MSM's Haiti Narrative Ignores Biggest, Glaring Problem

Imagine if, after we drove out the British and drafted our Constitution in 1787, that the British suddenly decided that we owe them a debt totaling more than twice the amount of our total national net worth, and that if we didn't pay, all of our allies would place a trading embargo on our newly-founded nation, and we may even be attacked. That would be all kinds of wrong, would it not?

Well, that's exactly what the French did to Haiti after they drove out Napoleon.

In 1806, all major players in the global trading game, including the United States under President Thomas Jefferson (then serving his second term), had agreed to embargo the newly-independent, mostly Black nation in the Caribbean. Napoleon had encouraged world leaders to antagonize the newly-freed "pearl of the Antilles" by propagating fear around what would happen if similar slave nations also demanded their freedom, inspired by the Haitians. Thus, Haiti was forced to pay 150,000 francs (equivalent to $21 billion today) in reparations to France for the lost economic productivity of the formerly-enslaved population that was now free. France was not solely complicit for such oppression; the United States had also sent over $750,000 to quell the initial slave revolt in 1791. For 58 years, the US refused to acknowledge Haiti's existence. When we finally did acknowledge Haiti, it was through invading, and then occupying the nation from 1915 until 1934 because we were afraid that populist movements would endanger our efforts at enriching our economy at Haiti's expense.

Only after Haiti agreed to pay reparations to their former oppressors in 1825 did other nations allow the Haitians into the global financial arena. To add insult to injury, Haiti had to borrow some of the debt to pay France back from France itself, at a 6% interest rate. The debt Haiti owed their former occupiers was ten times the amount they made in export revenue, so paying it off would be an eternal effort. Thus, slavery had begun again. And that financial slavery continues to this day.

Sure, the earthquake this month that ravaged Port-Au-Prince was terrible. And it's great that we can send our money to Haiti, and that the media has us all crying over the tragedy in Haiti. But one must remember that Haitians, despite living in a destabilized country with no food or resources, are still not allowed to seek refuge here. We can support their aim of democracy all we want, but only if they let our corporations have unrestricted access to their people and resources.

(One small example of Haitian exploitation is the multitude of mercenary companies providing "security" at a high cost. One group currently operating in Haiti is partially-owned by the controversial head of Blackwater, who charged US taxpayers $950 per person per day in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Those same people are disaster profiteering under the guise of "humanitarian efforts.")

The mainstream media has been pushing the flawed narrative of the Helpless Haitians, victims of their corrupt government. But the media fails to ask the questions of how such oppressive regimes were able to sustain themselves as long as they did. When digging beneath the surface, one can see the bulk of Haitian oppression and debt was incurred under the Duvalier dynasty, led by Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier, and then by his son, Jean-Claude, who incurred $500 million alone during his last six years in office.

Their regimes, backed by both France and the US because of their stance against Communism, consisted of brutal political violence exacted by what the locals called the "Tonton Macoutes," a creole term lossely translated to "Uncle Gunnysack." This term was used as parents would warn children of the boogeyman who would stuff them into his gunnysack to disappear forever if they didn't behave. However, the voodoo term stuck, as the regime's secret police was known to imprison political dissidents in Fort Dimanche, known by many as the "Dungeon of Death." The Tonton Macoutes, under the order of the US-backed Duvalier regime, killed and tortured thousands by brutal means.

We had supported President Jean-Bertrand Artistides' election in 1990, and helped him regain power in 1994 after a coup had driven him out of power. The US, however, required that the newly re-established administration incur unpayable debt brought on by arms of the global corporatocracy such as the World Bank, IMF and USAID. Thanks to that continued indebtedness, Haiti still spends a bulk of her annual budget on debt service, rather than needed services like education and health care.

While the death dungeon is empty today, western powers have yet to apologize to Haiti for suppressing her efforts at a democratic government, and the western media has yet to focus their narrative upon the oppression that we supported, which has led to why Haiti has never had the money to bring herself from poverty to prosperity.

