A couple of weeks ago the San Diego County Board of Su-pervisors came one step closer to changing the way the Supervisors re-draw their districts every ten years. Couple this with the recently voter-passed term limits placed on the Board of Supervisors and change is inevitable.

For decades the County Board of Supervisors has been one of the last good old boy bastions in local politics. The Board has been a place where White Republicans have held forth, with the exception of Leon Williams in the 80s. The current roster of Supervisors have served on the Board since the mid 90s, often times their re-elections are mere formalities. This in part has been due to the fact that the County Board has had the responsibility of re-drawing their own districts every ten years in such a manner that they have been able to confirm their safe seats.

For minority communities, the supervisors’ race has been a constant frustration. With the exception of Williams, no minority has served on this Board. In addition, no Democrat has come close to winning a seat. Democrats consider it a small victory when they are able to force a run-off.

It is with this backdrop and the threat of a Voting Rights lawsuit that Supervisor Greg Cox put forth a plan to change the way future re-districting is done. The first step in taking this responsibility out of the hands of the Supervisors is to change the state election code that would allow the County to establish an independent redistricting commission. Current state law requires county supervisors to draw the electoral districts.

On a 4-1 vote, naturally the only dissent vote was from Supervisor Bill Horn, the first step toward legislative change was taken that would allow the County to establish an Independent Redistricting Commission. For this, Greg Cox and and his colleagues on the Board of Supervisors, with the exception of Horn, deserve kudos for doing the right thing!!!

For football fans this is a great weekend. The Super Bowl, in all its glory, features the New England Patriots versus the New York Giants. We continue to lament the fact that our San Diego Chargers didn’t even make the playoffs. But wait till next year!

For political junkies the Republican presidential primaries have been entertaining to say the least. From Herman Cain’s plan to electrify the border fence to the front runner Mitt Romney who earns more interest money in one year, over $20 million, than most earn in their whole lifetimes, and the lives of their descendants. To Newt Gingrich who has so much baggage that the Obama people are hoping he wins.

The Republican primary has been fascinating as we have watched the wannabe winners come and go, and the contenders tear at each other. Gingrich, the quintessential bulldog prototype politician is the darling of the extreme right wing and seen as having the aptitude to go after President Obama. Romney is seen as soft, but this too is changing as he has allowed himself to fall to the level of Gingrich as they attack each other, making for good television. That and outrageous amounts of money being spent by these political PACs, mostly on behalf of the Romney campaign. And the Supreme Court, criticized for their decision which allowed PACs to raise and spend without transparency.

Then there is the Sweetwater High School District scandal that has recently exploded. Sweetwater has been a bastion of bad news for quite some time now and with each passing day, as the media frenzy works overtime, more and more bad news keeps coming out.

The latest news was the release of Vega report. After the long delay of its release, it confirmed the feelings of many in the community that illegal political back room deals were being made at the expense of the taxpayer. What will come of this we are anxiously awaiting to see.

The other piece of good news was that a group called ‘Occupy Sweetwater’ attempted to serve the school board members with recall papers. We see this as a good next step. It is time for a clean sweep and a clean board. This board has so many issues and miscues over the years that community confidence in this board is gone.

There are times in life when you need to wash the board clean and start over, this is one of those times. It is time for a fresh start.

OAKLAND— Around this time every year, millions of parents in California are working through the school enrollment process. Unfortunately, while many don’t have a choice regarding what school their child will attend, those who do often find their options bewildering.

My wife and I are both educators (her currently, me formerly). We know the education system well, and what qualities to look for in a school. Still, even we were confused when we moved from San Diego to Oakland and began looking at local public schools.

After months of research and hours spent talking about the pros and cons of schools, we filled out our “options” form with our top three school choices. In some ways, this final step was a leap of faith. The school we picked had low scores but we liked the Spanish immersion program and believed that the principal and teachers could turn it around.

Our experience is not uncommon, as conversations with numerous other parents showed us. As parents, we know that the schools we select will have lifetime implications for our children’s success. But as we make these choices, we lack high-quality information on school performance.

The first problem is the school rating system. Every school in California has two separate ratings.

California has a state system called the API (Academic Performance Index) that ranks schools on a point system up to 1000. However, schools are also ranked by the federal rating system based on AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress). A school can be highly ranked in the state system and do poorly in the federal system. Neither system provides a full picture of how well a school is performing.

For instance, California’s API system doesn’t tell parents how groups of students – such as English Learners, students with disabilities, Latinos or African-Americans – are doing. The federal model provides this information but fails to give the school any credit for the academic progress of students who haven’t achieved grade level standards.

Under the state system, nothing happens to even the very worst schools. Under the federal system, schools that are making considerable progress can be labeled failing and suffer sanctions. Neither system really tells parents whether the majority of students in the school are on track for graduation and college-readiness.

Recently, the Obama Administration gave state leaders the opportunity to apply for a waiver from the federal No Child Left Behind law, which mandates that states apply assessments in basic skills to all students in certain grades if they are to receive federal funding. Such a waiver would allow California the opportunity to develop and use a single school rating system that provides complete and transparent information on school performance for parents and community members.

Eleven states around the country took the option and applied in the first round. Thirty other states have signaled their willingness to apply in the second round in February. California remains undecided, with leaders in Sacramento throwing up an array of excuses as to why we should not join that list.

