From Denial to Recovery

I am the first to admit, we really do take for granted the energy we consume in our everyday lives. Be it in our homes, at work, at play or in public areas such as the local mall or in our community churches, we use large amounts. And although we have a long way to go, the recent spikes in gas prices have caused many of us to no longer dismiss energy conservation as an activity left for our neighbors to practice. We all have a role to play. The average American consumer is starting to get past its conservation denial and move on to recovery.

Indeed, many of us now recycle, purchase artificial Christmas trees, stop littering the Nation's freeways and byways, carpool, use 40 watt light bulbs, and have cut back our water use. These same market forces that caused us to change our ways are even bringing about innovation and timely succor to the earth's ozone. It used to be a rare sight to see a hybrid car on the road, but since energy prices started their ascent, automakers are now offering attractive hybrids at affordable prices.

In spite of these positive lifestyle changes, my green friends, who seem to enjoy finger pointing at other, shall we say, "less conscientious" friends for not doing more to lessen their environmental footprint have become arrogantly adept at highlighting the problems, but sorely ineffectual in offering up viable solutions. The problem is, they are deliberately unreasonable when they blindly deny that we need traditional energy sources to sustain our way of life, heat our homes and to keep our economy strong. They spew out old and tired clichés about America's oil dependence with condescending and nauseatingly self-righteous lecturing.

Long unsatisfied with the protests and rallies of the past, these groups have been executing an intense campaign of frivolous lawsuits, political fundraising for sympathetic candidates and resorted to extreme publicity stunts (Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network, etc.). Even when it comes to renewable energy, they are not completely honest. It seems that each time I agree with them and try to get specific about which alternative energy source we should collectively focus on embracing, I am curtly told there is a problem with this source or that one.

Indulge me for a bit as I list some of the most popular negatives as laid out by the green faction to some of these renewable sources.

Hydropower:
It's cheap, unlimited, and reliable right? Well, activists and environmentalists advocates have fought to keep new dams from being built because they argue the nature of hydroelectric systems will often cause the water to take on higher temperatures, lose oxygen content, experience siltation, and cause gains in phosphorus and nitrogen content. As a result, hydropower may have irreversible impacts to natural habitats and thereby reduce fish stock throughout watershed and rivers. And so, they conclude, those working to make hydropower our premiere renewable energy source are swimming upstream.

Bio Mass:
Biomass pollutes the air, causes nauseous smells, and many reject it as a viable option because burning biomass fuels release those nasty greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Plus, it's an expensive source, both in terms of producing the biomass and converting it to alcohols. As a result, they affirm, efforts to have biomass as the renewable energy option that will save our planet have gone up in smoke.

Wind Power:
Who could have a problem with harnessing the wind in order to supply our energy needs? Our green friends of course. Wind power you see, has been found to cause unacceptable rates of raptor mortality and their unsightly presence dotting our public lands have caused a growing number of advocates to join the fight to reduce new windmills from being built. But there's more; Wind power is also relatively expensive to maintain, and the very diffuse source means it requires large numbers of wind generators (and thus large land areas) are required to produce useful amounts of heat or electricity. So according to them it turns out that those advocating for wind power to become an abundant renewable energy source are full of air.

Nuclear Energy:
Where do I even start with this one? When one begins to even mention nuclear energy as a possibility to fix our energy problems, the activists will invoke the human fallibilities that have created the most serious nuclear accidents in history; Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are two classic examples often mentioned as to why we should fight against new plants from being built. Admittedly, it is hard for one to hold up the benefits of nuclear power when the short and long-term biological, genetic and medical dangers associated with the nuclear fuel cycle are thrown in your face with such compelling examples of tragedies and near-misses. There is also the very real problem associated with the storage of long-lived radioactive waste. They then will tell you that those who argue for nuclear energy as an option will only suffer a frustrating meltdown.

Solar Energy:
Admittedly, this is not a problem cited by our green faction. Here the issue is that only areas of the world with lots of sunlight are suitable for solar power generation, and the very diffuse source means low energy production - which means large numbers of solar panels (and thus large land areas) are required to produce useful amounts of energy. Furthermore, the initial cost of a solar panel large enough to provide useful amounts of electricity is very expensive. As a result, very few homeowners or businesses can afford them. Unless solar panels can be made much cheaper, people won't buy them.
But currently, there is an issue regarding the polysilicon supply, the raw material used to produce photovoltaic cells. The shortage has caused prices for polysilicon to more than double over the last two years, which means plans to have the market deliver affordable solar technology anytime soon have fizzled out.

Really, I could go on, but I think you get the picture. No energy source meets their absurdly unrealistic standards of acceptability.

Energy That Falls out of the Sky:
Fortunately for us all, energy, the kind with zero impact to the environment, will soon be falling from the sky to power our washing machines, factories, automobiles, Nintendo video game consoles and our suburban shopping malls. Santo remedio!

