Pages

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

The CEO Who Built Himself America’s Largest House Just Threatened to Fire His Employees if Obama’s Elected

 

David Siegel is the founder and CEO of Westgate Resorts, a huge national timeshare company and one of the largest resort developers in the world. In 2007 he was a billionaire, although he may be only a hundred-millionaire now. He and his wife Jackie were the subjects of the recent documentary "The Queen of Versailles," about their ongoing quest to build the largest house in America, a 90,000 square foot monument to excess. And yesterday, David Siegel sent an email to all of his thousands of employees, in which he—in a veiled way—insinuated that they would be fired of Barack Obama is reelected.

UPDATE: Shortly after we posted this letter, we found out, thanks to multiple readers, that it bore suspicious resemblances to a popular chain letter that was circulated just before the 2008 elections. Well, we just got off the phone with David Siegel, who told us the letter below is real, and that it was sent out to all of his employees yesterday. "I did use the letter that had circulated before as a guideline, but I changed it [to fit my circumstances]," he told us. "It speaks the truth and it gives [employees] something to think about when they go to the polls." He also said that its threats of possible layoffs are real, based on his assessment of the political and economic climate. He added that he "hasn't had any negative feedback" on the letter.

The Florida-based Westgate Resorts is not a public company. It is the domain of David Siegel, a staunch Republican. In fact, Siegel has publicly claimed credit for George W. Bush defeating Al Gore, saying "I had my managers do a survey on every employee [8,000 total]. If they liked Bush, we made them register to vote. But not if they liked Gore."
"The Queen of Versailles" depicts the dashing of Siegel's mansion dreams after the recession hit. But just months ago, he restarted construction on his personal Palace of Versailles (with the intention of selling it for $100 million) and told Reuters, "We're the most profitable we've ever been."
Huge mansion. Huge fortune. Profitable company. What could David Siegal have to complain about? Well, the demonization of the 1% by Barack Obama, for one thing. This truly amazing email went out to all Westgate employees yesterday. Bolding is ours.
Subject: Message from David Siegel
Date:Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:58:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: [David Siegel]
To: [All employees]
         To All My Valued Employees,

As most of you know our company, Westgate Resorts, has continued to succeed in spite of a very dismal economy. There is no question that the economy has changed for the worse and we have not seen any improvement over the past four years. In spite of all of the challenges we have faced, the good news is this: The economy doesn't currently pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration. Of course, as your employer, I can't tell you whom to vote for, and I certainly wouldn't interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose. In fact, I encourage you to vote for whomever you think will serve your interests the best.
However, let me share a few facts that might help you decide what is in your best interest.The current administration and members of the press have perpetuated an environment that casts employers against employees. They want you to believe that we live in a class system where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. They label us the "1%" and imply that we are somehow immune to the challenges that face our country. This could not be further from the truth. Sure, you may have heard about the big home that I'm building. I'm sure many people think that I live a privileged life. However, what you don't see or hear is the true story behind any success that I have achieved.
I started this company over 42 years ago. At that time, I lived in a very modest home. I converted my garage into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. We didn't eat in fancy restaurants or take expensive vacations because every dollar I made went back into this company. I drove an old used car, and often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business — hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, many of my friends got regular jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a nice income, and they spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into this business —-with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford to buy whatever I wanted. Even to this day, every dime I earn goes back into this company. Over the past four years I have had to stop building my dream house, cut back on all of my expenses, and take my kids out of private schools simply to keep this company strong and to keep you employed.
Just think about this – most of you arrive at work in the morning and leave that afternoon and the rest of your time is yours to do as you please. But not me- there is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have that freedom. I eat, live, and breathe this company every minute of the day, every day of the week. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. I know many of you work hard and do a great job, but I'm the one who has to sign every check, pay every expense, and make sure that this company continues to succeed. Unfortunately, what most people see is the nice house and the lavish lifestyle. What the press certainly does not want you to see, is the true story of the hard work and sacrifices I've made.
Now, the economy is falling apart and people like me who made all the right decisions and invested in themselves are being forced to bail out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed 42 years of my life for. Yes, business ownership has its benefits, but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds. Unfortunately, the costs of running a business have gotten out of control, and let me tell you why: We are being taxed to death and the government thinks we don't pay enough. We pay state taxes, federal taxes, property taxes, sales and use taxes, payroll taxes, workers compensation taxes and unemployment taxes. I even have to hire an entire department to manage all these taxes. The question I have is this: Who is really stimulating the economy? Is it the Government that wants to take money from those who have earned it and give it to those who have not, or is it people like me who built a company out of his garage and directly employs over 7000 people and hosts over 3 million people per year with a great vacation?
Obviously, our present government believes that taking my money is the right economic stimulus for this country. The fact is, if I deducted 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, that's what happens to me.
Here is what most people don't understand and the press and our Government has chosen to ignore – to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Instead of raising my taxes and depositing that money into the Washington black-hole, let me spend it on growing the company, hire more employees, and generate substantial economic growth. My employees will enjoy the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But that is not what our current Government wants you to believe. They want you to believe that it somehow makes sense to take more from those who create wealth and give it to those who do not, and somehow our economy will improve. They don't want you to know that the "1%", as they like to label us, pay more than 31% of all the taxes in this country. Thomas Jefferson, the author of our great Constitution, once said, "democracy" will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate business, not kill it. However, the power brokers in Washington believe redistributing wealth is the essential driver of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change they want.
So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone.
So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, which candidate understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of protecting and saving your job. While the media wants to tell you to believe the "1 percenters" are bad, I'm telling you they are not. They create most of the jobs. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the "1%"; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country.
You see, I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities. If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about.

