Saturday, October 4, 2025
spot_img
spot_img
Home Blog Page 475

Where’s the Money, Joe?

Nonprofit organizations up and down CD 15 are asking Buscaino to ‘Make it make sense’

Scores of nonprofit organizations applied for the “Buscaino Grants,” writing proposals, presenting proposed budgets, asking their supporters for their votes by submitting their information in the councilman’s information portal. Those who ostensibly received the most votes showed up for Joe’s dog and pony show for pictures as they say, “Thanks Joe.” Only to be told afterwards when the cameras stopped rolling, “it’s going to take a few weeks to receive their money.” Worse still, many were told they would only be reimbursed for half the money spent ― meaning they’d have to do additional fundraising from donors who’d just been given the false impression their needs had already been met. To top it all off, these are grants whose very existence Buscaino had opposed.

According to organizations in Watts (they requested I maintain their anonymity for fear of retribution by Buscaino’s office), the winners of which were announced a couple of weeks earlier than everyone else still have not received their monies. None in the Harbor City and Harbor Gateway have received theirs and zero in San Pedro.

This alone would not be so problematic if it weren’t for the reports I’ve been hearing that Buscaino’s office has been trying to change the rules after the fact. Winners were being told that in order to receive what they had won, they must have “a contract” with the city or form a contract with an entity that does, but at a cost. One nonprofit executive called it an exquisite form of extortion and racketeering.

Can you just imagine how many nonprofits who don’t have contracts with the city who have been doing the real hard work for years without a city contract?

These organizations did what was asked of them, got their supporters to vote, win, take pictures with Joey with the photo op checks, only to have the city council’s field deputies tell them afterwards they won’t be getting this money unless they fulfill some extra requirements.

In Watts, one nonprofit leader, one of the scores that won a grant, said there’s a lot of frustration in his community and that it feels like Buscaino had just pulled a “poverty pimping-move.”

Accustomed to applying for grants on the city, state and federal level, the nonprofit executive said those grants are generally clear and up front. Those grants are either ones you apply for that supply what is needed or they are grants for which you have to find matching funds, or grants for which you have to show your expenditures in order to get reimbursed. He explained that’s not how Buscaino’s grant process went.

Apparently, many of the nonprofits were told that while it would take time to receive their money, they will be reimbursed up to 50 percent of the grant they won, if they keep track of their expenditures.

One nonprofit head asked, “How are our nonprofits that don’t have anything supposed to benefit from that?”

The nonprofit head posed the hypothetical, “if we’re a non-profit and we need to buy a vehicle to deliver food because that’s part of what we do. It’s what we wrote the grant for…. We don’t have $15,000 to drop on a truck. How are you going to reimburse us for money that doesn’t exist in the first place? This is why we ask for the grant, so that we can do the work,” he said.

Continuing the thought further, he said it would be great if these organizations already had $70,000 for which they could be reimbursed. But why then would they need the $70,000 in the first place if they already had it? It doesn’t make sense, right?

Even if Joe made good on this promise, how unfair is it to tell nonprofit organizations to purchase something for $15,000, and have the city pay them back with an IOU.

What made this so galling, besides the fact that Joe Facebook-lived these events and got on television talking about how he gave all of these organizations tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars, is that people connected to Joe has, according to my sources, begun reaching out to these organizations’ donors and constituent bases using the information he harvested from the competition. To say these folks feel used is the understatement of all understatements.

These organizations depend on individuals donating funds to them. So, when Joe gets on television and says he gave these organizations $30,000, $50,000 or $100,000, donors who were previously donating to these organizations would shift their monies to organizations they perceive as more in need.

Now there’s talk of going to the City Attorney over this. It’s not lost on these organizations that Joe opposed the cuts to the police budget that made these grants possible in the first place. These were supposed to address social justice and alternative crime prevention. Not be used to finance acts of patronage to elicit love, adoration and votes in third world countries.

To recap, Mayor Eric Garcetti initially proposed a budget that included a budget increase of more than $100 million over the previous year while most other city departments faced budget cuts. After pushback by a coalition of groups organized by Black Lives Matter L.A., the mayor altered the budget by shifting $150 million to other budget priorities such as Reimagined Community Safety, Universal Aid and Crisis Management and Built Environment. Joe is on record opposing this recording of priorities.

But here we are ―Joe cheesing in front of the cameras in black and brown communities, taking credit for money they haven’t received. I gave Buscaino’s office an opportunity to respond to this critique. I did not receive a response before we went to press.

