Electronic Pen

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH FOR TRUTHOUT

While politicians argue about how to fix the US economy, many Americans don't even have enough money to fix their homes - and jobs for people who actually build real things (like houses and stores) continue to stagnate.

The evidence shows up in local stories like this one from The Chicago Sun-Times: "Elgin Lowe's store among seven closed." More than 80 people in the Chicago suburb have lost their jobs after Lowe's - the second largest home improvement chain - abruptly shuttered seven stores nationally.

Several factors contributed to the closing in Elgin, including "unemployment among Elgin tradesmen [that] is about 50 percent." That is because people can't afford new homes - and in many cases are putting off hiring contractors to do home repairs.

But what might be most troubling is that many Americans, suffering economically, may be putting off doing many home repairs themselves because of the cost of supplies.

The myth that somehow businesses will generate more jobs with higher tax breaks for the rich is a fiction created to fatten the wallets of corporate CEOs and shareholders. If there is less money for consumers to spend, stores like Lowe's close and jobs are lost, not added.

As BuzzFlash at Truthout noted before, the profit motive does not create more employment if there is not increased purchasing power.

By giving wealthy people more money, nothing is done to stimulate demand, except maybe for Prada and yachts.

******

If you'd like to receive these commentaries daily from Truthout/BuzzFlash, click here. You'll get our choice headlines and articles too.

read more

BILL BERKOWITZ FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

I'm not a devoted fan of Ed Shultz's MSNBC show, but when I tune in, I do appreciate his passion and willingness to fight for the working poor and the middle class. I can also share Schultz's frustration the night after Wisconsin Democrats failed in their bid to recall enough Republican State Senators to shift the balance of power in that legislative body, and why he would call out President Obama as being missing in action.

Since Governor Scott Walker launched his attack on the state's public workers and their unions this past winter, President Obama has indeed been missing in action. The recall campaign was a bellwether event. And Obama was nowhere to be found. Too busy to get involved in the recall effort; too busy to visit the state; too stressed by other matters.

Shame on you President Obama.

Breaking up is hard to do

For months I've been searching for an Obama break-up song. I certainly recognize that the president has no relationship with me other than him wanting my vote for re-election (just as he received it in 2008), and having his fundraising team pepper my mailbox, and inbox, with fundraising appeals.

Break ups don't just happen. Depending on the length, strength and depth of the relationship, a break up can be pretty darned traumartic; sometimes the after-shocks last a long time. Break ups can happen over silly things or fundamental chasms in relationships. These days, break ups may be losing its gravitas as text message and twitter replace face to face confrontation.

I've been putting this break up off, hoping against hope that Obama would start to turn things around and redeem himself; that he would recognize the nature of the forces arrayed against him, and that he would fight back. Maintaining hope thing hasn't been easy. I've got friends who gave that up a long time ago. And, I've got friends who never bought into the Obama in the first place, figuring that Obama was too closely allied with Wall Street to significantly reorder Washington's political landscape.

Things have rolled steadily downhill since Team Obama demobilized its 14 million supporters at the start of his presidency (See "Where in the World Is Obama's Missing Millions (people that is!)?" -- http://blog.buzjzflash.com/contributors/2202). Still, there was reason to believe (or so I thought and argued) that he'd come out of his compromise at all costs mentality.

The San Francisco Chronicle's Jon Carroll is one of my favorite daily columnists. Even his cat stories (for the most part) are fun to read. In a column dated August 10 and titled "Can Obama lead? Liberals want to know" (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/09/DD8P1KKRVN.DTL) Carroll discusses Drew Westen's recent buzz-worthy New York Times column titled "What Happened to Obama." (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html?pagewanted=all).

Carroll writes: "Even on Inaugural Day, Obama let the occasion make the statement. He had no overarching message, no call to arms to take the country back from the plutocrats. Indeed, he probably didn't want that - he has hired the world's finest plutocrats as his closest advisers. His election as a black man was historic; the election of this black man may not be all that game-changing."

Carroll: "... Obama is called on to lead a nation-state. There are certain responsibilities there. One is that the leader give succor to his friends and confusion to his enemies. That doesn't mean rejecting compromise; that means appearing never to be forced into compromise. And here we have a leader whose opening gambit is compromise."

Then there's Bret Stephens, a Wall Street Journal columnist who I probably agree with once in a very blue moon. However, Stephens, who writes the WSJ's "Global View" column on foreign affairs and was the former editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post, caustically commented that Obama: "makes predictions that prove false. ... makes promises he cannot honor. ... raises expectations he cannot meet. ... reneges on commitments made in private. ... surrenders positions staked in public. ... is absent from issues in which he has a duty to be involved [and] He is overbearing when he ought to be absent."

I'm not sure if the Wisconsin recall effort was the final straw. I'm not sure there are any final straws, but my search for a break up song picked up steam this week.

Break up songs memorialize failed romantic relationships. For the life of me, I can't find any break up songs about leaving a political party, parting ways with a political candidate, or, for that matter, forsaking a favored sports team.

In break up songs it's  either your fault (you cheated), my fault (I'm not ready to commit), or it's no one's fault (we've grown apart). Does any of this possibly apply to my "relationship" with Obama?

Yes; the "you cheated"  break up.

My decision to support him in 2008 was just as much (perhaps even more so) an emotional decision as it was a political one. I wanted to believe in "Hope and Change." I wanted to believe in "Yes We Can."

I knew that Hillary Clinton would fight against the Right's onslaught that was guaranteed, no matter which Democrat was elected, since she and husband, President Bill, had been duking it out with the Right for years. I decided on Obama because I was optimistic that he would bring young people and those who had been disenfranchised into play. There was a possibility that a generation of hopers and changers and yes we can-ers would be loosed upon the land.

