As the Democratic Presidential Primaries mercifully wrap up (yes, there's still the Florida and Michigan debacles and Clinton just refuses to go down quietly) and we look forward to the general elections, there will be plenty of debate about the Latino vote.  Where it is, where it's going, can Obama reach out to Latinos, can McCain, and all that talking heads punditological nightmare.  I think it's worth checking out what the numbers say.

WASHINGTON - Registering and voting in record numbers, Latinos in key states are poised to play a decisive role in electing the next president. And that is probably not good news for Republicans.

Some new number-crunching from California and other Western states highlights the growing importance of Latino voters. This week, John McCain and Barack Obama, the two likely nominees, are campaigning in Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada - three states seen as critical to reach the winning number of 270 electoral votes in November.

Democratic leaders tout increases in Latino voter registration and primary turnout as good indicators that those states - with a total of 19 electoral votes, or one less than the swing state of Ohio - are ready to switch from the GOP column to the Democrats in November.

[T]here are indicators that Latino voters are trending more Democratic. President Bush was able to capture about 40 percent of the Latino vote in 2004, but that dropped to 30 percent for Republicans in the 2006 congressional races. Matthew Dowd, Bush's chief campaign strategist in 2004, has said that any GOP presidential candidate needs 38 percent to 40 percent of the Latino vote to win.

Rosenberg said a Latino backlash against the anti-immigrant stance of many Republicans has fueled the surge in registration and turnout. This year, he said, exit polls show 3.6 million Latinos have voted in Democratic primaries, compared with 1 million in GOP primaries. That means only 22 percent of Latinos voted in Republican contests.

A word of caution: the Republican nomination was decided very early on, so those numbers may be skewed.  However, it is worth looking at the proportion of Latino voters participating in the Democratic presidential primaries in key states:

Latino turnout in Democratic primaries

California: 16 percent in 2004, 29 percent in 2008

Florida: 9 percent in 2004, 12 percent in 2008

Texas: 24 percent in 2004, 34 percent in 2008

So, what are the projections at this time?

WASHINGTON — A record 11.9 million Hispanic-Americans will vote in this year's presidential elections, a staggering 59 percent more than cast ballots in 2004, a progressive think tank estimated on Wednesday.

But we still need to work on those numbers:

There are 45.5 million people of Hispanic origin in this country, according to 2007 U.S. Census Bureau data. Hispanic-Americans now make up 15 percent of the population - eclipsing African-Americans, at 13 percent, as the largest U.S. minority - and are on track to hit 29 percent of the population by the year 2050.

Of those, 29 million are adults, roughly 13 million of whom are registered to vote. Unprecedented voter registration efforts within the Hispanic community, however, are likely to drive up that number to 14 million by November, said Rosenberg. Combining that number with recent voter participation levels, he said, means that 11.9 million Hispanics will likely vote in the general elections, up from 7.5 million in 2004.

Emphasis added.   That means that if 40% of Latinos voted for Bush in 2004, the split was roughly 4.5 million for Kerry and 3 million for Bush, a 1.5 million votes difference in states like New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, and Georgia, where Bob Barr's bid for the Presidency as a Libertarian may put it in play.  If the Democrats have a 3-to-1 advantage this year, it means that 8.925 million would vote Democrat while 2.975 will vote Republican.  That would be a 5.95 million vote difference or almost 4 times greater than in 2004.

I cannot stress this enough; politics is like the lottery in that you've got to be in it to win it.  As a group - however diverse we are - greater participation means greater access.  It's time to make sure we're registered to vote, that our Latino loved ones are registered as well, and that each of us spread the message that voting matters.  If we can improve on those turnout numbers and can maintain that favorable proportion, we could do some serious muscle-flexing this election cycle.

We all know the saying tu voto es tu voz.  But this year, tu voto es tu voz, tu seguridad, y tu deber.  Which translates to "your vote is your voice, your security, and your duty."

