Fox News Accountability?

I keep hoping that at some point we will finally reach a tipping point beyond which the millions of Americans who believe that Fox News is a legitimate news organization will finally see them as what they are; the political propaganda wing of the Republican party. While I'm not foolish enough to believe that we'll actually see this happen any time soon, a series of gaffes at Fox News has given me reason to hope. Not so much that Fox News is doing anything worse than what they've been doing all along. It's just that lately they've had to issue a series of apologies and retractions because the public has been calling them to the carpet.

First was a gaffe by Fox News pundit Liz Trotta. While being interviewed by FOX News anchor Eric Shawn for a standard talking head segment, Trotta said;

“And now we have what some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama, uh, Obama. Well, both, if we could.”

Needless to say, this didn't go over very well. Even a joking suggestion that someone assassinate a candidate for the Presidency of the United States is going to land you in hot water. And Trotta found herself back-pedeling. She was forced to issue an on-air apology the next day.

Second was an incident in which E.D. Hill, the anchor of Fox News show America's Pulse, suggested that Barack Obama and his wife affectionately bumping fists before his victory speech on becoming the Democratic candidate for president could be seen as a “terrorist fist jab”.

“A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab? The gesture everyone seems to interpret differently,” said Hill in her show. “We'll show you some interesting body communication and find out what it really says.”

Following that, Hill, who has been with Fox News Channel since 1998, lost her show, although she is to stay with the network in an as yet undetermined capacity. She issued a standard half-assed apology following her gaffe, but it wasn't enough. So off she goes.

Third, Fox News took heat because of an onscreen caption referencing Obama's vow to protect his wife from critics.

The caption read; “Outraged Liberals: Stop Picking on Obama's Baby Mama!”

The misogynist and racist implications of the term “baby mama” -- frequently used in rap songs and most recently in a film about a white-trash surrogate mother -- were apparently offensive enough to female employees inside the company that Fox executives issued a quasi-apology. Fox's Senior Vice President of Programming Bill Shine said in a statement “A producer on the program exercised poor judgment in using this chyron during the segment.” A Fox staffer said that others internally were bothered by describing the potential first lady, and very accomplished woman who Princeton and Harvard Law educated, as the senator's “baby mama.”

It's all just more of the same. Fox News isn't doing anything differently than what they've been doing for years. But now they're catching some heat from it. Personally, I'm dancing in my chair to see even this little bit of accountability being levelled at Fox News. They've been getting a free pass for far too long. They're reaching a point where they're offending their own audience. That's something I never honestly thought could happen. Obviously, they may lighten up, or the legitimate media may stop covering their gaffes. Either way, it's good to see Fox News on the defensive.

One has to wonder if Barack Obama will personally challenge these deliberate slights from Fox in the same way that his campaign has worked to destroy the more insidious online rumor mill that claim that he's Muslim, that he won't say the Pledge of Allegiance and that he's hiding his birth certificate. He's placed online a web site titled Fight the Smears that addresses those issues. Will he also put up a Fox News section? How can he not? They're going to be working over-time trying to find ways to discredit the Senator and smear his family.

For now, at least, it's enough for me that Fox News is actually having to backpedal a bit. They've been so successful in their role as the propaganda wing of the Republican Party that they've taken on an air of untouchability; an arrogance that came from believing that they were riding the crest of a wave of Neo-Conservatism that was sweeping the country into a Right-Wing paradise where the Democratic Party would be marginalized, Liberals would become an endangered species, and the United States would exist in a state of perpetual war during which every citizen would wrap themselves in the flag and wouldn't dare question their appointed Republican leaders.

Now it seems that at least in some ways, that wave is receding. Hopefully the American people will continue to hold Fox News accountable, and proclaim that while it's apparently acceptible to attack political leaders with misinformation and lies, it's unacceptable that they use misogyny and racism as a means to that end. That may not be the resounding rejection of Fox News that I could hope for, but it's a step in the right direction. Personally, I hope their testosterone driven school-boy bully shtick will keep them putting their collective foot in their mouths. Nothing else could reveal Fox News for what they really are better than their own words suggesting that an American Presidential candidate has ties to terrorists, that perhaps he should be assassinated, and that his wife is the kind of trash that rappers talk about in their songs.

In an unrelated incident, but something that I want to mention in staying with the theme of Fox News accountability, I want to mention something concerning Bill Moyers. For those who might not know, Bill Moyers is one of the grand old statesman of professional American journalism. He has led the fight for the restoration of an independent 4th estate, and has therefore been a target of the Bush administration, in concert with Fox News, which has launched unrelenting personal attack on Moyers' reputation and credibility. As part of that attack, Bill O'Reily recently sent one of his street thugs, Porter Berry, to ambush Moyers at the National Conference for Media Reform, to try to antagonize him (and I imagine get juicy tape that could be heavily edited to make Moyers look like an idiot).

Well, that didn't work out so well.

Moyers emasculated the young punk, humiliating him in front of about 20 real journalists. He described O'Reilly on tape as not a journalist, as he describes himself, but a pugilist (a professional fighter or boxer). The segment ended with the real journalists who witnessed the ambush chasing poor old Porter out of the building giving him a little of his own O'Reilly medicine. Finally. Fox News is getting some of what's coming to them.

