Year ends with religious leaders pondering their support for Latinos

A pair of reports worth acknowledging the next time you hear some person rant and rage about religion while trying to put a religious “spin” on their rhetoric.

GEORGE: Telling the truth, on this issue

The Los Angeles Times looked at the Alabama situation where officials have tried imposing new state laws meant to “crack down” on the problem of too many “foreigners” trying to live there.

THEY FOUND CHURCH congregations finding a sudden drop in their membership – because of Latinos who either left the area to avoid harassment OR are now living their lives incredibly underground.

Then, there is the situation involving Chicago Catholic Archdiocese Cardinal Francis George – who in a recent interview with the newscast of the local Fox affiliate said that Republican politicians have caused themselves serious problems because of the way their government officials want to spew intolerant rhetoric when it comes to immigration.

“They’ve got themselves into an impossible bind on immigration,” said the cardinal, which would seem to be backed up by the polls done by the Pew Hispanic Center that show Latinos backing Barack Obama for president by a 2-1 ratio of support even though a majority of Latinos have serious problems with Obama’s performance during the past three years.

In short, Latinos think Obama is too willing to appease those ideologues; who don’t return the favor with their support. There are times I think the only thing that GOP ideologues despise more than the growing Latino population is Obama himself.

THEN AGAIN, OBAMA might well be a close second on the Despise-O-Meter to the growing Latino population.

We have one religious leader admitting the problems being caused by the ethnic rhetoric, and church congregations in Alabama are seeing first-hand how such rhetoric is a turn-off and threatens to make them irrelevant in the society of today.

I could go into more detail about these pieces of reporting, although I think you’re better off reading them for yourselves.

Then go out and celebrate the coming of a new year. Fresh commentary will return here Monday.

  -30-

Rick Santorum gaining? And people wonder why Latinos not trusting of GOP for president!

I’m not really surprised that Rick Santorum, the one-time Pennsylvania senator with a record of hostility toward many, including the growing Latino population, is actually gaining in support in Iowa – the state that will have its presidential caucuses next week.

The Republican primary is going to consist of many, many voters who are desperate to vote for Anybody But Mitt (as in Romney). They’re even willing to turn to a guy who (if he were to get the nomination) would be a blatant statement by the GOP voters that they care less about any of the party leader rhetoric about the need to appeal to Latino voters.

AS FAR AS I’m concerned, the fact that this is the way the Republican electorate is behaving is the exact explanation for the apparent contradiction that came out in a new study released this week by the Pew Hispanic Center.

The focal point of its study is that Latinos are disgusted with President Barack Obama on account of the fact that he’s willing to play along with the conservative ideologue desires when it comes to immigration and increased deportations.

Fifty-nine percent of all Latinos questioned by Pew said they disapproved of Obama because of the increase in deportations that have occurred during his administration.

Only 27 percent said they “approved” of the president’s conduct – which is something that he is doing to try to persuade the conservative ideologues to lighten up their opposition toward serious immigration reform. Of course, those ideologues merely use it to boost their demands for more deportations; then blame Obama for not giving it to them.

SO YES, THERE are many Latinos who are disgusted with the fact that Obama didn’t bother to address immigration reform when there was a chance to squeeze it through Congress (preferring to push for healthcare reform instead). And the fact that he appears more interested in appeasing the ideologues rather than pushing for needed reform doesn’t bolster his Latino backing.

Yet there’s no way that this “disgust” is going to translate into Latino votes for a Republican candidate. Any party whose backers are now turning to Santorum as an option for president isn’t going to get our support.

Which is why that same Pew study shows that Latinos will vote by a 2-1 ratio for Obama over any Republican nominee. In short, the same ratio of support that Latinos gave Obama over John McCain in the 2008 election cycle.

Specifically, Pew says Latinos would vote 68 percent to 23 percent for Obama over Mitt Romney, and 69 percent to 23 percent over Rick Perry.

SO EVEN THE candidate (Romney) who the political pundits claim is the Republican Party’s best chance to actually beat Obama come Nov. 6 would still lose the Latino vote overwhelmingly.

Keep in mind that the Pew study says that Obama would only beat Romney by a 49 percent to 47 percent vote among all voters (regardless of ethnicity). Which could well mean a virtual tie – with Latinos becoming the potential to break a tie in any Obama/Romney election.

