Today, the Economic Club of Grand Rapids hosted a luncheon event featuring Marc Bitzer, the new President of Whirlpool North America. The event was also the kick-off for this year’s World Trade Week, an annual event co-sponsored by dozens of corporations, trade associations and pro-business entities.
The promotional material for the luncheon speaker says, “What truly distinguishes Whirlpool Corporation is the commitment to building strong brands and a loyal consumer base. Around the globe, customers trust Whirlpool to make their lives easier. Everything is done to contribute to building unmatched levels of loyalty to its brands through lifelong relationships with customers.”
The speaker begins by saying that the Whirlpool Corporation was founded in 1911, in St. Joseph, Michigan by the Upton family. The audience then watches a short promotional video, which touts the company as a “global leader,” “committed to sustainability” and “community service.”
Bitzer says that Whirlpool still has 12 production facilities in the US and “is committed to maintaining an industrial base in this country.” He also said the company is committed to “open trade policies” and opposed to protectionism. The rest of the talk was mostly about their product line and their focus on continued growth.
What Bitzer did not mention was the recent elimination of jobs around the US, most recently in Indiana, where the kitchen appliance giant dismissed hundreds of workers. The rational for the jobs cuts was a familiar mantra, the company needed to stay competitive. Labor groups challenged these claims, especially since the company received nearly $20 million from the federal government’s economic stimulus plan.
When workers at the Indiana plant organized to protest the job loss and it was reported that the company engaged in some potentially illegal tactics. In 2008, Whirlpool got rid of 300 workers from its world headquarters in St. Joseph-Benton Harbor, Michigan.
However, job elimination isn’t the only negative thing that Whirlpool engages in. The company has used its political and economic power to influence policies on a national level by its campaign donations. In Michigan, the company throws its weight around with its political connections to Congressman Fred Upton, whose family founded the company nearly 100 years ago.
Closer to home, Whirlpool is notorious for determining the fate of politics in the St. Joseph/Benton Harbor area. Whirlpool has been accused of financing the political campaigns of people on city councils and even the courts.
The Black Autonomy Network Community Organization (BANCO) refers to the racial dynamics between Benton Harbor and St. Joseph as a form of apartheid, where Blacks who live in Benton Harbor and excluded from any really economic benefits that mostly White residents of St. Joseph. With the backing of the Whirlpool Corporation, the legal authorities in St. Joseph have targeted one of the organizers with BANCO, Rev. Pinkney. Pinkney has been fighting a legal battle for years and was even sentenced to serve time in jail on bogus charges.
In the past two years there has been an organized boycott of Whirlpool and all its subsidiaries (Amana, Estate, Gladiator Garage Works, Insperience, Jenn-Air, KitchenAid, Magic Chef, Maytag, Roper, Acros, Inglis, Bauknecht, Brastemp, Admiral, IKEA appliances, some Kenmore). The boycott is a response to the latest efforts by Whirlpool to take property along the lakeshore in Benton Harbor to develop it for a golf course and numerous resorts.
As we noted earlier, Whirlpool makes the claim that their products make our lives easier. Apparently, this is not the case for some Whirlpool workers and the residents of Benton Harbor.
(This declaration is from the World Peoples’ Conference on Climate Change.)
Mother Earth can live without us, but we can’t live without her.
We, the Indigenous Peoples, nations and organizations from all over the world, gathered at the World Peoples’ Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, from April 19th to 22nd, 2010 in Tiquipaya, Cochabamba, Bolivia, after extensive discussions, express the following:
We Indigenous Peoples are sons and daughters of Mother Earth, or “Pachamama” in Quechua. Mother Earth is a living being in the universe that concentrates energy and life, while giving shelter and life to all without asking anything in return, she is the past, present and future; this is our relationship with Mother Earth. We have lived in coexistence with her for thousands of years, with our wisdom and cosmic spirituality linked to nature. However, the economic models promoted and forced by industrialized countries that promote exploitation and wealth accumulation have radically transformed our relationship with Mother Earth. We must assert that climate change is one of the consequences of this irrational logic of life that we must change.
