KATHY KELLY FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
During the spring of 1999, as part of Voices in the Wilderness's campaign to end indiscriminately lethal U.S./U.N. economic sanctions against Iraq, the Fellowship of Reconciliation arranged for two Nobel Peace laureates, Adolfo Perez Esquivel and Mairead Maguire, to visit the country. Before their travel, Voices activists helped organize meetings for them with a range of ordinary Iraqis affected by an economic warfare targeting the most vulnerable: the elderly, the sick, and most tragically of all, the children. Perez Esquivel studied the itinerary. His voice and face showed clear disappointment. "Yes," he said, shaking his head, "but when do we meet with the teenagers?" He advised to always learn from a region's young people, and seek clear, inquisitive views not yet hardened by propaganda. We quickly arranged for Maguire and Perez Esquivel to meet with young women at Baghdad's Dijla Secondary School for Girls.
It was the spring of 1999. After eight years of deadly economic sanctions, the 2003 U.S. invasion was still the haziest of looming future threats. I was there with them at the school, and I remember Layla standing up and raising her voice. "You come and you say, you will do, you will do. But nothing changes. Me, I am sixteen. Can you tell me, what is the difference between me, I am sixteen, and someone who is sixteen in your country? I'll tell you. Our emotions are frozen. We cannot feel." But then she sat down and cried.
Other Iraqi students wondered what their country had done to deserve this treatment. What would happen to them if the UN said Iraq's foreign policy directly contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children, in another country, under age five? "Who are the criminals?" they asked.
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
If you are free from November 29 to December 1, you can attend the "Future Ground Combat Vehicles: Delivering Cutting Edge Solutions for Mechanized Modernization" in Detroit. It's being run by the Institute for Defense and Government Advancement, which profits from putting on military-industrial conference "trade" shows that focus on weaponry and combat paraphernalia. However, it won't be cheap: The cost for "vendors, consultants and solution providers" is $2,160 for a three-day all-access pass.
You're in luck, nevertheless, if you work for the military or government, because there is "no cost to all military and government employees" who wish to attend. This is generally the case in the invitations for such military and weapons-focused conferences. Why? Because the purpose is to attract vendors who are buying access to intermingle with current and past military personnel who might give corporations an edge on contracts. The military does nothing to discourage its staff from participating in such conferences. Why should it? After all, both sides of the military-industrial complex work together to expand the supply and demand for weaponry, combat gear and the infrastructure of state violence.
This year, the featured speaker at this conference is an Army commander, according tothe conference brochure:
General Robert B. "Abe" Abrams assumed duties as the 22nd Commander of United States Army Forces Command, at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, on 10 August 2015. As Commander of the United States Army's largest organization, he commands 229,000 active duty Soldiers, and provides training and readiness oversight of U.S. Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve units. In total, the Forces Command team includes 776,000 Soldiers and 96,000 Civilians. Prior to his current command, he was the Senior Military Assistant to the Secretary of Defense.
Abrams is accompanied by a plethora of active military officer faculty, a retired brigadier general from Israel and three corporate speakers. This abundance of senior and project manager military personnel ensures that vendors can make key contacts for future military projects.
LORRAINE CHOW OF ECOWATCH ON BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
climate change can be a tough pill to swallow.As someone who writes about the environment on a near-daily basis, the fact that a large chunk of Americans (about one in eight) reject the near scientific consensus of
But after a year of record-breaking heatwaves, massive wildfires in the west, and a string of destructive hurricanes, it appears that my fellow U.S. citizens are waking up to the realities of our hot, new world, according to the latest nationally representative survey from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication.
The poll, which has tracked Americans' attitudes about climate since 2008, revealed an uptick in Americans' concern about climate change, including "substantial increases" in the certainty that the global phenomenon is happening and currently harming people in the U.S.
The survey, based on the replies of 1,304 adults between Oct. 20 to Nov. 1, showed that seven in ten participants think climate change is happening—an increase of eight percentage points since March 2015. The good news is that those who think global warming is real outnumber climate deniers by more than 5 to 1.
JIM HIGHTOWER ON BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
"We've had a great relationship," exulted a giddy Donald Trump, following his two-day schmoozefest in Manila with the thuggish president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte.
Duterte, a self-styled "toughie" who boasts of personally killing many people and who likes to compare himself to Satan, has been on a murderous rampage since his election last year. In the name of eliminating drugs, he has unleashed a massive military assault across the country, not merely targeting dealers, but also anyone using drugs. His onslaught against his own people is a human rights atrocity, with untold thousands essentially being executed in what are antiseptically termed "extrajudicial killings" — ie, illegal, unjustified... murderous.
Yet, the present President of the United States says Duterte is his new buddy, and Trump stressed in their official discussions that the Philippine president can count on him and the U.S. (which includes you and me) to be a friend. And, as a friend, Trump didn't bother his authoritarian buddy with any unpleasant talk about those rampant human rights abuses.
Instead, the Duterte-Trump get-together was one of mutual praise and even affection. Indeed, Donald was delighted when Rodrigo impulsively grabbed the microphone at a gala state dinner and serenaded Trump with a love ballad: "You are the love I've been waiting for," he crooned.
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
The Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan, nonprofit investigative news organization, released a detailed report last week that reveals many of the largest donors behind legal moves to achieve campaign finance deregulation. Much has been reported about the impact of loosening campaign finance laws on elections, but the Center's analysis offers insight into who is funding the legal cases that are allowing big money to have such an unprecedented impact on elections.
