Electronic Pen

This wasn't just a lost decade economically for the middle class, working class and the poor; it has pretty much been a lost 30 years, according to a September 13 New York Times article.

Contrary to Republican talking point myths, the income of the working American has generally stagnated for at least 20 years, even though the productivity of US workers has generally increased.

As The New York Times reports:

Another 2.6 million people slipped into poverty in the United States last year, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday, and the number of Americans living below the official poverty line, 46.2 million people, was the highest number in the 52 years the bureau has been publishing figures on it.

And in new signs of distress among the middle class, median household incomes fell last year to levels last seen in 1996.

Minorities have been hardest hit by the growing income disparity and lack of livable-wage jobs. But even "the median, full-time male worker has made no progress on average" - and that's, based on inflationary adjustment, since 1973.

Not surprisingly, according to the Times, "the past decade was also marked by a growing gap between the very top and very bottom of the income ladder."

Pretty soon, there may be no more ladder to climb economically.

Maybe that is why Sen. Bernie Sanders recently held a hearing: "Is Poverty a Death Sentence?"

read more

RICHARD A. STITT FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), one of the most inveterate Obama-haters, recently threatened to quit his position on the 12-member congressional "supercommittee," because he opposes any cuts to the military budget.

Kyl and the other five Republicans on the panel have also taken the Grover Norquist pledge to never, ever raise taxes, for anything. It is sounding better, and better, for the impotent, self-immolating 12-person panel of politicians to guarantee failure before it even starts.

read more

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Why shouldn't Congressional representatives and senators receive retirement benefits at the same age of eligibility for Social Security?

That's a good question, particularly since the Congressional pensions are lavish in comparison to Social Security.

Sen. Sherrod Brown criticized this inequity earlier this year:

Currently, Members of Congress can begin collecting pensions as early as age 50, while working Americans cannot collect full Social Security benefits until age 66. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), retirement with an immediate, full pension is available to Members of Congress covered under FERS at age 62 or older with at least five years of federal service; at age 50 or older with at least 20 years of service; and at any age to Members with at least 25 years of service. For Members covered by CSRS, retirement with an immediate, full pension is available to Members age 60 or older with 10 years of service in Congress, or age 62 with five years of civilian federal service, including service in Congress.

Brown strongly opposes raising the retirement age for Social Security due to the high number of Ohioans who are engaged in physically demanding work - on a shop floor, production line, or farmland. Brown has long been active in efforts to protect Social Security from privatization, and has worked to ensure that seniors can continue to afford necessities like prescription drugs despite the lack of cost-of-living-adjustments (COLA) that Social Security recipients have faced for the past two years.

This week, Brown introduced legislation to ensure that any increase in Social Security retirement age is matched by the same age of eligibility being applied to the generous taxpayer-funded pension plans for those serving in Congress.

Given that the White House has been sending out trial balloons for weeks that President Obama inexplicably supports raising the eligibility age for Social Security to 68, it is of some comfort that at least one member of Congress is holding our elected officials accountable for "walking in our shoes."

Yet, if Brown's bill is unlikely to pass, he considers legislation that would make deficit reduction begin on Capitol Hill - through reducing Congressional salaries by 10 percent - even a longer shot.

"I think some might [take the cut]," Brown said. "But I would guess probably a bill like that won't pass."

That is because as far as most of DC is concerned, including the White House, what's good for the goose (cuts in pensions, salaries, and health care for the working class) is not good for the gander (the elected elites who enact those cuts on everyone but themselves and the wealthy.)

******

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

"Casting [Gibson] as a director or perhaps as the star of Judah Maccabee is like casting [Bernie] Madoff to be the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or a white supremacist as trying to portray Martin Luther King Jr.," says Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of Los Angeles's Simon Wiesenthal Center Museum of Tolerance.

Earlier this year, Mel Gibson and Jodie Foster appeared hand in hand on the red carpet at the Cannes Film Festival in Cannes, France. They were attending the premiere of The Beaver, a film directed by Foster, starring both her and Gibson. In the movie Gibson plays a depressed toy manufacturer who, after failing to commit suicide, winds up communicating through a hand puppet. This was supposed to be his return to Hollywood stardom after having spent a few years fending off questions about his sexist, anti-gay, racist and anti-Semitic rants. The Beaver was a box office dud; it cost $21 million to make and it reeled in far less than that, both domestically and internationally.

To get his sinking Mojo back, Gibson is going to have to do better.

But first, he must clear up a few of the messes he's created for himself; most immediately with his ex-girlfriend, and most notably, with the Jewish community.

Apparently, money has allowed Gibson to buy his way out of his ex-girlfriend mess. In late August, Gibson agreed to pay Oksana Grigorieva, $750,000. In addition, according to the Associated Press, he will, "continue to provide housing and financial support for their young daughter to resolve a bitter legal fight that followed sexist, racist rants attributed to the actor."

Gibson's Jewish problem, however, is going to take a lot more than money to fix.

read more

A BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT NEWS ALERT

The following is a news release from the office of Sen. Bernie Sanders:

Washington - Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at a Senate hearing he chaired today cited dramatic evidence linking poverty and shorter life spans. A new census report, meanwhile, said more Americans than ever before lived in poverty last year.

Sanders citied evidence that living in poverty greatly reduces access to health care and shortens life spans. "This is the first time in our history that children born in certain parts of the United States can expect to live shorter lives than their parents' generation," according to a report released at the hearing.

A separate Census Bureau report also released today said that more than 46 million Americans, about one in six, lived below the poverty line in 2010. The census report also said that that about 49.9 million Americans lacked health insurance, a number that soared by 13.3 million since 2000.
"Poverty in America today is a death sentence for tens and tens of thousands of our people which is why the high childhood poverty rate in our country is such an outrage," Sanders said in an opening statement at the hearing.