The aggression towards Mother Earth and the repeated assaults and violations against our soils, air, forests, rivers, lakes, biodiversity, and the cosmos are assaults against us. Before, we used to ask for permission for everything. Now, coming from developed countries, it is presumed that Mother Earth must ask us for permission. Our territories are not respected, particularly those of peoples in voluntary isolation or initial contact, and we suffer the most terrible aggression since colonization only to facilitate the entry of markets and extractive industries.
We recognize that Indigenous Peoples and the rest of the world live in a general age of crises: environmental, energy, food, financial, ethical, among others, as a consequence of policies and attitudes from racist and exclusionary states.
We want to convey that at the Copenhagen Climate Conference, the peoples of the world demanded fair treatment, but were repressed. Meanwhile the states responsible for the climate crisis were able to weaken even more any possible outcome of negotiations and evade signing onto any binding agreement. They limited themselves to simply supporting the Copenhagen Accord, an accord that proposes unacceptable and insufficient goals as far as climate change action and financing to the most affected countries and peoples.
We affirm that international negotiation spaces have systematically excluded the participation of Indigenous Peoples. As a result, we as Indigenous Peoples are making ourselves visible in these spaces, because as Mother Earth has been hurt and plundered, with negative activities taking place on our lands, territories and natural resources, we have also been hurt. This is why as Indigenous Peoples we will not keep silent, but instead we propose to mobilize all our peoples to arrive at COP16 in Mexico and other spaces well prepared and united to defend our proposals, particularly the “living well” and plurinational state proposals. We, Indigenous Peoples, do not want to live “better”, but instead we believe that everyone must live well. This is a proposal to achieve balance and start to construct a new society.
The search for common objectives, as history shows us, will only be completed with the union of Indigenous Peoples of the World. The ancestral and indigenous roots shared by the whole world must be one of the bonds that unite us to achieve one unique objective.
Therefore we propose, require and demand:
1. The recovery, revalidation and strengthening of our civilizations, identities, cultures and cosmovisions based on ancient and ancestral Indigenous knowledge and wisdom for the construction of alternative ways of life to the current “development model”, as a way to confront climate change.
2. To rescue and strengthen the Indigenous proposal of “living well”, while also recognizing Mother Earth as a living being with whom we have an indivisible and interdependent relationship, based on principles and mechanisms that assure the respect, harmony, and balance between people and nature, and supporting a society based on social and environmental justice, which sees life as its purpose. All this must be done to confront the plundering capitalist model and guarantee the protection of life as a whole, through the search for inclusive global agreements.
3. We demand States to recognize, respect and guarantee the application of international standards of human rights and Indigenous Peoples’ rights (i.e., The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, ILO Convention 169) in the framework of negotiations, policies, and measures to confront climate change.
4. We demand States to legally recognize the preexistence of our right to the lands, territories, and natural resources that we have traditionally held as Indigenous Peoples and Nations, as well as restitution and restoration of natural goods, water, forests and jungles, lakes, oceans, sacred places, lands, and territories that have been dispossessed and seized. This is needed to strengthen and make possible our traditional way of living while contributing effectively to climate change solutions. Inasmuch, we call for the consolidation of indigenous territories in exercise of our self-determination and autonomy, in conformity with systems of rules and regulations. At the same time we demand that states respect the territorial rights of Indigenous Peoples in voluntary isolation or in initial contact, as an effective way to preserve their integrity and combat the adverse effects of climate change towards those peoples.
5. We call on States not to promote commercial monoculture practices, nor to introduce or promote genetically-modified and exotic crops, because according to our people’s wisdom, these species aggravate the degradation of jungles, forests and soils, contributing to the increase in global warming. Likewise, megaprojects under the search for alternative energy sources that affect Indigenous Peoples’ lands, territories, and natural habitats should not be implemented, including nuclear, bio-engineering, hydroelectric, wind-power and others.
6. We demand changes to forestry and environmental laws, as well as the application of pertinent international instruments to effectively protect forests and jungles, as well as their biological and cultural diversity, guaranteeing Indigenous Peoples’ rights, including their participation and their Free, Prior, and Informed Consent.
7. We propose that, in the framework of climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, states establish a policy that Protected Natural Areas must be managed, administered and controlled directly by Indigenous Peoples, taking into account the demonstrated traditional experience and knowledge towards the sustainable management of the biodiversity in our forests and jungles.