Pipe dream you say? You are absolutely right. So if our friends are against nuclear energy, wind power, bio-mass energy, hydropower and solar energy continues to be sold at caviar prices, how then do we meet demand, continue the historic GDP growth, and sustain our way of life?

While we wait for innovation and technology to catch up and meet our energy demand, and while we wait on our green friends to get over their energy denial, the rest of us have been brought to our knees with no relief of energy prices in sight.

There is a better way. We can make smart use of traditional natural resources. To be clear, I am referring to oil and natural gas.

But even here we have self-inflicted wounds. Numerous Federal government restrictions continue to stifle exploration for natural gas in the Rocky Mountain region, and on public lands across Alaska. Oil and gas leases on federal lands are subject to the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act to name a few.

Our zeal to protect and preserve our planet have caused us to approve policies that have created damaging restrictions to access, crippled our delivery infrastructure, and stifled exploration of oil and natural gas reserves. Copious and often unreasonable lawsuits by environmental groups have thwarted even the most cursory explorations of oil and gas reserves.

Natural Gas:
The country produces 84% of its natural gas domestically, but while 95% of the new power plants will be fueled by clean-burning natural gas, mature basins are declining, and the available supply of natural gas is not meeting the growing demand. To make matters worse, natural gas producers say they have to run their wells harder to stay even--which means digging more but less productive wells.

Then there is the problem of delivery. One thing is to extract the oil, another is to deliver it for processing. State and local governments have made it almost impossible to build new pipeline systems and ships that transport vast amounts of liquefied natural gas (LNG) over the oceans are finding it a challenge to increase the amount of cargo given the limited infrastructure and the number of processing plants (only five in the U.S.).

Compounding the natural gas problem is that almost two-thirds of the world's natural gas reserves can be found in five countries: Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. In fact, Russia and Iran have almost half the world's natural gas reserves. The other major sources of reserves are found in West Africa and Latin America. Unquestionably, these are all very difficult regions to deal with.

Restrictions on public lands are no small thing mind you. Consider that the Interior Department alone manages more than 500 million acres of public land, or one out of every five acres of U.S. land. These lands account for 30 percent of America's domestic energy production, including 48 percent of geothermal production, 35 percent of natural gas production (25 percent offshore and 10 percent onshore), 35 percent of coal production, 35 percent of oil production (30 percent offshore and 5 percent onshore), 20 percent of wind power, and 17 percent of hydropower.

o In Nevada alone, the Federal Government owns and administers 87% of the state's land.
o The federal government owns and administers 67 percent of Alaska's total acreage.
o The federal government owns and administers about 37 percent of the land in Montana as well.

To be sure, the United States has plenty of natural gas reserves. The government's Energy Information Agency (EIA) believes (conservatively) that there are 1,279.5 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas resources in the United States alone. That is sufficient to take care of America's natural gas demand for fifty to seventy-five years, depending on the growth in demand.

By severely restricting or simply banning drilling access to gas fields in the Rockies, the Arctic, the eastern Gulf, and the Outer Continental Shelf in both the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans, we have artificially created a supply shortage for the country.

A Department of Energy report indicates that over the next 20 years, consumption of natural gas in the United States is projected to grow by more than 50%; while production, if it grows at the rate of the last 10 years, will grow by only 14% (as per the Energy Information Administration). Needless to say, we are headed for a natural gas crisis if we do not take steps to revert the trend.

Oil:
Energy denial is most acute whenever people start talking about the need to increase domestic production of oil. They claim the amount that can be produced will not be enough to make the United States energy independent. I agree. But that shouldn't stop us from lessening our dependence. Our denial has created a disastrous and bleak energy future.

As domestic oil production has continued its decline, the U.S. had to import 58% of its petroleum needs in 2004 to keep its economy roaring at historical growth levels. These oil imports cost more than $150 billion and it is estimated that Americans lost thousands of high-paying jobs. The price of gasoline has nearly doubled over the last three years because of the escalating price of oil. The cost of turning oil into gasoline has also risen because of costly federal regulations on refinery operations and expansions. No new refineries have been built in the U.S. since the 1970s.
And even though the clamoring for gasoline has been inadequately met thus far by expansions of existing refineries, it has come with considerable difficulty.

As is the case with natural gas, there currently exist strict prohibitions to explore and develop oil reserves on the east and west outer continental shelves of the United States - mainly off the Gulf Coast of Florida and the coast of California.

Today's younger generation wouldn't know it, but back in the late 70's, many experts declared with smug assuredness that 30 billion barrels of oil was all that was left in the ground. My guess is that given the rate of production at the time it probably meant we would be back to burning small logs of wood to heat our homes by the 1990s. Since then, we have pumped out an additional 67 billion barrels of oil. Today, the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 10 billion barrels are recoverable from one small area alone, enough to increase known domestic reserves by 50 percent. I am of course referring to Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

The House and Senate have actually voted to open ANWR in the past, but they have regrettably failed to come to an agreement on one acceptable bill. The Administration came within three votes of opening ANWR for development. But today ANWR remains off-limits to exploration while we take on more imports, oil prices continue spiking to absurd levels as demand continues to grow faster than existing domestic production.

