Archive for August, 2009

Nimmi Gowrinathan: "We Don’t Want Development, We Want Our Rights!"

The message shouted from an elder woman inside Zone 2′s internment camps in Sri Lanka was clear as she angrily harassed a humanitarian worker attempting to install latrines that would signal a longer, more permanent, residence in unlivable internment camps . It’s a message that is perhaps best directed at the United Nations and donor countries who, in the case of Sri Lanka, have chosen “access” to hundreds of internally displaced civilians over “advocacy” in their best interests.

With small pockets of civilians uprooted by a bloody end to Sri Lanka’s protracted civil war resettled in their home districts, the majority of the 300,000 Internally Displaced People (IDPs) from the minority Tamil population remain in sprawling internment camps with dwindling supplies of fresh water, quickly spreading communicable diseases, and up to three families in one tent . The camps are, however, equipped with ATM machines — reinforcing within the camps what has become obvious outside of the camps. Those with money have power.

The actors with money: The Government of Sri Lanka (2.5 billion US$ wealthier after the approval of a recent International Monetary Fund loan), the UN, and donor countries (primarily China). Since they have neither the money nor the representation to influence their own destiny, Tamil civilians must rely on the UN as their voice. It is an option many in the camps trust less than the promises of a militaristic regime responsible for their captivity. Most of the animosity is directed at Secretary General Ban Ki Moon- who was notably silent as their loved ones perished in the final days of fighting. In a leaked memo, Norwegian Deputy Ambassador Mona Juul says of Sri Lanka, “the Secretary-General’s moral voice and authority have been absent.”

Why the silence? Perhaps because discussions in the Security Council of Tamil civilian lives were relegated to the basement of the UN, as opposed to Darfurian lives which are allowed consideration on higher floors. Perhaps because Sri Lanka was never an item on the Security Council Agenda, despite having the votes necessary. Some speculate it is the hardline position of the Secretary General’s advisors, bolstered by a Human Rights Council debate deeming the Sri Lankan war an “internal matter”. Officially, the UN laments that its lack of leverage on behalf of the affected civilians is derived from the growing influence of China and India on the island. In broad macroeconomic terms the Asian powers, capitalizing on the ill-gotten gains of peace, are certainly engaged in a fiscal duel for dominance in Sri Lanka. However, in development aid, most of their funds are dispersed through the UN – and a quick survey of any of the camps will reveal that UN tents far outnumber those provided by the Chinese government. The omnipresence of UN staff on the ground should imply a natural mandate in the debates around resettlement, but it is a power the organization has been hesitant to embrace.

It must be noted that in these internment camps there are sympathetic government soldiers (one lieutenant reportedly consistently siphons off food from rations to ensure children in his care are well-fed), and committed local UN staff -but all are beholden to a leadership which seems deaf to their concerns. While outside humanitarian groups are not (are never) entirely innocent, in Sri Lanka they too have been subsumed under the dominance of the UN (recently accused of not sharing crucial information). What is the message being conveyed by the actions of power players at the UN? That in a “post-conflict” environment, only a victor’s justice is available to a marginalized constituency.

Talking heads and a growing number of colored rubber bracelets have tried to convince us that “development” will solve all problems, ethnic or otherwise. But what happens when in order to maintain a presence in a country, and access to displaced civilians, the largest outside “development” actor forgoes its responsibility to advocate for rights guaranteed in the Geneva Convention? While the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam are no longer the focal point for Tamil nationalism, separatist sentiments remain high among a population who will no longer accept the exchange of humanitarian aid for political rights.

The assassinated Sinhalese journalist Lasantha Wickrematunga predicted in January of this year, “A military occupation of the country’s north and east will require the Tamil people of those regions to live eternally as second-class citizens, deprived of all self respect. Do not imagine that you can placate them by showering “development” and “reconstruction” on them in the post-war era.” As Tamils around the world are now being recruited into “power-sharing” discussions and “trust-building” exercises, it is important to recognize that a significant amount of power remains in the hands of the UN, an institution that the minority Tamils once trusted with their lives.

