Year: 2005

Apparently, the Bush Admin didn’t learn its lesson about the imprudence of using outside public relations firms to spin its education message and is now trying to replace U.S. Forest Service information officers with PR consultants. (Disclosure: I am a PR consultant in the leisure travel industry.) According to the group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), the move to outsource spokesperson duties is the first step in Bush’s renewed effort to further gut the Forest Service and erode forest protections.

The U.S. Forest Service announced that it is weighing replacement of 100 of its public information staff with private public relations firms, according to agency documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The move is motivated by pressure from the Bush White House to put more federal jobs out to bid by private contractors in order to “increase the cost-effectiveness of Forest Service work.”

According to agency memos, 100 of the agency’s 700 public affairs officers, public affairs specialists, writers, editors, graphic artists, illustrators and audio visual specialists will be reviewed by June 30 to determine whether the positions would be subject to bid by private firms. The agency plans to make decisions this fall and contractors could be in place by January.

Hundreds of other positions throughout the agency may be subject to similar bidding in 2006. In 2004, citing cost overruns and potential side effects, Congress severely restricted the Bush Administration efforts to outsource Forest Service and National Park Service jobs. Those restrictions, however, lapsed this past October and now the Bush Administration is again pushing its “Competitive Sourcing” initiative.

“Wag the Dog is coming to a national forest near you,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, referring to the movie about government use of PR firms to manipulate public perception of events. “Civil servants are under a legal obligation to tell the public the truth while PR firms specialize in shading it. Outsourcing the public information function risks putting a premium on spin at the expense of candor.”

President Bush promised to limit reliance on PR firms after recent controversy over federal agency payments to commentators for promoting Bush Administration programs. Through this “Competitive Sourcing” mechanism, these same firms can have a long-term role in shaping agency communication practices.

In 2004, the Forest Service spent $113,000 for a public relations firm to design a campaign to gain public acceptance of the agency plan to increase logging in California’s Sierra Nevadas. The campaign, titled “Forests With a Future,” sparked criticism but the Government Accountability Office ultimately ruled that the contract did not violate prohibitions on using taxpayer dollars to pay for “publicity or propaganda.”

Ironically, the Forest Service needs to retain contractors in order to prepare private sector competitions. Previous Bush competitive sourcing plans at the Forest Service involved possible contracting for law enforcement, biologist and sylviculturalist positions. The agency spent an estimated $100 million before Congress stepped in and put the effort on hold.

Find out more at http://www.peer.org/

The Washington Times, which is owned by the Unification Church, is well to the right of Fox News and The Weekly Standard, so it is surprising to see this editorial from the Moonie paper this morning, lambasting the Republicans for piling up deficits, seemingly without care.

With a full complement of smoke and mirrors distorting spending, revenues and the deficit, the Republican Congress recently passed its 2006 budget resolution.

Admittedly, the 2006 budget does project a modicum of spending restraint in some areas, such as domestic discretionary spending. But health-care entitlement spending … will proceed full-speed ahead. Moreover, the resolution’s celebrated achievement — chopping the federal budget deficit in half between 2004 ($521 billion) and 2008 ($254 billion) — is accomplished only by using gimmicks and other subterfuge.

This is an issue that Democrats have railed against but have yet to gain a foothold with in the public mindshare. The Gops always dismiss the deficit as a by-product of 9/11, which it is not.

Great editorial in the Orlando Sentinel, first noted on Florida Politics. Most Florida papers are talking about the various egregious aspects of the foster-girl-abortion case (including the fact that only now are people asking about the “older man” who made the girl pregnant) but this one is superb. Of course, FlaPol notes its author actually voted for Jeb.

Bush stomps on rights of pregnant girl
Mike Thomas
Sentinel Columnist

May 5, 2005

The state constitution is optional reading for Jeb Bush these days as he continues using his office to push his personal beliefs.

His most recent action as Pope of Florida was trying to block a 13-year-old girl from an abortion.

Yes, this is a tragedy.

The girl had no legal parents — their rights were terminated for unknown reasons. While under the loving care of the Department of Children & Families, she managed to get pregnant…

…the same DCF that botched her care to begin with moved to block her in court. DCF has become a front operation for Bush. It is his right-to-life security force.

Apparently, the plan was to force the girl to deliver the baby.

A Tavares attorney who specializes in children’s issues, Jerri Blair, says DCF most likely would have then taken the baby and put it up for adoption because the girl could not care for it and had no family support.

The baby would have gone out the door because it is easy to find adoptive families for babies. But the girl would have stayed put because that is not the case for teenagers.

The state basically would have forced the girl to become a breeder for another couple.

“We are working for the best interest of the young girl,” said a DCF spokeswoman.

Somehow, the girl didn’t see it that way, and I can’t say that I blame her.

Bush had no legal grounds to intervene, and anyone with a law degree knew it. He eventually had to give up when backed into a constitutional corner, but not before stalling the process in court long enough to increase the medical risk from the abortion (even so, it still would be less risky to the girl than having the baby).

