Facebook Slider
Optional Member Code
Get News Alerts!

BILL BERKOWITZ FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

2016june17 trumpmediaempIs Trump campaigning his brand to launch a media empire? (Photo: Russell Davies)

BuzzFlash is ad-free because of sustaining support from readers like you. Help keep independent media strong by making a tax-deductible donation today!

Will Donald Trump be joining some of his fellow billionaires in establishing his own cable network? Can he monetize his popularity with the segment of the population that turns out at his rallies and buys Trump paraphernalia? Is there an audience for All Trump/All The Time?

Billionaires’ ownership of newspapers and other media outlets is nothing new. Earlier this month, Forbes’ Kate Vinton reported that “billionaires have long exerted influence on the news simply by owning U.S. media outlets.” Rupert Murdoch and Michael Bloomberg “are longtime media moguls who made their fortunes in the news business,” while Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who bought The Washington Post, “bought publications as a side investment after building a substantial fortune in another industry. “

According to Vinton, “Billionaires own part or all of several of America’s influential national newspapers, including The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, in addition to magazines, local papers and online publications.”

Sheldon Adelson, the multibillionaire casino magnate, a major funder of right-wing causes and candidates and a Donald Trump endorser, owns a daily newspaper in Israel called Israel Hayom; bought after being unhappy with how he was being covered in Israel. Here at home, Adelson bought the Las Vegas Review-Journal for a reported $140 million.

2016.16.6 bf chow(Photo: flo21)LORRAINE CHOW OF ECOWATCH FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Article reprinted with permission from EcoWatch

BuzzFlash isn't funded by corporate advertising, but by readers like you. Can you help sustain this critically important work with a tax-deductible donation?

Major kudos to Hannah Rousey. The college-bound student from Lovell, Maine has turned down a $1,000 scholarship money from Nestlé subsidiary Poland Spring‬ due to her objections to bottled water and the company's environmentally destructive practices.

"I am grateful for the scholarship I have been awarded, but I cannot in good faith accept money from a company that does not exhibit sustainable and ethical practices," she wrote a letter to the bottling company on June 2, according to the Conway Daily Sun.

The 17 year old has been accepted to Sterling College in Vermont where she will pursue a degree in sustainable agriculture and environmental protection law and policy. She was one of five students who received a $1,000 Poland Spring Good Science scholarship at her high school graduation ceremony from Fryeburg Academy in Fryeburg, Maine, the Bridgton News reported.

Thursday, 16 June 2016 06:50

Mass Murder and the US Penchant for War

2016.16.6 bf koehler(Photo: Martin Frey)ROBERT C. KOEHLER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

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!

This won't be the last.

Half a week into the Orlando tragedy, this reality remains pretty much unacknowledged, as cause-seekers focus on security and ISIS and the specific mental instability of Omar Mateen, who, as the world knows, took 49 precious lives and injured 53 others at the nightclub Pulse in the early hours of June 12.

Was it terrorism? Was it a hate crime? Apparently there's a media obsession with categorizing murder. No, this was faux-war, as all our mass killings are, waged by an army of one or two or a few. And it won't be the last. Mass killings are part of the social fabric -- still shocking, still horrifying, but becoming more and more . . . "normal."

Tighter security won't stop them. Destroying ISIS won't stop them. Banning immigrants won't stop them. Maybe nothing will -- though I don't believe that. I do believe in karma, which is to say, the idea that what goes around comes around. If we act with violence, violence will come back to haunt us.

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

2016June16 radiationwaterThe EPA is proposing to allow a dramatic increase in the radiation in our drinking water in the event of an "emergency." (Photo: John Jones)

With the appropriate concern aroused about levels of lead in drinking water in cities such as Flint, a new threat to health has been raised by a proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation. The proposed regulation would allow for a higher level of radioactivity in potable water. On June 8, EcoWatch detailed the alarming development:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Monday to allow radioactive contamination in drinking water at concentrations vastly greater than allowed under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The new guidance would permit radiation exposures equivalent to 250 chest X-rays a year. Environmental groups are calling the proposal "shocking" and "egregious."

The EPA proposed Protective Action Guides (PAGs) would allow the general population to drink water hundreds to thousands of times more radioactive than is now legal. For example, radioactive iodine-131 has a current limit of 3 pico-curies per liter (pCi/L), in water but the new guidance would allow 10,350 (pCi/L), 3,450 times higher. For strontium-90, which causes leukemia, the current limit is 8 pCi/L; the new proposed value is 7,400 pCi/L, a 925-fold increase....

"These levels are even higher than those proposed by the Bush Administration—really unprecedented and shocking," Diane D’Arrigo, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, said.

