Category Archives: The Forum

Discussions about current topics.

AMENAZAN EL ATENEO DE PUERTO RICO – ONE OF PUERTO RICO’S OLDEST CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS IS THREATENED

The Forum

We are using BING’s translator to reproduce this text in English and look further into this in the near future. But read on and learn about a new pressing matter in Puerto Rico, the threatened closing of one of the nation’s oldest cultural institutions el Ateneo Puertorriqueño. English translation follows the original Spanish text.

¡PUERTORRIQUEÑOS — Y LOS QUE APOYAN LOS DERECHOS CULTURALES DE LOS PAISES!

En el día de ayer, la representante del PNP, Sra. Liza Fernández, radicó el proyecto de Ley RC de la C 1270 que adjunto, para quitar TODOS LOS FONDOS que por Ley recibe el Ateneo Puertorriqueño y obligarlo a cerrar.

Se esperaba que el proyecto bajase como descargue en la noche del cierre de la actual sesión legislativa.

Les explico un poco los antecedentes.

Existe una Ley, desde 1935, enmendada consecuentemente desde entonces que garantiza al Ateneo Puertorriqueño para sus operaciones, empleados y cuido de sus colecciones artísticas y bibliográficas la cantidad de $500,000 (que dicho sea de paso fue aumentado de $300,000 a $500,000 por la entonces presidenta de la Cámara, Zaida “Cucusa” Hernández con votación unánime en los dos cuerpos.). La ley es la Ley 224 del 18 de agosto de 2003.

La fiscalización del uso de dichos fondos está en manos del Contralor quien en varias ocasiones ha felicitado al Ateneo por la pulcritud y claridad de sus informes.

Esta asignación está consignada en el Presupuesto Operacional de Gastos del país y aprobada para este año sin corte o enmienda alguna. Por lo que se supone que dicho dinero le fuera entregado al Ateneo en el mes de julio una vez comenzara a regir el nuevo año fiscal. Esta es la hora en que el Departamento de Hacienda no les ha entregado el cheque.

Los empleados no han cobrado, las deudas de agua y luz se montan, y se ha resuelto estar abiertos con ayudas y donativos de aquí y de allá porque es la Casa de la Patria y esta no debe cerrar NUNCA.

En varias investigaciones que allegados del Ateneo han hecho, penetrando en algo el silencioso muro del Gobierno, se ha descubierto que existe una “conspiración” para que dicho cheque no sea entregado. Y que dicha conspiración viene de los “altos” poderes de La Fortaleza.

Ahora aparece este proyecto de Liza Fernández, cuyas gestiones iniciaron en septiembre de este año, para quitar los fondos y dárselos al Centro Médico, (en una oposición muy compleja de combatir pues se quiere dirigir la atención a que el Ateneo se pelee fondos con los niños enfermos, como si ese fuese el único dinero que existe.)

En la Exposición de Motivos esta representante acusa al Ateneo de hacer expresiones políticas, alejándose de su deber cultural. Adjunto las expresiones del Ateneo a las que ella se refiere.

Es decir, que todo el trabajo cultural desde 1876, casi 140 años, que el Ateneo ha hecho en defensa de los valores patrios, la formación de estudiantes (en este momento más de 90 estudiantes del Conservatorio de Arte Dramático del Ateneo se quedarían sin sus clases), la defensa del Idioma español, la defensa del pueblo viequense, la preservación de obras artísticas, la tribuna libre de ideas en la que se han expresado los más importantes intelectuales del país, el fondo editorial, el Archivo Nacional de Teatro y Cine único en el país, van a sucumbir porque el Ateneo ha hecho “expresiones políticas”. Liza Fernández no sabe lo que es el Ateneo, porque una de las secciones del Ateneo es precisamente esa, la de Ciencias Políticas, en este momento dirigida por José Javier Colón Morera, hijo del patriota Noel Colón Martínez.

Así, el Ateneo tiene secciones de literatura, teatro, cine, ciencias físicas, artes plásticas, historia y música, en las que se discute cada uno de estos temas y por supuesto, su relevancia “política” en la actualidad del país.

Violentando la autonomía de las instituciones culturales fundadas desde los tiempos de España, Fernández cree que puede adjudicar la única labor cultural del país al ICPR.

Pues es importante destacarle que en aras de esa tribuna libre, uno de los principales defensores del Ateneo lo fue Don Luis A. Ferré, quien fue socio de toda la vida del Ateneo. Al punto de que cuando Pedro Rosselló amenazó con reducir los fondos del Ateneo en su primer cuatrienio, fue Don Luis Ferré quien públicamente le señaló que “el Ateneo no se toca, por lo que esa institución significa para el país, su historia y su cultura”. Rosselló le obedeció y nada sucedió entonces.

Allí, en la tribuna del Ateneo, han hablado Pedro Rosselló, Carlos Romero Barceló, Ricky Rosselló, muchos legisladores penepés y estadistas, muchos de ellos que constituían la Comisión de Status del Ateneo.
Allí han hablado Luis Muñoz Marín, Rafael Hernández Colón, Aníbal Acevedo Vilá, entre muchos otros. Y de los pipiolos e independentistas, muchos más.

Esta casa es signo de la Nación Puertorriqueña, no un kiosko cultural de collarcitos y piraguas como pretende adjudicarle este proyecto.

El Presidente del Ateneo lo es el Dr. José Milton Soltero, el vicepresidente lo es el poeta nacional Hamid Galib, el secretario lo es el dramaturgo Roberto Ramos-Perea y los demás miembros lo son distinguidos intelectuales del país, como el compositor William Ortiz, el cineasta Pepe Orraca, el Dr. Egdar Quiles Ferrer, la periodista Enid Routté, el Lcdo. Daniel Nina, el Dr. Carlos Severino, la Dra. Vivian Auffant, el Lcdo. Arturo Ríos (ex líder estudiantil), el Lcdo. José Soltero, el editor Elizardo Martínez, la Prof. Haydee Venegas, y el pasado Presidente el Lcdo. Eduardo Morales Coll. Todos comprometidos de manera en extremo seria y responsable con lo que esta institución significa para los más caros valores del país, según reza en los estatutos de su fundación en 1876, de la mano de los padres de la Patria, Don Alejandro Tapia y Rivera, Manuel Elzaburu Vizcarrondo, Manuel Corchado y Juarbe, Salvador Brau, José Julián Acosta, Román Baldorioty de Castro, José de Diego y sus distinguidos socios históricos José Celso Barbosa, Federico Degetau, Francisco Amy, Luis Muñoz Rivera, entre otros muchos “políticos” que desde 1876 se expresaron de maneras políticas” en el Ateneo.

