Latinos as white? I’m sure it will offend all sides

The Census Bureau released yet another study produced from the data it collected in last year’s population count – one that I’m sure will manage to offend oh, so many people in this country.

According to the study, 75 percent of the nation’s population identifies itself as “white” when it comes to race. But the reason that figure is so high, and actually slightly higher than it was in the year 2000?

IT’S ALL THOSE Latinos, whom a large majority are identifying themselves as “white” when it comes to picking a race for themselves.

Non-Hispanic white people had such a slim increase in numbers that it would be insignificant had it not been for the Latinos.

It also is a significant change from the 2000 population count – when of the 12 percent of the population that thinks of itself as Latino, 48 percent identified themselves as “white” and 42 percent identified themselves racially as “other.”

Many of those people were among the ones who complained about Latino (or Hispanic, or whatever label they prefer) not being considered a race in-and-of itself.

ONLY 2 PERCENT of Latinos back then identified themselves racially as “black.”

The change to the present is that many of those people who picked “other” just over a decade ago out of a sense of protest are now picking a race.

The Census Bureau counted just under 45 million people calling themselves “Hispanic” who said they are “white,” compared to 1.96 million who said they were “black.”

Which means the roughly 21-to-1 ratio of Latino whites to Latino blacks from 2000 hasn’t changed much (it’s now 22-to-1). Which says quite a bit about the way we perceive ourselves (or how we perceive the way we hope to be treated in this society).

INSOFAR AS THE rest of the Latino population and race, there were roughly 790,000 Latinos who chose to call themselves American Indian or Aleutian (as in native to Alaska).

Another 328,000 Latinos called themselves Asian, while some 130,000 Latinos called themselves Hawaiian and about 764,000 Latinos were probably the most honest of the batch.

That is the total who say they are “bi-racial,” which is true of all of us if we truly look back far enough into our family trees.

This has the potential to create some hostility among black people, because I have heard in my lifetime some activists who claim that Latinos can’t truly be worthy of minority status (and legal protections) because they can be considered “white.”

LIKEWISE, THERE ARE those white people who are going to have their own sensibilities offended at the thought of this group that they want to isolate from society somehow blending in with them in so many ways.

That’s why the Associated Press account about the new Census Bureau study may well have had the most accurate observation.

A University of Nevada at Las Vegas sociology professor told the wire service that “white” doesn’t mean the same now as it used to. Professor Robert Lang went so far as to predict that by 2030 or 2040, the Census Bureau will stop counting Latinos.

That’s because the ethnicities that make one a “Latino” will be just among the many other ethnic groups that comprise our society – without any of the conservative ideological nonsense that wants to keep them separate and with a perception of inferiority.

  -30-

New technology (sort of), but same ol’ message

President Barack Obama engaged in what I’m sure his people will try to portray as a major event that reached out to the Latino segment of the electorate.

OBAMA: Nice talk. Where's the action?

He spent some time Wednesday taking part in an event coordinated by Yahoo! People who have accounts with Yahoo!, MSN Latino and AOL Latino/Huffington Post Latino Voice were able to submit questions that would be asked of the president.

THEY’RE GOING TO claim that he’s using the Internet to reach out to Latinos (who do use the Internet in increasing numbers) and to assure us that he is looking out for the interests of the fast-growing segment of our society.

Bull!

Reading through the reports of what was said by Obama in response to the questions that were put before him makes me think that he’s merely reiterating the rhetoric he has spouted for the past couple of years.

He supports us theoretically, but has left many of my ethnic brethren thinking that he’s not willing to take positive action on our behalf if it means creating a potential beef with the conservative ideologues of our society.

OF COURSE, THOSE same ideologues are the ones who want to spout the trash talk that Obama is doing nothing BUT giving in to our every whim. Which shows just how out-of-touch with reality they truly are.

But what came out of Obama on Wednesday was the idea that he is upset with those Latino activists who want him to use more of his executive authority to impose changes in immigration policy.

He’s right in saying that it would take a serious effort to overcome the ideologues to actually get Congress to pass something, which is permanent (as opposed to executive orders that are short-term and often rescinded by future presidents).

