Beyond the coordinated organizing of local religious leaders and their communities, Arise’s pro-labor efforts include an arm dedicated to providing legal support and training to low-wage workers, particularly immigrant workers. This initiative is one among well over 200 functional “Worker Centers” that serve under-represented laborers in the United States. Arise Chicago’s director, Adam Kader, explains, “we’re a community resource … a place for workers to get educated about rights to learn about strategies for improving their workplace.”

The Arise Worker Center, like other organizations of its kind, began as a multi-faith religious advocacy group in 1991. The original members – among them Monsignor Jack Egan, Rabbi Robert Marx, and United Methodist Bishop Jesse De Witt – organized their varied religious communities to support labor initiatives on the north side of Chicago. When they published a comprehensive Workers Rights Manual in 2001, the group received a wide response as individual workers began calling with questions about their rights in the workplace. In 2002 the group added a Worker Center initiative specifically to respond to worker concerns about their workplace rights. Kader describes the early years of the Worker Center as a “rapid response” model, where workers’ calls were responded to as they came in – something the organization has tried to structure differently in recent years. Today, the Arise Worker Center is a member organization that somewhat resembles an actual union. Constituents are encouraged to “commit to other members” by contributing monthly dues (in any amount), attending and teaching workshops, and leading advocacy campaigns. With 215 members – primarily immigrants from Latin America and Eastern Europe, working in several industries – Arise’s Worker Center members have been able to take advantage of the broader network of Worker Centers to share stories and strategies.

In a 2006 Economic Policy Institute study of Worker Centers, Janice Fine described these organizations as “suggestive of earlier U.S. civic institutions” such as “fraternal organizations, political parties, settlement houses, and urban churches…” These early groups were places where immigrants found support and modern unions saw their beginnings. However, the organized unions that formed as a result – which provided job stability and secure wages to families in the 50s and 60s (when 1 in 3 workers was a member of a union) – have seen a steady decline over the past 50 years. The globalization of labor forces in manufacturing, and the nationwide expansion of unprotected job sectors (service industries such as food and janitorial services), has led to a modern economy in which few professions are protected against labor market competition.

But this imbalance of power between big business and organized labor appears to have reached its breaking point. Arise Chicago and other worker solidarity organizations stand today at the edge of what could be another historical turning point – a resurgence of organized labor. In light of the highly publicized occupation at Republic Windows and Doors, and upon the inauguration of a pro-labor president, Kader believes that labor organization has become more important now than it has been in generations. “Deregulation and privatization have really eroded worker protections and led to de-unionization” – a breach of what he refers to as the social contract. “The combination of those things have resulted in poorer and fewer jobs in the US … that’s why our standard of living is not as good as it should be.”

For the hopeful among us, it is difficult not to draw parallels to earlier labor movements and to envision a bright future for low-wage laborers in the U.S. With a new pro-labor president in office, who was an original co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act, there are numerous reasons to believe things can only get better. The act would make it easier for workers to unionize based on a “card check” or secret ballot election, coordinated by union leaders; if more than half the workers vote in favor, the workplace would unionize. This is a significant change from the standard practice over the last 50-plus years of employer oversight in union elections, and heavy intimidation against unionization. The Employee Free Choice Act would be the first major pro-union legislation since the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935, which protected the right to unionize. (The NLRA has since been amended to outlaw “unfair labor practices” on the part of organizers, placing great limits on their jurisdiction.)

Unfortunately, the drive behind the Employee Free Choice Act, one of Senator Obama’s campaign platforms, is appearing more and more difficult to push through Congress. Business leaders, already faced with declining numbers in the poor economy, are fighting tooth and nail to keep the legislation from adding another difficult element to their restructuring processes. The business community’s attempts to counter the purpose of the bill argue that the elections would not be secret, that union leaders would coerce employee votes, and that the process denies a democratic right to free elections, despite the name of the bill. In a 2007 policy paper, the Heritage Foundation even argued that “few employees want to organize.”

Current economic troubles are not only a business-side argument against labor organizing, but are also a practical consideration for smaller pro-labor groups like Arise, whose operating budget has been shrinking by the day. Even as the need for these community efforts is growing, their sources of funding (churches, foundations, and so on) have been spread thin. When I met with Kader in a north side Chicago coffee shop in early March, he was just finishing a meeting with another staffer at Arise. He told me they no longer had money to pay her, and although she had done great work, they were going to have to cut her hours. Kader went on to tell me that as the economy turned south last summer, Arise’s Worker Center network members grew hesitant to push the envelope. Over the last few months, however, after Republic’s workers settled for $1.75 million, their constituents were impressed. In the weeks following the Republic settlement and Obama’s inauguration, Arise received more phone calls from disparaged workers than they’d seen in months. “Republic showed to vulnerable workers, low-wage workers, and immigrant workers, that you have to stand up,” Kader explained. “Workers are now saying ‘the economy’s so bad, I can’t afford not to fight’ … When people are desperate they’re willing to do more and to fight more.”

In response to the particular issues at Republic Windows and Doors, service workers around the country are gearing up to fight a large-scale problem dubbed “wage theft” – the pervasive practice of denying workers overtime and severance pay and benefits, to which they are entitled by law. The climate is hopeful and workers are inspired by their forefathers in the labor movement of the 1930s. Kari Lyderson, author of a forthcoming book about Republic Windows, writes, “in a shifting economic and political context, collective action can bring real results.” It seems the time has come for major change, as community organizations set the tone for the voice of labor in our generation.

—

To get involved with Worker Center initiatives like Arise, start with www.arisechicago.org/

To learn more about Wage Theft, see http://www.wagetheft.org

The self-proclaimed “psychedelic erotic gospel music” was one of 141 performers that gathered March 6-8 for the inaugural Harvest of Hope Festival to benefit migrant farmworkers. The eclectic line-up included the likes of Girl Talk, Against Me!, Murs, KRS-One, Bad Brains, The National, This Bike is Pipe Bomb, the Bouncing Souls, Propaghandi, and Kool Keith just to name a few.

The weekend had all the components to make for an excellent festival. The line-up was insane and the weather was perfect for the weekend – in the 70s and sunny.

Todd Kowalski, bassist of Propaghandi, a veteran of the punk world said, “It’s the middle of winter in Winnipeg so here we are in Florida! Just like all the seniors from Winnipeg, which we’ll be in about two years.”

But the weather and the line-up weren’t the main reason for the festivities; the whole shebang was to benefit the Harvest of Hope Foundation.

Founded by Phil Kellerman, the Harvest of Hope Foundation gives direct financial aid to migrant workers and their families. There’s no bureaucratic red tape. There are no long processing applications and fees. Money raised by the foundation goes directly to those in need and it can be monitored by the expenditure sheet on their Web site.

Phil became an advocate of migrant farmworkers in 1989 when the former school teacher saw an ad for a job for a bilingual grants writer for Eastern Stream on Resources and Training (ESCORT) as the University of New York in Oneonta, NY.

“I just kind of fell in love with the field and the people I worked with were so progressive; so forward thinking,” said Phil. “In 1995 we set up the first national migrant toll-free hotline and we worked with AT&T for how the calls were routed depending on where the migrants were calling from.”

However, due to constraints from the grant received from the Department of Education in Washington, D.C., the money they had could not be used for direct financial aid to the people calling the hotline.

“Basically we soon became a referral agency like any other agency and I discovered there wasn’t much help out there — especially for immediate financial need that migrants have,” said Phil.

Inspired greatly by his grandmother, Dr. Helen Zand, the first female law student at Cornell in the 1920s and lifetime social activist, Phil decided in honor of her memory, to use some of his inheritance money from her to start the Harvest of Hope Foundation and in 1997 the foundation was officially born.

“[We now] have a vehicle to help the callers that were calling the hotline,” said Phil.

In 12 years, they’ve given out over $714,000 in emergency and educational aid to migrant farmers and their families all over the country.

Phil explained, “I get calls from migrant advocates and migrant social workers and migrants themselves and if I have the funds I try to help them out.”

A third of all expenses go towards transportation issues. Being a migrant farmworker family often requires a massive amount of driving from state to state depending on which crop is harvesting in any given month. Harvest of Hope helps out with gas money, new tires for safe traveling and basic car repairs. Another third goes to housing related issues. For instance if the fields aren’t ready yet and a family needs help with rent. Or if they are falling behind on their utility bills aid is provided.

“If there are kids involved and the families are trying to do the best they can, I don’t want to see the gas or electricity cut off so we’ll provide aid for that,” said Phil.

With only a third remaining about 10% goes to medical expenses, another 10% for food and clothing and another 10% for scholarships and the rest for things like funeral expenses. Harvest of Hope doesn’t have any organizational rent and utility costs because the small operation is ran out of Phil’s home.

