Escalante honored for achievement that long-ago withered away

Perhaps it is the power of cinema – its ability to preserve an image that sticks in our mind forevermore, regardless of what really happens in later years.



Cinematic Escalante, and ...

Christopher Reeve will always be Superman. That wheelchair? It must be some sort of cover-up for all those superhuman feats of strength that he is capable of.

AND JAIME ESCALANTE? The Latino (Bolivian-American, if you prefer to be exact) educator who inspired inner-city Latino youths to study calculus got played in a cinematic version of his life by actor Edward James Olmos, which is how most of us remember him.

That image created by Olmos in the 1988 film “Stand and Deliver” is the reason that Escalante received an award earlier this week for his work at an East Los Angeles high school. Of course, Escalante hasn’t worked there since 1991.

In fact, Escalante died earlier this year (and is now buried in Whittier, Calif., the hometown of the college attended by former President Richard M. Nixon).

But it was the image of Olmos as Escalante that lives on, as he will forevermore be teaching Latino teens that they too can do more with their lives than serve fast food or sweep up a hotel room’s floor. Which is why he was among the eight people honored by the Hispanic Heritage Foundation when they had festivities Wednesday at the Kennedy Center in Washington.

ESCALANTE’S IMAGE WAS up there with America Ferrera (who played the lead role in the now-defunct television series “Ugly Betty”), and Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., who I’m sure will boast about being honored for being one of the few politicians willing to talk about immigration reform. El Gallito has a Chicago mayoral campaign to promote in next spring’s elections.

... the real Escalante

Now it’s not that Escalante is no longer with us on Planet Earth that makes his honor stick out in my mind. Many groups are willing to give someone posthumous honors, while usually making some sort of statement about how it would have been much better if the award could have been presented while the honoree was still living.

But Escalante got his share of awards during his lifetime for his 1980s stint at Garfield High School, which became the focus of the film starring Olmos, that told the story of the initial year of an Advanced Placement Calculus program in an inner-city high school where most students previously had trouble passing basic mathematics classes.

I even remember the film’s final image – one of Olmos-as-Escalante walking down the hall, while a graphic is superimposed over the screen informing us of how in future years, the number of students who took Escalante’s classes and passed the AP calculus exam steadily rose.

UP AND UP and up. I have known many Latino people who consider this particular film to be a favorite because they like the image not so much of Latinos succeeding, but specifically inner-city Latinos who supposedly have all the strikes lined up against them.

It almost serves as a “drop dead” from Latinos to every nativist nitwit who spews rhetoric that implies Latinos don’t belong in this society, and who are only capable of dragging it down.

It is that spirit that was honored by the foundation this week,

The problem with that is that it gives the very strong impression that this particular success was long-lasting, if not permanent. In this particular case, it wasn’t.

FOR THE REAL story of Garfield High School was of how Escalante himself was an inspiring character who got individuals to work harder and take themselves more seriously – rather than fall into the trap of assuming that the nativist-nitwit talk was somehow correct, and that their options truly were limited.

The reality is that after Escalante left the real-life Garfield High in 1991 (three years after the film about his work was released), his successors couldn’t maintain his achievement. By the mid-1990s, the number of students at the high school who were passing the AP tests (which aren’t easy for even the most dedicated of students) had dropped by more than 80 percent.

The modern-day Garfield High doesn’t even dream of such an accomplishment. The Escalante era is ancient history. It is almost like it never happened.

Which is a shame.

IT ALSO IS a reality that we must take into account whenever we engage in high-minded rhetoric about improving various aspects of our society.

Anybody can talk, and some people can make improvements. But there has to be a lasting quality to the improvements, and that means we need to have people who are capable of maintaining improvement. Because we are no better off  if all we can achieve is a short-term boost that withers away.

Which means for Escalante it is a good thing he has Olmos’ film to perpetuate that image of him as a revolutionary educator. Otherwise, we literally would have to look at the modern-day Garfield results and wonder what the big deal truly was.

  -30-

DREAMing of Latino political empowerment

The Service Employees International Union is gambling that the potential for greater Latino political empowerment will be on display this election cycle, and is laying down a $300,000 bet on that concept.

That figure is the amount of money the union is spending to air radio spots in nine broadcast markets that have significant enough Latino populations that they could turn out and influence the electoral outcome on Nov. 2.

SPECIFICALLY, THOSE ADVERTISEMENTS will be en Español and will focus on the DREAM Act, the measure floundering about in Congress that would give the non-citizen children of unvisa-ed immigrants a chance to gain “resident alien” status (and eventually, citizenship) if they can complete a college education, or serve in the U.S. military and gain an honorable discharge.

But it is not like the union is all that concerned about the fate of DREAM (which as of now is alive because of a technicality being exploited by Sens. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Richard Lugar, R-Ind., but is uncertain to come up for a vote this autumn) in Congress.

What they are promoting is the idea of Latino political empowerment, and they’re trying to turn it on the Republican officials who are counting on all those “angry white men” who portray themselves as “patriots” who are “taking back” their country from all these foreigners.

As these radio spots tell us, it is the “Republicans” who are opposed to DREAM because it might enable people they want to think of as undesirables making gains in our society, try to deny immigrant rights in Arizona and who “always seem to stand with big corporations against working families.”

