If you’d like to subscribe to the RSS feed of the blog in its new location, click here.

On March 12^th, an earthquake 100 miles offshore triggered a tsunami that hit the northeast coast of Japan, severely damaging the cooling systems of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.  As of today workers are trying to prevent a full meltdown from occurring, and stop storage ponds loaded with spent uranium fuel from bursting into flames.

These two disasters may not seem to have much in common.  The BP spill is attributed to negligence by the companies who operated the rig, while the Fukushima Daiichi disaster was caused by unpredictable weather-related events.

Yet, both “accidents” should be a wakeup call to the environmental and health dangers present in the extraction and generation of our energy sources.  Our continued search for more energy leads us to dig deeper and increase the use of highly radioactive elements, which goes hand-in-hand with higher risks.

The only way to fully protect against these types of disasters in the future is through a switch to green energy.  Yes, better regulation, safety measures, and contingency plans can reduce the likelihood of accidents, but at the same time we are taking more and more risks to meet energy demand.

Green energy is a sustainable, healthy, and safer way to meet our energy needs.

Photo: AFL-CIO

Every morning for the past month, my commute to FCNL brings me close by a group of men and women wearing big red signs and pacing in a circle in front of the Madison Hotel on 15th street.  Their shouts and chants, amplified by megaphones, echo off of the tall buildings, and sometimes a giant, inflated rat grins menacingly over his fancy business suit at my fellow commuters. The rat hasn’t been there for several mornings, though.

“Yeah, we’re waiting for another replacement rat.  One we had got stabbed, but the last one just deflated from all the holes that were created from pebbles and glass hitting it from the cars in the street.”

This morning, as curiosity finally got the better of me, I stopped to talk to the people on strike.  I talked to Jason, who told me about the rat, about the new management of the Madison, and about why he and the other workers have been picketing outside the hotel from 6:30 in the morning until 7 or 8 at night, starting on January 30th and going strong when I passed this morning.

“Hey man, how you doing.  Stay strong, buddy.” Jason smiled back and greeted the guy that passed us – he seems to know a few of the people that walked by while we were chatting.  He didn’t seem surprised that I wanted to know what was going on, though at times I couldn’t hear him, shouting in my ear, over chants of “Check Out!  Check Out!” and “SHAME.”  And there was this one: “Everywhere we go-o (everywhere we go-o), people want to know (people want to know) who we are (who we are) so we tell them (so we tell them). We are the union (we are the union), the mighty, mighty union (the mighty mighty, union).”

Jason said that when the management of the hotel switched on January 19, 2011 to The Buccini/Pollin Group, the union contract was not honored or continued.  When 21 or 22 employees of the hotel restaurant put on their uniforms and showed up to work at 4:00am on the 19th, there was a sign on the restaurant door that said it was closed. When they inquired with the new manager, they were told that their jobs no longer existed.  The next day, though Management said that no more changes would be made, employee positions were recast and more union workers lost their job – a total of 27 people.  Other reports about the protest say that the workers that stayed were forced to reapply for their own jobs.

“We tried to negotiate at first,” said Jason, “but they didn’t really treat us like people.  It didn’t work out, so we’ve been out here every day since January 30th.  We want to sit down with them – we’re up for negotiating, but not while people are here on the street.”

Two weeks after the union workers started protesting outside the Madison, thousands of other union employees and their friends gathered in the Madison, Wisconsin capitol building to protest a bill proposed by recently-elected governer Scott Walker.  In the context of the financial crisis in Wisconsin, Gov. Walker and others endorsed legislation that, among other things, would limit collective bargaining rights of public workers, including teachers and the police officers guarding the Capitol.  “For us, it’s simple,” he said. “We’re broke.”

But somehow, after nearly three weeks of protests during which 14 state senators fled Wisconsin to prevent the Senate from reaching quorum, the measure prohibiting collective bargaining passed.  Initially cast as a budget-related bill, it needed at least 20 members of the Senate to be present to be passed in its original form.  Scott Walker and his allies reworked the bill, though, to remove the financial aspects of the legislation, and thereby passed it with an 18-1 vote.  It seems like the budget wasn’t a major motivating factor, after all.  Did I mention that the Koch brothers, owners of one of the largest private companies in the world and longtime anti-union philanthropists, were major contributors to Walker’s campaign?