Se ha sabido que el Representante Antonio “Toñito Silva, ha sido en extremo cooperador, al punto de llamar él mismo al Secretario de Hacienda inquiriéndole por qué no se había dado el cheque, sin recibir respuesta alguna.

En la estación Boricua 740 con Luis Penchi, Silva mismo admitió que había “alguien” deteniendo el desembolso.

La senadora Evelyn Vázquez, presidenta de la Comisión de Educación y Cultura del Senado, también fue cooperadora, y se encontró con una intriga en Hacienda donde le dijeron “que el Ateneo había rechazado ese dinero”. Ella pidió esta afirmación por escrito y todavía la está esperando.

Los senadores populares son solidarios y están consternados con esto.

Si destruyen el Ateneo, destruyen lo más sagrado de la Patria Puertorriqueña.

Estemos pendientes de las acciones que se desarrollarán en apoyo al Ateneo Puertorriqueño y que serán convocadas por su Junta de Directores.

Un socio del Ateneo

—
Prof. Roberto Ramos-Perea
Director General del Archivo
Nacional de Teatro y Cine
Rector del Conservatorio de Arte Dramático
Ateneo Puertorriqueño
POBOX 9021180
San Juan de Puerto Rico 00902-1180
ramosperea@gmail.com

ENGLISH TEXT

PUERTO RICANS – AND THOSE WHO SUPPORT THE CULTURAL RIGHTS OF COUNTRIES!

On the day yesterday, the representative of the PNP, Ms. Liza Fernández, lay draft law RC C 1270 attached, to remove all the funds by law receives the Puerto Rican Ateneo and forcing it to close.

It was expected that the project down as a download on the night of the closure of the current legislative session.

I explain a little background.

There is a law, since 1935, consequently amended since that guarantees the amount of $500,000 to the Puerto Rican Athenaeum for its operations, staff and caring for their artistic and bibliographic collections (that I might add was increased from $300,000 to $500,000 by the then President of the Chamber, Zaida “Cucusa” Hernandez by unanimous vote in the two bodies.). The law is the law 224 of 18 August 2003.

The control of the use of these funds is held by the controller who on several occasions has congratulated the Ateneo on the neatness and clarity of their reports.

This mapping is contained in the operational budget of expenditure of the country and adopted for this year without cutting or amends any. For what it is supposed that such money was handed over to the Ateneo in the month of July, a time began to govern the new fiscal year. This is the hour in which the Department of Finance has not delivered them the cheque.

Employees have not claimed, debts of water and light are mounted, and be open with grants and donations from here and there because it is the home of the fatherland and this must not close never has been solved.

In several investigations that relatives of the Ateneo have done, penetrating into something the silent wall of the Government, he has been discovered that there is a “conspiracy” to ensure that this check is not delivered. And that that plot comes from the “high” powers of the fortress.

Now appears this project of Liza Fernandez, whose efforts began in September of this year, to remove the funds and give them to the Medical Center (in opposition very complex fighting because we want to draw attention to the Ateneo was pelee funds with sick children, as if that were the only money that exists.)

In the explanatory memorandum, this representative accuses the Ateneo to political expressions, away from its cultural duty. I enclose expressions of the Ateneo to which it refers.

Namely, that all the cultural work from 1876, nearly 140 years, the Ateneo has made in defense of national values, the training of students (currently more than 90 students from the Conservatory of dramatic art of the Ateneo remain without their classes), defense of the Spanish language, defense of viequense people, the preservation of works of art, the discussion forum of ideas that have been expressed the most important intellectuals of the country, the editorial background, the national archives of theater and cinema only in the country, will succumb because the Ateneo has made “political expression”. Liza Fernandez does not know what is the Ateneo, because one of the sections of the Ateneo is precisely that, of political science, currently directed by Jose Javier Colón Morera, son of Patriot Noel Colón Martínez.

Thus, the Ateneo has sections of literature, theatre, cinema, physical sciences, fine arts, history and music, which discusses each of these issues and of course, his “political” significance today in the country.

Breaking the autonomy of cultural institutions founded since the times of Spain, Fernandez believes that it can be awarded the only cultural work in the country to the ICPR.

It is important to note that for the sake of this gallery free, one of the main proponents of the Ateneo was Don Luis a. Ferré, who was a partner in the life of the Ateneo. To the point that when Pedro Rosselló threatened to reduce the funds of the Ateneo in his first four years, was Don Luis Ferré who publicly stated you that “the Ateneo not touched, so that this institution means for the country, its history and its culture”. Rosselló obeyed you and nothing happened then.

There, in the Gallery of the Ateneo, have spoken Pedro Rosselló, Carlos Romero Barceló, Ricky ROSSELLO, many legislators penepés and statesmen, many of them constituting the Ateneo Status Commission.
There they have spoken to Luis Muñoz Marín, Rafael Hernández Colón, Aníbal Acevedo Vilá, among many others. And the pipiolos and independence, many more.

This House is a sign of the Puerto Rican nation, not a kiosk cultural collarcitos and canoeing as it seeks to assign this project.

The President of the Ateneo is Dr. José Milton Soltero, the Vice President is the national poet Hamid Galib, Secretary is playwright Roberto Ramos Perea and other members you are distinguished intellectuals of the country, as the composer William Ortiz, filmmaker Pepe Orraca, Dr. III Quiles Ferrer, journalist Enid Routté, Esq.. Daniel Nina, Dr. Carlos Severino, DRA. Vivian Auffant, Esq.. Arturo Ríos, Esq. (former student leader). José single, editor Elizardo Martínez, Prof. Haydee Venegas, and past President Atty.. Eduardo Morales Coll. All committed way in extreme serious and responsible with what this institution means to the highest values of the country, as it reads in the statutes of its foundation in 1876, the hand of the fathers of the fatherland, Don Alejandro Tapia and Rivera, Manuel Elzaburu Vizcarrondo, Manuel Corchado and Juarbe, Salvador Brau, José Julián Acosta, Román Baldorioty de Castro”, José de Diego and his distinguished historical partners José Celso Barbosa, Federico Degetau, Francisco Amy, Luis Muñoz Rivera, among other many”politicians”that since 1876 were expressed in political ways” in the Ateneo.

