Electronic Pen

ROBERT KANE PAPPAS FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

I have to meet with a Wall Street friend later today - partly to
seek funding for my latest documentary - and I am going to wear a suit. Usually, I come as I dress, which is casual; but today I am going to put on a suit, just in case I decide to join the demonstration.

read more

A BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT NEWS ALERT

Washington DC - On September 27, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) released the following statement in response to a just released letter written by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, that called for an extensive, burdensome investigation of Planned Parenthood Federation of America and 83 of its affiliates despite regular state and federal audits that have shown no evidence of misuse of funds.

"With the recent announcement of their needless and politically motivated investigation of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, House Republicans continue to make their extreme agenda clear: to undermine women's access to reproductive health care and attack the health providers they rely on in their communities.

read more

STEVEN JONAS FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Your current leading candidate for the GOTP (read Grand Old/Tea Party, they are inseparable) nomination for President is Gov.(Rev.) Rick Perry of Texas. Among many other things, the preacher (1) is also a "carrier." In Tex-lingo (actually in southern/southwestern lingo generally) "carrier" means that the person is carrying, or might be carrying, a concealed weapon (usually loaded). The governor has stated (boasted) that he "carries" a .380 Ruger pistol (2) decorated with the etching of a coyote to commemorate the little member of that species that the governor shot last year while out on a morning jog. The gun is described on its website as "one of the best concealed carry firearms for anyone needing a small-frame semi-automatic pistol that can easily fit in a pocket, purse, briefcase, etc." The governor's has a laser sight (you know, the one you see in the movies that puts a dot of red light on its targets) and is loaded with hollow-point bullets (designed to do maximum damage to human flesh, if it encounters some).

The governor is a strong supporter of "Second Amendment rights," the version that distorts the literal meaning of the Amendment to mean the unlimited individual "right to bear arms" without any limitations whatsoever. (This could in theory lead to the private ownership of tanks (3), but no one ever seems to want to engage the NRA on that one.)That's an interesting argument when one examines the plain language of the Amendment (3): "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." Along with Justice Scalia, you might be surprised to know, I happen to be a big fan of strict constructionism when interpreting the Constitution. (Of course Scalia honors that commitment only in the breach, but that's another story.) The Amendment is somewhat ambiguous to be sure. But in reading its plain language, it is quite obvious that it can mean only one of two things. One, it provides a right to the people, in the protection of the free state, to form well-regulated militias. Or two, it provides to individuals the right to bear arms, in a well-regulated system for the protection of the free state.

read more

TONY PEYSER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

This right wing guy can stand up to Obama
I admit that without any hesitancy
But Vladimir Putin (tough break for the GOP)
Has issues with birth & residency.

read more

PAUL BUCHHEIT FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

We've heard the working class complain
that billionaires don't pay their share.
With indignation and disdain
the spokesmen for the rich declare:

"Quit soaking us, quit gouging us,
don't redistribute all our wealth,
for who are you to raise a fuss
and say we took it all in stealth?

"We've prospered, to a great degree,
through deft financial strategy.
We innovate, we oversee,
negotiate and referee.

"We offer opportunity,
we pay the worker's salary,
we're masters of philanthropy,
we're Vanderbilt and Carnegie.

"Oh sure, the poor have had a spell
of living with a smaller share,
but mostly it's the ne'er-do-well
relying on his Medicare,

"and education, housing, health,
and all the goodies on his list --
you're taking, frankly, all our wealth
to give it to a socialist.

read more

BILL BERKOWITZ FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

The subtext of a recent article criticizing progressive researchers, writers and journalists for their work on Dominionism, Christian Reconstructionism, and the New Apostolic Reformation appears to be a not-so-subtle message to Jewish critics of the Religious Right: "Don't rock the boat."

While it's not as big a kerfuffle as Rupert Murdoch's hacking scandal, and doesn't measure up to the hubbub over whether the nude photos of Scarlett Johansson that recently appeared on the Internet are actually Scarlett Johansson, nevertheless there's a political sideshow in development involving Republican Party presidential candidates and their right-wing religious allies.

The essence of the matter is this: A number of conservative writers and political pundits have taken to attacking left-wing investigative reporters, researchers and journalists over their reporting about Dominionism, Christian Reconstructionism and the New Apostolic Reformation - three little-known theological and ideological movements gaining ground on the Christian Right.

