<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<i><font size="+1"><b>August 23, 2020</b></font></i><br>
<br>
[10 to 15% contained]<br>
<b>'The Worst Is Not Behind Us': California Wildfires Continue To
Burn</b><b><br>
</b>August 22, 20205<br>
MATTHEW S. SCHWARTZ<br>
Hundreds of buildings have been destroyed, close to a million acres
of land have been scorched and at least six people have died in one
of the worst series of wildfires in California's history.<br>
<br>
More than 13,700 firefighters are battling nearly two dozen major
fires throughout the state, fire officials said Saturday. Five broad
areas of the state are on fire, and the largest blazes remain mostly
uncontained.<br>
<br>
"The worst is not behind us," tweeted Thom Porter, chief of Cal
Fire, the state's firefighting agency. "We are in a battle rhythm.
New lightning activity is expected across the state. Double your
efforts, to lookout for yourselves and each other."<br>
<br>
The fires were sparked by nearly 12,000 lightning strikes in a dry
California terrain that hasn't seen much rain. The "lightning siege"
created close to 600 new wildfires, said Jeremy Rahn, a public
information officer for Cal Fire, at a briefing Saturday...<br>
- - <br>
Two of the fire systems now raging are among the five largest
wildfires in California history, Cal Fire reports. More than 100,000
people face evacuation orders as fires have ravaged over 900,000
acres -- an area larger than Rhode Island.<br>
<br>
"We understand that many people are stressed and anxious," Sonoma
County Sheriff Mark Essick said. "We ask that you please rely on
each other. Help each other. Check on your neighbors. Stay calm."<br>
<br>
Most of the deaths throughout the state have come from a set of
fires known as the L.N.U. Lightning Complex, covering an area of
314,000 acres around Napa Valley. It's the second-largest fire in
the state's history. These fires have killed four people and
destroyed more than 560 structures, state officials said. As of
Saturday afternoon, the blaze was only 15% controlled.<br>
<br>
Moving south, approximately 20 different fires merged into three
major fires that now comprise the S.C.U. Lightning Complex, which is
around Santa Clara and Alameda counties. This series of fires has
burned over 291,000 acres, and as of Saturday morning had destroyed
10 structures -- though more than 20,000 structures were at risk,
according to Cal Fire. It's the third largest wildfire in the
state's history.<br>
<br>
The fires burned actively through the night, and officials expect
fire activity to increase later today as smoke clears the area.<br>
<br>
"The protection of sensitive wildlife and critical power and
communication infrastructure remains a top priority," Cal Fire said
in a statement. The agency said these fires were approximately 10%
contained.<br>
<br>
Fires also rage in Northern California. The C.Z.U. Lightning Complex
fire, concentrated in San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties, has so far
consumed over 63,000 acres, Cal Fire reports. As of Saturday morning
only 5% of the fire was contained. Smoke from the fires is limiting
visibility and hampering aircraft operations, officials said.
Approximately 77,000 people in the area have been evacuated.<br>
<br>
More lightning is expected over the next few days, which could spark
more wildfires.<br>
<br>
"Incoming weather is concerning to us," said Cal Fire's Ian Larkin,
unit chief for San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties, the San Francisco
Chronicle reported.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.npr.org/2020/08/22/905099950/the-worst-is-not-behind-us-california-continues-to-burn">https://www.npr.org/2020/08/22/905099950/the-worst-is-not-behind-us-california-continues-to-burn</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[USA Today opinion]<br>
<b>Wildfires, blackouts, anger: California shows us the future of
climate change</b><br>
The damage we've done through greenhouse gas emissions is not
something we can turn off. It's done. We can only act so it doesn't
get worse than this.<br>
David Callaway<br>
- - <br>
Climate scientists point to the turmoil this year as proof that the
changes aren't just coming, they're here. The damage we've done
through greenhouse gas emissions is not something we can turn off.
It's done. We can only hope to act so that it won't get worse than
this...<br>
- - <br>
<p>Joe Biden's climate plan, highlighted this week during the
Democratic National Convention, is a potpourri of ambitious ideas
designed to appease the progressive wing of the party while not
completely alienating the moderate Republicans. There is no ban on
fracking, nor on fossil fuel subsidies for example. But it is a
plan and something to build on, compared to the alternative of
more denial, drilling, and auto emission rollbacks.<br>
<br>
Climate change: Put a price on carbon pollution, then refund the
money to consumers<br>
<br>
From Wall Street to Silicon Valley, though, there is a rising wave
of money making its way toward sustainable investments -- some $1
trillion in sustainable funds, according to UBS. That money will
be aimed at companies trying to cut their carbon footprints, and
seeking solutions such as electric vehicles and energy efficient
buildings. The idea of doing good and making profit at the same
time is catching like a, uh, wildfire.<br>
<br>
This week marks the second anniversary of Greta Thunberg's Friday
school strikes to promote fighting climate change. She wrote in
The Guardian that most of the world's governments remain "in a
state of denial."<br>
<br>
A California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
firefighter initiates a backburn down the Yuba River Canyon toward
the flames of the Jones Fire, Tuesday morning, Aug. 18, 2020, near
Grass Valley, Calif.<br>
That denial is real. And with it comes apathy, which is probably
more dangerous. The climate debate will be an important part of
the coming election. Even more so afterward, no matter who wins.
The time to solve it has long passed. It's a matter of survival
now. Our new climate reality is here, and it's getting worse.<br>
<br>
David Callaway is a former Editor-in-Chief of USA TODAY and the
founder of Callaway Climate Insights, a newsletter business
dedicated to climate finance.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2020/08/21/california-forest-fires-storm-climate-change-david-callaway-column/3404346001/">https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2020/08/21/california-forest-fires-storm-climate-change-david-callaway-column/3404346001/</a><br>
</p>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
[Politics from the Nation]<br>
<b>When It Comes to Climate Change, It's Joe Biden Versus the DNC</b><br>
The Democratic presidential nominee knows that halting fossil fuel
subsidies is imperative. Why doesn't the DNC?<br>
By Tamara Toles O'LaughlinTwitter<br>
<br>
The Democratic National Convention this week played against the
backdrop of compound crises: Covid-19 and climate change, economic
instability and racial injustice. Our country is dying, literally,
for change, and the current president cannot deliver. So it's up to
the Democratic Party and its nominees, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris,
to tackle this mess--and they're off to a good start.<br>
<br>
Biden's climate plan is the strongest of any presidential nominee in
history. And polls show that 70 percent of the electorate favors
strong federal climate action. So, as a climate activist, I can't
help but wonder: Why on earth is the Democratic National Committee
fighting its own nominee's climate policies?<br>
<br>
Climate change received a number of mentions during the Democratic
convention; an entire segment Wednesday night was dedicated to the
importance of climate action, and Biden also listed the crisis in
his acceptance speech as one of the most urgent issues facing us.
