It always amazes me the degree to which Latin American countries want to copy the culture of the United States.
Considering there are those in this country who think Latinos are essentially a “foreign” element that can never assimilate, hearing of stunts such as this weekend’s attempt to get into the Guinness Book of World Records strikes me as as the ultimate evidence of how wrong the nativist element is.
THE “STUNT?” JUST over 12,000 people in Mexico City gathered on what would have been Michael Jackson’s 51st birthday Saturday to dance to the song “Thriller.”
It turns out there is a world record for that category – 242 people at College of William & Mary earlier this year.
But 12,937 Mexicans did their thing at the Monument of the Revolution, in hopes of getting themselves pop culture “immortality.”
Not real immortality, doing something of substance. But feeding off the Jackson sentiment that has been on the rise in the months since his death. Basically, there are residents of the capital of Mexico (the largest population North American city) who are getting their cultural guidance these days from the Pride of Gary, Ind.
THAT THOUGHT MAKES me shudder, perhaps even more than when I learned the latest fad in Mexico City for people with money who could afford to eat anywhere or anything they chose was to eat at the International House of Pancakes franchise that had opened in the city.
Just like Coca-Cola is one of the big selling drinks in Mexico, and many other Latin American countries. Just like how Chili’s restaurant chain is perceived as “exotic” foreign cuisine (instead of overpriced casual food, the way it is seen in this country).
Heck, just like how officials with Krispy Kreme saw enough interest to think they could operate successful franchises in Mexico.
Seriously, how “alien” could Mexicans be if our ethnic brethren remaining in the old country are so determined to copy elements of our pop culture in their own?
THAT’S WHY WE got to see Jackson impersonator Hector Jackson lead the thousands of Mexicans in trying to dance to the title cut from Jackson’s biggest selling record album (heck, the biggest selling record album anyone has ever had).
At this point, it’s just a matter of the Guinness officials confirming the legitimacy of the “event.”
It seems they want to ensure that all 12,000-plus people actually danced for the duration of the entire song. If it was just a batch of people milling about, then it cheapens the “legitimacy” of the event – even though the thought of such a stunt having any legitimacy strikes me as ridiculous.
The only question is, does it make Mexicans look ridiculous for emulating such behavior, or U.S society look ridiculous for creating it?
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTE: They have Coca-Cola, Krispy Kreme, and now, Michael Jackson. How alien (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2003/05/20/Hispanidad-Krispy-Kreme-invades-Mexico/UPI-90271053432900/) can Mexico be at heart?
Monday, August 31, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Where does Richardson go from here?
In terms of the big picture, Bill Richardson ought to feel relieved.
The man who would have been President Barack Obama’s choice to be Commerce secretary (and at one point could have been in line to be Secretary of State) had to give up the nomination when it became learned that prosecutors were looking into his behavior as governor of New Mexico.
HE AND SOME of his allies became suspect that they were steering state government contracts to a California company that was a favorable contributor to them in the past. It’s not quite bribery, but some people like to equate it with taking a payoff.
But now, the reports are coming out that the prosecutors who spent the past six months or so checking into Richardson’s conduct as a government official have found nothing that would constitute a criminal charge.
If that turns out to be the case, then he’s not going to be indicted for anything. Richardson won’t have to have a trial, and won’t have to devote any attention to trying to avoid receiving a prison term.
In short, he has no problem.
YET THE MAN who could have been the highest-ranking Latino in the federal government could very well be feeling some bitterness, because it is most likely that Richardson will never be able to regain the circumstances that put him in a position to be considered for a cabinet-level post in the federal government.
And insofar as actually running for president in the future, this issue is going to come up and partisan political types will constantly bring up the fact that he was ever suspected of wrongdoing as a reason to oppose him.
The bottom line is that while most people in this country say they believe in the concept of “innocent until proven guilty,” there are those who have a problem with it in practice.
The fact insofar as Richardson is concerned is that this did take a toll on his public image. He went from a high in public opinion polls of a 74 percent favorable rating in 2007 to 41 percent in the weeks right after the prosecutorial actions became publicly known.
THAT’S A HUGE drop. It’s not one that anyone is likely to ever recover from fully, unless they’re willing to wait years, if not decades, for a future. Even then, it is rare – although the fact that one-time “plagiarist” Joe Biden went from being politically finished to becoming the Vice President.
It took Biden two decades.
Does Richardson have the time, or patience, to wait that long?
And how much longer will he be content to be the big shot politico on the Santa Fe Statehouse Scene? Appearing alongside “Ponch” earlier this year has to be an emotional comedown from the days when Richardson was the politico who would wander into hostile environments and negotiate with the officials whom the United States technically didn’t want to talk to – all in hopes of obtaining the release of assorted U.S. citizens.
SO NOW WE will have to see what becomes of the man with the U.S. citizen father who married a Mexican woman while working south of the border, but made a point of having his children born within the continental United States.
That’s how we could have got a Mexican-raised, but U.S.-educated, man as president of the United States, which I’m sure would have offended the nativist element of our society much more than even Obama does.
For that reason alone, I will always think that the loss of Richardson as a significant national public figure will be a loss to the United States as a whole.
-30-
The man who would have been President Barack Obama’s choice to be Commerce secretary (and at one point could have been in line to be Secretary of State) had to give up the nomination when it became learned that prosecutors were looking into his behavior as governor of New Mexico.
HE AND SOME of his allies became suspect that they were steering state government contracts to a California company that was a favorable contributor to them in the past. It’s not quite bribery, but some people like to equate it with taking a payoff.
But now, the reports are coming out that the prosecutors who spent the past six months or so checking into Richardson’s conduct as a government official have found nothing that would constitute a criminal charge.
If that turns out to be the case, then he’s not going to be indicted for anything. Richardson won’t have to have a trial, and won’t have to devote any attention to trying to avoid receiving a prison term.
In short, he has no problem.
YET THE MAN who could have been the highest-ranking Latino in the federal government could very well be feeling some bitterness, because it is most likely that Richardson will never be able to regain the circumstances that put him in a position to be considered for a cabinet-level post in the federal government.
And insofar as actually running for president in the future, this issue is going to come up and partisan political types will constantly bring up the fact that he was ever suspected of wrongdoing as a reason to oppose him.
The bottom line is that while most people in this country say they believe in the concept of “innocent until proven guilty,” there are those who have a problem with it in practice.
The fact insofar as Richardson is concerned is that this did take a toll on his public image. He went from a high in public opinion polls of a 74 percent favorable rating in 2007 to 41 percent in the weeks right after the prosecutorial actions became publicly known.
THAT’S A HUGE drop. It’s not one that anyone is likely to ever recover from fully, unless they’re willing to wait years, if not decades, for a future. Even then, it is rare – although the fact that one-time “plagiarist” Joe Biden went from being politically finished to becoming the Vice President.
It took Biden two decades.
Does Richardson have the time, or patience, to wait that long?
And how much longer will he be content to be the big shot politico on the Santa Fe Statehouse Scene? Appearing alongside “Ponch” earlier this year has to be an emotional comedown from the days when Richardson was the politico who would wander into hostile environments and negotiate with the officials whom the United States technically didn’t want to talk to – all in hopes of obtaining the release of assorted U.S. citizens.
SO NOW WE will have to see what becomes of the man with the U.S. citizen father who married a Mexican woman while working south of the border, but made a point of having his children born within the continental United States.
That’s how we could have got a Mexican-raised, but U.S.-educated, man as president of the United States, which I’m sure would have offended the nativist element of our society much more than even Obama does.
For that reason alone, I will always think that the loss of Richardson as a significant national public figure will be a loss to the United States as a whole.
-30-
EDITOR'S NOTE: Richardson appeared with Erik Estrada as part of an event in May encouraging people to not drive while intoxicated. Photograph provided by New Mexico governor's office.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Nation loses an immigration reform champion
At a time when the federal government is behaving in a squeamish manner with regards to reform of the nation’s immigration laws, the Sen
ate has lost one of the few people who didn’t behave in a manner that made us suspect that he wished the issue would merely go away.
That is one perspective on the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., who died this week after serving 46 years in the Senate, but having to cope with illness for just over the past year.
WHILE A PART of me is relieved to know that any physical pain the senator was suffering is now done, the political aspect of my mind is disappointed that we are left with a batch of political people who on the immigration issue can come across as being so mealy-mouthed.
As we heard repeatedly last year during the presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., tried several years ago to create a bill that would impose serious immigration reform for this country – only to have it run into significant opposition within his own political party.
It was with Kennedy that McCain tried to cooperate to create a bipartisan bill, only to see the effort fail and then have him renounce his efforts during the presidential campaign, but now trying to once again take credit for his failed attempt in an attempt to gain a little Latino support.
Kennedy throughout the years was a supporter of many measures that gained him significant support from Latino activists across the nation. He was one of the few who wasn’t looking to say or do as little as possible when it came to the growing Latino population.
IN FACT, THE ultimate evidence of how long Kennedy had served on Capitol Hill comes out when one considers he was a strong part of the mid-1960s effort in Congress to pass the Immigration and Nationality Act that is the basis for current immigration law.
That doesn’t mean I’m placing blame on Kennedy for the current immigration laws that are flawed. What it means is that the attempt in 1965 to reform the federal immigration laws that dated back to the 1920s has outlived its purpose. It needs reform.
That 1965 measure is as obsolete to current conditions in our society as the 1924 laws were back in the mid-1960s.
After all, those 1920s restrictions were designed to make it clear that western Europe was where the bulk of immigration to this country should come from. That had become as ridiculous a thought as the notion now that the influx of people from Latin American countries who are working and making economic contributions to this nation should somehow have to leave just because some people have a hang-up about their complexion.
PERHAPS THEY’RE JUST lazy goofs who feel threatened by the presence of people who are willing to work for a living, and often at jobs that aren’t all that pleasing physically.
To his credit, Kennedy pushed for the original immigration reform, and was also a strong part of the current effort to try to revamp the immigration laws in ways that did not amount to stupid measures such as erecting walls at the U.S./Mexico border or increasing the numbers of deportations from this country.
He tried to keep the law relevant to modern society. That was a plus.
Whether any other political people will feel the need to do so is questionable at times. I often get the impression that the Democratic leadership of the federal government these days believes they are doing enough on the issue by keeping in check any desires by conservatives to push for punitive measures.
SOMEHOW, THE “STATUS quo” that forces certain people to have to live their lives in this country in secrecy is supposed to be good enough, even though anyone with sense would realize how much nonsense is contained in that statement.
If anything, the shame of the immigration reform debate is going to be that Kennedy himself could not live long enough to see its outcome. It could have been a true testimonial to his political longetivity if he could have helped pass the original immigration law reform and been around to sponsor the reform of the reform that kept the nation’s laws relevant to the 21st Century.
Instead, we’re going to have to wait and see what, if anything, happens in the next couple of years, as President Barack Obama has hinted he sees the issue coming up after his health care reform intentions are complete.
Although when one considers the degree to which some people see health care reform and immigration as being intertwined (and use the idea of immigration and the presence of “foreigners” as being reason to NOT reform health care access), one could argue that the issues should have been flopped in terms of priority.
SO SOME PEOPLE are going to spend the next couple of days reminiscing about Kennedy and the fact that his brother, John, got a boost in his 1960 presidential aspirations from the “Viva Kennedy” clubs that were one of the first attempts at organizing Latinos (mostly Mexican-American) into a political force.
Others may even dredge up that day in June of 2007 when he appeared on a Spanish-language radio program in Los Angeles and managed to sing a couple of lines of an old drinking song “en Español.”
But to me, it will come back to immigration. Perhaps when (and if) they get around to doing something in Congress, Kennedy could be included as some sort of “sponsor emeritus” of the bill. It would be an appropriate gesture.
-30-
ate has lost one of the few people who didn’t behave in a manner that made us suspect that he wished the issue would merely go away.That is one perspective on the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., who died this week after serving 46 years in the Senate, but having to cope with illness for just over the past year.
WHILE A PART of me is relieved to know that any physical pain the senator was suffering is now done, the political aspect of my mind is disappointed that we are left with a batch of political people who on the immigration issue can come across as being so mealy-mouthed.
As we heard repeatedly last year during the presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., tried several years ago to create a bill that would impose serious immigration reform for this country – only to have it run into significant opposition within his own political party.
It was with Kennedy that McCain tried to cooperate to create a bipartisan bill, only to see the effort fail and then have him renounce his efforts during the presidential campaign, but now trying to once again take credit for his failed attempt in an attempt to gain a little Latino support.
Kennedy throughout the years was a supporter of many measures that gained him significant support from Latino activists across the nation. He was one of the few who wasn’t looking to say or do as little as possible when it came to the growing Latino population.
IN FACT, THE ultimate evidence of how long Kennedy had served on Capitol Hill comes out when one considers he was a strong part of the mid-1960s effort in Congress to pass the Immigration and Nationality Act that is the basis for current immigration law.
That doesn’t mean I’m placing blame on Kennedy for the current immigration laws that are flawed. What it means is that the attempt in 1965 to reform the federal immigration laws that dated back to the 1920s has outlived its purpose. It needs reform.
That 1965 measure is as obsolete to current conditions in our society as the 1924 laws were back in the mid-1960s.
After all, those 1920s restrictions were designed to make it clear that western Europe was where the bulk of immigration to this country should come from. That had become as ridiculous a thought as the notion now that the influx of people from Latin American countries who are working and making economic contributions to this nation should somehow have to leave just because some people have a hang-up about their complexion.
PERHAPS THEY’RE JUST lazy goofs who feel threatened by the presence of people who are willing to work for a living, and often at jobs that aren’t all that pleasing physically.
To his credit, Kennedy pushed for the original immigration reform, and was also a strong part of the current effort to try to revamp the immigration laws in ways that did not amount to stupid measures such as erecting walls at the U.S./Mexico border or increasing the numbers of deportations from this country.
He tried to keep the law relevant to modern society. That was a plus.
Whether any other political people will feel the need to do so is questionable at times. I often get the impression that the Democratic leadership of the federal government these days believes they are doing enough on the issue by keeping in check any desires by conservatives to push for punitive measures.
SOMEHOW, THE “STATUS quo” that forces certain people to have to live their lives in this country in secrecy is supposed to be good enough, even though anyone with sense would realize how much nonsense is contained in that statement.
If anything, the shame of the immigration reform debate is going to be that Kennedy himself could not live long enough to see its outcome. It could have been a true testimonial to his political longetivity if he could have helped pass the original immigration law reform and been around to sponsor the reform of the reform that kept the nation’s laws relevant to the 21st Century.
Instead, we’re going to have to wait and see what, if anything, happens in the next couple of years, as President Barack Obama has hinted he sees the issue coming up after his health care reform intentions are complete.
Although when one considers the degree to which some people see health care reform and immigration as being intertwined (and use the idea of immigration and the presence of “foreigners” as being reason to NOT reform health care access), one could argue that the issues should have been flopped in terms of priority.
SO SOME PEOPLE are going to spend the next couple of days reminiscing about Kennedy and the fact that his brother, John, got a boost in his 1960 presidential aspirations from the “Viva Kennedy” clubs that were one of the first attempts at organizing Latinos (mostly Mexican-American) into a political force.
Others may even dredge up that day in June of 2007 when he appeared on a Spanish-language radio program in Los Angeles and managed to sing a couple of lines of an old drinking song “en Español.”
But to me, it will come back to immigration. Perhaps when (and if) they get around to doing something in Congress, Kennedy could be included as some sort of “sponsor emeritus” of the bill. It would be an appropriate gesture.
-30-
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Some people want us to be doomed to repeat history
Illinois is about to become a hotspot for the nativist element, particularly those people with a particularly irrational hang-up with regard to all things Mexico.
For it was in Illinois this week that Gov. Pat Quinn signed into law a new measure requiring that history courses across the state include references to the mass deportation of Mexicans from the United States back during the 1930s.
AS THE BILL that will become law effective Jan. 1, 2010 states, more than 2 million people were shipped out of this country by force to Mexico – many sent so far inland from the border that it was thought they could never return.
The reason this particular outbreak is remembered, and deserves to be taught, is because the U.S. government showed a particular ineptitude when it came to determining what constituted a Mexican.
A large percentage of those people who were deported were people who had been born and raised in the United States.
In short, United States citizens were kicked out of their own country just because some hacks with “la Migra” thought they looked foreign. Families were split up, usually with no notice, warning or any confirmation after the fact.
