Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy

Analysis:

This article is originally from the Washington Post and as you can see the Grand Rapids Press version is only half the original version. The story is based upon an announcement that the Bush administration is going to impose new sanctions on the Iranian military according to “a senior administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.” The story says in paragraph two: “It is the broadest set of punitive measures imposed on Tehran since the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy, said the officials.” Is this true? What about the US/CIA overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953? That CIA coup seems pretty punitive.

The story goes on to say that this announcement is part of a year long effort to isolate Iran and then lists other tactics the US administration has used like sending “billions of dollars in arms sales to Persian Gulf allies and Israel.” The only other source cited in the Press version is Secretary of State Rice who is making the claims that Iran has the technology for nuclear weapons and supports terrorism. Are either of those claims verified in the story? Why are there no Iranian perspectives in this story or independent perspectives?

Story:

The Bush administration plans to roll out an unprecedented package of unilateral sanctions against Iran Thursday, including the long-awaited designations of its Revolutionary Guard Corps as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction and of the elite Quds Force as a supporter of terrorism, according to senior administration officials.

The package, scheduled to be announced jointly by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr., marks the first time that the United States has tried to isolate or punish another country’s military. It is the broadest set of punitive measures imposed on Tehran since the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy, said the officials.

“This is a very powerful set of measures designed to send a message to Iran that there will be a cost to what they do. We decided on them because we have seen no change in Iranian behavior,” said a senior administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the measures have not yet been announced. “Our diplomacy needs to be stronger and more effective.”

The move caps a year of growing U.S. pressure on Tehran, including billions of dollars in arms sales to Persian Gulf allies and Israel,interception of Iranian arms shipments in Iraq and Afghanistan, detention of Iranian agents in Iraq, and pressure on the United Nations and European allies to increase Iran’s isolation. The dramatic U.S. steps underscore the escalating tensions between the United States and Iran.

“The policies of Iran constitute perhaps the single greatest challenge for American security interests in the Middle East, and possibly around the world, because the combination of Iranian terrorism, Iranian repression at home and the pursuit of nuclear weapons technology – technologies that could lead to a nuclear weapon – is a very dangerous mix,” Rice said Wednesday in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The new sanctions will empower the United States to financially isolate a large part of Iran’s military and anyone inside or outside Iran who does business with it, U.S. officials said. The measures could affect hundreds of foreign companies by squeezing them to drop Iranian business or risk U.S. sanctions.

Text from the original article ommitted from the Grand Rapids Press version:

The Revolutionary Guard Corps, which numbers at least 125,000, is the most powerful wing of Iran’s military. It controls a growing sector of the economy, including construction companies, aspects of the oil industry, pharmaceutical plants, telecommunications and ordinary commerce. U.S. officials said it also operates the front companies that procure nuclear technology.

The administration will designate the entire Revolutionary Guard under Executive Order 13382, signed by President Bush in June 2005, which allows the United States to freeze the assets of any proliferator of weapons of mass destruction and its supporters. Iran is being designated for its ballistic missile program. The United States will announce a list of Iranians involved in that program – civilians as well as military officials – who will also be designated, U.S. officials said.

Under the same executive order, the administration also intends to designate Iran’s Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics, which controls Iran’s defense industries, as well as companies owned or controlled by the Revolutionary Guard, said U.S. officials.

The overall impact, according to U.S. officials, will be to make a pariah of the most critical parts of Iran’s military and its defense and commercial industries.

The Quds Force, the foreign operations branch of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, will be designated separately as a supporter of terrorism under Executive Order 13224, which Bush signed two weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to obstruct terrorist funding, U.S. officials said. It authorizes the United States to identify individuals, businesses, charities and extremist groups engaged in terrorism.

The Quds Force – “Quds” is Arabic for Jerusalem – is estimated to number up to 15,000 and runs Tehran’s covert activities throughout the Middle East, including arms, aid and training for groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. U.S. officials say that it has provided the high-tech bombs capable of penetrating armored vehicles and the roadside explosives that are the No. 1 killer of U.S. forces in Iraq.

Although Iran’s suspected weapons programs have been a longtime problem for the United States, the Quds Force’s operations in Iraq have become a bigger immediate challenge. “The Quds Force controls the policy for Iraq,” Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said earlier this month. “There should be no confusion about that.”

The U.S. decision to impose unilateral sanctions reflects the administration’s deepening frustration over Iran’s role in attacks against American troops in Iraq, its aid to the Taliban in Afghanistan, and its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment that could be used for both peaceful energy and to develop a bomb. U.S. efforts to engage Iran in a dialogue – between their respective ambassadors in Baghdad beginning in March – have been matched by an escalation in the quantity and quality of Iranian arms provided to Shiite militants in Iraq, said U.S. officials.

Administration officials say that they are imposing new sanctions to demonstrate a commitment to diplomacy, even amid increasing rumblings from neoconservatives outside the administration about possible military action.

In a speech Sunday, Vice President Cheney warned Tehran of “serious consequences” if it continues on its present course. “Our country and the entire international community cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions,” he said.