This is a testament to the energy and force of the climate movement.
Yet, earlier in the week, the Democratic National Committee quietly
removed some of the most foundational climate language from the
party's 2020 platform: a commitment to eliminate subsidies to fossil
fuels.<br>
<br>
When confronted by a HuffPost reporter about the removal, a DNC
spokesperson said that including the language in the first place had
been a procedural "error." But John Laesch, a member of the DNC
platform committee, responded that the DNC's claim was "100 percent
false," adding that he gave "no consent" to scrap the language in
question, which, he said, had already been approved.<br>
To its credit, the Biden campaign quickly reaffirmed its commitment
to eliminating fossil fuel subsidies. Yet the DNC has remained
silent. This is unacceptable. The DNC platform is a statement of the
party's vision for the next four years. It must be in alignment with
the stronger vision that Biden and Harris have campaigned on,
including an end to fossil fuel subsidies.<br>
<br>
Now, to be sure, Biden doesn't yet have a clear plan to phase out
fossil fuels. Ending subsidies was itself a significant addition, in
that it signaled a willingness to listen to and work with
communities on the ground--but it's just a first step. Next needs to
come a plan to phase out fossil fuels...<br>
In the lead-up to the convention, we saw many thoughtful proposals
aimed at reshaping the Democratic Party's approach to the climate
crisis. The Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force, established to craft a
common approach on climate (and other issues), led Biden's campaign
to unveil a Clean Energy Plan. Among other things, that plan charts
a path to net-zero emissions in the country's electricity sector by
2035, while earmarking 40 percent of federal climate spending for
communities of color and others that have long suffered
disproportionately from fossil fuel production and climate impacts.
The plan also pledged to end subsidies for fossil fuel production,
an obvious and necessary step in the shift to a fossil-free economy.
After all, why should tax dollars be used to destroy our climate
even further?...<br>
But the Democratic Party platform outlines a different,
significantly weaker vision of climate action. In particular, it
includes no tangible commitment to phasing out fossil fuel
production--a policy that is essential to any credible approach to
curbing the worst impacts of climate change while also addressing
environmental injustice. By evading the need to stop fossil fuel
subsidies and phase out fossil fuel extraction, the DNC leadership
is avoiding the root causes of climate change and environmental
injustice.<br>
<br>
The entire business model of fossil fuel corporations relies on
extraction, pollution, and exploitation, while ignoring the impact
this has on human health and safety. It concentrates harm in many
vulnerable communities and wealth within a small number of
corporations. The worst of those companies invest their dirty
profits in disinformation campaigns to cover their tracks, and seed
partisan fighting about the awful truth of climate change.
Leadership in the Democratic Party must focus on repairing the
damage to communities caused by fossil fuel extraction, storage, and
transportation, rather than obscuring the reality.<br>
<br>
There are ambitious measures included in proposals from Biden's
campaign, the Unity Task Force, and the DNC's own climate and
environment committee. But the DNC adopted next to none of these
proposals in its final platform, and now, adding insult to injury,
it has deleted one of the strong provisions it did adopt.<br>
<br>
It's time for the Democratic Party to unite around the reality that
we must fully transform our energy system to protect people and the
planet. Biden's climate plan leaves a lot to be desired, and come
January, we'll need to push him on it. Right now, the Democratic
Party should have two goals when it comes to climate policy: winning
the election, and then governing to solve the crisis. That crisis
cannot be solved without phasing out the extraction of fossil fuels,
and the essential first step is to stop subsidizing that extraction.
Both Biden and Harris have campaigned on that promise, and we will
hold them to it. The Democratic National Committee needs to get on
the same page, now<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/biden-climate-platform/">https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/biden-climate-platform/</a><br>
Tamara Toles O'LaughlinTWITTERTamara Toles O'Laughlin is the North
America director for 350 Action, the sister organization of the
global climate campaign 350.org.<br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[Gerrymandering is the worst]<br>
YaleNews<br>
<b>Study: Americans prize party loyalty over democratic principles</b><br>
By Mike Cummingsaugust 11, 2020<br>
It is conventional wisdom that Americans cherish democracy -- but a
new study by Yale political scientists reports that only a small
fraction of U.S. voters are willing to sacrifice their partisan and
policy interests to defend democratic principles. <br>
<br>
The study, published in the American Political Science Review, found
that only 3.5% of U.S. voters would cast ballots against their
preferred candidates as punishment for undemocratic behavior, such
as supporting gerrymandering, disenfranchisement, or press
restrictions. <br>
<br>
"Our findings show that U.S. voters, regardless of their party
affiliation, are willing to forgive undemocratic behavior to achieve
their partisan ends and policy goals," said Milan Svolik, professor
of political science in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and
co-author of the study. "We find that polarization raises the stakes
of elections and, in turn, the price of prioritizing democratic
principles over partisan interests. Voters' willingness to sacrifice
democratic principles may not be desirable in terms of protecting
democracy, but it has an intuitive political logic: They are trading
off one political interest against another."...<br>
- -<br>
"Conventional measures don't capture people's willingness to act on
their commitment to democratic values when doing so is politically
costly," Svolik said. "If, as we found, only a small percentage of
voters are willing to punish undemocratic behavior by their favored
candidates in one of the world's oldest democracies, then we
shouldn't be surprised by voters' failure to stop aspiring autocrats
in younger democracies like Turkey, Hungary, or Venezuela." <br>
<br>
Yale's Institution for Social and Policy Studies and MacMillan
Center for Area and International Studies supported the research. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://news.yale.edu/2020/08/11/study-americans-prize-party-loyalty-over-democratic-principles">https://news.yale.edu/2020/08/11/study-americans-prize-party-loyalty-over-democratic-principles</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[This important history is a long read]<br>
</p>
[Digging back into the internet news archive for an important
document]<br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming -
August 23, 1971 </b></font><br>
<p>Attorney and future Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr.
