Trusting LA British Food Invasion
By Gabriel Buelna

If you’ve driven through Glassell Park in Northeast Los Angeles lately, you’ll notice a new supermarket going up. With a new parking lot and fresh paint, it looks nice. It even has a nice name; the Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market. After surviving the bruising supermarket strikes of a few years back, who could argue with a new supermarket with such a nice name.

Not so fast! Not having heard of Fresh & Easy, I decided to do a bit of research about the new store and found out more than I bargained for. Fresh & Easy is actually a subsidiary of Tesco. For those of you that haven’t heard of Tesco, it’s the third largest food retail company in the world after Wal-Mart. The company is in twelve countries, has 31% of the market share in Britain, with plans to open 100 stores in the United States. Essentially, while the name of the store is Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market, its not really a “Neighborhood Market” at all. It’s a multinational corporation selling food. Not necessarily bad, just not a “Neighborhood Market.”

Should Fresh & Easy Sign a Community Benefits Agreement Before Opening? VOTE HERE!

On the face of it, who cares? Good luck to Fresh & Easy and let the free market decide if it survives. As we all know, if costumers don’t like the store, they won’t go back. Simple, right? The only problem with the philosophy is that while we have a free market system, we also have a thing called “Civil Society” that is also free to voice its concerns.

Those of us who supported supermarket workers a few years ago wanted our local stores to remain open; we just wanted workers to receive a fair wage. We wanted access to fresh fruit and vegetables at a fair price, with the understanding that those preparing the food had living wages and adequate insurance. Many of us knew we didn’t want Wal-Mart and the low wages that are associated with it.

The entire discussion about supermarkets in Los Angeles is complex. While we’re a large metropolitan city, a good amount of our urban landscape doesn’t have access to supermarkets. Many working class communities have local stores with more expensive products, which may or may not be of similar quality. For years, communities have pleaded with officials to encourage stores to open in these communities. Pandering to our hopes, Fresh & Easy has promised to do just that. Open new grocery stores in working class neighborhoods that serve fresh, organic produce at reasonable prices. While this sounds great, the company’s history doesn’t necessarily show a willingness to follow through on its promises.

According to an Occidental College report, of the 98 stores identified as future Tesco store sites, only a paltry 10% of the stores are in high poverty, low income areas. The company also plans to depend on a part time workforce and is refusing to meet with community and labor groups about fair wages. Essentially, Tesco and Fresh & Easy want the right to claim high paying jobs and quality foods in working class neighborhoods, without actually doing so.

When pressed, Tesco asks the community to trust it. No, that won’t happen, the vital services and quality of jobs this industry can provide is too important. Will Tesco trust us to pay our groceries later? Of course not.

In order to attempt to guarantee fair wages and quality food, neighborhood groups have requested Tesco meet to discus a Community Benefits Agreement. These agreements are designed to help local communities receive many of the jobs that will be offered and to make sure those jobs pay a fair wage with medical benefits and all the other good stuff. The agreements also nudge Tesco to open more stores in communities they promise to serve. It shouldn’t be a big deal for Tesco to simply sit down at the table and say, yes, I will pay a living wage, I will offer medical coverage for workers and their families, I will offer the highest quality food, and I will open supermarkets in working class neighborhoods as promised. These are statements the company has made in public, now put it in writing.

What do you think?

Should Fresh & Easy Sign a Community Benefits Agreement Before Opening? VOTE HERE!

Gabriel Buelna, Ph.D., MSW is Executive Director of Plaza Community Services in East Los Angeles and a faculty member in the Chicana/o Studies Department at Cal State Northridge. You can visit his blog at http://gabrielbuelna.blogspot.com/

If you would like permission to re-print article, please e-mail gbuelna@sbcglobal.net

Pope Excommunicates Mexicans
By Gabriel Buelna

While Americans focused on misconduct by police during May Day events last week, the abortion debate erupted in Mexico, causing a roar throughout Latin America and the Vatican. Threatened by the legalization of first trimester abortions by the Mexico City assembly, Pope Benedict XVI sent a message that legalizing abortion of any kind will not be tolerated. Mexican bishops, led by the comments of the pope, threatened to excommunicate sympathizers. Not since the days of the Mexican revolution has a religious issue so seriously threatened the delicate balance between the Catholic Church and the Mexican government.

