REAL Scary stuff

Want to hear something really scary? Story by Sheila Coronel, reporting by Elisabeth Witchel:

On March 24, 2005, as [Marlene] Garcia-Esperat was having dinner with her two sons, a man walked into her dining room, greeted her with a “Good evening, ma’am,” and pulled out a .45-caliber pistol. He shot her once in the head. She was 45.

At least 32 Philippine journalists, including Garcia-Esperat, have been killed in direct relation to their work since 1992, the year CPJ [Committee to Protect Journalists] began compiling detailed research on journalist deaths worldwide. While the country has a vibrant press that takes its watchdog role seriously, it is one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a reporter. In Manila and other big cities, the media are able to work freely, but in out-of-the-way places like Tacurong, lawlessness and a culture of impunity mean that journalists put their lives on the line.

Garcia-Esperat’s case could have been like so many of the others in the Philippines, unsolved and ultimately forgotten. But her killing outraged local and international journalists, who launched intensive campaigns to bring attention to the case. The government, facing rising criticism for ignoring violence against the press, devoted national resources to ensure a thorough investigation. A gutsy private lawyer agreed to help prosecute, witnesses were given some protection, and the trial was moved to an impartial venue.

In October 2006, the gunman and his two lookouts were sentenced to life terms—making the Garcia-Esperat case, according to CPJ research, one of only two in the Philippines since 1992 in which the murderers of journalists have been convicted.

Now, the two officials said to have ordered the killing may also face trial. Incredibly, in the 15-year period analyzed by CPJ, no mastermind has been convicted in the slaying of a Philippine journalist. The Garcia-Esperat case, advocates believe, may serve as a map for justice in even the most intractable of places.

Read the rest here (link)

There are many methods to intimidate people, some don't go as far as killing them, but when someone doesn't want investigations to proceed or tough questions to be asked they use lots of tricks. Financial attacks, name calling, character assassination, calling the other person liars. But here is something most people don't know because they aren't exposed to the whole gamut of experiences, just what they see on tv or read about if they are interested.

The tricks used to intimidate at the highest levels aren't the same as the tricks used at the lower levels. As just one example, "some people say*" you can't look at certain procedures because "you will threaten National Security!" whenever they want to stop an investigation. Even if it isn't true, even if what they are trying to hide has NOTHING TO DO WITH NATIONAL SECURITY. They can ALSO use that excuse if, for example, they are hiding two things. Maybe one does have to do with national security, but the other has nothing to do with national security and has everything to do with gathering information that will be used to attack their critics. Of COURSE they will scream national security. And they could even be right, but only for SOME of the information. But it also is a very effective way to cover up the information that IS NOT related to national security and can only be related to national security in the fever pitched mind of someone who believes that everything and everyone critical of them is out to undermine national security.


* the phrase "some people say" is a registered service mark of Fox News and right wing pundits everywhere. I use it to refer to right wing pundits in this instance and if you want I could provide you with some actual examples.

Defending Those who Can't Defend Themselves

One of the coolest kids I know, Allison Hantschel, has a column in the DailySouthtown about the regular attacks on journalists by folks like Rush Limbaugh.

I agree with Allison (Athenae at First-Draft) in her response to USA Today founder Allen Neuharth, who said he thought the idiotic things Rush says were amusing. As I was discussing with the brilliant and media savvy volvodrivingliberal the other day, the power of right-wing talk radio over the public airwaves is not something to dismiss as only fodder for the weak minded. Rush's heuristic techniques and language seeps into the popular culture on both sides. Some of Rush's phrases become anchor phrases that can frame an issue so that we see the phrase but not the underlying deeply disturbing premise.

What do I mean? Here's one example, Rush constantly calls the media "The Drive By Media"

Now what image does that bring up?

Criminals. People with guns who drive by and shoot people. Criminals who should be in jail, not allowed to roam the streets.

And what race of people are the current drive by shooters?

They aren't white mobsters are they? He is comparing them to the current violent murderers who do drive by shootings. This is his casual "joke". In one phrase he compares the media with cowardly, murdering thugs. And he is never called out on it.

When over 108 journalists and 39 media support people have been killed to cover Bush's war, calling them killers is disgusting and disrespectful of their sacrifice.

