Top-10 poultry plant hides injuries to workers

Today's Charlotte Observer includes the first of a potentially devastating six-part series on poultry-plant safety.

The first part focuses on House of Raeford, one of the ten largest poultry producers in the country. It's based in Hoke County, half an hour south of Fayetteville and operates plants in North Carolina, South Carolina and Louisiana. It supplies deli turkey and chicken products to companies such as Blimpie, Golden Corral and Food Lion. It also counts several school systems among its customers--including my hometown system, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. It claims to have one of the best safety records in the industry--but the Observer amply demonstrates that this record is a mirage.

Among the details in the main story:

* One plant near Columbia claimed to have had no musculoskeletal disorders (carpal tunnel, tendinitis, etc.) from July 2003 to April 2007--a figure that experts say is inconceivable since these injuries are very common in poultry plants. Interviews seem to confirm this--12 workers suffered pain commonly associated with MSDs, and two even had surgery for carpal tunnel at company expense. Most of the others weren't sent to doctors or given sick leave.

* Another plant in Greenville claims to have five years without lost-time injuries--but pulled this off by rushing people back to work after surgery.

* Line workers at two plants visited the first-aid station almost daily because of severe pain in her hand, but attendants refused to let them go to the doctor. They were eventually diagnosed with carpal tunnel and settled workers' comp claims out of court.

* An HR supervisor made numerous requests to let workers get medical attention, but was told that if they kept coming to the office they'd have to be fired.

* The company has a history of underreporting injuries. In 1997, regulators took a peek at the company's main plant in Hoke County and discovered the company had deliberately crossed off at least 35 names from injury logs. The company was able to knock its fine down to $800 from $9,000 after claiming it wasn't a willful violation. A record-keeping expert with OSHA--at risk to his own career--examined details of 41 injuries dug up by the Observer and said flat-out that the company broke the law by not reporting over half of them.

* In 1999, North Carolina state inspectors wanted to look into reports of injuries at the main plant, and one claimed to have seen several young workers who couldn't use their arms or hands properly (including one who couldn't even raise his arms above his head).

There's another story about a woman who is virtually unable to use her hands due to symptoms consistent with tendinitis, carpal tunnel and trigger finger. However, supervisors and nurses wouldn't let her see a doctor. She finally went to one on her own, and he recommended lighter duty--a request that was turned down almost out of hand. She was ultimately fired for missing too much time.

Sickening isn't the word for this. All in the name of lightening up those carnsarned regulations.

The Observer's editorial says it best:

Feeble rules and lax oversight have made it easy for a dangerous industry to exploit illegal workers, underreport injuries and manipulate a regulatory system that essentially lets companies police themselves.

Here's where the company operates plants--if you live in one of these states, contact your congressmen and senators:

*North Carolina: Raeford, Rose Hill and Wallace
*South Carolina: Hemingway, Greenville and West Columbia
*Louisiana: Arcadia

Tom Foreman owes Pelosi an apology

(hat tip to Media Matters and Carpetbagger)

Yesterday on CNN's Situation Room, Tom Foreman ran a story ticking off Congress' limited list of accomplishments--and included a quote from Nancy Pelosi which appeared to explain why Congress was so unpopular.

I know that Congress has low approval ratings. I don’t approve of Congress because we haven’t done anything.

One problem--that wasn't actually what Pelosi said. Whether it was intentional or not, this is quite possibly the most egregious screw-up I've seen in awhile at CNN. I usually enjoy Foreman's work, but this time he dropped the ball. He should be man enough to apologize to Pelosi--on the air, promptly. And whoever edited that tape should get awhile off to think about it--and firing is not out of line given the circumstances.

Here's the full quote from Pelosi's legislative briefing on November 1, courtesy of The Hill:

“I don’t approve of Congress, because we haven’t done anything that — we haven’t been effective in ending the war in Iraq,” Pelosi said at the news conference. “And if you asked me in a phone call, as ardent a Democrat as I am, I would disapprove of Congress as well.”(emphasis mine)

What makes this screwup even more colossal is that Wolf Blitzer aired the full quote on the November 1 edition of TSR.

From a journalism major's perspective, I don't think it was intentional ... the tape editor probably wanted some good video and cut Pelosi off to get it in. But that is still inexcusable--and even if you allow for him being a newbie (which I find hard to believe) Foreman should have caught it.

Here's where to pester CNN.

ABC News: Administration pushed out waterboarding critic

Well, well ... Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein announced they would support Michael Mukasey's nomination in committee. But would they have supported it had they known about what happened to Daniel Levin?

ABC News reports that in 2004, Levin, then an acting assistant attorney general, personally went through a waterboarding session himself. The experience led him to conclude that waterboarding was illegal torture if it wasn't conducted under close supervision in a limited manner. He then wrote a new memo that declared torture "abhorrent." However, the White House forced him to add a footnote saying that he was not declaring any of the administration's acts illegal. He was in the midst of a second memo outlining the supposedly limited circumstances under which waterboarding could be permitted--but never finished it. Not long after Gonzo became attorney general, Levin was out of a job.