But it’s also the same thing we’ve been hearing.

IT MERELY REINFORCES the fact that the reason a large percentage of the Latino electorate will choose Obama over whoever wins the Republican presidential nomination next year is because that GOP candidate is too likely to cater to the ideologues.

It’s “Democrat by Default.” Still!

It also was numbing to read the presidential answer to the idea of Puerto Rico becoming a full-fledged state. Because he gave the same non-answer that all presidents typically give.

Which is, No change, until there is a “solid indication” that people support it.

YOU MIGHT AS well have had him say “No comment.” For all the lack of detail that such an answer gave us. It’s not an issue that Obama is going to waste much brain matter on.

Which is why a lot of the trash talk that gets directed at Obama from the ideologues is just absolutely ridiculous. This “socialist” of a president is so capable of being a non-committal middle-of-the-roader that only those same ideologues who think that Obama is giving away the store to Latinos seriously believes he’s a radical.

If anything, there was only one line that came from Obama’s mouth that was remotely interesting, and more in a symbolic sense than anything that would result in solid policy changes.

Obama said he seriously believes the Latino population will grow to such levels that election of a president or vice-president with ethnic origins in Latin America is inevitable in the near future.

“I AM ABSOLUTELY certain that within my lifetime we will have a Latino candidate that will be very competitive and may win,” Obama said.

Which are words that may well be inspiring and motivating to some young Latino currently in college. And whose image may well scare all those ideologues senseless.

Obama’s willingness to express such a thought may well be the lone reason why he gets Latino votes come ’12.

  -30-

Talk too cheap to attract much of the Latino vote

California commentator Thomas Elias wrote a recent piece about why he thinks the California Republican Party will fail in its efforts to attract a sizable share of the Latino vote in next year’s election cycle.

Yet the “scary” part of his commentary is that it really isn’t California-centric. You could delete the word “California” and the specific reference to former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the column could apply to any state.

ELIAS BELIEVES THE California GOP will fail in getting sizable numbers of Latino votes because it is unwilling to change one bit of its party platform.

And that platform was put together by the segment of the party that wants to use it, and government, to deal with what it perceives as a very serious problem – the skyrocketing growth of the Latino segment of our society.

“As Republicans say, their anti-same sex marriage position pretty much lines up with the preference of most Latinos and their family values message resonates. But things like slicing education, police and health care services cut much more deeply because these are  not mere ideas, but realities that create problems for hundreds of thousands of Latino voters daily.”

Tell me what about that paragraph from Elias’ column does not apply nationwide?

ALTHOUGH YOU REALLY should read the column for yourselves. It could be one of the most intelligible pieces you encounter today.

Fresh commentary for this weblog will be back on Thursday.

  -30-

Latino political empowerment comes at others’ expense

I have been waiting to see how long it would take for Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., to say or do something that could be interpreted as a pot-shot at his congressional colleague, Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.

GUTIERREZ: The high ground?

The two members of Chicago’s congressional delegation are miffed on account of Jackson’s rhetoric from last week related to redistricting.

JACKSON BELIEVES THAT the maps drawn by the Illinois General Assembly are flawed in that they preserved the same number of African-American aldermen, but in districts that are far less “black” than they used to be.

But considering that Chicago lost nearly 200,000 black people, according to the latest Census Bureau population figures, and that Illinois as a whole now officially has more Latinos than it does African-American people, some might argue the fact that the same number of districts with black-majority populations being drawn is a favor.

Jackson last week said he was not about to offer up anything from his campaign fund to help support the legal effort to defend the Democrat-drawn map (which is the subject of a blatantly-partisan court challenge by Republican allies), and his staffers also claimed they were speaking for Illinois’ two other African-American congressmen – Bobby Rush (who happens to be my member of Congress) and Danny Davis.

Now, both Davis and Rush are coming out and saying that Jackson doesn’t speak for them, and they don’t know what they’re going to do.

THEY’RE TAKING THIS definitely un-bold stance on account of the fact that Gutierrez is expressing some Latino-felt hostility toward such an attitude.

JACKSON: Self-preservation?



