(1 of 8 original blog posts. See PDF below for compilation)

LISTEN:  Amy Macpherson is a Canadian Journalist for the CBC,  formerly of Huffington Post, who has spent a sleepless month doing some breathtaking original research on Mitt Romney and his Mormon Church's intricate machinations throughout our society.  She has barely had time to edit this work, and while it will surely become a book, she wanted people to know what she's learned before they vote on Tuesday.

While it's been seen by some big dogs, few have had the courage make noise with it this late in the game. I was only handed it 90 minutes ago, I had merely skimmed it, but I found it so compelling, I got several people to start breaking it down to see if any of it can be used to bring down this scary cult-spawn named Mitt Romney. 

I wish it were shorter, but I mostly wish we had it a week ago. Karoli has compiled all 8 parts of the series  into one PDF for your reading pleasure (and haste).

Please share this widely.Comments are open.

 

 

The politics being practiced by the Susan G. Komen Foundation is part of a broad based effort by the right wing to politiciize every aspect of American culture. The right has spent decades developing new ways to raise the cost to any organization that would support, or even appear to support pro-choice organizations—or anyone else they oppose.

The only way to impede this kind of political tampering is to pressure the organizations that too easily cave to it.  In the case of Komen, this means that Karen Handel must be fired. We now know she was instrumental in orchestrating their ruinous decision to manipulate rules to prohibit future funding to Planned Parenthood.

Her exit will not only signal that Komen is ready to clean house and move on, but also that it will no longer be a willing patsy for these right wing pressure tactics.

Using the power of Social media, the American Left has the ability to force small changes like this. But small changes can have big impact and reaching ripple effects. Theyc can change the perception and strategies of political organizations and operatives who come up with these destructive ideas.

You Can Help Achieve Such A Small Change

We want to help the groups trying to pressure the sponsors and partners of Komen.  We already have their names, twitter IDs, and facebook accounts. We need the emails of the CEO, Chairman, or other acccounts that is likely to be seen

The emails are being collected in this spreadsheet. All you have to do to help us is follow these steps:

  1. Pick the name of a Komen partner from the left hand column of the spreadsheet.
  2. Google that name and find the partner's website.
  3. Locate their "Contact Us" or "About" or "Our Team" pages, and find one or more relevant emails.
    1. You can grab as many as you think might be useful, but at least 2 are recommended: one for the chairman or CEO, and one for a more general inquiry or feedback/suggestion type email accounts. 
    2. Any others you feel might be relevant are also welcome. We can't really have too many. The whole idea is to bring pressure, and the more recipients we have per organization, the more likely it is that we will get through their various filters and be heard.
  4. Enter the names in the correct row and column in the spreadsheet.
    1. ]Separate multiple names with a comma — VERY important.
  5. Enter your twitter name in the next column, so we know who to thank for the effort :)
  6. If you completed this mission in less than 10 minutes, please consider doing another :)

If just 210 people in my Twitter stream each invest 10 minutes to find these emails for just a single organization, we will complete this task in one day, proving once again that the power of the crowd is formidable indeed.

Please tweet @shoq if you have any questions.

Thank you. We can all make a difference, if we each make some small effort to make that difference.

Two more things:

  • Please use the Retweet button below and spread this post around?
  • Sign the petitions below. (Note: If you join Change.org, it's very easy to sign their future petitions.)

Related Petitions

 

 

 

 

Hit 'em all with just a few clicks.

Takes 30 seconds.

Register your extreme displeasure about the preposterously stupid internet killer legislation knowing as #PIPA, now before the Senate.

SOPA, the House bill has been tabled, but only for now, so you  want to let your Representatives know how you feel about it

Click Here To Enter Your Zipcode And Tweet Your Immediately

 

If you MUST access wikipedia during the blackout:

  • The blackout only applies personal computers. You can use a web browser on your mobile device. 
  • You can also unblock any given page using a simple bookmarklet you can get here.
  • You can also ask research questions or find alternet reference sources at the twitter hashtag, #altwiki

Related

Remember all that hysteria from the pro-left

…about how the Supercommittee would be the end of social security and medicare as we know it? Well, many pragmatists (like me) were trying to explain that the entire concept came about because Obama totally outmaneuvered the Republicans, forcing a deal that would result in precisely nothing, or at worse, massive cuts to defense tied to token cuts to the very wasteful medicare provider payments that no one likes anyway (and which are the source of most fraud and abuse), and some COLA tweaks that would get offset by many ACA provisions anyway.  And that’s precisely what seems likely to happen.

