Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

A little history about Haiti

NYTimes

---

January 22, 2010

Op-Ed Contributor

To Heal Haiti, Look to History, Not Nature

By MARK DANNER

HAITI is everybody's cherished tragedy. Long before the great earthquake struck the country like a vengeful god, the outside world, and Americans especially, described, defined, marked Haiti most of all by its suffering. Epithets of misery clatter after its name like a ball and chain: Poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. One of the poorest on earth. For decades Haiti's formidable immiseration has made it among outsiders an object of fascination, wonder and awe. Sometimes the pity that is attached to the land — and we see this increasingly in the news coverage this past week — attains a tone almost sacred, as if Haiti has taken its place as a kind of sacrificial victim among nations, nailed in its bloody suffering to the cross of unending destitution.

And yet there is nothing mystical in Haiti's pain, no inescapable curse that haunts the land. From independence and before, Haiti's harms have been caused by men, not demons. Act of nature that it was, the earthquake last week was able to kill so many because of the corruption and weakness of the Haitian state, a state built for predation and plunder. Recovery can come only with vital, even heroic, outside help; but such help, no matter how inspiring the generosity it embodies, will do little to restore Haiti unless it addresses, as countless prior interventions built on transports of sympathy have not, the man-made causes that lie beneath the Haitian malady.

In 1804 the free Republic of Haiti was declared in almost unimaginable triumph: hard to exaggerate the glory of that birth. Hundreds of thousands of enslaved Africans had labored to make Saint-Domingue, as Haiti was then known, the richest colony on earth, a vastly productive slave-powered factory producing tons upon tons of sugar cane, the 18th-century's great cash crop. For pre-Revolutionary France, Haiti was an inexhaustible cash cow, floating much of its economy. Generation after generation, the second sons of the great French families took ship for Saint-Domingue to preside over the sugar plantations, enjoy the favors of enslaved African women and make their fortunes.

Even by the standards of the day, conditions in Saint-Domingue's cane fields were grisly and brutal; slaves died young, and in droves; they had few children. As exports of sugar and coffee boomed, imports of fresh Africans boomed with them. So by the time the slaves launched their great revolt in 1791, most of those half-million blacks had been born in Africa, spoke African languages, worshipped African gods.

In an immensely complex decade-long conflict, these African slave-soldiers, commanded by legendary leaders like Toussaint Louverture and Jean-Jacques Dessalines, defeated three Western armies, including the unstoppable superpower of the day, Napoleonic France. In an increasingly savage war — "Burn houses! Cut off heads!" was the slogan of Dessalines — the slaves murdered their white masters, or drove them from the land.

On Jan. 1, 1804, when Dessalines created the Haitian flag by tearing the white middle from the French tricolor, he achieved what even Spartacus could not: he had led to triumph the only successful slave revolt in history. Haiti became the world's first independent black republic and the second independent nation in the Western Hemisphere.

Alas, the first such republic, the United States, despite its revolutionary creed that "all men are created equal," looked upon these self-freed men with shock, contempt and fear. Indeed, to all the great Western trading powers of the day — much of whose wealth was built on the labor of enslaved Africans — Haiti stood as a frightful example of freedom carried too far. American slaveholders desperately feared that Haiti's fires of revolt would overleap those few hundred miles of sea and inflame their own human chattel.

For this reason, the United States refused for nearly six decades even to recognize Haiti. (Abraham Lincoln finally did so in 1862.) Along with the great colonial powers, America instead rewarded Haiti's triumphant slaves with a suffocating trade embargo — and a demand that in exchange for peace the fledgling country pay enormous reparations to its former colonial overseer. Having won their freedom by force of arms, Haiti's former slaves would be made to purchase it with treasure.

The new nation, its fields burned, its plantation manors pillaged, its towns devastated by apocalyptic war, was crushed by the burden of these astronomical reparations, payments that, in one form or another, strangled its economy for more than a century. It was in this dark aftermath of war, in the shadow of isolation and contempt, that Haiti's peculiar political system took shape, mirroring in distorted form, like a wax model placed too close to the fire, the slave society of colonial times.

At its apex, the white colonists were supplanted by a new ruling class, made up largely of black and mulatto officers. Though these groups soon became bitter political rivals, they were as one in their determination to maintain in independent Haiti the cardinal principle of governance inherited from Saint-Domingue: the brutal predatory extraction of the country's wealth by a chosen powerful few.

The whites on their plantations had done this directly, exploiting the land they owned with the forced labor of their slaves. But the slaves had become soldiers in a victorious revolution, and those who survived demanded as their reward a part of the rich land on which they had labored and suffered. Soon after independence most of the great plantations were broken up, given over to the former slaves, establishing Haiti as a nation of small landowners, one whose isolated countryside remained, in language, religion and culture, largely African.

