Can the view from NYC's famous Cloisters museum be preserved in accord with donor John D. Rockefeller Jr.'s wishes?

This is the view of New Jersey's Palisades -- across the Hudson River from what is now Manhattan's Fort Tryon Park -- which John D. Rockefeller Jr. thought he was preserving for all time when he bought it and donated it to the Palisades Interstate Park Commission in the 1930s.

by Ken

Folks who have the good sense to be on tour leader extraordinaire Justin Ferate's mailing list got an e-mail yesterday from Justin recalling a point he made to those of us who had the good sense to be with him on a recent tour of the Cloisters, the medieval wing of the Metropolitan Museum of Art built on land perched above the Hudson River in what is now Manhattan's Fort Tryon Park on land donated by John D. Rockefeller Jr.

I indicated that the Rockefellers had wisely purchased the property across the Hudson River with special codicils to forever protect the vistas of that remarkable place of solitude. Foolishly, I failed to take into account the pressures of real estate.

As Robin Pogrebin reported yesterday in the New York Times ("A Timeless View From the Cloisters Faces a Modern Intrusion"):

After John D. Rockefeller Jr. donated land for the Cloisters museum in northern Manhattan, he went a step further in the 1930s and bought the cliffs across the Hudson River in New Jersey to preserve the museum’s pristine view of the Palisades.

Now his grandson Larry Rockefeller; the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which owns the Cloisters; and other groups are fighting to preserve that vista, which they say is threatened by a new corporate headquarters to be built in Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

As designed, the headquarters for LG Electronics USA, a major employer and taxpayer in that borough, would be 143 feet tall and rise several stories above the tree line.

"The Palisades really rests at the heart of the conservation legacy, if you will, which our family has left, and is leaving, to America," Mr. Rockefeller, 68, said in a telephone interview from the Grand Tetons in Wyoming, which his family also helped preserve. . . .

Larry Rockefeller, grandson of John D. Jr., told the Times he's encouraged by a meeting he had just before Christmas with executives of LG Electronics USA, which has announced plans to build this building atop the Palisades. He says: "I don't think they'd been aware of the larger context, the historic context, the geographic context. I think LG really wants to do the right thing, and I'm hopeful that will lead them to redesign it."

A spokesman for the South Korea-based company, John Taylor, said of the project, scheduled to begin construction this year and be completed by 2016: "We're listening to their concerns. We're very proud of this project. We're creating an iconic green structure that we think is going to be among the most energy efficient corporate campuses on the East Coast."

Larry Rockefeller, who served for 27 years on the Palisades Interstate Park Commissions and is now a trustee of the Natural Resources Defense Council, explained that his grandfather had made clear that the 700 acres he donated atop that 13-mile stretch of the Palisades was meant to be preserved. "There were conditions in that gift which made that very clear."

In a letter to the Palisades Interstate Park commissioners John D. Rockefeller Jr. wrote at the time, "My primary purpose in acquiring this property was to preserve the land lying along the top of the Palisades from any use inconsistent with your ownership and protection of the Palisades themselves."

The lawsuits filed to protect the view include a joint one filed in November by Scenic Hudson, the New York-New Jersey Trail Conference and the New Jersey State Federation of Women’s Clubs. The other suit was filed by two Englewood Cliffs residents.

"My grandfather was not alone in appreciating it and acting to preserve it," Mr. Rockefeller said. "There is a public trust that has been there over the decades to keep buildings below the tree line and preserve the unbroken ridgeline and landscape landmark view, which may be one of the most iconic in America."

The design of the new LG headquarters "calls for eight 18-foot stories in an area previously zoned for a maximum of 35 feet." So what about John D. Rockefeller Jr.'s belief that his people had forestalled any such possibility? According to the Times article, the 35-foot height limit --

was recently lifted through a variance that has been challenged in court in one of the two lawsuits. The case is before State Superior Court Judge Alexander H. Carver III. Subsequently the land was rezoned to allow for a taller building.

