Nativists want to make “La Raza” Sotomayor’s version of Obama’s “Bill Ayers”

It does not surprise me that people will pop out of the woodwork who are determined to “bring down” the Supreme Court candidacy of appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor.

I think they realize the partisan political math is not in their favor and she is likely to become the ninth justice on the high court when it reconvenes in October. But they are determined to dredge up her ethnic background in ways that are meant to make it appear to be a negative.

IF ANYTHING, THEY hope to get at President Barack Obama and Democrats by claiming these are the kind of people that non-conservative elective officials will give the country. I believe they are delusional to think they can feed a diet of nativist rhetoric to the American public, and that it will be swallowed on Election Days of the future.

I use the word nativist in this instance because that is what I have heard during the past few days in the tone of the trash talk being used against the lady from the Bronx who rose to a federal judicial post (which I’m sure these people believe former President George H.W. Bush should have given to a “more qualified” white male).

It was early Thursday that a group calling itself the Americans for Legal Immigration PAC dredged up the fact that Sotomayor (of Puerto Rican ethnic background, although born in New York City) has been a supporter of the National Council of La Raza.

That group with Mexican-American origins has long been a target for criticism from bigots who want to distract attention from their own bigoted views.

LATER IN THE day, the loudmouth former member of Congress from Colorado, Tom Tancredo, did an interview with CNN where he characterized La Raza as, “the KKK without the hoods or nooses.”

We’re likely to start hearing a lot of rhetoric about the 1960s origins of La Raza, which originally did have members who touted the notion that the Southwestern United States and what is now northern Mexico were a nation of sorts populated by what we would now call Latinos.

They’re going to try to demonize anything connected to La Raza the same way they tried to dredge up the names “Bill Ayers” and “Weatherman” against Obama when he ran for president last year.

Let’s be honest. Many of the people most offended by Ayers last year will be the biggest trash-talkers this year when it comes to La Raza.

PEOPLE WITH COMMON sense saw that any Ayers connection to Obama wasn’t that significant, and that Ayers’ so-called controversial activities were in the past. If they show the same level of sense this year, they will see through this level of nonsense.

Because that is what it is. Tancredo, the man who when he was a member of Congress was often known for his nativist rants (such as walling Brownsville, Texas, off from the rest of the United States), is merely adding to his historic record of political trash talk. Obituary writers across the nation had to update their pre-written stories of his death to add his latest stupid line.

Because that is what such a comparison is. I have never heard of La Raza going out and killing white people in the southwest (although I have heard of groups of white people in the southwest terrorizing Latinos, although they never came up with such a dramatic symbol for themselves as the lit cross of the Klan).

In fact, much of the La Raza bashing seems to be based on the group’s name.

LA RAZA, IN English, is The Race.

It was a phrase that gained currency in those same ‘60’s circles among Latinos (the kind who called themselves Chicanos and grew bushy afros that their now bald heads reminisce fondly about) who were politically active.

It pushed the idea that people we now refer to as Latinos were not merely subgroups of other races or some sort of mutt mixture of a batch of races – we were “a race” of people in and of ourselves.

Latinos, just as much a full-fledged group as Anglos, African-Americans, Asians or anyone else. It was as much about expressing pride in oneself than anything else. It was definitely about rebuting the people who would spew rhetoric meant to make Latinos think less of themselves for not fitting into someone else’s warped ideal of what U.S. society should look like.

AS FOR THOSE people who try to portray white supremacist (white racist, white pride, or whatever silly label they try to use) groups as merely being the same in expressing pride in being Anglo, I’d argue that I have never heard of the National Council of La Raza pushing for laws meant to hold back non-Latinos.

If anything, the political measures that La Raza lobbies for are proposals that are meant to prevent other groups from approving laws to hold back Latinos.

And that, in many ways, is the bottom line. Sotomayor could become a vote on the Supreme Court against any political attempts to push measures meant to harm the interests of the fast-growing segment of the U.S. population.

If that is what their problem with Sotomayor truly is, then Tancredo’s absurd comments this week ought to be taken as the ultimate endorsement – to which the Senate ought to respond by confirming her appointment as quickly as possible.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: The people who today criticize the National Council of La Raza (http://www.nclr.org/section/about/history) are the spiritual descendants of those people who 45 years ago used to call Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. a “communist.”

It’s assimilation, nothing more

On one level, it is the nativist nightmare coming true. Yet in reality, it is just evidence that the growing Latino population is assimilating itself into the society of the United States.

I’m referring to the new study by the Washington-based Pew Hispanic Center, which took a look at the current Latino population and focused on the children – the generation whose lives will dominate the 21st Century.

THE GROUP FOUND that the percentage of immigrants’ kids who were born in the United States is on the rise. It’s 52 percent (just over half).

Which means that while some people want to demonize the parents who weren’t born in the United States and talk about how they should be deported and take their families with them, that isn’t practical.

Because the kids are U.S. citizens with the same rights as any other citizen of this country. Unless political people want to start taking actions that will be blatantly illegal (and will cause universal condemnation in the history books written a few decades from now), they’re going to have to accept the fact that these newcomers, whether they have all their papers with Immigration and Customs Enforcement in line or not, largely are here to stay.

It’s not “amnesty,” as much as it’s just recognizing reality.

THE PEW HISPANIC Center figures there are about 16 million people under 18 in this country who can identify as Latino (that word is my choice, its appropriateness is the subject of a future commentary). Those 16 million make up about 22 percent of all children in the U.S. these days.

Yet the center did its own analysis, which claims that the number of “second-generation” kids is about to peak. The result will be a significant rise in the percentage of “third-generation” Latinos (born to U.S. citizen parents).

That figure currently sits at 37 percent, but could soon become the majority of Latino kids in and of itself.

And those kids are largely legitimate, when it comes to immigration status. The Pew study found that about 7 percent of the 16 million are not U.S. citizens, but two-thirds of those kids were from the 11 percent of the Latino youth population that are foreign-born (first generation).

OF THE SECOND-generation majority, about 40 percent of them have at least one parent whose immigration status is uncertain. These are the kids who get caught up in the partisan political battles over whether they “belong” in the United States.

But my point is that they are not the majority of Latino youth. The typical Latino kid has just as much legal right to be in this country as anyone else, and people are going to have to quit thinking of them as “foreigners” just because they might not fit some nitwit’s theoretical concept of what a U.S. resident should be.

In short, it is assimilation. The United States of the 21st Century is going to have a significant portion with a Latino complexion, and some people who now want to demonize such a thought had better come to accept it as fact.

Either that, or the psychologists of the future are going to be busy addressing Anglo patients with ethnic hang-ups.

AS OFTEN AS I use these commentaries to rant or harangue people who tout nativist beliefs, I have to admit I honestly don’t worry about them too much. In large part, it is because I believe their thoughts will die out. One day, the nonsense rhetoric we hear these days whenever immigration reform comes up will be the subject of laughter in school classrooms.

Kids of the future will be amazed we were ever pathetic enough to believe such nonsense.

It’s the numbers. It’s the fact. The Latino population is growing at a significant rate (even though some people want to celebrate the fact that the nation’s current economic struggles have caused a temporary drop in the rate at which people are coming from Latin American countries).

The fact is that the numbers are too large to be ignored. My home town of Chicago is expected to reach a point some time around 2020 where it will have roughly equal percentages of white, black and Latino people.

THE COUNTRY AS a whole could reach that point by mid-century, and the day will come when it is the communities without a significant Latino population that will be the exception (we’re already headed in that direction).

That actually is part of the premise of a book I recently read. Entitled, “The Next 100 Years” by George Friedman, he tries to predict what our world will look like by the year 2100.

A portion of his analysis focuses on Mexico and the fact that it will start to give the United States some competition for dominance in North America (which Friedman sees as the continent that will influence the world, despite attempts elsewhere to create an Islamic state).

As he sees it, the growth of a Latino population in the United States will be so intense along the border that any pretense that the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo del Norte offers a hard-and-fast division between the two countries will have to be abandoned (so much for George W. Bush's border wall).

HE SEES THE future border region as a mixture – even if the river is still used as a legal boundary, with significant Latino populations elsewhere in the U.S. Friedman argues the growing Latino population will result in government officials who can no longer push nativist policies meant to keep Mexico in check (unless they want to risk losing on Election Day).

That could be what allows Mexico to use some of its natural resources to develop its own economy and become a more stable neighbor to the south by the end of the century.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: The latest Pew Hispanic Center study offers up more evidence of the growing influence (http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=110) Latinos will have in this country.

What intrigues me the most about George Friedman’s analysis is that he does not see a stronger Mexico (http://www.mysanantonio.com/entertainment/books/38759852.html) by the year 2100 as being contrary to a strong United States.

