Did a Right-Wing PR Firm Bribe NYT, WSJ, MIT, and Others?

Did a Right-Wing PR Firm Bribe NYT, WSJ, MIT, and Others? as blogged at the DailyKos.com Sunday 18 March 2007 Ed Leefeldt at the Washingtonpost and Clay Risen of TNR both separately wrote very interesting investigative reports that many or you may have missed. First Mr. Risen writes: On March 7, 2007, a "media and research" company called eSapience filed a breach-of-contract lawsuit against C.V. Starr & Co., the California investment firm helmed by Maurice "Hank" Greenberg. What makes this suit so interesting is not C.V. Starr's alleged actions, but the services eSapience was hired to perform. That's because, far from being a typical p.r. firm, eSapience, run by a clique of conservative, free-market academics, is in the business of buying and manipulating influence at the very highest levels of academic and intellectual circles-a cynical strategy laid out in deep detail by the lawsuit. The suit, in fact, is a Rosetta Stone into the extremes to which a group of right-wingers have taken the phrase "marketplace of ideas"-and it has exposed the lengths to which some people will go to buy intellectual influence. As many have noted the Right-wing has a much stronger and more extensive network. They use this network to sell their ideas and push their public narratives. They do this it at several different levels, government, media, and academic. Very little information exists about eSapience outside the suit. Its website, eSapience.org, goes directly to something called the "eSapience Center for Competition Policy" (eCCP), a sort of virtual think tank that organizes conferences, promotes papers, and even publishes a journal, all of which have a decidedly conservative, free-market bent (the journal's editorial board, for example, features a bevy of University of Chicago legal scholars and economists, including Richard Posner and Frank Easterbrook). All of this seems dryly academic and above board-in fact, there is hardly any explanation of what eSapience itself actual is. This is typical of Right-wing think tanks. For all the glamor of the CATO and Hoover institutes, most of the real damage is done, by these faceless nameless institutes. There conservatives toil away in obscurity, underminig everything we love about this country. The lawsuit, though, shows otherwise. According to the suit, the firm, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is a coterie of high-end academics-the chair is David Evans, a visiting professor at the University College London; a managing director is Richard Schmalensee, dean of the MIT Sloan School of Management; Richard Epstein, the highly regarded Chicago legal scholar, is an affiliate-who use their connections in academia, the media, and the business world to improve their clients' public image. (eSapience declined, through its lawyer, to comment for this article.) According to an accompanying confidential memo to C.V. Starr, obtained by THE NEW REPUBLIC, eSapience promises to "blunt and/or change the conversations that influential people, including public intellectuals, have about the set of issues we are asked. I hope you read that correctly. They exist in order to misdirect and/or change the very CONVERSATIONS that our leaders are having! WOW! ESapience planned and executed three such events, on September 12, 14, and 15, 2006. One of them, co-sponsored with the Federalist Society, took place in (where else?) Greenberg Lounge at New York University. Titled "Does Procedure Dominate Substance? Of Class Actions and Pretrial Motions," it appeared no different from the sort of stultifying but edifying conferences that happen several times a week on university campuses. The keynote speech was by the eminent lawyer David Boies; the participants were drawn from top-25 law schools. Two of the participants I contacted knew little beyond the fact that eSapience was a co-sponsor; they were certainly unaware that it had planned the event as part of a scheme to improve Greenberg's image. For them, it was just another academic klatch ("If Hank Greenberg thought this resuscitated his reputation, that is beyond my knowledge or understanding," says NYU Law Professor Samuel Issacharoff). Did the Federalist Society know of the eSapience-Greenberg connection? OK, so influencing the Federalist Society is one thing. They already are a well know Right-wing outfit. But the next part of this tale should give all of us pause. Beyond the September events, eSapience also promised to use its existing "channels"-presumably the eCCP and its journal - to further sway opinion, and to "secur[e] a New York Times journalist who might be inclined to write an article related to the lawsuit filed by the new York State Attorney General's Office against Greenberg." It also hired Dan Senor, famous as the Bush administration's spokesman in the early days of the Iraq war, and Mark Corallo, John Ashcroft's former public affairs director, to help in the effort, though the suit doesn't explain their roles further. All this, while billing C.V. Starr at rates between $400 and $1,000 an hour, per person. In about six months, it had run up some $2 million in charges. No wonder C.V. Starr balked at paying. Did you get that? to further sway opinion, and to "secur[e] a New York Times journalist who might be inclined to write an article related to the lawsuit filed by the new York State Attorney General's Office against Greenberg." They billed someone for "paying off" (or getting a favorable story from) a NYT reporter! For those who don't know, Hank Greenberg was the former CEO of AIG (one of the nations 10 largest insurance companies), who was ousted after Elliot Spitzer charged him with fraud. AIG and the State of NY settled out of court. Greenberg and the State of NY are still going to trial. I don't want to falsely accuse people, or commit libel. But I did my own search of NYT archives. I noticed there was a bunch of articles with titles like: Two Views of a Rising Star: Populist Warrior or Reckless Foe of Big Business? and also like: Spitzer Fights Criticism That He Is a Hothead. Was this just regular campaign reporting? Or was it something more? The problem with an issue like this is it's very hard to ever know. It's also why it's so evily effective. But It didn't stop there as the Washington Post reports. Greenberg had been rumored last November to be interested in buying New York Times Co. (NYT.N). Why just "secure" a reporter, when you can "secure" the whole outfit! Furthermore, Ed Leefeldt reports that: Additionally eSapience tried to engage a "best-selling author" to ghostwrite Greenberg's autobiography, the suit claims. ESapience said in the suit that its work for Greenberg from May through September was successful in getting Greenberg an article in the front section of The Wall Street Journal. ESapience said it was told to bill the costs of the campaign to C.V. Starr, a private company where Greenberg is the chairman and chief executive, according to the suit. C.V. Starr runs insurance brokerage operations. The Wall Street Journal SOLD (or was influenced into?) placing an article in its front section! To add credence to this tale, a real company was billed for this service! Why has the MSM ignored mostly ignored this? Are their more Judith Miller's out there at the NYT and WSJ? One more disturbing fact: Under the heading "Independent Channels" eSapience promises to "leverage our relationships with important and highly credible channels including AEI, AEI-Brookings, Hoover Institution, MIT, University of Chicago Law School and the Federalist Society, among others. These organizations will work with us to host conferences, Capitol Hill briefings (if appropriate), co-author papers, link to our Center web sites, and distribute our materials on their web sites, among other things." These organizations may or may not have known of eSapience's plans to abuse their intellectual standing. They clearly didn't get a cut of the profits. What exactly do Universities need to support a position? Are Professors being "paid off"? Is there a quid pro qou were large donations are being made to the schools? (at the University of Chicago for example, eSapience was a sponsor of the UCL Antitrust & Regulation Forum)I am only speculating, I really don't know???

