The indefinite detention clauses ( section 1021 and 1022) in the legislation are a direct attack upon the civil rights of all Americans and are in essence in breech of the US Constitution.  The detention closes represent yet another step taken towards an erosion of the freedoms which are the very foundation of American society. The detention sections of the NDAA give the Executive branch wide and unchecked powers to detain, via the US military, any person “who was part of/ or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”

The law is ill defined and opened to interpretations. The provisions also target anyone who commits a belligerent act against the US or its coalition allies and aid enemy forces, under the “law of war without trial, until the end of the hostilities”. The text also authorizes trial by military tribunal, or transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, or the transfer to “any foreign country, or any other foreign entity.” The NDAA, if applied, would make legal the “rendition” program run in secret by the CIA during the Bush administration.

After signing the NDAA, President Obama made the clarification that his administration “will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” However, the only provision from which US citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals  accused of being members from al-Qaeda and other “terrorist” groups, military detention is mandatory. For US citizens it is optional. There is no exemption for US citizens from presidential power of detention, either by the military  or by civilian agencies such as the CIA, DHS or FBI, only from the requirement of military detention.

Civil rights organization such as the ACLU are vehemently opposed to the NDAA. In their view “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this or future presidents to militarily detain people captured from any battlefield.” The call for action by this coalition of activists concerned by freedom and civil liberties is “No more left, no more right, time to unite. Stand and fight”.

Joseph Snook, from Wake Up America Southern Oregon is one of the organizers of Monday’s protest. He made the following statement:” A group of conservatives, Libertarians, and Tea Party activists by the name of Wake Up America Southern Oregon is proud to unite with the Southern Oregon Occupy Movement to take a bold stand against the NDAA. Further, it is time that “We the People”, all of us unite!”

Emery Way from Occupy Ashland stated: “Occupy Ashland is standing with libertarians, progressives, conservatives and the Tea Party alike to speak out against the attack against our civil rights which is the NDAA. In times such as these, when the injustices of a system and a government become too large to ignore, it is vital that we stand together not as members of a political party but as fellow citizens and human beings to defend our precious freedoms.”

Indeed bills like the NDAA,  in combination with the Patriot Act, are “legal” slippery slopes giving the executive branch the legal tools to potentially impose  martial law and  crack down on political dissent in a similar repressive fashion than the one used in fascist states. Let’s hope that this type of protest and action-uniting citizens across the political spectrum- to defend basic civil rights enshrined in the US Constitution become the rule and not the exception.

Editor’s Note: All photographs by Justin Norman.

Photo by Coal Dubya

“Between the public sector and the private sector, we have wreaked untold havoc on the media environment.”

These aren’t the words of a progressive media advocate such as University of Illinois professor Robert McChesney or The Nation’s John Nichols, but of ex-FCC commissioner Michael Copps in January. In an interview on Democracy Now!, Copps attributes his claim to “the abdication of public interest responsibility by the FCC” over the last 30 years and their failure to enforce public interest guidelines and a stronger focus on news.

Here’s another example of how the FCC has failed in their responsibility to the public good: In 1995, the FCC forbade companies ownership of more than 40 stations. Clear Channel Communications now owns over 1,500. This rate of consolidation clearly shows no sign of slowing.

Photo from Occupy Confessions

The closing of news rooms and the number of reporters on the street instead of the beat goes on as the corporate state continues its relentless and undemocratic consolidation of America’s media landscape. Layoffs continue despite a number of companies like McClatchy posting a 21% profit margin, according to the book The Death and Life of American Journalism. McClatchy fired a third of their newsroom staff in 2008.

Rupert Murdoch. Photo: galleristny.com

“25 or 30 years ago, only 50 companies controlled more than half of what we see and hear every single day. Now, that 50 – which was alarming enough – has shrunk to six or even five,” says Johnathan Lawson, the co-founder of Reclaim the Media. Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp owns the top newspaper on three continents: The Wall Street Journal, The Sun, and The Australian. According to a 2008 GAO report, the company was operating over 150 subsidiaries in off-shore tax havens. How much of those subsidiary holdings could have gone to funding NPR, or towards community initiatives to help expand minority media in communities?

The assault on our airwaves first began in earnest in 1980, when “the FCC did away with public interest guidelines for broadcast television licenses, and the renewal period went from three to eight years,” according to Copps. Now all a broadcaster has to do is “mail in a postcard” and their license is renewed, because the FCC – against the very reason it was created – has watered down attempts to ensure that the public’s airwaves are by-and-large for the public good.

Former FCC Chairman Michael Powell

Michael Powell (son of former Secretary of State Colin Powell), who was the head of the FCC in 2003, attempted to eliminate 30 year-old rules that prohibited any television network from reaching more than 35% of the national population. These rules were, in part, created to prevent the homogenization of news and to ensure that there was an attempt at quality local coverage. Predictably, the broadcast industry spent $249 million attempting to convince the federal government to allow new rules which would expand that limit to 45% of the public. And they won.

Fast forward to 2006: the FCC passed rules “which allowed broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership in the top 20 markets,” as Katy Bachman wrote in AdWeek. “The last thing Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski [who became the FCC head in 2009] wants to talk about are the media ownership rules.”

A media system dominated by such a narrow coterie of owners has a direct impact on the quality of news presented to the public – affecting a diversity of viewpoints as well as the depth of coverage on issues such as corporate greed, poverty, corruption, racism, climate change and a host of other topics that an electorate needs to know in order to make educated decisions which directly affect their lives.

image from Gilad Atzmon

One major casualty of corporate domination of news is investigative journalism. Be it in print or in broadcast news, this time-intensive and not always profitable aspect of news is crucial to a healthy democracy. One need only look, for instance, at the media debacle of the Iraq War to see how the corporate state perverts information consumed by Americans. The first Gulf War was a huge boon for corporations like GE, which turned nightly news into “a media hardware show,” as Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! stated. GE had a significant stake in the production of parts for many of the weapons in the Persian Gulf war.

The shrinking of diverse views on war was evidenced by the firing of MSNBC host Phil Donahue in February of 2003. He approached the invasion from a critical perspective and maintained the highest rated show on that network. The killing off of diversity is also a perfect example of how corporate media perpetuates the concept of “just” wars to increase profits, as GE’s role in the Persian Gulf war and the reporting on that war and Operation Iraqi Freedom demonstrate.
image from TvNewsLies.org

Media consolidation also plays a profound role in how our society prioritizes values, from self-esteem to consumerism. “It gives them [corporate media] a great deal of influence over how our culture thinks about itself,” points out author and activist Anne Elizabeth Moore.

The deluge of advertising, for instance, which takes up a lot of broadcasting and radio, certainly has an impact on shopping habits as well as more serious issues like body-image.
Enter Occupy Wall Street. The movement has set its sights on corporations and the elite who continue without apology to commodify health care, public education, and other vital necessities, and has subsequently kicked issues like income inequality and corporate greed back into the national conversation. Some even argue that President Obama’s recent State of the Union speech carried a hint of the spirit of the movement, which isn’t surprising in an election year.

How would corporate media respond to civil disobedience in their lobbies? What would happen if a group of protesters went to a news station and demanded a revoking of that outlet’s license? This is what happened in the WLBT case, when civil rights activists challenged a racist broadcaster and ultimately forced a judge to pull the station’s license for not serving the public interest.

If the people are going to stand up to big banks and corporations for wrecking our economy and destroying our environment, the theft of our airwaves and newspapers must not be ignored.  As each occupation tackles issues local to their cities and towns – such as police brutality in minority communities – directly challenging broadcasters and newspapers through sit-ins or other creative tactics to cover issues that aren’t properly covered by major media could be a good start. But that would just be the beginning.

One Occupy Philadelphia protester sums it up best:

“It’s bullshit that our country’s main source of news is owned by a few large corporations that have a GLARING conflict of interest in providing us with accurate, honest information. They have an agenda both in downsizing news rooms as well as promoting certain political views.  It’s time for us to hold them to account and demand a true separation of corporation and government, both in the running of and in the reporting of.”

Dustin Slaughter is an activist, journalist, new media advocate, and photojournalist. He’s founder of The David and Goliath Project and a contributor to Demotix News.

