This [the current tax exclusion for employers] creates an incentive for people to purchase policies with low deductibles, or which cover routine spending. These policies look a lot less like insurance and more like prefunded spending accounts purchased through employers and managed by insurance companies. Consider homeowners and auto insurance policies. Do these cover routine spending on cleaning the gutters or tuning up a car?”
Here is the big difference that I see between car insurance and maintenance, and health insurance. On average, I have the oil in my car changed about 4 times a year at $25 each. I get a minor tune up done once a year for about $100. Every 3 years, I have a moderate tune up for about $400. Every 6 years (roughly 60k miles) I have a major tune up at about $1000. Throw in a set of new tires every 3 years ($400) and other maintenance of $1000 every 6 years. So considering a six year period, my average annual cost is about $800. Contrast this $800 with “routine” medical costs – annual physical = $1200. Monthly prescription medication cost without insurance = $100 or an annual cost of $1200. Two routine dental appointments a year = $400. Total = $2500. Bottom line – routine maintenance on your car costs much less than “routine” health care, and that’s why people need health insurance that covers routine issues, while you pay for routine maintenance on your car.
“The Lewin Group, a respected private health-care research outfit, recently estimated that the McCain credit would increase the number of insured by as much as 21 million. It is true that many may no longer get their insurance through their employer, but they will be given the resources to purchase insurance on their own.”
Here is where I get lost! The article uses an example of a family of four, and a health insurance policy that costs $14,000. If this family loses employer-paid insurance, then they go out and purchase a plan for $14,000. Assuming that they are in a 30% tax bracket, the policy would effectively cost them about $9800. McCain gives then $5000. The family is still out $4800, are they not?
The article concludes that McCain’s plan will reduce the national spending on healthcare. I agree with that comment. However, it appears to me that the burden of the healthcare cost is then passed on to the individual. More importantly, the article fails to discuss the implications of McCain’s healthcare plan on people with pre-existing health conditions, if employers stop providing healthcare coverage. Today, insurance companies refuse to cover pre-existing conditions, or charge exorbitant premiums for these individuals. The number of Americans with pre-existing health conditions is high. Here are a few numbers: People with diabetes = 21 Million. People with some form of heart disease = 85 Million. Americans with cancer = 10 million. Americans who are HIV Positive = 1 Million. No doubt, there probably are patients with multiple existing conditions, so simply adding up these estimates is not correct. Nonetheless, the numbers do illustrate that there are a very large number of Americans – in the tens of millions – who have existing medical conditions. McCain’s plan, and the Wall Street Journal article really do not address them.
Please stop by for superb fashion jewlery and high-quality inexpensive MP3 players.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Another Recipe
This is a recipe for “pesaratte” or “pesarattu”, a typical breakfast fare from South-Central India.
INGREDIENTS
1 cup
Whole mung/moong bean, with the green husk/cover on.
¼-cup
White rice
1-inch piece
Fresh ginger, finely minced
2 nos.
Green chilies. Remove seeds if you are concerned about the heat.
1 tblspn
Cumin seed
Few tspns
Vegetable or peanut oil
1 no.
Medium onion, finely sliced
Salt to taste
METHOD
Soak the mung beans and rice overnight.
In the morning, grind the mung and rice along with the chilies, minced ginger, the green chilies, and salt to taste.
Add water while grinding in order to make a pancake-like batter.
Heat a crepe pan (or any other flat fry pan) over medium high heat.
Grease the pan with about ½-tspn of oil. Place about ½-cup of the batter in the center, and using a circular motion, use a spoon to quickly spread the dough into a circular crepe.
Add about ½-tspn of oil around the edge of the crepe.
Place a few sliced onions on top of the crepe, cover with a lid, and cook for about 2 minutes. (If you prefer, you can lightly sauté the onions before placing on the crepe)
Remove the lid and cook for another minute. Cook longer to desired crispiness.
Fold in half, remove from the pan, and serve hot.
Please stop by for superb fashion jewlery and high-quality inexpensive MP3 players.
INGREDIENTS
1 cup
Whole mung/moong bean, with the green husk/cover on.
