The Occupy Wall Street protest movement began in New York City’s Zuccotti Park in September of 2011. The movement has grown and spread throughout the country. On their website, they describe the movement as a non-violent fight, “against the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse that has caused the greatest recession in generations.”
This library guide was created as an informational tool on the continuing movement. We decided to include mostly material that contains frequently updated aggregated media updates. While we would like to offer you the best information available, we cannot claim that some of these are not free of bias so please peruse the following information with a critical eye. If you feel an important resource may have been overlooked, please let us know and we will consider adding it to the list.
From the Movement
Occupy Wall Street: Frequently updated webpage
We Are the 99%: Photos and descriptions from those supporting the movement
Common Dreams: Occupy USA Coverage: News, video and twitter updates as they occur
Related Groups
Occupy Together: Aggregates Occupy Wall Street events and other events in solidarity with the movement
Occupy Global: Unifying vision for Occupy movements
Interoccupation Communication: Enables communication among Occupy movements
Beginners Guide Video from Bristol, UK: Occupy movement in the UK
Local Group Sites
Occupy Baltimore
Occupy D.C.
News Outlets
New York Times: Topic page updated with the latest developments and linking to other New York Times content
DNAinfo.com: Manhattan Local News: Local New York news outlet
Salon: Topic page updated with the latest stories
News Articles in Academic Search & MasterFILE: TU Community –Login to view News articles through the databases
Images
Associated Press: Photographs of the Occupy Movement: TU Community –Login to view News articles through the databases
Flickr: More photographs from the Occupy Movement
Charts, Graphs & Statistics
Occupy Wall Street Overview: An Infographic
Who is Occupy Wall Street?: An Inforgraphic
Occupy Design: Building a Visual Language for the 99 Percent: Grassroots project connecting designers with on-the-ground demonstrators in the Occupy Together movement
Wealth, Income, and Power in the U.S.: An Infographic
Wealth & Income Inequality: From Mother Jones
Social Media
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube –OccupyTVNY
Miscellaneous Items
Gallup Poll on Occupy Wall Street from October 18, 2011: U.S. opinion of Occupy Wall Street
EPI (Economic Policy Institute) Report on Occupy Wall Street from October 26, 2011
Pew Research Center on Occupy Wall Street from October 19, 2011
Internet Archive: Occupy Wall Street: Collection of media about Occupy Wall Street and related movements
Podcast: What is Occupy Wall Street?: From NPR
Ways to Teach about OCW: From the New York Times blog
Inequality.org: Portal for data, analysis, and commentary on wealth and income disparity from the Institute for Policy Studies
Opposing View Points
The Heritage Foundation: The Conservative’s Guide to the Occupy Wall Street Protests: Research and educational institution for conservative public policies
We Are the 53%: Photos and descriptions from those against the movement
Townhall.com: Conservative news, politics, opinion, breaking news analysis, and commentary.
PROUT
For a More Progressively Evolving Society
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Political Dimension of PROUT: Partyless, Compartmental Democracy
Political democracy, as it is practiced in the world today, has a record of mixed success, and has failed to solve certain existential problems due to the absence of economic democracy. Loftily defined as "Government of the people, for the people, and by the people," political democracy is simply majority rule. And when vested interests are able to influence voters and politicians, whether by coercion, propaganda, bribery or clever manipulation of the media, it is easy to see that the real interests of even the majority are not always served. Similarly, under the influence of clever speeches and poor education, unqualified or corrupt leaders may be elected. While running the risk of underestimating people's power of self governance, it is important to realize that majority decision making is not free of blemishes, especially when politicians are bought and corporate media leaves voters poorly educated regarding the issues.
PROUT recognizes that certain prerequisites are necessary for a successful political democracy. Political candidates must be ethical, educated, and socially conscious. Voters must also demand ethical behavior of their leaders and have the requisite education and socio-economic consciousness to make rational decisions. Thus a high standard of impartial education is necessary to ensure that democracy is successful.
Presently money, intra-party status, and media portrayal have more to do with the success or failure of a candidate at the polls than does his or her position on issues and standard of behavior. In many countries, votes are bought and sold openly and corruption is the rule rather than the exception. It is often impossible for moral people to even dent the realm of politics. In the so-called developed countries, the situation is only little better, as financial and political control of the mass media and poor socio-economic consciousness prevail.
A further problem with the present system of political democracy is that as candidates are dependent upon campaign contributions from the wealthy, in most instances, they end up catering to the demands of those influential sections of society. This means that the decisions taken by the leaders in a "democratic" country do not necessarily reflect the best interests of society as a whole. Political leaders are forced to serve powerful corporate interest groups, even immoral hypocrites, who have tremendous financial influence. They are unable to maintain their offices if they cross such people. And due to continual pressure to canvass for funding, the role of money in politics is paramount.
The system of political parties seems also to have significant defects. Candidate qualifications, personal integrity, and the spirit of social service play secondary roles to party status and seniority. Candidates are forced to abide by party policies and cannot effectively combat elections without party endorsement. In this way, political parties are also controlled by monied interests. For these reasons, PROUT advocates a system of partyless democracy.
Under PROUT's system, independent political candidates would be required to state their platform policies in black-and-white. Failure to implement such programs could result in termination from office so as to prevent politicians from making empty promises for the sake of an election. A partyless system is of paramount importance for lessening corruption. Of course, it is natural that like minded people will associate and work together out of common interest. Indeed, it would be impossible to enact any positive measures independently. Yet, it is clear that the current formality of party affiliation has significant drawbacks. A more balanced approach without the formalities of party name and the necessity of party endorsement may alleviate such problems.
So, in addition to economic democracy, PROUT advocates a democratic political system with certain modifications. PROUT favors the three branch system of Executive, Legislative, and Judicial with the addition of an independent Financial or Public Exchequer department. This is an important addition that would monitor federal spending and publicize the strengths and weaknesses of government programs. This department would keep the accounts of the other three departments. All of these departments should function independently.
It should also be stressed that there should be no political involvement in economic affairs by the central governments, as the economic system is to be decentralized. Local governments would be responsible for the running of certain key industries, but for this purpose, independent managers would be hired. Key industries would not be run by politicians, whose skills are much different.
[Be sure to review Basic Design Principles and other links to your right.]
PROUT recognizes that certain prerequisites are necessary for a successful political democracy. Political candidates must be ethical, educated, and socially conscious. Voters must also demand ethical behavior of their leaders and have the requisite education and socio-economic consciousness to make rational decisions. Thus a high standard of impartial education is necessary to ensure that democracy is successful.
Presently money, intra-party status, and media portrayal have more to do with the success or failure of a candidate at the polls than does his or her position on issues and standard of behavior. In many countries, votes are bought and sold openly and corruption is the rule rather than the exception. It is often impossible for moral people to even dent the realm of politics. In the so-called developed countries, the situation is only little better, as financial and political control of the mass media and poor socio-economic consciousness prevail.
A further problem with the present system of political democracy is that as candidates are dependent upon campaign contributions from the wealthy, in most instances, they end up catering to the demands of those influential sections of society. This means that the decisions taken by the leaders in a "democratic" country do not necessarily reflect the best interests of society as a whole. Political leaders are forced to serve powerful corporate interest groups, even immoral hypocrites, who have tremendous financial influence. They are unable to maintain their offices if they cross such people. And due to continual pressure to canvass for funding, the role of money in politics is paramount.
The system of political parties seems also to have significant defects. Candidate qualifications, personal integrity, and the spirit of social service play secondary roles to party status and seniority. Candidates are forced to abide by party policies and cannot effectively combat elections without party endorsement. In this way, political parties are also controlled by monied interests. For these reasons, PROUT advocates a system of partyless democracy.
Under PROUT's system, independent political candidates would be required to state their platform policies in black-and-white. Failure to implement such programs could result in termination from office so as to prevent politicians from making empty promises for the sake of an election. A partyless system is of paramount importance for lessening corruption. Of course, it is natural that like minded people will associate and work together out of common interest. Indeed, it would be impossible to enact any positive measures independently. Yet, it is clear that the current formality of party affiliation has significant drawbacks. A more balanced approach without the formalities of party name and the necessity of party endorsement may alleviate such problems.
So, in addition to economic democracy, PROUT advocates a democratic political system with certain modifications. PROUT favors the three branch system of Executive, Legislative, and Judicial with the addition of an independent Financial or Public Exchequer department. This is an important addition that would monitor federal spending and publicize the strengths and weaknesses of government programs. This department would keep the accounts of the other three departments. All of these departments should function independently.
It should also be stressed that there should be no political involvement in economic affairs by the central governments, as the economic system is to be decentralized. Local governments would be responsible for the running of certain key industries, but for this purpose, independent managers would be hired. Key industries would not be run by politicians, whose skills are much different.
[Be sure to review Basic Design Principles and other links to your right.]
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Voices of the Occupation: What they'll take away
On Tuesday, in the hours before Occupy L.A. was ejected from the grounds of City Hall, Margot Roosevelt photographed participants and interviewed them about what had brought them to the protest and what message they hoped people would take away from it. Their statements have been edited for length.
Allen Lasley, 26
Anaheim HillsMy mother was a single parent for me and my sister. When I was young, she was going to college and working two jobs — at McDonald's and at a dry cleaners. She still had to steal food. I was 4 years old when I realized something was seriously wrong.
Every experience I've had since then has been struggling to survive. I went into the Marine Corps when I was 17. I did two tours in Iraq. I came back realizing how messed up this country is, how we fight unjust wars for political assets.
In my head, as a kid, I thought if you work hard, you can achieve the American dream. I'd worked my entire life. But now I spend 12 hours a day filling out applications. I go to the unemployment office. My resume is on Monster.com. I've never been called to an interview. Not one time. I've lived at homeless shelters even though I get some military benefits.
I came to be a part of changing humanity for the better. When I first came down here I stayed up all night. I wanted to see what kind of people were here. The most intelligent people I ever met reside here. Everybody has the same story of getting screwed over by the government. Many veterans have gone through what I have and can't find work. That is the No. 1 thing for most people. There are just no jobs. I came here and these people gave me hope for humanity I had never felt before.
What people should take away is that we the people are the powers that be.
I believe power should be used to create equality. We want a level playing field. We don't want a small percentage of people to control everything going on around us.
Matt Wegner, 53
Lake Arrowhead
I was foreclosed on. That is partly why I'm here. I'll never own again. I refused to renew my [real estate] broker's license after seeing people foreclosed on and pushed into the street. I can no longer ethically practice real estate.
I've been wearing this sign on my back: “Greed is a Disease.” It is a sickness. It is destroying the lives of people. What is the opposite? Generosity. We have to stop taking and start giving. That is the mind shift I am trying to bring to the world.
I was hoping Villaraigosa would be the first mayor to say, “We are on your side,” rather than sending police to say, “Oh, we are going to evict you.” You can't evict an idea. You can't handcuff the truth.
Allen Lasley, 26Anaheim HillsMy mother was a single parent for me and my sister. When I was young, she was going to college and working two jobs — at McDonald's and at a dry cleaners. She still had to steal food. I was 4 years old when I realized something was seriously wrong.
Every experience I've had since then has been struggling to survive. I went into the Marine Corps when I was 17. I did two tours in Iraq. I came back realizing how messed up this country is, how we fight unjust wars for political assets.
In my head, as a kid, I thought if you work hard, you can achieve the American dream. I'd worked my entire life. But now I spend 12 hours a day filling out applications. I go to the unemployment office. My resume is on Monster.com. I've never been called to an interview. Not one time. I've lived at homeless shelters even though I get some military benefits.
I came to be a part of changing humanity for the better. When I first came down here I stayed up all night. I wanted to see what kind of people were here. The most intelligent people I ever met reside here. Everybody has the same story of getting screwed over by the government. Many veterans have gone through what I have and can't find work. That is the No. 1 thing for most people. There are just no jobs. I came here and these people gave me hope for humanity I had never felt before.
What people should take away is that we the people are the powers that be.
I believe power should be used to create equality. We want a level playing field. We don't want a small percentage of people to control everything going on around us.
