Within the last 24 hours, numerous West Michigan news sources have reported on the newly released government documents related to the 2010 Enbridge oil disaster that caused nearly 1 million gallons of oil to contaminate the Kalamazoo River.

The Mlive reporter out of Kalamazoo states, “The 158 documents and 58 photos will provide the factual basis for the National Transportation Safety Board’s conclusion of what caused the spill.”

The Mlive story goes on to cite a spokesperson for the Natural Re­sources Defense Council, who made reference to what this new information could mean as it relates to the pipeline system that Enbridge will be responsible for in the Keystone Tar Sands Project.

Despite the limited discussion around the Keystone Tar Sands Project, much of the coverage was focused on the release of the documents, but not what they concluded.

In addition, the MLive story also includes a response from Enbridge, as did most of the other major media sources in West Michigan. The WOOD TV 8 story quoted an Enbridge executive who stated, “Safety has always been core to our operations. We have reviewed our processes and procedures since the Line 6B incident, and we have enhanced our focus on the safety and integrity of our operations even further.”

The only major news agency in West Michigan that framed the story differently was the Battle Creek Enquire. Their headline had a different tone with, Documents shed light on Enbridge spill response. The Battle Creek Enquire article just does a better job of framing the story, by reporting on what some of the documents say. The documents reveal that the response time by Enbridge was faulty and the alarm designed to go off when pipeline breaks occurred, wasn’t working.

The documents released are worth reading and they reveal other useful bits of information as well.

Lastly, it is important to point out that in none of the West Michigan news coverage of these new documents was their any reference to the company’s track record on oil spills and pipeline leaks. According to a report from the group Tar Sands Watch,

Between 1999 and 2010, across all of Enbridge’s operations there have been 804 spills that have released 168,645 barrels (approximately 26.81 million litres, or 7.08 million gallons) of hydrocarbons into the environment.159 This amounts to approximately half of the oil that spilled from the oil tanker the Exxon Valdez after it struck a rock in Prince William Sound, Alaska in 1988.

Reporting the track record of Enbridge on oil spills and pipeline leaks should have been a priority for reporters, but we have come to learn that such reporting has not been consisted with how they have covered this issue from the very beginning.

The article was no doubt a response to the growing concern by people who live in Barry County and those who are friends of Circle Pines in the Yankee Springs area over the issue of fracking that could become a reality in the not too distant future.

In fact, at last week’s anti-fracking protest in Lansing, there were several people from Barry County and a few people connected to Circle Pines who came to speak out against the DEQ auctioning of public land for possible oil & gas extraction.

The WMEAC bloggers acknowledge that the land sold in the public auction could allow hydraulic fracking, but then cites the President of Miller Energy Company as saying he doesn’t think, “Yankee Springs will be a successful area for fracking.” Besides not citing any other sources on this matter, why use the President of Miller Energy Company, which has a long history of profiting from oil & gas extraction and a history of global expansion at one point in the company’s history?

The blog posting then provides a brief overview of the history of fracking in Michigan, but only uses the DEQ as a source on this history, particularly Director of the Office of Oil, Gas and Minerals for the Department of Environmental Quality, Hal Fitch. The Michigan DEQ has stated publicly that fracking is safe and for anyone who was at the public auction on Lansing last week, they would be hard pressed to trust anything that Hal Fitch had to say.

However, the most important aspect of the WMEAC blog post was their statement, “WMEAC is not yet ready to request a permanent moratorium on horizontal hydraulic fracturing.”

Instead of supporting a permanent moratorium, WMEAC states that it is supporting some proposed legislation that would “(1) place a moratorium on fracking for two years; (2) provide funding for a study to be done on Michigan fracking and its environmental implications; and (3) require fracking companies to publicly disclose the chemicals used in order to trace chemicals found in water and soil samples to specific companies and wells.”

However, the grassroots group Ban Michigan Fracking has a much more critical view of these legislative proposals.

“The package of bills is a sleight-of-hand, pro-regulatory approach to ensure that fracking for shale gas is labeled ‘safe’ and continues in Michigan,” says LuAnne Kozma of Ban Michigan Fracking. A bill calling for a moratorium is tied to a bill that would initiate a gas industry-funded study and fracking advisory committee, but not the other way around. In other words, the proposed fracking panel and study could go forward even without a moratorium. One of the bills’ key sponsors, state Representative Mark Meadows, revealed shortly after introducing the bills that he is opposed to a ban on fracking.”

