With unemployment remaining high and concerns growing about a jobless recovery, Congress recently passed legislation that promises to jumpstart travel, a critical sector of our economy. Best of all, this “stimulus” plan won’t cost taxpayers a single dime – in fact it will actually increase federal revenues and lower the federal budget deficit.

The bill is called the Travel Promotion Act, and it was enacted with strong, bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate (78-18) and is on its way to the President for his signature. The Act establishes a new public-private partnership to promote the U.S. as a leading destination for international travelers and educate them about U.S. security procedures. This partnership will be funded by a modest $10 fee on overseas travelers who do not pay $131 for a U.S. visa and matched by the travel industry.

Despite its importance, few people understand the role travel plays in the U.S. economy. One in eight Americans is currently employed in the travel industry either directly or indirectly. Ninety percent of employers in the travel industry are small businesses spread across all regions of the country. Without a revival in the travel industry, it’s hard to imagine a broad-based, sustainable recovery.

Of course, the travel industry has suffered along with other sectors throughout the recession. But it has also been plagued by widespread misperceptions that visitors are not as welcome in the U.S. as in the past and by the lack of coordinated action to compete in the travel marketplace.

When it comes to competing for international travelers, in many ways, the U.S. is playing catch up. Other countries have been quicker to recognize and support the role travel plays in their economies. The countries of the European Union, for example, spend a collective $800 million per year promoting travel to their countries. Mexico spends nearly $150 million annually; Australia over $113 million; Canada and China, about $60 million. The United States: $0.

Because of these efforts, global travel has grown dramatically over the past several years, with 46 million more international travelers taking long-haul trips in 2009 than in 2000. Yet during this travel boom, America has actually lost visitors, welcoming 2.4 million fewer overseas travelers in 2009 than in 2000. In fact, long-haul travel to the U.S. has never recovered to pre-9/11 levels.

When you consider that the average overseas visitor to the U.S. spends in excess of $4,000 when they visit, it’s easy to see how the economic losses can pile up quickly. If the U.S. had simply kept pace with overall global travel trends, the industry would have created or sustained an estimated 441,000 American jobs in the years over the past decade, along with $32 billion in direct tax receipts.

Yet that math can be turned to the upside as well. The consulting firm Oxford Economics estimates that a well-executed travel promotion campaign – such as the one in this bill – would attract 1.6 million new international visitors each year. These visitors would spend an estimated $4 billion and generate $321 million in new federal tax revenue.

While the primary benefits of the Travel Promotion Act are stronger growth and more job creation, research suggests that drawing more visitors to the U.S. will have ancillary advantages as well. According to a 2006 survey by RT Strategies, people who have visited the U.S. are 74 percent more likely to have a favorable opinion of our country. The U.S. government spends millions every year on public diplomacy and outreach efforts, but we’re neglecting what may be one of the most persuasive strategies for winning overseas hearts and minds: a visit to the U.S.

By putting partisanship aside, Congress has delivered a Travel Promotion Act that will generate jobs, increase tax revenues and enhance U.S. competitiveness in a vital industry. That’s a win-win proposition for the U.S. economy and for American taxpayers.

Roger Dow is the President & CEO of the U.S. Travel Association

Jonathan Tisch is the Chairman Emeritus of the U.S. Travel Association and Chairman & CEO, Loews Hotels

More on Airlines

• 0 Comments

With unemployment remaining high and concerns growing about a jobless recovery, Congress recently passed legislation that promises to jumpstart travel, a critical sector of our economy. Best of all, this “stimulus” plan won’t cost taxpayers a single dime – in fact it will actually increase federal revenues and lower the federal budget deficit.

The bill is called the Travel Promotion Act, and it was enacted with strong, bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate (78-18) and is on its way to the President for his signature. The Act establishes a new public-private partnership to promote the U.S. as a leading destination for international travelers and educate them about U.S. security procedures. This partnership will be funded by a modest $10 fee on overseas travelers who do not pay $131 for a U.S. visa and matched by the travel industry.

Despite its importance, few people understand the role travel plays in the U.S. economy. One in eight Americans is currently employed in the travel industry either directly or indirectly. Ninety percent of employers in the travel industry are small businesses spread across all regions of the country. Without a revival in the travel industry, it’s hard to imagine a broad-based, sustainable recovery.

Of course, the travel industry has suffered along with other sectors throughout the recession. But it has also been plagued by widespread misperceptions that visitors are not as welcome in the U.S. as in the past and by the lack of coordinated action to compete in the travel marketplace.

When it comes to competing for international travelers, in many ways, the U.S. is playing catch up. Other countries have been quicker to recognize and support the role travel plays in their economies. The countries of the European Union, for example, spend a collective $800 million per year promoting travel to their countries. Mexico spends nearly $150 million annually; Australia over $113 million; Canada and China, about $60 million. The United States: $0.

Because of these efforts, global travel has grown dramatically over the past several years, with 46 million more international travelers taking long-haul trips in 2009 than in 2000. Yet during this travel boom, America has actually lost visitors, welcoming 2.4 million fewer overseas travelers in 2009 than in 2000. In fact, long-haul travel to the U.S. has never recovered to pre-9/11 levels.

When you consider that the average overseas visitor to the U.S. spends in excess of $4,000 when they visit, it’s easy to see how the economic losses can pile up quickly. If the U.S. had simply kept pace with overall global travel trends, the industry would have created or sustained an estimated 441,000 American jobs in the years over the past decade, along with $32 billion in direct tax receipts.

Yet that math can be turned to the upside as well. The consulting firm Oxford Economics estimates that a well-executed travel promotion campaign – such as the one in this bill – would attract 1.6 million new international visitors each year. These visitors would spend an estimated $4 billion and generate $321 million in new federal tax revenue.