Don’t take my word for it. These folks say it better, and they have some credibility with the same people who spent the past 6 months telling you the world as your grandma knew it was about to end in a supercommittee apocalypse.

From EJ Dionne:

Here is a surefire way to cut $7.1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade. Do nothing.

That’s right. If Congress simply fails to act between now and Jan. 1, 2013, the tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush expire, $1.2 trillion in additional budget cuts go through under the terms of last summer’s debt-ceiling deal, and a variety of other tax cuts also go away.

Read more 

New York Time’s Economist, Paul Krugman

It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s a complete turkey! It’s the supercommittee!

By next Wednesday, the so-called supercommittee, a bipartisan group of legislators, is supposed to reach an agreement on how to reduce future deficits. Barring an evil miracle — I’ll explain the evil part later — the committee will fail to meet that deadline.

If this news surprises you, you haven’t been paying attention. If it depresses you, cheer up: In this case, failure is good.

Read more

Or maybe they make a deal. That TOO will be a win…

@ThePeoplesView explains:

Just as We Thought: Debt Deal Forcing Tax Revenue Increases

You might have noticed that lately, the Supercommittee in Congress, charged with reducing the deficit by $1.2 trillion or face the country with huge automatic cuts to defense and entitlement provider payments, has been a subject of buzz. That’s because the deadline for the supercommittee to reach a deal and vote on it is exactly one week away. Something interesting is happening: Republicans are still by and large opposed to tax revenue increases in any significant way, but they offered, as the opening offer, a $300 billion increase in tax revenue by closing some loopholes for the top income earners. Sen. Pat Toomey, the super anti-tax, anti-government Republican even suggested a similar plan while lowering the overall top rate from 35 to 28 percent.

From Ezra Klein

In the past, I’ve talked about the “do-nothing plan” for deficit reduction: Congress heads home to spend more time with their campaign contributors, and the Bush tax cuts automatically expire, the 1997 Balanced Budget Act’s scheduled Medicare cuts kick in, the Affordable Care Act is implemented, and the budget moves roughly into balance. It’s not an ideal way to balance the budget, but it helps clarify that the deficit is the result of votes Congress expects to cast over the next few years. If, instead of casting those votes, they do nothing, or pay for the things they choose to do, the deficit mostly disappears.

Read more

So in closing…

Can we please remember that some liberals are sincere in wanting to “push Obama and Democrats to the Left.” But far more of them have been dedicated to stylish shredding of this administration, no matter how shrewdly they calculate or negotiate.

The left is its own worst enemy. We’ve allowed the same minority of perpetual Democrat-haters who have pissed on every Democratic president since FDR to poison the national progressive mood at precisely the time we need it to be most hopeful and engaged. It was a big factor in losing the House in 2010, and may well cost us the Senate and White House in 2012. And that would be a calamity on a global scale.

But perhaps this new development will discredit a few more of the left’s own version of Safire’s nattering nabobs of negativity, and we can get back to finding ways to save those institutions and keep the Republican criminals from driving America further into this very deep and depressing ditch.

See Also

 

 

See Updates at bottom

There I was, out enjoying some well deserved sunshine on a lovely South Florida Memorial Day weekend, when, against my better judgment, I happened to peek at my Twitter timeline appearing on my ever-present Android mobile phone. Prominently littering my stream were many tweets from one David M. House (aka @axiarch), the semi-famous Boston attention hound from Alabama who masks his accent with a Charles Emerson Winchester affectation.

House was busy thinking he was “outing” my identity on Twitter.  As I will get to in a moment, this happens fairly often on Twitter, but before we go there, let me give you some pertinent background on House, and myself (sort of).

Background on David Maurice House

This is the same opportunistic operator, and self-styled “hacker” who knew Pfc. Bradley Manning for about 15 minutes during  a party in Boston, and upon hearing he was arrested in the Wikileaks saga, cleverly recognized a gravy train when he saw one.