The restricted patch of vast and mostly desolate land is considered by many to be America's single largest untapped source of oil. A new bill, the American-Made Energy Freedom Act (H.R. 5890), would open it to energy development and use the billions in ANWR leasing and royalty revenues to fund alternative energy projects. Moreover, the Act limits production to the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain, leaving 17.5 million of ANWR's 19 million acres untouched. Most importantly, the surface disturbance on the coastal plain is further limited to no more than 2,000 acres.

Below is a listing of by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) that details how oil from ANWR would power each state based on oil potential (10.4 billion barrels*) and petroleum consumption by state using statistics provided by the Energy Information Agency (EIA), the U.S. Dept of the Interior calculated the number of years that ANWR oil would power each state.

State & Number of Years ANWR Oil Would Supply State:
Alabama	103	Montana	342
Alaska	203	Nebraska	255
Arizona	108	Nevada	226
Arkansas	146	New Hampshire	315
California	16	New Jersey	46
Colorado	120	New Mexico	222
Connecticut	132	New York	34
Delaware	399	North Carolina	58
DC	1,710	North Dakota	399
Florida	29	Ohio	43
Georgia	54	Oklahoma	97
Hawaii	249	Oregon	155
Idaho	363	Pennsylvania	39
Illinois	43	Rhode Island	570
Indiana	68	South Carolina	120
Iowa	132	South Dakota	499
Kansas	141	Tennessee	80
Kentucky	79	Texas	9
Louisiana	36	Utah	218
Maine	249	Vermont	598
Maryland	100	Virginia	62
Massachusetts	75	Washington	68
Michigan	52	West Virginia	266
Minnesota	84	Wisconsin	83
Mississippi	116	Wyoming	374
Missouri	77

10.4 Billion Barrels of Oil is the mean volume USGS estimates for technically recoverable conventional oil in the entire assessment area of ANWR; including federal lands, native-owned private lands and state-regulated waters.

Bottom line is, the opportunities offered by opening exploration and drilling in ANWR cannot be ignored, we do so at our peril.

Conclusion:
Transforming personal commitment and public policy into a healthy, just, and competitive society is essential to sustaining robust economic development in a world of increasing growth and vast opportunities. To that end, Congress should require strict energy conservation, demand investments in technology, promote building nuclear power plants and oil refineries, make hydrogen and fuel cell technology a high priority, and yes, authorize ANWR exploration and drilling. Americans should also drop our energy denial and pass sensible policy that ensures we will have vast and varied sources of energy to heat our homes, sustain our way of life, and keeps our Nation strong.

Daniel Garza is President of Hispanic and PODER Group

SANCTUARY, SANCTUARY!

Quasimodo hurried up to the highest tower of Notre Dame "which housed the great bell," and held the girl before the city's masses congregated below as he "roared savagely...'Sanctuary! Sanctuary! Sanctuary!'"

Today, the Aldalberto United Methodist Church in the City of Chicago can be substituted for the famous cathedral in Victor Hugo's solemn and eternal novel "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", and Elvira Arellano may as well be Esmeralda, the protagonist from the same novel.

The following article is by DON BABWIN, writer for the Associated Press:

CHICAGO- Immigration activists around the country are taking up the cause of a single mother who invoked the ancient principle of sanctuary and took refuge in a Chicago church rather than submit to deportation to Mexico. Elvira Arellano, 31, was holed up for a second day Wednesday at Aldalberto United Methodist Church with the support of the congregation's pastor. With her was her 7-year-old son, Saul, an American citizen.

Federal officials said there is no right to sanctuary in a church under U.S. law and nothing to prevent them from arresting her. But they would not say exactly what they planned to do, or when. The protest raised the spectacle of agents barging into a church and dragging her out.

"She is the face of the movement," said Emma Lozano, executive director of the Chicago immigration-rights group Centro Sin Fronteras, who was at the church with Arellano. In Phoenix, Martin Manteca of Mi Familia Vota said Hispanic activist groups were organizing a vigil in her support. Lozano said an event also was scheduled in Detroit.

Arellano also has attracted attention from political officials including Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, who has voiced his support. And Dolores Huerta, a leader in the effort to organize the nation's farm workers, plans to come to Chicago to show her support, according to Huerta's daughter, Alicia. A few dozen supporters gathered at the storefront church, sitting in the pews and praying for Arellano. But the doors were not barricaded, and there were no apparent efforts to fortify the church.

Arellano, who is president of United Latino Family, which lobbies for families that could be split by deportation, had been ordered to appear at the immigration office in Chicago at 9 a.m. Tuesday, but instead went to the church, where she is an active member.

She said that if authorities want her, they will have to come and get her. "My son is a U.S. citizen," she told reporters. "He doesn't want me to go anywhere, so I'm going to stay with him." Pastor Walter Coleman said his congregation offered Arellano refuge after praying about her plight. Coleman said he does not believe Arellano should have to choose between leaving her son behind or removing him from his home.