Close plays Albert Nobbs, a shy waiter at a once high-tone 19th-century Dublin hotel. The gender-bending role itself is usually a good Academy Award bet ( think Hillary Swank’s “Boys Don’t Cry” or Felicity Huffman in “TransAmerica“). But neither the performance nor the film feels gimmicky. The earnest character portrait is infused with such quiet. but potent emotion. Close–with cropped orange hair–doesn’t exactly look like a man. But she doesn’t look like a woman either. She looks, as one of the hotel patrons says, “Like the strangest little man.” If they only knew.

Indeed, it’s that strangeness that draws you in. Why is Albert, who was born a woman, living her life as a man? The answer isn’t as simple as the cruel economics of the era. While it’s true unmarried women had few options, that’s not the whole story. There’s a tragic story–one I’ll let you discover as the film unfolds–that underscores Albert’s furtive little life, one always shrouded in fear of exposure.

Still, Albert seems content to all but fade into the Victorian wallpaper. That is until he meets a brash house painter Hubert Page, played by the magnificent Janet McTeer ( also Oscar nominated as Best Supporting Actress) Hubert, too, was born a woman, but left her husband and made a similar choice to live as a man. The only difference: Hubert lives in domestic bliss with his “wife,” a sweet dressmaker.

This revelation opens dormant desires in Albert. The savings he’s squirreled
away might be used to purchase a tobacco shop; a wild-eyed maid might make a nice wife. We watch Albert tentatively venture into the world with new hope.

Close has kept this project, based on a short story by George Moore, published in 1918, close to her heart for decades. She starred in an off-Broadway production in 1982 and has been trying to get a version up on the screen for years ( she also co-wrote the screenplay and song). And that intimacy and obvious affection for Albert is evident. In other hands, the character could come off mawkish, a sentimental wax work. But director Rodrigo Garcia guides his star in a deeply felt inner journey.

The film is fascinating, the supporting players including McTeer, Brendan Fraser, Mia Wasikowska and Brenda Fricker all add color to what could be seen as a drab little story. But it is ultimately Close’s performance that makes the film so captivating. A performance like this is so rare in its power and raw, emotional beauty, it almost defies description. You simply have to watch Close’s eyes and you’ll see Albert’s misery, longing, kindness all wrapped up in a single glance.

There’s a grander takeaway, too. “Albert Nobbs,” isn’t just a sad and complicated story about one person searching for acceptance and normalcy. It’s also a study in human nature and humanity. Most of the characters–the rich patrons and the servants–are all pretending to be something they’re not. Sound like someone you know? We all hide behind social masks sometimes. To get past the mask, to dig deeper, taking in the real person, gifts, warts, and all, therein lies the true thrill and honor of knowing another human being.

Speaking of honors, I hope Glenn Close is proud of that Oscar nomination. And award yourself the honor of watching “Albert Nobbs.”

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.

In the past thirty six hours, several stories have emerged to highlight a growing problem that threatens the continued effectiveness, and perhaps the very existence, of the Occupy movement.  Left-wing politicos have come out against radical tactics such as those of the Black Bloc.  Establishment activists involved in Occupy seek to end the actual occupations recently raided by police in favor of more traditional, less radical models. And, President Obama has decided that accepting Super-PAC money for his campaign machine is now acceptable.

That last reference may seem disconnected, but, once you understand the dynamic that has been developing within the Occupy movement, you will see how the possibility exists that Super-PAC money could find its way into supporting a kinder, gentler, more establishment friendly Occupy movement.

There has been a struggle within Occupy for the control of the leaderless, horizontally organized movement.  Professional activists, equipped with the resources of the establishment that employs them, offered structure to the chaotic beginnings of this fledgling populous uprising.  Everything from tents and sleeping bags to organizational structure, General Assembly facilitation, Internet platforms, and targets for the populous anger of Occupiers was readily provided by well-connected insiders.

This was not an insidious conspiracy perpetrated by evil people.  Many professional activists firmly believe that they are doing the right thing.  Many of them are doing very good things.  Unfortunately, for all their good intentions, many of them are a part of the very establishment that the Occupy movement is protesting, and the good work they do actually serves to legitimize that system.

These professional activists did not come with a malicious intent to co-opt and destroy Occupy.  Not all of them, anyway.  Some may have been seeking only to serve their resume, or their pay-check, but others came with sincere intent to do good.  This does not, however, change the fact that the establishment that they are a part of, and that they bring into the Occupy movement, is a serious danger.

The leaderless nature of Occupy left an unintentional vacuum that these organized and structured activists filled.  Now, almost five months later, the movement is starting to look more like the lame attempts of the past than the agent of courageous and radical change it promised. Except perhaps Oakland. The problem gets compounded when these establishment activists not only monopolize the agenda and choose the targets of the populous movement, but dictate its strategy and tactics as well.  After decades of campaigns that have failed to move the political dial in any direction other than against the 99%, professional arrogance still drives them to insist that they should play a leading role.

Occupy Wall Street’s on-line discussions have worried over how to solve the problem of ‘disruptive outsiders’ for the ‘connected insiders.’  Many of those that actually occupied the public spaces were referred to as if unworthy, bothersome, and too full of dissent and challenges to a preordained agenda to associate with the pompous authors of these missives whose words made them seem more intent on earning their place in society as the next generation of bleeding heart Liberals, sipping their lattes, dreaming of limousines.

Seemingly towards that same end, OccupyDC has instituted an ironically controlling model of facilitation and consensus building that uses strict process to tightly control the groups deliberations and limit any dissension, thus allowing little resistance to proposed agenda items.  Similar problems exist in most of the major city occupations.  The General Assemblies in many cities experienced near, if not outright mutinies because of these controlling tactics only to, all too often, fall victim to the same problems once again.  The Occupy movement seems to have its own internal 1%, and, in this microcosm, success will only come when the 99% finds emancipation here as well.

As a result, in America, a populous uprising in solidarity with the 99% around the globe is rapidly becoming the play-thing of privileged white kids, in one of the worlds most privileged countries, using the Occupy movement to further their career goals and/or narrow its focus to domestic, and even partisan issues.  What started out as our best last chance for revolutionary change, true emancipation, and a sustainable future, is devolving into just another vehicle for doing good deeds for the unwashed masses while leaving the system that enslaves them intact.  Their rhetoric says “empower all,” but their underlying methods ensure that they maintain control.

Occupy, or at least that portion of it that has come under the spell of the establishment, seems to have forgotten its end game.  Five months ago, protesters occupied public spaces across the country in order to take their democracy back from the 1% that purchased it.  Now, they have declarations that include every social issue imaginable, and are so long that you can forget why you came there before you get half way through them.  Rather than stay on point and emancipate themselves from the appropriating class that lords over them so that they can reclaim their democracy and deal with these issues, they’ve been tricked into bringing all the issues in with them.  And… it’s about to get a whole lot worse.

After the past weeks rash of police raids, leveling the last and longest standing occupations in the country, establishment activists are pushing to forget about occupying the public spaces and focus on issue related goals.  This will divide the movement and bring it completely inside the establishment activist structure.  Rather than take to the streets and fight as a united 99% against the 1%, as part of a GLOBAL movement, occupiers are being asked to choose among the many existing domestic social campaigns and work for reform within the current establishment that wants to capitalize in the Occupy brand.  Good programs, but not what Occupy, and the global movement it claims to be part of, represents.

Last month I wrote a post about an employee of the Democratic Party campaign machine within Occupy DC.    The post focused on an employee of NGP VAN (the consulting firm that runs the Democratic campaigning machine), who was very active within OccupyDc, and hosted a meeting at Change.org headquarters in Washington, DC, to discuss ‘coalition building’ between ‘like-minded’ organizations and the Occupy movement across America.  I was immediately attacked by establishment activists and those within Occupy DC that see them as friends.  I was summarily removed from all OccupyDC listservs and committees that I sat on, targeted with a barrage of obscenities, and threatened with physical removal if I returned to McPherson Square.