My search for a break up song

I'm old school, but this is the twenty-first century so perhaps my choice of break up songs should be closer to Kelly Clarkson's "Since U Been Gone" of Justin Timberlake's "Cry Me a River" than Otis Redding's "I've Been Loving You Too Long" or Neil Sedaka's "Breaking Up Is Hard to Do" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbad22CKlB4).

In that spirit, I turned to Cristin Maher's list of "10 Best Break Up Songs" posted at Pop Crush (http://popcrush.com/best-break-up-songs/), seeking out something contemporary.

"Better That We Break," a 2008 song by Maroon 5 has the group's lead singer Adam Levine singing "I'm not fine, I'm in pain / It's harder everyday / Maybe we're better off this way? / It's better that we break."

Rhianna's 2008 song "Rehab" takes on life "after her relationship goes sour," singing "It's gonna take a miracle to bring me back / And you're the one to blame."

"Try Sleeping With a Broken Heart" is Alicia Keyes' contribution: "I can still hear inside my head / Telling me, touch me, feel me / And all the time you were telling me lies / So tonight I'm gonna find a way to make it without you."

"Say Goodbye" has Chris Brown singing: "There's never a right time to say goodbye / But I gotta make the first move / 'Cause if I don't you gonna start hating me / Cause I really don't feel the way I once felt about you."

Not satisfied in my quest, , I turned to Isabella Snow's "Top 25 Break Up Songs" (http://isabellasnow.hubpages.com/hub/Top-25-Break-Up-Songs), which includes: "Ain't No Sunshine When She's Gone" (Bill Withers); "Don't Think Twice" (Bob Dylan); "These Boots Are Made For Walking" (Nancy Sinatra); "Lonely Avenue (Ray Charles)'; "Missing You" (John Waite).

There are plenty of break up songs to choose from. But, is it really over between Obama and me?

Given the choice we'll be faced with in November 2012, and paraphrasing The Tempos 1959 summer hiatus song, "See You In September," I'm pretty sure I'll be seeing you in November ... but, in the words of B.B. King, "The Thrill is Gone."

read more

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Increased taxes on billionaires don't put a damper on investment, and a billionaire should know.

That's what Warren Buffet lays out in a blockbuster August 14 op-ed in The New York Times, in which he begs Congress to stop tossing money at the wealthiest Americans.

Buffet makes the case that the decades-long decrease in taxes on the wealthy, including IRS provisions like low long-term capital gains taxes, are fundamentally unfair - and provide no boost to the economy. They just make the rich richer.

The facts and anecdotes Buffet refers to are so compelling that they most certainly will be dismissed by the Grover Norquist "anti-tax on the affluent cheerleading squad." Compare Buffet's cogent plea to be taxed more with Michele Bachmann's fatuous gobbledygook answer to a small businessman in Iowa who asked why big corporations don't pay a greater share of the nation's taxes. By the time you finish listening to her jabberwocky, you'll have a headache - which is something Congresswoman Bachmann can relate to.

Buffet doesn't mince words when he states: "My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice."

In an extraordinarily compelling fashion, Buffet reveals how the super rich get financial gifts from the government, while workers pick up the bill:

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It's nice to have friends in high places.

Last year my federal tax bill - the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf - was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income - and that's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

Indeed, it's the declining middle class that is paying for the lavish, gluttonous lifestyles of the rich and famous.

read more

TONY PEYSER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

People want
Their MTV
More than
Their GOP.

read more

TONY PEYSER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

read more

TONY PEYSER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

read more

TONY PEYSER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

read more

TONY PEYSER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

read more

TONY PEYSER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

People want

Their MTV

More than

Their GOP.

JACQUELINE MARCUS FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Ask your run-of-the-mill Republican candidate what's wrong with government and he or she will tell you that we can't keep "taxing and spending."  If you ask him or her to explain that position, you'll learn that government ought not to tax billionaires and it should eliminate regulations and entitlements and just about every decent social program that represents the bedrock principles of a civil society.  But you won't hear them tell it that way.

You will never hear elected Republicans say, for instance, that "the problem with government is that we're all bought and owned by some of the worst corporate industrialists, and, by golly, we don't give a good hoot about loyalty to the country.  In short, we're corrupt.  The lobbyists have made the government about as dysfunctional as it gets.  Yes sir, if you smell a rotten odor at all times through the halls of congress, that's just the smell of business as usual.  Sure, it's a problem for you-heh heh-but not for us."

So it is, but just for the sake of history, we should occasionally be reminded, that the constitutional role of elected officials is not to increase profits for corporations.

The President of the United States, Democratic or Republican, ought not to dishonor the highest office by becoming a sleazy salesman for the nuclear, oil and coal industries.   But that is the state of our government, and it would surprise no one to hear the President or a Senator talk about corporate profits when addressing the public:  When for example, the Presidential candidates become cheerleaders for the polluting energy companies, they could easily drop the pretenses in their speeches and announce: "I wish to express to the American people some good news. BP's profits just went up 20% even though the Gulf of Mexico is still a big oily toxic mess-profits are looking good!  And Shell was given the thumbs up to drill in the Arctic-so screw the dying polar bears, we're talking big profits, man!"

Increasing corporate profits for a minority of billionaires is what the corporate oligarchs expect from their chosen candidates.  As for the voters, we don't have anything to do with the selection process.

I don't know about anyone else, but I found it almost Twilight Zone-ish strange that Rep. Ron Paul was given zero attention on all the corporate networks, as if he were invisible, despite the fact that he came in second, just 200 votes shy of Bachmann's, without any media publicity, in the Iowa Ames Straw Poll.  Bachmann: 4,823 votes to Paul's 4,671 votes. Nevertheless, NBC Chuck Todd, David Gregory and invited pundits on the other news networks didn't even so much as mention Ron Paul's name.  Instead, they narrowed the Republican candidates down to Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry.   Romney and Perry were way behind Ron Paul, but you'd never know that by the Sunday talk shows.