We got millions of people to go out to march.  Voting is a heck of a lot easier, so, lets go do it.

 I am constantly fascinated by sub-cultures; they surround us; intertwine with us; fly under the radar, yet are in our faces everyday.

Any real NYCitizen would recognize:



What does this have to do with politics...well, nothing directly. But I can't help thinking what Jesus would do: how he constantly associated with sinners.  Politics would be much more honest if they reached out to those not involved, rather cater to the same slobs that pervert our system every day.

UPDATE:  I think this post warrants an explanation; I know some of you are probably looking at this and saying to yourselves, WTF?  I like graffiti, including street art.  When I'm on the train and not reading I look out the window of the elevated L train and look at rooftops and their urban art - I even have saved blog sites in my RSS and saved YouTube videos on the subject, as well as dropping over $100 on some books recently. 

We live in a Capitalist society, where money dictates who gets how much space and where.  When I go to Times Square (or just about anywhere), with advertisements everywhere I wanna puke.  Graffiti is about an individual taking space and expressing themselves; that's what I see, others see vandalism.  With that said, go watch a new documentary about Graffiti named, Bomb It!  (soon to be released).

Because it's time we start looking forward to November 2008 . . .


. . . and, therefore, it's not too soon to start piling on J-Mac.

This is not a "Latino matters" issue per se, but to the extent that many of us are politically active, are registered to vote, and/or vote (and if you don't do any of those, WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?  WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?), this issue is worth talking about.  Particularly for those of you out there who supported Obama during the primaries.

You've heard the Clinton campaign's attempts at trying to give Hillary at least a plausible argument for the nomination.  You know, "she's won all the states Democrats must win in November," "the pledged delegates can be poached," "the superdelegates can and should vote any which way they want," "the Florida and Michigan delegations must be seated in accordance with the primaries' results," etc.  And you have to understand that this is the equivalent of being down by three touchdowns with 2:00 to go in the 4th quarter and no timeouts left: your chances of pulling it off are just slightly better than a snowflake's chance in hell, but you need to keep going for that Hail Mary and the onside kick.

All of which suits me fine, until people start talking about how unfair the primary process is.  "They" should have spoken about this about, what, a year-and-a-half ago, when the rules were laid down.  But what really gets me going - and what really makes me write this down - is when people use just plain dumb arguments.  Like this:

As we have known for a long time, the Democratic delegate selection process is a travesty. Starting with the disenfranchising caucus system, which shuts out legions of voters from the process, to the unbalanced proportional system of awarding delegates by congressional district (which produces such perverse results like a candidate winning 60% of the vote in a district receiving the same amount of delegates and a different candidate receiving 60% of the delegates with a 50.1% of the vote in another district), to the overweighting of regions arbitrarily and haphazardly (for example, in Nevada rural district were overweighted, in Texas urban districts were overweighted), to awarding low turnout states disproportional representation to high turnout states, the entire system is a travesty of democracy.

Let me put it bluntly, anyone holding up the pledged delegate count as representing the "will of the people" is simply full of it. It does not. It thwarts the will of the people. BY DESIGN.

My first point is, well, my first point above.  If we have "known for a long time" that this is such a bad system, why are you complaining now?  Or, why are you still complaining now?  Unless, of course,  "a long time" means "since Hillary fell behind."

The rules were the rules, are the rules, and will continue to be the rules. They were the same for Clinton & Obama.  That one candidate, Obama, was smart enough to figure out how to campaign more effectively within those rules only makes him more appealing because he is clearly better organized.  You win elections because (a) you have enough support and (b) your organization can and does get every possible vote out to the polls or caucuses.  On that alone, Obama deserves the nomination because he has figured out a way to get more people out to vote.

to the unbalanced proportional system of awarding delegates by congressional district (which produces such perverse results like a candidate winning 60% of the vote in a district receiving the same amount of delegates and a different candidate receiving 60% of the delegates with a 50.1% of the vote in another district),

I didn't want to post this again, but this diatribe deserves to be picked apart in detail.  Besides the fact that "the rules are the rules,"  I actually believe that this is a problem.  However, the solution is to have the primaries just like the Republicans' in that they should be winner-take-all.  Why?  Because that's how the general election will be played out.

