The war on drugs has once again been proven a failure with the killings of two U.S. citizens in the la Ciudad Juarez this past weekend, when suspected drug cartel hit men killed a U.S. consulate employee and her husband, minutes after the husband of another consular employee was shot to death. In both cases young children were in the back seat with two being wounded. This marks a new tactic by the drug cartels, killing American service employees.

Ciudad Juarez is deadliest city in the world with 2,657 killings in 2009 alone. Last weekend alone there were 11 killings in the city. The San Diego Police Department reported 41 murders for all of 2009 in comparison.

In Tijuana the killings, mutilations, kidnappings, all associated with the drug cartels, are well documented. Cartel killings have spilled over the border and into cities such as Chula Vista where bodies have been found killed execution style. In 2009 at least eight journalist have been killed all who have written stories exposing the drug cartels. Even the Mexican police chiefs are not safe from cartel assassins.

In 2006 Mexican President Felipe Calderon declared war on drugs and sent the Mexican army to lead the war. The United States, in 2007, announced a $1.4 billion, two-year package, the Merida Initiative, to help the Mexican government combat organized crime, dubbed “Plan Mexico.”

The outcome has been a one sided affair with drug cartels winning through intimidation, terror, and they are in control while Mexico and the city of Juarez are gripped in fear.

According to government reports, the National Drug Intelligence Center estimated that Mexican and Colombian drug trafficking organizations annually generate between $8.3 and $24.9 billion in wholesale drug earnings in the United States.

The drug violence is of particular concern on this side of the border with spring break upon us and when so many college students head south for a couple of weeks of fun and relaxation. The idea of our young people in Mexico sends a chill down the spine.

The Drug War is a failure! The U.S. government needs to acknowledge this. Mexico needs to re-think their policy on militarizing their cities.

As stated in the book “Narco: The failed war,” co-authored by former president Vicente Fox spokesperson Rubén Aguilar and political analyst and former foreign minister Jorge Castañeda who stated that violence will only cause more violence. They back is up with statistics that find the number of murders per capita showing a sharp increase after Calderon declared war on drug trafficking on December 11th in 2006.

In America since President Nixon declared the war on drugs it has only gotten worse. There has been no abatement in the amount of drugs crossing the border and drug use by Americans only continues to climb. To continue down the same road has already proven futile. A new direction is called for. Much like when Prohibition was ended and the associated crime with that failed policy dismissed, it appears that it is time to consider legalizing marijuana as a step in a new direction. It is obvious that following the same old philosophy is not working.

In the month of March we celebrate two great movements, both associated with minority rights – Cesar Chavez Day and International Women’s Day.

Both movements were similar in scope. In the 1900s, women were fighting oppression and inequality, becoming more vocal and active in their campaigning for change when 15,000 women marched through New York City demanding shorter hours, better pay and voting rights.

Cesar Chavez Day is celebrated for Chavez’ selfless dedication to farm workers and worker rights, economic justice, civil rights, environmental justice, peace, nonviolence, empowerment of the poor and disenfranchised.

Both movements were fighting for the rights of the underrepresented to bring about change, equality, and a better life for all. Women were and are considered a minority not in numbers but in the rights afforded them. International Women’s Day was started in the early 1900’s and in 1920 women finally received the right to vote. But that was not the end of their struggle.

Today women are still fighting for equality, in particular equality in the workplace where they still earn less then their contemporaries and are limited by the all too real glass ceiling. And while women are fully engaged in politics they have as of yet had a women candidate represent their party for President. All too often women candidates and women doing the work of men have had to prove that they are as tough as men. We are reminded of the news story this week of the female Naval captain who was fired from her job for cussing out her suborinates – a case of a women having to act tough?

Cesar Chavez also fought for workers rights: the right for fair pay, humane treatment, the right to go the bathroom (farmers did not provide port-a-potties or the time to take a bathroom break), the right to work without pesticides being spayed on them, and the list goes on. But the symbol of Chavez reached way beyond the fields and became a symbol for Chicano Rights and Hispanic Rights. He became the focal point for community leaders to follow and fight for the rights of local communities, for political representation, social justice, and environmental justice. Chavez achieved success for the farmworkers, but just like for the women this was not the end of the road but merely the beginning.

With the recent events unfolding before us, the “Compton Cookout” at UCSD and in Texas where the highest ranking Republican, running for his party’s Gubernatorial nomination, lost a one-sided race to a unknown, who was underfunded. It wasn’t even close. Victor Carrillo lost by 60% of the Republican vote. Carrillo said that his name drove voters to support his opponent David Porter. We still have a long way to go.

It is just not in politics but through the whole spectrum of society that both women and Hispanics have still to fight for equality. And while many like to look at the growing population of Hispanics and declare that we have achieved equality this is the furthest thing from the truth.

The truth is that we are a long way from equality and the first step is to recognize the problem and then to work on solving the problem as a community.

The Obama administration needs to do more to address high unemployment among blacks and Latinos.

In January, the overall unemployment rate fell to 9.7 percent, but the rate for blacks inched up to 16.5 percent and the Latino rate stood at 12.6 percent. For black men, the unemployment rate is the highest among all such categories of workers: 17.6 percent.

