BILL BERKOWITZ FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
If the Golden State Warriors are invited to Donald Trump's White House, will they go? In the wee hours of Tuesday morning, after having won the 2016-17 National Basketball Association Championship, acknowledging the love of their fans at Oakland's Oracle Arena, and spritzing themselves with champagne, Downtown Josh Brown issued an un-sourced tweet claiming that the Warriors had made a "unanimous" decision not to go to the White House if invited. While several team members and coach Steve Kerr have been outspoken in their criticisms of Trump, it appears that no such decision was made. An early morning statement from the team read:“Today is about celebrating our championship. We have not received an invitation to the White House, but will make those decisions, when and if necessary.”
Since assuming office in January, Trump has hosted Super Bowl champion New England Patriots – albeit with several players refusing to attend for political reasons -- and Clemson University, the NCAA football champion. (In 2015, the team met with President Obama at the White House in what turned into a highly spirited, fun-filled, and glorious championship celebration.)
If the Warriors turned down an invitation to the White House, it would not be surprising.
"I have no idea what kind of president he'll be because he hasn't said anything about what he's going to do," Warrior coach Steve Kerr said shortly after the election. "We don't know. But it's tough when you want there to be some respect and dignity, and there hasn't been any. And then you walk into a room with your daughter and your wife who have basically been insulted by his comments and they're distraught. Then you walk in and see the faces of your players, most of them who have been insulted directly as minorities, it's very shocking. It really is."
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
The title of Naomi Klein's book released today -- and available from Truthout by clicking here -- is No Is Not Enough: Resisting Trump's Shock Politics and Winning the World We Need. Although Klein spends the first part of her book detailing the appalling rise of Trump as an outgrowth of neoliberalism and branding trends over the past few decades, she also offers strategies for "reverse shock." This turns her theory of "the shock doctrine"-- the use of crises to advance ultra-capitalist economics and government -- on its head. What she suggests is that a shock-response strategy can also offer the opportunity for positive radical change.
As Klein exhorts in the conclusion to No Is Not Enough,
With this elevation of the basest figures to the most exalted of positions, the culture of maximum extraction, of endless grabbing and disposing, has reached some kind of breaking point. Clearly, it is the culture itself that must be confronted now, and not only policy by policy, but at the root.
Indeed, radical is defined as "of or going to the root." Klein argues that there is potentially a window of opportunity to break through "the shock doctrine" and adopt transformative progressive policies as neoliberal excesses teeter and perhaps collapse.
JOHN GEYMAN FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration have boxed themselves into a corner on health care. Whatever they do, they will be blamed for inevitable increases in costs of health care, growing instability of health care markets, and escalating public backlash over their policies or lack thereof.
President Trump and congressional Republicans are not on the same page. Trump has found health care to be more complicated than he ever imagined, revealing his ignorance of the issues, but keeps pressuring Congress to pass a repeal and replace the ACA on an urgent basis, with little awareness of what that might entail. As he tries to assure us that the GOP’s resulting “plan” will bring access to care to everyone, at lower cost, and be “amazing,” Republicans in the Senate are coming to grips with what to do with the narrowly passed House bill, the American Health Care Act (AHCA), which after receiving it, they vowed to start again from scratch.
Republicans have four basic choices at this point, none of them good.
LORRAINE CHOW OF ECOWATCH ON BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
"Any one of the climate and security epicenters can be disruptive," said Caitlin Werrell, co-president of the Center for Climate and Security and editor of the report, Epicenters of Climate and Security: The New Geostrategic Landscape of the Anthropocene. "Taken together, however, these epicenters can present a serious challenge to international security as we understand it."
The categories include eroding state sovereignty, low-lying nations going underwater, as well as the disruption in the global coffee trade that employs 125 million people worldwide.
Previous studies have identified how terrorist groups in certain regions are taking advantage of increasingly scarce natural resources such as water and food as a "weapon of war." Additionally, a U.S. military report from 2014 called climate change a "catalyst for conflict" and a "threat multiplier." President Obama once said that "no challenge poses a great threat than climate change, and it's an "immediate risk to our national security."
PAUL BUCHHEIT FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
8 men, then down to 6, and now almost 5.
While Americans fixate on Trump, the super-rich are absconding with our wealth, and the plague of inequality continues to grow. An analysis of 2016 data found that the poorest five deciles of the world population own about $410 billion in total wealth. As of 06/08/17, the world's richest five men owned over $400 billion in wealth. Thus, on average, each man owns nearly as much as 750 million people.
Why Do We Let a Few People Shift Great Portions of the World's Wealth to Themselves?
Most of the super-super-rich are Americans. We the American people created the Internet, developed and funded Artificial Intelligence, and built a massive transportation infrastructure, yet we let just a few individuals take almost all the credit, along with hundreds of billions of dollars.
Defenders of the out-of-control wealth gap insist that all is OK, because, after all, America is a 'meritocracy' in which the super-wealthy have 'earned' all they have. They heed the words of Warren Buffett: "The genius of the American economy, our emphasis on a meritocracy and a market system and a rule of law has enabled generation after generation to live better than their parents did."
