Author: duranta

I wrote this after a recent visit to an homeless encampment in New Orleans. I’m a native Louisianian, struggling to grasp the issues here and present them to the rest of the world.

The rate of homelessness has tripled in New Orleans since Katrina, and the actual numbers are probably far higher than the 15,000 reported. Homeless homeowners are living under the overpass at Canal and Claiborne in New Orleans, along with a host of New Orleans natives, and people from out of town looking for work. Another encampment has sprung up at Claiborne and Tulane Ave., in the shadow of the not shuttered Charity Hospital.

BTW, a homeless, tent encampment has sprung up recently in Los Angeles, spoken about in this Daily Kos diary. I believe that America is on the verge of an explosion in homelessness, both here in New Orleans and across the country.

 
This issues are very intense in New Orleans right now, as everyone witnessed activists being tasered and pepper sprayed inside and outside of a City Council meeting, in which there was a unanimous vote to demolish most of public housing in New Orleans. I was an eyewitness to the event, and took a face full of pepper spray, and I wrote my personal account here.

Here is my recent article below, and I would appreciate feedback.

I met two people, a man and a woman, New Orleans natives, each of whom owned homes when the waters filled New Orleans East and the lower ninth ward.

Alex Clay, age 53, sitting in a comfortable chair next to his matress on the concrete, told me he was living in his mother’s home in the lower ninth ward when Katrina unleashed her water fury. His mother had died just one month prior to Katrina, and he was the only relative living in the home.

He survived the flood by sitting atop a neighbor’s roof with four other adults, and one dog. He was rescued by boat, dropped off at the St. Claude bridge, walked to Canal St., and there his story trailed off. He can’t remember where he was brought, what city or small town he lived in for over a year after Katrina.

He knows though that when he came back, he went to see his mother’s home in the lower ninth. The house was gone, demolished, “nothing but grass now where it stood”.

He’s been homeless since he returned to New Orleans about eight months ago. He’s been living under the overpass at the intersection of Canal and Claiborne.

No, he has not applied for Road Home help. Neither has Linda Adams (not her real name), a homeowner from New Orleans East when Katrina came crashing ashore. She has no insurance, she said, and about the Road Home, she said she “didn’t hear much about it.”

Linda asked for sanitary napkins. On my way to Walgreen’s to purchase some for her, I reflected on the trauma that many are still feeling, and have suffered since Katrina. Trauma so deep and dramatic that it takes you outside of the normal parameters of life, so that you don’t hear about programs that might assist you in recovery.

And while Louisiana Recovery Authority officials pat themselves on the backs for jobs well done, they have shut the Road Home program down, before those like Linda and Alex could muster their inner and outer resources sufficiently to be able to apply. Then again, if you don’t have a current address, could you have applied for the Road Home?

I can see Linda and Alex shuffling through the morass of paperwork for the Road Home, explaining to worker after worker, “I don’t have a current address, I am homeless.”

This particular encampment at Canal and Claiborne is “peaceful”, as one resident described it. Mostly older, middle-aged folks, and a few young people “that don’t give any trouble”. A mentally-ill resident of Iberville Housing Development, just steps away, is a regular visitor, and she was there today, threatening that her attorney would “shut the place down” and everybody “better get their shit packed and moved by Monday”.

I recognize her as someone I gave money to at the corner of Canal and Claiborne a few weeks after Katrina. No one in the encampment seemed bothered by her. Indeed, one man put his hand gently on her shoulder and mouthed comforting words “It’s alright sister, it’s alright.”.

Just blocks away is the now shuttered Lafitte Housing Development. 850 units shuttered and scheduled for demolition, while we have New Orleans natives, made homeless by Katrina, sleeping under a nearby overpass.

The sheer immensity of this situation, this human rights violation, can be viewed as a violation to us all, here in New Orleans. It makes one want to scream from rooftops, won’t someone hear our cry here in New Orleans? Won’t someone recognize the need for immediate action before we lose over 4000 units of affordable, public housing, units that the Alex Clays and the Linda Adams could potentially live in, at least temporarily, in units residents don’t return to?

Reopening public housing would also free up much needed rental units, and potentially drive down rents in the city.

Our own people are not hearing our cry. Local and state leaders have bought into the dictum of the “private market” rebuilding New Orleans. Let’s translate this: a few developers will make a lot of money in post Katrina New Orleans, whether from gobbling up homes and land abandoned because the homeowners couldn’t pay mortgages, or were just too traumatized to connect with the Road Home Program, like Alex and Linda, or whether from the redevelopment of public housing, and reducing the numbers of units for low income renters dramatically, and benefiting from federal tax credits in the process…this is how money will be made in Post-Katrina New Orleans.

Local political leaders are hedging their bets with the whims of homeowners who have been able to rebuild, and are voting policies that benefit a few at the expense of the many.

Raymond, a New Orleans native, returned to New Orleans over one and one-half years ago. He has been homeless since returning, living under the Claiborne/Canal overpass. He works constuction, but finding decent work has proved daunting. He might eat one meal a day, he says. “Some of the people here don’t even eat that”, he said.

Neither Alex, Linda or Raymond have been approached by Unity for the Homeless. “I’ve heard of them,” Alex said. Remember, Alex has been at this location for eight months; he’s heard of Unity, but has never been approached by one of their workers.

Let’s face it, there is not a rush to assist the homeless in New Orleans. That $1.5 million recently doled out to Unity for the Homeless is chump change compared to the issue at hand: pulling people off of the street, getting them into decent housing, and staying with them for the long term to keep them off of the street.

David Williams, not his real name, and a resident of this encampment, just had surgery. He pulled his shirt up to reveal a long row of stitches that are holding the scar together. He had a hole in his kidney; said he nearly died out here, under the overpass. He pointed to a tent. “The fellow that lives there, he kept me alive”, he said, “until the ambulance came”.

He said he has medications, and he’s feeling fine. University Hospital is treating him. What he doesn’t have is clean gauze and peroxide. David is a convicted felon, and a veteran. He has been homeless since the storm.

