Category Archives: Sterling

Student Loan Relief in Sight, Maybe

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Hooray! A new bipartisan bill has been introduced in the Senate to address the student loan crisis. It wouldn’t actually reduce the amount that grads have to pay (you didn’t expect that, did you), but it does make repayment easier by taking a program that already exists as an option and making it the default repayment plan. Jordan Weissman reviews the details:

It looks pretty solid overall. All federal loan borrowers would be enrolled in an income-based program where they paid 10 percent of their earnings each month, with a $10,000 annual exemption. Meanwhile, the government would collect the money directly from workers’ paychecks, just like tax withholding. One potentially controversial part: It would forgive up to $57,500 worth of loans after 20 years, but anything above that amount wouldn’t be forgiven for 30 years. (The current Pay as You Earn repayment program forgives all debts after two decades.) But borrowers who don’t like the income-based option could opt out and set their own payment timetable.

And now for the bad news. The bill is sponsored by Democrat Mark Warner and Republican Marco Rubio. And as Weissman puts it a family-friendly rewrite of Jon Chait, “Rubio doesn’t have a sterling track record of selling his own party on bipartisan policy proposals.” No, he doesn’t, does he? But who knows. Maybe after ripping his political guts out over immigration reform, Republicans will throw him a bone by supporting this bill. It’s not like it really costs any money to speak of, after all.

Then again, passing the bill would represent getting something done, and Republicans these days seem to be convinced that getting anything done makes government look efficient and responsive and therefore redounds to the credit of Democrats. And we can’t have that, can we?

Excerpt from:

Student Loan Relief in Sight, Maybe

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Sterling, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Student Loan Relief in Sight, Maybe

Meet the Native American Woman Who Took on the Washington Football Team

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Wednesday, the US Patent and Trademark Office terminated six federal trademark registrations held by Washington’s pro football team. The PTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled that the team’s name cannot be protected, because it disparages Native Americans and federal law bans the trademarking of offensive language.

The decision is a victory for Amanda Blackhorse, a 32-year-old member of the Navajo Nation who became the face of the legal fight to revoke Washington’s trademarks starting in 2006. She was leading protests of the name when the law firm Drinker Biddle & Reath asked her to become the lead of five petitioners in its case against the Washington football team.

Blackhorse spoke to Mother Jones Wednesday about the ruling, the other professional sports teams in her crosshairs, and her own run-ins with racist Washington football fans.

Mother Jones: So you must be pretty excited today, right?

Amanda Blackhorse: We started this campaign eight years ago. So yes, today, it’s pretty overwhelming, but in a good way. When you’re part of a case that takes years and years and years, you wait all this time, and now it’s finally here, it’s just a tremendous victory. Not just for the five of us who were the petitioners but for the native country as a whole.

I hear the owners are going to file an appeal. I was hoping that maybe they would listen to us, and the majority of Native American people who have spoken out on this, and said, “We’re done fighting this thing.” But apparently they want to continue to stand their ground with this. And we’re the same way. We know we’re living in a time when calling someone the R-word is absolutely offensive.

MJ: Why did you get involved with protests of the name in the first place?

AB: Someone once told me—and then I thought about it differently—that mascots are meant to be ridiculed. Mascots are meant to be toyed with. They’re meant to be pushed around and disrespected. To have stuff thrown at them. That’s what I feel like happens at these games. There’s a lot of ridicule of Native American people. You have people walking around in face paint, fake war paint on their cheekbones, feathers in their hair.

Your team name may be the Braves—which is another stereotype, that we’re warlike and stoic—but the point is, no matter what your intentions are, when you make a Native American person your mascot, you have no control over what happens at that stadium. And Native Americans lose control over what our image is.

MJ: I heard that one of your first protests, at a Washington-Chiefs game in Kansas City, was a pretty nasty experience.

AB: Oh, yes. People yelled, “Go back to your reservation!” “We won, you lost, get over it!” “Go get drunk!” And so many different slurs. People threw beers. That, to me, was shocking. I’ve experienced racism in my lifetime, but to see it outwardly, in the open, and nobody did anything? It was shocking.

That was the game where there was a port-a-potty in the shape of a teepee.

MJ: Has anyone ever called you the R-word, or have you heard it used against another Native American?

AB: No, and I’ve never heard a Native person call another Native person a redskin. I’ve been called a “stupid Indian.” I’ve been called a “savage” and a “squaw.” Not too long ago, there was a person who wrote a letter to the editor in our local newspaper, the Navajo Times, and this guy wrote in there that he’s “tired of the drunken redskins.” So people do continue to use that slur to this day. I couldn’t believe that was even printed.

MJ: How has it felt seeing so many lawmakers and news outlets side with you and condemn Washington’s team name in recent years?

AB: It’s tremendous. It’s great. I’m hoping that more of the NFL community would speak out, but it’s so great to see after all these years how this movement has grown. But Native Americans still need to demand respect for ourselves. That’s the point here. We need to stand up for ourselves in the general population and not allow people to push us around and stereotype us.

MJ: Would you like to see other teams change their names? Take the NHL’s Chicago Blackhawks, for example. It’s not a slur, but…

AB: Yes—it’s not a slur but it’s an appropriation of our culture. Any team name that references Native Americans, I think should go. No matter which way you swing it, you as a team owner and we Native Americans have no control over the type of imagery fans are going to seize on at your games.

I think that the Cleveland Indians logo is one of the most disrespectful representations of a Native American man out there. It’s awful. It’s cartoonish.

MJ: What would you say to Dan Snyder, who owns the Washington football team?

AB: I feel like no matter what we say to him, they’re not going to budge. The change will come from the political process. And some of it has to come from his fan base. From people in the area. I’m way out here in the middle of the Navajo Nation.

We knew early on that there was a lot of money at stake for the team. That this was all about money. And money talks. Snyder acts like he’s invincible. No matter what we say, I don’t think he’s going to change the name unless he’s forced to.