Unable to replace the whites in their plantation manors, Haiti's new elite moved from owning the land to fighting to control the one institution that could tax its products: the government. While the freed slaves worked their small fields, the powerful drew off the fruits of their labor through taxes. In this disfigured form the colonial philosophy endured: ruling had to do not with building or developing the country but with extracting its wealth. "Pluck the chicken," proclaimed Dessalines — now Emperor Jacques I — "but don't make it scream."

In 1806, two years after independence, the emperor was bayoneted by a mostly mulatto cabal of officers. Haitian history became the immensely complex tale of factional struggles to control the state, with factions often defined by an intricate politics of skin color. There was no method of succession ultimately recognized as legitimate, no tradition of loyal opposition. Politics was murderous, operatic, improvisational. Instability alternated with autocracy. The state was battled over and won; Haiti's wealth, once seized, purchased allegiance — but only for a time. Fragility of rule and uncertainty of tenure multiplied the imperative to plunder. Unseated rulers were sometimes killed, more often exiled, but always their wealth — that part of it not sent out of the country — was pillaged in its turn.

In 1915 the whites returned: the United States Marines disembarked to enforce continued repayment of the original debt and to put an end to an especially violent struggle for power that, in the shadow of World War I and German machinations in the Caribbean, suddenly seemed to threaten American interests. During their nearly two decades of rule, the Americans built roads and bridges, centralized the Haitian state — setting the stage for the vast conurbation of greater Port-au-Prince that we see today in all its devastation — and sent Haitians abroad to be educated as agronomists and doctors in the hope of building a more stable middle class.

Still, by the time they finally left, little in the original system had fundamentally changed. Haitian nationalism, piqued by the reappearance of white masters who had forced Haitians to work in road gangs, produced the noiriste movement that finally brought to power in 1957 François Duvalier, the most brilliant and bloody of Haiti's dictators, who murdered tens of thousands while playing adroitly on cold-war America's fear of communism to win American acceptance.

Duvalier's epoch, which ended with the overthrow of his son Jean-Claude in 1986, ushered in Haiti's latest era of instability, which has seen, in barely a quarter-century, several coups and revolutions, a handful of elections (aborted, rigged and, occasionally, fair), a second American occupation (whose accomplishments were even more ephemeral than the first) and, all told, a dozen Haitian rulers. Less and less money now comes from the land, for Haiti's topsoil has grown enfeebled from overproduction and lack of investment. Aid from foreigners, nations or private organizations, has largely supplanted it: under the Duvaliers Haiti became the great petri dish of foreign aid. A handful of projects have done lasting good; many have been self-serving and even counterproductive. All have helped make it possible, by lifting basic burdens of governance from Haiti's powerful, for the predatory state to endure.

The struggle for power has not ended. Nor has Haiti's historic proclivity for drama and disaster. Undertaken in their wake, the world's interventions — military and civilian, and accompanied as often as not by a grand missionary determination to "rebuild Haiti" — have had as their single unitary principle their failure to alter what is most basic in the country, the reality of a corrupt state and the role, inadvertent or not, of outsiders in collaborating with it.

The sound of Haiti's suffering is deafening now but behind it one can hear already a familiar music begin to play. Haiti must be made new. This kind of suffering so close to American shores cannot be countenanced. The other evening I watched a television correspondent shake his head over what he movingly described as a "stupid death" — a death that, but for the right medical care, could have been prevented. "It doesn't have to happen," he told viewers. "People died today who did not need to die." He did not say what any Haitian could have told him: that the day before, and the day before that, Haiti had seen hundreds of such "stupid deaths," and, over the centuries, thousands more. What has changed, once again, and only for a time, is the light shone on them, and the volume of the voices demanding that a "new Haiti" must now be built so they never happen again.

Whether they can read or not, Haiti's people walk in history, and live in politics. They are independent, proud, fiercely aware of their own singularity. What distinguishes them is a tradition of heroism and a conviction that they are and will remain something distinct, apart — something you can hear in the Creole spoken in the countryside, or the voodoo practiced there, traces of the Africa that the first generation of revolutionaries brought with them on the middle passage.

Haitians have grown up in a certain kind of struggle for individuality and for power, and the country has proved itself able to absorb the ardent attentions of outsiders who, as often as not, remain blissfully unaware of their own contributions to what Haiti is. Like the ruined bridges strewn across the countryside — one of the few traces of the Marines and their occupation nearly a century ago — these attentions tend to begin in evangelical zeal and to leave little lasting behind.

