Blackwater’s Black Ops
(This article by Jeremy Scahill is re-posted from The Nation.)
Over the past several years, entities closely linked to the private security firm Blackwater have provided intelligence, training and security services to US and foreign governments as well as several multinational corporations, including Monsanto, Chevron, the Walt Disney Company, Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines and banking giants Deutsche Bank and Barclays, according to documents obtained by The Nation. Blackwater’s work for corporations and government agencies was contracted using two companies owned by Blackwater’s owner and founder, Erik Prince: Total Intelligence Solutions and the Terrorism Research Center (TRC). Prince is listed as the chairman of both companies in internal company documents, which show how the web of companies functions as a highly coordinated operation. Officials from Total Intelligence, TRC and Blackwater (which now calls itself Xe Services) did not respond to numerous requests for comment for this article. One of the most incendiary details in the documents is that Blackwater, through Total Intelligence, sought to become the “intel arm” of Monsanto, offering to provide operatives to infiltrate activist groups organizing against the multinational biotech firm.
Governmental recipients of intelligence services and counterterrorism training from Prince’s companies include the Kingdom of Jordan, the Canadian military and the Netherlands police, as well as several US military bases, including Fort Bragg, home of the elite Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), and Fort Huachuca, where military interrogators are trained, according to the documents. In addition, Blackwater worked through the companies for the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the US European Command.
On September 3 the New York Times reported that Blackwater had “created a web of more than 30 shell companies or subsidiaries in part to obtain millions of dollars in American government contracts after the security company came under intense criticism for reckless conduct in Iraq.” The documents obtained by The Nation reveal previously unreported details of several such companies and open a rare window into the sensitive intelligence and security operations Blackwater performs for a range of powerful corporations and government agencies. The new evidence also sheds light on the key roles of several former top CIA officials who went on to work for Blackwater.
The coordinator of Blackwater’s covert CIA business, former CIA paramilitary officer Enrique “Ric” Prado, set up a global network of foreign operatives, offering their “deniability” as a “big plus” for potential Blackwater customers, according to company documents. The CIA has long used proxy forces to carry out extralegal actions or to shield US government involvement in unsavory operations from scrutiny. In some cases, these “deniable” foreign forces don’t even know who they are working for. Prado and Prince built up a network of such foreigners while Blackwater was at the center of the CIA’s assassination program, beginning in 2004. They trained special missions units at one of Prince’s properties in Virginia with the intent of hunting terrorism suspects globally, often working with foreign operatives. A former senior CIA official said the benefit of using Blackwater’s foreign operatives in CIA operations was that “you wouldn’t want to have American fingerprints on it.”
While the network was originally established for use in CIA operations, documents show that Prado viewed it as potentially valuable to other government agencies. In an e-mail in October 2007 with the subject line “Possible Opportunity in DEA—Read and Delete,” Prado wrote to a Total Intelligence executive with a pitch for the Drug Enforcement Administration. That executive was an eighteen-year DEA veteran with extensive government connections who had recently joined the firm. Prado explained that Blackwater had developed “a rapidly growing, worldwide network of folks that can do everything from surveillance to ground truth to disruption operations.” He added, “These are all foreign nationals (except for a few cases where US persons are the conduit but no longer ‘play’ on the street), so deniability is built in and should be a big plus.”
The executive wrote back and suggested there “may be an interest” in those services. The executive suggested that “one of the best places to start may be the Special Operations Division, (SOD) which is located in Chantilly, VA,” telling Prado the name of the special agent in charge. The SOD is a secretive joint command within the Justice Department, run by the DEA. It serves as the command-and-control center for some of the most sensitive counternarcotics and law enforcement operations conducted by federal forces. The executive also told Prado that US attachés in Mexico; Bogotá, Colombia; and Bangkok, Thailand, would potentially be interested in Prado’s network. Whether this network was activated, and for what customers, cannot be confirmed. A former Blackwater employee who worked on the company’s CIA program declined to comment on Prado’s work for the company, citing its classified status.
In November 2007 officials from Prince’s companies developed a pricing structure for security and intelligence services for private companies and wealthy individuals. One official wrote that Prado had the capacity to “develop infrastructures” and “conduct ground-truth and security activities.” According to the pricing chart, potential customers could hire Prado and other Blackwater officials to operate in the United States and globally: in Latin America, North Africa, francophone countries, the Middle East, Europe, China, Russia, Japan, and Central and Southeast Asia. A four-man team headed by Prado for countersurveillance in the United States cost $33,600 weekly, while “safehouses” could be established for $250,000, plus operational costs. Identical services were offered globally. For $5,000 a day, clients could hire Prado or former senior CIA officials Cofer Black and Robert Richer for “representation” to national “decision-makers.” Before joining Blackwater, Black, a twenty-eight-year CIA veteran, ran the agency’s counterterrorism center, while Richer was the agency’s deputy director of operations. (Neither Black nor Richer currently works for the company.)