The United States hopes that allies in Europe and Asia will impose similar sanctions, because efforts to get a tough U.N. resolution have stalled as a result of Russian and Chinese opposition. “The international community’s got to get a lot tougher if it’s going to be resolved diplomatically,” Rice said about Iran’s suspected nuclear program.

Analysis:

This is an article that first appeared in the New York Times and deals with the upcoming speech that President Bush will deliver on the country of Cuba. What does the headline, “Bush: No letup on Cuba” imply? Does the first sentence in the story suggestion that the US government does not tolerate any political transitions that transfer power from one family member to another? Certainly countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, which have monarchies transfer power from one family member to another and the US considers those countries as allies.

The article goes on to say that the Bush administration wants to put a human face on the people of Cuba by introducing relatives of political prisonersin Cuba, but the story doesn’t mention their names. The article also says that “Bush would make the case that for dissidents and others pursuing democracy in Cuba, little has changed at all, and that the country has suffered economically as well as in other ways as a result of the Castro rule.” However, there is no verification of this claimmade in the story, by either the US administration or the reporter. There is also no mention of of the more than 4 decades long US economic embargo against Cuba. The article states near the end that “the United States would uphold its tough economic policies against the island.” What does “tough economic policies” mean? The story provides no details about the embargo, nor that the United Nation has been calling for an end to the embargo for 15 years.

There was a section of the Times article that was ommitted in the Press version. In the original version there are two other non-partisan sources cited, one from U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, a US-based business entity that wants to open trade with Cuba and the Lexington Institute a Libertarian think tank. What changes about your undersatnding of the issue after reading the ommitted section of the story?

Story:

President Bush is planning to issue a stern warning Wednesday that the United States will not accept a political transition in Cuba in which power changes from one Castro brother to another, rather than to the Cuban people.

As described by an official in a background briefing to reporters on Tuesday evening, Mr. Bush’s remarks will amount to the most detailed response — mainly an unbending one — to the political changes that began in Cuba more than a year ago, when Fidel Castro fell ill and handed power to his brother Raúl.

The speech, scheduled to be given at the State Department before invited Cuban dissidents, will introduce the relatives of four Cuban prisoners being held for political crimes. A senior administration official said the president wanted to “put a human face,” on Cuba’s “assault on freedom.”

In effect, the speech will be a call for Cubans to continue to resist, a particularly strong line coming from an American president. He is expected to say to the Cuban military and police, “There is a place for you in a new Cuba.”

The official said Mr. Bush would make the case that for dissidents and others pursuing democracy in Cuba, little has changed at all, and that the country has suffered economically as well as in other ways as a result of the Castro rule.

He will say that while much of the rest of Latin America has moved from dictatorship to democracy, Cuba continues to use repression and terror to control its people. And, the administration official said, Mr. Bush will direct another part of his speech to the Cuban people, telling them they “have the power to shape their destiny and bring about change.”

The administration official said Mr. Bush was expected to tell Cuban viewers that “soon they will have to make a choice between freedom and the force used by a dying regime.”

Some of the sharpest parts of the speech, however, will be aimed directly at Raúl Castro. Mr. Bush is expected to make clear that the United States will oppose an old system controlled by new faces. The senior administration official said that nothing in Raúl Castro’s past gives Washington reason to expect democratic reforms soon. And he said the United States would uphold its tough economic policies against the island.

Mr. Bush would hold out the possibility of incentives for change, if Cuba demonstrated an openness to such exchanges, the official said.

Text from the original article ommitted from the Grand Rapids Press version:

Those steps might include expanding cultural and information exchanges with Cuba and allowing religious organizations and other nonprofits to send computers to Cuba and to award scholarships.

However, he is expected to reiterate the administration’s long-standing demands for free and transparent elections, and the release of political prisoners.

John Kavulich, senior policy adviser at the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, said those demands would likely be non-starters for Cuba. He said the technology and educational opportunities Mr. Bush intends to offer are being provided to Cuba by Venezuela and China.

He suggested that the real constituency for Mr. Bush’s speech was the politically-powerful exile community in Miami.

Phil Peters, an expert on Cuba at the non-partisan Lexington Institute, said he saw Mr. Bush’s speech as an attempt to reorient a policy that had fallen behind the times. American policy, he said, had been centered around the idea that the Communist government would fall once Mr. Castro left power, and that Mr. Castro, 81, would be forced out of power only by death. Instead, Mr. Peters said, Raúl Castro’s rise caught the administration off guard.

President Bush has remained largely silent, Mr. Peters said, while Raúl Castro consolidated his control over Cuban institutions by establishing his own relationships with world leaders, and opening unprecedented dialogue with the Cuban people about their visions for their own country. Meanwhile, all the doomsday scenarios predicted for Cuba once Fidel Castro left power — a violent uprising by dissidents and a huge exodus of Cuban refugees — never materialized.

“The administration realized they had missed the boat,” Mr. Peters said. “Succession has already happened. They can no longer have a policy that keeps them waiting for Castro to die when the rest of the world has moved on.”