A few campaign points have made Ron Paul popular among Republican libertarians and they've also caught the attention of some Democratic voters: 1) his call to end the Middle East costly military occupation, which would save billions of dollars a month, 2) he's described the war on drugs a waste of billions of tax dollars that perpetuates a circle of violence, and 3) He's opposed to the intensive interrogation practices of torture on detainees and he believes habeas corpus should be restored.   But even though Ron Paul came in second place, he is unacknowledged by the corporate press.  Why? My guess is that congressman Paul hasn't been selected by the Koch brothers or the oil, coal and war oligarchs.  I'm not advocating support for Ron Paul in this commentary (he has some unsavory positions on race and other issues); I'm simply raising the question as to why the corporate media is deliberately ignoring Ron Paul when he beat Mitt Romney and Rick Perry by a long shot and was only 200 votes short of Michele Bachmann's votes?

Since the days of Reagan, Republicans more so than Democrats have been systemically wrecked the foundation of our middle class economy through decisions described in Naomi Klein's book, The Shock Doctrine,  known as disaster capitalism in which corporate oligarchs deliberately render our social and public services inept or at best dysfunctional.  Listen to Texas Governor Rick Perry and you'll hear the Koch brothers speaking through his mouth: "The problem is government!" It's their standard shtick line.  But beneath the rhetoric is a fifty year shock doctrine plan.

The ultimate goal, which is nearly achieved, is to blame everything on the government so that they can slash and burn environmental and Wall Street regulations, and entitlement programs to cinders and then proceed to Plan B: pave the way for "reforms" which is corporate code for reducing middle class incomes to a third world nation of sweathouse factories, low wages, no safety protections and no benefits. As for global warming, when people are starving, the industrial polluters can get away with committing crimes against nature and humanity from coast to coast.

The oligarchs have bought legislators on both aisles.  Together, they've rewritten tax and regulatory laws that benefit corporate CEOs.  Americans have no legal recourse in our courts or constitutional protections whatsoever.  Consider the Roberts Court as proof, specifically the five corporate Supreme Court Justices who've demonstrated time and again that protecting corporations is more important than protecting individuals who've been harmed by environmental abuses and unfair corporate working conditions.

Since the House and Senate are in the business of increasing profits for international corporations, federal and state public services of maintaining our infrastructure, post offices, health care systems, national wildlife parks, public schools, police and fire departments, conservation agencies-are of no consequence.  Funding for the military is actually funding for the private corporate weapon contractors who have stolen billions of dollars over the course of ten years from the tax payers.  Our soldiers, veterans and vet hospitals are in shambles, a state of moral and physical deterioration that is unconscionable.  If you want to hear how a good number of soldiers feel about this occupation, see the film, The Ground Truth.

Those who've traveled through poor countries have seen the results of disaster capitalism at work when government services are reduced to dysfunctional bureaus in crumbling buildings, when there are no taxes to rebuild eroded roads, and when industries pollute the water and air with impunity, or when people are forced to work under intolerable conditions for a couple dollars a day.

What the corporatists don't see from the balcony of luxury hotels is the sprawling ugly face of poverty at every turn; it is the face of "disaster capitalism" when there is no longer a fair mixture between social services and decent incomes that create a strong middle class, when wealth is horded by a few billionaire oligarchs to such a disastrous extent that it inevitably explodes into uprisings and violent riots aimed at overthrowing a corrupt government, as we're currently witnessing in London and in the Middle East.

For 50 years, members of the House and Senate have practiced disaster capitalism.  Consequently, we are now a thin line away from becoming a third world nation.

As for the corporate media's sweetheart, Michele Bachmann, who is given all the press attention and then some, I'll end with Naomi Klein's warning:

"This fundamentalist form of capitalism has consistently been midwifed by the most brutal forms of coercion, inflicted on the collective body politic as well as on countless individual bodies...These fundamentalist doctrines cannot coexist with other belief systems, their followers deplore diversity and demand an absolute free hand to implement their fifty-year campaign for total corporate liberation." And that means virtual slavery for everyone else.

read more

Strangely, as the Republican presidential nominating process heats up it seems ever more boring and inconsequential. Choosing from a slate of candidates who could be participants in a remake of the movie Dumb and Dumber and who repeat talking points that lack substance makes for infantile political speechifying.

We have reached a sorry place when Facebook becomes the ultimate point of reference for politicians trying to out-maneuver opponents. After interviews in which someone has flubbed a question or feels slighted by a member of the media or a party spokesperson the answer apparently is to whip off a tweet or blog a new version of themselves in which they hope to erase the negative impression they have created in previous appearances. It is emblematic of the sad state of our language and the absence of intelligent political discourse that Michele Bachman has managed to turn herself into a serious candidate, we are told, because she was smart enough to hire Ed Rollins not to educate her but to suppress her more inappropriate utterances.

More important, the absence of thoughtful deliberation about the country's most vital concerns is an indictment of an educational system run amok. It is reported that Iowa boasts a large number of home-schooled children and one can only imagine what they are being taught in a stronghold of evangelical practitioners and deficiently educated adults like Michele Bachman. What's more she and others like her seem not to be embarrassed by their lack of intellectual prowess and in fact appear almost to celebrate it.