At a recent State Board of Education meeting, supporters of the waiver asked leaders to quickly come to a decision. Among those gathered were superintendents from the Central Valley’s Sanger Unified School District, Long Beach Unified School District, and Morgan Hill Unified School District in the Bay Area. Advocacy groups including Children Now and Education Trust-West were also at the meeting.

The arguments put forward ranged from building a better accountability system to allowing districts to focus on the highest-need and lowest performing schools, targeting them with the attention, resources and reforms they need to improve. Such steps would help ease the widespread confusion prevalent among parents by providing more concise and accurate information and could also help resolve the widening achievement gap.

Additionally, a waiver from NCLB would offer increased flexibility with federal dollars so state and local leaders can target those dollars at vital areas such as improving teaching and leading, implementing our new state standards, and increasing academic rigor so all of our students graduate college and career ready.

Sadly, no decision was forthcoming form the State Board during the hearing. Instead, leaders stated that they will postpone making a final decision on whether or not to apply for a waiver until March.

In the meantime, it is critical that parents and community groups let state board members know that it is time for California to submit a waiver application. We can’t afford to lose this opportunity to build a transparent, high-quality system for rating schools and districts, one that provides crucial information on how well our schools are doing in preparing all children for college and career.

As parents, we deserve to have all the information we need to make the right educational choices for our children’s future.

Arun Ramanathan is executive director of The Education Trust—West, a statewide education advocacy organization. He has served as a district administrator, research director, teacher, paraprofessional and VISTA volunteer in California, New England and Appalachia. He has a doctorate in educational administration and policy from the Harvard Graduate School of Education. His wife is a teacher and they have two children in a Spanish immersion elementary school in Oakland Unified.

For those who saw or heard his speech, his opening video montage played to the music of “Hells Bells” (a Padres’ crowd pleaser). We were astonished to watch images flash of a young black kid with a backdrop of the ills of our barrios and neighborhoods – including crime and presumably gangs, drugs and poverty, and the boy running from this to a new football stadium, new convention center, new library, high rises.

Some have described this video as a bit disturbing. We couldn’t agree more.

The message we got was that all the problems of the barrios and innercity neighborhoods can be fixed with big projects such as a new football stadium – bam! crime is down. A new library – zap! the achievement gap between whites and minorities is solved. A new convention center – pow! drug problems are solved.

Sanders did not address the problems of our neighborhoods. He used them as props in order to sell his legacy.

Sanders’ speech glossed over or blatantly ignored the issues of foreclosures, health services, homelessness, crime, gangs and drugs that plague our children. The issues the pollution, of gentrification, lack of affordable housing, poverty, remained unimportant compared with shiny new projects.

This has been the problem with the Sanders’ administration throughout his tenure. Issues of importance to Hispanics have taken a back seat to the grander issues. The economic disaster of the Pension Fund debacle, the roots of salvation have been on the backs of the working poor who have had to give up healthcare, cut backs on pensions, and the loss of jobs. The homeless issue has been addressed by placing a homeless shelter in Barrio Logan next to an elementary school. While every community in the city has a working citizens advisory group, again in Barrio Logan the mayor has blocked the creation of such a group and has controlled the redevelopment process.

In hindsight, the opening video of the boy running away from the problems of the barrio to the communities to downtown splendor does in fact reflect the leadership of a mayor who has abandoned the neighborhoods for the glory of big development.

Guest Editorial:
By Randy Jurado Ertll

If the Occupy movement is to succeed this year, it needs to become more diverse.

The movement is predominantly composed of white low-income and middle-class individuals who are protesting to denounce corporate greed. Feeling frustrated due to the inequities in our economic system, activists have led months of protests throughout the United States. The Occupy movement needs to recruit minorities not only to accurately reflect the ethnic diversity that does exist in the United States but also to respond to the fact that economic injustice falls most heavily on the backs of minorities.

“The median wealth of white households is 20 times that of black households and 18 times that of Hispanic households,” according to the Pew Research Center.

For their part, Latinos, African-Americans and other minorities should join the Occupy movement. It offers a great opportunity — especially for younger people — to participate in a nonviolent social justice struggle.

But we need to feel welcome. And there is no reason we shouldn’t be.

White Americans and minorities are all in this together.( (The U.S. Census recently released statistics that designate half of the U.S. population, 146 million, poor or low income.

The Occupy movement has done a great job shedding light on the economic disparities in our country. Now it needs to find common cause with the labor, civil-rights and immigrant-rights movements both to broaden its base and to build the kind of political force that can make our economy fairer for everybody.

A movement that is seeking economic and social fairness must not exclude minorities.

Randy Jurado Ertll (www.randyjuradoertll.com) is author of the book “Hope in Times of Darkness: A Salvadoran American Experience.” He can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org.

We are greatly disappointed to learn about “pay-to-play” corruption and bribery charges associated with the Sweetwater Union High School District. We had supported board member Pearl Quinones in the past based on her integrity. We thought that board member and former assembly candidate Arlie Ricasa was too smart to allow herself to be pulled into this type of scheme. We had heard rumblings about the character of former board member, Greg Sandoval, and were not surprised to learn of the charges.

We’re glad to know that the often seedy world of local politics is being thoroughly investigated. At the same time, we feel that District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis’ investigation has not dug deeply or widely enough into this scandal. But we shall see. The DA indicated that there may be additional charges and additional defendants.

Of course nobody is guilty of anything at this time, charges have been filed and the defendants will have their day in court and the opportunity to clear their name.

However, we must insist that the culture of “pay-to-play” is only a part of the problem at Sweetwater!