The advocacy organization Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) has reacted with alarm to the new plan put forth by a government agency that is supposed to be protecting us from toxic substances. The EPA claims it is only being proactive, allowing for potential changed circumstances in the future, should a nuclear reactor failure like Fukushima occur in the United States. Given past problems with nuclear power facilities in the US, that is downright frightening. It brings to mind the 1979 near-catastrophe at the Three-Mile Island nuclear facility in Pennsylvania. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "The Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) reactor, near Middletown, Pa., partially melted down on March 28, 1979. This was the most serious accident in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant operating history."

LORRAINE CHOW OF ECOWATCH ON BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Bottle 0615wrp opt(Photo: Epipowell)Ocean plastic pollution is an increasingly devastating crisis, and this new infographic shows exactly where the plastic trash is coming from, where it ends up and why it’s important to start our fight against this environmental scourge at the beach.

The graph, provided by UK-based Eunomia Research & Consulting, shows that more than 80 percent of the annual input of plastic litter, such as drink bottles and plastic packaging, comes from land-based sources. The remainder comes from plastics released at sea, such as lost and discarded fishing gear.

Significantly, Eunomia was able to come up with a new estimate of annual global emissions of “primary” microplastics, such as microbeads, fibers or pellets. (“Secondary” microplastics are the result of larger pieces of plastic breaking down into smaller pieces.)

The firm calculated that emissions of microplastics range from 0.5 to 1.4 million tonnes per year, with a mid-point estimate of 0.95 million tonnes. Vehicle tires are the biggest culprits, releasing 270 thousand tonnes of debris into our waterways annually.

These tiny non-biodegradable pieces of plastic are a cause for worry, as they are being gobbled up by plankton and baby fish like junk food, and works its way up the food chain. Microplastics have been found in in ice cores, across the seafloor, vertically throughout the ocean and on every beach worldwide. As EcoWatch mentioned previously, microplastics are also very absorbent, meaning they pick up the chemicals it floats in.

Wednesday, 15 June 2016 06:32

Jim Hightower: Who Says Crime Doesn't Pay?

JIM HIGHTOWER ON BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Bull 0615wrp(Photo: Aseba)Hey, can we all just stop complaining that our government coddles Wall Street's big money-grubbing banks?

Sure, they went belly-up and crashed our economy with their frauds, rigged casino games, and raw greed. And, yes, the Bush and Obama regimes rushed to bail them out with trillions of dollars in our public funds, while ignoring the plight of workaday people who lost jobs, homes, businesses, wealth, and hope. But come on, Buckos, have you not noticed that the feds are now socking the bankers with huuuuuge penalties for their wrongdoings?

Wall Street powerhouse Goldman Sachs, for example, was recently punched in its corporate gut with a jaw-dropping $5 billion for its illegal schemes.

Wow, $5 billion! That's a stunning amount that Goldman Sachs has agreed to pay to settle federal criminal charges over its shameful financial scams that helped wreck America's economy in 2008. That's a lot of gold, even for Goldman Sachs. It's hard to comprehend that much money, so think of it like this: If you paid out $100,000 a day, every day for 28 years, you'd pay off just one billion dollars. So, wow, imagine having to pull Five Big B's out of your wallet! That's enough to make even the most arrogant and avaricious high-finance flim-flammer think twice before risking such scams, right? Thus, these negotiated settlements between the Justice Department and the big banks will effectively deter repeats of the 2008 Wall Street debacle... right?

Actually, no.

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

2016June15 netneutralityUS District of Columbia Court of Appeals upholds Net Neutrality, but the battle is not over. (Photo: Free Press)

BuzzFlash is ad-free because of sustaining support from readers like you. Help keep independent media strong by making a tax-deductible donation today! 

A three-judge panel of the DC District Court of Appeals yesterday upheld the Federal Communication Commission's  (FCC) authority to regulate the internet as a "common carrier," similar to telephone service. In effect, this preserves the concept of "net neutrality," which limits the ability of internet providers to provide speed and access advantages to companies who pay higher fees. Although the corporate behemoths now dominating internet transmission (like Comcast and AT&T) plan to appeal, there's no doubt that this decision is significant.

The ruling is a major win in a struggle dating back roughly 15 years to keep the internet from turning into a mainly corporate medium, such as cable television. On Tuesday, The Washington Post described the essence of the ruling:

A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld the government’s “net neutrality” rules, preserving regulations that force internet providers such as Comcast and AT&T to treat all online traffic — everything from Netflix and cat videos to games and downloads — equally.

The 2-1 ruling is a sweeping victory for the Obama administration and the consumer groups and internet companies that have pushed net neutrality for years. The Federal Communications Commission’s rules block internet service providers from favoring their own services and disadvantaging others; blocking other sites and apps; and creating “fast lanes” for video and other data services that pay for the privilege.

On technical grounds, the ruling upholds the FCC’s authority to regulate broadband service as a utility, much like phone service, and to forbid what it considers unreasonable practices. It applies equally to wired broadband providers like cable companies and mobile ones such as Verizon.

