I agree heartily with everything in Mr. Pina's article posted on your site, but am desperate for the last piece of the puzzle: what does the U.S gain by removing Aristide?  What's the real goal?  Who benefits?  Why?  How?  

Having fallen for the media-based condemnation of Haiti and Aristide and being chastised for it by Rudy Lewis of Chickenbones, I decided to do some research on the matter.  In doing so I found your series of articles by Kevin Pina last year on the media-based collusion between the US Administration and reactionary Haitian forces in their efforts to delegitimize Aristide's government.  These articles now seem prescient in their forecast of events now coming to a head in Haiti and once again I am impressed with how well you do what you do.  May you continue to play your invaluable role at this critical juncture in our struggle and destiny.  Keep the faith.

Wonderful stuff!  I heard Pina talk in Los Angeles summer/fall of last year but his words to that gathering were far more muted.  Sadly, I was one of the few folk in the audience who knew enough to ask the right questions after the talk.  I almost signed up for Pina's Global Exchange Tour of Haiti scheduled for the last week of February to celebrate 200 years of freedom, but hesitated for the right reasons.

As always, you guys deliver.  I was at a loss at finding articles that fully explain what is going on in Haiti today.  As always, you guys deliver.  Thank you for your excellence in providing top notch analysis and perspectives that can give us readers a better understanding of what is going on.  Your newest issue (Issue 78) with the in-depth article by Stan Goff, "Beloved Haiti: A (Counter) Revolutionary Bicentennial," hits the nail on the head.  I am forwarding it on to all my colleagues who are working for peace and in education.  

The Newspaper of Record urged the Bush regime to "take constructive action" and "not just drop hints that Mr. Aristide should resign." It's hard to single out just one snakelike sequence of sentences in this loathsome swamp, but probably the most poisonous – and the most characteristic of the Times' style – is the double-attack on Aristide disguised as an effort at "even-handedness." Here it is:

"Jean-Bertrand Aristide helped bring this crisis on himself, with his encouragement of mob violence, politicization of the national police and failure to ensure fair legislative elections. Yet many of the insurrectionists are former Aristide allies with even weaker democratic credentials."

So in other words, the only bad thing about the counterrevolutionaries is that some of them are former supporters of Aristide. A more realistic assessment of the nature of the "opposition" is not in evidence here: for example, that they are really just a bunch of bloody-minded macoutes who deserve to have their heads chopped off with machetes, a fate they have avoided only because of the remarkable restraint thus far shown by the popular masses who overwhelmingly support Aristide.

And how about this paragraph?

"Nearly a decade ago, the Clinton administration's dispatch of American troops helped persuade a murderous Haitian military junta to step down, paving the way for Mr. Aristide to complete his first presidential term, which had been interrupted by a coup. Unfortunately, Washington's involvement wound down before the kinds of steps that would have deepened the roots of Haitian democracy – like creating a professional police force and independent electoral institutions – were completed. That kind of unglamorous institution-building would most likely have prevented the current insurrection and much of the political crisis that preceded it."

It's a failure, then, of the US in not pursuing "unglamorous institution-building," something for which the Haitians are just not ready on their own apparently. Not a mention of the (glamorous?) institution-building that the US has done plenty of in Haiti – namely, the cultivation of the Duvaliers and the macoutes over several decades, the setting-up and financing of FRAPH by the CIA, and currently the International Republican Institute's financing of the so-called "Democratic Convergence" with money supplied by the National Endowment for Democracy.

In the real world, Haitians' determination that they are quite capable of building their own institutions – though glamour, like most things in Haiti, is in short supply – is tempered by their understanding that they first have to be rid of the more glamorous institutions long imposed from Washington with the enthusiastic connivance of the pampered brats who now fancy themselves the "opposition." We can trust that what the vast majority of Haitians can see for themselves will be missed by the New York Times, a paper that caught plenty of hell over Jayson Blair's imaginative scribblings even as it gleefully reported the far more pernicious fairy tale that Hugo Chavez had resigned as president of Venezuela. Their line throughout will be that the US should "mediate" between the popularly-elected government it has been trying to oust on the one hand and the thuggish "opposition" it created and cultivated in the first place.

Thanks be to the Black Commentator for cutting through the bullshit!