While the primary benefits of the Travel Promotion Act are stronger growth and more job creation, research suggests that drawing more visitors to the U.S. will have ancillary advantages as well. According to a 2006 survey by RT Strategies, people who have visited the U.S. are 74 percent more likely to have a favorable opinion of our country. The U.S. government spends millions every year on public diplomacy and outreach efforts, but we’re neglecting what may be one of the most persuasive strategies for winning overseas hearts and minds: a visit to the U.S.

By putting partisanship aside, Congress has delivered a Travel Promotion Act that will generate jobs, increase tax revenues and enhance U.S. competitiveness in a vital industry. That’s a win-win proposition for the U.S. economy and for American taxpayers.

Roger Dow is the President & CEO of the U.S. Travel Association

Jonathan Tisch is the Chairman Emeritus of the U.S. Travel Association and Chairman & CEO, Loews Hotels

More on Airlines

• 0 Comments

Paris, Winter 2008

The scene opens on the soft light of daybreak glowing over the rooftops of Paris’s 20th Arrondissement. A woman’s soothing voice says, “Over the past several months, an unrelenting roar has been mounting across the Atlantic, resonating all the way to Paris, my adopted city for the last 20 years. Something is happening in America. Four decades have gone by since we were last summoned to come together as a nation to search for, rethink, and dream another America. Today, a voice rises above the din challenging us anew, and for the first time in a long time, I can almost call America home again.”

Soon we’re seeing, Guetty Felin and her husband, Hervé Cohen, driving along an American highway with their two teenage sons. They are headed for Texas, where they will work for the Obama campaign and Guetty and Hervé will shoot this documentary film called Closer to The Dream. In the process, they’ll be giving their sons a view of the heartland of America that most Americans–who don’t live there–will never see. They’ll also be imparting an incredible lesson in politics and bearing witness to a stunning moment of history.

A song called “Better Way” by Ben Harper is carrying them and us, the audience, along.

…What good is a man
Who won’t take a stand
What good is a cynic
With no better plan
I believe in a better way…

—Ben Harper

We, as an audience, are immediately snared into the rhythm of the movie, and we are living the dream with them.

***

On this day after the 82nd Academy Awards, when a woman won Best Director for the first time in Oscar history, I’m nominating award-winning documentary filmmaker Guetty Felin as an International Woman of the Year.

Let me begin with her actual physical existence. As a Haitian-American, Ms. Felin was born in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and raised in New York. She is married to a Frenchman, and they have lived in Paris for the most part of the last two decades, but also in the U.S. (where they now reside) and in Haiti, where Ms. Felin went to launch the country’s first international film festival in July 2004. For that Jakmel Festival, she worked as key advisor but also programmed films and directed a youth-oriented film workshop during the entire duration of the festival. In the fall of 2004, Ms. Felin took the film series to Paris under the title “Haiti en Seine,” in collaboration with La Mairie de Paris (Paris City Hall). The event, which also featured Haitian art exhibitions and dance, was the largest Haitian cultural gathering ever held in Paris.

Ms. Guetty speaks at least three languages–English, French, and Creole. Her themes as an author–community and interconnectedness–meditate around the sometimes unbearable mystery by which our past has created our present. And a narrative voice, as in the first scene that I mentioned, resonates throughout all her work. Ms. Felin is a tireless advocate for her native country’s cultural legacy and film heritage.

Ms. Felin puts her imagination, her time, and energy, and her money where her mouth is. Most recently her strong humanitarian principles called her back to Haiti after the devastating January earthquake. I’m not going to include her insightful observations about that tragedy in this piece, but to read more about that, click here.

But what Ms. Felin has done with her BelleMoon Productions LLC is to design a response and catalyst to build Haiti’s future: 1. J-12.TV, a global web platform will webcast a weekly documentary series tentatively titled “Stories from the quake” or “Fault lines” which will follow the stories of quake survivors as they put the pieces of their lives back together, long after the international media has gone. 2. Ms. Felin will give some of the proceeds of film sales to four Haitian recovery efforts on an ongoing basis. These are not major NGO, but, rather, smaller Haiti-based non-profits that have been working for development and sustainability long before this tragedy.

From her website:

….As for us filmmakers in the Haitian Diaspora who had our lenses focused on Haiti long before this tragedy, what role can we play in Haiti’s recovery? What kind of films should we make? What purpose will they serve? How can we give more resonance to our stories? Who will be our audience? How can we keep Haiti from being just a media fad or a fleeting interest for well-intentioned foreign filmmakers? How can we change the ongoing narrative on Haiti? Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, Haiti the country of dirt eaters, Haitians, the ongoing victims of a bad curse etc… Who will tell the stories of the three founding members of the women’s movement all perished in the quake? or the story of the entire second year class med school students aspiring to one day play an active role in the development of their country? Who will tell stories of crushed dreams and educational institutions and movements that were toppled in just 35 seconds?

It is these very questions that have prompted us at BelleMoon Productions to create J-12.TV. Simply going in and capturing some footage and editing a film will not be enough to cover the multitude of stories that will unfold in the upcoming months and years. There will be stories of abuse, but also stories of bravery and sacrifice and of hope. Families will move from tents to homes, others will leave the city for the countryside and try to start anew, couples will get married and children will be born. This time next year, Haitians will celebrate the carnival that the quake spoiled for them this year, because cathartic moments of joy are a strong part of what keeps us going as people. The series “Stories from the quake” will feature a mellifluous flow of characters from every sector of the population, those living in tents and others trying to rebuild their homes. We would like to feature characters in Port-au-Prince but as well in Leogane, Grand Goaves and Jacmel and other parts of the country that were impacted by the earthquake….

