Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy

Analysis:

This story is based upon a recent announcement that Vice President Cheney is coming to Grand Rapids as part of the Bush administration’s strategy to gain support for their Iraq policy. What does the headline communicate to readers? Does it imply that Grand Rapids is pro-administration, pro-Cheney, pro-War, or that the event will have only Bush administration supporters in the audience? The story is framed early on that Cheney is coming to Grand Rapids to promote the administration’s Iraq policy based on the recommendations of General Patraeus. The article then quickly mentions that this is the third time that Bush or Cheney has been to West Michigan in the past year, with a quote from Cheney and Bush from each trip. The Press reporter cites Lansing based political analyst Bill Ballenger who speculates on why Cheney is coming to West Michigan. Readers should ask themselves why so much space was devoted to speculation on the administration’s recent visits to the area. It is interesting that there is no mention that in the past two visits that there has been public opposition to the adminsitration’s Iraq policy, particularly when Bush was in East Grand Rapids in April of 2007. The Press reporter instead has comments from the Ford Museum and Gerald Ford Foundation about how the audience will be “a mixture of people,” despite the fact that there is no mention of how people were selected to attend the Cheney speech.

The article then shifts its focus to the Iraq policy and frames it as an attempt by the Bush administration to counter the Democratic Party’s proposal on Iraq as it relates to Troop withdrawal, even though not much is said about the proposal other than it was “for a bigger and more rapid troop withdrawal.” The article then mentions the lack of public support for the war and the surge and cites an Associated Press poll that supports the idea that many Americans are against the Us Occupation of Iraq. However, the article doesn’t mention what question those polled were asked.

The last section of the article cites Congressman Ehlers position on this issue who agrees with General Patraeus’ assessment and seems to blame the Iraqi government, by stating “It appears the bigger problem is getting the Iraqi government to cooperate.” The article provides no dissenting opinions on the Iraq policy and never mentions what the Iraqi people’s perspective is on the ongoing occupation.

Story:

Grand Rapids – As the political battle over troops in Iraq intensifies, it may be no accident Vice President Dick Cheney will stop in West Michigan to state the case for war.

Cheney is scheduled to deliver a policy speech on iraq Friday morning at Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum, an address museum Deputy Director Jim Kratsas called a “great honor” to host.

It marks the third West Michigan speech in less than a year by Bush or Cheney on the Iraq war.

The Cheney visit will follow a Thursday prime time address by Bush in which he is expected to endorse the recommendations of his top general and top diplomat in Iraq, reducing the American troop presence by as many as 30,000 by next summer but conditioning those and further cuts on continued progress.

In September 2006, Cheney urged commitment to the war before a gathering of Guard and Reserve troops and their families at Wyoming’s Grand Valley Armory.

In that speech, he called Iraq “the central front in the war on terror.”

In April, President Bush spoke at East Grand Rapids High School as he laid out the tactics behind the “surge” strategy he asserts will turn the tide of war in Iraq.

One analyst said the region’s conservative traditions provide a predictable–and supportive—platform for such appearances.

“He could go anywhere in the United States, and he’s picking Grand Rapids again,” said Lansing political analyst Bill Ballenger. “Obviously (he and Bush) feel very comfortable in West Michigan and feel comfortable coming again and gain.”

Ballenger speculated Cheney might be drawn to the museum because of his service as President Ford’s chief of staff. Cheney was deputy assistant to Ford and his chief of staff from November 1975 to the end of his term in January 1977.

“I think Cheney has this very personal connection with Grand Rapids because of Ford,” Ballenger said.

Museum deputy director Kratsas was scrambling to make sure everything is in place by Friday. Cheney will speak to an invited audience of about 200 in the museum’s auditorium.

“If it’s a policy speech, naturally it’s a national event,” Kratsas said.

Martin Allen, chairman emeritus of the Gerald R. Ford Foundation, said Cheney’s audience will include a cross-section of the community. Allen did not say how participants were selected.

“It’s a mixture of people from different walks of life, military, some school teachers, students, business people,” Allen said.

Bush officials are making a major push this week for support of his war strategy, even as Democratic members of Congress press for a bigger and more rapid troop withdrawal than what Bush has proposed.

According to an Associated Press report, Bush will call for withdrawal of 30,000 troops next summer if conditions permit, echoing recommendations by Gen. David Petraeus.

That still would leave 130,000 troops in Iraq, with no clear sign from the administration how long they would remain.

The political infighting comes against the backdrop of dwindling public support for the war.

An associated Press poll released Tuesday found that 59 percent believe the war will be judged a complete or partial failure. Nearly 60 percent rate the recent troop increase a failure.

As it approaches the end of its fifth year, the war looms as the dominant issue in the 2008 race for the White House and control of congress.

U.S. Rep. Vernon Ehlers, R-Grand Rapids, said Cheney likely will expand on the remarks of Petraeus, who maintained before a skeptical Capitol Hill audience that conditions are improving in Iraq.

Petraeus told members of the House and Senate that the counterinsurgency tactics applied in the past few months are yielding dividends.

But neither he nor Iraq Ambassador Ryan Crocker could tell members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday when Iraq might achieve political stability.

“Neither believe we can see beyond next summer,” Ehlers said.