The United States has both the highest overall poverty rate and the highest childhood poverty rate of any major industrialized country on earth, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. While 21.6 percent of American children live in poverty, the rate is 3.7 percent in Denmark, 5.3 percent in Finland, 6.7 percent in Iceland, 8.3 percent in Germany, 9.3 percent in France. "I suppose we can take some comfort in that our numbers are not quite as bad as Turkey (23.5 percent); Chile (24 percent); and Mexico (25.8 percent)," Sanders said.

read more

MARC PERKEL FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

The president and Congress have said that in order to cut the deficit "everything" has to be on the table. Does "everything" include the pensions that members of Congress get? It seems to me that if anyone should get their pensions cut it should be Congress. They are the ones who passed the unbalanced budgets that created the debt in the first place. They want us to put Social Security on the table. The way I see it, if Congress doesn't cut their pensions then not everything is really on the table.

read more

TONY PEYSER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

"No games, no politics, no delays."
Barack's ground rules are deft ---
The GOP will say, "C'mon! Without
Those things, we've got nothing left."

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-calls-congress-act-jobs-bill-152431593.html

Body

It is a disturbing feature of our society that truth has devolved into a rare commodity, especially when election time rolls around. Somehow it has become common practice to allow lies and innuendoes to permeate political debate, as if they had the same legitimacy as actual facts.

In the aftermath of debates and conferences there may be some retro-fitting of statements, but at the time of their utterance they pass muster among pundits and partisans who maintain an air of polite deference to fellow participants. Thus, truth is often sacrificed in the heat of the moment to keep things moving, and to allow the ridiculous to cavort among the more learned and deserving thought merchants. But, it isn't only the innocent idiots who find their way to media stardom, and who, despite the ridicule they encounter at times from their betters, maintain a certain presence. It is the menace inherent in their writings and speeches that defines them as something other than free-speech practitioners. Theirs is a special brand of hate and partisanship that seeks only to expand their fifteen minutes of fame and roil the waters of honest debate.

On the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks we were reminded of bravery about which our country can only stand in awe for what was accomplished in our name. There are many stories that touch us, but none more than the leadership of Todd Beamer on United Airlines Flight 93 whose words "Let's roll" led the assault on the high-jackers in the cockpit and brought the plane down short of its mission to attack Washington DC. In light of his singular leadership and communications from others who lost their lives on that day, there is something particularly repellent about Ann Coulter's observations as she wrote about them in her column.

The natural inclination of those who experience great loss is to pursue the causes to their logical conclusions. But, Ann concluded that the grief-stricken widowed pilots' wives were "enjoying" their widowhood tremendously, an observation prompted no doubt by Coulter's own publicity-seeking persona, and a culture that says you can say anything about anyone and chalk it up to the constitutional guarantee of free speech. At the time I assumed we wouldn't be hearing from Coulter any more because the American people would reject her poisonous prose, but she's still around appearing at conservative causes, writing books and spreading her noxious reflections across the land - a sad commentary on the depths to which we have sunk as a nation.

This condition permeates all phases of our body politic and infects the minds of the public. One has only to consider the speeches of Sarah Palin, among others, who consistently misstates and deliberately muddies the waters of honest debate. Health care restructuring becomes socialized medicine and financial reform threatens to bring down the entire free-market infrastructure, no matter what damage has been done to our well- being in the name of these twisted versions of events. Somewhere along the line truth is lost and we fall prey to someone's personal vision of power.

Discussions of everything from national security to health care are so steeped in political rhetoric that there is little room for rational discussion. In perfect Orwellian cadence, for instance, Buck McKeon, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, advanced the notion that in order to establish peace the US must undertake "a proliferation of power." His description of what we need to do to bring our armed forces up to snuff includes a wide-ranging assortment of weapons systems that may or may not be relevant to the kinds of conflicts in which we are currently engaged. Once again, truth falls victim to the perceptions of a "dug-in" partisan who may have called the shots a touch too long.

It may be a tall order to keep after the truth, but it is a necessary exercise whenever the opportunity presents itself. We should be getting after media ‘analysts' who allow guests to torment facts into unrecognizable shapes. This is not the time to be so damn polite. Truth is at times rude and intrusive.

 

BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT NEWS ALERT

Earlier this year, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) denounced the idea of raising the retirement age for social security eligibility in this news release:

WASHINGTON, D.C.- Following yesterday's release of a budget proposal that would dismantle Medicare and leave the door open for raising the retirement age on Social Security to age 69 or higher, U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) held a news conference call today to outline new legislation he is introducing that would require Members of Congress to "walk in the same shoes" as working Americans.

Brown's bill, the Shared Retirement Sacrifice Act of 2011, would amend the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) and Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) to directly tie the Social Security retirement age to current and future Members of Congress' access to their federal retirement benefits. On the call, Brown released a county-by-county estimate showing the number of Ohio senior citizens that receive Social Security benefits.

"Raising the Social Security retirement age might sound fair to politicians who come to work every day in a suit and tie, but it's a nonstarter for working Ohioans who stand on their feet all day long in a restaurant or on a factory floor," Brown said. "Social Security is under attack by those who falsely think it adds to the federal deficit. These same politicians want to give extra tax cuts to the wealthiest two percent of Americans and tax breaks for big corporations and Big Oil while dismantling Medicare. It's time for Washington politicians to make the same sacrifices that they're proposing for millions of Americans."

"That's why I'm introducing legislation that would require Members of Congress to 'walk in the same shoes' as working Americans by tying their pension and retirement benefits to the Social Security retirement age. If these politicians want to ask Americans to continue working into their late 60s and early 70s before receiving critical retirement benefits, there's no reason why they shouldn't have to make the same sacrifices as well," Brown continued.

