Story of a woman who “had to” kill her husband

By Eléonor Picciotto

BOSTON- “She had no other choice,” Attorney Rosemary Scapicchio began as she defended her client at the Suffolk Superior Court House closing trial on a rainy Monday of March.

Sharon Fitzpatrick was charged with second-degree murder for the fatal stabbing of her husband, Sylvester Mitchell, in their Dorchester home. Assistant District Attorney David Deakin, chief of the DA’s Family Protection and Sexual Assault Bureau, is trying the case with defense attorney Rosemary Scapicchio before Judge Judith Fabricant in courtroom 817.

On May 5, 2007, Sharon Fitzpatrick, 39, had prepared a cake and gotten a bottle of champagne to celebrate the 40^th birthday of her husband Sylvester, who arrived home in Dorchester around 4a.m. that night after she tried to call him several times. About a half hour later the fight that started between the couple degenerated. Fitzpatrick grabbed the knife she had brought to their bedroom to cut the cake, and stabbed her husband twice to death.

Mose Mitchell, who was living one floor above their house, heard the screams, went down, and saw his brother lying on the floor bleeding and repeating, “I love my wife.”  He called 911 and shortly after Sylvester Mitchell was admitted at Beth Israel Hospital in Boston, where he died few hours later.

According to her attorney, Fitzpatrick had to kill her husband to save her life. “He was a violent-vicious man, an out-of-control person,” said Scappicchio. “Not that he needed a push, but he had cocaine, alcohol and a history of violence in his system.”

Sylvester Mitchell strangled his ex-girlfriend four years before, and 17 years prior to this incident he shot a man. When her husband came back Fitzpatrick tried to get him to leave, knowing that he was drunk, he had killed before, explained her lawyer to the 40 people hearing the trial, “She had no other choice,” she repeated.

The fingerprint police officials found on the knife was between the blade and the handle. According to the defense attorney, this proved that it was a defensive and not aggressive act. ADA Deakin claimed Fitzpatrick stabbed her husband in anger and not in fear, “when she was asked by the police why she did that,” Deakin said, “Fitzpatrick said she was mad, not afraid.”

“Stop Sylvester. No Sylvester, no!” are the words Mose Mitchell and his wife heard, before the drama.  “Do you yell this unless you are in fear for your life?” asked Scapicchio to the 13 jurors. She continued, “Sharon Fitzpatrick grabbed whatever was available, it was either him or her. She had no time to think.”

“There is a lot of imagination going into the defense,” argued the prosecutor, criticizing his opponent because this “case was based on evidences, not speculations.”

Deakin reiterated the audience the nine calls Fitzpatrick had placed between 2.43 a.m. and 4.10 a.m. yelling at her husband, Deaking said Fitzpatrick was angry, locked him out of the house, then stabbed her mini-van tires, hid the knife behind the bedroom’s mirror instead of calling 911 with the phone that was charging on the bed, and told the police in the presence of the victim who responded “they must have come from behind,” that he had “come home stabbed.”

Deakin said the evidences showed that there was no sign of life and death struggle, the room was not damaged and that Fitzpatrick “lied over and over again to the police.”

She unlawfully stabbed her husband “not once but twice in the chest two to three and four to five inches deep” without justification or excuse. The prosecutor closed his pleading by saying that Fitzpatrick was charged with a second-degree murder because there was no premeditation.

“She is guilty for the killing of her husband and must be held accountable,” responded Deakin after Scapicchio  said that, “we have all made yelling phone calls when people are late, this does not make her a murderer.”

Is Sharon Fitzpatrick is not guilty for stabbing her husband because it was an act of absolute defense? Or was it a deliberate action?

According to the DA on April 4, 2010, jurors sent down a note indicating that they were at an impasse in their deliberations could not reach a unanimous decision.

“We are currently waiting to schedule a new trial,” said DA Jack Wark.

Food around Sea Port?

BOSTON-  Last February, South Boston was plunged into a Siberian cold ice desert. When the outside temperature hits a minus four degrees wind-chill, the few adventurers walk facing the ground wishing for some heat to come out of the skyscrapers.

Around Sea Port, some parents are walking home or to their cars with their children begging for them to enter the first coffee place or bakery to warm up their little hands. On Dorchester Avenue, there are neither children nor warm cozy places, only supermarkets and little houses.