With travel funds from an unspecified source, he made the long journey to visit Manning about 8 or so different times at the Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia. Returning from one such visit, he told any blogger or media outlet that would listen that his dear friend “Brod-lee” (apply  Brahmin accent from Beacon Hill here liberally), who was once such a charming, alert, and intelligent “fellohhh,” was now nearly “catatonic” as the result of relentless and inhuman torture he was receiving at the hands of his Quantico guards, according to his accounts, and those told by Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald, and House’s co-bloggers at Fire Dog Lake.  This was a very interesting professional diagnosis coming from a computer programmer with—according to renowned hacker and co-wikileaks celebrity, Adrian Lamo—only limited computer talents, and of course, no medical degree.

It was House’s (clearly coached) diagnosis that was widely blogged by Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher’s Firedoglake, that was mostly used to catapult the “torture” meme into and around the global Internet and media blatherspaces. And it happened with barely a single serious effort to confirm or validate much of anything that was claimed. Virtually all of the “Manning torture” hysteria was based on the specious, totally undocumented stories of two bloggers, and this unverified, anecdotal medical “evidence” from Dr. David House. It was ludicrous, and remains an indictment of a global media that is content to just take dictation from bloggers, because it’s much cheaper than covering a hot story themselves.

House’s trips to see Manning unceremoniously ended when Manning’s father, Brian Manning, and evidently Manning himself, were sickened by the relentless ways that House was using Manning’s incarceration to promote himself, and I suppose  whatever book and movie deals he felt were waiting for him at the end of his 15 minutes of lame.

You can see this in a PBS Frontline Chat, down around the 2-minute mark:

2:02 Comment From David House
This is David House. You say I was using Bradley for 15 minutes of fame… this is very hurtful and surprising to hear. In earnest, on what basis do you make the remark?

2:03 Brian Manning:
Please clean your own house. Bradley told us. If you do not believe me ask him!

Oh snap! “Ask him.” Well, he may not be able to do that for awhile, but you can be sure we’ll hear more about that soon from Manning himself in some future letter or statement.

As I once predicted after only the most modest investigations of Manning’s reported “torture,” the layers of hyperbole and bullshit surrounding Manning would eventually unravel, and it would embarrass a lot of people.  That’s just now starting with David House. I remain confident that before this is over, he will be exposed as the pretentious operator who jumped on Manning and rode that pony for all the mileage he could get out of it.

Since that bit of opportunistic wanderlust is coming to an end, House has now moved on, probably again with Greenwald’s help (but I can’t say for sure), to file a lawsuit against the government with the assistance of the ACLU. They are protesting the “seizure” of his laptop at an airport last year, when the Government was clearly interested in finding out who helped Manning. I think House forgot to check the security rules at the airport, because they can do almost anything they wish with what you choose to bring through security.

Ok, so much for the background on House. Now a bit about me.

Background on Shoq and his damned “anonymity.”

It should come as no surprise to my Twitter stream that I prefer to tweet anonymously. I have several reasons for choosing to do that. The two most important of them are these:

  1. First and foremost is the security of my aging mother who, thanks to my political nature, has been relentlessly harassed in the past. But it’s also for the sake of my brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, partners, friends, and acquaintances who have a constitutional right to privacy, or at least a moral right to not be annoyed or harassed because some guy with a cat avatar likes to piss on Republicans, conservatives, pretentious phonies, or plain old crappy bloggers in cyberspace.
  2. Secondly, way back in the AOL days, CEO Steve Case took a lot of grief of allowing “screen names” and allowing identities to be anonymous. He defended his decision because he believed that without anonymity, people would not be free to speak their mind politically for fear of reprisals from employers, churches, friends, etc. And as digital information sharing in the medical and insurance community was only recently becoming common, he also felt that any such medical issues should be openly discussable without fear of insurance companies, familes, or employers learning of it.

In my view, Steve Case was exactly right on both counts.To this day, I have many close friends who say they wish that they had kept at least one online persona anonymous so they were free to speak politically, or personally, without fear of their words showing up at the office the next morning—or in the NY Times.

I could spend 10,000 words on this topic, or you could Google for literally millions of discussions on it. You can even read what I’ve written about my choice to be anonymous right here on this very blog. To make it easy for you, I’ll even give you this link to that discussion.  Regardless of your own views on the subject of anonymity on the Internet, in the end, we all choose our paths, and mine was to remain anonymous. I don’t really owe anyone an explanation for that. So long as I am not breaking any laws, misleading, nor harming anyone, my identity online should be my business.