Signed, your boss,
David Siegel

Obama, Romney Campaigns Both Complain About Candy Crowley



Oh, boo hoo. My concern is not that Candy Crowley will be unfair to the candidates, but to the viewers. I'm concerned that she will either work to soften the questions (because when have you ever seen her conduct a truly interesting interview?) -- or that she will simply spit out the same fact-free conventional wisdom as Martha Raddatz did re: Social Security and Medicare, or Iran:.
In a rare show of unity, both the Obama and Romney campaigns have complained to the Commission on Presidential Debates about CNN's Candy Crowley, who will moderate Tuesday's town hall forum.
The reason, according to Time's Mark Halperin, is that Crowley has publicly said that she intends to play an active role in the debate, rather than just let the audience at the town hall ask questions.
Time's Halperin got his hands on the secret debate contract -- or "Memorandum of Understanding" -- hammered out by the two campaigns for every debate. Many groups have long demanded for these contracts to be made public as a matter of routine, but the Commission and the campaigns have resisted.
According to Halperin, the MOU, which he said Crowley is "not party to," calls for the moderator to play a relatively limited role in the town-hall debate:
"In managing the two-minute comment periods, the moderator will not rephrase the question or open a new topic ... The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the two-minute response period."
This does not dovetail in the least with Crowley's public statements about her intentions. She discussed what she feels her role will be in detail with The Huffington Post last week:
I want to hear less from the moderator than I do from the candidate. I think that, in some ways, people go into it expecting that you're going to mix it up with the candidates. And I'm not saying that at some point that won't happen or that that doesn't happen. I'm just saying that the idea is to get the candidates to mix it up with each other.
Huffington Post: So you see your ultimate role as being there to facilitate their conversation with each other?
Crowley: I think that's one of the roles. The expectations are enormous from people. My inbox is filled with questions from people. You're going to disappoint people, so I think the idea is to try to add to the body of knowledge that is out there in whatever way you can. I think it's always best when these guys engage with each other, but that doesn't mean I won't engage with them if that gets us closer to what we need.
I personally thought she did an excellent job, keep the conversation moving, and made sure that the candidates answered questions, and she tried to rope in Romney who was trying to take over again.  He was rude, crude, and sneering at our President.  I would never vote for him if he were the only person 20% capable of doing the job, and the only candidate. He thinks he owns the talking space.  He did that in both debates.

110073567 the 2012 Debates Memorandum of Understanding Between the Obama and Romney Campaigns

5 ways Obama can win the next debate

Mitt Romney turned the campaign upside down with his victory in the first presidential debate. Can President Obama turn the tables in the second one?

To win the next debate, President Obama will have to ramp up the energy.
To win the next debate, President Obama will have to ramp up the energy.Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty ImagesSEE ALL 170 PHOTOS
President Obama blew a significant polling lead with his widely panned, lackluster performance in the first debate. And after the bump Mitt Romney got in the polls from his clear win in the first clash, both candidates have hunkered down for intense preparations for the second debate, which takes place at Hofstra University in New York on Tuesday. Most of the pressure is on Obama, as political analysts generally agree that he has to nail this town-hall-style showdown to start regaining lost support. Obama has been working with top advisers in a three-day debate camp in Virginia. "It is going great," an optimistic Obama said Sunday. What will he have to do to win round two in the series of three debates? Here, five ways he can take back the momentum:

1. Obama has to avoid the many mistakes of his first debate
The president's first task is making sure he doesn't "repeat the mistakes he made at his first debate" a week and a half ago, says Helene Cooper at The New York Times. In that encounter, Obama "stood by passively as an aggressive Romney dominated him" and took over the momentum. Obama's aides are making sure he goes into the next clash with more practice — and energy. Vice President Joe Biden showed the way in his debate by forcefully countering the assertions of Romney's running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, by grinning in disbelief, and twice calling Ryan's claims "malarkey." Obama just has to figure out his own way "to accuse Romney of twisting the facts without seeming rude."

2. He should resist the temptation to renew his Bain attack
"Obama reportedly is also planning an assault on Romney's Bain background," says William A. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection, "but I predict a backfire." Romney has had plenty of time to craft a response to the tired attacks of his career as a financier at Bain. The debate will offer Romney the chance to explain his side of the story "without media filter," allowing him to "frame the issue as one of the private sector versus 'trickle down government.'" That will give the Republican the added advantage of putting Solyndra, Obama's green-pork boondoggle, in focus. Yes, but Obama "knows through experience that Romney's weak spot with middle class voters is Bain," says Rick Moran at PJ Tattler. Romney is going to have to defend his business career, so Obama had "better come up with some zingers for Tuesday night."

3. He has to crank up the energy
Forget "No Drama Obama," says Julianna Goldman at Bloomberg. The president needs some serious drama this time. His "dispassionate first debate performance" did not look good next to Romney's "fresh burst of enthusiasm." Early voting has already started and the Nov. 6 election is just three weeks away. "Obama must go on the offensive," with a confident, enthusiastic performance "laying out clear contrasts with Romney and making the kind of personal connection with voters that helped him win four years ago."

4. He needs to learn from Biden's success
Obama can't "duplicate Uncle Joe," says Alec MacGillis at The New Republic, and he shouldn't try. He can, however, take pointers from his sidekick. He should forget about the size of the cuts in Romney's tax plan, and focus on its details — it curtails mortgage-interest deductions for the middle-class while protecting hedge-funder loopholes that give Romney such low tax rates. Also, Obama inexplicably said he and Romney have the same views on Social Security. He needs to point out, as Biden did, that Republicans, especially Ryan, have argued we should privatize it. Biden's biggest score came when he called out Ryan as a hypocrite, for criticizing the stimulus while writing letters requesting stimulus funds to create growth and jobs. "Ryan looked like he'd had the wind knocked out of him."

