Rahm Emanuel's official entry into Chicago's mayoral race and the probability of the Bears making it to Super Bowl XLV?
Answer:
Both topics are taking up space and time in the heads of plenty of people who are eligible to vote in the Nov. 2 election but probably won't because "I didn't know" how/when/where or when the deadline to register was and, of course, "What's the point?"
We all have other things on our minds. I totally get that. I'm personally focused on procuring good Chihuahua-size Halloween costumes. But while watching the posturing of all the would-be Chicago mayors these last few weeks has been tons of fun, that's all anyone with an interest in local politics seems to want to talk about, which means the Nov. 2 elections are being totally eclipsed by next February's election for mayor.
Which is exactly why I blew in a call to the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners last week to ask how things are shaping up.
My first conversation was with spokesman Jim Allen.
"It's quiet -- and it's alarmingly quiet," he said. "People have leap-frogged to February. Given the significance of the issues confronting the country right now and the major offices on the ballot, our concern is that too many voters have put November 2nd on the back burner."
My next call went to the Chicago chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations, a Muslim civil liberties advocacy organization which, in partnership with the Illinois Coalition of Immigrant and Refugee Rights, has been doing extensive community outreach to get people registered to vote. Spokeswoman Amina Sharif was as struck by the lack of interest as I am.
"I don't understand why people aren't passionate about getting out to vote," she said. "So many major things are happening right now . . . but people are just fed up and it makes them apathetic to vote."
Ali Malik, the council's New American Democracy Project fellow, says he's seeing apathy in neighborhoods across the city -- it's rough out there.
"We know people don't vote in midterm elections like they do for presidential elections," Malik said. "But I'm telling people that for us in the Muslim community it goes far beyond the controversy over the proposed New York City Ground Zero mosque. There is serious Islamophobia going on and we need to vote for people who will represent all voters equally."
Like the council, African-American, Latino and other special interest groups are hitting would-be voters with issues specific to their concerns to get them to register to vote.
So consider yourself informed: Tuesday, is the last day to register to vote. You have to be a U.S. citizen, at least 18 on Election Day and a resident of your precinct 30 days before the election. A simple Google search will yield the city or county website where you can find your nearest voter registration location, and while you're at it, you can learn about grace period voting, early voting and absentee ballot voting, just in case.
As for "What's the point?" Well, politics literally disgust some people, and I completely understand that, too -- some politicians give us plenty of reason to feel disgusted. But that's not a fantastic reason to pass up the opportunity to pick the person you least hate to make decisions on critical issues that will impact you directly.
Langdon D. Neal, chairman of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners, put it to me this way: "While there's this great interest in who is going to be the next mayor of Chicago, let's not forget the enormity of the offices up in the air in November. You've got the leaders of all branches of government from federal on down. There's the U.S. Senate, the governor, the president of the County Board to state legislative and judicial races -- they will all have an enormous impact in our lives, let's not overlook it."
Add this to the twin pitfalls of religion and politics that lead the list of topics one should not bring up in polite conversation: healthy living.
Good, clean, healthy living gets a bad rap these days. Oh, not among the sort of people whose idea of fun is drinking raw milk directly from old Millie's wizened udder during a back-to-nature "hay-cation."
I mean among regular people. You know, the sort who generally don't feel they have the time, energy, money or need to work out or to make meals that require a lot of fresh food.
Bless their hearts! Everyone knows there have been generations upon generations of regular Joes and Joettes who never obsessed over a single calorie or laid eyes on an elliptical machine but had long, satisfying lives that even may have included the occasional cigar.
Yes, bless the naturally hardy and physically apathetic -- if only they didn't treat others like mental cases for making healthful lifestyle choices.
Who can blame them? Turn on the TV, open a newspaper or flip on the radio and there's a barrage of conflicting and confusing information that inspires the deep desire for a hot, delicious pizza and a glass of red wine followed by a nice nap.
For instance, everyone knows you're supposed to eat at least five fresh fruits and vegetables a day, right? Sure -- if you don't mind the insecticides your pears are bathed in, or the e. coli that might be lurking in your salad greens.
A few weeks ago, my dad leaned over and quietly warned me about the dangers of poisonous apple skins. I was still reeling from a recent Center for Disease Control warning: "Restau- rant salsa, guacamole can be risky."
"Nearly one out of every 25 restaurant-associated food-borne outbreaks with identified food sources can be traced back to contaminated salsa or guacamole, according to a new study," the Associated Press story said. It piled on the gory details of countless restaurant missteps with hot peppers, tomatoes, cilantro and too-warm refrigerators.
Don't think this didn't spring to mind when I was at Tacos El Norte chowing down my Saturday night pico-de-gallo and chips, but I emerged unscathed.
Amazingly, I also lived through the jogs I took in this summer's stinging heat and the ones I take now without meaning to get caught in the pounding rain. My mom fears the grippe, hail-induced lacerations etc., but I value my endurance too much to heed her warnings, nice as they are -- especially compared to hearing, "It's raining, stupid," yelled from a speeding car. But runners literally take that sort of thing in stride.
I, and the other health-conscious who walk among us, know well enough not to bring such wellness-related topics up at family parties, around the water cooler at work or at kids' school events. Rarely do these conversations end happily.
Our culture's heavily distorted view of what constitutes a healthy lifestyle has been caught in the crossfire between suggestions to get a minimum one hour of daily exercise and warnings about the ill-effects of obsessive exercise disorder.
The conversation about what to eat has been sucked into a distasteful vortex that includes good-for-you-bad-for-you-studies of chocolate and coffee, filthy egg/buggy infant formula food safety issues, and whether high-fructose corn syrup is "better or worse" for you than sugar.
The chatter is hastened by consumer advocacy groups, industry lobbyists, medical professionals, government officials and marketers each pushing their own eat-drink-live agendas.
Aristotle's golden rule -- "Everything in moderation, nothing to excess" -- seems a quaint notion in our on-24-hour-a-day, fleeting, Tweeting life, but we'll learn to cope. As Paul McCartney, another favorite philosopher, once sang: "We used to say live and let live, but when this ever changing world in which we live in makes you give in and cry -- say 'live and let . . ." Well, you get the picture.
Take my advice: Whether maneuvering cocktail party chit-chat or family patter, keep the health talk tucked away with the politics and religion. And whether it be a frosty footrace, or taking our chances with a deliciously suspicious-looking spinach leaf, let us soldier on with our death-defying behavior.
From the moment the iconic black-and-white archival footage rolls, then fades into shots of impoverished Latin American children playing ball to the tune of Jose Feliciano’s sweet rendition of "The Star-Spangled Banner," Ken Burns and Lynn Novick’s new documentary is a magic carpet ride through the last 20 years of baseball.
Never mind your crummy job (or lack thereof), never mind the pressures of everyday life — heck, never mind whether you’re a fan of the game or not. The momentum of this film carries you effortlessly off on the beer ’n’ hot dog, roasted peanut-scented American romp called baseball.
Manager Joe Torre and the Yankees celebrate after winning the 2000 World Series, less than a year before baseball would help New York and the nation heal after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
"The Tenth Inning," a two-part, four-hour documentary, is the next chapter in the 1994 series "Baseball." From the crippling 1994 strike to the increasing dominance of Latino and Asian players, to mega-stadiums, interleague play and the wild card, we see America’s national pastime at its best and worst. Two decades of ups and downs — from doping scandal darlings Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds to the Cinderella-story Boston Red Sox — are put under a microscope and into the context of baseball’s past heroes and villains, then held up to the mirror of today’s America.
With the same deep love of the hallowed institution that permeated "Baseball," "The Tenth Inning" wastes little time in tackling the 100-pound gorilla in the diamond and jumps right into a discussion of what doping has done for — and to — the game. But it does so by first putting the issue of steroid use into the context of other soap-opera-esque discrepancies that have hovered at the margins of the game since its infancy: bribery attempts, game-fixing conspiracies and corked bats.
Then, Burns walks the issue home, straight into our medicine cabinets.
"We are a society that turns to performance-enhancement drugs for everything. There’s vitamins, sleeping aids — there’s Viagra!" Burns said back in August when he was in Chicago to pre-screen his film for WTTW members. He was echoing the very point that historian Paul Thorn made near the beginning of the first night’s episode: "We live in a time when we think anything can be cured by medication. If you want to talk about a performance-enhancing culture, let’s look at Viagra, Levitra, all the things that are advertised on daytime TV. This is the time we live in. We believe that modern medicine can make us supermen."
The film’s writers, David McMahon, Novick and Burns, don’t merely rely on luminaries such as comedian Chris Rock to point out that human nature dictates most people would take steroids to make it big in the big leagues. They anchor two decades’ worth of lightning-quick record smashes on the story of how Barry Bonds went from being a frustrated, mostly ignored son of a record-setting right fielder to the buff, steroid-popping home run king who never felt he’d gotten the respect or the due he deserved from both ballclubs and fans.
Based on exclusive pre-screenings, there is already some criticism of the documentary that implies the filmmakers went easy on Bonds by telling his personal story in such heart-wrenching detail, but Burns continually points to the bigger picture beyond any one player. The filmmakers point out the role fans played in Bonds’ saga, but Burns says the tension between succeeding and succeeding at any cost essentially boils down to the complexities of being human in our modern world. "Baseball is a precise mirror of who we are," Burns said.
This is not to say that "The Tenth Inning" dwells just on scandal; there are many complex and intertwined themes. For instance, the stories of immigrant baseball players and their struggles are woven throughout the film. And those stories dovetailed nicely with the business and marketing aspects of the game that are both a threat and an opportunity as baseball becomes more global and America becomes more diverse.
One particularly touching section of the documentary recalls what happened to baseball in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York City’s World Trade Center. Then-Yankees manager Joe Torre talks about the morning the attacks occurred while archival footage plays, taking the viewers directly back into the moment before recalling Tuesday, Sept. 18, 2001, when the Yankees resumed play against the White Sox in Chicago.
Images of fans holding signs saying "We are all Yankees" immediately bring us back to Burns’ basic premise: that baseball reflects the continuing evolution of a diverse America seeking to hold its athlete heroes to high standards even while forgiving their peccadilloes in order to enjoy the game, warts and all, and that this instinct binds us together as a community.
Burns and Novick also spend time on the 1994 strike, and the dramatic way then-hero Roger Clemens brought an ethic of hard work and fan love to the game and drove a resurgence in the game’s popularity.
Though there have been phenomenal changes to how athletes get into the game and fans experience it — enhanced minor league baseball recruitment and marketing; split screen; real-time viewing; smart-phone apps for fans to follow games, which bolster fantasy leagues, and whole communities devoted to following baseball from a strictly statistical viewpoint — Burns and Novick were not able to fit it all into this installment.
"The biggest criticism I ever hear is about all I’ve left out, which is actually a huge compliment," Burns said. "But I think we did get in some really important turning points in this inning.
"Baseball reflects who we are as a community, as a country. It reflects the sentimental values we hold dear and is the greatest game that has ever been invented," Burns said. "It has a rhythm; it’s like breathing."
Burns’ reverence and enthusiasm are present in almost every moment of this film — from the looks on the faces of impoverished children in the Dominican Republic who play their hearts out with broom-handle bats in the hopes of becoming the next Sammy Sosa, to the looks on fans’ faces when the infamous "Bartman ball" was exploded, to testimonials from Boston fans about how life-altering was the Red Sox’s 2004 World Series win — their first in 86 years.
This is a TV experience well worth blocking out two evenings’ worth of time. Viewers will not only revisit where baseball has been for the last 20 years but also catch a glimpse of what it might look like for generations to come.
Esther J. Cepeda writes a weekly column for the Sun-Times
Eventually, the dogpile will clear. Those likely to declare they have what it takes to lead this city of hot winds and big shoulders will either garner the dollars, personal support and 12,500 valid signatures to legitimately get on the ballot to make a go of it, or be left with a decent story about how many people called him (or her) on that gorgeous September afternoon when Mayor Daley called it quits.
Those who make it beyond "hopeful" status to see their names on the ballot will have a unique opportunity to change the way campaigns are run and politics is played in this town. They will have it within their power to eradicate from our city's lexicon that hideous phrase "the Chicago Way," which implies nothing less than self-serving, graft-slinging corruption.
That whole "vote early and often" and "we don't want nobody nobody sent" Chicago Way shtick is way past its prime and must be allowed to pass into history, just as the images from the bloody 1968 Democratic convention have.
What Chicago needs on the road to Feb. 22, 2011, is not just a good, clean fight, but a smart one.
Chicago being, well, Chicago, it may be too much to ask that there be no hitting below the belt, tripping, pushing, holding, biting, spitting or hitting after your opponent is down. All the same, here's my candidate tip sheet for a spirited 10 to 12 rounds toward City Hall's fifth floor:
• Don't waste our time by exaggerating on the hustings. You will be embarrassed if you didn't actually invent the Internet, fight in Vietnam or teach poor kids to read -- and despite your best efforts, someone will call you out on it. Get your annoying Aunt Millie -- the one who never really liked you much -- to attend all your public speeches and tell you in blunt terms when you've oversold your "humble Chicago roots." Every candidate needs someone who keeps them from believing their own hype.
• Understand, value and respect the experiences, needs and viewpoints of Chicago's diverse population, but don't oversell scant interactions or present yourself as a cheerleader for causes you may not even understand. For example, if you've never had firsthand experience with Chicago's ultra-diverse Hispanic community aside from eating really great Mexican food, vow to learn. But for the love of Pete, don't pander -- no one's going to buy it.
Back in July, a candidate for statewide office sent out a press release announcing he was reaching out to Chicago's Latino community by meeting with local educators and business leaders. Yawn. I've heard nothing since. Double yawn.
• While we're talking about race and ethnicity, let me say this: Anyone who really cares about ensuring that all the residents of Chicago thrive will care principally about visionary leadership, relationship-building and management skills. So please, don't exploit or ignore the differences between the many ethnic, racial or special-interest groups jockeying for power -- harness them.
• About your experience: Spend less time telling us what you did in the past and more time convincing us how you'll scale your skills to tackle the headaches you'll inherit in May 2011. And yes, the challenges are huge, but channel Daniel Burnham and let this city know you intend no little plans.
• Strike a fair balance in working for both the Chicago that serves the people who actually live here and for the Chicago that drives the economies of the surrounding six counties. It's cool to snub your nose at suburbanites, but our fortunes are tied up together, and metropolitanwide alliances cannot be undervalued.
And while you're at it, don't underestimate the leadership and naked determination necessary to keep Chicago on the national and international stage.
Good luck to the candidates for mayor of the best city in the world. In the enduring words of my favorite ring announcer, Michael Buffer: "Let's get ready to rrrrrrrumble!"
The United States of America has been buffeted by the winds of transnational change and the storms of our punctured economy. As a nation, we're looking in the mirror and wondering if what we see is the America we all thought we knew.
Times being as tough as they are, there is a growing chorus of people inclined to look at me -- and others whose skin is brown and have the gift of speaking a second language -- and very literally say things like: "I don't know you, why are you here? You're dragging our schools and our job market down. You need to go back home."
Home? I was born in a hospital on the North Side of Chicago, grew up 1.2 miles west of Wrigley Field. Ironic: My soccer-crazy family moved from south of the border to a country where the language is studded with baseball metaphors and settled a stone's throw away from one of the game's crown jewels.
Alas, I never really took to baseball. But I always reveled in its status as the quintessential symbol of Americana -- as patriotic a pastime as kissing your mom and eating apple pie. So when documentary filmmaker Ken Burns swept through town last week to promote "Baseball: The Tenth Inning," a four-hour follow-up to his 1994 Emmy-winning documentary, I sat down with him to talk about that mirror of America we call baseball.
In the first three minutes of the film, broadcaster Keith Olbermann gives this stirring testimonial:
"Other sports have some interest in its own history and will occasionally make reference to it but [in] baseball . . . it's there. You come in the start of the game or the start of the season or the start of your own family, you feel as if you're joining the river midstream and all that has gone before. You can enjoy as much as if you were there, it's as simple as that."
Gulp. That's exactly how I feel about the Latino population's integration into our country -- we're joining the great American river midstream.
Not everyone sees it that way, but even as anti-Hispanic sentiment has geared up in the last few years, there has been no lack of talented Latino players being actively recruited to enliven our national pastime.
Ever since 1928, when Emilio Navarro blazed the Hispanic major league trail by becoming the first Puerto Rican to play in the Negro Leagues, Americans have been able to see Hispanics not just as resource-sucking immigrants, but as sports heroes who make the game -- and our country -- better.
In the new documentary, Burns and his co-director, Lynn Novick, delve into the Hispanic contribution to baseball with great compassion, presenting a fascinating and honest look at the rise of Latino players in the game.
While we're on the subject of baseball, by the way, Burns gave me his take on White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen's recent inflammatory complaint that new Latino players don't get the red carpet treatment that superstar Japanese players get.
"Guillen was absolutely right," Burns said without hesitation. "Sure, it's not economically viable to provide translators to individual players, but we always have to be sensitive to the needs of new players."
When I asked Burns if he thought the current anti-immigrant atmosphere threatened to dull fans' love of the game, he said that hateful nativist sentiments are harming our society in many ways, and he tried to put it in historical context.
"There is this 'otherness' that people fear," he said. "And right now, the Latino population is growing and this is just a continuation of the story, this demonization of the 'others.' "
In time, he predicted, this will pass for Latinos, as it has for so many other groups.
"Baseball is such a precise mirror of who we are," Burns said. "It is the story of immigration -- and assimilation. There were the Italians, the Irish and of course now the Latin Americans; the most common names in baseball today are Ramirez and Rodriguez."
Burns revels in holding up this mirror to America, and in "Tenth Inning" he shows us the America that he sees -- this magnificent, diverse, baseball-loving melting pot.
Welcome to the brave new world of social (media) government -- a world where you can use mobile phone apps to get information from Uncle Sam so you don’t actually have to talk to him.
On July 2, the White House relaunched its usa.gov website and rolled out 20 sleek new multiplatform apps that allow phones to perform wonders such as reading bar-codes and searching the database of Consumer Product Safety Commission recalls, and getting up-to-the minute travel advisories from the Transportation Security Administration.
Do an (iPhone) App store search and you’ll find "official" tools like apps to get mission updates from NASA, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s UV index app next to "unofficial" ones like the Bailout-Stimulus app that "will help you get a better understanding of money spent on government contracts and grants as part of the $787 Billion Recovery act package."
If you wanted to have recently arrested fugitives, most wanted reports, and breaking news from the U.S. Marshals Service or top stories about the U.S. Department of Agriculture, they too are available on your phone.
It all sounds very trendy – "Federal Government? There’s an app for that!" – and indeed, the winds of change may be at long last sweeping into governmental IT infrastructure, finally breathing fresh life into the strained relationship it often has with its incredibly diverse users.
"Trust in government has plummeted from 1987 to 2007 with the exception of the period after 9/11," said Vivek Kundra, U.S. chief information officer, during a telephonic briefing before the release of their initial app crop. "Today, two thirds of people surveyed believe that if the government runs it, it is not effective. The only way to change that is when people have good interactions with government services."
Kundra went on to stress the dire necessity for government to reach people where they are: in front of their computer screens, on their mobile devices, with easy searches. "The old usa.gov was engineered 10 years ago for the bureaucracy it represented, not the American people it was to serve," he said. "Today we don't go out to a site to navigate hundreds of links and see what the government can offer us, that's why the new site was fundamentally re-engineered using contemporary search technology."
For those of us "netizens" who can barely remember a time when both pleasure and business wasn’t conducted over the Internet, it’s only natural. But the so-called Digital Divide always stands sentry over any debate about the use of technology in delivering government programs and services to "the people."
It is true that the poorest in our communities don't have the kind of unlimited, free access to high-speed Internet and appropriate hardware that would allow anyone to proclaim that there is no digital divide. But the gap is closing fast due to ubiquitous and affordable internet-enabled mobile phones that serve as many families' e-mail and Internet connections. Also, government programs that put laptops in kids' schools – and therefore in their homes – and myriad other community programs offering computers and high speed internet connections to residents are bridging the gap. (Just a few weeks ago Chicago Mayor Daley announced $16 million in federal funds – plus $6 million from other local organizations – would be dedicated to offer low income Chicagoans more access to technology and training in underserved communities. One program run by a non-profit group will be providing free computer and internet access to more than 11,000 people at neighborhood community centers.)
