Court ruling should not be a Sotomayor strike

There are going to be people who will want to claim that Monday’s ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States with regards to a case involving firefighters in Connecticut ought to be seen as evidence of Sonia Sotomayor’s unsuitability to sit on the high court.

That’s nonsense.

THIS CASE DOES provide a little bit of evidence that Sotomayor likely is not biased in favor of the social conservatives and their pet causes. But that is not what a justice on the Supreme Court is supposed to be about.

So the fact that a case in which she ruled while serving on the appeals court based in New York is just one part of her overall record. And it is on an issue upon which there is significant disagreement in this country.

There are many people who will believe that the high court “blew it” when they ruled Monday to strike down the ruling of lower courts in “Ricci vs. DeSteffano.” They will think it a shame that Sotomayor couldn’t have a say on the Supreme Court in this case, because they will see her viewpoint as being the appropriate one.

It also was one that was shared by four current members of the Supreme Court – which ruled 5-4 to strike down the lower court ruling.

NOT THAT IT would have mattered much.

One of the four justices who wanted to rule in favor of upholding the lower court rulings was soon-to-be-retired Justice David Souter. Which means that a high court with Sotomayor would have provided the same 5-4 ruling – or possibly 5-3, with Sotomayor abstaining from taking a position if she felt that her voting to uphold her own ruling would be seen as too much of a conflict of interest.

So what is at stake in this case that originated out of the fire department in New Haven, Conn.?

This relates to fire departments, which regardless of where in the United States they are located seem to have histories of problems when it comes to finding firefighters who are not Anglo in racial origin.

IN NEW HAVEN, the written examination for promotions to lieutenant or captain were given in 2003. When the results (which determined which firefighters actually had a chance at promotion) came back, it struck local officials that a disproportionate share of the people with good test results were white – 17, to be exact, with two others being Latino.

It really seemed to them that there weren’t enough African-American people who did well enough on the test to be seriously considered for promotion.

So New Haven officials tried to disregard the test results, and the end result is that no one in the New Haven Fire Department got promoted to a higher rank during the next two years.

That caused some of the white firefighters (and a few Latino ones as well) to sue, claiming they were denied a chance at promotion to a higher rank – which within agencies such as fire and police departments is all-important.

SOTOMAYOR WAS PART of an appeals court panel that rejected their lawsuit. That rejection is what ultimately was overturned on Monday.

It does strike me as somewhat contradictory that some Latino firefighters were affected negatively by Sotomayor’s ruling – but only in the sense that the Sotomayor critics would have us believe that her presence on the Supreme Court would result in a slew of rulings that would benefit Latinos at the expense of everybody else.

Could it be that Sotomayor didn’t have some ethnic agenda in mind when she made her ruling on this case?

What it ultimately comes down to is a matter of how legitimate are the written tests that are used by these public safety government agencies (which ultimately is what a fire department is) in determining who is best qualified for a promotion.

I HAVE ALWAYS been skeptical that a written examination of any type really tells us anything about how someone will react in an emergency situation. I feel the same way about college entrance examinations (and this comes from someone who managed to score well on my first and only try).

So the idea that someone might perceive the test results to be somehow flawed because so many of the people who did poorly were of a particular group seems logical. It basically was the point that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made in her written dissent.

The “spirit of the law” with regards to such promotions is that there is not supposed to be any factor used that would hold back anyone’s chances. Everybody is supposed to be equal, in theory.

So if one believes that the test results don’t mean much, then it is not ridiculous to think that they should be downplayed.

IT WOULD APPEAR to me that the people who are so concerned about upholding the sanctity of these test results are the ones who want to maintain an old standard of determining just who advances within a fire department.

And if it means that Sotomayor is trying to oppose that idea, then this bit of her record is probably all the more reason she ought to be confirmed quickly to a Supreme Court seat.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Read all about it! High Court votes largely along partisan lines to (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf) strike down Sotomayor ruling on firefighters.

Sotomayor support shouldn’t be a surprise

I can already hear the cries of “liberal media” being spewed in response to polls that say a majority of people in this country don’t have a problem with the idea of Sonia Sotomayor on the Supreme Court of the United States.

To listen to her critics, she goes against everything this country is supposed to stand for. Decent people wouldn’t want her to get the virtual lifetime appointment that gives a chance to a Puerto Rican from the Bronx to influence the laws of this country.

BUT I HAVE always been of the opinion that the bulk of the people who get worked up over the growing Latino population and somehow perceive it as going counter to this country are a minority – albeit a vocal one.

So while those vocal nativist loudmouths have been coming up with all kinds of rhetoric that they claim proves Sotomayor isn’t “one of us,” the majority of the people (a true “silent majority,” to steal the Nixonian-era term) just want the federal appeals judge from New York to get confirmed.

At least that’s the evidence we could gain from a new poll whose results were published in the Washington Post and broadcast on ABC News.

According to that poll, 62 percent of those surveyed want Sotomayor to be confirmed. They don’t have any professional qualms about her. Another 13 percent have “no opinion,” which leaves only one-quarter of the remaining people as being the ones who have some problem and seriously think the Senate would be acting in a professional manner if they tried to bar her from a post on the high court.

THAT RESULT MATCHES up well with another part of the poll – one that asks people whether Sotomayor is more, or less, liberal on social issues than one would want in a Supreme Court justice.

A majority (55 percent, to be specific) finds her to be “about right.” Only 26 percent find her to be “more” liberal than they would want.

Now I will be the first to admit that a lone poll doesn’t say much. There’s always the chance that the pollsters found a group of people who don’t come close to matching up to the U.S. populace.

But the idea that there is about one-quarter of the population (25 percent and 26 percent) that has a hang-up with the concept of Sotomayor on the high court sounds about right. One out of four of us wants to rant, while the other three of us wonder why those people can’t find something more useful to do with their time – although about one of eight of those people probably wonders why the one-in-four can’t worry about something important, like what killed Michael Jackson.

SERIOUSLY, THAT SAME poll found that 52 percent of those surveyed reject the idea that her ethnicity plays a negative role in her ability to be a judge, while 59 percent don’t believe her gender is a problem.

Basically, a majority of the nation rejects the very premises upon which the social conservatives are trying to build a case for the Supreme Court to reject Sotomayor.

Even though these people are always quick to claim that the United States is basically a center-to-right nation, I have always thought they put way too much focus on the “right” part.

We’re a centrist nation, and while some of us were deluded enough to give George W. Bush two terms to try to impose a “compassionate conservative” stance on our government, the fact is that those days are done for the time being.

IF THEY WEREN’T, the Republican Party would never have nominated John McCain. Nor would the nation have elected Barack Obama in 2008.

A majority of the electorate gave Obama the chance to be president because they liked the general direction suggested by his rhetoric, and he hasn’t managed to offend a majority of the people yet with his actions.

So the idea that a majority of the electorate is going to look favorably upon his choice for a Supreme Court nominee ought to be a given.

There very well was a time in our nation’s past when the idea of Sotomayor getting a place on the Supreme Court would have been a radical concept that would have upset the alleged morals of this nation.

BUT THOSE DAYS are past – and good riddance.

Too many of the people who are bringing up lame excuses for non-issues against Sotomayor (and trying to keep any serious reform of immigration issues from coming before Congress, for that matter) are guilty of trying to keep this country in a version of its history that will do little more than hold us back.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Look at the figures for yourself, a majority of the U.S. populace wants (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_062209.html?sid=ST2009062703004) the Senate to just approve Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and get it over with.

Are Latino peloteros being singled out?

I’m not sure what to think (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-chafets24-2009jun24,0,6757150.story) of a column published recently in the Los Angeles Times – one where the writer says he thinks Latin American ballplayers are being singled about for criticism when it comes to the spread of steroid use in professional baseball.

Admittedly, players such as Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmiero and Manny Ramirez are among those whose names have come up when it comes to people wanting to impose some sort of punishment because of suspected use of drugs meant to artificially enhance one’s strength.

BUT I HAVE heard just as much outrage whenever names like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are mentioned. They all have had the A-word (for “asterisk”) attached to their names, although I’m not sure what the point of such an act would be.

The same people who now are getting all worked up in saying that Sammy Sosa’s 600-plus home runs (and three seasons of 60 or more) are no longer good enough to include the one-time Chicago Cub in the Hall of Fame seem to get equally vehement in their opposition to either Bonds or Clemens getting baseball’s version of immortality.

What convinces me the most that there isn’t much of an attempt to get at Latino ballplayers with regards to all the steroids talk is the way that the Hall of Fame types have treated Mark McGwire.

He was the man who topped Sosa in 1998 with his 70 home runs, and was baseball’s golden boy until his arrogance in testifying before a Congressional committee gave many people the circumstantial evidence they needed to think McGwire also used steroids to bulk up those biceps that gave him strength to hit long fly balls over outfield fences.

NOW, WHENEVER THE vote tallies for the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, N.Y., come out, McGwire usually gets so few votes that it is unlikely he ever will gain admission to the museum.

So much for the bronze plaque in his honor.

In fact, it seems that the people who have dumped on McGwire in recent years are now giving Sosa equal treatment.

As the Los Angeles Times stated in its recent commentary, the risk of all this steroids talk is that so many Latin American ballplayers who excelled during the 1990s and early 2000s (the so-called steroids era) will be deprived of the future honors that their statistical achievements ought to warrant them.

PERHAPS IT IS because that era was also the one in which Latin American ballplayers became so dominant in the game.

U.S. teams used to be capable of having a lone Spanish-speaking ballplayer or two. Now, the number of Latin American-born players is about one-quarter of all 750 major leaguers, and about another 15 percent are U.S. born of Latin American ethnicity.

In short, Latinos.

With so many Latino stars cropping up at the time under investigation, it would be obvious that the share of Spanish-sounding names would seem at first glance to be out of proportion.

BUT WHEN IT comes to the overall list of names that get mentioned, I hear the Anglo-sounding names listed just as prominently. Unless someone is trying to claim (and I don’t think they are) that Roger Clemens is some sort of closet Latino.

Then again, we didn’t find out until decades after he quit playing baseball that the great Boston Red Sox hitter Ted Williams had Mexican ethnicity in his family tree. So I suppose the idea of Clemens from Texas having some sort of third cousin who is Mexican wouldn’t be the most ridiculous concept on the face of Planet Earth.