writes a memo to the US Chamber of Commerce urging a greater
special-interest pushback against public-interest groups. The memo
becomes the template for efforts by the fossil-fuel industry to
generate faux-outrage over, and ginned-up opposition to, efforts
to regulate greenhouse gases.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20120129225919/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/The-Lewis-Powell-Memo/">http://web.archive.org/web/20120129225919/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/The-Lewis-Powell-Memo/</a>
<br>
</p>
<p><b>The Lewis Powell Memo - A Corporate Blueprint to Dominate
Democracy</b><br>
Written in 1971 to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Lewis Powell
Memo was a blueprint for corporate domination of American
Democracy.<br>
A typescript PDF copy of the original Powell Memo, with footnotes,
can be downloaded from the Greenpeace Investigations website. For
more, see Greenpeace analyses of how Lewis Powell's suggestions
have impacted the realms of politics, judicial law, communications
and education.<br>
<br>
The full text of the Powell Memo is below:<br>
-----<br>
<br>
<b>CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM</b><b><br>
</b><b>Attack on American Free Enterprise System</b><br>
<br>
DATE: August 23, 1971<br>
TO: Mr. Eugene B. Sydnor, Jr., Chairman, Education Committee, U.S.
Chamber of Commerce<br>
FROM: Lewis F. Powell, Jr.<br>
This memorandum is submitted at your request as a basis for the
discussion on August 24 with Mr. Booth (executive vice president)
and others at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The purpose is to
identify the problem, and suggest possible avenues of action for
further consideration.<br>
<br>
<b>Dimensions of the Attack</b><br>
No thoughtful person can question that the American economic
system is under broad attack. This varies in scope, intensity, in
the techniques employed, and in the level of visibility.<br>
<br>
There always have been some who opposed the American system, and
preferred socialism or some form of statism (communism or
fascism). Also, there always have been critics of the system,
whose criticism has been wholesome and constructive so long as the
objective was to improve rather than to subvert or destroy.<br>
<br>
But what now concerns us is quite new in the history of America.
We are not dealing with sporadic or isolated attacks from a
relatively few extremists or even from the minority socialist
cadre. Rather, the assault on the enterprise system is broadly
based and consistently pursued. It is gaining momentum and
converts.<br>
<br>
<b>Sources of the Attack</b><br>
The sources are varied and diffused. They include, not
unexpectedly, the Communists, New Leftists and other
revolutionaries who would destroy the entire system, both
political and economic. These extremists of the left are far more
numerous, better financed, and increasingly are more welcomed and
encouraged by other elements of society, than ever before in our
history. But they remain a small minority, and are not yet the
principal cause for concern.<br>
<br>
The most disquieting voices joining the chorus of criticism come
from perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college
campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary
journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians. In most of
these groups the movement against the system is participated in
only by minorities. Yet, these often are the most articulate, the
most vocal, the most prolific in their writing and speaking.<br>
<br>
Moreover, much of the media -- for varying motives and in varying
degrees -- either voluntarily accords unique publicity to these
"attackers," or at least allows them to exploit the media for
their purposes. This is especially true of television, which now
plays such a predominant role in shaping the thinking, attitudes
and emotions of our people.<br>
<br>
One of the bewildering paradoxes of our time is the extent to
which the enterprise system tolerates, if not participates in, its
own destruction.<br>
<br>
The campuses from which much of the criticism emanates are
supported by (i) tax funds generated largely from American
business, and (ii) contributions from capital funds controlled or
generated by American business. The boards of trustees of our
universities overwhelmingly are composed of men and women who are
leaders in the system.<br>
<br>
Most of the media, including the national TV systems, are owned
and theoretically controlled by corporations which depend upon
profits, and the enterprise system to survive.<br>
<b><br>
</b><b>Tone of the Attack</b><br>
This memorandum is not the place to document in detail the tone,
character, or intensity of the attack. The following quotations
will suffice to give one a general idea:<br>
<br>
William Kunstler, warmly welcomed on campuses and listed in a
recent student poll as the "American lawyer most admired," incites
audiences as follows:<br>
<br>
"You must learn to fight in the streets, to revolt, to shoot guns.
We will learn to do all of the things that property owners fear."
