Observations about President Obama and Latinos

Obama has already demonstrated that he is the first US President to appoint more Latinos in his administration than any other President before him. His crowning achievement was to get Sonia Sotomayor on the US Supreme Court. It involved a first Latino appointment and a woman at the same time. Senate confirmation appointments of Latinos last counted was right under 50. These means Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, Cabinet members Hilda Solis (Labor) and Ken Salazar (Interior), several Under Secretaries like Maria Otero at State, about a score of assistant secretaries; included also are ambassadors and federal judges. The non-confirmable slots reflect even higher numbers of Latinos have been given employment by the administration. Plainly, Obama and his team are betting that the Latino vote will continue to grow and thrive while the GOP tacks to the wrong side of a looming immigration reform legislative battle which many pundits suggest will turn ‘dirty’: anti-immigrant, then anti-Mexican and possibly racist anti-Latino. Yet it is difficult at times to understand the slowness of the recognition of Latinos by both parties.

One can readily surmise that for years in the affrimative action wars and the hard fought battles for equality significant Federal Court orders have been issued in favor of women and African-Americans, but judicial remedy for Latinos has been scarce or absent. The rap in Washington is that Latinos (now the largest ethnic minority in the country) do not sue in general, therefore the government or the private sector has not detected a real ‘penalty’ for not recruiting or retaining or promoting Hispanics. This has further exacerbated the insufficient numbers of Latinos in appointed positions and career status in the federal bureaucracies.

Nearly fifty years ago John Kennedy appointed the first two Hispanic US Ambassadors (both political appointees: Raymond Telles and Teodoro Moscoso) and the first Hispanic Federal Judge Reynaldo de la Garza (if one does not consider Sephardic Jew Ben Cardozo by FDR). Subsequently, we saw Lyndon Johnson name the first career Hispanic US diplomat as an ambassador (John Jova to Honduras). Later, in the seventies President Gerald Ford named the first Hispanic to be an Assistant Secretary (Al Zapanta to Interior). Earlier in the sixties, the first Latino with the rank of a four star officer Admiral Horacio Rivero of Puerto Rico was named. Richard Cavazos of Texas followed him as the first Latino four-star General in the US Army. Cavazos’ brother, Lauro Cavazos was named by President Reagan as the first Latino Cabinet (Education) member in the history of the US. Two civilian military heads of service named were Ed Hidalgo as Navy Secretary under President Carter and Louis Caldera, Secretary of the Army under Clinton. The first Hispanic National Security Council official (under Clinton) with the rank of Special Assistant to the President was Arturo Valenzuela (now being named by Pres. Obama as Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere). To be certain, we have seen numerous Latinos appointed to key jobs and many other positions of influence not just token or symbolic positions. Yet Latinos continue to be under-represented in the federal bureaucracy.

A studied glance at the Pentagon will reveal the roster for general officers. One can readily notice that of the several hundred active duty general/flag rank officers in the US military, there are a handful with Hispanic last names, but only three of these general rank officers are Latino. The fact is that Latinos are not sufficiently represented in the career senior ranks of the federal bureaucracy and in the US military establishment. Clearly, the problem lies in recruitment, retention, job assignment and speed of promotion. Two underlining factors contribute to this less than satisfactory situation. First, the lack of any effective judicial or legal order court ordering or manifesting any vested interest in remedying Latino under-representation. Added to this is the discernible lack of understanding or knowledge by too many Latinos on how the federal bureaucracy (the corporate culture) works. Nor do they seem to possess an adequate appreciation of mastering the organization’s unwritten rules. Meaningful mentorship and Godfathers (padrinos) in the bureaucracy remain a scarce resource for Latinos. Some observers note that most university trained Latinos do not consider or go into public service. They tend to prefer the private sector or the non-profit type of organizations. It should be noted here that the numbers or proportion of Latinos in the private sector doing well or being better representative of the larger Hispanic population remains truly a more difficult challenge to rectify. Again, Obama has not short-changed the Latinos. Nonetheless, the Latino community must now ensure that the next generation of Latino appointees or career types are better equipped to understand and navigate the troubled waters of the tangled bureaucracy. The Latino community will need to brace itself for the on-going acrimonious health-care reform efforts, the looming immigration reform and the economic and tax adjustments. All Latinos will be stakeholders in these action items at one point or another…

Where doth lie that rarest of breeds they call "The Gay Latino"?