The WMEAC blog piece ends with a list of 7 questions that “still need to be answered” about fracking in the Yankee Springs area. The most important of the 7 questions asked has to do with wanting to know what the environmental track record of the companies that purchased land during the public auction. This would indeed be important information as would any and all information that would provide complete transparency if any fracking were to take place.

What was interesting about the list of question was what was omitted. None of the questions asked had to do with how fracking would impact the eco-systems in the area, the wildlife, the soil and water table of the Yankee Springs area. There was also no question posed about how fracking could impact human health. Instead, several of the questions focused on how fracking would impact recreational activities, tourism and other area businesses.

These might be legitimate questions, but they should not take priority over the well being of human and non-human life in the eco-systems that make up the Yankee Springs area. 

As has been the case with other projects such as 5×5 and ArtPrize, this new project has received plenty of media coverage, all with significant fanfare.

The basic idea is that with $15 million of the DeVos Family money, people will submit proposals for business ventures that DeVos and his team will look at and decide which ones deserve to get funded. Of course, there is a mechanism where the public can vote on some of the proposals, but in the end “voting” in this format will generally mean people who are supportive of such projects and those who have an awareness of it. It would be safe to assume that most of those “voting” for projects submitted to Start Garden will be people who fall into the creative class category…..the ones who who have been involved in Rick DeVos’s other projects.

DeVos made his announcement last week at a press conference held at one of the many family owned properties in Grand Rapids, the JW Marriott Hotel. DeVos is quoted in MiBiz as saying, “It’s unlike any fund in the world. It involves hundreds of ideas, which can come from anywhere and from anyone.” But any serious observer (which should include journalists) would ask the question of how this project is different than any other in the world?

Other wealthy families have a history of investing in projects, so that couldn’t be what makes it different. In fact, what the Start Garden Project is doing is somewhat similar to what banks and other financial institutions do, they lend money to projects they think are viable. The difference here is that the DeVos family and the Start Garden Team will be making those decisions, which gives them even more leverage to determine the future of Grand Rapids. Gaining more leverage in determining the future of this community has been the goal of the DeVos family ever since Rich DeVos began acquiring billions through the Amway business.

In addition to increasing the family’s influence on the economic, social and political future of Grand Rapids, the Start Garden Project is just another mechanism for the DeVos family to make money off the ideas and hard work of others. If one reads the Start Garden rules page it is clear that those who run Start Garden get to have the right to make money off of ideas that are profitable. The investment agreement section states clearly, “Start Garden does not take ownership in intellectual property of your idea at the $5,000 level. It contains options so we remain investors if your idea becomes a successful business.”

The emphasis on Start Garden’s ability to benefit from profitable ventures is restated again on a different page. “We recognize this investment agreement is unusual. It’s our prototype of an agreement that has as few strings attached as possible, but still maintains an investor relationship if your idea becomes a huge success.”

At a recent talk Rick DeVos commented that such criticism of his projects are nothing more than conspiracy theories about his family’s business. Start Garden is not a conspiracy, but it is another way for the DeVos family to make money while having more influence in the future of Grand Rapids.

First, it should be noted that Senator Stabenow is up for re-election and her visit to Grand Rapids today is most likely motivated by her desire to stay in the Senate.

Second, the public should be very skeptical of such a proposal. The language of the proposed legislation on one level seems kind of like a benefit when it says the bill is designed, “To amend the Small Business Act to establish a loan program to assist and provide incentives for manufacturers to reinvest in making products in the United States, and for other purposes.”

The public and journalists are often swayed by any language that promotes the notion of job creation, but what this proposed legislation will actually do is transfer more public money to the private sector.

Why is it that those who promote capitalism never see the contradiction of the state intervening on behalf of capital? This contradiction is even more apparent when looking at US trade policy over the past 20 years.

The Bring Jobs Home Loan Act of 2012 is designed to provide financial incentives for manufacturers to bring jobs back to the US that have gone overseas. However, over the past 20 years US trade policy has facilitated an easy transfer of US manufacturing jobs to foreign countries with legislation like NAFTA, CAFTA and the most recent trade bills with Colombia, Panama and South Korea.

