Telling Stories

Stupid Columnists

There must be a publication out there where Maureen Dowd's column from yesterday's NY Times would fit quite nicely.  Vogue, Readers Digest, O, or maybe even GQ itself.  But the Op-Ed pages of the NY Times isn't the place I would expect to find such fine political analysis and advocacy in favor of making Caroline Kennedy the junior U.S. Senator for New York:

I found it bizarre that when Caroline offered to use her magic capital — and friendship with Barack Obama — to help take care of New York in this time of economic distress, she was blasted by a howl of “How dare she?”

People are suddenly awfully choosy about who gets to go to the former home of Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond and Robert Torricelli.

First, nobody "blasted her" by a howls of how dare she.  If she cares to look at the polls that came out in mid-to-late December after she expressed interest and started campaigning/lobbying for the position you'll see that a plurality of the people were willing to give her a chance:

New York State voters split 40 - 41 percent on whether Caroline Kennedy is qualified to be a U.S. Senator, but they expect by a 48 - 25 percent margin that Gov. David Paterson will name her to the Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Offered a choice, 33 percent of voters say Gov. Paterson should name Ms. Kennedy, while 29 percent say Attorney General Andrew Cuomo should get the nod. Another 4 percent pick Albany-area U.S. Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, while 24 percent want someone else and 10 percent are undecided, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.

Selective Memory

I nearly choked on my cinnamon roll this morning as I'm reading today's NY Times editorial:

What seems especially important right now is Mr. Kennedy’s ability to concede defeat gracefully and rearm himself for another good fight. That is a strength we hope Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton can emulate.

Emphasis added.  Are these people out of their mind?  Don't get me wrong.  I admire and respect many things about Ted Kennedy, though he's no idol of mine.  But of all the things to say about him they say that he conceded defeat gracefully?  Somebody should touch base with Jimmy Carter on that one.  From - of all places - the National Journal:

The last time a primary contest whittled down to two Democratic titans was in 1980, when Sen. Edward Kennedy and then-President Jimmy Carter dueled through a nine-month primary season -- which left the question of who would be the nominee in doubt until August.

Kennedy came into the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City with 1,225 delegates to Carter's 1,981 and 122 uncommitted. Kennedy's only chance to wrest the nomination from Carter, who had enough delegates to win, was to pass an "open rule" motion.

Joe Trippi was on the convention floor the evening of Aug. 11, 1980, marshalling the Kennedy delegations from Texas and Utah. He remembers the deciding vote as "the robot rule vote," which came after an hour-long debate that played out in front of a prime time television audience. The debate was over whether delegates should have to vote for the candidate they'd been pledged for, or have an "open" vote during which they could pick Kennedy or Carter.

Emphasis added.  If that's the NY Time's idea of "conceding gracefully," I don't want to know what their idea of not conceding gracefully is.  In essence, Kennedy tried to do in 1980 what many of the PUMAs want to do now with Clinton - only that she will have none of that.  Maybe more out of political savvy than virtue, but nonetheless, she won't do that.

Funny how the NY Times can overlook such an obvious detail.

Bad Media and Gov. Acevedo Vilá

It's been a while since I've made a "bad media" entry, but today's editorial in El Diario/La Prensa provides an excellent opportunity to revisit this category.

As you know, Gov. Acevedo Vilá was indicted in federal court yesterday for participating in three separate illegal schemes to circumvent state and federal election laws, to set up a pay-to-play scheme, and for violating tax laws by using money for personal use and not reporting it as income.  The guv. says it's a political prosecution (not that the DOJ engaging in political prosecutions should surprise anyone).  However, ED/LP states in its editorial the following:

The governor has suggested that the inquiry was retribution for criticizing the FBI’s shooting of Machetero Filiberto Ojeda Rios and that acting U.S. Attorney Rosa Emilia Rodriguez is doing the bidding of his opponents.

What I find particularly offensive is that the editorial doesn't even mention the fact that the timeline is all wrong on this one.

Filiberto Ojeda was killed on September 23, 2005 during a horribly botched FBI operation attempting to arrest him, although some suggest that the goal of the operation was to kill him.  I'm somewhat skeptical of that theory because there was nothing to be gained by the feds by killing him.  Besides, wouldn't you want to waterboard interrogate him to see if he reveals other information first?  But this deserves its own post . . . somewhere else, since I have no interest in the subject.