Should that become the reality of the 2012 general election cycle. But that seems to be the “nightmare scenario” for a large share of the Republican electorate.

So in the election cycle that seems destined to be the one where voters pick for the person they “hate” less, it is really starting to look like the GOP “disgust” level is going to wind up doing themselves in.

IN FACT, THAT Pew study also showed that only 12 percent of Latinos think the Republican Party is more concerned about Latinos. It can be spun as being a significant boost, since a similar study by Pew two years ago showed only 6 percent of Latinos thought highly of the GOP.

But 12 percent? That’s as bad as the perception of all people in this country when it comes to Congress (13 percent approval, according to the Gallup Organization).

And that is bad!

  -30-

Pair of Latino-oriented films make Library of Congress’ collection of historic, significant movies

I couldn’t help but notice a pair of the films that made this year’s additions to the Library of Congress collection of movies that they are working to preserve as cultural treasures of our society.

That doesn’t necessarily mean “best,” which is good. Because I don’t think I’d include Stand and Deliver or El Mariachi on any list of cinematic bests – although both are among films that I find myself watching if I happen to be flipping through channels and stumble across them in mid-broadcast.

BUT WHILE MOST of the news coverage I read or watched about this year’s additions to the list focused on the fact that Silence of the Lambs and Forrest Gump made it, I get more of a kick out of these two additions.

Latinos can be a part of the pop culture without getting overly schmaltzy or preachy. Although the former film that starred Edward James Olmos doing his take on educator Jaime Escalante had its own cheesy moments.

But I can remember that when the film came out in 1988, I had an uncle and aunt who made a point of seeing it at the movie theater several times BECAUSE they enjoyed the idea of a cinematic effort with Latino characters who succeeded in their efforts.

Even the one gang-banger character in the film (portrayed by non-Latino actor Lou Diamond Phillips) winds up being a success – getting one of the highest scores on the Advanced Placement calculus exam of all the “students” portrayed.

IT MIGHT NOT be the most historically-accurate portrayal of what really happened back in the 1980s at Garfield High School in East Los Angeles. But it doesn’t stretch the truth any more than most movies do.

Cramming an entire school year’s worth of details into a film of less than two hours is impossible UNLESS certain elements get condensed. And nobody claimed that Stand and Deliver was meant to be a documentary effort.

But I get more of a kick out of the fact that El Mariachi is getting some recognition, because it was the film that was made for some $7,000 by college student Robert Rodriguez – who came up with the cash by working a side job as a janitor.

Watching the action film that sees so many bloodied bodies in the U.S./Mexico border town of Ciudad Acuña was made less gruesome by the fact that the acting is so bad that it comes across as good.

THIS FILM WAS considered interesting enough that it essentially got remade into a much more commercial effort starring Antonio Banderas. Desperado may well have given us Salma Hayek in all her nude glory.

But Banderas, despite his talent, doesn’t match the performance of Carlos Gallardo as the black-clad mariachi who, while looking for musical work, gets mistaken for a hired killer named Azul.

Which itself leads to a line that cracks my brother up everytime he hears it. Azul, of course, is the Spanish word for the color “blue.” Which leads Gallardo’s character to ask (translated to English), “If he’s named ‘blue,’ why doesn’t he wear blue?

Which, when you think about it, is a totally practical question.

THERE ALSO IS the other moment that amuses me about the film. It’s villain is a would-be drug dealer named Mauricio (the one who dies at the end after being shot by Gallardo's mariachi-turned-killer – who goes by the nickname of “Moco.”

Which translates from Spanish to English as mucus. Or booger.

The only other film I’m aware of that had a character named “booger” was the 1984 film Revenge of the Nerds (he was the grotesque one played by actor Curtis Armstrong who “won” an arm-wrestling contest by blowing snot into his palm to disgust his opponent).

And, somehow, I doubt that Revenge of the Nerds will ever make the Library of Congress’ collection of films worthy of historic preservation.

  -30-

Better late than never, judge rules for obvious!

SNOW: Ruling for the incredibly obvious

It came just as government officials were rushing to complete business and close for a three-day holiday weekend. So perhaps the ruling by U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow should be considered something of a Christmas present for those of us with an interest in the growing Latino population.

Yet if it is a present, it is one that has the appeal of a pair of socks or a sweater – practical, but dull.

