For those who have avoided a computer for the past few weeks, President Obama’s social media team is gearing up for his 2012 run with his ‘Are You In?’ campaign on Facebook. Essentially, one clicks that they’re “in”, gets bombarded with options to help with the campaign, and it’s off to the races. The only problem is that not everyone is “in.” If anything, Latinos are growing increasingly skeptical of President Obama’s ability to support our community beyond a White House Latin Music Night. As a close friend of mine stated, “I’m NOT in. Obama has my vote, no doubt. But I’m still not sure if he has my money or time. What happened to Immigration Reform? On that note, what the hell happened to the DREAM Act?” His point is valid, and allows us to dispense with the elephant in the room: President Obama has yet to deliver substance on the rhetoric he employed to secure the Latino vote. But more importantly, my friend’s comment embodies the demand that Obama be the “change” president for all disenfranchised groups.

When President Obama was elected, he became more than just the president. Every minority demographic and constituency who supported him felt he was the one to address their issues, and subsequently felt their needs warranted top priority in the Oval Office. Environmentalists saw him as the one to break our dependence on oil, the LGBT community saw him as the first glimmer of hope since Harvey Milk, education advocates felt he would fix NCLB, everyone thought he would end the wars, and the list is endless. I was guilty of this as well, feeling my time and money spent for Obama justified my demand he provide immigration reform, pass the DREAM Act, and end the Cuban embargo. It was incredibly misguided for people to think he would do everything for everyone in those first two years, especially since we didn’t know how eight years under Bubbles the Clown would derail “Change We Can Believe In.”

Simply, no one could have foreseen how the healthcare debate was going to turn into the actual Mayweather-Pacquiao fight, or how the economy was going to put nearly all American policy progress on hold. And of course, no one could have predicted a Republican Party platform of ‘Do absolutely nothing until Obama is out of Office.’ Even as we see a rebounding economy and know we’re much better off under Obama than we would have been under McCain, hardly anyone is happy. The tone of compromise and bi-partisanship looks like weakness, and has caused previous Obama season ticket holders to cancel their subscriptions. They’re still fans, just not willing to pay top dollar for an underperforming product. Indeed, it’s mind boggling to know that the Obama administration botched a prime opportunity to galvanize voters after Arizona kicked off a domino effect that showed the Republican Party’s true feelings towards Latinos. Even if Arizona is an outlier in the greater immigration debate, the reality is we’ve seen the American auto industry and LGBT community get more “change” than we have. Thus, I don’t blame my friend for hesitating to be “in” because Obama’s performance on Latino issues has been subpar at best.

This inaction becomes symbolic because it makes the Latino vote one in which we’ll essentially be choosing between the lesser of two evils. Republicans shouldn’t win the Latino vote by denying access to education for undocumented yet deserving students, and supporting the legalization of racial profiling. However, does that mean a Democrat should win simply because he doesn’t endorse such a platform? Ultimately, Obama wins the Latino vote because the alternative is reminiscent of some of the governments Latinos have fled their home countries from. Therefore, an Obama victory of the Latino vote should not be celebrated by any means, because it just means we will have picked the person who scares us less. If that’s the case, then why be “in”? For me, the answer is simple.

President Obama may not have delivered on what he promised, but he has set the stage to do so. We can’t have comprehensive immigration reform without healthcare reform, which took too long because people don’t have a consensus on healthcare as a right or a privilege. Then there’s the DREAM Act, which should have been passed, but wasn’t because Washington hasn’t found a way to sell it. And by sell it I mean people haven’t gotten the teacher’s unions to buy into it. It doesn’t take a viewing of Waiting for Superman to show us who is calling the shots educationally, meaning our pressure for the DREAM Act needs to start with the unions, not Washington. Combined with the fact President Obama inherited a three ring circus, we just can’t measure his success on two years that were dedicated to avoiding a depression and dealing with a political environment that is starting to mirror the drama of High School. Nor can we measure his success on catering to our needs over those of others, because he unintentionally became the “change” president for all marginalized groups.