8. We demand a review, or if the case warrants, a moratorium, to every polluting activity that affects Mother Earth, and the withdrawal of multinational corporations and megaprojects from Indigenous territories.
9. We urge that states recognize water as a fundamental human right, avoiding its privatization and commodification.
10. We demand the application of consultations, participation, and the Free, Prior and Informed Consent of Indigenous Peoples and affected populations in the design and implementation of climate change adaptation and mitigation measures and any other intervening actions on Indigenous territories.
11. States must promote mechanisms to guarantee that funding for climate change action arrives directly and effectively to Indigenous Peoples, as part of the compensation for the historical and ecological debt owed. This funding must support and strengthen our own visions and cosmovisions towards “living well”.
12. We call for the recovery, revalidation and strengthening of Indigenous Peoples’ technologies and knowledge, and for their incorporation into the research, design and implementation of climate change policies. This should compliment Western knowledge and technology, ensuring that technology transfer processes do not weaken indigenous knowledge and technologies.
13. We propose the recovery, development and diffusion of indigenous knowledge and technology through the implementation of educational policies and programs, including the modification and incorporation of such knowledge and ancestral wisdom in curricula and teaching methods.
14. We urge States and international bodies that are making decisions about climate change, especially the UNFCCC, to establish formal structures and mechanisms that include the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples. They must also include local communities and vulnerable groups, including women, without discrimination, as a key element to obtain a fair and equitable result from climate change negotiations.
15. We join in the demand to create a Climate Justice Tribunal that would be able to pass judgement and establish penalties for non-compliance of agreements, and other environmental crimes by developed countries, which are primarily responsible for climate change. This institution must consider the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples, and their principles of justice.
16. We propose the organization and coordination of Indigenous Peoples worldwide, through our local, national, regional, and international governments, organizations, and other mechanisms of legitimate representation, in order to participate in all climate change related processes. With that in mind, we call for an organizational space to be created that will contribute to the global search for effective solutions to climate change, with the special participation of Elders.
17. We propose to fight in all spaces available to defend life and Mother Earth, particularly in COP16, and so we propose a 2nd Peoples’ Conference to strengthen the process of reflection and action.
18. The ratification of the global campaign to organize the World March in defense of Mother Earth and her peoples, against the commodification of life, pollution, and the criminalization of Indigenous and social movements.
Media Alert: A double standard at the GR Press
Over the past week the Grand Rapids Press has run three separate stories on whether or not Rob Bliss was going to cancel an event originally scheduled for May 1st.
Bliss, who has organized numerous corporate and city endorsed events in downtown Grand Rapids, was hoping to have a Founding Day Parade to celebrate the founding of Grand Rapids. Weather reports said that rain was likely for May 1st and Bliss eventually cancelled the event, which led to one of the Press stories on this non-event.
The Grand Rapids Chapter of the IWW did not cancel their event, which included numerous local organizations, an event that attracted roughly 200 people despite the weather. However, the only new entitle to show up was the Grand Valley Labor News.
Why did the Press feel compelled to print three stories about an event, which never happened and yet ignore an event that involved a broad range of community groups?
We encourage you to contact the GR Press Editor Paul Keep by e-mailing him at pkeep@grpress.com and ask him why the Press ignored the IWW May Day event yet printed 3 stories on a Rob Bliss event that never happed.
IWW Reclaims May Day in Grand Rapids
Yesterday, about 200 people came to a May Day event at Martin Luther King Park, hosted by the Grand Rapids Chapter of the IWW. Reclaiming the original day when working people gathered together to build solidarity and community, the IWW invited a variety of organizations to come and talk about their work, enjoy some food and live music throughout the day.
There were representatives from Stop Targeting Our Kids (STOK), the Bloom Collective, a new socialist student group at GVSU, Our Kitchen Table, an anti-foreclosure group and the West Michigan Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
In addition to the speakers there were children’s activities, a community potluck, information tables and the Really Really Free Market. All of this combined provided an atmosphere of solidarity and a chance for people to build community.
The IWW also passed out a document reflecting their core beliefs and current position on issues of importance to working people and their families. The document read:
- We believe that that this economic system of exploitation, capitalism, where profits are valued more than people, is inherently unjust. The IWW wants to replace Capitalism with an economic model where everyone’s needs are met. We envision a society where workers take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth.