What drove concerned community members to report the alleged misconduct was the arrogant representation and manipulation of elections by local school board members and administration over the past decade.

The DA’s investigation will go a long way towards cleaning up the corruption in the South Bay. But the real problem is the undue influence that contractors and big business have with incumbent school board members and candidates. Unlike virtually every other elected office – from city council and mayor to Assembly, Congress, Senate and President, there are NO financial campaign contribution limits for local South Bay school board members. Period. As a result, contractors — from plumbing and electrical to architects to general contractors — hoping for more business from the multimillion dollar school bond Propositions BB, JJ, O, and R – write exceedingly generous checks to incumbents favored by the administration which, in turn, hires them.

While most individuals budget a few dollars, maybe a $100 or so, in support of their favorite candidate, contractors can give as much as they feel necessary to be on the good side of an elected official. We have seen individual corporate contributions in the form of $5,000, $10,000, even $15,000 checks on school board campaign statements. Because of the lack of limits – either in the form of donations, term limits, or geographic boundaries, the voices of individual community members or groups of parents are often ignored and regarded as unimportant. Because school boards are allowed to govern the terms of their own elections, incumbents who feel entitled to “represent” their community as long as they wish can remain in office for decades, directly asking contractors for large campaign contributions, and shamefully, even entrance fees for their children’s beauty pageants.

The issue of setting a limit of $500 dollars on campaign contributions for individuals or committees to Sweetwater candidates was placed before the board at a December 12 board meeting. The intent was to limit the amount of influence that contractors had with board members.

The resolution died due to a lack of a motion by any single board member.

If the school districts are to clean up their acts and truly become representatives of the community, limiting the atmosphere that allowed the “pay-to-play” corruption to flourish, then the community needs to bring this resolution back to the school board. We hope that board members of inscrutable character will stand up and lead the process of school board election reform.

Until there is a limit on campaign contributions, nothing much will change. A few corrupt board members may be gone but the undue influence that contracts and big business have over board members will still be in play. This needs to change and it needs to change now.

At times it is hard to believe – here we are starting a New Year. 2012 holds much promise as it appears the economic strain that we have all been living under is slowly easing, there is a bit of relief as we look forward to better days that each New Year promises. This is why we all say Prospero Año Nueva or Happy New Year.

To get the New Year off to a prosperous start we are going to share with you our readers a tradition often practiced in Mexico that I learned of in talking with Maria Delgado here at work and it goes like this: 

On New Year’s Eve about an hour before midnight we pray, twelve credos for the twelve months and light twelve candles for each month.

After the prayers she spreads fake money (you can use real money) and walk on it. This means more money for the year.

Then twelve grapes are eaten, each with a wish for each month.

You then pack a backpack with cloths and take a walk up and down the block representing good travels during the year.

Then you have the first food of the year, a bowl of lentils and bananas cut to represent coins.

Lastly, you can then sweep from the front door to the sidewalk, sweeping all the bad from the last year.

So with this we wish you all a Happy New Year!

There is excitement in the air! You can feel it as you drive through the neighborhoods. This year, unlike last, there are more Christmas lights on the houses, there are more shoppers out, and probably most importantly there is a feeling of hope for the New Year.

We all know that it has been a very tough few years where the Christmas joy has been low key as we all have struggled to survive and find ways to make do as we await better days. We are still waiting but there are signs that better days lay ahead and that next year brings a promise of hope and relief from all that we had to struggle through.

It is through the efforts of the community, like our front page story of National City Middle School demonstrates, it is the community coming together and working to help our neighbors that we find happiness. There is a sense of joy and comfort in knowing that the community is there for them.

Even the Occupy movement, though their goals are muddled, it is a community of people coming together and supporting one another in their struggles to survive and send a message. The Occupy movement gives a large segment of the community hope for the future, that there can and will be change.

In Escondido recently we have seen the community come together and fight for political equality in seeking out district elections for equal representation. This is again a community coming together and offering hope for the future.

Christmas is about the future, about salvation, and the Birth of Jesus Christ.

We celebrate Christmas with a Las Posadas, the nine day search for a home, a place for the birth of Jesus. On the ninth day, Christmas Eve, Joseph and Mary are offered a place to stay. Today we celebrate this by breaking a piñata and attending church service

Christmas day we celebrate the birth of Christ with the children, family and the giving of gifts.

The final act is that of the 12 days of travel by the Three Wise Men which concludes on January 6 when the Wise Men present their gifts of Gold, Frankincense, and Myrrh. This tradition is celebrated with Rosca de Reyes with a baby Jesus hidden in the bread.

It is with this sense of hope for the future that we are Wishing All of Our Readers A Very Merry Christmas.

Newt Gingrich is unlikely to win over Latino voters.

In a strange way, the ascension of Newt Gingrich in the race for the Republican nomination for President began with a comment he made about immigration at the CNN-sponsored debate last month.

“I don’t see how the party that says it’s the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter-century,” he said. “And I’m prepared to take the heat for saying, let’s be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality.”

Just weeks after then-candidate Herman Cain had been “joking” about installing electrified fences along the border ofMexico, and in stark contrast to most of his Republican peers’ staunch opposition to “amnesty” for undocumented immigrants, Gingrich came across as someone who seemed to have a moral conscience about the issue.

Gingrich’s approach to Latinos comes straight from the lips of conservative patriarch Ronald Reagan, who in 1980 once said, “Latinos are Republican. They just don’t know it yet.” The idea is that Latinos’ strong family orientation and religious values make them natural Republicans.