BILL BERKOWITZ FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
When he was executive director during the heyday of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, Ralph Reed appeared to enjoy talking about organizing and conducting stealth campaigns to get conservatives elected to as many political offices in as many states as possible. In an early nineties interview with Norfolk, Virginia's Virginian-Pilot, Reed said: "I want to be invisible. I paint my face and travel at night. You don't know it's over until you're in a body bag. You don't know until election night." To the Los Angeles Times, he later explained stealth as akin to "guerrilla warfare. If you reveal your location, all it does is allow your opponent to improve his artillery bearings. It's better to move quietly, with stealth, under the cover of night."
Flash forward two decades, and Charlie Kirk, founder of the conservative group, Turning Point USA, a 501(c)3 nonprofit, has initiated his own version of stealth campaigns in order to try and seize power on college and university campuses across the nation; campuses he describes as "islands of totalitarianism."
In the book Time for a Turning Point, co-authored by Turning Point USA Board Member, Brent Hamachek, they indicated that he wanted to make Turning Point "the MoveOn.org of the right." As The Chronicle of Higher Education's Michael Vasquez pointed out, since its founding, Kirk has moved up in conservative ranks, boosting his own public profile, and receiving donations from high-powered, longtime GOP supporters, including Foster Friess, a major conservative Christian evangelical donor. The organization's budget went from $52,000 in 2012 to $5.5 million last year, according to Kirk's book.
According to Vasquez, Kirk has a launched a "secret counteroffensive" aimed at "getting young conservatives elected to student government" positions.
Why put so much effort and money into battles over student governance?
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
Late last month, Nevada became the 19th state to call for Congress to overturn the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision. This would be accomplished through a constitutional amendment process. Since the 2010 ruling, its results have been overwhelmingly evident: The decision has substantially increased the influence of corporations on elections.
This shift has occurred via shady third party organizations -- entities which are supposed to be officially unaffiliated with political campaigns. However, it is extremely difficult to prove the existence of back channels of communication, and the likelihood of candidates buying elections and engaging in campaign finance-related corruption has increased. Furthermore, the increase in unregulated money going toward "indirect" electioneering has crushed the democratic process.
Public Citizen, a national advocacy organization and think tank, greeted the May 25 passage of Nevada's support for the amendment with a celebratory news release:
With Nevada today becoming the 19th state to support a constitutional amendment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, the effort to rid politics of the corrupting influence of money has reached a milestone. The movement has support from half of the 38 states needed to enact such an amendment after it is approved by two-thirds of both chambers of Congress.
ROB BYERS FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
Earlier this spring, I was asked a question about my late father, who had been a coal miner in the 1970s and ’80s. It had to do with a familiar romantic storyline:
Did he feel at home underground? Was it a calling that tugged at him during the layoffs, a longing to get back to the job he loved?
Short answer: No. Long answer: Hell, no.
Best I could tell as a kid, he hated it. It was back-breaking, dangerous, cold, dusty, dirty. He did it for the same reason miners do it today – because it was the best-paying job around for a man with a high-school education.
As a coal miner’s son, you might think I would be proud of all the attention miners are getting nowadays from President Trump and the media. You’d be wrong, though. Actually, I find the whole thing pretty demeaning, as the coal miner is used as a political pawn and an excuse to trash the planet.
ROBERT C. KOEHLER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
"Tell them, I want everybody to know, I want everybody on the train to know, I love them . . ."
These words are also part of the geopolitics of murder -- these words of light and hope, alive and pulsing amid the bullet casings, the blood and wreckage, the shattered lives. They were the dying words of Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche, one of the two people stabbed to death last week on a commuter train in Portland, Ore., after they had intervened to stop a man's tirade of racial slurs -- "go back to Saudi Arabia! -- directed at two teenage girls on the train.
As incidents of mass murder -- sometimes called terrorism, sometimes just called, with a shrug, drone strikes or bombing runs -- continue to erupt across the planet and dominate the news, I stroke these words, and the soul of awareness we are so blind to. We're not going to bomb evil out of existence or control it with authoritarian laws, travel bans or walls. We're not going to control it by dehumanizing "the other."
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
In the tumultuous media scrum to cover the feckless showmanship and destructive behavior of Donald Trump, many positive developments on other fronts become lost in the maelstrom of the chronicles of Trumpism. One of those developments was a Supreme Court action on May 15 that let stand the striking down of a draconian North Carolina voter suppression law.
Kristen Clarke, the president and executive director of the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, which works to combat racial discrimination, commented on the Supreme Court development in a news release:
The Supreme Court’s move [on May 15] now renders North Carolina’s law null and void, and brings to close a long and protracted battle over a law deemed one of the most egregious voter suppression measures of its kind. We are pleased that the Supreme Court has left in place the 4th Circuit’s decision finding North Carolina’s draconian voter suppression measure unlawful because it discriminated against minority voters with 'almost surgical precision.'
The Lawyer's Committee also provided some background to the law that is now null and void:
The battle over North Carolina’s law reflects the fallout from the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder which gut a core provision of the Voting Rights Act.