Telling Stories

His Holiness the Dalai Lama on Political Correctness

Via Precious Metal:

The Dalai Lama was recently in the Czech capital at a conference on Human Rights issues in Asia. He was asked what he thought of political correctness.

With a look not often found on His Holiness’ face, puzzled, he asked “what do you mean?” This threw the audience into laughter, but His Holiness still looked puzzled and repeated fervently “what do you mean?”

After having the words explained to him, His Holiness than gave a wise and profound answer, “I don’t know… I openly express – if someone’s short, I express it as short. If someone’s very tall, I say very tall… Of course, if you create embarrassment, you can’t be saying this. But otherwise, black is black, white is white, yellow is yellow. And that’s it.”

Emphasis added.  Wise indeed.

Post Racial? Not so Fast

To those of you naive enough to believe that Obama's election had moved us past racial discrimination, here's a little reminder that we've still got a long way to go:

After spending eleven days in a federal custody following their arrests for allegedly a torching a predominately black church Nov. 5, three Springfield men were released Monday on $100,000 bail each.

That's Springfield, Massachusetts.  I know that Springfield is kind of dumpy, but it's still one of the bluest of the blue States.  If this can happen here, it can still happen anywhere.

The Pentecostal church was burned down a few hours after Barack H. Obama was elected as the nation's first black president.

Quick aside: notice how, all of a sudden it's OK to use Obama's middle initial and middle name?

In documents unsealed after the trio's arrest, an FBI agent said two of the defendants expressed racial motives for setting fire to the 18,000 square-foot building. . .

The three men face a 10-year minimum mandatory prison sentence if convicted on civil rights arson charge.

You can cure racist.  But in the case of this threesome, you can't cure stupid.

Tokenism

Tokenism: Formal or superficial compliance with a law, requirement, convention, etc., especially in the hiring of members of a minority group.

In the aftermath of Obama's historic election, you heard people - in the "know" and on the street - talk about it in transcendental and historic terms.  Some people were even wondering if we were indeed moving towards a "post racial" era.

However, it only took a few appointments from the Obama administration to have some Latinos complain about the same old thing.  From that always-reliable source of conventional idiocy, Ruben Navarrete,

I wonder what message it sends that President-elect Obama has apparently passed over Richardson and seems ready to offer the post at State to their former rival, Hillary Clinton. While known the world over from her days as first lady, Clinton doesn't have anywhere near Richardson's level of experience in foreign affairs. Besides, she treated Obama reprehensibly during the primary. Does anyone really think that if she had been elected president that she would be vetting Barack Obama for secretary of state? . . .

This isn't about Richardson, who might be very happy heading for ribbon cuttings in Toledo while Clinton heads for blue-ribbon summits in Tel Aviv. This is about something larger. Richardson is the nation's only Hispanic governor and the most prominent Hispanic elected official in the country. And the way he was treated doesn't say much about Obama's respect for the Hispanic community. Nor does the fact that Obama seems to have filled his top four Cabinet posts – Justice, Treasury, Defense and State – and couldn't find a single Hispanic to put in any of them.

to Latina Lista

President-elect Barack Obama had barely made the announcement to a packed press conference that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson was his pick for Cabinet secretary of Commerce when a reporter stood up and asked a question foremost on the minds of most Latino groups — was Richardson’s appointment a “consolation prize” for Latino voters who wanted him named Secretary of State?

Of course, the question was brushed aside with Obama emphasizing, “Commerce secretary is a pretty good job.”

But it wasn’t the high-profile position that would have showcased Richardson’s diplomacy expertise nor the position that several Latino organizations had been actively campaigning for on behalf of the nation’s only Hispanic governor.

to the Coconut Caucus

Secretary of Commerce = Where We Stick Latinos to Say We're Diverse.

and Brown Pride

First, the most prominent Hispanic leader, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, lost the plum secretary of state assignment to New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Last spring, Richardson angered the Clintonistas by backing Obama over Clinton during the heated Democratic Primary contest, only to now see her being offered the top diplomatic post.

among others, many in the Latino community and blogosphere see the lack of Latino appointments - particularly Richardson's non-appointment as Secretary of State - as a snub.