As Gutierrez told “Roll Call,” a D.C.-based newspaper that covers Congress, he said he wasn’t going to “shoot off at the mouth” like an un-named congressman, while also saying that some congressmen who don’t think before they speak “come off as buffoons.”

Gee!

El Gallito manages to take the moral high-ground, while also referring to his opponent as a “buffoon.” That’s definitely some rooster-like crowing from Gutierrez.

PERSONALLY, WHEN I learned that Jackson (actually, one of his aides, in a story by the Associated Press) was making these complaints about Illinois’ redistricting that could provide aid and comfort to the enemy (a.k.a., Republicans), I wondered how long it would take for there to be a Latino outcry.

Because the perception among many is that Illinois’ congressional delegation should have reflected an increase in Latino representation. It doesn’t, largely because the easiest way to boost Latino chances of a second member of Congress from this state would be to slightly alter the district of Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill.

Which was never going to happen, even though any second Latino sent to Washington would be a more loyal backer of Barack Obama than Lipinski has been. But he comes from a Chicago political family of long-time standing.

Reapportionment protects one incumbent.

YET JACKSON’S COMMENTS come across as though he wants African-American representation maintained at past levels no matter what the current population figures are.

It comes across as Jackson longing for the old days when Latinos got lumped in with black people to create “minority” (as in ‘not white’) districts, with African-American officials representing us all.

Which may fit into the view of people who think of our society as “black” and “white” (or actually, “white” and “other”).

But it also represents the reality that Latinos are a group in and of ourselves. A phrase I have often used in the past is that we need to “Kick the door down” if we truly want to bolster our political empowerment through representation.

IN THE PROCESS, we’re going to manage to offend people of varied racial representations – and not just in Illinois.

Welcome to electoral politics in the 21^st Century!

  -30-

¿Who says she has an accent?

Reading a New York Times report about the Arizona school teacher who supposedly faced harassment on-the-job on account of her accented English amused me.

Amused, similar to the offense that Joe Pesci’s “Tommy DeVito character in Goodfellas took when someone called him a “funny guy,” giving us, in part, the response, “I’m funny how. I mean funny like I’m a clown. I amuse you? I make you laugh. I’m here to… amuse you?”

YES, A PART of me is offended that Arizona once thought it needed standards to determine how effective its teachers were, and thought to include how clearly they enunciated the English language.

It resulted in many completely-qualified teachers being told their English was flawed, perhaps because of an accent tinged by also being able to speak Spanish.

Then again, Arizona is one of those places where the Mexican and Spanish influence is historic. The idea that such an accent would be considered out-of-place is absurd.

Does this mean we can now go into a place like Alabama and take a whack at a teacher for not speaking proper English, on account she (or he) speaks with a thick drawl?

OF COURSE NOT!

Yet it’s the equivalent of what was once being done in Arizona, which is the focus of a discrimination complaint currently pending (although it should be noted that a federal complaint filed with the Education Department was closed without penalties when state officials agreed to ease up on the way they enforced their policies that supposedly are meant to ensure that teachers are comprehendible.

The problem becomes defining what constitutes “comprehendible.” It also becomes a problem considering how many people speak so poorly, regardless of what accent or intonation they may be using.

Too many of us speak in ways that would fail to pass the so-called “king’s English” of old (and I'm sure the Brits who created the language are abhorred by the way all of us speak). And that is a truth regardless of one’s ethnic background.

  -30-

Who wants Manny being Manny?

I’m kind of having trouble envisioning which U.S. baseball club would have the slightest bit of interest in signing Manny Ramirez to play for the latter third of the 2012 season.

After having “his people” talk with Major League Baseball officials, Ramirez is saying he will now quit trying to get out of serving the 100-game suspension he received this year for testing positive for certain pharmaceutical substances that are considered banned.

WHICH MEANS HE has to find a team that will sign him, then agree that he can’t play for the first 100 games of the 162-game season. Who is that desperate for a big bat that they would even pay the major league minimum to sign him?

I can’t envision him on the worst American League team, which is the Minnesota Twins. Their bad season may well be an aberration, and I doubt they would want Manny’s ego screwing up their team karma.