This was not done through the General Assembly.  Nor by the Spokes Council.  Neither was it done by the majority of those that actually occupied McPherson Square.  It was not the result of any restorative justice meeting or due process of any sort.  It was the arbitrary actions of the establishment activists that were enraged by my exposee’, and some others that they’ve convinced to do their bidding, who decided that they alone could grant themselves the power to do such things.  Apparently the 1% within Occupy will cling to its power as firmly, and act no less unjustly to protect their interests, as the global 1%.

With Obama’s announcement that he will now be accepting Super-PAC money, the result of the coalitions proposed in this meeting and vehemently defended by establishment activists and their naive, unwitting accomplices could very easily result in these monies filtering down to the Occupy movement.  The organizations that want to ‘build coalitions’ with Occupy are part of the Democratic Party Machine.  Their efforts and programs to support Democratic Party candidates could, and very likely would, receive funding from these super-PACs. Money raised as a direct result of the Citizens United decision could end up funding, or being used to support, the movement that should be back in the streets and public spaces fighting against it.  This is pathetic.  Where did things go wrong?

Co-option does not come like the police executing a raid.  It doesn’t twist your arm and push you into obviously compromising positions. It comes as a helpful friend, and a trusted ally.  It often comes offering needed support, material sustenance, guidance, and promises of more. Sometimes it even comes without realizing that what it intends is co-option.  You only realize that you’re in a compromised position after the damage is done.

Many of the establishment activists can honestly be described as good people trying to do things that they believe will bring improvement to the lives of many.  That doesn’t change that they are part of the establishment that the Occupy movement is supposed to be fighting against and that the improvements they offer do nothing to change the status quo or crush the power of the ruling class.   All those that offer such support are not necessarily doing so with ulterior motives, either.  Occupy is wading into deep waters, full of dolphins and sharks, and they’re wearing Lady Gaga’s meat bikini.  They need to be careful who they’re swimming with.

Not all establishment activists are necessarily a threat.  There is a big difference between activists that have been working to feed and shelter the homeless, fight for living wages and safe work places, or protect women from domestic violence, and political  ‘activists’ whose only goal is to elect a candidate deemed acceptable by a corporate owned political party.  There’s the real danger… and that’s where the deep pockets wanting to help – and ‘build coalitions with Occupy’ – are coming from.

Oakland, with its long history of direct action activism, and relative lack of establishment politicos and partisan ‘activists’, has avoided the domestication that is plaguing the Occupy movement across the country.  They’ve become the ‘wild-child’ of the Occupy movement and perhaps its only hope for a future.  They’re also scaring the living shit out of those that want a kinder, gentler Occupy movement to see them through this election year.  Occupy can, and should, learn a lot from Oakland.  Those that hold power will not give it up without a fight.  They will not be shamed into submission.

Even Gandhi’s non-violent civil disobedience was active, not passive.  Gandhi did not comply with the police, or the military.  He did not retreat.  He did not back down.  Gandhi was a shrewd strategist.  The Black Bloc only breaks windows and other material objects that symbolize the wealth of the 1% and the oppression of the rest of us.  This is not violence.   Gandhi had more in common with the Black Bloc than with obedient protesters who comply with police and watch their encampments razed right in front of them, as if it were a spectator sport, while they whine for the loss of the rights and freedoms for which they’re unwilling to take a stand.

Establishment activists, that have elevated themselves to positions of authority, have put so much emphasis on protesting with only the appearance of defiance that many protesters  have forgotten why they are protesting in the first place.  The problem has become so extreme that when I’ve asked some what their goal is, many protesters responded with “to protest peacefully.”  They’ve allowed their singular goal of emancipation from rule by the appropriating class to become so convoluted that they’ve forgotten it.  They’ve allowed a tactic imposed by those that work within the establishment to become the goal.

Being arrested as one of those protesters ‘willing to be arrested’ during a protest has become a strange ritual.  First, it is not a tactic, it is a statement, and often a statement that only serves the ego of the arrested through the retelling.  A real statement might be doing something meaningful for which you really might risk arrest, and a great tactic would be to avoid that arrest so that you can do it again.

Peaceful civil disobedience is a very strong tactic, but it is not the only one.  Rather than fight within the movement for a singular tactic against a myriad of goals, the movement should be working towards a myriad of tactics against a singular goal.  The Black Bloc, Anonymous, establishment social service advocates, the rank and file along with the entire army of workers, and peacefully civil-DISOBEDIENT occupiers should be working in concert to destabilize the system that enslaves them all, not fighting against each other about whose tactic is more correct, or more valid, while accepting money and support – even indirectly – from the establishment they purportedly seek to depose.

• Peaceful protesters sleeping in the parks will not make the bankers and politicians run out of their offices, apologize, recommit to democracy, and return all of their ill-gotten gains.

• A groundswell of activism within domestic social services alone will not destabilize the status quo.

• The rank and file, and workers in general, have been suffering decline for over thirty years and urgently need to join their efforts in solidarity with more diverse and radical tactics against the corporate juggernaut seeking to wipe them out altogether.

• While an assault on the digital records of all financial and capital holdings of the 1% would have an impact,  without physical support it will result in little more than a glitch in the system, even if it’s a serious glitch.

• And, although warriors in the street may provide fodder for corporate media while they work to both weaken and expose an oppressive police state that serves the 1%, those with the means to support, articulate, and contextualize their struggles should do precisely that.

Occupy is in danger of being redefined, divided, and domesticated as part of the establishment that provoked its genesis.  Through naivety, and a gross misunderstanding of the enemy it faces, it’s in jeopardy of being purchased by the same corporate dollars used to deny the emancipation it craves.  This cannot be allowed.

If there is a coalition to be explored, it is between Occupy, Black Bloc, Anonymous, non-partisan social activists, all workers of the country including the rank and file, and the many others who make up the 99%, without establishment strings attached, that can bring a diversity of tactics to a singular goal.  Not the other way around.  Right now, some within Occupy are building bridges with the establishment and walls between the 99%.   This tactic to destroy Occupy must be stopped.   The 99%, in all its forms, with all its diversity of tactics, must come together and focus on a singular goal against the establishment that supports the 1%, rather than be divided against each other and dispersed among a myriad of goals by that establishment.

“We don’t build services to make money; we make money to build services.” Mark Zuckerberg, his I.P.O letter.

As we all know, Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg are on the verge of a massive I.P.O. It may be the biggest sale of a stock in history. Mr. Zuckerberg says he does not think in terms of money, but I find that hard to believe. He and his brethren at Facebook pour an enormous amount of money into updating and changing how Facebook works.

The money to do that has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is advertising. In 2011, Facebook realized more than 3.2 billion dollars in advertising revenue. Reportedly, Google made more than ten times that amount, clocking in at an estimated 36.5 billion dollars. Facebook wants to reach that amount and to surpass it.

 “Facebook was not originally created to be a company. It was built to accomplish a social mission – to make the world more open and connected.” Mark Zuckerberg, from his letter attached to Facebook’s I.P.O filing.

Facebook has a very big lobbying effort in Washington and, now, even a political action committee that will allow its employees to contribute to political campaigns. The lobbying and the PAC put Facebook in the real world, not the rose colored glasses one it wants all its “friends” to believe it inhabits. This means that Facebook understands its power, its reach, its importance to advertisers, and its seemingly well-meaning effort to tie a socially fractured world together.

The Arab Spring became one with Facebook, and, throughout the world, Facebook, as a prince of social media, continues to help bring about change. So, despite my cynicism, Facebook can be a force for good. Does that outweigh how it captures and dominates so many lives? Does that mean that Facebook’s seemingly benign desire to kill anonymity and erase solitude is its hidden agenda. I believe Facebook’s scheme, to keep duping its unsuspecting “friends,” is nothing more than a clever way to make money. Time will tell if I am wrong.

Being one with each other is an ancient desire. In the past, people sat around a campfire. If Mr. Zuckerberg keeps expanding, he might accomplish his social mission and have the biggest campfire the world has ever known. However, all that Facebook is, and the bigger it becomes just by sitting in cyberspace as a beached whale, does not mean that I want to be Mark Zuckerberg’s friend. Really I do not. At 845 million friends and growing daily, I think he has enough friends and can easily do without me.