I, for one, don't have any qualms about it.

The Trouble for Hazleton

It seemed to have started with Hazleton, PA, and it seems the beginning of the end will also start there too.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Thursday struck down a Pennsylvania city's ordinance that sought to punish landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and employers who hire them, ruling that immigration law is the province of the federal government alone. . .

"Allowing states or local governments to legislate with regard to the employment of unauthorized aliens would interfere with congressional objectives" to control immigration policy, [the court] said.

"We cannot say clearly enough that persons who enter this country without legal authorization are not stripped immediately of all their rights because of this single illegal act," [the court] wrote.

He noted that the Constitution says no person may be deprived of "due process of law." The Supreme Court has said this protection extends to those who have entered the country illegally. . .

I, for one, believe this is the right thing to do.  Otherwise, you'd have a patchwork of different laws applying to different people in different ways all over the country.  Besides, immigration is a national problem that deserves to be dealt with at the national level.

Guess who else liked this decision?

The ruling was also welcomed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "State and local governments have no business setting national immigrant policy," said the agency's National Chamber Litigation Center.

"Yeah! Keep that undocumented cheap labor coming!"  I wonder how those guys sleep at night.  But I digress.

The good thing about this is that it puts the burden of reforming immigration policies squarely on D.C.  It's one-stop shopping for everyone who wants to bitch and moan about this issue.

Tags: Immigration, Latino Matters, Multicultural Issues, Politics

Smells Like Double-Standards Here

I always believed that printing the Mohammed cartoons wasn't a freedom-of-speech issue as much as a lack-of-respect-and-common-civility issue.  Free speech means you can say whatever you want.  It doesn't mean you are free from criticism or that you don't have to deal with the consequences of what you say.

Back then, it appeared that every European country was publishing the cartoons as an exercise in freedom of speech.

One can certainly regret that these caricatures have offended Muslims, because it is legitimate to want respect for religions. But it would be dangerous [if], in its name, one limits the liberties that we cherish.

Spain got in on the act too:

Spain's El Mundo took a different approach: it published a picture of the page of the Norwegian Christian newspaper, Magazinet, showing all 12 drawings.

Yeah.  "Look at what those rude Norwegians are doing."  But, apparently, while it's not OK to "limit the liberties that we cherish" when it comes to Mohammed, nobody seems to have a problem with this:

Spain's High Court has ordered the seizure of all copies of a magazine that carried a cartoon of Crown Prince Felipe and his wife having sex.

The cartoon on the front page of the weekly satirical magazine El Jueves depicted Prince Felipe saying sex was the closest he would come to working.

Judge Juan del Olmo ruled that the cartoon "struck at the honour and dignity of the people represented".

He also ordered the magazine to identify the author of the cartoon.

Slandering or defaming the Spanish royal family carries a two-year prison sentence.

Forgive me if I feel a tide of hypocrisy coming on.

So it's OK to draw cartoons that will certainly be perceived as offensive by Muslims but not OK to kid around with Spain's King and Queen.  And you wonder why the Muslims had a problem with the whole "freedom of speech" issue?

If you applied the same standard, all newspapers in Europe should be carrying the offensive cartoon by now.  After all, it's an attempt to "limit the liberties we cherish," right?  But you won't see anything like that.

That's a double-standard.  Plain and simple.

Tags: Free Speech, Multicultural Issues, Religion

". . . for the content of their character"

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Just in case you're Rip Van Winkle or have spent your life in utter ignorance, that quote is from Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech.  Which is sort of on point when you look at this interesting news item:

Freshman Rep. Stephen I. Cohen, D-Tenn., is not joining the Congressional Black Caucus after several current and former members made it clear that a white lawmaker was not welcome.

"I think they're real happy I'm not going to join," said Cohen, who succeeded Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., in a majority-black Memphis district. "It's their caucus and they do things their way. You don't force your way in. You need to be invited."