Mexico has long been a bastion of Catholicism complete with the traditional conservatism and obedience. The breaking of ranks in the form of Mexico City's pro-abortion legislation was not taken well by the Vatican. While the announcement was shocking to some, it should not have come as a surprise. The relationship between the Mexican State and the Catholic Church has been tenuous since the creation of the Mexican Constitution in 1917. For over 70 years, the clergy were stripped of real-estate, the right to vote and an array of laws intended to eliminate any role of the Church within Mexican society. Catholics even rebelled against the government in the bloody Cristero War of 1926 that lasted for three years and left 90,000 dead.

It was only in 1992 that Mexico restored its official relationship with the Church, granting legal status to all religious groups, providing limited property rights, and eliminating restrictions on the number of priests in the country. The Church experienced revitalization as the political power of Mexico's elite Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) began to wane. In hindsight, it's not surprising the Church decided to lash out at this point in history. Mexican President Felipe Calderon is the first modern president to publicly worship and show any type of public spirituality; thus, providing some political cover to the Church.

While the Mexican Catholic Church has regained some of its role in the country's public life, it should move forward with caution. The Mexico oftoday is not the Mexico of the 19th century, where the entire population lived in poverty, was illiterate, and no political pluralism existed. Mexico today has legalized civil unions in several states and voting rights are somewhat respected. As the confidence and awareness of individual rights develops in Mexico, the Church is mistaken to believe it can dictate it's will as it did in the past.

In a public letter to citizens, Mexican bishops have said doctors and nurses who perform abortions and politicians who supported the legalization would be excommunicated. With an estimated 200,000 illegal abortions and 100 deaths per year, the Church's strategy is destined to backfire. Elected officials, media and citizens throughout Mexico have begun to question the heavy hand of the Vatican as interfering in internal politics.

Abortion critics have stated legalizing abortion would lead to a moral decline throughout Mexico. The problem with this argument is that Mexico has seen tremendous moral decline in the last two decades not from changes in social laws, but from its economic deterioration that has led millions of families to dissolve and emigrate to the United States. Case in point, last week the Mexican government reported that since 2000, they have lost more Mexican citizens to emigration (577,000 a year), than to deaths (495,000 a year). To comment on moral decay in the face of these numbers shows a complete disconnection with reality.

While 88% of Mexico remains Catholic, membership worldwide continues to decline by one percent each year. Despite the fact that Latin America is home to half the world's Catholics, the outlook is not positive. In Brazil alone, the percentage of Catholics fell from 83% in 1991 to 67% in 2007. The debate over abortion in Mexico and eventually throughout Latin America can be a healthy discussion for the Church. Nobody expects the Catholic Church to accept abortion. Who would want to be part of a church that is so whimsical about its teachings? What Latin America demands is a Catholic Church willing to accept that its membership has different relationships with governments and that public health concerns are important.

This past weekend, my older daughter received her First Holy Communion. I am proud she is part of an institution that is doing good things throughout the world with its educational system, charities and ministries. What nobody likes is to be threatened with excommunication for disagreeing with the Church. If the goal is to reduce or eliminate abortions, the Church will need to create the social networks to reach the women who need help when they are faced with an unwanted pregnancy, whatever their choice might be in terms of abortion. The 200,000 Mexican women a year that receive illegal and dangerous abortions need to know that their Church can provide guidance and support without repercussions.

What do you think?

Gabriel Buelna, PhD, MSW is Executive Director of Plaza Community Center in East Los Angeles and a faculty member in the Chicana/o Studies Department at Cal State Northridge. You can visit his blog at http://gabrielbuelna.blogspot.com/

NOTE: If you are a member of the media and would like to re-print this article, please e-mail gbuelna@sbcglobal.net

Mexican Billionaires Cause Immigration
By Gabriel Buelna

As the son of Mexican immigrants and avid observer of everything Mexican, I noticed last week that Forbes magazine announced that Mexican telecom magnate Carlos Slim Helu had overtaken Warren Buffet as the world’s second richest man at $53 billion. The richest man on the planet is still Microsoft’s Bill Gates at $56 billion. In a country with a per capita income of less than $6,800 a year and with half the population living in poverty, the question is whether this is good or bad for Mexico and begs the question. “Why we should care in the United States.”

