The South Chicagoan

"Illegal status (i)s a civil matter"

2009-11-27T10:10:00.004-06:00

That headline is a snippet from an editorial published recently by the New York Times that I am sure is giving indigestion to the nativists of our nation. I'm sure in their minds, it is reinforcing the idea that the Times is out of touch with their views.

In reality, it merely shows that those people are out of touch with a certain level of common sense when it comes to the issue of immigration reform.

FOR THE TIMES' editorial caught my attention because it so clearly stated what ought to be the underlying principle of whatever measure winds up becoming the Obama administration's attempt to revamp the nation's immigration laws.

The Times went so far as to ridicule the idea expressed so often by these people who want to build their walls in the southwestern U.S. desert that some people are illegal and committing crimes by their very existence.

Such a concept is pure nonsense. But it also is the way in which many local officials try to justify having their police departments take punitive actions against people. They claim they want to get involved in national security, even though their actions show just how far in over their heads they truly are.

This ultimately is a federal issue -- one in which the locals wind up mucking things up all the more when they start trying to run through databases the identities of anyone they want to suspect of somehow not belonging in this country.

BECAUSE ULTIMATELY, IT means their prejudices and presumptions wind up singling out certain people for abuse, while failing to realize that people who don't have that valid visa truly do come in all colors and ethnic backgrounds.

There also is the reality that not all law enforcement agencies are pulling such stunts. Which means ultimately, people when encountering police can't be sure if they're going to face undue harassment because someone looks at them and wants to think they should be somewhere else far, far away.

It was such unequal application that ultimately caused the death penalty in this country to be struck down as unconstitutional back in 1972. You'd think similar legal logic would cause all these local measures to be knocked down for the count. Perhaps it will someday. But that does us little good for now.

For what it's worth, the Times' editorial is worth checking out (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/opinion/27fri2.html?th&emc=th), if for nothing more than getting a chuckle over how much it is irritating the xenophobes of our society while they are trying to do their holiday shopping.

-30-

What is Thanksgiving's true lesson?

2009-11-26T00:02:00.001-06:00

It has become a theme used by some Latino activists wishing to be a bit obnoxious come Thanksgiving -- one that even I have used from time to time.

It is the concept that Latinos have some sort of special "bond" with the native tribes that the Pilgrims met up with when they arrived back in the 17th Century in what is now Massachusetts.

SOME GO SO far as to take shots at the Pilgrims, calling them the original illegal aliens. Yet there are times when I wonder just how fair, or accurate, that is.

Not so much the part about the Pilgrims being "illegal," because it does accurately show how artificial the concepts of "legal" and "illegal" truly are. But the idea that the tribes native to what is now New England are somehow synonymous with Latinos is a stretch.

The simple fact is that the native tribes indigenous to Massachusetts are not the same as the ones from the southwestern United States, let alone what is now Mexico or any of the other countries that comprise Latin America.

Only a buffoon believes that all "Indians" are alike -- or even Indian, for that matter.

I DOUBT THOSE tribes who attended the first Thanksgiving had much of a clue about their racial brethren that lived in what we now think of as Latin America. They probably would have thought them equally as "foreign" as all those English people who suddenly showed up to stomp on Plymouth Rock.

Now I know that people from Mexico take some pride in the fact that their racial composition is a mixture of the Spanish and indigenous elements. Give some of us our way, and we'll start proclaiming ourselves to be pure-blooded Aztec.

Yet this is a case where rhetoric doesn't match the reality of history. It's not like the tribes of the 19th Century thought any more highly of the Mexican government than it did that of the United States. Both countries have their moments that they should be less than proud of, at least if they seriously want anyone in the world to think of them as places of compassion on Planet Earth.

It is because of that fact that I don't feel it totally correct for Latino activists to be making too much of Thanksgiving as history. It feels a bit hypocritical to claim a kinship that never truly existed.

IF THERE IS a lesson to be learned from Thanksgiving, it is one a bit more universal. Regardless of what one thinks of the religious ideals of the Pilgrims, they were newcomers to a land who initially received cooperation from the native tribes.

There was no cheap talk about legal, illegal or whether people did or didn't belong. The problems arose when such concepts were introduced by the successors to the Pilgrims, who adopted a sense of entitlement to their new homeland.

Some would go for the cheap rhetorical points and say the reason the nativists fear newcomers who aren't exactly like themselves is that they fear we will treat them as badly as their ancestors treated everybody else.

But I'll say the lesson of Thanksgiving is that it was a time when differing peoples coexisted peacefully and with with cooperation. It's too bad we can't achieve the same attitude today.

-30-

When will immigration be loved?

2009-11-24T00:02:00.000-06:00

It was intriguing to learn of Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and his recent comments that the Democrats pushing for health care reform are eager to have the issue resolved before New Year’s Day.

According to Durbin, Democrats are viewing 2009 as the year they focused on revamping the health care system so as to ensure that many of the 47 million currently uninsured people in this country would gain some sort of means to pay for medical treatment.

BY THAT SAME thought, 2010 becomes the year that Congress and the president will focus on measures meant to jolt the national economy back into shape (beyond the short-term measures that President Barack Obama pushed for early this year, and which his GOP critics are determined to think of as failures – even though they appear to be working).

Does this mean that those of us who see a reform of the immigration laws as an equally significant issue are now going to get “the economy” used as an excuse to ignore us – thereby banishing our concerns about the federal laws that regulate immigration to the United States to some future year?

I’d like to think that the senator from Springfield, Ill., merely oversimplified, and that his rhetoric doesn’t mean that immigration is getting pushed further back, since Obama himself (along with his political allies) has hinted that next year is the year that immigration will be dealt with.

In one sense, it makes sense not to do it next year, since immigration reform is going to be a hot-button issue that will make this year’s rhetoric against heath care reform seem like sugar-coated kisses being blown to the president.

WHY BRING UP such rhetoric in an election year?

Yet such an attitude is short sighted, because it underestimates the significance of the immigration reform issue to a portion of the population. Heck, there probably are some people in this country who believe that immigration reform was of a higher priority than health care reform (I find it hard to pick between the two, they both are significant problems confronting our society).

I hope the president realizes that if he and his allies truly are looking for excuses to put off doing something decent to reform the immigration laws, he stands to anger a significant chunk of the U.S. population.

Doing nothing (a.k.a., maintaining the flawed status quo) may wind up angering as many people as doing something.

THIS IS ONE of those issues that is going to have to come up – and the sooner we revamp it, the better off we are because we can then begin the process of healing that our society will have to go through as a result of reform.

For there are those people in our society who have a warped idea of reform – more deportations, and more federal dollars wasted on building those barriers along the U.S./Mexico border.

In short, true reform of the federal immigration laws is going to wind up offending their twisted sensibilities, similar to how the Civil Rights legislation passed by Congress during the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson went against the so-called “way of life” that existed in the Southern U.S.

Yet now, we have made progress toward resolving some of the “hurt feelings” that were stirred up in the South (and in other parts of the nation, bigotry wasn’t restricted purely to Dixie) as a result of the legislation.

EVEN THOUGH SOME political analysts still like to push the idea of the Civil Rights Act as LBJ’s political mistake that hurt the Democratic Party – as though leaving the status quo in place would have been proper – most of us now realize that is revisionism by an awkward fringe of our society.

Likewise, in future decades we’re going to realize that trying to put in place laws that try to inhibit the natural order of our society – that Latino population is going to grow no matter what kind of legislative straightjacket one tries to put on it – are equally ridiculous.

Immigration reform’s time is overdue – it probably should have occurred during the years of George W. Bush as president, but didn’t because he couldn’t restrain the nativists of his political party from letting their worst fears run amok.

Now, it is Obama’s turn to take a crack at the issue. His success (or failure) on that issue will be an equally big (if not bigger) part of his ultimate legacy than health care. Let’s hope that Obama’s legacy doesn’t become that he tried to play political dodgeball with the issue.

-30-

We need an honest definition of who is a “real American”

2009-11-20T00:02:00.002-06:00

Strictly speaking, it’s not a Latino issue. But the saga involving Amal Abusumayah brings up so many issues that are relevant to the Latino experience when dealing with people who have a small-minded view of what our society ought to be.

Abusumayah is the woman who was shopping at a supermarket in the Chicago suburb of Tinley Park when someone went out of their way to make a rude comment to her about Arabs, then later tried to yank the hijab off her head.

IN SHORT, IT was an incident of anti-Arab sentiment, and the woman (who is white) who was involved in the incident against Abusumayah was arrested by local police. Earlier this week, she had a $5,000 bond set, and she could get some time in prison if ultimately convicted – since police went so far as to seek “hate crime” charges against her.

Of course, the incident had to occur within days of a study commissioned by BusinessWeek magazine that said Tinley Park, Ill., was the best municipality in the United States in which to raise children.