Analysis:

This story is based upon a candidate forum held at Aquinas College for the two candidates running for the 2nd ward city commission seat in Grand Rapids. What does the headline imply with the use of the word showdown? After reading the story does it seem like there was a big “showdown?” Besides some personal information, the only issues that the article mentions were the candidate’s voting records, street violence, and the issue of gender in this political race. Even with these issues, does the Press report any actually policy initiatives or a plan of action from either candidate? With all the issues that the city is confronted with – a budget crisis, land use, neighborhood improvement, racism, traffic, and parking – why do you think there are so few issues reported on? There is only mention of one question from the audience, but it is safe to assume that more than one question was asked. After reading this story do you think that you could make an informed choice on who to vote for?

Story:

Gender and voting records became issues Monday in a debate between 2nd Ward City Commission candidates Ruth Kelly and David LaGrand.

The debate at Aquinas College marked the only confrontation between the two candidates since the August primary election, when they became the top vote-getters for the 2nd Ward seat being vacated by Rick Tormala. The runoff election will be held Nov. 6.

Kelly scored points when the candidates were asked to compare their voting records in city, school and national elections.

LaGrand admitted that, until four years ago, he had a poor voting record. He said he began to take voting and local politics more seriously when his daughter was born.

Kelly said her voting record is about 95 percent. She said she missed one election when she had to work late.

LaGrand, a lawyer, brought up gender when asked to comment on the “root of crime in Grand Rapids.” He described a boy he recently represented in court.

“At the arraignment, his mom was there, his sister was there, there was a woman probation officer and a woman magistrate,” LaGrand said. “I realized this kid’s got no male models for how to become a man.

“That’s something we have to address urgently and practically on a grass-roots level,” he said, adding that city leaders need to address “the fact that there are gender differences.”

He repeated his position when challenged by an audience member, who said she was a single mother of six children, including a 21-year-old son in college.

“What I meant to say and I intended to emphasize was that young men in our community need male role models,” said LaGrand, adding that he also runs a karate school for kids at his church.

LaGrand also noted a recent letter to the editor in The Press in which a Kelly supporter urged voters to elect Kelly because she is a woman.

“Maybe people will do that,” he said.

“Saying nice things and saying mantras and acting peaceful are not going to solve issues of violence and issues of anger,” LaGrand said. “I think men need to understand their own capacity for violence.”

Kelly, a sixth-grade teacher at Riverside Middle School, offered a softer approach.

“I really believe if we want to address the problem of youth violence, we need to develop trust,” said Kelly, who suggested “cultural sensitivity training, nonviolent crisis intervention and relationship building” as possible solutions.

“Our children are wonderful and, if they are in trouble, it’s usually because they’ve had a problem where they just need to connect with someone,” Kelly said.

Though LaGrand applauded Kelly’s pledge to run a clean campaign, he accused her supporters of running a “whispering campaign” against him.

LaGrand said Kelly’s supporters are violating the agreement by attacking him in letters to the editor.

After the debate, Kelly said she was surprised by the accusation.

“It’s not a reflection of who I am,” she said.

Otherwise, the candidates repeated their pledges to tighten spending in City Hall, and increase police and fire services when possible.

LaGrand, who is a partner in the Wealthy Street Bakery and downtown’s Four Friends coffee house, emphasized his business experience.

Kelly emphasized her experience in the classroom and as a neighborhood organizer on the Southeast Side.

Analysis:

This Associated Press story is based on a media event staged by the White House and reads like the media release they sent out. How much information does the article present on what the adminstration is doing to protect the environment? As you can see, over half of the original AP story was omitted in the GR Press version, so why was the paragraph on what Bush and Cheney ate for lunch included in the Press version? There are no other voices or opinions provided in the story, particularly from environmental groups like the National Audubon Society who commented on the media event.

Story:

President Bush spent a crisp fall Saturday gingerly balancing a tiny screech owl on a gloved hand at a wildlife refuge and casting for rockfish on the Chesapeake Bay.

And for lunch? Famous Maryland style crabcakes, served up at Vice President Dick Cheney’s waterside home outside this charming Eastern Shore village.

It was all part of an effort to burnish his conservation credentials while announcing new initiatives that he said would protect migrating birds and two fish species, red drum and striped bass, prized by anglers.

First came some bird-watching at the Patuxent Research Refuge outside Washington, where he peered through a scope at waterfowl and had a closer encounter with a brown-and-white screech owl.

“Cute little fellow,” the president said, looking slightly askance at the jittery bird perched on his hand.

Bush, noting that migrating bird populations are threatened by increasing development along their flyover routes, said his administration would award private landowners “credits” they could sell, mainly to federal agencies, to encourage them to set aside “stopover habitats” for more than 800 species of migratory birds.

He said his administration also would give extra tax breaks, if Congress consents, to landowners who donate conservation easements to help migratory birds.

Traveling to Maryland’s Eastern Shore, Bush took a private charter for an hour of fishing with Chris and Melissa Fischer, hosts of ESPN’s “Offshore Adventures” show. As Bush mimed catching a big fish for the cameras, Melissa Fischer reeled one in from the bay’s choppy waters.

Bush said an order he signed would direct the Commerce and Interior departments to further build up stocks of striped bass and red drum, by working with state and local officials to prohibit sales of the fish caught up to 200 nautical miles out in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico.

