Can you perhaps cut it into paragraphs?
It is important to realize, however, that this was a 30 year WAR waged on our society, culture, legal system and language.
Here is a post from old DU on the issue:
Be Realistic...This is how THEY did it!
LAST EDITED ON Nov-09-02 AT 02:06 PM (ET)
I realize very few will click on all the links because it's too much work. But maybe you should all watch the movie HOOSIERS...winning is a team effort! Winning is LABOR intense! Winning is commitment. Winning is scoring not watching the scoreboard.
Think tanks are HOW they have waged a culture war that took over the public conversation. Tax exempt money to organizations cloaked as charity.
Academic Sector Organizations and Programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Think Tanks and Advocacy Groups
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Media Groups
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Organizations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State and Regional Think Tanks and Advocacy Groups
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Religious Sector Organizations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philanthropic Institutions and Networks
National Think Tanks
and Advocacy Groups
From a report by NCRP
No set of institutions has done more to set the national policy agenda than some of the heavily-funded think tanks and advocacy groups listed here. All are focused on national budget and policy priorities and are especially well funded. Over the 1992-1994 period, the foundations profiled in this report poured close to $80 million into these organizations, $64 million of which was invested in multi-issue policy institutions with a major focus on shaping national domestic policy and $15.2 million of which was granted to policy research and advocacy organizations focused on national security and foreign policy issues. Much of this grant money was concentrated in just a handful of institutions.
http://www.mediatransparency.org/national_think_tanks.htmSEARCH | ISSUES | MOVEMENT | RESOURCES | ABOUT | CONTACT US | HELP USWashington Post
Oct 3, 2002
Robertson Charity Wins 'Faith-Based' Grant
Today, Operation Blessing International, a Virginia Beach charity created by Robertson, is to get $500,000 in the first wave of grants to be distributed under the faith-based initiative, which gives federal money to religious organizations that provide social services...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Post
Sep. 15, 2002
GOP Using Faith Initiative to Woo Voters
Office's Officials Have Appeared With Republican Candidates in Tight Races
Republicans are using the prospect of federal grants from the Bush administration's "faith- based initiative" to boost support for GOP candidates, especially among black voters in states and districts with tight congressional races this fall.
http://www.mediatransparency.org/faithbased_watch.htmSEARCH | ISSUES | MOVEMENT | RESOURCES | ABOUT | CONTACT US | HELP USConsortiumnews.com
Robert Parry
May 6, 2002
David Brock & the Watergate Legacy
David Brock’s tell-all Blinded by the Right parallels another account by a young man who came to Washington and found a home in Republican circles. That confessional book was Blind Ambition by Richard Nixon’s White House counsel John Dean, who described how his drive to succeed led him to join the crimes of Watergate.
http://www.mediatransparency.org/arkansas_project.htmAntitrust Law & Economics Review:
JUDICIAL SEMINARS:
ECONOMICS, ACADEMIA, AND CORPORATE MONEY IN AMERICA
(good description of the ethical problems for judges in re the Law & Economics movement)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 30, 2000
Washington Post
Judges' Free Trips Go Unreported
Federal judges took more than a dozen expense-paid trips to seminars put on by conservative groups but failed to disclose the resort trips on their annual financial reports, as required by federal ethics laws.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Search the database for grants that have the word "judge" in them -- efforts by the right to "educate" state & federal judges.
Law & Economics
Law & Economics is a movement funded and led by the conservative philanthropies described in this report.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$30 million to "Law and Economics" | $25 million to the U of Chicago | $3.5 million to "educate" state and federal judges
American Prospect, Feb 2001
The Chicago Acid Bath
The Impoverished Logic of "Law and Economics"
Read about the cruel, market-serving, people-denying legal theory called “Law & Economics,” funded by the conservative philanthropies, that is helping to transform American law by elevating the idea of “wealth-maximization” to the goal of the law.
Read the report. | TripsForJudges.org documents the "education" of federal and state judges with an interactive, searchable database of judge's trips.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Academic Sector Organizations & Programs
Law & Economics funding
From a report by NCRP
Much of the grant money going to top academic institutions supported the establishment
http://www.mediatransparency.org/law_and_economics.htmGoal of school choice movement is to break up unions
BY ROB LEVINE
Guest Columnist
In "With school choice, every child can win" (March 1), the Heritage Foundation's Jennifer Garrett fails to mention that the real goals of the school choice movement are the breakup of one of the last two unionized sectors of U.S. society: public primary and secondary education, and the conversion to private profit of some of the $300 billion spent in the U.S. each year on public primary and secondary education.
She also fails to mention that most of the school choice movement is led and funded by a small group of wealthy conservative philanthropies. In short, Garrett paints a misleading and partisan picture both of the school choice movement and the "evidence" purporting to show that choice students do better academically.
The orchestrator and prime funder of this movement has been the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation of Milwaukee. The Bradley Foundation makes annual grants of more than $40 million, and is obsessed with school choice and school vouchers.
It's no coincidence the largest voucher "experiment" in the nation is taking place in Bradley's hometown. In fact, the Bradley Foundation and its philanthropic brethren paid for almost every source that positively referenced school choice in Garrett's column.
Her institution, the Heritage Foundation, is the No. 1 recipient of conservative philanthropy money, having received at least $39 million since 1985 — $12 million from the Bradley Foundation alone. Howard Fuller, referenced in Garrett's article as being from the "Black Alliance for Education Options" (BAEO), is also head of the Institute for the Transformation of Learning at Marquette University – BAEO's parent organization, which has received more than $1 million from the Bradley Foundation
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/opinion/3117372.htmSEARCH | ISSUES | MOVEMENT | RESOURCES | ABOUT | CONTACT US | HELP US$7.4 million to the Federalist Society
$39 million to the Heritage Foundation
Village Voice
James Ridgeway
June 19, 2002
A Small Cartel of Conservative Lawyers Rewrites the American Rule
Court Jousters
Behind the Bush Administration's attack on civil rights in the name of war lurks the network of attorneys crafting laws for a new America.