In a world that constantly challenges long-held belief systems and exemplifies the increasingly diverse nature of our existence many of our political leaders have narrowed their vision and promote religious protocols they hope to incorporate into the affairs of government. Every time I hear a prospective candidate or other pontificator celebrate their particular religious preference for Christianity with pronouncements supposedly from the lips of Jesus or God I imagine people of other faiths cringing as, at times, even fellow Christians might cringe as well.

It hardly matters that some of the dicta dragged up by 'true believers' to support a political position are not biblical truisms but are rather twisted versions of what they hope will be believed - - in effect turning their warped reading of religious texts into godly wisdom. And in its most disgusting incantation of all that is deemed holy about our social configuration it isn't enough that we are battered incessantly by those who would dictate how and what we should believe. Ann Coulter, who has managed to accomplish the feat of equating shallow word-smithing with intellect, has done it again with another poisonous tome to please the far right and, one suspects, to satisfy her own publicity- hungry ego. Having failed to define President Obama as a secret Muslim she now refers to him as a "secret Atheist." The smug self-righteous posture of Coulter and others on the right whose religious views promote intolerance and further division and meaningless controversy in pursuit of political agendas that distort the very nature of our better selves.

Currently the Republican ranks are filled with joy at the prospect of Governor Perry adding his name to the list of presidential hopefuls. Bless his little evangelical heart he led a prayer meeting to encourage attendees to plead their case for the safety and advancement of our national condition before the Almighty. Perry represents a threat to Michele Bachman's hold on the religious base of the party because he appeals to the same groups. Meanwhile Mitt Romney struggles to keep up with the evangelical tone of the right wing, but he seems capable of assuming any position that meets the needs of the electorate he must address even if he is late to the party so to speak. Former Governor Pawlenty repeats Republican harangues about repealing the estate tax and ataxes on passive income, the usual desperate wails of conservatives who aren't clear about where the funds to support education, the infrastructure and endless war are to be found.

Reports about Texas job production are said to be the strong appeal of Perry but questions about what jobs and what pay workers receive remain. The electorate may be expected to believe that prayer and 'Christian values" will save our republic from its destructive inclinations. Ho, ho and hum.

How radical and cultish are the declared Republican candidates for president?

The answer is clear from a question that came 48 minutes into the FOX sponsored Iowa "debate" on Thursday.

According to a TIME magazine blog of the event, the moderator, FOX's Bret Baier, asked "everyone to raise their hand if they would oppose a debt deal that offered $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. Everyone raises their hand, though Pawlenty's hand bobs up and down a bit."

In one infamous moment of ignorant and cowardly group-think the radical and destructive financially anarchistic outlook of the GOP was revealed.

"No new taxes (or really no taxes)" has been the lynch mob call to arms (and votes) for national Republican candidates for years, but it has reached a feverish and pernicious pitch.

Think about it, all the GOP candidates for the presidency (and Rick Perry and Sarah Palin would have held their hands up too, you can be sure), would turn down, let's say, a trillion in cuts in federal spending if they had to also vote for just 1/10th of that amount in tax increases on millionaires and billionaires.

The rational responses to this craven tomfoolery are too numerous to detail in a short commentary. Suffice it to say, the anti-tax mantra has become a political/religious symbol that defies logic or common sense. In a time when the nation is beset by enormous financial problems, it is a placebo pill that removes the challenge of finding multi-faceted and inventive solutions to an immensely complex problem.

By raising their hands in unison in opposition to a modest increase in taxes on the most wealthy, big oil, and hedge funds (because that is whom a $1 in tax increases for $10 in revenue would likely affect), the GOP candidates affirmed themselves as snake oil salesmen. And snake oil doesn't' cure anything; it only enriches the person selling it (or in this case, might help them attain the power to run America).

As the TIME blog noted at 121 minutes into the exchange in Iowa, "Baier mercifully ends it all."

But unfortunately, it was only the debate that concluded. The long delusional nightmare for America continues.

******

If you'd like to receive these commentaries daily from Truthout/BuzzFlash, click here. You'll get our choice headlines and articles too.

read more

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

So, what was Mitt Romney thinking when he responded to hecklers at the Iowa State Fair with the declaration that "corporations are people"?

He was proudly reconfirming the Citizens United decision and the Supreme Court view that corporations indeed share the rights of citizens.

Who will Romney call when he is in need of a friend's advice if he were president, GE?

Carol King many years ago wrote the popular song, "You've Got a Friend":

When you're down and troubled
And you need some loving care
And nothing, nothing is going right
Close your eyes and think of me
And soon I will be there
To brighten up even your darkest night

You just call out my name
And you know wherever I am
I'll come running to see you again
Winter, spring, summer or fall
All you have to do is call
And I'll be there
You've got a friend

How could large corporations that purposefully abandon Americans in need of work - in the pursuit of profit - be a friend?

Romney made his fortune, in part, by downsizing companies and putting US workers on unemployment.

Corporations aren't people; they are private institutions that are created for the financial benefit of owners and stockholders. They are large institutions that value money over people.

Maybe Romney has a shot of bourbon at night and socializes with his stock certificates. He must get a thrill out of cuddling up to his shares in - let's say - Wal-Mart or Goldman Sachs.

Because that's what friends are for: greed.

******

If you'd like to receive these commentaries daily from Truthout/BuzzFlash, click here. You'll get our choice headlines and articles too.

read more

TONY PEYSER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Nobody will say, “My god!”

When the pledge of allegiance is changed

To “One nation under iPod.”

read more

STEVE JONAS FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

According to an article in The New York Times by Manny Fernandez and Daniel Cadis (1): "Standing on a stage surrounded by more than 30,000 Christians on Saturday morning, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas called on Jesus Christ to bless and guide the nation's military and political leaders and 'those who cannot see the light in the midst of all the darkness,' in a brief but rousing sermon-style spiritual address at the controversial prayer rally that he sponsored at the same time that he is weighing whether to run for president. 'Lord, you are the source of every good thing,' Mr. Perry said, as he bowed his head, closed his eyes and leaned into a microphone at Reliant Stadium.

