Strictly speaking, it’s not a Latino issue. But the saga involving Amal Abusumayah brings up so many issues that are relevant to the Latino experience when dealing with people who have a small-minded view of what our society ought to be.
Abusumayah is the woman who was shopping at a supermarket in the Chicago suburb of Tinley Park when someone went out of their way to make a rude comment to her about Arabs, then later tried to yank the hijab off her head.
IN SHORT, IT was an incident of anti-Arab sentiment, and the woman (who is white) who was involved in the incident against Abusumayah was arrested by local police. Earlier this week, she had a $5,000 bond set, and she could get some time in prison if ultimately convicted – since police went so far as to seek “hate crime” charges against her.
Of course, the incident had to occur within days of a study commissioned by BusinessWeek magazine that said Tinley Park, Ill., was the best municipality in the United States in which to raise children.
It will be interesting to see which event – the study or the incident – sticks in the public’s mind when it comes to the Chicago suburb’s reputation.
As reported, Abusumayah was trying to shop for groceries when the woman made comments about the gunman at Fort Hood, Texas, claiming he was a foreigner and so was she. Then, when Abusumayah was trying to use the self-checkout lane at the supermarket, the woman came up from behind her and tried to rip off the head scarf that she wears as a religious gesture of modesty.
THERE HAVE BEEN some people who have been critical of the fact that “hate crime” charges were sought because they want to believe that there is some level at which trying to make someone uncomfortable about their ethnicity is somehow either appropriate, or the type of harassment that people like Abusumayah just have to learn to put up with.
Which is why I couldn’t help but comment on this incident, since it sounds all to common to many of the incidents of harassment that Latinos are confronted with each day.
Now as reported, the woman who was so offended by Abusumayah’s presence in the supermarket made comments about people not belonging in this country, even though it turns out that all the people she specifically mentioned were U.S. born – which means they’re U.S. citizens who have every right to be in this country.
That is the case for Army Major Nidal Hasan, who was from the Virginia-based suburbs of Washington, D.C., and for Abusumayah, whose parents were immigrants from the Middle East but herself was raised in Berwyn.
WHO OUTSIDE OF the Son of Svengoolie – that Chicago-based television host whose Berwyn fetish is better known than the tacky horror films he narrates – would have a problem with that?
What this comes down to is that someone has their own idea of what constitutes a “real American,” and it doesn’t include someone who doesn’t come from a background identical to their own.
It is the same twist of logic that Latinos often have to cope with when people get worked up about the fact that the Latino population is growing at rates that will make us an equal presence in numbers by the middle of the century – and already have us at a significant share of the U.S. population now.
It really is the case for Latinos, a growing percentage of whom are born in the United States and come from parts of the country that once were a part of Latin America. Listening to actress and Texan Eva Longoria describe herself as a 9th generation American when she appeared last week on George Lopez’ talk show is interesting because it is a claim that few of these so-called “real Americans” can make.
SO EXCUSE ME for feeling a little bit of sympathy for Abusumayah.
Her story is one that has been experienced by so many others whose ethnic origins lie in Latin America. The encouraging aspect of this incident is that the local officials didn’t hem and haw and try to figure out legalistic reasons by which the woman could be let off for her alleged actions against Abusumayah.
So perhaps that is one bit of evidence that our nation is moving in the right direction.
But the real progress will be achieved when certain people quit thinking of “foreigner!” as an expletive every time they see someone who doesn’t look exactly like they do.
-30-
Friday, November 20, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Who seriously wants the trade embargo?
I got a kick out of reading the results of a new poll taken of the Cuban people (as in the ones still living on the island, not the exile community centered spiritually around Miami).
For it seems that this particular survey shows the bulk of the island’s population is ready to see the United States as their country’s salvation – even though the Communist government there has long peddled the idea that los Estados Unidos is responsible for everything that is wrong.
IT SEEMS THAT the old cliché, “the grass is greener on the other side of the fence,” is at work here. It seems that 75 percent of the Cuban people are in favor of a transition to Democracy (with another 19 percent having “no answer” to the question).
And even though the issue was never brought up in the poll proper, 8 percent of those surveyed said they thought the United States would go a long way toward helping the Cuban people if they were to do away with the half-century-old trade embargo that was meant to isolate Cuba from the world, but has wound up providing los hermanos Castro with their key talking point in criticizing the U.S. (while doing nothing to discourage the rest of the world from doing business with Cuba).
Now it is possible on the face of things to criticize this particular poll, which was conducted by a Latin American firm for the International Republican Institute – which gets some of its funding from the State Department.
In short, this is a poll paid for with federal government dollars that says (surprise!) Cuban people want more to do with the United States.
THEN AGAIN, I’M sure it is nowhere near as ridiculous as the official propaganda line that comes out of Havana, which would probably claim the Cuban people are completely satisfied with their quality of life these days – even though this new poll says that 53.5 percent of those surveyed said life was going, “badly or very badly.”
