Alberto Gonzalez Plays Latino Card

by Gabriel Buelna

If there’s one thing we can count on in Washington, it’s that Republicans and Democrats don’t get along. That’s why it was surprising the Senate, by a vote of 94-2 vote, passed a bill taking away the Attorney General’s power to appoint U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation. For the Attorney General, this was a major reduction in his authority, but why should we care? Well, the 94-2 vote was a vote of no confidence, sending the message that Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez’s current legal post should end with his resignation or his termination.

Last week, Mr. Gonzalez spoke of adversity in his life. In his six years with the Bush administration, Mr. Gonzalez has rarely spoken of issues of race and rarely acknowledged being Latino. Now, in his moment of political crisis, he is consistently raising his ethnicity on a regular basis. In doing this, Mr. Gonzalez is saying, “Please don’t fire me, I’m Latino.” He even used the key word “adversity” to hammer his point home. This attempt to play the Latino Card was so blatant and egregious that Comedy Central paid homage to Mr. Gonzalez’s ploy be basing an entire skit on it. The burning question here is whether race is a contributing factor to the Attorney General’s predicament. No, race was not a factor. It was not a factor with O.J. and is not a factor with A.G.

What is sad about the situation is that Mr. Gonzalez should be someone Latino children and families throughout the United States and Latin America feel proud of. He’s been a successful attorney who built a relationship of trust with the President of the United States. He honored his heritage by keeping his name “Alberto” instead of changing it to “Albert” or “Al.” He’s from Southern Texas with the accent to prove it. He could have been a living role model for Latinos on a national and international level. Instead, Alberto Gonzalez has become a caricature of himself – a fading reflection of what he could have been. As the father of three Mexican-American girls, ages four, six and eight, I used to point to the television and say, see you can be a lawyer and a leader like Mr. Gonzalez. I no longer say this to my children.

Mr. Gonzalez could have overcome this challenge by speaking with Senators and admitting a mistake. The reality is that we like to crucify politicians in one breath and forgive them in the next in this country. If the Attorney General had quickly confessed his wrongdoing and the measures taken to ensure that such missteps would not occur again, the U.S. attorney firing scandal would never have become a scandal. It would have been a forgotten, month-old sound bite. Instead, the wrongdoing has grown into a full-blown national drama. Throughout, Mr. Gonzalez has failed to accept responsibility, believing on some level that the President will swoop in at the last second and save him from the gnashing teeth of non-partisan justice. In believing this, Mr. Gonzalez has not grasped that he is the Attorney General of the United States and not the personal attorney for President Bush.

As Mr. Gonzalez waits for the President to save him, he is discounting the fact that President Bush needs a few days of press where it’s not about him. With Democrats in control of Congress, the War in Iraq going badly, and home sales at their worst levels in seven years, Mr. Gonzalez will need to resign or be fired. Mr. Gonzalez being fired will be the coverage the President needs to show he is firmly at the helm of his administration and is not afraid to clean house when necessary. Mr. Gonzalez will never get that he’s a tool of the Bush administration. Mr. Gonzalez will not understand this and will miss the opportunity to resign believing until the end that he is President Bush’s friend. In politics, Mr. Gonzalez, nobody is your friend.

Mr. Gonzalez’s legacy will be that of opportunities lost. He could have helped broker an immigration accord or challenged the overall Latino community to improve its graduation rates, increase volunteerism, or generally take a stand on something. The only positive aspect of this debacle is that Latinos know Latinos can reach the position of Attorney General. We will have to wait until the next Latino Attorney General of the United States to discover the good that can come from having a Latino fill the post. Next time, I hope that being Latino is as important in choosing a candidate for the position as it is to Alberto Gonzalez as he tries to save his position.

What do you think?

Gabriel Buelna, Ph.D., M.S.W., is Executive Director of Plaza Community Center in East Los Angeles, a faculty member in the Chicana/o Studies Department at California State University, Northridge, and appears regularly on TV-KMEX-Channel 34 Univision Los Angeles and Telemundo 52.

To receive articles on regular basis or respond to this article, please visit http://www.gabrielbuelna.com/. You can also e-mail me directly at gbuelna@sbcglobal.net.

Article will also be available soon on http://www.latinola.com/.

My son Staff Sergeant Cristofer de la Peña

by Abelardo de la Peña

Hola:

My son Staff Sergeant Cristofer de la Peña is assigned to C Company 27 Brigage Support Battalion in Mosul, Iraq, as a medic.

His company is heading up a humanitarian effort to help the people of Iraq. The project, ³Soldiers Helping Those In Need-Iraq², is a blanket drive, in conjunction with blankets.com with an overall goal of 2000 donated blankets by the end of May.

As the father of a soldier in the 27 BSB, I wanted to let you know about the drive and give you an opportunity to be a part of this project by spreading the word to friends and family.

For those of you who aren¹t computer savvy, don¹t worry the process is quite easy. Simply log onto blankets.com and click on the ³Donations² icon (top right of the page). After this, click on the ³Soldier¹s Helping Those In Need-Iraq² icon.

