League for a Democratic Republic - Recently Updated Pages

ARTICLES

jimmiller5417 — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:47:16 CDT

Dear LDR Members:

Here is where you can post your long articles and even books. Please use the TABLE OF CONTENTS to list your article/book, provide a one paragraph intro, overview or abstract, your name; then create a new page and link that page back to your title. Please join and put your contact information and profle under MEMBERS in the nav bar above. And remember, be nice; otherwise your article loses creditability.

There are additional references to articles, websites and books of interest on the Research page, which bear witness to our need for truly democratically elected, representative government.

Jim Miller 05/10/08
Two ways to search internally: Use CONTROL + f to open a search box. Use SEARCH above the NavBar.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000168 EndHTML:0000000738 StartFragment:0000000521 EndFragment:0000000721

Lee Altenberg

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000168 EndHTML:0000000738 StartFragment:0000000521 EndFragment:0000000721

Lee Altenberg

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000168 EndHTML:0000001681 StartFragment:0000000489 EndFragment:0000001664 In 1885, however, when Leland Stanford became a United States Senator and founded Stanford University, worker ownership of industry seemed neither socialistic nor quaint. It was a widely discussed idea for averting the escalating crises between corporations and workers that appeared at that time to be headed toward an ominous denouement. Worker ownership of industry was seen as a good idea which needed to be tried, and America was seen as a society free enough that it could be tried. The Populists hoped therefore that the steady replacement of corporations by worker cooperatives could be achieved. The goal of the “seizure of State power” advocated by the communists in Europe was alien to this movement. Cooperatives were seen not as an end to free-enterprise, but as a freeing of enterprise for common people from domination by the “plutocracy” of wealthy industrialists.

Author, Last name 1st

Title

Abstract

Miller, Jim

NEED FOR RURAL ENTERPRISES

NEED FOR RURAL ENTERPRISES
Obama hopes for change and I hope his hopes are fulfilled, especially in the area of rural enterprise. Rural America needs to be ready for the hordes of city folks fleeing the cities as they burn and crumble. Even if I'm half right, not all cities will become Detroit's, but many will do so.
Rural America has few votes and generally vote Republican -- so what makes any of us think the Democrats will court rural America with kind of money such as is going to the financial institutions and possibly the auto makers?
If any of the Democrat leaders will just listen for a moment to the rural heart beat, they will learn:

MORE ...

Miller, Jim

The LRES/SCSHTLTEBSTPDRSCHP-GHG+COWFLOP System

Dear Folks at the Whitehouse and beyond:

We, in the great hinterland of America, sit on our haunches and wonder what really is happening at the Whitehouse and beyond. I think I have finally figured it out, at least, the energy side. What DOE, USDA, -- almost the entire Obama Administration – is trying to do by throwing billions of dollars at the foreign oil problem, is to re-invent the past, make little or no change in the electrical generation capacity infrastructure (production and distribution), in order to live happily ever after. By catering to the oil, coal and biomass industries, the votes in Congress are thus obtained for massive bail-outs of these soon-to-be-obsolete industries. Boy, how that really makes my day – throwing good money after bad, using Las Vegas odds (Jimmy the Greek would be pleased). MORE ...

Miller, Jim

INSTANT JOBS

Expand Americorps to include:

Teaching permaculture to gardeners and farmers
Corps members who, on appointment, visits homes, do an energy survey and suggest ways to save energy.
Senior assistants. Corps members are trained and then sent on assignment to assist senior citizens who are partially disabled or are in need of assistance in daily living chores.
Help home owners with home repairs
Help renters deal with slumlords.
Help applicants deal with government bureaucracy.
Help homeless find survival resources.
Help unemployed find jobs – a personal career trainer

MORE ......

Monboit, George

The Triumph of Ignorance Posted: 28 Oct 2008 01:58 AM CDT

Why morons succeed in US politics.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/10/28/the-triumph-of-ignorance/

Like most people on this side of the Atlantic I have spent my adult life mystified by American politics. The US has the world’s best universities and attracts the world’s finest minds. It dominates discoveries in science and medicine. Its wealth and power depend on the application of knowledge. Yet, uniquely among the developed nations (with the possible exception of Australia), learning is a grave political disadvantage.

Lee Altenberg

BEYOND CAPITALISM: LELAND STANFORD'S FORGOTTEN VISION

Miller, Jim

ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS, MARCHING AS TO WAR... -- The Evangelicos are at their battle stations, winning the hearts and minds of the “enemy” -- along with their votes.

The wars mounted by the Evangelicos, both in the U.S. and in Latin America, follow on the footsteps of the take-over of Latin America countries by the U.S. imperialists – scat from The Travistock Institute. The Imperials first used U.S. military to conquer Latin American countries and install the USA proxies – usually military juntas. Next, using the IMF, the World Bank, CIA and global corporations and banks, the bought elections or through insurrections took power and then proceeded to plunder Latin American countries. Both of these “invasions” only lasted until the “Yankee go home” forces kicked the USA agents out of the LA countries, although some still persist, such as Columbia, Costa Rica and Paraguay.

Miller, Jim

CREATING A NEW APPALACIA

Bob Kincaid lays out the arguments to reinvent Appalachia in his article, Speak Your Piece: Making a 'Sacred Zone', published at: http://www.dailyyonder.com/speak-your-piece-making-sacred-zone/2009/05/04/2094#comment-form
Solutions to creating New Appalachia abound. All it takes is some willpower and a little capital to implement many of them. Here they are: MORE ....

Miller, Jim

WHO/WHAT IS THE TRUSTED SOURCE OF BIOSCIENCE IN OREGON? --Oregon Bioscience Institute could bridge the information gaps and provide leadership via the new communication service, the wikiwebsite.

Newsletters are old technology, fashioned after written pamphlets, leaflets, newspapers and other print media. E-newsletters fall into the same trap of trying to be comprehensive and appeal to a wide audience on a large variety of issues.

The Forbidden Knowledge

TRAVISTOCK INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RELATIONS

This group was formed at Oxford University, London, by the Royal Institute of Of International Affairs in 1922. Major John Rawlings Reese, a British Army technician, was instructed to set up the largest brainwashing facility in the world at the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations as a part of Sussex University.
This became the core of Britain's Psychological Warfare Bureau. It was Tavistock-designed methods that got the United States into the Second World War and which, under the guidance of Dr. Kurt Lewin, established the OSS, the forerunner of the CIA. Lewin became the director of the Strategic Bombing Survey, which was a plan for the Royal Air Force to concentrate on bombing German worker housing while leaving military targets, such as munition plants, alone. The munition plants on both sides belonged to the international bankers who had no wish to see their assets destroyed. The idea behind saturation bombing of civilian worker housing was to break the morale of the German worker.

The Forbidden Knowledge

WAKE UP AMERICA

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar." (Julius Caesar)

Miller, Jim

Renewable Energy Sink-Hole
-- Federal Renewable Energy Funders keep up the pretense of wanting to find “solutions”

The current Federal Funders and grantees are and have been for many years, “gaming the system” and winning. Congress and the taxpayers are the losers. It's time to change the odds in the Federal Slot Machine, level the playing field among all grant applicants-- large and small – those with and without Ph.D's on their staff – and which involve early stage “risks”. For instance, cut-off or greatly reduce grants to Rand, SRI and SAIC and put those “reserved” funds in the hands of early stage, startups which have promising energy production technology solutions, on the theory: “More Bang for the Buck”.

Anti-Democratic Imperialism of U.S. Capitalism

THE SIMULTANEOUS unfolding of the US presidential campaign and unraveling of the financial markets presents one of those occasions where the political and economic systems starkly reveal their nature. Passion about the campaign may not be universally shared but almost everybody can feel the anxiety from the foreclosure of a million homes, and concerns about jobs, savings and healthcare at risk THE SIMULTANEOUS unfolding of the US presidential campaign and unraveling of the financial markets presents one of those occasions where the political and economic systems starkly reveal their nature. Passion about the campaign may not be universally shared but almost everybody can feel the anxiety from the foreclosure of a million homes, and concerns about jobs, savings and healthcare at risk

Miller, Jim

LOCAL CURRENCY + LOCAL ECONOMY = LOCAL SUSTAINABILITY -- The formula for local failure is to give your purchasing power over to the Boards of Directors of the Nation's mega-corporate empires.

So....., how do we “localize” our economy, our collective decision making, and our local sustainability? First we plan, then gather the physical and human resources, hit the start button, and get underway. Governments are mired in planning, “paralysis by analysis”. Like the generals, they are are always planning to fight the next war with ideas and tools used to fight the last one.

Miller, Jim

Sustainabililty Corvallis - Energy - cap and trade

The “cap and trade” approach will actually promote greater GHG and general pollution. By monetizing GHG emissions, the producer merely raises its prices and passes the cost onto the consumer who are the ones being damaged by pollution. This approach is doomed to failure by its very design. Most large energy producers control the market and set production to maximize profits. They also set prices because the demand for their product is inelastic. This is the Bush-Cheney-Halliburton and Seven Sisters' offering. No thanks.

Euro Investor

Amazon Defense Coalition: Ecuador Court Report Underestimates Damages for Chevron´s "Amazon Chernobyl" in Ecuador

An independent court-appointed expert in the environmental trial against Chevron in Ecuador should impose additional damages on the oil giant for groundwater and surface water contamination that could significantly increase the current $16.3 billion liability estimate, lawyers for the plaintiffs say

Monbiot, George

The Self-Justifying Myth - we believe what we want to believe - the truth be damned.

There is just one party which doesn’t seem to care about the controversy created by The Great Global Warming Swindle. That is the company which broadcast it: Channel 4. In fact it seems rather proud of the fuss, and I suspect that Ofcom’s damning verdict won’t cause its executives a moment’s lost sleep. The channel boasts that the programme generated a huge response, and that favourable comments outweighed hostile remarks by six to one(1).

Though the programme was 90 minutes of nonsense(2), I find this quite easy to believe. Faced with the overwhelming realities of climate change, people clutch at any reassurance. We want someone to tell us that everything will be alright, that we can carry on enjoying this marvellous feast of fossil fuels without adverse effects.

Monboit,George

CROSS YOUR FINGERS AND CARRY ON

Government (UK/Brown now, Bush/Cheney during their years of mis-rule) knows perfectly well that we are heading into a period of sever economic privation due to the future high prices of fossil fuel and the lack of home-grown alternative fuels. Why would they declare a future national disaster? Here are some reasons (I don't say they are good, just their reasons):

MILLER, JIM

STOP THE GM-CHRYSLER SERIAL ECONOMIC RAPE OF AMERICA

General Motors ate it own child, the very successful electric cars, the EVA-1 and -2. GM also first suppressed a revolutionary battery, then sold the rights to Chevron which killed it. Let's not reward GM's capacity to defraud America on the electric car issue. Kill the proposed Bush Bail out of GM and Chrysler. We have better plans for Chrysler.

The sordid and sad tale of GM's best and only electric cars, the EVA's as they came to a tragic death. GM recovered ALL of the EVAs as their leases ran out, then crushed them, then had them chipped into thousands of pieces. GM learned some lessons from the EVA, namely that the plug-in only electric car, equipped with a state-of-the art set of batteries could run 150 miles between charges. The second lesson was that because the cars were cheaper to build and had very little maintenance over a ten year or longer period, the car would obsolete the vehicles powered by internal combustion engines, which needed constant repair and adjustment. These eclectic electric cars would hit the new and used auto dealerships also, since as large portion of their income depended on engine tune-ups, repairs and replacements.

MILLERE, JIM

STOP THE GM-CHYRSLER SERIAL ECONOMIC RAPE OF AMERICA -- PART II

There is a perfectly sensible alternative which will not cost the Feds any net loss and probably gain it a profit. Here it is:

Congress authorizes the U. S. Treasury to purchase the controlling interest in Chrysler. Currently, Cerberus owns 80.1% for which it paid 7.1 billion to Daimler which had previously paid 36 billion and retains 19.1% interest. If Cerberus refuses to sell at 7.5 billion or less, then no help is offered the GM-Chrysler deal. Chrysler, even with 9 billion in cash, will continue to hemorrhage cash, shed jobs and close plants. You can count on CEO Bob Nardelli to wreck Chrysler.
Congress authorizes the U. S. Treasury to change the name to Chrysler Electric Auto Company and loan CEAC up to 100 billion to retool as a manufacturer of both pure plug-in and plug-in hybrid vehicles. CEAC should have only three models: a high-end luxury SUV, a mid-sized sedan and a very small, two passenger local transportation car. The later one would be a plug-in only while the other two are plug-in hybrids.

Portable Charger Powered by Kinetic Motion Will Be Released Next Year

http://cleantechnica.com/2008/08/25/portable-charger-powered-by-kinetic-motion-will-be-released-next-year/

While the portable charger will be M2E’s only commercially available product in the near future, the company plans has more plans for their kinetic technology in the pipeline, including a centralized battery pack for military units and power for peripheral systems of hybrid cars. On a larger scale, M2E hopes to use kinetic energy to enhance wind, hydropower, and tidal power efficiency. Not bad for a company that came out of stealth mode less than a year ago.

Popi and Tom

The Capital Market Crisis -- AND NOW THE REAL STORY

Dear Members of Congress:

The current “liquidity crisis” is not what it is touted to be. The article below by “Popi and Tom” plays the music for the “crisis” and the “rescue”. However, the real, underlying economic forces are being orchestrated by members of the Travistock Institute, a world-wide organization of the wealthiest tribes in the world, run exclusively by the male members. My comments are in bold blue [half-way down]. I have also included my paper on the Travistock Institute.

PLEASE, please, read this letter and the paper before Congress falls into the trap set by the members of the Travistock Institute.

Monboit, George

Hypocrites Unite!

The environment is inseperable from social justice. Climate change, for example, is primarily about food and water. It threatens the freshwater supplies required to support human life. As continental interiors dry out and the glaciers feeding many of the rivers used for irrigation disappear, climate change presents the greatest of all threats to the future prospects of the poor. The rich will survive for a few decades at least, as they can use their money to insulate themselves from the effects. The poor are being hammered already.

The Center for Cooperatives; centerforcoops@ucdavis.edu

Democracy in the Workplace -=- All About Collective -- VIDEO

RAINBOW GROCERY CO-OPERATIVE

Miller, Jim

Who is Soverign?

We have seen the impact over the past 233 years of the abuse of sovereignty which was loaned by the People to our governments. We deposited it on the door steps of the state and national capitals, and allowed our disleaders to pick it up, play with it and do with it as they wished. Their wish was and is self-empowerment and wealth at the expense of the People and the devastation of our Earth. We have paid, and will continue to pay, a serious price for our lack of foresight. We did not and do not now “consider the impact of our and the disleaders' decisions on the seventh generation”.

Miller, Jim

Laissez Failure

Laissez faire, the mantra of the rich, powerful, well-connected, has been used as a drum beat for generations of entrepreneurs who would ride to the realms of riches on the backs of low paid workers. We have witnessed the Enron’s, World Com’s gather in the wealth of stockholders, customers, workers and hand it over to a select few top dogs (some of whom are in jail and other facing prosecution and lawsuits galore).

Miller, Jim

TO THE RIGHT FLANK, MARCH! HUP, TWO, THREE, FOUR .....
-- By Jim Miller

FIRST, A REVIEW OF:
Intuitive Management --Integrating Left and Right Brain Management Skills
by Weston H. Agor, Ph.D.

“What we are talking about here is a change in the consciousness of all world cultures and organizations therein—including our own. What we are arguing for is an awareness of how we each have personal and cultural traits and perspectives which integrated together have the potential for high productivity and more satisfying life for us all. We are arguing for a restructuring of our current management education and training programs across the country (and around the world) so that right brain as well as left brain skills are taught with equal emphasis and integrated into an overall management curriculum appropriate for the organizations and world society of the future. We have tried to show step-by-step in this book how this can be achieved in a practical way.” p. 91

Miller, Jim

Poverty in America,
a review of

POVERTY IN AMERICA – a view taken from Social and political forces as determinants of poverty: A spatial analysis By Anil Rupasingha and Stephan J. Goetz Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development at Penn State University.

These and other studies show that the social/economic/political networks of the enterprise owners and their government allies, exercise critical control over the local economy. Governments do little or nothing to empower wage earners to take home a larger share of the available cash flow. Employers hire the most needy folks at the lowest wages, with no benefits, and short hours. A family of four needs 2.5 jobs to break even. If you are in the ownership class – this setting is great; if not, life sucks.

Miller, Jim

Community Solutions to Peak Crises

Communities in transition from abundant, cheap energy to scarce, expensive energy should network and exchange solutions.

Buried somewhere in the Oregon energy plan is some mention of networking (not sure, but it should have been mentioned). Villages, towns, cities and counties in the UK and Ireland have networked on the issue of transition from abundant, cheap oil, to scarce, expensivie oil. A transition primer is found at: http://transitionnetwork.org/Primer/TransitionInitiativesPrimer.pdf.

The State of Oregon should get off it's duff, join this network and officially kick into high gear the creation of a similar network in the Pacific NW, if not the nation. Who says Oregon could/should/would not become the nation's leader in effectively addessing and ACCOMPLISHING the transition, rather than just spend words on a report, then file and forget it?

Miller, Jim

Community Solutions to Peak Crises
Are community transportation planners oblivious to the "Last Mile" issue?

The big issue which seems to escape the attention of our city and county planners is not how to travel the “last mile”, but to reduce to the irreducible minimum the existence of the “last mile”. The obvious solution (obvious to me, at least) is to Work where you live and live where you work! How much simpler can one get?

Parker, Phillip

Planning as if People Mattered

"We let down our children and our communities when we ceded control of the streets to the car. Philip Parker flies the flag for a people-first approach to traffic management."

Our local built environment has the power to affect our moods and behaviour. It will suggest certain values and can promote positive feelings. But for the past 50 years the streets and spaces where we live have primarily been designed to facilitate the movement of cars. This has frequently had a negative impact on local communities and affected the way we live.

Miller, Jim

How to Get the Right Answers to the Right Questions

During my Stanford Law School days, it was pounded into my head by the surely professors, to examine each case first to determine what the real issues where – of both fact and law. Since the facts were generally given, the issue of issues was our high focus. Apparently, such rigors education is not the foundation of most governmental functionaries or consultants. I give you the efforts of Corvallis Area Metropolitan Planning Organization [ http://portal.ocwtech.net/campo/Shared%20Documents/Transit/Transit%20Report.pdf ] and the Oregon Cascades West Council of Governments (COG) [ http://ocwcog.org/ ] agencies' joint effort to solve the “last mile” mass transportation problem generated by the unexamined edicts of city and county land use planning and zoning:

Miller, Jim

Get Political -- Vote for Yourself

Like most voters, you probably wished for a "None of the Above" choice on your paper ballot. The second best way to express your discontent with the candidates of the Entrenched Parties and the minor ones, is to vote for yourself. You can write-in your name for each office. Be sure to put the initials, "LDR" after your name for League for a Democratic Republic. It's a sure bet you will not be elected. The purpose is to create a "buzz" in the hyper-controlled media that LDR is here to stay, using every means possible to get our word out.

Miller, Jim

Community Action Groups

A WORKERS' PARADISE – REVISTED . . . AGAIN and AGAIN
-- Well, what went wrong with the workers' paradises we invented a few years ago, only to see them bomb?

We, in the vanguard of the worker cooperative movement, have seen many idealistic worker cooperatives come and go and those which are still with us, endured tremendous struggles to simply form and survive. Most of the Utopian communities of the 18 and 19 hundreds were faith based and bombed because of doctrinal disputes and failed economies. Most of the hippie intentional communities of the 60's bombed when the authorities closed them down for zoning violations and public health issues. The Farm (Tennessee) is a notable exception. That weed-based commune was at 2000 population lead by a guru which, when it reformed into a more democratic society, dropped membership to 200.

Miller, Jim

DIASTER LOOMS
-- The good news is we can see it coming.
By Jim Miller

The wolf pack is not yet at the door, but we can see it coming. The prediction of looming disaster by Richard Heinberg is based on the U.S. Foreign policy which for decades has funneled taxpayer money, labeled as “foreign aid” to wealth U.S. corporations doing business with foreign regimes supported by the U.S. with money and arms. This form of corporate welfare is not without disastrous consequences.

Miller, Jim

The Eviscertaion of Rural America

Over the past 100 years, the youth of the town have gone to college or moved to the industrial cities in search of “a better life”. This “cheap” labor has been expropriated to build the Industrial Machine. http://www.ruraleship.org/content/pdf/ordeval.pdf “Cheap labor” remains the family members supplemented by legal and illegal migrants from Mexico and other impoverished countries.

Miller, Jim

Re: Michael Albert's Talk Delivered to Venezuela Conference on Crisis of Capitalism http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/18709

In general, I agree with Michael Albert's assessment of the current “capitalism” which I've labeled, “Top-down Capitalism” to distinguish it from “Bottom-up Capitalism”.

His solution is:

“More generally, we want no more private ownership of productive assets anywhere in our country. The owners need to be expropriated.”

This solution is all wrong for a number of reasons: More ....

BOTTOM-UP CAPITALISM

TRAVISTOCK SET TO BUY-UP CHEAP ASSETS

n Illinois, Archer Daniels Midland CFO Steve Mills said Tuesday that global agribusiness will be more profitable in the long term and that ADM may use the economic conditions as an opportunity to buy heavily discounted assets, including corn ethanol plants. Mills said many corn ethanol plants are in a distress condition, but that ADM is bullish on the sector in the long-term.

There is a perfectly sensible alternative which will not cost the Feds any net loss and probably gain it a profit. Here it is:

Congress authorizes the U. S. Treasury to purchase the controlling interest in Chrysler. Currently, Cerberus owns 80.1% for which it paid 7.1 billion to Daimler which had previously paid 36 billion and retains 19.1% interest. If Cerberus refuses to sell at 7.5 billion or less, then no help is offered the GM-Chrysler deal. Chrysler, even with 9 billion in cash, will continue to hemorrhage cash, shed jobs and close plants. You can count on CEO Bob Nardelli to wreck Chrysler.
Congress authorizes the U. S. Treasury to change the name to Chrysler Electric Auto Company and loan CEAC up to 100 billion to retool as a manufacturer of both pure plug-in and plug-in hybrid vehicles. CEAC should have only three models: a high-end luxury SUV, a mid-sized sedan and a very small, two passenger local transportation car. The later one would be a plug-in only while the other two are plug-in hybrids.

The LRES/SCSHTLTEBSTPDRSCHP-GHG+COWFLOP System

jimmiller5417 — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:37:58 CDT

The LRES/SCSHTLTEBSTPDRSCHP-GHG+COWFLOP System

Dear Folks at the Whitehouse and beyond:

We, in the great hinterland of America, sit on our haunches and wonder what really is happening at the Whitehouse and beyond. I think I have finally figured it out, at least, the energy side. What DOE, USDA, -- almost the entire Obama Administration – is trying to do by throwing billions of dollars at the foreign oil problem, is to re-invent the past, make little or no change in the electrical generation capacity infrastructure (production and distribution), in order to live happily ever after. By catering to the oil, coal and biomass industries, the votes in Congress are thus obtained for massive bail-outs of these soon-to-be-obsolete industries. Boy, how that really makes my day – throwing good money after bad, using Las Vegas odds (Jimmy the Greek would be pleased).

There are really only three large sources of non-fossil energy, each with their sets of problems and promises:

Atomic energy has massive waste disposal problems, high infrastructure cost, massive regulatory hurdles and not all that cheap when figuring in the decom of the old production units. Needless to say, atomic power is not the most popular source of mass energy, despite what the French think. Also, these plants have siting problems and do nothing to reduce the need for massive “smart” or “dumb” national electrical grids. Lastly, Atomic Energy is not really “renewable”.

Next, we have wind, wave and geothermal, all of which are great improvements over atomic energy. Again, these solutions require massive investments, siting problems, huge base load facilities and, again, do nothing to reduce the need for massive “smart” or “dumb” national electrical grids.

Then we have solar energy, which is clean, widely distributed around the Earth, does not involve GHG and is, in the long run, the only massive source of energy for the next five billion years before the Sun starts dimming. I call solar energy “Locavore Energy” because it is locally produced and consumed. Take PV on the home roof – the electrical energy runs a very short distance to the converter in the basement or garage or old closet. We are really talking “Locavore Energy” with PV, notwithstanding the approximate $10,000 per kW/hr capital cost. Then there is “concentrated solar power” (CSP), which so far is confined to huge plants, in the deserts, which suck up what little water there is and then send the electrical energy over miles of transmission lines, which waste about 50% of the energy getting from A to B. Also, they have to be careful not to run over the endangered Desert Tortoise.

I would like to suggest a simple, (well, not all that simple) Locavore Energy Solution (LES): THE SOLAR FURNACE CHP SYSTEM. Not to compliment myself, I predict that this solution will be adopted around the Earth where the Sun shines most of the time during the day. Simply put, the system consists of Solar Collectors (SCS), Heat Transfer Liquid (HTL), and a Thermal Energy Battery (TEB). The combination stores HTL in the TEB produced from the SCS. One might call it the SCSHTLTEB system. The SCS is a set of eight parabolic reflectors inside eight cases or troughs which are gelcasts of air-entrained ceramic, about four inches thick. Each case or trough has a “lid” of two panes of thermal glass through which the Sun's radiant heat strikes the parabolic reflector, bounces and penetrates the two inch stainless steel tube (Receiver) filled with HTL. Each trough is a foot wide, a foot deep and three feet long. You follow me so far?

The SCS are nested in a frame which is mounted on a SunTracker Platform (STP). Now we have the SCSHTLTEBSTP system. The SunTracker tracks the Sun and in bad weather, turns the edge of the SCS array into the storm wind. The TEB is a tank holding, say 5000 gallons of HTL, at about 450 – 500 degrees F. This mass and heat is enough to carry most full loads until the Sun shines again. Now for the kicker: the Applications.

There are many, off-the-self- applications which can transform the heat into other forms of energy: electricity, hot and cold water, refrigeration, steam, and rotational horsepower, commonly referred to as Combined Heat and Power (CHP). We now have the SCSHTLTEBSTPCHP System. If you count the fact that the system does not produce GHG (-GHG for “negative GHG), then we have the SCSHTLTEBSTPCHP-GHG, which ought to make most Washington bureaucrats happy with the name alone, and worthy of funding.

Which brings me to the main topic – funding. The Federal bureaucrats in charge at the operational level have marching orders: spend huge amounts of money, fast, in as many Congressional Districts as possible, on old, obsolete technology (i.e. “Clean Coal” -- no such thing), Atomic Energy, high mileage internal combustion engines, and wind machines isolated from the grid (Pickens Plan). Such goals are not only silly, but stupid, not thought-out and will ensure the de-election of President Obama in 2012. If there are any Democrats listening, your chances of maintain your current majority in Congress is doomed in 2012 when the Republacrats or the Demacans regain their power seats in Congress. I can hear their campaign song: “All I want for Christmas is our Thirteen Trillion Back”.

So, what to do? First of all, put out an FOA which has no requirements other than name, rank and serial number with no matching requirements. Do not condition it along the lines of the DOE's Unsolicited Proposal schema which can instantly kill any application which is “similar” to any FOA, past, present or future. So many FOA's have been issued so that there is little or no ground left upon which an innovative application can stand and avoid the “similar FOA” appkiller. Again, the bureaucrats have created a very convenient shield around their job performance – just say no, and they don't have to do any real work.

Surprise! You might have guessed that I, James E. Miller, a humble recovering attorney and ag engineer, would have thought through the Locavore Energy Solution (LES) mentioned above. We now have the LES/SCSHTLTEBSTPCHP-GHG solution. Oh, I almost forgot, we are also working on getting funding for the Drum Roll Steamer CHP System™ (Richard Hundley, inventor) or DRSCHP. This system uses any cellulose to produce syngas, steam, rotational horsepower and biochar. The latter can be infused with BioOil from the pyrolysis operation to make pellets or briquettes of clean(er) burning BioCoalLite™. Alternatively, the biochar can be infused with nutrient (compost tea or black liquor from dairy cow flop lagoon) (Agrichar), then worked into the soil which during the next crop season, will yield up to eight times the normal yield than if seeds were sown in plain dirt. How? Micro-organisms like to sit down to eat, and “Feed the soil – the stomach of the plant”.