Continue at source – 

Meet the Native American Woman Who Took on the Washington Football Team

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, Landmark, LG, ONA, Oster, Radius, Sterling, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Meet the Native American Woman Who Took on the Washington Football Team

This Is How Much America Spends Putting Out Wildfires

As California burns, the way the feds fight wildfires doesn’t jibe with the reality of climate change. Fire crews burn out an area at the Shirley Fire near Lake Isabella, Calif., on Sunday. Stuart Palley/ZUMA The central California wildfire that yesterday destroyed three homes and forced hundreds of evacuations is just the latest blaze to strain the nation’s overburdened federal firefighting system. According to the latest official update, by Monday evening the Shirley Fire had consumed 2,600 acres near Sequoia National Forest and cost over $4 million, as more than 1,000 firefighters scrambled to contain it. This year, in the midst of severe drought across the West, top wildfire managers in Washington knew they were going to break the bank, even before the fire season had really begun. In early May, officials at the US Department of Agriculture (which oversees the Forest Service) and the Department of Interior announced that wildfire-fighting costs this summer are projected to run roughly $400 million over budget. Since then, wildfires on federal land have burned at least half a million acres, and the Forest Service has made plans to beef up its force of over 100 aircraft and 10,000 firefighters in preparation for what it said in a statement “is shaping up to be a catastrophic fire season.” But the real catastrophe has been years in the making: Federal fire records and budget data show that the US wildfire response system is chronically and severely underfunded, even as fires—especially the biggest “mega-fires”—grow larger and more expensive. In other words, the federal government is not keeping pace with America’s rapidly evolving wildfire landscape. This year’s projected budget shortfall is actually par for the course; in fact, since 2002, the US has overspent its wildfire fighting budget every year except one—in three of those years by nearly a billion dollars. Tim McDonnell That sets up a vicious cycle: Excess money spent on fighting fires has to be pulled from other vital programs, including some of the very activities—clearing brush and conducting controlled burns—that are designed to keep the most destructive fires from occurring. Jim Douglas, director of Interior’s Office of Wildland Fire, says both his agency and the Forest Service (which together are responsible for preparing for and fighting fires on federal land) are perpetually robbing Peter to pay Paul—and climate change is only making matters worse. “It’s pretty clear that the physical environment in which we work is changing,” he says. “The underlying problem is that fire costs are increasing more often than not.” Douglas blames the rising costs on a toxic combination of urban development (“We’re spending a lot more time protecting communities and subdivisions than we did a generation ago,” he says), and a greater abundance of super-dry fuel, which leads to longer fire seasons and bigger fires. Since 1985, the size of an average fire on federal land has quadrupled, according to records kept by the National Interagency Fire Center. The total acres burned nationwide in an average year jumped from 2.7 million over the period 1984-1993, to 7.3 million in 2004-13. And of the top 10 biggest burn years on record, nine have happened since 2000. Tim McDonnell Meanwhile, dry conditions are also lengthening the season in which large fires occur, according to analysis by fire ecologist Anthony Westerling of the University of California-Merced. In 2006, Westerling counted instances of fires greater than 1,000 acres in Western states; the study, published in Science, found that “large wildfire activity increased suddenly and markedly in the mid-1980s.” Updated data provided by Westerling to Climate Desk shows that trend continued in the last decade: Tim McDonnell And the longer seasons mean even higher costs, explains Interior’s Douglas. That’s because seasonal firefighters must be kept on the payroll and seasonal facilities must be kept open longer. Environmental change is complicating the work of fire managers who already had their work cut out for them restoring forests from the decades-long practice of suppressing all fires, which led to an unhealthy buildup of fuel that can turn a small fire into a mega-fire. “Until the ’80s or so, it was easy to explain fires as consequence of fuel accumulation,” says Wally Covington, director of the Ecological Restoration Institute at Northern Arizona University. “Now, piled on that are the effects of climate change. We are seeing larger fires and more of them.” Scientists like Covington are increasingly confident about the link between global warming and wildfires. In March, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported that more and bigger wildfires are expected to be among the most severe consequences of climate change in North America. And a report prepared by the Forest Service for last month’s National Climate Assessment predicts a doubling of burned area across the US by mid-century. Driving those trends are more sustained droughts that leave forests bone-dry and higher temperatures that melt snowpack earlier in the year. Both of those factors are at play this year, especially in the fire-prone West. California’s snowpack was at record lows this winter, and Covington says forest conditions across the region “are dominated by drought.” Tim McDonnell While climate conditions and urban development drive up the average cost of putting out a fire, Interior’s Douglas says his agency is still able to extinguish the majority of fires while they’re relatively small. The biggest concern, from a budgetary perspective, is the biggest 0.5 percent of fires, which according to Interior account for about 30 percent of total firefighting costs. While the average per-fire cost is now around $30,000, a handful of massive fires cost orders of magnitude more: In 2012 several dozen fires pushed into the multi-million-dollar range, with the year’s most expensive, the Chips Fire in California, reaching the stratospheric height of $53 million. Tim McDonnell All it takes is a few multimillion-dollar fires to drain the budget, Douglas says. Traditionally, the firefighting budget set by Congress is based on the rolling 10-year average of expenses, so that in theory the budget tracks changes in actual costs. But in practice, Douglas says, costs are rising too quickly for the budget to keep up, especially as the worst fires get worse. The result is the chronic shortfall shown in the first chart above. In 2009, Congress attempted to patch the hole with the FLAME Act, which created a new reservoir of firefighting funds meant to “fully fund anticipated wildland fire suppression requirements in advance of fire season and prevent future borrowing” from other programs like forest management and land acquisition. Given that boost, the budget jumped into surplus the following year; but it soon dropped back into deep deficit during 2012′s devastating fire season, the third-worst in US history. Last year, the situation was exacerbated by the budget sequester, which cut the Forest Service budget by 7.5 percent, eliminated 500 firefighting jobs, and left western communities scrambling to pick up the tab. Sen. Ron Wyden, the Oregon Democrat whose state is the second most-burned in the nation (see map above), is now pushing a new bill that he says has support from western Republicans (and, for what it’s worth, the National Rifle Association) to create an emergency fund for tackling the biggest fires that would exist outside the normal USDA/Interior budget, similar to the way FEMA currently pays for hurricane recovery. The bill is similar to a proposal by the White House, which would free up over a billion dollars in additional emergency firefighting funds. The idea, Wyden says, is to keep officials from having to crack open the fire prevention piggy bank every time a bad fire season hits, a practice that ultimately drives up costs across the board. “The way Washington, DC, has fought fire in the last decade is bizarre even by Beltway standards,” Wyden says. “The bureaucracy steps in and takes a big chunk of money from the already-short prevention fund and uses it to put out the inferno, and then the problem gets worse because the prevention fund has been plundered.” Indeed, firefighting expenditures have consistently outpaced fire preparation expenditures, even as experts like Covington and Douglas insist that, like the adage says, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Since 2002, the average dollar spent on firefighting has been matched by only 80 cents in preparatory spending on things like clearing away hazardous fuels and putting firefighting resources in place: Tim McDonnell Wyden’s bill, which he calls “arguably one of the first bipartisan efforts that could make a real dent in climate change,” is still in committee, and the House version has already taken heat from fiscal conservatives like Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.). In any case, it wouldn’t take effect until next year. But Covington argues that the government needs to approach wildfires as natural disasters on par with hurricanes and earthquakes, and that we should plan for a future that is much more severe than the past. “Earlier in the century, if they saw what’s been going on since the ’90s, it’s just inconceivable,” he says. “It alarms me that people don’t realize how much is being lost.” From:  This Is How Much America Spends Putting Out Wildfires ; ;Related ArticlesWhy David Brat is Completely Wrong About Climate ScienceHurricane Cristina Just Set A Scary RecordThis Is Why You Have No Business Challenging Scientific Experts ;

