naomi epel's Radio Weblog

Fri, 04 Feb 2005 21:40:17 GMT

The think tank will meet again Feb 13 at 4 pm. Please email naomi@observationdeck.com if you'd like to come or bring a guest.

At our last meeting we decided to focus on educating people as to the cost of the Iraqi war. We want to reach out to the soldiers and their families, so please pass this on to anyone you know who is connected to the military. Please also send it to anyone who is for the tax cuts because they feel we waste too much money on taxes. Help them see how their money is being spent.

Barry Wildorf has just written an important piece that reveals who is making money off the war in Iraq which is posted at www.agauchepress.com. I am reprinting it here with his permission:

THE WAR PROFITEERS

Barry S. Willdorf - 2005
Posted: February 3rd, 2005

In the spring of 2003, when millions demonstrated in the streets of the world's major cities against the impending attack on Iraq, the chant was "No Blood for Oil." The protesters understood instinctively that the war was about profits, not weapons of mass destruction or terrorists. However, they misread the plan. It was not entirely about oil. It was also about the Republican remedy for the corporate malaise in which the U.S. was then mired.

Republican ideology is categorically opposed to spending programs that are designed to assist individuals. However the same is not true for corporations, particularly if the excuse for the spending is to fund a war. Spending on war is not simply permissible; it is a sacred cow, not open to debate. What better cover could there be for Republicans to pump billions into their stagnant corporate economy than to start a war? (fn 1)

This month, George Bush asked Congress for another $80,000,000,000.00 "for the war." Over and over, we hear these requests couched in terms of "for the war." Make no mistake; these fantastic sums are not going to raise the pay for our brave soldiers, to provide them with protective equipment or to aid the Iraqi people (although our few select friends will surely get a piece of the pie.) Most of the money is going to stay home as profits, as fat checks for consultants and to fund the manufacture of weapons. A big chunk of it is going to end up in corporate dividends, executive salaries and on the golf course. "For the war" is nothing more than a euphemism for "for the war profiteers."

The evidence is overwhelming. Let's start at the top and at the beginning. It is 2003.

On March 25, 2003, without a bidding process, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers awarded Dick Cheney's Halliburton Co. subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root the main contract to fight oil well fires and reconstruct oil fields in Iraq. The open-ended contract, which has no specified time or dollar limit, was worth $11 Billion. Some estimates say that Halliburton has "earned" profits of over $400 million on its two contracts.

Last year, using 2003 data, CapitalEye.org, did a study linking the success of companies in obtaining war contracts to its political connections with the current administration. According to CapitalEye.org, the six largest companies involved in the Iraq war: Bechtel Group Inc., Fluor Corp., Halliburton Co. subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root, Louis Berger Group Inc., Parsons Corp. and Washington Group International Inc. contributed a combined $3.6 million in individual, PAC and soft money donations between 1999 and 2002. Sixty-six percent of that, or almost $2.5 million went to Republicans.

The US Army Corps of Engineers and the US Agency for International Development (USAID) dispense a lot of these contracts. They smack of cronyism. The BBC has reported, "(M)any of the US firms which won lucrative Iraqi reconstruction contracts are major donors to President George W Bush's political campaigns." The Center for Public Integrity (CPI), claims that most of the contractors gave more money to Mr Bush's 2000 presidential campaign than to any other campaign in the last 10 years. CPI's report covers 70 companies and individuals who between them have won reconstruction contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq worth up to $8 billion. It reports that 60% of these donors employed people who have worked for previous US governments, members of Congress, or the US army. A list of the biggest players is footnoted.*

A textbook example of this cronyism is Bechtel, the large construction firm with which former Secretary of State George Shultz's is associated. On April 17, 2003 Bechtel received a contract for $1,029,833,259 to provide emergency repair or rehabilitation of Iraqi infrastructure. On Jan. 4, 2004, Bechtel received another $1,443,359,782 from USAID to provide engineering procurement and construction services in support of an Iraq Infrastructure Reconstruction Program. During the two years previous to these contracts Bechtel made $1,303,765.00 in political contributions. (59 percent to Republicans; 41 percent to Democrats.)