That said, unless you apportion delegates in accordance with the number of raw votes each candidate gets, you could make this argument for any other form of apportionment you make based on geographic area.

to the overweighting of regions arbitrarily and haphazardly (for example, in Nevada rural district were overweighted, in Texas urban districts were overweighted),

This is not terribly consistent.  After all, if the delegates are allocated on the basis of congressional districts, and

[e]ach congressional district is to be as equal in population to all other congressional districts in the State as practicable, based on the decennial census counts

then the delegates cannot by definition be over or underweighted.  It's so obvious you need to laugh!

to awarding low turnout states disproportional representation to high turnout states, the entire system is a travesty of democracy.

Call this the "bigger is better" argument.  Again, "the rules are the rules."  Besides, if the basis for your representation is the congressional district, you have already predetermined that turnout will not be an across-the-board deciding factor.

Now, is it a bad idea or a good idea?  Is it a "travesty of democracy"?  If you say "yes" then you're pretty much saying that everything about the way in which politics are conducted in the U.S., from your school district and judgeship election, is a "travesty" because, one way or another, we do the same thing.

The bottom line?  Don't question the rules after the voting starts.  Each system has it's pros and cons.  For example, if you want a system where delegates are allocated based on turnout, you're creating a disincentive to campaign in small states because, all things being equal, they will have a lower turnout.

If you want to adopt winner-takes-all, it gives the most popular candidates at the start of the primary cycle a remarkable advantage.  Keep in mind that McCain was able to bounce back because he won New Hampshire convincingly after finishing a credible fourth in the Iowa caucus.

The other thing to keep in mind is that, whatever system a party uses, the candidates must plan their strategy in a way that delivers success under those rules.

The rules are the rules.  Like the sword, you live by them and you die by them.

I actually wanted to title this entry "Sometimes, It's the White Liberals Who Get on My Nerves" but since I am not certain of this guy's race - although I venture to say he's most likely white - I'll edit myself for accuracy's sake.

Part of the problem is that some white liberals carry with them racist attitudes and they end up bubbling up in the weirdest of places.  And it's usually the weirdest of places because, unlike other non-liberal whites, they try not to sound act or be racist.  Which is a good thing.  Having good intentions is 90% of the way there.

But you have to cringe when you read entries that start like this one:

Wow, We Nominated The Black Guy

"The Black Guy"?  Barack Obama has been trying his best to get past race or at least try to make race as irrelevant as possible.  He has shown, smarts, charisma, resilience, and an uncanny ability to inspire people.  Even Mr. Latino Pundit himself is an Obamaniac.  And now that he has all but won the Democratic nomination for President he's "the Black Guy."

I thought it was a poor choice of words but then there's this little nugget here.

For quite some time, the Democratic Party struggled with a "loser" image nationally. Given its minority heavy, downtrodden heavy, freaks and geeks membership, it isn't a huge secret how it developed that negative brand. . .  A shift of electoral power toward the Democratic Party actually means a broad shift toward more pluralistic control of our government. The minorities, the downtrodden, and the freaks and geeks are taking over.

So, being a Latino automatically lumps you with the "downtrodden," the "freaks," and the "geeks."  And you're born with a "loser" image too!!  But that's OK because we're "taking over."  Good grief!

I never thought of myself as a freak, for being a Latino, that is.  The verdict still out on other stuff.  And I never wanted or expected to "take over" anything.  I'll leave that to Pinky and the Brain.  The only thing I've ever wanted, expected, and demanded - and will continue to do so - is the opportunity to do the best I can with my God-given skills.  That's all.  I find this whole thing unintentionally insulting, but insulting nonetheless.