The truth is, Wal-Mart does want to take over the world – but so do the managements of its strike-provoking competitors, who swallowed schools of smaller fish to control 70 percent of grocery sales in the top 100 markets. Certainly, Wal-Mart is closing fast, with $53 billion in grocery sales and 1400 “supercenters” in 42 states, but the “real problem” is much deeper than the folks at Forbes can safely grasp without losing their capitalist minds. In the world they have created for themselves in which corporate death is avoided only through constant increases in dividends, and having eaten nearly all of the smaller prey, the mega-grocers have no one to feed on but themselves – or their employees. They began chewing on the workers in the first week of October – all the while blaming it on Wal-Mart.

I thought your recent column on the southern California supermarket strike was very good.  Your analysis of the relationship between the "threat" of Wal-Mart and the rest of the grocery industry rings true.  So does your view of the "solidarity" shown by the three companies.  It might interest you to know what some of my research on the industry has shown.  There is, I think, a larger layer here and that is the role of Wall Street.  Did you know, for example, that Safeway was founded by the investment bank, Merrill Lynch, in the late 1920s as part of their effort back then to consolidate smaller stores?  In fact it was Merrill's founder, Charles Merrill, who led the effort and his son-in-law, Robert Magowan took over the company in 1955.  In the early 70s Magowan's son Peter took over the company.  In turn he led the management buyout that was engineered by leveraged buyout firm KKR in the 80s.  After a dramatic restructuring that included thousands of layoffs they took the company public again making tens of millions for their shareholders – and millions in fees for KKR and other investment firms.  In fact, KKR at one point owned a significant part of the American grocery industry, including Stop & Shop and Bruno's.  Bruno's went belly up. 

In each of these efforts the grocery stores take on massive debt as you suggest and engage in frequent transactions as they try to stay ahead of the debt.  Wall Street, in other words, is "milking" the grocery industry for as much as it can get and the interests of customers and workers are secondary.  This has long been a standard technique of Wall Street.  It was part of what led to the break up of the banking and utility industries in the 1930s and 40s as part of the New Deal's effort to "save" capitalism.

Keep up the good work.

Your story was very helpful for me today. I work for the organization in Los Angeles that is leading the fight to keep Wal-Mart out of Inglewood California. We also work very close with the UFCW and in a matter of two hours many of us will be getting arrested for civil disobedience in support of the striking workers. Something about your article really touched me today.  Thank you.

Now that we're on the same page, you understand that Condi Rice “don't really have no power.” You know damn well that she was appointed "national security advisor" to Bush because of her ability to work as a mentor with “special” students. Dr. Rice simply does Mr. Bush's heavy reading. Don't believe it? How come Condi is not plugged into the national security apparatus? If she really was then she should take the fall for 911, because she failed to bring to the President’s attention the immediate threat of terrorism.  The National Security Advisor compiles the reports of the CIA, FBI, and all other intelligence agencies and then briefs the president. The National Security Advisor uses these reports to prioritize the national security agenda. So 911 falls squarely on Ms. Rice in failing the President and the people of the United States. Of course, the “Politics of Personal Power” allows the President to lend her some of his personal power and fill the position "according to his needs."

An insightful article by your guest commentator, Lloyd Cata.  I loved how he drew the dichotomy between how the earlier generations were reared with the global sense of community, respect for one's elders, and the importance of being known by your personal conviction as opposed to who you associate with.  I also appreciated his articulation of how we tend to give away our personal power through associations with individuals who may lack credibility, dignity and honor.

We really should pay special attention to how one's association can damage their credibility as Black Leaders.  Once upon a time, if Colin Powell had run for President, I would have crossed party lines and voted for him because he appeared to represent honor, truth, integrity and intelligence, most highlighted by his military background.  Today, as a result of his association with the Bush gang (“administration” is a word used for democratic operations), his credibility is shot to the curb, he has been stripped of his honor and dignity, and one can see that he's aware of his reduction in status, as evidenced by his going off on a Hill staffer who was shaking his head during Mr. Powell's testimony as if to say "I know this chump is lying..."

In the end, Mr. Cato reminds us that it's not about who you hang with; it's about what you did to make a valuable contribution to society, and how well you represented yourself through your convictions, beliefs and values.

“It is painfully obvious to everyone that I do not have the skills to be President of the United States. I reached this point because of family connections and sweetheart deals. Only the most qualified people in our society should have the opportunity to reach the position that I have. Henceforth, my administration will now declare that affirmative action is in fact constitutional and also a benefit to America. If affirmative action is guaranteed we will never again risk the presence of a low achieving, disengaged, inarticulate man in the White House. America can and must do better. Thank you and good night.”

I loved your piece on Dubya and affirmative action. I sent it to several websites and will use the essay in a class that I teach. (I'm an English prof. in CUNY). Your past essays are also terrific, especially the ones attacking the religious right.