¼-cup
White rice
1-inch piece
Fresh ginger, finely minced
2 nos.
Green chilies. Remove seeds if you are concerned about the heat.
1 tblspn
Cumin seed
Few tspns
Vegetable or peanut oil
1 no.
Medium onion, finely sliced
Salt to taste
METHOD
Soak the mung beans and rice overnight.
In the morning, grind the mung and rice along with the chilies, minced ginger, the green chilies, and salt to taste.
Add water while grinding in order to make a pancake-like batter.
Heat a crepe pan (or any other flat fry pan) over medium high heat.
Grease the pan with about ½-tspn of oil. Place about ½-cup of the batter in the center, and using a circular motion, use a spoon to quickly spread the dough into a circular crepe.
Add about ½-tspn of oil around the edge of the crepe.
Place a few sliced onions on top of the crepe, cover with a lid, and cook for about 2 minutes. (If you prefer, you can lightly sauté the onions before placing on the crepe)
Remove the lid and cook for another minute. Cook longer to desired crispiness.
Fold in half, remove from the pan, and serve hot.
Please stop by for superb fashion jewlery and high-quality inexpensive MP3 players.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
McCain tried to get Rumsfeld fired.....oh really?!?!?!?
One of John McCain’s claim to fame is that he is a “maverick”. He has claimed that he has gone against his own party, and that he has the scars to prove it. Recently, one of McCain’s aide claimed that McCain urged Bush to fire Rumsfeld.
Oh really!??!!??
Take a look at this clip from YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyxTjNvqQEM
Is the McCain campaign losing its collective short-term memory????? And how come the press allows him to get away with this??????
You’ll find some really good turquoise pendants here, and some cheap MP3 Players here.
Oh really!??!!??
Take a look at this clip from YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyxTjNvqQEM
Is the McCain campaign losing its collective short-term memory????? And how come the press allows him to get away with this??????
You’ll find some really good turquoise pendants here, and some cheap MP3 Players here.
Friday, October 24, 2008
McCain on FOX News Sunday....
John McCain was on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace this past weekend. And of course, as usual, Fox News is a free forum for the Right to express their views. However, I was surprised to see Wallace push McCain on the issue of “robo calls”. Apparently, the guy that ran “robo calls” against McCain in 2000 is now running the “robo call” campaign for McCain against Obama!! Here is a clip from Fox:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-crONNOrjMs
Here is what McCain had to say about “robo Calls” in 2000:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id_LCq9aUDA
Here again I miss the presence of Tim Russert in the Sunday morning talk shows. Russert would have teed up this clip and then asked McCain this question!
Please visit GizmoCentral.com for inexpensive MP3 players, and AZJewelrystore for some very nice silver turquoise pendants, and other affordable fashion jewelry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-crONNOrjMs
Here is what McCain had to say about “robo Calls” in 2000:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id_LCq9aUDA
Here again I miss the presence of Tim Russert in the Sunday morning talk shows. Russert would have teed up this clip and then asked McCain this question!
Please visit GizmoCentral.com for inexpensive MP3 players, and AZJewelrystore for some very nice silver turquoise pendants, and other affordable fashion jewelry.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
On Negative Ads
The Obama and McCain campaigns have accused each other of running a negative campaign. A recent article by CNN states that both campaigns are spending roughly the same amount on negative. However, since Obama has much greater cash reserves than McCain, Obama can afford to run positive ads about himself, along with the negative ads about McCain. Thus, about a third of Obama’s ads were negative, while nearly 100 percent of McCain’s ads are negative.
In 2000, McCain claimed that the negative campaign by Bush showed that Bush had no vision. Here is the YouTube clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsX2Gx9jl_o
Here is what else he had to say about negative ads in 2000:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6CkVoYEoTs
You do anything when you are trailing and want to win, I guess!
Please visit http://www.azjewelrystore.com/index_files/CopperPendants.htm for some very unique copper jewelry, and http://www.gizmocentral.com/index_files/MP3Players4GB.htm for some great deals on MP3 and MP4 players.