It's easy for me to picture Kundra's vision of an interactive web-based government – in time – becoming the de facto method for residents of all classes and incomes to connect with public programs and services.
The Pew Internet and American Life Project released a May 2010 report, "Government Online: the internet gives citizens new paths to government services and information." The authors not only detailed the skyrocketing number of American adults who looked for information or completed a transaction on a government website in the year preceding the survey (82 percent of all Internet users, representing 61 percent of American adults) but also debunked a common minority myth.
They found that while, yes, high-income and well-educated Internet users are more likely to use government services and information online, it is also true that African Americans and Hispanics are just as likely as whites to use tools such as blogs, social networking sites and online videos to keep up with workings of government and are significantly more likely than whites to believe that government outreach with these tools "helps people be more informed about what the government is doing," and "makes government officials and agencies more accessible."
Despite a growing body of research that African-American, Hispanic, and low-income users are increasingly accessing the web to connect to government services, as well as for support agencies and entertainment, it's still a relatively common opinion that government outreach through the Internet or phone apps is somehow elitist.
Not so, Kundra argues. "A recent study showed that one in three people use mobile apps. So when you talk about priorities ... it's not that we don't care about the other 66 percent - but I think one-third will soon become two-thirds. That's how the American people are conducting their business: on their phones."
Though the General Services Administration opted not to share the cost of the overhaul of the site and the app development, Jeffrey Zients, OMB deputy director for management, did speak of agencies taking the initiative and working with independent, third party developers to make available a vast array of BlackBerry, iPhone, and Android government apps.
Now if we could only get more African American and Hispanic students into high-tech careers that would put them at the forefront of the government app-building frenzy, we might close the digital divide forever.
President Obama has made history yet again, this time for the dubious distinction of being the first sitting president to appear on the daytime television chatfest ''The View.''
Millions of people watched to see if he'd reveal some juicy personal tidbit or say something controversial. To the contrary, his well-scripted topics were designed to boost his all-time low approval ratings by gabbing with The Ladies about the benefits of the economic stimulus, Wall Street reform and a strong presence in Afghanistan.
But I wasn't interested in any of that. I spent my morning before air time fantasizing that Obama -- who chose the popular program to connect to everyday American women because it's a show "Michelle actually watched" -- would pitch this important question at The Ladies: "Why don't you have any Hispanic women on your show?"
I know, I know -- a pipe dream. Obama, in fact, went out of his way, when asked about the Shirley Sherrod race debate, to say he's "less interested in how we label ourselves" and "more interested in how we treat each other."
But because I live in a world where labels often determine how we treat each other, the question was at the top of my list.
A few weeks ago, CBS announced that when the long-running soap opera "As the World Turns" ends in September, it'll introduce its own estrogen-infused daytime talk show. It is a massive understatement to say I was disappointed when I read the proposed lineup of the new mom-centric show.
Sara Gilbert, Sharon Osbourne, Holly Robinson-Peete, Marissa Jaret Winokur, Leah Remini and Julie Chen are without a doubt all gorgeous, talented, dynamic and interesting women. They are younger, older, Asian, African-American, Caucasian and gay (Sara Gilbert has a partner, compared with the other hosts' heterosexual spouses) moms. This is wonderful.
But ... where's me?!
No, I don't literally mean me. I mean a Hispanic woman. Any Hispanic woman. There are plenty of U.S.-born Latina stage, TV and screen actors --old ones, young ones, gay ones -- and even a few broadcast journalists who could chitchat with the likes of a Sharon Osbourne.
The omission bugs me. It bugged me back in 2007 when ''The View'' was looking for a smart, sassy, fun new face to replace Rosie O'Donnell and they even considered a man -- but not a Latina -- and it bugs me today.
Latinos are already the nation's largest minority group. We'll account for most of the population growth from 2005 through 2050, when census data predict our numbers will have tripled. Of the 50 million or so Hispanic adults counted in this year's census, about half are . . . drum roll, please ... women.
And I don't mean just poor, Spanish-speaking immigrant women who don't watch ''The View'' -- or ''As the World Turns,'' for that matter -- because they're too busy working in apple orchards or in factories cleaning toilets. I'm talking about educated, 61.9 percent U.S.-born, English-fluent, dollar-spending Latino women who know how to TiVo a daytime talk show if their mommy duties or professional day jobs make it impossible to watch the gabfest live.
If the people who create these programs ever read ''The View'' website's message board, they'd find impassioned requests for Latino representation. It would be plain old good business: Consider that many of the top 100 consumer brands either have an English-language Latino marketing campaign or one in the works to reach out to what is the nation's second-largest consumer market.
Those products underwrite TV shows.
This is a win-win situation, folks!
No, I fear Latinas are simply in a blind spot. For years, their roles on TV and film have been limited to that of nanny, maid or super sexy fill-in-the-blank.
Just imagine the ratings a network would enjoy if it were brave enough to add an intelligent, all-American, professional Latina to its stable of coffee talkers!
Too bad the president didn't think to bring it up to The Ladies on ''The View.''
You've heard of "manteca?" It's the rendered pork fat -- a k a lard -- used in traditional Latin American cooking to fry anything and everything from plantain chips to chicken to bananas that have been stuffed with cheese and dipped in batter. Yummy!
Manteca makes food delicious. And Latinos love it. A lot. Too much, in fact. So much it's killing us.
OK, so it's not all the fault of our beloved manteca, but talk to most Latino moms or grandmas about healthier cooking and you'll see them instinctively slit their eyes with an expression that screams "Oh no, don't even think you're going to take my lard from me."
And how do you argue with your abuelita?!
This is what the Latino community is up against as leaders attempt to keep the twin evils of obesity and Type 2 diabetes from decimating the current and next generation.
It's a challenge the Miracle Center, a Northwest Side organization that offers arts programs for neighborhood kids, is tackling head-on through its Healthy Lifestyles Campaign. Funded in part by the Illinois Department of Public Health and the University of Illinois at Chicago's National Center for Excellence in the Elimination of Disparities, the campaign employs skits, cooking demonstrations and dance classes to teach kids what it means to live a healthy lifestyle -- knowledge they can take home to the entire family.
"The families are harder to reach than the kids," Youth Development Director Vanessa Torres told me on a steamy Thursday afternoon, when the day's exercise activities were taking place out in the shade under streams of alternating rain and cooling sprinklers.
"When we reached out to families through focus groups and through community presentations, we got a lot of pushback. They immediately think, 'This is trying to change our traditional Puerto Rican or Mexican food which is made with a lot of love, manteca, and oil.' They say, 'You can't change it, these are our roots,' " Torres said.
But in the face of such resistance, knowledge is a powerful tool, Executive Director Mary Santana says.
"Many parents just didn't know how this eating was affecting their kids' bodies," she said. "They didn't know what healthy food was until their kids helped them understand a few things about basic nutrition, and even about how marketers target Latino consumers with 'biggie' sizes and lower-cost unhealthy snacks."
All the same, it's a tough sell. Just ask Ryan Negron, 16, who has worked on creative projects for the program, helping to design posters, campaign slogans and a pitch on YouTube.
"I just didn't know anything about Type 2 diabetes or what the Body Mass Index was -- I had no clue," said Negron, a sophomore at Lincoln Park High School. "But it hit close to home; I'm tall so I thought I was OK, but I was overweight. I never expected it, but it got me to start getting in shape.
"My parents were pretty supportive. They were glad someone was teaching me about this stuff, especially because there are a lot of people in my family who are overweight," Ryan continued. "But my friends took some time. When I told them why I was getting healthy, some of them said, 'That's not cool -- they're pretty much calling you fat.' But I'd tell them, well, when you think about it, I am. When they want to get healthy, I tell them how and what to do."
It is absolutely beautiful to talk to a young person who is not frightened or overwhelmed by his body, but instead is active, informed and advocating for others to take better care of themselves.
The heartbreaking statistics -- one out of two Hispanic kids is overweight -- demand more full-community initiatives like this one to improve our health.
"It's a challenge, sure," Santana said. "We'll never put the manteca away for good, but maybe some days we can compromise with olive oil."
Now that President Obama has given his definitive immigration law reform speech -- he said we need it but he didn't task anyone with making it happen -- and the Justice Department has filed its legal challenge to Arizona's law on grounds that state law should not preempt federal law, let's take a look at another, related topic: English language fluency.
It's one necessary ingredient in garnering popular support for any immigration reform.
The issue of not being able to easily communicate with newcomers to our neighborhoods, schools and businesses is one bone of contention people love to chew on, and it transcends any particular ethnicity or language.
The following comments from a widely circulated chain e-mail I received are representative of a popular opinion: "Today's American is not willing to accept today's new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 . . . people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home. They had waved goodbye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture."
Concerns that newcomers don't want to become "real Americans" who will fully commit to our language -- much less our culture or values -- underlie the battle to reform our ineffective immigration system. Any reasonable reform plan must make English language fluency a required stepping stone on the path to legal residency.
Surrounding this touchy subject are two myths to be busted: that immigrants don't want to learn the language and that there aren't enough people to teach them. The truths are, of course, more complicated.
It's no secret that it's tough for immigrants of diverse nationalities to take classes to improve their English skills. Each day is a struggle for survival before adding impossible class times, money for books or supplies, child care issues or other barriers.
It's up to us as a nation to take a long honest look at how we -- merchants, marketers, customers, employers, neighbors -- can break down those barriers and encourage English-language fluency for all our residents. This effort would create both a sense of shared community and a multi- language bilingual work force that will help the U.S. compete in an increasingly global economy.
Then, we need to find ways to help organizations who already provide these resources to scale up for the massive task of helping those learning our ridiculously difficult language and find the skilled teachers and eager volunteers who can make it happen.
Mano a Mano Family Resource Center -- a tiny organization in Round Lake -- has hundreds of people on its waiting lists for all levels of English-as-a-second-language classes.
Carolina Duque, the center's executive director, says that in her neck of the woods -- a small town where in the last 10 years Latino immigrants have flooded once-exclusively middle-class, Caucasian neighborhoods -- there's also a waiting list of people ready to volunteer to help sharpen English skills.
"Both community leaders and residents get frustrated by feeling they can't talk to their neighbors, but we're really lucky that the community is working together to overcome those frustrations," Duque told me. "We mostly work with volunteers who don't speak Spanish -- they get so much joy from being able to help others learn English and they want to do more. Unfortunately, we just don't have the capacity to train more volunteers, hold more classes or service all the people who need the help or want to give it."
Round Lake is just one little town where the swirling torrents of immigration, language and culture are coming together with little rage or angst.
If the bipartisan immigration law reform architects can learn from this town's ability to address this critical cultural issue -- and put some muscular incentives behind uniting the country via the English language -- we'll be on a pathway to true reform.
I’m finally back from my European travels and my task today is to report out on the state of the Ketchup in the United Kingdom.
As you’ll recall from my May column – "Conundrum over condiment could bottle up vacation" – I was all worried that my experience with the fish and chips of England, Scotland and Ireland would be less-than-spectacular due to weird-tasting ketchup.
A friend who’d recently traveled there (and knows I’m a super-picky eater) had warned me of the weird, vinegary ketchup. The good people at Heinz had mentioned that the European ketchup was, indeed, different and U.S.-style would be difficult to find in my first stop, England.
I put out the call to my dear readers about how to ensure I’d get ketchup smuggled into Europe and got many wonderful ideas.
Here’s what I did:
1) I gratefully gave my hotel information to Tracey Parsons of Heinz US, who had Stephanie Ackerman send via UPS two big, beautiful bottles of American Heinz ketchup to my London hotel – thank you, ladies, you made me unspeakably happy!!
2) Before I left I carefully put a fresh bottle in two ziplock bags (in case they exploded in the unpressurized cargo area) for transport in my checked baggage.
3) I purchased several bags of french fries in the airport and stowed a handful of ketchup packets in my carry-on bag.
Here’s what happened:
3) I the ketchup packets made it through security in London’s Heathrow Airport without a fuss.
2) The ketchup bottle I had packed arrived in my luggage unexploded.
1) I took my special-delivered Heinz ketchup to The Prospect of Whitby – London’s oldest riverside pub (opened in the year 1520!!!!!!) and did a side-by-side taste test on my first English fish-n-chips. And guess what?
The European Heinz ketchup was just as good as the U.S. version (maybe even a little better). In fact, the Heinz – and other brands – ketchup I had in Scotland and Ireland tasted really good – sweeter – than the U.S. brand.
As it turns out, Heinz also sells a lot of brown sauce (and the packaging looks very similar to the ketchup’s) which is, in fact, weird and vinegary, and I think there may have been some confusion on my pal’s part.
And guess what? In what is an ironic coincidence, shortly before I left for Europe the U.S Heinz announced that they are changing the classic recipe to lower the salt content. So now I might have to have some European Heinz ketchup imported to soothe my ketchup tooth.
Criminy!
Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com
The latest casualty in the war against illegal immigration is not the Highland Park girls basketball team, it's -- drumroll please -- reason. You know: the sense that God gave a goose.
How else to explain the flat-out immigration madness sweeping this great nation?
Take the Highland Park High School decision to pull out of the Holiday Invitational girls tournament in Scottsdale, Ariz., in December, which they happily committed to back in March before Gov. Jan Brewer decided to sign the infamous SB 1070 bill. That's the law that critics say legalizes racial profiling against Latinos based on vague gut reactions as to who might or might not be an illegal immigrant.
School District 113 decided to pull out for so-called safety reasons, but Assistant Supt. Suzan Hebson threw in that the trip "would not be aligned with our beliefs and values" because of the recent Arizona legislation.
OK, how tacky was it to let the Arizona organizers of this school-sponsored event, who had nothing to do with this state law, find out about the rebuke via the Thursday morning news? Very.
But not nearly as tacky -- scratch that, make it senseless and borderline cruel -- as using the hopes and aspirations of a team of plucky young basketball-playing, cookie-selling schoolgirls who actually won their first conference title in 26 years to make a national political statement.
A national political statement that, by the way, lit a fire under Caribou Killer Barbie Sarah Palin and gave the rest of the hysterical Mexican haters who pose as strict defenders of immigration laws a unique opportunity to actually be 100 percent right about something.
This e-mail message from one such constant complainer -- who proudly begs for "CINCO-DE-PORTATION!" -- hit my inbox first thing Thursday morning: "You probably heard by now . . . Well i [sic] myself thinks [sic] this is totally wrong, and has broken these girls [sic] hearts. They played their hearts out to win and qualify for the tourney. They worked so very hard, with bake sales, car washs [sic] etc. to earn the money to finance the trip also. Only to have the politicly [sic] correct liberal idiot administrators say they can't go. If you would, please email the school's administrator and tell them they are WRONG."
When you're right, you're right, buddy -- and congrats on the coup.
Just as Arizona has blurred the line between what's under the purview of federal law and state law, so has Highland Park High School blurred the line between politics and educational experiences. Sadly, they won't be the last.
The backlash against Arizona has become a national movement. Local governments across the country are suspending travel to the state and banning future contracts with businesses headquartered there, and masses of people are in some way or another boycotting the state in hope of getting the law repealed.
Now that Brewer has signed yet another bad bill into law -- this one aimed at ensuring that no Arizona schoolchildren receive instruction in classes that are designed for students of a particular ethnic group or that advocate ethnic solidarity -- Arizona will surely continue morphing into a national joke.
I don't know if this new law banning ethnic studies classes will uphold its stated desire to teach Arizona's schoolchildren "... to treat and value each other as individuals and not be taught to resent or hate other races or classes of people." More likely it will legislate that no non-Caucasian child can learn about his or her family's heritage.
What I do know is that all this immigration-related craziness should, as much as humanly possible, be kept out of school classrooms and playgrounds. We can't let our country get so hysterical over a single issue that we lose sight of how wrong it is to play politics with kids.
It's Money Smart Week in Chicago, that annual event sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and -- if nothing else -- the city is accented with portraits of a robust Benjamin Franklin winking knowingly from the center of a $100 bill.
Catchy marketing materials aside, I wish Money Smart Week were not just an annual springtime community outreach effort to increase awareness about the importance of financial education, but rather a matter of national law. One of those pseudo-oppressive nanny state jobbies that turn people into stark-raving lunatics about being "force fed" something that's good for them.
I can see it now. Wouldn't it be cool if those replica Ben Franklins roaming the streets of Chicago in support of Money Smart Week were carrying functional revolutionary-era firearms and were allowed to shoot anyone who couldn't differentiate simple from compound interest?
I'm kidding, I'm kidding!!! But only because most people would fail that one and the Chicago Police Department would be working overtime to pick up bodies. What with all the money troubles the city has, that just wouldn't be a financially sound way to incentivize people to learn about the power of the cash they work so hard for every day.
So anyway, financial literacy. It's not a sexy topic to most people, though in some circles it is considered the next civil right. The fact that my very favorite founding father greeted me at the train station the other morning didn't hurt, but what really inspired me to write this column was not a hand-wringing "oh, the children of this country will never learn to manage their money" moment. Quite the opposite.
A few weeks ago, one of my favorite young pals asked me if I would take him to the bank.
"What for?" I asked, wondering if there was a local bank giving away some sort of kid-friendly tchotchke.
"I want to open an interest-bearing checking account with the $220 I've saved up," said the 11-year-old boy, whose first name is Stimpson.
Yes, this kid, who attends school in a financially struggling suburban school district where about 60 percent of students live at or below the poverty line and 20 percent of kids are considered limited in English proficiency, had learned all about the power of interest-bearing bank accounts at school. Having taught high school math in this very district, I know that as recently as four years ago the average high school student didn't have a clue what an interest-bearing checking account was.
Unlike the average kindergarten through 12th-grade child in this country, Stimpson -- a strapping young fifth-grader -- is getting familiar with money topics that have made it clear why putting your money in a bank is preferable to cashing your check at the currency exchange and will ultimately help him decide whether and how to take out car loans or student loans.
Yep, Stimpson is one of the lucky ones because some visionary at his school district decided to partner with Junior Achievement, a nonprofit that goes into schools to "teach the key concepts of work readiness, entrepreneurship and financial literacy to young people all over the world."
Their work is sorely needed. According to a recent article in the New York Times, only 13 states require students to take a personal finance course or include the subject in an economics course before they graduate from high school, up from seven states in 2007, according to the Council for Economic Education. Only 34 states (including those 13) have personal finance education in their curriculum guidelines, up from 28 states in 2007.
It's too bad more elementary school kids aren't itching to get their very own financial adviser. And too bad there aren't enough Benjamin Franklin costumes in the basement of the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank to personally reach all of the kiddies in the state to teach them how to manage the money they'll earn and spend throughout their lifetimes.
I'll be the first to admit, I've never ever once met a person who likes to sneak an occasional smoke that was dissuaded from buying a pack of straights because of the warning label.
How long has it been since every new car manufactured or assembled in the United States rolled off the line without a warning ironed to the front visor practically begging parents not to buckle an infant car seat in front where an air bag could crush it? Yet, just the other day, I saw a knucklehead who obviously can't read simple pictographs doing just that.
Really, who among us can say that the now-ubiquitous nutrition fact labels even once kept us from a late-night binge of chocolate milk and Twinkies? No one who isn't a liar.
And yet public health measures, however pointless or counterintuitive, aren't failures because they fail to completely eradicate unhealthy behaviors. They succeed because a million little behavioral changes add up to something bigger.
Who will question that smoking labels have proved effective in at least killing the plausible deniability that ciggies aren't good for you? Most people now understand that you stick junior in the back seat. And those nutrition labels have without a doubt made an impact -- good or bad depends on what your scale said this morning -- on consumers' decision-making when it comes to buying packaged food.
That said, I'll admit I'm practically on my knees in ecstasy that the new health-care legislation -- cue the villainous music -- will require calorie counts to be posted on menus at restaurant chains with 20 or more outlets.
No more Googling "cinnamon twist calorie information" 15 minutes after I've swallowed the freshly deep-fried and sugar sprinkled sticks to see just what the damage was. No more asking the chick behind the counter if they have one of those calorie booklets so I can gauge from the largest size of onion rings how far my next run will have to be. No more borrowing a pal's iPhone calorie counter app at lunch to estimate how many calories I have left for dinner. No more excuses when I go for the hot fudge sundae (with nuts) that I couldn't quite remember whether the ice-cream was actually low-fat yogurt -- or not.
I adore an old-fashioned doughnut -- or two -- in the morning, several beef soft tacos with a sidecar of sour cream for lunch, and scoops of rocky road and vanilla ice cream on a plain cone for dessert after dinner. Even more, I love the fact that all those calorie counts will soon be out in full view for me to confront as I prepare to order.