Ms. Felin is again ready to put her talent and her heart into rebuilding one of the countries she calls home.

…Reality is sharp
It cuts at me like a knife
Everyone I know
Is in the fight of their life

I believe in a better way…

—Ben Harper

And so does Guetty Felin.

For more information on Guetty Felin, Closer To The Dream, or to contribute to the work of her BelleMoon Productions and the future of Haiti, click here.

Beth Arnold lives and writes in Paris. To see more of her work, go to www.betharnold.com.

• 0 Comments

Headline at Drudge Report: Obama policies projected to add $9.7 trillion to debt by 2020… points to this story, National debt to be higher than White House forecast, CBO says,

President Obama’s proposed budget would add more than $9.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, congressional budget analysts said Friday. Proposed tax cuts for the middle class account for nearly a third of that shortfall.

So here is the deal. This Drudge headline, saying Obama’s spending “adds to the deficit” is a trick. Here is how it works. Suppose you take over a company that is losing $100 million a year, and your jobs is to turn it around. So perhaps the second year the company only loses $70 million, $30 million the third year, and breaks even in year four. You saved the company. But in those years the company “lost” another $100 million. Should you be fired?

President Obama took office as President of a country with a $1.4 trillion deficit – thanks to the failure of conservative policies. Their tax cuts, wars, military buildups, corruption and incompetence drove the borrowing WAY up, and then their deregulation, corruption and incompetence destroyed the economy, driving the borrowing up into the stratosphere.

If the borrowing just stayed the same at the $1.4 trillion level Obama inherited each year — never mind that interest on all that borrowing gets higher and higher each year — that would mean $14 trillion would be added to the deficit by 2020. That’s a LOT more than the $9.7 trillion that Drudge and the conservatives are making so much noise about. Obama is dramatically reducing the borrowing, but they use trickery to make it look like he is causing it.

What about that $1.4 trillion deficit? That was the deficit for the 20098 budget year. Conservatives say — over and over — that Obama “tripled the deficit” in 2009. This isn’t even a trick, it is just a lie. The final Bush budget year ended with a deficit of $1.4 trillion. Conservatives have been telling the public this was an “Obama Deficit” and use graphics and charts that label this last Bush budget as Obama’s. This is nothing more than a lie, of course repeated endlessly.

But what else should you expect? Like the scorpion that stings the frog as the frog ferries it across the river, it’s what they do. They screw things up, and then point the finger of blame at everyone else.

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF.

More on Barack Obama

• 0 Comments

For the past ten days my inbox has been filled with FDA bulletins announcing recalls of food products ranging from soup to nuts, chips to dips, packaged burritos and pasta entrees, salami, cheese, and ground red pepper. On March 4th, the FDA announced an overarching recall that links many of these products through a common ingredient, hydrolyzed vegetable protein (HVP) made by Basic Food Flavors, Inc. that’s contaminated with what’s called Salmonella Tennessee.

Recalls of specific products containing this HVP – among them soup mixes, dips, chips, and prepared salads, began earlier this week. More are expected. The contamination was initially identified the first week in February after being reported to the FDA’s Reportable Food Registry by a Basic Food Flavors customer, explained Dr. Josh Sharfstein, Principle Deputy FDA commissioner, during a press conference. This prompted an FDA inspection of Basic Food Flavors’ facilities in Nevada that then identified the Salmonella contamination. History of inspections at this plant were not immediately available.

The HVP recall was announced March 4th but Basic Food Flavors is recalling all powder and paste form HVP made since September 17, 2009. FDA officials said no illnesses associated with this contamination have been reported.

FDA officials who spoke with reporters could not estimate the eventual extent of the recall but it’s likely to be extremely large. It already covers scores of products. Basic Food Flavors’ database of recalled product runs six pages and contains well over 700 entries.

So what is HVP? It’s used as a flavor enhancer – in products that include potato chips, hot dogs, and prepared tofu dinners. It’s sold in bulk to processed food manufacturers, many of whom make food under multiple brand labels. As Jeffrey Farrar, FDA’s Associate Commissioner for Food Protection explained, it’s sold to “assignees and subassignees.” In other words, it’s sold to one level of customers who may then sell it on to end users.

“This recall,” said Farrar, “is the first to involve HVP.” According to the FDA, Basic Food Flavors is one of about ten U.S. manufacturers of HVP. Many others are located overseas.

The FDA has what is calls a “zero tolerance” for Salmonella in ready-to-eat foods. Agency officials explained that cooking can kill Salmonella – either during manufacturing or when the processed food is cooked at home by consumers. But many of the products in this recall are mixes for dips and salad dressings that don’t require high temperature cooking.

Yesterday evening in a local supermarket I spotted a product subject to the HVP recall. Reading though the ingredients list I did not find hydrolyzed vegetable protein. “Consumers should not rely on ingredient lists,” says Rita Chappelle, FDA press officer. HVP may not be named specifically but included as a “flavor enhancer” or under the heading of “natural flavor” as it’s usually derived from corn, soy or wheat.

Since one doesn’t typically cook at home with HVP, I asked Tim’s Cascade Snacks whose Hawaiian Kettle Style Potato Chips and Sweet Maui Onion Rings are subject to recall, what they use it for. “We get our seasonings from Basic Food Flavors,” explained Michelle Weese, Tim’s media spokesperson.

Reser’s Fine Foods’ technical director Steve Loehndorf explained that HVP is used to enhance and prolong savory food flavors, like those used in the Creamy Ranch Dip and the Redskin Potato Salad Reser’s makes for WalMart and Safeway.