In 2000, McCain claimed that the negative campaign by Bush showed that Bush had no vision. Here is the YouTube clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsX2Gx9jl_o
Here is what else he had to say about negative ads in 2000:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6CkVoYEoTs
You do anything when you are trailing and want to win, I guess!
Please visit http://www.azjewelrystore.com/index_files/CopperPendants.htm for some very unique copper jewelry, and http://www.gizmocentral.com/index_files/MP3Players4GB.htm for some great deals on MP3 and MP4 players.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Palin's Fashion Statement.....
Politico.com is reporting that the GOP spent about $150,000 of campaign contributions on clothing, fashion accessories, and cosmetics and hair styles for Sarah Palin. Here’s an excerpt from the Politico.com article:
“According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74.The records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September. The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August.”
Here’s how the McCain campaign spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt responded:
"With all of the important issues facing the country right now, it’s remarkable that we’re spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses."
In these difficult times, shouldn’t the question really by “Why did you need to spend $150,000 on makeup and clothes?”
Click here for inexpensive fashion jewelry and here for good quality MP3 players
“According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74.The records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September. The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August.”
Here’s how the McCain campaign spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt responded:
"With all of the important issues facing the country right now, it’s remarkable that we’re spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses."
In these difficult times, shouldn’t the question really by “Why did you need to spend $150,000 on makeup and clothes?”
Click here for inexpensive fashion jewelry and here for good quality MP3 players
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Quick Potato Recipe
This is a recipe for a very simple potato and onion vegetable dish. It can be eaten with Indian breads, or particularly as the filling in a masala dosa.
INGREDIENTS
6 Nos – large potatoes, boiled, peeled, and coarsely mashed
1 Nos – Large yellow or red onion, cut in half and then sliced medium thin
2 Nos – Green chilies, sliced fine
2 Nos – Dried red chilies
12 Nos – Curry Leaves
1-in piece – fresh ginger, finely minced
4 tbs – peanut oil
2 tsp – channa dal
1 tsp – urad dal
1 tsp – mustard seeds
1tsp – cumin seeds
½-tsp – methi or fenugreek seeds
¼-tsp – asofoetida
½-tsp – turmeric powder
Salt to taste
PREPARATION
Heat a pan over medium-high heat and add the peanut oil
Add the urad dal, channa dal, fenugreek seeds, and the dried red chilies. Fry till the dals are golden brown. DO NOT BURN!!
Add the mustard and cumin seeds. When the mustard seeds just begin to sputter, add the asofoetida, and then immediately add the curry leaves.
Add the sliced onions and cook over low-medium heat till the onion just start to turn brown.
Add the minced ginger and cook for a minute, stirring constantly.
Add the boiled and mashed potatoes, turmeric, and salt to taste.
Add ½-cup water, stir well, cover with a lid, and cook over low heat for about 10 minutes. Mix occasional to make sure that the potatoes do not burn.
Serve hot with chappatis or use as filling in masala dosa.
Please visit http://www.azjewelrystore.com/index_files/CopperPendants.htm for some very unique copper jewelry, and http://www.gizmocentral.com/index_files/MP3Players4GB.htm for some great deals on MP3 and MP4 players.
INGREDIENTS
6 Nos – large potatoes, boiled, peeled, and coarsely mashed
1 Nos – Large yellow or red onion, cut in half and then sliced medium thin
2 Nos – Green chilies, sliced fine
2 Nos – Dried red chilies
12 Nos – Curry Leaves
1-in piece – fresh ginger, finely minced
4 tbs – peanut oil
2 tsp – channa dal
1 tsp – urad dal
1 tsp – mustard seeds
1tsp – cumin seeds
½-tsp – methi or fenugreek seeds
¼-tsp – asofoetida
½-tsp – turmeric powder
Salt to taste
PREPARATION
Heat a pan over medium-high heat and add the peanut oil
Add the urad dal, channa dal, fenugreek seeds, and the dried red chilies. Fry till the dals are golden brown. DO NOT BURN!!
Add the mustard and cumin seeds. When the mustard seeds just begin to sputter, add the asofoetida, and then immediately add the curry leaves.