The monsoon rains this fall are predicted to trigger a humanitarian crisis as every existing concern outlined by human rights groups (poor sanitation, collapsing tents, lack of medical care) will be exacerbated by massive flooding. Local and international NGOs have warned that no amount of money poured into the overcrowded camps will prevent the loss of thousands of civilian lives. Logistically, at least 100,000 (approximately 1/3) of the displaced civilians must be evacuated to their original homes in the Northern and Eastern districts before the onset of the rains. It seems that only when the international community recognizes the limits of “development” will Tamil civilians, inadvertently, be granted the most basic of rights- the right of return.

More on Sri Lanka

Marjon Rebecca Carlos: Lady of the Hour: LeToya Luckett Takes on R&B, Love & Self

When sitting down recently to interview R&B singer, LeToya Luckett, I couldn’t help but pick up on this certain something about the star, this ineffable quality that makes one want to just root for her. I would never consider the former Destiny’s Child bandmember and now successful solo artist as an “underdog”, per se; heaven’s no. But there is a “local girl done good” quality that seems to just exude forth from the Houston, Texas native. I mean, to speak frankly, Ms. Luckett has had to go up against the indomitable spirit of Papa Knowles and the “Beyoncé machine” when Destiny’s Child collapsed in 2000 over rumors of internal mismanagement, and resuscitate her career after a six-year hiatus from the public eye. Trying to be creative under conditions like these would leave anyone paralyzed with doubt, but since the 2006 run-away success of her single “Torn” and number-one album, LeToya, the singer has been working relentlessly to come into her own as an artist. With this week’s release of her sophomore project, Lady Love, she has seemingly done just that.

Having already released two singles from Lady Love, “Not Anymore” and “She Ain’t Got, “Ms. Luckett is well on her way to leaving her own “thumbprint”, as she likes to put it, on R&B music. She confesses that with the immediate success of her single, “Torn”, she was catapulted from the respite she had carved for herself in Houston, Texas to the centerstage. “I quite literally had to chase the single down, all while developing myself as a solo artist, finding out who I was as an artist.” True, up until “Torn”, the singer’s career trajectory had largely been marked by another time, by another sound, by another LeToya altogether, so fans were eager to discover where Ms. Luckett would be taking us as she embarked out on her own.

LeToya’s search for a musical id is not lost even on her most unwavering of fans, especially considering that now more than ever, a musical artist’s persona is so deeply tied to their sound and success. Although “Torn” was a hit, it didn’t quite tell us listeners much about Ms. Luckett’s potential or range as an artist; it didn’t quite give us an idea of what exactly she wanted to say. Le Toya reassures me that Lady Love addresses these queries
head-on, and she has really found who “Toya” is. And from the sound of it, you can’t disagree.

Collaborating with the likes of Ne-Yo, Ludacris, Tank, Estelle and Ryan Leslie, Ms. Luckett was looking to have fun and more importantly “create music that can change people’s lives and hearts” on her sophomore offering. A tall order, but with the help of R&B producing wunderkid, Ne-Yo, channeling her newly realized sense of self into song, it makes it all the more conceivable.

Confronting the histrionics and wounds of relationships directly, Ms. Luckett explains that with Lady Love she “got some guts” and wanted to be the voice for those women who far too often lose themselves in relationships. I tell her that I can certainly gauge that sentiment on my favorite track, “Regret,” featuring Ludacris. Pegged as the third-single off the album, Ms. Luckett squeals in delight after learning of how this track struck quite a chord with me. A smooth ballad that moves delicately over a simple piano-riff, Ms. Luckett’s powerful voice warbles of how an old love will realize all too late how much of an influence and impression LeToya in fact had on his life.

But to be fair, LeToya isn’t about imparting the blame on the fellas entirely. No, she’s much more interested in discussing the mutual culpability men and women must take in their relationships, and is quick to reveal she’s guilty of committing mistakes of her own. With tracks like “Lazy” and “Take Away Love”, the listener can easily identify Ms. Luckett’s earnestness, her honesty about relationships, which makes this album all the more powerful in its accessibility. She is direct in her wants from a partner on “Good To Me” and particularly fed up with the back-and-forth of a dissolving relationship. When she revealed to me, “I am speaking from experience on this album….I am not afraid of being alone and single,” you believe her.

