Media Bites – Jimmy Johns & Racial Stereotypes
This week’s Media Bites takes a look at a recent Jimmy Johns commercial, which perpetuates negative stereotypes about Latinos. The spot also encourages viewers to consume when confronted with a problem. We direct people to resources that look at Latino stereotypes in media such as a new Video Game study of Race Representation and Network News representation.
The Press Endorses Obama’s Afghan War Escalation
Today, the Grand Rapids Press published an editorial endorsing the President’s war escalation in Afghanistan. The editorial says, “the Surge, along with a withdraw timeline” will help the US complete “our mission” and “defeat our enemies.”
The Press editorial makes the same arguments as the Pentagon and the White House. The first argument is that clear benchmarks will force the Afghan government of Hamid Karzai to “assume responsibility for the country’s security.” First, this ignores the fact that the Karzai government is rife with years of corruption, a reality that the US has been fully aware of. Second, it ignores the fact that some of the most reactionary warlords in the country are part of Karzai’s cabinet.
The second major argument is that sending more US troops to Afghanistan will defeat Al Qaida and prevent the country from being a haven for terrorists in the future. Like the Obama administration, the Press editorial offers no evidence that Al Qaida forces are even in Afghanistan. Many former intelligence operatives, such as Paul Pillar, have acknowledged this to be true. Furthermore, the American public needs to be reminded that the planning for the September 11, 2001 attacks did not originate in Afghanistan, rather they took place in Germany, Spain and the US, as Pillar points out.
A third argument the editorial makes is that the US troop increase will help stabilize Afghanistan. The idea that an escalation in US soldiers will create stability is also not well supported. If anything, it seems that since the Obama administration sent 20,000 additional US troops to Afghanistan in March of 2009 the country has become less stable and control by the Taliban has increased. Anand Gopal, a journalist who has been reporting from Afghanistan for years, said in a recent interview that the Taliban now controls a majority of the country.
The fourth argument presented by the Press editorial was the July 2011 timeline for beginning US troop withdraw. The editorial does acknowledge there have been critics of this timeline, but responds to these criticisms by quoting other Obama officials as saying that this timeline is not set in stone. The editorial doesn’t explore the possibility that Obama might have provided such a timeline just to reassure his base of supporters that the US military operation in Afghanistan will be short lived.
The last argument the Press editorial makes is the assertion that the US troops will not be permanent occupiers. This assertion ignores the current eight year occupation, the increased expansion of permanent US military bases, the new 1,100 person prison the US just built and the more than 70,000 private US contractors being utilized in Afghanistan.
The last point about the number of private security forces in Afghanistan should have been an issue for the Press editorial staff, especially since Blackwater founder Erik Prince just acknowledged in a Vanity Fair interview that his private mercenaries have been very active in Afghanistan & Pakistan doing counterinsurgency work along with assisting the US military in determining targets for their Predator Drone attacks.
Lastly, it should be pointed out that this editorial is consistent with the type of coverage the Grand Rapids Press has given to Afghanistan, both with local stories and the kinds of articles they have decided to print from other news sources. All of this coverage, like this editorial, has been an affirmation of the administration’s claims about US policy in Afghanistan. The editorial also excludes, like the Press reporting, the growing public opposition to such an escalation.
Rob Bliss: From Zombie Walks to Corporate Media
Local NBC affiliate, WOOD TV8, announced on Thursday that “social events guru” Rob Bliss is now one of their employees.
Channel 8 announced, “Bliss will be working as a multi-platform account executive with WOOD. We believe Rob Bliss’ social media skills and WOOD TV’s strong commitment to serving West Michigan viewers and clients will be a powerful combination.”
Clearly, West Michigan’s leading TV broadcaster recognized the ability that Bliss has exhibited in attracting young audiences. In fact, the station admitted as much by saying, “WOOD TV8 is thrilled to have Bliss on its team as we strive to reach a new generation of media consumers.”
At one level this makes perfect sense since Bliss has admitted on numerous occasions over the course of the past year that his motivation for the “mass events” he organized was to get people to come to downtown, have fun, and visit the businesses in that part of the City. This is why the Grand Rapids City Council, some local foundations and the downtown businesses all embraced him. He functioned as an unpaid marketing specialist for those businesses.