My bottom line is that I would hate to think that the Latin American-born ballplayers whose names get dragged into the steroids mess would somehow get a pass that their non-Latino ball playing brethren wouldn’t get.

I know some have tried arguing that ballplayers from places such as the Dominican Republic should get some sympathy because of the fact that some of the substances considered to be illegal in the United States are actually completely legal “back home.”

I DON’T BUY that.

While I don’t expect a ball player (or any athlete, for that matter) to be an intellectual heavyweight, I do expect them to know enough about what they can (and cannot) do with their bodies without violating the rules.

If it turns out that some athlete really didn’t know what substances qualified as a steroid that could get them fined, then I’d say they deserve the eternal ridicule of baseball fans for being downright dumb.

And that statement applies to any pelotero, regardless of his ethnic origins.

-30-

White House offers mixed picture on immigration

Rahm Emanuel has developed a reputation among District of Columbia types as being just a bit too blunt-spoken, and we got to see a trace of that on Thursday.

On the same day that President Barack Obama met with select members of Congress to try to convince them he is determined to get a legitimate immigration reform measure enacted into law, his chief of staff was making comments about how the issue will fail.

SPECIFICALLY, EMANUEL TOLD reporter-types just a few hours before the meeting that any bill presented to Congress along the general lines that Obama has suggested he supports would not have enough votes to be passed into law.

“If the votes were there, you wouldn’t need a meeting,” Emanuel told the Washington Post.

Now some people will want to see Emanuel’s comments as a stating of the incredibly obvious – there is some very vocal opposition in our society to legitimate immigration reform, and that has many political people scared into thinking they should not vote to support it.

And yes, the reason Obama was meeting with members of Congress was to start off the process of trying to persuade those scared Congressmen that there are political benefits to supporting immigration reform.

BUT BY THROWING such comments out, one has to wonder whether Emanuel is trying to ensure that nothing ever moves forward on immigration reform. Is he trying to ensure that the political process of getting the votes for a serious bill never occurs?

Or is it that he has other issues he’d rather focus attention on, and he thinks that putting the time and effort necessary to get people to vote for immigration reform is time not spent on some other project?

I’m inclined to believe it is the latter.

Emanuel, after all, is the guy who is supposed to do the “dirty work” of partisan politics that enable the high-minded, noble goals of the Obama Administration to become reality within U.S. government.

EMANUEL ALSO IS the White House aide who earlier this year was saying how immigration reform was an issue that would have to wait its turn.

The only problem is that with the growing share of the U.S. population that is Latino, this may become an issue that will not wait much longer.

Part of what the members of Congress who met with Obama were telling the president was that they have constituents who want something done, preferably this year. Waiting until future years would be perceived as a sign that the president doesn’t value the Latino population, and that could wind up having political repercussions worse than the ones Emanuel fears will happen if he gets too pushy on immigration reform too soon.

In short, this is a balancing act.

BUT AT A time when the president has to cope with a struggling economy and deal with a left-over war in the Middle East, one can argue that immigration reform is one of those issues that has become a severe enough problem that it must be considered to be just as important as either of those other two issues.

The simple fact is that this is an issue where Obama is going to displease everybody. Historians are going to be the ones who ultimately decide whether Obama was successful – because all contemporary people will find something about the Obama proposal to hate.

There are those people who believe the only immigration reform needed is an increase in deportations, along with barricades along the U.S./Mexico border. Obama may think he’s giving them a concession when he talks of increasing border security, and Democrats propose requiring some sort of fingerprint check or eye scan of all U.S. workers to help weed out people who do not have proper papers.

Yet I can already hear the objections of the far right to having everybody subjected to some sort of ID check. They’ll claim it’s just one step from issuing everybody papers, and that it is treating everybody (rather than just the people they personally don’t care for) as though they’re potentially illegal.

YET THE PEOPLE most interested in serious immigration reform (which includes acknowledging that many of the people now in this country without visas are making worthwhile contributions to the economy and should be given some legal means by which they can openly live in the United States) will hate the idea that any concession to border security is being made.

Part of the reason is that too much of the talk about border security in recent years focuses on that ridiculous wall that was erected during the George W. Bush years along parts of the U.S./Mexico border.

Everybody is going to be ticked off. Yet giving in to that belief by saying that this is an issue that should be put off until future years (if done at all) is a mistake.

The one positive aspect of Emanuel’s comments on Thursday was that he acknowledged that Democrats would benefit “politically” by doing something on the issue, even though he hinted that reform on the issue may merely be started during 2009, with completion taking place next year.

I SUPPOSE HISTORY could teach us that enactment of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 occurred following years of political stagnation. This is going to be an issue that will take some time to do right – even though some would argue it has been ongoing for years already.

We can only hope that Obama comes to realize that if he waits too long on this issue, the harm to his legacy will be worse than what he fears the far right will do to him.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Rahm Emanuel continues to talk of the difficulty of actually getting legitimate immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/25/AR2009062501914.html?hpid=moreheadlines) measures approved by Congress and signed into federal law.

Mexican soccer must have U.S. appeal

It is not unheard of for international soccer teams to include a few exhibition matches in the United States. It gives fans of real football a chance to see the sport played at a higher level than is currently offered by the U.S. professional league Major League Soccer.

But I have to admit to getting a kick out of the activity being generated by the Mexican national team – the one that has struggled thus far in 2009 and has to step it up considerably unless it wants to watch the 2010 World Cup tournament on television back home.

“LOS TRICOLORES” WERE in Atlanta Wednesday night, where they played an exhibition match (a “friendly” in English football-speak) against Venezuela. They also will be in San Diego on Sunday to play the Guatemala national team.

Yet for some people, the match that people will be paying attention to will be Equipo Mexico in Dallas on Sept. 30. That one will attract attention because it is the potential prize for people who partake in a contest being sponsored by Allstate Insurance.

Think about that for a moment. For all the people who want to believe that soccer is somehow “too foreign” to ever become a part of U.S. culture, how foreign could it be if a U.S. company such as Allstate is willing to get involved?

And not by backing a U.S.-based team, but getting involved with Mexico’s team.

THE COMPANY IS sponsoring a sweepstakes, and this is the third year the company has been involved with Equipo Mexico. Obviously, having a “Mexico connection” is good for Allstate’s business.

“We are excited to be able to offer this exclusive experience to two fans to be able to watch their team with one of its legends,” said Allstate senior marketing manager Georgina Flores, in a prepared statement.

For what it’s worth, people wishing a chance to win a trip to the Team Mexico match being played in Dallas could start registering for the sweepstakes as of Wednesday, and those people who happen to attend the upcoming match in San Diego also can sign up while there.

For everybody else, there is online registration at http://www.proteccioneslajugada.com/ through Sept. 1.

AND ALTHOUGH THIS promotion is geared toward Equipo Mexico, the contest itself is in both English and Spanish.

Now my choosing to write about this is not so much that I care to give Allstate some free publicity (although that is the end result).

What catches my attention is literally that a U.S. entity as large as Allstate sees the sense in reaching out to people with something that would be considered so foreign to some. They see the sense in reaching out to soccer fans, and to the growing Latino population – a large chunk of which is Mexican-American.

Some people might see a threat (these are the ones who complain about how the crowds at U.S./Mexico matches always wind up producing a significant portion of fans rooting for “los Tricolores.”) But Allstate sees a moneymaking opportunity.

I GUESS IT means that someone looking at the issue from the objectivity of making a profit sees Latinos as a part of the solution – rather than as a problem.

Now if we could only get the rest of society to see the truth in that statement (our money is as green as everybody else’s), life in the United States would get a lot more calm and rational.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Even Major League Soccer is trying to gain some attention for itself by using foreign-based (http://goal.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/soccers-summer-sampler-platter/) clubs to draw attention, and attendance.

Will Gloria Estefan become the Dolphins’ biggest cheerleader?

Arte Moreno is about to get upstaged as the most prominent Latino to own a professional sports franchise, and it will be by someone who didn’t spend hundreds of millions of dollars to buy a ball club.

Moreno is the guy who bought the Los Angeles Angels baseball team one year after they won their first-ever World Series title in 2002 – and hasn’t managed to get close to a pennant since, even though he has been willing to spend top dollar to get talented ballplayers and has created an environment where some Latin American athletes feel overly welcomed.

FOR THE PAST few years, Moreno has been at the top of a very tiny heap when it comes to Latinos who own sports franchises. The fraternity of sports team owners is small enough, and is mostly limited to corporations that use the teams for publicity and a tax writeoff, although a few Anglo business types remain who run their teams for the ego of it all.

But now, Moreno will have to take a seat behind Gloria Estefan and her producer husband Emilio.

The two have worked out a deal to buy a portion of the Miami Dolphins of the National Football League. The Miami Herald newspaper reports that the deal officially will be announced on Thursday.

This is a purchase done purely for ego.

IT’S NOT LIKE the Estefans (who have made millions in the music business, bringing strains of salsa to pop music and making Gloria a star in the entertainment world) are going to start running the team.

It’s not like they even have any special knowledge about football, other than from watching it on television every Sunday (Emilio allegedly is a hard-core Dolphins fan).

But it will add a little bit of entertainment glamour to the Dolphins franchise.

Just envision being in the owners private box at the Dolphins’ stadium on autumn Sundays, with the Estefans partaking in the game along with the other business partners who actually control the franchise.

YET IT WILL be the Estefans who add the bit of glitz that could rub off on the controlling partners and make them look sort of glamorous in the process.

What this could wind up doing is adding football to the Latino experience.

It’s true that to many people in the growing Latino population, soccer and baseball are the top games to follow – although the hip-hop culture that has overtaken professional basketball has its appeal to younger Latinos who can enjoy the flash of the NBA as much as any other American youth.

American football (as opposed to real football) just isn’t a game that is played “back home” in the old country – although it’s not like the basic concept is alien.

THE SAME LATINOS who can get into Mexican freestyle wrestling (lucha libre) because it is an overly physical spectacle of guys in crazed costumes trying to jump on top of and beat up on each other likely could find aspects of professional football that could appeal to them.