- We believe that all workers have the right to organize. The IWW has a history of organizing everyone in the working class, even students and the unemployed. In Grand Rapids we have organized Starbucks workers and are planning a new organizing campaign of bar and restaurant workers.
- We believe that until Capitalism is replaced with a better economic system that all workers have a right to a livable wage. Right now in the US according to United for a Fair Economy, the average CEO makes 344 times more than the average worker. CEOs are not more valuable than workers and we will work with anyone on a campaign for a livable wage ordinance for Grand Rapids and Kent County.
- We believe that the US government has misused taxpayers’ money by bailing out Wall Street, which has done nothing more than reward institutions engaged in criminal behavior. Hundreds of thousands of people are losing their homes to foreclosure and unemployment and while underemployment affects millions, the rich are rewarded. The IWW condemns both the bailout and the so-called federal economic stimulus. Imagine what would have happened if the money the government gave to Wall Street Bankers went to the American public to pay off all our mortgages and to pay workers a livable wage. That would have been a real economic stimulus!
- We believe, like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., that a nation that spends more on war than it does on the well being of its citizens is deplorable. As of today, the US has spent $989 Billion of taxpayers’ money on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, $518 million from Grand Rapids alone. The IWW condemns these wars and the use of the working class to fund and fight them.
- We believe that no human being is “illegal”. We are firmly opposed to SB 1070 in Arizona, which disenfranchises and criminalizes a whole race of people. As a union formed by immigrants we stand in solidarity with all immigrants. Liberal “free trade” policies like NAFTA and CAFTA create a race to the bottom at the expense of ALL workers.
The following video is with IWW organizer Cole Dorsey:
According to the Holland Sentinel, Blackwater founder Erick Prince has requested a media blackout for his luncheon address on Wednesday in Holland.
The Tulip Time Festival luncheon has always been open to the media, but Prince requested the blackout mostly likely to avoid further scrutiny by the news media. A spokesperson for the Associated Press still plans on reporting since they bought tickets for the event, an event that has sold out.
It is also reported that a group of Holland residents are planning on protesting Prince’s talk and will be gathering outside of the Hope College Fieldhouse at 10:30am, an hour before the founder of the private mercenary group will speak.
Amway eliminates more West Michigan jobs
Yesterday it was reported in the Grand Rapids Press that Amway will be eliminating 100 jobs from one of its Ada-based warehouse facilities. The announcement was made via a Media Release, which stated that this decision was necessary for the company to remain competitive and that the jobs would be moved to Asia because that is where more of their product is sold.
The Press story does mention the 100 jobs to be eliminated locally, but fails to mention that 150 jobs are also being cut from an Amway facility in California. The Press cites Amway spokesperson Zeiger who states that the job elimination is “part of a project we’re calling strategic operating model.” Interesting business speak for job elimination.
However, the most interesting comment from Zeiger was, “The moves we’re making are designed to support our being a competitive West Michigan-based employer for the longest time imaginable.” Unfortunately for Press readers, the reporter never bothers to ask how eliminating 100 jobs makes Amway a competitive West Michigan-based employer. If one of the main functions of an employer that touts itself as based in West Michigan is to provide employment, how does eliminating jobs benefit this community?
The Press does acknowledge that the company also recently sent 93 West Michigan jobs to Costa Rica, but then follows this acknowledgement with more comments from Zeiger about how the new job elimination is a strategic move. Zeiger tries to compare the difference to what Amway is doing and what GM has done, but the statement is somewhat convoluted. Unfortunately, the Press reporter fails to question these comments, instead they print them as fact.
The Amway Media Release says that the company made $8.4 billion dollars in 2009. The Press reporter could have at least inquired as to how with such large profits the company is unable to keep jobs in West Michigan.
Questioning the Triple Bottom Line: Observations of the Local First Sustainable Business Conference
(Christy Mello contributed to this article)
Local First hosted an all day conference at Aquinas College this past Wednesday, and those able to pay the registration cost of $75 were welcome to attend. The majority of people in attendance were mostly people in business attire and there on behalf of their businesses. Vendors aligned the parameter of the main conference room and the majority of the booths showcased their services to aid businesses. These services included payroll accounting, wealth management, data backup, printer supplies, and banking, just to name a few.
