Trump and Putin Share Contempt for Democracy

Donald Trump playing "president" continues to seem comical yet be dangerous. Trump in Lincoln's chair is a ten-year-old wearing his father's shoes, several sizes too large.

In Japan for G-20, Mr. Trump laughs with Vladimir Putin, as if they were two emperors. He kids Putin about Russian interference in the world's elections, and says the two have "a great relationship." Is Trump trying to bait the House into impeaching him? Even some Republicans think elections should be secure.

Trump is so desperate for respect that his tongue hangs out with envy when he's with a man with some real toughness. Despite Putin's efforts to influence our elections, Trump behaves like a first-grader trying to convince a bigger, smarter, more athletic boy to be friends with him. (By contrast, Theresa May told Putin his election-meddling precludes normal relations. Without grinning.)

At first, you assume Trump is too stupid to know he's being taken. Putin laughs, while Trump does Putin's work by weakening our alliances, making light of election interference, and weakening Russia sanctions while exiting the deal delaying (or preventing) Iran's development of nuclear weapons.

But watching Trump's conduct in Washington, and reading Putin's remarks just before leaving for G-20, you realize that's not so. Trump recognizes that he and Putin are allies against their own people. Their own subjects. 

In an extensive Financial Times interview, Putin called liberalism "obsolete." It has "outlived its purpose," and such ideas as multiculturalism are "no longer tenable." Liberals "simply cannot dictate anything to anyone.” Putin criticized German Chancellor Angela Merkel for her tolerant immigration policy, saying, "Migrants can kill, plunder, and rape with impunity because their rights as migrants have to be protected." (Who's he sound like?)

Why wouldn't Trump fawn over him? Putin can intelligently articulate what Trump and his enablers can't: that democracy is soft and inefficient, that "leaders" who can dictate to their populations while robbing 'em blind might as well do so, and that all those non-European types, with different colors, customs, and faiths, just don't belong.

Putin can get away with it. He has ample power, in a country without strong democratic traditions or a Statue of Liberty. Russia never stood for freedom and tolerance, its czars or commissars have always suppressed free speech, and it is not a nation of immigrants.

Can Trump? Ultimately I think not; he's not nearly as canny or purposeful as Putin; we have more deeply democratic habits, a freer press, and a more diverse population.

But we can't rest easy. Trump's a clown, but he's surrounded by people far more resolute than he. Republicans are shackling democracy with extreme gerrymandering and other limits on voting by poor or minority people. With the declines of an independent Supreme Court, the power of the press, and senators with backbone and some commitment to the public good, Washington ain't pretty these days.

European President Donald Tusk disputed Putin's attack on liberalism, saying that, "Whoever claims that liberal democracy is obsolete also claims that freedoms are obsolete, and that the rule of law is obsolete and that human rights are obsolete.”

Tusk added that what's "really obsolete are authoritarianism, personality cults, and the rule of oligarchs, even if sometimes they may seem effective.”

You can imagine Washington, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, saying that.  Or Jack Kennedy, Eisenhower, even Ronald Reagan. Probably George Bush.

Around the world, the seas of authoritarianism are rising. Rising seas can't be ignored.

                                                   -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 30 June 2019, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.  A spoken version (available on demand at KRWG's website) will air Wednesday and Saturday on KRWG and Thursday afternoon on KTAL-LP, 101.5 FM, Que Tal Community Radio (www.lccommunityradio.org).]

Two Pictures / 2,000 words?
Theresa May easily outperformed Trump by telling Putin that "normalization of relationship" between England and Russia aren't possible unless Russia stops the election interference.  (www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/28/) In fact, these two BBC images from the conference tell the story perfectly:

The U.S. leader needs the dictator's approval.

The U.K. leader doesn't.

[Note Putin's "cat-ate-the-canary" smile and Trump's delight in his own wit.]

[Click for: the BBC reports on Trump joking with Putin about election meddling and Putin's statementt that democracy is obsolete; and the Financial Times interview -- if you're a subscriber or can afford a subscription!]