So, there you have it – the long term, best solution to our energy and food needs using the Locavore Renewable Energy System (LRES), the solution to the proper use of cow flop, and the solution to our coming Peak Food Crisis. Finally, we have LRES/SCSHTLTEBSTPDRSCHP-GHG+COWFLOP. Now, let's get real; get some funding for the LRES/SCSHTLTEBSTPDRSCHP-GHG+COWFLOP™ System [ http://algaloildiesel.wetpaint.com/page/DAIRY+PRODUCTION+OF+SYNGAS+AND+BIOCHAR ] and start enjoying the Sun, breeze, and food while relaxing in our lawn chairs watching the Sunset, with a glass of orange or pineapple flavored ice tea at ready.

Jim Miller
jimmiller5417@yahoo.com
August 3, 2009
Copyrighted, 2009, James E. Miller. All rights reserved.

THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER REQUIRES US TO SAVE THE NATION (and ourselves)

jimmiller5417 — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:27:27 CDT

LEAGUE FOR A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
An upstart, browser-based political action hybrid

Our audacity of creating a new political party

with aspirations of becoming

the number one party in the

nation, is our hallmark.

Our Logo -- the WebCam

Our eyes, ears and minds are open.

Our mission is to replace both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party as the centers of political power in the United States and among the majority of States of the nation. We must do this in order to prepare ourselves for the economic, social and political meltdown which began in 1976 and has accelerated since then. Failure to act wisely in a timely manner will insure our collective and personal disaster. Don't take any one person's word for it, read all of the well-researched books and articles on the Peak Oil Crisis under: Research heading below.

We've got a project, and this site is a central point to keep track of our goals, the project schedule, and our work in progress. Add pages as necessary, brainstorm on the wiki "whiteboard" pages, and use the person-to-person messaging feature to keep in touch with Members. In order to attract, retain, nourish, and support our members and be supported by them, we follow all of the rules against unlawful discrimination and comply with all applicable and lawful election codes.

We will deploy our talents, insight, force of reason by using the Web, which is second only to the invention of fire or the wheel. Our browser-based party charges no dues (donations are thankfully accepted), no oaths, no commitments, and welcomes folks with no opinions. As a start-up we'll begin on the cheap. However, we will eventually need some resources to fight the good fight for political offices for our candidates and passage of our initiatives and referendums.

We are a self-directed, self-organizing force. We are not amused by the lies, exaggerations, lack of insight, and duplicity of the current political parties. We need truth, objective facts, theories tested against reality, and ways of getting our messages across to our eventual leaders. Prominent is our drive toward returning as much sovereignty to the People of United States as possible -- in an orderly, democratic and peaceful manner. We want Lt. Spock to be proud of our methods and results. Be nice; otherwise you have no creditability.

This website is for your use. Add comments, add pages, edit copy you think is bad, stupid, irrelevant or simply wrong. Add a thread or branch an existing one. Use hyper-links liberally with just a one or two sentence introduction of the target text. Add photos, video clips or audio clips.

We will, over the course of time and with some luck and pluck, put video conferencing tools at your disposal so we can discourse in real time and in delayed time, any subject of your choosing and provide you with the meeting announcement and invitation tools.

Our party platform planks will eventually be voted upon during our Virtual Convention, to be held about 90 days before each national election, on the Web, world-wide among all members of LDR. The only requirement is that, in order to have your vote counted, you have to be a currently registered voter in any State. Your vote counts because our primary is 7/24. We've done away with scheduled primary elections and electoral voting.

Our platform planks are developed from threads. Anyone can start a thread for a future Plank and invite comments. Sixty days prior to the Virtual Convention, we will conduct a vote and the top fifty (or whatever number is approved by the Virtual Convention) planks will be chosen. Those planks will be submitted to the Virtual Convention on the first day and the top Twenty-five (or whatever number is approved by the Virtual Convention) planks chosen. These planks will then be vetted by our panel of experts to make sure they can withstand any legal challenge. The vetted Planks will be returned for 24 hours for comments and then a final vote taken on each of the Planks. Any plank not achieving 51% will be replaced by the next most popular plank and so on until we have twenty-five (or whatever number is approved by the Virtual Convention) approved planks.

Please tell your friends about this site and encourage them to become active players in the next "Party of the First Part". We need our cousin parties to quietly walk off-stage into the sunset and let us get on with the salvation of Planet Earth.

Jim Miller

jimmiller5417@yahoo.com

October 1, 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

[Format: Sub-head] INTERNAL SEARCH DIALOGE BOX: CONTROL + F

The Assignment	Project Schedule	Brainstorming
Drafts of Planks	Research	Members
Final Planks	HOT BUTTON ISSUES	Chapters of LDR
Voting on Planks	Letters to the Editor	Donate to LDR
Final Vote on Planks	Articles	Ways to help
Web Tool Kit	Useful Links	Forum/Blogs
Task Groups	Transition	Video clips
Candidates on the Left	LDR Candidates	Candidates on the Right
SPIN DOCTORS PLATFORMS AND AGENDAS	Get Political Vote for Yourself	Contact Us

League for a Democratic Republic

Remember this:

We do not inherit the earth from our parents; we borrow it from our children.
We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...
We say what we mean, and we mean what we say.
The Price of Victory is eternal vigilance.
The Truth will eventually triumph.
Freedom is not cheap.
Think, then act.
Act wisely.
We care.
Hope!

A non-profit (non-501.c.3), unincorporated association (currently)

James E. Miller, Administrator, Secretary & Treasurer (for now)

103 Methodist St., Cecilia, KY 42724

Wire: 270-862-4379 ; Skype: jimmiller5417

Email: jimmiller5417@yahoo.com

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

Save yourself by saving others.

We're all in the same lifeboat.

Tips for Building Your Wiki:

Rename your home page to describe your project, then lock your home page
Encourage contribution: Write a "task list" for new pages.
Invite all group members to help out! (Click on "Invite others" in the Page Toolbox)
Use person-to-person messages to stay connected and to send updates, reminders, etc.

Need more? Add graphics and flourishes that match your wiki design (they're free from Paint Splatters)

VIDEO CLIPS

jimmiller5417 — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 04:11:21 CDT

144 Local Living Economies - Protecting What We Love

Judy Wicks’ love of place has made widening ripples on a global scale. She’s the founder of BALLE (Business Alliance for Local Living Economies), a national network of sustainable, small businesses. After moving onto a quaint street in Philadelphia, she learned it was slated to be torn down. Organizing her community, she saved the block as a walkable community. She opened White Dog Cafe coffee shop on the first floor of her home, which grew to a large restaurant proudly serving food from local farmers. Reading John Robbins’ Diet for a New America about the cruel treatment of factory farm animals, she located small family farmers and created a cruelty-free menu. Rather than hoard this proprietary information, she founded a local sustainable business network based on cooperation between businesses, and later the national organization BALLE (Business Alliance for Local Living Economies). (www.livingeconomies.org, www.whitedog.com)

http://www.wordpress.peakmoment.tv/conversations/?p=320

SPIN DOCTORS PLATFORMS AND AGENDAS

jimmiller5417 — Sat, 30 May 2009 17:52:50 CDT

WorldChanging
Support WorldChanging Donate Now
May 30, 09
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/009784.html

Geoengineering and the New Climate Denialism

Alex Steffen
April 29, 2009 11:20 AM

Article Photo

This is a draft essay, and obviously still rough in patches. I'd appreciate feedback! - Alex

GEOENGINEERING AND THE NEW CLIMATE DENIALISM
by Alex Steffen

The Idea of Geoengineering is Being Used Dishonestly

Though we spend our time here at Worldchanging focused on solutions to the planet's most pressing problems, sometimes the politics around an issue become so twisted that it's necessary to address the politics before we can have a real discussion about the problems and how to solve them. That's the case with geoengineering.

Some scientists suggest that certain massive projects -- like creating artificial volcanoes to fill the skies with soot, or seeding the oceans with mountains of iron to produce giant algal blooms -- might in the future be able put the brakes on climate change. These "geoengineering" ideas are hardly shovel-ready. The field at this point consists essentially of little more than a bunch of proposals, simulations and small-scale experiments: describing these hypothetical approaches as "back up options" crazily overstates their current state of development. Indeed, almost all of the scientists working on them believe that the best answer to our climate problem would be a quick, massive reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions.

None of this has stopped geoengineering from becoming part of a new attempt to stall those very reductions, though. The same network of think tanks, pundits and lobbying groups that denied climate change for the last 30 years has seized on geoengineering as a chance to undermine new climate regulations and the U.N. climate negotiations to be held at the end of the year in Copenhagen. They're still using scare tactics about the economic costs of change, but now, instead of just denying the greenhouse effect, they've begun trying to convince the rest of us that hacking the planet with giant space-mirrors or artificial volcanoes is so easy that burning a lot more coal and oil really won't be a problem.

Delay is The Carbon Lobby's Strategy

It's a central, yet often forgotten, fact in the climate debate that pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere is incredibly profitable. For a small group of giant corporations (the coal, oil and car companies which we can collectively call the Carbon Lobby), business as usual is big bank. The difficulties of addressing climate change have much more to do with the political power of these corporations than with the technical challenges of building a carbon-neutral economy (a carbon-neutral economy being an engineering and design challenge that we already have the capacity to meet).

For the last thirty years, the Carbon Lobby's strategy on climate change has been to delay. Almost every informed observer knows, and has known for decades, that the days of fossil fuels are numbered, but how quickly and how completely we shift away from them makes all the difference to these industries. They have a huge investment in oil fields and coal mines and dirty technologies, and each decade they delay the transition away from coal and gas means literally trillions of dollars more profits. Delay = big bucks.

The best way for the Carbon Lobby to delay that transition has been to make regulations and treaties that limit the amount of CO2 emissions politically impossible, especially in the U.S., where the Lobby's influence is the greatest because of their hold over the Republican party.

That's why they put such emphasis on attempting to portray the science of climate change as inconclusive or hotly debated (despite the fact that their own scientists told them in 1995 that the science on climate "is well established and cannot be denied"). If they could make people feel uncertain, they could make it safe for politicians to actively oppose new regulations and treaties (a strategy laid out in the famous leaked "Luntz Memo"). Lying about the science made people uncertain; that uncertainty let the Carbon Lobby stall U.S. action; and by stopping the world's biggest polluter from participating, they stymied any real global deal on greenhouse gasses.

The strategy worked, up to a point. But now most Americans understand that climate change is real and that it demands action. Our new president advocates strong action on climate; business leaders from many industries back him, as do most labor and religious groups; and foreign nations are eager to negotiate (European conservatives are even competing to show leadership on tackling climate emissions, rather than denying that those emissions are a problem). This emerging consensus on the need for regulatory action and effective treaties threatens to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels much more quickly than anyone expected, so the Carbon Lobby is scrambling to find new reasons for delay.

How Geoengineering Becomes an Argument for Delay

Their new justifications for delay are simple. Taking advantage of the economic crisis, they call climate action a job killer. If the Right's anger and vehemence against the very idea of green jobs has shocked and confused you, well, understand that it's important that climate change be framed as a threat to the economy, and never an opportunity: the growing importance of clean tech industries and jobs to the American economy must be downplayed in order for this strategy to work (never mind that wind power already employs more Americans than coal mining). Look for this argument to increase in volume as Copenhagen draws near.

But to really make their case for more delay, they can no longer be seen as outright opponents of climate action. They've got to have their own plan. And that's where geoengineering comes in.

The biggest argument for strong actions taken quickly is that delay or weak responses may put us in a position of facing rapid, perhaps even runaway climate change. The longer we wait, the more dangerous our position becomes. The only certain route to safety would be rapid emissions reductions, including programs for ecosystem restoration and other forms of sustainable sequestration to help draw CO2 levels down.

But if we can be made to believe that megascale geoengineering can stop climate change, then delay begins to look not like the dangerous folly it actually is, but a sensible prudence. The prospect of geoegineering is the only thing that can make that delay seem at all morally acceptable.

In other words, combining dire warnings about climate action's economic costs with exaggerated claims about geoengineering's potential is the new climate denialism.

The Carbon Lobby Spins Geoengineering Instead of Emissions Reductions

The new climate denialism is all about trying to make the continued burning of fossils fuels seem acceptable, even after the public has come to understand the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real. That's why denialists present geoengineering as an alternative to emissions reductions, and couch their arguments in tones of reluctant realism.

One of the earliest political calls for geoengineering was Gregory Benford's essay Climate Controls, written for the Reason Foundation (you can find out more about their links to the Carbon Lobby and their role in climate denialism here). Benford was explicit that he saw geoengineering as a way to avoid reducing CO2 emissions:

"Instead of draconian cutbacks in greenhouse-gas emissions, there may very well be fairly simple ways--even easy ones--to fix our dilemma. ...take seriously the concept of "geoengineering," of consciously altering atmospheric chemistry and conditions, of mitigating the effects of greenhouse gases rather than simply calling for their reduction or outright prohibition."

Benford is far from alone. One of the major proponents of geoengineering is the American Enterprise Institute. AEI has a long history of working to deny the scientific consensus on climate change. They have strong ties to the Carbon Lobby (ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond served on the AEI board of trustees, and $1,870,000 from ExxonMobil helped fund their anti-climate work).

Now AEI is working both sides of the new climate denialism street. They claim that climate action is too expensive (In a January paper, AEI's Willem P. Nel and Christopher J. Cooper argue that "The extent of Global Warming may be acceptable and preferable compared to the socio-economic consequences of not exploiting fossil fuel reserves to their full technical potential." In other words, "It's more profitable to let the planet roast."). They also house one of the few funded policy centers on geoengineering, the AEI Geoengineering Project.

The Geoengineering Project is run by Lee Lane. Lane is smart, and so he doesn't say outright that we should dump climate negotiations and trust in geoengineering, but you don't need to read too far between the lines to hear that's what he's saying.

In 2006, Lane specifically advised the Bush Administration to urge a greater focus both on debating carbon taxes (we know how Republicans like to "debate" taxes) and on geoengineering as "strategic measures" to "block political momentum toward a return to the Kyoto system." He continues to put forward geoengineering as an alternative to real emissions reductions anytime in the near future. As he said at AEI's recent geoengineering conference:

"I think in response to all of those difficulties that certainly I am not the only person to see, a growing number of experts are becoming increasingly concerned about the need to broaden the debate on climate policy. What I mean by broaden it is to expand what we consider as serious climate policy options from what has been a very narrow focus on greenhouse gas emissions limitations, and indeed rather steep and rather rapid greenhouse gas emissions limitations, to consider a much broader range of policies that go way beyond simply attempting to make short run reductions in greenhouse gases."

In other words, Lane wants us to believe that emissions reductions are politically impossible (never mind that he works at an institution which has labored mightily to sabotage emissions reductions treaty negotiations, and that he himself explicitly advised the Bush Administration on how to do the same), so we ought to be considering geoengineering as the "serious" option instead.

The Distortion of Geoengineering has Become Widespread

Turn over denialist rocks and you'll find political advocates for geoengineering a-plenty. For instance:

*The Cato Institute (denialists), whose senior fellow and director of natural resource studies, Jerry Taylor, says that if we end up forced do something about global warming, "geo-engineering is more cost-effective than emissions controls altogether."

*The Heartland Institute (denialists), whose David Schnare now advocates geoengineering as quicker and less costly to the economy than greenhouse gas reductions:

"In addition to being much less expensive than seeking to stem temperature rise solely through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, geo-engineering has the benefit of delivering measurable results in a matter of weeks rather than the decades or centuries required for greenhouse gas reductions to take full effect."

*The Hudson Institute (denialists) advocates geoengineering as substitute for reductions:

"Successful geoengineering would permit Earth's population to make far smaller reductions in carbon use and still achieve the same retarding effect on global warming at a lower cost. The cuts in carbon use proposed by international leaders and presidential candidates would have a drastic effect on the economy, especially since substitutes for fossil fuels will be expensive and limited for a number of years."

*The Hoover Institution (denialists) is home to not only to senior fellow Thomas Gale Moore, author of "Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry About Global Warming" but also nuclear weapons engineer and original SDI "Star Wars" proponent Lowell Wood. Wood has become an outspoken geoengineering proponent and co-authored a recent WSJ op-ed in which he warns "But beware. Do not try to sell climate geo-engineering to committed enemies of fossil fuels," thus revealing that the point is to be friendly to fossil fuels.

And, of course, denialists' allies in the media and the blogosphere have been quick to take up the call. Conservative columnist (and climate "contrarian") John Tierney thinks geoengineering makes superfluous emissions reductions ("a futile strategy") and wants "a geoengineering fix for global warming," to provide an alternative to the idea that "the only cure [is] to reduce CO2 emissions." Wayne Crews of the denialist site globalwarming.org (a project of the Carbon-Lobby-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute) likes geoengineering strategies as possible "options apart from carbon constraint," while climate treaty opponent and "delayer" Roger Pielke, Jr. finds it encouraging that geoengineering's getting so much buzz.

It would be easy to go on. But the point is obvious: the Carbon Lobby, no longer able to deny the reality of climate change, is hoping to use the idea of geoengineering to undermine political progress towards reducing climate emissions through sensible, intelligent regulations and international treaties. Big Oil, Big Coal and the auto companies want you to believe that reducing emissions is too expensive to work, climate negotiations are too unrealistic to succeed, but we can keep burning fossil fuels anyways because geoengineering gives us a plan B. If you think that, you've been spun.

How to De-Spin Geoengineering

None of this is to say that megascale geoengineering should be a taboo subject. We need a smart debate here, where we explore the subject honestly and without industry spin. Here are six suggestions for returning reality to the geoengineering debate in these critical months leading up to Copenhagen:

First, Demand that bold emissions reductions be acknowledged as the only sound foundation for any climate action plan. The Carbon Lobby thrives on half-truths and obfuscation. Ethical people -- whether geoengineering proponents, opponents or doubters -- all need to be extremely clear in saying that a strong, rapid movement away from fossil fuels and toward climate neutrality is non-negotiable. Many leading thinkers on geoengineering (such as Paul Crutzen and Ken Caldeira) already make clear that immediate action on reducing greenhouse pollution (on both the national and global levels) is the first step, period. We should follow their lead.

Second, Point out that a climate-neutral world is realistic. One of the public debate's biggest failures is the extent to which we've let people be convinced that a climate-neutral planet is some distant, improbable fantasy world. It's not. We know, already, right now, how to dramatically slash emissions using currently available technologies, and make a profit. Economists (like Lord Nicholas Stern, former Chief Economist at the World Bank) estimate that the total cost of pursuing climate neutrality could be as little as 1% of GDP (far lower than the anticipated costs of allowing climate change to worsen). But there may not even be a cost: a great many of the actions we need to take (like rebuilding our cities and using energy more efficiently) return greater economic benefits than they demand, and when something pays you money, it's not a cost, it's an investment.

Third, Be extremely clear about geoengineering's real possibilities and actual limitations. Journalists tend to sell the planetary engineering sizzle, rather than serve the heavily-caveated steak. Advocates need to continue to emphasize that geoegineering proposals are still extremely early-stage, experimental and surrounded with unknowns. (On the other side, even determined opponents of geoengineering need to acknowledge the good intent and sound reasoning of scientists who are doing their best to add new insight to an extremely important debate.)

Fourth, Get the order right: zero-out first, adapt next, engineer last.. We need to be clear that because of the experimental nature of geoengineering projects, their use should be a last resort, not a primary option. Megascale geoengineering should not yet be part of any national strategies for addressing climate change, or a part of any offset systems in carbon trading regimes. We need first to drive greenhouse gas concentrations down with proven methods, and then begin preparing to adapt to the climate change we know we've already set in motion. We should only turn to megascale geoengineering as a last resort.

Fifth, Keep a wary eye on the Arctic ocean and other tipping points. Last year, scientists conducting research in the Arctic made a startling discovery: what might perhaps be formerly-frozen methane was bubbling to the surface of the warming ocean in alarming amounts. Their work demands corroboration, but if confirmed, this should cause us all to worry. Methane is an incredibly potent greenhouse gas and huge amounts of it are trapped beneath frigid waters and frozen permafrost, waiting perhaps to be released by rising temperatures.That methane could set off runaway climate change. Even if their findings are refuted, though, potential tipping points need to be watched. If we find we've blundered into rapid runaway climate change, some forms of geoengineering, however poorly understood, may quickly move from "last resort" to "needed option."

Sixth and last, Continue outing the Carbon Lobby and its cronies, and reject their intervention in the debate. Legitimate debates about the possible uses of megascale geoengineering should not include people whose institutions have been consistently and intentionally dishonest about science and science policy.

The next two decades will have an almost unparalleled importance in human history, and the decisions we make during this time could have almost unthinkable impacts for millennia. The world in which scores of future generations will live -- its climate, the plants and animals that make up its biosphere, the material possibilities of its cultures -- will to an astonishing degree be influenced by the choices we make in the next score of years.

How we interpret the possibilities of (and understand the limitations to) large-scale geoengineering projects will help shape the clarity and velocity with which we act on reducing emissions and building a new, climate-neutral economy. These questions matter too much to allow them be twisted by a bunch of shills for fossil fuel industries.

We need to reclaim the debate about our planet's future, together.

Image credit: Edward Burtynsky
Bookmark and Share

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!
Comments

I thought that was an excellent article; informative and thought provoking; well constructed and easily understood.

Nice work.

Posted by: Steve on April 27, 2009 7:15 AM

Is this geoengineering or is it adaptation? Either way, it deserves more attention than the methods Steffen mentions.

(How fire can be domesticated)

Posted by: G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan until ~1996 on April 27, 2009 8:02 AM

Alex,

Nice post. I'm glad to see you're engaged in elevating the debate on geoengineering, which is poised to become the most highly charged and controversial aspect of climate change. It will become the global focusing agent of all the angst and fear around climate change like nothing else.

Unfortunately, my informed opinion is that tipping points are much closer than most people realize, and that geoengineering is probably the only tool to prevent crossing climate tipping points while we create carbon neutral economies. You are right to highlight the Arctic-methane feedback loop, which threatens to release 100 times the historical total of human CO2 emissions in roughly 100 years. But there are many more tipping points to worry about (e.g. ocean circulation and primary production, droughts and wildfires, etc...)

We have very little time to understand how to use geoengineering effectively. The necessary research that society must do includes not only the science of geoengineering, but also the politics and ethics around potential implementation. Winners and losers will be created by both geoengineering and climate change, although geoengineering will hopefully produce fewer losers and for a shorter time period. How will the world decide on who the winners and losers will be? This is the sort of debate that would be perfect for Worldchanging.

Cynodont

Posted by: Cynodont on April 27, 2009 9:07 AM

Much happier with this new perspective Alex, or perhaps the old perspective more eloquently articulated. I agree w/ Cynodont above that the threat of tipping points argues that we move forward simultaneously w/ the research necessary to understand the portfolio of approaches and which (if any) make sense, as well as the safety, ethical and governance questions surrounding them.

Certainly that should not, *must* not distract from emissions reductions efforts. That is clearly job #1 and must not be characterized otherwise.

Maybe we're all in agreement now?

Dan

Posted by: Dan Whaley on April 27, 2009 10:04 AM

The article is dead on. However, there is the other side - the side that presents itself as lowering emissions to affect climate change as well. There are certain indicators that demonstrate that humanity (and lack of it) are impacting the global environment, but global warming has become more of a marketing strategy than the *theory* that it truly is. The fact is that everyone is shooting in the dark, and even with the sizable amount of data on hand there is not enough to make iron-clad forecasts.

The middle ground isn't the fence, it's realizing the strengths and weaknesses of either side and acting intelligently. It's easy to become polarized, and that's where politics enters. That and... money and power. Much like the World Bank and other things have been maneuvered in the past to assure that developing nations get nice forecasts for high price tags in the political and financial arenas.

Knowing the facts is what this should be all about. Things based on opinion need to be filtered out, and more people need to see the raw data. The facts. And, most importantly, the how and why of the fact collection process itself. Motivations are not always as they seem.

Posted by: Taran Rampersad on April 27, 2009 10:07 AM

It is nice to see that scientists have come to a consensus as to what god they worship. Nice to see how far scientists can distance themselves from math and physics.

Posted by: larrydalooza on April 27, 2009 10:08 AM

The removal of my comments regarding contrails and space based solar/microwave energy production makes me question the true intent of this web site. The world is changing, are we going to have an honest discussion about it?

Posted by: Matt on April 27, 2009 10:15 AM

I love when someone else perfectly articulates what I would like to say... it makes my life that much easier.

Posted by: Edward on April 27, 2009 1:01 PM

I didn't see Matt's original comment, but I will back up his assertion that geo-engineering is already ongoing and has been for several years.

A man named Brian Holmes has been researching this contentious issue since the early 2000s and has compiled lots of great information on his website for anyone interested:

http://www.holmestead.ca/index-ct.html

This page in particular has some interesting perspectives on the subject of actively altering the Earth's albedo effect to reflect solar energy away from the planet and back into space using an aluminum/barium compound suspended in the atmosphere and discharged by either military or commercial jet liners via their 'contrails'.

http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/jimphelps.html

A Google search for the term 'chemtrails' may yield similar results.

Thank you for providing an open forum where such serious matters may be discussed amongst intelligent and educated individuals.

Sincerely,

Colin Pape

Posted by: Colin Pape on April 27, 2009 1:11 PM

It sounds like there's broad consensus that geoengineering approaches are potentially crucial, not shovel ready, and urgently need more research, especially to uncover unexpected risks.

Under those circumstances, I'd argue that if we had a fixed basket of dollars to use for action on climate change, some of them should be used for geoengineering research, even if that diverts some money and attention away from CO2 reduction plans. This is true even if denialists claim that one eliminates the need for the other.

Of course, we don't have a fixed basket, so we should all focus our political efforts on increasing the size of the basket so we can advance on all fronts.

Your essay made a lot of good points, but I think it would have been stronger if it acknowledged that many of the scientists who work on geoengineering efforts are staunch advocates of intervention on climate change who are advancing the same cause you are in the best way they know how. Please don't paint with too broad a brush!

Posted by: Trey Smith on April 27, 2009 1:13 PM

I applaud your overview. It will be easy to fall victim to geoengineering spin. What interests me most is your fifth point: "If we find we've blundered into rapid runaway climate change, some forms of geoengineering, however poorly understood, may quickly move from "last resort" to "needed option."" In your perspective, haven't we blundered into rapid climate change already? There may be uncertainty about the magnitude of greenhouse gas impact, but less doubt about its duration in the atmosphere. Even full-scale green energy transformation won't stop the impact of existing and inevitable atmospheric change. Taking your fifth point for orientation, how can we not move geoengineering towards "needed option", without become climate change denialists ourselves?

Posted by: Brian on April 27, 2009 1:30 PM

Isn't a massive reduction in man-made carbon emissions simply another form of "geoengineering?" And doesn't it suffer the same limitations as the other forms of "geoengineering" discussed in the article, including most prominently the lack of any reasonable chance that it will meaningfully prevent our ever-changing climate from continuing to change?

Apparently, it's fine to ruin our economy and ecology by adopting more costly energy sources (yes, that's right, because if you think windmills and solar panels on a scale sufficient to displace carbon-emitting energy sources will be ecologically benign, perhaps you should think again), but it is evil and "denialist" to think (much less investigate) that there might be other ways to deal with excess carbon.

The argument appears to be "we are so absolutely certain that we can change the climate back to the way we think it should be by reducing or eliminating evil human carbon emissions (as opposed to the non-evil (and far larger)natural ones), that we hereby label any other method of dealing with excess carbon as 'denialist' and worthy only of scorn."

But, hey, at least we can all agree that nuclear power, which generates a massive amount of power in a tiny footprint (and totally carbon-free), appears to be the most rational way of proceeding from all perspectives. Right?

Posted by: Mooseman on April 27, 2009 2:02 PM

Great Article. Thanks for the perspective.
IT seems that if it has a weakness, it is that you explain how you rank the importance of Geoengineering.
Perhaps an extended discussion of geoengineering is needed.
Regarding comments- Any solar radiation blocking/reflecting technology is risky on two fronts. First, you are decreasing energy available for photosynthesis. That has the potential to decrease food production and carbon sequestration. Second, increasing the carbon density of the atmosphere may have other unintended consequences. Chief among them is that the ocean will continue to acidify. Ocean acidification is bad. Our prospects for survival are extremely diminished if the ocean essentially dies from acidity.

Posted by: Bill S on April 27, 2009 2:20 PM

hello....i'm sorry but....they are already doing it.....it's call "atmospheric geoengineering".....chemical trails people...."chemtrails".....they mix something with the jet fuel.......look in the sky people THEY ARE ALREADY DOING IT

http://www.infowars.com/the-government-is-already-geo-engineering-the-environment/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuP9KYgSUcQ

they are trying to create an artificial sunscreen.

geoengineering it's REAL, and it's happening right now

Posted by: PILOT 4 on April 27, 2009 3:11 PM

Excellent article, not first-draftish at all and very well balanced.