These trade policies have generally been a bi-partisan affair, with the first major trade agreement being NAFTA. NAFTA was signed by the Clinton administration and has resulted in Michigan losing 287,923 manufacturing jobs (or 36 percent) during the NAFTA-WTO period (1994-2011), according to Public Citizen.

More recently, the US Congress passed legislation that would make it easier for US companies and investors to do business in Panama, Colombia and South Korea. Public Citizen was clear last fall about how these trade policies would impact US workers by stating:

“Passing the Korea deal would kill U.S. jobs. Even official government studies show it will increase the U.S. trade deficit. Passing the Colombia deal would kill any leverage Colombian union, Afro-Colombian and other community leaders and their U.S. union and civil society friends and allies have to stop the murders, forced displacements and other acts of political violence that dominate life in Colombia. And passing the Panama deal would kill our ability to fight tax havens without risking attack by corporations under new privileges established in the pact.”

Michigan Senator Stabenow voted for the trade agreement with South Korea, which was the biggest US job killer of the three. She voted against the trade proposals with Colombia and Panama in October, but those will have less of an impact on US jobs.

Having supported some trade agreements, which export US jobs abroad, it seems a bit strange that Stabenow would now want to provide government incentives to have manufacturers bring jobs back to the US. However, as we stated earlier, in her bid to win re-election, the Senator is really pushing for legislation that will transfer taxpayer money to private businesses and then call it job creation.

“This has been a tremendous experience,” Snyder said. “This is a fabulous opportunity to say ‘thank you’ to the troops in person. There’s great pride. These men and women are making a great sacrifice, putting their lives at risk and service us wonderfully.”

The article also stated that Governor Snyder was on a trip organized by the Department of Defense and that he was traveling with other Governors. What the MLive story did not report was that these trips were no doubt part of a military psy-ops campaign to gain additional support for the US occupation of Afghanistan from US politicians, as was reported last year.

These visits are designed to show a controlled aspect of US military operation in Afghanistan and to communicate key points to visiting officials from the US. Michigan Governor Snyder seems to be embracing their message based on the MLive story and the embedded video, where Snyder is responding to questions from several Michigan reporters.

Snyder stated several times that he was there to “thank the troops and learn about the sacrifices the soldiers are making for us.” Snyder said he was taken to a forward operating base and that the “progress the soldiers were making was amazing.”

Snyder also stated that he was there to talk to Michigan soldiers and to let them know he would be working to find jobs for them when they came back. Unemployment rates for US veterans has always been a problem and last year Business Week reported that unemployment for young veterans was as high as 30%.

During the video interview, WOOD TV8 reporter Rick Albin asked Governor Snyder about the moral of the US troops, particularly in light of the recent pictures of troops holding up body parts of Afghanis the soldiers had killed.  Albin did qualify his question by stating that this action was only done by a few of the US soldiers, a qualification which speaks to how well the channel 8 reporter accepts the State Department’s explanation for yet another documented incident where US troops are celebrating the brutality of war. This kind of framing minimizes and marginalizes the level of violence that occurs on a daily basis at the hands of US soldiers, NATO troops and Afghan military personnel working in conjunction with the US operation.

Snyder’s response to Albin’s question avoided talking about the US troops holding up body parts. Instead, the Michigan Governor stated that the “service they were giving was incredible. I wish more Americans could see what our soldiers are doing for us.”

None of the Michigan reporters question this claim or asked how the US occupation of Afghanistan actually served Americans.

It will be interesting in the coming weeks to see how much Governor Snyder makes a point of publicly supporting the US war in Afghanistan, especially now that he has had the official tour provided by the Department of Defense.

Like the last time, local news agencies bought into the claim that Walmart wants to fight hunger and encouraged people to like the Fight Hunger GR facebook page. Local hunger relief agencies like Kids Food Basket and Feeding America West Michigan Food Bank are also promoting the Walmart campaign, since their agencies would be beneficiaries of the money if Grand Rapids won.

The Feeding America West Michigan Food Bank even posted a story on the citizen journalism site, the Rapidian. The article is nothing more than a pitch for the Walmart campaign that carries the simple message, “like our page and Grand Rapids can fight hunger.”

If anyone is serious about fighting hunger they will look at the reasons why people are going hungry. Once we explore the root causes we can see that not only do local charities that provide food assistance not fight hunger, in some ways they perpetuate social inequities by re-directing people’s energy and good will to keeping their organizations in operation.