Hydrolyzed vegetable protein itself is made by breaking soybeans, corn or wheat – for example – into amino acids through a process called acid hydrolysis. One of these amino acids is glutamic acid, which in its salt form is known as monosodium glutamate or MSG. According to the FDA, if the glutamic acid in a food binds to a free source of sodium in that food it can form MSG – but this doesn’t require labeling the product as containing MSG. That’s only required if MSG is added directly. (Is HVP MSG? No, but it’s used like it and can result in it.)

Meanwhile, back at the Basic Food Flavors website, I took a closer look. HVP products are sold according to application (among them beef, chicken, and pork) and color (brown, tan, yellow). “Specialty items” include products described as “roast onion,” “bacon” and “smoke HVP.” (”Natural smoke flavor,” anyone?) There are also “transfat free” “non-GMO”chicken and beef flavorings.

For the most up-to-date recall information, check the FDA’s foodsafety.gov site. The cheese, pecans, red pepper, and salami recently recalled, contain a different strain of Salmonella than does the HVP. Bon appetit!

More on Food

• 0 Comments

What if you paid for your Internet access as if it were a utility bill?

This is what Mr. Randall Stephenson, AT&T Chairman and Chief Executive Officer has confirmed. Stephenson made this comment during his keynote webcast at the Morgan Stanley Conference this past Tuesday.

For the industry, we’ll progressively move towards more of what I call variable pricing, so the heavy [-use] consumers will pay more than the lower consumers,” Stephenson said in the webcast of the meeting.

A metered Internet would mean that we are billed depending on our usage. This is the same model that electric and water utility company’s use. As a home owner, I am frugal with my water and electricity usage — why — because I don’t want a large statement at the end of the billing cycle. I am certain that many homeowners have this same philosophy. As such, we don’t run the water all day nor do we leave the lights on. If the ISPs implement metered Internet usage that is exactly what we will do with Internet access — limit our usage for fear of a large statement at the end of the billing cycle.

If there ever was a more convincing argument for Net Neutrality this would be it. ISPs are famously arguing that any government regulation would hamper innovation. They sit back and enjoy the freedom of being a Title I – telecommunications service. Under this title, companies such as Comcast can throttle Internet speeds and the FCC is nearly powerless to sanction them.

The ISPs are less concerned with innovation and more concerned about their balance sheet. They fully understand the wealth of content that is available on the Internet. As the gatekeepers, they are witness to the massive shift in content consumption coming from the Internet. As such, the ISPs want to tap into that very rich revenue stream. As broadband applications, like digital television, telegaming, telemedicine and e-learning become more ubiquitous — you will spend more time on-line. The best method by which the ISPs can maximize their profit — is by metering your connection the Internet.

From my perspective Net Neutrality is our only defense. Although, I am curious about Google’s entry into the ISP space. They are planning to offer 1Gbps service will be at a “competitive cost.” This leaves me speculating — is this Google’s positive sum game?

More on Google

• 0 Comments

First of all my sympathies to those in Chile who have lost their houses, their livelihoods, their family members, and their sense of stability. Last weekend’s earthquake was unquestionably damaging. At 8.8 on the Richter scale, it was also almost a hundred times more powerful than January’s quake in Haiti. Thankfully its epicenter was farther from large urban centers. Thankfully also Chile has slowly recovered from its violent coup d’état that ushered in a round of neoliberalism (In fact Chile was its first laboratory – U of Chicago economist Milton Friedman was the official economic advisor to dictator Augusto Pinochet just months after the coup). While Haiti fades from the headlines, the situation on the ground in Haiti remains urgent, as only a third of the survivors have their needs for a temporary dry shelter met.

While it is absolutely true that Chile, like the U.S., has its share of poverty and inequality, Haiti’s development indicators are and were much worse than Chile’s. For example, Haiti’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP, total value of goods and services) per person was $428 in 2005, while Chile’s per capita GDP was $8,350 in 2007. Half of Haiti’s people earn $1 per day or less, whereas only 2 percent of Chile’s citizens live under the “international poverty line” of $1.25 per day. The latest figures for child mortality are instructive: 74 children out of 1,000 die in Haiti whereas only 9 do in Chile. For all these reasons, Haiti ranked 149th out of 182 countries on the U.N.’s Human Development Index (HDI), whereas Chile ranked 44th.

The explanations for these differences are many, but they cluster around two major themes. The first theme, much more widely researched, repeated, published, spread, promoted, and believed by international agencies, mainstream media, and most members of certain academic disciplines is that Haiti’s failures of development are because of an unbroken legacy of dictators, Haiti’s “kleptocracy” (Fatton, 2002; Rotberg, 2003). There is an implicit binary frame of a “good” civil society and a “bad” state. Missing from this discussion is the role of foreign actors.

Another binary frame which talks past this first comes from Haiti solidarity advocates and other scholars who have closer relationships on the ground, that Haiti has been the victim of numerous occupations, a usurious debt that France claimed in exchange for its recognition of Haiti’s independence, etc. Close observers of the last coup in Haiti would note that it was France’s Chirac, not Bush, that first called for Aristide to resign. Many believe that this is because of Aristide’s demand that France pay some $22 billion in reparations for this extortion.

The problem with some variants of this analysis is that if we do not acknowledge the role of Haiti’s state we are powerless to respond to softball questions from the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee and others. The recent news item that the government of Haiti has begun taxing aid coming into Haiti is a good case for the need for a more appropriate frame of analysis, that most people within Haiti have, that acknowledges three sets of actors: the world system in all its guises, the elites and Haiti’s state apparatus, and Haiti’s people organized in social movements and what might be called “civil society.”