WOOD TV8 recognizes that their audience is disproportionately middle-aged or older. The current generation spends less time watching TV and more time online as a means to get information. Bliss will fit right into the broadcasting mantra of capturing eyeballs for advertisers.
The channel 8 story also reported that Bliss was named Communicator of the Year by the West Michigan Public Relations Society and one of the Top 40 under 40 Business Leaders by the Grand Rapids Business Journal. With all this applause from the corporate world maybe people should reconsider participating in any future “social events” that Bliss might organize or attach his name to.
Bloom Collective Open House 12/7
The Bloom Collective is hosting an open house this coming Monday (December 7) from 4 – 9pm in their space located at 1134 Wealthy in Grand Rapids. Visit us during our extended hours & enjoy some refreshments and the company of people with open minds and a passion for justice.
Then, from 7-9 we’ll host a discussion of the UN’s International Climate Summit in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Bring in a new member and pick out a free used book or get a new Sling Shot or T-shirt to support the Bloom.
For more info on the Bloom, visit http://thebloomcollective.org/! Hope to see you there!
Light Metals’ workers locked out since Nov. 1
Driving by Light Metals Corp., 2740 Prairie St. SW in Wyoming, passersby may assume that the workforce picketing out front is on strike. They are not. These 70 men and women, UAW Local 19 members who average 20 years employment with Light Metals, were locked out more than a month ago (Nov. 1) when the contract negotiated in 2004 expired. They desperately want to get back to work.
“The company refuses to let the workers in,” explained Chuck Dietrich, chief union steward and Light Metals employee for nearly 40 years. “They gave us specifications (for a new contract) and we met or exceeded their demands. We took the pay cuts, the decrease in insurance coverage and holidays. Any place there could be savings, we negotiated. They just told us that we ‘didn’t understand.'”
Meanwhile, “scabs,” inexperienced, non-union workers no doubt earning far less than a fair wage, are crossing picket lines and keeping the manufacturer’s machines humming. Some of the locked-out workers noted that prior to Nov. 1, they were required to work ten hours a day, six days a week, raising speculation about whether Light Metals’ management was stockpiling product in anticipation of the lock-out. 
While previous cuts in pay and benefits were already making for a slim holiday season, the lock-out, if it continues, will most likely result in many of the workers losing their homes. “We just want to get our jobs back,” Dietrich says. “We can do it better than any scab — or the management. We hope they don’t run the company into the ground.”
In Nov. of 2004, Light Metals locked out their UAW workers until a court decision brought union workers back to work. This year’s lockout is patrolled by approximately 20 DK security guards in white vans, who make sure that the workers on the picket line don’t stray past the “No Trespassing” signs stuck in the well groomed lawn out front.
When a guard was asked to comment on his role, he gruffly replied that he was not allowed to talk about it. One worker shared that a security van driver who was a bit too eager to block a driveway accidentally clipped him with the vehicle’s side mirror. “If they have an economic crisis here, the way to solve it is with the union, not with thugs,” Dietrich says.
When asked about anti-union sentiments commonly spouted in corporate media, Dietrich correctly asserted that without unions, average Americans would not have 40-hour work weeks, overtime pay and other workplace rights that are taken for granted. Unions taking direct action also fought for and won the workplace safety regulations, child labor laws and decent wages most US workers earn today. “Unions have provided things people in this country would never have gotten any other way,” Dietrich says. “These are what happens in a union economy.”
Calls to Light Metals made two days in a row asking for their comments on the lock-out were met with the response that “Jim,” no last name known, “would not be in until tomorrow.”
The group of picketers gathered on Tuesday morning agreed that NAFTA was the cause of high unemployment and a poorly performing US economy, but question whether current economic conditions are at the root of the Light Metals lockout. “The management are greedy assholes taking advantage of a poor economy,” said a picketer who wished to remain anonymous. “We can’t keep working for less and less and less. We’ve been giving up more and more up for the last 12 years, before the economy went bad.”
Light Metal’s union workers can’t seem to get an answer, either. So, for now, they spend the workday on the picket line, locked out in the cold, hoping to get their jobs back. While Dietrich takes a glove off to shake my hand, he says, “We have every intent to negotiate, but not capitulate.”