Ehlers conceded that even if security conditions are improving – a point many critics of the administration’s policy do not concede – the Iraq government has yet to achieve significant political reconciliation.

“It appears the bigger problem is getting the Iraqi government to cooperate,” Ehlers said.

Analysis:

This story is based upon a lecture sponsored by the World Affairs Council of Western Michigan. The speaker was Patrick Moore, formerly with Greenpeace, and now with the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, a front group of the Nuclear Energy Institute. The first half of the article focuses on why Moore now thinks he was wrong about being anti-nuclear when he was with Greenpeace, but the story doesn’t present when and why he shifted his politics. According to the Center for Media and Democracy Moore “established a consultancy business, Greenspirit Enterprises, focusing on environmental policy and communications in natural resources, biodiversity, energy and climate change.” Moore has represented the logging, mining, plastics and nuclear energy industries, but the article only mentions his connection to the nuclear industry.

The rest of the story has Moore defending nuclear power as a way to deal with future energy needs. Moore also dismisses the scientific community’s concerns about global warming by saying it is a “herd mentality.” The reporter doesn’t question such a comment, nor provide any documentation that would support the credibility of the scientific community’s concern on global warming. Moore is also cited as saying that the “Three Mile Island disaster did not injure anyone and the Chernobyl disaster was a result of the Soviets cutting corners on safety and was an accident waiting to happen.” The Press reporter does not verify Moore’s claims and does not provide any other perspective on this issue. The article ends by stating that this lecture will be broadcast on C-SPAN and that it was sponsored by DTE Energy. Do readers think that a lecture sponsored by a major private power company in any way made sure that the content of the speaker’s presentation would support the institutional existence of that company?

Story:

For Patrick Moore, the key to a sustainable energy future is nuclear.

Moore is a founding member of Greenpeace and began his talk Tuesday before the World Affairs Council at Aquinas College by showing pictures of himself from his activist days: with wild, frizzy hair, sitting atop a baby seal to protect it from being clubbed to death, with his compatriots in front of a Greenpeace flag.

Back then, he protested nuclear weapons testing and nuclear energy.

He broke with Greenpeace in 1986 and Tuesday addressed more than 50 people in the Donnelly Conference Center as co-chairman of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which is supported by the Nuclear Energy Institute.

He’s now unapologetic about his support of nuclear energy to provide for the world’s power needs.

As for his change from anti-nuke protester back in the 1970s, he said: “We were wrong.”

In an interview before his address, Moore said he was caught up in the anti-nuclear movement.

“I believe we made a mistake in not differentiating and distinguishing between the beneficial and destructive uses of the technology,” he said.

Though in his speech, Moore questioned whether human beings are wholly responsible for global climate change — he likened consensus in the scientific community on that point as “herd mentality.” He said there are good reasons to reduce fossil fuel consumption, such as decreasing air pollution and dependence on foreign oil.

Moore discussed other renewable energy sources, lauding in particular a technology called a ground source heat pump, which draws geothermal energy from the ground, as opposed to solar panels. But he said renewable energy sources cannot do the job alone.

“The correct path forward is to replace fossil fuels with a combination of renewables plus nuclear, that gives us an actual chance to make a dent in the amount of fossil fuels being consumed in the world,” he said.

He said the environmental movement itself impedes reduction of fossil fuel use by such opposing technologies as nuclear energy and hydroelectric power.

“If we would only accept the fact that nuclear energy is the key, along with other renewables, to reducing fossil fuel consumption, a lot of things would start to fall into place,” he said.

Moore asserted that nuclear energy is safe and non-polluting. The infamous Three Mile Island disaster did not injure anyone, he said. And the Chernobyl disaster was a result of the Soviets cutting corners on safety and was “an accident waiting to happen.”

But even Chernobyl had only 60 deaths directly attributable to the disaster, Moore said, citing a United Nations report.

Moore said a study of 54,000 nuclear workers showed they have a lower incidence of cancer and disease than the general population.

Nuclear weapon proliferation is a concern, but Moore said we should not ban all nuclear technology because it can be used as a weapon.

The speech, which will be broadcast by C-SPAN, was sponsored by DTE Energy.

Analysis:

This story is based on the upcoming report from US Military Commander in Iraq, General Patraeus, to the White House and Congress about the status of the so-called surge. There are several sources cited in the story, Bush Patraeus, and at least two anonymous sources. The story begins with Bush expressing confidence in Patraeus and that is followed by a recent New Yourk Times/CBS poll on public confidence on US government vs US Military ability to “bring a successful end to the war in Iraq.”

The story is just a day before the General’s report and lists the three major points: that the surge is beginning to succeed, the central government in Baghdad has failed, and the consequences of US troop withdrawal would be catastrophic. There is nothing in story to verify these claims and every comment made after this summary of the report are from anonymous sources. One of Pataeus’s staff said a hasty withdrawal could produce “a failed state in the middle of Iran and Syria and Saudi Arabia, where you’d have huge problems getting oil to the world market, where you’d potentially have a humanitarian disaster,” a statement he made to the right wing think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations. The article provides no dissenting perspectives on this issue, not even the Government Accounting Office’s report on Iraq, which claims that most of the benchmarks have not been met.

