Wikileaks and Latin America: Same Old Imperious U.S. Diplomats

By Former Senior Research Fellow Nikolas Kozloff

As more and more documents become available from Wikileaks, the public has gotten a novel and close up view of U.S. diplomats and their operations abroad. I was particularly interested to review heretofore secret documents dealing with Latin America, a region which has absorbed the attention of Washington officials in recent years. While it’s certainly no secret that the Bush administration, not to mention the later Obama White House, have both sought to isolate the so-called “Pink Tide” of leftist regimes in South America, the Wikileaks documents give us some interesting insight into the mindset of U.S. diplomats as they carry out their day to day work.

Needless to say, the picture that emerges isn’t too flattering.

Take, for example, a 2005 cable from the U.S. Embassy in Brasilia1 which details a high level conversation which took place between the American ambassador, John Danilovich, and Brazilian General Jorge Armando Felix. A longtime businessman, Danilovich spent 20 years in the shipping industry in London and it was there that the American organized voters for George Bush and his father. A big time GOP donor, Danilovich proved a loyal lieutenant at his post in Brasilia, specifically by opposing the left turn in South America.

In 2005, Hugo Chávez was at the height of his political powers, challenging the unpopular Bush regime throughout the region. Over in Bolivia meanwhile, Washington fretted that an erstwhile coca farmer, Evo Morales, might win his country’s presidential election. For Washington, Brazil had become a country of vital geopolitical importance: if President Lula could be persuaded to drop his support of neighboring Venezuela, then the U.S. would certainly be more successful at halting the region’s leftist advance. In the effort to turn back the Pink Tide, Danilovich was a key figure.

Speaking with the Brazilian daily O Estado de São Paulo, the diplomat accused Chávez of actually funding political forces within Bolivia. Seeking to foster a common U.S.-Brazilian front, Danilovich said the funding was a concern for Washington and ought to preoccupy officials in Brasilia as well. When reporters asked Danilovich whether he was accusing Chávez of directly funding Morales’ campaign, the diplomat would not specify [Morales himself denied the U.S. allegations].

Behind closed doors, Danilovich continued his diplomatic offensive. After lunching with General Felix, the ambassador broached the subject of Venezuela, noting that Chávez was “disrupting Brazil’s efforts to play a leading role politically and economically in South America.” It’s unclear from the cable what Felix might have thought about the ambassador’s comments, though reading between the lines it seems the military man may have been sympathetic toward the U.S. and disagreed with his own government’s official policy toward Venezuela.

Since we don’t have the full text of Danilovich’s cable, it’s unclear whether the diplomat approached other figures in the Lula government about Venezuela, let alone military officials. To be sure, at the time of this meeting Felix was working as Lula’s own Minister of Internal Security and as such no longer occupied an official post within the ranks. Yet, there are some disturbing parallels to the historic past here. Consider that it was not too long ago that Washington collaborated with the anti-Communist Brazilian military which overthrew democracy in a coup. Later, the armed forces hunted down leftists both within the country and abroad through so-called “Operation Condor.”

From Brazil to Argentina

Elsewhere in South America, the U.S. has faced political opposition from some unlikely quarters. Take for example Argentina, up until recently a fairly reliable U.S. ally which followed the Washington economic consensus. With the coming to power of Néstor Kirchner and his wife Cristina Fernández de Kirchner however, U.S.-Argentine relations have taken a nosedive. A fierce critic of the International Monetary Fund, Néstor also pursued an unprecedented diplomatic alliance with leftist Venezuela.2

Wikileaks cables document the deteriorating relationship between Washington and Buenos Aires and show U.S. diplomats as imperious and scheming. Take for example a diplomatic spat between Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State for Hemispheric Affairs Arturo Valenzuela and Argentine officials, an incident that I wrote about at the time.3 An American of Chilean descent and a Chavez critic, Valenzuela made his way to Buenos Aires late last year. Causing a diplomatic firestorm, Valenzuela declared before the local media that Argentina lacked adequate legal protections. When the government protested that such was not the case, Valenzuela clarified that he had personally spoken with representatives of American companies through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who were upset about management of the economy. They were reluctant to invest due to lack of legal protections, Valenzuela added.

As if he had not annoyed the government enough already, Valenzuela then declared that he personally had detected a change in the investment climate between 1996 [the height of Argentina's flirtation with neo-liberal economics] when “there was a lot of enthusiasm to invest,” and the present day. In a communiqué, the Argentine foreign ministry angrily retorted that the government “had not received complaints from U.S. companies which had interests and investments” in the country.

