Facebook Slider
Optional Member Code
Get News Alerts!
EditorBlog

EditorBlog (1573)

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

14824365985 4cca115d95 zHillary and Bill Clinton became fabulously wealthy after Bill left office. (Photo: Mike Mozart)

NBC News blared the headline "Hillary Clinton Struggles to Explain $600K in Goldman Sachs Speaking Fees" this morning in response to a revealing answer that Hillary Clinton gave in a CNN town hall meeting last night, reporting:

"Well, I don't know. That's what they offered," she [Clinton] said when asked about the fees by CNN host Anderson Cooper in a forum televised by the network with less than a week away from the Granite State's first-in-the-nation primary. Clinton had a lucrative turn on the paid speaking circuit after she stepped down as secretary of state, which rival Bernie Sanders has used as fodder against her.

"I wasn't committed to running. I didn't know whether I would or not," she added when asked why she took the money knowing it would look bad if she ran. She said she did not regret taking the money, noting that other former secretaries of states have given paid speeches and saying that no one can influence her.

In analyzing Hillary's financial relationship with Wall Street, Carmen Yarrusso writes for Truthout that,

Collectively, she and her husband Bill have parlayed their political experience into at least $125 million in speaking fees alone. According to Bloomberg, Hillary was paid $12 million in the 16 months after leaving as secretary of state. Knowing she'd likely run for president, Goldman Sachs, Deutsch Bank, Morgan Stanley (and other big Wall Street corporations) gladly paid her $2.9 million in speaking fees.

Given that a primary focus of the Bernie Sanders campaign is to oppose the ability of Wall Street and wealthy 1 percenters to have an inordinate impact on elections, as well as to expose how they foster income inequality and engage in high-risk financial practices, Hillary Clinton's response last night appeared astonishingly bumbling and disingenuous. Furthermore, the issue of her speaker fees - particularly from the three Goldman Sachs speeches she gave for approximately $675,000 in remunerations - has been repeatedly brought up in debates and from reporters. Given that she has said that she will not ask Congress to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act - and serious concerns exist about her vague assertions that she will get tough on Wall Street - it is a challenge for many voters in the United States to take seriously her claim that she is going to reform the financial industry.

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaun32
The paranoid style in US politics extends much further back historically than the John Birch Society's campaigns. (Photo: Campus Liberty Alliance)

It's been a little more than 50 years since Richard Hofstadter, a former professor of American history at Columbia University, published an article in the November 1964 edition of Harper's Magazine entitled, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." It set forth the historical argument for the persistence of xenophobic and conspiratorial fear within a significant segment of US white society.

The prescience of Hofstadter's commentary was extraordinary - although Hofstadter, who died at the age of 54 in 1970 - would probably argue that his theory was based on trends in US history and therefore was foreseeable. He might contend, perhaps, that he was not predicting the future as much as he was explaining how the Goldwater and John Birch Society followers, circa 1964, were rooted in the ongoing development of a distinctly fear-based strain of politics in the United States.

Hofstadter published his analysis of right-wing politics at the time of Barry Goldwater's rise to become the presidential nominee of the GOP in 1964 – and his loss to Lyndon Baines Johnson in that year's general election. However, Hofstadter's acumen is equally applicable to many of the Republicans who have been running for the party's standard bearer in 2014. Here is just a small portion of what Hofstadter penned in 1964:

If, after our historically discontinuous examples of the paranoid style, we now take the long jump to the contemporary right wing, we find some rather important differences from the nineteenth-century movements. The spokesmen of those earlier movements felt that they stood for causes and personal types that were still in possession of their country—that they were fending off threats to a still established way of life. But the modern right wing, as Daniel Bell has put it, feels dispossessed: America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion. The old American virtues have already been eaten away by cosmopolitans and intellectuals...