As Blackwater became embroiled in controversy following the Nisour Square massacre, Prado set up his own company, Constellation Consulting Group (CCG), apparently taking some of Blackwater’s covert CIA work with him, though he maintained close ties to his former employer. In an e-mail to a Total Intelligence executive in February 2008, Prado wrote that he “recently had major success in developing capabilities in Mali [Africa] that are of extreme interest to our major sponsor and which will soon launch a substantial effort via my small shop.” He requested Total Intelligence’s help in analyzing the “North Mali/Niger terrorist problem.”
In October 2009 Blackwater executives faced a crisis when they could not account for their government-issued Secure Telephone Unit, which is used by the CIA, the National Security Agency and other military and intelligence services for secure communications. A flurry of e-mails were sent around as personnel from various Blackwater entities tried to locate the device. One former Blackwater official wrote that because he had left the company it was “not really my problem,” while another declared, “I have no ‘dog in this fight.'” Eventually, Prado stepped in, e-mailing the Blackwater officials to “pass my number” to the “OGA POC,” meaning the Other Government Agency (parlance for CIA) Point of Contact.
What relationship Prado’s CCG has with the CIA is not known. An early version of his company’s website boasted that “CCG professionals have already conducted operations on five continents, and have proven their ability to meet the most demanding client needs” and that the company has the “ability to manage highly-classified contracts.” CCG, the site said, “is uniquely positioned to deliver services that no other company can, and can deliver results in the most remote areas with little or no outside support.” Among the services advertised were “Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence (human and electronic), Unconventional Military Operations, Counterdrug Operations, Aviation Services, Competitive Intelligence, Denied Area Access…and Paramilitary Training.”
The Nation has previously reported on Blackwater’s work for the CIA and JSOC in Pakistan. New documents reveal a history of activity relating to Pakistan by Blackwater. Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto worked with the company when she returned to Pakistan to campaign for the 2008 elections, according to the documents. In October 2007, when media reports emerged that Bhutto had hired “American security,” senior Blackwater official Robert Richer wrote to company executives, “We need to watch this carefully from a number of angles. If our name surfaces, the Pakistani press reaction will be very important. How that plays through the Muslim world will also need tracking.” Richer wrote that “we should be prepared to [sic] a communique from an affiliate of Al-Qaida if our name surfaces (BW). That will impact the security profile.” Clearly a word is missing in the e-mail or there is a typo that leaves unclear what Richer meant when he mentioned the Al Qaeda communiqué. Bhutto was assassinated two months later. Blackwater officials subsequently scheduled a meeting with her family representatives in Washington, in January 2008.
Through Total Intelligence and the Terrorism Research Center, Blackwater also did business with a range of multinational corporations. According to internal Total Intelligence communications, biotech giant Monsanto—the world’s largest supplier of genetically modified seeds—hired the firm in 2008–09. The relationship between the two companies appears to have been solidified in January 2008 when Total Intelligence chair Cofer Black traveled to Zurich to meet with Kevin Wilson, Monsanto’s security manager for global issues.
After the meeting in Zurich, Black sent an e-mail to other Blackwater executives, including to Prince and Prado at their Blackwater e-mail addresses. Black wrote that Wilson “understands that we can span collection from internet, to reach out, to boots on the ground on legit basis protecting the Monsanto [brand] name…. Ahead of the curve info and insight/heads up is what he is looking for.” Black added that Total Intelligence “would develop into acting as intel arm of Monsanto.” Black also noted that Monsanto was concerned about animal rights activists and that they discussed how Blackwater “could have our person(s) actually join [activist] group(s) legally.” Black wrote that initial payments to Total Intelligence would be paid out of Monsanto’s “generous protection budget” but would eventually become a line item in the company’s annual budget. He estimated the potential payments to Total Intelligence at between $100,000 and $500,000. According to documents, Monsanto paid Total Intelligence $127,000 in 2008 and $105,000 in 2009.