Has been known to representative Antonio “Toñito Silva, has been extremely cooperative, to the point of calling him same to the Secretary of the Treasury inquiriendo you why had not given the cheque, without receiving any reply.”

Station Boricua 740 with Luis Penchi, same Silva admitted that there was “someone” stopping the disbursement.

Senator Evelyn Vazquez, Chairman of the Committee on education and culture of the Senate, was also a cooperative, and met with an intrigue in finance where told him “that the Ateneo had rejected that money”. She requested this statement written and is still waiting.

The popular senators are supportive and are dismayed with this.

If destroyed the Ateneo, they destroy the most sacred of the Puerto Rican homeland.

We are awaiting the actions to be conducted in support to the Puerto Rican Ateneo and which shall be convened by its Board of Directors.

One member of the Ateneo – Prof. Roberto Ramos Perea Director General of the national archives of theatre and cinema Rector at the Conservatory of dramatic art Ateneo 9021180 Yahoo.com Puerto Rican San Juan, Puerto Rico 00902 – 1180 ramosperea@gmail.com

PRdream mourns the passing of Alice Cardona, Community Activist and Latina Rights Advocate

Corrientes, The Forum, ,

 

 

Alice Cardona, Latina Rights Advocate, Dies at 81
Nov. 2, 2011
Staff–Hispanic Business
Alice Cardona, who advocated for women’s rights and bilingual education, died on Nov. 1, 2011, at age 81.

Alice Cardona, who advocated for women’s rights and bilingual education, died Noevmber 1 at the age of 81. She was of Puerto Rican descent and raised and educated in Spanish Harlem in New York. Her parents migrated to New York from Puerto Rico in 1923.

After graduating high school in 1950, Cardona volunteered at the Legion de Maria, where she gave psychological support to black and Hispanic people in need.

During this time she learned about the oppressive social, economic and educational obstacles that these groups faced.

In 1961, Cardona joined the Sisters of St. John, a religios order based in Taylor, Texas, but later returned to New York to work for a financial institution as a program coordinator for United Bronx Parents (UBP).

Her career prospered between 1970 and 1978, during which time she worked at ASPIRA as a counselor for youth and later as a director of counseling for parents and students.

Working at ASPIRA encouraged her to return to complete her degree, which she did in 1973 through an independent study program at Goddard College in Plainfield, Vt. She also was an active member of the National Conference of Puerto Rican Women (NACOPRW). In 1975, Cardona became a member on the national board of NACOPRW.

During this time she founded HACER/Hispanic Women’s Center, which aimed to help Latinas to achieve their professional goals through education.

Between 1983 and 1995, under the administration of New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, Cardona was the assistant director of the N.Y. State Division for Women, where she directed the office’s day-to-day operations.

In this position she further advocated for bilingual education and women, including those in prison. She also worked to combat AIDS/HIV, breast cancer and domestic violence.

Upon retiring in 1995, Cardona remained active with various organizations. She was the director of the Puerto Rican Association for Community Affairs (PRACA); the co-director of the Atrevete, a group dedicated to voter registration and political participation; and a member of the boards of National Women’s Political Caucus, National Association for Bilingual Education, and Puerto Rican Educatiors Association, among others.

In 1997, Cordona was one of 70 U.S. women invited to “Vital Voices of Women in Democracy” in Beijing. She also is the author of a book, “Puerto Rican Women Achievers in New York City,” and she was the first Hispanic woman to receive the Susan B. Anthony prize from the National Organization for Women (NOW).

Piri Thomas, Spanish Harlem Author, Dies at 83

Corrientes, The Forum

 

 

THE NEW YORK TIMES
By JOSEPH BERGER

Piri Thomas, the writer and poet whose 1967 memoir, “Down These Mean Streets,” chronicled his tough childhood in Spanish Harlem and the outlaw years that followed and became a classic portrait of ghetto life, died on Monday at his home in El Cerrito, Calif. He was 83.

Tyrone Dukes/The New York Times
Piri Thomas in 1971. His memoir was an influential portrait of life in Spanish Harlem.

Signet Books
The 1967 memoir, “Down These Mean Streets,” was a best seller and eventually a staple on high school and college reading lists.
The cause was pneumonia, his wife, Suzie Dod Thomas, said.

The memoir, a best seller and eventually a staple on high school and college reading lists, appeared as Americans seemed to be awakening to the rough cultures that poverty and racism were breeding in cities. A new literary genre had cropped up to explore those conditions, in books like “Manchild in the Promised Land,” by Claude Brown, and “The Autobiography of Malcolm X.”

“Down These Mean Streets” joined that list. The memoir, Mr. Thomas wrote on his Web site, had “exploded out of my guts in an outpouring of long suppressed hurts and angers that had boiled over into an ice-cold rage.”

The novelist Daniel Stern, reviewing the book in The New York Times, called it “another stanza in the passionate poem of color and color-hatred being written today.”

In the memoir, Mr. Thomas described how he was brought up as the only dark-skinned child among seven children, the son of a Puerto Rican mother, Dolores Montañez, and a Cuban father, Juan Tomás de la Cruz. His dark skin, Mr. Thomas recalled, made him feel like an outlier in his own family and neighborhood, where he was taunted about this looks. Even his father, he felt, preferred his lighter-skinned children.

He described the bravado, or “machismo,” that he affected on the streets. Protecting his “rep” led him to “waste” people who insulted him, he wrote. He sniffed “horse” — heroin — even though he knew the consequences. “The world of street belonged to the kid alone,” he wrote. “There he could earn his own rights, prestige, his good-o stick of living. It was like being a knight of old, like being 10 feet tall.”

As a merchant seaman in the Jim Crow South, he wrote, he persuaded a white prostitute to sleep with him because, he told her, he was really Puerto Rican, not black. He then enjoyed stunning her by telling her she had just slept with a black man.

He returned home while his mother was dying in a poor people’s ward at Metropolitan Hospital and resumed his old ways — selling and using drugs and robbing people. In one holdup he wounded a police officer and landed in prison for seven years, a harrowing time he vividly evoked. It was in prison that he finished high school and began thinking about writing. He found, he wrote, that words could be used as bullets or butterflies. He called writing “the Flow.”

“It came very naturally,” he told an interviewer. “I promised God that if he didn’t let me die in prison, I would use the Flow.”

The book, with its harsh language and scenes, was banned by some schools but soon became assigned reading in many others. The poet Martin Espada said its influence was enormous.