The irate chorus continued with Interior Minister Florencio Randazzo regretting that some U.S. officials had gone back to “the old practices” even though “there was an expectation in Argentina of the inauguration of a new U.S. foreign policy” during the Obama era. The Minister of Justice added that Valenzuela’s remarks were “very unusual and unjustified.” By far however the most incendiary remarks came from former president Néstor Kirchner who accused Valenzuela of behaving like a “viceroy.”

Far from feeling contrite toward Argentina, U.S. diplomats treated the Valenzuela episode rather flippantly and superciliously. In a cable sent to Washington, recently released through Wikileaks4 , American officials in Buenos Aires wrote that the local press had “sensationalized” and over dramatized the incident. “Once again,” diplomats remarked, “the Kirchner government has shown itself to be extremely thin-skinned and intolerant of perceived criticism.” Downplaying the tenor of Valenzuela’s remarks, the authors added that many Argentines routinely complain about the weakness of governing institutions and the rule of law.

It’s difficult to parse what Washington’s policy might be toward Argentina in the Obama era. Judging from another cable released by Wikileaks5 , U.S. officials are still trying to sort it all out and seek to acquire as much information about the Kirchners as possible. Prior to Néstor’s recent death, Secretary of State Clinton personally wrote to the American Embassy in Buenos Aires, remarking that the U.S. was drawing up “a written product examining the interpersonal dynamics between the governing tandem.”

Clinton added that State had a pretty “solid understanding” of Néstor’s style and personality, but Cristina remained a mystery. Specifically, Clinton wanted to know how Cristina managed “her nerves and anxiety.” Somewhat bizarrely, Clinton then asked her subordinates whether Cristina was taking any medications. Again and again, the Secretary of State pressed for details about Cristina’s psychological and emotional profile.

Though certainly intriguing, the Wikileaks cable fails to answer a vital question: why would Clinton seek a psychological evaluation of Cristina in the first place? Perhaps, the United States government simply lacked information about the Argentine president and wanted to know who it was dealing with in South America. Another darker reading however is that the U.S. does not trust Argentina and is seeking to manipulate Cristina or uncover some dirt. A Machiavellian if there ever was one, Clinton is surely capable of playing political hardball and engaging in diplomatic intrigue.

For far too long, the U.S. public has remained ignorant of its government’s overseas efforts to turn back Latin America’s leftist Pink Tide. Though scant thus far, Wikileaks’ release of documents pertaining to Latin America is telling. From Brazil to Argentina, American officials have emerged as an imperious and cynical lot. Hopefully in the days ahead we may learn more about the Bush and Obama administration’s handling not only of Brazil and Argentina but also Venezuela, Bolivia, and Honduras.

Nikolas Kozloff, Ph.D. is a former COHA Senior Research Fellow and is the author ofRevolution! South America and the Rise of the New Left.

Some of his other posts are available at www.nikolaskozloff.com

-30-

Latino Art Now Video

Click the link below or the header to start a fun-short video on the recent Latino Art Now gathering in Los Angeles. The usual (arts community) suspects were there. My wife definitely enjoyed participating on a panel at the conference. According to Annie, the Latino art lovefest was a resounding success. Maybe I will check out the scene next time ... maybe?

Go to Latino Art Now MP4 Video

How Obama Saved Capitalism and Lost the Midterms

By Timothy Egan

New York Times

[Click image to enlarge]

If I were one of the big corporate donors who bankrolled the Republican tide that carried into office more than 50 new Republicans in the House, I would be wary of what you just bought.

For no matter your view of President Obama, he effectively saved capitalism. And for that, he paid a terrible political price.

Suppose you had $100,000 to invest on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated. Why bet on a liberal Democrat? Here’s why: the presidency of George W. Bush produced the worst stock market decline of any president in history. The net worth of American households collapsed as Bush slipped away. And if you needed a loan to buy a house or stay in business, private sector borrowing was dead when he handed over power.

As of election day, Nov. 2, 2010, your $100,000 was worth about $177,000 if invested strictly in the NASDAQ average for the entirety of the Obama administration, and $148,000 if bet on the Standard & Poors 500 major companies. This works out to returns of 77 percent and 48 percent.

But markets, though forward-looking, are not considered accurate measurements of the economy, and the Great Recession skewed the Bush numbers. O.K. How about looking at the big financial institutions that keep the motors of capitalism running — banks and auto companies?