As for the Baltimore Orioles and the Seattle Mariners (the other two ballclubs that look like they’re going to finish in last place in their respective divisions), I also don’t see a fit.

In fact, I’m sure the Tampa Bay Rays are glad Ramirez walked away from their team for 2011. His presence would have tampered with their ability to contend for a playoff spot this season.

FORGET ABOUT THE National League. No designated hitter. Although I wonder if he can still even hit after losing this season of play (his attempt to use the Dominican League to work himself back into shape has fluttered away into nothingness).

So now we get to see the one-time “Manny being Manny” (isn’t he cute when he’s so egotistical and moody) reduced to the level of begging for a job, and possibly learning that nobody wants him any longer.

Which is sad. But it also is the reason that I think people are ridiculous when they screech and scream about the need for life-time bans for ballplayers who use steroids. Eventually, the suspensions cost them so much playing time that they just can’t come back any longer.

Which means he’ll likely be forevermore outside looking in, while someone like former New York Yankee Bernie Williams gets celebrated with membership in the Latino Baseball Hall of Fame.

  -30-

Oh, well. No Eagles for Manny

A part of me thinks that Major League Baseball, the legal entity that oversees the American and National leagues, is meddling in the affairs of something else that ought to be none of their business.

Then again, it’s Manny Ramirez who’s getting dumped on. So I’m sure many people aren’t going to be upset that his plans for a baseball comeback are being thwarted.

RAMIREZ IS THE guy who passed a drug test (meaning that traces of substances banned by baseball were found in his system) and got a 100-game suspension as penalty.

To avoid paying that penalty (which would have cost him about two-thirds of this season), Ramirez immediately retired from the game in the United States. Although he hinted back in May that he may try playing ball in the Dominican League.

He had hopes of playing for the Cibao Eagles when that team’s season begins in a few weeks (in the Caribbean, the top professional baseball leagues play from mid-October through December, with playoffs in January and the championship Caribbean Series the first week of February).

But while the Dominican League (like the other leagues in Latin American nations) is independent of U.S. baseball, there are agreements in place by which the two leagues cooperate.

WHICH IS WHY baseball Commissioner Bud Selig was able to say that until Ramirez serves that suspension in the United States, it would object to him playing beisbol in la Republica Dominicana.

Dominican League officials aren’t exactly anxious to provoke a baseball war, so they’re not objecting.

Ramirez himself was telling reporter-types that his attorneys will try to work out a deal to let him participate. But this could wind up being one of those situations where everybody takes a hard-line.

And that would leave the 39-year-old with 555 regular season home runs without a place to play. Which is kind of a shame, because he probably could have added to that total a little bit if he had just sat out the suspension.

WHETHER IT WOULD have been a season-end appearance with the Tampa Bay Rays (who might not have wanted him after all, because they’re still in contention for a playoff spot this season) or with an appearance in the Caribbean League – which he hadn’t played in since 1993 when he was still a minor league ballplayer in the Cleveland Indians system.

It would have been entertaining, especially if it turned out that the time off from daily playing of baseball had impacted his swing to the point where he could no longer hit with any power on a consistent basis.

I’m sure there are those baseball fans who would have taken great joy out of watching Ramirez fail in the Dominican Republic – particularly those New York Yankees fans who still think of him as some sort of clown who deprived their team of another American League championship in 2004.

Or maybe even those Chicago White Sox fans who last year had hopes he could jolt their favorite ballclub to an end-of-season burst – but instead got one lone home run to show for his stint.

CANSECO: Maybe he and Manny will meet up later



WHICH IS WHY we’re getting lots of jokes about how Ramirez should take his act to Yuma, Ariz., which has a ballclub in one of those non-affiliated baseball leagues that was managed this past season by one-time slugger Jose Canseco.

There would have been a time in the mid-1990s when the idea of a lineup with Canseco and Ramirez would have put fear in the minds of baseball pitchers from the Bronx to Anaheim, Calif.

Now, it just creates a pathetic punch line – which is probably the ultimate punishment that could be dished out to Manny Ramirez.