Story:

Ever since last spring, President Bush has publicly staked the future of his strategy in Iraq on a series of briefings that an Army general will deliver to Congress today and Tuesday — the long-awaited report by Gen. David H. Petraeus on the state of the war.

“Why don’t you wait and see what [Petraeus] says?” Bush pleaded with Congress in May. “Fund the troops, and let him come back and report to the American people.”

Bush’s reasoning, aides said, was simple: An assessment of the war from Petraeus, a widely admired officer, was likely to enjoy more credibility with Congress and the public than anything the president could say. Aides knew, as well, that Petraeus was likely to support Bush’s strategy in Iraq — because the general himself was one of the architects of the yearlong “surge” of additional troops to try to stabilize Baghdad and other areas.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the briefing room. Petraeus’ report may not have as much impact as the White House hoped, because his message has already been widely anticipated — and even previewed by Petraeus himself.

“The surge will run its course,” Petraeus told ABC News last week, forecasting a gradual drawdown of some of the estimated 162,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. “There are limits to what our military can provide, so my recommendations have to be informed … by the strain we have put on our military services.”

Officials have said they expect Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker to make three major points: The surge is beginning to succeed, but it is too soon to withdraw significant numbers of troops; the central government in Baghdad has failed to meet the administration’s political goals, but there are signs of progress at the local level; and, finally, the consequences of a too-hasty withdrawal would be catastrophic.

Administration officials expect Petraeus to report that the initial phase of the surge has improved security in Baghdad, in Anbar province to the west, and Diyala province to the northeast. He is likely to announce that U.S. forces can reduce their presence in Anbar and Diyala, but not yet in Baghdad.

Petraeus does not intend to deliver a specific recommendation to Congress on how soon and how far to reduce troop levels; that will be up to Bush, who is expected to announce a decision this week. Officials have said that Petraeus and his aides have been considering the possibility of a nominal drawdown of a few thousand troops around the end of the year, but that the general does not want to reduce his force by significant numbers until absolutely necessary.

Petraeus “wants to keep as much force on the ground as we possibly can, for as long as we possibly can,” said one administration official. Instead of withdrawing troops, Petraeus has recommended relocating troops from Anbar and Diyala to Baghdad or another hot spot. Or they could be sent to Kuwait to create a reserve U.S. force.

A military official in Baghdad said that while the forces will be rearranged, he does not expect a major drawdown until the surge forces begin to leave in March or April of 2008.

“Why take a chance of losing the gains we have made?” the official said.

In his remarks to Congress, Petraeus is expected to emphasize the problems large troop withdrawals would create.

A hasty withdrawal could produce “a failed state in the middle of Iran and Syria and Saudi Arabia, where you’d have huge problems getting oil to the world market, where you’d potentially have a humanitarian disaster,” Army Col. Michael J. Meese, an adviser to Petraeus, told the Council on Foreign Relations last week.

“Do not think if we pull out that it will not be horrible. If you don’t like Darfur, you won’t like Baghdad,” another officer said.

Administration officials expect Petraeus to recommend, in either his public or private remarks, that U.S. forces can be removed from the areas where the Iraqi force has the strong leadership or long-standing partnerships with U.S. leaders that allow it to undertake operations independently.

“We have already made some decisions out there in areas where success has occurred,” said a senior military official.

But military officers close to Petraeus believe he will avoid making precise predictions of when the Iraqi army will be able to take over, arguing that such predictions in the past have always failed to materialize and have eroded the credibility of U.S. commanders.

Administration officials have pointed to reductions in attacks and killings, but congressional critics regard the figures as unreliable. Petraeus is expected to point to statistics as indications of improvements, but will be careful not to overstate their importance, Meese said.

On the political front, Petraeus is expected to talk about the success U.S. forces have met in working with formerly anti-American insurgents in the Sunni Muslim communities of Anbar province. Officials say the administration hopes to try the same strategy in other parts of Iraq, including those now dominated by Shiite Muslim militias.

But officials also acknowledge that political progress has been piecemeal and slow. Petraeus and Crocker are expected to de-emphasize the likelihood of a national reconciliation and instead talk about the importance of smaller steps of local “accommodation” first, one official said.

The Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which Petraeus will address Tuesday, said Sunday the general is “dead flat wrong” for warning against making major changes.

Sen. Joseph Biden indicated that he and other Democrats would persist in efforts to set target dates for bringing troops home.

“The reality is that, although there has been some mild progress on the security front, there is, in fact, no real security in Baghdad or Anbar province, where I was dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence,” said Biden, a 2008 presidential candidate who recently returned from Iraq.

Biden, signaling that tough questioning awaits Petraeus and Crocker from majority Democrats and moderate Republicans, said Petraeus’ assessment missed the point. Biden, D-Del., said focusing on a political solution, such as by creating more local control, is the only way to foster reconciliation among warring factions.

“I really respect him, and I think he’s dead flat wrong,” Biden said.

Biden contended that Bush’s main strategy was to buy time and extend the presence in Iraq long enough to push the burden onto the next president, who takes office in January 2009, to fix the sectarian strife.

“This president has no plan — how to win and/or how to leave,” Biden said.

Stressing that a political solution was the key, he said, “I will insist on a firm beginning to withdraw the troops and I will insist on a target date to get American combat forces out,” except for those necessary to protect U.S. civilians and fight al-Qaida.