So yes, give freely to help Haiti in her time of greatest crisis. But let's ask our media to report the full story, instead of pushing forced, pre-conceived narratives that ignore the real issues. If you really want to help Haiti out of poverty and despair, call your elected officials and push for them to forgive Haiti's debt.

To end this, I'll cite Brown Man Thinking Hard, who originally inspired me to write this:

"If we are saving people today so they can die in sweatshops for our corporations later, THAT is a travesty."

The United States of America- The Only Industrialized Country Where Health Care is Not a Right

The United States has long had the most advanced and powerful and well-funded military in the history of the world. Our quality of life is unparallelled, as is our consumption of resources, as is the availability of those resources. However, our health care system is ranked #37 in the world. The other 36 countries ranked above us are not as wealthy nor as powerful as we are. But the difference between us and them is that they provide health care for their citizens, and see health care as a human right, not a for-profit industry.

Just to put this in perspective, 44,000 people die EVERY YEAR in this country, the richest, most powerful country in the world, because health care is not a right.

Now, this note will require some small participation from you. Don't worry, I'm not asking you to call your congressmen and senators and tel them to push for a single payer system, although that'd be nice. I just want you to watch a few short videos.

I want you to tell all of these people below, who could only get health care through a free clinic that happened to be open in their town for a few days, that health care shouldn't be a right. That they should only be able to have health care if they have enough money. That it's perfectly okay for health insurance CEOs to get hundreds of millions of dollars in salary and bonuses while they have to pray not to get sick, because a hospital visit would bankrupt them.

Watch these videos of these people. Then tell them that.

Here are people waiting in line to get some sort of care at a clinic that is already above capacity even for those who have made appointments.

Victoria Moss, who was laid off from Citibank. She doesn't want a handout, just a mammogram.

Rand Hodson is a cardiac patient with no insurance.

Nicole Abel has type 1 diabetes and no insurance.

Carol Dale is a working-class American who simply can't afford the insurance premium for herself, nor her daughter.

Gina Williams works for Hilton Hotels, and has three children. One of those children has state insurance, but the other two have no coverage. Her mother has unaffordable junk insurance.


Diandria Pigese lost her job and her health coverage.

Diandra Owens had been suffering excruciating pain from a tooth that needed to be pulled, but she couldn't afford a trip to the dentist.

Diane Smith lost her job, her health insurance, had unaffordable insurance, and no health care. She hadn't been able to see a doctor in SEVEN YEARS before the free clinic.

Dennis Cahill had two heart attacks with no medication. And he is uninsured.

Natasha Stevenson has three kids who need dental care. One was a 7 year-old who had never been to a dentist.

Kayla: "I have cavities."
Eve: "Why didn't they get filled?"
Kayla: "We didn't have the money."

Sara Clark lost her job. She got a new one, but that job doesn't have health coverage.

Keith Hitchcock is an amputee without health insurance, who needs a prosthesis.

Little Rock, Arkansas resident Oneida Whiteside had a stroke. Her health insurance company dropped her coverage.

Cindy Howell is from Dallas, Texas. She drove 5 hours to the free clinic in Arkansas to get free health care. She's put herself into $30,000 worth of credit card debt solely because of her insurance premiums. Tell her that she doesn't have a right to health care.

59 year-old Frank Wood visited the Little Rock free clinic to get treated for his hernia. His job is very physically demanding, and he has no health insurance. Before the free clinic, he had to labor with a hernia.

Meet Michelle and Sheila. Michelle is jobless and needs health care for a medical problem she doesn't want to disclose. Her friend, Sheila, has heart problems, fibromyalgia, and needs a hip replacement. She is also without health insurance.

The 120,000 square-foot convention center that held the free clinic couldn't accommodate everyone in Kansas City, even at its size.

The Kansas City clinic ran all day, morning to evening. At 5 PM, this was the line. These people would have to be turned away.