Here is the thing: I have no doubt Gay.com truly, sincerely and authentically wants to get to know me a little bit better. Heck! I'm sure they are patting themselves in the back for showing some inclusivity. But why am I still laughing about their recent attempt at knowing LGBT Latinos?

On Wednesday, the web portal posted a column on their site (as well as on PlanetOut) asking Latinos to tell them "What’s Your Gay Latino/Hispanic Life Like?" Never mind that while I might identify as a Latino man, I'm not sure that my "gay life" is too Latino or Hispanic. I mean, should I tell them I dance salsa every morning and eat nacho chips with guacamole every night?

Digging deeper, let's take a look at how they frame Latino/Hispanic gay life:

Judging by their questions they seem to think that gay Latinos are in the closet ("As a Latino/Hispanic, do you have a 'coming out' story specific to your culture? Or do you have any stories describing why you feel you cannot 'come out' as an LGBT Latino?"), prone to being victims of homophobic attacks ("Could you provide an experience where you were a victim of gay bashing/abuse from fellow Latinos vs. non-Hispanic people, whether you were 'out' or not?"), have no access to books, television, films or computers ("How did you learn about sex and sexual orientation? Was it from family, friends, religion, etc?" or "How did you learn about STDs and safe sex? Was it culturally specific through organizations or just through personal experiences?"), and might not get what 'gayness' entails ("What are your perceptions of what makes a gay man - top/bottom or other roles? - and a lesbian in Latino/Hispanic culture?").

That's not necessarily wanting to know more about LGBT Latinos. It's requesting that LGBT Latinos respond according to a number of stereotypical assumptions about being Latino and LGBT (you know, that there are few if any out LGBT Latinos, that Latinos are more homophobic, and that we might define sexuality by the sexual positions we assume when having sex).

Ok, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit but here is the kicker: What was the impetus behind Gay.com's new-found interest on finding out more about LGBT Latinos? Why none other that Mexican-American singer Linda Ronstadt!

In an interview that also was posted on Gay.com on Wednesday, Ms. Ronstadt, who to her credit has always been a strong ally to LGBT Latinos, speaks about lesbian ranchera singer Lucha Reyes, the passage of Prop. 8 in California last year, homophobia in the Latino community, and her role coordinating the upcoming San Jose Mariachi Festival (Ms. Rondstadt, once known more for her pop hits, has embraced Mex-Tex and Mariachi big band culture and enjoyed great acclaim and success in this stage of her prolific career).

"Ronstadt's involvement" Gay.comwrites, "made us want to know more about the cultural experiences of being LGBT in the Latino/Hispanic community."

Anyway, who knows? Perhaps Gay.com will get some good feedback and profile a number of groovy gay Latinos. But, just as Gay.com tells Ms. Ronstadt that "something needs to be done to bridge the gay gap in the Hispanic community", perhaps Gay.com also needs to do something about the fact that, in this day and age, they seem to have no clue about LGBT Latinos nor seem to know any out LGBT Latinos they could have interviewed on these topics.

Are Californians ready to try again on marriage equality?

Is it too soon to try for marriage equality again in California? Some major funders of last year’s failed “No on 8″ campaign, which opposed changing the state’s constitution to roll back marriage equality, say they aren’t convinced 2010 is the right time to once again put the issue to voters, according to an article in the New York Times.

David Bohnett, a philanthropist who invested heavily in “No on 8″ last year, said major funders are prepared to help a new campaign, as long as its the right campaign. ”In conversations with a number of my fellow major No on 8 donors, I find that they share my sentiment: namely, that we will step up to the plate — with resources and talent — when the time is right. The only thing worse than losing in 2008 would be to lose again in 2010,” Bohnett said.