  -30-

Latinos have to be prepared to ‘kick the door down’ with our votes if we want electoral influence

I’ve made it clear in the past that the real issue involving Latinos come the 2012 election cycle is not whether Republicans will gain significant numbers of Latino votes (they won’t), but whether Latinos will decide in large numbers that nobody is worth voting for.

OBAMA: Will 'No One' seem preferable?



I know some people who think that such an act makes a powerful statement and would be the appropriate response come next year’s Election Day.

IT DOES MAKE a statement, although not the one we want to make. If anything, it will be interpreted as saying “we don’t care” and will be used by the political establishment as all the more reason to ignore our concerns – or come up with measures that are blatantly hostile to our interests.

Which is why I hope the story of next year’s election cycle is a record-high number of Latinos bothering to vote. I’m not even as concerned who they vote for, just so long as they take the time to cast ballots.

Latino political empowerment reaching its proper levels is going to take a combination of a significant share of the population (which eventually will age into an equal share of the electorate) AND a strong interest on our part.

We may have to kick the door down with large numbers of votes. Because ultimately, that is what catches the attention of political officials. If they sense we have the strength to vote them out of office for passing stupid measures, then they will listen to us.

IF ANYTHING, THE assorted political fights taking place across the country when it comes to redistricting ought to be the evidence. In places where Republican partisans predominate, the interest has been in packing our population numbers into as few districts as possible.

These boundaries will change. But how?



Which means they’re conceding a lone Latino rep or two, while ensuring that the bulk of the political people will be Anglo.

In places where Democratic partisans are in control, it becomes the precarious balancing act that is managing to offend everybody – because usually the person in control is someone whose time realistically has passed. But the wonders of re-crafting political boundaries ever-so-slightly can buy them more time as a government official.

And everybody ultimately has a self-preservation mechanism built into them – including Latino political people (who someday some 50 or so years from now likely will get hit with the same accusations we’re now making about white and black political people).

I COULDN’T HELP but notice my hometown of Chicago, where the City Council is now redrawing ward boundaries. The council’s Black Caucus took a crack at drawing a map that was supposed to ensure fairness for all.

What it did was preserved all the black incumbent aldermen, surrendering one ward that is supposed to be a black ward, but which is currently being represented by a white guy.

And the Latino population, which is the one segment of the city that has experienced significant growth? Black aldermen are willing to sacrifice two of their white colleagues whom they don’t think much of in order to appease my ethnic brethren.

Needless to say, it’s not working. That map got mostly laughter, even though it is about the best anyone could expect to be drawn if our interests are being placed in the hands of someone else.

THAT’S NOT JUST in the Chicago City Council. It also applies to the state Legislatures in Texas (GOP-leaning) and California (Dem-leaning), and anywhere else. This is an issue where we’re going to have to force our perspectives to be heard.

Which is why the idea of Latinos not voting come ’12 scares me about as much as the conservative ideologues fear us voting. I think that our “not” voting would be making the ideologues’ wildest fantasies come true.

Personally, I’d like to make their fantasies about as unattainable as my own (which is that Penelope Cruz will someday throw herself at me and tell me she can’t go through her life without me).

Yet that twisted thought is subject for future commentary.

  -30-

‘Gays in military’ policy revised. When will immigration be reformed?

The whole “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that defined the issue of gay people serving in the military is now history. Our society’s better judgment has prevailed – although it took long enough.

OBAMA: He got one right. What about the other?



Which makes me wonder that when it comes to the issue of immigration reform, are we going to have to endure a period of absurdity in which we play games before we finally get around to making sense of our national immigration policy?

I CAN’T HELP but see the two issues as being handled in similar manners.

President Barack Obama held off on using blatant partisanship to hammer a sound policy into place because he didn’t want to get the conservative ideologues all worked up.

It was all too similar to the situation back in the 1990s when then-President Bill Clinton signed off on the policy that allowed gay people to serve in the military provided they did not disclose their sexual orientation.

It was a change from the old days when homosexuality was considered grounds for court martial, incarceration in a military prison and dishonorable discharge – and where military personnel could go probing into the lives of their enlistees to learn about their orientation.

