Recently in Politics Category

Just like in politics, in business.  If you want to participate or not, the conversations in business and consumers are taking place.  You decide your level of involvement, or not. 

I've decided to move into the realm of business and new media.

This is part of our Latinos In Social Media Initiative.

Dear Friends,
It’s a great honor to invite you to our first #Latism Party to launch our LatISM Heritage Tour! It will take place tonight at 9:00 pm EST on Twitter.

Please join us to meet the event organizers:

Nancy at @nancyperez – for LATISM-FL
George at @urbanjibaro – for LATISM-NY
Juan at @juantornoe – for LATISM-TX

Then Louis at @louispagan and Pedro at @latism – from LATISM Headquarters.

We’ll tell you all about the event and the LATISM concept during the party while you win Great Walmart Prizes:

- 2 Ipod Shuffle

- 2 $50 Walmart Gift Cards

- 1 $50 iTune Card

no need to RSVP for this one. Just show up invite as many friends as you can. Whoever brings the most friends from 9 to 10 PM will win the prize of his/her choice. Just ask your friends to tweet the following:

“I’ve been invited to #Latism by @yourTwitterUserName”

We’ll do the head count at 10:00 pm and announce the winner by 10:15
All other winners will be announced during the party. Usually we give a prize every 10-15 minutes. Only LATISM group members will be eligible to win, so remember to tell your friends to join this group if they also want to participate in the giveaway!

I’ll be announcing the prizes, so follow my tweets at @anarc

If this is your first Twitter Party, a great way to follow will be using a TwitterChat application like: http://tweetchat.com/room/latism

Hasta Pronto!!!

Find my other blog: Louis Pagan

The man who called Spanish the language of the ghetto, now has a Twitter account in Spanish. From the Newt himself:

"The American people believe English should be the official language of the government. … We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto."

My question:

My previous post "Social Media Solves Latino Assimilation" was either loved or hated.  Unbelievably, this is due to one word.  If the assimilation was replaced with acculturation, the attitudes would drastically change.  That's the power of words. 

Guess what?  I purposely, chose to use the word assimilation instead of acculturation to make the point that I will now make in this post:  the futility of fighting over a principle first and giving the goal a back seat is an exercise in epic failure.

Let's see why.

Assimilation is a negative, almost derogatory term one can use towards Latinos and American culture.  "Cultural assimilation is the adoption by an individual of some or all aspects of a dominant culture."  There is no better way to piss off, or put a Latino into a defensive mode.  All you have to do is suggest that he/she is of a sub-class, and you lost them. 

Conversely, acculturation "is the exchange of cultural features...the original cultural patterns of either or both groups may be altered, but the groups remain distinct."  Ah, the best of both worlds.  No one feels threatened, there are no converts, no fanatics, and best of all no one is better than the other.  Happy Latinos.

This debate sidetracks the progress of Latinos from the main goal of success and prosperity.  The effort to benefit by adapting to one's environment is put into a schism and suffers progress.  Latinos are duped into a discussion instead of concentrating their energy on the goal.

It's unfortunate that this topic is framed as it is, but I refuse to engage the press and politicians in this chatter.  Say Latinos should assimilate...say American culture is dominant...say whatever you want.  I don't really care, because my eyes are on the prize.

Forget all the negative media attention given to Sotomayor.  The first Hispanic lady of the High Court gets American's approval.

• 49 - 29 percent among white voters;
• 85 - 2 percent among black voters;
• 58 - 24 percent among Hispanic voters;
• 51 - 26 percent among white Catholics;
• 66 - 18 percent among Jews;
• 43 - 37 percent among white Protestants
• White evangelical Christians oppose the nomination 41 - 35 percent.

This is actually funny, but not offensive.
Original Video- More videos at TinyPic

(via guanabee)

There's a piece by Albor Ruiz, in the Daily News yesterday that is titled "Hispanic voters Say Immigration's No1."   But, No1 what?  I've enjoyed Albor Ruiz's articles for years and can not recall any disagreement on my part.  But as much as I would like to think that my fellow Hispanics actually give a crap for their hermaons y hermanas, and developed an altruistic attitude to fellow human beings, I am unconvinced.  Here's why...