SOME PEOPLE JUST “disappeared.” Others endured years-long struggles to return to their families in the United States (which I’m sure the nitwits of our society will want to classify as a criminal act in and of itself).
In short, this period of U.S. history (which was a response to the Depression, since a lot of Anglo politicians got it into their heads that all these “Mexicans” were taking what few jobs remained) is not one of the nation’s high points.
But state Sen. William Delgado, D-Chicago, pushed for the measure, thinking that schoolchildren in Illinois ought to know what happened.
Of course, the public reaction thus far has been predictable. News-oriented website comment sections and Internet messages are already loading up with rants about “PC BS,” how “Paco” needs to “learn to live with it” and how, “it’s a damn shame we can’t do that to the illegal invaders that have polluted this country.”
PERSONALLY, I TAKE such comments as being the evidence of why people need to be made more aware of what happened some eight decades ago – because there are too many people who would be inclined to “repeat” history because they didn’t study it.
In the current climate where there are those among us who think the growing Latino population is one of the United States’ problems, we need to realize the consequences of how our irrational behavior caused our nation to act badly in the past.
We gave in to our worst fears and wound up betraying the ideals of Democracy that we like to think makes the United States a superior nation on the face of Planet Earth.
It would be nice if we could have learned from our bad behavior of the 1930s and would not make the same mistakes again. Perhaps that is all the more reason why this sequence is needed.
AFTER ALL, IT’S not like anybody’s talking about a completely separate course on the matter. I would suspect most high school history courses would devote part of one day to the matter some time during the spring, then move on to the Second World War.
And while I realize that the lack of time often results in history teachers being unable to make it through to the present, personally I would not have any problem if an extra hour spent talking about this situation meant one less hour talking about the “greatness” of Ronald Reagan.
But then again, I should not be shocked about any of this.
The fact that some people want to behave badly over and over again is part of human nature for some people, even though it ought to fall upon the rest of us to try to keep their flaws in check so they don’t drag down the bulk of our society.
IT’S NOT EVEN like this is an exception to the U.S. character in the 20th Century alone. Let’s not forget the years of World War II when people of Japanese ancestry (even those born and raised here) were put into internment camps (unlike those of German or Italian ancestry).
I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the same people who rant about time spent on Mexicans being a waste are among those who also think we make too much of what happened to people of Japanese ethnic descent.
There is one other point we ought to take into account. Just because something gets taught in the schools does not mean the proper lesson will take.
I can remember being taught during my elementary school years about the hysteria that cropped up during World War I against things that appeared to be German – going to the extremes of people renaming hamburgers “Salisbury steak” because it sounded too much like Hamburg in Germany.
WE WERE SUPPOSED to laugh at how ridiculously people behaved. That is, until the early years of this decade, when the cafeteria for Congress changed the name of French fries to “Freedom fries” because those blasted Frenchies didn’t blindly follow the leader of George W. Bush in making war against Iraq.
We learned nothing from that episode. So it shouldn’t be surprising that some of us want to learn nothing when it comes to Mexico.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTES: The bill (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1557&GAID=10&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=44110&SessionID=76&GA=96) itself.
The rants in the “commentary” section are more interesting than the actual story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-mexicanrepatriati,0,46282.story) itself.
For it was in Illinois this week that Gov. Pat Quinn signed into law a new measure requiring that history courses across the state include references to the mass deportation of Mexicans from the United States back during the 1930s.
AS THE BILL that will become law effective Jan. 1, 2010 states, more than 2 million people were shipped out of this country by force to Mexico – many sent so far inland from the border that it was thought they could never return.
The reason this particular outbreak is remembered, and deserves to be taught, is because the U.S. government showed a particular ineptitude when it came to determining what constituted a Mexican.
A large percentage of those people who were deported were people who had been born and raised in the United States.
In short, United States citizens were kicked out of their own country just because some hacks with “la Migra” thought they looked foreign. Families were split up, usually with no notice, warning or any confirmation after the fact.
SOME PEOPLE JUST “disappeared.” Others endured years-long struggles to return to their families in the United States (which I’m sure the nitwits of our society will want to classify as a criminal act in and of itself).
In short, this period of U.S. history (which was a response to the Depression, since a lot of Anglo politicians got it into their heads that all these “Mexicans” were taking what few jobs remained) is not one of the nation’s high points.
But state Sen. William Delgado, D-Chicago, pushed for the measure, thinking that schoolchildren in Illinois ought to know what happened.
Of course, the public reaction thus far has been predictable. News-oriented website comment sections and Internet messages are already loading up with rants about “PC BS,” how “Paco” needs to “learn to live with it” and how, “it’s a damn shame we can’t do that to the illegal invaders that have polluted this country.”
PERSONALLY, I TAKE such comments as being the evidence of why people need to be made more aware of what happened some eight decades ago – because there are too many people who would be inclined to “repeat” history because they didn’t study it.
In the current climate where there are those among us who think the growing Latino population is one of the United States’ problems, we need to realize the consequences of how our irrational behavior caused our nation to act badly in the past.
We gave in to our worst fears and wound up betraying the ideals of Democracy that we like to think makes the United States a superior nation on the face of Planet Earth.
It would be nice if we could have learned from our bad behavior of the 1930s and would not make the same mistakes again. Perhaps that is all the more reason why this sequence is needed.
AFTER ALL, IT’S not like anybody’s talking about a completely separate course on the matter. I would suspect most high school history courses would devote part of one day to the matter some time during the spring, then move on to the Second World War.
And while I realize that the lack of time often results in history teachers being unable to make it through to the present, personally I would not have any problem if an extra hour spent talking about this situation meant one less hour talking about the “greatness” of Ronald Reagan.
But then again, I should not be shocked about any of this.
The fact that some people want to behave badly over and over again is part of human nature for some people, even though it ought to fall upon the rest of us to try to keep their flaws in check so they don’t drag down the bulk of our society.
IT’S NOT EVEN like this is an exception to the U.S. character in the 20th Century alone. Let’s not forget the years of World War II when people of Japanese ancestry (even those born and raised here) were put into internment camps (unlike those of German or Italian ancestry).
I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the same people who rant about time spent on Mexicans being a waste are among those who also think we make too much of what happened to people of Japanese ethnic descent.
There is one other point we ought to take into account. Just because something gets taught in the schools does not mean the proper lesson will take.
I can remember being taught during my elementary school years about the hysteria that cropped up during World War I against things that appeared to be German – going to the extremes of people renaming hamburgers “Salisbury steak” because it sounded too much like Hamburg in Germany.
WE WERE SUPPOSED to laugh at how ridiculously people behaved. That is, until the early years of this decade, when the cafeteria for Congress changed the name of French fries to “Freedom fries” because those blasted Frenchies didn’t blindly follow the leader of George W. Bush in making war against Iraq.
We learned nothing from that episode. So it shouldn’t be surprising that some of us want to learn nothing when it comes to Mexico.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTES: The bill (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1557&GAID=10&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=44110&SessionID=76&GA=96) itself.
The rants in the “commentary” section are more interesting than the actual story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-mexicanrepatriati,0,46282.story) itself.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Politically-oriented Tejanos ticking off “el enemigo”
I’m not about to say I comprehend the logic of the way people cast votes for U.S. president in Texas.
There’s the now-famed “Texas two-step,” by which people during the day cast votes, just like every other state that elects to have a primary rather than a caucus. Then, there are the evening gatherings that are almost like a caucus.
IN SHORT, EACH event has a hand in picking a portion of the delegates that ultimately nominate the presidential candidates.
That off-the-wall procedure (no other state has anything like it) came to the public attention, just like a lot of other electoral quirks that usually don’t get noticed beyond their communities, due to the high profile given the Democratic primary for president in 2008.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (the woman that the supermarket tabloids would have us believe is about to be fired from her post as Secretary of State) ran so close all the way to the very end.
Primaries that usually got ignored got their attention. And Texas’ goofy procedure took its share of public “glory.”
CRITICS SAY THAT having what amounts to two election procedures hurts people who don’t have the time or energy to participate in both.
Real people, they argue, barely have time to fit in a trip to the Polling Place to cast a ballot during the day. After having a day of work, who except for the most zealous among us has time go to the evening event?
As a result, it hurts the concept of equal votes for people by essentially giving more votes to the people who can take the time to participate in both procedures.
Personally, I’m inclined to not have a problem with this – so long as the idea of allowing all people in theory the chance to participate in both procedures is not restricted in any way.
IT IS NOT like anyone is saying Latinos are only allowed to vote during the day, and can’t have a say at night because of their ethnicity. If there are those among us who want to take the time to participate to the maximum level, then more power to them.
To me, it sounds like saying that people who don’t cast ballots lose their political say. That’s true. But it also is their choice.
But apparently, I’m missing a point somewhere. Because on Tuesday, an appellate court panel in San Antonio ruled that a lawsuit filed by Latino activists that challenges the dual electoral procedures may very well have some merit.
There are those who believe that the ruling is a legal step closer to the goal of some activists, who have a problem with the whole concept of delegates going to a political party convention to pick the presidential nominee – rather than picking the nominee by popular vote.
OF COURSE, IN most cases, the candidate who gets the popular vote also is the one who gets the bulk of delegates, which means they get the party’s nomination to run for president.
But ’08 was the aberration, the year where there were two candidates with significant support. Some Clinton supporters still privately grouse about her not getting the nomination, although they try to keep quiet so as to avoid making themselves look petty in the process.
I’d almost be inclined to think something is wrong here.
Except then, I get to read the opposition, which comes from nativist elements of our society who somehow see this as an attack on their way of thinking.
ONE OUGHT TO go to the Houston Chronicle newspaper’s website to read the commentary that is building up to a brief Associated Press story about Tuesday’s appeals court ruling.
There’s the now-famed “Texas two-step,” by which people during the day cast votes, just like every other state that elects to have a primary rather than a caucus. Then, there are the evening gatherings that are almost like a caucus.
IN SHORT, EACH event has a hand in picking a portion of the delegates that ultimately nominate the presidential candidates.
That off-the-wall procedure (no other state has anything like it) came to the public attention, just like a lot of other electoral quirks that usually don’t get noticed beyond their communities, due to the high profile given the Democratic primary for president in 2008.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (the woman that the supermarket tabloids would have us believe is about to be fired from her post as Secretary of State) ran so close all the way to the very end.
Primaries that usually got ignored got their attention. And Texas’ goofy procedure took its share of public “glory.”
CRITICS SAY THAT having what amounts to two election procedures hurts people who don’t have the time or energy to participate in both.
Real people, they argue, barely have time to fit in a trip to the Polling Place to cast a ballot during the day. After having a day of work, who except for the most zealous among us has time go to the evening event?
As a result, it hurts the concept of equal votes for people by essentially giving more votes to the people who can take the time to participate in both procedures.
Personally, I’m inclined to not have a problem with this – so long as the idea of allowing all people in theory the chance to participate in both procedures is not restricted in any way.
IT IS NOT like anyone is saying Latinos are only allowed to vote during the day, and can’t have a say at night because of their ethnicity. If there are those among us who want to take the time to participate to the maximum level, then more power to them.
To me, it sounds like saying that people who don’t cast ballots lose their political say. That’s true. But it also is their choice.
But apparently, I’m missing a point somewhere. Because on Tuesday, an appellate court panel in San Antonio ruled that a lawsuit filed by Latino activists that challenges the dual electoral procedures may very well have some merit.
There are those who believe that the ruling is a legal step closer to the goal of some activists, who have a problem with the whole concept of delegates going to a political party convention to pick the presidential nominee – rather than picking the nominee by popular vote.
OF COURSE, IN most cases, the candidate who gets the popular vote also is the one who gets the bulk of delegates, which means they get the party’s nomination to run for president.
But ’08 was the aberration, the year where there were two candidates with significant support. Some Clinton supporters still privately grouse about her not getting the nomination, although they try to keep quiet so as to avoid making themselves look petty in the process.
I’d almost be inclined to think something is wrong here.
Except then, I get to read the opposition, which comes from nativist elements of our society who somehow see this as an attack on their way of thinking.
ONE OUGHT TO go to the Houston Chronicle newspaper’s website to read the commentary that is building up to a brief Associated Press story about Tuesday’s appeals court ruling.
It is loaded with rants that tell us how these “foreigners” are trying to take over U.S. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6586553.html) elections.
As one of these “eloquent” commenters put it, “we want American citizens to vote for the American president and nobody else…. I don’t go to other countries and vote.”
Could it be that these activists are on to something, just because of who they are managing to tick off? The people who want to believe that the growing Latino population will perpetually be a “foreign” element to this nation – even though the stats show that most Latino kids these days are U.S. born, and that figure is growing.
-30-
As one of these “eloquent” commenters put it, “we want American citizens to vote for the American president and nobody else…. I don’t go to other countries and vote.”
Could it be that these activists are on to something, just because of who they are managing to tick off? The people who want to believe that the growing Latino population will perpetually be a “foreign” element to this nation – even though the stats show that most Latino kids these days are U.S. born, and that figure is growing.
-30-
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Who will lead on immigration reform?
In my duties for a daily newspaper in the Chicago suburbs, I spent a couple of hours last week
end covering yet another rally giving the opponents of health care reform a chance to express their rants.
This was a fairly low-key rally with sparse attendance. But the keynote speaker at this event, Kimberly Fletcher of Homemakers for America, had one line that has replayed itself on a loop in my mind ever since.
FLETCHER’S SERIOUS POINT is that members of Congress seem to be going out of their way to avoid hearing anything other than unscripted debate on the issue, and she is not inaccurate for saying such a thing. But how does she think of the issue?
“We cannot get Congress to build a fence around our borders, but they can build shields around themselves.”
That ridiculous wall along the U.S./Mexico border. She also had a couple of lines about the need for people to celebrate “one culture” in this country (rather than respect everybody’s individuality) and even had a line about how she resents being called “racist” by her opponents for nativist thinking.
This sticks in my mind because this was a health care rally. Immigration and the coming political battle over legitimate reform of the nation’s immigration laws wasn’t even on the table to be discussed.
YET IT STILL manages to creep into the rhetoric of certain people, who likely see every problem in our society as being a matter of “too many foreigners” (even though I personally think that if our country survived letting their families into the United States, it can accommodate anybody).
So while I take an interest in the health care reform debate on its own merits, I must admit a part of me also views the issue as a test run, of sorts, for the immigration reform issue.
Let’s be honest. There are people who will dig in their heels at any attempt at legitimate reform of the immigration laws. Those people who think that the social conservatives are being overly rigid on the issue of health care will be thoroughly amazed when they see the degree to which these people will start engaging in the trash talk once the issue shifts to immigration.
In fact, for some people, the two issues are intertwined. There are those who oppose health care reform because they see it as providing coverage for the costs of providing health care to people who were not born in this country – whom they would probably rather ship back to some other land instead of seeing them treated in the United States.
THE RHETORIC IS going to amp up several notches. Who knows. We may very well reach that “Level 11” that the mythical metal band “Spinal Tap” claimed they could reach on their specially-designed amplifiers when it comes to the right engaging in rants against “all those foreigners.”
I’m not the first to say that part of the problem has been that President Barack Obama has truly tried to get bipartisan cooperation on an issue that splits some people to their ideological core.
It’s like he wants to throw out some general concepts and see the people who populate Capitol Hill work out the specifics – not taking into account that for some of those people, their political future depends on dumping on anything that Obama puts forward.
If he wants health care reform as part of his legacy (and he ought to, because the fact that so many people living in this country do not have any valid insurance or other way of paying for medical treatment threatens to drag our society down as a whole), he’s going to have to take a leadership role.
IT’S ALMOST LIKE the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s, where John F. Kennedy may have talked some high-minded talk, but ultimately it was Lyndon B. Johnson’s political conniving and knowledge of the legislative process that got the bill into action.
Does Barack Obama need to channel a little less JFK and a little more LBJ these days?
He may very well have to apply the pressure, knowing that the end result of his gamesmanship will be that the “right thing” (as opposed to the far-right thing) gets done.
And he ought to take into account that his work on health care may very well be a political rehearsal for the work he’s going to have to do if his administration is to get anything done in the area of immigration reform.
THUS FAR, THERE have been a few White House meetings where certain activists get promises from presidential advisers, a kind (but generic) word or two from the preside
nt themselves, and perhaps a souvenir key chain bearing the presidential seal to take home with them. But there has been little in the way of solid proposals about what will constitute immigration reform.