The banking system was resuscitated by $700 billion in bailouts started by Bush (a fact unknown by a majority of Americans), and finished by Obama, with help from the Federal Reserve. It worked. The government is expected to break even on a risky bet to stabilize the global free market system. Had Obama followed the populist instincts of many in his party, the underpinnings of big capitalism could have collapsed. He did this without nationalizing banks, as other Democrats had urged.

Saving the American auto industry, which has been a huge drag on Obama’s political capital, is a monumental achievement that few appreciate, unless you live in Michigan. After getting their taxpayer lifeline from Obama, both General Motors and Chrysler are now making money by making cars. New plants are even scheduled to open. More than 1 million jobs would have disappeared had the domestic auto sector been liquidated.

“An apology is due Barack Obama,” wrote The Economist, which had opposed the $86 billion auto bailout. As for Government Motors: after emerging from bankruptcy, it will go public with a new stock offering in just a few weeks, and the United States government, with its 60 percent share of common stock, stands to make a profit. Yes, an industry was saved, and the government will probably make money on the deal — one of Obama’s signature economic successes.

Interest rates are at record lows. Corporate profits are lighting up boardrooms; it is one of the best years for earnings in a decade.

All of the above is good for capitalism, and should end any serious-minded discussion about Obama the socialist. But more than anything, the fact that the president took on the structural flaws of a broken free enterprise system instead of focusing on things that the average voter could understand explains why his party was routed on Tuesday. Obama got on the wrong side of voter anxiety in a decade of diminished fortunes.

“We have done things that people don’t even know about,” Obama told Jon Stewart. Certainly. The three signature accomplishments of his first two years — a health care law that will make life easier for millions of people, financial reform that attempts to level the playing field with Wall Street, and the $814 billion stimulus package — have all been recast as big government blunders, rejected by the emerging majority.

But each of them, in its way, should strengthen the system. The health law will hold costs down, while giving millions the chance at getting care, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Financial reform seeks to prevent the kind of meltdown that caused the global economic collapse. And the stimulus, though it drastically raised the deficit, saved about 3 million jobs, again according to the CBO. It also gave a majority of taxpayers a one-time cut — even if 90 percent of Americans don’t know that, either.

Of course, nobody gets credit for preventing a plane crash. “It could have been much worse!” is not a rallying cry. And, more telling, despite a meager uptick in job growth this year, the unemployment rate rose from 7.6 percent in the month Obama took office to 9.6 today.

Billions of profits, windfalls in the stock market, a stable banking system — but no jobs.

Of course, the big money interests who benefited from Obama’s initiatives have shown no appreciation. Obama, as a senator, voted against the initial bailout of AIG, the reckless insurance giant. As president, he extended them treasury loans at a time when economists said he must — or risk further meltdown. Their response was to give themselves $165 million in executive bonuses, and funnel money to Republicans this year.

Money flows one way, to power, now held by the party that promises tax cuts and deregulation — which should please big business even more.

President Franklin Roosevelt also saved capitalism, in part by a bank “holiday” in 1933, at a time when the free enterprise system had failed. Unlike Obama, he was rewarded with midterm gains for his own party because a majority liked where he was taking the country. The bank holiday was incidental to a larger public works campaign.

Obama can recast himself as the consumer’s best friend, and welcome the animus of Wall Street. He should hector the companies sitting on piles of cash but not hiring new workers. For those who do hire, and create new jobs, he can offer tax incentives. He should finger the financial giants for refusing to clean up their own mess in the foreclosure crisis. He should point to the long overdue protections for credit card holders that came with reform.

And he should veto, veto, veto any bill that attempts to roll back some of the basic protections for people against the institutions that have so much control over their lives – insurance companies, Wall Street and big oil.

They will whine a fierce storm, the manipulators of great wealth. A war on business, they will claim. Not even close. Obama saved them, and the biggest cost was to him.

-30-

'Galeria 4.0': Retrospective, Galeria de la Raza

[Click image by SFGate to enlarge]

Galeria de la Raza may have been born out of the 1960s Chicano movement, but it has managed to remain relevant for 40 years.

The art studio in San Francisco's Mission District has served Latino artists since it was founded in 1970. Its 40-year retrospective exhibition, "Galeria 4.0," is designed around concepts that encapsulate Latino art over the years.

Those concepts derive from the Chicano civil rights movement, during which artists reclaimed their Mexican American ethnicity and culture via art.

"Basically we looked at the Chicano art movement and the Galeria's place in that movement," said Raquel de Anda, the Galeria's associate curator. "What's beautiful about it is it's very porous and the concepts bleed from one to another."

