San Francisco to Offer Care for Every Uninsured Adult - New York Times

San Francisco to Offer Care for Every Uninsured Adult

SAN FRANCISCO — Since contracting polio at age 2, Yan Ling Ho has lived with pain for most of her 52 years. After she immigrated here from Hong Kong last year, the soreness in her back and joints proved too debilitating for her to work.That also meant she did not have health insurance. Not wanting to burden her daughter, who was already paying her living expenses, Ms. Ho delayed doctors’ visits and battled her misery with over-the-counter medications.“Sometimes the pain was so bad, I would just cry,” she said. “I didn’t know what else to do.”Last month, unable to bear her discomfort any longer, Ms. Ho went to North East Medical Services, a nonprofit community clinic on the edge of Chinatown, and discovered to her delight that she qualified for a new program that offers free or subsidized health care to all 82,000 San Francisco adults without insurance.

It amazes me to realize that, in the world's greatest country, there are people -- ordinary, everyday people, not just the people who slide under society's skin and get blamed for stuff they don't actually cause, like the homeless, who live on the fringes of society, or immigrants, who have taken their chances, leaving their homes, or any other undesirables -- ordinary upstanding individuals like you or me, who are barred from obtaining regular medical treatment because they do not have private medical insurance.It's not a new realization by any means. I have long known it; and we hear it frequently, as Americans debate the issue and as we debated national health insurance here at home. But it's not often that it comes home to me. After all, I live in a society where there is no income tax at all, but where the taxes we do pay nevertheless manage to provide us with universal access to basic health care. We have clinics in almost every community, and we have public and private hospitals, so that almost all of us can obtain some measure of health care.Now this is crucial for me. I belong to a family that is relatively uninsurable. Unless we want to sell our cars and mortgage and remortgage our homes, the fact that our fathers all died before their 60th birthdays, from various chronic or non-communicable illnesses makes it virtually impossible for me and my cousins to get private insurance. Oh, I have coverage. But it's group insurance, and it's tied to a place of work. I wanted to be able to have a more flexible work situation. One of these days I would like to write full time, be self-employed as it were. So I applied for Bahama Health, which is friendly and warm and fuzzy and all that, and which made me think that it was the biggest group insurance in the country, but it turned me down.In the USA, I would be uninsured. And this is unfathomable to me. If our small nation, the size of a flea on the American elephant, can provide universal access to basic health care to all of its citizens, its immigrants, and even its tourists, I cannot for the life of me comprehend the reasoning behind it. After all, this is the nation that prides itself on its democratic principles and sets itself up to be the monitor of the free world. I can't see what principle of democracy is served, however, by excluding huge numbers of people from accessible health care.In San Francisco, the city government is making its own decision about this idea.

The initiative, known as Healthy San Francisco, is the first effort by a locality to guarantee care to all of its uninsured, and it represents the latest attempt by state and local governments to patch a inadequate federal system.It is financed mostly by the city, which is gambling that it can provide universal and sensibly managed care to the uninsured for about the amount being spent on their treatment now, often in emergency rooms.After a two-month trial at two clinics in Chinatown, the program is scheduled to expand citywide to 20 more locations on Sept. 17.Whether such a program might be replicated elsewhere is difficult to assess. In addition to its unique political culture, San Francisco, with a population of about 750,000, has the advantages of compact geography, a unified city-county government, an extensive network of public and community clinics and a relatively small number of uninsured adults. Virtually all the city’s children are covered by private insurance or government plans.

Now this -- the fact that the programme may not be replicable beyond San Francisco -- is another thing I find remarkable. The USA, we're told, is a federation, a place where the federal government has to balance its power against the state governments. It's a system that sounds pretty good on paper, most of the time. The states control a number of different things, like whether they execute people and how they do it, what kind of education system they provide, at what age people can drink liquor, how people can get married and to whom, and, presumably, health care. And there's apparently a growing grass-roots movement demanding access to basic health care for all, especially given the fact that the most influential generation of Americans in our time (the so-called Baby-Boomers) is aging. But this movement is being blocked. In the USA, that great democracy to our north, it would seem that the major opponents to healthcare, whether it be state-wide or federal, is the insurance industry.This should come as no surprise. The USA is a capitalist nation, and insurance companies are capitalist empires. While they appear to be fatherly and nurturing and friendly, they all too often bear elements that, in any other industry, would scream "scam" writ large. Don't get me wrong. Insurance works best when it's dealing with things -- house insurance, car insurance, property insurance -- all these make sense to insure. I don't mind paying a fairly reasonable premium to help me out when bad things happen to my possessions. Even life insurance makes some sense; it's not designed to help me, after all, but to keep me from being a burden to people I love, to help cover funeral expenses and so on. Insurance of these things makes sense.But health insurance? I can't help thinking it's the biggest scam there is.If you're in the business of health insurance, forgive me, but here's why I say that. Most companies refuse to insure people who are likely to claim on their insurance, like the elderly, or people with a history of chronic diseases, or people who (like me) come from a family where people have a history of chronic diseases. If they don't drop you, your premiums go up. So the healthy get insured, and happily pay their bills, while the unhealthy can't.Now here in The Bahamas, while that's an issue, it's not as bad as we think it is; even the uninsured can get basic health care here. We Bahamians, this little black country, have figured out how we can cover everybody with basic health care with the non-income taxes we pay. In Nassau, particularly, our HIV patients receive treatment. All our mothers are entitled to pre-natal and post-natal care. Our elderly get taken care of. Even our tourists, whether they are insured or not, get to use our hospitals and clinics. And we never grow tired of complaining how our illegal immigrants can find all the health care they want or need -- a fact, by the way, which I believe is a strength of our society and our government, not a weakness.Because, contrary to what the federal and state and county and city governments of every part of the USA seem to think -- except for, apparently, San Francisco -- I happen to believe that people are more important than things. I don't believe that my health, or the health of any other human being for that matter, is a commodity that can be valued by employers or insurance companies and abandoned when it the profit margin grows too narrow.It would appear that this is a peculiar idea. It would appear that capitalism leaves very little room for people when money is on the line. The San Francisco initiative is being challenged by an employers' federation. There are laws, apparently, that determine what "benefits" employers can offer, and how; and it would appear, further that health care is a "benefit". Not a right.

