Category Archives: Uncategorized

What do you say as life winds down? I know it is right to visit old friends and family, but I don’t know what to say. And that’s complicated further as family paths diverge so far that the only bridges are shared names, weddings, births, deaths.

I could talk about next week’s trip to the South, next month’s work, impending graduation and college plans, but I cannot banish the looming thought that the person I tell the stories to will not be here to see the graduation, indeed might not be here when we return from the southern trip.

What if I asked outright how he feels about life coming to a close? But the immediate family doesn’t want to talk about this, and it’s not my place to raise the questions they so gracefully avoid/evade. So I sit in the room, listening to the conversational patter about relatives I don’t know and the stories so well-worn that even I remember them.

I hope that just being present serves as a sign of respect and affection. That may have to be enough.

I met Juana in May. She was one of the people who fasted for ten days to try to move the conscience of the nation toward comprehensive immigration reform. I wrote an article about Juana and the fasters then. A few weeks later, I saw another article about Juana, this one written by a student in a journalism class at St. Thomas.

And today was the third time that I saw news about Juana. Yesterday the immigration agents found her and took her away in handcuffs. Today I saw her nine-year-old daughter crying. Today I stood with Juana’s friends, and I cried, too. Patrick Ness, a stalwart young activist, said, “Our hearts are broken tonight.” And not just for Juana Reyes, but for every immigrant mother torn away from her children because the laws give her no way to be here legally. A few weeks ago, another immigrant mother who had lived in Minnesota for more than a decade was deported, leaving behind her husband and children. They have legal status. She does not.

For Juana and for Sarah, the law gives no way out of their predicament and no way into the United States. For millions like them, there is no line to stand in to become legal residents.

In a few days, I will be going on a Freedom Tour of cities where the battle for civil rights was waged four and five decades ago. I believe that the plight of immigrants like Juana and Sarah challenges us to another battle for human rights.

I’m ready to put up a Neighbors Against the Burner sign in my yard, because I’m convinced that burning refuse-derived fuel (RDF) is a bad deal – economically and on environmental/health grounds. On the other hand, I want to be clear that this doesn’t mean I’m against any power plant going up across the freeway at Rock-Tenn. I’m not. I believe that a power plant burning non-RDF biomass fuel can and should be built to provide affordable energy for Rock-Tenn’s recycling operation, and possibly also for district heating in some part of the Midway neighborhood.

For background on Rock-Tenn and why it needs a new power source, see
Re-fueling Rock Tenn: environmental and economic challenges
Who’s on First? Keeping track of the players
Following the money: who pays and who profits
Garbage or green energy: a look at the issues around RDF

The economic down-side of RDF should be easy to see. For starters, consider the fact that the current RDF production plant in Newport has been subsidized by taxpayer dollars since its beginning. Or the fact that the RDF fuel produced in Newport is so undesirable that the plant has to pay Xcel Energy to take it and burn it. If taxpayers are going to pay millions of dollars in subsidies every year, I’d rather see the money go to paying farmers to grow prairie grass for fuel and/or to increasing the Twin Cities’ recycling percentage, currently about 40 percent to something closer to the 60 percent recycling/composting for municipal waste reached by the Netherlands and Austria. or the 69 percent recycling/composting rate achieved this year by San Francisco.

Health and environmental issues are harder to pin down. Hours of discussion at public meetings and hundreds of pages of reports do not conclusively prove that burning RDF causes cancer or heart attacks or other health problems. Note the weasel word: conclusively.

The British Society for Ecological Medicine’s report says:

There are no certainties in pinning specific health effects on incineration: the report makes that clear. However this is largely because of the complexity of exposure of the human race to many influences.

Cancer may take 10 or 20 years to develop. Birth defects may have multiple causes. Some people are more vulnerable to contaminants than others. Some contaminants build up in the body over time. Some contaminants interact with others in ways that have not yet been identified. People move, so studies of public health around incinerators do not find all of the exposed population.

So scientists speak cautiously. The evidence linking municipal waste incinerators to health problems “is consistent with” causality for adult and childhood cancer and birth defects. The evidence “suggests” a wide range of illnesses connected with municipal waste incinerators.

The British medical report goes on to discuss the precautionary principle.

This principle involves acting in the face of uncertain knowledge about risks from environmental exposures. This means public health measures should be taken in response to limited, but plausible and credible, evidence of likely and substantial harm.

When it comes to RDF, plenty of evidence points to probably dangers. The garbage that goes into the system includes a wide variety of toxic materials. Burning RDF has produced fine particulate emissions (a health hazard in themselves), as well as toxic metals and hazardous organic compounds. Burning RDF also leaves a residue of ash, which is classified as hazardous waste and has to be put somewhere.

