Democrats or Republicans - same thing, people!!

I got this email from MoveOn.org today and thought it was hi-larious - let me just count the ways (all emphasis mine):

###

Dear MoveOn member,

Election Day is less than two months away, and we need to decide today whether we'll have enough resources for a major campaign to help stop the Republicans and their corporate allies from taking over Congress.  (1. Guess we can all agree on one thing - democracy is always for sale)

In a survey over the weekend, 92% of MoveOn members said that we should work broadly to help Democratic candidates—especially now that corporate front groups are spending $400 million to boost Republicans' chances.  (2. Now? So we should forget the millions for which the Dems and their front man prostituted themselves up to now? - UPDATE:  This is interesting, no?)

So here's our plan to do it:

• We'll launch a giant recruitment drive to turn out thousands of volunteers for dozens and dozens of vulnerable Democrats across the country. (3.  Please!  If they were doing what the people sent them to Congress to do, their asses wouldn't BE "vulnerable!  To the Changeling and his cohorts, I say: 

Nate Beeler/Washington Examiner

• We'll use the media and creative tactics to show that corporate front groups are pouring money into these races and helping elect Republicans to carry out their agenda.  (4.  Yeah, you of all people ought to know the media will shill for anybody with deep pockets - look how it worked in getting the Changling "selected."  And I won't even touch that whole "creative tactics" thing, except to say - Democratic Rules & Bylaws Committee - May 31, 2008!!)

• We'll especially focus on top progressive heroes like Sen. Barbara Boxer and Rep. Alan Grayson who are facing the fights of their lives.  (5. She, of the land of economic meltdown and he, the man who spoke so loudly about health care, but didn't carry a big enough stick to get a public option included?  Heroes??  Really??)

• And because nearly 80% of MoveOn members said not to use our scarce resources to help Democrats who've sided repeatedly with corporate lobbyists on key votes like health care, we'll stay out of those races.  (6. Hell, they've ALL sided with corporate lobbyists on key votes like health care - on one side of it, or the other (need I remind you - again - about that pesky little "public option" disappearing?!)

This is a hugely ambitious plan that will involve serious work in 30-60 critical races.

All told, it'll cost at least $1.1 million and require at least 100,000 volunteer hours. To move forward, we need commitments for that much time and money—otherwise, we'll have to scale back the plan.

(7. C'mon people!  Don't you think that $1.1 million could be used for way more important shit?)

So we need to know today how much each MoveOn member is willing to chip in. We'll need at least 108 pledges from people in Washington. You don't have to donate right now—we just need to know how much support we can count on over the next two months.

Click to let us know how much you can pledge to stop the Republican takeover of Congress: 

(8.  Not one-red-cent!  Quiet as it's kept, both parties need to get the hell out of Congress!)

$15

$30

$75

$100

Another amount

I can't pledge any money right now, but I'll volunteer my time.

Thanks for all you do.



#####

  

Democrats have had the majority in Congress for quite some time now.  They've done nothing but either, allowed themselves to be bullied by Shrub & Co. OR, worked really hard at that which has been most politically expedient - for themselves.  Why MoveOn would even ask anybody to throw good money after bad is just beyond me -- and quite amusing!

Wyclef, mon coeur pleure pour le Haïti aussi...

(Updates I, II, III & IV below)

I say in the title, "Wyclef, my heart cries for Haiti too."  And it does, and it has, and it will - still.  Because with all of the monetary aid pouring in, with all the "temporary suspensions" of debt and policies, Haiti will continue to be at the mercy of countries (including our own), who fail to understand - worse yet care - how self-determination works for those who've not had the luxury of calling the shots.

My heart cried for Haiti when I wrote the following column for my small South Florida paper back on November 15, 2002 after a wooden vessel ran aground just southeast of downtown Miami near Virginia Key.  It was an attempt to explain what I saw as yet another example of the entrenched, White Supremacist Capitalist Patriarchal (WSCP) behavior continuing to divide and conquer Blacks and Browns - at the expense of the Blacks this time:

Cuban Adjustment Act continues to create discord

A 50-foot wooden vessel ran aground about 500 yards from Miami on Oct. 29. Onboard were well over 200 Haitians migrants seeking a better way of life. At sea for a number of days without food and water and weakened by those conditions, they began jumping and/or dropping their young children overboard into 10 to 12 feet of water, hoping against hope that they could elude the Coast Guard vessels that had been following them for two hours and make it to shore. Twenty-one Haitians had to be rescued from the water after jumping from that overloaded boat.