BUT IT WAS a weak attempt at compromise. Rather than just accept the fact that the issue was one where certain people were going to have their sensibilities offended (which was just because their sensibilities were offensive), Clinton didn’t want the battle.

It took two decades of a ridiculous compromise policy to make us realize that it didn’t work, and that doing away with the restriction just made too much sense. Trying to pretend that our military was filled with nothing but right-wing, heterosexual ideologues who took their orders without question was just stupid.

Hence, we now have a military that officially ignores the issue of sexual orientation. The Associated Press went out and found a male couple – one of whom is a Navy officer – who got married in Vermont early Tuesday at the first possible minute that his open disclosure of homosexuality was no longer something that could cost him a military career.

Is this where we’re headed with regards to immigration reform?

OBAMA SIGNED THE order that undid Clinton’s attempt to find a compromise on the issue of gays in the military. Will it take some future president to undo the attempts at compromise that Obama has tried to use on immigration reform?

I’d hope it wouldn’t take so long. But it probably will.

For the situations are too similar. Immigration issues provoke a gut reaction in those people who have their own ethnic hang-ups and who want to believe that only certain kinds of people should be allowed in this country.

Obama’s attempts to appease them by allowing for an increase in the number of deportations and not pushing for the blatant reform measures that are needed to erase the inconsistencies and bureaucratic bloat from our immigration laws is not enough.

THOSE ISOLATIONISTS ARE still upset. Anything other than total capitulation to their isolationist way of thought is unsatisfactory to them. Just as how “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was seem as offensive to the ideologues because it didn’t take the hard-line against gay people that they so desired.

In the end, Obama used sense in doing away with the military policy whose deadline was long overdue.

Another policy whose time for reform is overdue is immigration. Will Obama have the sense to address this issue? Or is he leaving this for a future public official to get the credit for?

Because trying to pretend that this country is solely a white, Protestant society with no place for anyone else is about as ridiculous as presuming that gay men never served this country with honor on the battlefields.

  -30-

I wish it were true that the GOP could gain Latino voter support

I lean “Democrat” politically. I generally find myself preferring that political party’s candidates. Yet a part of me wishes I could believe the reports that come out occasionally that imply there’s going to be a significant shift in Latino voter support for the Republican Party’s candidates.



Too alien an experience?



Because that would mean that the GOP has people who “get it” and are willing to reach out to the fast-growing segment of the population (about 16 percent currently, and rising).

I BELIEVE WE would be better off if we had our supporters in both of the major political parties of this country so that  our perspective would be included in the political debate – regardless of who is actually in control at any given moment.

But that’s not the situation we have currently. Too much of the Latino concern is locked up by default in the Democratic Party. They may not do enough, but they’re not blatantly hostile toward our existence like too large a segment of the Republican Party has become.

It is going to be that segment that keeps the Republican presidential hopeful, or any other GOP candidate, from getting sizable numbers of Latino votes.

Which is why I can read a United Press International account that implies Latino apathy toward Barack Obama could result in more Latino GOP votes and laugh like crazy (think Ricky Ricardo laughing now!).

IT’S GOING TO be a matter of whether the president can convince a sizable enough share of Latinos to vote at all in the upcoming election. Will we set a record in 2012 for the most Latinos who vote, or the most Latinos eligible who decide to stay home on Election Day.

Although with the way the population is growing, it is conceivable that both records could be set. But that is an issue to be contemplated in a future commentary.

But back to today, where we consider the concept of Republicans trying to appeal to Latinos. Perhaps the GOP should take a lesson from their colleagues in California, who see the fact that Latinos are the dominant part of that state’s population, yet they don’t have any influence amongst it.

It seems that the California Republican Party that used to be a mighty force in local politics is “seeing the light” out of a sense of desperation. They’re tired of irrelevance, so they’re reaching out to my ethnic brethren (and yes, I do have distant cousins living in California).

BUT THEY ALSO have to combat the attitudes of the current California Republican Party – the Associated Press reported on a weekend straw poll of partisans. It seems they want Ron Paul as president, with Michelle Bachmann as a close second. Is the current California GOP so irrelevant that not even Latinos could prop it up?

