Facebook Slider
Get News Alerts!

ROBERT C. KOEHLER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

aaaMyLai(Photo: Ronald L. Haeberle)“When somebody asks, ‘Why do you do it to a gook, why do you do this to people?’ your answer is, ‘So what, they’re just gooks, they’re not people. It doesn’t make any difference what you do to them; they’re not human.’

“And this thing is built into you,” Cpl. John Geymann testified almost 44 years ago at the Winter Soldier Investigation, held in Detroit, which was sponsored by Vietnam Veterans Against the War. “It’s thrust into your head from the moment you wake up in boot camp to the moment you wake up when you’re a civilian.”

The cornerstone of war is dehumanization. This was the lesson of Nam, from Operation Ranch Hand (the dumping of 18 million gallons of herbicides, including Agent Orange, on the jungles of Vietnam) to My Lai to the use of napalm to the bombing of Cambodia. And the Winter Soldier Investigation began making the dehumanization process a matter of public knowledge.

It was a stunning and groundbreaking moment in the history of war. Yet — guess what? — the three-day hearing, in which 109 Vietnam veterans and 16 civilians testified about the reality of American operations in Vietnam, doesn’t show up on the “interactive timeline” of the Department of Defense-sponsored website commemorating, as per President Obama’s proclamation, the 50-year anniversary of the war.

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

ajanetyellenJanet Yellen (Photo: International Monetary Fund)                                                         

Although the head of the Federal Reserve Board, Janet Yellen, isn't yet calling for systemic change in the US economic system - nor is she likely to - she did no doubt shock the financial barons by acknowledging income inequality in the US in a recent speech.

In remarks on October 17 to the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Yellen, according to Wall Street on Parade, appeared to formally recognize at least some of glaring disparities in distribution of income and assets in the US:

“The past several decades have seen the most sustained rise in inequality since the 19th century after more than 40 years of narrowing inequality following the Great Depression.” Using data from the Fed’s Survey of Consumer Finances, Yellen punctuated her message with these hair-raising figures:

“The wealthiest 5 percent of American households held 54 percent of all wealth reported in the 1989 survey. Their share rose to 61 percent in 2010 and reached 63 percent in 2013;

“The lower half of households by wealth, held just 3 percent of wealth in 1989 and only 1 percent in 2013. To put that in perspective…the average net worth of the lower half of the distribution, representing 62 million households, was $11,000 in 2013.”

“This $11,000 average is 50 percent lower than the average wealth of the lower half of families in 1989, adjusted for inflation.”

The Wall Street Journal took note of Yellen's focus on wealth disparity in an article entitled, "Janet Yellen Decries Widening Income Inequality: Central Bank Chief Says Wealth Disparity Could Be Impeding Economic Mobility." 

Wednesday, 22 October 2014 06:57

When Black Athletes Stood With Muhammad Ali

2014.10.22.Ali.BFMuhammad Ali street art. (Photo: carnagenyc / Flickr)BILL BERKOWITZ FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Will the fatal shooting of Michael Brown result in a rebirth of political activism among black athletes, or will heated tweets on social media prevail?

In early August, when unarmed teenager Michael Brown was shot and killed by Police Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri, demonstrations erupted, a number of high-profile black athletes responded with angry tweets. In a pre-season National Football League game, some players from the Washington team demonstrated solidarity by running onto the field with their hands up – a gesture that along with the chant, "Hands Up, Don't Shoot," became a symbol of the Ferguson protests. While some of the tweeting athletes have millions of followers, these were individual statements, not organized collective action.

Although relatively small in scale, does the response of black athletes to the Michael Brown shooting, signal a rebirth of political activism?

Twenty years after Jackie Robinson broke Major League Baseball's color barrier, and at the height of both the civil rights and anti-war movements, an extraordinary meeting took place in Cleveland, Ohio. On June 4,1967, at 105-15 Euclid Avenue, a small group of mostly high-profile black athletes, including Jim Brown, Bill Russell, Lew Alcindor (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar), Walter Beach, Bobby Mitchell, Sid Williams, Curtis McClinton, Willie Davis, Jim Shorter and John Wooten, and soon-to-be Cleveland Mayor Carl Stokes, came together to question, and ultimately stand with, Muhammad Ali, after the then reigning heavyweight boxing champion of the world refused induction into the armed forces.