Text from the original article ommitted from the Grand Rapids Press version:

“We’ve got to make sure we’ve got enough to catch as well as enough to eat, and we can do both in a smart way,” Bush said outside the Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum.

Larry Simns, president of the Maryland Watermen’s Association, said the initiative wasn’t needed for striped bass because they are one of the healthiest stocks of any fish on the East Coast.

“Striped bass are not in any way, shape or form, in trouble,” said Simns.

Bush’s order could put recreational anglers ahead of commercial fishing interests. Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, R-Md., described the initiative as an important measure in protecting ocean ecology.

“I think we can bridge the gap between commercial and recreational fishing, restoring the nation’s fisheries and ending overfishing,” Gilchrest said.

Bush encouraged both sides to look at the big picture, and at the $40 billion spent each year in the U.S. on sports fishing.

“The commercial fishermen and the sport fishermen don’t have to be antagonistic. It’s not a zero-sum game,” he said. “Good policy will help our commercial fishermen and good policy will help our sport fishermen.”

Bush ended his remarks with a jab at his lunch host.

“I love to fish. And the good news there’s a lot of good fishing here is because the Secret Service won’t let me go hunting with him,” the president said in a lighthearted reference to Cheney’s accidental shooting of a companion while quail hunting last year.

Analysis:

This story first appeared in the New York Times. The Grand Rapids Press’ version is slightly shorter and is based on recent research by the Minnesota School of Public Health. The sub-heading in the GR Press version says “Study shows families who dine near TV are well-fed, have good diets.” The research was printed in The Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior in October, but looking at the abstract of the article it says in the conclusions and recommendations section that “Watching television during family meals was associated with poorer dietary quality among adolescents. Health care providers should work with families and adolescents to promote family meals, emphasizing turning the TV off at meals.”

The article also states, “One study, published in The Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine in 2004, found that even after controlling for family connectedness, kids who had seven or more family meals a week were far less likely to smoke, drink alcohol or use marijuana than those who had just one or none.” Why do you think that this aspect of the story is not highlighted in the headline? The Press version of the article concludes with a comment about how TV viewing during meals might not be that bad for teenagers, but the original story ends with the importance of family meals and how parents can be good role models.

Story:

Television viewing has long been linked with poor eating habits. So when University of Minnesota researchers embarked on a study of family meals, they fully expected that having the TV on at dinner would take a toll on children’s diets.

But to their surprise, it didn’t make much difference. Families who watched TV at dinner ate just about as healthfully as families who dined without it. The biggest factor wasn’t whether the TV was on or off, but whether the family was eating the meal together.

“Obviously, we want people eating family meals, and we want them to turn the TV off,” said Shira Feldman, public health specialist at the university’s School of Public Health and lead author of the research. “But just the act of eating together is on some level very beneficial, even if the TV is on.”

The research, published this month in The Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, is the latest testament to the power of the family meal. While many parents worry about what their kids are eating — vegetables versus junk — a voluminous body of research suggests that the best strategy for improving a child’s diet is simply putting food on the table and sitting down together to eat it.

The importance of the family meal has been shown mainly in studies from the University of Minnesota, Harvard and Rutgers that have looked at family eating habits of nearly 40,000 middle-school students and teenagers. The research has shown that those who regularly have meals with their parents eat more fruits, vegetables and calcium-rich foods, ingest more vitamins and nutrients, and consume less junk food. Some of the research has shown that kids who regularly sit down to a family meal are at lower risk for behaviors like smoking and drug and alcohol use.

But as is the case with all studies that observe people over time, the big question is whether the family meal really leads to healthier habits. Could it be that kids from happier, more health-conscious families are simply more likely to sit down to a family meal?

University of Minnesota researchers have sought to answer that question by looking at “family connectedness,” which essentially measures the psychological health of a family. Children from highly connected families have been shown to eat healthier foods, get better grades and have lower risk for smoking and drug and alcohol use. But in the Minnesota research, whether the family was connected or troubled was less important than whether they regularly dined together. One study, published in The Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine in 2004, found that even after controlling for family connectedness, kids who had seven or more family meals a week were far less likely to smoke, drink alcohol or use marijuana than those who had just one or none.

In the latest study measuring the effects of television, researchers surveyed the eating habits of about 5,000 middle and high school students in Minneapolis and St. Paul. The data were collected during the 1998-99 school year but analyzed only recently. About two-thirds of the students reported that they ate dinner with their parents at least three times a week. But about half of that group said they also watched television during the family meal.

Over all, the children ate healthier foods if the television was turned off, but the differences weren’t as big as researchers expected.

The biggest effect was seen among the kids who didn’t eat regular family meals at all. Girls who dined alone ate fewer fruits, vegetables and calcium-rich foods and more soft drinks and snack foods than girls who ate with their parents. And girls who ate with their parents ate more calories — up to 14 percent more, suggesting that dining alone puts girls at higher risk for eating disorders. Boys who didn’t eat with their parents had fewer vegetables and calcium-rich foods than family diners.

The lesson for parents, say the study authors, is that being together at dinner is what counts. Having the TV on during the meal, while not desirable, can also serve a purpose if it helps bring sullen teenagers and families to the table.

