U.S./Mexico border violence hits the press as well

There are times when I get just a little too cozy sitting in my self-crafted cubbyhole at a desk with my laptop, banging out copy for commentary on the great issues of the day.

It takes a blunt reminder such as the Newseum of Washington, D.C. offers up to remind me that some people literally put their lives on the line in order to get some sense of truth and information out to the public.

THE MUSEUM WITH ties to the company that gave us the U.S.A. Today newspaper maintains the monument as a tribute to the press and journalism by listing the names of journalists who were killed while trying to do their job.

More names, about six dozen, were added to the memorial on Monday.

While some people are focusing their attention on the latest names of reporter-types killed in Iraq (and others find it interesting that a reporter for the Daily Egyptian, the student newspaper at Southern Illinois University, managed sadly enough to qualify), the names that caught my attention were those of reporter-types who got caught up in the gunfire around Ciudad Juarez.

The drug wars that have made the Mexico side of the U.S./Mexico border a hostile place (and have some paranoid types willing to lambaste the entire country for the actions of a few border towns) have even managed to take out a few reporters.

SOME GOT CAUGHT up in gunfire, which makes them innocent victims.

But then, there are people like Armando Rodriguez, who wrote for El Diario in the city named for famed Mexican President Benito Juarez and tried to write accurately about the degree to which the violence had run amok.

But he was shot to death last November while sitting in his car with one daughter, while waiting for another so he could try to drive them safely to school.

Five reporter-types working in Mexico had their names added to the memorial, which officials note makes 2008 the most deadly year in at least five years when it comes to newsgathering activity.

IT STILL LAGS behind the number of reporters killed in Iraq while trying to cover combat and violence. But it is tragic to know that such activity could take place so close to the United States.

It also makes me wonder if I could do their job. I’m not sure. The closest I have come to encountering such a mentality are the times when I have entered prisons to talk to people for one story or another.

In each of those instances, I was there among people who might have had thoughts of doing some harm to me, but they didn’t. And I also knew I could walk away at the end of the day.

Reporters working under these type of conditions are trying to cover life under circumstances where most sense of reason has been tossed out the window. That is what is worthy of our respect more than anything else.

PEOPLE ARE TRYING to do a job gathering news under conditions that most people of common sense would refuse to put up with. They also are trying to get at a sense of “truth” in their reporting, even though many of the people they write about are not the least bit cooperative and would just as soon see them fail professionally.

These reporter-types are worthy of our highest levels of respect.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: There are certain types of correspondents who are willing to put themselves (http://www.jg-tc.com/articles/2009/03/30/ap-state-il/d978isl83.txt) at risk out of a sense that getting a story correct is a noble goal in and of itself.

How will the Census classify Latinos?

I will be curious to see the form the Census Bureau mails to me a little more than one year from now, to see exactly how the federal government tries to reflect the reality of the growing Latino population.

Some people will focus their attention on the bottom line number – either in hopes that it justifies their belief that Latinos are on the growth or that their numbers have been exaggerated in recent years.

BUT I AM more curious to see the ethnic and racial classifications that arise from the 2010 Census. Officials have hinted they will make modifications to the system they used in 2000, which managed to tick off many Latinos because they thought the set-up did not reflect the reality of the modern-day Latino population.

Nine years ago, the Census Bureau provided us with a form that required everybody in the country to answer “yes” or “no” as to whether the term “Hispanic” could be applied to them.

Then, everybody was asked to pick from one of five racial categories, or “other.”

Most people in the United States who picked other did so because they perceive themselves as biracial, and they did not like having to pick a single racial category. But for those people who answered “yes” to being Latino, they objected to the idea that Latino/Hispanic is not considered a racial category, in and of itself.

IN THEORY, THAT is correct, since the ethnicities that comprise “Latino” have been influenced throughout the centuries by so many races. Latinos are the original multi-racial group, and any Latino who tries to deny that is being less than honest.

A new study by academics at the University of Washington shows that most Latinos do not think they should have to pick from white, African-American or American Indian (which were the top three racial categories in the United States, according to the 2000 Census). For the record, in 2000, 48 percent of Latinos classified themselves as “white,” while 42 picked “other.”

Census officials say they will try to create more specific breakdowns for ethnic origin, then racial classification, in an effort to reach a more accurate statistic of the way U.S. residents in the 21st Century perceive themselves.

I’m curious to see what breakdown they attempt to come up with. I’m sure that no matter what they come up with, they will manage to tick off somebody.

THE SIMPLE FACT is that we as a people do not agree on what characteristics ought to go into classifying people. For some (myself included), it is the ethnic origins that are interesting. For others, it is the broader racial categories.

So trying to reach simple categories in which people can be classified is hard when we don’t really agree on what the categories ought to be.

And I’m already waiting anxiously to see just how close to reality federal bureaucrats come when they release the questions to be asked of the public when the official population count is done as of April 1, 2010.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Census Bureau continues to try to figure out an accurate way to classify (http://www.nwcn.com/statenews/washington/stories/NW_032909WAB-study-census-race-SW.828387c0.html) the different types of people who live in the United States.

Puerto Rico tribute the latest focus of U.S. Mint

Beginning next week, people of all ethnicities ought to pay a little bit more attention to their spare change. Because it could turn out that we all will be carrying a little piece of Puerto Rico in our pockets.

The Mint will begin on Monday in making commemorative quarters depicting the Island of Enchantment – the image opposite of George Washington’s head in profile will be that of a sentry box in Old San Juan and the hibiscus – the commonwealth’s official flower.

OFFICIALS NOTE THIS is the second coin in a series of quarters meant to pay tribute to the District of Columbia and all of the United States’ territories around the world.

But I can’t help but think such a tribute is long overdue, since the Mint spent a decade paying tribute to each of the 50 states (seriously, at five states on quarters per year, it took half a score to complete).

If we can give Delaware or Idaho their own quarter, then why not Puerto Rico?

So I’ll have to admit that I’ll be watching my change in coming weeks. I’m curious to see how long it takes for a “Puerto Rico” quarter to turn up in my change.

I’M NOT UNDER any delusion that such a quarter will have any significant numismatic value. With inflation, who’s to say what the buying power of 25 cents U.S. will be in the future.

And people will be able to note that the Puerto Rico quarter managed to beat out the quarter for the neighboring Virgin Islands in terms of being issued.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Aside from the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa (http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/DCAndTerritories/), the Virgin Islands and Northern Mariana Islands will be among the territories that get their own quarter.

Del Toro as Moe? Or George Lopez as talk host?

I’m trying to figure out which image I find to be more bizarre.

Comedian and actor George Lopez with his own late-night television talk show? Or actor Benicio del Toro (the same actor who won cinematic accolades for portraying Che Guevara) giving us that most “serious” of roles?

THAT’S RIGHT. DEL Toro could soon sign on to portray “Moe” in a full-length cinematic feature remake of “The Three Stooges.” We could soon be subjected to the sight of del Toro smacking around and eye poking Sean “Larry Fine” Penn and Jim Carrey as Jerome “Curly” Howard.

Now I don’t hold it against anyone in show business to take on less-than-serious roles. After all, these people all have to eat. They all have bills to pay.

After first catching my attention in the film “Traffic” (where he played a Mexican police officer trying to do an honest job up against constant hostility and violence from drug traffickers, for which he won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor), perhaps del Toro is entitled to do a little bit of fluff.

At least as Moe, del Toro will be the one who gets to smack people around and do that constant eye poke. But he’ll have to subject himself to an incredibly cheesy haircut if his mop is going to even come close to resembling that bowl cut the real Moe Howard wore during his decades of making cinematic shorts as part of the slapstick trio.

BUT I CAN’T help but wonder if “The Three Stooges” is one of those things from past decades that just won’t translate too well in the 21st Century.

I can remember as a kid when after-school television would include the old shorts of The Three Stooges and The Little Rascals (or the Our Gang kids, however you prefer to think of them).

In my mind, I associate the two shorts together.

But when they tried a few years ago to make a full-length film setting Spanky, Alfalfa and Buckwheat (among others) in modern times, it just didn’t work.

PART OF IT was that the racial sensibility of the past was just too awkward for us to accept Buckwheat, Stymie and the other odd moments from the past.

Will people look at a full-length feature of the Stooges and think it ridiculous in today’s day and age that people ever found repeated humor in three Jewish guys who smack and insult each other at all times in such juvenile ways?

Could del Toro wind up regretting getting himself involved in what appears to be the latest attempt to revive some idea from the past (rather than come up with an original idea for a film or a character)?

I just don't comprehend the need to relive such moments as the following:

Curly: “I can’t see. I can’t see.”

Moe: “Why not.”

Curly: “I got my eyes closed.”

To which Moe responds by giving him the “peace sign” straight into the eyeballs.