And if it turns out that Gloria Estefan winds up giving a little bit of Cubana glamour to an actual NFL franchise, it could wind up that Latinos across the country would wind up paying attention to Miami every Sunday – even if their families’ immigration route has nothing to do with South Florida.

So when I ask if Estefan is going to become the Dolphins’ cheerleader, I don’t mean in some literal sense that she puts on one of those skimpy (and borderline slutty) costumes that the Miami Dolphins Cheerleaders wear at their public appearances.

I mean she could become the woman who talks up her “team” every chance she gets, and in the process helps expose them to the fast-growing segment of the population that is so far on the rise that it is almost ridiculous to continue thinking of them as a “minority.”

SO SOME PEOPLE might think that all the Estefans did was spent money on an ego purchase that will get them a good seat in the stadium on game-day.

But if they play their business cards properly, they could wind up bolstering their own interests while also helping the NFL gain a share of the growing Latino market.

And as for Arte Moreno, it looks like he’s going to have to actually put together a ball club that wins a championship if he wants to gain any further attention.

Who knows? Maybe Vladimir Guerrero of the Dominican Republic and his big-bucks contract will pay off someday and he will lead the Angels to a championship, instead of some good personal statistics and a playoff appearance that falls short of ’02.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: E. Javier Loya of CHOICE! Energy is owner of the Houston Texans of the NFL. He too (http://www.miamiherald.com/460/story/1109351.html) gets upstaged by the Estefans’ celebrity status.

Will Mexico lead U.S. into drug decriminalization?

Talk about taking advantage of a potential plague.

Federal government officials in Mexico are considering a measure that would decriminalize drug possession in small amounts across the country – a step the United States has been reluctant to take.

THE MEASURE THAT would make possession of small amounts of marijuana, cocaine, mathamphetamine and heroin an offense worthy of nothing more than a small fine and no lasting criminal record already has been approved by the national legislature.

It now merely needs the signature of President Felipe Calderòn Hinojosa to become federal law.

The political science type in me finds this whole affair intriguing by the way in which the Legislature managed to approve this. They took advantage of the scare caused by the spread of H1N1 virus that caused many hundreds of fatalities (and thousands of infections) across Mexico.

With the world devoting its share of attention to Mexico to that particular issue, few were paying attention to anything the Mexican government did on any other issue.

AND IF THAT wasn’t enough, some of the sessions in which this particular measure was debated were held in private. The Los Angeles Times reports that government officials used the health scare to justify keeping the public out of the sessions – on the grounds they were reducing the chance of spreading the H1N1 virus.

Somehow, I think there are government officials across the United States who are reading that excuse, and feeling a bit jealous. I’m not saying they’d wish for a potential plague to help them keep their municipal activity secret – but they probably view it as a “once-in-a-lifetime” opportunity.

Now the critics are coming out to complain.

They’re fearing that people are going to start flooding into Mexico so they can get high on substances that, in certain parts of the United States, could get them significant prison terms if caught.

THEY FEAR THE chances are particularly good in the northernmost states of Mexico (the ones that border the United States). Could we soon get the sight of All-American teenagers (who already venture into border towns to try to get intoxicated legally) going to places like Tijuana or Ciudad Juarez in hopes of getting high as well?

I suppose anything is possible. But I am skeptical that many will make the trip unless they literally are living in a place like El Paso, Texas – in which case they likely already have significant reasons and occasions to venture into Mexico.

If anything, I’d be curious to see how national decriminalization would work out.

For that is a situation we don’t have in the United States, and which I don’t expect we ever will.

THE CURRENT STATUS of drug laws in this country is a virtual checkerboard. Different areas have different standards.

Some places have decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana (one community not far from where I live uses 10 grams as the standard to determine whether one faces a local civil charge, or a criminal case).

Others want to view “decriminalization” as being the equivalent of legalization of drugs – something that will only be done over the dead bodies of the local political officials. They want the image of being tough on crime and on drugs, similar to how they want to have a capital crimes statute on the books despite evidence that the death penalty does little to avert violent crime.

If anything, it was always more likely to be Mexico than the United States that would consider a nationwide effort to decriminalize drugs simply because the Mexican experience places much more influence in the federal government than it does the individual states.

THAT IS THE exact opposite of the U.S. structure, where federal prosecutors have certain specific crimes they handle – and all else is left to the locals to decide how they want to handle it.

So there’s the chance that we could learn something from Mexico if they enact a decriminalization measure. It could be either positive or negative. In theory, we could learn from their “mistake.”

But I know the places in the United States that do treat possession of small amounts of certain substances as a minor offense not quite criminal do so because they don’t want to clog up the court systems in their communities with so many cases.

They’d rather devote the resources of their local state’s attorneys and judges to handling prosecution of severe crimes, rather than going after some goofball who wants to get high after watching too many “Cheech and Chong” movies on cable TV.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: It will be interesting to see if Felipe Calderòn signs into federal law a measure decriminalizing possession of small amounts of certain drugs (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2009366964_mexdrug22.html) all across Mexico.

If it’s Thursday, it must be uncertainty on immigration

President Barack Obama would prefer that we people who are interested in seeing legitimate immigration reform approved this year pay attention to the speech he gave to Latino religious leaders on Friday.

But there are those of us who are going to pay more attention to the White House on Thursday. That is, assuming the president keeps his promise and holds a promised session with Latino leaders of Congress to talk about the issue.

THE REASON SOME of us are so sarcastic is because this session to discuss the issue is one that has been scheduled at least three times – most recently on Thursday of last week.

Now, Obama’s spokesman is saying that a meeting is scheduled tentatively for June 25. But he’s smart enough not to say anything too specific, because this session could easily get put off again.

It is creating the impression that Obama isn’t in any hurry to act upon the issue.

Now I understand, as I have written many times, that there are people who are committed to opposing anything that resembles real reform of the nation’s immigration laws.

THESE ARE THE people who will scream that they want reform – only their idea of reform is an increase in deportations and a militarization of the U.S./Mexico border.

They are the ones who will screech ever so loudly that it is wrong to call them on their racist rhetoric. But how else to explain the notion that many of these nativist critics take the view that certain places on Planet Earth should not have as easy access to the legitimate process of gaining a visa as others.

And it seems these people always view Latin American nations as the places from which our nation should most vehemently reject people.

These people are going to stir up partisan politics on this issue, and the fight that results in Congress will go into the U.S. history books for its rancor. Obama likely isn’t in any hurry to provoke this battle before he’s ready.

BUT THE PROBLEM is that Obama needs to realize that he will face an equally rancorous brawl from Latinos if he appears to be giving in to the people who want to view all of us (regardless of our citizenship status) as a problem.

We have the potential for a taste of that attitude this week. Some Latino activists are organizing themselves to picket outside the White House on Thursday – if the meeting between the president and congressional leaders actually takes place.

In their view, Obama will have to hear the Latino masses chanting and marching while he tries to discuss the issue with political officials.

Perhaps they think they will create an impression for the record books similar to those anti-war protesters who used to picket the White House some four decades ago chanting “Hey, Hey, LBJ. How many kids did you kill today?”

I DON’T KNOW if it will have that effect.

It could very well stir up anger among the nativists similar to the trash-talk that gets spewed every year in recent years when Latinos take to the streets and march to show the strength of their support for immigration reform.

But it is important to realize when watching those picketers outside the White House that they do reflect the view of a fast-growing segment of the U.S. population. It is not a view that can easily be ignored.

And if Obama keeps postponing these sessions, he’s going to give off the perception that he’s ignoring us.

SO I’LL BE watching Washington on Thursday. Will Obama have a gathering with the members of Congress who have an interest in the immigration reform issue?

If anything, Obama would be better off just having this session. Get it over with. Because the more it gets put off, the bigger an issue it becomes among Latinos that Obama isn’t that supportive of our interests.

The president gained a lot of goodwill when he picked Sonia Sotomayor to be his nominee for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States. Picking a Nuyorican (a.k.a., a Puerto Rican from New York) for such a prominent lifetime post was a bold step.

It would be a shame to see Obama trash all of those bonus points he gained by giving off the impression that he wishes this issue would “go away” without him having to do anything about it.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: This is the official position put forth by the White House as to where (http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/immigration/) Barack Obama stands on the issue of reforming the nation’s immigration laws.

Will people wishing to see serious immigration reform in this country have to wait until the year (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/local/story/791868.html) 2011? Will Obama come up (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-immigration_bdjun21,0,1243361.story) with another excuse to postpone the beginning of talks about getting reform through Congress? And how vociferous will the rhetoric (http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/06/a_tide_of_anger_on_immigration.html) opposed to real reform become?

Will he or won’t he? That’s the Obama question

There are Latino activists who are suspicious of President Barack Obama and whether he will do much of anything to push the federal government to give the immigration laws a needed overhaul.

Sadly for him, the president did nothing to relieve those suspicions when he spoke Friday before a gathering of Latino religious leaders in Washington.

OBAMA APPEARED BEFORE the group Esperanza, which had a three-day gathering in the District of Columbia that culminated with the presidential appearance. The group of Latino evangelicals favors significant immigration reform, and presented the president with a letter urging him to act.

For his part, Obama said he supports “comprehensive immigration reform.” But he wouldn’t give a clue when such action would come.

That causes some activists to be suspicious, since they recall the comments of Obama aides (including chief of staff Rahm Emanuel) that any serious attempt to change immigration laws would have to wait until a second Obama presidential term.

Many of us are not willing to wait that long.

THERE ARE THOSE of us who think the fact that two-thirds of Latinos gave their support to Obama over Republican John McCain (even though some of us still say we wish Hillary R. Clinton could have become president) means immigration ought to be a priority this year.

There are some of us who are disgusted that immigration reform wasn’t issue number one for the Obama Administration.

I’m not that hard-core. I never expected it to be his first act. Yet I do think we need to see some sort of direction where Obama stands and some sort of attempt at action by year’s end.

This has to be a first-year issue.

IN PART BECAUSE the Latino population is growing to the point where it is getting ridiculous to think of us as a “minority.” We are a significant share, and even those of us who are natural-born U.S. citizens have an interest in this issue because we realize it shows the way the nation thinks of Latinos as a whole.