With the significance of that vote bouncing around in my head like the shouts on 15th street, I asked my new friend Jason what would happen if that kind of legislation was passed in D.C.  “Excuse my language,” he said, shaking his head, “but it would screw us completely.”

With sincere respect to Jason, and fairly repulsed at what happened in Madison, I do need to point out that the workers on strike outside the Madison wouldn’t be affected by the new Wisconsin law, which prohibits collective bargaining only for state employees.  Private employees nationwide are protected by the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, which gave people the right to form unions and required employers to negotiate faithfully with unions.  Despite the fact that collective bargaining has been protected as a human right by international law (the Universal Dec. on Human rights, and yes, the US is a signatory) for more than 50 years, state employees have no such protection.  In some states, officials are even prevented from meeting or making contacts with union representatives.  Wow.  Gone are the days that economic pressures force managers to negotiate with unions (even those unprotected by law) but now the loss of collective bargaining rights in Wisconsin means that employers don’t have to meet with union reps, that they can discriminate against union workers in the hiring process, and they can fire someone who tries to bring a grievance to the bargaining table.

No part of this sounds like much of a democracy to me (indeed only 51% of eligable voters turned out in Wisconsin’s last election).  As I was walking away from the Madison Hotel protest, they changed their chants to “…We are America (mighty, mighty, America).” Unions, and protests, and the pursuit of happiness (or, in this case, fairness) are American, I suppose, but their words still made me sad.

 During her testimony, Clinton stressed the necessity of a strong civilian response to national security concerns. Focusing largely on Iraq and Afghanistan (and understandably so), she discussed diplomacy’s role in providing a platform for stability and civil society. In discussing Libya, she emphasized the importance of support given to refugees in neighboring nations. And when it came to preventing the conflicts of tomorrow, Clinton described countless State Department efforts in the way of food security, global health, economic development, and peacebuilding. From initiatives in Haiti to initiatives in the Asia-Pacific region, she assured the Committee of the need to use “all the tools” available to our government in addressing international challenges.

 But while it was encouraging to hear Clinton’s enumeration of vital civilian contributions to US foreign policy, it was equally disappointing to hear references to a more military-centric approach. The dominant rhetoric of the testimony was undoubtedly one of security over peace, and I, being the new arrival to the Peaceful Prevention of Deadly Conflict Program that I am, would have loved to hear more acknowledgment of the latter’s necessity to the former.

 A primary example was that of Clinton’s statement on the importance of the Global Security Contingency Fund – a proposed opportunity to “pool resources and expertise with the Defense Department” – accompanied by no mention of the Complex Crises Fund. While the GSCF ties State Department funding for global crises to that of the Pentagon, the CCF establishes funding specifically for civilian response to conflict. As pragmatic as it seems to emphasize collaboration with the military given our nation’s current occupations (and, as stated by Clinton, current “bureaucratic jurisdictional obstacles”), I can’t help but sigh while wondering at what cost this collaboration comes. Considering how many dollars are already designated for the Pentagon, would pooled funding truly provide further space and capacity for the peaceful prevention of deadly conflict? If the Senate is willing to provide funding for the CCF in its Continuing Resolution (which it thankfully did last week), why wouldn’t the Secretary of State take the opportunity to plug and protect this civilian funding?

 It was thrilling to hear Clinton provide compelling testimony for the State Department’s programs, as well as to hear her emphasize the need for long-term investment beyond emergency relief. And in light of the season’s fiscal focus, it was thrilling to hear her state that “shifting responsibilities from soldiers to civilians actually saves taxpayers a great deal of money.” But as someone who feels that civilian approaches provide a true alternative to military ones, I hope that future testimonies will include an even greater emphasis on the efficacy of civilian peacebuilding and conflict prevention initiatives in their own right.

Moreover, a n0-fly zone in Libya—whether by the U.N. or U.S.—would not improve the growing humanitarian crisis in the country, nor would it ensure the removal of President Muamar Qaddafi from power.

The U.S. should not intervene militarily for several reasons:

First, war rarely if ever improves a humanitarian crisis. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates–second in command of the U.S. military only to President Obama–recently told the House Armed Service Committee “A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses. That’s what you do in a no-fly zone.” Gates went on to say a no-fly zone would be “a big operation in a big country.” On its way out of Iraq and bogged down in Afghanistan, the U.S. cannot afford–costing billions of dollars–another “big operation” in yet another country.