Excerpt from: 

This Is How Much America Spends Putting Out Wildfires

Posted in alo, Citadel, eco-friendly, FF, For Dummies, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, Prepara, solar, solar power, Sterling, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Is How Much America Spends Putting Out Wildfires

Watch: John Oliver Destroys Washington’s Racist Football Team Name With New Video

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Last week, a Native American tribe in Northern California ran a new TV ad during the NBA Finals that targeted the racist name of the Washington football team. “Unyielding. Strong. Indomitable,” a narrator intones at the end. “Native Americans call themselves many things. The one thing they don’t?” The ad then cuts to a picture of a helmet with the team’s logo.

On Sunday’s Last Week Tonight, John Oliver used President Obama’s first visit to American Indian land to segue into the battle over the R-word. “For the average American,” he joked, “that ad should tug at 1/16th of your heartstrings and make the rest extremely guilty.” But then Oliver & Co. went a step further: They made their own anti-Redskins video. Watch the whole segment here:

This article is from: 

Watch: John Oliver Destroys Washington’s Racist Football Team Name With New Video

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Sterling, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Watch: John Oliver Destroys Washington’s Racist Football Team Name With New Video

Quote of the Day: "We Had It Won….We Had It Won….We Had It Won."

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

From John McCain this morning, speaking about the resurgent civil war in Iraq:

We had it won. Thanks to the surge and thanks to Gen. David Petraeus, we had it won….The fact is we had the conflict won, and we had a stable government, and a residual force such as we have left behind … but the president wanted out and now we are paying a very heavy price.

John McCain is now the Donald Sterling of foreign affairs: old, angry, retrograde, and only barely in touch with the real world. This is the same guy who declared Iraq safe after taking a carefully staged stroll through a fruit market in Baghdad seven years ago, and he hasn’t been willing to engage with reality any more seriously ever since. He’s just sure that we had it won, that American troops had victory in their grasp, and now it’s all turned to ashes. And since the actual politics of the region seem to be beyond him, all he can do is rage at President Obama for somehow ruining his lovely pretend victory.

It’s a little sad in a way, and perhaps sadder still that the media continues to give him the means to keep embarrassing himself on national TV. It’s time to move on, guys.

Excerpt from:  

Quote of the Day: "We Had It Won….We Had It Won….We Had It Won."

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Sterling, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Quote of the Day: "We Had It Won….We Had It Won….We Had It Won."

STUDY: Economic Hardship Makes People More Racially Biased

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The economic collapse of the late 2000s hurt most Americans—but not equally. In fact, according to a 2011 Pew study (visualized above), while median household wealth dropped by 16 percent for white Americans, it dropped a stunning 53 percent for African-Americans.

What accounts for this dramatic disparity? Traditional explanations tend to focus on structural economic factors, such as the fact that African American families had a higher proportion of their total wealth tied up in the vulnerable housing market, and that they were targeted by predatory lenders. But according to a new paper just out in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that may not be the full explanation. It looks as though a more subtle form of racial bias may have played a role as well—thanks to psychological factors that, in a recession, tend make those biases worse.

The new study is by Amy Krosch and David Amodio of New York University. Amodio in particular has extensively studied what are called “implicit” racial biases: Uncontrolled prejudices that manifest themselves in our split-second reactions to images or in other cognitive tests. According to one estimate, for instance, 75 percent of whites harbor these subtle, subconscious biases in favor of other whites, and against blacks.

The study adds a new twist to this large and well established literature on unconscious biases. It finds that when people are made to think about economic scarcity—as they inevitably are during a stressful recession—their subconscious perceptions of race change as well. In particular, they are more likely to internally visualize African American faces as being darker in color and more “stereotypically black”—perceptions related, in prior research, to the expression of higher levels of discrimination. The study even found that when asked to divvy up money between two people, white study participants allocated less money to an individual who was perceived as being more stereotypically black.