A final financing mechanism has placed the program in legal jeopardy. To make sure the new safety net does not encourage businesses to drop their private insurance, the city in January will begin requiring employers with more than 20 workers to contribute a set amount to health care. The Healthy San Francisco program is one of several possible destinations for that money, with others being private insurance or health savings accounts.Late last year, the Golden Gate Restaurant Association challenged that provision in federal court, arguing that it violates a law governing employer health benefits. A judge has scheduled a hearing for early November.

I'll say it again. I don't mind paying car insurance, life insurance, or house insurance for peace of mind. I don't even mind paying for health insurance, if it means that I can qualify for more sophisticated or daring treatment, should I ever become very ill. But what I cannot comprehend is the idea that I should pay health insurance simply to be seen by a doctor at all. I do not believe that my health is a commodity that the "market" -- any market -- should determine. That's what I elect my governments for.Not, apparently, in the great democracy of the United States of America, where the greatest medical system in the world is accessible only to those who can pay. American governments, apparently, view the health of their citizens as just another thing, to be bought and sold and valued by an industry that has no real accountability to the citizens they "serve".So hats off to San Francisco. And hats off to The Bahamas, to all the politicians through the ages who made it a priority for all Bahamians and residents and visitors to gain access to medical treatment no matter what their status.

Race, prejudice, and other things

Over on Weblog Bahamas, Rick Lowe has joined the dialogue in a formal way. He's posted an essay of his that was published in The Bahama Journal some 10 years ago for consideration. I suggest you go read it, and remember there are always many sides to the same story. He provides one white Bahamian's perspective on the issue.He also has some pretty cool links attached to it. One of the coolest is this one, which is about Thomas Clarkson and his struggle to end the transatlantic slave trade.This is what dialogue leads to: perspectives you haven't really ever considered because you haven't ever asked to hear them. It's damn easy to assume stuff about the world, history, other people. What is hard to do -- and to accept -- is listen to other people's realities. But unless and until we force ourselves to face other people's realities, we will never go beyond our own.OK -- UWC-inspired platitudes over. Carry on.

English: the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto

That title is ironic, by the way. Just so you know.I also want to link to this article by Sylvia over at Anti-Essentialist Conundrum.Here's the bit I particularly like:

we simultaneously promote lockstep conformity to amorphous and contradictory “American” values whose only blatant connection is raw opportunism. We sit and we applaud blatant bigotry for our own personal security rather than any serious concern for the security of this country. Around what are we uniting? Do we care about the significance of that union anymore beyond materialist safeguarding and the polarization of classes?I was going to launch into a long rant about the value of bilingual education and the importance of cultural awareness. I was going to denounce the reprehensible coding of Gingrich equating these important goals for advancing understanding on a growing interdependent international landscape with “trying to understand the ghetto,” and the classist and racist implications of the word “ghetto” in American social society. Hell, I was even going to discuss the ignorant imperialist and colonialist tropes of associating the English language with “prosperity” — a language traditionally spoken by thieves of native cultures; by oppressors on a large, reprehensible scale. This emergence of a learn the language of your conquerors/superiors mentality. How his comments seem to erect a wall of ignorance to the fact that people who do not speak English in America are learning English to accommodate our systems. How those comments run counter to a land of opportunity where every person is given the tools to succeed.I was going to write all of those things, and then I grew disgusted with the fact that I wanted to spell them out in a post. It’s a disheartening feeling, one of those can’t people just see that for themselves? feelings. Those feelings that you can’t write everything down; you can’t properly capture in English how much perception of these narratives tighten an everpresent knot in your stomach. How onerous it is to read this tripe and its association with power, and then to look into the faces of others who work to survive day-to-day amidst this faux-intelligence that leads to an ideological hysteria that could cost them their livelihoods or even their lives. Their children. Their liberty.

Go on. Read the whole thing. You won't be sorry.Or maybe you will.

Amazing Grace

On February 23, 2007, the film Amazing Grace opened worldwide in the USA.For people who don't know (and I'm assuming that there must be many of them here in The Bahamas, for reasons I'll tell you later), this film is, among other things, a look at William Wilberforce's abolitionist movement, the one that focussed Britons' eyes on the inhumanity of slavery, and which led the British Parliament first to abolish the transatlantic slave trade (whose bicentenary we celebrate this year) and, ultimately, to abolish slavery in the British Empire (1834), and to free the slaves (1834-1838).I have to say all this because nowhere is the film showing in The Bahamas.Now I have no idea why this is. One good reason, of course, is that commercial films in The Bahamas are controlled by a single conglomerate: Galleria Cinemas, which owns four commercial theatres in Nassau and Freeport, and which usually decides what the Bahamian public sees or doesn't see. So it is entirely possible that Galleria, looking at the costumes in the movie, thinking about the "dryness" of the subject, decided to pass on the film.This is something they do fairly regularly. As with many purveyors of mass entertainment in The Bahamas, the assumption is made that we are an undifferentiated mass of ignorami, and that no one will spend money on shows or performances that engages thought or reflection. (This attitude is as true of people producing live entertainment as it is of people importing films.) And so many films that I would like to see pass us by. It's one of the reasons that I don't go to the cinema; it's one of the reasons that our DVD collection is so vast. And it's one of the dangers -- a main and looming danger -- of having a monopoly governing commercial film distribution in the country. At least when RND Cinemas were still in operation, you had two sets of people making decisions, and sometimes those decisions would be different. Competition, what.There is, however, another, more sinister possibility. And it's this.The Bahamas Films and Plays Control Board viewed Amazing Grace and decided that it was not something that Bahamians ought to see.Now I don't have time to go into the implications of this. They are, I can assure you, rich with irony and fundamentally alarming. I'll come back to this blog to do this. But I'll leave you with these thoughts.