He gestured angrily at the empty buildings nearby. “What about this big empty building?” he said. David wants to work, and is hoping for a job with his nephew. He doesn’t want help from the government, and said he has too much pride to stay with family.

There are a host of people in the encampment from elsewhere, who came here looking for work after Katrina. There is a cabinet maker from New Hampshire, a construction worker from Monroe, Louisiana, a groundskeeper from California, and two young people in their twenties from New York.

Cheryl and Wes, not their real names, decided to pull up stakes from New York, and come down here for work. On their way here, their car burnt to the ground, along with all of their clothes and money. The Red Cross paid for their bus fare here, and they’ve been homeless since November 1st.

They were sleeping by the wharves on the river, but they began to hear about rapes occurring at the wharves, and so decided to join the encampment at Canal and Claiborne. They work cleaning the Superdome, which is just blocks away, as do several people that I spoke to in the encampment.

When I visited the homeless who were encamped at Duncan Plaza, several of those folks also said they worked at the Superdome, cleaning up after special events.

The irony of this situation fairly screams for attention. In the shadow of the Superdome, where people died waiting for help after Katrina, now sleep the homeless. They work in the Superdome, but there is no housing for them in New Orleans that is affordable.

The Superdome, by the way, was repaired and refurbished and back on line just one year after Katrina. I remember Governor Blanco mouthing platitudes, something to the effect, “This shows the will and determination of the people of Louisiana to rebuild”.

No governor, this shows something else. Terribly misplaced priorities, and a cold willingness to look the other way when it comes to the suffering of Louisianians, as they continue to struggle to recover.

There was a tornado warning on Thursday, December 20th, with a cool front marching down south. The tornado that touched down though, was the incredible spirit, will and determination of those fighting for public, and affordable housing in this city, and taking on the NOPD and New Orleans City Council in the process.

We were prepared, Thursday, to challenge what we already knew would go down: the vote in the affirmative by the New Orleans City Council to demolish over 4000 units of critical, public and affordable housing in New Orleans. Our intent was to keep the meeting from happening, to prevent the vote, by peaceful, but loud, raucous protest. There was no intent to commit violence. Many of us were quite willing to be arrested. One of the principles decided on by public housing residents in this struggle is that it will be a non-violent struggle.

There were not now, nor have there ever been, plans to commit violence by any of our people. However, when people are physically attacked by police, sometimes you fight back. You can call it instinct, survival, or foolhardy, call it what you will, but human nature being what it is, sometimes people fight back.  The first punch was thrown by the NOPD however, which you can observe by watching the above video.

I was one of those locked out that day. I brought my camera, fully intending to document even though locked out. We were behind and to the side of council chambers, locked out by virtue of a pair of handcuffs on the gate that encloses a covered driveway behind the chambers.

Police lined that covered driveway, and we knew there were significant numbers in the chambers. We received phone reports that our colleagues had prevented the meeting from beginning, by chanting and shouting and demanding that those locked out be allowed in.

Suddenly, from the outside, we saw at least 10 police officers rush into the building. We knew it was going down inside. We all began to scream and some of us shook the gate violently. We wanted in to help defend our sisters and brothers.

Several officers converged on the gate. We continued shouting to let us in, as we saw our friends and colleagues dragged out of the back of the chambers and into paddywagons in handcuffs. Some of our sisters and brothers shouted at us defiantly to “keep it up.”

Soon, someone shook the gate violently enough to break the handcuffs easily. Several pulled the gate open, but the police converged right there at the opening. Someone was immediately arrested. There were no punches thrown at officers, no objects were hurled to hurt officers or anyone else. But there was raucous shouting and determination to keep that gate open.

A woman I know, a skilled activist who has spinal injuries from abuse by the police, hobbled to the side of the gate and positioned herself between the police and the rest of us. Several others were attempting to hold the gate open.

That was when the pepper spraying began. I was at the front of the group with others, right up against the gate, and we got the first full face full of pepper spray.

Believe me folks, this is some nasty shit. I and others immediately turned and ran, by instinct, and begged people for water to pour over our faces. The pepper spray is a form of chemical torture: our faces turned red, mine began peeling almost immediately, and when the stuff leaked in our eyes, all we could do is stumble and blink.

The jostling continued at the front of the gate, with events happening quickly. My activist, disabled friend was yanked to the ground by the NOPD and tasered in three different places on her body. Unfortunately, one jolt landed on a vertebrae, and cracked it. She has a neck cast now, but is still determined, and functioning fairly well.

Another young woman who was trying to hold the gate open was tasered, and in the below video you can see her fall to the ground, then several people struggling to pick her up and move her while being doused with pepper spray.

This young woman went into convulsions and began to turn blue. I watched as luckily, an EMT who was in the crowd, turned her on her side and kept her mouth clear. She began to breath again. Some of us went up to the ambulance parked on the street in front of city hall, just steps away,  and pounded on the doors, but no one was inside. It took several minutes, way too long, for an ambulance to answer our distress call for this young woman.

Several people called Common Ground, and they responded within 30 to 45 minutes, bringing several gallons of milk to the sight. We all began to apply the milk to our faces. Milk is a natural antidote to pepper spray. The burning on our faces, hands and in our eyes began to taper off.

The Times Picayune reported the next day that we had been prepared for trouble, because we already had the milk ready to go.  This was completely false. We weren’t prepared for pepper spray or tasers, and it took, as I said, 30 to 45 minutes for milk to arrive.

Soon the mounted police arrived and they positioned themselves just behind the now locked gate. We all began tending the wounded, and ourselves, and some continued chanting and shouting through a bullhorn.

The local news media was on top of the story, and indeed, some of them were sprayed with pepper spray as well. WWL-TV has the best coverage and video, and were the only local station, to my knowledge, that reported the serious injuries sustained by the young woman who went into convulsions after being tasered.

At least two people inside city council chambers, we learned later, were tasered also. It should be noted as well, that there was an attempt to keep several African American public housing residents out of the meeting. They were allowed in only after others came to advocate for them, including Tracy Washington, one of the attorneys on the lawsuit to reopen public housing.

15 people were arrested that day. One of my colleagues was arrested and charged with a felony, inciting a riot.

