Remembering Malcolm X
“America is guilty of image making through the press to justify anything they have in mind to do.” Malcolm X
Forty-five years ago today, Malcolm X was assassinated just as he began his opening remarks at the Audubon Ball Room in New York City. The talk Malcolm X was about to give was for the Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU), which had been former the previous year in 1964.
Malcolm X is one of the most misunderstood figures in struggle for Civil Rights and the Black Power Movement. He is still viewed in dominant culture as a race hater and as someone who advocated violence, but Malcolm X was much more complex and was coming through a tremendous awakening in just the last few years of his life.
One of the things that make Malcolm X so relevant to people working for radical social change was his transformation in prison from common thief to a person of deep self-awareness. Malcolm’s transformation came about because of his acceptance of the religious teachings of the Nation of Islam.
The young convert came into his own quickly and realized his gifts as an intellectual, public speaker and organizer. Malcolm helped the nation of Islam build numerous new mosques around the country, gain new members and national notoriety. However, divisions within the Nation itself led to factions arrayed against Malcolm as well as the fear that Elijah Muhammad (leader of the Nation of Islam) had with Malcolm’s politics.
The event that demonstrated to Malcolm the limitations of the Nation of Islam was when he was silenced for weeks after his comments on President Kennedy’s assassination. Malcolm was asked what he thought about the President’s death and Malcolm basically said that he was not surprised since he felt that the if the US was going to support repressive policies around the world and engage in political assassination that Kennedy’s death was a natural outcome of those kinds of policies – what Malcolm referred to as “chickens coming home to roost.”
Shortly after he silencing Malcolm became aware of Elijah Muhammad’s misuse of power by fathering numerous kids from several different young women within the Nation of Islam. This revelation led Malcolm to leave the Nation and begin his second major transformation.
Part of his new transformation included traveling to Africa and the Middle East. In these travels Malcolm came to see that Islam was a world religion that had the potential to unite people regardless of race. Malcolm X also met with leaders of anti-colonialist movements, which influenced his understanding of US policy and the importance of solidarity.
Upon his return Malcolm began the Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU), which sought to build a much broader movement around civil rights, human rights and economic rights. Malcolm began to question more the economic exploitation under a capitalist model and felt that economic oppression is what would ultimately unit people.
“I believe that there will ultimately be a clash between the oppressed and those that do the oppressing. I believe that there will be a clash between those who want freedom, justice and equality for everyone and those who want to continue the systems of exploitation.”
In the last years of hi life Malcolm X became more ecumenical in his thinking and wanted to build bridges with other religious and social organizations. He began to be invited by radical labor groups and socialist organizations to speak about systems of oppression and Malcolm X was one of the first to acknowledge that we need to move beyond civil rights and start thinking about human rights.
His assassination forty-five years ago robbed us of what he might have evolved to and what greater impact the OAAU could have had on the civil rights/black power movements.
Here is an excerpt from a debate he took part of at Oxford University in December of 1964. This is an excellent example of his skills as a public speaker, but more importantly his analysis of the US is still quite relevant for us today.
Media Alert: Nuclear Industry Gets a Free Pass in Media Coverage
(This media alert is from Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting)
On February 16, ABC World News and NBC Nightly News aired incomplete and unbalanced reports following Barack Obama’s announcement of $8 billion in new loan guarantees for a nuclear power plant in Georgia.
ABC reporter Jake Tapper announced that, “for years leading Democrats and liberals opposed nuclear energy. No new nukes, was the cry. So some may have been surprised to hear President Obama say today, essentially, yes, new nukes.”
But after that nod, nuclear opponents mostly disappeared from the piece, which showed Tapper stressing industry claims about job creation for this new plant (“3,500 on-site construction jobs and 800 permanent operations jobs”) and the amount of energy the plant will generate–enough “for 550,000 homes, 2,200 megawatts worth of electricity that would offset about 30 million barrels of oil.” He also quoted two anonymous Georgia residents saying their town needs the jobs.