I sometimes will call him “Mark” because I am sure everyone else does, though I see that stories about him at times refer to him as “Zuck.” I do not think he will be insulted if I do not show him enough deference and reverence, both of which I am sure drive him to want to take over the world. At least on the Internet. His is a massive effort at social engineering, the likes of which the world has never seen. But it is not for me. I value what remains of my privacy. I am a fan of solitude.

Facebook is about traffic and the personal data it has on file for about half the world, those 845 million people, the majority of whom are women as women use the site more than men do. Facebook provides the data it collects to advertisers for money, lots of money. Mark, along with his friends and investors, will soon be among the richest people in the world. I am not against anyone making money, but somehow much of what Facebook preaches has the texture and smell of snake oil sold by small time and would-be Barnum’s in the Old West or the new Internet, simply an updated version of a carnival barker. Mark Zuckerberg is creating this new wealth based on smart algorithms that track every movement of usually unsuspecting and mostly innocent people and what he correctly assumes, I believe, is a world of people with fragile psyches.

Mark Zuckerberg’s great strength is that he understands that the world is a difficult enough place to navigate for many. That meme must come from inside his head. It is apparent, otherwise why would so many join Facebook without spending any money upfront. The masses do this everywhere Facebook lives, and they do it readily with hardly a whimper.

I can handle not being Mark Zuckerberg’s friend knowing that he and his ilk are working very hard to guide me into his fold and then keep me in it as he manipulates who I am and what I stand for, all in the service of whomever wants to advertise on his site. In his way, Mr. Zuckerberg has discovered a magic amulet that allows him to hypnotize the masses and to make them enjoy what he is doing to them, as they become willing partners in his cult of togetherness. I am on Facebook for reasons that have nothing to do with wanting to be social. My latest count shows I have 160 friends, a paltry number compared to many who are my contemporaries, but frankly, almost too many for me to handle. I cannot imagine all these people in one room at the same time. It would put the Tower of Babel to shame.

“Facebook aspires to build the services that give people the power to share and help them once again transform many of our core institutions and industries.” More from Mark’s I.P.O letter.

I do not trust Mark Zuckerberg’s understanding of the past and his heady vision for the future. He created Facebook in a dorm room, hardly a place for deep philosophical thought. Eventually we will know if Mr. Zuckerberg and his cohorts are successful in transforming the world into a tolerant and accepting unBorg-like entity. But we should not be suckers when it comes to substituting sophomoric philosophy and self-aggrandizing for reality.

There is a world beyond Facebook where there is much more at stake than what we see on a Facebook page or on someone’s wall. So, Mark, friend or not, we are not nearly on the same page. 

Reddit is a rapidly growing social news website with over 20 million active users. It does not have the aesthetic design of Digg, although it tends to generate more quality discussions and is far more versatile. Reddit is now the traffic king of the social news sites and an excellent place for advocates of real reform and progress to gather.

The concept is simple: democracy of the internet. Reddit users (called Redditors) post links to articles in various topical sections and ideally the best content rises to the top. The very best content can make it to the Reddit front page where thousands of people will see key articles, videos, or pictures. Reddit already has a strong activist community, and Redditors have been behind such things as Jon Stewart’s Rally To Restore Sanity, anti-SOPA campaigns, and raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for charities like Doctors Without Borders. A good visual primer can be found here.

General Strategies
There is no place to write a short bio or upload an avatar on your profile page, so you will be known strictly by your username, submissions, and comments. Whereas getting stories off the ground on Digg depends on having a strong base of loyal and active friends because votes are visible, the rise and fall of content on Reddit is largely organic. Good fresh content from solid and/or original sources tends to float to the top and the Reddit community is merciless in downvoting bad articles and spammy websites. Images tend to do very well, try to use Imgur which was developed by a Redditor or the original picture source.

To begin with, familiarize yourself with the interface and Reddit subsections (subreddits described below). Try to submit ~5 articles/pics per day from a variety of sources, read the comments, browse various sections, and throw in a few good comments elsewhere on the site. Submit from any good source as quality blogs have as much of a chance at getting traction as well established sites.  Upvote the submits and comments you like or that contribute to the overall quality of Reddit.

After about a month when you are familiar with how the site works, you can start to submit more content (try to not exceed 25/day), engage in more discussions, and begin to message other Redditors for more personal conversations. Your New-User badge will soon disappear, and it is time to verify your email address to get the ‘verified user’ badge (it demonstrates you’re not some type of troll). At this stage, you should know the best subreddits to post material in and how to customize the titles to get better traction. Another thing to note is that Reddit is one of the social media sites that allow multiple accounts (as does Twitter), so long as you do not use them to ghost vote (aka vote pad) submissions or comments.

Be sure to give an honest effort to truly participate in the Reddit community. Not only is it worth it, but if you just use the site as a link dump, you will be sent to Report The Spammers and possibly hellbanned.  It takes a while to learn the ropes, establish a strong presence, and acquire a good group of friends on Reddit, but it is the key social news site to share important progressive articles. Be patient, eventually, 10-20% of the articles you submit should get decent penetration, generate some excellent discussion, and help to inform win over some hearts and minds to real change and reform.

External Websites
While there aren’t many useful external websites to make Reddit an easier experience, it is a MUST to install the Reddit Enhancement Suite (RES).  RES makes Reddit far more functional and user-friendly. Note that this will require using the GreaseMonkey extension for your browser. There is an official Reddit App for your mobile device, but a far more useful one is Alien Blue (freeware works well or use the Pro version for $2). You can also upgrade to Reddit Gold if you send them a little bit of cash or a postcard.

If you are posting an image, check to see if it has been previously posted on Reddit at KarmaDecay. For those who want to create and customize their own subreddit, find tips and tricks at RedditHax.  You can quickly post content you find by using the Shareaholic browser extension, but never vote on previously submitted content using it. The #1 reason folks get hellbanned on Reddit is for being in voting cliques, and Shareaholic cannot distinguish between active and banned/spam-filter submits already on the site. If you like an article and want to give it some love on Reddit, best to just take the extra time to manually search for it directly on the site.

SubReddits
Instead of being required to make the submit title exactly what was on the article, properly editorialized titles or strong excerpts tend to get far more traction as long as it accurately reflects the article (except in places like r/politics). Reddit submits titles are limited to 300 characters, so for particularly long excerpts use a character counter to see how much you need to trim down. One can also repost the same article as many times as they wish, provided each time it is to a different Reddit community (also referred to as sections or subreddits). Reposting multiple times can be considered bad Reddiquette, so cross post sparingly.

Although there are hundreds of different Reddit sections, the most important for the progressive internet activist is probably /r/politics.  There are a million subscribers, so when you find some powerful articles, this is the place to post it. A smaller community where you might want to get more familiar with the process and find some solid folks would be /r/progressive, which has over 10,000 members. You can find a complete list of reddits sorted by number of subscribers and a list of reddits by general category.  Other communities you might be interested in could include:

Large Subreddits (with approx. subscribers):
/r/politics 1,000,000
/r/news 115,000
/r/worldnews 1,000,000
/r/worldPolitics 45,000

Left-leaning Subreddits:
/r/occupywallstreet 29,000
/r/progressive/ 13,000
/r/liberal 3700
/r/democrats 2700
/r/obama 17,500
/r/2012elections 600
/r/AmericanPolitics/ 2500
/r/rpac/ 2300
/r/neoprogs/ 1000
/r/alltheleft/ 1300
/r/demsocialist/ 1400
/r/labor/ 800
/r/greenparty/ 600
/r/americanpirateparty 2700
/r/sopa 18,000

Various Subreddits:
/r/science 560,000
/r/atheism 170,000
/r/skeptic 32,000
/r/education 11,000
/r/environment 66,000
/r/energy 29,000
/r/green 9000
/r/trees 113,000
/r/Marijuana 41,000
/r/drugs/ 43,000
/r/health 41,000
/r/vegan 7100
/r/Economics 81,000
/r/Equality/ 8000
/r/women/ 13,000
/r/TwoXChromosomes 50,000
/r/feminisms 10,000
/r/lgbt 31,000
/r/gay 1000
/r/wikileaks 12,000
/r/anonymous 2000
/r/Anarchism 20,000
/r/Anarchistnews 1000
/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut 17,000

Content
Although the design has no aesthetic appeal, Reddit has a versatile interface on finding quality content. For instance, you can just go to the front page for all topics (sort by Hot, New, Controversial, or Top), check the various sections (like /r/politics), browse by site (like the NYT), or keep up with what your friends are submitting.  Do not blind upvote. Check out the content you support and make sure the Reddit sub is active (in the /new section or front page). The best way to keep a good community with quality content is by having a community that supports only quality content.