It helps to be connected inside the beltway. For example: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., with its Chief Operating Officer's headquarters in Washington D.C. received $120 million to assist the Government of Iraq in stimulating the economy through private sector growth, employment generating activities and vocational and technical training programs. International Resources Group, a Washington D.C. based group, received a $51,698,152 contract. As of October 21, 2003 Development Alternatives, Inc. of Bethesda, Maryland had received $71,934,921 and that number is climbing. Bearing Point, Inc. of McClean VA had received $79,583,885 as of July 25, 2003 to fund "agricultural" improvements in Iraq.

If those figures seem staggering, they are but the tip of the giveaway iceberg. A recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle reminds us that the Corps of Engineers and USAID are not the only ones doling out the shekels. Recent Department of Defense data shows that $90,000,000,000.00 of their budget last year went to the following major U.S. corporations in 2004 alone: Lockheed Martin Corp. Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Halliburton (again), United Technologies, Science Applications, CSC, Humana and Bechtel (again.) Collectively, these companies are responsible for the employment of hundreds of thousands of workers. How much of this is specifically earmarked for Iraq is unclear, but does it matter? It is "for the war!"

So far, I have been referring to prime contracts. Prime contracts are not the only game in town. As Entrepreneur.com says, "In Iraq, subcontracting is the key!"

Even if edged out by the "in" crowd, the wily businessman still has a chance to wangle a sub-contract. No sooner than had Bechtel been awarded it's the contracts mentioned above, it began the trickle down for "small business" to buy in. A subcontract for a marine survey of all the ships we sunk at Iraq's Umm Qasr Port was awarded to Titan Maritime, a Florida company. A separate award for marine survey of abandoned dredges at Umm Qasr Port was granted to Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Co. of Chicago. Another U.S. firm, Verestar, got a subcontract for initial emergency satellite communications systems.

Who are these sub-contractors? Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company is the largest dredging contractor in the U.S. and one of the largest in the world with assets in excess of $800,000,000. Last year Verestar was purchased for $18,500,000. Titan Maritime operates in the United States, Great Britain and Southeast Asia. From the extent of its worldwide activities in maritime salvage and the value of its equipment, it does not appear to be a mom and pop operation.

Some of the companies, like Titan, are a privately held so their financial structure is illusive. One such privately held company is Stevedoring Services of America, the largest marine terminal operator in the United States. A family-owned and -operated company, it made an estimated $1 billion in sales last year, gave large donations to the Republican Party last year and got a $4,800,000 contract for its troubles.

But even if you can't register on the political donation Richter scale there is still room for the little guy in this war profiteering business. If you have those security and interrogation skills that appear to be indispensable when building a democracy, you can make $600 a day contracting for companies with names like "Control Risk Group" and "Triple Canopy," "The Hart Group" and "Blackwater Security Consulting." (You may have heard of Blackwater Security Consulting. They were the employers of the four guys who got burned up and hung from a bridge in Fallujah last year.** ) Is the gig worth it? Grunts pulling the same duty earn about $1800 per month, including combat pay.

There are somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 of these mercenaries in Iraq now. According to a recently filed lawsuit, Blackwater's profit is 36% in addition to overhead. Blackwater*** makes $216/day pure profit on each of its "Protective Security Specialists." We could be talking about $16,000,000 a day for mercenaries, more than six times the cost of a division of regular troops. At those rates, it is no surprise that the ads posted on various websites indicate there are hundreds upon hundreds of takers.

So, as we look at the rising Dow and listen to the rosy predictions of economic recovery, we must ask ourselves: "Does this war on Iraq have anything to do with it?" Are the increased profits that are being posted by America's major corporations being earned by Bush's budget busting "For the War" deficits? Is the Republican economic program simply to cry "War!" while they loot the treasury, bankrupt the government and shackle the American people for generations to come in a quicksand of debt all so a handful of corporate cronies can walk away with the national wealth? Next time you hear some politician justify expenditures of billions "for the war" you might want to add "profiteers."

*Attached, thanks to the Center for Public Integrity is a more complete breakdown of who are the biggest profiteers and their pecking order. First, the Billionaire's Club:

Kellogg, Brown & Root (Halliburton) $11,431,000,000
Parsons Corp. $5,286,136,252
Fluor Corp. $3,754,964,295
Washington Group International $3,133,078,193
Shaw Group/Shaw E & I $3,050,749,910
Perini Corporation (Diane Feinstein's husband, Dick Blum's firm) $2,525,000,000
Contrack International Inc. $2,325,000,000
Tetra Tech Inc. $1,541,947,671

USA Environmental Inc. $1,541,947,671
CH2M Hill $1,500,000,000
American International Contractors, Inc. $1,500,000,000
Odebrect-Austin $1,500,000,000
Zapata Engineering $1,478,838,958
Environmental Chemical Corporation $1,475,000,000
Explosive Ordnance Technologies Inc. $1,475,000,000
Stanley Baker Hill L.L.C. $1,200,000,000

Some other big names in corporate America, you might recognize:

Titan Corporation $402,000,000
Raytheon Aerospace LLC $91,096,464
Lucent Technologies World Services, Inc. $75,000,000

** While the numbers are in dispute, reliable sources say that more than 240 mercenaries died while serving in Iraq last year.