One critic–Greenpeace’s Jim Riccio–made a short comment about safety concerns, but was countered by Tapper: “Nuclear power advocates say since then plant design and equipment requirements have been upgraded.” Tapper then quoted nuclear industry lobbyist Patrick Moore, introducing him with his past credentials: “Back then, he was an anti-nuclear power activist and a founder of Greenpeace. Today, he lobbies for nuclear energy.” After Moore claimed that, “nuclear industry is generally one of the safest industries we have,” Tapper concluded that, “he’s not the only one who’s changed his mind.”
Moore’s former Greenpeace ties make him a media favorite, but he wasn’t actually a founder, just an early activist–Extra!, 1-2/08–and it’s worth noting that, as PR Watch pointed out (3/14/07), “Moore has now spent more time working as a PR consultant to the logging, mining, biotech, nuclear and other industries…than he did as an environmental activist.”
The report by NBC Nightly News suffered from some of the same problems: Three sources are quoted supporting the nuclear plan, with only one critic (Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth). In attempting to discuss safety concerns, NBC mentioned Chernobyl and the 1979 partial meltdown at Three Mile Island (Extra!, 7-8/93). Neither network mentioned the current problems with nuclear reactors; the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, for example, is leaking radioactive tritium into the groundwater, a safety hazard that is being documented at other nuclear sites around the country (Associated Press, 2/2/10; Greenpeace Blog, 1/28/10).
NBC also has bigger issues: its parent company General Electric is a major player in the industry, and has done business with the company planning to build the Georgia plant (southerncompany.com)–a major fact NBC neglected to mention in its report.
While both reports mentioned that the Georgia plant would be the first built in the U.S. in three decades, neither gave much of an explanation as to why this would be the case. But as nuclear power critics have documented for years, the plants have proven to be financial disasters, with severe cost overruns and a general reluctance among investors to foot the bill for projects that are unlikely to be profitable (Greenpeace, 10/15/08). Obama’s pledge of multi-billion dollar loan guarantees should have caused reporters to wonder why the industry, after decades of experience, needs so much government assistance in the first place.
ACTION: Please ask ABC and NBC why their reporting on the White House’s nuclear power plans omitted important facts about nuclear power in favor of the optimistic projections of the nuclear industry. And, in NBC‘s case, why the report failed to disclose its parent company’s financial ties to the nuclear industry.
CONTACT:
NBC Nightly News
ABC World News with Diane Sawyer
Web Form: http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3271346&cat=World%20News%20with%20Diane%20Sawyer
Michigan Legislators raised $6 million in 2009
According to a recent Press Release from the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, current Michigan legislators running for office raised nearly $6 million in 2009.
“Incumbent representatives raised $2,621,369 for their House campaign committees, and another $1,280,518 for new committees for higher offices, mostly State Senate. When transfers from the House accounts are subtracted from the totals for new committees, net fundraising by incumbent representatives totaled $3,587,946 for the year.
Incumbent senators raised $1,727,551 since their last reports and have now raised $4,329,326 for their Senate campaign accounts since they last faced they electorate in 2006. Of the 38 senators, 29 are term-limited and cannot run again for their Senate seat. Including fundraising for new committees for higher offices, the 38 incumbents have raised a net of $2,391,774 over calendar year 2010.”
West Michigan Representatives varied in the amount they raised as incumbents. Roy Schmidt had as a balance at the end of 2009 – ($40,325), Arlan Meekof ($29,601), Mary Valentine ($24,982) Dave Agema ($24,854), Robert Dean ($15,068), Justin Amash ($3,150), Dave Hildenbrand ($2,670), Kevin Green ($1.812), and Tom Pearce ($1,491).
State Senators from West Michigan had a balance in their budgets for campaign funds at the end of 2009, with Senator Mark Jansen having the most at ($40,595) and Senator Wayne Kuipers at ($17,267). Since Senator Bill Hardiman is term limited he only had $371 in his balance for 2009.
“Two things jump out of these reports,” said Rich Robinson of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network. “First, a year is too long to go between fundraising reports by incumbent officeholders. Our legislators raised $6 million last year, and we shouldn’t have to wait a year to know it.”
“Secondly, when you look at the level of debt in the new campaign committees of aspiring candidates, and recognize that those figures are a reflection of self-funding, you have to wonder whether running for office is being priced out of the reach of persons of ordinary means.”