And what of those who made it ashore? They ran onto the busy, six-lane Rickenbacker Causeway, trying desperately to stop motorists, hoping they could somehow escape the Border Patrol agents they knew would detain them. Their ultimate goal? To flee the abject poverty and despair of the hemisphere's poorest country where two-thirds of the population is unemployed or underemployed and most people survive on less than $1 a day.

But unknown to them, their return was all but guaranteed by a Nov. 8, U.S. Department of Justice announcement which restated the United States post-9/11 stance taken in December 2001 - "As of Nov. 13, all undocumented migrants who arrive by sea - except Cubans - will be detained without bond and placed in expedited removal."

The reason the Bush administration reversed its policy of releasing all asylums seekers into the community after they had established a "credible fear of persecution?" They claimed that releasing the Haitians could threaten national security by prompting a mass exodus, tying up Coast Guard resources that he said should be committed to "homeland security" and the "war on terrorism."

And what of the large number of Cubans who've come ashore in the Keys alone last year? Were there no resources committed to them? While most asylum seekers from every other nation continue to be released within days in Miami, practically all migrants from Haiti are jailed. Does anyone else out there see the blatant double-standard being applied to those of a decidedly darker hue?

Fast forward to earlier this week when, described by a Nov. 12 Miami Herald article as an "escort to freedom," two Air National Guard jets scrambled to accompany a yellow single-engine cargo plane carrying eight family members from Cuba as it taxied into Key West International Airport. According to an airport employee, the article went on to say, "They were dressed like they were on vacation, smiling and casually walking with Customs and INS agents as two Key West police cruisers followed them."

Secure in the "wet foot/dry foot" policy of the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act, this group had nothing to fear once they set foot on American soil. There was no need for desperate measures. They were home free because Cubans who arrive at designated ports of entry into the United States - i.e. airports, seaports and land ports located at the border - are released on bond and granted permanent residency after a year.

And according to an April 1999 memorandum, then INS Commissioner Doris Meissner "clarified" the policy further stating, "Cubans - along with their spouses and children - who arrive at other than designated ports of entry into the United States are eligible for parole, as well as eventual adjustment of status to that of permanent resident, under the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act. This policy clarification, effective immediately, helps define in specific terms those Cubans who are eligible for parole and adjustment of status under the Cuban Adjustment Act, regardless of how they arrived in the United States."

Even if a Cuban national is in the United States without having been admitted or paroled by INS, all they have to do is first surrender into INS custody, receive a grant of parole and wait one year before applying for permanent residence under the CAA. With the grant of parole, he/she is then eligible to apply for employment authorization.

Though the CAA was not a product of this administration's watch, its perpetuation and retooling of this obvious "divide and conquer" piece of politics smacks of the days of Jim Crow - a period in this nation's history that seems unwilling to die the ugly death it deserves. By affording special status to one race, another is completely devalued and a wedge is driven between the two that will, yet again, take generations to heal.

Rather than laying out all the historical reasons why our government - in consort with others - has much for which to account in Haiti, I think Earl Ofari Hutchinson's, Where Was the World When Haiti Really Needed It? sums it up pretty well and is truly worth the read.

My heart cries for Haiti as I see how this recent (because it's hardly the first), natural disaster continues to play out the privilege and racism inherent in our society.  Though I felt these parents' pain as I sat watching this interview by Ann Curry on the Today Show, the "quiet riot" deep in my gut said, "If only their pleas were for ALL the children."  Listen, and tell me if you hear the inherent privilege seeping out amidst the anguish:




And when you're done, listen to Wyclef having to defend his NGO -Yéle Haiti:





Look, having worked with Black non-profits, I admit there's always the probability of someone absconding with some or all of the organization's funds - and I even understand why, which is oftentimes different from why whites do it, but not always (neither makes it right).  But that's not, IMHO, what the current attack on Wyclef is all about.  Quite frankly, I think it's about the possibility of HIM, HAVING THE ABILITY NOW,  TO DO WHAT MANY WHITE, NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED NON-PROFITS (the Red Cross for example) HAVE BEEN DOING FOR AGES - period.  That, and the fact that - due to the high volume of donations he's receiving - he's blocking their "Let's line-our-pockets" blessing (some people just want ALL the damn money) of course.  The outrage, coupled with the massive encouraging of people to donate any and everywhere else BUT Yéle Haiti, is quite telling - if you just listen. 