Reached by telephone and asked about the meeting with Black in Zurich, Monsanto’s Wilson initially said, “I’m not going to discuss it with you.” In a subsequent e-mail to The Nation, Wilson confirmed he met Black in Zurich and that Monsanto hired Total Intelligence in 2008 and worked with the company until early 2010. He denied that he and Black discussed infiltrating animal rights groups, stating “there was no such discussion.” He claimed that Total Intelligence only provided Monsanto “with reports about the activities of groups or individuals that could pose a risk to company personnel or operations around the world which were developed by monitoring local media reports and other publicly available information. The subject matter ranged from information regarding terrorist incidents in Asia or kidnappings in Central America to scanning the content of activist blogs and websites.” Wilson asserted that Black told him Total Intelligence was “a completely separate entity from Blackwater.”
Monsanto was hardly the only powerful corporation to enlist the services of Blackwater’s constellation of companies. The Walt Disney Company hired Total Intelligence and TRC to do a “threat assessment” for potential film shoot locations in Morocco, with former CIA officials Black and Richer reaching out to their former Moroccan intel counterparts for information. The job provided a “good chance to impress Disney,” one company executive wrote. How impressed Disney was is not clear; in 2009 the company paid Total Intelligence just $24,000.
Total Intelligence and TRC also provided intelligence assessments on China to Deutsche Bank. “The Chinese technical counterintelligence threat is one of the highest in the world,” a TRC analyst wrote, adding, “Many four and five star hotel rooms and restaurants are live-monitored with both audio and video” by Chinese intelligence. He also said that computers, PDAs and other electronic devices left unattended in hotel rooms could be cloned. Cellphones using the Chinese networks, the analyst wrote, could have their microphones remotely activated, meaning they could operate as permanent listening devices. He concluded that Deutsche Bank reps should “bring no electronic equipment into China.” Warning of the use of female Chinese agents, the analyst wrote, “If you don’t have women coming onto you all the time at home, then you should be suspicious if they start coming onto you when you arrive in China.” For these and other services, the bank paid Total Intelligence $70,000 in 2009.
TRC also did background checks on Libyan and Saudi businessmen for British banking giant Barclays. In February 2008 a TRC executive e-mailed Prado and Richer revealing that Barclays asked TRC and Total Intelligence for background research on the top executives from the Saudi Binladin Group (SBG) and their potential “associations/connections with the Royal family and connections with Osama bin Ladin.” In his report, Richer wrote that SBG’s chair, Bakr Mohammed bin Laden, “is well and favorably known to both arab and western intelligence service[s]” for cooperating in the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Another SBG executive, Sheikh Saleh bin Laden, is described by Richer as “a very savvy businessman” who is “committed to operating with full transparency to Saudi’s security services” and is considered “the most vehement within the extended BL family in terms of criticizing UBL’s actions and beliefs.”
In August Blackwater and the State Department reached a $42 million settlement for hundreds of violations of US export control regulations. Among the violations cited was the unauthorized export of technical data to the Canadian military. Meanwhile, Blackwater’s dealings with Jordanian officials are the subject of a federal criminal prosecution of five former top Blackwater executives. The Jordanian government paid Total Intelligence more than $1.6 million in 2009.
Some of the training Blackwater provided to Canadian military forces was in Blackwater/TRC’s “Mirror Image” course, where trainees live as a mock Al Qaeda cell in an effort to understand the mindset and culture of insurgents. Company literature describes it as “a classroom and field training program designed to simulate terrorist recruitment, training, techniques and operational tactics.” Documents show that in March 2009 Blackwater/TRC spent $6,500 purchasing local tribal clothing in Afghanistan as well as assorted “propaganda materials—posters, Pakistan Urdu maps, etc.” for Mirror Image, and another $9,500 on similar materials this past January in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
According to internal documents, in 2009 alone the Canadian military paid Blackwater more than $1.6 million through TRC. A Canadian military official praised the program in a letter to the center, saying it provided “unique and valid cultural awareness and mission specific deployment training for our soldiers in Afghanistan,” adding that it was “a very effective and operationally current training program that is beneficial to our mission.”
This past summer Erik Prince put Blackwater up for sale and moved to Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. But he doesn’t seem to be leaving the shadowy world of security and intelligence. He says he moved to Abu Dhabi because of its “great proximity to potential opportunities across the entire Middle East, and great logistics,” adding that it has “a friendly business climate, low to no taxes, free trade and no out of control trial lawyers or labor unions. It’s pro-business and opportunity.” It also has no extradition treaty with the United States.