It will be interesting to see which event – the study or the incident – sticks in the public’s mind when it comes to the Chicago suburb’s reputation.

As reported, Abusumayah was trying to shop for groceries when the woman made comments about the gunman at Fort Hood, Texas, claiming he was a foreigner and so was she. Then, when Abusumayah was trying to use the self-checkout lane at the supermarket, the woman came up from behind her and tried to rip off the head scarf that she wears as a religious gesture of modesty.

THERE HAVE BEEN some people who have been critical of the fact that “hate crime” charges were sought because they want to believe that there is some level at which trying to make someone uncomfortable about their ethnicity is somehow either appropriate, or the type of harassment that people like Abusumayah just have to learn to put up with.

Which is why I couldn’t help but comment on this incident, since it sounds all to common to many of the incidents of harassment that Latinos are confronted with each day.

Now as reported, the woman who was so offended by Abusumayah’s presence in the supermarket made comments about people not belonging in this country, even though it turns out that all the people she specifically mentioned were U.S. born – which means they’re U.S. citizens who have every right to be in this country.

That is the case for Army Major Nidal Hasan, who was from the Virginia-based suburbs of Washington, D.C., and for Abusumayah, whose parents were immigrants from the Middle East but herself was raised in Berwyn.

WHO OUTSIDE OF the Son of Svengoolie – that Chicago-based television host whose Berwyn fetish is better known than the tacky horror films he narrates – would have a problem with that?

What this comes down to is that someone has their own idea of what constitutes a “real American,” and it doesn’t include someone who doesn’t come from a background identical to their own.

It is the same twist of logic that Latinos often have to cope with when people get worked up about the fact that the Latino population is growing at rates that will make us an equal presence in numbers by the middle of the century – and already have us at a significant share of the U.S. population now.

It really is the case for Latinos, a growing percentage of whom are born in the United States and come from parts of the country that once were a part of Latin America. Listening to actress and Texan Eva Longoria describe herself as a 9th generation American when she appeared last week on George Lopez’ talk show is interesting because it is a claim that few of these so-called “real Americans” can make.

SO EXCUSE ME for feeling a little bit of sympathy for Abusumayah.

Her story is one that has been experienced by so many others whose ethnic origins lie in Latin America. The encouraging aspect of this incident is that the local officials didn’t hem and haw and try to figure out legalistic reasons by which the woman could be let off for her alleged actions against Abusumayah.

So perhaps that is one bit of evidence that our nation is moving in the right direction.

But the real progress will be achieved when certain people quit thinking of “foreigner!” as an expletive every time they see someone who doesn’t look exactly like they do.

-30-

Who seriously wants the trade embargo?

2009-11-19T09:28:00.000-06:00

I got a kick out of reading the results of a new poll taken of the Cuban people (as in the ones still living on the island, not the exile community centered spiritually around Miami).

For it seems that this particular survey shows the bulk of the island’s population is ready to see the United States as their country’s salvation – even though the Communist government there has long peddled the idea that los Estados Unidos is responsible for everything that is wrong.

IT SEEMS THAT the old cliché, “the grass is greener on the other side of the fence,” is at work here. It seems that 75 percent of the Cuban people are in favor of a transition to Democracy (with another 19 percent having “no answer” to the question).

And even though the issue was never brought up in the poll proper, 8 percent of those surveyed said they thought the United States would go a long way toward helping the Cuban people if they were to do away with the half-century-old trade embargo that was meant to isolate Cuba from the world, but has wound up providing los hermanos Castro with their key talking point in criticizing the U.S. (while doing nothing to discourage the rest of the world from doing business with Cuba).

Now it is possible on the face of things to criticize this particular poll, which was conducted by a Latin American firm for the International Republican Institute – which gets some of its funding from the State Department.

In short, this is a poll paid for with federal government dollars that says (surprise!) Cuban people want more to do with the United States.

THEN AGAIN, I’M sure it is nowhere near as ridiculous as the official propaganda line that comes out of Havana, which would probably claim the Cuban people are completely satisfied with their quality of life these days – even though this new poll says that 53.5 percent of those surveyed said life was going, “badly or very badly.”

In short, the economic troubles of recent years that have resulted in food scarcity (and an extreme shortage of toilet paper) are making people wonder about the benefits of being a Communist state.

It is a scene so reminiscent of the final days of the old Soviet Union, where the people ultimately were anxious to try to “decadent” ways of capitalism not because they cared about the politics one way or another.

They were anxious to be a part of whichever method would give them a higher standard of life.

WHEN THE DAY comes that Cuba drops its Communist ways, it will be because the people were anxious to eat, not because they seriously had any firm belief that capitalism itself was superior.

Now anyone who has read my commentary on issues related to Cuba knows I do not support the concept of the trade embargo. It was a flawed policy when it was implemented, and the fact that the rest of the world has largely refused to go along means that it has come closer to isolating the United States instead of Cuba.

I have always thought that if the United States were seriously interested in trying to gain the hearts and minds of the Cuban people, it would do away with the embargo then let U.S. companies start flooding the market with so many goods and services.

Political rhetoric (whether Communist or capitalist) will be regarded as cheap and irrelevant by most people. They will support whoever can get them the goods they desire in life.

WHICH IS WHY I believe one of the biggest accomplishments that Barack Obama could achieve as president would be to take the actions that ultimately resulted in restored relations between the United States and Cuba.

Wouldn’t it be ironic if, after a couple of generations of Cuban exiles worshiping at the temple of Republican politics, it turned out to be a Democratic president who brought the two sides together?

I would think it incredibly humorous if, in the future, the significant difference between Cubans and Cuban-Americans is that the former looked up to the Democratic Party, while the latter still remained latched to support of the Republicans.

-30-

Scarlet “A” will dominate immigration reform rhetoric

2009-11-16T09:25:00.001-06:00

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano (also the one-time governor of U.S./Mexico border state Arizona) has stirred up the pot before the immigration reform debate has even begun.

She made it clear that President Barack Obama has enough sense to realize that the 12 million so-called “illegal aliens” already in this country without a Visa or other papers largely are making worthwhile contributions to our society, and therefore ought to be allowed to remain.

IN SHORT, “REFORM” as envisioned by Obama consists of changing the artificial status from “illegal” to “legal.” That is going to tick off the nativist elements, to whom “reform” consists of an increase in the number of deportations.

Napolitano made her blunt comments when speaking last week to the Center for American Progress. She told them that while there will be some rhetoric put into the immigration laws to call for increased enforcement of criminal laws against companies that deliberately seek out undocumented non-citizens as a cheap source of labor, there also are going to have to be changes in the procedure for becoming a citizen.

She calls it a “three-legged stool” and it is significant because the Obama administration has been rather vague during its time in the Oval Office about what constitutes immigration reform.

It has shown signs of being intimidated by the vocal critics who want to push a xenophobic thought process into determining our nation’s immigration policies.

ADMITTEDLY, THIS IS just talk from Napolitano, bringing to mind the old cliché, “Talk is cheap.” I’m curious to see action, not only how far the Obama administration will go but how soon they will be willing to act.

They have hinted at being willing to do something in 2010, claiming that health care reform is a higher priority (while ignoring the degree to which some conservatives desire to make the two issues intertwined).

But a part of me won’t be the least bit surprised if Obama administrative types will fear the issue being used against them for cheap rhetoric in the 2010 election cycle. They’ll try to claim the issue should wait until 2011 – or later.

The only problem with that is the growing Latino population itself. An increasing number of us are native-born, which means immigration technically isn’t an issue for us. Yet many of us know people for whom it is an issue, and we’re also realistic enough to know that these nativists often can’t (or don’t want to) tell the difference between a Latino and a Latin American.

SO THE DEGREE to which they rant against our immigrant brethren is also an attack upon ourselves (which is the reason why I get so worked up over this issue, even though my own family is third-generation in the United States).

In one sense, I was surprised to learn of Napolitano’s comments (which I read about in a New York Times news account of her speech to the Washington-based group). They seem just a little too blunt.

A part of me is wondering if Napolitano is in the Obama dog house these days (does this mean Bo gets to live inside the White House until Janet is forgiven?) for speaking too honestly?

Or is this one of those famed “trial balloons” used by political types – have someone throw out an idea to see how hostile the reaction will be. If it isn’t too nasty, they proceed.

IF THE RESPONSE is too mean-spirited, Obama could always claim Napolitano wasn’t speaking for the administration (even though she really was).

I can already picture the immigration critics lining up against her, adding this to her list of negatives (Napolitano is the official who once criticized the idea of a U.S./Mexico border wall by saying that people would find 51-foot ladders to scale 50-foot-high walls).

But at a time when too many officials seem to be too timid in dealing with the issue, it was refreshing to hear at least one political person acknowledge the reality of the immigration situation – even though I don’t think her reasoning will be accepted by anyone.