Of course, the most noted of these legal decisions was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which the Center describes in a second article about the modern history of campaign finance deregulation:
In a case that continues to have an enormous impact on elections at all levels of government, the court reversed decades of decisions by allowing corporate and union dollars to pay for ads and other campaign materials that urge voters to vote for or against a candidate for office. The 5-4 decision affected what are known as "independent expenditures." Such funds are used by an outside party to pay for materials that favor or oppose a candidate, but the spending must be "independent" -- the outside party isn't allowed to coordinate it with the candidate. The decision led to the creation of super PACs -- which accept unlimited donations and use the funds mostly on political advertising -- and "dark money" organizations, nonprofits that do essentially the same thing but are not required to reveal their donors.
However, Citizens United was preceded and followed by other regulation-loosening decisions, including Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 and McCutcheon, Republican National Committee v. Federal Election Commission in 2014.
BILL BERKOWITZ FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
This is being written before a final vote has been taken on President Trump's higher-taxes-for-the-middle-class-and-the-poor bill has been voted on, so as of now, there hasn't been much in the way of legislation for the Trump administration to hang its hat on. But downstream, there are lots of awful things underway. To paraphrase an old Henny Youngman tag line: Take the work of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. … Please!
In her first few months as secretary, the Michigan billionaire, DeVos, who needed the vote of vice-president Mike Pence to break the tie in the Senate over her confirmation, has been involved in several controversial battles over the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act, Title IX, guns in the schools, rolling back regulations on the for-profit college industry, and her efforts to shrink the Dept. of Education.
According to The Washington Post's Moriah Balingit and Danielle Douglas-Gabriel, "The department's workforce has shrunk under … DeVos, who has said she wants to decrease the federal government's role in education, including investigations and enforcement of civil rights in schools. In all, the department has shed about 350 workers since December — nearly 8 percent of its staff — including political appointees. With buyouts offered to 255 employees in recent days, DeVos hopes to show even more staff the door."
PAUL BUCHHEIT FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
Inequality, like a malignant tumor, is growing out of control, and the only response from Congress is to make it even worse. Those at the richest end of the nation seem to have lost all capacity for understanding the meaning and values of an interdependent society. They've convinced themselves that they deserve their passively accumulated windfalls, and that poorer people have only themselves to blame for their own misfortunes.
It's Getting Uglier Every Year
The average 1% household made nearly $2.6 million in the 12 months to mid-2017. Mostly from the stock market. Here's how:
- The U.S. increased its wealth by over $8.5 trillion (see Table 2-4, mid-2016 to mid-2017).
- The 1% took $3.27 trillion of that (38.3 percent: see Table 6-5).
- Each of 1.26 million households, on average, took nearly $2.6 million. In greater detail, the poor segment of the 1% averaged about $1.44 million for the year, the .1% averaged about $7.2 million, and the .01% (12,600 households) averaged nearly $65 million in just the past year.
BILL BERKOWITZ FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
To be perfectly honest, most of us would be hard-pressed to have a handle on the range of the myriad of functions of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We would likely get the part about meat and poultry inspections, and maybe the fact that the agency oversees the food stamp program, but otherwise we would be pretty unclear about the scope of the agency's work. As Michael Lewis reports in the December issue of Vanity Fair, most of what the USDA does "has little to do with agriculture," as it spends only a "small fraction" of its $164 billion budget (2016) on farmers.
Among other things, the USDA "runs 193 million acres of natural forest and grasslands [and] It is charged with inspecting almost all the animals people eat." The agency runs a "massive science program; a bank with $220 billion in assets; plus a large fleet of aircraft for firefighting," There's more; it finances and manages numerous programs in rural America, "including the free school lunch for kids living near the poverty line."
A Vanity Fair USDA Organizational Chart has the Secretary and Deputy Secretary up top, and seven Undersecretaries: National Resources and Environment; Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services; Rural Development; Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services; Food Safety; Research, Education and Economics (Science); and, Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
In a November 7 article in The New York Times by Max Fisher and Josh Keller, the two reporters reflect upon the somber phenomenon of mass shootings in the United States. Faced with an unrelenting occurrence of such incidents, they attempt to ascertain the enabling circumstances for such atrocities. They conclude,
The only variable that can explain the high rate of mass shootings in America is its astronomical number of guns.
The top-line numbers suggest a correlation that, on further investigation, grows only clearer.
Americans make up about 4.4 percent of the global population but own 42 percent of the world’s guns. From 1966 to 2012, 31 percent of the gunmen in mass shootings worldwide were American, according to a 2015 study by Adam Lankford, a professor at the University of Alabama.
One must be wary of assessments that attribute a complex problem to only one factor, as this one does. However, the United States has 4.4 percent of the world population but 42 percent of the world's guns.
EMILY YATES FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
Imagine you're being forced to flee your home. Not just your home, but your country, and not just for now, but forever.
Imagine you can only pack one carry-on sized bag, weighing no more than 50 pounds, from which you must rebuild your entire life. Everything else stays behind.
Imagine getting to your new, foreign home, only to discover that your funds are nowhere near enough to live on, your education and work skills don't translate into a local job, and you're immediately in debt to the government for the flight that brought you to safety. You have no health care, the culture you're now immersed in is entirely unfamiliar to you and every day is a struggle to adjust to a life you never thought you'd be living.
Now imagine the reason you must do this is because the United States military invaded and occupied your country, and instead of resisting, you chose to assist.