 

COVID-19 burden: Latinos experience more hospitalization, death

 

USC researchers say Latinos’ worse outcomes can’t be explained by higher rates of poverty or underlying health factors like

http://universityofsoutherncalifornia.cmail20.com/t/ViewEmail/j/E88DC472576C543C2540EF23F30FEDED/107E33A9F689E8B3E89F0E32AAFB68BF

A new USC study of a large and diverse group of Medicaid enrollees finds Latino patients had starkly higher odds of a positive COVID-19 test, as well as higher odds of hospitalization and death, than white patients.

The study of racial and ethnic differences in COVID-19 testing and outcomes included data from more than 84,000 adults at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center who were enrolled in the county’s Medicaid managed care plan.

The research appears in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

One hypothesis for worse COVID-19 outcomes among low-income people has been that they are more likely to have other preexisting health problems. After controlling for those risks, as well as demographic and neighborhood factors, Latinos still fared worse than other groups. That was in spite of the fact that the Latino patients were disproportionately younger. In general, Latinos in the U.S. are healthier than whites — a phenomenon known as the “Latino paradox.”

“Even among a population of Medicaid patients who are similarly economically disadvantaged, Latinos are shouldering an unfair burden of this deadly pandemic,” said study co-author Mireille Jacobson, associate professor at the USC Leonard Davis School of Gerontology and senior fellow at the USC Schaeffer School for Health Policy and Economics. “The substantially higher risk facing Latinos should be a key consideration in California’s strategies to mitigate COVID-19 transmission and harm.”

The opportunity to study a large and racially diverse low-income population at the public hospital appealed to the researchers. They hoped to help answer questions about what was causing COVID-19’s racial and ethnic disparities in communities around the country and to understand whether prior work was confounded by differences in economic status across groups.

Health providers at the medical center observed in the early days of the pandemic that Latinos were more likely to test positive; in response, they increased their outreach to that community and urged them to get tested. Likely because of that outreach, testing for COVID-19 was higher among Latinos than for Black, Asian or white patients, but Latinos also had much higher infection rates. Tragically, they were also much more likely to end up hospitalized and to die from COVID-19 than white Medicaid enrollees.

COVID-19 has disproportionately affected racial and ethnic minorities in terms of infection, hospitalizations and deaths. The interplay of social, economic and demographic factors influencing COVID outcomes remains poorly understood. Racial and ethnic disparities in COVID vary widely across the country and seem to depend on local context, the study’s authors said.

They point to prior studies that showed adjusted odds of hospitalization were higher for Black and Latino patients than for whites in a Wisconsin health system. In contrast, adjusted odds of hospitalization were similar for Black and Latino patients when compared with white patients in a New York City health system.

“One of the lessons we take away from this study is that being Black in Northern California is different than being Black in New York; being Latino in this population is different than being Latino in Louisiana,” said study co-author Tom Chang, associate professor of finance and business economics at the USC Marshall School of Business.

Chang and Jacobson say the potential causes of these conflicting regional findings may be differences that haven’t yet been fully explored, including living and working conditions or trust of medical systems.

“Another lesson is that integrated health systems could do the data analysis that revealed these disparities essentially in real time,” Chang said. “In this case, the data is screamingly loud that Latinos are experiencing worse outcomes from COVID-19 and that these differences are not driven by differences in underlying health.”

The USC researchers are continuing to partner with the medical center to study vaccination rates and outcomes.

“We found our collaboration with Professors Chang and Jacobson tremendously valuable in helping us study the impacts of race, socioeconomics and decision-making in our health care environment,” said study co-author Samir B. Shah, CEO of Contra Costa Regional Medical Center. “In unprecedented times like we are living through now, studying the effects of decisions we make in health care delivery and public health messaging are valuable in resource determination, community outreach, clinical care delivery and the transmission of fact-based information.”

About the Study

Additional authors include Manisha Shah at the UCLA Department of Public Policy and Rajiv Pramanik at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center & Health Centers, Contra Costa Health Services.

Twin Ports See Steady Cargo and Another Record

July 16 June Volume Sees Another Record At POLA

SAN PEDRO – The Port of Los Angeles processed 876,430 Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units (TEUs) in June, a 27% increase compared to last year. It was the Port’s busiest June ever and closed the fiscal year at 10,879,383 TEUs, a new milestone for any Western Hemisphere port.

Over the past 12 months, the Port of Los Angeles eclipsed eight monthly records, had its two highest-performing quarters and top four individual months in the Port’s 114-year history.

June 2021 loaded imports reached 467,763 TEUs compared to the previous year, an increase of 27%. Loaded exports decreased 12% to 96,067 TEUs compared to the same period last year. It was the lowest amount of exports at the Port of Los Angeles since 2005. Empty containers climbed to 312,600 TEUs, a jump of 47% compared to last year due to the heavy demand in Asia.

