United States

I have taken the 100/6 push up vow which you can also participate in. This strength training program takes you from 0 push ups to 100 consecutive push ups in 6 weeks. The program requires individual to commit three days out of a week for 30 minutes. This interval focused program is setup for individuals that have never done push ups and for those that have. After an initial test, individuals follow their personal program in order to achieve their goal. I have just completed week 1 and I am excited about finishing it but better yet . . . promoting it as well (in case you  have not heard of it) to friends. What are you waiting for? Start now and boast about doing 100 push ups 6 weeks later.

The numbers for the Barack Obama campaign have been released and contrary to what some critics have been claiming . . . Obama raised a whopping $55 million last month. The fact that he was able to raise so much money is not the point at hand but the way he is implementing this money is what is worrying some folks on the right.

Obama has taken an aggressive approach to this November’s General Election. Instead of the typical wasteful spending usually attributed to the battleground states, Obama has decided to challenge McCain in states that Democrats usually do not bother to visit. Is this foolish? Has Obama lost his mind? Why would he not use his money wisely?

Actually, this is a clever approach and McCain will understand quickly. Money spent elsewhere would be money saved right? Well, this approach will devastate the McCain war chest. Instead of allowing the McCain camp to decide the battle ground states, the Obama camp has taken the offensive and made the McCain camp play catch up.

This could change the way political campaigns approach battleground states in the future. Of course, that candidate should be able to raise money at about or the same rate as his competitor. This has not backfired for Obama. In states that would normally be “givens” for Republicans, Obama has slight leads or is just behind McCain. The McCain camp now has to redistribute its funds in order to compete with Obama thus weakening his overall strategy. To put it simply . . . Obama is the cool kid at school that McCain is trying to emulate.

Thus, no matter how hard he tries; McCain will not be able to catch up Obama or at least that is the idea. Obama is doing well in some Red States. McCain now has to spend money on Virginia, Missouri, Alaska, Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina and of course on Hispanics. Not only does McCain have to spend extra money on these states  . . . he will have to spend time. Time is a limited resource that candidates most use wisely. Unfortunately, McCain cannot be in every state at the same time. Obama has taken the bold and aggressive approach in this campaign and is calling the shots. This will no doubt put a strain on the McCain by further limiting his money and resources on the General Election.

So, you want to market to Hispanics . . . politically speaking? Of course some of these methods will work in other marketing avenues but as a Politico, I want to remain in that realm for now.

The first step is to break down your target audience into a feasible  and practical group. The biggest mistake that many Ad agencies and Americans as a whole who have no relations with their market is that they jumble them as a whole. Think of it this way . . . are all Anglo Americans the same? Do they share the same beliefs or values? How about Americans of African descent? Do they all share the same cultural references and traditions? The answer is NO! Why would Hispanics be any different then?

Once you break your target audience into a reasonable group, you have to understand how they operate in society. Hispanics adverts do not transcend the number nationalities that make up Hispanics unless the ad illustrates a common goal for the entire group. For example, an ad promoting English-Speaking Classes is not restrained from traditional norms as one promoting a music album.

In the political world it becomes tricky. Many politicians make the mistake to assume that all Hispanics care about Immigration reform as their number one priority. Do not get me wrong . . . it is an important topic to Hispanics but it marginalizes the group. It uses the incorrect approach I have stated that does not work. Second generation Hispanic Americans do not prioritize these issues as much as first generation. So, what is a political campaign to do?

Easy! Break it down. Political campaigns have to embrace Hispanics . . . not just lump them together and assume they all want the same things. A candidate that realizes this, will make the most of targeting and benefiting from their vote. Hispanics political issues and priorities are as diverse as those of Anglos. Thus, it is the objective of the campaign to figure out how to gain their trust.

Hispanics as a whole are a more cynical constituency then traditional Americans. They come from corrupt countries where the government always seems to fail on its promises. They are more keen to the lies of politicians and can smell one from a mile away. These folks do not adhere to political promises and are discerning  of its government's role on issues.

This changes the way one would want to deliver a message. One thing one must understand though . . . once rapport has been built . . . Hispanics will be a loyal group to that Party or Candidate. Once this type of relationship has been established, it can be easy cruising for a candidate.

