The U.S. Marines carefully worked their way through the Iraqi village on foot towards their vehicles outside the village. On both sides of the road shops with metal corrugated roll-up doors faced the road. Iraqis stood outside their shops sullenly watching the Marines walk by; obviously disliking these invaders of their homeland. One of the Iraqi men started loudly cursing the Marines in Arabic. The squad’s interpreter, a United States Marine born in Morocco, verbally re-acted and their Arabic exchange grew more intense every second. The Marine was livid over the insults hurled at the Marines by the Iraqi.

There is an old Marine maxim: You can insult a Marine but not the Marines. Sergeant Nathan Fletcher approached the translator and calmed him down. Once calmed down, Fletcher started talking – through the interpreter – with the excited Iraqi man. After some minutes Fletcher got down on one knee talking to the man while the translator changed his English into Arabic. When done, Fletcher stood and the Iraqi man shook Fletcher’s hand. So says Tom Montero, the Miami-born Hispanic who was mayoral candidate Nathan Fletcher’s Commanding Officer in Iraq in 2004. Montero (CWO 5, USMCR ret.) says he never saw anything like what Fletcher did that day. Nor did Fletcher flinch during any of the many actions or firefights Montero said in which Fletcher was involved.

Montero says Fletcher worked well with him and the other San Diego Hispanic, Lou Orozco, in the unit as well as a Filipino American Marine Master Sergeant. In fact when Fletcher was elected to the State Assembly, Montero and Orozco flew to Sacramento to observe Fletcher being sworn into office as the Assemblyman’s guests.

Montero, a Rancho Bernardo resident is supporting Nathan Fletcher for Mayor.

La Prensa San Diego once asked why Fletcher waited till now to create a Latino coalition to work with. Interestingly, he has significant Latino/Hispanic support of 25% in a survey released May 14th. His Coalition consists mostly of young educated Mexican American business and professional men and women and it looks to this veteran political observer that they really like him.

He didn’t need such a coalition to help him in the old 75th Assembly district that he won twice because there weren’t that many Latinos in the district and he won the seat with percentages approaching 60%. Running in the City of San Diego, however, is a different story.

Unlike his three opponents, Fletcher is acutely aware that 51.4% of the city’s population is Hispanic (28.8%), 15.9% Asian and Black (6.7%).

This is proven by his widespread Hispanic support unlike his opponents; Carl DeMaio whose television advertising shows but one minority person out of dozens of supporters talking about his being “courageous.” Bonnie Dumanis has little if any “minority” support. Bob Filner has a cadre of hard-core Hispanic support and some Filipino support but that is not based on his 20 years in Congress, it is based on his labor union and Democrat Party support.

Most importantly, “Councilman Carl DeMaio voted against the (City Council censure on Arizona’s infamous anti-Mexican SB 1070)… because ‘We need to speak from a position of principle and a position of fact as well as a position of balance,’” DeMaio told the Union/Tribune, May 3, 2010.

Comparing Bob Filner’s 20 years in Congress to Nathan Fletcher’s four years in the State Assembly in Sacramento draws a good belly laugh. Fletcher has passed more bills into law in four years than Filner has in 20 years in Washington D.C. Fletcher has “Chelsea’s Law” as his shining moment. Bob Filner has what?

What should be clear to San Diego’s 376,532 Hispanics is that Fletcher is the only mayoral candidate who has worked in stressful situations with Hispanics, life or death situations. He really knows Hispanics, having put his life on the line for them and depended on them to protect his.

He is clear on Hispanics and their place in San Diego that no other candidate can possibly have. Fletcher works well with Hispanics as manifested by Tom Montero. But Montero is not alone.

“He is well respected in the Legislature for his willingness to work across party lines to find thoughtful solutions for California,” Democrat Speaker of the Assembly John Perez told the Associated Press.

Is there a Democrat alive that can say that about Carl DeMaio, or Bonnie Dumanis, or is there a Republican alive that can say that about Democrat Bob Filner after 20 years in Congress?

The four candidates for mayor each bring something to the race, yes. But three of them fall short in knowing Hispanics, in serving Hispanics and in having worked under the most stressful of circumstances with Hispanics.

The Marine Corps reports that in the Iraq/Afghanistan wars one in five, 20%, of all Combat Marines were Mexicans and Mexican Americans. Nathan Fletcher served with them in Iraq, at the Battle of Fallujah and many other engagements. He knows Hispanics.

Nathan Fletcher lives today because his back, literally, was covered by Hispanics and they live today for the same reason in that they trusted Fletcher, to cover their backs.

San Diego Hispanics can count on Nathan Fletcher when he is mayor of San Diego because he knows Hispanics better than most, maybe even better than me.

“I want to quit smoking,” pleaded Paul Wells of 23 years of age. He was five when he, his brother and sister arrived in the United States from Poland after a long adoption process.

He had it all, a wonderful adoptive mother, the nation safest city to live in, an excellent high school in Irvine, new friend and relatives. However, his life took a bad shift when he lit his first cigarette. It never crossed in his mind that as teenager he would be so hooked on cigarettes.

Paul began smoking as early as 15 years of age. Since he put a cigarette in his mouth, his fingers have not stopped reaching for those tiny rolled up papers containing harmful substances. He knows cigarettes are bad, but wishes he had a real choice back then when he was a teenager.

Without prevention programs against tobacco smoking at schools, teenagers like Paul are easy prays to Big Tobacco.

According to government sources, each day over 3,800 minors under 18 years of age, smoke for the first time, and over 1,000 become addicted for life. “I never saw a prevention class in my school,” pointed out Paul with disappointment.

In 1998, the tobacco industry agreed on a monetary settlement with the states after prosecutors successfully proved this industry’s disingenuous portrayal of their product in the market. At the height of the trial, Dr. Victor De Noble, former researcher at Philip Morris, became a key witness to unveil his former employer’s unlawful activities. In the end, the big three, Phillip Morris, RJ Reynolds and Lorillard, agreed to repay the states $246 billion over 25 years because states had absorbed massive bills from cancer patients and other people affected with other illnesses related to tobacco smoking.

This year, states are expected to collect 25.6 billion in revenue from tobacco taxes and the tobacco settlement.

Nonetheless, only $456.7 millions (1.8 %) will be allocated in youth prevention and cessation programs. That figure is about half of what states spent during the first decade of the agreement. To make things worse, states cut down another $61.2 millions from prevention programs last year.

While states are doing less, tobacco moguls have multiplied their resources to lure teenagers into smoking. According to the Federal Trade Commission, in 2008 they spent around $10.5 billion in marketing. For every dollar states spent on prevention, Big Tobacco used up $27.00 to market its products.

Our youth is Big Tobacco’s primary target. An addicted teenager insures solid profits for at least 20 years or more.

Adults, on the other hand, are no longer reliable “markets,” as their health are beginning to erode, and it is just a matter of time before some of them seek remedies in public hospitals.

Our state might be in fiscal insolvency, but our willingness to stop a tobacco onslaught against our kids is not.

Proposition 29 has all the ingredients to change the dynamics of smoking. In June 5, voters in California have an opportunity to add $1.00 to a pack of cigarette. It would be a major setback to the tobacco industry. If passed, the state will collect about $835 million per year, which will be used for cancer research, prevention programs and law enforcement.

High prices on cigarettes have been enemy number one to Big Tobacco. The more expensive the pack, the less like teenagers will get one. Even tobacco moguls recognize it. “When the tax goes up, industry loses volume and profits as many smokers cut back,” stressed Ellen Merlo, senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs at Philip Morris. No wonder why they have raised nearly $40 million to stop Proposition 29.

For Paul Wells quitting smoking isn’t a personal decision anymore. He understands the need of a special rehabilitation program to get through his vice. Proposition 29 will give him precisely that.

Humberto Caspa, professor and researcher at Economics On The Move. E-mail: hcletters@yahoo.com. He is also a weekly editorial contributor of La Opinion, Spanish daily newspaper.

I recently relented to pressure of a former student to go on Facebook. He persuaded on its usefulness as an organizing tool. Once I got on FB I could see that I could not break my classroom habits and I feared that I would come across as too peachy.

The more I got into the postings the more I realized that much of the content is based on touch feely, a highly sociable environment, which I am definitely not a part of. I am the kind of person who cannot stay on the telephone for more than three minutes or talk to someone without multitasking. I even feel uncomfortable with birthdays and I have walked out of birthday parties given to me by students. I have never seen any reason to indulge people as they sing “Happy Birthday” and spit on my cake.

Furthermore, from my perspective there is disconnect between the various posts, lacking common themes. I thought about it and concluded that the disconnect was a product of generational differences. This is a generation raised with commercials and theme parks – they live fairyland existences where illusions become delusions.

A young girl is enraptured by the illusion of being Snow White and the delusion is that she will be a princess. Parents encourage this. When I was a child my parents would delude us into believing that I would become like Popeye, the Sailorman, if I ate my spinach.

The delusion takes over in ordinary life to the point that we develop a false consciousness. During 911, for example, many Americans were convinced that we never violated the sovereignty of another state, although history is replete with examples to the contrary.

Thus, our delusions obfuscate reality. We don’t know that Donald Duck is not real.

I guess illusions are great if you want to control children by fixating them on the television tube. But when the illusions become delusions and create false consciousness we have a problem.

This is how I felt about my last article dealing with the Arizona Democratic Party, criticizing its neglect by not building a core and its failure to protect the rights and interests of Latinos within that state. A small sector of readers reacted as if I were criticizing Holy Mother the Church.