What might that mean in the real world? Racial biases, heightened by the downturn, might have filtered into “hiring or firing decisions, or decisions about home ownership loans, dealing with foreclosure, or other things that came out of the recession,” Amodio speculates.

The new study consists of four separate experiments, which bulwark this central conclusion using a variety of methodologies. In one of them, white study participants were asked to play a money allocation game. In some cases, they were told that it was possible to distribute up to $100 to a partner; in others, they were told that it was only possible to distribute up to $10. Either way, the participants were ultimately given the same amount of money—$10—to distribute. Thus, the scenario in which that $10 looked like only a small slice of the available pie (just 1/10 of the possible total) created perceptions of scarce resources. (The two scenarios were pretested on a different group of subjects to confirm that having only $10 out of a possible $100 to distribute made individuals feel that resources were scarce. It did.)

Afterwards, the research subjects were asked to looked at a series of images of paired faces. All of the images were actually based on the same original composite image, a mixed-race “morph” created from 100 black and 100 white faces, and then randomly degraded in quality by different patterns of visual noise. Here’s a helpful visualization, from the study, of how the process of creating the images worked:

Krosch and Amodio, “Economic scarcity alters the perception of race,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2014. David Amodio

Individuals were then asked to pick which version of the face was “black.”

“We let them choose which faces most accurately matched the image of a black person in their minds, from a range of subtly different face images across hundreds of trials,” says Amodio. The subjects’ choices were then all combined together to make two new composite images: One of the research participants’ perceptions of a black person under conditions of scarcity, and one of their perceptions under control conditions. This was the result:

Economic conditions affected how study participants perceived race. David Amodio.

Sure enough, in the “scarcity” experimental scenario, research subjects collectively produced a very different picture of what they thought that a black person looks like. Their version was judged, by independent observers, to be both darker in skin color, and also more “stereotypically black.”

“Together, our results provide strong converging evidence for the role of perceptual bias as a mechanism through which economic scarcity enhances discrimination and contributes to racial disparities,” the authors wrote.

That conclusion is underscored by the final experiment of the paper. In it, a new group of white research subjects were shown the two images above, and asked to divide $15 dollars between the fictional people pictured in them (in whole dollars; thus, giving each $7.50 was not a possible option). In this scenario, people generally tried to be relatively egalitarian, but they could not divide the money 100 percent evenly. At best, somebody had to get $8, and somebody had to get $7. Sure enough, the research subjects ultimately gave the person with the lighter colored, less “stereotypical” face more money.

We already knew, based on a large body of science, that subconscious racial biases filter into our behavior in innumerable ways. The new research presents striking evidence that in times when we’re all facing hardship, it can be even worse.

We recently interviewed David Amodio about the emerging science of prejudice on the Inquiring Minds podcast; you can stream below:

Link:

STUDY: Economic Hardship Makes People More Racially Biased

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Sterling, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on STUDY: Economic Hardship Makes People More Racially Biased

Republicans Propose Limiting Food Aid to Rural Children

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Via TPM, here’s the latest proposal from the Republican Party in its agriculture and food safety bill:

In a surprising twist, the bill language specifies that only rural areas are to benefit in the future from funding requested by the administration this year to continue a modest summer demonstration program to help children from low-income households — both urban and rural — during those months when school meals are not available.

Since 2010, the program has operated from an initial appropriation of $85 million, and the goal has been to test alternative approaches to distribute aid when schools are not in session. The White House asked for an additional $30 million to continue the effort, but the House bill provides $27 million for what’s described as an entirely new pilot program focused on rural areas only.

Democrats were surprised to see urban children were excluded. And the GOP had some trouble explaining the history itself. But a spokeswoman confirmed that the intent of the bill is a pilot project in “rural areas” only.

I guess that is surprising. Usually they’re a little more subtle in their contempt for poor people in urban areas. But now they’re being completely up-front about it. Poor white kids will get extra money for meals when school is out of session. Poor black kids won’t. I’m not surprised that Republicans had a hard time explaining this. So did Donald Sterling.

Originally from:

Republicans Propose Limiting Food Aid to Rural Children

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Sterling, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republicans Propose Limiting Food Aid to Rural Children

Koch vs. Koch: The Brutal Battle That Tore Apart America’s Most Powerful Family

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Morris eased the pickup truck to the side of the road. The wide, busy thoroughfares of 1950s Wichita, Kansas, were just five miles southwest, but here on the largely undeveloped outskirts of the city, near the Koch family’s 160-acre property, the landscape consisted of little more than flat, sun-bleached fields, etched here and there by dusty rural byways. The retired Marine, rangy and middle-aged, climbed out of the truck holding two sets of scuffed leather boxing gloves.

Buy the book.

“Okay, boys,” he barked, “get outside and duke it out.” David and Bill, the teenage Koch twins, were at each other’s throats once again. Impossible to tell who or what had started it. But it seldom took much. The roots of the strife typically traced to some kind of competition—a game of hoops, a round of water polo in the family pool, a footrace. They were pathologically competitive, and David, a gifted athlete, often won. Everything seemed to come easier for him. Bill was just 19 minutes younger than his fraternal twin, but this solidified his role as the baby of the family. With a hair-trigger temper, he threw the tantrums to match.

David was more even-keeled than Bill, but he knew how to push his brother’s buttons. Once they got into it, neither backed down. Arguments between the twins, who shared a small room, their beds within pinching range, transcended routine sibling rivalry. Morris kept their boxing gloves close at hand to keep them from seriously injuring each other when their tiffs escalated into full-scale brawls. The brothers’ industrialist father had officially hired the ex-soldier to look after the grounds and livestock on the family’s compound. But his responsibilities also included chauffeuring the twins to movies and school events, and refereeing the fights that broke out unpredictably on these outings.