***Blackwater is owned by Eric Prince, whose father made millions in the automobile visor business. His sister is married to the head of Amway. The family is reputed to be million dollar donors to the GOP

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:27:03 GMT

Case Wagenvoord discovered the site through Salon, so when I mentioned the November 9th meeting he said he was sorry he couldnt come since he lives in New Jersey and works in Brooklyn. He'd love to start a think tank group in Brooklyn, so if you know of anyone in that area, send them the link to the blog and have them read Gar Alperovitz's living room study action group proposal, posted 12/13/04. They can email naomi@observationdeck.com and I can hook them up with Case.

Case recommends "Growth Fetish." by Clive Hamilton, which says, "...a social democracy that does not strike fear in the boardrooms is no social democracy." This is the problem with the DNC.

He goes on to say:

The Ukranians have a lot to teach us about protesting a rigged election where the media is in the ruling power's back pocket and the opposition candidate is fed a diet of dioxen. I don't have the details, but I believe they reduced their protest to one word and the color orange.

Supposing our protest were reduced to two words: No More, and we expressed it with a swatch of light blue ribbon pinned to our clothing. Imagine leaving your house with a mouthful of bubble gum, a roll of inch-wide blue ribbon and a pair of scissors. You could really make a statement if you cut and stuck as you went.

Sophy Burnham writes

I have great faith in history. It's time the US fell from being the ONLY superpower. That is an unhealthy position for a state to have. It makes us arrogant and cocky. The one rule in life is that all things change. Usually faster than we imagine!

Sophy has a new name for our secretary of state: candolevil rice.

She goes on to say

Remember that Bush is already a "lame duck" president -what a curious term - and can't be re-elected, and after the flush of victory from the election (so called) people including republicans will start to look at him and knock him down. That's always the way with American presidents. We elect them and then tear them down!

The things that upset me are the coincidental (?) similarities to what happened in Germany in the 1930s, with an unchallenged premier who became a dictator. Why is no one studying history? But all is not lost. By no means at all.

   We can burst out laughing at Kerik's nomination and the love nest and the not one but 2 mistresses (so much for family values) and the mob ties (so much for high morals).   We can poke fun at Bush. Laugh at his no child left behind -- because no child is allowed ahead!   We can refuse to take things very seriously; and nothing could enrage a good demogogue more than not being taken seriously.

     So, I say, enough of the rage and mouth-frothing. Now we need something really serious: like laughter! Comedy.

    We must write great books and poke fun and constantly remind ourselves of the incompetence, which is quite evident, and slowly it will dawn on the other 1/2 of the population that maybe they are in the hands of simpletons. (smart ones, yes, but let's not tell them that). But I have faith in the System. There's an election in another 2 years.....

The great mistake that Kerry made was... he didn't display his high sense of humor. Bush out-laughed him!   Bush is very good with sarcasm.   Laughter is the tool of the strong.

Let us conclude with the question - why the hell do we use the term lame duck?? Ducks don't do a lot of walking do they?

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 07:33:28 GMT

Jon C thought a better term for groups like the NRA & Drug Industry would be "assholes" But if we're trying not to alienate people like my sister, should i leave the response out - even if I agree?

Rob Osborne wrote:

I say we embrace the NRA. The NRA touts their support of ALL the Amendments, saying ‘once one Amendment goes…. Blah blah blah’. Gun control shouldn’t even be on the radar.

I’m putting a NRA sticker on my truck, right next to my “Liberalism: it’s not just for pussies anymore” bumpersticker.

...By the way, the drug industry isn’t the enemy; its unfettered capitalism and corporate greed/control.