IN SHORT, IT is a call to Latinos to vote against Republican candidates who are anxious to see a strong voter turnout from their ideological allies in society – the ones who think a “fair” United States is one that tries to shape the nation in their own image; and excludes anyone who doesn’t try to comply with that narrow vision.

In theory, the logic of the ad makes sense.

The Latino segment of the U.S. population is on the rise and creates a segment of society that will not be ignored, no matter how much some people are determined to do so.

If we speak out come Nov. 2, we reinforce that idea. If we don’t, then we feed into the image that the nativists want to have of our ethnic brethren as not being worth listening to.

THE REASON I call use of the ads a gamble is because there is an apathetic sentiment among too many Latinos. I hear it all too often. People are going to claim that there’s no one worth voting for – even if they will concede that one side in this election is getting its support from people who have hostile intentions toward us.

The way we fight back is with that demonstration of strength – and that includes at the polling place. Honestly, I have always thought that casting a ballot was a more significant act than marching in a protest rally.

Yet too many people seem to view it the other way around, as though one day of shouting “¡Justicia! ¡Ahora!” (Justice! Now!) accomplishes much of anything – other than perhaps angering the security guard who had to turn his attention away from a television set to make sure that a peaceful protest outside the building where he works remained so.

So I am hoping that these radio spots, which will air in Chicago, along with Phoenix and Tuscon in Arizona, Miami and Orlando in Florida, Houston and McAllen in Texas, Denver and Las Vegas, will inspire some people to get off their lazy duffs.

“VOTE FOR THE candidates who support our families and make our dreams come true,” the radio spots tell us.

It is a true enough sentiment. Because when all those Tea Party types turn out on Nov. 2 to cast their votes for conservative ideologue candidates, that is what they’re doing – casting their votes for candidates who will make their “dreams” come true.

The problem is that their “dreams” all too often include a limited role for our ethnic brethren. So unless you’re willing to accept that concept, you need to vote your interests. Otherwise we will have no one else to blame but ourselves for two years of ideological nonsense prevailing in Congress and an even more rigid stalemate prevailing over important issues. People who don’t speak out and cast a ballot, in all honesty, deserve to have their views ignored.

Personally, I’d rather avert political nonsense being done now, rather than have to focus attention in 2012 on trying to undo the stupidity that could be inflicted on our society because we couldn’t be bothered to vote this year.

  -30-

Political battle for immigration reform just developed a new front – Chicago mayoral race

It’s beginning to look like the inability of the federal government to do anything of significance this year with regards to advancing immigration reform is going to be an issue in next year’s municipal elections in Chicago.

What threatens to bring this issue up is the fact that one of the dozens of political people who aspire to call themselves Da Mare is Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff whom many believe was influential in getting President Barack Obama to put the issue on the political backburner.

ANOTHER MAYORAL DREAMER is Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., who has been arguably the most vocal member of Congress in support of significant reform of the nation’s immigration laws.

Which means the two have been butting heads on this issue all year. When combined with the fact that the two men didn’t much care for each other to begin with, it means that the fight between these two alone could make the city’s mayoral campaign something worth watching.

When mixed in with all the other sub-plots that will come from the various other candidates, each representing a certain interest that wants to believe it is their turn to have the mayoral post, it will be political chaos.

Emanuel, who has long said he’d like to be mayor if the post ever opened so that he wouldn’t have to challenge Richard M. Daley, is in the process of preparing himself to shift from the District of Columbia back to Chicago urban concerns.

HE HASN’T OFFICIALLY started campaigning yet, but he has been meeting with people who might be helpful in putting together a base of potential voters who would care enough about Emanuel to cast ballots for him.

He even went so far as to meet with Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., D-Ill., who himself was considering a campaign to be mayor (I’m sure the Rev. Jesse Jackson would find great irony in his namesake son winning the political post once held by a man who, upon his arrival to Chicago some four decades ago, snubbed him by offering nothing more than a job making change in a toll booth).

But as the NBC affiliate in Chicago reported recently, Emanuel hasn’t bothered to contact Gutierrez. Does he really think that Chicago’s lone Latino member of Congress doesn’t know enough to gain him influence in the city’s Latino communities that account for about a quarter of the city’s population)?

Personally, I’d like to think it is because Emanuel knows Gutierrez wouldn’t give him the time of day, let alone any serious help in gaining voter support. Not just because Gutierrez has his own dreams of being the alcalde de Chicago, but because the congressman has made it clear that he is among those who blames Emanuel for immigration reform’s failure to go anywhere.

THEN AGAIN, I don’t know why Jackson Jr. would be any more inclined to help Emanuel.

Perhaps it is Emanuel realizing that there is no one official, and that several Latino interests have a desire to win this election. City Clerk Miguel del Valle became the first candidate to go on television with campaign advertisements – even though the mayoral elections are seven months away and there is another Election Day (Nov. 2) that comes first.

Gutierrez isn’t even officially a candidate, although he’s playing the political game that they all do – he’s running, but he’s claiming not to yet. He has been circulating the nominating petitions required to get him on the ballot, but said during the weekend that he’s not making anything official until after that Nov. 2 election for U.S. Senate and Illinois governor – among other posts.