Local First is a non-profit group who creates a network of businesses who pay membership dues to receive the Local First logo and become part of this network. This is a powerful marketing strategy for businesses in order to aid in promoting their services or products.
At this conference, people learned effective business practices, which appeal to people’s need to make humanitarian purchasing choices when they believe a business’s products are “local,” “sustainable,” or helping the “environment.” The morning keynote speakers as well as workshops through out the day utilized these terms that convey positive imagery.
Nevertheless, people asked questions indicating their confusion over what is meant by the “local” in Local First. According to one of the keynote speakers, it turns out that they define local as any business located in Kent County including businesses owned by stakeholders outside of Kent County. This was a transparent admission by Local First, and the conference was evidently devoted to economic development strategies. For example, Local First has done a study indicating that if one out of ten dollars are spent locally, this would create 1600 new jobs. Although, which non-local groups invest money in to these efforts and how much money still leaves the area? One should also ask what type of jobs would be created and available to whom.
It is important to ask critical questions around whether or not these often misleading discursive terms are being put into practice and to what degree. Businesses tap into people’s concerns over these issues with the use of this ideological language that diverts one’s attention from the fact that they may have or support destructive environmental practices. Many examples were apparent at this conference.
For example, the first keynote speaker was with the local software company known as Atomic Object. Some of the clients that Atomic Object works with are Priority One Health, Whirlpool, Amway and even the World Bank. One would have to ask how these companies practices sustainability, particularly in regards to environmental practices and how they treat their employees.
How is it that a company like Amway, which is based on a pyramid system can be considered sustainable? Amway has also been eliminating local jobs and sending them to China and Costa Rica in recent years, something which seems to conflict with part of the triple bottom line – how we treat people part. The Whirlpool Corporations has also been sending jobs abroad for years and the World Bank has funded projects that have displaced millions of people over the years.
When talking about the increased interest in local food it was interesting that Meijer was cited as a local food business. Meijer did start in West Michigan, but it is hard to see how a company which sells a majority of products not from the area, can still be considered local. One could argue that most of the food items that Meijer sells is not healthy for human consumption nor environmental sustainability.
However, there were examples such as a bakery in Ann Arbor that composts, buys and butchers grass fed cows, buys their food locally, and etc. Examples such as these, presumably, makes one feel that Local First’s primary objective is to choose businesses whose triple bottom line focuses more on the social and environmental rather that the economic component.
However, one should question the percentage that businesses utilize these components or if they do to a minimal degree as an advertisement for their products or services. Furthermore, Local First’s study revealed that a denser square footage of businesses increases profits. These businesses are flourishing in the Wealthy Street Business District, for example with several new restaurants in the past 12 months. Although maybe not intentionally, these development and revitalization efforts have been pushing out small business owners and further gentrifying this area of the city.
In one breakout session we attended on social capital, the presenter gave an example of a business in Michigan, which purchased hand-sewn goods from Nicaragua. The products were made by a worker run, women’s cooperative, which allowed the Michigan business to buy these products at a fairly low price and then sell them as Fair Trade items. What seemed to make this a “success” story was the fact that there was a worker run women’s cooperative, an economic model that was not discussed or encouraged by any of the presenters throughout the day.
In fact, this made us think about why with all the emphasis on food these days there were no formal food cooperatives in Grand Rapids like there were in the past. Grand Rapids used to have two food co-ops, one is Eastown and one on the Westside. Is it because traditional food co-ops are not privately held businesses?
At the end of the day we were left with more questions than answers about how Local First promotes sustainability with the businesses that are members of the non-profit organization. There was limited discussion about concrete and measureable practices that promoted the human and environmental aspects of the triple bottom line, with most of the focus being on how to make a profit if your business is “green” and getting people to buy “green” products.
Pete Hoekstra on Arizona’s anti-immigration law
We recently posted a story about whether or not what Arizona has recently done regarding its immigration policy could happen in Michigan. At the time, none of the Michigan gubernatorial candidates had responded to the Arizona law, but now we have a video comment from Pete Hoekstra, which was posted on MLive.com.
Here is a transcription of the response from Hoekstra:
Question: What about Arizona’s immigration law, can you see something like that in Michigan as states rights?