Matt Wegner, 53 Lake Arrowhead
I was foreclosed on. That is partly why I'm here. I'll never own again. I refused to renew my [real estate] broker's license after seeing people foreclosed on and pushed into the street. I can no longer ethically practice real estate.
I've been wearing this sign on my back: “Greed is a Disease.” It is a sickness. It is destroying the lives of people. What is the opposite? Generosity. We have to stop taking and start giving. That is the mind shift I am trying to bring to the world.
I was hoping Villaraigosa would be the first mayor to say, “We are on your side,” rather than sending police to say, “Oh, we are going to evict you.” You can't evict an idea. You can't handcuff the truth.
Kern Masser, 18Originally from Bakersfield, but then moved to his sister's place in Eureka
A lot of things are wrong. I tried to get a job after high school and no one would hire me because I had never had a job before. It is an endless cycle. I applied for 20 jobs in six months. I can't go to school because there's no way I could pay for the tuition. I'd like to learn. I like gardening but don't know how to do it.
But change can happen. People are trying to fight the 1%. People will look back at how bad things are now and say, “I'm glad we did that.”
Michael Basillas, 26San Diego
What made me join [Occupy L.A.] was to find a place where I could have a conversation about social, political and economic injustice in this country. Our system favors the 1%. That is not sustainable for the citizens of the U.S. It's good to know you have other people that feel the same way.
I worked at HSBC [Bank] in the accounting department for three years. They let us go because they needed to outsource the jobs. So how do I pay my bills? I'm not going to wait until I'm homeless on the streets to fight for change.
Government power is an illusion. We placed them there. We can always take it away from them. Occupy is trying to figure out how. I'm a Republican — but a radical Republican. I don't like high taxes, but if you pay taxes, you want to know it is going to the betterment of people. You want to know it is going toward things like health insurance. I don't have health insurance. It is too expensive.
Joseph Thomas, 50
Los Angeles
I was raised political. My mother adored Robert Kennedy. My father hated Richard Nixon. We talked about politics over dinner. My parents made clear to me: If you take social justice seriously, you have to be political. I'm here because I see our world is being broken. My generation has a responsibility to do something about it. I'd like to think even if I were living in a mansion in Bel-Air, I would come here.
The message? It's that politics matters. It is not peripheral. If you want to build a better world, you have to engage in the political process. We need to build a kinder, gentler world. I'd like to see a change in U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. has a dismal record in supporting brutal people across the globe. I'd like to see the Occupy movement be a force for democracy and social change.
Vivian Ortiz, 19
Grand Junction, Colo., attending photography school in North Hollywood
After I came here to school and went into debt, I found out my school is unaccredited. It is part of a corporate chain. They were good at making themselves seem like a legitimate school. But now I'm stuck.
A lot of people say, “The economy sucks, and I'm not going to do anything about it.” I'm here to hopefully make a change. I want to have a more stable future than what I'm having right now. I want people to look back on [Occupy L.A] with a positive light. Everyone came with their own issues. But the major thing is that something is wrong with society. People want their voices to be heard. Me personally? I want to get a proper education and not be in debt forever because of it.
Carina Clemente, 24
Inglewood
I went to Cal State Long Beach. I graduated with a major in psychology and theater. I was laid off a year ago. I've been trying to find work since then. I've spent five or six hours a day filling out applications and looking for work. But I only got contract jobs teaching theater classes and doing temp administration work.
I came out of curiosity. I didn't have an initial plan. The first day there were different focus groups. We came up with the idea of the People's Collective University. We held classes around political, social and economic justice, sustainability and community needs. We are making plans to expand into neighborhoods. The idea is to provide an alternative education model. We are focusing on the ideas of Paulo Freire, the Brazilian educator. He came up with a “popular education” based on mutual respect and using the personal experiences of students.
My experience through the collective university is that we have knowledge to share and can educate each other. We don't have to rely on the repressive education system. We can build together. We had classes on nonviolent direct training, on working-class unity, on healthcare inequality, on ending racism and white privilege, on addressing the role of patriarchy. Just having honest discussions, people were able to get a different perspective. People got a chance to understand each other.
One message is, we have the power to provide for ourselves. We are intelligent and capable enough to do so, regardless of formal institutional education.
Gabriel Marantz, 25
Venice
I came as a response to corporate greed and social, political and economic injustice. It is time for us to restore our democracy and have real representation for reasonable taxation. This movement gives a sense of hope in our ability to make change. Going to the ballot box is not enough. Until we change and reform the corruption of the political system at its core, we can't have a government that represents us. By volunteering [in the campaigns of Barack Obama and Dennis Kucinich], I was [able to] have an effect in getting someone elected, but getting one elected official into office is not enough. We are not a true democracy anymore. The disparity in wealth is saddening. To do nothing is just not an option for my soul.
We should abolish private financing in all federal elections and get rid of perks and gifts to politicians. We need a constitutional amendment that says corporations are not people and money is not free speech. I want a lot of things, [including] serious electoral reform. [We should] abolish the electoral college. Elections should be on national holidays so everyone can get there without restrictions. [We need to] make government more representative.
Rachel Bulisky, 29
Recent transplant to Los Angeles from New Jersey
I have an accessory line, http://www.trashriot.com/. I do necklaces. But I haven't made anything lately because I'm homeless. I have a BA in fine arts from Montclair State in New Jersey. Now I'm $20,000 in debt and I'm on the street. I majored in artistic welding. But you need electricity and a blowtorch. So now I do wire wrapping in my tent. I used to sell in Venice, [but the store] got shut down.
I was on a bus. I saw all these tents. I got off to see what was going on. Someone asked if I needed a place, and gave me a tent. At the same time, these people were protesting all the things I hate. The government is totally messed up. Everybody here can agree on one thing: Things are not right. There are a lot of frustrated people and nowhere to go with that. There's a lot of energy. It's not like we all say the same thing. It is a meeting ground and a shelter where we can all throw around ideas.
There have been a lot of beautiful moments. It's been a meeting place of brilliant minds. At least in one place, we're trying to work it out. I learned how to crochet here. We started a crochet circle. We were making handbags out of scraps of materials. It was a lot of fun.
J.D. Mcconnell, 33
Recently moved to Las Vegas from Los Angeles
I came to get money out of politics. We have a system of legalized bribery and political puppeteering. Before, I was not feeling like I had a political voice. This is the first time I've felt like I had a voice. If you get enough people together, you really can be heard.
What made me join [Occupy L.A.] was to find a place where I could have a conversation about social, political and economic injustice in this country. Our system favors the 1%. That is not sustainable for the citizens of the U.S. It's good to know you have other people that feel the same way.
I worked at HSBC [Bank] in the accounting department for three years. They let us go because they needed to outsource the jobs. So how do I pay my bills? I'm not going to wait until I'm homeless on the streets to fight for change.
Government power is an illusion. We placed them there. We can always take it away from them. Occupy is trying to figure out how. I'm a Republican — but a radical Republican. I don't like high taxes, but if you pay taxes, you want to know it is going to the betterment of people. You want to know it is going toward things like health insurance. I don't have health insurance. It is too expensive.
Joseph Thomas, 50Los Angeles
I was raised political. My mother adored Robert Kennedy. My father hated Richard Nixon. We talked about politics over dinner. My parents made clear to me: If you take social justice seriously, you have to be political. I'm here because I see our world is being broken. My generation has a responsibility to do something about it. I'd like to think even if I were living in a mansion in Bel-Air, I would come here.
The message? It's that politics matters. It is not peripheral. If you want to build a better world, you have to engage in the political process. We need to build a kinder, gentler world. I'd like to see a change in U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. has a dismal record in supporting brutal people across the globe. I'd like to see the Occupy movement be a force for democracy and social change.
Vivian Ortiz, 19Grand Junction, Colo., attending photography school in North Hollywood
After I came here to school and went into debt, I found out my school is unaccredited. It is part of a corporate chain. They were good at making themselves seem like a legitimate school. But now I'm stuck.
A lot of people say, “The economy sucks, and I'm not going to do anything about it.” I'm here to hopefully make a change. I want to have a more stable future than what I'm having right now. I want people to look back on [Occupy L.A] with a positive light. Everyone came with their own issues. But the major thing is that something is wrong with society. People want their voices to be heard. Me personally? I want to get a proper education and not be in debt forever because of it.
Carina Clemente, 24Inglewood
I went to Cal State Long Beach. I graduated with a major in psychology and theater. I was laid off a year ago. I've been trying to find work since then. I've spent five or six hours a day filling out applications and looking for work. But I only got contract jobs teaching theater classes and doing temp administration work.
I came out of curiosity. I didn't have an initial plan. The first day there were different focus groups. We came up with the idea of the People's Collective University. We held classes around political, social and economic justice, sustainability and community needs. We are making plans to expand into neighborhoods. The idea is to provide an alternative education model. We are focusing on the ideas of Paulo Freire, the Brazilian educator. He came up with a “popular education” based on mutual respect and using the personal experiences of students.
My experience through the collective university is that we have knowledge to share and can educate each other. We don't have to rely on the repressive education system. We can build together. We had classes on nonviolent direct training, on working-class unity, on healthcare inequality, on ending racism and white privilege, on addressing the role of patriarchy. Just having honest discussions, people were able to get a different perspective. People got a chance to understand each other.
One message is, we have the power to provide for ourselves. We are intelligent and capable enough to do so, regardless of formal institutional education.
Gabriel Marantz, 25
Venice
I came as a response to corporate greed and social, political and economic injustice. It is time for us to restore our democracy and have real representation for reasonable taxation. This movement gives a sense of hope in our ability to make change. Going to the ballot box is not enough. Until we change and reform the corruption of the political system at its core, we can't have a government that represents us. By volunteering [in the campaigns of Barack Obama and Dennis Kucinich], I was [able to] have an effect in getting someone elected, but getting one elected official into office is not enough. We are not a true democracy anymore. The disparity in wealth is saddening. To do nothing is just not an option for my soul.
We should abolish private financing in all federal elections and get rid of perks and gifts to politicians. We need a constitutional amendment that says corporations are not people and money is not free speech. I want a lot of things, [including] serious electoral reform. [We should] abolish the electoral college. Elections should be on national holidays so everyone can get there without restrictions. [We need to] make government more representative.
Rachel Bulisky, 29Recent transplant to Los Angeles from New Jersey
I have an accessory line, http://www.trashriot.com/. I do necklaces. But I haven't made anything lately because I'm homeless. I have a BA in fine arts from Montclair State in New Jersey. Now I'm $20,000 in debt and I'm on the street. I majored in artistic welding. But you need electricity and a blowtorch. So now I do wire wrapping in my tent. I used to sell in Venice, [but the store] got shut down.
I was on a bus. I saw all these tents. I got off to see what was going on. Someone asked if I needed a place, and gave me a tent. At the same time, these people were protesting all the things I hate. The government is totally messed up. Everybody here can agree on one thing: Things are not right. There are a lot of frustrated people and nowhere to go with that. There's a lot of energy. It's not like we all say the same thing. It is a meeting ground and a shelter where we can all throw around ideas.
There have been a lot of beautiful moments. It's been a meeting place of brilliant minds. At least in one place, we're trying to work it out. I learned how to crochet here. We started a crochet circle. We were making handbags out of scraps of materials. It was a lot of fun.
J.D. Mcconnell, 33Recently moved to Las Vegas from Los Angeles
I came to get money out of politics. We have a system of legalized bribery and political puppeteering. Before, I was not feeling like I had a political voice. This is the first time I've felt like I had a voice. If you get enough people together, you really can be heard.
Allan Eaton, 33Ontario
The key issue is our economic and financial situation. It is important that we do the most we can to bring attention to it, so future generations won't see the noose getting tighter and tighter around their necks. It seems like a class war. The wealth has been unequally distributed and too many people are losing their homes. Too many are homeless. Too many veterans are coming home from war and not getting the treatment they need.
I gave up a job [to join Occupy L.A.]. I found an occupation. Separating myself from my work life, social life, home life, I see more of who I am. I have separated myself from everything I know. Sometimes it is weird. I'm used to getting up and going to work. Seeing the spectators. Having a social life, going to hear music, bands. Getting beers with friends. Shooting billiards. All those things are of so little significance. This is more important for the future of this country.