Recommendations by Petraeus and Crocker follow a series of reports that have given bleak assessments of the situation in Iraq but offered no quick solutions.

Over the weekend, the U.S. Institute of Peace, a congressionally funded think tank, issued a report recommending U.S. troops in Iraq be cut by half in three years and removed within five years. The report was based on recommendations by many experts who advised the Iraq Study Group, a White House-backed commission that recommended a change in strategy last December.

Analysis:

This guest column by State Representative Agema is just days after he held a public hearing. Agema makes similar claims in this column that he did at that public hearing, such as “taxpayer dollars are being used to subsidize illegal aliens” and other Midwest states have gone to a system where a Medicaid applicant must prove citizenship before receiving assistance.” In both cases Agema does not provide any sources to verify his claims. The final section of the guest column piece provides a summary of the speakers at the public hearing and says “We were successful in our mission to conduct a frank discussion in ways that we can end the unnecessary burden of illegal immigrants on our state.” Unfortunately, Agema’s column does not provide any background on any of the speakers, nor the fact that most people who attended were pro-immigrant and were only given the final 10 minutes of the hearing to speak.

Story:

By Rep. David Agema

Special To The Press

For several months now, alarm bells in Lansing have been ringing uncontrollably as we are warned of the state’s impending financial collapse should we fail to balance our budget and keep the cost of doing state business down.

Unfortunately, many in Lansing are only willing to pay lip service to the problem rather than finding solutions to it. I choose to focus on the concerns of the taxpayers from the 74th district and their agenda, rather than the Lansing agenda of raising taxes and partisan bickering.

For this reason, I am happy to join other Republicans in support of the Taxpayer’s Agenda. An important part of this Taxpayer’s Agenda is the creation of several task forces to address the issues that many in Lansing choose to neglect.

I am excited to be a member of the Border Security and Immigration Reform, which focuses on homeland security and seeks ways to limit the negative impact that illegal immigration has on Michigan’s economy.

Taxpayer dollars are being used to subsidize illegal aliens in this state, and state programs are the vehicle that allows this. Medicaid costs have been increasing by millions annually, and the last thing we need is the added cost of care for people who should not be here in the first place.

Other Midwest states have gone to a system where a Medicaid applicant must prove their citizenship before receiving assistance. After doing so, those states have seen a 5 percent reduction in Medicaid expenditures. If Michigan were to implement a similar program and achieve similar results, we could see a drastic decrease in Medicaid spending totaling roughly $125 million.

Illegal immigrants who go to hospitals for emergency care rarely have the means to pay for their care. However, due to current laws, hospitals are not allowed to deny treatment based on inability to pay. As a result, the hospitals must count this “free” care as a loss, therefore passing the cost of this care onto other paying customers.

Spectrum Health incurred charges of more than $700,000 last year alone on illegal immigrant health care, and they expect that figure to increase this year.

Michigan’s employment environment is also polluted with illegal immigrants. In fact, there have been several instances in which new projects have been hijacked by illegal immigrant workers. In the Thumb area of Michigan, the Harvest Wind Farm project so highly touted by Gov. Jennifer Granholm was being staffed by a contractor who hires not only out of state workers, but employs illegal immigrants as well.

After first chiding the Republicans for forming the Immigration and Homeland Security Task Force, the Democrats have recently introduced legislation embracing some of our ideas. However, their half-hearted attempts don’t stand up under scrutiny.

Although they say they want to punish employers who hire illegals, they would only do so by canceling state contracts with these companies and requiring them to pay back incentives. No other punitive action would be taken. This is unacceptable.

The latest task force hearing held in Jenison focused on homeland security threats that Michigan is now plagued with because of illegal immigration. Testimony included representatives from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Ottawa County Sheriffs, 9/11 families for a more secure America; and Jon DeWitte from Congressman Peter Hoekstra’s office.

The discussion centered on of law enforcement personnel, security officials and other concerned community members. We were successful in our mission to conduct a frank discussion in ways that we can end the unnecessary burden of illegal immigrants on our state.

As my colleagues and I travel the state we look forward to hearing ideas from a diverse background.

— Rep. David Agema represents the 74th House District. He lives in Grandville.

Analysis:

This article is attributed GR Press business reporter Rick Haglund and utilizes data from the US Census Bureau on the gap between the average US wage worker and US CEO. Does the Headline seem to frame the story in a biased fashion? The first source cited in the story in the Economic Policy Institute, considered to be a left of center think tank, followed by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Both of these sources are critical of the income gap between workers and CEOs.

The article then cites what are referred to as “conservative and business related groups” that present a positive spin on the wage gap. The National Association of Manufactureres and the American Enterprise Institute are the two national groups cited. The article states that “Gallup polls for the American Enterprise Institute found that 43 percent of all workers last year were “completely satisfied” with their jobs,” but the story doesn’t provide any details on how the question was posed to workers. The article also cites a Michigan based think tank, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy which makes claims about Michigan’s economy. The reporter does not verify those claims, but does provide some oppositional information in the last paragraph that is not sourced. Was it clear from the article why there is a substantial gap between workers wages and CEOs? Did any of the sources cited help answer that question that was posed by the story at the very beginning? According to the annual report by a United for a Fair Economy the CEO/worker wage disparity is actually 364 times, not the 262 times number that was cited in the Press story. Why do you think these numbers are not the same? Unlike the Press article the United for a Fair Economy provides details on the CEO/Worker differences in their lengthy report, unlike the brief comments from sources cited in the article.