“Because he became a writer, many of us became writers,” Mr. Espada said. “Before ‘Down These Mean Streets,’ we could not find a book by a Puerto Rican writer in the English language about the experience of that community, in that voice, with that tone and subject matter.”

Carolina González, a professor of literature at Rutgers University, said her students continue to find the book “very immediate and descriptive of their lives.”

After the memoir Mr. Thomas spent much of the rest of his life lecturing about it. He also wrote two novels, “Savior, Savior, Hold My Hand” (1972) and “Seven Long Times” (1974), several plays and the collection “Stories From El Barrio” (1979). He also set his poetry to music.

John Peter Thomas was born on Sept. 30, 1928, in Harlem Hospital, where he was given the Anglo-Saxon name. “They wanted to assimilate me,” he said in an interview in 1995. “Whoever heard of a Puerto Rican named John Peter Thomas?” His mother called him Piri.

In addition to his wife, he is survived by two sons, Peter Stacker and Ricardo Thomas; four daughters, SanDee Thomas, Raina Thomas, Tanee Thomas and Renee Shank; three stepchildren, Michael and Laura Olenick, and David Elder; seven grandchildren; and two step-grandchildren.

Despite Mr. Thomas’s hardships, Olga Luz Tirado, his onetime publicist, said he had retained a sense of humor. She recalled taking him to a reading in Brooklyn in the 1990s. “On the way back I took a wrong turn and said to him, ‘Piri, I think we’re lost,’ ” she told a reporter. “He asked, ‘We got gas?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ And he said: ‘We ain’t lost. We just sightseeing!’ ”

PRdream mourns the passing of Shifra Goldman, Art Historian and Political Activist

Corrientes, The Forum

 

 

Shifra Goldman dies at 85; champion of modern Mexican Art
By Elaine Woo, Los Angeles Times

Shifra Goldman was a civil rights and anti-Vietnam War activist who joined the Mexican American rights movement in Los Angeles and helped elevate Latin American and Chicano art history into legitimate fields of study.

In the early 1970s, when Shifra Goldman proposed a doctoral dissertation on modern Mexican art, her professors at UCLA sneered. Compared to European art, the art of Latin America was, in their view, imitative, too political, unworthy of serious scholarly attention.

But Goldman, a scrappy civil rights and anti-Vietnam War activist who went back to school in her mid-30s, refused to consider a more mainstream topic. Describing herself years later as a person who was “born on the margins, lived on the margins and … always sympathized with the margins,” she bided her time for several years until a more open-minded professor arrived who was willing to supervise her research.

She not only published her dissertation as a book, “Contemporary Mexican Painting in a Time of Change” (1981), but went on to become a seminal figure in the rise of Latin American and Chicano art history as legitimate fields of study.

Goldman died Sept. 11 in Los Angeles from Alzheimer’s disease, said her son, Eric Garcia. She was 85.

Calling herself an activist art historian, Goldman was an early champion of Mexican muralist David Alfaro Siqueiros and persisted for decades to preserve his last public work in the United States: the “América Tropical” mural at Olvera Street. The Getty Conservation Institute is collaborating with the city of Los Angeles to rescue the rare mural.

“There was no one like Shifra,” said artist and Cal State Northridge professor Yreina D. Cervantez. “She was an advocate and a scholar on Chicano and Chicana art long before it was recognized and … she put it in the context of the larger art world. Her commitment was unmovable and constant.”

Goldman “was an intellectual pioneer with strong social convictions,” said Chon Noriega, director of the UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center where Goldman was a research associate in the mid-1990s. Noriega described one of her books — “Arte Chicano,” a comprehensive 1985 bibliography co-written with Tomás Ybarra-Frausto — as “the bible for Chicano art history.”

“We really have to rewrite the history of modern art,” Goldman told The Times in 1992. “That’s the tall order that many of us have set for ourselves. You have to insert the modern art of Asia, Africa and Latin America.”

Born Shifra Meyerowitz on July 18, 1926, she grew up in New York steeped in the leftist politics of her parents, Jewish immigrants from Russia and Poland. She attended the city’s High School of Music and Art before moving to Los Angeles in the 1940s.

A studio art major at UCLA, she joined a student boycott of Westwood barbers who refused haircuts to African American veterans of World War II attending UCLA on the GI Bill. She left UCLA before earning her degree and immersed herself in the nascent Mexican American civil rights movement led by activist Bert Corona. She learned Spanish living in East Los Angeles and in 1952 married John Garcia.

The marriage ended after a few years, and a second marriage also ended in divorce. She is survived by her son and a grandson.

“She said she was a women’s libber before it existed,” her son, Eric, said last week. “She had a hard time with men. They didn’t want this intellectual powerhouse. She was a very intense woman.”

During the 1950s Goldman worked in a factory assembling refrigerators and stoves; later she was a bookkeeper. She remained active in radical causes, which in 1959 led to a subpoena to appear before a panel of the House Un-American Activities Committee. She refused to answer questions.

Unsatisfied with her life, she returned to UCLA, completing her bachelor’s degree in art in 1963. She earned a master’s from Cal State L.A in 1966 and a doctorate from UCLA in 1977, both in art history.

She taught at a number of colleges in Southern California, including Santa Ana College, until 1992, when she retired from full-time teaching.

In 2008 she donated her meticulously organized collections of correspondence, articles, books, museum catalogs, gallery announcements and art slides — many showing works that have disappeared — to the California Ethnic and Multicultural Archives at UC Santa Barbara.

“Anybody who was seriously involved in Latino/Chicano art has visited Shifra at home and gone through her collection. She was the archivist of the field,” Noriega said.

Her archive includes material about Siqueiros’ “América Tropical,” which was badly deteriorated after decades of neglect when Goldman discovered it in 1968. Olvera Street merchants had painted over the mural soon after its completion in 1932 because of its controversial depiction of a Mexican Indian crucified on a double cross under an American eagle. An Aztec and a Mexican revolutionary are pointing rifles at the eagle.

“It was Shifra who really spearheaded the very first effort to preserve the Siqueiros mural,” said filmmaker Jesus Treviño, who worked with her to make a 1971 KCET documentary about it. “There were artists who said to her, ‘Let me repaint it,’ but she said, ‘If the Mona Lisa fades you don’t have someone come in to repaint it for Da Vinci.’ She was adamant that this was by a great artist and the original work should be preserved.”

The Getty and the city expect to unveil the mural and a new interpretive center next year.

“It is the last Siqueiros mural to remain in its original site in the U.S.,” said Leslie Rainer, the Getty mural specialist who is overseeing the conservation project. “Shifra understood its importance.”