Cohen said he became convinced that joining the caucus would be "a social faux pas" after seeing news reports that former Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., D-Mo., a co-founder of the caucus, had circulated a memo telling members it was "critical" that the group remain "exclusively African- American."

Other members, including the new chairwoman, Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich., and Clay's son, Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., agreed.

"Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. ... It's time to move on," the younger Clay said. "It's an unwritten rule. It's understood. It's clear."

The bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for membership, a House aide said, but no non-black member has ever joined.

Emphasis added.  Well, the bylaws couldn't openly restrict membership to blacks because that would be racist and discriminatory.  But what I find both intriguing and saddening is this: the white congressman was elected in a majority black district.  He has the presence of mind to acknowledge that the interests of his constituents are aligned with the CBC's interests.  He asks to join the group to further his constituents interests and he's rejected because he's not black.

Some people may think this is just a political ploy on the freshman congressman's part.  But lets be serious.  It's Tennessee.  You don't need to do this to be labeled a progressive in Tennessee.

And, of course, it begs the question of why this isn't called racist and discriminatory.  There are some who believe that only whites can be racist because they have the power while blacks and other minorities do not.  I think that's bull****.  You are a racist if you discriminate against others solely on the basis of their race.  Whether the discriminatory act has a lot, a little, or no impact on the other person's life doesn't change the nature of your act.

This is racist.  Plain and simple.

Tags: Race and Ethnicity, Politics, Multicultural Issues

Strange Multicultural Constructs

Melek suggested I check out this entry at Fausta's blog as a different take on my opinion regarding the need to acknowledge the historical context of affirmative action before deciding whether it is good or bad and whether it's working as intended.  Although the entry is titled "The 'Hispanic' mirage," it has little to do with "Hispanic" or "mirage" other than the assertion that there is no such thing as a "hispanic" because we latinos come from a number of different nations with distinctive history.  I happen to agree with that wholeheartedly.

Rather, the substance of the entry is a discussion about "diversity" and "multiculturalism."  She quotes from this blog the following passage:

Where once we celebrated individuality and each of us were encouraged to pursue our own life, liberty and happiness; now our children are inculcated with the idea that "diversity" is more important than competence; that allegience to one's ethnic identity is more important than allegience to American values; and that achieving victimhood confers ultimate moral authority; while taking responsibility for one's life; becoming successful, and doing well is the hallmark of the race or gender "traitor", who has willfully joined the ranks of the oppressors. You are excoriated and ridiculed beyond belief if you are a successful woman, black, or gay person in this country and don't adhere to the victimhood template of the politically correct left.

Emphasis in original.  Even if you don't read anything else in the entry, there's one thing you know right away: for the writer, the "left" = "bad" and either the "right" or the "not left" = "good."  Also, who's doing the "excoriating"?  The "Left"?  Isn't that a "useless construct"?

Interesting that the underlying premise of an entry on "useless constructs" is a "useless construct."

Then, she cites from her own experience the following:

That has been my experience.

When the affirmative action laws started to surface, my employer at the time wrote into my permanent file "Mrs. Wertz is Puerto Rican and she's married to an American". I first became aware of this bit of info during a performance review. I politely informed the woman at the personnel department that Puerto Ricans are Americans by birth. She insisted that "the government says that we have to report it". Since I am Caucasian, middle-class (at the time I was in a low-middle class tax bracket), well-spoken, well-educated, and by no definition of the word can be called underprivileged, this was the only way the woman from personnel could fit me in the box.

Emphasis added.  First, I don't know what a census classification has to do with being "excoriated and ridiculed beyond belief"  if you "don't adhere to the victimhood template of the politically correct left."  Second, you're never clear on what the "it" is.  Is "it" that she is Puerto Rican?  Is "it" that she is "married"?  Or is "it" that she is a "Puerto Rican married to an American"?  I can't tell.  I do know that the U.S. Census keeps track of those Puerto Ricans living on the island and living on the 50 States differently.  So, who knows?  Maybe that had something to do with it.  And I also know that the U.S. Census keeps track of the numbers on different ethnic ancestry groups, including, Acadian/Cajun and Pennsylvania Germans.  I wonder if they are supposed to fit the "victimhood template."