This is the check out, where they also give free blankets. Free blankets for Americans who lost their jobs, who don't have homes, who may have to sleep on the streets.

This is ALL happening in the USA, the greatest, richest, most powerful country in the world. These people aren't welfare queens or trailer trash or any of the things the FOX news anchors would like us to believe. They're regular, hard-working Americans who are victims of a system that believes in profit before people.

Tell them all that they don't have a right to health care. Tell them that they deserve to suffer until they have the money to fork over to the corporate fat cats who run the private insurance industry.

Tell them that.

"Avatar" and James Cameron Waxing Poetic on Global Imperialism

I saw "Avatar" today. And I was moved, along with some audience members sitting near me, by the underlying anti-imperialist message of this movie.

Before I get started, if you haven't seen the movie, go see it. You'll understand what you're about to read a lot more if you have. But if not, I'll do my best to summarize without giving too many spoilers.

Basically, the story is about a young marine who participates in a highly-advanced military research project, where humans can tap into the bodies of native Na'Vi people from the planet Pandora, and move, walk and talk as they do. The marine learns through talking with the natives that the company who hired the marines to fly to Pandora is exploiting the natives' land for a pricey mineral that lies underneath.

The marines eventually roll in, destroying the natives' homes and surrounding forest, which they view as a sacred part of their existence, so the company can move in and extract the resources. The young marine ends up siding with the Na'Vi, and leads a resistance against the marines. There's an epic battle scene and a happy ending.

Now, if you omit the happy ending, and replace the word "Pandora" with Ecuador, and replace "Na'Vi" with the Shuar tribe or Zaparo tribe, and I've just told you a true story that's happening today. The only difference is that the mineral in that case is oil, and the company doing the extraction and using military force to do the dirty work is Texaco. There's not quite an epic battle scene in Ecuador, but it's certainly getting close to the boiling point.

The story of Avatar also mirrors the story from the late '90s/early '00s about Texaco and Unocal in Burma. Burma, or Myanmar, is perhaps best known through its outrageously oppressive and violent military junta government.

Texaco had a large investment in a natural gas pipeline through Burma/Myanmar, as it was said 6 trillion feet of natural gas lay underneath in Southeast Burma.

This project was taken over by Unocal, whose progress was impeded somewhat by local resistance. Because indigenous locals, like the Karen people near the Thailand border, refused to move from their homes so construction could take place, the Burmese military provided "security forces" to clear out the Karen.

Thus, much of the Karen land was deemed a "Free-Fire Zone," where forces were free to shoot whoever was in the way. This means US-owned oil companies were complicit in genocide, as they stood to profit from the Karen's forced exodus and mass murder on behalf of the Burmese regime. The Burmese also helped Unocal expand the project by forcing the Karen into slave labor.

From the first link:

"The pipeline project into Thailand has been widely criticised by human rights organisations because the concession funding, worth some $400 million a year, goes to the Burmese junta."

"Unocal has remained steadfast in pressing ahead with its oil and gas program in Burma, despite pressure for it to pull back."

"Company officials last year denied allegations that slave labour had been used to clear land for the new pipeline, saying they were "patently false, absolutely unfounded".

"two US envoys, retired Ambassador Mr William Brown and Mr Stanley Roth, a former US National Security Council director, acknowledged in Bangkok recently the use of forced labour involving American companies in Burma."

From a Karen Human Rights report:

We ran every time we heard the Burmese were coming. If they see you in the forest they don’t ask questions, they just shoot you.

We had to build their roads, and give money also. I was staying there with my 2 daughters. If we didn’t go [for forced labour] we couldn’t stay in the village, so my daughter had to go. They didn’t give her anything. No food.

The campaign, which intensified in January 1997, involved the forced relocation and destruction of at least 60 Karen villages as well as clampdowns on Burman and Mon villages...

Villagers are ordered to destroy their own houses by removing the floor, walls, and roof, and if they do not then troops will burn their entire village.