The total June 2021 volume of 876,430 TEUs surpassed the previous June 2019 record of 764,777 TEUs by 15%. The fiscal year close of 10,879,383 TEUs is 12% higher than the previous 12-month record, when the Port handled 9,688,252 TEUs in FY 2018-19.

Six months into the 2021 calendar year, overall cargo volume is 5,427,359 TEUs, an increase of 44% compared to 2020.

Details: www.youtube.com/pola-june-volume

Port of LB Maintains Steady Cargo Flow in June

Cargo moving through the Port of Long Beach remained strong in June as retail spending cooled down.

Dockworkers and terminal operators moved 724,297 twenty-foot equivalent units in June, up 20.3% from the same month last year. Imports rose 18.8% to 357,101 TEUs, while exports saw a relatively flat decrease of 0.5% to 116,947 TEUs. Empty containers moved through the port jumped 36% to 250,249 TEUs.

Demand for household products, electronics and other goods rose as consumers returned to work following the COVID-19 pandemic and contributed to a 38.5% increase in cargo shipments at the Port of Long Beach during the first half of 2021 compared to the same period last year, with 4,753,828 TEUs processed. Second quarter throughput was 2,377,700 TEUs, up 35.8% from last year, marking the second-best quarter in the port’s 110-year history.

Fewer cargo ships called at the Port of Long Beach in June compared to a month earlier due to shifting services and a COVID-19 outbreak at the Yantian port in China that resulted in some vessels delaying arrivals until July.

Facebook’s disinformation problem is harder than it looks

0

 

https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/facebooks-disinformation-problem-is-harder-than-it-looks.php

By Mathew Ingram For Columbia Journalism Review

That Facebook can distribute dangerous amounts of misinformation around the world in the blink of an eye is not a new problem. But the attention stepped up when President Joe Biden told reporters during a White House scrum that Facebook was “killing people” by spreading disinformation, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories about COVID-19, and in particular about the efficacy of various vaccines. As Jon Allsop reported in the CJR newsletter on Wednesday, Biden backtracked somewhat on his original statement after some pushback from the company and others: Facebook said that the country needed to “move past the finger pointing” when it comes to COVID disinformation, and that it takes action against such content when it sees it. Biden responded that his point was simply that Facebook has enabled a small group of about a dozen accounts to spread disinformation that might be causing people to avoid getting vaccinated, and that this could result in an increase in deaths.

Biden appears to have got his information about this “disinformation dozen” from a group called the Center for Countering Digital Hate, which came out recently with research it said showed that the bulk of the disinformation around COVID-19 and vaccines appears to come from a handful of accounts. The implication of the president’s comment is that all Facebook has to do is get rid of a few bad apples, and the COVID disinformation problem will be solved. As Farhad Manjoo of the New York Times put it, however, Biden “reduced the complex scourge of runaway vaccine hesitancy into a cartoonishly simple matter of product design: If only Facebook would hit its Quit Killing People button, America would be healed again.” While Biden’s comments may make for a great TV news hit, solving a problem like disinformation at the scale of something like Facebook is much harder than he makes it sound, in part because it involves far more than just a dozen bad accounts. And even the definition of what qualifies as disinformation when it comes to COVID has changed over time.

As Jon Allsop described yesterday, part of the problem is that media outlets like Fox News seem to feel no compunction about spreading “fake news” about the virus in return for the attention of their viewers. That’s not a problem Facebook can fix, nor will ridding the social network of all hoaxes about COVID or vaccines make much of a dent in the influence of Fox’s hysteria — which information researcher Yochai Benkler of Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society has argued was much more influential during the 2016 election than any social-media network. But even that’s just the tip of the disinformation iceberg. One of the most prominent sources of COVID and vaccine disinformation is a sitting US member of Congress: Marjorie Taylor Greene from Georgia. Another, Robert F. Kennedy, is a member of one of the most famous political families in US history, and his anti-vaccination conspiracy theories put him near the top of the Center for Countering Digital Hate’s “disinformation dozen” list. What is Facebook supposed to do about their repeated misstatements?

Twitter blocked Taylor Greene’s account for 12 hours because she was spreading anti-vax hysteria, and Facebook could easily do likewise. But then what? The social platforms could just play Whack-a-Mole with such statements forever, or they could take definitive action and ban Taylor Greene and/or Kennedy for their spreading of disinformation. But as Manjoo pointed out in his Times column, doing so is going to give right-wing critics even more ammunition to cry about censorship by the platforms than they already had thanks to Donald Trump’s ongoing social-media ban. It’s not just people like Taylor Greene and Kennedy, or obvious trolls like Alex Jones of Infowars. It’s not even just professional “bot” accounts that trade in disinformation for profit and influence. Another part of the problem is that things that once seemed like obvious COVID disinformation no longer do.