I was arrested a couple days before, after reoccupying a building, peacefully, at the B.W. Cooper Housing Development. The charges against me and my colleagues from actions that day are serious, as they are attempting to stifle the grass roots movement, and in particular, the white activists who are supporting and protesting for the reopening of public housing in New Orleans. Below is a short documentary on our reoccupation that day.

Demolitions are ongoing at the B.W. Cooper Housing Development. While reoccupying the building, I noted the strength of the interior of those apartments. They are constructed like bomb bunkers, composed of concrete and brick, and do not need gutting to reopen. The belongings of the residents were still inside of the building, including clothes still on their hangers, personal papers and mail scattered about the vandalized and looted apartments.

I think the Los Angeles Times had an excellent, concise report of events inside of City Council Chambers that day:

The fate of the 4,500 public housing units has become a flash point as this city struggles to piece itself back together after Hurricane Katrina damaged more than 134,000 homes, many of them in poor, mostly black neighborhoods.

Tents line the Interstate 10 underpass and a homeless camp has settled outside City Hall.

Even before New Orleans’ seven City Council members took their seats for the public meeting, protesters were booing and pumping their fists.

“Why y’all standing behind the curtains?” a woman called out to council members who waited at the back of the council chambers for protesters to calm down. “This ain’t no stage show! Get out from behind those curtains and tell us why you want to demolish our homes.”

The hearing was, in many ways, political theater. Protesters, who complained that many residents had been locked out of the packed public meeting, fought with police almost immediately.

City Council members — some sipping water, others leafing through file folders — looked on impassively as a man was tasered, handcuffed and dragged from the council chambers.

Outside, dozens of locked-out people tried to force their way through iron gates and clashed with police, who used pepper spray and stun guns on them.

The Homeless Encampment across from City Hall in Duncan Plaza, btw, was dismantled the next day, in what is to be planned demolition of an adjacent building. Many of the homeless have moved under the I-10 overpass where a huge tent city is exploding.

I visited Duncan Plaza the next day, and noted that for some reason, workers had left up a Christmas tree that the homeless had set up and decorated on the gazebo in Duncan Plaza. There were a couple of abandoned tents, and we spoke to three homeless people who were wandering around; at least two were members of the Homeless Pride organization that formed around this encampment.

A very large flock of birds were circling, rapidly, City Hall and Duncan Plaza, now emptied of the homeless and activists defending housing. The large flock circled again and again, as though paying homage to the souls now displaced from the area. For a time, we had Duncan Plaza, we had City Hall, through sheer will and determination, we had her in spirit.

Demolition is scheduled to begin at the C.J. Pete Development within a few days. That is my update for now.
Further video footage of events that day, including close-up footage of people being tasered:

I told my friend this morning, I think the city is coming apart. An outbreak of robberies, some perhaps by teenagers, authorities believe; homeless population exploding; politicians looking the other way when corruption serves their purpose.

I’m reminded, I tell her, of the Bugs Bunny cartoon, where he is busy, furiously, digging underground, trying to tunnel his way to paradise, or a beach, or somewhere pleasant; I can’t remember exactly.

He pops his head up, in the middle of the North Pole, and says something to the effect, “I must have taken a wrong turn at Albuquerque”. It can feel like that sometimes. That one wrong turn and you wind up in a very cold environment.
The kind of cold environment, perhaps, where 17,000+ of our residents, citizens and neighbors are homeless. The kind of cold environment where politicians are willing to tear down viable public housing, for a “theory”, and a poor one at that, that clustering the working poor together creates poverty. The kind of cold environment where our elected “leaders” prattle on about ethics and reform in government, yet look the other way while the head of our federal agency, entrusted with creating housing for the working poor, is under criminal investigation for sweetheart deals that will demolish, viable, public housing for the working poor in New Orleans.

And if there were ever a corrupt concept, than that of destroying neighborhoods where poor people live, in order to combat poverty, particularly when there has been little effort, to date, to replace that housing before it is destroyed, well, you almost have to conclude that it is, truly, about learning to look the other way, to look away from the suffering of others.

Yes noises are being made, for example, for supportive housing vouchers, 3000 to be exact, according to City Councilwoman Stacy Head, that she has requested. We’ll take the 3000 vouchers, if and when it happens. But you, Ms. Head, and the city council, are advocating for the eventual destruction of 7000 units of public housing, while you are asking for 3000 vouchers for “permanent, supportive housing”. What better place to provide supportive housing, than in the housing developments, where you usually have the support structures as part of the developments?

Go figure.

Then we hear that Ms. Head is willing to have a few, supportive housing units in her district uptown. It’s going to take more than a few, Ms. Head, to address this issue.

Two New Orleans East political leaders, City Councilwoman Cynthia Willard Lewis and State Senator Ann Duplesis, are opposing the construction of multi-family housing in the east. They are supported by some home owner’s groups. If you look at the proposed rents for that 276 unit complex that they are opposing, it isn’t like we are providing housing for the lowest wage earners in the city. Rents would range between $700 and $1300 per month, with emphasis placed on those who can “pay on their own”.

Not wanting housing in the east because of the lack of resources there won’t solve the lack of resources there. Usually, resources follow people, if we adequately fund those resources and insist that they get up and running again, like our public health system. Having people back in our neighborhoods in the east will increase the voices and the pressure for adequate services out there.

Factor in the Federal Emergency Managment Agency’s (FEMA) decision, apparently backed by the city, to close all FEMA trailer group sites, and this is added wind pressure in this perfect storm. FEMA have been quietly closing the sites since August. This decision involves the closing of 2797 trailers, and over 5000 residents of the city. Many of the residents are questioning where they will end up.

The FEMA trailers were less than ideal, perhaps even dangerous in terms of the levels of formaldehyde found in them. But residents find themselves between a rock and a hard place: board with already stressed and over-crowded homes of relatives, or homelessness. There simply is not enough affordable housing to go around in New Orleans right now.

There is of course another alternative here: what about the federal government providing the necessary resources to rebuild our neighborhoods and infrastructure, like they should have done in the first place? What about creating a massive job works program, with living wages, funded by the federal government, to rebuild New Orleans ?and the Gulf Coast?

