Buzzflash

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT 

No doubt the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation has done some good and honorable work, but according to the most recent audit of Komen, it had $471 million (page 11 of Ernst & Young audit, included in-kind goods and services) in "public support and revenue" in the fiscal year ending March 31, 2011 - and that's a lot to account for.

The Komen Foundation also had a whopping $193 million dollars in net assets as of March 31, 2011. (See page 3 of audit.)

To the Komen Foundation's credit, it has posted its official financial statements from the last few years on its website.

So many women and men have invested their money, volunteer hours and hopes in Komen that it is reassuring to know that it makes its revenues and expenditures accessible, in terms of its audit and IRS required 990 forms.

But there is another kind of transparency that is lacking on the site. Yesterday, BuzzFlash at Truthout wrote a commentary entitled the "CEO of Komen and Former Husband Gave Massive Donations to GOP." In the blog entry, we also noted the widely speculated role of anti-abortion GOP social conservative activist and former political candidate, Karen Handel -- who serves as the Komen senior vice president of public policy - in the Komen Planned Parenthood debacle.

Think Progress also ran a story late on Friday that former George W. Bush presidential press secretary Ari Fleischer played a significant role in a recent key senior level hiring at Komen. According to Think Progress, Fleischer - an opponent of Planned Parenthood - brought up the organization and its "problematic nature" for Komen during the interviewing process. The question of why such a partisan figure as Fleischer was retained to hire a senior vice president for communications and external relations is well worth asking, particularly in light of the communications disaster caused by the announcement of the Komen Planned Parenthood planned cut-off.

It should be noted that the ideological Planned Parenthood decision might have its roots in the return of Nancy Brinker as CEO (the founder, who named the organization after her sister who had died of breast cancer) in December of 2009, after she had completed a stretch of service in the George W. Bush administration, including serving as US ambassador to Hungary (thanks to campaign contributions to the Bush campaign) and as chief of United States protocol (ditto).

A review of the board of directors of Komen by BuzzFlash at Truthout reveals that Brinker has the likely votes to control board decisions at any given time, and that those votes are either Republican stalwarts or individuals personally loyal to her. For instance, one of the members of the relatively small nine-person board - given its nearly half-billion dollars in annual revenue - is Brinker's son, Eric Brinker. Another is Brinker herself, although, to be fair, many non-profit boards have the CEO as a member.

Linda Law, an apparently extremely accomplished real estate developer and consultant, includes in her Komen board biography that she is an "RNC regent." This means she is a top bundler and fundraiser for the Republican National Committee, an odd detail to be included in a non-profit board bio. Komen board member Linda Custard, a Dallas social insider, and her husband, William, are listed on opensecrets.org as giving more than 95% in significant contributions to Republicans.

read more

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

The fallout from the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation's planned severing of funding to Planned Parenthood can be measured in the number of women who would be denied breast cancer screening.

Today, February 3, Komen engaged in what is known as crisis management, appearing to "reverse" its decision, although that, as Truthout points out, remains the subject of some debate. The devil as always, will be in the details - and right now, even after its "mea culpa," Komen is not committing to refunding Planned Parenthood.

The devil may also be in the politics of the decision, although Komen founder and CEO, Nancy Brinker, denies that this is the case. The Dallas Morning News presents a former senior employee with another perspective:

But John Hammarley, a former KDFW-TV (Channel 4) medical reporter who went to work for Komen, disputed her account in an interview Thursday with The Dallas Morning News:

Until last summer, his job at Komen was to explain and defend the charity's relationship with Planned Parenthood. He was laid off in July.

He said questions about Komen's support of Planned Parenthood began to arise from within the breast-cancer advocacy group after Karen Handel was hired as senior vice president for public policy in April.

Handel, a former gubernatorial candidate from Georgia, posted on her campaign website: "Since I am pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood."

Hammarley said he did not know if Handel was behind the policy change.

"All I know is the internal debate and review of this issue ramped up significantly after she was hired," he said.