What might, then? America could start by throwing open its markets to Haitian agricultural produce and manufactured goods, broadening and making permanent the provisions of a promising trade bill negotiated in 2008. Such a step would not be glamorous; it would not "remake Haiti." But it would require a lasting commitment by American farmers and manufacturers and, as the country heals, it would actually bring permanent jobs, investment and income to Haiti.

Second, the United States and other donors could make a formal undertaking to ensure that the vast amounts that will soon pour into the country for reconstruction go not to foreigners but to Haitians — and not only to Haitian contractors and builders but to Haitian workers, at reasonable wages. This would put real money in the hands of many Haitians, not just a few, and begin to shift power away from both the rapacious government and the well-meaning and too often ineffectual charities that seek to circumvent it. The world's greatest gift would be to make it possible, and necessary, for Haitians — all Haitians — to rebuild Haiti.

Putting money in people's hands will not make Haiti's predatory state disappear. But in time, with rising incomes and a concomitant decentralization of power, it might evolve. In coming days much grander ambitions are sure to be declared, just as more scenes of disaster and disorder will transfix us, more stunning and colorful images of irresistible calamity. We will see if the present catastrophe, on a scale that dwarfs all that have come before, can do anything truly to alter the reality of Haiti.

Mark Danner is the author, most recently, of "Stripping Bare the Body: Politics, Violence, War," which chronicles political conflict in Haiti, the Balkans, Iraq and the United States.

Scott Brown Wins Mass. Race, Giving GOP 41-59 Majority in the Senate
By Roy Edroso

​The election of Republican Scott Brown to replace the deceased Ted Kennedy in the Senate from Massachusetts yesterday destroys the Democrats' 60-vote supermajority, widely presumed to be needed for passage of a health care bill, or so it would seem from headlines ("House Dems largely reject idea of passing Senate health care bill"), from Republicans who cheered "41!" at Brown's victory as if it were some kind of milestone, and from conservative Democrats like Evan Bayh, who portrays the election as a "wake-up call," indicating that Democrats should propose a weaker health care bill that will not piss off insurance lobbyists and other powerful Republican constituencies.

New York congressman and former mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner said before the election that "I think you can make a pretty good argument that health care might be dead" if Brown were to win; after Brown's victory, Weiner has come out with, "We shouldn't show the arrogance of not getting the message here," "I don't think it would be the worst thing to take a step back," and other gutless whinges.

Conservatives are delirious. "Waterboarding wins," exults National Review's Marc Thiessen, noting that Brown "spoke out forcefully in favor of enhanced interrogation." Michael Graham calls it a "once-in-a-generation, never-saw-it-coming, dance-in-the-streets victory for democracy." Brown is expected to be seated quickly, and Republicans to move as quickly to pass legislation with their 41-vote majority.

The lesson, as always, is that when Democrats win, they lose, and when they lose, they are obliterated.
*

re: Scott Brown

(from today's NY Times online)

Marlene Connolly's rationale for voting Republican is a sorry one. If she and similar voters think Scott Brown and the Republicans are going to do better at creating jobs, reforming health care, conducting (permanent) warfare, reining in spending, and any number of other things high on Americans' list of important issues, she's delusional. She cast a frying-pan-into-the-fire vote. She voted for a bonafide, morally challenged idiot.

That said, as a progressive I think it's good Coakley lost. She wouldn't have changed anything in DC more than Brown will. This election was not about health care. It was mainly about Obama, about his myriad broken promises, about his rolling over for Wall Street and appointing its lobbyists to his administration, most of all about his utter failure to lead. It was also about a Congress bought and paid for by banks and insurance companies and big pharma, about a Senate majority leader who is as firm as a limp noodle.

Now the Times is telling me in a headline that "Obama Weighs Shift in Health Plan, Seeking G.O.P. Backing". What a joke! The guy is clueless. Still with the bipartisanship. Did anyone ever explain to him that politics is all about partisanship? That without partisanship there is no progress? That the only things in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead armadillos? He's doing the exact opposite of what he should do - rather than setting a progressive agenda and doing all in his power to achieve it, he's rolling over to expose his soft underbelly to a party that has no ideas, no philosophy, and buckets of hypocrisy - and Scott Brown is their poster boy. The Obama administration is being eviscerated by the political equivalent of the Three Stooges. What does that say about the governing competence of Democrats?

Beyond defaulting on every promise he's ever made - and worse, causing people to lose the hope he created in them - Obama doesn't deserve to hold power. I'm done with Clinton-Obama Democrats, and (for the third or fourth time in my voting life) lesser-of-the-evil votes. From now on, it's progressive candidates only. If unprincipled Democrats lose because I and enough others refuse our votes, it's on their heads.