I recently became a big fan of yours in reading your articles on Black Commentator and Freedom Rider. Your style shows that you are not a woman to be cowed and I admire your straight-forwardness. Believe it or not, you have inspired me by opening up a consciousness  that  unbeknownst has been under the surface. I read your latest article, “Trust No One." It was completely on and deeply insightful on the pulse of what really is going down in America. After reading that particular article, I had to do a Margaret Kimberley search to find more and came upon the article on, 'The truth about Tulia'. Just keep it coming.

Basically, I want to say thank you for sharing your talent and watch out because they definitely are keeping an eye on a truth-speaker such as you.

The main voucher outfit in New Jersey is E-3, Excellence in Education for Everybody. The Wal-Mart family-funded organization recently sent “surveys” to 191 school superintendents, demanding “the master collective bargaining agreement for your teaching personnel, and any and all public records that affect their terms and conditions of employment.” Further, “the term ‘records’ is construed as broadly as possible under the statutory definition of the New Jersey Open Public Records Act.”

To broaden the appeal to the suburban political majority, E-3 and its rich masters now offer vouchers as a safety valve to contain minorities in the inner cities, and as a means to avoid higher taxes to pay for equalization of public education opportunities. They are about to play their race cards, big-time.

Great article! You guys are 20 years ahead of present day political mentality on this voucher issue. Keep up the great work! 

Voucher Carpetbaggers Blaze the Marketplace Trails

”With states jumping through the 2001 No Child Left Behind high-stakes testing hoops faster than you can whistle Dixie, it was a no-brainer for voucher carpetbaggers there would soon be easy pickings. Knowing public schools and districts couldn’t meet all the federal education law’s hideous accountability rules, resulting in harsh sanctions, this helped facilitate the voucher marketplace agenda.”

To read the entire article, click here.

I'm a regular reader and you frequently discuss vouchers. One point that you don't seem to make is that there's no evidence that vouchers benefit the students who get vouchers.

The new argument for vouchers is that the competition will force public schools to improve – that those who don't get the vouchers will be helped:  

I am not surprised at the blatant and glaring futuristic racism that is going on today, from Ward Connerly's need to send us back to the 40's and 50's via his neoconservative viewpoint on African American issues (can we say the new form of Uncle Tom?) to Bush’s need to hide his (and his administration's) glaring hatred of all things dealing with people of color. And, to add to the mix, here comes the school voucher issue, which is supposedly designed to "help students in inner city find better schools" – which, in the opinion of this writer, is nothing more than a total crock of fetal matter.

We as a people need not only to start getting together on this problem, but also to start talking between ourselves, and with everyone of color who has a child in school to stem the threat that this "no child left behind" represents. We need to understand that the present Administration does not have the child's best interests in mind.

Something has to be done; otherwise, our public education system will be disbanded, and those who can afford to go to school (read: whites and those of color who are considered the "good ones") will be the only ones educated – not the poor, middle class nor those of color in the inner cities.

I shudder to think of a future for children of color under this "no child left behind" crap. There are only two options that I can see: either stand up, support the public schools, and FIGHT for our children's future, or, consign them to a government policy which would much rather they be in jail (read: concentration camp) than guarantee their educational future.

Thank you, thank you, it is about time that someone wrote about this new process to divide and conqueror and cause hardships among black and Latino parents and their children. The system (education) does not want to spend funds to upgrade inner city schools, so they have created a diversionary scheme, of getting a few black and Latino children into mostly urban white schools. Yes we all want the best education possible for our children but it is going to take more than just a few millions to get the city schools up to par.  People can make the difference if they work together, but this is where the difficulty comes in, because their neighborhoods are segregated into enclaves of color.

We are now back to segregated schools throughout the country, the same as it was in 1969. Believe it because it is so. However the fight against this travesty of difference in education dollars and commitments still are battles for those who want their children to get a first class education.

Just when will the few progressive black media outlets stop allowing the racist white community to select black leaders for black folks? These long in the tooth jackleg preachers have long been an embarrassment to thinking black folks. Jesse with his love child and Al with his shilling for bigots in the GOP should go away and stop impeding the struggle.

correctly identifies many of the flaws of Sharpton and his candidacy. However, most of these flaws are applicable to most Black "leaders" and politicians in the country.  They are all  "company" men and women controlled directly or indirectly by the Democratic Party. In the end, Sharpton is going to give a glowing endorsement to whoever the Democratic nominee is, and he will be rewarded with large sums of "voter registration funds." Other black "leaders" and politicians will follow suit. To his credit, Sharpton has criticized the Democratic party for many of its racists views and policies like no other candidate in recent memory. Sadly, Sharpton and most Black leaders and politicians are used by the Democratic party to keep the black "herd" within the party without representing their interests.