Just last year from the Pew:

Latino registered voters rank education, the cost of living, jobs and health care as the most important issues in the fall campaign, with crime lagging a bit behind those four and the war in Iraq and immigration still farther behind.

That was just July, of last year.  So when I read Ruiz's article title I became skeptical and found another account of the same study:

Respondents were also asked about their views on national problems. Fifty-six percent said the country's weak economy weighed most heavily on them, and 13 percent cited wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Other worries included lack of access to health care, illegal immigration, the housing crisis, and low quality of public schools.

Hispanics are just like anybody else - we have a unique culture - we are not from another planet.  So, to think that in the lapse of little under a year that Hispanics became embassadors of empathy would be a far cry.

The point Ruiz's article is based on that I feel he did not bring home strong enough is that Immigration is NOT the # 1 Hispanic concern at the moment, but it would be a deciding factor in the upcoming 2010 election say it is still a national issue:

75% of those interviewed for the Bendixen report said they thought anti-immigrant sentiment against Hispanics - not just illegal immigrants - was growing. Fifty-nine percent said immigration was a very important issue to them and their families.

[...]
But with 69% saying they knew undocumented immigrants as friends, relatives, neighbors or co-workers, immigration is an issue that affects Latino voters in very intimate way. Actually, 87% of respondents said they would not vote for any congressional candidate who was in favor of forcing illegal immigrants to leave the country.

You see, if you read these two parts it is not that Hispanics are saying that they are genuinely concerned here, but because they see that it affects or will affect them that they are now concerned.  If you read "...thought anti-immigration sentiment...was growing," and 69% say they knew undocumented immigratans as friends, relatives..." etc.  So now it's become personal, becuase now they may experience this first-hand.  This is psychology 101. 

Slowly Hispanics, are finally waking up to the fact of the underlying attitudes that surround the immigration issue that has been used as a backdoor racists tool.  Better late than never amigos!

NOTE:  To see some true altuistic Hispanics on the front line, go and visit: Citizen Orange, Latina Lista, Latino Politico.

 

A while back - sometime between today and my previous post over a month ago - I came across a "conservative" blog discussing this view of the Democratic party and "the Left"

Leftism, which sees people as victim groups rather than individuals, which sets us one against another according to the color of our skins rather than distinguishing us by the contents of our characters, which is so eager to manipulate our guilts and grievances in order to form bases of support for an ever-expanding state, has derailed the natural American movement—the natural human movement—toward assimilation and unity and replaced it with ghettoizing multi-culturalism and infantilizing “diversity.”

Emphasis in original.  I preface my comments by saying that I do not like the "labels game" of calling people "liberal" or "conservative" or "left" or "right."  It really doesn't mean anything if you don't have tangible reference point.  For  example, if Pat Buchanan calls me a liberal, that doesn't really say much.  But if Ted Kennedy did, well, that's a different story.  So, when I refer to this blogger as "conservative" I'm using my political views as reference and it should be taken to mean "more conservative than me."  In fact, this blogger considers herself to be  "moderately conservative" or what would be referred to in the world out there as center-right.

With that caveat, I really have to laugh at this news item:

They’ve had it up to here.

Republican National Committee Michael Steele, who’s often tangled with members of his own party, is now facing boos from yet another crowd. This time, it’s Hispanic GOP leaders, who are peeved that he hasn’t appointed any high-profile Hispanics to top positions.

Emphasis in original.  If he wasn't so annoying, I'd feel bad for Michael Steele.  That said, it's interesting that the tokenism from "the right" sounds just like tokenism from "the left."

In a Mar. 6 letter acquired by a news site Wednesday, Hispanic leaders said they “were extremely disheartened that no Hispanics were considered for the post of Coalitions Director and that, to date, no Hispanics have been appointed to any other high-profile leadership roles within the party.”