Any attempt to reach out to Gutierrez would be perceived as a snub of del Valle, or Gery Chico (former Chicago Public Schools president and a chief of staff to Daley who has never been able to get elected to a government post), or any of the Latino aldermen who have dreams about running for mayor.

SO MAYBE EMANUEL is just playing it cautious.

But I doubt that, because cautious is the one thing that Emanuel typically is not. Despite his hesitation to touch immigration reform, he usually is the guy who goes charging head-first into a political fight and figures to take down anyone who dares get in his way.

Which makes me wonder if Emanuel is deluded enough to think he can win this election without a Latino voter presence. Anything is possible, particularly with this particular election cycle.

There is a chance of a dozen or more candidates, each of whom thinks he deserves to be the front-runner. It means that the winner of the initial election could very well be a person who is only desired by about 20 percent of the voters.

NOW UNDER STATE law, Chicago has non-partisan elections for city posts – which means that if no one candidate gets a 50 percent-plus-one majority, the top two candidates then have to face each other in a second election to be held about one month later.

That would be the point at which Emanuel, if he were among the top two, would have to reach out to Latino voters. He had better realize, though, that any snubs he engages in now could result in the Latino electorate of Chicago deciding that they want whoever is running against Rahm come that runoff election.

  -30-

We’ll be watching to see how Burns acknowledges Latin American, Latino contribution to beisbol

Come Tuesday at 8 p.m., I won’t be propped up in front of a television set waiting to see how filmmaker Ken Burns updates his iconic series of documentaries about baseball in this country, but only because I have to work that night.

But with the way these things get aired over and over, I am sure I will get around to seeing “Baseball: The Tenth Inning,” which is the two-part film Burns put together that is debuting this week on PBS affiliates across the country.

I HAVEN’T SEEN any kind of preview. I don’t know what will be in the new film – other than the little tidbits that Burns has tossed out in various interviews. One of those tidbits says that Burns acknowledges that in recent years, the number of Latino and Latin American ballplayers in the U.S. major leagues has increased significantly.

That is an element he says he will address, along with issues including labor strife, steroids in sports, and those great ballclubs that wore the uniforms of the New York Yankees and Atlanta Braves during recent years.

I know I am going to be closely watching this, and I won’t be alone. Because I still remember the original “Baseball” films that – while interesting and detailed so far as they went – seemed to leave too many gaps.

One of those gaps was the fact that U.S. baseball clubs have long relied on Latin American ballplayers to fill out their rosters. Whether it was because of the legitimate talent, or just the belief of the old Washington Senators teams that they could flesh out a roster for cheap by going with Cubaños, there have been our ethnic brethren playing ball in this country for pay since the days of Jud Castro as an infielder with the Philadelphia Athletics in 1902-03.,

YOU WOULDN’T HAVE known that from watching the original series. There was some mention of the many Dominican and Puerto Rican ballplayers who were with the San Francisco Giants in the 1960s. But it was primarily about the struggles of a ballclub trying to integrate smoothly.

Then, there was Roberto Clemente having a fantastic World Series for the Pittsburgh Pirates in 1971, then dying two years later in an airplane crash. I also seem to recall Fernando Valenzuela getting a brief mention for the first two months of his career with the Los Angeles Dodgers back in 1981.

In two paragraphs, I pretty much summed up the extent to which Burns found time to mention the Latin American presence in U.S. baseball, although the snippet of video from a high school baseball game in New York where the bulk of the ballplayers were Latino (and chanting "pelota" throughout the game) was cute.

I can only hope he does better with this sequel – considering that the 1990s was the era where ballclubs started signing up Latin Americans for the same reason they always did (cheap talent), but started relying on them more and more.

IN RECENT YEARS, the number of ballplayers who come from foreign countries is about 25 percent (with most being from Latin America). By the time one figures in the U.S.-born ballplayers of the various Latino ethnicities, it becomes about 40 percent.

Roughly two of every five major league ballplayers has some sort of origin in a Latin American nation. Which means that long-time broadcaster Andy Rooney wasn’t wrong when he said that “today’s baseball stars are all guys named Rodriguez to me.” He was just a fool for seeing that as a problem.

But I’m not looking just for acknowledgement of Spanish-tinged names being dominant in the U.S. major leagues. I’m also interested in seeing how they get linked to the steroid issue – which for some fans is the overreaching theme of professional baseball in the 1990s.

It was the era that ballplayers were so eager to make themselves bigger and stronger to put up bigger statistics that they took performance-enhancing substances that are considered illegal in other sports.

SOME OF THE biggest Latino names of baseball from this era – Sammy Sosa, Miguel Tejada, Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez and Rafael Palmiero, to name a few – also have to be mentioned whenever such drugs are discussed.

Some fans of a certain ideological bent have gone so far as to try to claim that this is somehow a problem that these “foreign” ballplayers brought to this country (in part because such drugs aren’t necessarily illegal in places like the Dominican Republic).

I’m going to be watching to see how far Burns goes with this theme. Considering that such non-Latino names as Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds (who all did things on the playing field that ought to make them shoo-ins for the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, N.Y.) also must be mentioned with regard to steroids, I don’t think it has an ethnic component.