"She represents the voice of the undocumented, and we think it's our obligation, our responsibility, to make a stage for that voice to be heard," he said. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said there is nothing preventing the U.S. government from arresting her at the church.

"Ms. Arellano willfully violated U.S. immigration laws and is now facing the consequences of her actions by failing to report to immigration authorities," said agency spokeswoman Gail Montenegro. "We will arrest and deport her as required by law at an appropriate time and place." Legal experts agreed that the traditional doctrine that people are protected from arrest in a church is not recognized under U.S. law.

But Joel Fetzer, associate professor of political science at Pepperdine University in California, said: "If the government comes in, it's going to look very jack-booted fascistic. It would look very bad." Churches and synagogues also tried to offer sanctuary to illegal immigrants escaping civil war in El Salvador during the 1980s, a civil disobedience activity known as the Sanctuary movement. Susan Gzesh, a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago who assisted the churches and synagogues that offered sanctuary, said she does not believe federal authorities ever went into the churches to make arrests.

Arellano illegally crossed into the United States in 1997 and was deported shortly afterward. She returned within days, living for three years in Oregon before moving to Chicago in 2000. Arrested two years later at O'Hare Airport, where she was working as a cleaning woman, she was convicted of working under a false Social Security number and ordered to appear at the immigration office in Chicago.

Activists said her desire to come here to work and provide a better life for herself and her son illustrates why they believe the nation's immigration laws must be changed. "She is a leader in the movement who has made the issue of family unity the key issue in the question of the undocumented,"her pastor said. "That is the most sympathetic issue there is."

Others are not so sure. "I don't think the immigration debate should be focused on a woman who ... disregards an order," said Carlina Tapia-Ruano, a Chicago lawyer and president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

Tapia-Ruano said she worries that Arellano's story will be used by extremists on both sides of the issue and cited as an example "of how illegals come here to be in flagrant disregard of our laws, and I don't think that's true." - Associated Press writer Carla K. Johnson in Chicago contributed to this report.

***

I say bravo Aldalberto United Methodist Church!

May God help the outcast.

Daniel Garza, President of Hispanic and PODER Group

TEXAS ELECTED OFFICIALS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT SPEAK ON IMMIGRATION

TELEPHONIC BRIEFING
Texas Elected Officials and Sheriffs Offer Alternative View of Immigration

WHAT: On Wednesday, August 16, the House Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Investigations will hold a "field hearing" in Houston entitled “Criminal Activity and Violence along the Southern Border.” It is part of an ongoing series of 21 congressional hearings that have been held across the country this month on immigration issues, most if not all of them painting an extremely negative picture of immigrants and their contribution to the U.S. A group of Texas elected officials and law enforcement officers take a different view, and they would like to set the record straight in advance of the Houston hearing. They will address questions about immigrants and crime, immigrants and the South Texas economy, border security, immigration reform, and the role of local law enforcement in controlling the immigrant flow.

WHEN: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 8:30 am CT

HOW: Dial: (800) 289-0494 or (913) 981-5520
Confirmation Code: 1639914

WHO: The following elected officials and law enforcement officers will speak:

John Cook, mayor of El Paso
Richard Cortez, mayor of McAllen
Chad Foster, mayor of Eagle Pass
John David Franz, mayor of Hidalgo
Raul Salinas, mayor of Laredo
Beto Salinas, mayor of Mission
Eddie Trevino, mayor of Brownsville
Richard Wiles, police chief of El Paso

Tamar Jacoby, senior fellow, Manhattan Institute will moderate.

Hispanic Movers and Shakers

Eddie Gonzalez
Eddie Gonzalez was named chairman and CEO of Hispanic marketing firm The Bravo Group. He succeeds Gary Bassell.
Gonzalez was formerly Bravo Group’s Young & Rubicam (Y&R) Latin America head. Gonzalez began his career in 1982 at Y&R Puerto Rico, where after a year he was named managing director.
Gonzalez went on to steer Y&R Latin America into becoming the second-largest network in the region and making it one of the top creative agencies there. He has worked for Y&R across four continents, having also served as chairman and CEO of Y&R Madrid and having held senior management roles in Asia.

David Lizárraga
David C. Lizárraga, president and CEO of The East Los Angeles Community Union (TELACU), received an honorary doctoral degree in Humane Letters from California State University.
Under Lizárraga’s leadership TELACU grew from a small community development corporation to one of the largest such firms in the nation. The company, now with $400 million in assets, has spearheaded job development throughout Southern California
Over the decades Lizárraga, who also serves on California’s Motor Vehicle Boar and on the USHCC Board of Directors, has proved himself a sought after resource in wide-ranging matters including business and civic affairs, inner-city lending and real estate development.