Front page rules: Commercial interests, not worker rights
Yesterday, the Grand Rapids Press ran a front-page story, complete with 3 photos, about the opening of a boat show at the Grand Rapids convention center.
The story was framed as a great opportunity for boat dealers, since they were offering big discounts on new boats. The story cited several boat dealers and even included a sidebar with the article giving price listings for some of the boat models. In many ways, once could argue that this was not a news story, rather it was advertising that looked like news.
In the same addition of the Press, there was a short story on page 9 headlined, Report: Conditions slip for farm workers. The story (no photos accompany this story) is based on a new report that makes the claim that working conditions for migrant workers is worse today than it was 40 years ago.
The Michigan Civil Rights Commission will be reviewing the 1,000-page report at a public meeting on March 22, according to the Press article. The article also stated that based on investigations from last summer civil rights investigators found serious violation.
“What they found were several instances where farmworkers were being forced to live in dangerous and unsanitary housing and being taken advantage of, or mistreated by unscrupulous employers, officials at the meeting said.”
While it is good that the Press ran this story, why did they choose to place it on page 9? What makes a boat show front-page news and worker conditions not front-page news? How many people in West Michigan can afford to buy a boat and how many people are working people? The answer to that should tell us something about who the Grand Rapids Press wants to buy their paper.
Media Alert: No More PR Pundits
(This Media Alert is from the national news watchdog organization Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting – FAIR)
Scores of pundits appearing on cable news networks are paid corporate lobbyists and PR flaks–and the networks aren’t disclosing their corporate ties. In a new report in the Nation reporter Sebastian Jones writes:
“Since 2007 at least 75 registered lobbyists, public relations representatives and corporate officials–people paid by companies and trade groups to manage their public image and promote their financial and political interests–have appeared on MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, CNBC and Fox Business Network with no disclosure of the corporate interests that had paid them. Many have been regulars on more than one of the cable networks, turning in dozens–and in some cases hundreds–of appearances.”
For example, during the collapse of insurance giant AIG–and the ensuing government bailout–some pundits appearing to discuss the story were, unbeknown to viewers, actually working for AIG, as lobbyists or public relations advisers. And as the healthcare debate unfolded throughout the past year, a number of pundits and former lawmakers have made numerous appearances to talk about health insurance reform–all the while employed by insurance and pharmaceutical companies. In almost all cases, viewers had no way of knowing the affiliations of these guests.
The allegedly liberal-leaning MSNBC, writes Jones, had the most egregious instances of airing guests with conflicts of interest. Only on MSNBC did Todd Boulanger, a Jack Abramoff-connected lobbyist working for Cassidy and Associates, go on a TV rehabilitation tour with no identification of his work, all while he was under investigation for corruption. (He pleaded guilty in January 2009.) Only on MSNBC was a prime-time program, Countdown, hosted by public relations operative Richard Wolffe and later by a pharmaceutical company consultant, former Gov. Howard Dean, with no mention of the outside work either man was engaged in. And MSNBC has yet to introduce DynCorp’s Barry McCaffrey as anything but a “military analyst.”
Some networks have written policies demanding that contributors and analysts reveal their conflicts of interest. But it’s hard to take those guidelines very seriously; as Jones points out, one MSNBC official suggested that their idea of disclosure might be to post relevant information about their guests on the MSNBC website. In a media system already dominated by official sources from government and big business, why are cable channels relying on paid spokespeople and lobbyists as commentators? And why are these channels hiding the affiliations of their pundits? Join FAIR to demand answers and accountability. Sign our petition to MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, CNBC and Fox Business Channel, demanding that they come clean about their corporate-sponsored pundits.
FAIR is asking people to sign an online petition that will be send to these cable networks.
City Publicizes Citizen Input on Budget Crisis
Today, the City of Grand Rapids published the results of the community meetings held last fall, where residents, businesses and the faith community shared their ideas on how the city can save money or generate income to offset the budget deficit.
The public feedback was organized into three categories; ideas the City has already implemented, frequently asked questions and the Top 20 Budget Gathering Suggestions.