If Burns has done something to imply that it does, then he’s going to find beisbol fans upset with him way more than we were with Major League Baseball in 1999 when it put together an All-Century Team that didn’t include a single Latino – unless one wants to count Ted Williams, whose mother’s side of the family partially came from Mexico.

I WILL BE the first to admit Burns’ work on baseball-related films has been interesting thus far. He has given us a good understanding of the way baseball reflected, and impacted, the racial tensions that have existed in our society – a subject some people would just as soon ignore.

I also realize there is only so much time in any given project, and that something ultimately has to be cut.

But I would hope that it is not going to be a significant acknowledgement of the Latino contributions to baseball (which in my opinion is THE REASON that the professional baseball leagues in Japan have not surpassed the U.S. major leagues in quality) that once again makes it onto the cutting room floor.

It’s about acknowledgement that our ethnic brethren have accomplished something – other than taking “the cream” or “the clear” like many other ballplayers.

  -30-

DREAM is safe for Durbin, Lugar

I would like to think that it is a combination of compassion and the pragmatic attitude that Midwestern people like to think they have toward issues that is causing the senior senators from Illinois and Indiana to continue to push in hopes that something resembling the DREAM Act can be voted on by the current version of Congress.



Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.

But I am politically pragmatic enough to know better. What is motivating Sens. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Richard Lugar, R-Ind., to remain involved with the measure is the fact that they are politically safe.

THEY ARE STRONG enough on other issues that even the people who will condemn the pair of Dicks for being supportive of something related to immigration will not be able to dump them. Also, neither has to face re-election in this year’s election cycle.

So while most people would merely shrug their shoulders after Tuesday’s political action, when an attempt by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to force a vote on DREAM Act failed, Lugar and Durbin are trying again.

Durbin was the guy who as recently as Tuesday morning was trying to stir up support for the measure, which never even got a vote because of the Republican use of the filibuster tactic.

Yet most people in discussing what happened Tuesday focused on the other issue that got lumped into the political package – easing the restrictions that make it difficult for gay people to serve in the U.S. military. To some, it is like DREAM and immigration didn’t even occur.

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind.

EXCEPT FOR SHARRON Angle, Reid’s opponent in the Nov. 2 elections who is now airing campaign advertisements that trash Reid for daring to be compassionate on any issue that relates to immigration reform.

The fact that Durbin and Lugar are safe from such tactics is why they moved forward an arcane political procedure (Lugar’s staff calls it a “special procedure”) by which a bill can bypass the Senate’s judiciary committee.

Under these circumstances, it also can be called directly for a vote by the Senate.

Lugar aides say this procedure (officially known as Rule XIV) will let Reid bring up the DREAM Act all by itself, instead of having it get bogged down with political opposition to other issues – or just general opposition to anything that ideologues think President Barack Obama might favor.

ADMITTEDLY, THIS IS political maneuvering that might not ever amount to anything. Reid may decide the issue is so hot-button that he will never make the move to bring it up for a vote.

Even if he does, the fact that the issue now stands alone will not offer it any political cover – which was the advantage of tacking it onto the defense appropriations bill being considered by the Senate.

That will gain Reid Latino support, which he should remember when he counters all the hostile elements that will try to confront him if he acts.

Their tactics are likely to be so brazen that Angle’s campaign spot saying, “Harry Reid, the best friend illegals have ever had” will sound downright timid and friendly by comparison.

WHAT IS REALLY pathetic about this whole situation is that the hostility of the nativist element of our society comes through so loud and clear not only on the comprehensive immigration reform proposals that have gone nowhere, but also on the partial plans that are meant to fix the quirks in our law that create problems for our society.

Some people seem to prefer to keep the society broken because they want to be able to demonize elements of our society that have grown so outspoken that it is foolish to believe they will remain complacent.

Which is why I will use Angle’s campaign ad against Reid because the way she tries to mischaracterize the DREAM Act is typical of many of the conservative ideologues. She calls it “special tax rates” and “special college tuition rates, with the money coming from Nevada taxpayers.”

Actually, all the DREAM Act does (should it ever be passed into law) is say that young people who have lived the bulk of their lives in this country should be treated accordingly – regardless of the technicalities of their citizenship status.

IN SHORT, IT wouldn’t treat them special. It would treat them the same as other young people. Anybody who has a problem with that concept has their head wedged so far up their culo as to be beyond hope – which makes them the real problem on this issue.

It is just too bad that more senators couldn’t be in a position such as that of Lugar and Durbin that they could view the issue rationally – instead of having to pander to the people who are inclined to let the nativists dictate their thought.

  -30-

Pledge, Contract, all amount to ideologues’ dreams

Republicans dreaming of holding political office after the Nov. 2 elections are trying to erase the claim that they’re the party of “no” (particularly when Barack Obama’s name comes up) by giving us their “Pledge to America,” which they say is a 45-page document detailing what it is they stand for.

There aren’t any real surprises, although I will agree with those who say it is wrong to compare it to the 1994 Contract with America document that provided the ideological underpinnings of Newt Gingrich’s stint as House speaker.

THIS DOCUMENT IS more detailed than the two-page pledge that more moderate GOP officials thought was much about nothing.

But it does tell us some things – such as the fact that the Republican ideologues remain miffed that they lost the political battle of last year to create a health care proposal that would cover the roughly 47 million living in this country without health insurance.