I haven't reviewed all the comments, but I noticed a couple of posters suggesting that our closeness to several alarming tipping points should make us consider geoengineering now. I'd like to make an important distinction here: the threat of methane and other tipping points indicates that we need to go massively carbon-negative; but going carbon-negative is not the same as geoengineering. Technologies like air capture may be necessary but can be done using traditional industrial systems and don't involve rejigging the planet itself. Personally, I'm very interested in shifting the debate away from geoengineering to the creation of a carbon-negative industrial infrastructure, which would operate parallel to the traditional "green" technologies. (I make that distinction because I think it's useful to consider industries that have emissions reductions as their intent as distinct from those that have removal of *existing* atmospheric CO2 as their purpose.)

Posted by: Karl Schroeder on April 27, 2009 3:49 PM

Many of the organiziations involved with 'denilism' such as the Cato Institute seem to also be involved with the tobbaco lobbies. Enviromental groups should study the efforts of anti-smoking groups as a way getting around such lobbists. There could be some very important tactical information to be shared!

Posted by: GlenH on April 27, 2009 5:41 PM

This is a very good article on how the useful fools are being encouraged to promote useless tools to generate lots of hot air and little else (apart from a few contracts)

(Perhaps we should start referring to 'eGo-engineering'?)

It reminds me of the wonderful idea to generate electricity from massive updrafts generated by huge concrete cooling towers: while disingeneously non-geo in the usual sense, it's part of the same meme.

Indeed, a few commenters have already suggested that anything we do large-scale could be considered 'geo-engineering', so perhaps it would be useful to try and classify what is meant by geo and non-geo approaches (if they can be classified or whether its that wonderful 'false dichotomy' so beloved of culture pugilists)

Here goes:

geo = any approach which acts as a palliative (curing the symptoms rather than the cause)

non-geo = any approach that seeks to solve the basic problem (too much greenhouse gas in the atmosphere)

Hmmm... where does that leave methane munching bacteria? That raises the issue of reversible and non-reversible strategies. Also, if we're concerned about whether delaying strategies are afoot, we should also contemplate resource hogging vs sharing (do you feel a scenario diagram coming on?)

The way I tend to view it is that geo strategies are viable if they can 'delay' the onset of tipping points and buy us stability time to get some solid emission reduction strategies in place. A good example was provided, free of charge, by the cooling effect the Pinutobu eruption had on global climate in the early-mid nineties. Then the eruption company went broke, SO2 soot levels dropped, and we were back to normal. That, plus the warming effect of the greenhouse gases that had built up during the previous few years. (An opportunity wasted, or a provider of a short, sharp shock? )

Thus, SO2 additive to aviation fuel is probably worthwhile investigating (as aviation con-trails are already an inadvertent form of geo-engineering, as reported here a while back, they may as well be made use of)

But, where a geo-engineering project would divert effort from a greenhouse capture/reduction scheme, just say no.

Posted by: Tony Fisk on April 27, 2009 6:33 PM

David Brin writes:

Alex, to my mind, the issue isn't whether or not geoengineering belongs on the table. It does. Some proposals do seem intrinsically more sane while others appear outrageously lunatic. For example, if, instead of dumping iron, we simply stirred the ocean bottom in a few locations, we would imitate nature's precise method for creating vast fisheries, creating food while sucking carbon out of the air... something inherently less risky than starting up volcanoes. (I illustrate this in EARTH (1989).)

But no, the isue at hand is not the merits of any indvidual geoenginering scheme. It is instead the need to finally diagnose genuine, bona fide insanity when we see it. The climate change denier movement stands esposed for what it has always been, a frenzied quasi-religious cult, bereft of even marginal logic.

In desperate, successive phases, the members of this cult first sneeringly dismissed the notion that warming is occurring at all, as a secular trend.

Then, when forced to admit that it is so, they denied that human-generated activities could possibly affect Earth's climate.

Then, when science came in overwhelmingly against that position, their gambit was to minimize likely effects.

Then, when the US Navy announced plans to deal with an ice-free Arctic, they began promulgating the notion that it all will turn out to be beneficial(!), and/or that "anyway, it's already too late, so don't bother." Many people have unblinkingly gone from one position to the next, without even glancing in the dictionary, under "inconsitency" or "hypocrisy" or "credibility."

Now comes geoengineering, under which they admit that their earlier positions were absolutely and completely wrong in every possible way, and yet continue to insist on their right to sneer at the other side, which proved right on every single count! Such gall! Such Chutzpah!

Why are these jerks doing this? It does not really map on to "conservatism" which used to preach wisdom like "waste not" and "a penny saved" and "cleanliness is next to godliness" and which used to adore efficincy. That THIS is "conservatism would send everyone from Cotton Mather to Barry Goldwater to even Richrd Nixon spinning in their graves. (A possible new energy source?)

Is it really at the behest of a few carbon fuel moguls, the same way that shills also ranted distractions for so long, on behlf of Big Tobacco? Can it really be as simple as that?

I suspect deeper psychology is involved, e.g the trumped-up treason that is called "culture war" - whose effect has been to oversimplify all complex issues and effectively lobotomize the greates problem-solving nation in history. The same reflex that made this same clade oppose civil rights and every other reform of the last 75 years. In the end, it has nothing to do with "left vs right". (I happen to be a big fan of Adam Smith0 Rather, it is about biliously hatred of "smartypants." And anything at all proposed by wiseguys.

There is asolution. Let a consortium be formed with one aim, to collect names and public statements, with an openly stated goal:

"These people clearly have followed a pattern of obstructing humanity's efforts to come to grips, to innovate and to solve a desperate threat to our nation, world, children and planetary survival. Their eagerness to jump from one failed rationalization to another has only one common theme -- a relentless eagerness to block civilization's efforts to become more energy efficient.

"Since there are NO other commen elements to their positions, we shall operate under the assujmption that blocking energy efficiency is their central goal."

This consortium should go on to make a simple declartion:

"From this moment on, we serve notice. All evidence gathered will go toward building a case for civil lawuits, to be filed in future years, holding these people financially responsible for tort damages done to our nation, people, children, civilization and planet, by a conspiracy whose sole aim was to prevent the amelioration of a deadly threat to public health and public welfare. Based upon the utter consistency of their behavior -- similar to that of the tobacco companies, during their own denial and obstruction epoch -- we plan to reduce some of the pain and damages that this conspiracy will have caused, by seeking civil damages plus major punitive penalties.

"Individuals have perfect freedom of speech. But when lies are spread with malicious and selfish intent that results in palpable harm to others, the victims (we and our posterity) do have recourse in court. Participants in this conspiracy are served notice. They should step back and view their relentless campaign against energy efficiency in this light."

david brin
sent from Washington DC

Posted by: Alex Steffen on April 27, 2009 7:56 PM

The world's emissions of the main planet-warming gas carbon dioxide will rise over 50 percent to more than 42 billion tonnes per year from 2005 to 2030 as China leads a rise in burning coal, the U.S. government forecast on Wednesday. China's coal demand will rise 3.2 percent annually from 2005 to 2030, the Energy Information Administration said in its International Energy Outlook 2008. --Reuters, 26 June 2008

Any carbon diet strategy would be dependent upon clean coal:

"The vast majority of new power stations in China and India will be coal-fired; not "may be coal-fired"; will be. So developing carbon capture and storage technology is not optional, it is literally of the essence." --"Breaking the Climate Deadlock," Tony Blair, June 26, 2008

But, Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, has estimated that capturing and burying just 10 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted over a year from coal-fire plants at current rates would require moving volumes of compressed carbon d ioxide greater than the total annual flow of oil worldwide -- a massive undertaking requiring decades and trillions of dollars. "Beware of the scale," he stressed."

"I'm going to tell you something I probably shouldn't: we may not be able to stop global warming. We need to begin curbing global greenhouse emissions right now, but more than a decade after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, the world has utterly failed to do so. Unless the geopolitics of global warming change soon, the Hail Mary pass of geoengineering might become our best shot." --Bryan Walsh, Time Magazine, 17 March 2008

"The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself but in the hot state." --Dr James Lovelock, August 2008

"The Greens' resistance to geo-engineering sits very uncomfortably with its message that the planet is screwed and we're all going to die. It suggests that Environmentalism has less to do with saving the planet than it does with reining in human aspirations. It suggests that they don't actually believe their own press releases, and that they know the situation is not as dire as they would like the rest of us to think it is. And that Environmentalists are cutting off their noses to spite their faces - "we'll save the planet our way or not at all." It suggests that Environmentalists regard science and engineering as the cause of problems, and not the solution." --Climate Resistance, 24 March 2008

Posted by: Brad Arnold on April 27, 2009 11:31 PM

The last time you commented that list of quotes I believe someone said "climate resistance? puh-lease."

And honestly, making the same points with the same recycled quotes is a bit much. People here have already answered those points, more than once. It's essentially spam to just repeat the same quotes every time the topic comes up. Please at least find some new quotes.

I will note that the IEA is essentially an energy industry group, and notoriously behind the times on energy efficiency, green building and clean vehicle technologies. Many dispute their projections of future energy use.

We can build a carbon clean economy. Repeating again and again some people saying that we can't doesn't make those quotes any truer.

Posted by: Jane on April 28, 2009 12:14 AM

Alex -nice essay

One thing I'd add to it, that humanity is already inadvertently geo-engineering the planet through agriculture and other activities.

Ecological forms of geo-engineering - such as planting crops with different albedo, or sequestering carbon in soil - are much lower risk than the high risk orbital interventions and are likely to have significant additional benefits (e.g. sequestering carbon in degraded soils can also increase crop yields and decrease vulnerability to drought). However, these practices also have the risk of unintended negative consequences, but these consequences are also far more reversible than global geo-engineering.

These forms of geo-engineering are much better understood, are likely to be cheaper and offer more opportunity for learning and experimentation than untried global schemes.

When discussions of geo-engineering only include poorly understood mega-schemes while ignoring any discussion or comparison with terrestrial, better understood small-scale alternatives - the discussion is not seriously engaging with climate change issues, and are, whether on intentionally or not, distracting discussion from the pressing reality of climate change.

Posted by: Garry Peterson on April 28, 2009 12:22 AM

I think I could accept one geoengineering scheme - white roofs. Free if you're replacing it anyway, reduces summer air conditioning & urban heat island effect and does not affect winter heat in snow areas.

Posted by: bryan on April 28, 2009 1:12 AM

Some really good ideas in your blog. Hopefully we can get more people thinking about their carbon footprints.

Everyone should check out the winning videos from this great competition at the Tomorrows World site

http://www.tomorrowsworldcompetition.com/

They asked student to think of ways to inform the public on climate change, flooding, and how water efficiency can turn things around. I think their videos are great, definitely worth your time!

Posted by: Mark on April 28, 2009 8:01 AM

As an educator the geo-engineering proposals are going to be difficult to deal with. Students often have this image of someone with technology and money fixing the problem so they can, as the poster says: keep calm and carry on and they like the idea of debating which outlandish proposal is going to be a winner. The reworking of the industrial system speaks of change and social change particularly. Many of the students (and some mainstream teachers I work with) are not at all keen on this, as they probably feel it might mean being a loser rather than staying a winner. Or having to make smart choices and take responsibility or - heaven help us - get involved. Why wonder about systems and creativity and all sorts of worldchanging goodies when 'They' can keep their power and influence so long as the the system is patched up. I often think the debate is about whether political power can remain concentrated or whether communities are going to reclaim it : devolved energy devolves other kinds of power too. Particularly that of being able to say 'go away.
Sadly the geo-engineering framing is effective, so your article is a much needed counterpoint. (PS to a couple of posts: its not about facts so much as frameworks see Lakoff and Johnson on this. I am sure the carbon lobby has done.)

Posted by: Ken W on April 28, 2009 8:07 AM

This is an important commentary, showing the weasly political uses of geoengineering theories. If you're open to substantive changes, I'd second Bill S's suggestion that you emphasize the many other consequences of rising carbon, in addition to simple warming. He mentions ocean acidification, which could undo civilization by itself. But there are other consequences. For example, the study of particulate "global dimming" (similar to some geoengineering proposals) showed that it had greatly increased drought by disrupting weather patterns. The side effects of any geoengineering are just about guaranteed to dwarf the "unintended consequences" of all previous human actions.

Posted by: Christopher Brewster on April 28, 2009 12:08 PM

It seems silly to harp on the political problems endemic to climate treaties when the political implications of geoengineering are far greater. Almost any conceivable climate change will involve winners and losers. Therefore any intentional climate change might quite reasonably be seen as an act of war by those affected by it.

Posted by: Alan on April 28, 2009 5:31 PM

I think this is very good and I hope it changes some minds!

Posted by: Randolph on April 28, 2009 10:28 PM

Alex you're correct to point out the great moral hazards involved with Geoengineering and how these can be abused by some interests.

However I think the best approach to these tactics should be something that we should do with all proposed approaches, submitting them to intense scrutiny. At the moment Geoengineering (with the possible exception of biochar) fits squarely in the blue-skies-maybe-one-day category of solutions which is worth stressing repeatedly.

That and the track record of the people you are referring to. They should have no credibility at this stage in the public eye.

Posted by: Jose on April 30, 2009 6:06 AM

A very informative article. Thanks very much for posting it. I would recommend a follow-up article that discusses the potential dangers in suggested forms of mass intervention by geoengineering. We know so little about our planet, and ourselves.

Posted by: Terry Williams on April 30, 2009 11:07 PM

Alex, you make very good points. Yet, to win over the Carbon Lobby, you have to match the wits and scale of whatever alternative that you and several other influential voices are offering. It's possible for example to talk about how we can offer better end-products and services than what the Carbon Lobby offers, without having to ask anyone to reduce carbon. You shared some interesting toughts about product-service systems (Service Envy: Branding Experience Instead of Stuff, June 28, 2006). I have for example developed a transport system which is 10X better than anything that exists today, that also has ultra-low carbon footprint and multiplier effects on various other areas. (www.cv2systems.com)

I sent you an article on the subject several times. I'd also be presenting a paper titled on one of the aspects of the system called "Public Roads as Service Market: Paving the way for Civilisation 2.0 at the forthcoming ITS World Congress in Sweden. The ball is very much in our court.

Posted by: Chandra Vikash on May 1, 2009 12:40 AM

All this fear of "geoengineering" sounds like a movie plot where a self-proclaimed cloud seeder comes to a drought-stricken town in Oklahoma during the dustbowl days. He claims to be able to make it rain. His price is high and the town is flat broke. How's this sounding so far?

The idea of retuning our atmosphere's CO2 content via technology doesn't have to be scary. Maybe we need to try it out on a small scale first. I think that we can become a carbon negative civilization without geoengineering, but it is my opinion that there isn't enough time for that anymore. We are past Jim Hanson's tipping point now. I suggest we seriously consider deploying "Star Wars" size CO2 electrolyzers that are powered by renewable power sources and the methane that is now threatening to bubble up from the depths of the World's oceans. CO2 Electrolysis has been demonstrated and is well understood:

Chemists at the University of California, San Diego have demonstrated the feasibility of exploiting sunlight to transform a greenhouse gas into a useful product.
http://www.azom.com/news.asp?newsID=8290

Here is NASA's take on it:

http://rtreport.ksc.nasa.gov/techreports/2002report/600%20Fluid%20Systems/609.html
Contact:
Dale Lueck
(321) 867-8764

Another Solution:

CO2 --> CH4 (methane) via a microbe
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/03/30/microbes.turn.electricity.directly.methane.without.hydrogen.generation

I suggest that if you create CO2 in whatever large-scale manufacturing process you're involved in, you're responsible for "neutralizing" all of it. Otherwise, no operating license will be issued/renewed for what you're doing.

Hope that is encouraging. I believe that though we're past the tipping point, it is not too late to clean up our act.

Posted by: Doug Starfield on May 2, 2009 12:29 AM

This reminds me of how the tabacco companies used to deny that smoking causes cancer. Only recently have they admitted that it "can" cause cancer. But the government doesn't ban them cause it gives them too much tax revenue and because people would still do it even if it was illegal.

Now the oil companies and coal companies are starting to admit that global warming is real. Most of them still don't think it's a big deal, or that it's worth making such "drastic" and "expensive" cultural, lifestyle, and infrastructure changes, but it is. I have been an environmentalist for at least a few years before it was popular to be an environmentalist. I've heard every argument in the book, and I know that this geo-engineering idea is a bad one. In the past ideas that were outlandish were seen as "impossible" but turns out our nation was built on these ideas. Now when we think of the power we can recieve from genetic engineering and geo-engineering people don't think about them as impossible, but some actually think of them as "morally questionable". We have everything we need to make a healthy sustainable planet save for political will, and I know in heart of hearts that America can choose to do the right thing, istead of the seemingly easy thing.

Posted by: Cullen Kappel on May 2, 2009 12:25 PM

You say,

"Indeed, almost all of the scientists working on them believe that the best answer to our climate problem would be a quick, massive reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions."

And,

"Many leading thinkers on geoengineering (such as Paul Crutzen and Ken Caldeira) already make clear that immediate action on reducing greenhouse pollution (on both the national and global levels) is the first step, period."

It would strengthen the article if you had links to articles by, or at least quotes from, the geoengineers who you say hold these views.

If "almost all," and "many leading thinkers on geoengineering" hold these views it should not be hard for you to come up with some good linked examples, i.e. references please!

By the way, your links to the NY Times article on the denialist lobby, and the fact that Wind Power employs more people than coal are good useful links.

Posted by: Tavita on May 3, 2009 9:37 AM

[Denialist propaganda comment deleted as per policy: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives//008132.html ]

[We don't allow the repetition of blatant lies and distortions here. Please go elsewhere if all you have to say is a parroting of Carbon Lobby spin. It wastes our time and yours.]

Posted by: Moderator on May 3, 2009 3:00 PM

Can you imagine how appealing a project like this would be, to Bechtel?

Posted by: Anna on May 4, 2009 8:37 PM

All in all, another barely contained religious tract. Good luck convincing those outside your choir.

Posted by: Margot on May 6, 2009 8:29 AM

We 'engineered' our way into our predicament. What reason is there to think that 'engineering' won't simply exacerbate the problem, or substitute another one?

Many organizations have adopted a shell-game strategy to avoid collision with reality. 'Cap and trade' or 'emissions trading' schemes are clearly an attempt to avoid out-in-the-open resolution and action.

Ask yourself: where can I go to get a 'carbon credit' for my personal carbon reductions? Do I believe that my benevolent overlords are doing this for me?

The hour is late. The game is afoot. Putative 'engineering' solutions are a smokescreen.

Posted by: TJ on May 7, 2009 10:57 AM

A while ago there was a worldchaning article (http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007704.html) that suggest that geo-gambling is a better term than geoengeering.
I think it's a bad idea to use the term geoengeering when we talk about it.

Propaganda is about the ownership of words. Don't let the right control the words we use to describe geo-gambling.

Posted by: ChristianK on May 9, 2009 8:10 AM

Hi,

here is a lonk to Ken Caldeira on geoengineering:

http://www.allbusiness.com/utilities/utilities/3950113-1.html

Ray T

Posted by: Ray Taylor on May 14, 2009 11:15 AM

Hi,

here is a link to Ken Caldeira on geoengineering:

http://www.allbusiness.com/utilities/utilities/3950113-1.html

Ray T

Posted by: Ray Taylor on May 14, 2009 11:15 AM

I have never seen a single shred of evidence that geoengineering is being promoted by the fossil fuels industry. It would make no sense for them to say that global warming is such a dire threat that we should do things that people recoil in horror from. Like take responsibility.

And if it were being pushed by big oil, geoengineering would have a heck of a lot more funding than it does.

Posted by: Dan Wylie-Sears on May 15, 2009 6:21 AM
Post A Comment

Please note that comments will remain open for only 14 days after the article is posted. While previous comments will remain visible, attempts to post new comments after this period will fail. This helps stop comment spam, so your forebearance is appreciated.

The Worldchanging comments are meant to be used for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in our posts. Please note that, while constructive disagreement is fine, insults and abuse are not, and will result in the comment being deleted and a likely ban from commenting. We will also delete at will and without warning comments we believe are designed to disrupt a conversation rather than contribute to it. In short, we'll kill troll posts.

Finally, please note that comments which simply repost copyrighted works or commercial messages will be summarily deleted.
REMEMBER PERSONAL INFO?
Yes No

NAME

EMAIL ADDRESS

URL

COMMENTS

EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO:

YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS:

MESSAGE (optional):

Get the Worldchanging Book
Newsletter

Get good news for a change.
Sign Up Now!

Search
Cancel
Advanced Search
KEYWORDS
CATEGORY
AUTHOR
MONTH
Advanced Search

Our Mission

worldchanging was founded on the idea that real solutions already exist for building the future we want. it's just a matter of grabbing hold and getting moving.
About Worldchanging
Reach Worldchanging-aholics
Worldchanging Team Members

What else are we up to?
Find Out Now
Feedback

"The most important web site on the planet."

- Bruce Sterling
Speak Up

Have an idea or know about a great new tool or solution? We want to know about it!

Suggest a Story
Submission Guidelines

============================================================\
Reply from Gene from Geoengineering Google group:
Jim:

Geoengineer might more properly be called climate control. That means, in effect, building a system that can work like a thermostat for global or even somewhat local (eg the Arctic) surface temperature control. Right now the temperature is non monitonically increasing as it has been for tens of thousands of years and it will asymptote at around 25 C with or without anthropogenic greenhouse gas. The 540 million year proxie history of the Earth shows this behavior is normal and typical. What is happening now and during the recent past when fossil based CO2 only accelerated the increase (with short periods of decrease) is mostly increase and that increase must be curtailed or reversed a bit. Reducing CO2 emissions won't curtail it.

So I put systems for reducing CO2 emissions into the energy alternatives box, not the climate control box. Climate control is needed whatever we do about energy alternatives because of natural forces such as geological plate motion. See www.scotese.com

-gene

CREATING A NEW APPALACIA

jimmiller5417 — Wed, 06 May 2009 18:38:30 CDT

Bob Kincaid lays out the arguments to reinvent Appalachia in his article, Speak Your Piece: Making a 'Sacred Zone', published at: http://www.dailyyonder.com/speak-your-piece-making-sacred-zone/2009/05/04/2094#comment-form

Solutions to creating New Appalachia abound. All it takes is some willpower and a little capital to implement many of them. Here they are:

Boycott coal. How? Simply get folks to stop buying electricity generated from coal mined anywhere in Appalachia. If the coal-based power generators go out of business, so will the coal companies. Boycott everything connected with coal. Workers must stop working for coal companies. Investors should stop investing in coal companies. More on this later.
Create renewable energy. There is an explosion in green energy technology. We can grow algae for biodiesel and food quality oils. Wind farms can produce energy 7/24 even if the wind does not blow, using wind when available to pump water uphill to a huge reservoir which can be let down to create electricity when the demand warrants. We have solar furnace technology which can heat ionized liquid to 600 degrees F and store this hot liquid in a Thermal Energy Battery for use when needed. We can use the hot liquid to drive CHP (combined heat and power) units which produce electricity, heat and refrigeration. We can harvest forest slash and use it as biomass to fuel a syngas and biochar furnace. The syngas can power a heater, a boiler or a refrigeration unit. The biochar (charcoal) can be infused with heavy grade biooil, thus increasing its specific heat, which are made into fuel pellets to be used for heaters, furnaces, and boilers (the “New Coal”). Biochar can also be infused with compost tea or black liquor from a cow manure lagoon or waste water treatment plant, worked into the soil, and increase the yield of some crops by 800 percent.
Cheap, effective wind power. I have a design for a vertical axis windmill which is probably many times more efficient than the present technology and very low in cost to make. Clusters of these windmills can sit on a windy ridge or mountain tops, and when painted green, blend into the forest and are bird friendly. When connected to a hydro-electric system, potential energy can be stored in reservoirs and lakes high in the mountains.
Worker cooperatives. The union busting efforts of the coal mine owners will have little or no effect on worker cooperatives. These are limited liability partnerships or limited liability companies which own productive enterprises and are, in turn, owned and managed by the workers who work in the enterprise. There are plenty of successful examples of worker cooperatives in most fields.
Federal funding. There is a huge amount of money in the Federal pipeline which can be used to start these enterprises.
Passivity. These worker cooperative enterprises need to have members whose mindsets no longer reflect the propaganda which has been fed to them by the mine owners. Here's a quote from Ricardo Semler's book, Maverick:

“It's understandable, isn't it, that workers who come of age in an autocratic, authoritarian, paternalistic environment become reflections of it. It took some time for Camarão to adjust to the innovating, democratic, participative atmosphere at Semco.”MAVERICK, The Success Story Behind the Worlds Most Unusual Workplace, Richardo Semler, Warner Books, 1993, p. 180; ISBN 0-446-51696-1

Networking. The sooner the worker cooperatives build momentum, the sooner the quality of life of their members will improve. Networks of worker cooperatives help each other and trade with each other, thus assuring the stability of all worker cooperatives in the network. There is ample proof of how these worker cooperatives are formed, survive and prosper.
Mindset. The mindset of the worker must change from that of domination by the oligarchies to that of self-sufficiency and sustainability. This goal is accomplished by forming intentional communities which in turn sponsor worker cooperatives. The history of failed worker cooperatives included labor unions which started some, then tried to run the operation as a “top-down capitalist” oligarchy, mimicking the investor dominated, top-down model. Also, this history of failed worker cooperatives includes some which invited out-side, non-worker investors. Eventually, these investors ganged up on the workers, took control, dissolved the worker cooperative and ran the enterprise as a typical top-down capitalist company rather than a bottom-up capitalist worker cooperative.
Virtual education. Education is critically important. You will not find any real information in the public schools about worker cooperatives – that is verboten. We need to develop online courses which can be accessed through any computer. We need to populate Appalachia communities with broadband and computers in every house, classroom, library and coffee shop. Social and economic justice “virtual” networks will be formed over the Web using Wikiwebsites for collaboration. Take a look at one hosting company which offers free hosting of wikiwebsites (with ads): Wetpaint.com
We Care. We need to develop a caring community of individuals and groups. We are our neighbors' keepers. Mutual love and affection must replace mutual hostility and ill-will. We need to develop many “We Care” networks, both locally and nationally. Rallies and marches are OK, but putting into practice the worker cooperative and creating self-sufficient intentional communities (“ecovillages”) will do the most good and accelerate the change in society; we need to solve individual, community, regional and national economic and social justice issues.

Respectfully submitted,
Jim Miller
jimmiller5417@yahoo.com
May 6, 2009

TARP THIEVERY

jimmiller5417 — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:16:37 CDT

Robert Scheer's Columns
Thievery Under the TARP
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090422_thievery_under_the_tarp/?ln
By Robert Scheer

We are being robbed big-time, but you can’t say we haven’t been warned. Not after the release Tuesday of a scathing report by the Treasury Department’s special inspector general, who charged that the aptly named Troubled Asset Relief Program is rife with mismanagement and potential for fraud. The IG’s office already has opened 20 criminal fraud investigations into the $700 billion program, which is now well on its way to a $3 trillion obligation, and the IG predicts many more are coming.

Special Inspector General Neil M. Barofsky charged that the TARP program from its inception was designed to trust the Wall Street recipients of the bailout funds to act responsibly on their own, without accountability to the government that gave them the money. MORE: Robert Scheer's Columns
Thievery Under the TARP
Email this item Email Print this item Print Share this item... Share x

BlinkList this item BlinkList
del.icio.us this item del.icio.us
Digg this item Digg
Facebook this item Facebook
Fark this item Fark
Furl this item Furl
Google this item Google
LinkedIn this item LinkedIn
Mixx this item Mixx
MySpace this item MySpace
NewsVine this item NewsVine
NewsTrust this item NewsTrust
Propeller this item Propeller
Reddit this item Reddit
SphereIt this item SphereIt
StumbleUpon this item StumbleUpon
Technorati this item Technorati
TwitThis this item TwitThis
YahooMyWeb this item YahooMyWeb
YahooBuzz this item YahooBuzz

Obama Stands Nuremberg on Its Head

jimmiller5417 — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:12:18 CDT

Posted on Apr 20, 2009

By Mike Farrell

President Obama’s decision to spare CIA torturers from prosecution stands the Nuremberg principles on their head. “Good Germans who were only following orders” are not exempt from the bar of justice. Individuals must be held responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Justice Robert Jackson, chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, declared in his opening statement to the tribunal that the men charged “represent sinister influence that will lurk in the world long after their bodies have returned to dust. They are living symbols of racial hatreds, of terrorism and violence, and of the arrogance and cruelty of power.”