The message is economic justice. That is it.
GOP Supercommittee Member Admits Bush Tax Cuts Didn’t Create Jobs, Can’t Explain Why
By Pat Garofalo on Dec 4, 2011
Republicans this week filibustered a Democratic plan to extend a soon-to-expire payroll tax cut, objecting to the fact that the extension was paid for by implementing a small surtax on income in excess of $1 million. To justify their objection to taxing the wealthy, Republicans have revived their false claim that taxing the rich amounts to taxing small business owners and job creators.
Republicans this week filibustered a Democratic plan to extend a soon-to-expire payroll tax cut, objecting to the fact that the extension was paid for by implementing a small surtax on income in excess of $1 million. To justify their objection to taxing the wealthy, Republicans have revived their false claim that taxing the rich amounts to taxing small business owners and job creators.
Bloomberg’s Al Hunt asked Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) — who represented the GOP on the fiscal supercommittee that failed to craft a deficit reduction package — to explain this viewpoint, considering that more jobs were created under the Clinton administration and its higher taxes on the rich than were created following the Bush tax cuts. Upton admitted that “I don’t know specifically the answer to that question,” nonsensically pointing to Friday’s jobs report instead of trying to argue the premise of Hunt’s question:
HUNT: Why under those pre-Bush tax cut tax rates did the economy do so well in the ‘90s? And why under the Bush tax rates, less for the wealthy, to do so poorly in this decade?
UPTON: Well, a couple things. One, spending went up, Al, the wars. I mean, that’s trillions of dollars. And also there was no change in the entitlements. And we also know -
HUNT: But that shouldn’t hurt the economy. That shouldn’t hurt economic growth.
UPTON: Yeah, but that impacts the debt and the deficit.
HUNT: But I’m asking, why did the economy grow a lot? Why were more jobs created in the previous decade under higher taxes than in this decade under lower taxes?
UPTON: I don’t know specifically the answer to that question. I can – I can maybe merit a guess. But, I mean, in large part is because our job – we lost jobs. I mean, look at the jobs report that came out this last week, three-hundred- some-thousand people actually stopped looking for jobs.Watch it:
As Center for American Progress Director of Tax and Budget Policy Michael Linden found, “in the past 60 years, job growth has actually been greater in years when the top income tax rate was much higher than it is now.” In fact, “if you ranked each year since 1950 by overall job growth, the top five years would all boast marginal tax rates at 70 percent or higher.” The GOP, as Upton displays, simply has no explanation for these facts.
In a Bloomberg op-ed, wealthy investor Nick Hanauer also blew a hole in the GOP’s line of thinking, writing, “I can start a business based on a great idea, and initially hire dozens or hundreds of people. But if no one can afford to buy what I have to sell, my business will soon fail and all those jobs will evaporate. That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs.” The GOP would do well to take note.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
The Enemies Within: The 20 Most Dangerous Conservatives And Their Organizations
America has enemies. Not just abroad, but within our shores as well. And our domestic enemies, as it turns out, are MORE dangerous and destructive than the terrorists could ever hope to be. Because while the terrorists want to destroy us, the following people and their organizations are doing far more damage.
By Stephen D. Foster Jr.
America has enemies. Not just abroad, but within our shores as well. And our domestic enemies, as it turns out, are MORE dangerous and destructive than the terrorists could ever hope to be. Because while the terrorists want to destroy us, the following people and their organizations are doing far more damage.
Want to tell Ailes what you think of him? Feel free to contact Fox News Channel by mail, phone, or email.
FOX News Channel
1211 Avenue of the Americas, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10036
Phone: 212-301-3000
Web: http://www.foxnews.com/
2. The Koch Brothers: Yes, there is more than one Koch brother, but rather than jotting down the same paragraph twice, it makes more sense to combine the two. Charles and David Koch are the owners of Koch Industries, a private oil and chemicals company. They have spent big money in elections and have pretty much bought and paid for all of Republicans that sit on the energy committee. They also have ties to The John Birch Society, of which their father was a founding member, and several other conservative think tanks and organizations including, Americans For Prosperity which David Koch leads as chairman, the Heritage Foundation, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and the Cato Institute. They helped create and fund the Tea Party and have been very influential in the watering down of environmental laws and the destruction of unions. If you really want to see the scope of their influence look at what is happening in Wisconsin and in the U.S. House of Representatives.
I know you must be dying to contact Koch Industries to give them your opinion, so here’s how you can do that.
Koch Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 2256
Wichita, KS 67201-2256
Phone:316-828-5500
Fax:316-828-5739
info@kochind.com
3. Dick Armey: His FreedomWorks organization helped to create the Tea Party and he has worked closely with the Koch brothers. Armey’s organization seeks to deregulate and tear down reform. He opposed health care reform and is largely responsible for hatred, paranoia and anti-government sentiments displayed at town halls during the health care debate.
FreedomWorks
400 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 765
Washington, DC 20001
Toll Free Phone: 1-888-564-6273
Local Phone: 202-783-3870
Fax: 202-942-7649
4. Tom Donohue: The US Chamber Of Commerce President gained a hell of a lot more power in the wake of the Citizens United ruling. The Chamber is the largest conservative lobbying group in the country. Representing big corporations more than small businesses, the Chamber opposed health care reform and Wall Street reform. The group is in favor of tearing down any and every law designed to protect the American worker. Donohue once stated that “there are legitimate values in outsourcing — not only jobs, but work….” and once told unemployed people in Ohio to “stop whining”. So, not only is he for deregulation, he supports job killing policies. That is a double dose of dangerous.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
1615 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20062-2000
Main Number: 202-659-6000
Phone: 1-800-638-6582
5. Tony Perkins: Perkins is the President of the Family Research Council, a hate group according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. The Council opposes abortion for any reason, believes homosexuality should be against the law, believes in teaching “intelligent design” in schools, and believes global warming is a hoax. FRC was listed as a hate group after it falsely linked gay males to pedophilia. It basically lobbies the government to make laws that govern our personal and private lives. The Council is a Christian Right-wing organization that has a heavy influence on the Republican Party, hence all the abortion laws being proposed by them.
Family Research Council
801 G Street, NW
Washington DC 20001
Phone: 1-800-225-4008
6. Pat Robertson: Robertson founded the Christian Coalition in 1989 and claims to be non-partisan. The problem with this claim is that it’s a bunch of crap. The Christian Coalition passes out “voter guides” in churches and yet is granted tax exempt status. It clearly supports a conservative agenda and is associated with Christian fundamentalism. It is yet another group that believes that America should be a Christian state. They are a threat to the Constitution.
Mailing address:
Christian Coalition of America
PO Box 37030
Washington, DC 20013-7030
Phone: 202-479-6900
7. Edwin Feulner, Jr.: Feulner is the President of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that took a leading role in the conservative movement during the 1980′s and continues to push conservative ideals today. The Foundation has strong ties to many Republican politicians, and many Heritage personnel members have gone on to serve in senior governmental roles. Not only does it stand by supply side economics and tax cuts for the rich and corporations which led to the current economic crisis, it also believes in a strong defense which has become more and more expensive. Heritage Foundation is also a part of the Koch Foundation Associate Program and is perhaps the most powerful public policy think tank on this list. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has taken money from the organization. It has far too much influence on American policy and that influence must be brought to an end.
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Ave NE
Washington DC 20002-4999
Phone: 202-546-4400
8. Arthur Thompson: Thompson leads the radical right-wing John Birch Society, which is yet another organization that has Koch family connections. Founded in 1958 by Robert Welch, Jr., the John Birch Society is an anti-communism group that has pretty much denounced every liberal person and policy as socialist. It opposes the Civil Rights Act, the United Nations, and believes in immigration reduction. It aims to dismantle the Federal Reserve System and wants to return to the gold standard. The group is a sponsor of CPAC and is no longer exiled from the mainstream. Another interesting fact is that Fred Koch, father of the aforementioned Koch brothers, was a founding member.
John Birch Society
770 N. Westhill Blvd
Appleton, Wisconsin 54914
Phone: 920-749-3780
9. Rupert Murdoch: Known as “the man who owns the news”, Murdoch controls a vast media empire around the world including Fox News, The New York Post, and the Wall Street Journal here in America. Advertising his media outlets as “fair and balanced” Murdoch and his News Corporation relentlessly push conservative talking points and provide campaign donations to many Republicans running for various positions. News Corporation now has to answer for hacking cell phones and impeding investigations. Long the mouthpiece for Republican propaganda, Murdoch is a threat to Freedom of the Press and the foundations that keep America free.
If you want to contact News Corporation and tell them what you think of them, here is their contact information.
News Corporation
1211 Avenue of Americas
New York, New York 10036
Phone: 212-852-7000
Web: http://www.newscorp.com/
10. Grover Norquist: Norquist is an especially dangerous individual. In fact, at the moment, he has the most influence on Republican congressmen. Republicans in the House and Senate refuse to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy and Norquist and his group, Americans For Tax Reform, have made sure Republicans continue to do so. 235 members of the House and 41 Senators signed the Norquist pledge to not raise taxes and now our economic future hangs in the balance. Norquist is basically calling the shots and holding America hostage on behalf of the rich. And he isn’t even an elected official.
Americans for Tax Reform
722 12th Street, NW
Fourth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Office: 202-785-0266
Fax: 202-785-0261
11. David Bossie: Citizens United isn’t just a bad Supreme Court ruling. Citizens United is the conservative organization that the conservative majority of the Supreme Court ruled in favor of in 2008. Founded in 1988, located near Capitol Hill, and led by President and Chairman David Bossie, Citizens United’s goals include withdrawal from the United Nations, and defeat of campaign finance laws, among others. They also produce “documentaries” that serve the conservative agenda. The group is mostly a threat because of their fight to allow corporate ownership of elections. The Koch brothers, and many conservative think tanks and organizations have flooded elections with cash since the ruling. The Supreme Court decision alone is enough to put this dangerous organization and Bossie on the list.
Citizens United
1006 Pennsylvania Ave SE
Washington, DC 20003
Office: (202) 547-5420
Fax: (202) 547-5421
12. Tim LaHaye and Kenneth Cribb: Once again, you’ll notice that two people occupy this spot. After some thought, I decided this was necessary to avoid repetition. Tim Lahaye founded, and Kenneth Cribb is the current President of, the Council for National Policy. The CNP is a conservative organization for social conservative activists. Described by The New York Times as a “little-known group of a few hundred of the most powerful conservatives in the country,” the organization is perhaps the most powerful group on this list. Members include many who are already on this list such as James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, Phyllis Schlafly, and Edwin Feulner Jr. What makes this group particularly dangerous is that they support theocracy and Dominionism as national policy. They are also incredibly secretive and that’s scary all by itself.
CNP is apparently so secret that no address or phone number is available, so you’ll have to email them.
info@cfnp.org
13. Steven J. Law: Law is President and CEO of American Crossroads, a conservative organization that has raised and spent tens of millions of dollars to defend and elect Republican candidates to federal office, and was very active in the 2010 U.S. midterm elections. Basically, Law and his group are listed because they have taken advantage of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision the most since the ruling. The Kochs and Karl Rove have connections with the group and are a major reason why the House is under GOP control.
American Crossroads
P.O. Box 34413
Washington, DC 20043
Phone: ( 202) 559-6428. info@americancrossroads.org
14. James Dobson: Dobson is the Family Talk radio personality and Family Research Council founder that contributes greatly to all the hate we see from conservatives. A frequent guest on Fox News, he is perhaps the most influential religious leader on the Christian-Right even though he has never been ordained. Dobson believes that women should only focus on mothering (and probably cooking too) and is totally against gay rights. He supports private schools and special tax privileges for religious schools. He opposes sex education and only supports abstinence as the only technique for pregnancy prevention. Dobson is on this list because he is the one that began all of the anti-gay, anti-women, and anti-education speeches that are now commonplace in the Republican Party.