And this is a guy who likes us!

OK, so you want to bust illegal immigrants entering or residing in the U.S.  We can talk about whether it's a good idea or a bad idea, but you can make a reasonable argument for it.  But busting illegal immigrants who are on the way out to Mexico?

SAN DIEGO -- U.S. border authorities no longer apprehend illegal immigrants only as they enter the country. Now they're catching them on the way out.

At random times near the Tijuana-San Diego border, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers have been setting up checkpoints, boarding buses destined for Mexico and pulling off people who don't have proper documentation.

That's messed up.

Vincent Bond, an agency spokesman, said departing immigrants are fair targets.

"If our officers come upon people who are here illegally . . . regardless of whether they're leaving the country, we detain them, make a record of the fact they were here illegally and return them to Mexico," Bond said.

A record?  They come to the U.S. and get fake IDs, fake SSNs, and fake documents.  What kind of record do you expect to build based on that?  "Yes, please line up mister . . .  er . . . James McGinnis.  Yeah.  The one who's 5-feet and 4-inches, looks like Pancho Villa's slender brother and says no hablo inglés.  We suspect he may not be who he claims to be"

I mean, it's one thing if they're looking for someone who has broken the law here - and I mean a law other than entering and staying illegally since they are well on their way to cure that when they're arrested.  Of course, there's always a "rationale" behind it:

Rick Oltman, spokesman for Californians for Population Stabilization, said he hoped that the crackdown on departing illegal immigrants would be expanded to other exit points across the country.

He said apprehended immigrants who returned home to Mexico would become "ambassadors of enforcement" and might help deter illegal immigration.

"Each one of these people will then report increased enforcement to family and friends when they do get home, and that will give them second thoughts about sneaking back into the U.S.," he said.

"Ambassadors of enforcement."  What a crock.  The only thing that's going to do is to have people get off the bus to Mexico and make a dash for it.  Can you just picture the Border Patrol Agents running after illegal immigrants who want to leave the country?

Lets use some common sense on this one: these measures can have no other practical use beyond harassing illegal immigrants.  If you are really concerned about illegal immigration, you dedicate a lane for these people so you can get them out of the U.S. quicker, not waste taxpayer dollars creating a record that won't help anyone with anything.

It turns out Forrest Gump was right: stupid is as stupid does.

2 Tough Questions

Question 1:

If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who
were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had
syphilis, would you recommend that she have an abortion?


Read the next question before looking at the response for this one.


Question 2:

It is time to elect a new world leader, and only your vote counts.
Here are the facts about the three candidates. Who would you vote for?


Candidate A
Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologist
He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.


Candidate B
He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in
college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.


Candidate C
He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an
occasional beer and never cheated on his wife.



Which of these candidates would be our choice?


Decide first... no peeking, then jump over for the response.

...let's have some fun!  A Japanese IQ test, purported to be given to perspective employees.  Can you get everyone across the river?  (Click on big blue circle after jump.)



The following rules apply:
* Only 2 persons on the raft at a time.
* The father cannot stay with any of the daughters, without their mother's presence.
* The mother cannot stay with any of the sons, without their father's presence.
* The thief (striped shirt) cannot stay with any family member, if the Policeman is not there.
* Only the Father, the Mother and the Policeman know how to operate the raft.

To move the people, click on them. To move the raft, click on the pole on the opposite side of the river. The solution is possible! THIS IS NOT A TRICK!

You gotta think just what the 'original' Fidel had stuck up his ass?

Since finally succeeding his ailing 81-year-old brother, Fidel, in February, Mr. Castro, 76, who appeared before hundreds of thousands of Cubans at a May Day rally on Thursday here in the capital, has been busy with a flurry of changes. In the last eight weeks he has also opened access to cellphones, lifted the ban on Cubans using tourist hotels and granted farmers the right to manage unused land for profit.

The Meatrix.