Gingrich’s bilingual website, Americano.com, reflects this strategy. It touts, for example, a Spanish-language translation of an essay on American exceptionalism provided by the conservative Heritage Foundation, the naming of Nevada Republican governor Brian Sandoval to the board of the conservative Hispanic Leadership Network and the celebration of the Virgin of Guadalupe inMexico.

Gingrich has also strongly promoted emerging Latino Republicans such asFloridasenator Marco Rubio and the austerity-championing governor ofPuerto Rico, Luis Fortuño, who has a two-part interview on Americano.com.

But Gingrich and the Republican Party have an impossible hill to climb with Latinos, who have become so alienated from the increasingly hard-line anti-immigration rhetoric from candidates likeMinnesotacongresswoman Michelle Bachmann, whose fixation on the term “anchor babies” has almost single-handedly made it an ethnic slur. A poll released Monday by ImpreMedia/Latino Decisions said that 73 percent of Latinos view Republicans as “ignoring or hostile to Latinos.”

Gingrich’s own record on Latino issues isn’t so hot. Just as Gingrich is counting on the religious right to forget about his extramarital affair and subsequent divorce, and just as he is counting on fiscal conservatives to forget that he was a paid consultant for Freddie Mac, he seems to be hoping that Latinos don’t remember that in 2007 he said that Spanish is “the language of living in the ghetto.”

Gingrich’s patronizing belief that the poor and the non-English speaking are in need of a Protestant work ethic may not go over well with Latinos, either. Gingrich recently came out abolishing child labor laws so that young students could work as janitors and learn the value of a dollar. Latinos want more for their kids than that.

And even though Republicans hope that Latinos’ strong religious tradition will attract them to conservatism, the Impre-Media poll said that 53 percent felt religion had “no impact” on their vote. “A strong majority of Latinos reject the explicit mixing of religion and politics,” the poll also found.

Ed Morales is a contributor to the New York Times and Newsday and is the author of “Living in Spanglish.” He can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org. Reprinted from The Progressive (http://www.progressive.org)

District elections can either be a savior to a disenfranchised community or they can marginalize a community. District elections have had the impact of marginalizing a community in the City of San Diego where Hispanic influence, or power, has been limited to one district only, that being district 8. The newly created district 9 in San Diego is another fiasco of a district created to empower the Hispanic community only to fall far short of this effort. The City of San Diego is an example of district elections gone wrong.

   In Escondido district elections could have their actual intended effect and be the answer to a disenfranchised Hispanic community. In Escondido, Hispanics have suffered under a xenophobic city council which created an atmosphere of fear. Elected officials increased pressure on Hispanics by encouraging police force tactics of intimidation and harassment. Escondido police staged traffic stops in Hispanic neighborhoods. City policies restricted apartment rentals to migrant workers. The council created a day labor ordinance. Officials evicted the Charros organization from their performance area (later rescinded). And the Escondido police department incorporated ICE agents as ride along partners and participants in police checkpoints. But the loudest bell ringing for district elections is the fact that despite the city’s 50% Hispanic population, there has been only ONE Hispanic elected in the city’s history.

   Escondido is a conservative town. The majority of its residents are Hispanic, yet Hispanics are not the majority of the voters. The right wing, conservative voting segment of this city has had a stranglehold on this city and has elected like minded representatives. With city wide elections, the voting bloc of right wing voters has been able to marginalize Hispanic voters, diluting their vote in “at-large” elections.

   In a letter to the Escondido city council, lawyers representing the Hispanic community state that the city is in violation of the California Voting Rights Act of 2011 and if the city council does not adapt or at the very least begin the process of district elections, they will sue the city.

   The Escondido school district recently changed their election process to district elections for many of the same reasons facing the City of Escondido. It would appear reasonable for the Escondido city council to follow suit. But Mayor Sam Abed, who is the lead conservative of this city, has vowed to fight this effort and will defend the city’s at-large elections in court, an action which will cost Escondido taxpayers millions of dollars no matter the outcome. It is inevitable that this issue will be decided by a judge.

   What is more significant, and immediate, are the actions of the Hispanic community of Escondido. They have gone from a community engaged in the long, drawn out process of working in the trenches, organizing and registering voters, to a community that takes more direct action to force and change the tone of discussion in the city. From a community that passively suffers attacks on non-citizens and citizens to one that is fighting back and demanding accountability. Not only will this draw more attention to Hispanic issues, but the community at large will be empowered. Others who have sat on the sidelines will hopefully be encouraged to become more actively involved. Hispanics have become more than just fringe players in the political process of their city.

   The political landscape is changing in Escondido. For the Hispanic community it is changing for the better.

Back in 2005 when the private/public partnership was created to build toll road SR-125, lawmakers and the City of Chula Vista thought they were getting into a win-win deal. The vision was that traffic congestion in East Chula Vista would be alleviated and the city would realize cash flow from the profits of all the cars paying to travel the 10-mile expressway. What they got instead was a boondoggle: SR-125 does not deposit commuters close to any substantial destination, the private company which ran SR-125 is in bankruptcy, and there was never any revenue income due to the lack of traffic on the toll road.

   So it seems that the toll road SR-125 advocates were overly optimistic with their projections.