Neither one of those candidates is going to gain them Latino support in any significant numbers. Which is why Republicans in California also held a conversation this weekend meant to get Latinos and Republicans talking. That session is expected to be broadcast eventually on the Univision television network.

The idea of more conversation between the two sides is a good thing. Because the situation that we have now is one that cannot continue to exist. Our society as a whole gets dragged down if we have people determined to demonize others based off their own personal hang-ups.

“What we’ve got here is, a failure to communicate.” So went the line from “Cool Hand Luke,” with the modern-day incarnation of the GOP at times seeming to enjoy playing the role of the thug of a prison warden (portrayed by actor Strother Martin) who uttered that line.

  -30-

Are the ideologues willing to kill the economy to bolster their ethnic hang-ups?

I couldn’t help but notice a commentary published by the Tempe, Ariz.-based East Valley Tribune, where a Washington-based analyst made the incredibly-obvious argument that the immigration policies being peddled by conservative ideologues are doing harm to our nation’s economy.

Implementing such a hard-line policy meant to make people want to leave this country is going to do nothing more than make it more complicated for the national economy to rebound.

NOW I SUGGEST that you read the commentary written by Alex Nowrasteh for yourself. The analyst with the Competitive Enterprise Institute particularly singles out the state of Arizona for having local politicians who push for policies that do nothing more than scare serious business interests away.

After all, why consider going there (or expanding what you already have there) if all it’s going to do is put themselves in the middle of an ideological mess that really has nothing to do with what they do?

But I must point out his objections to e-Verify, the federal-designed program by which employers are supposed to be able to figure out if someone is trying to use a false Social Security number but in reality causes so many complications because it doesn’t work properly.

As was written, “The last thing we need to do, especially in this poor economic climate, is add to the day-to-day burdens of already over-tasked small companies.”

NOT THAT THIS should come as any surprise to anyone. The flaws behind the e-Verify program have been well documented. It is a sound concept to want to check a person’s Social Security number for any potential flaws.

Perhaps if such a program is ever devised, it could be implemented on the wide-spread basis that the conservative ideologues now want to use e-Verify. Largely because they don’t care about flaws, and are more than accept many people being harassed if a few legitimately-flawed individuals do wind up getting detected.

The idea of abusing many innocent individuals strikes me as being an un-American concept. Presuming people to be guilty, when in many cases they’re not.

Not that I expect the ideologues to be swayed. Because while these people often like to spew rhetoric about the wonders of small businesses being a part of the American dream, their hang-ups are something they feel more strongly about.

WHICH IS THE real problem confronting our society. They want to persist in seeing a great evil where it truly does not exist. That attitude is ultimately what will hold us back as a society, more than anything that is done by any of these newcomers to our country.

We’d all be better off if we quit thinking of the people who want to come here to work as “the problem” and saw that they can be part of the “solution.”

As for those ideologues who are of a certain age that they came “of age” in the Vietnam-era, they’re also probably the ones who think there’s a line of logic behind that old AP story anonymous quote: “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.”

 -30-

EDITOR'S NOTE: Another commentary worthy of reading about how the growing Latino population will help end the current economic struggles we're enduring. Take note of where it was published.

It’s all history, of a sort

What do Diosa Costello and Henry Winkler have in common?

Both of them had careers as entertainers who managed to create specific image for themselves for which some people still remember them.

AND NOW, THEY’RE going to be a part of the Smithsonian Institute, which will do its part to preserve that image for generations to come.

Winkler, of course, is the actor who portrayed “The Fonz,” that sort-of ‘50’s’ thug who had us all agog back in the 70s (but whom many young people today don’t have a clue who, or what, he was).

So before anyone tries to send me a response to Costello that amounts to “Who’s she?,” keep Winkler in mind. One generation’s icon is another’s unknown (and yet another generation’s “What were they thinking?”)

All this leads up to the fact that the Smithsonian on Saturday will accept a donation of 11 costumes that were worn by Costello during her career – including her “Latin Bombshell” outfit that created the image Hollywood tried to create for all Latina entertainers for years to come.

“AS THE FIRST Latina on Broadway, she paved the way for other Latinos,” said museum curator Marvette Perez, in a prepared statement. “One of the last remaining members of her generation, her story and her costumes speak to the Latino influence on American performing arts.”