Text from the original article ommitted from the Grand Rapids Press version:

Why a family meal can make such a difference isn’t entirely clear. It may be that parents simply put better food on the table when everyone gets together. People dining alone tend to eat pizza, for instance, while families who order pizza together tend to put vegetables or a salad on the table, Ms. Feldman noted.

It may also be that dining together allows parents to set a better eating example for their kids. And mealtime is often the only chance parents have to actually look over their busy teenagers, catch up on their lives and visually assess behavioral or physical changes that might signal problems.

Dr. Dianne Neumark-Sztainer, who has led much of the Minnesota research, says that when parents hear the data about the importance of the family meal, they often feel guilty if work schedules and teenagers’ extracurricular activities keep them from dining together.

The key, she said, is togetherness, not timing. A family that is scattered at the dinner hour might be able to meet regularly for breakfast instead. And even adding one or two more family meals to the week is better than nothing. “I would put the emphasis on just looking at where your family is now and seeing what you can do to improve,” Dr. Neumark-Sztainer said. “I think many people just don’t realize how important the family meal really is.”

Analysis:

This article is based upon an event held in Grand Rapids by a local chapter of the One Campaign, a campaign which aims to eliminate poverty. Grand Rapids Press religion editor, Charles Honey, wrote the story which includes comments from local people involved in the campaign. There are four people who are sourced in this article, all of which are part of the One Campaign. Some of them quote Nelson Mandela, while others cite U2 singer Bono as the inspiration for their involvement. One of the sources does cite the United Nations Milllennium Goals as a plan to end extreme poverty world wide, but nowhere in this story do any of the sources, nor the Press write bother to ask why there are so many people living in poverty around the globe. The only information on what actions the group will take is on an attempt by the group to get the US Congress to restore “$2.2 billion in US foreign aid.”

This story is the feature story in the religion section, so why do you think the journalist never bothered to ask people who are involved in the One Campaign how they are going to end poverty? Why do you think there were no perspectives presented that were critical of this campaign?

Story:

As a boy growing up in Senegal, Africa, Mark Terpstra saw the face of poverty in his friends.

They were the ones he played soccer and hunted rabbits with, and who constantly asked him for stuff: a shirt, shorts, soccer shoes.

Terpstra, the son of missionaries, sometimes obliged. But he always felt the gap between him and them.

“I’m well-fed and well-clothed,” Terpstra, 31, recalled of those days in the 1980s. “I’m running with friends that probably didn’t have a great meal that day, wearing the same clothes every day and playing soccer barefoot. I was aware of their situation, but I didn’t feel like I could do much about it.”

Now, Terpstra knows he can do something, and he is doing it.

It’s called the ONE Campaign — the effort talked up by Bono, lead singer of U2 and global anti-poverty activist. Its name has become increasingly visible on white wristbands.
But what is ONE, exactly? To Terpstra and others in West Michigan, it just may be the way to change the world.

“It’s very possible to end extreme poverty,” said Terpstra, a soft-spoken marketing strategist for the Cull Group of Grand Rapids. “It’s not just some pie-in-the-sky objective the U.N. threw out there.”

He referred to the Millennium Development Goals, a pledge by 189 countries to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015.

Terpstra believes in that goal and more. Thus, he has organized a small West Michigan contingent of ONE supporters he hopes will spread to campuses, churches and corporations.

He led a gathering this week at the Urban Mill coffeehouse, where supporters joined in a global Stand Up and Speak Out against poverty event. Last year, a world-record 23.5 million stood up for the cause in more than 100 countries, organizers say.

The event drew a mix of college students, members from churches such as Mars Hill and Ada Community Reformed, and workers from corporations such as Alticor and Spectrum Health.

They listened attentively as Terpstra rattled off poverty statistics and quoted Nelson Mandela: “Like slavery and apartheid, poverty is not natural.”

Then, they stood as Terpstra read, “We stand here proudly. We are the generation that intends to defeat extreme poverty.”

Among those standing was Cathy Dopp, a single mother from Allegan. Although the ONE Campaign is populated with movie stars such as Ben Affleck and Gwyneth Paltrow, Dopp said you don’t have to be a Hollywood celeb to make a difference.

“Even though I don’t have much time, I don’t have much money, (I) can still make a big impact,” said Dopp, 46, a member of the Without Walls Vineyard church in Holland. She calls the campaign “one of the most exciting things I’ve ever been a part of.

“I have no idea how to sell somebody Christianity, but I do know how to roll up my sleeves and say, ‘We can help people,'” Dopp said.

From her home, where she runs a software development company, Dopp spreads the word about ONE and takes action as she can. Last spring, she called U.S. Sens. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow to urge a restoration of $2.2 billion in U.S. foreign aid.

She firmly believes ONE can change the world one phone call, one person at a time.

“It’s not just a warm, fuzzy, we-can-save-people plan,” she said. “It’s so ridiculously feasible. We’ve got to tell more people.”

Add her voice to the chorus calling for an end to poverty, hunger and disease. In this choir, Bono has become the lead singer.