Drew Westen: Obama Finally Gets His Victory For Bipartisanship
It is a truly remarkable feat, in just one year's time, to turn the fear and anger voters felt in 2006 and 2008 at a Republican Party that had destroyed the economy, redistributed massive amounts of wealth from the middle class to the richest of the rich and the biggest of big businesses, and waged a trillion-dollar war in the wrong country, into populist rage at whatever Democrat voters can cast their ballot against.

*

Coakley's Loss: Pie on the President's Face
William Greider: Martha Coakley's loss in Massachusetts put on display the monumental miscalculations by which Obama has governed.

Katrina vanden Heuvel: The Massachusetts Lesson: Go Populist Now
Robert Scheer: What Massachusetts Got Right
*

What would the GOP do?
By Joe Conason
Democrats should consider the behavior of Republicans: They often lose, but never, ever retreat.
*

The Great Tea Party Rip-Off by Frank Rich
The tea party movement is being exploited, not just by marketers, lobbyists and corporate interests, but by Republican Party leaders.

*

Cheney family values
Liz Cheney owes her prominence as a TV talking head to her daddy. But nepotism can be dangerous as well as annoying
by Joe Conason

Crazy like a Fox News pundit
Bill O'Reilly introduces the rouged rogue to the media dog pile. Welcome to hell, Sarah.
by Heather Havrilesky

*

A Democrat's gaffe, the GOP's shame
Harry Reid chose his words poorly, but equating it with saying a racist would have made a good president is idiocy.
by Joan Walsh
*

Partisan Hysteria Hypes (and Helps) Al-Qaida By Joe Conason —
The latest terrorist attack against the United States proves that the Republican exploitative response to terror is as predictable as al-Qaida’s urge to kill.

*

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Temple of Hume
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Terror 2.0 by Yemen
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Go Inside the Battle Over Global Warming
How Big Oil and Big Coal mounted one of the most aggressive lobbying campaigns in history to block progress on global warming. Plus, meet the 17 polluters and deniers - from Warren Buffett to Rupert Murdoch to John McCain - who are derailing efforts to curb the climate catastrophe.

Dodd's last chance to lead
Wall Street's favorite senator doesn't have to raise money anymore. Time for him to stand up and be counted
by Andrew Leonard

Poll: With Dodd's exit, Dems better off
The Democrat running to replace the retiring senator holds a lead of at least 30 points in one survey
by Alex Koppelman
*

After the Underwear Bomber, Republicans Have Shown Their True Color: Weakness
by Mitchell Bard
Where are the tough-guy Republicans now? When did fear and whining replace the gunslinger persona? The Republican reaction has been to give the terrorists exactly what they want.
*

Conservative backlash against "Avatar"
A right-wing nightmare: The free market has spoken -- anti-American lefty green propaganda sells!
by Andrew Leonard

The Power of Nightmares
This film explores the origins in the 1940s and 50s of Islamic Fundamentalism in the Middle East, and Neoconservatism in America, parallels between these movements, and their effect on the world today. From the introduction to Part 1:

"Both [the Islamists and Neoconservatives] were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. And both had a very similar explanation for what caused that failure. These two groups have changed the world, but not in the way that either intended. Together, they created todays nightmare vision of a secret, organized evil that threatens the world. A fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. And those with the darkest fears became the most powerful. " The Power of Nightmares, Baby It's Cold Outside.

The degrading effects of terrorism fears
The expectation that government provide absolute safety is both dangerous and irrational. by Glenn Greenwald

*

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

NOAM CHOMSKY: "Gaza: One Year Later"
On December 27, 2008, Israel began one of the bloodiest attacks on Gaza Since 1948. The three week assault killed some 1400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis. One year later, little to no rebuilding has taken place and the siege in Gaza continues.
Speaking in Watertown, Massachusetts on December 6, 2009, linguist and social critic Noam Chomsky delivered a talk entitled “Gaza: One Year Later.”

Craving melodrama
The calls for Obama to act with more hysteria and panic every time Al Qaeda sneezes are just plain stupid
by Glenn Greenwald
*

Playing politics with national security
Questions about the Flight 253 attack, and what to do about Yemen, may be obscured by petty bickering over blame
by Joan Walsh

*

PoliticsAP: GOP Lawmakers Flip Flop On Costly Health Plans
"As far as I am concerned, any Republican who voted for the Medicare drug benefit has no right to criticize anything the Democrats have done in terms of adding to the national debt," said Bruce Bartlett, an official in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He made his comments in a Forbes article titled "Republican Deficit Hypocrisy."
*

Demonizing Dean Won’t Absolve This Health Care Sham By Robert Scheer —
Howard Dean was roundly condemned for casting aspersions on what even many of its more ardent supporters admit is an obviously flawed bill.