Take the idea that the virus might have originated in a research lab in Wuhan, China. Not that long ago, this was defined by almost everyone — including Facebook — as disinformation, and sharing theories to that effect would get your account blocked. In recent months, however, experts have started to entertain those theories more than they did in the past, in part because of a track record of poor record-keeping and slip-ups at a number of similar laboratories. The idea that COVID might have escaped into the wild accidentally doesn’t have much more to recommend it than it did six months or a year ago. But discussing this possibility is no longer seen as a direct ticket to Facebook or Twitter oblivion. It would be hard enough to pinpoint all the pieces of disinformation around something like COVID even if there were agreement about all aspects of it, but there isn’t.

Joe Biden and his advisors, and other critics of Facebook, might think that getting rid of disinformation is an easy task, and that the company is simply dragging its feet because it doesn’t want to disrupt its business, and there is probably more than a little truth to that. But it’s also true that finding the right line between disinformation control, public-health awareness, and outright censorship is not an easy task. Blocking accounts en masse for normal speech about an ongoing problem is not going to solve anything.

Shakespeare by the Sea Back at It — If Only Briefly — with Richard III

Maybe you’ve heard, but there’s this clusterfuck called COVID-19, and it’s been an absolute bitch to the theatre world. Although they scrambled to produce a pair of shows last year for online viewing, Shakespeare by the Sea’s raison d’être is to take the Bard out — as in outdoors — to the people, so 2020 was a bust.

But it’s a new year, and however much COVID ain’t done with us yet, San Pedro-based Shakespeare by the Sea is still able to produce a pair of summer plays for limited runs on their home turf of Point Fermin Park, ye olde place of the most panoramiffic ocean view around. And because ShakeSea is nothing if not consistent, for a couple of hours you get the feeling that the world has returned to a kind of normalcy.

Personally, Richard III is not a fave, so there was nothing ShakeSea could do to make me love it (whereas I’m quite looking forward to their August choice: Love’s Labour’s Lost). Relying on a core of ShakeSea veterans (including Patrick Vest as the gleefully villainous eponym, as bad of a guy as the Bard ever wrote), the acting is reliable as always. And aside from the ShakeSea’s traditional piped-in music between scenes, the interpretation and staging are straightforward and bare-bones. It’s not exactly what you’d have seen at the Globe circa 1600, but it’s something very like it (again, aside from the PA system).

The biggest surprise and tickle comes in the comedy. A high point is the end of Act I, when Clarence (Azim Rizk) attempts to persuade a pair of assassins (G. Anthony Joseph and Brendan Kane) not to do the deed by saying Richard will reward them if they don’t — not realizing that it was Richard who sent them. I’ve never seen this played for yuks, and it’s the only time I’ve ever laughed during Richard III. Just goes to show how much can be done with line readings.

Otherwise, you’ll get exactly what you expect from Richard III, from “Now is the winter of our discontent…” right on through “My kingdom for a horse!” No bells, no whistles, no surprises. But in a world so topsy-turvy over these last 18 months, maybe that’s not a bad thing right now.

And have you been to that park?! The view alone is worth the price of admission — which is free. So why not take a trip with a side of Shakespeare?

Shakespeare by the Sea does Richard III at Point Fermin Park (807 W. Paseo Del Mar, San Pedro) only thrice more: Friday and Saturday at 8 p.m., Sunday at 7 p.m. Cost is free (donations gratefully accepted). For more details (including on next month’s staging of Love’s Labour’s Lost), visit shakespearebythesea.org or call (310) 217-7596.

Who’s Afraid of Nina Turner?

 

Nina Turner is very scary — to power brokers who’ve been spending big money and political capital to keep her out of Congress. With early voting underway, tensions are spiking as the decisive Democratic primary race in northeast Ohio nears its Aug. 3 finish. The winner will be virtually assured of filling the seat in the deep-blue district left vacant by Rep. Marcia Fudge when she became President Biden’s HUD secretary. What’s at stake in the special election is whether progressives will gain a dynamic champion in the House of Representatives.

For the Democratic Party establishment, the specter of “Congresswoman Nina Turner” is alarming. The former national co-chair of the Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign has a proven capacity to stir fervent energy on the left around the country. Her ability to inspire at the grassroots is far beyond what mainstream party leaders can do.

All politics is local when the votes are finally counted — but in the meantime, this contest is a national clash of political forces. Turner’s endorsements include 15 progressive House and Senate members along with numerous left-leaning organizations. Her main opponent, Shontel Brown, has supporters who include the upper ranks of Democratic Party leaders as well as corporate heavy hitters.