Second, it is a near certainty that innocent civilians will be killed. From 1992-2003, the United States maintained two no-fly zones in Iraq, as well as crippling sanctions from 1990-2003 against Saddam Hussein’s government. The sanctions were directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, of Iraq civilians. The combination of sanctions and the no-fly zones crippled the civilian population but failed to dispose Saddam from power. The outcome would undoubtedly be the same if more aggressive, hard-power tactics are used in Libya.

Third, U.S. strategic interests in promoting democracy and human rights in Libya will not be helped by military intervention. The U.S. will gain nothing by going to war with the faltering Libyan government or by attempting to occupy the country–even with a small, temporary force and the best of intentions.

Fourth, some contend that the U.S. has significant energy-related strategic interests.  Yet, the Economist reports that Libya contributes ”some 1.4m barrels a day, or about 2% of the world’s needs.” According to Reuters,  ”Over 85 percent of its crude exports go to Europe, while around … 5 percent [goes] to the United States.” Nearly 80% of Libya’s oil supply is currently controlled by the anti-Qaddafi rebels.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, American interventionism has brought neither peace nor stability to Iraq or Afghanistan, and is unlikely to deliver either in Libya as well. Moreover, military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan has in fact disrupted the power structures which officials marching the U.S. to war did not take the time to understand–sound familiar?  Senators John Kerry (MA), John McCain (AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (CT) are leading the rhetorical charge in the Senate while Rep. Buck McKeon is making similar remarks in the House. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has stated “no options are off the table” and a no-fly zone should “have the backing of the U.N.” Let us be reminded: all of these people were wrong on Iraq in 2003; they are wrong on Libya in 2011.

Much of the focus on Fracking, and the recent Times series, could be attributed to the Oscar nomination of Gasland , which documented the effects of natural gas drilling on local residents across the country.  This film has helped raise the profile of the issue, bringing the controversy over Hydraulic Fracturing into the homes of many people who otherwise would not have been exposed.

Of course the unexpected attention to Gasland should not overshadow the sustained efforts of grass-roots and community groups across the country who have been relentless in their determination to bring this issue into the national debate.  Local demonstrations, drawing thousands of protesters are becoming a familiar sight in states such as New York and Pennsylvania that sit atop the gas-rich Marcellus Shale.  Anti-Fracking protests have had measurable success.  On the local level the cities of Buffalo and Pittsburgh voted (even if largely symbolic) to ban the practice.  On the state level New York has banned high-volume Fracking through June, and on the federal level the EPA is now taking the preliminary steps for conducting a comprehensive study on the full life-cycle of hydraulic fracturing, with intentions to bring clarity on the environmental and health impacts of the practice.  (Note: Several key lawmakers have recently criticized the EPA for not investigating gas drilling waste in its study, which has been prompted by the Times investigation).

These successes are a positive development in the right direction, but for those concerned with the issue, and those directly affected, they are by no means sufficient.  Concerned citizens say that regulators and legislatures at the state and federal level have been reluctant to take the issue head on.  Resistance to new moratoriums or stricter regulations can be attributed to host of reasons, some that are not unique to the environmental movement, and others that are particular to the natural gas phenomena.

The first reason and one that has been present in many environmental struggles is that the anti-Fracking movement is going up against a very large, powerful, and unified industry.  With natural gas positioning to be a dominant part of our energy mix for the foreseeable future, the gas industry knows they are set for a financial windfall, and is using financial and political resources to stall any regulations that would place extra costs on extracting natural gas.

Another reason that lawmakers have been slow to embrace the idea of increased regulation is that natural gas offers financial assurances in a time when many states are operating under large deficits.  Lawmakers argue that natural gas brings money into depleted state coffers, creates jobs, and stimulates local economies.  The doubling of natural gas wells from 1990 to 2009 has produced a growing number of industries/businesses that have benefited from natural gas dollars.  Lawmakers also see natural gas drilling as a medium to long-term investment, especially if predictions of the vast US reserves containing enough gas to power the country for 100 years are correct.

Resistance on the state level is evident in recent actions by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett who rescinded a policy that required well operators to who wanted to drill for natural gas in state park and forest land to obtain an environmental impact assessment statement from the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) before applying for a drilling permit.

One other reason and probably the most debated centers around the question now being asked: What role should natural gas play in meeting our energy needs and mitigating climate change?