Does anyone really believe that Bush, DCF or all these Christian groups give one hoot about this girl? They simply folded up the circus tent over Terri Schiavo’s hospice and found another place to set it up.

Look at the similarities.

Bush also intervened in the Schiavo case in a blatantly unconstitutional move. He dragged it out, created a ruckus, was cheered on by the zealots and then backed off when his lawyers ran out of tricks.

He also abused his authority over DCF, using it to raise the specter of abuse against Terri’s husband, Michael. Bush never bothered to talk to Michael, and the abuse allegations were false. Bush had to know because DCF had a file that said as much.

There actually was a third case Bush intervened in last week that got little attention. His lawyers helped a Christian legal group that claimed a woman gave birth to a live baby at an Orlando abortion clinic but the baby was allowed to die.

“Something like this never should have happened,” an “outraged” Bush said through a spokesman.

Something like that never did happen, said the medical examiner who autopsied the fetus.

The fetus was stillborn. Bush should be thankful our editors were a bit more skeptical of the story than he was and played it down.

It seems Bush no longer bothers with facts or laws. He simply governs by divine, if not legal, intervention.

From DailyKos:

ABC, on why it won’t take advertising from the United Church of Christ:

“The network doesn’t take advertising from religious groups. It’s a long-standing policy,” said Susan Sewell, an ABC spokeswoman, in a Religion News Service story on Wednesday.

But they aired an ad by James Dobson’s Focus on the Family. And for the unitiated, this is their mission statement:

To cooperate with the Holy Spirit in disseminating the Gospel of Jesus Christ to as many people as possible, and, specifically, to accomplish that objective by helping to preserve traditional values and the institution of the family.

ABC, NBC, and CBS refused to air this ad from the UCC. NBC and CBS claimed it was “too controversial” because it says “Jesus didn’t turn people away”. Tolerance of gays and ethnic and racial minorities is really, really controversial with the bigoted set.

ABC said it had a blanket prohibition of all ads from religious organizations. Unless, it seems, they are run by conservatives.

Read the original PR story….

After a two-year investigation, Neoconservative Pentagon policy analyst Larry Franklin (in photo on right, with Douglas Feith, left) was charged yesterday with making unauthorized disclosures to a foreign official and to members of the news media, according to the Los Angeles Times today.

This story presents us with many questions, including what allegedly may have motivated Franklin to share US secrets with Israel – and how the dots may connect from this investigation to other better known neocons, including Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and even Vice President Dick Cheney.

Franklin, described as a “pro-Israel Pentagon official,” is rumored to have given unauthorized information about US plans regarding Iraq and Iran to officials from the lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Last month, two AIPAC officials who were reportedly involved in the matter were fired. Steve Rosen was the group’s director for foreign policy issues. Keith Weissman was Rosen’s deputy and a specialist on Iran.

Any casual observer of the Bush Administration might wonder how a government investigation that involved Administration officials could proceed without interference from above. Not surprisingly, the charges against Franklin cover “who, what and when” but avoid mentioning motive, which is an essential element of any criminal case:

The complaint against Franklin does not allege that he engaged in espionage or that he directly shared secrets with Israel. Lawyers for Franklin and for the two lobbyists that allegedly received the classified information issued vigorous denials. And the complaint does not ascribe a motive to Franklin’s disclosures, or identify Israel as an ultimate beneficiary.

Juan Cole at Informed Comment has been following the story, and has this on Franklin’s possible motives:

Franklin was implicated last summer, but it has taken nearly a year to arrest him. In the meantime, he was, amazingly enough, still working at the Department of Defense on Persian Gulf security issues. (I know this for a fact).

Franklin was on the Iran desk of the Near East and South Asia department of the Pentagon, and was the “go-to” man for Iran issues for [former] Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith and [former] Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. His tight connection to the Neoconservatives has been played down in subsequent reporting, depicting him as a low-level employee and a rogue operating on his own. [Feith and Wolfowitz both resigned this year. Feith resigned for “personal and family reasons.” Wolfowitz now heads the World Bank. ]

[Franklin] apparently was concerned that Iran would fund anti-American militias in Iraq to attack US troops, but could not get his ideas taken seriously, and was seeking support from AIPAC and Israel. In fact…some Iranian money may have come to [Iraqi militias] in Basra, but Iranians spread money around to lots of groups in Iraq. Without further details, it is hard to know what Franklin was up to, but he was probably trying to provoke hostilities with Iran by blaming Tehran for Iraqi Shiite militancy.

I first got wind of this story from Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo last summer. In August, Marshall wrote:

[Larry Franklin is] an important person in Feith’s operation — which isn’t surprising really since he’s an analyst on a topic — Iran — at the center of Feith’s concerns. And Iran policy is already a dicey matter since this is the same shop that used to be the main locus of Chalabism in the governmnet. And of course [Ahmed] Chalabi later ended up to have been feeding US intelligence to the Iranians.

Feith’s operation has been at the center of a number of bizarre intelligence snafus and embarrassments — at least two of which have now spawned criminal investigations. One of the more memorable ones was being in charge of post-war planning for Iraq, which didn’t pan out that well. Feith’s office is also closely tied to Vice President Cheney’s office, which is the focus of the Plame investigation.