Here's part of Allison's column.

Limbaugh and his lesser lights, imitators like Mark Belling in Wisconsin and Melanie Morgan in California, have made their bones on mocking, attacking and denigrating.

Ignoring such slights -- laughing them off -- has led us to what New York Times columnist E.J. Dionne called "the rightward press," in which constant pushing from the right-wing end of the political spectrum so intimidates the so-called objective press that it attempts to pre-empt criticism by feigning docility.

Treating hatemongers and advocates of violence (Morgan memorably called for New York Times editor Bill Keller to hang) as performance artists who shouldn't be taken seriously -- respectfully interviewing them as fellow travelers -- is what has led to this state of affairs in which there is literally nothing a conservative can say that will get him or her in trouble.

Ignoring these people -- acting like they don't matter -- allows their influence to grow in the dark like mildew, unchallenged, uncontested.

Read the rest here (link)

OH, and before she explodes into a flurry of, "I never said that!" Here is the audio proof of Morgan saying "Hang 'em". You will of course note there is no, "If tried and convicted and then found guilty" (which is what she and her colleagues have now be trained to say as there legal talisman after I busted them on their violent rhetoric. Listen here. (link)

Melanie Morgan's history of attacking the press is well documented. Criticizing the media for not doing their job is one thing, saying "Hang 'em" is another.

39,000 pets may have been hurt by tainted food

How many pet effected by tainted food? Possibly up to 39,000.

So it looks like we have some new data, but want to know what is REALLY interesting. Below is the FIRST AP story.

The Associated Press April 9, 2007, 8:31PM EST

Tainted food may have hurt 39,000 pets

By ANDREW BRIDGES, WASHINGTON

Pet food contaminated with an industrial chemical may have sickened or killed 39,000 cats and dogs nationwide, based on an extrapolation from data released Monday by one of the nation's largest chains of veterinary hospitals.

Banfield, The Pet Hospital, said an analysis of its database, compiled from records collected by its more than 615 veterinary hospitals, suggests that three out of every 10,000 cats and dogs that ate the pet food contaminated with melamine developed kidney failure. There are an estimated 60 million dogs and 70 million cats in the United States, according to the American Veterinary Medical Association.

The hospital chain saw 1 million dogs and cats during the three months when the more than 100 brands of now-recalled contaminated pet food were sold. It saw 284 extra cases of kidney failure among cats during that period, or a roughly 30 percent increase, when compared with background rates.

Snip: Go to full story here.

Now note and compare it to THIS version (link)

Apr 10, 1:53 AM EDT

Tainted Pet Food-Kidney Illness Link

By ANDREW BRIDGES
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Cases of kidney failure among cats rose by 30 percent during the three months that pet food contaminated with an industrial chemical was sold, one of the nation's largest chains of veterinary hospitals reported Monday.

Compare:
Tainted food may have hurt 39,000 pets vs.

Tainted Pet Food-Kidney Illness Link.

Now what is THAT about? The headline didn't just change, the whole first paragraph is different.

Who's putting pressure on whom? I'd ask Media Matters to look into it but they are busy with the whole Imus deal.

Speaking of that, thanks to JP at Welcome to Pottersville for talking about my case on the Kincaid Show today.

What did the FDAs Know and When did They Know it in the Pet Food Crisis?

Sometime we need to help the media ask the right questions. We bloggers can see patterns they don't. We need to help 'em out.

Question: Why is the FDA constantly holding back or not publicly revealing information in a timely fashion? What is their goal? Who do they work for? The taxpaying pet owners or the companies that sell contaminated feed? What explains their action? Are they really concerned about our food safety?

A few observations about FDA actions:

The FDA didn't publicly say who sold the tainted wheat from China. Joy, a blogger on Pet Connection found it while digging through the FDA database.

Then after it was revealed the supplier said that they sold it to others. (I dug up their name and name change along with contact info below. Has anyone contacted them this other company? )

The FDA wouldn't reveal the name of the US Distributor of this tainted wheat, ChemNutra. (Did the AP reporter find it himself or was it handed to him by the Dept. of Homeland Security people along with the instructions to emphasize "it's not in the human food supply!" They got their AP screaming headline, so that worked.