They don’t want the president going into the history books with an achievement of lasting significance. So they’re pledging now to push for its repeal. I’m surprised they didn’t just come out and say that they want to come up with grounds (no matter how illegitimate) for his impeachment and removal from office.

It would be honest. Because the rest of this document is blunt – particularly the section devoted to protecting the national security of the United States of America (as perceived by conservative ideologues who apparently have way too much free time on their hands to concoct conspiracy theories for us all to “enjoy.”)

MUCH OF IT focuses on cracking down on Iran and the Middle East and creating suspicion about anything that resembles Arab – even if it has nothing to do with Islam the religion,.

Of course, the nativists’ favorite targets of Latin America (particularly Mexico) get mentioned in this document in ways that have to make us wonder if maybe Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was right when he questioned what self-respecting Latino would want to identify themselves these days as a Republican?

For the record, there are three provisions of this document that relate to Latinos – and it is the middle one that most catches my attention.

Work with state and local officials to enforce our immigration laws.

THE REASON THAT the Arizona Legislature’s attempt to give local police greater authority to get involved in federal immigration matters has become stalled and may never be fully enforced under current law is because of the concept that local officials have no business meddling in federal matters any more than local officials would want the federal government getting involved in their business.

That separation exists for good reason.

But since that “good reason” threatens the ideological leanings of many of these Republican dreamers, they want to change it so that the law backs them up in taking out their hostilities on the people they want to hate.

The other two measures are to Establish operational control of the border and Strengthen visa security. The latter means the ideologues want an even more bureaucratic, slow-moving process enacted when checking visas – regardless of how much it inconveniences the public.

THE FORMER MEANS that these people really want to turn the U.S./Mexico border into a fortress. Because their “pledge” elaborates by saying that the U.S. departments of the Interior and Agriculture would not be able to interfere with the Border Patrol activities – even if the patrol puts into place policies that inadvertently create problems in the border region.

We must have the Border Wall and all the other technological toys in place, ahead of any common-sense approach to life in that region of the country. Or so the GOP ideologues are telling us on Thursday. As I said before, it is brief. It is all contained on one page (number 39) of the document. All told, those provisions consist of only 163 words – which is about one-quarter the length of this particular commentary.

But this is a case where “brief” is concise. Anybody interested in the growing Latino population of this country who tries to claim next year that they didn’t realize how hostile the potential Republican caucus in Congress was to our interests can officially be labeled as perezoso or a baboso – if not both.

Only a person who is lazy or foolish would think otherwise of this segment of society that is overtaking the Republican Party in this country. For the ideologues state nearly as clearly what their vision (a hint, we’re not in it) of our nation is as a certain demented painter-turned-dictator stated his own warped views of the world when he wrote, “My Struggle.”

  -30-

Huerta attacks Hispanic to defend Latinos

It’s the status that we occupy in this society right now; people aren’t sure what to make of us. So they try to find greater significance than is justified in the fact that United Farm Workers co-founder Dolores Huerta is attacking a Hispanic candidate in the interests of promoting Latino political empowerment.

There really isn’t a contradiction in that statement – even though I am aware some people are going to desperately search for one.

AT STAKE WAS a recent campaign appearance that Huerta made in Nevada on behalf of Rory Reid, the Democrat seeking to become governor of that state.

Reid is running against Republican Brian Sandoval, who has potential to become Nevada’s first Latino elected governor. But Sandoval has been an official more than willing to support the more nativist gestures that GOP officials have made toward the growing Latino population.

So Huerta is willing to write off the significance of gaining a governor’s seat, in hopes of getting a government official who will be willing to stand up to such hostile rhetoric.

As the Journal-Review newspaper in Las Vegas reported recently, Huerta said, “just because somebody has a Latino last name, okay, like Sandoval, okay, that doesn’t mean that person is going to fight for you, so you have got to get that word out to people.”

MY FIRST REACTION was to wonder if the newspaper literally quoted her convoluted syntax to try to make her sound confused, even though I don’t doubt that it came out of her mouth like that because way too many people have a knack for speaking in ways that make it seem like they never diagrammed a sentence in their life.

But after getting beyond that point, I can’t help but agree with her in that she is saying that all Latinos are not alike. My guess is that Sandoval – the man who created a political stink earlier this year when he allegedly said that he wasn’t worried about Arizona-type laws because his family “doesn’t look Hispanic” – would agree that we’re not all alike.

Huerta compared Sandoval’s alleged comments (which he first said he never said, then claimed he mistakenly said) with “racism.” I’m not sure. I just see it as a political person thinking of himself first – which is typical. One must have a huge ego to honestly believe they are worthy of holding electoral office.

The question becomes at what point does one put the public’s interest ahead of themselves?

IT ALSO BECOMES an issue of what we mean when we talk about political empowerment.

Because I have no doubt there will be many conservative ideologues who, come Nov. 2, will cast their ballots for governor for Sandoval – a political person who doesn’t put his ethnic background in their face and would just as soon be thought of as part of the mass of this nation.

Which may sound nice, but it ignores reality. We have differences, and those people seem too eager to exclude anyone who doesn’t “fit in” with their image (whether physical, mental, emotional, or whatever) of what this society ought to be about.