Add the sliced onions and cook over low-medium heat till the onion just start to turn brown.
Add the minced ginger and cook for a minute, stirring constantly.
Add the boiled and mashed potatoes, turmeric, and salt to taste.
Add ½-cup water, stir well, cover with a lid, and cook over low heat for about 10 minutes. Mix occasional to make sure that the potatoes do not burn.
Serve hot with chappatis or use as filling in masala dosa.
Please visit http://www.azjewelrystore.com/index_files/CopperPendants.htm for some very unique copper jewelry, and http://www.gizmocentral.com/index_files/MP3Players4GB.htm for some great deals on MP3 and MP4 players.
Monday, October 20, 2008
The Powell Endorsement....
Gen. Colin Powell was on Meet the Press this morning with Tom Brokaw, and he “endorsed” Obama for President. I use the “” marks, because he made it clear that he would be voting for Obama, but he did not endorse him the traditional sense that he wasn’t planning to campaigning for him during these final few weeks of the campaign. This, I believe, is a huge endorsement for Obama. Powell is probably the only member – past or present – of the Bush cabinet for whom I have any respect at all. Of course, his presentation at the United Nations in support of the Iraq war, certainly tarnished his image, but I think he still stands head-and-shoulders above the rest of the Bushies!
Powell said that he knew, liked, and respected both candidates, and he provided a few reasons for his decision:
During this economic crisis, Obama provided calm and steady leadership while McCain seemed disorganized, and seemed to come up with a new fix each day. McCain did not seem to have a good grasp of the crisis.
Powell was not happy with the direction in which the Republican party was headed – which is too far to the Right. I was particularly impressed when Powell said that two more Conservative appointees to the Supreme Court would not be acceptable to him.
He felt that Palin was not ready for the job. That really needs no explanation. Click on this link to see for yourself how ready Palin is for this job: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg
Powell was critical about McCain’s handling of the Bill Ayers issue. He felt that in times such as this, McCain was overplaying the Bill Ayers issue.
Although the Powell endorsement was a big deal, here’s something that Powell said that has much greater significance:
"I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say, and it is permitted to be said. Such things as 'Well you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.' Well the correct answer is 'He is not a Muslim, he's a Christian, he's always been a Christian.' But the really right answer is 'What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?' The answer is 'No. That's not America.' Is there something wrong with some 7-year old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she can be president? Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion he's a Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America.
"I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo-essay about troops who were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in you can see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards, Purple Heart, Bronze Star, showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have a Star of David. It had a crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Karim Rashad Sultan Khan. And he was an American, he was born in New Jersey, he was 14 at the time of 9/11 and he waited until he can go serve his country and he gave his life."
Overall, this is a big endorsement for Obama. It’s too bad that Powell will not be out on the campaign trail for him.
Please visit http://www.gizmocentral.com/index_files/MP3Players4GB.htm for inexpensive MP3 player, and http://www.azjewelrystore.com/index_files/CopperPendants.htm for some very unique copper pendants, and other affordable fashion jewelry.
Powell said that he knew, liked, and respected both candidates, and he provided a few reasons for his decision:
During this economic crisis, Obama provided calm and steady leadership while McCain seemed disorganized, and seemed to come up with a new fix each day. McCain did not seem to have a good grasp of the crisis.
Powell was not happy with the direction in which the Republican party was headed – which is too far to the Right. I was particularly impressed when Powell said that two more Conservative appointees to the Supreme Court would not be acceptable to him.
He felt that Palin was not ready for the job. That really needs no explanation. Click on this link to see for yourself how ready Palin is for this job: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg
Powell was critical about McCain’s handling of the Bill Ayers issue. He felt that in times such as this, McCain was overplaying the Bill Ayers issue.
Although the Powell endorsement was a big deal, here’s something that Powell said that has much greater significance:
"I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say, and it is permitted to be said. Such things as 'Well you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.' Well the correct answer is 'He is not a Muslim, he's a Christian, he's always been a Christian.' But the really right answer is 'What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?' The answer is 'No. That's not America.' Is there something wrong with some 7-year old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she can be president? Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion he's a Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America.