From this page you will be able to submit your orders for donating blankets. Each blanket is $8.50 to donate, which includes the price of shipping to Iraq. Please remember that you are not just donating a blanket, you are giving warmth and love to somebody that is truly less fortunate than you.

In a few months a convoy will be rolling off the Forward Operating Base Marez to deliver the donated blankets, toys, and other goods to people who have absolutely nothing. I believe that with your help and the support of other great Americans back home, they will be able to reach above and beyond their initial goal of 2000 blankets.

Please forward to family, friends and colleagues.
¡Gracias!

- Abelardo

Brazil Embarrasses Bush
by Gabriel Buelna

With daily American casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan increasing, most Americans seem to have forgotten about Latin America. President George Bush has. After seven years in the White House, Bush attempted to make up for lost time by undertaking a whirlwind tour of Latin America, with special emphasis given to Brazil. Touted as a tour of the region to illustrate America’s commitment, the trip actually had a dual focus of developing a strategic relationship with Brazil, focusing on the biofuel ethanol, and attempting to counterbalance the increased influence of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. In the end, the tour backfired with a reduction in American influence in Latin America and a substantial increase in Brazilian influence among the nations south of the U.S. border.

Comment on this blog below

The cast of characters in this Bush induced drama includes Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (Lula) of Brazil and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Lula helped found the Brazilian Workers' party and has been jailed for his views several times. Elected in 2002, Lula’s victory marked the first civilian to civilian transfer of power since 1962. After orchestrating a failed 1992 coup d'état against former President Carlos Andrés Pérez, Chavez went on to win the presidency in 1999 and has been subsequently reelected twice.

While Lula and Chavez share similar ideologies, their strategies have differed sharply with regard to how they govern and their relationship with the United States. Chavez has continuously focused on his Fifth Republic Movement, seized private property, threatened to nationalize others and remained the proverbial thorn in the side of the United States. Conversely, Lula has focused on increasing Brazil’s economy by increasing trade, creating jobs and creating a middle ground approach to its relationship with the United States.

Brazil’s economic and political power derives from the decision in the 1960’s by its military dictatorship to move toward biofuels such as ethanol and become independent of oil. Since then, the country moved to the point where it produced 4.23 billion barrels of biofuel per year in 2005, compared to United States’ production of only 3.9 million barrels. Both India and China combined produced only 1.5 million barrels of biofuels the same year.

Bush’s trip finished in Mexico, where President Felipe Calderon waits for an immigration accord that has yet to materialize. The biggest winner of Bush’s Latin America journey is Lula of Brazil who emerged as the elder statesman, promoting a Brazilian product designed in laboratories as a viable alternative to fossil fuel. Lula’s message to Bush focused on developing strategies that would increase environmentally friendly exports, create jobs, and remain capable of replication throughout the developing world. Brazil didn’t ask for hand outs, only that the tariff on biofuels be reduced. Rebuffed by Bush, Lula offered a new way for Latin America, while our president reached no accord, and only motivated millions of protesters throughout his tour.

In the end, the new Lula way or the Lula Doctrine for economic development and diplomacy with the United States appears to have replaced the 184 year old Monroe Doctrine of complete American dominance. The Monroe Doctrine was the embodiment of the United States’ warning to the European nations to stay out of Latin America. The political and military might of the United States made enforcing the doctrine simple. Today, our country does not have the military resources or the will to continue the model. We’re dependent on others for our fuel and our capital to run our economy. Lula did not embarrass Bush by insulting him or taunting him like Chavez; instead he embarrassed Bush by heralding in a new, sophisticated, and sustainable era of Latin American independence, while simultaneously extending an olive branch. The leftist and ex-Communist caught everyone by surprise.

Comment on this blog below

So why does this matter to you? In the 1980’s, the United States represented two percent of the population, while using fifty percent of all resources. At the time, the Soviet Union existed, with China and India a mere blip on the global economic radar. Over the past twenty or so years, the Soviet Union disintegrated, while China and India experienced economic explosions predicated not merely on trade, but on the application of technical expertise.

During this same time period, Latin America was largely ignored. Economies in Latin America waxed and waned, but the Brazilian economy has remained relatively stable due to its possession of a significant agricultural, manufacturing, mining, and service sectors. The introduction of the Real in 1994 is considered a major success in Brazil’s economic history and the outlook of Brazil’s economy is almost always referred being extremely positive. As the United States stopped paying attention to the region, the United States lost control. How this loss of control will affect the world has yet to be seen. Clearly, there is no destabilization of Latin America. What we do know is that this is the end of a sort of extended Colonialism in Latin America. Bush’s tour marked the end the historical perceptual occupation of Latin America by the United States. As economies become the newest weapons of choice, it is clear that the U.S. is not the only one with an arsenal or the knowledge of how to develop one.