Why are our city leaders lobbying for inadequate resources, rather than the adequate resources needed to rebuild?

Why has ICF, the corporation entrusted with administering the state’s Road Home Program,  earned $16.7 million off of the Louisiana Recovery Authority’s Small Rental Property Program, when not a single, small rental unit has yet to be funded by that program? This is criminal. This is corruption.

But it serves the interest, at least so far, of agendas: that of reducing the numbers of affordable units for the working poor, in order to keep people from returning. What other conclusions can we draw, when we see politicans advocating for reduced numbers of units available to the working poor? Demolishing public housing, limiting the construction of multi-family housing in the east, the failure of our elected “leaders” in the rebuilding and rehabing of our rental units in the city, is all creating the perfect storm in New Orleans, a storm that is engulfing our social services and crippling our city.

We’re all waking up in that middle of that storm to a very cold, very windy landscape of our fellow residents sleeping in tents, with no bathroom facilities, huddling together in an encampment on the front doorstep of City Hall, where at least they feel safe from constant police harassment and the revolving door of Orleans Parish Prison.

We hear of our friends and neighbors getting sick from stress, some dying. This is ongoing. We have residents who have been fighting the good fight for public and affordable housing, even though they are under tremendous stress in what has become the daily fight for survival in New Orleans: rising Entergy rates, through the roof, rising food prices, inadequately funded public transportation, a fractured and chronically underfunded public school system in competition with charter schools.

And there are those who have simply given up, given up on their dream to return home. And isn’t that what the powers that be have wanted? For people to give up the fight to return home?

Demolishing the buildings of public housing won’t make our problems go away. It will exacerbate what may become the permanent shortage of affordable housing, and chronic, catastrophic numbers of homeless people.

Will the motto then be, “get used to it”?

(Crossposted on New Orleans Indymedia)

National Callout in defense of the Right to Housing in New Orleans.

In an essay with this chilling title, “The Next War”, Wes Clark provides instruction as to how to win the next war in Sunday’s Washington Post Outlook. I wish he and other dinasours would lumber away and take their war loving ways with them.
Clark reveals himself to be the bloodthirsty general that he is. Apparently, it doesn’t matter the country we are bombing, or why…just do it right.

One of the most important lessons from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — and Vietnam, for that matter — is that we need to safeguard our troops. The U.S. public is more likely to sour on a conflict when it sees the military losing blood, not treasure. So to keep up our staying power, our skill in hunting and killing our foes has to be matched by our care in concealing and protecting our troops. Three particularly obvious requirements are body armor, mine-resistant vehicles, and telescopic and night sights for every weapon. But these things are expensive for a military that has historically been enamored of big-ticket items such as fighter planes, ships and missiles. Many of us career officers understood these requirements after Vietnam, but we couldn’t shift the Pentagon’s priorities enough to save the lives of forces sent to Iraq years later.

But he wants well-educated generals leading the charge for the next war.

For years, Congress has whacked away at military-education budgets, thereby driving gifted officers from the top-flight graduate schools where they could have honed their analytical skills and cultural awareness.

How a commander in chief should use those well-educated generals?  Why, to win, of course.

At the same time, the United States’ top generals must understand that their duty is to win, not just to get along. They must have the insight and character to demand the resources necessary to succeed — and have the guts to either obtain what they need or to resign. If they get their way and still don’t emerge victorious, they must be replaced.

This armchair quaterback would have a revolving door of generals, if we’re not winning. Of couse, Clark doesn’t take the time to define “winning”. How does one “win” in Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, for that matter? What human cost in winning? How about 1 million in Iraq, and still no “victory” in sight:

According to the ORB poll, a survey of 1,461 adults suggested that the total number slain during more than four years of war was more than 1.2 million.

ORB said it drew its conclusion from responses to the question about those living under one roof: “How many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003?”

Based on Iraq’s estimated number of households — 4,050,597 — it said the 1.2 million figure was reasonable.

There was no way to verify the number, because the government does not provide a full count of civilian deaths. Neither does the U.S. military.

Make no mistake about it, Clark believes we must “win” any conflict we enter. So the overriding issue is not whether or not war serves the purpose of the human species on this planet. What is glaringly absent from this essay is the human costs of war.

And  make no mistake, Clark and his ilk intend to use our men and women for “nation building”:

In Iraq, President Bush approved war-fighting plans that hadn’t incorporated any of the vital 1990s lessons from Haiti, Bosnia or Kosovo; worse, then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld fought doing so. Nation-building, however ideologically repulsive some may find it, is a capability that a superpower sometimes needs.

What nation are we going to create, Wes, and where? How many more trillions will be spent on “nation building”, how much more blood spilled?

So after basically condoning a war against Iran, Clark at the very end, tries to sound reasonable:

How tragic it is to see old men who are unwilling to talk to potential adversaries but seem so ready to dispatch young people to fight and die.

So, steady as we go. We need to tweak our force structure, hone our leadership and learn everything we can about how to do everything better. But the big lesson is simply this: War is the last, last, last resort. It always brings tragedy and rarely brings glory. Take it from a general who won: The best war is the one that doesn’t have to be fought, and the best military is the one capable and versatile enough to deter the next war in the first place.

Clark sounds confused. We should talk to our adversaries, but war with Iran is basically a done deal. And the real mistake with Iraq is not that we entered the war, but how it has been fought. And you can heap Vietnam into that lesson as well.

If I was good with graphics, I would have painted Wes Clark on one side of his face with blood, uniform stained with it, and one side holding a daisy.

With schizophrenic retired generals like this, who needs Bush?

I made it clear in recent diaries that I would be challenging the sacred cows of the democratic party. Recently, a diary ran on Booman that reprinted in its entirety, what I would call a propaganda piece on Obama.

Although the diarist did not name the author, I will. That piece was written by Daniel Widome, appeared on SFGate.com, and, in my view, attempted to smooth over any lingering doubts about Obama’s foreign policy proposals.

For example, the column attempted to placate any fears over the saber rattling going on right now about al Qaeda in Pakistan. Several candidates have said they are willing to go into Pakistan with planes to bomb the hiding places of Bin Laden and al Qaeda.