For years -- through two presidential administrations -- the FCC waffled about preserving "net neutrality," first attempting a relatively weak version of regulation, which didn't past muster in the courts. However, in February of 2015, the agency adopted the more stringent regulatory protections that were upheld in the appeals court yesterday.

LORRAINE CHOW OF ECOWATCH ON BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

bramble 750The Bramble Cay melomys have vanished from its 350m-long cay home in the Torres Strait due to sea-level rise and weather events. Photo credit: Queensland Government

The Bramble Cay melomys—a rodent found only on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef—has been declared extinct, according to a new study from researchers at the Queensland’s Department of Environment and Heritage Protection and the University of Queensland.

Alarmingly, this could be the first mammal species wiped out due to human-induced climate change.

The researchers came to the conclusion after failing to find a single specimen of the melomys, also called the mosaic-tailed rat, from its only known habitat.

“A thorough survey effort involving 900 small mammal trap-nights, 60 camera trap-nights and two hours of active daytime searches produced no records of the species, confirming that the only known population of this rodent is now extinct,” the study states.

Sea-level rise and weather events in the Torres Strait region, which lies between Australia and the Melanesian island of New Guinea, was determined as the root cause of the loss. The scientists said that the events destroyed the animals’ sole habitat on Bramble Cay, a small vegetated coral cay in northern Australia. Research showed that Bramble Cay had reduced dramatically in size from approximately 2.2 ha in 2004 to only 0.065 ha, equivalent to a 97 percent loss in the span of 10 years.

“The key factor responsible for the extirpation of this population was almost certainly ocean inundation of the low-lying cay, very likely on multiple occasions, during the last decade, causing dramatic habitat loss and perhaps also direct mortality of individuals,” the study states.

JACQUELINE MARCUS FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

2016 June14flintwaterPresident Obama drinking a glass of Flint water is not the same as removing lead from our water supply. (Photo: Laura Nawrocik)

No matter what you may think of President Obama, it’s easy to admire him when he makes an appearance on one of the nightly talk shows. (watch this clip from the Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon). He’s charming, intelligent, a natural at quips, and serious when discussing important problems plaguing Americans.

By contrast, however, there’s a thing called “the reality check” on his track record, which has driven many a liberal Democrat up the wall by feeling the burn of betrayal at times.

True, in many cases, Obama’s hands have been tied by an obstinate and racist Republican congress, but how do you explain his own executive actions that benefit the corporate elites at the expense of public health safety issues? How do you explain his lack of action when Americans need to be rescued from corporate abuses that could easily be fixed by enforcing environmental regulations?

The word that comes to mind is “disillusionment.” There’s the impressive picture of President Obama, and then there’s Obama’s record of decisions that even his predecessors, Bush-Cheney, couldn’t come close to passing: offshore oil drilling in the Arctic, and military operations off the Alaska coast, as Truthout journalist, Dahr Jamail, explained, this is a toxic threat to the entire pristine region. Or consider the fracking boom that was unleashed across the country under the Obama administration with the full knowledge and proof that it’s contaminating our public drinking water, coupled with the fact that fracking causes earthquakes.

Whether it’s perpetual wars, right-wing coups in Latin America, oil and gas drilling, or selling slave labor and anti-environmental trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, (check the 35,000 Germans protesting Obama-TPIP), as the negatives outweigh the positives, you can understand why presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, became immensely popular. Senator Sanders has a long, established record of action that supports his agenda.

Take, for example, Obama’s lack of action regarding the toxic lead water contamination problem at over 350 public schools. 

SUE DIBB AND DAVIN HUTCHINS OF ECOWATCH ON BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Veggies 0613wrp opt(Photo: EcoWatch)It’s back! Today is #WorldMeatFreeDay, a great time to think about how the everyday choices we make about the food we eat can impact our health and the health of the planet.

From deforestation to water pollution and climate change, the mark that industrial animal agriculture leaves on the environment is huge.

Globally, livestock production is responsible for around 14 percent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—that’s more than the emissions from all road vehicles in the world.

Animal agriculture is the largest source of the most powerful greenhouse gasses: methane and nitrous oxide. On top of that, growing crops for animal feed, especially soy, results in the deforestation of rainforests, releasing yet more CO2.

There is now overwhelming evidence, that we can’t possibly avoid catastrophic climate change if we don’t address the impact of high levels of meat consumption. We are already living beyond our planetary means. Feeding a growing and more affluent global population of at least nine billion by 2050 simply isn’t possible unless we make some changes.

We need a “less is better” approach to meat eating. That’s where World Meat Free Day can make a difference; by raising awareness of how simple, small changes can start to have a positive global influence. The World Meat Free Day website has a sustainability calculator that shows how meat-free meals can have an immediate impact on carbon emissions and water usage.

Page 3 of 1422