The victory of Lula brings one more observation to mind. While the political left has been winning throughout the region and world, Lula and Chavez offer different leadership styles. One views the militaristic model of Che Guevara as its source and the other has chosen development and democracy. How these choices will ultimately shake out, I don’t know. I just know the world changed, American dominance has once again been reduced and the world we knew in the eighties and early nineties no longer exists anywhere.

What do you think?

Gabriel Buelna, Ph.D., M.S.W., is Executive Director of Plaza Community Center in East Los Angeles, a faculty member in the Chicana/o Studies Department at California State University, Northridge, and appears regularly on TV-KMEX-Channel 34 Univision Los Angeles and Telemundo 52.

This article is also published on http://www.latinola.com/. I highly recommend LatinoLa for interesting events and articles on everything Latino in Los Angeles.

If you have a job announcement you would like us to advertise through this column, please e-mail gbuelna@plazacc.org.

Bill O’Reilly’s Peeping Toms

By Gabriel Buelna

I confess, I sometimes watch The O’Reilly Factor. While I know O’Reilly is obnoxious, watching him is like watching a car chase on television: entertaining at times, but with the distinct possibility of bloody consequences.

A week or so ago, O’Reilly interviewed conservative commentator Linda Chavez about a proposed law that would force landlords to check the immigration status of renters. Chavez didn’t agree with the legislation, citing inconvenience to landlords. O’Reilly asked Chavez if she agreed that the attacks on New York and Washington could have been prevented if Americans had observed their neighbors before 9/11. Chavez disagreed and reminded O’Reilly that the terrorists had visas and thus had arrived legally. The most interesting aspect of the exchange was O’Reilly’s vehement connection between the undocumented and terrorism. It reminded me of President Bush continually citing terrorism as justification for the war in Iraq.

Listening to their conversation brought flashbacks of the early 1990s. Most of us in our thirties and older remember those dark ages, the ugliest being in 1994 when Proposition 187 was approved by California voters, eliminating access for the undocumented to schools, hospitals, and most other government services. If not for the courts, Prop 187 would be California law, with devastating effects for children and other vulnerable populations. The worst part of the initiative, however, was the word suspect. Provisions of Prop 187 would have mandated teachers, nurses, and other public servants to turn in suspected undocumented immigrants or face consequences.

Fast forward to 2007. O’Reilly’s exchange with Chavez reminded me of small towns such as Escondido, Calif., and Hazleton, Pa., which have proposed or enacted laws forcing landlords to check the immigration status of tenants or be subject to fines. O’Reilly’s comments also called to mind conservative students in universities throughout the country who organized “Catch an Immigrant” days.

While many thought Proposition 187 was a dead-and-buried footnote in history, it’s not. Some Escondido residents even claim the undocumented are bringing leprosy to their town. (You remember leprosy from the Bible.) Next they’ll be blaming the undocumented for global warming.

I could argue that students are simply immature and that conservative talk show hosts hate immigrants, but that’s too easy. The move to make immigration into an appalling game of hide-and-go-seek, either by students or local city councils, can only lead to tragedy. Someone will be suspected of being undocumented and will get hurt. At that point, the O’Reilly car chase will end up at some tragic intersection of misguided policy and hatred. I’m not willing to take that chance.

The irony of O’Reilly and his supporters is that there is one place where I support citizens being vigilant when it comes to the undocumented. Last week I attended a meeting to end human trafficking hosted by a joint taskforce composed of the Los Angeles Police Department and various community organizations. For two hours I was educated on the horrors of human trafficking and its 17,000 victims nationwide. The reality that thousands are literally enslaved in the United States should be an issue for O’Reilly and friends. These are the victims we should focus on saving right now.

The past week marked the anniversary of the infamous 1964 Bloody Sunday, when civil rights marchers on the Selma to Montgomery March were attacked by police for promoting civil rights. Today, we see some small cities attempting to retrench civil rights by scapegoating the undocumented to protect their “way of life.” Such terms should ring familiar to those acquainted with the civil rights fight.

What O’Reilly and his allies cannot answer is who will be asked for their papers. Will skin color be a determining factor? Will language, sombrero size—what? Or perhaps I can’t eat beans or carne asada anymore! Will landlords be afraid of renting to Latinos and Asians for fear of accepting fake immigration papers? Are these proposed policies the modern equivalent of the poll tax and literacy exams of the Jim Crow era?

The intent of Bill O’Reilly and his supporters is to force all Americans to be their Peeping Toms. The difference is that we have the opportunity and an obligation to speak out and stop their voyeurism.

What do you think?

Gabriel Buelna, Ph.D., M.S.W., is Executive Director of Plaza Community Center in East Los Angeles, a faculty member in the Chicana/o Studies Department at California State University, Northridge, and appears regularly on TV-KMEX-Channel 34 Univision Los Angeles and Telemundo 52.

To recieve articles on regular basis, please visit http://www.gabrielbuelna.com/ or e-mail Gabriel directly at gbuelna@sbcglobal.net.