• Ours is a nation made primarily up of the descendants of slave-owners and their slaves.
• Ours is a nation whose political history is grounded uniquely and solely in the British Empire (yes, our social history is American. For the purposes of this discussion, that's irrelevant).
• Ours is a nation that never tires of referring to itself as "Christian" (even though some of us, who respect and worship the Almighty in relative quiet, would like to take one step back to avoid the lightning bolt when it falls upon us for gross hypocrisy and overweening hate).
• Amazing Grace is a movie about how the British Empire moved towards the abolition of the institution of slavery and the emacipation of the slaves.
• The movers and shakers behind the Abolition crusade were Christians, and it was Christian principles that they used to argue their case and it was in the name of Christ that the battle was won.

Draw your own conclusions.

Just so we know we're not special

In terms of racism and racist rhetoric, I mean, here's a tale about racism from Russia. A Russian Newsweek reporter and blogger, who is ethnically Kazakh, was attacked in Moscow by four young men.Here's an excerpt.

Most likely, it was an accidental attack by the neo-Nazis. Today, it may well be considered a routine crime ), or maybe not. Funny that on this very day I finished a piece on the [United Russia party] members who now have to love the “Russia for the Russians” slogan. A piece with some interesting bits on [the Movement Against Illegal Immigration, the DPNI].

What's most interesting to me are the comments. They sound so very similar to what I hear regularly about Haitians. Most interesting is the go-back-home theme that keeps recurring.

... in your Motherland, an ethnic Russian journalist exposing local nationalists wouldn’t have survived even a couple of publications. And you go on living and exposing. So everything is fair and logical. And then, if you are such a fighter against Nazism, why don’t you do this in your homeland? And we’ll deal with nationalism here ourselves ...No one is keeping you here. You can move and live somewhere in Turkmenistan. Because it doesn’t make any difference whether there are Russians around or not. But to many people it does matter, and the Russian people mainly want to live in a country where there are 80-90 percent Russians, and not 10 percent. […] So 20 million Kyrgyz come to Russia, and 50 million Chinese, and 10 million Azeris. And they multiply. And as a result, only 10 percent of Russians will remain in the country. And this won’t be Russia anymore. All our history will have to be crossed out - what for have we been building the country for? […] The thing is, in a normal state, the state itself would’ve been involved in immigration policies.

Whenever the topic of Haitians in The Bahamas is raised, the rhetoric becomes predictable. It's predictable because it's the very same rhetoric that is used by all racists to justify their perspectives on people they believe don't belong among them. The following comments are usual:

• "They" should go home to their own country

• "They" shouldn't complain about what happens to them here because "they" are immigrants (usually the word illegal is added here)

• "They" are using up all the resources "we" pay for

• "They" multiply faster and more than "we" do and "they" will soon outnumber "us"

I'm not debating the truth or lack of it about any of these statements. But I am pointing out that they are not unique to us. They are not special to Haitians. They are remarkably identical to the kinds of statements made anywhere in the world by people whose environments are changing rapidly and whose reaction to that change is to blame the Other, rather than to adapt and move forward. The language, and the rhetoric, is fundamentally racist, and that is true of whether the person who is making the statement is white, black, orange, yellow, or pink.

Martin Luther King Day

That's today.This is what the Writer's Almanac has to say:

It's the birthday of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., (books by this author) born in Atlanta (1929). It was 1955, early in King's new tenure as pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama, that Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on one of that city's busses. King was elected to lead the Montgomery Improvement Association, which was formed with the intention of boycotting the transit system. He was young — only 26 — and he knew his family connections and professional standing would help him find another pastorate should the boycott fail, so he accepted.

In his first speech to the group as its president of that organization, King said: "We have no alternative but to protest. For many years we have shown an amazing patience. We have sometimes given our white brothers the feeling that we liked the way we were being treated. But we come here tonight to be saved from that patience that makes us patient with anything less than freedom and justice."

The boycott worked, and King saw the opportunity for more change. He formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which provided him a national platform. For the next 13 years, King worked to peacefully end segregation. In 1963, he joined other civil rights leaders in the March on Washington — that's where he gave his famous "I Have a Dream" speech.

Here's a link to the speech.

Yet another update - hope springs

Dear Sista, I hope this letter finds you alright. I wonder if you realize that when you bravely told your story to us, you were waking up the world.Officials of the Royal Bahamas Police Force Training College heard you tell of your ordeal and they are responding brilliantly, they are taking proactive and positive measures now to make sensitivity to domestic violence issues a much greater part of their training. They heard your voice and want you to know that the policemen who arrested and detained you without allowing you to dress should never have done such a thing. The Good Guys of the Police Force heard you sista, and want to make it right.

It's easy enough to criticize.  Finding fault is not just something that can happen without a huge amount of effort; it's also often something that helps people with low self-esteem make themselves feel better.  And so it's heartening to follow Lynn Sweeting's letters to the woman whose experience at the hands of the Bahamian police, and see that she's telling every side of the story.This is her third letter, posted on her blog.  In her second, she expressed hope that the woman's story would make a difference, would galvanize the police force to act.  In this one, she's commending the Royal Bahamas Police Force for their action.It's also a letter of encouragement to support somebody who took the hard road — the telling of her story.Anyway, here's what Lynn said.

Lynn posts an update

Last week, Lynn Sweeting posted an update on the status of the case involving the police who took a woman in custody without permitting her to put on any clothes:Calling the Commissioner

Because you are speaking out, Commissioner Farquarson is speaking too. He said: “I want to assure all women that there must be common decency for all persons we arrest, and especially for women. Women must be treated with respect and care and with the utmost professionalism. And common decency for women is what I want share with the junior officers too, as part of their training to make sure that we do not have a recurrence.”