Nowadays the Left will do its outmost to keep you in your underprivileged minority box because it makes them feel good (and after all, it's their feelings what counts). Anyone like myself who doesn't buy into the designed victimhood role is put down, insulted, derided, and resented.

There's that word again: the "Left."  The evil, shapeless, insidious, immoral Left!  Ooooohhhh!

But more relevant, to her, that's how she thinks her "Puerto Ricanhood" is being used for.  To "peg her as a victim."

Now, here's a good chuckle:

The manifestations of this can be trivial but very telling, with comments such as "but you don't even look Puerto Rican". That particular type of comment (and I've heard it enough times that I'd be living like a Sheik if I had $5 for each time) reveals that
a. Puerto Ricans are supposed to look one way, and by implication, behave one way
b. That's exactly what the person saying that expects. At this point in the conversation you know they've bought into the multi-culti role because they can not get themselves to believe, in spite of my already assuring them, that I'm telling the truth. Not as trivial are downright insults and putdowns where you are essentially told that you are an ungrateful jerk for not appreciating the need "your people" have for the equal opportunity handout's munificence.

Emphasis added.  "The multi-cultural role"?  When people tell you "you don't look like a Puerto Rican" or, in my case "you speak great English for never having left Puerto Rico (which I was told by some U.S. recruiters when I was in college)"  you are not dealing with "multi-cultural victimhood roles."  You're dealing with something far more simple and dangerous:

STEREOTYPES!

I've come across stereotypes like those myself from people who genuinely love and care about me and do not believe themselves to be biased or prejudiced.  Of course, it doesn't help when they preface  their statements with "I'm not prejudiced, but . . . " because you just know something that will at least sounds prejudiced is about to come out of their mouths.

Anyhow, they have told my wife - who's white AND Anglo while I'm "brown" AND Puerto Rican - "your husband doesn't look/talk/act like those OTHER Puerto Ricans in XYZ neighborhood."  Which goes to show two things.  First, they are reacting to their stereotypes or preconceived notions of what Puerto Ricans or Latinos should be like.  Second, they are realizing that there's more to Puerto Ricans or Latinos than their preconceived notion.  Both are good things.

Here's the money paragraph:

While the people saying this usually have not an idea of who "my people" are - and have an equally less realistic notion of my own life story, or what kind of travails my friends have overcome - the underlying assumption is that all Hispanics belong to the oppressed, underprivileged minority that should be celebrated not for their own individual deeds, characters, achievements and merits, but for the sake of "multicultural diversity" because they can not get out of that oppressed, underprivileged situation on their own.

Emphasis in original.  What I find interesting here is that this paragraph goes to the underlying matter at issue here: multiculturalism.  To her, multiculturalism means celebrating the group while ignoring the individual.  That is not what I believe multiculturalism is about:

"What is multiculturalism?"

This is a tricky question because the definition of multiculturalism depends heavily upon the context in which it is discussed. Also, the concept of multiculturalism is constantly changing as more people make their voices heard to a continually growing audience. In the United States, multiculturalism is a social and political movement and position that holds differences between individuals and groups to be a potential source of strength and renewal rather than of strife. It values the diverse perspectives people develop and maintain through varieties of experience and background stemming from racial, ethnic, gender, sexual orientation and/or class differences in our society. It strives to uphold the ideals of equality, equity and freedom on which the United States is based, and includes respect for individuals and groups as a principle fundamental to the success and growth of our country.

Emphasis added.  Ironically, taken to its logical conclusion, multiculturalism fosters greater value in the contributions each individual can make because "diverse perspectives" means each person is an untapped source fresh perspectives.  Multiculturalism, on the other hand, also acknowledges that a person's life experience isn't formed in a vacuum and, therefore, as the U.S. becomes an increasingly diverse nation, understanding where we come from can help us figure out how we got to where we are and how to move forward.