Hillary Clinton’s mid-June endorsement of Brown was later eclipsed by the third-ranking House Democrat, majority whip Jim Clyburn. He recorded a TV ad for Brown with a swipe at Turner while identifying himself as “the highest-ranking African American in Congress.” In the process of throwing his political weight against Turner — who is a strong advocate of Medicare for All — Clyburn didn’t mention his exceptional record of receiving hefty donations from the pharmaceutical industry.

Last fall, a newspaper in his home state of South Carolina, the Post and Courier, spelled out details under the headline “Clyburn Has Taken More Than $1 Million in Pharma Money in a Decade, Far Surpassing Peers.” The paper reported that Clyburn “has collected more in the last decade from powerful political action committees attached to the pharmaceutical industry than anyone else in the House or Senate.” Clyburn has been vocally in tune with his benefactors, warning against Medicare for All and “socialized medicine.”

That Clyburn would try to undercut Turner’s campaign is logical, especially given her emphatic support for Medicare for All. Likewise, one of her major campaign planks — calling for “environmental justice” and “re-inventing our energy and transportation systems through a Green New Deal” — would hardly appeal to the fossil-fuel mogul who is the biggest funder of the Democratic Majority for Israel super PAC, now intervening with huge ad buys to defeat Turner.

The megadonor behind that intervention is “an oil and gas executive who belongs to a billionaire family,” the Intercept pointed out days ago. “Stacy Schusterman, heir and chair of Samson Energy, a fossil fuel company that owns at least 11 oil and gas wells in Wyoming, donated $1.55 million to Democratic Majority for Israel in 2019 and 2020, a super PAC that has in turn spent over $660,000 on ads” supporting Brown and attacking Turner.

Those ads have descended into blatant deception. “Brown has gained momentum in recent weeks with hundreds of thousands of dollars in support from the Democratic Majority for Israel PAC, who funded flagrantly false mailers smearing Turner,” the Cleveland Scene newspaper reported last week. The methodical lies included claims that Turner has opposed universal healthcare — an assertion that earned the label “wildly dishonest” from Washington Post journalist Dave Weigel and the adjective “sleazy” from Rep. Mark Pocan, chair emeritus of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Democratic Majority for Israel is led by Mark Mellman — a longtime strategist for AIPAC, the powerful right-wing group more formally known as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which remained closely aligned with Benjamin Netanyahu throughout his long and racist tenure as Israel’s prime minister. Another spinoff from AIPAC that’s also spending big bucks on advertising against Turner is a rightward-leaning outfit called Pro-Israel America. Its founder and executive director, Jeff Mendelsohn, worked as a high-level AIPAC operative for more than 10 years.

The massive amounts of advertising and vitriol being dumped on Nina Turner leave Israel and foreign policy virtually unmentioned. And she has said little about the Middle East or other aspects of foreign affairs. But her occasional comments have been clear enough to convey principled independence. In a tweet two months ago, during Israel’s aerial bombardment of Gaza, she wrote: “Palestinian lives matter.” The same week, she expressed solidarity with American Jews and Palestinians who had gathered in front of the State Department to call for an end to Israeli apartheid.

While well-heeled groups that demand unequivocal support for Israel’s policies are funding anti-Turner ads, Shontel Brown has gone out of her way to express fulsome devotion to Israel as well as gratitude to Democratic Majority for Israel. Meanwhile, people who actually live in the congressional district have much to consider about the close-to-home records of the two leading candidates. Turner served on the Cleveland City Council and in the Ohio State Senate. Brown is a local elected official and chairs the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party.

Early this month, when Cleveland’s daily newspaper weighed in with an endorsement, it wasn’t a close call. “There is one person in this crowded field who has shown she isn’t afraid to stand up to power and to partisan shibboleths, who has the guts to say what she thinks and do what’s right for her constituents and country, who is passionate about public service and knows the issues, the personalities, the challenges better than anyone else in this race,” the Plain Dealer editorialized. “That person is Nina Turner.” In sharp contrast, the editorial described Shontel Brown as “a pleasant but undistinguished member of Cuyahoga County Council who has little to show for her time in office.”

But the national forces arrayed against Nina Turner are preoccupied with other matters like protecting the pharmaceutical industry’s leverage over health care, or maximizing the profits of fossil-fuel companies, or maintaining Israel’s power to suppress the rights of Palestinian people. In pursuit of such goals, the mission is clear: Don’t let Nina Turner get to Congress.


Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and the author of many books including War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. He was a Bernie Sanders delegate from California to the 2016 and 2020 Democratic National Conventions. Solomon is the founder and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy.

