You will recall from a previous posting that on Monday at a public meeting with local Democrats in Big Rapids, Michigan Senator Carl Levin was confronted by someone who read a statement about Levin’s support for war in Iraq, Afghanistan and the US support of Israel. After the statement was read a young woman through a piece of pie at the Senator to further protest his support for what she called “War Crimes.”
Initially, just the woman was arrested, but on Wednesday the young man (Max Kantar) who read the statement was also arrested. Both of the protesters are being charged with felonies and stalking. The state is arguing that since both of the protesters were arrested outside of Levin’s office in January, that this new protest constitutes stalking. Formally, they are both being charged with aggravated stalking and conspiracy to commit aggravated stalking.
The young man was released today on a $10,000 bond and has hired a lawyer. The young woman, Ahlam Mohsen, is being held on a $250,000 bond and is still in the Mecosta County jail at least until Tuesday when there is a hearing.
Today in Detroit there is a protest in support of Ahlam, calling for all charges to be dropped. Supporters of Ahlam are calling on people to contact Senator Levin’s office “to demand he contact the Big Rapids prosecutor’s office and demand that all charges against Ms. Mohsen be dropped immediately: (313) 226-6020 / (313) 226-6948 (Fax).”
In addition, supporters are asking for people to pressure the jail where she is being held and ask that Ahlam be provided vegan food, which as of right now she is not receiving. The 24-hour number for the jail is 231-592-0156.
This issue should concern anyone and everyone because of its clear use of state intimidation and repression against people who want to hold elected officials accountable. If the state can charge people who on more than one occasion confront a specific legislator, then that could silence or limit the kinds of resistance that people are willing to engage in.
We will continue to follow this story and provide updates on the cases and any actions that develop. It should also be noted that the Michigan ACLU was notified and will be involved in the cases.
Green Hospitality?
The greening of the market has become a pretty shameless display of economic huckstering. As we have begun to document in our new section Dissecting Green Capitalism. Examples of Green Capitalism are being praised on a daily basis and we came across a new one that is worth looking at.
The business press MiBiz ran a story recently entitled Green Hospitality. Before looking at the story what came to mind were images of people welcoming others with open arms and offering them a place to stay because it is the humane thing to do. However, upon reading the article what we discovered was that MiBiz was singing the praises of some local hotels, which are now engaged in “green” practices.
Apparently the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor and Economic Growth’s Green Lodging initiative will certify hotels that engage in “green” practices, but the certification comes about through a self-assessment checklist. Seems easy enough.
The article then sites several area hotel administrators, one who says, “We are committed to being leaders in our community in regards to sustainability.” So, what do these hotels do that makes them sustainable leaders?
According to the MiBiz article the restaurant in the Kalamazoo Radisson hotel recycles its grease. In addition their IT department is having staff delete old e-mails so they can save on energy. The Radisson also now has computers track empty rooms so that energy can be shut down when not in use.
At the Holiday in Express in Holland they are keeping the setting on the boiler at a certain level and even recycling boxes and bottles. In Grand Rapids at the Amway Grand recycling is also practiced and the hotel’s magazine is printed on recycled paper.
It is this kind of superficial action that exposes the absurdity of green capitalism. These hotels seem to be taking small measures in order to market themselves as businesses that practice sustainability. The measures themselves are so minor that it borders on absurdity, but the larger issue as we have pointed out in previous articles is that there is no questioning of the very nature of these large hotel operations.
I looked at the cost for rooms at places like the Radisson and the Amway Grand and rooms range from $150 to $250 a night. Add to that the cost of meals in the restaurants these hotels house and you can factor in an additional $15 – 30 per meal. How many people in this community can easily pay such a price merely to have a place to sleep while traveling?
Beyond the cost, these places require significant amount of land use for parking, do not use locally grown food, and still operate their spaces on fossil fuels. The very nature of such places is unsustainable and certainly not based on a pre-capitalist notion of hospitality. Upscale hotels are designed to accommodate those in the business class who travel to do work or make deals that continues to perpetuate environmentally destructive practices. Think of the kinds of business people who are staying at these hotels and what they are doing – bankers, real estate reps, sales reps, lobbyists, trade association people, etc. Do you think for a moment that they are on a quest to make the planet more peaceful and green?
A truly sustainable notion of hospitality would be to offer people, particularly people with limited economic resources, a place to stay at no cost, which is what people do when you have guests stay at your house. To call what the Amway Grand or the Radisson hotels as sustainable or hospitable would be a distortion of both those terms.
Tell NBC: Sunday Morning Needs a Real War Debate
(This Media Alert is re-posted from FAIR.)