The groups challenging the building's design insist, as Hayley Carlock, a lawyer for Scenic Hudson put it:

Our goal has always been to find a way to lower the height of the tower so it doesn’t stand out above the Palisades and preserves the majesty of the Palisades ridge, which has served such an important historical and cultural role for those of us across the river, particularly the views in northern Manhattan and the Bronx.

These days the extent of the Rockefellers' philanthropy tends to be taken for granted, but the family developed an extraordinary history of "giving back," as Justin put it on that Cloisters tour, when our handouts included a packed sheet listing the most conspicuous public gifts. (No one leaves one of Justin's tours without a stack of fact-filled handouts, which he sometimes refers to as "homework.")

The Metropolitan Museum and the Cloisters project were favorite causes of John D. Jr.'s wife, Abby Aldrich Rockefeller, who was also, as Wikipedia puts it, " the driving force in the establishment and ongoing operations" of New York's Museum of Modern Art, for which she could count on less support from her husband, who didn't have a lot of sympathy for modern art.

But the Cloisters is one legacy that's almost impossible to imagine without John D. Jr.'s energetic participation. Now his grandson and the various allied campaigners are hoping to ensure that his vision for the site is maintained.

#

Uncle Ben's Rice... Uncle Sam's War... What's The Difference?

"PR flacks in the United States now outnumber journalists. Propaganda has become the primary means by which the wealthy communicate with the rest of society." This film is better than Cupcake Wars and will help you understand why you have "your own" point of view. And it's fabulously bipartisan... of course. It'll even make it clear where Jay Rockefeller's opposition to clean air comes from... and reminded me of why I couldn't support Hillary Clinton (think Mark Penn) even knowing full well how conservative and utterly unacceptable Obama was.

Have you ever noticed that there's a huge disconnect between public opinion and public policy?

RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD AGAIN-- STENY HOYER AND CHRIS CARNEY WORKING TO GIVE BUSH WHAT HE WANTS

Steny pledges his allegiance

Back in November, 2006, I got a call from Steny Hoyer. He was trolling for support for his bid to become Majority Leader. Pelosi knew what a backstabbing corporate tool he is and she was pushing for Jack Murtha, no angel-- or reformer-- himself. Hoyer's office had noticed that I warned anti-war progressives infatuated with Murtha off because of Murtha's ultra-reactionary voting record-- much worse than Hoyer's-- and because of his reputation for sometimes being willing to accept some... easy money. Anyway, if you don't want to read the post I did back then about my Hoyer call (at the link above), take my word for it: it wasn't complimentary. Sure, I warned people about Murtha, but I was sure to indicate that Murtha was probably even worse.

And if Jane, Digby, emptywheel, and McJoan were correct yesterday-- and these are all savvy sources-- I wasn't even close to how bad... and how dangerous.

According to the ACLU, there is rumor of a backroom deal being brokered by Jay Rockefeller on FISA that will include retroactive immunity. I've heard from several sources that Steny Hoyer is doing the dirty work on the House side, and some say it will be attached to the new supplemental.

This morning Glenn Greenwald's Salon column, What backroom conniving are Steny Hoyer and the Chris Carney Blue Dogs up to on FISA? spells it out very clearly. Glenn rues the rumors of Hoyer and the Blue Dogs reversing "one of the only worthwhile acts of Congressional Democrats since they were given control of Congress in 2006: namely, the refusal to vest the President with vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers and bequeath lawbreaking telecoms with amnesty." He warns us that Hoyer is leading the charge to put together a new FISA bill that will purport to grant something short of retroactive immunity for Bush Regime cronies inside and outside the government, particularly to executives of the telecom industry, "but which, in every meaningful respect, ensures an end to the telecom lawsuits."

Yesterday's Hill indicates that a gaggle of reactionary and less than courageous Blue Dogs, typified by our old friend Chris Carney (D-PA). Conservative freshman Democrats and non-freshman reactionaries "are growing skittish. These lawmakers expect campaign opponents to accuse them of imperiling national security if Congress does not enact new intelligence surveillance legislation." A GOP front group, Defense of Democracies Action Fund, has already started running ads in red-leaning districts trying to smear freshmen. Some, like Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH), have fought back, explaining the Bush Regime's treacherous policies and have enhanced the respect voters feel for them. Others, like Carney, are motivated by fear, conflicting motivations and confusion.