Their defense of the Democratic Party was delusional. I am accustomed to the excuse, “Well I vote Democrat because it is better of two evils.” I can buy that, but to say that the Party is looking out for the interests of Mexicans in Arizona is a bit much.

The email that bothered me most was from Luis Heredia, a longtime Democratic Party operative. Heredia worked for Raul Grijalava more than a dozen years ago. Since then he has tied his kite to the official Party bureaucracy. His brother is the head of the Arizona Mi Familia Vota.

Luis Heredia was appointed Executive Director of the Arizona Democratic Party in 2009 by then Arizona Democratic Party Chair Don Bivens, a Phoenix attorney, who is known as Party kingmaker. Bivens is a partner in the firm that represented ex-state Senator Russell Pearce, hardly a friend of Mexican Americans.

Heredia has led a number campaigns most revolving around door-to-door voter contact and voter registration drives. He has served in several capacities as a State and County Democratic Party Officer. Heredia was named the Arizona Democratic Party’s Young Democrat of the Year in 2005.

“Luis is deeply committed to the future of Arizona, and we look forward to his leadership and vision as Executive Director, “ beamed Biven, an endorsement that was like a kiss of death among many Latino activists.

A Party loyalist, Heredia has written columns for the Huffington Post that give the illusion that the Democratic Party is the champion of progressive causes within the state.

Unfortunately, this is a delusion. The Democratic Party has been almost mute on immigration and has no policy toward SB 1070. Indeed, most candidates that criticize this ethnic chauvinism don’t make it out of the primaries.

As mentioned in the last blog, I found Heredia’s and the Democratic Party’s support of Ann Kirkpatrick as the candidate for Arizona’s First Congressional District very troubling. It is a Democratic-leaning district, which the Democrats have a good chance of picking up. It is 40 percent Democrat, 30 Republican, and 30 percent Independent. Demographically, it is 22 percent Native American, and 19 percent Latino. It has the highest percentage of Native Americans in country.

Who is Ann Kirkpatrick? She is a former Congresswoman who was beaten by a Tea Party candidate. She has strong ties with ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), the payday-loan industry, and Corrective Corporation of America (CCA), none of whom represent the interests of Latinos.

Ties and campaign contributions from ALEC lobbyists to Kirkpatrick are well documented. The most nefarious are her ties to former U.S. Senator Dennis DeConcini who became a big time lobbyist once he retired. As a member of the Senate, DeConcini was part of the “Keating Five”, the huge banking and political contribution scandal in eighties. DeConcini has donated heavily to Kirkpatrick’s campaigns.

It is worth noting that DeConcini became a lobbyist for the Corrective Corporation of America (CCA) and sits on its Board of Directors. CCA and ALEC wrote SB1070 with Russell Pearce. DeConcini endorsed and made robocalls for Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

As a congresswoman Kirkpatrick voted to keep tax cuts for the rich and supported SB1070, referring to the U.S. Justice Department’s lawsuit as a “distracting sideshow.” She skipped the vote on the DREAM Act.

In Tucson, the Democratic Party is controlled by Blue Dogs, which ally with the Republican Party. Both are in bed with the Southern Arizona Leadership Council, ALEC’s mini-me.

As Richard Martinez, the attorney in the suit challenging HB 2281 and the counsel defending the Mexican American Studies program has said “the Arizona Democratic Party should be ashamed of their complete lack of any role, support or action in combating HB 2281.”

Indeed, the Democratic Party has supported Mark Stegeman, the head of the Board of Trustees of the Tucson Unified School District who along with Superintendent John Pedicone have viciously attacked the Mexican American community and students and dismantled the MAS program, firing almost all of the teachers. Where does Heredia stand in this?

At one time, I was a member of the Democratic Party. I worked through the Mexican American Political Association in 1964 registering voters in conjunction with the California Democratic Council. I tried to change the Party and was a delegate for Eugene McCarthy during the 1968 California Democratic Party Presidential Primary. However, something called principles and desire to give back and represent unrepresented Mexican Americans led to a break. In other words, I grew up.

My delusions became a nightmare in August of 1983 when the darling of liberals Arizona Democratic Governor Bruce Babbitt sent the state National Guard to Morenci-Clifton to break a strike against Phelps-Dodge. The invasion included tanks and helicopters.

The consequence was that the union was busted. The Miners that had been a majority Mexican were now a majority white. Greenlee County that had been historically Democrat became Republican.

In ignoring the candidacy of Wenona Baldenegro, Heredia and other Latino loyalists are ignoring history. Without the Latino and Native American vote there is no way that a Democrat can get elected to the First Congressional District. Heredia is delusional in thinking that he can sell his delusions to Latinos, Native Americans and progressive whites.

My criticism of the Democratic Party is based on principles, not on ambition. Unless, it recognizes its chauvinism toward Latinos it won’t be able to correct itself. The truth be told, there is little difference between the Blue Dogs and the Republicans.

Four years ago we endorsed Pamela Bensoussan for Chula Vista City Council. Over the years we have grown to regret that endorsement. The person we met before the election, the candidate we endorsed, was not the person that became a council person!

We believed that Bensoussan cared about the community only later to find out that Bensoussan only cared about Bensoussan, her campaign debts, and re-election.

The enduring memory we have of Bensoussan is on the day of her swearing in she proposed a sales tax increase, at a time when her community members were suffering under the burden of an economic meltdown, home foreclosures, record unemployment, and higher costs across the board. Bensoussan was out of touch with the community. Chula Vistans responded negatively to her tax initiative and the proposition lost by 70% of the vote.

Then there was her support of a developer to build apartment buildings on the historical section of 2nd Avenue, against community opposition. Once again Bensoussan was out of step with her neighbors. The 100 year centennial that Bensoussan spearheaded was a disappointment, stemming from poor leadership and her co-opting of the centennial book where she highlighted herself. Many described this as nothing more than political propaganda.

The final nail in the proverbial coffin was her backroom dealing with Republican David Malcolm and the negotiations regarding Chula Vista Bayfront and a possible city contract to clean up the South Bay power plant. This alignment with Malcolm, who is the Political Action Committee co-chair for the Lincoln Club, and the alignment with Mayor Cox earned her the endorsement of the partisan special interest Republican Lincoln Club.

It is for these reasons, and many more reasons that we did not list, that we support and endorse the candidacy of Robert Castañeda.

Robert Castañeda is the brother of Chula Vista City Councilman Steve Castañeda. The assumption would be that Robert is following in the footsteps of his brother, but nothing could further from the truth. Robert Castañeda has had a long time interest in politics. At one time he ran for San Diego City Council (he lost). He has also worked for 3 elected governors.

Robert has an extraordinary grasp on the ins and outs and political mechanizations, how to collaborate with fellow politicians, and how to move forward on issues. He learned to compromise as a staff member of three governors in California, two Republicans and one Democrat.

It is true that Robert just recently moved to Chula Vista, but he and his family are well known. He has been involved with the Chula Vista community and has worked on projects with Earl Jentz. He has also worked with his brother/business partner on Chula Vista issues.

Robert, as a small businessman, understands the issues of the business community. He understands budgets having worked for the State Lottery as the director of community & and legislative affairs and with the California Public Utilities Commission.

Robert Castañeda is the best choice to become the next City Council member for Seat # 3.

The partisan squabbling over the killing of Osama bin Laden is a typical election-year distraction, effectively squelching discussion of more important matters one year after the execution of the al-Qaeda chief executive.

Aided by cable-TV talking heads, Americans are spending too much time speculating over whether presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney would have given the order to get bin Laden, and also issuing paeans to President Obama’s “courage.”

While the commentators are engaged in trivialities, big foreign-policy questions are ignored.

For instance, although bin Laden is dead, his strategy of sucking the United States into bloody, expensive imperial wars in the Muslim world has worked like a charm. In a video released in 2004, bin Laden said, “We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah.” He compared what was happening in Afghanistan then to the previous Soviet debacle there. “We, alongside the mujahideen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat.”

Ironically, President Jimmy Carter’s national-security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, has bragged that he helped draw the Soviet Union into Afghanistan in 1979 precisely to mire the Russians in their own “Vietnam.” That experience failed to deter President George W. Bush from blindly following in the Soviets’ footsteps; nor did it keep Obama from redoubling this futile effort, including a major expansion of drone attacks in Pakistan, which have killed at least 1,400 people since Obama took office. The U.S. government has been fighting the same people it helped fight the Soviets.

“All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations,” bin Laden said.

Right he was. The Obama administration ruthlessly drone-bombs Yemen and Somalia to eradicate the “threat” from real or potential al-Qaeda affiliates in those countries. Even American officials are aware that this policy creates anti-American militants. This is not rocket science. Bomb people, and they will dislike you — and perhaps seek revenge.

Bin Laden got his wish. America’s fiscal house couldn’t be more disorderly. The debt is over $15 trillion, larger than the GDP. The Congressional Research Service says that from 2001 to 2011 the Afghan war cost $443 billion. Tens of thousands of civilians have been killed, and many more maimed. American deaths total more than 1,800, with well over 15,000 wounded. The number of survivors whose lives have been effectively destroyed is uncountable. And that leaves the Iraq war out of the account. Al-Qaeda wasn’t even in that country until George W. Bush invaded in 2003.

The point is that we let bin Laden take our eyes off the ball. He and al-Qaeda were creatures of American policy, though not in the sense that U.S. agents funded him or set up his organization. Rather, he turned his wrath toward America (and away from U.S.-backed Middle Eastern oppressors) as it became apparent that so much of the misery inflicted on the Muslim world had its origins in Washington, D.C.