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaemanuelChicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel protects the "police code of silence" that buries illegal actions among police officers. (Photo: Viewminder)

Racism is at the center of the ongoing police shootings, brutality, harassment and arrest of Blacks and other people of color in Chicago - and that includes a larger context of the city government's permissiveness toward the Chicago Police Department's plantation-style policing and lack of accountability in general.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is currently going through a period of "reassuring" the public that he will "reform" the CPD. However, little note has been made of an important jury finding in 2012 that held the City of Chicago, under Emanuel, accountable for condoning and tolerating a police "code of silence" when it comes to violence and misbehavior toward citizens.

The civil case alleged Emanuel's administration, in essence, allowed the Chicago Police Department (CPD) to act with impunity and rarely took steps to hold officers responsible for murders, violence and brutality. In a December 2012 Truthout article, we noted that the jury found on behalf of a plaintiff who was pummeled in 2007 by a drunken off-duty cop, only to have his fellow officers cover up for him. From the outset of his mayorality, Emanuel's corporation counsel and police commissioner did nothing to compel the CPD and its members to reveal how a "blue curtain" that encompassed "the code of silence" came immediately into play after then-officer Tony Abbate viciously beat Karolina Obrycka, injuring her severely.

A local television reporter for the Chicago ABC affiliate - during the 2012 federal trial against the city - observed that the case was about Emanuel's and the city's tolerance of

the blue curtain, an understanding between police officers that they should cover for each other unconditionally and that testimony against a fellow cop amounts to a betrayal of their fellow bond. It is the underbelly of a police subculture that is rarely exposed to this day.

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

aaaaaaaaaaaaapatriarchyThe patriarchal backlash continues. (Photo: Christopher Dombres)

Yesterday, we detailed recent overt racist statements made by Maine's Tea Party Governor Paul LePage.

The last 70 years of political history has seen a recurring backlash by a significant segment of the United States' white population against progressive advances, including: an increased number of rights for people of color, advances in rights and equality for women, steps toward addressing the degradation of the environment, recognition of a secular society and the promotion of alternatives to heartless capitalism. 

However, these steps forward have been the beginning of a process, not its completion. For more than two decades, progress on these fronts has run into a brick wall of opposition - and in many cases, a rollback of rights and freedoms.

This backlash has consistently returned to the assertion of white Christian male privilege. That in large part explains why Donald Trump used his media celebrity status to make a national event out of John Wayne's daughter, Aissa Wayne, endorsing him in "the Duke's" hometown last week in Winterset, Iowa. Here was a woman endorsing Trump on behalf of the mythical, patriarchal, racist and - of course - sexist Wayne.

When it comes to women, Trump's misogynist attacks on Fox anchor Megyn Kelly - including his boycott of the GOP debate last night, supposedly because she was a moderator - and his sneering remarks about Hillary Clinton's biological functions as a woman (as well as Kelly's) - are representative of white male patriarchal revulsion at the advancement of women.

One of the most visibly ongoing assaults on women is the neverending attack on a woman's right to choose an abortion. This has most recently been evident during the right wing's rampage against Planned Parenthood, which has employed doctored videos to make evidence-less allegations against the organization. Of course, as the Voice of America reports today, a "panel clears Planned Parenthood, [and a Texas grand jury] charges its accusers [two people who took the disputed videos]."  

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalepageMaine Tea Party Governor Paul LePage openly reveals the racism that festers on the underside of the US "post-racial" narrative.(Photo:DonkeyHotey)

Truthout and BuzzFlash combat corporate power by bringing you trustworthy, independent news. Join our mission by making a donation now! 

Every once in awhile, the coded rhetoric and pernicious practices embedded in institutional racism in the US break through the surface and are revealed as explicit bigotry.

CNN began a January 27 article with this grotesque proposal from the governor of the nation's most northeastern state, "Maine Gov. Paul LePage says his state is too easy on drug crimes, suggesting it should bring back the guillotine for serious offenders." How is that grisly public policy proposal directly connected to unvarnished racism? 