Maybe we should call them "carpetbaggers"

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 07:19:03 GMT

Barry Wildorf wrote:

I find it difficult to lump together NRA, which is a not-for-profit organization with a for-profit industry {like the drug companies]. I have a hard time distinguishing the NRA from the ACLU as to form. It is more a matter of content. Industries that put profits ahead of the common good are "profiteers." Organizations, whether we like them or not, perform an important function in a democracy. The First Amendment gives us the right to assemble peaceably. If I had my way, I'd call them all "First Amendment Groups" and drag them into the same primal soup as the ACLU whether they like the company or not.

To which Jack Glaser responded:

I agree with Barry in principle, but that kind of principled, semantic
hairsplitting is EXACTLY what puts liberals at a huge disadvantage. We
need to start calling the NRA and like-minded conservative groups names
that better depict them and what they do.

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 07:01:48 GMT

Last week I posted the following challenge:Let's come up with a new term to replace"special interests" or "monied interests." A term that we can use to describe groups like the drug industry & the NRA - groups to whom the Republican administration is beholden.

The strongest response came from my sister Julia who wrote:

I worry that your website – which has been created to invite discussion – may be intimidating or discouraging to a part of the audience you seek, because of what I perceive as a hostile undertone. Statements like, "groups to whom the Republican administration is beholden.” and , although the United States government is under the control of people we may not like ..." strike me as the angry, accusatory type of rhetoric I find so distasteful in the conservative ine of thinking. Therefore, did I not know you personally, I would be wary of aligning myself with your Blog.

I think that you seek the input of a wide audience – including those who perceive themselves as non-partisan who simply want to restore/ensure civility and a strong civic spirit.

I replied that I wasnt sure that this blog was intended for that audience. but should rather be a place for people mindsets similar to my own. But I am taking it under advisement and will try to practice what I say we are trying to preach - ie more effective communication.

Wed, 15 Dec 2004 21:19:31 GMT

This week's Challenge:

Let's come up with a new term to replace"special interests" or "monied interests" that we can use to describe groups like the drug industry & the NRA - groups to whom the Republican administration is beholden.

Email your ideas to Naomi@observationdeck.com or hit the tiny yellow envelope at the bottom of this site.

(Please, can someone help me move and enlarge the yellow envelope or add pictures to this site? I need to change the format of the site so we can have sidebars etc but I dont know how...)

Tue, 14 Dec 2004 05:38:03 GMT

It is time for new ideas

It is also time to look at what is already being done to take back control of our country.

We have to remember that, although the United States government is under the control of people we may not like, we can fundamentally change the system by taking care of our needs at the local, regional and state levels.

It is the States that have the power to charter corporations and it is the States that can take those charters away.

It is the cities that pay the police and fire departments

It is local taxes that fund education.

Our national government has become an institution whose only purpose is to make wars and enrich its corporate sponsors. We need to disempower that government and support institutions that protect our interests

We cannot save the people who voted to elect George Bush. We must work to improve society in the areas we can control .

We must set higher standards for air quality, business practices and education on a local level. We must support companies that do good business and boycott those that do not*

And we must figure out how to stop paying tribute to a national entity that no longer serves our needs.

Last week I had the pleasure of driving Gar Alperovitz when he was in the Bay Area promoting his new book America Beyond Capitalism.-Reclaiming our Wealth, Our Liberty, Our Democracy.

Over lunch at Oakland's LeCheval, Alperovitz helped alleviate my post election blues with tales of people who are reshaping the systems that govern their lives. Here are a few examples:

•The state of New Jersey recently approved a tax for people making over $500,000 – which is used to offset regressive property taxes for lower and middle income people. California has just approved taxes for those making more than $1 million–to help pay for mental health services.

•There are 11,000 companies all over the United States which are either significantly or wholly owned by the employees – anchoring those jobs in local communities during the era of globalization.

•In the state of Alaska public investment of oil revenues guarantees every citizen dividend flows. In 2000, a couple with three children got $10,000–as a matter of right..

•Hundreds of cities all over the country, under Republican and Democratic mayors, have gone into business to make money for the city – both to use profits to offset taxes and to increase revenues for public services.

Obviously the press doesn’t cover these and many other innovative progressive strategies very well....

We think it’s time for progressives to get together and learn about what’s new out there, talk about it, and to begin to develop some real action efforts to move forward “beyond the usual” ways of doing things.