Avatar's story is their story. It is the story of the indigenous Shuar tribes fighting foreign occupiers. It is the story of the Karen people, who have had their homes burned to the ground because they refused to move. It is the story of the African tribes forced into labor to pan for gold and mine diamonds. And, dare I say it, it is the story of the Iraqis who had their homes destroyed by American firepower's collateral damage.

And all of this was done not because those doing it were necessarily evil people, but because the system they support requires such actions to be taken. Were it not for Unocal/Texaco's actions in Burma, shareholders would have lost money and taken their stock elsewhere. Were it not for the actions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo's military, whose presence is used for "security" while contracting companies extract Tantalum, we wouldn't have cheap computers. Were it not for the forced diamond mining labor in Zimbabwe, jewelry stores wouldn't be able to sell us cheap diamonds.

Some have accused Avatar of having an anti-American/anti-capitalism message. However, there is nothing at all wrong with capitalism or America. Capitalism has been the dominant form of economics for several centuries. America was founded on the ideal of an individual being free to prosper as long as that person's prosperity doesn't infringe on the rights or property of others.

Avatar's message is rather against imperialism, being that imperialists come without invitation, take without asking, and do so without regard to human life or mutual respect. The fact that there are some interpreting this movie as anti-American instead seem to be upset that American policy has been deemed to be imperialistic.

I propose to these detractors that rather than defending imperialism as some corrupt, mutant form of capitalism and saying that it's okay to hurt others if we can make money off of it, that they instead accept that maybe the system they support is unsustainable, and hurtful to others.

Praying People to Death

This is how badly this nation's political dialogue has been poisoned by the extreme right.

For those of you who didn't click the link, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) is saying that the American people "oughta pray that somebody can't make the vote tonight." He has refused to explain what he meant by that comment, and the discussion amongst the blogosphere is that he was insinuating that he hopes the ailing 92-year-old Robert Byrd (D-WV) who has been in and out of the hospital wouldn't be in the Senate chambers to vote on health care reform.

Now, plenty of legislators have missed votes before. Sometimes it's illness, or traffic, or weather. But on a vote of this magnitude, in a bitterly divided Senate, it's highly unlikely any Senator who wants to keep their job would miss out on a vote like this unless it was a serious illness, injury or death. While Coburn didn't directly invoke Byrd's name, his comment was irresponsible at best and incredibly cruel at worst.

Let me just state that again, just so it sinks in.

A United States Senator, representing the state of Oklahoma, is encouraging people to pray for ill will against one of his colleagues.

Now, say what you will about the allegations against Byrd. But you can't ignore this.

CALLER: "Yeah doctor. Our small tea bag group here in Waycross, we
got our vigil together and took Dr. Coburn’s instructions and prayed
real hard that Sen. Byrd would either die or couldn’t show up at the
vote the other night. How hard did you pray because I see one of
our members was missing this morning. Did it backfire on us? One of our
members died? How hard did you pray senator? Did you pray hard enough?"

Whether or not Coburn meant for voters to pray for Byrd's death, this person certainly took it that way. And people are actually now praying for other Senators to die so health care reform won't pass. This is considered acceptable political discourse today, at least according to Sen. John Barasso's (R-WY) complacency upon hearing what the caller said.

The intensity of the venom and vitriol in our political discourse today is astounding. It's getting bad out there, and there's so much hate and fear and misinformation getting out there that people aren't hearing the truth, or willing to hear the other side. This is a plea for all of us to stop, take a deep breath, love each other as American citizens, and pick up our debate and be civil about it.

There, better?

Conservatives can now feel free to flame away at everything I've just said.

Why Wingnuts Love Sarah Palin

A lot of my progressive friends convey feelings of confusion to me when the subject of Sarah Palin arises. Why are so many infatuated with a woman whose speech is without substance? Who hints at running for POTUS but can't even finish one term as Governor, or chair of the Alaska oil and gas commission, for that matter? Why are people so willing to fawn over and fork over their money to a woman who clearly lacks leadership and communication abilities?