'You are our only hope and we stand before you today in awe of your power and in gratitude for your blessings, and humility for our sins. Father, our heart breaks for America. We see discord at home. We see fear in the marketplace. We see anger in the halls of government, and as a nation we have forgotten who made us, who protects us, who blesses us and for that we cry out for your forgiveness. . . .Like all of you, I love this country deeply,' he told the crowd. 'Thank you all for being here. Indeed, the only thing that you love more is the living Christ.' "

Fascinating stuff, but boy does it raise a lot of follow-up questions.  I have listed a few of them here.

1. How should we address you? Governor, Reverend, Reverend/Governor, Governor/Reverend? Help. I'm confused.

2. But gosh, in reference to the first question, since you are not ordained but known widely in Texas as a "preacher," is the title "Reverend" inappropriate in any case?  So when you are doing what you did on Aug. 6 in Houston, should it be "preacher," or possibly just "preach?"

3. Tell me, Gov., or Rev. or preacher, or whatever, just what kind of Christian are you? Pro-choice, anti-choice (and there are both among Christians, as you well know [but of course many of your followers don't or don't seem to]), anti-death penalty (like the recently deceased, Catholic, former Governor of New York, Hugh Carey) or pro-, believer in the trinity or not, believer in the necessity of baptism or not, believer in the rapture in which, apparently, only certain kinds of Christians will be "saved" while the rest, and certainly the rest of us who are not Christians of any kind, will dammed to hell for all eternity?

4. Since you are a Methodist, just where do stand on ballroom dancing, including the Texas Two-Step?

5. When you say "Lord, you are the source of every good thing," just which Lord are you talking about?  Is that the Christian Lord (and if so, given the characteristics the vast number of Christian denominations give to him/her/it there seem to be a bunch of them) the Jewish one (and there are a few different denominations of Jews too, with rather different concepts of God), or Muslim (and as I am sure you know, Islam has three major denominations, Sunni, Shiite and Sufi).  If one wants to believe you, they do have to know just which God you are talking about, don't they?

6. And while we are on that subject, what about that religion, one of the largest in the world, Hinduism --- you may have heard of it --- that believes that there are multiple Gods up there, or wherever.  And who knows, could the Gods not be Zeus, Athena, and Poseidon, et al, or the Aztec, Inca, or Egyptian equivalent of same?  Might not the question be, "Gods, you are the source of every good thing?" Of course, since no believers, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or what have you have ever been able to prove, other than always eventually falling back on "faith," that one or more God or Gods exist, as far as I as a Secular Humanist Jew am concerned there is/are none anyway.  But that's another story.

7. Then there is the matter of: "You are our only hope and we stand before you today in awe of your power and in gratitude for your blessings, and humility for our sins." A) If "God" (however you might define him, her, it, or them) is (are) our only hope and has power in front of which we should stand in awe, that doesn't give us much hope, does it.  After all, last April you led Texas in a three-day-long prayer for rain and rain didn't come.  Man, that must have been disappointing.  But I guess your approach would be "if at first you don't succeed, try, try again," no?  B)  How do you define "sin," and if your definition is different from mine, or even from that of another self-identified Christian, how do you go about reconciling them?

8. That last question is real important, Gov./Rev./preach.  In the 16th and 17th centuries Christians in Europe killed each by the hundreds of thousands over disagreements on the matter and related subjects of religious doctrine (and did so in the Near East in the 3rd and 4th centuries C.E. over something that you may or may not have heard of called the "Arian Controversy").  Boy, I dunno.  You do seem to be one of those "Christian Nation" types (see the next question).  How do we know that under that doctrine, were it take over, let's say, the US Constitutional government, that Christians of various types would not eventually be warring on each other over such matters, just as they did back then?  Things could get very messy, don't you think?

9. One of your supporting Revs. (blocking on his name right now), has said that the First Amendment to the Constitution (and I assume that, unlike Michele Bachmann who seems not to have, you have actually read it), applies only to Christians.  What is your position on that unique (at least I've never heard that one before, but I must admit that I do not attend the church or churches in which it is proclaimed) Constitutional interpretation?

10. And the what about another one of your dear old supporters, the Rev. Hagee, who holds that the holocaust was God's way of forcing the Jews out of Europe to Palestine, to prepare the way to Armageddon and the rapture (which, unfortunately would not benefit any of them), and that the murders of the six million by the Nazis and their allies which just an unfortunate by-product of that policy?  Oh yes, he also considers Catholics to be less than dirt.  Do you think that the word "Christian" subsumes the "Catholic?"  And while we're on this subject of who is a Christian and who isn't, some (right-wing) evangelical Christians like yourself consider Mormonism to be a cult.  Especially since two of your potential rivals for the GOP Presidential nomination (to say nothing of the present Senate Majority Leader) are Mormons, where do you stand on that one?

11. Finally, Rev./Gov./what have you, in 1996 there was a book published entitled The New Americanism: A Political History of American Fascism, 2001-2022. (If you might be interested, Gov., you can find it on Amazon and archived at read more

BILL BERKOWITZ FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Marvin Olasky, the 'godfather of compassionate conservatism'  claims that Gingrich went soft during President Bill Clinton's impeachment hearings in order to save his own hide.

He was once dubbed the "godfather of compassionate conservatism," which, while heavy on the conservatism, wasn't all that compassionate. Now, instead of dropping Norquistian-type bombs on a tattered social safety net that he helped rip to shreds, Marvin Olasky has decided play hardball with Newt Gingrich's presidential ambitions.