She says that the reason we can now proceed with such policies to make people already living in this country legal so they can live openly is that there have been significant improvements in national security along the Rio Bravo del Norte/Rio Grande.

ON THE DAY of Napolitano’s speech, the New York Times found officials such as Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, who said not nearly enough has been done for national security. Meanwhile, those of us in support of true immigration reform have always realized this issue really has nothing to do with national security.

It is about people wishing to dictate the composition of this nation because they don’t like the way the natural course of things is going – they want to view the growing Latino population as a criminal plot, which is little more than absurd.

Equally absurd is going to be all the people who will scream the word “amnesty” at the top of their lungs every time the proposal put forth by Napolitano is discussed.

-30-

Dobbs’ CNN departure leaves me cold

2009-11-13T00:02:00.000-06:00

Excuse me for not being among the ranks of people getting all happy over the announcement this week that Lou Dobbs, the cantankerous news anchor who seems to want to be a 21st Century version of Father Coughlin, is leaving the Cable News Network.

Dobbs said he wants to be able to take a more active role on certain issues confronting our society than he can if he remains involved with CNN and has to put on the pretense of being “objective” and a journalist devoted to the concept of reporting news – instead of trying to influence it.

SO WHEN I hear that Dobbs will no longer be on the air every weeknight in the early evening, I suppose it means I can go back to watching CNN during that time slot. Personally, I always managed to find better things to do than watch Dobbs, so I doubt his change will alter my life’s daily routine in any way.

If anything, it now means we’re going to hear from Dobbs on so many fronts, and he no longer has to pretend he’s anything other than an advocate for a morally offensive stance on the issue of immigration reform.

But this is a free country, and he has the right to be wrong. And to paraphrase Voltaire as he put it so pompously all those centuries ago, I will defend to the death his right to say silly things.

Now I have been noticing some commentary cropping up on the Internet from Latino activists who are celebrating Dobbs’ departure as some sort of moral victory.

SOME ARE EVEN going so far as to try to claim responsibility for getting Dobbs dumped from the cable network founded by Ted Turner, but now run by a batch of suits whose idea of vision goes no farther than the latest stock reports.

Both concepts are ridiculous, particularly the idea that any activist somehow deserves praise for getting Dobbs off of CNN, which in recent weeks cropped up as an issue from people who trashed Soledad O’Brien’s “Latino in America” series as being hypocritical coming from a network that also let Lou go on his rants about immigration.

All this really means is that Dobbs will go on the lecture circuit, most likely to take fees to give speeches to groups ideologically inclined to believe Lou’s rhetoric that all the problems in these peoples’ lives are the fault of “those foreigners!”

He may even hook up with one of those conservative think tanks that will pay Dobbs significant amounts of money to think his shallow thoughts and spread them – in the name of the cause.

IN SHORT, DOBBS has not been silenced by any means. It just means that what little bit of restraint he might have felt by being affiliated with CNN has now been removed. He can be a blunt bully, all in the name of that same cause.

For the reality is that this fight over immigration, particularly when it comes to people who come from countries in the rest of the Americas, is far from over. If anything, Dobbs’ career move is likely yet another step toward the battle that will arise when Congress finally gets off its duff and decides to take on the issue.

I expect Dobbs will become one of the most outspoken critics of whatever Congress does with the issue (and if they decide to do nothing and try to maintain the status quo, I will become one of their most outspoken critics).

We’re going to have to take on the issue of immigration and come up with more realistic definitions of “legal” and “illegal.” Because the current use of the terms is artificial – one that is imposed by politicians to support whomever they choose and reject what they’d rather not have to deal with.

IT IS THE reason why it is hypocritical when people say they are merely against illegal immigration, and have no problem with people who come to this country “the right way.”

What it really means is that they want more people who are potentially like themselves, and do not want to have to deal with those who can never fall 100 percent within their Anglo ideal of what they think the United States is about.

For the reality is that this is a country that is a mutt, and I mean that in a positive sense. It is a country that takes on some characteristics of all of its newcomers, while also imposing some of its values onto those same people. That is the “American way.”

Too many people allow their xenophobic tendencies to focus exclusively on the degree to which people bring their customs into the U.S. mix, while ignoring the degree to which assimilation does take place.

NOW WHY DO I feel the need to go on this mini-rant, elements of which I have stated many times previously in the commentaries published on this weblog?

It is because I realize this is an issue that is not over, not by a long shot.

While some people might view the departure of Dobbs from cable television as some sort of victory for those of us who want a more rational approach to immigration enacted into federal law, I see it as a strategic move on the part of the opposition.

Dobbs is a rhetorical sniper who is looking for a new spot from which to shoot his venomous talk. Those of us seeking serious reform need to be careful we don’t give him too clear a shot to attack us.

-30-

Slamming Sammy's face just silly

2009-11-12T00:02:00.001-06:00

As much as I wonder about the sensibilities of people who are trying to make an issue out of what Sammy Sosa is doing to his face, I also wonder if this is an issue where Latinos are going to perceive it differently just because we're all too aware that people are a mixture -- no matter what they would prefer to believe about themselves.

None of the "white" or "black/other" that too much of Anglo (and even some segments of African-American) society prefers to think.

SO FOR THOSE of you who want to know more about what thoughts ran through my mind over the latest pop-culture controversy about Sosa's face, you should check out this weblog's sister site, the Chicago Argus (http://www.chicagoargus.blogspot.com/)

I always knew there was something funky about Wrigley Field, aside from the 95-year-old bathrooms (with troughs).

-30-

Just what America needs, another talk show

2009-11-10T09:17:00.000-06:00

Perhaps it was only so appropriate that Eva Longoria Parker was the first official guest on comedian George Lopez’ attempt at a talk show that gives a “Latino” sensibility to all of this country’s viewers.

At one point, Lopez directed Longoria to a “stripper” pole, which she was to use to bump and grind and give this country a sensual image straight out of our wildest fantasies.

WHAT DID SHE do?

She did a couple of twirls before giving up, while telling us the whole time that she “flunked” a course she took in pole dancing that was meant to help get her husband aroused at the sight of her.

In short, the image of Longoria whirling about with a big hard pole between her legs was nowhere near as erotic as the image those of us with dirty minds created in our heads. Reality didn’t live up to promise.

And in many ways, that is how I would assess the first “episode” of Lopez’ talk show, which followed the rigid format of all the other late-night talk shows.

LOPEZ DOES SOME standup comedy for a few minutes, followed by some rehearsed bits that are meant to be edgy, while also humorous.

Then, the second half of the hour-long show allowed two guests to be interviewed by Lopez, before a musician performed a couple of songs to finish off the program.

For the record, the guests were Longoria and Los Angeles Lakers basketball player Kobe Bryant, and aging guitar player Carlos Santana – who gave us a rendition of one of his earliest hits from some four decades ago (which itself was a cover of the old mambo classic “Oye Como Va”).

Not exactly scintillating television, even though I enjoy listening to Santana and can appreciate the concept of eye candy on television.

TO ME, THE concept of a talk show is to find an interviewer who can get his “guests” to say something interesting – in short, to do something more than merely plug their latest entertainment industry project.

Learning that Longoria has returned to college to take courses in Chicano Studies just didn’t do it for me, although I got a laugh from Lopez’ response that he was, “a Chicano who didn’t study.”

That didn’t happen Monday night. In fact, the bulk of the Bryant portion of the program was devoted to him explaining why he usually does not appear on talk shows.

He doesn’t have much to say. He’s a ballplayer. It is his life. It is what he does.

AFTER LISTENING TO him speak, I’m convinced he’s telling the truth.

Even Lopez’ attempts at “edgy” humor fell flat. He had a camera crew go out and ask people questions, then had people from his audience try to guess the answers. It was supposed to be a test of how much we stereotype people based on their appearance – particularly ethnic or racial factors.

Yet how much real humor can there be in hearing an Asian man insist he does NOT have a small penis? Even if he did, who outside of Howard Stern ever boasts of that fact? In short, Lopez’ take on “edgy” was one step up from a fart joke.

And yes, he told one of those as well – did you know that farting after eating Mexican food is a perfectly acceptable way of telling the cook how much you truly enjoyed “la comida?”

BUT THERE WERE a couple of moments that stick in my mind in a positive sense, one of which was at the very beginning when the camera crews panned out over the audience so that we television viewers could see that people of just about every racial or ethnic background in this country were present.

As Lopez stated it, THIS image is the America of the 21st Century.

And in this image, it probably only makes sense that a Latino gets a chance to make a third-rate talk show. It certainly wasn’t any more trite than some of the talk-show fare we see on television these days.

On a final note, let’s state for the record that the first person to be insulted by George Lopez as part of his talk show was one-time slugging pelotero Sammy Sosa.