A different take on Guenter Grass

Ever since the revelation that Grass was a member of Germany's Waffen SS during his youth, the jury's been out on his sin. And the jury that I've been reading has been leaning in favour of convicting him of having committed the unforgivable. I've seen references throughout the media to the news, and they're overwhelmingly condemnatory; the conclusion has been that Grass is a hypocrite, that his reputation can never be redeemed.Enter Marlon James.

Far more sensible has been the reactions from the Mayor of Gdansk himself who said, “By his actions, he has already paid for the mistakes of his youth.” That’s the crucial thing to remember here. Grass was SIX when Hitler came to power. OF COURSE he would be a member of the SS, what greater ambition would a child growing up in the very shadow of Hitler have? Grass says he kept silent on his past because he was ashamed. I see nothing shocking in this. I’d be more horrified if he wasn’t so ashamed of his past that he tried to hide it. As for all the people who are calling for him to return his Nobel Prize and whatever honour he has gotten please, spare me. Knut Hamsun never regretted his Nazi sympathies and he still has his. I would think that a man who was in the elite SS going on to become the very conscience of his nation, would speak to the very best of humanity, not the worst. There’s no getting away from the contradiction of a man forcing a nation to confront truth when he could not confront his own. But that again brings us back to the ever-wise Winterson: the man needs forgiveness. Lord knows he has mine.

I have to confess that my own perspective is far closer to James' own than any of the others I've read. In part it's because I agree with him about what heroism is, and I don't make the mistake of confusing human beings with God. In part it's because I think — again like James — that sometimes it takes far more courage and conviction to take a stand against what one once was than to have condemned it for all of one's life. And in part it's because I believe that the process of forgiveness and atonement and redemption — as unpopular as those ideas are these days — is a complex one that never really ends. As recovering addicts know, one is never cured of an addiction; one is recovering as long as one lives. It's the old idea of temptation, which new translations have airbrushed out of the Lord's Prayer; the strength of human goodness can't really be measured until it's tested by the strength of human evil as well.Some other links:Austin Bay BlogBooks, InqThe Elegant VariationWhat I'm finding interesting is that some of the more forgiving perspectives are coming from people who live with fear, discrimination, hate and prejudice on a daily basis, rather than from people who don't. People of colour, from so-called "developing" nations, people whose cultures' existences depend on the decisions of one or two leaders of (mostly) irresponsibly superpowers, tend to be more forgiving of Grass than those people whose cultures shape the world.Perhaps it's because it's reassuring for us to realize that evil can change. And perhaps it's disconcerting for others to note that behind every good deed may lie a fatal flaw.We may be forgiving because we grew up with that knowledge.

Some more on land — now Zimbabwe

From time to time, we hear reports about Mugabe and his misrule of Zimbabwe. Now know that I was at Pearson College with the first student from Zimbabwe, Zobo Chimurenga, and I watched him conduct his own flagraising ceremony — alone — on Zimbabwean Independence Day in February 1980. Mugabe was for us then a hero, a man who had led his people to victory in a war of liberation.Mugabe's no longer a hero.What has dominated the news, though, is what a tyrant he is. Like many great leaders, it's said, corruption and paranoia have overtaken him and have turned him into a dictator who is destroying the very country he created. Like Castro.I've often wondered what the other side of the story is. I had some idea; one of my favourite ethnographies during my MPhil studies at Cambridge was Guns and Rain. But Rosemary Ekosso gives yet another perspective — the point of view of a fellow African.Well worth the read. And follow her links, too.Here's a bit of what she has to say:Zimbabwe: White Lies, Black Victims

Despite their pious claims, Britain and the others are not angry because Mugabe is a corrupt dictator. They sponsor corrupt dictators when it suits them. They are not angry because ordinary Zimbabweans are suffering under Mugabe. They don’t care about ordinary Zimbabweans. They were quite happy to herd them into reserves when it suited them.No, what they care about is the expropriation of white farmers. They express indignation at Mugabe’s cronies acquiring the land. That is a bad thing, of course. I myself come from an area where government or government-affiliated bigwigs are buying up all the prime sea-front locations because they can afford them. But in the case of Zimbabwe only 0.3% of people settled on land have acquired it through undue influence or corruption. So 99.7% of Zimbabweans got their land fair and square.So we agree that Mugabe is doing a BAD THING. The bad thing is not, however, the fact that he has taken land that should go to poor landless Zimbabweans and given it to his friends. The bad thing is that he has taken the land from white people.

Land or people?

I found this article in Time more than interesting. It's discussing how Cuban-American exiles in Miami and other American interests that had their property confiscated during Castro's revolution have expectations of seeking reparations for what they have lost. And it's serious.I normally take the call for reparations from slavery sought by certain hard-line anti-colonial Caribbean and African intellectuals with a dash of salt — not because I don't think that we have a right to demand such reparations, but because I believe that we haven't a hope in hell of getting them awarded to us.Still, if Cuban-American exiles and the residue of the American corporations whose properties were nationalized half a century ago can consider demanding reparations from Cuba, then hell, I'll get behind the demand for reparations for slavery.After all, what's worth more — land or people?Cuba After Castro: Can Miami's Exiles Reclaim Their Stake?