Their hodgepodge of rules and statutes either now or soon will remake the nation, providing local police with sweeping federal authority, pushing the military and CIA directly
http://www.mediatransparency.org/court_watch.htmFear of All Sums
By PAUL KRUGMAN
t is difficult to get a man to understand something," wrote Upton Sinclair, "when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." To make sense of what passes for debate over Social Security reform, one must realize that advocates of privatization — of replacing the current system, at least in part, with a system of personal accounts — are determined not to understand basic arithmetic. Otherwise they would have to admit that such accounts would weaken, not strengthen, the system's finances.
Social Security as we know it is a system in which each generation's payroll taxes are mainly used to support the previous generation's retirement. If contributions from younger workers go into personal accounts instead, the problem should be obvious: who will pay benefits to today's retirees and older workers? It's just arithmetic: 2-1=1. So privatization creates a financial hole that must be filled by slashing benefits, providing large financial transfers from the rest of the government or both.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/21/opinion/21KRUG.htmlCONSERVATIVE FOUNDATIONS PREVAIL IN SHAPING PUBLIC POLICIES
New Report Documents Public Policy Impact of 12 Core Foundations
Washington, D.C. -- With limited resources but a strong political vision, conservative foundations are playing a major role in shaping public policy priorities according to a new study by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) titled Moving a Public Policy Agenda: the Strategic Philanthropy of Conservative Foundations.
From 1992 to 1994, twelve conservative foundations studied by NCRP -- including the Bradley, Scaife and Olin foundations -- controlled assets of $1.1 billion and awarded $300 million in grants. While the size of their grantmaking programs may pale in comparison to some of the nation's largest foundations, conservative funders have unmatched success in advocating for their right-wing political agenda. NCRP found several factors contributing to this success:
First, they departed from grantmaking norms in the philanthropic sector by funding extremely aggressive and ideological institutions routinely committed to influencing budget and policy priorities. Two-thirds of their grant dollars -- $210 million out of $300 million total -- went to organizations and programs pursuing policy agendas based on the privatization of government services, deep reductions in federal anti-poverty spending, industrial deregulation, and the transfer of responsibility for social welfare to state and local government and the charitable sector.
Second, at a time when foundation and corporate leaders are increasingly committing their resources locally, the conservative foundations maintained an unusually strong focus on national public policy institutions. These investments have exacerbated resource disparities between multi-issue public policy institutions on the left and right sides of the political spectrum. The top five conservative multi-issue public policy groups in the NCRP study including Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy operated on $77 million in combined revenues in 1995 compared to $18.6 million of their eight political equivalents on the left.
Third, the conservative foundations demonstrated a preference for the marketing of ideas in their grantmaking. The majority of grantees in NCRP's study have developed sophisticated and effective media outreach strategies. For example, the fifth largest grantee in the study, Citizens for a Sound Economy, produced more than 130 policy papers, conducted 50 different advertising campaigns, appeared on 175 radio and television news shows, placed 235 op-ed articles, and received coverage in more than 4,000 news articles in 1995 alone. CSE's marketing and media efforts are the norm rather than exception among the conservative grantees. In the absence of similar efforts by liberal organizations and funders, communications campaigns like these have contributed to the current climate where right- wing ideas, sometimes based on inaccurate information, go unchallenged.
http://www.ncrp.org/reports/moving.htmSo what do we do...we spend our time talking BLUE STATES VERSUS RED states, munching on conspiracies and ruminating over Clinton's sex stories, Ann Coulter and never rally confonting the TRUTH! If people on this board spent one tenth of the time they spend bitching using it rather to understand the THIRTY YEAR MOVEMENT that took place, we'd be in year two of our OWN THIRTY year movement. Education, PATIENCE ( this isn't the lottery) oraganization and following THEIR map is the key. No one addresses the USEFUL ways to overcome this movement better than Arianna Huffington who has been inside the belly of the beast! Go to her site and get HER BOOK.
http://www.ariannaonline.comhttp://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=17043&forum=DCForumID60&archive= And a MORE RECENT article on HOW to COMBAT this issue:Framing the issues: UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics
By Bonnie Azab Powell, NewsCenter | 27 October 2003
BERKELEY – With Republicans controlling the Senate, the House, and the White House and enjoying a large margin of victory for California Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger, it's clear that the Democratic Party is in crisis. George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley professor of linguistics and cognitive science, thinks he knows why. Conservatives have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully choosing the language with which to present them, and building an infrastructure to communicate them, says Lakoff.
The work has paid off: by dictating the terms of national debate, conservatives have put progressives firmly on the defensive.
In 2000 Lakoff and seven other faculty members from Berkeley and UC Davis joined together to found the Rockridge Institute, one of the only progressive think tanks in existence in the U.S. The institute offers its expertise and research on a nonpartisan basis to help progressives understand how best to get their messages across. The Richard & Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor in the College of Letters & Science, Lakoff is the author of "Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think," first published in 1997 and reissued in 2002, as well as several other books on how language affects our lives. He is taking a sabbatical this year to write three books — none about politics — and to work on several Rockridge Institute research projects.
In a long conversation over coffee at the Free Speech Movement Café, he told the NewsCenter's Bonnie Azab Powell why the Democrats "just don't get it," why Schwarzenegger won the recall election, and why conservatives will continue to define the issues up for debate for the foreseeable future.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(448 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