 Actually, Trump's fondness for dictators seems almost pathological.  Putin owns him.  Prince Mohammed bin Salman's killing of a Saudi-born U.S. journalist even offended Senate Republicans, but Trump idolizes him.  Trump's excessive praise of Kim ("We fell in love!") is familiar -- and while Kim's gained a certain stature from their little sessions, Trump has gotten nothing for the U.S.  (And now he wants to meet "Little Rocket Man" in the DMZ, for a photo-op.)  Duterte, Brazil, Poland?  On the other hand, he's treated May, Merkel and Macron like poor kids from across the tracks asking for candy, and Canada's Trudeau like   (Googling "Trump loves dictators" just now, the first two hits were: This Is a Problem: Donald Trump Loves Dictators --Slams Democracy, Free Press. FBI & CIA, and U.S. War Heroes and 20 Times Donald Trump Praised Dictators And Controversial Leaders.  Each is worth a read, particularly if you're a patriotic citizen who can bear to face the bare emperor (a gruesome thought)!]

[One last thought: Trump and Putin are probably the only current leaders of major nations who deny or ignore climate-change.  I've wondered if Putin has calculated that if we do nothing, vast Siberia may become the bread-basket of the world.  Trump hasn't calculated much of anything, but could this be another reason Putin smirks about having helped us elect the Donald?]

Tough Truths and Tougher Choices

It's a beautiful, cool desert morning, and the garden is thriving.

Many families in Doña Ana County live in poverty. Half our nation's citizens own less than what the 400 wealthiest do, largely because of inherited wealth. 

 

Obscene. 

 

Half our country struggles, with an average net worth of $11,000. That average means many have nothing. Dividing up what those 400 have would give everyone more than $750,000. Not saying we should do that; but this widening gap isn't Nature, or God's Law. It's tax and other policies that politicians approve to help the rich and powerful. There's plenty of room to tax extreme wealth for the benefit of the general public – and still leave rich folks very well off. (We did that in the past, and most countries do it now.)

In the old South, the wealthiest whites kept folks in line by pitting poor whites against Negroes. In recent decades, those with obscene wealth – and indifference to the rest of us and our Earth – have kept the rest of us from looking at the economic reality by setting us bickering over skin colors, religions, and sexual mores, and, more generally, fearing others, particularly immigrants and asylum-seekers.

The gentleman in the White House should be impeached. The Mueller Report lists numerous crimes, and by muzzling witnesses he is stonewalling Congress, daring the House to take him to courts he's packed with rabid partisans. 

 

Each day brings a new study showing that the alleged “alarmists” have underestimated the imminence of climate-change's destruction of the world as we know it. Even if the scariest scenarios are exaggerated, we're already facing serious problems. The Big Money folks profit from ignoring the problem. Why else would our government deny what most other countries have agreed is our greatest challenge? 

 

My wife comes in to tell me the torch cacti are putting on their beautiful but fleeting show.

Voters mostly don't like Mr. Trump and don't agree with Republican policies. A slim majority favors impeachment. Will 2020 bring change? 

 

The Democrats may self-destruct. Personal ambitions have resulted in too many candidates (some of whom should run for or retain senate seats) turning the nomination process into a Saturday Night Live skit. The huge financial power of corporations and rich folks seems likely to influence which of these two-dozen candidates gets nominated. Wall Street is already picking its favorites.

The Democratic quandary is simple. On the one hand, Mr. Trump is destroying our nation and environment. Four more years would leave our judges more extreme (and often unqualified), the wealth gap wider, our air and water more polluted – and make sure we'd miss a critical window of opportunity to minimize the climate disaster. 

 

Trump didn't create income inequality, pollution, or government corruption. His self-absorbed clowning distracts us from graver dangers.

We need a much more systemic change than Joe Biden, great guy that he is, would attempt. How do we choose among candidates with varied rhetoric about real change (which they're unlikely to accomplish) and candidates we feel (or experts say) are our safest bets to end the destructive Trump experiment? 

 

Fortunately it's time to go play pickleball and run around for hours, banging a ball and forgetting Washington exists. But first I work awhile in the garden. Even in our hot, dry desert, the compost worms are more likely than the political ones to do something helpful.

                                           -30- 

[The column above appeared this morning, Sunday, 23 June 2019, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air on KRWG Wednesday and Saturday and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM, Que Tal Community Radio) Thursday, and is also available on KRWG's website.]    