The charismatic rock star brought his clarion call to the Economic Club of Grand Rapids in 2006. He challenged listeners to halt the “completely avoidable catastrophe” of 150,000 African lives lost each month to AIDS and poverty.

Five years ago, Bono teamed with Bobby Shriver, nephew of John F. Kennedy, and other activists to form DATA, an advocacy group fighting poverty and AIDS in Africa. From that grew related efforts including (RED), a partnership with corporations that earmarks a portion of purchases for poverty relief, and the EDUN high-fashion clothing line produced in developing countries.

With support from DATA and other anti-poverty groups, ONE was born in 2004. The campaign Web site calls on “Americans of all beliefs and every walk of life — united as ONE — to help make poverty history.”

ONE aims to do that through old-fashioned grassroots lobbying. It urges supporters to push legislators for an additional 1 percent of the federal budget allocated to foreign aid. ONE wrist bands and T-shirts are sold as walking fashion statements for the cause.

Getting with the program

In West Michigan, the cause attracts everyone from a diehard Bono fan to the head of an international relief agency.

Andrew Ryskamp sports a ONE wrist band in his offices at the Christian Reformed World Relief Committee, a partner in the ONE campaign. Ryskamp’s church, Madison Square CRC, also took part in Wednesday night’s stand-up event.

He recently returned from meetings in Asia as U.S. representative of the Micah Challenge, a Christian corollary to the ONE Campaign. The Micah Challenge urges churches worldwide to pressure their governments to meet the U.N.’s Millennium Development Goals.

Ryskamp said if the U.S. spent more on overseas development it wouldn’t need to spend as much on the military.

For Christians, fighting poverty is “a matter of biblical justice,” he added.

“As long as we have the kind of wealth that we do, and there are more than 1 billion people living on less than a dollar a day, there’s a screaming need for us to be part of setting those captives free,” Ryskamp said.

U2’s influence

Bill Bode sees the need, and he credits Bono for helping him believe he can make a difference.

The former radio executive turned children’s minister at Wesley Park United Methodist Church responded to Bono’s challenge to join ONE at a U2 concert in Detroit.

“He just puts it out there: ‘We’re looking at the generation that could put (poverty) away,’ ” said Bode, 51.

“Just that statement makes you think, ‘Yeah, why not?’ “

Bode does his part by organizing U2charist, a Eucharist service using U2 songs. He organized one in May at Wesley Park and sent a portion of the offering to Bread for the World, a ONE partner.

Future events will be posted at u2charistgr.org.

Back at the Urban Mill, where Mark Terpstra often does ONE tasks before work, the U2 song “Where the Streets Have No Name” played as Terpstra recalled his father bringing truckloads of rice to their hungry Senegal village.

That kind of generosity taught Terpstra how his Christian faith should guide his actions.

“You can’t just go in and say Jesus is the answer when they’re not eating, they don’t have medicine, and the baby is sick,” said Terpstra, of Whitehall, a member of Whitehall Covenant Church.

He spent his first 15 years in the West African country, where his parents, Jim and Jan, were missionaries for New Tribes Mission.

The Wyoming natives translated biblical verses into the Balanta language as they formed a church in a small farming village.

Terpstra remembers villagers coming to the house for tin cans. He also remembers enduring yearly bouts of malaria, delirious with fever but saved by medicine from a disease that kills 3 million children a year.

The contrast with America sickens him.

“Extreme poverty is ridiculous,” he said. “You have children dying of preventable diseases.

“If you talked about that in the context of West Michigan, that would be laughable.”

After coming to the U.S. and studying at DePaul University, Terpstra returned to Senegal to help villagers set up used-clothing shops.

He got some businesses going but lacked the capital to continue. But he never forgot the poverty of his boyhood home. When he found out about ONE, he knew it was his chance to do something about it.

“They’re not trying to raise money from you,” he stressed. “They just want your voice.”

He has taken the lead in pushing West Michigan to get involved in ONE activities, such as this week’s Global Day of Action Against Poverty. Members were urged to lobby Congress to support new debt-forgiveness legislation.

It starts small: a Yahoo group of 70-some supporters, a stand-up rally in a coffeehouse.

But Terpstra believes area residents can do their part to make poverty history.

“Everyone knows extreme poverty is an issue,” he said. “That’s the challenge — how to engage anyone and everyone to care about it.”

Analysis:

This story is based upon recent data on campaign contributions to GOP and Democratic Presidential candidates from residents of West Michigan. The only person cited in the story is a woman from East Grand Rapids who gave the maximum allowed for an individial to the Obama campaign. The story does provide numbers for donations to both major parties, but does it appear to give more details on the people who donated to GOP candidates? The story ends with a short comparison to how candidates have raised money nationally. There is nothing in the story about candidate platforms or voting records and no mention of candidates who haven’t received much money from West Michigan. Should the media only report on candidates when they have raised a certain amount of money?

Story:

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani continues to lead national polls for the Republican presidential race.

But in the West Michigan Republican fundraising contest, he is a poor third to Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

McCain leads in the race for cash, having raised $108,350 through Aug. 30 in Grand Rapids-area ZIP codes. That compares with $41,425 for Romney and $22,800 for Giuliani in the same area, according to federal totals reported this week.