The problem with the editorial's statement is that the investigation started in October 1, 2004 with a complaint filed by former governor and former resident commissioner Carlos Romero Barceló (yes, the one who got bitch-slapped in the restaurant.)  The FBI didn't even get involved until late June 2006, almost nine months after Ojeda's death.

It's all a matter of public record.  But ED/LP didn't even bother to mention it.  Shame on you!

Tags: Bad Media,Politics, Puerto Rico

When The Latino Media Gets it Wrong

You know, it's one thing to have Lou Dobbs, the NYT, Faux News, et al. getting facts wrong about the Latino community.  That alone is upsetting enough.  But when the Latino media itself gets it wrong, well, that's another story.

Like this article from El Diario/La Prensa.  Its headline is "Niños inmigrantes más afectados por plomo" which roughly translates to "Immigrant Children Suffer Greater Lead Exposure."  Fair enough.  Then, how does the article start?

A sus 3 años de edad, el niño puertorriqueño Angel Vargas, diagnosticado con niveles elevados de plomo en sangre, padece las consecuencias de residir en un edificio contaminnado con pintura que contiene este mineral.

Which roughly translates to

At 3 years of age, the puertorican child Angel Vargas, diagnosed with elevated lead level in his blood, suffers the consequences of living in a building contaminated with lead paint.

Emphasis added.  Listen, I don't mean to suggest that puertoricans are better or worse than immigrants.  We're not.  We're just different in one very important aspect: all puertoricans are U.S. citizens at birth unless they give their citizenship up.  Having misinformation spewed by ignorants is one thing.  But it really p***es me off when misinformation is spread by people who should know better.

Tags: Bad Media

Hugo Chavez is Not the Devil

I wanted to wait a couple of days before commenting on Venezuela's vote last Sunday, Dec. 2, rejecting Chavez' push for constitutional reforms.  Before the election it wasn't quite clear how the vote would go and everyone - myself included - wondered what would happen if Chavez' reforms were voted down.

This was your typical news coverage:

Voters in this country narrowly defeated a proposed overhaul to the constitution in a contentious referendum over granting President Hugo Chávez sweeping new powers, the Election Commission announced early Monday. . .

The plan would abolish term limits, allow Mr. Chávez to declare states of emergency for unlimited periods and increase the state’s role in the economy, among other measures.

The referendum followed several weeks of street protests and frenetic campaigning over the amendments to the Constitution proposed by Mr. Chávez and his supporters. It caps a year of bold moves by the president, who forged a single Socialist party among his followers, forced a television network critical of the government off the public airwaves, and nationalized oil, telephone and electricity companies.

And, you also had the kooky

If Hugo Chavez Can Lose, Mrs. Clinton’s Not Inevitable

If you can find a rational way of relating one statement with the other, I admire - or fear - your capacity for logical reasoning.

Anyhow, the news on Chavez followed the same tired narrative: granting Hugo Chavez sweeping powers.  Well, he happens to be the President right now, which makes him the beneficiary of the reforms, but if the reforms had been approved and Chavez died the day after, whoever the President turned out to be would get to wield that power.

And, btw, the statement on forcing a network critical of the government off the airwaves is, at best, misleading.  The TV station was knowingly broadcasting misleading information to incite people to revolt against Chavez during the failed coup of April 2002.

The anti-Chávez commercial stations repeatedly showed only a small part of the scene  of pro-Chávez supporters firing, claiming they were firing at unarmed demonstrators. This footage was also widely screened in the US to boost support for the Bush administration's backing of the coup. However, an amateur cameraman captured footage that revealed the gunmen were not firing at any demonstrators, since the street below was empty except for an armoured police vehicle which had previously been firing at the bridge. . .

At the beginning of the coup, the dissident military had occupied Venezolana de Televisión, the state television channel, and the private media also refused to bring the news. Despite the fact that tens of thousands of people had taken to the streets around the palace, Carmona declared that there had been some disturbances, but things were now under control. Only by 8 o'clock that evening the reinstalled government managed to inform the people through the television channels. Because there were difficulties getting Chávez back, to restore order, two hours later the vice-president was sworn in as interim president on television. Chávez returned the next day.

But the important thing is what was not emphasized - and has not been emphasized - about Sunday's vote: Chavez accepted the results, vowed to try again, and left things as they were before the vote.

That earns him the scorn of the U.S. government and media.

Now, compare that with what  President Moosh did in Pakistan: he fired the entire Supreme Court - and by now all judges who opposed his regime - and installed emergency rule.  He suppressed civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism, but the regions where Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups are known to be located were left pretty much untouched.