Mike Kennedy, early 30, has been working at the Flour Bakery near the shore for the past two years. He explains how no students live in the neighborhood, only families or artists who stay in lofts “just for a couple of days,” he adds.

In Sea Port, there are no food shops. Kennedy lives around Farnsworth Sreet bakery, and when he is asked where to find some food, he laughs and says, “no where!”

James Gerki works at Thomson Renters, facing the Flour Bakery. He says he eats daily at the Metro café, two blocks up from his office building. “There is not really elsewhere you can go,” he says. “I think there are not a lot of people who live around here.”

Misinformed, Gerki does not know that this South Boston area has been highly developped in the real estate industry. Sea Port is now a mass of condos, loft and large apartments.

Where do the Sea Porters find to eat? “Maybe they all eat out,” Gerki jokes.

Four years ago, Nam Golder from Nepal oppened a hardware store on Congress Street. Three years later, he was strongly advised by his customers to transform a part of his shop into a convenience store, where chips, cookies, sodas and cigarettes would be available.

“People kept coming in the store asking where they could find food,” says Golder, “I still don’t even know myself.” Living in North Quincy, Golder emphasizes the need to have a car or a bike in order to feed oneself.

On the lower part of South Boston, crossing the Andrew Red Line T-stop, there is the four-miles-long Dorchester Avenue. A lot of small houses and food shops have been built in the last five or six years, according to Rick Patel, worker at Cappy’s convenience store.

When she arrived in the U.S. and started working at the Baltic European Delicatessen, the young blond Anna Nacki realized there were already four Polish food stores in the street.

“We don’t really have American customers, they go more to Star Market, it’s bigger,” she says. Even though Nacki owes a car, she rarely use it to go grocery shopping. “The Stop and Shop has everything you can find, and I can walk there, even in the cold!” says the Polish woman.

While scrapping the ice of his windshield, the old man who “[goes] by Bob M.” as his Sinatra singer name says, “It’s rather pleasant to go to the different food store, just a five minutes walk.”

After expressing a dubious look regarding the questions he was asked to answer, the face of Bob M. got smoother while he started saying he was going to perfom Neil Diamond and Johnny Cash’s music at one of the theaters on Tremont Street on Wednesday night, and with a smile, invited to spread the word, “and you will easily find food there!” says Bob M.

While the lower South Boston is enjoying the sunbeams piercing the top of the roofs, the upper South Boston is waiting for one of the modernized building to be transformed into a food store.

“If one day some people decide to open a supermarket around Sea Port,” says Gerki, “ they would make a killing.”

Is eating organic a symbol of health ?

By Eleonor Picciotto

BOSTON- For the past few years, the discussion around the virtues of organic versus non-organic food has become more popular although the real argument is, does eating organic mean eating healthy?

Mind-set, knowledge, money and time are the main factors determining what people eat at what cost. The debate has been stepped up because people are falsely informed.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), there are different definitions of “organic,” which makes it confusing to many consumers. To use the term “organic” officially, it has to be certified by going through USDA standards. But people are faking the ‘organic’ idea by using the term and by practicing ‘organic methods’ without being certified to do so.

The organic issue has become a hot topic in recent years “because it brings in more money,” explains Ilene Bezahler, publisher and editor of the Edible Boston magazine. “Everybody is using that to sell their products because organic is viewed as higher quality, which it is,” she continues.

Eating organic means eating products grown without the use of pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge or genetically modified organisms. For the animal products of dairy and meat, it means that animals that produced them were not given antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic conveys the idea of better quality food, but there is a constant amalgam made between eating organic, eating local and eating healthy because eating organic does not always mean eating healthy. To combine them all, Avital Pato Benari a health and nutrition educator, emphasizes the need to invest time and money.

Eating organic also involves expenses. Organic farmers do not receive federal subsidies, so prices reflect of the true cost of growing. They do not benefit from the economy of scale that large growers receive. Instead of using chemicals to get rid of weeds with massive spraying, organic farmers get rid of them manually, which causes higher labor costs.

“The price of veggies keep going up where the price of Coca-Cola becomes practically free,” argues Benzahler, “Our whole fruit system is totally screwed up.”

It raises the question of how could we properly spend our money to eat organic and healthy?