Family Talk Radio
540 Elkton Drive
Suite 201
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
Phone: 877-732-6825
15. Phyllis Schlafly: She is the only woman on this list. Undoubtedly, you may have thought that Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin would be, but they are not. I consider Palin and Bachmann mere pawns compared to Schlafly. As founder and President of the Eagle Forum, Schlafly opposes feminism and equal rights for women. Eagle Forum promotes a pro-life, anti-gay, anti-sex education, and anti-vaccination agenda that has contributed to the current wave of social conservative extremism in the Republican Party. She believes women should remain in the home and that there is no such things as marital rape. She is certainly the most influential woman in right-wing activism and as such, the most dangerous one too.
Eagle Forum
PO Box 618
Alton, IL 62002
Phone: 618-462-5415
Fax: 618-462-8909 eagle@eagleforum.org
16. David Keene: Up to now David Keene led the American Conservative Union, which is the oldest operating conservative lobbying organization in the country. The ACU runs the event known as CPAC and spends money on lobbying and political campaigns. Keene is still the current President of the National Rifle Association. Which is also a strong lobbying group that is virtually an arm of the Republican Party that glorifies guns and believes that people should be able to carry guns anywhere they go, even near the President of the United States. Keene is mostly on this list because of the NRA. The NRA used to actually serve a valid purpose but has since become a pro-Republican political organization that has mixed guns and politics. It makes them a danger to the political process.
The American Conservative Union
1007 Cameron Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: 703-836-8602
Fax: 703-836-8606
National Rifle Association of America
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: 1-800-672-3888
17. Tim Wildmon: Classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the American Family Association is headed by Tim Wildmon. AFA is just like every other conservative Christian group. It opposes abortion and gay rights, as well as other public policy goals such as deregulation of the oil industry and lobbying against the Employee Free Choice Act. The group has actively boycotted just about any business that disagrees with them. In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, the AFA released a video in which “God” tells a student that students were killed in schools because God isn’t allowed in schools anymore and blamed the shootings on abortion and lack of prayer in schools. AFA is against all other religions and has an obsession with Christmas, often boycotting companies that do not mention Christmas in their advertising. AFA is here on this list because they represent one of the biggest threats to intellectual and personal freedom in America.
Want to boycott AFA? Send them a “friendly” letter.
American Family Association
P.O. Box 3206
Tupelo, MS 38803
18. David Barton: Despite not having any history or law credentials David Barton passes himself off as an expert in early American history. Most of his claims have been disputed and written off as false by real historians. Barton’s organization is Wallbuilders, which seeks to destroy one the basic foundations of American life: the separation of church and state. Barton’s mission is to revise history in an effort to turn America into a Christian state with Biblical law instituted as the law of the land. He has also created false quotes to justify his claims. Barton is a danger to the history of America, the Constitution, and education.
WallBuilders
PO Box 397
Aledo, TX 76008
Phone: 817-441-6044
19. Noble Ellington: American Legislative Exchange Council, also known as ALEC. The Council is basically a pay to play organization that carries the corporate agenda into state legislatures across the country. They work to end unions, end environmental and labor regulations, and end consumer protection laws. ALEC has been funded by the Koch brothers for two decades. The price for corporate participation is an ALEC membership fee of as much as $25,000. For that price, corporations are basically writing the legislation that you are currently seeing being proposed and implemented in Republican controlled states across the country.
American Legislative Exchange Council
1101 Vermont Ave. N.W., 11th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: 202-466-3800
Fax: 202-466-3801
20. Edward H. Crane: Crane is the founder and current leader of the Cato Institute. While they have supported some liberal policies and claim to abhor neo-conservatives, the Cato Institute does push many objectives that should make everyone cringe. Among the various policies that Cato supports, privatizing Social Security, abolishing the minimum wage, abolishing affirmative action, and some environmental regulations, are among them. Of course, it’s understandable why Cato holds these positions considering Charles Koch is chairman of the board and a major funding source. Even Rupert Murdoch had a place on the board at one point which connects the Kochs and the right-wing media.
Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington D.C. 20001-5403
Phone: 202-842-0200
Fax: 202-842-3490
And there you have it. All of these people and their organizations pose a serious threat to the American people. They target women, senior citizens, minorities, homosexuals, non-Christians, and American workers. So which person or organization is the most dangerous to democracy? The common thread throughout the list is the Koch brothers. They have ties to many of the people and organizations on the list and share many of the same goals. If one were to remove the Koch brothers from the equation an important source of funding and leadership would be eliminated from the conservative sphere. The Koch brothers are by far the biggest threat to American values and institutions. The truly evil thing about this group is that NONE of these monsters are elected by the people. Yet they have more power and influence over our elected officials and system of law and government, than we do.
Edited By: Alexis Atherton
By Stephen D. Foster Jr.
America has enemies. Not just abroad, but within our shores as well. And our domestic enemies, as it turns out, are MORE dangerous and destructive than the terrorists could ever hope to be. Because while the terrorists want to destroy us, the following people and their organizations are doing far more damage.
 |
Danger sign. Image from http://www.traditioncreek.com/storefront/danger-p-606.html |
1. Roger Ailes: The President of Fox News keeps the right-wing mouth piece biased and unbalanced. He literally proposed a right-wing news network as a propaganda tool to use during the Nixon Administration. And now, Fox News makes every effort to slander Democrats, lie to the public, and support conservative groups, activists and politicians at all costs.
Want to tell Ailes what you think of him? Feel free to contact Fox News Channel by mail, phone, or email.
FOX News Channel
1211 Avenue of the Americas, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10036
Phone: 212-301-3000
Web: http://www.foxnews.com/
2. The Koch Brothers: Yes, there is more than one Koch brother, but rather than jotting down the same paragraph twice, it makes more sense to combine the two. Charles and David Koch are the owners of Koch Industries, a private oil and chemicals company. They have spent big money in elections and have pretty much bought and paid for all of Republicans that sit on the energy committee. They also have ties to The John Birch Society, of which their father was a founding member, and several other conservative think tanks and organizations including, Americans For Prosperity which David Koch leads as chairman, the Heritage Foundation, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and the Cato Institute. They helped create and fund the Tea Party and have been very influential in the watering down of environmental laws and the destruction of unions. If you really want to see the scope of their influence look at what is happening in Wisconsin and in the U.S. House of Representatives.
I know you must be dying to contact Koch Industries to give them your opinion, so here’s how you can do that.
Koch Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 2256
Wichita, KS 67201-2256
Phone:316-828-5500
Fax:316-828-5739
info@kochind.com
3. Dick Armey: His FreedomWorks organization helped to create the Tea Party and he has worked closely with the Koch brothers. Armey’s organization seeks to deregulate and tear down reform. He opposed health care reform and is largely responsible for hatred, paranoia and anti-government sentiments displayed at town halls during the health care debate.
FreedomWorks
400 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 765
Washington, DC 20001
Toll Free Phone: 1-888-564-6273
Local Phone: 202-783-3870
Fax: 202-942-7649
4. Tom Donohue: The US Chamber Of Commerce President gained a hell of a lot more power in the wake of the Citizens United ruling. The Chamber is the largest conservative lobbying group in the country. Representing big corporations more than small businesses, the Chamber opposed health care reform and Wall Street reform. The group is in favor of tearing down any and every law designed to protect the American worker. Donohue once stated that “there are legitimate values in outsourcing — not only jobs, but work….” and once told unemployed people in Ohio to “stop whining”. So, not only is he for deregulation, he supports job killing policies. That is a double dose of dangerous.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
1615 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20062-2000
Main Number: 202-659-6000
Phone: 1-800-638-6582
5. Tony Perkins: Perkins is the President of the Family Research Council, a hate group according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. The Council opposes abortion for any reason, believes homosexuality should be against the law, believes in teaching “intelligent design” in schools, and believes global warming is a hoax. FRC was listed as a hate group after it falsely linked gay males to pedophilia. It basically lobbies the government to make laws that govern our personal and private lives. The Council is a Christian Right-wing organization that has a heavy influence on the Republican Party, hence all the abortion laws being proposed by them.
Family Research Council
801 G Street, NW
Washington DC 20001
Phone: 1-800-225-4008
6. Pat Robertson: Robertson founded the Christian Coalition in 1989 and claims to be non-partisan. The problem with this claim is that it’s a bunch of crap. The Christian Coalition passes out “voter guides” in churches and yet is granted tax exempt status. It clearly supports a conservative agenda and is associated with Christian fundamentalism. It is yet another group that believes that America should be a Christian state. They are a threat to the Constitution.
Mailing address:
Christian Coalition of America
PO Box 37030
Washington, DC 20013-7030
Phone: 202-479-6900
7. Edwin Feulner, Jr.: Feulner is the President of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that took a leading role in the conservative movement during the 1980′s and continues to push conservative ideals today. The Foundation has strong ties to many Republican politicians, and many Heritage personnel members have gone on to serve in senior governmental roles. Not only does it stand by supply side economics and tax cuts for the rich and corporations which led to the current economic crisis, it also believes in a strong defense which has become more and more expensive. Heritage Foundation is also a part of the Koch Foundation Associate Program and is perhaps the most powerful public policy think tank on this list. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has taken money from the organization. It has far too much influence on American policy and that influence must be brought to an end.
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Ave NE
Washington DC 20002-4999
Phone: 202-546-4400
8. Arthur Thompson: Thompson leads the radical right-wing John Birch Society, which is yet another organization that has Koch family connections. Founded in 1958 by Robert Welch, Jr., the John Birch Society is an anti-communism group that has pretty much denounced every liberal person and policy as socialist. It opposes the Civil Rights Act, the United Nations, and believes in immigration reduction. It aims to dismantle the Federal Reserve System and wants to return to the gold standard. The group is a sponsor of CPAC and is no longer exiled from the mainstream. Another interesting fact is that Fred Koch, father of the aforementioned Koch brothers, was a founding member.
John Birch Society
770 N. Westhill Blvd
Appleton, Wisconsin 54914
Phone: 920-749-3780
9. Rupert Murdoch: Known as “the man who owns the news”, Murdoch controls a vast media empire around the world including Fox News, The New York Post, and the Wall Street Journal here in America. Advertising his media outlets as “fair and balanced” Murdoch and his News Corporation relentlessly push conservative talking points and provide campaign donations to many Republicans running for various positions. News Corporation now has to answer for hacking cell phones and impeding investigations. Long the mouthpiece for Republican propaganda, Murdoch is a threat to Freedom of the Press and the foundations that keep America free.
If you want to contact News Corporation and tell them what you think of them, here is their contact information.
News Corporation
1211 Avenue of Americas
New York, New York 10036
Phone: 212-852-7000
Web: http://www.newscorp.com/
10. Grover Norquist: Norquist is an especially dangerous individual. In fact, at the moment, he has the most influence on Republican congressmen. Republicans in the House and Senate refuse to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy and Norquist and his group, Americans For Tax Reform, have made sure Republicans continue to do so. 235 members of the House and 41 Senators signed the Norquist pledge to not raise taxes and now our economic future hangs in the balance. Norquist is basically calling the shots and holding America hostage on behalf of the rich. And he isn’t even an elected official.
Americans for Tax Reform
722 12th Street, NW
Fourth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Office: 202-785-0266
Fax: 202-785-0261
11. David Bossie: Citizens United isn’t just a bad Supreme Court ruling. Citizens United is the conservative organization that the conservative majority of the Supreme Court ruled in favor of in 2008. Founded in 1988, located near Capitol Hill, and led by President and Chairman David Bossie, Citizens United’s goals include withdrawal from the United Nations, and defeat of campaign finance laws, among others. They also produce “documentaries” that serve the conservative agenda. The group is mostly a threat because of their fight to allow corporate ownership of elections. The Koch brothers, and many conservative think tanks and organizations have flooded elections with cash since the ruling. The Supreme Court decision alone is enough to put this dangerous organization and Bossie on the list.
Citizens United
1006 Pennsylvania Ave SE
Washington, DC 20003
Office: (202) 547-5420
Fax: (202) 547-5421
12. Tim LaHaye and Kenneth Cribb: Once again, you’ll notice that two people occupy this spot. After some thought, I decided this was necessary to avoid repetition. Tim Lahaye founded, and Kenneth Cribb is the current President of, the Council for National Policy. The CNP is a conservative organization for social conservative activists. Described by The New York Times as a “little-known group of a few hundred of the most powerful conservatives in the country,” the organization is perhaps the most powerful group on this list. Members include many who are already on this list such as James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, Phyllis Schlafly, and Edwin Feulner Jr. What makes this group particularly dangerous is that they support theocracy and Dominionism as national policy. They are also incredibly secretive and that’s scary all by itself.