But more importantly, the current immigration laws are a mess. While I realize that not everyone on Planet Earth who wants to live in the United States is going to be able to do so, I do believe that everybody who wants to live here ought to have an equal chance of getting the papers that allow for it to happen.

Right now, that’s not the case. There are many people who have no realistic chance of ever getting that visa.

And the situation is made worse by the fact that in recent years, immigration laws were altered or reviewed in ways that were intended to make it more difficult for certain people to be able to get that visa.

IN SHORT, THE problem is that federal policy has been motivated way too much by people whose desire is to boost the number of deportations – rather than balancing the means by which people have a chance at that visa.

That is why it is absurd to think of attempts to give people already in this country and making a contribution to the workforce and the economy a chance to stay legally as some form of “amnesty” – which the far-right seems determined to turn into a political obscenity.

I do realize that these people are vocal. They are going to play the partisan political games to try to stifle any legitimate immigration reform (border walls and deportations are not immigration reform – they’re a pathetic joke).

And that, I understand, is the reason why Obama comes off as vague when it comes to details about when, and what, will be done in the name of immigration reform.

HE TALKS ABOUT giving people already in the country a chance to get a visa and live openly, but also throws out the rhetoric about increased border security – although I have never heard him say exactly what is meant by that.

I do know he was one of the members of the Senate who voted to build that ridiculous wall currently being completed along portions of the U.S./Mexico border, although I understand the political reasons for him not giving the nativists a vote that could be distorted against him in future campaign advertisements.

But this is going to be one of those issues where there will never be a “right” time for it to slip through unnoticed. It is going to be one where an Obama administration will have to use its influence to push for the changes needed to create an immigration policy that is fair.

Considering how hostile the rhetoric on immigration has become in recent years (I can already envision the nasty e-mails I will receive in response to this commentary), it could very well be a case where Obama does the “right thing” against the strongly-held opinion of a portion of the U.S. population.

BUT IN THE end, Obama’s actions (or inactions) on immigration reform will become a significant part of his presidential legacy.

Lyndon B. Johnson may be demonized by a portion of the U.S. population for escalading the Vietnam War, but another portion remembers him as a bold leader for being willing to overturn a century of racial segregation and use his influence to get the Civil Rights Act passed into law.

Will Obama show himself to be as strong a leader as LBJ? Or will he settle for some version of immigration reform that does little, in the process turning himself into the political lightweight that his Republican partisan critics like to claim he truly is?

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: From east (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/06/19/obama_reiterates_commitment_to.html?wprss=44) to west (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-immigration20-2009jun20,0,3979385.story), people are trying to figure out when Barack Obama will act with regards to immigration reform.

Latinos need to take time for Census

It’s good to hear a few religious leaders talking some sense these days.

The subject in question is the Census for 2010. The U.S. Census Bureau is having to cope with the usual problems in getting the growing Latino population to take the study seriously.

THOSE PROBLEMS ARE being multiplied by some Latino activists who are threatening to use the Census to play politics with immigration reform.

So it was good to learn that Esperanza, the largest faith-based Evangelical network that reaches out to Latinos, had its leaders in Washington, trying to urge people to fill out the Census form when it shows up in their mailboxes next spring.

And if it turns out that a Census Bureau worker shows up at their front door to ask a few questions, sicc’ing the family dog on him (or her) likely is not the best option.

Now I can appreciate the thought that went into those people who want to play politics with the Census. They’re concerned that Congress will ignore immigration reform. Or, worse yet, they will pass some lame proposal that does nothing to improve the current confusion that exists from federal immigration laws, and try to make it seem like a significant boost for Latinos.

I SHARE THAT same fear at times, even though President Barack Obama claims he wants to have Congress do something later this year.

But I can’t see how “taking down” the Census would do any good.

For what I expect to happen as a result of the 2010 Census (which makes an effort to count as accurately as possible the number of people living in the United States on April 1, 2010) is that a total Latino population figure will be produced that verifies all the unofficial figures that we have been hearing in recent years.

In 2000, the Census told us that Latinos made up about 12 percent of the population, and shortly thereafter surpassed the African-American population. Various estimates tell us that we reached levels of 15 to 16 percent in 2008, and that the figure is continuing to rise (although some nativists like to push the theory that the current economic struggles are causing significant numbers of Latinos to “go home”).

I DOUBT THE Census next year will show the United States at a 20 percent Latino population. But it could be close.

That thought astounds me, in a sense. We are close to the point where one of every five people in this country will be Latino. We’ve reached the point where it is getting absurd to use the word “minority” to describe the Latino population.

But if people start ignoring the Census, we will short-change that figure. It will almost be like we’re offering aid and comfort to the nativists who are determined to make short shrift of our presence in this nation.

I’d hate to see that happen.

THAT WAS ALSO the attitude expressed by Esperanza officials in the District of Columbia.

Not that the group isn’t concerned about immigration reform. Their website (http://www.esperanza.us/) includes portions that make it easy for people to sign a letter via their computers that will be presented to Obama when he speaks to the group’s conference, which ends Friday.

That letter says that true immigration reform cannot wait any longer, and that a good part of the reason why the problem has become so severe is because it was ignored by Congress and the president in the past.

If anything, I also think that undercutting the Census Bureau count of Latinos could wind up hurting the immigration reform movement.

WHAT ULTIMATELY IS going to persuade a majority of Congress to approve changes in federal law that create reasonable means for controlling who can get into the United States is a show of political force.

That means votes.

Political people who in recent years have supported measures meant to alter immigration laws by increasing the number of deportations did so largely because they perceived that to be the mood of their constituents back home.

They felt there weren’t enough Latinos in the country to care about their hostile actions.

BUT A LARGER count would literally be a show of force, so to speak. Latinos exist in great numbers, and often take an interest in this issue even if their own families are so well established that they are full-fledged U.S. citizens because we realize that many non-Latinos are too clueless to figure out who is, and isn’t, a citizen.

Cooperating with the Census literally becomes a means for flexing our collective muscle, which ultimately is how we will be taken seriously in this nation in the 21st Century.

-30-

Will justice come some day in baseball "heaven?"

What does it say for those of us baseball fans that at a time when Ivan Rodriguez cemented his reputation as one of the all-time greats (he has now been a catcher in more games than any other ballplayer, regardless of ethnicity), the dominant story in baseball is Sammy Sosa.

After all, we now have the circumstantial evidence about his steroid use that will allow us to lynch his athletic reputation.

AS A BASEBALL fan who enjoys watching the skills (and, at times, antics) of Latin American ballplayers, I think it a shame that Rodriguez isn't getting more recognition these days for his longetivity at a position that is particularly strenuous on the knees. Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen (of Venezuela) goes so far as to call Rodriguez the greatest Puerto Rican ballplayer ever.

Instead, we get to rehash whether Sosa's inhuman stretch of home-run hitting from 1998-2003 was artificially enhanced with steroids.

Personally, I think true justice will come some time in the future when in the baseball heavens, Sosa will come to bat against Juan Marichal. Sosa will engage in all his show-offy antics and huge swing.

Then, Marichal will give him a brushback pitch, knocking Sosa on his rear while Rodriguez looks down on him - giving him that "look" that lets him know he had better not get any ideas of charging the mound with his bat as a club.

BUT UNTIL THAT day, we'll have to focus attention on the Sosa legacy, which may wind up overshadowing the athletic accomplishments of many of his ethnic brethren.

For those trying to comprehend what to think of Sosa, one possible viewpoint is offered at this site's sister weblog, the Chicago Argus (http://www.chicagoargus.blogspot.com/) .

-30-

It’s all about the taste

My brother and I have ridiculed many a supermarket’s “ethnic foods” aisle throughout the years. I can only imagine how awful the Asian-inspired food products are, considering how dreadful their attempts at offering up Mexican food products were.

That is why my initial reaction to a recent Associated Press story about supermarket chains across the United States increasing the amount of Latino-inspired foodstuffs was to giggle.

FAT CHANCE, I thought.

But then I have to admit that there are times when I have picked up some items in grocery stores that were not neighborhood marketas that sold candles depicting the Virgin of Guadalupe mixed in with their cuts of carnitas and the Mexican breads that top most donuts and sweet rolls any day.

The fact is that the Latino population is growing fast, and it is growing everywhere. There are Latinos who are going to want to buy certain products and foodstuffs even in parts of the country where Latinos historically had not existed in great numbers (places like South Carolina, for example).

The Food Marketing Institute has its own study showing that Latinos spend about $4 on groceries per week for every $3 spent by the average U.S. resident.

IN SHORT, WE eat. We have some special demands for food products, as do people of just about every ethnic background.

Smart business executives are going to figure out there is a market for providing such goods. The ones who figure out how to get quality foodstuffs are going to find they can make significant profits.

Some supermarkets are expanding that “ethnic foods” aisle that was the staple of many a Latino comic’s material for jokes. Others are developing entire new stores.

Take the Sam’s Club warehouse chain. In some parts of the country, they’re opening up Spanish-themed stores that include among their food products for sale the staples of Mexican cooking (or other ethnicities that comprise the world of Latinos these days).

THE WIRE SERVICE managed to talk to people who brought up some good points about how one cannot just translate a few signs on an existing supermarket from English to Spanish and expect a flood of Latino business to come through the door.

Part of it is going to be creating the right mood that the staples are legitimate food products in the store, and not just some sideline that some marketing director felt necessary to include along with jars of mayonnaise and packages of frozen peas.

But to me, part of creating that proper mood is putting up for sale products that are quality. They’re going to have to “taste” right.

If a store offers up products of quality, they will get significant business.

IF THEY THINK that merely increasing the amount of shelf space they provide for Old El Paso salsa and taco shells and Azteca-brand tortillas is going to cut it, all I can say is, “forget it.”

When I say I’m buying food products with which to do Mexican-style cooking occasionally, it doesn’t mean I’m buying any of those dreadful goods.

I’m lucky in that in my Chicago-area hometown these days, I have a nearby supermarket that tries to cater to ethnic food products from various parts of the world.