The stimulus money has not benefited those who need it the most. Only a tiny fraction of the funded projects has gone to minority contractors and businesses — 5.9 percent, according to the Insight Center for Community Economic Development.

In general, the administration has been reluctant to respond to the way the economic crisis has unevenly impacted racial and ethnic communities. Before the recession, the unemployment rate for blacks and Latinos hovered around 8 percent and has sharply increased since then. With fewer assets and savings compared to whites, blacks and Latinos are even harder hit when the pink slip comes.

The Obama administration should be proactive. It should set up a special task force to examine the higher than average unemployment rates in black and Latino communities and to develop strategies to support long-term recovery. The task force should also take up how to ensure that minority-owned and women-owned businesses are able to effectively compete for and win recovery contracts.

The administration should then take those recommendations and work with Congress to enact policies to ensure that all communities are able to recover from this economic crisis in due time.

C. Nicole Mason, Ph.D., is a political scientist and the executive director of the Women of Color Policy Network at New York University’s Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service. She can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org.

The Good:

LaDainian Tomlinson

It is not often that we single out a sports figure for the editorial pages, then again it is not very often that a football player the caliber of LaDainian Tomlinson says goodby to San Diego fans.

For several years Tomlinson, or LT as the fans like to call him, was the best running back in football. Tomlinson owns or shares 28 team records, including career rushing yards, yards from scrimmage and touchdowns. During his nine seasons in San Diego, Tomlinson won two rushing titles (2006 and ’07), set an NFL single-season record for touchdowns in a season (31 in ’06) and racked up 12,490 rushing yards, the eighth-highest total in NFL history. He was the NFL’s Most Valuable Player in 2006 and earned Pro Bowl honors five times.  And when he does finally retire he will be inducted into football’s Hall of Fame. The only thing missing from his professional resume is a Super Bowl appearance.

But beyond this on the field exploits was his commitment to the community.

Two days before Thanksgiving, LT hands out 2,000 turkeys and food, enough for a Thanksgiving dinner, through his foundation. He visits children in hospitals, giving presents and personal attention. He has his own charity golf tournament, gives $1,000 college scholarships to seniors at his old high school, and hands out dozens of bikes and hundreds of shoes to underprivileged kids in San Diego.

   Since he couldn’t afford to go to NFL games as a child, he buys tickets for 21 kids to every home game. Twenty-one is his jersey number. And again, he gives them his time. After the game he comes back on the field to greet each of them, sign autographs, and pose for pictures.

LT will be missed by San Diego’s football fan and by the community. We wish him the best of luck and hopefully he will finally make the Super Bowl.  Unfortunately it won’t be as a San Diego Charger.

The Bad:

Outsourcing

San Diego Mayor Sanders has touted outsourcing and the competitive bidding process as the answer to many of the city’s fiscal problems. Editorial La Prensa San Diego has argued against the process based on the loss of income and jobs for the local workforce.

With the first proposal before the city council to outsource its computer support, the worst case scenario is proving to be the reality. Sanders’ proposal is to award the $1.5 million dollar contract to firm in Gardena, and we are informed that some of the work will be done overseas in India. To make matters worse, a San Diego firm bid $30,000 dollars less then the Gardena firm.

The city council has final say on this proposal, let’s hope that they do the right thing and squash this proposal and keep our tax dollars in San Diego, not out-sourced to India!

And the Ugly:

UCSD “Compton Cook Out”

Racism is alive and well on the campus of the University of California at San Diego (UCSD.) This past week, Racism was on full display in an off-campus party that invited people “in hopes of showing respect” during Black History Month. The Facebook posting offered a dress code of T-shirts, rapper-style urban clothing by makers such as FUBU, and gold chains. Women were urged to go as “ghetto chicks,” described in the invitation as having gold teeth, cheap clothes and “short, nappy hair.”

The invitation went on to say the party would serve watermelon, chicken, malt liquor, cheap beer and a purple sugar-water concoction called “dat Purple Drank. It was noted that this party was to demonstrate how blacks lived in the ghetto.

Black and minority students are outraged at the insult and disrespect, and that in today’s world these types of attitudes still prevail, describing the campus atmosphere as hostile. The Black Student Union and minority groups have called for immediate action by the school administration. UCSD administration is framing the “Compton Cook Out” as a teaching/learning opportunity.  Students continue to protest, demonstrating their outrage with their call for action and accountability.

We agree with the students in their call for action. The school administration has been listening. But this “Compton Cook Out” also serves to demonstrate to the students and minority community in general that as minorities we still have along way to go. Contrary to the belief by some such as African American politicican Ward Connerly, who calls for the dismantling of Equal Opportunity, minorities continue to experience blatant racism and ethnic stereotyping. Even the election of a Black President can not reverse racism.

Minorities still need to be vigilant and we still need to work together to bring about the painfully slow process of change. While we would like to believe that we are reaching racial equality, the “Compton Cook Out” has reminded us that racist attitudes continue to be a murky undertow in our society.

And while the administration at UCSD has little recourse to discipline the students involved because it was an off-campus event and was not sanctioned by any campus organization, the administration should make a greater effort to bring about diversity on the campus. For years the school has talked about diversity and about bringing in more students of color. After Proposition 209 passed in California, the proposition which banned race- and gender-based preferences in state university admissions, the black student population on campus has shrunk to only 1.3% of the total population. If the administration wants to make a difference, increasing the minority student population would be a good place to start.