Since Reddit consistently has the best content that also goes popular the quickest, this is also an excellent source to find bold progressive articles that can be reshared on other social media sites. Submit quality content yourself, contribute to the awesomeness that is Reddit.

Comments
You can easily see who has responded to you and also who has sent you a private message at your Inbox.  As with every social media website, comments are an excellent way to connect with like minded people, but can be a tremendous investment of time.

While there are some trolls, getting banned for comments is very rare, and the quality of discussion at Reddit is often exceptionally good. Witty and intelligent comments do well regardless of political orientation, and the caliber of discussions for social news is only exceeded by the tiny site MetaFilter. “Republicans are corporate whores” may be fun to say, but that type of comment will not be well received on Reddit. Citing direct Republican actions that are selling America down the river for corporate profits and control will work much better.

Top Progressive Redditors
Below are some of the top progressively-oriented users on Reddit.  While the community is far too large and diverse to list everyone, this representative sample should get you started.  Some of these folks are in the top 20 list of karma accumulation of all time.

Big Redditors
maxwellhill
wang-banger
SarahLee
backpackwayne
GenJonesMom
PhilPerspective
rmuser
Anomaly100
Lola77
nirad
Maddoktor2
reeds1999
redcolumbine
SpinningHead
smartasswhiteboy
Designthing
dangercollie

Strong Submitters
jasonleopold
btrfly
shihtzuman
stephencwebster
headovmetal
shallah
aravosis
amprather
joshuastarlight
rondobbs

Bold Commenters
pintomp3
nblsavage
CaptOblivious
IrishJoe
Disgod
seltaeb4
homercles337
shoguntux
Zomgondo
Atario
mithrasinvictus
Crimeodial
RentalCanoe
falconear
trolleyfan
gloomdoom

Notable Users
Cosmic-Surfer
wuggaslady
johnnr2
tbhurst
NihiloZero
jcm267
jerryjamesstone
FredFredrickson
JJFFMM
goldiedust
neurn2
cyberdyno2

The Super Bowl, being held today, has higher ratings than any other TV broadcasts. It is truly the quintessence of American “culture”. It is violent, flashy, showcase some sexy cheerleaders during breaks in the game and just like the Roman games has a lot more brawl than brain. In a nutshell, it is a representation of what most Americans would want to be but are not or would want to have but have not. Top football players are on multi-million dollar a year contracts and are huge celebrities. Unlike gladiators, who were expendable slaves, the media and the public adoration has given top athletes almost a god status. After all, they have what most Americans want: fortune and fame, and all the “trimmings” going with it. Even if a large proportion of Americans are barely scrapping by, they still want to be entertained by a bunch of extremely overpaid athletes which achievement in life consist of being big, fast and able to either throw or catch a ball.

This would not be such a problem if  the politics of distraction applied by US mainstream media wasn’t across the board and around the clock. But just like the fascination from the “gods like” football players of today’s super bowl hypnotizes Americans by making them “comfortably numbs”, the US election, getting furiously in gear with the GOP primaries, is part of the same circus. The circus of politics as a farce, as a distraction. I could write an article today and entitle it: Breaking news- Mitt Romney wins the GOP nomination. And even so I am not a gambling man, the odds of me losing this kind of bet would be minute. In this sort of  cynical, but realistic, perspective where one can predict American politics way ahead of the “game”, I could also easily lay out, way before November, something called: Breaking news-Obama get reelected for a 2nd term.

In our system which is neither a democracy nor a republic but rather a pluto-oligarchy, politics seem to be pre-ordained, as if going to the polls didn’t really matter that much. Intuitively and unfortunately, Americans have resigned themselves to the fact that their voices would not be heard, yet one more time. Some have managed to stay engaged with the Occupy movement despite a more or less complete blackout from mainstream media, but most would rather get their daily feeding of the talking points that they want to hear. Citizens, and it is not only in the United States, are confusing talking points and news, they are confusing politics with endless charades, and they have been played in such a way for decades. The Super Bowl is a giant circus just like American politics, but at least the outcome is slightly less predictable, and have far less consequences. May be one day, Americans will want more than just be entertained, either by athletes, celebrities or politicians, and instead they will want to get involved and do what needs to be done to take charge of their own destiny.

On Saturday, February 4, the Federal Parks Police raided the Occupy DC encampment at McPherson Square.  Less than 24 hours later they are at it again at Freedom Plaza.  Live streaming video of the violation of protesters rights can be viewed here.

Equipped with riot gear, mounted troops, and hazmat suits, the police executed a twelve hour clearing of McPherson Square that culminated with the violent assault of peaceful protesters and a total of nine arrests.  Despite recent forewarning of the potential assault on the camp, protesters seemed disorganized and unprepared to mount any effective defense.

After the initial assault on McPherson Square, when an attack against Freedom Plaza was imminent, protesters still seemed either unable, or unwilling, to offer any resistance to police violation of their First Amendment rights.  Considering the 24 hour warning of the Freedom Plaza raid, protester numbers were extremely low.  Rather than offer obstruction or disobedience, protesters seemed easily managed by police and behaved more as spectators than victims of an assault on their inalienable rights.

The only concrete plans that have been publicly shared by Occupy protesters in DC is to convene a General Assembly at 4pm EST in McPherson Square.  The main focus of the upcoming conversation seems to be whether or not they will continue the Occupy movement without actually occupying anything.

The idea of surrendering the actual occupations in favor of simply using the brand ‘Occupy’ in a manner compliant with establishment laws, consistent with traditional establishment activism, is being championed by several establishment activists who have taken the roles of facilitator or organizer within the movement while spending little or no time supporting or maintaining the actual occupations.  How this conversation is conducted, and the outcome of this conversation, should be interesting.  It can be viewed LIVE here beginning at 4pm EST.

Maggy Gousse with her father and sister in New-York

A bit more than two years after the devastating earthquake, the country which used to be called “The Pearl of the Caribbeans” is still in a complete state of disarray. Many Haitians are very religious people, and some put their hopes more in the hands of God than in human beings for help. The numbers are grim, and quite frankly unacceptable. Two years after the 7.0 earthquake killed some 316,000 people, more than 500,000 are still living in camps, often in horrendous conditions without enough food, clean water or access to toilets.  Some lingering questions are on the mind of all Haitians, either the ones living on the island or the ones of the very large Haitian diaspora. What happened to the billions pledged or donated by foreign aids? And further, why are the participating NGOs so inefficient in their efforts to rebuild Haiti?

"Port-au-Prince" Haiti

After the earthquake, 11 billion was pledged by donor countries and financial institutions combined. If one consider the United States as a typical example, from the $1.14 billion allocated to Haiti, only 30 percent has been spent. For many observers, Haiti seems to be now run by NGOs which may have the best intentions at heart, but are lacking basic transparency and coordination between each other. In her documentary, “Haiti: Where Did the Money Go?”, which was broadcasted by PBS journalist and filmmaker Michele Mitchell raised and pushed this issue better than anyone else. However, in a sense, foreign aid money- with many strings attached- has been armful for Haiti in many ways for decades. For more than 10 years now, Haiti has been called “The Republic of NGOs”, and the earthquake has only compounded the problem by encouraging Haitians to rely preliminarily on foreign aid. Instead, Haitians must relearn some of the forgotten lessons of their rich past and start relying on their strength and the resources of the vast Haitian diaspora.