Then Stephen S. Miller, the CEO of ChemNutra who was the US Distributor, would NOT reveal the names of the people he sold it to.

Why? Was he told NOT to by the DHS? Possibly because Del Monte would be on the list. And even if it is the Del Monte PET Food division maybe they are afraid that people will see it and think ,"It's in my ketchup!". So does that justify them holding back this info?

And why does the AP just accept that? Shouldn't for the health and safety of all the pets be a demand that Stephen S. Miller produce his list?

Of course we have no proof that Stephen S. Miller of ChemNutra only sold it to pet food companies and that the distributor he sold it didn't sell it to anyone in the human food supply chain. We just have to take his word. It's a secret. We can all wait a few more days. And then when we find out, be sure to ask the question. What was the hold up? Who held up this info? Why?

FYI Spocko Aside: Did you know that ConAgra cut a deal with the USDA so that they didn't have to notify the public about the locations of where tainted beef was shipped? Yep, and during our first mad cow scare that meant that a Vietnamese restaurant in Truckee, CA served people mad cow steak. Why? Because the information about where the food was shipped was dubbed proprietary in the "rules" negotiated with the USDA and big Ag. Is something similar going on now?

I point this out with much trepidation. Remember the Beef Industry went after Oprah for criticizing hamburgers. I'm just a brain in a box so maybe they won't notice me.

This is what happens when you strive for a government small enough to drown in a bathtub, it takes your pet first. Then when we need good government for humans, well thank Grover Norquist and the Neocons. I'm sure Grover will verify your food supply in his spare time.

Why is this downplayed in the media? Maybe if Paris Hilton's poor little dog died this would get more notice. I hope that doesn't have to happen, there is too much death.

Hey what food does Barney, the president's dog eat!? Sounds like a job for Les Kingsolver!
Is Socks still around?

Landrieu Wants Flood Control Pumps Investigation

Louisiana Sen. Landrieu Wants Flood Control Pumps Investigation, Casts Votes on Iraq

Written by: BayouBuzz Staff

United States Senator Mary L. Landrieu, D-La., on Thursday sent a letter to the Comptroller General of the United States, David M. Walker, requesting an investigation by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on a recent news report that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers knowingly installed defective flood-control pumps in Louisiana drainage canals.

“According to press accounts based on internal memoranda and eye witness testimony, the Army Corps of Engineers installed defective flood control pumps around the levee system that protects the New Orleans Metropolitan region,” Sen. Landrieu wrote. “Reportedly, despite awareness within the Army Corps of Engineers about the mechanical problems of the pumps provided by Moving Water Industries (MWI), installation continued.”

In addition to calling for an investigation into whether the Corps installed pumps they knew to be defective, Sen. Landrieu requested that the GAO determine if the pump design and installation contracts were given for any reason other than merit.

“The investigation should examine the contract arrangements with the company in question and should determine whether or not any improprieties exist in the award or fulfillment of these contracts,” Sen. Landrieu wrote.

Sen. Landrieu also requested that the investigation be completed within 60 days.

Earlier Thursday, Sen. Landrieu sought a full explanation on the issue from Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works John Woodley and the Corps Chief of Engineers Lt. Gen. Carl Strock. At a hearing of the Senate Appropriations Energy and Water Subcommittee hearing, Sen. Landrieu expressed her concern regarding the Corps’ budget, its projects in areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the Crops’ overall management.

[snip]

Emphasis mine, hotlink to internal memo mine.
--From the BayouBuzz.com

Now what is Landrieu alluding to regarding " any improprieties exist in the award or fulfillment of these contracts," ? Most likely that MWI has a documented history of improprieties in awards and fulfillment of government contracts. (Link to Saint Petersburg Times 2002 story) And who is DEEPLY connected to MWI? Jeb Bush.

U.S. fraud suit targets ex-partner of Jeb Bush

The Justice Department says a water pump company fraudulently helped Nigeria obtain $74-million in taxpayer-backed loans.

By ADAM C. SMITH, Times Political Editor

© St. Petersburg Times, published March 15, 2002

---

The Justice Department says a water pump company fraudulently helped Nigeria obtain $74-million in taxpayer-backed loans.