An example of where the money goes:

“A couple days ago I got a call from the National Center for Farmworker Health. They called me to say that they had a 34-year old migrant farmworker from Georgia whose parents had died when he was 15 and he had traveled to several different states working as a migrant farmworker and apparently he hit himself with a hammer inadvertently last year and developed testicular cancer,” explained Phil. “The doctor contacted NCFH and said this guy needs immediate surgery. So this is how we work the system. The doctor said, ‘I’ll give you my minimum cost with is $3500.’ So we got him to agree that if we could come up with half he would do the surgery and then bill the patient after that. NCFH said they could chip in $850, and asked, ‘What can you chip in?’ I said we can chip in $900. So together we chipped in the $1750 so he could have the surgery and afterwards, if we raise enough money from this festival, we’ll pay off the bill. That’s what we do.”

In terms of the actual festival, the name that came up time and time again through talking to various people throughout the weekend was Ryan Murphy.

Murphy has two worlds he’s heavily involved with – one, through his masters in bilingual education at the University of Florida, he does literacy outreach with migrant families; two, he is one of those crazy punks at No Idea! Records.

“I met Phil Kellerman and was blown away by how amazing all the work he’s doing is and how amazing the foundation is. So I was thinking what can I do to help more than literacy outreach and what can I do to help the foundation? And I realized well one half of my world is crazy punk rock No Idea! world and the other half is this; so what if I put the two together?” said Murphy. “I started doing benefits for them and Against Me! played a bunch of those and they’ve raised over $18,000 so far.”

What originally started out with having Against Me! play a sixth benefit show in St. Augustine quickly turned into a full-weekend festival. With Ryan representing the No Idea! Camp, Tony Weinbender from Southern Lovin’ PR and Ryan Dettra from the St. John County Fairgrounds the three pitched to Phil, “Why not make it a whole weekend thing?”

The county supported the idea and gave the non-profit a $50,000 grant to make it happen.

“So once that started rolling I said, alright, I’m going to call all the bands that I’m friends with and say, ‘Please you have to play this thing,’” explained Murphy. “Once bands started jumping on, especially when Propaghandi signed up, everyone was blown away and we just got the craziest acts to come together.”

Over 500 bands applied to take part in this inaugural fest.

Ed Kellerman, a senior lecturer at University of Florida and Communications Director of Harvest of Hope Foundation (and also Phil’s brother), described the selection process of narrowing that list to the final size of 141 performers.

“Number one, they have to be good and Ryan Murphy is the ultimate decider on that. Number two, you have to be available the date of the festival. And number three, you have to be into the cause,” explained Ed.

Andrew Seward, bassist of Against Me! said, “This is very intense. This inaugural fest is fucking great so far. It’s a little overwhelming. And our friends are running it, so you know it’s good because I’ve seen Ryan Murphy and how stressed he is, so you know it means something is going right.”

Richard Minino, aka Horsebites, designed the logo for the festival. He too was tagged by Murphy to get on board. He previously has done work for the past two Fest’s in Gainesville and two of his bands were also on the roster – None More Black and Gatorface.

“I wanted to make it clean and simple because it wasn’t all punk bands, there are indie bands and rap bands too, so I decided to make it a little more professional looking and put some grains in there to get that whole vibe going. It’s pretty simple but bold,” explained Minino.

It was simple yet bold enough for two concert goers’ to get it tattooed on their bodies at the on-site tattoo tent by a local shop based in St. Augustine Beach.

Brian Fallon, guitarist and frontman of the Gaslight Anthem, was also feeling the good vibes of the weekend.

“It’s awesome. We’re on tour so much that we never get to see anybody, and you get to meet people from all over different walks of life and I think that’s the coolest thing. You’re all here for the same reason, no matter what you think in your own life on any particular subject, the fact that you’re all here for one reason kind of puts a friendly vibe to everything,” said Fallon.

The Gaslight Anthem is pretty selective with who they do benefits for. Other than Shirts for a Cure benefitting the Syrentha Savio Endowment (SSE), Harvest of Hope is its other main beneficiary and they’ve been involved with them for two years now.

“My father worked in a factory and it’s a little different, but it’s still working with your hands and doing what you can to get by,” Fallon explained, “This is a worthy cause and there are a lot of causes out there that are just blind and you don’t ever see where it goes, you don’t see the people that it affects and you don’t know anyone involved. It’s just a corporation asking for you to donate this much and you’re like okay fine, but you don’t ever really know anything.”

In addition to doing shows as the Gaslight Anthem, Benny Horowitz, the drummer, throws shows in New Jersey to benefit the foundation even when he’s not playing.

“For us it’s just like, of course we’ll do it. We would always do it,” said Fallon.

Other bands such as Gainesville’s the Grabass Charlestons also felt compelled to get involved.

Dave Drobach, bassist, said “There are 1000s of people out there that do care and this weekend people are getting together without giant multi-national corporations telling them what they should be doing, people can think for themselves and have their own brains and operate for things as simple as paying people who harvest your food.”

Dina Sevayega, who is a former migrant worker and sits on the board of the Harvest of Hope Foundation with the Kellerman brothers, came down from upstate New York with her son Mario, a musician who was performing, for the weekend’s festivities.

Growing up, by the time Dina was 6-years old; she had already lived in about 32 different places.

“It’s very hard sometimes for families – and I know there are laws about children working – but if you’re trying to feed your family, the whole family works together. Although I was 6-years old I could take care of the baby under the tree while the adults were picking the cherries or the cotton or whatever. It is a family that has to work together in order to survive,” she said.

Throughout her childhood, because of the constant moving, she had a hard time keeping up with her studies.

She explained, “I was Arkansas, I was all over Texas, I was in Michigan. Part of the problem was that if the work wasn’t done or if there wasn’t enough money to cover expenses to return home to the valley of Texas [I couldn't get back] to start school on time. I failed the sixth grade because of this. We got back late and I could never catch up. It’s hard work, it’s moving a lot and never knowing how your children are going to do education wise because you’re busy working to survive.”

One of the biggest challenges for the Harvest of Hope Foundation and for migrant workers everywhere is the plight of misconceptions.

Dina said, “It’s interesting because yesterday we were talking about the disconnect between farmworkers, migrant families and those of us that sit everyday at a table and enjoy all the harvest that these migrant families have worked so hard to provide for our nation.”

Mario added that a huge difficulty, “[is] that migrant workers are often fighting the belief that they are taking these great jobs away from the American labor force. I was just talking to a farmer here in Florida that has a 600-acre potato operation and he was saying that can’t get Americans to work, nevermind anything that you’ve heard — they won’t do the work. In upstate New York, I knew a woman that owned a blueberry orchard they were trying to pay high school kids up to $9-$10/hour and none of them would even take the job because it was too hard for them. They said they physically cannot get most Americans to do these jobs. So when people say that migrant workers are taking these jobs, they’re taking the jobs that nobody wants to do.”

“We wouldn’t eat without their labor,” responded Dina.

“Or a salad would cost like $25,” concluded Mario.

In addition to raising funds, the weekend was also a great chance to raise awareness.

Ed explained, “As you can see, actually, you don’t see them. You probably came in on US-1 or I-95 or 207, you go by the fields but you don’t see [migrant farmworkers] because they’re working the fields in the back and if people would just be more aware and spread the word and counter some of the misconceptions that all migrants are illegal, or involved in crime, or destroying the economy – no, they’re helping the economy, without migrant farmworkers our economy would be even worse than it already is.”

Of course, migrant farmworkers are not just limited to one area of the United States.

Mario added, “Migrant workers are all over. They’re in Maine, New York; anywhere there are farms they are working. Any kind of agricultural going on, they are there working. ”

But after the dust settled on Sunday night, the four stages rang silent and the 6000 plus people make their way back home, there is still work to be done.

“The problem is with a lot of benefits is that the cause and the reason to do a benefit are remaining after the benefit is over. That’s a tough thing for people to remember. People in need don’t go away after a festival shuts down and the campgrounds get cleaned up,” said Fallon of the Gaslight Anthem.

Kowalski and his band (Propaghandi) are no strangers to politically fueled themes and causes. He personally does a lot of work with refugees from Africa in Canada in his hometown of Winnipeg. But to him, the most important thing he thinks you can takeaway from them is to, “Think about things as much as you can and not just accept them. Try to always imagine what it’s like on the other side of things.”

His band mate, David Guillas added, “Whatever interests you, just get involved. But make sure it’s a true interest, like if you like drawing; someone was making benefit posters for women from Afghanistan because they like to draw.”

Phil’s biggest advice to people once they get back home is to “Get out there and try to make a difference in the world for whatever interests you. Open your eyes to who harvests their food and be a little more connected.”

For more information on the Harvest of Hope Foundation please visit: http://www.harvestofhope.net/

One alternative treatment that has been dubbed as quackery by the FDA is a fever therapy used in Germany that raises the body temperature and directs it towards the source of the cancer. These treatments are known as Hyperthermia, thermal therapy, thermotherapy, or fever therapy. On the Center for Hypothermia Hanover website they explain further:

Increasingly in the research of cancer cells, attention is being focused upon the escape mechanisms of these cells. Escape phenomenons occur when cells succeed in hiding themselves, in becoming invisible or when they send out messenger substances, which suppress the human immune system. Against these escape phenomenon’s, traditional medicine using radiation therapy and chemotherapy has proved rather ineffective, because the body’s degenerated cells are also able to defend themselves against radiation therapy and chemotherapy during treatment. Specifically active fever therapy, by inducing the fever phases, changes the surface of cancer cells, activates many messenger substances which stimulate the immune system to detect the cancer cells and to destroy them. There are also a number of highly potent medications, which change the information about messenger substances on the cancer cells to such an extent that they are exposed, detected and destroyed.