In fact, what little we have heard from Obama usually implies that something will have to be given to the “far right” as some sort of compromise. Not that I don’t realize the need for compromise in politics – it doesn’t hurt if everybody can claim to have got something they desired.
But when one person’s desire is to hold down the fate of another person in our society (and that ultimately is what the right’s versions of immigration reform amount to), then there is a need to take action.
Unless Obama wants to be the guy who failed to get either health care or immigration. Then he will get the label of “Mr. Wimp” for all of history.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTE: I’m not alone in thinking that the Obama administration is not being aggressive enough (http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/08/23/2009-08-23_homeland_secretary_going_nowhere_on_immig_reform.html) on the immigration reform issue.
end covering yet another rally giving the opponents of health care reform a chance to express their rants.
This was a fairly low-key rally with sparse attendance. But the keynote speaker at this event, Kimberly Fletcher of Homemakers for America, had one line that has replayed itself on a loop in my mind ever since.
FLETCHER’S SERIOUS POINT is that members of Congress seem to be going out of their way to avoid hearing anything other than unscripted debate on the issue, and she is not inaccurate for saying such a thing. But how does she think of the issue?
“We cannot get Congress to build a fence around our borders, but they can build shields around themselves.”
That ridiculous wall along the U.S./Mexico border. She also had a couple of lines about the need for people to celebrate “one culture” in this country (rather than respect everybody’s individuality) and even had a line about how she resents being called “racist” by her opponents for nativist thinking.
This sticks in my mind because this was a health care rally. Immigration and the coming political battle over legitimate reform of the nation’s immigration laws wasn’t even on the table to be discussed.
YET IT STILL manages to creep into the rhetoric of certain people, who likely see every problem in our society as being a matter of “too many foreigners” (even though I personally think that if our country survived letting their families into the United States, it can accommodate anybody).
So while I take an interest in the health care reform debate on its own merits, I must admit a part of me also views the issue as a test run, of sorts, for the immigration reform issue.
Let’s be honest. There are people who will dig in their heels at any attempt at legitimate reform of the immigration laws. Those people who think that the social conservatives are being overly rigid on the issue of health care will be thoroughly amazed when they see the degree to which these people will start engaging in the trash talk once the issue shifts to immigration.
In fact, for some people, the two issues are intertwined. There are those who oppose health care reform because they see it as providing coverage for the costs of providing health care to people who were not born in this country – whom they would probably rather ship back to some other land instead of seeing them treated in the United States.
THE RHETORIC IS going to amp up several notches. Who knows. We may very well reach that “Level 11” that the mythical metal band “Spinal Tap” claimed they could reach on their specially-designed amplifiers when it comes to the right engaging in rants against “all those foreigners.”
I’m not the first to say that part of the problem has been that President Barack Obama has truly tried to get bipartisan cooperation on an issue that splits some people to their ideological core.
It’s like he wants to throw out some general concepts and see the people who populate Capitol Hill work out the specifics – not taking into account that for some of those people, their political future depends on dumping on anything that Obama puts forward.
If he wants health care reform as part of his legacy (and he ought to, because the fact that so many people living in this country do not have any valid insurance or other way of paying for medical treatment threatens to drag our society down as a whole), he’s going to have to take a leadership role.
IT’S ALMOST LIKE the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s, where John F. Kennedy may have talked some high-minded talk, but ultimately it was Lyndon B. Johnson’s political conniving and knowledge of the legislative process that got the bill into action.
Does Barack Obama need to channel a little less JFK and a little more LBJ these days?
He may very well have to apply the pressure, knowing that the end result of his gamesmanship will be that the “right thing” (as opposed to the far-right thing) gets done.
And he ought to take into account that his work on health care may very well be a political rehearsal for the work he’s going to have to do if his administration is to get anything done in the area of immigration reform.
THUS FAR, THERE have been a few White House meetings where certain activists get promises from presidential advisers, a kind (but generic) word or two from the preside
nt themselves, and perhaps a souvenir key chain bearing the presidential seal to take home with them. But there has been little in the way of solid proposals about what will constitute immigration reform.In fact, what little we have heard from Obama usually implies that something will have to be given to the “far right” as some sort of compromise. Not that I don’t realize the need for compromise in politics – it doesn’t hurt if everybody can claim to have got something they desired.
But when one person’s desire is to hold down the fate of another person in our society (and that ultimately is what the right’s versions of immigration reform amount to), then there is a need to take action.
Unless Obama wants to be the guy who failed to get either health care or immigration. Then he will get the label of “Mr. Wimp” for all of history.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTE: I’m not alone in thinking that the Obama administration is not being aggressive enough (http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/08/23/2009-08-23_homeland_secretary_going_nowhere_on_immig_reform.html) on the immigration reform issue.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Mexico to offer treatment, instead of prison or fines
Decriminalization of illicit drugs is a subject always likely to create a feisty debate because all too many people don’t get it.
They somehow want to believe that “decriminalization” is synonymous with “legalization,” which is ridiculous. But bring up the idea of decriminalizing small amounts of certain substances, and the next thing you know you’ll hear ridiculous rants about pot parties in the White House, or other public places.
SO I’M ALREADY braced for the hostility I will get when I write the following sentence. Federal government officials in Mexico may well be on to something with their recent actions that decriminalized small amounts of substances such as marijuana, cocaine and heroin.
Now although some communities in the United States have already gone so far as to decriminalize marijuana possession (usually, amounts less than 10 grams), Mexico seems to have gone farther than I would ever expect U.S. officials to consider.
But a part of this is because of the serious problems with narcotics trafficking that are taking place these days in Mexico.
The basic thought process of federal officials is that prison space is better used on the high-roller narco-traffickers, rather than locking up every single junkie who gets caught with a couple of grams of pot in their possession.
NOW, ANYONE CAUGHT with less than 5 grams of marijuana, half-a-gram of cocaine, 50 mg of heroin or 0.015 mg of LSD is not looking at jail time. The New York Times reported recently they're not even looking at arrest.
Police will now take these people who had substances in small amounts that clearly were meant for “personal and immediate use” and refer them to drug treatment centers. In short, they will be regarded as people with an illness, the way that those of us with sense in this country regard alcoholics.
That is a viewpoint I have long held.
People who get themselves hooked on such substances are in need of treatment if they are ever to get themselves unhooked from their drug habits.
SENDING SUCH PEOPLE off to prison always struck me as being more stupid than anything else, since all too often drugs work their way into the prison systems of this country and there are too many addicted people whose problems become worsened by time spent incarcerated.
While I don’t think U.S. officials would ever be inclined to include as many narcotics as Mexican authorities did in their recent action, it would be a good step to consider.
Now I write that knowing that some communities already decriminalize possession of small amounts of the drug, although others do not – and their local officials would resent any attempt to try to create a uniform policy across the United States on this issue.
People who get caught with enough pot to create a cigarette or two for themselves do not get hit with criminal charges if they are caught by police in those communities that have gone for decriminalization.
WHAT USUALLY HAPPENS is they get the equivalent of a traffic ticket, which means they have their day in court and they usually wind up paying a fine (a few hundred dollars or so, which can add up if one keeps getting picked up for pot possession). Because it is just a local offense and not a state crime, there is no lasting record.
Such a response adds to the financial coffers of many municipal governments, which is why they like it.
There’s just one problem.
It literally creates the impression that Mexican officials have at least some interest in treating their drug abusers (although I suspect they just want to quit having to pay attention to low-level users), while in this country, our local government officials merely want to pick their pockets.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTE: Mexico officials may have supported decriminalization of certain illicit (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/world/americas/24mexico.html?_r=1&hp) substances, but talk of legalizing marijuana runs into strict opposition.
They somehow want to believe that “decriminalization” is synonymous with “legalization,” which is ridiculous. But bring up the idea of decriminalizing small amounts of certain substances, and the next thing you know you’ll hear ridiculous rants about pot parties in the White House, or other public places.
SO I’M ALREADY braced for the hostility I will get when I write the following sentence. Federal government officials in Mexico may well be on to something with their recent actions that decriminalized small amounts of substances such as marijuana, cocaine and heroin.
Now although some communities in the United States have already gone so far as to decriminalize marijuana possession (usually, amounts less than 10 grams), Mexico seems to have gone farther than I would ever expect U.S. officials to consider.
But a part of this is because of the serious problems with narcotics trafficking that are taking place these days in Mexico.
The basic thought process of federal officials is that prison space is better used on the high-roller narco-traffickers, rather than locking up every single junkie who gets caught with a couple of grams of pot in their possession.
NOW, ANYONE CAUGHT with less than 5 grams of marijuana, half-a-gram of cocaine, 50 mg of heroin or 0.015 mg of LSD is not looking at jail time. The New York Times reported recently they're not even looking at arrest.
Police will now take these people who had substances in small amounts that clearly were meant for “personal and immediate use” and refer them to drug treatment centers. In short, they will be regarded as people with an illness, the way that those of us with sense in this country regard alcoholics.
That is a viewpoint I have long held.
People who get themselves hooked on such substances are in need of treatment if they are ever to get themselves unhooked from their drug habits.
SENDING SUCH PEOPLE off to prison always struck me as being more stupid than anything else, since all too often drugs work their way into the prison systems of this country and there are too many addicted people whose problems become worsened by time spent incarcerated.
While I don’t think U.S. officials would ever be inclined to include as many narcotics as Mexican authorities did in their recent action, it would be a good step to consider.
Now I write that knowing that some communities already decriminalize possession of small amounts of the drug, although others do not – and their local officials would resent any attempt to try to create a uniform policy across the United States on this issue.
People who get caught with enough pot to create a cigarette or two for themselves do not get hit with criminal charges if they are caught by police in those communities that have gone for decriminalization.
WHAT USUALLY HAPPENS is they get the equivalent of a traffic ticket, which means they have their day in court and they usually wind up paying a fine (a few hundred dollars or so, which can add up if one keeps getting picked up for pot possession). Because it is just a local offense and not a state crime, there is no lasting record.
Such a response adds to the financial coffers of many municipal governments, which is why they like it.
There’s just one problem.
It literally creates the impression that Mexican officials have at least some interest in treating their drug abusers (although I suspect they just want to quit having to pay attention to low-level users), while in this country, our local government officials merely want to pick their pockets.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTE: Mexico officials may have supported decriminalization of certain illicit (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/world/americas/24mexico.html?_r=1&hp) substances, but talk of legalizing marijuana runs into strict opposition.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Is machisimo covering up the fact Cubana boxers would lose?
I’m still trying to figure the logic of officials with Cuba’s sports federation who think they are making a stand for Cubanas by saying they have no intention of participating in the newest sport added to the lineup of Olympic athletic events.
This comes from an impoverished country who likes to have its national baseball team travel the world and play in as many international tournaments as possible, and one who likes to think its boxers are among the world’s best.
IT ALSO IS one that likes to have any athlete accomplish something in the name of Mother Cuba (if not Father Fidel himself).
Yet the newest sport for the Olympics is a women’s sport, and it is boxing.
It seems the top athletic organizers in Cuba don’t want to have a part of any glory in this sport (mainly because many ladies who box can’t pull off the appearance of Laila Ali).
The Prensa Latina news agency in Cuba is quoting officials saying that boxing for women is “inappropriate” and that “Cuban women should be showing off their beautiful faces, instead of getting punched in the face.”
I SUPPOSE THIS is the biggest difference between the cultures in the United States and many Latin American nations, where the sense of machisimo remains strong.
If any U.S. athletic official were to say anything even close to those comments, there would be public outcry and public officials would be lining up to express their support for the women of boxing – even if privately some of those people would secretly agree with the Cuban officials.
In Cuba, this is considered par for the course.
So for at least 2012, there likely won’t be any Cubanas stepping into the ring to beat up on ladies from around the world during the Olympic games to be held in London.
OF COURSE, PART of it is the fact that there is nothing in place now for women’s boxing to match Cuba’s rigorous athletic training programs that try to find youth when they’re barely ready for kindergarten and work them into shape so when they are grown, they can win those medals for the “glorious concept of socialism in Cuba” (or whatever other nonsense rhetoric Raul Castro and his ilk are using these days).
If a Cubana were to step into the ring some three years from now, she’d probably get her clock cleaned (to use an old cliché). That loss wouldn’t look good for Cuba’s self-image, would it?
Perhaps by 2016 there could be something in place that would allow women from places like Havana and Cienfuegos to put on the gloves and box against their international counterparts.
The reason I think there likely will be this change of heart is because sports such as wrestling and weightlifting (which don’t exactly fit the feminine ideal of the past) have been open to Cuban women wishing to compete in those events at the Olympics.
CAN SOMEONE, REGARDLESS of how stuck in the past their mindsets might be, seriously say that boxing is somehow unladylike, but weightlifting isn’t?
Besides, the fact is that Cuba’s top sport of baseball is one where they are no longer quite as dominant as they used to be (the World Baseball Classic tournaments of recent years keep seeing Equipo Cuba fall short to Team Japan).
And it isn’t even an Olympic sport anymore.
So it could come down to a mindset where Cubans have to find every excuse they can think of to compete for international glory on the athletic field.
BECAUSE, AFTER ALL, if one is in a country where times have become so bad that real toilet paper has become a valued commodity for the rest of this year, life must be so low that one has to take glory wherever they can find it.
Even if it means watching some Cubanas with a few years of training and development show just how tough they are in the boxing ring.
-30-
This comes from an impoverished country who likes to have its national baseball team travel the world and play in as many international tournaments as possible, and one who likes to think its boxers are among the world’s best.
IT ALSO IS one that likes to have any athlete accomplish something in the name of Mother Cuba (if not Father Fidel himself).
Yet the newest sport for the Olympics is a women’s sport, and it is boxing.
It seems the top athletic organizers in Cuba don’t want to have a part of any glory in this sport (mainly because many ladies who box can’t pull off the appearance of Laila Ali).
The Prensa Latina news agency in Cuba is quoting officials saying that boxing for women is “inappropriate” and that “Cuban women should be showing off their beautiful faces, instead of getting punched in the face.”
I SUPPOSE THIS is the biggest difference between the cultures in the United States and many Latin American nations, where the sense of machisimo remains strong.
If any U.S. athletic official were to say anything even close to those comments, there would be public outcry and public officials would be lining up to express their support for the women of boxing – even if privately some of those people would secretly agree with the Cuban officials.
In Cuba, this is considered par for the course.
So for at least 2012, there likely won’t be any Cubanas stepping into the ring to beat up on ladies from around the world during the Olympic games to be held in London.
OF COURSE, PART of it is the fact that there is nothing in place now for women’s boxing to match Cuba’s rigorous athletic training programs that try to find youth when they’re barely ready for kindergarten and work them into shape so when they are grown, they can win those medals for the “glorious concept of socialism in Cuba” (or whatever other nonsense rhetoric Raul Castro and his ilk are using these days).
If a Cubana were to step into the ring some three years from now, she’d probably get her clock cleaned (to use an old cliché). That loss wouldn’t look good for Cuba’s self-image, would it?
Perhaps by 2016 there could be something in place that would allow women from places like Havana and Cienfuegos to put on the gloves and box against their international counterparts.
The reason I think there likely will be this change of heart is because sports such as wrestling and weightlifting (which don’t exactly fit the feminine ideal of the past) have been open to Cuban women wishing to compete in those events at the Olympics.
CAN SOMEONE, REGARDLESS of how stuck in the past their mindsets might be, seriously say that boxing is somehow unladylike, but weightlifting isn’t?
Besides, the fact is that Cuba’s top sport of baseball is one where they are no longer quite as dominant as they used to be (the World Baseball Classic tournaments of recent years keep seeing Equipo Cuba fall short to Team Japan).
And it isn’t even an Olympic sport anymore.
So it could come down to a mindset where Cubans have to find every excuse they can think of to compete for international glory on the athletic field.
BECAUSE, AFTER ALL, if one is in a country where times have become so bad that real toilet paper has become a valued commodity for the rest of this year, life must be so low that one has to take glory wherever they can find it.
Even if it means watching some Cubanas with a few years of training and development show just how tough they are in the boxing ring.
-30-
Friday, August 21, 2009
What an ugly image, and an absurd way of addressing it
Reading the accounts of many dozens of people, including 10 Mexican citizens, being indicted in U.S. District Courts for Chicago and New York for their involvement in large-scale narcotics trafficking in this country gave me a nauceous feeling.
It must be similar to how certain people of Italian ethnic descent feel whenever the subject of Organized Crime and "The Mafia" comes up.