FOR THE REALITY is that Snow’s ruling that specifies that a non-citizen physically being in the United States without a valid visa is not, in and of itself, a felony offense isn’t some drastic change in policy.

It is THE LAW, as currently written. Only the conservative ideologues who want the law to reflect their own personal hang-ups think that the law says anything other than that.

The reality is that those people found to be in this country without valid citizenship or some sort of visa aren’t committing a criminal act (although one who has repeatedly entered the United States without papers can be charged with a crime – if prosecutors deem it necessary).

The ideologues always like to engage in rants that claim the “illegal aliens” (using government-speak, rather than real English) are worthy of arrest upon detection because they’re committing a crime – just by being in this country.

THAT IS NONSENSE, and it is good to see that a federal judge is willing to issue a ruling that specifies just how nonsensical it truly is.

The only people who are going to have an objection to Snow’s ruling from Friday are the ideologues – because now they’re going to be confronted with the fact that it doesn’t matter how much they scream or how loudly they do so.

Much of the nonsense they spew when it comes to the subject of immigration reform is wrong. The sooner that realization hits the political people of our nation, the sooner we will be able to make sense of the bureaucratic maze that U.S. immigration policy has evolved into.

So Snow didn’t really change anything. He reinforced what was already in place (but which some people are determined to ignore).

THAT IS WHY I consider it a “gift” the equivalent of clothes for a young child. It doesn’t create a lot of excitement.

It is practical. It is useful. But it is not as though we have anyone making a serious change in policy that will push the debate forward.

If anything, Snow has merely reinforced the idea that he likely will be demonized by all kinds of anonymous crazy people using the Internet to say what they don’t have the nerve to so in polite society.

It also is why we don’t have Latino activists making a big issue of Snow and praising him for his efforts. All he’s doing is upholding the law.

WHICH AS APPLIED to the conduct of Maricopa County, Ariz. Sheriff Joe Arpaio is truly a change of pace, and which has the activists this week demanding his resignation.

For too many eyes are now seeing that the conduct of that sheriff’s department for the greater Phoenix area when it came to Latinos was to single my ethnic brethren out for abuse because they didn’t fit his definition of who “belongs” in this country.

Although I don’t share the desires of some activists who want Arpaio prosecuted, and are talking about what it would be like for him to be incarcerated in his own jail, and reduced to wearing pink-colored underwear like he forces inmates to do to try to “shame” them.

Personally, I think such actions would merely reinforce Arpaio’s sense of self-importance. I’d rather see him reduced to insignificance – so that five or so decades from now, we won’t have a clue that such a person could ever think of himself as a legitimate law enforcement official.

  -30-

What a diff’rence two months make

It was just a couple of months ago that Yorvit Torrealba of the Texas Rangers was on the cover of Sports Illustrated, which used a photograph of him trying to tag out Jon Jay of the St. Louis Cardinals for their cover of the issue reporting on the World Series this year.

Now, Torrealba is the ballplayer that many fans want to dump all over; on account of the fact that he got into a scrap and punched out an umpire – while playing beisbol for the Caracas Lions in the Venezuelan League.

IT SEEMS THAT Torrealba didn’t like the fact that an umpire said he struck out during a game last week (although it was clear that he swung, and missed, the pitch) and ended his arguing with the ump with a punch – which looks to me more like a push right on his face mask.

Not that I’m excusing such behavior. Baseball rules make it clear that strikes and balls are un-arguable. And making contact with an official is always a no-no.

So it can be seen as a harsh penalty that was handed down on Monday by the Venezuelan League’s officials. A 66-game suspension – which means he’s off his team for their four remaining games of this season and he loses the option of playing baseball in Venezuela next season – since those teams play 62-game schedules.

With all this hanging over his head, I doubt there’s any chance that the Venezuelan League’s champion would try to include him on their roster for the Caribbean Series (as it usually tries to do with peloteros who have U.S. major league experience).

WITH THAT MUCH of a layoff, who’s to say if he’ll ever be able to play baseball in the Venezuelan League again? Which considering that Torrealba is a Venezuela native, it probably is a big deal for him.

Because while having a contract to play baseball with the Texas Rangers in the United States means he brings in some decent money, the Latin American ballplayers who make a point of returning home to play in the winter leagues in places like the Dominican Republic or Puerto Rico usually consider those the games they play for personal pride.

It’s about showing just what kind of a man one truly is. And now, Torrealba is branded as a “thug,” of sorts.

