Mariah Blake

Mariah Blake

Senior Reporter

Mariah Blake is a senior reporter at Mother Jones. She has also written for The Atlantic, Foreign Policy, The Nation, The New Republic, The Washington Monthly, and The Columbia Journalism Review, among other publications. E-mail her at mblake [at] motherjones [dot] com or follow her on Twitter.

Get my RSS |

Cliven Bundy's Daughter Slams Sean Hannity

| Fri Apr. 25, 2014 1:42 PM EDT

Since Wednesday night, when the New York Times published Cliven Bundy's observations about "the Negro"—including his musing that African Americans were better off as cotton-picking slaves than they are today—conservative pundits have scrambled to distance themselves from the Nevada rancher, whose recent standoff with federal officials over grazing fees on public land became a rallying cry for anti-government conservatives. Fox News host Sean Hannity, who had vociferously championed Bundy as a hero, kicked off his Thursday show by slamming Bundy for his "ignorant, racist, repugnant, despicable" remarks.

Bundy defended his initial comments on Thursday saying, "If they think I'm racist, they're totally wrong…Again, I'm wondering are they better off under the old system of slavery or are they better off under the welfare slavery that they're under now. You know, I'm not saying one way or the other." And on Friday morning, he told CNN that he didn't see a problem with using terms like "Negro" or "boy" for black people. "If those people cannot take those kind of words and not be (offended), then Martin Luther King hasn't got his job done yet," he told anchor Chris Cuomo.

Meanwhile, Bundy's daughter, Shiree Bundy Cox, is striking back at conservatives who have turned tail on Bundyespecially Hannity. In a Facebook post Thursday night, she accused the talk show host of abandoning her father and pandering to ratings. Here's a snippet:

I'm sure most of you have heard the news about my dad being called a racist. Wow! The media loves to take things out of context don't they? First off I'd just like to say that my dad has never been the most eloquent speaking person. Like someone said, he's a Moses who needs an Aaron to speak for him. This is true. Second, however, is that the media has turned this into a circus side show. It's like their trying to throw us off the real subject. Why was this ever even brought up? What does this have to do with land rights issues? Sean Hannity was all for reporting the happenings at the Bundy Ranch until this popped up. I wonder if someone hoped it would be that way…By the way, I think Mr. Hannity is more worried about his ratings than he really is about what my dad said. If he supports a supposed racist, what will that do to his ratings? He's already lost his #1 spot on Fox.

Cox, who is one of 14 children, also suggested that the controversy concerning Bundy's racist comments had somehow been orchestrated to undermine her father's cause:

Glenn Beck was never 100% on board with my dad, but now he has an excuse to distance himself even farther. Could there be people out there who want it that way? Get the un main stream media out of the way from reporting this situation in a positive light and the battle is more than won for the opposing side…Again I'd like to ask, "What does my dad's opinion on the state of the Blacks on welfare have to do with the land rights issue?" Nothing! It's a detouring tactic. It's taking away from the real issues and what has been accomplished. The mainstream media want this to happen to make people deviate from the real important things and focus on a comment that has absolutely no relevance. It's a tactic that has been used for decades. I hope people will see this for what it really is.

While she came down hard on his critics, Cox's defense of her father was not so fierce: "Is my dad a racist. No, I really don't think so. Could he have said what he means with a little more tact? Sure he could have. But most of all, should it even be an issue right now? Nope."

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Congressman Slams the Pentagon for its "Orwellian" Treatment of Fort Hood Victims

| Fri Apr. 25, 2014 6:00 AM EDT
A soldier wipes tears from his eyes during a vigil at Fort Hood, Texas in November 2009.

Another member of Congress has joined the chorus of officials calling on the Pentagon to give victims of the 2009 Fort Hood shooting the same benefits as soldiers killed or wounded in combat.

In a recent letter to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, which cited our reporting, Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-Pa.) detailed the "Orwellian" situation survivors and families of the dead face because of how the incident has been labeled:

Major Nidal Hasan admitted he was the attacker. He is an avowed Jihadist who since 2008 had communicated more than a dozen times with al Qaeda-linked cleric Anwar al-Awlaki….And yet, the Department of Defense has classified the incident as "workplace violence," depriving the survivors and families of the fallen of medical and disability benefits and combat-related pay. This Orwellian designation also makes them ineligible for the Purple Hearts.

Beyond this unfairness, a recent article in Mother Jones magazine outlined how shabbily the injured were being treated by their own government. One Army reservist who was shot in the head and back was discharged rather than placed in a Warrior Transition Unit, as is commonplace for reservists wounded overseas. She lost her military health insurance. Only after the kindness of strangers was she able to seek treatment at the Mayo Clinic, where the doctors found multiple bullet fragments in her skull that had gone unnoticed and led to crippling headaches. Another survivor, a 22-year Army veteran who was shot seven times in the attack, was turned away from an Army post-traumatic stress clinic in Texas because his wounds were not combat-related. He was eventually able to seek treatment at a Navy clinic in California at his own cost rather than the Army’s. There are other stories that can only be described as shameful.

As a former prosecutor, I can appreciate the Department’s concern that designating the shooting an act of terrorism and the subsequent injuries as combat-related could prejudice the case against Hasan. But the court martial is over, and Hasan sits on death row. The appeals process is likely to last years. Meanwhile, the killed and wounded in this attack are being denied the benefits and honors they have earned.