The arrogance and cruelty of CIA officers who torture and brutalize helpless prisoners are not expunged just because, as Obama said, they “carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice.” Attorney General Eric Holder says it’s “unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department,” but he fails to note these very CIA agents requested said authority in order to engage in what all but the most insidious parsing of legal thought recognizes as torture.

As Justice Jackson said, “ ... it was under the law of all civilized peoples a crime for one man with his bare knuckles to assault another.” When awakened, he said, “Plain people, with their earthly common sense, revolted at such fictions and legalisms so contrary to ethical principles. ... ” He declared to the world that “[c]ivilization can afford no compromise with the social forces which would gain renewed strength if we deal ambiguously or indecisively with the men in whom those forces now precariously survive.”

How we cheapen ourselves today. “Enhanced interrogation,” “coercive techniques” and “harsh treatment” pretend torture is not torture. By what moral or ethical standard does a rational person determine that smashing a shackled human being’s head into a wall is legal, let alone acceptable? It has been clear from before Nuremberg that the duty of the individual is to refuse to commit an illegal act, even if so ordered by one’s commanding authority.

Yet, “nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past,” says our president, missing the point entirely. As a constitutional scholar, he above all should understand that impunity for torturers gnaws at the wound of injustice and denies healing.

As Jackson said, “Crimes always are committed only by persons. … The Charter [of the tribunal] recognizes that one who has committed criminal acts may not take refuge in superior orders nor in the doctrine that his crimes were acts of states.” “International Law,” he went on, “is more than a scholarly collection of abstract and immutable principles. It is an outgrowth of treaties and agreements between nations and of accepted customs. The law, so far as International Law can be decreed, had been clearly pronounced when these acts took place.”

The pressures on a new president are intense, of course, but for the Obama administration to demean justice based on what can only be understood as political calculus is deeply disheartening. At a minimum, one would hope that the price exacted from the “intelligence professionals” involved in this dehumanizing exercise would be immediate dismissal.

And as for their superiors, we might look again to Jackson, who made clear at Nuremberg that he was not indicting a nation. Instead, he condemned a group that “was not put in power by a majority” and that “came to power by an evil alliance between the most extreme of the … revolutionists, the most unrestrained of the … reactionaries, and the most aggressive of the … militarists.”

Were President Obama to say he would not prosecute those who committed torture under color of law but would instead proceed against those who authorized it, one might see the logic in his position. Absent consequences for either the authors or the perpetrators of this outrage, however, we are left with what was described in another context as “law without justice, inviting charges of hypocrisy and double standards.”

Mike Farrell, president of the board of Death Penalty Focus and co-chair emeritus of the Southern California Committee of Human Rights Watch, is the author of “Just Call Me Mike: A Journey to Actor and Activist” and “Of Mule and Man.”
TAGS: cia good german harsh interrogation human rights watch justice jackson mike farrell nuremberg obama torture

LOSS OF OUR MORAL COMPASS

jimmiller5417 — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 05:35:19 CDT

Is Chris Hedges, this time, right or wrong or neither?

_________________________________

http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/20090323_america_is_in_need_of_a_moral_bailout/

_________________________________

America Is in Need of a Moral Bailout

By CHRIS HEDGES • Truthdig • 03.23.09

[Chris Hedges, who writes a weekly column for Truthdig that is

published every Monday, is currently a senior fellow at The Nation

Institute and a Lecturer in the Council of the Humanities and the

Anschutz Distinguished Fellow at Princeton University. He spent nearly

two decades as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle

East, Africa and the Balkans. Hedges, who has reported from more than

50 countries, worked for The Christian Science Monitor, National

Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News and The New York Times, where he

spent fifteen years.]

In decaying societies, politics become theater. The elite, who have

hollowed out the democratic system to serve the corporate state, rule

through image and presentation. They express indignation at AIG

bonuses and empathy with a working class they have spent the last few

decades disenfranchising, and make promises to desperate families that

they know will never be fulfilled. Once the spotlights go on they read

their lines with appropriate emotion. Once the lights go off, they

make sure Goldman Sachs and a host of other large corporations have

the hundreds of billions of dollars in losses they incurred playing

casino capitalism repaid with taxpayer money.

We live in an age of moral nihilism. We have trashed our universities,

turning them into vocational factories that produce corporate drones

and chase after defense-related grants and funding. The humanities,

the discipline that forces us to stand back and ask the broad moral

questions of meaning and purpose, that challenges the validity of

structures, that trains us to be self-reflective and critical of all

cultural assumptions, have withered. Our press, which should promote

such intellectual and moral questioning, confuses bread and circus

with news and refuses to give a voice to critics who challenge not

this bonus payment or that bailout but the pernicious superstructure

of the corporate state itself. We kneel before a cult of the self,

elaborately constructed by the architects of our consumer society,

which dismisses compassion, sacrifice for the less fortunate, and

honesty. The methods used to attain what we want, we are told by

reality television programs, business schools and self-help gurus, are

irrelevant. Success, always defined in terms of money and power, is

its own justification. The capacity for manipulation is what is most

highly prized. And our moral collapse is as terrifying, and as

dangerous, as our economic collapse.

Theodor Adorno in 1967 wrote an essay called “Education After

Auschwitz.” He argued that the moral corruption that made the

Holocaust possible remained “largely unchanged.” He wrote that “the

mechanisms that render people capable of such deeds” must be made

visible. Schools had to teach more than skills. They had to teach

values. If they did not, another Auschwitz was always possible.

“All political instruction finally should be centered upon the idea

that Auschwitz should never happen again,” he wrote. “This would be

possible only when it devotes itself openly, without fear of offending

any authorities, to this most important of problems. To do this,

education must transform itself into sociology, that is, it must teach

about the societal play of forces that operates beneath the surface of

political forms.”

Our elites are imploding. Their fraud and corruption are slowly being

exposed as the disparity between their words and our reality becomes

wider and more apparent. The rage that is bubbling up across the

country will have to be countered by the elite with less subtle forms

of control. But unless we grasp the “societal play of forces that

operates beneath the surface of political forms” we will be cursed

with a more ruthless form of corporate power, one that does away with

artifice and the seduction of a consumer society and instead wields

power through naked repression.

I had lunch a few days ago in Toronto with Henry Giroux, professor of

English and cultural studies at McMaster University in Canada and who

for many years was the Waterbury Chair Professor at Penn State.

Giroux, who has been one of the most prescient and vocal critics of

the corporate state and the systematic destruction of American

education, was driven to the margins of academia because he kept

asking the uncomfortable questions Adorno knew should be asked by

university professors. He left the United States in 2004 for Canada.

“The emergence of what Eisenhower had called the

military-industrial-academic complex had secured a grip on higher

education that may have exceeded even what he had anticipated and most

feared,”

Giroux, who wrote “The University in Chains: Confronting the

Military-Industrial-Academic Complex,” told me. “Universities, in

general, especially following the events of 9/11, were under assault

by Christian nationalists, reactionary neoconservatives and market

fundamentalists for allegedly representing the weak link in the war on

terrorism. Right-wing students were encouraged to spy on the classes

of progressive professors, the corporate grip on the university was

tightening as made clear not only in the emergence of business models

of governance, but also in the money being pumped into research and

programs that blatantly favored corporate interests. And at Penn

State, where I was located at the time, the university had joined

itself at the hip with corporate and military power.

Put differently,

corporate and Pentagon money was now funding research projects and

increasingly knowledge was being militarized in the service of

developing weapons of destruction, surveillance and death. Couple this

assault with the fact that faculty were becoming irrelevant as an

oppositional force. Many disappeared into discourses that threatened

no one, some simply were too scared to raise critical issues in their

classrooms for fear of being fired, and many simply no longer had the

conviction to uphold the university as a democratic public sphere.”

Frank Donoghue, the author of “The Last Professors: The Corporate

University and the Fate of the Humanities,” details how liberal arts

education has been dismantled. Any form of learning that is not

strictly vocational has at best been marginalized and in many schools

has been abolished. Students are steered away from asking the broad,

disturbing questions that challenge the assumptions of the power elite

or an economic system that serves the corporate state. This has led

many bright graduates into the arms of corporate entities they do not

examine morally or ethically. They accept the assumptions of corporate

culture because they have never been taught to think.

Only 8 percent of U.S. college graduates now receive degrees in the

humanities, about 110,000 students. Between 1970 and 2001, bachelor’s

degrees in English declined from 7.6 percent to 4 percent, as did

degrees in foreign languages (2.4 percent to 1 percent), mathematics

(3 percent to 1 percent), social science and history (18.4 percent to

10 percent). Bachelor’s degrees in business, which promise the

accumulation of wealth, have skyrocketed. Business majors since

1970-1971 have risen from 13.6 percent of the graduation population to

21.7 percent. Business has now replaced education, which has fallen

from 21 percent to 8.2 percent, as the most popular major.

The values that sustain an open society have been crushed. A

university, as John Ralston Saul writes, now “actively seeks students

who suffer from the appropriate imbalance and then sets out to

exaggerate it. Imagination, creativity, moral balance, knowledge,

common sense, a social view—all these things wither. Competitiveness,

having an ever-ready answer, a talent for manipulating situations—all

these things are encouraged to grow. As a result amorality also grows;

as does extreme aggressivity when they are questioned by outsiders; as

does a confusion between the nature of good versus having a ready

answer to all questions. Above all, what is encouraged is the growth

of an undisciplined form of self-interest, in which winning is what

counts.”

This moral nihilism would have terrified Adorno. He knew that radical

evil was possible only with the collaboration of a timid, cowed and

confused population, a system of propaganda and a press that offered

little more than spectacle and entertainment and an educational system

that did not transmit transcendent values or nurture the capacity for

individual conscience. He feared a culture that banished the anxieties

and complexities of moral choice and embraced a childish

hyper-masculinity, one championed by ruthless capitalists (think of

the brutal backstabbing and deception cheered by TV shows like

“Survivor”) and Hollywood action heroes like the governor of

California.

“This educational ideal of hardness, in which many may believe without

reflecting about it, is utterly wrong,” Adorno wrote. “The idea that

virility consists in the maximum degree of endurance long ago became a

screen-image for masochism that, as psychology has demonstrated,

aligns itself all too easily with sadism.”

Sadism is as much a part of popular culture as it is of corporate

culture. It dominates pornography, runs like an electric current

through reality television and trash-talk programs and is at the core

of the compliant, corporate collective. Corporatism is about crushing

the capacity for moral choice. And it has its logical fruition in Abu

Ghraib, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and our lack of compassion

for the homeless, our poor, the mentally ill, the unemployed and the

sick.

“The political and economic forces fuelling such crimes against

humanity—whether they are unlawful wars, systemic torture, practiced

indifference to chronic starvation and disease or genocidal acts—are

always mediated by educational forces,” Giroux said. “Resistance to

such acts cannot take place without a degree of knowledge and

self-reflection. We have to name these acts and transform moral

outrage into concrete attempts to prevent such human violations from

taking place in the first place.”

The single most important quality needed to resist evil is moral

autonomy. Moral autonomy, as Immanuel Kant wrote, is possible only

through reflection, self-determination and the courage not to

cooperate.

Moral autonomy is what the corporate state, with all its attacks on

liberal institutions and “leftist” professors, has really set out to

destroy. The corporate state holds up as our ideal what Adorno called

“the manipulative character.” The manipulative character has superb

organizational skills and the inability to have authentic human

experiences. He or she is an emotional cripple and driven by an

overvalued realism. The manipulative character is a systems manager.

He or she exclusively trained to sustain the corporate structure,

which is why our elites are wasting mind-blowing amounts of our money

on corporations like Goldman Sachs and AIG. “He makes a cult of

action, activity, of so-called efficiency as such which reappears in

the advertising image of the active person,” Adorno wrote of this

personality type. These manipulative characters, people like Lawrence

Summers, Henry Paulson, Robert Rubin, Ben Bernanke, Timothy Geithner,

AIG’s Edward Liddy and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, along with

most of our ruling class, have used corporate money and power to

determine the narrow parameters of the debate in our classrooms, on

the airwaves and in the halls of Congress while they looted the

country.

“It is especially difficult to fight against it,” warned Adorno,

“because those manipulative people, who actually are incapable of true

experience, for that very reason manifest an unresponsiveness that

associates them with certain mentally ill or psychotic characters,

namely schizoids.” END

_________________________________

CROSS YOUR FINGERS AND CARRY ON

jimmiller5417 — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 05:10:36 CDT

CROSS YOUR FINGERS AND CARRY ON

By George Monbiot

[Excerpt -- please read the full article at:http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/04/14/cross-your-fingers-and-carry-on/]

"There is nothing certain about the hypothesis that global supplies of conventional petroleum might soon stop growing and then go into decline. There is a large body of expert opinion, marshalling impressive statistics, which is convinced that peak oil is imminent. There is also a large body of expert opinion, marshalling impressive statistics, which insists that it’s a long way off. I don’t know whom to believe. The key data - the true extent of reserves in the OPEC nations - are state secrets. Anyone who tells you that oil supplies will definitely peak by a certain date or definitely won’t peak ever is afraud: the information required to make these assessments does not exist. "

COMMENT BY JIM MILLER: [readers/guests: please add your comments at the bottom of this page.]

Mr. George Monbiot:
Re: British Government head-in-the-sand approach to Peak Oil.
Dear George:
Government (UK/Brown now, Bush/Cheney during their years of mis-rule) knows perfectly well that we are heading into a period of sever economic privation due to the future high prices of fossil fuel and the lack of home-grown alternative fuels. Why would they declare a future national disaster? Here are some reasons (I don't say they are good, just their reasons):

If governments truly acknowledged the severity of the problem, they would, it seems, have to do something about it. That would take political capital and huge financial capital. They don't want to spend either. Now that Obama is President, he fully recognizes the threat and is trying to do something about it. Brown is a Bush clone.
The peak oil (peak food, peak water, peak climate change, peak riots, etc) will hit about the same time, causes global crisis. At that point the Travistock Institute cohorts will announce “solutions”, take control of government, institute martial law and begin the process of enriching themselves and establishing the “New World Order”. Present UK government is complicit with this plan and does not want to do anything to prevent the crisis. i Ireland has some idea of the problem, and there is some effort being made to grow giant grass in order to make wood pellets from the stems for direct combustion. ii There are also pellets made from organic peat turf. iii Why would any British government follow what the Irish do? Why if they did, it would be giving credit to an inferior race of folks. (Their idea, not mine).

What the USA has done over the years, is the co-founded of a new form of government: the industrial military-banker-lobbist-revolving door government functionaries-elite superrich. This new form of government was established through actions and inactions of Congress and the various Presidents, with full knowledge and approval of the change in the form of government. These ruling folks are the first born sons of the elite wealthy power centers of the so called “developed” (read European genetics, white skinned, super rich and well connected over generations). The bankers are the central cog in this New World Order. That is why the bankers of the nations have been able to grab a huge slice of the cash flow being generated out of thin air by the Federal Reserve and directly by Congress.
I read where the large banks in the USA have over 600 billion of currency stashed in their vaults. That cash was taken in by the banks during the highly inflated economy caused by low prime rates and huge bank profits. The bank profits are being leveraged by foreclosing on properties to be held and sold during better times. When the “bottom” hits – as orchestrated by the banks – they will start lending to themselves and buying prime properties for their personal wealth, paying the revolving bank loans back by selling some of these properties at huge profits.
The Travistock's Oracle was Milton Friedman, the “hero” of Chile and many Latin and Asian countries and his student economic Gestopos. Bush and Cheney, as Brown is now, are/were merely stooges who were placed in power to cause the crisis which is antecedent to a real Hitler coming to power (any Republican President in USA). They didn't figure on the power of the web, students, and really pissed-off older folks who elected our first Black President, first Black First Lady and first Black First Kids. I understand that “Bo”, the new First Puppy is black and white – as he should be. Don't ever underestimate the power of aroused public – keep up the good work, but back-off of your ill-informed opinion of infused biochar.
So there you have it, the real reasons for the state of denial by Brown – not good reasons, but surely his reasons.
Jim Miller

i
The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein (Paperback - Jun 24, 2008) Buy new: $16.00 $10.88 126 Used & new from $5.93 Get it by Thursday, April 16 if you order in the next 13 hours and choose one-day shipping. Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw_1_7?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=naomi+klein+shock+doctrine&sprefix=naomi+k

ii
Bioenergy Action Plan for Ireland http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/6D4AF07E-874D-4DB5-A2C5-63E10F9753EB/27345/BioenergyActionPlan.pdf

iii
Irish Flame http://www.irishflame.com/
Andritz Sprout Bio Fuel Pelleting http://www.andritz-sprout.com/bio-fuel-pelleting.asp?ppc=gg

DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN MONRAGON

jimmiller5417 — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:13:09 CDT

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

END OF POWER AND REDUCE SCALE

jimmiller5417 — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 15:13:14 CST

End of Power and Reduce Scale

http://www.ecospace.cc/pg/blog/culturequake/read/6295/endofpowerandreducescale

culturequake

Profile Friends Friends of Image gallery Blog

by culturequake comments (11)
culturequake, Agricultural Revolution, control, power, ecospace
[JEM'S COMMENTS are in bold red.]

During the agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago, a minority of people invented a way to give themselves power over the majority. We call this invention “civilization.”

For the first time large surpluses of food could be created, counted, and concentrated. Before that we had limited forms of agriculture and animal husbandry. But this time it was different. Instead of supplementing the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, agriculture competed against all of nature in a novel form called “totalitarian agriculture.” Instead of working with the native polycultures, the inventors of our culture found they could create great surpluses if they replaced natural landscapes with human food. This also allowed for the first time denial of food to other species and even wholesale destruction of species that competed for our food.

There is only one catch. You have to work about twice as hard to earn a living under agriculture as you do living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. You literally have to whip people to live an agricultural lifestyle. So, how do you get people to give up their life of leisure?

You lock up the food. This was the first means of control of the majority by a minority.

The eventual closure of the commons and privatizing of the land gave whoever controls the land an iron clad control over the majority -- if you don’t work, you do not eat. It is that simple. The Fall of man was caused by private property. Self-love arose when man started to quarrel over the earth -- he would shut all others out.
Control of the land also means control of water, timber, fiber, minerals, and energy. It has worked very well. In England .28 percent of the population owns 64 percent of the land. In the United States the top one percent of the population now owns more than the bottom 95 percent.

A code of rules was needed to enforce privatization of the commons. We call these rules laws. This ensured that society as a whole would enforce this system of privatization.

With the control of natural resources, came the need of an interchangeable system of wealth -- money was born. First we had commodity- and precious metals-backed money, then we had paper money, and now with our global financial markets and computers we have valueless virtual money. This has led to the speculative financial bubble that is now bursting. There is now three times as much money in the world as the total value of all goods and services. It has become not the control of money that yields the real power but the control of the “flow” of money.

Money has become the oxygen of our economy that is now the life support system of humanity. This financial system is the lungs of the economy. Whoever, controls the lungs controls the world. It is not the money, it’s the flow of the money that counts. This is why Wall Street got a $700 billion bailout and the auto industry got only a $15 billion bailout. Those in true power have set up private central banks in every major country. The U.S. Federal Reserve is not a government agency; it is a private bank with confidential owners.

Religion has also been a big factor is maintaining hierarchical control. Jesus said “choose,” Mohammed said “submit,” and Moses had the “ten commandments.” God and heaven were invented to rationalize the daily drudgery of our lives. Before modern salvationist religions, all people shared one belief, animism. They just respected the fire of life in all living things. This was a spirituality that has no book, is not a religion, and is not even capitalized.
Power can also come in small amounts. Those who have significant power over you and your family include the boss at work, teachers, admission officers, utilities, credit card companies, airlines, politicians, healthcare providers, the media, the church, and the landlord or condo association.

How do we get out? Who wants to work all day building pyramids for someone else with no guarantee that you will not lose your job tomorrow or your retirement in the future?
First, I am beginning to believe that we cannot actually change our culture -- its not salvageable. One of the stories we live by is that “civilization must continue.” Nothing lasts forever, and now at our current overpopulation level it is becoming apparent that our culture is actually destroying our true life support system. Our culture has made humanity a species of uncontrolled growth. It has also made us not only cancerous to our home, while the financial system has made us parasitic. We are now financially consuming our own young with the deficits we are creating today. Our children will have to pay our debts when we are gone tomorrow.

It is humanity’s nature to live in harmony with our home. Every cell in our body knows this. That is why we find no peace no matter how wealthy we become. We have lived in harmony with the earth for three or four million years. It is only in the last 10,000 years that our culture has made humanity toxic to its host.
The answer is new cultures; not one new culture, but many variations. The only way to get there is to become the change we want to see. We have to find communities of like-minded people that can give us the alternatives we seek. For example, a suburban automobile-based lifestyle offers little of the alternatives that a pedestrian permaculture community can.
But we have to do much more than become more interdependently independent. We have to give up power. We have to give up control of anything that can be concentrated including food, land, housing, water, timber, and money. I disagree; the worker cooperative has to establish ownership and control over its assets and over the operation of the cooperative and its businesses; else the predatory top-down capitalists and government will steal the assets.
We also have to give up systems that enable a minority to control the majority. Democracy is a system of tyranny of the majority to placate the masses. True for the current system, but equality of representation will solve that problem. The Peoples' Parliament is one solution. It makes us feel as though we get to be in charge of our destiny a little bit. This could not be further from the truth, since our system of governance from the local to the national level grants a handful of people control of everything from spending, laws, and even going to war.

We are never asked on a ballot to decide how much of our taxes goes to each department. The politicians are afraid we will eliminate the military -- the most profitable part of the military industrial complex. We give that power away to a handful people that often vote for what they believe is right and not want the voters want. Congress got telephone calls at about 100 to 1 opposing the $700 billion financial bailout, but they voted for it anyway because the believe they know what is best. (Editor’s note: Congress members were also threatened with martial law if the bailout was not immediately authorized.)
When it comes time to vote, those who make it on the ballot give us relatively little choice -- they are still defenders of our culture, Democrat or Republican. Our system of governance is an iron-clad system to control the population from sea to shining sea. Modern nation states are concentrators and protectors of wealth and power.
One of the problems of our culture is its scale. Do we really need a transnational company to flip hamburgers? Do we really need a country a third the size of North America? Everything on a giant scale from corporations to governments are now being rendered failures as we begin to enter the grip of peak oil.
Why not let regional communities decide if they want to be part of the larger nation state or not? Ernest Callenbach’s Ecotopia describes how northern California, Oregon, and Washington succeed from the union to create a steady-state society.

I believe one of the first ways to reduce power is to reduce scale. The system of social organization that is evolutionarily proven to work for humanity for millions of years is not the global corporation, nor the nation state: it is the tribe. Our culture has had 10,000 years to create a just and sustainable society but has failed completely.
Here are some of the steps I envision. Make decisions in your community by consensus -- no town councils. Working committees should report to the tribal community as a whole. End private property -- put your land in a land trust for the benefit of the community. Work towards eventually replacing government, industry, and private ownership of the commons with local community ownership. Why should your local ecosystem be clear cut to benefit a few wealthy individuals thousands of miles away? Shouldn’t the local community decide how local resources are sustainably used and who benefits from their use? YES

However, even in small scale, there will be individuals who desire to put themselves in positions of power. We all know these people. Again we must use consensus decision making on a local scale. Define "consensus".

Early North American native tribal leaders were largely ceremonial positions. Colonist governments were frustrated because there was no one person “in charge” with whom to make treaties. Many tribal councils or governments were inventions of the white man to take away power from tribal consensus and give it to a few that could be dealt with. Native American tribes that still operate by consensus have the greatest control over their resources today.
So why end the nation state and global power? Don’t they get things done? Well, that may precisely be the point, they get things we don’t want done. Progress is another word for destruction of nature -- our only life support system.

Based on my experience working in congress and the Executive Office of the President, and inside industry from fortune 500 companies down to small entrepreneurial companies, participation in local government, and nonprofit work, I would estimate that at least half of every dollar spent is wasted and or concentrated. That means that half of your entire work week is spent on wasted effort.

That is why I believe we should replace large scale systems with local interdependent tribal scale communities. Don't walk away from our culture, walk toward something better. Maybe there is a blend for those who must be fed by our corporations and those who see that as a false culture and want our own cultures.

I want to emphasize that I am not advocating the overnight tear down of our civilization without developing a replacement and transition communities first. Follow a permaculture principle and be ready to replace a weed before you pull it. Also, hierarchies have great defenses from attack from below, however, they have been noted for abandonment.

I have suggested in the past that all remaining native cultures should be protected, expanded, and studied as our greatest world heritage treasures. Study in our schools what is truly sustainable about tribal communities instead of studying dead presidents. The important part again is not how tribes live but what makes these communities evolutionarily sustainable. The solutions to most of our problems lie where there is no concentration of power. We have to let power fade in all of its forms. The mistake in concept is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is true when power is taken by predatory individuals who are selfish and self-centered. A worker owned enterprise has the "power" of the enterprise. This "bottom-up capitalism" is the antidote to "top-down capitalism".

Daniel Quinn
The Story of B Marshall Sahlins
Stone Age Economics Toby Hemenway
Gaia's Garden: A Guide to Home-Scale Permaculture Ernest Callenbach
Ecotopia Consensus
www.consensus.net
A Manual for Group Facilitators Land Trusts
www.cltnetwork.org
www.osalt.org State of Jefferson
www.jeffersonstate.com

BEYOND CAPITALISM: LELAND STANFORD'S FORGOTTEN VISION

jimmiller5417 — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 10:14:06 CST

by Lee Altenberg

http://dynamics.org/~altenber/PAPERS/BCLSFV/

Published inSandstone and Tile, Vol. 14 (1): 8-20,
Winter 1990, Stanford Historical Society, Stanford, California.
[Cover art][PDF][Original PDF]

Labor can and will become its own employer
through co-operative association.