[When you pause and really think about it, the bare facts -- the extreme nature of the income/wealth inequality and how much the gap has widened in recent decades -- really are startling.  Appalling.  Like something out of the France of Louis XIV.  And, yes, it's fascinating how effectively those who benefit from it -- the extremely wealthy and their lackeys in government and the press -- distract us.  It's like the Peter Lorre character in Casablanca picking a refugee's pocket while warning him against thievery.  Lowered taxes (a much less graduated income tax, lower capital gains taxes, irrelevant inheritance taxes, and financial tricks I might not even understand) plus indirect costs (international bickering that benefits the wealthy among us, and the multinational corporations, but does little for you or me; deep subsidization of oil an gas industries; and the indirect costs of letting corporations pollute water or muck up our health then let government pay to deal with the consequences). Without real inconvenience, the wealthiest could relieve much of the financial stress average people face; but those wealthy folks have the influence.] 

[What's also scary is listening to middle- or lower-middle class folks complain of their financial situation and blame welfare.  Welfare is a small part of the expenses we're unfairly burdened with.] 

  

[Does anyone really doubt that Trump has committed impeachable "high crimes and misdemeanors", including obstruction of justice, witness-tampering, and subornation of perjury?  I challenge any local Trump partisan to read the Mueller Report and then discuss it with me on my radio show.  I'll confess I've thought that whether or not to impeach might be a touch decision for me if I were a Congressman; but there's no question that the evidence warrants it.]

[But while Trump is an acute wound, bleeding profusely, we have potential long-term internal damage to treat, and must not let that wound distract us from the deeper problems!]

[Having said all that . . . if I could decide who gets the Democratic nomination, what would be the right course?  That Biden won't make the radical changes we need is pretty obvious.  Nor, likely, will other Wall Street favorites, appealing as I may find them personally.  Biden checks some pragmatic electoral boxes we need to consider: white working-class citizens of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania; and a deeper appeal to black voters than many other white candidates could boast -- and a safe, warm personality, and the fact that his faults are well-known because of decades of public exposure. But the moment I think, gee, that would make him the safest candidate, the one surest to defeat Trump, another part of my mind objects that much of the vote for Trump in 2016 was a protest vote against the system, which makes one wonder if we really want to nominate the candidate most identified with that system.  Too, the lesson of recent elections, notably in Europe, has been summed up as "the voters want you to stand for something."  How long will mealy-mouthed platitudes suffice?  If this passion for substance behind Warren's recent popularity surge?  The only thing I feel sure about is that there are too damned many candidates, and that I could, if required, name right now a dozen who have no chance and ought to get back to more productive work.]

[Too, I wanted to touch on the schizophrenic nature of contemporary life: I'm very fortunate, the stuff happening on a personal, professional, and community level is mostly pretty good (or way better than I deserve), and I'm healthy for my vast age, but . . . Trump is president and McConnell is sitting on bills like a fat bully while confirming non-judicial judge nominees faster than a greedy kid pops m&m's.]

         torch cactus blossoms

open when the sun finds them,

         close when abandoned.                 

Coal Industry Shills Oppose (Desperately) the Move to Renewables

One recent day the two “guest columnists” in our local newspaper both savaged the renewable energy movement. 

 

Local citizens with strong feelings on these issues? Nope.

One Op-Ed was attributed to Larry Behrens, with no further information. The second writer, inadvertently unnamed, was State Senator Rod Montoya (Rep. – Farmington). Both have worked desperately to undermine New Mexico's new energy law. 

 

Montoya's guest column complains that Resources Secretary Sarah Cottrell Propst consulted with Interwest Energy Alliance, a nonprofit coalition of wind, solar, and storage companies, and conservation organizations seeking to expand deployment of a reliable, cost-effective and diverse renewable energy portfolio. Sounds good. Montoya's beef is that IEA was her previous employer. However, IEA is not a company, she consulted many entities, and Montoya doesn't identify anything secretive or improper – let alone allege that she profited financially. 

 

Behrens is Western States Director for Power the Future, a self-described “energy advocacy organization” founded by Daniel Turner as “pushback” against “radical environmental groups that come into small towns in America and close coal mines.” He says those groups “take away all your rights” and harm rural communities. 

