ROBERT TAGORDA WRITES about Bustamante:

Personally, I’ve seen and heard enough to be convinced that Bustamante has no plans to follow through on MEChA separatism. But I’ve also seen and heard enough to be convinced that Bustamante’s recent actions are part of a broader political strategy. It’s understandable for a politician like him to act this way. Still, it’s rather disappointing, especially when you consider that taking a strong stance against a radical ideology should be easy for someone who believes that “[r]acial separatism is wrong.”

You’d think.

UPDATE: Howard Owens has much more on Bustamante, Aztlan and MEChA, and writes:

The Aztlan thing may seem to some like a dime’s worth of peanuts, but it is an idea that has gained a surprising number of adherents. Even small ideas can be dangerous. Small ideas can grow into big movements. Bustamante, as the leading Latino politician in the state, has an obligation to use his leadership position to make clear that the Aztlan myth has no place in a progressive and pluralistic society. . . .

What I was going to write about is all of the ways liberals are coming up with to defend and retranslate “Por La Raza todo. Fuera de la Raza Nada,” which is rendered most simply and obviously as “For the race, all; Outside the race, nothing.” Democrats/MEChA defenders/liberals are doing handstands trying to explain away this overtly exclusionary phrase. It’s not working. No matter how that phrase is parsed, it doesn’t fit into the supposedly “inclusionary” principles of the Democratic party, and it has no place in a modern pluralistic society. I find it rather amazing and amusing that Democrats would rush to defend a non-inclusionary group. I guess it’s only white males that need to be inclusionary?

I guess.

ANOTHER UPDATE: You can hear Mickey Kaus on the radio here.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Kaus also scores on the lame defense offered by Dr. Velia Garcia, chair of La Raza studies at S.F. State University. Sheesh. You can only capitalize on inattention until people start paying attention. And why am I not surprised that we’re hearing this lame defense of overt racism from someone at S.F.S.U., which is noted for such things, nowadays?