5. Obama needs to defend his record the way Bill Clinton did
The president's main job is "to offer the voters a narrative that is true, compelling and appealing about the successes" of his first term,  says Brent Budowsky at The Huffington Post. Unemployment has fallen below 8 percent, the housing industry is on the mend. One of the reasons Obama got such a bounce after the Democratic convention was "the brilliant and historically important speech of former President Clinton," who "made a powerful and credible case for the successes that Obama has achieved in first avoiding a new global depression after the disaster he inherited from his Republican predecessor," and then in "initiating the economic recovery that has begun to gather steam." Obama has to defend his record as Clinton did, with "confidence, optimism, and vigor." He also needs to "state that Republicans bear major responsibility for the problems he inherited." If he can do that, he can win this debate.

Koch Brothers' 'Pro-Romney' Letter To Staff: Is Koch PAC Non-Partisan, As They Claim?

10/15/2012 @ 2:49PM |5,566 views
David Koch, billionaire industrialist and one half of America's richest pair of brothers.


It hasn’t been the best week for the billionaire Koch brothers. The lesser known Koch, David’s twin brother Bill, stands accused of kidnapping and imprisoning an executive on his Colorado ranch. He denies all charges.
Bill’s more famous siblings Charles and David Koch are rarely out of the headlines, but Sunday’s news was more substantive than the usual speculation on where America’s richest brothers, worth $31 billion apiece, are secretly spending their cash this election.
Liberal political magazine In These Times obtained and published a packet of voting information sent to 45,000 employees of Koch Industries paper subsidiary Georgia-Pacific. The materials include a list of Koch-endorsed candidates — those who “have received support from a Koch company or Koch PAC”, the company’s political action committee. For Oregon staffers, that list is comprised solely of Republicans: 14 of them at state level, plus the Romney/Ryan presidential ticket.
The publication of this mailing comes on the heels of another highly publicized letter from a member of the one per cent. Timeshare mogul David Siegel wrote to his employees last week urging them to vote for Mitt Romney or risk losing their jobs. He told my colleague Luisa Kroll that if President Obama is reelected, he’ll consider closing up shop and laying off all 7,000 of his staff.
Koch Industries’ slick media operation was quick to respond to In These Times’ piece, noting that other corporations and unions provide similar information to employees and members. Georgia-Pacific’s spokesperson went a step further, denying the company’s endorsements are at all partisan:

“As we regularly point out, Koch companies and Koch PAC support candidates based on their support for market-based policies and economic freedom, which benefits society as a whole. Our support is not based on party affiliation, and we support both Republicans and Democrats who support market-based policies and solutions.”
Koch Industries’ Koch PAC has indeed supported Democrats this election, but only to the tune of $23,500, backing four Democrats in Congressional races (for the record: $10,000 to Georgia’s John Barrow, $2,000 to Oklahoma’s Dan Boren, $5,500 to Minnesota’s Collin Peterson and $6,000 to Arkansas’ Mike Ross).
By contrast, Koch PAC has spent $1.162 million on Republican candidates for the House, plus another $152,000 on GOP Senate hopefuls. FEC disclosures show that the Koch Industries group donated $25,000 to the the official Romney/Ryan fundraising committee in August, as well as $30,000 each to the National Republican Congressional Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee and Republican National Committee.
In fact, Koch PAC’s giving has become increasingly partisan over the years. Check out the chart below, courtesy of the Center for Responsive Politics. The group’s donations to Democratic candidates make up 1.7% of their federal expenditure so far this election cycle, versus just over 15% in 2008 and just under 22% in 2004.
Credit: The Center For Reponsive Politics
Watch this space to see if this divide narrows at all with the next Koch PAC monthly report, due to the FEC on October 20.

Read more:
Billionaires Bashing Obama: The Most Scathing Rants, Tweets And Quotes From The 1%
Koch Brothers: Scott Walker Didn’t Get A Dime From Us
Want To Boycott Koch Brothers’ Products While Shopping? There’s An App For That


Anti-Obama Billionaires

AP Photo/Scott A. Miller David Siegel, Jackie Siegel

David Siegel, Jackie Siegel

Timeshare tycoon David Siegel (pictured with his wife Jackie at right) hit headlines after sending a letter to colleagues recommending they vote for Mitt Romney or risk losing their jobs. (AP Photo/Scott A. Miller)


The billionaire Koch brothers have become the poster children for corporate influence on politics in the post-Citizens United era.

Koch Sends Pro-Romney Mailing to 45,000 Employees While Stifling Workplace Political Speech (Update)

The billionaire Koch brothers have found a new way to influence the 2012 election: preaching to employees.
BY Mike Elk
No longer is it good enough for the Kochs to spend unlimited money influencing elections. They are also touting candidates to employees while creating policies that have a chilling effect on employees' freedom of speech.
Update: See Koch Industries' response to this story at bottom.
Much has been written about the owners of Koch Industries, brothers David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch, trying to control the political process through hundreds of millions of dollars in donations to right-wing causes and candidates. Now, an In These Times investigation reveals that the billionaires have broken out another tactic to influence the 2012 elections: attempting to control their workers’ votes.
In a voter information packet obtained by In These Times, the Koch Industries corporate leadership informed tens of thousands of employees at its subsidiary, Georgia Pacific, that their livelihood could depend on the 2012 election and that the company supports Mitt Romney for president. The guide was similar to one the company distributed before the 2010 midterm elections, which Mark Ames and I reported on in The Nation last year.
  The packet arrived in the mailboxes of all 45,000 Georgia Pacific employees earlier this month. The cover letter [PDF], by Koch Industries President and Chief Operating Officer Dave Robertson, read:
While we are typically told before each Presidential election that it is important and historic, I believe the upcoming election will determine what kind of America future generations will inherit.
If we elect candidates who want to spend hundreds of billions in borrowed money on costly new subsidies for a few favored cronies, put unprecedented regulatory burdens on businesses, prevent or delay important new construction projects, and excessively hinder free trade, then many of our more than 50,000 U.S. employees and contractors may suffer the consequences, including higher gasoline prices, runaway inflation, and other ills.
Enclosed with the letter was a flyer [PDF] listing Koch-endorsed candidates, beginning with Romney. Robertson’s letter explained: “At the request of many employees, we have also provided a list of candidates in your state that have been supported by Koch companies or by KOCHPAC, our employee political action committee.”
The packet also included an anti-Obama editorial by Charles Koch [PDF] and a pro-Romney editorial by David Koch [PDF]. The letter went on to say, “We believe any decision about which candidates to support is—as always—yours and yours alone, based on the factors that are most important to you. Second, we do not support candidates based on their political affiliation.”
In the flyer sent to Oregon employees, all 14 Koch-backed state candidates were Republicans.
The Koch’s in-house campaigning for the GOP is part of a larger trend of corporations exercising new freedoms under Citizens United. The Supreme Court decision overturned previous FEC laws prohibiting employers from expressing electoral opinions directly to their employees.