If you want a good laugh, check out the Moyers video on YouTube.

References:

Wikipedia: Liz Trotta
Wikipedia: E.D. Hill
Fox Address Baby Mama Drama
Obama's Fight the Smears web site

Julie Gerberding's Subjective Reality

The head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Julie Gerberding, addressed the Senate last Tuesday on the health impact of global warming in the United States. On most news days, this would go un-noticed. It would have most likely been reported, but the public wouldn't have noticed it. After all, Paris Hilton was probably shopping somewhere, and we all want to know about that, don't we?

What made Dr. Gerberding's appearance dramatic enough to temporarily bump Paris Hilton to the sidelines was the fact that the White House altered her report. White House press secretary Dana Perino explained that the draft was edited because officials didn't believe it matched scientific conclusions in a report by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Okay, let's set aside for a moment the laughable idea that White House political appointees are better informed about the science in reports by the IPCC (the U.N.-chartered scientific group that shares this year's Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore) than Dr. Gerberding and her staff are. As director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Gerberding has particular expertise.

Among the six pages that were removed from the original twelve-page draft by the Office of Management and Budget (which is staffed and run by true-believing political appointees) were specific things that Dr. Gerberding wanted to tell Congress. Such as “scientific evidence supports the view that the Earth's climate is changing,” yet “the public health effects of climate change remain largely unaddressed,” and that areas in the northern part of the country “will likely bear the brunt of increases in ground-level ozone and associated airborne pollutants. Populations in Midwestern and Northeastern cities are expected to experience more heat-related illnesses as heat waves increase in frequency, severity, and duration.”

The draft version explained why climate change is a public health concern. It described the expected impact of climate change, including new disease patterns and food and water shortages for some people. It included predictions about the potential consequences of increased air pollution, the rampant growth of plants that cause allergies and the creation of environments that promote water- and food-borne disease. “Catastrophic weather events such as heat waves and hurricanes are expected to become more frequent, severe, and costly,” it said.

All this disappeared, leaving only wordy generalities like “climate change is anticipated to have a broad range of impacts on the health of Americans and the nation's public health infrastructure.” The shorter version focuses on public health preparedness for climate change, including how the CDC is tracking diseases, doing heat-stroke modeling for cities to predict vulnerable populations and helping local officials plan for environmental emergencies.

So. Okay. The White House changed the report. Why is this even an issue. Who cares, right?

This is why it's an issue ...

The Bush administration has a history of political appointees rewriting the work of government scientists to bring their findings into line with White House policy and objectives. A Bush official once bragged to a reporter that the administration had the power to create its own reality. I believe the term that was used was “subjective reality”.

There was the 24-year-old Bush political appointee and college dropout at NASA, who reworked agency materials to take into account his belief that the big bang was only an “opinion” that should be accorded equal weight with intelligent design.

In 2005, after NASA scientist James E. Hansen said that greenhouse gas emissions were creating “a different planet,” his superiors tried to control his appearances and limit his interviews.

In 2003, the EPA did its best to bury an analysis by staff members showing that a proposal to cap carbon dioxide emissions by Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman would not seriously damage the economy.

In 2003, Philip Cooney, who then headed the Council on Environmental Quality in the Bush White House, made more than 300 changes to a report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on global warming. Cooney's changes exaggerated supposed uncertainties about global warming and removed many references to the phenomenon entirely.

In 2002, the White House made the Environmental Protection Agency drop a chapter on the risks of climate change from an annual EPA report that for six years had included such information.

On Tuesday of last week, Office of Management and Budget (the agency that edited Dr. Gerberding's report) spokesman Sean Kevelighan said the OMB reviews documents and testimony to see whether they “line up well with the national priorities of the administration.”

As you can imagine, perception of this issue has been largely determined by political affiliation. Conservatives (who still aren't convinced that global warming is real and consider the hang-wringing over it to be politically motivated) naturally believe that this is just another example of the Liberal mainstream media finding yet another issue to use to attack the Bush Administration. Liberals (who believe that global warming is real and is an issue that we need to take seriously) naturally believe that this is yet another example of the White House abusing Executive power, and they ARE using this to attack the Bush Administration.

What you have is two sides tugging back and forth over issues that contradict with their political ideology. Somewhere in the middle the science is forgotten.

Dr. Gerberding isn't too worried about. Wednesday she said that she was happy with her testimony and that the review process was normal. In a lunch-hour speech before the Atlanta Press Club, Gerberding said she made all the points to Congress that she wanted to make. “This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard,” she said of the furor. “I don't let people put words in my mouth. I spoke the truth to Congress.”

Despite myself, I can't help thinking “well, that's what we would expect her to say, isn't it?“ Julie Gerberding wants to keep her job. And technically what she said IS true. She did speak the truth to Congress. She didn't lie about what's going on. But in her statement is a bit of political sleight-of-hand. It's not what she said that people are taking issue with. It's what she didn't say. It's what was left out that tongues are wagging about, not what was included.

