The Texas Observer

Bill Guerra Addington already fought to keep a nuclear waste dump out of his backyard in Sierra Blanca; now he’s fighting the Department of Homeland Security to keep a small footbridge that spans the Rio Grande on his alfalfa farm.

“I fought the Sierra Blanca nuclear dump and now I’m fighting Homeland Security — it’s just one thing after another,” says Addington.

To visit the Big Bend area is to be floored by the beauty and vastness of the Chihuahuan Desert region. The people who live there value their independence, but they also value their neighbors, whether those neighbors be Mexican or U.S. citizens.

In such a vast and remote area, your neighbor can mean the difference between life and death. Some small communities along the Rio Grande have been there since the 17th century. And for several hundred years, families have crossed back and forth to visit relatives and health clinics, to work and to buy food.

The footbridge that connects Addington’s farm with Mexico is used by Mexican farm workers and U.S. residents who want to visit Mexico. Without the bridge, either group would have to drive 140 miles round-trip to cross at a federal port of entry. And if Homeland Security has its way, that’s exactly what will happen.

Henry Miller, a property owner in Candelaria, about 100 miles east of Addington’s farm, said his town had its bridge seized and dismantled by Homeland Security last month. Miller and five high school buddies from Midland (class of ‘63) bought a majority of the town several years ago.

“It’s just a great place to get away, to go hunting and shoot dove and quail,” he says.

The metal suspension bridge was built in the 1950s to link the desert towns of Candelaria (pop. 50) in Texas and San Antonio del Bravo (pop. 150) in Mexico.

“The bridge kept the communities going. People would cross over on Friday to buy food, visit with friends then go back on Sunday,” Miller says.

See local historian Glenn Justice’s Web site for pictures and history of the Candelaria bridge. Justice describes a recent incident in which a man on the Texas side survived a heart attack because he was able to get across the bridge to the doctor in San Antonio del Bravo.

Miller says that drug and immigrant smuggling were never an issue with the small bridge. Besides there’s a Border Patrol office at the top of the hill overlooking the span, he says.

“We used to have about 70 kids attending school in that building, but it was taken over by the Border Patrol a few years ago,” Miller says.

Before the bridge was destroyed by the Border Patrol, Miller and his buddies received an ominous letter from the Department of Homeland Security directing them to dismantle it. “They said if we didn’t do it, they would fine us $3,000 for every person who crossed the bridge,” he says.

Miller says he and his partners declined to destroy the link between the two communities.

“What would the communities think of us, if we did such a thing?,” Miller asks. “It’s a humanitarian issue when you have to travel eight hours round trip to get from Candelaria to San Antonio del Bravo if you do it the way Border Patrol wants it.”

So Miller and the other five owners were summoned to Austin for a meeting with Homeland Security, “We had been told we’d be meeting with several head honchos,” he says. In the end, only Dan Harris, assistant patrol agent for the Marfa sector, showed up.

“At that moment Defense Secretary Robert Gates was touring West Texas and the Marfa sector,” Miller says. “So [the other officials] didn’t come because of his visit.”

Bill Brooks, public information officer for the Border Patrol’s Marfa sector, says there are six bridges that require removal in the 510-mile border sector.

“This law has been on the books for a long time,” Brooks says. “We’re human beings who are concerned for our neighbors, but these are not federal ports of entry.”

Brooks says Border Patrol is giving landowners six weeks to remove the bridges. He explains that the bridges used to be allowed as Class B ports of entry, but not since 9-11.

The Candelaria bridge now sits in pieces at Border Patrol headquarters in Marfa. “We’re just waiting to see what the landowners want to do with it,” Brooks says.

Miller says the crackdown is another blow for small Big Bend communities barely carving out a living. He says he’s considering hauling the broken bridge back to town as a protest against the militarization of the border.

“It’s devastating for the locals and I am afraid these communities will dry up,” he says. “And guess who will take over the homes and ranches? The drug dealers, because there won’t be anyone around anymore to keep them out or inform on them.”

by Melissa del Bosque

The Secure Border Fence Act passed in 2006, but the Department of Homeland Security only just realized that the homeland has an international water treaty with Mexico that prohibits the building of fences in the Rio Grande Valley’s floodplain.

DHS’ solution? A movable fence, of course. Can’t wait to see which private company gets the fat contract to move the fence before major flooding events. The more I read, the more I expect a Volkswagen to pull up with 17 clowns and Michael Chertoff crammed inside. Would anyone be surprised?

DHS is supposed to start building the border wall on top of existing levees — themselves long overdue for repairs — during the heart of this summer’s hurricane season. After the disaster in New Orleans, it boggles the mind that Hidalgo County officials have to fly to D.C. and beg for federal funding to repair their federal levees before a major flooding disaster occurs.

