Facebook Slider
Optional Member Code
Get News Alerts!
EditorBlog

EditorBlog (1654)

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

votedecShouldn't we help people to vote, not prevent them from voting? (Photo: H2Woah!)Isn't extortion illega

You wouldn't know it from a corporate media is that is so intent on cozying up to and normalizing the Trump transition that they have strayed from any moral moorings.  As Bob Koehler observed in a commentary on our site yesterday, as far as the mass corporate media is concerned, "Once agreement congeals and the winner is declared, that's it. The election is over and it's time to move on."

Of course, as Koehler noted, there's an effort underway to have a recount spearheaded by Green Party Presidential Candidate Jill Stein -- with some legal backing from the Hillary Clinton campaign -- but mainstream journalism isn't particularly enamored with the prospect. After all, as Koehler tartly reflected, "in mainstream media land, questioning the results of a presidential election has sort of an unpatriotic stench to it."

Furthermore, the voting process may seem simple to some people -- particularly white suburban voters whom the GOP counts on for victory margins -- but it is actually quite complicated. Greg Palast detailed some of the realities of widespread and varied suppression of the votes of people of color and other likely Democrats in an article this week in Truthout, "The No-BS Inside Guide to the Presidential Vote Recount."

How many ways can votes be annulled, and in how many ways can people who don't vote Republican be kept from voting? Palast details a multitude of possibilities, including voting machine software vulnerabilities, the generally uncounted "provisional ballot" (which Palast calls the "placebo ballot"), requirements involving voter ID cards, absentee ballots that are never counted, etc. Palast uncovers the names of millions of people who are not able to vote because of "caging" scams such as Operation Crosscheck and the denial of the rights of people previously incarcerated following felony convictions to vote in many states (including Florida, which also had a "caging" list that kept many people of color from voting in the 2000 election there).

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

5437288053 624c075aa3 z 1Big Pharma knows that campaign money and lobbyists have more value than life. (Photo: Steven Depolo/a>

I recently wrote about how Big Pharma largely drafted the Medicare Part D legislation signed by George W. Bush in 2006, which resulted in billions of dollars in windfall profits for drug companies. How was this fleecing of seniors in need of medication accomplished?

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) engaged in the customary DC practices of big campaign contributions, lobbying and actually writing passages of the Medicare Part D legislation. What goal did they achieve? They were able to get Congress to prohibit Medicare from negotiating a lower price for the cost of drugs. This meant that seniors were subject to excessive co-pays, because their chosen private insurance providers for Part D were not getting government-negotiated discounts. Insurance companies were also given permission to leave many drugs off their formularies (lists of covered drugs) and to price medications by tiers.

An October 2016 article in Mother Jones notes:

What's more, Part D often pays far more for drugs than do Medicaid or the Veterans Health Administration—which, unlike Part D, mandate government measures to hold down prices. One report found that Part D pays 80 percent more for medicines than the VHA and 73 percent more than Medicaid. While researchers aren't unanimous in their views, an array of experts have concluded that federal negotiating power—if backed up by other cost controls—would bring Part D drug costs more in line.

Mother Jones describes Washington as being "awash in drug industry cash," stating that "last year the drug industry retained 894 lobbyists to influence the 535 members of Congress, staffers, and regulators." That may explain why progressive economist Dean Baker, a regular columnist for Truthout, estimated that perhaps $332 billion could have been saved between 2006 and 2013 if Medicare had been allowed to negotiate prescription costs for Part D.

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

5599576288 6d200ac24c z

 Noam Chomsky warns that the real "American Dream" is of plutocracy suppressing majority rule.  (Photo: Andrew Rusk)

During times like these, when we must choose resistance over compliance with an unjust power structure, I recall an exhortation from Maya Angelou:

You may encounter many defeats, but you must not be defeated. In fact, it may be necessary to encounter the defeats, so you can know who you are, what you can rise from, how you can still come out of it.

There will no coming out of the current political nightmare -- which existed before the November election, and exponentially worsened after it -- without a redoubling of advocacy for the common good.