On the Democratic side, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama tromped Hillary Clinton in local fundraising, raising more than $86,000 in the Grand Rapids area, compared to $9,600 for the New York senator.

The total is all the more surprising because it looks as if Michigan will not have a Democratic primary Jan. 15. Obama and several other candidates heeded threats from the national party that the contest would not count because its early date violates party rules.

East Grand Rapids resident Beverly Verdier, 46, was among more than 100 contributors to the Obama campaign in the Grand Rapids area, donating the maximum individual contribution of $2,300.

“This is my first time ever,” Verdier said. “I am just so passionate about Barack Obama that I felt I wanted to contribute to this. I think he is one of the few candidates that can bring both parties together.”

Statewide, Romney leads GOP fundraising with nearly $1.9 million, compared to nearly $950,000 for McCain and nearly $455,000 for Giuliani. The bulk of Romney’s cash comes from donors in southeast Michigan.

Clinton raised more than $608,000 in Michigan, to $514,000 for Obama and $294,000 for former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

Upstart GOP hopeful Fred Thompson, the former senator from Tennessee, raised just less than $38,000 from the state, and $1,000 from the same West Michigan ZIP codes.
McCain’s campaign has been struggling financially, as he tries to recover from a stumbling start.

Romney’s local donors include Van Andel Research Institute executive Steven Heacock, who donated $1,000; charter school magnate J.C. Huizenga, who gave $2,300; and David Frey, co-chairman of Grand Action, who contributed $2,100.

Giuliani’s local contributors include businessman Peter Renucci, who gave $500; Jeanne Englehart, president of the Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce, who gave $250; and Mark Bissell, president of Bissell Inc., who gave $250.

The national picture tells a different story.

Clinton had a total of $50.5 million in the bank as of Sept. 30, with Obama second with $36.1 million. Giuliani had $16.6 million, Romney $9.2 million and McCain $3.5 million.
But McCain had only $1.6 million in cash for the primaries and $1.7 million in debts, putting his campaign in the red.

Analysis:

This Associated Press story in the Grand Rapids Press is the most recent in the ongoing “peace talks” news coverage. If the story is about the possibilities of peace between Israel and Palestine, why does the headline refer only to an Israeli leader? In the second paragraph it states that “Everyone remembers the steep price paid for the failure of the last round of peacemaking in 2001: thousands killed in years of Israeli-Palestinian fighting that broke out months after the talks fell apart.” This statement suggests that there has been similar numbers of deaths between Israelis and Palestinians. According to the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem, there have been many more Palestinians killed since 2001 than Israelis. In the third paragraph the article refers to the Israeli war in Lebanon last year as a “debacle” and the US war in Iraq as Bush’s “troubles.” Do these terms honestly reflect was happened and is happening in those two countries?

The only sources cited in the story are those of a Palestinian negotiator and US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. Rice is cited the longest and is presented as the “peace broker” and presents a negotiation betwwen Israel and Palestine as good for “American interests.” The article never clarifies what American interests in this case might be. Does this article provide enough context for readers to make sense of what is at issue? After reading the section of the original AP story that was omitted in the GR Press version, would readers have a better understanding of what both the Israelis and the Palestinians are asking for in the current “peace talks?”

Story:

Israel keeps building settlements, Islamic militants are in control in Gaza and both the Israelis and the Palestinians have politically vulnerable leaders. All that will make it difficult to implement an agreement even if the two sides agree on a path to peace at a summit next month.

Weighing heavily on the U.S.-brokered summit is memory. Everyone remembers the steep price paid for the failure of the last round of peacemaking in 2001: thousands killed in years of Israeli-Palestinian fighting that broke out months after the talks fell apart.

This time, all the key players are eager to find something to show for themselves: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in his showdown with the militants of Hamas, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to save himself from the debacle of last year’s war in Lebanon and President Bush to offset his troubles in Iraq.

Olmert told a parliamentary committee last week that if Israel can’t make peace with the Palestinians’ current moderate leadership _ President Abbas and U.S.-educated Prime Minister Salam Fayyad _ it won’t be able to do it with anyone.

The Israeli leader said missing this opportunity will lead to killing for many years to come.

The sense of urgency was evident Monday during a fresh round of shuttle diplomacy by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Shortly after she met with Abbas in the West Bank, Palestinian negotiators rushed to Jerusalem for an impromptu round of talks with their Israeli counterparts. Then Olmert, in a speech, suggested for the first time that Israel might give up some Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem.

The chief Palestinian negotiator, Ahmed Qureia, had set an upbeat tone last week, telling The Associated Press: “I feel that there is a kind of new page that has been opened. There is trust building again.”

But the challenges are enormous, topped as ever by the same two issues: violence and settlements.

Israel is unlikely to undertake the gargantuan task of uprooting tens of thousands of settlers from the West Bank unless Palestinian leaders guarantee the vacated territory won’t become a launching ground for attacks _ as happened after Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005.

Palestinians say Israel is jeopardizing the chances by expanding West Bank settlements, seizing more land for a West Bank road project and building a massive separation barrier that juts into territory Palestinians want for a future state.