One key player in the next battle will likely be Marc Solomon, marriage director for Equality California. In gauging whether or not the organization should put its muscle behind a 2010 statewide ballot initiative or wait for more favorable conditions in 2012, Solomon said political experts and the public polling suggest 2010 may be too early. ”I expected having watched the protests and the real pain that the L.G.B.T. community had experienced that there would be some real measurable remorse in the electorate. But if you look at the poll numbers since November, they really haven’t moved at all,” Solomon said.

But not everyone agrees with the funders and political experts. Younger activists, energized by the loss last year, want to move ahead quickly, according to some LGBT rights advocates.

What is it about Sarah?

Ten months ago, no one could have anticipated the contempt and loathing Sarah Palin has faced, particularly from high profile members of the left. She has experienced, or been victim of, the worst our political system can dish out. Leaving this ugly spectacle behind for the sake of her family is perfectly understandable and probably the right thing to do
but Is Sarah Palin more a victim of her own success?

Did KRXQ go too far with Transgender comments?

Morning drive show ”Rob, Arnie and Dawn” has ceased broadcasting until June 11th following advertiser and listener backlash due to a controversial segment bashing transgender and cross-dressing teens.

Chipotle, Snapple and Sonic are among nine advertisers withdrawing crucial business from the show in protest of the May 28th broadcast. During the show, co-host Arnie States said:

“If my son, God forbid, if my son put on a pair of high heels, I would probably hit him with one of my shoes. I would throw a shoe at him.”

Host Rob Williams concurred.

“A boy who wears a dress is a freak. He’s a nut.”

The pair went on to admonish transgender people and their supporters to “stop hiding behind research and laws.” It bears repeating that some studies indicate gay, lesbian and transgender teens are four times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers.

In a headache-inducing, all-caps statement made on their website, the hosts had this to say for themselves:

WE PRESENTED OUR OPINIONS ON A VERY SENSITIVE SUBJECT IN A HATEFUL, CHILDISH AND CRUDE FASHION; AND THEN, GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RETRACT THOSE REMARKS, WE DEFENDED THEM.

SINCE THEN, YOU, OUR LOYAL LISTENERS, HAVE MADE IT CLEAR TO US THAT WE WENT TOO FAR. THE RESPONSE HAS BEEN OVERWHELMING. NONE OF YOU SAID THAT WE COULDN’T HAVE OPINIONS, YET SO MANY OF YOU SAID THAT THE WAY WE GAVE THEM CROSSED THE LINE. FURTHER, YOU SAID THAT OUR ATTEMPT TO MASK OUR COMMENTS AS “JOKES THAT WOULD BE UNDERSTOOD BY OUR AUDIENCE,” WAS UNACCEPTABLE. I WOULD SAY NOW THAT IT WAS WORSE THAN THAT, IT WAS COWARDLY. YOU HAVE MADE THAT CLEAR.

LB news paper makes....

This cartoon was published in the Long Beach
Gazette. I think it's objectionable, but I welcome your thoughts.

YOU DECIDE: Did Miss California’s Answer Cost Her the Crown?

While we do live in a land where there is freedom of speech, we hope that people who represent us, even those who wear Vaseline on their teeth and can walk and wave while turning their hand at the wrist at the same time at least have a general understanding of what is at stake in the fight for marriage equality.


Somewhere, former Miss South Carolina Caitlin Upton is having a really good laugh.

At this weekend's Miss USA pageant, Perez Hilton, posed the following question to Miss California, Carrie Prejean, and the answer set a new standard in bad beauty pageant interview answers:

“Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?” Hilton asked.

And ..ladies and gentlemen... this is how Miss California responded:

"We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

There were cheers and there were reportedly “boos” for the first time in pageant history.

Ultimately, Miss North Carolina, Kristen Dalton, was crowned Miss USA at the Hard Rock Café Resort and Casino on Sunday evening.

Miss California was first runner up.

Check out her response below:


It kinda makes you miss Lauren Katlin - Miss South Carolina:

Really? Texican Whopper? Really?!?

Sound a little familiar? We all remember the Taco Bell Chihuahua! That campaign caused quite a stir among Mexicans and other Latin Americans as well. Is it really necessary to offend an entire segment of the population just to sell fast food? Do you find these ads offensive?