Before diving into this question  it is important to note (and this is not a pitch for natural gas in any way) that the ability to access new domestic reserves of gas has only been possible in the last decade and a half due to breakthroughs in drilling technology, primarily horizontal Hydraulic Fracturing.  I just bring this up to make the connection that the question of how natural gas fits into the larger picture for reducing GHG emissions is being considered now because of the “success”  of Hydraulic Fracturing in extracting gas from deep shale formations.

To mitigate climate change effects and meet expanding energy needs clean sources of energy are needed to fill the void if fossil fuel use is reduced.  Natural gas is seen by many as a ‘bridge-fuel’ that can meet energy needs during the transition to a green economy.  Proponents argue that natural gas burns cleaner than coal, and that due to advances in drilling technology we can now access an abundant domestic supply.  President Obama is even seen to be endorsing natural gas as a cleaner, cheaper, domestically viable alternative to foreign oil and an important piece of the country’s energy future for reducing GHG emissions.

Yet, for all its benefits, natural gas should not be promoted as an ‘energy-fix’ until the issues surrounding extraction are dealt with.  It’s clear that there are serious health and environmental risks involved with the hydraulic fracturing process.  Until proper regulations and safety measures are implemented the natural gas industry should not be able to shark its responsibilities under the guise of clean and domestic energy.

And beyond regulations and safeguards over extraction, caution needs to be taken so the development of natural gas does not crowd out the development of truly renewable sources.  While natural gas does burn cleaner than coal, it is not carbon-free and it is not renewable.  It would be a mistake to find ourselves 50 years from now with dwindling gas supplies and under-developed renewable sources.

Can natural gas extraction be done in a way that does not hurt the environment or human health?  I suspect so, but until this is a reality Hydraulic Fracturing should not be allowed to continue in a way that hurts local communities’ health and environment.  The future of natural gas also needs to be seriously looked at from all sides.  While it is true that a complete switch from fossil fuels to renewable sources would be difficult without some middle-ground the development and end goal of a green economy cannot be overlooked, and our ability to reduce climate change cannot rest on the expanding use of natural gas.

What are your thoughts on Hydraulic Fracturing and the future of natural gas in our energy mix?  Can natural gas be extracted in a safer way?  And, does natural gas pose a threat to renewable energy sources?

Two bills concerning Hydraulic Fracturing were introduced in the 111^th Congress.  S. 1215 was introduced by Sen. Casey (PA) and H.R. 2766 was introduced by Rep. Diane DeGette (CO-1).  Both bills would amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to eliminate the Fracking exemption, thereby permitting states to adopt underground injections control programs under the Act. Ending this exemption is an essential first step to protecting groundwater and human health from the hazards of Fracking.  Ask your representatives to support re-introduction of these bills in the 112^th Congress.

For more information on all aspects check out the ProPublica guide to Natural Gas Drilling.

On Sunday David Etheridge, clerk of the Friends Meeting of Washington, and Joe Volk, now the former Executive Secretary of FCNL, welcomed the imam and over sixty individuals of many faiths to the Friends Meeting of Washington (FMW). Quakers from Sandy Spring, Adelphi, Bethesda, Alexandria, Langley Hill, and Stony Run Friends Meetings joined Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Methodists, Unitarian Universalists and others in silent worship.

Imam Feisal spoke out of the silence, and sparked a conversation that gets to the heart of the matter—that our greatest challenge is to bridge the gaps between the peace-loving moderates of all countries and faiths, and the radicals that threaten to divide us.

In the fall of 2009 FCNL’s General Committee approved an epistle encouraging Quaker engagement with American Muslims.  In response to the public controversy surrounding the “Ground Zero Mega-Mosque” in the fall of 2010, over eight thousand individuals signed FCNL’s petition entitled “We Stand with American Muslims” in support of religious freedom.  FCNL Associate Executive Secretary Jim Cason later delivered the petition in person to the Cordoba Initiative’s offices in New York.  And on Sunday at FMW Quakers, Muslims, and others continued the inter-faith conversation with an excitement and geniality rarely seen among new acquaintances discussing religion and politics.