Grand Rue Downtown Port-au-Prince Street no longer exist

The Haitian Diaspora

More than a 1/4 of the Haitian population lives outside of Haiti. Historically, most of this massive migration started under the rule of Papa Doc Duvalier. Since the mid 1950s, it has constituted an enormous brain drain for the island by depriving it from its best educated people: engineers, doctors, teachers, lawyers, entrepreneurs, nurses, and academics. Around 4 million Haitians live abroad. In the United States there is an estimated 1.2 million Haitians, in Canada 200,000, 2 million in the Dominican Republic, 90,000 in France, and more than 80,000 in the Bahamas. While most people leaving on the island have relied, to some degree, on the financial help from their relatives of the diaspora to survive for decades, this constant assistance (over almost 60 years), just like foreign aid, has been as much of a curse than a blessing. It has, in many ways, prevented Haitians living on the island to believe they can be, once again, truly master of their own land and destiny.

Ibo Beach

Since the earthquake, many Haitians within the diaspora want to do a lot more than just help their own relatives. A few have moved back, some plan to go back and forth, and others want more accountability over the help they provide from abroad. But what they all want, more than anything else, is to help Haiti not only to rebuild from the rubles, but to thrive and become a sustainable nation without handouts and foreign interferences. If this kind of momentum builds within the Haitian diaspora, perhaps a catastrophic event can become the catalysts for a much brighter future for Haiti. But now it is time to let Haitians from the diaspora tell us their stories, to ask them what they want to achieve and how they are planning to do it. News Junkie Post is handling this story in three parts, with each individual story illustrating a deep commitment at different stages.

Delmas Blvd. Port-au-Prince 1981

For Part I, NJP interviewed Maggy Gousse. Maggy Gousse is a realtor, an actress, and a Creole interpreter at the Superior Court of California. Maggy’s family left Haiti when Papa Doc took power, and she was born in the United States. After numerous phone conversations and before responding to our questions, Maggie Gousse made the following statement: “The idea of giving 10 percent of my income to non-profit organizations such as private orphanages, schools, and other projects took place earlier this year. Like everyone else, I gave money to help organizations such as Oxfam, World Vision, and so on. However, I found out that my money was mostly spent towards keeping the staff from different organizations living “the good life” in Haiti. It is the reason why I came up with this idea to get more involved personally and to spread the word and action through the diaspora.”

Maggy Gousse 15 years old

Gilbert Mercier: First, tell us a bit more about your family background. Why did they leave Haiti?

Maggy Gousse: My parents, Antoinette Noel Gousse and Ewald Gousse, wed and left Haiti during the campaign that brought Francois “Papa Doc” Duvalier to the presidency of Haiti in 1955. By the way, Haiti should be called Ayiti, it is a Caribbean word, which means “country of mountains”. My mother was a cousin of President Paul Magloire, the president prior to Papa Doc, and my father was related to Louis Dejoie. Both were very involved in politics and were obligated to leave for the sake of their lives. They traveled by plane in 1955, unlike what some people think! I was born in New-York at the Brooklyn Jewish Hospital in 1958. At the age of 3, my sister (she was 4 year old) and myself were sent on American Airlines (in the care of a stewardess) to a boarding school in Haiti. A few months later, at the request of Papa Doc, my sister and I had to be pulled out of the school. The owner, Jacqueline Turian, contacted the American embassy. They immediately came for us and escorted us to a plane back to the United States. In other words, I owe my life to the United States, and being an American is a good thing. After a few years, my parents visited Quebec, and there it was again, another boarding school in addition of having a French Canadian family watching over us. A French education was a must for my parents. They would come and see us regularly. Later on my parents sold the house in New York and purchased one in Laval, a suburb area north of Montreal. After Papa Doc’s death in 1971, we began to travel to Haiti on a regular basis. In my adult years, I returned to live in Haiti in 1989 and worked on a soap opera. I stayed a year until the Aristide campaign begun. There were curfews and shootings on a regular basis. Everyone was afraid. We had secret meetings amongst friends, because it was very dangerous to meet publicly. In our meetings, I always said that Aristide was dangerous because you cannot be a priest then suddenly go into politics. Nobody really listened, it just didn’t make sense to me. Aristide’s campaign raised hatred amongst our people. For example, he said in speeches: “These bourgeois, if they have three cars, they do not need all three. They must share them with all of you”. Therefore, people begun to revolt and went to people’s houses to steal whatever they could. It was the beginning of “dechoucage”-it means breaking into homes. It raised a lot of anger, and it is still present. I really felt the tension then in addition of seeing people being shot right next to me. I left with the intention to go to France. However, my travel agent suggested to stop in California in transit. I took an open ticket for a month, and I have been in California for 20 years.

Maggy Gousse with family in Montreal

GM: In June 2011, President Martelly addressed the Haitian diaspora in New York, and said: “It is important that you understand, you are Haitian, you can not wait until Haiti is good to go back”. What do you think of this statement?

MG: President Martelly is a living example of what he is saying. It is also the very reason he became president. As matter of fact, President Martelly has been helping mothers and children in Haiti for years through his foundation, “Roses and Ayiti Est Trop Riche Pour Etre Pauvre” ( Haiti is too rich to be poor). Martelly started developing support for Haiti the moment he started playing music in the early 1980s. His music has always been about bringing a sense happiness and togetherness to people. Martelly never stopped helping Haiti, although he was renowned worldwide, he always lived in Haiti even so he had a residence in the United States. In 2008, Martelly launched the “Go back to school campaign”. President Martelly is aware of the immense range of professional expertise that Haitians from the diaspora can indeed bring to Haiti. In addition, unlike Aristide, he knows it is practically impossible to accomplish what needs to be done without the help of the Haitian diaspora. Throughout the years, prior the Duvaliers (Papa Doc and Baby Doc) to this day, Haitians throughout the world have preciously kept their culture at heart. Living elsewhere doesn’t change Haitian people. Haitians can easily integrate within the culture of a host country, but the basic cultural identity stays the same. President Martelly sees this and just keeps reminding Haitian people that they are Haitians. It is a reminder for people of the diaspora, like myself, of the very essence of the Haitian revolution victory against French troops in 1804, and it is expressed on our flag by the words “L’Union Fait la Force”-Unity is our Strength.

Manoir Alexandria Hotel

GM: I was recently in a relationship with a Haitian from the diaspora. When I mentioned to her that we should go to Haiti and help, she categorically said no. It was obvious that she is scared of her own country and perhaps even of her own people living in Haiti. Is this fear widespread amongst Haitians from the diaspora, and if it is – why?

MG: Earlier I mentioned “dechoucage”-breaking into homes- which began during Aristide’s campaign in 1990. The situation never stopped and has escalated to kidnapping. Apparently, it is very dangerous in Haiti in regards to kidnappings. As soon as you arrive at the airport, if you are wearing jewelry, you might be followed. I was told not to go. People are desperate right now, they are in survival mode. I know when I am hungry, I get in a bad mood, most people do. Now how about if you have no shelter, just a tent with mud flood everywhere, gasoline at around $6.5 a gallon, a small bag of rice at $5.00 etc. Then you see UN troops, NGOs personals such as the ones working for Oxfam, World Vision, the Red Cross, not to mention celebrities and government officials living in the still standing houses and paying up to $3,000.00 a month of the world-sent money. I think I would be upset as well, and I would be thinking of whatever I can do to support myself and my family. I am not saying that it is right to kidnap or steal, but there are some very big problems in Haiti right now. I do not blame the Haitian woman you mentioned who seems to be afraid to go back. I must say, many Haitians of the diaspora are as discouraged as the ones living in Haiti in whatever condition. Many Haitians from all over the world feel helpless, hopeless and have a huge amount of lack of faith. This misery did not begin with the earthquake. It has been a longtime in the making, with so many unimaginable tragedies going on. To just go to Haiti, as I want to do, takes a whole lot of bravery. First Lady, Sofia Martelly, has done some incredible work with her “Roses Foundation”. The Martellys effort to clean up Haiti’s endemic corruption has to be admired, but corruption runs deep in Haiti and it will take more than the police to deal with it. Haiti needs its own army, in addition to Haitian psychologists, Haitian psycho-educators and Haitian educators, and last but not least Haitian actors. Theater and film have always had a great deal of unconscious influence on people, it is a form of psychology. It is my opinion that artistic expression can be a great tool amongst others. If sending money to Haiti is a great thing to do, it is, however, not enough.