“A number of Blue Dogs are working on a compromise between the House and the Senate,” said Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), a member of the Blue Dog Coalition and the former ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. “I’m working with Hoyer and working with others.

“Some other Blue Dogs are involved,” she added. “Blue Dogs are 47 votes; 47 votes will determine how this comes out.”

Harman acknowledged, however, that there is a split in the Blue Dog Coalition and that some members support a Senate-crafted overhaul of FISA while she and others say it gives “blank check” immunity to telecommunications companies that turned over customer data to intelligence authorities.

Harman said that Hoyer, who has long-standing ties with the coalition, will be pivotal to recruiting conservative Democratic support for whatever bill emerges from House-Senate negotiations.

When we warn about supporting Blue Dogs and reactionary Democrats, and how they pull the Democratic caucus towards the right, this-- and tactics like the HeathShuler/Tom Tancredo anti-immigrants bill-- are exactly what we're talking about. The GOP is trying to use a discharge petition to force Pelosi to schedule a vote on the Senate version that does give retroactive immunity to telecom and Regime lawbreakers. The Republicans are concentrating their efforts on the Blue Dogs, many of whom are eager to show their constituents that they are as right-wing as a Republican.

Vulnerable freshman Democrats and Blue Dogs say the issue demands action.
“Overall, it’s very important,” said Rep. Chris Carney (D-Pa.), a freshman member of the Blue Dog Coalition who often votes against his leadership.

Carney said that a compromise should protect national security and also respect civil liberties. He was one of the 21 Democrats who signed the letter to Pelosi, making him a prime Republican target.
 
“I’ve been in favor of the Senate bill."

Yes, he was. In fact, he was one of the only House Democrats to vote for it and that was why Glenn's readers and readers of Firedoglake, Crooks & Liars, Digby, DownWithTyranny voted overwhelmingly to donate the $50,000 they had donated to running ads in Carney's northeast Pennsylvania district about this issue. Glenn points out today that Carney and other reactionary Democrats like him do more harm to the progressive agenda than Republicans in the minority do. Their "presence in Washington is worse than worthless: it's extremely counterproductive since they essentially eliminate the entire concept of 'opposition party' by continuously pressuring Democrats to enable the most radical aspects of Republican rule for their own perceived narrow political gain."

Glenn has called for more donations to the Blue America PAC's fund that will be used to fight retroactive immunity. So far over 900 people have donated. Please give what you can (right here)-- unless you want to grant the Bush Regime the power to tap your phone without warrants and to grant retroactive immunity for criminal activities to their cronies.

HOW DID THEY GET TO JAY ROCKEFELLER?

Lately, Jay Rockefeller has been a big fan-- the biggest Democratic fan-- of retroactive immunity for Bush Regime law breakers and their criminal cronies. It wasn't always that way, but it is now. Late last, as the influential chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, year he opposed the appointment of a special counsel or commission inquiry into the destruction of the torture tapes the CIA destroyed. A little over a year prior to that he voted with the Republicans to suspend habeus corpus for anyone the Bush Regime chooses, in their infinite wisdom to label an "enemy combatant," which means, basically, that that designation is not appealable in a court, giving the Bush Regime the authorize to cast anyone-- including Rockefeller himself if they so choose-- into a Kafkaesque/Orwellian nightmare. The bill allows Bush to use his own "judgment" to interpret the Geneva Conventions any way he wishes (in effect, absolving him and Cheney of ever having to face likely war crimes charges. And, that was Rockefeller's first taste of retroactive immunity-- a post-approve of a nine-year immunity to all Regime operatives who authorized, ordered, or committed acts of torture and abuse. Apparently he liked the taste-- a lot.