Bottom line, we all think President Obama needs to satisfy our agenda now, even though history tells us he won’t. We also know his being reelected doesn’t guarantee that our issues are addressed, especially if Congress stays divided. But what we should also know is that reelection guarantees eight years of work towards a progressive policy agenda that affects all Americans, and will ultimately be shaped by Latinos in the coming decades. To ensure this happens, we need to be “in” and do more than just vote. The alternative of choosing a party comprised of Arizona-supporters, not voting, or casting a vote for independent candidates who will never win leaves too much to chance. Regrettably, what my friend said is probably the norm for a good number of Latino voters. Obama has their vote, but probably won’t have their time, money, or energy like he did the last time. I just hope that changes, because not being “in” is too risky.

Matthew Stieglitz received his BA in Communication from the University of Delaware. He is currently a 2011 Master of Public Administration candidate at Cornell University concentrating in Government, Politics, & Policy Studies. After receiving his MPA, Matthew will attend law school in order to merge his public affairs background with a legal education to most effectively advocate for Latinos.

For the past year, I have been entrenched in thesis research on US-Cuba Policy, analyzing the embargo’s evolution from the perspective of the US presidency. (Before the haters slam that because of the US presidency angle, please note I was bound by fellowship guidelines to study the policy as it relates to the American presidency). As personally relevant as my work has been, it has also revealed incredibly unique insight into how American presidents could have handled the embargo, why certain events happened the way they did, and ultimately why a hard-line stance towards Cuba will not change any time soon. My hope was to author policy recommendations on how to end the embargo, which actually was easy enough. Instead, the difficulty came in writing something that rises above the Cuba fatigue on the Hill where we see no incentive to change, and a quagmire of hopelessness and despair for pro-normalization advocates like myself.

My path to finding the groundbreaking argument on normalization began with my research highlighting an incredible lack of attention paid to the Cuban perspective of the embargo. Please note, when I say Cuban perspective I mean academics and officials actually on the island, not Cuban-American politicians or the Calle Ocho scuttlebutt. Often in academia a balanced perspective on issues is difficult to find because of the inherent bias of any research we perform. When it comes to US-Cuba relations, this bias represents the limited and almost non-existent exchange of ideas that takes into account what Cubans on the island think. Such irony shouldn’t be lost on anyone, as an “exchange of ideas” is what the US government always harps on when slamming Cuba for their limited Internet access and state-run media. Although Harvard University does have a professorial exchange program with Cuba, finding actual Cuban research on the embargo is a road to nowhere. Instead, you’ll be left with newspaper and magazine articles from journalists who travel there, or field work from American PhD candidates.

The next idea was for me to find a way to mitigate the severe lack of forward thinking from my Cuban-American brothers and sisters on how we move forward. Historically, any discussion of constructive engagement of the Castro brothers is met with scorn, yet after over fifty years we see the same definition of insanity being read over and over again. I argue that if we want change to happen, we have got to stop demanding all the compromise in the world from everyone else and start respecting Cuba’s sovereignty. We rightfully slam Cuba for its lack of free elections, state controlled media, and deplorable human rights abuses. But any time Cuba has slammed the US for its race relations, inequitable education system, and flawed healthcare policy, we ignore them. This of course harks back to the Miami company line of zero tolerance when it comes to Castro, the extent of which most people probably aren’t aware of (the blacklisting of jobs and attacks on pro-normalization advocates are blogs for another day).

Indeed, it wasn’t easy as a progressive Cuban-American to dive into a subject I haven’t been able to escape since kindergarten and challenge the company line. But as always, a simple subscription to logic allowed me break the US-Cuba debate to its core, revealing one victim (Cubans on the island), a perennial policy failure (the embargo), and a competition between Washington and Havana to show who has the bigger ego. Bottom line, this isn’t working, and surprisingly the anti-Castro lobby isn’t the big hurdle in the argument. The hurdle is Congress, which holds the power to end the embargo through a law that states we either wait for a democratically elected government sans the Castro brothers. The alternative is for Congress to repeal its own law, not exactly a promising notion as long as the Cuban Three are in office.