The New Leftists who heed Kunstler's advice increasingly are
beginning to act -- not just against military recruiting offices
and manufacturers of munitions, but against a variety of
businesses: "Since February, 1970, branches (of Bank of America)
have been attacked 39 times, 22 times with explosive devices and
17 times with fire bombs or by arsonists." Although New Leftist
spokesmen are succeeding in radicalizing thousands of the young,
the greater cause for concern is the hostility of respectable
liberals and social reformers. It is the sum total of their views
and influence which could indeed fatally weaken or destroy the
system.<br>
<br>
A chilling description of what is being taught on many of our
campuses was written by Stewart Alsop:<br>
<br>
"Yale, like every other major college, is graduating scores of
bright young men who are practitioners of 'the politics of
despair.' These young men despise the American political and
economic system . . . (their) minds seem to be wholly closed. They
live, not by rational discussion, but by mindless slogans." A
recent poll of students on 12 representative campuses reported
that: "Almost half the students favored socialization of basic
U.S. industries."<br>
<br>
A visiting professor from England at Rockford College gave a
series of lectures entitled "The Ideological War Against Western
Society," in which he documents the extent to which members of the
intellectual community are waging ideological warfare against the
enterprise system and the values of western society. In a foreword
to these lectures, famed Dr. Milton Friedman of Chicago warned:
"It (is) crystal clear that the foundations of our free society
are under wide-ranging and powerful attack -- not by Communist or
any other conspiracy but by misguided individuals parroting one
another and unwittingly serving ends they would never
intentionally promote."<br>
<br>
Perhaps the single most effective antagonist of American business
is Ralph Nader, who -- thanks largely to the media -- has become a
legend in his own time and an idol of millions of Americans. A
recent article in Fortune speaks of Nader as follows:<br>
<br>
"The passion that rules in him -- and he is a passionate man -- is
aimed at smashing utterly the target of his hatred, which is
corporate power. He thinks, and says quite bluntly, that a great
many corporate executives belong in prison -- for defrauding the
consumer with shoddy merchandise, poisoning the food supply with
chemical additives, and willfully manufacturing unsafe products
that will maim or kill the buyer. He emphasizes that he is not
talking just about 'fly-by-night hucksters' but the top management
of blue chip business."<br>
<br>
A frontal assault was made on our government, our system of
justice, and the free enterprise system by Yale Professor Charles
Reich in his widely publicized book: "The Greening of America,"
published last winter.<br>
<br>
The foregoing references illustrate the broad, shotgun attack on
the system itself. There are countless examples of rifle shots
which undermine confidence and confuse the public. Favorite
current targets are proposals for tax incentives through changes
in depreciation rates and investment credits. These are usually
described in the media as "tax breaks," "loop holes" or "tax
benefits" for the benefit of business. * As viewed by a columnist
in the Post, such tax measures would benefit "only the rich, the
owners of big companies."<br>
<br>
It is dismaying that many politicians make the same argument that
tax measures of this kind benefit only "business," without benefit
to "the poor." The fact that this is either political demagoguery
or economic illiteracy is of slight comfort. This setting of the
"rich" against the "poor," of business against the people, is the
cheapest and most dangerous kind of politics.<br>
<br>
<b>The Apathy and Default of Business</b><br>
What has been the response of business to this massive assault
upon its fundamental economics, upon its philosophy, upon its
right to continue to manage its own affairs, and indeed upon its
integrity?<br>
<br>
The painfully sad truth is that business, including the boards of
directors' and the top executives of corporations great and small
and business organizations at all levels, often have responded --
if at all -- by appeasement, ineptitude and ignoring the problem.
There are, of course, many exceptions to this sweeping
generalization. But the net effect of such response as has been
made is scarcely visible.<br>
<br>
In all fairness, it must be recognized that businessmen have not
been trained or equipped to conduct guerrilla warfare with those
who propagandize against the system, seeking insidiously and
constantly to sabotage it. The traditional role of business
executives has been to manage, to produce, to sell, to create
jobs, to make profits, to improve the standard of living, to be
community leaders, to serve on charitable and educational boards,
and generally to be good citizens. They have performed these tasks
very well indeed.<br>
<br>
But they have shown little stomach for hard-nose contest with
their critics, and little skill in effective intellectual and
philosophical debate.<br>
<br>
A column recently carried by the Wall Street Journal was entitled:
"Memo to GM: Why Not Fight Back?" Although addressed to GM by
name, the article was a warning to all American business.
Columnist St. John said:<br>
<br>
"General Motors, like American business in general, is 'plainly in
trouble' because intellectual bromides have been substituted for a
sound intellectual exposition of its point of view." Mr. St. John
then commented on the tendency of business leaders to compromise
with and appease critics. He cited the concessions which Nader
wins from management, and spoke of "the fallacious view many
businessmen take toward their critics." He drew a parallel to the
mistaken tactics of many college administrators: "College
administrators learned too late that such appeasement serves to
destroy free speech, academic freedom and genuine scholarship. One
campus radical demand was conceded by university heads only to be
followed by a fresh crop which soon escalated to what amounted to
a demand for outright surrender."<br>
<br>
One need not agree entirely with Mr. St. John's analysis. But most
observers of the American scene will agree that the essence of his
message is sound. American business "plainly in trouble"; the
response to the wide range of critics has been ineffective, and
has included appeasement; the time has come -- indeed, it is long
overdue -- for the wisdom, ingenuity and resources of American
business to be marshalled against those who would destroy it.<br>
<br>
<b>Responsibility of Business Executives</b><br>
What specifically should be done? The first essential -- a
prerequisite to any effective action -- is for businessmen to
confront this problem as a primary responsibility of corporate
management.<br>
<br>
The overriding first need is for businessmen to recognize that the
ultimate issue may be survival -- survival of what we call the
free enterprise system, and all that this means for the strength
and prosperity of America and the freedom of our people.<br>
<br>
The day is long past when the chief executive officer of a major
corporation discharges his responsibility by maintaining a
satisfactory growth of profits, with due regard to the
corporation's public and social responsibilities. If our system is
to survive, top management must be equally concerned with
protecting and preserving the system itself. This involves far
more than an increased emphasis on "public relations" or
"governmental affairs" -- two areas in which corporations long
have invested substantial sums.<br>
<br>
A significant first step by individual corporations could well be
the designation of an executive vice president (ranking with other
executive VP's) whose responsibility is to counter-on the broadest
front-the attack on the enterprise system. The public relations
department could be one of the foundations assigned to this
executive, but his responsibilities should encompass some of the
types of activities referred to subsequently in this memorandum.
His budget and staff should be adequate to the task.<br>
<br>
<b>Possible Role of the Chamber of Commerce</b><br>
But independent and uncoordinated activity by individual
corporations, as important as this is, will not be sufficient.
Strength lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and
implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period
of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint
effort, and in the political power available only through united
action and national organizations.<br>
<br>
Moreover, there is the quite understandable reluctance on the part
of any one corporation to get too far out in front and to make
itself too visible a target.<br>
<br>
The role of the National Chamber of Commerce is therefore vital.