Story:

Maybe it shouldn’t be called Labor Day anymore. How about Chief Executive Officer’s Day? Or maybe Upper-Middle-Class Family Day?

First celebrated in New York in 1882 as a “workingmen’s holiday,” Labor Day 2007 is less a day of rest for wage earners than another day for them to worry about their economic futures.

A variety of data show that the average worker continues to lose ground to CEOs and others at the top of the wage scale.

Nationally, median family income rose a slight 0.7 percent in 2006 for the second straight year, from $47,845 in 2005 to $48,201, according to Census Bureau figures released Wednesday.

But median income fell 0.7 percent from 2005 to 2006 in Michigan as the auto industry contracted and tens of thousands of unionized workers left the labor force.

State median family income dropped from $47,558 in 2005 to $47,182, according to the census report.

But the census figures showed that median family income rose nationwide because more family members were working or were working more hours.

And in Michigan, family income fell 0.7 percent, to $47,182, as the auto industry contracted.

But the share of income going to the top fifth of households was 50.5 percent, the highest since 1967, according to the Economic Policy Institute in Washington,DC.

“Too many low and middle income families aren’t sharing in the gains,” said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and POlicy Priorities in Washington, DC.

The story is much brighter for chiefs of major corporations and the wealthiest in society.

CEOs of major corporations earned 262 times what the average wage earners made in 2005, the last year available according to the Economic Policy Institute. That is up from 24 times in 1965.

Another study from The Corporate Library,a watchdog group in Portland, Maine, found CEO pay rose 23.8 percent last year from 2005. The average CEO in the Standard & Poor’s 500 made $14.78 million in 2006, according to the group.

Why are CEOs being paid so well, while many workers struggle to pay their home mortages and make ends meet?

“Because they can get away with it,” Economic Policy Institute President Larry Mishel said.

Mishel and others say CEO pay is often set by well-paid directors who are simply paying what the market will bear, similar to the way entertainers and professional athletes are paid.

“CEO pay is totally disconnected from worker pay,” Mishel said.

But some conservative and business related groups say many workers are well paid and generally happy with their jobs.

US manufacturing workers earned an average $68,680 last year, up 4 percent from $66, 181 in 2005 according to the National Association of Manufacturers.

And Gallup polls for the American Enterprise Institute found that 43 percent of all workers last year were “completely satisfied” with their jobs, compared to 29 percent in 1989.

Michigan workers would be better off if the state outlawed compulsory union membership and became a right to work state, a study by the Midland based Mackinac Center for Public Policy showed.

From 2001 to 2006, right to work states created jobs at twice the rate of non-right to work states, according to the free-market think tank. Those work states also experienced faster economic growth and lower unemployment.

But the new census figures show that many right to work states, including South Carolina, Alabama and Texas, had higher poverty rates and fewer people with health insurance than Michigan.

Analysis:

This story is based upon an Associated Press interview with the US military about a new recruiting program that utilizes the National Guard. The only sources in the story are two US military spokespersons and most of the text focuses on the proposed plan and the amount of money that those who sign up and those who assist in recruiting will receive in bonuses. The last part of the article does mention that the army has had a difficult time in meeting the annual recruit numbers by stating “Both the Guard and the active duty Army have struggled with recruiting, as the U.S. heads into its seventh year at war, starting with the post 9/11 campaign in Afghanistan.” The story then says that “More than 3,700 members of the U.S. military have died in the Iraq war alone”, but provides no dissenting voices or opposing perspectives on why there is a lack of public support for military recruiting efforts.

Story:

The U.S. Army is turning to the National Guard for help recruiting would-be soldiers in hometowns across America.
Army leaders, struggling to meet recruitment goals in the midst of a long and unpopular war in Iraq, are quietly working out final details of a program that would give bonuses of $2,000 per recruit to any National Guard soldier who brings somebody into the active duty Army.

Army Secretary Pete Geren disclosed the plan in an interview with The Associated Press, calling it an innovative effort to get broader reach into local communities.

The Guard members, Geren said, are “much more in contact with the civilian population than the active duty soldier is. So they give us reach into a larger segment of the community on a personal level, a one to one basis, than we get through our recruiting relationships.”

National Guard “recruiting assistants” already earn bonuses for signing up new members of the Guard, and one former Marine was so successful that he earned nearly $100,000.

Under the new plan, a recruit would join the Guard but indicate that they are intending to shift to active duty. After they finish basic training they would either sign up for 30, 36 or 48 months in the active Army, or change their mind and simply stay in the Guard.

The Army secretary said the impact of the new Guard program would be felt next year when Guard soldiers will “become an important part of the active recruiting force.”

The secretary says “they would recruit soldiers into the active component,” adding that the recruits would then have continuing obligations in the reserves.

The Army initially expects to gain about 1,600 recruits next year through what they’re calling the “Active First” program, according to Lt. Col. Ron Walls, chief of enlisted recruiting and retention for the Army National Guard.

Guard officials see the new plan as a boost for them, even though it could remove soldiers from the Army Guard ranks and shift them into active duty positions for 30 to 48 months.