The root cause of hunger in the US is not because there isn’t enough food, it is about having daily access to nutritious food. The main reason people do not have daily access to nutritious food is because millions live in poverty in the US. According to the official pull yourself up by your bootstraps narrative would say people live in poverty because they haven’t worked hard enough. This narrative is complete absurdity and should be apparently so since the 2008 economic bailout, where the financial industry was give billions of taxpayer’s money to keep them going even after they engaged is corrupt and fraudulent practices. Apparently, banks and other financial institutions don’t need to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, they just need a system that will bail them out.

Stealing a lot from the poor and giving a little back

The whole notion that Wal-Mart wants to fight hunger in America would make any reasonable person burst out in laughter. Thinking that the largest company in the world wants to actually fight hunger in America tells us something about how well propaganda works in this country. Here are several reasons why Wal-Mart is not committed to fighting hunger in the US.

1. Wal-Mart is the wealthiest company in the world with over $14 billion in profits last year alone. The company makes that kind of an annual profit because it has destroyed many local businesses and pays its workers poverty level wages. In 2008, Wal-Mart CEO H. Lee Scott Jr. made a $29,682,000 salary, which according to United for a Fair Economy is 1,314 times more than the salary of an average full-time Wal-Mart worker.

2.If Wal-Mart paid its workers a livable wage they could seriously reduce the number of people needing food assistance in the United States. Wal-Mart also constantly violates worker pay agreements and is currently facing about 80 individual lawsuits from workers and 4 class action lawsuits for worker violations.

3.Wal-Mart gets millions in tax breaks every year from communities across the country when they broker deals to build new stores. In addition, Wal-Mart use state and federal tax loopholes to pay less in taxes and get all kinds of subsidies. For example, Wal-Mart has been taking advantage of a tax loophole that the federal government closed years ago, paying rent to itself then deducting it from state taxes in about twenty-five states. Data from filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission show that on average Wal-Mart has paid only about half the statutory state rates over the past decade.” (2008 Wal-Mart Watch Report)

4.Wal-Mart is a company, like any other company, that is committed to maximizing their profits. You cannot simultaneously end hunger and make a profit. Besides not paying workers in the US a livable wage, Wal-Mart profits off the misery of millions globally by selling products made in sweatshop conditions. Thus, Wal-Mart is also contributing to hunger around the world by benefiting off a neoliberal global economic system.

5.Wal-Mart’s board of directors is made up of a group of economic elites who are also committed to maximizing profits and maintaining inter-corporate relations, which allows them to be a united front against government and public scrutiny. Look at who sits on Wal-Mart’s Board of Directors and ask yourself if these people are committed to fighting hunger.

There are many more reasons to discredit the claim that Wal-Mart wants to fight hunger in America, but we think you get the point. Wal-Mart recognizes they are despised by millions of people throughout the country, so this new campaign is really a PR effort to paint themselves as a “responsible” corporation.

This tactic of “funding community projects” is not a new one employed by corporations. Robber Barons like Carnegie and Rockefeller did the same thing 100 years ago as a means to prevent working class rebellion against their obscene wealth in the face of widespread poverty.

Currently, companies like Chase Bank, Pepsi and Wal-Mart are also trying to con the public into thinking they care about our communities by offering funds for local projects. We need to see these efforts for what they are, elaborate public relations ploys to divert our attention from how they continue to amass incredible amounts of wealth while more and more people fall into poverty.

The article is interesting on many levels. The MLive reporter begins by asking the readers if this is graffiti or art, which in some ways is a legitimate question. The problem, however, is that this would not be a question that an MLive reporter asked if the painted images on the side of highway walls were an anti-war or anti-gentrification message.

Not content to end the charade there, the MLive reporter then talks to an employee of the Ford Museum to get his take on the “unsanctioned art.” The Museum spokesperson tries to remain neutral, but in no way does he condemn the graffiti. Imagine if there was a US Out of Afghanistan slogan spray painted at the same location. Do you think that anyone from the Ford Museum would remain neutral if asked about that?

The MLive article continues with the reporter citing the Grand Rapids City policy on graffiti and then followed up with commentary from a Kendall College professor who also considers the stencil of Ford to be art.