GM: Do you  think the role played by foreign aid, either from countries, the UN or NGOs have been and are beneficial for Haiti’s long term future?

MG: No. Opportunist is the word. I see these people as living the good Haitian life in Haiti that Haitians cannot live in their own country. The Haitian culture is very complex. Now, you must understand that people from different cultures, either the US or elsewhere, shouldn’t go to Haiti thinking they can show Haitians how to live their lives and rebuild their own country. Let’s face it, none of groups of people had ever been to Haiti before the earthquake, and if so very few of them. They never built houses in the Caribbeans, and if so, not in Haiti. I am sure when these groups realized and saw the beaches, and most of all Haitians’ innocence and kindness, they realized how much they could take advantage of them. Saying this, I am also talking about young children, hungry young children giving themselves for a little piece of bread. Yes, it is going on right now as we speak! And it makes me sick to my stomach. If you know what I mean. These people, maybe not all, but most of them are polluting my country of origin by taking advantage of Haitians. The sunshine is one thing, but poverty is the other. The Americas and the rest of the world never ever accepted Haiti because it was the first independent black country in the world which won its freedom by defeating Napoleon Bonaparte. Why? Because it was very important that black people in the United States were never made aware of what freedom truly is. This has always been. America’s dream was always to gain control over Haiti, but it will never happen because Haitians have a revolutionary spirit, and it will never be taken away from them. The UN, the NGOs, and foreign aid should be carefully watched and monitored, held accountable and even investigated because they are abusing Haitians and underestimating the people’s intelligence. Haitians are very smart people. As an example, when Haitians come to the United States, after seven years they own property. Give Haitians possibilities and all is done and happening!

Cook at the Manoir Alexandria Hotel

GM: You are doing a great deal to help Haiti financially, do you feel that your contributions have made an impact?

MG: Oh no. Not necessarily. I decided to bring my knowledge and professional work experience to Haiti a long time ago. It is the reason why I went to live in Haiti in 1989. I obtained a role in a soap opera because I wanted everyone to know me in Haiti. I left Haiti under difficult circumstances knowing and promising to a group of children living on the streets of Petionville that I would come back and do something. I worked in Cite Soleil, a rural area in need, which school of 3,000 children was started by a French Canadian priest while I was in Haiti. I went and sat in a number of little schools-we call these schools “Ecoles Payi” (countryside schools). After my research in Haiti, I wrote an educational program with the hope of implementing it there. The program is based on appurtenance, self esteem, self sufficiency and the love of your country. I studied psycho-education, therefore I applied my knowledge to this program. Anyway, it didn’t work and I was never able to get the educational program off the ground. So instead, I got into real estate thinking that I would sell a substantial amount to make enough money and go to Haiti to to implement the program. I decided to give 10 percent of every completed  real estate transactions to non-profit organizations such as schools, orphanages and private groups located in Haiti. The Haitian people, either living in Haiti or from the diaspora, are the real backbone of Haiti, not foreign aid. If we stick together, as a united people, we will make it happen.

Bourdon Road

GM: For more than a decade now, Haiti has been called “The Republic of NGOs”. How do you think that your proud nation, which was the first one to win its independence from a colonial power and freedom from slavery, can regain its confidence and the control of its own affairs?

MG: I just said it, Haitians are the master of their own faith. It is interesting, the existing problems can turn out to be one of the best things that happened to Haiti. But, it is up to us, Haitians, to turn it around. We have to get rid of the crutches to be able to walk again. Some people have to leave and let President Martelly guide our country. President Martelly went from playing keyboard in small gatherings, then raised himself to a musician known worldwide to finally become president of a country, and he did all of this without cheating. I think it can be called very, very smart. Let him do his work, please. Now, being called whatever names doesn’t mean anything to Haitians, because we have heard it all. When you say something negative about a country like Haiti, in reality, it is trying to raise people’s insecurities. In other words, the very people doing the labeling are insecure, not us Haitians! Labeling by using cheap tactics of inferiority versus superiority never worked, especially with a country like Haiti. Haiti’s nickname is “The Pearl of the Caribbeans” (“La Perle des Antilles”), and always will be. The Pearl of the Caribbeans has been our nickname for centuries.

Maggy Gousse Present

GM: Are you planning to move back to Haiti, and do you think more people from the diaspora should do so?

MG: I must say, I am American born, French Canadian raised, and most of all Haitian, but I can not say I will move back to Haiti. Haiti is the country of my heart, the only place on the planet where I can take my shoes off and feel the soil go right through my veins. It is home. I will always go back to Haiti regardless of the situation. As a matter of fact, if all goes well, I will be there in April. I will do whatever I need to do to be useful. I want to go so much, it is my unconscious everyday mantra. I miss the people, I miss the water- I always pray in the water, I miss the food, I miss the noise, the roosters, I just miss being there! I believe most in the diaspora probably feel very much like me, however, we must become examples and just simply go. The more we go, the more others will. I really believe so. Most Haitians have plans to retire to Haiti. My parents made plans and they actually did move back to Haiti when they retired. They are both resting in peace now, but I am sure there presence is here as I share this with you. Haitians are not that fearful. There is some selfishness like everyone else living a better life elsewhere, but nostalgia often sits in. I am sure of this. I see it whenever there is a Haitian gathering around town. We all go with so much passion and all we talk about is who is going and when! It is simply a matter of time. As matter of fact, I have a very good friend, Gesly Leveque- I understand you are going to interview Gesly in NJP’s 3rd installments of  your Haitian diaspora stories- who was also living in Los Angeles and recently returned to Haiti. She is working on housing development and is very happy being back home. It is indeed very possible to return and make it happen.

BITAHR is a non-profit organization which ambitious goal is to eliminate commercial sexual exploitation. The event, Fighting Trafficking Through Film, organized in collaboration with The Suffolk University Law School, will be held at the Modern Theater at Suffolk University in Boston. The three days forum will showcase domestic and foreign films about sex trafficking. BITAHR has also invited speakers to the international event. More than 40 guests speakers will participate in the forum’s discussions to share their own experiences and perspectives, and to help define coherent strategies to fight human trafficking both domestically and globally. The speakers will include politicians, authors, survivors, and international activists against human trafficking. Among them will be Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, Kathryn Bolkovac, Representative Eugene O’ Flaherty, Rachel Lloyd (survivor and author), and  Siddharth Kara (UN adviser on human trafficking). BITAHR’s Executive Director, Rebecca Merrill, took the time to give News Junkie Post an exclusive interview.

Gilbert Mercier: What triggered originally your interest in fighting human trafficking?

Rebecca Merrill: I was driven by the impact that “The Day My God Died”, a film featuring Anuradha Koirala and Maiti Nepal, had on me both personally and professionally. After nearly a year of research, and the development of my own documentary during law school, I had the opportunity to sit with Anuradha and to discuss life’s passion and how it often drives one’s career. During that meeting, Anuradha admonished me to listen to my heart and to open my ears. Her voice was delicate but commanding as she asked me simply: “How can you not be passionate when you listen to the stories of these women and girls? How can you not do something about it?” Those words, the stories had a lasting impact on my academic studies and now professional life. Alas. I think it is a wonderful complement to pair the human voice and images with the research and theory.

GM: Sex trafficking is a multi-billion global business which is getting more and more controlled by large organized crime networks and no longer by small time local pimps. Do you think we need a global strategy to fight such sophisticated criminal organizations, and if so what would you recommend?

RM: Absolutely. Second only to drug trafficking, human trafficking is the largest criminal industry in the world, and it is the fastest growing. We need a holistic and multifaceted international strategy just to keep up with the growth of the industry, never mind to eradicate it. There are numbers of non-profits, agencies and individuals doing great work around the world. That said, we really need national governments and law enforcement agencies to work together against trafficking. We need governments to recognize that victims of human trafficking are victims in need of social services, not criminals subject to detention and deportation. There are circumstances where return to countries of origin is appropriate, but agencies have the responsibility to ensure return isn’t directly into the hands of the victim’s traffickers. All too often, victims are simply deported to the countries from which they were recruited, most often subjecting them to the same vulnerable circumstances and a mixture of societal shamming, family rejection and condemnation, and an inability to rejoin the workforce. Moreover, the circumstances giving rise to vulnerability are not typically eliminated but rather exponentially and detrimentally worse. If  governments worked together to provide victims with social services after exploitation abroad and at home, re-exploitation would not be such a threat. In addition, while we are seeing an increase in transnational crimes of exploitation, the “independent contractors”, if you will, still operate and regularly increase in number. This can be linked in large part to economics. Where there is a profit, particularly of the margin available through CSE ( Commercial Sex Exploitation), entrepreneurial criminals will find a way.