Please email me if you would like to start a political study - action group. And let me know of any ways to improve Gar's proposal, which I've reprinted at the end of this posting

*Marilyn Scholze presented the following suggestion for disempowering companies that do not support our interests:

We might use Move On's large membership to put pressure on large companies that support only Republicans.
As an example, Dell gives money to Republicans, HP gives to Democrats. If Move On had its membership write to Dell letting them know that we are keeping an eye on where their campaign donations go and would stop buying Dell products if they don't give money to both parties, this might affect their donation dollars. If we are their customers we need to let them know we have buying choices and can take our money elsewhere. There are lots of similar corporate examples.

Andy Neuschatz wrote the following in response to Barry Willdorf's piece:

The essay about being "victims of bad management" (reprinted in lighter blue below the Alperowitz proposal ) rang very true to me. I'd love to hear politicians talking about how "Those Washington insiders have given away our airwaves to people like Rupert Murdoch" or "Those Washington insiders have given our land to companies that pay us with nothing but pollution and toxins" and the like -- WE own it, it was taken from us. I'd think we don't want to say anything about "power to the people", because for some reason in America when we hear "the people" we don't picture ourselves but mobs of angry dark-skinned weirdos. Focus instead on property ideas: it's our land, it's our airwaves... it's our lungs... (I find myself supporting a draft, because if Americans are going to support a war, we should do it thinking that it's OUR children, the neighbor kid, etc. who might die, not just some guy we don't know.)

As for "ownership society" -- can we get Dems to consistently use the phrase "owner/debtor society"? If that's what we're going to have, certainly nobody wants to be a debtor, but nobody would even want to be an owner if they know it means others are their debtors. It reminds us of the ugly underside of the every-man-for-himself philosophy: that some will lose. I wonder how many people think their investing skills are better than average.

Gar Alperovitz's

Proposal to Develop and Test a “Pilot” Model For

Living Room Political-Study-Work-Action Groups

A great deal of new political energy was obviously developed during the recent election campaign–energy which gave people a sense of hope, and what we might do if we acted together. Moreover, a very large number of new people came into action–many for the first time. Many things need to be done in the coming period, both to capture the energy and keep up the momentum. These include direct political engagement, sharpening the framing of issues, developing new funding strategies, and–perhaps critically–getting people involved, directly, in things they can do locally to build up power and policy for the long haul, and for ultimate national action.

A great deal has been written about how conservatives re-organized politically after the 1964 Goldwater defeat–and suggestions have been made that progressives now undertake the same kind of re-organizing effort. There is every reason to do so. But it is often forgotten that the post-1964 effort built upon at least a decade (or more) of serious conservative work to build up ideas and practical things people could do, state by state. (Just two markers: The American Enterprise Institute was established in 1942; Bill Buckley’s National Review was founded in 1951.) One lesson is obvious:

Progressives need to find ways to truly develop new ideas and new strategies in politically relevant ways even as new organizing efforts are explored. Moreover, we need to do this in ways which involve new people–not just Washington think tanks. And we need to do so in ways which permit action at the local and state level, where people are and where the problems are building up–and above all, where they can find new ways to work together to support each other.

If we are serious the kind of ideas and related concrete projects we undertake should also have two quite specific characteristics:

(1) They should give people a sense of historical perspective and moral relevance–so that specific projects are intimately (not superficially) connected to deep values; and

(2) Whenever possible they should reach across the traditional partisan divide to achieve left-right backing, especially at the local and state level, where common realities (and growing local pain) on the ground often make this possible.

The kind of work that needs to be done also should aim to build intimate local group support–friends and neighbors, not outsiders. Possibly the kind of people who assembled in Moveon.org living room parties... but not exclusively so.

No one has a clear formula and answer for how to do this. We need to explore new strategies, and test new ideas. Period.

For the last several years we have been assembling information on positive new strategies which can be undertaken at the local and state level–and we have also been assembling information on “new thinking” about the relationship between values, on the one hand, and structural and policy proposals on the other. What we propose to do is attempt to test how we might best organize “Living Room Political-Study-Work-Action Groups” which might draw upon such materials with a view both to learning about the new values-structure theoretical work, and about the myriad possibilities and precedents which now exist for local and state action.

Our hope would be to develop and refine a model (or models) for how best to do this among larger groups, possibly along the Moveon.org model, at a subsequent stage. In the first instance, we would also test how the new book “America Beyond Capitalism” worked to stimulate the kind of discussionaction we hope for. (The book summarizes a good deal of practical on-the-ground work, and new thinking by various authors and activists.) However, we would also like to test possibilities with various other books, pamphlets, etc. as time goes on We also would like to perhaps develop and test a modest video as one vehicle to help stimulate living room discussion.