CNP is apparently so secret that no address or phone number is available, so you’ll have to email them.
info@cfnp.org
13. Steven J. Law: Law is President and CEO of American Crossroads, a conservative organization that has raised and spent tens of millions of dollars to defend and elect Republican candidates to federal office, and was very active in the 2010 U.S. midterm elections. Basically, Law and his group are listed because they have taken advantage of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision the most since the ruling. The Kochs and Karl Rove have connections with the group and are a major reason why the House is under GOP control.
American Crossroads
P.O. Box 34413
Washington, DC 20043
Phone: ( 202) 559-6428. info@americancrossroads.org
14. James Dobson: Dobson is the Family Talk radio personality and Family Research Council founder that contributes greatly to all the hate we see from conservatives. A frequent guest on Fox News, he is perhaps the most influential religious leader on the Christian-Right even though he has never been ordained. Dobson believes that women should only focus on mothering (and probably cooking too) and is totally against gay rights. He supports private schools and special tax privileges for religious schools. He opposes sex education and only supports abstinence as the only technique for pregnancy prevention. Dobson is on this list because he is the one that began all of the anti-gay, anti-women, and anti-education speeches that are now commonplace in the Republican Party.
Family Talk Radio
540 Elkton Drive
Suite 201
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
Phone: 877-732-6825
15. Phyllis Schlafly: She is the only woman on this list. Undoubtedly, you may have thought that Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin would be, but they are not. I consider Palin and Bachmann mere pawns compared to Schlafly. As founder and President of the Eagle Forum, Schlafly opposes feminism and equal rights for women. Eagle Forum promotes a pro-life, anti-gay, anti-sex education, and anti-vaccination agenda that has contributed to the current wave of social conservative extremism in the Republican Party. She believes women should remain in the home and that there is no such things as marital rape. She is certainly the most influential woman in right-wing activism and as such, the most dangerous one too.
Eagle Forum
PO Box 618
Alton, IL 62002
Phone: 618-462-5415
Fax: 618-462-8909 eagle@eagleforum.org
16. David Keene: Up to now David Keene led the American Conservative Union, which is the oldest operating conservative lobbying organization in the country. The ACU runs the event known as CPAC and spends money on lobbying and political campaigns. Keene is still the current President of the National Rifle Association. Which is also a strong lobbying group that is virtually an arm of the Republican Party that glorifies guns and believes that people should be able to carry guns anywhere they go, even near the President of the United States. Keene is mostly on this list because of the NRA. The NRA used to actually serve a valid purpose but has since become a pro-Republican political organization that has mixed guns and politics. It makes them a danger to the political process.
The American Conservative Union
1007 Cameron Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: 703-836-8602
Fax: 703-836-8606
National Rifle Association of America
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: 1-800-672-3888
17. Tim Wildmon: Classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the American Family Association is headed by Tim Wildmon. AFA is just like every other conservative Christian group. It opposes abortion and gay rights, as well as other public policy goals such as deregulation of the oil industry and lobbying against the Employee Free Choice Act. The group has actively boycotted just about any business that disagrees with them. In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, the AFA released a video in which “God” tells a student that students were killed in schools because God isn’t allowed in schools anymore and blamed the shootings on abortion and lack of prayer in schools. AFA is against all other religions and has an obsession with Christmas, often boycotting companies that do not mention Christmas in their advertising. AFA is here on this list because they represent one of the biggest threats to intellectual and personal freedom in America.
Want to boycott AFA? Send them a “friendly” letter.
American Family Association
P.O. Box 3206
Tupelo, MS 38803
18. David Barton: Despite not having any history or law credentials David Barton passes himself off as an expert in early American history. Most of his claims have been disputed and written off as false by real historians. Barton’s organization is Wallbuilders, which seeks to destroy one the basic foundations of American life: the separation of church and state. Barton’s mission is to revise history in an effort to turn America into a Christian state with Biblical law instituted as the law of the land. He has also created false quotes to justify his claims. Barton is a danger to the history of America, the Constitution, and education.
WallBuilders
PO Box 397
Aledo, TX 76008
Phone: 817-441-6044
19. Noble Ellington: American Legislative Exchange Council, also known as ALEC. The Council is basically a pay to play organization that carries the corporate agenda into state legislatures across the country. They work to end unions, end environmental and labor regulations, and end consumer protection laws. ALEC has been funded by the Koch brothers for two decades. The price for corporate participation is an ALEC membership fee of as much as $25,000. For that price, corporations are basically writing the legislation that you are currently seeing being proposed and implemented in Republican controlled states across the country.
American Legislative Exchange Council
1101 Vermont Ave. N.W., 11th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: 202-466-3800
Fax: 202-466-3801
20. Edward H. Crane: Crane is the founder and current leader of the Cato Institute. While they have supported some liberal policies and claim to abhor neo-conservatives, the Cato Institute does push many objectives that should make everyone cringe. Among the various policies that Cato supports, privatizing Social Security, abolishing the minimum wage, abolishing affirmative action, and some environmental regulations, are among them. Of course, it’s understandable why Cato holds these positions considering Charles Koch is chairman of the board and a major funding source. Even Rupert Murdoch had a place on the board at one point which connects the Kochs and the right-wing media.
Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington D.C. 20001-5403
Phone: 202-842-0200
Fax: 202-842-3490
And there you have it. All of these people and their organizations pose a serious threat to the American people. They target women, senior citizens, minorities, homosexuals, non-Christians, and American workers. So which person or organization is the most dangerous to democracy? The common thread throughout the list is the Koch brothers. They have ties to many of the people and organizations on the list and share many of the same goals. If one were to remove the Koch brothers from the equation an important source of funding and leadership would be eliminated from the conservative sphere. The Koch brothers are by far the biggest threat to American values and institutions. The truly evil thing about this group is that NONE of these monsters are elected by the people. Yet they have more power and influence over our elected officials and system of law and government, than we do.
Edited By: Alexis Atherton
GOP Leadership Contest: The Likeability Factor
Click header for original source
Pundits seem to love to profess multitudes of differing explanations for the see-sawing GOP leadership contest that has seen, respectively, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and now Newt Gingrich surge to the front of the pack in challenging Mitt Romney. These alternative explanations range from the simple to the complex, the realistic to the ridiculous. At the risk of simply indulging in this same game of choosing my favorite factor that is determining the outcome of this contest, I think the dominant factor is quite simply the likeability and personality of the candidates as expressed chiefly through the numerous debates as well as through the morning talk shows and other media appearances. Most of the factors the pundits identify seem to me to only be the type of thing that is persuasive to those who are quite knowledgeable about the minutiae of the political scene (ie the pundits themselves) while the simple question of whether the candidate presents themselves in a broadly likeable way dominates any more policy-centric focus.
Take, for instance, the much heralded comments by Perry, timed near an inflection point in his demise, where he defended in-state tuition to illegal immigrants suggesting that one would be "heartless" not to support this (a wording he later apologized for). Conventional wisdom was that such a position with anathema to Republicans and hence precipitated his downfall. In some sense, we have a fairly clear counterexample since Newt Gingrich gave an even more extreme version also arguing for compassion towards illegal families who have been in the US a long time which struck a lot of amnesty-esque overtones. Yet Gingrich is still pushing strong in the polls as the sole remaining first tier candidate to take on Romney (as an aside, the reason he so prominently emphasized this is because of considering the general election and trying to appeal to moderate and Hispanic voters). However, I don't think we even need the counterexample to realize that such a narrow policy focused issue is quite unlikely to be a major factor in such a precipitous demise or even that this issue is necessarily something the casual conservative leaning person has even deeply thought about or cares all that much about.
Let us follow the evolution of the race for the respective candidates from this perspective of focusing on likeability as illustrated principally in the debates. Here is the Dec 3rd aggregate from Real Clear Politics which shows the rise (and falls) of Bachmann, Perry, Cain and finally the rise of Gingrich against relatively flat projections for the frontrunner Romney and the third tier candidates, Santorum, Hunstman and Paul.
Michele Bachmann:
Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry both came into the race with momentum. Bachmann has been a leader in some sense of the Tea Party caucus in Congress. Since one of the dominant divides in the Republican party has been between the establishment Republicans (of which Mitt Romney is a member) and the upstart Tea Party, Michele Bachmann entered with some momentum behind her that she may have been the Tea Party's de facto standard bearer in the nomination process. However, her debate performances were simply muted. They didn't contain much of the more extreme positions one might conventionally associate with her that would let her stand out form the field and simply came across as one of the pact. As in, her basic personality in the debates wasn't enough to established her as the clear Tea Party frontrunner and so she fell off in the polls - and so left the first Romney challenger.
Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry both came into the race with momentum. Bachmann has been a leader in some sense of the Tea Party caucus in Congress. Since one of the dominant divides in the Republican party has been between the establishment Republicans (of which Mitt Romney is a member) and the upstart Tea Party, Michele Bachmann entered with some momentum behind her that she may have been the Tea Party's de facto standard bearer in the nomination process. However, her debate performances were simply muted. They didn't contain much of the more extreme positions one might conventionally associate with her that would let her stand out form the field and simply came across as one of the pact. As in, her basic personality in the debates wasn't enough to established her as the clear Tea Party frontrunner and so she fell off in the polls - and so left the first Romney challenger.
Rick Perry:
Rick Perry arrives next on the scene late but with enormous momentum, overnight jumping in the polls much higher than Bachmann ever had to front runner status given the excitement that he was the only one in the field with the establishment clout (as two term Governor of Texas, ala Bush) to challenge Romney. There are essentially three commonly established explanations for his fall. Firstly, the immigration comments mentioned above. Secondly, a series of gaffes made in the debates such as the infamous "oops" moment when he couldn't remember his talking point of the third department he was going to cut. I am very hesitant to think such minor gaffes have much relevancy. With so many debates, most people don't see any individual gaffe and I think people are usually pretty forgiving of a gaffe if they like a guy and only make a big deal of it when it is used to attack an enemy.
Rick Perry arrives next on the scene late but with enormous momentum, overnight jumping in the polls much higher than Bachmann ever had to front runner status given the excitement that he was the only one in the field with the establishment clout (as two term Governor of Texas, ala Bush) to challenge Romney. There are essentially three commonly established explanations for his fall. Firstly, the immigration comments mentioned above. Secondly, a series of gaffes made in the debates such as the infamous "oops" moment when he couldn't remember his talking point of the third department he was going to cut. I am very hesitant to think such minor gaffes have much relevancy. With so many debates, most people don't see any individual gaffe and I think people are usually pretty forgiving of a gaffe if they like a guy and only make a big deal of it when it is used to attack an enemy.
The third explanation (which, to be fair, has been widely trumpeted) is simply that he has had terrible debate performances. This is certainly true. He simply has not come across as a likeable guy. Perhaps the best descriptor of his debate performances is 'feckless'. Maybe this isn't the sole factor, but it is to my mind a very large chunk of the explanation for his downfall and is sufficient to have caused it almost irrespective of anything else.
Herman Cain:
Cain's rise is, I think, the best example of my thesis. He is clearly a likeable guy and came off very well in the debates. He was smiling, friendly, and cracking jokes that got more laughter than any other candidate. He spoke simply, concisely, and without the usual parlance and mannerisms of the politician. This isn't the only prescription to come off as likeable but it is a sufficient one. The timing was right and he picked up Perry's votes despite no one really thinking he ever stood much of a shot.
A lot of his approach and attitude, however, only works in a zero scrutiny environment when others are not digging and attacking him. Thus, when the spotlight turned to him it wasn't so much that he failed to answer certain policy questions or the like, it is that he started coming off as defensive, guarded and shifty. As in, he stopped being likeable.