Another effective way to communicate to Hispanics is through their children. If their children are of voting age, one only needs to target them. First generation Hispanics but Hispanics as a whole trust their families perceptions/opinions on any product. If a Family member claims that X is bad then they all believe X is bad because they trust each other. This works the other way around as well. If X is good then they all believe X is good. This subgroups children have a little of both groups. Thus, when they decide that X is the way to go . . . the parents are not far behind because they have a relationship where they trust each other on such topics.

This list could go on and I have only briefly touched on one group. Hispanics come in different makes, sizes and shapes. Once you understand that a famous Mexican personality does not have rapport with Cubans or that Issues of Evangilical Hispanics are not the same of First Generation College Bound Americans- then one can create an effective marketing/political campaign. Remember not all Hispanics speak Spanish but all native Spanish speakers are Hispanic. I have the luxury of understanding the insight of both groups. As a fluent English/Spanish speaker, I understand what it takes to build rapport among the community. I understand how to rally Hispanics behind one common goal. More important though . . . I understand that they are all different people with different goals in mind. It is my job to figure out what their common bond is and show them that it is for that reason that they should unite.

The last two days have produced intresting stories about John McCain's past. The New York Times entertained the possibility that, technically, McCain may not be eligible to be a Presidential Candidate. Even though he went to the extreme lengths to draft the legislation to create a law so that he would not have any trouble becoming a candidate . . . the law does not side with him. Then . . . . on the other side of the country, The Los Angeles Times releases a story that digs into McCain's and reveals his adulterous background. You would think that the media would have something to pick up and decide to go with but sadly the big story of today is that Bret Favre is un-retiring and does not want to play for the Green Bay Packers.

University of Arizona Law Professor Grabriel J. Chin has conducted extensive research in McCain;s eligibility to be president. He concluded that, "neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.”

It is unlikely that anyone will challenge this but it is intresting to note that the Senate passed "nonbinding resolution declaring that Mr. McCain is eligible to be president." They claimed that, "the nation’s founders would have never intended to deny the presidency to the offspring of military personnel stationed out of the country." Although I concur with this, I have to side with the law and the law does not favor McCain.

There are only two ways one can be a natural-born citizen. One, specified in the Constitution, is to be born in the United States. The other way is to be covered by a law enacted by Congress at the time of one’s birth. Unfortunately, McCain does not meet either requirement. According to Chin, "At the time of Mr. McCain’s birth, the relevant law granted citizenship to any child born to an American parent “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States.” The Canal Zone was beyond the limits of the United States but not beyond its jurisdiction, and thus the law did not apply to Mr. McCain."

Furthermore, it is noted that "In 1937, Congress addressed the problem, enacting a law that granted citizenship to people born in the Canal Zone after 1904. That made Mr. McCain a citizen, but not one who was naturally born." It is intresting though that "some people born in the Canal Zone when it was under American jurisdiction have been deported from the United States or convicted of being here illegally."

According to the L.A. Times, "McCain, who is about to become the GOP nominee, has made several statements about how he divorced Carol and married Hensley that conflict with the public record." Steve Benen states it best, "McCain turned his back on his wife after she was seriously injured in a car accident, committed adultery, and left the mother of his children when he found a younger, wealthier woman."

It is none of my concern what mistakes and flaws certain people may have had in their past . . . as long as they have taken steps to rectify their faults. The actions that Bill Clinton committed during and before his tenure as President should not have mattered. Then again, he was not proclaiming to run on his background and was no hypocrite at the same time. Even though I do not think it should matter there is one part of me that sides with Benen's conclusion.

Benen breaks it down rather nicely, "If investigative reporters at the LA Times had discovered that Barack Obama had been divorced, cheated on his first wife, left her after she was injured in a car accident, pursued a younger woman while still married, and then lied about the circumstances of his marriages in his memoir, does anyone seriously believe that news outlets would blow off the story completely?"

Ezra Klein of The American Prospect gives his take on the whole Suburbs vs. City parenting debate. He notes that most families opt to raising their children in the suburbs citing it as the most ideal place to raise children. Although I may be biased since I grew up in the city, I concur with Klein's final assessment . . .  the kids will be alright.