But I think these progressives are missing the mark in their analysis of both Sarah Palin and her followers. One has to put themselves in the shoes of a Palinite teabagger to really understand her appeal. It is crucial to understand why she appeals to the wingnuts, because the left went through the same questioning phase about why a president who seemed so "stupid" thought he could win another election. What followed was this president's re-election, subsequent wrecking of the economy at the benefit of the top 1%, and a democratic identity crisis that lasted until Obama convinced Hillary supporters to cast their vote for him.

So, understanding Palin is critical. Not because I perceive her as a threat in 2012 (I'll get to that at the end), but so we can understand in the future when people like this present themselves, and frame the debate to the progressive advantage. What people must first understand is that Palin's contrived image is fraudulent at its core.

The Palin Fraud
Palin's book is called "Going Rogue" which implies she is a maverick dedicated to doing things her own way instead of swallowing the party line. And perhaps if you pay attention solely to her talking points and don't look past the veneer, this might work. However, Sarah Palin was actually a huge proponent of Socialism in Alaska before she emerged as a national A-list political celebrity and was forced to swallow McCain's party line.

Alaska is fiercely dependent on federal money, arguably even moreso than Mississippi. She had been lobbying for the "Bridge to Nowhere" project until the media decried it as a national symbol of wasteful pork spending. Representative Don Young and Senator Ted Stevens were notorious for supporting pork projects that brought federal money specifically to Alaska.

But even more than that, Sarah Palin was a huge backer of taxing windfall profits on oil companies operating in her state. By hefting huge tax increases against Big Oil, Palin generated billions in revenue. It was a wonderful symbol of what real bipartisan reform can achieve, and a perfect example of progressive taxation; if you have more than most people, then you better be prepared to pay more than most people. She used the money made from that decision to give to the people of Alaska. According to the story linked above, that amounted to a $3200 check for every person in Alaska, just from surplus dollars. That's the essence of productive government regulation on big business.

However, this didn't mesh well with what McCain was all about, so he and his aides went about telling her to tell the rest of us that she was an anti-Socialism, anti-pork barrel spending crusader.

The Palin Appeal- Framing 101
Palin's followers, mainly neoconservatives, love Palin because she represents one of them. Like Palin, they rally against the "elites."

Neoconservatives believe our country is ran by a cabal of powerful and wealthy liberal "elitists" who use their influence to give opportunity and free stuff to lazy, good-for-nothing moochers. Mainly poor people and foreigners. These neoconservatives believe themselves to be "hard-working" and "normal," but are not reaping what they sowed because the government elite gave those rewards to people who didn't deserve them.

This is why they love Sarah Palin so much. This is why when she stumbles over her words or makes a rhetorical error in a debate with Joe Biden, she is applauded. They see this not as "stupid," but as "normal." Like them.

So when Sarah Palin is mocked in the "liberal media," her cause is actually strengthened; her followers see themselves reflected in a working-class hockey mom who is being harassed by the "liberal elite." When Palin complains about such treatment by the media, what progressives see as complaining is interpreted by her followers as what they believe their experiences to be; a normal blue-collar conservative being sold short on her accomplishments by powerful liberals.

A Walk in the Shoes of a Palinite
Those who support Sarah Palin do not admire or respect politicians with prestigious education or those who have a way with words. Most of these folks see education and glib speech as tools used to victimize and deceive people. Thus, the educated and well-spoken are resented among the far right.

The extreme right is not against intelligence, but simply against education. In their mind, they don't see that attitude as maintaining stupidity, but as rejecting an institution that forces information on children that they know to be wrong. This is why you see the most righteous neocons and libertarians being proponents of home school, so they can shelter their children from the evil "facts" of the liberal "elite," and also so they can inject education with their authoritarian worldview and religious beliefs which are "under attack" by Science. Because critical thinking is demonized by the right, they see those who rely on "facts" as simply catering to an elite power. Environmentalists worship Al Gore, Evolutionists worship Darwin, etc.