But for those who still harbor any doubts over such a confession, they need only look to Lady Love‘s bold album art, which has LeToya encased in free-form armor, her lithe-form peeking out ever so through the slits. Serving as a defense mechanism to the fullest, Ms. Luckett explains that the armor, “represents a protection of one’s heart. I am free within…but that armor protects my heart.” A serious forewarning to any interested parties, especially considering Ms. Luckett’s effervescence and general charm works in stark contrast to such an image. But perhaps when there is more at stake, when there is greater sense of self at play, you’re not going to just fall susceptible to the same patterns, the same ruses that have beleagured you before.

Yes, it sounds like another time, another sound, another LeToya altogether.

Andy Ostroy: Mock Executitions, Power Drills to the Head and "We’ll Kill Your Mama?" Why Obama Must Fully Prosecute Bush’s War Criminals

So now we know the CIA went even further than previously thought in interrogating and torturing terror suspects. This includes guns and power-drills pointed at heads; death threats against family members; and mock executions. Democrats are outraged, while hypocritical Republicans are claiming witch hunt.

This coming from a party that impeached a U.S president, Bill Clinton, on charges stemming from an adulterous affair. The same party that’s now crying foul over a special war crimes investigation. It’s good that right-wingers have their priorities straight, huh?

As expected, the vicious GOP attack machine kicked into high gear Tuesday, tearing a familiar page from its lies and deception playbook. Right-wing radio’s spinheads are literally whipping themselves into a mouth-frothing frenzy, claiming “the Obama administration is creating this CIA scandal to divert attention away from its problems” and how “all the left cares about is protecting the feelings of murderous terrorists” or that “liberals want to destroy our Democracy.” This is the sort of reprehensible and irresponsible rhetoric we heard repeatedly during the Bush years. It’s what Republicans do best, and Obama and the Democrats better get on the offensive or it’ll end up having to relentlessly defend itself from this hateful drivel, which would be a major distraction and undermine its entire agenda.

Obama and the Democrats will never succeed in the propaganda war if they simply meet lies with intelligent, rational response. They need to grab the controls and re-frame the debate rather than constantly play defense. And maybe they should even start spreading some lies of their own. Put Republicans on the defensive for a change. Its time to fight fire with fire. Why be swift-boated again? Have Democrats forgotten how the Rovians succeeding in making the war hero John Kerry look weak on national security while turning draft-dodging Bush and Cheney into John Wayne? Is there any doubt they’ll exploit the CIA scandal, painting Democrats as unpatriotic in the process? Or that they’ll take the recovering economy, and twist reality so that voters think that things are headed in the wrong direction? Just look how they’ve hijacked the health-care debate, spreading despicable lies about “death panels” and “pulling the plug on Grandma.” History can so repeat itself.

Now let’s address the issue of whether the CIA went beyond the call of duty in its interrogation techniques. Hindsight is indeed a luxury, and to be sure, the threats posed by non-uniformed, suicidal, murderous terrorist butchers are by far more frightening and harder to combat than our traditional enemies of the past. But that’s again in the context of history. If we go back 65-70 years, when America battled the Nazis, Mussolini and the Japanese, or during the ensuing decades when the paranoid Communist Russian fear raged out of control, the Unites States military and intelligence apparatus managed to protect the nation while still abiding by international law. One major exception was the treatment of American Japanese, who were rounded up and imprisoned in U.S. internment camps during WWII. But those who committed that humiliating atrocity were prosecuted.

Throughout modern U.S. history, each presidential administration viewed its then-enemy as the most dangerous and deadly. But what kind of nation will we become if we suddenly decide that the current enemy is the most deadly, and therefore we no longer must obey international law, the Geneva Conventions, FISA laws, the Constitution or our own rule of law? Where do we draw the line? Once the bar is reset for “acceptable” interrogation and torture, the playbook will be forever changed, and American soldiers’ lives will be at stake. What happens to these brave servicemen and women when they are captured if we’ve committed illegal acts of torture all under the name of national security? What’s to stop other armies from doing the same? And if so, what are we left with? When laws are no longer respected you have anarchy. Which is why President Obama must punish these Bush-era criminals under the fullest extent of the law. This isn’t a presidential blowjob we’re talking about here…..