I am not alone. Whether we consider the noted bloggers, @Digby56, @Atrios and @mudflats (legends in the progressive space who were once anonymous), Mark Twain, Publius, or the more typical twitter personalities, such as the anonymous Gottalaff, I am hardly the first person to choose anonymity in the entire running history of on or offline social spaces.

If you don’t like my choice to be anonymous, the simple solution is to just not follow me, block me, and ignore me whenever you see me. It’s just that simple. And some do choose that path, and I would never contest their right to do so. But for thousands of others who choose otherwise, they see my “identity” as that which I have tweeted or blogged under quite consistently for many years, and am quite protective of my virtual reputation.

Now, if you don’t think there’s a reputation worth protecting in that history, you either haven’t been online very long, or have virtually no need or desire for people to trust you.  I have both that need and that desire, so I am quite conscientious about how my “Shoq” persona behaves publicly and privately. At times he can be just as thoughtful, kind, helpful, rambunctious, annoying, condescending, insightful, defensive, inspiring, sexy, tiring, insipid, hilarious, tedious, or as just plain dull as almost anyone else on the Internet.  That is who he actually “is” on the Internet. Who he actually is in real life  (IRL) is not really relevant. What he looks like, what he wears, his place of residence, who he works for, whom he falls in love with or sleeps with at night¸ are all absolutely immaterial to that defined persona which so many have come to know in that far reaching identity-space called the Interwebs. It may not always be so, but it is now.

For almost two decades now, I have concealed my actual identity, using a variety of planted names, pseudonyms, account IDs, avatars, etc. Every few months, some new rocket scientist discovers one—-or is directed to one—and they scream “Eureka! I’ve got that damn cat by the tail at last.” When they finally recover from their orgasmic frenzy, they rush off to tell all their friends, pat themselves on the back, and then tweet a frenzy of self-congratulatory reverie, as David House (aka @locklean) can be seen doing here, just today:

http://twitter.com/#!/lockean/status/74909129482838016
http://twitter.com/#!/lockean/status/73849578465665024

Now, as I have blogged and tweeted, House is not the brightest LED on the panel. So, given a bit of bad information from any one of hundreds of conservatives that had it, he might have spent even a few minutes asking around. He would have discovered that this same bogus account (which, amusingly enough is not even one of the many decoy accounts I’ve created, but just the handiwork of some random conservative dolt who  planted the account himself based on a tip he received from someone else that was wrong earlier) is just one of many names that have been traveling around the #TCOT and #P2 communities on Twitter since mid-2009.

Had Dr. House been a wee bit sharper, and done just the teensiest bit of research, he would have found this tweet way, way back in January of 2011, which was proffered by me when his quasi-boss, Jane Hamsher came up with the exact some bad information, as I had chronicled in this lengthy screed, which continues to haunt her and her staff to this very day.

So Dr. House, like many before him, thinks he has “outed me,” and in so doing, only outed himself as a petty, venal, churlish little man who seeks to  win arguments not with facts or merits, but with intimidation, disparagement, or or whatever other bullying tactics he feels might work.

Unfortunately for the good doctor, he’s about the 50th person to use the same bad information, and as such, must go to sleep tonight with the sad realization that he’s not pulled the mask off the Dread Pirate Roberts after all. But even if he had, the blackguard would never admit it. But as important, none of his many friends would tell you either. In fact, most of his enemies wouldn’t tell you either.

Why wouldn’t people reveal Shoq if they knew?

The short answer is because it looks really bad for them to do that. What would be their motive, their own friends and associates might ask?  Are they trying to intimidate Shoq? To embarrass him? To ruin his career? To drive him from cyberspace? To do the very thing he remains anonymous to prevent?

Are they trying to keep him from speaking his own brand of truth to power?  Are they trying to deflect from whatever questions he asks about them or their activities or positions?  What exactly has this Shoq done but offer his opinions online, as millions of others do every day? Why would they be stupid enough to risk violating someone’s trust by exposing his personal information, just because someone else was mad at him for an opinion?  Would it be a random act of pettiness, a professional character assassination, or just a blatant act of nastiness that made them feel good?

Whatever their motive, they would need to explain it, and explain it well. They would have to explain to their friends, family, co-workers,and Twitter streams, and do it in such a way that those people would understand the motive, and later be comfortable knowing that the same fate might await their own private and personal information.