The sources of misery include the decade-long economic sanctions on Iraq, the stationing of U.S. troops near holy places in Saudi Arabia; and the continuing subjugation of Palestinians by U.S.-backed Israel. In the absence of those and related policies, bin Laden would have had no interest in seeing U.S. territory attacked.

To be sure, bin Laden is gone. But the abominable foreign policy goes on.

Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org) and editor of The Freeman magazine.

As frenzied political junkies begin to chatter about the fight for the Latino vote in November, another fight is brewing in Washington this spring. Last week, the highest court in the land heard oral arguments on the constitutionality of Arizona’s anti-immigrant law SB 1070.

The Court has the potential to officially condone the use of racial profiling and discrimination against Hispanics and other minorities.

The law was enacted in the name of fighting undocumented immigration, but its victims may be legal residents or, ironically, citizens–the precious voters both parties are trying to attract.

The decision, which is expected to be handed down in June, will land with a splash in the middle of the presidential campaign. It has the potential to sharpen the contrasts between a president, Barack Obama, who supports comprehensive immigration reform while setting records for deportation, and an (almost-certain) Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, who is now doing the typical candidate dance to the center to appeal to independent and moderate voters in the general election.

Most important perhaps is attracting Latinos, whom he has isolated for the past several months with anti-immigrant positions.

The Supreme Court case marks another contrast: Obama’s Department of Justice is the plaintiff in the case, having sued Arizona for usurping the role of the federal government in setting immigration laws.

Romney, for his part, has said that if he were elected one of his first actions would be withdrawing the lawsuits against Arizona and other states that have passed their own immigration laws.

Furthermore, the mastermind behind SB 1070 and other anti-immigrant state laws (like Alabama’s HB 56), Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, “informal” advisor to Romney on immigration.

Gary Segura, a professor of political science at Stanford and a principal at the polling firm Latino Decisions, thinks that regardless of the outcome of the case, SB 1070 will have political implications in both the short-term and long-term. It could be of particular benefit, he says, to Democrats.

“If SB 1070 is upheld, Latinos will be inflamed, Republicans will embrace it and Latino turnout and enthusiasm for the election will go up. If SB 1070 is struck down, largely because the president authorized the Justice Department to sue, the president gets the benefit of all of that and you can expect Republicans to denounce the Court and to say predictably awful things about Latinos. So it’s kind of good for Obama either way,” Segura says.

While some consider Obama’s failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform-a promise he made during his 2008 campaign-to have opened the door for laws like SB 1070, Segura argues that while Latino voters will probably make that connection, “he has the perfect comeback, which is that there is not a single Republican legislator willing to sign on to comprehensive immigration reform.”

“If the other party was reasonably competing for Latino votes, he’d [Obama] be in a lot of trouble for his inaction [on immigration reform], and the deportations, and the whole inadequacy of his handling of the issue, but he benefits, as Democrats have for generations, from comparison to this sort of xenophobic, ethnocentric, social conservative Republicans.”

That’s exactly the type of Republican the Supreme Court case is putting in the spotlight. The law the Court’s considering is championed by anti-immigrant stalwarts like Kris Kobach, who’s linked to Romney’s presidential campaign-but it would permit discrimination against the same Latino voters Romney’s now trying to win over.

Maribel Hastings, a native of Puerto Rico, is America’s Voice Senior Advisor, political commentator and columnist. Reprinted from Latinovations “La Plaza”

Commentary:
By Rodolfo F. Acuña

The fitness exercise pilates, from my limited understanding of the exercise method, works on the principle of developing “a strong core or center (tones abdominals while strengthening the back), and improving coordination and balance.” The principle fascinates me because it can be applied to almost any endeavor.

For example, when San Jose State Chicano professors approached me in 1969 with a plan to start a Mexican American Studies program at the Master of Arts level, I responded that I did not believe that a MAS graduate program could grow without a solid undergraduate degree. My thinking was that “a strong core or center” had to be developed to allow for the coordination and balance of a large program.

The core’s abdominal muscles are the masses of students. The only programs that are subsidized in the higher education are those blessed by the institution. Logical persuasion would not develop a discipline or method to educate neglected sectors of society. You needed bodies to build the core.

I have applied this principle to politics. Unless you have bundles of money such as the case of Republicans and you can buy elections, Mexican Americans and Latinos are not going to bring about changes in the political arena. A strong core is essential for coordination and balance to leverage this outcome.

The building of the political core does not depend as much on individual political activism as it does on the core, which is not built by electing Latino elected officials. You can have progressive representatives such as Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva but his power although concentrated at the core can easily be isolated by the system.

In many ways Grijalva is an aberration, elected in an island of Mexican American and white liberal constituents. Even so he has problems raising political capital and he has organized successful re-election campaigns despite the Democratic National Committee whose main purpose is keeping control of the White House.

I learned this lesson in 1996. Two years before the presidential election, we organized a highly successful anti-187, the anti-immigrant proposition, march. This was the first time that over a hundred thousand Latinos took the streets of L.A. It gave us a feeling of power and many activists wanted to replicate it in 1996 in opposition to Proposition 227, the anti-affirmative action ballot measure.

Word came down that what was important was to get Bill Clinton re-elected to the White House. The California Democratic Party then proceeded to dry up funds for the march, badly dividing community activists and Latino politicos.

We never recovered and it carried over to 1998 in the fight against 227, the proposition to eliminate bilingual education. The gigantic marches were not revived until the second half of the next decade when the core was re-energized by youth and immigrants that had been politicized by 187 and by sporadic school walkouts throughout the L.A. basin. Youth could not be channeled like community organizations and labor that looked to Latino politicos for leadership and funds.

Thus, the core never developed muscle or balance and it remained dependent of the political establishment and the media.

Based on my experience I have found the core in Arizona worse off than California. The state has been kidnapped by the Republican Party with the Democratic Party leaders concentrating on keeping the White House. The rationale is “things could really get bad if Romney gets in the White House,” which is true unless you figure that things are already bad and the White House is not doing anything about it.

The Arizona experience is a valuable case study. It explains why in Mississippi where the black population numbers over a million and makes up 37 percent of the state has only one black congressman out of four.

If the Democratic National Committee would have channeled funds into Mississippi and other southern state with sizeable black populations undoubtedly the core would be stronger.

In Arizona where almost a third of the state is Latino, only two of eight congressmen are Mexican American. The Tucson Unified School District is upwards of 60 percent Latino but has two of five board members (really one).

You would think that there would be concern on the part National Democratic Party and that it would spearhead a restructuring of the Arizona Democratic Party to reflect its presumed progressive agenda versus that of Tea Party Republicans.

But it ain’t so. The strategy of the DNC has been to support Blue Dog Democrats who have sold out on the issues of the economy, immigration and the struggle to save Mexican American Studies in Tucson. In the process, racism has become constitutional in Arizona.

The wrongheaded strategy of the past is repeated. Everything is justified if Barack Obama is re-elected. It doesn’t matter that he has been mute on the Minutemen assassination of nine year old Bresenia Flores and that his Justice Department has been mute about enforcing the U.S. Constitution vis-à-vis enforcement of desegregation orders. This, according to the DNC strategy, will be rectified by making the Arizona Democratic Party more conservative and even vote with Republicans.

According to this wrongheaded strategy, it will make Obama look more palatable to right wingers.

Consequently, the Democratic Party core in Arizona is so flabby that it stands for nothing. The failure to develop the political core of the Arizona Mexican American is glaring.

Presently, a well-qualified and intelligent candidate is running for Arizona’s First Congressional District. Wenona Baldenegro is a Harvard trained attorney. A Navajo with strong ties to the Native American and Mexican American communities, she represents the best in those groups. Instead of supporting Wenona, the national party is supporting a reactionary Blue Dog Democrat with Tea Party ties and is actively working to sabotage her candidacy by pressuring donors not to fund her campaign. Another example of the weakening of the core is the federal courts appointment of special master Willis D. Hawley to oversee the controversy over HB 2281 and the elimination of the highly successful Mexican American Studies Program. Without a core Mexican Americans have been unable to check the coopting of Hawley who knows absolutely nothing about the education of Mexican American children.

I make this criticism only after of months of patient waiting. I did not want my biases toward multi-culturists to in anyway affect the outcome. Blame my Catholic school training and its belief in redemption.

However, my fifty years in academe have hardened my opinion toward multiculturalists who range from friendly touchy feely people to arrogant academics.

Some are good scholars. They want a better society. But, many think that they know more about what is good for minorities than minorities themselves.

I have had to fight them in committees because they failed to see the necessity for Chicanos to determine their own pedagogies. Consequently, they have undermined Chicana/o and African American Studies programs because they see no need for them to build their cores.

If you want a Chicano, African American or an Asian American center, their solution is, let’s save money and throw you all into a multi-cultural center.

Self-determination is not a nationalist demand; it is the aspiration of every living person. Communities should determine their futures and the role of political parties is not to manipulate them but to strengthen them.

Perhaps if our political cores were stronger, the Democratic Party would not sell us out as in Arizona and other states.
With this said, like in the days of the Romans, we don’t have to worry. Our cores will get fat and flabby as we get free bread and circuses during Cinco de Mayo. People will celebrate it without knowing its historical message which was that Mexico was not open to foreign colonialism and that the separation of church and state was the law of the land.

But, this is too much exercise. Too much to think about. Let’s bring on the beer; enjoy the jarabe tapatio; and let the mariachis blare. Enjoy the smiling politicos and the Obamas talk about how Americans are exceptional.

Imagine that you are standing on a track, about to run toward a distant finish line. Suddenly, a wall appears between you and the finish line, and then another, and yet another after that.