As for me, I'm giving my few pennies (and my volunteer efforts as soon as I can find a way) to a "Native Son" who really knows the people, the language and the lay of the land - instead of those other "saviors" (the Changeling included) who are rolling in - and out.

UPDATE I:  Wyclef to Oprah: "Haiti Don't Need No More Photo Ops"
UPDATE II:  Credit Card Companies Profit Off Tragedy in Haiti 
UPDATE III:  US Mercenaries Set Sights on Haiti - this piece from Jeremy Scahill at The Nation is particularly disturbing given the reputation of mercenary groups like Blackwater (now "Xe") in Iraq, Afghanistan and New Orleans.  A brief excerpt:

On January 15, a Florida-based company called All Pro Legal Investigations registered the URL Haiti-Security.com. It is basically a copy of the company's existing US website but is now targeted for business in Haiti, claiming the "purpose of this site is to assure construction and reconstruction companies considering a Haiti project that professional security is available."


"All Protection and Security has made a commitment to the Haitian community and will provide professional security against any threat to prosperity in Haiti," the site proclaims. "Job sites and supply convoys will be protected against looters and vandals. Workers will be protected against gang violence and intimidation. The people of Haiti will recover, with the help of the good people from the world over."

With THESE GUYS on the ground - Yéle Haiti's the least of the world community's "aid" problems!  Unless of course they seek out their "protection" services.

UPDATE IV:  It's not All about That!:  Wyclef Jean is fronting in Haiti - from the Haitian Information Project on Black Agenda Report.com.

I have to say that I was not aware of Wyclef's familial connections to the U.S./CIA-backed overthrow of Aristede.  I obviously need to read more shit!  That being said, I still will not donate to the Red Cross in this effort.

To Catholic Charities: "What Would Jesus Do?"

Last month, I talked to my friend Eric Sheptock, the homeless - homeless advocate whose story I began to tell back in April.  After catching up, we talked about DC's same-sex marriage amendment that passed its second vote in the DC Council just two days ago.  I'd asked his permission to repost his literal, "Man on the Street" perspectives on the amendment, Catholic Charities, homelessness and the politics of it all in DC.  But procrastinator that I am - I didn't keep my word (Sorry Eric!).

Now that the 30-day clock is ticking for Congress to sign-off on the amendment and make it law - or not, I thought I'd share a little history from someone who will be personally affected if Catholic Charities decides NOT to do what Jesus would.

~#~

Catholic Charities Pimps DC Council Again, This Time Over Gay Marriage
By Erick Sheptock
(Posted November 13, 2009)  

What do a Catholic Charities homeless shelter and gay marriage have in common? Some would venture to guess that gay men want the right to identify as women and sleep in female shelters and that butch lesbians want the right to sleep in male shelters. That would be a very well-informed guess. I've witnessed gay men checking into female shelters, though I've yet to see a butch lesbian check into a male shelter. Such rights exist in DC homeless shelters already.

However, there is a new and strange twist (no pun intended) to the fight for gay rights. I received the news over dinner last night (before it even hit the airwaves) that Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington, DC is considering the possibility of not doing any more business with the city of Washington if the gay marriage bill is passed. Being that the news has hit the airwaves at this point and you can get the story by going on-line, I'll take some time to give you a little of the background on relations between Catholic Charities and DC Government as well as the low-down on the mayor -- the parts of the story that the media won't tell you.

In March I did a blog post about several shelters having been threatened. (See below where I've re-posted it.) It was believed by the homeless community at that time that DC Mayor Adrian Fenty wanted to close ALL DC homeless shelters before leaving office in January of 2011. Then, the mayor was heard suggesting that homeless people who are not from DC go back to where they came from. (You can read about that in my September post entitled: "DC Mayor Tries To Rid City of Homeless".) In lieu of all of the reasons that the mayor has given the homeless to think that he wants them to just get out of town, it behooves the mayor to proactively prove otherwise. No matter how many layers of authority and contracts lie between the mayor and those who actually close the shelters, the mayor will still be implicated in the closure. He is still ultimately responsible. It is, therefore, in Mayor Fenty's best interest to actively prevent any shelter closures, especially at this time of year. He must use every weapon in his arsenal to come to the rescue of DC's homeless. Failure is not an option. Even if Catholic Charities shuts down all city operations, the mayor will be who everyone looks to for answers.

Catholic Charities is a different story altogether. Some believe that Catholic Charities is in dire straights and is using the gay marriage bill to suck more money out of the city. But before I explain the correlation between the gay marriage bill and the homeless shelters, I'll explain how Catholic charities likes to pimp the city.