Currently, Members of Congress can begin collecting pensions as early as age 50, while working Americans cannot collect full Social Security benefits until age 66. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), retirement with an immediate, full pension is available to Members of Congress covered under FERS at age 62 or older with at least five years of federal service; at age 50 or older with at least 20 years of service; and at any age to Members with at least 25 years of service. For Members covered by CSRS, retirement with an immediate, full pension is available to Members age 60 or older with 10 years of service in Congress, or age 62 with five years of civilian federal service, including service in Congress.

Brown strongly opposes raising the retirement age for Social Security due to the high number of Ohioans who are engaged in physically demanding work-on a shop floor, production line, or farmland. Brown has long been active in efforts to protect Social Security from privatization, and has worked to ensure that seniors can continue to afford necessities like prescription drugs despite the lack of cost-of-living-adjustments (COLA) that Social Security recipients have faced for the past two years.

Brown, along with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), has introduced legislation that would require a supermajority (two-thirds) vote in Congress to make any significant changes to Social Security. Brown also strongly pushed for legislation to give a one-time, $250 check to Social Security recipients to help offset the rising cost of prescription drugs and other necessities.

As of 2009, the median retiree Social Security benefit is $14,000. Social Security lifts more than half a million Ohio seniors out of poverty.

read more

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

The latest Republican plan to steal a presidential election may just work.

In Pennsylvania, according to Mother Jones, a plan is brewing to allocate the state's electoral votes by Congressional districts. Since Pennsylvania is gerrymandered to favor the election of Republican Congressional representatives, Obama could win the popular vote there, but lose the state in the Electoral College.

Given that the Pennsylvania legislature and the governorship are all controlled by the GOP, this is a law that has good odds of being passed.

With the precedent of Republican-controlled states using pretty much model templates of legislation to put barriers in the way of Democratic voting groups, it is extremely possible that the Pennsylvania electoral delegate plan will be proposed and enacted in other states where the GOP is in charge.

The Democrats have little recourse. "Nor is there anything obviously illegal or unconstitutional about the GOP plan," Mother Jones notes. "'The Constitution is pretty silent on how the electors are chosen in each state,' says Karl Manheim, a law professor at Loyola University in Los Angeles."

After the stolen election of 2000, which led to a lost decade of national decline for America, it is painful to think that a Democrat may win the popular vote but lose the presidency due to political chicanery with the electoral vote allocation.

But this robbery of democracy might just very well occur in plain sight.

******

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

If Mister Bush wanted to seem “calm in a crisis”
Why did he abandon all discretion
With those children and just show them his best
Deer-in-the-headlights expression?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43946847

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Ron Paul knows something about uninsured men dying without health insurance. Kent Snyder, who was Paul's 2008 presidential campaign manager, died on June 26 of that year without any medical coverage. His hospital bills had accumulated to $400,000 at the time of his passing.

The Washington Post noted in an obituary for Snyder, 49:

Mr. Snyder had been associated with Paul, a Texas Republican with Libertarian leanings, for more than 20 years. He worked as a top aide for Paul in 1988, when the congressman sought the presidency on the Libertarian ticket.

In 2007, Mr. Snyder helped persuade Paul to launch a bid for the Republican nomination and served as chairman of his campaign. Paul raised millions of dollars from online contributors, leading all Republican contenders early in the race. He failed to attract many voters, however, and ended his candidacy in June.

So, an aide who was pivotal to the political fortunes and fundraising for Paul wasn't even given health insurance - in his hour of need - by the libertarian Congressman.

By now, almost all BuzzFlash at Truthout readers know or saw how the bloodlust of the Tea Party roared with approval when Paul said that people without health insurance are taking their own risks, and that is the way it should be.

A Pensito Review article from 2008 noted, "Snyder's death and his lack of health insurance has triggered a behind-the-scenes debate among Paul supporters and libertarian activists over whether or not the Paul campaign should have provided health insurance to its staff."

Actually, Paul was a touch more compassionate then his gladiator fight audience. He said that the churches should provide health care to the uninsured, that "our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it."

That's not how it played itself out with your longtime fundraiser and campaign manager, Kent Snyder, Dr. Paul.

He didn't even get the health coverage he needed from you, nor did you pick up his $400,000 medical care bill after he died.

 

******

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

PAUL BUCHHEIT FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Go Berserk, Young Man

And young woman, of course. You're being cheated by a free-market system that is out of control.

Consider that a single individual (John Paulson) made enough money last year to pay the salaries of 100,000 teachers.

100,000 jobs. All those potential salaries ($50,000 each) diverted to a man who started making his billions by betting against the U.S. mortgage market.

And he's not alone. In 2009 25 hedge fund managers averaged a billion dollars in earnings. Hedge fund manager James Dinan, who made 'only' $350 million in 2009, advised other hedgers to "stay in the middle of the field" to avoid angering the public.

The hedge fund managers are not alone, either. Based on Tax Foundation figures, the richest 1% has TRIPLED its share of America's income over the past 30 years. Much of the gain came from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments. If their income had increased only at the pace of American productivity (80%), they would be taking about a TRILLION DOLLARS A YEAR LESS out of our economy.

If middle-class incomes had increased at the pace of American productivity, the median household income would now be nearly $92,000, not $50,000.

So if you hear the 'redistribution' argument, keep in mind that the redistribution has already taken place, from the middle and lower classes to the rich.

Meanwhile, profits for the 500 largest corporations rose 81% last year, prompting Fortune Magazine to say "we've rarely seen such a stark gulf between the fortunes of the 500 and those of ordinary Americans."

There used to be a safeguard against these extremes, in the form of progressive taxes. But a 30-year assault on the alleged evils of government has largely taken this away. Many of the billion-dollar paychecks are overloaded with capital gains earnings, taxed at a minimal 15% rate.