Any ideas you can contribute will be greatly appreciated. (go to the yellow envelope at the very bottom of this website)

A MESSAGE TO THE SHAREHOLDERS IN AMERICA

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“That to secure these rights (Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness) governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

We Americans are fortunate that our country was founded on such principals. Tom Jefferson, George Washington, Ben Franklin and their like made us the owners of our government. Over time, and due to the collective wisdom of our ancestors, today we together are shareholders in the greatest venture presently existing. Collectively, as Shareholders in America, we own vast tracts of land, forests, rivers, large swaths of the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic oceans. We own enormous stretches of sky. This is our birthright and ought to be our children's inheritance.

We are landlords. Among our tenants are some of the wealthiest and most powerful corporations on the face of the planet. We lease mines and oil fields to these corporations. We give them rights to use our forests, to fish in our oceans, to graze their cattle, to send their messages over our airways.

With all of this wealth, we should be very rich. We should be collecting considerable rents and royalties that could fill the national coffers. We Shareholders in America should be getting dividends for the use of our resources, as any reasonable group of shareholders might expect from an enterprise that possessed such enormous wealth. Yet this is not the case. Many of our Shareholders in America can’t even afford to spend a weekend on their own land. They can’t enjoy the benefits of medical breakthroughs developed in our own laboratories. Only the citizens of Alaska enjoy oil royalties from the use of government lands by energy companies. We are the victims of BAD MANAGEMENT.

Our present CEO doesn’t even recognize that we Shareholders in America are the owners of these things. He treats our property as if it were something he can give away to his friends. A good example of this is the Social Security System. It is our insurance company and sells a pretty damn good product, an annuity that keeps many of our Shareholders in America out of poverty when they get old. Our CEO says that if we stop investing in our insurance company, we can use that money to invest with his friends who run stock brokerages and mutual funds. He says that we will then become “owners” in America. Well, here’s some news for Mr. Bush and his ilk, WE ALREADY OWN AMERICA, and it’s about time our CEO and his Board of Directors recognize it.

What kind of CEO tells his shareholders and his customers that they ought to be doing business with his competitor? What kind of CEO gives away the property of the company he has been entrusted to manage to his friends? What kind of CEO works to diminish the value of his investors’ shares? The same kind of CEO that ran into the ground every other company that he got his hands on, that’s the kind.

We, the Shareholders in America, ought to demand that our elected managers start running our collective enterprise more like a business and less like a drunken fraternity party. It’s high time we made deals where our tenants pay market rate for the use of our property. We have a right to demand a great big cleaning deposit from those oil, lumber and mining interests that rent our land. Those airwaves that belong to us should be accessible to us. Whenever a lease or license comes up for renewal or modification, we should demand better terms. We should make sure that the deals we made in the past are not currently in breach. Most immediately, we should demand that if our CEO thinks that his friends on Wall Street are selling a better product, he should implement changes that will make our product more desirable. Instead of closing up shop and leaving us Shareholders in America without our insurance company, he should be working to make us more competitive, more profitable and collectively wealthier. He should quit binging and start acting like a CEO.

Thu, 02 Dec 2004 01:39:53 GMT

the think tank

thinks thanks

for freedom friends family

and feedback!!!

Thank you thank you thank you for all the email. The teeeny tiny yellow envelope at the very very bottom of the page may take a while, but click it and you're message will fly through space and land here very soon.

Thanks to Nancy Levine, author of The Tao of Pug who suggests:

Instead of calling the environment Mother Nature, we should refer to it as God's Earth. This way we appeal to Christians of all stripes, even the creationists.

We actually do have important pro environmental allies in the Duck Hunters of America, who want to preserve the nature they love. How do we reach out to other hunters around the country? Most members of the National Rifle Association are hunters, maybe we allign ourselves with the NRA!

I happen to be a supporter of the second amendment, even though I do not own a gun. The Founding Fathers wanted to be sure that citizens could defend themselves if ever a tyranical government should try to depriive them of their rights...

Rob Osborne writes that he thinks the title Troublemaker's Toolkit may put too many people off. He suggests a less contentious title. I could call it The Citizen's Action Pack.

What do you think?