For those who don't have a subscription, here's an excerpt:Castro, who turns 80 August 13 and is, say official communiques, recovering from major intestinal surgery, last week handed provisional power to his younger brother and defense minister, Raul Castro. At first, Miami's politically potent Cuban exiles exulted in the streets of Little Havana. But when the reality sunk in that Fidel is most likely still alive — and that his communist dictatorship may well endure under Raul even if he's not — it also reminded many Cuban-Americans that their once ardent hopes of reclaiming confiscated property could be, as one Pentagon analyst says, "a pipe dream." A report last month by the Bush Administration's Commission For Assistance to a Free Cuba warns, "No issue will be more fraught with difficulty and complexity" during the post-Castro transition — even if democracy is eventually restored on the island.That is no doubt just how the impish Fidel wanted it. His stunning and sometimes brutal expropriation campaign seized homes, businesses, farms and factories from tens of thousands of Cubans and scores of U.S. corporations, assets whose combined worth was $9 billion in 1960 and perhaps more than $50 billion today. ... When Fidel offered little if any restitution, the U.S. retaliated with an economic embargo against Cuba in 1962, which remains in place today.But 44 years later, as Cuban-Americans continue to clutch yellowing deeds and titles, the likelihood of ever recovering the actual properties has dimmed like a Havana brownout. ... Still, those exiles will clamor for some sort of compensation from a democratic transition government—payments the U.S., ironically, could end up bankrolling as a major aid donor.

It's been a while

since I visited Laila's blog, but I thought this post was pertinent to us here and now.Edwidge Danticat is a Haitian-American novelist, and considered one of the finest contemporary writers. What she has to say about the current American immigration policies should have resonance for us, because it is equally true of our ambivalence.When she writes

Should we desire in our midst a group of people only when they’re willing to do for less pay the work that our own citizens find too grueling, too demeaning, or too hazardous? The moral question aside, what does it say about our own societal structure that we cannot within our own borders make these jobs more appealing and more humane for our own citizens?The bottom line is we’d like our immigrants to be disposable, to work when we need them, then disappear when we don’t.

she's spot on.Laila's postThe Danticat article

The Palm Tree Lined Prison: More fallout from the Mountain

It's not unusual for the rest of the Caribbean to be judged according to Jamaica. After all, to those people north of our sea-borders, we are all the same; we're all not-white (and presumably one step removed from savages as a result), we're all islands, we're all kinda pretty, quaint and laid-back.These days, we're also all haters of homosexuals too.Now I'm not normally the kind of person who gets worked up about bad publicity. That's because most of the time it's not entirely true; things are blown out of proportion further north, and there's little real basis for their fears.There are times, however, when we go too far. And the current climate of hate, where we collectively seem to believe that it's all right to perpetuate physical violence against Haitians and prisoners and criminals, and to perpetuate verbal and constitutional violence against homosexuals and things that speak about them, I'm wondering if people are not fearful enough.So, in the hopes of sparking a little concern, here's what they're saying about us north of the seaboard.

Jamaica's curious anti-gay fixation is spreading to other parts of the Caribbean. In St. Maarten, two producers for CBS News were gay-bashed last month by thugs wielding tire irons. The attack occurred outside the nightclub Bamboo Bernie's, where Richard Jefferson, 51, and Ryan Smith, 25, were harassed for being gay earlier in the evening by the assailants. The victims were airlifted for medical treatment to Miami. Jefferson, who has been released, said Smith was being treated for brain damage.Additionally, Jefferson told the Associated Press that local authorities had not spoken to witnesses the night of the crime, nor had they pursued leads. Instead of St. Maarten's CSI, the police were MIA."The people who harmed us are well-known punks," Jefferson told the AP last week. "People in the community know who these guys are. They are not talking to the police. The entire island is watching something bad happening."Two men were finally arrested a few days ago (one has already been released), but their cowardly actions seem to have won the approval of a local newspaper, Today, that derisively referred to gay people as "faggots" and "homos." According to the paper's unfathomable April 11 editorial:"During and after World War II, it was considered common sport for military guys to let themselves be picked up by a faggot in a bar in Los Angeles or San Francisco. The one who was picked up would pretend to go along for the ride, only to turn around and beat up or rob the homo who picked him up, leaving him without wallet and sometimes teeth."All that has changed, of course, largely due to American laws that are being spread around the world. Gay bashing is now a no-no. Slurs against homos, a no-no. And beating a person over the head for flagrant public behavior that once was considered criminal misconduct is a no-no."

In a comparatively minor but no less telling cultural barometer, the Bahamas banned "Brokeback Mountain." It seems Nassau must decide if it is an island chain open to the world or a palm tree-lined prison whose pristine waters are merely a moat to drown tolerance and diversity.Unlike in homophobic hotbeds in the Middle East, our community can exercise considerable leverage over these human rights abusers. While few Americans are going to spend a holiday in Jeddah or Tehran, we are frequently visiting the Caribbean. Many of our allies would gladly vacation elsewhere if they were aware that their gay friends and family members were being brutally attacked. It is time for Americans to reassess their relationship with islands such as Jamaica, St. Maarten and the Bahamas. Either they welcome all of us, or none of us. But these "paradises" can no longer be playgrounds for heterosexuals and hunting grounds for homosexuals.Here is a message that Jamaica might understand: "Aloha, mon, friend of batty boy going to Hawaii."

(my emphasis)

How do we know what we've done for forty years ain't working?

Because we have to do it again and again.I've already linked to the question of how we've responded to our Haitian immigrants. Our governments are bankrupt of ideas, and, predictably, they resort to what every person can understand: violence and persecution.Here's what the Miami Herald has to say:

NASSAU, Bahamas - Nearly six decades ago, Valentino O'Bainyear's father moved to these sun-bleached shores to start his new life as a Bahamian. He became William Bain, a new name for a new beginning. He passed that new life to his son, who grew up thinking most of his identity was rooted in the Bahamas. Then he realized it wasn't. ''I didn't know anyone who was a Bain,'' said O'Bainyear, 48, a telecommunications expert who in 1984 reached into his father's past and changed his name back to its Haitian roots. ``I consider myself 75-percent Bahamian, 25-percent Haitian.'' Therein lies the struggle of the Haitian-Bahamian community: Many feel unable to celebrate fully who they are in a country where Haitians remain marginalized.