That is what Noam Chomsky concludes in a sobering and informative documentary, Requiem for the American Dream (available from Truthout by clicking here). In the documentary, Chomsky describes 10 reasons why we have arrived at this time of political and social dystopia.

 

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

hamiltontrumpAlexander Hamilton (Image: Marion Doss)

At Truthout and BuzzFlash, we don't pull any punches when it comes to criticizing the forces in power. Don't wait to hold the next president's feet to the fire: Make a donation to independent media today!

Hamilton, the stunning biographical musical that won 11 Tony Awards in 2016 and swept just about every other major theater award in 2016, is the current blockbuster on Broadway. The sold-out production is the brainchild of Lin-Manuel Miranda, who wrote the script, lyrics and musical score. Miranda, who is of Puerto Rican descent, dazzlingly transforms an account of Alexander Hamilton's life -- particularly around the time of the US revolution -- into a multicultural production with a vibrant hip hop-based musical score.

Miranda largely adhered to historical accuracy -- Hamilton is a hero to modern Federalists, such as the late Antonin Scalia -- but by selecting a cast largely comprised of people of color, he recreated the story in a new light. Hamilton's cast and the way the narrative is interpreted point toward the possibility of an inclusive democracy. So does the score, which incorporates the rhythms of a diverse United States. It's a soundtrack that makes clear the contributions made to the US's musical legacy by the people who were marginalized by this country's white founders.

This aspect of Hamilton became an issue when a casting call was issued for non-white actors, as the production was preparing for its first non-New York cast. (The musical is now playing in Chicago.) The right wing promptly started crying crocodile tears over "discrimination." A Huffington Post post article stated:

But what makes Hamilton work so well is the fact that it's a commentary on America's past through the prism of America's present, its future. It works because the historically white, male founding fathers are being played by a predominantly non-white cast of blacks and Latinos (there are alsoplans to cast women in the roles of men).

Now, what would the musical look like if Alexander Hamilton wasn't played by Lin-Manuel Miranda, and Aaron Burr wasn't played by Leslie Odom, Jr, but instead the characters were played by two capable, talented white actors? The show would likely still be entertaining, but the context and the conversation would change. It's like suggesting that "For Colored Girls..." or "The Color Purple" have an all-white cast. It's a completely different show. 

The same article notes, "And if you think about it, Hamilton is perhaps as colorblind as castings come -- when else would black and Latino actors get to play the Founding Fathers?"

Saturday, 19 November 2016 07:20

How Republicans Intend to Kill Obamacare

BILL BERKOWITZ FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

obamacare32 (Photo: Tabitha Kaylee Hawk)

Those of us who want to build a better world will have our work cut out for us in the months and years ahead, and the commentary and analysis at Buzzflash will be more important than ever. Can we count on your support?

There are standard dictionary definitions of the word reconciliation – “the restoration of friendly relations” and “the action of making one view or belief compatible with another” among them – and then there is the Congressional process called Reconciliation. The former suggest comity, the latter is the process by which debate is closed down and a budget bill can be passed through the Senate. With Republicans holding a 52 to 48 advantage over Democrats (including two Independents), Reconciliation is how Republicans intend to overturn the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

“House and Senate budget leaders, along with conservative lawmakers, are beginning to unite around a proposal that would avoid a filibuster from Senate Democrats and put a bill repealing key provisions of Obamacare on President-elect Donald Trump’s desk not long after his inauguration—a bill that is likely to earn his signature,” Melissa Quinn, a senior news reporter for The Heritage Foundation’s The Daily Signal, pointed out in a piece headlined “Republicans Begin to Unite Around Obamacare Repeal Plan.”

According to Quinn, the process for repealing Obamacare, an effort that was an epic fail for the GOP over the past few years, is now being honed for immediate action as soon as Trump takes office. And while Republicans are not quite ready to come up with their own health care plan, the process to dismantle is taking on a life of its own.

Under ordinary circumstances, Republicans would need 60 votes to actually pass a bill in the Senate to repeal Obamacare. However, as Quinn reported the day after Election Day, “GOP lawmakers are likely to use a budget tool called reconciliation—a procedure used in the Senate that allows a bill to pass with 51 votes—to roll back key provisions of Obamacare and avoid a Democratic filibuster.”