Lastly, the final food for thought on this issue comes from the one interview I conducted, which was an unplanned, last minute dinner meeting with a former head of the US Interests Section in Havana (what can I say, the perks of guest speakers coming to Cornell). To sum up what was an outrageously informative and hilarious dinner conversation, Cuba hasn’t been a priority since the Reagan administration, when the US shot down Cuba’s attempts at dialogue, setting the Cuba debate back to the Kennedy era and pushing my interviewee to resign. During the Reagan years the anti-Castro lobby mobilized and became one of the most historically influential lobbies in Washington, and Miami’s political scene became Pre-Castro Cuba II. Since then, the most progressive policy changes we’ve seen towards Cuba have come from President Obama, extending a Cold War relic long beyond what should have been its expiration date. Unsurprisingly, the lack of incentive to change prevails.

The moral of the story is one I hope people understand: foreign policy change towards Cuba is not an American priority. Simply, there is no groundbreaking realization on how to create change. People know exactly what to do but refuse to step on the gas. So the Miami elite can kvetch all they want about how the Castro brothers refuse to die and about expanded US travel to the island, the reality is the Obama administration won’t take away their precious embargo. We need look no further than the baby steps the Obama administration has taken towards dialogue with Cuba, which unequivocally are on pace for “consideration of relations” after the 2012 election at best. And even then, if the embargo has taught us anything, it’s that hopeful promise with Cuba probably shouldn’t exist.

Matthew Stieglitz received his BA in Communication from the University of Delaware. He is currently a 2011 Master of Public Administration candidate at Cornell University concentrating in Government, Politics, & Policy Studies. After receiving his MPA, Matthew will attend law school in order to merge his public affairs background with a legal education to most effectively advocate for Latinos.

I facetiously wrote in a previous piece that Arizona was making a daily case for exile from the union, which I now find myself entertaining as an intriguing notion. Birthright citizenship, something no one thought would ever be an issue, is currently being broached because of supposed, “anchor babies”. On top of that, ethnic studies have been banned in the state, racial profiling has been legalized, an assassination attempt of a state politician took place, and Sheriff Joe still has a job. Am I the only one wondering what the hell happened to Arizona? While we shouldn’t be naïve enough to think these issues popped up overnight, I find it fascinating that this once irrelevant state has found its place in national political discourse largely because of tensions between Latinos and Whites. It’s as if we’re being brought back to before the Civil Rights movement, only it’s 2011 and what’s going on is as deplorable as it is embarrassing. So, how did we get here?

On the surface, we can guess it’s the age-old perfect storm of minorities move in, Whites move out, and the older generation that refuses to leave freaks out at what’s different, like the inconvenience of ‘Spanish’ being an ATM option. Now, we need to remember that Xenophobia is as much a part of the American fabric as anything else, and this phenomenon did not start with Latinos, nor will it end with them. More importantly, as always the onus is on legislators to respond, because God forbid American legislators ever pass anything proactive these days (yes US House of Representatives, I’m talking about you and your recent vote to slash Planned Parenthood funding).

In responding to the Arizona crisis, the reactionary policies we’ve seen have been ones aimed at furthering divides and inequity across the board, only to be averted by years-long litigation (if it’s in our favor) or future open-minded generations. Unfortunately, the wait associated with both is horrifically long, meaning all we can do is “vote for change”. As such, your guess is as good as mine in terms of where we go from here. We’ll probably hear every remedy imaginable, starting with the usual suspects. Fix the education system, fix the immigration system, fix healthcare, make sure American workers get priority over non-immigrant workers, and yawn. A whole lot of rhetoric, with barely any substance, and beyond that more of the same band-aid attempts at change.

We know we’ve got issues, and we know they need to be fixed. But what country doesn’t have problems? What country doesn’t have inequity? (For those responding Finland, my response is that’s an outlier and please be quiet). The reality is everyone has problems, and the discussion is always on government or the courts or agencies fixing them. But before we ask our government to fix it, we need to ask ourselves how we can help. It’s entirely unfair to look at what’s happening, play the blame game, and not see where we fit into the equation. And where we fit into the equation is simple: misinformation, inability to compromise, and apathy.