Our very own former president Ronald Reagan traveled to Germany to cure his cancer this way in 1985. When asked about whether or not he opted for German cancer treatments there wasn’t exactly screaming from the rooftops since the treatment was not allowed in the US.

Dr. Hans Neiper who was considered to be one of the best cancer doctors in the world treated Reagan along with other famous faces like: Princess Caroline of Monaco, Anthony Quinn, John Wayne, Nancy Sinatra, Red Buttons and Yul Brynner.  After Ronald Reagan’s treatment, he went on to live another 19 years and his death was not related to cancer.

In Andrew Scholberg’s book German Cancer Breakthrough , he writes that this treatment costs a tenth of what typical chemotherapy costs and is free of harmful side effects. In the book he gives a guide to all the treatment centers in Germany. Of course, this revolutionary treatment has been banned in the United States. That didn’t stop celebrities like Elizabeth Taylor, Suzanne Somers, or Cher from seeking out alternative treatments in Germany to cure their cancer. Why would the FDA deny Americans this type of treatment? If it is good enough for Ronny Reagan why isn’t it good enough for us?

The answer may lie in the hands of an organization many see as immune to scrutiny, the American Cancer Society. Doctor Samuel Epstein the former head of a Congressional committee on cancer has been a long time critic of the American Cancer Society. Epstein claims that the ACS’ “longstanding conflicts of interest with a wide range of industries, coupled with a systematic discrediting of evidence of avoidable causes of cancer preclude many powerful life-saving initiatives.”

The American Cancer Societies 22-member board was created in 1990 to gather corporate contributors. Natural news writes that board members include Gordon Binder, who is the CEO of Amgen, a biotechnology company that sells chemotherapy products. Another board member, David R. Bethune, is president of Lederle Laboratories, a multinational pharmaceutical company and a division of American Cyanamid Company.

With these board members representing their own financial interests, chances are that alternative medicines that cut costs and increase cures are going to look pretty unappetizing. Although unable to find an exact number of how much money chemotherapy generates per year, the word billions is well within the realm of possibility.

In a 2005 debate, Dr. Michael Thun of the American Cancer Society did not exactly deny corporate interests: “The American Cancer Society views relationships with corporations as a source of revenue for cancer prevention. That can be construed as an inherent conflict of interest, or it can be construed as a pragmatic way to get funding to support cancer control.”

It is no wonder that barely any funding is spent on the prevention of cancer since all the money to be made lies in the treatment of cancer. The problem is that the go-to treatment, chemotherapy, is toxic on the human body. According to the Stanford Cancer Center, some of the side effects of Chemotherapy drugs for various types of cancers include: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hair loss, decrease in blood cell counts, allergic reaction, rashes, hearing loss, kidney damage, bladder damage, fertility impairment, lung or heart damage, secondary malignancies, mouth ulcers, weakness, loss of appetite, and loss of reflexes. Those are just a few of the symptoms they list but anyone who has known a person who has endured Chemo can tell you that.  Chemotherapy can be effective for a small number of cancers, like leukemia. Yet in relation to most cancer cases, why would we destroy our entire house if we had a few roaches inside it knowing our house may not be able to be rebuilt? Chemotherapy, instead of killing just the cancer cells, kills healthy cells as well and many times kill the cancer patient. Many doctors have tried to tell the public the truth about chemotherapy, the truth being that (except for a few types of cancers) it does more harm to the body than good. One of these doctors is Dr. Ralph Moss who has said: “If cancer specialists were to admit publicly that chemotherapy is of limited usefulness and is often dangerous, the public might demand a radical change in direction-possibly toward unorthodox and nontoxic methods, and toward cancer prevention.”

If interested in the alternative German Cancer treatments, the Center for Hypothermia Hanover is one centers that use the same method as Dr. Neiper. Not all Cancer centers in Germany have these alternative treatments so it is important to find out before making the trek.

What does FDA approved mean anymore in America and has it really meant a whole lot in the past? The fact is that The American Cancer Society, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Cancer Institute, and the American Medical Association as well as all the drug companies out there generate enormous profits from our misguided wallets. Our health care is being run by businessmen and not by doctors. At this point it is up to us to be advocates of our own health and first take the steps toward healthy living to avoid dealing with the business of cancer.

The first time I went to Europe, I traveled to the old and shimmering city of Prague. I was prepared to conceal my American identity and join in on the Bush bashing so they would see I wasn’t one of those Americans. I found it interesting that no one in Prague seemed to care that I was American, and when I asked about Bush, I got “He’s your problem.” In fact, Bush came to Prague while I was there and I saw no protesters, no angry people. I was confused. Could it be that the anti-American feeling had been exaggerated? Or was it because they had been under Soviet rule so long that they still weren’t there yet?

I relaxed a little until I went to sunny Spain and realized that much of the resentment for Americans was reserved for Western Europe, and the rest of the world. Only the part of Prague I was in was immune.

Once I got to Barcelona, as long as I spoke my less than idiomatic Spanish, things were relatively mas o menos. Yet other friends I know felt stung by the Spaniards. I eventually did too, when I didn’t get up quickly enough for a Spanish woman on the bus. She spat out some rather unkind things about me as I was making my exit, including thoughts on my nationality in her list of insults.

Everyone has heard stories about trips to Europe: anti-American graffiti, rude waiters, and general “screw you” attitudes. When Americans flip open their passports abroad, they are inflicted with the feeling that they are personae non gratae. I think Diane Lane put it best in Under the Tuscan Sun when a German woman declares “You Americans, you think you’re so entitled. You ruin everything.” To which she sincerely replies, “Some of us feel really badly about that.”

That’s the thing, some of us really, really do. A lot of Americans feel bad, and those Americans are usually the people who are most instilled with wanderlust. That is why in the last few years, we’ve been trying to reverse things for ourselves. We’ve been fighting to combat the stereotypes since our former president fought to degrade our image to a dangerous degree (a factor that makes American travelers magically turn into Canadians).

This time, going to Europe, I wanted to find out if anything had changed. I wondered, as I sat on the plane next to a Croatian gal with an Obama pin on her luggage, if European opinions of Americans had changed since Obama was elected. Prior to the election, all the Europeans I knew thought we were incapable of electing a black man as our leader. In their minds, most of us were backward, gun-toting idiots. I asked one British friend how much diversity there was in his government and he quickly became quiet.

I spent most of my time in my boyfriend’s hometown of Frankfurt, Germany, an Obama hotspot. Everyone was overjoyed with the election results. The dinner conversations usually included praise, as if they had a chance to give a universal pat on the back to all Americans through me. The German people are in love with Obama and they seem to take the “any friend of Obama is a friend of mine” attitude.

Frankfurt recently had a local election; signs with different parties’ candidates littered the boulevards, near the eye-catching skyscrapers, and along the streets filled with markets and the smell of glühwein. A nine-year-old girl named Carlotta was eating dinner with us one night and suddenly the Frankfurt election came up. She turned to my boyfriend and in German asked: “Did you vote for Obama? I love Obama!”

I was shocked. A German schoolgirl not only knew about Obama, but knew enough to love him? Germans of all ages had definitely been struck with Obama fever and weren’t shy about proclaiming it. I felt only enthusiasm and happiness exuding from the German people. Every person I met had a comment or two about the new leader of America.

The next stop was Paris, the perceived holy grail of anti-American attitudes. Basking in my sheer excitement over going to the city of lights, I tried to forget what I had heard about the stereotype of pompous Parisians and their attitude about Americans. I was nervous about opening my little French phrase book in front of the suave Parisian pedestrians. I was slathered from head to toe in self-doubt. To me, I was the butcher and their dancing language was the unfortunate slab of meat. I relied on my boyfriend’s German accent and my high school French to get us through uncomfortable restaurant trips. Eventually I began to notice that it wasn’t as bad as I had expected. People were gracious about giving directions; whenever I dropped my gloves (which was often), someone chased me down to hand them to me. When we went to buy wine and couldn’t get our desires across, the store’s owner managed to sell us a great wine as well as giving us a free glass to ring in 2009. “Bon Année!” he exclaimed cheerfully, downing his wine. I had to say that the residents of Paris were as pétillant as their wine and as colorful as their luminous city.

The only time I noticed snobbery was in the very touristy areas. I got the feeling that people there weren’t so much snobby, but instead annoyed by the massive number of tourists. When I thought about it, I was able to sympathize with that. How often in Chicago am I annoyed by the clusters of clicking cameras on Michigan Avenue when I’m trying to get work? It did not so much seem to be a slight towards Americans, but more of a general irritation at those who do not really know how to get along in a bustling city. I could equate tourists in Paris to small town Americans going to New York City for the first time. New Yorkers aren’t being rude because you are from a small town; they are being rude because you are in their way and they are in a rush. The majority of people in Paris seemed indifferent about Americans overall. They lumped me in with the Japanese, German, and Australian tourists. The exception was the African Eiffel Tower keychain vendors: when they found out I was American, they smiled and said “Go Obama!”