If you state in a report that in a generic sense there is a possibility that a foreign army might invade our country, that perhaps we should be prepared for the eventuality, just in case, you're probably going to be seen as reasonable and prudent. But what if you leave out the fact that a foreign army is camped just over the next hill and will be invading the capitol at dawn, just because your superiors don't believe that the foreign army exists? Did you lie in your statements? No. You told the truth. You just didn't tell the whole truth.

In short, what I'm trying to say is that what should have been a report on the problem of global warming was turned into a political issue by the Bush Administration. Don't worry. Be happy. What you don't know can't hurt you.

Meanwhile, in the real world, British scientists, in a paper published this week, say that fossil records show mass extinctions of species are linked to warming tropical seas. And they say, based on Intergovernmental Panel projections, Earth is on course to reach extinction-level warming in about 100 years. If that level is reached, the panel says, “20 to 30 percent” of animal species will be at risk of extinction.

One has to wonder if there will be anyone left 100 years from now to debate whether or not there's a problem.

Reference
- Dr. Julie Gerberding's original draft testimony

Bush Commutes Libby's Sentence

Well. What can one say about President Bush's decision to commute Lewis “Scooter” Libby's sentence that hasn't been said already?

Okay, so you know if I make a statement like that, I'm obviously going to add to the pile. In spite of the extensive coverage of this issue, over the past few days I've found myself trying to explain to a lot of people just why this is such an issue. Most people didn't follow the investigation of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who was trying to determine who revealed the identity of CIA operative Valarie Plame, much less Libby's indictment and subsequent conviction of purjury and obstruction of justice.

Okay. We should start from the beginning, to put this all into perspective.

In late February 2002, responding to inquiries from the Vice President's office and the Departments of State and Defense about the allegation that Iraq had a sales agreement to buy uranium in the form of yellowcake from Niger, the CIA authorized a trip by former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson to Niger to investigate the possibility. Wilson decided that there “was nothing to the story,” and presented his report in March 2002. The Bush Administration ignored this report and continued to use the yellowcake story as part of its justification for an impending invasion of Iraq.

After the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, Wilson, frustrated by the White House's rejection of his conclusions, wrote a series of articles questioning its factual basis. In one of these op-eds (published in the New York Times on July 6, 2003), Wilson argued that President George Bush, in the State of the Union Address, misrepresented intelligence leading up to the invasion and suggested that the Iraqi regime had indeed sought uranium to manufacture nuclear weapons.

According to federal court records, beginning in mid-June 2003, Bush administration officials discussed with various reporters the employment of a classified, covert, CIA agent, named Valerie E. Wilson (Joseph Wilson's wife, oddly enough, who is also known as Valerie Plame). On July 14, 2003, in a newspaper column, Robert Novak disclosed Plame's name and status as an “operative” who worked in a CIA division on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Mrs. Wilson's husband, stated in various interviews and later writings that his wife's identity was covert and that members of the administration had knowingly revealed it as retribution for his op-ed (especially the one entitled “What I Didn't Find in Africa”, published in The New York Times on July 6, 2003).

On September 16, 2003 the CIA sent a letter to the US Department of Justice, stating that Plame's status as a CIA undercover operative was classified information. They requested a federal investigation. I should probably mention here that Knowingly leaking the identity of a covert agent is a criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, and the CIA is required by law to report any such possible criminal violations. If convicted of such an act, one faces possible charges of treason. It is considered a treasonous act by the United States Government.

Then Attorney General John Ashcroft referred the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel, which was directed by Patrick Fitzgerald, who convened a grand jury. The CIA leak grand jury investigation resulted in the indictment and conviction of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Chief of Staff of Vice President Dick Cheney, on five counts of obstruction of justice, perjury, and false statements to the grand jury and federal investigators.

On March 6, 2007, Libby was convicted on four counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements. On June 5, 2007, he was sentenced to 30 months in prison, a fine of $250,000, and two years of supervised release after his prison term.

End of story, right? Justice done, right?

Aw, not so fast. We're talking about a member of the Bush Administration.

On July 2, 2007, President Bush commuted Libby's sentence. Libby will not see one day of his prison term. Following the traditions of his Presidency, Bush made a statement that generally was met with derision by everyone but Conservatives.

“I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive,” he said in a statement. “Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.”

“My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby,” Bush continued. “The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant and private citizen will be long-lasting.”

Okay. I've read this many times. I'm still trying to follow the logic. What Bush is saying is that if you are a member of his administraiton, being convicted on four counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements in a Federal investigation, is no big deal. What is important is not the crimes for which Lewis Libby was convicted, but that he might suffer because of it.

Ironically, in a recent, almost identical separate case, a former federal employee and a decorated Vietnam veteran, Victor Rita, was convicted of lying to a grand jury, making false statements and committing perjury. He was sentenced to 33 months. President Bush apparently did not see fit to commute Victor Rita's sentence. Therefore, one would think Rita's crimes were worse that Libby's, right? After all, a decorated Vietnam veteran with a 25 year career in the military would have to do something pretty bad for such a sentence. Right?