Musharraf first promised to quit the army at the end of 2004 but broke his word, saying the country needed his strong leadership. He told The Associated Press in an interview this month that his presence was vital to ensure stability.

Outgoing lawmakers re-elected Musharraf to the new five-year term in October. But the Supreme Court held up his confirmation following complaints that a military officer could not run for elected office under the constitution.

Musharraf reacted by proclaiming a state of emergency on Nov. 3, sacking the chief justice and other independent judges and replacing them with his appointees. The reconstituted top court then duly approved his election.

But that's OK with the U.S.

The Bush administration described as a "good step" Mr. Musharraf's handover of army control. "President Musharraf followed through on his commitment to remove the uniform. It was significant for him."

See, the point here is not to say that Chavez is such a nice guy.  He isn't.  He's a megalomaniac, egocentric, power-hungry leader.  But he also respects democracy far more than some of our "allies."  And he has been elected by huge margins.  So, in that respect, Venezuelans pretty much have what they want.

He's not the devil.  And he shouldn't be treated as such.

Tags: Bad Media, Politics

Those Crazy Boricuas, Continued

There are some headlines that really make me scratch my head.  Take El Nuevo Dia for example (which I'm translating from Spanish):

Jobs: Improving Outlook
Not all is lost for puertoricans looking for jobs.

First, it's a poll.  Second, you'd expect "good news" to follow from that headline, right?  Think again.

Not everything is lost for job-seeking puertoricans. This time, the negative job market evaluation reveals a slight improvement from the situation in early 2006, when 69%  of those polled stated that jobs were unavailable.

OK, so it's a "slight improvement" so lower your expectations.

This time, a 63%  states that there are not many available jobs where they live.  Almost no one (1%) believes jobs abound.

Margin of error?  3%+/-   So, if you add 3% to the current results, you get 66% currently believing there are not many avaliable jobs in November 2007.  If you substract 3% from last year's results, you get the same amount.

This is bull.  The perception on the streets hasn't really changed because the results are still within the polls' margins of error.  This is yet another example of the press trying to mislead the public.

Bad media strikes again!!!

Tags: Bad Media, Puerto Rico

Dumb Wanna-be Jock!

Sports columns aren't exactly the best place to find insightful, coherent, logical opinion and analysis (heck, even in the more "important" sections of the news it's hard to find), but this slap to my beloved Steelers courtesy of Clark Judge, cannot go unanswered:

I think the Steelers play for third in the AFC North. That's no knock on Mike Tomlin. He might be a terrific head coach, but he's a first-year head coach. It can take someone trying head coaching for the first time a while to get his act together. Lovie Smith? He was 5-11 his first season. Andy Reid? Another 5-11. Brad Childress was 6-10. And Jack Del Rio was 5-11. OK, you get the idea. It's tough to win in your first crack at the job.

Of course, he really fails to mention the status of those teams when these guys were hired.  Chicago?  They had - as usual for the Bears - a great defense and no talent whatsoever on offense.  They couldn't find a way to get a touchdown if you spot them at the 5.  If you want to know how many three-and-outs it takes for a defense to wear down, watch those bears.

Philly?  They didn't even have Donovan McNabb yet.  Their QB was Doug Peterson, who, prior to that had the most frustrating QB job in the NFL: backing up Brett Favre.  Again, loaded on defense and no talent on offense.

The Vikings?  They had Brad Johnson, who has managed to extend his career thanks to that sunset Super Bowl ring he got in Tampa Bay and a rookie named Tavaris Jackson.  The O-line was suspect and the receivers were nothing to talk about.

The Jags?  They had a whole lot of old players when Del Rio took over.

The Steelers are two years removed for the SuperBowl, they have solid skill players on offense, and their defense is solid - the corners still scare me some, but I have faith in Coach Tomlin.  He is inheriting a pretty good football team.  I think they have enough to make it to the playoffs but the AFC is so freakin' competitive I wouldn't be surprised to see them go 10-6 and miss the playoffs.

But enough about my opinion.  Go back up and re-read what Judge wrote.  Then he goes on to write this in the same paragraph.

Say what you want about Cowher, but he did more with less than almost anyone out there -- including his first year on the job when he was 11-5.

Emphasis added.  So Coach Tomlin shouldn't be able to do much with the Steelers because he's a rookie coach even though Coach Cowher as a rookie finished 11-5 on his first season and finished first in the then-AFC Central.  And he did that with Neil O'Donnell and Bubby Brister at QB, Barry Foster at RB, and a whole bunch of no-names at WR.