 

Turner's previous gigs include Director of Strategic Communications at the Charles Koch Institute and VP of Communications in another Koch-related nonprofit. Turner declined to answer questions about whether or not the Koch Brothers were among the energy-industry-loving rich folks who bankrolled PTF. The Charles Koch Institute is not noted for its concern about pollution or climate-change – or its fair coverage of energy issues. On climate-change, Turner says, “if you don't like energy, don't use it.” 

 

Behrens, a former Susanna Martinez staffer, should fit right in at PTF. His Op-Ed warns against “special interest groups” – by which he means public-interest organizations concerned about climate-change. He represents the special interests, such as coal.

Behrens's drivel attacks the Under 2 Coalition mostly for being a coalition of entities from outside New Mexico, and he'd rather hear ideas from Farmington. To make sure readers get the point, he prominently mentions “California Governor Jerry Brown” and “Manhattan,” as if Brown were Vladimir Putin and Manhattan Gomorrah. Cheap Rhetoric 101. 

 

I looked up Under 2. It sounds great. California and a major German state started it in 2014 to ramp up the fight against climate change. It aims to limit global warming to below 2°C and to limit the annual carbon footprint to under 2 tons per capita by 2050. Others soon joined, including British Columbia and Ontario, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington, and Baja and Jalisco. Its rapid growth helped persuade national governments to adopt the goals of the Paris Agreement. The Under 2 Coalition now includes more than 220 members, representing more than 1.3 billion people and about 43% of the global economy.

What's not to like? Well, Behrens's paymasters make their money from non-renewable energy.

Montoya represents San Juan County, and, despite the massive methane hot spot at Four Corners, he keeps trying to keep the coal plants alive, no matter how they harm our planet.

Both these men essentially get paid by the energy industry. Slowing progress toward renewable energy is part of their job descriptions. 

 

Behrens says joining the Coalition would be “declaring independence from economic reality.” But glaciers and polar-ice are melting, seas are rising, and coal is outmoded and uneconomical. Maybe corporations trying to revive the coal industry and fight renewable energy are living in a zip code far from economic reality. 

                                          -30- 

[The column above appeared this morniing, Sunday, 16 June 2019, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air on KRWG Radio Wednesday and Saturday and on KTAL-LP Community Radio, 101.5 FM, on Thursday.  The spoken version is also available at the KRWG website.]

[It particular annoys me when large and polluting industries call do-gooder entities such as environmental organizations, human rights organizations, or Common Cause "special interest groups."   They are not.  They do not represent special interests.  They represent the general public (or earth's) interest.  One need not agree with them; but neither in intent nor in effect are they "special-interest groups" in the sense that an industry alliance promoting the interests of its profit-making creators is a special-interest group.  Even a labor union could qualify as a "special-interest group"  But Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, the ACLU, or Common Cause hardly seem to merit that label.]

[Meanwhile, the same week the news included: a CNN report that GREENLAND LOST TWO BILLION TONS OF ICE just his week! and Permafrost hs begun thawing in the Canadian Arctic more than 70 years early because of climate change, according to new research.   The latter cited a study by a publication called Geophysical Research Letters, a peer-reviewed publication, but unfortunately when I tried to click on the link in the article about it, I learned it would cost $42 to get the actual study.] 

[Meanwhile, just this morning Forbes -- no radical rag -- published an interesting article on the IMF's finding that U.S. SUBSIDIES TO FOSSIL FUELS NOT ONLY EXCEED SUBSIDIES TO RENEWABLES, BUT EXCEED OUR DEFENSE BUDGET!! :
 
Despite nations worldwide committing to a reduction in carbon emissions and implementing renewable energy through the Paris Agreement, the IMF’s findings expose how fossil fuels continue to receive huge amounts of taxpayer funding. The report explains that fossil fuels account for 85% of all global subsidies and that they remain largely attached to domestic policy. Had nations reduced subsidies in a way to create efficient fossil fuel pricing in 2015, the International Monetary Fund believes that it “would have lowered global carbon emissions by 28 percent and fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46 percent, and increased government revenue by 3.8 percent of GDP.”
[I write a weekly column.  My views are my own, and not always agreeable to even friends and people who generally agree with me on issues.  I'm not a paid advocate for any cause or foundation or industry.  I may be an idiot, but my idiocy is self-generated.]