Here's what he did. Rita had made two false statements to a federal grand jury. The jury was investigating a gun company. Prosecutors believed that buyers of a kit, called a “PPSH 41 machinegun ‘parts kit,’” could assemble a machinegun from the kit, and that the company had not secured the necessary permits to import machine guns. Rita had purchased one of the kits and, when he was contacted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, he agreed to let the agent inspect the kit. But before meeting with the agent, he sent back the kit and, instead, substituted a kit that did not amount to a machine gun. The government contended that he lied to the grand jury about his actions and he was convicted for making false statements and committing perjury.

Wow. That's so much worse than lying to Federal investigators about who committed treason by revealing the name of a covert CIA agent, and, worse, who was involved in covering it up (Conservatives, please note here that this is what we call “sarcasm”).

One would think that Bush would commute the sentence of a decorated Vietnam veteran, since he's in the mood for bypassing the Judicial system. Sadly, Victor Rita will receive no such consideration from President Bush. The President is very selective with his compassion. In his previous political capacity as governor of Texas, Bush showed none of those on the state’s death row the compassion he reserved for “Scooter” Libby. He sent 150 men and two women to their deaths — executing the first female in Texas in 100 years, Karla Faye Tucker, after being petitioned by The Pope to commute her death sentence to life in prison, and then publicly mocking her plea that he spare her life.

So what makes Lewis “Scooter” Libby so different? Why does he deserve such special treatment when Bush has been more than willing to let everyone else swing from the trees?

Oh, come on!

Even worse, the President refused to rule out granting a full pardon at some point down the road that would wipe Libby's slate completely clean. Libby still has a $250,000 fine to pay, two years of probation and can't practice law to help pay for his mountain of legal bills.

“I rule nothing in or nothing out,” Bush said, further describing the commuted sentence as “a very difficult decision.”

Does anyone seriously believe that Lewis “Scooter” Libby will have any trouble making a living? He's now free to be a hero to Bush administration supporters (who gave $3.5 million to his legal defense fund and sent almost 200 letters in his favor to the judge in his case).

“He is a hero among many conservatives who feel he was wrongly prosecuted,” George Washington University law Prof. Jonathan Turley said. “He could be the next Ollie North.”

Fred Thompson, unabashed conservative and soon-to-be-declared Republican presidential candidate, who helped organise a Libby defence fund, said “I am very happy for Scooter Libby. This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life.”

Poor Scooter. How he has suffered.

Others were not so kind. In regard to Bush's assertion that “I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive,” the Washington Post pointed out Tuesday that the sentence was anything but excessive.

“Three of every four people convicted of obstruction of justice have been sent to prison over the past two years, a total of 283 people, according to federal judiciary data,” the Post reported. “The average term was more than five years. The largest group of defendants were sentenced to between 13 and 31 months in prison, exactly where Libby would have fallen on the charts.”

According to Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald; “The sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to the laws governing sentencings which occur every day throughout this country. In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws. It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing.”

Former Ambassador Joe Wilson, whose wife Valerie Plame's covert CIA status was compromised, starting this whole thing, had a few thoughts of his own.

“The fact that the president short-circuited our system of justice by giving Scooter Libby a get-out-of-jail-free card, thereby eliminating any incentive that he would tell the truth to the prosecutor, guarantees that there is a cloud of suspicion put over the office of the president and makes him potentially a suspect in an ongoing obstruction of justice case,” declared Wilson, adding, “This was a coverup.”

Indeed. Anyone who believes that the justice in this issue is not Lewis “Scooter” Libby being convicted to 30 months in prison for four counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements, but President Bush commuting Libby's prison sentence, is, at best, deluded, or worse, a Conservative idealogue who believes that “Republican” translates to “unerringly moral”. Libby was left off of the hook to remove any incentive he might have to cooperate with Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. With the specter of prison removed, why would Libby talk?

By commuting Scooter Libby's sentence, President Bush has perhaps laid to rest the investigation into the “outing” of Valerie Plame's status as a covert CIA operative. We may never know the details now, unless at some future date Libby has a sudden upswelling of morality and decides to clear his conscience.

One has to wonder if on Tuesday night, somewhere in the dark, damp lair of Vice-President Cheney that's hidden a hale mile underground beneath the White House, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney drank a toast to the successful culmination of their campaign to shut down the investigation into the Plame Affair. One can imagine the maniacally evil laughter that echoed through the hallways as they celebrated snatching justice from the grasp of the courts of law. And one also has to imagine if somewhere in those hallways, a Secret Service agent looked down at his shoes in shame and shuddered.

- Wicasta Lovelace

- Watch Alert archived post

VA to Give Pentacles for Fallen Wiccan Soldiers

Like many Pagans, I've wondered for quite some time why the federal Department of Veterans Affairs has, for 10 years, fought against placing the pentacle, a symbol of the Wicca faith, on the grave markers of Wiccan soldiers buried in government cemeteries. One would think that if a soldier dies in combat, and is a follower of a religion which is officially recognized by the U.S. military, that placing the symbol of that soldier's faith upon his or her marker would not be an issue.

Except we live in a country in which the president of the United States does not believe these soldiers have such a right, in spite of the fact that they died fighting for their country in a war which he himself initiated. In a 1999 appearance on ABC's Good Morning America, then-Texas Gov. Bush responded to questions about a controversy which was raging at the time over Wiccan soldiers being allowed to hold services at the Fort Hood army installation in Texas. “I don't think witchcraft is a religion,” he said. “I would hope the military officials would take a second look at the decision they made.”