In short, the economic troubles of recent years that have resulted in food scarcity (and an extreme shortage of toilet paper) are making people wonder about the benefits of being a Communist state.
It is a scene so reminiscent of the final days of the old Soviet Union, where the people ultimately were anxious to try to “decadent” ways of capitalism not because they cared about the politics one way or another.
They were anxious to be a part of whichever method would give them a higher standard of life.
WHEN THE DAY comes that Cuba drops its Communist ways, it will be because the people were anxious to eat, not because they seriously had any firm belief that capitalism itself was superior.
Now anyone who has read my commentary on issues related to Cuba knows I do not support the concept of the trade embargo. It was a flawed policy when it was implemented, and the fact that the rest of the world has largely refused to go along means that it has come closer to isolating the United States instead of Cuba.
I have always thought that if the United States were seriously interested in trying to gain the hearts and minds of the Cuban people, it would do away with the embargo then let U.S. companies start flooding the market with so many goods and services.
Political rhetoric (whether Communist or capitalist) will be regarded as cheap and irrelevant by most people. They will support whoever can get them the goods they desire in life.
WHICH IS WHY I believe one of the biggest accomplishments that Barack Obama could achieve as president would be to take the actions that ultimately resulted in restored relations between the United States and Cuba.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if, after a couple of generations of Cuban exiles worshiping at the temple of Republican politics, it turned out to be a Democratic president who brought the two sides together?
I would think it incredibly humorous if, in the future, the significant difference between Cubans and Cuban-Americans is that the former looked up to the Democratic Party, while the latter still remained latched to support of the Republicans.
-30-
For it seems that this particular survey shows the bulk of the island’s population is ready to see the United States as their country’s salvation – even though the Communist government there has long peddled the idea that los Estados Unidos is responsible for everything that is wrong.
IT SEEMS THAT the old cliché, “the grass is greener on the other side of the fence,” is at work here. It seems that 75 percent of the Cuban people are in favor of a transition to Democracy (with another 19 percent having “no answer” to the question).
And even though the issue was never brought up in the poll proper, 8 percent of those surveyed said they thought the United States would go a long way toward helping the Cuban people if they were to do away with the half-century-old trade embargo that was meant to isolate Cuba from the world, but has wound up providing los hermanos Castro with their key talking point in criticizing the U.S. (while doing nothing to discourage the rest of the world from doing business with Cuba).
Now it is possible on the face of things to criticize this particular poll, which was conducted by a Latin American firm for the International Republican Institute – which gets some of its funding from the State Department.
In short, this is a poll paid for with federal government dollars that says (surprise!) Cuban people want more to do with the United States.
THEN AGAIN, I’M sure it is nowhere near as ridiculous as the official propaganda line that comes out of Havana, which would probably claim the Cuban people are completely satisfied with their quality of life these days – even though this new poll says that 53.5 percent of those surveyed said life was going, “badly or very badly.”
In short, the economic troubles of recent years that have resulted in food scarcity (and an extreme shortage of toilet paper) are making people wonder about the benefits of being a Communist state.
It is a scene so reminiscent of the final days of the old Soviet Union, where the people ultimately were anxious to try to “decadent” ways of capitalism not because they cared about the politics one way or another.
They were anxious to be a part of whichever method would give them a higher standard of life.
WHEN THE DAY comes that Cuba drops its Communist ways, it will be because the people were anxious to eat, not because they seriously had any firm belief that capitalism itself was superior.
Now anyone who has read my commentary on issues related to Cuba knows I do not support the concept of the trade embargo. It was a flawed policy when it was implemented, and the fact that the rest of the world has largely refused to go along means that it has come closer to isolating the United States instead of Cuba.
I have always thought that if the United States were seriously interested in trying to gain the hearts and minds of the Cuban people, it would do away with the embargo then let U.S. companies start flooding the market with so many goods and services.
Political rhetoric (whether Communist or capitalist) will be regarded as cheap and irrelevant by most people. They will support whoever can get them the goods they desire in life.
WHICH IS WHY I believe one of the biggest accomplishments that Barack Obama could achieve as president would be to take the actions that ultimately resulted in restored relations between the United States and Cuba.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if, after a couple of generations of Cuban exiles worshiping at the temple of Republican politics, it turned out to be a Democratic president who brought the two sides together?
I would think it incredibly humorous if, in the future, the significant difference between Cubans and Cuban-Americans is that the former looked up to the Democratic Party, while the latter still remained latched to support of the Republicans.
-30-
Monday, November 16, 2009
Scarlet “A” will dominate immigration reform rhetoric
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano (also the one-time governor of U.S./Mexico border state Arizona) has stirred up the pot before the immigration reform debate has even begun.