What will be interesting is to see how this plays over in the United States – as a reading of assorted Internet comment sections make it clear that many baseball fans in this country expect the Texas Rangers to do something to punish Yorvit as well.

NOT THAT THE Rangers of the American League are expected to honor a suspension handed down by the Venezuelan League. Although it is curious that when Manny Ramirez tried to get around a 100-game suspension in U.S. baseball (about two-thirds of the season) by playing baseball in the Dominican Republic, officials there chose to reject his desire UNTIL the U.S. suspension was served.

So who’s to say what will happen with Torrealba, who at best is a reserve catcher with the two-time American League champion Texas Rangers. Is this going to be the excuse that Texas uses to try to unload him onto some less desirable team?

Although I must admit to preferring this story to the last one that involved a Venezuelan League ballplayer. Remember catcher Wilson Ramos of the Aragua Tigers (and the Washington Nationals during the summer) being kidnapped?

At least this “story” is for on-field activity.

ALTHOUGH IT STRIKES me as ironic that Torrealba will be the “controversial” ballplayer this season from the Venezuelan League.

Because I’m sure this season (which runs from mid-October though Dec. 30, with playoffs in January and the Caribbean Series the first week of February) was supposed to be the year that the controversy from Venezuela came from Carlos Zambrano.

The summertime pitcher for the Chicago Cubs is pitching for the Anzoategui Caribbeans this season to get himself back into shape and bolster his chances of continuing to pitch in the U.S. major leagues.

Yet aside from getting hit in the head by a batted ball back in November, Zambrano has done little more than rack up an 0-1 won/loss record – with 13 strikeouts in 17 2/3 innings pitched, and an earned run average of 2.55.

Not exactly the stuff of which winter league legends are born.

  -30-

A tamale-less Christmas?

I shouldn’t complain.

I realize there are people in this world who are less fortunate than I was this weekend, which wound up being spent with my brother on Christmas Eve and then the two of us checking up on our father come Christmas Day.

IT’S ALSO NOT like I starved for the weekend. I got to enjoy a couple of ham dinners with all the trimmings during the holiday weekend, and got a real surprise of a prime rib dinner on Saturday night.

I can still feel that huge hunk of beef inside me. Who knows how long it will take for it to totally flush from my system (and no, I’m not in the mood to hear from the vegetarians out there about how much damage I’m doing to myself by eating beef and pork).

Yet, I must confess.

When I spoke to mi Tia Charlene Sunday afternoon and she made an impromptu offer for my brother, Chris, and I to come over to her house for yet ANOTHER holiday meal, a part of me gave it some serious consideration.

NOT BECAUSE I was really hungry (as I write this, I’m nibbling on the remnants of some ham). But because my aunt included in her holiday meal that item that has become a staple of many Mexican-American families trying to retain a touch of the “old country” at Christmas.

Tamales.

She had them. She emphasized the fact that I could get a taste of them if my brother and I came over. Only the fact that I don’t want to stuff myself to the point of gluttony came between me and some tamales – which I am now trying to figure out if I can get a taste of during this post-holiday season.

Tamales during Kwanzaa? Why not!

I HAVE WRITTEN in past holiday seasons about the role that tamales can play in a Mexican ethnic feast. Because making tamales (corn meal stuffed with meat, or a sugar paste, or fruits or actually just about anything you’re imaginative to put in there) is a task that takes up so much time and is difficult to get just right (if you’re not careful, you’ll get something with the texture of paste), it is not something that one gets on a regular basis. It usually is the Mexican ethnic food for special occasions.

In my family, it was the item we got as part of the Christmas holiday meal (with a ham usually made as well, along with all the side dishes that are appropriate to such a meal).

But ever since my maternal grandfather died, tamales became something that my family made a point of making a special trip to a Mexican-oriented grocery or restaurant to obtain. My own mother never bothered to learn how to do them – claiming it was easier to just pick up a few dozen at the store.

Yet that is what caused me to have a tamale-less holiday this year. My brother and I do have a favorite place to get tamales (in Chicago’s South Deering neighborhood, located just southwest of the South Chicago neighborhood that gives this weblog its identity).

BUT IT IS a haul. Somehow, both of us kept coming up with other things to do – preventing us from making the trip to buy a few dozen. And because of the complexity of tamales, most of these businesses only have them available on weekends.