"I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo-essay about troops who were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in you can see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards, Purple Heart, Bronze Star, showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have a Star of David. It had a crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Karim Rashad Sultan Khan. And he was an American, he was born in New Jersey, he was 14 at the time of 9/11 and he waited until he can go serve his country and he gave his life."
Overall, this is a big endorsement for Obama. It’s too bad that Powell will not be out on the campaign trail for him.
Please visit http://www.gizmocentral.com/index_files/MP3Players4GB.htm for inexpensive MP3 player, and http://www.azjewelrystore.com/index_files/CopperPendants.htm for some very unique copper pendants, and other affordable fashion jewelry.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Simple Tomato Chutney
Here is a recipe for a really simple, but very tasty tomato chutney, courtesy of my sis.
INGREDIENTS
6 Nos – Medium-sized, moderately ripe, cut into ½-inch pieces
2 to 4 Nos. – Fresh green chilies diced, depending on your tolerance to heat
¼-cup – Cilantro/Corriander Leaves
1 tsp – mustard seeds
1 tsp – fenugreek seeds
1tsp – urad dal
2 nos – dried red chilies
2 tsps – peanut oil
2 tsps – toasted sesame seeds
¼-tsp - asofoetida
Salt to taste
METHOD
Add the 2 tsps of peanut oil to a pan over medium heat
Add the mustard seeds, fenugreek seeds, urad dal, and dried red chilies. Fry till golden brown, and the mustard seeds start to sputter. DO NOT BURN!
Add the asofoetida, immediately followed by the cut tomatoes and the diced green chilies. Cover the pan and let tomatoes cook over low to medium heat.
When the tomatoes are almost fully cooked, add the cilantro leaves and the toasted sesame seed. Allow to cook for another 5 minutes.
Turn off the heat and allow the mixture to cool.
Grind to medium coarse consistency in a food processor or blender
Add salt to taste.
Ready to serve!
Please visit http://www.GizmoCentral.com for inexpensive MP3 player, and http://www.azjewelrystore.com/index_files/CopperPendants.htm for some very unique copper pendants, and other affordable fashion jewelry.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Joe the Plumber
While campaigning in Ohio last week, Barack Obama ran into the now famous/infamous Joe the Plumber. Just in case you missed it, you can catch the clip on youtube here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFC9jv9jfoA
Obama could not think on his feet, and kinda messed up his response. He tried to explain his concept of “spreading the wealth around” which was promptly picked up by the Right as a sure sign of Socialism. I think Joe the Plumber was mentioned about 26 times in Debate 3, and McCain continues to mention Joe the Plumber in the stump speeches 5 days later.
The point that Obama missed was that when Joe the Plumber said that he was looking to buy a $250,000 business, he was probably referring to gross income, as opposed to taxable income. So when looking at taxable income, Joe the Plumber would probably get a tax break under the Obama Plan. Had Obama said that, Joe the Plumber would be back to his unlicensed, non-tax paying life!
And then Joe Biden had an opportunity to fix this issue, and instead he said something to the effect that they were not worried about Joe the Plumber. So McCain and the Right had yet another opportunity to keep Joe the Plumber in the lime light, and keep the press cycle going.
Is this election going to turn on Joe the Plumber? Who knows!?!?!?
Here’s a little shameless propaganda: Visit http://www.GizmoCentral.com for inexpensive MP3 player, and http://www.azjewelrystore.com/index_files/CopperPendants.htm for some very unique copper pendants, and other affordable fashion jewelry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFC9jv9jfoA
Obama could not think on his feet, and kinda messed up his response. He tried to explain his concept of “spreading the wealth around” which was promptly picked up by the Right as a sure sign of Socialism. I think Joe the Plumber was mentioned about 26 times in Debate 3, and McCain continues to mention Joe the Plumber in the stump speeches 5 days later.
The point that Obama missed was that when Joe the Plumber said that he was looking to buy a $250,000 business, he was probably referring to gross income, as opposed to taxable income. So when looking at taxable income, Joe the Plumber would probably get a tax break under the Obama Plan. Had Obama said that, Joe the Plumber would be back to his unlicensed, non-tax paying life!