To put Slim’s earnings in perspective, his $53 billion is equivalent to roughly 7% of Mexico’s annual economic output. His empire includes an airline, a cigarette company, music, internet service, mobile phone service and telephone giant Telmex. The latter was bought from the Mexican government in 1990 by a group of investors led by Slim. The purchase was made during the tenure of former Mexican President Carlos Salinas De Gortari, whose term ended with Mexico’s largest currency devaluation, the loss of millions of jobs and Gortari’s self imposed exile in Ireland. Essentially, the company was bought under dubious circumstances.
To put Telmex’s grip on the Mexican economy in perspective, nine of ten landlines in the country are under its control, with its influence now reaching throughout Latin America with 100 million subscribers. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Mexicans pay some of the highest phone rates in the world with a notoriously low quality of service.

So why should we care here in the United States about Carlos Slim, his billions and high Mexican phone prices? It is not Mr. Slim’s billions we should be concerned about. In fact, if Mexico’s billionaires were creating new products and jobs, I would admire them. The fact is, billionaires like Slim hold back economic growth, by choking off small and medium sized business, with their control and protection by government. According to the Small Business Administration, small business accounts for 52 percent of all U.S. workers. In Mexico, small and medium sized businesses don’t have an opportunity to succeed because companies like Telmex control the government levers, choking off any small business threatening their monopolies.

Each year, millions of Mexicans are forced to immigrate to the United States. Suffering through dangerous, humiliating circumstances, simply to work and send money back to their families. Once here, Mexican and other Latin American are extremely hard working and entrepreneurial, creating jobs throughout the economy. Under the right circumstances, this business energy could be occurring in Mexico or whichever home country they arrive from.

Slim is quoted as saying that "Poverty isn't solved with donations" and noted that jobs are created by growing businesses and not by hand outs. I do believe Mr. Slim is correct, creating and nurturing Mexico’s small and medium sized business would create the millions of jobs it needs. For Mexicans to be dynamically participate in their own economy, fair opportunities with adequate government support must be given. Until this happens, we will continue to see immigration and poverty.

During the same news cycle as Slim’s dubious honor was released, Mexican President Felipe Calderon signed a law eliminating prison sentences for libel or defamation. While I am shocked such laws even exist protecting Mexican officials, I applaud Calderon for moving toward eliminating barriers to Mexican democracy. For Calderon, signing such laws is easy compared to the heroic steps he will need to take if he intends to reduce poverty in Mexico by eliminating the monopolies and characters controlling it. He will need to break up Mexico’s monopolies and invest in government monitoring to assure competitiveness continues throughout the Mexican economy.

Democracy is not simply about voting, it’s about creating institutions that keep the economy and all aspects of life moving forward in a rhythm. While Mr. Slim is not alone in his monopolistic tendencies, he is an example of the Mexican mindset of holding down the masses for the benefit of an extreme few. The next time a Mexican businessperson makes the top ten richest persons in the world, I do wish it would be for creating new software, products or services that all Mexicans are proud of. Just as Mexico has come a long way in creating transparent elections, it to can help create an environment where Mexicans can feel free to grow and prosper and not feel obligated to immigrate to the United States. When they do visit the United States, the trip should be for pleasure and not painful.

What do you think?

Gabriel Buelna, PhD, MSW is Executive Director of Plaza Community Center in East Los Angeles and a faculty member in the Chicana/o Studies Department at Cal State Northridge. You can visit his blog at http://gabrielbuelna.blogspot.com/

NOTE: If you are a member of the media and would like to re-print this article, please e-mail gbuelna@sbcglobal.net

Please read great article on Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez

http://www.nydailynews.com/latino/2007/04/11/2007-04-11_vaya_con_dios_alberto_gonzales.html

Slim nears Gates on world-richest list

Carlos Slim nearing Bill Gates is not positive for Mexico in general and the Mexican people in particular. With phone bills some of the highest in the world, Carlos Slim has done more to cause poverty and immigration to the United States than any other institution within Mexico. His earnings are embarrassing and not positive news for Mexico.

What Mexico should do is breakup TELMEX and other monopolies and allow Mexican entrepreneurs and investors to flourish . This would create the millions of jobs Mexico needs for its citizens not to have to immigrate.