“If the RNC’s outreach effort to Hispanics consists simply of appointing a Hispanic to serve as Director of the Hispanic Coalitions, then this plan is a recipe for disaster,” said the letter, co-signed by seven Hispanic group leaders (which according to Politico’s Ben Smith included the Republican National Hispanic Assembly, the Hispanic War Veterans of America, and the National Coalition for Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders).

Not to be outdone, the HRs (Hispanic Republicans) also played the race card.

The letter was circulated after Steele hired a black Republican to lead the GOP’s diversity efforts.

But that was back in March 6.  What happened since?

Steele responded to the March 6 letter by inviting prominent Hispanic Republicans, including the letter's signatories, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and former Texas Congressman Henry Bonilla, to a March 18 meeting at the RNC's headquarters.

There, people present said, Steele reiterated the commitment to broaden the party that had won him broad support from Hispanic Republicans in the chairman's race, and asked them to send him resumes of capable Hispanic operatives and advisors.

His guests left satisfied, but say that since then, they've seen no action.

And just to show this isn't a Republican problem, the HDs (Hispanic Democrats) are upset too.

On the Democratic side of the aisle, Hispanic leaders are stewing too. Leading lawmakers are criticizing Obama for what they consider to be his “slow-walking comprehensive immigration reform.”

Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chairwoman Nydia Velázquez (D-NY) lauded Obama in Roll Call Thursday as being “clear and strong on the issue,” but she said her caucus would push for immigration reform this year.

I must say comprehensive immigration reform won't be much of an issue if we don't (a) turn the economy around and get it going in the right direction - which may be happening but who knows? - (b) create jobs; the faster, the better, and (c) keep people from falling into a black hole of economic despair.  After all, there won't be that much immigration into a country that doesn't have many or any jobs to offer.

So, there it is.  The HRs are just as bad at tokenism as the HDs.

Leftism, which sees people as victim groups rather than individuals, which sets us one against another according to the color of our skins rather than distinguishing us by the contents of our characters

So that would make Hispanic Republicans . . . leftists?  Riiiiiiiight!!!!! (No pun intended there.)

There was too much to write for this on Twitter. 

Ruben Navarrette recently 'predicted' that Latinos will get the shaft when it comes to the High Court.  Of course, he's talking about Sotomayor here, who's been a target and the source of much hoopla for weeks now.

To sum up Navarrette quickly, he credits the whole candidate list to tokenism:

The unqualified come in all colors, races, ethnicities and backgrounds, as do the qualified.

By the way, some pundits are saying the odds are good that a Latino will get the nod. I hope I'm wrong, but I predict Latinos will be shut out again. Then the administration will expect to get credit for at least including a couple of token Latino names on the short list. After all, I suspect, that was the whole point of including them.

Isn't he adding fuel to the fire that Latinos and women are not the "most qualified?"  What happens when a woman or a Latino is appointed to the high court?  Are we going to hear that the sole reason that they are there is because of their ethnicity or because they have titts???  Unfortunately, the GOP machine does not cease it's subersive messages even in the small hours of their irrelavant party.

This stuck out to me:

There's no end of speculation about what the president means when he says he's looking for someone with "heart and empathy" and a keen understanding of "how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives." But many think that means he intends to diversify the bench.

If one were to read that backwards, would they then deduce that someone who is privileged is then out of touch with the reality of our daily lives?  So ultimately, this seems to read as a compliment, but I hear a hint of belittlement.  It is if what is being said that diversity cannot think past the mind of the masses.  That in some way, we are linked to the myriad grind and routine of the 'average Joe,' who hopelessly is at the mercy of the cut and grind of the poor working class.

Is not this what the statement assumes?  This is exaclty what they want people to think.

The attack on Sotomayor equates her to an angry Latina.  Yes, you've read that correctly and that's called character assassination.  To date, the best post I've read to debunk this calculated attack comes from The Reality-Based Community (and folks, I am glad to be born on this side of the planet):

... anonymous accusations, especially personal ones, are obnoxious....confidence in them is not boosted when the author of the piece admits he hasn't talked to enough people or read enough of the judge's opinions to form his own judgment.