Burger King recently launched an ad campaign in Spain for their Texican Whopper which is causing quite a controversy. The Whopper is topped with taco-coated chili con carne, spicy jalapenos, onion, lettuce and Cajun mayonnaise and is described in the advertisement as “inspired by the land where a man ain’t afraid to sink his teeth into something spicy.”

The TV ad depicts a diminutive Mexican wrestler alongside a cowboy and describes the Texican as "The taste of Texas with a little spicy Mexican." In an accompanying print ad, the wrestler is wearing the Mexican flag as a cloak. Mexico has very strict laws covering the use of its flag and this is not the first time Mexico’s national flag has been improperly portrayed. Just last year, Mexico fined foreign-owned publishing house, Random House Mondadori for disrespecting the country’s flag in an online video.

Mexico’s ambassador to Spain, Jose Zermeno, criticized the ad, declaring in a letter to Burger King that it, “improperly used the stereotypical image of Mexicans.” Zermeno also asked for Burger King to pull the ad and apologize for offending Mexican cuisine.

Gay Bashing at a Sports Bar: What Do You Do?

ABC News Tested Americans' increasing open-mindedness, they staged a verbal gay-bashing scenario at a local sports bar in Linden, N.J. They hired actor Vince August to play a homophobic patron. Dusty St. Amand and Dominic Benevento, a gay couple in real life, played the targets of his slurs. Two additional actors, Traci Hovel and Brad Lee Wind, played a heterosexual couple at the opposite end of the bar.

States Revisit Immigration Laws for who's convince?

In Iowa, Democratic state Rep. Bruce Hunter wants to repeal a law that makes English the state's official language and requires most government documents to be in English. "It's really sent out the wrong message about the state of Iowa," he says.

The Madison County (Ala.) Commission last August toned down a policy that requires businesses bidding for contracts to sign a pledge saying they don't knowingly employ illegal immigrants. The change was part of a settlement with a company that was late in submitting the pledge and did not win the contract.

The new pledge no longer says county officials can inspect contractors' personnel records.

"I would prefer it to be much stronger," says Commissioner Mo Brooks, author of the original policy. After studying legal opinions and federal law, though, the commission had no other choice, he says.

In Utah, two legislators, one from each party, have proposed delaying implementation of a law set to take effect in July. The bill's provisions include a requirement that government agencies check the legal status of new hires against a federal database.

Republican state Rep. Stephen Clark, author of one proposal, wants to delay the bill for a year to study the economic impact of illegal immigrants on the state.

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., a Republican, supports a delay, says spokeswoman Lisa Roskelley.especially when we don't know whether illegal immigration is a financial plus or minus to the state."

convience?

BLOG QUESTION: L.A Mayor Heavy Hitter or Hollywood Type.

Mayor Villaraigosa, arguably one of the most high profile big city Latino mayors in the country is cruising toward a second term as mayor, people are wondering if he will deliver on some of his promises and stay in City Hall or attempt to make the jump to the governor’s office.

As many have noted, there isn’t a camera that Mayor Villaraigosa doesn’t like. He’s always photo-op ready with his big, pearly white, mega-watt smile and designer duds. Villaraigosa is one of the best dressed Latino politicos, but image isn’t everything, especially when the economic forecast is gloomy and he cannot point to any big policy victories. The AP (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h10wH51Jd3vs3z-KdEBsPQKEYTgAD96KN40O0) article that came out yesterday asked in its headline, “LA mayor: Heavy hitter or Hollywood hype?”

The following gets to the essence of his record for the last few years:
“Crime rates were heading down when Villaraigosa took office in 2005, and they have continued to decline under the stewardship of Police Chief William Bratton, who was installed by James Hahn, the mayor Villaraigosa defeated four years ago. Safer streets are a cornerstone of his campaign pitch.

However, Villaraigosa’s signature plan to take control of schools was blocked in court, and a one-in-three dropout rate is unchanged. Traffic is considered the most snarled in America, and a badly needed subway extension from downtown to Santa Monica might be a generation away, despite strong lobbying by Villaraigosa.
He promised to plant a million trees in a city starved for parks, but so far only a fraction of that number have gone into the ground. A bid for the 2016 Olympics flopped on his watch. And the mayor’s biggest moment in the national spotlight during his first term was the result of his marriage-ending affair with a TV newscaster.