We stayed with a friend of my boyfriend’s father and his girlfriend, Sabrina. When the news came on after dinner, conversation turned to politics. “I used to say that I would never go to America if Bush was president. Never. I didn’t even want to step foot there. But now that Obama is president, I think I would like to go,” she said happily. Though people in Paris seemed to be excited about Obama and Americans for the time being, the general attitude was a reserved enthusiasm. The French seem to keep in mind that the foreign policy of the US is so fickle, it may be hard to maintain the enthusiasm in years to come.

The last stop was the Netherlands. The laissez-faire Dutch attitude is known throughout the world due to their relaxation habits and lack of judgment towards others. I was thrilled to see Amsterdam’s flowing canals and billions of bicycles. I came to find the most kind and sincere people of any city I have visited. Alarmingly friendly street traffic greeted us at every single corner, happy to give us directions, and to smile warmly while waving goodbye.

As we approached a woman outside a boutique, we asked directions to the Anne Frank House. She gave us intricate instructions, and eventually asked us where we were from. When I told her I lived in Chicago, she immediately began to talk about Obama. “Yes we can!” she said, laughing out loud as I began to walk away. Her cheeks were as red as the tulips in my postcard-imagined Holland.

The broad rule of thumb seems to be that if you actually sit down and talk to a person in Europe, they will respond to you on the basis of whether you are a gracious traveler, rather than from where you hail.

Overall it seemed to me that most European people are as swept up in Obama fever as that little German girl. It seems that the world is cheering with us. International news praises Obama, and a sense of universal relief has swept over the globe; everyone’s realized that Bush’s time has come to an end. From China to Canada, the general feeling is that Obama is the the future, a future in which we will not use military force to secure our best interests. For the first time in years, the leading figure in the White House believes in humanitarianism, environmentalism, and all the isms that have been lacking in American foreign policy. This is a man who said he actually wanted to “build bridges across the world,” a pleasant shock since the public was accustomed to the literal destruction of bridges. Not only that, but he’s… cool. The same goes for his family. The German newspaper BILD proclaimed Michelle Obama the beautiful, sensuous, and interesting new first lady.

The sense of change has even been marked by Americans who have said ciao to America in search of greener pastures. Bernd Debusman of the International Herald Tribune (the global edition of the New York Times) writes “What was remarkable in 2008 was how quickly Americans abroad sensed a change of mood. After the Nov. 4 election, American expatriates posted jubilant messages to social networking sites like Facebook saying it was cool to be American again.”

In my opinion, European attitudes towards Americans have definitely improved, but still have a few kilometers to go. Will this pro-American feeling last? As for Spain, my sister has been studying abroad outside Madrid for the past five months and said that the people in Spain have proved to be ecstatic about Obama’s win. The morning after the election, the country was buzzing with sheer thrill. In fact, she walked into her classroom to find Si Se Puede! (Yes we can!) written on the board in bold lettering. I think the same goes for us Americans in improving our world reputation… yes we can.

Opponents of the policy have long considered it a targeted attack on hugely popular conservative radio talk shows, while its supporters attempt to explain it as a necessary measure to ensure fair and balanced dispersal of information. The implications of the policy, if actually reinstated instead of used as rhetorical leverage, are troubling, and not just for conservatives. When it was originally instituted in 1949, policy makers were “worried that crafty special interests could overwhelm the airwaves with one-sided propaganda and [therefore] tilt elections, sway public sentiment or foment public unrest,” Jon Sinton wrote in an editorial for the Wall Street Journal. Back then, it was a logical move: broadcasting space was limited and licensed, particularly outside of the major cities. But by the mid-eighties, it became clear that such regulatory measures over content were certainly unnecessary and perhaps unconstitutional. The legislation was overturned and eliminated in 1987 by the Reagan administration-appointed Federal Communications Commission (FCC), thus beginning the conservative versus liberal battle over the policy. A bill introduced the same year to revive it was vetoed by Reagan.

Under the 102nd and 103rd Democrat-controlled Congress, the policy was legitimately re-introduced in 1993 to the House by legislation called the “Fairness in Broadcasting Act.” The attempt to re-instate the policy put conservative radio shows in a tizzy, particularly Rush Limbaugh, who erroneously dubbed it the ‘hush Rush’ bill, a name that continues currently. The bill was thwarted as Republicans gained power, and eventually took over, in the 104th Congress.

Hailing to the pattern, the current Democrat-dominated congress is once again talking about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, and conservatives are once again rallying against it. In the last months of 2008, high-profile politicians like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA.) and Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), publicly supported its renewal. Schumer even provided the discussion with its most popular sound bite when he said, “The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

On the other side, Congressman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) introduced legislation in 2007 to permanently ban the policy. Republicans have speculated that with total Democratic control from White House to both congressional houses, such a bill does not stand a chance. They may not be far off with such a prediction, considering that no Democrats have signed the bill.  It is important to note that Barack Obama flatly does not support it, as his campaign press secretary stated in an e-mail sent to the industry journal Broadcasting & Cable.

Despite all this talk, no bill attempting to officially reinstate the policy has been introduced. So will the Fairness Doctrine, under that name or another, actually make it into legislation? One hopes not. Not only would the Fairness Doctrine: Act II be a really bad idea, it’s a markedly unnecessary one. The way we consume media has vastly changed since the policy was crafted in 1949. There’s a veritable buffet of media consumption options out there: thousands of radio stations–public-supported, advertiser-supported and subscription-based–dozens of news television stations; thousands (though the number is dwindling) of newspapers and print sources; and then there’s the infinitesimal space of the internet, a forum which allows anyone with an IP address the ability to hear and engage in controversial discussion.

The whole concept of the policy is based on the fact that people have scant resources for hearing about and understanding issues of public importance, which is simply no longer true. Both conservatives and liberals who consume media through a one-sided source do so because they want to, not because they have to. The Fairness Doctrine would therefore limit freedom for broadcasters.  And freedom should be protected, no matter who is championing the cause.

Analytical chemistry laboratories use a chemical called acetonitrile to perform liquid chromatography.  Analytical chemistry is a discipline devoted to determining how much of a given chemical is in a sample, and liquid and gas chromatography are two of the methods used to perform this delicate and invaluable aspect of laboratory research.

Acetonitrile has up until recently been, most of the time anyway, cheap and certainly plentiful enough for all the labs in the world.  Only a tiny amount is needed for each run.  However, analytical labs have been of late thrown into a panic due to a world-wide acetonitrile shortage. 

Several factors contributed to the shortage.  The Olympic games in China cause the Chinese government to shut down all the factories that made acetonitrile during the games; a fire destroyed another plant.  Perhaps the most alarming factor, though, is that acetonitrile is a byproduct of the production of polyacrilonitrile, one of the plastics used in car bumpers.  The massive slump in auto sales has caused an equally massive slump in polyacrilonitrile, and therefore acetonitrile, production.

“So what?” you may be thinking.  What is analytical chemistry anyhow and who cares if it goes away?  Analytical chemistry is a vital building block of laboratory science — any lab that researches how to make any kind of chemical uses analytical chemistry, and many of them use acetonitrile in their processes.  Pharmaceuticals, biotech, alternative fuels — these are just a few of the industries potentially affected by the shortage.

It’s hard for me, a lay person, to understand the vastness and interconnectedness of the world economy.  How could I predict that the slowdown of the US economy, particularly auto sales, would have an impact on pharmaceutical R&D?  But it’s an inescapable fact that the US economy drives the whole world’s finances, and petroleum is, with little argument, the single most important commodity in the US economy.  No other commodity’s prices come near the influence of petroleum, and what’s more, it’s not just the effect on the stock market that can be disastrous.  The dearness or rarity of petroleum results in unavailability and skyrocketing costs of thousands of other products and compounds — many of which the average consumer has never even heard of.

As someone who cares for the environment, at times there is a bit of schadenfreude involved when I hear news that petroleum is running out.  The unwanted byproducts of petroleum drilling, refining, and use have permanently altered the natural environment, so I think somewhere in the psyche of many environmentalists is a longing for the day when it disappears forever.

But what we all have to understand is that it’s not just Hummers and bottled water that will go away.  Every sector of the economy will be affected, some disastrously so, if we do not find a replacement for petroleum before it runs out.  If petroleum disappeared today, people would starve, freeze to death, die of disease.

Of course, petroleum resources will dwindle gradually rather than suddenly evaporating, but nevertheless we must find replacements for the many, many compounds currently made of petroleum.  Sure, companies are working on alternative fuels, but fuel, while accounting for the majority of petroleum used, is not chemically similar to many of the other compounds.  Will these alternative fuel companies also be able to produce high-grade plastics such as the ones used in car bumpers, for example?  Will they be able to recreate the hydrocarbons in cosmetics?  Will corn-based plastics such as those used in food packaging be worthy substitutes for the types of plastics used in child safety car seats?