   The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) now sees SR-125 as an opportunity. It has proposed purchasing the freeway from the private partners for $344 million dollars. SANDAG’s intent is to lower the toll cost by half which would hopefully increase the traffic flow on SR-125, thereby reducing the congestion on I-805 and the surrounding arteries. SR-125, once viewed as a win-win public/private partnership has now turned into ‘let’s make a deal.’ But is it a good deal?

   To fund the buyout, SANDAG has proposed using TRANSNET money, $247.5 million from the voter approved 1/2% Transportation and Use Tax, taking money that is currently designated for the I-805 South Project between East Palomar Street and the I-805/SR-15 interchange. The project includes the addition of buffer-separated Express Lanes, intermediate access points, HOV direct connectors, in-line transit stations, and Park & Ride locations. Construction on the I-805 South Project was expected to begin in 2013.

   SANDAG is betting that with lower toll rates, Eastern Chula Vista drivers will use the SR-125 toll road instead of the I-805. If SANDAG could alleviate congestion on I-805, they would lessen the need to improve it. However, the lingering question remains, SR-125 goes nowhere, unless your destination is Lemon Grove or Spring Valley. SR-125 was originally intended to extend through Poway to connect to SR-56, but Poway voters rejected the plans. As it stands, SR-125 stops at SR-52, just west of Santee.

   Our question is whether, once again, policy makers are overly optimistic in assuming that droves of drivers in the South Bay will use SR-125 and pay the toll each way in sufficient quantities as to pay back the public debt and also eliminate congestion on the I-805.

   In exchange for the proposed SR-125 purchase, SANDAG plans to eliminate two lanes from the planned expansion of I-805. The money that would have been spent on the lanes, about $192 million, would be used to pay down the cost of South Bay Expressway. A casualty of the toll road purchase would be the jobs lost if there is no additional highway construction. At a time of high unemployment, with the local economy needing a major boost, construction work would be a major boost to the overall region.

   These and other concerns can be addressed at a public meeting, hosted by SANDAG, to discuss this purchase. We encourage interested citizens to attend the SANDAG public forum on Dec. 16, from 9 a.m. – 12 p.m., in the SANDAG Board Room, 401 B Street, 7th Floor, downtown San Diego. The purchase date is scheduled for Dec. 21, 2011.

This past year has been one with its trials and tribulations, a difficult year to say the least. With that said, there is still much to be thankful for and we would like to share with you those things that we are thankful for here at La Prensa San Diego.

   With the challenges that we have had to face during the year we have had to make tough decisions and choices. We have had to scale back the business which meant laying off some people, which is always a difficult thing to do. This means we have had to do more with less. We have had to cut back on services that we once used to offer at no charge. We have made personal sacrifices to continue publishing, to bringing those news stories that we felt are relevant. We are not alone in this struggle. Many, many other small businesses and individuals are in the same situation taking similar actions to continue on as a business and as families.

   What this year’s struggle has done, is that it has helped us to focus on what is important. It has helped us to re-dedicate ourselves to the goals and principals of the newspaper. It is now, as it was 35 years ago, important to us that we continue to provide a voice for the Chicano/Hispanic community. It is important that we continue to provide a beacon.

   In 1976 and the proceeding years it was financially difficult to publish weekly, every year, without missing an issue. Then the difficult times were for different reasons. We were the only bilingual newspaper in San Diego County, we were only one of about 45 Hispanic newspapers in all of the United States, there was no marketing focused on Hispanics. We were, back then, breaking new ground and finding ways to survive, the ultimate in on the job learning. Survive we did but it took hard work and great sacrifice. We believed then, as we do now that the newspaper was too important to let it fail. It was not about making money. It was about the community and empowering the community in the best way we knew how, by providing a voice and sharing the stories of our community.

   La Prensa San Diego had an impact on the community and we did survive, we survived because of the community, of the support from the community, and because we were growing as the community grew.

   Today the dynamics are different but the goals are still the same, the focus is still the same, to continue to serve the Hispanic community and, like during the early years, we now make the sacrifices needed to continue publishing every week. We continue to do this for the same reason – the Hispanic community. This community continues to read, react, and support La Prensa as they always have. For this we are extremely thankful.

   We are also thankful for family who are and have always been the support that we need which re-enforces us in the knowledge that we are doing the right thing and who join with us in making the necessary sacrifices to continue on. We are also thankful for our friends who offer encouragement and support without which we would not be able to continue on publishing.

   So it is in these challenging times that we re-discover those things that are truly important and those things that we are grateful for and for this we have much to be thankful for.

A year ago it was our belief that all we had to do was survive until the second half of 2011 and we would start to see the economy turn for the better. We thought that if we survived until now, we would have made it: business would start to pick up, the dramatic cuts to services and education would stop, and there would be more jobs for all. We couldn’t have been more wrong!

   From our perspective nothing has changed. In fact it has gotten worse. The outlook is collectively depressing. The unemployment numbers haven’t changed, home values continue to drop, education and social service cuts continue with more on the horizon, and every day we say goodbye to another business closing.

   At the same time the cost for staples continue to rise. Gasoline hit $100 a barrel this week which means gas at the pump is up, the cost of gas and electricity, water all going up. Meanwhile our paychecks have either stayed the same over the years for the lucky ones, for the rest we are taking home less money as we pay more for our benefits.

   So what has all this brought about? It has brought about Occupy America where middle class America, with very few outlets to express outrage, have taken to camping out at city hall, Wall Street, or Silicone Valley to vent their frustration. It has manifested itself into student protest at the Regents meeting this week, or on campus as once again their tuition was raised by 9%. San Diego City Schools may go bankrupt when the state slashes their budget, AGAIN! So middle class America has had it and wants something done and the only way they have vent their frustration is by occupying America.