If you would like to stand in solidarity with the locked-out workers at Light Metals Corp., drive by and honk your horn or make a donation to the West Michigan Food Bank People in Need fund account 02999. They ask that you do not drop off cash to them at the picket site.
Dissecting Obama’s Afghan Escalation Speech
There has already been a great deal written about President Barack Obama’s speech at the West Point Military Academy on Tuesday night. Most of what has been written in the mainstream media has been to either summarize the President’s comments or to provide reaction from pundits, politicians or military personnel and their families.
What we have yet to see from much of the journalism community is a clear analysis of the President’s speech, with particular emphasis on verifying the major claims made by Obama. We will try to address some of those major points here.
“For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 — the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network, and to protect our common security.”
Paul Street, academic and author, responded to this claim by the President by saying, “the UNSC did no such thing since the attack met none of the UN’s criteria for legitimate self-defense. The United States ‘ attack on Afghanistan met none of the standard international moral and legal criteria for justifiable self-defense and occurred without reasonable consultation with the United Nations Security Council.
As the prominent U.S. legal scholar Marjorie Cohn noted in July of 2008, “The invasion of Afghanistan was as illegal as the invasion of Iraq.” The U.N. Charter requires member states to settle international disputes by peaceful means. Nations are permitted to use military force only in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. After 9/11, the Council passed two resolutions, neither of which authorized the use of military force in Afghanistan.”
“Only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden did we send our troops into Afghanistan.”
Here again Paul Street responds by saying, “This was completely false. In the actual history that occurred, the U.S. refused to respond to the Taliban government’s offer to turn bin-Laden over to a foreign government for a trial once elementary evidence pointing to his guilt was presented. The U.S. deliberately made sure that bin Laden would not be turned over through legal and diplomatic channels because (quite frankly) the Bush administration wanted war and did not wish to follow the UN Charter’s requirement that nations pursue “all means short of force before taking military action”
“Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.”
Wow, bringing the war in Iraq to an end……this couldn’t be farther from the truth. As Gareth Porter and other writers have pointed out US forces will continue to remain in Iraq after 2011. Porter states that between 30-50,000 US troops will remain, as will several permanent US military bases. The only thing that will change is these troops will no longer be labeled Combat Troops, they will be called “Brigades Enhanced for Stability Operations” (BESO).
In response to the idea that the US is “successfully leaving Iraq to its people,” independent journalist Nir Rosen had a clear response on Democracy Now yesterday. “The civil war indeed is over, but you have an incredibly corrupt government, weak, oppressive and this so-called success in Iraq which we’re using as a model for Afghanistan, success that included the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, the displacement of millions of Iraqis, the devastation of a country, the spread throughout the region of sectarianism and instability – so Iraq should hardly be a model for anything and certainly not for population security for peace and stability because Iraq is still a much more dangerous place than Afghanistan is. But again, the surge in Iraq followed the civil war in Iraq.”
“The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 — the fastest pace possible — so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.”
So, even though the President admitted during his speech that Al Qaida has fewer numbers than in 2001 and all in the border region (a point which can be disputed), he states here that the US troops will be used to “secure key population centers.” Anyone who has seriously looked at Afghanistan knows that the country is mostly rural and that is where the Taliban are located, so securing population centers doesn’t seem to be an effective strategy.
Then there is the issue of training Afghan security forces, a point that Michigan Senator Carl Levin has emphasized. Here is what Nir Rosen had to say about the Afghan Security Forces. “Nobody familiar with the Afghan security forces really expects this to happen. Having spent time with them—I don’t even know if it is a good thing. I mean, the McChrystal report or assessment identified the Afghan police as one of the main problems in the country, so you’re going to double them? Basically the Afghan police are the recruiters for the Taliban. They oppress the population. They are mostly on drugs. They are incompetent. Some of them are very brave and they are being killed in large numbers, but your going to double this corrupt and oppressive force? That is truly not going to win you any support among the local population. The Afghan army, meanwhile, which we have spent billions on, was a failure. We saw in the Helmand operation in July, they just decided not to show up. I was in Helmand and the Americans and Brits were surprised and complaining the Afghan army didn’t feel like taking part. They perceive themselves more as a force designed for external threats, not for internal purposes. So that’s a complete waste. And they also just don’t have the ability. They are also dominated by Tajiks and Uzbeks and they are fighting Pashtuns. You are going to see this force break down along ethnic lines. We see the increase or return of ethnic based militias throughout the country.”