No, as Jane Hamsher learned, even threatening to “out” people’s identities is almost always seen as the worst kind of unethical dirty trick, most often performed by Right wing operatives for whom ethics always takes a back seat to strategic objective. But the Right wing lives in a cultural cesspool of such nastiness, and many actually take pride in the unctuous skullduggery

On the left, however, such depraved character demonstrations are not only frowned upon, but often seen as a stake through the heart of one’s own credibility. The people with character, protective of their own reputations, just don’t do it.

Updates

Related

 

There is a lot of misinformation going around the social media space about whether President Obama (who resisted being pulled into this Libyan conflict), is legally allowed to commit U.S. Military forces to the conflict without the authorization of the United States Congress. 

While I would welcome any input that corrects my understanding, it is currently that he is absolutely and unambiguously allowed to do so.  Why? Because of our well over half-century old agreement with the United Nations which requires such a commitment of armed forces from its Member nations when requested by the Security Council under Chapter XVII of its charter. While a number of pertinent Articles exist in that chapter, the meat and potatoes of the chapter, insofar as Member's armed forces are concerned, is this one:

Chapter VII, Article 42 reads (in its entirety):

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Source: United Nations Charter

Basically, this says that if the non-military efforts of the previous Article (41) are ineffective or not viable, the Security Council may ask its members for additional armed forces to perform whatever military actions or operations its commanders deem necessary to secure peace and security or restore order under the dictates of the resolution.

Now the UN charter's Article 43 also requires that each Member nation ratify this mandate according to their constitutional processes. This has been done by an action of U.S. Congress, and is reflected in:

US CODE > TITLE 22 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER XVI >  287d

The current edition of the U.S. code was published in 2006.

Use of armed forces; limitations — The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution, providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter.

The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That, except as authorized in section 287d–1 of this title, nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.

Source: Cornell School of Law

In Conclusion

You can argue about how far the United States might or should go in complying with United Nations' resolutions, and that's a valid argument to have.  Conservatives, isolationists and libertarians have been making it for years. 

You might also argue that the U.S. Constitution, under Article 1, Section 8 grants congress the exclusive right to make war. But subsequent law, embodied in Title 22 above, obviously override this with respect to treaties and agreements already signed into law (i.e. the UN charter).  And even if that were not so, the complexities of the modern era, International Law, the War Powers Resolution of 1973, all suggest that we've had to push the working definitions of "war" and "authorization" a bit. 

It might behoove us—after we dispatch the right wing coup that currently threatens our nation—to amend the constitution, or otherwise clarify these murky issues so that future generations are not constantly preoccupied with their complex and arcane legalities, each and every time the use of military force should arise.

Related

  • United Nations' Persian Gulf Resolution, which did NOT specifically stipulate call its members under UN Chapter VII (above), and thus, Congressional approval WAS required for U.S. Military action
  • United Nations'_Security_Council_Resolution_1441, authorizing the disarmament of Iraq, where again, Chapter VII (above) was not invoked, and thus, U.S. Congressional approval once again, WAS required.  (This was the famous "Use of Force" resolution that so many Democrats joined Republicans in signing, which was and remains a massive disappointment to the left (and this author) to this very day.

It's been 32 years since the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island, and 25 years since the deadly mishap in Chernobyl made the public understand what a "nuclear meltdown" might actually mean.  This first video trailer will get you in touch with the inner dread that we all felt back then. While it may be fictional, the scenario it portrays is very real, and has always been a possibility, and this film very much shaped the minds and attitudes of millions who are still deeply suspicious of nuclear energy. (Note: this is a trailer is really not  the clip I wanted. I am still trying to find that one and will republish when I find it). The second trailer gives you a taste of the aftermath of Chernobyl. It's followed by a professor's explanation of a meltdown, as well as the issues of storing nuclear waste.(The problem the industry most hates to talk about.)

The nuclear energy industry, and their right wing partners, have always tried to minimize the risks of nuclear power generation to younger people, and they work hard to present any hazard as mere paranoia marketed by a liberal elite, which they portray as hostile to economic growth. But the dangers have always been very real, and strategically marginalized through skilled propaganda. The critics of the industry have been vilified, even mocked, simply for informing the public of the ugly truths which the industry has expended great effort trying to conceal.