It has become an annual ritual where school districts start the process of trying to find ways to balance their budgets with a threat of teacher layoffs. Across the county each school district is targeting teacher salaries as the way to go, in order to bring about cost savings. San Diego City Schools is asking for an 8 percent cut in teachers’ salaries, as is Chula Vista Elementary, two percent in San Ysidro, two percent in Vista and the drum beat goes on.

This threat, manifested in pink slips, is reinforced by the school administrations which send out literature to the community presenting their side of the story and laying blame at the feet of the teachers’ unions as being unyielding! More often than not, the threat of teacher layoffs pits the new teacher against the older teacher with greater tenure. The new teachers are the first to receive layoff notices.

Often times, unions come under attack for various reasons, primarily for being too political with undue influence in the political process, but it is times like this that the teachers’ unions prove their value. Without unions’ collectively bargaining in the interest of the teachers, teachers would be at the whim of school boards and administrators.

Teachers are not naïve and they do understand the economic circumstances of their districts and of the State. Teachers in general are willing to work with their districts to find fair and equitable solutions to the budget crises. The question that is asked, are these salary cuts fair and equitable?

The economic crisis in the State of California has dragged on now for several years, and each year the State calls on the educators and teachers to make sacrifices in order to balance the budget. Teachers have not received a pay raise during these years, they have not been afforded a cost of living increase, teachers now have to pay more for their benefits, and now, on top of all this, teachers are now being asked to take an 8 percent pay cut. You couple this with the cost increases that everyone has to face, this becomes an even greater sacrifice made by the teachers.

Granted teacher pay does take up the bulk of any school budget. In times such as these there will be concessions made, but what we don’t hear about are any shared sacrifices being made by the administrators.

Teachers bear the brunt of criticism when it comes to education and they are the focus of school improvement, improve the educators and you will improve the schools. At the same time teachers are being asked to do more and more each day. The teacher’s day doesn’t start when the school bell rings – their day starts an hour earlier as they prepare for the day. And the day doesn’t end when the students are dismissed. Teachers are now asked to say for an extended day tutoring struggling students, prepare lessons plans, grade papers. Each year they are asked to change the way they teach according to the latest research in education, one year it is the “Blue Print for Success,” “No Child Left Behind,” and now “The Race to the Top.”

Without State funding for class size reduction, teachers will soon be asked to teach more students per day, focus on the struggling student, and improve test scores overall. They will be asked to do all this on less income.

On top of this is the continuing political mantra about teacher accountability and finding the best teachers to teach in the low performing schools. This then leads to the question of where are the future teachers going to come from? College students who once might have considered education as their future are going to take a hard look becoming a teacher. Is it worth it? Will school districts lose out on attracting the best people into teaching? The community itself will have to ask themselves these questions as well, better yet they will have to go to their board meetings and ask their respective board members what is important in education!

Bottom line education has always been about the teacher, the vast majority of teachers are good teachers and it is important that these good teachers are retained, it is also important to recruit good young people to take on one of the most important roles in our society – educating our youth. There is an old saying ‘you get what you pay for!’ Will students and their families be getting their money’s worth by cutting teacher’s salaries without shared sacrifices?

As a Latina, I am fed up with President Obama’s lack of leadership on immigration reform.

Not addressing immigration head-on contributes to the invisibility of immigrants and fuels an atmosphere of discrimination and hatred against Latinos. This ultimately leads to an increase in hate crimes.

To be fair, Congress is not doing much on this issue, either.

Instead, the deep partisan divide is paralyzing our government and limiting Obama’s ability to lead.

By narrowly focusing on enforcement only and using the rhetoric of rewarding “law-abiding immigrants,” Obama, in his State of the Union speech, at best ignored the 11.5 million undocumented people — many of whom live in families with U.S.-born children — or, at worst, criminalized them.

Obama touched on the noncontroversial themes of our historical roots as a nation built by immigrants and yet the suffering of today’s immigrants, who are currently building this nation, was not mentioned. He failed to remind us that this nation’s immigration policy has historically excluded people from countries deemed racially inferior. He had an opportunity to call on us to move beyond such prejudices, but he missed it.

Yes, undocumented immigrants who have crossed the border without documents have committed a civil infraction. As it is also true that immigrants who overstay their visas also ignore civil law. Yet none of the immigration-related violations are serious crimes.

In many cases, a destructive U.S. foreign policy has created the conditions that force people to leave their home countries and venture into ours. Some U.S. multinational corporations also share responsibility for driving people off their lands or for hiring them at a pittance, and then discarding them and moving operations to an even cheaper country. Abandoned, these people pack up everything and head north.

Latinos voted overwhelmingly to elect Obama, and it was our vote in swing states like Arizona, Florida and New Mexico that was critical to his win. Yet when it comes to immigration, one of the top issues in our community, so far he is doing worse than President Bush. We are now struggling to accept that the candidate we worked hard to elect has sold us down the river.

More immigrants have been deported in Obama’s first year than in the last year of the Bush administration. Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano have found a behind-the-scenes strategy to get rid of immigrants. They have the immigration agency comb through local jails and place deportation holds on anyone suspected of being undocumented. Local police are piling on, even in “sanctuary” cities, by increasing their arrests of immigrants for minor crimes such as jaywalking and loitering.