Why? Like every other Hispanic in the United States, I'm at high risk for Type 2 diabetes and obesity. Type 2 would only be more prevalent in my immediate and extended family if any of our various Chihuahuas were diagnosed with it (and judging from the size of some of them, that's not out of the question).
So what do I do about it? I exercise a bare minimum of 30 minutes every single day of my life and really watch what I eat closely. Very, very closely. Every day is a balancing act: lone eggs in the morning so I can have the tiramisu at lunch, or salmon salad midday when I know the evening promises a large slice of birthday cake. I eat whatever I want -- just never all on one day.
Forget complaints about "The Evil Nanny State." I couldn't be happier about restaurants being loud and proud -- or getting that way -- about how much energy you'll get in exchange for your cash. If, as a side benefit, a few million people stop for a second to consider what they're about to shovel into their faces, well, that's just the cherry on top.
"Carlos Hernandez Gomez, political reporter for CLTV, stood out among Chicago reporters not only because of his old-school fedora, but also because of his encyclopedic knowledge of Chicago politics.
He didn’t need notes to tell his audience who was backing whom in a campaign, why a specific endorsement was so important — or why two politicians couldn’t stand each other.
Off camera, he was the life of the party, a friendly, down-to-earth storyteller who would do spot-on renditions of politicians’ speaking styles — often at their request.
Mr. Hernandez died Sunday evening following a battle with cancer that was diagnosed on Christmas Day, 2008. He was 36.
"Carlos was more than a great reporter and a great friend to hundreds of people. He had a great heart," said Sun-Times investigative reporter Steve Warmbir, who was best man at Mr. Hernandez’s wedding.
"In a business filled with cynics, he was one of the kindest and most decent people you would ever want to meet."
Mr. Hernandez grew up in the Chicago neighborhoods of Lincoln Park and Portage Park, and was fiercely proud of his ancestral home of Puerto Rico.
A graduate of Quigley Seminary, he attended DePaul University and was an editor at the DePaulian, the school’s student newspaper.
He covered local and national politics for WBEZ-FM and the Chicago Reporter before joining CLTV in 2005.
"To a certain extent he was a throwback," said U.S. Rep. Mike Quigley, who visited Mr. Hernandez at Northwestern Memorial Hospital Sunday. "He wanted to dress the part with the glasses and the hat. He was kind of retro. He decried modern journalism where you do a superficial story as fast as you can."
"Coming from public radio, he was determined not to dumb down the news. He would rather do a thorough story about a complicated issue and he explained it. He had this great sense of humor and could do great impressions of elected officials. With his boyish sense of humor he made us all laugh and smile."
Survivors include his wife, WGN-TV reporter Randi Belisomo Hernandez; father, Carlos Hernandez Sr.; mother and stepfather, Myrna and Tom Kinsella and brother Jason.
Funeral arrangements were pending
President Barack Obama released the following statement at 12:45 today:
Statement from the President on the Passing of Carlos Hernandez Gomez
"I was saddened to hear of the passing of Carlos Hernandez Gomez. Our paths first crossed when I was a State Senator. He was a throwback in the style of Chicago’s storied political reporters. He loved Chicago, and he relentlessly sought to tell its story with the commitment to truth and the insatiable curiosity that any good reporter has to have. I quickly learned that when you saw his sharp fedora in a crowd, hard questions were coming. But Carlos always played it straight. And I always enjoyed our interactions in Springfield, Chicago, or on the campaign trail. Carlos was a role model to many, and an integral part of the Chicago story he strived to tell. My thoughts and prayers are with his wife Randi and his family."
##
Mr. Gomez had the same profound impact on the city as many of the stalwart reporters Chicago is famous for but he did it as one of a very, very few Hispanic journalists working today – and, most notably to me, as a journalist who neither highlighted his heritage for any sort of gain, nor shrank away from it.
My very favorite part of his reporting was when he said his name! It was always this perfect, perfect English throughout the report and then his perfectly pronounced name in all it’s rolled R’s glory. I loved that!
Yet people would complain about it to me! They were literally surprised, or offended at the aural intrusion, they felt he was waiving his heritage in their faces when the guy was simply just pronouncing his name correctly.
Either way, people took notice of Carlos Hernandez Gomez – and not mostly for his name. He was a respected and knowledgeable journalist with a style all his own. A real American original.
And he will be missed.
Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com
Just in time for the biggest gift-buying, extended-family-all-shoved-into-one-house holiday extravaganza of the year, the Federal Trade Commission has again wagged its finger at Hollywood for peddling violent and inappropriate fare to kiddies.
For the seventh time since 2000, their report, titled "Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children," points out that even though the pushing of violent images by the film, music and gaming industries has become more restricted, they're basically still explicitly and pervasively targeting young children. No surprises there.
The FTC bemoans the entertainment conglomerates that put out unrated DVDs with more materials more explicit than what originally was released in theaters and calls out retailers that, more often than not when they get the chance, sell the stuff to children who don't meet the minimum age requirements. The FTC says Hollywood advertises PG-13 and R-rated movies during TV shows and on Internet sites where they'll be seen by too-young kids. The FTC also criticizes the music industry for not appropriately displaying their Tipper Gore-ian warning labels prominently enough in ads, but it gives an approving nod to the gaming industry for imposing strong self-regulatory codes.
What the FTC really ought to do -- though it's clearly out of its purview -- is create a rating system for parents. It could run the gamut from a gold star for the enlightened soul who engages in a thoughtful dialogue with his young 'un when something uncomfortably violent and sexual penetrates the cocoon of familial safety, down to a big fat dummy sticker on the forehead for the idiot who shows up to an 8 p.m. Saturday night screening of "Zombieland" with his 5-year-old girl and 7-year-old boy. The kids cried quietly the whole time.
What I'm illustrating here is that, yes, the FTC should absolutely continue to monitor the entertainment industry so that advertisements for "Grand Theft Auto" aren't stamped onto our 6-year-old's fruit roll-ups. But those really to blame for the pervasive exposure of kids to violent and sexually inappropriate entertainment are the families that either encourage it or do nothing to deal with it.
Take, for instance, a 2002 study by the Albert Einstein Children's Hospital in New York.
Researchers, who were testing the wisdom of the American Academy of Pediatrics' television viewing recommendations, observed 199 child patients and their parents when the kids were alert and awake. They found a "consistent exposure to inappropriate programming" -- with the number of instances going up when an adult was in the room.
Which brings me back to the gift-giving and movie-going season. If you're buying presents for pre-teen-wannabes, tweens or young teens, there are a couple of reasonable approaches you can take.
One: Have some spine and say "no." Don't go being the "cool" mom, dad, aunt or uncle by slipping your favorite 10-year-old that video game or DVD that makes you squirm. Accepting the role of hated villain now is good practice. If your kids are young, you'll be putting your foot down on 7 million other things, so get over it now.
Two: Bond over it. If you're going to buy that killing video game, go to that bloody movie or just out and get a dose of environmental sexually-charged violent make- believe, acknowledge it. Talk about it.
It sounds stupid, I know, but if you keep it real with the kids in your life -- "You know in real life you'd go to jail if you cut your neighbor in half with a sword, don't you?" or "Do you know how much money computer animation artists make!?" -- you can turn a negative into a not-as-negative that you can live with.
What’s far scarier than the thought of Guantanamo Bay terrorist suspects cooling their heels behind maximum security bars in Thomson, Illinois?
Fear-mongered people – already stretched to the limits due to the ravages the economy has inflicted – acting out against anyone who looks like a foreigner because the TV and newspaper headlines are hyperventilating about terrorists living among us.
There is no doubt that the recent Fort Hood Massacre left the country wondering where they can feel safe from terrorism. If the young men and women who have pledged to protect the good old U-S-of-A can’t be kept from being slain in the name of Islam on a military base filled with their peers, the dark thought goes, then what level of safety can the average Joe hope for?
I won’t deny that the concern does give one pause, but honestly, I’m less scared of the possibility of an armed Islamic radical coming into my life than I am about the everyday bigots.
Take Valerie Kenney, resident of Tinley Park which was just named by BusinessWeek Magazine the "Best Place in America to Raise Kids." She is accused of yanking off a Muslim woman’s headscarf at the checkout counter of the neighborhood Jewel.
Two days after the Fort Hood shootings Kenney, 54, allegedly walked up to a woman in a hijab – who was almost certainly loading sugary all-American kiddie cereal and milk onto the conveyor belt to take home to her four young daughters – and shouted "That guy that did the Texas shooting, he wasn’t American, and he was from the Middle East." Nidal Malik Hasan was born in the U.S., in Virginia, to Palestinian parents.
Gee, I wonder how those four daughters – or the other families who have reported derogatory terrorist-related terms graffitied on their Tinley Park property – feel about Tinley being the "Best Place in America to Raise Kids."
Speaking as someone who has actually been slurred a terrorist in public – dark skin, hair and eyes makes for a great many terrorist suspects – I can tell you that the shame and humiliation of the words alone are painful enough, I can’t imagine how devastated the young woman was to be violated publicly in such a religiously-offensive way. Just think about someone ripping a shirt off a nun and you might get how serious that is.
So we were already on "high" for terror alert when the Thomson, Illinois situation reared its head. Last Saturday the White House floated the idea of holding terrorist suspects who are currently in Guantanamo Bay in rural Western Illinois. Never mind the Thomson facility is a maximum security prison and the prisoners in question would be held to military detention standards which precludes all but the essential legal or enforcement visitors. Still, the fear mongers would have us believe that – I’ll quote running-for-Senate U.S. Repesentative Mark Kirk – "If we transfer al-Quaida terrorists to Illinois, the Chicago area will receive increased attention from the jihadist world. As home to America’s tallest building and her busiest airport, this is not a risk we should impose on Illinois families."
Really? Kirk wants to run for Senate to represent all of Illinois in Washington and the best he can do to whip up votes is dissuade potential economic development for a rural area – and state –
that badly needs it is because otherwise, scary terrorists will have never heard of the Willis-formerly-Sears Tower and O’Hare?
Please! That’s crazy talk coming from someone who should just know better for all sorts of different reasons. And it puts Kirk in the same class as Valerie Kenney: frustrated, scared, and just plain wrong about credible terrorist threats to Illinois’ residents.
Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com
Let's get past the stereotypes and get down to business on this census thing. I'm talking about the push to accurately count Hispanics during the 2010 U.S. census. Though organizers and many in the media like to say that the biggest barrier to counting Hispanics is fear on the part of illegal aliens, it's not all about fear.
For the uninitiated, the U.S. census has been taking the most accurate count of everyone it can get its hands on since 1790. The boundaries of political districts and the public funding for a million different things, such as social services, are decided based on census figures. But over the years, there has been a recurring argument about whether illegal aliens and other noncitizens, such as legal permanent residents, should be included in the tally.
The most recent dust-up came courtesy of Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana. Completely ignoring the fact that Congress over a year ago approved every question on the surveys being printed by the U.S. Census Bureau, Vitter decided that funding for the census should not be released unless questions about citizenship and immigration status were included. His real aim was to make sure congressional districts would be redrawn solely on the basis of the population of American citizens -- and did not include noncitizens.
This upset Hispanic advocacy organizations struggling to mobilize a "difficult-to-reach" community to make sure they're counted. Last week, the Senate ignored Vitter's amendment and the whole case was closed. Again. (A Census Bureau spokeswoman said they go through this dance every 10 years!)
Meanwhile, the big story about this must-count "hard-to-reach" Hispanic population, whose numbers have so quickly swollen, remains centered on fear. Fear that illegal immigrants and their families -- even those members who are legal residents -- will opt out by making it impossible for any "official"-type people to find them.
Yes, there are millions of illegal aliens residing in the U.S. Guess what? Millions of them are not of Latin-American origin. And early estimates, based on 2000 census figures, already predict that the nation's Hispanic population increased to 50 million from 38 million, with U.S.-born "second-generation" Hispanics like me driving the growth.
But the real story is not about fear. Hispanics tend to be undercounted for the same reason many other Americans -- whites, blacks, Asians, etc. -- are undercounted: a simple lack of awareness.
"The number one thing I hear when I'm out in the community is 'what the heck is the census?' " said Elisa Alfonso, regional census director for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund's Chicago office. "This 'illegal fear' thing is nothing but a distraction."
The organization started its census outreach into the Chicago area's metro and suburban Latino neighborhoods in August.
"The main barrier continues to be what it has always been -- not just for Latinos but for the populations as a whole -- lack of information about the census," Alfonso said. "I've been all over the region, and I'm sorry to tell you that though some of us think of being counted in the census as a lofty civil rights issue, that does not resonate with people. I'm going to churches, community centers and schools where the organization leaders and even the teachers don't know what the census is."
That, too, will change. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 opened the way for about 2.7 million immigrants to be legalized, which means many members of the extremely young Hispanic community have gone through only one or two census counts.
As Hispanics come to make the connection between filling out a census form and a better quality of life -- in higher census numbers there is funding and political power -- they will likely become as familiar with the census process as non-Hispanics.
The quicker those who are aiding the Hispanic outreach effort figure out that the main concern for this population is not fear of "La Migra!" the more successful they will be in counting and serving this "hard-to-reach" community.
Death is all around us. Well, that much is always true, but it has been especially so around my house, where, since Sunday, my living room has been graced by the yearly addition of a candled, flowered, candied altar to my dead.
Yep, it's that time of the year: Saturday was Halloween, followed immediately on Sunday by the first day of the Mexican, Central and South American celebration Dia de los Muertos, a festival-like tradition honoring departed loved ones.
Today, Nov. 2, is when the whiskey, tequila, heavy food and cigarettes are usually brought out because that's the day deceased adults are honored. But I go to town with candy, toys, flowers and light-hearted trinkets on Nov. 1, which is the day infants and children are remembered -- and the day my own departed young one is celebrated in my home.
The coolest thing about this year's Day of the Dead celebrations is that this -- I proclaim -- is the year it went mainstream. It's no surprise every year when the Mexican supermarkets and bakeries put out the annual sugar skulls, pan de muerto -- "bread of the dead" -- and skeleton pinatas. But this year I've seen Mexican muerto skull sugar cookies in very mainstream bakeries, and I've seen feature stories all over the Internet, in mainstream newspapers, magazines and on TV about how to make the vibrant and fun accoutrements of this Latin American holiday.
I love that for two reasons. First, non-Latinos are learning about Hispanic culture and naturally integrating bits and parts into their own Halloween affairs -- melting pot, I think they call it.
Second, it's a great education for that segment of the Hispanic population who didn't grow up with this tradition. Culture is funny that way, some touchstones ignored by one generation only to be taken up by the next.
Take me, for instance. You might be imagining a young me flanked by black lace-garbed Mama Cepeda and Abuelita Cepeda in a great big sun-drenched kitchen decorated with colorful clay cooking pots, learning with tiny hands how to roll out the masa -- dough -- for the pan de muerto. Perhaps you imagine us decorating the graves of our loved ones. That couldn't be farther from the truth.
A family trip from the bosom of the North Side all the way to Pilsen's National Museum of Mexican Art to see dressed up little skeletons? Not once.
And there's nothing wrong with that. Culture can be so very strong that it need not be drilled in via field trip or workshop. Think chocolate bunnies at Easter.
No, I grew up in this city living whatever the "typical American life" means. Since Mayor Daley never dyed the Chicago river black on Dia de los Muertos, my family never made a fuss about it, reserving their loving attention to ensuring year after year of picture-perfect Halloweens for me.
Like I said, culture is a funny thing. It can skip generations, yet it is so strong that it can leave a homeland, travel thousands of miles and settle into new interpretations. This is only my sixth year of setting up a Day of the Dead altar.
When I started, I felt the need to connect to something symbolic in my heritage, but I didn't want to share my new personal tradition with anyone. I didn't want to deal with explaining that it's not some Satanic hoodoo voodoo thing.
But how scary can Latin American traditions really be to anyone -- even those who fear the melting pot has become an unwieldy and distasteful chunky stew -- when grocery chains sell Day of the Dead greeting cards and delightful pictures, and recipes for traditional sugar skulls, sweet bread, and hot chocolate seem newly omnipresent?
To my great happy surprise, I've "come out" of the Dia del Muerto coffin only to find a pre-Colombian, all-American tradition rising in the U. S. of A.
Nah, things went to the dogs well before the Great Recession, and – as if to prove that Americans have no capacity to learn from their own hubris – we’re already on our way back.
The first sign I saw was the elaborate display in the window of a particularly non-luxurious women’s clothing store: a bright display of fall sweaters with matching teeny-tiny dog sweaters to accompany them.
The second sign slapped me in the face when I opened my Chicago Tribune Wednesday morning. There, gloriously, was this headline: "Sexy Halloween get-ups also available for pets" and what looks like some sort of chocolate Labrador dressed like a pimp. (I couldn’t make this stuff up if I wanted to, folks.)
While telling us about the multitudes of sexy Halloween pet costumes at various retailers I won’t promote here, Tribune reporter William Hageman had the good sense to put it into snarky perspective for us: "Because nothing says Halloween like dressing poor little Bobo as a trollop and sending her out into the streets, does it?"
Ok, never mind that the whole idea is, well, sick, far be it from me to make light of anyone’s, ummm, special relationship with their pet. But let’s just all get a hold of ourselves for just a minute because I fear the fallout of this year’s Great Recession has been forgotten and as dusty a memory as that of Black Tuesday, which occurred exactly 80 years ago – October 29, 1929.
No one – not even the people on the phone to the unemployment benefits hotline to see how many more weeks of checks President Obama’s new appropriation would bring them – has been sitting around reallllllly thinking about what a cultural revolution the Great Depression wrought in comparison to our recent travails.
There’s not much to compare, sadly.
I will not attempt to lecture you on a topic better scholars than I have plumbed, but I do want you to ponder whether the "new normal" economists are talking about looks too damned much like the "old normal," the one where people where so awash in carefree affluence that their pets were treated to gourmet meals, designer couches and beds, and ritzy psychotherapy, even as middle and lower-income populations struggled just to get by.
Don’t misunderstand: I don’t hate rich people – I’d love to be one someday. And I don’t undervalue pet’s roles in our human lives. At my home I have two Chihuahuas, two guinea pigs I like so much I’ve vowed not to roast for a family meal, two gerbils, and a rescued crawdad. Sometimes I even dress them up (though not to resemble Playboy bunnies or sexy pirates) for Halloween.
No, I’m not here to guilt trip, but to put things into context. Last year I wrote a story "Trickle-down economics: Housing crunch hits man’s best friend" about the level of animals dumped at shelters and when I checked in a few weeks ago with Animal Care League’s Tom Van Winkle, things were holding steady.
The economy is inching upward. Nationally and in Chicago home sales are increasing, job slashing seems to be waning ever-so-slightly. The Chicago Community Trust’s most recent "Vital Signs" report, which tracks food pantry usage, food stamp utilization by household, homelessness prevention center calls, unemployment claims, mass layoffs and foreclosure rates in the Chicago metro region looks better. Early summer appears to have been the peak for all these services with downward – though still, unfortunately, robust – trends starting in August.
"While there is welcome news that the unrelenting climb of these statistics has abated, one quarter does not make a trend," Terry Mazany, the President and CEO of the Chicago Community Trust told me. "And we still have to confront continued cuts at the State-level, and the disappearance of the stimulus funds in another year or so."
And yes, there really are people living in their cars, campers, and storage spaces. And kids feeling the autumnal chill in too-thin hoodies.
Again, I’m not trying to bum you out, but like mom warning you not to eat too many mini Snickers bars, I have to nag to remind you that it’s not all wine, roses, and sexy teddies for your Calico cat.
So trick and/or treat your pets this year but don’t go overboard if you can bear it. Maybe you can split the difference and donate some canned food to your local food depository or something. Something. At the very least, just stop and think about all those who aren’t doing as well as you.
And to answer your burning question about how I will be costuming my menagerie of pets this year? All hobos, of course.
Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com
A few weeks ago the following press release from the National Association of Hispanic Journalists was roundly ignored from sea to shining sea: "NAHJ Urges News Media to Stop Using the Term 'Illegals' When Covering Immigration."
I usually have no patience for these types of outrages because they inadvertently make themselves sound thin-skinned and clueless. In this case it's the terms "illegal" or "illegal aliens," that the NAHJ did a terrible job of deriding in their release.