“The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation — by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand — America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country.”
It is true that the people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades, but the President fails to acknowledge what role the US has played in perpetuating that violence. Foreign policy scholar Bill Blum has pointed out that the US funded and trained the Afghan Mujahadeen forces in the 1980s to fight the Soviet occupation. However, once the Soviet Army left Afghanistan those that made up the Mujahadeen began fighting each other and attacking the Afghan civilian population. Many of the US funded and trained forces of the 1980s are now the very same warlords within the Karzai government.
Moreover, how can the President say the US has no interest in occupying Afghanistan? What would you call the past eight years other than an occupation? If there is no intention of occupying the country, why build permanent US military bases and the new 1,100 person prison facility at Bargram?
“But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades — a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty. For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources.”
This statement is propaganda at its finest. The US has militarily intervened in more countries in the last six decades than any other nation. According to Professor Zoltan Grossman, the US has militarily intervened over 100 times around the world since the end of WWII.
And when the President says, “we will not claim another nation’s resources,” does he really think that the American public is that stupid? The CIA-led coup in Iran in 1953 was for oil and in 1954 in Guatemala it was to protect the right of United Fruit to extract that country’s resources. These are just two examples of the long list of times when the US claimed another nation’s resources.
Like many US President’s before him, Barack Obama wants to try to convince the American people that the US only send its troops to foreign lands with the noblest intentions. We must do our best to not simply accept this premise without serious scrutiny.
(There were many other aspects of the speech that could be critiqued. For additional analysis we encourage people to read an excellent article by Phyllis Bennis and a short interview with Anand Gopal who has been reporting on Afghanistan for years.)
Today, the Grand Rapids Press ran a significantly edited version of an AP story about Blackwater founder Erik Prince. The Press version of the article said, “Prince will relinquish involvement in the company’s day-to-day operations and give up some of his ownership rights.”
The article then goes on to say, “Prince felt he was “constantly being thrown under the bus” after serving the country for years.” The Press version of the story doesn’t mention Blackwater’s involvement in the shooting deaths of several Iraqis in 2007, instead the article reads, “Prince’s company did years of work for the government but has been dogged by a series of federal investigations into its work.”
The original Associated Press (AP) article was a bit more substantive in that it mentions the 2007 Blackwater shootings in Baghdad and the dollar amount of the company’s contracts in Iraq. However, the AP article was still quote favorable to Prince and didn’t bother to mention details of the company’s current foreign contracts.
One country that Blackwater is currently operating in is Pakistan, which would seem to be very topical considering the US escalation of its occupation in Afghanistan and the US funding of Pakistan’s army to fight the Taliban. Investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill, author of the book Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army, recently published a story on the role that Blackwater is playing in a covert operation in Pakistan. This important information is apparently not as relevant as Erik Prince’s feelings.
Two Grand Rapids activists occupy Senator Levin’s Office
At 4p.m. EST today, two Grand Rapids activists occupied U.S. Senator Carl Levin’s Grand Rapids office. They released the following statement:
Why We Occupied Senator Levin’s Office
Today, we occupied Senator Carl Levin’s office in Grand Rapids as a protest against the current administration’s decision to escalate the US war in Afghanistan. We do this not simply because we are against war, but because this decision by the Obama administration is unjust.
The US is not in Afghanistan to bring Democracy – Since 1979, the US has supported anti-democratic forces such as the Mujahadeen, the Northern Alliance, the Taliban and a variety of individual warlords. The US has also supported the current regime of Karzai, knowing full well that his administration has been corrupt from the beginning.
The US is not in Afghanistan to protect the rights of Women – The groups of armed men that the US has supported for decades, like the Mujahadeen, are some of the most misogynist groups in that country. Even under the current government of Karzai, a law was passed that essentially legalized the rape of women. Afghan Women’s groups like RAWA and the Afghan Women’s Mission have made it very clear that if those of us in the US want to support women in Afghanistan then we should work for an end to the US military occupation of their country.