It’s all about the money

The National Basketball Association is going (yet again) to Mexico.

NBA officials announced earlier this week that Phoenix will take on Philadelphia in a pre-season exhibition to be played at the Monterrey Arena, recently built in the northern Mexico city of some 2 million people.

IT’S PROBABLY BIG enough to have an NBA franchise of its own; not that I expect professional basketball in this country to expand internationally any time soon.

Yet the NBA is in the business of making money, and it has discovered that sports fans in Mexico will get a kick out of watching ball games – even between U.S. teams that have no direct allegiance among those sitting in the stands.

Heck, it’s not just basketball. Major League Baseball has held pre-season games in Mexico (including in Monterrey, which is usually one of the cities that gets some lip service whenever people dream of future expansion into Latin America), and the National Football League has staged exhibitions in Mexico City – using the Estadio Azteca that can seat up to 100,000 people for futbol matches.

A lot of it comes down to spectacle.

PEOPLE WITH SOME discretionary cash are often too willing to spend it to be able to say they “were there” when some pseudo-historic moment took place – which is the way some people are trying to bill the idea of an NBA game being played in Monterrey.

It’s only the second time the city has hosted such a game (the first was in 2006 – the Golden State Warriors defeated the Denver Nuggets).

So what will the people of Monterrey be exposed to come October 18 when the Suns take on the 76ers?

For one thing, the Suns have Shaquille O’Neal. How will Shaq “play” among the Mexican public?

BY COMPARISON, THE 76ers have Elton Brand – the guy whom the Chicago Bulls once hoped would be the next Michael Jordan. I suspect Jordan himself would still go over bigger in Mexico than anybody on either of these teams – Shaq included.

But these games must do well, since this is the 18th NBA matchup staged in Mexico in recent years – making Mexico the most popular “foreign” destination for U.S. professional basketball – even moreso than Japan or any place in Europe (where the Bulls and the incredibly misnamed Utah Jazz will play an exhibition Oct. 6 in London).

Ultimately, it’s about the money.

The NBA likes the idea of people all around the globe buying merchandise with U.S. team logos, and probably wants to stir up enough interest in the U.S. game so that television networks in other countries would feel compelled to place bids for the right to broadcast NBA games.

THAT IS MORE money for the teams, at a time when economic struggles have some teams concerned about whether they can meet their skyrocketing expenses. After all, people worried about work might suddenly think their participation in a season ticket package might be a luxury that they can take a pass on this season or next.

So in the end, Shaq doing Monterrey isn’t about any altruistic goal or promoting any theme of international friendship.

It’s about trying to convert more people around the world into those kinds who will spend their money on all kinds of trashy souvenirs (although I will be the first to admit having purchased an occasional ball cap or two throughout the years).

I’m sure it also doesn’t hurt with the growing Latino population of this country who might be in a position to physically attend an NBA game or two.

THE LEAGUE LOOKS like it wants to reach out to Mexicans, which may very well cause a few Mexican-American sports fans to give the NBA a double take. Perhaps the Phoenix Suns figure they can get a few more fans into their arena by showing a willingness to make the flight about one hour south to Monterrey.

So how long will it be until the National Hockey League decides it too needs a few exhibitions in Latin America, if it wants to pick up a few fans among the growing Latino population in this country?

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: The NBA isn’t Major League Baseball when it comes to Latino ballplayers. Basketball’s top league has 17 Latino athletes, while the American and National leagues (http://www.nba.com/2009/news/05/26/nba.mexico/) have about 40 percent of their players of Latino ethnic backgrounds.

Mexico-born, but U.S. educated, is Eduardo Najera (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/n/najered01.html) of the New Jersey Nets.

They do play (http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=372185) some hockey in Mexico.

How will conservatives attack Sotomayor?

With the partisan composition of the U.S. Senate these days, it is likely that the upper chamber of Congress will go along with President Barack Obama’s selection of Sonia Sotomayor of New York to sit on the Supreme Court.

And I find it somewhat encouraging that the Republican minority that would be expected to lead the charge in opposition against Sotomayor getting what amounts to a lifetime job (she’s only in her early 50s) is keeping their trash talk rhetoric muted – thus far.

TO ME, THE only question I have about the confirmation process is to wonder what kind of trivial tidbit or pseudo-issue they will try to dredge up against Sotomayor to hammer her with during confirmation hearings.

My guess is that the most conservative elements of the Republican caucus and their supporters are having dreams of turning Sotomayor into the 21st Century version of Clarence Thomas.

The brutal accusations he put up with (which he referred to as a “high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves”) during his confirmation hearing didn’t stop him from getting the post on the Supreme Court.

But some 18 years later, there are still many people who think of Anita Hill and Coca-Cola cans whenever Thomas’ name gets mentioned. The sexual harassment allegations he was confronted with left him smeared for life.

I’M TRYNG TO figure out what kind of crazed story partisan critics will come up with in order to smear Sotomayor.

Thus far, we have had videotapes shown to us where she makes comments that the far-right likes to interpret as evidence that she will impose her personal agenda on the American public. In short, she is an irresponsible judge, they would say.

The problem is that such attitudes are so ideological that few normal people will take them seriously, or even understand them.

There’s also the “problem” (as far as conservatives are concerned) that the actual comments Sotomayor made on that video that now bops about the Internet in various places are so vague and obscure, it really is difficult to say that anything specific is being said.

IT COMES OFF as people who have a hang-up about anyone picked for the Supreme Court by a non-conservative president trying to take some obscure rhetoric and interpret it in ways that back their ideological beliefs.

The kind of people who want to think that Obama’s talk of “empathy” is some sort of code word for “un-American.”

That is what this opposition truly is about.

There will be those people who don’t want anyone who would be sympathetic or understanding of Latinos, or New Yorkers, or anyone who might not automatically demonize everyone who falls into either of those two groups.

IT IS PART of why Democratic officials in support of Sotomayor are bringing up the fact that she got her original federal judicial post in New York due to an appointment from George Bush the elder. How can Republicans have a problem with someone originally nominated to the federal judiciary by a GOP-type president – ignoring the fact that her appointment was part of a deal that allowed Bush to pick a more conservative judge for another post.

Now I don’t know specifically what kind of dirt can be found on Sotomayor. I’m not saying that there’s some Thomas-type sexual harassment allegation in her background. Whatever they wind up using might not be a legitimate claim.

It likely will be something that is wildly exaggerated. But wild exaggeration is a part of what partisan politics is all about.

So when confirmation hearings finally do take place (Obama aides would like to think she could be confirmed by the Senate sometime in August before Congress takes its break), there is the potential for a wild show over Sotomayor.

OR WILL THE Senate Republicans try to push back the confirmation to give them more time to do opposition research on Sotomayor’s record (which I’m sure is filled with ties to New York political types whom rural types will want to demonize) to try to taint her further.

But I suspect there would have been an equally ridiculous spectacle over anyone Obama would have selected.

The muted rhetoric of Tuesday will give way to wild claims that our society as we know it is doomed, if we allow this particular person to serve on the Supreme Court.

I’d like to think the bulk of our society will see it for the partisan political tactic that it will be, rather than any kind of allegation that ought to be taken as legitimate.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Republican leaders in the Senate said Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings would be (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052601313.html?hpid=topnews) fair. Yet I’m sure they think harsh criticism is simply part of the process of a fair hearing.

Could there be clues in this commentary published earlier this month as to what line of attack (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085) Republican critics ultimately will use to try to smudge up Sotomayor’s professional reputation?

Will we get (http://www.mahalo.com/answers/question-of-the-day/ive-heard-rumors-to-the-effect-that-judge-sonia-sotomayor-is-openly-gay-is-this-true-if-so-she-does-not-deserve-to-be-a-justice) smears like this in coming months?

EXTRA: Sotomayor gets Obama nomination

First, I would say this shows just how little I (or anyone else) truly knows.

For it appears that President Barack Obama went ahead to try to put a Latina on the Supreme Court of the United States – the first justice with ethnic origins in Latin America.

SONIA SOTOMAYOR IS of Puerto Rican descent, but is very much a New Yorker. I’m sure there are many people in this country whose ideological problems with her will be just as much because of her home city as it is with her ethnicity.

I expect their representation in the U.S. Senate will put up something of a fight (we’ve already heard of videotapes that supposedly show her to be some sort of “big government” type who will use her judicial post to run roughshod over the interests of the people).

Just how much of a fight the Republican caucus in the Senate can put up without feeding the image already in existence that they have become the anti-Latino political party remains to be seen.

I’d like to think their leaders are politically practical enough to keep their rhetoric in check. But that is a silly assumption to make about any elected official – regardless of political party.

I HAVE A feeling the fact that Sotomayor is female was possibly more important in her selection than her ethnicity. That could be how she gets sold to a segment of the population (conservative Anglo women) that might otherwise have their hang-ups.