"By incessantly using metaphors like 'illegals,' the news media is not only appropriating the rhetoric used by people on a particular side of the issue, but also the implication of something criminal or worthy of suspicion," NAHJ Executive Director Ivan Roman said.
Uhhh, no one's going to bat for you on that point, Ivan. The so-called "implication" NAHJ refers to is not so much an implication but a fact: We are, after all, talking about people who have broken a law and therefore have done something that can easily be defended as both "criminal or worthy of suspicion."
There are better arguments against offensive terms, and I've written about this very issue at length, both defending the legal term "illegal alien" and decrying the pejorative term "illegal."
This whole "alien" business is simple: the legal term, in relation to immigration law, simply means "One who is not a citizen or a national of the United States."
A "legal alien" is someone like my uncle Juan who is a legal permanent resident — he's not a citizen nor was he born here (a "national"). Not to be confused with someone like his brother Carlos, who is a naturalized U.S. citizen, and therefore no longer an "alien" despite his love of the starry night sky.
Now here's what gets tricky: the lady who sells corn on the cob slathered in mayonnaise and topped with parmesan cheese on 26th and St. Louis streets in the Chicago's Little Village neighborhood, she may be here illegally. She may have overstayed her tourist visa or may have entered the country with the intent to work here without proper permits. So what is she?
She's an "illegal immigrant."
Some would like to couch that to a more politically correct "undocumented worker," but that's a euphemism. The government's official term for people who are living and working in the United States without explicit permission from the government is "illegal aliens." It's nothing personal.
The tricky part, you ask? For me, here's where it crosses the line, let's take Mrs. Corn Vendor in the previous example:
If you were to say she's "an illegal," that's where I bust you out for being . . . I don't even know how to put it . . . divisive? Rude? Cold? I'm not sure, but not nice, and most importantly — imprecise. Why?
To say that Mrs. Corn Vendor is an "illegal alien" is to describe her in the context of her immigration status. However, to say that Mrs. Corn Vendor is "an illegal" is to make an abstraction of her and to dehumanize her.
The NAHJ is correct in insisting on a higher degree of journalistic objectivity. But since when are editors supposed to employ the use of euphemisms in order to report news? For the record: never.
Still, it wouldn't hurt for the Mainstream Media to get past the NAHJ's obviously emotional request and confront the heart of this matter: responsible, fair, and non-simplistic coverage of the complex illegal immigration issue is in order.
Take away the flaws in logic and Roman's ultimate sentiment rings true: "The words used can be part of the problem or can contribute to fair coverage and a fruitful public debate."
We like to think we live in a free country. Sure there are taxes to pay, seat belts to click, but for the most part, you're pretty much free to do whatever tickles your fancy.
Unless you're Rush Limbaugh, that is.
If you hadn't heard, the fiery radio star was one of several investors in a group that is considering buying the St. Louis Rams football team. After a tempest in a teapot that included bystanders citing top 10 lists of Limbaugh's most racist comments, and the outrage of the Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson tag team, the investor group dumped him to make a potential offer work.
Limbaugh has become a toxic asset, a way bigger liability than his good old American greenbacks are worth, a victim of his popularity among the crowd that embraces his hard right -- some say racist and sexist -- ideology.
Now that Limbaugh's detractors have proved him financially rich but too morally impoverished to buy a piece of a struggling NFC West team, they're gleeful that he'll have no part of the mostly family-friendly National Football League. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is surely relieved he dodged the "What did Limbaugh say now?!" bullet and won't have to start dreading his PR staff's calls to his cell phone.
But really, doesn't it all seem like a bit much? It is incredible to me how people despise Rush Limbaugh. You can probably find places where he's burned in effigy on Friday nights just for laughs.
You have to wonder: Why do otherwise rational people expend so much of their precious energy on hating a hater? Limbaugh has free-speech rights just like the rest of us. And if he uses those rights to talk smack about people, then there's only one good way to deal with his vitriol: just ignore it. Really, stop giving him so much power.
This goes for the Lou Dobbs' and the Glenn Becks and the Ann Coulters of the world. And if you're a conservative, it goes for your liberal archenemies such as Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann and Markos "Daily Kos" Moulitsas Zuniga, too -- if you don't like what they're all frothed up about, turn the channel or surf away. It's easy.
In the end, the NFL players who felt troubled about a potential Limbaugh ownership stake made their own fuss and were heard. The football league and the investor group tallied the threats and opportunities and said goodbye to Rush.
Though apparently effective, the take-away lesson from this is not that the best strategy to complain about a media personality's content is to enlist career civil rights activists to derail a financial sports transaction.
It is not -- Rush Limbaugh lives on in all his glory. This has scored him tons of publicity and he has been freshly armed with new fodder for his endless complaints about the liberal activists' hold on the mainstream media.
Now he's some sort of football investor angel martyr to his breathless fans. And exactly how does that help the people who think Limbaugh's views are hurting them or their way of life?
And yet the St. Louis Rams are still looking for a buyer with a loaded checkbook.
That's just plain silly. If Limbaugh wanted to put his cash into a football team, it should not have been derailed by those offended by the legal, First Amendment-protected methods Limbaugh uses to earn his living.
Money is money. It's all green, it's all dirty, and it all pays the bills.
Instead of stopping Limbaugh from spending his money as he pleases, his detractors should focus on finding a way to keep it from getting into his pockets to begin with.
I went to see the movie "Zombieland" on Saturday, right in the middle of what seemed like a ferociously cold day, what it being early October and us on the verge of perishing from this global warming and all.
You might imagine that a post-zombie-apocalyse-survival movie might bring a girl down when everything in the "real world" has just gone to such crap.
Where to even start?
The poorest of the poor – or as I like to think of them, the very people who need government subsidized public health care – look like they’re going to get screwed in this round of the health-care battle.
The after-effects of the Great Recession are just now starting to kick into high gear even as traditional media have moved on to "trend stories" about how average people are returning to living high on the hog.
Our country is becoming more and more polarized between left and right, blue and red, gay and straight, legal and illegal…but not in "Zombieland."
Far from being pulled down into depression, I savored every single one of the film’s 80 minutes because there is nothing more comforting to me than imagining a zombie apocalypse.
I loved the movie on its own merits (I paid for my own ticket, thanks) – at 48, Woody Harrelson has finally come into his own and he hit the perfect notes of end-of-the-world lunacy alongside Jessie Eisenburg’s geeky-sweet straight man. But the witty banter – and the priceless and unexpected cameo – wasn’t the best part; leaving reality behind for the end-of-the-world was.
Angry, famished sprinter zombies coming after me to slurp the marrow out of my freshly cracked bones? Not a problem. The smell of rotting carcasses, lack of electricity, and absence of Taco Bells to run to when the fiendish desire for cinnamon twists hits? Easily bearable.
You could counter that running for your life all the time might be a bummer but I’ve got my running shoes on. Just imagine:
No more work – survival is a full-time job in the post-apocalyptic zombie world. Also, no more Fox news and CNN making a mockery of reasoned and intelligent discourse on political happenings and national and international policies.
No more worries about H1N1 or AIDS virus, the rise of China and India as global powerhouses who will eclipse the U.S. economy through the sheer force of their well-educated populace, no more worries about whether there will ever be a functional international carbon-emissions policy that will keep us all from incinerating the Earth.
CTA doomsday budgets, wagering over who's going to actually score Roland Burris' U.S. Senate seat, and worries about whether the Kennedy expressway will buckle under me or whether the James R. Thompson Center's granite slabs will crush me like a grape on my way into the office? Immaterial!
And no more wondering when things will ever get better.
You see, after everything goes away – such as in the zombie apocalypse, nuclear holocaust, or worldwide killer flu outbreak scenarios – if you’re one of the people who survived it then, pretty much, life is a little difficult, but refreshingly simple.
Keep warm, find food, stay alive in an environment where it’s just you and a quiet world of dead and semi-dead corpses – that’s much easier than, say, trying to figure out what you, personally, can do to keep Chicago kids from getting killed on our streets.
Give me the disappointment of a world without freshly-baked Twinkies in exchange for wondering how the State of Illinois will keep all the poor people in food stamps next year.
Sigh, maybe it’s just the weather…Chicagoans didn’t get the benefit of warming up during the summer this year and it seems like winter is nearly here…but the post-zombie-apocalypse is looking pretty good to me right now.
But, alas, since there are no reanimated corpses that will take over the world and spare me from yet one more whiny op-ed about why Barack Obama should or should not have won the Nobel Prize and "what it means," I guess I’ll just keep on truckin’ until Halloween comes and I can don the dress of the undead to live out my fancy-free fantasies.
Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com
Of all the twists and turns the convergence of traditional, Internet and social media has taken, the latest stands a good chance of elevating the trifecta of journalism, marketing and blogging.
Under threatened fines up to $11,000, the Federal Trade Commission has just announced that it wants bloggers to be upfront, conspicuously clear and direct when they receive free goods, services or cash from a person or organization in exchange for writing about them.
The rules, slated to go into effect on Dec. 1, are aimed at increasing the probability that a consumer who finds a Web page that appears to be a personal blog written by a regular Joe or Joette sharing experiences about a product, service or company can easily know whether Joette was paid to write about it or not.
Beware buyer -- if you weren't already. In a world where word-of-mouth recommendations are commonplace on blogs and in 140-character bites through Twitter, Facebook or LinkedIn -- and authentic customer experiences carry more weight with potential buyers than corporate propaganda -- what you see isn't always what you get.
There is a lot of quid pro quo going on in the blogosphere, and it's difficult to pin down. For instance, a mommy blogger receives a box of diapers in the mail with no strings attached -- not far afield from the traditional practice of sending a product to a paid, full-time staff journalist to interest the journalist in writing about it. No biggie.
If the unpaid blogger didn't spend her hard-earned cash for the diapers, what do her comments really mean? We can certainly debate that one.
It's a different matter altogether, however, if a company sets up an ongoing relationship with that mommy blogger and she receives multiple cases of diapers per week in exchange for promoting that specific brand. A blogger may even get a small cash stipend for keeping the product visible on his or her blog, Facebook or Twitter status. Not really a problem if the blogger just tells readers so they can decide for themselves whether they can trust what's written.
Substitute any product or service or experience -- "my ride on the CTA bus" -- and it still boils down to the right of consumers to know whether they can feel confident that what they're reading is an authentic first-person consumer account or a paid endorsement. Or, for that matter, whether it's a paid criticism of a competitor's product.
The new rule won't be easy to impose. The distinction between an amateur blogger and a professional journalist is not always clear. But if the FTC can make the rule work, it's a win-win-win for all involved.
Because prolific bloggers who live on love for their subject matter are the bane of full-time paid journalists who live for facts, journalists can feel better about the move toward transparency and disclosure. Basically the FTC's intent is to keep some joker from passing himself as an authentic citizen expert. And, yes, maybe full-time journalists will give thoughtful pause to their own practices of accepting gifts, favors or freebies, too.
Marketers will be discouraged from trying to manipulate their supposedly valued consumers by paying peanuts to bloggers -- in cash or in swag -- rather than investing in real value and good customer service, an approach that will earn them honest-to-goodness accolades from big media and regular Joes and Joettes alike.
Finally, bloggers: Chicago is bursting with great ones who will be even better with a little more sunshine. Take heart. Despite the guilt by association perhaps implied by the new FTC disclosure rules, the term "blogger" someday may not be such a dirty word after all.
AUTHORS NOTE:
As an on-line journalist, I have always made it my personal practice to only write about products or services (on my blog, in my columns appearing in other publications, and on my Twitter/FB/LinkedIn statuses) if I have independently purchased them with my own money. I also routinely pass on freebies offered so that if I do want to write about a product, I need not worry about it looking like I'm doing so because I was provided with any sort of compensation. If I ever did request or get products or services and felt the need to write about them, I would certainly disclose that plainly and clearly in the body of the piece, rather than as a link to a separate page elsewhere on this site.
When writing about organizations, I disclose whether I have any present or past professional or personal relationship with or connection to them in the body of the piece and not as a link to a separate page, though I have steered clear of writing about any organizations where I have been employed.
Feel free to comment on whether you, reader, feel that is an appropriate amount of disclosure and transparency. Thanks ~EJC
I have a three-parter for you: first my FOX business channel interview about today's announcement, which aired at 3:40 pm CST. Then the White House's official announcement, and if you keep scrolling, the White House Q & A.
Following Posted at 7:38am Sept 28, 2009
I just got the official word from the White House, folks, President Obama will be travelling to Copenhagen. Here’s the release from the White House, sent out at 7:18am this morning:
President Barack Obama to Travel to Copenhagen
President will join the First Lady to Support Chicago’s Bid for the 2016 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games
WASHINGTON – Today, the White House announced that President Barack Obama will travel to Copenhagen, Denmark to support Chicago’s bid for the 2016 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games at the 121st International Olympic Committee (IOC) Session. On Friday, October 2nd, IOC members will elect the host city for the 2016 Summer Games.
President Obama will join First Lady Michelle Obama, who will be leading the United States delegation to Copenhagen. Mrs. Obama will arrive in Copenhagen on Wednesday, September 30, along with Valerie Jarrett, Senior Advisor to President Obama and head of the White House Office on Olympic, Paralympic and Youth Sport.
President Obama will depart Washington on the evening of Thursday, October 1 and arrive in Copenhagen on the morning of October 2 local time, just prior to Chicago’s presentation to the voting members of the IOC. He will arrive back in Washington on Friday afternoon.
President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama will both make presentations to the IOC during Friday’s session. They will discuss why Chicago is best to host the 2016 Summer Games, and how the United States is eager to bring the world together to celebrate the ideals of the Olympic movement.
While in Denmark, the President and First Lady will meet with Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness, the Prince Consort. President Obama will also meet with Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen.
What does it mean in layman’s terms? The President is coming in to seal the deal after national attention was put on whether this squeaker of a contest would be lost because the U.S. rock star president didn’t show up to schmooze ala Tony Blair and Vladimir Putin.
As late as Sunday night, aroundtherings.com was scoring the U.S. bid at an 82 – one point behind Rio but this political calculus might be changed now that the President’s presence is official.
UPDATE: (Here are portions from today's briefing specifically referencing today's announcement)
September 28, 2009 at 1:39 pm EST
PRESS BRIEFING BY PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
Q Thanks, Robert. Why does the President think a trip to Copenhagen is going to make that much difference? And what does he hope his appearance there will help?
MR. GIBBS: Well, obviously, I think he hopes that he can make a strong case for Chicago and America's bid for the Olympics in 2016. Obviously any Olympics showcases the country that those Olympics are in and there's a tangible economic benefit to those Games being here. And the President wants to help out America's bid.
Q Did he get a hint that an appearance would help America's bid?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I certainly hope that an appearance wouldn't hurt it. But we have gotten no intelligence on it.
Q Robert, what can you tell us about the lobbying effort behind the scenes that the President has already started with the IOC?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't know that it's much behind the scenes if you're asking me about it. I think it's -- obviously the President has mentioned this in meetings when we were at the U.N. and at the G20. He's going to continue to talk to people, including in person in Copenhagen, in an effort to bring the 2016 Olympics to the United States.
Q What's his best pitch? What is he telling them?
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think, having spent some time in Chicago, I think it is a -- it's a perfect place to hold the Olympics. It is -- it offers a great place for the world to see. It offers all the amenities that one would want in the Olympics. And I think, far and away, it's the strongest bid of the four that are out there.
Q What if he goes and he doesn't get it?
MR. GIBBS: Well, we'll -- you can call Tommy on Saturday -- (laughter.)
Q The President said, I would make the case in Copenhagen-hagen personally if I weren't so firmly committed to making real the promise of quality affordable health care for every American. He sounded pretty clear that 12 days ago he was not going to go. What changed in the meantime? Is it health care that changed? Does it look like it's in better shape, or is it that this is in worse shape?
MR. GIBBS: I think the President believes health care is in better shape. I believe he felt strongly and personally that he should go and make the case for the United States, and that's what he's going to do.
Q And he's not worried about health care, as he seemed to be just 12 days ago, suffering if he went?
MR. GIBBS: I think he believes he can do this and get back in time.
Q Right. I wanted to ask, you know, when you look at the sort of picture here, you have a planeload of, you know, top level officials, the President himself, Mrs. Obama. The risks are obviously huge if he doesn't bring home the Games for Chicago --
MR. GIBBS: Call Tommy. (Laughter.)
Q But to what degree --
MR. GIBBS: I appreciate getting into what happens on Saturday, but I don't even know what I'm going to have for dinner tonight.
Q I understand. Okay, let's go forward then. So what degree is this pre-cooked in any way? Are there any assurances, anything --
MR. GIBBS: I think I looked back and addressed this not long ago.
Q It just seems you folks are too savvy to do this with it being totally up in the air.
MR. GIBBS: I appreciate that. Thank you. (Laughter.)
Q Is the Chicago Host Committee paying any of the costs for President Obama or Mrs. Obama to go to Copenhagen?
MR. GIBBS: I can check but I don't know the answer to that. I assume this is being handled as all presidential travel would be.
Q Are you saying that the reason that he wasn't going to go to Copenhagen and now is, is that health care is in better shape?
MR. GIBBS: Well, no, I don't -- as I understand it, Chip asked me, that was one of the reasons that the President stated --
Q It was the reason.
MR. GIBBS: -- and that while I believe that health care is in a better place, and I think he believes health care is in a better place, he also believes it's important for him to go and personally try to persuade the International Olympic Committee to pick the United States in 2016.
Q I'm just trying to close the logic loop here. (Laughter.) So did anything else change --
MR. GIBBS: I thought I did with Chip, but go ahead.
Q Okay. But did any -- so, are you -- so it's okay for us to infer, then, even though you're not going to say that's the difference between last week and this week?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I acknowledged to Major that -- and I acknowledged to Chip and I think to at least one other -- that I thought health care was -- so we can -- I'll go on background as a senior administration official -- (laughter) -- with intimate knowledge of the press secretary's thinking and say, yes, we think health care is in a better place.
Q And how does he see going to Copenhagen as part of his core mission as President?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think everybody is proud of the Olympics. I think everybody is proud of the Olympics when they're in their country. It provides a wonderful opportunity to showcase the United States. It's, as I said earlier, a big economic benefit. Surely it's within the purview of the President to root for America, but maybe I'm wrong.
Q Yes, but is there a fear that the delegation that was going was not going to be on par with the heads of state from the other countries going?
MR. GIBBS: No, I've said this many times in the past five years, and I think the President would agree that Michelle and Michelle alone is a powerful presence and will be a powerful voice for the Olympics coming to America. The President simply wanted to lend his voice, too.
Q Then why do you need Oprah going, too? (Laughter.)
MR. GIBBS: Ask the Olympic Committee. (Laughter.)
Q This is all about Tommy. (Laughter.)
MR. GIBBS: Right, Tommy on Saturday. (Laughter.)
Q The First Family's Chicago ties, are they a factor in the decision to have both the First Lady and the President make this trip? And is there a feeling in the administration that it's a proper role for them to make this pitch than, for example, if it had been another city where they didn't have the same kind of long-standing ties?
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I don't think that there's any doubt that the President is enormously proud of Chicago and would be enormously proud of the city hosting the bid. I think it's somewhat silly if it had been Los Angeles, I think the notion that the President would have done less because it was a different U.S. city just doesn't hold water.
Q But, I mean, I'm just saying did they have, by virtue of being from Chicago do you think that they have maybe a special message that they can carry?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think there's no doubt. I think you'll hear directly from both the First Lady and the President about what they think the Olympic Games mean and how Chicago hosting those Games fits with what we all believe the Olympics mean.
Q On Copenhagen, is this more official or personal for the President, this trip?
MR. GIBBS: This is official, as the President of the United States representing the bid of the United States to host the 2016 Olympics.
Q So is it more about the United States versus Chicago?
MR. GIBBS: Yes, it's about the American bid which is Chicago.
Q Chicago doesn't have a great record, especially recently, of spending public money. Is the President convinced that there are safeguards in place to make sure that money that goes to the Olympic bid will not be misspent? I mean, the City Council, for instance, has a pretty big oversight role in the way it's been --
MR. GIBBS: And I think obviously the onus is on the city to ensure that whatever money is used is spent wisely and efficiently. The President is going to make the case for the American host city -- for the American city of Chicago, which is the bid that this country put forward -- is going to go advocate in front of the International Olympic Committee for that bid.
Q I just want to make sure, he's sure that the city is up to that task?