Hoekstra: Well, I think what you are seeing in Arizona, and as you talk about these issues, this is the great thing about when you stand up for the 10th Amendment and state’s rights. Arizona has a very very different problem and very different circumstances than what Michigan has. To say that we are going to take the Arizona law and put it in place in Michigan may or may not work. It probably won’t work because our issue and our problems are very different from Arizona’s.
Question: The thing about the Arizona law is that it is state’s right trumping individual rights, right of search and seizure.
Hoekstra: Well, again, let’s see exactly how this law is going to be implemented in Arizona. There is a lot of rhetoric flying around on both sides of the issue. Again, it’s the beauty of state’s rights. Let’s see if it works in Arizona or there are problems. We will have the opportunity to see that over the coming months. There will be constitutional challenges. Let’s see if they work. And after Arizona moves forward other states can learn from it and hopefully improve or deal with it. Hopefully with this issue, the federal government will do what it is supposed to do – secure the borders. That is the responsibility of the federal government. They haven’t done it.
ACLU to Obama: ‘Entire World is Not a War Zone’
(This article is re-posted from Common Dreams.)
The American Civil Liberties Union has sent a strongly-worded letter to President Barack Obama, asking him to end an alleged program that allows ‘targeted killings’ of terror suspects outside of war zones.
In the letter (PDF), the civil liberties group argues that the alleged program — which, according to news reports, is now targeting at least one US citizen — is unlawful and unconstitutional, and could set a dangerous precedent leading to foreign governments killing people on US soil.
“The program that you have reportedly authorized appears to envision the use of lethal force not just on the battlefield in Iraq, Afghanistan, or even the Pakistani border regions, but anywhere in the world, including against individuals who may not constitute lawful targets,” ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero stated in the letter.
“The entire world is not a war zone, and wartime tactics that may be permitted on the battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq cannot be deployed anywhere in the world where a terrorism suspect happens to be located.”
Romero’s letter came the same day as a House foreign affairs subcommittee convened to probe the legal issues surrounding the use of targeted killings. It also comes in the wake of a series of news reports suggesting the US’s use of targeted killings has expanded significantly in recent months.
In February, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair announced that the United States may target its own citizens abroad for death if it believes they are associated with terrorist groups.
“We take direct action against terrorists in the intelligence community,” Blair told the House Intelligence Committee. He said US counter-terrorism officials may try to kill American citizens embroiled in extremist groups overseas with “specific permission” from higher up.
If “we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that,” Blair said.
Earlier this month, news reports indicated that Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, was added to the CIA’s list of alleged terrorists the US has targeted to kill.
Al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico and served for years as an imam in the United States. He has not been charged with a crime, but was linked by US officials to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the psychiatrist alleged to have killed 13 at an Army base in Fort Hood, as well as Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called “Christmas day” bomber who attempted to detonate a jetliner en route to Detroit.
“Such a program of long-premeditated and bureaucratized killing is plainly not limited to targeting genuinely imminent threats,” Romero wrote in his letter. “Any such program is far more sweeping than the law allows and raises grave constitutional and human rights concerns.”
Romero argued that the alleged program could set a dangerous precedent for other nations, which could result in foreign governments killing US citizens on home soil.
The program you have reportedly endorsed is not simply illegal but also unwise, because how our country responds to the threat of terrorism will in large measure determine the rules that govern every nation’s conduct in similar contexts. If the United States claims the authority to use lethal force against suspected enemies of the U.S. anywhere in the world – using unmanned drones or other means – then other countries will regard that conduct as justified. The prospect of foreign governments hunting and killing their enemies within our borders or those of our allies is abhorrent.
The ACLU is not alone in attacking the program as unlawful. Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley said in February that the program raises serious questions.
“This is something that President Bush developed,” Turley explained. “We actually saw the Bush administration kill an American citizen named Kamal Derwish in 2002 with a Predator strike. … The Obama administration, once again, seems to be morphing into the Bush administration.”
After hearing that the Tulip Time Festival in Holland had invited Blackwater founder Erik Prince to speak at the annual event, local organizers in Holland decided they needed to do something to counter the message of the Holland native.
Prince is speaking during the day, so organizers will host a public event with Jeremy Scahill, author of the book Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army. Scahill will be speaking at the Holland 7 theater, located at 500 Waverly Road in Holland. The event is May 5th, begins at 7:30pm and is free and open to the public.