2014.10.22.Warren.BFSen. Elizabeth Warren. (Photo: Ninian Reid / Flickr)JANE STILLWATER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

When I saw the movie Saving Mr. Banks during one of my interminably-long plane rides back from Syria, I liked it so much that I actually went out and bought a copy of the 1964 Mary Poppins Disney classic it was based on - the one with Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke frolicking across the rooftops of London.

And much to my surprise, I discovered that Mary Poppins might have been one of the world's first hippies. Who woulda thought! And what was even more amazing is that Mary Poppins was one of the first people to warn us about the dangers and perfidy of big bankers and big banks.

And fortunately for those of us living here in America one hundred years later, Elizabeth Warren has now become the new Mary Poppins - also warning us about the dangers and perfidy of big bankers and big banks.

If only Americans would start paying attention to Elizabeth Warren as much as they paid attention to Julie Andrews!

"Hey, Elizabeth!" I also want to shout on the rooftops like Dick Van Dyke, "voters aren't listening to you!" Maybe if Disney studios made a movie about you too? Then maybe voters would finally start to listen.

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

awtoprotestAn anti-WTO protest overseas. (Photo:fuzheado)

Public Citizen condemned a World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling that would prohibit mandatory country of origin labeling on meat sold in the United States. The decision by the WTO represents not just an infringement on the sovereign right of the US to determine consumer food policy, it also represents the growing number of trade agreements that allow international dismantling of national laws that might impact corporate profit.

In a news release entitled, "World Trade Organization Rules Against Popular U.S. Country-of-Origin Meat Labels on Which Consumers Rely," Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch commented:

“Many Americans will be shocked that the WTO can order our government to deny U.S. consumers the basic information about where their food comes from and that if the information policy is not gutted, we could face millions in sanctions every year. Today’s ruling spotlights how these so called ‘trade’ deals are packed with non-trade provisions that threaten our most basic rights, such as even knowing the source and safety of what’s on our dinner plate.”

If the US does not comply with the WTO ruling, it can be punished through trade sanctions. In the case of many free trade agreements, financial penalties can be sought by corporations in such cases for alleged loss of profits. BuzzFlash noted this growing global preemption of national laws in a recent commentary, "Trans-Pacific Partnership Would Decrease Access to Affordable Cancer Treatment." This ability of international corporations to sue countries for laws deemed not to be business friendly is called investor-state dispute settlement, and its rulings supersede laws of a country.

AKIRA WATTS FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

aaaHandsUp(Photo: Jamelle Bouie)Over the weekend, while a white riot occurred in New Hampshire over something to do with pumpkins, grand jury deliberations continued in Ferguson, Missouri, in the case of the killing of Michael Brown. A parallel federal civil rights investigation into the shooting continues. Darren Wilson, the officer who killed Brown, has offered his version of the story to both – and his testimony has now been leaked to the press. Unsurprisingly, it contradicts the eyewitness accounts that have thus far emerged in the case, and continues to paint Brown as the an aggressor who had to be killed in the incident.

Wilson claims that it was Brown who lunged through the window of Wilson’s vehicle. That it was Brown who left Wilson with multiple facial injuries. That it was Brown who went for Wilson’s gun. That it was Brown who so terrified Wilson, that the six-year police veteran shot him, leaving blood splattered on the inside of the police car. That it was Brown who, in running away and attempting to surrender, was such a significant threat that Wilson was compelled to shoot him at least five more times as Brown fled.

Wilson’s testimony is consistent with the narrative that the Ferguson police department has been attempting to sell since the day of the incident: Wilson was threatened; Wilson was attacked. Wilson feared for his life; Wilson defended himself with lethal gunfire against a man who stood at least 35 feet away. Parts of that narrative have already been shown to be false. Brown was closer to 100 feet away when Wilson fired the killing shots, far outside the distance at which he could have posed an imminent threat. The facial wounds that Wilson suffered at Brown’s hands? They were so minor that Wilson never even bothered to consult with medics who were on the scene. Piece by piece, the threads of the police narrative are becoming unwoven.

This is, of course, the rankest nonsense, but the fact that it has been leaked to the press suggests that this nonsense might be taken seriously, that the grand jury might actually find it credible that Wilson feared for his life, both in the initial confrontation, and in the seconds that followed. If that is indeed the direction they are leaning, they will ignore Wilson’s accountability for Brown's murder.