MR. GIBBS: Not only is he, but as is the U.S. Olympic Committee that picked Chicago over other cities.
Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com
There really shouldn’t be much suspense here – I heard the man say it plain-as-day during Wednesday’s White House rah-rah for Chicago’s 2016 Olympic bid: "I would make the case in Copenhagen personally, if I weren't so firmly committed to making -- making real the promise of quality, affordable health care for every American." President Obama said. "But the good news is I'm sending a more compelling superstar to represent the city and country we love, and that is our First Lady, Michelle Obama."
"I promise you, we are fired up about this," he said, making it obvious that he needed to make that particular point crystal clear to his audience.
The guy has several no-win situations:
A) He’s a deadbeat for ignoring health care reform and the war in Afghanistan to go schmooze the International Olympic Committee on vote day, October 2, in Copenhagen if Chicago gets it.
B) If instead the bid goes elsewhere, Obama looks like a total loser if he went through all the trouble of going there to kiss the Olympic committee’s ring for naught.
C) He looks bad if he doesn’t go "represent" his fellow Chicagoans and his absence is blamed for a loss.
The only way he looks good is if Chicago gets it without him there, which is not likely according to at least one guy who oughta know, but I’ll come back to that.
I spent almost three full days this week immersed in the minutiae of the 2016 proposal during DePaul University’s 2016 Olympics Specialized Reporting Institute and picked up a bunch of interesting tidbits I’ll just list for your reading enjoyment:
· Charlie Besser, a sport television media specialist, estimates that a U.S. 2016 Olympic games would bring in $400- $500 million more U.S. dollars in sponsorship revenue than a Rio, Madrid or Tokyo games. He said that if you aggregated media rights revenues from all of Europe, it would come out to be about a third of the estimated $2-billion-plus the U.S. summer-winter package would bring in - and he made it clear the IOC knows this.
· Misty Johanson, a Hospitality Leadership professor who was immersed in Atlanta’s 1996 summer games, said their games revitalized downtown Atlanta and had an estimated $5 billion economic impact from over 2 million visitors during the Olympic and Paralympic games. Give the lady her honesty points: she was clear that people were displaced in the process and that all these years later, there are lingering issues over the loss of a key housing project.
· I’ll credit this quote to Rita Athas, the executive director of World Business Chicago, though nearly every expert who addressed the press corps during the conference said exactly the same thing: "No summer games in the United States has ever lost money." Sure, breaking even is a far cry from the $22.5 billion she said the bid expects to bring to Chicago, but still.
· Over at Washington Park, home to the proposed Olympic Stadium, a Bid representative said that although opponents are complaining about the crowds, even the largest estimated number of people clogging the area during the games wouldn’t compare to the number of kiddies, bands, and grannies that choke the place up every year during the annual Bud Billiken Parade.
· Also over in Washington Park, Cecilia Butler, an outspoken neighborhood activist, responded thusly when I told her about all the people who contact me daily to say how pathetic the 2016 Olympics committee’s outreach has been and how dearly they want Chicago to lose the bid: "We’ve had close to 50 meetings here, this has been in the minds of people for a long time. The very fact that we’re here talking is a good thing." Butler said, "And a lot of those people who are against this – they’ve never lived here."
Some thoughts from Richard Pound, a voting member of the International Olympic Committee:
· "One of the problems Chicago has is that not as many [evaluation committee members] have been to Chicago as have been to Madrid, Rio, or Tokyo."
· "Who wins is not necessarily based on which is the best bid, but which has the least risk associated and you don’t want to make a mistake."
· "I don’t think the International Olympic Committee pays attention to opinion polls they figure if the city gets the bid, public opinion will come around. I think that’s a very minor part of it – besides, if you had 98% of the people in Chicago in favor of it, I’d be really worried."
· "It’s very hard to tell [who the favorite is], if you’re in my position you kind of follow the media. There’s not the slightest doubt that Tokyo would put on a good games, that Madrid would build on Barcelona…no one has any doubts Chicago can organize a games. To say they’re all good – that’s a waste of time."
Now, getting back to this Obama business…nearly every single expert was asked about the Obama Factor. And all of them said that hands-down, the President not showing up would certainly not bode well for the bid and his presence could make the big difference.
Mayor Daley had, earlier in the week, said he had a "glimmer of hope" that the President would change his mind and be in Copenhagen for the big day, but chose not to press the President on the South Lawn of the White House Wednesday. He instead expressed gratitude that First Lady Michelle Obama is going.
That’s gotta hurt, but don’t count Obama out yet…those who know him say hope is still alive.
"I’ve been following Obama since he went to Springfield, I know him pretty well, and I think he’s going to go," long time political reporting star Andy Shaw, now Executive Director of the Better Government Association, told us during a breakout session. "He’s going to carry the day – he does some things on gut, he believes in giving things his best shot."
Richard Pound, who himself will be casting a vote, said it loud and clear: "I think it’s pretty important for the President to go to Copenhagen for the vote, if he doesn’t, you’re not maximizing the chances of winning. If you can twist the Presidential arm to go…it could make a huge difference."
If Obama shows up in Copenhagen in October, I don’t think anyone will have to wonder who did the twisting.
Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com
Not on Twitter? Who can blame you, I’m sick and tired of hearing about it too, but, it’s soooo cool.
For instance, I was privileged to be one of a few journalists selected to attend DePaul University’s College of Communications 2016 Olympics Specialized Reporting Institute (which was generously supported by the McCormick Foundation) from Sunday September 13 to Tuesday September 15.
We had full access to elite Olympians, internationally-recognized Olympics experts, and even a voting member of the International Olympic Committee. (Read the column I wrote about it HERE)
If you had been following me on Twitter @ejc600words , you would have seen tidbits – quotes, pictures, and video – from the conference posted in real time. Those of you who keep up with me on www.600words.com could have seen the updates scrolling up the left hand side of the screen, also in real time.
Even if you aren’t on Twitter, you can check out my Twitter stream at http://www.twitter.com/ejc600words and click on anything you like without even having to join.
But if you’re like Mama Cepeda – who will follow me on Twitter when hell freezes over – I understand, so here’s my Twitter stream for you.
Read from the bottom up (or just know that the whole thing is in backwards chronological order) and don’t forget to click on the photos and videos, they’re fun!
Enjoy!
RT @Brooke22, after hearing IOC's Pound talk about voting process last night I'm less confident but it is 100% up in the air2:01 PM Sep 15th from web
If we don't get the Olympics? Lori Healy says:"The answer to that question is that we're focused only on 2016, it is the right place/time."9:44 AM Sep 15th from TwitterBerry
IOC’s Pound says no one's worried about who will be Chicago's mayor in 2016, "[Daley]'s the mayor now, that's really all that matters".7:13 PM Sep 14th from TwitterBerry
IOC's Pound says IOC not paying attention to local opinion polls of community support. "A very minor part of it."7:10 PM Sep 14th from TwitterBerry
"I think pretty important" for pres Obama to go to Copenhagen for deciding bid...if not, not maximizing chances of winning" says IOC Pound7:05 PM Sep 14th from TwitterBerry
IOC's Dick Pound says picking: "not necessarily which city is the BEST, but which has the least risk? You don't want to make a mistake."6:40 PM Sep 14th from TwitterBerry
Richard Pound, voting member of the Int'l Olympic Comm. tonight, Lori Healy tomorrow am, then documentarian Ken Burns after lunch whew!4:25 PM Sep 14th from TwitterBerry
The answer to #1 question is "no development east of Lake Shore Drive" because they are protected parklands says a 2016 rep.2:12 PM Sep 14th from TwitterBerry
2016 will require development contracts to be awarded 30% for minority/disadvantaged and 10% women - higher than City of Chgo requires1:01 PM Sep 14th from TwitterBerry
Redevelopment RFPs have already been written for M. Reese site: 1 for if we get games and 1 for if we don't12:59 PM Sep 14th from TwitterBerry
One 2016 representative says the Michael Reese facility will very definitely been demolished if Chgo gets the games (as planned)12:54 PM Sep 14th from TwitterBerry
Jimmy DeCastro is sitting across the table from me telling me he has the inside scoop - says we're definitely getting the 2016 Olympics8:43 AM Sep 14th from TwitterBerry
Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com
Where were you one year ago today, on that mild Sunday when the world seemed to go off its axis? Seems like a long, long time ago, doesn't it?
Had you heard the breathless news about some East Coast fancy pants finance house called Lehman Brothers filing the largest bankruptcy case in the history of the United States -- to the crazy Monopoly money tune of $639 billion?
Though two weeks earlier, the federal government had taken over mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae -- putting about 5 trillion bucks worth of debt onto U.S. taxpayers -- most people hadn't really turned away from the historic presidential race and Madonna's 50th birthday long enough to realize that Wall Street was swirling into the toilet and Main Street was getting sucked down with it.
Giants -- AIG, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Washington Mutual, Wachovia, Countrywide, Bear Stearns -- toppled one after the other like dominoes. The stock market tanked, with the Dow losing a cool 777.7, posting its largest one-day point drop in history -- whoosh!
Then came panic and fear: People scanned the high-rises for suits throwing themselves out of windows to end it all (horribly, some did). Books on the Great Depression were dusted off. Any sort of financial catastrophe seemed entirely possible.
Companies slashed jobs to the bone marrow, houses stopped selling, workers were out on the streets and the Feds talked about trillion-dollar bailout packages. For a while there, it seemed like we'd never see the sun again.
Fast-forward a year:
Last week, Christy Romer of the President's Council of Economic Advisers presented the first official quarterly report on the street-level impact of the American Recovery and Investment Act of 2009 and pretty much declared it a success: "1.1 million jobs were added in the 3rd quarter as result of the Recovery Act," Romer chirped on a conference call with reporters.
Twenty-one thousand Oprah fans swarmed the Magnificent Mile to worship her and stimulate the economy along the way. Steve Jobs wooed us all with the new iPod, complete with video camera and radio tuner. Electronics retailers licked their chops about sales of the new Beatles video game.
Are we all better?
"One year ago, there was a real moment of panic, but we realized it was not the end of the world," Adolfo Laurenti, deputy chief economist and managing director of Mesirow Financial, told me. "You see people still buying homes and cars, and going shopping. Maybe not as much as before -- there's more a sense of people knowing they need to have some real money in their pocket before they spend it -- but where they may no longer be buying a McMansion or a gas-guzzling SUV, they're also not walking away from the latest iPhone."
That's certainly the case for some. For others, the worst is yet to come. The nation's unemployment rate climbed to 9.7 percent last month, the highest since 1983.
"Nationally, there's talk of the green shoots of an economic recovery, but we know that in a three-year cycle, the pain of 2009 will prove to have been the easiest," said Terry Mazany, president and chief executive officer of the Chicago Community Trust, which tracks the city's vital signs -- unemployment, food stamp demand, foreclosure rates. "While some of us can indulge in Oprah-mania and think the worst is behind us, really, with state budget cuts that are closing health and human services and shedding workers, and the accumulated impact of it all, we're still in danger of experiencing a lost decade like Japan's in the '90s."
As the entire country works through a return to a "new normal," Mazany suggested, nobody should be dazzled by news stories trumpeting the return of consumption. Rather, he said, we should develop a mind-set of contribution -- to sustain those still very much in danger of a catastrophic financial collapse.
Good advice . . . if only those of us who have been lucky so far can remember those dark, dark days, oh so long ago.
There is nothing wrong with making money. Lots of money. Crazy money.
Take computer products maker HP’s CEO, Mark V. Hurd. His total compensation last year was $42.5 million, after a three-year package that paid out last year, according to BusinessWeek magazine’s story "CEO Pay: Is it Still Out of Sync?"
That same piece started off thusly: "It has been a tough year for the American worker, with unemployment hovering near 10% and cuts in pay or benefits for many of those who still have their jobs" before it told how total compensation for the average CEO at an S&P 500 company declined last year by 7.5%, or $700,000. Yes, none of us will shed a tear over that one.
Let me be clear that I’m not talking about bailout cash for the CEO clunkers who led the big financial firms and then us into the Great Recession – that’s a whole other ball of wax – I’m talking strictly about professionals who do big jobs, like the executive officers of business organizations.
They make a lot of money for doing a lot of hard work. And if you had that kind of responsibility – and the talent or education, leadership, and charisma to do it, and do it well – you could make that kind of money, too. I certainly intend to – all dynamic and ambitious business men and women want to make big, sinful gobs money, and you wouldn’t want to hire one who didn’t.
Yesterday, ace City Hall reporter
Fran Spielman wrote a news storyabout the pay of the people running the Olympics Bid – a team you’d want to assemble hungry super-stars to run, IF you wanted to win the bid, that is.
Spielman noted that Lori Healey, the bid’s president, makes $250,000 a year. And "Chief Bid Officer John Murray ($250,000); Doug Arnot, venue and operations ($250,000); Chief Financial Officer Rick Ludwig ($200,000); and Chief Governance Officer Kevann Cooke ($200,000). Others are Valerie Waller, marketing and communications ($190,000); Cassandra Francis, Olympic Village planning ($175,000); international relations specialist Deb Fiddelke ($150,000) and Patricia Rios, administration ($135,000)."
Folks, I’ve got news for you: by the measure of mid-to-large size corporations, these are not fantastic salaries.
Oh sure, they would be for you and me, but last time I checked, we don’t know how to run the critical operations of a multi-billion dollar international enterprise.
So why is Mayor Daley breaking bad on his boy Pat Ryan’s Chicago Olympic 2016 Bid team’s salaries?
On Tuesday, Mayor Daley was quotedas saying "Some [bid employee salaries] are unacceptable. You know that. But like anything else, they were put together with private money. They compete [with] the private sector."
Unacceptable? C’mon. The Olympics is a business, and you need good, expensive business people to run it if you want them run right because in business, you get what you pay for.
Well, yeah, if you’re Da Mayer you can get along with a paltry $215,950in exchange for having all the clout in the world, but the rest of us mortgage our entire existences on life-long student loans and hope for the best.
It’s not like complaining about salary inequities is anything new under the sun – just for the record an eighth-year CPS teacher makes about 60 to 80 grand, compared to the Cubs’ Carlos Zambrano who makes $18,750,000 on his eight years of MLB experience –but that’s beside my point.
For a guy who would, by my reckoning, chop off his own left arm to land the 2016 Olympics, – "I just want to win. . . . This is very important in regards to jobs, economic development. This has a lot of vision in it," Daley said, according to Spielman’s story – it seems bad form to complain about the pay of the privately financed people who are toiling to make it happen.
I’m not weighing in on whether the Olympics are or are not "good for Chicago," but by my account, if we’re in this thing – and in it to win – Da Mayer out to just be grateful there’s a professional team in place willing to work for pennies on the corporate dollar to bring the bid home.
Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com
There was no "me and Bob Novak" per se, it’s not like we’d walk out of the ChicagoSun-Times building together – back when it wasn’t the basement of the Trump Tower – and head over to the Billy Goat for a cold one after deadline had past and the paper was most of the way put to bed for the night.
No, Bob Novak was my frequent companion as I grew up in Wrigleyville in the eighties, a weirdo kid who was always read nearly every word of the paper and whose bedroom wall was a mosaic of cutout columns and pictures from the Sun-Times.
So Novak, the "pugnacious political columnist" as today’s New York Timescalled him, has been with me every step of the way even though he didn’t know it.
Keep in mind that I really was a weirdo kid: the kind who, as young as 10, looked forward to getting up early on Sunday mornings to flip around all the channels and catch pieces of all the political talk shows where staid white men raised their voices at each other about important people and things.
During the week, through his column, Novak whispered in my ear about who these people were and what the important issues they were talking about meant.
Novak taught me – a child of immigrant parents who spoke only Spanish at home – how to construct a sentence, how to turn a phrase, how to use a big word when necessary and stick to the smaller ones to make important points.
Through the TV Novak taught me how to be cool in front of the camera, how to wither a sparring partner with a well-informed-glare, and smile honestly when it was all over.
Novak taught me – and the country – that there is great power in sashaying behind closed doors, digging for the truth, and then getting it out there in the paper, on the TV, on the radio, in magazines, in books, and on the internet.
Novak became a star by letting the story – and the reporting – be the star of his work, he taught me that too.
My colleague at the paper, Lynn Sweet, in her remembrance today, quoted Jim Walton, the president of CNN Worldwide talking about what a treasure Novak was.
What better way to honor the passing of this giant than to pledge that in Novak’s passing I, too, will strive to be "a journalist of the old school, hardworking, practical, and passionate about our profession."
If I can have a tiny fraction of impact on a young journalist that Robert Novak had on me, I’ll consider it a job well done.
Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com
What do global, multi-million dollar, Fortune 500 companies have in common with small and mid-sized Hispanic-run businesses in Illinois?
Everything.
The same squeeze in credit, the same pricing pressures and stagnant volumes. And the same opportunities to diversify into new markets, the same access to a growing pool of talented workers, and the same necessity that so often is the mother of invention and innovation.
At least that’s how Roberto Cornelio, the 51-year-old Chief Operating Officer of the Illinois Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, sees it.
“This downturn is affecting Hispanic businesses with the exact same issues that affect others: access to markets, access to capital, access to resources, they’re no different from any other businesses in that sense,” said Cornelio.
And that’s how IHCC is very similar to other state-wide Chambers, with the Latino twist, of course. “We’re single-mindedly, obsessively focused on promoting and enabling Hispanic business growth and success,” the Mexican-born, lifelong Chicagoan, told me. “We advocate on issues that affect Hispanic business community and provide capacity-building assistance to Hispanic business to help them grow from startups to well-established, competitive companies.”
I translate that into empowering Latino businesses with the tools of good old American capitalism. “We give Hispanic businesses a solid foundation and position them for growth,” Cornelio seconded.
That’s no small feat, especially when Latino-owned businesses have yet to gain traction as powerbrokers and heavy-hitters in a town infamous for both.
And that’s the space where Cornelio – and the eleven-person IHCC – team work the hardest – to get Hispanic-owned businesses to be perceived as players on LaSalle Street and Michigan Avenue, rather than just as 26th Street bastions.
For his part, Cornelio helms the yeoman responsibilities of managing programs and staff, overseeing the Chamber’s finances, executing fundraising activities, and maintaining relationships with corporate partners and stakeholders.
The Chamber provides free, one-on-one expert consulting services, training, and assistance programs to entrepreneurs, small and mid-sized companies looking to scale up. “There’s a key transition between immigrants who were the pioneers of the community businesses and their children who are going to business school to get an MBA in order to manage and grow the business,” Cornelio said. “For the first time we will have expertise, training and that network we’ve lacked as a business community.”
IHCC instills that expertise in Latino-owned businesses with training on how to navigate the sometimes choppy waters of the Illinois state procurement process, an area of major opportunity.
“Just one of the many areas of opportunity for Latino businesses is the public sector,” Cornelio said. “If you look at the majority of the spend in federal, state, and local governments, there is significant volume in the public sector, but even though there are Minority enterprise partnership programs and other such programs we still have a very small percentage of the overall spend – well under 5%”
None of this speaks to any shadowy conspiracy to keep Latinos on the fringes – though I’d argue that keeping someone out and forgetting all about them are equally damaging – but rather, a testament to what a long way we’ve come in such a very short time.
“It’s more a reflection of how new and young this community is. Much of what’s happened has happened in the last 15-20 years because of the explosive population growth. We’re now starting to create stability, and that’s a unique opportunity.”
Cornelio estimates there are about 45,000 Hispanic-owned businesses in Illinois and anecdotal data approximates that 90% operate in the under one-million dollar revenue range and about 10% see revenues of larger than 1 million dollars.
“In the state of Illinois there are hundreds of Hispanic-owned businesses in the range between $5 million to $20 million range, including some producing revenues of $50 million,” Cornelio told me. “Those businesses will continue to drive the economic engine that will fuel the economic enhancement of everyone in the community – through job creation and through the cumulative effects of entrepreneurs employing providers of professional services like accounting and legal.”
“Growing Hispanic businesses provides a significant extended economic impact for all businesses in all parts of the city and state. More and more businesses are beginning to realize that opportunity,” Cornelio said. “The accompanying step is to tune this new generation of business leaders into the need to act publicly, to insert themselves in the civic and philanthropic tapestry of the city.We need to provide a leadership role in the life of the city’s overall business community not just our own.”
“When I’m done in 10-15 years, Hispanic businesses will be a visceral part of leadership in a daily, ongoing basis, in all aspects of life, in this city and elsewhere.”