I have not seen much in the way of research on these complex problems.  I’m sure someone much smarter than myself is working on a solution for each compound, as everyone is aware of the increasing expense and difficulty of petroleum production.  My concern is that the solutions will not materialize until after petroleum is so rare that the economy has collapsed under the weight of our massive dependence.

Most likely the economy will pick up a bit in a few months; people will start buying cars again; there will again be plentiful acetonitrile.  After that?  I for one hope all those pharmaceutical and biotech labs figure out new avenues of research to address the problems ahead..

The year started out on a note that was surprising to most Americans as then Senator Barack Obama began his assent in the presidential primary race. The somber warnings of black mothers and fathers began to fade from their children’s minds and were replaced with the belief that the highest political challenge could be overcome in their time. As his campaign gained momentum, however, the greatest, most direct obstacle to President-elect Obama’s primary victory came not from the feared Bradley effect some were sure would infect the majority of moderate Democrats, but from the words of his former preacher and spiritual leader, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

When the recordings of Rev. Wright first surfaced, the only thing I found appalling was the fact that someone was using them in an overtly racist fashion. When one reviews the four- to ten-second sound bites shown, all the Sheppard’s castigate is the actions and policies of a government. Never did he single out any ethnic or religious groups as many Republican leaders have by enhancing the titles of terrorists through unpacking the overly descriptive adjective of “Islamofasist” terrorists. Nor did he point to a specific region or particular political party within the United States. But the reaction to his comments were as thought the reverend held a map of only Red States in one hand and a framed portrait of the Keaton’s in the other during his denouncement. So I was pleased and encouraged when the candidate not only smothered the growing social fears of those unfamiliar to the average Sunday morning speech of black preachers (which, I assure you, did not stop with the end of the campaign,) but addressed the issue of race in a way no political figure has been brave and/or eloquent enough to do in my brief lifetime.

Then, our next president’s attempts to bridge a divide were burned and its ashes were kicked by the same man he refused to break from. Rev. Wright, a man who has committed his life to working and improving the community that Obama served in as an organizer and politician, seemed to want to make his congregant’s career more difficult and divide the nation for no other reason than the fact that his feelings were hurt and his beliefs were challenged. By personalizing the schism between himself and Obama in the media, Rev. Wright placed his pain and desire to be vindicated above the possibilities of what he could do for the citizens of his church, the south side of Chicago, and the suffering of the nation’s poor and disadvantaged as a whole who, unfortunately, continue to be made up mostly of citizens of color.

In the nation’s marriage to the Obama’s as our first family, the Rev. Jesse Jackson decided to serve “Scandal Old” to Rev. Wright’s “Scandal New.” To me, Rev. Jackson has always had the aura of a great-uncle; distant, yet enduring, and keeper of all of the family secrets. Growing up in California, my father hung a homemade button from a 1980’s convention where Jackson spoke at a podium and my father, in a three-piece suit and an Afro, stood proudly behind him. I paired this image with that of the local activist I found still busy in today’s troubled and swiftly gentrifying Chicago. History come to life.

Then in July, Rev. Jackson reminded us all why his run for the highest office in the land never got off the ground as he was caught off-guard demeaning Obama’s remarks at a recent Father’s Day event and sharing a longing to maim him. The shear amount of irony in this one slip of the tongue is bafflingly disappointing. While one might be more incline to forgive Jackson’s whispered remarks before Wright’s outwardly broadcast ones, he whispered them on Fox News, a place where the same rules of flight in Neverland apply in order to have productive interviews. In his anger, Jackson chose a way of harming someone that was used to degrade and humiliate victims of lynching in Jim Crow south.

Now as the country prepares for a day that was anywhere from 2 to over 200 years in the making (depending on individual viewpoints,) a third obstacle from the black community has set up a road block. Roland Burris, former Attorney General of the state of Illinois and former National Executive Director of Operation PUSH, a group that is now a part of Rev. Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition (please see earlier statement on the quantity of irony,) has been selected to fill the US Senate seat once held by Obama under the questionable authority of the federally indicted governor, Rod Blagojevich.

It must be said that as of the publication of this story, Mr. Burris has not been proven to be a part of any illegal or unethical activity, including the allegations which surround the governor. However, in anticipation that there would be problems pushing forth the appointment, Congressman Bobby Rush, representative of a district which includes Chicago’s south side, made a statement at the press conference announcing the decision which alluded to the fact that the Burris appointment would be the only way to keep black representation in the Senate. Using the terms “…hang or lynch…,” he indicated that any form of resistance to this appointment would be a battle fought on the ground cradling the warriors Rush, Jackson, and Wright stood beside to make this a country of limitless possibilities for all.

Of all the incidents of 2008 that reflect on the black community, the shameful circus Mr. Burris has created is the most damaging and degrading. Since his inaugural press conference, he has gone on every available form of media saying that he is not the one who is under investigation, ergo he deserves this appointment. What Mr. Burris has done, conversely, is allow an alleged criminal to use his race as a divisive implement to turn public attention away from his crimes. He has allowed his lust for a Senate seat to override his commitment to the people of Illinois he claims to care for. If he were as qualified as he says he is, he would be the first person selected by either the people in a special election or by an acting governor, instead of sliding in on a deal made at Blagojevich’s crossroads. 2008 showed that people want more from the leaders than competence and experience. They also need to know the show the quality judgment, which Mr. Burris has proven he lacks.

I fully admit that I share Rep. Rush’s commitment to more diversity the senate. But does it not dishonor all of Rush’s work as a Black Panther to allow someone else to work you because of your skin? And if he disagrees, why Roland Burris? As long as we are boiling people down to their base parts, why not a black woman? One of my personal choices would be Sun-Times journalist Mary Mitchell, who is respected, committed to the black community, and has a history of speaking truth to power with or without love. Better yet, why worry about obscure limits like state borders? If we expand our search, the possibilities for qualified leaders of color are virtually limitless. Then we could finally put Dr. Cornel West’s brilliant social theories and positive temperament to use in the development of laws and public policy. The only problem with a Mitchell and West appointment is they are wise enough to know–and care–when they are being hustled.

There is a term my father introduced me to as a teenager at the dinner table. It was popularized in the mid-nineties by Chris Rock (another figure I might consider for my appointee list.) As the head of the house, it was known that Dad got the big piece of chicken. It had nothing to do with subsistence, as a good father would never let you starve. It was about the family showing we appreciated everything that was done for our well being. It was about love and honor.

It is for these virtues that I write this in hope. 2008 proved that the leadership void in the black community has been blown wider than ever before. As people throw around the term ‘Post-race America,’ they seem to ignore the fact if this place exists, there should have risen a wealth of post-racial leaders. But I have yet to see this groundswell of figures asking why it was the two largest groups of people who voted for Proposition 8 in California, a measure to limit people’s freedom, were white Evangelicals and blacks. I do not hear anyone discussing why black college enrollment rates continue to rise as black college completion rates stay stagnant. And it seems that the villains of my generation are the heroes of my father’s and I am left burdened with the weight of the honor I desperately want to bestow on the worthy. May 2009 bring us a reason to lighten our loads.

Known to most as “Motor Voter,” the Act was among the earliest pieces of national legislation signed by President Clinton, and was intended to expand the accessibility of voting rights. Motor Voter required public processing centers (Secretary of State and DMV facilities, schools, libraries, etc.) in each state to make voter registration paperwork available to their patrons. Since the federal enactment, most states have adopted the legislation as their own, though several (Illinois, for example) had initial qualms about the higher rates of fraud that could result. Unfortunately, they may have been right, though they could never have predicted how.

—

In North Liberty, Iowa, a suburb of Iowa City, Cindy Diouf is a school principal and active community member. Cindy and her husband, Ivon, met in Senegal at a Peace Corps training event in the mid-90s-she was an American volunteer stationed in Guinea, and he was working at the swimming pool where the volunteers had come to relax. They fell in love during Cindy’s years in Africa, and were soon married and beginning their life together in the U.S.

Only recently, after several long worrisome years, mounds of paperwork, and time and money spent in deportation proceedings, did Ivon finally earn his U.S. citizenship and the family-whose lives have become yet another example of an unforeseeable outcome of Motor Voter-is finally able to lead a quiet life.

The Dioufs ran into this snag on an early Tuesday in a November not unlike this year’s. They were recently married when Cindy walked across the street to perform her civic duty and cast a voter’s ballot. When the polling judge couldn’t find her listed under her maiden name, Cindy gave her new married name and saw that both she and her husband were listed as registered voters. Excited, she ran home and brought Ivon back with her, showing him the list and encouraging him to cast his vote. Ivon, who had only earned his permanent resident status¹ at that time, was unsure but wanted to do the right thing. Because he saw his name on the list, he wondered if this civic responsibility might be expected of him, so he voted. Alas, the very thing he and Cindy believed to be proper turned out to be what one Houston attorney would later call “a death sentence.” That is, registering to vote and-worse yet-voting as a non-citizen of the United States.