FCNL staff and members of FMW worked together to arrange the meeting with Imam Feisal and to spread the word among religious communities throughout the region.  The Washington DC Interfaith Peace Initiative, of which FMW is a supporter, was instrumental in reaching out to faith groups including MoverMoms, a Bethesda-based NGO that helps mothers engage their families in service and interfaith work.  After silent worship and an introduction from Joe Volk, the imam participated in a discussion about his spiritual journey, connections between Quakerism and Islam, the cultural center, and protests in the Middle East.  The tone throughout the meeting was of respect and a desire for peace.

Feisal was born to Egyptian parents in England, spent most of his childhood in Malaysia and moved to the US in his teens. At the time he struggled with a cultural identity crisis that later translated into a remarkable ability to draw meaningful connections between East and West.  At fourteen Feisal had a profound experience in which he felt his ego dissolve and sensed the “full power, knowledge, and love of the Creator.” Like Quakers, he found that silence, “communicating without speaking,” is one of the most profound ways to connect with and live out God’s will.

In 2004 Imam Feisal founded the the Cordoba Initiative, an organization devoted to inter-faith and inter-cultural understanding. During the public outcry against the Islamic Cultural Center this fall Feisal watched allies turn against him, and his life changed from that of a private citizen to a celebrity chased by Paparazzi. One woman asked  how he finds the resolve to face such immense challenges. Feisal has found that the more one works on oneself, the more difficult one’s trials become, but he seeks to react to hardship as the prophets did.   Joe Volk shared the saying that “he who throws mud loses ground,” to which the imam joked, “he who gets mud thrown at him gains ground.”

The group had many questions about the revolutions sweeping the Middle East.  Feisal held that protesters are striving for the standard that we have set here in America. They want jobs. They want intellectual and religious freedom, “to be a nation under God.”  As Friends might say, they want the ability to reach their full potential. In Feisal’s view, the real challenge we face is to bridge the gap between the peace-loving moderates of all countries and faiths, and the radicals of all countries and faiths that threaten to divide us.  Muslims’ all over the world are watching Americans’ response to initiatives like the Islamic cultural center—and that’s why inter-faith dialogue in the US is so important.  Feisal gave his heartfelt thanks on behalf of the Cordoba Initiative for FCNL’s petition of support.

As Greg Mortenson so chose the name of his book, the Balti tribe of Pakistan has a saying that the first time you share tea with someone, you are a stranger. The second time, you are an honored guest, and the third time, you are family.  As Atlanta Friend Sue May put it, “sounds as if we are at our third cup with these folks!”

It’s as if the word ‘deficit’ has been resurrected from the depths.  Everyone is jumping at the chance to use this untried word, which will surely make a headline.

While it’s true that the fiscal situation of the U.S. is concerning, the backlash has been shocking.

If deficit is truly to become the word of this era, I think it’s only reasonable to point out that our country is facing many ‘deficits’, all of which are vitally important to our future.

Our country is facing an educational deficit…

Our country is facing a deficit towards action on climate change…

Our country has a deficit in peaceful prevention of conflict…

Our country has a deficit in helping the poor and disadvantaged…

These issues fall under the first definition of ‘deficit’ that is “a deficiency in amount or quality.”

I wonder what it would be like if these issues fell under the definition that we are accustomed to using, “an excess of expenditure”?

The military has now changed its tone on the importance of the valley. What is less clear, however, is whether these recent withdrawals represent a strategic or tactical shift in the US war in Afghanistan.

The US military has been slowly shifting from Counterinsurgency (COIN) to Counter Terror (CT) for some period of time now. To be sure, the US military’s departure from the valley is in and of itself a tactical shift. That said, the move may speak to a larger strategic change underway. Even though CT is a set of tactics within COIN, the question of which leads the way is not merely tactical, it’s also strategic.

The qualifier is which strategy dominates operationally. Essentially, is winning the hearts and minds of Afghans through good governance, security and development (COIN) taking a back seat to training, arming and supporting militias while using drone strikes in remote valleys (CT), such as the Pech Valley? Counter Terror operations may take the lead in many parts of Afghanistan in the coming months, meaning we’ll see a strategic change in the US war strategy.

The failure of COIN to bring stability and governance to Afghanistan and the region is not really news–don’t be fooled by the seasonal lull in fighting either. It has been clear since last February’s incursion into the village of Marjah in Helmand Province  that “government in a box” doesn’t unpack itself; moreover, successfully standing up the Afghan National Army (ANA)–a cornerstone of the COIN strategy–has proved an elusive than anticipated, as attrition rates consistently hover around 32 percent.  The FY 2012 funding request for just the ANA is around $13 billion dollars. To put that in perspective, the countries Gross National Product is $14 billion; clearly Afghanistan cannot sustain the army the US is trying to build.