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

savemedicareMedicare is neither an entitlement nor free. (Photo:Glyn Lowe)

Those of us who want to build a better world will have our work cut out for us in the months and years ahead, and the commentary and analysis at Buzzflash will be more important than ever. Can we count on your support?

House Speaker Paul Ryan wants to raise the Lazarus of privatizing (and phasing out) Medicare from the dead. Paul Waldman of The Washington Post writes of the latest Republican effort to put a dagger through the heart of Medicare:

As part of his strategy, Ryan must convince people that Medicare is all but dead already, so we don’t actually lose much by putting it out of its misery. That’s why he says things like, “Because of Obamacare, Medicare is going broke.” This is not just a lie but the precise opposite of the truth, and Ryan knows full well it is; in fact, the ACA extended the solvency of the Medicare trust fund by over a decade. And be warned: Any time you hear Republicans say the phrase “entitlement reform,” understand that phasing out Medicare is what they’re talking about....

If Ryan gets his way, Medicare as a universal insurance program will cease to exist. It will be replaced by “premium support,” or vouchers which seniors will use to buy private insurance. If you can’t afford any of the available plans with what the voucher is worth, tough luck. The whole point is to transfer the expense from Medicare to the seniors themselves. Half a century after Medicare brought health security to America’s seniors, Republicans would snuff it out, leaving some unknown number without any coverage at all and breaking the fundamental promise the government made.

The first deception here is calling Medicare an "entitlement" program. US workers pay into Medicare -- as do their employers -- through the FICA payroll tax, which is deducted from every paycheck. Self-employed individuals have to pay the full FICA tax (which includes) Social Security as part of their income tax. Therefore, Medicare is not a gift. It is an earned benefit.

Furthermore, one of the biggest deceitful conservative talking points about Medicare is that it is "free." Nothing could be further from the truth.

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

24538311184 4d3d040bc1 zDonald Trump would not have been elected president without the profiteering enabling of the mainstream corporate media. (Image: John W)

At Truthout and BuzzFlash, we don't pull any punches when it comes to criticizing the forces in power. Don't wait to hold the next president's feet to the fire: Make a donation to independent media today!

When Donald Trump entered the presidential race, some television executives anticipated a boost to their network profits, and promoted coverage of his every outrage above all else. We are now about to enter the second stage of corporate TV's enabling of Trump.

CBS Chairman Les Moonves' now-infamous remark that Trump's entrance into the presidential race was "damn good" for the network's finances sums up the rationale for mainstreaming Trump. “It’s a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going,” Moonves was quoted as saying in a Fortune article earlier this year. 

In an interview with the Hollywood Reporter on March 29 of this year, Moonves was positively gleeful about Trump's value to CBS's bank accounts:

Moonves called the campaign for president a "circus" full of "bomb throwing," and he hopes it continues.

"Most of the ads are not about issues. They're sort of like the debates," he said.

"Man, who would have expected the ride we're all having right now? ... The money's rolling in and this is fun," he said.

Fun? Are racism, bigotry, xenophobia, misogyny, sexual assault, ableism and Islamophobia cause for endless mirth? For the networks, of course, they are certainly sources of profits.

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

internationcrimThe International Criminal Court in the Hague (Photo: ekenitr)

In an October 25 Los Angeles Times article, this question was asked about the International Criminal Court (ICC): Why have "only Africans have been tried at the court for the worst crimes on Earth"? The International Criminal Court began enforcement for "crimes against humanity" (among other charges) in 2002 in the Hague.

In 1999, Slobodan Milošević was brought to trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (IICTY); his prosecution preceded the ICC. Therefore, he was not an exception to the rule of the International Criminal Court, which thus far has been to only conduct prominent prosecutions against Africans.

It would take much more space than this commentary allows to fully explain the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, but suffice it to say, it is not limited to Africa. It includes almost every nation on the planet. Therefore, it is a bit curious as to why so much prosecutorial effort has been focused on the crimes of African leaders.

Luis Moreno Ocampo, the former ICC chief prosecutor, gave his opinion to the BBC:

Mr Ocampo argues that African leaders should use the "tools" of the court to develop a level playing field with the world's superpowers by holding countries like the US to account.