From a policy standpoint, Cain is quite interesting. One the one hand, he heavily promoted his 9 9 9 plan which is, if nothing else, an actual policy that, through concision and repetition, is easily understandable. So Cain might be considered very policy oriented in that supporting him is a little bit equivalent to supporting 9 9 9. On the other hand, outside of this he has been probably the least policy oriented of the candidates and rarely offers much of a substantive policy decision, often hedging his bets by saying things like that he would consult his Generals or his economic advisers without offering an actual policy. That a candidate like him rose so quickly without much substantive policy outside of 9 9 9 indicates one again how a policy focus can be largely irrelevant.
From a policy standpoint, Cain is quite interesting. One the one hand, he heavily promoted his 9 9 9 plan which is, if nothing else, an actual policy that, through concision and repetition, is easily understandable. So Cain might be considered very policy oriented in that supporting him is a little bit equivalent to supporting 9 9 9. On the other hand, outside of this he has been probably the least policy oriented of the candidates and rarely offers much of a substantive policy decision, often hedging his bets by saying things like that he would consult his Generals or his economic advisers without offering an actual policy. That a candidate like him rose so quickly without much substantive policy outside of 9 9 9 indicates one again how a policy focus can be largely irrelevant.
As it turned out, he then got hit by a string of sex allegations which our society can't help but think is the biggest deal in the world. The latest involving and alleged long term affair right up to the present with phone records and money transfers would appeal to have locked in his demise as he has now "suspended" his campaign. I am of the opinion his downfall was close to inevitable anyways (and am a bit annoyed the sex allegations mean I won't be able to let time prove it for me).
Newt Gingrich:
The current (and perhaps the last) runner up to Romney is Newt Gingrich. His rise is clearly very dependent on the timing, but again fundamentally stems from the fact that he came off as very likeable in the debates. This was a guy whose entire campaign staff had quit a couple months earlier and was in the low single digits poll wise. But he stepped into the debates and really shown as clearly the best or second best debater after Romney on the stage. It isn't just that he appears to be intelligent, intellectual even, or other such traits, it is predominantly that he appears to be genuinely likeable. Gingrich is sometimes characterized as acerbic, in a pejorative sense, but I think this attitude comes off more as that beloved no bullshit attitude that says it how it is which is often admired.
The current (and perhaps the last) runner up to Romney is Newt Gingrich. His rise is clearly very dependent on the timing, but again fundamentally stems from the fact that he came off as very likeable in the debates. This was a guy whose entire campaign staff had quit a couple months earlier and was in the low single digits poll wise. But he stepped into the debates and really shown as clearly the best or second best debater after Romney on the stage. It isn't just that he appears to be intelligent, intellectual even, or other such traits, it is predominantly that he appears to be genuinely likeable. Gingrich is sometimes characterized as acerbic, in a pejorative sense, but I think this attitude comes off more as that beloved no bullshit attitude that says it how it is which is often admired.
Partly because the Republican party as a whole has shifted considerably to the right since Gingrich was Speaker during the 90's (he was far right at the time), and partly because of his personal policy eccentricities, from a policy perspective Gingrich stands out considerably and flies against standard GOP orthodoxy of the day. However, it doesn't seem to matter if the polls are to be believed, which really underscores my view that personality, not policy, is the defining characteristic here.
Cain and Gingrich can both credit their rises to this likeability factor even though the reason why the two candidates are likeable are quite different. The important difference is that while Cain's likeability seems to vanish in conflict, Gingrich's is the type that remains and perhaps becomes even more prominent in the face of conflict. It is for this reason that I don't expect him to experience the kind of precipitous fall that the other experienced.
Ultimately, I would wish that it was indeed policy, not personalities, that dominated election contests. However, it would appear that the driver of polls is precisely the opposite.
Ultimately, I would wish that it was indeed policy, not personalities, that dominated election contests. However, it would appear that the driver of polls is precisely the opposite.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Americans fall through the safety net as slump lingers
Simon Mann, Washington
December 3, 2011
Members of unions and Occupy Wall Street protesters take part in the "March For Jobs and Fairness" in New York. Photo: AFP / GettyTHE US economic slump has lasted so long that more than half of the 14 million Americans without a job can no longer claim unemployment benefits.
Only 48 per cent of the US jobless are receiving cheques, while 75 per cent were receiving benefits early last year.
The dramatic fall is despite the unemployment rate remaining stuck above 9 per cent and emergency measures put in place by Washington to stretch payments further than at any time since World War II.
As Americans have lost their benefits, the number claiming emergency food stamps has surged to a postwar high of 45 million, compared to 26 million at the peak of the 1990s recession.
Unlike in Australia, the jobless cannot remain in dole queues indefinitely. Only workers in the US who have been laid off qualify. College graduates and school leavers unable to find work are ineligible for assistance. In the current downturn, retrenched employees receive payments - typically, about half the median wage, or $US300 ($A293) a week - for a maximum of 99 weeks.
The period is derived from a complicated formula. Employers pay a state payroll tax that funds up to 26 weeks of regular benefits for workers who lose their jobs. Depending on the depth of the economic downturn, state governments are able to borrow money from the federal government to offer an extended benefits program. On top of that, Washington can enact emergency procedures to top up benefits further.
A combination of those provisions stretched total benefit payments to about 65 weeks in the 1974-75 recession, and to about a year in the downturn in the early 1980s.
US President Barack Obama managed to win approval for an extension of benefits in last year's push and pull with Republicans over continuing the George Bush-era personal income tax cuts.
But Congress will soon have to decide whether to continue funding Washington's share of the 99-week benefits program. Should it fail to extend the program, a further 2 million unemployed stand to lose their benefits come February.
As it stands, the program is ''uniquely generous'' compared to provisions during previous postwar recessions, says Gary Burtless, a labour markets specialist and Brookings Institution fellow. The shorter duration of previous slowdowns meant the longest average time that people relied on jobless benefits was 21 weeks in the early 1980s. By contrast, the average in this downturn is about 40 weeks.
''[The 26-week offer] was a good safety net for a shorter recession,'' Carl Van Horn, an economics professor at Rutgers University, told Associated Press. It assumes ''the economy will experience short interruptions and then go back to normal''.
Nuclear Money Pit
America’s atomic arsenal is stuck in the Cold War era.
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos | November 29, 2011
These days superpower nuclear-weapons controversies hardly elicit the excitement that once inspired such bumper-sticker slogans as, “you can’t hug children with nuclear arms.” The “no nukes!” movement has gone the way of the Cold War and MTV playing music videos, right?
In the 21st century, the 2002 Treaty of Moscow and 2010’s New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) were supposed set the clock on bilateral warhead reduction, and there are no plans for the production of more nuclear weapons. Pretty cut and dried, one would think. But like everything radiating out of Washington, the atomic drawdown is not what it seems.
Despite a deficit reduction plan to cut $1.2 trillion in federal spending over 10 years and ongoing negotiations by the so-called supercommittee to identify cuts of $1.5 trillion more, members of Congress are pushing an expanded plutonium storage and production assistance facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Critics say the facility is unnecessary, poorly designed, and dangerous—there are fault lines throughout the Los Alamos property—and its cost has ballooned from $375 million in 2001 to an estimated $5.5 billion today.
It hasn’t been built yet—in fact, the designs aren’t even finished after 10 years. But the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF) has been soaking up taxpayer money all the same as the scope of the project has metastasized.
“The country doesn’t have money to pour into an unnecessary, giant boondoggle that has grown beyond all original expectations,” charges Greg Mello, executive director of the Los Alamos Study Group, probably the toughest grassroots opposition the CMRR-NF project faces right now. “When the cost of a facility increases by more than a factor of ten, even as the fundamental purposes are evaporating, it’s important to stop, to pause and to question whether this is the right thing to do.”
There is no doubt that the budget-cutting imperative is clashing with the old way of doing business on Capitol Hill, as pet projects and earmarks come under more scrutiny than ever. Bureaucratic institutions used to getting their way by easing expensive, potentially controversial programs under the radar are finding themselves squarely in critics’ sights.
That includes CMRR-NF, which has never been the subject of a public congressional hearing or passionate floor speech—much less a heated debate on cable TV or talk radio—but has been controversial nonetheless.
“I think the key is, it appears to be a huge waste of money and particularly in our current fiscal situation there is no need to hurry this thing at all,” says Peter Stockton, senior investigator for the Project on Government Oversight, which is currently working on its own CMRR-NF report.
The mission of National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which is a semi-autonomous agency of the U.S. Department of Energy, is to “improve national security through the military application of nuclear energy.” It oversees Los Alamos and is in charge of the CMRR project.
Initially, the NNSA was merely focused on renovating the parts of Los Alamos’s old Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR) building that were outmoded and deteriorating by the late 1990s. Tests had found faults running under the property that could cause dangerous earthquakes.
After President George W. Bush was elected, plans to improve and upgrade salvageable portions of the nearly 60-year-old CMR were scrapped, and NNSA set about designing a “simple” replacement facility with two buildings about a mile away. One, the Radiological Laboratory Utility Office Building, is not controversial and almost complete. The other—the NF in CMRR-NF—is a new nuclear facility that would support Los Alamos’s nuclear-weapons mission, including plutonium storage, and assist in the production of plutonium-based “pits,” the fissile cores of nuclear weapons. This currently takes place at the existing TA-55/PF-4 nuclear facility next to the proposed site.
The nuclear facility, according to its critics, has become a monster. Aside from the runaway cost estimates, according to Mello the envisioned facility would give TA-55/PF-4 the capacity to double the number of pits Los Alamos produces each year and could store up to six metric tons of plutonium, “enough to rebuild the entire U.S. strategic arsenal.” This when there are thousands of pits already in storage and a treaty with the Russians sharply limits the nuclear arsenal.
Even if the increase in pit production were necessary—and as Mello and others point out, with much of the information classified or otherwise unavailable to the public, it is hard to know—the existing lab could be upgraded to carry out Los Alamos’s publicly stated mission to refurbish the current stockpile. NNSA, critics complain, has so far refused to seriously consider any alternative.
“We think there are simpler, cheaper, faster alternatives to accomplishing their stated mission, though their stated missions are aggrandized to begin with,” says Los Alamos Study Group President Peter Neils, who was on Capitol Hill in late October to get the word out about CMRR-NF. He blames the out-of-control designs and spiraling cost on a mix of Cold War ideology, over-reliance on contractors, and the self-sustaining mentality of all bureaucracies.
Simply put, says Mello, “the warhead establishment and the Cold War hawks cannot let go of designing and building new kinds of warheads, to create what they call ‘end-to-end’ work for the weapons complex.”
As of June, the Federation of American Scientists reports, the U.S. had 1,950 operational strategic nuclear warheads, plus approximately 200 deployed on behalf of allied countries—Belgium, Turkey, Netherlands, Italy and Germany—and 2,850 in reserve. In addition, some 3,500 retired warheads are awaiting dismantlement. This all jibes with numbers issued by the State Department in 2010. START demands that the U.S. bring those deployed numbers down closer to 1,550 by 2018.
At its peak in 1967 during the Cold War, the nuclear stockpile was at 31,225 warheads. America had 22,217 when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. If the Cold War were still on, say critics, we might need additional capacity to build pits. But as it is there are thousands of usable pits already in reserve, and the scientific consensus says the plutonium parts of the pits have a lifespan of at least 100 years. The U.S. arsenal is well stocked in this regard.
The new CMRR-NF would help Los Alamos’s TA-55/PF4 site boost production to a conservative estimate of 125 pits a year on a double shift, according to observers.
This is as outrageous as it is unnecessary, claims Frank von Hippel, a professor and principal investigator at Princeton University’s Program on Science and Global Security, in an affidavit for the Los Alamos Study Group, which is trying to force NNSA’s hand in court.
“There is no anticipated need to produce new pits for U.S. nuclear weapons for several decades,” he writes. The oldest pit produced in the U.S. is 32 years old, he added, noting the current TA-55/PF-4’s production rate of 10 pits per year would be adequate for any replacements necessary during the modernization and maintenance that is already going on under the auspices of NNSA.
Critics say the entire landscape of nuclear-weapons production has changed since CMRR-NF was conceived—all in the direction of reducing the nuclear stockpile—yet every adjustment in the facility’s blueprints has resulted in more capacity to store plutonium and build additional pits.
Most notably, the Reliable Replacement Warhead, a new family of warheads conceived in 2004 and used as a chief justification for modernizing Los Alamos’s nuclear-weapons complex, was defunded by Congress and cancelled by the Obama Administration in 2009.