Jorge Lopez
Jorge J. Lopez was named president and chief executive officer of ConEdison Solutions, a subsidiary of Consolidated Edison, Inc. (CEI), and one of the nation’s leading energy services companies.
Lopez will succeed JoAnn F. Ryan who will assume another senior executive position. Lopez joined ConEdison Solutions in 2002 and most recently served as senior vice president of retail commodity and energy services. He also served as vice president of sales.
With over two decades in the industry, Lopez previously served as director of sales, power quality/reliability and distributed generation for Chevron Energy Solutions, the San Francisco-based energy company.

Rosa Rosales
Rosa Rosales was named president of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LUCLAC), the largest and oldest Latino civil rights organization in the U.S., following a vote by the organization’s delegates held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Rosales
Born April 7, 1944, in San Antonio, Texas, Rosales was among the first Mexican-American women to become a labor organizer in recent times. She was the first woman, for example, to hold the position of LULAC state director. Rosales received a BA in liberal arts from the University of Michigan. Most recently she was the national vice president of the Southwest on the LULAC board of directors.

Yvette Ostolaza
Yvette Ostolaza, a litigation partner in the Dallas office of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP—one of the world’s leading international law firms—has been appointed to serve a three-year term on the Board of Directors for the Baylor Health Care System Foundation.
This select group of business professionals actively participates through a wide range of fund development, special events and solicitation of corporate support for the essential needs of Baylor Health Care System.
Ostolaza concentrates in the trial and supervision of complex civil litigation and arbitration in state and federal courts throughout the United States and arbitrations.

Aileen Ugalde
Aileen M. Ugalde, was named University of Miami (UM) vice president, general counsel, and secretary to the Board of Trustees. Ugalde was vice president for government affairs for the university and served as president Donna Shalala’s chief of staff.
While directing the Office of the President’s activities, she also led the University’s efforts in hosting the 2004 Presidential Debate on campus. She first joined the university in 1994 as an assistant general counsel, and in 1998 was promoted to associate general counsel.
A UM alumna, Ugalde graduated with honors from the UM School of Law, where she was a Harvey T. Reid Scholar and member of the University of Miami Law Review.


USHCC
USHCC President and CEO Michael L. Barrera, USHCC Foundation President Frank Lopez and distinguished members of the USHCC Board of Directors, Paul Rodriguez (Region 3) and Alex Garcia (Region 5) were selected to participate in the Hispanic Association on Corporate Responsibility’s (HACR) Executive Education Program for existing and prospective corporate board members.
Scheduled for August 13 – 16, 2006, at the Harvard Business School (HBS) in Boston Massachusetts, the Executive Education Program is the result of a collaborative effort between HACR and HBS to increase the effectiveness and presence of Hispanics in the corporate boardrooms of America's largest companies.


Leticia Van de Putte
Texas State Senator Leticia Van de Putte became the first Hispanic president of the National Conference of State Legislatures, a bipartisan, nonprofit organization that works on behalf of the nation's state legislatures.
As president, she will be a voice in the federal system for the nation's 7,382 state legislators - who collectively represent all Americans.
A Democrat, she succeeds Republican Illinois Senator Steve Rauschenberger to the post of NCSL president. The position alternates each year between the two major parties.
Senator Van de Putte represents a large portion of San Antonio, and is a veteran in her legislature. This is her fourth term in the Texas Senate, following five terms in the House.

I Scream, you Scream, we all Scream for Ice Cream

I will preface this blog article with a cute story that is making the rounds on the web - goes something like this:

In the days when an ice cream sundae cost much less, a 10 year old boy entered a coffee shop and sat at a table. A waitress put a glass of water in front of him.
"How much is an ice cream sundae?" he asked.

"Fifty cents," replied the waitress impatiently.

The little boy pulled his hand out of his pocket and studied the number of coins in it.

"How much is a dish of plain ice cream?" he inquired.

Some people were now waiting for a table and the waitress was growing edgy. "Thirty-five cents," she said brusquely.

The little boy again counted the coins.

"I'll have the plain ice cream," he said.

The waitress tended to the other customers and would later bring the ice cream, put the bill on the table and walk away.

The boy finished the ice cream, paid the cashier and departed.

When the waitress came back, she began wiping down the table and then swallowed hard at what she saw. There, placed neatly beside the empty dish, were two nickels and five pennies - her tip.

** **

In much the same way, many undocumented workers in spite of the mistreatment and indifference shown to them because of callous stereotypes have dutifully contributed to our economy, paid their fair share of taxes and helped to grow the world’s largest economy (Since 2004, the U.S. has created more jobs than the rest of the G-7 countries combined).

Those who argue against immigration reform often make the point that these workers and their families are a growing burden on American society. Legal immigrants, they say, pay their taxes and work hard to raise their families, and "illegals" take services yet give nothing in return and depress wages.

First of all, it should be noted that up to 40 percent of the undocumented population entered the country legally and overstayed their visas.

Second point is The Commission for Immigration Reform (CIR) reported that the average immigrant and his or her offspring will contribute $80,000 more in taxes than they take in services.