Other national organizations (especially those of various
industrial and commercial groups) should join in the effort, but
no other organizations appear to be as well situated as the
Chamber. It enjoys a strategic position, with a fine reputation
and a broad base of support. Also -- and this is of immeasurable
merit -- there are hundreds of local Chambers of Commerce which
can play a vital supportive role.<br>
<br>
It hardly need be said that before embarking upon any program, the
Chamber should study and analyze possible courses of action and
activities, weighing risks against probable effectiveness and
feasibility of each. Considerations of cost, the assurance of
financial and other support from members, adequacy of staffing and
similar problems will all require the most thoughtful
consideration.<br>
<br>
<b>The Campus</b><br>
The assault on the enterprise system was not mounted in a few
months. It has gradually evolved over the past two decades, barely
perceptible in its origins and benefiting (sic) from a gradualism
that provoked little awareness much less any real reaction.<br>
<br>
Although origins, sources and causes are complex and interrelated,
and obviously difficult to identify without careful qualification,
there is reason to believe that the campus is the single most
dynamic source. The social science faculties usually include
members who are unsympathetic to the enterprise system. They may
range from a Herbert Marcuse, Marxist faculty member at the
University of California at San Diego, and convinced socialists,
to the ambivalent liberal critic who finds more to condemn than to
commend. Such faculty members need not be in a majority. They are
often personally attractive and magnetic; they are stimulating
teachers, and their controversy attracts student following; they
are prolific writers and lecturers; they author many of the
textbooks, and they exert enormous influence -- far out of
proportion to their numbers -- on their colleagues and in the
academic world.<br>
<br>
Social science faculties (the political scientist, economist,
sociologist and many of the historians) tend to be liberally
oriented, even when leftists are not present. This is not a
criticism per se, as the need for liberal thought is essential to
a balanced viewpoint. The difficulty is that "balance" is
conspicuous by its absence on many campuses, with relatively few
members being of conservatives or moderate persuasion and even the
relatively few often being less articulate and aggressive than
their crusading colleagues.<br>
<br>
This situation extending back many years and with the imbalance
gradually worsening, has had an enormous impact on millions of
young American students. In an article in Barron's Weekly, seeking
an answer to why so many young people are disaffected even to the
point of being revolutionaries, it was said: "Because they were
taught that way." Or, as noted by columnist Stewart Alsop, writing
about his alma mater: "Yale, like every other major college, is
graduating scores' of bright young men ... who despise the
American political and economic system."<br>
<br>
As these "bright young men," from campuses across the country,
seek opportunities to change a system which they have been taught
to distrust -- if not, indeed "despise" -- they seek employment in
the centers of the real power and influence in our country,
namely: (i) with the news media, especially television; (ii) in
government, as "staffers" and consultants at various levels; (iii)
in elective politics; (iv) as lecturers and writers, and (v) on
the faculties at various levels of education.<br>
<br>
Many do enter the enterprise system -- in business and the
professions -- and for the most part they quickly discover the
fallacies of what they have been taught. But those who eschew the
mainstream of the system often remain in key positions of
influence where they mold public opinion and often shape
governmental action. In many instances, these "intellectuals" end
up in regulatory agencies or governmental departments with large
authority over the business system they do not believe in.<br>
<br>
If the foregoing analysis is approximately sound, a priority task
of business -- and organizations such as the Chamber -- is to
address the campus origin of this hostility. Few things are more
sanctified in American life than academic freedom. It would be
fatal to attack this as a principle. But if academic freedom is to
retain the qualities of "openness," "fairness" and "balance" --
which are essential to its intellectual significance -- there is a
great opportunity for constructive action. The thrust of such
action must be to restore the qualities just mentioned to the
academic communities.<br>
<br>
<b>What Can Be Done About the Campus</b><br>
The ultimate responsibility for intellectual integrity on the
campus must remain on the administrations and faculties of our
colleges and universities. But organizations such as the Chamber
can assist and activate constructive change in many ways,
including the following:<br>
<br>
<b>Staff of Scholars</b><br>
The Chamber should consider establishing a staff of highly
qualified scholars in the social sciences who do believe in the
system. It should include several of national reputation whose
authorship would be widely respected -- even when disagreed with.<br>
<br>
<b>Staff of Speakers</b><br>
There also should be a staff of speakers of the highest
competency. These might include the scholars, and certainly those
who speak for the Chamber would have to articulate the product of
the scholars.<br>
<br>
<b>Speaker's Bureau</b><br>
In addition to full-time staff personnel, the Chamber should have
a Speaker's Bureau which should include the ablest and most
effective advocates from the top echelons of American business.<br>
<br>
<b>Evaluation of Textbooks</b><br>
The staff of scholars (or preferably a panel of independent
scholars) should evaluate social science textbooks, especially in
economics, political science and sociology. This should be a
continuing program.<br>
<br>
The objective of such evaluation should be oriented toward
restoring the balance essential to genuine academic freedom. This
would include assurance of fair and factual treatment of our
system of government and our enterprise system, its
accomplishments, its basic relationship to individual rights and
freedoms, and comparisons with the systems of socialism, fascism
and communism. Most of the existing textbooks have some sort of
comparisons, but many are superficial, biased and unfair.<br>
<br>
We have seen the civil rights movement insist on re-writing many
of the textbooks in our universities and schools. The labor unions
likewise insist that textbooks be fair to the viewpoints of
organized labor. Other interested citizens groups have not
hesitated to review, analyze and criticize textbooks and teaching
materials. In a democratic society, this can be a constructive
process and should be regarded as an aid to genuine academic
freedom and not as an intrusion upon it.<br>
<br>
If the authors, publishers and users of textbooks know that they
will be subjected -- honestly, fairly and thoroughly -- to review
and critique by eminent scholars who believe in the American
system, a return to a more rational balance can be expected.<br>
<br>
<b>Equal Time on the Campus</b><br>
The Chamber should insist upon equal time on the college speaking
circuit. The FBI publishes each year a list of speeches made on
college campuses by avowed Communists. The number in 1970 exceeded
100. There were, of course, many hundreds of appearances by
leftists and ultra liberals who urge the types of viewpoints
indicated earlier in this memorandum. There was no corresponding
representation of American business, or indeed by individuals or
organizations who appeared in support of the American system of
government and business.<br>
<br>
Every campus has its formal and informal groups which invite
speakers. Each law school does the same thing. Many universities
and colleges officially sponsor lecture and speaking programs. We
all know the inadequacy of the representation of business in the
programs.<br>
<br>
It will be said that few invitations would be extended to Chamber
speakers. This undoubtedly would be true unless the Chamber
aggressively insisted upon the right to be heard -- in effect,
insisted upon "equal time." University administrators and the
great majority of student groups and committees would not welcome
being put in the position publicly of refusing a forum to diverse
views, indeed, this is the classic excuse for allowing Communists
to speak.<br>
<br>
The two essential ingredients are (i) to have attractive,
articulate and well-informed speakers; and (ii) to exert whatever
degree of pressure -- publicly and privately -- may be necessary
to assure opportunities to speak. The objective always must be to