She made it clear that President Barack Obama has enough sense to realize that the 12 million so-called “illegal aliens” already in this country without a Visa or other papers largely are making worthwhile contributions to our society, and therefore ought to be allowed to remain.
IN SHORT, “REFORM” as envisioned by Obama consists of changing the artificial status from “illegal” to “legal.” That is going to tick off the nativist elements, to whom “reform” consists of an increase in the number of deportations.
Napolitano made her blunt comments when speaking last week to the Center for American Progress. She told them that while there will be some rhetoric put into the immigration laws to call for increased enforcement of criminal laws against companies that deliberately seek out undocumented non-citizens as a cheap source of labor, there also are going to have to be changes in the procedure for becoming a citizen.
She calls it a “three-legged stool” and it is significant because the Obama administration has been rather vague during its time in the Oval Office about what constitutes immigration reform.
It has shown signs of being intimidated by the vocal critics who want to push a xenophobic thought process into determining our nation’s immigration policies.
ADMITTEDLY, THIS IS just talk from Napolitano, bringing to mind the old cliché, “Talk is cheap.” I’m curious to see action, not only how far the Obama administration will go but how soon they will be willing to act.
They have hinted at being willing to do something in 2010, claiming that health care reform is a higher priority (while ignoring the degree to which some conservatives desire to make the two issues intertwined).
But a part of me won’t be the least bit surprised if Obama administrative types will fear the issue being used against them for cheap rhetoric in the 2010 election cycle. They’ll try to claim the issue should wait until 2011 – or later.
The only problem with that is the growing Latino population itself. An increasing number of us are native-born, which means immigration technically isn’t an issue for us. Yet many of us know people for whom it is an issue, and we’re also realistic enough to know that these nativists often can’t (or don’t want to) tell the difference between a Latino and a Latin American.
SO THE DEGREE to which they rant against our immigrant brethren is also an attack upon ourselves (which is the reason why I get so worked up over this issue, even though my own family is third-generation in the United States).
In one sense, I was surprised to learn of Napolitano’s comments (which I read about in a New York Times news account of her speech to the Washington-based group). They seem just a little too blunt.
A part of me is wondering if Napolitano is in the Obama dog house these days (does this mean Bo gets to live inside the White House until Janet is forgiven?) for speaking too honestly?
Or is this one of those famed “trial balloons” used by political types – have someone throw out an idea to see how hostile the reaction will be. If it isn’t too nasty, they proceed.
IF THE RESPONSE is too mean-spirited, Obama could always claim Napolitano wasn’t speaking for the administration (even though she really was).
I can already picture the immigration critics lining up against her, adding this to her list of negatives (Napolitano is the official who once criticized the idea of a U.S./Mexico border wall by saying that people would find 51-foot ladders to scale 50-foot-high walls).
But at a time when too many officials seem to be too timid in dealing with the issue, it was refreshing to hear at least one political person acknowledge the reality of the immigration situation – even though I don’t think her reasoning will be accepted by anyone.
She says that the reason we can now proceed with such policies to make people already living in this country legal so they can live openly is that there have been significant improvements in national security along the Rio Bravo del Norte/Rio Grande.
ON THE DAY of Napolitano’s speech, the New York Times found officials such as Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, who said not nearly enough has been done for national security. Meanwhile, those of us in support of true immigration reform have always realized this issue really has nothing to do with national security.
It is about people wishing to dictate the composition of this nation because they don’t like the way the natural course of things is going – they want to view the growing Latino population as a criminal plot, which is little more than absurd.
Equally absurd is going to be all the people who will scream the word “amnesty” at the top of their lungs every time the proposal put forth by Napolitano is discussed.
-30-
She made it clear that President Barack Obama has enough sense to realize that the 12 million so-called “illegal aliens” already in this country without a Visa or other papers largely are making worthwhile contributions to our society, and therefore ought to be allowed to remain.
IN SHORT, “REFORM” as envisioned by Obama consists of changing the artificial status from “illegal” to “legal.” That is going to tick off the nativist elements, to whom “reform” consists of an increase in the number of deportations.
Napolitano made her blunt comments when speaking last week to the Center for American Progress. She told them that while there will be some rhetoric put into the immigration laws to call for increased enforcement of criminal laws against companies that deliberately seek out undocumented non-citizens as a cheap source of labor, there also are going to have to be changes in the procedure for becoming a citizen.
She calls it a “three-legged stool” and it is significant because the Obama administration has been rather vague during its time in the Oval Office about what constitutes immigration reform.
It has shown signs of being intimidated by the vocal critics who want to push a xenophobic thought process into determining our nation’s immigration policies.
ADMITTEDLY, THIS IS just talk from Napolitano, bringing to mind the old cliché, “Talk is cheap.” I’m curious to see action, not only how far the Obama administration will go but how soon they will be willing to act.
They have hinted at being willing to do something in 2010, claiming that health care reform is a higher priority (while ignoring the degree to which some conservatives desire to make the two issues intertwined).