Back in the late 1990's, when then-Texas Governor George W. Bush was making his run for the presidency, he adopted a phrase Team Bush thought would soften his brand and appeal to moderate voters; "compassionate conservatism." Although some in the chatterati have argued over who was responsible for coming up with the term (in 1979, Doug Wead, a former advisor to George H.W. Bush and counselor to Dubya, gave a speech titled "The Compassionate Conservative"), much of the credit has gone to Marvin Olasky.

Olasky, currently the editor of the conservative evangelical weekly magazine World, sealed the deal in 2000 when his book titled Compassionate Conservatism: What it is, What it Does, and How it Can Transform America, was published.

Even at its height, however, "compassionate conservatism" was never really about compassion, especially for the least among us. At the heart of Olasky's argument was an anti-government animus that maintained that the federal government and state governments should play less of a role in supporting a social safety net, and instead, that role should shift to local charities and faith-based institutions.

Well, it's more than a decade later and there's little in the way of "compassion" left in the conservative movement. So little in fact, it has caused Olasky, along with Watergate felon Chuck Colson and others to criticize the Ayn Randian druthers of the Tea Party/Republican Party. For now, however, Olasky has put his old friend Newt Gingrich in the crosshairs.

By now, anyone paying even the slightest bit of attention to the GOP's presidential sweepstakes knows that Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign is going nowhere. He may hang in there to sell a few more books and DVDs, but for all practical purposes, it's curtains for Newt.

In the June 18 edition of World magazine, Marvin Olasky piled on -- adding the triple exclamation point to the revolting developments that have surrounded Gingrich's run for the presidency -- by rehashing the story of Gingrich's shrinking role during Bill Clinton's impeachment hearings.

The World article, titled "Has Newt Gingrich changed?" (http://www.worldmag.com/articles/18131), has been largely overlooked by the mainstream media; it was brought to my attention by a recent Esquire column by John H. Richardson. In "Has Newt Gingrich changed?" Olasky claimed that during Bill Clinton's impeachment hearings, the then Speaker of the House met with President Clinton, and Clinton intimated that he knew about Gingrich's indiscretions and would use them if Gingrich got overly involved during the impeachment process.

By way of introducing Olasky's Gingrich story, Richardson pointed to the interview he did last year with Gingrich's former second wife, Marianne -- her first since Gingrich had "dumped her for another woman - the woman [Callista Bisek] who would become his much talked-about third wife and accompany him for his run for 2012" (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/marianne-gingrich-behind-the-scenes-081010).

Richardson pointed to a part of his interview with Marianne where she recounted a conversation she had with Newt about his having received a phone call from Clinton summoning him to the White House. Gingrich went to see Clinton - going in through "the back door to the Oval Office" - Newt recalled. Newt then told Marianne that "during that meeting, Bill Clinton said to me: 'You're a lot like me, and here's why.'" Marianne noted that, "he wasn't talking about another woman. He said he couldn't tell me. That's why he had to walk."

World teases Olasky's Gingrich story with a provocative sub-head: "Questions about the past: Did Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich have secret meetings prior to Clinton's impeachment hearings? How wide was the knowledge of Gingrich's extramarital affairs? Did Clinton know? Did Clinton's knowledge affect Gingrich's actions? The question for the present: What does Gingrich's conduct then, and the way he has dealt with it, tell us about him today?"

read more

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Why did the right wing react with such ferocity to the Newsweek cover that featured a photographic portrait of Michelle Bachmann with "crazy eyes"?

The Republicans have packaged candidates for TV for decades and know the importance that appearance has over substance. Progressives tend to laugh at Bachmann's outrageous inaccuracies (watch this video compilation for examples).

However, in the television age, how a candidate appears on TV in terms of confidence, presence and reassuring personal image is of extreme importance, whatever their factual errors and even ignorance. No television image packaging represented this more than the Reagan campaign and presidencies. Like Bachmann, off script Reagan was often laughably factually inaccurate.

Bachmann, in general, has a positive television presence, even when she is spouting whoppers such as stating that the Revolutionary War began in New Hampshire or mistaking John Wayne Gacy for John Wayne. To the reptilian lizard mind, she is generally emotionally appealing and upbeat in her packaged TV appearances. In fact, she has a much stronger TV presence than Sarah Palin, who makes even some of her followers a little bit nervous with her edgy twang and often fumbling interviews.

So, it's worthy of note that a recent MIT study reaffirmed the importance of appearance and personal chemistry on television:

Frequent TV viewers who don't get any kinds of other political news are the voters most likely to be influenced by a candidate's physical appearance, a new Massachusetts Institute of Technology study shows.

"Voters who watch a lot of television but don't really know much about the candidates besides how they look are particularly susceptible," Chappell Lawson, coauthor of the study, told MIT News.

In fact, among uninformed viewers, the study estimates that "there was a 5 percent increase in support for that [high television chemistry] candidate from uninformed voters who said they watch a lot of television." That's a significant advantage in any election.

That is why the radical supporters of Bachmann were upset that the Newsweek cover, which she posed for, took a chip out of her visual brand image. The MIT study "suggests that the effect of television remains present but diminishes as voter-information levels rise."

In short, ignorance is bliss for a Republican candidate when it comes to modern-day television campaigns. And Michele Bachmann is counting on a lot of that know-nothingness in Republican primary voters.

******

If you'd like to receive these commentaries daily from Truthout/BuzzFlash, click here. You'll get our choice headlines and articles too.

read more

NIKOLAS KOZLOFF FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

With a big question mark hanging over the health of Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez, many in Washington may see opportunity.  Though Chávez initially claimed that he was merely suffering from a "pelvic abscess," the firebrand leader subsequently conceded that he had cancer.  In a shock to the nation, Chávez announced that he had a tumor removed during a sojourn in Cuba, and that he would "continue battling."