. 

The Federal War against Science

Diagnosed with cancer, I have decided to treat it by eating only blueberries – and chanting the Buddha's name. My nephew's doctor says his leukemia needs to be treated with focused radiation, but we vetoed that because we all get too much radiation from cell-phones. I've decided that my company should save printing and advertising money by relying solely on prayer. Wanna invest? Ah, c'mon!

Those statements sound like the U.S. Government, which seems at war with science. Most decisions are made on one intemperate individual's whims, except when rich folks, white supremacists, and/or fundamentalist Christians influence him, often through Fox. 

 

Climate scientists are unanimous that climate change is real and imminent, and that human activities are a major factor. International organizations so report. U.S. agencies so report, so persistently that Mr. Trump plans to silence them. The U.S. Army considers climate change a serious security problem. The City of Miami is wondering how long its water supply can withstand the influx of salt water from rising seas. Some coastal cities are planning somehow to move inland. Highway 37 in the Sam Francisco Bay Area is often under water.

But Mr. Trump does not believe in climate change. Climate change is inconvenient. 

 

Most of the world also understands that we are experiencing a “mass extinction event.” Human activities have eradicated a million species. Per the U.N., biodiversity is declining at an “unprecedented pace,” with one-eighth of Earth's plants and animals in danger of extinction. Mr. Trump is eliminating as fast as possible U.S. protections for endangered species. Who needs 'em? Birds crap on cars, bees sting people, so good riddance! Worrying about this stuff is bad for business.

The National Institute of Health has many programs using or experimenting with stem cells. There are people alive and healthy today, who would not be alive and well if not for stem-cell therapies. Mr. Trump is eliminating those too: programs will be ended when current contracts are up, and any further work will involve passing some sort of “ethics review” that will likely be conducted by people who apparently feel that such research is going to encourage loose women to have abortions. 

 

Many people get shot to death, some in mass shootings. The Center for Disease Control views that as a health issue. (Death is sort of related to health. It's hard to stay healthy when you're dead, or paralyzed.) Well, that subject offends the holy NRA, so we won't even let the scientists seek answers we'd rather ignore. 

 

The folks so desperate to prevent abortion seem also to oppose readily available birth control and sex education. No one's yet managed to explain that one to me. 

 

Coal pollutes badly and is uneconomical; but Mr. Trump is going to rescue that industry, as if it were a damsel in distress. 

 

Scientific truths, unless they're clearly useful to business, seem almost like so many red capes Mr. Trump cannot but charge when he sees them. But stifling science won't help us compete in the world.

Trump didn't start the assault on inconvenient scientific facts. When the scientific consensus on cigarette smoking and nuclear power proved inconvenient, corporations and politicians manufactured “doubt” to justify inaction. Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson would be appalled. Gallileo might find all this quite familiar.

If you think blueberries, Buddha, and prayer sound foolish as cures, now you know how most of the world regards our country these days.

                                                        -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 9 June 2019, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and on KTAL-LP, 101.5 FM  (www.lccommunityradio.org) and will also be available on the KRWG website right here.]

[I should make clear that the reference to "my cancer diagnosis" at the start of the column was NOT meant literally.  I have not just been diagnosed with cancer.  One person sent me a wonderful, thoughtful email with good advice.  I've apologized to her, and apologize here if I misled others by writing this the way I did!]

[Note: Per a 17 June story on the Hill.com, Trump's people have a new way to free regulators from scientific concerns: the order has gone out to trim scientific advisory panels significantly.  That sparked outrage about former agency heads and scientists, and people who like evidence-based decision-making, but it'll probably be quite effective.  May, however, weaken the judicial presumption that agencies have some ideas what they're doing.]

Las Cruces May Ask Feds for Immigration Reform and Reimbursement for Expenses Helping Asylum-Seekers

What should Las Cruces say to Washington about immigration and the flood of asylum-seekers? 