But a part of me won’t be the least bit surprised if Obama administrative types will fear the issue being used against them for cheap rhetoric in the 2010 election cycle. They’ll try to claim the issue should wait until 2011 – or later.
The only problem with that is the growing Latino population itself. An increasing number of us are native-born, which means immigration technically isn’t an issue for us. Yet many of us know people for whom it is an issue, and we’re also realistic enough to know that these nativists often can’t (or don’t want to) tell the difference between a Latino and a Latin American.
SO THE DEGREE to which they rant against our immigrant brethren is also an attack upon ourselves (which is the reason why I get so worked up over this issue, even though my own family is third-generation in the United States).
In one sense, I was surprised to learn of Napolitano’s comments (which I read about in a New York Times news account of her speech to the Washington-based group). They seem just a little too blunt.
A part of me is wondering if Napolitano is in the Obama dog house these days (does this mean Bo gets to live inside the White House until Janet is forgiven?) for speaking too honestly?
Or is this one of those famed “trial balloons” used by political types – have someone throw out an idea to see how hostile the reaction will be. If it isn’t too nasty, they proceed.
IF THE RESPONSE is too mean-spirited, Obama could always claim Napolitano wasn’t speaking for the administration (even though she really was).
I can already picture the immigration critics lining up against her, adding this to her list of negatives (Napolitano is the official who once criticized the idea of a U.S./Mexico border wall by saying that people would find 51-foot ladders to scale 50-foot-high walls).
But at a time when too many officials seem to be too timid in dealing with the issue, it was refreshing to hear at least one political person acknowledge the reality of the immigration situation – even though I don’t think her reasoning will be accepted by anyone.
She says that the reason we can now proceed with such policies to make people already living in this country legal so they can live openly is that there have been significant improvements in national security along the Rio Bravo del Norte/Rio Grande.
ON THE DAY of Napolitano’s speech, the New York Times found officials such as Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, who said not nearly enough has been done for national security. Meanwhile, those of us in support of true immigration reform have always realized this issue really has nothing to do with national security.
It is about people wishing to dictate the composition of this nation because they don’t like the way the natural course of things is going – they want to view the growing Latino population as a criminal plot, which is little more than absurd.
Equally absurd is going to be all the people who will scream the word “amnesty” at the top of their lungs every time the proposal put forth by Napolitano is discussed.
-30-
Friday, November 13, 2009
Dobbs’ CNN departure leaves me cold
Excuse me for not being among the ranks of people getting all happy over the announcement this week that Lou Dobbs, the cantankerous news anchor who seems to want to be a 21st Century version of Father Coughlin, is leaving the Cable News Network.
Dobbs said he wants to be able to take a more active role on certain issues confronting our society than he can if he remains involved with CNN and has to put on the pretense of being “objective” and a journalist devoted to the concept of reporting news – instead of trying to influence it.
SO WHEN I hear that Dobbs will no longer be on the air every weeknight in the early evening, I suppose it means I can go back to watching CNN during that time slot. Personally, I always managed to find better things to do than watch Dobbs, so I doubt his change will alter my life’s daily routine in any way.
If anything, it now means we’re going to hear from Dobbs on so many fronts, and he no longer has to pretend he’s anything other than an advocate for a morally offensive stance on the issue of immigration reform.
But this is a free country, and he has the right to be wrong. And to paraphrase Voltaire as he put it so pompously all those centuries ago, I will defend to the death his right to say silly things.
Now I have been noticing some commentary cropping up on the Internet from Latino activists who are celebrating Dobbs’ departure as some sort of moral victory.
SOME ARE EVEN going so far as to try to claim responsibility for getting Dobbs dumped from the cable network founded by Ted Turner, but now run by a batch of suits whose idea of vision goes no farther than the latest stock reports.
Both concepts are ridiculous, particularly the idea that any activist somehow deserves praise for getting Dobbs off of CNN, which in recent weeks cropped up as an issue from people who trashed Soledad O’Brien’s “Latino in America” series as being hypocritical coming from a network that also let Lou go on his rants about immigration.
All this really means is that Dobbs will go on the lecture circuit, most likely to take fees to give speeches to groups ideologically inclined to believe Lou’s rhetoric that all the problems in these peoples’ lives are the fault of “those foreigners!”
He may even hook up with one of those conservative think tanks that will pay Dobbs significant amounts of money to think his shallow thoughts and spread them – in the name of the cause.
IN SHORT, DOBBS has not been silenced by any means. It just means that what little bit of restraint he might have felt by being affiliated with CNN has now been removed. He can be a blunt bully, all in the name of that same cause.
For the reality is that this fight over immigration, particularly when it comes to people who come from countries in the rest of the Americas, is far from over. If anything, Dobbs’ career move is likely yet another step toward the battle that will arise when Congress finally gets off its duff and decides to take on the issue.