The US is not in Afghanistan to Prevent Terrorism – Many credible members of the US intelligence community have stated in recent years that there is no link between the Taliban and Al Qaida. The Taliban did not attack the US on September 11, 2001. The Taliban are a nationalist group that wants the US out of their country. In fact, we would say that the US occupation of Afghanistan only gives rise to potential acts of terror and feeds a growing anti-American sentiment.
What the US is doing in Afghanistan has more to do with long-term strategic interests. We believe that the US recognizes that Afghanistan is a bridge between the Middle East and Central Asia, that it borders Iran, Pakistan, China and other important countries. We believe that the US sees Afghanistan as playing an important role in the control of future resources in that region, both because it will likely be a major trans-shipment point to move oil and gas in the region, but also because it can act as a US outpost to prevent China, India and Russia from gaining access to the region’s resources.
The US is currently expanding military bases it has had there since 2001, as well as constructing new bases in strategic locations throughout Afghanistan, which implies that the US, like in Iraq, has no plans to leave that country for a long time to come. The US recently built a 1,100 person prison facility at Bagram Air Base, which is another indication that the US has no timely withdraw plans.
We are occupying Senator Levin’s office today because this war is now primarily at the feet of the Democratic Party. The Democrats control the White House and the Congress and is therefore the major force behind this escalating war in Afghanistan. Senator Levin may have tactical disagreements with how the war is being prosecuted (he has supported more training for an Afghan Army), but he supports the fundamental premise of the White House that the US occupation of Afghanistan is in the National Security interest of the US.
We know that our occupation of Senator Levin’s office will not stop the escalating US war in Afghanistan, but we cannot be silent. Senator Levin needs to know that he cannot support President Obama’s prosecution of this brutal war in our name.
We also act today in order to send a message to those who call themselves progressives. We strongly encourage all progressives to ask themselves if they really believe the lies about Afghanistan and to stop supporting this escalating war. We ask them to stop being silent and to take action that leads toward an end of the US occupation in Afghanistan.
We ask people of good will to think about the escalating cost of this war, which as of today, has cost over $232 billion dollars for the country and $122 million from the residents of Grand Rapids. Considering the current economic struggles that people face in this community, how can we support a war that costs so much?
We ask people to think about the relationship between the US military industrial complex and global warming (see the book Green Zone: The Environmental Costs of Militarism). The US military is one of the single largest polluters on the planet and exists primarily for the purpose of stealing other countries fossil fuels. (see the film Blood & Oil, by Michael Klare).
We ask people to think about whether or not they want their family members or their friends who might be deployed to Afghanistan to participate in the killing of innocent Afghani civilians or to come home traumatized, wounded or dead. There is a growing movement of US troops who oppose the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and we need to hear their voices.
We ask people to talk about this war, to educate themselves and to take action – write letters, sign petitions, yes, but more importantly engage in direct action! Take to the streets, prevent young men and women from entering the US military, confront the corporations that are profiting from this war, don’t pay your taxes, don’t vote for people who support war, organize a march, organize a sit in, shut down a military recruiting center . . . do something!
End the US Occupation of Afghanistan Now!
Bring the Troops Home!
Pay Reparations to Afghanistan for the Damage We Have Done to Their Country!
Media Bites – Miller Lite and Relationships
This week’s Media Bites takes a look at some recent Miller Lite ads that pit men and their beer against their girlfriends. Both spots are meant to target “guys” with lowbrow humor, but should we just accept these messages as harmless fun?
The Story of Cap & Trade
We just wanted to share with our readers this video that creatively explains what is wrong with the Cap & Trade policies that Big Business/Big Polluters, the Obama administration and even some environmental groups endorse.
The video is produced by The Story of Stuff Project & Free Range Studios, in partnership with Climate Justice Now! and the Durban Group for Climate Justice, two leading international networks of climate justice advocates. Below we have embedded the trailer for this short film. To see the entire video, go to http://www.storyofstuff.org/capandtrade/.
Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy 
