If you believe Jay Z and Alicia Keys, “New York City is a concrete jungle where dreams are made. Its streets will make you feel brand new.  Its big lights will inspire you.”  But searching for an affordable place to live in this urban paradise is about as pleasant and pain-free as dental surgery.

It’s a rite of passage for most New Yorkers to have some sort of war story about their first dumpy apartment in the city.  When I moved to Manhattan almost ten years ago, I rented a 50 square foot room which easily could have doubled as a broom closet.  At the bargain price of a $1,000 a month, it had a single bed, a modest closet, no windows, as well as the occasional water-bug (a New York euphemism for gargantuan cockroach). 

In an effort to accommodate the overwhelming influx of singles to urban locales, some U.S. cities are experimenting with building “micro-apartments.”  Following the lead of cities like Paris and Tokyo, these units would range anywhere from 200 to 400 square feet.  The average size of a studio apartment in Manhattan is 500 square feet.  As of May, average rents hit an all-time high of $3,438 a month, with an average of $2,065 a month for a studio.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently approved a pilot project to construct a building of “micro-units” on the east side of Manhattan.  Construction could begin as early as 2013.  Meanwhile, San Francisco is in the midst of deliberating over legislation that would decrease the minimum size for apartments, allowing developers to build units as small as 220 square feet.  It’s expected the units will rent below the current market for studios in their respective cities, but no one is offering any concrete figures. 

But should these units be marketed as “affordable housing”?  What if they simply evolve into convenient crash pads for people with all-consuming jobs or those who already own a home in the suburbs but want a second apartment in the city?  Or will they be a Mecca for the next generation of Trustafarians (privileged white kids who live like hippies but have no worries about money or finding a job). New York City is overrun with them too. 

While micro-units could be an interesting experiment and possible solution for people who need urban housing at a less exorbitant price tag, cities should tread carefully and examine the possible social and public health ramifications.  What is the psychological impact of more people living in micro-dwellings?   And what if these units gradually bring down building standards and quality of life for everyone else?  For example, Singapore has recently placed a limit on the number of small apartments developers can build in an effort to encourage more diverse and family-oriented housing.

In the meantime, writing this piece has given me a renewed sense of gratitude for my own Manhattan, 650 square foot one-bedroom apartment in a four story walk-up with no laundry.  Compared to many in New York and cities around the world, I’m living in the lap of luxury.

AP Images

While the eruption of anti-American violence in the Middle East generated the majority of headlines last week, New York City had its own breaking news story.  Thanks to a vote by the city’s Board of Health, the Big Apple became first in the country to ban restaurants, concession stands, and cafeterias from selling any more than 16 ounces of soda at a time.  The ban also includes other sugary or high-calorie drinks.

As a New Yorker, I’m extremely proud that my city is a national leader on a variety of public health initiatives including banning smoking in restaurants and bars, outlawing the use of trans fats, and forcing fast-food restaurants to display calorie counts on their menus.  But I can’t help but wonder whether or not this ban will have any teeth when it comes to curbing obesity rates.

Public health statistics in New York aren’t particularly inspiring.  Almost 60 percent of adult New Yorkers are either overweight or obese.  In order to be considered overweight, your body mass index (BMI) must be 25 or greater.    A BMI of 30 or higher means that you are technically obese.  Meanwhile, one in eight New Yorkers also suffer from diabetes—a disease that is often directly linked to obesity.  While the obesity rate in the Metropolitan New York area slightly lags the national average (21.5% vs. 26.1%), it’s still alarming. 

It’s impossible to talk about the soda ban without acknowledging the powerful force behind the idea—billionaire philanthropist and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.  To say he is a force to be reckoned with is an understatement and once he backs a cause, there’s little anyone can do to change his mind.  But he won’t be mayor forever, and the soda industry is determined to have the ban reversed.  Even many New Yorkers say Bloomberg has gone too far.  According to a poll conducted by the New York Times, 60 percent of all residents oppose the soda ban.  

While I think Mayor Bloomberg’s heart is in the right place, I can’t help but be skeptical of the ban’s effectiveness.  It may sound trite, but an ounce of prevention really is worth a pound of cure.  If we had true health care reform in the US that gave all Americans access to preventative care, screenings and nutritional counseling, people would simply make healthier choices by default.

In the meantime, sugar junkies don’t despair.  If you want more than 16 ounces of your liquid fix, you can still buy it in grocery stores—including 7-Eleven.  Imagine a life without the Big Gulp?   Well neither can I.