We can debate about the advantages and disadvantages of both settings but when it comes to it at the end of the day . . . as long as parents are proactive in their children's lives, everything will be okay. That is said in the most simplistic terms of course, much more is needed. There is no real advantage to growing up in the suburbs. If anything it is an illusion created to justify why people should move out 30 minutes outside of the city. Many of my college friends that grew up in Suburbia felt deprived of the city. They were intimidated by the chaotic concrete jungle and confusing parking signs. As they grew comfortable with their new settings, they grew to love the urban lifestyle. I speculate that they will run back to the suburbs to raise their own families though. I don't blame them. It is a comfort zone they wish to relive for their children. If the advantage is mental, then let it be. There is no secret though that the Suburbs are worst for the environment . . . but that is a different story.

Earlier this week the Senate passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 that will greatly expand the government's ability to spy on Americans and giving full undisclosed immunity to the telecommunications companies that help out. A handful of Senators (mostly Democrats) protested this bill and affirmed their roles as protectors of the constitution.

The FISA bill of course is not being mentioned on  the main stream media. Correction . . . the main stream media does not bother to spell out the implications that this bill will bring. They treat is as a regular bill that does not warrant any attention since it does not drive up the ratings. Remember, the media is a business enterprise with "money" as their motivator. It is not in the interest of the media to hold the government accountable . . . to be the fourth branch of our government, in order to protect the people. Although, that may have been the benevolent reasons why Thomas Jefferson foresaw as the media's role in society . . . he did not anticipate the influence that capitalism would have on the industry.

Nonetheless, that has not stopped The Nation and the ACLU from filing a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of New York. The Nation claims that, "Communications critical to their reporting could and would be monitored under the FISA Amendments Act." The issue at hand that I had with FISA was that the Bush administration would not support a bill that did not provide immunity to the big telecommunications companies. This is a major problem! What is that the Bush administration up to that granting immunity to the telecommunication companies overrides "protecting us from terrorist"? Why can't they help the government without breaking the current laws? Actions speak louder than words and if there is anything I have noticed . . . the fight for immunity by the Bush administration foreshadows the nonsense that they are up to.

The Austin American-Statesman had an article about the Pew Internet & American Life Project on broadband use in the United States. The research concluded that broadband internet use is increasing throughout the United States but hinted at a disparity that may be intresting.

In the war of the Haves & Have Not's, it seems that fast internet access may be a point of contention. Americans with broadband internet now make up 55% as opposed to 47% reported as of last year. African-American households with broadband stood at 43%, compared to those of Whites and Hispanic English Speaking households at 57%.

Does lack of access to fast internet really mean anything though? According to John Horrigan, associate director of research at the nonprofit Pew project,"Internet users who don't have high-speed Internet access could miss out on video-based learning programs, access to government documents or other necessities electronically, or online entertainment."

I beg to differ. As a cynic, I will claim that fast internet does not mean that individuals will be losing out. It may just mean faster means to accessing MySpace or YouTube but this is not detrimental to those individuals life or property. Faster access to information is not the same as NO access to information. I am more inclined to describe a digital divide between individuals that have access to computers with internet versus those that do not. Faster access to information on the internet does not equate to better in my opinion.

How fast is fast?I can still recall the day of dial up internet. Even though the world is a wonderful place with DSL and Cable internet, it is just a convenience more than anything. I now have faster access to data that I was not otherwise with dial up. People functioned with 56k just okay 10 years ago.I am not concerned with the speed that people access information as I am with the ability to even access that information. As technology improves and certain features become obsolete, folks will be able to enjoy the faster speeds. 56k is slowly being phased out for more practical and cost effective services such as broadband. Internet Service Providers understand that it will be more costly to maintain phone lines and subscribers that rely on those services. They will end up providing cheaper alternatives to broadband that will serve as gateway for those individuals. AT&T has taken a similar approach offering Internet plans as low as $14.99 and $19.99. The digital divide is not in the speed of information but if individuals even have access to that information . . . and that is a more important topic to entertain.