DESPITE MY CONCERN that the Puerto Rico-born del Toro could wind up putting a blemish on his cinematic record (we need a “Three Stooges” film about as much as we needed “The Beverly Hillbillies” or any of those “Brady Bunch” films), the Latino moment in entertainment that truly catches my attention involves George Lopez.

I will be the first to admit to enjoying his standup comedy act, although his routines are fairly set and there reaches a point at which it becomes difficult to watch them again.

And for those of you who have never seen Lopez do his sketches about family life, from the perspective of dysfunctional Latinos, it doesn’t matter much.

There’s always a chance HBO or the Comedy Channel will re-run them in the near future, or you could just watch the reruns of the now-defunct sitcom The George Lopez Show. Many of that comedy’s episodes were based off of Lopez’ standup routines.

AND COME THIS autumn, Lopez will try to put his name in the public image alongside Conan O’Brien and David Letterman (nobody gets their name alongside Johnny Carson, he reached a level of celebrityhood on the late night talk circuit that no one will ever match).

TBS, that cable superstation from Atlanta that gives us repeated viewings of “Everybody Loves Raymond” and “Friends” along with occasional Atlanta Braves baseball, wants to have its own talk show.

And they turned to Lopez, who says he will try to give a certain Latino perspective to late night talk, which is a noble concept. After all, we are a fast growing segment of the population (even though certain people would like to conduct the Census in such a way as to “hold back” our growth). It is about time that someone other than another white guy tries to entertain those people who don’t have to worry about getting up early to go to work during the week.

But “Celebrity Car Stripping?” That is a “segment” Lopez told reporter-types he’d like to include – having Hollywood cuties show how quickly they could strip the parts of a car so they could be resold. As though the idea of car theft and stripping is a universal part of the Latino experience.

THE IDEA OF a “Castro death watch clock” appearing on the corner of the television screen while the show airs? It might gain some ratings in the Little Havana neighborhood of Miami, but the rest of the Latino world has more important things to obsess about than Fidel – or little brother Raul.

Some people are going to argue I’m taking this too seriously. But it has the potential to come off as so trivial. And if he gets pigeonholed as the Latino talk show guy, it could do more harm than good.

Of course, there could be one beneficial cross tie to these two performers. Perhaps Lopez could have del Toro as a guest on his talk show.

Then, if Lopez starts getting a little too dippy with his routines, del Toro could smack him upside the head in that unique way that only somebody playing Moe could do.

-30-

Clinton acknowledges reality of U.S./Mexico situation

“Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the death of police officers, soldiers and civilians. I feel very strongly we have a co-responsibility.”

-0-

Hillary R. Clinton is going to get herself into more trouble with those words, uttered by the Secretary of State during her trip this week to Mexico. Then again, there already are enough people in this country who think of Hillary and her hubby as the anti-Christs of U.S. politics.

So perhaps she has nothing to lose.

CLINTON WAS IN Mexico City and Monterrey, where she met with Mexico President Felipe Calderón Hinojosa to talk about President Barack Obama’s announcement earlier this week that about 500 federal agents will be moved to near the U.S./Mexico border – all as part of an effort to ensure that the drug-related violence that has hit Mexican border towns such as Ciudad Juarez (more than 6,000 people were killed during 2008) does not spread to the north into El Paso.

Obama will make his own trip to Mexico next month for a chat with Calderón.

So what is the significance of Obama’s action? There are some nativists who have long dreamed of having the Rio Grande Valley turned into a militarized zone to keep those dreaded “Mexicans” from all over Latin America from thinking they can enter los Estados Unidos.

But Obama certainly didn’t “talk the talk” that would make it apparent to them the president was interested in keeping foreigners out of the nation. When combined with Clinton’s rhetoric, it becomes apparent that the nativists are the last people whose thoughts are going to be given much credence on this issue.

AND THAT IS a good thing.

For the primary thought that I got when I first heard of Clinton’s comments (made to reporter-types in Mexico City) was that, “She gets it!”

A good part of the reason why the heads of the drug cartels in the northern Mexico states (which should never be mistaken for the rest of Mexico, which is what too many nativists want to believe) have access to such power and influence is their proximity to the United States.

It gives them the armament and money to purchase the firepower and influence needed to get people to believe that those few local police officers who can’t be bought off with drug money ought to be disregarded.

BUT TRYING TO restrict the movement of firearms would be taken as some sort of crusade against that Holiest of amendments (as perceived by the conservatives who comprise much of the nativist element), the Second Amendment.

As though someone who wants to hunt with a rifle is going to be impacted by restrictions on the movement of automatic firearms into a region that can compete with the most drug-laden communities of the United States.

If the United States government is serious about wanting to help resolve the border situation, we need to accept that the border region is just as much domestic policy as foreign.

For the border region is truly a bi-national one. In some ways, California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada have more in common with Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Sonora, Coahuila and Baja California than they do with the rest of the United States.

THE IDEA THAT a problem on the “wrong” side of the Rio Bravo del Norte/Rio Grande is “not my problem” is so wrong.

We, the people who elect a government for the United States, ought to be thinking in terms of how to bolster local law enforcement so it can stand up to the drug cartels. And I don’t just mean the police in El Paso, Laredo or Brownsville, Texas.

If anything, it is those local police in places like Ciudad Juarez (or to a lesser degree, Nuevo Laredo) that need the help so that the sight of the Mexican Army patrolling the streets becomes as offensive a sight in Mexico as it would be if the U.S. military were to suddenly start patrolling Chicago or Los Angeles.

Turning law enforcement into a legitimate entity that protects the public safety – that is the ultimate solution. Turning the Texas/Tamaulipas border into a fortress containing armed U.S. troops is nothing more than a stupid fantasy for people spend too much time reading “Soldier of Fortune” magazine.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Not to bash Barack, but Hillary Clinton as president would not have been (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE52O5RF20090325) the biggest mistake this country could have made. Clinton’s “attack” on the issue (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/mexico/5051724/Hillary-Clinton-admits-US-blame-for-Mexico-drug-violence.html), presented as only a British reporter-type could dream up.

Is the elimination of drug “prohibition” the key to reducing the violence currently taking place (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/stopping-border-violence-by-legalizing-drugs/) in the border region?

Mexican military officials made an arrest (http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-03-25-voa64.cfm) of a narcotics trafficker just before Clinton expressed her thoughts.

D.C. schools should brace themselves for Latino complaints

Public schools in and around the District of Columbia are considering a policy change meant to reflect the reality of our society in the 21st Century – allowing students to acknowledge multi-racial backgrounds when relevant.

Schools in and near the nation’s capital city have for the past couple of decades required students to “check” a box indicating their racial background, and didn’t account for people who come from multi-racial families.

THE END RESULT is that some people of racially mixed backgrounds have felt like they were forced to deny a part of who they were.

The new policy change, according to the Washington Post newspaper, will require parents to pick from a variety of options – whichever they feel are relevant to their children. White, African-American, Asian, Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or American Indiana/Aleutian Eskimo.

School officials may be well intentioned with this change in policy. But I can already identify a potential flaw, because I remember the results of the Census Bureau count of the U.S. population done back in 2000.

In fact, in some ways, the way this is being handled is the way the Census count was taken nearly a decade ago.

NOTE THAT IN those five general racial categories, there is nothing for Latino (or Hispanic, which is the term the federal government bureaucrats seem to prefer).

There is a separate question asking all students to answer “yes” or “no” as to whether the Latino/Hispanic label can be applied to them.

So it would be logical that you could then take all the people who answer “yes” to “Are you Latino?” and figure out what race they are. But things will never be that simple. I can already hear the Latino activists who will get ticked off at the D.C. area schools for handling this question they way they do.

For it will be the same rhetoric that the Census Bureau had to endure back in 2000.

OFFICIALLY, “HISPANIC” (OR Latino, if you prefer) is not a race. The federal government rhetoric says that Latinos can be of any race. Actually, that is true. Latin America is the place where many races have come together, even though some Latinos with racial hang-ups like to claim they’re “Spanish,” as though they have pure Castilian blood.

The reality is that just about every Latino has a mixture of different races. In some Latin American countries, the non-white racial elements predominate. Any Latino who claims otherwise is lying.

When people answered the “race” question on the 2000 Census, there were the five options, plus a box for “other,” with a brief space then provided for people to try to offer an explanation of what “other” meant.

For many people, it meant bi-racial, with many including African-American background along with some other ethnic group.

BUT THEN, THERE were the Latinos who chose “other.” They used the space to denounce the federal government for not including “Latino” as a separate racial category.

How many Latinos (compared to 2 percent of the population as a whole) fell into the category of “other?”

I distinctly remember this statistic from the 2000 Census more than any other figure. Forty-two percent of all U.S. residents that year who said “yes” to “Are you Hispanic?” chose other for their racial background.

That compared to 48 percent who said they were “white,” 8 percent who chose “American Indian” and 2 percent who chose “African-American.” (For the record, a census counter who came to my household took a look at my face for a few seconds, then told me I “looked white” to her – so that’s how I got recorded that year).