—Leland Stanford

JEM'S NOTES ARE IN BOLD BLUE Buried in the stacks of the Stanford University Archives is a secret about Stanford’s history that has been kept for decades. It is not the kind of secret that needed anyone to keep it hidden; rather, it is a “public secret”—a piece of history that our society, by the very nature of its development over the last 100 years, was likely to erase from its transmitted memory. We like to think that our collective memory of history is thorough and unbiased, and what the populous may forget is, nevertheless, preserved by our historians and academic institutions. Yet we will see in the story to follow that even a great university can fail to conserve its own history when it proves contrary to the current “branding” of the institution.
The industrial revolution in Nineteenth Century America brought a new sort of historical actor into view: the multimillionaire industrialist — Jay Gould, J. P. Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt. Their arrival was of course noted; the only precedent for such extreme wealth was the aristocracy, but their methods of acquisition found the hereditary being replaced by the predatory — and they became popularly known as “Robber Barons”.
Many of them, after a lifetime of accumulating unprecedented sums of money, came to be philanthropists, donating much of their wealth to charitable causes. I shall not delve into the question as to whether these acts ofnoblesse obligewere strategies to soften the popular antipathy toward these industrialists. But their philanthropy was consonant with the idea that society could benefit from the creation of wealthy industrialists. In none of them was their philanthropy tied to a message that their class of wealthy industrialists should itself be abolished. In none of them except perhaps a single individual — Leland Stanford. When we encounter the philanthropy of Leland Stanford, we are in for something of a surprise. Leland Stanford was “shocked” into his changed view by the death of his son and only child, Leland Stanford Junior. When his son was dead at 14 years, the old man had no direct, conventional way to secure his “legacy”. The idea of a university started with Mrs. Jane Stanford.
Leland Stanford was one of the “Big Four” founders of the Central Pacific Railroad, and by mid-century had amassed a fortune of many millions of dollars. During the construction of the railroad, thousands of indentured Chinese workers lost their lives and lived in abject poverty. When one spoke of a “Robber Baron”, Leland Stanford would be among the first names to come to mind. Yet during the final decade of his life, Leland Stanford had come to the conclusion that American society would in the future be better off if it did not create more tycoons such as himself; instead, that the division between capitalist and laborer should disappear, that the industries of American should come to be owned and managed cooperatively by their very workers. This, Stanford saw as a fulfillment of the dream of American democracy. A survey of the American political landscape at this time in Leland Stanford’s life reveals that this idea was in no way original with Leland Stanford. The vision of a cooperative commonwealth—a system of worker-owned cooperatives—formed the core of a mass political movement in the United States, the Populists, which was at its zenith in the 1880s.
The Populists (involving millions of southern farmers and northern industrial workers) were the last mass movement in the United States to challenge the growing domination of society by burgeoning corporations. From today’s vantage point, we may identify the labor movement as the home for such political aspirations. This, however, is a misconception; the “labor movement” emerged after the defeat of the Populists in the 1890s, and was far more narrowly conceived than the Populists’ambitions: it accepted a social contract that gave corporations the role of initiator and controller of employment, production, services, and capital. The labor union movement, in contrast to the Populists, sought merely to give workers better contracts within this structure of control. In American history since the defeat of the Populists, the idea of worker ownership of corporations has been relegated to the margins of political debate and creativity, a niche so marginal that from our vantage point of the 1990s, the idea sounds socialistic, utopian, or simply quaint. A new “populist” movement is forming which does not depend on the existence of the “top-down capitalists”. As yet un-named, this movement is to create an “Alternative America”. Until a new and better name becomes universal, I'll call it the “Peoples' Parliament”. In 1885, however, when Leland Stanford became a United States Senator and founded Stanford University, worker ownership of industry seemed neither socialistic nor quaint. It was a widely discussed idea for averting the escalating crises between corporations and workers that appeared at that time to be headed toward an ominous denouement. Worker ownership of industry was seen as a good idea which needed to be tried, and America was seen as a society free enough that it could be tried. The Populists hoped therefore that the steady replacement of corporations by worker cooperatives could be achieved. The goal of the “seizure of State power” advocated by the communists in Europe was alien to this movement. Cooperatives were seen not as an end to free-enterprise, but as a freeing of enterprise for common people from domination by the “plutocracy” of wealthy industrialists.
While the idea of worker cooperatives may seem to the contemporary reader an interesting, if impractical, ideal, during the Populist movement it formed the foundation for hope in the daily lives of hundreds of thousands of people. And it will again. A study by two U of Chicago professors of over 600 cooperatives, indicated that the “survivability” depended on the number of meals shared during the week. Those which had five dinners survived longer, on the average, than those which had three or fewer dinners together. Should today’s social contract ever fail on a large scale, one can expect that ideas from the margins (crazy as well as rational) will flow into the center as people become more receptive to novel solutions for the society’s woes. It is therefore prudent to maintain the “germ lines” of social thought, much as horticulturalists maintain heirloom plant varieties for the day when their genetic endowments may prove useful. The story of Leland Stanford’s embrace of the concept of worker cooperatives provides a window into a body of social thought that one day we may be glad that we preserved.
“Father, serve humanity,”is what Stanford’s recently deceased son, Leland Stanford, Jr., uttered to him in a dream hours after the boy’s death. Stanford quoted this dream as the event that gave birth to the idea of Leland Stanford Junior University, the memorial to his son. One can only speculate on what internal transformation may have occurred within Leland Stanford at the death of his only child. Other historical figures have also undergone profound transformations after personal tragedy. No documentation of Leland Stanford’s inner life remains to resolve such speculation.

Regardless of what we may imagine happened to Stanford the man, the historical record shows that in the years after this pivotal event, the Populist vision of worker-owned industry emerged as the recurring theme of Leland Stanford’s public endeavors. As a United States Senator (1885-1893), a large part of Stanford’s legislative efforts were toward bills that would give worker cooperatives the necessary legal structure and sources of credit in order to flourish. His advocacy of worker ownership was a prominent part of his newspaper interviews and his oratory in the Senate. In founding Leland Stanford Junior University, he made the cooperative vision “a leading feature lying at the foundation of the University,”1and he repeatedly reiterated this goal in his addresses to the Trustees, the students, and in the legal documents founding the University.
Could Stanford's efforts have succeeded, given they were part of a movement that today we know never prevailed? Indeed, Stanford succeeded in none of these endeavors: his bills never made it out of committee, and his vision for Stanford University was not only left unrealized, but has been entirely forgotten from the University’scollective memory. So thorough is this forgetting that even during the recent celebrations of the University’sCentennial, there was not the slightest mention of Stanford’s cooperative vision in his founding goals for the University.2
This historical anomaly presents a number of unanswered questions: Why was this component of Stanford University’s charter never implemented? How did this aspect of the University’s heritage become erased from its memory? And perhaps most interesting, how did Leland Stanford, the great railroad “Robber Baron”, the wealthiest man in the U.S. Senate, come to believe and advocate that the corporate system of American industry should be replaced by a cooperative system? This article explores what material remains that can answer these questions. I focus on Leland Stanford’s own words, and will attempt to bring the reader into the debate of that time, a debate whose resolution is the society we now live in.

STANFORD’S VISION OF COOPERATIVES

The vision of direct worker ownership of industry was, from the onset of the Industrial Revolution, one of the solutions that labor activists considered for ending the corporate exploitation of labor and its growing domination of society.3Someone living in today’s society gets no inkling that the entire concept of a “job” was still novel—and contested—100 years ago. A social deconstructionist of today wishing to lay bare the social creation of the term “employee” can do no better a job than Charles Nordhoff did in 1875:

Though it is probable that for a long time to come the mass of mankind in civilized countries will find it both necessary and advantageous to labor for wages, and to accept the condition of hired laborers (or, as it has absurdly become the fashion to say, employees), every thoughtful and kind-hearted person must regard with interest any device or plan which promises to enable at least the more intelligent, enterprising, and determined part of those who are not capitalists to become such, and to cease to labor for hire.3a

Ten years later, the Populist vision of the cooperative commonwealth—of laborers owning their own factories and consumers owning their own stores—had grown to be the foundation of a democratic mass movement.4Stanford’s advocacy of the cooperative vision began at least by 1885, when we find in the Grant of Endowment of Stanford University that the University shall teach "the right and advantages of association and co-operation". In an 1887 newspaper interview on his U.S. Senate bill to foster the creation of worker co-ops, Stanford said that his interest in worker cooperatives was part of his earliest thinking:

The great advantage to labor arising out of co-operative effort has been apparent to me for many years. From my earliest acquaintance with the science of political economy, it has been evident to my mind that capital was the product of labor, and that therefore, in its best analysis there could be no natural conflict between capital and labor, ... between effort and the result of effort ... . Keeping this fundamental principle in view, it is obvious that the seeming antagonism between capital and labor is the result of deceptive appearance. I have always been fully persuaded that, through co-operation, labor could become its own employer.5

At the root of Leland Stanford’s interest in worker cooperatives may have been a core experience going back thirty-five years, to his days with the Argonauts in the California gold rush.In 1852, just a few years after gold was discovered in California, the 28 year old Leland Stanford decided to join his brothers in Gold Country. His wife Jane’s parents insisted that she remain home in Albany, New York, so Leland headed off alone. He spent three years with his brothers in Eldorado County running a hardware business for the gold miners. The anarchy of the gold rush had produced a self-organized system of informal miner cooperatives. It was with these miners that Stanford saw cooperation first-hand as an organizing force. In the newspaper interview Stanford continues with a description of this phenomenon. Stanford told the interviewer,

in a very alert and bright state of society people learn co-operation by themselves, but in older and quieter conditions of laboring enterprise, such a bill as I propose will point out the way to mutual exertion. You may not remember that we flumed most of the streams of California; a ditch was dug alongside of the river, and very often a tunnel had to be made through rock to carry this water on, so that the bed of the stream could be left dry and the gold taken out of it. Now, all these flumes were made by co-operation, without there being any law. Generally four or six men would unite to do this work; if there were four, three of them worked at the tunnel and flumes, while the fourth went off to a distance and got wages, so that he could supply them with food. In that way the workers were kept alive by one man’s wages, and he, in his turn, got his proportion of all gold taken out of the bed of the stream.

“That must have been a high condition of society,” the interviewer said, “for mere laborers?”
“Oh, yes,” replied Stanford,

I do not think there ever will be any thing like it again. There were several hundred thousand young men finding out for themselves the way to conquer nature and fortune; their systems of doing things, derived from necessity and aided by their intelligence, were the highest manifestations of self-government ever made in so short a time.6

For the student of social movements, the significance of this personal experience for Stanford cannot be underestimated.It seems there was a remarkable social phenomenon going on in those hills which had a lasting impact on Stanford. And if it was here that his cooperative vision was sown, it confirms the tenet that it is the direct experience of cultural alternatives that leads people to “a new way of looking at society.”7 Stanford pursued three main avenues to advance his cooperative vision, the first being its incorporation into the purposes of Stanford University, the second being several bills he introduced into the U.S. Senate, and the third being his use of the media. In the quotations that follow, we find Stanford speaking either to the U.S. Senate, the Stanford University Trustees, students, University President David Starr Jordan, or to the press.
Stanford’s own words can serve to introduce the basic ideas of the cooperative movement. In Hubert H. Bancroft’s biography of Stanford, we read Stanford’s explanation for the basic problem of the capitalist economy:

In a condition of society and under an industrial organization which places labor completely at the mercy of capital, the accumulations of capital will necessarily be rapid, and an unequal distribution of wealth is at once to be observed. This tendency would be carried to the utmost extreme, until eventually the largest accumulations of capital would not only subordinate labor but would override smaller aggregations.8

Stanford then describes his prescription for halting this monopolization of capital:

The one remedy for this tendency, which to all appearances has been ineradicable from the industrial system, is the cooperation and intelligent direction of labor.9

What I believe is, the time has come when the laboring men can perform for themselves the office of becoming their own employers; that the employer class is less indispensable in the modern organization of industries because the laboring men themselves possess sufficient intelligence to organize into co-operative relation and enjoy the entire benefits of their own labor.10

With a greater intelligence, and with a better understanding of the principles of cooperation, the adoption of them in practice will, in time I imagine, cause most of the industries of the country to be carried on by these cooperative associations.11

Stanford pointed to some concrete examples in interviews in theNew York TribuneandCincinnati Enquirerin 1887:

A co-operative association designed to furnish labor for farming operations is clearly within the realm of practical achievement.12

He countenanced workers taking over his own line of work, the railroad:

A co-operative association of men who know how to build a railroad might be able to take a contract just as well as a corporation.13

There is no undertaking open to capital, however great the amount involved, that is not accessible to a certain amount of labor voluntarily associated and intelligently directing its own effort.14

In 1886 Stanford authored a Senate bill to foster the creation of worker cooperatives by providing a legal structure for incorporation. Stanford told his fellow Senators when speaking on behalf of the bill,

The principle of co-operation of individuals is a most democratic one. It enables the requisite combination of numbers and capital to engage in and develop every enterprise of promise, however large. It is the absolute protection of the people against the possible monopoly of the few, and renders offensive monopoly, and a burdensome one, impossible.15

Stanford’s analysis of the basic “principle of cooperation” is interesting because it conceptualizes employment as a service that the worker pays for, in the form of profits kept by the employer, and that providing this service for themselves is the key to workers being able to keep the profits of their labor. Stanford explained in hisNew York Tribuneinterview that

voluntary association of labor into co-operative relation secures to itself both the wages and the premium which, under the other form of industrial organization would be paid to the enterprise directing it and to the capital giving it employment. Capital appears to have an ascendancy over labor, and so long as our industries are organized upon the divisions of employer and employee, so long will capital retain that relation, but associated labor would at once become its own master.16

Stanford even developed a macroeconomic analysis on the effect that cooperatives would have on the labor market and unemployment. Stanford continued,

When you see a man without employment, ... the contemplation is necessarily saddening. The fault is with the organization of our industrial systems. ... The hirer of labor uses other men in the employed relation only to the extent that his own wants demand. Those therefore, who having productive capacity, remain in poverty, belong to the class who constitute the surplus over and above the numbers required to satisfy by the product of their labor the wants of the employer class. The numbers belonging to this surplus class would be constantly diminished, and would eventually disappear under the operation of the co-operative principle.17

So True. Stanford outlined three ways labor would be benefited: Regarding the first first, corporations would have to increase wages to compete with cooperatives in hiring labor; second, greater worker prosperity would translate into greater consumer demand and hence more demand for labor; and third, workers’experience in self-management would flood the market with people able to organize businesses and thus lower the comparative advantage of the employer class effect. This effect is why our Top-down capitalists will try to prevent the formation of worker cooperatives and try to kill-off those which do form and start a business. Read Sin Patron by lavaca.org. Stanford said,

take, for instance, the influence of co-operation upon the rate of wages to the employed class. In a co-operative association conducting a business, and dividing the entire proceeds of the business, the dividends so created would exceed the ordinary rate of wages. The best mechanics and the best laborers would, therefore, seek to acquire a position in a co-operative association. The reward of labor being greater by co-operation, the employer would have to offer additional inducement to labor to remain in its employ, because the superior attractiveness of the co-operative plan would incite them to form societies of this character, and employ their own labor. It would, therefore, have a direct tendency to raise the rate of wages for all labor or in other words, to narrow the margin between the amount paid for labor and its gross product.18

This is the very experience of Mondragon Cooperative Corporation. See my article: http://masallp.wetpaint.com/page/Mutual+Aid+Society,+Mondragon+and+More Regarding the second effect, Stanford said,

co-operation would so improve the condition of the working men engaged in it that their own wants would be multiplied, and a greater demand for labor would ensue.19

And regarding the third effect, Stanford explained,

Each co-operative institution will, therefore, become a school of business in which each member will acquire a knowledge of the laws of trade and commerce.20

Co-operation would be a preparatory school qualifying men, not only to direct their own energies, but to direct the labor and skill of others. ... With the increase in the number of employers there is necessarily a corresponding intensity of competition between them in the field of originating employment. This competitive relation alone would raise the reward of labor. ... Thus co-operation will increase the number of those qualified to originate employments, and thus import into the industrial system a competition among the employer class, a condition highly favorable to the employed.21

Stanford understood the other major principle of cooperation, that the cooperative would not only secure the profits for the workers, but would change their basic relation to one another and to management:

The employee is regarded by the employer merely in the light of his value as an operative. His productive capacity alone is taken into account. His character for honesty, truthfulness, good moral habits, are disregarded unless they interfere with the extent and quality of his services. But when men are about to enter partnership in the way of co-operation, the whole range of character comes under careful scrutiny. Each individual member of a co-operative society being the employer of his own labor, works with that interest which is inseparable from the new position he enjoys. Each has an interest in the other; each is interested in the other’s health, in his sobriety, in his intelligence, in his general competency, and each is a guard upon the other’s conduct. There would be no idling in a co-operative workshop. Each workman being an employer, has a spur to his own industry, and also has a pecuniary reason for being watchful of the industry of his fellow workmen.22

Stanford’s analysis is mirrored in recent studies of productivity in worker cooperatives.23
In concluding his lengthyNew York Tribuneinterview, Stanford drove home his vision by imagining what would happen if the industrial system had always been cooperative, and now someone were proposing to reorganize it as a corporate system:

To comprehend it in all its breadth, however, let us assume that in all time all labor had been thus self directing. If instead of the proposition before us to change the industrial system from the employed relation and place it under self direction, the co-operative form of industrial organization had existed from all time, and we were now for the first time proposing to reorganize the employment of labor, and place it under non-concurrent direction, I apprehend the proposer of such a change would be regarded in the light of an enslaver of his race. He would be amenable to the charge that his effort was in the direction of reducing the laboring man to an automaton, and ... would leave but small distinction in the minds of workingmen between the submission of all labor to the uncontrolled direction of an employer, and actual slavery.

We may safely assume that such a change would be impossible—that men are not likely to voluntarily surrender the independence of character which co-operation would establish for any lower degree of servitude ... . In fact co-operation is merely an extension to the industrial life of our people of our great political system of self-government. That government itself is founded upon the great doctrine of the consent of the governed, and has its corner stone in the memorable principle that men are endowed with inalienable rights. This great principle has a clearly defined place in cooperative organization. The right of each individual in any relation to secure to himself the full benefits of his intelligence, his capacity, his industry and skill are among the inalienable inheritances of humanity.24

Such is not possible where the oligarchs and the henchmen of the Travistock Institute has co-oped all branches of our federal and most of our state governments, and social institutions, such as the churches.

One may wonder, given these views about capitalism, what Stanford thought about his own career and those of his fellow industrialists. He saw employers as having been necessary in the development of industry up to that point, but ultimately a role to be dispensed with.Stanford explains,

Those who by their enterprise furnish employment for others perform a very great and indispensable office in our systems of industry, as now organized. But, self-employment should be the aim of everyone.25

In American usage today, the terms capitalism and free enterprise are used so interchangeably that the idea of a free enterprise system distinct from capitalism sounds self-contradictory. Furthermore, capitalist and communist ideologies both posit corporate versus state ownership as the inherent opposites between which we are to choose. But clearly, Stanford was advocating a “third way”—direct worker ownership which he saw as the ultimate and most enlightened form of free enterprise.
The voluntary nature of this alternative was central to Stanford’s viewpoint, and he was highly critical of coercive or governmental redistribution of wealth, which was advocated by communist and other movements of the time. The inalienable rights of the citizen were paramount to Stanford; he pointed to the principles in the Declaration of Independence as being essential for just government, and that

with these principles fully recognized, agrarianism and communism can have only an ephemeral existence. ... [Cooperatives] will accomplish all that is sought to be secured by the labor leagues, trades-unions and other federations of workmen, and will be free from the objection of even impliedly attempting to take the unauthorized or wrongful control of the property, capital or time of others.26

Stanford elaborated:

Many writers upon the science of political economy have declared that it is the duty of a nation first to encourage the creation of wealth; and second, to direct and control its distribution. All such theories are delusive. The production of wealth is the result of agreement between labor and capital, between employer and employed. Its distribution, therefore, will follow the law of its creation, or great injustice will be done. ... The only distribution of wealth which is the product of labor, which will be honest, will come through a more equal distribution of the productive capacity of men, and the co-operative principle leads directly to this consummation. All legislative experiments in the way of making forcible distribution of the wealth produced in any country have failed. Their first effect has been to destroy wealth, to destroy productive industries, to paralyze enterprise, and to inflict upon labor the greatest calamities it has ever encountered.27

Stanford took pains during the discussion of his views to counter the idea that labor and capital were inherently opposed.
“The real conflict, if any exists,” Stanford explained, “is between two industrial systems.”28He goes on to illustrate thus:

The country blacksmith who employs no journeyman is never conscious of any conflict between the capital invested in his anvil, hammer and bellows, and the labor he performs with them, because in fact, there is none. If he takes a partner, and the two join their labor into co-operative relation, there is still no point at which a conflict may arise between the money invested in the tools and the labor which is performed with them; and if, further in pursuance of the principal of co-operation, he takes in five or six partners, there is still complete absence of all conflict between labor and capital. But if he, being a single proprietor, employs three or four journeymen, and out of the product of their labor pays them wages, and, as a reward for giving them employment and directing their labor, retains to himself the premium, ... the line of difference between the wages and the premium may become a disputed one; but it should be clearly perceived that the dispute is not between capital and labor, but between the partial and actual realization of co-operation.29

Thus, to Stanford, those who believed that class struggle was inescapable had failed to understand the alternative of worker cooperation, which he believed would prevail as the highest state of industrial organization:

As intelligence has increased and been more widely diffused among men, greater discontent has been observable, and men say the conflict between capital and labor is intensifying, when the real truth is, that by the increase of intelligence men are becoming more nearly capable of co-operation.

Again referring to profits as the “premium” paid to capital, Stanford concluded,

In a still higher state of intelligence this premium will be eliminated altogether, because labor can and will become its own employer through co-operative association.30

WOMEN’S RIGHTS

Leland Stanford has always been acknowledged for the strong support he gave to the cause of women’s rights. He supported suffrage, women’s participation in politics, equal pay for equal work,31and equal educational opportunities. In founding the University he required for the Trustees “To afford equal facilities and give equal advantages in the University to both sexes”.32
Some historians have depicted Stanford’s goal in having women attend the University as being solely to prepare them to be “better mothers”. When Stanford writes about his coeducational goals for the University, his words are ambiguous as to his ideas about inherent gender roles for women. Stanford told the Trustees in his first meeting with them:

We deem it of the first importance that the education of both sexes shall be equally full and complete, varied only as nature dictates. The rights of one sex, political and otherwise, are the same as those of the other sex, and this equality of rights ought to be fully recognized.

In the last letter Stanford wrote before he died, to University President David Starr Jordan, he reiterated his coeducational goals, telling Jordan,

I want, in this school, that one sex shall have equal advantage with the other, and I want particularly that females shall have open to them every employment suitable to their sex.

From these words alone we cannot conclude whether Stanford’s concept ofequality for women was narrow or wide. At this time there were widely divergent views as to what “nature dictated” for women, or left “suitable to their sex”. One is tempted to draw conclusions from the fact that Stanford chose no women as University Trustees, despite his stated goals for coeducation at the University.
However, a clearer picture of Stanford’s views emerges in an 1887 interview Stanford gave to theCincinnati Enquirerregarding his bill before the U.S. Senate to promote the creation of worker cooperatives. In the interview, Stanford took the opportunity to confront the stereotype that women were emotionally unsuited for political power. The reporter interviewing Stanford remarked that “the subject of female suffrage seemed to be incidental to this subject.” Stanford replied:

I am in favor of carrying out the Declaration of Independence to women as well as men. Women having to suffer the burdens of society and government should have their equal rights in it. They do not receive their rights in full proportion.

The reporter said, “But they have very much advanced; for a good many years they have been Government clerks, and now they are becoming postmasters and school directors.”
“Yes,” replied Stanford sardonically,

they are employed here in the public departments at just one-half the pay men receive for doing the same work. What is the reason for that? A very intelligent lady said to me yesterday that she thought women were not for politics, and that there were but few things women could do. I remarked that I never saw a woman to come into one of our mining camps in California but her mere presence effected a change in the conduct of all the men there. It would be the same in the suffrage; instead of there being more riot and bad behavior when women appear there will be better conduct and more respect for the law.

Said the reporter: “Do you not think women will go off on sentimental issues if they undertake the business of government and break up the organizations by which men work out large ends?”
“Oh!” said Stanford,

it is not sentiment that we have to fear so much as we suppose. A man’s sentiments are generally just and right, while it is second selfish thought which makes him trim and adopt some other view. The best reforms are worked out when sentiment operates, as it does in women, with the indignation of righteousness.31

Other writings show that Stanford did not see any limitations on women’s roles in business beyond what could be accommodated by a maternity leave. Stanford emphasized that the constraints that women found in the workplace were not due to their own limitations, but rather to the failure of their workplaces to take into account their needs. And the cause of this failure of the workplace, Stanford articulated, was its lack of democracy, a cause that could be remedied by worker cooperatives. In Stanford’s advocacy of worker cooperatives he repeatedly pointed to their benefits for women because of the cooperative’s intrinsically democratic nature. Stanford described four ways the cooperative would benefit women:

by giving women new access to job opportunities,
by allowing women to participate in running the business at all levels,
by offering protection from exploitation, and
by fostering working conditions based on women’s needs.

Stanford told the U.S. Senate when he introduced his co-op bill,

One of the difficulties in the employment of women arises from their domestic duties; but co-operation would provide for a general utilization of their capacities and permit the prosecution of their business, without harm, because of the temporary incapacity of the individual to prosecute her calling. And if this co-operation shall relieve them of the temporary incapacity arising from the duties incident to motherhood, then their capacity for production may be utilized to the greatest extent. Very many of the industries would be open to and managed as well by women in their co-operative capacity as by men.33

As an example of how cooperatives would remove the exploitation of women, Stanford said,

There is no reason why the women of the country should not greatly advance themselves by this act. Take the matter of clothing alone; there are sixty million people in America, and if each expends $10 a year for clothes, that makes $600 million; it might just as well go to co-operative associations of women as to these large partnerships which pay hardly living wages. At the same time the grade of woman’s labor would be advanced; they would become cutters, style-makers, 34

Regarding the particular needs of working women due to maternity, Stanford pointed out that since each cooperative is organized to meet its members’ needs, “under co-operation they would draw wages when they could not labor, or the character of the labor could be changed for them.”35Stanford was saying, in effect, that cooperatives are structured to produce humane responses, as a matter of course, to needs such as maternity. The enduring difficulty that business has had in responding to such issues is evident in the current controversies over childcare, the corporate “mommy track”, and attempted solutions such as “flextime”.
In his comments on women’s rights, Stanford again approaches the issue not by recommending that the current power holders should change their policies, but by recommending a democratic structuring of the workplace—and the body politic—will tend, of its own accord, to produce more just and humane policies.

IN THE SENATE

Stanford authored several bills in the U.S. Senate to help implement his cooperative vision. The first was his bill to provide a legal basis for the incorporation of worker cooperatives. On May 4, 1887 he was interviewed in theNew York Tribuneabout his bill, where he described that part of the bill’s purpose was to

attract attention to the value of the co-operative principle upon which our industrial systems should be founded. It will be a governmental attestation to the value of the co-operative principle, which alone can eliminate what has been called the conflict between capital and labor.36

This interview appeared, perhaps by no coincidence, on the first anniversary of the Haymarket Riot in Chicago. This was both fitting and ironic. The Haymarket riot erupted during a massive strike for the eight-hour day by 200,000 workers and turned into one of the bloodiest attacks on labor demonstrators in U.S. history. It brought labor issues to forefront, but also proved to be the beginning of the end for the Knights of Labor, and with it, the centrality of worker cooperatives for the US labor movement.37
Authoring the co-op bill appears to have been the closest Stanford got to actually forming a cooperative, so it is instructive to examine the text. Most significant is that voting rights within the cooperative were to be based on the amount of capital contributed by each member, rather than one person, one vote. An essential plank of the theory of cooperatives, which developed primarily in England, was one of the “Rochdale Principles”, which specified that governance was to be based on one person, one vote rather than capital.38Stanford gives no evidence of having been aware of the Rochdale Principles or of the reasoning behind them, which would support the conclusion that despite his advocacy of worker cooperatives, he was divorced from the grassroots cooperative movement itself.
Yet Stanford was aware of the necessity for a mass political movement in order to achieve social change. To his Senate colleagues he declared,

In the unrest of the masses I augur great good. It is by their realizing that their condition of life is not what it ought to be that vast improvements may be accomplished.39

Stanford seems to have followed the movement closely enough to put some of its basic ideas into legislation, and his most famous effort was his bill for issuing currency based on agricultural land value. In the late 1880s many of the huge farmers’cooperatives failed in large part because the banking establishment refused to finance them. It was the problem of access to capital, and the control of the currency by the banking establishment, that drove the cooperatives into the political arena with the founding of the People’s Party.40
We solve this issue by:

Creating our own Community Development Credit Unions
Create our own currency:
Create barter exchange clubs. See: Argentina: Surviving without money: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDKeQ4IACJ4
Create Peoples Parliament which authorizes new sets of laws for governance and conduct of business. This can be done by private contract and bylaws of organizations.

A central plank of the People’s Party was the “subtreasury” system unveiled at the Populist convention in St. Louis in December 1889.41Farmers would be able to draw money by depositing their products in subtreasuries of the U.S. Treasury, and be able to sell their goods when the market price was highest. Three months after the subtreasury plan was declared, Leland Stanford authored his own plan to lend money to farmers on the basis of their land value. By injecting money into the economy directly through the farmers, credit would become so readily obtained that cooperatives should flourish, as well as small and large industry generally.42
Stanford told the Senate during one of his several speeches on behalf of the bill,

Legislation has been and is still directed towards the protection of wealth, rather than towards the far more important interests of labor on which everything of value to mankind depends. ... When money is controlled by a few it gives that few an undue power and control over labor and the resources of the country. Labor will have its best return when the laborer can control its disposal; with an abundance of money, and through co-operation, this end will be practically attained.43

In his fifth speech on the subject, the last time he addressed the Senate, Stanford said,

To a great extent [a sufficiency of money] means to the laborer emancipation through his ability to be his own employer. With an abundance of money unskilled laborers, mechanics, and other workingmen will be able to carry on co-operative societies, because they will be able to obtain the credit they deserve, and even if employed by capital all cause for dissension between employed and employer will be removed, as co-operation will regulate the price of labor and be its perfect defense against inadequate compensation. ... Money is the great tool through whose means labor and skill become universally co-operative ... .44

Over 600 billion dollars in cash are held in the vaults of the banks of United States. Yet with all this cash, the banks are given 700 billion which adds to the huge debt of the U.S. Government. This is how the Travistock Institute will “hollow out” the Federal government and prevent it from rescuing the economy. How? Ruin the value of the dollar so foreign government and foreign financial institutions will no longer buy the U.S. Treasury paper thus creating a huge liquidity problem for the U.S. Government and nation. The banks are controlled by the Travistock folks who create a false “liquidity problem” by simply not loaning the huge cash stash in their vaults. What amazes me is that nobody in the Federal government has seen the truth of this effort by the Travistock Institute.