DHS has also proposed movable fencing along Arizona’s San Pedro River. Since the Congressional Research Office estimated $49 billion for 700 miles of border fence, then it’s reasonable to expect that movable fencing will cost taxpayers even more. Plus, the government will need to pay someone to move the fencing when disaster looms. Sounds like whoever gets the contract will also deserve hazard pay — add that to the nation’s already-bloated border security costs.

Wouldn’t it have made more sense, and cost U.S. taxpayers a lot less money, if DHS had simply consulted with border residents and border officials first? If they had asked (or listened to) groups like the Texas Border Coalition? Chertoff might have learned that eliminating salt cedar and Carrizo cane from the Rio Grande, expanding the river channel, adding more Border Patrol agents and employing virtual-fence technology (provided it works) might actually secure the border better. And how about comprehensive immigration reform?

Then again, maybe not. Where are the no-bid contracts in that?

by Melissa del Bosque

Van Jones, founder of Green For All, brought a much needed breath of fresh air into the stale atmosphere of Austin’s convention center, which contained the hung-over, sparse remains of the Netroots Nation blogger crowd Sunday morning.

“Wake up. And stay up!” Jones commanded the subdued audience upon taking the stage.

More than his jokes or energy, it was his forward-looking message — a challenge to the progressive bloggers to move beyond their like-minded critiques toward positions of action and leadership — that stirred things up.

“You all got a problem, because y’all are about to win,” Jones said. “Now, you have to prove your ideas are good for governing, not just protesting.”

Jones also issued a warning. Using the Carter presidency as an example, he said the Left must be careful about its excitement over the Obama presidency.

“You can probably get him elected, but not reelected,” said Jones. “Not unless we get really smart about his reelection right now.”

A Democratic president and Congress will leave conservatives with nothing to do but run their mouths, at a time when the new leadership will be inheriting a country that’s heading for stagflation, just as when Carter took office, Jones said.

And Jones fears the result will be a right-wing backlash and years of conservative rule, just like after Carter left office.

To beat stagflation, energy prices must come down, Jones said. The conservatives’ solution is drill and burn, and “we are getting our butts whupped by this drill, drill, drill mantra.” This, he says, is because the green movement is and will continue to be a target of conservatives who label it an elitist movement that leaves the working classes behind.

“It is up to us to say ‘this is not a movement we are going to do to poor people, it is a movement we are doing for poor people,’ he said.

The movement is not dependent upon new technology or new policy, but politics, Jones said. To win, green advocates must change the nature of the debate by promoting the positive aspects of energy reform, like job growth, rather than accentuating the negative, like global warming.

Winning also requires action, not just talk about the problem, said Jones—Action like advocating for the Green Jobs Act and Green Block Grant, and participating in the nationwide green jobs mobilization campaign he’s launching September 27.

As the national landscape changes, the role of the blogosphere is changing. And, as the final keynote speaker, Jones told bloggers their future task requires increasing inclusivity. “You can’t save the polar bear without saving the poor children too. It is one movement,” he said.

by Elisabeth Kristof

A theme is developing at the Netroots Nation Convention: Don’t expect Senator Obama to be the magic bullet when it comes to cleaning up the wreckage of eight years of George W.’s misrule.

The Center for Constitutional Rights, a New York-based legal advocacy organization hosted a panel Saturday afternoon on Guantanamo and Habeas Corpus and what the president can do in the first 100 days of his term to restore the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

As Americans we are hooked on the idea that any problem can be solved with 10 simple solutions or in some given number of days. Yesterday, former counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke plugged his 12 solutions for our national security crisis at his panel.

The consensus on today’s panel of lawyers and journalists was that it will take more than a push broom and 100 days to clean upDubya’s mess. The picture was bleak: our Constitution is in tatters and the Supreme Court and Congress have descended into an Alice in Wonderland world where right is wrong and up is down.

Admittedly, it was depressing. Still it was energizing to see a large room nearly filled with extremely concerned and pissed-off citizens. At one point, an attendee stood up and asked what bloggers and activists could do to turn the ship around.

Panelist Jeremy Scahill, author of Blackwater: the Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army (yes his book was plugged at the panel) encouraged attendees to spend less time behind the computer and more time in the streets protesting.

Scahill saved his most scathing remarks for Congressional Democrats, including Barack Obama, commenting that instead of defining themselves as a real opposition party, the Dems had undermined efforts to hold Bush’s administration accountable. “Bush is operating in an enforcement-free zone inside the United States and outside the United States,” he said.

Scahill warned that the U.S. was in the midst of the most radical privatization agenda in history with a record number of private contractors carrying out government duties around the world. To illustrate this, he reminded the audience that Blackwater and Dyncorp were at the moment guarding Sen. Obama as he toured Afghanistan and Iraq.

ACLU Lawyer and panelist Jameel Jaffar told the audience that it was wrong and dangerous to blame Bush for everything. He cited the Supreme Court and Congress as miserable failures when it came to defending democracy and the Constitution.