“It’s a win-win for both the Army and the National Guard,” said Walls. While the active Army gets a new soldier, “we gain some (recruiting) growth immediately, and in the long run we gain a higher readiness level.”

Under the proposal, recruits who come in under the Active First program will be counted toward the Guard’s recruitment goals. Also, the active Army would pay the bonus to the Guard soldier that got the new recruit.

Walls said that, in the end, “unless (the recruits) want to make a career out of active duty, they will return to the Guard.”

Guard officials also see this as a way to reach people who might be open to a military career, but are looking for a full-time job, not just a part-time Guard position.

The program will be launched in the coming months after final details are hammered out.

Guard members who have gone through the recruiting assistant program, receive a $1,000 bonus for each person they sign up and another $1,000 when the recruit leaves for basic training. More than 100,000 Guard soldiers have gone through the recruiter program.

The program has been a financial boon for some Guard soldiers.

“There have been some very successful recruiter assistants, who started out doing it just as an opportunity, then went part time,” said Walls. Some have made just $2,000, but others have quit their full-time jobs and “have done exceptionally well and can make a living doing it.”

One of those is Sgt. Dana Kline, a former Marine who is now in the Georgia Army Guard and earlier this year had earned nearly $100,000 in bonuses as a recruiting assistant.

Geren said that the active duty Army is also beefing up its own bonus program that essentially trains thousands of soldiers to also be recruiters.

Both the Guard and the active duty Army have struggled with recruiting, as the U.S. heads into its seventh year at war, starting with the post 9/11 campaign in Afghanistan. More than 3,700 members of the U.S. military have died in the Iraq war alone.

After failing to meet recruiting goals for two consecutive months, the Army hit its target for July, and is on track to meet its annual goal of 80,000 recruits for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30.

Geren said the Army and the National Guard are currently ahead of their year-to-date goal, and the Reserves are at 99% of their goal.

But, he acknowledged that it will still be a difficult road to recruit the full 19,100 soldiers needed in August and September in order to meet that 80,000 target.

The Guard has narrowly met its goals for the past two months, but fell short in May.

Analysis:

This article is based on a meeting between Congressional Representative Ehlers and a group of people opposed to the US War in Iraq. The article states that 9 people met with Ehlers, three of which are cited in the story. Is it clear from their comments what they were asking the Congressman to do? Constituents who are cited refer to the need for Ehlers to listen to his constituents, not follow the GOP position, that he needs to represent the people who voted for him. and that comments on Ehlers being a religious man.

The article does mention that this meeting was part of the effort by the group Americans Against Escalation in Iraq that has been targeting 40 Republican Congressman across the country. Ehlers is quoted as saying that he has not changed his position and that “It seems to me we have to get the factions to quit killing each other and create a more peaceful atmosphere so the Iraqis can get busy solving their problems.” The Press reporter does not verify this claim that the problem is that Iraqis are killing Iraqis.

Story:

The full-court press to change the mind of U.S. Rep. Vern Ehlers on the war in Iraq continues.

But Ehlers has heard nothing yet to convince him to do so — despite impassioned pleas of constituents who think he is wrong.

“I still think we have an obligation (to Iraq). The question is how to best exercise that obligation,” Ehlers said, after meeting privately with nine constituents at his Grand Rapids office Wednesday.

“It seems to me we have to get the factions to quit killing each other and create a more peaceful atmosphere so the Iraqis can get busy solving their problems.”

But Middleville resident Patricia Wilson said she thinks it’s time to end the war effort, calling Ehlers out of touch with anti-war sentiments.

“There are a lot of people he is not hearing,” said Wilson, 55. She was one of his constituents who sat down with Ehlers in an attempt to get him to change his support for the war.

Wilson said it is time Ehlers bucked the GOP leadership that continues to back the war.

“I would expect him to fall out of lockstep with the Republicans and follow his conscience,” she said. “This has gone on five years. That’s long enough.”

During the meeting, the constituents handed Ehlers a basket they said contained more than 1,000 petitions against the war.

The session followed an anti-war gathering Tuesday night at Grand Valley State University’s Loosemore Auditorium in Grand Rapids, an event organized by Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, a national group that is targeting dozens of federal Republican lawmakers.

It also is targeting five other Michigan congressmen, all Republicans.

Its activism comes as political forces on either side of the war galvanize support in advance of a September report on progress in the war.

Eileen Rios, 54, of Grand Rapids, holds Ehlers “personally responsible” for the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Iraqi civilians.

“I expect more from him,” Rios said. “I want him to represent the people that voted him in. The majority want us out of Iraq.

“I have a great deal of respect for him. But when it comes to this, I don’t know how he sleeps at night.”

Glenn Freeman, 43, of Grand Rapids, is hopeful Ehlers will change his mind.

“I believe Ehlers is a very reasonable person. He is a religious man and, as a religious man, he either believes God will correct his mistake or he will have to correct it himself.”