There are two issues here to consider on the art v. graffiti issue. First, as we have already pointed out there are clearly double standards about how MLive would report on graffiti that could be considered art, particularly if it affirms the dominant narratives………in this case celebrating Grand Rapids’ own Gerald Ford.

Second, for those who want to condemn graffiti no matter what the message is, you automatically demonize those who often do not have the means to communicate with a mass audience…….ie, those that use graffiti to make a statement. Much of the graffiti created in this community isn’t unlike the kind one would find in most urban centers, which is graffiti that is overtly political in nature (anti-war, anti-capitalist) or the graffiti of those who are economically and socially marginalized……..those we often lump into the “gang” category.

This second point underscores clear class differences, since it reflects how we think about negative social behavior. If a young person of color tags a building with a message we are all supposed to condemn it and say it is criminal behavior. However, if Bank of America puts up a billboard ad in the city, that is generally considered legal free speech. However, who does more harm to people, a street gang or a bank that engaged in massive fraud and then got bailout out by taxpayers who had no say in the matter?

War Crimes and Criminals

One last point worth making about the contradictory nature of the MLive story has to do with Ford himself. The MLive reporter cites the quote that accompanies the graffiti and then provides a hyperlink to the context of this statement. However, a serious look at the historical record would show that while Ford was President and Vice President, he presided over the torture and murder of thousands of people in countries like Vietnam and Indonesia. We produced a short video that gives an overview of Ford’s foreign policy, but an additionally good source is 895 Days that Changed the World: The Presidency of Gerald R. Ford, by Graeme S. Mount.

Again, the contradictions are quite apparent. It’s not ok to have anti-war graffiti, but it’s ok to have graffiti of a war criminal.

Keep was writing in anticipation of the April 4 anniversary of King’s assassination while in Memphis in 1968 to support the sanitation workers strike for racial and economic justice – a critical point that Keep omitted in his editorial.

Keep began his editorial by saying that Dr. King would not likely be surprised at the recent shooting of Trayvon Martin. He then went on to say that King, “spoke about having seen the promised land — a land in which the color of people’s skin made no difference in how they were treated.”

While it is true that Dr. King mentioned the Promised Land in his last speech on April 3, 1968, he didn’t really make statements about the color of people’s skin. King’s speech was a history of struggle and resistance that was continuing in Memphis, where he talked about the sanitation workers strike and boycotts against companies like Coca-Cola.

Keep then went on to say, “We’re the kind of nation that can rise above prejudice to break new ground in the political world, but we are so often reminded that we’re also a nation that cannot seem to put a sordid chapter of its past completely behind it in the area of race relations.”

This statement is very revealing, because what it indicates is that Paul Keep has no idea what the history of racism in the US is really about. By calling it a “sordid chapter of its past,” he minimizes the brutality of systemic racism of the past like slavery of Africans and genocide of Native Americans. This notion of putting this history behind us also ignores and denies the current systems of institutional racism that plague communities of color throughout the nation, such as the Prison Industrial Complex, major health and economic inequities that exist for communities of color, the anti-immigrant practices of racist groups and the government, which detain and deport thousands every year.

Keep further demonstrates his White privilege by recounting a conversation he had with a young Black woman in Flint about 10 years ago. Keep wanted to acknowledge how far the US has come over the years in terms of eliminating some forms legal segregation, but the young woman wasn’t, in Keep’s words, “satisfied.” Keep acknowledged that she had a right not to be satisfied, but then he doesn’t go further in terms of trying to understand why this young Black woman felt the way she did.

Instead, Keep ends his editorial with reflections on visiting the Lorraine Hotel and the National Civil Rights Museum in February with his wife and son. Keep writes, “It was haunting to look at the motel balcony and the spot where Dr. King fell. He was only 39 years old when he died. Think what he might have done had he been given more years to work on his causes. Or did it somehow take his death to wake up a nation? We’ll never know the answer to that, but we should all be able to agree that we aren’t yet in his promised land.”

These final comments again reflect the tremendous privilege he has, since he doesn’t take any personal or professional ownership for the ongoing struggle for racial justice. He could have taken the opportunity on the anniversary of Dr. King’s death to commit the MLive Media Group to doing stories on the current manifestations of institutional racism in West Michigan.