The new policy was that the Komen Foundation would not fund organizations "under investigation." CREDO, the mobile phone company that also funds progressive causes - including Planned Parenthood - indicated that the Planned Parenthood "investigation" in the GOP House of Representatives is a vendetta to appease anti-abortion groups:

"The move is clearly connected to attempts by Republicans in Congress to defund Planned Parenthood," the organization said

read more

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Given the daily lacerating commentaries on BuzzFlash at Truthout, you might not suspect that we have a sentimental side. Although, admittedly, there is a political/"social values" angle to our soft spot for the Obama marriage.

read more

PAUL BUCHHEIT FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Not an angry response, though. 'Amused' is probably more accurate, since a little research shows that James Q. Wilson's article is filled with the tired old defense mechanisms of people eager to justify a 30-year transfer of wealth to the rich.

Mr. Wilson begins by alluding to the degree of economic mobility that supposedly gives everyone a chance to move up the ladder through hard work and perseverence. He cites a Federal Reserve report which states that less than half of people in the top 1 percent in 1996 were still there in 2005. But he doesn't mention that nearly 90% of them remained in the top quintile of earners after ten years. Ten years. In that amount of time people should be moving up or down as they begin or end careers, but instead they remain close to their starting points.

Other reports make it very clear that the U.S. ranks near the bottom of developed countries in economic mobility.

read more

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

A short time ago, BuzzFlash at Truthout ran a commentary on how US global corporations don't give a hoot about increasing jobs in America.

In it, we included a section about how Silicon Valley high-tech companies, particularly Apple, use overseas contractors to manufacture their latest technological consumer products. It has been documented that some of these contractors create such harsh conditions and pay such low wages that workers have been driven to suicide, as The New York Times and other publications have detailed.

In a two-part Times expose, an Apple executive claimed: "We [Apple] don't have an obligation to solve America's problems." That was in response to Apple shipping so many potential US jobs overseas to these slave-wage sweatshops; e.g., "90 percent of the parts of an iPhone are made outside the U.S."

read more

TONY PEYSER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Instead of saying this is hooey
I give him a shout out for trying
Because they've got nothing else
And have to resort to such lying.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/mcconnells-revisionist-history-congress-gave-obama-everything-he-wanted.php

 

BILL BERKOWITZ FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

While Newt Gingrich was taking it on the chin in Florida, thousands of miles away in Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was beating back a challenge to his Likud Party leadership from ultranationalists, thus making it a so-so week for Sheldon Adelson.

Over the years, Adelson's largesse has gone to support Gingrich's assorted political projects, including his run for the Republican Party's presidential nomination; a range of so-called pro-Israel organizations in the U.S.; and, Netanyahu's political career.

Adelson isn't one of those shy billionaires (think Phil Anschutz) who wince every time their name appears in the media, but I'm not sure that even the casino magnate -- listed by Forbes magazine as the eighth-richest man in America with a net worth of $21.5 billion - would have figured that by the time the Florida Republican Party primaries were over, that he would be scrutinized a heck of a lot more than he has been in the past.

As has been widely reported, it was a $5 million donation by Adelson to Newt Gingrich's Winning the Future super PAC, that helped Gingrich purchase the attack ads that paved the way for the former House Speaker's victory in South Carolina.

And it was another $5 million, from Adelson's Israeli-born wife Miriam, which allowed Gingrich to put up any kind of fight in Florida.

Now the Adelson family, made extraordinarily wealthy through gambling casinos in Las Vegas and Macao, will help decide the fate of Gingrich.

read more

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

It was the photo seen round the nation - one that in a single finger-wagging gesture was a Rorschach test of America's "post-racial" society.

When Jan Brewer - governor of perhaps the most politically anti-immigrant state in the union (including most recently banning school books statewide that were Mexican-American related) - was seen in vivid color raising her index finger in high dudgeon at President Obama, the outpouring of racial animus that followed his election was distilled into one Phoenix sun-drenched tarmac moment.

Adding to the image of white backlash in a racially charged "post-racial" America, Brewer claimed that she felt "threatened" by Obama in their airport encounter.