A memorial will be held at 2 p.m. on Oct. 15 at the Professional Musicians Local 47, 817 Vine St., Hollywood, CA 90038.

PRdream mourns the passing of Piri Thomas, September 30, 1928 – October 17, 2011

Corrientes, The Forum, , , ,

 

 

Nuyorican author, born Juan Pedro Tomas to a Puerto Rican mother and Cuban father in El Barrio, Spanish Harlem, on September 30, 1928. He is best known for his autobiographical novel “Down These Mean Streets.” Other works include “Savior, Savior Hold My Hand,” “Seven Long Times,” and “Stories from El Barrio.”

Piri Thomas traveled around the country as well as Central America and Europe, giving lectures and conducting workshops in colleges and universities. He was the subject of a film “Every Child is Born a Poet: The Life and Work of Piri Thomas,” by Jonathan Robinson. Thomas died from pneumonia at his home in El Cerrito, California on October 17, 2011.

We express our condolences to the Thomas family.

Who should decide Puerto Rico’s future political status?

The Forum

Note: Who should decide Puerto Rico’s future political status? As all Latinos know, and some non-Latinos, the term “Latino” or “Hispanic” is merely an umbrella term to lump all Spanish-speakers together. Unfortunately, in lumping Latinos all together, there is an assumption that Latinos are all the same.

Not true. There is one sub-group of Latinos that actually has US citizenship, though they’re born in their own country. They are the only “Latinos” who have this privilege — Puerto Ricans. For years, there has been an ongoing debate on the island of whether or not Puerto Rico gains its independence or becomes a U.S. state. Until now, the debate has primarily taken place either on the island or among Puerto Ricans.

On September 13, 2011, the debate was finally taken to Congress. For the first time ever a political forum regarding the status of the island was organized in Congress by the community group, The University of Puerto Rico Alumni and Friends Abroad Association (UPRAA). The forum was a discussion and not a political hearing. The event, held on Capitol Hill in Washington DC, featured representatives of the three parties’ ideologies of the island: those in favor of statehood; those in favor of the current status and those wanting independence.

Setting the stage for the discussion was Dr. Edwin Meléndez, director of the Center for Puerto Rican Studies at Hunter College (CUNY), New York. Dr. Meléndez explained the island’s evolving history and the unique situation it finds itself in these days that has the potential to impact any debate on the future political status of Puerto Rico.

The following is Dr. Meléndez’s opening presentation for the Sept. 13 forum “Puerto Rico at its Political Crossroads: A forum to discuss the political future of the island.”

— Latina Lista

The Puerto Rican Diaspora and the Political Status of Puerto Rico
By Edwin Melendez
Latina Lista (September 23, 2011)

There is no topic that incites as much passion among Puerto Ricans as the political status of the island. However, very rarely do stateside Puerto Ricans get an opportunity to discuss this topic with Puerto Rican leaders from the island.

Today I will examine the political status of Puerto Rico from a perspective acknowledging the role and rights of the Puerto Rican people in diaspora.

The origins of the Puerto Rican migration to the United States can be traced to the Latin American wars for independence and to the development of trade networks in the Northeast cities of New York, Hartford, and Boston during the early nineteenth century.

Shortly after the Spanish government lost Puerto Rico to the United States, the American government actively promoted migration as a solution to unemployment and poverty on the island.

By the end of the Second World War, advances in air transportation and economic policies induced the first of several significant exoduses from the island. It is estimated that over 400,000 Puerto Ricans migrated to the United States in the late 1940s and 1950s. Even larger waves were estimated for the 1980s and over the last decade.

All in all, today the majority of Puerto Ricans reside in the United States, not on the island of Puerto Rico. According to the 2010 Census, there are 4.6 million Puerto Ricans in the U.S., with only 3.5 million on the island, excluding foreigners. About one-third of those currently residing in the United States were born in Puerto Rico.

Puerto Ricans are dispersed across all states, with concentrations in New York, Florida, and New Jersey. Though the majority of Puerto Ricans still reside in New York, demographic projections suggest that by the end of this decade the number of Puerto Ricans in Florida will surpass those in New York.

The Political Status and the Diaspora

The question for consideration today is what role, if any, stateside Puerto Ricans should or could play in the determination of the future political status of Puerto Rico?

For the first time in history, the question of the future status of Puerto Rico is being discussed when a majority of the Puerto Ricans do not reside in the territory. In other words, I will examine whether 57 percent of the Puerto Rican people will have a voice and vote in the determination of their destiny.

Stateside Puerto Ricans play a critical role in the political process for any congressional action. Excluding the Resident Commissioner, who is elected to that body by the island population, there are currently four members of the United States House of Representatives of Puerto Rican descent.

Besides the direct connection of the congressional delegation to Puerto Ricans in their districts, there is a vast network of elected local officials and other civic leaders who greatly influence Congress and public opinion on this matter.

Stateside Puerto Ricans, whether they are born in Puerto Rico or not, are critical stakeholders because they influence the political process in the United States well beyond the congressional legislative process. Puerto Ricans have been elected to city, county, and state offices and they are active leaders in both the Democratic and Republican parties.

Then there is the potential participation of stateside Puerto Ricans in a referendum. To date, the House of Representatives has undertaken the question of Puerto Rico’s status and approved legislation on two occasions; the Senate has considered but never passed legislation on this matter.

The prevailing view as stated in the most recently approved legislation in the House of Representatives supports that all United States citizens born in Puerto Rico but residing in the 50 states would have a vote in the plebiscite, but not those who were not born in Puerto Rico.

Stateside Puerto Ricans also are critical stakeholders because they maintain economic and social ties with the island, which are critical to its economy and social fabric. Using tourism as an indicator of the constant flow of Puerto Ricans to the island, about two-thirds [63.4 percent in 2010] of visitors to the island stay in other places than hotels. [This number excludes visitors to the island who are not simply in a cruise ship stop or transient military personnel].

Even when we do not consider those Puerto Ricans who stay in hotels, it is reasonable to assume that a significant portion of the island’s tourism is from stateside Puerto Ricans who are visiting family, on vacation, or conducting business. We go on vacations, we purchase merchandise, and we visit restaurants. We are renting former primary homes, we have second homes or other real estate property, or we invest in businesses.

Some of our children take advantage of the island’s educational system. And after retirement, some of us plan to live or spend a significant portion of our time on the island. In short, we are a significant group of consumers and investors in the island economy.