In the section on ideas the city has already completed or continues to work on, there were 65 suggestions. Some of these ideas were: better enforcement for fines or parking tickets; pay extra for police when at public events; sell off city assets; use court community workers for park maintenance; cut some police and fire programs; and eliminate city staff perks like use of city vehicles and limit city staff who attend conferences in Michigan.
There were also ideas that have already been embraced that are not just about eliminating costs or making government more efficient, instead they advocate for privatization of city services. Some of these services that have already been privatized are corporate sponsors of City pools and item number 23 in the document states, “The City contracts with private firms to provide hundreds of services. We continue to examine City services to understand if they can be provided as effectively and for less cost by a private firm.”
The document identified as the Top 20 Budget Gathering Suggestions continues this trend of privatization and downsizing of government. Here are the Top 20 suggestions as determined by the city:
1) Reduce the wages and benefits of city employees
2) Reduce the number of city employees
3) Increase efficiencies in providing City services
4) Increase flexibility in City employee deployment
5) Reduce expenses; take home vehicles, travel, meals, and purchases
6) Privatize City services
7) Seek grants from the State and Federal government and foundations
8) Sell City assets
9) Generate financial sponsorships to support City services
10) Assure that the full cost of services are identified and adjust fees towards full cost recovery where possible and appropriate
11) Charge non-residents higher fees
12) Allow the public to donate to support City services
13) Assess a fee for collecting taxes for other public entities
14) Collect outstanding fines for parking tickets
15) Collect local sales taxes
16) Increase personal income tax
17) Eliminate or consolidate departments and consolidate services with other public entities
18) Eliminate impediments to consolidation of services within the City and partnering with other entities
19) Engage individuals, organizations, and businesses in providing services
20) Increase transparency in City service operations and performance
I attended one of these public input meetings on the city budget and offered a suggestion that was not included in their final report. I suggested that the city look at cutting or eliminating the amount of money they provide to businesses in the form of subsidies, tax breaks and abatements. The city argues that these subsidies and tax breaks are necessary to have businesses come to Grand Rapids in order to create jobs. However, there is no evidence on the City’s website that these subsidies have indeed been an economic benefit to the city. A good resource on this issue is the book The Great American Job Scam: Corporate Tax Dodging the Myth of Job Creation, by Greg LeRoy.
Another suggestion that was offered up at the meeting (also not included in the report) I attended was from Mike Saunders who said the city should enter into talks with Congressman Ehlers and Senators Stabenow and Levin on the matter of how much tax money is leaving Grand Rapids to fund the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As of today, according to the National Priorities Project, the amount of tax money leaving GR to fund these two wars since 2001 is $503,636,680.00.
One last issue that should be raised is an evaluation of the process the city took. Even though an estimated 500 people participated in the community meetings in November and December the public had no say in how to prioritize the suggestions and ideas they provided. One process that could be adopted by the City of Grand Rapids is the Participatory Budgeting Project model. In this model the public directly participates in deciding how municipalities use tax dollars. The model began in Brazil in 1989 and is widely used throughout the world and in the US.
How the Local News reported on Senator Levin’s visit
As we reported on Monday, Michigan Senator Carl Levin was in Grand Rapids to speak at a luncheon hosted by the Economic Club of Grand Rapids. There were several news agencies present during Senator Levin’s talk and it is worth looking at what they reported on.
Both Channel 8 and 13 have stories posted on their websites. We can’t verify if these stories are what they broadcast, but this tends to be the case based on what they have done in the past when it comes to posting locally produced stories.
You can see from the video in both the WOOD TV 8 story and the WZZM 13 story that they filmed Senator Levin at the Economic Club luncheon. What is interesting about both stories is that neither of them dealt with what the Senator had to say at the noon luncheon. Instead, both local TV stations decided to ask the Senator his thoughts on the upcoming Michigan Governor’s race and the answers are almost identical.
The Grand Rapids Press was the only other GR-based news outlet that reported on Senator Levin’s visit yesterday. However, the Press also did not report on the Senator’s comments at the Econ Club luncheon, instead they asked the Senator five questions. The five questions consisted on one on the difficulties that incumbent candidates will face in this year’s election, the likelihood of health care legislation passing, one on Dick Cheney’s criticism of President Obama and two questions on the US war in Afghanistan.