And then Joe Biden had an opportunity to fix this issue, and instead he said something to the effect that they were not worried about Joe the Plumber. So McCain and the Right had yet another opportunity to keep Joe the Plumber in the lime light, and keep the press cycle going.
Is this election going to turn on Joe the Plumber? Who knows!?!?!?
Here’s a little shameless propaganda: Visit http://www.GizmoCentral.com for inexpensive MP3 player, and http://www.azjewelrystore.com/index_files/CopperPendants.htm for some very unique copper pendants, and other affordable fashion jewelry.
Friday, October 17, 2008
More Cooking - Coconut Chutney
This is my version of coconut chutney that works really well with dosas, but would probably work well with other Indian snacks like idlis as well. So here goes:
INGREDIENTS
2 Tbl Spoons - Channa Dal
2 Tbl Spoons - Toor Dal
1 Tbl Spoon - Urad Dal
1 Cup - Grated Coconut – fresh or frozen (thawed), NOT dry
¼-Tps Spoon - Asofoetida or Heeng/Hing
1-inch Ball - Tamarind
3 to 6 - Dried red chilies
METHOD
Place the tamarind in about 1 cup of water and nuke in the microwave on high for about 1 to 2 minutes. Remove and allow to soak. When the water is sufficiently cool, use your fingers to gently knead the tamarind in the water. Remove and discard the solids, and retain the “tamarind liquid”.
Roast the channa dal, toor dal, and urad dal to golden brown. I prefer to roast them individually, but you can probably roast them all together too. Make sure not to burn them.
Roast the red chilies without burning. Use between 3 and 6, based on the hotness of chilies and your tolerance for fire.
Grind the three dals and the roasted chilies in a small spice grinder, along with ¼-teaspoon of heeng. Grind to a find powder.
Add the ground mixture, the grated coconut and half the “tamarind liquid” to a blender and blend to a smooth paste. Add a little of water if needed.
Taste periodically and add salt and more tamarind liquid if needed.
Remove from the blender and serve.
Here’s a little shameless propaganda: Visit http://www.GizmoCentral.com for inexpensive MP3 player, and http://www.azjewelrystore.com/index_files/CopperPendants.htm for some very unique copper pendants, and other affordable fashion jewelry.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Presidential Debate No. 3
Well, we’re finally done with the 3 Presidential and one Vice-Presidential debates. The first debate was probably a tie between Obama and McCain. Obama clearly won the second debate, and the third debate….well, the third debate was interesting. McCain certainly came out swinging and landed a few solid body blows, but I don’t think he managed to clinch the deal!
Take, for example, McCain’s statement about not being Bush. Obama’s response was about McCain voting in lock-step with Bush was smooth. My first reaction after Obama’s response was that he had probably been expecting the McCain statement for a while and had already prepared a response. McCain’s statement would probably have had better effect if he had used it in the first debate. Instead, it was McCain who appeared to have this surprised look on his face when Obama responded.
I thought McCain had Obama on the ropes on the abortion issue. Obama seemed hesitant, and appeared to be groping for words. However, McCain could not finish the job, and eventually they moved on to other topics. It appeared that McCain’s handlers hadn’t prepared him to go past this point.
Turns out that Joe the Plumber, the star of Debate No. 3 is…..well, not much of a star in real life. When speaking with Obama, he forgot to mention that he owed back taxes. Hhmmmm…..should Joe the Plumber be concerned that Obama would raise taxes on him? Well, if you don’t pay your taxes in the first place, then why do taxes really matter to you???? Also, it is likely that the $250,000 that Joe the Plumber said his business would bring in, is the gross income, not taxable or net income. His net income would likely be less than $100,000. And under Obama’s plan, Joe the Plumber would actually get a tax break.
Overall, I thought it was a good debate. McCain needed to come out swinging, and he did. He stayed on the offensive for the first 30 minutes or so, but he appeared to be running out of gas towards the end of the debate. Obama needed to remain calm, composed, and appear Presidential. I thought he did that. So I don’t think many minds were changed as a result of Debate No. 3. But how much do these debates really matter? In the end, an individual goes into the privacy of the polling booth, and makes his or her decision. Will it matter that one candidate is White and the other is Black? Who the heck knows!!!!