Each person is a universe of possibilities.  And each person is a world unto him/herself.  Multiculturalism recognizes both facts.

Tags: Puerto Rico, Latino Matters, Multicultural Issues

THE POPE HATES ISLAM!!!! (well, not really . . . )

From CNN.com

Pope Benedict XVI came under a hail of criticism from the Islamic world Friday for comments he made earlier in the week regarding the Prophet Mohammed and the Muslim faith, in some cities provoking street protests. . .  transcript of the pope's remarks obtained by The Associated Press television network reads: "In the seventh (sura, or chapter of the Quran), the emperor comes to speak about jihad, holy war. "The emperor certainly knew that Sura 2, 256, reads: 'No force in matters of faith'. It is one of the early suras, from a time -- as experts say -- in which Mohammed himself was still powerless and threatened. "However, the emperor of course also knew the requirements about the holy war that were later formulated in the Quran. Without going into details like the handling of the owners of the scriptures, or non-believers, he (the emperor) turned to his interlocutors -- in a surprisingly brusque way -- with the central question after the relationship between religion and violence. "He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'" The Organization of the Islamic Conference, in a statement released Thursday, said it "regrets the quotations cited by the pope on the Life of the Honorable Prophet Mohammed, and what he referred to as 'spreading' Islam 'by the sword.'"

Normally, I would also categorize this as "Bad Media" because the Pope's statements, while factually accurate, take on a wholly different meaning when read in context.  (BTW, you can go here and read his speech if you don't believe me.)

In the previous two paragraphs, the Pope makes the following points:

This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God.  That even in the face of such radical skepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.

Emphasis added.  So, you see, the first thing that needs to be noted is that the subject of the Pope speech had very little - if anything - to do with Islam, but rather, on the role of faith and reason in an university environment.  In fact, the title of the speech is "Faith, Reason and the University -Memories and Reflections," the "University" being the University of Regensburg.

That dialogue the Pope makes reference to is further described here:

The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

Again, emphasis added.  The Pope's point wasn't about the differences between, in essence, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but rather to note a particular portion of the dialogue that related to the broader issue of "faith and reason" the Pope was addressing.

Then comes the passage that has been intensely criticized by the Muslim community.

Immediately afterward, however, comes a passage worth examining in detail:

The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably [ ] is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.

Emphasis added.  The points the Pope was trying to make are that, first, in Christianity there is a necessary interplay between faith and reason and, second, that irrational acts are contrary to God's nature.  The Pope also noted that the Muslim view of God as absolutely transcendent is fundamentally different than the Christian view of God's transcendence.   But for the purpose of the Pope's speech, that's neither here, nor there.

Also of note is the fact that the rest of the speech doesn't mention Islam or the Qu'ran.  And also missing from the discussion is that the Pope never mentioned whether he subscribed or believed in the greater criticism of Islam and Mohammed that the emperor stated.

Everyone who's read this blog at least randomly - yes, the two of you - know that I have a fairly non-adversarial position when it comes to Muslims and Islam (I don't want to use "liberal" or "conservative" since those terms are so loaded that they are pretty much devoid of any meaning).  But even by my live-and-let-live standards, this is way too much ado about nothing.  I understood why Muslims were up in arms about the Mohammed cartoons - and I believe they had every reason to be upset.  On this one, however, they are just waaay out there.

Or, to quote the immortal words of Mr. Garrison, "life isn't fair, kiddo.  Get used to it!"

Tags: Multicultural Issues, Odd News, Religion

UPDATE: I just came across this blog entry from Juan Cole that, while critical of the Pope for getting it wrong, it does have a very interesting and enlightning discussion about what the Qu'ran does and does not say about violence and religion.

Perception, Meet Reality, Part II - Or, Are Immigrants Taking Away Jobs from Americans?