Analysis:

This story is based upon an event organized by the group Americans Against Escalation in Iraq. The article cites one of the organizers as saying that “We will continue trying to get 40 votes on the sensible side of this debate,” referring to the 40 Republican Representatives the campaign is targetting nationally. There is no mention as to why the group is not targetting any Democrats nationally even though many of them also support the ongoing funding for the US war in Iraq. The article also provides a summary of some of the groups’ efforts and that Congressman Ehlers did attend a panel discussion held on Iraq on August 23. Organizer Bryan Finken also is quoted as saying of Ehlers “Maybe it’s a sign. He’s been sitting in the audience, listening to the debates,” but the comment by Ehlers later in the article indicates that he has not changed his position on this matter. The statement Ehlers makes in this article “We invaded that country. We made a mess of it. We have a moral obligation to try and fix the situation before we pull out,” which is the same statement he made on August 10, July 6, and March 18. The article ends stating that Ehlers is one of five Congressmen being targetted in Michigan.

Story:

As the summer draws to a close, Brian Finken wants one local congressman to know his group’s efforts to find a solution to the Iraq war won’t freeze over.

Finken, field organizer for the national group Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, and 12 others settled into West Michigan this summer in hopes of swaying U.S. Rep. Vern Ehlers’ stance on the war. Their 10-week tour ends this weekend, but members said they will continue to pressure Ehlers, R-Grand Rapids, and 39 other members of Congress, until they can reach “a safe and responsible end to this chaos.”

“We will continue trying to get 40 votes on the sensible side of this debate,” Finken said.

His group dispersed more than 2,300 anti-war signs and 2,000 bumper stickers throughout the community to help capture the attention of Ehlers and area residents.
The signs, emblazoned in bright yellow and red, read “Iraq War: Wrong Way,” and can be seen in the windows of stores and coffee shops.

“We’ve been quite a presence,” Finken said, reflecting on his nine weeks in Grand Rapids. Five organization members will remain in Michigan after this weekend.

For Finken, it was time well spent. When members began their protests outside Ehlers’ office in June, he said, they received little response. Now, as they prepare to move into the next phase of their campaign, the congressman has turned up at several events.

Finken said he spotted Ehlers at a candlelight vigil Monday and an Iraq war panel discussion at the Women’s City Center last week.

“Maybe it’s a sign,” he said. “He’s been sitting in the audience, listening to the debates.”

For his last week in Grand Rapids, Finken and other members joined with area peace organizations to bring their message to local academia. Anti-war protesters Tuesday filled Grand Valley State University’s downtown Loosemore Auditorium to capacity.

“We’d like to appeal to the younger demographic,” Finken said, as supporters shuffled past him to join the chanting crowd inside the auditorium. For more than an hour, guests sang to the tune of anti-war commentary provided by two GVSU professors and a minister.

But their guest of honor did not show.

Instead, Ehlers said he intended to meet with six residents today to hear their opposition to the war.

“It sounded to me like it was more of a rally than a serious meet-with-Vern kind of thing,” Ehlers said of Tuesday’s gathering.

He said he disagrees with those who favor speedy withdrawal from Iraq.

“We invaded that country. We made a mess of it. We have a moral obligation to try and fix the situation before we pull out,” he said.

Americans Against Escalation in Iraq is targeting five other Michigan members of Congress, all Republicans: Reps. Fred Upton, of St. Joseph; Mike Rogers, of Howell; Candice Miller, of Harrison Township; Thaddeus McCotter, of Livonia; and Marty Knollenberg, of Troy.

Analysis:

What does the headline from this GR Press story suggest? It seems to suggest that there was a heated debate at this public hearing with both pro and anti-immigration voices. The fact is that all the “invited” speakers who took up all but 15 minutes of the hearing time were anti-immigration, all pro-immigration voices were heard in the last 15 minutes of the time allowed, according to a local online independent media source, Media Mouse. The way the GR Press presents the varying points of view readers might think that this was a back-and-forth debate. The story begins by quoting an anti-immigrant voice and then right away a pro-immigrant perspective, even though no pro-immigration or immigration voices were heard until the end of the hearing. The format of the event was such that there was a list of 9 different speakers that were on the agenda, all of which were against undocumented immigrants coming into the country. The media release that was sent out by GOP task force member Rep. Agema does not make it clear that there would be selected speakers that represented just one side of the debate.

The Press article does cite a Pew Hispanic Center study and then puts that in the context of local migrant workers. However, the only voice represented in the article on migrant workers is that of the Ottawa County Farm Bureau.

The last section of the Press article addresses the format of the hearing with a sub heading “Deck stacked?” The article says that several of those present complained about the process, but the article doesn’t say how the legislators responded to these complaints. The article ends by quoting a local immigration lawyer.

There were several omissions in this story as well. There was no background given on the positions of the 4 State Representatives who held the hearing, particularly Rep. Agema who has co-sponsored legislation on English being the official language of Michigan. There was also no background information on Peter Gadiel, speaking on behalf of the organization 9/11 Families for a Secure America, who has a connection to the national anti-immigration group FAIR as a former board member. The Press story states that Gadiel is a “Connecticut resident” but never explores why he came all the way to Michigan to be part of this hearing in Ottawa County.

Story:

A Republican hearing Monday on border security and immigration reform revealed fault lines that mirror the anguished, emotional national debate on these issues.

On one side, a litany of law enforcement and border protection officials testified about the need for tight border enforcement and the cost to law enforcement of undocumented residents.

Connecticut resident Peter Gadiel — whose son was killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, attack in New York City — warned that illegal residents have killed other motorists while intoxicated, raped and murdered.