The columnist attempted to cast Obama in a more enlightened light, because, while Obama has said he is willing to invade Pakistan with fighter planes to fight al Qaeda, he is not willing to use nuclear weapons in doing so.
I’ll distinguish between propaganda and true analysis in this way: Widome’s piece offered no analysis or even speculation as the possible ramifications of a fighter plane invasion of Pakistan, except this:

The area in which Osama bin Laden is suspected of hiding – in the rough terrain bordering Afghanistan – is a veritable no-man’s land, nominally part of Pakistan, but in reality beyond any state’s control. For more than a decade, U.S. policy has held that al Qaeda targets in such regions were fair game for attack. President Bill Clinton launched cruise missiles against al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, and President Bush used a missile-carrying drone to destroy a vehicle carrying an al Qaeda leader in Yemen in 2002. Obama’s position, then, was more sensible than revolutionary, as the subsequent concurrences of his fellow Democratic candidates only confirmed.

The above quote in bold is potentially reckless in its assumptions: that Pakistan would not feel its borders violated by U.S. fighter plane attacks, because it would be in an area in which there has been little government control. This might be the stated reaction or policy of the dictatorship of Pakistan, but what about the people of Pakistan? Also, Widome offered no evidence that any of those pre-emptive strikes by Clinton and Bush proved effective in diminishing the strength and recruiting capabilities of al Qaeda.  

Glen Ford with Black Agenda Report, in a piece titled “Barak Obama Ain’t Nothin’ but a War Ho”,  has a lot of concerns about the willingness to invade and bomb with fighter planes a sovreign nation, particularly one whose government the U.S. and others have propped up for a number of years, and whose people would like nothing more than an excuse to get rid of the U.S.- propped dictator.

Osama bin Ladin, it is universally agreed, lives in Waziristan, in western Pakistan. Speaking at the Woodrow Wilson Center, Sen. Obama launched what he considers a bold new foreign policy initiative: invade Waziristan. Obama was clearly attempting to place himself on the hawkish side of opponent Hillary Clinton, mouthing war-mongering language designed to position him as a warrior-statesman. “When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” Obama told the foreign policy establishment. The sovereignty of Pakistan will not be respected, under an Obama presidency. “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

If it weren’t enough to propose the invasion with fighter planes of a military dictatorship, propped up with the huge assistance of the U.S., according to Ford, Obama has actually proposed regime change in Pakistan.

“We must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair – our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan,” said Obama, “it is a democratic ally.” That is a call for regime change. Pakistan is a nation of 165 million people, created in 1947 out of the wreckage of British India, to become a Muslim State, with a Muslim atomic bomb. Obama has no idea how to impose a new regime, that would be more friendly to the United States. Instead, he proposes that western Pakistan be invaded in the search for bin Ladin – a move that would unite both the Right and the secular Left in opposition to the fragile military government.

Smell like Iraq all over again? Regime change so that democracy may bloom? It’s as if the last five years never happened, in Obama’s world, or, he simply isn’t capable of learning the hard lessons. Ford thinks Obama, probably like most of the candidates, are simply too insulated to get a grasp on things.

Obama is a confused man, driven by consultants and no common sense. The United States has coddled and put cash in the accounts of the Pakistani military for two generations, as a bulwark against socialist India, also a nuclear power. The Americans’ Saudi surrogates financially supported the religious schools in western Pakistan that gave birth to the Taliban, and took over Afghanistan. Obama now proposes that the U.S. fund an alternative school system in Pakistan – but under what regime? He has no idea, and not a clue about how to secure The Bomb.

Ford doesn’t mince words, and we would do well to consider his thoughts.

So what we have in Barack Obama is an alternative War Party, planning an alternative War. He has told us so, and we should believe him. He is no peace candidate, and goes out of his way to prove it. The problem is, Osama bin Ladin does not have The Bomb, but the Pakistani military does. Senator Obama would destabilize a regime that is a nuclear power, and has nothing to say except that he would establish schools to replace tens of thousands of maddrassas. What a fool.

I don’t claim to have all the answers folks, but we’d better look carefully at the stated thoughts of those who do claim to have the answers.

The Black Agenda Report also this issue has this excellent article, by Bruce Dixon, ‘”Terror War” Terrorizes Spineless Dems’:

With Congressional poll numbers nearly as low and the president’s the gap between Democratic office holders and Democratic voters has never been wider.  At the same time, corporate donations to Democratic candidates are higher than ever.  These are two sides of the same coin.  The Democratic establishment’s uncritical embrace of the so-called “global war on terror” is exposing for all to see the widening fissure between the two Democratic parties — the Democratic party of voters who are called out once every year or two, and the permanent Democratic party of consultants, pundits, lobbyists and wealthy campaign contributors.  It is this gap between the expectations of voting Democrats and the will of donors and leading Democrats that prompted Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate President Harry Reid to avoid last weekend’s Yearly Kos, where they would have faced pointed questions on impeachment, war and peace, or domestic policy from an ordinarily tame crowd of Democratic bloggers, consultants, campaign staffers and wannabees.  Pelosi and Reid know who their real base is.

 

My vote is for diplomacy, and de-emphasizing the military to solve any of our national or international problems. We might want to look at the small problem of economic justice, as a way to attack issues at their root cause.

While Daily Kos conferenced with the candidates, our democracy took a huge step that much closer to totalitarianism.

I pose this question to the netroots: just how influential are we when our democracy can be pulled out from under our feet, at the same time that a huge group of progressive bloggers are holding a celebrated (in some quarters) conference replete with presidential candidates?

Just who is being played here?

And now Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, with revealing symbolism, cancel their scheduled appearances this morning at Yearly Kos because George Bush ordered them to remain in Washington in order to re-write and expand FISA — a law which he has repeatedly refused to allow to be revised for years and which he has openly and proudly violated. Congressional Democrats know virtually nothing about how the Bush administration has been eavesdropping on our conversations because the administration refused to tell them and they passively accepted this state of affairs.