The Only Two Buckets are Democracy & Autocracy

Ted Cruz has compared President Biden and the people in his administration working to stop Covid to “Nazi stormtroopers.” Republicans in his state are trying to ban any mention of Susan B. Anthony, Cesar Chavez and Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. from their schools’ textbooks and give Republicans the power to challenge and even reject votes they don’t like in future elections. What is going on here?

There are a lot of words thrown around these days, from democracy and republic to fascist, socialist, communist, theocrat, oligarchy, white supremacist, liberal, conservative, autocracy and dozens of others. But they all fall into one of two buckets.

Those two buckets are democracy and autocracy.

In a democracy, governance is conducted in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the people. Typically today that will is expressed through majority-wins voting for representatives, and that governance is conducted within the constraints of a constitution and common law; what the Founders called “a republican form of government.” Starting in the late 1600s, this form of government and its variations were also often defined as “liberal.”

In autocratic forms of government the will of the majority of the people is secondary to the will of those in power. That would include priests and mullahs who claim to rule by a god’s will (theocracy); a bureaucracy that purports to know what’s best for the people (communism); a puppet government elected as a result of moneyed interests controlling public opinion (oligarchy/fascism/conservatism); and a government that excludes portions of the populace because of their economic status, race or religion (fascist/Nazi/white supremacist/oligarchy/conservative).

What’s unique about today’s moment in post-1965 American history is that one of our political parties — the Republican Party — has fully embraced autocratic governance and is doing everything it can to stop “will of the majority” democracy.

In 1965, Democratic politicians (with a few Republicans) passed laws overturning 100 years of Jim Crow laws that prevented minorities (particularly African Americans and Native Americans) from voting and otherwise participating in the governance of our republic. The entire history of America up to that point, while we called ourselves a democratic republic, had actually been a form of white supremacist autocracy with a thick whites-only democratic patina.

The Republican Party’s response to America enfranchising African Americans was immediate. Former Vice President Richard Nixon (VP 1953-1961) reached out to the mostly-Southern and -Western white supremacists who’d been part of the Democratic Party’s coalition and invited them to join him in the Republican Party. Numerous former Democratic politicians followed Nixon’s lead, changing their party affiliation from Democratic to Republican (as West Virginia’s governor recently did).

They included such familiar names as Ronald Reagan, Strom Thurmond, Stanford Morse, Jesse Helms, Bob Barr, Trent Lott, John Connally, Elizabeth Dole, Bill Bennett, Roy Moore, David Duke, and Rick Perry.

The GOP then began a steady move away from democracy and toward autocracy, openly embracing several dimensions of that form of governance.

Reagan/Bush advisor George W. Bush formed an alliance between the white protestant evangelical wing of Christianity and the Republican Party as both Reagan and Bush switched positions on a woman’s right to choose to get an abortion (Reagan had signed the nation’s most liberal abortion law as California governor, and Bush was an open supporter and fundraiser for Planned Parenthood). Soon politics was being preached from the pulpit, and hard-right Catholics changed parties as well. The GOP embraced theocracy, often referring to America as a “Christian nation.”

In 1971, tobacco lawyer Lewis Powell wrote his infamous “Powell Memo” urging billionaires and big corporations to create an oligarch-friendly infrastructure of think tanks, media operations and influence groups while putting partisans into colleges and universities and packing the courts.

The GOP embraced oligarchy, and the judges they appointed declared that giving politicians money in exchange for tax breaks, subsidies and other “favors” was no longer bribery or corruption but “Constitutionally-protected Free Speech.” Powell, who Nixon put on the Supreme Court in 1972, actually wrote the decision giving billionaires and corporations this “right.”

The Republican Party has now so openly embraced oligarchy that they continue to do the bidding of the fossil fuel industry, which is literally threatening the future survival of humanity, by promoting climate change denial and fighting any legislation to reduce atmospheric carbon.

The Republican Party began campaigning on racist slogans and memes like “Law and Order,” “War on Drugs,” and running ads featuring Black criminals like Willie Horton. With a few rare exceptions, Black politicians found the only party welcoming them were the Democrats; the GOP openly embraced white supremacy and racism, culminating in the Trump presidency and the Party’s current moral panic about Critical Race Theory.

The GOP’s current war on voting is another clear dimension of their embrace of autocracy, and now that they have laws in place in 17 states saying that partisans can decide which votes count and which will be thrown out, who can vote and who gets purged, it’s entirely possible — as numerous commentators have pointed out — that in 2024 a Republican could lose the popular vote by millions, and lose the electoral college vote with an initial count of the votes, but still be established in the White House. (The last Republican to take the White House with a majority of the popular vote was George HW Bush in 1988, but if these laws had been in place last year Donald Trump would now still be president.)