As impossible as it would seem, this happens to many immigrants without their knowing that they are ineligible. It can occur either as part of an application for a drivers license or state identification card, or as part of community “get-out-the-vote” efforts.

At Secretary of State or DMV facilities in states with active Motor Voter protocol, the attendants are required to offer voter registration as part of the process of obtaining a state ID. Because of the time-constrained and uniform nature of these interactions between individuals and facility attendants, crucial details are often overlooked-such as the applicant’s immigration status. Many immigrants present their foreign passports when prompted for their identification, and are still asked if they would like to register to vote.

If the individual’s uninformed answer is “yes,” he or she is presented with a voter registration card, told to check a box, and shown where sign. This box-often filled with an ‘X’ by the attendant his or her self before being given to the registrant-reads (on most states’ registration cards):

“I swear or affirm that: 
- I am a U.S. citizen 
- I will be at least 18 years old on or before the next election 
- I live at the above address 
- I am not on parole, probation or serving a sentence…”

plus an additional bullet point that varies by state, occasionally reading, “I certify under penalty of perjury of the State of ___ that all the information on this form is true and correct,” and other times outlining the fines and jail sentences imparted to those who present false information on the form.

This is the government’s fail-safe to ensure that a voter registration is legitimate: a certification statement at the bottom of the form, which is often checked off by someone other than the person completing the form. In so many cases, the only action the registrant takes on the form is to sign it-the biographic portions (address, birth date, etc.) are already completed electronically as part of the state ID application. For an immigrant who may not speak fluent English, or if they do, may not understand the nuance between the legal definition of Citizen and the layperson’s definition (more like a general “resident”), it is easy to make this mistake-especially when he or she is asked several questions at once and given multiple forms to sign. This action, however, constitutes “making false claims to U.S. citizenship” and is more than adequate reason for an Immigration Judge to order deportation.

Jerri Mead, an attorney based in Fort Wayne, Indiana, believes that a lot of the confusion has to do with a language barrier. “Our way of doing things really doesn’t take into effect the people who don’t know the language,” she argues. “The government, from what I’m seeing, is finally saying ‘if you’re going to be here, you need to learn the language, and if you don’t learn the language, then you’re just going to pay dearly for it.’”

Houston-based attorney, Brian Johnson, says nearly all of the cases his firm handles dealing with “false claims to citizenship” involve immigrants who speak little English. “They don’t know what they’re signing, they don’t know what they’re checking off,” he explains. In one particular case, at a community event, “the client thought it was just a lottery thing or a sweepstakes” and signed his name on the form, which had been completed for him by a cousin.

Well-meaning U.S. citizen family members are often, sadly, the source of such misinformation. “Most people who are confused are not the immigrants,” says Altagracia McDonald, an attorney in Pasadena, Texas. “A lot of people are under the misconception that because they are U.S. citizens, their spouses automatically are either residents or citizens and they can do all these things….  So a lot of times it was the spouses that would say ‘Honey, they sent you that [voter registration form] because you’re married to me and I’m sure it’s okay. They wouldn’t send you this if it wasn’t ok.’”

Innumerable immigrants have been presented with such an opportunity to break the law, and they are given no reason to believe that it might be the wrong thing to do. In these cases, where immigrants end up in deportation for claiming U.S. citizenship on a form that was presented to them with no explanation of the consequences, the most well-meaning of individuals have found themselves in harrowing circumstances.

Technically, a false claim to citizenship could be considered a form of fraud, and in order to be convicted of fraud-under each state’s criminal laws-any such crime requires intent. However, the relationship is sticky between federal immigration law, which outlines what sorts of offenses are deportable, and criminal law, which defines and criminalizes “fraud” at the state level. There is essentially a missing link between the two.

At the federal level, voting or claiming citizenship can get a non-citizen immigrant deported; at the state level, committing any sort of fraud requires intent. Unfortunately for immigrants, their applications for citizenship are evaluated at the federal level. “ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] is getting people who haven’t committed fraud, they simply made a mistake!” says James Benzoni, attorney for the Diouf family. Benzoni is a seasoned immigration attorney, but he says their case was the first time he’d seen a situation like this-likely an unforeseen result of the reorganization of the Department of Homeland Security.

Technical improvements in the linking of government databases between all the various agencies that now fall under DHS (Social Security, the FBI, and so on) mean each individual now has a trackable long-term history in the system, and “mistakes” will no longer go undetected. Attorney Johnson says he’s seen the government agencies “tighten the screws on a lot of things… verifying the accuracy of information and double-checking sources, doing background checks.”

Mead and Benzoni both warned that by joining these various databases, the government is broaching on sensitive individual information. Benzoni points out that state election officials are verifying identity illegally by “going to the Social Security database first when they shouldn’t.” Mead echoed his sentiment, saying, “they’re slipping it in under everybody’s noses.”

—

Over the years, the passage of overlapping and conflicting legislation-from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1986, to the implementation of Motor Voter in the mid-90s, to the recent reorganization of INS under the DHS umbrella-has brought about this messy conundrum of accidental voter registration. Nowadays, unlike in years past, citizenship applicants who have lived in the country for decades are seeing old mistakes come back to haunt them, and it doesn’t seem fair. “The punishment doesn’t fit the crime,” says attorney McDonald.

The only hope a naturalization applicant may have at this point is an exercise of discretion by the particular officer who handles his or her case. As attorney McDonald explains, however, the extent of discretion varies widely. “If you file naturalization in California this may not be an issue, but if you file it in Houston you may get deported-out of the same action-because the adjudicator has discretion.”

“The best thing I think we could hope for is for them to allow a waiver for it,” says Johnson. A waiver would allow, for example, a man who is married to a U.S. citizen and has children who are U.S. citizens, to plead the case that his family would not be able to survive without him here. At present, there is no waiver option available to immigrants who are placed in deportation proceedings for false claims to citizenship.

McDonald, for her part, believes the general public needs to be more educated on what it means to be a citizen and the difference between various immigrant statuses. “Perhaps 20 years ago this wasn’t a big issue, but now our citizenry need to know.”

While education on immigrant status and the meaning of “citizen” is important for the general populace, perhaps more salient-particularly this year-would be a background on fraud surrounding our nation’s electoral process. There is a possibility that ineligible immigrants may be registered to vote unintentionally, and it is one of many good reasons to direct a close eye to the way our elections are managed. However, “The real problem,” according to attorney Benzoni, “is just getting [immigrants] to vote at all when they’re U.S. citizens.”

David Morris, vice president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, writes in an opinion piece for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune: “Raising the fear of individual voter fraud brings a short-term and a long-term advantage to those who would reduce the turnout of the disadvantaged and dispossessed. In the short term, it hobbles registration and turnout efforts. In the longer term, it helps to persuade state legislatures to pass laws that make it more difficult to vote.”

The majority of immigrant applicants for naturalization lead honest, hard-working lives, trying to do the right thing in the hopes of someday being justly awarded their rightful citizenship. These individuals must face every application for benefits, every tax form, and every governmental process with painstaking attention to detail. Unfortunately for some, the application for voter registration is too often not fully explained and the outcome of immigrant voter fraud takes a much higher toll on the well-meaning immigrant than on the integrity of the electoral process.

FOOTNOTE: [1] Permanent residency is the initial immigration application process after becoming married to a U.S. citizen. This is usually granted on a two year “conditional” basis, after which the couple must apply to remove the conditions on the immigrant’s residence. This application requires couples to prove the legitimacy of their union with detailed documentation.

Photo by Flickr user holisticgeek

The Queer Zine Archive was started in 2003 as a way of preserving and promoting queer DIY publishing, making queer zines available across time and space. From an initial 15 zines, the QZAP has continued to expand and recently celebrated its 5th birthday! Check out the website to find out about recent additions to the archive, ways to contribute, info about new projects (including the QZAP:Meta zine) and other ways to support this awesome archive.

Founders, Milo and Christopher were kind enough to answer some questions about the project.

Why did you decide to make an archive of queer zines? Was it always going to be a web-based archive?

QZAP
When Chris and I first met in 2001, we discovered that together we had upwards of 300 queer zines that we had collected out of our own interests or via trades. We began a discussion of how important we thought they were both personally, and also because of what they represented – a look at queers’ lives, stories, and histories that are seldom visible through mainstream media. We kicked around various ideas of how to best preserve and share these documents and decided that putting them online was the way to go. In the way we’ve built QZAP, these zines can transcend borders, and have become accessible to many more people than those who might have originally seen them.

Had you been involved in other zine projects before this? As a creator? Distributor?

QZAP
We’ve both been zinesters for many years. In the 1990s Chris was the creator of a zine called “Abrupt Lane Edge” and helped produce other arts publications. He also participated in several queer zine events over the years such as SPEW 3 in Toronto. I worked on a couple of zines previously, but really got my start in 1999 with a zine called “Mutate.” So far I’ve done 10 issues and additionally have made several one-off zines, a vegi cookzine called “SoyBoi: Queer Adventures in My Vegetarian Kitchen” and currently self-publish a zine called “Gendercide.” Additionally, most members of the loose QZAP collective are all zinesters in some form. When we have interns or volunteers, we ask them to make zines as a requirement to better understand the material that we’re working with.