LOPEZ JUST COULDN’T resist a chance to refer to Sosa’s recent skin treatment that, depending on the light, make it appear as though he is bleaching the color of his face.

Sammy, Sammy, Sammy.

You have to admit that you were less ridiculous when you were behaving like a real-life Chico Escuela back in the days when you were hitting all those home runs while leading your Chicago Cubs teams to their annual 90-loss seasons.

-30-

The fight's not over yet!

2009-11-09T09:37:00.000-06:00

As anyone who has read my commentary knows, I am a supporter of the idea of health care reform.

The idea that so many people in our society are uninsured in the event of a serious medical problem is a situation that can drag down our society. It also is one that I have a hard time believing anyone could seriously be opposed to.

YET I AM realistic enough to know politically that there will always be opposition, particularly from people who want to be able to vote against anything even remotely tied to President Barack Obama (let alone his major government initiative for his first year in office).

Personally, I felt a mild bit of relief when I learned that a bill had actually managed to pass the House of Representatives. But I know that a measure also will have to make it through the Senate, changes are likely to be made, and the bills will have to be reconciled before anything can be sent to Obama for his final approval.

My point is that there are still many places in the political timeline where this concept could be sabotaged. The political fight is far from over. Nobody should be uncorking bottles of cheap champagne to celebrate a “victory” that more people in our society will be insured.

I must admit to one bit of surprise. When the measure finally went through the procedures Saturday that result in passage, there didn’t seem to be much in the way of immigrant-bashing taking place.

DOES THIS MEAN Republicans for a few minutes backed away from their insistence that anything resembling health care reform was really a scam just to get the U.S. government to pay for medical care for Mexican citizens?

I doubt it.

I’d like to think the real explanation is that when Republican representatives were confronted with the moment of truth of having to vote (for the record) “yes” or “no” on the measure, they chose to go with their semi-legitimate talking points – which would mean that even hard-core GOPers realize how ridiculous their claims are that health care reform would merely benefit the so-called “illegal aliens” of our society.

Either that, or reporter-types have come to realize that Republican officials saying nasty things about people born in other countries (particularly if those countries are in Latin America) is just so routine that it no longer qualifies as newsworthy.

SERIOUSLY, I COULDN’T find much of anything in the way of Sunday morning reports and analysis that addressed how the House health care reform measure addressed the issue, if it chose to at all.

That would be the ideal, realizing that trying to make concessions to people who want to demonize the immigration reform issue does nothing to benefit public policy and only risks offending the growing Latino population of our nation.

Not that Democrats weren’t willing to dump on some people. Much was made of the fact that the health care reform advocates putting together the bill did give in to demands from the anti-abortion types who want to make sure that anyone who has to rely on a government-supported health insurance plan will not have access to medical procedures that even hint at terminating a pregnancy.

It was those measures that literally caused the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to endorse the final package that came up for a vote before the House this past weekend.

IT ALSO MEANS that some of the people who voted for Obama a year ago out of a belief that he was a liberal change are now going to see this as a sign he sold them out by giving in to the anti-abortion advocates.

But there wasn’t immediate evidence he sold out immigration advocates.

So did the president pick Latinos over women? Or is it likely that the immigration crackpots who want to believe Obama tells lies when he says health care reform is not just a scam to pay for non-citizen medical care will try to tack their harmful amendments onto the bill when it comes up for consideration in the Senate?

-30-

Be patient, por favor

2009-11-09T09:35:00.001-06:00

My "technical" difficulties are not fully resolved. But I'm also not anxious to just leave this weblog (and its sister site) sitting unattended.

Hence, there will be periodic commentary, although not the daily routine you regular readers have come to expect. I hope to resume that daily schedule as soon as possible.

-30-

It's not laziness, just computer problems

2009-11-06T10:56:00.001-06:00

I am experiencing computer problems that prevented me from filing the standard commentary readers of this weblog would have expected for Friday. As of now, I have yet to resolve these problems, but hope to do so as soon as is possible.

So I plan to go back to filing commentary meant to make you think (and occasionally annoy you) in the very near future. Please come back.

-30-

Rivera faces tough critics - a pair of abuelitas

2009-11-05T00:02:00.002-06:00

I'm not about to declare longtime broadcaster Geraldo Rivera to be some sort of exceptional Latino pundit, but that does seem to be the direction he's trying to take his career that will soon be entering its fifth decade.

Rivera has a pair of books he wrote in recent years to try to give himself a voice on the issues related to the significant growth of the Latino population in this country -- "His-Panic" and "The Great Progression."

THE FORMER TRIES to show how ridiculous most of the arguments made against Latinos truly are, while the second tries to show how much our society will benefit by accepting the Latino population increase.

Neither book goes all that deep, but I couldn't help but get my kick from this particular book review of Rivera's latter tome.

Published by the San Antonio Express-News (http://www.mysanantonio.com/entertainment/books/63960067.html) newspaper, the review is worth reading. Of course, any time one can get two abuelitas to go at it, the end result can be intriguing.

-30-

They’ll take our money, but do they want us in the stands?

2009-11-04T00:02:00.000-06:00

The National Basketball Association as a whole is stepping up its efforts to try to sway the growing Latino population of this nation into being fans of professional basketball, yet there are times when I wonder how many of these team owners are doing so with a clothespin clamped onto their nostrils.

The story is starting to get around about the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers. One of the sorrier franchises in professional basketball, owner Donald T. Sterling recently settled a lawsuit related to his real estate interests.

IT SEEMS THAT the team owner also owns a series of apartment buildings. His critics say he engaged in rental practices that were meant to discourage black people and Latinos from living in his buildings.

In some cases, Sterling’s staff refused to accept checks for rent payment, then tried to claim that the Latino or black tenants should be evicted for non-payment of rent.

Not that he was offering up housing for “whites only.” It seems that Sterling, according to reports in the LA Weekly newspaper, preferred to market his buildings as residences for people of Korean ethnic backgrounds.

He did this, the newspaper reported, because he sensed that Korean immigrants would be more accepting of substandard conditions and would not generate complaints the way that black and Latino people might.

THERE’S ALSO THE little tidbit from the original lawsuit filed earlier in this decade – one that quotes Sterling as saying that Latinos, “smoke, drink and just hang around the building.” Gee, I never realized it was a criminal act to stay at home.

Of course, would he or people with this kind of mentality have used reverse logic, saying that if they had left their homes, they were just going out to cause trouble?

Now I know in theory that Sterling’s real estate dealings have little to nothing to do with his ownership of a professional sports franchise. And I also realize that the settlement he negotiated to bring to an end a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles did not require him to admit to any guilt.

So there is no piece of paper that says he discriminated against black people or Latinos. But he does have to pay a fine of $2.725 million – which is a record-high fine for a case involving housing discrimination.

I DOUBT THE federal government could have pressured such a large settlement if there wasn’t some substance to the complaints against Sterling.

But it just makes me wary to read about such activity taking place among the ownership at a time when the NBA is trying follow the lead of many other sports leagues in seeking fan support from the Latino population.

In the case of the NBA, they’re developing a theme called ène-bè-a, which is meant to be a phonetic spelling of the Spanish pronounciation of the letters N-B-A.

It is the theme of the Spanish-language portion of the league’s website, and also is a marketing campaign that lets people know of the goings on of the six Latinos and 19 Latin American- or Spanish-born players in the NBA these days.

IN SHORT, THEY’RE trying to make it clear that Latin American athletes in this country aren’t solely playing baseball – although 25 players with Latino ethnicity is a far cry from the nearly 40 percent of Major League Baseball players who are either Latino (which is U.S.-born, for those of you who are clueless) or born in a Latin American country.

But is this one of those cases where certain teams are going to gain reputations for being less hospitable to the vision of the future than others?

It would not be unheard of.

In baseball, the Boston Red Sox to this day get some grief for being the last major league team to have black ballplayers (although the Philadelphia Phillies weren’t that far behind them). Both teams preferred to think of themselves as all white into the late 1950s – even after it was clear that black ballplayers (and darker-skinned Latin Americans) were here to stay.

THEN, THERE’S FOOTBALL, where the Washington Redskins’ ownership into the 1960s remained hard-core against black athletes, and only acquiesced when integration of the Redskins (that nickname is an issue of offense that we can discuss another day) would be a condition of their being allowed to play in the federal government-owned D.C. Stadium (later renamed for Robert F. Kennedy).

This is the potential category in which Sterling could be placing himself – the NBA equivalent of George Preston Marshall.

It’s not exactly the kind of environment I could picture many Latinos spending their money at.

Then again, perhaps the best revenge is one that is settled on the playing field. Perhaps the proper response for Latinos is not to reject the NBA, just the Clippers. It just means we’ll all have to be just like the rest of Southern California and root, root, root for the Los Angeles Lakers.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: One can argue that the Los Angeles Clippers are such an insignificant basketball franchise (http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/city-news/clippers-owner-allegedly-didnt/) that it really doesn’t matter what their owner thinks about ethnic relations.