There was a massive collision between illusion and reality yesterday. Certain illusions have been dispelled. For example, yesterday’s vote in the house all but takes impeachment off the table. One wonders if it was ever really on the table.

A Congress that votes sweeping new powers to the executive branch to spy on Americans will not vote to impeach that same president.

We’re all reeling from this. Go here to see who failed us, and test of democracy, in Congress.

If there was an illusion that Congress would save us from Bush and the march of totalitarianism, here is one who is hoping that this illusion is dispelled. We’ve seen it time and again: it is the citizens themselves who must meet this fascist march head-on, and take it on, face to face.

Get ready to take it to the streets. I leave you with Woody Guthrie’s timeless lyrics:

All You Fascists

I’m gonna tell you fascists
You may be surprised
The people in this world
Are getting organized
You’re bound to lose
You fascists bound to lose

Race hatred cannot stop us
This one thing we know
Your poll tax and Jim Crow
And greed has got to go
You’re bound to lose
You fascists bound to lose…

People of every color
Marching side to side
Marching `cross these fields
Where a million fascists dies
You’re bound to lose
You fascists bound to lose!

You can call this diary what you will. I’ve had it. Been there, believed that.

It’s also a diary rescue of fairleft’s diary, “Hillary, I’ll still occupy Iraq in 2017”.

There was a time when I largely accepted our Democratic party leaders without critically examining their views. That time is gone.

When I forwarded fairleft’s diary link to a friend of mine, rather than critically examining the links and information provided, he accused me of “trying to undermine the Democratic party’s strongest leaders”, who, he said, “are our best hope for a return to constitutional democracy and the rule of law”.

I beg to disagree. We the people are our best hope for a return to constitutional democracy and the rule of law, not, as he would push, party loyalty. Pressures to impeach are largely coming from below, from we the people.

Further, our failure to critically examine the democratic candidates on foreign policy, including the Iraq war, will further endanger this fragile democracy, in my view
The truth of the matter is, Hillary is becoming the darling of certain right media pundits, because she speaks their language.

Fairleft linked to this Ted Koppel report on NPR, not exactly a bastion of the farleft (Koppel or NPR). In his report, he states that Hillary, behind the scenes and to a “senior military advisor”, says that we will have troops in Iraq through the next two terms of presidental office (maybe her’s).

Now here is what her website says:

Hillary opposes permanent bases in Iraq. She believes we may need a vastly reduced residual force to train Iraqi troops, provide logistical support, and conduct counterterrorism operations. But that is not a permanent force, and she has been clear that she does not plan a permanent occupation.

And in in this interview with the New York Times, Hillary says:

I think we have remaining vital national security interests in Iraq, and I’ve spoken about that on many different occasions.

I think it really does matter whether you have a failed province or a region that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda. It is right in the heart of the oil region. It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.

So I think we have a remaining military as well as political mission, trying to contain the extremists.

I think we have a vital national security interest and obligation to try to help the Kurds manage their various problems in the north so that one of our allies, Turkey, is not inflamed, and they are able to continue with their autonomy. I think we have a vital national security interest — if the Iraqis ever get their act together — to continue to provide logistical support, air support, training support. I don’t know that that is going to be feasible, but I would certainly entertain it. And I think we have a continuing vital national security interest in trying to prevent Iran from crossing the border and having too much influence inside of Iraq.

I think it is these two quotes from above that stand out for me:

I think we have remaining vital national security interests in Iraq, and I’ve spoken about that on many different occasions.

I think it really does matter whether you have a failed province or a region that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda. It is right in the heart of the oil region. It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests…
…So I think we have a remaining military as well as political mission, trying to contain the extremists.

So there you have it folks. Hillary believes we have remaining “vital national security interests in Iraq”, which she has apparently spoken about before, although maybe we aren’t listening.

She doesn’t exactly identify those “vital national security interests”, although strong clues in the next sentence, when she mentions Iraq is “in the heart of the oil region”, in “opposition to our interests” (again, what are our “interests”), in opposition to “Israel’s interests”.

As citizens of a democracy, it is our duty to question whatever comes out of the mouths of those who would be elected to office and lead us. Anything short of this is blind adherence to dogma, and a kind of complacency and complicity that has nothing whatsover to do with democracy.

Fairleft also linked to the very excellent article by Ira Chernus on Antiwar.com, in which Chernus looks at the statements by Hillary, Obama and Edwards on foreign policy.

Their statements give me cause for concern, and I hope they do you as well, for as Chernus points out, now is the time to examine a failed foreign policy strategy that is behind a failed war:

The other debate about Iraq – the one that may matter more in the long run – is the one going on in the private chambers of the policymakers about what messages they should send, not so much to enemies as to allies. Bush, Cheney, and their supporters say the most important message is a reassuring one: “When the U.S. starts a fight, it stays in until it wins. You can count on us.” For key Democrats, including congressional leaders and major candidates for the imperial presidency, the primary message is a warning: “U.S. support for friendly governments and factions is not an open-ended blank check. If you are not producing, we’ll find someone else who can.”

The two sides are hashing this one out in a sometimes strident, sometimes relatively chummy manner. The outcome will undoubtedly make a real difference, especially to the people of Iraq, but it’s still only a dispute about tactics, never about goals, which have been agreed upon in advance.

Yet it’s those long-range goals of the bipartisan consensus that add up to the seven-decade-old drive for imperial hegemony, which got us into Vietnam, Iraq, and wherever we fight the next large, disastrous war. It’s those goals that should be addressed. Someone has to question that drive. And what better moment to do it than now, in the midst of another failed war? Unfortunately, the leading Democratic candidates aren’t about to take up the task. I guess it must be up to us.

It must be up to us to examine the prevailing foreign policy of both parties, critically, to change the course of our future.

Otherwise, war without end, interference in the governments of other countries without end, is our future. Unless, of course, if you agree with that sort of thing.

I for one believe we have to put our money, our resources, our time into solving our problems here at home. I live in New Orleans, so I can tell you, we haven’t begun here at home to ending the crisis in an eroding standard of living for our own citizens, nowhere more evident than in our failure to rebuild public services in New Orleans, where people are suffering and dying for the lack thereof.