And as for those people who are going to start bringing up issues such as abortion to use against her, they are the types who would be displeased no matter who Obama chose. Excuse me for not caring much about their opposition.

But now, pending the Senate’s approval which could come later this year, it would appear that the high court will now have someone who has something of a sense of Latino interests.

She came out of the Bronx, used education as a way of getting out of rough neighborhoods, and in fact comes from a family of people who went on to become professionals in various fields.

IN ONE SENSE, that ought to be a story that should appeal to people of various racial or ethnic backgrounds – unless they let nativist thoughts get in their way.

Besides, what are Latino interests? Some would argue that Latinos are a diverse group of many ethnicities, and Sotomayor would only have a firsthand sense of the Nuyorican perspective. But that would have been true of any Latino lawyer or judge that could have been picked by Obama.

What we people with an interest in Latino political empowerment ought to be seeking is a second Latino justice on the high court. It’s not selfish or greedy – it’s reality. This is a population that is expected to top out at about one-third of the nation.

Perhaps we ought to accept the reality that the idea of a Supreme Court with a lone Latina (while better than no Latinos whatsoever) is still far from ideal.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Sonia Sotomayor has a fairly conventional resume for a potential Supreme Court justice (http://www.pace.edu/page.cfm?doc_id=7771), or as conventional as such resumes ever are. She also has gained some national attention in the past (http://www.esquire.com/features/75-most-influential/obama-supreme-court-pick-1008).

Will we get the Latino answer to Thurgood Marshall?

Some political pundits arguing on behalf of the concept of a Latino serving on the Supreme Court of the United States claim it would be as historically significant as when Lyndon B. Johnson used his presidential authority to put Thurgood Marshall on the high court back in 1967.

I don’t know if I quite agree with that concept. But one has to admit that having the Latino population as large as it has become without having the Latino perspective on the high court is an absurd concept (just as much as the thought that the high court currently has only one woman).

DO I THINK it possible that some Latino lawyer or judge is about to become a major figure in U.S. history? I don’t know, and not just because I’m not sure when President Barack Obama is going to proceed with making his choice for the high court public knowledge.

Based on whose reports one chooses to believe, the pick could become public on Tuesday. Or it could be Friday. The one thing that many observers seem to agree on is that we, the public, will know who Obama wants to put on the high court before he leaves next week for an official government business trip to Europe.

Or maybe everybody’s wrong, and we won’t learn until after he returns to the United States.

That has led to many different Latino activist groups making a point of expressing their view about who they would like to have on the high court. Judges from New York, Miami, Chicago, Houston and Los Angeles have all been tossed into the mix.

IN FACT, ABOUT the only consensus I pick up on is that there is NO consensus. There doesn’t seem to be one name that all Latinos think deserves to be “the first” Latino to serve on the Supreme Court.

The name Sonia Sotomayor (a federal appeals judge from New York) seems to draw attention from Anglo people, but it almost seems like they’re just latching onto the one Spanish-sounding name they have heard and haven’t bothered to look at the mass of Latino judges and lawyers who have qualifications that could put them on the high court.

I’m wondering if that is what is supposedly behind the comments made earlier this month by Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, when he said that groups trying to lobby the president to pick a specific interest might actually turn out to be “counterproductive.”

Have all the people saying “we need a Latino” made the president immune to the thought of actually putting a Latino on the high court.

I’D HATE TO think that were the case. But I also will be the first to admit I’m wondering if Obama is going to be inclined to try to satisfy other interests with this Supreme Court pick – on the theory that it is likely (although by no means guaranteed) that he will get at least one more pick to the Supreme Court at some point during his presidency.

I have previously written that I think Obama theoretically would like to have three high court picks, so he could put a woman, a Latino and someone with ties to Chicago on the Supreme Court.

There are those who think Chicago-based federal appeals judge Diane Wood would be an Obama preference, in part because she would satisfy two of the three interests. But it would result in Latinos being the group “left out,” so to speak, of the high court equation.

There could be one positive (depending on how one view it) if the idea of a Latino justice were to wait until the next high court vacancy.

THE PERCEPTION FROM court and presidential observers is that Obama really would like to provide another female perspective beside the one currently offered by Ruth Bader Ginsberg on the court.

While I’m not saying there aren’t any Latinas qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, it almost would seem like a significant chunk of the Latino population of legal professional people would have to be ignored when it came time to picking the first Latino to serve on the high court.

I’m not saying there’d be anything wrong with the first Latino being a Latina.

But I’m wondering if Obama views it in part that satisfying the desire for a female, and an adopted Chicagoan (just like Obama himself) at that, and holding off on Latinos could allow him to look more thoroughly at the whole Latino legal community to determine which one gets to go into the history books as “the first.”

THE RISK HE takes is twofold.

First, he may not get another pick. The lifetime job status accorded to Supreme Court justices means that there is no set schedule for when they are replaced. It is up to the whims of the justices themselves.

I would think that people like Clarence Thomas are now holding onto their positions on the court for dear life, hoping that some future president with a conservative ideological bent will get the chance to replace them.

That was the case with Marshall himself, who only retired in 1990 because his health deteriorated to the point he couldn’t hold out long enough to wait for Bill Clinton to come along in 1993.

THEN, THERE’S THE backlash he will face from Latinos, who might be skeptical of promises that a “next pick” by Obama would satisfy the desires of those of us with an interest in Latino political empowerment.

There are some activists who note that Obama didn’t pick all that many Latinos to cabinet posts earlier this year and that the most prominent Latino in the running (Bill Richardson of New Mexico) wound up getting shoved aside. Passing over a Latino for the Supreme Court could be perceived by some as “strike two.”

If an Obama administration is not able to get significant immigration reform approved by Congress (which means directly taking on the nativist opposition that has always been behind its past failures), it could be the factor that makes some Latinos conclude that Obama has struck out.

-30-

Do you hear “Guantanamera” in a different light these days?

While I can understand there are legitimate concerns about what to do with the “enemy combatants” being held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, I can’t help but think that President Barack Obama is essentially correct in his underlying belief that the prison facility there should not be used for this purpose.

The thing that has always bothered me about Guantanamo becoming synonymous with torture by U.S. forces is that the image is easily distorted into something that “los hermanos Castro” can use against our nation when we condemn Cuba for its human rights violations.

ANYTIME FIDEL CASTRO can claim the moral high ground against you, you know you’ve done something stupid.

So now, we engage in the partisan political debate as everybody tries to come up with a solution that puts them in the best light, and makes their political opponents look foolish in the process.

That is what I think of much of the hesitancy being expressed by members of Congress. It also is what I think of the fact that my home state’s senior senator, Richard Durbin of Springfield, Ill. (originally East St. Louis), is now “graciously” offering up Illinois’ “supermax” prison in Tamms as a new home for some of these people.

I only hope that a solution can be reached soon. For I’d like to be able to go back to listening to that tune of the girl from Guantanamo without having to think of the Bush years or anyone trying to use the images of terrorism for their political gain.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: The latest bit of posturing with regards to Guantanamo by Dick Durbin is more clearly detailed (www.chicagoargus.blogspot.com) at our sister weblog.

The late Compay Segundo gave (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ4NOXz3gjA) the world this take of the song based on the poem by Cubano Jose Martì.

Now after reading this commentary and watching this video clip, shut down your computer for the day and enjoy some time with the family while also paying tribute to those who have sacrificed for our nation.

Will Latinos use Latin American banks?

It strikes me as ironic that during the same week that the biggest bank in Puerto Rico is closing branches on the U.S. mainland and narrowing their focus, one of Mexico’s major banks has decided that its future depends on expansion into the United States.

Both Banco Popular and Banco Azteca made the business news reports this week for their intentions with regard to the United States.

BANCO POPULAR IS based in San Juan and has 177 branches on the Caribbean island commonwealth. That company decided years ago that it wanted to expand by appealing to the growing Latino population in the United States.

They opened branches in various cities with significant Latino populations, out of a belief that Latino newcomers to this country might feel more comfortable using a bank from “back home,” even if they weren’t actually from Puerto Rico.

They tried to appeal to the notion that this was a bank that would welcome Latino business.

But Popular Inc. this week said it would close branches across the country – eliminating about 20 percent of their addresses on the mainland.

AFTER THIS RESTRUCTURING, there will be 104 branches of Banco Popular on the mainland U.S., based in New York and New Jersey, Florida, Southern California and Illinois.

Officials emphasize they’re putting the bulk of their business into New York, because that is where they are used.

To cite the California situation, 22 branches are being closed, leaving 24 more remaining in the Los Angeles area.

I find the California situation most interesting because some might take the cut as a sign that there isn’t enough of a market in the Los Angeles area for Spanish-oriented banks.