inform and enlighten, and not merely to propagandize.<br>
<br>
<b>Balancing of Faculties</b><br>
Perhaps the most fundamental problem is the imbalance of many
faculties. Correcting this is indeed a long-range and difficult
project. Yet, it should be undertaken as a part of an overall
program. This would mean the urging of the need for faculty
balance upon university administrators and boards of trustees.<br>
<br>
The methods to be employed require careful thought, and the
obvious pitfalls must be avoided. Improper pressure would be
counterproductive. But the basic concepts of balance, fairness and
truth are difficult to resist, if properly presented to boards of
trustees, by writing and speaking, and by appeals to alumni
associations and groups.<br>
<br>
This is a long road and not one for the fainthearted. But if
pursued with integrity and conviction it could lead to a
strengthening of both academic freedom on the campus and of the
values which have made America the most productive of all
societies.<br>
<br>
<b>Graduate Schools of Business</b><br>
The Chamber should enjoy a particular rapport with the
increasingly influential graduate schools of business. Much that
has been suggested above applies to such schools.<br>
<br>
Should not the Chamber also request specific courses in such
schools dealing with the entire scope of the problem addressed by
this memorandum? This is now essential training for the executives
of the future.<br>
<br>
<b>Secondary Education</b><br>
While the first priority should be at the college level, the
trends mentioned above are increasingly evidenced in the high
schools. Action programs, tailored to the high schools and similar
to those mentioned, should be considered. The implementation
thereof could become a major program for local chambers of
commerce, although the control and direction -- especially the
quality control -- should be retained by the National Chamber.<br>
<br>
<b>What Can Be Done About the Public?</b><br>
Reaching the campus and the secondary schools is vital for the
long-term. Reaching the public generally may be more important for
the shorter term. The first essential is to establish the staffs
of eminent scholars, writers and speakers, who will do the
thinking, the analysis, the writing and the speaking. It will also
be essential to have staff personnel who are thoroughly familiar
with the media, and how most effectively to communicate with the
public. Among the more obvious means are the following:<br>
<br>
<b>Television</b><br>
The national television networks should be monitored in the same
way that textbooks should be kept under constant surveillance.
This applies not merely to so-called educational programs (such as
"Selling of the Pentagon"), but to the daily "news analysis" which
so often includes the most insidious type of criticism of the
enterprise system. Whether this criticism results from hostility
or economic ignorance, the result is the gradual erosion of
confidence in "business" and free enterprise.<br>
<br>
This monitoring, to be effective, would require constant
examination of the texts of adequate samples of programs.
Complaints -- to the media and to the Federal Communications
Commission -- should be made promptly and strongly when programs
are unfair or inaccurate.<br>
<br>
Equal time should be demanded when appropriate. Effort should be
made to see that the forum-type programs (the Today Show, Meet the
Press, etc.) afford at least as much opportunity for supporters of
the American system to participate as these programs do for those
who attack it.<br>
<br>
<b>Other Media</b><br>
Radio and the press are also important, and every available means
should be employed to challenge and refute unfair attacks, as well
as to present the affirmative case through these media.<br>
<br>
<b>The Scholarly Journals</b><br>
It is especially important for the Chamber's "faculty of scholars"
to publish. One of the keys to the success of the liberal and
leftist faculty members has been their passion for "publication"
and "lecturing." A similar passion must exist among the Chamber's
scholars.<br>
<br>
Incentives might be devised to induce more "publishing" by
independent scholars who do believe in the system.<br>
<br>
There should be a fairly steady flow of scholarly articles
presented to a broad spectrum of magazines and periodicals --
ranging from the popular magazines (Life, Look, Reader's Digest,
etc.) to the more intellectual ones (Atlantic, Harper's, Saturday
Review, New York, etc.) and to the various professional journals.<br>
<br>
<b>Books, Paperbacks and Pamphlets</b><br>
The news stands -- at airports, drugstores, and elsewhere -- are
filled with paperbacks and pamphlets advocating everything from
revolution to erotic free love. One finds almost no attractive,
well-written paperbacks or pamphlets on "our side." It will be
difficult to compete with an Eldridge Cleaver or even a Charles
Reich for reader attention, but unless the effort is made -- on a
large enough scale and with appropriate imagination to assure some
success -- this opportunity for educating the public will be
irretrievably lost.<br>
<br>
<b>Paid Advertisements</b><br>
Business pays hundreds of millions of dollars to the media for
advertisements. Most of this supports specific products; much of
it supports institutional image making; and some fraction of it
does support the system. But the latter has been more or less
tangential, and rarely part of a sustained, major effort to inform
and enlighten the American people.<br>
<br>
If American business devoted only 10% of its total annual
advertising budget to this overall purpose, it would be a
statesman-like expenditure.<br>
<br>
<b>The Neglected Political Arena</b><br>
In the final analysis, the payoff -- short-of revolution -- is
what government does. Business has been the favorite whipping-boy
of many politicians for many years. But the measure of how far
this has gone is perhaps best found in the anti-business views now
being expressed by several leading candidates for President of the
United States.<br>
<br>
It is still Marxist doctrine that the "capitalist" countries are
controlled by big business. This doctrine, consistently a part of
leftist propaganda all over the world, has a wide public following
among Americans.<br>
<br>
Yet, as every business executive knows, few elements of American
society today have as little influence in government as the
American businessman, the corporation, or even the millions of
corporate stockholders. If one doubts this, let him undertake the
role of "lobbyist" for the business point of view before
Congressional committees. The same situation obtains in the
legislative halls of most states and major cities. One does not
exaggerate to say that, in terms of political influence with
respect to the course of legislation and government action, the
American business executive is truly the "forgotten man."<br>
<br>
Current examples of the impotency of business, and of the
near-contempt with which businessmen's views are held, are the
stampedes by politicians to support almost any legislation related
to "consumerism" or to the "environment."<br>
<br>
Politicians reflect what they believe to be majority views of
their constituents. It is thus evident that most politicians are
making the judgment that the public has little sympathy for the
businessman or his viewpoint.<br>
<br>
The educational programs suggested above would be designed to
enlighten public thinking -- not so much about the businessman and
his individual role as about the system which he administers, and
which provides the goods, services and jobs on which our country
depends.<br>
<br>
But one should not postpone more direct political action, while
awaiting the gradual change in public opinion to be effected
through education and information. Business must learn the lesson,
long ago learned by labor and other self-interest groups. This is
the lesson that political power is necessary; that such power must
be assidously (sic) cultivated; and that when necessary, it must
be used aggressively and with determination -- without
embarrassment and without the reluctance which has been so
characteristic of American business.<br>
<br>
As unwelcome as it may be to the Chamber, it should consider
assuming a broader and more vigorous role in the political arena.<br>
<br>
<b>Neglected Opportunity in the Courts</b><br>
American business and the enterprise system have been affected as
much by the courts as by the executive and legislative branches of
government. Under our constitutional system, especially with an
activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most
important instrument for social, economic and political change.<br>
<br>
Other organizations and groups, recognizing this, have been far
more astute in exploiting judicial action than American business.