The subtext of a recent contribution to this newly minted genre appears to be a not-so-subtle message to Jewish writers, researchers and critics of the Religious Right: "Don't rock the boat."

In a recent edition of USA Today, Mike I. Pinsky, a self-described "left-wing Democrat," jumped on board the Stop-Picking-On-Dominionists bandwagon with a column titled "The Truth About Evangelicals."
Thus Pinsky, a former religion writer for the Orlando Sentinel and Los Angeles Times, and the author of A Jew Among the Evangelicals: A Guide for the Perplexed, joined such conservative luminaries as the always-in-comeback-mode Ralph Reed (think Jack Abramoff scandal), Michael Gerson, and Ross Douthat, and Lisa Miller, a religion writer at The Washington Post, in claiming that progressive researchers are spreading paranoid tropes about the religious beliefs of some of the Republican Party's presidential candidates, most notably Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Pinsky's defense of so-called common-sense all-American evangelism (the non-theocratic kind) contains a number of well-worn claims including: a) most Christian evangelicals have no idea what Dominionism, Christian Reconstructionism or the New Apostolic Reformation are; b) the paranoid left is overstating its case; c) some of the figures named by critics are "marginal," citing David Barton and John Hagee as examples; and finally, d) Jews need to be careful about "demonizing" Christians.

read more

WALTER BRASCH FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

A former managing editor for an online newspaper, OpEdNews, has sued the city of Philadelphia and eight of its police officers for violating her Constitutional rights.

Cheryl Biren-Wright, Pennsauken, N.J., charges the defendants with violating her 1st, 4th, and 14th amendment rights. The civil action, filed in the U.S. District Court, Philadelphia, is based upon her arrest during a peaceful protest Sept. 12, 2009, at the Army Experience Center (AEC) in the Franklin Mills Mall.

According to the complaint, Biren-Wright, who was not a part of the demonstration but at the mall as a reporter-photographer, was arrested and charged with failure to disperse and conspiracy, second degree misdemeanors. The charges were subsequently dropped by the Philadelphia district attorney.

read more

TONY PEYSER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Rick Perry should soon meet with reporters
Quietly sigh, then take a meaningful breath
Before explaining how gerrymandering was
More humane than putting them all to death.

MARK KARLIN, BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Beyond the emotional punch in the gut of Troy Davis' execution - and the echoing cheers of a GOP debate audience for Rick Perry killing so many people - it is worth remembering the role of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in the Davis affair.

Because it was during an appeal to the Supreme Court in 2009 on behalf of Davis that Scalia - and BuzzFlash is not making this up - actually wrote a dissenting opinion that there was nothing in the Constitution that prevented a state from executing an innocent man (or woman).

How does BuzzFlash at Truthout know this?

Because we did a commentary back then on Scalia's jaw-dropping constitutional assertion when the decision was rendered. (The Supreme Court ordered a Georgia court to allow Davis to present new evidence.)

In that 2009 commentary, we quoted from Scalia's dissent:

This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is "actually" innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged "actual innocence" is constitutionally cognizable.

If the Constitution doesn't protect us from being executed even if we are innocent, then, Houston, we have a fundamental problem of human rights in America.

Scalia is considered by some to be a "brilliant legal mind," but there is nothing brilliant about authorizing the murder of innocent people.

****

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

ROBERT C. KOEHLER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

The old order and the old integrity slowly collapse, but the statues remain, and the words. How odd they sound:

"The founder of the University of Chicago, John D. Rockefeller, on December 13, 1910, made provision for the erection of this chapel and thus defined its purpose: As the spirit of religion should penetrate and control the university, so that building which represents religion ought to be the central and dominant feature of the university group. Thus it will be proclaimed that the university is dominated by the spirit of religion. All its departments are inspired by religious feeling, and all its work is directed to the highest ends."

Well, hmm. This was the 19th century's religion, of course. Its patriarchal God presided over empire and scientific progress and the Industrial Age, but even still - no matter how many passionate arguments I've had with this God over the course of my lifetime - I was struck, on this beautiful fall afternoon in Chicago, as I stood in the vestibule of Rockefeller Chapel with my out-of-town guests, by this God's absence in contemporary public life. The regulating force is gone and we're spinning, it seems, out of control.

I say this fully aware that the God etched in Rockefeller's granite condoned racism, colonialism, war, genocide, the exploitation of the Third World and the conquest of nature, all to vicious future consequence. And that future is now.