They’re the time bombs that keep American evolution from continuing, and are the reason progress takes forever. Misinformation manifests itself in the arguments that detract from what the discussion should be about. The result is an inability to compromise that leaves constituents supporting the partisan politics that legitimately creates debates surrounding deprivation of a chance to contribute to America for undocumented students. Combine that with apathy and you’ve got the community that mobilizes for five minutes and follows that up with avoiding the polls. On cue, someone right now is probably responding that these problems are beyond our control, the media sucks, Election Day logistics are not conducive to Latino turnout, and yawn. It’s the blame game again; only it’s being played without a look inside. Do those responses contribute to the problem? Yes! But they don’t cause them.

Our egregious voter registration rate is on us, and so is our level of apathy. Before we blame a government that doesn’t emphasize registering people to vote or classrooms that don’t hype it up, how about we blame people for not intuitively seeing its value. When we call for compromise, we need to fight for the kind where both sides make concessions, not the Obama-style of only Democrats making concessions. And while misinformation is strongly correlated to the Internet and media, we need to be accountable in that as well. Sorry, but taking chismes and Perez Hilton for news is definitely on the idiots who do that.

In closing, I asked before why Arizona has issues. The immigration system, racism, and education are part of it. But Arizona also has issues because people are misinformed, apathetic, and refuse to compromise. Case in point: the US government couldn’t agree on an immigration remedy, leaving states to pass reactionary policies that deprive civil rights because they can’t handle the federal government’s mess. The response was a hell of a lot of people who don’t care. Subsequently you get the nation where barely anyone knows their congressmen, but everyone knows that Blake Griffin dunked over a car.

Matthew Stieglitz received his BA in Communication from the University of Delaware. He is currently a 2011 Master of Public Administration candidate at Cornell University concentrating in Government, Politics, & Policy Studies. After receiving his MPA, Matthew will attend law school in order to merge his public affairs background with a legal education to most effectively advocate for Latinos.

As I peruse the Latino landscape in this country, I can’t help but come to back the same thought: Soledad O’Brien let me down. As many of you will recall, last year Soledad filmed Latino in America, the Latino version of Black in America. Refusing to miss the program, I got my popcorn ready Terrell Owens-style and prepared for what I thought was going to be an insightful view on Latino contributions to the US. Not only was I disappointed by what I watched, I was angry. Stereotypes prevailed the entire program, and our lone example of Latino entrepreneurial success was a chef no one outside of the Univision faithful have heard of. While this all needs to be mentioned, it leaves a great deal to be desired. My anger ultimately subsided, but that doesn’t mean this piece should go unwritten.

Where Latino in America failed is in what I so badly wanted: inspiration. Soledad had the opportunity to do what so few of us can: use her credibility and popularity to both document and highlight the plight of the Latino. This means addressing the negative and the positive. While she found a variety of meritorious topics to touch on, she struck out looking when it came to uplifting this community and advancing an image of Latinos that does not involve pregnant teens, loss of culture, and illegal immigration. None of our accomplishments in business and politics were highlighted, and the program failed in its ability to inspire. Instead, the program did a great job of reminding everyone which immigrants are hated, who holds the highest high school dropout rate, and who isn’t measuring up.

Sure, Soledad trotted out the usual suspects of Edward James Olmos, Eva Longoria, and George Lopez to remind us that celebrity status is right around the corner with hard work and sacrifice. But after that, it was back to the barrage of negativity that essentially illustrated the following: a demographic that just doesn’t measure up.  I didn’t allocate my time to that program to hear that broken record of failing students, subtraction of culture, and anti-immigrant (i.e. anti-Latino) communities. What I wanted to know were the stories we don’t hear but need to hear about what we’re doing right. The stories about how far we’ve come and what wonderful accomplishments are on the horizon. OK, so I didn’t get what I wanted. There are greater ills in the world. But here’s how it’s actually relevant.

For non-Latinos who watched for an inside look of our community, their perception of Latinos right now is probably pregnant teens, loss of culture, and limited success. Taking it a step further is how Latinos felt after watching the program. In general, all we’re fed are the negatives. A down economy, a failing education system, inadequate healthcare, two wars, global warming, anti-immigrant sentiments, and you get the picture by now. It’s a very negative landscape, and one that seldom offers inspiration. Underscoring all of this is a political system that reeks of a pissing contest between politicians who are more interested in blaming their opposing parties than legitimate bi-partisan collaboration. And within all of that is an image of Latinos that these days is not positive, which Latino in America did little to dispel.