BUT THAT ISN’T the way that Banco Azteca is interpreting the scene.

The Mexico City-based banking company sees an underserved market, and financial failings from existing institutions that make them think the growing Mexican-American market might be in need of a customized bank.

They’re planning on opening branches in and around Los Angeles and San Diego, while holding off on any other expansion until they see what kind of reception they get in Southern California.

Admittedly, they are going for a market of people whose financial needs all too often are met by currency exchanges – the Bloomberg News service reported this week that the company plans to have its U.S. branches focus on money wire transfers, in addition to small loans ($300, or less) and cheap life insurance.

SO WHY WOULD one Latin American-oriented bank be willing to go into California at a time when another one is making the decision to cut their operations?

A large part of it could be the ethnic factor. In the same way that Banco Azteca’s future in the United States might be limited to the southwestern part of the country where the Mexican/Spanish influence is felt every day – even by people who would prefer to ignore it, Banco Popular is most likely a phenomenon of urban areas with people who specifically identify with Puerto Rico.

Hence, the Reuters wire service reported this week that the company plans to shift resources to the New York City area, hoping to strengthen their services in the “Nuyorican” community.

Part of it is ethnic snobbery on the part of Latinos, who even though many Anglos can’t tell the difference truly are not all alike.

IT MAY WELL turn out to be that companies wishing to attract the “Latino” segment of the economy are going to have to accept that they can only achieve a piece of it, depending on which ethnic segment they choose to market their products to.

Some people may wind up having a problem with this – dueling “Latino” banks. But it may well turn out that if this issue can help educate the bulk of U.S. society as to the differences among Latinos of varying ethnicities, then it may have a greater good to it.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: One of Mexico’s largest banks is considering coming to the United States (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aZwPYR0S8ouM&refer=news) at a time when Puerto Rico’s largest bank is cutting back on some mainland U.S.(http://www.reuters.com/article/mnaNewsFinancialServicesAndRealEstate/idUSN2130793220090521) branches.

Chu had better recognize Latinos if she wants re-election

Some pundits are trying to make a big issue out of the special elections in California that saw someone of Chinese ethnic background win the Democratic nomination for a seat in Congress.

At stake was the seat held by Rep. Hilda Solis, D-Calif., who earlier this year became President Barack Obama’s choice for a cabinet post (Secretary of Labor). That particular Los Angeles-area seat has been held by Latinos for decades. It covers an area that is strongly Latino.

SO HOW DOES Judy Chu, a Chinese woman (actually, a U.S. woman of Chinese ethnic background), manage to win it?

Some want to claim it was weakness among the Latino candidates that caused voters to reject the notion that a Latino should represent the area. Others are even expressing some sense of joy at the thought of fewer Latinos.

But when I look at the results from that particular election held earlier this week (yes, I am pathetic enough to find election results intriguing), I see simple mathematics, along with a convoluted process that seemed determined to produce a run-off election to be held later this year.

There were 12 official candidates and one write-in seeking to replace Solis. Eight of those were seeking the post as representatives of the Democratic Party.

WITH THE EXCEPTION of Chu, all of those people were Latino.

So this is a case where Latino voters likely were split, and the non-Latino voters (the simple fact is that every so-called minority district has to have a certain percentage of non-majority minorities in it in order to ensure that the process is legal) didn’t get behind any one candidate.

As things stand, Chu won the right to be the Democratic Party candidate in a district dominated by the Democratic Party with just over 30 percent of the vote. Which means nearly seven of 10 voters wanted somebody else.

But the simple fact is that this is an urban district in California. The Democratic candidate is going to be the front-runner over the Republican and the Libertarian party candidates.

AND I DON’T see a lot of Latinos going over to the Libertarian Party just because they might want to vote for Christopher Agrella. Most Latinos are likely to go along with the next election’s results to be held July 14 (Bastille Day, for those with a knack for thinking of obscure holidays).

For what it’s worth, it could turn out that Chu turns out to be a worthy representative of a Latino district. She’s going to have to make some concessions and acknowledgments of her constituents. She’s going to have to remember that in exchange for the votes she received, she has to represent their interests.

If she can do that, then she has a chance of sticking around Congress for some time.

If she can’t, then she can count on being dumped come the November 2010 general elections. For this seat will be watched by Latino activists who want to see how receptive Chu is to their interests and desires.

THERE IS SOME evidence she will be sympathetic and willing to go along.

She had among her backers during this special election Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and even got a partial endorsement from the United Farm Workers Union (the legacy of Cesar Chavez).

So it’s not like people with an interest in Latino political empowerment have serious problems with her.

Personally, I find the most intriguing aspect of this particular bid is the July election between Chu of the Democrats and Betty Chu of the Republicans.

THEY ARE COUSINS.

Is it possible that the Libertarians are drooling at the thought of actually winning a seat in Congress on the notion that some voters will get confused about which Chu they’re voting for?

Then again, I’m not sure anyone could be that clueless, not even those people from Florida in 2000 who allegedly voted for Pat Buchanan thinking they were casting ballots for Al Gore.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: The California 32nd Congressional District is roughly two-thirds Latino (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-local21-2009may21,0,6796075.story), with Asians comprising about 20 percent. Their votes this week set up a special election (http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2009/05/judy_chu_will_succeed_hilda_so.html) later this year between the Chu cousins.

Will Obama leave Latino issue out of the loop?

With all the screeching done by various Latino activists to persuade President Barack Obama that his first nomination to a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States ought to be someone with ethnic roots to a Latin American nation, it made me chuckle to learn that the president has started interviewing possibilities for the post.

Reports indicate that Diane Wood got to meet with the president in private, although her primary purpose for being in the District of Columbia was to attend a law conference at Georgetown University.

AS I HAVE written previously, I believe that if Obama ultimately gets enough opportunities to put people on the nation’s high court, we will get a Latino, a woman and a Chicagoan.

If there were a Latina from Chicago with sufficient experience, she’d be a shoo-in to get Obama’s nomination – even if she’d probably freak out the conservatives in the U.S. Senate who ultimately must confirm the selection before the person could take the job.

Wood is an appeals court judge based in Chicago (she was appointed to that post 14 years ago by then-President Bill Clinton). She has ties to the University of Chicago, where Obama was once an instructor in the law school.

And when it comes to the trio of categories that Obama would look favorably upon, she would fill two of them.

IT’S JUST TOO bad for those of us who are interested in boosting Latino political empowerment that it appears “Latino” is the odd category out, so to speak.

So what should we think? Is it just pure coincidence that Obama got together with one of his old law school colleagues who is a judge in his adopted hometown, and that Obama is seriously giving thought to having a Latino on the high court?

Or is our best chance of getting a Latino on the court to hope that Obama gets a second chance to pick a Supreme Court justice (which is a very real possibility, but not a guarantee).

A poll earlier this week showing that roughly three-quarters of Latinos are content with Obama could soon show a significant drop. After all, there is a sense that Latinos didn’t get a share of the top cabinet posts when Obama put together his top advisers.

A SUPREME COURT justice would make up for that, in a sense. But not getting anything would make it seem like Obama will always find an excuse to pick someone other than a Latino.

So what will we learn when Obama ultimately lets it be known who he wants to serve on the Supreme Court? That moment could come as soon as the end of next week – if the New York Times is to be believed.

The newspaper reported recently that he likely will make the selection known just before leaving for a foreign trip to Egypt and Europe in early June.

And it also is possible we’re going to get lots of leaks of names as every single judge or legal expert who meets with Obama gets their moment of attention. Will the same people who now think Wood is the favorite be singing the praises of Ruben Castillo should he get some consideration for the post?

CASTILLO IS THE federal judge based in Chicago who is of Mexican ethnicity. So that puts him in two of the three groups as well (even though women would be claiming to be left out).

The bottom line is that Obama is going to tick off people who now think of himself as his allies – no matter who he chooses for what amounts to a lifetime job on the Supreme Court.

Also, no matter whom he picks, there will be a faction of the Republican Party willing to demonize him. There won’t be any rationality behind it. It will just be trash talk.

So perhaps Obama is best off picking someone with whom he is comfortable. And for those people who will say all this ethnic/gender/regional factor is absurd and he should just pick the most qualified person for the job, I’d argue that there are many legal people who are “qualified.”

TOO MANY OF the people who are screaming “pick the most qualified” seem to have a belief that anyone other than an Anglo guy results in a less qualified person on the high court.

There are Latinos who have the experience and demeanor needed to serve on the high court. I only wish I could think of a Latina from Chicago off the top of my head – because then I’d look like a genius for saying she’s a lock for the nomination.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: A Chicago female may be in line to be Barack Obama’s choice for the (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/obama-interviews-wood-for-supreme-court-seat/?hp) Supreme Court. Does this mean the president is ignoring the pleas (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/18/hispanic-groups-quietly-press-for-supreme-court-pick/) of Latino activists?