As Chernus points out, Hillary, Obama and Edwards support increasing the strength of the military, and they make no bones about why.

As Edwards says in this speech entitled “A Strong Military for a New Century”,

A second mission is to ensure that the problems of weak and failing states do not create dangers for the United States. We face substantial security threats from states that fall apart. These situations are not only dangerous for these countries’ civilian populations; they create regional instability and can strengthen terrorist groups that, in turn, directly threaten the United States.

A third mission is maintaining our strategic advantage against major competitor states that could do us harm and otherwise threaten our interests.

I for one do not believe that it is in our interests to prop up failing states, particularly when it has often been our very actions that have led to “failing states”, whether through military intervention, WTO policies, or the secret undermining of regimes.

And is it really in our “interests” to use the military to “maintain our strategic advantage against major competitor states that could do us harm and otherwise threaten our interests”?

Again, just how are our “interests” defined?

We the people determine our fate. And if we continue to fail to critically examine the views of our leaders who would be presidents, then we have no one but ourselves to blame if this great democratic experiment fails.

I found this article by Heather Wokusch, 10 Warning Signs for Today, and number one on the list is, of course, the recent executive order signed by Bush.

The order is entitled “Blocking Property of Certain Persons who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq”. I found this interesting article about the power of executive orders, and how, over the years, executive orders have been used to greatly increase the power of the executive branch, and diminsh the legislative branch of our government, Congress.

I am writing today about more than just that nasty executive order. I think Ms. Wokush’s article is a valuable springboard to examine current trends that bear discussion, before we find ourselves in yet another war, or wars.
With Bush rattling his saber at Iran and the Pakistani autonomous tribal region, as Brenda Stewart has pointed out, this is a good time to take note as to how certain trends strengthen and bolster other undesirable trends.

For example, Number 9 on Ms. Wokusch’s list Rupurt Murdoch, would be number 2 in my book, behind that executive order, because a dictator, I mean president, can’t wage unpopular wars without media backing. Murdoch has set his sites on the Dow Jones Industrial, which publishes the Wall Street Journal. Remember that Murdoch’s 175 publications all bolstered the bogus arguments for war with Iraq.

Murdoch and Tony Blair spoke three times by phone just days before the start of the Iraq war, according to a freedom of information request by Liberal Democrat Lord Avebury.

Lord Avebury said: “Rupert Murdoch has exerted his influence behind the scenes on a range of policies on which he is known to have strong views, including the regulation of broadcasting and the Iraq war. The public can now scrutinise the timing of his contacts with the former prime minister, to see whether they can be linked to events in the outside world.”

 Why is he getting away with aquiring yet more power, in face of this disastrous war that he helped to bring about? Where is democratic party opposition to Murdoch and his publishing empire?

Murdoch is, undoubtably, part of the reason the neocons feel that they will find a way to keep, and return to power. With virtually no democratic opposition to Murdoch’s empire building, the neocons have reason for optimism.

I’ll touch on two more from Ms. Wokush’s list, then I’m hoping to hear your thoughts on current trends, connections, etc.

A coming economic meltdown is second on Ms. Wokush’s list:

2. Market meltdown

Economic fallout from the subprime mortgage market collapse has extended further, with prominent investment company Bear Stearns admitting last week that two of its hedge funds, once estimated at $1.6 billion, are now of “very little value.”

Meanwhile, the prestigious Bank for International Settlements released a statement warning that the global economy could be facing a Great Depression, and that the dollar in particular “remains vulnerable to a sudden loss of private sector confidence.”

Fasten your seatbelts.

Remember Enron, and when it was all over the news, as was corporate malfeasance and greed? We, Americans, were taking a hard look at our corporate body when the saber rattling began for war with first Afghanistan, then Iraq.

War has been used to deflect public concern from genuine issues, and it will be used again. War without end will keep the public focused away from economic policies that have our world economy on the verge of collapse.

Then there is the question of a couple of democrats. Number 10 on Ms. Wokush’s list is the issue of Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama signing onto to warhawk Joseph Leiberman’s amedment blaming Iran in the complicity of the death of American soldiers. In fact, not one U.S. Senator voted against that amendment.

Now that’s the pot calling the kettle black. We know that the number one “complicitor” in the death of American soldiers is President George Bush. A close second are all those who are complicit with his policies.

‘Nuff said. I want to hear your thoughts.

 

I found this article today, and felt it should be viewed by everyone interested in the integrity of our candidates for the presidency. For your review:

Away from the bright lights and high-minded rhetoric of the campaign trail, Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has quietly worked with corporate lobbyists to help pass breaks worth $12 million.

In his speeches, Obama has lambasted lobbyists and moneyed interests who “have turned our government into a game only they can afford to play.”  

“It’s an entire culture in Washington — some of it legal, some of it not,” the Democratic hopeful told a New York crowd in June, rallying support for his ethics reform agenda.

But last year, at the request of a hired representative for an Australian-owned chemical corporation Nufarm, Obama introduced nine separate bills exempting the company from import fees on a range of chemical ingredients it uses in the manufacture of pesticides and herbicides. Nufarm’s U.S. subsidiary is based in Illinois.

Nufarm wasn’t the only beneficiary of Obama’s efforts to reduce customs fees and duties. In early May of 2006, two Washington lobbyists registered to work on behalf of Astellas Pharma, a Japanese-owned drug company which also has offices in Illinois.

I wish I could say the article surprises me, but it doesn’t. Does the tendency to preach about certain issues reflect concealed actions, much like Vitter’s problems right now?

To make matters worse, the chemicals involved are dangerous:

Economics aside, some medical researchers also harbor concerns over 2,4 D. Studies have purported to find a link between high exposure to the chemical and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a type of cancer. Defenders of the chemical say it is safe, and note that even scientists who believe a link exists cannot explain how the chemical may cause the cancer.

Finally, Justin Hood of ABC News, and author of the article, quotes Obama:

“We need a president who sees government not as a tool to enrich well-connected friends and high-priced lobbyists, but as the defender of fairness and opportunity for every American,” the candidate said in his June speech. “That’s the kind of president I intend to be.”

Couldn’t agree more.