That includes getting the proper cheeses and fresh batches of tortillas in every few days, along with being able to go to the delicatessen counter to pick up items such as fresh guacamole (for those occasions when I’m not up to making my own) and carnitas (but only on weekends).

BY OFFERING UP something resembling quality products, they get my business. The stores that think Old El Paso is good enough because they’re not made in “New York City” won’t get my dollars.

And I doubt they will get the business of much of my ethnic brethren either.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Will we really get the day when the growing Latino population of this country shops for the (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31356017/ns/business-retail/) ingredients for true ethnic cooking at the local Piggly-Wiggly?

Supreme Court won’t get involved in “Wall” dispute

So much for the notion that conservatives on the Supreme Court would stand up for the concept of letting local government officials decide for themselves what is best for their home areas.

Perhaps that comes off as snottier a wisecrack than it should be intended as. For I never would have expected the Supreme Court of the United States to get involved in the issue of “the wall” – otherwise known as the erection of a physical barricade along portions of the U.S./Mexico border.

I HAVE MADE it clear in the past that I think any federal money spent on the project is wasted tax dollars being spent to try to bolster some ridiculous ideological fight over whether the southwestern United States and northern Mexico is one region – or two.

Thus far, attempts to block construction of “the wall” have been unsuccessful. On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled with inaction. The high court did not include the case among its list of cases upon which it will hear arguments during the upcoming session.

That means the lower courts that have ruled on the issue will be allowed to prevail.

And the court fight is over. “The Wall” is a legally legitimate concept, even though the moral backing for the Wall remains as cloudy as ever.

WHAT WAS ALWAYS at stake in the court battle were provisions in an unrelated law that would allow the Department of Homeland Security to ignore local environmental laws if they threatened construction of “the Wall.”

Why let something like the environment stand in the way of making an ideological statement about Mexico needing to be kept out of the country? The only thing more that would be needed would be to put up a couple of signs along the border saying “Keep Out!”

Very heavy sarcasm was intended with that particular rant.

On a serious note, I accept the fact that this wall got built. To tell the truth, even if the Supreme Court had managed to take the case and somehow ruled in a way favorable to those people who oppose “the Wall,” it would have largely been too late.

FOR THE ONLY thing that would have been more wasteful of federal tax dollars than spending the millions that were spent to erect it would have been to spend a few million more to tear portions of it down.

The thing that keeps me going when it comes to this barricade’s existence is that I am realistic enough to know that it will fail in its desired goal of keeping certain kinds of people out of the United States.

Just like some people make jokes that the only thing a 50-foot-high wall will inspire is construction of 51-foot-high ladders, people will find ways to get around the attempts to turn the United States of America into a fortress.

It was just last week that Border Patrol officials announced they had found an 83-foot-long tunnel that went under the border near Nogales, Ariz.

PEOPLE ARE JUST going to have to accept that there is no way to totally cut the United States off from the rest of the world, nor would we want to.

Besides, the idea of building a wall along the 1,900-mile border stretching from the Pacific to the Golfo de Mexico is such a waste.

I have always thought that the natural climate of the border region (which consists of many hundreds of miles of desert) provides a barricade of sorts. The idea of putting up anything more is merely wasteful.

So what should we think now that the court battle over “the Wall” appears to be over?

IT’S ENCOURAGING TO read that officials in El Paso, who largely were behind the effort because they didn’t like the way that federal barricades would have impacted their area (which is a natural “twin city” of sorts with Ciudad Juarez), are finding some moral high ground in putting up a legal fight – even though they lost.

I’m sure history will appreciate how ridiculous this fight over “the Wall” was, and that the day will come when much of the nativist rhetoric we hear these days about needing to build a barricade will be ridiculed by future generations.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Only about 40 miles of the border wall remain to be built, although (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/court-refuses-to-hear-border-fence-case-2009-06-15.html) other portions of the border region are meant to get “virtual fences” rather than physical barricades.

Will people find ways under (http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/296641.php) “the Wall,” along with over it, around it and any other way to avoid it? Personally, I’m waiting to see how graffiti-ed “the Wall” becomes.

Obama gets Latino grief, despite some positives

By and large, the perception of President Barack Obama people have is largely what they wanted to believe prior to Election Day, and is not based on anything he has truly done during his roughly five months in office.

I’m focusing largely on the way the Latino portion of the population is viewing Obama, although I'm sure it applies to the national population as a whole. It’s a mixed bag, although he gained himself some serious points when he picked appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor to be his choice for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States.

BUT THERE ARE Latinos who are still skeptical that Obama will do anything anytime soon when it comes to pushing for serious reform of the nation’s immigration laws. And there are those who are still miffed at the thought that only two Latinos got picked for Cabinet posts – and that the most prominent failure of a Cabinet pick to actually get the job had to be a Latino.

Which is why I found it interesting to read a recent analysis of Obama’s record thus far at picking people to fill federal appointments and positions – it turns out Obama is doing significantly better than either of his two predecessors.

That includes George W. Bush, who would have us think that his Texas roots gave him some innate understanding of the Mexican-American communities developing across this nation.

For the record, the Houston Chronicle newspaper published a report that found 11 percent of Obama’s first 300 appointments were of people who are Latino.

THAT IS LESS than the roughly 16 percent of the overall U.S. population these days that is Latino. But it is far better than the 5.5 percent mark that Bush achieved for appointments made during his first 18 months as president.

And Bush was actually a bit of an improvement over Bill Clinton, who only hit the 4.5 percent mark when it came to picking Latinos, according to the newspaper.

The other stat is to take into account the actual staff that works at the White House. Those are the people who can be hired directly by Obama or his top aides, rather than positions in federal agencies (many of which need to be confirmed by the Senate).

Twenty-six Latinos get to work in La Casablanca in staff jobs.

NOW I’M JUST as anxious as anyone else to see what kind of action occurs this year with regards to immigration reform. This is an issue where the nation really can’t afford to wait until “the right time” when the partisan politics of the issue will be least harmful to the Obama Administration.

But for those people who are skeptical about Obama, I’d have to say that this percentage is a significant factor – his administration is making an effort to include the growing Latino population and realizes that any attempt to get the best qualified people for these posts is going to include a large percentage of Latinos.

In fact, I’m partially inclined to agree with the National Puerto Rican Coalition official who told the Chronicle that he’s going to be satisfied when the percentage of Latino appointees equals the percentage of Latinos in the population.

By that standard, Obama has failed thus far. He fell about 4-5 percent short.

BUT THIS ISSUE should not be a mere numbers game. It ought to be about getting the best qualified people to staff positions within the federal government, to do “the peoples’ business” for the overall electorate.

My disagreement with the social conservatives on this issue is that they make the stupid argument that somehow, picking so many Latinos means that more qualified people are being left aside.

Some of them will go so far as to claim “reverse discrimination” or “reverse racism” or whatever ridiculous phrase they concoct to claim that it is the ethnic Anglo population that is being victimized.

Perhaps the problem all these years is that more qualified Latinos were being ignored because they did not fall into the political “networks” that elected officials often use to fill the staff positions that surround them and do the grunt work of government.

IN FACT, THAT was a conclusion of the Chronicle analysis, which found that the state that produced the most Latino appointees for Obama was blue-state California, rather than during the Bush years when Texas was the home for many of the Latinos who placed their political faith in “W.”

If this is the case, then Obama already has done a great service towards improved Latino political empowerment. That ultimately will be a boost when the immigration reform issue does finally come up.

With a greater number of officials who have a differing perspective on the issue than the Anglos who a few years ago allowed a conservative Republican majority in Congress to frame it as merely a matter of granting “amnesty” to people who had no business being in the United States, that in and of itself will help the cause.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Barack Obama has made some progress in boosting the number of Latinos (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/politics/48011887.html) who work in the federal government in top-level posts, yet there are some activists who are still skeptical (http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2009/06/hispanics_wont_count_if_they_b.html) of the man.

Reading material for the weekend

Call it a bout of laziness on my part or what, but I’m giving myself a rest for this particular weekend. Come back Monday ayem for fresh commentary about the U.S. society, as perceived by the fast-growing segment of the population.

But for those of you who feel the need to read something this weekend, here are a few pieces of commentary and reporting I stumbled across that ought to be of interest to you.

1 - Michael Jones-Correa of Cornell University wrote a three-part series of questions from New York Times (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/answers-about-latino-politics/) readers, answering them on the Times website. There were the obligatory questions about “Latino” versus “Hispanic” (he agrees with me that they’re interchangeable) and (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/answers-about-latino-politics-part-2/) about why the major Latino politicos in this country don’t come from New York. But the answer that caught my attention came to a question about Latino (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/answers-about-latino-politics-part-3/) racial perception. I already knew that 48 percent of us claimed to be “white” in the 2000 Census, with 42 percent claiming “other” for their race. That compares to the Census from 20 years earlier, when 95 percent of Latinos claimed to be ‘white.”

2 - Does Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s defense of herself make her the modern day version of (http://www.nydailynews.com/latino/2009/06/10/2009-06-10_puerto_rican_hysteria_is_back.html) Lupe Velèz? Or is the problem really with people who have a problem with Latinos who won’t act meek in their presence?

3 - Academics who are Latino are rising to the defense of fellow Latina Sotomayor. I’m wondering (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/47859257.html) how long until the nativists try to claim these professor-types are being racist, rather than taking a look in the mirror at their own beliefs.

4 - Martin High School in Laredo, Texas, is concerned that its students don’t have a clue how to habla Inglès. They’re bolstering the number of instructors to try to boost the (http://www.lmtonline.com/articles/2009/06/10/news/doc4a2f4c4c3e847749198134.txt) language skills, but admit that true acceptance of English would entail a character shift of the high school, where Spanish is the daily language of choice. What a shock, considering these are kids who grow up in a place where Mexico isn’t an abstract concept, but literally lies within sight and earshot of their home.

Enjoy.

-30-

People learning wrong lesson from N.Y. political spat

Reading the reports emanating from the Statehouse Scene in Albany, N.Y., makes me wonder why some people just don’t seem to “get it” when it comes to Latino political empowerment and its effect on the masses.

At stake were the events of Monday, when the Republican caucus that has been in the minority for the past few months asked for a change in leadership. Of course, they had a trick hidden up their sleeve – agreements from two of the Democrats of Puerto Rican ethnic background to switch sides and vote with them.