It is worth noting that Brewer was supposed to be "welcoming" the president of the United States - as is the usual case when a president travels - not confronting him to, perhaps, increase sales of her book and fundraise off of the image of a white woman being "threatened" by a black man. Ironically, Brewer was carrying a handwritten letter inviting the president to lunch and a border tour, while acknowledging their political differences.

read more

STEVE JONAS FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

South Carolina. The first state to pass an Ordinance of Secession, on December 20, 1860. Lincoln had been elected President. He would not be inaugurated until March 4, 1861. He had declared frequently in his campaign that he had no intention of attempting to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states in which it then presently existed, for it was Constitutional, in them. He made it clear that he not an abolitionist in any sense of the term.

read more

BILL QUIGLEY AND SAM SCHMITT FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Question One. The combined pay of the 299 highest paid CEOs in the US is enough to support how many median salary jobs?

45,000? 83,000? 102,325?

Two. The median net worth of black households in the US is $2,200. What is the median net worth of white households in the US?

$4,400? $44,000? $97,000?

Three. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development issues a national survey every year listing fair market rents for every county in the US. HUD also suggests renters should pay no more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. In how many of the USA's 3068 counties can someone who works full-time and earns the federal minimum wage pay 30% of their income and find a one-bedroom apartment at the fair market rental amount?

19? 368? 1974?

Four. How much must the typical U.S. worker earn per hour to rent a two-bedroom apartment if that worker dedicates thirty percent of his income, as HUD suggests, to rent and utilities?

$9.39? $14.63? $18.46?

Five. The wealthiest 1 percent of the US has a net worth which is how many times greater than the median or typical household's net worth?

50? 150? 225?

Six. Which of these countries puts the highest percentage of their people in jails and prisons?

read more

ANN DAVIDOW FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Today's political enthusiasts specialize in fuzzy thinking extraordinaire, an intellectual haven where people can't differentiate between opinion and partisan rhetoric. Recently someone told me the flap over goalie Tim Thomas' refusal to attend a White House event celebrating his team's 2011 Stanley Cup victory was a media-driven dust-up. In reality it represented a failure to understand the difference between expressions of opinion and rude, inappropriate behavior - - sadly, an increasingly common pattern among both politicians and the general population.

There have been times when refusing to appear or accept an award, for example, were legitimate gestures of disapproval, but surely presidential invites should be viewed from a different perspective. Unfortunately ugly behavior on the campaign trail and violent encounters on the ice seem to have morphed into a national, anything-goes form of expression in which only the most egregious misbehavior is taken to task.

During the Bush presidency there was plenty to criticize, and recriminations surfaced with angry regularity, but when Obama was elected critics began their attacks without waiting for events to warrant their explosive content. The notion that one could disagree without being disagreeable no longer obtained and public discourse sank ever lower in terms of how candidates chose to express themselves, license having seemingly been granted to anyone who could grab a microphone or titillate a Hannity or Limbaugh audience. "Joe, the plumber" rose to national prominence by confronting candidate Obama even though he had little to offer in the way of substance and wasn't even a licensed plumber. Likewise Sarah Palin could wax semi-eloquent with a stream of vapid observations held together with a wink and a nod.

read more

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

The birther movement is back, and its goal is trying to get President Obama knocked off the fall ballot in as many states as possible.

Sound preposterous? Well, the movement may be, but the strategy is for real.

Look at what is happening in Georgia.

Orly Taitz, the naturalized-citizen birther provocateur from Moldavia, is trying to get Obama thrown off the state ballot. Her argument is, yet again, that Obama is allegedly not a natural-born citizen, according to the constitutional requirement.

read more

David Swanson for BuzzFlash at Truhtout

While Newt is Bed Hopping and Dishing Out Demagoguery, the World is Burning

1. A war on Iran could kill us all. President Obama said in the State of the Union: "America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible . . .

read more

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT 

Can you imagine the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln - who beat Stephen Douglas and two third-party candidates - being determined by corporate money spent on television, radio and newspaper ads?

The issue of slavery - and possible civil war - were dramatically presented to the nation in the Lincoln-Douglas debates. These occurred in 1858, and - in the absence of television, the radio and the Internet - defined the essential issue of the 1860 presidential race: slavery.

Lincoln had, by the time of the presidential race, already created a lofty rhetorical record that helped propel him to the White House. This included his famous "House Divided" speech in which he declared, "a house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free." Lincoln later denounced "groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong."