This bill was widely discussed, earning Stanford, the wealthiest man in the Senate, criticism as being “fully impregnated with socialistic ideas”, and spawning moves by some within the Farmers’ Alliance and People’s Party to nominate Stanford as their candidate for President in the 1892 election (a move that Stanford declined).45
Most significantly, it may have cost Leland Stanford his position as president of the Southern Pacific Railroad. Stanford’s business partner Collis Huntington had been angry about Stanford’s political ambitions, and felt Stanford had neglected the railroad since being elected to the Senate. But according to the story emerging from the inner circle of the railroad associates (reported in the San Francisco Chronicle), it was Stanford’s land loan bill “that finally precipitated a declaration of war” which resulted in Stanford’s ouster.46
A possible indication of the lasting impression that Stanford’s efforts left on organized labor was an incident that occurred during the great Pullman railroad strike a year after Stanford’s death. Jane Stanford was up in Dunsmuir, California, and urgently needed to get back to San Francisco. A California committee of the American Railway Union, which called the strike, went so far as to make up a special train to transport her, out of their respect for Leland Stanford’s memory.47

ON THE FARM

“I want this institution to deal particularly with the welfare of the masses,” wrote Stanford to University President Jordan, in the last signed letter he ever wrote.

The few very rich can get their education anywhere. They will be welcome to this institution if they come, but the object is more particularly to reach the multitude—those people who have to consider the expenditure of every dollar.49

Leland Stanford believed in the Enlightenment thesis that new ideas had the power to improve the society, and did not subscribe to the view that social change was purely an outcome of “class struggle”. Stanford’s approach to “the welfare of the masses” was not moralistic, but technical. He blamed neither employee or employer for inequalities in wealth, but rather, the advantage of the capitalist class over the non-capitalist class in its power to organize business enterprises, and this Stanford saw as fundamentally a matter of education. Thus he placed his other main effort to promote cooperatives into education, and in particular, into Stanford University, where he intended the cooperation of labor to be “in general, a leading feature lying at the foundation of the university”.48
In Hubert H. Bancroft’s biography of Stanford, Stanford gives a lengthy exposition of his views on how education—and Stanford University in particular—could help bring about the worker ownership of industry:

To a superficial consideration of the subject, capital seems to possess an advantage over labor; but the conclusions from such superficial observation are erroneous. Produce in the minds of the laboring classes the same facility for combining their labor that exists in the minds of capitalists, and labor would become entirely independent of faculty. It would sustain to capital a relation of perfect independence.50

That this remedy has not been seized upon and adopted by the masses of laboring men is due wholly to the inadequacy of educational systems. Great social principles and social forces are availed of by men only after an intelligent perception of their value. It will be the aim of the university to educate those who come within its atmosphere in the direction of cooperation. Many experiments in this direction have been made, and whatever of failure has attended them has been due to imperfection of educated faculties.51

Stanford recognized that the individual development of the student would also be an important factor in the making of the cooperative workplace. Thus he continued his exposition:

The operation of the cooperative principle in the performance of the labor of the world requires an educated perception of its value, the special formation of character adapted to such new relation, and the acquirement of that degree of intelligence which confers upon individual character and adaptability to this relation. It will be the leading aim of the university to form the character and the perception of its industrial students into that fitness wherein associated effort will be the natural and pleasurable result of their industrial career.52

Stanford’s thinking anticipated recent studies on the importance of experiential preparation for the cooperative workplace.53
Stanford put his goals for the University in perspective with his summary:

We have then the three great leading objects of the university:

first, education, with the object of enhancing the productive capacity of men equally with their intellectual culture;
second, the conservation of the great doctrines of inalienable right in the citizen as the cornerstone of just government;
third, the independence of capital and the self-employment of non-capitalist classes, by such system of instruction as will tend to the establishment of cooperative effort in the industrial systems of the future.54

We see from this quote that Stanford’s cooperative vision was in no way tangential or incidental to his plans for Stanford University. It lay at the very core of what he was trying to accomplish in founding the University. To ensure that his aims for the University would be met, Stanford placed in the Grant of Endowment the clause that the Trustees

shall have the power, and it shall be their duty ... To have taught in the University the right and advantages of association and co-operation.

(There were also three other clauses of topical instruction to the Trustees, to insure that non-sectarian religious instruction,agriculture, and equal gender rights each be included in the University.55) When Stanford addressed the first meeting of the Trustees he spoke that the principles of cooperation

will be found the greatest lever to elevate the mass of humanity, and laws should be formed to protect and develop co-operative associations. Laws with this object in view will furnish to the poor man complete protection against the monopoly of the rich, and such laws properly administered and availed of, will insure to the workers of the country the full fruits of their industry and enterprise. ... Hence it is that we have provided for thorough instruction in the principles of co-operation. We would have it early instilled into the student’s mind that no greater blow can be struck at labor than that which makes its products insecure.56

How did the public react to Stanford’s placing the cooperative vision at the foundation of the University? One sample we find is a sermon on the founding of Stanford University, delivered in November 1885 by Rev. Horatio Stebbins (who was later appointed a University Trustee), at the First Unitarian Church in San Francisco, in which he extolled Leland Stanford’s cooperative vision:

In setting forth some principles of great social import that shall be taught in the future University, Mr. Stanford has touched the key-note of modern time. I refer to the principle of co-operation. To this principle it appears to me the best minds are looking for the solution of some of the most complex social and industrial problems. ... That a distinguished American citizen, on whom has descended the prosperity of an epoch in affairs, should incorporate it in the foundation of a great school, charged to call to its aid the best minds in Christendom, is a prophetic event of promise and hope in the history of our time.57

At the Opening Exercises in 1891 Stanford told the first class of Stanford students,

We have also provided that the benefits resulting from co-operation shall be freely taught. ... Co-operative societies bring forth the best capacities, the best influences of the individual for the benefit of the whole, while the good influences of the many aid the individual.58

Some of these students apparently took Stanford’s words to heart and founded the Students Cooperative Association in 1891, which evolved into today’s Stanford Bookstore, which is incorporated as a cooperative. The members of the Board of Directors of the Co-op included several who would go on to become leading actors in the University. Among them was freshman George Crothers, future University Trustee and legal-eagle, for whom Crothers Hall is named, I lived in Crothers Hall during my first year in Law School. physics graduate student Carl Lane Clemans, who founded the Stanford Sigma Nu fraternity and was the winning quarterback in the first “Big Game”, and Professor Charles David “Daddy” Marx, for whom Marx Hall is named.59Marx also served as president of the Board of Trustees of Palo Alto High School, which began as a parent-run cooperative.60
A group of low income students took over the barracks that had housed the University’s construction workers and ran it, in the description of one writer, as a “self-managed democratic co-operative” known simply as “The Camp”. Although the buildings were inhabited long after their intended lifetime, Jane Stanford allowed The Camp to continue until 1902 because she felt it embodied Leland Stanford’s social ideals.61
What evidence do we find that “thorough instruction in the principles of cooperation” was provided for? The course catalog for the first year lists Economics 16, “Co-operation: Its History and Influence”, but no such course was found in subsequent catalogs. What other evidence there may be that bears on this question has yet to be discovered.
In Stanford’s last signed letter before his death, he wrote to University President Jordan,

I think one of the most important things to be taught in the institution is co-operation. ... By co-operation society has the benefit of the best capacities, and where there is an organized co-operative society the strongest and best capacity inures to the benefit of each.62

It is enlightening to compare Stanford’s vision for the University with the visions for higher education that populate contemporary American debate. The benefits of education are never described in terms of changing how power is exercised within the society. Rather, education is relegated solely to helping students gain an advantage in the job market, increasing our “national competitiveness”, or canonizing a “common culture”. Stanford’s intention, on the other hand—that the laboring classes be taught the principles of cooperation in order to gain ownership of their workplaces—is of a radical nature wholly beyond the current level of debate in the United States, from the right or from the left. Yet this is not so much a reflection on Leland Stanford, as a reflection on the depth of change that occurred in our society in the past 100 years.

DEFEAT

What became of Stanford’s efforts to advance worker cooperatives in the Senate and at the University? Stanford was unable to get either his co-op bill or his land loan bill passed in the Senate.
Stanford’s 1886 co-op bill was reported favorably to the Senate by the Judiciary Committee but was dropped from the calendar because of Stanford’s absence due to illness. He reintroduced it in 1891 but it again suffered the same fate. Stanford’s land loan bill had a very different course. From the moment he introduced it he met opposition in the Senate. But Stanford fought tenaciously for this bill, and his motivation was not merely the immediate effect which the bill would produce, but the greenback theory that “money is entirely the creature of law” which was the basis of the bill.63In his fourth Senate speech on behalf of the bill Stanford reached his pinnacle of oratory with quotations from John Law, James D. Holden, Aristotle, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, Benjamin Franklin, David Hume, and John Stuart Mill. After his speech, the Populist Senator William Peffer from Kansas stood up and gave an even lengthier speech on behalf of Stanford’s bill.64 Stanford introduced the land loan bill three times between 1890 and 1892, and each time it was killed by the Finance Committee. In 1892 he introduced another bill for the free coining of silver, and his speech on its behalf was his last in the Senate. This bill, too, was killed by the Finance Committee.65The Senate was not yet ready for the “revolution in finance”, as Stanford described it, which he was offering.66McKinley would win the 1896 Presidential election campaigning against just such financial revolutions.
At the University, Stanford’s vision of an education to support worker cooperatives never became established. To a large degree, this might be due to Stanford’s death two years after the University opened. David Starr Jordan continued as University President while Jane Stanford took on the governance of the University as the sole Trustee.67I have found no evidence that either of them shared Leland Stanford’s interest in worker cooperatives.68
But the ultimate reason Leland Stanford’s vision was not implemented in the University probably goes beyond this. There are limits to what one person, even one as influential as Leland Stanford, can do to change society in the absence of a mass movement. And with McKinley’s election and the defeat of the Populists in 1896, the cooperative movement was crushed.69Moreover, an answer can be sought in the structure of the University itself. Leland Stanford had no apparent experience in actually setting up cooperatives, and when he established the University, he gave it a standard hierarchical corporate structure, with a sovereign Board of Trustees choosing a President with complete executive power. With Leland Stanford gone, and the movement gone, there was no longer any organic connection between the cooperative vision and the University. Stanford missed the opportunity to forge such a connection when he failed to establish the University itself under a cooperative model.
Leland Stanford’s vision was not only forgone, but over time was entirely forgotten by the Stanford University community. This forgetting appears to have been fairly rapid, occurring within the first decade of the University. Undoubtedly most of the faculty and administrators knew of Stanford’s wishes, but they ceased to speak and write of them, and thus the knowledge was not transmitted.
Stanford’s cooperative vision was independently rediscovered several times during the 1930s and ’40s, and thus new lineages for the knowledge were started. In 1941 a student cooperative house was organized, named after the late Professor of Political Science Walter Thompson, who was active in the cooperative movement. President Tresidder’s administration terminated the co-op in 1945. In “an obituary” for the house in the August 23Stanford Daily, student Cyclone Covey makes reference to Stanford’s cooperative vision for the University. Such lore, one may conjecture, was passed down by Professor Thompson. Chemistry Professor J. Murray Luck, a founder of the Palo Alto Consumer Co-op, had also rediscovered Stanford’s writings on cooperatives, and shared that knowledge with the Palo Alto Co-op membership in 1950.70However, when student housing co-ops were started again 20 years later, no mention of Stanford’s vision can be found.71One can conjecture that in the atmosphere of the McCarthy era, these lineages of Stanford lore too became extinct.
Ultimately, the forgetting of Stanford’s vision cannot be explained by the actions of anyone in particular, for the documentation of Leland Stanford’s wishes regarding worker cooperatives has always been available to anyone who cared to read it.72To account for the selective omission of Stanford’s views fromthe campus memory, I draw upon the analysis of the Lawrence Goodwyn, an historian of the Populist era.
In describing “the triumph of the corporate state” which was completed with the defeat of the Populists, Goodwyn writes,

A consensus thus came to be silently ratified: reform politics need not concern itself with structural alteration of the economic customs of the society. This conclusion, of course, had the effect of removing from mainstream reform politics the idea of people in an industrial society gaining significant degrees of autonomy in the structure of their own lives. The reform tradition of the twentieth century unconsciously defined itself within the framework of inherited power relationships. The range of political possibility was decisively narrowed not by repression, or exile, or guns, but by the simple power of the reigning new culture itself.73

“The ultimate victory”, Goodwyn continues, “is nailed into place, therefore, only when the population has been persuaded to define all conceivable political activity within the limits of existing custom.”74 The cooperative vision, although it has survived in the refugia of cooperative businesses in the U.S.,75has remained unavailable as a concept to most Americans. Goodwyn could have been just as well addressing Stanford University’s selective loss of its own history when he wrote:

Indeed, the remarkable cultural hegemony prevailing militates against serious inquiry into the underlying economic health of American society, so this information is, first, not available, and second, its non-availability is not a subject of public debate.76

Consequently, Goodwyn concludes,

The ultimate cultural victory being not merely to win an argument but to remove the subject from the agenda of future contention, the consolidation of values that so successfully submerged the ‘financial question beyond the purview of succeeding generations was self-sustaining and largely invisible.77

This article is written in the hope that perhaps now, during the centennial of Stanford University, this central component of its founding vision may become less invisible. I hope that this article may be taken as a starting point for further historical study.
The road map for the Travistock Institute is the NEW WORLD ORDER, where the elite super-rich own and control all valuable assets, means of production and governments. The events in Latin America were rehearsals for what is happening in the United States, Canada and Australia. See attached ARGENTINA'S ECONOMIC COLLAPSE. There is a great deal more to tell. See: League for a Democratic Republic: http://leaguedemorepub.wetpaint.com

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Tim Tyson, Prof. Henry Levin, Prof. Lawrence Goodwyn, Prof. Barton Bernstein, Ted Nace, Herb Caen, Roxanne Nilan, and Bob Beyers for their helpful comments, the staff of the Stanford University Archives for their excellent and generous librarianship, and the Synergy and Columbae cooperative communities for creating the intellectual environment that gave rise to this work. Research for this article was initiated in the Stanford Workshops on Political and Social Issues (SWOPSI), Stanford University.

NOTES

1.Bancroft, p. 112.Bancroft’s posthumously published biography of Stanford must have been completed between September 1889 and December 1889, based on information in Bancroft, p. iv, and in George T. Clark, 1933, "Leland Stanford and H. H. Bancroft’s ‘History’: A Bibliographical Curiosity,"The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America27: 12-23. Bancroft does not cite the sources for his extensive section quoting Leland Stanford on "the character and purposes of the university"(pp. 105-117); part of it (not used here) is from an interview of Leland Stanford in theSan Francisco Examiner, April 28, 1887. 2.Stanford Observer21 (5): Special Issue, April 1987. Ibid. 21 (6): 9-11, May, 1987.Campus Report[Stanford] , March 7, 1984, pp. 13-16.Ibid. November 13, 1985, pp. 1, 7-10.Sandstone and Tile9 (2), Winter 1985.Ibid10 (1), Autumn 1985, pp. 1-11. "History of the University,"Stanford University Bulletin31 (79), September 1987, pp. 6-7. 3.Curl, pp. 5-21.Adams and Hansen, pp. 11-18. 4.Goodwyn, pp. 25-93.Curl pp. 26-31.Adams and Hansen, pp. 16-18. 5.Stanford, pp. 1-2. 6.Townsend.The formation of cooperative associations among the California gold miners may be a subject whose history has yet to be written. There are brief references to it inShinn (pp. 111-114, 288-289), and it may have been a source fostering the formation of cooperative projects among California farmers afterward (Nordhoff, pp. 202-209). 7.Goodwyn, pp. 32-35. 8.Bancroft, p. 114. 9.ibid. 10.Stanford, p. 4. 11.Congressional Record, 49 Congress 2 Sess.: 1804, February 16, 1887. 12.Stanford, p. 16. 13.Townsend. 14.Stanford, p. 3. 15.Congressional Record, 49 Congress, 2 Sess.: 1805, February 16, 1887. 16.Stanford, p. 4. 17.ibid., p. 11. 18.ibid., pp. 6-7. 19.ibid. p. 11. 20.ibid. p. 15 21.ibid., p. 11. The capacity of worker cooperatives to reduce unemployment is also the subject of more recent studies, see Levin, H. M., "Employment and Productivity of Producer Cooperatives," inJackall and Levin, pp. 21-24. 22.Stanford, p. 6. 23.Levin, H. M., "Employment and Productivity of Producer Cooperatives," in, pp. 24-28. 24.Stanford, pp. 15-16. 25.Bancroft, p. 112. 26."Address of Leland Stanford to the Trustees," in The Leland Stanford, Junior, University, pp. 30-31. 27.Stanford, p. 4. 28.ibid. p. 5. 29.ibid. pp. 5-6. 30.ibid. p. 6. 31.Townsend. 32."The Grant of Endowment," in The Leland Stanford, Junior, University, p.16. Stanford University Archives. 33.Congressional Record, 49 Congress, 2 Sess.: 1805, February 16, 1887. 34.Townsend. 35.Townsend. 36.Stanford, p. 6. 37.Curl, p. 29. 38.Adams and Hansen, pp. 13-14. 39.Congressional Record, 51 Congress, 1 Sess.: 5170, May 23, 1890. 40.Goodwyn, pp. 86, 111. 41.ibid. pp. 107-115. 42.Congressional Record, 51 Congress, 1 Sess.: 2068-2069, March 3, 1890. Stanford’s bill had several deliberate differences from the subtreasury plan, which Stanford criticized for not really creating money because the farmer’s loan would be too quickly retired and would therefore produce violent expansions and contractions of the currency (inThe Great Question. An interview with Senator Leland Stanford on Money, pp. 23-25). Stanford did not understand the crucial advantage of the subtreasury in enabling the farmer to store his or her crops in the subtreasury until the market price were optimal. 43.Congressional Record, 52 Congress, 1 Sess.: 469-470, January 21, 1892. 44.Congressional Record, 52 Congress, 1 Sess.: 2685, March 30, 1892. 45.Tutorow, pp. 279-280. 46.ibid. p. 266. 47.Clark, p. 470.Mirrielees (p. 30) also describes that Stanford was liked by the rank and file railroad workers, citing his defense of their wages against threatened cuts and his insistence that any cuts be the same percentage across the board from lineman all the way up to the heads of departments, including himself. 40.Bancroft, p. 112. 49.Leland Stanford’s last letter, to David Starr Jordan,San Francisco Examiner, June 22, 1893. Special Collection 33a, Box 6, Folder 59, Stanford University Archives. 50.Bancroft, p. 113. 51.ibid. p. 114. 52.ibid. 53.Gamson, Z. F. and H. M. Levin, 1984. "Obstacles to the Survival of Democratic Workplaces," inJackall and Levin, pp. 219-244. 54.Bancroft, p. 114. 55."The Grant of Endowment," in The Leland Stanford, Junior, University, pp. 15-16. The full text of these requirements is as follows:

"THE TRUSTEES ... SHALL HAVE POWER AND IT SHALL BE THEIR DUTY:...

To prohibit sectarian instruction, but to have taught in the University the immortality of the soul, the existence of an all-wise and benevolent Creator, and that obedience to His laws is the highest duty of man.
To have taught in the University the right and advantages of association and co-operation.
To afford equal facilities and give equal advantages in the University to both sexes.
To maintain on the Palo Alto estate a farm for instruction in agriculture in all its branches."

56."Address of Leland Stanford to the Trustees," ibid. p. 31. 57.Stebbins, Horatio, 1885. "Leland Stanford, Jr., University, California," inThe Resources of California, September 1886, p. 34. Stanford University Archives. 58.Leland Stanford’s address at the Stanford University Opening Exercises, October 1, 1891. Special Collection 33a.4, Stanford University Archives. 59.Stanford Quadvol. 1, 1894. Sequoia 1: 22-23, December 9, 1891. 60.Advertisement for Palo Alto High School inserted into the Stanford University Register, 1895-6: "A full corps of experienced teachers, for the most part graduates of the university, is employed. ... The school is not yet organized into a regular public high school, but is conducted on the co-operative plan, and is managed by a board of trustees elected by the patrons, thus furnishing the highest grade of instruction at actual cost". Another interesting piece of information is that the lots in Palo Alto between San Francisquito Creek and Embarcadero Road, extending from El Camino Real to past Middlefield Road, were owned, as of 1906, by the "Co-operative Land and Trust Company", which offered real estate, rentals, loans, and insurance (from an advertisement in theDaily Palo Alto, March 23, 1906). Whether Leland Stanford had any causal connection with this co-op remains to be investigated. 61.Starr, p. 326, quotes the student who describes “The Camp” as a cooperative. The descriptions of The Camp in Elliott (pp. 209-215) and Mirrielees (pp. 61-62), on the other hand, do not use the term “cooperative”. However, neither Elliott nor Mirrielees refer to the concept of a cooperative anywhere else in their histories. 62.Leland Stanford’s last letter, to David Starr Jordan, San Francisco Examiner, June 22, 1893. Stanford University Archives. 63.Goodwyn, pp. 13-14.Congressional Record, 51 Congress, 2 Sess.: 667, December 19, 1890. 64.Congressional Record, 52 Congress, 1 Sess.: 468-470. 65.Tutorow, pp. 274, 278-279. 66.Congressional Record, 51 Congress, 1 Sess.: 5170, May 23, 1890. 67.Jordan, p. 421. 68.Jordan;Crothers, 1932,1933. 69.Goodwyn, pp. 264-286. 70.Luck, 1950; personal communication with Prof. Luck, October, 1989. 71."Co-op Living Plans Blossom,"Stanford Daily, May 26, 1970, p. 1. "Non-Violent House Opens Doors,"Stanford Daily, October 2, 1970, p. 1. "Jordan House First Co-operative,"Stanford Daily, October 23, 1970, p. 1. 72.The biographies of Leland Stanford that mention his cooperative vision includeBancroft(who devotes around 32 pages to it, pp. 99, 112-114, 154-181),Clark(who allots four pages of space, pp. 389, 391, 411, 419, 454-455, 459), andTutorow(who gives two pages, pp. 252-255). Notably, it is not mentioned in three Depression-era books:The Big Fourby Lewis, andThe Robber Baronsby Josephson, andStanford University: The First Twenty-Five Years, by Elliott; nor by Jordan inThe Days of a Man, by Mirrielees inStanford: The Story of a University, or by Mitchell inStanford University 1916-1941. 73.Goodwyn, p. 284. 74.ibid. p. xi. 75.Though I will only touch on this subject, in speaking of "refugia" I draw from the field of evolutionary ecology, which refers to a refugium as "an area that has escaped major climatic changes typical of a region as a whole and acts as a refuge for biota previously more widely distributed"(Lincoln, et al., p. 214). In applying this framework to societal evolution, a crucial idea is that the hegemony of a particular cultural mode is never complete, but leaves some people in circumstances in which alternative culture can spontaneously form or even be culturally transmitted. Such refugia can be understood to maintain the stocks of cultural diversity from which the society can draw when it faces changed circumstances. This idea is similarly developed byE. P. Thompson (p. 156)in the idea of "unsteepled places of worship" in which "there was room for free intellectual life and for democratic experiments", byWendell Berry (pp. 170-223)in the idea of "margins", and byEvans and Boytein the idea of "free spaces". Modern day cooperatives certainly provide this function in maintaining, developing, and transmitting components of the cooperative vision. This article, in fact, can be taken as a product of such cooperative refugia. 76.Goodwyn, p. 316. 77.ibid. 313.

REFERENCES

Adams,F. T. and G. B. Hansen, 1987.Putting Democracy to Work.Hulogos’i, Eugene, OR. Bancroft,Hubert H., 1952.History of the Life of Leland Stanford.Biobooks, Berkeley. Berry,Wendell, 1977.The Unsettling of America: Culture and Agriculture.Sierra Club Books, San Francisco. Clark,George T., 1931.Leland Stanford, War Governor of California, Railroad Builder and Founder of Stanford University.Stanford University Press. Congressional Record, 49 Congress, 2 Sess.: 1804-1805; 51 Congress, 1 Sess.: 2068-2069, 5169-5170, 2 Sess.: 667-668; 52 Congress, 1 Sess.: 468-479, 2684-2686. Covey,Cyclone, 1945. "An Obituary",Stanford Daily, August 23, 1945. p. 2. Crothers,George E., 1932.Founding of the Leland Stanford Junior University.Reprinted by the Stanford Historical Society, 1985. Crothers,George E., 1933. "The Educational Ideals of Jane Lathrop Stanford,"San Jose Mercury Herald, August 20-26, 1933. Curl,John, 1980.History of Worker Cooperation in America.Homeward Press, Berkeley, CA. Elliott,Orrin L., 1937.Stanford University: The First Twenty-Five Years.Stanford University Press. Evans,S. M. and H. C. Boyte, 1986.Free Spaces: The Sources of Democratic Change in America.Harper and Row, New York. Goodwyn,Lawrence, 1978.The Populist Moment.Oxford University Press. The Great Question. An interview with Senator Leland Stanford on Money,c. 1890-1892. Stanford University Archives. Jackall, R. and H. M. Levin, ed. 1984.Worker Cooperatives in America.University of California Press. Jordan,David S., 1922.The Days of a Man.World Book, New York. Josephson,Matthew, 1934.The Robber Barons.Harcourt & Brace, New York. The Leland Stanford, Junior, University. Special Collection 0120.1885,Stanford University Archives. Lewis,Oscar, 1938.The Big Four: The Story of Huntington, Stanford, Hopkins, and Crocker, and of the building of the Central Pacific.A. A. Knopf, New York. Lincoln,R. J., G. A. Boxshall, and P. F. Clark, 1982.A Dictionary of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics.Cambridge University Press. Luck,James Murray, 1950. "Cooperation An Aspect of the Social Philosophy of Leland Stanford."Palo Alto Co-op News16 (7): 1-2, April 13; (8): 1-2, April 27; (9): 2, May 11. Consumers Cooperative Society of Palo Alto. Mirrielees,Edith R., 1959.Stanford: The Story of a University.G. P. Putnam’s Sons, New York. Mitchell,J. Pearce, 1958.Stanford University 1916-1941.Stanford University Press. Nordhoff,Charles, 1873.California: For Health, Pleasure, and Residence.Harper and Row, NY. Nordhoff,Charles, 1875.The Communistic Societies of the United States:from personal visit and observation including detailed accounts of the Economists, Zoarites, Shakers, the Amana, Oneida, Bethel, Aurora, Icarian, and other existing societies, their religious creeds, social practices, numbers, industries, and present condition.Harper & Brothers, NY. p. 11. Shinn,Charles Howard, 1884.Mining Camps: A study in American Frontier Government.Harper and Row, NY. 1965 edition by Rodman Wilson Paul. Stanford,Leland, 1887. "Co-operation of Labor,"New York Tribune, May 4, 1887. Special Collection 33a, Box 7, Folder 74, Stanford University Archives. Starr,Kevin, 1973.Americans and the California Dream 1850-1915.Oxford University Press, NY. Stebbins,Horatio, 1885. "Leland Stanford, Jr., University, California," inThe Resources of California, September 1886, p. 34. Stanford University Archives. Thompson,Edward P., 1963.The Making of the English Working Class.Vintage Books, New York. Townsend,George Alfred ("Gath"), "Pointing a way for the poor to combine together and improve their condition: Senator Stanford’s bill to form syndicates of labor a la capital,"Cincinnati Enquirer, February 18, 1887. Special Collections 33a, Box 7, Folder 74, Stanford University Archives. Tutorow,Norman E., 1971.Leland Stanford: A Man of Many Careers.Pacific Coast Publishers, Menlo Park, CA. Copyright © 1990, 1998, 2005 by Lee Altenberg.. Lee Altenberg’s Home Page|Curriculum Vitae|Papers

LIVING IN A BUBBLE

jimmiller5417 — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:22:29 CST

--Our local, state and national leadership has failed most of us.
By Jim Miller

Our economic and political leaders are living in their bubbles of economic security, good income and a high energy consuming life style. They are following the “It's all about me” philosophy, but give lip service to the plight of those of us whose bubbles have burst. They rationalize that those who are suffering job losses are just “unlucky”.

Many astute writers are ringing the fire bell. The fire is on the outskirts of town and headed our way. However, most folks continue to play cards or watch TV or go to work, “The fire won't affect me.” Before the fire consumes the whole town, we ought to ride the fire truck to the fire and fight it with all our means.