Villaraigosa regrets his playboy-at-City Hall episode but argues he’s built a foundation for change by hiring 700 additional police officers, helping push through higher sales taxes to fund mass transit, promoting green power and pushing clean-air rules at the polluted port.”

Since the AP did not post this article where readers could chime in with their opinions about Villaraigosa directly. I’m giving you the opportunity to do so. I’m of the opinion that he is full of Hollywood hype, but he will certainly have a chance to become more successful on substantive policy issues in Los Angeles, assuming he does not run for governor. I would like to see him succeed. There is no point in wishing failure upon Villaraigosa, as some in the GOP have decided to do with President Obama. So what do you think?

Who should run L.A.'s parking meters?

Are the city's meters better off in the hands of the public or private sector? Another question: Would such a deal prevent the L.A. City Council from sometimes funneling excess parking meter revenue to their pet projects?



In a bid to potentially raise hundreds of millions of dollars or more for ailing city coffers, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is exploring whether to lease the cityʼs parking structures and meters to a private party to operate.
The mayor in recent weeks has quietly begun building a team of financial experts and attorneys who could advise him in structuring a deal. In December, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley -- whose city is also grappling with a big budget hole -- signed a deal that gave his city $1.15 billion in up-front cash in exchange for leasing the cityʼs roughly 36,000 meters for 75 years to infrastructure funds overseen by Morgan Stanley. (Here's a link to Daley's news release on the deal, and here's a link to a Chicago City Council agenda from December with more details of the deal).
How does the deal work? Morgan Stanley gets to keep all revenue from the meters for the 75 years. That's a nice stream of cash that currently amounts to about $20 million annually but will probably be more after significant rate hikes that were part of the deal go into effect.
And what's in it for Chicago's citizens? First and foremost, a big shot of cash that the city otherwise wouldn't have. More than $600 million is going into balancing the city's budget through 2012, and another $400 million is being set aside to generate interest to replace the meter revenue lost.
But it is the deal's fine print that raised eyebrows. As part of the deal, the city significantly raised meter rates for the first time in years, in some cases quadrupling them. The city also required Morgan Stanley to install better meters and retained the right to both write parking tickets and keep parking ticket revenue. However, Morgan Stanley won the right to do "supplemental enforcement" -- meaning the parking concessionaire they hire can also write tickets to help teach people what happens if they forget to plug meters.
"The mayor intends to move forward with a parking structure deal that makes the most sense for the long-term fiscal health of the city," said Matt Szabo, a Villaraigosa press secretary. "We are also aggressively exploring the possibility of a private partnership for the operation of the city's parking meters.
"While it's cliche to say the devil is in the details, in this case it really is," he added. "The final proposals will be fully vetted before the council, and will receive a thorough hearing before the public. But the mayor is confident that, even in this tough economy, we can implement a much smarter, more efficient way to provide parking services in this city while generating the revenue to preserve other critical city services at the same time."
The city of Los Angeles has managed about 43,000 parking meters for decades, and the results are there for everyone to see: Until a recent meter replacement project got underway, about 10% to 15% of the meters were broken at any given time, either because of vandalism or mechanical failure. Unlucky motorists who legally park at failed meters have also found they have a habit of resetting to healthy mode, often resulting in a ticket when a meter officer wandered past.

Parking meter rates increase, how is it affecting you?

Parking Rate Increase while Decreases Parking

As many may have noticed, the City has decided to raise the price you pay at parking meters, and those increases have been showing up all around town. In Lincoln Heights for instance, the parking lot behind the 99¢ has increased the rates by 400%. One dollar an hour might not seem that much to some, but it’s really exorbitant for many working people.




What is the effect of these crazy prices? Nobody is parking in the parking lot. This is around 11:30 on Sunday Feb 15, a time when this lot would normally be almost full from people shopping on N. Broadway. Like many others, I went and found a spot on the non-metered neighborhood streets nearby. This is a crazy sight, If you’ve ever been in this lot on a pre-increase day, you’ll know what I mean.