Reporting over the past several weeks suggests that Chávez might be in worse shape than has been commonly let on.  Though he returned to Venezuela after his operation in Cuba, Chávez recently announced that he would pay yet another visit to Cuba in order to undergo chemotherapy.  The firebrand leader, however, still refuses to reveal what kind of cancer he has or its severity.  Ominously, one medical source reported to Reuters that Chávez's cancer had spread to the rest of his body and was in an advanced stage.

It's unclear how the president's shaky health might factor in the nation's upcoming 2012 election.  The populist leader, who has closely identified himself with the so-called "Bolivarian Revolution," has never shown much interest in grooming a successor within his own United Socialist Party of Venezuela or PSUV, and so if Chávez should falter it is easy to imagine a scenario in which much of his political project could unravel or be derailed by the right.

The Caracas Cables

Judging from U.S. State Department cables recently declassified by whistle-blowing outfit WikiLeaks, many American diplomats, including former ambassador in Caracas Charles Shapiro, would view this outcome as highly desirable.  In 2004, two years after the Bush administration aided the rightist opposition in its short-lived coup attempt against Chávez, Shapiro sat down with Alí Rodríguez, the head of Venezuela's state-run oil company PdVSA.

In light of Washington's meddling, Rodríguez might have assumed a bellicose attitude but according to correspondence the Venezuelan was courteous and unassuming.  Seeking to calm tensions, he urged a "dose of pragmatism."  Shapiro, however, shot back and complained of Chávez's alleged authoritarian streak as well as the president's verbal attacks against Bush and threats to suspend oil shipments to the U.S. Two months later, a "troubled" Shapiro warned his superiors that PdVSA, which had been involved in Chávez social programs, was in danger of becoming a "social welfare agency."

If another 2006 cable is any indication, there was no love lost between the U.S. embassy and Chávez.  In a lengthy rant, one diplomat noted "We have to maintain our careful restraint to the rhetorical provocations as well as a steady public diplomacy effort to offset Chávez' insidious effort to teach Venezuelans to hate us."

A full three years later, by now in the Obama era, U.S. officials openly complained of harassment.  The Venezuelans, claimed one diplomat, had called for new procedures which compromised the ability of embassy staff to receive classified escorted diplomatic pouches.  Things got so bad that at one point Venezuelan officials denied an embassy officer access to a classified diplomatic pouch at the airport.

The Americans responded hotly that "we were no longer in the 18th century and diplomatic correspondence required machines such as computers that would be compromised if they were at any time out of the control of our diplomatic personnel."  The Venezuelans countered that "the US did not extend privileges such as planeside access to foreign diplomatic couriers in the U.S." After a tense "standoff," the Venezuelans finally agreed to return the pouch uninspected.

The Kirchner Connection

Elsewhere in South America, U.S. diplomats monitored Venezuelan influence with relentless zeal.  "Chávez's outsized ambition," noted one official, "backed by petrodollars makes Venezuela an active and intractable U.S. competitor in the region."  In 2007, the Americans openly fretted that Chávez might upstage an upcoming Bush visit to Brazil, Uruguay and Colombia.  The Venezuelan, it was feared, could stir up anti-American sentiment by flying to Buenos Aires where he could count on sympathetic allies.

"Venezuela's embassies abroad actively promote, fund, and guide left-wing Bolivarian circles of persons sympathetic to Chávez' anti-American foreign policy," noted one diplomat, adding that "Chávez has almost certainly asked Venezuelan embassies in the region to generate protests against the President's visit, just as his government organizes such protests at home." According to "sensitive reporting," the Caracas embassy believed that Chávez was "providing direct support to organize anti-American protests in Buenos Aires."

Argentina, under the stewardship of President Néstor Kirchner, was of particular concern to the Americans.  Though Kirchner had sought out a "more independent line," the peronist politician nevertheless followed an economic strategy that envisioned closer commercial and financial ties to Chávez.  Also worrying was Kirchner's growing military collaboration with Chávez, with Venezuelan officers having a "presence" in the Argentine Army and Air War Colleges.  What is more, the Venezuelans even briefed the Argentines on the concept of "asymmetric warfare."

Southern Cone Conundrum

Over in neighboring Brazil, the Americans were also paranoid about Chávez's rising influence.  In response to a detailed questionnaire sent by the State Department, U.S. ambassador to Brazil John Danilovich warned his superiors that Luiz Inácio "Lula" da Silva's Workers' Party had organized a "Simon Bolívar Action Group" in solidarity with Venezuela.  Moreover, members of Brazil's landless movement, known by the Portuguese acronym MST, traveled to Venezuela where they reportedly met with Chávez personally.

In addition, Danilovich and his associates were concerned about the Venezuelan ambassador in Brazil, a diplomat who was involved in drumming up support for Chávez's Bolivarian Revolution.  In 2003, Danilovich devoted considerable time in tracking the Venezuelan's movements and activities in and around Brasilia.  The paranoia over Chávez was so pronounced that Danilovich even saw fit to draw his superiors' attention to a University of São Paulo conference which discussed the Bolivarian Revolution.

Chávez however faced a very different political reception elsewhere in the Southern Cone.  In theory, noted U.S. diplomats, Chilean socialist president Michele Bachelet had "a certain ideological sympathy" for Chávez, but on the other hand she was "also a pragmatist who recognizes that Chile's successful free market economic policies and stable democratic political model is preferable to what Chávez offers."  In 2007, U.S. diplomats reported that Chilean Army Intelligence was actively monitoring the Venezuelan Embassy in Santiago and keeping tabs on Chávez's funding of Bolivarian and leftist groups.