“Chicago Latino List 2009” was generously sponsored by the Chicago Sinfonietta, the Chicago White Sox, and Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises Restaurants. All nominees were independently nominated for this recognition; their rejection and/or selection to “Chicago Latino List 2009” was not, in any way, influenced by any disclosed or undisclosed personal or professional proximity to Esther J. Cepeda or to any sponsor of “Chicago Latino List 2009”.
Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com
Consider this life: there you are; a young guy, working a dream job in sports marketing, making tons of money, hanging out with cool people and one day you say to yourself “yeah this is cool but, I think I’m going to quit and find a way to feed the poor instead.”
Yeah, that’s pretty much what Tony Martinez, a 36-year-old fourth generation Mexican-American did about six months ago after having worked a decade in the pretty-darned-fun specialty of Marketing for such internationally-recognized brands as the Chicago Cubs, the Museum of Science and Industry, and the American Bar Association.
Oh he’s still getting people to part with their hard-earned money, but these days it’s as the Assistant Director of Development with the Chicago Community Trust. There, Martinez raises money to serve the basic human needs of the entire Chicago metropolitan region by providing financial support to community-based non-profit organizations who, very often, fill needs no other state or city agencies can fill.
“As a fundraiser my job is to motivate individuals or corporations to allocate dollars to the Trust. I inspire and connect philanthropists at all levels with non-profit organizations that serve the needs of our community.” Martinez told me, “It involves relationship building, cultivating donors, matching their interests to the community needs, and then stewardship of their gift.”
Just to give you a flavor of the scale of Martinez’ task, for the fiscal year ending September 2007, the Chicago Community Trust and their donors awarded $115 million to the region's not-for-profit arts/culture, basic human needs, community development, education, and health organizations.
Wonderful stuff, of course, but what kind of person gives up the glamorous Sports Marketing life to give succor to the sick and clothe children?
“OK, it’s true – and the most exciting was working with the Cubs – but even then, I needed to do something more. I needed to give back somehow,” Tony said, a brilliant halo forming over his well-coiffeured head. “Growing up my family didn’t have much to give, but whenever someone came to them for assistance whether it was financial or just someone to listen to, they always found a way to give. That giving was always engrained in me.”
“I was raising money for sponsorships for some great events, but I felt like there wasn’t a higher purpose so I decided to raise money for those who need it most.” An exotic breed, Martinez verified that professional fundraisers are very rarely Latino. I’d never actually met or spoken with one before.
I asked him what sort of community organizations were in his portfolio, and he got where I was going with it – “I’m not a Hispanic person working for Hispanic money for the Hispanic community,” Martinez said. “The sad reality is that the needs are there for all Chicago residents – I tell people in the most polite way possible that we all need to wake up to meet this drastic need. If we don’t take care of our own, if we don’t invest in our region – in the basic human needs in our region – its going to go down and go down quick.
And where are those people going to end up? These needs make the whole region more vulnerable,” Martinez said. “Connect all the dots.”
Well sure, connecting dots – that sounds easy enough. But how do you, in the most catastrophic economic downturn since the Great Depression, ask for money?
“We have to persevere in telling the stories of the people who are in need,” Martinez said. “It is hard to ask people for money but I think of it this way: if I’m not going to do it who else will?”
“Chicago Latino List 2009” was generously sponsored by the Chicago Sinfonietta, the Chicago White Sox, and Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises Restaurants. All nominees were independently nominated for this recognition; their rejection and/or selection to “Chicago Latino List 2009” was not, in any way, influenced by any disclosed or undisclosed personal or professional proximity to Esther J. Cepeda or to any sponsor of “Chicago Latino List 2009”.
Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com
After walking 17 four-to-twelve-year-old kids over a 17,500 foot pass from one of the most remote places on earth to a Buddhist monastery, Frederick Marx is coming home to Chicago to lead us on a journey toward the place in our hearts that’ll help these children finish their education.
Marx – now fifteen years removed from his star turn as the writer/producer who brought us the story of two black Chicago high school students who thought they had a shot at being pro basketball players in the critically acclaimed documentary Hoop Dreams – is again giving us the opportunity to study how people sacrifice in order to gain.
In The Journey from Zanskar, Marx chronicles the passage of a small band of children who were delivered by two Dalai Lama-dispatched monks from their remote village to a monastery where they’ll get the opportunity to learn their own language, culture, history, and religion.
The kids’ voyage away from family and to a life of study is critical because a new road will soon bring the outside world to Zanskar – the last remaining original Tibetan Buddhist society with a continuous untainted lineage dating back thousands of years – endangering its traditions and religious practices. It’s the sort of decimation that has already happened to many other Tibetan towns experiencing this version of gentrification.
Marx was drawn in by this slow, quiet drama.
"What really interests me as a filmmaker is the landscape of the human heart," Marx told me from his San Francisco home last week as he prepared the "preview cut" he’ll be screening at PRIMITIVE Gallery on June 26 and 27. "I’m so interested in heartbreak, in what people do, how they feel, what they think, and why they do what they do. Then when you throw all the layers of cultural differences and socio-economic realities, there’re just such amazing stories."
Marx started out on his own journey toward emotional and financial investment in these 17 kids when an old friend from Chicago called him up and asked if he’d be interested in a gig to go to Zanskar and film the monks for a group of people putting together a non-profit to support their work.
After Marx’ incredible expedition – "when, after climbing 14,000 to 17,000 feet to get over the pass, none of the animals could carry us I just thought ‘I’m going to die today,’" he chuckled – the non-profit failed to take off but Marx took the project upon himself.
"I said, ‘this is crazy, we have to do what we can to help these monks, these kids, and this school.’ So I took it over and it’s been my company’s project ever since," Marx said. His company, Los Angeles, CA-based Warrior Productions, is a non-profit, and his commitment to the 17 children whose story he tells in The Journey from Zanskar is 100% of the revenues – above the cost of production – the films garners.
Those pesky "cost of production" dollars are what brings him back home to the welcoming embrace of Chicago’s PRIMITIVE Gallery for an exclusive set of intimate screenings of this unfinished film in one of the holiest spaces I’ve ever visited.
"In terms of cash dollars, we only need about two hundred grand to get through the post production and then it’s all gravy," Marx said. "Then all the profits from the film will be funneled back to Zanskar for the monks and the kids."
Marx will be at the Friday screening at PRIMITIVE, 130 N. Jefferson, but if you can make it to the Saturday screening, Michael Fitzpatrick, the film’s composer, and Chicago’s own Harold Ramis (on a break from promoting the new Ghostbusters game) will gather with Marx in the breathtaking "Buddha Room" to watch the film.
"What you’ll see is this amazing example of service, of these monks doing what they can for these children, for these families and for the culture of this place they call home," Marx said. "To me there is no grater modeling of leadership than how they sacrifice and risk their own lives to help these families get a leg up."
"These monks demonstrate that the greatest joy in life just might come in doing what you can for others, and that’s the key message I hope people will respond to."
Watch YouTube clips of The Journey from Zanskar here or call PRIMITIVE at 312/575-9600 for more information on attending either the June 26 or 27 screening.
Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com
"Pregunta del Dia" translates from Spanish into "Question of the Day" and today’s comes from Richard Steele (no, not the British author or the WBEZ radio show host), a long-time fan:
Q. "
Esther, what’s #19 in a list of Chicago 60? I looked on your website but didn’t see any reference. You’re #1 on my list!!! Best, Richard"
A.
Last week was one of those ridiculously busy weeks where good things happened and there wasn’t any time to stop and smell the roses.
I hate to be self-referential but I’ve gotten several inquiries on what in the world this "Number 19" means even though I hadn’t intended to create a mystique by mentioning it in my weekly e-blast (subscribe here for free…I won’t share your email).
Last Wednesday June 10, the Chicago Community Trust published a special report "The New News: Journalism We Want and Need," about local online news outlets. It was researched and written by a team led by Thom Clark and Gordon Mayer of the Community Media Workshop (download copy here).
Basically, the report is an outgrowth of the hand-wringing that seems to accompany any discussion that involves media or journalism "what’s going to happen to news in the internet age?!" The report seeks to provide a directory and assessment of local online news publications and was "based primarily on a survey of bloggers, citizen journalists, and others using an approach that blends self-reported data, Google page rank and Alexa.com traffic ranking, and a qualitative assessment of each site," according to the Community Media Workshop’s press release.
It went on to conclude that the journalism "we want and need" has three characteristics: it’s vetted by editors for accuracy, clarity and to reduce bias, it’s selected from among the mountains of available data to entertain and inform, and it helps frame one regional conversation about challenges and opportunities.
Happily, my editor and the editorial board of NewsTex, Content on Demand – which distributes my work far and wide – provide me with the vetting, and I kick in the entertainment, original reporting and thought-leadership.
So the results look like this, of 60 local Chicago news sources, "600 Words by Esther J. Cepeda" is number 19 and pulling down three-and-a-half stars out of a possible five based on the 6 criteria points gathered from self-reports, third-party sites (like Alexa and Google), and qualitative assessment from Community Media Workshop. I’m also sporting an almost-7,000 e-mail subscriber list, and a Google page rank of 6.
Not too shabby. And thanks for asking, Richard, it’s constant readers like you who keep me going!
Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com
It’s not like today was a slow news day around the White House; a Monday June 15 health care speech at the Chicago American Medical Association was announced, there was a tragic shooting at the Holocaust Museum, tons of details to iron out in terms of the GM situation, TARP funds, and the bank bail-out dollar pay-backs, and, of course, more scuttlebutt about angry Republicans trying to slow down the Sotomayor hearings.
But today’s White House press briefing spent enormous amounts of time on…drumroll please…the digital TV transition – coming to an oldie set near you this Friday June 12.
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs trotted out Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke and subjected the poor fella to the grueling mosh-pit of a press briefing and the questions on the TV timetable ensued.
As you know, we all got a reprieve in the analog-to-digital switch in February (read my column "The End of Television As We Know It!" here) but it’s now time to pay the piper.
Secretary Locke said 2.5 percent of American households, or 2.8 million households are still unprepared, according to his Neilsen data. Are you?
"If you currently have cable, satellite, or some other paid-for television service, you have nothing to worry about," Locke said. "You are prepared; you don't need to do anything, and June 12th you'll see no change in your television reception or programming."
ok…
"If you have a new television set purchased, let's say, within the last one year, those new television sets come automatically with a digital tuner. So if you have a television set a year old or newer, you're prepared; you don't need to do anything, you don't need to worry," Locke continued.
uuummmmm…
"But if you have a television set more than a year old and you're not on cable or satellite, and you're relying basically on free over-the-air service, you are not ready," Locke said. "And you will lose your television service this Friday if you don't act now."
Ouch! Looks like I’m S-O-L; outta luck. (What can I say? I read a lot! Besides, who has time for appointment TV when there’s YouTube and Hulu?)
Locke continued:
"So you have three options: You can subscribe to cable or satellite; you can purchase a newer television set that has these automatic digital tuners built in; or you can purchase a converter box. The Recovery Act provided Commerce with money to help consumers having trouble affording a digital converter box. Millions of households have applied for and received the $40 coupons to cover the cost of these converter boxes. And the converter boxes start at $40 and we mail out two coupons per household, requesting household. So that basically means that with the coupons you get a free converter box."
Alright, so, never mind that I ordered one and got one and then let it expire - ooops.
More from Locke:
"While coupons are still available for eligible households, it will take some nine days for us to process and send out, first-class mail, these coupons, and so they will not arrive in time for this Friday's conversion. We will have these coupons available until the end of July -- July 31st -- or as long as supplies last. The coupons are good for 90 days each.
If you already have a coupon, please make sure to purchase the converter box immediately at a partnering retail store like Target, RadioShack, Circuit City, or Wal-Mart. Take it home, hook it up right away -- in fact, you can use these converter boxes now and receive the digital signal now."
(Someone check this guy’s e-trade account, I’ll betcha he bought some Radio Shack stock last week.)
All right, so enough with the smart-alecky "ha-ha." The reason why I’m actually passing this on is that just because I watch my "TV" the same place I read my newspaper – on a high speed broadband internet connection – doesn’t mean real people won’t actually be left with no immediate home or work access to breaking news.
I hate to put the bad vibe out but, around midnight on Friday June 12 would be a perfect time for some ne’er-do-well to strike some pandemonium and showcase just how many low-income and non-English fluent people would get left out of the loop in an emergency.
According to Locke, the propensity to be unprepared for the switch is primarily on the West Coast and the Southwest. He said:
"Los Angeles, while having a small percentage of families unprepared, a small percentage of a huge market is about a quarter-million households that are unprepared.
We're also finding that it's -- ethnic groups are more unprepared than the general population: African American, Hispanic, almost twice the national average; Asian Americans just slightly above the national average.
Ethnic minorities, for whatever reason -- it may be due to language -- are not as prepared as others. But we've been reaching out using Hispanic -- Telemundo, Univision; held a press conference with Mayor Villaraigosa in Los Angeles, Mayor Kevin Johnson in Sacramento.
Surprisingly enough, seniors are prepared. And it's the younger generation, households of under 30 that are also more unprepared than the national average."
So here’s my public service announcement…make sure you help your less-technically savvy family and acquaintances with this transition. You may think no one who isn’t living under a rock will be affected by this change but I will be experiencing life without regular TV starting Friday.
And if I don’t have cable, a new TV, or a converter box, what are the chances you don’t know an uncle, grandma, or neighbor who’s going to be reallllllly upset that they’re going to miss Wheel of Fortune on Friday?
Apply for a coupon or find a place to buy a converter by calling 1-888-DTV-2009 or call the FCC if you can’t get the danged thing to work, call 1-888-CALL-FCC.
Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com
Tom Rosenstiel, the Director at the Project for Excellence in Journalism, puts out a report every week about what was covered in the news the preceding week. Yesterday when I cracked it opened, it came as no surprise that for May 25-31, 2009, "Sotomayor Spin Wars Dominate[d] the Narrative."
His opening statement stood in awe of how big a story this was, "based on [the] velocity and ferocity of the new media ecosystem in 2009, one forged by the election, by the rise of social media and cable, and even more than ever defined by speed, political surrogates, diversity and argument."
The report said Sotomayor’s nomination filled 24% of the newshole the week of May 25-31 and ethnicity played a central role in that coverage. "Fully 40% of stories about the nominee referenced her cultural background, meaning her Latina heritage accounted for at least 25% of those stories."
And what was bugging me all week about that coverage? This was very much missing in Rosensteil’s analysis: most of the media ecosystem talking heads helping to fill that news hole were not as diverse as, perhaps, the people they’re covering.
Hmmmm…let’s see who are we missing here?…I’ll give you a hint. Here’s what media columnist Richard "Journal-isms" Prince pointed out in his piece "Latino Commentators Scarce on Sotomayor" when referring to the number of Hispanic journalists who spoke about Sotomayor’s nomination on the Sunday morning political talk-shows:
"There are no Latino journalists on that list.
It's not just this Sunday. In an analysis of the four Sunday broadcast shows this year through April 12, Media Matters for America found that black Americans had been on the Sunday shows 40 times.
"Media Matters also measured the number of Latino guests or panelists on 'Meet the Press,' 'This Week,' 'Face the Nation' and 'Fox News Sunday' this year for the same period," wrote David Bauder of the Associated Press, which commissioned the study.
"The count?
"Zero."
Playing Devil’s advocate as I so often like doing, I contacted Kevin Olivas, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists’ Parity Project Director, and asked whether this even mattered, since a good reporter can report on anything.
He responded in an email:
"It is true that there are good journalists out there who do not happen to be Hispanic who have done a good job in covering the Latino community," Olivas said, "This may mirror Judge Sotomayor’s now infamous quote, but it is very difficult to relate the experiences of Latinos when you have not lived that experience yourself.
If we were back in time and there was an opportunity to have a panel on the civil rights struggle for African Americans and the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. or Ralph Abernathy or Rosa Parks were available, but someone said, ‘Nah, let’s just go with a panel of people who are not African American to discuss this issue,’ how representative would that be?"
Kevin makes an excellent point. I explained it this way to someone else who was having a hard time understanding where Latino journalists – rare as we are – are coming from regarding this slight.
Look at it this way: You know how English-only speakers dislike it when Spanish-speakers chatter away within earshot? The natural human instinct is to imagine that the chatterers are talking about them but they can’t understand so therefore it makes them uncomfortable.
Now imagine how Hispanics feel in a similar situation: here’s a national story about the first Latina Supreme Court Justice nominee and there are plenty of us who can objectively articulate the pros and cons of her merits – with the bonus of a culturally diverse viewpoint – but we’re not allowed to speak. We have to let non-Hispanic news and opinion journalists speak for us, even though we’re very much within ear shot and capable of answering for ourselves.
"How is it possible that Latinos can be left out of the discussion among journalists regarding such a historic event as the nomination of the first Hispanic to the U.S. Supreme Court," Olivas said. "Are there no qualified Latino journalists who could take part in this discussion?"
Of course, I’d have been more than happy to help Meet the Press’ David Gregory pronounce Sonia’s last name – it’s "Soto-‘my’-or" – but I guess I’ll just have to wait until next time.
"Latinos are part of the American experience," Olivas commiserated, "Leaving out our voices means telling an incomplete story."
Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com
On May 4, Crain’s Chicago Business– a publication I pay for and happily read cover-to-cover every week – published "2009 Women to Watch," their annual roundup of female Chicago movers and shakers. I leafed through it and proceeded to hit the roof.
Here’s the full text of my Letter to the Editor which Crain’s was kind enough to print in the Opinion section of the May 11 edition:
"It strikes me as absolutely unbelievable that a world-class city like Chicago – a town with no less than 1.7 million residents of Latino heritage – could possibly have zero women of Hispanic background worth watching ("Women to Watch," Focus, May 4)
The dynamic, accomplished, and beautiful women featured represent an impressive array of talent, but Crain’s couldn’t find a single Latina "bright star" this year?
I consider myself to be imminently watchable. Yet, I certainly pale in comparison to the fine selection of Hispanic VPs, college presidents, legislators, and entrepreneurs around Chicago."
They cut it down and took some of the sting out of it – and made it sound like it was about me rather than about the many, many incredible Hispanic women who toil away in the blind spots of those who decide "Who’s who" in this town – but you get the point.
That all came on the heels of me hitting the roof about BusinessWeek magazine’s story from the May 11 issue called "CEO’s of Tomorrow." Here’s an excerpt of the stinging Letter to the Editor I sent them back on May 4 when my copy arrived in the mail:
"I wasn’t disappointed by the high caliber of the 19 individuals BusinessWeek chose to focus on; they were dynamic, diverse, and already shouldering tremendous responsibility in major corporations. But there wasn’t a single Latino professional who might be a CEO of Tomorrow?
Not a single Hispanic CEO, President, VP, CFO, or COO who might be an innovative leader "tomorrow" when Latinos will make up a third or more of the population in the United States? I don’t think so."
I’m happy to report that Diane Brady, BusinessWeek’s Senior Editor/Content Chief immediately called me and we had a smart, in-depth conversation about the difficulty of achieving a perfectly diverse mixture of gender, race, ethnicity, industry, etc. in a spread like "CEO’s of Tomorrow –" and the difficulty of finding qualified Latino candidates.
I won’t quote her because I didn’t know I was going to write about this until I heard from so many of my own readers, but she truly was responsive to my explanation that I’m not interested in a "Hispanic leaders" story in BusinessWeek but rather to have Latinos be included in their regular stories.
Let me repeat it loudly and clearly: whether you’re talking about "Women to Watch" or "CEOs of Tomorrow," great Latino leaders are not "really great…for a Latino" but, instead, "great leaders who just happen to be Hispanic."
In order to help blunt this perceived shortage of Latino superstars I’m taking action.
Despite there being, in my mind, a ton of awesome Hispanic people doing truly amazing things here in Chicago, there seems to be no "official" list that mainstream publications can refer to when trying to find great Hispanic candidates to be profiled as Who’s Who/Mover-Shaker/Rising Star/One-to-Watch in "mainstream" publications.
So, I’m starting one.
On June 24, I will publish the first annual compilation of totally awesome Hispanic Chicagoans making this world a better place through personal or professional excellence, and I’m calling it "Chicago Latino List 2009" – or something better, if any of you have a pithier title.
You will nominate Chicago-area residents of any age, from any walk of life, who are doing something to make this world a better place, and I will pick and profile 10 of the best.