Now for some shameless promotion: Please visit http://www.azjewelrystore.com/index_files/CopperPendants.htm for some very unique copper jewelry, and www.GizmoCentral.com for some great deals on MP3 and MP4 players.
Take, for example, McCain’s statement about not being Bush. Obama’s response was about McCain voting in lock-step with Bush was smooth. My first reaction after Obama’s response was that he had probably been expecting the McCain statement for a while and had already prepared a response. McCain’s statement would probably have had better effect if he had used it in the first debate. Instead, it was McCain who appeared to have this surprised look on his face when Obama responded.
I thought McCain had Obama on the ropes on the abortion issue. Obama seemed hesitant, and appeared to be groping for words. However, McCain could not finish the job, and eventually they moved on to other topics. It appeared that McCain’s handlers hadn’t prepared him to go past this point.
Turns out that Joe the Plumber, the star of Debate No. 3 is…..well, not much of a star in real life. When speaking with Obama, he forgot to mention that he owed back taxes. Hhmmmm…..should Joe the Plumber be concerned that Obama would raise taxes on him? Well, if you don’t pay your taxes in the first place, then why do taxes really matter to you???? Also, it is likely that the $250,000 that Joe the Plumber said his business would bring in, is the gross income, not taxable or net income. His net income would likely be less than $100,000. And under Obama’s plan, Joe the Plumber would actually get a tax break.
Overall, I thought it was a good debate. McCain needed to come out swinging, and he did. He stayed on the offensive for the first 30 minutes or so, but he appeared to be running out of gas towards the end of the debate. Obama needed to remain calm, composed, and appear Presidential. I thought he did that. So I don’t think many minds were changed as a result of Debate No. 3. But how much do these debates really matter? In the end, an individual goes into the privacy of the polling booth, and makes his or her decision. Will it matter that one candidate is White and the other is Black? Who the heck knows!!!!
Now for some shameless promotion: Please visit http://www.azjewelrystore.com/index_files/CopperPendants.htm for some very unique copper jewelry, and www.GizmoCentral.com for some great deals on MP3 and MP4 players.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Race and the elections....part 2
Well, soon after I posted my thoughts on racism in the elections, I came across this article in the NY Times. While I did not fact-check the numbers presented in the NY Times article, I found the findings reported here very interesting. Thought I’d share some of the key findings with you.
The article talks about “racism without racists” and about “aversive racists”. A small percent of the electorate – about 5 to 10 percent – will openly not vote for an African American. This group is generally conservative, votes Republican, and would not vote for a Democrat, no matter who the Democratic candidate is.
The interesting group is the so-called “aversive racists” who are white Americans who overtly do not consider themselves to be racially-biased, and may even support affirmative action. But they sub-consciously have a racial bias against African Americans. And this racial bias manifests itself in interesting ways! Take a look:
When presented with black and white candidates with identical qualifications and experience (same folder of credentials, sometime presented as white and sometimes as black candidate), whites recommended hiring the white candidate more often than the black candidate.
The above issue becomes more prominent when the candidates are borderline qualified for the post. When dealing with borderline candidates with identical credentials, whites recommended white candidates 76 percent of the time, and recommended black candidates only 45 percent of the time.
When witnessing a black person in distress (say a seizure of some kind) in public, whites did not discriminate in calling for help when there are no other witnesses. However, if there are other bystanders – a situation where individual responsibility is not front-and-center – whites would call for help 75 percent of the time if the victim was white, but would call for help only 38 percent of the time if the victim was black!
So it’s going to be interesting to watch TV election night! News networks call the various states based on exit polling. How are voters going to deal with this “aversive racism”????
www.azjewelrystore.com
www.gizmocentral.com
The article talks about “racism without racists” and about “aversive racists”. A small percent of the electorate – about 5 to 10 percent – will openly not vote for an African American. This group is generally conservative, votes Republican, and would not vote for a Democrat, no matter who the Democratic candidate is.