In the past four decades, Latino artists the world over have been embraced here through a common thread of passionate work steeped in community pride and cultural activism.

"Galeria 4.0" boasts acclaimed artists such as José Antonio Burciaga, whose work is juxtaposed with that of young talent such as Mitsy Avila Ovalles and Rio Yañez.

Yañez essentially comes from Chicano art royalty - his parents are Yolanda Lopez and Rene Yañez, one of the gallery's founding members - yet he's crafted his own techniques and style while remaining true to an art movement his parents helped create.

Work from Rio Yañez's "Ghetto Frida: Mission Memories" series is featured in the show, where he reinterpreted Frida Kahlo as a modern-day chola, replete with distinctive tattoos of teardrops falling from her right eye and "Diego" tattooed on her neck. The series is set in the Mission against such symbolic landmarks as the New Mission movie theater.

Many of the outdoor billboard mock-ups, like Rio Yañez's, that have graced the Galeria are being showcased, along with other emblems of the studio's past, like tear sheets from calendars that local artists used to produce.

"There's so much history, so it's difficult to meld 40 years of Latino artwork, but hopefully it'll start conversations about the Mission," de Anda said of the exhibition. "Something the Galeria has always tended to do is educate. There's going to be a lot of history here and vignettes and lessons about Chicano art and how it's broken out of its framework in a lot of ways."

Other portions of the show offer a Día de los Muertos display and other installations involving video and photo. What it comes down to, de Anda said, is an exhibition that reinforces the studio's roots.

"The Galeria has always been about voicing and creating a space for people who have been stifled or ignored," de Anda said. "The times have changed, but there's still a need for that."

Through Jan. 29. 1-7 p.m. Tues., noon-6 p.m. Wed.-Sat. Galeria de la Raza, 2857 24th St., S.F. www.galeriadelaraza.org.

- Danielle Samaniego, 96hours@sfchronicle.com

This article appeared on page G - 14 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Photographs: Spring 2010

I have had the opportunity to lecture, present and travel this Spring. Here is an eclectic mix of photos from the first half of 2010. Please feel free to send me your comments and questions.

The first photo is of my wife Annie in Ensenada. Yes, it was cool near the beach.

In the second photo are Ben Cadena and Ed Robledo. This dynamic duo and others performed at the recent National Association of Latino Arts conference in San Jose.

The third photo was taken at a coffee shop across from the University of California at Berkeley. Here my wife Professor Ann Marie Leimer and our good friend Professor David Montejano talk about my upcoming lecture at the university.

It has been exciting first half of the year. I also lectured at the San Bernardino County Museum and my wife and I presented my work at San Jose State University.

The most interesting and different challenge I have taken this year was a solo motorcycle trip. A couple weeks back I rode the motorbike for five hours through the desert. Yes, it was “muy caliente” ... 100 plus degrees. I visited places like San Bernardino, Apple Valley, Joshua Tree and of course Palm Springs.

Other trips, lectures and exhibitions are planned. Such is the life of a greñudo Chicano lefty artist.

-30-

After 40 years, give or take a few, SJSU Chicano Commencement endures

By Joe Rodriguez, San José Mercury News
jrodriguez@mercurynews.com

Tony Quintero remembered the wailing cry of a friend's mother as a dozen or so defiant Chicano graduates walked out of San Jose State's main graduation ceremony a generation ago.

"No!" the woman cried, begging her son to stay seated. "Don't give up your degree!"

The degrees were safe, but much more was at stake. Upset about the low number of Mexican-American students and professors at the school, the graduates intended to shake the administration into action. Half-expecting a riot, 200 campus and city police officers lined Spartan Stadium.

Instead of violence, what broke out that June evening in 1968 was a separate graduation ceremony — Chicano Commencement — which lives to this day and holds its 40th official celebration Sunday. Some 2,000 people are expected at San Jose State's Event Center to honor 56 Chicano students and their families. The event has become a festive affair, a far cry from its controversial beginning.

To everyone's relief at Spartan Stadium, only a few boos broke the silence of the peaceful walkout. The students gathered in a field across the stadium with 200 to 300 sympathizers and relatives. The crowd listened to playwright Luis Valdez and other fiery speakers and watched a theater group perform a new satirical play called "Chicano Commencement." Each graduate got a chance to speak. Most, if not all, thanked their parents. Then everyone partied into the night.

Juan Garcia, now a professor at Fresno State, was a freshman who attended. "I remember thinking to myself, 'Hey! We should have a separate commencement every year.' I was that inspired."