Never mind that we have a Latina Supreme Court justice, Latino elected officials, prominent athletes, and a growing presence in every sector of American society. The negatives had to prevail. While knowing how popular the name Garcia is makes for an interesting conversation piece, I’m not particularly interested in triviality. Instead, I’m interested in inspiration, particularly in light of the continual deterioration of society taking place in Arizona. As such, since Soledad got to give her opinion on Latinos in America, here is mine.

To be Latino in America in the 21^st century is to be the backbone of this nation. Certain sectors of the economy would crash tomorrow if Latinos stopped working, and our military would be severely depleted without Latino soldiers. We peacefully assemble in the face of bigots who would rather see the entire community deported, and in so doing carry ourselves with a grace we often are not afforded. Beyond that, our culture is rich and our societal contributions will only continue, making our presence in this country significant. Simply stated, we are America. But none of that was highlighted by Latino in America. Thus, I write this piece to call on our community to not fall into the trap that Soledad did. I urge you to find and highlight what we do correctly, find our inspiration, and flaunt it.

Matthew Stieglitz received his BA in Communication from the University of Delaware. He is currently a 2011 Master of Public Administration candidate at Cornell University concentrating in Government, Politics, & Policy Studies. After receiving his MPA, Matthew will attend law school in order to merge his public affairs background with a legal education to most effectively advocate for Latinos.

This past holiday season was one of great difficulty for my family. Two weeks before Christmas, our matriarch, my Abuela, fell and broke her hip, marking the second time in four years this has happened to her. Despite being in excellent physical condition for an eighty-one year old, her surgery and subsequent rehabilitation have been an arduous process. Always a trooper, her resolve and work ethic never cease to inspire me. During the physical therapy sessions that I attended to translate for her, I made several observations regarding the state of our country, which I’ve connected back to the Latino community.

Observation 1: the United States lacks bilingual medical professionals. My Abuela’s surgery, hospital stay, rehabilitation, and pending transfer home with an in-home therapist have exposed her to countless doctors, nurses, aides, surgeons, Medicare representatives, and therapists. And the lovely number of bilingual professionals who were part of that process? Three. While I know this cannot be generalized to all other geographic regions in the country, it is still disheartening considering my family lives a half hour outside New York City and considering Latinos will be one quarter of the US population in the coming years.

It was a stunning revelation to see hardly a Spanish-speaking medical worker in an urban hospital concentrated near the heart of a Latino neighborhood. We have a need for bilingualism, and the health of our community will depend on satisfying that need. Hopefully, as our community grows so too will our presence in professions as important as the medical field. Unfortunately, the state of our education system only further stacks the cards against aspiring Latino professionals who work towards those goals. As a result, we may not see an influx in that profession of qualified bilingual workers until the need (healthcare provision) forces the education system to be more clearly addressed. Consequently:

Observation 2: nothing in this country can be addressed until healthcare is fixed. Illegal immigrants and the poor flooded emergency rooms before healthcare reform because of their lack of insurance, which highlighted our joke of an immigration system. Instead of focusing on addressing healthcare, the Republican Party spent this past decade engaged in anti-Latino rhetoric that could make even a semi-intelligent observer think our healthcare system was flawed solely because of charity care to illegal immigrants and low-income Latinos on Medicaid. Although illegal immigration and Medicaid inefficiency contributed to the problem, they by no means were the only cause of the spike in health care costs that accompanied fewer services. Unfortunately, politicians seem to have failed in addressing this.

A week and a half ago, Republicans symbolically voted against providing healthcare for the poor, which overwhelmingly includes Latinos and other people of color, further stalling policy reform in other arenas. Let this serve as a stark reminder to our community with respect to which political party actually has our back, and may that reminder carry into 2012 when the Latino electorate cannot afford to reinforce its stereotype as the sleeping giant. Simply stated, Latinos need to wake up and start paying attention to what is going on in this country. We’ve got Arizona making a daily case for exile from the rest of the union, an education system that fails Latinos more than anyone else, and a welcome mat passing for an immigration system. But the only time our community is galvanized is when there is a crisis on our doorstep. Exacerbating this is Spanish-language media, which brings me to my last observation.