Young men and women, you should be very angry. Millions of you have college degrees and/or marketable skills, but you're either unemployed or underemployed because profit-rich corporations have stopped investing in America. They're still investing, but not in America. Pharmaceutical companies move production to China and India because of less stringent inspection standards. Energy companies use subsidies for solar energy research and development to move production facilities to Asia. Everyday products are no longer made in the United States. The examples go on and on.

But these increasingly profitable companies are paying less taxes. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, 12 of our largest corporations actually received tax refunds! The drop in tax revenue is forcing cuts in education, social programs, and national infrastructure. Think of the implications. Do we want programs for music and the arts eliminated from schools, so that only children of the wealthy can participate in them? Do we want our national parks sold to billionaires?

It has been argued that corporations are just following the rules of capitalism, that their only obligation is making profits for their stockholders. But corporations and very rich individuals benefit most from national security, government-funded research, infrastructure, and property laws. Defending the country benefits the rich more, because they have more to defend. Taxpayer-funded research at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (the Internet), the National Institute of Health (pharmaceuticals), and the National Science Foundation (the Digital Library Initiative) has laid a half-century foundation for their idea-building. The interstates and airports and FAA and TSA benefit people who have the money to travel.

In his book "Outliers," Malcolm Gladwell says this about the richest and most successful Americans: "Their success was not just of their own making. It was a product of the world in which they grew up."

The wealthiest individuals and corporations depended on all of America to make their fortunes. Now they're saying they did it on their own, and they don't need government or the American public any more.

That is why the rest of us, especially young people bearing the brunt of the snub, should be mad.

In 1865 newspaper editor Horace Greeley said to those struggling to find success in life: "The rents are high, the food is bad, the dust is disgusting and the morals are deplorable. Go West, young man, go West and grow up with the country." It's no longer that simple for our young people. The country's all grown up, and it's mostly owned by corporations.

read more

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Why is our energy policy fossilized with policies that are bankrupting us, polluting toxins into the air and water and serving as the catalyst to launch wars to control oil reserves?

That is because there is no separation between our government's federal energy policy and the "industry's" energy policy. They are virtually one and the same. That means that the profits of the oil companies, the coal barons and other fossil fuel businesses are basically in charge of driving a strategic policy that is economically ruining us and preventing the development of alternative energy sources.

China, on the other hand, has little distinction between primarily state-owned energy companies and the government's policies on the matter (although there is an expansion of "private" energy companies). Therefore, it is driven by a mandate to develop the most effective, most modern sources of fuel. In fact, it created the China Energy Conservation Investment Corporation, which is devoted to funding more efficient energy.

That is the major reason it is light years ahead of the US in nurturing the solar, hydropower and wind power industries, among others. Yes, China heavily subsidizes its alternative fuel initiatives, but shouldn't the US government be doing the same? Why isn't the entire south of the United States powered in large part by solar and wind energy? Why isn't geothermal technology at an advance development state in the US?

This is the crux of the matter: the more the US develops alternative energy sources, the more the oil companies and their fossil fuel cohorts are likely to decrease profits. The less the US plays a role in developing alternative energy and keeping the US hooked on fossil fuel, the greater the bloated profits of the current antiquated providers rise as scarcity increases.

That is literally the bottom line.

In China, since the government heavily dominates the energy industry - for all practical purposes - decreasing the cost of fuel and creating new sources that, in the long term, will be more durable and less expensive is good strategic policy. Relying on fossil fuel will hamper China's economic growth, as is currently happening in the US. For China, long-term dependence on fossil fuels will result in a strain on economic growth, not a profit.

So, the people who killed the electric car several times (now having its tenth or 11th "rebirth"), who have impeded solar energy, who scrapped mass transportation in Los Angeles, who are supporting a toxic Keystone XL pipeline through the US to export oil overseas and who have done everything possible to keep us junkies hooked on fossil fuels, these people continue to prevent the US government from advancing nontoxic and less expensive (in the long term, sun and wind power will never be exhausted) energy.

China is proof that alternative fuel development is best for a nation looking to the future, not looking to pad the multibillion-dollar profits of a fossil fuel industry.

read more

BILL BERKOWITZ FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

An otherwise extraordinary art exhibit at San Francisco's Museum of Modern Art, is marred by leaving out some salient, but disquieting historical facts, namely: Prior to World War II, Gertrude Stein allegedly advocated for Adolf Hitler to receive the Nobel Peace Prize; and, she survived the Nazi occupation of France and the Vichy puppet government thanks to at least one well-known French anti-Semite with close ties to the Vichy and Nazi regimes. Some details are still not clear, but the evidence of de facto tacit "collaboration" is.

For days now, I've been haunted by Gertrude Stein. Except for an occasional glance at her book The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas, I confess to never fully reading her work. I did see Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris and enjoyed (as always) Kathy Bates' portrayal of her. And, I have known - as does most any Oakland resident -- that Stein is famously quoted as having remarked, "The trouble with Oakland is that when you get there, there isn't any there there"; a comment that for years has been open to various interpretations.

My Stein saga started innocently enough: My wife and I met up with two friends on Saturday afternoon outside the San Francisco's Museum of Modern Art (SFMoMA), and headed in to see The Steins Collect: Matisse, Picasso and the Parisian Avant-Garde. This was the last weekend the exhibit would be up, and the place was packed. It was so crowded that I blithely remarked that it seemed like we were at The Louvre during tourist season. (In an early August Press Release, SFMoMA indicated that it expected as many as 350,000 visitors by the end of the run.)