   How do the politicians handle the Occupy movement?  Well, at first they tolerated it but now two months later they have decided it is time to move the Occupy people off the steps of City Hall in paramilitary like style, early in the morning with overwhelming police force.

   These actions by local authorities deny the protestors their First Amendment rights of free speech and the right to peaceful assembly. In America these rights cannot be denied, these are the founding principles of this country and to deny these rights is un-Constitutional.

   Occupy America lawyers across the country have already filed lawsuits challenging the police actions and we are anxious to see how the courts interpret the law of free speech versus the police stated unsanitary situation which called for police action.

   Occupy American may not have a defined goal, with the exception of having the top 1% pay their fair share, but they do represent a broad sense of helplessness by a growing majority of the people.  If the politicians don’t tap into this sentiment soon and call for change, this Occupy Movement will only grow to the point that there could be some serious protesting across the country as more and more hard lines begin to get physical – like the recent police actions.

   No, this is not how we saw the second half the year play out at all…

This past Tuesday there were several special elections held across the country that demonstrated a shift in attitudes with the voting majority.

   The most significant shift in attitude about immigration was demonstrated with the recall election of Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, the architect of Arizona’s anti-immigrant SB 1070 Law.  At the time it was enacted, SB 1070 was the harshest immigration law in the U.S. SB 1070 was approved by the voters, only to be set aside by the courts. The passage of SB 1070 subjected Arizona to nationwide criticism, boycotts, and loss of revenue. Unfortunately, the Arizona law encouraged a few other states to pass even tougher anti-immigrant legislation.

   The extremist anti-immigration Arizona Senator Pearce was defeated this past Tuesday by fellow Republican Jerry Lewis. Lewis won the election with over 53% of the vote. The defeat of Pearce is the first and most significant step in the direction of a new conversation on immigration.

   What makes this shift even more significant is that Pearce at one time was considered the most powerful politician in the State and untouchable as far as re-election, and Pearce became the first state senate president in American history to be thrown out of office in a recall election.

   It has always been our contention that if the conversation on immigration is going to change, to reflect a more sensible approach than the draconian approach of the Republican Party, Latinos must have an impact on the polls. There must be a political consequence for extreme anti-immigration positions such as that held by Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain. It is painful to hear Herman Cain, presidential candidate, suggest that we electrify the border fence as a solution to the immigration problem.

   The second significant action taken by the voters was the repeal Ohio’s SB 5 that severely restricted the rights of public employees to collective bargaining. Ohio voters decisively rejected the attack on public employees by a 2-1 margin, sending a resounding message to Republican Governor John Kasich that public employees are valued. The scapegoating of unions in Ohio has come to an end.

   The overwhelming support of public employees was also a reflection of working class America, the 99%, standing up to the wealthy top 1% who have traditionally been favored by the Republican Party.

   SB 5 was passed by the legislature despite sizable public protests. But the public wouldn’t stand for it. Over 61% of voters – Democrats, Republicans and Independents – voted to repeal the union-busting SB 5. This should send a loud and clear message across the country, a message that should be heard here in San Diego with the approval of Carl DeMaio’s Comprehensive Pension Reform petition, a measure that looks to radically change the pensions of thousands of public employees in San Diego.

   A  change of attitude is coming and it is coming from the voters who are speaking out against polarizing, self-serving, politics and making a statement for common sense approach to the problems facing our nation.

   Republican presidential candidates are foolishly jockeying to see who can be the harshest on undocumented immigrants.

   Michelle Bachmann has called for sealing the U.S.-Mexico border with a double wall. Not to be outdone, Herman Cain has called for an electrified fence backed by military personnel armed with live rounds (though he later said the electrified fence was a joke). And Rick Perry wants more drones in the sky.

   These positions reveal a cruel disregard for basic human rights and invite a catastrophe. The U.S. government should not be electrocuting or gunning down people who are simply trying to find work or make a better life for their families. This is the same reason that millions of our ancestors came here, though without this threat of violence.

   On top of that, border alarmism does not reflect reality.

   There has been an 83 percent drop in Mexican migration to the United States since 2006, according to Mexico’s National Statistics Institute. This is corroborated by Border Patrol statistics, which show that apprehensions have decreased 61 percent between 2005 and 2010. This has occurred at the same time that the number of border enforcement agents has doubled.

   Other forms of immigrant-bashing have also been on display at the Republican debates. Mitt Romney and several other candidates have savaged Perry for supporting a Texas law that allows undocumented college students to pay in-state tuition rates.

   Twelve states have provisions that allow undocumented students to pay in-state tuition. In reality, the actual number of students that benefit from these laws is miniscule. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, about 65,000 undocumented students graduate from high school each year, of which only 5 percent tend to go on to college. This means that in a state like Texas, the actual number of undocumented students enrolling in higher education each year is less than 1 percent of the total.

   For his part, Perry has fired back at Romney for employing undocumented landscapers on his property.

   While using undocumented workers and students as punching bags may play well to a segment of the Republican Party base, the immigration issue has fallen off the political map for most Americans. According to a September Gallup Poll, 67 percent of respondents identified the poor state of the economy and high unemployment as the main problems facing the country, while only 4 percent saw immigration as their main concern.

   And Republicans can count on one thing: The more they scapegoat immigrants from south of the border, the more they will lose Latino support in the next election.