And since the holiday season came on a weekend this year, it meant we could not make a last-minute dash to the restaurant of choice to get them. They were closed to celebrate Christmas.

So maybe this week I’ll be making a trip (and no, I’m not giving away my location. Find your own place for decent tamales) for some of the edibles. Perhaps I’ll start a new tradition.

Ring in the new year with an old holiday staple.

  -30-

“Feliz Navidad” has become a holiday staple

We’ve all been inundated with way too much pop music containing a Christmas holiday theme. Which means I’m sure that we’ve all heard Jose Feliciano’s song, “Feliz Navidad.”

Some of us may well be sick of it. Personally, I got my fill of the song years ago. But it is intriguing to read Feliciano himself reminiscing about the song that is one of his biggest hits – it was inspired by his reminiscing about childhood Christmases, combined with him trying out a new instrument he had just received as a gift.

NOW WHENEVER I strum a few riffs on a guitar, it just comes out as noise. When Feliciano used his cuatro (to the right, which some consider to be Puerto Rico's national instrument) in such a way, it inspired a pop song that will outlive him, and probably all of us.

So I’m taking a break from serious commentary this weekend in hopes of enjoying the holiday. Serious commentary will return Monday. Personally, I’d advise all of you to do the same. There truly is nothing on the Internet this weekend that will be more interesting than anything you encounter in real life.

You might even enjoy the accompanying Feliciano video, which is cheesy in a way that has become mainstream.

But for those of you who want to hear something cheesy that will always remain cheesy and never become conventional, check out either Ricky Martin or Jimmy Boyd. Although personally, I get more of a kick from this moment of the Arkansas-based Subiaco Academy's Christmas concert from last year.

  -30-

Large Latino share unsure what to think come ‘12

I’m not sure what to think of the results of a new poll used by the Telemundo network newscasts to show that President Barack Obama’s Latino support isn’t so hot.

How many Latinos will wear these stickers on Nov. 6?

That poll shows Obama with a 56 percent approval rating among Latinos who were questioned, with 35 percent specifically saying they disapprove.

WHICH STINKS WHEN compared to the fact that two years ago, Obama had a Latino approval rating somewhere in the mid-80 percents. It is being interpreted in some ideological quarters as evidence that Obama’s Latino support is slipping faster than that of the rest of the electorate.

Considering that Obama needs a strong Latino vote support to have a chance of winning come Nov. 6, this could sound bad.

Yet in my mind, I can’t get past the latter figure. The 35 percent. Which is supposedly the share of Latinos who do not approve of Obama and are likely to vote against him.

Considering that even in Obama’s supposed Latino “dominance” of 2008, opponent John McCain took 32 percent of the vote, it just seems to me that there is a certain segment of Latinos who want to be a part of the Republican establishment,.

WHICH IS THEIR right, if they so choose. I just don’t see any big jump between 32 percent in ’08 and a possible 35 percent in ’12.

So if Obama is losing Latino support, it sure isn’t going over to the Republican opposition. It also has me thinking that the remaining 9 percent (56 plus 35 equals 91, which is short of 100) is that share of the people who are dismayed with Obama but disgusted with the hostility of the GOP.

Could it be that one in every 10 Latinos who could vote will decide that casting a ballot for president next year isn’t worth their time or effort?

THAT strikes me as being a more realistic vision of what is going through the Latino voter mindset these days, than any grand notions of how Obama is driving Latinos over to the one-time Party of Lincoln that wishes it could be a twisted version of what Ronald Reagan was really about.

IT ALSO FITS in completely with the way I have always perceived this upcoming election. Obama’s chances at victory will depend on part on whether Latino voters bother to vote. Because while Obama will “win” the Latino vote in 2012, fewer voters overall would reduce its share of significance.

If that 9 percent of Latinos decides not to vote at all, it converts that 56 percent of Latino backers for Obama into 62 percent support of the people who do vote. But 62 percent of a smaller voter pool isn’t worth as much.

It could be the factor that causes us to be stuck with someone who’s going to feel their political allegiance to those people who want punitive policies directed at us.

Which probably will be the primary motivating factor for many Latinos who do ultimately decide to show up at polling places on Election Day.

WHO DO WE “hate” more? A truly depressing reason to vote. But it may well be the one that Latinos have, and which makes us have something in common with the electorate at-large.