So here's the $64,000 question--did the Dems know about what happened to Levin? And if they did, what assurances did Mukasey give Schumer and Feinstein in order to win their vote?

NYT: Potential "quagmire" for administration on waterboarding

Today's NY Times has a front page story--above the fold--about the reasoning behind Michael Mukasey's stonewalling on the waterboarding issue. Apparently, Mukasey's wariness to give a definite answer isn't out of not knowing the law. Nope, he's more interested in covering a lot of people's rear ends.

In adamantly refusing to declare waterboarding illegal, Michael B. Mukasey, the nominee for attorney general, is steering clear of a potential legal quagmire for the Bush administration: criminal prosecution or lawsuits against Central Intelligence Agency officers who used the harsh interrogation practice and those who authorized it, legal experts said Wednesday.

Well, excuse me, but I want the floodgates to open on this one. Anyone and everyone in this country who carried out or authorized waterboarding should get a one-way ticket to The Hague. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. And I mean anyone or everyone--even the president.

Call me naive, but I don't understand how someone aspiring to be our top law enforcement officer isn't willing to take a stand on who he feels we are as a country. I know it's probably been said a dozen times, but this is the main issue behind the waterboarding debate.

The Times quotes Mukasey's response to the Senate Judiciary Dems, in which he refuses to declare waterboarding illegal out of fear that it could expose CIA officers and their bosses to criminal charges.

“I would not want any uninformed statement of mine made during a confirmation process to present our own professional interrogators in the field, who must perform their duty under the most stressful conditions, or those charged with reviewing their conduct,” Mr. Mukasey wrote, “with a perceived threat that any conduct of theirs, past or present, that was based on authorizations supported by the Department of Justice could place them in personal legal jeopardy.”

In the words of Sheldon Whitehouse, Your Honor, that is a "massive hedge." It shouldn't take informed statements. It's simple common sense ... if you make someone think he's drowning, it's torture. That's something we just don't do in this country.

But in the world of this president, such things must be thought out first.

Dana M. Perino, the White House press secretary, said Democrats were “playing politics” with the waterboarding issue, noting that Mr. Mukasey had not been briefed on classified interrogation methods. “I can’t imagine the Democrats would want to hold back his nomination just because he is a thoughtful, careful thinker who looks at all the facts before he makes a judgment,” Ms. Perino said.

Excuse me? Since when do you have to think about making a call on something any decent human being finds repugnant?

I'm wary of having presidential appointees declare themselves during the hearing process, with two fundamental exceptions--questions of civil rights and questions of who we are as a country. And if making a statement on the latter causes heads to roll, well, so be it.

WaPo should withdraw its endorsement of Devolites-Davis

Ever since the news broke that Virginia State Senator Jeannemarie Devolites-Davis stooped to dragging the family of her opponent, Chap Petersen, into the campaign, I've waited to see if the Washington Post would do the right thing and drop its endorsement of Devolites-Davis. While I'd much rather see the Post endorse Petersen, it would be unconsicionable not to at least declare itself neutral in the race. And yet, as of Sunday, this is what the Post's editorial board has had to say on the matter:

(sound of crickets chirping)

What in the world are Len Downie and the editorial board worried about--appearing to take sides? If they are, they may want to chat with their counterparts at the St. Petersburg Times, which yanked its endorsement of Mel Martinez in the '04 primary after Martinez put out a series of despicable ads. The Post should follow the St. Pete Times' example and withdraw its endorsement of Devolites-Davis.

Such is the case with the Post's endorsement of Devolites-Davis. As a journalist by training, I can't see how any responsible newspaper could stand by its endorsement of anyone who would embrace such tactics. This is one instance there there aren't two sides to the story. Including your opponent's personal information in an attack ad is wrong, period. And for Devolites-Davis' suggestion that Petersen himself put his family in play by listing them in his own literature demonstrates that she is morally unfit for office.

It's time to contact the Post and demand that the endorsement be withdrawn. The best way I can think of (especially if you're in NoVa) is to write a letter to the editor. Under the circumstances, email's the best way to go, at letters@washpost.com. Though if you prefer snail-mail, here's where to write:

Letters to the Editor
The Washington Post
1150 15th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20071

Davis' wife releases home phone number of her opponent

Just when I thought I'd seen it all, I hear about something which is probably the most outrageous stunt I've ever seen in politics.

Jeannemarie Devolites Davis, the wife of Congressman Tom Davis (R-VA11), is a member of the Virginia State Senate, representing a district in Fairfax County. She's in the race of her life against former state delegate Chap Petersen.