More on Karl Rove

Yuna Shin: Illegal Immigrants As Less Than Dogs

Daphne Eviatar of The Washington Independent reported on August 19 of the rising likelihood of the GOP alienating the Latino vote bloc by embracing the nativist stance on Health Care. She reports that “protesters at town hall meetings are increasingly railing against lawmakers for seeking to provide health care to illegal immigrants. . . the anger fomented by anti-health care reform groups has spilled over into nativist death threats. The issue of illegal immigrantion is now coming back into the consciousness of many opposed to health care reform and those who oppose any type of money and resources spent on illegal immigrant who seek health care.”

But Eviatar’s report does not stop there. “Last week outside President Obama’s town hall meeting in New Hampshire, one protester shouted,” Eviatar tells us, “‘We don’t need illegals,’ adding, ‘Send ‘em back with a bullet in the head.’”

This left me speechless. This is beyond mere anger directed at the money and resources spent on the illegal immigrants when the times are tough. It is pure hatred, just unimaginable hatred. Can the protester actually be saying that the illegal aliens should be shot dead? Sent with a bullet in the head? Not only not receive medical attention, but they, all of them, men, women, children should be sent back dead, “with a bullet in the head”? Shot dead?

This is beyond repulsive, beyond any trace of humanity. This reminded me of an article that I read a long time ago when I was growing up in Germany. The article was about American white supremacy. Germans like to look at their own history through different lenses, so this article was not out of the ordinary. I don’t quite remember if it was a print magazine or a news magazine. I do remember vividly, however, one particular detail of this article.

The reporter asked the white supremacist a simple question. Would he stop to help a black man on the road who had been hit by a car? Sure, the white supremacist said, just like I would help a dog.

This answer stuck with me for years.

The protester at the New Hampshire town hall meeting, and all those like him, have placed fellow humans below dogs. Repeat: these people have placed fellow human beings below dogs.

This is very, very sad.

Jeff Antebi: Why We Shouldn’t Stigmatize Haiti

In April, I made my way to Haiti for the recent Haitian Senatorial elections. It’s part of a series global election photographic essays I’m doing.

After deliberating over travel warnings and security briefings, I expected the absolute worst-case scenario. Prior to my arrival, a nun was decapitated in a food riot.

Kidnappings were de rigueur. If your ride from the airport didn’t show up on time, you might just be ‘disappeared’. I thought there was a decent chance I’d have my throat slit by the flight attendant as I deplaned.

In addition to photographing the elections, my other mission was to visit Cite Soleil, a slum in Port-au-Prince. I admit to being both mesmerized and taken aback by the oddly sensationalistic Wikipedia entry on Cite Soleil (“Armed gangs roam the streets. Murder, rape, kidnapping, looting, and shootings are common as every few blocks is controlled by one of more than 30 armed factions”). But ever since I read Robert Neuwirth’s Shadow Cities, I’ve been photographing illegal squatter communities around the world — places nearly a billion people call home.

I made out a will. I took out all sorts of exotic insurance policies that I cannot discuss without risking them being voided. I signed up for a medical evacuation service and got prescriptions for Malarone and Azithromycin.

Haiti is sad, yes. Desperate, yes. Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, and it shows. If you are Haitian and under five years old, you are more likely to die than if you were born anywhere else in the Western Hemisphere. If you are a woman, you are more likely to die giving birth here than anywhere else in the Western Hemisphere. If you are Haitian, there’s a 50/50 chance you can’t read or write. If you are Haitian and you die, there’s a 50/50 chance what killed you was a water-borne illness. One of the leading causes of death in Haiti is diarrhea. The nation’s children have it the worst: 98 percent of Haiti’s children don’t finish secondary school; thousands of Haitian children become victims of human trafficking every year; and 19,000 children in Haiti currently live with HIV/AIDS.