When a Palinite sees Barack Obama giving an address, they don't see a well-traveled statesman with decades of diverse education, but rather a foreigner with an unfamiliar name, using his gift of gab with clear intent to manipulate and deceive. He, along with all other well-spoken people, is seen as a trickster, and hearing him speak makes the far right feel judged, rather than informed. It angers them instead of calming them.

When Sarah Palin speaks, these folks feel right at home. Her down-home folksiness gives them a sense of acceptance and assurance that those who speak with authority on issues are frauds. Those who idolize Sarah Palin do not understand nor care for domestic or foreign policy issues, and do not follow nor perceive their complexity. What is important to the Palinite is that the politician doesn't act like they know more or are more worthy than the average Joe. To a Palinite, someone who sounds complicated when explaining complicated issues isn't revealing truths, but hiding them.

Palin's Power Over People
Sarah Palin gives her supporters the impression that she would make decisions for the country the way a mother or father makes decisions for the family--like they do. For wingnuts, Sarah Palin symbolizes the person who overcame the intellectualized, complicated political infrastructure of the "liberal elite." She is often characterized as "truthful," much like those same people refer to Glenn Beck as "truthful."

The truth to this radical fringe group is that the liberal elite is against them, the normal, hard-working Joes and Janes--and are for helping the undeserving do-nothings--foreigners, lazy people, and poor people. Palin often uses the term "common sense" in describing her politics. For Palin's followers, "common sense" is that the hardworking are constantly under attack by the elite establishment.

As I mentioned in the first part of this blog, Bush used this same narrative (perfected by Reagan) to win over the people of Texas, and then to win over the USA. While most every crisis our nation faces today can be traced back to the Bush or Reagan years, those two are still celebrated universally by the right. These people may be full of talking points and no solutions, but they still hold influence over lots of people.

Palin's Political Potential
However, progressives in America can rest assured that Sarah Palin will not be a viable contender for the GOP nomination in 2012. Her record shows overwhelmingly that she is not fit to handle an executive position, whether it's over the oil and gas commission or one of the union's smallest populations. Even Republican mouthpiece Haley Barbour refused to acknowledge her as a political contender in the next presidential race. I personally believe she is currently peaking, and too much media coverage this early will hurt her chances three years down the road.

Besides, just take a look at how quickly fans who waited in the rain all day to meet her turned on her when they learned she wouldn't be signing all of their books. One guy even called her out by saying "She's quittin' on the job right there!"

America is a fickle nation. Sarah Palin will be ultimately forgotten.

Concerning the Stupak Amendment- When Private Insurers Don't Cover Abortions

A friend of mine connected a harrowing personal experience of hers to the attack on and undermining of women's health and free choice in this country through the Stupak/Pitts amendment that just recently passed the House. This is a short and moving piece; anyone interested should read this.

When Private Insurance Companies don’t Cover Abortions
by Anonymous

The good news is universal health care is more of a reality, but now, if passed in the senate this legislation will be a major setback for women.

On Nov. 7 the house approved a bill that would severely restrict access to insurance companies for abortions. The house measure would block insurance companies from selling abortion coverage to anyone receiving a federal subsidy and anyone who receives health insurance through a government-run plan. Ironically this restriction would make little impact on the current system.

According to the Guttmacher Institute out of 1.2 million abortions performed each year, only about 13 percent (156,000) are directly billed to their insurers. Many women are unaware that their insurance plans cover abortions or just don’t want their insurance companies to know.

Last year I found myself in the same position and wanted to have the procedure anywhere but the Women’s Health Organization in Jackson, Mississippi (The state’s only abortion clinic). Upon calling my insurance company I was met with by the voice of an unsympathetic woman, who told me my plan did not cover abortions. But she did enthusiastically list off all the prenatal services and benefits covered through my employer for having a child.

My only option at that point was to make way through the throngs of protesters and receive care at a clinic with little concern for my prior medical history, a disorganized staff ( my file was lost three times), and lack of thorough explanation for the procedure and the instructions afterwards.