A culture of fear
Ironically, while the Kochs have been taking advantage of Citizens United to expand political communications to employees, they have also capitalized on weak labor laws to limit the political speech of those employees.
In September, a number of unionized employees at Georgia Pacific’s Toledo, Ore. plant posed for a photo in front of their union hall with Democratic state Senate candidate Arnie Roblan. When the Koch Industries voter information packet arrived in the workers’ mailboxes a few weeks later, they saw that Roblan was not on the list of Koch-endorsed candidates in Oregon.
It was then, says Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers (AWPPW) Vice President Greg Pallesen, that he started receiving some of the strangest phone calls from workers he’s fielded in his 30-plus years of union involvement. The unionized workers in the photo were worried that they might be fired from their jobs if the image got out on the Internet, because in the backdrop of the photo, the Georgia Pacific plant could be seen.
Their fear comes not only from the mailing, but also from a new Georgia Pacific social media policy [PDF] implemented earlier this year that warns, “Even if your social media conduct is outside of the workplace and/or non-work related, it must not reflect negatively on GP’s reputation, its products, or its brands.” Given the policy, the workers were scared to appear next to a candidate the Kochs do not support with the plant in the background.
Georgia Pacific workers say that in general, they are not sure where the boundaries of the social media policy lie. AWPPW Local 5 President Jim Pierce, who works at Georgia Pacific paper mill, in Camas, Washington, is wary of commenting online about the outspoken Koch Brothers’ political beliefs.
“Even if I was at my own home, I can’t put something up [on Facebook] against the Koch Brothers,” says Pierce. “I don’t post anything about the Koch Brothers. I could lose my job.”
AWPPW has filed two unfair labor practices charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) over the Georgia Pacific social media policy. One alleges that the policy violates employees’ right to “mutual aid and protection,” which allows workers to join together to advocate better pay and working conditions. The other contends that the social media policy is a mandatory subject of bargaining that was not negotiated with the union, but imposed unilaterally, in violation of federal labor law.
While some of their political speech might be protected by these laws, few workers at Georgia Pacific’s Camas facility are willing to risk losing their jobs. The plant was downsized from 1,200 workers in 2005, when the Kochs took over Georgia Pacific, to a staff of 450 today. NLRB hearings and appeals can take over a year.
“It’s just they can intimidate people this way and they can make life miserable for you. The law would be strong enough to protect them probably, but you could be looking at being without your job for nearly a year,” says Pierce.
In August, Portland-based Georgia Pacific worker Travis McKinney, a member of the Inlandboatmen’s Union of the Pacific (an affiliate of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union), learned about the social media policy the hard way during his yearly evaluation.
When McKinney applied for a foreman job at the plant in May, he says, his supervisor informed him that a higher-up said he wouldn’t get the job because he was “too political.” “They said I should be aware of what I am posting online,” says McKinney. A subsequent August evaluation of McKinney [PDF] noted that “supervisors feel Travis gets caught up in the politics of the day which can be distraction.”
McKinney says it wasn’t hard to deduce what they meant. He was quoted in the 2011 Nation article I wrote with Mark Ames, talking about how the Kochs pushed their libertarian “Market Based Management” principles on their workers to such an extent that the dictums were even printed on employee time cards. He had posted that article and other political articles about the Koch brothers online.
While Charles Koch has often referred to the Market Based Management system used to run Georgia Pacific as “the science of liberty,” many employees, such as McKinney, feel that their own liberties have been taken away by the company.
In addition to the social media policy, Georgia Pacific also demands that workers seek approval from supervisors before running for local elected office [PDF] or serving on the boards of nonprofits. Koch Industries claims such approval is necessary to prevent conflicts of interest. These policies could prohibit Georgia Pacific employees from running for local office in communities that seek to more strictly regulate the company.
“I was kind of disturbed that they would infringe on my personal right to run for office,” says Georgia Pacific employee Larry Wagoner of Washougal, Wash. “ I was in the running for City Council this year. I asked someone in the HR department, ‘What if I wanted to run for Congress?’ She said you would just have to stop working here.” Wagoner adds that he is pretty sure this was a misinterpretation of company policy. But it serves as an example of the fuzzy boundaries of the policies and their potential chilling effect.

