Haiti: Disaster and Sovereignty

January 12, 2010 deserves to be a day that lives in recollection for all peoples in the Western Hemisphere. Haiti was struck with a horrible act of nature that will seemingly impact the lives of Haitians for generations to come. We can see the way the land has been changed as a result of the catastrophe, however what we have failed to explore is how the nation will appear as it re-emerges from the ruins. Before the nature of the news cycle confined  Haiti’s  tragedy to the shadowed corners of our memory and the eyes of the world were averted to the newest trauma-action locale, there were the beginnings of a discussion  of Haiti’s political future; a discussion that left me shocked and devastated. As I was listening to The Take Away, the popular morning news show on WNYC, a field reporter “on the ground” in Port-au-Prince reported a growing consensus among the devastated Haitian population, now proclaiming that the republic needs a president that is not Haitian. When asked if this was an appeal for statehood (presumably within the US) or even a Fujimori (former President of Peru) situation she replied neither. Later, there was discussion on NPR’s On Point; a field reporter stated that he had a conversation with a Haitian who was hoping that Haiti could move into a protectorate relationship with the United States akin to that of Puerto Rico. I’m so disappointed.

What France and the Western communities started so long ago by placing huge reparation taxes on Haiti’s liberation, granting near usurious loans (the US), and incessantly intervening in internal politics has come to its logical conclusion. Haiti appears to be broken.

With 18,000 foreign troops (US) in Haiti, to win hearts and minds, how long will the first black republic in the Western world remain an independent nation? As so many peoples and countries around the world so stridently clamor for their sovereignty, will Haiti surrender theirs?

I remain grateful that I have never experienced a natural disaster on the scale of the earthquake that has brought Haiti so low, and therefore can only imagine what fears and pressures are at work in the minds of Haitians. It is just my sincere hope that Haiti can find a way to rebuild not only the infrastructure that was so visibly obliterated on the fateful day of the earthquake, but also its spirit. I hope that Haiti can and will reclaim the confidence, strength and resolve that made it a beacon of hope to a world of African descended peoples clamoring for freedom.

Honolulu BS move over BO

Honolulu is engaging in a war against the poor, the aged and abandoned, and the unfortunate; all for the benefit of a newly “conscious” moneyed class.  Those of us who live in large cities, cities with effective and vital public transportation systems, sometimes ride the bus. We recognize the importance of the bus providing affordable transportation for everyone.  The city of Honolulu has decided to  penalize hygiene.  According to local news, “Under the bill, if you or something you bring on the bus smells bad, you could be asked to get off, or be issued a police citation. That would carry a fine of up to $500, maybe even up to six months in jail.” This new measure, proposed by the city of Honolulu is really an assault on the traditional user of bus services for  promoting the service to a new “green class”  one that is turned off by the prospect of sharing a bus with those that may be unable to maintain their hygiene in a manner that we would prefer.

This is classicism repackaged as civic concern and I am ashamed that any civic institution would levy, without any compassion, such a large fine on any facet of their citizenry; especially one that could not easily afford to pay it.  Furthermore, it is taking the one method of “convenient” transportation that needs it most.  I hope that the citizens of Honolulu would reflect upon the true ramifications of this law and ensure that all citizens can depend on dependable transportation, but I am not particularly hopeful.  What do you think?

France vs. Burqa?

Even before its inception the entity now known as the United States of America has shared much in common with the French nation. The idea of revolution, an uneasy relationship with the British, and perhaps belief in man inaliable rights. Today, the French Republic has established yet another concrete connection to the American mindset, intolerance. Today, according to The Guardian (UK) has denied citizenship to a morrocan woman because she wears a burqa. Evidently, immigration feels that the burqa and what it represents are completely at odds with the french concept of fraternite’ liberte’ egalite’. The established argument is that the the traditional head covering is representative of female subservience to men, and therefore is in direct conflict with what it means to be French. One could argue about the state of ethnic, and gender egalite’ in France, especially after the election that brought President Sarkozy to power.

Whatever your feeling on that election, and the issue of gender and security that took place in the minds of the french polity, one cannot argue the rammifications of this action in an increasingly xenophobic nation. I personaly have no personal experiences with the burqa or the lifestyle it entails, but this condemnation of culture as not worthy for French citizenship is a staggering step in modern immigration doctrine. It is interesting that we here in the United States are going through some of the same growing pains with concerns over employment, immigration, as well as struggling to maintain a “American” identity in the face of large scale immigration. France, like the United States, has established its culturally unilateralist credentials.

Obama vs. Spying?

On 9 June 2008 the United States Senate voted on HR6304; amending the foreign intelligence service act enacted in 1978. This current revision to this measure was best described by Ryan Singel of the WIRED blog world as granting “retroactive amnesty to the telecoms that aided the presidents five- year secret, warrantless wiretapping of Americans, and to expanding the government’s authority to sift through U.S. communications.”

The ramifications of this measure can be an more than likely will be damning for the personal liberties of American citizens in the electronic age. Barack Obama showed his ability to be a bipartisan politico by voting with the Executive branch bloc (looking to exercise those ever expanding Presidential powers in 2009 perhaps?) while his defeated rival for the hearts and minds of Americans hoping to escape the similar power hungry machinations of the last two terms, voted against. The Senator of hope and change voted against his fellow Senator from Ohio, Dick Durbin, and most importantly, against his “constituency” in the presidential race to come. Will it cost him? I doubt it the Gentleman from Chicago seems to be Gotti-esque when it comes to negative press.

We made him the presumptive nomine for the presidency, I hope he doesn’t make us rue that day as one of infamy.