There's a reason I referred to Rwanda, below. Here on this side of the world, where hate so often wears a face that's different from ours, we need reminding that it's not the sole provenance of paleskin people.We need reminding that civil war isn't just the provenance of people on the other side of oceans.We need reminding that to turn against "immigrants" is to turn against outselves. The O'Bainyard in the Herald article isn't the only Bahamian whose roots are planted in Haiti. Until we remember we are all immigrants, we are all vulnerable.

Human Rights and the Intellectual

While we artists and intellectuals are fighting our own battles for recognition and respect at home, it's important to remember and recognize the central and crucial role that artists and intellectuals play and have played in the global battle for human rights. Even here in The Bahamas, several of our intellectuals and artists have been outspoken in this regard; of particular mention are poets Marion Bethel, Helen Klonaris, and Lynn Sweeting, playwright Ian Strachan, and writer-intellectual Patricia Glinton-Meicholas. Often the artist's stand has political significance -- and by that I don't mean party politics, but more fundamental politics, such as the ability or the need to provide social criticism where it's needed, regardless of personal party affiliation.I believe If we're called to be artists, we're not only called to make a living for ourselves, but we're also called to speak out to help to make the world a better place to live in for all.So I'm posting, for our information (and perhaps also to stir up some controversy and some thinking beyond the pocket) a petition being circulated by artists and intellectuals regarding the abuse of human rights in Guantanamo. It's not coincidental that it came from the Cuban Embassy; there are many reasons why Cuba wishes to have it circulated. But if nothing else, reading the list of signatories should make each of us think about our roles and responsibilities as artists and intellectuals to the country and the world in which we live.

---

Dear Sir/MadamPlease, see below and enclosed, a text of an international call by intellectuals from all over the world, including Nobel Laureates José Saramago, Portugal; Nadine Gordimer, Sudáfrica; Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Argentina; Rigoberta Menchú, Guatemala; Wole Soyinka, Nigeria.Also, it includes Danielle Mitterrand, France; Actors Harry Belafonte and Danny Glover, United States.Should you like to join them, please, feel free to let us know or write to the following e-mail addresses: :www.derechos-humanos.comwww.derechos-humanos.infowww.droits-humains.infowww.hhrr.info derechoshumanos@derechos-humanos.comBest regardsEmbassy of Cuba. The Bahamas