I’m not about to get into a debate over whether Sandoval is “Latino enough” to be labeled Latino. He is, although I noticed his press secretary went to extremes to use the label Hispanic. But regardless of how he identifies himself, so long as he remembers that not all Latinos are like him or have his life’s circumstances, he is someone who ought to be considered for electoral office in the advancement of our ethnic empowerment in this nation.

BEFORE ANYONE STARTS complaining about identity politics, all I have to say is, “be honest.” Everybody decides who to vote for based on who they think will promote their own interests. Why should Latinos be any different?

If Sandoval is not willing to acknowledge our differences, then he really is just another ideologue. Or perhaps an ideologue apologist is more accurate.

Which is really the point that Huerta was getting at when she said, “the Republican Party is getting people of color to run for the Republican Party even though these people are totally against the issues that are important to the Latino community.”

-30-

¡Nada!

In the end, nothing came of Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and his attempt to force some sort of vote on the DREAM Act, other than that some political people got put on the record as being self-centered and narrow-minded.

Which probably was the whole point of the political exercise. All the people in the U.S. Senate who voted in a way that prevented the issue from even being considered will now have this issue used against them. It also is meant to appear as though Democratic Party government officials made a last-chance try to do something.

NOW THOSE OF us who have been paying attention to political activity already knew that this Democratic effort led by Reid was likely to go nowhere. Of course, we also knew about the political people who are the problem by wanting to stall any positive action on this issue – or anything that appears even remotely sympathetic to people who weren’t born in the United States.

This was about “educating” those who haven’t been paying attention.

Now the quote snippet I heard emanate from Washington on Tuesday was from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the man who once was a Republican sympathetic to immigration-related issues but now has decided to align himself with those people from his state who seriously want a crackdown by their local cops on anyone they deem “too foreign” to live there.

As McCain put it, this is a cynical policy (meant) to galvanize their (the Democratic Party’s political) base.”

WHICH STRIKES ME as a completely ridiculous comment, because I’d argue that McCain – in shifting his views on immigration reform (which he once was willing to sponsor along with the late Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts) is engaging in the “cynical policy” action meant to galvanize a Republican political base.

He’s desperate for votes from the kind of people who dream of an increase in deportations and are deluded enough to think that it would be practical to remove 11.1 million people (the amount estimated to be living here without a valid visa) from the United States.

That’s cynical, if not downright stupid.

McCain is only correct in the sense that Democrats knew better that nothing was going to become of trying to attach the DREAM Act to the military appropriations bill (which is relevant because one of the ways a young person can qualify for the “legal resident” status offered by DREAM is to serve in the military and gain an honorable discharge).

IN FACT, THIS measure became bogged beyond belief when it also became the political vehicle for those who want to eliminate the half-buttocked solution that former President Bill Clinton came up with to the problem of gay people being prohibited from serving openly in the military.

For many of the reports, the failure of this bill to advance to the point where a final vote could be taken (the Republican minority used the filibuster technique on Tuesday to stall the measure) is the failure to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” measure.

DREAM, or anything related to immigration, was an after-thought.

Of course, to the people who wanted DREAM, it was the “gays in the military” issue that was the after-thought. So we have the potential for a lot of activists to have hissy fits with each other in coming weeks over who killed off whose proposal.

BUT IT DID get those activists thinking about the upcoming elections. We did get more than our fair share of statements in recent days urging political people to get off their duffs and act.

U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce President Javier Palomarez was typical of such rhetoric when he said earlier this week, “Passage of the DREAM Act is a necessary first step towards comprehensive immigration reform. As we work towards the economic recovery of our country, it is necessary to include our hard-working young talents as part of the solution.”

Which is why we ultimately will have to judge the success or failure of Tuesday’s inactivity on Capitol Hill in the days following the Nov. 2 elections. It won’t be the only factor, but if it somehow motivates the Latino voter bloc to get off its collective nalgas and act on behalf of our interests, then perhaps something was accomplished.

-30-

People should pay closer attention to the world around them

It always amuses me when something becomes “newsworthy” that truly isn’t, because people would have been aware of it had they merely been paying attention to the world around them – instead of coming up with conspiracies in their mind about the way they want the world to be.

It was that sense of “it’s about time you noticed” that I felt when I read a report in the New York Times that talked of how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is taking on attitudes of sympathy and support for the newcomers to this country when it comes to immigration reform.

THE TIMES REPORT focused on the Salt Lake-based newspaper, The Deseret News, which is owned by the church. In recent weeks, the newspaper has been taking editorial stances in favor of compassion for the newcomers to this country, and for government to figure out a way for these newcomers without visas to have a legitimate way of staying in this country.

The Times seemed to be in shock, because its story pushed the idea that the Mormon church is a conservative institution, and that its newspaper is usually a supporter of causes that the ideological wing of the Republican party takes on to advance its interests.

Yet I can’t say I am shocked, because the one thing I have noticed about the debate over immigration reform is that it seems to be uniting the leaders of various religious denominations. With the exception of those fringe movements that call themselves Christian but preach white supremacy, I can’t think of a single religious faith that isn’t in support of the newcomers to this country on humanitarian grounds.

In short, they’re putting people ahead of nationality.