These immigrants don’t get their day in court. Instead, they are sent to one of the country’s various detentions centers, many of them run by private companies that make large profits out of holding undocumented immigrants in abysmal conditions.

We Latinos expected more from Obama. With his frequent quotes from Martin Luther King, with his appropriation of Cesar Chavez’s slogan “si, se puede,” we thought he would create an immigration policy based on equity and justice.

Instead, it’s been more of the same — or worse.

President Obama is at risk of losing his Latino base — and surrendering the moral high ground — unless he champions the rights of immigrants.

Ana C. Perez is the executive director of the Central American Resources Center (CARECEN) in San Francisco and the president of the Salvadoran American National Network (SANN). She can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org. Reprinted from the Progressive Media Project.

We haven’t really heard much complaining coming out of National City over the recent announcement by City Manager Chris Zapata who selected and has appointed City Councilman Frank Parra as the next –soon to be determined title— Director of the Fire Department. Technically, Parra can’t be called Fire Chief of National City because he is not a fireman, nor has any training in this area. Because of Parra’s selection there will be a new department, which the Fire Department will come under.

Without any uproar over the announcement we have to chalk it up to National City, being National City. A recent editorial in the Union Tribune reduced the Fire Department to a glorified paramedic service. We wonder if the firefighters in National City appreciated that analogy? The characterization of the fire department was done in part to justify the appointment of Parra, so as a professional paramedic he could be qualified to lead the fire department.

La Prensa has nagging, and persistent questions about the appointment of Councilman Parra that keeps bothering us. For example the City Manager used the fact that Parra has been a council member since 2002 and that gives him the experience necessary to run the fire department. We ask ourselves, what? A councilperson requires no particular skill, and a person can serve as long as voters vote them in. Serving on the council requires one to make political decisions that are in the best interest of the city. We question where Mr. Parra’s experience is coming from?

We also question why City Manager Zapata stopped the process of interviewing other qualified candidates that would have given the city council several choices. As the deal now stands, the council has no choice but to confirm or reject Councilman Parra. In essence looking from the outside this is a done deal since Manager Chris Zapata made a unilateral decision to not present a field of qualified candidates so the council could select the best man for the job.

For Zapata as an employee to hire his boss and then have to clear his decision with his other bosses (the city council) smells to high heaven, and appears like a back room deal. This is not exactly transparent nor an example of an open form of government. So in reality, the decision to hire and approve Councilman Parra has already been made.

Does Parra have the prerequisite education to become a department head? Under normal circumstances this usually requires a Bachelors’ degree or higher. At times work experience can be substituted for education. The question then is does a background of being a paramedic supervisor and being an elected city councilperson qualify as work substitution for formal education?

Frank Parra is probably a very good paramedic supervisor, and while we don’t want to begrudge him or anyone else the opportunity, we question if his selection and appointment is in the best interest of National City? That is the question the National City Council members will have to ask themselves, when it is time to vote on his confirmation.

President Barack Obama is at his best when speaking before an audience, he knows how to deliver a speech and inspire. It was these qualities more than any other that motivated millions to believe in him and his call for change and elect him President. In his first State of the Union speech Obama was once again at his best.

   He addressed the issue of partisan politics, which seems to be an epidemic in modern politics not only in Washington but throughout the political spectrum. He addressed the need for jobs, addressing the needs of the middle class, of small business, the economy in general. He talked about the health bill and he took the blame for not clearly outlining the bill, demonstrating that he knows that “the-buck-stops-here.” He strove to inspire Republicans and Democrats to work together.

   Obama pulled a page from the first Ronald Reagan State of the Union speech and detailed the circumstances under which he took office, detailing the problems and laying the blame on the previous administration. He highlighted his successes and he looked to regain his populist position with the nation. He even took on a Gay issue by vowing the repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that bars gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military.

   What we didn’t hear was anything on the Hispanic/Latino issues. As the speech continued on for over an hour we sat and waited to see if he ever was going to mention Hispanic leadership, the Hispanic community, or even address immigration.

   Late into the speech he did mention immigration: “And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system — to secure our borders and enforce our laws and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation.” That was it, not much to sink your teeth into.

   In regards to Mexico, nothing. He did mention strengthening our trade relations in Panama and Colombia, but nothing about NAFTA or CAFT free trade agreements, policies that are important to the Hispanic community.

   To be fair, in the big picture, middle class tax cuts, jobs, and education reform do impact the Hispanic community. Further, the Obama administration has appointed the greatest number of Latinos to senior positions in the White House and the rest of the federal government – more than any President in history – and nominated Sonia Sotomayor as Supreme Court Justice.

   But by relegating Hispanic issues to non-issues relegates the Hispanic community, once again, to second-class citizenry. Once again Hispanics are on the outside looking in when Hispanics should be moving closer to center stage.

   In general we have been pleased with the Obama Presidency, but we are disheartened by the snub. As President Obama concluded his speech he described a new decade stretched out before us. That decade will be about the Hispanic community, and it is time to recognize this fact.

It was one year ago this week on January 20, 2009 that Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. One year later the Obama Presidency finds itself slipping into a quagmire that has tarnished his first year accomplishments.