Morris laced up one brother, then the other. The boys, both lean and tall, squared off, and when Morris stepped clear, they traded a barrage of punches. A few minutes later, Morris reclaimed the gloves and the brothers piled breathlessly into the cab. He slipped back behind the wheel and pulled out onto the road.

Pugilism was an enduring theme in the family. The patriarch, Fred Koch—a college boxer known for his fierce determination—spent the better part of his professional life warring against the dark forces of communism and the big oil companies that had tried to run him out of the refining business. As adults, Fred’s four sons paired off in a brutal legal campaign over the business empire he bequeathed to them, a battle that “would make Dallas and Dynasty look like a playpen,” as Bill once said.

The roles the brothers would play in that drama were established from boyhood. Fred and Mary Koch’s oldest son, Frederick, a lover of theater and literature, left Wichita for boarding school after 7th grade and barely looked back. Charles, the rebellious No. 2, was molded from an early age as Fred’s successor. After eight years at MIT and a consulting firm, Charles returned to Wichita to learn the intricacies of the family business. Together, he and David would build their father’s Midwestern company, which as of 1967 had $250 million in yearly sales and 650 employees, into a corporate Goliath with $115 billion in annual revenues and a presence in 60 countries. Under their leadership, Koch Industries grew into the second-largest private corporation in the United States (only the Minneapolis-based agribusiness giant Cargill is bigger).

Bill, meanwhile, would become best known for his flamboyant escapades: as a collector of fine wines who embarked on a litigious crusade against counterfeit vino, as a playboy with a history of messy romantic entanglements, and as a yachtsman who won the America’s Cup in 1992, an experience he likened, unforgettably, to the sensation of “10,000 orgasms.” Koch Industries made its money the old-fashioned way—oil, chemicals, cattle, timber—and in its dizzying rise, David and Charles amassed fortunes estimated at $41 billion apiece, tying them for sixth place among the wealthiest people on the planet. (Bill ranks 377th on Forbes‘ list of the world’s billionaires.) The company’s products would come to touch everyone’s lives, from the gas in our tanks and the steak on our forks to the paper towels in our pantries. But it preferred to operate quietly—in David’s words, to be “the biggest company you’ve never heard of.”

But if Charles and David’s industrial empire stayed under the radar, their political efforts would not remain so private. After spending decades quietly trying to mainstream their libertarian views and remake the political landscape, they burst into the headlines as they took on the Obama administration and forged a power center in the Republican Party.

Politicians, as one of Charles’ advisers once put it, are stage actors working off a script produced by the nation’s intellectual class. Some of the intellectual seeds planted by the Kochs and their comrades would germinate into one of the past decade’s most influential political movements: Though the intensely private brothers downplay any connection, they helped to provide the key financing and organizational support that allowed the tea party to blossom into a formidable force—one that paralyzed Congress and ignited a civil war within the GOP. After backing a constellation of conservatives, from Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to South Carolina’s Jim DeMint, Charles and David mounted their most audacious political effort to date in the 2012 presidential campaign, when their fundraising network unleashed an estimated $400 million via a web of conservative advocacy groups.

Just as their father, a founding member of the John Birch Society, had once decried the country’s descent toward communism during the Kennedy era, the brothers saw America veering toward socialism under President Obama. Charles, entering his late 70s, had not only failed to see American society transformed into his libertarian ideal; with this new administration, things seemed to be moving in the exact opposite direction. Now he and David, along with other allies, would wage what he described as the “mother of all wars” to defeat Obama and hand Republicans ironclad congressional majorities.

Yet for all the attention the Kochs—including the “other brothers,” Frederick and Bill—have received, America knows little about who they really are. Charles and David have gained a reputation as cartoonish robber barons, powerful political puppeteers who with one hand choreographed the moves of Republican politicians and with the other commanded the tea party army. And like all caricatures, this one bears only a faint resemblance to reality.

The family pictured at David and Bill’s graduation from MIT Courtesy of MIT Museum

As with America’s other great dynasties, the Kochs’ legacy (corporate, philanthropic, political, cultural) is far more expansive than most people realize, and it will be felt long into the future. Already, the four brothers have become some of the most influential, celebrated, and despised members of their generation. Understanding what shaped them, what drove them, and what set them upon one another requires traveling back to a time when the battles involved little more than a pair of boxing gloves.

Fred Koch came up in a place where sometimes all that separated prosperity from poverty was an unfortunate turn in the weather. Quanah, Texas, located just east of the panhandle and eight miles from the Oklahoma border, was a town of strivers, and Fred watched his father’s rise from penniless Dutch immigrant to successful newspaper owner. By the time his four sons were born—Frederick in 1933, Charles in 1935, David and Bill in 1940—Fred’s technical talent and unrelenting ambition had made him the co-owner of a multimillion-dollar oil engineering firm.

Fred told his sons he wanted them to experience “the glorious feeling of accomplishment.” If he handed them everything, what would motivate them to make something of themselves? “He wanted to make sure, because we were a wealthy family, that we didn’t grow up thinking that we could go through life not doing anything,” Charles once recalled. Fred’s mantra, drilled repeatedly into their minds, was that he had no intention of raising “country-club bums.”

Though his children grew up among Renoirs and Thomas Hart Bentons on an estate across from the exclusive Wichita Country Club, Fred went out of his way to make sure they did not feel wealthy. “Their father was quite tight with his resources,” recalled Jay Chapple, a childhood friend of the Koch twins. “Every family was getting a TV set that could possibly afford one, but Fred Sr. just said no.” The brothers received no allowances, though they were paid for chores. “If we wanted to go to the movies, we’d have to go beg him for money,” David once told an interviewer. In the local public school, where the Koch boys began their educations alongside the sons and daughters of blue-collar workers from the Cessna and Beech factories, it was their classmates who often seemed like the rich ones, he remembered: “I felt very much of a pauper compared to any of them.”