Unauthorized migrants in the United States have paid billions of dollars into a Social Security system that desperately needs the infusion to avoid financial collapse (just like the waitress in our ice cream story needs the tips paid by customers to make ends meet).

According to the U.S. Census Bureau "Compared to the native-born, a significantly higher percentage of immigrants are of working age (between 28 and 54 years of age). As such, the Social Security Administration estimates that three out of four illegal immigrants pay payroll taxes, but can't claim the benefits, amounting to an "illegal surplus" of between $6 billion and $7 billion per year – it is estimated that $500 billion has the total net benefit to the Social Security System.

Another argument is that unauthorized migrants - mostly employed in low-wage, low-skill industries - drive down wages and take jobs away from U.S. citizens.

Howard Chang from the University of Pennsylvania noted this supply-and-demand argument is wrong: "...the demand for labor does not remain fixed when immigrants enter the economy," he argues. "Immigrant workers not only supply labor ... they also demand goods and services, and this demand will translate into greater demand for locally supplied labor."

A 2004 study by the Inter-American Development Bank estimated that the 16.7 million U.S. workers born in Latin America had a combined gross income of $450 billion in 2003, of which a whopping 93 percent was spent in the United States. It was also found that most paid both sales tax and federal tax. In fact, The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimated that state and local taxes paid by the unauthorized immigrant population in the United States totaled about $1.6 billion per year.

Unquestionably, our Nation is strong because of immigrant contributions, and it continues to benefit economically, politically, and socially from immigration.

Bottom line is, contrary to popular belief, they give more than they take. By supporting comprehensive immigration reform we are simply giving back our respect and gratitude.

Until next time. I'm off to get a chocolate sundae with nuts.

Daniel Garza, President of Hispanic and PODER Group

A Paradise for Culture Vultures

As I continue my quest to see how Colombia has changed, I headed yesterday to La Candelaria, Bogota's colonial sector. I've always found the rich colonial architecture - some of it rundown, much of it restored - to be strangely comforting.

We had lunch on a terrace overlooking the tiled rooftops and city center. One of those spectacular August days - cloudless, cool, the strong sun beating down.

We wandered down to the Museo Botero, a collection housed in a beautiful old colonial house in the lower part of the Candelaria. In 2000, Maestro Fernando Botero donated 123 of his own works (paintings, drawings, sculpture)and 85 from his own collection, mainly late 19th century and early 20th century pieces by Corot, Renoir, Picasso, Moore, Dali, Chagall. (I was struck by his generosity!) I've never seen so many Boteros housed in one place and perhaps it is the museum with the most extensive collection of his works. Very impressive and beautifully curated.

The Museum also includes a gift shop, a children's workshop, interior patios (typical of colonial houses)with fountains and filled with bouganvillea, a small cafe. One could easily pass an afternoon, a very pleasant afternoon, there.

In another part of the colonial house is the Banco de la Republica's art collection, which has over 3,000 pieces by Colombian, Latin American and European artists. Part of the collection is displayed in 14 rooms, chronologically, beginning with 17th century religious art and finishing with works by contemporary artists.

Attached to the Banco's collection is the Museum of the Banco de la Republica. It is a striking modern structure, which flows nicely into the colonial architecture. There is a small courtyard and cafe between the two buildings and as you step from one to the other, you feel that you are gently gliding between centuries. It's a nice feeling.

After the museum, we walked down to the Plaza de Bolivar. I wanted my daughters to see the plaza and the institutions that ring that plaza - congress, the church (cathedral), Bogota's city hall, and the Supreme Court. The girls chased pidgeons, posed for pix on a llama (I promise, it won't be this year's Christmas card) and asked about the different buildings.

I hadn't seen the new Court and decided to leave the tragic story of the taking of the Palacio de Justicia for another day. This was a day of appreciating something very unique and beautiful in their country.

Fidel Reading

Fidel Castro turns 80 years old on August 13, 2006.

PODERblog recommends the following books for the occasion:

After Fidel by Brian Latell


Cuba: The Morning After--Confronting Castro's Legacy by Mark Falcoff


The Real Fidel Castro by Leycester Coltman


Fidel: A Critical Portrait by Tad Szulc

The Autumn of the Patriarch

(from PODER magazine)

Cuba expert Brian Latell talks about the waning days of the Cuban Revolution, and what might happen after Fidel.

By Cathleen Farrell, Miami

While Hurricane Wilma was bearing down on Miami and South Florida, Brian Latell was talking about the winds of change in neighboring Cuba. “Fidel is seriously ill,” the former CIA analyst said. “He is declining physically and cognitively, and he is suffering from some serious, life-threatening illness.” That kind of talk goes over well in Miami, where discussing the demise of Cuba’s leader and speculating on the aftermath is a favorite parlor game.