READING THE REPORTS of how large-scale and dangerous these Mexican drug traffickers are (one of whom is among the world's most wealthy men) made me wonder how many nativist nitwits are going to clip these stories (or print them off their computer screens) and use them as "logic" and "fact" to back their absurd world viewpoint.
Now it is not a perfect comparison, since I'm not getting worked up over television or cinematic portrayals (which are always absurd, no matter what is being portrayed) of Mexican drug dealers. I'm concerned about the actual drug dealers, who are an embarrassment to their ethnic brethren.
And I don't just mean those of us who are of Mexican ethnicity. Anybody who is Latino is going to feel the sting, because of too many clueless Anglos who don't want to have to tell the difference between a Mexican and a Puerto Rican.
It's not like those Italian cultural activists who used to get worked up over "The Sopranos" because they thought actor James Gandolfini was playing a character that was demeaning to them.
IF ONLY THEY'D focused their attention on people like Tony Accardo when he was alive (instead paying attention to the "Tony Soprano" character), perhaps there wouldn't be a "Mafia" to exaggerate on television.
And if more Latinos were to quit trying to emulate anything of the expensive-but-tacky lifestyle these narcotics traffickers portray, perhaps we'd be able to take them down a notch.
Ultimately, that is how the issue is going to be dealt with in a serious way. Not through absurd indictments such as what came out of the federal courts this week. I can't see extradition being an easy process, so there's a chance nothing solid will ever come of these criminal charges.
If one were to read this site's sister weblog, the Chicago Argus (http://www.chicagoargus.blogspot.com/), they'd get a better idea of how absurd these indictments truly are.
-30-
It must be similar to how certain people of Italian ethnic descent feel whenever the subject of Organized Crime and "The Mafia" comes up.
READING THE REPORTS of how large-scale and dangerous these Mexican drug traffickers are (one of whom is among the world's most wealthy men) made me wonder how many nativist nitwits are going to clip these stories (or print them off their computer screens) and use them as "logic" and "fact" to back their absurd world viewpoint.
Now it is not a perfect comparison, since I'm not getting worked up over television or cinematic portrayals (which are always absurd, no matter what is being portrayed) of Mexican drug dealers. I'm concerned about the actual drug dealers, who are an embarrassment to their ethnic brethren.
And I don't just mean those of us who are of Mexican ethnicity. Anybody who is Latino is going to feel the sting, because of too many clueless Anglos who don't want to have to tell the difference between a Mexican and a Puerto Rican.
It's not like those Italian cultural activists who used to get worked up over "The Sopranos" because they thought actor James Gandolfini was playing a character that was demeaning to them.
IF ONLY THEY'D focused their attention on people like Tony Accardo when he was alive (instead paying attention to the "Tony Soprano" character), perhaps there wouldn't be a "Mafia" to exaggerate on television.
And if more Latinos were to quit trying to emulate anything of the expensive-but-tacky lifestyle these narcotics traffickers portray, perhaps we'd be able to take them down a notch.
Ultimately, that is how the issue is going to be dealt with in a serious way. Not through absurd indictments such as what came out of the federal courts this week. I can't see extradition being an easy process, so there's a chance nothing solid will ever come of these criminal charges.
If one were to read this site's sister weblog, the Chicago Argus (http://www.chicagoargus.blogspot.com/), they'd get a better idea of how absurd these indictments truly are.
-30-
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Show me a poll that says Latinos like the GOP
I don’t like getting excited by polls, mainly because I think one can put together a poll to provide statistical evidence to prove any point possible.
But after stating that point, I must admit to getting a kick out of a new poll that would reinforce the idea that President Barack Obama isn’t exactly screwing things up, when it comes to getting (and keeping) the support of the growing Latino population.
AFTER GOING THROUGH a campaign season where many Latinos made it clear they weren’t that enthused about Obama (but were instead repulsed by his opposition), it would seem that he is not “blowing it” when it comes to Latinos.
The Latino Policy Coalition did a recent study that questioned Latinos registered to vote in 23 states (the ones that had significant Latino populations, places like Idaho and Wyoming didn’t make the cut) about economic issues.
What it came down to is that a lot more Latinos have faith in Obama these days than they do his Republican opposition to do something serious to bolster the national economy.
On economic issues confronting families, 65 percent of Latinos surveyed said they trusted Obama, compared to only 12 percent who think the Republican political officials know best what to do.
THE OTHER 23 percent are unsure (although I’m sure there are GOP partisans who will claim they were out taking a siesta when the pollster called).
That is an over 5-1 ratio of support.
It doesn’t get much better when people are asked who would do more to create jobs that pay enough to actually support a family on (unlike the nitwits who always want to argue that people should eagerly seek work at McDonald’s when they are unemployed).
On that issue, 61 percent of Latinos questioned picked Obama, while only 13 percent went with the GOP – a 4.5-1 ratio of support.
NOW I’M SURE some of this is knee-jerk reaction from Latinos who might not follow every nuance of political issues, but are merely dumping on the Republicans whenever they are asked about electoral politics.
But that is the mood of the Latino population – which the exit polls last year estimated went by about a 2-1 ratio for Obama over Republican challenger John McCain.
It is all those years of hostile attitudes from the GOP, and even now political people spreading the rhetoric that the solution to the problem in this country somehow involves keeping the growing Latino population in check.
The idea of accepting it as a natural part of this nation’s future is too much for them. So we get polls like this literally reinforcing the idea that we have developed our hang-ups over the Republican Party.
BY THE WAY, this poll estimates that 19 percent of Latinos surveyed consider themselves to be aligned with the Republicans. So it would seem there are even some Latino GOPers who have their problems with the Republican rhetoric on the economy and jobs these days.
Now I know there are those political observers who will argue it is unhealthy for the Latino population to become so closely identified with one political party. They will cite the case of African-Americans who often get taken for granted by the Democratic Party because they knew few black people will make the partisan jump to the Republicans.
And these observers are correct in theory when they argue that Latinos would be better off if we had our people included among the ranks of all political parties and movements (although personally, I can do without Latino fascists).
But those same people who make arguments that there ought to be some Latino support for Republicans fail to take into account the unwelcome atmosphere that is often put forth by the one-time Party of Lincoln when it comes to our growing numbers.
IT IS IN that context that many Latinos are viewing the whole confirmation process of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Even though she got the job and the Republican opposition to her appeared more inept than anything else, it is still that appearance of GOP hostility toward her ethnic origins that is talked about.
Try typing in the phrase “Latino” (or “Hispanic,” if you prefer) on Google News. You will find that most of the news copy that comes close to relating to these rather generic labels are follow-up pieces of commentary related to the aftermath of Sotomayor.
For those who think that there will be no Latino backlash because of Sonia, that’s just naïve.
IT MAY BE possible to put together a poll that can say anything, but what I’m seeing from this latest poll is that Latino opposition to the Republican Party these days goes beyond one name or issue.
In fact, about the only kind of poll I haven’t seen in recent days is one that claims a majority of us want to be Republican. That is just too far a stretch of reality for anyone to believe.
-30-
But after stating that point, I must admit to getting a kick out of a new poll that would reinforce the idea that President Barack Obama isn’t exactly screwing things up, when it comes to getting (and keeping) the support of the growing Latino population.
AFTER GOING THROUGH a campaign season where many Latinos made it clear they weren’t that enthused about Obama (but were instead repulsed by his opposition), it would seem that he is not “blowing it” when it comes to Latinos.
The Latino Policy Coalition did a recent study that questioned Latinos registered to vote in 23 states (the ones that had significant Latino populations, places like Idaho and Wyoming didn’t make the cut) about economic issues.
What it came down to is that a lot more Latinos have faith in Obama these days than they do his Republican opposition to do something serious to bolster the national economy.
On economic issues confronting families, 65 percent of Latinos surveyed said they trusted Obama, compared to only 12 percent who think the Republican political officials know best what to do.
THE OTHER 23 percent are unsure (although I’m sure there are GOP partisans who will claim they were out taking a siesta when the pollster called).
That is an over 5-1 ratio of support.
It doesn’t get much better when people are asked who would do more to create jobs that pay enough to actually support a family on (unlike the nitwits who always want to argue that people should eagerly seek work at McDonald’s when they are unemployed).
On that issue, 61 percent of Latinos questioned picked Obama, while only 13 percent went with the GOP – a 4.5-1 ratio of support.
NOW I’M SURE some of this is knee-jerk reaction from Latinos who might not follow every nuance of political issues, but are merely dumping on the Republicans whenever they are asked about electoral politics.
But that is the mood of the Latino population – which the exit polls last year estimated went by about a 2-1 ratio for Obama over Republican challenger John McCain.
It is all those years of hostile attitudes from the GOP, and even now political people spreading the rhetoric that the solution to the problem in this country somehow involves keeping the growing Latino population in check.
The idea of accepting it as a natural part of this nation’s future is too much for them. So we get polls like this literally reinforcing the idea that we have developed our hang-ups over the Republican Party.
BY THE WAY, this poll estimates that 19 percent of Latinos surveyed consider themselves to be aligned with the Republicans. So it would seem there are even some Latino GOPers who have their problems with the Republican rhetoric on the economy and jobs these days.
Now I know there are those political observers who will argue it is unhealthy for the Latino population to become so closely identified with one political party. They will cite the case of African-Americans who often get taken for granted by the Democratic Party because they knew few black people will make the partisan jump to the Republicans.
And these observers are correct in theory when they argue that Latinos would be better off if we had our people included among the ranks of all political parties and movements (although personally, I can do without Latino fascists).
But those same people who make arguments that there ought to be some Latino support for Republicans fail to take into account the unwelcome atmosphere that is often put forth by the one-time Party of Lincoln when it comes to our growing numbers.
IT IS IN that context that many Latinos are viewing the whole confirmation process of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Even though she got the job and the Republican opposition to her appeared more inept than anything else, it is still that appearance of GOP hostility toward her ethnic origins that is talked about.
Try typing in the phrase “Latino” (or “Hispanic,” if you prefer) on Google News. You will find that most of the news copy that comes close to relating to these rather generic labels are follow-up pieces of commentary related to the aftermath of Sotomayor.
For those who think that there will be no Latino backlash because of Sonia, that’s just naïve.
IT MAY BE possible to put together a poll that can say anything, but what I’m seeing from this latest poll is that Latino opposition to the Republican Party these days goes beyond one name or issue.
In fact, about the only kind of poll I haven’t seen in recent days is one that claims a majority of us want to be Republican. That is just too far a stretch of reality for anyone to believe.
-30-
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
NOTICIAS de LATINO: Governor talks Texas-style trash – and other Lone Star tales
Texas political people have been known to come up with some wild-eyed rhetoric, but leave it to the current governor to try his best to top them all.
Rick Perry was touring Israel in recent days, and he told the local officials there he could sympathize with their concerns about the Gaza Strip, because he thinks it comparable to the situation along the U.S./Mexico border.
HE EVEN WENT so far as to compare Masada to the Alamo – as though the ancient Romans who were attacking Jewish people for their beliefs were comparable to the Mexican army trying (unsuccessfully, as it turned out) to drive out Anglo foreigners who had made it clear they had no allegiance to their newfound nation.
So to listen to this, Mexican people are comparable to those old Romans, when they’re not being compared to Arabs.
Either way, it means we have yet another Anglo Texan being enough of a blowhard to think he’s the victim against some hoard of Mexicans who just want to take over his homeland.
And then people wonder why some Latinos are suspicious of Anglo politicos.
WHAT STRUCK ME about Perry’s diatribe in Israel is not so much that he said it, for I am used to the idea of certain people being foolish enough to believe ridiculous things.
But even many of the Republicans who are usually willing to play politics by invoking the image of Mexico as some sort of demon nation are shuddering at the thought. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, who may have hurt herself among Tejanos with her opposition to Sonia Sotomayor during the Supreme Court confirmation process, was quick to denounce Perry.
Of course, she has hopes of replacing him on the Statehouse Scene in Austin, so it is to (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/legislature/stories/DN-perry_15tex.ART.State.Edition1.4bf0dac.html) her advantage to let everybody know just how big a nitwit her opponent is being these days.
What other matters were in the news these days with regard to the growing Latino population?
CHECKING FOR CHANGE AT THE BORDER: Municipal officials everywhere are looking for ways to nickel and dime everyone they possibly can to come up with as much money as possible to balance their local budgets.
In the case of El Paso, Texas, it seems they will take advantage of the fact that a lot of people who live just the other side of the U.S./Mexico border want to walk into the country for a quickie visit.
The El Paso Times newspaper reported that city officials are considering an increase from $0.35 to $0.50 per person for pedestrian fees for people who want to walk from Mexico to the United States across the three bridges that connect El Paso to Ciudad Juarez.
Of course, they’re trying to spin the increase by saying they will create up to seven days upon which people (http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_13151233) can cross for free. Which days those will be have yet to be determined.
WHO MAKES THE HISTORY BOOKS?: It was always a given that Texas – because of its large school-age population – has a large influence on the content of textbooks used in schools across the nation.
If that is the case, then the rest of the country could soon be getting a greater awareness of how many Latinos have played a role in U.S. history.
Texas Board of Education officials are doing studies to figure out how many Latino stories and figures will have to be included in the U.S. history books used in schools. Some officials are sensible enough to realize that the growing Latino population in Texas means it would be absurd to exclude such stories.
So figures such as Dolores Huerta and Sandra Cisneros could wind up becoming a part of our history (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/08/17/Hispanic-figures-eyed-for-Texas-textbooks/UPI-46421250532062/), which is a significant step from my grammar school history days – when the only Spanish figure I can recall being named was Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna (who won at the Alamo, only to get captured a couple of weeks later at San Jacinto).
-30-
Rick Perry was touring Israel in recent days, and he told the local officials there he could sympathize with their concerns about the Gaza Strip, because he thinks it comparable to the situation along the U.S./Mexico border.
HE EVEN WENT so far as to compare Masada to the Alamo – as though the ancient Romans who were attacking Jewish people for their beliefs were comparable to the Mexican army trying (unsuccessfully, as it turned out) to drive out Anglo foreigners who had made it clear they had no allegiance to their newfound nation.
So to listen to this, Mexican people are comparable to those old Romans, when they’re not being compared to Arabs.
Either way, it means we have yet another Anglo Texan being enough of a blowhard to think he’s the victim against some hoard of Mexicans who just want to take over his homeland.
And then people wonder why some Latinos are suspicious of Anglo politicos.
WHAT STRUCK ME about Perry’s diatribe in Israel is not so much that he said it, for I am used to the idea of certain people being foolish enough to believe ridiculous things.
But even many of the Republicans who are usually willing to play politics by invoking the image of Mexico as some sort of demon nation are shuddering at the thought. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, who may have hurt herself among Tejanos with her opposition to Sonia Sotomayor during the Supreme Court confirmation process, was quick to denounce Perry.
Of course, she has hopes of replacing him on the Statehouse Scene in Austin, so it is to (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/legislature/stories/DN-perry_15tex.ART.State.Edition1.4bf0dac.html) her advantage to let everybody know just how big a nitwit her opponent is being these days.
What other matters were in the news these days with regard to the growing Latino population?
CHECKING FOR CHANGE AT THE BORDER: Municipal officials everywhere are looking for ways to nickel and dime everyone they possibly can to come up with as much money as possible to balance their local budgets.
In the case of El Paso, Texas, it seems they will take advantage of the fact that a lot of people who live just the other side of the U.S./Mexico border want to walk into the country for a quickie visit.
The El Paso Times newspaper reported that city officials are considering an increase from $0.35 to $0.50 per person for pedestrian fees for people who want to walk from Mexico to the United States across the three bridges that connect El Paso to Ciudad Juarez.
Of course, they’re trying to spin the increase by saying they will create up to seven days upon which people (http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_13151233) can cross for free. Which days those will be have yet to be determined.
WHO MAKES THE HISTORY BOOKS?: It was always a given that Texas – because of its large school-age population – has a large influence on the content of textbooks used in schools across the nation.
If that is the case, then the rest of the country could soon be getting a greater awareness of how many Latinos have played a role in U.S. history.
Texas Board of Education officials are doing studies to figure out how many Latino stories and figures will have to be included in the U.S. history books used in schools. Some officials are sensible enough to realize that the growing Latino population in Texas means it would be absurd to exclude such stories.