There is too much evidence these days that this upcoming election cycle will be one where people vote against the person they don’t want to be president, rather than for someone they would want to be the nation’s chief executive.

All of which makes me think my ethnic brethren have assimilated into this society much more than the ideologues would ever want to give us credit.

  -30-

Latinos engage in political tactics, but will they work?

Latino aldermen in Chicago are trying to get a share of the City Council roughly equal to the 29 percent of the city’s population that they have according to the most recent Census Bureau count.

Which is a completely noble goal that only the hardest-headed of conservative ideologues could have an opposition to.

YET LEARNING OF the latest tactic being employed by Latino officials in Chicago to try to have the city ward boundaries redrawn in a way that reflects the new reality (33 percent African-American, 32 percent white, 29 percent Latino and the remaining 6 percent Asian or other) of the city’s 2.7 million people count makes me wonder if it will work.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel has tried to avert the idea of an ethnic “war” over redistricting by saying he will push for a slashing of the Chicago City Council from 50 to 25 wards – if the aldermen can’t get their act together and agree on a new ward map.

Which the council’s Latino Caucus is countering by saying the equivalent of, “Bring it on!” Those alderman offered up a map of ward boundaries based on the idea of 25 wards, split equally among Latinos, white people and black people.

In fact, 25^th Ward Alderman Danny Solis went so far as to tell the Chicago Sun-Times newspaper that Latinos would benefit if city officials had to start all over with drawing ward boundaries.

BECAUSE BY KEEPING 50 wards, there is the idea of needing to respect existing boundaries as much as possible – even though many of those boundaries date back to an era when the city’s Latino population was confined to a few neighborhoods instead of being a significant part of a large swath of Chicago.

At least that’s what he wants us to believe. Personally, I’m skeptical.

If anything, I wonder if the idea of larger wards means that the city’s neighborhoods (many of which have specific ethnic flavors to them) will be ignored, because so many neighborhoods would have to be combined in order to create a larger-scale ward out of 25.

And when that happens, it makes me wonder if the potential for gerrymandering will become even larger.

IT MAKES ME think that the political operatives who already are trying to keep the growth in Latino population from knocking out too many incumbent aldermen (regardless of whether they are black or white) will gain even more control over the process.

It makes me skeptical of the idea that a real-life 25-ward map would have eight black-oriented wards, eight white wards, seven Latino wards and two others that could have strong chances of being either black or Latino in ethnic orientation.

Because if there really is a hard-and-fast “rule” of electoral politics, it is that there are no rules, and certainly no guarantees, about how future elections will turn out.

In fact, there’s really only one part of this Latino-inspired reduction to 25 wards that I do like – the fact that it means Latino officials are realizing they are going to have to take the initiative in terms of gaining anything in the way of political empowerment.

WHETHER OR NOT this particular tactic (which the Sun-Times characterized as “calling Emanuel’s bluff”) works, it is a sign that Latino officials are seeing the need to take actions on our own. Nobody is going to give us anything out of the goodness of their hearts.

If anything, any support we get will be from someone who expects us to align with their interests in the future – rather than look out for our own.

As for those who will claim that this sounds like divisiveness being caused by “all those foreigners,” I’d say it is exactly what electoral politics has been about for generations.

Now, we’re trying to play a significant role. Which is what ought to be occurring everywhere. Not just in Chicago.

  -30-

Ideologues prepared to battle with churches at Christmas over immigration?

We’re talking about Catholics, Episcopalians and Methodists. Not exactly fringe religious elements in our society by anyone’s definition.

Robert Bentley has Alabama church officials ...



Their leaders down in Alabama were among a half-dozen religious officials who sent a letter this week to Gov. Robert Bentley saying that in the Christmas spirit, he ought to consider a repeal of the laws that state’s Legislature passed this year to get itself involved in immigration matters.

AS THOUGH ALABAMA doesn’t have enough real problems to cope with, they feel the need to take on this issue – and naturally, they picked the wrong side. Leave it to ideologue politicos to always do that.

Bentley on Monday responded quickly – having an aide sent out a statement saying that he has no intention of supporting a repeal of the immigration measure that officials like to brag is the nation’s “toughest.”

Which strikes me as being as ridiculous as an old Saturday Night Live sketch in which a Bill Clinton character (portrayed by the late Phil Hartman) bragged that his home state of Arkansas had just surpassed Mississippi in adult literacy rates (going from 50^th to 49^th), and was getting ready to make a push on surpassing Alabama.