I knew the article about Sharpton was coming and enjoyed reading it. I held my cursor until I saw the reader reaction to the article. I was not disappointed. Unfortunately, but predictably, most of the cited respondents, which I assume represent the majority of the correspondence received, got it wrong. Let me explain.

Many of us should remember "sweat suit and medallion" Sharpton, who after being stabbed became "suit" Sharpton. I knew when I saw the suit, that Sharpton realized his days as outsider were over. Sharpton had bigger plans. Still, he stuck to his philosophical guns.  Slowly but surely he built NAN and became a force to be reckoned with in NYC politics. He even, twice, extended his voice to police abuse visited on white victims.  Sharpton, as far as I recall never aligned himself with Democrats. It was simply that Democrats had a choke hold on black "leadership." Therefore, it was (and is) assumed that Sharpton would be a "party man." It's not his fault that this misconception took root. As pointed out Sharpton was always there when the dirt went down in NYC. It was Sharpton, not Calvin Butts, Floyd Flake, or the other "leaders."

During the election that put [Mayor] Bloomberg in office, Sharpton made it clear that party affiliation was not what mattered, but being able to have needs met, and holding elected officials accountable. He did not allow himself or black people to be condescended to by [mayoral candidates] Mark Green or Fernando Ferrer. Sharpton is doing what many of us in Garveyite circles have long been saying. Blacks ought to Trojan Horse into the Republican party and use whatever resources they can to forward the black agenda. Isn't this what Sharpton has done? I think a history lesson is due here. Toussaint L'Ouveture sided with the Spanish against the French and then French against the English and then turned on France.  Was Toussaint a sellout for taking sides with his "enemies" when it was expedient to his ultimate goal?

Many so called "black leaders" foamed at the mouth when they found out that Marcus Garvey had a sit down with the head of the KKK. Yet in his philosophies and opinions it is revealed that he did so in part to provide safety for blacks in his organization in the South. But as usual, the shortsighted leadership failed to understand that a temporary alliance is no deep relationship.

So in my book, Sharpton didn't sell out. Black leadership sold him out as predicted by some time ago. Nothing strange nothing change.

It is no longer possible to view commercial news media as mere servants of the ruling rich – they are full members of the presiding corporate pantheon. General media consolidation has created an integrated mass communications system that is both objectively and self-consciously at one with the Citibanks and ExxonMobils of the world. Media companies act in effective unison on matters of importance to the larger corporate class. For all politically useful purposes, the monopolization of US media is now complete, in that the corporate owners and managers of the dominant organs are interchangeable and indistinguishable, sharing a common mission and worldview.

Just read Glen Ford and Peter Gamble's analysis of corporate media power over the selection of Democratic Party nominee for president, as it appeared in Dissident Voice.  I agree totally.  Corporate media is Public Enemy No. 1.  No Bush Inc. in the White House without them (illegal vote count in Florida '00).  No Iraq War without them (despite Bush Inc. lies about Iraq that were known everywhere else on earth, the American public had no clue as to the false case Bush Inc. was making).  No corporate looting of the US federal budget without them.  No tax cuts for the rich without them.  No trillion dollar federal deficit without them.  Corporate media made all these things possible.  And now they've selected their Democratic Party nominee – pro Iraq war, pro Patriot Act, pro NAFTA-GATT, corrupt DC insider John Kerry. 

I'm a Californian, and my right to participate in my party's selection of a nominee has been taken from me, by this same corporate media that brought us Bush Inc. and the Iraq abomination.  I see it, too.  I see that THAT is the problem – corporate media monopoly over facts and opinion – and if we don't solve it, our democracy is over.  Fini.  And all those rights that we have fought for, for so many decades, will be meaningless. Thanks for your insight.  Please do more reporting and analysis on this issue!

I'm writing today in response to Reynard Blake's piece in the 13 Feb. edition regarding the uproar over Janet Jackson's breast during the Super Bowl's halftime show. I didn't watch the game or see the incident in question, but as a news junkie I've followed the aftermath in the media. It's been a media circus and the issue has been wholly overblown, to say the least. But Mr. Blake has been the first analyst (that I've read) to articulate the racial undertones that made the incident so repugnant to conservative white America. Kudos to Mr. Blake for making this plain, and to for placing it prominently in the public dialogue. There's no sense in denying the reality of this aspect of the issue.