I expect Dobbs will become one of the most outspoken critics of whatever Congress does with the issue (and if they decide to do nothing and try to maintain the status quo, I will become one of their most outspoken critics).
We’re going to have to take on the issue of immigration and come up with more realistic definitions of “legal” and “illegal.” Because the current use of the terms is artificial – one that is imposed by politicians to support whomever they choose and reject what they’d rather not have to deal with.
IT IS THE reason why it is hypocritical when people say they are merely against illegal immigration, and have no problem with people who come to this country “the right way.”
What it really means is that they want more people who are potentially like themselves, and do not want to have to deal with those who can never fall 100 percent within their Anglo ideal of what they think the United States is about.
For the reality is that this is a country that is a mutt, and I mean that in a positive sense. It is a country that takes on some characteristics of all of its newcomers, while also imposing some of its values onto those same people. That is the “American way.”
Too many people allow their xenophobic tendencies to focus exclusively on the degree to which people bring their customs into the U.S. mix, while ignoring the degree to which assimilation does take place.
NOW WHY DO I feel the need to go on this mini-rant, elements of which I have stated many times previously in the commentaries published on this weblog?
It is because I realize this is an issue that is not over, not by a long shot.
While some people might view the departure of Dobbs from cable television as some sort of victory for those of us who want a more rational approach to immigration enacted into federal law, I see it as a strategic move on the part of the opposition.
Dobbs is a rhetorical sniper who is looking for a new spot from which to shoot his venomous talk. Those of us seeking serious reform need to be careful we don’t give him too clear a shot to attack us.
-30-
Dobbs said he wants to be able to take a more active role on certain issues confronting our society than he can if he remains involved with CNN and has to put on the pretense of being “objective” and a journalist devoted to the concept of reporting news – instead of trying to influence it.
SO WHEN I hear that Dobbs will no longer be on the air every weeknight in the early evening, I suppose it means I can go back to watching CNN during that time slot. Personally, I always managed to find better things to do than watch Dobbs, so I doubt his change will alter my life’s daily routine in any way.
If anything, it now means we’re going to hear from Dobbs on so many fronts, and he no longer has to pretend he’s anything other than an advocate for a morally offensive stance on the issue of immigration reform.
But this is a free country, and he has the right to be wrong. And to paraphrase Voltaire as he put it so pompously all those centuries ago, I will defend to the death his right to say silly things.
Now I have been noticing some commentary cropping up on the Internet from Latino activists who are celebrating Dobbs’ departure as some sort of moral victory.
SOME ARE EVEN going so far as to try to claim responsibility for getting Dobbs dumped from the cable network founded by Ted Turner, but now run by a batch of suits whose idea of vision goes no farther than the latest stock reports.
Both concepts are ridiculous, particularly the idea that any activist somehow deserves praise for getting Dobbs off of CNN, which in recent weeks cropped up as an issue from people who trashed Soledad O’Brien’s “Latino in America” series as being hypocritical coming from a network that also let Lou go on his rants about immigration.
All this really means is that Dobbs will go on the lecture circuit, most likely to take fees to give speeches to groups ideologically inclined to believe Lou’s rhetoric that all the problems in these peoples’ lives are the fault of “those foreigners!”
He may even hook up with one of those conservative think tanks that will pay Dobbs significant amounts of money to think his shallow thoughts and spread them – in the name of the cause.
IN SHORT, DOBBS has not been silenced by any means. It just means that what little bit of restraint he might have felt by being affiliated with CNN has now been removed. He can be a blunt bully, all in the name of that same cause.
For the reality is that this fight over immigration, particularly when it comes to people who come from countries in the rest of the Americas, is far from over. If anything, Dobbs’ career move is likely yet another step toward the battle that will arise when Congress finally gets off its duff and decides to take on the issue.
I expect Dobbs will become one of the most outspoken critics of whatever Congress does with the issue (and if they decide to do nothing and try to maintain the status quo, I will become one of their most outspoken critics).
We’re going to have to take on the issue of immigration and come up with more realistic definitions of “legal” and “illegal.” Because the current use of the terms is artificial – one that is imposed by politicians to support whomever they choose and reject what they’d rather not have to deal with.
IT IS THE reason why it is hypocritical when people say they are merely against illegal immigration, and have no problem with people who come to this country “the right way.”
What it really means is that they want more people who are potentially like themselves, and do not want to have to deal with those who can never fall 100 percent within their Anglo ideal of what they think the United States is about.
For the reality is that this is a country that is a mutt, and I mean that in a positive sense. It is a country that takes on some characteristics of all of its newcomers, while also imposing some of its values onto those same people. That is the “American way.”
Too many people allow their xenophobic tendencies to focus exclusively on the degree to which people bring their customs into the U.S. mix, while ignoring the degree to which assimilation does take place.