Given recent trends in migration, the economic impact of stateside Puerto Ricans on the island’s economy is likely to grow over the next decades. All things considered, it is in the best interest of Puerto Rico’s residents to strengthen the ties that bind us to our homeland.

In this context, one can make the argument that the active, broad engagement of stateside Puerto Ricans, whether island born or descendants, is critical for a resolution to the question of the status of Puerto Rico.

Stateside Puerto Ricans should be encouraged to become involved in the decision- making process of the status of Puerto Rico question. Consequently, all U.S. citizens of Puerto Rican descent should also participate in any referendum.

Referendums on the Status Questions

So what is the historical record of stateside Puerto Ricans’ participation in Puerto Rico status referendums?

Since the creation of the Commonwealth in 1952, there have been three local referendums on the political status of Puerto Rico [in 1967, 1993, and 1998], and a referendum held in 1991 seeking to amend the Puerto Rican constitution to ensure certain rights or principles when deciding Puerto Rico’s political status.

Stateside Puerto Ricans did not participate in any of these local initiatives. However, Congress has examined the status question on several occasions, and these processes have opened the door for the consideration of the role and participation of Puerto Ricans who do not reside in Puerto Rico.

In 1989, Senators Johnston and McClure introduced the Puerto Rico Status Referendum Act (S.712) which called for a referendum to be held in 1991. Though this bill died in congressional committee and never reached a vote, it served as the foundation for subsequent local efforts in 1991 and 1993, and more significantly it ignited the engagement of the stateside Puerto Rican community on the question of the status of Puerto Rico.

In 1998, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act (H.R. 856) passed in the House but not in the Senate. It stated that Puerto Ricans would not be allowed to vote in the election.

Congressman Serrano presented an amendment to allow U.S. citizens of Puerto Rican descent residing in the 50 states to vote in the plebiscite, but it also was defeated, by a vote of 356 to 57.

In 2007, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of (H.R. 900), a successor of H.R 856, never had enough votes to carry a debate.

In 2009, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act (H.R. 2499, a successor to H.R. 900 from 2007), was passed by the House with bi-partisan support. Under this act, all United States citizens born in Puerto Rico would have been eligible to participate in the plebiscite, but not those of Puerto Rican descent.

An unsuccessful referendum bill that was proposed by Senators Johnston and McClure in 1991 (S.712) provides a case study for the potential role of the stateside Puerto Rican community in future plebiscites on the status of Puerto Rico. With the active endorsement and participation of the Puerto Rican political leadership, the Committee Pro-Puerto Rican Participation (CPPRP hereafter) was created to insure the right of the Puerto Rican people “to vote in the Puerto Rican plebiscite.”

In addition to advocating for the participation of all Puerto Rican people born on the island, the committee advocated a key principle in the resolution of Puerto Rico’s political status: that the results of the plebiscite would be binding to the U.S Congress. The campaign was nonpartisan with respect to the status options and a broad range of civic and political leaders actively participated in it.

The reasons for advocating the right of the stateside Puerto Rican people to vote in the plebiscite were simple yet powerful. Foremost, the committee advocated for a clear defense of the right to self-determination, as understood by the international community.

The Puerto Rican people are one, whether they reside in the island or elsewhere. The referendum was considered an important event that transcended local elections because it provided a framework for the future of the country, and by implication of all the Puerto Rican people.

The results of the referendum were likely to have a significant impact on the social and cultural conditions of all Puerto Ricans, including those residing in the United States (whether they were born there or in Puerto Rico). The committee issued several reports and was able to score several important political victories, including the holding of congressional hearings in East Harlem, New York.

The political leadership in Puerto Rico was ambivalent, to say the least, about the participation of stateside Puerto Ricans. Early on in the process, Governor Hernandez-Colon declared his support, but a few months later he opposed an agreement reached by the sponsors of the bill in the House of Representatives.

The agreement was crafted by emissaries from Puerto Rico’s three political parties (including the Governor’s own party), and the CPPRP leadership. Despite opposition from the island politicians, the efforts of the CPPRP were successful in establishing expectations for future negotiations on the status of Puerto Rico in Congress. The most recent bill – the 2009 Puerto Rico Democracy Act recently mentioned, recognizes the right of all Puerto Rico-born citizens to participate.

Latino Diasporas and Transnational Politics

Before providing some concluding thoughts, I would like to address an important element in the new political environment that directly affects transnational politics between Puerto Rico and the United States.

I am referring to the growing Latino population and how the CPPRP efforts opened pathways for other populations in diaspora to engage in local politics in their countries of origin.

The fact that Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens is well known, certainly among the audience in this forum. However, the concept of dual citizenship is relevant to the question under examination.

Immigrants who become naturalized American citizens, for example, have dual citizenship. They can carry two passports and travel freely within their native and naturalized countries. Like Puerto Ricans, they can go back and forth to their country of origin to work or live as they see fit.

Dual citizenship is becoming more popular in many countries, for good reasons. Citizens with dual citizenship strengthen the economy of both countries by promoting trade and investment, transferring technology and knowledge, and facilitating access to a broader pool of human resources.

Countries like India, the Philippines, and Mexico are liberalizing their citizenship laws to take advantage of the benefits of dual citizenship.

Dual citizenship is a common practice among U.S. Latinos. Some examples of countries that encourage and take advantage of dual citizenship include Columbia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, México, and Peru.

An important component of dual citizenship among U.S. Latinos is that it enables them to participate in their country of origin politics. Two recent examples are:

In May of 2004, for the first time in history, Dominicans in the U.S. voted in the presidential elections of the Dominican Republic. Roughly 52,000 throughout the United States registered to vote in the elections.

In 2006, for the first time, Mexicans in the U.S. were allowed to vote by absentee ballot in the Mexican presidential election. About 4 million of the 10 million Mexican residents in the U.S. were eligible to participate.

The importance of these processes to the Puerto Rican case is evident. For one, they dismiss the idea that the logistics of the electoral process are too complicated or costly. Like Puerto Ricans, these Latino communities are dispersed all over the U.S., but they have the political infrastructure and have been able to get the cooperation of stateside governments to implement electoral processes for transnational politics.

But perhaps more important, the growing political presence of Latinos in Congress will add support to initiatives of concern to Puerto Ricans and boost a more powerful coalition to resolve the status of Puerto Rico than in the past.

The Latino leadership in Congress understands perfectly the implications of the rights of the Puerto Rican people to participate in deciding the future political status of the island.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the environment is becoming more conducive for stateside Puerto Ricans to play a larger role in the status question.