But the old integrity, however flawed, was a force that monitored the economy, spread prosperity to large numbers of people, generated a middle class and kept greed and criminal corruption under wraps. The old integrity valued the public sector and presided over democracy. It built a nation that was a beacon of hope to the world.

In its void, we're reeling toward our ecological and political comeuppance in a state of narcissistic denial; there is too little public seriousness about the issues that face us.

"As the spirit of religion should penetrate and control the university . . ."

The very oddness of these words awoke in me an urgent longing for their updated replacement: for a God, a belief system, compassionately attuned to the natural world, whose worship breaks down borders, savors truth and celebrates our equality and interdependence. Let such a spirit penetrate and control . . . Congress, the White House, the foreign policy establishment, the state houses and the media.

What we must build is unprecedented: a truly humane world. This won't happen in a state of cynical separation from one another. This is not, as you may have noticed, the world we are actually building. We wage war and business in the same old ways, with a reckless determination to replicate the triumphant past, but it's not working. Every failure ups the ante and fuels our determination not to change course.

"With the hubris that marks empires over the millennia, Washington has increased its troops in Afghanistan to 100,000, expanded the war into Pakistan, and extended its commitment to 2014 and beyond, courting disasters large and small in this guerrilla-infested, nuclear-armed graveyard of empires," Alfred McCoy wrote in The Nation last December.

read more

TONY PEYSER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Many people maintain that News Corp
Will never again fly right;
It makes his having bought Hitler's diaries
Look like a career highlight.

read more

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Consider my future Social Security checks "earned benefits" because I worked toward my retirement. That's true of all Americans who actually labor for a living.

Just yesterday, Paul Ryan - maybe looking for a vice presidential spot - curried some favor with Rick Perry by agreeing with him that Social Security is a "Ponzi scheme."

Before dismissing the rhetoric as over the top, it's important to remember that a lie repeated five times becomes perceived as the truth by many people, particularly if they watch Fox for their "news."

So, it was encouraging, while traveling through the jungle of Facebook, to come across someone who proudly proclaimed that Social Security was based on "earned benefits, not entitlements."

After all, "entitlements" best describe what the wealthy and their political advocates believe is due them; the "entitlement" to inherit as much money as possible and to make off with as big a slice of America's economic pie as possible. To argue that you deserve to be gluttonously wealthy because your mommy or daddy made a fortune selling short in the stock market, now that's an "entitlement."

But for 99 percent of the citizens in the United States, we work for our retirement income. We earn the benefits of Social Security; we don't inherit them.

The "Ponzi scheme" took place on Wall Street, not Main Street.

******

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

It didn't last very long and, to be honest, it never was quite as robust as its supporters claimed it was. There was no official obituary, no eulogies rendered, no elegies written, no Requiem Mass held, and no panegyric was delivered on television or to a joint session of Congress. In the end, "compassionate conservative" passed with a whimper, not a bang.

In the late nineties, and in the early part of this century, "compassionate conservatism" became a bellwether term for conservatives. Some on the right criticized the use of the phrase, arguing that conservatism is by its very nature compassionate and therefore there was no need to put any modifier in front of it. Others - especially those running the presidential campaign of George W. Bush -- saw the phrase as political gold.

While the origin of "compassionate conservatism" is still in question - some say it was longtime conservative advisor Doug Wead who coined the term, others credit Marvin Olasky with, if not coming up with it, at least popularizing it -  there is no doubt that it softened the public's perception of modern day conservatism.  That softening, along with the much bigger boost given Bush by the U.S. Supreme Court -- helped paved the way for his entrance to the White House in 2000.

Even at the height of its usage, "compassionate conservatism" wasn't ever really about a heck of a lot of compassion. It was more about branding and the selling of a presidential candidate.

At the heart of Team Bush-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 social safety net programs, and instead, that role should shift to local charities and faith-based organizations.

While there has been no grand funeral, no flags at half-mast, no wake and no tear-filled remembrances, consider compassionate conservatism dead and buried. Practically non-existent since the election of Barack Obama and the rise of the Tea Party, some final nails in the compassionate conservatism coffin may have been delivered during two recent Republican Party presidential debates.

The issues in question were the death penalty and health care.

Although many in this country continue to support the death penalty, a discussion of it rarely yields hoots and hollers from either side. However, that changed during the September 7 presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California.