Over the course of the past decade, states have raced each other to construct more and higher walls in the way of prospective voters. Last week, however, a federal court that sits one step below the Supreme Court voted to knock down one such barrier, an Arizona mandate that new registrants not just affirm their U.S. citizenship, but provide documentary proof to state elections officials. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund played a key role in litigating the case and securing this important court victory.

Voter registration should be an easy and accessible process, and most states only require a signed form where voters confirm their identity and citizenship status. Nonetheless, several states have followed the path established by Arizona when it adopted a proof of citizenship law in 2004, imposing yet another demand on citizens wishing to take part in the American political process.

It did not take long for evidence to emerge in Arizona and elsewhere that many Americans – particularly Latino U.S. citizens – simply do not have immediate or free access to proof of citizenship. Before government registration of births was a routine, universal practice, Latino families often had the least access to formal health care. As a result, Latinos are less likely than other native-born citizens to possess a state-issued birth certificate. Such individuals often cannot satisfy requirements for obtaining alternate proof of citizenship; laws like Arizona’s put them at risk of being permanently barred from voting by virtue of having been born at home.

Ostensibly designed to prevent misdeeds that rarely occur, like false impersonation of a voter, the walls that states have erected do far more to discourage active citizenship than guarantee election integrity. In Arizona, more than 31,550 voter registration applications were rejected for lack of proof of citizenship between January 2005 and fall 2007.

Though 90% of those submitting rejected applications listed the United States as their place of birth, only about one third of these individuals were ultimately successful in registering. Most or all of the remaining 20,000 voters did not fail to register because they were ineligible – instead, they were simply unable to scale the wall in Arizona because of lack of time or resources, or inability to obtain sufficient proof of their nationality.

Acquiring new proof of citizenship is never free, which means that laws like Arizona’s impose poll taxes on many aspiring voters. It has long been established, however, that it is unconstitutional to require citizens to pay to vote. States generally charge unwaivable fees for certified copies of birth certificates, and Arizona is no different in this regard. Other forms of proof carry steep costs, from $55 for a passport card which cannot be had without independent proof of citizenship to $345 for a replacement certificate of naturalization, and a whopping $600 for a certificate of citizenship issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. A significant number of Arizona’s Latino voters are naturalized citizens, and would be subject to these prohibitive fees if forced to obtain documentation of citizenship.

With 2010 Census data showing Latinos are the nation’s second largest population group (growing at a rate of 43%) in this country, now is not the time to discourage participation by those citizens who are shaping the future of American politics. A strong and vibrant democracy strengthens our nation, and it is in our collective best interest to work together to continue to tear down the walls and clear the way for every American – rich and poor, young and old, native-born and naturalized – to access the ballot box.

We are pleased to see the 9th Federal Circuit Court make a principled decision that protects and upholds the precious right to vote, and we look forward to continuing to work to eliminate voting obstacles so that all Americans are able to reach the finish line. Our organization the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund projects that 12.2 million Latinos will reach this important milestone this year, and we will be hard at work in the coming months to ensure that even more Latino voters are able to cross the finish line on November 6th.

Arturo Vargas is the Executive Director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund. The organization is the nation’s leading non-partisan, non-profit organization that facilitates full Latino participation in the American political process, from citizenship to public service. Reprinted from La Plaza (http://blog.latinovations.com/)

and La Mordida

Commentary:
By Rodolfo F. Acuña

Direct forms of political control are easy to figure out. For a time, laws and police agencies can keep things together. However, most institutions and societies depend on social control to deceive people into thinking that they live in a democracy. They use processes that socialize them into believing that those in control have moral authority.

Belief systems exert a greater control on behavior than laws. For example, religion maintains control through laws.

Nevertheless, institutions such as the Catholic Church maintain control more through their moral authority than their laws. A society does not stay together for a long period of time through the use of coercive powers alone.

Historical events such as the Black Plague in the first part of the 14th Century shook the Church’s moral authority and two centuries later the Protestant Revolt ended the hegemony of Catholicism in Europe. No one can predict what effect the Church’s pedophile scandal will have. One thing for sure is that the scandal has reduced the moral authority of the Church Fathers and their interpretation of what god wants.

In the similar vein, government has suffered a loss of moral authority. This is good and bad; one thing is for sure it is leading to a divided society. Although the number of southern states passing anti-immigrant laws has grown to over a half dozen and they are flushed with emotion, it must be remembered that California and New York alone dwarf the population numbers and wealth of the red states.

Much has been written about the growth of the Latino population and its voting power. But truth be told, Latinos are growing increasingly disaffected with government and most are cynical about its fairness.

The institution that has taken the hardest hit in the past dozen years is the Supreme Court.

To put things in perspective: when I was growing up we understood that Mexico had problems, which was obvious because we were here. My relatives talked about the political and moral corruption of the Mexican government and uttered sighs of relief that we lived in the United States.

There was racism and inequality. Yet in comparison to what was happening in Mexico or what we thought was happening there, U.S. institutions appeared to be free of corruption. This was true as long as we did not read the newspapers – the radio did not carry that kind of news.

Even when it came to the sex lives of elected officials, we believed that the Mexicans were the only ones who cheated on their wives.

That is not true today. The lives of our elected officials are soap operas. The affairs of past Mexican presidents are boring in comparison to the Anglo-American versions.

My grandfather, more cynical than the rest of the family, would often correct us about our misconceptions. He would say that the gringos always did things on a grander scale. They did not take small bribes. It was only the public officials at the bottom who were regulated.

What we did not know was that what those on the top stole affected us; we just did not see it. We lived in another universe.

Thanks to cable news or better still, cable opinion, we know corruption is ubiquitous – it is at the federal, state and local levels. So much so that it seems as if all elected officials are corrupt. I would not call them whores because I don’t want to give the word a bad name.

You look at the Republican and a majority of the Democrats in Congress and they are bought – pure and simple. The entire state of Arizona has been purchased. Lady Justice is dead.

Talking to my students in general they are cynical about the courts. It was once evident that justice depended on the size of your wallet. The rich could hire rich attorneys and get away with murder. The poor especially if they were minorities were left at the whim of the court.

The Supreme Court is currently listening to arguments in Arizona’s anti-immigrant legislation. If the Court rules for Arizona the decision will give legs to every racist legislator in the nation who will repeat that it (racism) is the law of the land.

They can say whatever they want but that does not make it right or less corrupt. Only the most naive and ill-informed person would make the case that Justices Samuel A. Alito, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and John Roberts are not corrupt. Well documented articles prove the same. Thomas and Scalia have family members who are feeding at the corporate trough.

I do not want to call these justices partisan – it would be giving partisanship a bad name.

Frankly, we are not going to be able to do much about Gore v. Bush (2000) that gave George W. the presidency. At the time we shrugged our shoulders and the Democrats rolled over. In Citizens United (2010), the Court delivered the presidency to corporate interests.

Now healthcare will probably be dismantled and the anti-immigrant legislation will be upheld. Racism will be legal in the United States.

When and if this happens the moral authority of the Court will be irreparable. The Supreme Court might as well be honest and set up shop on K Street.

I don’t want to sound cynical but the worst thing that could happen to you when I was growing up was que te vieran la cara de pendejo (literally meaning that they took you for a fool or a punk).

Six degrees of separation is the notion that everyone on earth is on average approximately six steps away from any other person. If this is so, we should accept that only one degree separates our justices from the Mexican border guard and his grubby mordida (kickback).

My grandfather was right – the border guard took five pesos. Our elected officials are higher paid (escorts). Who does more damage to democracy?

While there appears to be plenty of support in the white community for continuing the program of DUI checkpoints by the Escondido Police, there should be a clarification of facts regarding these suspicionless stops by police in search of drunk and/or unlicensed drivers.

First, there is no evidence that checkpoints do anything to make streets safer. There is no study that has conclusively found that DUI checkpoints are responsible in any way for the reduction of alcohol-related accidents, hit-and-run accidents, or any other type of accident. Even though officials of Escondido say that the recent reduction in accidents “may have been the result of checkpoints”, it is more wishful thinking than anything else. This statement also ignores the fact that other cities have enjoyed a similar reduction without any checkpoints.

Second, one should take note of the fact that the recent data released by California’s Office of Traffic Safety shows that while the raw number of accidents has gone down in Escondido, the same holds true for other cities, some of which hold no checkpoints or fewer checkpoints than Escondido. In fact, Escondido’s ranking went from the third worst city in accidents to second worst. In other words, despite all the checkpoints held in Escondido, they did not seem to help lower the number of accidents as much as other similarly sized cities.

Third, while there are a few studies that have found that unlicensed drivers are disproportionately responsible for more accidents, none of the studies have taken into account a community having a large immigrant population. This is important because current studies have been limited to those unlicensed persons that did not take or could not pass the exam, have accumulated too many points against their license, or have had their license revoked by a judge.

Undocumented immigrants, unable to be licensed in California, are likely to drive in a manner that does not attract attention. It would not be surprising if a study were to find that (proportionately) undocumented drivers are responsible for fewer accidents than licensed drivers.

Fourth, it should be clearly understood that a hit-and-run is a crime that occurs after an accident. This crime takes place when one of the drivers flees. It is very difficult in most cases to prosecute these drivers because a positive identification must be made on who was driving at the time of the accident. But an effective way to curb the number of hit-and-run accidents is to reduce the overall number of accidents. Hit-and-run accidents tend not be planned crimes. People will run for a variety of reasons, but the most logical way of reducing this crime is to reduce the number of accidents that precedes the criminal conduct. There are many proven strategies for accident reduction, none of which involves checkpoints.