Rice didn’t mention those moves specifically during a news conference Monday, but clearly this is what she was talking about when she called on the parties to “avoid any steps that would undermine confidence.”

In some of her most forceful comments to date, Rice said “it’s time for the creation of a Palestinian state,” and that the U.S. sees this “as essential for the future, not just of Palestinians and Israelis but also for the Middle East and indeed to American interests.”

Text from the original article ommitted from the Grand Rapids Press version:

Rice is attempting to bridge wide divisions that have emerged over drafting a joint declaration ahead of November’s conference in Annapolis, Md. The Palestinians want a fairly specific framework agreement addressing the so-called “core” issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the borders of a future Palestinian state, the status of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees. Palestinian leaders fear that a lack of substance will be exploited by the Hamas militants who seized violent control of the Gaza Strip four months ago and refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Olmert, on the other hand, is pushing for a vague statement that will leave the big questions open. Aides say he has no interest in having Abbas go home empty-handed, but at the same time fears conceding too much too soon could drown the whole process in domestic opposition.

Olmert’s problems are worsened by multiple investigations of alleged corruption _ the latest announced on Sunday to probe allegations he did political favors for friends while serving as trade minister.

The Palestinians want the joint declaration to set a timetable for creating a Palestinian state. The Israelis want no deadline _ a position supported by the U.S.

It’s far from clear whether a peace deal could be forged with Hamas ruling Gaza and Abbas’ forces in control of only the West Bank. But moderates on both sides have been through enough negotiations to know what a peace deal would look like, including land swaps and a delicate power-sharing arrangement for Jerusalem.

What they don’t know is how the rest of the Arab world will react _ particularly Saudi Arabia, whose wealth and political clout could do much to buttress a peace deal, especially if it chooses to attend the Annapolis summit.

Analysis:

This article is based upon a talk given by former Secretary of State James Baker, who was the featured speaker at the Annual meeting of the World Affairs Council of Western Michigan. Baker’s talked focused on Iraq. Does the first sentence of the Press story imply that Baker was critical of the current US war in Iraq? The only thing in the story that support a critical position by Baker was that he wrote an op-ed in 2002 in the New York Times “issuing caution about a military attack against Iraq.”

The story also mentions that Baker “co-chaired the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel that in December 2006 called for withdrawal of most U.S. combat troops by early 2008.” The Press writer does not substantiate this claim that the study called for a withdrawal of most US combat troops by 2008. The Iraq Study Group report does advocate for an ongoing US occupation of Iraq and says nothing about dismantling the US military bases that are throughout Iraq. The Press story also does not mention James Baker’s role with the Carlyle Group, which Baker had to cut ties with in order to be on the Iraq Study Group. The Carlyle group was representing the government of Kuwait, which was seeking payments from Iraq from the 1990 invasion, and Baker was a lawyer with the Carlyle Group at the time. This conflict of interest was only discovered after journalist Naomi Klein’s story in the Nation magazine.

The article ends with Baker responding to how Bush would be judged as a President and Baker says “it could be a good one, provided Iraq turns out OK. And it still can.” What do you think baker means by Iraq turning out OK?

Story:

If not a direct critique of the Iraq War, former Secretary of State James Baker’s message sounded suspiciously like a cautionary tale of foreign policy gone wrong.

Baker repeatedly warned Monday against reliance on military solutions to complex foreign policy problems and the dangers of going it alone abroad. They have been central criticisms of the handling of the Iraq war by President Bush.

“Iraq is a very good example of the limits of military strength,” Baker said in his appearance in DeVos Place before the World Affairs Council of Western Michigan.

Baker co-chaired the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel that in December 2006 called for withdrawal of most U.S. combat troops by early 2008. It also advocated direct talks with Iraq and Syria as part of a “diplomatic offensive.”

Baker noted that World War I, World War II and the Cold War were won by coalitions. The 1991 Gulf War was fought by a broad coalition that included the United Kingdom, France and many Arab nations with significant financial contributions from the Persian Gulf states, Baker said.

The vast majority of troops in Iraq — once called the “coalition of the willing” — are American, with the United Kingdom on track to reduce its force there to 2,500.

Noting the threats from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, Baker again said: “It is evident that military action alone cannot be the sole solution.”

As he laid out a series of maxims that combine idealism and pragmatism, Baker added that policy makers have to be willing to shift course when it becomes clear a strategy is not working.

“When events change, we must be prepared to change with them,” he said.

Baker, 77, served as chief of staff and treasury secretary for President Ronald Reagan. He was secretary of state under President George H.W. Bush from 1989 through 1992, earning credit for helping forge coalition of nations fighting Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

In 2002, Baker warned President George W. Bush not to “go it alone” against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Writing on the op-ed page of the New York Times, Baker joined another member of the first Bush administration, former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft in issuing caution about a military attack against Iraq.

In Monday’s speech, Baker said domestic support is “vital” to success in foreign wars, without noting that nearly 60 percent of Americans now believe the Iraq war is not worth fighting.

Still, Baker said it would be a mistake to assume Bush will be judged a failure by history.

Asked what Bush’s legacy might be, Baker said it could be a good one, “provided Iraq turns out OK. And it still can.”