Observation 3: there is nothing but utter crap on Telemundo and Univision that is passing for stimulating content. While the news programming does a wonderful job of informing us about what is happening in Latin America and the Caribbean, the domestic content is egregious. Each day I walked into my Abuela’s room I was hard pressed to find something stimulating on the television. I would wager hardly anyone cares. Aside from some potential territorial tendencies readers might now be getting into about their precious telenovelas, Caso Cerrado, and Sabado Gigante, here’s why you should care.

The lack of objective, thought-provoking analysis from Spanish-language media is a disservice to Latino voters who rely on Spanish television for their news. This can easily foster voter apathy, which Latinos statistically embody in the US. This is a stark contrast for Latinos who stay tuned in with what happens in their nations of origin, with many still casting votes from abroad. If they can be informed about issues elsewhere, I find it logical to hold domestic content to a similar standard. While I don’t blame Spanish-language television for our community’s political apathy, I firmly believe Telemundo and Univision can step their game up and adequately provide Latinos with content that is actually intellectually stimulating instead of the usual mind numbing stereotypical, overly dramatic content that dominates those networks. Until such time, I hope it doesn’t take a crisis on our doorstep to galvanize the community like it always seems to. And I certainly hope that what little informative reporting that does take place domestically truly shows the obstacles we still face with healthcare.

Matthew Stieglitz received his BA in Communication from the University of Delaware. He is currently a 2011 Master of Public Administration candidate at Cornell University concentrating in Government, Politics, & Policy Studies. After receiving his MPA, Matthew will attend law school in order to merge his public affairs background with a legal education to most effectively advocate for Latinos.

The call began with Federico Peña who stressed that people should try to encourage everyone they know who is registered to vote. He also talked about voting early if possible and mentioned two websites for people to find their polling place and to vote early raiseyourvote.com and votarespoder.com. These sites are basically the same — except one is in English and the other in Spanish.

DNC Chairman and former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine followed Peña. He acknowledged that this is a critical election where some races will be won or lost based on the Latino vote. He also threw in some terms in Spanish. Kaine’s Spanish is pretty good because he did missionary work with the Jesuits in Honduras while in law school. He talked about the Democrats’ support of comprehensive immigration reform, the DREAM Act, the fact that members of the party decried both SB 1070 and the idea that the constitution should be redrafted to eliminate birthright citizenship. He also mentioned that Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell said that the single most important thing for the Republicans to do would be to make sure that President Obama is a one term president, meaning that their top goal isn’t anything legislative but rather to obstruct the President’s agenda.

After Kaine spoke, actress Eva Longoria addressed the listeners reminding people who came out to vote in 08 that they were part of a movement for change and that these political participants knew that the task wasn’t easy. Longoria said that Latinos will have to turn out as they did two years ago. She basically said that the Democrats have proven that they are the ones who can move our communities forward, as evidenced by their commitment to health care reform. Longoria stressed that people have to stand with the President next week by voting for the Democrats.

Finally, President Obama got on the line, and he acknowledged that there still was a lot of work to do. He said that our country had finally reached a point where the fundamental promise of America was at risk (referring to the American dream and the pursuit of happiness). He basically talked up the Democratic ticket and the importance of voting on Tuesday. Giving a nod to immigration, he did say that when millions of immigrants are undocumented that it is not just a “Latino problem” but is instead an American problem. I thought that President Obama repeated a lot of the same themes he did at the rally in Los Angeles last week.

Overall, the Latino leadership call was a general “hype up the Democrats” and GOTV message. We’ll know next week if efforts like this have paid off in our community. On the GOP side, it looks like the Latino community is going to make some representative gains in high visibility races in New Mexico, Nevada, and Florida.