   Latino voters already shape the political outcomes in states such as Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois and Texas. In a growing number of other states, Latino voters are also playing a big role.

   The efforts by Republican candidates to launch their campaigns off the backs of immigrants will backfire, as they should.

   With all the real problems we face in this country, Republican presidential aspirants should stop focusing on false ones.

Justin Akers Chacón is a professor of U.S. History and Chicano Studies at San Diego City College. He can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org. Orginally published in The Progressive (www.progressive.org)

The Occupy Wall Street movement has spread across the nation and around the world. Those involved with the movement are scared, they are frustrated, and they feel angry about the economic malaise. They are acting out in the only way they know how to draw attention to their concerns: they have taken to the streets.

   Part of their frustration lies in the fact that they have no control over the circumstances that are affecting their lives and they want empowerment, they want to have a say in the direction their lives are going.

   This, in a sense, is what fueled the Chicano movement of the ‘60s and ‘70s, the necessity to march, to protest, to raise awareness of the issues affecting them. The streets were the only avenue to bring forth these issues. All other avenues were either blocked or did not exist. We also saw this frustration and action demonstrated during the Vietnam War, when the only way for opponents to the war could be heard was when they took to the streets.

   A silent majority is on the streets once again on Wall Street and now around the world.

   The question is, is anybody listening?

   The protestors have made a significant showing of their discontent, but their message is unfocused. We know they want change, accountability, and the rich/corporations to pay their fair share in taxes, but is Wall Street going to react to the protesters?

   Where are the politicians? If there is going to be a change it has to begin at the political level. It is the politicians who create the tax laws and provide the loop holes for the rich to slip through. Yet the politicians are doing a pretty good job of ignoring and avoiding the thousands of people who have come out to voice their concerns. If anything the only time we hear from a politician is when they are directing the police to shut down the protest and move them off public property.

   But the politicians should be listening. These protestors are not a bunch of left wingers out there raising their voices. They are middle America, the voters who put these politicians into office, and they are pissed off. They want change and if change doesn’t come from Wall Street then change will happen on Election Day. In San Diego there may be only a few hundred actually camping out, but each one represents a few thousand who feel the same exact way.

   This is what is so frustrating, politicians are beholden to the corporations and the rich but are elected to represent the silent majority. President Obama at his $5000 a person fundraiser doesn’t address the issues raised by the protestors. All that the Republicans do is put down and try to embarrass the efforts of these hard working people who are practicing their constitutional right. And locally you don’t see any politicians stepping out to address these protestors or talk with them about their concerns. At best the protestors are ignored as the politicians wait for the day they just go home.

   As Thomas Jefferson wrote of the colonists’ right to rebel, all men are created equal and have the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are rights that today’s politicians need to reflect upon before they have another revolt on their hands!

A mayoral forum for the City of San Diego was held Wednesday night and of the four announced candidates only two participated and answered the questions from a diverse panel. What the audience did hear were the positions of candidate Bob Filner and Nathan Fletcher on a variety of topics. But, the audience probably learned more about the two candidates who did not show up. They learned that Bonnie Dumanis and Carlo DeMaio lacked the courage and the courtesy to attend this mayoral forum.

   The forum was hosted by an organization billed as “A Better San Diego.” The organization is made up of community groups and a diverse segment of the population that shares a heavy Democratic/Union slant. Dumanis and DeMaio, Republicans with anti-union positions, decided to skip this forum instead of interacting with this community. It should be noted that Fletcher is also a Republican but he had the courage to be present and represent himself.

   The City of San Diego is a diverse city with many different perspectives. Especially now that it has a strong mayor form of government, the mayor should try to represent and hear from different points of views, weighing the pros and cons, and then make an informed decision. With Dumanis and DeMaio skipping this forum they are basically telling these voters that they are not interested in their concerns, issues, or points of view!

   Perhaps what is more damning is that Dumanis nor DeMaio don’t have enough faith or belief in themselves to come before what is perceived as unfriendly audience and fight for what they believe in most. If they can’t fight for themselves, how can we have faith they will fight for the city during those times of hardship and confrontation?

   Instead Dumanis and DeMaio chose to sit on the sidelines and watch this parade go by. This is too bad. The city needs leaders not kibitzers.

   For the two candidates who did attend, Nathan Fletcher demonstrated courage and a belief in himself. He believed in his vision for the city and had the courage to defend his positions. If anything Fletcher won the respect of the audience and probably won a few converts.

   For Bob Filner, the lone Democrat in the race, this audience was his audience to begin with. It was primarily a Democratic audience, consisting of many union backers who have supported him over the many years of his political career. If it had been an unfriendly audience, we believe Filner would have still shown up, based on his history of participating in both friendly and hostile forums.

   We hope that San Diegans – even those who did not attend the forum, have learned something about the character of all four mayoral contenders.

   Voting is supposed to be a right in this country, but many states are sabotaging that right.

   According to a new report released by the Brennan Center for Justice, a number of states have passed new laws that block people from registering to vote. Some of these states have gone to ludicrous lengths to deny the franchise to their citizens.

   With 19 new laws and two executive orders in place across the country (and at least 42 bills still pending), it is clear that some lawmakers believe that too many people are voting. These laws could impact the voting rights of as many as 5 million people across the country. And the restrictions will disproportionately impact low-income voters, the young, people of color and those with disabilities. Those states that have enacted such laws account for 171 electoral votes in 2012, 63 percent of the 270 needed to clinch the presidency.