NOTICIAS de LATINO: Obama hasn’t screwed up, yet

Roughly two thirds of Latinos who voted last year are believed to have given their electoral support to Barack Obama for president. And if the results of a new poll are any indication, we’re not kicking ourselves yet.

Bendixen & Associates, a Miami-based firm that focuses on Latino interests, came out with a study finding that 68 percent of us admit to voting for Obama, and 75 percent of us think the president is doing either excellent or good, compared to only 17 percent of us who think he’s doing mediocre or bad.

I GUESS THAT means the remaining 8 percent of us are too apathetic to have an opinion on Obama.

Whether Obama will be able to keep that kind of strong support among Latino voters will be influenced by how he winds up handling any attempt by the federal government to revamp the laws concerning immigration.

While it is a fact that many more Latinos are being born in this country, rather than immigrating, that does not make the issue any less relevant.

I know from my perspective, I take an interest because I realize there are many Anglos who are too dumb to tell the difference between an immigrant and a native-born Latino. So the interests of the immigrants are just as relevant to my life.

BESIDES, I’M THE grandson of immigrants from Mexico, the only difference between my grandfathers and the new newcomers is that “mis abuelos” got an 80-year head start.

That poll showed 59 percent of Latinos think immigration reform is “very” important, and shows 69 percent of Latinos know someone personally whose visa or other papers are not in order.

There’s also the fact that 75 percent of Latinos said they felt anti-immigrant sentiment (http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/politics/2009/5/19/hispanic_voters_influence_continues_to_grow.htm) was being used to single them out.

What other issues of interest to the growing Latino population were in the news these days?

WHO LISTENS TO THEIR PARENTS THESE DAYS?: The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unwanted Pregnancy worked with the National Council of La Raza on a study about sex, and found that many Latino teenagers are willing to listen to their parents about this matter.

Forty-nine percent of those surveyed said their parents were the ones to most influence their attitudes about sex (religious leaders were only cited by 3 percent).

For what it’s worth, 76 percent of Latino teens said they think people should be married before they have children, while 81 percent said that having a baby as a teenager would either delay or prevent them from achieving any goals they have set for their lives.

Then, there’s my personal favorite tidbit from this survey – 74 percent of Latino teens surveyed think Latino parents have a double-standard, telling sons one thing while (http://www.hispanicprwire.com/news.php?l=in&id=14212&cha=18) telling daughters something else.

TRASH TALK IN TITLE DOCUMENTS: They used to be rather common; restrictive covenants written right into titles and other legal documents making it clear just who (and who not) a property owner could sell his land to.

Those covenants usually spelled out rather bluntly that certain places were for white people only. And Hispanic white likely didn’t count.

The courts have made it clear those covenants are meaningless. They are not enforceable. Yet if one scours the title to their property, there’s a chance they could see that someone in the past may not have deemed them worthy of owning their particular home.

That is why a legislator in California is trying to get state officials to pass a law requiring that all such outdated (http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_12398905) language be removed from all legal documents. It will be curious to see if title insurance companies throw up a stink. After all, such an effort would create a lot of paperwork, all to remove something that literally isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

-30-

Census not specific enough on Latino ethnicities

I have to give the U.S. Census Bureau a bit of credit for the way they try to acknowledge the fact that Latinos aren’t a unified group. But naturally, their effort just isn’t sufficient.

The Census report that gets distributed to people next year when the federal government does its population count is trying to figure out not only how many Latinos exist in this country, but also how we break down in terms of ethnicity.

ALL PEOPLE WHO indicate they are “Hispanic, Latino or Spanish” origin will be asked if they are of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban or other ethnicity.

While Mexican, Puerto Rican and Cuban comprise the bulk of people who say they are Latino, the people who fall into the “other” category are now upset.

The Wall Street Journal newspaper reported this week that Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., is pushing a measure through Congress to amend the Census form to include “Dominican” among the categories – as people whose ethnic roots lie in the Dominican Republic don’t like being reminded that outside of New York, their ethnic brethren are scarcely found outside of the local major league baseball stadium.

The problem is that “Latino” is a label that covers so many different ethnic groups (more than 20 countries comprise Latin America). If the point of the Census is to get a detailed breakdown, it seems ridiculous to lump so many different ethnicities (Brazilians, Venezuelans, Salvadorans, to name a few) into the “other” category.

YET I CAN also envision how burdensome the Census form would be if all 20-something ethnic groups that comprise Latinos were included. The form could wind up devoting more space to trying to detail the Latino portion of the population than it does trying to figure out what the rest of the population is made up of.

So I suppose a judgment call has to be made as to which Latino ethnicities are worthy of being specified, and which have to fall under the category of “other.”

If anything, there’s one aspect of the Census form layout that I think is more ridiculous than the concern over whether or not Dominicans are included as a separate ethnic group.

It relates to people whose ethnic origins go directly to Spain.

AS THE CENSUS form is laid out, it asks people if they are “Hispanic, Latino or Spanish,” wording it that way so as to indicate that federal officials (and myself, to be honest) view all three terms as meaning the same thing.

Then, in asking if someone is “Mexican,” “Puerto Rican,” “Cuban” or “other,” the form indicates that “Spaniard” is among the ethnicities to be included.

So after acknowledging in the first part that “Spanish” is a full-fledged label, they then reduce the people from Spain to being an “other.” It strikes me as being too much of a contradiction, although I suppose someone who is purely Anglo-oriented wouldn’t catch it.

Let’s be honest.

THE ONLY PEOPLE who identify themselves as “Spanish” are either those whose ethnic roots are from Spain, or those of an older generation who think that emphasizing some European tie makes them better than someone who would think of themselves as some form of “Indio” (the reality is that most of us are a mixture).

It is one of those quirks that will cause Latinos to smirk at the silliness of the people who put the Census form together, while also causing the Latinos from ethnic groups that were snubbed to feel doubly insulted.

Personally, this issue doesn’t affect me because I fit into the bulk of the Latino population in this country.

Three of my four grandparents were born in Mexico and came to the United States so many decades ago. I will have no trouble marking myself as a Latino of Mexican ethnic background.

BUT THE ATTEMPT to put us into a simple category is what will cause some Latinos to feel snubbed. I only hope they don’t get stupid and decide to snub the Census back by ignoring the form.

Because as I have made clear before, Latinos need to show as large a count as possible next year in order to justify our status as a growing population. There already are too many elements of our society who would like to see as small a count as possible so they could justify their hostile actions in the political realm.

There is one plus to the issue of Latinos being upset about their ethnic group not being respected sufficiently. At least we’re not back to the issue of whether the federal government is wrong for using the term “Hispanic” instead of “Latino.”

That issue is so old, and not worth getting worked up over anymore.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: How long will it be until someone gets offended at the concept of only three Latino ethnic groups being recognized, compared to nine different ethnicities for (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/05/18/were-complicated-so-is-the-census/) people who identify themselves as Asian?

Dueling interests fight for Supreme Court post

I have not made it a secret that I would enjoy the thought of a Latino receiving the job-for-life that is an appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States.

It seems like something that is long overdue, and would help enhance the high court’s perception of many differing issues. But I also am realistic enough to know that there is a good chance that whoever does wind up getting President Barack Obama’s pick to be on the court in coming weeks will not be someone whose ethnic origins go back to a Latin American nation.

THE SIMPLE FACT is that there are many differing interests that would like to see one of their own, and there is a degree to which Latinos are in competition with other groups to see which one will be able to claim the eventual Supreme Court nominee as one of their own.

Women wouldn’t mind seeing one of their own on the court, citing the fact that only one female justice exists presently – and there are those who wonder how much longer her health will permit Ruth Bader Ginsburg to serve.

There also are those who think that the many justices with ties to the University of Chicago or to the courts of Chicago will be in line for a Supreme Court appointment.

I honestly believe Obama is inclined to want to get all three of these “groups” onto the high court eventually.

SO IT IS possible that a Latino will be beat out by a Chicagoan or a female? It could happen. In fact, I’m starting to wonder if that is the outcome – although I’m not sure which of those two groups will prevail.

The ideal situation for Obama would be to have at least two more vacancies on the high court come up during his time as president. If Obama were to get at least three picks, he’d be able to satisfy many differing groups.

But while there always is a chance that he will get that many choices, there’s also the chance that he won’t. We’re going to see people like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia hanging onto their posts until the day they draw their final breaths (while trying to concoct some scheme that would allow them to continue on the court from the hereafter).

There’s always the chance that the retirement of Justice David Souter willl be Obama’s only chance at having a legacy-building Supreme Court appointment.