Meanwhile, Haiti’s crisis continues though it has faded from mainstream media coverage. It has literally disappeared from the front page, even of progressive websites like CommonDreams. We may be entering a world of “aid fatigue.” Monday was the last day for donations to emergency relief efforts to count on individuals’ 2009 taxes. The funds raised – though small compared to the urgent and long-term reconstruction needs – are indeed generous. As of a month after the earthquake the estimate of aid donated is $600 million for Haiti relief efforts (compare this to the $20 billion in Wall Street bonuses).

And yet, there are still an estimated 600,000 people today who are not covered when the rainy seasons come. According to aid agencies’ own estimates, only 35% of the needs for tents and tarps in Port-au-Prince are being met – and this up from 30% a week and a half ago. While the rains haven’t come yet, they surely will. I join many others in asking why this is, especially given this outpouring of generosity.

One problem appears to be on its way to be resolved: the lack of coordination. The U.N. Office of the Special Envoy for Haiti has created a website that allows donors, NGOs, and grassroots organizations to coordinate their efforts. It does have a wiki function which means that the groups doing the work can post what they are doing, and smaller, grassroots efforts are invited to use this tool as well as the large NGOs. It behooves everyone who is offering aid to use this tool, a directory of Civil Society Organizations: http://csohaiti.org/

This is only a single tool, and it can’t solve everything by itself. Still left to be addressed is the communication with the survivors receiving the aid. More than a month and a half after the earthquake there are still many people who do not know if the aid is trickling their way. Some people like my friend Lesley wonder whether this isn’t part of some big plan to wipe poor people out of Port-au-Prince altogether. Already the government is telling people to leave Champs-de-Mars, the “National Mall” which houses the National Palace and return to their neighborhoods (that presumably they left because aid was not arriving). And donors and grassroots efforts alike seem to be telling people to quit the city of Port-au-Prince. This is irresponsible for a couple of reasons. First, many Port-au-Prince residents, particularly the youth in the shantytowns, grew up in Port-au-Prince. Half of the country’s population is 15 or younger. Secondly, without quick and sustainable job creation, this migration simply displaces the problem of food security into the remote rural areas, already marginalized because of communications and physical infrastructure.

A second challenge we need to issue the NGOs that have been entrusted by our government and generous citizens is to also answer some basic questions about the aid they are delivering. Particularly in face of this aid fatigue, NGOs and other groups who are collecting money must do things differently than they have in the past. The first thing this particular NGO researcher and Haiti solidarity activist would like to see immediately stop is what we community organizers used to call “poverty pimping” or what could be called lately “disaster voyeurism.” The seemingly innocent “real world” depictions of the actually existing poverty have real material consequences. True, a naked child with a distended belly or the overwhelming image of a city in ruins might trigger generosity in the moment. But it does Haitian people, particularly the survivors, a disservice in the short, medium, and long term. First and foremost it continues in the unbroken tradition since the Haitian Revolution of reviling, “monkeying,” belittling, infantilizing, and further brutalizing Haitian people. Haiti’s bad press is powerful: of 1200 people I polled in guest lectures before I stopped this practice, only 1 had a positive first impression of Haiti. This belief that Haiti is unfit to govern itself and is not deserving of urgently needed aid may be contributing to a backlash, at the very least a drying up of private donations. I hope not. At the very least this discourse has also justified several foreign occupations.

Another reason this practice of framing Haiti within this poverty voyeurism narrative is that it hides critical, life-saving information about the plan on the ground, what exact aid will actually arrive in Haiti and what its impact will be. In my first public post after the earthquake, before I went to Haiti, I offered a list of questions for people to ask when considering donating to Haiti. Given the proliferation of fundraising efforts, this is becoming even more crucial. Before giving direct aid to Haiti or choosing a group to receive funds, we need to do our homework. It is our responsibility to really think through these questions:

1) Who, exactly, is on the ground delivering aid in Port-au-Prince? How do they select partners and leaders within these groups?
2) What is the group’s capacity to get aid to Haiti and directly to the impacted groups?
3) What relationships do they have with the community and community groups? Who sets the priorities? Do they have long-term partnerships or are they grasping at straws?
4) What percent of funds will actually get to Haiti? What percent is overhead?
5) What is the plan? Does it address the current needs (medical first, food, water and shelter)?
6) Is it offering direct response or is it an “umbrella” group funding local partners? How are local partners chosen?

Until these questions are all answered it is frankly irresponsible to collect funds. For those NGOs and mission groups collecting funds, it would be good to include this information on the website to make it easier for people who would like to contribute or organize fundraisers. Also in the interests of accountability it would be good to post the organization’s most recent 990 form required by U.S. law for all nonprofit groups in order to maintain their tax-exempt status. This form – already required by law to be furnished to all U.S. taxpayers who ask for it – lists the major sources of income and expenses for the organization.

I know this sounds harsh, especially to people who never think to question their generosity. At a recent conference in New Orleans (more on this for another post) senior scholar in another field critiqued a 12-minute presentation based on my previous post that an anthropologist who is “too close to the field” could not be “scientific” or at least “methodical.” My response to him and the audience is, like it or not, the data are clear: neoliberalism has failed Haiti. All development indicators have seen a steady decline from 1980 to 2007, as of the last data I methodically examined, except for two. These two indicators – the incidence of HIV/AIDS and literacy – are exceptions precisely because they were mutual priorities of the elected governments of Haiti and donor groups. Since the 1995 Dole Amendment, USAID was prevented from funding the government of Haiti, a manifestation of a divided U.S. government and the U.S. government’s mistrust of Haiti’s elected governments of Aristide and Préval. However, because it was a priority, USAID was allowed to work with Haiti’s government on HIV/AIDS. Haiti’s success in combating the disease is a ray of hope: in just over a decade since 1993, the seroprevalence went from 6.2 percent to about 3.2 percent.

