MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
There was a lot of media attention paid last week to billionaire Sheldon Adelson's purchase of the largest newspaper in Nevada, the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Speculation abounded as to the motives of Adelson - a casino magnate who currently is positioned 15th in Forbes' US billionaire rankings - in buying the largest newspaper in Nevada.
Was Adelson trying to influence the 2016 political race, particularly by staking out a favorite GOP candidate in the Nevada primary, which is the fourth GOP primary contest next year? Is he also counting on using the paper as a platform to try to swing Nevada Republican in the presidential election? After all, this is a man who spent $150 million trying to defeat Barack Obama in 2012, according to U.S. News & World Report....
After all, Adelson owns another newspaper that most Americans know little about. It is called Yisrael Hayom, and it has the largest circulation of any newspaper in Israel. That may be due to the fact that is distributed for free: Adelson subsidizes it to the tune of some $40 million a year. The pages of Yisrael Hayom may be used by many Israelis for wrapping fish; nevertheless, it is a serious shaper of right-wing public opinion, due to its consistently extremist pro-Netanyahu positions.
The Economist, in an April 25 article, described the relationship between Yisrael Hayom and Netanyahu: "Yisrael Hayom is a freesheet owned by Sheldon Adelson, a casino mogul and supporter of Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister. Its headlines are routinely approved by the prime minister's office."
BILL BERKOWITZ FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
Frank Gaffney has been around conservative politics longer than the Star Wars franchise. In fact, before the premier of the first Star Wars movie, Gaffney was already working as an aide under Richard Perle -- who later earned the nickname "The Prince of Darkness” -- in the office of the hawkish Democratic Senator Henry M. Jackson. These days he’s spewing anti-Muslim stories, selling fear, attacking comrades, and opponents’ alike, and promoting conspiracy theories galore. And, according to excellent reporting by veteran journalist David Neiwert, Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy “has been riding high on the tidal wave of Islamophobia he and similar anti-Muslim organizations have created, with the help of right-wing political candidates who have legitimized their dubious and often outrageous claims.”
The Southern Poverty Law Center has branded Gaffney -- who served in the Reagan administration, is a radio talk show host and contributor to the Washington Times -- “one of America’s most notorious Islamophobes.” Too hot to handle even for some conservatives, in recent years Gaffney has found himself banned from affairs organized by the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC).
Being banished by conservative comrades didn’t stop Gaffney from organizing such conferences as “Homeland Threats” -- co-sponsored by Brietbart News -- and another Brietbart co-sponsored event called “Uninvited,” which featured panels with a number of well-known anti-Muslim talking heads including Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Gaffney himself.
PAUL BUCHHEIT FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
No one form of government can solve all our problems, especially with a contrarian and confrontational Congress. But greed, poverty, and inequality are some of the main targets of a socialist platform, and the matter of terrorism is put in better perspective by a people committed to social responsibility.
Here are some of the numbers that should shock us into rejecting non-socialist candidates:
1. Terrorism: You're About as Likely to be Killed by a Toddler as a Terrorist
The candidates and the news outlets have driven us into a frenzy of fear, even though the number of Americans killed by toddlers is about the same per year as the number of violent jihadist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11. There are more terrorist attacks if the actions of white supremacists and non-Muslim extremists are included. But there are also more toddler killings that go unreported.
Bernie Sanders noted that "the disastrous invasion of Iraq...has unraveled the region completely and led to the rise of al-Qaeda and to ISIS." And that the United States should be "trying to use diplomacy before war."
ROBERT C. KOEHLER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
“The question now is how to change our institutions so that they promote human values rather than destroy them.”
Philip Zimbardo, who posed this question in the wake of the famous — or infamous — Stanford Prison Experiment 44 years ago, might have added: If we fail to do so, we guarantee our own social collapse.
The collapse is underway, one broken soul at a time:
“But the basic story the men told was the same: (Leonard) Strickland was pushed down a flight of stairs, and then beaten nearly to death by a large group of guards.”
This is from a recent New York Times investigative piece about inmate abuse at Clinton Correctional Facility, in upstate New York — a particularly boiling cauldron of racism in America’s prison-industrial complex. Almost all of the nearly 1,000 guards who work at the rural prison are white; the inmates, mostly from New York City, are black. Not surprisingly, the prisoners say “they face a constant barrage of racial slurs.”