SO WHAT SHOULD Obama do?

There will be an attempt to pick someone who can fall into at least two of the three categories. That is why Sonia Sotomayor got her name put atop the Latino picks by amateur political prognosticators.

There also are those who think that Diane Wood, an appeals court justice based in Chicago, is also a person who ought to rank near the top of the list of picks.

I always wondered if Ruben Castillo would get some extra consideration because he’s a Chicago-based U.S. district judge who is of Mexican ethnic background.

IT’S TOO BAD that we can’t find a credible pick of a Latina from Chicago, because that would allow all three factions to feel like they got someone representing their interests with this one pick.

But regardless of who Obama picks (and the fact that he has named an aide who will preside over the selection process to ensure that whomever the president nominates will ultimately be confirmed by the Senate), what is most important is that we not think purely in terms of one appointment.

Even if Obama ultimately decides that the interests in having a Latino on the high court should be put above those of any other group this time around, it would not mean satisfaction for those people who want increased political empowerment for the growing Latino population.

Because only having one of nine justices who can have a first-hand identification with Latinos (who themselves are not a homogeneous population) would reek of picking a token Latino.

IT WOULD MAKE it seem like there’s some limit, which is almost what it seems has become for African-Americans these days. The real interesting situation will be if Obama is ever put in a position where he gets to pick a replacement for Thomas – whose time on the court has lasted nearly two full decades.

What we really want on the high court are justices who are not going to be openly hostile to the interests of Latinos, who in our growing numbers are going to be a factor that cannot be ignored.

I am aware that there are non-Latino people who could fit that description.

So long as Obama does not pick one of these so-called Constitutional purists who thinks that the document is to be read literally (and they always read it in ways that are hostile to Latinos and many other interests), his pick will likely be satisfactory.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Hispanic National Bar Association compiled the following list of (http://sev.prnewswire.com/publishing-information-services/20090513/DC1644913052009-1.html) Latino legal minds who could be picked by Barack Obama for the Supreme Court.

“War” on drugs continues in Juarez

I have to admire the courage shown earlier this week by Mexico’s president, Felipe Calderòn Hinojosa, when he spent an entire day in Ciudad Juarez.

That is the border city named for the one-time Mexican president Benito Juarez that has been the focal point of the drug-related violence that some people like to think has spread throughout all of Mexico.

IT ALSO IS the city where the Mexican army is now patrolling the streets and handling the policing duties, and where Calderòn says he has no intention of pulling out troops any time soon.

What has made Juarez so unique is the degree to which the drug cartels have shown little to no respect for the law. While one might think that having the army around him made him feel safe, it would not have surprised me in the least to see those cartels try an act of violence against the president whom they think is not showing them proper respect.

In all, it’s a scary situation (albeit one where the level of violence is showing signs of declining). I’m not going to pretend to give a thorough analysis of the current situation.

But this recent account (http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_12374601) from the El Paso Times newspaper is informative.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Here is the official propaganda take (http://www.presidencia.gob.mx/en/press/?contenido=44957) on Felipe Calderòn’s visit to Ciudad Juarez.

This is a time to ignore the polls

Sixty-eight percent of the people of this country don’t think it is important for President Barack Obama to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States with someone who is Latino.

That is a number to keep in mind when hearing all the rhetoric that will continue from Latino activists until Obama makes it clear whom he is nominating to replace retiring Justice David Souter.

BEFORE ANYONE THINKS this is some sort of snub against Latinos, we need to consider the source and context of the information. The Gallup Organization released a study this week, and found that most people say they’re not concerned about ethnic, racial or gender factors on the court – which currently is 7 men and 1 woman, or 7 white people and 1 black man.

That same Gallup study said that 74 percent of people questioned said it didn’t matter that there weren’t more black people on the high court, and only 32 percent thought it either a “good idea” or “essential” for there to be another woman on the high court.

Insofar as the portion of this particular poll devoted to the Latino issue, which was conducted during a four-day period last week when it was first learned that Souter plans to retire this summer, it turns out that only 22 percent of the public think it “a good idea” or “essential” to have a Latino on the high court.

After all, they’re the surging segment of the U.S. population, even though the economic struggles this country confronts these days is showing some evidence of slowing the Latino population growth. In my mind, the thought that none of the nine justices can identify with this segment (and some show signs of being blatantly hostile) is a problem that ought to be addressed with.

BUT THERE IS a majority that either disagrees, or (most likely) hasn’t bothered to think about the issue much.

If there was any statistic from this survey that caught my attention, it was the number “8.” As in 8 percent of those surveyed thought it would be a “bad idea” to have a person of a Latino ethnic background on the Supreme Court.

By comparison, only 3 percent thought it a “bad” idea to have another woman or another black person.

That may very well be because of issues such as immigration reform and even the H1N1 virus being in the news, giving the nitwits of the world rhetoric to use to bash Latinos. A similar Gallup survey taken back in September 2005 only had 4 percent of those surveyed thinking a Latino on the high court would be a “bad idea.”

SOME MIGHT FIND it discouraging that the Latino figure would be more than double that of the other “groups,” but I think it good that the figure is in single digits. It shows that the percentage of nitwits in our society, even though loud and outspoken, also is small.

Time will cause their nativist thoughts to wither away.

What I really get from this poll is that many people think the court ought to consist of nine people just like themselves. Which means it’s really an example of how partisan politically our society has become.

When it comes to having another woman on the high court, people identifying themselves as Democrat were most likely to think it necessary for there to be another woman on the nine-member high court.

REPUBLICANS WERE LEAST likely (26 percent) to think gender ought to be considered.

And when it came to the gender of those surveyed, women were more likely than men by a 3-2 ratio to think having a second woman on the high court would be a worthy concept.

It is why I’m preparing to ignore the onslaught of rhetoric that will come about regardless of whom Obama chooses for what amounts to a life-time job on the high court. Republicans are going to criticize that pick just because it is Obama affiliated (they probably dread the possibility he could get to make two, or maybe even three, picks to the court before he is finished as president).

The court has come to be seen in some eyes as the entity that is supposed to uphold the elected officials when they do something sympathetic to their partisan beliefs, and overrule the politicos when they do something in opposition.

SO PERHAPS IT is true that the only people who have any strong desire to see a Latino on the high court is Latinos themselves. Personally, I find this talk of a Latino appointment to be discouraging. We ought to be thinking in terms of two or three of the nine justices (maybe even more, in our wildest dreams) being of Latin American ethnic origins.

Why settle for one?

But with the number of people who hate the idea being in single digits percentagewise, it strikes me that there won’t be much of a groundswell of opposition should Obama proceed with the speculation that the Latino time has come for a Supreme Court appointment.

That ought to be all the more reason why Obama ought to ignore this talk and do what he thinks is proper. After all, people tend to mock political officials who let themselves get knocked about by polls and are incapable of reacting to a situation before seeing numbers.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Only 1 percent of the U.S. population that was surveyed last week thought it “essential” (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118342/No-Clamor-High-Court-Appointee-Woman-Minority.aspx) for there to be a Latino on the Supreme Court of the United States.

H1N1 now the subject of lawsuit, Castro tirades

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the virus that spread through Mexico leaving dozens dead and has also infected people of many other nationalities around the globe is now inspiring people to think lawsuit.

But a lawsuit filed in South Texas by a man whose wife was the first U.S. citizen to die comes across as being too desperate in its attempt to find some corporate entity that can be blamed for the spread of the virus.

AFTER ALL, WHY think about asking for $1 billion in damages and compensation if all you’re going to do is sue someone who doesn’t have anything financially to give?

But I’m not confident that one dime will ever be paid in damages from this particular legal action, which was filed in Cameron County, Texas. The Brownsville Herald newspaper reported Wednesday that a man wants legal discovery against Smithfield Foods, Inc.

The U.S. company operates a hog processing plant across the U.S./Mexico border in Veracruz that some rumor-mongers want to say is the “ground zero” for the viral outbreak that has caught the world’s attention.

The lawsuit seeks all kind of depositions from company officials to see if it can find any basis for saying that Smithfield did something wrong that caused the virus that left this man’s wife dead.

I FEEL SORRY for him, having lost a loved one at a young age (she was only 33).

But this lawsuit has little more than the potential to stir up ridiculous rhetoric that will continue to spread about this virus – which actually seems to be coming under control in Mexico (the place where it has had the most severe impact).

Health officials with the federal government in Mexico have already said the hog processing plant cited in the lawsuit (a plant near the town of La Gloria) has no tie to the virus outbreak.

But the kind of people who would push this type of legal action may very well be thinking, “they’re only Mexican officials, what do they know?”

I WILL BE the first to admit that government officials of all nationalities are going to feel a temptation to cover up the truth, if it comes off as too negative. But this so-called cover-up doesn’t make much sense.