Read article here

Trump’s Latino-less Apprentice

Trump’s Latino-less Apprentice
By Gabriel Buelna

I admit it: I have probably seen every episode of The Apprentice. The show is exciting, taking a group of individuals from diverse backgrounds and making them compete for the position of apprentice to billionaire Donald Trump. It’s basically a good opportunity for a few aspiring entrepreneurs and business people that lets the rest of us enjoy some entertaining on-screen back stabbing and manipulation. Fun, right?

Imagine, then, my excitement when I learned that this season The Apprentice was going to be based in Los Angeles. I was thrilled that the diversity and excitement of my great city would be part of the show. Armed with Doritos and a cold 7up, I sat down to watch the first episode with great anticipation. As each of the 18 candidates was revealed, however, I was horrified to see that not one of them was Latino.

How could the show be hosted in Los Angeles County where, of approximately 10 million people, 47 percent are Latino and not have a Latino contestant? I then thought, Do Latinos even watch the show? Then I remembered the show is advertised on the napkin dispenser at my favorite El Pollo Loco in Boyle Heights. I realized that The Apprentice was being marketed heavily in our Latino communities, yet the show does not include any Latinos. As disappointed as I was, I thought, “Does it matter?” The answer is simple: It matters a lot!

Frankly, it should not worry only Latinos that not a single Apprentice contestant is Latino; it should worry the nation as a whole. Even with the popularity of L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and with Latinos represented at the highest levels of local, state and federal governments, business and education, questions of equity still abound. While the rest of the world is pumping out engineers and scientists, the education Latinos are forced to accept is the worst of the worst.

Yet there is no field that does not have Latinos. Historically, even under difficult educational and neighborhood circumstances, our Latino communities have produced outstanding leaders, such as Hector Ruiz, President and CEO of AMD, a giant in microprocessors and rival to Intel as well as Alejandro González Iñárritu, recipient of the 2006 Golden Globe for best picture in the drama category for his work in Babel. Given the opportunity, Latinos compete and win.

Latino youth are as intelligent as other youth. Today’s generation of Latinos will be the heart of America’s future economy. Yet The Apprentice chose not to acknowledge these capabilities or the overwhelming presence of Latinos in Los Angeles by not choosing any for the sixth season of the show. Looking back through the six seasons of The Apprentice, I suppose I shouldn’t be shocked. Of the 106 candidates that have been on the show, only two have been Latino. Season two had a Portuguese woman who lasted a few weeks, and season five had a Cuban attorney who lasted two weeks.

Latinos represent .019 percent of all candidates on The Apprentice; the Latino population in the United States is 12.5 percent. Latinos represent 0.0 percent of contestants on the Los Angeles season of The Apprentice, though 47 percent of Los Angeles residents are Latino. Clearly, The Apprentice is not concerned with creating a show that is representative of the wide range of people capable of becoming the next apprentice, particularly if those capable people are Latinos. The Apprentice is, however, worried about having a marketing presence in the L.A. Latino community.

So why are there no Latinos on The Apprentice? In general, East Coast media and business leaders do not view Latinos as having a national presence, but rather a regional one. Latinos are still portrayed as newcomers with a limited history in the United States and thus not part of any national conversation. It is not my place to educate Mr. Trump or any media or business elite, however. It is their job to understand the markets that include Latinos. My only responsibility is to point out a deficiency in a show that I enjoy watching. Give Latinos a chance to be “fired” or “hired,” Mr. Trump. Then let the viewers judge whether or not they got a fair opportunity.

As citizens responsible for exposing our youth to positive role models, we have the responsibility to speak out when something is wrong. And in this situation, silence is tantamount to consent. Mr. Trump might argue that it is his show and that we live in a free market. Of course we do; yet that market also includes ideas—ideas that require scrutiny when our gut says they are wrong.

Latinos cannot be idle when a show such as The Apprentice has a collaborative of capable individuals devoid of Latinos. Inaction only serves to create and perpetuate an atmosphere of inferiority. The Latino community must demand inclusion and make every effort to make diverse opinions heard. No, I am not calling for a boycott of the show—just a discussion about what inclusion means.

In an era where U.S. Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have real, precedent-setting opportunities to become President of the United States, the era of a limited Latino media presence needs to end. Television shows such as The Apprentice just remind me that while some things have changed, some things remain the same.

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 at California State University, Northridge, and appears regularly on TV-KMEX-Channel 34 Univision Los Angeles.