*

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Leadership, Obama Style, and the Looming Losses in 2010
by Drew Westen
Obama doesn't need a chief of staff. He needs someone to shake him until he feels something strongly enough to not just to talk about it but to act. He's increasingly appearing to the public like Dukakis without the administrative skill.

*

"It's unfair"
Howard Dean on why he doesn't support the Senate bill, which he calls "hocus pocus" reform
by Joe Conason

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Highway to Health - Last Tea Party Protest of the Year
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Gaming Healthcare
The Editors : Health Care Policy
Dropping the public option and Medicare expansion means breaking the promise of health reform: better care at lower cost.

*

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Fwd: NiLP FYI: Obama Silent on Gutierrez Immigration Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: National Institute for Latino Policy <info@latinopolicy.org>
To: askcarlos@aol.com
Sent: Thu, Dec 17, 2009 3:35 am
Subject: NiLP FYI: Obama Silent on Gutierrez Immigration Bill

 

 

Obama Silent on Gutierrez's Landmark Immigration Legislation
By Anis ShivaniWriter
Huffington Post (December 16, 2009)

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) has just introduced a landmark immigration
reform bill, which ought to be the basis of any legislation in the
current Congress: click here to download summary
 
This is the most important piece of domestic legislation advanced in
many, many years. Interestingly, neither the New York Times nor the
Washington Post feature front page coverage; the news stories all note
that this is just the opening salvo, and the bill as it is is dead on
arrival because Republicans won't support it.
 
The silence from the White House is deafening--no public show of
support from President Obama, who continues to maintain highly
favorable ratings among Latinos (despite his having ignored, so far,
all the promises he made to the Hispanic community during the election
campaign).
 
The Democratic party, the establishment news media, and Obama himself
are holding fire for the bill they do want to support, the draconian
Schumer legislation which has already been drawn up (in conjunction
with Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, he of the military tribunals
and impeachment), but which awaits an opportune moment early next year
to be sprung upon the public. No doubt, as soon as Schumer releases his
bill, Obama will declare that that's the kind of legislation he can get
behind.
 
The Senate immigration legislation will bear the same resemblance to
the House bill offered by Gutierrez and his cosponsors as their
pathetic legislation (do a lot of harm, destroy even the nicer parts of
the system) bears to the House health care legislation.
 
The silence tells us a lot about Obama (as we have learned again and
again over the course of this year): his heart is where the
corporate-funded Democratic Leadership Council once was (he is their
true standard-bearer today), his true soulmate is really Joe Lieberman.
Obama, deep down, loves Lieberman; that's who he really is, once you
strip down the empty rhetoric and futile gestures. He cares not a bit
for the working poor, immigrants, even entrepreneurs and innovators,
those who make this country tick. He was brought in to preserve the
privilege, segregation, and division among classes and races; that's
what he has done with health care, and that's what he plans to do with
the chaotic, utterly counterproductive immigration bill Schumer is
holding back. Latinos, immigrants, take note!
 
One would have expected Janet Napolitano to say a few kind words about
the House legislation; is it the kind of humane, non-punitive reform
she had in mind when she promised recently that Congress would get it
done next year?
 
What exactly is so terrible about the Gutierrez bill that has
corporate-Democrats cowering in their shells? It is humane, it is
flexible, it is rational, it is practical, it is optimistic, and it
calls on our great traditions of welcome and openness--features which
will be markedly absent from the legislation Obama is prepared to
support. It is the kind of legislation Ted Kennedy would have been
proud to support. Unfortunately, ours is not the era of the New New
Deal; it is the era of the Bad to Worse Deal; any "comprehensive"
legislation emanating from the Obama administration makes things worse
than they already are, by sneaking in corporate-favored provisions.
 
Let's take a look at a few of the proposals in the Gutierrez bill.
 
It suspends Operation Streamline (an euphemism coined by Bush's Gestapo
chief, Michael Chertoff, to describe a program that files criminal
charges against all border-crossers).
 
It improves detention conditions, by preserving family unity, avoiding
unnecessary separations, and ensuring humane treatment of detainees.
 
It strengthens protection during enforcement activities, by making such
activities subject to court review, allowing legal access and other
services to detained immigrants, and repealing the 287(g) program,
making the federal government the only enforcer of federal immigration
law.
 
It prohibits the creation of a national ID card in the proposed
employment verification system.
 
It makes a number of proposals to reduce the massive backlog in family
and employment visa issuance (itself the primary source of "illegal"
immigration in the country), leaning toward making more visas available
to skilled workers who ought to be welcome in the U.S.
 
It makes a number of provisions to strengthen family unity, by allowing
judges greater discretion in removal proceedings, for instance when a
U.S. citizen child is involved.
 