This political conflict added fuel to the already-hot fire of neoliberalism, in the so-called “Washington Consensus” that donor groups like the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and USAID imposed on countries in the Global South like Haiti. One major plank in neoliberalism is a distrust of states and a preference for private-sector initiatives and the elusive concept of “civil society.” Since the 1980s, NGOs have proliferated in Haiti and elsewhere. The 1990s saw a tenfold increase in their numbers, from 6,000 worldwide in 1990 to an estimated 60,000 by 1998 (Economist, cited in Regan 2003:3). Currently, there are so many NGOs that we can’t even guess at their number (Riddell, 2007:53). This rise in the number of NGOs is matched with an increase in funding through them. Globally, in 2005, it is estimated that NGOs channeled anywhere from 3.7 to 7.8 billion U.S. dollars of “humanitarian assistance” (Development Initiatives, 2006:47), and 24 billion in overall development funding (Riddell, 2007:259).

The pattern is true in Haiti, with only 74 NGOs out of an official count of 343 being present before the dechoukaj, before the ouster of foreign-supported dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier. Noted above, all of USAID funds go through NGOs. A senior U.N. official recently estimated that for all donors 90 percent of aid goes directly to NGOs. Haitian researcher Sauveur Pierre Étienne called this situation an “Invasion.” All this is to say, whereas NGOs may not have created this neoliberal framework, they accepted in infusion of official government aid – known in the field as “Overseas Development Assistance.” Like it or not, the fact that NGOs accepted and continue to seek out more of this aid to preside over the development system makes NGOs accountable for its clear failure in Haiti.

With all due respect to my conference discussant and a wave of newly-minted Haiti “experts,” the facts not only speak for themselves, they shout. As a structure – yes, there are notable exceptions – NGOs have failed Haiti, particularly the pèp la, Haiti’s poor majority. Most pèp la I know are deeply suspicious of NGOs: they have the biggest houses, biggest offices, biggest white SUVs, newest computers, etc. Many people have commented on a steady rise in housing costs as a direct result of occupying forces and NGOs paying inflated rents. NGOs have become the backbone of the middle class – in fact, they are becoming a new status group, an “NGO class” in the eyes of many. As my friend Télèfe said, “as long as the aid passes through the bigwigs, we poor won’t see a cent.”

I can almost hear people retort with the popular refrain: but what about the failures of the Haitian state, the kleptocracy? With all due respect to certain members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that is not our affair and responsibility but Haitian peoples’ particularly the survivors. To enter a sovereign country’s political sphere – even or some would say especially bringing aid – is imperialist. One way out of this approach is to take the lead of the people who have lived this long-term crisis, and adopt a more sophisticated, nuanced solidarity, a tripartite analysis like the one discussed above.

Given the multitudes of perspectives, anyone offering easy answers, especially now, should be suspect. But the long-term solution requires a rebuilt, accountable, democratic, but functioning state that receives donors’ support. Partners in Health and the RFK Memorial Center for Human Rights have published a report about the urgent need for a rights-based approach to development that includes this basic respect for the government of Haiti. An ad-hoc coalition of Washington-based NGOs has made the same point. See the CEPR blog for these and other reports.

But the subject of reconstruction can wait for another blog.

In the mean time, where are the tents?

If Haiti hasn’t erupted into violence, it is because despite the racist misunderstandings of Haiti and Haiti’s people, the survivors have the dignity, determination, community orientation, and togetherness that frankly we here in the U.S. need to learn: one needs only to witness televised conflicts over the last snow shovel at Walmart (and if the conflict involves African Americans or people of darker hues, a tagline like “looting”).

I have more hope than ever that Haitian people will survive this crisis because I have seen what Haitian people are accomplishing on their own, together. For the moment at least, in my neighborhood at least, both political and economic divisions have become the ancien régime. Every report back from the grassroots confirms this as well. By themselves, people on my block set up a medical clinic and an information gathering apparatus under a tarp my Belgian roommate left. They somehow managed to connect to the internet, and have a team of people listening to the radio. All I had to do was suggest a meeting and my neighbors drew up a map of Christ-Roi, some 25,000 people, and went about / continued collecting information about who was alive, who was dead; whose body was still trapped, whose home was still standing; what the urgent needs were, exactly how much water they had, exactly how much food, who had a car, and who had buckets to transport water, etc. And with very minimal assistance from this blan, they did get the water delivered and had lights at night.

There are approaches to offer solidarity-based assistance to survivors, who need to be directing this process. It is a very complex, difficult, heart-rending process that requires humility, self-critique, dialogue, fostering long-term relationships, and knowing our place. But it is possible. Flights to Haiti are scheduled to resume within the week. The overland route through the Dominican Republic has opened up and there are grassroots efforts beginning to work. Last week there was a conference of scores of grassroots organizations in Port-au-Prince coordinated by KONPAY to discuss strategy. In addition to her critical on-the-ground reporting, longtime Haiti solidarity activist Beverly Bell has organized an effort called Other Worlds, after the slogan of the World Social Forum. And after some fifty hours with three people and countless phone calls and e-mails, donations for the grassroots groups in documentary film Poto Mitan are finally going to Haiti through fiscal agent Lambi Fund.

But it is the Haitian survivors who are the heroes of this story, whose perspective needs to be central throughout this process. Their needs articulated (like tents, tarps, and/or more solid makeshift homes, and food Haitian people would prepare themselves) need to direct the aid that is coming.

This difference in perspective, this fault line, is not merely an intellectual concern. We who plan on standing by the side of Haitian people who are rebuilding their country need to learn our place and to learn how to offer this aid in the way that the survivors want.

Hopefully, the fault lines will not grow throughout the reconstruction process.