While there is no proof that the White House has been directly involved in the issue concerning the pentacle on the grave markers of Wiccan soldiers, Bush has not wavered from his belief that Wicca is not a religion, and has never apologized for his remarks. His beliefs in regards to Wicca has apparently been echoed by the Veterans Administration, and led to their long, protracted struggle to keep the Wiccan pentacle out of government cemeteries.

Well, last Monday the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs announced a settlement that would allow the Wiccan pentacle to be added to the list of emblems allowed in national cemeteries and on goverment-issued headstones of fallen soldiers. The settlement calls for the pentacle, whose five points represent earth, air, fire, water and spirit, to be placed on grave markers within 14 days for those who have pending requests with the VA.

Barry Lynn, director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called the settlement in Circle Sanctuary v. Nicholson “a proud day for religious freedom in the United States.” But he noted that VA documents the plaintiffs' attorneys reviewed appeared to reveal that government officials had intentionally dragged their feet on approving the symbol for fear that it would upset religious conservatives.

“Many people have asked me why the federal government was so stubborn about recognizing the Wiccan symbol,” Lynn said. “I did not want to believe that bias toward Wiccans was the reason, but that appears to have been the case. That's discouraging, but I'm pleased we were able to put a stop to it.” He also noted, “This settlement has forced the Bush Administration into acknowledging that there are no second class religions in America, including among our nation's veterans.”

The American Civil Liberties Union said the agreement also settles a similar lawsuit it filed last year against the VA. In that case, the ACLU represented two other Wiccan churches and three individuals.

Eleven families nationwide are waiting for grave markers with the pentacle, said Selena Fox, a Wiccan high priestess with Circle Sanctuary in Barneveld, Wis., a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

“I am glad this has ended in success in time to get markers for Memorial Day,” Fox said.

The VA stated that they sought the settlement in the interest of the families involved and to save taxpayers the expense of further litigation. This according to VA spokesman Matt Burns. The agency also agreed to pay $225,000 in attorneys' fees and costs.

The pentacle has been added to 38 symbols the VA already permits on gravestones. They include commonly recognized symbols for Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Judaism, as well as those for smaller religions such as Sufism Reoriented, Eckiankar and the Japanese faith Seicho-No-Ie.

VA-issued headstones, markers and plaques can be used in any cemetery, whether it is a national one such as Arlington or a private burial ground like that on Circle Sanctuary's property.

And just in case anyone hasn't picked up on it yet, Wiccans would probably like to once again remind people that Wicca is a nature-based religion based on respect for the earth, nature and the cycle of the seasons. Variations of the pentacle have long been used in horror movies as a sign of the devil, and is perhaps the primary reason many Americans wrongly associate Wicca and Paganism with Satan-worship.

- Watch Alert archived post

Americans Outraged by Squalor Surrounding Wounded Iraq Veterans

Like most Americans, I've been shocked recently by reports of the conditions at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington. Like everyone else, I assumed that our veterans who are returning wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan were receiving the best care possible. After all, Walter Reed is a prestigious army hospital, and is supposed to be among the best hospitals in the country.

Do the paragraphs below, which I’ve culled from various media sources, sound like one of the best hospitals in the country?

“Staff Sergeant John Shannon, 43, whose eye and skull were shattered by a sniper in Ramadi, was sent to Walter Reed in November 2004. On arrival he was given a map of the grounds and told to make his own way to his room. Badly disoriented and barely able to see, he had to hold himself upright by sliding against the walls, asking anybody he could find for directions.”

“The Post reported that black mold was thick on the walls and that roaches ran rampant, except when they were pushed out of the way by rats and mice. The wounded soldiers, many of whom are wheelchair bound, had to make their own way a quarter, or half, mile up the street to the hospital for treatment.”

“Disengaged clerks, unqualified platoon sergeants and overworked case managers fumble with simple needs: feeding soldiers’ families who are close to poverty, replacing a uniform ripped off by medics in the desert sand or helping a brain-damaged soldier remember his next appointment.”

“On the worst days, soldiers say they feel like they are living a chapter of “Catch-22.” The wounded manage other wounded. Soldiers dealing with psychological disorders of their own have been put in charge of others at risk of suicide.”

According to Diane Benson, mother of Latseen Benson, 27, who was recovering from a double amputation at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, her son met a parade of VIPs. Every time the President, the Vice-President or the Defense Secretary passed by, the military hospital would be thoroughly scrubbed. But the improvements wouldn’t last long.

“I wasn’t so bothered by the rats, although there were a lot running around outside, but I really wanted his room to be swept and kept clean,” she said. “You couldn’t get people to mop the blood and urine from the floor while my son was there with his legs wide open.”

Like many Americans, I keep asking one simple question. How could this have happened in the United States of America? Doesn’t President Bush stand up there almost on a daily basis and try to excoriate anyone who questions his handling of the war or how ill-equipped our soldiers are? Much less anyone who disagrees with the Iraq War itself. They’re dismissed as left-wing kooks who are undermining the morale of our people who are serving in the military. So wouldn’t you think that the Administration would be on top of this issue? If for no other reason than good PR?