THAT MEANS THE partisan political move passed 32-30 (rather than failing 30-32). The end result is that the leader of the New York state Senate is now a Republican. Dean G. Skelos of Long Island gets the title of Senate majority leader.

As his reward, Pedro Espada Jr. (one of the two Latinos who switched sides to back the Republicans) gets to call himself state Senate president pro tempore.

As one who has covered the Illinois Statehouse scene and understands the technicalities of some of these political titles, it basically means that Skelos is the leader of the Republicans who will call the shots in terms of which bills actually get considered (and which ones get ignored).

Espada will get many public appearances and some fancy ceremonial rituals to partake in. But it’s not like a Latino is going to be calling the shots for the actions of the New York Senate’s Republican Caucus.

NOW SOME PEOPLE will call Espada some sort of turncoat (he’s not that popular in New York Democratic Party circles this week). Others may think he sold out for a fancy title and no real power.

Some, including many of the Latino colleagues in the New York Legislature, are getting a kick out of seeing “one of their own” in a position of visibility, rather than being relegated to the back and ignored (which happens all too often to Latino elected officials).

The news coverage out of Albany is focusing on whether the fact that two Latinos were willing to shift to the Republicans is a sign that there is a rift between the black and Latino caucuses in the state Legislature.

Others are wondering if the increasing number of non-Puerto Ricans in New York is producing Latino elected officials who are not centered around the activities of the Caribbean island.

COULD THIS BE an attempt by Puerto Rican politicos to reassert their influence?

Personally, I see a much greater significance, and one more simple than any of these suggestions that border on conspiracy theories. Republican Party elected officials were able to gain political influence in the New York Senate by making a deal with Latino political officials.

Inclusion helped this one faction of the GOP to have a say in the way government will work in New York state (unless someone else manages to plot a political coup and gets Espada and Hiram Monserrate to return to the Democrats).

So is this just a political snit-fit? It’s possible.

WE COULD ALWAYS learn that the two Dems have returned to the fold, and another vote could be forced next week to snatch back partisan control from the GOP.

Reading the news coverage, it strikes me as interesting that fellow Latinos are willing to be seen in public with Espada and Monserrate, despite their actions. “It’s a proud moment, a Latino making waves,” Assemblyman Josè Rivera told the New York Times.

Could it be that by not demonizing Latinos and showing a willingness to work with us, there could be gains for political people in other parts of the country.

Could it be that Latinos are not ideologically wedded to the Democratic Party, and that Democrats ought to start thinking more in terms of what they’re doing for the fast-growing portion of the U.S. population – rather than thinking in terms of what Latinos owe to the Democrats.

PERHAPS INSTEAD OF worrying about whether there’s a Latino/African-American rift in this country, we ought to be focusing attention on whether Republicans across the country are willing to learn the lesson of inclusion.

Or are they willing to relegate themselves to a lengthy stint as a political minority by trying to maintain some warped sense of ethnic purity?

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Latino officials interested in boosting their overall influence gave the Republicans (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/nyregion/11racial.html) in New York a political boost.

An advance for Latino political empowerment, or just a pair (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/06/12/2009-06-12_monserrates_conscience_is_the_real_key.html) of political opportunists?

Looking at our “searches,” we’re assimilating

Anybody who thinks there’s something about Latinos that’s just so radically different from the rest of the country that they will never “fit in” with U.S. society ought to look at the latest list published by Yahoo en Español about the most popular topics typed into the search engine.

It is as trite and eye-candy oriented a list as any Anglo Internet geek could come up with.

THAT LITERALLY WAS my impression when I saw the list that the Spanish-language version of Yahoo made public.

The most popular phrase typed into a search function was (conga beat, please) “Eva Mendes.” It appears AskMen.com named the Cubana actress the “Most Desirable Woman of 2009.”

So everybody had to see the pictures of Eva in countless bikinis and assorted lingerie.

In fact, about the only two phrases listed in the Top 10 for Yahoo en Español that don’t appear at first glance to have been inspired by the mentality of a 13-year-old boy were Brad Pitt and Adam Lambert – the latter being a contestant on the “American Idol” show

YES, I HAD to look that up. I had no clue off the top of my head who Lambert was.

Those two appear to be inspired by the thoughts of the 13-year-old girl who is using her computer to while away time.

About the only two phrases on the Latino Top 10 list that I couldn’t easily see making the Anglo Top 10 list would be those of “Adriana Lima” and “Ivonne Montero.”

Montero is a Mexican actress who made the news for getting caught in a romantic affair, while Lima is a model for Victoria’s Secret-brand lingerie.

SO PERHAPS I’M underestimating the triviality of the Anglo mind. Perhaps they, too, would be interested in reading about sex and seeing pictures of a girl in her underwear.

Seriously, though, the list is nothing more than a common interest rambling of celebrity pictures.

“Beyonce,” “Jessica Biel” and “Monica Bellucci” are well-known enough these days to make just about every list. The fact that people on a site that supposedly is catering to those more comfortable with the Spanish language is still ultimately helping people find the same stuff on the Internet just strikes me as yet more evidence of our assimilation.

Of course, you could also look at it in a negative manner and say that my Latino brethren are becoming as insipid as the rest of U.S. society.

YET EVEN THAT ultimately means we’re merging with the masses.

To me, the ultimate proof of assimilation comes from phrase number five on the Latino en Español list – Carrie Prejean.

That, of course, is the Miss California USA who managed to tick off gay people with her comments about marriage, then reinforced her image as an airhead by linking herself so strongly to groups with the religious right to try to defend herself on the issue.

Yet I doubt that my Latino brethren were all that interested in reading serious commentary about whether or not Prejean was right or wrong when it came to the sanctity of marriage.

I ALSO DO not believe they were very concerned about her beliefs on that issue (she thinks marriage ought to be a heterosexual thing, and doesn’t think people should be questioning her for having such a belief) or in general.

All they really wanted to see were those pictures that were all over the place a few weeks ago (and will live on forever on the Internet for those people who are determined to find them).

You know which pictures I mean.

The ones of her in the white bikini that, at first glance, looked more like skimpy, lacy lingerie.

A BEAUTY PAGEANT contestant dressed in something that looks like underwear. It draws interest from Latinos, and from just about everybody else who bothers to use the Internet for cheap titillation.

How much more assimilated do you want us to become?

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Dorismar, who will appear in a magazine pictoral, also made the Yahoo en Español (http://espanol.pop.yahoo.com/pop/05-2009/) Top 10 list. Personally, I’d rather look at Salma Hayek – who didn’t make the Top 10 this time around, although her name came up among people who specifically searched the “celebrity” category.

Is the New York Times wasting our time?

Personally, I think people who get worked up over the difference between “Latino/a” and “Hispanic” need to get a life. I think the difference is minor, and there are so many other issues worth time and consideration than this debate.

Yet the New York Times has taken it upon itself to try to comprehend the differing terms (http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/hispanic-latino-or-what/) by which the fastest-growing part of the U.S. population ought to be referred to.

THE PART I agree with the most is the one that says a person’s specific ethnic background is usually the best way to think of someone’s ethnicity. I am of Mexican ethnic background. Mexican-American.

There are times when I wonder what goes through the minds of my Latino brethren of Cuban, Venezuelan or any other Latin American ethnicity.

There are other times when our commonality (all of our indigenous ancestors had the Spanish conquistadors impose their language and religion upon us) creates a bond so natural that it would seem odd to us that anybody could be clueless enough to question it.

And when it comes to Spaniards, we all have to wonder what they’re thinking at times.

ALL OF THIS debate is being triggered by the fact that President Barack Obama has nominated appeals court justice Sonia Sotomayor to a post on the Supreme Court of the United States.

She seems to like thinking of herself (based on the statements I have read that have been attributed to her) as a “Latina.” I have no problem thinking of her in that context.

But people are getting worked up over whether she’s the first Latina, the first Hispanic, the first Boricuan, or whatnot.

I still believe that many of these people are motivated more by partisan political issues (they don’t want to think of the first Latina as anything special) than any other factor.

-30-

Lagging behind in Georgia

“State needs more Hispanic judges”

That is a headline destined to attract attention (positive and negative) in today’s society. It was the headline given to a commentary published recently by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

A college professor-type pointed out that Georgia as a whole has 7.8 percent Latino population, and that some counties are in excess of 10 percent. Those figures will be significantly higher once we see the U.S. Census Bureau results from next year’s count.

YET IN GEORGIA, most of the courts don’t have a single Latino serving on the bench. The idea of a Latino on an appeals court is even more of a fantasy these days.

Admittedly, I could envision many Latinos who have taken the time to work their way through law school deciding there are more worthwhile places to want to live than Atlanta or rural Georgia.

But the fact that people in this country who have an ethnic hang-up are going to have to accept is that it is inevitable that Latinos are settling everywhere in the country – even some of the most rural of communities.

Yet as was also pointed out by the newspaper, only two of the 236 members of the Georgia state Legislature are Latino.

WHY IS THIS worth noting? I think it relevant in showing that at least some of the people who are going to be spewing rhetoric against Sonia Sotomayor being on the Supreme Court of the United States are coming from places that have no experience with the idea of a Latino sitting on the bench pronouncing judgment upon the convicted, and handing out justice to the acquitted.

Could much of the ranting we’re hearing these days be coming from people who are clueless due to inexperience?

I have a dream that someday, all of us in this country will be caught up with experience in exposure to Latinos. That is the day it won’t be an issue any longer.

Of course then, we likely will find someone else (Arabs?) to engage in ridiculous rants about.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Georgia will learn a lot about Latinos (http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2009/06/06/diguetteed0606.html) in coming years.

Some people need a little education about what constitutes (http://www.timesrecordnews.com/news/2009/jun/07/arent-we-all-just-american/) a Latino.

Direct flights (well, sort of) soon available to Havana

We’re not quite at the point where someone can start looking for a cheap air fare for a trip to Havana to enjoy the beaches of the Caribbean. But we’re definitely seeing another step toward normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba.

What is at stake is that beginning June 30 (and assuming that los hermanos Castro don’t have some sort of last-minute snit fit that causes them to quash the deal), certain people will be able to catch a commercial airplane flight to go to Cuba.