The additional information that the "not that bright" Sotomayor, coming from a background in the projects, won the Pyne Prize for the top undergraduate in her year at Princeton, ought also to raise some questions about the accuracy of Rosen's reporting. The best undergraduate isn't necessarily the smartest person, let alone the wisest, but it's hard to believe that the best undergraduate in a Princeton class lacks anything in the way of sheer brainpower.

From all the gossip and hearsay, the attack from the New Republic makes one gag and cough like after inhaling second-hand smoke. 

...and Walgreens pulls it!

For those of you who don't Twitter, I first posted this there.  I had some more thoughts (or rants), about this and had to put it here because Twitter is a microblog and only allows 160 characters.

I looked at the 'Chia Obama' and saw nothing inherently racist.  As you may have guessed the perceived racist part is that the flower portion of the Chia Obama grows as a set of hair.  Nothing racist here.

However, many may perceive this as an Afro.  But, an afro is a specific hair style "in which the hair extends out from the head like a halo, cloud or ball."  You see, it's not a term for African hair.  Now I can see how someone may be concerned about people making fun of Obama by growing an Afro on the Chia Pet, and how that can be perceived as racist. 

What I am concerned with here is certain things becoming taboo when it concerns race.  Should we start banning everything that could be deemed racist?  Should we shut down the Obama fried chicken and Southern food stores as well?  (Okay, those I think are just silly.)

Interesting (but relevant), question:  Will the drug war kill you, if you take Spring Break in Mexico?  Probably, not.

Socialism.  Nationalism.  Patriotism.  Protectionism.  Turning-your-back-on-the-world-ism?  That's not American!

De-globalism is just not going to happen.  Not going to fly.  You want to see countries turn their back on one another?  Do you really want to see an 'every man for themselves' mentality? 

As much as I hate seeing jobs shipped overseas to cheaper desks, the reality is that it is not going to go away.  What about our exports?  What about our credit with other countries (that have helped keep us afloat)?

Poor countries such as India have flourished with globalization.  Do we really want to keep everyone under our foot, or is the US afraid of a little competition?

Honestly, the 'Made-In-America' tag just doesn't hold as much weight as it used to.  Companies got lazy, and the competition got better (think, auto industry).  Why the f*ck are some trying to regulate this now that they find themselves on a bigger playing field with the home team getting their butts kicked.  Look at the phenomenon of the internet and how that unregulated entity knows no bounds.  It would of never grown had we kept it home.

Put down the pipe, because if our fantasy of buying American and keeping everything home, we will see very shortly just how much we will be screwing ourselves for years to come.  Be a true American, support globalism (or keep your head stuck in the sand).

And this time, Rev. Wright has nothing to do with it.  This is what happens when you have decades of mismanagement trying to put off paying the bill until "some other day."

Puerto Rico's governor has unveiled plans to cut 30,000 public sector jobs and raise taxes to confront a "bankrupt government" in the US territory.

Luis Fortuño said he aimed to slash spending by $2bn (£1.4bn) and that layoffs would start in July.

He also announced plans to jump-start the economy, which has been in recession for three years.

He said failure to act would do massive damage to the economy, which could take a decade to recover.

The proposed job cuts - equivalent to 14% of the public work force - will not include police officers and teachers.

"The government is too big and spends too much," Mr Fortuño said in a half-hour televised address. "Simply, the government has to be minimized."

And, as if the news weren't bad enough already,

The government of Puerto Rico borrowed $2.9 billion through pension bonds in 2008, betting that it could reap annual returns of 8.5 percent investing the money, while paying its bondholders 6.5 percent.

“The risk is minimal,” says Jorge Irizarry, who was chairman of the Employees Retirement System of Puerto Rico from August 2007 through December 2008.

Emphasis added.  Famous last words, anyone?

A political appointee, he departed after his party lost the governorship in November. Before working for Puerto Rico, Irizarry was an executive on the island at PaineWebber Group Inc., now UBS Puerto Rico, from 1986 to 1998.