I have to admit I have a soft spot for Cindy Sheehan. She came to New Orleans just months after Katrina, and spoke at our rally for the St. Bernard Housing Developement in New Orleans, on February 14th, 2006.

The development was home to over 1000 African American working class families prior to Katrina. It is still locked down with a chain link fence around it. The fight over public housing rages on in New Orleans.

Sheehan expertly drew the connection between the war, war spending, and the failure of our government to adequately address the needs of Katrina survivors, both immediately after the storm, and in the “recovery” since.

Sheehan returned to New Orleans two days ago and spoke at Duncan Plaza across from City Hall, where we have been meeting with and helping to feed several dozen homeless people. You see, the homeless population in New Orleans is at catastrophic levels since Katrina.

Sheehan spoke about the homeless veterans she has known, and noted not only that the homeless rate among veterans is higher than other populations, but that so is the suicide rate.

Why am I bringing this up? Because here we have a woman who has travelled the country, putting herself at risk of arrest, advocating for a speedy end to the war, and it is distressing to see what went down on Daily Kos yesterday.
I pose this question to the supporters of Daily Kos: what is more important, the defense of our Constitution, or the defense of the democratic party?

It is my view that continued aquiescence to the democratic party, despite the positions and actions of democratic party congressional members, is harming our fragile democracy and the constitution that they have sworn to uphold.

In case you haven’t been reading the news lately, the neocons are at it again in terms of building for war, and the hapless democratic party is so far, standing by and allowing this to happen, fearful of looking soft on terrorism. Iraq yesterday and today, Iran tomorrow, war without end. Nothing else will satisfy the greedy profiteers of war, among whose numbers include at least one congressional member of the democratic party.

In the November 2006 election, the voters demanded congressional ethics reform. And so, the newly appointed chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is now duly in charge of regulating the ethical behavior of her colleagues. But for many years, Feinstein has been beset by her own ethical conflict of interest, say congressional ethics experts.

As chairperson and ranking member of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee (MILCON) from 2001 through the end of 2005, Feinstein supervised the appropriation of billions of dollars a year for specific military construction projects. Two defense contractors whose interests were largely controlled by her husband, financier Richard C. Blum, benefited from decisions made by Feinstein as leader of this powerful subcommittee.

Each year, MILCON’s members decide which military construction projects will be funded from a roster proposed by the Department of Defense. Contracts to build these specific projects are subsequently awarded to such major defense contractors as Halliburton, Fluor, Parsons, Louis Berger, URS Corporation and Perini Corporation. From 1997 through the end of 2005, with Feinstein’s knowledge, Blum was a majority owner of both URS Corp. and Perini Corp.

Feinstein recently resigned from that subcommittee, but not until her husband earned millions from defense contracts doles out by that subcommittee during her tenure.

Vitter should resign because he likes sex in a diaper, but Feinstein profits from the very war she has voted for, and barely a peep from democratic party members.

There will be more defections from the party. You can count on that.

And multi-non-union-labor-using-millionaire Nancy Pelosi is no sacred cow either:

“The greatest threat to Israel’s right to exist, with the prospect of devastating violence, now comes from Iran. For too long, leaders of both political parties in the United States have not done nearly enough to confront the Russians and the Chinese, who have supplied Iran as it has plowed ahead with its nuclear and missile technology.

“Proliferation represents a clear threat to Israel and to America. It must be confronted by an international coalition against proliferation, with a commitment and a coalition every bit as strong as our commitment to the war against terror.

Above quote perhaps part of the reason that impeachment of Bush is off the table? Or perhaps this might shed some light:

Then Nancy Pelosi, chose Silvestre Reyes as House Intelligence Committee chairman. Reyes promptly told Newsweek, “We’re not going to have stability in Iraq until we eliminate those militias, those private armies. We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize IraqI would say 20,000 to 30,000-for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military.”

Reyes comes to his important post with an open mind, meaning an empty one. He knows nothing of the region. This became clear in his brief parley with a reporter from Congressional Quarterly who had the impudence to ply him with questions at the end of a tiring day when men of mature judgment head for the bar. CQ’s man asked Reyes if Al Qaeda was Sunni or Shiite.

Reyes tossed a mental coin. “Predominantly-probably Shiite.” Wrong, of course, since Al Qaeda is Sunni, of a notoriously intolerant strain. It’s as if Reyes had called the Pope a Presbyterian.

Then the pesky newshound probed him on the matter of Hezbollah. “Hizbollah. Uh, Hizbollah” Reyes answered irritably. “Why do you ask me these questions at 5 o’clock?”

How many degrees of seperation exist between Nancy Pelosi and George Bush? Is it any wonder impeachment is “off the table?”

And what about Harry, Harry Reid that is? What degree of seperation there?

From the same Counterpunch article:

Then, on December 17 the Democrats’ Senate leader, Harry Reid, said it was okay with him to send more troops to Iraq. This was the same Sunday morning that Colin Powell, appearing on CBS, said a troop increase “cannot be sustained” and that the thousands of additional U.S. soldiers sent into Baghdad since the summer had been unable to stabilize the city and more probably could not tip the balance, Powell said.

Yesterday, it was instructive to go to the Democratic websites in the wake of Reid’s statement. Nothing on Daily Kos, nothing on Truthout, nothing on any of them. They had many words about Republican warmongering, about McCain’s call for more troops. About Reid, one of the top Democratic leaders, about the evolving Democratic posture–nothing.

That is the point that Cindy Sheehan has the courage to bring up. Her defection from the democratic party highlights the failure of that party to adequately address the threats to our constitution, and therefore, to our democracy. And make no mistake about it, our democracy is at risk as never before.

War without end, whether it be the war on terror, war with Iraq, Iran, is the greatest threat to democracy, and to our Constitution. As the drumbeats for war against Iran escalate, let me remind you that the Constitution calls for impeachment when high crimes are committed by those in office. Lying about the reasons to go to war is a high crime.

The defense of the Constitution, is the defense of our endangered democracy. Impeachment is the only answer to the high crimes of this administration. And complicity by the democratic party is no excuse to avoid impeachment.

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.