Since then he has been the guiding force in the Senate, along with Mitch McConnell, pushing retroactive immunity to Bush Regime personnel and telecoms executives who illegally spied on Americans. Four years earlier Rockefeller had written to Cheney to tell him the warrantless wiretaps the Regime was instituting were unconstitutional.

I'm reading a fascinating book by Russ Hoyle, Going To War-- How MIsinformation, Disinformation and Arrogance Led America Into Iraq. Rockefeller figures prominently towards the wrap-up phase. Let me quote a couple of paragraphs.

Senator John D. Rockefeller of West Virginia, the Democratic vice chairman of the intelligence committee, noted that "an iron curtain comes down" every time the committee question White House handling of the intelligence. "I have to say in all honesty that I am troubled by what I see
as a concerted effort by this administration to use its influence to limit, delay, to frustrate, to deny the intelligence committee's oversight work into the intelligence reporting and activities leading up to the invasion of Iraq," he said. Rockefeller came close to openly accusing the White House of ordering Republican committee members not to cooperate with the probe. "Any time the intelligence committee pursued a line of inquiry that brought us close to the role of the White House in all of this in the use of intelligence prior to the war, our efforts have been thwarted time and time again," said Rockefeller. "The very independence of the United States Congress as a separate and coequal branch  of the government has been called into question."

...Vice Chairman Rockefeller's early suspicions about the administrations role in manipulating the WMD intelligence were aroused by revelations just before the war that documents used by the White House to claim that Iraq has sought to purchase uranium from Niger were forged. At the time, he wrote to FBI Director Robert Mueller requesting that the FBI investigate the origins of the forgeries. "There is a possibility that the fabrication of these documents may be part of a larger deception campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq," wrote Rockefeller. The FBI began a desultory two-year investigation that ended in the summer of 2005, although it was not made public until the eve of Libby's indictment. The FBI probe absolved the Italian government of conservative prime minister Silvio Berlusconi of any responsibility for producing or circulating the forgeries. This was, of course, the mysterious intelligence that first attracted the attention of Vice President Cheney in late 2001; that triggered Joe Wilson's trip to Niger in early 2002; that the president used in the 2003 State of the Union; and, that for reasons that were still murky, was at the heart of the White House leak case that Libby has lied about repeatedly.

As Senate Democrats began their push to complete phase two of the intelligence study, the FBI abruptly reopened its investigation into the Niger forgeries. New information had been published in the Italian magazine La Reppublica that suggested the forgeries may have been the work of the Italian government in concert with Americans who favored war against Iraq [criminal Cheney crony Michael Ladeen], or by members of the Iraqi National Congress, the exile group led by Ahmed Chalabi [and allied with Cheney and Ladeen on the one hand, and the Iranians on the other]. The FBI reversal also followed reports that its agents had failed to interview a key player in distributing the Niger documents, the former Italian military intelligence operative Rocco Martino, whom the FBI believed had operated purely for his own personal profit. A bureau source told the Los Angeles Times that the FBI didn't expect the new probe to come up with much new.

Rockefeller and other Democratic members of the intelligence committee welcomed news of the restarted FBI probe. But they did not hesitate to up the ante on the White House when major newspapers reported that the Bush administration had ignored intelligence warnings in 2002 that a captured al-Qaeda official, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, was a suspected fabricator. Al-Libi was the source of U.S. intelligence reports that al-Qaeda members had received Iraqi training in chemical and biological weapons. Rockefeller's reaction was swift and unambiguous. "Once again, we have another important example of where the administration was warned that information was questionable, yet they turned around and presented it as fact to the American people," said Rockefeller. "This most recent example underscores just how important it is that the Senate Intelligence Committee get to the bottom of whether this administration knowingly misrepresented intelligence in making their case for war."