But I discovered something unexpected about Haiti. It’s nowhere near as apocalyptic as one might think. In fact, for experienced travelers, it’s a place worth visiting (with heavy doses of caveats and cautions). Haiti’s proximity to the U.S. (only an hour-and-a-half from Miami) provides an even more compelling case for engaging programs and policies that can make life-saving differences to the men, women and children I met .

They are, literally, our neighbors. There are nations everywhere that need help, but compared to a nation across the ocean, the cost of supporting our neighbors is minimal. Haitians who are lucky enough to have a job earn the equivalent of $600 a year. As you can imagine, it doesn’t take much to make a significant impact.

Not that there aren’t obstacles. Government corruption can prevent real, beneficial change from happening (things such as education, electricity and basic health care). The wrong kinds of “charity” render people apathetic and don’t galvanize the population to help themselves. And a lack of long-term stability means a lack of foreign investors.

That’s why it’s important to at least start neutralizing the stigma and fear. While it’s not the most attractive choice for Caribbean tourism, Haiti is also not the abyss.

Like a lot of people living with hardship, Haitian people can look cold. But, as I learned, 100 times out of 100, when you make eye contact and say “Bon Jour,” you get a smile and a “Bon Jour” back.

My Haiti photos can be seen at www.jeffantebi.com.

Tasha Gordon-Solmon: Miss Universe 2009 Liveblog

Watch contestants from all over the universe compete in the grueling categories of Swimsuit, Evening Gown and Interview. And watch me mock them endlessly. But with love.

Sunday, August 23rd, 9 pm ET.

Will I vomit before the 3 hour pageant is over? Will Heidi Montag’s first live performance be a hit? And who will be the next Miss Universe? Tune in tomorrow to find out. . .

<a href="http://www.coveritlive.com/mobile.php?

Leo W. Gerard: The Republican "Do Not Resuscitate" Plan to Let Medicare Die

During a webcast meeting with Organizing for America on Thursday, President Barack Obama outed the covert Republican plot to strangle Medicare to financial death.

He explained to the group that if Congress does nothing, if health care reform fails, “Medicare will run out of money in eight years.”

Obama and the Democrats are pressing for health care reform to provide people under 65 with some semblance of what those over 65 have – government-assured affordable medical insurance. At the same time, for Medicare, Obama said, “Part of what we want to do is strengthen it, so it is there over the long haul.”

“It is not as if,” he said, “if we just stand still, everything is going to be okay.”

Immobility is exactly what Republicans want, however. “No change” is their slogan. They’ve offered zero substantive reform for health care. In the years when they controlled Congress and the White House under former President George W. Bush, they did nothing to repair financial problems with Medicare. In fact, they falsely minimized the price tag of the new prescription drug program, Medicare Part D, and drove up the cost by forbidding government negotiation for lower medicine prices. In addition, although they failed to accomplish it, they pressed to privatize that socialist program called Social Security — just months before the stock market tanked.

This is philosophical warfare, and for the Republicans, Medicare is an appropriate casualty. The GOP has made it clear they believe the public option being proposed in health care reform is socialism – an evil that must be eradicated at all costs. Of course, Medicare, a government-sponsored health care program for all people over 65 actually is socialist.

It’s a slippery slope. First Republicans kill the opportunity for all Americans under the age of 65 to choose their own private insurance or get government-sponsored health care under the public option. Then, by doing nothing, Republicans destroy the ability of those over 65 to retain their government-sponsored health care.

Senior citizens are more frightened about health care reform than anyone else. That may be, President Obama said, because they routinely need health care more than any other group. So lying to them about it, especially for political gain, is cruel and despicable.

It’s true, Democrats want change. They seek to reform and improve the health care system so that Medicare is strengthened and funded for the future. For example, Obama noted, under the Democrats’ plan, the “donut hole” in Medicare Part D, during which senior citizens must pay for their prescription medications, would be eliminated. President Obama got the pharmaceutical companies to step up and pay more – if Congress manages to pass reform.