As the editors of The New Republic recently pointed out:

"It was an ugly moment ... when the discussion turned to the death penalty. 'Governor Perry, a question about Texas,' moderator Brian Williams began. 'Your state has executed two-hundred thirty-four death-row inmates, more than any other governor in modern times.' Suddenly, Williams was interrupted by an outburst of applause and cheers from the audience. The point being made by the Republican spectators could not have been clearer: The death penalty was not just a policy they favored. It was something to celebrate. And Rick Perry's answer to the question was about as thoughtful as the audience's reaction. 'I've never struggled with that at all,' he said-a boast that was especially unsettling because Texas almost certainly executed an innocent man, Cameron Todd Willingham, on Perry's watch."

Williams asked Perry why the audience applauded when he'd mentioned the 234 executions. "I think Americans understand justice," Perry said.

As Financial Times columnist Jurek Martin recently observed,

"Compassionate conservatism, W's 2000 campaign slogan, is definitely not his [Perry's] style, because it has gone out of style among Republicans. He has no problem calling social security a Ponzi scheme, evolution an unproven theory and President Barack Obama a liar because that is the lingua franca of the rugged individualist of today."

At the CNN-Tea Party Express September 12 debate in Tampa, Florida, Wolf Blitzer posed a hypothetical question about health care to Ron Paul, an obstetrician and Texas congressman:

Wolf Blitzer: "You're a physician, Ron Paul. So you're a doctor, you know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question. A healthy, 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, 'you know what, I'm not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance, because I'm healthy. I don't need it.' But you know, something terrible happens. All of a sudden, he needs it. Who's going to pay for it if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?"

Ron Paul: "In a society [where] you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him."

Blitzer: "But what do you want?"

Paul: "What he should do is whatever he wants to do and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would [be to] have a major medical policy but not be forced -"

Blitzer: "But he doesn't have it. He doesn't have it and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?"

Paul: "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody -"

Blitzer: "But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?"

Paul: "No. I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school.  I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio , and the churches took care of them.  We never turned anybody away from the hospitals."

Reports vary on what happened after Paul answered "No." While it is clear that someone in the audience yelled out a hearty "yes" as an answer to Blitzer's  "are you saying that society should just let him die?" And while some may have cheered, it was the response of only a few. Mostly the audience remained silent.

Perhaps even more chilling than the hoo-ha over "the die or not die"  hypothetical was Paul's answer to America's health care crisis: "... we've given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it."

It is clear that "compassionate conservatism' has outlived its usefulness for Republican party candidates. The new catchphrase? "Cutthroat Conservatism."

read more

Recently, the Benton Harbor City Council - governed under the authoritarian emergency financial manager appointed by Tea Party Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder - passed a resolution to honor the US Constitution the week of September 17.

The emergency financial manager for Benton Harbor declared, in the spring, that the Benton Harbor City Council could only do three things: call meetings to order, approve minutes and adjourn meetings. As a result, the state-appointed manager of Benton Harbor declared the city council resolution honoring the US Constitution as null and void.

As Rachel Maddow pointed out in a September 19 commentary, there is a frightening irony in "elected officials not being allowed to honor the Constitution because they've been overruled by an appointed overseer who nobody voted for."

In April of 2011, BuzzFlash at Truthout wrote a commentary entitled "Tea Party Michigan Governor Rick Snyder Adopts Soviet-style Authoritarian Powers Over Michigan Cities."

Maybe the emergency financial manager for Benton Harbor will force the Benton Harbor City Council, chosen by the voters, to follow the Politburo books of rules and orders.

******

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

President Obama has just declared that he will veto any deficit reduction bill that does not include taxes on the wealthy.

In response, the Republicans trotted out their main "Friday the 13th" talking point that they have used since the beginning of the Reagan era: "The president is engaging in class warfare."

Anticipating the GOP "round up the usual sound bite when it comes to the wealthy paying their fair share for democracy" strategy, Obama declared, "This is not class warfare: it's math."

Given that the Republican Party - with an infrastructure of think tanks, lobbyists and corporate media supported by corporate America and the likes of the Koch brothers - has been conducting a war of attrition on the US middle class for years, it is hard to digest such brazen hypocrisy.