Today I came across this piece in Poder 360 revealing some recent polling on Latinos and climate change. It turns out that our community is more “green” or rather more  “concerned about green” than average:

“A recent Gallup poll shows 48 percent of Americans think the seriousness of global warming is exaggerated, up from 41 percent in 2009 and 31 percent in 1997, when Gallup first began asking about the issue. But as the Obama administration gears up for this debate, public opinion on the issue shows Hispanics bucking the national skepticism, according to the latest poll, commissioned by the National Resource Defense Council (NRDC). Conducted by Yale and George Mason universities, the poll found that 81 percent of Hispanics believe global warming is happening compared to only 69 percent of non-Hispanic whites. Some 62 percent of Hispanics said they thought climate change was “very bad,” while only 41 percent of non-Hispanic whites thought so. Hispanics were also more convinced about the scientific evidence of global warming, while many whites believed the science remains controversial.

When it comes to the government taking action, 66 percent of Hispanics said tackling climate change should be a “high” or “very high” priority, compared to only 48 percent of non-Hispanic whites. Some 41 percent of Hispanics said a “large scale effort” is required even if it has a big economic cost attached. An impressive 48 percent of Hispanics support the regulation of carbon emissions, compared to 28 percent of non-Hispanic whites. And an overwhelming 70 percent of Hispanics favor cap-and-trade legislation that places a limit on carbon emissions. Only 50 percent of non-Hispanic whites back the idea.”

Just last week the LA Times did a feature on Kettleman City, a town in California’s Central Valley, that has a high incidence of birth defects:

I’m definitely in the camp that believes that climate change is happening. However, how quickly it is happening and what its effects ultimately will be are subject to debate. Some may say that we should have even fewer environmental regulations because they hinder business growth, but if we cannot remain healthy or even have clean basic resources, people won’t be in a position to consume and help fuel the economy.

There are obvious growing pains in transitioning to a more environmentally healthy way of living, but many organizations are already pushing for national energy and climate change legislation that will create more jobs.

What are your thoughts? How do you see Latinos fitting into the environmental movement and current campaign for climate legislation?

Regarding Meg Whitman’s piece, I thought that the first part was particularly interesting, most notably her expressed use of the words ‘divisive’ and ‘disrespectful’:

“Too often, the rhetoric surrounding this issue has been overly divisive and disrespectful to Latino American citizens. The country needs to have a thoughtful debate about how we stop the tide of illegal immigration that strains budgets and angers taxpayers. But the immigration debate must take place in a measured way that reflects our national aspirations toward tolerance, hope and opportunity.

As a Republican, I believe it’s important to both continue our rich tradition of protecting the rule of law while diligently reaching out to the millions of Latinos who share our values.

While I am a strong proponent of legal immigration, I am 100% opposed to granting amnesty to immigrants who entered the country illegally. It is the wrong policy for California, it is the wrong policy for America, and it is grossly unfair to those immigrants who have followed the law to obtain legal status.”

And I thought this portion about her expressed opposition to Proposition 187 was somewhat ironic given the prominence of former California Governor Pete Wilson in her campaign (remember that Wilson was a big proponent of this ballot initiative, which was eventually declared unconstitutional):

“I have been criticized for opposing Proposition 187, which was on the California ballot in 1994. It is true that I am opposed to cutting off public education and healthcare services to immigrant children. I do not believe that kids should be punished for the sins of their parents.”

As for Steve Poizner, I thought that this part was particularly telling:

“Above all, California has too many policies that reward illegal aliens and act like magnets, drawing them to and keeping them in our cities and communities. We have to change those policies.

Ten other states, including neighboring Arizona, have passed laws to cut taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal immigrants. We need such legislation too. In this time of fiscal crisis, we can’t afford to subsidize the presence of illegal aliens.

One taxpayer-funded benefit for illegal aliens that should be stopped is in-state tuition at our public colleges and universities. Today, California is one of just 10 states that allow illegal immigrants access to reduced college tuition at taxpayer expense.”

For Steve Poizner, the last paragraph made me immediately think, “Forget about it DREAM Activist students — this guy is not in your corner.” One of the reasons why California has in-state tuition for undocumented students is that many of these kids have been excelling in school despite the odds and did not have a choice in how they arrived here as small children. Furthermore, many of these young people no longer have connections to their homeland, as they have been living here in California for years.