Health is the No.1 factor, for Christine Mathieu, a French organic vegetarian, mother of four children who probably does not weight more than 110 pounds. “I’m not an ayatollah of organic food, it’s too expensive,” she says. From a health standpoint, she explains that some veggies can be eaten non-organic without putting her “life in danger.” But from a green point of view, “to be coherent I should buy organic despite the price,” she says.

Madeline Lanciani, chef and owner of a bakery in New York, admits that when customers ask if the milk in their coffee is organic, she replies no, explaining that if they want some, they will have to pay double for their coffee. “They want organic, but nobody wants to pay for it,” she says.

Lanciani who says she uses about 10 percent of organic ingredients, would be willing to pay more to bake fully organic, “but the market industry that supply the products for the food industry does not produce bulk quantities that makes it cheaper,” she explains, “otherwise I would get it right away.” At home she tries to eat organic, “ and I don’t care about the price,” she says.

Along the same line, Carolyn Cosgrove Payne, a Boston University student who became almost 100 percent organic at the end of her freshman year, mentions the sense of priority in her expectations, “you know what you are paying for.” Payne says that eating organic is a little more expensive, but she asks “what is your satisfaction to pay four dollars for a gourmet beverage at Starbucks that will last fifteen minutes, when you can use the money for something healthy?” She has a point.

The major problem is not about how much money to spend but where to spend it, she says.  Mathieu brings up a dilemma: spend a lot at Whole Foods on organic products or drive 20 miles to go to an organic farmers market and spend less. Most people would go for the first option, non-organic at the closest supermarket.

Aside from the debate organic v. non-organic, access and proximity are determinant factors. According to USDA, there are 7000 farms in Massachusetts only 150 are certified organic, but more farmers use ‘organic techniques’. Only official labels such as QAI  or USDAprove that the product you are buying is certified organic. Most of the products available at the grocery store Whole Foods are certified.     Payne says that at Trader Joe’s, “everything they sell has an organic version.” And when she does not have time to shop, there is still the option to order online “veggies boxes,” on bostonorganics.com for example, where prices start at $24 a box.

Benari explains how hard it is to eat five vegetables a day, especially in an urban, working or college environment where people do not want to spend much money on food or time to prepare it. This is why, “obesity problems have increased,” she says, “ It is a crappy situation the U.S. have.” Benari promotes the consumption and the purchase of frozen organic fruits and vegetables, because it is cheap, convenient and just as good as fresh ones when cooked.

“It is a hippie thing to eat organic,” says Noah Zaltz, 21, who lived most of his life in Westchester, N.Y.  Although, he does not eat “consciously” organic, Zaltz said he thinks organic prepared food tastes better and fresher than non-organic.

On the contrary, the New York baker Lanciani said she thinks the difference is negligible. “There is no way to find out whether something is organic or not,” she says. The question of the taste is disputable where the question of health is not.

“I am concerned about the health of my family,” says Mathieu, “but also by the health of the workers in the farms.” Because eating organic is scientifically proven to be good for you and the environment, says Benari. It also involves taking more time to get informed and organized about various food places to get the groceries from, to eat organic, healthy and locally at lower costs.

“Anything man makes is processed food,” says Joe Finn, grocery manager at the supermarket Shaws. “The American diet promotes diseases,” he adds. Changing the mentality

towards food should be the first effort people should make. Payne believes that people need to see the after effects of what they are eating now.

Benari says that “the minute you talk about organic, you shut people off.” She explains that the meat and dairy products college students consume without paying attention are full of hormones. She wants to have students more concerned. Ironically she wonders, “they might want to have kids later and we don’t know how fertilizers affect human fertility.”

The effect of non-organic v. organic on the human body has yet to be proven. But “ If you are not eating healthy but organic, it still has an affect on your body,” says Lanciani, “You don’t eat the chemicals.”

How Do We Attain a Successful Society ?

By Eleonor Picciotto

According to Michele Lamont, Professor of Sociology at Harvard University, wondering “How do we define and attain the Good Society?” is the basic normative question college students should ask.

The Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies hosted a talk last Friday afternoon on the “Measures of our Success” to over 100 attendees.

Via a videoconference call from Paris, Jean-Paul Fitoussi, President of the Observatoire Francais des conjonctures economiques, explained how today, nations and societies look to their Gross Domestic Products, social networking and happiness ratings as determinants of success.