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, which remains the primary faith for the growing Latino population (although not as dominant as it once was), officially believes that current U.S. immigration policy is flawed because it can split up families. They don’t endorse any specific bill or politician, but they want changes to ensure that families in this country remain intact – even if some members are citizens and others are not.

One of the quirks of the Latino increase in population is that some Latinos are adopting new religions upon coming to this country, seeing the Catholic church as being a part of the old country and the new religion as a part of the assimilation process.

That even includes the Mormon church, which is getting more converts from among Latinos than from any other ethnic group.

The Mormon church’s leadership hasn’t really taken a stance on the issue of immigration reform. But there are those who are taking the Deseret News’ editorials as an informal stance, perhaps even a gesture from the church to its new members to let them know they are welcome.

IN SHORT, THE idea that any religious leader is going to look upon immigration as a humanitarian issue instead of a nationalistic one strikes me as incredibly obvious. Particularly from a church that has some appeal to these very newcomers.

The idea that the church might think it in their interest to be supportive of the issue, instead of opposed to it, ought to be a no-brainer.

The other obvious idea that has come up is the concept that only former Secretary of State Colin Powell seems to have noticed – the so-called “illegal aliens” (bureaucratic-speak for non-citizens without a valid visa) are everywhere.

Powell, while appearing this weekend on the long-running “Meet The Press” interview program, said he sees them all the time doing work that is essential for our society to survive. As he said on national television, “they’re all over my house, doing things whenever I call for repairs, and I’m sure you’ve seen them at your house. We’ve got to find a way to bring these people out of the darkness and give them some kind of status.”

I COULDN’T HELP but notice that Associated Press reports then included a sentence saying that it wasn’t clear whether Powell actually hired the people without visas (who technically aren’t allowed to work in the United States) or if they were hired by contractors. In fact, Powell has since issued a clarification saying that the latter is the case.

Regardless, the point is that no matter how much the ideologues want to demonize such people by using rhetoric that is meant to imply that they’re really not people (take away their humanity, and you make it easier for people to think in terms of un-American actions), anyone who pays attention sees how ridiculous that it is.

These are people willing to work in ways that the ideologues are too lazy to. Perhaps their own immigrant grandparents were willing to work that hard. It makes me wonder if part of the root cause of all this nasty rhetoric is a sense of self-loathing about how inadequate they have become compared to the newcomers.

Which also relates to the public sentiment that I have noticed when it comes to religious faiths and immigration reform. I know that the Catholic Church’s supportive stance is not popular with a significant chunk of the faithful. I know of many people who consider themselves devout who will claim this is the one issue where the church is “wrong.”

THAT MAKES ME wonder if a large part of the reason they are religious is so they can look at their neighbors and mentally condemn them to purgatory. In short, religion to them is just an excuse to look down on other people.

That is an attitude that, quite frankly, I find to be rather un-Christian.

-30-

¡Viva los Estado Unidos!

It was a chant I heard several times in recent days in a place that the nativists of our society won’t want to believe – celebrations of Mexican independence.

For it was last week (Thursday, to be exact) that my day-job duties had me bopping about Chicago’s South Side and in Northwest Indiana (the Hoosiers who are a part of the Chicago-area) in search last week of local Mexican independence celebrations.

SO IT WAS in that context that I got to see a Mexican parade queen face off with a queen from the Puerto Rican parade held earlier this year (she said she wanted to show Latino solidarity), got to see a lot of mushy tamales served up, and even got to see one parade featuring giant, inflatable bottles of Corona beer (a flat-tasting brand that no self-respecting Mexican-American would ever drink).

But there was yet another trend that continually cropped up – a desire by those of us of Mexican ethnic backgrounds to concede the benefits that we have received from our families having relocated to the United States.

It was like every single event I went to made sure they had ample U.S. flags to go along with the Mexican tri-colors,

I literally got to hear one Catholic priest who hosted an independence day feast at his church (one with a heavy Mexican contingent in its congregation) talk of how this country had allowed us to advance in our lives and that we should remember it just as much as our ethnic homeland.

I EVEN GOT to hear chants of “¡Viva Mèxico!” interspersed with ”¡Viva los Estados Unidos!”

So much for those nativists who are insistent on believing that the large number of Mexicanos who have throughout the past century (it really isn’t a new phenomenon) have settled in the United States are somehow so radically different and unappreciative of this country and are unwilling to fit in.

If anything, it probably is the opposite. We have masses who are eager to become full-fledged parts of this nation, despite some nitwits who try to claim a bizarre view of patriotism to justify excluding people who aren’t exactly like them.

In short, it is their hang-ups that are the problem, more than anything that is being done on behalf of the growing Latino population.

BECAUSE WHAT I saw in recent days were a lot of cultural celebrations that aren’t terribly different from St. Patrick’s Day, except we were inclined to put on sombreros instead of try to quaff all that green-dyed beer.

This is a nation whose advantage is that it includes so many differing ethnic groups. It almost is like we can pick and choose the best elements of everyone to put together a society that has the potential to be the best on Planet Earth.

Which also means it is the political people who are using the nativist fears to try to stir up enough resentment among some people to get their votes come Nov. 2 who are the problem.

Not only are their actions hateful, they’re also incredibly short-sighted.