There is a much more effective and efficient way to catch DUI drivers. Saturation patrols have proven time and again that they produce more arrests utilizing fewer officers. Stopping 1400+ cars through a checkpoint manned by 12 or more officers (all being paid overtime) that might result in a few arrests twice a month for the last six years is a clear example of government ineffectiveness and wastefulness, and an unreasonable intrusion of our freedom.

Yet with the continuing cries from the Latino community to stop the abuse, it has only recently come to light that there is reason to suspect that the City of Escondido, through these abusive checkpoints and the impounding of thousands of vehicles, that Escondido has been unlawfully doctoring their records to secure millions of dollars…all on the backs of Latinos and poor people. The ACLU is calling for an independent audit of the city’s accounts to see exactly how the monies have been collected and spent. There are laws governing how money is collected and spent by cities and indications are that Escondido has violated these laws.

There is no other reason that Escondido continuously is the center of controversy concerning their treatment of Latinos and immigrants. Perhaps this is the real reason why this city has been underperforming for so long. Perhaps this is why so many businesses choose other cities to move to. It is no mistake that Latinos and others avoid visiting, shopping or moving to Escondido. It seems that there are more than enough good reasons. Most people want to avoid supporting a local government that has a well-established record of targeting Latinos with their checkpoints, with ICE agents stationed here, and with a city council hell bent on driving Latinos out.

As budget chair for the House of Representatives, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) is “The Man.” President Obama presented his budget, and Ryan has announced his. Dueling budgets. Under the Ryan budget, even if you’re part of the infamous 1%, your local services will be cut. That road expansion to bring in more trucks for new businesses? Gone. Federal funds to help expand the local airport for business or tourism – nope. Shoring up collapsing bridges and ruined roads? Wait your turn. And for the 99%, it’s slash and burn. Local job training to help those out of work, help to reduce the increased class sizes, and more rental assistance for newly unemployed? Gone.

The United States is in debt. But the question is: Will spending cuts to support our communities help bring back our nation’s financial strength? As more and more people fall into poverty, become homeless, drop out of school and face chronic illnesses without treatment, the fundamental system of a working society crumbles. The result, simply put, is less ability to contribute to the economic system, which includes paying taxes as a member of that society. Those lost taxes will make it even more difficult to make up our deficit, or bring down our debt.

Here’s an idea: Rather than focus on wounding domestic programs that help people and families, communities and businesses, let’s cut where elected officials have maneuvering room: the Pentagon budget. Each year, Congress appropriates more than half of discretionary spending to the Department of Defense, wars and nuclear weapons spending. Even without deficit reduction pressure, this overspending takes dollars away from needed domestic priorities that strengthen our economy and ensure that America can compete in the world marketplace. This isn’t making our nation more secure. As chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dempsey put it, “It makes no sense at all for us as a nation to have an extraordinarily capable military instrument of power if we are economically disadvantaged around the world.”

Also, many tax dollars going into this enormous Pentagon budget are wasted on last century’s security strategy. Over the next decade, we are slated to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a nuclear weapons arsenal built for another era.

Expanding our production of nuclear weapons and their expensive delivery systems is at odds with our efforts to constrain nuclear weapons development elsewhere in the world. These weapons are simply irrelevant to support our troops on the battlefield or to address 21st century threats.

We also seem to be addicted to consuming deficit money on wars. Nearly nine years in Iraq have been joined by more than a decade in Afghanistan, while sabre-rattling over Iran heats up. Whether measured merely in direct financial cost, or in the broader and more profound cost of lives lost and damaged, we cannot afford to be a nation perpetually at war.
Fiscal conservatives like Rep. Ryan must agree that the Pentagon, which swallows up such a large percentage of our budget, must be at least as carefully scrutinized for waste as other government programs. Right now the Pentagon does not even pass an audit to show how it spends our tax dollars.

Some supporters of the Pentagon and their contractors tout money to the Pentagon as a jobs’ program. War should never be viewed as such a program. Sensible national security jobs make sense, and no member of Congress can ignore the effect of policy decisions on jobs. Nonetheless, economists have shown that federal investments in non-military sectors — like education, health care and clean energy – -create more jobs than military spending. Let’s invest in those jobs.

Rep. Ryan, unchecked spending on the Pentagon at the expense of domestic programs that support people struggling in this economy negatively affects your own constituents, and the entire county. Let’s put this nation on reasonable footing when it comes to national security and fiscal responsibility. Let’s have sensible cuts to the Pentagon budget.

Shaer is the Executive Director of Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND), and co-chair of Win Without War.

This last week has been a devastating one for children and the poor. It began with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops urging members of the House of Representatives Agriculture Committee for “moral and human reasons” to “protect programs that serve poor and hungry people over subsidies that assist large and relatively well-off agricultural enterprises.” Despite urgent pleas from a broad spectrum of faith leaders and advocates for the poor, the House committee voted to protect all the agricultural farm subsidies which primarily benefit the most well to do farms and to cut billions of dollars of benefits from programs that feed poor children and their families. The draconian cuts would affect all 46 million people who receive food stamps including 23 million children.

As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities explains, “No other program under the Committee’s jurisdiction would face any cut under the proposal, despite frequent calls for reform of the nation’s farm subsidies—74 percent of which go to the largest, most profitable farms, according to the Agriculture Department based on 2009 data. These large commercial farms received an average annual government payment of more than $30,000 a year in 2009, while having an average annual household income of over $160,000.” Who do we want our leaders to protect—non-needy farmers or hungry children?

The Supplemental Food and Nutrition Program (SNAP), or food stamps, provides targeted assistance for families when they need help most. Since the beginning of the recession millions of low and middle income parents have lost their jobs and the security of knowing their children would not go to sleep or to school hungry. With record numbers of families living in poverty and food prices increasing more rapidly than in decades, SNAP has been a critical support for millions of children while their jobless parents struggle to get their family finances back on track. A recent study by the Agriculture Department shows how essential the food stamp program is: it reduced the poverty rate by nearly eight percent in 2009, the most recent year in the study.

Hunger and malnutrition have especially devastating consequences for children because their developmental well-being depends on adequate nutrition. Hunger has been linked to low birth weight and birth defects, obesity, mental health problems, oral health problems, and poor educational outcomes. But SNAP makes a difference. The overwhelming majority of SNAP recipients—three quarters—are families with children. SNAP lifted 5.2 million Americans above the poverty line in 2010—more than any other benefit program.

SNAP is also strong economic recovery policy. As the economy struggles, getting food stamps and other payments to low-income families is an effective way to stimulate the economy quickly. Families living paycheck to paycheck spend the money almost immediately on basic necessities, pumping dollars back into the local economy. Just one dollar of SNAP benefits creates a “ripple effect” through the economy, and research shows each $5 of federal SNAP benefits generates nearly twice that amount in economic activity.

Despite its proven success, SNAP remains a consistent target at budget-cutting time. This latest assault by the House committee means two million people would be cut off from food stamps completely and millions more would have reduced benefits. Hundreds of thousands of children would lose free school meals on top of their SNAP benefits. These additional changes on top of already enacted cuts will increase child and family hunger. The House of Representatives’ new budget—labeled the Ryan budget—for Fiscal Year 2013 would fundamentally change SNAP by converting it into a “block grant” program and cut its funding by $133.5 billion—more than 17 percent—over the next ten years (2013-2022). A block grant would allow states to cap eligibility, create waiting lists, and/or sharply reduce or end benefits for millions of children and families still struggling to recover from the recession. It threatens the program’s ability to respond when the American people need help most. At the exact same time the House was making these decisions, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office released a new report predicting the need for food stamps would keep growing through 2014 as American families continue to recover from the recession. The impact of more cuts on children and families who now receive a nutritionally adequate diet from SNAP would be devastating. Where is the justice in a vote to protect wealthy farmers over hungry children? Tell your Members of Congress that SNAP needs to be preserved as a lifeline for hungry Americans in hard times. There should be no hungry people—especially children—in rich America.

Marian Wright Edelman is President of the Children’s Defense Fund whose Leave No Child Behind mission is to ensure every child a Healthy Start, a Head Start, a Fair Start, a Safe Start and a Moral Start in life and successful passage to adulthood with the help of caring families and communities. For more information go to www.childrensdefense.org.

Vermont became the third state to call for a constitutional amendment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision.

Which state will be next? It could very well be California.

If the state approves AJR 22, introduced in January by Assemblymembers Bob Wieckowski and Michael Allen, California would be the fourth state in the union to back an amendment (Hawaii and New Mexico are the first two). The resolution calls for an amendment that would prevent corporations from being granted the same rights as individuals. It would help create fair elections, in which Congress could regulate all forms of campaign spending.

The resolution passed the Assembly in March by a 48-22 vote. The Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing will be held on May 1.

Momentum for an amendment is growing. Thirteen California cities and towns have passed resolutions, including Los Angeles, Oakland, Fort Bragg, Richmond, Marina and Fairfax.]. Public Citizen and other organizations – including the CREDO Mobile. California League of Conservation Voters, CALPIRG, and Common Cause – have gathered signatures from tens of thousands of California voters who support an amendment. They know that corporations have an outsized influence over politics and want the balance of power restored in elections.

In addition, the California Teachers Association, California Professional Firefighters and California Faculty Association recently joined the growing chorus of California organizations supporting an amendment, which includes the California Labor Federation, the California Nurses Association and Environment California.