However, Press reporter Kyla King did nothing more than print a sampling of what Senator Levin had to say about each question. There is no evidence that the reporter had any follow up questions to the comments made by the Senator, nor is their any indication that the reporter tried to verify any of the claims made by Michigan’s senior Senator.
This is a clear example of what media critics like Jeff Cohen would call journalism as stenography, where reporters just write what politicians say. This flies in the face of basic principles of journalism, which have been adopted by groups like Committee of Concerned Journalists.
These principles include the idea that reporters should practice verification, so as to try to substantiate claims made by people the talk to. One other important principle is the idea that journalists must serve as independent monitors of power. The local news media practiced neither of these principles of journalism, thus limiting the ability of people in West Michigan to adequately engage in the democratic process.
Media Bites – Audi & Corporate Greenwashing
This week’s Media Bites takes a look at a new Audi car commercial that ran during this years Super Bowl. The ad shows an over-zealous group of cops known as the Green Police who arrest people for minor environmental infractions.
However, someone driving an Audi is rewarded by the same cops, because after all fuel efficient cars are so “eco-friendly.” This Audi campaign is just another form of Corporate Greenwashing.
Hiroshima-Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Photo Poster Exhibition Begins Sunday
As part of their work to rid the world of nuclear weapons, Dominican Sisters ~ Grand Rapids brings the Hiroshima-Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Photo Poster Exhibition to Grand Rapids Feb. 21 through March 14, 2010. On loan from 
Japan’s Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, the 20 large posters depict the death, destruction and suffering experienced by the civilians in these cities after the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima, August 6, 1945 and Nagasaki, August 9, 1935.
“In 2006, we made a corporate stance for nuclear disarmament, to work towards the elimination of nuclear weapons,” explains Sr. Barbara Hansen, Dominican Sisters ~ Grand Rapids . “Some of us, like Sr. Ardeth and Sr. Jackie went to prison, others offer their prayers. This year, we are hosting the exhibit.”
The free exhibit at the Dominican Center at Marywood, 2025 East Fulton, is open to the public 2 – 6 p.m. Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, 10 a.m. – 4 p.m. Saturdays and noon to 4 p.m. Sundays . During the exhibition, related events welcome visitors of all ages.
Sunday Feb. 28, 7 p.m. John F. Donnelly Conference Center, Aquinas College
Survivor, Seika Ikeda, who was 12 years old when the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, will recall her experience via a live Webcam video conference transmitted from Japan. Ikeda lived less than a mile from the epicenter of the explosion. In addition, Steven Leeper, chairperson of the Hiroshima Peace Museum, will speak to current developments in nuclear disarmament. A question and answer period will follow.
Feb. 21, 24, 28, March 3, 7, 10 and 14, Dominican Center at Marywood
Short films about Hiroshima-Nagasaki and nuclear disarmament will be shown at 3 p.m. Wednesdays and 12:30 p.m. Sundays during the exhibit. One of the films features an interview with a Michigan World War II veteran who served as a medic on the USS Haven, a hospital ship that arrived on the scene to care for US prisoners of war. “It’ s important that we listen to our vets, let them talk,” says Sr. Barbara. “We need to hear, not stand in judgment, so they can do their healing.”
Sat. Feb. 27 , 10:30 am, 11:30 am, 1:30 pm and 2:30 pm, Dominican Center at Marywood
Folding Origami Paper Cranes, Japanese Symbol of World Peace. Before she died from cancer caused by the bombings, Sadako, a nine-year-old girl, folded paper cranes for peace. Area children can continue her legacy.
“Nuclear warfare is too indiscriminate, too large in proportion to be a choice,” Sr. Barbara says. “The sooner we rid the world of these, the safer we will be. The exhibit is a way to move the younger generation to realize the horrendous reality.”
For more information contact Diane Zerfas,OP at DZerfas@dominicancenter.com.
Senator Levin on War and the US Economy
Earlier today the Economics Club of Grand Rapids hosted a luncheon presentation by Michigan Senator Carl Levin. The event promotional material cited Senator Levin as one of the country’s 10 best Senators, according to a recent Time Magazine.
The focus of Senator Levin’s talk today was on the US economy, but he first he started with a few remarks on the US war in Afghanistan.