Rockefeller's use of the word "knowingly" was a red flag for Republicans. But the next day the West Virginia Democrat stepped up his attack, explicitly rejecting intelligence committee chairman Roberts' stated preference that the second phase of the Senate report, like the first, would compare public statements by administration officials with the best intelligence available at the time. Instead, Rockefeller pushed for formal interviews with Bush administration officials if that proved necessary to  determine whether intelligence on Iraqi weapons had been distorted or misused. "Comparing public statements with what the intelligence community published does not alone tell the story," Rockefeller said. "If necessary, we may need to conduct interviews and request supporting documents. If the committee is denied testimony or documentation, we must be prepared to issue subpoenas."

So what happened to turn that lion into the pussy cat and rubber stamp he has become? The Regime pushback was fierce, painting those who had voted for the authorization for the use of force against Iraq-- like Rockefeller-- as unpatriotic hypocrites and as cynical partisans. Many-- DWT included-- have pointed to the intense lobbying effort (massive legalized bribes to members of Congress, especially Rockefeller) to get support for retroactive immunity. Rockefeller, who had spent $12 million dollars to buy his Senate seat originally then promised not to use his personal wealth in future elections. The $20,000 he got from telecoms was somewhat significant. But neither name calling from the Bush Regime nor "lobbying" from the telecoms seem likely to have turned Rockefeller into one of them. Is it possible that someone could have pointed out to him what fate befell implacable enemies of the Right-- from Wellstone to the Kennedys? Frankly, I'd believe that as quickly as I'd believe one of the wealthiest men in the Senate could be bought off with campaign contributions. Maybe the FBI can do a fake investigation of this too.

We need to know why there was such a drastic change of heart.

FISA BILL MOVES TO THE SENATE-- WHERE IT GETS EVEN WORSE

Yesterday we spent some time going over the debate in the House about FISA and how the Bush Regime uses it for unconstitutional domestic spying. Today the action moves to the Senate. I'm not thrilled by the tenor so far. The draft bill includes amnesty and retroactive immunity for the telecom companies that broke the law. So even though there were at least two companies that actually stood up to Bush-- and for the Constitution-- and refused to comply, the companies that went along, especially mega-campaign contributors AT&T and Verizon, get retroactive immunity for anything they’ve done wrong in cooperating in illegal domestic spying for the past six years. (Note: the criminal Bush Regime even penalized Qwest for standing up for the Constitution and refusing to get drawn into their illegal schemes.)

Further, Taylor Marsh points out that both the House and the Senate "cave in to Bush’s fear-mongering in a major way: it does NOT required the government to get an individual warrant before wiretapping Americans' phones and emails. Instead, it allows for program or basket 'warrants,' which aren't really warrants at all. They're the modern-day equivalent of allowing government agents to sit in our living rooms, recording our personal conversations. Only they're more frightening, because the government now has the capacity to monitor us remotely and without our knowledge, and to save the information in a secret database forever."

Last night we heard from half a dozen Democratic office-holders and candidates who are outraged by this. Matt's got a great overview at OpenLeft that he and I worked on together. As this debate moves over to the Senate, I thought it would be especially useful to highlight a statement from Maine's Congressman Tom Allen since he's running for the Senate seat currently occupied by Bush rubber stamp hack Susan Collins. Here's what Rep. Allen said:

"There is no question that the Bush Administration is responsible for an unprecedented and widespread infringement upon basic civil liberties. It is equally disturbing to know that phone companies took part in this. Just as we must hold Bush and his Administration accountable, we cannot let private sector businesses off the hook for breaking the law."

Two especially good progressive candidates-- Donna Edwards (MD-04) and Dan Grant (TX-10)-- have had to spend a good deal of time thinking about this issue because of the opponents they are facing. Dan is challenging rubber stamp Republican Mike McCaul who is more the representative in Congress for his father-in-law's company, Clear Channel Communications, than he is the representative for the good people of his central Texas district.

"I spent the past decade helping Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, and other trouble spots around the world try to strengthen their law enforcement systems and constitutional protections.  Little did I think my own government would violate those very rights by offering amnesty to telecommunications firms back home.