On that sultry October afternoon, though, Latell, an expert without peer on Fidel Castro, was lunching with a group of journalists to discuss his new book, After Fidel. In it he tackles the question of what will happen to that island nation after Castro dies. While the unstartling conclusion is simply that, “after Fidel, anything is possible,” the book rewards the reader with insights into the dictator and the regime that Latell has gained from nearly four decades of study.

After Fidel is a fascinating study not only of Fidel but also of his younger brother and heir apparent, Raul. Like the good historian he is, Latell, who holds a PhD in Latin American history and taught at Georgetown, carefully distills the complex geopolitical reality of Cuba down to its most basic component: the key human actors in the drama.

He skillfully paints a detailed portrait of two brothers who appear to be mirror opposites: Fidel, charismatic, self-absorbed, megalomaniacal; Raul, cautious, unobtrusive, extremely private.

The book is also part memoir, says Latell, and the title employs a double meaning. “After Fidel also refers to my being after him, trailing him. As a young CIA analyst, I was given the task of getting under his skin, his beard, in his boots.”

Actually Latell has never met Fidel, never come face to face with him, but he is indisputably one of the world’s experts on the Cuban dictator. “I have a dubious distinction—I’m somewhat embarrassed to admit it,” Latell says, laughing. “I have read every public word Fidel has ever spoken.” He began working on Cuba for the CIA in 1964, five years after Castro took power, two years after the U.S.-Soviet showdown over missiles in Cuba.

After Fidel has garnered a lot of attention, in part because it reveals heretofore undisclosed details about both Castro brothers. Latell’s main thesis is that the Cuban revolution has only one indispensable man besides Fidel: Raul Castro. “There is not and never has been a ‘third man’,” Latell says. There is no one else waiting in the wings to take over. Fidel is so paranoid that he trusts no one, Latell explains, no one, that is, except his younger brother Raul, over whom he exerts an extraordinary psychological control.

The best value-added dimension of the book is the information it provides about the enigmatic Raul. Most biographies of Fidel and all the standard histories of the revolution have neglected one of its most important factors, Latell maintains. “To my knowledge, there has never been anything more than a few hundred words written about Raul. Admittedly Raul is not quite as interesting as Fidel, but he is psychologically and emotionally more complex.”

The relationship between the two, the way they effectively share power, may foreshadow Cuba post-Fidel. (In several instances in the book, Latell refers to their conquest of power as the Castros’ revolution.) “To use a theatrical metaphor, if the Cuban revolution were a stage production, Fidel would be the director and Raul the producer.”

Latell believes that should Fidel die first, Raul would, as expected, indeed take power and be able to maintain the revolution intact for a time at least, forestalling the protracted period of chaos that many observers predict. “There are no leaders or group of leaders who could rally support and challenge Raul for leadership.”

On the other hand, given Fidel’s current physical and mental health, Latell says, “If Raul dies first, the revolution would hang by a thread.”

The congenial Latell, although a cool and cerebral analyst, is hardly detached from his subject. In the book and in conversation, he frequently refers to Fidel as a “psychopath” and demonstrates both fascination and revulsion for the man.

Interestingly, he speaks more warmly of Raul, although the younger Castro is known to have killed and ordered executions in cold blood. “Close family members, his sister Juanita—a wonderful person— and Fidel’s daughter Alina Fernandez—also a wonderful person—both say that Raul is the warmer of the two, the more human.” They even used the word “ compassionate”. (Juanita, says Latell, blames Fidel for “turning Raul into a monster.”)

Latell describes Fidel as having a “very constricted psychological scope and capability. He is very insulated, isolated.” Raul, on the other hand, has formed deep and lasting bonds with family members, friends, and colleagues. “Fidel has no sense of humor. Raul is very down-to-earth and has a real self-deprecating sense of humor.”

Yet, Latell notes, “Raul is lacking in so many of the extraordinary leadership qualities of Fidel. He is awkward in public speeches, he does not have direct contact with the masses.” Ironically, it is Raul’s more human qualities, Latell believes, that have enabled him to gain such firm control of the military and to consolidate his role in the revolution.

The world’s longest-serving defense minister—“a job he does exceptionally well,” says Latell— Raul Castro controls the country’s most powerful, wealthiest and best run institution whose many tentacles reach into every aspect of Cuban society. “In 47 years, there has never been a coup attempt, no organized unrest in the military,” Latell says. “There have only been two serious disruptions in the military, in 1959 and in 1989, and both were resolved in favor of the Castro brothers.”

How has Raul managed to maintain control of the military for so long? “In part, because he has had the same men with him since the 1950s,” Latell explains, “but also because he has established genuine friendships with these men, he knows them, he knows their families—something Fidel is incapable of.”

And yet, Raul’s power initially derived from his relationship with his brother. Since their childhood, Raul has been overshadowed by his illustrious, studious and charismatic older brother.