And racial slurs have a way of escalating, especially under conditions in which one group of people has enormous, unchecked power over another group. Zimbardo called it the Lucifer Effect: the transformation of ordinary, decent people into . . . well, monsters. His 1971 study, in which two dozen college-student volunteers were randomly designated either guards or prisoners in a makeshift “penitentiary” in the basement of Stanford’s psych department, was meant to last two weeks but was called off after six days because the situation had gotten out of control.
Zimbardo said that he came to his senses after an outside observer, who was brought in to conduct interviews, reacted with utter shock “when she saw our prisoners being marched on a toilet run, bags over their heads, legs chained together, hands on each other’s shoulders. Filled with outrage, she said, ‘It’s terrible what you are doing to these boys!’”
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
As I saw a clip the other day of CNN promoting a presidential debate - yet again - as some sort of gladiator event, I was disgusted by how the mainstream corporate media thrives on promoting conflict to attract viewers.
It's not just politics that becomes a caricature of a series of World Wrestling Federation bouts - it's also the superficial and sensationalist corporate media coverage of struggles for a just, equal and enlightened democracy. With all the courageous advocacy happening around the United States to achieve social justice, movements are often portrayed as some sort of pitched battle between "the forces of law and order" and activists. Corporate-run television, in particular, tends to reduce vital struggles over moral imperatives to viewer-attracting "clashes."
Activists around the country are making it very clear that the instances of violence that are the subject of protests - for example, police killings - occur within the context of systemic oppression. However, when covering protests, the mass media rarely reports that the overall goal of many of these actions is transformative change, nor do corporate outlets generally discuss the ways in which oppression has taken root in their own coverage.
Mass media does not reveal the perniciousness of the "white settler" narrative that has been handed from one US generation to the next - and how crucial it is to disrupt that narrative. Of course, with the change of narrative must come a metamorphosis in attitudes and institutional structures within the US.
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
China lodged an official protest against the Obama administration's announcement that Taiwan has been cleared to purchase $1.83 billion in US arms, according to The New York Times:
The Obama administration’s announcement that it would sell $1.83 billion worth of arms to Taiwan, including two warships and antitank missiles, has drawn a swift rebuke from China, which threatened to penalize the companies that made the armaments and summoned a United States diplomat to register an official protest.
Although the sale is not remarkably large as far as US weaponry is concerned, it is of value to look at the transaction in the context of US weapons sales.
In the last two years, we have repeatedly noted how the US economy is heavily invested in the so-called "defense industry.”
A BuzzFlash commentary this summer reported on a National Priorities Project analysis which found that 54 percent of all US government discretionary spending in 2015 - more than $598 billion dollars - is going to the military. That does not include funding for intelligence agencies (such as the CIA and NSA, which receive tens of billions of dollars), nor does it include the supplemental funds that were used to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are still not over.
Funding for the military-industrial-complex is also buried in other congressionally budgeted line items, particularly when it comes to covert programs.
War - or just ratcheting up the potential for conflict through stockpiling armaments - is profitable. For example, the National Priorities Project found that Lockheed Martin "saw over $5.5 billion in profit, and paid its CEO more than $34 millionin 2014. And the $32 billion it received from the U.S. government made up more than seventy percent of its total sales."
JACQUELINE MARCUS FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
$4.4 Trillion Dollars on Middle East Oil Wars
I listened to John Kerry’s optimistic speech at the COP21 Paris climate talks about how the United States is allegedly stepping up to the financial challenge to help poor countries that are or will be facing life-threatening consequences from catastrophic climate change disasters with a sense cynicism.
Some might argue that it is possible that President Obama and John Kerry are trying, but their powers are limited for the reason that they owe their allegiance to the petroleum and weapon industries.
But why then would the US government spend trillions of dollars on missiles, drones, fighter jets, and an infinite supply of bombs to gain oil control in the Middle East if the White House and Congress cared about transitioning from fossil fuels?