As Andy Ostroy, who is posted regularly on BuzzFlash at Truthout observes:

It's time the rich stop whining about class warfare and start paying their fair share of taxes to pay for this country's essential services and to help reduce its debt. How about we borrow from Sen. John McCain and piggyback the millionaire's tax with the slogan, "America First." The nation's rich needs to stop thinking about their own pocketbooks for a second and show some concern for the country in which they've amassed their colossal wealth.

If the Obama administration is smart, it will hammer home this millionaire's tax rhetoric until it becomes the sort of highly effective propaganda Republicans have been successfully regurgitating for years.

Dividing up the middle and working classes based on appeals to race, ethnicity and social wedge issues has been a trademark of the Republican Party.

What they fear most is that the great masses of Americans who receive a stagnating hourly wage and more limited benefits each year will rise up and demand their share of the nation's wealth.

Class warfare has been waged on behalf of the wealthiest people and corporations in the US for decades - and on that battlefield, the richest Americans have thus far won.

As Ostroy asks, "To be sure, the rich have never been richer, and the poor have never been poorer. So what are Republicans constantly complaining about?"

What they are complaining about is the concept of workers being fairly compensated for their labor - and that the wealthiest Americans might have to buy one less yacht or home. That's class warfare to them.

read more

JACQUELINE MARCUS FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

This morning, I called House majority whip Kevin McCarthy's DC office (R-CA) to inquire about H.R. 1581, a bill authored by McCarthy that would remove wilderness protections for a shocking 70 million acres of federally managed wildlands and would open them up to mining, drilling and other industrial uses. The targeted lands include more than half of Alaska's Tongass National Forest, as well as other endangered wild places that environmental organizations have been fighting to protect for years.

I asked the office assistant if he knew about this bill, and he said he didn't, nor did anyone else. The reason for this is that decisions like these are made on the sly and in the dark, by using the deadly Congressional tactic, known as a rider. Riders are attached to spending bills that Congress must pass in order to fund the government. "These add-on provisions are rarely subject to hearings or extensive public debate; by their very nature," explains NRDC's watchdog on Capitol Hill, David Goldston. "They are designed to evade scrutiny and quietly advance new policies that would otherwise never make it into law," continues Goldston.

For instance, one spending bill alone contains almost 40 anti-environmental riders, and more are expected to be added before the House votes on the final bill.

In a previous commentary posted at Buzzflash at Truthout, I explained how these secret, undemocratic tactics work, and how our earth's destiny and our fate are being determined by a very small minority of representatives and industrial oligarchs. Rep. McCarthy's H.R. 1581 exemplifies this anti-democratic tactic, which benefits the few at the expense of our beautiful wildlands, wildlife and our health.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if voters were able to make decisions that impacted the plans of billionaire industrialists. Consider BP and the Gulf of Mexico: The worst oil disaster in history turned the entire ocean into a dead zone.

Why aren't we allowed to vote on bills such as H.R. 1581? The obvious reason is that a clear majority, including Republican voters, believe that the government needs to do much more to protect nature and our environment. "Gallop's annual Environment Poll finds that Americans are more likely than ever to say that the government should put a higher priority on protecting the environment than on increasing energy production. When given a choice, Americans are also more likely to prefer conservation of existing energy supplies than increased production of energy." (Public Favors Environment Protection over Energy Production as Priority for U.S.)

That explains why the industrialists deplore the democratic voting process. They wouldn't be able to get away with oil projects like the Tar Sands Pipeline if it were up to us at the voting booth. It's far easier to buy a President and congressional members than it is to buy off millions and millions of people.

read more

NIKOLAS KOZLOFF FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

As more and more WikiLeaks cables get released, the Brazilian-US diplomatic relationship has become increasingly illuminated. Though somewhat wary of each other, Washington and Brasilia sometimes saw eye to eye on matters of geopolitical importance. Take for example, both countries' handling of Venezuela's Hugo Chávez. Under the helm of Luiz Inácio "Lula" da Silva, Brazil cultivated a strategic alliance with Venezuela, and publicly the two nations embraced South America's "pink tide" to the left. Yet, WikiLeaks documents reveal that Brazil may have shared Washington's concern over Chávez's rising geopolitical importance, particularly in the Caribbean theater.

During the Bush years, American diplomats kept a close bead on Venezuela's growing partnerships in areas far afield. In Jamaica, for example, US officials conducted a "sustained effort to dissuade" the authorities from supporting Chávez's bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council. Concerned over Venezuela's rising star in the region, the Americans met with the Jamaican political opposition. Writing to her superiors in Washington, US ambassador in Kingston Brenda Johnson expressed "concerns over the influence of Venezuelan money and energy supplies in Jamaica in the years ahead."