Senator Levin, “our men and women in the military are hoping to prevent the Taliban from taking and keeping control of Afghanistan.” This was an interesting statement, since even President Obama in his December address to the nation claimed that the US was in Afghanistan to fight terrorism and al Qaeda.
Levin said that he was delighted that Afghans were participating in the military campaign and that for Afghanistan to succeed the Afghan army has to take control the country. This is similar to what Levin has said over the past year, making claims that the Afghans themselves must take control of their country. However, the Senator never addresses how sending more US troops will achieve such a goal.
In addition, Levin made the claim that the Afghan military is the only respected organization in the country, which was somewhat of a slight against non-governmental groups like the Afghan Women’s Mission and RAWA. Levin also said that according to sources (one he never identifies), that the Taliban only have 8% support amongst Afghans.
The Bailout was the Right Thing To Do
Levin spent most of his luncheon talk speaking to the issue of the state of the US economy. He began by addressing why the economy failed. According to the Senator there were three main factors – 1) a certain level of greed, 2) misjudgment and, 3) deregulation. “American families paid the price for the excesses of Wall Street.”
He gives the example of Goldman Sachs and how they used the system to make massive profits. He also said that AIG is nothing more than a thinly disguised casino. However, despite his criticism of such companies the Senator said, “We bailed out the financial system and it was the right thing to do.” So, how can you be critical of some companies, yet defend a massive taxpayer bailout to the very same entities which engaged in massive fraud at the expense of the American public?
Senator Levin then went on to say that in 2009, the government adopted the TARP program as a major part of the stimulus plan, or as Levin said, “We took your money to try to get the economy out of a ditch. The judgment of most economists was that we would be worse off if TARP was not adopted.” However, numerous writers, including Dean Baker, have demonstrated that TARP was just another mechanism to turn the taxpayers money over to Wall Street.
Levin felt that Michigan definitely benefited from the federal stimulus plan, because it saved jobs, but also because it will help Michigan industries, like the auto industry, have a chance to be competitive. This was an interesting admission that the so-called free market system in the US cannot survive without massive government intervention. In fact, Levin stated that, “Michigan companies are not competing against other companies, they are competing against other governments.” Levin added to this statement by saying that there needs to be more US business and government collaboration if the US is to remain competitive globally.
Michigan’s senior Senator told the crowd that next week the Senate will be addressing a jobs package. Levin said that it will need to be a bi-partisan effort if it hopes to pass.
In closing, Senator Levin said the US government needs to restore confidence in our markets, which ultimately means Wall Street. However, in addition to restoring confidence in the market the government needs to reduce the deficit and figure out a way to better police financial institutions in the future, even though the Senator offered no ideas on just how the federal government plans to “police” Wall Street.
Questions, not many Answers
There was a brief question and answer period, with questions on a variety of topics. The first question asked about a current lawsuit by media companies requesting full government disclosure on who got what money in the bailout. Levin said he was in favor of disclosure, but he stressed that the real solution is for the government and businesses to work together even more for the future of the economy.
Another questioner asked why politicians can’t get along in DC. Levin’s response was, “We need more people like Vern Ehlers in DC. What is lacking in Washington is civility.” Levin claimed that some of the blame should be put on the media, since he thinks that government officials have to act more outrageous in order to get coverage. He also said there needs to be serious changes in campaign finance. Senator Levin expressed his frustration with the recent Supreme Court decision to allow corporations to give more money during elections.
While we would agree that campaign finance is necessary for positive change, it is important to point out that Senator Levin has received over $27 million dollars to run for office since 1989, and that some of the sectors who have contributed the most in that period are law firms, Pro-Israel groups, real estate companies and the auto industry. Can the Senator honestly says that this money has not influenced his voting decisions?
The last question was from a man claiming to be a small business owner who expressed frustration over the government proposals that are being shoved down his throat – Health Care insurance for everyone, Cap & Trade, and a small business tax package. Levin responded by saying that none of these proposals are likely to go through. However, the Senator did say that he supported some kind of health insurance for all Americans and that there must be something done to reduce carbon emissions. Unfortunately, Senator Levin offered up no real plan on how either of these issues could be addressed.