The Democratic Party hasn’t been entirely blameless through this period. Today in the Senate, for example, there are several Democrats (Joe Manchin being the most “famous” example) who are still deeply in the pockets of fossil fuel oligarchs. But overall Democrats have, by and large, aggressively embraced the idea of democracy in our republic.

As Thomas Paine — a fierce advocate for multiracial democracy in America — famously said, “These are the times that try men’s souls; the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but … [t]yranny, like hell, is not easily conquered…”

https://hartmannreport.com/p/the-only-two-buckets-are-democracy

US Cannibals in Haiti

… and other tales of Voodoo Economics in the Triste Tropiques

By Greg Palast for Buzzflash

In 2004, a group of murderous gangsters who called themselves The Cannibals led an insurrection against Haiti’s first democratically elected President, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. US President George W. Bush immediately, swiftly sided with The Cannibals, now renamed, more palatably, “The National Revolutionary Front for the Liberation of Haiti.”

Bush sent 1,000 US Marines who, like the assassins last week, broke into the quarters of the newly-elected President and, according to a frantic call from his wife to a US Congresswoman, seized Aristide and gave him a choice: resign or die. Aristide, a Roman Catholic priest, chose life. He was then kidnapped by the Marines and taken to a French colony in Africa.

(Later, Aristide told Oakland attorney Walter Riley that the Marines seized the book he was reading,The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, and asked if I could replace it. I did.)

We can’t understand the tragedy of Haiti, how it became our Hemisphere’s basket case, without understanding who put Haiti in the basket: the colonial and financial powers who locked the nation in political-economic shackles for half a millennium…up through to this week.

Let’s take a random walk through the history of Haiti’s defenestration.

US Marines Occupy Haiti
    • In 1791, Toussaint Louverture led the world’s one and only successful mass rebellion of the enslaved that, in 1804, birthed the founding of the sovereign nation of Haiti. Haiti was the first nation to pay reparations for slavery — to the slave holders. Annually, even past World War II, impoverished Haiti paid France a total of $21 billion in gold for the lost income of the slavers.
    • Aristide’s mistake was to ask the United Nations to force France to return the $21 billion, swiftly leading to the US backed coup d’état.
    • The 2004 invasion was one of a series of US attacks, beginning with President Andrew Jackson, and including occupation of the island beginning in 1915 to protect the US-owned Haitian American Sugar Company. The Marines only left in 1934 when FDR officially gave Haiti back to the Haitians (temporarily).
    • For three decades to 1986, the US supported the Duvalier dictatorship. Papa Doc and Baby Doc Duvalier looted an estimated 80% of international aid funds. The Duvaliers, supported by the US to stop the spread of socialism from Cuba, fought America’s cold war with a voodoo militia, the Tonton Macoutes. They murdered a reported 60,000 opponents of the regime.
    • Aristide returned after the coup and exile and accepted $2 billion in aid from President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, plus desperately needed low-cost oil (the “PetroCaribe” program). The US cut off aid. The US was affronted by the acceptance of Chavez’ assistance. The US wasnotaffronted that Haitians, the poorest citizens of this hemisphere, survived on $2 a day. (Today, 69% of Haitiansstillearn less than $2 a day.)
    • The Haitian Supreme Court recently released a finding that the lately departed “President” Jovenel Moise and his confederates looted much of that Venezuelan money. I put “President” in quote marks because, while he held office until his assassination, his term hadexpired last year. But he continued to hold on to power and was endorsed by the US Ambassador. The US State Department is grateful to Moise for backing the endless attempts to overthrow the current government of Venezuela.
    • And to add to this tale triste tropique, there was the earthquake. In 2010, a quarter million Haitians died. Their cheap-build homes and buildings crumbled on top of them.
    • But this was not an Act of God. It was an ACT of the IMF, of the international financial agencies who practiced a form of voodoo called “austerity” and “restructuring,” a belief of zombie-fied economists that desperately poor nations could improve their condition by cutting their budgets, ending public services and selling off public property to foreign interests. The result was a nation so devastated that a little shake collapsed all infrastructure.
    • As if Haiti hadn’t suffered enough, President Obama put two well-known grifters in charge of receiving and handing out recovery funds, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. While the actor Matt Damon gave a $2 million donation for a desalinization plant to provide half a million Haitians with drinkable water, the Clinton Bush Haiti Recovery Fund —the name alone should give you chills — helped build a Marriott Hotel Resort (locals could eat all the barbed wire they wanted) and invested in a clothing factory which produced mostly donations from the factory owner to the Clinton Foundation.
  • Last week, theNew York Timesran what it called a “News Analysis” of Haiti’s new crisis, telling us, in extra large type: “Foreign aid seems only to have helped perpetuate some of the country’s biggest troubles.” This is the international version of the “Welfare Queen” myth — give these dark-skinned people money and it just corrupts them. Don’t waste our time, our tax money, our sympathy.