Here's where we are now:

Oregon Department of Transportation, clears out the camps of the homeless in Corvallis and probably elsewhere, to “save the plants”. These pogroms are reminiscent of what Stalin did to Russians and what Hitler did to the Jews. What ODOT did is nothing short of a form of ethnic cleansing. ODOT is greased by those who pay fuel taxes. Our money financed the hatred which officers of ODOT must have against the most defenseless members of our society and who are in the most need. We need to change the leadership of ODOT before they invent other ways to injure selected target groups.
- In many school districts, enrollments have dropped, leaving whole schools empty. Why not turn these empty buildings into homeless shelters? These converted school would function as shelters, training centers and work dispatch centers. We can turn the ball fields into community gardens.

City, county, state and federal employees enjoy pay and benefits at about 150 to 300% of folks with comparable jobs in the private sector. Yet no sacrifice is asked of these well-paid government employees. Why not an across-the-board pay cut of 25% and use the savings to create and maintain homeless shelters? That would burst the government employees' bubbles and bring some reality to government attention.

Governments keep the planning wheels turning. Citizen groups join in planning for a better future. This is good. It takes months, and in the case of the Federal government, years to develop the plans, which are generally flawed and delivered way too late. This is not good. These planners are generally the ones living in their safe, secure and comfortable bubbles. The walls of these bubbles are opaque, making it hard for outside reality to be observed and measured.

The planners are also given to “group think”. This is part of social networking where an idea or bit of “social glue” is seen as the center piece of the group cohesion. To become and remain a member, everyone has to adopt the mantras, ideas and rituals of the group. If a member disagrees, he or she is cast out of the group. Hence, no criticism of the group leadership is permitted. Such is a formula for failure.

The plans are developed around unworkable programs, or are delayed so long as to become irrelevant to the problem at hand. Delay is also costly, because the longer the stew is in the pot, the more things are determined to be needed and are added. Costs soar and the end result is either scaled down or further delayed until more funds are raised. Delay is also costly in terms of membership; many folks quit because they are tired of waiting.

Funding the implementation of plans is very tricky, even in the best to times. We now face the national economic meltdown, which makes funding the implementation of the goals even more unlikely. Yet the planners continue laying down goals. This “feel good” approach to planning is simply a group hug with little connection to reality. Group hugs are great in terms of social networking, but if that is the extent of the real operation of the group, then nothing or very little gets done in a timely manner.

We are facing a change in leadership at the national level. Let's create a similar change in leadership at the local and state level. Either the current leadership steps outside their respective bubbles, or we change the leadership in favor of people who are ringing the fire bell and are ready to board the fire truck and go fight the fire. We need to mount some recall elections.These elections will only succeed when the bubbles of a majority of the electors have burst. Of course that change will be way too late because the new leadership will have to deal with exhausted political and economic resource.
Jim Miller
jimmiller5417@yahoo.com
December 11, 2008

HOT BUTTON ISSUES

jimmiller5417 — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:07:54 CST

PLEASE add your issue and a comment. Long comments and extensive threads deserve their own page. Will the author of the issue please create a new page with the issue heading and hyperlink it back to the table issue statement.

Re: The Really, Really Big Rip-off

ISSUE AND COMMENT

SHOULD THE U.S. TREASURY PROVIDE BAIL-OUT MONEY OR BAIL MONEY?

New Yorkers were shocked at the headlines of a New York attorney charged with a 380 million dollar swindle.(1)That swindle is one of a long list of financial swindles plaguing the financial market. Now, the U.S. Taxpayers have been and will continue to be swindled by the funding of massive financial failures of some of the nations financial institutions:

Billions are loaned to “healthy” bank so they can buy-out, for cheap, “unhealthy” banks, thus consolidating more power among the rich right.
Money is flowing out of the Federal purse without having conducted deep due diligence to prevent the use of the plunder to cover-up Ponzzi schemes.
Have the Federal Treasury obtained legal collateral based on independent property appraisals by qualified appraisers? Who has independent supervisory authority over the actions of Treasury?
Have the FBI, SEC, OMB, GAO, FTC, Congressional panels, NYSE, Attorneys General, Inspectors General, or any other investigative agency conducted audits of the financial institutions before the funding takes place, to uncover swindles in the making or an attempt to cover-up prior Ponzzi schemes?

MORE....http://leaguedemorepub.wetpaint.com/page/SHOULD+THE+U.S.+TREASURY+PROVIDE+BAIL-OUT+MONEY+OR+BAIL+MONEY%3F

BUSH BAIL OUT
--something fishy is going on in Washington D.C. and it isn't dead fish.
By Jim Miller,9/26/2008

CAPITAL MARKET CRISIS IN LIQUIDITY
--the REAL story
By Jim Miller, October 4, 2008

The Really, Really Big Rip-off
Congressman Peter DeFazio

Pete:

Bernard Madoff swindled his investors out of 50 billion. Yet the banks are swindling the U.S. Taxpayers out of 250 billion. Elizabeth Warren, the top congressional watchdog overseeing the financial bailout, wants to know; so do I and all other Americans. What are you doing to force the banks to track the money and disclose? What enforceable criteria for use of that money by the banks has the legislation imposed on the banks? If not, why not?
Was the Democratic Congressional leadership again slickered by George Bush and his cronies? Apparently so. Apparently the Travistock Institute is heavily ensconced in both parties, as well as the banks. Do you even know about the New World Order? If so, what are you doing to defend Americans? See what the New World Order did in Argentina, Chile and many other Latin American Countries.Inflating poverty in Argentina - 30 May 08http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vJLrvGpJjg&feature=related
Jim Miller

Where'd the bailout money go? Shhhh, it's a secrethttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081222/ap_on_bi_ge/meltdown_secrets

THE PRIVATIZATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
-- the end of a livable country as we might have known it.
By Jim Miller

BARACK OBAMA AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF
By Jim Miller

HOW TO WIN THE PEACE IN IRAQ
By Jim Miller

ANTI-DEMOCRATIC IMPERIALS OF U.S. CAPITALISM [Irish Times edition]
By Norm Chompsky
Backup copy here

"Who Killed the Electric Car?"

Reviews, YouTube trailer, and Jim's proposal for the BIOVOLT TRUCK. Here's a small portion of thePBS interview with David Brancaccio of the film director, Chris Paine:

"PAINE: Well, you know, this is a -- this is really the heart of the movie. It's like why would car companies destroy the very car they created in the first place. It's -- One of the characters says it's like an act of cannibalism. And certainly it seems like it now when you look at General Motors with nothing to sell, except for their trucks and SUV's and a small number of compact cars.

Well, the thing is is that car companies since -- for 100 years have been selling the internal combustion engine, and that's an engine that needs to be fixed and re -- repairs. And there's lots to it. They know how to do it, and they have a big margin. If you say how about an electric car? You know, it's -- it's a totally different game.

BRANCACCIO: What? There's less maintenance on electric cars?

PAINE: Well, there's -- there's almost no maintenance, because there's no internal combustion engine. So there's no carburetor. There's no tune-ups. There's no air filters to change. There's not even a transmission. So the electric car really challenges the whole fundamental business structure for the car companies. And unfortunately the -- the electric car's another problem. It doesn't use any oil. So, the electric car instantly goes after two bedrock industries in the country, and that makes it a very difficult sell."

THE BIOVOLT TRUCK AND THE SLIDING PISTON GENERATOR
By Jim Miller

The Sliding piston genset could be used in the BioVolt Truck to generate electricity to recharge the batteries should they run low on energy. Instead of the large, expensive reciprocating internal combustion engine running the generator as described below, the produce syngas can be factionalized into many different gases (depending on the feedstock) into propane, butane, pentane and ethanol. The proper gas can be compressed and stored behind the cab of the truck and fed to the electric generator as needed. This would greatly reduce the cost of manufacture and greatly lighten the weight of the truck, thus making the combination much more efficient and cheaper to build and operate. There would be little maintenance involved in this electric generator.

Dear President-elect Obama:
Re: Quick action on jobs:
Using Americorps, create thousands of slots for PERMACULTURE TEACHERS who teach farmers, gardeners, ag students, et al., how to grow our own food using permaculture biological principles. This corps will be primarily "hands-on" types who actually go to the farm or garden and show folks, for instance, how to create compost and work it into the soil to increase the tilth of the soil. Or create dirt/straw berms on the contour to trap water run-off on hillsides and prevent soil erosion. There thousands of techniques to be employed in growing food and fodder and there are thousands of folks who have already taken permaculture courses.
Creating this force is simply a budget item for Congress and does not involve lengthly ramp-up. The project is non-controversial and a no-brainer even Congress can comprehend. Funding should include: County Extension Agents, NPO which practice and teach permaculture, colleges which have Ag courses and private individuals and companies, such as an Ag Supply Company or an An Equipment Company. A good many legislators are from states which are largely agricultural, so passing this budget item works in their favor.
Contact me and I can write the proposed legislation or promotion for the budget item. James E. Miller, BA, BS, JD, 541-757-9797.

INSTANT JOBS – save energy and our economy
To: Obama Transition Team – Office of Public Liaison
From: Jim Miller, jimmiller5417@yahoo.com
December 5, 2008

WHITEWASH OF BLACK COAL
The exchange of email below demonstrates the that NETL is the captive research agency of the coal industry. The burden of proof of “clean coal” is on the coal industry, not the U.S. Taxpayers. Let the coal industry pay for R & D on clean coal. Please note that the NETL argument about “abundance” of coal is a fraud. By growing biomass; selective harvest of forest slash, dead trees and non-commercial trees; recycled municipal waste, agricultural waste, and growing algae, we will have a tremendous “abundance” of biomass. Extracting coal involves horrendous environmental damage while sourcing biomass does not.

LIVING IN A BUBBLE

Our economic leaders are living in their bubbles of economic security, good income and a high energy consuming life style. They are following the “It's all about me” philosophy, but give lip service to the plight of those of us whose bubbles have burst. They rationalize that those who are suffering job losses are just “unlucky”.

Many astute writers are ringing the fire bell. The fire is on the outskirts of town and headed our way. However, most folks continue to play cards or watch TV or go to work, “The fire won't affect me.” Before the fire consumes the whole town, we ought to ride the fire truck to the fire and fight it will all our means.
FULL ARTICLE:http://leaguedemorepub.wetpaint.com/page/LIVING+IN+A+BUBBLE

Reply to letter from Cong. Peter DeFazio on Automaker bailout

Mr. Miller:

Thanks for your message in opposition to the auto industry bailout. The costs and failures of the Wall Street bailout, which I adamantly opposed, are becoming more apparent. The much touted restrictions of corporate pay have proven to be totally ineffective. You and other members of the American taxpaying public are totally justified in expressing anger with the failures of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout and the Bush Administration's commitment to spend $1.4 trillion to save Wall Street financial institutions. HUD should be empowered to buy mortgages in default and pay, not to exceed the then fair market value of the property or the principal balance on the loan, which ever is lesser. Then HUD resets the terms of the mortgage so the borrower can make payments. The term should be five years and the monthly payments should not exceed one percent of the principal amount of the mortgage, with a balloon at the end of the term. HUD can also sell the repackaged mortgage to private parties or financial institutions. HUD would contract with Amazon to handle the sales over the Internet. Google would list all of the properties for sale with a URL to a data bank containing the appraisal report and the promissory note which spells out the exact terms. The prospective buyer could run a credit report.
MORE: REPLY TO CONG. PETER DEFAZIO LETTER ON AUTOMAKER BAILOUT

THE REALLY, REALLY BIG RIP-OFF

jimmiller5417 — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:05:00 CST

Congressman Peter DeFazio:

Pete:
Re: The Really, Really Big Rip-off
Bernard Madoff swindled his investors out of 50 billion. Yet the banks are swindling the U.S. Taxpayers out of 250 billion. Elizabeth Warren, the top congressional watchdog overseeing the financial bailout, wants to know; so do I and all other Americans. What are you doing to force the banks to track the money and disclose? What enforceable criteria for use of that money by the banks has the legislation imposed on the banks? If not, why not?
Was the Democratic Congressional leadership again slickered by George Bush and his cronies? Apparently so. Apparently the Travistock Institute is heavily ensconced in both parties, as well as the banks. Do you even know about the New World Order? If so, what are you doing to defend Americans? See what the New World Order did in Argentina, Chile and many other Latin American Countries. Inflating poverty in Argentina - 30 May 08 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vJLrvGpJjg&feature=related
Jim Miller

Where'd the bailout money go? Shhhh, it's a secret http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081222/ap_on_bi_ge/meltdown_secrets

WASHINGTON – It's something any bank would demand to know before handing out a loan: Where's the money going? But after receiving billions in aid from U.S. taxpayers, the nation's largest banks say they can't track exactly how they're spending the money or they simply refuse to discuss it. "We've lent some of it. We've not lent some of it. We've not given any accounting of, 'Here's how we're doing it,'" said Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, which received $25 billion in emergency bailout money. "We have not disclosed that to the public. We're declining to." The Associated Press contacted 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in government money and asked four questions: How much has been spent? What was it spent on? How much is being held in savings, and what's the plan for the rest? FOR THE REST OF THE STORY: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081222/ap_on_bi_ge/meltdown_secrets None of the banks provided specific answers. "We're not providing dollar-in, dollar-out tracking," said Barry Koling, a spokesman for Atlanta, Ga.-based SunTrust Banks Inc., which got $3.5 billion in taxpayer dollars. Some banks said they simply didn't know where the money was going. "We manage our capital in its aggregate," said Regions Financial Corp. spokesman Tim Deighton, who said the Birmingham, Ala.-based company is not tracking how it is spending the $3.5 billion it received as part of the financial bailout. The answers highlight the secrecy surrounding the Troubled Assets Relief Program, which earmarked $700 billion — about the size of the Netherlands' economy — to help rescue the financial industry. The Treasury Department has been using the money to buy stock in U.S. banks, hoping that the sudden inflow of cash will get banks to start lending money. There has been no accounting of how banks spend that money. Lawmakers summoned bank executives to Capitol Hill last month and implored them to lend the money — not to hoard it or spend it on corporate bonuses, junkets or to buy other banks. But there is no process in place to make sure that's happening and there are no consequences for banks who don't comply. "It is entirely appropriate for the American people to know how their taxpayer dollars are being spent in private industry," said Elizabeth Warren, the top congressional watchdog overseeing the financial bailout. But, at least for now, there's no way for taxpayers to find that out. Pressured by the Bush administration to approve the money quickly, Congress attached nearly no strings on the $700 billion bailout in October. And the Treasury Department, which doles out the money, never asked banks how it would be spent. "Those are legitimate questions that should have been asked on Day One," said Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., a House Financial Services Committee member who opposed the bailout as it was rushed through Congress. "Where is the money going to go to? How is it going to be spent? When are we going to get a record on it?" Nearly every bank AP questioned — including Citibank and Bank of America, two of the largest recipients of bailout money — responded with generic public relations statements explaining that the money was being used to strengthen balance sheets and continue making loans to ease the credit crisis. A few banks described company-specific programs, such as JPMorgan Chase's plan to lend $5 billion to nonprofit and health care companies next year. Richard Becker, senior vice president of Wisconsin-based Marshall & Ilsley Corp., said the $1.75 billion in bailout money allowed the bank to temporarily stop foreclosing on homes. But no bank provided even the most basic accounting for the federal money. "We're choosing not to disclose that," said Kevin Heine, spokesman for Bank of New York Mellon, which received about $3 billion. Others said the money couldn't be tracked. Bob Denham, a spokesman for North Carolina-based BB&T Corp., said the bailout money "doesn't have its own bucket." But he said taxpayer money wasn't used in the bank's recent purchase of a Florida insurance company. Asked how he could be sure, since the money wasn't being tracked, Denham said the bank would have made that deal regardless. Others, such as Morgan Stanley spokeswoman Carissa Ramirez, offered to discuss the matter with reporters on condition of anonymity. When AP refused, Ramirez sent an e-mail saying: "We are going to decline to comment on your story." Most banks wouldn't say why they were keeping the details secret. "We're not sharing any other details. We're just not at this time," said Wendy Walker, a spokeswoman for Dallas-based Comerica Inc., which received $2.25 billion from the government. Heine, the New York Mellon Corp. spokesman who said he wouldn't share spending specifics, added: "I just would prefer if you wouldn't say that we're not going to discuss those details." The banks which came closest to answering the questions were those, such as U.S. Bancorp and Huntington Bancshares Inc., that only recently received the money and have yet to spend it. But neither provided anything more than a generic summary of how the money would be spent. Lawmakers say they want to tighten restrictions on the remaining, yet-to-be-released $350 billion block of bailout money before more cash is handed out. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the department is trying to step up its monitoring of bank spending. "What we've been doing here is moving, I think, with lightning speed to put necessary programs in place, to develop them, implement them, and then we need to monitor them while we're doing this," Paulson said at a recent forum in New York. "So we're building this organization as we're going." Warren, the congressional watchdog appointed by Democrats, said her oversight panel will try to force the banks to say where they've spent the money. "It would take a lot of nerve not to give answers," she said. But Warren said she's surprised she even has to ask. "If the appropriate restrictions were put on the money to begin with, if the appropriate transparency was in place, then we wouldn't be in a position where you're trying to call every recipient and get the basic information that should already be in public documents," she said. Garrett, the New Jersey congressman, said the nation might never get a clear answer on where hundreds of billions of dollars went. "A year or two ago, when we talked about spending $100 million for a bridge to nowhere, that was considered a scandal," he said. ___ Associated Press writers Stevenson Jacobs in New York and Christopher S. Rugaber and Daniel Wagner in Washington contributed to this report.

SHOULD THE U.S. TREASURY PROVIDE BAIL-OUT MONEY OR BAIL MONEY?

jimmiller5417 — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:30:23 CST

SHOULD THE U.S. TREASURY PROVIDE BAIL-OUT MONEY OR BAIL MONEY?
--Due diligence not on the list of priorities of Bush Administration to vet bail-out funding.
By Jim Miller

New Yorkers were shocked at the headlines of a New York attorney charged with a 380 million dollar swindle. (1) That swindle is one of a long list of financial swindles plaguing the financial market. Now, the U.S. Taxpayers have been and will continue to be swindled by the funding of massive financial failures of some of the nations financial institutions:

Billions are loaned to “healthy” bank so they can buy-out, for cheap, “unhealthy” banks, thus consolidating more power among the rich right.
Money is flowing out of the Federal purse without having conducted deep due diligence to prevent the use of the plunder to cover-up Ponzzi schemes.
Have the Federal Treasury obtained legal collateral based on independent property appraisals by qualified appraisers? Who has independent supervisory authority over the actions of Treasury?
Have the FBI, SEC, OMB, GAO, FTC, Congressional panels, NYSE, Attorneys General, Inspectors General, or any other investigative agency conducted audits of the financial institutions before the funding takes place, to uncover swindles in the making or an attempt to cover-up prior Ponzzi schemes?

The basic premise of the financial bail-out is to infuse cash into the banks so they can make loans to solve the business liquidity crises. Our Congress folks never asked the primary questions: Before the crises, banks were loaning money and raking in huge profits. What happened to all that money? I'll tell you.

The money is carefully stowed in bank vaults, waiting for the bottom of the depression, so they can buy property at a small fraction of the real value. Joe Kennedy did this. Before the 1929 crash, Kennedy converted much of his hard assets for hard cash. Then in the 30's was able to amass a fortune by purchasing bankrupt companies. He had plenty of company who bailed-out of the stock market months before the crash.
We are seeing a repeat of the Joe Kennedy march to extreme wealth. This is the scheme of the New World Order – gather all of the productive wealth of the world so they can rule the world and become even more wealthy.

Also, don't forget their other agenda, Eugenics, which is to kill about six billion people on the Earth. In terms of terrorists, 9/11 is just a small preview. How will this genocide occur? Simply, by allowing massive diseases to run rampant, diseases for which no cures exist for the millions because the New World Order owns all of the drug manufacturers who hold all of the patents and make only enough drugs to service the rich right.

Jim Miller
jimmiller5417@yahoo.com
December 13, 2008

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) MARC S. DREIER AND: FRAUDS AND SWINDLING

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2008/lr20823.htm

Litigation Release No. 20823 / December 8, 2008

SEC v. Marc S. Dreier,
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
Civil Action No. 08 Civ. 10617(MGC) (filed on December 8, 2008)

SEC Charges Marc S. Dreier, New York Attorney, With Multimillion Dollar Fraud; Seeks Emergency Relief

On December 8, 2008, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil injunctive action in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that New York attorney Marc S. Dreier engaged in an elaborate scheme, that violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and raised at least $113 million from the sale of bogus promissory notes. According to the SEC's complaint, Dreier is the founder and managing partner of Dreier LLP, a 250-attorney law firm headquartered in Manhattan. Along with its complaint seeking a permanent injunction, disgorgement of Dreier's ill-gotten gains, and civil monetary penalties, the Commission filed an application for an emergency court order to freeze Drier's assets and appoint a temporary receiver.

The SEC's complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan alleges that since at least October 2008, Dreier has been marketing fake promissory notes, including bogus notes of a New York-based real estate development company, to hedge funds and other private investment funds, and has closed at least three sales. According to the complaint, Dreier created an elaborate charade designed to convince purchasers that the notes were genuine. He allegedly distributed phony financial statements and audit opinion letters of a reputable accounting firm, and recruited confederates to play the parts of representatives of legitimate companies involved in the transactions, even creating dummy email addresses and telephone numbers.

According to the Commission's complaint, Dreier directed that two purchasers of the bogus notes wire payment to what appeared to be his law firm's escrow account. At least one note purchaser discovered the fraud and demanded, and received, the return of its investment. Approximately $100 million in known proceeds from the sale of the bogus notes remains unaccounted for. The SEC's complaint alleges that, among other fake securities, Dreier has been offering fictitious promissory notes of a New York-based real estate development company (the "developer"), a former client of Dreier and his firm.

Since at least October of this year, Dreier has approached at least three different investment funds with an offer to sell them, at a deep discount, various short-term, unsecured promissory notes supposedly issued by the developer. Two of the investment funds agreed to purchase the notes (one fund purchased notes in two separate transactions) and forwarded approximately $113 million to an account in the name of "Dreier LLP Attorney Trust Account" in payment. A third fund was offered the notes, but declined to participate. As alleged in the complaint, all of the offers were accompanied by documents that Dreier subsequently admitted he knew were fabricated. Dreier offered the notes for sale even though he knew that the developer had never issued the notes, had not authorized Dreier to market them and indeed knew nothing of their existence or Dreier's offers or sales.

The complaint further alleges that in marketing the notes, Dreier provided the hedge funds with fabricated documents including a "form" note and related agreements, "audited financial statements," and purported audit letters, which bore the forged signature of the developer's auditor, but which were printed on purported stationary of the developer's auditing firm. Dreier did not tell representatives from the hedge funds that the notes were bogus, that the "audited financial statements" and audit opinion letters were fabricated, or that the developer had never issued the notes or authorized Dreier to market them, despite Dreier's knowledge of these matters. As alleged in the complaint, Dreier has admitted that:

The notes were fictitious.
The notes had never been issued by the developer.
The developer had never authorized him to market the notes.
He had fabricated documents evidencing that the notes had been issued by the developer to the original holder even though the original holder may never have purchased any notes issued by the developer. In that connection, he or his confederates forged the signature of the developer's CEO.
The developer's financial statements and the audit reports were fabrications.
He knew that the phony financial statements and audit reports had been distributed to the hedge funds without disclosure that they were false.

The Commission seeks emergency and preliminary relief, including the asset freeze, appointment of a receiver and temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, as well as a final judgment permanently enjoining Dreier from committing future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, ordering him to pay civil penalties and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and provide an accounting.

According to the complaint, Dreier is 58 years old and resides in Manhattan, and is a former partner at two prestigious law firms and a graduate of Harvard Law School and Yale College. In addition to its offices in Manhattan, the complaint alleges that Dreier LLP has offices in Manhattan, Los Angeles, California, Stamford, Connecticut, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, among other places. The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.

SEC Complaint in this matter http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2008/comp20823.pdf

=========================================\

Dreier Stole $380 Million, Feds Say; Bail Denied due to 'Enormous' Flight Risk

Mark Hamblett
New York Law Journal
December 12, 2008

Printer-friendly Email this Article Reprints & Permissions

A prosecutor Thursday more than tripled, to $380 million, the sum the government says attorney Marc Dreier has stolen from hedge funds and investors.

The prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Streeter, also told a federal magistrate judge that Dreier's frauds, initially reported as occurring since October and amounting to $113 million, stretched back at least to January 2006.

Arguing successfully that Dreier should be held without bail while a full accounting of his assets is pursued by a court-appointed receiver, Streeter called Dreier the "Houdini of impersonation and false documents."

"Mr. Dreier is in a desperate situation and the only way out of this desperate situation is for him to flee," Streeter argued Thursday before Southern District Magistrate Judge Douglas Eaton. "He faces almost certain conviction given the mountain of evidence that is growing every day."

Dreier, a commercial litigator who founded Dreier LLP, was arrested at LaGuardia Airport Sunday night on a bare-bones complaint charging one count each of securities and wire fraud for trying to sell, and selling, to three hedge funds fictitious notes he claimed had been issued by a real estate company. Along the way, he allegedly hijacked the identity of both Solow Realty and an accounting firm to make the sales.

Based on what Streeter said Thursday in court, Dreier could face additional charges.

"He has been fooling some of the most sophisticated investors in the world," Streeter said.

Defense Attorney Gerald L. Shargel came close to persuading Magistrate Judge Eaton to allow Dreier his freedom while the charges are pending. Dreier -- unshaven, looking tired and wearing a prison-issued blue jumpsuit -- watched the proceedings carefully, leaning in to speak to Shargel on two occasions to advise his lawyer to add a point to his argument.

Shargel proposed little in the way of financial guarantees that would ensure his client would return to court, instead offering to have Dreier remain under house arrest at his home in Quogue, Suffolk County, monitored by a GPS and watched round the clock by armed guards.

But Streeter said there was no reason to believe that someone who kept a box of cell phones in his office to compartmentalize his deception could be trusted to stay in the country.

Dreier had traveled extensively in the last year, including to Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Spain, St. Martins and Turkey, and had contacts abroad where money might be hidden, Streeter said.

"He is a person of exceptional ingenuity and exceptional resourcefulness" who has the ability to escape the United States and "get to that pile of money that he must have somewhere," Streeter said.

Shargel made his bail argument, in part, on the strength of Dreier's decision to return to the United States from Canada, where he was arrested on a charge of impersonation -- a charge Streeter said was leveled because Dreier had gone to Canada to commit another fraud.

Shargel said he flew to Canada last week to meet with his client. Dreier had been released on $100,000 Canadian bond. Edward Greenspan, "one of the best lawyers," Shargel said, had assured Dreier that he could stay and "fight extradition and he could get bail and it would be two years to get back to the United States."

"And Mr. Dreier refused that option," Shargel said.

Shargel said he called the Southern District U.S. Attorney's Office from Canada and spoke to Guy Petrillo, head of the criminal division, who could not comment on the investigation but confirmed the names of the prosecutors working on the case. Shargel said he knew what was awaiting Dreier upon his return to New York, but his client made the trip anyway.

Shargel also told the court Dreier took two trips out of the country in the fall -- one when he knew his victims were going to the authorities and a second when "he knew he would be arrested" -- yet returned both times.

'ENORMOUS RISK OF FLIGHT'

Shargel also cited United States v. Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63 (2007), where the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, citing "extraordinary" physical restrictions imposed on a Long Island couple accused of enslaving two Indonesian girls, ordered that the couple be released pending trial.

But Streeter said the Sabhnani case did not "involve the kind of extraordinary, elaborate deception that this crime involved."

Magistrate Judge Eaton noted key distinctions between the two cases in issuing his ruling. In Sabhnani, he said, the couple had answered an "exhaustive list" of questions posed by prosecutors about their finances and the bonds were fully secured by $4.5 million.

He said he would not rule out the possibility of revisiting the bail issue once several unresolved questions about Dreier's finances are answered by a court-appointed receiver, Mark Pomerantz, particularly whether or not Dreier has money stashed abroad.

The magistrate judge was ultimately persuaded that the "government's evidence does appear to show an enormous risk of flight."

Shargel protested his client's incarceration at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, where, ostensibly because of a shortage of beds, he said Dreier is being held in solitary confinement, where he has been permitted only one shower since his arrest, and no phone calls or visitors, not even a book.

"You can lose your mind in there in three weeks," Shargel said.

"It's just inhuman for him to be in a facility for people who have committed some infraction," he said. "It's a constitutional violation."