Rules: Your nominations must be emailed to me by May 29 and include:
·
the name of this wonderful human being
·
a short blurb about how they’re making the world a better place
·
contact information so I can talk to them myself
·
nominees can be Hispanic in any way, immigrant or U.S.-born, of any age, and working in any occupation
There WILL be prizes…not that my story-telling abilities aren’t prize enough…which I’ll announce along with the winners. Click on the "CHICAGO LATINO LIST 2009" page in the left-hand column for more info., and to read about other opportunities to participate.
Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com
There I was, sitting inside my favorite Mexifood joint, Tacos El Norte, last Saturday enjoying my steak torta, watching the Phillies/Mets game on Fox en Espanol when I heard the play-by-play guy say something surprising, in Spanish:
"Don’t forget, opening this Friday – Star Trek like you’ve never seen it before!" My immediate reaction was: but I’ve never seen it before – at all.
Thinking it was some freakish anomaly, I went back to my torta when I heard it again – this time with a logo, indicating to me that it was a planned thing. The announcer said, in Spanish, "This isn’t your father’s Star Trek!" Uh, yeah, I know, because my dad never watched it!
My lunch companion, a gentleman as pasty-white and as "Trekkie" as a man who could actually score lunch with a woman could be was perplexed by my reaction. "Why’s that so weird?" he asked innocently.
"Latinos don’t watch Star Trek!" I gasped. Then I did two things:
1) I ranted, for a full three minutes (he timed me – this happens quite often and he’s keeping track as a sort of science experiment) about marketers who decide to spend money on advertising to Spanish-speaking audiences but don’t bother to create culturally-relevant messages to maximize their ad buy.
Sure, Star Trek went viral before "going viral" meant "global internet sensation" but the vast majority of Latin American immigrants to this country are from Mexico and, based on my own life experiences, Mexicans weren’t exactly saying "lo estoy dando todo lo que tengo capitan" – "I’m givin’ ‘er all she’s got captain" – in times of duress.
And here in the U.S., well, let’s just say William Shatner is no Don Francisco!
Star Trek was never on in my house and when it was I never got interested. I’ve written before about how in my honors science class our final project was based on the "prime directive" and I was clueless, and ultimately got a bad grade. (Read more on William Shatner as Jesus here)
2) I sent out a Tweet calling for Latino Star Trek Fans and I got a few interesting remarks:
Luis said: "Beam me up - esse!" Alexander said: "Esther Live long and prosper. There is no bigger fan than me. " Gerardo chimed in with: ""To boldly go where no man has gone before. That was my motto in high school too. HA!" And Gabriel added: "I'm a Mexican Star Trek fan!"
I did speak to two people, though who had something more to add. Victor Soto, a 29-year-old freelance TV producer whose parents emigrated here from Mexico before he was born told me, "Yeah, I obviously didn’t watch it with my dad – he probably didn’t even really know it existed so he’s definitely not a fan."
Victor, however, is a different story, "I’m a guy, y’know, I think it’s a cool show, I like the gadgets. I grew up watching ‘Next Generation’ with Patrick Stewart and all them. I’m definitely going to go see the new one."
I also had an interesting back-and-forth with labor-rights activist Jorge Mujica, the mastermind of the March 15 Movement and immigration reform rallies in Chicago. He said he’s definitely going if he can score some tickets and shared this about his deep love for Star Trek:
"Lemme put it this way: they had a black woman, an Asian, a Russian and an [assload] of "aliens" – now, that's diversity! The miniskirts played a role, also," Mujica said. He then brought up a great question: "Let's see if they have Latinos now."
You’re in luck Jorge! The miniskirted hottie this time around is indeed a Latina – Zoe Saldana, a Jersey girl from the Dominican Republic. The stars aligned!
Then Jorge said one more thing that made me really re-think the impact Star Trek has had on past and will on future generations:
"No, I don’t think my dad saw "Viaje a las Estrelas" ever in his life. I watched it at my cousin's because we didn’t have a TV and I always loved it," Mujica said.
"After being Tarzan and Robin Hood, I became Spock, I guess it always helped me imagine there had to be a better future than our present."
Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com
"It’s a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart." Ulysses Everett McGill said that in the movie "Oh Brother Where Art Thou?" – one of my favorites.
He was surely talking about those patient people who do focus-group research for big-name marketers looking for the consumer insights that will tell them who they should spend their money marketing to.
In the last few years, much ado has been made about marketing to Latinos, who in 2003 were estimated to have a purchasing power of $650 Billion. Nationally, the amount of dollars spent on Hispanic advertising reached $3.43 billion in 2003, up 15 percent from the previous year, according to the Hispanic advertising group, thats a lot of dough spent on reaching Hispanic consumers in two languages across a variety of media to sell everything from toothpaste to alcohol to cars.
Usually marketers translate their ads into Spanish, throw in an abuelita or soccer and call it done but at the end of April, a survey like one I’ve never seen before caught my eye and boy, am I glad I read to the end.
Adage.com posted Laurel Wentz’ piece (available only by subscription) called "Latinas are Technically Savvy Brand Loyal Chief Household Officers" which detailed how Telemundo, Inc., and Meredith Hispanic Ventures spent money on actually talking to Hispanic women to find out what they’re really all about since they’re typically portrayed in the media as illegal victims, or in the movies as hottie housekeepers.
Here are my favorite insights, gleaned from a national sample of women 18-64 who self-identified as Hispanic and a control group of 500 non-Hispanic 18-64 year old women. I’ll leave out the obvious ones (as I always say, some stereotypes are true: Latinas place a greater importance on their relationship with their family and parents. Duh.).
·
80% said higher education was a top personal goal and 72% said their career was a top priority. Only 50% said getting married was more important.
·
Nearly three quarters considered themselves "significantly health-conscious"
·
Latina respondents were slightly more likely than the non-Hispanic respondents to take pictures with a digital camera (45% compared to 42%)
·
Latina respondents were slightly more likely than the non-Hispanic respondents to download music to an iPod (28% compared to 22%)
and drumroll please…
·
A key difference between Latinas and non-Hispanic women: Latinas are more likely (75%) than non-Latinas (63%) to say they’d rather have sex with their husbands than a glass of good wine.
Now, gentlemen in the audience, I want you to know that everything I write is intended to help and serve my readers. So with this information in hand, I hope it is abundantly clear what to get as the next birthday/Mother’s Day/I’m sorry gift on the horizon: an iPhone. And perhaps something lacy…but don’t go overboard on the wine.
Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com
This rant is dedicated to all the people out there who are innocently laboring under the misperception that the vast majority of Hispanics in the United States are living in such crushing poverty that they are not able to access information on the Internet.
These people – distinguished academics, misguided do-gooders, and everyday Joes alike– go around with a picture in their mind of what a Hispanic person is and it involves challenges in language, lack of education, and low access to resources. Sadly, this is true in many cases. However, it is not when it comes to access to the internet.
And to the concerned parties, Nice Esther says: stop fretting about our electronic habits, we’re OK. To others who aren’t as benevolent toward the U.S.’s exploding Latino community and prefer to think of us all as illiterate immigrants, Mean Esther says: Take your “digital divide” and shove it up your assumptions.
• In fact, Internet access among Hispanics has been increasing at a faster rate than it has among total adults in the U.S - growing 13% (on a relative basis) since 2004 - from 48% in 2004 to its current penetration of 54%. By contrast, Internet access by all consumers nationally grew 8% during the same time period. (In 2004, 64% of all consumers accessed the Internet, and this increased to 69% in 2008.)
Of course, it’s not abuelita - 18-34 year-old Hispanics are more likely to access the Internet than Hispanics overall, and their rate of Internet access is growing at a faster pace than that of the total Hispanic population. Scarborough says:
“Younger consumers are more likely to download content online. Forty-nine percent of 18-34 year-old adult Internet Users downloaded digital content in the past month, compared to 35% of the total online population. Similarly, it is no surprise that when you examine this younger demographic of Hispanics, the percentage is even higher. 51% of 18-34 year-old Hispanics downloaded digital content during the past 30 days.”
And no, it’s not some tired dial-up connection made from a pre-historic machine in someone’s basement. This same report says, “Hispanics have been taking advantage of the expansion of broadband, and their rate of adoption has mirrored that of the total U.S. population. Currently, 68% of Hispanic Internet Users have a broadband connection in their household. This grew from 13% in 2002 – an increase of more than fivefold.”
• Hispanics are more likely to have profiles on social networking sites than non-Hispanics: 48% of them have one versus 43% of black Americans and 31% of whites.
• Web-surfing Hispanics ages 18-34 visit social networking sites 3.6 times a week on average, versus just 1.3 times per week for over-35s.
• More than a third of all Internet-using Hispanics were age 24 or younger in 2006.
• Other findings from the survey suggest that Hispanics adopt new media technology more quickly than non-Hispanics, spend more time listening to Internet radio and downloading music than non-Hispanics and devote more time weekly to Internet browsing than non-Hispanics.
• The firm says Hispanics spend more time using electronic readers like Amazon's Kindle; playing multiplayer games online (although not single-player); and blogging or commenting online than other groups.
Then just last week, comScore, Inc., a leading Internet-usage research firm released numbers showing that:
• During the past year, the growth of the U.S Hispanic Internet audience outpaced that of the total U.S. online population in terms of number of visitors, time spent and pages consumed, an increase of 6 percent from the previous year.
Alright, say it all together with me now: “There is no ‘Digital Divide’ when it comes to Hispanics.” We know how to boot up, log on, and surf the web – in two languages!
And never mind the computer part of it, Hispanics – much like people who live in poverty and affluence all over the world – access their internet information via that little marvel we call the cellular phone.
Here’s what the Scarborough paper had to say on that topic: “Hispanics are avid cellular phone users. They are more likely than the typical adult to have a cell phone, and they are in the top spending brackets for cellular usage. Hispanics have been at the forefront of using the expanded functionality and technology in cellular devices, such as picture taking, text messaging and downloading ring tones or games. They are also more likely to use cell phones for tasks such as email or utilizing other Internet features.”
"As technology prices drop and the number of bilingual Hispanics in the U.S. grows, we see more Hispanic adults relying on the Internet for day-to-day communication and learning," comments Leylha Ahuile, multicultural expert at Mintel. "U.S. Hispanics who get online via their cell phones provide a great opportunity for marketers who want to reach them in a personal, direct way."
But I’m not here to tell you everything is perfect and, no need to look after the members of Latino communities who don’t yet have access to decent internet or even a computer, thank-you-very-much. Far from it!
There are still many, many great challenges for Latinos of varied socio-economic backgrounds and educational levels who, in all honestly, wouldn’t know a Mac from a PC if the Mac grew teeth and bit them. But that’s where I circle back to the greatest opportunity for growth in communicating with Latinos of all stripes and types: the cell phone.
What you’ll see, though, is that the cell phone will revolutionize Hispanics’ access to information on the web, making for infinite more connections to vital information that will bring access to social services, higher education, and political empowerment. Sort of like what Novelas Educativas, a Burbank, California-based digital entertainment company has done on YouTube, and in cell-friendly social platforms for the National Council on La Raza and for “Amigos de Obama” during last year’s elections.
"Today kids are all about cell phones just like we were about Air Jordans back in the day – popular and everywhere,” Miguel Orozco, Co-Founder, Novelas Educativas told me when we met a few weeks back. “And now that the digital gap is closing, the real issue we should be concerned about is the information gap. We should all be asking, 'How do we leverage access into knowledge.'"
Ahhh, yes, how DO we leverage access into knowledge? Well, I don’t have any easy answer for that one, but whatever the answer turns out to be, that lever will probably be translated to at-risk families via a broadband or cellular connection – and most likely into the palms of their hands.
Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com
If you know me at all, you know I like to eat. A lot. My runs to the Taco Bell border are legendary – don’t get me started on the cinnamon twists, we’ll be here all night.
And so in that vein, I bring you some fast foodie news, one involving a pathetic and cowardly caving to political correctness and another violating the sanctity of two all-beef patties!
Exhibit A:
Burger King’s pathetic caving to lunatic political correctness.
Here’s the recap; so, according to The Nation’s Restaurant News, a restaurant industry trade paper, Burger King sells a thing called "the Texican Whopper" in Europe. It’s a flame-grilled patty topped with chile-con-carne, spicy jalapenos, onion, crispy lettuce and Cajun mayonnaise on a sesame seed bun, but that wasn’t the controversial part.
BK created an ad campaign featuring – gasp!!! – a tall "American cowboy" next to a midget (oops, I meant to say "little person") lucha libre wrestler with a Mexican flag cape.
Long-story-short (if you’ll pardon the pun – I just couldn’t resist!) Mexican ambassador to Spain Jorge Zermeno – who clearly hasn’t been to ANY lucha libre matches because he’d see all manner of tall and tiny luchadores wearing Mexican flag underwear, capes, masks, etc. – complained about the ads denigrating Mexico’s national image and improperly using Mexico’s national flag.
O.K., so I guess no more girlies wearing Mexican flag thong bikinis at Cinco De Mayo celebrations, huh? Darn.
But, I’m not going to complain about Jorge "I’ve got a stick up my butt" Zermeno, it’s his job to defend his mother country’s honor, ahem, abroad.
Nope, I reserve my disgust for Burger King – they’re cowards to bow to the pressure of a humorless bureaucrat. Their PR flacks released a statement Tuesday that said the commercials "were not intended to offend anyone." Duh.
It further stated: "Burger King Corp. values and respects all of its guests as well as the countries and communities we serve…With regard to the Texican Whopper advertisement shown in Spain and the United Kingdom, it was our intention to promote a product whose culinary origin lies in both the American and Mexican cultures, and was meant to appeal to those who enjoy the flavors and ingredients that each country offers."
Apparently Burger King will, from now on, appeal only to those who cannot bear to laugh at Mexican midgets who dress up in their country’s flags to make money off people who come out to laugh at them.
What’s this world coming to?
Exhibit B: Darn that Jim Skinner, what the heck is he doing to my Big Mac’s honor? Doesn’t he know wrapping it in a flour tortilla is going to make the racists hate Mexicans even more?!?!?!
O.K., so it’s not quite that serious. But, if you hadn’t heard, according to Advertising Age magazine, our pals at Oakbrook-based McDonald’s are testing the "Snack Wrap Mac," a half –beef-patty, with lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions that’s smothered in "special sauce" and wrapped in a flour tortilla. For a buck-forty-nine.
Huh?
Why would they do this? And, more importantly, why can’t I get one?
Of the 400 of the chain's 14,000 locations who get to take the new snack for a spin, our neighbors in Wisconsin, and those crazy Texas Hustonians get to feast their tastebuds on the Big tortilla-clad Mac but Chicago doesn’t get to take a taste test – that’s just plain loco.
Note to Jim Skinner: like the geniuses who combined peanut butter and chocolate, you might just have created my newest taste treat sensation by mixing my Taco Bell needs with my Mac daddy love…so let me at it, already.
Perhaps a trip to the Oak Brook McLaboratory for a quickie taste?
Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com
On April 1, 1883 in Colorado Springs, Colorado silent film star Lon Chaney, Sr. was born.
A healthy boy, born to parents who were both deaf, the pantomime-skilled kid grew up to become "The Man of A Thousand Faces," one of the world's most gifted artists as the age of moving pictures started. Perhaps you've seen the clip of the classic "Phantom of the Opera" moment when the Phantom rips off his mask to show a hideous, malformed face.
On October 25, 2002 (or thereabouts) I was up late watching PBS when I saw an ad for a documentary of someone commonly known as the "Man of a Thousand Faces," who at that time I knew nothing about.
For absolutely no reason I made it a point to tune in on Halloween for the Kenneth Branagh-narrated documentary Lon Chaney: A Thousand Faces.
I fell in love. I went out and bought every single book chief Chaney historian Michael Blake ever wrote (I was unable to track him down for a quote), I got my hands on every single one of Chaney's films still available, I laid awake at night thinking about his stances on America's prison system and the sport of boxing. Why, I don't know!
There was just something about Chaney:
·
he was a guy from humble beginnings, an outsider because his parents were different
·
against all odds he rocked Vaudeville as an actor, a dancer, and a ventriloquist
·
he made a Hollywood star of himself by being the world's first character actor and the first special-effects master of a medium still in its infancy
·
he basically defined the horror movie genre with his grotesque characters in "Phantom of the Opera," "The Hunchback of Notre Dame," and "Oliver Twist"
·
when movies became talkies, he rocked the world again in the "Unholy Three," by portraying an old lady, a bird, and ventriloquist so perfectly that he was accused of faking it, but had he lived long enough, he might have also been known as the Man of a Thousand Voices, as well
What that has to do with me, I still don't know. But throughout the years I've never neglected to mark his birthday – today he would have been 126 – and in fact, all of my historical timelines are marked as BC or AC: "Before Chaney" or "After Chaney." It's kooky, I know but it helps me keep my dates in perspective. For instance: the U.S. Civil War began, in my mind, 22 years BC. The Watergate Scandal, 89 AC. You get the drift.
Usually on his birthday, I would have either written about him myself from whatever printed perch I had at the time or had Zay N. Smith – the former and much-missed Chicago Sun-Times Quick Takes columnist – mention it for me. He usually published a picture as well, bless his heart.
But this year I have no print perch, and Zay N. Smith is off doing whatever retired Sun-Times columnists do, so I have my electronic perch with which to serenade the man who should never ever be mistaken with his son Lon Chaney Jr., who is best known for being the "Wolfman" but wasn't actually named Lon at all.
Lon Chaney was different, an unbearably talented artist who excelled at his calling in life despite constant discouragements and obstacles. And though so many have forgotten him – or worse, never knew him – he lives on in my heart.
Happy Birthday Lon, wherever you are.
Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com
I'm not a Starbucks aficionado. I can never remember the secret code-names they have for small, medium, and large; I couldn't tell the difference between a macchiato and a mocha if one of them grew fangs and bit me.
But a recent commitment to a tastier decaffeinated lifestyle got me stopping by for decaf Americanos, which even I – Starbucks troglodyte that I am – can tell you is a shot of espresso and hot water.
Then the decaf lattes won me over, too, and all of a sudden I was waist-deep into a case study of the familiar-to-everyone-but-me international mega-brand, that elicited mocking sniggers a few months back when it announced that it had to resort to closing stores because of sagging sales.
Those sagging sales – they've reported a 10 percent drop in same-store sales, are closing nearly 1,000 shops and cutting at least 7,000 jobs – can be blamed on everything from too many store openings to consumers who, fearful of the economic downturn, are pinching their pennies.
But Starbucks has nothing to worry about because they seem to have mastered two things that are completely intertwined and completely lacking everywhere I go, which is bugging the heck out of me. Those magical qualities are good customer service and its fraternal twin: good selling.
First off, at every single Starbucks I've ever been to in the last year I was warmly greeted as though I was a regular. And the people in line with me who clearly were regulars were greeted by name and asked about their regular order: "Are you having an unetto or duetto large Fancy-Double-Half-Caff (or whatever their called) today?"
"And would you like a chocolate cupcake?" asks the cashier-ista, "Anything else?"
This is what is going to keep Starbucks rolling in dough regardless of what the stock market does: they're reallllllllly nice to the people who walk into their store to spend money on them. And they upsell, upsell, upsell.
I can not tell you how much it bothers me to go to my favorite sit-down taco joint – that same place I've been going to several times a month for years and years – and the waitresses never register that I'm there all the time. And at the end of my meal, never once, have they asked if I wanted dessert.
Guess what? I always want dessert. And I always have to turn the check away and ask for my flan. Every time.
Same thing at my favorite pizza place – I'm there nearly every Saturday night of my life and have been for a decade. Though the waiters and waitresses know my order and exactly how I liked my baby stuffed served, they never ask if I want dessert.
(Eli’s cheesecake. Plain. Yes, plain as in no nothin’ on top.)
Contrast that to my weekly Sunday trip to Jewel, where the cashiers don't know me from Adam's off aunt yet never fail to offer me the super-duper-mega-buy. And sometimes, by golly, I'm strolling outta that grocery store with ten bags of Cheddar Chex Mix (I couldn't afford not to!).
I keep seeing these apocalyptic news stories in the paper, in business magazines, and on TV about how bad it is out there…how people have stopped spending out of fear and there's just no money to buy anything, and the sky is falling.
That's not what I heard from the middle-aged woman who was in one suburban Starbucks location late last week. She was letting the barista chat her up, even though it was morning rush, because she wanted to know if the store was hiring.