NO MORE HAVING to travel to Mexico City or Montreal to find a flight to Havana – while wondering if the Treasury Department will have its objections.

What has occurred is that Cuba Travel Services is working out a deal to have one flight per week from Los Angeles International Airport to Havana. The flight will be every Tuesday at 11 a.m. (that’s assuming delays don’t become too overbearing).

For the record, Cuba Travel Services has worked out a deal to have these flights provided with aircraft maintained by Continental Airlines.

Cuban officials say they’re trying to make it possible for U.S. residents with relatives in Cuba to visit with family (while also bringing money with them that will help bolster the Cuban economy).

LET’S BE HONEST, that is the reason Cuban officials are eager to have this deal in place.

Of course, this deal would not have been possible had it not been for President Barack Obama’s actions earlier this year that eased restrictions on Cuba travel for those with family there.

During the presidency of George W. Bush, Cuban-Americans could only have up to one trip every three years. Obama removed that restriction.

But the restrictions on Cuban travel remain on everybody else.

CERTAIN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, researchers and journalists can qualify for a license from the U.S. government, but it requires them to provide specific reasons why they would want to go to Cuba and it allows the federal government to reject projects it does not consider worthwhile.

And, those people largely have to figure out a way to get to Cuba, since direct flights don’t exist. Hence, we get the situation of people comfortable with Latin America trying to get flights out of Mexico, while those who aren’t have to catch a flight from somewhere in Canada.

So what will things be like now? For most people, it won’t be much of a change.

Instead of going to Monterrey or Toronto, most U.S. residents will have to figure out a way to get to Los Angeles, where they then catch the flight to Cuba.

FOR THOSE ROUGHLY 85,000 people of Cuban ethnic background who live in the Los Angeles metropolitan area (about 1 percent of the total L.A. population), it is convenient. For everybody else, it’s little to no change.

But it is a nice gesture, and more evidence that Obama is serious about wanting to restore relations between Washington and Havana.

A more serious gesture would be the day when direct flights from Miami International Airport to Josè Martì International Airport are offered. Another significant move is when we get more than one flight per week.

But I suppose we ought to view this latest move as yet another “baby step” in the direction of restored relations – which have been all awry since Fidel Castro rose to power some five decades ago.

AND IN THE end, people with an interest in putting aside the Cold War animosities that kept Cuba and the United States separate ought to be paying more attention to these “baby steps.”

For some, the biggest “baby step” will be when they can legally purchase their Havana-manufactured cigars, which may very well have become the most over-rated product on Planet Earth. How will they ever live up to the reputation they have developed in recent decades because they were so unavailable to the public?

These little actions will have more of an effect on those international ties than any grand pronouncements made by Obama or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – the U.S. duo who will have to negotiate with the Castro brothers in coming years.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Only 22 more shopping days until some people in this country can (http://travel.latimes.com/daily-deal-blog/index.php/ticket-sales-open-fo-4584/) fly directly to Havana.
The day will come when Cuba will be just as exotic a vacation locale (http://www.jsonline.com/features/travel/46986942.html) as Jamaica.

Orbitz wants to someday make cheap vacation trips to Cuba available to all, and is organizing (http://southchicagoan.blogspot.com/2009/05/orbitz-wants-to-make-money-someday-off.html) an online petition urging the lifting of the Trade Embargo, which is the legal reason most people today don’t have a chance of traveling legally to Havana.

Ratty or healthy – what should we think of queso fresco?

I’ve always thought of it as “Mexican cheese,” those brands of the white stuff that crumbles so cleanly and helps supplement the flavor of many Mexican dishes without overpowering the food.

Those enchiladas don’t get turned into a glop of cheese – and if they are, then you are in a third-rate restaurant and ought to consider eating elsewhere in the future.

DESPITE THAT, QUESO fresco (a.k.a., fresh cheese) often gets a bum rap. I once had someone tell me with a straight face that such cheese is known as “rat cheese,” because supposedly the only use for it is to bait a mouse trap.

He had heard that particular phrase so often that he just assumed it was a proper name for Mexican-style cheeses, similar to the way some people think of sleeveless t-shirts as “dago-t’s.” (My apologies to anyone of Italian descent who is reading this).

Admittedly, it is not a type of cheese I would ever cut up into slices and put into a cheese sandwich. But it is meant to be a garnish, something that adds flavor (rather than overpowers a meal).

And it works.

I FEEL SORRY for anyone who seriously thinks that a taco is meant to be stuffed with shredded cheddar cheese (or even worse, slices of American cheese).

Which is also why I got a kick out of a press release I saw recently. For fear that I am giving the Houston-based Castro Cheese Co. some unwarranted (and free) advertising, I couldn’t help but notice the statement they paid for to promote the idea that queso fresco could be healthy and (if eaten properly) help one lose weight.

“Queso fresco contains less calories, fat and cholesterol than other cheeses such as Mozzarella, Cheddar or processed cheese products like Velveeta, while providing the recommended calcium intake,” said marketing VP Elizabeth Castro.

Of course, the trick is to consume such cheese in recommended quantities to provide nutrition without taking in too much fat. The problem with many people who have trouble keeping their weight under control is that they eat too much of certain types of foods that could otherwise be healthy for them.

SO I HOPE nobody thinks this is the beginning of a Queso Fresco Diet. Nothing but Mexican cheese will cause one to lose weight. It strikes me as being as silly as those people who used to insist that a proper diet was heavy on meat and low (if non-existent) on breads and other carbohydrates).

“There’s great interest in exploring the benefits of (Mexican) cheeses because of obesity problems that children and adults face,” Castro said, in her prepared statement.

So it might not be the staple of a weight-losing diet, but one has to admit that it is much more encouraging to hear a healthy image to Mexican cheeses, rather than anyone’s negative perception caused most likely because they had never actually consumed the product.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Nutritional information compares queso fresco to other types of cheese (http://castrocheese.com/cheesenutrition/) commonly found on supermarket dairy refrigerators.

Borderline stupid stunts still a part of school experience

Learning of two students doing a tacky parody of Latinos in a sketch that was part of a school pep rally reminded me of an equally tacky stunt that occurred back in my own school days.

I was in junior high school in the Chicago suburbs when, to encourage school spirit and have some off-beat fun, the student council was permitted to hold a “Slave Day.”

THE IDEA WAS for students to buy special tickets, then give them to the student council members to get them to do errands for you. In short, to be your “slave” and do whatever they were told to do.

Stuff like “carry my books.” “Get me lunch.” “Get me a pencil.”

In fact, as I recall, the only concern school officials had about the day was that some male student might try to get a female student council member to perform some intimate act. “No kissing or groping” was about the only restriction I recall being placed on the event.

This was back in the late 1970s, so by this point our nation should have known better. Yet nobody gave a thought to the idea that the imagery of a “Slave Day” was ridiculously offensive.

I’D LIKE TO think that by the beginning of the 21st Century, our society would be advanced to the point where we definitely would know better. Yet based on the recent antics of a high school in the suburbs of Los Angeles, we’re not.

I’m referring to a pep rally that took place last month at Westlake High School. KTLA-TV of Los Angeles reported that the May 22 rally featured two Latino students as Masters of Ceremony who apparently are going to be the focal point of student events all during the next school year.

This was to be their introduction as the voice and face of the incoming senior class. So how did these two kids handle their introduction?

Their idea was to do a sketch where they adopted parodies of heavy Spanish accents, where they joked about sneaking across “the border” from neighboring Thousand Oaks High School so they could be at Westlake.

THE HIGH SCHOOL’S Dean of Activities then rode onto the stage in a golf course with a license plate reading BNR – which some say is meant to be an abbreviation for the ethnic slur “beaner.”

What bothers me the most about this incident is the fact that not only did the dean participate in the sketch, he actually gave it his approval in advance.

I can accept the concept of a couple of teenagers being dense enough not to see this silliness for the offensive stupidity that it is. I’m sure people who remember me from my teenage years can recall moments I’d prefer to forget (although I’d like to think I would have appreciated this “stunt” as stupid when I was 16).

But I wish that a faculty member had had enough sense to know better.

AS IT TURNS out, KTLA reported that the dean in question issued an apology to the student body, and could face additional discipline – although it appears he will get to keep his job, as more than 2,000 students signed a petition in his defense.

Even some parents told the television station they think the whole sketch was just good fun. So that is the number of people who want to think of stupid stunts as somehow defensible.

Perhaps we’ll reach the day when people will know better. But it would appear that there will always be a certain number of people who just don’t get it, and will want to think it is their right to belittle others.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Dean of Activities is now engaging in his own activity for the summer months, he (http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-westlake-pep-rally,0,64695.story) is undergoing sensitivity training sessions.

Guantanamo back to Cuba? Fat chance

File this commentary recently aired by National Public Radio (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104894738) under the category of things so logical that they’ll never happen.

How else should we respond to the suggestion that the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay at the tip of Cuba should actually be returned to Cuba?

PERHAPS THE DAY will come that the bay is returned to the sovereign control of the Cuban government. But when partisan politics get involved, leave it to be a sure thing that the U.S. government (regardless of who the president is) will be determined to wring every single day out of the 100-year lease they signed with Cuba several regimes ago.

Why else would the United States be paying a mere $4,000 per year for 45 square miles of land on the ocean? Actually, we’re paying nothing. The Cuban government refuses to cash the U.S. checks as its own little act of defiance.

That is why it will be sometime around the year 2033 (I will be getting close to 70 by then) before anyone seriously talks about the day Cuba gets control of the bay. By then, both Fidel Castro and baby brother Raul should be departed from this earth, and perhaps we will have normalization of relations.

Although I wouldn’t put it past Fidel to have thoughts of trying to stay alive until then just to spite his critics around the world.

-30-

Cardozo backers merely trying to diminish Sotomayor

It has been just over a week since I first heard the debate over whether the federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor would be the first person with Hispanic/Latina/whatever roots to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States.

There seem to be several people who want to give that designation to Benjamin Cardozo, who served on the nation’s high court back in the 1930s.