The Bush Administration has been in full spin mode since news of the conditions of Walter Reed became public. President Bush said in his weekly radio broadcast on Saturday that he was appalled by the conditions at the prestigious army hospital, and announced an inquiry into veterans’ care.

“This is unacceptable to me, it is unacceptable to the country and it’s not going to continue,” he said.

But it’s quite likely that the Bush Administration’s push for privatization may have helped create the Walter Reed disaster. Getting much less attention in the media are reports that a five-year, $120 million contract awarded to a firm run by a former executive from Halliburton (a multi-national corporation where Vice President Dick Cheney once served as CEO) will be probed at a Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs hearing scheduled for Monday.

A letter sent by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to Major General George W. Weightman, the former commander at Walter Reed, asks him to “address the implications of a memorandum from Garrison Commander Peter Garibaldi sent through you to Colonel Daryl Spencer, the Assistant Chief of Staff for Resource Management with the U.S. Army Medical Command” in order to better prepare himself for his testimony at the hearing.

“This memorandum, which we understand was written in September 2006, describes how the Army’s decision to privatize support services at Walter Reed Army Medical Center was causing an exodus of ‘highly skilled and experienced personnel,’” Waxman’s letter continues. “As a result, according to the memorandum, ‘WRAMC Base Operations and patient care services are at risk of mission failure.’”

“We have learned that in January 2006, Walter Reed awarded a five-year $120 million contract to a company called IAP Worldwide Services for base operations support services, including facilities management,” Waxman continues. “IAP is one of the companies that experienced problems delivering ice during the response to Hurricane Katrina.”

Before the contract, according to the memorandum, over 300 federal employees provided facilities management services at Walter Reed, but that number dropped to less than 60 the day before IAP took over.

“Yet instead of hiring additional personnel, IAP apparently replaced the remaining 60 federal employees with only 50 IAP personnel,” Waxman writes.

A year ago, the Government Accountability Office “dismissed a protest filed on behalf of employees at the Army’s Walter Reed Medical Center, ruling that the employee group had no standing to challenge the outcome of a public-private job competition initiated prior to January 2005,” GovExec.com reported.

One has to wonder why this aspect of this story has received so little attention. It seems to explain a lot, doesn’t it? The mainstream media has been obsessively reporting on the conditions in Walter Reed itself, and has been largely focused on which of the medical center’s administrators were being kicked to the curb, and which politicans have had what to say about the whole subject.

Fox News, always a world unto itself, hasn’t even gone that far. Instead, they’ve been reporting on more important issues. Anna Nicole.
Brittany’s hair. American Idol nudie pics. Al Gore’s perfidious hypocrisy. Obama’s connection to racist churches. Hillary’s connection to Satan.

Have you heard a peep of indignation from Bill O’Reilly against the Republican Congress who, for the last six years, not only stood by and allowed the Walter Reed debacle to happen, but actually conspired in the abomination? Not at all. He would rather spend a few hundred segments skewering Cindy Sheehan or David Letterman.

Has there be any mention that it was House Republicans who had ousted Conservative Republican Chris Smith as the chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee when he sought higher funding for veterans services than the Bush Administration desired? Not when Rush Limbaugh was busy blaming anonymous Huffington Post commenters (not bloggers - but those who made their comments in the ope-to-anyone, including dittoheads, forums) for wishing the Vice President dead.

Standing in front of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, Ann Coulter didn’t call Republicans to the floor for their years of undermining and under-funding veterans. She instead decided to make use of that time to call Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards a “faggot”.

And the National Review’s Jonah Goldberg, instead of trying to get to the bottom of this national embarrassment, spent most of his energy writing a column to expose Dana Priest (the Washington Post writer who, with Anne Hull, revealed the military’s dirty, rat infested secret) for having “an agenda”.

In short, the talking heads on The Right, both in the media and in the Republican Party, have instinctively attacked anyone who questioned who was responsible for the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed Medical Center. After all, Republicans have been in-charge, and so the questioning of any aspect of this issue has been dismissed, of course, at nothing more than thinly-veiled, politically-motivated attacks.

The conservative politicians have rightly started back-pedaling. They see the writing on the wall. They realize that there’s no way they can use this issue to launch political attacks against Democrats. So they’re out there making their necessary speeches expressing their outrage and moral indignation over the conditions at Walter Reed, and demanding that someone be held accountable. Which, in Republican terms, means someone should be fired so we can all move on to more important things. Like Faith-Based Initiatives. Throwing the teaching of Evolution out of public schools. Making sure gays and lesbians can’t get married. Instead, they let the propaganda wing of the Republican Part (Fox News, Right-Wing talk shows) do the dirty work for them.

They don’t want us to look at this issue. They know that if Americans are aware of all the facts, the Republicans might very well suffer dearly for turning the care of our returning veterans over to a private company that “is led by Al Neffgen, a former senior Halliburton official who testified before our Committee in July 2004 in defense of Halliburton’s exorbitant charges for fuel delivery and troop support in Iraq.”