Costello, who is 94, first appeared in the 1939 musical “Too Many Girls,” and she is credited with supporting a Cuban entertainer so much that he was capable of coming to the United States and getting roles in the movies.

We may never have had “I Love Lucy” if Diosa hadn’t given us Desi Arnaz.

Her career also included appearances in such productions as “South Pacific” and in musical recordings with husband (and bandleader) Pupi Campo.

THOSE ARE JUST a few notes from her career. Which makes the “Latin Bombshell” worthy of mention in the National Museum of American History.

And as for that outfit? Perhaps it can someday have a place next to Fonzie’s jacket (that show really comes across as schmaltzy these days upon watching the re-runs) or Archie Bunker’s chair (that show holds up much better, as a part of me wonders if Bunker's now-adult grandson, Joey, has become a Tea Party-type who now aggravates his "Meathead" father by channeling Archie's outrageous thoughts).

Or at the very least, next to Farrah Fawcett’s red bathing suit (which is still a “Wow!”).

  -30-

Awareness the point of upcoming 30 days

Around about the time that this commentary moves onto the Internet, the fireworks will be exploding all across Mexico and there will be recreations of “el Grito” – the cry for independence that marks the moment in 1810 when the people of the Spanish colonies declared themselves worthy of self-governance.

A postal tribute from 27 years ago

Throughout the day on Friday will be the official celebrations in Mexico of Independence Day, which by tradition actually began Thursday night.

IT’S GOING TO be a patriotic frenzy full of nationalistic rhetoric that can rival anything that was spewed by the far right last weekend (you know, the people who want to think that Sept. 11, 2001 was an attack on conservative Christianity, instead of the entirety of the western world).

And up here?

It’s going to be a much-more-mild celebration in Mexican ethnic enclaves all across the country.

In fact, most Mexican-oriented neighborhoods in this country already had their celebrations last weekend. There isn’t going to be much of anything done related to Mexican Independence Day.

IF ANYTHING, THE activities that will be seen in coming days and weeks will be more likely to be held by other ethnic groups that originate from Latin America.

For this is also Hispanic Heritage Month, which began on Thursday and runs through Oct. 15. Which leads to the old joke about how African-American people should keep quiet about getting the shortest month of the year for Black History Month.

After all, my ethnic brethren don’t even get a complete month of our own in which to boost the public awareness of our contributions to society.

But before anyone starts telling me I have offended them, keep in mind that I know the “logic” behind a mid-September to mid-October time period for trying to boost Latino cultural awareness.

THURSDAY AND FRIDAY are the “Independence” days for so many Latin American nations. The fact that I focused on Mexico’s Independence Day for this particular commentary is a personal choice.

I am fully aware that there are many Latinos (as many as one-third of the total Latino population in the United States) to whom Mexican independence means little to nothing.

Which means the concept of Hispanic Heritage Month varies depending on who is giving it much thought.

To me, it is a period in which we try to provide even more public education to the roughly five-sixths of the U.S. populace that does not have the pleasure or the privilege of being able to call themselves Latino.

EVEN PRESIDENT BARACK Obama couldn’t help but get into the festivities, taking part in an event this week of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute – which celebrated the fact that two of Obama’s cabinet members (Ken Salazar of Interior and Hilda Solis of Labor) are Latino.

I’m curious to see how much more he tries to do to tie himself into the upcoming four weeks to try to bolster his own Latino image prior to the 2012 election cycle.

Most events that will get staged in the near future will be more low-key. They will be meant to try to get more people across the nation to have a chance to enjoy the experience of being Latino.

Because that sharing experience is probably the true point of having a month. It’s not about isolating ourselves. In fact, the people who are most likely to make that kind of attack are the ones who wish they could isolate us.

PERHAPS WE OUGHT to most extend an invitation to all those ideologues who seem determined to demonize us. Perhaps exposure would unravel their ignorance.

Then again, those people seem to enjoy swimming in their cluelessness about the world. All they would do is bring down the mood for the rest of us who are trying to celebrate.

  -30-