NOW WHY DO I feel the need to go on this mini-rant, elements of which I have stated many times previously in the commentaries published on this weblog?
It is because I realize this is an issue that is not over, not by a long shot.
While some people might view the departure of Dobbs from cable television as some sort of victory for those of us who want a more rational approach to immigration enacted into federal law, I see it as a strategic move on the part of the opposition.
Dobbs is a rhetorical sniper who is looking for a new spot from which to shoot his venomous talk. Those of us seeking serious reform need to be careful we don’t give him too clear a shot to attack us.
-30-
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Slamming Sammy's face just silly
As much as I wonder about the sensibilities of people who are trying to make an issue out of what Sammy Sosa is doing to his face, I also wonder if this is an issue where Latinos are going to perceive it differently just because we're all too aware that people are a mixture -- no matter what they would prefer to believe about themselves.
None of the "white" or "black/other" that too much of Anglo (and even some segments of African-American) society prefers to think.
SO FOR THOSE of you who want to know more about what thoughts ran through my mind over the latest pop-culture controversy about Sosa's face, you should check out this weblog's sister site, the Chicago Argus (http://www.chicagoargus.blogspot.com/)
I always knew there was something funky about Wrigley Field, aside from the 95-year-old bathrooms (with troughs).
-30-
None of the "white" or "black/other" that too much of Anglo (and even some segments of African-American) society prefers to think.
SO FOR THOSE of you who want to know more about what thoughts ran through my mind over the latest pop-culture controversy about Sosa's face, you should check out this weblog's sister site, the Chicago Argus (http://www.chicagoargus.blogspot.com/)
I always knew there was something funky about Wrigley Field, aside from the 95-year-old bathrooms (with troughs).
-30-
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Just what America needs, another talk show
Perhaps it was only so appropriate that Eva Longoria Parker was the first official guest on comedian George Lopez’ attempt at a talk show that gives a “Latino” sensibility to all of this country’s viewers.
At one point, Lopez directed Longoria to a “stripper” pole, which she was to use to bump and grind and give this country a sensual image straight out of our wildest fantasies.
WHAT DID SHE do?
She did a couple of twirls before giving up, while telling us the whole time that she “flunked” a course she took in pole dancing that was meant to help get her husband aroused at the sight of her.
In short, the image of Longoria whirling about with a big hard pole between her legs was nowhere near as erotic as the image those of us with dirty minds created in our heads. Reality didn’t live up to promise.
And in many ways, that is how I would assess the first “episode” of Lopez’ talk show, which followed the rigid format of all the other late-night talk shows.
LOPEZ DOES SOME standup comedy for a few minutes, followed by some rehearsed bits that are meant to be edgy, while also humorous.
Then, the second half of the hour-long show allowed two guests to be interviewed by Lopez, before a musician performed a couple of songs to finish off the program.
For the record, the guests were Longoria and Los Angeles Lakers basketball player Kobe Bryant, and aging guitar player Carlos Santana – who gave us a rendition of one of his earliest hits from some four decades ago (which itself was a cover of the old mambo classic “Oye Como Va”).
Not exactly scintillating television, even though I enjoy listening to Santana and can appreciate the concept of eye candy on television.
TO ME, THE concept of a talk show is to find an interviewer who can get his “guests” to say something interesting – in short, to do something more than merely plug their latest entertainment industry project.
Learning that Longoria has returned to college to take courses in Chicano Studies just didn’t do it for me, although I got a laugh from Lopez’ response that he was, “a Chicano who didn’t study.”
That didn’t happen Monday night. In fact, the bulk of the Bryant portion of the program was devoted to him explaining why he usually does not appear on talk shows.
He doesn’t have much to say. He’s a ballplayer. It is his life. It is what he does.
AFTER LISTENING TO him speak, I’m convinced he’s telling the truth.
Even Lopez’ attempts at “edgy” humor fell flat. He had a camera crew go out and ask people questions, then had people from his audience try to guess the answers. It was supposed to be a test of how much we stereotype people based on their appearance – particularly ethnic or racial factors.
Yet how much real humor can there be in hearing an Asian man insist he does NOT have a small penis? Even if he did, who outside of Howard Stern ever boasts of that fact? In short, Lopez’ take on “edgy” was one step up from a fart joke.
And yes, he told one of those as well – did you know that farting after eating Mexican food is a perfectly acceptable way of telling the cook how much you truly enjoyed “la comida?”
BUT THERE WERE a couple of moments that stick in my mind in a positive sense, one of which was at the very beginning when the camera crews panned out over the audience so that we television viewers could see that people of just about every racial or ethnic background in this country were present.
As Lopez stated it, THIS image is the America of the 21st Century.
And in this image, it probably only makes sense that a Latino gets a chance to make a third-rate talk show. It certainly wasn’t any more trite than some of the talk-show fare we see on television these days.