Citizens United, handed down in 2010, gave corporations the green light to spend unlimited sums to influence elections. Noted Wieckowski, “The Citizens United decision tilts the scales of campaign funding toward those who support wealthy special interests rather than working Americans. This resolution is designed to send a grassroots message to Washington about the urgent need to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling and restore fair elections to the people.”

California should be applauded for helping lead the charge to re-establish the principle that democracy means rule by the people, not giant corporations.

Also to be applauded are the state’s dedicated activists. It is because of them that elected officials are considering this resolution.

It’s not too late to get involved; Public Citizen is leading a coordinated effort to pass hundreds of similar resolutions at the local level the week of June 11 as part of Resolutions Week. The idea is to create a splash throughout the country and show that people are taking a stand to say that democracy is for people, not for corporations.

Visit www.democracyisforpeople.org.

Note: Public Citizen, through its Democracy Is For People campaign, worked with Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski to develop a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling.

Jonah Minkoff-Zern is Senior Organizer of Public Citizen’s Democracy Is For People Campaign that has worked with Assembly-member Bob Wieckowski to develop a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. For more information, please visit www.citizen.org.

Commentary:
By Guadalupe Gonzalez

On February 26, 2012, the seventeen-year-old Trayvon Martin walked along a common area in the complex where his dad’s girlfriend lived. He carried tea and candy. He wore a hoodie. Mr. Martin was apparently spotted by a Mr. George Zimmerman, who was in his truck at the time. Mr. Zimmerman, who was armed with a handgun, called 911 and reported a “suspicious person.” I do not know what led Mr. Zimmerman to that conclusion. Mr. Zim-merman was instructed to remain in his car and the police would look into it.

Instead, Mr. Zimmerman deliberately parked his truck, took his gun along with him, and looked around until he saw Mr. Martin. Then Mr. Zimmerman began to chase Mr. Martin, who was on the phone with his girlfriend. That call is recorded, as are the 911 calls. One can hear Mr. Martin begin panting, saying he was being chased by someone. That someone, as it turns out, was Mr. Zimmerman.

It is said that Florida has a “stand your ground law.” That is based on the common law premise that a “man is entitled to protect his castle.” (I did not make that up, believe me.) That law means that if someone accosts a person in their own home, that person has the right to protect him or her self from imminent danger. It does not mean that the person who is accosted has the right to escalate the dispute. Or to kill in defense of property.

Mr. Zimmerman is the subject of great discussion of whether the “stand your ground law” applies to him. In looking at the published information, it appears that Mr. Zimmerman was in his truck, heading to his destination, and he CHOSE to ignore the dispatcher’s instruction. Instead, he parked and began a man hunt on his own. With a loaded gun. HE was the aggressor. “Stand your ground” does not mean hunt someone down like an animal and kill them point blank. It does not mean whip out your gun and shoot a kid with tea and candy. Mr. Zimmerman put himself in the place where he shot Mr. Martin. Deliberately.

I watched the video of the Sanford police walking Mr. Zimmerman from the police car through the sally port and into the station. I have personally seen murder suspects walked into courts and lock-up areas. They are not allowed to saunter on their own — generally they are grasped by each arm by a law enforcement official. They are given a GSR test, or Gunshot Residue Test. Their clothes are confiscated as evidence, in order for forensics to ascertain the distance between the shooter and the victim. Blood is drawn from the arrestee, to ascertain whether that person was intoxicated or under the influence of any drug or medication. Photos are taken of the arrestee’s body, especially when claims are made of a major scuffle, as Mr. Zimmerman has claimed.

All of the witnesses are interviewed separately. Photos of the location are taken. Attempts are made to notify relatives of the decedent of his death. In this case, although Mr. Martin had his cell phone on his person, his body lay in the county morgue in a refrigerator for two days before anyone notified his family. Why did no one think to call the numbers on the cell phone? Why was Mr. Zimmerman given the royal treatment and released — free to walk away with the evidence all over him and his clothes? Had the police been contacted by someone powerful? Did you know that Robert Zimmerman, the arrestee’s father, was a magistrate judge in Fairfax, Virginia?

I saw the news the other day, although I try to refrain from the negativity of the campaigns, the attempts to take away the rights of women, minorities and the poor. It has just become too much. All that was accomplished during my lifetime is being slowly but incrementally dismantled. Tengan miedo, mi gente, por que hay otros que nos odian.

When I saw Mr. Zimmerman being arraigned, that is, brought into court to be advised of the charges pending against him, I noticed something very interesting. It had been mentioned before by his prior attorneys and others that “George was losing weight…” He has lost weight. I do not know how he is losing weight so fast—I do know it never works for me—but I suspect he wants to look as thin as possible when his case hits the jury. He does not want it to look like he was the big grandulón (larger person) on top of the seventeen year old Trayvon Martin.

I wear a hoodie, I walk along with tea and candy in my neighborhood. Should we all be looking over our shoulders?

Guadalupe Gonzalez is a Los Angeles attorney who detests injustice. Reprinted from LatinoLA.com

Latin American countries are rightfully fed up with fighting Washington’s war on drugs.

In the four decades since President Nixon declared the war on drugs, its battles have been fought predominantly in Latin American nations — leaving behind a trail of death and corruption while failing to achieve any of its goals.

After a bloody, decades-long war in Colombia, the epicenter of drug trafficking simply moved north to Mexico. Upon taking office five years ago, Mexican President Felipe Calderon fully embraced the war on drugs and the country quickly entered a spiral of violence that has left tens of thousands dead, even as the cartels remain as strong as ever.

At the same time, Central America has become a hub for drug smugglers. American-style street gangs operate as the armed muscle of the drug cartels, bringing the violence in Central America to levels that rival those of the civil wars of the 1980s. The bloodshed has even spread to countries that until recently enjoyed some of the lowest crime rates in the world, such as Costa Rica and Belize.

In addition, the perception in the region is that the United States makes tough demands on their governments to combat drug cartels, while doing too little to reduce demand at home. The United States remains the largest drug consumer market of the world. Furthermore, its lax gun legislation has made the United States the main source of weapons for drug cartels, and its financial institutions receive much of the profits of the drug business.

While some high-profile retired Latin American presidents and U.S. officials have in the past advocated decriminalization to address the failure of the existing approach, only recently have current leaders of Latin American countries have joined in calling for such measures.

First, President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia, a conservative and leader of the staunchest ally of the United States in the war on drugs, declared the war to be a failure and supported decriminalization.

Then, a few weeks ago, President Otto Perez Molina of Guatemala, a conservative former general, said he would consider legalizing the possession and transportation of drugs and called for a meeting with the presidents of Central American nations to debate the issue.

This sounded the alarm in Washington, and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and Vice President Joe Biden were sent to the region to deliver the message that the United States is not interested in debating alternatives to its failed strategy.

The arm-twisting was somewhat successful, as the presidents of El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua withdrew from the planned summit. But the presidents of Costa Rica, Guatemala and Panama did not back down. In late March, they gathered in Antigua, Guatemala, to discuss alternatives to the war on drugs.

We desperately need these alternatives. Forty years of the war on drugs have caused death and destruction and increased the power of criminal organizations without a significant reduction in drug use.

The United States must acknowledge this failure and join Latin American countries in embracing alternatives to the war on drugs — including legalization or at least decriminalization of drug use.

Otherwise, the United States may soon find itself fighting this unwinnable war alone.

Juan Blanco Prada, currently based in Brazil, analyzes Latin American issues. He can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org.

The only way for Latinos to directly influence public policy is to elect politicians who will represent the needs, dreams and desires of our community.

There are currently 21 million voting-age Latinos in the United States. Unfortunately, only 52% of these Latinos are registered to vote and, in 2010, only 31% of these actually turned out to vote. The fact that there are over 50 million Latinos in the U.S. implies that our population is much younger than the average American. Every month, 50,000 Latino youths become eligible to vote in this country. These figures, however, will mean nothing unless we convert these numbers into power and political action.

In order to do so however, we have to make sure we register as many voting-age citizens as possible and then facilitate and encourage them to actually vote. Otherwise our voice will never be heard in the halls of Congress or in State Houses across the country. In order to translate our numbers into results this election cycle, we have to effectively motivate a large unregistered population while efficiently engaging our registered community to actually turn out to vote.

More importantly, we must intensify our political education efforts in order to ensure that our community is voting for those politicians who are actually trying to better our lives, as opposed to those that would set us back.

It is exactly for this reason that I started The Latino Project of The American Worker. Our goal is to communicate to Latino voters in a targeted way, to ensure that our voters are well educated and perform at the ballot box.

I have been fortunate to travel the country and meet people who care about translating these population figures into real political power. It is in this context that Latino Project of The American Worker will positively and productively impact these demographics. But we need active involvement from everyone in our community.

For far too long now our voices have been ignored. It is now time for us to demand that we be heard! Working together as a coalition with our sisters and brothers around the country, the Latino vote will change the way politicians represent our community.

Chuck Rocha, who was born and raised in Tyler, Texas, followed in his father’s footsteps as a union worker for the Kelly Springfield Tire Company. He started his union career at the young age of 19 as a member of the United Rubber Workers Local 746. Chuck was appointed the National Political Director of the largest industrial union in the U.S. in May 2005.

Aside from the injustices in Arizona, i.e., the scraping of a highly successful education program, the evident war against Mexicans, and the nullification of the U.S Constitution, I was seduced to the struggle by David A. Morales’ “Three Sonoran” blogs in the Tucson Citizen.

His crusade against the white business cabal that runs the City of Tucson resembled the epic battle of David and Goliath, making enemies of those in power. It was this fight that is the real reason that he was fired from the Citizen, forcing him to begin his own site. (www.threesonorans.com ).