All I know is that I suspect we’re going to hear a lot of cheap rhetoric this week from many of the same people who are ardent supporters of this measure in relation to this being the days leading up to Christmas.

BECAUSE, AFTER ALL, Jesus is the reason for this season, they will tell us. Or some other cheap variation on that line that has become a cliche.

... as upset as Pat Quinn bothers some Ill. catholics



Yet when the real religious leaders talk about compassion being particularly essential during this holiday season, we get the tons of Internet rhetoric (all of which will be anonymous) from people who think the church should pipe down, or mind its own business.

I couldn’t help one person who suggested to the Birmingham News newspaper that churches should have their tax exemptions revoked if they’re going to comment on government issues.

Which might be a semi-legitimate point, but not in this context.

FOR I SUSPECT that this individual would be all for the exemption, provided that the church only said “appropriate” things (as designated by conservative ideologues) and kept its collective mouth shut on any other issues.

That strikes me as being a very anti-religious attitude to have, although I suspect these people think they’re the religious ones and that it’s the rest of the world that has a problem.

Of course, it’s not just on immigration that this kind of attitude can arise. It reminds me of the situation in my home state of Illinois where Gov. Pat Quinn recently had a meeting with Catholic church leaders who thought they were going to be able to tell the governor what kinds of actions he can take with regards to abortion or gay marriage.

Quinn has supported measures on those issues that leaned toward “the left.” That upset the church, including Cardinal Francis George, who didn’t buy into Quinn’s explanation that while he is Catholic, he was elected in 2010 to be governor to all Illinoisans.

PERHAPS THE PEOPLE of Alabama wish they had Chicago’s Catholic establishment for religious leaders. Then again, even these same officials are in agreement with their Alabama counterparts when it comes to immigration.

The simple fact is that many churches see the current immigration laws as being flawed in that they create circumstances where (according to the letter of the law) families can be split up permanently.

Keeping families (such as the Girons of South Gate, Calif.) together is what the churches favor, because they see it as compassionate and rather conservative. Letting families get split up is a radical, and immoral, concept in their minds.

Anybody who has a problem with that last statement, particularly at this time of year, is someone I’d rather not meet. In fact, I’ll go so far as to put another label on them – un-American. I’m sure that one hurts them the most.

  -30-

R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Find out what it means to me

Aretha Franklin isn’t any Celia Cruz. But perhaps she was onto something some four decades ago when she recorded the old Otis Redding song and made “Respect” into her namesake hit.

Because when it comes to the question, “What do the Latinos want?,” it really is a matter of respect.

WHICH IS SOMETHING that the socially conservative ideologues of our society don’t want to give. It also is the reason why GOP political operatives create nothing more than snickers whenever they talk about their strategies and tactics for taking the Latino vote in the upcoming election cycle.

What triggered this particular commentary was my rambling around the Internet on Monday when I stumbled across a website for a syndicated radio program that last week published a piece with the headline, What are Latino voters looking for?

In my head, the mental jukebox immediately triggered Franklin’s powerful voice telling us about “respect” and that’s all she wants from her man.

It also is what Latinos want from the society at-large. All those people who persist in thinking there are plots by pregnant Mexican women to sneak across the southwestern deserts in order to have their children in this country to enrich themselves are showing off not only their own ignorance, but their lack of respect.

THEY WANT TO demonize anything unlike themselves, because that can be easier than taking the time to comprehend someone else. It's really that simple.

In fact, I couldn’t help but notice that the website asking that question wound up having a reader comments section that devolved into rants against Newt Gingrich (for showing sympathy toward the Latino population), the Southern Poverty Law Center and people who are offended by states like Arizona and Alabama for their latest legislative actions that meddle in immigration issues.

All definitely disrespectful. And all complete evidence of why various polls show that Latinos are just as concerned about education or economic issues as anyone else, yet still want to know about the immigration stances.

For we realize that too many people use immigration as a way of showing their general comprehension of the ethnic changes occurring in this country these days.

THE PEOPLE WHO most often rant and rage are the ones who don’t want to respect our existence, and somehow have fantasies about our decline in numbers north of the Rio Bravo del Norte/Rio Grande. To put it in terms they might better comprehend – it ain’t gonna happen!