It’s an oft-told excuse for the cruelty of empires. The English were convinced that giving food to the Irish during the Potato Famine would just feed their natural indolence. The Germans used the same line in 2009 to impose starvation on the “lazy Greeks” when bankers crashed the euro.

Now, our elites wag a censorious finger at the victims of centuries long physical and financial enslavement. But it is not aid that perpetuates Haiti’s troubles.

Rather, this is a nation that for centuries has been looted and polluted with imperious blessing for imperial profit.

It is time to abolish Haiti’s enslavement.

Gov. Newsom Signs Historic Housing and Homelessness Funding Package

SACRAMENTO – Gov. Gavin Newsom July 19, signed the largest funding and reform package for housing and homelessness in California history as part of the $100 billion California Comeback Plan. The package includes $10.3 billion for affordable housing and $12 billion over two years towards tackling the homelessness crisis head-on – helping tens of thousands of people off the streets while also demanding greater accountability and more urgency from local governments.

The new homelessness funding includes $5.8 billion to add 42,000 new housing units through Homekey – a national model for homeless housing. $3 billion of this investment is dedicated to housing for people with the most acute behavioral and physical health needs. Governor Newsom’s investment is the biggest expansion in decades in terms of clinically enhanced behavioral health housing in California.

Click here for an infographic on the Governor’s comprehensive plan to address the homelessness crisis.

The legislation signed today, AB 140, also includes $2 billion in aid to counties, large cities and Continuums of Care through the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention grant program (HHAP). To qualify, recipients must follow strict accountability measures and submit a local homelessness action plan that includes quantifiable, data-driven goals that jurisdictions must commit to meeting.

$10.3 Billion Affordable Housing Package

$850 million incentivizing infill development and smart growth

$800 million to preserve the state’s affordable housing stock

$100 million promoting affordable homeownership

Additional funding to scale up the state’s efforts to create more Accessory Dwelling Units, build more housing on state-owned excess land and invest in farmworker housing

$12 Billion Over Two Years to Confront Homelessness Crisis

$5.8 billion for Homekey over two years, creating more than 42,000 new homeless housing units

$2.75 billion for the Department of Housing and Community Development

$3 billion for the Health and Human Services Agency to create clinically enriched behavioral health housing and funding for the renovation and acquisition of Board and Care Facilities and Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly.

$2 billion in HHAP grants over two years with strong, new accountability requirements for local governments

$1.75 billion to unlock up to 7,200 units of housing in the pipeline for extremely low-income families and people exiting homelessness

$150 million to stabilize participants in Project Roomkey hotels

$50.6 million for encampment resolution efforts

$45 million for services and housing for homeless veterans

In addition to these investments addressing homelessness and housing affordability, the California Comeback Plan includes $1.1 billion to clean up the streets of California by partnering with local governments to pick up trash and beautify downtowns, freeways and neighborhoods across California. The program is expected to generate up to 11,000 jobs over three years.

POLA’s New Data Module Forecasts Cargo Movement Up To Six Months Out

SAN PEDRO — Adding to its growing digital technology platform, the Port of Los Angeles has launched “Horizon,” a long-term cargo volume predictive feature of its Port Optimizer™ Control Tower data tool. The new module offers cargo owners, terminal operators, truckers and other supply chain stakeholders the capability to gauge movement of containers — imports, exports and empties — at the Port up to six months in advance.

Developed in partnership with Wabtec, the Horizon predictive technology uses an algorithm based on historical and trending volume data collected by the Port Optimizer, the cloud-based secure digital portal of maritime shipping data created by the Port in 2017 to facilitate more efficient cargo flow through its terminals. Continually taking into account changing conditions at the Port, the algorithm constantly updates cargo volumes, allowing the Horizon to improve forecasting over time and issue six-month-ahead volume updates every month.

“Data is a critical resource in moving goods across the supply chain and into the hands of consumers,” said Nalin Jain, Wabtec’s President of Digital Electronics. “This is one more step in our journey to connect railroads, chassis providers, truckers, warehouse operators, and others across the supply chain with the insights they need to seamlessly move cargo in and out of ports.”

The Control Tower was launched in February 2021 to help Port stakeholders better predict and plan cargo flows. The Control Tower serves as a one-stop virtual dashboard with multiple data points, including real-time views of truck turn times and other truck capacity management information; the Signal, which gives a daily, three-week look at incoming cargo; and the Return Signal, which lets the trucking community know when and where to return empty containers to Port cargo terminals. The Control Tower also features recent and future trending volume data, as well as historical volumes and trends dating back to 2017, segmented by mode and specificity.