Proponents of RDF talk about new emissions control systems and about gasification. Of course, they also say that current systems work just fine.

I don’t buy the arguments. If ever there was a case for the application of the precautionary principle, RDF incineration is that case. We do not need to add more fine particulate emissions to the Twin Cities’ already-polluted air. We do not need to risk emissions of heavy metals and toxic organic compounds. We do not need to make our city the laboratory for conclusively proving –twenty or thirty years from now – that RDF incineration actually causes pulmonary or cardiac illnesses or cancer or birth defects.

Time and time again it has been found that what we did not know about chemicals proved to be far more important than what we did know. As an incinerator generates hundreds of chemicals, including new compounds, we can expect many unpleasant future surprises.

There are alternatives to RDF. We do not need to take a chance with the health of our cities and of future generations.

Paranoia strikes deep—into your life it will creep. Buffalo Springfield, 1967

The U.S. Army now classifies the media as a threat – along with Al Qaeda, warlords and drug cartels. The classification is part of an Army slideshow, which you can download on-line at http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/army/opsec-blog.pdf.

There’s a man with a gun over there, telling me that I’ve got to beware.

Besides the media, soldiers and their families are apparently security threats. A 79-page order, issued April 19, warns about breaches of operations security—OPSEC in the military jargon—by soldiers writing e-mails home and blogging about their experiences in Iraq. Soldiers must clear e-mails and blog posts with their commanding officers before sending them (2-1(g). Failure to comply with OPSEC “may be punished as violations of a lawful order” under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). And those “not subject to the UCMJ who fail to protect critical and sensitive information from unauthorized disclosure may be subject to administrative, disciplinary, contractual, or criminal action.”

There’s something happening here, and what it is ain’t exactly clear.

Disclosure of “sensitive and critical information” violates OPSEC. What is “sensitive and critical” info? Giving an explanation, Maj. Ray Ceralde, the Army OPSEC program manager, explained that increased numbers of parked cars in a Pentagon lot and increased Pentagon pizza orders on January 16, 1991 could have signaled the next day’s beginning of Operation Desert Storm. That meant these facts were “sensitive and critical information.” (There’s some speculation that the whole pizza/parking lot story is an urban legend—but what do the facts matter, when security is at stake?) Some “critical and sensitive” information is specifically listed, and its disclosure prohibited, by the order, including photos of “Improvised Explosive Device (IED) strikes, battle scenes, casualties, destroyed or damaged equipment, personnel killed in action (KIA), both friendly and adversary…”

Though the 79-page order provides several descriptions of “sensitive” and “critical” information that may not be communicated, none of them provide much guidance to the soldiers, civilian employees, family members, or media who are the targets of the OPSEC order. In a neat Catch-22, the order itself is classified as “For Official Use Only (FOUO)”, and paragraph 1-6e says that FOUO information is “sensitive.” That means the order itself is “for official Government use only” and may not be distributed or circulated. (If you are not afraid of prosecution, you can download Army Regulation 530-1 at http://blog.wired.com/defense/files/army_reg_530_1_updated.)

Bottom line: virtually any information of any kind could become part of a complicated puzzle that could aid the enemy. Virtually any soldier, civilian employee or contractor could be prosecuted for communicating the wrong information. The only way to be sure you are not breaking the rules is to keep your mouth shut and tell no one back home what is actually going on.

That means no pleas for body armor. (E-mails in 2004 broke open the story of unprotected U.S. soldiers.) No scandals about unarmored Humvees (2004-2007). No reporting on torture of prisoners (Abu Ghraib). No truth-telling to families about death-by-friendly-fire (Pat Tillman). No whistle-blowing on a squad that rapes a fourteen-year-old girl and murders her whole family (Mahmudiya). No leaks about massacres (Haditha).

Remember: the media is the enemy. War is Peace. Slavery is Freedom. Ignorance is Strength.

Paranoia strikes deep—into your life it will creep.  Buffalo Springfield, 1967

The U.S. Army now classifies the media as a threat – along with Al Qaeda, warlords and drug cartels. The classification is part of an Army slideshow, which you can download on-line at http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/army/opsec-blog.pdf.

There’s a man with a gun over there, telling me that I’ve got to beware.

Besides the media, soldiers and their families are apparently security threats. A 79-page order, issued April 19, warns about breaches of operations security—OPSEC in the military jargon—by soldiers writing e-mails home and blogging about their experiences in Iraq. Soldiers must clear e-mails and blog posts with their commanding officers before sending them (paragraph 2-1g). Failure to comply with OPSEC “may be punished as violations of a lawful order” under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). And those “not subject to the UCMJ who fail to protect critical and sensitive information from unauthorized disclosure may be subject to administrative, disciplinary, contractual, or criminal action.”  