So figures such as Dolores Huerta and Sandra Cisneros could wind up becoming a part of our history (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/08/17/Hispanic-figures-eyed-for-Texas-textbooks/UPI-46421250532062/), which is a significant step from my grammar school history days – when the only Spanish figure I can recall being named was Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna (who won at the Alamo, only to get captured a couple of weeks later at San Jacinto).
-30-
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Advertiser money more likely to influence Fox than activist voices
It’s the sad reality of our society today – the pundits who make their reputations as being willing to stick up for “real Americans” are going to be able to engage in their trash talk no matter what any activist has to say about their hurtful (and erroneous) rhetoric.
They’re going to be able to claim freedom of expression, and their networks will get the sense that they are somehow standing up for the good of the public by allowing such nonsense to get on the air.
BUT THE BOTTOM line is that these television networks that put people such as Lou Dobbs on the air are, first and foremost, business interests. Start hitting their bottom line, and they may listen.
That is what is happening to the Fox News Channel in recent days, where last week, several companies made it clear they have problems with the content of programming put on by Glenn Beck.
Personally, I view him as a third-rate copy of Lou Dobbs, and there is a degree to which they all sound alike (as in hysterical) to me.
But Beck in recent weeks has been a critic of President Barack Obama (what a shock) and has referred to the president as a “racist” with a “deep-seeded hatred of white people.”
I DIDN’T HEAR Beck make these comments, so I don’t know their context. But they sound like the rhetoric usually used by social conservatives whenever something is done that might benefit people who are not of an Anglo racial orientation.
Because the idea of spreading something around equally or on merit might mean that some white person might lose out on something to someone who is not white, these people try to claim that some form of “reverse racism” is taking place – even though the only thing truly taking place is a lame attempt for these people to try to cover up their own racist thought patterns.
So excuse me for being inclined to think that Beck was being a little bit irrational that particular day when he was criticizing the president (for what, I don’t know. I’ve lost track of all the things about Obama that they don’t like).
Now if activists were to start up a stink, there’s a good chance it would be ignored.
BUT WHEN BUSINESSES that pay the station money start to object, then people listen.
It has been reported that companies such as Proctor & Gamble and Progressive Insurance no longer want to have their advertising appear during Beck’s program, and other companies are considering joining suit.
Now as Fox points out, these companies are merely shifting their advertising to other segments broadcast throughout the day. So ultimately, they are still going to be paying Fox News Channel some hefty amounts of money.
The network isn’t likely to lose much overall.
BUT THERE IS the degree to which Beck’s program takes a hit because of this. After all, his program is one of the segments that is supposed to be a highlight of the Fox News Channel overall.
He’s supposed to be a star. He’s supposed to bring in the viewers, who then attract the advertisers.
But if he’s bringing in people whose views scare off the advertisers, that ultimately causes some pain to the bottom line financially. What good is it if advertisers decide to put their ads on Fox in segments for which the network can’t charge as much money?
As one who is often befuddled that anyone in this country could be gullible enough to believe anything Beck or his ilk have to say, I find it encouraging to know that someone is finally standing up against this trash talk – although we will have to see if this is merely a short-lived protest or if it has any lasting power.
I DID NOTICE one website that encouraged comments to this story, where one vociferous reader engaged in one of those ALL-CAPS rants suggesting that people respond to this act by boycotting products made by any company that would dare pull its advertising from Beck’s program.
I guess it means the old schoolyard bully mentality lives on in some adults, thinking they can try to intimidate someone into spending their money where the bully wants it spent.
Personally, I hope that if such boycotts ever do become reality, they wind up as ridiculous as those people of the early 1970s who went out of their way to eat lettuce and grapes picked by migrant farm workers – as an act of protest against the activism of United Farm Workers union founder Cesar Chavez.
People looking back on that era now think of those people as engaging in a stupid, small-minded, bitter act, much like any attempt to boycott on Beck’s behalf would turn out.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTE: Money talks where activists’ voices (http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/2009/08/12/Some-advertisers-bail-on-Glenn-Beck/UPI-82851250056978/) fall short.
They’re going to be able to claim freedom of expression, and their networks will get the sense that they are somehow standing up for the good of the public by allowing such nonsense to get on the air.
BUT THE BOTTOM line is that these television networks that put people such as Lou Dobbs on the air are, first and foremost, business interests. Start hitting their bottom line, and they may listen.
That is what is happening to the Fox News Channel in recent days, where last week, several companies made it clear they have problems with the content of programming put on by Glenn Beck.
Personally, I view him as a third-rate copy of Lou Dobbs, and there is a degree to which they all sound alike (as in hysterical) to me.
But Beck in recent weeks has been a critic of President Barack Obama (what a shock) and has referred to the president as a “racist” with a “deep-seeded hatred of white people.”
I DIDN’T HEAR Beck make these comments, so I don’t know their context. But they sound like the rhetoric usually used by social conservatives whenever something is done that might benefit people who are not of an Anglo racial orientation.
Because the idea of spreading something around equally or on merit might mean that some white person might lose out on something to someone who is not white, these people try to claim that some form of “reverse racism” is taking place – even though the only thing truly taking place is a lame attempt for these people to try to cover up their own racist thought patterns.
So excuse me for being inclined to think that Beck was being a little bit irrational that particular day when he was criticizing the president (for what, I don’t know. I’ve lost track of all the things about Obama that they don’t like).
Now if activists were to start up a stink, there’s a good chance it would be ignored.
BUT WHEN BUSINESSES that pay the station money start to object, then people listen.
It has been reported that companies such as Proctor & Gamble and Progressive Insurance no longer want to have their advertising appear during Beck’s program, and other companies are considering joining suit.
Now as Fox points out, these companies are merely shifting their advertising to other segments broadcast throughout the day. So ultimately, they are still going to be paying Fox News Channel some hefty amounts of money.
The network isn’t likely to lose much overall.
BUT THERE IS the degree to which Beck’s program takes a hit because of this. After all, his program is one of the segments that is supposed to be a highlight of the Fox News Channel overall.
He’s supposed to be a star. He’s supposed to bring in the viewers, who then attract the advertisers.
But if he’s bringing in people whose views scare off the advertisers, that ultimately causes some pain to the bottom line financially. What good is it if advertisers decide to put their ads on Fox in segments for which the network can’t charge as much money?
As one who is often befuddled that anyone in this country could be gullible enough to believe anything Beck or his ilk have to say, I find it encouraging to know that someone is finally standing up against this trash talk – although we will have to see if this is merely a short-lived protest or if it has any lasting power.
I DID NOTICE one website that encouraged comments to this story, where one vociferous reader engaged in one of those ALL-CAPS rants suggesting that people respond to this act by boycotting products made by any company that would dare pull its advertising from Beck’s program.
I guess it means the old schoolyard bully mentality lives on in some adults, thinking they can try to intimidate someone into spending their money where the bully wants it spent.
Personally, I hope that if such boycotts ever do become reality, they wind up as ridiculous as those people of the early 1970s who went out of their way to eat lettuce and grapes picked by migrant farm workers – as an act of protest against the activism of United Farm Workers union founder Cesar Chavez.
People looking back on that era now think of those people as engaging in a stupid, small-minded, bitter act, much like any attempt to boycott on Beck’s behalf would turn out.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTE: Money talks where activists’ voices (http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/2009/08/12/Some-advertisers-bail-on-Glenn-Beck/UPI-82851250056978/) fall short.
Monday, August 17, 2009
We get the image of Latinos being considered for Senate
I will give Bob Crist one bit of credit. At a time when the Republican Party is threatening to completely irritate the growing Latino population, the Florida governor is tossing out Spanish names among the people being considered for a U.S. Senate vacancy.
Not that it means much. He could easily pick somebody else. After all, the law gives Republican Crist the authority to make this decision based on whatever criteria he decides is appropriate.
BUT CRIST RECENTLY let it be known that he has asked three people in particular to apply for the vacancy – which is caused by the upcoming retirement of Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla.
His departure would leave the Senate with a lone Latino, which would turn Bob Menendez of New Jersey, a Democrat, into the ethnic equivalent of Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., the Senate’s lone African-American member.
So we’re told that Bob Martinez, a former governor who now is an attorney in Coral Gables, Fla., and Lincoln Diaz-Balart, a member of Congress from the Miami area, are among those being considered.
It is always possible that Crist could pick somebody else, and that the major reason (perhaps the only one) these names were made public was to try to detract from all the people who say that the Republican Party handling of Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court confirmation was so inept that it has done major damage to the GOP’s ability to get anything resembling a significant portion of the Latino vote in the near future.
REPUBLICANS NATIONALLY WILL be able to turn to Florida and Crist and cite him as evidence that they’re not opposed to having Latinos in positions of political and legal power.
The problem with this, however, is that Crist has made it clear he wants that U.S. Senate seat for himself. He wants to give up his gubernatorial post (life in Tallahassee just isn’t that thrilling) to run for office in the District of Columbia in next year’s elections.
Yet Mel Martinez’ desire to retire without completing the term has screwed up his dreams.
Crist, in theory, could pick himself to fill the Senate vacancy, which Mel Martinez says will become official once the successor is picked.
BUT HE KNOWS how much of a political backlash there would be. He’d likely lose a bid for a full term, and he’s not about to give up being governor just for slightly over one full year as a U.S. senator.
Yet he’s not about to pick anyone he thinks would make a strong senator. After all, he plans to run for the office himself. He doesn’t want to pick someone who can beat him come the 2010 primary election.
So there’s the implication that anyone he’s considering at this point is either too old to be a senator long term, or is somehow flawed.
Does this mean that when a Republican looks for candidates who are too flawed for long-term political ambitions, that is when they think of Latinos?
IF SO, I’M grossly offended – particularly since it isn’t as though Crist established much of a reputation for himself as one of the nation’s leading governors. It comes off too much like one political hack trying to pick fellow political hacks.
Yet I have to admit I think it would be colorful (in a bizarre sense of the word) to have Diaz Balart in the Senate for a stint. In fact, I’d get a kick out of it if he somehow managed to get in as a temp and turned it into a six-year term of his own.
For Diaz Balart is one of the most outspoken members of Congress when it comes to Cuba. He has been one of the hardliners who helped make the trade embargo as rigid as it became in the mid-1990s, and is always good for a little loopy rhetoric whenever modern-day life in Havana is the subject of conversation.
Of course, he has the first-hand experience, as he is Havana-born but U.S.-raised after his particular branch of the family fled Cuba.
I NOTE THAT because his aunt is Fidel Castro’s first wife. Which makes Fidel his one-time uncle, and Castro’s oldest son one of his first cousins. Not that there’s any lost love – he’s actually gone on record as wishing the U.S. government could assassinate his Tio Fidel (Poisoned cigars?).
But giving him a Senate seat for a time would give him a bigger platform – one that he likely would use to try to push his cause to the extreme that the U.S. public would become more fully aware of how out-of-touch with the masses some of these Miami exiles truly have become throughout the years.
So in my wildest dreams that center around Latino political empowerment, the Senate keeps a second Latino and his rhetoric helps lead the way for the federal government in the near future to craft a more sensible policy for dealing with Cuba.
And all this could come about just because Bob Crist was more interested in trying to keep a Senate seat open for himself next year, rather than picking the best possible candidate.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTES: Is Bob Crist talking up Latino prospects for a U.S. Senate vacancy in part (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/florida/story/1187081.html) to cover up the fact that he too was publicly opposed to Sonia Sotomayor getting a Supreme Court post?
Could this be our nation’s (http://diaz-balart.house.gov/) new U.S. senator?
Not that it means much. He could easily pick somebody else. After all, the law gives Republican Crist the authority to make this decision based on whatever criteria he decides is appropriate.
BUT CRIST RECENTLY let it be known that he has asked three people in particular to apply for the vacancy – which is caused by the upcoming retirement of Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla.
His departure would leave the Senate with a lone Latino, which would turn Bob Menendez of New Jersey, a Democrat, into the ethnic equivalent of Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., the Senate’s lone African-American member.
So we’re told that Bob Martinez, a former governor who now is an attorney in Coral Gables, Fla., and Lincoln Diaz-Balart, a member of Congress from the Miami area, are among those being considered.
It is always possible that Crist could pick somebody else, and that the major reason (perhaps the only one) these names were made public was to try to detract from all the people who say that the Republican Party handling of Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court confirmation was so inept that it has done major damage to the GOP’s ability to get anything resembling a significant portion of the Latino vote in the near future.
REPUBLICANS NATIONALLY WILL be able to turn to Florida and Crist and cite him as evidence that they’re not opposed to having Latinos in positions of political and legal power.
The problem with this, however, is that Crist has made it clear he wants that U.S. Senate seat for himself. He wants to give up his gubernatorial post (life in Tallahassee just isn’t that thrilling) to run for office in the District of Columbia in next year’s elections.
Yet Mel Martinez’ desire to retire without completing the term has screwed up his dreams.
Crist, in theory, could pick himself to fill the Senate vacancy, which Mel Martinez says will become official once the successor is picked.
BUT HE KNOWS how much of a political backlash there would be. He’d likely lose a bid for a full term, and he’s not about to give up being governor just for slightly over one full year as a U.S. senator.
Yet he’s not about to pick anyone he thinks would make a strong senator. After all, he plans to run for the office himself. He doesn’t want to pick someone who can beat him come the 2010 primary election.
So there’s the implication that anyone he’s considering at this point is either too old to be a senator long term, or is somehow flawed.
Does this mean that when a Republican looks for candidates who are too flawed for long-term political ambitions, that is when they think of Latinos?
IF SO, I’M grossly offended – particularly since it isn’t as though Crist established much of a reputation for himself as one of the nation’s leading governors. It comes off too much like one political hack trying to pick fellow political hacks.
Yet I have to admit I think it would be colorful (in a bizarre sense of the word) to have Diaz Balart in the Senate for a stint. In fact, I’d get a kick out of it if he somehow managed to get in as a temp and turned it into a six-year term of his own.
For Diaz Balart is one of the most outspoken members of Congress when it comes to Cuba. He has been one of the hardliners who helped make the trade embargo as rigid as it became in the mid-1990s, and is always good for a little loopy rhetoric whenever modern-day life in Havana is the subject of conversation.
Of course, he has the first-hand experience, as he is Havana-born but U.S.-raised after his particular branch of the family fled Cuba.
I NOTE THAT because his aunt is Fidel Castro’s first wife. Which makes Fidel his one-time uncle, and Castro’s oldest son one of his first cousins. Not that there’s any lost love – he’s actually gone on record as wishing the U.S. government could assassinate his Tio Fidel (Poisoned cigars?).
But giving him a Senate seat for a time would give him a bigger platform – one that he likely would use to try to push his cause to the extreme that the U.S. public would become more fully aware of how out-of-touch with the masses some of these Miami exiles truly have become throughout the years.
So in my wildest dreams that center around Latino political empowerment, the Senate keeps a second Latino and his rhetoric helps lead the way for the federal government in the near future to craft a more sensible policy for dealing with Cuba.
And all this could come about just because Bob Crist was more interested in trying to keep a Senate seat open for himself next year, rather than picking the best possible candidate.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTES: Is Bob Crist talking up Latino prospects for a U.S. Senate vacancy in part (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/florida/story/1187081.html) to cover up the fact that he too was publicly opposed to Sonia Sotomayor getting a Supreme Court post?
Could this be our nation’s (http://diaz-balart.house.gov/) new U.S. senator?
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Will Estrada (not Erik) become conservative cause celebre
Is Miguel Estrada destined to become a hero to the socia
l conservatives of our country for his failed bid for a post in the federal judiciary?
It would seem so, since I have heard his name get tossed about in conservative rhetoric more in the days since Sonia Sotomayor became a member of the Supreme Court than I had heard it in the six years since he failed to become a federal appeals judge.
I GET A kick out of a reader’s letter that was published this week in the Morning Call newspaper of Allendale, Penn. – th
at letter writer who wants to demonize Democrats who backed Sotomayor tells us that we could now have two Latinos on the nation’s high court – if only we hypocritical liberals had been decent in our treatment of Estrada.
Aside from the fact that the far right can’t seem to get its facts right, I find it ironic they’re now willing to eagerly tout the Latino-ness of Estrada as something they would have liked to have seen.
The fact is that Estrada was a Texan with personal ties to then-President George W. Bush, who in 2003 nominated him for a seat on the Court of Appeals district that covers the District of Columbia.
Estrada wasn’t up for a Supreme Court seat then, but the fact is that the D.C. Court of Appeals tends to address issues of a true national character – rather than regional problems where the federal government gets intertwined.