With the rise of television a century later, political debates were brought into every home. As the courts allowed more and more money from different sources to be spent on ads, the debates began to take place within the context of the "messaging" (ads) - most of it negative - that had been bought by political contributions.

read more

TONY PEYSER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

If I'd been moderating at this particular point
I don't think that I would have missed this
Chance to point out that Callista would have
Also been a really wonderful First Mistress.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120127/D9SH10SG3.html

 

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Why do the Republicans and some Democrats in Congress enable the loss of jobs in America?

Perhaps it is because, as BuzzFlash at Truthout has noted many times, many of their corporate paymasters are now global corporations that don't really give a hoot about creating jobs in the US. As BuzzFlash has noted, the goal of a corporation - by its very capitalistic structure - is to increase profits, not increase jobs in America.

So, this is how it goes down. A company such as Wal-Mart expands overseas and creates jobs in other nations in two ways. It offshores its manufacturing to the lowest cost nations, where workers are often treated harshly for, at best, subsistence pay. Then it brings those goods back to the US where they are sold to Americans who economically can only afford items made overseas. The Wal-Mart customer may have lost his or her job because what he or she is buying is now made in China, for instance.

Meanwhile, Wal-Mart hires workers in the US at the lowest possible wages, many of them forced to go on Medicaid and food stamps to survive - in short, the government subsidizes the low-wage labor practices of Wal-Mart in the US. Wal-Mart isn't increasing exports from the US; it is increasing US reliance on imports.

Wal-Mart then also expands its stores, via free trade agreements, around the world, where goods are sold not generally from America, but from other low-wage nations. It creates jobs globally that don't benefit US workers to any great degree, just the stockholders of Wal-Mart.

The Wal-Mart heirs are among the richest persons in the world. Naturally, they give generously to politicians who support multinational corporations whose main job generation is in other nations. This completes the circle of what BuzzFlash has called the self-cannibalization of the workforce in America: working-class Americans economically forced to buy goods made by slave-wage earners in nations with few labor standards.

This is not just Wal-Mart. Progressives who love their Apple products and the Apple "brand" image of innovation contribute to this destructive cycle. There have been a number of recent stories on how Apple is a lead corporation in using overseas contractors who engage in exploitative labor practices - and all indications are that Apple, instead of improving working conditions, actually squeezes the manufacturers and assemblers harder each year by lowering payments or moving to even lower-cost and more abusive settings.

Indeed, even The New York Times has written two investigative stories on Apple's harsh working conditions in China. Reuters notes of the revelatory carefully-researched articles:

The New York Times published on Wednesday its second bombshell of a story on inhumane working conditions at Apple's Chinese manufacturers. So how will the world's most valuable company, notorious for its secrecy, respond?

So far, with silence.

You see, Apple is coming off of one of the most profitable quarters in corporate history, according to the Times.

And that is all the Republicans and many Democrats in Congress are interested in. Higher profits mean the rich (shareholders and executives) get richer and the politicians get bigger campaign contributions.

In his State of the Union Address, President Obama posed this challenge to Congress:

read more

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

You may not think that you've heard a lot from the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement lately, but you have.

That's because the OWS campaign, although truncheoned and pepper sprayed out of its encampments, has profoundly influenced the presidential campaign this year.

read more

NATHANIEL BATCHELDER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Pray cooler heads will guide America in the dialogue and decision-making over Iran's position in the world. Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and there is no certain evidence that such a program is under way. Certainly Iran has the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and the interests of world peace demand that these issues be resolved without military action that could launch a catastrophic war.

Another war would destroy America's painful recovery from the indebtedness of two wars and the 2008 economic crash. Gasoline prices would probably go up another dollar per gallon. The Iraq and Afghanistan war's final costs will exceed $2 trillion. Some estimates say $4 trillion, or even $6 trillion, including lifelong care for veterans physically or emotionally disabled.

Iran has more than twice the population of Iraq, four times the area, many times the military capability, and would seek support from other nations like Russia and China, possibly sparking an unpredictable regional war.