GM: Some countries, such as Germany, have legalized prostitution. Do you think it is a valid approach to end sex trafficking?

RM: No. I cannot recognize the legalization of prostitution as a valid way to end the sex trade. Legalization would not end modern-day slavery; it would simply empower pimps to continue manipulation and exploitation with less likelihood of identification because the line between “legal” and “illegal” would be so fuzzy. The rationale for legalizing prostitution is relatively easy to understand. Legislators, often pushed by well meaning advocates, may believe or accept that prostitution will happen regardless of legalization and, if legal, the laws will at least document the industry and license the “workers”, making it theoretically easier to provide healthcare and other services to prostituted women. There is also the feminist argument that a woman should be “empowered” to do what she wishes with her body, including selling sex. These arguments are flawed. Legalizing prostitution does not reduce the enormously harmful physical and psychological effects that being sexually exploited inherently caused. Women and girls who engage in prostitution do not choose to do so. The idea that prostitution is a choice does not take into account that in order to choose something, one needs to have several options to choose from. The majority of those in the sex trade- admittedly not 100 percent- in countries where prostitution is legal and illegal alike, are vulnerable to commercial sexual exploitation due to a complex set of circumstances often including economic desperation, unrest or instability in homes or even communities or countries, psychological manipulation and more, not because it is a viable choice.

GM: Traffickers make an extensive use of the Internet and even of social media site to lure, recruit and exploit victims. Should this type of activities be more closely monitored by law enforcement agencies with perhaps the help of anti-trafficking organizations, such as yours, acting as a network of whistle blowers?

RM: It is true. Traffickers may use social media sites to recruit underage girls into commercial sexual exploitation. Once recruited, sites like Backpage.com are used to advertise sex with the exploited individuals – children and adult alike. The illegal age of children is disguised using language like “youthful”, “fresh”, “barely legal”, “tight body”. The Internet provides anonymity for the exploiting pimps and endless “choice” and anonymous shopping and exploiting for johns who are purchasing sex. In some areas, ordering sex is easier and cheaper than ordering a pizza. Screen names and pseudonyms make it harder to identify and prosecute pimps. In addition the “handles” provide protection for johns from the negative stigma that buying sex should carry. In reality, companies that facilitate this type of exploitation like Backpage, for instance, are just as guilty as the pimps that exploit minors, because they too, are making hundreds of thousands of dollars off the sale of the bodies of very young girls. Not only should law enforcement agencies monitor this type of behavior, they should shut down websites. The problem is that regardless of our pointing out that commercial sexual exploitation is happening online, the criminal facilitation must be prosecuted and punished. In addition, advertisers must take some responsibility – if they voice their opinions by pulling ads and affecting the facilitators’ bottom line profitability.

GM: In a phone conversation we had sometime ago, you mentioned that we are living in a “hyper-sexual” world fueled by popular culture, online pornography etc, and that it could be one of the reasons why a substantial number of men seek commercial sex or indulge in “sex tourism”. Can you please elaborate on this?

RM: Of course. Over the past few decades we have seen a shift from the most risque magazines including one spread with a suggestively clad woman, to a society where pre-adolescent boys see literally hundreds of thousands of images of nudity before they even reach middle school. When sex education comes in the form of magazines, the Internet, song lyrics and popular culture instead of from teachers and parents, it can be a very confusing topic for young men and women alike. By hypersexualizing children at a disturbingly young ages, we have diminished the gap between buying the idea of sex in the form of a magazine subscription or a calendar to buying the act of sex in a massage parlor, in a hotel or car, or even in one’s own home. When we see so many sexual images of women in circumstances that suggest that they are happy naked, exposed, in sexually dominated manners, we are normalizing the notion that girls and women should be dominated, subordinated and subject to sexually violent and aggressive behavior. These progressive and persistent images make it harder to believe that exploited are victims. Moreover, products like “loungerie” or “lingerie for girls” for four to six year old girls feed into this idea of children as sex objects and “sexy” as ideal for children.

GM: A cynical view of commercial sex, and a stereotypical rationalization of it, would be to say that prostitution will never be eradicated because it is “the oldest profession in the world”. Do you think, one day, men and women will be able to free themselves from the sick correlation between sex and money?

RM: It is true that commercial sex has existed in various forms over centuries throughout most if not all countries. It is also true that women have historically been subjected to oppression, domination and silencing. I am not sure that as a society we will ever be able to eradicate the correlation between sex and money. It is my hope, however, that as this topic becomes a priority for the feminist movement and society at large- and as women everywhere continue to fight for equal opportunities- that one day women and girls will have sufficient opportunities that they will not be so vulnerable to coercion and forced to prostitution. Females need sufficient opportunity to utilize their skills and abilities in a productive way that positively contributes to society. It is also our organization’s goal to spread awareness- in collaboration with a global coalition- such that it minimizes demand by educating purchasers on the harmful, long-term repercussions their exploitative conduct has on children, families, and the community.

GM: In countries of origins for victims of traffickers, socio-economic factors play a huge role. Does your organization reach out to local organizations in human trafficking hubs such as Cambodia, Nepal, the Dominican Republic, Lithuania, Estonia, Nigeria and Ghana?

RM: We are cognizant of trafficking atrocities around the world and do our best to spread awareness about it in each and among all countries. We are mindful, however, that to utilize our resources effectively we cannot work in every country or every issue in the complex effort to combat trafficking. We focus most intensely on domestic trafficking, that which happens within the borders of the United States. We are also working in conjunction with a Congolese-US NGO, Promote Congo, on a program that will focus on aid for girls and boys being trafficked for labor or sexual exploitation in the artisanal mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

GM: Do you think, realistically, that human trafficking can be one day abolished and how?

RM: At present human trafficking is extremely profitable for exploiters. If we apply a standard cost benefit analysis, we can see that the economic benefits of human trafficking far outweigh the miniscule risk(cost) of being prosecuted and the repercussions that might follow. As long as human trafficking is extremely profitable, criminals will continue to take the calculated risks. To reduce the occurrence of sex trafficking we must continue to raise the cost associated with prosecution, so that the risk of being caught and punished is no longer worth the economic benefits of trafficking while simultaneously reducing the revenue. To achieve this, we must change the way society looks at trafficking. We must realize that the victims of this exploitation are just that-victims. Instead of thinking of labor trafficking as poor individuals deserving of unfair labor standards or girls that “wear too much make-up” or “parade around in provocative clothing” as criminal prostitutes, we must identify these exploited people as victims and publish the traffickers. Without this identification, victims will continue to be plagued with negative stigmas, fear and vulnerability-some of the factors that very likely led to the exploitation at the onset.

GM: It is your organization’s first film forum. Do you have other events in preparation?

RM: BITAHR 2012 Film Forum: “Fighting Trafficking Through Film” is the second annual forum. Our first forum in December 2010 engaged audiences in compelling discussions. We also host periodic benefit concerts called (human) Traffic Jams, where we use music to bring together a community of young adults to raise awareness for the cause and begin a conversation that we hope continues throughout circles of friends, students, colleagues, neighbors, families, and more. This ongoing dialogue shines a light in what is currently hidden in plain sight-the commercial sexual exploitation of people. We also screen individual films throughout the year followed with gripping panels of experts in the field, again to generate a critical conversation and a reverberating call to action to end human trafficking. This March, we will host a conference on International Women’s Day entitled “Ending Impunity for Sexual Violence”. In addition, we will host a three part film series on organ trafficking in collaboration with a local university.

Editor’s Note: Photographs one and two (from top down) by Gilbert Mercier, other photographs and illustrations courtesy of BITAHR.