SO WHEN NOT even Latinos can agree on what race we are, what chance is there for ever trying to put people into boxes with distinct labels without managing to offend someone’s sensibilities.

I only hope the D.C. area schools are braced for the Latino outburst they are going to create.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Trying to get an honest count of racial backgrounds will be next to impossible (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/22/AR2009032202211.html) until we as a society come to an honest comprehension of what race means.

Census count preparing for Latino tally

When it comes to the Census Bureau’s count of the U.S. population to be done next year, I must admit to being anxious.

I am curious to see just how much of the growing Latino population is confirmed when federal officials do their count of how many people lived exactly where on April 1, 2010. It is to that end that Census Bureau officials are trying to prepare themselves, in part by having workers go through neighborhoods across the United States to confirm that the addresses the government has on record actually exist.

IT WOULD BE stupid to send a census form to what has become a vacant lot or a foreclosed home.

Such workers will begin their efforts at the end of this month. Federal officials admit the Latino population is a particular focus of their efforts.

Since the courts have ruled against the idea of statistical sampling as a way of achieving an educated guess as to the population of certain historically undercounted segments of our society (including Latinos), the Census Bureau wants to have people who are familiar with significant Latino neighborhoods go through them to give the Census counters of next year as much information as possible about finding people who might otherwise be inclined to ignore that Census form that will show up at their home next spring – or pretend not to be home when a Census counter knocks on their front door during the summer months.

Officials told a House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on Monday that “tens of millions” of people could otherwise be missed if such information is not gathered in advance.

IN FACT, THESE information-gathering efforts will cost about $250 million – with that money coming from the stimulus bill approved by Democrats in Congress at the request of President Barack Obama.

I guess it does qualify. After all, “census counter” is a job. The federal government will pay those people who have to go from door to door and ask personal questions about people who live at each residence, possibly to people who would just as soon say nothing.

Now I have written before, and will repeat myself again, in saying that I would hope every single Latino would come out of the woodwork and allow themselves to be counted come next year.

For it is by showing how strong our population numbers are, particularly in parts of the country that certain people prefer to think of as having a paucity of Latinos, that we will convince people of our significance to U.S. society as a whole.

IT ALSO HELPS boost our political representation by documenting exactly how many of us are in the United States.

That, of course, is why some people would prefer to mess with the Census. There are those who already are claiming that the pre-Census research that will begin soon is a waste of taxpayer dollars.

They particularly resent its focus on areas of the country that they would just as soon have undercounted.

A low count of the Latino population threatens the potential for political representation, both because it allows for creation of legislative and congressional districts in certain parts of the country geared toward electing Latino officials and also because it will remind politicians in other parts of the country that even they have Latinos in their areas – and must take into account their desires.

WITH AN UNDERCOUNT, they could cite “statistics” as facts even though they are little more than lies. They could cite such numbers as evidence that the Latino “influence” on our country is not all that significant – and definitely should not be the focus of political actions of the future.

After all, the 2000 Census was the report that indicated just over 12 percent of the U.S. population considered itself to be Latino (actually, it said they considered themselves to be “Hispanic,” but the Latino/Hispanic debate is one for another day’s commentary). Since then, it has indicated increases in the past few years that have gone as high as 15 percent.

Some Latino activists estimate that a truthful accounting of the Latino population in 2010 could come up with a figure that is about 18-20 percent of the total U.S. population.

Think about it – that’s roughly one in five people who live in this country. I have no doubt that such a ratio scares certain elements of our society.

BUT I THINK it important to come up with the most accurate accounting of the U.S. population and all its different segments.

Coming up with a figure that scares the nativist elements of our society is merely doing little more than telling the truth about who lives en los Estados Unidos.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Federal officials (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/22/AR2009032201932.html) will spend the next 13 months (http://www.news25.us/dsp_story.cfm?storyid=11831&RequestTimeout=500) preparing for April Fool’s Day of 2010.

Gary Locke says he takes seriously the notion of having his Commerce Department oversee (http://www.civilrights.org/archives/2009/03/185-locke.html) a proper population count next year.

Is the Census Bureau lagging so far behind in preparing for the 2010 Census that it will be (http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/rg_20090323_1915.php) unable to do an accurate population count?

I was noting, not slamming, first Puerto Rican in space

It was a couple of weeks ago that I chose to use my commentary here to note the presence of Joseph Acaba in space. He is of Puerto Rican ethnic background and achieves a “first” in that category, although he’s not the first Latino in space.

As I wrote back then, “it is encouraging that (Acaba) can set an example for others that the idea of a Puerto Rican in space is not a ludicrous concept. Nor is the idea of a Latino, since Acaba is not a first in that aspect.”

AS FAR AS I’m concerned, that is the gist of the entire piece. For those who want to read the entire commentary, it can be found at (http://southchicagoan.blogspot.com/2009/03/puerto-rican-not-first-latino-in-space.html).

So why am I bringing this up again?

Part of the reason is that I find it interesting that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is putting updates about Acaba and his mission onboard the Space Shuttle Discovery on their website (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts119/news/spanish/Mission_Status-Spanish.html) en Español.

But I can’t help but notice that in the past few days, I have managed to inspire people to complain about me for being biased against people of Boricuan heritage.

SUPPOSEDLY, I AM bitter against people of Puerto Rican background who get U.S. citizenship by birth, compared to my grandparents who had to go through the naturalization process when they arrived in this country in the 1920s from Mexico.

Either that, or I’m taking out my “hatred” and “jealousy” against Puerto Rican people. As one anonymous commentator wrote, “is a good example how many other factions of Latinos out there hate on a little tiny island that keeps on showing its talent to the world.”

So what gives?

It wasn’t my intent to slam on Puerto Rican people (even though a part of me will always believe it is a shame that the whole world cannot experience the joy of being of Mexican ethnic descent).

SO EVEN THOUGH one commentator suggested I “re-read” my commentary from a “Puerto Rican point of view,” I can’t say that doing so has brought me to any such realization.

I don’t see what is causing the objections, because my critical commentators seem more interested in spewing rhetoric without accounting for fact. I’d like it if one of these people could cite a specific passage and explain what it is about it that offends them. (One of my critics literally wrote, “don’t make me start writing facts…”)

So no one should take this as an apology. I read my commentary, and still think it is a fluff piece citing a public achievement by someone who is Latino. It seems like my critics are just looking for someone to complain about.

Since they obviously couldn’t find anything legitimate that day, they chose me. I guess that’s just the way things will be. No matter how I write something, there will always be someone who takes offense.

SO IF SOMEONE can give me an explanation of what offends them after reading the original commentary, I would appreciate it.

Otherwise, I’m going to have to take into account the spelling and typographical errors that run rampant through the responses to my original commentary and assume it is coming from people with too much free time and access to a computer keyboard.

And I’ll also take into account one person from Miami (at least he claims to be) who wrote to me, “You are a frustrated man…. We don’t even know who the hell you are.”

Well, I don’t know who he is either. But at least I had the nerve to sign my name to my original commentary. Which is more than I can say for any of these “critics” who choose to rant against me anonymously.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Joseph Acaba left inspiring video messages for students both in English (http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/spacesuits/home/index.html) and Spanish before going on the space shuttle mission.

We’re spared the sight of Anti-U.S. Series

Those of us who want to think of athletics as something that can rise above nationalism and partisan politics (a naïve notion, to be sure) ought to be grateful to the Japanese, for their national baseball team’s defeat of Equipo Cuba earlier this week spared us something that could truly have been ugly.

Had Cuba’s famed baseball team managed to qualify among the final four of the World Baseball Classic, there was one possible scenario that could have played out this weekend that would have resulted in a championship game on Monday between the national teams of Cuba and Venezuela.

WE COULD HAVE heard all about it from los hermanos Castro and from Hugo Chavez – the leaders of those two Latin American nations who are more than willing to use anti-yanqui propaganda to strengthen their hold on their nations.

Just think of how ugly the rhetoric would have become if those two countries had managed to play a game against each other, with the end result being a “world” championship and international bragging rights for the next four years.

We definitely would have heard about the inferiority of the capitalist ballplayer, who takes the field for money and greed rather than the love of athletic competition.

It would have been claimed that only the Communist method (or methods inspired by the totalitarian spirit, such as what Venezuela under Chavez' leadership seems to aspire to at times) can produce the elite athlete.

BUT JAPAN DEFEATED Cuba, knocking the national team out of the tourney and sending them back to Havana.

So as we go into this weekend, we get a field of national teams from Venezuela, Japan, Korea and the United States. There is a scenario in which the “world” championship cold come down to a game on Monday at Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles, played between the national teams of Japan and Korea.

I’m sure it would be seen as a “victory” of sorts for the rigid training methods used by professional athletes in Asian nations, as opposed to what are seen as the loose training regiments maintained by our nation’s very own Major League ballplayers.