CMRR-NF “is being built to increase capacity for pit production, even though pit production is not what we need,” the Project on Government Oversight’s Stockton charges. NNSA did not respond to several phone calls for comment on these and other charges lobbed by the opposition.
A three-page “Questions and Answers Regarding the CMRR Project” issued by NNSA before the Reliable Replacement Warhead was canceled maintains that the “primary mission of CMRR will be to support the current nuclear weapons stockpile through surveillance and life-extension programs necessary for the nuclear weapons complex” and “the size of CMRR remains the same.” It blames the soaring expense on poor initial estimates, cost increases in “the construction industry worldwide,” and requirements relating to the seismic risks, nuclear quality assurance, and security. The words “fissile core” or “pit” are never mentioned.
NNSA also contends it has put alternatives up for public comment, most recently when it amended the plans under its Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, which the agency says has incorporated “updated seismic safety design information.” (The Los Alamos Study Group disagrees and has filed a second lawsuit against NNSA, contending that it’s relying on outdated feasibility and impact studies, among other charges.)
Critics say that if the new facility’s mission is merely to help maintain the stockpile, the job could be handled at an improved and upgraded TF-22/P4 facility or elsewhere at a fraction of the cost. As for size, Mello says NNSA can longer say the facility is “the same”—the square footage might be, but the installation’s scope has certainly grown since 2001.
CMRR-NF is not without detractors on Capitol Hill. Over the years, its budget and plans have been questioned for all of the reasons already cited and more. Indeed, today’s fiscal environment has bolstered the criticism, with results that can be seen in competing House and Senate appropriations bills. (Some $450 million has been appropriated to CMRR since 2002.)
Calling it a “cost reduction strategy,” the House in July cut $100 million from NNSA’s $300 million request for CMRR-NF as part of the overall $30.6 billion Fiscal Year 2012 Water and Energy Appropriations package. “The [House and Water and Energy Subcommittee] fully supports the Administration’s plans to modernize the infrastructure, but intends to closely review the funding request for new investment to ensure those plans adhere to good project management practices,” the final bill reads.
By trimming the agency’s request by a third, the House is refusing to provide “the additional funding to support early construction” and would not do so until NNSA resolves “major seismic issues with design” and tames CMRR’s cost.
The Senate subcommittee, too, has expressed concerns. Pointing to the growing expense, its FY 2012 appropriations bill demands NNSA submit a contingency plan that would identify the cost and consequences of delaying the implementation of CMRR, as well as a planned Uranium Processing Facility at Oak Ridge, Tennessee—another project that has gone from an estimated $1.5 billion to upwards of $6.5 billion in the last five years. The committee also proposes to cut $60 million from the NNSA’s $300 million request for CMRR, but allows for preliminary “site preparation”—in other words, construction may begin on a project whose designs are not yet finished.
Mello and Neils have tried to convince lawmakers to put a permanent stop to CMRR-NF. It’s a difficult task, they say. Many legislators are hearing about the issue for the first time and might not be willing to plough through intimidating scientific and technical jargon to get at why this project is bad news.
And CMRR-NF already has momentum. Mike Lofgren, who spent 28 years on Capitol Hill as an aide on defense issues for the House and Senate Budget Committees, says this is bureaucracy in action, and anything relating to weapons systems is going to be expensive.
“It doesn’t surprise me that after a requirement has gone away, or the need has been severely curtailed, they would just continue on with this thing,” Lofgren tells TAC. “These projects get front-loaded by optimistic projections of their cost and overstatements of, ‘hey, we really need this thing,’ so you front-load them and politically engineer them by getting the local congressmen all hyped up by saying it’s going to create new jobs.”
When lawmakers start asking whether a particular project is really worth it, the response, Lofgren says, is always, “it’s too early to tell or too late to stop” and the effort will go on until the money is gone, mission accomplished or not. One need look no further than the $65 billion fleet of F-22 Raptors, which was grounded from May to August because of operational problems and has never seen a day of combat.
It’s hard to get a firm handle on how CMRR-NF has come to be apparently unstoppable because no wants to talk—neither the detractors on the Energy and Water Development Subcommittees, nor the project’s proponents, who have long been led by figures like Sen. John Kyl (R-Ariz.). In fact, reports at the time of Senate negotiations over New START indicate that as Republican Senate whip, Kyl was successful in obtaining additional funds for CMRR-NF in exchange for Senate GOP support for Obama’s treaty with the Russians. Kyl’s office did not return calls for comment.
A spokeswoman for Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), known as a longtime supporter of the CMRR project, responded with a statement from the senator that hardly sounded like a ringing endorsement.
The nuclear-weapons establishment “could do their job more efficiently and more cheaply if they didn’t infuse their work with so much ideology and were just more practical and straightforward,” says Mello. And CMRR-NF is not the only program that might demand additional scrutiny. According to the New York Times, the facility is just one of a host of modernization projects that could cost taxpayers over $600 billion in the next decade.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is a Washington, D.C.-based freelance reporter and a columnist for Antiwar.com.
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos | November 29, 2011
These days superpower nuclear-weapons controversies hardly elicit the excitement that once inspired such bumper-sticker slogans as, “you can’t hug children with nuclear arms.” The “no nukes!” movement has gone the way of the Cold War and MTV playing music videos, right?
In the 21st century, the 2002 Treaty of Moscow and 2010’s New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) were supposed set the clock on bilateral warhead reduction, and there are no plans for the production of more nuclear weapons. Pretty cut and dried, one would think. But like everything radiating out of Washington, the atomic drawdown is not what it seems.
Despite a deficit reduction plan to cut $1.2 trillion in federal spending over 10 years and ongoing negotiations by the so-called supercommittee to identify cuts of $1.5 trillion more, members of Congress are pushing an expanded plutonium storage and production assistance facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Critics say the facility is unnecessary, poorly designed, and dangerous—there are fault lines throughout the Los Alamos property—and its cost has ballooned from $375 million in 2001 to an estimated $5.5 billion today.
It hasn’t been built yet—in fact, the designs aren’t even finished after 10 years. But the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF) has been soaking up taxpayer money all the same as the scope of the project has metastasized.
“The country doesn’t have money to pour into an unnecessary, giant boondoggle that has grown beyond all original expectations,” charges Greg Mello, executive director of the Los Alamos Study Group, probably the toughest grassroots opposition the CMRR-NF project faces right now. “When the cost of a facility increases by more than a factor of ten, even as the fundamental purposes are evaporating, it’s important to stop, to pause and to question whether this is the right thing to do.”
There is no doubt that the budget-cutting imperative is clashing with the old way of doing business on Capitol Hill, as pet projects and earmarks come under more scrutiny than ever. Bureaucratic institutions used to getting their way by easing expensive, potentially controversial programs under the radar are finding themselves squarely in critics’ sights.
That includes CMRR-NF, which has never been the subject of a public congressional hearing or passionate floor speech—much less a heated debate on cable TV or talk radio—but has been controversial nonetheless.
“I think the key is, it appears to be a huge waste of money and particularly in our current fiscal situation there is no need to hurry this thing at all,” says Peter Stockton, senior investigator for the Project on Government Oversight, which is currently working on its own CMRR-NF report.
• • •
The mission of National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which is a semi-autonomous agency of the U.S. Department of Energy, is to “improve national security through the military application of nuclear energy.” It oversees Los Alamos and is in charge of the CMRR project.
Initially, the NNSA was merely focused on renovating the parts of Los Alamos’s old Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR) building that were outmoded and deteriorating by the late 1990s. Tests had found faults running under the property that could cause dangerous earthquakes.
After President George W. Bush was elected, plans to improve and upgrade salvageable portions of the nearly 60-year-old CMR were scrapped, and NNSA set about designing a “simple” replacement facility with two buildings about a mile away. One, the Radiological Laboratory Utility Office Building, is not controversial and almost complete. The other—the NF in CMRR-NF—is a new nuclear facility that would support Los Alamos’s nuclear-weapons mission, including plutonium storage, and assist in the production of plutonium-based “pits,” the fissile cores of nuclear weapons. This currently takes place at the existing TA-55/PF-4 nuclear facility next to the proposed site.
The nuclear facility, according to its critics, has become a monster. Aside from the runaway cost estimates, according to Mello the envisioned facility would give TA-55/PF-4 the capacity to double the number of pits Los Alamos produces each year and could store up to six metric tons of plutonium, “enough to rebuild the entire U.S. strategic arsenal.” This when there are thousands of pits already in storage and a treaty with the Russians sharply limits the nuclear arsenal.
Even if the increase in pit production were necessary—and as Mello and others point out, with much of the information classified or otherwise unavailable to the public, it is hard to know—the existing lab could be upgraded to carry out Los Alamos’s publicly stated mission to refurbish the current stockpile. NNSA, critics complain, has so far refused to seriously consider any alternative.
“We think there are simpler, cheaper, faster alternatives to accomplishing their stated mission, though their stated missions are aggrandized to begin with,” says Los Alamos Study Group President Peter Neils, who was on Capitol Hill in late October to get the word out about CMRR-NF. He blames the out-of-control designs and spiraling cost on a mix of Cold War ideology, over-reliance on contractors, and the self-sustaining mentality of all bureaucracies.
Simply put, says Mello, “the warhead establishment and the Cold War hawks cannot let go of designing and building new kinds of warheads, to create what they call ‘end-to-end’ work for the weapons complex.”
• • •
As of June, the Federation of American Scientists reports, the U.S. had 1,950 operational strategic nuclear warheads, plus approximately 200 deployed on behalf of allied countries—Belgium, Turkey, Netherlands, Italy and Germany—and 2,850 in reserve. In addition, some 3,500 retired warheads are awaiting dismantlement. This all jibes with numbers issued by the State Department in 2010. START demands that the U.S. bring those deployed numbers down closer to 1,550 by 2018.
At its peak in 1967 during the Cold War, the nuclear stockpile was at 31,225 warheads. America had 22,217 when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. If the Cold War were still on, say critics, we might need additional capacity to build pits. But as it is there are thousands of usable pits already in reserve, and the scientific consensus says the plutonium parts of the pits have a lifespan of at least 100 years. The U.S. arsenal is well stocked in this regard.
The new CMRR-NF would help Los Alamos’s TA-55/PF4 site boost production to a conservative estimate of 125 pits a year on a double shift, according to observers.
This is as outrageous as it is unnecessary, claims Frank von Hippel, a professor and principal investigator at Princeton University’s Program on Science and Global Security, in an affidavit for the Los Alamos Study Group, which is trying to force NNSA’s hand in court.
“There is no anticipated need to produce new pits for U.S. nuclear weapons for several decades,” he writes. The oldest pit produced in the U.S. is 32 years old, he added, noting the current TA-55/PF-4’s production rate of 10 pits per year would be adequate for any replacements necessary during the modernization and maintenance that is already going on under the auspices of NNSA.
Critics say the entire landscape of nuclear-weapons production has changed since CMRR-NF was conceived—all in the direction of reducing the nuclear stockpile—yet every adjustment in the facility’s blueprints has resulted in more capacity to store plutonium and build additional pits.
Most notably, the Reliable Replacement Warhead, a new family of warheads conceived in 2004 and used as a chief justification for modernizing Los Alamos’s nuclear-weapons complex, was defunded by Congress and cancelled by the Obama Administration in 2009.
CMRR-NF “is being built to increase capacity for pit production, even though pit production is not what we need,” the Project on Government Oversight’s Stockton charges. NNSA did not respond to several phone calls for comment on these and other charges lobbed by the opposition.
A three-page “Questions and Answers Regarding the CMRR Project” issued by NNSA before the Reliable Replacement Warhead was canceled maintains that the “primary mission of CMRR will be to support the current nuclear weapons stockpile through surveillance and life-extension programs necessary for the nuclear weapons complex” and “the size of CMRR remains the same.” It blames the soaring expense on poor initial estimates, cost increases in “the construction industry worldwide,” and requirements relating to the seismic risks, nuclear quality assurance, and security. The words “fissile core” or “pit” are never mentioned.