If there’s one thing that became even more evident after watching the last two weeks of convention coverage, it’s that rhetoric surrounding health care and hot-button social issues is more polarizing than ever.  With the exception of President Bill Clinton and Condoleezza Rice, the bulk of speakers at both the RNC and DNC played heavily to the base of the parties while virtually ignoring moderates and independents.

If you side with Republican talking points, then you might believe that “Obamacare” is an affront to our civil liberties, a complete government takeover of health care, socialized medicine at its worst, legislation that puts a bureaucrat in between you and your doctor and ultimately, a jobs killer.

If you side with the Democrats you might believe that Republicans are trying to throw us back to the dark ages by banning access to birth control, forcing rape and incest victims to birth the children of their abusers, let anyone who gets sick die if they can’t afford health insurance, and abandon our seniors by ending Medicare as we know it.

Is this really what it’s come to?  Can a woman not be pro-life and in favor of the Affordable Care Act, or pro-choice and still believe that entitlement programs need to be reformed?  Is manipulating voters and dividing them on social issues when the country has an 8.1 percent unemployment smart politics, or the politics of last resort? At this rate, is it really any surprise that Congress approval is at an all-time-low?

People—as well as the decisions they make--are a lot more nuanced than the language found in party platforms.  Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina alluded to this last weekend on Meet the Press when she said “In the end, the platform, frankly, doesn’t mean much.  The Republican Party has pro-choice Republicans just like the Democratic Party has pro-life Democrats.  The Republican platform hasn’t changed.”  But people do change, and their positions on issues can evolve over time.  While Fiorina may have a valid point, she also stopped short of admitting that no candidate in her party could ever win a primary by taking a pro-choice position.  

With only two months until election day, it would behoove members of both parties to tone down the rhetoric and start explaining to voters how they plan to start solving some of the myriad problems facing the country.  Instead of condescending to voters and taking intransigent positions on wedge issues, candidates should be presenting policy ideas that might actually improve the lives of those who vote them into office.

One of the more pervasive themes at this week’s RNC has been the call to repeal “Obamacare,” or as I prefer to call it by its actual name, the “Affordable Care Act.”

In his keynote speech on Tuesday, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie made two bold pronouncements about health care with which I take serious issue.  First, he characterized the U.S. as having the “world’s greatest health care system.”  Let’s have a quick reality check.  According to the World Health Organization, the US spends more per capita than any nation in the world on health care and yet ranks 37^th out of 191 countries in overall outcomes. The US is also one of the few countries in the world where getting sick can lead to financial ruin.  According to one Harvard study, more than 60% of all personal bankruptcies in the US are from medical bills.  What’s even more frightening? Three quarters of that 60% actually had some sort of health insurance.  Does the U.S. have some of the world’s best doctors and technology? Absolutely. But while we celebrate the American health care system’s achievements, we should also acknowledge its shortcomings. 

Gov. Christie then went on to say that the ACA puts “bureaucrats between an American citizen and her doctor,” reinforcing the erroneous assertion that the legislation is a full government takeover of health care.  The last time I checked, a bureaucrat coming between me and my doctor doesn’t have to work in government.  A bureaucrat can also be a paper pusher at a health insurance company who decides to deny my claim.

As the week progressed, the assault on “Obamacare” continued.

In his primetime speech on Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul reiterated his belief that the ACA is unconstitutional.  Following Sen. Paul on stage was former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who said the ACA is an attack on religious freedom and makes people of faith "bow their knees to the god of government.”  He also kept repeating the phrase “we can do better.”

Next came Paul Ryan, who characterized the ACA as an “all or nothing attempt to put the federal government in charge of health care,” to be paid for on the backs of the elderly.  A few years ago, the GOP said “Obamacare” would create death panels.  But if we believe Paul Ryan, President Obama apparently now wants to push granny off a cliff. 

The last chance for clarity on the Republican position on health care reform came late Thursday night during Mitt Romney’s nomination acceptance speech.  But instead, the speech was one of generalities.  Romney understandably seized the opportunity to connect with his audience on a more personal level than talk about policy.  He alluded to rising health insurance premiums, but never addressed how he would fix the problem other than by repealing “Obamacare”—a plan nearly identical to the one he passed while Governor of Massachusetts. 