BILL BERKOWITZ FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

aaaHagee(Photo: Paul Wharton)I know you've been waiting for it. And now you're getting it. One of this country's most influential evangelical Christian pastors is claiming that Ebola is God's judgment on President Obama for attempting to divide Jerusalem. Before you slap your forehead, and scream for mercy, remember that nearly every awful event that has happened over the past umpty-umph years – from 9/11 to Hurricane Katrina, from tornadoes and the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 -- is a result of God's judgment, according to many American Christian leaders.

"I want every American to hear this very clearly," Pastor John Hagee said on a recent broadcast of Hagee Hotline. "The prophet Joel says in the third chapter, 'I God will bring all nations' and hear that phrase—'all nations' includes America, 'into judgment for they have divided up My land, the land of Israel.' God says when any nation divides up the land of Israel, they are subject to judgment, and dividing Jerusalem is dividing the land.

"Our president is dead set on dividing Jerusalem. God is watching, and He will bring America into judgment. There are grounds to say judgment has already begun because he, the president, has been fighting to divide Jerusalem for years now. We are now experiencing the crisis of Ebola.

"We have a crisis in our economy. We are worried on every hand that we are going to be attacked by radical Islam, and there are some very rational voices saying we are their next target. We are a nation that has a crisis of leadership. We are in chaos, in crisis. Anarchy is running our nation in Ferguson, Missouri."

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

apredobama(Photo: doctress neutopia)

Celebrities come and go, but presidential attempts at despicable humor leave a foul aftertaste even after four years.

This is a truism that John Oliver recently proved on a recent "Last Week Tonight" segment (watch here) on US drone assassinations directly authorized by President Obama. At the infamous Washington White House Correspondents Dinner (this one in 2010), Obama was attempting to be humorous (watch here) when he warned:

"The Jonas Brothers are here. (Applause.) They're out there somewhere. Sasha and Malia are huge fans. But, boys, don't get any ideas. (Laughter.) I have two words for you - predator drones. (Laughter.) You will never see it coming. (Laughter.) You think I'm joking. (Laughter.)" 

The DC journalist stenographer corps laughed with abandon at the frightfully frivolous flaunting of the power to execute people using drones without any due process. This was the same Washington press gathering that laughed hysterically when then President Bush got on his knees and pretended to search for Weapons of Mass Destruction under a speakers' table long after it was clear that the active WMDs used to justify the Iraq War did not exist. 

Obama's mock threat to the Jonas brothers a few years back evoked the US indifference to those persons killed overseas by drone strikes. That is because the guffaws of the corporate media were based on the subconscious premise that Obama's boasting of his power to authorize kill strikes is limited to people of little note to DC insiders, Middle-Eastern civilians (collateral damage) and persons alleged to be terrorists or in areas where terrorists allegedly congregate. 

2014.10.20.Durst.BF (Photo: thomas / Flickr)​WILL DURST SATIRE FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT​

Whiners. Bounders. Ingrates. Talking about the incessant griping and sniping currently buzzing over long overdue Republican reforms requiring citizens to produce a government issued ID before casting a vote. From the outcry you’d think the GOP was organizing competitive kitten clubbings. Again.
 
Oh for crum’s sakes, settle down people. It’s just an ID. You need one to fly or buy or ply or even take out a library book. What is wrong with insuring the integrity of the electoral process? This isn’t voter suppression, it’s voter protection.
 
Which is why in the great state of Texas, it’s easier to buy an automatic weapon than register to vote and a gun permit is considered proper ID but a University student ID, not so much. Because the 2nd Amendment trumps the 14th,15th & 19th Amendments. Always has. Always will. Simple math.
Monday, 20 October 2014 06:00

Pennsylvania Senate Stands Up to the NRA

2014.10.20.Brasch.BFClay pigeon shooting. (Photo: Proadventure.co.uk Activities / Flickr)WALTER BRASCH FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

The Pennsylvania Senate, possibly for the first time in its history, stood up to the NRA leadership and extreme gun-rights groups, and voted to ban pigeon shoots. The senators correctly called the ban a matter not of gun rights but of eliminating animal cruelty.

The International Olympic Committee in 1900 banned pigeon shoots because of their cruelty and never again listed it as a sport. Most hunters and the state’s Fish and Game Commission says that pigeon shoots are not “fair chase hunting.” Pennsylvania is the only state where there are active pigeon shoots.

The vote in the Senate was 36–12. Voting for the bill were 21 Democrats and 15 Republicans. Before the Senate could vote on the bill, it had to vote down two NRA-sponsored “compromise” amendments to legislate pigeon shoots and place them under the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Game Commission.

Page 1 of 1319