Eaton said he would do what he could to get Dreier moved to a less restrictive environment pretrial.

And Streeter said he would do what he could to make it easier for Dreier to assist the receiver.

After the hearing, Shargel said his options were to press the bail issue de novo before a district court judge or "pick up on what Magistrate Judge Eaton said and supply a fuller financial picture" -- something he assured the court his client is committed to doing.

Shargel also argued that a different form of incarceration for his client would also make it easier for Pomerantz to do his job.

Pomerantz, of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, has been meeting with Dreier LLP partners in an effort to get a handle on the firm's assets even as lawyers are leaving and taking clients, and their accounts receivable, with them.

Vincent Pitta of the 13-lawyer Pitta & Dreier, one of 10 entities in which Dreier was the sole equity partner, said Thursday the firm is in "dire financial straights."

"All the related Dreier LLP bank accounts have been frozen," Pitta said. "We are working with the receiver to try and arrange health care coverage and to make sure there is attorney malpractice insurance and Workers' Compensation coverage.

"We're trying to keep calm, which is almost impossible, and trying to get people opportunities to interview with other law firms," he said. "We're having a job fair on Monday."

In addition to the criminal account, Dreier faces civil actions filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission and Wachovia Bank.

=============================================\

Lawyer Seen as Bold Enough to Cheat the Best of Investors New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/nyregion/14lawyer.html

By ALISON LEIGH COWAN, CHARLES V. BAGLI and WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM

Authorities say that Marc S. Dreier, one of New York’s most accomplished lawyers, brazenly swindled the city’s savviest investors, in a fraud estimated at $380 million.
December 14, 2008
MORE ON MARC S. DREIER AND: FRAUDS AND SWINDLING, DREIER, MARC S

Lawyer Charged With Huge Fraud Is Denied Bail
By WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM At a hearing on Thursday, the government said that the amount Marc S. Dreier is accused of stealing had hit $380 million. December 12, 2008 MORE ON MARC S. DREIER AND: BAIL, FRAUDS AND SWINDLING,

SECURITIES AND COMMODITIES VIOLATIONS,DREIER, MARC S

Lawyer Is Accused in Massive Hedge Fund Fraud By WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM and ALISON LEIGH COWAN Marc S. Dreier, a prominent New York lawyer, is said to have brazenly duped hedge funds out of $100 million.
December 9, 2008
MORE ON MARC S. DREIER AND: HEDGE FUNDS, LEGAL PROFESSION, FRAUDS AND SWINDLING, SECURITIES AND COMMODITIES VIOLATIONS,CANADA, NEW YORK CITY,SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, POLICE DEPARTMENT

REPLY TO CONG. PETER DEFAZIO LETTER ON AUTOMAKER BAILOUT

jimmiller5417 — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 18:06:28 CST

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000168 EndHTML:0000030180 StartFragment:0000000520 EndFragment:0000030163

Cong. Peter DeFazio Washington, DC Office
2134 Rayburn H.O.B.
Washington DC, 20515
Phone: (202) 225-6416

Dear Congressman DeFazio
My comments are in blue.
Thanks for the reply. I value your time and talent. We have much in agreement, but the methods proposed to be used are the wrong methods for the wrong reasons. There is hope for restructuring Chrysler and GM with careful oversight of federal help. For the reasons given, HR 7321 is not the solution.

Dear Mr. Miller:

Thanks for your message in opposition to the auto industry bailout. The costs and failures of the Wall Street bailout, which I adamantly opposed, are becoming more apparent. The much touted restrictions of corporate pay have proven to be totally ineffective. You and other members of the American taxpaying public are totally justified in expressing anger with the failures of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout and the Bush Administration's commitment to spend $1.4 trillion to save Wall Street financial institutions. HUD should be empowered to buy mortgages in default and pay, not to exceed the then fair market value of the property or the principal balance on the loan, which ever is lesser. Then HUD resets the terms of the mortgage so the borrower can make payments. The term should be five years and the monthly payments should not exceed one percent of the principal amount of the mortgage, with a balloon at the end of the term. HUD can also sell the repackaged mortgage to private parties or financial institutions. HUD would contract with Amazon to handle the sales over the Internet. Google would list all of the properties for sale with a URL to a data bank containing the appraisal report and the promissory note which spells out the exact terms. The prospective buyer could run a credit report.

I have consistently asked several important questions when evaluating proposed bailouts and other initiatives to stabilize or improve the economy.

1. Does the proposal protect the interests of the taxpayer by minimizing the cost and maximizing the benefits to the taxpayer? NO

2. Is it absolutely necessary for the government to intervene? YES Are there more effective alternatives or alternatives with lower costs? YES

3. Will the proposal mitigate further damage to the economy, stimulate the economy, and protect the middle class from the recession? NO

Applying these questions to the $700 billion Wall Street bailout led me to vote twice against this boondoggle. Despite the sheer size of the bailout, the law failed to include adequate taxpayer protections. The Wall Street executives who created the financial mess kept their excessive salaries, bonuses, and golden parachutes and continued to spend lavishly on themselves. Finally, there were many alternative solutions that cost significantly less and were more likely to restore liquidity in the financial markets. Liquidity is the availability of money for lending. If businesses and consumers cannot borrow, much of our commercial system is in jeopardy. Correct. Since the banks are refusing to loan, who is going to buy the new cars F-GM-C will be making? Since the banks are refusing to loan and businesses shut down for lack of liquidity, fewer persons will buy new cars, especially in view of the prospects of deepening crisis. Keeping all three automakers going so they can continue to build the internal combustion powered cars, makes no economic sense and less political sense.

In hindsight, there is no question that the Wall Street bailout achieved little for our economy besides a massive shift of taxpayer funds to the financial industry. In return, the taxpayer received a weakening economy, a record loss of jobs, and no relief to the housing slump. Correct.

The original proposal from the auto industry also failed to satisfactorily answer these questions. Earlier this fall, the auto industry first sought a $25 billion no-strings-attached bailout. When the auto executives breezed into Washington DC on their corporate jets, Congress declined to even vote on their proposal and demanded the companies submit vastly improved plans. When the requested amount rose to $34 billion I became doubly skeptical. The auto company mismanagement drove the industry into the ground and they continued to seek a bailout without changing their failed business model. These demands show the true colors of F-GM-C management – plunder the taxpayers while they have the chance.

H.R. 7321, the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act, passed by the House of Representatives on December 10th was hammered out in tough negotiations between the Congress and the White House. It actually represents a tremendous improvement. I applied the same principles that led me to oppose the original bailout, and found the bill to meet those principles. I disagree.

1. Does the proposal protect the interests of the taxpayer by minimizing the cost and maximizing the benefits to the taxpayer?

H.R. 7321 gives a bridge loan to auto companies not to exceed $14 billion, or about 2% of the Wall Street bailout. That is less than half the cost of their earlier request. I expect the real economy will benefit far more from this 2% investment than it did from the Wall Street bailout. To ensure the companies restructure to achieve viability, international competitiveness, fuel efficiency, and reduced emissions, the government can require immediate repayment of the loan if the company has not made adequate progress to develop a long-term restructuring plan. These criteria are too little, too late. The money allows F-GM-C to continue making cares using the internal combustion engine as the principal motive power. That is why GM and Chrysler should be allowed to fail. Both had reasonably good hybrids on the road. GM made 800 EVA's, leased them out, refused to sell them to the happy drivers, recalled them, crushed them and shredded them. Read my earlier paper which documents this atrocity. GM still has the engineering and tooling for the EVA. Force GM to drop 15 models of cars with IC engines and make the EVA's. See the articles at: http://chyslerelectricautocompany.wetpaint.com/

The automakers would be required by March 31 to cut costs, restructure debt and obtain concessions from labor sufficient to report a positive net present value. You know what will happen. F-GM-C will fail to hit the target and come begging for extensions which will be granted for the same reasons Congress is granting the loans. As to Chrysler, the proposed solution of turning it immediately into a manufacturer of electric cars as described in my Part II article, should be mandated. See: http://chyslerelectricautocompany.wetpaint.com/page/STOP +THE+GM-CHYSLER+ECONOMIC+RAPE+OF+AMERICA+-+PART+II

The electric cars of F-GM-C were killed because the dealers depend heavily on the revenue from tuning and repairing the IC engines. Electric cars require little maintenance. That is why the auto makers are killing their electric cars and making the new ones very costly and also dependent on the IC engine. They are addicted to the IC engine which makes us addicted to fossil fuel. Change to all electric power and we greatly reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Change to fuel from plants, and we reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Furthermore, the bill requires strong independent oversight by the Government Accountability Office and the Special Inspector General overseeing the Wall Street bailout. The government will also get warrants for stock to allow taxpayers to profit from the companies' recovery. More smoke and mirrors. Until management is totally changed, the companies will continue on the same failed course of action and the warrants will never have any value. Finally, if the restructuring fails and an auto company goes into bankruptcy, the taxpayer's interest is protected because it is first in line for debt repayment. Actually not. The Trustee and the attorney for the trustee are the first who will reap a huge reward for doing little except to stall the proceedings, make it more expensive and defeat the purpose of the Chapter 11. Then the workers take the next bite, based on their excessive pay and benefits. There is a better way. By negotiations, have GM and Chrysler make an GENERAL ASSIGNMENT FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS, and appoint a receiver for each company (GM and Chrysler), who answer to the General Accounting Office, both of which are supervised by the GAO plus a three member panel of arbitrators who can render quick decisions on controversies.

2. Is it absolutely necessary for the government to intervene? Are there more effective alternatives or alternatives with lower costs?

Many critics of the auto industry have argued that the companies should be allowed to go into bankruptcy as a lower cost alternative. If true, that would be an option I'd favor. Bankruptcy is the last alternative, since it can abrogate union contracts. Unfortunately, bankruptcy will actually cost taxpayers more money and will probably force the companies to sell off all their assets rather than reorganize and stay open. F-GM-C need to sell off the engineering and tooling for the IC engine for cars and trucks which are the exclusive power for cars and trucks. The rest of the tooling for the car bodies can be salvaged to make all electric plug-in for short trips and plug-in hybrids for longer trips. I cover this topic in http://chyslerelectricautocompany.wetpaint.com/page/STOP+THE+GM-CHYSLER+ECONOMIC+RAPE+OF+AMERICA+-+PART+II

Under current law, people who lost their job from a bankruptcy are eligible for unemployment benefits and their pensions are guaranteed by the federal government albeit with greatly reduced benefits. If the job losses are significant, the unemployment insurance fund could require additional funds. That would be far cheaper than seeing 14 billion go to waste. The government just announced that the number of Americans filing for unemployment benefits for the week ending Dec. 6 was 570,000, the highest in 26 years. Furthermore, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) fund is already operating in a deficit and would require up to $30 billion in taxpayers subsidies to cover the losses of autoworker pensions. The cause of the meltdown is because Bush et al., is implementing the crisis in advance of the the establishment of the New World Order by the hegemony of the Travistock Institute and the Skull and Bones Society alumni. See: http://masallp.wetpaint.com/page/TRAVISTOCK+INSTITUTE .

Also watch these video clips:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZsY5XbLinw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PpMdTmVMpo&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvWF5FlBsqs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evTi_C4hHqw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHpg77sMNz8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9P15YZrnv0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCWJrtMm8Q8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bQDedDevxQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCnnqQive0g&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UQ5CHifqMs&feature=related

The on-going liquidity crisis that the Wall Street bailout failed to correct prevents the Big Three from reorganizing in bankruptcy proceedings. The auto companies will not be able to borrow any money to continue operations, as a company would normally do under bankruptcy protections. The U.S. lost over a half million jobs in November. Now is not the time to lose millions more. The bailout of the financial institutions is part of the game plan of the New World Order, now being implemented by Bush et al. See attached articles GOAL OF THE GLOBALISTS AND OUR PLAN and THE PRIVATIZATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

The auto industry is one of the last remaining sectors of the U.S. industrial manufacturing base that led to the growth of the middle class in the post-World War II era. The U.S. has steadily lost much of its manufacturing base to China and other developing nations and the blue collar middle class has suffered as a result. Since 2001, Oregon has lost almost 36,600 jobs to the growing trade deficit with China, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Liquidating the auto companies will simply mean the factory equipment will be packed up and sent to China, and we will soon be limited to buying cars from Japan, Germany, Korea or China. This will further undermine our manufacturing capacity and worsening our already massive trade deficit. F-GM-C need to sell off the engineering and tooling for the IC engine for cars and trucks which are the exclusive power for cars and trucks. The rest of the tooling for the car bodies can be salvaged to make all electric plug-in for short trips and plug-in hybrids for longer trips.

3. Will the proposal mitigate further damage to the economy, stimulate the economy, and protect the middle class from the recession.

I have long supported job creation for the middle class. According to the Economic Policy Institute(EPI), the short term bridge loan will protect up to 3.3 million jobs that are critical to our economy. EPI estimated 37,000 of those jobs would be lost in Oregon. There are plenty of jobs which can be created to prime the pump. See attached: INSTANT JOBS – save energy and our economy One of the key improvements found in H.R. 7321 is the requirement that automakers begin producing cars that people actually want to buy. The bill sets aside $500 million to help the industry retool and build advanced technology vehicles that greatly improve efficiency and reduce carbon emissions. In addition, the government can recall the loans if a car company fails to meet the efficiency standards approved in 2007 and soon to be phased in. No Federal money should be spent on IC engines except for plug-in hybrids and then only small gensets.

Another important improvement to H.R. 7321 is the strict ban on corporate excesses. The legislation blocks golden parachutes, bonuses for the 25 most highly paid employees at each company, and requires each company to sell its corporate aircraft. I am adamantly opposed to the auto company executives benefiting from this bridge loan and many of them should lose their jobs for running these companies into the ground. The bill also bans dividend payments to shareholders over the life of the loans. Agreed.

Finally, the bill gives the government the ability to block all transactions over $100 million. This ensures that the government can stop any overseas investment or any attempt to ship jobs overseas. Is 100 million “pocket change”?

In the end, I believe that the taxpayer, American workers, and our economy are best served by supporting the bridge loan. The domestic auto industry must significantly restructure its business model and fundamentally shift its long-term thinking about automotive transportation. The U.S. can't continue to lose its manufacturing base. We need to get back to building useful products to stimulate our economy. But these products need to be something Americans will actually buy. You might be interested in my efforts to research and form Central Peoples Power, a locavore public utility which will produce, transmit and sell locally derived green energy. See: http://centralpud.wetpaint.com/page/PROPOSED+CPP+PLAN

On December 11th, the Senate failed to pass H.R. 7321. Following that vote, the Bush Administration belatedly agreed to consider using some of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout funds to offer domestic automakers a bridge loan. The Administration's initial refusal to consider using the Wall Street bailout funds was astounding. They refused to shift a mere 2% of the Wall Street funds away from the failed bailout and to auto companies to protect 3.3 million jobs. The Republican/New World Order's game plan is to put debt on the Federal government in favor of private companies – a form of privatization of Federal assets. See attached: DISASTER LOOMS

By the way, if the Democrats are serious about winning more seats in Congress, then a panel of experts ought to be employed by a Democrat organization to document and prove beyond any doubt that the New World Order is moving hard and fast toward control of all productive assets and the major governments of the developed world. They are the real enemy—financial terrorists. Don't be surprised that the Clinton's are part of the New World Order. How else did Hillary invest $5000 in cattle futures and during the year, got profits of $950,000 when the best traders in that market made a 4% return?

Thank you for sharing your concerns about the auto bailout. I regret that we disagree on this issue, but hope you will continue to share your views with me when we agree and when we disagree. Your views are important to me. Please keep in touch. Better yet, please read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein and Sin Patron by Lavaca.org. These books document the attempt to install the New World Order in Latin America using Friedmanist theories.

Sincerely,

Rep. Peter DeFazio
Fourth District, OREGON

******Please do not respond directly to this email*****

Please submit further correspondence from http://www.house.gov/writerep

REORGANIZE GM

jimmiller5417 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:44:05 CST

Car Companies, Who's to Blame?
By Jack Schult\z*

Imagine that you had a company that sold the same products all over the world with the same management, labor and dealer network. What if your international operations were making $1.5 billion/year but your USA operations were losing over twice that at $3.3 billion? And, your international competitors were growing sales, making money and continuing to build new plants in the USA, even as you were shuttering plants and firing employees? You wouldn't be able to blame the government for fuel or safety standards since those same competitors have to abide by the same rules that you do. Nor could you look to market share, as your domestic business has a very healthy 22% share compared to only 7% to 17% in your major international markets. Wouldn't you want to try to find the one major factor that differentiates you from your very successful competitors? Wouldn't you want to change it, if you did find it?

The company that I'm talking about here is, of course, General Motors (GM), although I could have done the same research (and probably found very similar results) for either Ford or Chrysler. I think that I've found that one factor and hence this week's Agurban is on the subject.

I first delved into the productivity of GM, trying to compare how it builds cars compared to the foreign companies like Toyota, which I will use as the benchmark since it is the largest foreign car maker. We also could have used Nissan, Honda, BMW, Hyundai and other competitors which have very similar productivity to Toyota.

In 2006, it took GM 32.4 hours to build a car compared to Toyota's 31.2 hours. Not a huge difference there. GM pays its workers on the line an average of $28/hour compared to Toyota's $24/hour, again not a huge difference.

Where GM gets clobbered is their costs over and above what they pay their workers on the line, the money that goes to the United Auto Workers (UAW), and is referred to by GM often as "legacy" costs. Every hour on the line costs GM a total of $74/hour (compared to the $28/hour it pays its workers), whereas it only costs Toyota $45/hour (compared to $24/hour). These additional costs include such items as a UAW job bank that pays workers almost their full wage even though they haven't actually worked in years, union stewards who haven't built a car in years, full health benefits for life and other costs that continue to escalate upward. The problem isn't the workers but the union and their bosses, which got so many concessions from GM that the company's nickname for years in Detroit was "Generous Motors."

Today, GM is behind the eight-ball by letting these costs run out of control, putting it at a competitive disadvantage of several thousand dollars for each car that it builds when compared to its competitors. These "legacy" costs are a burden that in a competitive environment are impossible to overcome. GM's only alternative with the situation it currently finds itself, is to go through a pre-arranged bankruptcy, which would allow it to shed some of these oppressive "legacy" costs.

They could have gone down a different path, following the example of another American icon that did just that, an icon that is today worth 9 TIMES more than GM ($23.1 billion to $2.5 billion) with a fraction of its sales volume. The executive who led these efforts is one of my business heroes and I wish he were better known for what he did to not only save his company, but to set it on the path to success that continues today.

Don Fites was born on a 90 acre sharecropper farm near Bourbon, Indiana. After college he landed a job with Caterpillar (CAT) in their marketing department. In his 40+ years at CAT he moved around the world, to places like South Africa (where he met his wife), Brazil, Europe and Japan. It was in Japan, working on the manufacturing floor, studying the Japanese manufacturing philosophy which resulted in increased productivity that really shaped his vision of what CAT could become.

In 1990, Fites was elected CEO of CAT, a company that was floundering financially. In his first full year in control, the company lost $404 million and another $218 million the following year. Fites quickly turned the company from a function-focused, centralized bureaucratic monolith into fourteen autonomous profit centers. And, when the UAW came to him with their new 1991 contract with John Deere, asking that he accept it as CAT CEOs had done in the past as part of the UAW's "pattern bargaining" agreements, Fites politely told them that his competition wasn't just Deere but numerous other international companies.

Fites, who was facing a 25% cost disadvantage in hourly labor rates to companies like Komatsu, didn't accept the UAW's contract and the union struck. For the next seven years, CAT had to contend with one strike stoppage after another, but Fites stood strong and eventually the UAW settled on his terms.

Today, CAT is four times the size of what it was when Fites took over the struggling company and its 100,000+ employees can thank their good fortune to a principled, focused Don Fites who rescued and refocused his company for the future.

What if the Big Three Auto makers had made the same decisions that Fites made in the early 1990s? The easier path they traveled down was to acquiesce to the demands of the UAW. Today, GM is asking for an $18 billion bailout, an incredible sum when looked at in the context of the $2.5 billion they are worth. Congress would be much better served to let them reorganize and refocus themselves in bankruptcy, shedding many costs and refocusing the company back into a profitable one.

Perhaps, even more incredible, is that Congress is giving serious consideration to compounding the problems that the UAW has wrought upon the Big Three, by passing The Employee Free Choice Act, which would facilitate union organizing by eliminating the secret ballot. Rather than trying to learn from the foreign auto companies that are successfully operating in states like TN, SC, AL, MS and others, this Anti-Secret Ballot Act would probably burden them with the problems that pushed the UAW led Big Three to the verge of extinction. Shouldn't Congress be trying to help elevate the Big Three up to the level of the foreign competition, rather than trying to bring the successful foreign companies down to the verge of bankruptcy like the Big Three?

The manufacturing companies that we work with at Agracel are terrified by this major change in labor law and several have told me privately that they will simply close their doors rather than be subjected to having their employees intimidated by card check drives and losing their right to a secret ballot election. One told me, "It's as bad as what went on in the old Soviet Union."

For the sake of all workers in this country, I hope that Congress makes good decisions that don't hurt our long term competitiveness in the world economy.

Jack Schultz is the CEO of Boomtown Institute and Agracel Inc., an industrial development firm majoring in rural America, author of Boomtown USA, and speaker. Boomtown Institute serves as an economic development mentor to communities across the United States, leading communities to realize their full potential.

Visit the Boomtown Institute website at www.boomtowninstitute.com
Keep up with Jack as he tours the country on his blog!
Read past Agurbans at Agurban Archives.
To learn more about Agracel visit www.agracel.com.

WHITEWASH OF BLACK COAL

jimmiller5417 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:29:42 CST

Mr. DeFazio:

Please vote against all Federal funding of “Clean Coal” and support funding of syngas and biochar from biomass. See: http://algaloildiesel.wetpaint.com/page/SYNGAS+AND+BIOCHAR .

The exchange of email below demonstrates the that NETL is the captive research agency of the coal industry. The burden of proof of “clean coal” is on the coal industry, not the U.S. Taxpayers. Let the coal industry pay for R & D on clean coal. Please note that the NETL argument about “abundance” of coal is a fraud. By growing biomass; selective harvest of forest slash, dead trees and non-commercial trees; recycled municipal waste, agricultural waste, and growing algae, we will have a tremendous “abundance” of biomass. Extracting coal involves horrendous environmental damage while sourcing biomass does not.

From: Cynthia Powell Cynthia.Powell@NETL.DOE.GOV
To: "Jim Miller" jimmiller5417@yahoo.com

Date: Monday, December 8, 2008, 1:57 PM

Thanks Jim for the clarification on the acronym. In answer to your question regarding a "built in bias to favor coal companies," the NETL is a federal research laboratory, with a mission to advance the necessary science and technology to ensure a clean and secure energy future for our Nation. Yes, we focus a lot of our R&D efforts on coal, because of its relative abundance in the US, and the near-term opportunity it offers to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign energy sources. We are also looking at coal and biomass/coal blends for the production of syngas for a variety of energy products (electricity, hydrogen, liquid fuels, etc). I am not aware of research at NETL that focuses exclusively on biomass to produce syngas, but this is somewhat outside my area of expertise in materials engineering. For a more complete answer to your specific question regarding CHP and biomass, I will refer you to Dr. Geo Richards, who leads our R&D efforts in Energy System Dynamics. His phone number in Morgantown, WV, is 304-285-4458. I have also cc'd him on this email so that you will have his address.
Best regards,
Cindy.

Cindy Powell
U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory
ALBANY, OR
1450 Queen Avenue SW
Albany, OR 97321-2198
541-967-5892
cynthia.powell@netl.doe.gov

Ms. Powell

Clean coal is a myth. See: http://www.thisisreality.org/#/?p=canary
Why should the U.S. taxpayers do research which the coal companies should undertake? The burden is proof is on the coal industry and not on the U.S. taxpayers. Why not switch from "clean (not) coal" to clean biomass which will give us green fuel as well as biochar, the "black gold" of agriculture?
See: Isolating Unique Bacteria from Terra Preta Systems: Culturing and Molecular Tools for Characterizing Microbial Life

http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/oneillbac

Best regards, Jim Miller
--------------------------------\
INFINITY TURBINES CO GEN
Youtube video clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFBnGCm5QKs&eurl=http://www.worldofcogeneration.com/

Mr. Greg Giese
Energy and Infinity Turbine LLC
P.O. Box 5617
Madison, WI 53705 USA
TEL: (608) 238-6001
FAX (240) 525-2445
http://infinityturbine.com/ORC/Waste_Heat_Turbine.html
greg@infinityturbine.com

These CHP units require external heat which can come from a heat exchanger on the stack of a biomass syngas generator, or from burning the syngas in a boiler. Producer syngas from biomass can be further process into separate streams of gases and liquids, using the the ligher gases as fuel to heat the fluid in the Rankine Cycle generator. Organic Rankine Cycle Main article: Organic Rankine Cycle The organic Rankine cycle (ORC) uses an organic fluid such as pentane[2] or butane[3] in place of water and steam.

This allows use of lower-temperature heat sources, such as solar ponds, which typically operate at around 70–90 °C[4]. The efficiency of the cycle is much lower as a result of the lower temperature range, but this can be worthwhile because of the lower cost involved in gathering heat at this lower temperature. Alternatively, fluids can be used that have boiling points above water, and this may have thermodynamic benefits. The Rankine cycle does not restrict the working fluid in its definition, so the inclusion of an "organic" cycle is simply a marketing concept that should not be regarded as a separate thermodynamic cycle.

------------------------------------

See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankine_cycle

The article I read, [NETL120308.pdf (23KB)] mentioned gasification of coal which is being pushed by the coal companies and involves extreme environmental damage, while syngas from ag waste does not. So, does NETL have a built in bias in favor of the coal companies, or is it open to studies of syngas from biomass?

League for a Democratic Republic - Recently Updated Pages

ARTICLES

Lee Altenberg

Lee Altenberg

The LRES/SCSHTLTEBSTPDRSCHP-GHG+COWFLOP System

THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER REQUIRES US TO SAVE THE NATION (and ourselves)

Our audacity of creating a new political party

with aspirations of becoming

the number one party in the

nation, is our hallmark.

This website is for your use. Add comments, add pages, edit copy you think is bad, stupid, irrelevant or simply wrong. Add a thread or branch an existing one. Use hyper-links liberally with just a one or two sentence introduction of the target text. Add photos, video clips or audio clips.

We will, over the course of time and with some luck and pluck, put video conferencing tools at your disposal so we can discourse in real time and in delayed time, any subject of your choosing and provide you with the meeting announcement and invitation tools.

Please tell your friends about this site and encourage them to become active players in the next "Party of the First Part". We need our cousin parties to quietly walk off-stage into the sunset and let us get on with the salvation of Planet Earth.

Jim Miller

October 1, 2008

Final Planks

Chapters of LDR

Voting on Planks

Letters to the Editor

Donate to LDR

Final Vote on Planks

Ways to help

Web Tool Kit

Useful Links

Forum/Blogs

Task Groups

Candidates on the Left

LDR Candidates

Candidates on the Right

Contact Us

VIDEO CLIPS

SPIN DOCTORS PLATFORMS AND AGENDAS

CREATING A NEW APPALACIA

TARP THIEVERY

Obama Stands Nuremberg on Its Head

LOSS OF OUR MORAL COMPASS

CROSS YOUR FINGERS AND CARRY ON

DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN MONRAGON

END OF POWER AND REDUCE SCALE

culturequake

BEYOND CAPITALISM: LELAND STANFORD'S FORGOTTEN VISION

by Lee Altenberg

Published inSandstone and Tile, Vol. 14 (1): 8-20,Winter 1990, Stanford Historical Society, Stanford, California.[Cover art][PDF][Original PDF]

STANFORD’S VISION OF COOPERATIVES

WOMEN’S RIGHTS

IN THE SENATE

ON THE FARM

DEFEAT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

NOTES

REFERENCES

LIVING IN A BUBBLE

HOT BUTTON ISSUES

THE REALLY, REALLY BIG RIP-OFF

SHOULD THE U.S. TREASURY PROVIDE BAIL-OUT MONEY OR BAIL MONEY?

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

REPLY TO CONG. PETER DEFAZIO LETTER ON AUTOMAKER BAILOUT

REORGANIZE GM

WHITEWASH OF BLACK COAL

Published inSandstone and Tile, Vol. 14 (1): 8-20,
Winter 1990, Stanford Historical Society, Stanford, California.
[Cover art][PDF][Original PDF]