The fact that the majority of Puerto Ricans now live in the United States is a game changer: How can the future of the island be decided by a minority of our people? How can the rights of the people be denied when the political influence of the stateside Puerto Rican community is broader, more diverse than ever, and growing?

The fact that Latinos have a growing influence in the political process is a game changer as well. A broad Latino political coalition can finally induce Congress to recognize the rights of all Puerto Rican people and to make a commitment, prior to any plebiscite, to enact a bill which will be binding to the U.S Congress.

Finally, it is very important that stateside Puerto Ricans become part of the dialogue and political process about the future of Puerto Rico.

We are at a historical juncture when more and more of our families are divided, when our extended families have bilingual children and are becoming more culturally diverse, and when we seek greater connections to those living afar.

It is well known to all of us participating in this forum that there is a general lack of understanding of the stateside Puerto Ricans among the Puerto Ricans residing on the island.

I am hopeful that our participation in any referendum on the status of Puerto Rico will help strengthen social and cultural bridges between the two communities: Para los de aqui y para los de allá.

I am also hopeful that today we will engage in a civic dialogue that will mark a turning point towards the goal and aspiration of UN SOLO PUEBLO.

I leave the panelists with this question:

Do you support the right of all Puerto Ricans to vote in a status referendum?

Dr. Edwin Meléndez is director of the Center for Puerto Rican Studies at Hunter College (CUNY), New York. He has authored or edited ten books and has managed over thirty-five research, outreach, or demonstration projects. Dr. Meléndez was the director of the Mauricio Gastón Institute for Latino Community Development and Public Policy at the University of Massachusetts Boston as well as a faculty member in the Economics Department and the Ph.D. Program in Public Policy. He also served on the faculties of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Fordham University.

Police in Puerto Rico Are Accused of Abuses in Justice Department Report

The Forum

By Ricardo Arduengo/Associated Press

The Puerto Rican police were criticized for their treatment of nonviolent demonstrators.

By CHARLIE SAVAGE and LIZETTE ALVAREZ

Published: September 08, 2011

WASHINGTON – In a blistering condemnation of the second-largest police force in the United States, the Justice Department is accusing the Puerto Rico Police Department of a “profound” and “longstanding” pattern of civil rights violations and other illegal practices that have left it “broken in a number of critical and fundamental respects.”

In a 116-page report that officials intend to make public Thursday, the civil rights division of the Justice Department accused the Puerto Rico Police Department of systematically “using force, including deadly force, when no force or lesser force was called for,” unnecessarily injuring hundreds of people and killing “numerous others.”

The report, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, says the 17,000-officer force routinely conducts illegal searches and seizures without warrants. It accuses the force of a pattern of attacking nonviolent protesters and journalists in a manner “designed to suppress the exercise of protected First Amendment rights.”

And it says investigators “uncovered troubling evidence” that law enforcement officers in Puerto Rico appear to routinely discriminate against people of Dominican descent and “fail to adequately police sex assault and domestic violence” cases – including spousal abuse by fellow officers.

“Unfortunately,” the report found, “far too many P.R.P.D. officers have broken their oath to uphold the rule of law, as they have been responsible for acts of crime and corruption and have routinely violated the constitutional rights of the residents of Puerto Rico.”

The report is likely to intensify a sense of distress among the nearly four million American citizens who live on Puerto Rico, where violent crime has spilled into well-to-do areas. While violent crime has plummeted in most of the mainland United States, the murder rate in Puerto Rico is soaring. In 2011, there have been 786 homicides – 117 more than at this point last year.

Rather than helping to solve the crime wave, the Puerto Rico Police Department is part of the problem, the report contends. In October, the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested 61 officers from the department in the largest police-corruption operation in bureau history. And the arrest of Puerto Rican police officers, the report says, is hardly rare. From January 2005 to November 2010, it said, there were more than 1,709 such arrests for offenses “ranging from simple assault and theft to domestic violence, drug trafficking and murder.” During a comparable period, the New York Police Department, with a force about twice the size, had about 607 such arrests.”

The degree of police corruption and criminal misconduct in Puerto Rico is high and contributes to the public safety and civil rights crisis,” the report said. “More P.R.P.D. officers are involved in criminal activity than in any other major law enforcement agency in the country.”

A “finding” by the civil rights division of a pattern or practice of constitutional violations by a police department is a precursor to a lawsuit, which either goes to trial or, if the local authorities agree to changes, may be settled on the day it is filed. The division has 17 such investigations open, including in New Orleans, Newark and Seattle.Its investigation of the Puerto Rico police, which began in July 2008, resulted in one of the most extensive such critiques the department has ever produced. It condemns nearly every aspect of the force – its hiring and training practices, the way it assigns and promotes officers, and its policies governing officer behavior and accountability for misconduct.

The report recommends 133 remedial measures that would amount to a sweeping intervention. It is likely to create a political headache for Puerto Rico’s governor, Luis G. Fortuño, a Republican who took office in 2009 and, as chief executive, oversees the department. Mr. Fortuño has been criticized for his administration’s handling of a series of mostly nonviolent demonstrations by students and workers to protest higher university fees and government layoffs. Riot police hit protesters, bystanders and journalists with batons and used pepper spray and choke holds, in incidents that were videotaped and are discussed in the report. Two months ago, Mr. Fortuño named a new police superintendent, Emilio Díaz Colón, a former National Guard adjutant general. During his confirmation, Mr. Díaz said he would not shy away from doing what was necessary to “convert the Puerto Rican police into an example of a disciplined, effective” force, but also said he did not plan any immediate major changes.

“We all recognize that there have been challenges at the Police Department that pre-date the governor’s administration,” Edward Zayas, a spokesman for Mr. Fortuño, said on Wednesday. “The governor has always acknowledged that the Puerto Rico Police Department needs reforms.

However, he did not wait for any report from the D.O.J. in order to act.

“The Justice Department began the investigation in part due to complaints by the American Civil Liberties Union. In June, when President Obama visited the island, the A.C.L.U. sent him a letter contending that the police had “engaged in a level of brutality against U.S. citizens” with a degree of impunity that “would not be tolerated in the 50 states.”

While the report said Puerto Rican officials cooperated with the investigation, it was hindered by poor record-keeping. For example, the Puerto Rico Police Department reported 39 rapes last year – a figure the report portrays as unbelievable because nearly every other jurisdiction has far more rapes than murders.