Fred rarely displayed affection toward his sons, as if doing so might breed weakness in them. “Fred was just a very stiff, calculated businessman,” Chapple said. “I don’t mean this in a critical way, but his interest was not in the kids, other than the fact that he wanted them well educated.” He was not the kind of dad who played catch; he was the type of father, one Koch relative recalled, who taught his children to swim by throwing them into the pool and walking away. “He ruled the boys with an iron fist.”

Fred traveled frequently on business, but when he was home, the household took on an air of Victorian formality. After work, Fred often retreated to his wood-paneled library, its shelves filled with tomes on politics and economics, emerging promptly at 6:30 p.m., still in coat and tie, for dinner in the formal dining room. “He just controlled the atmosphere,” Chapple recalled. “There was no horseplay at the table.”

Every dictatorship has its dissident, and Frederick played this part early on. While the three younger boys took after their father, he gravitated toward his mother’s interests. Mary Robinson Koch helped to nourish Frederick’s artistic side, and when he grew up they often took in plays and attended performing arts festivals. Frederick was a student of literature and a lover of drama who liked to sing and act. He wasn’t athletic, displayed no interest in business, and loathed the work-camp-like environment fostered by his father, with whom he shared little beyond a love of opera.

By the late 1950s, when Frederick was in his 20s, many in the family’s circle of friends assumed that he was gay. “You know, those things, especially in an environment like Wichita, were almost whispered,” says someone who spent time with the family and their friends during that era. (Frederick told me he is not gay.)

Fred Koch chose Charles as his successor early on, intensifying a bitter sibling rivalry. Courtesy MIT museum

In the 1960s, mention of Frederick even vanished from one of his father’s bios: “He and Mrs. Koch have three sons,” it read. “Charles, William, and David.”

Fred’s disappointment in his eldest son caused him to double down on Charles, piling him with chores and responsibilities by the age of nine. “I think Fred Koch went through this kind of thing that ‘I must have been too affectionate; I must have been too loving, too kind to Freddie, and that’s why he turned out to be so effeminate,'” said John Damgard, who went to high school with David and remains close with David and Charles. “So he was really, really tough on Charles.”

“I think Mary did a lot to protect the twins,” Damgard added, but Charles grew up with the impression that he was being picked on. As an 11-year-old boy, pleading for his parents to reconsider, he was shipped off to the first of several boarding schools, this one in Arizona.

As Charles admits, there was little about his teenage self that suggested he was destined for greatness. He was smart, but with the type of unharnessed intellect that tends to land young men in trouble. He got into fights, stayed out late drinking and sowing wild oats. David has called his older brother a “bad boy who turned good.” When it came time for high school, his exasperated parents sent him to Culver Military Academy in northern Indiana, an elite military school that had a reputation for taking in wild boys and spitting out upright, disciplined men (notable alumni include the late New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner, actor Hal Holbrook, and Crown Prince Alexander II of Yugoslavia). Charles considered it a prison sentence, and during his junior year he was expelled after drinking beer on a train ride to school after spring break.

Asked later how old Fred took the news, the best Charles could say was, “I’m still alive.” Fred banished Charles to live with family in Texas, where he spent the remainder of the school year working in a grain elevator until, after some begging, he was reinstated at Culver.

When Charles became Fred Koch’s work-in-progress, he also became a lightning rod for his youngest brother’s jealousy. Bill was in some respects the most cerebral of the brothers, but he was also the most socially awkward and emotionally combustible. In his baby book, Mary had scrawled notations including “easily irritable,” “angry,” and “jealous.” As a young boy, Bill resorted to desperate gambits for attention. Once, according to Charles, when Mary warned her son to take a hog’s nose ring out of his mouth, Bill proceeded to gulp it down instead, necessitating a trip to the hospital.

Bill’s volatile emotions made it difficult for him to concentrate in school, and his worried parents eventually sent him to a psychologist, who advised that the only way to help Bill was to remove the source of his smoldering resentment—Charles. “We had to get Charles away to boarding school because of the terrible jealousy that was consuming Billy,” Mary told the New York Times‘ Leslie Wayne in 1986.

Bill recalled a Lord of the Flies-like childhood, in which his parents were frequently away—Fred to travel, Mary to attend social events—leaving him and his brothers in the care of the household help “to grow up amongst ourselves.” He remembered Charles as a mischievous bully who perched astride the family storm cellar during backyard games of King of the Hill and flung his brothers down to the ground whenever they tried to scramble to the top. Still, Bill idolized his older brother, though Charles made it painfully clear that he preferred David’s company.

Bill and David were twins, but David and Charles were natural compatriots. David was self-confident and athletic, with a mild temperament and a contagious, honking laugh. “Charles and David were so much alike, they were always really good friends. And Bill probably felt a little left out,” said their cousin Carol Margaret Allen. “Charles always had quite a following of girls, and so did David. And Bill—I think he would have liked to have had more girls following him. He was not as gregarious and outgoing.” Awkward and uncoordinated, Bill spent his childhood trying to keep up with his brothers. His self-esteem plummeted. “For a long time,” he later reflected, “I didn’t think I was worth shit.”

When it came time for the twins to attend prep school, they had their pick of prestigious institutions. David chose Deerfield Academy, a boarding school in northwestern Massachusetts that groomed East Coast Brahmins for the Ivy League. He credited the school, where he would distinguish himself on the basketball and cross-country teams, with transforming him “from an unsophisticated country boy into a fairly polished, well-informed graduate.” But Bill opted for Culver Military Academy, Charles’ alma mater. This alarmed Mary, who later confided to an interviewer that her son had become unhinged in his fixation on Charles.

“This was not a lovey-dovey family,” mused a member of the extended family. “This was a family where the father was consumed by his own ambitions. The mother was trapped by her generation and wealth and surrounded by alpha males. And the boys had each other, but they were so busy in pursuit of their father’s approval that they never noticed what they could do for each other.”