Senator Levin on Private Military Contractors
Last month Michigan Senator Carl Levin released a statement about the use of “private security contractors in Afghanistan.” His statement says:
“The reliance on private security contractors in Afghanistan too often empowers local warlords and powerbrokers who operate outside the Afghan government’s control. There is even evidence that some security contractors work against coalition forces, creating the very threat that they are hired to combat. Not only do these contractors threaten the security of our troops, but they put the success of our mission at risk – an assessment that Lieutenant General David Rodriguez, the Commander of the International Security Assistance Force Joint Command, and Major General Nick Carter, the Commander of Regional Command South, both shared with me during my recent trip to Afghanistan.”
Levin rightfully points out how US funding is ending up in the hands of warlords, but he leaves out the details that are important. According to an article by Pratap Chatterjee in June, “many believe that the highway warlords who provide security in turn make protection payments to insurgents to coordinate safe passage. Memos show that occasionally the contractors even worked with the insurgents to shake down the U.S. military for more money.”
Chatterjee is referring to a major report put out by the US Congress in June entitled, “WARLORD, INC. Extortion and Corruption Along the U.S. Supply Chain in Afghanistan.” The lengthy report details the extortion by warlords in the supply chain routes used by the US military and their inability to provide oversight of these private contractors that the US has contracts with.
Senator Levin also said in his statement that he agrees with Afghan President Karzai’s call for an end to the funding of such private contractors, but the Michigan Senator fails to mention that Karzai is opposed to all contractors, not just the ones involved in the military supply routes.
The Afghan President wants an end to private contractors like Blackwater, DynCorp and dozens of others that are part of the US counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan. The millions of dollars that these companies are receiving for their role in the US occupation has been documented by investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill.
The other omission by Senator Levin in his statement is the fact that he has voted for the funding of these private contractors in Afghanistan, which means he and other members of Congress are ultimately responsible for the use of those funds. Agreeing to end the use of private contractors in Afghanistan is a good first step, but Levin needs to publicly commit to ending the funding for those contractors and introduce legislation to do so.
Thousands Protest in Afghanistan
(This article is re-posted from Common Dreams.)
Police fired into the air in an attempt to disperse demonstrators on the biggest protests since unrest erupted last week over plans by a US pastor to burn the Koran. The pastor has since suspended the plan.
“There are more than 10,000 of the demonstrators and some of them are waving the Taliban flag,” police officer Mohammad Usman said.
The protests come three days before a parliamentary election, which the Taliban have vowed to disrupt. The election is a key test of stability in Afghanistan before US president Barack Obama conducts a war strategy review in December.
They follow three days of protests at the weekend over plans by Florida Pastor Terry Jones, which he later abandoned, to burn copies of the Koran to mark the anniversary of the September 11th, 2001, hijacked airliner attacks on the US.
Three people were killed in those protests. Observers including the top UN diplomat in Afghanistan had warned the Taliban may try to exploit the Koran-burning protests.
A police source later said one person had been killed and five wounded, and that the toll could rise.
The protests were the Reuters television pictures showed protesters waving large white flags, the symbol used by Taliban supporters. A spokesman for the Taliban, Zabihullah Mujahid, said group was aware of the protests but had no role in them.
“People may have raised the Taliban flags to show their sentiment and sympathy for the Taliban,” he said.
At the Pul-e-Kandahari, or Kandahar bridge in Kabul, police were ordered to advance towards one group of hundreds of protesters who were throwing stones and shouting “Death to American slaves” at police.
Police were seen firing into the air and dragging away several protesters. At one point, volleys of gunfire could be heard. The protesters scattered, some sheltering in nearby houses in the mainly ethnic Pashtun and Tajik area of Kabul.
The protesters earlier gathered in the west of the capital, burning tires and blocking a main highway link to the south.
Thick black smoke rose above the area and police kept journalists several hundred meters back. Witnesses at the scene saw two unconscious people, covered in blood, being carried away suffering what appeared to be gunshot wounds.
Kent County Commissioners vote to remove abortion as part of county employee health insurance
This morning Kent County’s Legislative and Human Resources Committee voted to end what the called elective abortions from the health plan that is currently part of the county employees health benefits.
This issue came to the attention to some at the county commission after the same issue was discussed in Kalamazoo earlier this year. Three from the Kent County Commission got together to work on a proposal to eliminate abortions as part of the current county employee health plan. The three commissioners are Democrat Bob Synk of Grand Rapids and Republicans Stan Ponstein of Grandville and Tom Antor of Sparta.