This is the kind of thing that will come out in the end, and where the best thing to do is be forthcoming and honest. Getting credit for discovering the cause of the virus will be worthy of praise, while a cover-up would only inspire contempt.

This lawsuit seems like an effort to pick through the same mess of detail, rather than try to do real investigation into new areas that might actually give us (the public not only of the United States, but of the world) an understanding of what caused this viral outbreak in recent weeks.

It would definitely give us an understanding of what needs to be done to reduce the chances of it recurring (although it is significant to understand that viruses are a part of nature and cannot be eliminated altogether, only reduced).

SO I’M SURE that some people will claim that the Austin-based attorneys who are handling this latest legal effort are merely the latest expression of that old state saying, “Don’t Mess with Texas.”

Personally, I find it to be yet another reason to snicker at the mentality that sometimes runs amok in the Lone Star State.

In fact, there may be only one person more foolish these days when it comes to the H1N1 virus (although a part of me votes to pick the Texas lawsuit people for that “honor”), and that is Fidel Castro.

The one-time leader of Cuba used his column in the state-sanctioned newspaper to lambaste Mexico for the virus, while also claiming that H1N1 is some sort of Yankee conspiracy.

IT TURNS OUT that the virus has even worked its way past the trade embargo and all the other restrictions that supposedly isolate Cuba from the rest of the world. A Mexican university student studying in Havana had the virus.

Supposedly, Castro claims that Mexican officials did not aggressively try to deal with the virus in its early stages because they were more interested in having President Barack Obama visit Mexico City last month to meet with President Felipe Calderòn Hinojosa.

In short, they chose friendly relations with the imperialist Yanqui United States over health, and now the Cuban people are at risk. Of course, if Castro’s policies didn’t impede the development of quality health care (Cuba’s so-called universal healthcare barely covers the basics) on the island, they’d probably be in a better position to cope with the virus.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Out of the 294 people found to have H1N1 virus in Texas, only one was not a (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/death-97967-flu-smithfield.html) native Texan.

Propaganda in translation (http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2009/mayo/mar12/Reflections-11may.html) winds up becoming something absurd.

NOTICIAS de LATINO: Activists not putting hope on one judge for Supreme Ct post

Latino activists who want to see one of our own sitting among the nine members of the Supreme Court of the United States want to be sure that the larger goal does not get tangled up in the so-called flaws of any one justice.

Many people considering the possibility of a Latino on the court have given their attention to Sonia Sotomayor, the appeals court judge in New York of Puerto Rican ancestry.

THE LOGIC SAYS that not only would the court get a Latino, they’d actually get a Latina (which ought to make all women happy, according to people who want to buy this line of thought).

But I couldn’t help but notice last week that Sotomayor was not the only Latino whose name was surfacing as a Supreme Court possibility in the early days after Justice David Souter announced his intent to retire.

I even noted that the fact Sotomayor is Puerto Rican could be held against her by Latinos in parts of the country outside of New York, particularly the Southwestern U.S. where Mexican ethnicity is much more predominant.

And the people who don’t like the thought of a Latino/a on the court at all are already dredging up old videotapes that they say are evidence of Sotomayor’s unsuitability for the Supreme Court.

THAT IS WHAT is really behind the group calling itself “Hispanics for a Fair Judiciary,” which this week urged Obama to pick a Latino justice. But they’re not picking a name, other than to note there are more than 80 federal justices with ethnic backgrounds originating in Latin America.

Not all 80 of those judges are suited for a Supreme Court appointment now. But there certainly are more choices than just Sotomayor. And we certainly shouldn’t think that (http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/legal_beat/2009/05/sotomayor-isnt-the-only-hispan.html) once one Latino gets on the court, there’s no more room for another.

But there are also interests promoting the idea that Obama would like to reward a justice with ties to Chicago, or to the University of Chicago, where he once taught at the law school.

That could be competition for the concept of Latino political advancement (and yes, judicial posts can be just as political as any elective office). What other events are worth noting these days?

LATINOS PAYING MORE FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP?: The Washington-based Pew Hispanic Center came out with yet another study about the life conditions faced by Latinos these days – and this one notes how much more we’re having to pay for the right to be homeowners.

The study found that 27.6 percent of the home loans to Latinos are subprime, which means the borrowers are paying higher interest rates – about 2.5 percent more than what white people pay.

In all, 48.9 percent of Latinos are homeowners (http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=109), according to the study.

Perhaps it is in that atmosphere that a company thinks it can get away with singling out Latinos (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/05/ftc_golden_empire.html) for improper behavior. The Federal Trade Commission sought charges against Bakersfield, Calif.-based Golden Empire Mortgage Co. for allegedly using ethnicity in determining who had to pay higher interest rates in order to get a home loan.

HISPANIC/LATINO ISN’T A RACE, NO MATTER WHAT “LA RAZA” SAYS: It always strikes me as being a bit absurd when people talk about the Hispanic (or Latino) “race.”

For the truth is that we, the people, who have ethnic origins in Latin American countries are a collection of races. Many of us are a mixture in a way that would make Barack Obama look like a pure-blood Kenyan by comparison.

What we as a nation are going to have to accept is that the old way of looking at things in terms in “black/white,” or the way some people would like to amend it to be “white/everybody else” just isn’t all that accurate. That could wind up being the biggest contribution that the growing Latino population makes to U.S. culture.

And for those who want a more scientific explanation of the genetics involved with Latin Americans, this piece published at Gene Expression offers as much data in a simplified form (http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/05/population_subscture_of_mexica.php) as is possible.

-30-

Latino citizens could bolster conservative ranks

It never fails to amuse me the way some social conservatives get so worked up over the issue of immigration, particularly when it comes to people arriving from Latin American countries.

For I have always felt that if these people had much in the way of sense, they’d be welcoming the Latin American newcomers because many of them are more than inclined ideologically to accept much of the conservative doctrine being spewed these days.

LETTING LATINOS BECOME a solid segment of the Democratic Party base in this country could wind up doing more harm to the Republican Party’s future than anything else.

So when people like former Vice President Dick Cheney say that radio commentator Rush Limbaugh is more the direction of the GOP than someone like former Secretary of State Colin Powell, I have to sense that the Republican problems are largely self-inflicted.

Why do I say that many Latinos are ideologically in line with a lot of the Republican rhetoric? Take the gay marriage issue in New York.

The state Legislature there is expected to take the issue up next week, giving its consideration to a bill touted by Gov. David Paterson that would make New York yet another state willing to support the concept of unions between same-gender couples being legal.

WHO ARE AMONG the opposition to that concept?

Groups called the New York Hispanic Clergy Organization and Vision Cristiana Internacional plan to picket this weekend outside the office maintained by the governor in New York City. In announcing their intentions on Monday, they said they were outraged by Paterson’s “insistence in introducing homosexual marriage” in New York.

So the attempt to prevent gay couples from being able to have the same legal benefits to their couplings that heterosexual couples have through marriage (which is all this issue is really about, I doubt there are many gay couples who want a formal church wedding with a priest) is going to gain a “brown” face.

It shouldn’t be shocking. The Catholic Church has that strong an influence over the cultures of all Latin American countries, and many of the so-called cultural traditions of Latinos have their origins in the church.

SO FOR EVERY Latino activist who will publicly tout the concept of gay marriage as being nothing more than offering equality to all people, there is another Latino who is more than willing to accept the rhetoric that gay marriage somehow undermines the concept of marriage and family.

If it weren’t for the fact that a strong segment of the Republican Party these days joined the Republican Party specifically because they want to be a part of an Anglo-oriented political organization, a lot of these newcomers to the United States would likely be inclined to support the one-time “Party of Lincoln.”

And let’s be honest, the number of newcomers to this country is going to be a significant factor in determining the 21st Century evolution of U.S. society and culture. The Los Angeles Times reported as such on Monday, noting that of the 1 million newcomers who completed the naturalization process and become U.S. citizens during 2008, nearly one-quarter came from Mexico.

Last year, 231,815 people gave up their Mexican citizenship to become U.S. citizens (some may say they’re citizens of both countries, a concept the United States has never accepted – although many countries do).

BY COMPARISON, THE country that provided the second-highest number of naturalized citizens last year was India – and that total of 65,971 people is less than one-third the total of Mexicans who are now U.S. citizens.

I note this figure in part to refute the ridiculous rhetoric that implies people of Mexican ethnic descent “are all illegal.” People who spew that nativist clap-trap often mean they think all people of Mexican ethnicity “ought to be illegal,” which makes it nonsense-talk.

Such talk is the reason Republican Party organizations tied to socially conservative, rural thought are struggling. If only some of these groups could be a little more open in who they want to perceive as belonging to this country, they’d find that most Latinos are split on many issues. We’d probably comprise a significant part of both political parties.