AS A RESULT, its justices tend to have a higher profile in the legal community than does a federal judge in Chicago or San Francisco. And it would have been likely that after having served some time as a federal appeals judge in Washington, Estrada could have been in line for a Supreme Court appointment by a future Republican president.
So in a sense, a future Latino Supreme Court justice who would have been deemed acceptable to the social conservatives because he would use the law to hold down anyone they considered unworthy of getting a piece of the “American” dream got shot down.
It was strong opposition by the Democrats in the Senate that undid Estrada’s nomination, ultimately scaring even some of the more moderate Republicans into backing away from him and causing Estrada to ultimately decline the nomination. (So technically, he quit, instead of being fired).
Now I’m going to be the first to admit that the opposition to Estrada was politically partisan.
DEMOCRATS SAW ESTRADA as one of Bush’s Texas allies who would be inclined to issue rulings that would be supportive of the Bush era’s policies. They saw him as part of a Republican attempt to pack the federal courts with judges whose legal interpretations would support their partisan political beliefs.
So they opposed him, and had enough partisan strength that they won.
Democratic opposition to Estrada was really no different than the Republican opposition to Sotomayor – except that Republicans have become so politically weak in Washington that they couldn’t get the partisan strength together.
So they lost.
ARE THEY JUST jealous they’re not as strong politically now in the age of President Obama as Democrats were back then in the era of George Bush the younger?
Because the Republican opposition to Sotomayor certainly isn’t any more noble than the Democratic opposition to Estrada.
Conservatives who bring up Estrada now just seems like a pathetic attempt to try to put a spin on their actions so as to try to lessen the future political hostility many of them will encounter from the growing Latino population of this country.
Republican officials went into the confirmation proceedings knowing they couldn’t stop Sotomayor from getting the post. So their goal was to say and do things that would appease the people who see one of this nation’s problems as increased Latino political empowerment.
PERHAPS THEY SEE the states in the southwest where Latino numbers are growing to the point where the Latino vote will soon become a strong one that can dictate policies, and it scares them – so they’re pandering to the people who take this side in hopes they can keep such strong support among that one segment that they can continue to succeed on Election Days of the future.
So when I read letters such as this one (http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/letters/all-lesko0811.6985108aug14,0,5413044.story), where some guy is trying to downplay the cultural significance of Sotomayor by bringing up Estrada, it strikes me as being absurd.
It strikes me as being hypocritical by those on the right, the ones who claim they don’t want to have to take into account one’s ethnicity when looking at Supreme Court judges.
But above all, it strikes me as being incredibly inaccurate. In short, it is a lie.
-30-
l conservatives of our country for his failed bid for a post in the federal judiciary?It would seem so, since I have heard his name get tossed about in conservative rhetoric more in the days since Sonia Sotomayor became a member of the Supreme Court than I had heard it in the six years since he failed to become a federal appeals judge.
I GET A kick out of a reader’s letter that was published this week in the Morning Call newspaper of Allendale, Penn. – th
at letter writer who wants to demonize Democrats who backed Sotomayor tells us that we could now have two Latinos on the nation’s high court – if only we hypocritical liberals had been decent in our treatment of Estrada.Aside from the fact that the far right can’t seem to get its facts right, I find it ironic they’re now willing to eagerly tout the Latino-ness of Estrada as something they would have liked to have seen.
The fact is that Estrada was a Texan with personal ties to then-President George W. Bush, who in 2003 nominated him for a seat on the Court of Appeals district that covers the District of Columbia.
Estrada wasn’t up for a Supreme Court seat then, but the fact is that the D.C. Court of Appeals tends to address issues of a true national character – rather than regional problems where the federal government gets intertwined.
AS A RESULT, its justices tend to have a higher profile in the legal community than does a federal judge in Chicago or San Francisco. And it would have been likely that after having served some time as a federal appeals judge in Washington, Estrada could have been in line for a Supreme Court appointment by a future Republican president.
So in a sense, a future Latino Supreme Court justice who would have been deemed acceptable to the social conservatives because he would use the law to hold down anyone they considered unworthy of getting a piece of the “American” dream got shot down.
It was strong opposition by the Democrats in the Senate that undid Estrada’s nomination, ultimately scaring even some of the more moderate Republicans into backing away from him and causing Estrada to ultimately decline the nomination. (So technically, he quit, instead of being fired).
Now I’m going to be the first to admit that the opposition to Estrada was politically partisan.
DEMOCRATS SAW ESTRADA as one of Bush’s Texas allies who would be inclined to issue rulings that would be supportive of the Bush era’s policies. They saw him as part of a Republican attempt to pack the federal courts with judges whose legal interpretations would support their partisan political beliefs.
So they opposed him, and had enough partisan strength that they won.
Democratic opposition to Estrada was really no different than the Republican opposition to Sotomayor – except that Republicans have become so politically weak in Washington that they couldn’t get the partisan strength together.
So they lost.
ARE THEY JUST jealous they’re not as strong politically now in the age of President Obama as Democrats were back then in the era of George Bush the younger?
Because the Republican opposition to Sotomayor certainly isn’t any more noble than the Democratic opposition to Estrada.
Conservatives who bring up Estrada now just seems like a pathetic attempt to try to put a spin on their actions so as to try to lessen the future political hostility many of them will encounter from the growing Latino population of this country.
Republican officials went into the confirmation proceedings knowing they couldn’t stop Sotomayor from getting the post. So their goal was to say and do things that would appease the people who see one of this nation’s problems as increased Latino political empowerment.
PERHAPS THEY SEE the states in the southwest where Latino numbers are growing to the point where the Latino vote will soon become a strong one that can dictate policies, and it scares them – so they’re pandering to the people who take this side in hopes they can keep such strong support among that one segment that they can continue to succeed on Election Days of the future.
So when I read letters such as this one (http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/letters/all-lesko0811.6985108aug14,0,5413044.story), where some guy is trying to downplay the cultural significance of Sotomayor by bringing up Estrada, it strikes me as being absurd.
It strikes me as being hypocritical by those on the right, the ones who claim they don’t want to have to take into account one’s ethnicity when looking at Supreme Court judges.
But above all, it strikes me as being incredibly inaccurate. In short, it is a lie.
-30-
Friday, August 14, 2009
Ooh, that hurts!
I’m feeling a touch of sympathy for our ethnic brethren from Cuba.
I’m not talking about the Miami exile variety. I mean the ones still stuck on the island in the Caribbean.
FOR IT SEEMS that the constant shortages of supplies to get through life are now reaching the most “crucial” of items, one whose absence is going to cause notable discomfort for the Cuban people.
I’m talking about toilet paper.
That soft tissue that enables us to clean ourselves after performing that certain bodily function that enables our bodies to remain clean of the toxins that otherwise would accumulate.
It seems that Cubans are running out, that the hurricanes of recent years have caused so much damage that production of toilet paper will have to be halted for the rest of this year, and imports of the stuff (even that rough, scratchy institutional version that so many of us detest) will also be on the decline.
IN SHORT, THERE are going to be a lot of soiled, smelly Cubans for the rest of this year, through no fault of their own.
Perhaps it is at moments like this that we should appreciate the economic strength of our nation. Even though we complain about the economy these days and there are those of us who are struggling to figure out how (or if at all) they will make their next mortgage or car payment, there are those who are worse off.
Our Cubano brethren are trying to figure out how they will be able to clean themselves at that inopportune moment when they are in the bathroom.
Now the Cuban propaganda machine is already putting its spin on the matter by emphasizing that the toilet paper shortage won’t last forever. The Cuban government has already made the arrangements for a massive shipment of toilet paper to be sent to the country some time around Christmas.
SO COME 2010, the Cuban people will once again have toilet paper. What they’re supposed to do until then has yet to be determined.
It will be interesting to see to what degree Cubanos go to resolve this problem. These are, after all, a people who have managed to mongrelize those 50-year-old automobiles they were driving before Castro with all kinds of foreign auto parts so as to keep them running.
It would seem like the Cuban government did not learn the lesson of the demise of the Soviet Union, which lost the support of the Russian people largely because the Communist ideology got in the way of providing the basics of life.
I would say that a government that creates a situation where toilet tissue turns into the “Great Cuban Toilet Paper Crisis” has failed its people.
BUT WHAT CAUGHT my attention the most about the Cuban situation was a “news” account published by Pravda – the one-time propaganda machine of Cuba’s economic patron – the now-defunct Soviet Union.
The newspaper/website tells us that Cuban bookstores are offering up a new volume these days.
It is billed as a book for the 50th anniversary of the Cuban revolution and for the 83rd birthday of Fidel Castro. It is a collection of quotations, sayings and teachings of Castro himself.
I guess the guy who wants to believe he brought Communism to the Americas was jealous that Chairman Mao had his “Little Red Book” while Fidel had nada.
SO WHY WON’T I be the least bit surprised if the volume turns into a best seller – not because the Cuban people feel the need to remember the thoughts of their Supreme Leader, but because they will wind up shredding the pages so as to have something to use at those most inconvenient moments.
Castro’s book of 339 pages could wind up becoming the ultimate “bathroom reader.”
And when it comes to the leader of a government who can’t even keep his people in supply of these most basic items, I can’t think of a more appropriate use for his thoughts.
-30-
I’m not talking about the Miami exile variety. I mean the ones still stuck on the island in the Caribbean.
FOR IT SEEMS that the constant shortages of supplies to get through life are now reaching the most “crucial” of items, one whose absence is going to cause notable discomfort for the Cuban people.
I’m talking about toilet paper.
That soft tissue that enables us to clean ourselves after performing that certain bodily function that enables our bodies to remain clean of the toxins that otherwise would accumulate.
It seems that Cubans are running out, that the hurricanes of recent years have caused so much damage that production of toilet paper will have to be halted for the rest of this year, and imports of the stuff (even that rough, scratchy institutional version that so many of us detest) will also be on the decline.
IN SHORT, THERE are going to be a lot of soiled, smelly Cubans for the rest of this year, through no fault of their own.
Perhaps it is at moments like this that we should appreciate the economic strength of our nation. Even though we complain about the economy these days and there are those of us who are struggling to figure out how (or if at all) they will make their next mortgage or car payment, there are those who are worse off.
Our Cubano brethren are trying to figure out how they will be able to clean themselves at that inopportune moment when they are in the bathroom.
Now the Cuban propaganda machine is already putting its spin on the matter by emphasizing that the toilet paper shortage won’t last forever. The Cuban government has already made the arrangements for a massive shipment of toilet paper to be sent to the country some time around Christmas.
SO COME 2010, the Cuban people will once again have toilet paper. What they’re supposed to do until then has yet to be determined.
It will be interesting to see to what degree Cubanos go to resolve this problem. These are, after all, a people who have managed to mongrelize those 50-year-old automobiles they were driving before Castro with all kinds of foreign auto parts so as to keep them running.
It would seem like the Cuban government did not learn the lesson of the demise of the Soviet Union, which lost the support of the Russian people largely because the Communist ideology got in the way of providing the basics of life.
I would say that a government that creates a situation where toilet tissue turns into the “Great Cuban Toilet Paper Crisis” has failed its people.
BUT WHAT CAUGHT my attention the most about the Cuban situation was a “news” account published by Pravda – the one-time propaganda machine of Cuba’s economic patron – the now-defunct Soviet Union.
The newspaper/website tells us that Cuban bookstores are offering up a new volume these days.
It is billed as a book for the 50th anniversary of the Cuban revolution and for the 83rd birthday of Fidel Castro. It is a collection of quotations, sayings and teachings of Castro himself.
I guess the guy who wants to believe he brought Communism to the Americas was jealous that Chairman Mao had his “Little Red Book” while Fidel had nada.
SO WHY WON’T I be the least bit surprised if the volume turns into a best seller – not because the Cuban people feel the need to remember the thoughts of their Supreme Leader, but because they will wind up shredding the pages so as to have something to use at those most inconvenient moments.
Castro’s book of 339 pages could wind up becoming the ultimate “bathroom reader.”
And when it comes to the leader of a government who can’t even keep his people in supply of these most basic items, I can’t think of a more appropriate use for his thoughts.
-30-
Thursday, August 13, 2009
10 minutes of agony before status quo prevails
There was a roughly 10-minute period when just about every sporting-minded Mexicano was feeling a ripping in their gut – the Damned Yanquis were actually going to come to Estadio Azteca and take a win against the national soccer team of Mexico.
For the United States national team had a 1-0 lead for about 10 minutes. Now rational minded people would note that this was very early in the match played between the two teams on Wednesday. Mexico tied up the game early on, and it wasn’t until late in the match that Mexico took the lead for good.
THE BOTTOM LINE? Mexico defeated the United States 2-1, which is about what many of the soccer pundits predicted.
The fact is that this match which has a say in determining which of the roughly 200 soccer-playing nations of the world get to be the 32 countries that travel to South Africa next year for the World Cup tournament ended about as expected.
Equipo Mexico doesn’t lose at the Estadio Azteca in Mexico City.
The United States has never won there. The closest they came to a win was a tie back in 1997.
OF COURSE, THE world of modern-day soccer also says that when the two countries play in the United States, it is Team U.S.A. that prevails – particularly when they go out of their way to stage the matches in locales such as Columbus, Ohio, where the Latino population is so low (about 2 percent) that there is little chance that a pro-Mexico crowd will attend.
Perhaps that is what was behind the Mexico victory over the U.S. (5-0, with a lot of second-string players seeing action for both teams) a couple of weeks ago in the Gold Cup championship. Playing at Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J., was just too close to New York City for U.S. team comfort.
Now I didn’t watch the match. I have to work for a living, and wasn’t able to spare time to tune in a television set when the match was played in mid-afternoon. Yet I must admit to being interested enough in the results to figure out in my mind roughly when the match would end, then checked out the results on the Internet.
Hence, I learned of Miguel Sabah’s goal in the 82nd minute of the match that game Team Mexico the lead, and prevented many Mexicans (and even some Mexican-Americans) from feeling like they just blocked a soccer ball with their private parts.
IT WOULD HAVE been an emotional tragedy if the U.S. team had managed to go into Mexico and get that win, and not just because Team Mexico has been struggling this year and now needs every win it can get if it hopes to go to the World Cup.
By comparison, Team U.S.A. has played well and is very close to clinching a spot among the 32 qualifying nations. It would take a massive athletic collapse for the United States not to be present in South Africa next year.
It always amazes me when the United States and Mexico take each other on in any sport (remember in 2006 when it was Mexico that knocked Team U.S.A. out of the World Baseball Classic that many people thought they were destined to win?), but particularly in soccer.
That was always one of the areas where the Mexican national team could compete with some of the big boys of the athletic world.
BUT NOW THAT the United States’ national team has spent the past decade improving to where they are roughly the same level as Mexico (and can stage upsets against soccer world powers such as Spain), there are those who feel threatened.
There also are those whose nativist thought patterns are strong enough that they feel compelled to bash Mexico athletics, as though no one on this continent outside of the United States ought to be thinking they can compete on a world arena.
That thought is what causes many Mexican-Americans to root for Mexico or other Latin American teams when they compete at the sport. It is almost like the victory becomes a “ding” in the cup of every Anglo who ever gave them grief.
Personally, I see Wednesday’s result as the status quo. Equipo Mexico won in Mexico City.
EVEN BEFORE THE match was played, I read stories quoting U.S. team officials making the expected excuses about how unfair a place such as Mexico City is to play in.
It relates to the high altitude, which in theory does require an athlete some time to adapt to – particularly if playing a sport such as soccer that involves 90 minutes of constant running or jogging to the point where one can easily be out of breath.
One official literally told the Los Angeles Times that the U.S. team would be the favorite to win if the two were to play in a stadium at sea level.
Personally, I think the sight of 100,000 crazed lunatics (which is what many sports fans are) cheering against the U.S. team provided an intimidating presence that was more of a factor.
BUT IT STRIKES me as being nothing more than excuses. Should we discredit all the U.S. soccer victories of this decade played in this country because officials went out of their way to stage them in small stadiums in non-ethnic places where they could try to recreate the intimidation factor that comes so easily in a place like Mexico City?
What really happened is that the two teams played a close, competitive match whose outcome wasn’t set until the final whistle blew to end the second half.
It was a good game; one I wish I could have watched live.
-30-
For the United States national team had a 1-0 lead for about 10 minutes. Now rational minded people would note that this was very early in the match played between the two teams on Wednesday. Mexico tied up the game early on, and it wasn’t until late in the match that Mexico took the lead for good.