Miss Jackson is harmless as an entertainer. That's a stereotypical role that white America has long used to keep blacks at a safe distance (the very same device used on the "savage" black male athlete who was on display in the Super Bowl). But begin to disrobe her, especially in "prime time," and she suddenly becomes threatening. Now add to that that it was a white boy (Justin Timberlake) doing the disrobing, and the faux outrage ensued. White America is still repulsed by the concept of inter-color relationships. It has been a fascinating study to watch white fear, ignorance, racism, and hypocrisy go off the charts these past 2 weeks. And more so to see it go by without getting called out...’til now.

I have been reading your website for a few months now and am impressed every week.  I am a white male.  It has been wonderful to discover a site that offers a perspective I simply do not get in my every day interactions. 

I found the article "But He's a Chicken" provoking and probably true in many instances.  As a white male born to an upper middle class suburban family I feel an obligation to help those who society has consistently sold short and pushed down.  It's possible that there would not be a need for affirmative action and similar programs if people would take the initiative themselves and understand the privilege that exists simply by being a white male.  This is not apologizing for how and what I was born, it is understanding how that status has helped put me where I am.  There is a huge need in our society to each feel like a self-made person.  That is the myth of our system of economics: we can each succeed by pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps.  This desire to achieve that myth makes people (generally middle and upper class white people) blind to the fact that they did not succeed all on their own effort.  Everyone in the US has an advantage over most of the rest of the world when it comes to being materially successful, no one would argue with that.  That calculus does not change once you get into the US.  White America has a head start and is applying a constant stiff arm to anyone else who tries to catch up.

I have been turned down by colleges and universities, but I don't care to find out why.  Is it affirmative action (probably not since those programs have generally been eviscerated), is it my grades, my experience?  Who knows?  What I do know is that I am in law school now and must work to succeed.  People who complain that their spots are being taken by "less qualified" black students have never known adversity and do not know how to respond other than to complain.  Sometimes things do not go your way (ask any black person over the age of 40, and most black people over the age of 10).  Knowing adversity for the first time in your life is an opportunity to improve yourself and succeed in spite of something.  For too long, middle and upper class white males have succeeded with the help of their position.  Being forced to actually be self-sufficient is character building and also completely and totally fair.  The counter argument that blacks should not get affirmative action because that is not being truly self-sufficient does not work because blacks have been affirmatively held down and held back for so long.  It is only fair and just to help someone you have kicked to the ground get back up and in the same position as you before you keep racing.

I would also like to make the point that I think the biggest problem facing this country right now is the economic line dividing wealth from poverty.  Lower class whites clearly have advantages that lower class blacks do not have, but everyone in poverty in this country is being sold down the river by George W. Bush. Blacks just happen to be in the boat that is being sold down the river the quickest.  I urge upper and middle class whites to take affirmative steps to redress the historical imbalances in our society.  This is not being patronizing or paternalistic, it is being just and fair.  Children born of privilege owe a duty to those who were not born as such.  It speaks ill of our character when we lie and say "we succeeded on our own, so can everybody else."  The time is now to admit that we certainly had help getting where we are, and the time is also now to offer a helping hand to those who are struggling to get where we are.  Middle class society is not a zero sum game.  Every black family that succeeds and makes it to the middle class does not force out a white family.  There is bounty enough for everyone if the people with the privilege would understand the head start they have, appreciate the injustice of the situation and do something positive to remedy the injustice. 

Thank you for your insightful articles.  You have a loyal reader and a friend in me.

In the face of the Bush regime’s assault against international order itself, France has chosen the path of interposition, for which it is uniquely suited. However, no one should imagine for a moment that the French business classes, represented by President Jacque Chirac’s conservative government, relish this confrontation with the U.S. (Only American – and a few British – pundits are stupid enough to trivialize the current crisis.) Every elite on the globe is threatened by the 21st Century version of American Manifest Destiny. For this overarching reason, at this moment in history France speaks for world, not just European, opinion.

As a US national living in Canada, I'd like to thank you for providing what I consider some of the sharpest political analysis to be found on the web or anywhere else.  The article on the current French diplomatic position "what's up with the French?" was simply masterful, a refreshing bit of critical thought on a subject that has become the favorite smear of the American media.  Yours is a unique publication – keep up the excellent work.

February 26 2004
Issue 79

is published every Thursday.