A huge portion of the cost of health care reform would come from changes in the way the federal government pays for Medicaid and Medicare. What the Democrats want to change are payment methods that are just wrong. No bid contracts, for example. Introducing real capitalist competition in the system would reduce costs without affecting benefits. “No one is talking about messing with your Medicare benefits,” Obama said, attempting in a mere statement to counter screaming “tea baggers” featured continuously on Fox News. Of the Democrats he said, “We think Medicare is a sacred trust.”

On health care reform, the Republican plan to do nothing means death. Death for the public option. But also death for Medicare.

President Obama explained: “The status quo is unsustainable. If you like what you have now, unless we make some changes, you are not going to have what you like because health care costs are rising three times faster than wages. . . If you have a private plan, you have something to worry about. If you are on Medicare, you have something to worry about because we are going to run out of money.”

Democrats are trying to resuscitate Medicare and deliver health care reform. Republicans are forming death panels to kill all of it.

More on Health Care

Dr. Irene S. Levine: How to put the kibosh on a friendship that seems doomed from the start

QUESTION

Dear Irene,

I’m in several professional organizations with a woman who is a very good person but drives me a little bonkers. She has asked me to meet her for dinner several times, but I have always begged off. This week, she caught me at a weak moment and I said, “yes.”

I have no problem spending an evening with her but don’t want to encourage a one-on-one friendship. How can I avoid hurting her feelings and still maintain a relationship as colleagues rather than friends?

Sincerely,
Rhianna

ANSWER

Dear Rhianna,

First, give her (and yourself) a chance. Even though this doesn’t appear to be a case of love at first sight, there may be more to this woman than you are giving her credit for at a distance. Although you say it was a moment of weakness, something made you say “yes.”

Until you see how the one-on-one evolves (perhaps, by the time you’ve finished the entrée), keep the discussion on a professional footing. Don’t talk too much about personal matters as opposed to business; your professional tie is what brought you together so that will seem perfectly appropriate and natural. You may find out that she’s more interested in networking or partnering as opposed to making you a new friend.

By the time you’re up to coffee, if she is still grating on your nerves and makes overtures to get together for dinner again, be sure to let her know how busy and overextended you are with existing work obligations, family and friends. Since she is in your profession, you’re likely to run in the same circles so you want to be tactful. Tell her how glad you are that you both took the time to have dinner together, finally, and that you look forward to the next time you see her at XYZ organization.

It’s always good to have an exit strategy when you enter an uncertain situation. Hope this one works for you.

Best,
Irene

Have a question about female friendships? Send it to The Friendship Doctor.

Irene S. Levine, PhD is a freelance journalist and author. She holds an appointment as a professor of psychiatry at the New York University School of Medicine and her book about female friendships, Best Friends Forever: Surviving a Breakup with Your Best Friend will be published by Overlook Press on September 20, 2009. She also blogs about female friendships at The Friendship Blog.

Frank Dwyer: Political Haiku: Bipartisanshit

Obama and Dems
achieve bail-out miracle:
near-dead GOP.

More on Barack Obama

David Roberts: Netroots Nation Frustration and the Impediments to Progressive Change

grist.org

I just returned to Seattle from Netroots Nation, the yearly gathering of progressive bloggers, journalists, and activists. Last year, in Austin, the atmosphere was absolutely electric, with the election approaching and a clear sense of battle lines drawn, victory within reach. Also, lots of great parties.

This year, at least from my limited perspective, the atmosphere was more muted, the panels less exciting, and the parties both fewer and less fun. Some of this could just be me getting to be an old fart, but others I spoke to had similar experiences.

The tone of the conference was, in part, related to a general frustration among progressives.

I wouldn’t say the "netroots" (I hate that damn word) have turned on Obama, this sensationalistic HuffPo story notwithstanding. New pieces from Robert Kuttner and Jane Smiley represent a growing frustration with Obama’s pursuit of bipartisanship, but overall, Obama’s personal popularity is still plenty in evidence. The sense, rather, is that we are witnessing a tsunami of progressive enthusiasm, organizing, and, um, Hope crash on the shoals of the status quo … and the status quo isn’t budging. Bit by bit, the giddy high of those days following Obama’s election is dissipating. It’s dispiriting.