The interesting group is the so-called “aversive racists” who are white Americans who overtly do not consider themselves to be racially-biased, and may even support affirmative action. But they sub-consciously have a racial bias against African Americans. And this racial bias manifests itself in interesting ways! Take a look:
When presented with black and white candidates with identical qualifications and experience (same folder of credentials, sometime presented as white and sometimes as black candidate), whites recommended hiring the white candidate more often than the black candidate.
The above issue becomes more prominent when the candidates are borderline qualified for the post. When dealing with borderline candidates with identical credentials, whites recommended white candidates 76 percent of the time, and recommended black candidates only 45 percent of the time.
When witnessing a black person in distress (say a seizure of some kind) in public, whites did not discriminate in calling for help when there are no other witnesses. However, if there are other bystanders – a situation where individual responsibility is not front-and-center – whites would call for help 75 percent of the time if the victim was white, but would call for help only 38 percent of the time if the victim was black!
So it’s going to be interesting to watch TV election night! News networks call the various states based on exit polling. How are voters going to deal with this “aversive racism”????
www.azjewelrystore.com
www.gizmocentral.com
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Role of Race in the Elections
I just got done watching one of the zillion shows on the upcoming Presidential elections. This particular one was on CNN and was moderated by John King. King was discussing how close the electoral college math was, and in one – albeit remote possibility – scenario, both candidates had 269 electoral votes, and Congress would be called up on to choose the President.
What surprised me most was that there was no discussion on the role of race in the election! Here are some recent polls that provide insight on the role of racism:
From a Aug 2008 Gallup Poll – 56 percent of the national adults polled said that racism was widespread against blacks in America.
A Yahoo-AP poll suggests that 2.5 percent of White Democrats may not vote for Obama, only because Obama is African American. A third of the White American Democrats polled also showed negative feelings/emotions towards African Americans, and only 58% of them said that they would vote for Obama.
Another Gallup Poll from June 2008 indicates that 12% of White Americans and 22% of African Americans believe that race will be a factor when they go to the polls. And this is just the people who are willing to admit to the poll-taker that they have a racial bias.
In a Washington Post – ABC News from June 2008 Poll, 3 in 10 Americans were willing to admit to some racial bias.
In most recent polls, the edge that Obama has over McCain is much smaller than the racial bias within the electorate. Yet, most pundits seem unwilling to discuss the race issue, and its role in the upcoming elections. Early in the campaign, Obama said that he did not want this election to be about race. He had to say that, as a politician. But I am surprised that news organizations so studiously avoid the elephant in the room!!
Some shameless propaganda: Please visit www.azjewelrystore.com for beautiful fashion jewelry at reasonable prices, and www.gizmocentral.com you NEW MP3 and MP4 players.
What surprised me most was that there was no discussion on the role of race in the election! Here are some recent polls that provide insight on the role of racism:
From a Aug 2008 Gallup Poll – 56 percent of the national adults polled said that racism was widespread against blacks in America.
A Yahoo-AP poll suggests that 2.5 percent of White Democrats may not vote for Obama, only because Obama is African American. A third of the White American Democrats polled also showed negative feelings/emotions towards African Americans, and only 58% of them said that they would vote for Obama.
Another Gallup Poll from June 2008 indicates that 12% of White Americans and 22% of African Americans believe that race will be a factor when they go to the polls. And this is just the people who are willing to admit to the poll-taker that they have a racial bias.
In a Washington Post – ABC News from June 2008 Poll, 3 in 10 Americans were willing to admit to some racial bias.
In most recent polls, the edge that Obama has over McCain is much smaller than the racial bias within the electorate. Yet, most pundits seem unwilling to discuss the race issue, and its role in the upcoming elections. Early in the campaign, Obama said that he did not want this election to be about race. He had to say that, as a politician. But I am surprised that news organizations so studiously avoid the elephant in the room!!
Some shameless propaganda: Please visit www.azjewelrystore.com for beautiful fashion jewelry at reasonable prices, and www.gizmocentral.com you NEW MP3 and MP4 players.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)