And then in September, Marshall posted this update, based on a story in the Washington Post:

According to the Post, FBI investigators are looking at people in Feith’s office (Harold Rhode), Cheney’s office (David Wurmser) and on the Defense Policy Board (Richard Perle).

Sad story noted on allhatnocattle. Texas Republicans are dissing Willie Nelson. The link to the story in the Houston Chronicle shows even Willie, who unfurls a stage-length stars and stripes during his live show, isn’t the Republicans’ idea of a good American.

A state legislator had proposed naming a 49-mile stretch of Texas Highway 130 being built around Austin in honor of the Texas country music singer.

But two Republican senators, Steve Odgen of Bryan and Jeff Wentworth of San Antonio, said they didn’t want Nelson’s name on the road that crosses their districts, citing the musician’s fondness for drinking and smoking, and active campaigning for Democratic candidates.

While Willie is famous for smoking materials not associated with Republican senators, they do have some things in common. After all, most Republicans are busy either looking for ways to avoid paying taxes or giving themselves refunds on the few occasions they do.

“It’s frustrating, and sad in a way, but at this point, there is no reason to make this an unpleasant experience for anyone, especially Willie, so I’ll take no further action on the bill,” said state Sen. Gonzalo Barrientos, an Austin Democrat and the bill’s author.

Barrientos said he wanted to honor Nelson “for so much good music and so many good works.”

I found this interesting take on the proliferation of non-news stories, and how liberals should be dealing with them, by Steve Gilliard via Daily Kos:

If CNN basically covers this story all Saturday, it’s news. It’s not a debate. It is news, and malaria isn’t. Instead of wishing it wasn’t news, we need to subvert it. We need to discuss it in wider terms, class, race, sex. We need to bring depth to the debate. I mean this story gets weirder by the day. But if you don’t engage it, bring different perspectives to it, the media gets away clean again. When people say “you don’t cover this story” people think “liberal whiner”. If they want to talk about runaway brides, let’s talk about runaway brides, but intelligently, questioning the sex roles of men and women and the economic cost and pressure in a large wedding. There is fertile ground for smart people, but they have to seize the target and change the debate.

One of the great tricks of conservative pundits was to talk about ANY topic. No matter what it was, they had an opinion, got face time and then book deals. They saw this as fertile ground to extend the debate. We have to engage these issues and bring new perspectives on them…

There’s a sort of snobishness about news on the left. I don’t watch TV, I only read the Guardian. Give me a fucking break. Most people think Angel comes after Guardian and when you don’t watch TV, you might as well say pinko hippie. If you want to change minds, you have to speak their language and it’s in things people care about.

If you don’t have an opinion on the latest circus, your opinion on more serious matters will not count. You don’t have to spend every day repeating Eonline, but you have to understand the culture, even the vulgar parts, to change it. If you do not engage the debate at hand, you will become irrelevant. Even if the debate is not a big deal in the end. Walking away, as we did so many times before, is no longer an option.

As a news junkie who has TVs in four out of six rooms in my house (I have two bathrooms, so do the math), I think liberals should be willing to jump in on whatever the cablenewsers fixate on – especially if the topic is drawing fire from wingnuts.

In all the hundreds of hours (or so it seemed) of Schiavo coverage, I never heard anyone say what I wanted to scream: “Let that poor girl go, you monsters! Imagine being trapped in that body, chained to that bed, for 15 years. I hope she is not sentient because if she is she is in agony.”

The Runaway Bride is a different story. We all know what was going on there. The news execs smelled another Peterson case, and murder trials are cheaper and easier to cover than war and terrorism, and trials grab more attention than important topics like global warming. Relatives of missing daughters are easier “gets” for Larry King than movie stars. And while these real people may be less intriguing to TV viewers than movie stars, they’re more interesting than politicians, who tend to be inversely as easy to “get” as they are newsworthy.

The endless barrage of non-news stories produces info-pablum for the masses – it is in the news, therefore it is more high-brow than mere gossip. But the rightwing has learned to jump in on a given topic on the cable shows and infest the story with their phony morality. As the story is digested into the culture at water coolers and over lattes or manicures, the by-product has little or no reality-based, corrective opinion from the Left. Having lost our credibilityon mundane matters, our foundation on loftier issues becomes shakier still in the minds of the masses.

This is how they do it – Rove & Co. The Big Lie infects virally. It enters the discourse with dead-eyed politicians blathering about Terri Schiavo’s right to life on Fox and washes out into the culture as a fantastical new reality in which it suddenly seems logical to un-smart people that activist judges are more dangerous than terrorists and must be stopped – even killed – in order to protect the “right to life” of comatose people and microscopic zygotes.

In order to save America from theocracy, we must engage the enemy where they are winning the war – not in Washington, but in the real world where real people’s lives are embued with the popular culture. Hell, liberals invented the concept of injecting our values into the popular culture. The time has come to get back in the game.