During the public comment at this morning committee meeting several people spoke on this issue. County Commissioner Jim Talen spoke first and said that in his 10 years as a commissioner only once did the issue of abortions come up.
“And now you have before you a resolution to remove elective abortions as a covered expense on one of the insurance plans available to our employees. How did that come about? Here is a resolution on a topic that has been hotly debated, not just locally, but all over our country, for decades. It is near and dear to the hearts of many in our community, reaching both extremes of the issue and everywhere in between.
And the stated rationale in support of the resolution is two-fold. First, it is the SENSE of the Board of Commissioners, the sense of the Board, that the benefit is inconsistent with the values and wishes of a large majority, not just a majority, but a large majority, of Kent County citizens. I ask you this morning – when did we lose our senses, and begin to think that simply having A SENSE about something, without any supporting data, is sufficient justification for a resolution about which our citizens have incredible passions on both sides.”
Talen was clear in his condemnation of this proposal and said that the issue should take place in the normal route with labor negotiations. The timing of this proposal also led Talen to believe that this was a political move just prior to the November elections.
The next 2 people to speak were both in favor of the proposal and against public tax dollars being used to fund county employees who chose to have an abortion. Both men want the commissioners to remove abortion rights from the health care benefits and one even called out commissioners who he believed have been silent on this issue even though they have had pro-life endorsements.
The only other person to address the commission committee was Megan Smith who stated that she supports the health care benefits as they are. She also said she was appalled that the commission is using the issue as, “political wrangling. This is about bodily integrity as was stated in Roe v Wade, “ Smith said.
Members of the commission committee then discussed the Health Care Benefits proposal beginning with one of the three who crafted the proposal, Democrat Bob Synk. Synk said he wanted to wait until the spring, but the other two commissioners pushed for the proposal to move forth now. Synk also said that his constituents are Pro-Life, that the county is and that most of the county employees are, even though he provided no evidence to support such a claim. Synk ended his comments by saying that removing abortion as one of the county employee funded benefits “will help couples be more responsible for their reproductive actions.”
One of the other commissioners responsible for crafting the proposal, Tom Antor, said that 99% of the e-mails he received from those who supported the current health care benefits were form letters, which Antor criticized because they “were not personal.” The e-mail letters were from an action alert from the Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Michigan.
Antor also stated that these letters referred to women’s reproductive rights as an entitlement. To this Antor responded by saying that abortion “is murder…..period!”.
Democratic commissioner Pete Hickey proposed to move the proposal to the full county board, but no one would second the motion. The 9 member commission committee then voted to adopt the proposal as stated, where in the Roll call was 9 – 0 in favor of the proposal.
The only other Democrat on the committee was Brandon Dillon who did not express an opinion about the proposal, although he did vote in its favor. Dillon is running for State Representative and may have chose to not take a strong position on this issue for fear that it could hurt his campaign, which is exactly the point that Commission Talen made during the public comment.
The issue will now go to the county employee union, which could voluntarily remove abortion as part of the current health care package. If they don’t do this then the County Administrator was directed to removal the benefit from the county health care package during subsequent contract negotiations with county employees. One commissioner told GRIID this may not happen until after the New Year.
Media Bites – Nissan Exploits Polar Bears
In this week’s Media Bites we take a look at a new Nissan commercial that tries to appeal to the public’s emotions about climate change by manipulating how polar bears think about human behavior.
The commercial doesn’t make us think about global warming in systemic way, rather we are led to believe that if we just buy something we can save the planet. This is a growing theme presented by corporations and defenders of capitalism.
ArtPrize: Open competition or capitalist casino?
Potluck Discussion/Critique with Grand Rapids Artists.
Saturday Sept 25 2 – 4 pm
The Bloom Collective
Steepletown Center, 671 Davis NW
(Corner of 5th & Davis)
Bring a dish to pass. The Bloom will provide vegan options.
As its non-official entry, The Bloom Collective is hosting a potluck/discussion/critique, ArtPrize: Open Competition? Or Capitalist Casino? on Saturday Sept. 25. How many artist hours are gambled away in the ArtPrize Slots? Who really gets the big pay-off? Does it truly benefit the GR arts scene?
These are some of the issues that four local artists will address while facilitating a discussion where all will be welcome to share their comments about and experience with ArtPrize.