There’s something happening here, and what it is ain’t exactly clear.

Disclosure of “sensitive and critical information” violates OPSEC. What is “sensitive and critical” info? Giving an explanation, Maj. Ray Ceralde, the Army OPSEC program manager, explained that increased numbers of parked cars in a Pentagon lot and increased Pentagon pizza orders on January 16, 1991 could have signaled the next day’s beginning of Operation Desert Storm. That meant these facts were “sensitive and critical information.” (There’s some speculation that the whole pizza/parking lot story is an urban legend—but what do the facts matter, when security is at stake?) Some “critical and sensitive” information is specifically listed, and its disclosure prohibited, by the order, including photos of “Improvised Explosive Device (IED) strikes, battle scenes, casualties, destroyed or  damaged equipment, personnel killed in action (KIA), both friendly and adversary…”

Though the 79-page order provides several descriptions of “sensitive” and “critical” information that may not be communicated, none of them provide much guidance to the soldiers, civilian employees, family members, or media who are the targets of the OPSEC order. In a neat Catch-22, the order itself is classified as “For Official Use Only (FOUO)”, and paragraph 1-6e says that FOUO information is “sensitive.” That means the order itself is “for official Government use only” and may not be distributed or circulated. (If you are not afraid of prosecution, you can download Army Regulation 530-1 at http://blog.wired.com/defense/files/army_reg_530_1_updated.)

Bottom line: virtually any information of any kind could become part of a complicated puzzle that could aid the enemy. Virtually any soldier, civilian employee or contractor could be prosecuted for communicating the wrong information. The only way to be sure you are not breaking the rules is to keep your mouth shut and tell no one back home what is actually going on.

That means no pleas for body armor. (E-mails in 2004 broke open the story of unprotected U.S. soldiers.) No scandals about unarmored Humvees (2004-2007). No reporting on torture of prisoners (Abu Ghraib). No truth-telling to families about death-by-friendly-fire (Pat Tillman). No whistle-blowing on a squad that rapes a fourteen-year-old girl and murders her whole family (Mahmudiya). No leaks about massacres (Haditha).

Remember: the media is the enemy. War is Peace. Slavery is Freedom. Ignorance is Strength.

On April 16, a gunman shot 32 students at Virginia Tech University and then killed himself. In the United States, flags flew at half-staff the next day, as the nation mourned a senseless massacre by a single deranged man who legally purchased his gun just a month ago. Millions of Americans know Cho Seung-Hui’s name, his nationality, his story.

How many Americans know the name of Jaafar Hasan Sadiq and Talal Younis al-Jalili. Hasan Sadiq, a professor at the University of Mosul’s college of arts, was shot and killed on Monday. So was Talal Younis al-Jalili, dean of the university’s college of political science.

After the Virginia Tech shooting, pundits pontificated about school security and recalled Columbine High School (17 dead, 1999) and the clock-tower shooting at the University of Texas in Austin (16 dead, 1966). Threats and fears sent lockdowns rippling across the country, including high schools in Pennsylvania, Florida, Nevada, and Missouri.

More than 230 university professors have been killed since the beginning of the Iraq war, some 56 are missing, and more than 3,000 have fled the country. Some 70 people died in suicide bombings at Mustansiriya University in Baghadad in January. Another suicide bomb in February killed 40 more students, faculty and staff.

We went to the bridge again last night, carrying candles to stand in vigil and protest on the fourth anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq war. The candles were not much use, as daylight savings time has begun, and the sun doesn’t set until after 7:30, but we stood in the biting March wind as it swept down the Mississippi, in company with a hundred or two others of all ages, shapes and sizes.

The Lake Street bridge over the Mississippi is designated as a Peace Bridge, and every Wednesday afternoon sees a vigil for peace, which began as a protest against sanctions many years ago. Sanctions then, war now, the same bloody, evil policies of a government, our government, that sees power as a blunt instrument to batter those who will not bow.

This is not the Zocalo in Mexico City, filled with tens or hundreds of thousands of protesters, but it is one of our spaces for public standing. What has changed is not the commitment of the protesters, but the attitudes of those driving past. A few years ago, on a Wednesday afternoon, Molly and I stood there and counted the number of passing cars showing approval versus the number showing disapproval — thumbs up or down, peace signs, honking. Most, of course, went by without a signal at all.

Tonight, I saw only a single thumbs-down and no middle finger salutes, but what was more remarkable was that the vast majority of all the people in cars driving past on Lake Street honked in agreement, showed peace signs, waved, gave a thumbs-up signal. I know the polls say that we-the-people overwhelmingly oppose the war, but here was the actual, physical sign. The people have changed, the votes have chagned Congress–and yet the war continues.