Its provision for legalization is outstanding, and the only general
outline which can work (complicated Schumer-like provisions will not
solve the problem of "illegality"). It establishes a broad criterion of
contribution to U.S. society through education, employment, military
service, or community/volunteer service, rather than some rigorous
employment-only criterion. And it waives bars relating to undocumented
status (such as fraudulent use of Social Security cards), again the
only commonsensical principle that can work.
 
On the whole, it seeks to return the system to a position of
flexibility, whereby employment and family needs start matching
immigration visas again, so that the root cause of illegal presence is
removed.
 
The most important legislation of the last half century was arguably
the immigration act of 1965, which opened the doors to new kinds of
immigrants--this, more than anything else that has happened since then,
changed the face of America. Had it not been for that lucky crack of
the doors, had America not been renewed by immigrants in such large
numbers in the intervening years, we would today be a powerless,
geriatric, hopeless society, in worse demographic shape than Western
Europe and Japan. But in the last decade, the pendulum has swung in the
opposite direction, and the door has been all but closed. The most
pernicious phenomenon of the Bush years--the one with the most
irreversible consequences--is this reversal of the immigrant flow, this
suspicion of the other that has found permanent place in the national
imagination.
 
Obama has never tried to change the discourse with regard to
immigration or any of the aspects of our true relationship with the
world; the fundamental fear equation remains unchanged. In his West
Point speech, Obama morphed completely into Bush, shedding all pretense
of a nice guy image; he's in it to win it--win the wars of terror,
suspicion, and resentment, which have no real source other than our own
frustration at being unable to handle competitiveness from the rest of
the world. Thus he committed us to a path of long-term
self-destruction.
 
Today, the U.S. government is dedicating enormous resources to
uprooting and deporting college graduates who came here as
children--three or five or seven years old--and lack legal status;
there is no way for them to fix their status, regardless of their
potential to make contributions to American society. This is where we
are today, at the end of Year One of Obama, as all our attention is
diverted to a health care bill designed to further enrich providers and
insurers. That's the kind of tyranny Obama hasn't said a word
about--nor is he likely to.
 
Obama doesn't need to grandstand by inviting hot-shot bankers to the
White House to lecture them and ask them to lend. Banks will lend money
only if it makes sense for them; yet Obama has failed to address the
underlying causes of the credit squeeze. Instead of talking to his
beloved bankers, perhaps he should have shown yesterday that he stood
with the working person by giving Representative Gutierrez his promise
of support. But his already failed presidency doesn't allow any such
act of imagination.
 
Instead of seeing human beings as so many units of labor Obama's
favorite corporations can shamelessly exploit, Gutierrez's bill begins
to return us to the rule of law operating in an environment of human
dignity; and that is not something Obama can get behind. Now, weaken it
with the Schumer bill--restrict the requirements for legalization, so
that only a handful qualify; weaken family unification by narrowly
redefining family and giving priority to certain skilled workers; bring
in a temporary worker program, to drive wages down for everyone and
open new loopholes for exploitation; and continue to invest DHS with
draconian powers, deprive applicants of the right of appeal, and
integrate paranoid discourse into every aspect of the law--and that's
something Obama will say we have to get done next year, even in the
midst of the recession--because his corporate masters hired him to do
just that.

Forward email

This email was sent to askcarlos@aol.com by info@latinopolicy.org.
Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ |
Privacy Policy.

National Institute for Latino Policy (NiLP) | 101 Avenue of the
Americas | New York | NY | 10013-1933

The Democrats Blinked By Joe Conason — By bowing to Sen. Lieberman, Obama has confirmed what they say about Democrats: They simply aren’t strong enough to govern.
*

Democrats Lash Out At Obama Over Health Care Disappointments

Congressional Democrats are starting to voice their anger at President Obama over the way health care legislation has been compromised, blaming him for not fighting harder."The president keeps listening to Rahm Emanuel," said Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). "No public option, no extending Medicare to 55, no nothing, an excise tax, God!" he exclaimed about the Senate health care bill to Roll Call. "The insurance lobby is taking over."

Rep. Dave Obey (D-Wis.), told Politico of Senate delays, "It's ridiculous, and the Obama administration is sitting on the sidelines. That's nonsense."*While many House Democrats have expressed anger with the Senate for the watered-down bill, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) argued that it was really Obama who let centrists take control. "Snowe? Stupak? Lieberman? Who left these people in charge?" he said. "It's time for the president to get his hands dirty. Some of us have compromised our compromised compromise. We need the president to stand up for the values our party shares. We must stop letting the tail wag the dog of this debate."

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) similarly suggested that blaming Lieberman was ignoring the real culprit -- Obama.

"This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place, so I don't think focusing it on Lieberman really hits the truth," said Feingold. "I think they could have been higher. I certainly think a stronger bill would have been better in every respect."