---

Cease hypocrisy on the issue of Human RightsThe 62nd Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights will begin next March 20th in Geneva, coinciding with the broadcasting of new footage of US military torturing Iraqi prisoners.The United States and its EU allies have successively prevented this Commission from condemning the massive and systematic violations of human rights promoted in the name of the so called war against terrorism.The EU governments have refused to admit the testimonies and evidences submitted by citizens of their countries, who have been victims of several forms of torture at Guantánamo navy base. They have also allowed the flight of CIA aircrafts carrying prisoners to illegal detention centers in Europe and elsewhere.We the undersigned call upon intellectuals, artists, social activists, and men and women of goodwill everywhere to join our claims: the Commission on Human Rights or the Council that will substitute it, must demand the immediate closing of the arbitrary detention centers created by the United States as well as the ceasing of all these deliberate violations of human dignity.SIGNED BY:José Saramago, Portugal; Harold Pinter, Reino Unido; Nadine Gordimer, Sudáfrica; Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Argentina; Rigoberta Menchú, Guatemala; Wole Soyinka, Nigeria; Dario Fo, Italia; Mairead Corrigan Maguire, Irlanda del Norte; Danielle Mitterrand, Francia; Harry Belafonte, EEUU; Oscar Niemeyer, Brasil; Danny Glover, EEUU; Gerard Depardieu, Francia; Gianni Vattimo, Italia; Ignacio Ramonet, España-Francia; Alice Walker, EEUU; Manu Chao, Francia-España; Tariq Ali, Pakistán; Eduardo Galeano, Uruguay; Pierre Richard, Francia; Ettore Scola, Italia; Mario Benedetti, Uruguay; Naomi Klein, Canadá; Frei Betto, Brasil; Pablo González Casanova, México; Roberto Fernández Retamar, Cuba; Alfonso Sastre, España; Samir Amin, Egipto; Walter Salles, Brasil; Howard Zinn, EEUU; Armand Mattelart, Bélgica-Francia; Joaquín Sabina, España; Leonardo Boff, Brasil; Francois Houtart, Bélgica; José Luis Sampedro, España; Jorge Sanjinés, Bolivia; Fernando Pino Solanas, Argentina; Silvio Rodríguez, Cuba; Adolfo Sánchez Vázquez, España-México; Gianni Miná, Italia; Fernando Morais, Brasil; Ernesto Cardenal, Nicaragua; William Blum, EEUU; Blanca Chancosa Sánchez, Ecuador; Ramsey Clark, EEUU; Istvan Meszaros, Hungría; Pablo Milanés, Cuba; Rosa Regás, España; Giulio Girardi, Italia; Pedro Guerra, España; Alicia Alonso, Cuba; Almudena Grandes, España; James Petras, EEUU; Luis Eduardo Aute, España; Luis Sepúlveda, Chile; Isaac Rosa, España; Volodia Teitelboim, Chile; María Rojo, México; Daniel Viglietti, Uruguay; Atilio Borón, Argentina; Boaventura de Sousa, Portugal; Ramon Chao, España; Alan Woods, Reino Unido; Nora Cortiñas, Argentina; Saul Landau, EEUU; Martin Almada, Paraguay; Belén Gopegui, España; Laura Restrepo, Colombia; Miguel Bonasso, Argentina; James Cockcroft, EEUU; Maribel Permuy, España; Javier Couso, España; Lucius Walker, EEUU; Eva Forest, España; Keith Ellis, Jamaica-Canadá; Joao Pedro Stedile, Brasil; Roy Brown, Puerto Rico; Emir Sader, Brasil; Stella Calloni, Argentina; Rafael Cancel Miranda, Puerto Rico; Miguel Urbano, Portugal; Arturo Andrés Roig, Argentina; Michele Mattelart, Francia; Francisco de Oliveira, Brasil; Jorge Enrique Adoum, Ecuador; Víctor Flores Olea, México; Susan George, EEUU-Francia; Piero Gleijeses, Italia-EEUU; Michael Avery, EEUU; Salim Lamrani, Francia; Juan Bañuelos, México; Luis García Montero, España; Georges Labica, Francia; Hanan Awwad, Palestina; Fernando Savater, España; Michel Collon, Bélgica; Tato Pavlovsky, Argentina; Setsuko Ono, EEUU; Andrés Sorel, España; Cintio Vitier, Cuba; Edmundo Aray, Venezuela; Eric Nepomuceno, Brasil; Frank Fernández, Cuba; Carlos Piera, España; Leo Brower, Cuba; Aldo M. Etchegoyen, Argentina; Theotonio dos Santos, Brasil; Carmen Bohorquez, Venezuela; Julie Belafonte, EEUU; Noé Jitrik, Argentina; Tununa Mercado, Argentina; Jean Marie Binoche; Francia; Luisa Valenzuela, Argentina; Paul Estrade, Francia; Sergent García, Francia-España; Abelardo Castillo, Argentina; Sylvia Iparraguirre, Argentina; Jacky Henin, Francia; Luciana Castellina, Italia, Beth Carvallo, Brasil, Liliana Hecker, Argentina; Nicole Borvo; Francia; Daniel Ortega Saavedra, Nicaragua; Tomás Borge Martínez, Nicaragua; Rodrigo Borja, Ecuador; Pascual Serrano, España; Carlos Martí, Cuba; Claude Couffon, Francia; Raúl Suárez, Cuba; Mark C. Rosenzweig, EEUU; Marilia Guimaraes, Brasil; Beverly Keene, EEUU-Argentina; Gilberto López y Rivas, México; Juan Mari Brás, Puerto Rico; Francisco Fernández Buey, España; Marjorie Cohn, EEUU; Luis Antonio de Villena, España; Jordan Flaherty, EEUU; Medea Benjamín, EEUU; Ann Sparanese, EEUU; Hildebrando Pérez, Perú; Hernando Calvo Ospina, Colombia-Francia; James Early, EEUU; Manuel Cabieses, Chile; Richard Gott, Reino Unido; Héctor Díaz Polanco, Rep. Dominicana-México; Consuelo Sánchez, México; Luis Alegre Zahonero, España; Carlos Fernández Liria, España; Osvaldo Martínez, Cuba; Ana Esther Ceceña, México; Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, Nicaragua; Carlo Frabetti, Italia-España; Manuel Talens, España; Santiago Alba Rico, España; Amaury Pérez Vidal, Cuba; Danny Rivera, Puerto Rico; Fernando Butazzoni, Uruguay; Julio Gambina, Argentina; Julia Uceda, España; Sara González, Cuba; Tunai, Brasil; Ismael Clark Arxer, Cuba; Fernando Marías, España; Ana Pellicer, España; Nancy Morejón, Cuba; David Raby, Reino Unido; Gennaro Carotenuto, Italia; Raúl Pérez Torres, Ecuador; Jorge Beinstein, Argentina; Jane Franklin, EEUU; Wim Dierckxsens, Costa Rica; Alejandro Moreano, Ecuador; Federico Álvarez, México; Boris Kagarlitsky, Rusia; José Luiz Del Roio, Brasil; Remy Herrera, Francia; Francisco Jarauta, España; Luciano Vasapollo, Italia; Irene Amador, España; Eduardo Torres Cuevas, Cuba; Jorge Riechmann, España; Alessandra Riccio, Italia; Javier Corcuera, Perú; Antonio Maira, España; Fabio Marcelli, Italia; Julio