Before we answer that, let's provide some context.

LePage is in his second term as the Tea Party governor of Maine. He has, as Jim Hightower pointed out in 2011, been true to the basest politics of his followers :

LePage's rampage includes busting unions, rolling back child labor laws, gutting programs for the middle class and poor, and raising the retirement age for Maine workers--all in his first few weeks in office.

Then, in late March [of 2011], LePage made his grab for gold-plated goofy greatness. As widely reported, the potentate of the Pine Tree State ordered that a 36-foot-wide mural be removed from the state's Department of Labor building. The work of art depicts historical scenes of Maine workers, but it seems that the governor and certain unnamed corporate backers found the painting too favorable toward laboring people, so--POOF!--it was summarily disappeared into a storeroom.

The Tea Party is also constructed on a sense of white entitlement, and LePage has certainly perpetuated that ignominious outlook.

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaadinosaursaddleA dinosaur all saddled up at the Creation Museum in Kentucky. (Photo: William Clifford)

Will the Creation Museum, located in Kentucky, receive state taxpayer funding despite discriminatory hiring practices? The answer looks like it will be "yes." The state has announced it will not appeal a federal judge's ruling that state tourism financial incentives (in this case, up to $18 million in the form of a sales tax rebate) must be granted for a museum expansion to simulate Noah's Ark. 

According to a January 26 article in the Lawyer Herald:

Kentucky officials won't fight a federal court ruling after a religious group won a legal battle of the state's withdrawal of a potential tax incentive. On Tuesday, Republican Gov. Matt Bevin said that the state will not submit an appeal against a Christian theme park which features a 510-foot-long Noah's Ark.

Gov. Matt Bevin, a spokeswoman of Kentucky Republican stated that the new governor's administration is pleased with the ruling of US District Judge Greg Van Tatenhove.

Bevin is a Tea Party adherent who replaced a Democratic governor after he won a 2015 off-year election. The Democratic governor's administration opposed the taxpayer subsidy to the Creation Museum for two legal reasons: separation of church and state, and the continued determination of the Creation Museum and its parent organization, Answers in Genesis (AiG), to use religious criteria in hiring employees.

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

aaaaaaaaaaaajohnwaynestatStatue of John Wayne, who was a rabid racist and draft dodger. (Photo: Cromeley)

Make your voice heard! Readers like you are the sustaining force behind BuzzFlash and Truthout - show your support by making a tax-deductible donation today!

Last week, a media scrum covered the endorsement of Donald Trump by John Wayne's daughter, Aissa Wayne. The press event was held at the John Wayne Museum in his hometown of Winterset, Iowa, just two weeks before the caucuses in that state.

In a campaign based on Trump's agile celebrity branding of himself, akin to a political Kardashian, the endorsement by John Wayne's daughter was another masterful move, invoking images of the "golden age" of white Hollywood male virility. Yet Wayne never enlisted in the military during World War II. His image as a war hero is purely derived from his acting performances of valor and flinty cowboy stoicism filmed on Hollywood sets.

In a commentary on the event by Ken Walsh, who covers DC and politics for U.S. News & World Report, he observes,

Of course, Wayne rose to fame by playing a symbol of power and strength in the movies, not by being one in real life. Similarly, Trump has taken his own tough-guy persona from his hit TV show, "The Apprentice," and made it his persona on the campaign trail.

An article on the website Neatorama examined Wayne's lucrative Hollywood years spent primarily in southern California, when not punctuated by vacations and filming in other locations. The recounting of Wayne's self-indulgent war years concluded: "From all the evidence, it just simply looks like a case of a man preferring to be a Hollywood movie star millionaire to being a $21.00 a month GI, risking his life in some foxhole or in a plane, overseas." 