I think all Americans agree that something must be done at Walter Reed Medical Center, and immediately. But what I’ll be watching most closely in the coming weeks is whether all the rhetoric over this issue is turned into action, or if this all just goes away when Americans are distracted by some other shiney object and diversion.

That’s all the Republicans and their Right-Wing media arm are waiting for. If they can batten down the hatches, fire a few high level people, and just hang on, this issue will go away. IAP Worldwide Services can go back to its highly profitable business of providing inadequate health care for our returning veterans and supporting Republican candidates. And Republicans can keep mouthing off about how those godless Liberals and Democrats care less about America’s soldiers than the God-fearing Conservative high-steppers on the Right.

Personally, I think Walter Reed Medical Center is just another casualty in the “culture war” that Right-Wing Christians are so obsessed about. It’s another casualty in the Republicans’ war against American Democracy, as they seek to privatize our governmental institutions, and enrich corporations (by far their largest source of political contributions) to the detriment of public programs.

Walter Reed Medical Center is a good example of what’s going on in American culture in general, where corporations are taking over our very infrastructure and seeking ways to charge Americans a fee for their love of country and patriotism. In this most immediate example of this struggle, our veterans are suffering the most from the Republicans’ misguided experiment. I hope and pray that the American public will wake up from its daze, demand that more is done than just fire a few high profile administrators, and remember who is responsible for creating this mess in the first place.

In the interim, I simply pray that our soldiers returning wounded from combat can hang on long enough to be afforded the kind of care they so rightly deserve, that somewhere amid all the rhetoric and chest-beating, someone actually gets something done.

- Watch Alert archived post

A Harry Potter Witch Hunt

A Harry Potter witch hunt
Mom who hasn't even read the books says they teach witchcraft
KAY MCSPADDEN
Special to the Observer

The suburbs of Atlanta are at the center of a witch hunt. Literally.

Laura Mallory, a former evangelical Christian missionary and mother of four, has been trying since September 2005 to have the Harry Potter books by author J.K. Rowling removed from all of the Gwinnett County public school libraries. Initially she argued that the books were inappropriate because of "evil themes, witchcraft, demonic activity, murder, evil blood sacrifice, spells, and teaching children all of this," but she later added that they promote witchcraft, Wicca, and the occult.

Mallory's challenge was addressed by the media review committee at J.C. Magill Elementary, where three of Mallory's children are enrolled. The committee recommended that the books remain in the libraries, and the district administration concurred.

In April Mallory appealed to the district school board, which held a public hearing in May. The school board sided with the school media review committee and voted unanimously in favor of keeping the books.

Now Mallory has taken her challenge to the state Board of Education. They met in October and will issue a judgment in December.

In some ways this is a rather predictable book challenge.

Like many book complainants, Mallory objects that the contents of the books are offensive to her religious beliefs. She claims the books have an anti-Christian bias.

Also like many complainants, she admits she hasn't read the books.

"They're really very long and I have four kids," Mallory told the Gwinnett Daily Post. "I think it would be hypocritical of me to read all of the books, honestly. I don't agree with what's in them."

And also like many of the people who challenge books, Mallory ignores the role of parents in guiding their children's choices -- unless, of course, she is the parent making those choices for everyone's children.

The outcry against Mallory's challenge has been predictable as well. Supporters of the Harry Potter series have countered that the books do not promote witchcraft but are fantasy stories about gifted children who discover their own remarkable abilities and go to a special school in order to learn to use them. The books are intense morality tales where good triumphs over evil, where friendship and loyalty are celebrated, where Harry learns from his missteps.

Potter fans also point out that although Mallory charges that the books try to indoctrinate children into the religion of Wicca, the only religious reference is to Christianity, when Hogwarts adjourns each December for the Christmas holidays. Nor do the books teach occult practices, as Mallory claims. The magic taught at Hogwarts is a clever counterpart to real life activities -- learning to make the tip of a wand light up to use as a flashlight, for example, or learning the proper way to fly a broom. The only teacher who presumes to teach what might be called occult practices is Sybill Trelawney, the incompetent fortune teller who is roundly mocked by both her students and her colleagues.

As predictable as the challenge has been, it has also been surprising to me. Why are books this universally read and loved also so widely feared and reviled? Despite their lack of sexual content or offensive language -- two of the most common reasons for book challenges -- the Harry Potter books are listed as the American Library Association's most-challenged books of the 21st century. What's going on?

Laura Mallory told one interviewer that "the books expose and introduce occult practices to young readers, opening a door to their minds and hearts to this kind of stuff, the casting of spells. The occult is dangerous to our children, and we need to get it out of our schools in all its forms."

For Mallory and other people like her who have a pre-Enlightenment view of the world as a place where magic is real and supernatural powers can be accessed through spells, the books might seem frightening. These are the same people who send chain letters and e-mails which promise great rewards to those who say a prayer and forward the mail to others -- and which sometimes threaten harm if the chain is broken.

They are the people who read cosmic significance into coincidence, who believe without question the cautionary tales they hear, who reject reason and science as ungodly and substitute religion with superstition.

Ironically, they say that they worry that children cannot tell the difference between fact and fiction, but their own anxiety about the books suggests that they are the ones who are having difficulty. It's too bad that their confusion means the rest of us have to endure yet another senseless witch hunt.