Mark Schuller is Assistant Professor of African American Studies and Anthropology at York College, the City University of New York. In addition to studying NGOs in Port-au-Prince since 2001, he is the co-editor of Capitalizing on Catastrophe: Neoliberal Strategies in Disaster Reconstruction.

Works Cited:
Development Initiatives. (2006). Global Humanitarian Assistance 2006. London: Development Initiatives.
Fatton, R., Jr. (2002). Haiti’s Predatory Republic: the Unending Transition to Democracy. Boudler, CO: Lynne Reiner Publishers.
Regan, J., & (ICKL), I. C. K. L. (2003). ONG “altènatif” – zanmi oswa ennmi lit radikal? Port-au-Prince: Institute Culturel Karl Leveque.
Riddell, R. (2007). Does Foreign Aid Really Work? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rotberg, R. (2003). Haiti’s Turmoil: Politics and Policy Under Aristide and Clinton. Cambridge, Mass: World Peace Foundation.

• 0 Comments

As Lucky and I prepare for our trip to Los Angeles for the 82^nd Annual Academy Awards on March 7th, Lucky had to bark the question: Has an animal ever won an Academy Award (most likely to later beg the question: If so, how can she)?

The truth is that no animal has ever won an Academy Award. They’re not eligible. After carefully reading the Academy Rules, it doesn’t explicitly state that an animal actor cannot not be nominated, but does exclude nomination eligibility to “Actors” and “Actresses” not “animal actors.” But not to discredit those outstanding animal actors out there, there have been a few animals that garnered major recognition in films that were celebrated by the academy. Let’s take a moment to review some “snubbed” animals from some major Oscar heavyweight films throughout the ages.

Terry the Cairn Terrier who played Toto in The Wizard of Oz (1939) — 6 nominations, 2 wins. Judy Garland won an Juvenile Academy Award in 1940 for her work in 1939 in both Babes in Toyland and The Wizard of Oz, but the Academy snubbed Toto the Terrier, who made her acting debut in the 1934 Shirley Temple film Bright Eyes when Garland was still doing the vaudeville circuit with the Gumm Sisters. Terry was paid $125 a week, which was more than many human actors on set, and even lived with Judy Garland at home in a canine-method-acting-technique to bond with her costar.

Orangey, the red tabby cat, who played Cat in Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961) — 5 nominations, 2 wins. Orangey was the Meryl Streep of animal actors in her day, working the best in the business and landing her first starring role in the 1951 film Rhubarb. Orangey was also a seasoned television animal actor, portraying Minerva in the TV show Our Miss Brooks.

The 48 Yorkshire Pigs that played Babe in Babe (1995) — 7 nominations, 1 win. It took 48 real Yorkshire pigs and one animatronic pig to make Babe the pig in the legendary animal flick.

Popcorn Deelites who played Seabiscuit in Seabiscuit (2003) – 7 nominations, no wins. Although Popcorn Deelites was one of six horses to portray the famous horse, Popcorn’s speed was used to portray Seabiscuit in all of his shots breaking out of the gate and in the racing scenes. Prior to getting into the movie business Popcorn was a lesser-known racehorse who won 11 of 58 starts. Popcorn now resides at Old Friends, a horse rescue and retirement center in Georgetown, Kentucky.

In 1939 the American Humane Association, who monitor the treatment of animals in film and television, did introduce the PATSY Awards (an acronym for Picture Animal Top Star of the Year) to honor animal actors after a preventable horse death occurred while filming Jesse James. The awards were broken down into four categories: equine, canine, wild and special and was even hosted by Bob Barker at one point, but ended in 1986 due to lack of funding. The Humane Society does a similar awards ceremony, The Genesis Awards, now in its 24^th year, to highlight major media stories promoting public understanding on animal issues.

And although animal actors cannot win Oscars, that doesn’t mean they cannot attend or present at the Oscars. Most notably was in 1998 at the 70^th Annual Academy Awards when animal actor Bart the Bear (of Legends of the Fall) handed host Billy Crystal an award envelope. Billy then responded, “I just soiled myself.”

Oscars or not, animal actors will always hold long-standing recognition. A few animal celebrities have earned stars on the walk of fame. Three dogs, Strongheart, Rin Tin-Tin and Lassie have earned a coveted star as well as fictional characters such as Kermit the Frog, Donald Duck and Godzilla.

More on The Oscars

• 0 Comments

As Lucky and I prepare for our trip to Los Angeles for the 82^nd Annual Academy Awards on March 7th, Lucky had to bark the question: Has an animal ever won an Academy Award (most likely to later beg the question: If so, how can she)?

The truth is that no animal has ever won an Academy Award. They’re not eligible. After carefully reading the Academy Rules, it doesn’t explicitly state that an animal actor cannot not be nominated, but does exclude nomination eligibility to “Actors” and “Actresses” not “animal actors.” But not to discredit those outstanding animal actors out there, there have been a few animals that garnered major recognition in films that were celebrated by the academy. Let’s take a moment to review some “snubbed” animals from some major Oscar heavyweight films throughout the ages.

Terry the Cairn Terrier who played Toto in The Wizard of Oz (1939) — 6 nominations, 2 wins. Judy Garland won an Juvenile Academy Award in 1940 for her work in 1939 in both Babes in Toyland and The Wizard of Oz, but the Academy snubbed Toto the Terrier, who made her acting debut in the 1934 Shirley Temple film Bright Eyes when Garland was still doing the vaudeville circuit with the Gumm Sisters. Terry was paid $125 a week, which was more than many human actors on set, and even lived with Judy Garland at home in a canine-method-acting-technique to bond with her costar.

Orangey, the red tabby cat, who played Cat in Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961) — 5 nominations, 2 wins. Orangey was the Meryl Streep of animal actors in her day, working the best in the business and landing her first starring role in the 1951 film Rhubarb. Orangey was also a seasoned television animal actor, portraying Minerva in the TV show Our Miss Brooks.