It took two months and eight visits (that’s 16 times I had to walk through protesters yelling “Mommy don’t do this” in baby voices) for the clinic to determine my pregnancy had been terminated. I can’t say if my procedure was unique but the lack of quality care for a sensitive procedure should not be taken lightly, or with a “that’s what she deserves” attitude.

Can you imagine any other medical procedure conducted in this manner?

If my insurance company did cover the procedure would I have been treated more like an actual patient?

I don’t want to blame my experience all on the clinic. It’s the only clinic in the entire state dealing with legislation and opponents trying to shut them down every chance possible. The volume and influx of patients is exceedingly high for the clinic’s capacity and staff.

Women are still going to have abortions whether their insurance companies provide them or not. The real question is how can we make sure these women are safe and receiving the best care possible?

Using Holocaust Victims for Political Gain

I think most sensible people would agree that nothing today should even be remotely compared to the horrific time in human history that was the Holocaust. That was an event that has gone down in history as the most horrible act ever committed by a member of the human race. The cold, calculated genocide of millions of Jews through organized, brutal means should never be invoked in vain, especially for the sake of politics. No matter your party affiliation or ideology, I believe most Americans are united in the belief that the Holocaust was a horrible memory for the world, and that while victims must be remembered and honored, that period in time is best left alone out of respect for the families of those massacred.

However, the teabaggers who stormed Washington yesterday, as well as house Republican leaders, apparently feel different than the rest of us with a sense of decency for our fellow human beings. For those of you unfamiliar with what happened, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) yesterday hosted a Tea Party protest of the House health care bill. As per usual, corporate Astroturf (fake grassroots) groups organized the event and bussed in protesters from all over the East Coast. Americans for Prosperity, an outpost of Dick Armey's FreedomWorks (former Republican leader in the house) was key in organizing the event through their website, dontkillgrandma.com. Yes, that is a real website. Yes, it is sponsored proudly by current and former Republican leaders.

This is the same group that organized the town hall mobs in August, paid to transport protesters and even wrote a memo instructing attendees how to best disrupt dialogue and meaningful conversation. Right-wing money interests feel very threatened by actually having to compete should health care reform pass, so they've been working hard all year to spread lies and sow the seeds of fear and hate amongst the weak-minded.

Also, people should know that those who attended this protest, who came to speak out against the ineffectiveness of government programs, used public transportation to arrive at the nation's capitol. This protest was also deemed a "press conference," although no such conference took place. It was an event organized by government officials, held on government property, with permission of government entities. There were even five people at the rally who received government-sponsored emergency health care.

People should also know that while crowds chanted "kill the bill," and proudly wasted plenty of paper, not once did anyone offer any valid alternatives to health care reform, despite reluctantly acknowledging that our health care system leaves much to be desired. Once again, this proves without a doubt that today's conservative movement is full of hot air, little organization and poor leadership.

But all hypocrisy, corporate whoring and contrived populism aside, there was one thing yesterday that crossed the line entirely.

Protesters proudly carried posters depicting emaciated bodies of Dachau concentration camp victims during the Holocaust. The words on the poster say "National Socialist Health Care- Dachau, Germany 1945."

The congressmen and congresswomen who organized and spoke at the event, and who did not publicly denounce the heinous, vile use of death camp corpses owe us all an apology for not immediately condemning this behavior. America is waiting for an apology from House Minority Leader John Boehner and Representative Michelle Bachmann for not speaking out against the use of such atrocities for such petty, vain reasons. Speech should remain free, but invoking the Holocaust and trivializing the murder of millions for mere political gain should never be allowed. Congressman Steve Israel has publicly demanded an apology on the behalf of all Americans offended by this display.

So where do teabaggers draw the line at common decency? When will our national political discourse be returned to a sensible, logical dialogue? When will Republican, teabagger, and Astroturf figures apologize for their insensitivity and brutishness?