Fitoussi said the measures of the societies are imperfect and only partially reflect reality. “The measure of our future is the most important factor,” he said. “Health, education, security, economy and social relations determine people’s capacities of freedom.” Those factors determine the sustainability of life.

He claims that Sophists would have said, “ We want to make out GDP the measure of everything: performance, well-being and quality of life,” and says that measures of performance must be viewed with cautions.

“ I applaude people who don’t think hapiness is not measurable at all,” said Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen. He adds that sustainable objectives and measures of freedom are necessary determinants for mortality, mobidity, literacy and communication.

Sen emphazises the importance of how societies have functioned in the past. “ We have to ask ourselves: What would it be like in the future?” Sen asked. “Once we recognize we are in a crisis, give us a focus on the policies we should follow.”

As Fitoussi mentioned earlier “there is in France a debate about the debate on the question of national identity, whether if its is a positive or negative concept.” On the same line, Lamont addressed the fundamental issue of what is the true definition of a successful society.

“Individual resilience is the wear and tear of everyday lives,” said Lamont. Public policies, social inclusion as well as democratic participation, cultural membership, intergroup relation, collective action based social network, identity and hierarchy and the emphasis on capability shape the emotional and physiological responses to condition the sustainability of our societies.

Marleen de Smedt, fellow at the Weatherhead Center for International affairs at Harvard,  agreed with the panel’s conclusion that “as much attention should be given to social connectedness and social relations as to the effect of the economy on the well-being and success of a society.”

In reference to ethnic boundaries, Lamont asked why does the 38% rate of HIV in Botsuana, considered as the best government in african state is higher than the 8% rate of HIV in Uganda, considered as the most corrupted african governemnt.

The answer to the difference depends on  “How governements have been able to modify their population in the collective sense of who they are together” says Lamont.

“ Wealthier is Healthier,” Peter Hall, member of the Krupp Foundation and professor of European Studies said. “ The multiple dimensions of social relation includes the social resources of a society.”

Miguel Glatzer, a full-time lecturer at Umass Dartmouth, said he was amazed “how important social network and connected relations are to wel-being, independent of income and traditional definition of health care.”

The social network, the social status a person enjoys, the social hierarchy and the symbolic representation that define the purposes of a community of who belongs where are the key dimensions of life’s social relations and social ressources vary on which people draw to cope with the challenges of daily life.

He said the success of societies does not depend on how well they accumulate social ressources, but on how well ressources are distributed.“ Governments should think equally hard of the unattended effects of policy on a structure of social relation instead of focusing on the markets,” Hall said, “Just as we think about the conservation of natural ressources, we should think about the conservation of social ressources.”

The factors of GDP, happiness, social connectedness and dermining carateristics were emphasized respectively by Fitoussi, Sen, Hall and Lamont, for her to conclude that,

“ The secret of successful governements result in the choices we all make.”

Philippe J. Bernard, an utopist, President of the NGO Prospective 2100, was satisfied by the “debate that was not governmental but sociologic and economic in general.”

Martha Ferede, a Harvard Graduate, said she enjoyed the discussion after having listenned to the arguments of all participants, “”the traditional ways of measuring good societies don’t always work, but you can do something about it.” She then compared the quality of the two-hours panel to a “Chef’s top selection.”

« The Measure of Our Success: How Do We Attain the Good Society? »

Center of European Studies at Harvard University

co-written by Peter Hall and Michele Lamont

IS THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN WORTH FIGHTING?

By Eleonor Picciotto

BOSTON- The 27^th Great Debate promptly started at 6:36 p.m. where most of the large majority of the 280 people present at the Tsai Performance center at Boston University, Wednesday night, decided that the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting.

After explaining how theatrically the debate will go, the Great Debate Chairman Professor Robert Zelnick warned the audience to listen closely then decide, while he says, “ I’ll go back there and listen to the World Series Game.”

At 6:47 p.m., the lead affirmative speaker, in favor of the remaining in the war,  Thomas H. Johnson, a member of the Afghanistan Editorial Board of the National Archive, explained how the central policies to secure the country needed revolutionary changes. He said categorically, that if Afghanistan had a nuclear weapon that would be the world’s worst nightmare.