   Five states — Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin — have passed onerous photo ID laws. Alabama, Kansas and Tennessee have new proof of citizenship laws in place. And Florida and Texas have severely restricted voter registration drives or eliminated them altogether. Florida, Georgia and Ohio have also eliminated early voting, while Maine has ended Election Day registration.

   One victim of Tennessee’s voter ID law is Dorothy Cooper, 96, who has been voting since her 20s. When Cooper, who is black, applied for a free state-issued ID with an envelope of documents to verify her identity, the clerk denied her request. The reason: She didn’t have her marriage certificate.

   And some states have made it more difficult to restore voting rights that were lost as a result of a criminal conviction. Florida and Iowa are particularly egregious cases of felon disenfranchisement. Gov. Terry Branstad of Iowa — the state with the highest rate of black disenfranchisement in the nation — has essentially wiped away, through an executive order, all voting rights for convicted felons. Gov. Rick Scott has done the same in Florida, disenfranchising as many as 1 million Floridians.

   The proponents of these draconian laws are Republican lawmakers. Their stated reason for pushing this legislation is that voter fraud is rampant. But that argument is disingenuous, as voter fraud is less common than being struck by lightning, as the Brennan Center aptly notes.

   Sadly, the real motivation for these laws is to win elections by eliminating large swaths of the electorate with the stroke of a pen. Students, the poor and the elderly of whatever color will have less of a chance to get into the voting booth.

   We must overturn these restrictions on the franchise. Nothing less than democracy is at stake.

David A. Love is a writer based in Philadelphia, the executive editor of BlackCommentator.com and a columnist for the Grio. His blog is davidalove.com. He can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org. reprinted from The Progressive (www.progressive.org)

The San Diego County Board of Supervisors has had the pleasure and convenience of drawing up their own district every ten years, ensuring themselves of safe districts. As a result, each member of the Board has served in excess of 20 years, with none ever facing any threat of losing an election. Even supervisor Bill Horn, with his numerous of misjudgments, missteps, questions of ethics and morals, and a decidedly anti-Hispanic agenda has safely won every election because of his safe district.

   It has only been in recent redistricting years that an advisory board has been a part of the process. Despite the advisory board’s advocacy, during the last redistricting cycle, there was noticeable apathy from the community. Very few community members spoke up or participated at the meetings because they felt that it was a foregone conclusion that the Supervisors would follow their historical pattern and would draw up districts that best suited their needs.

   Originally, the redistricting map maintained the status quo for the Supervisors. This changed when the American Civil Liberties Union threatened a lawsuit due to a violation of the Voting Rights Act. County Supervisor Greg Cox stepped forward with a recommendation that a new map be created with a minority majority district as defined by the Voting Rights Act. This new map was adopted on September 27.

   On Tuesday, Sept. 11, Supervisor Cox will recommend to the Board that an Independent Redistricting Commission for San Diego County be established.  Cox recommends that the new commission should take the responsibility out of the hands of the Board and put it in the hands of retired judges.

   We wholeheartedly agree with Cox’s recommendation. This step is long overdue. Redistricting has been a partisan practice for far too long, one which has been used to deny fair and competitive districts, and used only to ensure safe districts for incumbents.

   We would like to see one change in the recommendation: the recommendation that retired judges should be selected to be the members of the new redistricting commission. We see this as limiting the pool of eligible minority candidates and not reflecting a broad base of the community. We would be happier with a mix of judges, community members, and Board appointees for example. Other than that we hope the rest of the Board sees the wisdom of taking the process out of their hands and putting the redistricting process into the hands of the community where it belongs.

   It should be noted that even though the board will vote on Supervisor Cox’s recommendation to create an independent panel, it’s not something that will automatically happen. There has to be a change in state law. The first step of many steps will require County staff to come up with a recommendation on how to create an independent panel. This will get the ball rolling which will eventually end with a change in the law. Thankfully there is an eight year window to accomplish this goal.

It started out as a group of disgruntled citizens who were frustrated with the economy and the way things had been going. They wanted to protest and publicly demonstrate against political decisions which seem to favor the rich over everyone else. So they organized an occupation of Wall Street – right in front of the NY Stock Exchange – which they saw as the epic center for greed.

   Banks caused the economic meltdown and then got bailed out. Bank of America will soon charge customers $5 per month to use their debit cards.  Cavalier attitudes are displayed by the wealthy corporate executives as they give themselves enormous salaries and huge bonuses, whether their companies succeed or not. Banks eagerly foreclose on homes which they were lending to in a predatory fashion only a few years ago. Corporations and the wealthy continually receive tax breaks or pay no taxes at all. All this has led to the middle class finally standing up and saying, “Enough Already!” As unemployment continues to rise, no foreclosure relief is on the horizon, and salaries remain stagnant, something has to change.  Change should begin with Wall Street and with the banks.

   The collection of people occupying of Wall Street did not start out as a single movement but a collection of like minded people stepping out to speak up, act up and demand change. This movement has grown from a few hundred to a few thousand people, including such folks such as airline pilots, teachers, homemakers, mechanics, the middle class, and unions. It has spread from Wall Street to Los Angeles and continues to grow every day.

   Middle class American is fed up with the way things are going and has no faith in the United States government being able to do the right thing.  Recent polls show that approval ratings for Congress are at the lowest levels in history. Now, ordinary citizens want to take control of the process.

   Middle America is at a boiling point. If something doesn’t change soon, the pot is going to boil over.