Instead, our growing numbers are truly on the path to becoming, “Democrats by Default.”

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Latino political officials in New York are willing to say publicly they oppose (http://www.nydailynews.com/latino/2009/05/11/2009-05-11_ny_hispanic_clergy_to_protest_gay_marriage_proposal_.html) gay marriage because they know some segments of the Latino population will strongly support them.

There were 3 million more Latino registered voters nationwide last year, compared to the (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-newcitizens11-2009may11,0,5503985.story) 2004 election cycle.

Orbitz wants to make money (someday) off Cuba

I once knew someone who was born and raised in rural Illinois, but upon marriage moved with her husband to his native Canada.

I still remember the astonishment in her voice when she described life in Canada to us when she said one of the first things that struck her as bizarre were the billboards and other advertisements for vacation trips to Cuba.

“WHO EVER HEARD about taking a vacation to Cuba,” I remember her saying.

I know full well her attitude is probably typical of much of the U.S. population, even though when one thinks of things logically, Cuba is just as sensible a vacation spot as Jamaica or any other place in the Caribbean.

There’s the tropical weather, and the potential to build tourist resorts that could keep the actual amount of contact with the locals to a minimum. So the poverty of the people who actually live in such places wouldn’t have to become such a “downer” to the sunshine and beaches and exotic drinks.

Admittedly, that is a shallow way to perceive a vacation trip. But it is the way many people would think of such an excursion.

IT LIKELY WOULD be the attitude of people inclined to take advantage of the latest promotional gimmick being offered by Orbitz.com, that Internet outfit that tries to entice people to take vacations by offering them cheap rates.

Now Orbitz isn’t at the point where they’re offering up travel packages to Havana, Santiago, Guantanamo Bay or anywhere else on the island.

But they’re gaining their share of attention with their latest stunt, which is trying to get people to sign an Internet petition urging President Barack Obama and Congress to do away with the federal restrictions that prevent anyone from just calling up a travel agent and scheduling a two-week sojourn to the Hotel Libre (the one-time Havana Hilton).

In exchange for signing the Internet petition, Orbitz will send people $100 coupons that would be good for a discount on a Cuba vacation trip at whatever future date the trade embargo and other travel restrictions are lifted.

IN SHORT, YOUR reward for making this political statement could be a coupon that will be nothing but a worthless scrap of paper for several more years.

The company has even commissioned a poll, even though its results are rather self-serving. That poll claims 67 percent of all U.S. residents think everybody in this country should be allowed to travel to Cuba, and that 72 percent believe U.S. tourists in Cuba would have a positive effect on the island and its people.

I call the poll self-serving because of the fact they included the clause about U.S. tourism benefiting the Cuban people. That in part is a silly notion that everybody who comes into contact with us somehow benefits.

But what this really is all about is the fact that Orbitz wants to be able to do more business. They want to sell more airline tickets and put together more travel packages. That is, after all, what they do to earn a living.

CUBA IS ONE of those exotic locales with potential. It is a place that many people might sign up for just to see what the big deal is all about.

They might even be entranced at the thought of seeing all those 50-year-old automobiles still in use (although anyone who looks at that situation realistically comes to realize that those supposedly vintage U.S. cars are really old U.S. car bodies held together with Russian auto parts, making them worthless to a serious car collector).

In short, there is the potential for a new vacation spot. Since Planet Earth has only so much space, there rarely is the chance to discover a new spot one has never been able to visit before.

Until the day that Orbitz or similar services are able to start offering civilian trips on the Space Shuttle, Cuba will have to suffice for being a place where no one has gone before – at least not for the past 50 years.

SO IF YOU bother to fill out the Internet petition, which can be found at http://www.opencuba.org/, keep in mind that your political statement that the U.S. government should do away with its current Cuban restrictions is not at all political for Orbitz.

For them, it is business. They want to sell you a vacation trip. They want you to redeem that $100 coupon, which could be such a miniscule part of the cost of a Havana vacation a few decades from now that the discount will hardly seem worth it.

Insofar as the travel restrictions are concerned, I have long made it clear I favor a reduction. I believe that exposure to U.S. products and capital could wind up being what drives the old Communist ideology out of Cuba, just like many believe what ultimately killed off Communism in the Soviet Union was the desire for consumer goods in the U.S.S.R.

If the Soviets could have mass-produced decent washing machines and watches, maybe they’d still be in business.

WITH THE FACT that the hard-liners (both in Havana and in Miami) are aging and dying off, a part of me seriously can’t conceive of the thought that the trade embargo and other restrictions will still be in place a decade from now.

But then again, some of those hard-liners are going to take this fight to their last day of breath on Earth. The only thing more illogical over the thought of the embargo still being in place in the year 2019 is the fact that it has managed to last so long.

-30-

EDITOR'S NOTE: Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan's legacy includes a Havana trip and meeting (http://www.sj-r.com/business/x2133278147/10-years-later-Ryan-s-trip-to-Cuba-has-had-little-impact-on-Illinois) Fidel Castro.

Ramirez gives comfort to goofs

I must admit that when I first learned that Los Angeles Dodgers slugger Manny Ramirez passed a test for an illegal substance (meaning it was in his system), my first thought was to brace myself for what I expect will be an onslaught of nativist rhetoric about too many Latin Americans in baseball.

Some of it has cropped up.

READING VARIOUS WEBSITES and public comments, I have seen comments about “greasy Latinos” playing baseball and the need to “find more American born players to play our supposed country’s pastime.”

Now I can dismiss such rants as being the feeble-minded thoughts of nitwits. These people would have reasons to complain, regardless of the facts.

And when one considers some of the big names of baseball who in recent years have been caught using substances thought to be steroids in an attempt to bulk up their bodies for greater strength, I don’t think the percentage who are from Latin American countries (or are of Latino ethnic background) is any higher than the percentage of ballplayers overall who are Latin. Names like “Bonds,” “Clemens” and “McGwire” don’t sound Spanish to me.

So for all those people who want to believe that these Dominicans (who can legally purchase some of these substances back in the home country) are somehow tainting baseball, I’d say that’s ridiculous.

THE FACT IS that many modern-day ballplayers don’t see much difference between these steroids and other substances meant to improve their physical condition. In short, they probably think they’re taking care of their bodies, rather than causing them harm.

And the large number of Latin Americans (from the Dominican Republic or elsewhere) who come to the United States out of a hope that they can gain a better life through Major League Baseball likely see what their counterparts are doing, and are following the lead.

I’m not saying that all ballplayers are using the substances. Some probably do have enough sense to realize that steroids if used improperly can cause great physical harm. Some may even sense that the temporary boost in strength will eventually result in a loss of strength later in life.

In short, they take just as much as they give.

THAT IS WHY I was encouraged to read a rant reported by the Chicago Sun-Times from White Sox pitcher Octavio Dotel, who comes from the same Dominican town as Ramirez.

“They’re being stupid, that’s what I think,” Dotel told the newspaper.

He says that baseball officials in recent years have made things clear enough that certain substances and drugs ought to be avoided. So for a ballplayer to continue to test positive shows a carelessness on the sense of the would-be athlete.

So Dotel is sympathetic to the idea of Ramirez losing about one-third of a season (which will hurt his statistics for 2009) and likely being tainted with the steroid reputation for the remainder of his professional athletic career.

I’M ALSO SOMEWHAT sympathetic, and not just because of the fact that I have never had much use for Ramirez or the Boston Red Sox teams he used to play for.

Quite frankly, as one whose interest in professional baseball these days is inspired by the large number of Latin Americans (about one-quarter) and Latinos (about another 15 percent) who play the game, it is embarrassing to see Spanish names get dragged into this morass.

A part of me would almost prefer to see the Spanish influence help eradicate the game of these drugs. That was the reason why I have always refused to trash the name of Jose Canseco.

He is the one-time Oakland Athletics (and several other American League teams) slugger who has since written two books detailing his own, and that of other ballplayers, use of steroids.

IF BASEBALL HAD much sense, they’d use Canseco (a Cuban exile who grew up in Miami) as a road map, of sorts, for trying to figure out how severe the problem is.

But instead, they prefer to think of him as the problem. Which is why we still get revelations such as the fact that Ramirez was caught with a substance in his system whose only purpose was to restart the production of testosterone – which could have been halted by steroid use.

That has caused him to be forevermore tainted with the scarlet letter “S.” He will never be able to shake this reputation, and some sportswriter-types are already beginning to write their rants about how he has lost their “vote” someday for a spot in the baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, N.Y.

And for those of us Latino baseball fans, we have to shake our heads and wonder about Manny for something other than that ridiculous hairdo he has sported for years.

-30-