And in my quick reading of both opinion pieces, I did notice that Poizner used the term ‘illegal alien‘ while Meg Whitman did not. The National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ) has called this term, as well as ‘illegal immigrant’ dehumanizing. While I am not as offended by the term ‘illegal immigrant,’ I know that many in our community are, and if language is power and semantics make a difference, I think that both candidates would be wise to read the NAHJ statement on terminology.

In the end, I do think that Steve Poizner has dug himself a hole with the illegal immigration issue, and he is very unlikely to emerge from it as he is trailing so far behind in the polls. Even today’s LA Times has a pretty good piece explaining why more Californians are not taking the bait regarding illegal immigration, as many people have come to the realization that there are fewer immigrants coming to the country in this global economic downturn.

Mississippi is one of the states in the US that has experienced a rapid influx of Latino residents. Many migrant workers flocked to the Gulf Coast region in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to seek work. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights notes that “In Mississippi, the Latino share of the population increased by about 50 percent in the coastal counties between 2000 and 2007, and almost doubled over that period in both Biloxi and Gulfport.” In light of the population changes and needs in Mississippi, the following blog post highlights some concerns about health reform, public health, and asbestos contamination (which is a big issue with construction workers):

Recently I wrote here that Mississippi has the worst health care in the nation. Now I want to tell the story about how desperate Mississippians, abandoned by their government, turned to Iran for help.

But first, I want to tell you about Mississippi’s infant mortality rate. The rate of infant mortality is the number of infants who are born alive but die before their first birthday, per 1,000 live births. In other words, if infant mortality is 5, that means that 5 of every 1,000 babies in that population will not survive the first year of life.

According to the CIA World Factbook, the estimated infant mortality rate in the United States for 2009 is 6.22, which is high for an industrialized democracy. But according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the infant mortality rate in Mississippi is 11.4. Only Florida is worse, at 14.1. By contrast, the infant mortality rate for Washington and Minnesota is 5.1.

Now, here’s where Iran comes in — according to the Times of London, last October “five top Iranian doctors, including a senior official at the health ministry in Tehran, were quietly brought to Mississippi” to advise Mississippians how to lower their infant mortality rate.

This exchange came about when James Miller, managing director of Oxford International Development Group, was consulting in a rural Mississippi hospital. “He was shocked to find that the state had the third highest medical expenditure per capita, but came last in terms of outcome,” the Times article said.

Miller remembered a conference presentation on how Iran radically lowered its infant mortality rates. Facing a shortage of doctors and hospitals, the government launched a program of “health houses” staffed by local people trained to be health workers. The health workers are authorized to provide basic medical services such as diabetes monitoring as well as prenatal and obstetric care. Infant and maternal mortality rates both fell dramatically as a result.

James Miller contacted Iranian doctors to find out if their program might be applied to Mississippi. So the Iranian doctors came to Mississippi to give advice. Although the idea of following an Iranian model was a hard sell in Mississippi, at least one community has begun work on an Iranian style “health house” to provide better care for pregnant women abandoned by Mississippi’s health care system.

Dr. Aaron Shirley, who worked with James Miller on the Iranian project, admitted they were staying under the radar. Mississippi government officials, including Governor Haley Barbour, were not involved or informed.

This takes us back to the issue identified in the earlier post — Mississippi has the worst health care in the nation, but as far as Gov. Barbour is concerned, this is not a problem. The governor is perfectly clear, on his website and in public pronouncements, that Mississippi fixed its health care problems by passing a comprehensive tort reform bill in 2004. The 2004 law affected all kinds of personal injury lawsuits in Mississippi.

In the U.S., state after state has passed “tort reform” laws that make it harder for citizens to file personal injury suits and also limit the amount of damages they can receive. This is a critical issue for people with asbestos-related disease such as mesothelioma cancer, who so often need damage awards to care for themselves and their families. “Tort reform” also is being pushed by conservatives nationwide as the way to fix the nation’s health care crisis.

But Mississippi reformed tort in 2004, and it still has the worst health care in the nation. What did Governor Barbour “fix,” exactly?