Or could we get the total opposite matchup – Team U.S.A. against Equipo Venezuela. Hugo Chavez will get his chance to take on his great ideological enemy face to face. Should he win, I’m sure it will get spun into being evidence of the decadence our nation has sunk into – even though the truth of the matter is that both of these national teams are largely made up of U.S. major leaguers.

IT WOULD REALLY be evidence of the fact that the U.S. major leagues remain the elite of baseball because of the way in which they have been influenced by the nations of the world.

Top beisboleros from across Latin American nations aspire to play in the United States because the money is better here than they could earn playing solely for the professional teams in the Venezuelan League.

Now I will be the first to admit following the professional baseball leagues that play in countries such as the Dominican Republic and in Mexico during the winter months, in part because I enjoy the sport (particularly the whole aura involved when a top pitcher tries to get hitters out).

And it is intriguing to know that the game is not solely a product of the United States.

BUT FOLLOWING THE game in other countries exposes one to the anti-U.S. rhetoric that can pop up. I’m sure any scenario involving the Venezuelan national team is going to be tainted with some stupid talk from Chavez or his flunkies.

We already have heard from Chavez during this tournament, defending Detroit Tigers outfielder Magglio Ordoñez because he supports the Chavez administration even though fans were singling him out for their heckling because of that partisan viewpoint.

So for those who want to dream that we can erase political rhetoric from baseball, perhaps we ought to root, root, root for Korea to beat Venezuela when the two teams play on Saturday.

But that probably would not shut Chavez up. After all, losing has not quieted Fidel Castro. He used a column in the Granma newspaper to accuse the organizers of the World Baseball Classic of staging the event in a way that deliberately ensured Cuba’s defeat.

TALK ABOUT CRAZY conspiracy theories. It’s about as wacky as the people who think Castro himself had a hand in the shooting of J.F.K.

Besides, I have a funny feeling it won’t happen. While I appreciate that in any single game, any one team can beat up on any other (how else to explain the Netherlands knocking the Dominican Republic out of the tourney), I have a gut feeling Venezuela will succeed.

My prediction? Japan defeats Team U.S.A. on Sunday, one day after Venezuela beats Korea. Then, we’ll all have to suffer through the ridiculous rhetoric of Hugo Chavez when Team Venezuela wins the whole tourney on Monday.

Ugh.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Just think of how intense the political rhetoric of Fidel Castro would be (http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2009/march/vier20/13reflex1-i.html) if Team Cuba had something to brag about from this year’s World Baseball Classic.

Can the lone remaining Latin American national baseball team be successful at the (http://web.worldbaseballclassic.com/index.jsp?team=ven) World Baseball Classic?

Obama’s Mexico trip not a vacation

I find it encouraging that President Barack Obama plans to make a trip to Mexico in the near future, with the intent of trying to figure out what the United States needs to do in order to resolve the tense situation that is arising in northern Mexico along the nations’ joint border.

Obama will spend a few days in Mexico, and will include meetings with President Felipe Calderòn to discuss the situation that has arisen in the border towns such as Ciudad Juarez. The drug cartels that provide much of the product that sells so well across the United States has created a sense of lawlessness at time, and too many innocent people getting caught in the crossfire.

WHAT I FIND encouraging is that Obama is using enough sense to want to travel to Mexico, rather than merely listening to the nativist types who want to use the incidents as an excuse to fortify the U.S./Mexico border and militarize it.

In short, the last thing needed in places like Laredo or El Paso is the presence of the United States Marines, or any other military unit.

The White House went so far as to make Obama’s Mexico trip (scheduled for April 16-17) public knowledge at the same time he met with the Latinos who comprise the caucus in Congress.

Immigration reform was one of the issues brought up, and Obama threw out hints that he plans to offer up something resembling a revision of the nation’s immigration laws sometime this year.

IT REMAINS TO be seen whether his proposal will be worthy of serious discussion, or will it become a plan meant to appease the nitwits who want to think that increased deportation of certain ethnic groups is the only immigration reform needed by this country (I wish it were possible to deport nitwits, but too many of them are U.S.-born – the only requirement for automatic citizenship).

But for the time being, I’m willing to give a guy who’s willing to travel to Mexico (even though in Mexico City, he will be hundreds of miles from the region where the lawnessness is taking place) the benefit of the doubt that he will make an effort to come up with something that resembles legitimate reform of the immigration laws.

And I’m sure the same pundits who now are saying that Obama should not be legitimizing Mexico officials by meeting with them to discuss the border issue will also be the same nitwits who will toss out the “A” word (amnesty) when an immigration reform proposal finally begins to work its way through Congress.

It will be curious to see just what comes out of Obama’s Mexico meetings.

THE NATIVISTS AMONG us are going to want to spew the rhetoric that it is the inherent character of Mexicans that causes the lawlessness, even though one can argue that any border region tends to attract people who are less than reputable and want to be near an international border so they can take advantage of legal loopholes to get away with their scams.

If that sounds like I’m saying some people on the U.S. side are likely as corrupt as anyone on the Mexican side, it would have a ring of truth to it.

Take the Violence Policy Center, a lobbyist group that this week told a Congressional subcommittee the way to reduce the amount of drug-related violence is to enforce federal laws with regards to movement of firearms – particularly the AK-47.

They note the laws originally implemented by former President George Bush (the elder one) have been allowed to lapse. Such laws would cut off access to the firepower that often gets used to enforce the will of drug dealers in the area.

“ENFORCEMENT OF THE existing ban on the importation of foreign-made assault rifles would have a significant impact on the firepower available to Mexican drug cartels,” said the center’s legislative director, Kristen Rand.

Such rhetoric gets to the fact that there are people in the United States who are benefiting from conditions that create the tense situation along the U.S./Mexico border, and this is an issue that is going to have to be resolved by both countries.

And it ultimately will become a law enforcement issue, rather than a military one. Too many people seem to eager to use the border conditions to justify punitive actions that they likely have been waiting a long time to use against Mexico.

It is a plus that we have a president these days who appears to understand in theory that the United States has a role to play in calming the border situation, rather than going along with people who would use the tension to justify turning Texas into a giant version of the Alamo.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Activists who like to tick off the National Rifle Association and other groups (http://www.hispanicprwire.com/news.php?l=in&id=13775&cha=10) that comprise the gun lobby are continuing their rhetoric of too many guns enhancing the violence along the U.S./Mexico border.

Here’s hoping Barack Obama has enough sense not to be photographed wearing a sombrero (http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_11946490) during his two-day trip to Mexico.

Burris may get Latino backing by default

Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., has become a political laughingstock to some parts of the nation on account of his association with now-impeached Gov. Rod Blagojevich. A recent poll indicated that just over 5 percent of potential voters is all Burris would receive if he ran for election today.

Yet there is circumstantial evidence that Latinos may provide a disproportionate share of that support – even though that is really more a sign of how sad many elected officials are when it comes to showing support for issues of concern to the fastest-growing share of the U.S. population.

SERIOUSLY, BURRIS MET with Latino activists at his office in Chicago, where issues expected to come up before Congress that are of concern to the activists were discussed. Immigration reform was among them. Affordable housing was another.

Now keep in mind that Burris promised nothing. His own staff described the meeting as, “a listening session.”

Insofar as any reports of the meeting are concerned, the one-time Illinois attorney general who got the Senate seat after being picked by Blagojevich to finish out the two years remaining on Barack Obama’s U.S. Senate term is not committed to do anything on any particular issue.

Yet in an era where some political people show open hostility toward newcomers to this country, and particularly focus their distaste on those who come from Latin American nations, the idea that Burris is willing to listen makes him a plus.

WHEN COMBINED WITH the fact that the first African-American person to be elected to a statewide government post in Illinois has a record in past decades of being willing to include Latinos in his vision of government, it’s no wonder that the Latino activists of today are willing to give the man a chance.

That past record is a factor. Many Latinos who have progressed to the point in U.S. society where they are registered to vote are usually the types who are trying to fit in with society as a whole. It is only going to be when Latinos reach a larger percentage of the electorate (likely by the 2040s and later) that we will start having the numbers to back candidates who put our interests as their primary concern.

It strikes me as similar to the reason many Latinos during the 2008 Democratic primary were hard-core backers of the Hillary R. Clinton campaign, not coming around to Obama until the general election when our growing distaste for the Republican Party made about two-thirds of us unwilling to back John McCain for president.

Many of us were familiar with Hillary, just as many of us Latinos in Illinois are familiar with Roland Burris.

THERE PROBABLY WON’T be a groundswell of Latinos continuing to demand a special election in Illinois so as to give a token Republican a chance of snatching what is left of the Obama term in the Senate to control of the GOP.

And unless Burris lets his ego run amok (which is always a very real possibility), he could wind up getting political support in the form of endorsements, should he decide to seek election to his own term in the 2010 elections in Illinois.