In Chile, however, the Americans were worried about Venezuelan influence.  They were in fact so concerned that they followed the arrival in Santiago of one Aram Aharonian, the executive vice president of TV channel Telesur.  In 2005 Aharonian [who I discuss in more detail in my book] traveled to Chile to promote his station, which had received funding from the Venezuelan government.  In other cables, U.S. officials clearly saw themselves in a media and propaganda war with Chávez who they viewed as an ideological threat.

Even in tiny Uruguay, U.S. diplomats intently monitored what Chávez was up to.  Though Venezuela's influence was "not yet great," officials fretted that Chávez "shouldn't be underestimated.  Money talks [and] democratic institutions in the region are still weak and free market economics have yet to provide consistent solutions to the Southern Cones social and political ills."  In a paranoid aside designed no doubt to raise the red flag in Washington, the Americans noted that President Tabaré Vázquez's security detail was run by his brother Jorge, himself a former guerrilla fighter who allegedly recruited leftists from a local labor union.  The service agents were then trained in Caracas or Havana.

Diplomats added that "it is clear we need more (and more flexible) resources and tools to counter Chávez's efforts to assume greater dominion over Latin America at the expense of U.S. leadership and interests."  Though Uruguayan president Tabaré Vázquez was a centrist, Chávez was poised to make political inroads in the country because Uruguay had a heavy debt burden and no known hydrocarbon deposits.  "As such," diplomats explained, "Venezuelan oil and money could prove tempting as part of a bid to boost the economy."

read more

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

BuzzFlash at Truthout proposed the other day that corporations should have their taxes increased to the highest possible level. But they could reduce those taxes dramatically: by proving that they have created jobs in any tax year and getting a tax credit for each new position.

There's only one very significant catch: the jobs must be created in the US, not overseas. If employers maintain their current workforce in America, they would also receive a tax credit. If businesses move jobs overseas, their taxes get raised higher depending upon the percentage of their workforce that is offshored.

Sounds like a sensible proposal. Create jobs in America and pay fewer taxes; move jobs overseas and pay higher taxes. Now this is where the rubber meets the road in determining who is really a domestic "job creator."

There is ample evidence that increased tax breaks for large corporations lead to two primary things: 1) expanding their workforce overseas, and 2) reducing their employees in the US and sitting on the profits. The stagnating unemployment crisis in the US is a testament to that.

An article in the Atlantic magazine from earlier this year provided ample evidence of this. Entitled "The Rise of the New Global Elite," it included the real "job creator" outlooks of the American global corporations. It noted the perspective of a US-based CEO:

The U.S.-based CEO of one of the world's largest hedge funds told me that his firm's investment committee often discusses the question of who wins and who loses in today's economy. In a recent internal debate, he said, one of his senior colleagues had argued that the hollowing-out of the American middle class didn't really matter. "His point was that if the transformation of the world economy lifts four people in China and India out of poverty and into the middle class, and meanwhile means one American drops out of the middle class, that's not such a bad trade," the CEO recalled.

Similar sentiments abound in the article. Thomas Wilson, the CEO of Allstate put it bluntly: "I can get [workers] anywhere in the world. It is a problem for America, but it is not necessarily a problem for American business ... American businesses will adapt."

No, large American corporations are not creating jobs in the United States to any great extent, nor will they in the future.

They should be taxed to the fullest extent possible until they start producing employment here in the USA.

read more

ROBERT CREAMER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Standard and Poors' downgrading of the US treasury bills - and its sanctimonious lecture about its "concerns" that the U.S. won't get its fiscal house in order - are like a reckless, drag-racing teenager teaching a safe driving class.

Wall Street in general - and Standard and Poors in particular - have done more to contribute to America's budget deficit than anyone else in America.

This is the same firm that maintained their AAA rating of the mortgage-backed securities that were being used to gamble on Wall Street right up until the time that Lehman Brothers collapsed and set off the global market meltdown.

Their reckless disregard for any modicum of due diligence in determining the soundness of the financial instruments traded by Wall Street allowed the speculative bubble that caused the Great Recession to grow and ultimately explode.  The US Gross Domestic Product has yet to recover to pre-meltdown levels.   That is the single greatest contributor to the all of the increases in the budget deficit that have happened since.

And of course it is directly responsible for the jobs deficit that is the real underlying disease afflicting the American economy - directly costing eight million Americans their jobs.

But that's not all.  The big Wall Street banks lobbied for years to deregulate their operations.  That lack of oversight - including lax regulations of rating agencies like Standard and Poors -- led directly to the meltdown. And, of course, the big Wall Street banks did everything that they could to stop the Wall Street Reform bill that passed last year.  They continue to work hard to undermine the regulations intended to implement it.

And when it comes time to pay their fair share to reduce the deficit, Wall Street has done everything it can to lower tax rates on the rich to the lowest levels since before the Great Depression. Let's remember that the people with the highest incomes in America - hedge fund managers - pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries do - just 15%.

All the while as they pontificate about the need to get America's fiscal house in order, they twist arms to make sure that people like hedge fund manager John Paulson - who made $5 billion in income last year (that's $2.4 million an hour) - don't have to pay higher taxes.   Paulson had more income last year than the Gross Domestic Product of five nations.

Just a little over ten years ago, America had budget surpluses into the foreseeable future.  That was largely because President Clinton and the Democrats voted in 1993 to modestly increase taxes on wealthy Americans. Wall Street worked hard to roll back those modest tax increases on the rich by passing the Bush tax cuts ten years later.  Those Bush tax cuts,  together with two unpaid-for wars and an unpaid-for Republican Medicare pharmaceutical bill - tipped the Federal budget into huge deficits.

read more