“Elections don’t make democracy. Democracy makes elections,” said Johnson. But Afghanistan is so corrupted and incompetent that it is unstable. Johnson said the ability to change an entire democracy is beyond the American power declaring that the U.S. was failing in Afghanistan for the same reasons it failed in Vietnam.

Reacting on the Commander in Chief in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal’s plan whether the U.S. government should add more troops, Johnson said the issue is not the force size but the distribution of the troops.

Chairman Zelnick rang the twice bell, to have the lead negative speaker, Andrew J. Bacevich started. “War is a great evil, a blight on human existence,” stated B.U. professor and former U.S. armny colonel who fought in Kuwait and Vietnam.

Bacevich said he envisions a counterterrorism and outsourcing approaches as two complementary approaches to keep the U.S. safe at lower costs.

According to Bacevich, there should not be other issues to fight a war. The war must be purposeful and have a chance to effectively settle the issue and the cost of what the war will entail should be proportionate. “It is an unnecessary war,” concluded Bacevich.

Kenice Mobley, a B.U. grad student in film said that increasing troops will not solve the problem in the long term, but will increase violence in the short term.

“We pursue futility at our own peril,” said Mobley.

Marin J. Strmecki, former President Nixon’s foreign policy assistant , said the American Security is in danger. He claims that “the enemy” who conducted the 9/11 attacks is still present. “Al Qaeda is certainly the enemy,” states Strmecki. He believes success is doable. It only depends on how the U.S. mobilizes the troops to win. Strmecki mentions a moral reason why fighting in Afghanistan. He explains how the U.S. has collaborated with Afghanistan to defeat the Soviet Union in 1990, and then made a mistake abandoning them.

All speakers differentiated Afghans from Talibans or Al Qaeda. However, all view a different enemy.

The long time career broadcast journalist, Nick B. Mills, stated that, “We, Americans, never thought it was worth fighting in Afghanistan” and later a member of the audience pointed his finger by challenging that “ the ‘we’ is not us (Americans), but the CIA, FBI and the government.”

Mills maintained the way the U.S. responded to the 9/11 attacks to get the Talibans out was where the mistake began. The first priority of the U.S. was to capture Ossama Bin Laden, dead or alive. “Bin Laden has us right where he wants us,” said Mills.

The associate journalism professor at Boston University described Afghans as “remarkable people” seeking for the help of the U.S. to get rid of the Talibans. But, “ The more we fight for the Afghans, the more we seem to fight Afghanistan,” said Mills.

He concluded at 7:45 p.m. that no matter how many troops the U.S. sends to Afghanistan, insurgents would not give up.

Bacevich stated that the Bush administration never really tried a counterterrorism strategy when the 9/11 attacks took place, he said, “Bush was reading books about goats.”

Bacevich reiterated that the enemy was Al Qaeda and not the Taliban, and stated that entering the ninth year of combat in Afghanistan, invading the country endlessly was not an answer.

The McChrystal plan would exceed the homeland security budget, “Spend the money where it can actually do some good,” concluded Bacevich. The 27^th Great Debate listened to its first “Hear-Hear” from the audience.

Johnson intended to convince his audience arguing that the U.S. needed to fight this war smart, otherwise it was time to get out.

Evelyn Stachel, an elderly woman stopped Johnson in his closing remarks:

“Enough already, you made your point!”

CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY

By Eleonor Picciotto

Michael Moore’s last documentary, “Capitalism: A Love Story,” was released October 2^nd in theaters. Moore’s goal is to give a definition of what Capitalism really is and what are its consequences.

His introduction is quite ironic, starting with videos of bank robberies, and then he goes on with images of Rome as the most ancient world and cats flushing the toilets. How random ! 

But not so much… In few words, this is Moore’s depiction of Capitalism. He believes Capitalism brought us where we are.

            The first scene following the introduction shows a Sheriff entering a family house asking them to leave. This family tried to survive during the economic crisis. But like thousands of other Americans, they could not afford the rent or pay their bills anymore, and became homeless.

 “Capitalism is a system of taking and giving, mostly taking,” says Moore. He believes Capitalism trumps democracy.

 To give a point of history, Moore explains how Ronald Reagan, President of the United States in 1981, wanted to remake America to save them. Reagan’s policy was to rebuild the country without middle class and make the rich become richer. At the time, Capitalism represented the highest standard of living in the world. One paycheck was sufficient for a family to survive. Now, two is not enough to avoid being a homeless.