 

The Las Cruces City Council will vote Monday on a resolution, introduced by Councillor Greg Smith, urging the feds to address more comprehensively the conditions that cause asylum-seeking and the problems the influx of refugees is causing. The meeting starts at 1 p.m. in City Hall. 

 

Public input encouraged. If you have new ideas, firsthand experience, studies, or other useful information, please share. (Just saying, “Trump's a moron” or “Democrats are socialistic idiots” ain't helpful. 

 

I'm glad the resolution will likely include U.S. programs to improve conditions in home countries so fewer people feel they must flee to keep themselves and their families safe. People don't like to leave home, but will if they have to. The people in our shelters don't look as if they wanted to travel somewhere unfamiliar just for fun. Too, the U.S. bears some responsibility for Central America's problems.

You could say it's not a city's business; but having to spend significant local resources makes it our business.

The draft resolution also seeks “clarifications on what constitutes seeking asylum” – and the rules covering asylum and immigration. Many don't realize the strict and narrow requirements to apply for refugee status (outside the U.S.) or asylum status (in U.S.). 

 

The law is 8 U.S.C. 1101. One might obtain asylum if s/he has suffered persecution and/or has a well-founded fear that s/he will be persecuted. The threat can't be something one could escape by moving to another town. The persecution must be based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a social group. One of these must be a “central” reason, but need not be the only one. (Whether “gender” is a viable ground is being litigated. Some have gained asylum fleeing cultural practices such as female genital mutilation, forced marriage, domestic violence, particularly if the government has failed to protect the victim or prosecute perpetrators. (The Trump Administration has narrowed the scope of this.) 

 

Persecution means infliction of suffering or harm, or a serious threat to life or freedom. Death threats, torture, imprisonment, constant surveillance, pressure to join a group engaging in illegal activity, interference with family privacy or home, and discrimination have all been found to qualify. The threat need not come from the government. Being poor or unemployed, or seeking a better life or education don't qualify.

The U.S. should clarify all that, particularly to Central Americans. On TV and radio – and, with so much suffering and money involved, how about hiring local citizens to circulate in areas from which people emigrate? Couldn't hurt. They'd speak the local language and carry copies of the laws (and translations). They could stress that these are requirements – and that the road to the U.S. is arduous and potentially dangerous, with minimal chance of success.

It'd be a dangerous job. Coyotes making big bucks transporting folks probably minimize the dangers and claim gaining asylum is easy. The truth could hurt profits. And we'd need better diplomacy, to ensure other governments' cooperation.

Meanwhile, we need better infrastructure on both sides of the border and more resources to expedite the process; and the feds should compensate communities like Las Cruces for the costs involved in sheltering people. Federal agencies should have to give cities maximum notice of “deliveries.” 

And the Feds should reimburse the city! What do you think?
                                                                  -30- 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 2 June 2019, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air Wednesday and Saturday on KRWG and Thursday on KTAL-LP, 101.5 FM -- streamable at www.lccommunityradio.org.  Because it concerns a resolution the council will discuss on Monday, and the radio commentary doesn't air until Wednesday (KRWG), I'll not post the audio on www.KRWG.org until after the council meets, so as to incorporate developments as appropriate.].

[Again, the meeting's at 1 at City Hall.  Resolutions precede ordinances, and there's some other stuff to do (General Public Input, Approval of Minutes, Councillors' statements, Consent Agenda), so likely the discussion on this won't start 'til at least 1:20 p.m.  Here's a link to the draft resolution, entitled "A Resolution Requiring Federal Immigration Reform and Reimbursement for City Expenses Accrued While Assisting Asylum-Seekers.  If you have comments of any kind, once they bring it up and move to adopt it, after councilors comment, the public does.  (The public comment period for each ordinance or resolution is distinct from the "public comment period" early in the agenda.  The general public comment period is for presenting your point of view on any relevant issue EXCEPT the specific ones listed on that day's agenda.]  

[By the way, Greg Smith will be on from 8:30 to 9 a.m. Wednesday on "Speak Up, Las Cruces!"  (8-10 a.m. Wednesdays on KTAL-LP, 101.5 FM) and available for questions on this issue.  Our number is (575) 526-5825 (526-KTAL).  Prior to Greg, we may have an update from someone working day-to-day with the asylum-seekers.]