Now I know some political observers are going to try to twist this into the idea of Latinos being led blindly by some cheap rhetoric – even if Burris is likely to be able to do little to benefit our interests.

But what I find so sad is the fact that Burris doesn’t have to promise much in order to come off looking better than the bulk of political people in Congress, or just about any other governmental entity.

FOR BURRIS TO come off looking better than the average politico is evidence that the average politico is pretty pathetic – from the standpoint of the Latino population.

Having to settle for talk, instead of action, is the current state of affairs for Latino political empowerment in this nation.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Roland Burris does not offend the Latinos of Illinois because he is (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-burris-hispanics,0,5258042.story) willing to listen. Just imagine how successful a political person would be in getting the Latino voter bloc (http://www.wbbm780.com/Immigration-Advocates-Talk-With-Burris/4028053) if they were willing to act in favorable ways to our growing numbers.

Burris is more than just the guy with the (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29720094/) gaudy tomb already constructed at a cemetery on Chicago’s South Side.

Chicago suburbs offer divergence of ethnic perceptions

People who want to view suburban communities as some sort of homogenous mass are missing the point. People in such places are capable of having greatly divergent thoughts on issues.

Take immigration, and the fact that the bulk of the “newcomers” to the United States these days are not the same European types that comprised the immigrant wave of the beginning of the 20th Century.

I RECENTLY STUMBLED across a pair of stories published recently in the suburban Chicago newspapers that show the differing ways that aspiring local politicos view all these “new residents” to their communities.

In Wauconda, Ill., one village trustee candidate brought up as an issue the whole mythical concept that all these foreigners are refusing to learn to speak English.

“I think citizens of the United States need to read English,” Mark Quasigroch said about the concept of publishing a village newsletter in Spanish so as to make municipal information more accessible to the growing Latino population in that community.

“Communities that spend money in excess to communicate in other languages, I think, is unnecessary,” Quasigroch told the Daily Herald newspaper of Arlington Heights, Ill.

NOW SOME OF the people whom Quasigroch is running against in elections scheduled for next month are trying to use the issue against him, claiming it shows his insensitivity to the growing number of Latinos who live in his home town.

It shows he’s living in the past, when his community was lily white and rural in nature.

But from a purely practical political perspective, it can be effective, since the newspaper reports that there are people who are sympathetic to Quasigroch taking such a stance.

People who feel that their way of life is threatened, and who feel they chose to live in an isolated community on the Illinois/Wisconsin border to avoid other thoughts, are going to be willing to cheer on such nitwit thoughts.

WHAT MAKES IT so ridiculous is that it ignores the reality that many people to whom the Latino label is used to describe are capable of speaking adequate English. In fact, the great strength of the growing generation of Latinos in this country is that we are a group to which bilingualism is common (although personally, my own Spanish leaves a lot to be desired).

Being able to speak a language other than English will help our chance at succeeding in what is increasingly becoming a global economy and society.

So do we really want political people who think monolingualism is a benefit for people in our society?

Now I really don’t mean this commentary to be a diatribe against a candidate in the Wauconda, Ill., village elections. I only mention him because I am aware his viewpoint on this issue is a common one – people who want to view all these newcomers to the United States as a potential problem who threaten everything they know about the U.S. way of life.

THAT IS THE attitude that will have to be overcome if this country is to progress into the 21st Century.

Which is why I found another aspiring suburban Chicago politician to be encouraging.

In Lansing, Ill., a town on the Illinois/Indiana border, candidates for mayor recently held a forum to give people a chance to hear directly from the political candidates themselves where they stood on various issues.

It was during such a forum that mayoral hopeful Donald Sciackitano told a crowd that was heavily weighed in favor of senior citizens who had lived in town for a few decades that they should not fear such changes in the ethnic composition of their town – which has seen the creation in the past decade of notable populations of Latino and Asian people.

“WE ARE BECOMING a diversified community,” Sciackitano told The Times newspaper of Munster, Ind. “These other cultures that are coming in, all they want to do is build upon what we already have here.”

“We should use those resources, those people, to help us create one region that is strong,” he said. What makes this unique is that Sciackitano on many issues is a candidate who can talk about the so-called family values issues in ways that appease the social conservatives of our society.

Yet on this, he “gets it,” even though I’m fully aware of the fact that the talk of a politician can differ from his actions.

But if more people were willing to talk like him, our society might not be facing the multitude of tensions it now confronts whenever the issue of immigration comes up.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Recent political activity in the Illinois towns of Wauconda and Lansing take ends of the immigration issue perspective (http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=279410&src=3) as far apart (http://www.nwi.com/articles/2009/03/11/news/illinois/doc973a212f22c12c9986257576000157f9.txt) as the towns are geographically from each other.

EXTRA: Cuba-7, Mexico-4

Oh well, there’s always 2013. Fans of Latin American beisbol can still root for Cuba, Puerto Rico or Venezuela for this year.

And Opening Day for the U.S. major leagues is April 5. That is a key date because watching all this televised baseball from the World Baseball Classic has put me in the mood to watch a ballgame live.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Equipo Mexico players will now focus on their upcoming seasons in the American (http://web.worldbaseballclassic.com/index.jsp?team=mex), National, Mexican and Korean leagues.

Two of Mexico’s best known ballplayers in the U.S. were coaching (http://www.latimes.com/sports/baseball/mlb/la-sp-wbc-san-diego15-2009mar15,0,7188348.story) for the national team.

San Diego was not a friendly environment for the Mexican national team, even though several (http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/mar/16/1s16wbcnotes232636-baseball-8211-tie-binds-padres-/?padres) people on the team have their ties to the Padres.

Equipo Mexico ties my stomach into knots

The baseball version of Los Tricolores did a number on my stomach in the early hours of Monday. After managing to go a few innings of playing competitive baseball against Team Korea (even having a lead at one point), they managed to blow the ballgame in a manner that will have future generations thinking they got dominated.

Yes, I’m one of the people actually paying attention to the World Baseball Classic, and I have been following the activity of Team Mexico – which thus far has two wins and three losses, and could conceivably be knocked out of the international tourney by the time you read this.

FOR MEXICO IS now in a position where they must beat Team Cuba – that colossus of international baseball that tours the world and is known for being able to come through when the pressure is on them.

They also are in a must-win position after losing to Japan during the weekend.

So I won’t be the least bit surprised if Cuba defeats Mexico Monday night when the two teams play in San Diego. Watching Mexico pass up a chance to blow the game open and take a three-run lead, only to let Cuba follow up the next inning by scoring three runs of their own, was a nerve-wracking experience.

Now I know some people (the ones who want to believe that nothing matters more than a Kansas City Royals/Milwaukee Brewers spring training game) will wonder why I’m paying any attention to this tourney – created in part by the officials of Major League Baseball to play off the fact that beisbol is no longer purely a U.S. activity.

OTHERS ARE GOING to wonder why I’m not zeroing in exclusively on Team U.S.A., which itself Sunday night faced a must-win game (and managed to win, sending Team Netherlands back home in defeat).

The first question is probably the most important. Call it ethnic pride, if you will.

But I find it intriguing to root for a ball club from the land where my grandparents were born, and where my own ethnic origins lie.

The baseball fan in me finds Team Mexico particularly intriguing because it is a combination of the Mexican citizens who play in the U.S. major leagues, with the all-stars of the Mexican League and even one Mexican citizen who plays ball for the Lotte Giants of the Korean League.

THERE ARE EVEN a few (nine out of 30, if I remember correct) U.S. citizens of at least partial Mexican ethnicity on this team. It strikes me as an intriguing mix of people who comprise what it means to be a Mexican (or even a Mexican-American) in the 21st Century.

There’s also the fact that my rooting for Equipo Mexico likely will have the effect of ticking off the nativist elements of our society – the people who want to believe that certain ethnic elements are worthy of their derision just because they are.

I have it in my personality to enjoy irritating people who take on stupid attitudes on life and society. So it’s almost like a Mexico victory (or perhaps a victory for any of the Latin American nations whose national teams are participating in the tourney) is a symbolic “drop dead” to every person who ever thought their Anglo ethnic background gave them some justification for their hostility.

All it really does is confirm their own ignorance.

BUT WHAT ABOUT Team U.S.A.? After all, I am a Chicago native, as are may parents. Even one of my grandmothers was born in this country, rather than south of the Rio Bravo del Norte/Rio Grande. I’m sure there are those people who want to argue that nearly 90 years of relatives in the United States should have erased any ethnic sentiments that would exist.

Except it doesn’t, because those ethnic origins are a part of what makes each of us in the United States a unique individual. It is a part of our character.

And the fact that we’re not all of a common ethnic character, I believe, is what makes the United States unique among the nations of Planet Earth.

I think the fact that we have a multitude of ethnicities contributing to the overall character is what makes this a stronger nation than many of those countries that have a singular ethnic background among their people.