The National Basketball Association as a whole (http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=115670) wants our money.

Who didn’t support whom?

2009-11-03T00:02:00.001-06:00

The Senate last week passed one of their purely symbolic resolutions – one that proved to have more symbolism than was originally intended.

The resolution at stake was a resolution that officially declared last week (the final week of October) to be National Hispanic Media Week. It was meant to be a sop of respect toward the roughly 800 Spanish-language newspapers and 550 Spanish-language magazines, all based in the United States.

THE SENATE PASSED the resolution, which noted that Spanish-language publications generated more than $1.4 billion in revenue last year. In short, it is a significant business interest, and one that shows the degree to which the Latino population is a significant market for business interests to appeal to.

Now the only reason this particular resolution has gained any lasting attention is because all of its support came from the 60 members of the Senate who happen to be Democrats.

This was one piece of symbolism that Republican members of the U.S. Senate wouldn’t touch with a 3.3-meter pole.

Some pundits already are trashing the GOP for not being willing to cast a “yes” vote in favor of a measure that didn’t do anything solid, and was a mere gesture of support to a business interest that is part of the growing Latino population.

I’LL AGREE WITH those pundits in thinking it is sad that not even a lone GOP senator or two could find it within themselves to cast a vote in favor of this symbolic resolution.

And I’m going to look down upon those who will claim that Republicans ought not to be thinking about supporting such measures, because Latinos aren’t exactly supportive of GOP interests these days.

The fact is that this has the potential to become the ultimate “pollo y huevo” argument (a.k.a., chicken and egg). Do Republican politicos refuse to support Latinos, or is it Latinos who won’t support GOP political people?

I have always believed that many of the Latin American newcomers to this country could have been had by the Republicans, particularly the ones to whom the Catholic church and its morals prevail in their thoughts on social issues.

ONE OUGHT TO consider the number of Latin American nations where abortion is a criminal act and where the idea of gay rights also borders on criminal to realize that there are parts of the Americas outside the United States where the most conservative Republicans would feel completely at home.

I always thought that if the Republican Party had any true sense, it would have taken the lead on trying to reform the nation’s immigration laws to make it possible for the masses already here to stay in the United States. They’d gain voters for life, and possibly never lose an election again.

Instead, the social conservatives let their ethnic hang-ups get the best of them.

It is what has turned off many Latinos to the Republican Party, and is what has made many of us “Democrats by Default.”

THESE HANG-UPS HAVE become so intense that they can’t even bring themselves to vote for a resolution that, if we can be honest, is rather trivial. Society as we know it did not come to an end because last week was National Hispanic Media Week.

All Republican officials managed to do with this incident was make themselves look – in the eyes of Latinos – just a bit more petty than usual.

As for those who will argue that Republican officials should not be supporting things that are in the interest of their opposition, I’d argue they’re the opposition because the GOP has made no attempt to gain us among their supporters.

Besides, I always thought one of the “rules” of electoral politics is that it was the job of the candidate to make people want to vote for him (or her).

SO SHOULDN’T IT be the role of GOP candidates to explain how they would benefit our interests – and occasionally even throw us a purely symbolic gesture?

If they’re not willing to do that, as is the case in this instance, then neither I nor anyone else is all that interested in hearing the GOP whine about how the growing Latino population is going to provide a mass of votes for Democratic candidates for years to come.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Pure symbolism appears to be beyond the ability of Republican (http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=67ff17c41341d3cf253805269bb1f6ef) political people to show the least bit of support to the growing Latino population.

School kids may educate parents about the Census

2009-11-02T00:02:00.000-06:00

It will be interesting to see what comes of the “Census in Schools” program that Census Bureau officials plan to kick off on Monday in an effort to bolster the number of people who actually cooperate with the effort next year to count the nation’s population.

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Census Director Robert M. Groves will be at the Digital Harbor High School in Baltimore to show off their new program, which consists of a curriculum for many subjects that manage to include plugs for the significance of the 2010 Census.

OFFICIALS SAY THE program is meant for all grades from kindergarten through high school, and for all subjects – not just social studies. They say they’d like to think that 56 million students at 118,000 schools will be exposed to the program.

On the surface, it doesn’t make much sense.

Teaching second-graders (including my two nieces, Meira and Jessica) about the Census may be a noble gesture, but I wonder how much will stick in their minds.

And somehow, when the Census Bureau form shows up at homes across the nation next spring so that people can count how many live there on April 1, 2010, I doubt many of these children (even the ones in high school) will be the ones with access to the mail.

IN SHORT, I doubt there will be many kids bothering to fill out the Census Bureau form.

What a gesture like this is about is somehow getting the idea of the Census (rather than any specifics) into the minds of the youth of America, in hopes that they go home and pound into their parents the significance of allowing oneself to be counted.

As I have written on many other occasions, being counted by the Census Bureau is acknowledgement that one exists.

So if it takes a little nagging from the kid in the family to encourage a parent to give that Census form a second look next spring, if even one parent bothers to fill out the form because their kid helped explain it to them, then perhaps this initiative is worthwhile.

WHAT I FIND interesting about this effort by the Census Bureau as a whole is that it is merely a large-scale effort of what I have heard occurring in certain municipalities across the nation.

I know of one Chicago suburb where municipal officials are considering sending notices to one particular elementary school in town. Those notices would be a bilingual explanation of the significance of the Census.

The point of that effort is that the one school is in the part of town that has the bulk of that town’s Latino population, and municipal officials are thinking that a “note from school” will be looked at more closely than a municipal mailing – you know, the notices that once we figure out they’re not bills get tossed in the trash without a second thought.

Now this particular school-oriented effort by the Census Bureau itself is not focused on boosting the Latino population count – although the bureau is undertaking several initiatives to make sure as many Latinos as possible are counted.

BUT ANYTHING THAT encourages people to quit being paranoid and give us an honest count of how many people really live in this country (whether U.S. citizen or not, all it claims to be is a count of how many are here at a specific moment in time) is a good thing.

And who’s to say that some lesson taught now won’t stick in the mind of some youngster when they become adults. Perhaps a Census lesson now will ensure that compiling a population count in 2040 will be just a tad easier.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Although starting in Maryland, officials ultimately hope to have schools (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/2010_census/014406.html) in all 50 states cooperate with an initiative to educate school kids about the Census.

“Day of the Dead” one of those concepts often misunderstood

2009-10-31T00:02:00.002-05:00

I still remember the look of revulsion that once cropped up on an editor’s face when I tried explaining the concept of “Day of the Dead.”

What got to her was the thought that some people are likely to spend Sunday night into Monday in a cemetery as part of a holiday celebration. She wasn’t sure if it was morbid, or just trashy, to hang out in a graveyard. My maternal grandparents, Michael and Socorro Vargas, holding their newborn fraternal twins, my uncle John and my mother Jenny, in the summer of 1944. My mother is the only person in this photograph who remains with us, and I'll include the rest in my thoughts this weekend.

NOW PERSONALLY, I don’t plan to do any cemetery duty this weekend – even though I don’t remember the last time I actually went to visit the graves of my grandparents. Besides, most of the people likely to be in cemeteries this weekend will be nitwit Halloween celebrators who are more likely to do desecration than anyone involved with a “Day of the Dead”-related event.

But the “Day of the Dead” holiday that dates back to pre-European times in the Americas is less about picnicking in a graveyard than it is remembering those loved ones who are no longer with us in this existence on Planet Earth.

A day of reminiscing about that late tio or tia, or a primo, or even los abuelos, is such a family-oriented concept that I have trouble believing that anybody can be repulsed by the thought.

When one thinks of it rationally, the “Day of the Dead” is a more sensible holiday than the Halloween celebrations that will take place across the United States on Saturday.

THINK ABOUT IT!

Remembering abuelita’s home-made tamales at Christmas (although in my family’s case, it was my maternal grandfather, Michael Vargas, who did the cooking when it came to holiday tamales) sounds a lot less repulsive than a “celebration” that encourages children to beg for candy and lets them think it is somehow “cute” to throw eggs or toilet paper at houses where people won’t cough up any overly-sugared edible loot.

And the idea of adults at Halloween parties in costume just strikes me as absurd, if not outright ridiculous.

So for all those people so Anglo who look at the imagery of “Day of the Dead” celebrations in Latin America (all those skeletons and skulls) and somehow want to think it reflects negatively on non-Anglo culture, I’d have to say, “Get Real!”

THEY SHOULD THINK twice about al those witches and goblin images we’re going to see on Saturday (along with a few nitwits in costumes meant to have laughs at Latino expense) before concluding which holiday is a bit more twisted.