I think if Coach Tomlin is half as good as it has been said, the Steelers will be just fine.

 

Compare and Contrast

By now everyone knows or has heard about the foiled attack to Fort Dix, a military installation in New Jersey.  It hits a little close to home because I know of a former co-worker who - last I heard - still works there.  What really caught my attention was how differently the news are being reported in different outlets.  Take CNN:

'Islamic radicals' arrested in plot to kill Fort Dix soldiers

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Six "Islamic radicals" involved in a plot to kill U.S. soldiers at Fort Dix in New Jersey were arrested Monday night, the U.S. attorney's office in New Jersey said Tuesday.

One of the suspects was born in Jordan, another in Turkey, the U.S. attorney's office said. The rest are believed to be from the former Yugoslavia, "either U.S. citizens or living illegally in the United States," the office said in a statement.

So, if you go by CNN, you have crazy Muslims from the Middle East et al. planning a terrorist strike to a military installation.

Compare now with the BBC's reporting:

Arrests over US army base 'plot'

Six men have been arrested on charges of plotting to attack Fort Dix army base in the US state of New Jersey.

The men allegedly planned to use automatic weapons to enter the base and kill soldiers there, according to officials quoted by US media.

Notice the difference?  No mention of "Islamic" or "Jordan" or "Turkey."  In fact you get to the country of origin of these people on paragraph 4 of the BBC's report while the CNN's reveals it on paragraph 2.  And this is how the BBC does it.

Local media reports suggested the six were nationals of the former Yugoslavia who had been living in the US for some time.

Also notice no mention of whether they've been in the U.S. legally or illegally.

Sort of straddling the line is the Houston Chronicle:

6 charged with plot on Army base in N.J.

FORT DIX, N.J. — Six men described by federal prosecutors as "Islamic militants" were arrested on charges they plotted to attack the Fort Dix Army base and "kill as many soldiers as possible," authorities said Tuesday.

The six were scheduled to appear in U.S. District Court in Camden later Tuesday to face charges of conspiracy to kill U.S. servicemen, said Michael Drewniak, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in New Jersey.

Officials said four of the men were born in the former Yugoslavia, one in Jordan and one in Turkey. Five of them lived in Cherry Hill, 10 miles east of Philadelphia and 20 miles southwest of Fort Dix, Drewniak said.

This, I believe, is probably the best way to report it: it states the facts, it makes it clear that it is the prosecutors who think these guys are "Islamic radicals" and goes on to clarify that there is no apparent link to international terrorism.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said there is "no direct evidence" that the men arrested in the Fort Dix plot have ties to international terrorism.

"They are not charged with being members of an international terrorism organization," Snow said. "At least at this point, there is no evidence that they received direction from international terror organizations. However, their involvement in weapons training, operational surveillance and discussions about killing American military personnel warranted a strong law enforcement response."

Why do I draw these distinctions?  Because that is how the media behaves, both here, and in P.R.  They can take the same set of facts and report it in fundamentally different ways.  And while all of them are factually correct, delivery matters.  CNN would have you believe that this is a foiled attack in the "War on Terror," the BBC would have you think this is just another problem of American gun proliferation, but the Houston Chronicle accurately reports the facts, the assumptions, and who's making the assumptions.

Moreover, CNN also inserts an issue that is really tangential in this matter, namely, that some of the conspirators may have been in the U.S. illegally.  This, in the context of terrorism is somewhat overrated because all of the 9/11 co-conspirators entered the U.S. legally.  But for CNN, this dovetails perfectly with Lou Dobbs' xenophobic agenda.

Now, not even the news are what they seem anymore.

Tags: War, Bad Media, Terrorism

Wind Farms - Wrong Headline!!!

It's been a while since I've come across a blatantly misleading headline, but thanks to today's New York Times, we're back in business!!!

Headline: "Wind Farms May Not Lower Air Pollution, Study Suggests"

First paragraph:  "Building thousands of wind turbines would probably not reduce the pollutants that cause smog and acid rain, but it would slow the growth in emissions of heat-trapping gases, according to a study released Thursday by the National Academy of Sciences."

Because I found these statements rather puzzling, I went to the National Academy of Sciences' website to see what it was all about.