I know the archive went offline for a while earlier this year because of technical complications. Can you tell me a bit about the technical basis of the project, both originally and what you’re using now?

QZAP
The Queer Zine Archive Project has been based as much as possible on free open-source software. We originally started out of our home on a Pentium 3 computer running OpenBSD. We quickly moved to a Linux-based server that was housed in a closet at a local cyber-cafe. When the cafe went out of business, we moved to a data center in Texas. After our crash, have relocated to a data center in Los Angeles.

Currently, the server is running on Debian Linux with Apache 2, MySQL, and PHP. Our website infrastructure is built on Joomla!, and the current archive is based on Gallery2.

In our workspace where we scan the zines, we run dual-boot Macintosh desktops (Mac OS X and Linux) and use Ubuntu, GIMP, XSANE for scanning, and have just started working with a closed-source library cataloging system to help us keep track of our titles as well as aid searching what we physically have in the collection.

Philosophically, we use F/OSS software because it is representative of what many zinesters have done over the years. It’s inexpensive, modifiable, and accessible to most people with a little know how.

Do you work most closely with zine creators or is there a network of distributors/collectors who contribute zines?

QZAP
A combination of the two. Many individuals will send us their zines to be included in the archive, and we have also received five large donations from people’s zine collections each containing fifty to one hundred zines each. While we started out with just 300 or so, we now have well over 1000 queer zines. The oldest document in our collection dated back to 1973 and is from Buenos Aires, Argentina. The most recent came in the post last Thursday. We have zines from more than a dozen countries and in several languages.

Is the project still primarily archival or is there a distribution aspect of it now that people are adding newer zines?

QZAP
We see ourselves as an archive with an educational mission. Our purpose is to make queer zines available for research and personal enjoyment, but we don’t discount the fact that in some ways we might be seen as a digital distro. That’s not our intent, and we try to follow the US “Fair Use” doctrine as close as possible.

Have you notice a flow on effect of archive-type projects? Do you get lots of people contacting you asking advice?

QZAP
We’re fairly well connected to other zine libraries and archives around North America, but for the most part each one has it’s own way of structuring itself.We try to help folks as much as possible with their projects, but mostly we encounter librarians and archivists who work with more institutional archives (Public and academic libraries.) Part of the reason we use F/OSS software is so that others can see and use the tools we do to make their own projects, whether they’re archival in nature or not.

What are the future plans for QZAP?

QZAP
We’ll keep scanning zines, and are slowly working toward establishing a physical space where people can come and view or check out the zines and documents.

This interview cross-posted with permission from Dandizette.net

Truth be told, I have no personal investment in the struggle for lgbtq marriage rights. I’m not all that interested in a patriarchal institution historically used to oppress women. I’d rather explore more creative and liberating expressions of queer love, than conform to such a tired old convention as marriage. Yet I do recognize that there are certain privileges associated with marriage, that everyone should have a right to access. Still, this struggle is not on my list of priorities.

Despite this I was yet another of the many people who voted against Prop 8, who were terribly distraught when it passed, and who joined in street protest to express outrage. This is because I was so moved by the obvious and profound level of hate which motivated and fueled the “Yes on 8″ campaign. These people only sought to further poison people throughout our state with hate against our LGBTQ community. They did so in the face of all the work many people have done and continue to do on the daily to make this place safe for LGBTQ people. So that we can one day walk down streets without any fear of suffering attack because of who we are. So when I saw “Yes on 8″ rallies with large groups of kids and children shouting out derogatory slurs and wielding those terrible signs, I could not be but totally overwhelmed by the hate.

So on a Saturday night earlier this month, I assumed I was attending an anti-hate rally. But that could not have been further from the truth. On stage was some white, dinosaur, les-biatch completely berating and tearing down the entire “African-American community”. Blaming us for the passing of Prop 8, she all but outrightly called Black people ignorant and foolish. She continuously used “us” in reference to gay people and “they/you” meaning black people. And to my surprise, all the folks around me were cheering and hollering at her every indictment of the black community. I learned that night that the racist rhetoric at this rally was in response to the divisive reporting propagated by mainstream media that Blacks voted in Proposition 8.

There are two dangerous underlying assumptions insinuated by this woman speaker and all the news reports. Firstly is that homosexuality is White. And secondly, that communities of color are absolutely homophobic. The reason these assumptions are so dangerous, is that they make me and all queer people of color invisible, as if we don’t exist. These assumptions render my perspective and my own life experiences invisible, and they leave no space for qpoc within the lgbtq rights movement. Just like there was no space for me at that rally. If “us” is the queer community and “they” are black people, then where am I? I wonder if you white gays and lesbians could not see the queer black woman beside you, when you rallied that black people had stolen queer rights.

And just to get this out the way, Black people did NOT make the Proposition 8 vote. The media has hyped the exit poll that “2 to 1 black voters supported Prop 8.” Even if that were 100% true, there’s no way Black people made the election. Anyone who bothered to think for themselves, or maybe even look at ALL the facts of the situation, would immediately see the fallacy of that conclusion. While the Black vote may have favored prop 8, the black vote still represents a minority percentage of the total voting population (Less than 7%!).The majority population in this state is still WHITE, and the majority of the voting population is WHITE. Therefore, even more white people voted for prop 8 than anybody else. The total number of black votes for prop 8 alone could NOT have made or broke the election, but 8 would not have passed without white people. DUH.

That this focus on misinformation is an obvious ploy to distract, divide and conquer the lgbtq rights movement, was totally lost on you all. Instead you white gays and lesbians just gobbled up this bullshit and swallowed hard. While I’m tempted to write you all off as ignoramus maximus, I think the fact that white gays and lesbians were so ready to point the finger of blame at Black people, further exposes the racist assumptions harbored within that community, as well as the lack of space for recognition of intersectional identities.

Last I checked the “yes on 8″ people were leading a very successful campaign of lies and misinformation, confusing prop 8 as an issue of child education. Given all the people who voted in fear based on these lies, how is it that the Black community so unanimously voted in hate and bigotry?

And here’s a question, why is it that the most immediate response of the white gay rights movement in this situation, was to start pointing the finger of blame? Are you all in second grade, is this really the most productive thing that could be happening now? Even I know, with my short few years of organizing, that when you come to the end of an unsuccessful campaign, you come together as an organization/movement/etc. and ask yourselves “what did we do well, what could we have done better, and where do we go from here within a larger strategy?” You don’t go pouting in the streets about whose fault it is you didn’t win!?

But this response isn’t all that surprising given that the average gay/lesbian within your movement experiences a great deal of privilege on account of race&class. And typically it is the people with the most privilege that have the most difficulty holding THEMSELVES accountable to anything, and not just blaming everybody else. In fact, the closest any of you have probably ever come to accountability is your white guilt, and Lord knows that’s not even close!

Fox 11 news happened to catch and feature the rally’s ignoramus supreme on the ten o’ clock news. “We (gay/white) people made Obama president, and they (Black people) left us behind! That’s it, we’re the last minority left now!”

This guy (like many of you I’m sure) voted away his white guilt at the polls a few weeks back. And he clearly thinks that the country purged itself of white supremacy in a single vote last week. Now you poor, poor, white gays and lesbians–you are the last of the oppressed! Alas the tables have turned, and it is us Black people barring you from your constitutional rights. We funded the $20 million “Yes on 8″ campaign of lies and misinformation–oh wait, that was other white people? Well, we contributed the largest percentage of total “yes” votes–no? That was white people too!? Well darn, now none of this making sense…

I realize this letter has gotten pretty long, so I’ll finish by saying this. If you white gaze and lesbiannes are so ready to leave Black people out of your gay rights movement, so be it. Who wants to be where they’re not wanted anyway. We’ll take our beautiful brown selves elsewhere, and start a real rainbow movement. And we’ll take all references to our civil rights movement with us. No more appropriating that legacy. Nope, not allowed. Because how you gonna hate on us, and then allude to our struggles in your commercials. I don’t think so.

It’s a stupid story now. Consumer lust and banker greed led to the over-extension of credit at monstrous rates of interest and pop goes the bubble. But, there are some unintended and probably under-thought consequences of this ill-fated attempt to forge the middle class into a landed gentry with huge manor houses. Class war, indeed. Those consequences focus their death ray precision on public libraries whose financial well-being depends on the collection of property taxes.

All public libraries, in one way or another, are funded by your tax dollars. In Ohio, public libraries are funded by a portion of the state tax. Even with state money, Ohio’s libraries rely greatly on funds coming from the municipalities; funds which are almost always generated by property taxes.

What does this mean? Well, take the library where I work. It gets nearly 60% of its yearly budget from local property tax levies. While we are entering into the first year of a renewed levy (thank you voters!), the library now faces a five percent (5%) reduction in overall funds. Why? Because property sales have plummeted almost 40% in the last fiscal year. Houses which don’t sell often end up abandoned. This means that no tax is being collected on those properties until foreclosure is complete. In short, the library funds are being diminished.