African American Artist Derrick Hollowell will share about his experience with 2009’s ArtPrize. In spite of having a registered venue and being registered as an artist, the ArtPrize map printed in the Grand Rapids Press did not include him–not just once but every time. His Project US encouraged a collective approach that encouraged folks from African American neighborhoods to come out, visit and vote for their ArtPrize choices; his entry was a provocative collective exhibit of artists and art events.
Other local artists facilitating include Alynn Guerra of Red Hydrant Press; Brett Colley, UICA curator and GVSU Professor of Art and Paul Wittenbraker of Civic Studio, also a GVSU Professor of Art.
For info, email bloomcollective@gmail.com or visit
The “Benefits” of ArtPrize
“Our long-term goal is really to import capital – intellectual capital, and ultimately real capital. And this (ArtPrize) is certainly an extraordinary tool.” Sam Cummings – downtown GR business/property owner
We are a little over a week away from ArtPrize 2010 and there has been plenty of buzz around the 2nd year of Rick DeVos’ creation. Like last year, GRIID will be tracking local media coverage of this event and making some comparisons to how the upcoming elections will be covered.
Last year ArtPrize was overwhelmingly reported on when comparing it to elections in Kent County. There were a total of 10 articles on elections in the Grand Rapids Press 30 days prior to the election compared to 35 on ArtPrize and that was just the last week of ArtPrize and it still merited more coverage than elections.
Our decision to focus on ArtPrize coverage is to provide some analysis that is outside of the artistic aspect of the event. We recognize that there may be benefits to individual artists and the art community as a whole, but we also believe that much of what motivates Rick DeVos and the other core members of ArtPrize is how the event benefits the elite sectors of Grand Rapids, particularly the downtown business and developers.
It was reported a few months back that last year ArtPrize was the force behind bringing in an additional $5 – $.7.6 million dollars to Kent County, based on a study done by GVSU students. This economic impact is not lost on downtown businesses, some of which have made the 2nd annual event part of the business plan.
According to a September 7 edition of the Grand Rapids Business Journal, “The 16-day art competition that begins on Sept. 22 also is a major event for downtown businesses.” Greg Gilmore, owner of the BOB and other area restaurants said he has already had 8 meetings with his staff about ArtPrize in order to be better prepared to take advantage of the business opportunities during the 16-day event.
The question to ask is not so much does ArtPrize benefit Grand Rapids, rather who does it benefit in Grand Rapids.
State and Local responses to Global Warming – GreenTown session
The second part of the afternoon track (Climate Strategies for Sustainable Communities) was entitled the Future of Energy Efficiency and GHG Inventory – Case Study: City of Grand Rapids. There were two presenters for this portion of Track 1 – Amy Butler and John Eberly.
John Eberly (Senior Electrical Engineer – Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc.) spoke first. Eberly says that Grand Rapids was the recipient of $1.9 million from the federal government’s Energy Efficiency & Conservation Block Grant. Eberly’s company was part of the development and implementation of that grant-funded project.
The first thing this plan looked at were ways to reduced energy use in the 275 city run buildings, the city street lights and the city-owned vehicles – police, fire, etc. The data collection showed the bulk of Green House Gases (GHG) in energy use for the building and fuel consumed by city-owned vehicles.
The City is attempting to measure these GHG generators and develop strategies to reduce them through what are called Energy Conservation Measures (ECM). The EMCs identified would cost nearly $10 million to implement, so they decided to begin with low cost/no cost projects and used ICLEI software.
What they identified in the research was that the main contributor to green house gases (GHGs) was transportation usage, followed by what they called commercial use, which was GHGs produced by businesses. Unfortunately Eberly provided no concrete information on what the City of Grand Rapids will do to reduce green house gases from the thousands of vehicles that move about in the area daily or the GHGs produced by commercial businesses.
Amy Butler, the Director of the Bureau of Energy Systems – MI Department of Energy, spoke next. Butler showed that Michigan has a huge energy challenge. Michigan currently imports 100% of its coal, 99 % of its oil and 70% of the natural gas it consumes.
What that means for the average Michigan household is they are spending $4,600 a year on energy. Butler said this means there is a lot less money that doesn’t benefit the state, since that money leaves the state and goes into the hands of private corporations. What she doesn’t identify is who is benefiting from this energy consumption, specifically private energy companies like Enbridge, DTE and Consumers Energy.
To respond to this energy import challenge the state has implemented some weatherization programs, appliance rebates, energy efficiency funding, a decrease in electrical use in government run buildings and improvement in building codes, which seem like pretty modest responses considering the data that was provided.
The State is also providing loans for energy efficiency programs for both local municipalities and for private companies, which means that taxpayers are subsidizing for-profit entities.