SO SAYING THAT I’m rooting for Equipo Mexico does not automatically translate into cheering against the U.S. national team. I took just as much an interest in watching them play against the Netherlands as I did a couple of hours later watching Mexico take on South Korea.

Besides, the way that the World Baseball Classic is structured, the two countries are in totally different pools that focus on different groups. The only way there would have been a U.S./Mexico game in 2009 would have been if both countries’ national teams had literally prevailed all the way to the championship game.

In my mind, that would have been the ultimate scene.

The soccer version of those two national teams creates an intriguing rivalry that helps elevate the sport in the eyes of the U.S. sporting public whenever they play. Just envision how crazed a scene a baseball matchup between the two countries would be.

MEXICO VS. THE United States, on the field of Dodger Stadium on March 23, where Sandy Koufax and Fernando Valenzuela (just to name a couple of classic peloteros) had some of their greatest baseball moments. It sounds like a potential for a classic ball game.

It’s just a shame we’re not going to get that matchup, unless Team Mexico were to pull off an upset early Tuesday bigger than either of the Netherlands’ victories over Team Dominican Republic.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: I went so far as to purchase (http://www.mlb.com/wbc/2009/schedule/) a ball cap of Equipo Mexico. Not that I'm deluded enough to believe that Los Tricolores can actually win (http://web.worldbaseballclassic.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090315&content_id=3992792&vkey=wbc&team=) the tourney this year.

Ordoñez viewpoint not surprising

The idea of a ball player showing blind faith support for his native nation’s leader, then saying he’s not into politics that much, isn’t surprising.

Most professional athletes I have had the chance to meet during my years as a reporter-type person were either so narrowly focused on athletics that they paid no attention to the outside world, or else they were of the socially conservative mindset that they would be inclined to accept “the establishment.”

AFTER ALL, THEY by and large are a part of it. Many of those conservatives who want to preach their morals tend to look to the athletes as the people who represent what they want to be about.

That kind of attitude seems to be universal. Whenever there is a revolutionary movement in the world, rarely will one find the top-ranked athletes of a nation at the forefront.

So there’s nothing about the recent plight of Magglio Ordoñez, an outfielder for the Detroit Tigers, that surprises me. Ordoñez, who has been coming to the United States for nearly two decades to play professional baseball, supports the leader of his home country.

But since Ordoñez is one of hundreds of Venezuelan citizens who throughout the decades have come to this country to bolster the quality of Major League Baseball (while also earning far more money than they could playing solely in the Venezuelan League), his homeland’s leader these days is Hugo Chavez.

THE SAME CHAVEZ whom our nation’s social conservatives would like to brandish as the new Latin American dictator (now that Fidel Castro appears to have become old enough to no longer be much of a factor in the Caribbean) who poses a single-minded threat to the United States’ national security.

To listen to Ordoñez’ actual words (as reported by recent wire service news accounts), he’s merely saying he supported his country’s president – who recently got an electoral result that could enable him to get around Venezuela’s term limits laws.

He even went so far as to say he’s really “not political,” and doesn’t see his action as being some sort of outrageous statement or political stance.

Yet Ordoñez was the ballplayer singled out this weekend when the Venezuelan national baseball team (of which Ordoñez is also a member) played the Netherlands in the World Baseball Classic.

THE GAME WAS held in Miami, which means that many people of Venezuelan ethnicity were able to be in the stands at Dolphin Stadium to root for their homeland.

But most of those people now already live in the United States, and are people who came to this country specifically to get away from Chavez’ rule – which tries to demonize the United States and wishes to reinstate stronger ties with nations such as Russia.

Hence, Ordoñez was singled out for heckling and catcalls by the fans, many of whom were otherwise inclined to root for Equipo Venezuela – which defeated Team Netherlands 3-1 on Saturday.

Chavez himself issued a statement from Caracas, labeling Ordoñez as a “patriot” and that the Venezuelan-ethnic U.S. residents who engaged in such taunting, “have no shame.”

I DOUBT THOSE people care much about Chavez criticizing them. Many likely will take it as some sort of badge of honor that they were able to get under the skin, so to speak, of the Venezuelan political leader whom they have come to despise.

Chavez himself likely will use the incident to score political points similar to how the Castro Brothers for decades have used the negative efforts of the United States to create an excuse for the nation’s failings.

He’ll probably claim these people are not true Venezuelans – similar to how Castro for years has labeled the Miami exile community of Cuban ethnics as “gusanos” (worms, for those of you who are Spanish-challenged).

But it will be interesting for me to see just how public reaction toward Ordoñez is played out in the next few years.

FOR WHAT IT’S worth, I have had a couple of chances to briefly interview Ordoñez (back when he used to play ball for the Chicago White Sox). He’s not overly articulate, and usually tries to use as few words as possible. He’s also not the kind of guy who spends a lot of time pondering deep issues.

He’s a ballplayer. He’s focused on his “job.” If you want an outspoken baseball guy from Venezuela, you turn to Ozzie Guillen – not Ordoñez.

And the couple of sentences of commentary that have been attributed to Ordoñez strike me as being similar to the rote rhetoric that many a U.S. citizen ballplayer has touted on many occasion.

Praise the leaders who are trying to preserve some sense of an establishment, and try to portray those “liberal freaks” as being out of touch with all that is good and decent with the nation.

TAKE CURT SCHILLING, the former Boston Red Sox pitcher who has hinted at having political aspirations of his own someday, and who back in 2004 made campaign appearances on behalf of then-President George W. Bush.

I’m not saying that Chavez and Bush are comparable. But I think the actions of Schilling and Ordoñez are – they both showed some blind-faith loyalty to their nation’s leader. Schilling will get praise from a segment of our nation’s population, while Ordoñez likely will get mass condemnation.

I can easily envision Ordoñez’ comments being exaggerated throughout the years until the image is of some sort of Chavezista who spends all his spare time pondering the Wise Words of Hugo.

The reality is that both of them are a pair of ballplayers whose major accomplishments came on the playing field. If we, the people of this fine nation, had any sense, we’d leave it at that, and not really care what the right fielder of the Detroit Tigers thinks about U.S. relations with Latin American nations.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Magglio Ordoñez has been supportive of his home nation’s (http://www.freep.com/article/20090315/SPORTS02/90314060/1050/Magglio+Ordo%C3%B1ez+booed+by+his+own+fans+in+WBC+) government, and now has become a bit (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hCfTLC2_mjYQDiMd6PuBdnV3SvaAD96UKOL80) player in the political rhetoric that gets stirred up these days between the United States and Venezuela.

For those of you people (http://www.baseball-reference.com/o/ordonma01.shtml) who have no idea who Magglio Ordoñez is.

U.S. shares in blame for Mexico drug violence

Officials in Mexico are upset with Forbes magazine these days for its latest list of billionaires around the world. It appears that among the business executives and heirs who have it made financially is the man suspected of being the leader of the drug cartel in the state of Sinaloa.

In short, one of the top drug dealers in those northern Mexican states where drug-related violence is reaching record levels is a very rich man.

JOAQUIN GUZMAN LITERALLY ranks Number 701 on the list of billionaires around the world, with a fortune worth just over $1 billion (in U.S. dollars, you can do your own conversion math to figure out what that is in pesos).

In short, there is money to be made in illegal narcotics. With that kind of money, Guzman is able to buy the loyalty of many people who otherwise should be repulsed at such activity taking place in their communities.

As a result, either police are bought off or are incapable of dealing with the resistance they receive if they try to do their jobs in dealing with Guzman or his aides.

That is why it is ridiculous for the nativists of our society to get all bent out of shape in thinking about Mexico as some sort of violent, impoverished land whose problems are about to spill over into El Paso, Laredo, Brownsville, and a whole slew of other towns located along the U.S./Mexico border.

YET THAT IS the way some people think. These are the ones who want to think that the solution is to fortify the border and set up military troops. It’s like they want the Second Mexican/American War. Are they really deluded enough to dream about having Tamaulipas or Sonora in the United States – or of reuniting the state of Baja California with the rest of California?

This is a policing problem, not a foreign affairs problem.

And while I can sympathize with Mexican officials (including President Felipe Calderon Hinojosa and Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora) about Guzman’s inclusion on the list, I think it would be wrong to exclude him.

The simple fact is that his alleged criminal activities have given him great wealth that has allowed him to buy undue influence. If anything, it ought to be a wakeup call about where the actual problem lies.

THE FACT IS that much of his product gets shipped north of the border into the United States. It is used by our very own citizens here. If there wasn’t such a demand for the drugs, Guzman wouldn’t have such wealth. Or are you naïve to think that only Mexican citizens buy Mexican-made drugs?

It’s like our very own people are the ones who are pumping the money into Mexico to create the conditions along the border that are seen by some as a threat. Perhaps a closer look at ourselves would go a long way toward figuring out a long-term solution.