The war in Afghanistan has re-emerged as a major news story, thanks to the controversies surrounding the removal of Gen. Stanley McChrystal and the WikiLeaks release of classified documents. But on NBC‘s Meet the Press, the opportunity to engage in a robust debate about the war has taken a back seat to promoting the views of the military and supporters of Obama’s Afghanistan policies.
The most recent example came on August 15, when Meet the Press devoted the entire episode to a profile of Gen. David Petraeus. Host David Gregory’s opening indicated it wasn’t going to be a feet-to-the-fire interview: “At 57, General David Petraeus is easily America’s most famous warrior. On this morning we find him in the middle of physical training as this fiercely competitive four-star general works over soldiers half his age with the same intensity as he works the war plan.” Gregory questioned Petraeus about the timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops as if it were an irritant: “How stifling is the concept of this deadline and this Washington debate to what you’re trying to do here?” At the close of the broadcast, Gregory echoed that sentiment and worried about the public’s lack of support:
“General Petraeus is a military leader with great commitment and great intellectual rigor, but you have to wonder whether he has enough time politically to achieve what he thinks is possible here…. The question now for the American public is whether it has the stomach and the will to do what it takes to succeed here, and whether it has the stomach for what could happen here if the U.S. and its allies fail.”
The hour with Petraeus was in keeping with recent patterns on the show. Right after the WikiLeaks disclosure, the show’s August 1 broadcast led with Gregory announcing, “The leaking of secret Afghanistan war documents has enraged U.S. military officials who warn of serious consequences for the leaker and the man behind the Web site WikiLeaks.” The featured one-on-one interview was with Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. There were no guests on hand to comment from an antiwar perspective.
On July 11, the program featured a one-on-one interview with White House press secretary Robert Gibbs that touched briefly on the war. The show’s panel discussion featured MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, who offered a somewhat mild critique of the war, mostly stressing that a withdrawal timeline improves the performance of the Afghan government. Her co-panelists were conservative pundit David Brooks and Ed Gillespie of the Republican State Leadership Committee, both of whom support the war effort to varying degrees (Brooks called himself a “strong supporter,” while Gillespie opposes any talk of a withdrawal timeline).
On June 27, Meet the Press devoted significant time to Afghanistan, thanks to the McChrystal controversy. The one-on-one interview was with Republican Sen. John McCain, a die-hard supporter of the war who opposes a withdrawal timetable.
The panel discussion that followed was notable in that it featured a rarity: a bona fide anti-war voice in Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.). But Lee was surrounded by pro-war guests: writer Sebastian Junger, retired U.S. Army captain Wes Moore, retired general Barry McCaffrey and Tom Ricks of the Center for a New American Security. Any talk of leaving Afghanistan was outnumbered by the pro-war majority. Junger stated that if U.S troops leave, the Taliban are “going to be right back in Afghanistan.” Ricks added, “I think if you want an endless war, Congresswoman, leave Afghanistan right now, and you’ll find us having to go after Al-Qaeda again and again there for decades.” At one point Junger even objected to Lee’s terminology, arguing that “the word occupation really is not accurate.”
So in weeks when public support for the war has continued to drop (CNN‘s most recent poll shows 62 percent oppose the war–8/6-10/10), why has NBC been so intent on promoting the war? It is hard to overlook the fact that NBC‘s parent company General Electric is heavily involved in weapons-related contracts with the U.S. military, and has also benefited from reconstruction contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan (Center for Public Integrity, 10/31/03).
On one recent show (7/11/10), Gregory mused that “finding the ideological fault lines here are difficult between left and right, frankly.” But the host of Meet the Press can’t “find” a debate only because he refuses to have one on his show.
Insecurity Impedes Afghan Election Campaign
(This story is re-posted from Al Jazeera.)
The deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan has made some regions inaccessible for candidates campaigning ahead of the country’s parliamentary elections, due to take place on September 18.
Many candidates have been forced to travel with bodyguards and armoured vehicles, but despite taking these precautions some areas remain too dangerous to campaign in.
Although more than 130,000 coalition forces are reinforcing the Afghan government, the spread of instability has left a large segment of the population at risk of being either not represented at all in the poll or having their ballot subjected to fraud.
Al Jazeera’s Clayton Swisher reports from Kabul, the Afghan capital:
Eat, Prey, Spend
(This article is re-posted from PR Watch.)
The movie “Eat, Pray, Love” is the story of a woman who travels the world in search of personal fulfillment, enlightenment and love. Despite the noticeably non-materialistic theme, though, Sony Pictures and Home Shopping Network (HSN) inked a deal to use the movie as a vehicle to hype an amazing amount of female-targeted merchandise.