As Politico's Craig Gordon noted about the president's health care maneuvering, "Time and again, [Obama] rebuffed Democrats' requests to speak up more forcefully about what he wanted -- a strategy that allowed Obama to preserve maximum flexibility to declare victory at the end of the process, no matter what the final bill looked like."

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), pointed to polling that suggests Democrats will face trouble with their base if they don't deliver a strong bill. "Thirty percent of Democrats will not come out and vote if there is no public option in the health care bill," she said. "What does that tell you?"

*This article originally reported that Rep. Obey said "The White House has been useless." That was Transportation Committee Chairman James Oberstar.
*

Health-care bill wouldn't bring real reform

By Howard Dean
Thursday, December 17, 2009; A33

If I were a senator, I would not vote for the current health-care bill. Any measure that expands private insurers' monopoly over health care and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real health-care reform. Real reform would insert competition into insurance markets, force insurers to cut unnecessary administrative expenses and spend health-care dollars caring for people. Real reform would significantly lower costs, improve the delivery of health care and give all Americans a meaningful choice of coverage. The current Senate bill accomplishes none of these.

Real health-care reform is supposed to eliminate discrimination based on preexisting conditions. But the legislation allows insurance companies to charge older Americans up to three times as much as younger Americans, pricing them out of coverage. The bill was supposed to give Americans choices about what kind of system they wanted to enroll in. Instead, it fines Americans if they do not sign up with an insurance company, which may take up to 30 percent of your premium dollars and spend it on CEO salaries -- in the range of $20 million a year -- and on return on equity for the company's shareholders. Few Americans will see any benefit until 2014, by which time premiums are likely to have doubled. In short, the winners in this bill are insurance companies; the American taxpayer is about to be fleeced with a bailout in a situation that dwarfs even what happened at AIG.

From the very beginning of this debate, progressives have argued that a public option or a Medicare buy-in would restore competition and hold the private health insurance industry accountable. Progressives understood that a public plan would give Americans real choices about what kind of system they wanted to be in and how they wanted to spend their money. Yet Washington has decided, once again, that the American people cannot be trusted to choose for themselves. Your money goes to insurers, whether or not you want it to.

To be clear, I'm not giving up on health-care reform. The legislation does have some good points, such as expanding Medicaid and permanently increasing the federal government's contribution to it. It invests critical dollars in public health, wellness and prevention programs; extends the life of the Medicare trust fund; and allows young Americans to stay on their parents' health-care plans until they turn 27. Small businesses struggling with rising health-care costs will receive a tax credit, and primary-care physicians will see increases in their Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates.

Improvements can still be made in the Senate, and I hope that Senate Democrats will work on this bill as it moves to conference. If lawmakers are interested in ensuring that government affordability credits are spent on health-care benefits rather than insurers' salaries, they need to require state-based exchanges, which act as prudent purchasers and select only the most efficient insurers. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) offered this amendment during the Finance Committee markup, and Democrats should include it in the final legislation. A stripped-down version of the current bill that included these provisions would be worth passing.

In Washington, when major bills near final passage, an inside-the-Beltway mentality takes hold. Any bill becomes a victory. Clear thinking is thrown out the window for political calculus. In the heat of battle, decisions are being made that set an irreversible course for how future health reform is done. The result is legislation that has been crafted to get votes, not to reform health care.

I have worked for health-care reform all my political life. In my home state of Vermont, we have accomplished universal health care for children younger than 18 and real insurance reform -- which not only bans discrimination against preexisting conditions but also prevents insurers from charging outrageous sums for policies as a way of keeping out high-risk people. I know health reform when I see it, and there isn't much left in the Senate bill. I reluctantly conclude that, as it stands, this bill would do more harm than good to the future of America.

The writer is a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and was governor of Vermont from 1991 to 2002.

Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill”

In a blow to the bill grinding through the Senate, Howard Dean bluntly called for the bill to be killed in a pre-recorded interview set to air later this afternoon, denouncing it as “the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate,” the reporter who conducted the interview tells me.

Dean said the removal of the Medicare buy-in made the bill not worth supporting, and urged Dem leaders to start over with the process of reconciliation in the interview, which is set to air at 5:50 PM today on Vermont Public Radio, political reporter Bob Kinzel confirms to me.

The gauntlet from Dean — whose voice on health care is well respsected among liberals — will energize those on the left who are mobilizing against the bill, and make it tougher for liberals to embrace the emerging proposal. In an excerpt Kinzel gave me, Dean says:

“This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate. Honestly the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill.”

Kinzel added that Dean essentially said that if Democratic leaders cave into Joe Lieberman right now they’ll be left with a bill that’s not worth supporting.