Keep in mind where some of that money raised by the drug dealers gets spent. Right back in the United States, where the dealers are strengthening their position with U.S.-manufactured firearms.

Violence Policy Center senior analyst Tom Diaz told a Congressional subcommittee this week that military-style weapons legally available to civilians are the popular choice of the Mexican drug cartels, and that the efforts of groups such as the NRA to oppose restrictions on such weapons is what makes them so readily available south of the border.

“IF ONE WANTED to design a system to pour military-style guns into civilian hands, it would be hard to find a better one than the U.S. civilian gun market,” Diaz said, in his statement to Congress. “The only better way would be openly selling guns to criminals from the loading docks of manufacturers and importers.”

Now in some ways, Diaz’ rhetoric is inflammatory. I’m sure it ticked off the activists who get all bent out of shape over the thought of having the most advanced firearms known to man in their personal arsenals. For all I know, it also will tick people off that I’m giving it any credence in this commentary.

But the bottom line is that when people try to portray Mexico these days as some sort of morally bankrupt land that is barely safer than Afghanistan (I literally heard that comparison on Friday from a nitwit commentator), keep in mind that the truly sad portions of the country are limited to the region in direct contact with the United States, and that it is U.S. money that is helping to feed those conditions.

Those conditions in places like Ciudad de Juarez exist in part because the United States allows them to.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Mexican drug lords are among the world’s wealthiest (http://www.nydailynews.com/latino/2009/03/13/2009-03-13_mexico_blasts_forbes_for_putting_drug_lo-2.html) people.

If the worse case scenario of drug-related violence spilling over into the United States ever were to occur (http://www.hispanicprwire.com/news.php?l=in&id=13736&cha=10), there’s a good chance that those dealers would be shooting at us with U.S.-made weapons.

Can Latinos commit a hate crime?

Too many people view issues confronting our society through a black vs. white prism – not so much out of any animosity but because it gets confusing to them to have to consider other colors.

They view the concept of diversity as bad because it complicates what they would like to be a simplistic viewpoint on life. Yet that complication is merely reflective of the reality of our society.

SO IS IT possible that a batch of Latino men on Long Island committed a “hate crime” when they beat up a panhandler outside of a delicatessen last weekend?

The issue has people split, as prosecutors admit the “hate crime” statutes were designed to call for tougher punishments whenever white people used their bigoted emotions to justify violent acts against black people.

The fact that this particular incident appears to involve several Latinos getting violent with a black man could make it difficult for a prosecutor to get a grand jury to comply with the letter of the law, while also getting an indictment that will hold up in court.

It also has the racial tensions flowing. Some black activists are complaining that Latinos are being allowed to get away with race-inspired violence (“Go back to Africa,” and “n----r” were among the epithets hurled at the panhandler along with punches).

BUT THE LATINO activists in the New York area are now taking up the cause, claiming there was no racial taint to the incident, and that the people who are most likely to stir up the race angle are white people who would love to see a split between black and brown (to use a simplistic look on racial differences) so as to enhance (in their mini-minds) their own stature.

What has some people particularly incensed was a string of incidents against Latinos that occurred nearby last year – including a fatal beating to a man of Ecuadorean descent who was in his home neighborhood when a group of teenagers converged on him.

They want to see some sort of double-standard when it comes to prosecution of cases – they want to ensure that the violent act committed on the panhandler is treated similarly to those of the Ecuadorean’s death.

For the record, the Latinos claim they were merely trying to chase a panhandler away from the deli where they hang out when he allegedly threw a punch at them.

SELF-DEFENSE IS WHAT they claim was taking place in administering such a beating.

Now let’s be honest. I have no doubt there are Latinos who have their own racial hang-ups, and who at times go to extremes to try to ensure that they are classified with “white” people rather than anyone else.

So I don’t doubt the details being provided by activists siding with the panhandler. They could be truthful. They seem real, to my perspective.

But I also know of incidents where African-American people have expressed similar hostility toward Latinos. I once remember a black man walking down a Chicago street in a Spanish-speaking neighborhood, shouting that he was surrounded by the descendants of slave traders who should have been enslaved themselves.

I ALSO KNOW of many other people who feel no such animosity, and try to work to ensure that people are brought together. So what should we think of this incident, other than it being a moment of stupidity?

I’m inclined to think this is an incident where a lot of peoples’ emotions ran high, and somebody lost control of their temper. Do I think we have a group of Latino men who now view themselves as having done something stupid that they wish they could undo?

Probably.

But that doesn’t construe a legal defense. People are supposed to be capable of controlling their own behavior. When they lose control, it can cross the line into a criminal offense.

THERE ARE A lot of people in prison losing a few years off their lives for a “moment of stupidity” that they probably will never do again.

So I don’t know what to think of my ethnic brethren (none of whom I know personally, or have any knowledge of whatsoever other than that both of us descend from a nation in Latin America), other than to wonder what can tick some people off that they lose control of themselves.

Regardless of whether a panhandler was being obnoxious or offensive to people in the area doesn’t really justify giving him a beating.

All this other talk of “hate crimes” or degrees of criminal intent is merely an attempt to distract attention from that simple fact.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: The beating of a panhandler by Latino men hanging out around a delicatessen (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/crime/ny-lideli126066161mar12,0,7872388.story) has activists rising in defense of people who should have (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/crime/ny-lijoy126066158mar12,0,1802832.column) controlled their behavior better.

Border “wars” being used for politically partisan purposes

I will be the first to admit that conditions along the U.S./Mexico border are bizarre these days due to the undue influence of the drug cartels in the northernmost Mexican states.

Ciudad Juarez is not a place I would want to visit these days, in part out of fear I’d stroll into an incident and get caught up in the gunfire. Of course, there are neighborhoods in the United States where I’d fear the same outcome.

BUT A LOT of the rhetoric I’m hearing and reading that relates to the situation in Mexico these days seems to be stretched to absurd levels. You’d think the whole country was decrepit, which is as absurd as believing that a few corrupt cops in a place like Mississippi (or any state, for that matter) makes the whole United States some sort of criminal enterprise.

If the United States is going to come up with a serious response to potential problems along the Mexican border, one of the things people will have to do is quit listening to the crackpots of our society – most of whose ramblings reek of a nativist nitwit attitude.

That is what the exaggerations are all about – trying to create a negative perception of a place they fear irrationally, rather than trying to come up with serious solutions to the problems.

Now the problem in those Mexican communities is that the police are either corrupted or grossly outnumbered to the point where there’s nothing they could seriously do to bring the drug cartels under control.

THIS IS A law enforcement problem, not a military one. The people I’m most inclined to pay attention to these days are the law enforcement officials in the communities of south Texas.

They see this as a policing issue, if activity spills over the Rio Bravo del Norte/Rio Grande, and one they are prepared to address without the assistance of the U.S. Marines. Brownsville Mayor Pat Ahumada recently told the Associated Press that people are “promoting fear” and that he is unaware of “gun battles…between the El Paso and Brownsville area.”

In short, that’s the entire Texas/Tamaulipas and Nuevo Leon border area.

But to listen to the xenophobic element, what we need is to call in the armed forces. The same people who want to erect barricades along the border probably wish they could have electrified fence and cannons set up to start shooting back.

THERE’S EVEN ONE member of Congress, Republican Jerry Lewis of California, who is claiming the U.S. should consider Mexico a bigger threat to U.S. national security than Afghanistan.

In Lewis’ case, he used a recent congressional subcommittee hearing to complain that he wants military helicopters on constant patrol of the border region.

Between the copters and the wall, how long until these types of people want to turn the entire border region into something resembling a fortress? I wouldn’t have a problem with doing something like that, if it meant we were pinning these nutty people into a confined area – away from the rest of us.

But instead, it is the people who ought to be confined who want to do the confining.

IN FACT, I can’t help but wonder if it is the exact same people who always complain about immigration and too free a flow of people from Latin American nations, trying to scare up the image of drug cartels spreading their mess into the United States – just so they can try to justify the fortress image that they’d like to create in the border region.

Because reading these stories about people wanting to create a war-zone like atmosphere down there makes me wonder if some people are just too anxious to play with deadly toys that could result in real casualties.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: The member of Congress from California is not as entertaining (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/border_95699___article.html/mexico_violence.html) as his namesake comedian.

Puerto Rican not the first Latino in space

There’s always the chance of another delay, since there have been two already for this particular NASA mission.

But by Wednesday’s end, we could have the first Puerto Rican in space.

ACTUALLY, JOSEPH ACABA is a native Californian of Boricuan ethnic background. But Acaba is one of the people scheduled to be on the space shuttle Discovery when it is scheduled to take off Wednesday night for a two-week mission at the International Space Station.

Acaba, who is a former teacher trained for the past five years by NASA to fly in space, will pay his own tribute to his ethnic roots – he’s planning to take a Puerto Rican flag with him into space, and his family told the New York Daily News they may celebrate his return later this month with some Puerto Rican food and a good bottle of wine.