Reading about the Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC) was Déjà vu.

A 19th Century U.S and Mexico historian I got hooked on the issue of urban renewal (AKA people removal). I got interested in the subject in the late 1970s when I began to microfilming articles on Mexican Americans in the Eastside Sun (Boyle Heights). I was attracted to the Sun because I wanted to piece together the relations between the progressive Mexican and Jewish communities.

Jewish Americans once the dominate group in the Heights did not become a minority there until the 1950s. Mexicans were greatly influenced by left leaning Jews and they joined organizations such as Henry Wallace’s American Independent Party (1948).

Members of both groups graduated from Roosevelt High School where they formed friendships. Two prominent Roosevelt alumni are Judge Harry Pregerson who serves the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and former Ambassador to Mexico Dr. Julian Nava.

While microfilming the Sun’s articles, I had long conversations with its publisher, Joe Kovner, who although he had moved to the Fairfax area had strong ties to Boyle Heights. Kovner led an incessant war to preserve Boyle Heights. He did not want it to meet the same fate as Bunker Hill and Chavez Ravine where the Committee of 25, the Los Angeles Times and their gaggle of elected officials joined to “develop” these areas for their own profit. Kovner called it a war on the poor.

UCLA published Community Under Siege: A Chronicle of Chicanos East of the Los Angeles River, 1945-1975, 560pp, in 1984. It was one of my least popular books; nevertheless heavily used by urban planners and graduate students studying the city.

After this point, my research turned to urban spaces. I found that Los Angeles shared a history of real estate foreclosures and the bulldozing of entire communities. So-called elites under the leadership of the Los Angeles Times and other media sold the notion that they were “developing” the city much the same as Wall Street banks and the corporate elite today claim that they are “job creators.”

I found similar patterns in Tucson, El Paso and Chicago. In L.A. they were led by the Committee of 25 that even today operate in a different form. Real Estate lawyers led by ex-mayor Richard Riordan have made fortunes in buying public real estate. Riordan along with developer Eli Broad control local politicos from the mayor to board members of the Los Angeles Unified Schools.

Riordan is the king of privatizers. As mayor he wanted to privatize the City’s main library. Today he is attempting to privatize the schools. In a heated exchange I asked him whether he wanted to make Olvera Street another MacDonald’s; he answered yes just so it went to the highest bidders. Broad, a billionaire is his closest ally.

In Chicago the Daly Machine was the developers’ and bankers’ dream. In the windy city what was not being renewed was being gentrified.

In the 1980s and 90s I wrote for the Los Angeles Herald Examiner and the Los Angeles Times. In the aftermath of Community Under Siege, I naturally wrote many articles about the notion of community and issues related to urban space, i.e., immigrants, the cultural pimping of Olvera Street and museums, racism and sexism on the campuses, the building of a prison in East Los Angeles, the building of a gas pipeline under Boyle Heights – events showing a profound disrespect for Latinos.

The profits in development of urban space and the schools are humungous: service contracts, building of public utilities lines, roads, construction – all of which are approved by governing boards and commissions.

In the 90s at Riordan’s behest Superintendent of Schools Ruben Zacarias was removed. Latino elected officials in their majority supported Zacarias. However, there were powerful Latinos who defected.

On April 2, 1990 in an op-ed column in the Los Angeles Times titled “History Is People,” I wrote:

News that a small group of preservationists seeks to transform Olvera Street from a Mexican marketplace into a multi-ethnic museum should outrage Latinos. After all, the plaza area has been inhabited by Mexicans since 1781, when a dozen or so peasants, mostly from the Mexican states of Sinaloa and Sonora, founded the Pueblo of Los Angeles. Spending time on Olvera Street is thus a trip through tradition.

From 1900-1930, bulldozers virtually cleared the civic center of all else that was Mexican, mostly family homes. Then, Christine Sterling and members of the city’s social and economic elite moved, in the late ’20s, to save and preserve Olvera as a symbol of Los Angeles’ Mexican heritage. The street was little more than an alley. Like the Avila adobe, which had been condemned, its days were numbered.

At first, Olvera was part of California’s “Fantasy Heritage” — a tourist trap. But over the years, its people reintegrated it with the plaza and Our Lady Queen of the Angels, the city’s oldest church. Mexicans and other Latinos began returning to Los Angeles’ Bethlehem. Today, Olvera Street is where many of us go to celebrate our holidays or to enjoy the oldest remnant of the Mexican heritage in the center of the city.

Certainly, a tradition worth preserving, right?

Jeane Poole, curator of El Pueblo Historic Park, has embraced Olvera Street’s dilapidated buildings-mostly stucco and red brick-rather than its traditions and people. It’s no secret that she believes the Mexican presence on Olvera Street so overwhelming that the contributions of the Chinese, the Italians and other neighborhood ethnic groups to the city’s development have been eclipsed. To dilute the Mexican presence, she has advocated that restoration of Olvera Street spotlight the architecture of its buildings. Toward this end, she has enlisted the support of architectural historians.

For 12 years, Poole and her gaggle of Anglo historians have been plotting to impose their Mexican-less vision of Olvera Street. Their opportunity for success came when administration of El Pueblo Park passed from state to the city Recreation and Parks Commission. Eager to renovate, the commissioners put together a proposal. Since they and the Recreation and Parks Dept. lack the expertise to make historical recommendations, Peter Snell, an architectural historian, was paid to make some. Snell is a close friend of Poole and has acted as a consultant for El Pueblo Park.

The commission’s proposal calls for Olvera Street to be renovated and its history interpreted in conformity with the architecture of the “Prime Historic Period” of 1920-1932. Why 1920-1932? Why not 1880-1910? For one thing, the latter would involve tearing down what constitutes today’s Chinatown to make way for reconstruction of Sonora Town.

In any case, historians will tell you that “Prime Historic Periods” are convenient covers for diluting the influence of unwanted groups (Editor’s Note: This case can be made with the recent renovation of Old Town in San Diego). In the case of Olvera Street: No Mexicans Wanted.

What the commissioners and the building-oriented historians are forgetting is that, like it or not, if it had not been for the Mexican marketplace, there would be no preservation debate, since there would be no buildings to preserve. Before Mexican merchants moved in, many of Poole’s “Prime Historic” buildings were slated for demolition-the preferred people-remover technique in the ’30s. But when the alley became a thriving marketplace, those dilapidated stucco and red-brick buildings that Poole now waxes poetic over were saved.

History is made by people, not by buildings. The Latino hegemony in the plaza area is a reminder that Mexicans, here long before the Gringo, are not aliens. Put a plaque on those buildings to indicate that they are proud examples of the Poole’s “Prime Historic Period.” As for Olvera Street, the plaza area and its people, they are too alive to be turned into a musty museum built by Poole and Associates.

Without getting into too much detail, when I decided to support the effort to preserve Tucson’s Mexican American history, I encountered the same history of pillage as in LA. Where had the people gone that once lived in the adobes? Where were the communities?

I had reviewed University of Arizona Professor Lydia R, Otero’s book proposal “La Calle: Spatial Conflicts and Urban Renewal in a Southwest City,” for the UA Press. It was a major contribution to the field of study.

It was, however, the Three Sonorans that took that history to the level of struggle. Morales’ passion reminded me of Joe Kovner as well as Ernesto Galarza’s applied scholarship. Galarza often spoke of his role in preserving Alviso in San Jose, California. For Galarza, Alviso represented the struggle of the Mexican American urban poor to preserve community, which to him meant the preservation of a historical memory which gave residents the knowledge to check the monopolistic tendencies of the urban elites. Galarza said that without a historical memory Mexicans were vulnerable to the robber barons, developers who manipulated the historical narrative.

Observing and knowing the historical processes, I applied these experiences to Tucson. The parallels are obvious. They answered the question as to why SALC opposes Mexican American Studies. They explain the extreme measures that it is taking to wipe out the Mexcan’s historical memory.

There is a lot of money involved; the stakes are high. It goes beyond real estate. It is racial in nature because it uses race to justify its actions. The cabal exploits the fact that Mexicans are the majority of the school population and that they are becoming the majority of Tucson residents to raise fears.

This tactic depends on eliminating Sean Arce, the MAS teachers and Morales. They remember the words of Lalo Guerrero’s “Barrio Viejo:”

Viejo barrio, old neighborhood,
There’s only leveled spaces
where once there were houses,
where once people lived.
There are only ruins
of the happy homes
of the joyous families,
of these folks that I loved…

As Galarza once said, a people constantly on the move do not form communities. That is why historical memory is so important to preserving space. Barrios should not be for sale and when they are developed it should be for the benefit of the community and not elites such as the Committee of 25 or the Southern Arizona Leadership Council.

Millions of children in America are denied the opportunity to receive a fair and high quality education. In March, the U.S. Department of Education released new information showing that children of color face harsher discipline, have less access to rigorous course offerings, and are more often taught by lower paid and less experienced teachers.

Inequities in funding and educational resources place poor children in low-performing schools with inadequate facilities and often ineffective teachers. Practices such as tracking, grade retention, out-of-school suspensions, expulsions, and one-size-fits-all zero tolerance policies continue to contribute to the discouragement, disengagement, and eventual dropout of countless children in America to their detriment and to all of us who need a competitive future workforce.

Instead of serving as “the great equalizer,” American public education is serving as a portal to the cradle-to-prison pipeline for millions of poor children of color, stunting their lives by school dropouts, arrests, and incarceration. The struggle to make sure a quality education is available to every child—and not just a privilege for a few—is the unfinished and critical business before the nation for it will determine America’s future place on the global stage in a rapidly changing competitive world.