As I see it, the housing crisis fallout will affect public libraries which operate with municipal funding in three general ways:

1. As staff leaves or retires, those vacant positions will not be re-filled.

2. Tightening of funding will most directly affect our library’s materials budget. You know, the money libraries spend buying books, videos, CD’s, magazines, databases, reference materials, and such? The first cut always slices through the replacements. When a book falls apart or has been dipped into a bath of coffee, libraries toss that out. Now, we will not be able to replace every item that is discarded. While most customers will not immediately notice anything has changed, over time this sort of loss can be devastating to an older or rarer collection.

3. In the last several years, our library has moved from buying expensive reference books, like Encyclopedia Britannica, to buying the expensive web-based databases of those sources. As material budgets shrink, many of the electronic databases we buy will disappear since we will not be able to afford to pay the yearly subscriptions on them. Since many of the old reference books have been discarded or are out of date, these resources will effectively disappear from local libraries.

It may appear that none of this is all that dire. In the short term, that is probably true. Though when speaking about libraries one must remember that in times of economic hardship, the services offered by libraries are in greater demand. People coming into the library might have to look harder or wait a few more minutes to speak with a librarian, who might not have the same amount of time to help them as before. Students looking to access newspaper or magazine articles may not have the same access as they once did. Or maybe the customer who is cutting corners by borrowing books and videos instead of purchasing them might have less of a selection to browse. Not to mention the increasing numbers of people coming into the library to use our computers to print out resumes or apply for jobs–the free aspect of libraries becomes all that more important. The sad reality is that libraries are beholden to the same market forces that drive people into our buildings. So when times are tough and people are trying to do more with less, so too, are the libraries they use.

Now who wants to go help me rip out some copper pipes?

Unlike some previous Presidents, Bush’s approach hasn’t been to break the law so much as rewrite it to his liking. In the last few months, his legal counsels have been working overtime to do just that. After playing an active role in ruining the global economy, setting American scientific research back over a decade, alienating most of the global community, and starting two endless wars, how can he add a fitting coda to eight years of scorched-earth governance?

There’s strong indication that he plans on ending his stinking shitpile of a Presidency with the kicker of extreme environmental deregulation. Bush has never had an respectable record on the environment–witness the constant silencing during his Administration of NASA scientist James Hansen and government reports that support independent research into global warming. In these final few months, however, he is ramping up the efforts, using the bully pulpit of Executive power to push through policies adding wholesale environmental degradation to his dubious legacy of toxic policies, toxic assets and now toxic environmental policies.

Courtesy of non-profit investigative journalism outfit ProPublica, a short list of last minute rule changes:

In October, the EPA issued a rule that alters the definition of solid waste, effectively exempting about 1.5 million tons of hazardous material from a rule requiring such material to meet strict labeling, transportation and disposal rules.

Another rule, finalized by the EPA late Friday, asks companies that run confined animal feeding operations to voluntarily apply for permits to discharge waste into waterways. But if the operators don’t think their facilities pollute enough to warrant a permit, they’re under no obligation to get one.

The Bureau of Land Management is deciding whether to issue a rule change that would remove Congress’ authority to place a moratorium on uranium mining. The House Natural Resources Committee is currently using that power to slow a flood of permits to mine near the Grand Canyon.
The EPA wants to change rules that determine whether power plants must install cutting-edge technology to control emissions when plants are upgraded to produce more power. Currently, any plant that is upgraded must install the “best available control technology” if they will pollute more than their annual limit. But the Bush administration wants the limit to be based on hourly emissions, which critics say could lead to an increase in air pollution because upgraded plants can operate for more hours a day.

This is all in addition to Bush’s proposal from this summer to roll back many endangered species regulations so fat, lazy bastards can run their emissions-belching, small-penis-compensating SUV’s on dinosaur bones for a couple more years.

Obama’s team has indicated that the President-Elect intends to reverse many of the Bush Administration policies fairly immediately, such as the ban on stem-cell research. There is doubt whether Obama will be able to reverse all of these last-minute Bush declarations, as Bush and his Machiavellian legal team are wily. Politico reports:

While executive orders and rules that are not yet in effect can swiftly be reversed or altered by Obama’s appointees or his own executive orders, rules that go into effect before he takes office will be extremely difficult to undo. Rescinding a rule would require the new administration to re-start the rule-making process, which can take years and prompt legal challenges. Another strategy that has been talked about lately – getting Congress to disapprove the rules through the Congressional Review Act — carries political risks and has been used only once before.

This is, of course, entirely legal action for a departing President to take. But considering what’s at stake, these are impossibly destructive policies being implemented, and will only serve to further tarnish a legacy that is more toxic than a Superfund site. It’s doubtful that Bush cares much, leaving with the lowest approval rating ever while retaining a dogged belief that his Administration will be redeemed by history’s estimation. Instead, it’s far more likely that history will place this Administration in infamy, in which the legacy of short-sighted policy decisions will cast a long shadow over the country–and world–for decades to come.

One of the difficult things to appreciate about California is just how vast it is. There are clear geographical barriers between its coastal blue communities and its predominantly red inland regions. Most who live in the coastal communities tend to forget that the rest of the state exists. This phenomenon comes to the fore every election season, when liberals are shocked that the bulk of the state shows up at polling places. This convenient ignorance is puzzling–as the California popular vote map from the 2004 election shows, you could handily fit three or four smaller red states into California’s sea of red.

In 2004, 5,509,826 Californians voted for Bush, according to Wikipedia. This was only 43% of the popular vote, to Kerry’s 53%, but in comparison to the voting rolls of smaller avowedly red states, 5,509,826 votes is an enormous number. By comparison, in Indiana in 2004, 1,479,438 voted for Bush, comprising 59% of the popular vote. In Texas–California’s rival by sheer size–4,526,917 people voted for Bush, comprising 61.09% of the popular vote. Nearly as many Californians voted for Bush in 2004 as Texans and Indianans combined. I realize that this is in no ways scientific from a pollster’s perspective–plenty of issues of population density in the regions arise–but it is illustrative of one main point: there’s a lot of fucking conservatives in California.

Driving around the country earlier this year, my Californian wife and I were struck by the disconnect between popular perception of regional politics, and reality. The political reality of this nation is far more nuanced and complex than a simple Electoral College map would suggest. Most striking, however, was after four months of sitting in traffic awash in Obama and Clinton stickers in the South, passing Obama placards outside rural farmhouses in the Midwest, just how regressive and conservative California felt upon returning. We saw far more pickup trucks adorned with Confederate Flag stickers and plastic testicles in rural California than anywhere we traveled in the deep South. It’s almost as if the conservative areas of the state feel the need to overcompensate, proudly showing off their willful ignorance.

To wit: I’m Californian born-and-raised. I’m also the only consistently Democratic voter in my immediate family, which includes far more Evangelicals and born-agains than College grads.

It’s convenient for liberal coastal Californians to glibly dismiss the country between California and NYC as “flyover states”, and entirely reasonable that the rest of this enormous country responds by dismissing California as a den of far-left elite with no appreciation for the concerns of the working class. Not only are both perceptions completely off-base, but they suggest that liberal and progressive Californians need to keep their house in order before they cast blame at the rest of the nation.

Look no further than this year’s Proposition 8, which aims to rescind California’s recognition of same-sex marriage. A recent Survey USA poll shows support for the measure by a troubling wide margin, 47% for it as opposed to 42% against.

Far-right Propositions are common in the state’s elections. The Evangelical base loves them–considered direct government by some, a drag on the State’s judicial system by many, they allow big-pocketed Republican operatives an opportunity to push back against the population-dense liberal strongholds of Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area.

For decades, Californians have called for two states, as the cultural gap between the Northern half of the state’s coast and the South is wide–denizens of Silicon Valley and Hollywood consider themselves to be in cultural opposition to one another. The gaudy excess of Hollywood versus the faux-ascetic Prius-driving of the Bay Area is a persistent contrast, but it’s a niggling difference between two areas that have fundamentally similar political beliefs. It’s also a major distraction from the real cultural and political divide in the state.

This is a mistake. The glib NorCal latte liberals, the undergrad anarchists who consider voting to be an endorsement of the evils of global Capitalism, and the wealthy Hollywood kingmakers should be well advised of the Conservative and Evangelical giant lurking in their own midst. As should the rest of the country, which incorrectly–and dangerously–considers California to be eternally blue.

Just beyond the horizon,

A golden streak pierces the sky,

Spreading like wildfire

among the weakening night.

It began as a mere speck,

In the vast ocean of blue,

Struggling to be free of its star-shaped shackles,

The inevitable truth

was that it would be devoured,

For how,

Could this little soul survive.

Yet,

This speck could not be stopped,

The will to thrive,

Even among the mightiest foe,

Is a force that no being,

Neither man nor beast,

Could hope to stop

from the ultimate perfection.

Just beyond the horizon,

A golden streak pierces the sky,

Spreading like wildfire

among the weakening night.