It seems that the Japanese disaster may be even closer to this outcome than those moments were. If you have a god, pray to it. If you don't, just hope we dodge this bullet, too, as we have dodged so many over the years. Whether by nuclear calamity, or climate change negligence, corporate and conservative greed, enabled by a complete lack of meaningful oversight and accountability, may well be taking our planet on a steady march down a reckless road to planetary ruin.

 

 

 

Latest News On Japanese Nuclear Accident

Related

 

Background

 

Got links?  Please tweet them to @shoq. I will add them here.

News

Warnings, Alerts and Information

Disaster Relief

  • Give $10 automatically to the REDCROSS by texting to: 90999. Note: Regardless of what current message says, all proceeds do go to Red Cross. Details
     
  • Other Red Cross methods

Missing Persons

Inquiries concerning U.S. citizens living or traveling in Japan should be referred to the U.S. Department of State, Office of Overseas Citizens Services at:

1-888-407-4747 or 202 647-5225.

For inquiries about relatives living in Japan who are not US citizens, encourage the members of your community to keep calling or to try contacting other family members who live in the region. Even though communication networks overloaded right now, the situation may change and access to mobile networks and the internet may improve.

The Google Person Finder site is available at: http://japan.person-finder.appspot.com/?lang=en

Source: Red Cross

Video and Images

Related

   Backgrounders

   Political Implications

US President Ronald Reagan once flatly declared, “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” A quarter of a century has since passed, and a huge price has now fallen due in the form of a once-in-a-century crisis. It has compelled people to learn once again that government is indispensable for dealing with the unstable nature of capitalism
 

Rumblings of Boycotts are Not Boycotts

As I suspected would happen, the Koch boycott idea is gaining traction fast. That's why I hacked together this primer last week, hoping to encourage and/or report on more formalized embodiments of the idea as they emerged. I still haven't learned of one worth repeating, but I expect to any day now.

The Koch Industries Empire is Vast

Koch Industries is one of the two largest privately owned companies in America, with holdings in almost every industry sector, but energy and paper are two very big interests.

I am leery of tossing around the B-word casually, but as @Stopbeck proved, there are many kinds of boycott-type consumer actions, and when properly conceived and executed, they can be and have been effective.  And while it's certainly easier to bring pressure on public companies, even private empires hate losing money.

While coal and electricity are tough to boycott, Koch has many other revenue streams. Some associates and I have been working on a robust database of products and brands that would be useful for a real boycott against Koch. In the meantime, this list, by Daily Kos write Geebeebee, provides a pretty good glimpse of the big products in this empire of evil:

As always, your Retweets help a lot. See the button below.

The Products of Koch Industries

Georgia-Pacific
Consumer products
Georgia Pacific
Building products
Invista®
Products
Angel Soft toilet paper
Brawny paper towels
Dixie plates, bowls, napkins and cups
Mardi Gras napkins and towels
Quilted Northern toilet paper
Soft 'n Gentle toilet paper
Sparkle napkins
Vanity fair napkins
Zee napkins
Georgia-Pacific paper products and envelop
Dense Armor Drywall and Decking
ToughArmor Gypsum board
Georgia pacific Plytanium Plywood
Flexrock
Densglass sheathing
G/P Industrial plasters (some products used by a lot of crafters)
   Agricultural Plaster
   Arts & Crafts Plaster
   Dental Plaster
   General Purpose Plaster
   Glass-reinforced Gypsum (GRG)
   Industrial Tooling Plaster
   Investment Casting Plaster
   Medical Plaster
   Metal Casting Plaster
   Pottery Plaster

FibreStrong Rim board
G/P Lam board
Blue Ribbon OSB Rated Sheathing
Blue Ribbon Sub-floor
DryGuard Enhanced OSB
Nautilus Wall Sheathing
Thermostat OSB Radiant Barrier Sheathing
Broadspan Engineered Wood Products
XJ 85 I-Joists
FireDefender Banded Cores
FireDefender FS
FireDefender Mineral Core
Hardboard and Thin MDF including Auto Hardboard,
Perforated Hardboard and Thin MDF
Wood Fiberboard –
Commercial Roof Fiberboard
Hushboard Sound Deadening Board
Regular Fiberboard Sheathing
Structural Fiberboard Sheathing