On a final note, let’s state for the record that the first person to be insulted by George Lopez as part of his talk show was one-time slugging pelotero Sammy Sosa.
LOPEZ JUST COULDN’T resist a chance to refer to Sosa’s recent skin treatment that, depending on the light, make it appear as though he is bleaching the color of his face.
Sammy, Sammy, Sammy.
You have to admit that you were less ridiculous when you were behaving like a real-life Chico Escuela back in the days when you were hitting all those home runs while leading your Chicago Cubs teams to their annual 90-loss seasons.
-30-
At one point, Lopez directed Longoria to a “stripper” pole, which she was to use to bump and grind and give this country a sensual image straight out of our wildest fantasies.
WHAT DID SHE do?
She did a couple of twirls before giving up, while telling us the whole time that she “flunked” a course she took in pole dancing that was meant to help get her husband aroused at the sight of her.
In short, the image of Longoria whirling about with a big hard pole between her legs was nowhere near as erotic as the image those of us with dirty minds created in our heads. Reality didn’t live up to promise.
And in many ways, that is how I would assess the first “episode” of Lopez’ talk show, which followed the rigid format of all the other late-night talk shows.
LOPEZ DOES SOME standup comedy for a few minutes, followed by some rehearsed bits that are meant to be edgy, while also humorous.
Then, the second half of the hour-long show allowed two guests to be interviewed by Lopez, before a musician performed a couple of songs to finish off the program.
For the record, the guests were Longoria and Los Angeles Lakers basketball player Kobe Bryant, and aging guitar player Carlos Santana – who gave us a rendition of one of his earliest hits from some four decades ago (which itself was a cover of the old mambo classic “Oye Como Va”).
Not exactly scintillating television, even though I enjoy listening to Santana and can appreciate the concept of eye candy on television.
TO ME, THE concept of a talk show is to find an interviewer who can get his “guests” to say something interesting – in short, to do something more than merely plug their latest entertainment industry project.
Learning that Longoria has returned to college to take courses in Chicano Studies just didn’t do it for me, although I got a laugh from Lopez’ response that he was, “a Chicano who didn’t study.”
That didn’t happen Monday night. In fact, the bulk of the Bryant portion of the program was devoted to him explaining why he usually does not appear on talk shows.
He doesn’t have much to say. He’s a ballplayer. It is his life. It is what he does.
AFTER LISTENING TO him speak, I’m convinced he’s telling the truth.
Even Lopez’ attempts at “edgy” humor fell flat. He had a camera crew go out and ask people questions, then had people from his audience try to guess the answers. It was supposed to be a test of how much we stereotype people based on their appearance – particularly ethnic or racial factors.
Yet how much real humor can there be in hearing an Asian man insist he does NOT have a small penis? Even if he did, who outside of Howard Stern ever boasts of that fact? In short, Lopez’ take on “edgy” was one step up from a fart joke.
And yes, he told one of those as well – did you know that farting after eating Mexican food is a perfectly acceptable way of telling the cook how much you truly enjoyed “la comida?”
BUT THERE WERE a couple of moments that stick in my mind in a positive sense, one of which was at the very beginning when the camera crews panned out over the audience so that we television viewers could see that people of just about every racial or ethnic background in this country were present.
As Lopez stated it, THIS image is the America of the 21st Century.
And in this image, it probably only makes sense that a Latino gets a chance to make a third-rate talk show. It certainly wasn’t any more trite than some of the talk-show fare we see on television these days.
On a final note, let’s state for the record that the first person to be insulted by George Lopez as part of his talk show was one-time slugging pelotero Sammy Sosa.
LOPEZ JUST COULDN’T resist a chance to refer to Sosa’s recent skin treatment that, depending on the light, make it appear as though he is bleaching the color of his face.
Sammy, Sammy, Sammy.
You have to admit that you were less ridiculous when you were behaving like a real-life Chico Escuela back in the days when you were hitting all those home runs while leading your Chicago Cubs teams to their annual 90-loss seasons.
-30-
Monday, November 9, 2009
The fight's not over yet!
As anyone who has read my commentary knows, I am a supporter of the idea of health care reform.
The idea that so many people in our society are uninsured in the event of a serious medical problem is a situation that can drag down our society. It also is one that I have a hard time believing anyone could seriously be opposed to.
YET I AM realistic enough to know politically that there will always be opposition, particularly from people who want to be able to vote against anything even remotely tied to President Barack Obama (let alone his major government initiative for his first year in office).
Personally, I felt a mild bit of relief when I learned that a bill had actually managed to pass the House of Representatives. But I know that a measure also will have to make it through the Senate, changes are likely to be made, and the bills will have to be reconciled before anything can be sent to Obama for his final approval.
My point is that there are still many places in the political timeline where this concept could be sabotaged. The political fight is far from over. Nobody should be uncorking bottles of cheap champagne to celebrate a “victory” that more people in our society will be insured.