Instead, Keep chooses to write in vague language about whether or not the death of King woke up the nation. The assassination of King and the subsequent uprising that took place all across the country was a wake up call to the Black community, which understood that even someone who preached non-violence was a threat to the power structure. King and the movement had moved beyond segregation and were now demanding economic justice, because that was how racism was most often manifested, by keeping Blacks in poverty through exploitation and limited opportunities.

We will never get to the “promised land” as long as people with privilege and power like Paul Keep aren’t willing to give it up and join in the struggle for racial and economic justice.

The Detroit CBS affiliate did a 4-part series for their program Michigan Matters. Each segment was roughly 5 minutes in length and were essentially promotional pieces for the privately owned company.

Segment one dealt with the beginnings of the company, that in many ways looked like the promotional videos that Amway has produced themselves about the founding of the company. Steve Van Andel and Doug DeVos were interviewed for this segment and both talked about their earliest memories of the business that was started by their dads.

The first segment also included information about how the company has evolved and now does 90% of its business outside of the United States, with $9.2 billion in sales for 2011.  Near the end of that segment Michigan Governor Rick Snyder refers to Amway as “a real standup player,” which has helped his administration to look to China for future markets for Michigan companies.

In the second segment the CBS reporter simply asks DeVos and Van Andel, “How does your business work?” Both DeVos and Vandel claim it is all about having a good product to sell and for distributors to find new customers. The current board chair and President of Amway failed to mentioned that the wealth that is generated for the company is predicated on getting other people to sell the products for them, while the two families and the higher level distributors make most of the profits. This is what many critics refer to as a pyramid scheme.

At one point Van Andel says that not everyone is “wired” to be a distributor and that those who don’t do well are not to blame. In fact, Van Andel says no one is to blame, which is a message that differs from those who felt cheated by the company, some of which can be found in Steve Butterfield’s book Amway: The Cult of Free Enterprise.

The second segment also includes a lengthy portion in one of the Ada manufacturing plants where viewers hear from the plant manager who enthusiastically talks about what they do there. This segment also addresses the company’s China controversy in 2006 when Dick DeVos ran for Governor and the Democratic Party made an issue of the company’s business deals in that country. The news reporter responds that other companies like GM and Ford did the same thing so why pick on Amway? This was not only another example of how the CBS station in Detroit was unwilling to critically look at Amway, it was just bad journalism since none of the claims made by Amway executives were ever challenged in the series.

The third segment highlighted the company’s recent business partnership with the Detroit Red Wings, where the Amway company logo will be prominently displayed at the arena where the NHL team plays. This fits in with the DeVos family’s venture into owning sports teams locally and abroad like the NBA Orlando Magic. This segment featured an executive with the Detroit Red Wings who talked about how this partnership was just one more way for the Amway business to give back to the community. Again, there were no other perspectives provided, such as the critique that left sportswriter Dave Zirin offers about the DeVos Family’s ownership of sports teams in his groundbreaking book, Bad Sports: How Owners Are Ruining The Games We Love.

The third segment concludes with a mention of the company’s One by One Campaign and their money making project with Cascade Engineering to sell a water filtering system for third world countries which are struggling to have access to clean water. What this portion of the segment does not address is what are the root causes of people not having access to clean water in those countries. Instead, the segment makes it seem as if Amway was partnering with Cascade Engineering purely out of a humanitarian interest.

The last segment also features the generosity of Amway and the DeVos and Van Andel families. In this segment the news reporter says that millions have been given in West Michigan. The segment mentions ArtPrize and how many young entrepreneurs have been the recipients of the company’s money. One young entrepreneur (at least that is how they refer to him), is Rob Bliss. Bliss says that Amway is, “letting people like him have the money so they can do what they are passionate about.” Bliss also mentions that the DeVos Foundation gave him $6,000 for his water slide project from 2 years ago. The news story failed to mention that Bliss has not fully paid the City of Grand Rapids for previous projects and that his events are primarily a means to bring money to the downtown businesses, some of which are owned by the DeVos family.

In the end, this 4-part segment was such a fluff piece that had no investigative journalism aspect to it at all. The CBS reporter did not mention or pursue the tremendous political influence the company and its founding families have had locally and nationally for decades, nor did they address some of their foundation funding efforts, which include anti-gay campaigns, anti-union campaigns, privatizing schools and funding right wing entities such as the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. With such a series, TV viewers on the eastside of the state will have just as distorted a view of the Amway company as TV news viewers on this side of the state.