COMFOREL® fiberfill
COOLMAX® fabric
CORDURA® fabric
DACRON® fiber
POLYSHIELD® resin
SOLARMAX® fabric
SOMERELLE® bedding products
STAINMASTER® carpet
SUPPLEX® fabric
TACTEL® fiber
TACTESSE® carpet fiber
TERATE® polyols
TERATHANE® polyether glycol
THERMOLITE® fabric
PHENREZ® resin
POLARGUARD® fiber and
LYCRA® fiber

The Koch Brand Logos To Watch For (And Avoid)

Boycotts and Strikes Are Never Easy Projects

Again, I suspected the Koch boycott idea would pick up speed as the Wisconsin protests continued to grow. But until I see a real (organized and funded) project that can make do a sustained effort, I'm going to refrain from saying there's a real boycott under way. And while I think one would be important, I would much rather spend my energies with the general strike idea, something I have been advocating for many years.  It's our best available tool if we are to ever really get serious about challenging the plutocratic regime that has seized the United States, while everyone was busy working for it.

I created this short URL (http://j.mp/genstrike) to give folks some background about general strikes. I plan to write a full-blown primer soon.

About Koch Industries

Koch Industries, (pronounced "coke"), is the largest privately owned company in the United States with 70,000 employees and annual sales of $100 billion in the fiscal year ending December of 2008. [1] Cargill comes in second for privately owned companies. Operations include refining, chemicals, process and pollution control equipment, technologies, fibers and polymers, commodity and financial trading and consumer products. The company operates crude gathering systems and pipelines across North America. One subsidiary processes 800,000 barrels of crude oil daily in its three refineries.
 — SourceWatch

About Boycotts

"The consumer boycott is the only open door in the dark corridor of nothingness down which farm workers have had to walk for many years. It is a gate of hope through which they expect to find the sunlight of a better life for themselves and their families."  Cesar Chavez

Related

My new BFF, Jasiri X, whose last hit, "What If The Teaparty Was Black," was one of my most popular links this year, isn't a household name yet. But I sure want to do my part to help him get there.  So I asked him for reprint permission on the lyrics to this, his latest video, which zeros right in on what these Wisconsin protests are really all about: It's we the people versus the billionaires.  And it's a war we must win. Well done, JX. And as always, thank you for your service.  I hope you all hit that Tweet button below and help me get this one out there too. Thanks.

The Lyrics

Scott Walker works for multi billionaires
John Boehner works for multi billionaires
while corporations get billions in welfare
and millions in this country been out of work for years

Sarah Palin works for multi billionaires
American workers vs multi billionaires
they wanna end social security and medicare
while millions in this country don't have a dime to spare

Can main street get a bailout
Tell the president our checks weren't mailed out
Tell the house of representatives and senate
And whatever business got the stimulus and spent it
Now they getting record profit that's tripling with no limits
But they cutting jobs and unemployment benefits have ended
How we gone live with no income coming in
And the little help we get is cut from the budget then
What's the role of government
Do workers stand a chance if multi billionaires are running it
Oh now you worried bout the deficit and cutting it
But when them banks needed billions you had enough for them.
Them car companies you had bucks for them
2 wars rebuilding 2 countries guess we stuck with them
the average citizen just ain't lucky then
cause we be getting pimped so I guess we getting fucked again

Rush Limbaugh works for multi billionaires
Bill O'Reilly works for multi billionaires
while corporations get billions in welfare
and millions in this country been out of work for years

Sean Hannity works for multi billionaires
Crazy Glenn Beck works for multi billionaires
they wanna end social security and medicare
while millions in this country don't have a dime to spare

When did the American worker become the enemy
Why is wanting a living wage such a penalty
What happened to justice and liberty
These billionaire haters wanna crush us literally
On the box is Murdoch and his foxes
And if you watch it you might as well be an ostrich
They terrorists cause they hold facts hostage
24 hours straight of we hate what Barack did
If you want to unionize your a communist
But if you buy a congressman they just call you a lobbyist
It's so obvious but here's where the problem is
they act like regular Americans but they sloppy rich
Why you think they wanna cut taxes
cause every single one of them in the higher brackets
This ain't white or black it's class warfare time for action
Just look at wide the gap is

American workers vs multi billionaires
The middle class vs multi billionaires
while corporations get billions in welfare
and millions in this country been out of work for years

Rupert Murdoch is multi billionaires
the Koch brothers are multi Billionaire
they wanna end social security and medicare
while millions in this country don't have a dime to spare

Copyright 2011 by Jasiri X (Reprinted by Permission)

Related