The 48 Yorkshire Pigs that played Babe in Babe (1995) — 7 nominations, 1 win. It took 48 real Yorkshire pigs and one animatronic pig to make Babe the pig in the legendary animal flick.

Popcorn Deelites who played Seabiscuit in Seabiscuit (2003) – 7 nominations, no wins. Although Popcorn Deelites was one of six horses to portray the famous horse, Popcorn’s speed was used to portray Seabiscuit in all of his shots breaking out of the gate and in the racing scenes. Prior to getting into the movie business Popcorn was a lesser-known racehorse who won 11 of 58 starts. Popcorn now resides at Old Friends, a horse rescue and retirement center in Georgetown, Kentucky.

In 1939 the American Humane Association, who monitor the treatment of animals in film and television, did introduce the PATSY Awards (an acronym for Picture Animal Top Star of the Year) to honor animal actors after a preventable horse death occurred while filming Jesse James. The awards were broken down into four categories: equine, canine, wild and special and was even hosted by Bob Barker at one point, but ended in 1986 due to lack of funding. The Humane Society does a similar awards ceremony, The Genesis Awards, now in its 24^th year, to highlight major media stories promoting public understanding on animal issues.

And although animal actors cannot win Oscars, that doesn’t mean they cannot attend or present at the Oscars. Most notably was in 1998 at the 70^th Annual Academy Awards when animal actor Bart the Bear (of Legends of the Fall) handed host Billy Crystal an award envelope. Billy then responded, “I just soiled myself.”

Oscars or not, animal actors will always hold long-standing recognition. A few animal celebrities have earned stars on the walk of fame. Three dogs, Strongheart, Rin Tin-Tin and Lassie have earned a coveted star as well as fictional characters such as Kermit the Frog, Donald Duck and Godzilla.

More on The Oscars

• 0 Comments

The European Union (EU) is shocked–shocked I tell you!–that Greece used financial engineering to qualify for admission. Exactly how did they think that weaker countries managed to meet the requirements? Now the EU is concerned that geeks used their knowledge of Greece’s hidden debt (and bailout negotiations) to manipulate financial markets for their own profit.

A few years ago, Greece engaged in derivatives transactions which essentially gave it a disguised loan, a gift from geeks. Greece may or may not have had plans to invest the money to create national wealth instead of say, blowing it all on national bling. Either way, Greece used its national credit card in a futile attempt to keep up with the EU Joneses.

The National Bank of Greece seems embarrassed. Last week, it removed the prospectus for Titlos PLC, the financial engineering vehicle arranged for it by Goldman Sachs International, from its web site.

Now Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is concerned with the way credit derivatives and other financial instruments are being used during Greece’s current debt crisis. In his semi-annual economic report to Congress, Benanke said the Fed and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) would look into the involvement of the banks they oversee:

“Obviously, using these instruments in a way that intentionally destabilizes a company or a country is–is counterproductive.”

He should question all related Greek and Euro transactions (not just derivatives). Banks claim their trades aren’t risky because they are doing customer business. One should remember that Goldman Sachs claimed its destabilizing transactions with AIG were “customer business.” How did that work out?

EU Needs its Own Investigation

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, U.S. financial regulators occasionally stumble over the truth, but they pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened. In February 2007, I wrote the SEC about U.S. corporate credit derivatives indexes–similar to the sovereign indexes that reference Greece’s debt. Banks persuaded U.S. state pension funds to use them as “hedges” to protect their large fixed income portfolios.*

Next banks served other customers by creating phoney “AAA” rated products. These fake investments used lots of leverage (borrowing), and they pushed hard in the opposite direction of the pension funds’ trades. As a result, the pension funds’ “hedges” collapsed, and they lost money. The customers that bought the new “investments” lost money, too. Within a year, the phoney AAA investments were downgraded to junk, and customers lost around 90% of their money. (These financial instruments were unrelated to phoney mortgage securitizations.) Banks made hefty fees, but the pension funds and customers they suckered into taking these “gifts” were harmed.

I gave the SEC a map and a flashlight, yet it went nowhere. (My letter still sits on the SEC’s web site.) I’m called the “Cassandra of credit derivatives,” but it’s a misnomer. I’m not prescient, I have no psychic ability, and the geeks at U.S. banks–that claim they are great risk managers–are capable of the same analysis. Moreover, only pension funds and banks’ customers were the victims of an unholy rape.

Today, rumors are that crony capitalists are using derivatives to profit from Greece’s misery. There are allegations that investment banks and hedge funds used their knowledge of Greece’s hidden debt to drive up its borrowing cost and drive down the Euro. Then these speculators reversed their positions, when they had advance information of a potential bailout for Greece.

Other rumors suggest customized trades on the sovereign credit derivatives index also exploited Greece’s problems. Still other rumors point to a campaign to manipulate Greek debt prices and knock down the Euro.

The European Union and Greece should launch their own investigations. When U.S. regulators say they’ll “investigate,” it seems to mean “get lost.”

The U.S. Should Investigate Transactions that Destabilized America

If the U.S.’s “photo-op regulators” are investigating transactions that destabilize countries, they should start at home. Is it “God’s work” to enrich crony capitalists–Washington and Wall Street’s new chosen people–while siphoning money from hard-working taxpayers?

Geeks used financial technology in a way that destabilized the U.S. economy while the U.S. is at war. I believe there is a much stronger word for it than “counterproductive.”

*Pension funds shorted corporate credit default swap indexes (bought credit protection) and took a long position in swap spreads to hedge their bond portfolio credit risk.

More on Greece

• 0 Comments