In the run-up to the film’s August 13 release, HSN staged a three-day shopping event that showcased over 400 “Eat, Pray, Love” movie-related products including kitchenware, teas, jewelry, clothing, spices, shower gel, bed sheets, furnishings and cookware. Moviegoers are invited buy Eat, Pray, Love “I deserve Something Beautiful” T-shirts for a whopping $39.90 apiece, or an “Eat, Pray, Love” Sony Pocket Edition E-Reader with case for $229.95 (in three easy payments), a gelato maker, Sony laptop computers in movie-themed colors, gourmet candies, flat-panel TVs and much more.
Sony Pictures gets a cut of the profits generated by the merchandise, and HSN is helping out by bringing the movie to the attention of its 95 million household viewers and five million or so mostly female active customers who seek fulfillment by shopping. HSN screened the movie for its employees, and gave them copies of the novel to help them discuss the book and movie with customers and thus encourage sales.
This is the first time a movie studio has entered into a direct merchandising partnership with a TV shopping channel. Toy makers have long targeted kids with toys based on animated movies, but women are a relatively new target for movie-related merchandise, let alone on this scale. A tremendous amount of merchandising accompanied the release of the movie “Sex and the City 2,” but Warner Brothers, which made the movie, never launched a merchandising promotion like Sony’s for SATC. Instead, it left the job of pushing SATC-related merchandise — panties, martini glasses, parties, tours and such — to others.
The Press and its Back to School “Guide”
We are just a few weeks away from school starting again and as we mentioned in a recent post the level of back to school advertising is off the charts. Parents might be worried about the financial future of their school district, but JC Penny and Meijer are interested selling stuff to your kids.
The back to school advertising has escalated in recent years as has been documented by groups like Campaign for Commercial Free Childhood and Stop Targeting Our Kids (STOK). We see it in magazines, on billboards, TV, online, even through text messages. You can now add to all these advertising mediums, journalism.
Yesterday, the Grand Rapids Press ran as its feature story in the “Your Life” section an article that essentially was a commercial ad for back to school items. Entitled, “An Untraditional Guide to Going Back to School,” the story by reporter Linda Odette reads like advertising copy, since it provides all sorts of consumer tips and suggestions for branded products.
The article also included a contest that the newspaper is hosting to win a backpack and other “goodies,” plus a plug for the Shop Til You Rock tour for teens, which will be at a local mall. This teen music tour is being sponsored by numerous companies and is designed to do nothing more than to get teens and pre-teens to buy clothing and other items that young singers like Demi Lovato have.
The Press article ends with links to several sites that have coupons and shopping deals, like Savings Angel, which the Press includes in the Your Life section daily.
To add insult to injury, the Press reporter talks down to some parents early on in the article when talking about what “good parents” do: “Make a shopping budget. Make sure they get a good breakfast. Make lunch the night before. Seriously. If you’re a good parent, you’ve probably been doing this stuff for years. If you’re a not-so-good parent, it’s probably too late to start.”
Instead of insulting parents and acting as a promotional wing for companies trying to profit off of targeting children maybe the Press might consider providing information about how parents can deal with the hyper-commercialism that their children are confronted with.
Media Bites – Hollywood and trivialized violence
In this week’s Media Bites we take a look at some of the content in the recently released DVD of the film Kick Ass. The film uses some stereotypical racial themes with a White “superhero” killing the “bad” black characters.
However, the stronger theme that this clip deals with is violence that is perpetrated by a pre-adolescent girl “superhero,” who seems to take pleasure in her acts of violence. While these acts of violence are taking place the theme song from a 1968-70 Saturday morning cartoon – The Banana Splits – is playing, which further trivializes the violence.
New Report Looks at how State Judicial Seats are being bought
Spending on state Supreme Court elections has more than doubled in the past decade, from $83.3 million in 1990-1999 to $206.9 million in 2000-2009, and deep-pocketed special interests play a dominant role in choosing state jurists, according to a report released today.
For more than a decade, partisans and special interests of all stripes have grown more organized in their efforts to tilt the scales of justice their way. This surge in spending-much of it funneled through secret channels-has fundamentally transformed state Supreme Court elections.
The report, “The New Politics of Judicial Elections, 2000-2009: Decade of Change,” is the first comprehensive study of spending in judicial elections over the past decade. It was released today by the Justice at Stake Campaign, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, and the National Institute on Money in State Politics.
An Executive Summary of the report is available here. Among the report’s key findings:
- Spending records were repeatedly shattered nationally and by state throughout the decade. Candidates raised $206.9 million in 2000-2009, compared with $83.3 million in the 1990s. Twenty of the 22 states that hold at least some competitive elections for judges had their most expensive election ever in the last decade.