You know you have really bad and misleading reporting when you don't even have to look at the report to find out why the headline and leading article didn't make much sense.  Just a cursory read of the press release was enough to set the record straight:

The committee concluded that use of wind energy to generate electricity probably would not significantly reduce emissions of two other pollutants, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, because current and expected regulations of these are largely based on cap-and-trade programs.  The degree to which emissions would be further reduced through special provisions to encourage wind-energy use --  such as set-asides, in which a percentage of emissions allowed under the cap are retired to the extent they can be offset by wind energy -- is uncertain, the committee added.

Emphasis added.  Cap-and-trade programs limit the total amount of pollutants that can be emitted, but it allows those businesses that emit less than their maximum allowed to "trade" that difference to other businesses who cannot meet that lower standard.  For example, if I have a facility that can emit no more than 10 units of a pollutant, but by implementing technological and efficiency measures I manage to emit only 8 units, I am allowed to trade that extra 2 units to someone who is emitting 12 units and cannot afford - or does not want - to improve its facility to emit less.

Therefore, if there is a cap-and-trade program it means there is already a limit to the amount of some pollutants, in this case sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides (commonly referred to as "SOX and NOX").  So no reduction will necessarily come about from wind farms.

Even worse, the article misstates the study's conclusions - or, arguably, the NAS misstates its own conclusions in its press release:  The NYT article states:

Wind machines can displace power from coal and make electricity without sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain, and without nitrogen oxides, which add to smog. But the study said they would not reduce the total output of those pollutants because there was already a cap on sulfur emissions and one on nitrogen oxides was likely to follow.

Emphasis added.  But if you read the previous quote from the study, doesn't it say something along the lines of "uncertain"?  Ah, yes:

The degree to which emissions would be further reduced through special provisions to encourage wind-energy use --  such as set-asides, in which a percentage of emissions allowed under the cap are retired to the extent they can be offset by wind energy -- is uncertain, the committee added.

Emphasis added.  Whew!  I thought I was reading things!

But it gets better.  The article's headline is misleading because it claims that wind farms may not lower air pollution.  However, the paragraph preceding the one I quoted clearly states otherwise:

A primary benefit of using wind to generate electricity is that it produces no carbon dioxide (CO2), a major greenhouse gas, or any other air pollutant.  Based on U.S. Department of Energy projections for wind-energy development in the United States, the committee estimated that by 2020, wind energy will offset approximately 4.5 percent of the carbon dioxide that would otherwise be emitted by other electricity sources.  In 2005, electricity generation accounted for 39 percent of the nation's total CO2 emissions.

Emphasis added.  Oh, yes.  The article does get around to mentioning this.  But it does so - again - in a very biased and misleading way:

Wind power could also reduce coal-plant carbon dioxide, which is thought to cause climate change, but the impact may be small, the report said. By 2025, wind turbines could cut carbon dioxide output by 4.5 percent compared with what it would otherwise have been, but this “would only slow the increase,” said Dr. Risser. “It wouldn’t result in a decrease in the amount of CO2.”

Emphasis added.  There are two things that are worth noting here.  First, the underlying - but unstated - assumption is that CO2 emissions will not be subject to any form of regulation or control like SOX and NOX.  Given the recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Massachusetts v. EPA  it's only a matter of time until EPA starts regulating CO2 as a pollutant, in which case cap-and-trade and the like may be applied to CO2.  Second, the absence of any regulatory control on CO2 is the basis for the conclusion that the benefits of wind farms may be small.  Neither the article nor the study discuss the effect of different regulatory controls - cap-and-trade, carbon tax, etc. - and an expanded use of wind farms on CO2 emissions.

Also as important, the uncertainty regarding the "displacement" theory - that wind farm generation would displace older, more polluting, and less efficient electricity-generating facilities - makes any conclusion regarding the "benefits" or "drawbacks" of wind farms suspect at this time.

Of course, you won't see this analysis in the NYT any time soon because they are the ones trying to tell the story.

Tags: Environment, Bad Media, Science

Apologists

I don't care for Ruben Navarrete's columns.  They are not bad, but they are not much good either.  They are like may other op-ed columns out there.  Like a bad B-movie.  You know who the good guys are, you know who the bad guys are, and you know how things are going to turn out.  And, usually, I just skim through his op-ed pieces, roll my eyes, shrug my shoulders, and move on, mildly resenting the waste of time.  But, as a Latino, I have to call him out on his latest column because I really don't care for apologists.

You see, Ruben is having a cow about the fact that, as he puts it,

In the flap over the ousted U.S. attorneys, Alberto Gonzales has been hoisted up as a political piñata.

And why?  Because Gonzo doesn't deserve it.  But how do you know he's about to draw the "ethnic" card (since we Latinos come in all colors, saying the "race" card wouldn't make much sense here).