Corporate free speech
In the new era ushered in by Citizens United, Koch Industries is not the only company seeking to control its employees’ political activities, including speech, lobbying efforts, donations and votes.
This week, Gawker obtained an email from the CEO of Westgate Resorts, Florida billionaire David Siegel, informing his 7,000 employees that a vote for Obama would endanger their jobs. Like Dave Robertson of Koch Industries, he couched this as an economic analysis rather than a threat.
Meanwhile, a new expose by Alec MacGillis of The New Republic reveals that the largest privately held coal company in the nation, Murray Energy, has routinely coerced its employees in to giving to GOP candidates. In the process, Murray Energy workers became the second largest block of donors to Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner’s 2009-2010 campaign. “We have been insulted by every salaried employee who does not support our efforts,” wrote company CEO Robert Murray in a March 2012 letter to employees obtained by The New Republic; attached was a list of employees who had not yet attended fundraisers.
And last year, Talking Points Memo reported that Delta offered free rides, even bumping paying customers, for its flight attendants to fly to Washington, D.C. to lobby for an FAA bill that would make it more difficult for airline workers to organize a union. “A lot of flight attendants told me that their supervisors would encourage them to book a flight to Washington to go lobby,” says Association of Flight Attendants (AFA-CWA) spokesperson Corey Caldwell.
The value of courage
The growing politicization of the workplace is yet another manifestation of increasing corporate power over politics in the United States. The Koch brothers are proudly leading this movement. As part of the packet that went out to employees, Charles Koch wrote a letter titled “The Value of Courage”:
One of my greatest frustrations in recent years stems from the lack of courage shown by many businesses. Rather than set a good example and stand on principle, far too many successful companies have decided to cave when faced with criticism from the media or the government. … For example, last March, left-wing publications and a cable “news” channel began spreading malicious lies about the American Legislative Exchange Council [ALEC]. … The bogus charges against ALEC were quickly echoed by various media outlets, bloggers, a labor leader, and other activists, none of whom seemed fully aware of the fact. As result of this ginned up outcry, a few high profile corporate members of ALEC either cancelled their memberships or announced they would let them expire.
(Ironically, many corporations abandoned ALEC, which crafts model legislation for right-wing state legislatures, over the group’s support of anti-gun control “Stand Your Ground” law. Yet many corporate policies, such as Georgia Pacific’s Code of Conduct, strictly prohibit employees from bringing guns onto company property).

“Several corporations couldn’t throw in the towel fast enough,” Koch continued. “Such lack of courage has become symptomatic”.

But Charles Koch reassures his audience that he is not of those weak-kneed corporate leaders.
“[Our opposition] figure that if they apply enough pressure, we will cave in,“ writes Koch. “I realize, as do my brother David, our board and other shareholders, that if we slink away, ultimately we won’t have a business. And neither will anyone else—at least one worth having”.
Georgia Pacific’s employees don’t find the Koch’s courage so inspiring.
“I don’t even put down on my Facebook that I work at Georgia Pacific. I put that I work for the Camas Paper mill. It’s embarrassing to let people know that you work for Georgia Pacific because of what the Koch brothers are doing,” says one employee who spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of being fired. “They are destroying the planet. They are trying to buy the votes. They think they are so high and mighty. They have their principles. They just think their way is the only way and they think everyone else is wrong.”
“If you don't believe in their philosophy, you can find a job somewhere else. I have worked there for 30-plus years. I have no training; I have worked in a factory. What am I going to do?”
UPDATE 10/14/12: Koch Industries issued a statement in response to the story:
Regarding the recent mailing to employees,
The mailing contained various pieces of information we believe are important for employees to know about, most importantly, our companywide employee newsletter that contained important information about our Guiding Principles.
Based on requests from many employees, the packet also contained information employees commonly ask about, such as voter registration deadlines and early voting options for their state of residence. And, also based on frequent requests, it provided a list of candidates in their state who are among those that have been supported by the Koch companies and KOCHPAC, our employee political action committee.
As stated in the cover letter and in follow-up one-on-one conversations for employees who ask, the information is purely intended to be considered among all the other information employees may be reading or receiving as an informed voter. We make it clear that any decision about which candidates to support belongs solely to our employees based on the factors that are most important to them, and this is in no way an attempt to “intimidate” employees. Any such claim to the contrary is completely untrue.
It is also important to note that many companies, as well as organizations such as labor unions, also provide similar information to their members and fellow employees. Indeed, unions and newspapers go further than this and actually endorse candidates to their members and readers.
As we regularly point out, Koch companies and KOCHPAC support candidates based on their support for market-based policies and economic freedom, which benefits society as a whole. Our support is not based on party affiliation, and we support both Republicans and Democrats who support market-based policies and solutions.
Regarding the social media policy,
The policy exists to inform employees about their responsibilities for what they post on social media sites and the laws that govern any claims or endorsements made by employees. The policy encourages employees to make only truthful social media comments whether workplace and/or non-work related, and to follow Federal Trade Commission (FTC) rules on disclosing that they work for the company when making any commentary about the company or its products.
Koch companies strive to create safe, respectful and discrimination-free workplaces, and do not allow any unlawful discrimination and discriminatory harassment (including verbal, visual displays, physical harassment) in our workplaces. We do not retaliate against any employee who voices their personal political opinions, and any claims to the contrary are totally untrue.
Greg Guest
Senior Director, Corporate Communications
Georgia-Pacific
The company declined to comment on Travis McKinney's evaluation.
Late Sunday night (October 14), @kochfacts, the company's public-relations Twitter, posted the following:

Female Tea Party Leader Says Women Are Too 'Diabolical' to Vote

The remarks against women voting came from Janis Lane, the president of the Central Mississippi Tea Party.

Photo Credit: Sage Ross (Own work) 

A female Tea Party leader came out against women having the right to vote in an interview with the Jackson Free Press.
Journalist R.L. Nave decided to take a look at the Tea Party in Mississippi, given the movement’s influence on Republican politics. Nave interviewed Janis Lane, a former marketing manager who is now the Central Mississippi Tea Party president. Nave also sat down with Kim Wade, a Nation of Islam member-turned conservative radio talk host, and another Tea Party activist named Mark Mayfield.
Nave asked about men getting involved in the reproductive decisions of women. Part of Lane’s response was to say that “probably the biggest turn we ever made was when the women got the right to vote.”
Questioned by Nave on what exactly she means, the Tea Party leader doubled down.
“Our country might have been better off if it was still just men voting. There is nothing worse than a bunch of mean, hateful women. They are diabolical in how [they] can skewer a person,” said Lane. “I do not see that in men. The whole time I worked, I'd much rather have a male boss than a female boss. Double-minded, you never can trust them.”
While that quote was the headline-grabbing exchange, the interview ranged from discussions of reproductive rights to the Tea Party’s minority outreach.
Asked about what part of the Tea Party platform would appeal to minorities, Wade said, “Our position on charter schools is incoherent as black people. We're sitting up here watching our kids be destroyed because our leadership says we're supposed to dislike private schools because they were born out of segregation.”
Lane, the female Tea Party leader, came out strongly against reproductive rights as well.
 “I do not agree with the federal government supporting killing a preborn human. A child is a child from the moment of conception,” she said.