The exhibit was fascinating. I'll let Stephen West of Bloomberg.com who described it as, "The curatorial triumph of the summer," handle the details:

"Writer and Bay Area native Gertrude Stein and her brothers, Leo and Michael, had remarkable taste and timing. They moved to Paris in the early 1900s and soon began collecting the newest wave of modern art, Matisse and Picasso, as well as the more established Cezanne, Renoir, Bonnard and others.

"Their apartments became de facto museums of modernism and salons for the artistic elite of Paris. Gertrude was Picasso's champion. Leo, Michael and his wife, Sarah, favored Matisse. (And others: Michael and Sarah later commissioned Le Corbusier to design a modernist house for them.)

"The sprawling show brings together much of the now scattered Stein collection. It features iconic works like Picasso's monumental 1905-06 portrait of Gertrude, now in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum in New York, and Matisse's 1905 'Woman With a Hat,' now part of the San Francisco museum's collection.

"Along with about 40 Picassos, 60 Matisses and works by more than a dozen other artists, the exhibition offers scores of photographs of the Steins, Gertrude's partner Alice B. Toklas, their apartments and their arty circle, encapsulating a remarkable period."

In each room, accompanying the paintings were drawings, film clips, correspondence, and photos (some from floor-to-ceiling) from the Stein family.  There was an informative introductory description of the period, the changes that were taking place in the art world during that time, and the family's connection and influence on it all.

One of the first rooms at the SFMoMA exhibit featured photographs of the then Bay Area-based Stein family from the turn of the twentieth century, before Gertrude and her brother Leo took off for Paris. The Stein family was part of a thriving Jewish community in Northern California, and clearly proud of their Jewish identity.

The exhibit, according to an SFMoMA press release posted toward the end, was structured "roughly chronologically by when they were originally acquired by the family, highlighting major themes and benchmarks of both art history and the Steins' parallel journey." There was a discussion of the years leading up to and including World War II. Buried in that particular narrative was a statement that Stein had spent the war years in Southern France.

As I left the museum, I turned toward my friend and asked him if he had noticed that sentence. He had. It was, after all quite remarkable.

It was an unexceptional detail that told us nothing, yet ironically, told us a great deal, because Jews in Vichy "controlled" southern France were rounded up for concentration camps at the direction of the Nazis.

We both wondered how Stein and her lover/longtime companion, Alice Toklas -- lesbians and Jews -- had managed to survive during the German occupation (puppet Vichy government), which saw the deportation and murder of thousands of French Jews in concentration camps.

Later that evening I began looking into that question. Googling "Gertrude Stein" "Nazis" I found thousands of hits. The first site I went to was called "Adolph The Great. Com," which claims that it "is not an anti-Semitic [sic] site but a collection of facts intended to bring about understanding and tolerance," which is code for an anti-Semitic site. The site's content includes those titled "Adolf the Humanitarian," "Adolf the Artist," "Adolf fights cancer," "Adolf's Jewish Support," and "Adolf and the Nobel Peace Prize." That was the one that caught me off guard as it featured a picture of Gertrude Stein.

According to adolfthegreat.com, "The renowned Jewish author, Gertrude Stein, led the campaign to get Adolf Hitler nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1938: 'I say that Hitler ought to have the peace prize, because he is removing all the elements of contest and of struggle from Germany. By driving out the Jews and the democratic and Left element, he is driving out everything that conduces to activity. That means peace...'"

I couldn't believe what I had just read. It must be the product of a fevered mind distorting some off-hand comment that Stein might or might not have made. In any case, why trust a Nazi-revisionist website? (In fact, the quotation is from a New York Times interview with Stein in 1934, but there is no credible evidence that she actually lobbied the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. Advocates of Stein also contend that she was being "sarcastic," but her statement fits with her political viewpoints of the time: that Hitler was an authoritarian leader who could keep the Bolsheviks at bay and that many communists in Germany were Jews -- and Stein was no friend of communists.

I continued my search.

read more

NIKOLAS KOZLOFF FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

For the past year or so, I've been writing steadily about WikiLeaks and U.S. diplomatic correspondence between various American embassies in Latin America and the State Department in Washington, D.C.  For a full inventory of these pieces, you may head to my web site, which complements and further contextualizes my two books, Revolution: South America and the Rise of the New Left, and Hugo Chávez: Oil, Politics and the Challenge to the U.S.

It's a bit difficult for one person to stay on top of all the communication back and forth, and WikiLeaks' recent decision to place all of the remaining cables online has made the researchers' work even more of an uphill climb.  In an effort to stay afloat, I decided to sift through many of these cables, taking note of intriguing, incendiary or just plain odd documents which may be worthy of further investigation.  In coming weeks, I'll be publishing my own guide to the "Caracas cables" which may aid journalists, researchers or activists.  In the interest of saving time, I've opted not to insert too much of my own commentary or analysis but have added in links to the original documents where useful.

Chávez's Former Wife Herma Marksman

At the U.S. Embassy in Caracas, diplomatic staff routinely spoke to the rightist Chávez opposition during the Bush years.  But in 2004, an odd encounter occurred between the Americans and Chávez's former wife, Herma Marksman, who held a rather disparaging view of the Venezuelan president.  Marksman, a history professor who was married to Chávez between 1984 and 1993, told U.S. diplomats that the firebrand populist was ambitious from an early age and "even thought of running the country as a 20 year-old."

Later, as a junior officer, Chávez fell under the influence of Douglas Bravo, a former Communist and guerrilla leader from the 1960s.  According to Marksman it was Bravo, and not Chávez, who developed the political philosophy of the Bolivarian Revolution.  Though Marksman cast Chávez as an intellectual lightweight, she added that he "should not be underestimated."  The Venezuelan was "an excellent storyteller, who often characterizes his opponents as devils, which is a powerful religious symbol to the poor."