And I’ll try to have a pleasant memory of those relatives of mine who aren’t with us any longer.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Death is a part of life, and the thought of a museum in Mexico that studies (http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2009-10-30-mexicomuseum_N.htm) the concept makes as much sense, if not more, than museums devoted to sex (http://blog.travelpod.com/2009/06/23/8-more-quirky-museums/) or psychiatry.

Costumed clowns to roam streets on Halloween, can we pelt them with candy?

2009-10-30T00:02:00.000-05:00

I recall once as a child being in an occasion where I needed to don a costume (I don’t think it was Halloween, but I can’t remember what it was), and I wound up using a poncho and sombrero because it was on hand.

That moment flashed back into my brain when I read a report originating in the Oakland Tribune newspaper that says Latino activists are upset with one of those Halloween-themed stores that has cropped up in the Oakland suburbs.

IT SEEMS THAT along with all the other cheap junk they’re selling to make some money off of the Halloween holiday Saturday is a costume that is meant to make one a “Mexican man.”

The costume? A colorful, striped poncho that looks like a rainbow, a straw sombrero and fake bushy mustache, as though the image of a Mexican man is that of the Frito Bandito. It has the activists upset that someone thinks Mexican people can be so simply depicted with a ridiculous image.

At least when I wore such a get-up, it was the real thing. This costume is a cheap knockoff that was probably made in China.

The smart aleck in me is inclined to say that no self-respecting Mexican would wear such a ridiculous-looking poncho, unless he was planning to march in a Gay Pride Parade – in which case his overly Catholic family would be the ones clogging up the local church, praying for his soul.

THE MORE SERIOUS-MINDED person in me thinks this image is just ridiculous on a holiday when people do ridiculous things. Seriously, what person over the age of 10 gets worked up over Halloween?

If they do, we have more serious problems than the fact that they might wear a stupid costume such as this one.

If anything, this costume doesn’t even create the most outrageous image of this Halloween season – that would go to the “illegal alien” outfit that was being sold in some mainstream stores.

This thing is turning up in holiday-themed junk shops.

IF WE REALLY wanted to get back at this particular outfit, what we Latinos ought to do is dress up on Saturday in bib overalls, have some country music playing in the background, and get overly passionate with a first cousin or two who is dressed similarly.

Of course, if we do that, then we will be the ones at the local Catholic church on Sunday, praying for forgiveness for our own souls, along with the parents who are still in church praying for the redemption of their loved one who “dresses” funny.

If it seems by reading this commentary that I’m not exactly taking it all that seriously, you’d be correct.

This strikes me as a stupid controversy because the ultimate punishment for people who actually spend their money on such a ridiculous costume is going to be paid on Saturday.

JUST THINK OF the reaction that “Mexican Man” wearing “tonto” will get if he shows up at an adult-themed Halloween party. At the very least, that woman in the French maid costume won’t be seen standing within 10 feet of him at any point in the rest of her life.

And if you get some Anglo parent who thinks it “cute” to dress up their child in a “Mexican Man” costume for the day’s trick-or-treating, they’re going to be the ones all worked up at day’s end.

Because their kid will be the one covered with welts from where everybody else pelted them with Halloween candy.

The only real tragedy is that it wasn’t the parent who got pelted with a Snickers bar or two.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Officials with the Spirit Halloween chain of stores have refused to say (http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_13662212?nclick_check=1) much of anything about why they were carrying this particularly silly getup on their shelves.

Lopez “show” seems like assimilation to me

2009-10-29T00:02:00.000-05:00

Eva Longoria may be a Latina (a Tejana, to be specific), but most of the attention she gets these days is due to her role on the hit television show “Desperate Housewives,” where she doesn’t play the stereotypical role by any means.

When combined with Ellen Degeneres and Kobe Bryant, what we have is the roster of guests to appear on a new television talk show scheduled to begin Nov. 9.

THE GORGEOUS TELEVISION star, combined with an outspoken comedian and a star basketball player. It sounds like any other talk show, which may very well be the point.

These three are going to be the guests who appear on the George Lopez Show, which is the new program to begin next month on TBS (they’re not just about Andy Griffith reruns and Atlanta Braves baseball any longer).

There are those who are viewing the new talk show by the Mexican-American comedian as just some sort of sop to Latino viewers, or something that otherwise will have little to no appeal to anyone in this country who is not fortunate enough to have ethnic origins tying them to a Latin American country.

Atlanta-based TBS officials helped promote the show (which thus far has had those TV promo spots featuring Lopez being turned down for a U.S. ambassador post by President Barack Obama) by releasing this week the names of the guests for the first show, along with a listing of other celebs who will appear with Lopez during the first few weeks.

WE’RE TALKING ABOUT “celebs” such as Sandra Bullock, Ray Romano, Kelly Osbourne and Queen Latifah. It’s definitely not a Latino-only production.

Definitely not something that only Latinos would want to watch.

In some ways, this new talk show is about as “mainstream America” as any other talk show currently airing on either over-the-air or cable television.

Even the Latinos who are among the show’s first few guests – Andy Garcia, Marc Anthony, Eva Mendes and Charlie Sheen (whose brother uses the real family name of Estevez) – are the types of people who could easily show up on what people might consider to be more conventional (ie., Anglo-oriented) television programming.

THIS PROGRAM HAS the potential to be a big lesson for that segment of the population that looks warily upon the significant increase in the Latino population currently occurring in our society.

We are assimilating, and some of us are already there.

Just because the “face” on the front of the show is a little bit brown (but not dark enough to fit one’s definition of “black”) doesn’t mean there can’t be appeal to society as a whole.

Now I have read in past promos that Lopez plans to do comedic “bits” during his show that will reference the Latino population.

IF THEY’RE ANYTHING like his standup comedy sketches or the characters on the situation comedy he once starred in, it will be a harder-edge comedy than something that Jay Leno would have ever done.

But it could turn out that viewers will have to learn to accept that Latinos are a part of the material of standup comedy. And for those of you who think that his material will somehow be demeaning to Latinos, keep in mind that the punch line of a lot of Lopez’ material usually centers around the fact that Anglos can be just so clueless as to what is going on around them when it comes to comprehending Latinos.

So I suppose “one of our own” has finally got a talk show, putting him in a position to be the equal of David Letterman or Conan O’Brien (although being on a cable television channel means he has far few potential viewers than those long-time stars of late night commercial television).

We’re going to see that it has a lot in common with existing programs, which means Lopez ultimately will succeed or fail in this venture on whether or not he can offer quality programming.

A LATINO AUDIENCE is not going to tune in every night just because of the skin complexion on that big head of his.

Which makes him just like a whole lot of people in our society, which is all that assimilation is truly about.

-30-

Will Rodriguez lead the Yanquis to a World Series victory?

2009-10-28T00:02:00.001-05:00

In a sense, every Latino ballplayer who happens to play for a ball club that makes it to the World Series is trying to live up to the image of Roberto Clemente.

The star pelotero from Puerto Rico was on two teams that made it to the series – the Pittsburgh Pirates of 1960 and 1971. The former saw his performance overshadowed by that Game 7, Bottom of the Ninth, home run by Bill Mazeroski.

BUT THE LATTER World Series saw Clemente permanently overcome the reputation he developed during the 1960s of a malcontent always griping about physical ailments (with many Anglo baseball types who looked sympathetically upon Mickey Mantle's bad knees quick to overlook Clemente's back problems) to one who overcame those problems to be a top-level ballplayer.

He wound up being named World Series “Most Valuable Player” for his performance in the seven-game series – hitting .414 (12 base hits in 29 at-bats) with two home runs (including a record-length shot in the seventh game at Baltimore’s Memorial Stadium).

The big shame of it all was that it took so long in Clemente’s career (which dates back to the mid-1950s) for him to achieve public recognition.

It also hurts that the recognition came so late in his career, which lasted only one more season, as the outfielder who chartered an airplane to try to fly supplies to Nicaragua following the December 1972 earthquake disappeared off the shores of Puerto Rico, with Clemente’s body never recovered.

IT WAS A significant part of the reason we now think of Clemente as a baseball immortal of sorts. It also counts when it comes to Latino ballplayers in terms of showing that the ballplayers from Latin America were capable of leading teams to victory – not just serving as role players.

It also sets the stage for pondering whether any of the Latinos whose presence enhances the quality of Major League Baseball will become the big stars of 2009.

Alex Rodriguez, the New York-born, Miami-raised Dominican who plays third base for the New York Yankees will be the obvious focus of this type of attention. His bat helped propel the Yankees to their victories in the two rounds of American League playoffs – making some people speculate that Rodriguez is shaking off the stigma that has developed during his career.

You know, excellent in May, but mediocre in October.