The nation's first Hispanic attorney general is being pressured to resign by -- pick 'em -- Democrats trying to make hay, an elite media that long opposed him, civil libertarians who condemn administration policy on detainees and wiretaps, conservatives who think Gonzales is too liberal, and liberals who think he's too conservative.

And just for good measure he throws in the one term certain to frame the whole thing in racial/ethnic terms.

Leading this lynch mob are white liberals who resent Gonzales because they can't claim the credit for his life's accomplishments and because they can't get him to curtsy.

Remember when now-Associate Supreme Court Justice Thomas was all up in arms in the Senate, describing the one extra day of hearings as "high-tech lynching"?  Well, here you have it again.  They want Gonzo's head because he's Latino.

I've interviewed Gonzales twice since he became attorney general. During the last interview, which took place three weeks ago in San Diego -- that is, before the controversy erupted -- I asked about the firings of the U.S. attorneys. He told me what he has told others: It was about performance. . . As a political columnist, I cover liars for a living. And yet, I'd say Gonzales is pretty much as advertised by his old friend, President Bush: an honorable public servant.

Now I feel much better!  I mean, if Ruben says he's a great guy, then he must be, right?  Well, Ruben may not remember this since it happened about two years ago - some people in the media have a problem looking that far back - but, wasn't President Bush also saying that Mike Brown was doing " a heckuva job" right after Katrina?  And, didn't Mike Brown get fired because, well, because somebody had to be fired and he was as responsible as anyone else?

And it was this "honorable public servant" who drafted those infamous memos saying that unless you're about to kill or permanently maim someone, it's not torture.  And the same "honorable public servant" who said that the Geneva Conventions didn't apply to prisoner combatants and need not be accorded any due process, a conclusion that the U.S. Supreme Court partially reversed in  Hamdan.  And he's now rightfully raked over the coals because, as the White House and some Republicans in the House and Senate wanted these eight U.S. Attorneys to set aside their professional judgment and independence and prosecute politically motivated cases before the 2006 mid-term elections, he - at a minimum - failed to protect his people and possibly facilitated their job termination.

But, you see, Ruben doesn't even discuss the reason Alberto Gonzalez is on the brink of being fired or quitting from his job.  No, for Ruben it's all about how all these forces - the media, the liberals, the conservatives, and the whites - are trying to get rid of this earnest, honest, son of Mexican immigrants.

It may be that he made a whopper [of a mistake] here in trusting his No. 2 not to hand over the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys to a political hack like Rove. But then, Gonzales' critics aren't after the truth. They're after him.

Sure, Ruben.  Don't let the facts get in the way of a good racist conspiracy theory.  But what's really annoying is his conclusion:

Well, if they succeed in running him off without a fair hearing, many Hispanics won't forget the shoddy treatment afforded this grandson of Mexican immigrants. You watch. Democrats will have to intensify their efforts to win Hispanic votes in the 2008 elections. And there's not that much chips and salsa on the planet.

Wait a minute, wasn't Ruben saying that conservatives were also out to get Gonzo?  Yup.  It's right up there on the very first quote.  Right after the civil libertarians.  So, if conservatives AND liberals want him out, what are we, oh poor uneducated Hispanics to do?

For one thing, not pay attention to a word this jerk says or has to say or will say on this or anything else.  Second, though the facts are somewhat inconvenient, we Latinos have already shown how much we can contribute to America.  I wonder if these names ring a bell with Ruben: labor leaders?  Cesar Chavez.  Politics?  Illeana Ros-Lehtien, Nydia Velazquez, Jose Serrano, etc.  Surgeon General?  Antonia Novello.  Novelists?  Oscar Hijuelos, Esperanza Santiago.  Religious leaders?  Sor Isolina Ferre, The Most Reverend Patrick F. Flores.  Astronaut?  Ellen Ochoa (without diapers, either).  Prominent attorneys?  Check.  Prominent judges? Check.

You see, Ruben, we Latinos harbor any illusions that everyone accepts us everywhere all the time.  The beauty of this Country is that we can succeed and be productive in spite of it.  We don't need you or anyone else to make apologies for us.

And you don't need to make apologies for Gonzo.  What he did was unacceptable, even without taking into consideration all the other questionable stuff he has done before.  And it would have been just as unacceptable had he been White.  Or African-American.  Or Asian-American.  Or purple with white polka dots.

Tags: Politics, Latino Matters, Current Affairs, Bad Media