Kay McSpadden

Observer columnist Kay McSpadden is a high school English teacher in York, S.C. Write her c/o The Observer, P.O. Box 30308, Charlotte, NC 28230-0308 or by e-mail at kmcspadden@comporium.net.

- Watch Alert archived post
- Original Article

Catholics vs. Pagans in Glastonbury

This is an article worth reading. It reminds us that however we like to think that things are changing, a lot stays the same.

- Wicasta

=======
Bad vibes in Glastonbury after Catholics against pagans
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

BY THE light of the full moon, witches in Glastonbury will tonight be casting a "circle of protection" around Britain's centre of mysticism after a group of militant Christians cast salt at them in an attempt to "cleanse" the town of paganism.

One Roman Catholic was fined and two cautioned by police after the "alternative Hallowe'en" festival in Britain's centre of magical mysticism turned into a spiritual battle between Christianity and paganism.

Now even the local Catholic priest has told his fellow Christians that they are not welcome in the town.

The Christians were visiting for the Lightswitch@glastonbury festival, the eighth such event organised by the Catholic charity Youth 2000. Promotional material tempted them there with slogans such as: "Has the light on your halo gone dark? Have your wings gone a bit grubby? Just want to switch your faith back on?"

Organised with the co-operation of the Catholic Parish Church and Shrine of Our Lady St Mary in Glastonbury, it was intended to be the Hallowe'en of choice "for those who have grown tired of tatty fancy dress and the Blair Witch Project".

But police were called after militants told locals that they wanted to cleanse the town of paganism, cast salt around to exorcise "evil" spirits and called one woman a "whore witch".

Yemaya Pinder, a witch and a member of the Pagan Federation who owns The Magick Box store, said that she believed the Christians should be prosecuted for a religious hate crime.

Mrs Pinder, a mother of two and grandmother of four, and whose sister is an Anglican vicar in Basildon, described how a group of Catholics had entered her shop and abused her.

She said: "It was as if we had returned to the dark ages. They told me they wanted to cleanse Glastonbury of paganism. They said they had lighters and were going to come back and burn us down. When the police asked them to apologise, they refused."

She said there were no plans to put a curse on the Christians. "But we are doing protection for ourselves and the shop and the town. We are working magic for the healing and the damage they very nearly did between us and the local Roman Catholic church."

She said that the town's witches had begun to work their magic, starting the protective circle on Samhein, the Celtic new year, last Tuesday, and planning to finish it using the "high energy" of tonight's full moon.

Dreow Bennett, the Archdruid of Glastonbury and leader of the pagan movement, said: "To call the behaviour of some of their members medieval would be an understatement. I witnessed a pagan being called a `bloody witch' and being told, `You will burn in hell'.

"Apparently this man was not a diligent follower of the teachings of Christ. It was my understanding that Christ taught compassion and tolerance rather than hatred and ignorance."

Father Kevin Knox-Lecky, the Catholic parish priest at Glastonbury, said: "I was utterly appalled by the disgraceful behaviour, language and threats that were apparently made to members of the local pagan community by a small fringe group that attached itself to the Youth 2000 retreat last weekend in Glastonbury." He said the militants were "unChristian and unrepresentative" of the majority of the 350 young people at the festival.

He had since met Mrs Pinder and Mr Bennett. The conversation ended in "mutual embrace". He said: "We have agreed to keep in touch with each other and to support each other in the event of negative attention from any extremists from whichever faith. I have frequently found evidence of rites performed on my church steps."

Youth 2000 is a registered charity which aims to forge links between young Catholics through retreats and events.

Charlie Connor, the managing director of Youth 2000, said that aiming "blessed salt" at pagans was in direct contravention of the spirit of Youth 2000. "For the avoidance of doubt, Youth 2000 does not condone or encourage this kind of behaviour from anyone. We fully agree that differences on matters of faith cannot and should not be resolved by any kind of harassment."

But he added: "Youth 2000 would also like to place on the record that many young people at the retreat were harassed, sworn at and even cursed by people. One incident included the taking of photographs of young people, including children, and numbers plates by people present in the town. They were forced to move on. Regrettably, Youth 2000 will not be running a festival in Glastonbury next year."

Avon and Somerset police said: "The neighbourhood beat manager was on patrol on Saturday and was alerted that there was an incident at the Magick Box shop. The officer arrested a man for a public order offence. He was later released after being issued with a fixed penalty notice. Two women were also given cautions and words of advice about their future behaviour."

A SPIRITUAL BATTLE . . . WITH A LARGE PINCH OF SALT

- Glastonbury has become well known as the venue of one of the world's most popular music festivals but its mystical roots go back much further

- Some believe it was the site of Avalon, the final resting place of King Arthur

- Salt, the origin of the word "salvation", has an important place in many of the world's religions

- Leonardo da Vinci's famous painting The Last Supper shows Judas Iscariot spilling a bowl of salt, seen as an omen of evil and bad luck

- Some Christians still believe that they should throw it over their shoulder to ward off devils that may be lurking behind them

- Watch Alert archived post
- Original Article