How Mitt Romney's Libya Narrative is Collapsing Under the Weight of Reality

New information has emerged that bears little resemblance to the narrative the GOP has written.

When news of the September 11, 2012 attacks on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi that killed four Americans reached the Republican Party, they smelled blood. With Mitt Romney leading the rabid right out of the gate, the GOP concocted a self-serving narrative of American fecklessness and weakness under the Obama administration--a far cry from the reality of the aggressive foreign policy undertaken by President Obama. The right’s narrative has only escalated over the past month, but it is beginning to crumble under the weight of the complicated truth.

The right’s main charge has been to accuse the Obama administration of apologizing for American values and lying about the nature of the attack--essentially, “covering up” the Benghazi assault. But new information emerging paints a much more complicated picture--one that bears little resemblance to the narrative the GOP has written.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has come out  and said that she “take[s] responsibility” for the security of diplomatic outposts around the world. “I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals,” said Clinton, who blamed the “fog of war” for the government's shifting explanations for the attack.

The Obama administration reacted to the attacks in Libya which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and fthree consular officers by initially pointing to the anti-Muslim video that had sparked protests across the Middle East. The video, the “Innocence of Muslims,” led to the U.S. embassy in Cairo being overrun and angry protests in Tunisia that culminated in the looting of an American school.

Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, pushed this narrative during her September 16 appearances on major news shows. Rice claimed that , “based on the information we have at present,” the attack on the embassy was a “spontaneous” reaction to the anti-Muslim video. Rice also said that there were protests in Libya which were “hijacked” by “extremists who came with heavier weapons.”

But when a government official acknowledged that the attack may have been a terrorist attack and CBS reported that there were no protests in Libya over the video , the right went into high gear.

Various GOP officials and Romney campaign surrogates have pushed the line that the Obama administration has “covered up” the real nature of what happened in Benghazi. One of Paul Ryan’s main line of attacks during the vice presidential debate last week concerned Libya.

“They sent the U.N. ambassador out to say that this was because of a protest and a YouTube video,” said Ryan , implying that the attack had nothing to do with the video.

But now, the New York Times  reporting has knocked down some of the right’s key arguments. An article in the Times  reports that Libyans who witnessed the assault say that they “struck without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video.”

While there is no definitive account of what exactly happened yet, this report points to the fact that Libyans on the ground also believed the attack was related to the video.

Another line of attack was that the administration didn’t focus on the terrorist angle of it, and downplayed Al Qaeda’s involvement in the attacks. But President Obama did call the assault an “act of terror” the day after the attack . As for the Al Qaeda claims, the definition of who counts as a member of the terrorist group is hazy.

The New York Times reporting on this question leaves more questions than answers--but again, the right-wing’s black-and-white narrative on this question is not holding up. Libyan witnesses suspect that Ansar al-Shariah, a Libyan militant group, was behind the attack. The Times notes that “whether the attackers are labeled ‘Al Qaeda cells’...depends on whether that label can be used as a generic term for a broad spectrum of Islamist militants.”

The Washington Post’s Max Fisher further expounds on this issue. “The question of whether these Libyans are part of al-Qaeda is a remarkably sticky one, in part because we don’t seem to yet have a rigorous definition for who counts as al-Qaeda in the first place,” writes Fisher.

Yet another right-wing claim is that the U.S. government ignored requests for more security in Libya due to the threat of Islamist extremists in the country, a threat that has proliferated after the U.S.-backed removal of Muammar Gaddafi.

During the vice presidential debate, Joe Biden said, “we weren't told they wanted more security there.” The Romney campaign pounced on this statement  and accused the vice president of misleading the American people.

But it is true that Biden wouldn’t have personally known about requests for security at an embassy in Libya. And the requests that did come in were focused on Tripoli--not Benghazi.

The requests “were largely focused on extending the tours of security guards at the American Embassy in Tripoli — not at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, 400 miles away,” according to the New York Times.

Koch to Employees: Vote Romney or Bad Things Will Happen (Maybe to Your Job)

The boss wants you to know he thinks it's a very bad idea for you to vote for Barack Obama.

David Koch, executive vice president of Koch Industries, mingling with guests at a party arranged in his honor by Americans for Prosperity in Tampa, Fla., on the final day of the 2012 Republican National Convention.
Photo Credit: A.M. Stan


Leaving no stone unturned in foraging votes for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Charles and David Koch, the sole principals of the privately-held Koch Industries, are making sure that their employees and retirees know who the bosses are supporting in this year’s presidential election.
AlterNet obtained a packet sent to a retiree of a plant owned by Koch Industries in Virginia that is introduced by a letter from Dave Robertson, president and chief operating officer of Koch Industries, that warns of dire consequences should readers elect the wrong candidate. Accompanying the letter, on a separate page, is a checklist of Koch-endorsed candidates.