YET I CAN’T help but think that the motivation for some of these people is to try to diminish any sense of accomplishment that Sotomayor might achieve when the Senate ultimately confirms her appointment.

They realize they can’t stop her from getting on the court, so they’re trying to erase any sense that her appointment would at all be special. And when it comes to Latino political empowerment, it is.

After all, this is a move that has managed to briefly unite people of Mexican, Cuban, Venezuelan and other Latin American ethnicities behind a Nuyorican (as in a Puerto Rican from New York, rather than the island).

So we now hear from people that Cardozo is the one who truly deserves the designation of being the “first” when it comes to being Latino, except that he never would have called himself a Latino.

AND TO THE best of my knowledge, he never used any of the terms to describe himself that were in common usage – mainly because none of them applied to his situation.

To my understanding, Cardozo’s ancestors came from Portugal, although they were Jewish (Sephardic Jews, to be exact) and they were among those who left the area to escape religious persecution.

Like many Jewish people, Cardozo identified himself by his religion rather than his ethnic background.

So I don’t know how much feeling he had from having ethnic ties to a nation near Spain (and which some people consider to be identical enough in ethnic background to be similar).

HE DEFINITELY WOULD not have felt any ethnic tie to a Latin American nation. And back in the 1930s, the federal government when conducting the Census made only one concession to questioning people about Latino ethnicity.

They would ask people if they came from Mexican ethnic background – which makes sense considering the reality that a large swath of the country in the Southwest was once part of Mexico and of which the cultural influence never died out (despite the attempts of Anglo cowboys and other 19th Century settlers to do just that).

He wasn’t Mexican. He didn’t come from a Latin American country. So my guess is that if he were to come back to life today, he probably would have said “no” if asked if the contemporary definition of “Latino” applied to him.

So when I read commentaries that have been published during the past week that insist Sotomayor is somehow trying to steal some sort of historic designation that rightfully belongs to Cardozo, I have to wonder about the motivations of the writers.

ARE THEY TRYING to lend their own aid and comfort to those people who are determined to bring down Sotomayor by tainting her Supreme Court candidacy – with their ultimate goal being to have some of that smear rub off on President Barack Obama for picking her in the first place.

But just when I’m about to get all worked up, I have to remember the confusion of the past when it came to identifying people and the degree to which people who do have some sort of what we now think of as Latino background would not recognize it.

I don’t just mean that older generation who would refer to themselves as “Spanish” when asked about ethnicity (as though being from Spain gave them some sort of European legitimacy that a mere Mexican-American or Puerto Rican would not have).

I’m talking about people like Cardozo who would identify more with his religion (when one considers the Spanish inquisition and general hostility of Catholics toward Jewish people throughout history, I’m amazed there are as many Latino Jews today as there are) than with his ethnicity.

IT ALSO BRINGS to mind one of the top professional athletes whose career began back at the tail end of Cardozo’s stint on the Supreme Court. I’m talking about Ted Williams, the long-time Boston Red Sox outfielder whom many Latinos now like to claim as “one of our own.”

That’s what being the last ballplayer to hit .400 in a single season will get you.

Yet back when he was a ballplayer, Williams kept quiet about that part of his ethnicity. In fact, the baseball guides published back then by the Sporting News that identified athletes by ethnic background would label Williams as “Welsh/French.”

Yet the man from Southern California was descended from those French people (on his mother’s side of the family) who came to Mexico back in the 1860s, and stayed on even after Maximilian (the French puppet emperor of Mexico) was put in front of a firing squad in 1867. They intermarried with the natives in coming years.

SO WERE THERE Mexican ethnic roots in Williams’ family tree? Most likely. I’ve heard some stories about how some of Williams’ cousins were so obviously Mexican in physical appearance.

Was Cardozo deserving of the “first” when it comes to being Latino? It depends on how narrow one wants to define the group by including or excluding Portugal.

But would either of those men have claimed to be our ethnic brethren back when they were in the prime of their lives? Most likely not!

By comparison, Sotomayor takes pride in her Puerto Rican ethnic background and doesn’t view it as something she must apologize for. Which as far as I’m concerned is the primary reason I think she deserves any “first Latina” recognition she gets in coming months.

-30-

One-time rivals now a team if U.S. to restore Cuba relations

Wasn’t it once considered to be something of a campaign issue that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton couldn’t agree on the future of U.S. relations with Cuba?

I remember when Obama used a debate at the University of Texas to say he’d like to see a restoration of ties between the two nations, only to have Clinton say there were preconditions she would want to have met before she’d even think of moving toward normalization.

YET OBAMA WENT on to win the 2008 presidential election, and ultimately went on to pick Hillary as his choice for Secretary of State.

Which means that the one-time rivals whom some people wanted to believe were putting forth radically different visions of U.S./Cuba ties are now a pair. If the United States is to resume being friendly with Cuba in the future, it is going to be because Obama and Clinton were able to work together.

Which most likely means that this is yet more evidence that people should not put too much credence in campaign rhetoric. It was talk that served a purpose back in February 2008, but should not be regarded too seriously these days.

For the record, Clinton said back then that she had problems with the Cuban government for maintaining a closed economy, wrongly imprisons critics and is overly strict with its news media (which is state-owned).

SHE CLAIMED SHE wouldn’t want to do anything toward normalization of relations until she saw changes in all those areas.

Yet Clinton is going to be the person whom Obama will have to rely on during the tricky months ahead as Cuban officials have expressed their own willingness to restore ties – although they want to have the appearance of making as few (if any) concessions as possible.

The issue of U.S./Cuba ties is going to be on Clinton’s mind these days, as she represented the United States at presidential inauguration ceremonies held in El Salvador. That nation’s new leader has said he will restore ties to Cuba, which goes further in showing that the United States’ trade embargo has failed to isolate Cuba from the rest of the world.

It only keeps the United States separate from other countries, particularly the rest of the Americas.

CLINTON ALSO WILL be in Honduras on Tuesday, representing the United States at the Organization of American States. That is an organization that does not want to offend the United States, but would feel much better if the U.S. trade embargo were to disappear in the near future.

The organization does not include Cuba in its membership out of respect for the U.S. position. But it would like to readmit the Caribbean island nation. So Clinton is going to have to address the issue of why the U.S. should wait a little while longer before restoring ties to Cuba.

For its part, Cuban officials have not expressed much interest in returning to the Organization of American States, which kicked the group out in 1962 because it developed Communist ties.

Cuban officials used recently a commentary published in the official state newspaper Granma to call the group, “that decrepit old house of Washington.”

YET IT IS at this same time that Cuban officials are using back channels to let the United States know it would like to resume talks on migration issues. The New York Times reported that Cuban officials would like to have direct postal service between the two countries.

For her part, Clinton is no longer sticking to the rhetoric of her presidential campaign, and is doing her part to push the Obama agenda (which was always based on the thought that the departure of Fidel Castro from day-to-day control of the Cuban government was too big an opportunity to restore relations to let pass).

“Greater connections can lead to a better, freer future for the Cuban people,” Clinton told the New York Times. “These talks are in the interest of the United States, and they are also in the interest of the Cuban people.”

Thus far, all that has happened is that Obama approved a measure allowing U.S. residents with relatives in Cuba to send them some money and occasionally travel to the island without finding themselves in violation of federal law.

BUT FOR THE bulk of U.S. residents, Cuba is still an off-limits place.

The real sign that relations are restored will be the days that travel agencies start advertising cheap packages for trips to the island, putting up images of sunshine and tropical air rather than political oppression and poverty.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Has the U.S. trade embargo served more to isolate the United States (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/world/americas/01cuba.html?_r=1&ref=politics) from the rest of the Americas when it comes to Cuba?

It was campaign rhetoric that may have turned into little more than trash talk, as the differences (http://southchicagoan.blogspot.com/2008/02/tejano-wars-obama-will-clinton-may.html) between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton when it comes to U.S./Cuba relations may be put aside.

It took nine years, but Tejanos get a monument at Texas Statehouse

I’m getting my chuckles these days from one of the latest actions to take place on the Texas Statehouse Scene.

That state’s governor, Rick Perry, gave his approval recently to a bill that allows for yet another monument to be erected on the Statehouse grounds. This statue is of a Tejano from the 18th Century on horseback.

MY GUESS IS that it is meant to let people know that there were people living in Texas even before the Texians of the early 19th Century (the ones who some in our society like to glorify whenever they talk of The Alamo).

In the words of the governor in his prepared statement, the statue “commemorate(s) the contributions of our Latino brothers and sisters.” Officials with a committee that has been trying to get the monument erected for nine years now told the Victoria Advocate newspaper that the statue, “tell(s) the story of us who settled this land.”

What cracks me up is that the fight was more about location, than on the merits of the Tejano contributions to Texas history. The conservationists who are concerned about clutter wanted the statue set up in the back of the building, arguing that all those statues up front created a mess.

Leave it to the Tejano Monument committee to fight for putting the statue in front.

NOW I HAVE never been to the Texas Statehouse in Austin. So I don’t know how cluttered the Statehouse grounds there are.

But if it is like most government buildings I have been to, there probably is way too much ornamentation erected around the place. And most of it was probably put up by people back in a day when the only Tejanos allowed in the building were the ones who would get paid a pittiance to sweep up the place at the end of the day.

Which means there probably is a sense that something was needed to balance out all those statues erected to honor the Texian folk heroes of the past, along with those yung’uns who got caught up in the nonsense talk of the Confederacy and paid for it with their lives.

But there also are times when I wonder if the true solution to all of this is to just start knocking down all the statues of so-called political and societal greats.

JUST LIKE A part of me also thinks that constantly renaming streets is absurd, and that there are too many different types of specialty license plates intended to promote just about every cause available.

After all, if it weren’t for people trying to celebrate Davy Crockett’s memory (which really was nothing more than a washed-up former Congressman who hoped to resurrect his career in Texas), there wouldn’t be a need for a Tejano Monument to balance it out.

Then, maybe our government officials could spend time working on significant issues, instead of obsessing over trivial matters such as this.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: The Tejano statue is set to be erected (http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2009/may/30/jc_monument_053109_52781/?news) sometime later this year.

For what it is worth (http://www.tejanos.com/), the government of Spain praises Texas for the monument.