Perhaps the most active exploiters of the judicial system have
been groups ranging in political orientation from "liberal" to the
far left.<br>
<br>
The American Civil Liberties Union is one example. It initiates or
intervenes in scores of cases each year, and it files briefs
amicus curiae in the Supreme Court in a number of cases during
each term of that court. Labor unions, civil rights groups and now
the public interest law firms are extremely active in the judicial
arena. Their success, often at business' expense, has not been
inconsequential.<br>
<br>
This is a vast area of opportunity for the Chamber, if it is
willing to undertake the role of spokesman for American business
and if, in turn, business is willing to provide the funds.<br>
<br>
As with respect to scholars and speakers, the Chamber would need a
highly competent staff of lawyers. In special situations it should
be authorized to engage, to appear as counsel amicus in the
Supreme Court, lawyers of national standing and reputation. The
greatest care should be exercised in selecting the cases in which
to participate, or the suits to institute. But the opportunity
merits the necessary effort.<br>
<br>
<b>Neglected Stockholder Power</b><br>
The average member of the public thinks of "business" as an
impersonal corporate entity, owned by the very rich and managed by
over-paid executives. There is an almost total failure to
appreciate that "business" actually embraces -- in one way or
another -- most Americans. Those for whom business provides jobs,
constitute a fairly obvious class. But the 20 million stockholders
-- most of whom are of modest means -- are the real owners, the
real entrepreneurs, the real capitalists under our system. They
provide the capital which fuels the economic system which has
produced the highest standard of living in all history. Yet,
stockholders have been as ineffectual as business executives in
promoting a genuine understanding of our system or in exercising
political influence.<br>
<br>
The question which merits the most thorough examination is how can
the weight and influence of stockholders -- 20 million voters --
be mobilized to support (i) an educational program and (ii) a
political action program.<br>
<br>
Individual corporations are now required to make numerous reports
to shareholders. Many corporations also have expensive "news"
magazines which go to employees and stockholders. These
opportunities to communicate can be used far more effectively as
educational media.<br>
<br>
The corporation itself must exercise restraint in undertaking
political action and must, of course, comply with applicable laws.
But is it not feasible -- through an affiliate of the Chamber or
otherwise -- to establish a national organization of American
stockholders and give it enough muscle to be influential?<br>
<br>
<b>A More Aggressive Attitude</b><br>
Business interests -- especially big business and their national
trade organizations -- have tried to maintain low profiles,
especially with respect to political action.<br>
<br>
As suggested in the Wall Street Journal article, it has been
fairly characteristic of the average business executive to be
tolerant -- at least in public -- of those who attack his
corporation and the system. Very few businessmen or business
organizations respond in kind. There has been a disposition to
appease; to regard the opposition as willing to compromise, or as
likely to fade away in due time.<br>
<br>
Business has shunted confrontation politics. Business, quite
understandably, has been repelled by the multiplicity of
non-negotiable "demands" made constantly by self-interest groups
of all kinds.<br>
<br>
While neither responsible business interests, nor the United
States Chamber of Commerce, would engage in the irresponsible
tactics of some pressure groups, it is essential that spokesmen
for the enterprise system -- at all levels and at every
opportunity -- be far more aggressive than in the past.<br>
<br>
There should be no hesitation to attack the Naders, the Marcuses
and others who openly seek destruction of the system. There should
not be the slightest hesitation to press vigorously in all
political arenas for support of the enterprise system. Nor should
there be reluctance to penalize politically those who oppose it.<br>
<br>
Lessons can be learned from organized labor in this respect. The
head of the AFL-CIO may not appeal to businessmen as the most
endearing or public-minded of citizens. Yet, over many years the
heads of national labor organizations have done what they were
paid to do very effectively. They may not have been beloved, but
they have been respected -- where it counts the most -- by
politicians, on the campus, and among the media.<br>
<br>
It is time for American business -- which has demonstrated the
greatest capacity in all history to produce and to influence
consumer decisions -- to apply their great talents vigorously to
the preservation of the system itself.<br>
<br>
<b>The Cost</b><br>
The type of program described above (which includes a broadly
based combination of education and political action), if
undertaken long term and adequately staffed, would require far
more generous financial support from American corporations than
the Chamber has ever received in the past. High level management
participation in Chamber affairs also would be required.<br>
<br>
The staff of the Chamber would have to be significantly increased,
with the highest quality established and maintained. Salaries
would have to be at levels fully comparable to those paid key
business executives and the most prestigious faculty members.
Professionals of the great skill in advertising and in working
with the media, speakers, lawyers and other specialists would have
to be recruited.<br>
<br>
It is possible that the organization of the Chamber itself would
benefit from restructuring. For example, as suggested by union
experience, the office of President of the Chamber might well be a
full-time career position. To assure maximum effectiveness and
continuity, the chief executive officer of the Chamber should not
be changed each year. The functions now largely performed by the
President could be transferred to a Chairman of the Board,
annually elected by the membership. The Board, of course, would
continue to exercise policy control.<br>
<br>
<b>Quality Control is Essential</b><br>
Essential ingredients of the entire program must be responsibility
and "quality control." The publications, the articles, the
speeches, the media programs, the advertising, the briefs filed in
courts, and the appearances before legislative committees -- all
must meet the most exacting standards of accuracy and professional
excellence. They must merit respect for their level of public
responsibility and scholarship, whether one agrees with the
viewpoints expressed or not.<br>
<br>
<b>Relationship to Freedom</b><br>
The threat to the enterprise system is not merely a matter of
economics. It also is a threat to individual freedom.<br>
<br>
It is this great truth -- now so submerged by the rhetoric of the
New Left and of many liberals -- that must be re-affirmed if this
program is to be meaningful.<br>
<br>
There seems to be little awareness that the only alternatives to
free enterprise are varying degrees of bureaucratic regulation of
individual freedom -- ranging from that under moderate socialism
to the iron heel of the leftist or rightist dictatorship.<br>
<br>
We in America already have moved very far indeed toward some
aspects of state socialism, as the needs and complexities of a
vast urban society require types of regulation and control that
were quite unnecessary in earlier times. In some areas, such
regulation and control already have seriously impaired the freedom
of both business and labor, and indeed of the public generally.