One way they should do this, he argues, is by supporting the ICC's preliminary examination into the alleged mistreatment of detainees by US and coalition forces in Afghanistan.

It may be an academic point but it requires unanimity of purpose among the very leaders who are the biggest critics of the court.

That may be a bit of a challenge, because two nations who have not ratified the treaty creating the ICC are the United States and Israel. 124 other nations have signed onto the jurisdiction of the court.

It is also important to recall the history of contemporary Africa. The continent of Africa was divided up by European colonial powers and was a laboratory for the colonial torture and mass murder of Black people, as well as the capture of human beings who were then sold into slavery.

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

6621873843 aa27b53de6 zOur primary "national interest" should be nurturing a robust democracy, not engaging in millitarized conflicts around the world. (Photo: U.S. Pacific Fleet )

I don't know how many times "the national interest" was mentioned in the three presidential debates, but if I were having one of those drinking contests where you down a shot of alcohol every time a word or phrase is mentioned, I would have ended with more vodka than blood pulsing through my veins.

I've discussed before how disingenuous it is of the pundits and the politicians to utter the words "the national interest" in intonations normally reserved for grave and somber responsibilities. In an officially secular nation, the phrase is often spoken with a sacredness that is reserved for divinities. After all, our democracy -- at least in federal elections -- is supposed to be focused on protecting and enhancing "the national interest"; even though politicians may think that it is the other way around.

That's because the phrase "national interest" is generally code for the sum total of the wealth and comfort of upper-middle-class and wealthy Americans. Keep in mind that the US accounts for more than 40 percent of the world's wealth. And according to a 2010 article in the New York Times, the US and Europe together have amassed 70 percent of the planets' financial assets. That's an important point, when you look at the presidential debates and how significant NATO is in Hillary Clinton's "national interest" worldview. The US "national interest" and European national interests represent not a thirst for spreading democracy, but the replacement of colonial ownership of less-developed countries with the more modern world of global financial dominance. This is essentially colonialism under a new economic framework, with independent governments that are beholden to the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and financial subjugation by the West.

Given that "the national interest" of monetary and asset accumulation -- and ensuring, as just one example, the growth of such US mainstays as malls filled with merchandise to make the "haves" feel more prosperous -- is dependent upon a robust military. These forces are deployed around the world to ensure access to raw materials and suppress the emergence of true democracies that challenge US hegemony in the world. Therefore, it is completely understandable that so many candidates for national office link "the national interest" with a military deployment that spans the world. A 2015 article from TomDispatch (reprinted on Truthout) stated it quite succinctly: "The United States probably has more foreign military bases than any other people, nation, or empire in history." Of course, our most "reliable" allies are our partners in dividing the world's assets and cheap labor: European nations who participate in military coalition campaigns with the US. 

DAN ZUKOWSKI OF ECOWATCH FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Article reprinted with permission of EcoWatch

16677857756 5475fe97a4 z 1A red wolf in the wild. (Photo: Victoria)

The commentary you find at BuzzFlash and Truthout can only be published because of readers like you. Click here to join the thousands of people who have donated so far.

The same scientists who provided the population viability analysis to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the red wolf have sent a rebuttal to the agency, accusing it of "many alarming misinterpretations" in its justification for removing most of the remaining animals in the wild.

Last month, the USFWS announced that it would recapture 32 of the 45 wolves in the wild and leave only those on federal lands. Currently, there are about 200 red wolves in captive breeding programs in the U.S. as part of the agency's Species Survival Plan (SSP).

The letter, released to the public today, bluntly counters the agency's proposal to recapture 32 wolves and place them in captive breeding programs:

"A singular focus on the SSP will no doubt result in extinction of red wolves in the wild."

On Sept. 29, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina issued a preliminary injunction ordering the USFWS to stop capturing and killing—and authorizing private landowners to capture and kill—members of the rapidly dwindling population of wild red wolves.

"There's no need to capture wild wolves in an effort to save the captive population, which is what the service contends," said Defenders of Wildlife attorney Jason Rylander.

Page 1 of 119