One of the common arguments against illegal immigration is that illegal immigrants take jobs away from Americans:

[Mark] Flanagan [Republican candidate for the 13th Congressional District in Florida] said illegal immigration is "taking away jobs from Americans . . . and overburdening our social services and costing taxpayers dearly."

Lets set aside the "overburdening of social services" and "cost to taxpayers" issue.  Each of those deserves its own blog entry.

Could it be possible?  Maybe, if you realize that things like these are going on in the U.S.:

Alan Beggerow has stopped looking for work. Laid off as a steelworker at 48, he taught math for a while at a community college. But when that ended, he could not find a job that, in his view, was neither demeaning nor underpaid. . . Millions of men like Mr. Beggerow — men in the prime of their lives, between 30 and 55 — have dropped out of regular work. They are turning down jobs they think beneath them or are unable to find work for which they are qualified, even as an expanding economy offers opportunities to work.  . . About 13 percent of American men in this age group are not working, up from 5 percent in the late 1960’s. The difference represents 4 million men who would be working today if the employment rate had remained where it was in the 1950’s and 60’s.

Emphasis added.  Here's another example:

“To be honest, I’m kind of looking for the home run,” said Christopher Priga, who is 54 and has not had steady work since he lost a job with a six-figure income as an electrical engineer at Xerox in 2002. “There’s no point in hitting for base hits,” he explained. “I've been down the road where I did all the things I was supposed to do, and the end result of that is nil.”  Instead, Mr. Priga supports himself by borrowing against the rising value of his Los Angeles home. Other men fall back on wives or family members. . . Despite their great numbers, many of the men not working are missing from the nation’s best-known statistic on unemployment. The jobless rate is now a low 4.6 percent, yet that number excludes most of the missing men, because they have stopped looking for work and are therefore not considered officially unemployed. That makes the unemployment rate a far less useful measure of the country’s well-being than it once was.

So it's OK to kick back and not look for a job because "the job is not worthy of you."  I think that's insane.  I wouldn't want to risk losing everything before saying "well, I guess it's time to find any job after all."  But that's just me.  They have the "money" or "equity" or "understanding spouse," so it's their choice.

What would you say about this, though?

[T]he fastest growing source of help is a patchwork system of government support, the main one being federal disability insurance, which is financed by Social Security payroll taxes. The disability stipends range up to $1,000 a month and, after the first two years, Medicare kicks in, giving access to health insurance that for many missing men no longer comes with the low-wage jobs available to them. No federal entitlement program is growing as quickly, with more than 6.5 million men and women now receiving monthly disability payments, up from 3 million in 1990. About 25 percent of the missing men are collecting this insurance. The ailments that qualify them are usually real, like back pain, heart trouble or mental illness. But in some cases, the illnesses are not so serious that they would prevent people from working if a well-paying job with benefits were an option.

And, as the article further explains, a determination of disability makes it more difficult for these people to return to work.

So, the next time someone tells you that immigrants - illegal or otherwise - are taking jobs away from Americans, or the next time someone rails about companies hiring or contracting technical staff from India or other less-developed countries, keep this in mind.  They may be taking the jobs some Americans won't take because it's beneath them.

Same Planet, Different Universe

I wrote here that we should work towards building bridges amongst Latinos and between Latinos and African Americans.  But things like these set us back a lot.  I am ashamed and disgusted and every person who holds the dignity of others as high as their own should be equally troubled.

Police detectives say that the attacks in Highland Park have subsided, and are no longer a problem. The Avenues have kept a low profile after a series of convictions and a city injunction that prevents them from meeting publicly. But in the 1990s, not only black people but their Latino friends faced gang reprisals, according to testimony in the hate crimes case.Pedro Avelar, 24, became friends with Bowser and another black youth named Junior when he was 12. He testified that the Avenues harassed him so much that by the time he was 16, he had to stop being seen with his black friends. "They said they would kill me," he testified. One day around 1997, he said, "some guys just pulled up and hit Junior in the face." There were more epithets.

Just goes to show that the Klan and the Skinheads don't have a monopoly on sick and twisted hatred.