“Ultimately, it will take more than a change in administration to effect the change we want,” he said. “The most important thing in the first 100 days is to set up a truth and accountability mechanism like the 9-11 Commission,” he suggested.

The take-home message was that American citizens need to keep a close eye on their government — now more than ever — and hold political leaders accountable. This includes Barack Obama, no matter how badly Democrats want to see him in the White House.

Scahill exhorted the crowd — many of them Obama supporters — to “cheat” on their candidate with a little bit of conscience.

“John McCain and a head of lettuce could get the same number of votes,” he said, drawing laughs from the crowd. “Now is when you really need to hold Obama’s feet to the fire, because he needs your votes and he needs your money — he won’t need them after November.”

by Melissa del Bosque

Overheard at the conservative blogger summit:

“Is that Hussein up there with Hussein?”

—Woman commenting on a Web site depicting Barack Obama and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

by Forrest Wilder

Without much else to run on this election cycle, the Republicans here at the conservative blogger summit are really pounding hard on the whole “Drill Here, Drill Now” business. Congressman John Carter (R-Round Rock) apparently takes the slogan literally. “I believe there’s oil under the ground right here,” he practically shouted during the general session this morning. “I believe we ought to slam-drill right under this hotel!”

Most of the speakers perfunctorily touched on the benefits of renewable power, but then quickly moved on to the charms of drilling ANWR, the outer-continental shelf, the Barnett Shale in urban Tarrant County, etc. It felt like a pep rally for oil. Railroad Commissioner Elizabeth Ames Jones talked up the exciting new oil extraction technologies (horizontal drilling!) while Michael Williams — who’s a pretty good speaker, but looks like he practices in the mirror a tad too much — promised that weaning ourselves off crude is still “way down the road.” Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele made it as snappy as possible: “If you want real change, it’s real simple: drill, baby, drill.”

The speakers — natch — blamed Democrats for standing in the way. Rep. Carter warned ominously that “at least five times in the last month and a half” Democrats have said that “we need to nationalize and take over and seize the oil and gas industry in the United States.” He went on: “That ought to scare the pants off you. They have an agenda to change the world we live in, and that agenda is fierce and it’s frightening.”

Four-dollar-a-gallon gas and fear — is that a winning strategy for Republicans this year?

by Forrest Wilder

To say that former VP Al Gore stole the show from Speaker Nancy Pelosi at this morning’s Netroots Nation convocation would be a lonely understatement in a weekend of hyperbole. Pelosi, despite her bona fides as the first female Speaker of the House and a lot of talk about progressive alliance-making, has failed to deliver on the promise of the Democratic class of 2006. We’re still at war. Karl Rove remains a free man. Etc. None of this may be precisely Pelosi’s fault, and Lord knows she did her best to deflect the blame, but both the tone and content of this morning’s questioning and the pink-clad protesters shouting for Pelosi to “use your power” to bring the troops home made clear that Madame Speaker still engenders significant disappointment, if not outright distrust, among the blogging classes.

Not so Al Gore, who received a rock star’s welcome, and looked the part in a blue blazer over a tie-less black shirt. There would arguably be no Netroots Nation without Gore (as Pelosi pandered), and the assembled lapped that kudo up, though Gore deflected the praise with an obligatory crack about thinking it unwise to claim any credit.

Gore preferred to spend his time in the limelight promoting his call for a 100%-renewable American electrity portfolio in 10 years, and plugging the non-partisan wecansolveit.org as an avenue for change.

Gore’s pitch was inspiring and universal, no way around it, and that made for a sometimes awkward juxtaposition with the Pelosi agenda. For every non-partisan appeal of Gore’s, there was Pelosi to insist that no change is possible without a Democrat in the White House and healthy Democratic margins in Congress. But when a questioner asked Pelosi whether her Congress would accept Gore’s 100%-in-10-years challenge, her long-way-around answer couldn’t quite conceal the fact that she never did say yes.

And that was as good a marker as any of the difference between these two “leaders,” as several questioners addressed them. It was a difference hammered home most interestingly when someone asked Gore the inevitable question about whether he would consider a post in an Obama administration to help further the climate-change agenda.

Without quite ruling that possibility out, Gore made it clear that he feels he’s more useful as a driver of public opinion, influencing the debate by getting the word out, and helping to build a climate of support within which politicians can feel both safe and compelled to create policy.

One can hardly blame him. Gore no longer has to tighten the nuts and bolts of actual lawmaking that so hinder Pelosi. Where she has to take the heat for the complex machinations of Congress, attempting in good grace to face down the disgruntlement of faceless bloggers with out-sized egos and a growing electoral influence to match, Gore can swoop in, engage the room’s inchoate idealism, and go home.

It’s a good gig. And it was a good idea to structure this morning’s Q&A that way, using Gore’s popularity as Pelosi’s escape hatch. And the roomful of bloggers — who do so love to equate commentary with the heavy lifting of actual governance — loved every minute of it.

by Brad Tyer