"My opponent Mike McCaul, whose family owns Clear Channel Communications, bears a special responsibility not to rubberstamp the Bush-Cheney administration's attempt to let his and other big telecom firms break the law. Is he representing Central Texas or his family's monopoly? His failure to speak out on this outrageous attempt to let unreasonable search and seizure go unchecked provides the answer-- Mike McCaul is the Congressman from Clear Channel."

And Donna Edwards is running against one of the big telecom companies worst whores, Al Wynn, a man who has financed his career with their bribes and gifts. Her comments are worth thinking about too:

"Congress must not give in to the President on the issue of immunity for telecommunications companies who have violated the law. These companies and their powerful lobbyists have given generous contributions to members of Congress including Congressman Wynn. They must be held accountable. These companies had a choice and some chose to break the law and violate our civil liberties. No amount of money or influence should prevent the companies and their senior decision makers from being held accountable if they broke the law. Corporations cannot be allowed to break the law under the thinly veiled guise of 'national security' and walk away without penalty."

Of course it isn't just candidates who are alarmed. People For the American Way has a new campaign they just launched, Help Congress To Grow A Spine. Worth checking out, especially since they say that the Senate version looks like it will be even worse than the House version, more in line with all of Bush's demands. Thanks Jay Rockefeller, a senator from West Virginia is practically owned by AT&T. By the way, if you want to call him and the members of the Select Committee on Intelligence who might be persuadable, this is a reliable list.

*Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Chairman — (202) 224-6472
*Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) — (202) 224-3841
*Sen. John Warner (R-VA) — (202) 224-2023
*Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) — (202) 224-5244
*Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) — (202) 224-4224
*Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) — (202) 224-5623
*Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) — (202) 224-4654
*Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) — (202) 224-5344
*Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) — (202) 224-5274

The guys we know we can already count on-- Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)-- plus the total Bush hacks who would rather cut off their own peckers than go against Bush-- like Saxby Chamberpot (R-GA) and Richard Burr (R-NC)-- aren't on the call list.


UPDATE: NOT ALL DEMOCRATS THINK HOLDING THE TELECOMS ACCOUNTABLE IS A GOOD IDEA-- ESPECIALLY NOT THE ONES WHO ARE ON THE PAYROLL

Yesterday Matt Stoller and I started contacting candidates we talk to regularly about their read of this FISA bill Congress is working on. As you can see, we've had some great answers from the candidates who have been endorsed by Blue America and BlogPAC. But I got a curious e-mail from the manager of one of our most forthright and combative young candidates. The pollster for the campaign Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, quintessential Inside the Beltway corporate hacks who have helped make the Democrats an Insider party rather than a true party of working families, started screaming that the candidate shouldn't cooperate with Blue America and BlogPAC and should just not take a stand. Hit that link and look at who their corporate clients are and you'll see why this "Democratic" polling firm is telling candidates not to take a stand on FISA.


LET'S END TODAY'S FISA STORY ON A HIGH, EVEN VISIONARY NOTE-- FROM ANDREW RICE, SENATE CANDIDATE FOR SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA

Andrew's statement sums the whole FISA debate up perfectly. Can you imagine having a guy who said this in the Senate instead of a yutz like Inhofe?

"Having lost my brother in the World Trade Center on 9/11, I am very sensitive to the importance of the U.S. intelligence community's ability to effectively monitor foreign terrorist targets. However, our country must preserve our constitutional principles and such monitoring must be accomplished without compromising the civil liberties of American citizens. I am hopeful that Congress is on the verge of finally properly scrutinizing the Bush Administration's warrantless surveillance programs, and can create reasonable legislation that provides our government the tools it needs to monitor legitimate international threats, while at the same time not compromising the personal liberties of law-abiding Americans. Members of congress must ensure that any surveilance of U.S Citizens be granted with the proper warrant. If they fail to accomplish this, then we will have lost something very sacred about America and what our system of values is supposed to provide for all Americans.

The provision for corporate immunity for the telecom companies who may have violated federal law is unacceptable and unfortunately another example of the Bush administration wanting the legislative branch to craft legislation that protects the executive branch from its own incompetance. "