Political hawks and shock-jocks on talk radio condemn calls for negotiations and dialogue to resolve such matters without military action as weakness. The U.S. spends as much on military preparedness as the rest of the world combined, so no one can doubt America's capacity to wage war. It is shocking that the theme song of one national talk show host states, "We'll put a boot up your ass, it's the American way."

The world does not find this amusing or appealing.

read more

STEFANIE PENN SPEAR FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

President Obama's State of the Union address could perhaps best be described as the good, the bad and the ugly. Obama wants to generate American-made energy and set a clean energy standard that encourages investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency. Good. But Obama continues to tout extreme fossil fuel extraction as a solution to our energy needs. Bad. And it's still business as usual with the highly subsidized oil, gas and coal industries continuing to externalize their costs on the American people. Ugly.

In his address Obama focused on the need for "American-made energy." He first mentioned that he will be directing his administration "to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources." Realizing that this resource only contains 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, he quickly added that, "This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy. A strategy that's cleaner, cheaper and full of new jobs."

Obama then directs his attention to natural gas development and its claimed potential to provide nearly 100 years of supply. He follows this up with a promise that he will be, "requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use," and that, "America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk."

He praises the government for the public research dollars that were allocated over the course of 30 years that helped develop the technologies to extract natural gas out of shale rock and stresses how "government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground."

read more

Body

It seems it isn't enough to have a political opinion and to exercise freedom of speech without spending inordinate amounts of cash or to ignore the parts of the Constitution that don't fit an ideological profile. Thus the Supreme Court and other supporters of unfettered gun rights choose to ignore the amendment's opening lines "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Where are those well-regulated militias to which the second amendment refers?

And no-one has yet offered a satisfactory explanation for defining money as free speech or for congratulating candidates who disrespect the president, the press or each other with rude, self serving remarks. Ever since Congressman Joe Wilson interrupted president Obama's state-of-the-union speech by shouting "you lie" and was criticized by some but rewarded with contributions from supporters the tone of our political discourse has grown ever coarser and more inappropriate.

This country affords its citizens the right and opportunity to express views that may or may not be popular but for some reason this right has deteriorated into a license to ignore facts and supplant them with opinion and the assumption that any view may be posited on any occasion. The inexcusable behavior of Boston Bruin goalie, for example, in refusing an invitation to the White House honoring his team - - winners of last year's Stanley Cup - - was unconscionable and allowed political bias to interfere with the nature of an a-political celebration. Somewhere along the line we have lost a sense of rudimentary common courtesy. People like Tim Thomas seem to think it is acceptable to use any opportunity to express their personal views no matter how inappropriate or disrespectful. Thomas played a great series but receives a failing grade in good citizenship.

For his part, Newt Gingrich elicited a standing ovation from a partisan crowd at the Republican debate in South Carolina when he allegedly put questioner Juan Williams "in his place" for asking if Gingrich meant to belittle certain segments of society for using food stamps and unemployment insurance. It isn't surprising that others in our culture are encouraged to behave in a rude, undisciplined manner when leaders like Gingrich make such behavior seem acceptable. The harsh incantation of the speaker's name, Juan, wasn't lost on the crowd who chuckled their approval in advance of their ovation. Gingrich knew perfectly well what he was up to and only fools would argue he was within his rights as opposed to what has been called the right-wing "dog-whistle" approach. And why do the press and others insist on calling candidates by their former titles? Should Gingrich be afforded the respect of others when he is so disrespectful of the president and belittles members of the press for doing their job? Why must he always be addressed as "Mr. Speaker" a title he hasn't held for many years and which he debased during his term of office? Why shouldn't he be just plain old Newt spoken as derisively as he addressed Williams or perhaps Mr. Lobbyist or Mr. Hypocrite?

Doctors are called upon to abide by the Hippocratic Oath which instructs them to practice their craft according to a code of ethical behavior befitting the highest standards of their profession. Newt Gingrich and many other politicians say their inner compass leads them on a path that conforms with moral and religious norms. But in fact

they continue to articulate outlandish myths they choose to call truth but what might more accurately be called theories of irrelevance or the hypocritical oath.

Is unseemly and insulting behavior to become the measure of a leader and if it is what kind of country do we the people envision from such leadership?