THE BOTTOM LINE? Mexico defeated the United States 2-1, which is about what many of the soccer pundits predicted.
The fact is that this match which has a say in determining which of the roughly 200 soccer-playing nations of the world get to be the 32 countries that travel to South Africa next year for the World Cup tournament ended about as expected.
Equipo Mexico doesn’t lose at the Estadio Azteca in Mexico City.
The United States has never won there. The closest they came to a win was a tie back in 1997.
OF COURSE, THE world of modern-day soccer also says that when the two countries play in the United States, it is Team U.S.A. that prevails – particularly when they go out of their way to stage the matches in locales such as Columbus, Ohio, where the Latino population is so low (about 2 percent) that there is little chance that a pro-Mexico crowd will attend.
Perhaps that is what was behind the Mexico victory over the U.S. (5-0, with a lot of second-string players seeing action for both teams) a couple of weeks ago in the Gold Cup championship. Playing at Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J., was just too close to New York City for U.S. team comfort.
Now I didn’t watch the match. I have to work for a living, and wasn’t able to spare time to tune in a television set when the match was played in mid-afternoon. Yet I must admit to being interested enough in the results to figure out in my mind roughly when the match would end, then checked out the results on the Internet.
Hence, I learned of Miguel Sabah’s goal in the 82nd minute of the match that game Team Mexico the lead, and prevented many Mexicans (and even some Mexican-Americans) from feeling like they just blocked a soccer ball with their private parts.
IT WOULD HAVE been an emotional tragedy if the U.S. team had managed to go into Mexico and get that win, and not just because Team Mexico has been struggling this year and now needs every win it can get if it hopes to go to the World Cup.
By comparison, Team U.S.A. has played well and is very close to clinching a spot among the 32 qualifying nations. It would take a massive athletic collapse for the United States not to be present in South Africa next year.
It always amazes me when the United States and Mexico take each other on in any sport (remember in 2006 when it was Mexico that knocked Team U.S.A. out of the World Baseball Classic that many people thought they were destined to win?), but particularly in soccer.
That was always one of the areas where the Mexican national team could compete with some of the big boys of the athletic world.
BUT NOW THAT the United States’ national team has spent the past decade improving to where they are roughly the same level as Mexico (and can stage upsets against soccer world powers such as Spain), there are those who feel threatened.
There also are those whose nativist thought patterns are strong enough that they feel compelled to bash Mexico athletics, as though no one on this continent outside of the United States ought to be thinking they can compete on a world arena.
That thought is what causes many Mexican-Americans to root for Mexico or other Latin American teams when they compete at the sport. It is almost like the victory becomes a “ding” in the cup of every Anglo who ever gave them grief.
Personally, I see Wednesday’s result as the status quo. Equipo Mexico won in Mexico City.
EVEN BEFORE THE match was played, I read stories quoting U.S. team officials making the expected excuses about how unfair a place such as Mexico City is to play in.
It relates to the high altitude, which in theory does require an athlete some time to adapt to – particularly if playing a sport such as soccer that involves 90 minutes of constant running or jogging to the point where one can easily be out of breath.
One official literally told the Los Angeles Times that the U.S. team would be the favorite to win if the two were to play in a stadium at sea level.
Personally, I think the sight of 100,000 crazed lunatics (which is what many sports fans are) cheering against the U.S. team provided an intimidating presence that was more of a factor.
BUT IT STRIKES me as being nothing more than excuses. Should we discredit all the U.S. soccer victories of this decade played in this country because officials went out of their way to stage them in small stadiums in non-ethnic places where they could try to recreate the intimidation factor that comes so easily in a place like Mexico City?
What really happened is that the two teams played a close, competitive match whose outcome wasn’t set until the final whistle blew to end the second half.
It was a good game; one I wish I could have watched live.
-30-
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Health care reform takes on immigration overtones
President Barack Obama made it clear this week during his 18-hour visit to Mexico that a serious reform of the nation’s immigration laws would have to wait until after something is done to reform the way health care is paid for in this country.
Now I have no problem with the idea of a president setting priorities. But I wonder if he realizes the degree to which these two issues have become intertwined.
FOR WHILE READING the endless debate taking place these days across the United States about how (or even whether) we should go about reforming health care, there are those who see the immigration situation as a factor.
I stumbled across one website where a blunt-spoken (and naturally, anonymous) person laid it out for us in plain language – the reason many people don’t want any kind of health care reform is because they think it will be the growing Latino population that will be a major beneficiary.
Of course, they see that population as either being “illegal” or only having U.S. citizenship due to technical glitches in the law.
It’s not even the people who hide behind the anonymity of the Internet who espouse such views. The Associated Press reported this week about the growing number of Latinos who do not have adequate (or any, in some cases) health insurance.
THE WIRE SERVICE quoted an anti-immigration activist as saying that enacting health care reform would create a situation in this country where people born elsewhere in the world, “would have no incentives to leave.”
Does this mean that we’re going to have to deal with the immigration fiasco first before we can advance on health care? Not really.
We need to comprehend how these issues have become intertwined. And it may turn out that we have to deal with both of them simultaneously.
The thought of that may very well create mental anguish for the Democratic operatives who will have to engage in arm-twisting to get votes for any reform measure pending in Congress.
FOR THOSE WHO think the anti-health care reform people are behaving badly when they disrupt informational rallies across the nation, just think of how raucous the scene will get the moment that immigration openly becomes a part of the debate as well.
But the fact is that if people are going to see the issues as intertwined, then the president had better be prepared to deal with them together as well.
It could work to his advantage. If he can get a victory in one area, it could spill over into victory for the other. Or, he could go down to defeat on both issues.
But both are matters that have to be dealt with.
BECAUSE IF WE ultimately come to the sensible conclusion that many of the people currently in this country without visas or other papers that let them live openly are making a worthwhile contribution to our society and its economy, then there’s no reason to concoct schemes that claim to be health care reform that try to exclude people.
After all, the whole point of health care reform is to create a way in which everybody has some sort of insurance program (even if they lose their jobs or hit other tough times that cause them to lose their health benefits) to cover them in the event they become ill.
Now some people will argue that the United States already has the highest-quality health care in the world. They’d argue that people elsewhere come here when they need serious medical treatment, so why should we be the ones in need of reform?
The problem is that those people from elsewhere come here because they can find sponsors or foundations to pick up the tab. So they’re covered. A lot of people in this country have no means of covering the tab, so it doesn’t matter how high the quality of medical care is in their home nation.
THE SAD TRUTH is that statistic of “47 million,” as in the number of people believed to be living in the United States who do not have any way of paying for a visit to the doctor other than by shelling out cash at the receptionist’s desk.
The reality of modern-day medicine is that it has become so complex (because we now demand results from a trip to the doctor or a purchase of medication) that it is also ridiculously expensive.
There may be people who complain about the small fees they have to pay going up, but those are merely a small part of the real cost that gets covered by insurance. Which means those people without insurance can get nothing.
Now I can understand that some people have their concerns about getting stuck in an insurance program that might cost them the use of their long-time doctor (because his plan doesn’t include that specific physician) or might even put them through bureaucratic hoops to get needed treatment.
BUT WHEN WE get some people basing their arguments against health care reform on the concept that certain people ought not to have access to basic medical care, that’s just wrong.
That’s despicable and immoral. I’d even go so far as to argue it’s un-American.
-30-
Now I have no problem with the idea of a president setting priorities. But I wonder if he realizes the degree to which these two issues have become intertwined.
FOR WHILE READING the endless debate taking place these days across the United States about how (or even whether) we should go about reforming health care, there are those who see the immigration situation as a factor.
I stumbled across one website where a blunt-spoken (and naturally, anonymous) person laid it out for us in plain language – the reason many people don’t want any kind of health care reform is because they think it will be the growing Latino population that will be a major beneficiary.
Of course, they see that population as either being “illegal” or only having U.S. citizenship due to technical glitches in the law.
It’s not even the people who hide behind the anonymity of the Internet who espouse such views. The Associated Press reported this week about the growing number of Latinos who do not have adequate (or any, in some cases) health insurance.
THE WIRE SERVICE quoted an anti-immigration activist as saying that enacting health care reform would create a situation in this country where people born elsewhere in the world, “would have no incentives to leave.”
Does this mean that we’re going to have to deal with the immigration fiasco first before we can advance on health care? Not really.
We need to comprehend how these issues have become intertwined. And it may turn out that we have to deal with both of them simultaneously.
The thought of that may very well create mental anguish for the Democratic operatives who will have to engage in arm-twisting to get votes for any reform measure pending in Congress.
FOR THOSE WHO think the anti-health care reform people are behaving badly when they disrupt informational rallies across the nation, just think of how raucous the scene will get the moment that immigration openly becomes a part of the debate as well.
But the fact is that if people are going to see the issues as intertwined, then the president had better be prepared to deal with them together as well.
It could work to his advantage. If he can get a victory in one area, it could spill over into victory for the other. Or, he could go down to defeat on both issues.
But both are matters that have to be dealt with.
BECAUSE IF WE ultimately come to the sensible conclusion that many of the people currently in this country without visas or other papers that let them live openly are making a worthwhile contribution to our society and its economy, then there’s no reason to concoct schemes that claim to be health care reform that try to exclude people.
After all, the whole point of health care reform is to create a way in which everybody has some sort of insurance program (even if they lose their jobs or hit other tough times that cause them to lose their health benefits) to cover them in the event they become ill.
Now some people will argue that the United States already has the highest-quality health care in the world. They’d argue that people elsewhere come here when they need serious medical treatment, so why should we be the ones in need of reform?
The problem is that those people from elsewhere come here because they can find sponsors or foundations to pick up the tab. So they’re covered. A lot of people in this country have no means of covering the tab, so it doesn’t matter how high the quality of medical care is in their home nation.
THE SAD TRUTH is that statistic of “47 million,” as in the number of people believed to be living in the United States who do not have any way of paying for a visit to the doctor other than by shelling out cash at the receptionist’s desk.
The reality of modern-day medicine is that it has become so complex (because we now demand results from a trip to the doctor or a purchase of medication) that it is also ridiculously expensive.
There may be people who complain about the small fees they have to pay going up, but those are merely a small part of the real cost that gets covered by insurance. Which means those people without insurance can get nothing.
Now I can understand that some people have their concerns about getting stuck in an insurance program that might cost them the use of their long-time doctor (because his plan doesn’t include that specific physician) or might even put them through bureaucratic hoops to get needed treatment.
BUT WHEN WE get some people basing their arguments against health care reform on the concept that certain people ought not to have access to basic medical care, that’s just wrong.
That’s despicable and immoral. I’d even go so far as to argue it’s un-American.
-30-
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
GOP now Latino-less in U.S. Senate
There aren’t very many members of the U.S. Senate of Latino ethnic backgrounds, so the loss of any one of them has
a significant impact toward the cause of increased political empowerment for the fast-growing segment of the U.S. population.
But the timing of the retirement of Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., was rather coincidental.
ONE DAY LAST week, Martinez was one of nine GOP senators who broke ranks with the party’s official viewpoint and cast votes in favor of confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to her post on the Supreme Court of the United States.
Many political observers noted that those GOP senators included several officials who had already announced they were not going to seek re-election in 2010. That even included Martinez, who had said before he did not want to remain in Washington.
Yet Martinez went one step further in his desire to retire.
One day after voting to confirm Sotomayor, he announced his immediate retirement.
HE’S PULLING A “Palin” and is not even going to finish his six-year term in the Senate, which would run through the end of next year.
Now I don’t think the people who are dumping on the one-time Alaska governor are going to get all over Mel for his resignation. He had made his intentions clear for quite awhile, and it seems like he wants to focus his attention back on Florida.
But the end result is going to be one less Latino in the Senate, and none whatsoever among the Republican caucus there.
Replacing Martinez will fall to the hands of Florida Gov. Bob Crist, who has said he wants to run for the post in next year’s elections.
HE’S GOING TO get to pick an interim replacement, and most of the focus by political observers in Florida is on trying to figure out who will be content to take a job for 16 months, then get out of Crist’s way.
Yet if he picks too weak a candidate, Crist makes himself look ridiculous and could hurt his own chances of getting elected to the Senate seat come next November.
Looking at the lists being compiled by various local political observers, it doesn’t seem likely that another Latino will get the pick. The only Spanish name I’m seeing is that of former Florida Gov. Bob Martinez, who is of Cuban ethnic background, but whose family came to the United States before Fidel Castro was a political factor.
So how will Mel Martinez be remembered, beyond his public acknowledgement that his GOP colleagues were being ridiculous for taking a partisan stand against Sotomayor?
HE IS A former Housing and Urban Development secretary and also had ranking positions within the Republican National Committee. If anything, he has earned a respectable retirement.
There also was the loss earlier this year of Ken Salazar of Colorado, who gave up his Senate seat to take a cabinet post under President Barack Obama. So the nation gained a Latino cabinet secretary (Department of the Interior) at the expense of greater representation in the U.S. Senate.
The bottom line?
For the time being, Latinos are now down to having only one “of our own” in the U.S. Senate – Robert Menendez, D-N.J., will now not only represent the pe
ople of the Garden State, he’s also going to be the only person in the Senate who might have a direct perspective on the lives of the growing Latino population.
NOW I’M NOT knocking a guy born in New York City who currently chairs the Senate’s Hispanic Task Force (and is the only Latino who actually serves on the panel).
But we Latinos are a rather diverse group of ethnicities who at times can’t even agree amongst ourselves where we stand on certain issues. The idea that one lone guy from New Jersey can adequately cover our views is absurd.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTES: Latinos are down to one lone person (http://menendez.senate.gov/) representing us in the U.S. Senate.
The Senate keeps a running tally of the non-Anglo members of its ranks (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/minority_senators.htm), largely because that total is so little compared to its overall ranks.
a significant impact toward the cause of increased political empowerment for the fast-growing segment of the U.S. population.But the timing of the retirement of Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., was rather coincidental.
ONE DAY LAST week, Martinez was one of nine GOP senators who broke ranks with the party’s official viewpoint and cast votes in favor of confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to her post on the Supreme Court of the United States.
Many political observers noted that those GOP senators included several officials who had already announced they were not going to seek re-election in 2010. That even included Martinez, who had said before he did not want to remain in Washington.
Yet Martinez went one step further in his desire to retire.
One day after voting to confirm Sotomayor, he announced his immediate retirement.
HE’S PULLING A “Palin” and is not even going to finish his six-year term in the Senate, which would run through the end of next year.
Now I don’t think the people who are dumping on the one-time Alaska governor are going to get all over Mel for his resignation. He had made his intentions clear for quite awhile, and it seems like he wants to focus his attention back on Florida.
But the end result is going to be one less Latino in the Senate, and none whatsoever among the Republican caucus there.
Replacing Martinez will fall to the hands of Florida Gov. Bob Crist, who has said he wants to run for the post in next year’s elections.
HE’S GOING TO get to pick an interim replacement, and most of the focus by political observers in Florida is on trying to figure out who will be content to take a job for 16 months, then get out of Crist’s way.
Yet if he picks too weak a candidate, Crist makes himself look ridiculous and could hurt his own chances of getting elected to the Senate seat come next November.
Looking at the lists being compiled by various local political observers, it doesn’t seem likely that another Latino will get the pick. The only Spanish name I’m seeing is that of former Florida Gov. Bob Martinez, who is of Cuban ethnic background, but whose family came to the United States before Fidel Castro was a political factor.
So how will Mel Martinez be remembered, beyond his public acknowledgement that his GOP colleagues were being ridiculous for taking a partisan stand against Sotomayor?
HE IS A former Housing and Urban Development secretary and also had ranking positions within the Republican National Committee. If anything, he has earned a respectable retirement.
There also was the loss earlier this year of Ken Salazar of Colorado, who gave up his Senate seat to take a cabinet post under President Barack Obama. So the nation gained a Latino cabinet secretary (Department of the Interior) at the expense of greater representation in the U.S. Senate.
The bottom line?
For the time being, Latinos are now down to having only one “of our own” in the U.S. Senate – Robert Menendez, D-N.J., will now not only represent the pe
ople of the Garden State, he’s also going to be the only person in the Senate who might have a direct perspective on the lives of the growing Latino population.NOW I’M NOT knocking a guy born in New York City who currently chairs the Senate’s Hispanic Task Force (and is the only Latino who actually serves on the panel).