The article sourced only Beth Bandstra Decker, a former aid to Rep. Henry, who is scheduled to give a lecture on the late Congressman at Calvin College.

Bandstra talked about what a “wonderful” person Henry was and that if he were alive today he would be President. She also said that Henry would be “disappointed” and “chafe” at the current political climate in the US, both in Washington and from the news pundits.

Paul Henry’s political career was cut short when he died of a brain tumor in July of 1993.

Putting aside the personal commentary from his former aid, it is important to distinguish Henry’s demeanor and his voting record. I had numerous interactions with the late Congressman and never found him to be rude or arrogant.

However, many of us in the social justice sectors had serious issues with the late Congressman in the 1980s and early 1990s.

In the 1980s one of the most contentious issues during the Reagan/Bush years was US policy towards Central America. The US was providing military aid, weaponry and military advisors to fight insurgent wars in El Salvador and Guatemala, while at the same time was supporting the Contra forces, which were attempting to overthrow the Sandinista-led government in Nicaragua.

On the matter of the US support for the Contras, Paul Henry consistently voted for military funding that allowed the Contras to attack Nicaragua from both Honduras and Costa Rica, the countries which border that Central American nation. The Reagan administration (and Paul Henry) was claiming that the Contra forces were “freedom fighters,” despite the record of massive human rights violations. The Contras were known for attacking farming cooperatives, literacy workers and other social programs, which were at the forefront of the Sandinista revolution.

There was a lively campaign in Grand Rapids to challenge Paul Henry’s position on Nicaragua and his support for the Contras beginning in 1984, with the Stop The Invasion Campaign (STIC). There were weekly demonstrations outside his office in the federal building for years and several acts of civil disobedience, where people occupied his office until they were arrested. On one occasion, a group of people put 100 crosses in the lawn of the federal building with the names of Nicaragua civilians that the Contras had killed. Despite these efforts and many more Paul Henry never changed his position on Nicaragua, even after the Iran Contra affair and the allegations that the CIA was working with the Contras to traffic cocaine to buy weapons.

In the 1980s the US was also providing massive amount of military aid to the country of El Salvador to fight the FMLN guerilla forces. Throughout that period human rights groups and many US-based church groups were claiming that the Salvadoran military and the death squads were responsible for the bulk of the human right abuses, but Congressman Henry (who support military aid to El Salvador) was staunch in his conviction that the human rights abuses were equally committed by the FMLN.

Again, people in Grand Rapids organized to oppose the US support of the Salvadoran military and Paul Henry’s office was the target of people’s rage. The largest action against Henry’s support for the death squad terror in El Salvador was right after several priests, their cook and her daughter were assassinated on November of 1989.

About 100 people blocked traffic on Michigan Avenue in front of the Federal building in Grand Rapids. After the police came, another contingent of people went into Paul Henry’s office and attempted to make a citizen’s arrest against the Congressman and his staff. Eventually, the people who were in Paul Henry’s office were dragged out and the doors to the federal building were locked so no one could get in.

In 1992, there was a ceasefire in El Salvador and a UN Truth Commission was established to investigate the crimes committed in El Salvador between 1980 and 1992. In March of 1993, the UN Truth Commission published their findings, which stated that the Salvadoran military was guilty of 85% of the human rights abuses during that 12-year period and that the FMLN was only responsible for 5%. Congressman Henry never admitted he was wrong or that he was mislead by the Reagan/Bush administrations.

The other major foreign policy that Congressman Henry endorsed was the 1991 US war in the Persian Gulf. After the border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait in the summer of 1990, the Bush administration immediately began a massive US military building up to invade Iraq.

Once again, people in Grand Rapids organized regular demonstrations, teach-ins and engaged in civil disobedience at the office of Congressman Henry. The US invasion began on January 16, 1991 and lasted on 45 days because of the intense areal bombing by the US military. President Bush considered this action a victory for the US despite the fact that the US killed thousands of Iraqi civilians during that brief war and even more Iraqi civilians died because of the US imposed sanctions and the devastation done to the Iraqi national infrastructure.

It is bad enough that the MLive reporter did not seek out other voices for this story on the annual Paul B. Henry Lecture series at Calvin and it is equally frustrating that his voting record on critical issues of the day were not looked at in this story. Paul Henry may have been a “wonderful” person, but he signed off on US policies that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.