- A select group of “super spenders” is outgunning small donors. In the 29 costliest elections in 10 states, the top five spenders each averaged $473,000 per election to install judges of their choice, while all other contributors averaged only $850 apiece.
- Judicial elections are increasingly focusing not on competence and fairness, but on promising results in the courtroom after election day. The tort reform wars have driven this trend, with a half-dozen national business-funded groups, and leaders of such corporate giants as Home Depot and AIG insurance, squaring off against plaintiffs’ attorneys and unions.
- A TV spending arms race continues to escalate, creating a need for money that only special interests can satisfy. In 2007-08, $26.6 million was spent on Supreme Court TV ads, the costliest two-year ad cycle since tracking began in 2000. For the decade, supreme court candidates, special-interest groups and political parties spent an estimated $93.6 million on TV ads.
- Special interests are committed to dismantling spending limits, eliminating merit selection of judges, and keeping campaign spending secret by assaulting decades of disclosure laws. A campaign is underway to persuade federal courts to downplay the Constitution’s due process guarantee by reinterpreting the he First Amendment to gut and weaken federal and state election laws.
- Many judicial election spenders, including plaintiffs’ lawyers and corporations, have a passion for secrecy-using shell organizations to keep their role out of the public eye. Such strategies are likely to continue even after Citizens United, a Supreme Court decision that allowed corporate and union spending in elections. This could make a true accounting of special-interest spending impossible in 2010 and beyond.
In one section of the report that looks at individual states and judicial elections the information on Michigan does not bode well for those who care about democracy.
“For much of the decade, four conservative Supreme Court justices dominated Michigan’s Supreme Court. Their opponents, who assailed the justices as an anti-plaintiff “Gang of Four,” helped defeat Chief Justice Cliff Taylor in 2008. The four justices’ top supporters from 2000–09 included the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the Michigan Republican Party. Top super spenders on the other side included the Michigan Democratic Party; the Michigan Trial Lawyers Association; and Citizens for Judicial Reform (CFJR), a group wholly funded by plaintiffs’ lawyer Geoffrey Fieger and his law firm. The state Democrats ran more than $1.1 million ads for 2008 winner Diane Hathaway, almost exactly offsetting the $1.2 million that the Michigan Chamber and GOP combined to spend on TV ads for Justice Taylor. In addition, the state parties and other PACS reported an additional $1 million in non-TV spending in 2008. Total Supreme Court spending in 2007–08 (candidate fundraising, independent TV ads, and $1 million in non-TV independent expenditures registered with state): $5.9 million.”
To view the whole report Justice at Stake, click here.
Carl Levin accused of war crimes, then hit with a pie
It is being reported on many news outlets that Michigan Senator Carl Levin was confronted today by antiwar activists while speaking to Democrats in Mecosta County.
Some reports state that a young man read a statement to Senator Levin that accused him and other Senators of committing war crimes, specifically “Israeli war crimes against the Palestinian people.” Other news sources said that the woman who pied the Senator stated, “Carl Levin is one of the most respected senators in Congress. People tend to blame the war on Republicans, but we wanted to target Levin today to send a message that liberals and Democrats are just as implicated in the violence as the Republicans.”
We have not come across the actual statement read by the student who confronted Senator Levin, nor have we found any additional comments from the woman who pied him. The mainstream news coverage seems to be uninterested in the motives of the two people involved, instead they report it like a typical crime story.
Regardless of what people think about the tactic of hitting an elected official with a piece of pie, the claims that Levin supports war crimes should be investigated. It has been well documented for several years now that Senator Levin has voted for the funding of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. At times Levin has been critical of the US occupation of Iraq, but Levin has consistently voted to fund that occupation and the US/NATO occupation of Afghanistan.
When it comes to Israel, Levin’s voting record has been one of the most pro-Israel in all of Congress. Levin has voted to provide $3 billion of US aid to Israel annually for the past 30 years. Levin voted to support Israel’s bombing of Lebanon in 2006 and the Israeli assault on Gaza at the end of 2008 and early 2009. On this last point one could argue that Israeli’s assault on Gaza was a war crime as has been supported by the Goldstone Report.
None of this should be a surprise, since Senator Carl Levin has been one of the largest recipients of pro-Israeli PAC money over the past 20 years. According to Opensecrets.org, Levin has received $1,649,962 from pro-Israel groups.
This superficial coverage is similar to that of the action that two people took against Senator Levin last December just hours before President Obama made the announcement of sending 30,000 more US troops to Afghanistan. Some local news media reported that two men were arrested for refusing to leave the Senator’s office, but they failed to report their motives even though they had all been provided a statement explaining their actions.