According to Marksman, Chávez was unscrupulous, "trusted few people" and "does not have true friends."  If he had a problem, Marksman added, Chávez would only confide in his brother Adan or Cuban leader Fidel Castro.  Marksman remarked cryptically that several individuals within the Chávez government were "dangerous," including some figures in the inner circle such as Diosdado Cabello (for more on him, stay tuned for future posts).

Could the disgruntled Marksman have had some kind of personal or political axe to grind, and why did she agree to speak to the U.S. Embassy in the first place?  It's unclear why the couple split in the 1990s, but diplomats wrote that Marksman may have been unhappy with Chávez's failed coup in 1992 against then president Carlos Andrés Pérez.  "While Marksman's statements may be biased," the Americans wrote, "she does offer a unique perspective into the current president."

Chávez's "Half Brother"?

Another intriguing cable relates to Jesus Arnaldo Pérez, who was promoted to head the Ministry of Foreign Relations in 2004.  According to U.S. diplomats, Pérez was Hugo's childhood friend, and "rumors abound that he is in fact the President's illegitimate half brother" and had the same father [I can't comment on the veracity of such claims, but for a photo of Pérez, who like Chávez has a wide face, click here].  The Americans wrote that Pérez was born in the town of Veguita in the provincial state of Barinas, close to Hugo's birthplace, and during Pérez's swearing in ceremony the president mentioned that the two had attended school together in Barinas.

Typically, U.S. diplomats refer to figures in the Chávez government in a rather smug and condescending fashion, and their report on Pérez was no exception.  Commenting on Pérez, they remarked that the new Foreign Minister "is neither a convincing orator nor seems to possess a great intellect."  "We see the appointment of Perez as Chávez's desire to surround himself with people who are loyal above all," the embassy concluded.

Perhaps, diplomats such as U.S. ambassador Charles Shapiro simply did not care for officials who would talk back to them.  In March, 2004 Shapiro met with Pérez, who said the U.S.-Venezuelan relationship "could not get worse."  Shapiro tried to reassure Pérez that there was no Bush plan to overthrow the Chávez regime, but "relations could indeed get much worse unless Chávez tempers his anti-U.S. remarks, personal insults and invective."  Predictably, the meeting did not progress much from there amidst recrimination and a cloud of mutual suspicion.

read more

STEVE JONAS FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

From the Huffington Post, August 26, 2011: "Televangelist Pat Robertson suggested Wednesday that cracks in the Washington Monument caused by the August 23 (Virginia) earthquake could be a sign from God, and the natural disaster 'means that we're closer to the coming of the Lord.' To explain the rare east coast quake, Robertson pointed to the Biblical prophecy of the end of the world, which claims there could be potential devastation from natural disasters leading up to Jesus' return to Earth. On his television show, 'The 700 Club,' Robertson said: 'I don't want to get weird on this, so please take it for what it's worth, but it seems to me the Washington Monument is a symbol of America's power. It has been the symbol of our great nation, we look at that monument and we say this is one nation under God. Now there's a crack in it. Is that a sign from the Lord? Is that something that has significance, or is it just the result of an earthquake?' " Robertson asked his viewers.

This was rather less definitive than his statement on the Haitian earthquake (and much less definitive than his "it's the fault of the gays" declaration made with the late Jerry Falwell following 9/11).  Maybe he is getting a bit sensitized.  At any rate, consider this one:

"NEW YORK (CBS, 1/12/10) Pat Robertson, the American Christian televangelist and host of 'The 700 Club,' said that Haitians need to have a 'great turning to god' while he was reporting on the devastating 7.0 earthquake that shook the island nation . . .'Something happened a long time ago in Haiti and people might not want to talk about. . . They were under the heel of the French, you know Napoleon the third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said 'We will serve you if you will get us free from the prince.'  True story. And so the devil said, 'OK it's a deal.' And they kicked the French out. The Haitians revolted and got something themselves free.  But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another.' "

Well, Pat, actually it was not (Louis) Napoleon III (1852-1870) against whom the Haitian slave revolt took place but the Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte (1798-1815).  But when you are making up stuff like you do, what difference do the facts make?  There was a huge amount of controversy, not about him getting his facts wrong, but about the content of what he said.  While many including myself regard what he said as an outrageous slander against the Haitian people, another question occurred to me: how does he know?  How does he know that in fact the Haitian people made a pact with the devil, whenever they did it, and that because of that pact, made however may years ago, they suffered this horrible earthquake now.

And then Michelle Bachmann tells us that Hurricane Irene was the result of God's wrath for too much Federal spending (that is on items that Michelle doesn't like spending on, like repairing bridges like the one that collapsed in her home state a couple of years ago).  She later claimed she was joking, but from I have heard from the likes of her and the Rev. Perry, God is not someone one should joke around with.  We will not here get into the seeming illogic of God punishing the US for Federal overspending by committing an act that requires more spending, actually on matters she really doesn't like money to spent on.  For I assume that as a "Tea Partier," as she likes to tell us even when not looking into the camera --- see, I do pay attention to details even if I don't deign to interfere with them --- she is following the lead of her Tea Party House Majority Leader (and luster after the Speaker's job, but that is another matter).  That is unless you are Rep. Cantor and want to find every possible excuse, including natural disasters, to rip out of the Federal budget spending you happen not to like too.

read more

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

We've wallowed too long in our victimhood

9-11 was indeed a devastating loss of personal life.  Those who died were mostly US citizens, but included people of all nations, such as the wait staff and bus boys at the sky high restaurant in the Twin Towers.  It was a "shared" loss, indicative of the international inclusiveness of America.