But we Latinos are a rather diverse group of ethnicities who at times can’t even agree amongst ourselves where we stand on certain issues. The idea that one lone guy from New Jersey can adequately cover our views is absurd.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTES: Latinos are down to one lone person (http://menendez.senate.gov/) representing us in the U.S. Senate.
The Senate keeps a running tally of the non-Anglo members of its ranks (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/minority_senators.htm), largely because that total is so little compared to its overall ranks.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Obama goes to Guadalajara
I’m not sure how much attention we should really be paying to the gathering of the trio of North American leaders taking place Monday in Mexico.
This isn’t the first time President Barack Obama has met with Mexico’s president, Felipe Calderon Hinojosa, or Canada’s prime minister, Stephen Harper.
IT’S NOT THE first time that Obama has visited Mexico as U.S. president. Remember how it was just after he returned from a trip to Mexico City this spring, the H1N1 virus outbreak started to spread all across Mexico?
And the gathering itself taking place in Guadalajara is an annual event. The North American Leaders’ Summit is more an acknowledgment that Canada, Mexico and the United States have natural ties due to our co-existence on the same continent.
We ought to be working together, even when the dimmer bulbs of our society would think we ought to be ignoring each other.
But this particular visit is going to be a brief one. Literally, Obama will be back in the White House by the time he goes to sleep on Monday. A Sunday dinner with his two co-chief executives and a few hours of talks on Monday isn’t going to make a significant change in anybody’s federal policies.
THIS IS ONE of those occasions where the only way significant “change” will take place is if Obama says something stupid that offends somebody so badly that they engage in retributive actions just because they can.
I’m not saying Obama is going to do that. Only that this is one of those trips that is more about ritual rather than substance.
Which is too bad, because our nation’s status with regard to our neighbor to the south ought to be a significant priority. It strikes me as odd that some people are so determined to want to maintain a separation between the two nations.
That is what strikes me as being behind the difference of opinion last week over whether a federal report assessing Mexico’s human rights record should be released publicly.
THAT REPORT CLAIMS Mexico is making improvements in that area. But critics don’t want to believe it. They want to believe that Mexican officials are abusing the rights of people, particularly when it comes to the fact that the military has been called into use along the Mexico/U.S. border to patrol the region.
They think that soldiers are going too far in their efforts to fight the drug cartels.
Of course, some of the people who are most eager to lambaste Mexico’s conduct with regard to human rights are the same ones who try justifying U.S. military conduct in Iraq or Afghanistan by claiming that taking a tough line against unbearable behavior (for us, terrorists, for Mexico, drug dealers) justifies some tough physical behavior from time to time.
Excuse me if it comes across as sounding like some people in this country are jealous that the U.S. military is not allowed to behave in the same way they want to believe the Mexican military behaves.
OR COULD IT be that some people are just determined to think that Mexico will always behave badly?
Now the only reason this stupid little spat is at all relevant is that some of the U.S. funding that would have been provided to Mexico to help them deal with the drug cartels is at risk, since the U.S. theoretically is not going to provide funding to nations that won’t respect human rights.
I say theoretically because U.S. foreign policy history is filled with instances where this nation backed morally bankrupt dictators who were willing to spew the right rhetoric when it came to select (ie, communism) issues.
So at a time when Mexico is trying to deal with its drug problems along the border (by using the military because the local police were too corrupted to be trusted), the U.S. takes its actions that hamper those efforts.
YET ON THE other hand, there are those among our society who will want to use the Mexican drug situation as yet another reason to lambaste the nation.
That is the situation Obama walks into when he makes his visit to the city where my maternal grandfather was born.
I’d like to think Obama has enough diplomacy to not inflame the situation even further. Perhaps he even has it in him to calm what could be Mexican resentment that some people in our country are willing to play foreign policy politics at their expense.
And for those who think I should not somehow be siding with Mexico on this issue, keep in mind that this truly is an issue that could explode out of control and flow across the Rio Bravo del Norte/Rio Grande.
THERE ARE THOSE who like to use the label “North America’s most dangerous city” to describe Ciudad Juarez, which has been a focal point for much of the drug-related violence in recent years.
If working with Mexico (rather than being hostile toward it) is what it takes to keep that activity from spreading into El Paso, then the United States ought to be trying everything it can to be Mexico’s biggest ally.
-30-
This isn’t the first time President Barack Obama has met with Mexico’s president, Felipe Calderon Hinojosa, or Canada’s prime minister, Stephen Harper.
IT’S NOT THE first time that Obama has visited Mexico as U.S. president. Remember how it was just after he returned from a trip to Mexico City this spring, the H1N1 virus outbreak started to spread all across Mexico?
And the gathering itself taking place in Guadalajara is an annual event. The North American Leaders’ Summit is more an acknowledgment that Canada, Mexico and the United States have natural ties due to our co-existence on the same continent.
We ought to be working together, even when the dimmer bulbs of our society would think we ought to be ignoring each other.
But this particular visit is going to be a brief one. Literally, Obama will be back in the White House by the time he goes to sleep on Monday. A Sunday dinner with his two co-chief executives and a few hours of talks on Monday isn’t going to make a significant change in anybody’s federal policies.
THIS IS ONE of those occasions where the only way significant “change” will take place is if Obama says something stupid that offends somebody so badly that they engage in retributive actions just because they can.
I’m not saying Obama is going to do that. Only that this is one of those trips that is more about ritual rather than substance.
Which is too bad, because our nation’s status with regard to our neighbor to the south ought to be a significant priority. It strikes me as odd that some people are so determined to want to maintain a separation between the two nations.
That is what strikes me as being behind the difference of opinion last week over whether a federal report assessing Mexico’s human rights record should be released publicly.
THAT REPORT CLAIMS Mexico is making improvements in that area. But critics don’t want to believe it. They want to believe that Mexican officials are abusing the rights of people, particularly when it comes to the fact that the military has been called into use along the Mexico/U.S. border to patrol the region.
They think that soldiers are going too far in their efforts to fight the drug cartels.
Of course, some of the people who are most eager to lambaste Mexico’s conduct with regard to human rights are the same ones who try justifying U.S. military conduct in Iraq or Afghanistan by claiming that taking a tough line against unbearable behavior (for us, terrorists, for Mexico, drug dealers) justifies some tough physical behavior from time to time.
Excuse me if it comes across as sounding like some people in this country are jealous that the U.S. military is not allowed to behave in the same way they want to believe the Mexican military behaves.
OR COULD IT be that some people are just determined to think that Mexico will always behave badly?
Now the only reason this stupid little spat is at all relevant is that some of the U.S. funding that would have been provided to Mexico to help them deal with the drug cartels is at risk, since the U.S. theoretically is not going to provide funding to nations that won’t respect human rights.
I say theoretically because U.S. foreign policy history is filled with instances where this nation backed morally bankrupt dictators who were willing to spew the right rhetoric when it came to select (ie, communism) issues.
So at a time when Mexico is trying to deal with its drug problems along the border (by using the military because the local police were too corrupted to be trusted), the U.S. takes its actions that hamper those efforts.
YET ON THE other hand, there are those among our society who will want to use the Mexican drug situation as yet another reason to lambaste the nation.
That is the situation Obama walks into when he makes his visit to the city where my maternal grandfather was born.
I’d like to think Obama has enough diplomacy to not inflame the situation even further. Perhaps he even has it in him to calm what could be Mexican resentment that some people in our country are willing to play foreign policy politics at their expense.
And for those who think I should not somehow be siding with Mexico on this issue, keep in mind that this truly is an issue that could explode out of control and flow across the Rio Bravo del Norte/Rio Grande.
THERE ARE THOSE who like to use the label “North America’s most dangerous city” to describe Ciudad Juarez, which has been a focal point for much of the drug-related violence in recent years.
If working with Mexico (rather than being hostile toward it) is what it takes to keep that activity from spreading into El Paso, then the United States ought to be trying everything it can to be Mexico’s biggest ally.
-30-
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Sotomayor presence on court lets us know we’re included
Why was it so interesting to so many Latinos – even those of us who do not share Sonia Sotom
ayor’s specific ethnic background from Puerto Rico – that she become a member of the Supreme Court of the United States?
It’s not just that we’d like to see someone who doesn’t sunburn at the least little peek of sunlight through the clouds, or that we’re all that anxious to hear someone who can speak non-Anglo-accented Spanish from the bench.
IT IS JUST that it provides that little encouragement to the rest of us Latinos – who in a matter of decades really won’t be considered a minority except by those people whose view of what U.S. society should be is so strong that they won’t want to accept the reality around them – that we can accomplish what we want to do, if we work hard enough.
If anything, Sotomayor’s position on the high court ought to be seen as a validation of the whole American dream – instead of the bastardization of it that some 31 members of the U.S. Senate are banking represents the views of a significant portion of the electorate.
What we get in Sotomayor is someone who clearly isn’t a white woman (at least not like those Latinos whose Spaniard genetics are so strong that their existence confuses Anglos), but who was able to enter a respected profession and work her way all the way to the top.
Literally, she was an attorney who became a judge, then worked her way up to the highest court of the land.
FOR THOSE WHO want to say that Sotomayor only got the post because of President Barack Obama’s partisan politics, get real. Every single Supreme Court nominee in this country’s history has a tinge of partisan politics to their selection.
So perhaps now that we’re in the 21st Century, the old 2
0th Century “restrictions” on what Latinos could (and could not) accomplish in life will wither away.
I’d like to think the day will come when people will look back on the rhetoric to which we have been subjected to in recent weeks and wonder how we could ever have been so absurd as a society to take these people seriously.
Not that everybody feels this same tingly feeling, or will think it a good thing when Sotomayor takes two oaths (one specifically for the Supreme Court, the other for federal judges in general) during ceremonies to be held Saturday afternoon.
AT THAT POINT, she becomes the Supreme Court justice for life (or until she decides to retire – she’s only 55, and could easily hang on for more than a couple of decades if she’s willing to get mentally decrepit on the job).
To me, the real significance will be when we get a second Latino on the high court (which I don’t expect to happen during the Obama administration, only because I can envision the nitwits who bellyached about Sonia declaring outright war if the president who they want to believe is a foreigner tried to impose another foreigner on the high court).
Because that will be the day when the idea of someone whose ethnic origins lie in Latin America will be the non-factor that the social conservatives wish it could be now.
Personally, I find the Sotomayor story intriguing in part because I realize that her Ivy League days of the late 1960s and early 1970s were largely responsible for making academics rea
lize that their college campuses ought not to be Anglo bastions. I got to include in my life a lot of experiences without having to go through the cultural hassles of people like Sotomayor – or even my father (who is the one in my family who worked his way through college, then paid tuition bills to help me get through school).
BY THE TIME I reached college age in the mid-1980s, the only people who would publicly complain about so many minorities being included were those who everybody publicly acknowledged were nitwits.
I’m not saying that there weren’t those people I went to school with who didn’t complain in private, but that truly is another issue.
So when Sotomayor takes that oath, there are a lot of us Latinos who will get our smile.
And now that it has happened and she has the judicial post, we’ll even be able to chuckle at the people who are determined to perceive the issue as some sort of aberration.
LOOKING THROUGH THE newspapers of this country, it would appear that the Associated Press story about Sotomayor’s appointment got good play. Many hundreds of ne
wspapers used it, while others went out of their way to come up with their own localized coverage of the issue.
But I couldn’t help but notice the coverage given by the Washington Times, the newspaper owned by the foundation controlled by Rev. Sun Myung Moon that often touts conservative officials and principles in its stories.
They buried Sotomayor’s confirmation below the fold with many other stories given bigger play. The Elkhart Truth newspaper also downplayed the Sotomayor appointment – but at least they had an Obama visit to their hometown the same day, so it is sort of understandable.
Perhaps most humorous was the New York Post, the Rupert Murdoch paper that likes to think it is all over local issues in Sotomayor’s hometown of New York. Sonia didn’t even make Page One of the Post on Friday.
SH
E GOT TOPPED by the fact that the New York Yankees beat the Boston Red Sox 13-6 – the first time that the Yanks have beaten Boston all season.
Then again, it might be appropriate, since I understand Sotomayor herself considers herself a baseball fan and has been known to take her nephews to Yankees games.
Maybe even Sonia would think that the first Yankee victory against the Red Sox in ’09 is a big deal.
-30-
ayor’s specific ethnic background from Puerto Rico – that she become a member of the Supreme Court of the United States?It’s not just that we’d like to see someone who doesn’t sunburn at the least little peek of sunlight through the clouds, or that we’re all that anxious to hear someone who can speak non-Anglo-accented Spanish from the bench.
IT IS JUST that it provides that little encouragement to the rest of us Latinos – who in a matter of decades really won’t be considered a minority except by those people whose view of what U.S. society should be is so strong that they won’t want to accept the reality around them – that we can accomplish what we want to do, if we work hard enough.
If anything, Sotomayor’s position on the high court ought to be seen as a validation of the whole American dream – instead of the bastardization of it that some 31 members of the U.S. Senate are banking represents the views of a significant portion of the electorate.
What we get in Sotomayor is someone who clearly isn’t a white woman (at least not like those Latinos whose Spaniard genetics are so strong that their existence confuses Anglos), but who was able to enter a respected profession and work her way all the way to the top.
Literally, she was an attorney who became a judge, then worked her way up to the highest court of the land.
FOR THOSE WHO want to say that Sotomayor only got the post because of President Barack Obama’s partisan politics, get real. Every single Supreme Court nominee in this country’s history has a tinge of partisan politics to their selection.
So perhaps now that we’re in the 21st Century, the old 2
0th Century “restrictions” on what Latinos could (and could not) accomplish in life will wither away.I’d like to think the day will come when people will look back on the rhetoric to which we have been subjected to in recent weeks and wonder how we could ever have been so absurd as a society to take these people seriously.
Not that everybody feels this same tingly feeling, or will think it a good thing when Sotomayor takes two oaths (one specifically for the Supreme Court, the other for federal judges in general) during ceremonies to be held Saturday afternoon.
AT THAT POINT, she becomes the Supreme Court justice for life (or until she decides to retire – she’s only 55, and could easily hang on for more than a couple of decades if she’s willing to get mentally decrepit on the job).
To me, the real significance will be when we get a second Latino on the high court (which I don’t expect to happen during the Obama administration, only because I can envision the nitwits who bellyached about Sonia declaring outright war if the president who they want to believe is a foreigner tried to impose another foreigner on the high court).
Because that will be the day when the idea of someone whose ethnic origins lie in Latin America will be the non-factor that the social conservatives wish it could be now.
Personally, I find the Sotomayor story intriguing in part because I realize that her Ivy League days of the late 1960s and early 1970s were largely responsible for making academics rea
lize that their college campuses ought not to be Anglo bastions. I got to include in my life a lot of experiences without having to go through the cultural hassles of people like Sotomayor – or even my father (who is the one in my family who worked his way through college, then paid tuition bills to help me get through school).
BY THE TIME I reached college age in the mid-1980s, the only people who would publicly complain about so many minorities being included were those who everybody publicly acknowledged were nitwits.
I’m not saying that there weren’t those people I went to school with who didn’t complain in private, but that truly is another issue.
So when Sotomayor takes that oath, there are a lot of us Latinos who will get our smile.
And now that it has happened and she has the judicial post, we’ll even be able to chuckle at the people who are determined to perceive the issue as some sort of aberration.
LOOKING THROUGH THE newspapers of this country, it would appear that the Associated Press story about Sotomayor’s appointment got good play. Many hundreds of ne
wspapers used it, while others went out of their way to come up with their own localized coverage of the issue.
But I couldn’t help but notice the coverage given by the Washington Times, the newspaper owned by the foundation controlled by Rev. Sun Myung Moon that often touts conservative officials and principles in its stories.
They buried Sotomayor’s confirmation below the fold with many other stories given bigger play. The Elkhart Truth newspaper also downplayed the Sotomayor appointment – but at least they had an Obama visit to their hometown the same day, so it is sort of understandable.
Perhaps most humorous was the New York Post, the Rupert Murdoch paper that likes to think it is all over local issues in Sotomayor’s hometown of New York. Sonia didn’t even make Page One of the Post on Friday.
SH
E GOT TOPPED by the fact that the New York Yankees beat the Boston Red Sox 13-6 – the first time that the Yanks have beaten Boston all season.Then again, it might be appropriate, since I understand Sotomayor herself considers herself a baseball fan and has been known to take her nephews to Yankees games.
Maybe even Sonia would think that the first Yankee victory against the Red Sox in ’09 is a big deal.
-30-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)