Monitoring Chávez in Jamaica

During a local cricket match, Bruce Golding of Jamaica's opposition Labour Party approached the ambassador to request a meeting. Asking that the US hold the information in "strict confidence," Golding revealed that his party's concern over Chávez had "heightened in recent weeks." Confidentially, he continued, a "senior person in the government," had passed him, "sensitive inside information," and, "a number of persons within the government," were, "frightened over the secrecy," concerning Jamaica's official dealings with Chávez.

Spinning a rather cloak and dagger narrative, Golding explained how senior officials from the ruling People's National Party (PNP) had recently flown to Caracas. Once in the Venezuelan capital, he claimed, they had been given one or two large packages and thereafter returned to Kingston. The opposition politician alleged that overall the Venezuelans had doled out $4-5 million to the PNP in Caracas in order to finance the electoral campaign of Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller. The very next week, the government magically claimed that it had managed to repay $475,000 to a Dutch-based oil trading firm called Trafigura.

Earlier, the company had made the "contribution" to the PNP, but when the matter came to public attention, the news spiraled into a full blown campaign finance scandal. Speaking to the US ambassador, Golding thought it was "logical" that part of the cash that Venezuela gave to the Jamaicans had been later used to pay back Trafigura. Going further, Golding claimed that just before the Trafigura "contribution," the PNP had experienced financial problems and even found it difficult to maintain its own facilities. Recently, however, there had been a "dramatic turnaround," and the party no longer found it necessary to solicit contributions from the private sector.

read more

ROBERT KOEHLER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

The woo-woo nuttiness of it all defies the imagination, beginning with the idea of a course in "Nuclear Ethics and Nuclear Warfare" at Vandenberg Air Force Base.

Nuclear ethics?

Does that mean no nuclear weapons should ever be used to promote sexual harassment?
Well actually, it turns out that the point of the mandatory course, which was recently canceled by the Air Force after officers of numerous faiths complained to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation about it and Truthout published an exposé in July, was to give officers in the first week of missile-launch training a Bible-verse-studded indoctrination in faux-Just War Theory (cynically known in the ranks as the "Jesus Loves Nukes" training).

"Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! He who sat upon it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war."

This verse, Revelation 19:11, has nothing to do with Just War Theory, Christian or otherwise. It sounds more like the theology of Armageddon, or the ethics of end times - scary enough on the social fringe, but my God, here was the US Air Force, guardian of the country's nuclear arsenal, pushing it as a basic part of missile-launch training.

There were plenty of other religiously pushy declarations in this mandatory course, such as these words from Wernher von Braun, the Nazi rocket scientist who teamed up with the US military after the war to develop its space and missile programs, regarding his surrender to the Americans in 1945:

"We knew that we had created a new means of warfare and the question as to what nation . . .we were willing to entrust this brainchild of ours was a moral decision more than anything else," von Braun is quoted as saying. "We wanted to see the world spared another conflict such as Germany had just been through and we felt that only by surrendering such a weapon to people who are guided by the Bible could such an assurance to the world be best secured."

This is too strange to be irony. The Nazi rocket wizard sought moral reassurance in Christian exceptionalism, and his words then became part of America's official ethics of nuclear war: We're with Jesus on that white horse, and if/when we launch Armageddon, we're only doing the work of the Lord. To my mind, there are few people on the planet scarier than self-proclaimed "Christian soldiers," at least those who feed from the evangelical trough and belong to the US military, because their agenda transcends rationality. In righteousness they judge and make war.

But my sense of shock and awe over this nuclear ethics course isn't simply about evangelicals in the military and their zeal to proselytize. It's about the official sanctioning of a nuclear morality that allows their use - that transforms America and its military machine into an instrument of the will of God.

read more

TONY PEYSER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Predictably, they whine that this
Is just "class warfare"
When the plan only costs them
Upper class carfare.

It's time to contact your congressman
With letters, emails and faxes
(Unless you're opposed to the very rich
Paying their fair share of taxes.)

read more

NOTE FROM BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Frankly, we loved this alleged bumper sticker that has been making its way around the Internet so much, BuzzFlash at Truthout just couldn't resist passing it along.

The author is unknown to BuzzFlash at Truthout, but let us know if you are out there.