Rob Osborne also says "Nobody is fooled by the term ‘progressive’; it sounds like liberals being condescending and elitist; we’re Liberals, we should just fucking say so proudly."

Should we call ourselves Liberals? Progressives? Is there an even better name?

Sydney Osborne suggests we help people understand the implications of Bush's "ownership society":

"When the repugs talk about the Ownership Society, we should make it clear that there will be an ownership class (vs. the debtor class, perhaps)."

I like her term repugs,

As someone who has worked with dreams for many years, I know that unconscious associations operate just beneath the surface of rational thought. Therefore it is imperative that we Progressives stop referring our opponents as The Right. Because the opposite of right is wrong, and we don’t want to be Left behind.

We can’t continue to call the Bush-Cheney gang Conservatives, because they're not into conserving energy; natural beauty; or even precious capital.

The only thing they are into conserving is power, their own power. Meanwhile our power as a nation is diminishing as the dollar drops, and we bungle through a war we cannot win.

We who want to conserve traditional values like liberty, freedom of speech and the separation of church and state called ourselves Liberals until our opponents turned liberal into a dirty word - pairing it with “elite,” “knee jerk,” “tax-and-spend”

We’ve replaced the term Liberal with Progressive in recognition of our effort to promote peace, equality and prosperity. Perhaps we should call the other team the Regressives, as they long to return to the 1950’s when men made all the decisions and plastic supplanted glass, wood and stone.

Those on the right who advocate pre-emptive war have adopted the proud descriptive Neo Con (short for neo conservative) yet there is nothing really new about greed or the lust for power. So let’s drop the neo and simply call them Cons. And we become the Pros.

While Pros provide programs to protect the people, Cons conspire to convince these folks to constantly consume… conspicuously.

We cannot condone the Cons’ behavior as they conspire to compromise our Constitution. We must protest; protect our eConomy; and produce a Progressive Congress.

The little yellow envelope is way down at the bottom of the page. If you know how to move the envelope and make it bigger, let me know. But for now, press the yellow envelope and let me know what you're thinking.

Wed, 01 Dec 2004 09:52:23 GMT

think tank

think truck

stop thinking at all

Its time to stop thinking of tanks and trucks or guns and money

Its time to start thinking about language

Its time to start playing with metaphor

Its time to start talking about real values

It is time to take our Country back!

And one tool we have is reframing...Changing the terms of the argument. Evoking images that will bring out the best in our fellow Americans, even as certain forces strive to bring out the worst.

Many people were scared into voting for the current administration because they had become convinced that terrorists were about to strike; that Gay men were going to seduce their husbands or gay women would turn their wives into Lesbians. They were convinced that Satan was hiding in the bushes and if they chose to heed his call they would burn in hell.

We must appeal to the goodness in people. We must remind them of why America is great and help them make it even better.

An Invitation

You are cordially invited to further the progressive cause by thinking up new ways of framing important issues - Please contribute new sound bytes, slogans, ads, calls to action by emailing them to me at this site.

I will publish the ones that members of The San Francisco Thnk Tank find most effective in the hopes that you will adapt them and pass them on.

Each week we will pull 3 cards from the Troublemakers Toolkit - a value card; an issue card; and an action card.

See if you can find new ways to combine those 3 elements to produce an effective phrase or action.

This week members of the San Francisco Think Tank pulled the following cards from the Troublemaker's Toolkit:

Action: Create a Sound byte or Slogan

Issue: The Future of Social security

Value: Fairness

Using these three cards the following phrases emerged

Are we becoming a Debtor Nation?

A debtor society?

We had a contract... they're trying to break it

Do we want other people's children gambling with our retirement money?

Why trust Wall Street to protect our savings?

the house always wins in the end

After the think tank meeting was over, Barry Willdorf went home and wrote the following:

A MESSAGE TO THE SHAREHOLDERS IN AMERICA

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“That to secure these rights (Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness) governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Please email any ideas you may have for ways to convince people that the privatization of Social Security is bad for our nation.

Think tank members ask"are we being swindled... conned...ripped off?"

What do you have to say? What language can we use to help people see that the man they see as the current father of the nation doesnt have our best interests at heart?

Please send in any catchy phrases you might have on any subject relating public policy

We like:

Corporate Media instead of Mainstream Media

Mother Nature instead of the Environment

What do you think?

Ask your friends if they have any good ideas and send them in. Hit the yellow envelope image at the bottom of the page to email your responses.