Growing up in what Latell describes as “the Cuban equivalent of the American wild west” in the eastern Cuban countryside, the boys were sent away to school at an early age. Fidel thrived, Raul did not, and was described by one teacher as “a sack of potatoes.” Fidel has a law degree from the University of Havana and was a student leader; Raul has little formal education. Fidel was their father’s favorite, Raul was barely acknowledged. (Latell furthers the discussion of Raul’s paternity by quoting a letter Raul wrote to Fidel referring to their older brother as “your brother”—not “our brother”—and he reveals the name of the man long rumored to be Raul’s biological father.)

In the 1950s Raul became an avowed communist, traveling behind the Iron Curtain and reading Marxist tomes. He was the ideologue of the two; Fidel was the more pragmatic, a Cuban nationalist. During the revolution Raul came into his own as his brother’s loyal lieutenant. (Raul calls Fidel “jefe”, not brother, according to Latell.)

Despite his lack of schooling Raul “is the organization man, with an extraordinary managerial style.” Yet his loyalty to his brother is unwavering, unquestioning and blind, so great is the psychological hold Fidel has on Raul. And that has been the essence and the success of their hold on Cuba.

While the book does not enter into the minutiae of a post-Fidel Cuba—after all, both leaders are geriatric revolutionaries so it’s a coin toss who could go first—Latell does suggest that relations between the U.S. and Cuba might be different under Raul.

“The roles have been reversed: Raul is now the more pragmatic of the two,” says Latell. “Fidel is more dogmatic, inflexible, radical.” Under Raul, would the current policy of estrangement still be sustainable? Latell suggests that Raul’s pragmatism might well allow him as leader to send emissaries to Washington, to put feelers out offering to share intelligence and to work together on counter-terrorism. “Would the U.S. say ‘no’?,” Latell asks.

Latell is reticent about expressing an opinion on U.S. policy towards Cuba. He says he does not want to detract from the discussion of his current book and, he adds, “I may write a book next year on U.S. –Cuba relations, but from the Cuban point of view.”

Fidel, Latell says, has never wanted good relations with the U.S. “His anti-Americanism is in his blood. Fidel hates the United States,” but “I don’t think Raul would have the same blood antipathy.” Raul has only spent 24 hours in the U.S. He rarely, if ever, receives American visitors, Latell says, but “Fidel understands us maybe as well as we do or better.”

The Virginia Monologues

Colombia is undergoing an interesting national conversation these days, sparked by the televised declarations of a former TV personality/ex-lover of drug kingpin Pablo Escobar.

Virigina Vallejo broke her more than decade-long silence last week when videotaped declarations she made about Escobar and the Colombian political class were broadcast on national TV. During the nearly five-hour long tape,(parts of which were broadcast) Vallejo talks about her love affair with the notorious cartel chief (as well as her relationship with another drug lord, former Cali cartel capo Miguel Rodriguez Orejuela.)

But that's not the good stuff. Vallejo accuses former Justice Minister and senator Alberto Santofimio, Escobar's political godfather, of being the "intellectual author" of the 1989 killing of a beloved presidential candidate, Luis Carlos Galan.

Vallejo said that if Santofimio, who is on trial for ordering the assassination of Galan, gets off "it would be like murdering Galan twice."

Vallejo says she decided to come forward after she saw the Galan family on TV during the trial of Santofimio several weeks ago. Vallejo said that if Santofimio, who is on trial for ordering the assassination of Galan, gets off "it would be like murdering Galan twice." Vallejo declares she heard Santofimio on at least three occasions speak to Escobar of the need to "neutralize" Galan, who Santofimio said was a threat to their plans to turn Colombia into a narco-state.
"This man is a killer," Vallejo said in the tape, as she pointed to a photograph of Santofimio in El Tiempo. "The only thing he didn't do was pull the trigger."

Salacious accusations aside, what I find truly fascinating about all this is the discussion going on in the Colombian press and media and society about Vallejo's role and whether or not her declarations should be admissible as evidence against Santofimio. (Proceedings had actually closed 10 days before the declarations were aired.) Few question the veracity of the declarations. The discussion is more about Colombia's recent past. And what I wonder is whether or not Colombians are ready to revisit it just yet. Some seem to want to. Is this Colombia's version of an ad hoc Truth and Reconciliation commission of the narco-terrorism that reigned from the mid-1980s to the early 1990s? The violence began with the murder of Justice Minister Rodrigo Lara Bonilla, who supported extradition of drug traffickers, and it continued with the taking of the Palace of Justice and murder of most of the justices of the high court. Then bombings which killed hundreds, the murder of over 2,000 policemen in Medellin, the bombing of an Avianca flight in 1989 which killed all aboard...the period ended, it is safe to say, in 1993, shortly before the killing of Escobar. So violent. So much needless loss of life. Such a hate-filled time. How did it all happen? Why couldn't it have been contained? The reason may lie in the coziness between the politcal class and the narcos, and those in civil society who turned a blind eye to drugtrafficking, corruption and an ever weakening justice system.

Are Colombians ready to examine their and their leaders roles in this horrific period? Perhaps this national conversation has already begun.