NNSA also contends it has put alternatives up for public comment, most recently when it amended the plans under its Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, which the agency says has incorporated “updated seismic safety design information.” (The Los Alamos Study Group disagrees and has filed a second lawsuit against NNSA, contending that it’s relying on outdated feasibility and impact studies, among other charges.)
Critics say that if the new facility’s mission is merely to help maintain the stockpile, the job could be handled at an improved and upgraded TF-22/P4 facility or elsewhere at a fraction of the cost. As for size, Mello says NNSA can longer say the facility is “the same”—the square footage might be, but the installation’s scope has certainly grown since 2001.
• • •
CMRR-NF is not without detractors on Capitol Hill. Over the years, its budget and plans have been questioned for all of the reasons already cited and more. Indeed, today’s fiscal environment has bolstered the criticism, with results that can be seen in competing House and Senate appropriations bills. (Some $450 million has been appropriated to CMRR since 2002.)
Calling it a “cost reduction strategy,” the House in July cut $100 million from NNSA’s $300 million request for CMRR-NF as part of the overall $30.6 billion Fiscal Year 2012 Water and Energy Appropriations package. “The [House and Water and Energy Subcommittee] fully supports the Administration’s plans to modernize the infrastructure, but intends to closely review the funding request for new investment to ensure those plans adhere to good project management practices,” the final bill reads.
By trimming the agency’s request by a third, the House is refusing to provide “the additional funding to support early construction” and would not do so until NNSA resolves “major seismic issues with design” and tames CMRR’s cost.
The Senate subcommittee, too, has expressed concerns. Pointing to the growing expense, its FY 2012 appropriations bill demands NNSA submit a contingency plan that would identify the cost and consequences of delaying the implementation of CMRR, as well as a planned Uranium Processing Facility at Oak Ridge, Tennessee—another project that has gone from an estimated $1.5 billion to upwards of $6.5 billion in the last five years. The committee also proposes to cut $60 million from the NNSA’s $300 million request for CMRR, but allows for preliminary “site preparation”—in other words, construction may begin on a project whose designs are not yet finished.
Mello and Neils have tried to convince lawmakers to put a permanent stop to CMRR-NF. It’s a difficult task, they say. Many legislators are hearing about the issue for the first time and might not be willing to plough through intimidating scientific and technical jargon to get at why this project is bad news.
And CMRR-NF already has momentum. Mike Lofgren, who spent 28 years on Capitol Hill as an aide on defense issues for the House and Senate Budget Committees, says this is bureaucracy in action, and anything relating to weapons systems is going to be expensive.
“It doesn’t surprise me that after a requirement has gone away, or the need has been severely curtailed, they would just continue on with this thing,” Lofgren tells TAC. “These projects get front-loaded by optimistic projections of their cost and overstatements of, ‘hey, we really need this thing,’ so you front-load them and politically engineer them by getting the local congressmen all hyped up by saying it’s going to create new jobs.”
When lawmakers start asking whether a particular project is really worth it, the response, Lofgren says, is always, “it’s too early to tell or too late to stop” and the effort will go on until the money is gone, mission accomplished or not. One need look no further than the $65 billion fleet of F-22 Raptors, which was grounded from May to August because of operational problems and has never seen a day of combat.
It’s hard to get a firm handle on how CMRR-NF has come to be apparently unstoppable because no wants to talk—neither the detractors on the Energy and Water Development Subcommittees, nor the project’s proponents, who have long been led by figures like Sen. John Kyl (R-Ariz.). In fact, reports at the time of Senate negotiations over New START indicate that as Republican Senate whip, Kyl was successful in obtaining additional funds for CMRR-NF in exchange for Senate GOP support for Obama’s treaty with the Russians. Kyl’s office did not return calls for comment.
A spokeswoman for Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), known as a longtime supporter of the CMRR project, responded with a statement from the senator that hardly sounded like a ringing endorsement.
“The CMRR is an important project for [Los Alamos National Laboratory] and for New Mexico, but it is also important to be sure environmental and cost issues are fully addressed,” Bingaman said. “My top concern as the project has been developed continues to be safety and security of the proposed facility.”
Contractors, post-Cold War ideologues, and bureaucracy may keep the CMRR-NF project going, but those interests appear to be clashing directly with the forces of fiscal restraint and new environmental concerns. After the earthquake-spawned Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster in Japan last spring, fears over seismic hazards at Los Alamos have only grown.
Meanwhile, the Los Alamos Study Group insists its goal is not to stop the U.S. nuclear program, but to make it safer, more efficient and less expensive.
The nuclear-weapons establishment “could do their job more efficiently and more cheaply if they didn’t infuse their work with so much ideology and were just more practical and straightforward,” says Mello. And CMRR-NF is not the only program that might demand additional scrutiny. According to the New York Times, the facility is just one of a host of modernization projects that could cost taxpayers over $600 billion in the next decade.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is a Washington, D.C.-based freelance reporter and a columnist for Antiwar.com.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Why This Blog
For centuries spiritual and religious leaders have been teaching humanity how to realize the Truth within themselves. Some have instructed their followers to shun the world and its temptations; others have preached simply that individuals must lead moral lives in society to attain eternal spiritual happiness. But very few have ever discussed in detail the mundane spheres of government, politics, and economics. Development in these realms, so it seemed, was not important for the spiritual journey of the individual soul.
PROUT and NeoHumanism are substantially synthetic, and their propounder, P R Sarkar, is a most unusual guide. He espouses, through PROUT and NeoHumanism, that this physical, material world is neither an illusion nor a great temptation, but the starting point of our spiritual journey; thus we must develop it even as we develop ourselves to make it a perfect base for spiritual effort, transpersonal growth. This effort is not the struggle of a few isolated individuals but the task of humanity as a whole. Human society and its institutions should not impede our progress; rather they should be carefully planned and designed to accelerate our progressive march toward perfection.
We are living in a most unusual time. Governmental corruption is becoming more and more painfully evident all over the world; the over-indulgence of a small segment of humanity and the resultant poverty of the majority is creating an imbalance that is upsetting the world's economy. Today people, even in wealthy nations, are beginning to learn what it means to do without. At this crucial moment in world history, proper leadership is essential. PROUT speaks of a new kind of leader, a sadvipra or "true spiritual leader." Instead of the most spiritually evolved members of society renouncing the world and seeking their own enlightenment in caves and monasteries and thus leaving the guidance of society to the corrupt politicians, spiritually developed individuals should take on the leadership of society. Since their goal, developed by regular meditation and uncompromising morality, is only the realization of the Supreme Consciousness -- not any mundane wealth, power or fame -- there will be no chance of their corruption. Inspired and guided by them, mankind will accelerate its march toward Absolute Truth and reach new heights of spiritual and material perfection.
Slander, jealousy, party politics, lethargy, grandiloquence and so on are the various kinds of social evils which, if given scope, make great criminals of people. These evils are very evident in the modern world, and the reason for this is sectarian bias. The loathsome race for political status will not relax its grip over society unless the human mind is freed from the lust for power. It is time for people to be very cautious lest this political tendency continue to shape them into criminals. If the nature of the entire human race becomes infected with criminality, if people become intolerant of others' opinions and beliefs, if they become corrupt and sell all their good judgment and talent for the sake of status, then humanity's age-old civilization will end in smoke.
These postings discusses all the problems that beset modern mankind -- governmental corruption, economic injustice, overpopulation, crime -- and offer practical solutions for them. Our first step is to realize that the true goal of humanity, the ultimate goal of evolution, is not the amassing of more and more material wealth, rather it's the expansion of consciousness. Through proper education and practical techniques of psychic expansion, humanity will come to realize that the hoarding of wealth and all the ills of corruption and scarcity it creates, are nothing but the misdirected longing of the human soul for infinite happiness -- a longing which cannot be satisfied by money but only by internal bliss, optimizing psycho-spiritual parallelism.
PROUT offers balance between the physical, psychic and spiritual realms of existence in a progressive manner, furthering human evolution towards its desideratum. Thus as human attention and activity are directed ever more toward subtler pursuits such as artistic endeavor and spiritual practice, the selfishness and greed which dominate people's minds today will be supplanted by new dispositions of love and familia. As we expand our minds toward the Infinite and learn to share our mundane treasures, we will realize substantially that we are all indeed one humanity, that we are all the children of one Infinite Intelligent singularity guiding us all toward perfection. Instead of being based on competition and mutual hostility, society will be operated through mutual cooperation and love, a force of nature throughout the Universe.
"I want every person to be guaranteed the minimum physical requirements of life; every person to get scope for the full exploitation of their psychic potentiality; every person to get equal opportunity to attain absolute truth; and, endowed with all the glories and achievements of the world, to march toward the Absolute. In and through this movement humanity should be made conscious of the purpose and meaning of life."
PROUT and NeoHumanism are substantially synthetic, and their propounder, P R Sarkar, is a most unusual guide. He espouses, through PROUT and NeoHumanism, that this physical, material world is neither an illusion nor a great temptation, but the starting point of our spiritual journey; thus we must develop it even as we develop ourselves to make it a perfect base for spiritual effort, transpersonal growth. This effort is not the struggle of a few isolated individuals but the task of humanity as a whole. Human society and its institutions should not impede our progress; rather they should be carefully planned and designed to accelerate our progressive march toward perfection.
We are living in a most unusual time. Governmental corruption is becoming more and more painfully evident all over the world; the over-indulgence of a small segment of humanity and the resultant poverty of the majority is creating an imbalance that is upsetting the world's economy. Today people, even in wealthy nations, are beginning to learn what it means to do without. At this crucial moment in world history, proper leadership is essential. PROUT speaks of a new kind of leader, a sadvipra or "true spiritual leader." Instead of the most spiritually evolved members of society renouncing the world and seeking their own enlightenment in caves and monasteries and thus leaving the guidance of society to the corrupt politicians, spiritually developed individuals should take on the leadership of society. Since their goal, developed by regular meditation and uncompromising morality, is only the realization of the Supreme Consciousness -- not any mundane wealth, power or fame -- there will be no chance of their corruption. Inspired and guided by them, mankind will accelerate its march toward Absolute Truth and reach new heights of spiritual and material perfection.
Slander, jealousy, party politics, lethargy, grandiloquence and so on are the various kinds of social evils which, if given scope, make great criminals of people. These evils are very evident in the modern world, and the reason for this is sectarian bias. The loathsome race for political status will not relax its grip over society unless the human mind is freed from the lust for power. It is time for people to be very cautious lest this political tendency continue to shape them into criminals. If the nature of the entire human race becomes infected with criminality, if people become intolerant of others' opinions and beliefs, if they become corrupt and sell all their good judgment and talent for the sake of status, then humanity's age-old civilization will end in smoke.
These postings discusses all the problems that beset modern mankind -- governmental corruption, economic injustice, overpopulation, crime -- and offer practical solutions for them. Our first step is to realize that the true goal of humanity, the ultimate goal of evolution, is not the amassing of more and more material wealth, rather it's the expansion of consciousness. Through proper education and practical techniques of psychic expansion, humanity will come to realize that the hoarding of wealth and all the ills of corruption and scarcity it creates, are nothing but the misdirected longing of the human soul for infinite happiness -- a longing which cannot be satisfied by money but only by internal bliss, optimizing psycho-spiritual parallelism.
PROUT offers balance between the physical, psychic and spiritual realms of existence in a progressive manner, furthering human evolution towards its desideratum. Thus as human attention and activity are directed ever more toward subtler pursuits such as artistic endeavor and spiritual practice, the selfishness and greed which dominate people's minds today will be supplanted by new dispositions of love and familia. As we expand our minds toward the Infinite and learn to share our mundane treasures, we will realize substantially that we are all indeed one humanity, that we are all the children of one Infinite Intelligent singularity guiding us all toward perfection. Instead of being based on competition and mutual hostility, society will be operated through mutual cooperation and love, a force of nature throughout the Universe.
"I want every person to be guaranteed the minimum physical requirements of life; every person to get scope for the full exploitation of their psychic potentiality; every person to get equal opportunity to attain absolute truth; and, endowed with all the glories and achievements of the world, to march toward the Absolute. In and through this movement humanity should be made conscious of the purpose and meaning of life."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)