OR WE COULD very well get the historic resurrection of Panamanian relief pitcher Mariano Rivera, whose presence helped preserve victories for those Yankees teams that dominated baseball in the late 1990s.

2009’s World Series, which is only “world” if one really believes the globe rotates on an axis connecting New York to Philadelphia, could be the time when Rivera adds to his already outstanding statistics.

For that matter, it would be intriguing if aging Phillies pitcher Pedro Martinez of the Dominican Republic were to resurrect the skills of his physical prime in going against New York.

Either way, we’ll find out in coming days who gets to fill the Clemente Legacy.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: From Hall of Famers like Tony Perez (a Cubaño) and potential Hall of Famers like Roberto Alomar of Puerto Rico to less descript players like Ricky Ledee (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/278887-the-top-latinos-in-mlbs-world-series) also of Puerto Rico, there have been several interesting World Series performances by Latin American ballplayers.

Perhaps he thinks it should be New Un-Mexico

2009-10-27T00:02:00.000-05:00

It never fails to amuse me when an incident occurs in the southwest that involves someone not appreciating the fact that the continental United States’ first European colonists were Spanish – not English.

That basically is what is involved in a recent incident involving the owner of a motel in Taos, N.M. Admittedly, the place he purchased for just over $2 million had seen better days (which sounds better than calling the place a dump), and was in need of a cleanup to try to bolster its chances of attracting business.

BUT THIS PARTICULAR owner, as reported by the Associated Press, seems to think that cleaning up the motel’s image involves wiping out traces of Spanish.

Some of the Latino workers who were employed were fired. I’ll give the owner the benefit of the doubt that those particular employees were not all that supportive of him. They probably were mocking him behind his back.

But when one looks at this owner’s actions, he comes off as someone who deserves to be mocked.

For one of his “demands” intended to create a more professional image was that his employees not speak Spanish. And in the case of employees whose names were Spanish-tinged, he was insisting that they use English-equivalents.

EVEN IN CASES where the Spanish and English versions of a name aren’t all that different, I’m sure it is bound to tick people off to be suddenly told that one’s identity is not appropriate for public consumption.

And in cases where a Spanish name just doesn’t translate all that well to English, it would sound downright stupid. Take the case of Soledad O’Brien, whose documentary last week on CNN has provoked debate both pro- and con- among Latinos.

Would we take the exotic (and lovely) sounding Soledad as seriously if she had to go through life as Solitude O’Brien?

From having read the news reports that are cropping up due to this incident, I am aware that this particular motel owner has been in the business for some four decades, and has operated motels in various states across the south and southwestern United States.

HE FIGURES THAT his image cleansing is something that he can apply from site to site.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t always work that way.

Now I notice he once worked in Texas, a place that also was once a part of the Spanish colonies that became part of an independent Mexico for nearly two score until it became a part of the United States.

Perhaps Texans (even ones who are originally born in Virginia, like this particular owner) think they can ram an Anglo attitude down the throats of a Latino population that has been there longer.

BUT THAT KIND of arrogance is what caused the problem in New Mexico.

It seems that when one of the motel employees tried pointing out that Spanish had been spoken in the region longer than English, the motel owner took it as just more yapping from an employee who would be better off working.

And he tried justifying his actions on the grounds that people from other parts of the country wouldn’t understand, or appreciate, Spanish influence in names or language or culture.

I don’t doubt that some people are that backward. But when I travel, I accept the fact that I’m venturing into a place that might be radically different than my hometown of Chicago.

IN FACT, WHEN I travel, I’m usually looking to find a place that is different from my hometown (although one can argue that Chicago’s neighborhoods offer so many different environments that this city can resemble just about any place on Planet Earth).

If I were traveling into the southwest and had reason to stop off at this particular motel, I’d probably figure that there was going to be some Spanish influence.

After all, it is located on the Paseo de Pueblo, and is in a town located at the foot of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains.

Or are there really people out there who think those names should be changed to Main Street and Blood of Christ Mountains to accommodate the sensibilities of people who don’t live there?

I’M INCLINED TO agree with the activist who told the Associated Press that this particular motel owner is a “racist out of ignorance.”

Now one can argue that all racism is ignorant. There’s no such thing as racism that is actually justified.

But this really comes down to someone not thinking through the fact that he might be cutting off what little charm his newly acquired business could have, all in the name of trying to pass of some generic version that might have worked in South Carolina.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: I didn’t name the motel owner because I think his name is already smeared (http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212264072.shtml) all over the Internet. And I think the fact that his business interest has the potential to suffer due to this controversy is the biggest “punishment” possible.

Is a Spanish accent now a ticket-able offense?

2009-10-26T00:02:00.001-05:00

Only in Texas could we have police officers who would think their ticket books give them the ability to hand down fines to people who won’t speak English on command.

That appears to be the case in Dallas, where Police Department officials admitted last week that 39 tickets have been issued to people during the past three years to people whose offense, in the eyes of the officers, was speaking Spanish.

SPECIFICALLY, WE’RE TALKING about motorists.

It would appear that commercial truck drivers, who have a special class of driver’s license to allow them to do their jobs, do have certain language requirements to comply with.

After all, it would be nice if the drivers of those big rigs could read the road signs they encounter while they work. Of course, one could argue that many road signs are specifically designed to be symbols rather than words, so mere recognition of a concept – whether in English or Spanish – ought to be enough.

But it came out recently in news reports out of Dallas that some officers thought the provisions allowing them to ticket a truck driver for perceived inadequate English skills applied to all drivers.

HENCE, WE HAVE had situations where a ticket (and the possibility of a $100 fine) has been issued by a police officer who may not have liked the sound of someone’s English. I guess having an accent can now be a crime, if the accent doesn’t match whatever tone the cop happens to speak with.

One such situation went public Sunday when a woman held a press conference to say she was filing a complaint with the Police Board in Dallas.

WFAA-TV reported that she says she was completely humiliated and will never recover from the fact that she was ticketed for not speaking (in a police officer’s opinion) proper-enough English. She says she was driving her child to school when she got pulled over for making a U-turn in a place where it was not permitted.

Now I know some people (the types who don’t like it when anyone is called on their ethnic-related screwups) will use the fact that she was initially pulled over for a U-turn and claim that that act somehow justifies any additional actions taken by the police officer.

ACTUALLY, IT SHOWS a lack of restraint on the part of the officer, who apparently is not in the majority. Police Chief David Kunkle told reporter-types in Dallas that the 39 tickets for improper English were issued by only six Police Officers.

So this seems to be a case more of particular cops misusing their authority to try to force-feed us the version of our society that they want to see (or, in this case, hear).

Attorneys for the woman say they’d like to see police look back in their records a little further. They’d want to know how many language-related tickets were issued during the past decade.

I’m not sure what that would really accomplish. It would give us a slightly higher number, but I think the three-year figure shows there likely are some police officers in Dallas who need a better education about what constitutes “the law” with regards this language issue.

THERE IS ONE other factor in this case – the woman in question is a U.S. citizen, albeit living in a part of the United States where the Spanish language and culture remains strong.

So even though I don’t know this woman (I have never met her or her attorney), it may very well be that she speaks English with an accent. I suspect that is such because of the reports that the woman, when pulled over by police, asked if her daughter could be allowed to leave the scene and walk the rest of the way to school.

She was running late.

The officer, it is reported, apparently understood the gist of what she was asking, even if he might not have liked the way the English words sounded to him when she spoke.

THOSE OF YOU who want to claim this is an “illegal” who doesn’t belong in the United States can put a sock in that argument. It just doesn’t apply here.

Attorneys for the woman say they suspect we’d find out that many of these tickets were issued to people who were just like her – they belong in this country, even though some among us are xenophobic enough to think they don’t.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Lone Star State gives us “bigger than life” tales on so many (http://www.txcn.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/tv/stories/wfaa091025_wz_englishticketfolo.250d4650b.html) fronts, so why shouldn’t its police gaffes be the same?

NOTICIAS de LATINO: It’s time to tick people off

2009-10-24T00:02:00.001-05:00

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., gave people who are eager for immigration reform yet another promise that action will be taken by Congress come 2010.

He used a forum held at Chicago’s DePaul University to say it will include provision of the DREAM Act, a measure he has pursued for several years to help kids whose families are split between citizens and non-citizens, making them fully assimilated – even though they themselves were born elsewhere.

OF COURSE, EVEN this little hint is ticking people off – those nativist nitwits who are looking for any excuse they can find to deport anyone who isn’t exactly like them. For those wanting to know more, read the commentary published Saturday at this site’s sister weblog, The South Chicagoan (http://southchicagoan.blogspot.com/).

On other issues, I couldn’t help but notice the television ratings for Wednesday (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/the_scoreboard_wednesday_october_21_141037.asp) and Thursday (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/the_scoreboard_thursday_october_22_141165.asp) evenings. Some people are portraying CNN’s “Latino in America” as a ratings flop.