President Obama’s troubles were punctuated this week with the election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts, once a Democratic strong hold held by Democrat stalwart Senator Edward Kennedy, and by Obama’s recent drop in approval ratings in the polls. Coupled with this is the drawn out process of coming up with a comprehensive health care reform package and getting it passed.

Of course conservative commentators and political pundits have seized upon recent bad news to pile on the Obama Presidency as a referendum on this administration.

We are not so quick to label this administration as a failure. Yes, there have been disappointments, but to label this administration as a failure is premature.

One year ago when Obama became President, the country was in the worst economic slump since the Great Depression:  jobs were lost, homes foreclosed, businesses closed, cities teetered on the verge of bankruptcy. The Obama administration hit the ground running. With swift actions, they helped stop the economic hemorrhaging. Banks that once received bailout money are already paying back the loans. GMC and Chrysler Motors are rebounding and are once again kicking up production and hiring new employees.

Home sales and values are on the uptick. While unemployment numbers have remained high, they have stopped increasing so dramatically. In 2010 unemployment figures will improve as more and more people are re-hired. A Nobel Peace Prize awarded to our president in Obama’s first year of his Presidency does reflect the world view of Obama and the positive outlook that Obama has inspired throughout the world. And Obama has appointed the first Hispanic to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor.

Yes, there are disappointments, primarily the high unemployment figures. Those who are unemployed can no longer wait for a gradual turnaround in the economy, they need jobs today. The delay in addressing the immigration issue is a disappointment and now without a Democratic super majority, it has become all that harder to accomplish. The procrastinated health care reform is a disappointment. The continued fight in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan are disappointments.

So while there are disappointments, they are outweighed by the positive aspects of President Obama’s first year in office. Obama was elected to a four year term, let us wait and see in two more years how the administration is doing and then make a judgment call. For those who don’t recall, Obama’s approval ratings mirror those of President Ronald Reagan who faced a similar economic recession in his first term. As the economy improved so did Regan’s approval ratings. Reagan has been considered by some as one of the great Presidents.

The first year disappointments and struggles are hardly a referendum on the Obama administration. They are merely the opening salvo.

The future of education, both locally and in the state of California, has received extra special attention the past couple of weeks. The San Diego Unified School District did considering eliminating the position of Superintendent. The California Legislature passed a pair of education reform bills to access $700 million as a part of the “Race to the Top” education initiative. And Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vowed to protect education spending in the next round of budget talks.

Thankfully the San Diego Unified School Board backed away from their half-baked idea of appointing several CEOs to run the school district. There were so many things wrong with this idea that it is hard to determine which was the worst aspect of this idea. We can start with the idea of CEOs running an education institution. This was just another attempt to turn education into the Ford model of assembly line production. This model works well with putting together cars, but fails when it comes to shaping diverse young minds.

Another problem with the idea of CEOs running a school system is the diffusion of power within the organization. To successfully run a school it takes strong and equal representation from the main components: the administrative side of education led by the Superintendent, the community through the election of board members, and representation of the employees and teachers by the unions. When all three are working together toward a common goal, good things come about. By weakening the role of the Superintendent, the balance of power shifts to the two remaining components, the Board and the Unions. Unbalanced power never works.

But probably the biggest problem with the idea of changing the structure of the school district is that this is yet another experiment at the expense of another generation of students. The district already went through the Alan Bersin “Blueprint for Success” experiment that was a dismal failure. What the district does not need is another experiment in particular at a time when test scores are starting to see gains. Thankfully the school board abandoned the education by committee idea and now is in the process of hiring a new Superintendent.

The other major development in education was the passage of two education reform bills this week which give parents the opportunity to transfer their children out of low performing schools to high performing schools and evaluating teachers based on test scores. The main motivation behind the passage of these two bills was the $700 million dollars that will come from the Obama administration’s “Race to the Top” initiative. Without passage of these bills the state would not have been eligible to receive the funds.

While the focus of the education reform is commendable, and very similar to the Bush administration’s “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB), there are still questions. The idea of allowing children to transfer between schools is a part of the NCLB that had little impact:  the “good” schools only have so much space and can’t take all who want to enter. Further, when students leave poor performing schools, there remains less money for that district/school, as education funds are based on attendance. Those poor performing schools will have even fewer resources to improve the education of their students. Why doesn’t the “Race to the Top” put more money into those poor performing and bring them on par with the good schools?

Poor performing schools are concentrated in minority, low income neighborhoods. All of the associated problems with poverty have a profound impact on students’ ability to learn. To judge a teacher based on test scores is inherently unfair to those good teachers where they are needed the most.

Lastly, Governor Schwarzenegger made a commitment to education by vowing not to cut the education budget in 2010 and make higher education a priority by working toward more money being spent on higher education than on prisons. This is a refreshing approach and long overdue. 2010, early on, is shaping up to be the year of Education which we look forward too!

In reviewing last year’s editorials it was interesting to see that our very first editorial of the year was succinct in pointing out that 2009 was going to be a tough year. It was more of an obvious statement in that the previous years had laid the groundwork for a disasterous year ahead.