Other lawmakers have made similar pleas. In May 2013, Reps. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.), Frank Wolf (R-Va.), and Thomas Rooney (R-Fla.) sent Hagel a letter calling the government's decision to classify the shooting as workplace violence an "irresponsible, indefensible breach of our nation's sacred pledge to our service members." The lawmakers urged the Pentagon to "swiftly reclassify the victims' deaths and injuries as 'combat-related.'"

Rep. Patrick Meehan calls the victims' situation "Orwellian."

Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), whose district includes part of Fort Hood, has been trying for nearly five years to push through legislation that would make Hasan's victims eligible for the same benefits and honors as soldiers killed or wounded in combat, including Purple Hearts. The measure has garnered broad support, with more than 220 co-sponsors, and a variation was included in the defense-spending bill that passed the House last year. But it was stripped out of the Senate version after the White House and the Army voiced opposition.

Since Hasan's conviction on murder charges last August, Carter, who chairs the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations, has redoubled his efforts. "I support Representative Meehan’s letter to Secretary Chuck Hagel and hope that President Obama, Secretary Hagel and the DoD will finally recognize the shooting for what it is—an act of terror," he told Mother Jones. "The fight for the victims of the Fort Hood shooting will not be over until it is won."

In an email, Army spokeswoman Lt. Col. Alayne P. Conway defended the decision not to label the incident terrorism saying, "There has been no evidence or information indicating that Nidal Hasan was a member of an international terrorist organization or that his attack was directed by such an organization." Conway added that, in late 2013, after several inquiries from members of Congress, the Army "agreed to review the record of Nidal Hasan's court-martial and determine whether it provides any additional or new evidence that would establish a sufficient nexus between Hasan and an international terrorist organization." But the Army judge who oversaw the proceedings refused to admit information relating to Hasan's Jihadist ties—including dozens of emails between the Army psychiatrist and Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical cleric with Al Qaeda ties. So there's virtually no chance of the review finding that the deadly rampage was an act of terrorism, and victims will continue struggling to get the benefits Meehan and other lawmakers feel they deserve.

White House Turned Down Request From Victims of First Fort Hood Attack for Meeting With Obama

| Sun Apr. 13, 2014 9:27 AM EDT
Retired Staff Sgt. Alonzo Lunsford describes being shot in the head during the 2009 Fort Hood shooting rampage.

During last week's memorial service for victims of April 2 Fort Hood shooting, President Barack Obama spoke about the lingering hurt from the previous attack on the base in 2009. "Part of what makes this so painful is that we've been here before," Obama said. "This tragedy tears at wounds still raw from five years ago. Once more soldiers who survived foreign war zones were struck down here at home, where they're supposed to be safe." Yet, when victims of the first Fort Hood shooting invited the president to see those wounds up close, he refused, without explaining why.

The morning of the memorial, retired Staff Sgt. Alonzo Lunsford, who was shot seven times during the 2009 Fort Hood rampage, requested that Obama meet briefly with victims and their families while he was on base. Lunsford's letter, which was addressed to the president's chief of staff, Denis McDonough, also described survivors' disappointment with how they had been treated:

As you may know, the President and high-ranking members of the military promised me, my family and the other Fort Hood terror attack survivors that the federal government would "make them whole." After more than four and one-half years, however, the government has yet to make good on this promise.

We believe that if the President could hear, first-hand, our plight and our mistreatment at the hands of his bureaucracy, that he would take the steps needed to set things right. Therefore, we ask for ten minutes of his time.

In the years since Major Nidal Hasan opened fire in a crowded Fort Hood medical center, killing 13 people and wounding another 32, victims have struggled to get medical care and financial benefits. This is largely because of how the incident has been labeled. Although Hasan is an avowed jihadist with ties to Al Qaeda, the Pentagon considers the attack to be workplace violence rather than terrorism or combat. Thus victims aren't eligible for many benefits and honors available to soldiers wounded or killed in action. (For more on this topic, see "The White House Broke Its Promise to the Victims of the First Fort Hood Shooting. Will History Repeat Itself?")

Arizona Is the Latest Front in the War on Abortion Drugs

| Tue Apr. 1, 2014 2:51 PM EDT

On Tuesday, the nation's toughest law on abortion drugs took effect in Arizona. The measure—which passed the state legislature in 2012 but was temporarily blocked by a federal lawsuit—requires doctors to prescribe the most common abortion pill, RU468 or mifepristone, exactly as called for on its 14-year-old FDA label. Studies by the World Health Organization and independent scientists have since found that the drug works equally well at a third the original dose. It can also be safely used nine weeks into pregnancy, rather than just seven, as the label states. Both the WHO and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have updated their guidelines accordingly, with lower doses and fewer doctors' visits than suggested by the FDA.

By compelling healthcare providers to stick to the outdated label, Arizona will make medication abortions—which can be performed earlier than other readily available options—more expensive and difficult to access. The Arizona law also requires that a doctor be present when the pills are taken. Women's health advocates say this will make it impossible for some women in rural areas, where doctors and abortion clinics are scarce, to access abortions at all.

Arizona is hardly the only state to clamp down on abortion drugs. According to the Guttmacher Institute, in recent years at least 39 states have passed bills limiting access. Below is a state-by-state breakdown.

 

A state-by-state LOOK AT abortion drug restrictions

Hover over a state to see a breakdown of restrictions in place there. Source: Guttmacher Institute.  

Fri Apr. 25, 2014 1:42 PM EDT