"You know, I've been out of work for nearly a year now and I just can't find anything," she told the milk-steaming-coffee-slinger, who lamented that they had no openings.
"It's never been like this before – usually I could find at least something part-time, but gosh, things are so tough out there," the woman who was known by all the store's staff as Sally, said, cradling a huge four-dollar whip-cream-topped confection.
She'd been offered a cinnamon scone but declined on the grounds of her waistline. I suspect that the next day when Sally stopped by for her usual fix she was offered that three dollar scone again – and didn't make it out of the store for less than eight bucks.
Here’s the customer insight for every single business person who makes their living off of selling something in any way (and this is a freebie, I'm waiving my three-hundred-dollar an hour consulting fee): be nice and make the extra offer.
In fact, the more I think of it…the more I think a chocolate cupcake will go well with my decaf Americano tomorrow morning.
Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com
I am one of "those people" who was going to be screwed out of watching the ten o’clock news because I don’t have cable TV and the digital switchover was almost upon me.
Yes, I’d long ago applied for the discount coupons for the special receiver I imagined I’d hook up to the aluminum foil-ed bunny ears in order to watch my recommended daily allowance of TV.
But the vouchers came and I never got out to wherever one gets these mystery transformer boxes, then they expired, and then… well, you see where that went.
So I threw in the towel last Friday – before all us non-cable-TV-viewers were given the four month changeover reprieve – and I broke up with my TV.
Instead of bothering with the reception and the unforgiving schedules (no, I also don’t have TiVo or DV-R) I just watched my TV shows on my computer.
Even better than that, I went a step further: I took my laptop upstairs, snuggled into my warm cozy bed and spent several quality hours with limited-commercial TV news reports, and full-length television shows.
Highlights from the Golden Globes, twenty-seven hours of "Miami Vice," all the "Lost" you’d ever need, "24," "House," "CSI," and countless others; I named it, and I downloaded them for free. Even HBO – a premium cable channel – is starting to put its stuff online ("In Treatment," starring Gabriel Byrne) for free.
High quality, on my schedule, in any and every room of my house. Free.
Little did I know that Monday, the Senate would vote to delay the switchover start date (it had been slated for February 17) because so many of the estimated 6.5 million U.S. households had either not ordered or received their vouchers for the special receiver or had but couldn’t find any in stores.
The measure got tripped up in Congress today, handing the Obama administration a bit of a setback, but several news outlets are reporting that to be just that: a setback.
"Rep. Rick Boucher, the Virginia Democrat who chairs the House telecommunications subcommittee, told me he was optimistic the chamber would agree to President Obama's request and vote to put off the digital transition until June so about 6.5 million viewers won't lose their TV signals next month. "The likelihood is we’ll come back next week" and pass it, he said.
Not that it matters because from now on, unless I’m popping in a DVD, I’m watching TV on my computer or laptop. For free.
Well, I guess there is one price: the cost of my guilt from the knowledge that FREE is not a workable business model.
My tuning in through the internet and by-passing 90% of all commercials will eventually (and probably sooner than later) kill some significant portion of the advertising industry, the sales of consumer products – or both – and will put people out of jobs, which stinks.
It’s the same guilt that keeps me paying for subscriptions to three wonderful newspapers when I know damn well I mostly read them on-line because I leave my house so early the newspaper delivery man (now there’s a dude who’s hurtin’!) can’t get to my house before the 6am train pulls out of the station. Plus, I keep up-to-date during the day on their websites because it’s, yes, FREE.
From open source software – much of the art you see on this page was made on GIMP, a free graphics software I downloaded off the internet – to free printed newspapers and free web access to my favorite sites, there’s a whole lot of people paying a whole lot of money to get very little in return from me, and it’s not far from stopping.
So add fear to the guilt. Fear that at some point I’m going to – somehow – end up paying dearly for it all.
You know what they say, there’s no such thing as a "free"…anything.
Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com
It’s a brave new world. On Tuesday PEOTUS Obama will go from being "President-Elect of the United States" to being the nation’s first multi-cultural, half-something-half-something-else Chief Everyone Officer.
And what better way to celebrate the nation’s most non-traditional President getting sworn in than by watching the festivities on the internet and in Spanglish?
According to a story in Sunday’s New York Times, "Can the Go-To Site Get you to Stay," Tuesday is going to be gut-check time for the traditional media outlets like CNN and MSNBC who are transforming themselves into 24-hour on-line news entities.
Not so for Terra, which is already dominating that space in Latin America and is making inroads in the U.S. – notably by reaching out to those with a vested interest in the Latino community to spread the word? That’s just another way to say that Angel Sepulveda, Terra’s V.P. of Programming, called me Friday night to talk Obama.
"Terra launched in English in April to provide content not just for the Spanish-fluent audience, but to reach young, Hispanics who live in the U.S. – it’s not the same content," Angel told me as he recuperated from a marathon planning meeting with his DC crew.
He had me at "young U.S. Hispanics" – anyone smart enough to know that I don’t share the same likes and dislikes with other family members who are completely devoted to novelas and soccer is OK in my book.
But the proof is in the pudding: their site is a place I go to catch up on U.S. or Mexican, news, celebrity gossip and sports delivered in a delightful blend of Spanglish that makes me feel, well, at home. I get my Walter Mercado Spanish Astrology fix there (guilty pleasure!!).
Ten-year-old Terra is an on-line only news provider trying to make a name for itself in the United States’ netherworld of struggling media entities to an audience that is largely ignored in mainstream media and incorrectly thought to be lacking access to computers.
Currently, they own the on-line space in Latin America with approximately 60 million unique visitors per month and 8 million unique users per month on Terra TV, with an average of 66 million streams per month and a collection of 250 thousand videos.
That translated to $500 million U.S. dollars in net revenues through their portals in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, México, Nicaragua, Panamá, Perú, Puerto Rico, United States, Uruguay and Venezuela in 2007.
And Tuesday is going to be huge for them as the Latino world looks to Obama to take us all to a better place – and looks to Terra to be there, shoulder-to-shoulder with CNN, FOX, NBC, the AP, and all the other big guys, reporting the news but with an eye to what it’ll all mean to Hispanics.
"The most pressing issues facing Latinos in the U.S. are the same as for everyone else; the economy, education, social security, and yes, immigration," Angel said. "But the way Obama approached Hispanic folks on the campaign trail was indicative of how important the Latino voters were to him – and he knows what it is to be a minority."
"We are hoping and wishing for the best during his administration," Angel said, echoing the sentiments of just about every other Latino (and non-Latino) person I’ve spoken to in the last two weeks. "We all have to go the extra mile, do our part to help this man take the country to a better place."
Which is, as a matter of fact, what Angel is trying to do for U.S. Latinos, too. "Providing this coverage and this news and information to our people is my passion," Angel said. "It’s so important to elevate Hispanics’ image in this country and get others to understand Hispanics better is what we’re here to do."
"I understand what a huge responsibility it is on my shoulders to get everything that happens leading up to the inauguration, including the inauguration itself, out there for our people to see," Angel said, "it’s important for our people to know that things are going to get better."
You can watch things get better – bilingually no less – starting with the inauguration festivities at their special site http://inauguration.terra.com
Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com
"This is the worst Christmas of my entire life!" said my beautiful, 7-year-old nephew on Christmas Eve, shortly after all the gifts had been unwrapped. There hadn't been that many, and his haul had not included that one thing that had topped his list to Santa.
I noticed it early on in the evening: the usual excess of brightly-wrapped presents was but a small – yet respectable – pile that didn't over-power the tree like in years past. I wondered how the six kiddies in my family would take their first – but certainly not last – credit crunch Christmas.
There was no way to prepare them for it: grade-schoolers don't read the Financial Times, they don't pay any attention to the evening news and blissfully overlook their parent's pained faces at the dinner table.
In my family alone a devastating illness, paired with a job loss (unemployment) and slashed hours (underemployment) made for a slightly less cheery affair than usual, and the kids were the only ones honest enough to say so.
Christmas cards that in years past had been stuffed with dead presidents or gift cards contained only warm greetings. The adults limited presents to the children and the kids – accustomed to way over-the-top outpourings of purchased appreciation – looked around, confused. "This is it?"
Yes, it was.
On the day after Christmas – quickly coined this year's second "Black Friday" of the year because of the bargains retailers are using to salvage the shopping season – when I and half of America was out buying the seven million batteries necessary to power all the kiddie gadgets, I heard this in line at every store I visited: "I TOLD him what I wanted and he didn't get it for me, at least now I can get it for myself on sale!"
How did we as a society let it come to this? How is it that we trained our children – and ourselves – to believe that even though a lot of lip service is paid to the idea that Christmas is truly about being with your loved ones, it really is all about the goods?
If the collapse of the credit markets and the bursting of the housing bubble is a natural market correction that will eventually make our economy stronger, then this first-of-a-series of Christmases where counting our blessings is the true centerpiece of the holiday will surely make our spirits stronger.
Despite every parent and grandparent's desire to make all our children's wishes come true – at least one day a year – not maxing out our credit cards on that fool's errand is a great lesson to pass on. It certainly won't be easy but we'll have plenty of time to practice.
Next year, through the beginning of an economic recovery, and then in 2010 when the inflation resulting from the effects of (a successful) proposed stimulus plan start hitting us square in the pocketbook, there will have to be a re-interpretation of what Christmas means to our families.
Yes, Virginia, and sweet nephew, there is a Santa Claus.
And he loves you – as does your entire family – even if he doesn't swoop down the chimney with a pair of diamond earrings and the latest incarnation of Guitar Hero.
Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com
President-elect Barack Obama has been bombarded with wish lists and one more was thrown on the pile last week by a group of prominent Latino interest groups looking for the new administration to ease the so-called digital divide.
In a four-point plan released earlier this month, organizations such ASPIRA Association, Inc., the Latinos in Science and Technology Association (LISTA), Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU), and the Institute for the Puerto Rican/Hispanic Elderly, Inc. (IPR/HE), among others, called for making high-speed internet access more affordable to all minorities in general, but specifically for Hispanics.
Their statement said the Obama administration should "take the necessary steps to ensure that every American has access to high speed internet service, and provide the necessary tools to enable children across the country to consider careers in science and technology."
Yes, but it won’t be Obama who takes the necessary steps, it’ll be the Nokias, Motorolas and Research in Motions (think: Blackberry) of the world who will make that happen – and they’re already erasing the divide.
Do a bit of amateur sleuthing: go into the poorest neighborhood you dare visit and simply observe. You won’t see hoards of youngsters (or oldsters for that matter) tapping away on a Mac Book at a Starbucks but I’ll bet you a million dollars you’ll see people of all ages thumb-typing on a phone.
Yep, the cellular phone is the personal computer of the next generation.
They’re cheaper than even marginally-loaded laptops and come with high speed internet access built in. Sure, the high school kids aren’t whipping ‘em out to Google the Pythagorean theorem, but more and more the college kids are doing just that.
Even more frequently they and their non-degree seeking friends and families are opening doors of opportunity with their cell phones, following trends seen all across the globe of impoverished people empowering themselves through the power of a hand-held communication device.
In March of 2007, Pew Internet & American Life Project, along with the Pew Hispanic Center, surveyed more than 6,000 Latino adults by telephone, in both Spanish and English, to find out the reasons for Hispanic online absence. Back then, even though Latinos comprised 14 percent of the U.S. adult population, only 56 percent went online compared to 71 percent of non-Latino whites and 60 percent of non-Latino blacks. Plus there was a big drop off when it came to the Spanish-only speaking segment of U.S. population.
Those who didn’t complete high school made up just 31 percent of online Latinos, whereas 89 percent of those with a college degree went online and Internet connections in Latino homes were found to be considerably lower than their white counterparts with 79 percent of Latinos having a connection of some sort, compared with 92 percent.
At that time, the cost of broadband connections was considered a barrier (and that hasn’t changed) but what has changed is the proliferation of cell phones with texting, picture and video capacity and reasonably well-functioning internet browsers.
Today in the marketing world we’re soooo post dot-com-boom, it’s now all about getting our .mobi sites up as fast as possible so millions of consumers bored at school or work, in traffic or on the train can access our information, goods, and services quickly and easily from the keyhole-sized window of their cell-phone.
Bored Latinos are no less interested in looking through that keyhole.
A November report in Multichannel News written by Laura Martinez said this about the Hispanic mobile mania: "The market is too large to ignore. According to Simmons Research, there are over 18 million Hispanic wireless subscribers, and recent data compiled by Ping Mobile shows 66% of Hispanics use text messaging on a daily basis, compared to 36% of the general market."
"Mobile content is going to be huge among U.S. Hispanics," said Lee Durham, president of LSN Mobile, which this year partnered with Telemundo and Azteca América to offer users local news and weather updates on their mobile devices. While the trend has been largely driven by the big broadcast networks, it is also catching on among smaller players such as V-me, Sorpresa, MTV Tr3s, mun2 and WAPA-TV."
Dosvedanya digital divide! Just as they’ve done in remote villages in India, Bottswana and New Guinea, cell phones – and those who innovate them – will democratize information for the next generation of the underserved black, brown, and plain-old-poor in America.
So let’s leave Obama out of this one. He’s got more pressing issues – such as how to make himself the first Crackberry President in history – to worry about an issue that will correct itself through the power of free markets.
Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com
William P. Schirmang, the beer monger who popularized Heileman’s Old Style in Chicago – and in casa Cepeda – passed away November 13, according to the obituary in today’s Chicago Sun Times.
Apparently, a decade before my mom and dad moved to Chicago, Old Style beer was virtually unheard of here. By the time I was old enough to be sent to the fridge to fetch a cold one, Schirmang had wheedled his beer out of his car trunk, and into Wrigley Field, not to mention the hearts of beer drinkers across town.
Schirmang ultimately brought over 2 million cases of Lacrosse, Wisconsin’s finest to Chicago through the 70’s, when it became a symbol of America in my refrigerator.
Now, most white people think that Mexican’s love Corona. I can’t even say that word in my father’s presence without eliciting a groan. Nope, depending on what part of Mexico you hail from, it’s all about the Tecate, the Negro Modelo, Carta Blanca, Bohemio. Whatever those tasted like, there must have been some whiff of nostalgia to be consumed along with the OS upon popping the keyhole shaped tab.
I loved staring at the beautiful, artfully cryptic can but to my six-year old palate, it was super yucky. On one of innumerable runs to the fridge – I recall it being a sunny, but not hot day – to retrieve the beloved beverage which was to accompany two salted, hard-boiled eggs, I begged for a sip of what was made out to me to be some sort of magical elixir.
I couldn’t spit it out fast enough. Old Style tasted like a mouthful of rusty pennies, and frankly, I’ve disliked beer ever since (don’t be alarmed, I have, in fact, tasted a variety of finer lagers over the years but the Old Style trauma seems to have sustained a decades-long aversion).
Either way, I count the moment as an important and happy childhood memory. As the years went on Old Style was eclipsed by the ferocity of Miller and Budweiser’s dueling marketing budgets and, while still available, rolls off (or on to) the tongues of few I know.
But for a while, there, that Old Style – and the man who brought it south to Chicago sure made a lot of people happy…including me and my dad.
Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com
Oprah Winfrey spoke to "Hispanics" on Monday. This is what she said: "You don’t need to learn English, I’ll tell you what to buy and how to live your life by my tenets in Spanish. And those of you who only watch English-language TV - I don't care about you."
Well, she didn’t actually say that, nor did she actually learn to speak the language of the very people she’s targeting. Instead Harpo Productions, through the magic of Secondary Audio Programming and closed captioning (sponsored by a tortilla-maker, perhaps?) started broadcasting her cult of personality in Spanish in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Miami, Houston, and Dallas on Monday.
"With this action we want to serve the largest-growing segment of the population in the country: Hispanics," Angela Depaul, a Harpo Productions, Inc. spokeswoman told a reporter for Hoy, Chicago’s Spanish-language daily newspaper. "With Spanish subtitles, Hispanic viewers will a have a more direct experience with Oprah."
And Oprah gave Spanish-only speakers yet one more reason to not have to learn English to "get along" in this country.
But Oprah’s crack market-research team didn’t do their homework. The fastest-growing segment of the population is overwhelmingly U.S.- born and fluent in English.
And guess what? Despite the breathless banner ads on Oprah.com exclaiming "Finally! Oprah in Spanish!" the kind of women living in the U.S. who don’t speak English are probably not the type who are going to be able to afford the $60 LeMystere bras or $30 Yves Saint Laurent lipsticks that the Queen of Consumerism shills on her show, in her magazine and on her website.
No, that would be me: young, female, affluent, English-speaking, U.S.-born Latinas.
Let’s compare: Oprah’s 7.4 million daily viewers are overwhelmingly female, white, and over the age of 55, according to MSNBC’s Aswini Anburajan. She also reported that Oprah’s reach among the Hispanic population is tiny -- only about 230,000.
Now, will Oprah do the things that would actually make me stomach her show like easing up on pop stars like Ricky Martin, and feature more Hispanic doctors, lawyers, scientists or dieticians in her stable of experts? How about having a touchingly emotional segment on racism against Hispanics? Or just flat out making an effort to have any Latino faces in her hyper-estrogenized audience?
"I can’t comment on that," spokeswoman Depaul told Hoy in answer to a direct question about whether we can expect to see more Latino guests on the Oprah show. "Of course that would be spectacular." Nice save, but I’m not holding my breath.
Oprah has been called the most-successful business woman in History. Is she smart enough to actively and meaningfully tap into the Latino market by truly speaking to a Hispanic audience in a way that reflects and respects them?
Nah. Why should she? No one else does.
Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com
First off, let me put this out there… I love white people. Half my family (the half that isn’t, by the numbers, even more Filipino than it is Hispanic) is white.
I’m also not the type to go around being all bitter that "da man" is trying to keep me down. But sometimes it sorta, kinda feels like maybe…
Here’s what gets me: Roger Ebert and Rich Roeper walked away from At the Movies and were replaced by...drumroll please… two pasty white guys.
Fine, upstanding, imminently qualified guys, perhaps funny and – to some tastes – attractive guys. But… well… white guys!
It’s 2008 and some black dude is running for president, but the movie review show based in Chicago – which has one of the largest black and Latino populations in America – couldn’t find one single movie writer, reviewer, or blogger "of color" as the kids like to say, to fill one of the seats? Give me a break!
Back when the world was young and movies were no longer the sort of place you got dressed up to go to, Roger Ebert invented the newspaper beat of "Movie critic." And God bless him for doing so, he took what could have been a meritless, fluffy opinion column and created serious scholarly discourse on an important American art form.
In 1982, Rog, along with Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune brought movie criticism into the mainstream with their inimitable TV show Sneak Previews which went onto become At the Movies. About a year after Gene died in 1999, Roger’s fellow Sun-Times columnist became his new balcony-mate. I was thrilled!
Never mind that Rich was totally cool, an awesome writer on many things including –
but not limited to – movies, he had great chemistry. But not only that, Roeper was the final pick after a long slew of many male, female, and diverse "guest hosts" auditioned for over a year. He was the best, no problem – merit-based success is really the only kind that should exist.
I’ll take a side-note here to say I’m sure the show’s producers had a really hard time finding such a diverse array of talent to fill that guest slot. There are very, very few popular minority media people, much less those with cushy entertainment beats…editors generally send black reporters to the South Side and the Latino ones to the local factories to investigate immigration raids. (Yes, that is a true statement.) Let’s face it, people who aren’t white have had a tough time cracking into such elite white-collar positions as "movie critic."
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not just crushing sour grapes here, it’s not like I sent an audition tape, but last week when I read about Ben Mankiewicz and Ben Lyons’ new gigs in Sun-Times columnist Robert Feder’s piece ABC 7 ready to raise curtain on new 'At the Movies' , what could I do but just shake my weary head?
I’ve got nothing against Ben and Ben. Feder called them "both scions of famed show-biz families; Mankiewicz was a host for Turner Classic Movies and Sirius Satellite Radio, and Lyons reported for E! Entertainment," so clearly they’re qualified. But c’mon, only white people get to give their take on talkies?
What about George Singleton? What about some talented blogger? Hey, how’s this: how about a woman – any color’s fine.
Yep, it’s 2008 and women and blacks are not only allowed to vote but they get to do so for someone who looks like them. Good times, in perspective.
But though I don’t think there’s some anti-minority media bias, sadly, there seems to be a terrible confluence of managerial blind spots and lack of imagination and – even worse – a lack of opportunity for writers who aren’t white.
Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com