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

aaaaaaaaaaaapalincpac

Sarah Palin speaking at the 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). (Photo: Gage Skidmore)

It would be easy to dismiss the endorsement of Donald Trump by Sarah Palin as one more segment in a rambunctious satire of a reality TV show. After all, who could possibly take seriously Palin's bizarre, meandering speech this week throwing her support behind Trump? The New York Times felt compelled to post a story with an annotated version of Palin's remarks that highlighted frequent phrasing unanchored in grammar - or even in one case the dictionary, when she created the word "squirmishes."

However, instead of laughing at the endorsement, we need to take its implications seriously. Palin's words were likely, judging from the cheers of the Iowa crowd, understood as a reaffirmation of "values" at the emotional heart of the populist right wing. For examples, consider one of Palin's declarations that The Times analyzed (the following segment includes the interpretation of Times reporter Michael Barbaro in italics):

[Palin:]"And he, who would negotiate deals, kind of with the skills of a community organizer maybe organizing a neighborhood tea, well, he deciding that, 'No, America would apologize as part of the deal,' as the enemy sends a message to the rest of the world that they capture and we kowtow, and we apologize, and then, we bend over and say, 'Thank you, enemy.'"

[NYT] It’s a mouthful. But this section, in which Mrs. Palin contrasts Mr. Trump with Mr. Obama, has everything she relishes: Mockery of Mr. Obama’s early years working in Chicago neighborhoods, right-wing accusations that the president has apologized for America, and a crude reference to him as a submissive sissy on foreign policy.

Palin, over the years, has scurrilously targeted President Obama in a coded appeal to racism, as in her regular invoking of his work as a community organizer.

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaelizabethwarren45Senator Elizabeth Warren may not be in the presidential debates, but she is essential to the debate on the pernicious activity and influence of Wall Street. (Photo: Edward Kimmel )

Criticism of US government leniency on Wall Street legal transgressions is now being covered widely - even by trade publications such as the National Mortgage Professional Magazine. On January 18, the trade publication ran an article about Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) condemning the most recent US government settlement with a "too-big-to-fail" financial firm, in this case Goldman Sachs, for illegal abuse of the mortgage market:

Sen. Warren used her Facebook page to denounce the agreement, noting that the settlement sum was “barely a fraction of the billions investors lost” while arguing that Goldman Sachs was not properly penalized for its actions.

“That’s not justice – it’s a white flag of surrender,” she wrote. “It’s time to end this farce. These companies think they’re above the law – and too many government officials go along with them. A first step would be to pass the bipartisan Truth in Settlements Act to shine more light on these backroom deals. A second step would be to get government officials who have the backbone to fight back.”

Warren’s comments were echoed by the nonprofit U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG).

The publication, which is geared toward professionals in the mortgage industry, also tellingly noted, "In announcing the [$5.1 billion] settlement, Goldman Sachs made no admission of guilt or error, and no executive from the New York-based financial giant will face criminal or civil charges." 

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaeisenwhowerWas President Dwight Eisenhower a socialist in disguise? (Photo: Marion Doss)

Based on the attacks on Bernie Sanders by the wealthy and corporate sectors, you'd think that his call for the wealthy to pay higher taxes makes him a Communist.  

However, as has been pointed out by Sanders himself, the highest marginal income tax rate in the last 65 years was 91 percent, and it was in place under President Eisenhower. In November 2015, PolitiFact reported:

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., wouldn’t reveal just how high he’d raise income taxes on the rich during the Iowa presidential debate, but he guaranteed it wouldn’t be as much as it has been in the past.

In order to pay for making college tuition-free for Americans, Sanders said that Wall Street owed the middle class for bailing it out during the recent financial crisis. He said he would demand "that the wealthiest people and the largest corporations, who have gotten away with murder for years, start paying their fair share."

Sanders was asked at the debate how high he might raise the marginal rate on upper bracket Americans? His response was, "We haven’t come up with an exact number yet, but it will not be as high as the number under Dwight D. Eisenhower, which was 90 percent."

Page 4 of 113