But having never experienced a significant mainland attack since the War of 1812 -- as Noam Chomsky points out in his remarkable book, "9-11: Was There an Alternative?" -- we feel ourselves invulnerable as a country. I recall reading an observation of Kurt Vonnegut many years ago -- who survived the allied fire bombing of Dresden in WW II in an underground slaughterhouse for prisoners of war -- commenting that America was distinct among Western allies in never knowing the devastation of cities under siege by bombers, rockets, tanks and mortar attack.

Then there is our national hubris, that American Exceptionalism itself was under attack on September 11, 2001.  Like all powerful empires, we feel invulnerable and crush anyone perceived to have pierced through our bubble of "invincibility."

Chomsky and others call 9-11 a crime, which our government treated as a justification for wars that are still continuing ten years later, draining us of military lives in excess of those lost on 9-11, causing civilian deaths in the hundreds of thousands, and being a central contributing factor to the rise in the American deficit.

Europe, which endured WW II -- in which some 30 million people were killed -- stopped letting the nightmarish loss of life and destruction hamper its reconstruction more quickly than America has let go of 9-11, which it still clings to and wallows in.

BuzzFlash at Truthout, publishing since May of 2000, reported and broke stories on the attack on the Twin Towers (and the Pentagon) and the Bush/Cheney administration use of the tragedy to launch military conflicts of empire.  At the time of 9-11, the Bush administration's poll numbers were low and dropping.  All that changed on 9-11, after which the full propaganda strength of the White House and corporate mass media focused on putting US citizens in a state of fear to accomplish strategic military goals to enhance America's superpower status and extend our military footprint.

Yes, BuzzFlash at Truthout focused on verifiable fact that Bush and Rice were warned of likely Al-Qaeda hijackings and how the stenographic DC press let them off the hook on their egregious unintentional or intentional lapse in heightening airport security that might indeed have prevented 9-11.

Rice eventually defended her failed responsibility to protect us by saying something like "but we didn't receive warnings that they would fly them into buildings," which was specious because US intelligence knew for some time of just such a possibility as part of an overall Al-Qaeda strategy.  Bush finally admitted, during his presidency, that they were warned of hijackings, but not of a specific target so his administration didn't take action to protect the World Trade Center.  The corporate press thought those excuses made sense, except for the simple logical fact that if Bush and Rice, among others, had taken increased steps to prevent hijackings, they might have prevented the hijackings that brought down the Twin Towers and blew up part of the Pentagon.

Furthermore, in exclusive reporting by Jason Leopold and Jeff Kaye on Truthout, it is revealed that US intelligence services did indeed know of Al-Qaeda interest in targeting the Twin Towers and the Pentagon: "high-level DoD officials held discussions about DO5's intelligence activities between the summer of 2000 and June 2001 revolving around al-Qaeda's interest in striking the Pentagon, the World Trade Center (WTC), and other targets."

In other words, at least some individuals in the Bush administration were aware that the terrorist organization had set its sights on those structures prior to 9/11 and, apparently, government officials failed to act on those warnings.

And then there are all the lingering threads, still unconnected, of how the CIA and FBI were on to some of the hijackers, not to mention the quickly erased connections of the hijackers to Saudi Arabian backers.  There are so many unanswered questions, even more after a 9-11 commission whitewashed the dirty laundry surrounding the attack.

But this much we know.  The narrative of our government switched on a dime after 9-11, and we were cast into a state of what Chomsky calls "manufactured consent," whipped up by a bombardment of jingoistic rhetoric coming from the federal government and the airwaves.  We were kept in a constant state of fear with crayon-colored alerts.  We were pawns in the great game of empire.

As a result, our nation is on the verge of a double-dip recession.  While nations like Germany forge ahead economically, Osama bin-Laden achieved one of his major goals: crippling America economically.

We are still wallowing in our victimhood.  We had our time to grieve, but we haven't moved on.

After World War II, the US helped rebuild Europe -- with the visionary Marshall Plan that even turned Germany (our former Nazi adversary) -- into thriving democracies and economic engines.

Since Barack Obama was elected, the Republican Party shifted the national narrative from 9-11 to the deficit, which -- as noted earlier -- has been a substantial contributor to our financial shortfall.  But 9-11 has continued to be an albatross around the neck of national progress and the closure of grief and grievance.

That will continue to weigh upon us unnecessarily until we get on with a new narrative of innovation, a belief in the strength of democracy, and an understanding that overextended empire cannot endure indefinitely while undertaking squandered and prolonged military expeditions.

We have appropriately mourned those who died in the attack of 9-11.  It is time that we honor them by advancing as a nation to write the next chapter of the great experiment in democracy known as America.

read more

DEE EVANS FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

With the 10-year anniversary of September 11 approaching, I have been listening to the increased discussions about how the people of America came together and were so unified in the aftermath of this horrific tragedy and how so many people now wish that our country could get back to how we were back then...when political party didn't matter.  But I can't help but ask myself...didn't political party matter?

Did which party was in control of the White House actually play a part in how 'unified' we were back then?  I have to wonder how things might have played differently if 9/11 had happened on a Democratic president's watch.

Whether our 'fair and balanced' mainstream media wants to admit it publicly or not, the Republicans have taken the Nobel "Putz" Prize quite a bit in recent years when it comes to political divisiveness and obstruction in this country.

Think back to the weeks immediately following 9/11.  Couldn't you just hear the likes of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter had this happened on Bill Clinton's or Barack Obama's watch?  In the midst of the grieving, wouldn't you just have loved to listen to all the public threats of Congressional hearings about "what did the White House know" that would have been demanded by the Jim DeMint's and Michele Bachmann's of the world? 

And I can just see the Muslim witch hunt that would have ensued under Congressman Peter King's direction (much like the one he's involved in now).  Can't you just imagine the Fox News and talk radio roundtable discussions about how the President "failed to keep us safe" and how he was "weak on terror!"