The dark but unstated implication of the letter, sent on Koch Industries letterhead, is that a vote for a candidate other than those recommended by Koch could lead to job losses at the company. At the bottom of the letter a tagline notes that “This is a paid political advertisement by Koch Industries, Inc.” From Robertson’s letter:

If we elect candidates who want to spend hundreds of billions in borrowed money on costly new subsidies for a few favored cronies, put unprecedented regulatory burdens on businesses, prevent or delay important new construction projects and excessively hinder free trade, then many of our 50,000 U.S. employees and contractors may suffer the consequences, including higher gasoline prices, runaway inflation and other ills.
Which is not to say that Robertson is instructing Koch workers and retirees who they should vote for. He’s just making a helpful suggestion. From the letter:
I want to emphasize two things about these lists: First and foremost, we believe that any decision about which candidate to support is -- as always -- yours and yours alone, based on factors that are most important to you. Second, we do not support candidates based on their political affiliation. We evaluate them on who is the most market-based and willing to support economic freedom for the benefit of society as a whole.
All of the candidates endorsed on the Virgina checklist enclosed with the letter are Republicans.
At In These Times, Mike Elk reports that the same letter, with accompanying checklists, “arrived in the mailboxes of all 45,000 Georgia Pacific employees earlier this month.” Georgia Pacific is a subsidiary of Koch Industries.








Powerful Court Quietly Takes Marijuana Case That Could Shatter Federal Prohibition Laws

For the first time in two decades federal courts will consider the science behind medical marijuana -- and today there is more evidence than ever.

 
 On Oct. 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the federal appeals court that usually handles cases involving government regulations, will hear oral arguments on Americans for Safe Access v. DEA. It will be the first time in almost 20 years that federal courts have considered the science of medical marijuana, says ASA spokesperson Kris Hermes.
Specifically, ASA, a California-based patient-advocacy group, is trying to get the Drug Enforcement Administration to move marijuana out of Schedule I, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970s category for drugs with “a high potential for abuse,” “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States,” and no “accepted level of safety for use under medical supervision.” Heroin, LSD, and PCP are also in Schedule I. Cocaine, methamphetamine and OxyContin are in Schedule II, legal for medical use but strongly restricted.
Two previous attempts to get the DEA to reschedule marijuana failed, but advocates believe there is enough new evidence to convince the courts. “There’s simply more science now,” says ASA chief counsel Joseph D. Elford. Since 2000, says Igor Grant of the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research, the center has done six studies that showed “efficacy for marijuana over a placebo” in relieving pain caused by peripheral neuropathy (nerve damage).
This current attempt began in 2002, when a coalition of medical-marijuana and legalization advocates filed a petition with the DEA. It contended that cannabis “has an accepted medical use in the United States, is safe for use under medical supervision, has an abuse potential lower than Schedule I or II drugs, and has a dependence liability that is also lower than Schedule I or II drugs.” It requested that marijuana be moved to Schedule III (Vicodin, acetaminophen with codeine), Schedule IV (Valium, Xanax), or Schedule V (codeine cough syrup).
“Based on evidence currently available, the Schedule I classification is not tenable,” Grant wrote in the 2012 issue of the Open Neurology Journal. “It is not accurate that cannabis has no medical value, or that information on safety is lacking. It is true cannabis has some abuse potential, but its profile more closely resembles drugs in Schedule III.”
The DEA rejected the petition in June 2011. Administrator Michelle Leonhart declared that marijuana had no accepted medical use, because no form of it has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The Department of Health and Human Services had previously concurred that it had a high potential for abuse, because an estimated more than 14 million people get high illegally at least once a month.
“They only responded to the petition after we filed a lawsuit alleging unreasonable delay,” says Elford. “Delay, delay, and then delay some more. The government doesn’t want to take on whether marijuana has medical use.”
The DEA refused to comment on the lawsuit. It referred calls to the Justice Department, which did not return phone calls.
The DEA has consistently refused to reclassify marijuana. It did move Marinol, synthetic THC capsules, from Schedule II to Schedule III in 1999. It insists that is a viable alternative for anyone who claims they need medical marijuana. (Marinol’s manufacturer was then advertising it to AIDS patients with the slogan “This is your appetite… This is your appetite on Marinol.”) Most medical-marijuana users, however, prefer real cannabis, because smoking it or inhaling vaporized THC provides much faster relief than taking capsules orally, and as with eating marijuana, oral doses are much harder to control.
“It’s just not as effective,” says William Brent, a 52-year-old California man who is a plaintiff in the ASA suit. Brent, who suffers from seizures, depression and chronic pain cause by bone abnormalities, has sought relief from prescription painkillers, muscle relaxers, antiseizure, antianxiety, and antinausea drugs—but says “cannabis is the one that works best for me.”
Donald Abrams, director of clinical programs at San Francisco General Hospital—where he worked in the nation’s first AIDS clinic—finds it “a bit ironic” that cannabis is in Schedule I, completely illegal, when its main active ingredient is in Schedule III.
History
The DEA rejected two previous petitions to reclassify cannabis. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws first challenged the Schedule I classification in 1972, on the grounds that marijuana had valid medical use. The Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics, a medical-marijuana group founded by pioneering patient Robert Randall, joined later.
It took years of litigation to get the DEA to consider that petition. When it did, in 1988, DEA administrative law judge Francis Young recommended the change, writing, in a quote often cited by medical-cannabis advocates, that marijuana was “the safest therapeutically active subject known to man.” The DEA rejected his recommendation, and in 1994 the D.C. Circuit upheld that decision.
In 1995, cannabis-policy researcher Jon Gettman and High Times magazine filed another petition, arguing that marijuana did not belong in Schedule I because it did not have a high potential for abuse. The DEA rejected it in 2001, and a federal appeals court ruled a year later that Gettman and High Times did not have legal standing to contest that decision.
This time will be different, advocates say. Scientific knowledge of marijuana has advanced dramatically in the past 20 years. The brain’s naturally occurring cannabinoids were first identified in 1992.