Of course, another Internet posting that caught my attention was a letter written to the Christian Science Monitor by Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, a long-time immigration ideologue who lets those views influence (some would say warp) his conduct as chairman of the House Judiciary committee.

He wants to believe that Republican/conservative political empowerment can advance without acknowledging the Latino population of this country.

What amused me the most was his claim that in the 2010 elections, 38 percent of Latinos voted for a Republican to represent them in Congress. It may well be true in that some Latinos live in areas where they don’t have much of a choice.

BUT IT JUST strikes me as being pathetic that a public official thinks 38 percent is all that good. It means 62 percent of Latino voters didn’t pick your guy.

You have to do a lot better than that in order to legitimately claim that you have gained a significant share of the Latino vote.

Which to me makes it seem that people like Smith don’t really want to have Latino voters around. Like their idea of the ideal is one where we just don’t exist.

That doesn’t sound very respectful to me. Perhaps they need a dose of Aretha, even though I think a more appropriate song for them would be Franklin’s follow-up in “Think.”

  -30-

Does Justice Dept. view give Atencio claims credence?

CLARIFICATION: This commentary has been altered slightly to account for Marty Atencio's medical condition. Although the changes in no way alter the point that was trying to be made.

-0-

Of all the crummy times for someone to have nearly died while in the custody of the Marcopa County, Ariz., sheriff’s office, it had to come this weekend.

Because of the fact that the Justice Department last week issued a report contending that the sheriff’s office’s conduct in recent years has been hostile toward Latinos to the point where we are being singled out – rather than protected – by the police, you’d think the sheriff would want to remain low-key and not do anything stupid that might add credence to such allegations.

INSTEAD, AN INCIDENT occurred Friday that is now getting international attention, and only goes to confirm the suspicions of those who want to think that the law enforcement agency run by Sheriff Joe Arpaio is suspect.

The incident in question involves Ernest “Marty” Atencio. The 44-year-old military veteran of the first Gulf War (the one to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi head Saddam Hussein) was arrested Friday and taken to the jail.

Sheriff’s police would have us think that Atencio became unruly and that his behavior created the need for the use of force by law enforcement officials.

According to reports from the New Times newspaper of Phoenix, that “force” came in the form of a Taser device meant to stun him. Instead, it induced a heart attack and Atencio at one point was dead, before being revived and remaining "brain dead" for the present.

HIS BROTHER, MIKE, is going around using the word “murder” to describe the actions, and it seems that many are willing to give such a thought the benefit of the doubt. Could it be that the attitude of these law enforcement officials toward the growing Latino population is just so intensely negative that what we need is a massive overhaul of that department?

It may be. Because at the very least, you’d think the sheriff’s department would be looking to avoid any incidents that can cause problems – even though it seems that the initial word about Atencio’s death while in the sheriff’s department’s custody came from someone who is a political rival of Arpaio.

Which means there is political gain for Mike Stauffer in having this incident become public. But this can’t all be written off by Arpaio backers as nothing more than partisan politics at work.

So now, the eyes of investigators who already were trying to figure out just how far gone the sheriff’s department for the Phoenix, Ariz., metropolitan area has become also have to figure out if use of the word “murder” in this case is overkill – or legally appropriate. This is going to arouse the public anger.

BECAUSE THE ONE thing that, based on various news accounts (that could have missing details) in existence, seems apparent is that Atencio’s condition was caused by his reaction to the use of a Taser – which was the act of a fellow human being.

What comes into play in determining whether using the word “murder” is appropriate or libelous is whether the officer who used the Taser device had a clue that they were using it in a way that could cause death – rather than the intended (I’m presuming) effect of knocking him unconscious for a little while.

Because if it could be shown to be a deliberate use, then this does become a criminal case – instead of an accident.

We’ll also have to learn more about what provoked the matter to rise to the level of Taser use, even though I’m sure police will fight like crazy to eliminate this aspect of the case.

AFTER ALL, WHAT if police were doing something that could be construed as provoking Atencio into trying to fight back?

There are those who are going to want to give law enforcement the benefit of the doubt in terms of believing that the police would only use force if provoked. Heck, I’d like to believe that same thing.

But if even the Justice Department is willing to admit the problems that have long existed in Maricopa County, then a part of me fears how ugly the Atencio matter is going to become before it is resolved to anyone’s satisfaction.

  -30-