Ben Franklin On Bald Eagles as National Emblem.

In 1784, after the end of the Revolutionary War, Benjamin Franklin wrote a famous letter to his daughter from Paris criticizing the choice and suggesting the Wild Turkey's character as a desirable trait: For my own part I wish the Bald Eagle had not been chosen the Representative of our Country. He is a Bird of bad moral character. He does not get his Living honestly. You may have seen him perched on some dead Tree near the River, where, too lazy to fish for himself, he watches the Labour of the Fishing Hawk; and when that diligent Bird has at length taken a Fish, and is bearing it to his Nest for the Support of his Mate and young Ones, the Bald Eagle pursues him and takes it from him. With all this Injustice, he is never in good Case but like those among Men who live by Sharping & Robbing he is generally poor and often very lousy. Besides he is a rank Coward: The little King Bird not bigger than a Sparrow attacks him boldly and drives him out of the District. He is therefore by no means a proper Emblem for the brave and honest country of America who have driven all the King birds from our Country... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If Franklin only knew how closely America would follow the path he found so disagreeable.

The Strange and Dishonest Campaign Against Academic Freedom By David Horowitz

Horowitz.... I sometimes wonder if he really is so dull as to believe the things he says, or whether he thinks himself so crafty that he can slip bullshit through the faculty of universities as easily as he does the empty shells that make up his much-needed radical-right echo-chamber at FPM. After all, what kind of "conservative intellectual" (he may have actually coined the term right there) without a group of admirers? But to the meat! Dear David. Why did the three bears object to the Bill as legislation? Might it have something to do with....let me take a wild guess here...but a document of text might be rejected on the basis of something to do with the text! And I'll even venture that it wasn't the font or punctuation either. Unless it was the paper it was written on...Hmmmm. Oh well, back of the class I go. (Now what it could be...something the text conveyed perhaps?) Oh David! I think I'm on to something here this time! The Professors: Lies: The Strange and Dishonest Campaign Against Academic Freedom: "The fact remained (and it was the only fact I claimed) that while objecting later to the Bill as proposed legislation, none of the three objected to the text of the Academic Bill of Rights itself."

YouTube - "These Colors Don't Run" PSA

YouTube - "These Colors Don't Run" PSA Some idjit over there defending Melanie "War-Whorse" Morgan is directing me to visit the ANSWER website and find all the "lies", and contrast that with all the truths at MAF's or Move America Forward, Melanie's neocon dick-sucking sitewhere OBL gets more terrorism out of one attack than the USSR got out of it's fleet of nuclear submarines. Simply amazing that they don;t seem to realize who's actually spreading the terror. Anyhow......If I'm to list the lies on her website, I guess I'll just have to do it here.