Butler also addressed how the federal stimulus money factored into the state energy efficiency programs, which included lighting audits, efficiency upgrades, recycling, bike & pedestrian pathways and some renewable energy pilot projects.
During the Q&A we asked a question based on the data provided on energy sources that are being imported currently. “Since the bulk of energy resources are currently being imported, what kind of reaction do you anticipate from the corporations that are currently profiting from energy exports to Michigan if the state reduces energy use and transitions to renewable resources?”
Butler responded that this change will not happen over night, but the goal is to move towards using energy produced within the state. Butler never addressed how the corporations might react and what kind of resistance they are likely to engage in since they would stand to lose a great deal in profits if the State did move in the direction of energy self-sufficiency.
Writing 9/11 History
Everyone in Grand Rapids who was old enough on September 11, 2001 could write their own version of the history of that day. The Grand Rapids Press capitalized on that fact by running a lengthy story today of reminiscences of local folks about the day. I myself was at work when a co-worker flagged me frantically into her department. It was quarter after 9 in the morning, and she was watching a film clip on one of the design computers. “A plane just flew into the World Trade Towers!” she cried out. Stunned, I said I couldn’t understand how an air traffic controller could have let that happen. “No, no!” she said. “You don’t understand! It was the second plane to fly into the Towers.” Oh, God, I thought.
I ran back to my office to pull up a news site and finally got the Washington Post. which showed the headline, “Plane crashes into Pentagon.” I told myself, “There’s so much chaos in the newsroom that they were posting some headline about the Pentagon and left the word in by mistake—it should say ‘World Trade Towers.’” The enormity of the whole story makes rest of the day dissolves into a few details in my memory—watching early news film of people throwing themselves off the burning buildings (an aspect quickly squelched by the media); staff members at work connecting with relatives in New York and hearing detailed information that was not being reported on the news; and my mounting feeling that the media’s version of the story, more and more obviously orchestrated as the day ground on, represented more editorializing than truth.
This weekend I saw a History Channel special called “9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction.” The special dealt with troubling aspects of 9/11 that have been discussed but are rarely addressed in mainstream media. How much did the government know prior to the event? Did Cheney, rather than Bush, issue the order to shoot down United Flight 93? Was Building 7 at the World Trade Center deliberately destroyed because it contained closely held CIA and other government documents that might have shed light on the attack and our inability to respond to it? Were the events of 9/11 used by the Bush Administration as a flimsy excuse to invade Iraq?
Each “conspiracy theory,” of course, is roundly rejected in this History Channel presentation. “The Bush Administration is the ultimate target of the 9/11 conspiracy movement,” the narration declares solemnly. This is followed by the director of the documentary “Loose Change” reminding viewers many times did Bush attempted to link 9/11 to Iraq, declaring that America had to “go get the terrorists wherever they are,” using 9/11 as the justification of the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations. Then “experts” appear on the screen to explain that anyone questioning the official line displays the “messianic aspect” that apparently exists in all conspiracy theories, because in fact our government responded effectively to a crisis that they knew nothing of beforehand and did not benefit from it afterward; there is nothing to suggest otherwise.
But even in this carefully executed TV show, small cracks appear in the official story. For example, Condaleeza Rice once reported that Bush debated with she and Cheney at length about shooting down Flight 93; but the Commission report states that the phone call lasted less than two minutes. And at the 9/11 Commission testimony, Secretary of Transporation Mineta said that the shoot-down order was for American Flight 77, the plane that hit the Pentagon, not for United Flight 93. He later refused to recant this statement even though Rice and Cheney both said it was false.
I couldn’t help but notice other details, such as the words of a NYC fire chief named Albert Turi, one of many witnesses who reported hearing secondary explosions inside the World Trade buildings. But despite the fact that he was on the scene, he is labeled a “conspiracy theorist” in this show and his statements are dismissed as “chaotic reporting of the moment” that had no basis in fact.
Every theory that even hints that the military/industrial complex might have ultimately profited from the events of the day is soundly labeled utter nonsense by the History Channel. “Demonizing a powerful group of leaders has historically been one method to explain away a huge traumatic event,” the narration explains glibly.
Setting conspiracy theories completely aside, I am fascinated in the way that American history is shaped, edited, and controlled after the fact. The parallel to the reporting about the JFK assassination is an obvious one. PBS once aired all the mainstream TV reporting of that day in 1963 and you could not help but notice the formation and refining of an official story line. Some early eyewitness testimony was simply tossed out the window—and later some of those dismissed statements were in fact verified by the Zapruder film. The official version was then reshaped to include the film’s images into a new explanation, later known as the Warren Commission Report.