The 2009-2010 Department of Education Civil Rights Data Collection survey, the most expansive of its kind, covered 85 percent of the nation’s students and was the first release of this crucial federal data since 2006 when it was suspended by the Bush Administration. The results from the schools surveyed show public school systems where Black students represented 18 percent of students but 46 percent of those suspended more than once and 39 percent of those expelled.

One in five Black boys and more than one in 10 Black girls received an out-of-school suspension compared to nine percent of Hispanic boys and four percent of Hispanic girls and seven percent of White boys and three percent of White girls. Disabled students were more than twice as likely to receive one or more out-of-school suspensions. One in eight students in the study reported having a disability and 18 percent of those students were Black boys. Black and Hispanic students represented more than 70 percent of those involved in school-related arrests or referrals to law enforcement—an astonishing number that requires rigorous examination of the reasons why and action to change unfair racial practices in the application of discipline.

Children of color were also at a disadvantage in access to academic opportunities. Fifty-five percent of the low-minority high schools surveyed offer calculus but only 29 percent of high-minority high schools do. Similarly, 82 percent of low-minority schools offer Algebra II compared to 65 percent of the high-minority schools. Black and Hispanic students represented 44 percent of the students surveyed but only 26 percent of students in gifted and talented programs and were overrepresented when it came to repeating a grade. Across all grades, Black students were nearly three times as likely and Hispanic students were twice as likely as White students to be retained. More than half of all fourth graders retained in the reporting districts were Black and although Black students were only 16 percent of middle school students surveyed, they were 42 percent of those who repeated a grade.

Teacher experience and salaries varied widely. In schools with the highest Black and Hispanic enrollment, 15 percent of teachers were in their first or second year in the profession compared with eight percent of teachers in schools with the lowest minority enrollments. And teachers in high-minority elementary schools were paid on average $2,251 less a year than their colleagues in low-minority schools in the same district.

The Department of Education, and its Office for Civil Rights, is to be applauded for reinstating this crucial data collection survey and creating an extensive data tracking system. But that is just one crucial step. It’s time for all of us to use these numbers as a spring board for robust examination of and discussion about school discipline policies and practices and how they are contributing to school dropouts and the school to prison pipeline, and systematic and sustained action where required.

We all must support strong, consistent and fair discipline policies in our schools and classrooms where learning can occur for all children. At the same time we must raise important questions about how to make those policies work for children of color and all children, rather than against them. Why are so many children being suspended for offenses that used to result in a trip to the principal’s office? Do principals and teachers have too much discretion in deciding who should be suspended or expelled? Is there a need for rethinking and greater clarity about the range of nonviolent offenses that can result in suspensions or expulsions? Should children be suspended for nonviolent offenses like truancy and tardiness? I have never understood what good it does to put a child out of school for not coming to school. Are our young inexperienced teachers getting enough training in classroom management? Are teachers getting the cultural competence training needed to understand and address the behavior of all their children? Do policies require that a child’s parent or caregiver be notified before a child is excluded from school? Or is the child sent to the streets without the parents’ knowledge?

As Education Secretary Arne Duncan correctly said about his department’s findings, “The power of the data is not only in the numbers themselves, but in the impact it can have when married with the courage and the will to change. The undeniable truth is that the everyday educational experience for many students of color violates the principle of equity at the heart of the American promise. It is our collective duty to change that.”

Marian Wright Edelman is President of the Children’s Defense Fund whose Leave No Child Behind mission is to ensure every child a Healthy Start, a Head Start, a Fair Start, a Safe Start and a Moral Start in life and successful passage to adulthood with the help of caring families and communities. For more information go to www.childrensdefense.org.

The City of Escondido has demonstrated once again how NOT to run a city government. With the evidence presented by the ACLU and documentary filmmaker John Carlos Frey that Escondido has been profiting on the backs of immigrants and the poor with towed vehicles from driver license checkpoints, City Manager Clay Philips will oversee an “internal audit” to look for discrepancies. He is precisely the person who should NOT conduct an audit of his own office! To further exacerbate the problem, the City Manager granted huge raises to his department heads without consulting the city council. And if this were not enough, Phillips’ son was hired by City Attorney Jeff Epps…and neither Epps nor Phillips advised the city council of such an obvious appearance of nepotism and conflict of interest. Who is running the show in Escondido???

With this type of supervision (or lack of it), it should not be surprising that Police Chief Jim Maher has been operating unsupervised and unchecked for years. His illegal Driver’s License Checkpoints were stopped only after a threatened lawsuit; he entered into an agreement with immigration authorities (the only local law enforcement agency in the country to do so) without advising the city council or seeking public input; and now there’s evidence that his abusive DUI (Immigration) Checkpoints have illegally been generating millions of dollars for the city. And our elected officials did not know!

It is painfully clear that administrators, not our elected officials, are the policymakers of Escondido.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!

What Should Be Done?

We want an independent audit of the city’s books on monies generated by OTS-funded DUI checkpoints.

We want the City Council to do what they were elected to do: set policy for the city and SUPERVISE THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY!

We want the City Council to terminate the employment of City Manager Clay Phillips.

He has demonstrated that he cannot be trusted by engaging in actions that he should know are controversial without advising the City Council. The obscenely large pay hikes given to department heads, the informal and costly termination of a former employee, and the employment of his son as a deputy city attorney are only recent examples of Phillips’ arrogant and self-serving behavior.

We want the City Council to terminate the employment of Police Chief Jim Maher. This city has been divided since the passage of the Rental Ban Ordinance and continues to be divided by the policies adopted by Maher. His failure to see this huge divide caused by his policies of excessive checkpoints, his failure of transparency of his department with regard to who gets turned over to ICE, and his allowing himself to become the face of the anti-immigrant sentiment in this city has placed this city in a tenuous position in terms of safety and community relations. While claiming that checkpoints have increased public safety, he has yet to provide solid evidence that checkpoints have done anything but divide the city in two. Escondido needs to rid itself of the reputation of being an unfriendly place.

We want to end the unique and harmful relationship our police have with ICE. After years of working hand-in-hand, there is no evidence that Escondido is any safer because of this arrangement.

Will You Join Us?

The next city council meeting is scheduled for April 18, 2012. We want a large group of residents, organizations, and concerned persons to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the way the business of governing is being conducted in Escondido. We need to make the council aware of what they need to do to get this city back on track. Escondido can be a great city, but first this most-important purging needs to take place. This is not really about immigration, it’s about treating people in way that reflects the best of American ideals. Come and help us make these changes.

Contact me, Carmen Miranda, at (760) 884-3818 or at DemandEsco@yahoo.com There will be more information on the demonstration of April 18 as the date approaches.

As a new entrant into the labor pool in 1963, I made the minimum wage — $1.25 an hour. But I was among multitudes of women who then earned only 59 percent of the compensation earned by men. We had a long way to go to reach parity with male coworkers, and, sadly, we’re not there yet. Working women in America today can expect to earn 77 percent of their male counterparts’ pay.

Despite improvement over time, statistics belie the fact that far more families of working women are adversely affected by the pay gap now than nearly half a century ago. Today, women earn an increasing proportion of household income.

Most mothers are in the paid work force, and more working mothers are single or sole breadwinners. Indeed, for some families in this economy, a woman’s pay could make the difference in being able to stay in a home. It also can make all the difference in her children’s opportunities in life.

The American Association of University Women, has issued a number of reports on the pay gap. In its 2007 report, Behind the Pay Gap, AAUW found not only that the gap applied to college graduates, but also that the gap widened over time. The study found that just one year after graduation, women earned 80 percent of what their male counterparts made. Ten years after graduation, women’s earnings ratio had declined to 69 percent. In 2011, AAUW issued, Simple Truth about the Pay Gap.

Looking at how the pay gap affected women of varying circumstances, it concluded that the pay gap exists for women from all backgrounds, all ages and all levels of education. At the same time, pay disparity was found to be widest for women of color compared to white men – with Hispanic and Latina women making only 60 percent of the median weekly earnings for white men. The gender pay gap also grows with age. Women earn about 90 percent of what men earn until about age 35. The gap widens to a differential of 74 percent-77 percent during peak earning years for ages 35 to 64 – resulting, in turn, in reduced retirement income for women. And, for those with professional degrees, women make but 72 percent of their male counterparts’ earnings.

Given the importance of women’s earnings to families, we can no longer consider pay equity as simply a women’s issue. Fairness is at stake; gender bias should never be acceptable. But also at stake is the economic status of the vast majority of Americans.

There has been progress in reducing the pay gap between women and men.

But we are far from achieving pay equity. Equal Pay Day, April 17 is approaching – the day when median earnings for women since Jan. 1, 2011, equals earnings for men for calendar year 2011. This means women must work nearly 16 months to make what men earn in 12.

We do have laws that deal with systemic underpayment for women’s work.

The Equal Pay Act, enacted in 1963, prohibits employers from paying women less because of their gender. The following year, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibited employment discrimination, including discrimination in hiring, firing, promoting and wages. Nontheless, study after study shows the pay gap persisting.

While legislators talk about the need for fuller employment, how can they responsibly ignore the pressing need for paycheck fairness remedies? How can they ignore the important role of working women? The time has come to strengthen laws dealing with the pay gap. Congress could start by passing the Paycheck Fairness Act, a comprehensive bill to strengthen the Equal Pay Act.

Sierra is a past board member of the Nevada County branch of the American Association of University Women and past member of the Public Policy Committee of AAUW of California. She has been a member of AAUW for more than 10 years.