“There are numerous peer-reviewed studies establishing that marijuana is effective in treating AIDS wasting syndrome, muscle spasticity, emesis, appetite loss, negative side effects of chemotherapy, and chronic pain… The government, however, simply ignores these well-controlled studies,” ASA’s appeal brief says. “It is only by failing to apply the appropriate standards and make the required comparisons that the federal government could conclude that marijuana is as harmful as heroin and PCP and even more harmful than methamphetamine, cocaine and opium.”
The federal government acknowledged the medical potential of cannabis in 1999, Abrams notes, in the Institute of Medicine’s “Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base” report. That report said cannabis-based drugs held promise for treating pain, nausea from chemotherapy, and the “wasting syndrome” from AIDS and cancer, and that “there are patients with debilitating symptoms for whom smoked marijuana might provide relief.” It also said that marijuana had a very low addiction potential, comparable to that of caffeine, Abrams adds.
Because the petition was filed in 2002, however, the court may decide not to consider more recent research. This weakens the case, says Elford—but it also denies the DEA an excuse to delay its response by saying it has to evaluate that research.
The plaintiffs will also have to overcome the argument that smoking a drug is not legitimate medicine. The DEA and prohibitionists hammer this point, and many, if not most, doctors, don’t like the idea of sick people inhaling smoke. “We see little future in smoked marijuana as a medicine,” IOM principal investigator Dr. John A. Benson said in 1999, although the report conceded that it could help in extreme cases.
Some medicines are inhaled, Abrams responds, such as those for asthma, and vaporization, in which the cannabis is heated so that the THC can be inhaled without smoke, decreases the health risk. He also cites research by Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, who in a 2006 study found that even people who had smoked more than 20,000 joints in their lives did not have a higher rate of lung cancer. The main respiratory risk for heavy marijuana smokers Tashkin found was bronchitis.
“Is the risk-benefit ratio favorable? Every drug has problems,” says Grant. But the evidence, he adds, suggests that marijuana could be added to the “armamentarium” with “adequate safeguards.”
Herbal Catch-22?
The DEA’s insistence that marijuana has no valid medical use because it has not been approved by the FDA would seem to imply that the only valid medicines are those produced by pharmaceutical companies. That contrasts sharply with the FDA’s virtually nonexistent regulation of herbal “dietary supplements” that are often sold with implied medical benefits.
“There is no provision under any law or regulation that FDA enforces that requires a firm to disclose to FDA or consumers the information they have about the safety or purported benefits of their dietary supplement products,” the FDA’s Web site states.
Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, it adds, the manufacturer is responsible for determining that its herbal products are safe and not falsely advertised. If it claims that an herb will prevent, treat, or cure an illness, then the product is classified as a drug and needs FDA approval.
Manufacturers can make thinly disguised claims, however, as long as the product’s label cautions that “this statement has not been evaluated by the FDA.” St. John’s wort, often taken as an herbal antidepressant, is advertised as promoting a “positive mood balance.” Black cohosh “helps to support menopause.” Walmart sells echinacea as an “immune health supplement… used for treating various health disorders like high blood pressure, boosting energy, preventing diseases and regulating vital body functions.”
The not-approved-by-the-FDA argument is “a bit of a straw man,” says Grant. The “single, well-characterized chemical” model for medicine, he explains, is a good one, but it’s not the only one. The FDA has approved extracts and tinctures of other herbs, and is now evaluating Sativex, a cannabis extract. For marijuana, he says, “we haven’t fully figured out what combination of cannabinoids” and which methods or administration are optimal.
The federal National Institute on Drug Abuse, the only legal source of cannabis for research, has also discouraged research on its medical uses, Abrams says. When he began investigating its use in treating AIDS in 1996, NIDA told him it would not fund research on the effectiveness of cannabis, only on its abuse. He sidestepped that restriction by doing a 21-day study of whether smoking marijuana three times a day interfered with protease inhibitors in AIDS patients—and found that it didn’t, and they had better appetites and more T cells.
Meanwhile, Michael Krawitz, another plaintiff in the suit, says that the best relief for his chronic pain is a combination of cannabis and opioid painkillers—but the current laws deny him that. Krawitz, a 49-year-old Air Force veteran, has had 13 surgeries, including having part of his intestines removed, since he was seriously injured in a car accident in 1984. But the Veterans Administration refused to prescribe him any more painkillers after he refused to take a drug test. And because he lives in Virginia, where medical marijuana is not legal under state law, he can’t get a doctor’s recommendation and has to buy it on the black market, where it’s expensive and not always available. The last time he went without cannabis, he says, he almost lost the sight in his right eye.
Moving cannabis to a less restrictive schedule would enable doctors to prescribe it, and also make doing research on it easier. If the D.C. Circuit directly orders the DEA to reschedule cannabis, says Elford, that would be the most favorable result. The court could also order the DEA to hold hearings on the petition, which is what happened in the 1980s. It could also uphold the DEA’s denial.
Whatever the outcome, says Elford, the loser will likely appeal to the Supreme Court.

WATCH: Eddie Huang Kills A Fluffy White Rabbit On New Vice Show (GRAPHIC) if a queezy stomach, don't watch.





It gets dark quickly in part one of the first episode of Fresh Off The Boat. Apparently, this is not the show where Eddie Huang eats street food, gets drunk and plays underground hip-hop with a bunch of tattooed cooks. This is the show where he has an existential crisis over a rabbit whose skin is being peeled off like a condom.
It was funnier when Huang and the crew of his VICE show were chanting “Kill Whitey!” (“Whitey” being the name of the rabbit that they select for slaughter at an Oakland shooting range with the East Bay Rats, of course. Huang’s not race-baiting on this show.) Heck, he loved making fun of “mouthbreathing” hipsters shooting guns. But when Huang is confronted with the sight of the rabbit, squirming helplessly under the knee of its butcher, bleeding out the neck, he’s repulsed — surprising himself.
“We knew for weeks that we were gonna come and watch Trevor [Latham] either shoot a rabbit, or slaughter a rabbit,” he mused in the car to the camera. “And still, our crew was not emotionally prepared for it and did not know how they were going to feel…we’re so cut off from the images of slaughter.”



What Eddie says in the car at the end of the video, is something we really should be thinking about.