Dean had previously endorsed the Medicare buy-in compromise without a public option, saying that the key question should be whether the bill contains enough “real reform” to be worthy of progressives’ support. Dean has apparently concluded that the “real reform” has been removed at Lieberman’s behest — which won’t make it easier for liberals to swallow the emerging compromise.
*


Time to kill the Senate bill?
Is reform without public option worth it? Markos, Ezra Klein, Paul Krugman, Howard Dean and others weigh in
*

ACORN Videos were propaganda
A report hammers the organization's leadership but points out duplicity in the famous tapes.
by Joe Conason

Major victory for ACORN and the Constitution
A federal judge strikes down Congress' unconstitutional de-funding of the unpopular group.
by Glenn Greenwald

*

Fair and Balanced (and Phony) Science By Joe Conason —
Evading the challenges of climate change—and the human responsibility to save the planet—is simple enough even for the laziest citizen.

Making Gun Safety (Politically) Safe By E.J. Dionne —
When it comes to passing sensible gun laws, Congress typically offers Profiles in Cowardice.
*

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Grand Old Purity
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor U.S. Speedskating

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Highway to Health - Senate Fight '09
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

The Crushing Legacy of Bush and Cheney By Joe Conason —
Now it’s “Obama’s war,” but we should not ignore the events that led us to this moment and the inexplicable decisions of the Bush administration.

Obama’s Goldilocks Strategy By E.J. Dionne —
Obama’s surge in Afghanistan is a political loser, but in the short term he’ll get what he wants.

R.I.P. the great Liam Clancy

Purloined E-Mails Don’t Change the Facts By Eugene Robinson —
Stop hyperventilating, all you climate change deniers. The purloined e-mail correspondence published by skeptics last week hasn’t stopped the ice caps from melting.

Understanding Our Hollow ‘Centrists’ By Joe Conason —
The puzzling thing about politicians of either party who claim to be “centrist” or “moderate” is how much they sometimes sound like party-line right-wing Republicans.

Obama’s Thankless Thanksgiving By E.J. Dionne —
So in vogue are attacks on the president that even his proclamation calling the nation to a day of Thanksgiving has become the focus of criticism.

*

What Is So Patriotic About Hysteria?By Joe Conason —
The loudest voices on the right never tire of telling us that they are the truest patriots, but when did fear-mongering in a time of war become an act of patriotism?
*

Intelligentsia against intelligence
How did we end up with know-nothings for wise men?
by David Sirota
*

The Pledge of Allegiance is un-American
Shouldn't the government pledge allegiance to the people rather than the other way around?
by Michael Lind

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Lou Dobbs for president!
The former CNN host sounds like he's running for office -- and if so, he's a GOP nightmare
by Joe Conason

Joe Lieberman Filibusters Health Care While Americans Suffer
by Bob Cesca,
With every month that goes by without health care reform, another 3,600 Americans die due to a lack of insurance. And Joe Lieberman, like Elaine in that classic Seinfeld episode, is stopping off for Jujyfruits.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

On Electon Day, a win for government
by E.J. Dionne Jr.
Here's a story you may have missed because it flies in the face of the dreary conventional wisdom: When advocates of public programs take on the right-wing anti-government crowd directly, the government-haters lose.
*

Is the Tea Party Gang Turning GOP Into a Party of Hate? By David Corn
When John Boehner, the Republican leader of the House, appeared at the Tea Party rally at the Capitol on Thursday afternoon, it was a dramatic signal: The wing-nuts have taken over the GOP. Think I'm being harsh? The angry folks at the protest -- which attracted several thousand conservatives -- ...
Keep Reading »
*

Victim In Fatal Car Accident Tragically Not Glenn Beck

"OH, WHAT A NIGHT!" Sweeping Health Care Reform Bill Passes House After Months Of Debate

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The 11/3 Project
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Tonight's big lesson
by kos

There will be much number-crunching tomorrow, but preliminary numbers (at least in Virginia) show that GOP turnout remained the same as last year, but Democratic turnout collapsed. This is a base problem, and this is what Democrats better take from tonight:

If you abandon Democratic principles in a bid for unnecessary "bipartisanship", you will lose votes.

If you water down reform in favor of Blue Dogs and their corporate benefactors, you will lose votes.

If you forget why you were elected -- health care, financial services, energy policy and immigration reform -- you will lose votes.

Tonight proved conclusively that we're not going to turn out just because you have a (D) next to your name, or because Obama tells us to. We'll turn out if we feel it's worth our time and effort to vote, and we'll work hard to make sure others turn out if you inspire us with bold and decisive action.

The choice is yours. Give us a reason to vote for you, or we sit home. And you aren't going to make up the margins with conservative voters. They already know exactly who they're voting for, and it ain't you.
*