Canada's Own Problem With "Mission Creeps"

Is Hillier out of line? Feb 20, 2007 04:30 AM Michael Byers Chief of defence is playing a highly unusual public role in promoting the mission in Afghanistan, even bypassing the defence minister to deal directly with the Prime Minister Canada's mission in Afghanistan is failing and Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier deserves much of the blame. Since becoming Canada's top soldier two years ago, Hillier has pushed the politicians hard. At his own swearing-in ceremony, he criticized Paul Martin for underfunding the military; one month later, he browbeat the Liberal cabinet into volunteering troops for a combat mission to Kandahar. Then-prime minister Martin and his ministers assumed Canadian casualties would be limited. So far, 44 soldiers have lost their lives. Hillier, the professional upon whose expertise the politicians relied, should have explained the real risks to them. The Martin government also assumed Canada would contribute to the combat mission for a limited time only. But Hillier changed his tune shortly after Stephen Harper was elected: "From NATO's perspective, they look at this as a 10-year mission, right? Minimum. There's going to be a huge demand for Canada to contribute over the longer period of time." Hillier promised Martin that the combat mission would not preclude Canadian participation in UN peacekeeping missions elsewhere. He's since broken that promise, ruling out troops for Lebanon and Darfur on the basis that Canada is fully committed in Afghanistan. We're experiencing a serious case of "mission creep." Under Hillier's leadership, Canada's role in Kandahar has morphed from a "provincial reconstruction team" made up of soldiers, diplomats and development personnel, into a "battle group" supported by Leopard tanks. Hillier has also used language that may have placed ordinary Canadians at greater risk. Foiled terrorist plots in Toronto and London were reportedly motivated, at least in part, by anger at the presence of Western troops in Afghanistan. Characterizing the enemy as "detestable murderers and scumbags" can only exacerbate the situation. It also makes the jobs of diplomats and politicians more difficult, as they search for the inevitable, negotiated peace. Hillier has even compromised this country's commitment to international law. In December 2005, he usurped the role of the Canadian ambassador by signing a detainee-transfer agreement with the Afghan defence minister. The agreement provided only the most rudimentary protections for prisoners, despite the fact that Britain, Denmark and the Netherlands had already concluded much more rigorous transfer agreements – copies of which were available to Hillier as models of "best practice." Some of the consequences of this were visible recently. After evidence emerged of possible beatings in Canadian custody, the Canadian Forces were forced to admit they had no idea what had happened to the more than 50 prisoners transferred to Afghan or U.S. custody since 2002. On the whole, Hillier has been content to adopt the approach of the Bush administration, emphasizing aggressive search-and-kill tactics and downplaying diplomacy, development, and international law. It's an approach that's already failed in Iraq, leading to the resignation of U.S. defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld. It's failing in southern Afghanistan, too. After five years, the region has become more, rather than less, dangerous. The Taliban is recruiting new fighters, opium production has skyrocketed, and the plight of ordinary people has not improved – if measured by their security from violence and access to food, medicine and other basic services. Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, still doesn't have a reliable electricity supply. A new approach is clearly needed, one that focuses on effective and transparent development assistance, the training and ongoing support of a well-paid and professional Afghan police force, and dialogue and diplomacy with at least some of the groups we're fighting against. Twenty-one out of 26 NATO countries realize this, which is why Canada has been carrying so much of the combat load, and suffering 25 per cent of the casualties. Hillier shares the dubious company of U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair in stubbornly refusing to admit his mistake. In 1951, U.S. general Douglas MacArthur violated the principle of civilian control over foreign and defence policy, first by speaking directly to the media about the overall direction of the Korean War, and then by issuing an ultimatum to China. President Harry S. Truman promptly relieved MacArthur of his command. Hillier is demonstrating similar tendencies. In addition to signing the detainee-transfer agreement, he's dominated Gordon O'Connor, keeping important information from the defence minister – such as the fact that Canada had acquired a number of Excalibur artillery shells costing $150,000 apiece – and bypassing him to deal directly with the Prime Minister. He's played a highly unusual public role in promoting the mission, and has even used wounded soldiers as part of an elaborate cross-Canada PR campaign. On Friday, Hillier, who claims to be non-partisan, called the Liberal cutbacks of the 1990s a "decade of darkness" for the military. Last week, the Senate Defence Committee asked: "Are Canadians willing to commit themselves to decades of involvement in Afghanistan, which could cost hundreds of Canadian lives and billions of dollars, with no guarantee of ending up with anything like the kind of society that makes sense to us?" With spring arriving in Afghanistan, the risk to Canada's soldiers is about to escalate. How many more of them must die before Hillier is called to account? Michael Byers hold the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia. His new book, Intent for a Nation, will be published in May. Michael Byers