 Corporate America, CEOs and Wall Street are there to set the world and those who destroy it, according to Moore. The country would now be run like a corporation destroying unions and promoting short profits. Time is money.

 Michael Moore goes to Washington, D.C., to have a look at the American Constitution. He is wondering where is mentioned “free market” and “ promotion of general market.” Nowhere.

 “The world financial crisis is a financial coup d’état,” says Moore. “ Why aren’t we asking Wall Street to clean their own mess?” he wonders.

 He closes his movie saying that Capitalism is evil and you cannot regulate evil. Democracy is the solution.

 “ I refuse to live in a country like this and I am not leaving it,” says Moore.

How confusing to see a guy blaming the people of a country he does not want to live in but does not want to leave it either. Moore blames capitalism and money … but does not mention how much money he makes by writing and producing those documentaries.

He should thank the country he despises instead of criticizing it.

CAR ACCIDENT IN KENMORE SQUARE

BOSTON- Sunday at 8:35 p.m., a BMW SUV hit a Ford truck at the corner of Commonwealth Avenue and Charlesgate West in Kenmore Square. One of the two cars involved in the accident flipped 3 times before stopping on the ground upside down. The driver, a girl in her 20s, climbed out of the car by the rear.

Police officers, ambulances and fire trucks arrived on the scene a couple of minutes after the accident. Traffic has been interrupted 75 meters from the Boston University entrance.

According to a firefighter, “Everyone appeared to be fine, we are not entirely sure, there are just minor injuries.” An ambulance took the girl who could not stop shaking to the hospital.

“There were two green lights for me to go ahead,” says Louay Awadh, the other car driver involved in the accident. “I pressed the brake when I saw the car,” Awadh adds.

He was coming from Charles Gate when he hit the car crossing Commonwealth Avenue.

“I had a green light,” he repeats when he is asked if he could have seen the car in advance.

Forty minutes later, traffic was back to normal, authorities took the crashed car away and cleared the scene of the accident. Louay Awadh was able to go home safe with his car, only damaged in the front. 

Officials have not been able to confirm yet if she was a Boston University student. 

 

Pictures by Eleonor Picciotto

RAD B.U. Program

The RAD program to prevent rapes attacks just started tonight at 7 p.m. It is still time to sign up. Go on bu.edu/police, RAD program

President Obama Wants a Health Care Reform

 

BOSTON- In the wealthy country that is the United States, one American every three goes without health coverage. As the president of the United States stated on September 9, “The time for games has passed, now is the season for action.” According to Obama, the American public deserves more security and more stability in their lives. The fear of illnesses, bills coverage and insurance has to end. Obama stated Wednesday night that his plan could solve the problem.

Nothing will require the people who already have an issurance plan to change the cover they have. It will be against the law for insurers to drop customers when they get sick. The insurance will not ask for extra charge but will cover routine check-ups, “It saves money and it saves lives,” Obama claimed. The government will then offer different possibilities to get coverage for those who do not have insurance. Obama would like “to give to the American people the same chance we give ourselves.” This new insurance exchange would take place in a market place effective in four years. The government would immediately allow a low-cost coverage when someone gets seriously sick, as John McCain’s advocated in his 2008 presidential campaign. The whole Health Care reform will cost about $ 900 billion over 10 years, but as Obama said, “ We did not come to fear the future, we came here to shape it.”

 Obama set the actual context of a nation in a period of economic crisis, gave points of history and goes on with specific cases. The reason why he gives examples rather negatives is because he wants to sensitize his public. His goal is to prove to the people in America that things are happening. Obama never looks straight to the camera but always moves his head and hands around as if he addressed a specific person at a moment to give him a personnal message. Obama puts himself in and out of his speech and alternates “I,” “We,” or “Americans.”

 

Obama gets some credibility from his audience. There are several reasons why it works. The American society’s problems result in the mistakes of previous presidents, “ I am not the first president to take this cause, but I am determined to be the last,” says Obama regarding the Health Care reform he wants to apply.

By using the money already spent, he promises a better world with a plan that will not add a dime to the actual American deficit. Obama would like to please his audience by making no distinction between Democrats and Republicans, where both should work together. Approaching the end of his speech, Obama quotes former Senator Edward Kennedy, who recently died as the wise man who predicted that this year would be the time for the American health care to change.