Well, it seems that Davis sent out a flyer accusing Petersen of failing to disclose his law firm's work for companies whose issues Petersen was working on while in the House of Delegates. One problem--Petersen's home phone number, along with the names of his wife and kids, was on that form, and were not blacked out.

According to Not Larry Sabato, Petersen's wife has been flooded with hateful phone calls as a result of this mailing.

I thought I'd seen it all from the Repubs, but this takes the cake. Ms. Davis should apologize, and fire whoever put the ad together. And if she doesn't do so, the leadership of the State Senate should give her the stiffest sanction possible.

Here's Ms. Davis email: district34@sov.state.va.us

Barack, you've won me back

I have to admit, I was thisclose to endorsing Barack Obama for president until finding out he'd invited Donnie McClurkin to his tour. Speaking as an African-American, I happen to know that homophobia runs deep in our community. How in the world more of us haven't made common cause with gays befuddles me.

Yesterday, I said that Obama would have to "step up" if he was to get himself out of this--and win me back. Well, wouldn't you know--he did.

Senator Barack Obama is trying to tamp down a growing uproar over his plans to include a controversial gospel singer at a campaign concert this weekend in South Carolina and says he will feature an openly gay minister before the concert.

According to the AP, said openly gay minister is Andy Sidden, a South Carolina pastor. Now that takes cojones--not many candidates I know of have the guts to invite an openly gay personality to an event. That tells me one thing--this guy has what it takes to be president.

It's one thing to be supportive of gay rights. But it takes another to go the extra mile and say, "Not only do I support you, I want you to come along on my campaign." As far as I know, no presidential candidate has gone that far.

The way I'm reading this story, Obama must have told McClurkin, "Rev. Sidden is coming--take it or leave it." For awhile, I'd been wondering what Obama was thinking when he extended this inivitation to McClurkin. But to not only invite Sidden, but to admit that he hadn't done enough due dilligence (as opposed to stonewalling) only makes me respect him even more. Somehow, I doubt Hillary would have been this open about making a mistake.

I have to admit, I'm an unrepentant Clintonite, and I found myself on the fence between Hillary and Obama. But this gesture seals it--Barack, I'm on your team.

Beck on wildfires: "I was only joking." What???

The good news: We have not one, but two responses from Glenn Beck regarding his suggestion that some of the people who lost their homes in the California wildfires "hate America." The bad news--they only prove that he doesn't get it.

Yesterday, Beck's producer told USA Today that just because Beck said "unfortunately," it wasn't that bad. Earlier in the day, Beck himself tried to blow off his comments as nothing but a joke. I'm not kidding (hat tip to Media Matters and Carpetbagger).

These people -- they're amazing. They're incredible. They claim that I'm serious when I'm joking and try to cause trouble, and then they say I'm joking when I'm serious and try to cause trouble. There's no way -- if you disagree with any of these people -- there's no way that you can ever win. And here's the interesting thing: Even if you agree with these people, there's no way you can ever win.

If you're thinking what I'm thinking--that you must suppress the urge to scream--it gets even better.

Any talk show host with even a droplet of decency would have apologized for such reprehensible comments. Especially when you step on the third rail of political discourse--cheap shots against innocent private citizens. But nooooo, not Beck. Instead, we get lectured on when to tell when he's joking and when he isn't:

When you listen to this program -- I hate to break it to, you know, those who don't listen to the show, but if they ever would listen to the show, let me give you a little piece of advice: You have to engage what I like to call "your brain." You actually have to think. I might be making a joke. I might be serious. We joke a lot about, you know, the Hollywood crowd living in Southern California. For example, I believe I have advocated Hollywood building giant air conditioners so they can fix the global-warming problem. I'm pretty sure I was joking then.

But you wouldn't know that if you hadn't engaged your brain. So let me be serious for a minute. Let me extraordinarily clear. I clearly do not want anyone's house to be burned down.

Even if you accept that Beck was joking (something which I find hard to believe given the context of the original comments), we're left with something that Beck probably wouldn't know if he ever "engaged his brain." It is wrong to joke about people's suffering. Period. And it is wrong to take cheap shots at private citizens. Period.

So let's see if I'm understanding this. Pete Stark says that Shrub gets pleasure out of people being sent into the Iraq meatgrinder, and Repubs foam at the mouth and demand an apology. Glenn Beck takes a cheap shot at ordinary Americans--some of whom have had to flee twice--and it's only a joke. Mr. Beck, you've done a whopper of a job in showing me--a member of a demographic that supposedly shouldn't even think about voting for a Democrat--why I can never be a Republican. I cannot, and I will not, ever align myself with a party that finds it acceptable to attack ordinary Joes one minute and go postal over attacking the president in the next.

Pester his affiliates, CNN, XM Radio and Good Morning America (he contributes there). Anyone who thinks you can get away with taking cheap shots like this and blowing it off as a joke has no business being on the air.