It didn't happen the same way again, but it did happen. Today, such commencements — sometimes called Chicano/Latino Commencement — are held at private and state universities in California, including Stanford and UC Berkeley, and throughout the Southwest. San Jose State's was among the first.

Three short years later, in 1971, a different brand of Chicano activism took hold on campus. Student leaders Mauro Chavez and Chris Jimenez liked the idea of a separate commencement, but they didn't want to disturb the main graduation ceremony by walking out or demonstrating outside.

"Mauro said, 'You shouldn't spoil someone else's party for your own,' " Jimenez remembered. —‰'Let's have our own.' "

Instead of attending the main ceremony, the graduates organized and raised $3,000 for a separate ceremony for Mexican-American and other Latino college graduates from throughout the Bay Area. About 30 showed up at Guadalupe Church in East San Jose and brought their families. Jimenez's wife cooked a big pot of chicken. Others brought tortillas, beans, salads and soft drinks. Chavez's idea was to recognize the academic accomplishments of individual graduates, honor the sacrifices of their parents and inspire their little brothers and sisters to aim for college.

In addition, the graduates could select their own theme and keynote speaker. His broader goal was to change the university and other public institutions from the inside. Chavez died in 1992 after a long and distinguished career in academia.
"The highlight for me," Jimenez said, "was the families jumping up and down and shouting when the graduates went up for their diplomas. It became a shouting match between families, they were so proud and happy."

Standing on the sidelines, however, were some of the student protesters from 1968, and they weren't pleased with how Chicano Commencement was turning out.

"It became a celebration and not a political occasion," said Armando Valdez, now a behavioral scientist in Mountain View. "I would rather have seen continued protest. The reality is, little has changed for Chicanos in this society."

Jimenez still bristles at the criticism.

"They called us all sorts of names, 'vendidos,' sellouts," he said. "What did they do other than protest? Our philosophy was education. If you want social change, you need educated people."

Gabe Reyes, who helped organize the 1971 event as a student and later became an administrator at San Jose State, said the battle over Chicano Commencement underscored a wider question every civil rights activist faced at the time: By joining the institutions they wanted to change, did they risk becoming "co-opted" and changing little or nothing at the end?

"It was a question we all wrestled with," Reyes said.

A few years later, the organizers of Chicano Commencement abandoned separatism and encouraged graduates to also attend the school's main graduation ceremony. The university gradually embraced the ceremony as a way to promote campus diversity and boost recruitment of Latino students.

Linda Ortega, a staff member at San Jose State's engineering department, once invited former San Jose State President Robert Caret to a Chicano Commencement at the Santa Clara Convention Center attended by 2,000 people.

She asked him, "This is pretty awesome, don't you think?" Ortega recalled him responding, "I'm blown away." Before too long, black, Asian and gay graduates throughout California were staging their own parallel or ethnic commencements.

Christina Ramos, a student organizer with a new master's degree in public administration, agreed that the ceremony had lost its political edge for a while. But she said Arizona's new law for questioning undocumented immigrants has lit a fire under this Sunday's Chicano Commencement.

"It's still a political statement," Ramos said about the event. "We as Latinos are still not viewed as positive contributors to society. But we are still here. We are making a difference. We are graduating from college."

-30-

Hannity Smears “Chicano” Author As Anti-White By Taking Quote Out Of Context

I saw this crazy stuff on TV this week. If you have time check out the insanity... FOX insanity that is. Click this link to view the video and text: FOX NOOZ?

-30-

Winnemem Wintu Tribe Urges Feinstein to Withdraw Salmon Killer Legislation

[Photo of Mark Franco and Caleen Sisk-Franco courtesy of Indigenius Media.]

By Dan Bacher

The Winnemem Wintu (McCloud River) Tribe of northern California today joined environmental organizations and fishing groups in strongly opposing legislation sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein to waive Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections for imperiled Central Valley Chinook salmon.

Feinstein has attached an amendment to a jobs stimulus bill that would increase pumping to subsidized corporate agribusiness in the San Joaquin Valley. The amendment would convert the “jobs bill” into a “job killer bill” that would result in the destruction of California and Oregon’s once vibrant salmon fishing industry.

"The actions that are being taken to weaken Endangered Species Act protections are an affront to the Tribal nations of the State of California,” said Mark Franco, headman of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe. “They violate the spirit of the treaties signed and consultative processes that California Indians have fought for centuries to ensure remain in place. These proposed actions and the failure of the government to even once engage in any discussion with the first people of this state regarding water rights and needs of tribal reservations, rancherias and communities is offensive and a slap in the face of all people of this state who believe in the truth behind the bromide ‘one nation under god, with liberty and justice for all.’”