“Everything,” the relative added, “goes back to their childhood. Everything goes back to the love they didn’t get.”

On Christmas Day 1979, the four brothers, now aged 39 to 46, gathered in the dining room of their childhood home, the long table set with lace placemats and gold-rimmed crystal wine glasses. Also at the table were Charles’ wife, Liz, and Joan Granlund, the former model who’d become Bill’s secretary and girlfriend.

As was the family custom, Mary was hosting the Christmas dinner. Fred, who had died of a heart attack 12 years before, peered down from an oil painting on a nearby wall. But over the course of the evening, the festive mood evaporated, largely thanks to Bill.

Ever since joining Koch Industries in 1974, Bill had felt like the third and lesser wheel to David and Charles. He brooded over his role within the company, as well as over how Mary, who had just turned 72, planned to distribute her estate.

Seated across from his mother, Bill began to vent. Growing up, he had perceived Mary as cool and distant. Now he blamed her for laying the foundation for his emotional turmoil. She had not loved him; she had treated him unfairly. According to Charles, Bill also pressed her on the disposition of the family’s art collection. Their father had given Charles some paintings before his death; Bill insisted Mary even things out by leaving more of the collection to him.

Charles tried to calm his brother down: “I’m not going to fight you over any property, but just leave Mama alone.” Bill laid into Charles, too, whom he faulted for running their father’s company like a dictator. Fred may have selected Charles as his successor, but Koch Industries belonged to all of them.

Mary struggled to hold back tears. The discord, occurring on one of the few occasions when the Kochs still gathered as a family, finally overcame her. Sobbing, she pushed back from the table and hurried from the room.

It was the last Christmas the Kochs spent together.

The family business, which Charles had named Koch Industries in his father’s honor, had grown at a staggering rate with Charles at the helm. One of his first major deals was the acquisition of Great Northern Oil Company, owner of a Minnesota-based refinery that had ready access to a steady supply of Canadian crude. Fred had purchased a 35 percent stake in 1959; to gain a majority for the buyout, Charles had joined forces with his father’s old friend, Texas oilman J. Howard Marshall II, who swapped his 16 percent share in Great Northern for Koch Industries stock. The refinery became a company cash cow, fueling Charles’ expansion into natural gas and petrochemicals and pipelines. Koch had grown into a large company, but its success lay in the fact that it could still operate like a small one: Where its rivals lumbered along, it could make deals and strategic decisions without a laborious board approval process, moving decisively and swiftly.

Perhaps too swiftly for Bill. He’d risen from salesman to head the company’s mining subsidiary, Koch Carbon, and like Charles had a reputation for being highly analytical. But in meticulously studying every facet of an issue, he could be prone to waffling. He sought the opinions of high-priced consultants, commissioned studies, and snowed in managers with reports and memoranda. He asked endless questions, many of them astute, but to what end? At Koch, it was results that mattered. Profits. And the division Bill ran, according to Charles, was not faring so well.

Bill nevertheless pressed for more and more responsibility. William Hanna, the executive to whom Bill reported, noted: “It was important for Bill to be important.”

By 1980, Bill was openly dismissive of his brother, referring to him as “Prince Charles.” Over dinner one night at Boston’s Algonquin Club with his brother David and George Ablah—a family friend with whom the Kochs had recently joined in a $195 million real estate deal—Bill commented that Koch Industries had a reputation for screwing over its business partners. David was outraged. “You’ve got to retract that statement,” he said.

Bill’s criticisms—intemperate as they could sometimes be—were not merely rooted in sibling rivalry. He and other shareholders had developed some legitimate worries about the company’s direction. Koch Industries had run afoul of agencies ranging from the Department of Energy to the Internal Revenue Service, and it even faced a criminal indictment for conspiring to rig a federal lottery for oil and gas leases.

Bill had also grown troubled by the increasing amounts of company money Charles diverted to his “libertarian revolution causes”—causes Bill considered loony. “No shareholders had any influence over how the company was being run, and large contributions and corporate assets were being used to further the political philosophy of one man,” Bill said later.

Charles’ philosophy had been deeply influenced by their father, whose experiences helping to modernize the USSR’s oil industry in the early 1930s turned him into a rabid anti-communist who saw signs of Soviet subversion everywhere. A staunch conservative and Barry Goldwater backer, Fred was among the John Birch Society’s national leaders; Charles joined in due time, and by the ’60s was among a group of influential Birchers who grew enamored with a colorful anti-government guru named Robert LeFevre, creator of a libertarian mecca called the Freedom School in Colorado’s Rampart mountain range. From here, Charles fell in with the fledgling libertarian movement, a volatile stew of anarchists, devotees of the “Austrian school” of economics, and other radical thinkers who could agree on little besides an abiding disdain for government.

By late 1979, as tensions with Bill were escalating, Charles had become the libertarian movement’s primary sugar daddy. He had cofounded the Cato Institute as an incubator for libertarian ideas, bankrolled the magazine Libertarian Review, and backed the movement’s youth outreach arm, Students for a Libertarian Society. He had also convinced David to run as the Libertarian Party’s vice presidential candidate in the 1980 election (Bill had declined). David was able to pour unlimited funds into his own campaign, circumventing federal restrictions on political contributions.

Their father had loathed publicity, scrupulously guarding the family’s privacy. But, to Bill’s dismay, Charles and David’s activism was beginning to draw attention to the company and the family. Worse, at the very moment that the Energy Department was investigating Koch Industries for violating price controls on oil, David and his Libertarian Party running mate, Ed Clark, were on the campaign trail openly antagonizing the agency by calling for its eradication.