2009 did not disappoint: It was a disaster. Unemployment at an all time high, the economy searched for the bottom, home foreclosures rose, the State of California floundered, and local cities all struggled. The small businesses that survived all cut corners, reduced expenses, and doubled down. Many more small businesses just closed their doors. And as a society we had to make choices, do we tax ourselves for education, services, and for such things as libraries and police protection or do we make due with less.

Yes, indeed it was a tough year.

2009 was also the year that there had to be a turn around, there was no alternative. Without an economic recovery the future was unthinkable. President Obama came in and made some early and swift decisions. Terms such as bailout and stimulus money, programs such as cash for clunkers, became part of the nightly newscast.  And slowly, oh so slowly, the economy bottomed out.

Thankfully, at La Prensa San Diego with the moral and financial support of friends and family, we are still in publication and will continue to bring the news to our readers for years to come. This is not to say that it was easy. We, like most businesses, had to make personnel and personal cuts, and although we have always felt that we ran a pretty lean business, we had to take a second look and find ways to cut expenses and keep up circulation. Thankfully, the outlook for the New Year already is much brighter.

La Prensa is just a small slice of the much bigger picture. For those companies and small business that survived, they are much smaller, smarter, and poised to rebound and thrive with new business and less competition.

The economic outlook is improving and as the economy improves so will many of the other issues that we have had to face all year long. Tax revenues will increase, as will home sales and values, companies will start rehiring, the stock market is on the rebound, and as the tax revenue increases there will be more dollars to fund education and restore basic services.

All this won’t happen overnight, but it will slowly build throughout the year. With this optimism, we wish you and yours a Happy and Prosperous New Year.

For the past several years, it has been a bit difficult writing a Merry Christmas message to you, our readers. The economic circumstances that we have all had to endure during these years made it hard as we faced tough times, as neighbors lost homes, friends lost jobs, and it was difficult to find the money to spend on Christmas presents.

This year, while by no means is the recession over, the promise of hope is coming to pass as our economy begins to rebound. There is, finally, a light at the end of this dark tunnel we have all had to endure.

Christmas 2009 is a window to 2010. We look forward to much better times where we can breathe a sigh of relief as that ever present sense of pressure from worry starts to lift. After these years of recession we will come out much smarter and much stronger as we look to the future.

This year the commercialization of Christmas does not serve as a reminder of what we can’t afford and the pending disappointment that will greet our children on Christmas morning, but serves as a reminder of what is to come. The future is bright.

At the same time, we return to our places of worship and thank the Lord for all we have and share in the joy of the birth of Christ. For many, our faith in God has helped sustain us through these difficult times, church is a place to go to seek solace and affirmation, a place to seek support and lend support to those who have even less. Our church offers us a place to share in the joy of life, with our family, friends, and community.

For all of this we are thankful and we wish all of our readers a very Merry Christmas.

The issue of immigration has long been a festering issue that has polarized the country for years. While there has been much talk about the issue of immigration little has been done to address the issue. During the eight years of the Bush administration, draconian anit-immigrations measures were highlighted by the 800 mile fence along the southern border.

This week Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) introduced a landmark immigration reform bill that is the first step in what will be a long laborious process to overhaul immigration legislation. Gutierrez along with members of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Asian & Pacific Caucus and 87 sponsors of the bill introduced the 700 page document, this past Tuesday, after months of discussions with community organizations, unions and other groups around the country. Strong efforts to include multiple leaders and organizations across the country were made in hope of gaining enought momentum to get the reforms passed.

While the number and diversity of sponsors on this bill is impressive and important, what is most telling is the noticeable silence on this bill from President Barack Obama, and the tentative support of House Speaker Nancy Polosi who has taken a wait and see attitude on the bill. Without the full support of the White House, this bill is DOA (dead on arrival). Further, there has been a lack of national coverage, referred to by the major media as merely the opening salvo on the immigration debate.

The problem with the Gutierrez bill is that it is pro-immigrant and makes too much sense. President Obama and Speaker Polosi are waiting for Senator Charles Schumer’s version of the bill to come out. Schumer’s bill will be geared toward greater border enforcement with an emphasis of stopping immigration. This in itself speaks volumes about where President Obama is on immigration and puts into question the overwhelming Hispanic support for the President.

A few highlights of the Gutierrez bill are:

- It suspends Operation Streamline, a program that files criminal charges against all border-crossers;

- It strengthens protection during enforcement activities, by making such activities subject to court review, allowing legal access and other services to detained immigrants, and repealing the 287(g) program, making the federal government the only enforcer of federal immigration law;

- It makes a number of proposals to reduce the massive backlog in family and employment visa issuance (itself the primary source of “illegal” immigration in the country), leaning toward making more visas available to skilled workers who ought to be welcome in the U.S;

- It makes a number of provisions to strengthen family unity, by allowing judges greater discretion in removal proceedings, for instance when a U.S. citizen child is involved;

- It restores federal jurisdiction of immigration decisions and practices, thereby restoring the historic role that federal courts have long played in checking federal agency conduct;

- It improves detention conditions, by preserving family unity, avoiding unnecessary separations, and ensuring humane treatment of detainees;

- It prohibits the creation of a national ID card in the proposed employment verification system;

As noted in the opening salvo this is going to be a long debate about a contentious issue. Discussions of immigration reform seems to bring out the worst in people as they bash immigrants and Hispanics in general. But the bigger question is: what are the sense and sensibilities of President Obama when it comes to immigrants and Hispanics? Obama’s leadership, more than anything else, will determine what kind of immigration legislation and policies will come to fruition. Hispanics need to watch this issue carefully to determine whether or not our new presdient desrves the support of the Hispanic community that he has enjoyed up to this point.