BILL BERKOWITZ FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
Donald Trump who sat out the Vietnam War, is ready to “bomb the s**t out of ISIS.” Senator Ted Cruz, who never served in the military, has said several times that he wants to “carpet-bomb ISIS into oblivion,” joking that we’ll find out if “sand can glow in the dark.” And, a new poll from the Harvard Institute of Politics, found that in the wake of the Paris attacks, 60 percent of the 18- to 29-year-olds polled say they support committing U.S. combat troops to fight ISIS. 62 percent say it ain't gonna be them. Chickenhawkdom is alive and well in America.
In the Tuesday night’s Republican Party debate in Las Vegas, Donald Trump basically advocated a bombing campaign of ISIS that would kill thousands of civilians, including women and children. Responding to a question by moderator Hugh Hewitt, Trump said: “I would be very, very firm with families. They might not care very much about their lives but they do care about their families’ lives.”
In his stump speeches, Trump has regularly bashed Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, calling for his execution. In a campaign stop in Massachusetts, Trump asked, after calling the soldier a “dirty, rotten traitor”: “What do we do with Sergeant Bergdahl, 50 years ago?” Trump shaped his hand like a pistol. “That’s right,” he said. “Boom. Boom!… Boom, he’s gone. He’s gone!” According to the Washington Post, “On at least one occasion, Trump also has also suggested dropping Bergdahl off in Afghanistan, which he said would save the United States a bullet.” (The U.S. Army recently announced that Bergdahl will face a military court on charges of desertion and endangering fellow soldiers.)
Earlier this year, Trump demeaned Senator John McCain’s imprisonment in Vietnam during the Vietnam War, calling him a loser for having his plane shot down. According to Talk2Action’s wilkyjr, “A New York Times writer did research on Trump after his criticism of Senator McCain …. The research by the writer stated that while McCain was suffering incarceration in Southeast Asia, Donald was club hopping in down town New York equipped with a draft deferment, wealth from his father, and personal privileges few enjoyed.”
Senator Ted Cruz, like most of the GOP’s presidential candidates – with the exception of Senator Lindsey Graham – has never served in the military. On Tuesday night in Vegas, after Cruz said he would aggressively bomb ISIS, he was asked by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, “Does that mean leveling the ISIS capital of Raqqa in Syria, where there are hundreds of thousands of civilians?” Cruz replied, “What it means is using overwhelming airpower to utterly and completely destroy ISIS.”
COLE MELLINO OF ECOWATCH ON BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
“If all goes as planned, within the next four years, all six of the town buildings will be disconnected from the grid,” said Nassau Supervisor Dave Fleming. The rest of the town is developing a plan to get all of its power from renewable sources in the next four years.
“It’s not the be-all to end-all for what we should be doing as a state and a nation, but it’s a good first step,” he said. “From a practical perspective, it’s possible,” he added. “We have a lot of ‘people resources’ in our community.”
Though the tiny town’s transition to renewables may not have the impact of, say, New York City going fossil-fuel-free (Mayor Bill de Blasio has pledged for municipal operations to run on 100 percent renewable energy before 2050), it’s just one of many cities and towns around the world making the transition.
JIM HIGHTOWER ON BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
There is a constant flow of headlines these days confirming the mess we've made: "Looks Like Rain Again. And Again"; "Alaska Will Keep Melting"; "Climate Change a Worry to Central Bankers, Too"; "Warning on Climate Risk: Worst to Come."
This is far from a natural phenomenon. A handful of corporate interests are causing these catastrophes. Oil, coal, auto and a few other industrial powers have profited for decades by spewing fossil fuel contaminants into the world's atmosphere.
Some experts were speaking out about this mess nearly 40 years ago:
"There is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," wrote James Black in 1978.
"Over the past several years, a clear scientific consensus has emerged," said Roger Cohen in September 1982. "There is unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in the Earth's climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere."
The significance of these early calls to action is that they came from Exxon!
Inside Climate News revealed in an investigative series released this fall that the oil superpower (now infamous for its relentless campaign of lies to discredit climate science) was briefly a paragon of scientific integrity. From 1978 through the '80s the corporation's research headquarters were a buzzing hive of farsighted inquiry into the "greenhouse effect," as the process of climate change was then called.
But in 1988, the elegant space inhabited by principle was suddenly invaded by the indelicate demands of profit. Dr. James Hansen, NASA's renowned climate expert, testified to Congress that fossil pollution of Earth's atmosphere had already surpassed the crisis point. "Global warming has begun," Hanson concluded.