Before the storm: Bill, Charles, and David in Lincoln, Massachusetts, 1968 Photo: Mikki Ansin

Beyond politics, Bill and other Koch shareholders also had concerns about liquidity. Bill was one of the richest men in America, worth hundreds of millions of dollars. But only on paper. He had needed to borrow money to buy a mansion near Boston. Nearly all of his net worth was locked up in a closely held private company. The market value of Koch stock, unlike that of publicly traded companies, was opaque. If any of Koch’s shareholders wanted to cash in their holdings, they would likely be forced to do so at an extreme discount.

Koch shares did pay a dividend (about 6 percent of the company’s earnings), but Bill considered it stingy. Charles’ growth-obsessed operating style called for plowing almost all earnings back into the company. This strategy expanded Koch Industries, but not the bank accounts of its shareholders—at least not immediately. Bill had interests he wanted to pursue: art, fine wine, yachting.

Bill began furtively meeting with Koch shareholders, some of whom shared his frustrations. The most obvious solution was taking the company public. Charles opposed this option. The last thing he wanted was more oversight from government bureaucrats.

On Thursday, July 3, 1980, an 11-page single-spaced letter landed on Charles’ desk. His blood pressure rose as he read: This was not just another of Bill’s regular, overheated missives. His brother was accusing him of keeping the board in the dark about key corporate matters, including its run-ins with regulators: “The directors and shareholders must look on helplessly as the corporation’s good name is dragged through the mud.”

Bill delved into the “extremely frustrating” liquidity issue, complaining that it was “absurd” that shareholders who were “extremely wealthy on paper” had almost no ability to utilize their assets. “What is the purpose of having wealth if you cannot do anything with it, especially when under our present tax laws on death they will undoubtedly end up in the hands of government and politicians?” If these problems were not solved, he warned, “the company will probably have to be sold or taken public.” Though the letter was addressed solely to Charles, Bill had circulated it to some of the shareholders. It was a declaration of war.

Six days later, on July 9, 1980, Charles took his customary place at the head of the long, polished wooden table in Koch Industries’ conference room. A large world map hung behind him. As usual, David sat to Charles’ left, and Sterling Varner, the company’s president, to his right.

Charles was known for his inscrutable impassiveness. But that afternoon, as the directors gathered for a board meeting, he was visibly angry. He had added a last-minute item to the agenda: “W.I.K. Has Leveled Serious Charges.”

Continue Reading »

View the original here:  

Koch vs. Koch: The Brutal Battle That Tore Apart America’s Most Powerful Family

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, Casio, Crown, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Oster, PUR, Radius, Sterling, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Koch vs. Koch: The Brutal Battle That Tore Apart America’s Most Powerful Family

How Fox and CNN Blew It on the Antarctic Climate Disaster

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Monday’s blockbuster climate news was that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is broken—already destabilized by irrevocable melting that foreshadows a slow-motion collapse. Up to 13 feet of sea-level rise might be the result. Two separate scientific papers, in the journals Science and Geophysical Research Letters, found this unstoppable decline was a result of a dangerous feedback loop driven by the warming waters related to climate change: higher temperatures will result in melting ice that will, in turn, expose an even greater amount of ice to higher sea temperatures. Scientists said the process could take centuries, even a millennium, but could ultimately rewrite the world’s coastlines.

That sounds like pretty big stuff to cover in the news, right? The science itself got a ton of coverage in the print media and online. You’d think it might also deserve a bit of cable news airtime, using some good old fashioned explanatory journalism?

But as the world took in the news, cable news channels largely avoided giving their viewers a proper rundown of the science.

I took to the TV news section of the Internet Archive, which makes television news shows searchable via closed captions, and then cross-referenced my findings with LexisNexis—the online news database that provides transcripts of many cable shows. And I looked at CNN’s own transcript portal.

The results? CNN and Fox News didn’t cover the Antarctica story on air at all on Monday or Tuesday, while MSNBC covered it several times. Just one segment—on MSNBC—took the Antarctica news and produced it into a full story on its own terms, and that was the day after the news broke.

Beyond that, what news there was about climate change focused on the 2016 presidential race, in particular Marco Rubio’s recent comments to ABC’s “This Week.” “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it,” he told interviewer Jonathan Karl (in New Hampshire, no less). These comments sparked a myriad of cookie-cutter round-table discussions on cable news. Admittedly, it is a great, revealing interview, in which Rubio produces some strong language on climate change intended to cement his conservative credentials, and the whole thing is well worth watching in full: “I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will destroy our economy,” he said.

Here’s more detail about how each cable network covered climate change in the wake of the Antarctica findings:

Fox News

There was no mention of Antarctic melting on Fox News on Monday or Tuesday. Around 2:15 pm on Monday—more than an hour after NASA’s press conference—The Real Story With Gretchen Carlson (with Shannon Bream filling in) covered the Rubio climate story instead. “What Senator Rubio was not saying was that he believes that climate change—he’s saying that climate change is not manmade. That belies 97 percent of the world’s climatologists,” Bream’s guest Julie Roginskyâ&#128;&#139; bravely (and rightly) contended. “There is a lot of debate still about that,” Bream quickly reminded her audience, before springing away to talk about Rand Paul, who is “also in the mix for 2016.” For a moment there, I thought we might inch closer to the science.

Continue Reading »

More – 

How Fox and CNN Blew It on the Antarctic Climate Disaster

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, Radius, Sterling, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Fox and CNN Blew It on the Antarctic Climate Disaster

This Video of Michael Sam & His Boyfriend Finding Out He Has Been Drafted Is Amazing

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Earlier today, Michael Sam received a really great phone call. He had become the first openly-gay player to be drafted in NFL history. Cameras were present as he and his boyfriend found out the news together. Watch them share a kiss and beautiful embrace as they learn of the historic decision by the St. Louis Rams:

Link – 

This Video of Michael Sam & His Boyfriend Finding Out He Has Been Drafted Is Amazing

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Sterling, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Video of Michael Sam & His Boyfriend Finding Out He Has Been Drafted Is Amazing