It’s good to see we’ve come a long way culturally from Jose Jimenez – the comedy sketch character for whom the punch line of his jokes was that he was the First Mexican Astronaut.

Acaba is drawing just as much public attention for the fact that he is a former school teacher (those of us who remember the name “Christa McAuliffe know why it is intriguing for the former junior high math and science teacher to be in space) as for his ethnic background.

BUT IT IS encouraging that he can set an example for others that the idea of a Puerto Rican in space is not a ludicrous concept. Nor is the idea of a Latino, since Acaba is not a first in that aspect.

Franklin Chang-Diaz, whose ethnic background includes Costa Rica, gets the “first” in that category. But there have been people from Brazil, Cuba and Mexico who have flown above the atmosphere and around the Planet Earth.

In fact, the first Latin American in space was a Cuban cosmonaut – remember the days when the Soviet Union had a serious space program?

So when Acaba engages in space-walks or does the repairs to the space station that are the reason for his mission, there will be those who will want to get all worked up over the minutia of him helping to install a new set of solar wings and deliver a spare urine processor for the space station.

SOME MAY EVEN find it intriguing that Acaba is part of a crew that is delivering a member of the Japanese Space Agency to the space station to stay for a few months.

But I’ll be waiting to see how soon, and how prominently, he breaks out that Puerto Rican flag. It will be an ethnic pride moment worth a smile or two.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Joseph Acaba’s grandfather plans to be on hand Wednesday when the (http://www.nydailynews.com/latino/2009/02/18/2009-02-18_joseph_acaba_boricua_en_la_luna.html) space shuttle Discovery is launched.

What would U.S. baseball be without Latin America?

I’ve wondered in recent years if the reason some baseball fans are so hostile to the concept of the World Baseball Classic tournament being played these days is because they don’t want to have to acknowledge the fact that the U.S. major leagues are so dependent on other countries citizens to fill out the ranks of ballplayers.

Yet if it weren’t for all those Dominican and Venezuelan citizens coming to the United States in search of big bucks to play pelota (a.k.a., beisbol), baseball might very well be another area where the Japanese have surpassed this nation.

WHY ELSE WOULD it have been so important that the federal government acted recently to change the immigration laws that concern professional athletes?

The reality of the situation is that if a Latin American teenage male shows the ability to throw a curveball (or hit one with regularity), the regular rules with regards to immigration to the United States do not apply.

When a 16-year-old Latin signs that first professional contract, there’s always the good chance that the most valuable thing he gets is not the signing bonus (which in some recent cases have been largely absconded by the “scouts” who sign them), but the visa.

He doesn’t have to go through the rigamarole of applying for permission to leave the country, then waiting his turn (which can take years, and in some countries is virtually impossible).

IN A SENSE, the major league teams get to decide who gets a visa, based on the needs of their minor league ball clubs and their assessment of whether or not the young man will develop into a star at the major league level.

But under the existing regulations, a visa given under such conditions is only good for five years, with the likely potential for an extension of another five years.

Major league teams hate the idea that a ballplayer could just be reaching his physical, mental and emotional peak as an athlete when his time is up, and he would have to return to his home country – unless he was willing to give up his native ethnic citizenship and seek U.S. residency instead.

So because the ball clubs want change, they appear to be getting it.

THE U.S. CITIZENSHIP and Immigration Services recently issued a new memorandum that alters the federal policy that relates to professional athletes.

Now, when the 10-year mark is reached, an athlete will still have to leave the United States. But he will be able to apply for a new visa, which will be granted so long as a U.S. major league team desires his skills.

That new visa would start the clock, so to speak, all over again on the time limit for the Latin American athlete’s time in the United States.

Now I don’t have a problem with the idea of altering federal law to take these athletes into account. In fact, I couldn’t envision the U.S. major leagues being the way they were when I was a kid, and each ball club might have one or two (at the most) Spanish-speaking ballplayers.

I COULD ENVISION how good the professional leagues in the Dominican Republic and Venezuela would be if their country’s athletes were to focus their efforts exclusively on playing in their homelands – instead of coming to the United States, where even playing for the Washington Nationals pays better than playing for the La Guaira Tiburones.

In fact, that is what we get a sense of by watching the games of the national teams put together to play in the international baseball tournament that already has given us some classic moments.

I’m still trying to figure out if the Netherlands defeating the Dominican Republic or Australia thoroughly demolishing Mexico is the bigger athletic upset.

But back to the subject of immigration.

I’M NOT CLAIMING that the life of an athlete is overly easy, particularly if their physical tribulations are combined with trying to learn the language and customs of a foreign nation.

But why should such easy access to visas be given just because a kid can hit a curveball? It may serve to entertain baseball fans (including myself) across the country.

But there are many of these people who are coming from Latin American nations whom the nativists among us want to deride as criminals, just for being here.

Ignore the fact that many of them are doing some of the scutwork that otherwise would go undone.

WHO’S TO SAY that the garbage at the ballpark generated by the crowds who enjoyed watching a Venezuelan shortstop at work wasn’t picked up by someone with ethnic ties to a Latin American nation?

Or what about that taxicab you took from the stadium to get back home because you didn’t want to bother with paying rip-off rates for near-stadium parking?

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: The federal government is using some sense when addressing visa regulations (http://www.nydailynews.com/latino/2009/03/09/2009-03-09_us_extends_stay_of_foreign_athletes_.html) for professional athletes. When will they use similar logic for other people.

Border “wall” virtually complete

I’ve been a long-time critic of the concept of erecting a physical barrier along the U.S./Mexico border, not only because it creates an abhorrent physical and mental image but because a mere barrier isn’t going to stop anyone who is determined to get into this country.

Ultimately, “the wall” was a waste of federal tax dollars.

IF IT WERE possible, I’d be all for having President Barack Obama cut off its funding as a way of saving the U.S. government a significant amount of change. Yet, that won’t work. Federal officials were able to get the work so close to complete that any cuts would be miniscule.

The El Paso Times newspaper reported recently about how close “the wall” is to completion – all 89 miles of fencing that are within the sector near El Paso, Texas are done (except for about two miles worth near the town of San Elizario).

That portion cost the federal government about $228 million, and the entire wall ran up a price tag of about $2.6 billion.

I must admit the newspaper came up with one anecdote that caught my attention – the story of a San Elizario woman whose home lies near the border and will be about 15 yards from “the wall,” once it is complete.

SHE TALKS OF being awoke in the middle of the night by the sound of people entering the United States through her backyard and trying to use her home to hide from Border Patrol agents.

She also notes the times she has had to provide the “newcomers” to this country with a blanket to help them cope with cold weather. In some cases, they have young children with him, and the woman thinks the overall situation is tragic.

She’s right.

The current situation related to people wanting to come to this country out of some belief that they can achieve a piece of the “American Dream” is awful.

BUT I’M NOT sure how erecting a barricade in this woman’s backyard is going to change anything.

Instead of encountering people who are cold and hungry, she’s now going to get people in her backyard who are ticked off because of the hassle they just went through seconds before in climbing over that barricade.

Hungry and harassed is a potentially dangerous combination in a human being. It’s not one I would ever want to encounter in someone I don’t know.

You’d think trying to come up with legal conditions that would enable all people a realistic chance at getting the papers needed by non-citizens in order to live openly in the United States would be the sensible type of reform that comes to mind when talking about immigration.

THAT IS WHAT it would take to create conditions in which people stop trying to sneak through the deserts of the southwestern U.S. with small children in hand (or try to dart across high-speed traffic near Tijuana to get to the other/U.S. side of the road).

You want to eliminate the freezing people in the backyard and encourage them to enter the United States at the official checkpoints? Then there needs to be a setup of immigration laws that are not meant to promote the concept that certain types of people should just accept it as fact that they’re not welcome.

Actually, there is one aspect of “the wall” that is all too acceptable, and perhaps it is a good thing that we will get to see it complete – and become a complete failure in its goal of reducing the number of people who try to enter the United States.

The idea of a border “wall” between the United States and Mexico has long been dreamed of by nativist nitwits, and has been the subject of jokes by halfwits.

BUT IT WAS only during the administration of George W. Bush as president that Republican officials took their then majority in the federal government and coughed up the cash to make this lunatic concept a physical reality.

“The wall” becomes a physical reminder of why Latinos turned so solidly against the Republican Party in recent elections, and may continue to do so unless GOP officials quit listening to Rush Limbaugh and accept a more welcoming attitude.

If it were up to me, I’d have the federal government formally name the 672 miles of border fence for former President Bush – Call it, “The Dubya Wall.”

It’s just as much a part of his presidential legacy as the economic morass our nation now faces or the lingering wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Lawsuits to stop construction of a U.S./Mexico border barricade are still (http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_11862456) pending, even though they have become virtually a moot point.