I must admit to one bit of surprise. When the measure finally went through the procedures Saturday that result in passage, there didn’t seem to be much in the way of immigrant-bashing taking place.
DOES THIS MEAN Republicans for a few minutes backed away from their insistence that anything resembling health care reform was really a scam just to get the U.S. government to pay for medical care for Mexican citizens?
I doubt it.
I’d like to think the real explanation is that when Republican representatives were confronted with the moment of truth of having to vote (for the record) “yes” or “no” on the measure, they chose to go with their semi-legitimate talking points – which would mean that even hard-core GOPers realize how ridiculous their claims are that health care reform would merely benefit the so-called “illegal aliens” of our society.
Either that, or reporter-types have come to realize that Republican officials saying nasty things about people born in other countries (particularly if those countries are in Latin America) is just so routine that it no longer qualifies as newsworthy.
SERIOUSLY, I COULDN’T find much of anything in the way of Sunday morning reports and analysis that addressed how the House health care reform measure addressed the issue, if it chose to at all.
That would be the ideal, realizing that trying to make concessions to people who want to demonize the immigration reform issue does nothing to benefit public policy and only risks offending the growing Latino population of our nation.
Not that Democrats weren’t willing to dump on some people. Much was made of the fact that the health care reform advocates putting together the bill did give in to demands from the anti-abortion types who want to make sure that anyone who has to rely on a government-supported health insurance plan will not have access to medical procedures that even hint at terminating a pregnancy.
It was those measures that literally caused the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to endorse the final package that came up for a vote before the House this past weekend.
IT ALSO MEANS that some of the people who voted for Obama a year ago out of a belief that he was a liberal change are now going to see this as a sign he sold them out by giving in to the anti-abortion advocates.
But there wasn’t immediate evidence he sold out immigration advocates.
So did the president pick Latinos over women? Or is it likely that the immigration crackpots who want to believe Obama tells lies when he says health care reform is not just a scam to pay for non-citizen medical care will try to tack their harmful amendments onto the bill when it comes up for consideration in the Senate?
-30-
The idea that so many people in our society are uninsured in the event of a serious medical problem is a situation that can drag down our society. It also is one that I have a hard time believing anyone could seriously be opposed to.
YET I AM realistic enough to know politically that there will always be opposition, particularly from people who want to be able to vote against anything even remotely tied to President Barack Obama (let alone his major government initiative for his first year in office).
Personally, I felt a mild bit of relief when I learned that a bill had actually managed to pass the House of Representatives. But I know that a measure also will have to make it through the Senate, changes are likely to be made, and the bills will have to be reconciled before anything can be sent to Obama for his final approval.
My point is that there are still many places in the political timeline where this concept could be sabotaged. The political fight is far from over. Nobody should be uncorking bottles of cheap champagne to celebrate a “victory” that more people in our society will be insured.
I must admit to one bit of surprise. When the measure finally went through the procedures Saturday that result in passage, there didn’t seem to be much in the way of immigrant-bashing taking place.
DOES THIS MEAN Republicans for a few minutes backed away from their insistence that anything resembling health care reform was really a scam just to get the U.S. government to pay for medical care for Mexican citizens?
I doubt it.
I’d like to think the real explanation is that when Republican representatives were confronted with the moment of truth of having to vote (for the record) “yes” or “no” on the measure, they chose to go with their semi-legitimate talking points – which would mean that even hard-core GOPers realize how ridiculous their claims are that health care reform would merely benefit the so-called “illegal aliens” of our society.
Either that, or reporter-types have come to realize that Republican officials saying nasty things about people born in other countries (particularly if those countries are in Latin America) is just so routine that it no longer qualifies as newsworthy.
SERIOUSLY, I COULDN’T find much of anything in the way of Sunday morning reports and analysis that addressed how the House health care reform measure addressed the issue, if it chose to at all.
That would be the ideal, realizing that trying to make concessions to people who want to demonize the immigration reform issue does nothing to benefit public policy and only risks offending the growing Latino population of our nation.
Not that Democrats weren’t willing to dump on some people. Much was made of the fact that the health care reform advocates putting together the bill did give in to demands from the anti-abortion types who want to make sure that anyone who has to rely on a government-supported health insurance plan will not have access to medical procedures that even hint at terminating a pregnancy.
It was those measures that literally caused the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to endorse the final package that came up for a vote before the House this past weekend.
IT ALSO MEANS that some of the people who voted for Obama a year ago out of a belief that he was a liberal change are now going to see this as a sign he sold them out by giving in to the anti-abortion advocates.
But there wasn’t immediate evidence he sold out immigration advocates.
So did the president pick Latinos over women? Or is it likely that the immigration crackpots who want to believe Obama tells lies when he says health care reform is not just a scam to pay for non-citizen medical care will try to tack their harmful amendments onto the bill when it comes up for consideration in the Senate?
-30-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