As the campaign slugfest continues through November, I’m not holding my breath for any straight talk on health care.  Instead, we should all brace ourselves for more rhetoric on the evils of socialized medicine and throwing our seniors under the bus…literally and figuratively. 

You’re right Gov. Huckabee.  We can do better.  And we deserve better too.

After the spate of gun violence that's left so many of us horrified and dumbfounded, one would think it would be time for a little introspection on America's relationship with guns.  Or is it?  Aside from the usual suspects such as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy. (whose husband was killed in a mass shooting at a Long Island Railroad Station), politicians are conspicuously absent when it comes to wading into any sort of discussion on gun control.  When anyone dares to ask if it's time to revisit legislation on gun control, the knee-jerk responses are along the lines of "guns don't kill people; people do" and "now is not the time to talk about gun control; now is the time to mourn the victims."  But if now isn't then time, then when is?

For the record, I am not arrogant enough to think I have any answers when it comes to solving gun violence.  In fact, all I have are questions, so please indulge me while I ask a few:

• Why are mass shootings such an American phenomenon?  According to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, among the world's 23 wealthiest countries, 80% of all gun deaths are American deaths and 87% of all kids killed by guns are American kids. 
• Arguably, more than anywhere else on earth, Americans have a profound understanding of their rights as citizens. This is an admiral trait.  However, does one person's right to bear arms trump my right to live?
• How and why are mentally unstable people easily gaining access to guns and ammunition--shooting people at schools, churches and movie theaters?  James Holmes bought 6,000 rounds of ammunition online before walking into a movie theater and murdering 12 people.
• Why did Congress let the assault weapons ban expire? What kind of pressure are lawmakers facing from lobby groups like the NRA behind the scenes?
• What was the original intent of the Second Amendment: to guarantee the right of any individual to keep and bear arms, or as filmmaker/activist Michael Moore recently wrote, "to make sure a militia could be quickly called up from amongst the farmers and merchants should the Brits decide to return and wreak some havoc." 
• Why is the second amendment held as such a universally accepted truth when we are still debating whether or not access to health care in the U.S. should be universal? 

I was born and raised in Canada and believe it or not, Canada has a gun culture too.  According to GunPolicy.org, roughly one in four Canadians own a gun.  In fact, Canada is the thirteenth largest gun-owning country in the world—surpassing countries like England and Norway.  What Canada does have are more rigid checks and balances in place to help ensure guns don’t fall into the hands of those who shouldn’t have them.  The bad news is that even with more stringent oversight of firearms sales, gun violence in Canada is on the rise—particularly in large cities such as Toronto, where shootings are up 34% from 2011. 

As you can see, I have way more questions than answers, and any side of the guns debate that thinks they have all the answers is just plain wrong.  Constructive dialogue is the only way to solve problems, and people shouldn’t be intimidated or frightened to ask tough questions.

While we may not all agree on the interpretation and original intent of the Second Amendment, I’m sure we can all be certain that it doesn’t give anyone the right to walk into a high school or movie theater and open fire.

All eyes may be on London’s Olympic Games right now, but it won’t be long before the presidential race returns to dominating the news cycle.  As we head toward November, there’s one thing of which we can be certain: there is no way the Supreme Court has had the last word on health care reform.  Anti-reform rhetoric will surely play an integral part of both the presidential and congressional races.  But, when we hear stump speeches about repealing “Obamacare” (which is actually called the Affordable Care Act), the least voters deserve to hear from politicians are clearly-articulated alternatives of what to replace the ACA with.  Case in point—Republican Congressman Sean Duffy of Wisconsin was the first and one of the only GOP lawmakers to introduce legislation that would “replace” the ACA, as opposed to just repealing it.  So far, the bill hasn’t gone anywhere in the House.

Voters also deserve to hear politicians acknowledge that today in America, going without health insurance can literally a matter of life and death.  According to a recent report from Families USA, 26,100 people between the ages 25 and 64 died prematurely in 2010 because they didn’t have health insurance.  That translates to roughly three people every hour.  Governors Rick Scott of Florida and Rick Perry of Texas preside over states with some of the largest percentages of uninsured, as well as high percentages of premature deaths due to lack of insurance.  They also happen to be two of the most vocal critics of the ACA, pledging not to accept any federal funds to implement the legislation. 

The Affordable Care Act isn't perfect, and I urge any lawmaker of any political persuasion to offer suggestions for improvement.  But this November, voters should remind all politicians that when it comes to matters of life and death, there is no room for partisan politics.