Obama is no pushover.

So where is the guy who once symbolized hope? Well, he is still there. Roughed up a little already, but still there. Barack Obama has a tough act to pull off. He must simultaneously petrify people and also restore their confidence. He must scare us to death and calm our fears.

He must convince the nation that the times are so dire we must carry out his bold plans immediately, and then he must persuade us to be patient and give his plans time to work.

Obama gave two shows Monday: a matinee in Elkhart, Ind., and an evening performance in Washington. He was calm and forceful at both. He made one joke at his town meeting in Elkhart about drinking beer and one joke at his news conference in Washington about how much Joe Biden talks (always good for a laugh).

But other than that, he was utterly serious. Make that grim.

Some people who have lost their jobs "have no idea what to do or who to turn to," he said at the news conference. Some people are going hungry, and food banks "don't have enough to meet the demand."
He used phrases like "full-blown crisis" and "vicious cycle." And he said that unless we do something quickly, "we may be unable to reverse" the crisis we face.

Nor should his stimulus and bailout plans, as massive as they are, be considered a complete fix. "Given the magnitude of the challenges we have, any single thing we do is going to be part of solution and not all of the solution," he said.

"The party," he said, "now is over."

No kidding.

Oh, and the war in Afghanistan isn't going that well either. "It is going to be difficult" to win there, and "I do not yet have a timetable for how long it is going to take," he said.

And for those who look for relief in sports, don't look for relief in sports.


It was that kind of day.


The massive spending bill Obama is now shepherding through Congress is not how he envisioned spending his time. "Look, I would love not to have to spend money right now," he said. "The thought that I came in here ginned up to spend $800 billion, that wasn't how I envisioned my presidency beginning."

But that is how it is beginning. If we unite, however, and "change our bad habits" and Congress agrees to do something, then we can climb out of this. Slowly. Not this year.

"My hope is after a difficult year - - and this is going to be a difficult year - - if we get things right, starting next year we can see things improving," Obama said.

But he also said: "I am absolutely confident that we can solve this problem."

What he refuses to do, however, "is return to the failed theories of the last eight years, which got us into this fix in the first place."

Which means that, contrary to what Republicans tell us, government is not the problem, government is the solution and right now the government is going to have to spend a lot of money to get us out of this mess.

"As long as I hold this office, I will do whatever it takes to put this country back to work," Obama promised. "I have full faith and confidence."

We can do it, he said. We must change our attitudes and ways and act swiftly and decisively even though some in Congress want to do nothing.

Which is what Congress is best at, isn't it?

But don't worry. Things will get better.

"I am the eternal optimist," Obama said

I am glad that somebody is.

Is ESPN's latest NBA ad homophobic? Does a basketball bounce?

It wouldn't feel like Super Bowl Sunday without some sort of homophobic sports ad controversy popping up and, sure enough, one has. Ironically, however, it has nothing to do with Super Bowl 43.Rather this controversy has to do with the following ad which recently ran on ESPN starring Shaquille O'Neal Great, another ad playing on the idea that men being affectionate with each other is something objectionable. So objectionable that it provokes Shaq to call it "weird" and "disgusting" and causes him to move away. What were you thinking ESPN? That being said, keep in mind, that ESPN has a pretty good record on gay issues and that Shaq himself helped chase down some gay-bashers a couple of years ago and has stated he'd protect a gay teammate.

CHANGE.....

Obama is now our 44th president and CHANGE will occur, but my issue is that there's an assumption that this one man is going to take on his new job full-time and somehow wave a magic wand of change, and I don't believe that to be true.
I think that we have to be the CHANGE, I think that we as a nation have to be leaders of the movement that we want to create and stop waiting for the change to happen, and create it.

New Years resolutions?

So I know we all make them, although most of us wont ever.. ever admit to them. So here is your chance to admit to the ' resolution ' that you've made this year and you can even post under ' annonymous '. Mine is quiet simple, I just want to go forward not look back, dont want to wear my heart on my sleeves and always stay true to myself, and this year I will do the ' AIDS LIFE CYCLE ' and will complete it ( fingers crossed ).