IT MAY RESULT in a few more votes come this year’s general elections. But unless the world comes to an end 44 days from now, we still will have to live with each other. Which means that all that has happened is that certain people will be angered enough to want payback come future election cycles.

Insisting on thinking that we’re two warring groups is just pathetic, particularly since the growing Latino group didn’t come here looking for a fight. If anything, my ethnic brethren are too busy trying to work to earn a living and better ourselves to have time for too much political rhetoric.

Which also reminds me of yet another moment I encountered – one in which a Mexican independence celebration included a performance of the national anthems of both the United States and Mexico.

Both songs are about war and bloodshed (“The Star Spangled Banner” about the U.S. flag still flying in the morning after being attacked for an entire night, while “Mexicanos al Grito de Guerra” tells of how eagerly Mexicans will fight and possibly die to defend their homeland) and are definitely militaristic.

YET IN THE voices of a pair of Latinas who performed them during an event I covered in East Chicago, Ind., they actually became loving lilts to a homeland, and the two songs oddly complimented each other.

The same way that Latinos could easily compliment the rest of this nation – if the ideologues ever decide to put aside their ethnic hang-ups for the good of us all.

-30-

Immigration measures may be political, but not pointless

There is a chance that the coming weeks will see a pair of political actions meant to give us the impression that elected officials of the Democratic persuasion are serious about giving us serious reform of the nation’s immigration laws – which is long overdue.

I don’t expect either of those acts to result in a bill on President Barack Obama’s desk that would let him sign reform into law. I’m not even sure those bills will advance beyond the votes that are likely to be taken next week, and sometime in the next couple of months.

FOR I AM realistic enough to know what is at stake is Democratic Party officials wanting the growing Latino voter bloc to turn out in significant numbers come the Nov. 2 elections. If my ethnic brethren do so, we will go a long way towards being the antidote toward all the poisonous rhetoric we have heard in recent months from all these Tea Party types.

In short, Dems are desperate enough about this election cycle that they’re willing to give our interests a listen.

It’s a shame that they couldn’t have done so sooner, when there might have been a chance of having time to do something legitimate toward reform that would have given them our lasting gratitude. But I’m also realistic enough to know that there is truth to the old cliché about not wanting to look too close to the process by which both laws and sausages are made.

Although I suspect that the process and ingredients involved in making a nice, tasty piece of chorizo aren’t anywhere near as vile as the political process we’re going to endure in coming weeks.

AT STAKE IS both the big bill (“the whole enchilada,” as it was once referred to by former Mexico foreign minister Jorge Castañeda) that would offer up a serious revamp of the immigration laws – the one that recognizes there is no legitimate reason that most of those 11.1 million non-citizens now living in the United States without a valid visa should be denied the visa, along with smaller measures meant to show recognition to non-citizens in certain aspects of our society.

That is the purpose of the DREAM Act, which would let younger people without citizenship who have lived the bulk of their lives in this country gain citizenship eventually – if they serve in the military or complete a college degree. With any luck, two immigration reform-related bills will get some consideration in Congress before the arrival of winter snow. Photograph provided by Architect of the Capitol.

Passing the big bill (comprehensive immigration reform is the generic label tagged to it by its supporters) would take care of everybody. DREAM would cover a few, but is seen as a first step.

Of course, critics of immigration reform don’t even want to take a step in the right direction. They want to take it in the Right direction, and dream about mass deportations. That attitude ultimately is the problem that we in our society must overcome.

WE’RE GOING TO see if the Senate takes that step come Tuesday. For it seems Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who wants a strong Latino voter turnout to bolster his re-election chances, has been plotting in recent weeks to try to advance the idea, which has now been included through the amendment process to the Defense Authorization bill.

Will enough military hardliners be willing to vote “no” on this measure just to stop that first step toward immigration reform from taking place? It could happen. Although I won’t feel sorry for anyone who thinks their conservative beliefs are being attacked by this act, because I have seen those same ideologues use the same tactic on so-called liberal issues to force political colleagues to make votes they otherwise wouldn’t want to do.

We’ll all see this coming week what happens with DREAM. Probably the one who will be watching the most will be Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., who has said he will craft a bill that the Senate could vote on some time before their terms end in early January and the new Senate elected on Nov. 2 takes over.

My guess is that Menendez will back away from his rhetoric about immigration reform as a whole if the hardliners are so determined to crush “those filthy foreigners” that they vote against the military. But if they don’t, he could engage in the rhetoric that tries to bolster Democratic candidate chances of getting sizable numbers of Latino votes – whom various polls show are turning on Republican candidates because of all the nasty rhetoric they have been using in order to try to appeal to that rural white vote.

THERE EVEN IS that sense of appeasement in Obama’s rhetoric these days. Earlier this week, the president spoke to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, telling them he understands why Latino activists are upset that his presidency has become bogged down in partisan rhetoric that he hasn’t been able to make immigration reform the priority that he promised back when he campaigned in 2008.

“You have every right to keep the heat on me and keep the heat on the Democrats, and I hope you do,” Obama told the gathering.

That’s probably as close to an “I’m sorry” that we will ever hear from an elected official. But if it means we don’t get a government of people entirely hostile to our presence in this society, it likely is what we will have to settle for this time around.

-30-