The History Channel, co-owned by the Hearst Corporation and Disney, stands clearly in the government camp, “debunking” even eyewitness testimony at 9/11 events as nonsense if it doesn’t fit the official military/industrial line. And while I watched the show’s neat, pro-government packaging of the day’s events, I couldn’t help but think of the great Howard Zinn, who said, “If those in charge of our society—politicians, corporate executives, and owners of press and television—can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves.”
Greentown:How healthy, local food factors into development (or not)
(This article is part of a series based on our reporting at the GreenTown conference in Grand Rapids on September 10.)
Greentown’s first afternoon session in the “Healthy Food, Little Waste” track was titled, “Fields, Forks & Futures: How Healthy, Local Food Factors into Development.” The speakers presented solid ideas for increasing the use of more sustainable, locally grown foods .
The three speakers were: Kathryn Colasanti, Academic Specialist, C.S. Mott Group for Sustainable Food Systems at Michigan State University; Denis Jennisch, produce category manager, SYSCO Food Service of Grand Rapids; and Jerry Adams, president, West Michigan Cooperative.
Adams started off with a recap of the Grand Rapids area food co-op that sees itself as an online farmer’s market. The all-volunter organization posts the month’s offerings on its website; members place orders and then pick up their food a week or so later. West Michigan Cooperative works with 40 producers who bring foods like free range eggs, locally grown produce and grass fed beef–items that are not readily available in area supermarkets.
“The co-op provides easy access for the kind of foods my wife was looking for for my kids,” Adams said.
The co-op has also developed software that eases operations and shares if for free with other co-ops around the country who want to do something similar. Adams is currently looking into the option of making the site and ordering items available by hand-held device, including cell phones, with the intention of making access to healthy whole foods available to a wider range of people.
Jennisch described in detail how local SYSCO Food Service of Grand Rapids is leading a nationwide company program, Success for Family Farms, in distributing locally grown foods to the institutions it serves. Its definition of 
local is anything grown or produced within the state. SYSCO began the initiative because of customer demand. Jennisch noted that it was working out well because he takes a relationship approach not a profits-here-and-now approach when dealing with local producers. While SYSCO is to be commended for this philosophy, it does not necessarily follow that other large food distributors would be willing to follow suit. In the current system, profit is the motive of choice.
Jennisch also pointed out that local and sustainably produced foods were listed among six of the top ten food trends identified by a recent National Restaurant Association poll. So, another question remains. When local food is no longer trendy, will local farmers be cast to the side?
Last, and certainly most on top of the real issues, Kathryn Colasanti made a compelling case for the Michigan Good Food Charter. You can view or download the 36-page .pdf document online. Colasanti explained that charter expands on the premise that good food is 1) Healthy – It provides nourishment and enables people to thrive; 2) Green – It was produced in a manner that is environmentally sustainable; 3) Fair – No one along the 
production line was exploited for its creation; and 4) Affordable – All people have access to it. “If we could move forward to these goals with our food system, Michigan would be the place to be,” she said.
To bring the ideals of the charter into effect within the current economic system, Colasanti said that Michigan would need to establish food business districts where buyers, sellers and processors can collaborate in one location. She mentioned that some locations could function as urban agri-tourism destinations. Second, she said the state should provide institutions such as prisons, schools and hospitals with incentives for purchasing locally produced foods. Third, she said the state needs to actively pursue the preservation of farmlands and provide current and new farmers incentives to keep vulnerable tracts as farms rather than developments.
“Access to healthy food should be available to everyone,” she said. “Cities take on issues like housing and transportation. They should take food on, too. They should allow and facilitate urban agriculture and use local food groups as a resource.”
Colasanti then invited the audience to visit the Michigan Good Food Charter web site to sign on as a supporter of the charter. Sad to say, chances that state government will adopt the charter are slim. She encouraged people to contact their legislators in support of the charter. “We might see adoption of policy issue by issue, ” she said. “But we don’t want to alienate wide-scale agriculture. There are concerns that we’re against big agriculture. The charter is a good educational piece, a guide for policy.”
And there lay the crux of the matter. Equitable access to good, sustainable food that’s produced without exploitation of workers will not happen as long as legislators represent the big-money food industry lobbyists who continue to control Michigan’s and US food policy.