The U.S. response to the recent presi-dential election in Honduras shows that not much has changed under President Obama.

When military leaders overthrew the democratically elected government of President Manuel Zelaya back in June, the Obama administration responded ambivalently. Obama himself denounced it as coup, but the State Department refused to do so. As a result, Washington continued to send development and military aid to the country weeks after the military installed the dictatorship.

Then the Obama administration appeared to have brokered a deal to reinstate Zelaya, but when the de facto government declined to follow through, Obama let it slide.

Zelaya and his supporters boycotted the presidential election on Nov. 29. When Porfirio Lobo, one of the wealthiest men in the country, was declared the winner, many Latin American countries refused to recognize the results. And with good reason: There were massive reports of human right violations before and on election day, in a country under a state of emergency and with the ousted president under siege in the Brazilian Embassy in the Honduran capital.

But the Obama administration called the election “a step forward.”

This looks and smells like traditional U.S. policy toward Latin America. It is a policy that traditionally supports power-hungry elites that control most of the wealth at the expense of the majority of the population. For decades, Washington has carried out this policy by supporting repressive governments, taking the side of the wealthy in civil wars and rubber-stamping elections marred by rampant civil and human rights violations, repression of the press and military intimidation.

The administration’s approach to the Honduran crisis is not the only disappointing policy direction Obama has taken when it comes to Latin America.

He has maintained the draconian embargo on Cuba, criticized progressive governments in Latin America and cemented ties with the repressive government in Colombia.

But his weak response to the Honduran coup is his worst move yet in the hemisphere, and the Honduran people are paying the price. The day before the elections, more than 50 heavily armed soldiers and police officers ransacked the office of COMAL (Alternative Community Marketing Network). That’s a network of women who are small farmers. Their crime? Educating local peasants about the current political crisis in Honduras.

On the day of the election, more than 500 unarmed protesters staged a peaceful sit-in in front of tanks and troops — and were attacked with water cannons and gas.

Rule by gunpoint is not democracy — nor is it a step forward.

Ana C. Perez is executive director of the San Francisco-based Central American Resources Center (CARECEN). This editorial was first published at The Progressive Media Project (www.progressive.org). She can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org

What do Jess Haro, Uvaldo Martinez, Ralph Inzunza Jr., and Steve Castaneda have in common? The answer is all were up and coming Hispanic politicians who aspired to become mayor of their perspective cities and, with the exception of Steve Castaneda, were brought down by the political power structure.

For the Hispanic community this is seen as nothing more than the good old boys taking care of the political power base. The Hispanic candidates, representing political diversity and empowerment, at the height of the political ascent, are beaten down by the power structure.   

Back in the ‘70s we saw this with Jess Haro. Haro was appointed to fill Jim Bates’ seat on the San Diego city council. At the time of the appointment the power structure, represented by Mayor Pete Wilson, knew of Haro’s customs violations, yet confirmed him anyway. It wasn’t until Haro grew in popularity as a politician with aspirations to become the next mayor of San Diego that the custom violations became an issue. Seen as a viable threat, the dormant customs charges were brought forth and Haro ended up losing his seat. At the time the city council had the discretion to excuse his absence but chose instead to vacate his seat.

Uvaldo Martinez is another example of an appointed Hispanic politician who dared to dream beyond his place in the political hierarchy. Martinez, a Republican, was a very likable person, fun to be around, and who enjoyed having an occasional drink with friends. As a politician he didn’t mind using the city credit card to spring for dinner or a drink. As his popularity grew so did his aspirations. As he planned to run for mayor of the City of San Diego he was told in no uncertain terms by the power structure represented by Helen Copley, publisher of the Union Tribune, not to run against Maureen O’Conner. When Martinez did not heed this advice, the Union Tribune published stories on his excess credit card charges.

He was removed from office over those charges. The funny thing though, fellow city council person Ed Struiksma had the same problem with over charging the city credit card, an amount that exceed the Martinez’ charges, yet hardly a word was said about this via the Union Tribune, or the political structure that allowed him to continue serving on the council.

Ralph Inzunza, Jr., another San Diego city council person who was a politician that was quickly rising up the political ladder. Inzunza’s political wounds were more or less self-inflicted, he along with fellow council member Michael Zucchet were convicted of corruption. While both politicians were convicted of the same charges Zucchet was later able to get the convictions against him reversed and today he enjoys a full life pursing his dreams and is still politically active.

Inzunza on the other hand sought an acquittal but was denied; he stands convicted and is still fighting to have the charges overturned.

Chula Vista City Councilman Steve Castaneda who has proven himself to be an adept politician and on the rise with aspirations to become the next Mayor of Chula Vista, is now having to go through the process of dealing with anecdotal charges brought forth by one person.

Despite the dubious nature of the charges, it is the handling of the story by Union Tribune that reflects once again the power structure rising forth to derail a Hispanic politician from achieving political diversity and empowerment for the Hispanic community.