The report focused on the “rampant” use of “unnecessary or gratuitous” force, a problem made worse by the use of tactical units – heavily armed officers who are poorly trained and steeped in “violent subcultures” – for ordinary police work. It says such units frequently “rely on intimidation, fear and extreme use of force to manage crowds and are often deployed to low-income and minority communities on routine patrols.”

The report also recounts many “illustrative incidents” and includes a nine-page appendix listing dozens more. One example it said exemplified “many of the deep-rooted deficiencies that continue to plague P.R.P.D.” was the killing of Cáceres Cruz in August 2007 by a tactical unit officer.

Mr. Cruz was directing traffic near a birthday party when three officers drove by and thought he had insulted them. They told Mr. Cruz he was under arrest and wrestled him to the ground, during which time one officer shot himself in the leg.

The officer then repeatedly shot Mr. Cruz, who was lying on the ground, in his head and body before they drove off. An internal investigation cleared them of misconduct. But after a video of the incident surfaced in the news media, one officer was convicted of murder. It emerged that seven complaints had been filed against him, but had been largely ignored.

“The tragic events surrounding the Cáceres Cruz shooting served as a stark reminder of P.R.P.D.’s institutional dysfunction,” the report said.

Charlie Savage reported from Washington, and Lizette Alvarez from Mia

Brilla en México serie boricua cancelada aquí (Puerto Rico)

The Forum

Por: Manuel Ernesto Rivera 03/08/2011 9:57 am

En un mundo globalizado, Puerto Rico debe posicionarse y darse a conocer por su cultura y su arte y no por figuras efímeras como las reinas de belleza y los deportistas.
Así lo afirmó en entrevista con NotiCel la productora, directora y guionista puertorriqueña Caridad Sorondo Flores, quien celebra que el canal 34 de México compró dos temporadas de su laureada serie “En la punta de la lengua”.

“Estamos haciendo historia pues es la primera vez que una serie televisiva puertorriqueña es adquirida por Latinoamérica. El canal 34 de México tiene una audiencia de más de tres millones de telespectadores y han acogido la serie con mucho entusiasmo y admiración”, indicó Sorondo Flores.

La serie televisiva puertorriqueña, ganadora de cinco premios Emmy, fue cancelada por el presidente del canal del gobierno PRTV, Israel Ray Cruz.

El Canal 34 de México comenzó a transmitir en junio las dos temporadas de la serie _cada una de 12 capítulos_ los jueves a las 7:00 pm.

“Estamos muy contentos, ya que el arte, la cultura y la literatura es el mejor rostro que tiene nuestro país. Lo más importante es que estamos abriendo un espacio y que nos están mirando porque les interesa ver nuestro talento artístico y cultural. Están viendo nuestra literatura, nuestros artistas y quiénes somos”, destacó Sorondo Flores.

La realizadora se mostró complacida, además, de que el canal educativo mexicano le ofreciera realizar una coproducción, de la que no ofreció muchos detalles por encontrarse en etapa de negociación.

“Dada la buena aceptación de la serie televisiva ‘En la punta de la lengua’, el Canal 34 le ha propuesto a mi compañía Producciones Entre Nos, una co-producción, de la cual no te puedo dar mucha información, porque estamos en la finalización de los contratos, pero que será de una gran proyección para Puerto Rico”, sostuvo.

Entre los programas adquiridos por el canal 34 de México, se encuentran “Gabriela Mistral: la voz de la palabra”, ganadora del premio Emmy 2006; y “Las rutas del Quijote”, premio Emmy 2005.

Sorondo Flores lamentó que, bajo este gobierno, se haya cancelado su serie en el canal educativo local, pero evitó entrar en dimes y diretes con el presidente de la Corporación de Puerto Rico para la Difusión Pública.

Indicó, incluso, que le comunicó varias veces por escrito a Cruz que el canal mexicano está interesado en adquirir otros programas documentales y educativos de la isla como “Geoambiente”, de María Falcón, pero el funcionario no le contestó nada definitivo.

“Ray Cruz siempre ha sido muy amable, bien respetuoso y cortés, pero ahí se queda todo. Nunca me contestó la razón para la cancelación del programa, ni tampoco los correos que le envié sobre los otros programas”, expresó.

Según Sorondo Flores, los rumores de pasillo apuntan a que su programa fue cancelado porque supuestamente el pintor Antonio Martorell, quien realiza entrevistas para el programa, “estaba muy en contra del gobierno”.

Martorell ha criticado a la presente administración por no escuchar los reclamos del pueblo e, incluso, retiró una de sus obras del Tribunal Supremo cuando el gobierno de Luis Fortuño aumentó sin necesidad de 7 a 9 el número de jueces asociados del máximo foro judicial, pese a que ya tenía una mayoría de 4 a 3.

Serrano Votes Against Unbalanced Debt Ceiling Package

The Forum

Congressman José E. Serrano
Representing the Sixteenth District of New York
PRESS RELEASE

Washington, DC – Congressman José E. Serrano today voted against the debt ceiling package because it cuts core government investments and does nothing to increase revenue from the wealthy.

“For weeks I had hoped that the final package to increase the debt ceiling would be balanced, and would not strike at the services and investments that our nation must continue to make in order to prosper. I had hoped that the package would cause billionaires to share more of the revenue burden and would close special interest tax loopholes. But the final package did not contain either of these provisions.

“I appreciate the difficult situation that President Obama and other negotiators were put in by the intransigence of the Republican Party. The other party would not accept any reasonable compromise and caused this crisis merely to satisfy their political goal of shrinking government. I am sadly disappointed that no Republicans would take responsibility for crafting a fair package and forced a ‘my way or the highway’ approach. They have done a disservice to our nation.

“My constituents will not benefit in the slightest from this package—and in fact will suffer from its effects. They work hard, and pay their taxes, and should not see the social safety net that they rely on slashed solely to preserve low tax rates for billionaires. On their behalf I voted ‘no’ on this senseless package, which will do nothing to create jobs or help the economy grow.

“I hope that the bipartisan committee charged with finding further deficit reductions will take into account the real human consequences of their actions—and will close special interest tax loopholes and end needlessly low tax rates for the ultra-wealthy rather than cutting further into programs that average Americans depend on.

“I am very disappointed by the whole process and the legislative product that has resulted. Our nation was made great by our investments in our people and country, not by preserving wealth for the very few. We seem to have forgotten how our nation became great—through shared sacrifice.”

###

Congressman José E. Serrano has represented the Bronx in Congress since 1990.