It does appear that twice as many people watched Fox News Channel as did CNN during the two-hour segments that the documentary premiered each night. Even MSNBC appears to have drawn more viewers, which means the only cable news type Soledad O’Brien outdrew was Nancy Grace of CNN Headline.

What I wonder is how many people who were interested in the program did not watch it at its assigned time. Personally, I didn’t see the first part, and saw the second part during its rebroadcast at 11 p.m. Thursday (that’s Central Time, which we all know is the only time zone – Chicago time – that really matters).

I’D REALLY LIKE to know how many people just blew off the cable news types altogether to watch something else, like the American and National league playoffs.

Soledad had to compete with the Philadelphia Phillies winning the National League championship Wednesday night, and the Los Angeles Angels managing to postpone their elimination Thursday from the playoff scene.

For those who happen to be in Chicago, the city’s history museum has an intriguing pair of exhibits.

The museum has for decades owned the bed upon which Abraham Lincoln lay for his final hours of life, and has always considered itself something of an authority on the life of the sixteenth U.S. president.

NOW, THEY’RE GIVING us an exhibit about the life of Mexico’s chief executive in that same era. Benito Juàrez is known by some as the “Abraham Lincoln of Mexico” for the way in which he tried to bring U.S. ideals of Democracy south of the Rio Bravo del Norte/Rio Grande.

It is paired up with an exhibit on Lincoln documenting the way in which Lincoln’s views on slavery shifted through the years from apathy to abolition.

Part of my reason for offering this link is self-promotion (http://nwitimes.com/news/foreign-language/article_644038cb-0ec2-58ac-a3fd-19debdf186f4.html), but it also is intriguing to see the links between the two countries because it reinforces the idea that construction of barricades out in the southwestern desert is just stupid.

And I still get a chuckle at the thought that somebody actually bothered to save the fish hook that Juarez used during the year he lived in exile from Mexico (in New Orleans).

-30-

What constitutes an “alien?”

2009-10-23T00:02:00.000-05:00

Originally, I wasn’t going to touch this issue – the “controversy” about retail stores offering for sale a Halloween “costume” of an orange jumpsuit with some sort of generic space-creature mask, with the words “illegal alien” stenciled across the jumpsuit’s chest, and comes equipped with a “green card” (that in reality isn’t green).

It’s tacky, a stupid gag, and the retailers that were putting this up for sale were quick to take it off the shelves, realizing that it had the ability to hurt their overall sales if they were perceived as selling merchandise that would appeal only to xenophobes.

I WAS ENCOURAGED when I read a recent news story published by the website of KSL-TV and news radio in Salt Lake City, Utah. It appears that activists representing the Latino population that chooses to live amongst Mormons is downplaying the whole “controversy.”

“I think we’re just hyperventilating over this issue,” one activist told the radio station.

I agree. I don’t want to blow this issue out of proportion because I don’t want to give the nitwits who were ridiculous enough to actually spend their money to buy this costume any reason to think they’re making some deep, profound political statement with the Halloween holiday choice.

I’m inclined to think that the majority of people are going to take one look at this ridiculous attempt at a gag and look down at the intelligence quotient of anybody who would actually wear such a getup.

BUT THERE ARE times I wonder about the actual choice of phrase “illegal alien.”

It is a bit of government-speak, an awkward piece of jargon similar to a phrase such as “weapons of mass destruction.”

A real person never would have thought up that phrase that at one point a few years ago crept its way into so many newscasts. As in: “Of course Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. We still have the receipts from the ones we sold him.”

It is pure government bureaucrat-ese (as is the word “bureaucrat-ese”).

SO IS “ILLEGAL alien.”

Anyone who is not a citizen of this nation technically is an “alien” and this bit of bureaucratic jargon allows immigration officials to distinguish between resident aliens and non-resident aliens.

The problem, however, is that the nitwits of our society have latched onto this phrase and are trying to turn it into a bit of common talk that they want to slip into everyday language.

If you have ever read a website commentary section following a piece on immigration, you are always going to find at least one person who will vehemently denounce any attempt to refer to people without a visa (and I don’t mean the credit card) as anything other than “illegal aliens.”

THEY LIKE CREATING an image that dehumanizes people.

They created this image that would regard people as less than people, and automatically criminal.

If anything, this “costume” serves one purpose – it shows just how stupid the actual image is. If there was even one person who would be inclined to reduce the use of government jargon in their everyday speech just by seeing this Halloween getup, then perhaps it would serve a worthwhile purpose.

But I don’t expect that to happen.

THERE PROBABLY WILL be somebody who proudly wears that getup next Saturday, or on whatever day they happen to attend a Halloween-themed party, and that will get groups such as the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (based in Los Angeles) to spend time protesting retailers that could have been better spent focusing on making daily life easier for those newcomers to our country.

In short, I almost feel stupid for even writing this, because it means I’m focusing way too much attention on a few petty, mindless pendejos in our society when I’d be better off giving attention to someone who’s trying to accomplish something significant.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Some Latino activists see the whole “illegal alien” Halloween costume (http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=8378188) as too stupid to cause true offense.

Somebody needs to try again if they’re truly trying to design a Halloween costume that (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2009/10/21/halloween_trick_or_stereotype/) makes a statement about the contemporary debate over immigration and reform.

Somebody’s not thinking this issue through

2009-10-22T00:02:00.000-05:00

With Cable News Network engaged in airing its feel-good about itself documentary about the status of Latinos in our society these days, the cable television news channel engaged in a common media tactic – they released a poll they commissioned to make themselves appear even more authoritative on the issues.

Now I don’t really feel the need to give CNN any more attention than they’re already getting these days (seriously, look up “Latino” or “Hispanic” on a search engine such as Google, and most of what you will find is links to stories that promote the “Latino in America” special, in one form or another).

BUT THERE WAS one aspect to the poll (conducted last weekend by Opinion Research Corp.) that caught my attention – a pair of questions to whom the answers just don’t match up in my mind.

One question asked whether a person who saw a Latino walking down the street would automatically make assumptions about their immigration status.

Nineteen percent of those questioned admitted that their first assumption would be that the Latino in question were somehow in the United States without a valid visa or other papers. That compares to 68 percent who either would assume the person was a U.S. citizen or had the visa that allows them to live openly in this country.

But another question asked people what they thought of the proposal being touted by conservative politicos that would have Census Bureau workers next year ask everyone what their immigration status was – in theory so that people without citizenship or a visa would not be counted in the final population tally.

TO THAT QUESTION, 88 percent were in favor. Only 12 percent were opposed. No one was seriously unsure of the issue that they could not provide a definitive answer.

So let me see if I comprehend the poll results correctly.

A significant majority of the population believes that the Latino population is in this country legitimately. Yet they also want Census Bureau workers to ask a question whose only motivation is to throw out of whack the desires of those of us who want an honest count of the population – whether Latino or not – because we know it will show just how significantly our numbers in this country have grown.

To my mindset, that makes little to no sense.

IT COULD BE that we have people who want open harassment of Latinos, and have no problem with the idea that the Latino population ought to be required to justify its existence in this country (even though a significant chunk of the United States has its own roots tied to that of Latin America, specifically Mexico).

I couldn’t help but notice another question, about how much discrimination against Latinos was perceived by people. Most people said there was either “a lot” or “some” discrimination, so they perceive a problem.

In fact, only 19 percent said there was “none at all” when it comes to discrimination against Latinos. That’s the same percentage of people in this poll who said they assume Latinos they see are “illegal.”

There may very well be some people who presume that harassment against Latinos isn’t discrimination because they somehow deserve it by “not belonging” in this country to begin with.

BUT THAT’S THE overly cynical view, and to my mind it doesn’t completely explain the large gap between the percentages.

Could it be that we have a significant number of people who were just confused about the issue? Perhaps they haven’t thought the issue through fully.

That is the most sensible conclusion I can come to when thinking about these results. Why else would one want to have Census Bureau workers gum up the works with such a blatantly partisan question if the first perception one has is that the newcomers are likely here legitimately?

That may very well be the bottom line when it comes to the issues of immigration, reform and ethnicity in general in our society. It is one that many of us haven’t thought through fully.

PERHAPS PART OF that is due to a lack of exposure. If that’s the case, the passage of time will be the solution, because the Latino numbers are growing and spreading throughout the country to the point where it will soon be next to impossible to ignore it.

The day is coming when the only people who will be able to honestly say they have no contact with Latinos are the ones who are deliberately isolating themselves from society as a whole.

Maybe in that future day, we’ll be able to look back at these poll results (a majority thinks Latinos are legal, but wants everybody questioned about their immigration status) and get a good laugh at how they could be so out of whack.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Some people need to sit and think a little more carefully before responding (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/10/20/rel15d.pdf) to pollster questions.