But most of the essential freedoms remain: private ownership,
private profit, labor unions, collective bargaining, consumer
choice, and a market economy in which competition largely
determines price, quality and variety of the goods and services
provided the consumer.<br>
<br>
In addition to the ideological attack on the system itself
(discussed in this memorandum), its essentials also are threatened
by inequitable taxation, and -- more recently -- by an inflation
which has seemed uncontrollable. But whatever the causes of
diminishing economic freedom may be, the truth is that freedom as
a concept is indivisible. As the experience of the socialist and
totalitarian states demonstrates, the contraction and denial of
economic freedom is followed inevitably by governmental
restrictions on other cherished rights. It is this message, above
all others, that must be carried home to the American people.<br>
<br>
<b>Conclusion</b><br>
It hardly need be said that the views expressed above are
tentative and suggestive. The first step should be a thorough
study. But this would be an exercise in futility unless the Board
of Directors of the Chamber accepts the fundamental premise of
this paper, namely, that business and the enterprise system are in
deep trouble, and the hour is late.<br>
<br>
----- <br>
<br>
<b>Additional Resources:</b><br>
The Powell Memo with an introduction and Lewis Powell's footnotes
is available on the Reclaim Democracy website.<br>
<br>
Other overviews of the Powell Memo can be found at the following
sources:<br>
<br>
Lee Drutman and Charlie Cray, The People's Business: Controlling
Corporations and Restoring Democracy. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler, 2004. More information available at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.bkconnection.com/ProdDetails.asp?ID=1576753093">http://www.bkconnection.com/ProdDetails.asp?ID=1576753093</a>.<br>
<br>
Kim Phillips-Fein, Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative
Movement from the New Deal to Reagan. New York: Norton, 2009. More
information available at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://books.google.com/books/about/Invisible_hands.html?id=CcU7z9jLqXcC">http://books.google.com/books/about/Invisible_hands.html?id=CcU7z9jLqXcC</a>.<br>
<br>
Jerry Landay, "The Powell Manifesto: How A Prominent Lawyer's
Attack Memo Changed America," Media Transparency, August 20, 2002.
Available at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=21">http://old.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=21</a>.<br>
<br>
Lewis H. Lapham, "Tentacles of Rage: The Republican propaganda
mill, a brief history," Harpers Magazine, Vol. 309, No. 1852,
September, 2004. Available at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Republican-Propaganda1sep04.htm">http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Republican-Propaganda1sep04.htm</a>.<br>
<br>
Mark Schmitt, "The Legend of the Powell Memo," American Prospect,
April 25, 2005. Available at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=9606">http://prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=9606</a>.<br>
<br>
Chip Berlet, "Right-Wing Rollback: The Powell Memo," Z Magazine,
October 2009. Available at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.zcommunications.org/right-wing-rollback-the-powell-memo-by-chip-berlet">http://www.zcommunications.org/right-wing-rollback-the-powell-memo-by-chip-berlet</a>.<br>
<br>
Dave Wheelock, "The Pencil Warrior: Lewis Powell's Memorandum was
a Blueprint for Corporate Takeover," Common Dreams, February 23,
2006. Available at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0223-25.htm">http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0223-25.htm</a>.<br>
<br>
Henry A. Giroux, "The Powell Memo and the Teaching Machines of
Right-Wing Extremeists," the Commonweal Institute/Truthout,
October 1, 2009. Available at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://commonwealinstitute.org/archive/the-powell-memo-and-the-teaching-machines-of-right-wing-extremists">http://commonwealinstitute.org/archive/the-powell-memo-and-the-teaching-machines-of-right-wing-extremists</a>.<br>
<br>
John Amato, "The Powell Memo," Crooks and Liars, June 23, 2011.
Available at: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/powell-memo">http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/powell-memo</a>.<br>
<br>
"40 Years Since 'Powell Memo' Laid out Corporate Agenda,"
Institute for Public Accuracy, August 30, 2011. Available at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.accuracy.org/release/40-years-since-powell-memo-laid-out-corporate-agenda/">http://www.accuracy.org/release/40-years-since-powell-memo-laid-out-corporate-agenda/</a>.<br>
<br>
"Attack on American Free Enterprise System: Background," Media
Transparency, December 12, 2008. Available at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=22">http://old.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=22</a>.<br>
<br>
"The Powell Memo," Twink.org. Available at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thwink.org/sustain/manuscript2/PowellMemo.htm">http://www.thwink.org/sustain/manuscript2/PowellMemo.htm</a>.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/<br>
<br>
/Archive of Daily Global Warming News <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html"><https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html></a>
/<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote">https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote</a><br>
<br>
/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request"><mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request></a>
to news digest./<br>
<br>
*** Privacy and Security:*This is a text-only mailing that carries
no images which may originate from remote servers. Text-only
messages provide greater privacy to the receiver and sender.<br>
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for
democratic and election purposes and cannot be used for commercial
purposes. Messages have no tracking software.<br>
To subscribe, email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote">contact@theclimate.vote</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote"><mailto:contact@theclimate.vote></a>
with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, subject: unsubscribe<br>
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote">https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote</a><br>
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://TheClimate.Vote">http://TheClimate.Vote</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://TheClimate.Vote/"><http://TheClimate.Vote/></a>
delivering succinct information for citizens and responsible
governments of all levels. List membership is confidential and
records are scrupulously restricted to this mailing list.<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>