We cannot stop at vigils, when they do not change realities. What’s next?

This is what democracy looks like. Fifty people at the table—Barbara, Yusef, Pablo, Anne, Yasim, Antonia, Martha, Ricky, Woli, Iztchel. New immigrants and old immigrants, representing all parts of the world. New immigrants tonight speak with accents of Liberia, Mexico, Russia, Ecuador, Somalia and more.

Tonight we gather, representing a few dozen organizations or ourselves as individuals. AFFIRM—the Alliance for Fair Federal Immigration Reform of Minnesota—has convened this community meeting to share concerns about immigration issues and, possibly, to find common ground and a way to work together.

One woman brings her niece and granddaughter, a few couples come together, a few more people bring little children. Many teenagers are here—tonight’s discussion on immigration hits close to home for them.

D— is a senior in high school. She wants to go to college next year. She has gone through high school in Minnesota, but she does not have immigration documents.

The Minnesota Dream Act, now before the legislature, could make it possible for many of them to go to college. The federal DREAM Act, now re-introduced in Congress, could provide them a path to legalization and citizenship.

W— does not say what country she came from, only that she was tortured, a lot, before she got out many years ago. And that she values her association with the Minnesota Center for Victims of Torture.

R— sells real estate, is nearing completion of a B.A. in business at Metro State and plans to continue for an MBA at St. Thomas. We joke about how many houses he will have to sell to pay for that tuition. He tells me that 70% of the Mexican immigrants to Minnesota are, like himself, originally from the Mexican state of Morelos.

G— insists that the state demographer undercounts Russian immigrants, saying there are only 15,000 Russian immigrants in Minnesota. He is sure the real number is 50,000, and wants to do something about the undercounting.

Another woman brings her concern about foreign professionals to the table, saying that Minnesota will not allow foreign doctors to serve as interns or residents here, though other states do so. She wants a way for immigrants who are professionals to become licensed and work in their fields.

M— wants a path to legalization for her husband. She is a U.S. citizen. He is not.

Another woman raises concerns about her Liberian-Minnesotan community, who now face an end to the Temporary Protected Status under which they have been living for years. Now the U.S. government has decreed that Liberia is no longer dangerous and that they must return by October, abandoning homes, jobs, and families here.

So many people, ages, jobs, nationalities. One hope—to continue to live together as Minnesotans.

Every year, 600,000 people apply to become citizens of the United States. To become a citizen, immigrants first have to live here for a number of years (usually five years). Then they must apply for citizenship, demonstrate their ability to speak and read and write English, and pass a test on U.S. government and history. (There are a few exceptions to residence and testing requirements, such as adopted children.)

This year, the federal government is making it harder for immigrants to become citizens. First, it changed the written test to make it more difficult. Now, it proposes to increase the application fee from $330 to $595. (And that’s only for the application—fingerprint fees and other charges increase the total cost even more.)

The increase in naturalization (citizenship) application fees is only one of many proposed immigration fee increases. The fee for adjustment of status, to become a permanent legal resident, will go up from $325 to $905. Other fees also increase, by an average of 66 percent.

According to the Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan think tank, “Naturalization of immigrants in the United States brings significant benefits for the country. First, obtaining citizenship allows immigrants to participate fully in the civic life of the country by permitting them to vote in elections, run for office, and work in many government jobs. Further, naturalization is a powerful symbolic gesture of commitment to the United States. In taking the oath of citizenship, naturalizing immigrants pledge to support the values and laws of the United States and renounce their allegiance to any other country. Naturalizing citizens also commit to serving on a jury if called to do so. Further, in order to naturalize, immigrants must learn a basic level of English and study U.S. history and government. The ability to naturalize provides a strong incentive for immigrants to deepen their integration into the country by improving their English and learning more about their country of residence.”

Refugees and new immigrants typically have lower incomes. The fee increases hit them especially hard, as they struggle to learn English, support themselves and their families, and become part of their new country. The Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC) is one of the immigrant advocacy organizations opposing fee hikes. SEARAC warns that, “The increased fees may further prolong the citizenship process for many whose incomes are dependent on their attainment of citizenship such as elders and disabled refugees who receive SSI benefits. The inability to obtain their citizenship after the allotted timeframe will result in the termination of their benefits.”

The fee hikes do not have to go through Congress. They are set by administrative regulations. But Congress—and individuals—do have a voice in the administrative process. The fees were proposed February 1, beginning a sixty-day public comment period. Along with SEARAC, the National Immigration Forum is urging people to voice their concerns about the fee increases. To comment on the fee increases, email OSComments@dhs.gov. The e-mail message should refer to the docket number of the regulation—DHS Docket # USCIS-2006-0044. (For more information about the comment process, go to http://www.regulations.gov.)