That sentiment holds true for much of what the US is trying to do in Afghanistan–it cannot be sustained.

A big part of the complication is that Afghans don’t care to be occupied by the US military (or the former Soviet military for that matter). One military official familiar with the decision to leave the Pech Valley put it like this:

“What we figured out is that people in the Pech really aren’t anti-U.S. or anti-anything; they just want to be left alone,” said one American military official familiar with the decision. “Our presence is what’s destabilizing this area.”

Indeed, the US military presence is destabilizing the area–and the region. The longer the US military stays in Afghanistan, the more Pakistan will become increasingly destabilized. With 100,000 US troops, 40,000 NATO troops, and 160,000 contractors in Afghanistan, as well as 140,000 Pakistani troops on the Afghan boarder, the situation could deteriorate very quickly.

Adding to the complicated US-Pakistani relationship is the recent high level impasse over Raymond Davis, a contractor working for the CIA in Pakistan who is accused of killing two Pakistanis in what he claims is self defense.  The US holds that he has diplomatic immunity, but Pakistani officials say Davis’ status will be decided by Pakistani courts. The incident is causing great unrest and anti-US sentiment in Pakistan.

Potential Archduke Franz Ferdinand moment aside, strain on an already troubled relationship between the US and Pakistan is problematic no matter what happens to Davis. Viewed as a key strategic ally, Pakistan’s cooperation is crucial for the US war in Afghanistan. The incident and strategy shifts could spell the difference between planned ending or crash landing for the US war in Afghanistan.

The situation is truly dire. The sense of open-ended engagement coming from the Pentagon and  the White House is breeding many of the regional problems and fueling corruption in Afghanistan. President Obama should bring order to the madness by agreeing to more concrete framework and announcing a plan for how this mess will end. A bilateral agreement, such as a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) like the US has with Iraq, could bring the woefully military led strategy to a reasonable end, rather the seemingly imminent crash landing.

Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (CA) offered a bill that would establish a SOFA between the US and Afghanistan earlier this month. HR 651 is a bipartisan effort that would redeploy US military forces from Afghanistan and require an agreement which does not establish a permanent presence in the country. Currently, FCNL is working to establish a Senate version of the same bill as well.

A tactical or strategic shift without an overarching agreement and plan for withdrawal will not result in regional stability or a self governing Afghanistan. Moreover, if the current US strategy doesn’t change it will not matter when the US leaves Afghanistan; the end result will be disastrous without the pursuit of political reconciliation within Afghanistan and a posthaste military withdrawal.

Luckily, donations have been pouring in, and the community has come together to support the victims of the fire.  One hotel owner opened his doors to people who needed a place to stay free of charge.   I’m relieved to see that people have been stepping up to take care of the people who were left with nothing, but the disaster brings to our attention several serious issues in Indian Country.  Poor housing conditions caused by grueling poverty result in overcrowding and houses that are falling apart because of lack of upkeep, making them more susceptible to fires.  It is suspected, for example, that many of the houses had asbestos.

I don’t know the intricate details about the conditions of the houses before they burned down, and I can’t say that the chimney that caused the fire did so because of poor maintenance because of lack of resources.  However, we do know that just under 15% of families in Yakima County live below the poverty line, double the rate for the state of Washington, it has the highest childhood poverty rate in the state, and the barriers to adequate housing for Native Americans throughout the country are numerous.   For example, complicated federal laws make it a bureaucratic nightmare for Native Americans to build on their own land, and centuries of marginalization have left them in such dire poverty that many couldn’t afford it anyway.  Simply put, the fire on the Yakama Reservation hit the people who are among the least equipped to deal with such a tragedy.  Those with little to begin with now have even less, and their challenges will extend for many months after the last flames are extinguished.   We need to avoid this situation in the future by providing Native communities with the resources they need in the first place to give them a more secure foothold in the world.  Simultaneously empowering tribes to be sovereign and supporting them with resources that they need (and have the autonomy to choose what to do with them) is the task of the U.S. government, and FCNL will continue to advocate, as we have for decades, for the rights of Native people.