So far, Puerto Rico’s wager isn’t paying off. The 8.5 percent expected rate of return has instead been a loss of more than $200 million, according to a Dec. 12 presentation by fund administrators to legislators.

“It was an arbitrage transaction, and the market has turned against us,” says Carlos Garcia, former president of Banco Santander Puerto Rico, who replaced Irizarry as chairman of the pension fund in January. “I don’t know if the benefits intended will be realized.”

That giant sucking sound?  The sound of wealth, money, and jobs leaving la isla del encanto for a good long while.

UPDATE - 3:56PM: For the Spanish-speakers out there, if you want to see how P.R.'s finances got to where they are today, check this out.

While American punditry goes through yet another round of hand-wringing about Obama overreaching, not succeeding, etc., the U.S. public has a clear idea of who's on their side - and who isn't.

A new national poll suggests that three out of four Americans approve of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, but the economic stimulus package he's trying to push through Congress is not nearly as popular.

Seventy-six percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Monday gave Obama a thumbs-up on how he's performing his duties, while 23 percent disapproved.

While the president puts on a full-court press, the debate over the $800 billion-plus bill -- which includes increased government spending and tax cuts -- appears to have split the public. A slight majority, 54 percent, favors the bill; 45 percent are opposed.

And there's a partisan divide. Three out of four Democrats support the bill, but that number drops to 51 percent for Independents and just 32 percent for Republicans. Nearly seven in 10 Republicans questioned in the survey oppose the bill.

Lets see, a majority of Democrats and Independents support Obama and the stimulus package and a majority of Republicans oppose both.  Republicans didn't get it on November 4 and they still don't.  But wait, there's more.

The survey indicates, however, that Obama and the Democrats in Congress do have some advantages in this political battle over the stimulus. Three out of four poll respondents said that Obama is doing enough to cooperate with Republicans in Congress, but only 39 percent feel that congressional Republicans are cooperating enough with the president.

Six out of 10 approved of the way Democratic leaders in Congress are handling their jobs. But only 44 percent of those questioned approved of the way Republican leaders in Congress are performing. Overall, only 29 percent said they like the way Congress is handling its job, with 71 percent disapproving.

That's far below Obama's 76 percent approval rating, which is higher than other recent national surveys by other organizations.

Emphasis added.  Those congressional numbers are interesting in that both Democrats and Republicans disapprove of Congress.  But if 60% of Democrats approves of the way their leaders in Congress are handling their job, it probably means that a good chunk of those Democrats believes Congress isn't doing its job because Republicans are messing things up.

The Gallup Poll pretty much has the same results.

So, if the Republicans don't want to become even more irrelevant, they better start listening to what the people have to say.

Along the same lines of Mr. LP's entry a few days ago, here's another Puerto Rican politician "representing"

HARTFORD, Conn. - Hartford's mayor turned himself in Tuesday on charges of having a city contractor do $40,000 in work at his home and paying for it only after being confronted by investigators.

Eddie A. Perez, a native of Puerto Rico and the first Hispanic mayor in the city's history, admitted "a lapse in judgment" but said he did not commit a crime. He pledged to remain in office.

Emphasis added.  A "lapse in judgment"?  ¡Coño, Eddie, deja esa mierda, carajo!  Did not commit a crime? 

Carlos Costa, a contractor who was awarded a $5 million city streetscape contract, did $40,000 in kitchen and bathroom renovations at Perez's home. The work was completed in 2006 and Perez says he paid Costa in July 2007.

Not quite pay-to-play.  More like build-to-play.

Perez's attorney, Hubert Santos, said he will request a speedy trial and hopes that Perez would appear before a jury within two to three months.

"We're ready to go to trial tomorrow," Santos told the newspaper.

As a lawyer, I can tell you that's a crock.  Basically, the prosecution has to make the case and he wants to go to trial before they have dotted the 'i's and crossed the 't's.

Lets make sure we know who this pendejo is, just in case we come across him on the street:

Then we can look him in the eye and tell him ¡coño, Eddie, deja esa mierda, carajo!