García Espinosa, Cuba; José Steinsleger, Argentina-México; Hans-Otto Dill, Alemania; Douglas Valentine, EEUU; Luciano Alzaga, Argentina; Constantino Bértolo, España; John Pateman, EEUU; Domenico Jervolino, Italia; Francisco Villa, Chile; Santiago Feliú, Cuba; Peter Bohmer, EEUU; Graziella Pogolotti, Cuba; Faride Zeran, Chile; Sergio Trabucco, Chile; Lisandro Otero, Cuba; Juan Madrid, España; Sara Rosemberg, Argentina; Carilda Oliver Labra, Cuba; Alfons Cervera, España; Arnel Medina Cuenca, Cuba; Manuel Rodríguez Rivero, España; Fina García Marruz, Cuba; Joseph E. Mulligan, EEUU; Miguel Barnet, Cuba; Jordi Gracia, España; Ricardo Antunes, Brasil; Rosario Murillo, Nicaragua; Pablo Armando Fernández, Cuba; Carlos Fazio, Argentina; Angel Augier, Cuba; Arturo Corcuera, Perú; Pilar del Río, España; César López, Cuba; Vicente Romano, España; Antón Arrufat, Cuba; Néstor Kohan, Argentina; Gloria Berrocal, España; Javier Maqua, España; Abelardo Estorino, Cuba; Aldo Díaz Lacayo, Nicaragua; Ambrosio Fornet, Cuba; Carlos Varea, España; Jaime Sarusky, Cuba; Alfredo Vera, Ecuador; Beinusz Szmukler, Argentina; Reynaldo González, Cuba; Juan Carlos Mestre, España; Senel Paz, Cuba; Miguel Alvarez Gándara, México; Roberto Fabelo, Cuba; Quintín Cabrera, Uruguay; Vicente Feliú, Cuba; Jordi Doce, España; Ana María Navales, España; Rebeca Chávez, Cuba; Andrés Neuman, España; Eduardo Roca, Cuba; Enrique Falcón, España; Vanessa Ramos, Puerto Rico; Isabel Pérez Montalbán, España; Roberto Verrier, Cuba; José Viñals, España; Martha Viñals, España; Manuel Rico, España; Harold Gratmages, Cuba; Emilio Torné, España; Leticia Spiller, Brasil; Dionisio Cañas, España; Paula Casals, María del Carmen Barcia, Cuba; Reino Unido; Andrés Gómez, Cuba; Marcela Cornejo Zamorano, Chile; Anthony Arnove, EEUU; Diana Balboa, Cuba; Edgar Queipo, Venezuela; Albert Kasanda, República del Congo; Yamandú Acosta, Uruguay; Raly Barrionuevo, Argentina; Pablo Guayasamín, Ecuador; Isabel Monal, Cuba; Verenice Guayasamín, Ecuador; Jaime Losada Badia, España; Alicia Hermida, España; Alfonso Bauer, Guatemala; Handel Guayasamín, Ecuador; Cecilia Conde, Brasil; Salvador Bueno, Cuba; Mano Melo, Brasil; Jorge Ibarra, Cuba; Al Campbell, EEUU, Juan Carlos Rodríguez, España; José Villa Soberón, Cuba; Angeles Mora, España; Eloy Arroz, México; Mario Andrés Solano, Costa Rica; Jose Luis Toledo Santander, Cuba; Jitendra Sharma, India; Cléa Carpi da Rocha, Brasil; João Luiz Duboc Pinaud, Brasil; Daniel Cirera, Francia, Gilson Cantarino, Brasil, Francisco Pérez Guzmán, Cuba; Chiara Varese, Perú; Gloria la Riva, EEUU; José Loyola Fernández, Cuba; Richard Becker, EEUU; Brian Becker, EEUU; Carlos Alberto Cremata, Cuba; Claudia Korol, Argentina; Gilberto Maringoni, Brasil; Elizabeth A. Bowman, EEUU; Bob Stone, EEUU; Vicente Battista, Argentina; Carles Furriols i Solà, España; Isabel-Clara Simó, España; Yaki Yaskvloski, Argentina; José Ramón Artigas, Cuba; José Paulo Gascão, Portugal; Fernando Key Domínguez, Venezuela; Simone Contiero, Italia; Carlos Martínez, España; Antonia García Bueno, España; Zoila Lapique, Cuba; Tom Twiss, EEUU; Paloma Valverde, España; María Ángeles Maeso, España; Estrella Rey, Cuba; Luis Felipe Comendador, España; Julio Fernández Bulté, Cuba; Luciano Feria Hurtado, España; Paco Puche, España; Matías Bosch, República Dominicana; Pablo Escribano Ibáñez, España; Miguel Veyrat, España; Olga Miranda Bravo, Cuba; Virgilio Tortosa, España; Jesús Aguado, España; Rodolfo Dávalos Fernández, Cuba; Manuel Moya, España; Emilio Pedro Gómez, España; Lara Gallut, España; José Corredor Matheos, España; José Giménez, España; Abraham Toro, Venezuela; Luzmila Marcano, Venezuela, Carlos Padrón, Cuba; Judith Valencia, Venezuela; Mario Sáenz, EEUU; Ligia Machado, Colombia; Raúl Fornet-Betancourt, Alemania; Gustavo Fernández Colón, Venezuela; Hector Arenas, Colombia; Antonio Scocozza, Italia; Elsa Liliana Tovar, Venezuela; Vladimir Lazo García, Venezuela; Pierre Mouterde, Canadá; Estela Fernández Nadal, Argentina; Fernando Asián, Venezuela; Justo Soto Castellanos, Colombia; Francisco Berdichevsky Linares, Argentina; Mauricio Langon, Uruguay; César de Vicente Hernando, España; Roberto Loya, España; Rafael José Díaz, España; Rosa Lentini, España; Ricardo Cano Gaviria, España; Salustiano Martín, España; Francisco Gálvez, España; Oscar Carpintero, España; Alberto R. Torices, España; Giovanni Parapini, Italia; José Luis Sagüés, España; Concepción Martínez, España; Olga Lucas, España; Antonio Orihuela, España; Clara Sanchos, España; Iván Zaldua, España; Jordi Dauder, España; David Méndez, España; Enrique Gracia, España; Ramón Souto, España; Blanca Viñas, España; José María Parreño, España; Armando Fernández Steinko, España; José Luis Pacheco, Venezuela; Belén Artuñedo, España; Nacho Fernández, España; Rosa Grau, España; Consuelo Triviño, España; David Ortiz-Alburquerque, República Dominicana; Nilo Batista, Brasil; Carmen Vargas, Brasil; Carlos Henrique Botkay, Brasil; Clarissa Matheus, Brasil; Ulisses Guimarães, Brasil; Vivaldo Franco, Brasil; Clarissa Mantuano, Brasil; Heloisa Branca, Brasil; Eduardo Ebendinger, Brasil; Marcello Guimaraes, Brasil; Célia Ravero, Brasil; Lavinia Borges, Brasil; Teodoro Buarque de Holanda, Brasil; Felinto Procopio Minerin, Brasil; José Ibraim, Brasil; Ecatherina Brasileiro, Brasil; Silvio Tendler, Brasil; Ana Rosa Tendler, Brasil; Teo Lima, Brasil; José Braga, Brasil; Fábio Basilone, Brasil; Denise Fraga, Brasil; Carlos Eduardo Ibraim, Brasil; Michelle Victer, Brasil; Violeta Cabello, España; Alejandro Moreno, España; Claufe Rodrigues, Brasil; Ledo Ivo, Brasil; Monica Montone, Brasil; Terezinha Lameira, Brasil; Jesus Chediak, Brasil; Pedro Amaral, Brasil; Maria Laura Laskshim, Brasil; Waldir Leite, Brasil; Walter Guiadazo, Brasil; Marcellus Franco, Brasil; João Grilo, Brasil; Sérgio Saboya, Brasil; Geraldo Moreira, Brasil; Ivair Itagiba, Brasil; Emilio Mira y Lopez, Brasil; José Luis Rodríguez García, España; Daniel Salgado, España; Olga Matara Peñarrocha, España