The dynamic is most obvious around health care, and in my panel Thursday morning, one of the things I discussed was what that battle portends for the battle over climate legislation when it resumes in the Senate this Fall.

Depending on who you believe, heath care is going to come to a vote anywhere between the end of September and Thanksgiving. I’d say there’s around a 30-40% chance that enough conservative Democratic Senators defect that the whole project crashes and burns in a cloture vote (60 votes are needed to overcome the threat of a Republican filibuster). There’s around a 60-70% chance that the Senate produces a watered-down, incrementalist bill that doesn’t come anywhere close to the fundamental changes needed in U.S. health care insurance and delivery. (It looks like the public option is the latest thing to be compromised away.) And there’s about a 1% chance of a genuinely good bill passing.

How did this craptastic state of affairs come to be? Without dragging this post out forever, here’s a short list:

• NO is easy. The Republican opposition does not have to do any education of its activist base. The grounds for opposing every Democratic initiative are the same: fear of creeping socialism, with an undercurrent of racial and revanchist sentiment. So there’s this large army of wingnuts that can be mobilized quickly and easily, on any issue that comes up. By contrast, explaining the public option, or co-ops, or cap-and-trade, or offsets requires a patient campaign. And even then, it’s hard to work up passion for that kind of technocratic detail. Long story short: on the ground, in terms of tangible grassroots activity — calls to Congressional offices, presence at public town halls — the right is kicking the left’s ass.
• The filibuster. This "process issue" is difficult to make sexy, but it’s absolutely central to the difficulty in advancing the Dem agenda. It’s only in recent decades that 60 votes has become the default threshold in the Senate; it has fundamentally changed the political landscape. I asked Rep. Jay Inslee about it at NN, and his answer didn’t contain much cause for hope:
• Blue Dogs Senate Dems are bad people. Partly thanks the new 60-vote requirement, “centrist” Democratic Senators like Max Baucus and Ben Nelson have accrued enormous power. Their states went for McCain; they face no serious challenge (no election until 2006 for Nelson; 2008 for Baucus); they receive lavish support from special interests; and finally, importantly, they are not good people. It’s important to speak about this directly, without euphemism. They could decide to use their political power to insure better healthcare for millions of people or prevent catastrophe for low-lying developing countries. Instead they slow the process to a crawl with substanceless, affective appeals to "fiscal conservatism" for the "folks back home," thin cover for acting on behalf of their corporate funders.

Two notable features of these lamentable facts.

First, they are structural. It’s really hard to see what Obama or progressives can do to change them except at the margins. Too frequently people talk as though Obama or Waxman just aren’t trying hard enough — the Green Lantern theory of domestic politics. They aren’t powerless, of course, and it would be nice if the progressive caucus learned to throw its weight around more. But the fact that the US system of government is riddled with procedural chokepoints is not something one can will away. The filibuster could theoretically be fought, but we seem to be a long way from that being a live possibility. And finally, it’s hard to see what leverage Obama has over conservative Dem senators whose states didn’t vote for him.

Secondly, on virtually every score, climate is worse off than health care. The right-wing is just as motivated and organized as they are on health, but the progressive coalition is fragmented. The policy options aren’t as well understood; there isn’t single rallying point equivalent to the public option. On climate/energy there are far more "centrists" in positions of power to appease to get to 60 votes. (And it’s important to understand that "centrist" is a situational description. When Dems are in power, it means "a little weaker than whatever the Dems come up with" — see: stimulus bill. When Republicans are in power, it means "a little closer to the Republicans than the other Dems" — see: Bush tax cuts.) There’s even less credible leverage over Dem senators; voting against Obama’s climate agenda will not threaten the reelection of a single Southern or Midwestern Dem.

I’m afraid this is a depressing post, but it’s just become clear that structural features of American politics make it so change averse that virtually no progressive electoral sweep is enough to do the job. And however difficult those features may be for health care, they’re worse for climate. At this point, chances seem to be split pretty evenly between total failure and the passage of an utterly defanged bill.

Or as Jon Stewart put it: "And now, cap-and-trade — naked, bruised, and humiliated — is off to the Senate to get skull-f*cked."

More on Health Care