As a newspaper, the Union Tribune failed to ask the pertinent questions: who, what, when, where, and how, and instead choose to run with the story as it was presented. To their credit, perhaps because all the old time editors are gone and under new management, the Union Tribune did write an editorial that retracted the tenor of the original article and put it a more relevant perspective “Scandal? Or politics?”

We are not worried about Steve Castaneda or the charges levied against him, these charges and more have already been presented to the California Fair Political Practices Commission and they found no wronging doing. Castaneda has already dealt with this type of politics against him by the Chula Vista power structure represented by Mayor Cox and has come out innocent and politically strong. La Prensa anticipates that Castaneda will once again come out politically ahead.

Historically, Hispanic politics has come a long way in spite of the dubious type of politics being played. However this only serves to remind us of how far we have to go! While Hispanics have grown in political numbers we are still on the outside looking in trying to achieve political parity. Until that time, that parity is achieved, it important to recognize the difference between a political scandal, and cheap political theatrics that attempt to control Hispanic politicians, and make our political voices insignificant.

When La Prensa San Diego was started in 1976 it was a vision of political empowerment, about self determination, about community involvement. It was a belief in the Hispanic community and of the future for this community. La Prensa was a bilingual newspaper from the start, reaching the broadest audience possible, to speak not only with the Hispanic community but also with the monolingual, English only, community and decision makers in City Hall.

La Prensa San Diego was not started as journalistic endeavor, but as an endeavor to bring about change. The newspaper reflected the people that put together this newspaper, community members who were working with the paper because they believed in the community and of the need for a voice within the community. In 1976 there was no Chicano/Hispano newspaper in San Diego serving this community; in fact, there were only a handful of bilingual Chicano/Hispanic papers in the whole of the United States.

Much like today, in the ‘70s and early ‘80s there were not many advertising dollars for publications such as La Prensa. It was a gigantic struggle to survive. It took everything we had to stay in print every week, without missing a publication date. It took personal sacrifice to keep going; it took a vision, a goal, to stay motivated and work for something bigger than all of us. That vision, that goal, and those sacrifices were made by the publisher Daniel L. Muñoz.

La Prensa San Diego would not have survived without Daniel L. Muñoz’s drive, his determination, his vision. Survival of this paper was paramount. It was not for personal glory, it wasn’t for financial gain, but for the community and Chicano/Hispanic self-determination that this paper survived.

This year, Mr. Muñoz passed away. For that we are deeply saddened. Yet at the same time we are thankful that he was here for us as a father, a husband, and thankful that he had a vision, a dream for the community and what it meant to be a Chicano, a Hispanic.

Much has changed for the better in the Hispanic community over the past 34 years and for that we are thankful. We look forward to the next 34 years and for things to continue to improve for Hispanics.

We are also thankful for our friends and readers throughout the year who have given us the moral and financial support to continue on. Our focus this year has been to survive these difficult times as we look forward to better days in 2010.  Without our friends, the difficult task of survival would have been that much harder. So we cannot say Thank You to those friends enough times. 

From La Prensa San Diego to you, our readers, we wish you a Happy Thanksgiving.

 Brown was not exactly being prophetic, but simply painting a realistic picture of the California’s future. The picture of California’s future became a little clearer this week.

  According to a report released this week by the Legislative Analyst Office – the non-partisan agency that reviews and monitors budget issues for the Legislature – California’s budget shortfall is projected to swell to $21 billion by June 30, 2011, the end of the 2010-2011 State Budget year. 

 Adding to the bad news, the report also projects continued budget shortfalls of billions of dollars for the next several years especially when federal stimulus dollars and revenues from the temporary tax increases end.

 What all this means is that this year’s budget wrangling that dragged on well beyond mandated deadlines, causing IOUs to be issued for only the second time since the Great Depression, did little for the future of California. This year’s fiscal budget was passed, based heavily on borrowing, fiscal tricks, overly optimistic projections, and stimulus funding. Lawmakers cut billions from education, healthcare and social services while temporarily hiking income, sales and vehicle taxes. And despite future economic growth the outlook is bleak at best.

 While prison spending continues to grow due to an inability to cut spending, there will be serve cuts made to social services. We are already seeing education cost rising with UC students dealing with a staggering 32% fee hike, community colleges eliminating courses, and K-12 class sizes increasing.

 For the Hispanic community the future means having to survive on fewer services and opportunities, as social service cuts disproportionately affect minority communities. This impact is felt greatest in education.

 With future budget cuts looming, K-12 class size reduction initiatives may be abandoned for larger class sizes. Community colleges which have been the gateway to higher education will be offering fewer core courses, and the cost of attending four year universities will be too expensive for our best and brightest young students to continue on with their education. A whole generation of young students will suffer the consequences of the California budget crisis.

 Once again while the local communities and cities suffer, the Democrat and Republican legislatures will once again fight the age old problem of increasing tax revenue versus more and deeper budget cuts.

 The state legislature procrastinated on their budget plan for this fiscal year – missing the State Constitutional deadline – and eventually ending up with a budget that was slapped together. The budget was so flawed that it required the Governor to call a special session to come up with a better plan. This year we urge the Governor to call for an early special session and begin the laborious process of pounding out a budget, instead of waiting for the legislature which has shown a history of delaying the difficult decisions.