“I urge you to ensure that the voice of the ‘regular’ citizens of this great state be heard and that the voice of ‘big business and the almighty dollar’ be hushed so that you hear the voice of the salmon, for whom we speak, to penetrate your heart and mind, unpolluted by the words of those who only seek riches for themselves and nothing for their relatives,” emphasized Franco.

The legislation is being proposed as the tribe is planning to travel to New Zealand from March 19 to April 2, 2010 to conduct ceremonies to pray for the return of winter run Chinook salmon, now thriving in New Zealand, to the McCloud River.

“We are going to New Zealand to dance for the salmon and pray for their return, since it is the McCloud River salmon that live in the Rakaia River in New Zealand now,” said Calleen Sisk-Franco, Chief and Spiritual Leader of the tribe. “They were taken there in 1875 from the McCloud River. However, before we can even get enough money and all the clearances for our regalia for our trip, it looks like Senator Feinstein is cooking the books with Westlands Water District and will sell out all the water, leaving the salmon to die.”

Sisk-Franco urged everybody concerned about the fate of salmon and people to take action to stop Feinstein from ramrodding her salmon and job killer amendment through the Senate.

“It is more than just salmon that will die, for they are the climate changers,” said Sisk-Franco. “Senator Feinstein wants to kill them without even a thought of the imperative job they do for water and all life. Without them there won't be a prayer for pure, clean water.”

Rather than supporting legislation like this at the behest of agribusiness giant Stewart Resnick, owner of Paramount Farms, and the Westlands Water District, Feinstein should be introducing legislation that will restore salmon and other imperiled fish populations and fishing jobs. Central Valley fall Chinook populations collapsed to a new record low of 39,000 fish in 2009, the result of massive Delta water exports, declining water quality and other factors.

“Strong protections for the Delta ecosystem could help recover the salmon fishery, which would return $1.4 billion to the California economy and 94,000 new jobs to California,” said Jim Metropulos, Senior Advocate for the Sierra Club California. “An amendment to waive the requirements under the federal Endangered Species Act could lead to the permanent closure of this fishery, with long-term job losses and economic damage. Such a suspension would likewise harm the Delta farmers who rely on clean Delta water to irrigate their crops.”

Besides sponsoring her job killer amendment, Feinstein is collaborating with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, Westlands Water District and the Metropolitan Water District in plans to build a peripheral canal and new dams. The peripheral canal is likely to result in the extinction of Central Valley salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon, southern resident killer whales and other species that depend upon a healthy Delta ecoystem to thrive.

“The peripheral canal is a big, stupid idea that doesn’t make any sense from a tribal environmental perspective,” said Franco. “Building a canal to save the Delta is like a doctor inserting an arterial bypass from your shoulder to your hand– it will cause your elbow to die just like taking water out of the Delta through a peripheral canal will cause the Delta to die.”

There are three immediate things that you can do to save the salmon and the lives and jobs that depend upon them.

First, please ask your U.S. Senator to support California fisheries and fishing families by opposing Feinstein’s legislation. You can send a letter to your Senator by going to: https://secure2.convio.net/sierra/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=3678&autologin=true&JServSessionIdr004=crzlmcxvh2.app225a

Second, Friends of the River urges you to call Senator Feinstein's DC office TODAY or TOMORROW, before 2 pm Pacific time at (202) 224-3841! If you get a busy signal, receive this email after her DC office is closed or would prefer to call one of her California offices you can reach her in San Francisco at (415) 393-0707 or Los Angeles at (310) 914-7300.

Third, you can financially support the tribe’s trip to New Zealand by going to: http://apps.facebook.com/causes/440954. All donations are greatly appreciated to enable the tribe to go on this historic trip!

For more information, contact: Caleen Sisk-Franco, Tribal Chief and Spiritual Leader, or Mark Franco, Headman, Winnemem Wintu Tribe, 14840 Bear Mountain Road, Redding, CA 96003, 530-275-2737 voice, 530-275-4193 fax, 530-510-0944 mobile, http://www.winnememwintu.us.

-30-

2010 Creedo

A Lofty Goal For The New Year

Those engaged in the practice of compassion feel much happier internally, more calm, more peaceful and other people reciprocate that feeling.

— His Holiness The Dalai Lama