“This is inexcusable,” Gadiel said.

On the other side, a local parish priest, the Rev. Stephen Dudek, warned that linking terrorism and concern over illegal immigration repeats the treatment of immigrant groups such as the Irish, Poles and Italians.

“Once again, we shamefully repeat them,” said Dudek, pastor of Holy Name of Jesus Catholic Church in Wyoming, a working-class parish that includes a sizable number of Hispanic worshippers.

Dudek called these immigrants “hard-working, family-oriented, generous human beings.”

Four Republican representatives presided over the hearing, including state Rep. Dave Agema, R-Grandville. He is sponsoring legislation that would make it tougher for undocumented residents to get a driver’s license.

Agema contends these residents constitute a security threat to Michigan, take jobs from legal residents and cost taxpayers by using the state’s school and health care systems.

Most of those summoned by the task force expressed support for tighter scrutiny of driver’s licenses and enforcement of immigration law.

“They’re illegal. Let’s not forget that,” said state police Lt. David Roesler.

Higher medical costs in jail

Ottawa County sheriff’s Lt. Steve Baar, the county jail administrator, noted an undocumented resident involved in a 2001 crash cost the county $100,000 in medical costs.

In addition, Baar said, the county is stuck with ongoing medical and mental health costs for undocumented residents who are behind bars.

But Merle Langeland, vice president of the Ottawa County Farm Bureau, testified a crackdown on illegal immigrants would cause hardships for many farmers who depend on this work force.

A study by the Pew Hispanic Center estimated illegal immigrants make up 24 percent of agricultural workers, 14 percent of construction workers and 12 percent of food preparation employees. The estimated 7.2 million workers are about 5 percent of the U.S. civilian work force.

“We would have crops destroyed, cows not milked,” Langeland said.

Langeland said it is hard to find legal residents willing to take on the rigors of agricultural work for the pay offered, often $10 an hour or less.

“It’s a sad commentary on the work ethic,” he said.

Deck stacked?

Several of those at the hearing complained that the task force stacked the deck against immigration reform by the witnesses it called, leaving little time for those opposed to comment.

Immigration attorney Richard Kessler said broad immigration reform is needed to allow more immigrants to cross the border legally.

“The bottom line is, the immigrant is not coming here to (commit acts of) terrorism,” Kessler said.

Analysis:

This story was based upon a public hearing that was hosted by four Republican State lawmakers on immigration and border security. The media release that Rep. Agema sent out stated that he wanted to know “how illegal immigration impacts their community” in a negative way. The Channel 8 reporter frames the story as a debate over issuing driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants even though the discussion was much broader than that. The hearing had 9 different invited speakers, all of which were in favor of more draconian measures against those entering the country without documentation, but the channel 8 story does not reflect this in its coverage.

After the opening comments by the reporter, viewers hear from a woman who is pro-immigration and then a man who is representing a group called 9/11 Families for a Secure America. What the reporter didn’t say was is the man from the 9/11 group was from Connecticut, nor did they provide any background on this person. The next speaker was an immigrant woman and the last perspective hear was from Rep. Agema. Agema makes several claims about what is at stake with this issue, but the reporter does not verify any of those claims, even though he made claims about terrorists coming to the US and undocumented immigrants taking jobs away from other people. People should ask themselves whether or not this story provided them with a clear sense of what the Republican Task Force was doing in Ottawa County that day and whether or not viewers are better informed about this particular issue.

Story:

WOOD TV Reporter – Just say the words immigration reform, illegal alien and undocumented worker, you got a debate. Today that debated centered around people in Michigan illegally or with out documentation getting a drivers license. Law enforcement seems to favor prohibiting people illegally from getting the document while those opposed the idea oppose local law enforcement also enforcing immigration.

Woman against proposed legislation – For one thing local law enforcement have enough to deal with in looking for real criminals with real criminal cases, so we don’t need to waste their time trying to enforce immigration laws and I have talked to a number of police officers and I don’t think that these guys here today really count.

WOOD TV Reporter – A different viewpoint comes from the father of a man who was killed on September 11. He says hijackers, here illegally, used drivers licenses to get airplanes that fateful morning.

Peter Gadiel – Drivers licenses were essential tools for the 9/11 killers. I will say with a great deal of confidence that had they not had drivers licenses that my son and 3000 other people would be alive today.

WOOD TV Reporter – So other like this woman who immigrated from Guatemala said it should be easy, not more difficult for people to get into the country.

Immigrant woman – See we need immigration reform and immigration reform has to have a reasonable way to let people to come to this country legally because we don’t want people to break the law. I didn’t break the law.

WOOD TV Reporter – But Republican lawmakers who held this meeting have other concerns like issuing drivers licenses to people here illegally and for area Representative Dave Agema, those concerns go deeper.

Rep. Agema – This issue is about three items; number one – security, because we don’t want any more illegals that are Hamas or Al Qaeda; number two it’s about jobs, some of the illegals do take jobs in factories, and then there are the costs.

WOOD TV Reporter – Some of those costs according to Agema, range from health care to delivering human services. As for the drivers license issue, Agema introduced a bill last month that would deny drivers licenses to anyone who is in the country illegally. So far no hearings have been held on the measure.