Gov. Jeb Bush's former business partner in a venture to sell water pumps abroad defrauded the U.S. government of more than $74-million, federal authorities contend in a lawsuit.

The Justice Department alleges that MWI Corp. of Deerfield Beach, a water pump company whose equipment Bush marketed to foreign countries, fraudulently helped Nigeria obtain U.S. taxpayer-backed loans during his father's administration.

Much of the loan money went for secret payoffs to Nigerian officials and equipment that was vastly overpriced and unneeded, the lawsuit says.

The company denies the allegations, many of which surfaced four years ago when a former MWI employee sued the company.

Bush, campaigning for governor at the time, shrugged off questions about the deal as little more than complaints from a disgruntled former staffer.

Now the Justice Department is making many of the same charges.

The pump deals occurred years before Bush became governor, and the lawsuit neither mentions him by name nor accuses him of wrongdoing.

But it suggests MWI used its political influence in the Republican Party to win the U.S. loans, and notes that MWI president J. David Eller went into business with "a member of a prominent national political family in an attempt to bolster MWI's sales abroad."

That's a reference to Jeb Bush.

In 1989, Eller, a major Republican contributor, formed a company with Bush, Bush-El, to market MWI's industrial water pumps abroad. Bush has described Eller as a "person of integrity."

Twice while his father was in the White House, Bush visited Nigeria as a water pump representative. He visited Nigerian dignitaries and was showered with attention, including a parade for him in 1989 with 1,300 horses.

Jeb Bush sold his share in Bush-El in 1994, and has said he earned about $648,000 from the company. [Spocko note: Compared to Cheney he's a piker! Where are the Whitewater screamers demanding we looking this deal?]

He has insisted that he received no money on the Nigerian deals, saying he took no commissions on sales backed by U.S. loans to avoid a potential conflict of interest. He said his earnings came from his work in other countries, including Mexico, Indonesia and Malaysia, but in 1998 declined to detail that work.

"You either trust me or you don't," he told the Miami Herald in 1998.

Emphasis mine.
[Snip] read the rest at the St Petersburg Times, including the methods and MWIs response.

According to the AP this Nigerian case hasn't been resolved. But you know something I noticed? Look at how people tiptoe around Jeb Bush's connection to this. Now why is that? Because if you EVER bring up a SPECIFIC and documented connection of wrong doings and the Bushes you get howls of "partisian attacks!" and "Politically motivated attacks!" by the right-wing enablers in the media.

But this tiptoeing around Jeb Bush's involvement ALREADY IS a partisan activity.
They have convinced the media, and maybe the DOJ, that you can't come out and SAY JEB BUSH IS CONNECTED TO MWI, even when their is documented proof.

They say, "Follow the money." they also say "connect the dots", I'd like to add, "pay attention to the people ".

[edited to add Spocko note and fix spelling errors]

How do insider Journalists cover stories?

I of course assume everyone reads Hullabaloo by Digby, Tristero, and poputonian, but it is always good to point out a few posts that resonate: This one on conventions of modern journalism:

One of the silliest conventions of modern journalism is that the press can't tell a story if "the other side" isn't screaming about it. Republicans are always screaming (and often are the ones feeding the scandal to the press in the first place) so it's very easy to find that hook. Democrats don't have the institutional infrastructure to successfully manufacture scandals and are often slow off the mark in seeing real ones, so the press doesn't feel they have any reason to pursue them. (And I guess stories about crass political patronage, even in the justice department, just aren't considered news anymore. That's a sad comment all by itself.)

[snip]

In the case of the US Attorney purge, it was left to the victim to be brave enough to come forward before the mainstream press saw a story --- and likely it was mostly because the man who did it was an evangelical Christian and a Republican that made them take notice.

The problem here is that many in the press seem to see their role as some sort of referee and conduit for the two parties instead of independent fact finders and purveyors of truth.

Link


And also check out a post that has stayed with me for weeks.
The Incompetence Dodge

Digby should really get a Pulitzer for the consistent brilliant insight and excellent writing. What's that phrase that Mike Meyer's used, "We're not worthy!" As BBB always says, "Just go read Digby" (BBB is the new nickname for Atrios, which is in response to calling Kos "The Great Orange Satan". Just so you know.)