Skip to main content

A time of rest and some thoughts for discussion

I'll be spending the weekend at my in-laws, so expect below-average blogging. I'll still try to check in at least once or twice during the day, but its warm and breezy outside, and my wife is in a great mood!! That means the last thing I want to do is be staring at the glow of my lap top.

Here is a thought in light of the current immigration debate. I love America. I love it so much, I found particularly attractive that my wife was from a traditional American family. They have made me feel completely welcome, and despite the "loudness" of my family, and strangeness of my taste in food, my ethnic background has never been an issue.

My wife loves cooking Cuban food for me, and for her relatives as well. She does a real good job too! She bakes Cuban bread, which I've heard is quite difficult to bake.

My point: assimilation and integration are NOT bad things. The fact that I seek to assimilate does not mean I instantly forget, hate or attempt to hide my past. It does not mean I don't appreciate it, and at times, even celebrate it. But I don't flaunt it, and I certainly don't swear allegiance to any other flag. Of course, I am a son of refugees. My life is here now. My parents may some day choose to return to Cuba, when Castro's criminal regime ends. I won't. Not because I don't care about my parent's heritage, but because it is not my life.

Someday, I hope my children will learn about Cuba and its history. It will ad value to their education. I hope they will learn Spanish...and a third language if possible--it will make them more competitive in the global marketplace. But they will be 100% Americans, sworn to one flag.

What do you think? Consider this an open discussion. What is your experience with assimilation--yours or someone you know? Do I show lack of cultural respect for my perspective? I would love to hear from Cuban born exiles on this.

Share your thoughts. I will publish them on a later post, with links to your blog if you so wish.

Tags: , , , ,


Popular posts from this blog

Podcast: Talking GOP Debate and No Child Left Behind

Click here to listen to the MP3 audio of the discussion between Michel Martin, Stephen Henderson and myself on the GOP debate, and Bush's push for No Child Left Behind. The segment on the new gospel music competition reality show is a great segment -- check it out as well. Tell Me More, October 12, 2007 · This week, GOP presidential contenders met for a debate in Dearborn, Michigan. Meanwhile, President Bush was stumping for reauthorization of the education bill, "No Child Left Behind." In this week's Political Chat, hear insights from political blogger Josue Sierra and Stephen Henderson, Deputy Editorial Page Editor at the Detroit Free Press.

You can listen on the NPR website right here.

Related Posts:
- On Air: Talking GOP Debate and No Child Left Behind
- GOP Economy Debate

Other Posts of Interest:
- Conference for Minority Journalists of Faith Cross posted at:

Communism: Good Money for the "El Viejo"

I guess Fidel Castro is doing ok. Forbes lists Castro as one of the richest in the world, right up there with the Queen of England. I bet he didn't like the attention. It was hard to figure it out, but it seems they managed to throw some numbers together.
In the past, we have relied on a percentage of Cuba's gross domestic product to estimate Fidel Castro's fortune. This year we have used more traditional valuation methods, comparing state-owned assets Castro is assumed to control with comparable publicly traded companies. A reasonable discount was then applied to compensate for the obvious disclosure issues.

Victory for Life -- Court backs military on abortion coverage

Great news being reported on the Chicago Tribune. Surprisingly, a decision was handed down in favor of life. I find the quote facinating. These days, one could hardly believe such statement would come from a judge--a federal one of all things.
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA -- A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that military medical benefits should cover abortions only when a mother's life is at risk.

The 3-0 ruling by a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came in the case of a Navy sailor's wife whose fetus had a fatal birth defect. She had an abortion five months into her pregnancy.

She filed a lawsuit claiming an armed forces health plan owed her $3,000 for the procedure. The government argued that refusing to cover such services "furthers the government's interest in protecting human life in general and promoting respect for life."Tags: , , ,