The news came out on September 28th of this year that $12 million would be slashed from DC Government's Homeless Services budget. All homeless service providers were, in turn, ordered to cut 30% from their budget for FY 2010. Catholic Charities representatives attended a hearing in front of DC Councilman Tommy Wells on October 5th and stated that they could not continue to operate with one-third of their budget having been slashed. They threatened to shut down all of their city shelters, which would have resulted in the loss of about 2,000 shelter beds. The city scrambled to find the funds to keep the shelters open. Within 3 days the mayor found $11 million and the shelters were saved. He thereby averted a lot of major lawsuits due to hypothermia deaths.

However, this showed Catholic Charities that they are in a position to do a power play on the city. If this latest development is any indication, Catholic Charities is not going to let the city forget that they -- and not the city government -- hold the cards when it comes to social services in the city. When I referred to Catholic Charities as having pimped the city during conversations in October, it was blown off as being nothing but hype. In the articles about this latest move, various council members have weighed in on this issue of being pimped by Catholic Charities. It's too obvious to ignore at this point. I told you so.

The story goes like this:

The DC Council has been working on a gay marriage bill, which they expect to pass next month. While the bill makes certain exemptions for religious organizations, it doesn't make exemptions for businesses. Churches don't have to perform gay marriages or allow their space to be used for gay marriages. However, businesses are not allowed to discriminate against gays in any way, shape, form or fashion. They must serve gay patrons and must extend employee benefits to the gay partners of their employees. Catholic Charities, being a non-profit, is an uncanny marriage of the two -- a church and a business. They seek to assert their religious beliefs as reasons for them not to have to abide by the gay marriage bill as it pertains to businesses. They also claim that the increased cost of employee benefits justifies them opting out of city contracts due to the increased cost of those benefits having not been figured into the contracts at the time of the signing. Catholic charities is seriously considering not doing business with the city any more. If they were to make good on this threat, thousands of DC's most vulnerable citizens would suffer. That makes it rather selfish of Catholic charities to opt out of their city contracts. (As a quick aside, I must say that I told the person who first informed me of this situation with Catholic Charities that I feel obligated to remain a homeless advocate, in spite of me not getting paid for it, and that my reason is that I'd be letting a lot of people who look up to me down if I were to quit now.)

Let's also bear in mind that Catholic Charities receives city funding. This alone obligates them to lay aside any religious beliefs and to continue to deliver services -- secularly, as a non-profit and not as a church. My statement is not without precedent, that precedent having been set in the Central Union Mission (CUM) case. Central Union Mission sought to move to the historic and city-owned Gales School. With CUM being Christian-based, they were told that they could not acquire the Gales School unless they lifted the religious requirements. That is to say that they couldn't make anyone pray or attend chapel services as a requirement for residing at the shelter. Neither could they make or enforce any other religious policies such as not allowing people to smoke cigarettes. CUM is still bargaining with the city for the Gales School; but, they know full well that they must lighten up on the religious requirements in order for this deal to move forward. With Catholic charities receiving city funds, they can expect the same type of treatment.

The crux of the issue is whether Catholic Charities is more of a church or more of a business. (I can't help but think of a related ethnic joke.) Should they be exempt from honoring the gay rights law due to being a religious organization or be obligated to obey such a law due to them being a business and receiving city funding?????

While people ponder that question, I'd like to throw a possible solution out there. There has been conversation between homeless advocates and DC Government about the homeless community running the shelters. This too is not without precedent. The CCNV (Community for Creative Non-Violence) Shelter in downtown DC is run by homeless people. No one gets paid to work there. The shelter runs entirely on donations, with the building being owned by the city. The building was actually wrested from the Reagan administration by homeless people who were operating under the leadership of Mitch Snyder.

This conversation needs to be picked up and become a bit more serious. Furthermore, the city should actually pay the homeless to run the shelters. They should transfer the money that they would've given to Catholic Charities to the homeless who would run the shelters. The homeless would be willing to run the shelters with the reduced budget that Catholic Charities cried about in October. Furthermore, it would serve to empower the homeless -- to instill in them a can-do attitude. This alone would lead to a substantial decrease in homelessness. Just something to think about.

~#~

For more of Eric's thoughts on this, here's a link to his most recent post:  On the Clock with Eric Sheptock: Have a Heart For the Homeless -- Raising Awareness on a Social Justice Issue