Back then, however, Bush was not a Republican President; he was an American President and most Americans supported his "anti-terrorism" campaign.  If you need any more proof of this, just look at Bush's approval ratings following 9/11.  His approval was around 90% and it stayed in the 60's and 70's through 2004.  I again ask, do you think this would have been the case had it been a Democratic President? 

The Republicans and the right-wing media would have so demagogued the president (and as usual, the sheep of the mainstream media would have followed suit) that the narrative would have developed into more one of blame than of unity.  With this negativity clogging the airwaves, the president would have been more questioned and criticized than supported and praised and his approval ratings would have almost surely plummeted.

After 9/11, many Democrats were very eager to work with President Bush.  Many of them voted for much of what he asked for and threw no extra special roadblocks in his path on the road to two wars.  Can you imagine if the shoe was on the other foot?  Would Clinton or Obama have received the same Congressional unity that Bush received?  My mind tells me Heck No!  Remember, Republicans live and breathe on their so-called national security credentials.  They would never have taken this attack as selflessly as the Democrats, did and the right-wing media would have had a field day assigning blame and labeling the President as a failure.

I too would love for our country to get back to the sense of pride and unity that we felt back then but I am in no way naïve enough to think that it was all on the up and up.  I just do not believe that Republicans and the right-wing media would have allowed a Democratic President to be looked upon so favorably as a warrior following a terrorist attack that killed 3,000 Americans on U.S. soil.

Just ponder the question: How "unified" would our country have been if 9/11 had happened under a Democratic President?

read more

SHAMUS COOKE FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

When there are zero jobs available, any job will do. This fact has been exploited by corporations now re-labeling themselves "job creators," since being a job creator in a time of depression brings a religious status similar to a rain god during a drought. Democrats and Republicans have lavished eternal praise on the "job creators" and in consequence have created a political atmosphere that is rabidly pro-corporate "job creators" and anti-everything else.    

In practice this means that any new law or regulation that hinders the power or profits of "job creating" corporations is instantly attacked as a "job killer." This type of logic is good for bumper stickers and Tea Parties but bad for those who suffer under the giant power of corporations, including working people, the unemployed, the self-employed, and the environment.

For example, in Oregon a statewide measure was passed to increase taxes on corporations and the wealthy to deal with the state's budget deficit. The tax money was to be used to save social services and prevent layoffs. Before it became law the measure was attacked viciously by a newborn, well-funded group calling itself "Oregonians Against Job-Killing Taxes." The message was simple: if you tax the wealthy and corporations, they will punish you by leaving the state and taking their jobs with them; better to simply accept their absolute power and sing their praises while reducing their taxes and destroying environmental regulations that impede their profits.  

Obama recently surrendered to this philosophy when he reneged on a promise to adopt stricter air quality standards around ozone pollution (against the recommendations of scientists from his own Environmental Protection Agency).  Less ground-level smog would prevent thousands of deaths while reducing lung and health issues in general, cutting health care costs by billions. But the interests of the corporate "job creators" won out in the end. The Huffington Post reports:  

"The White House has been under heavy pressure from GOP lawmakers and major industries, which have slammed the stricter standard as an unnecessary jobs killer...Obama said his decision was made in part to reduce regulatory burdens [on corporations] and uncertainty [for corporations] at a time of rampant questions about the strength of the U.S. economy." 

How did corporate America react? 

Thomas Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce [a giant corporate lobby group] said the move was "an enormous victory for America's job creators, the right decision by the president and one that will help reduce the uncertainty facing businesses." (September 2nd, 2011).   

This dynamic is now the new normal. The same logic was used after the Gulf Coast BP disaster, when Obama temporarily banned offshore drilling in response. But this practical and necessary measure was instantly attacked as a "job killer" and Obama quickly changed his tune and ended the ban.  Dangerous deep-sea drilling continues and politicians and the media alike have hushed-over the issues until the next disaster occurs. The incredible shock and outrage that working people voiced over the BP oil spill has been ignored in favor of the interests of the "Job Creators."  

Not only was the BP disaster ignored, but some corporations used it to their benefit. Since deep sea drilling was dangerous, some corporations admitted, better to focus on the ever-expanding realm of land drilling for natural gas.  As the excellent documentary Gasland shows, drilling for natural gas (also called Liquefied natural gas, or LNG) is causing catastrophic environmental damage while the Obama administration has repeatedly encouraged its expansion as an alternative to "foreign oil." The Environmental Protection Agency has virtually ignored this now-gigantic industry as corporations like Halliburton pump hundreds of poisonous chemicals into the ground and air for their personal profit.  

Corporations also won out when it came to environmentally-sane logging strategies in the Pacific Northwest and the horrifically-destructive act of mountain removal for the mining industries. Yet another recent victim was the Canadian Tar Sands pipeline that Obama agreed to, which will run from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, carrying oil that was especially destructive to mine. In all these cases the corporate "Job Creators" attacked the so-called "Job Killers" for wanting to impose regulations that would help prevent environmental disasters.   

In addition, corporations quietly sidelined Obama's campaign promise to set the first-ever limits on the specific pollution blamed for global warming. At a time when most working people are educated and deathly afraid of the near-term effects of global warming, the President has simply stopped talking about the issue. Any respectable climate scientist will tell you that unless massive environmental changes are made very soon there will be unstoppable climate change that will have dire consequences for all humans, not just the ones most immediately effected in areas devastated by droughts, flooding, and other extreme weather patterns.  

All working people have an interest in ensuring that their children and grandchildren can live a life without such carnage. Some, however, are tricked into thinking that the immediate need for jobs overrules any consideration for the environment, since not eating today is more important than a global environmental crisis that will strike tomorrow. In reality there is no such contradiction. Now is actually the perfect time to brush this corporate-created myth aside and demand what is sorely over-due for both working people and the environment.  

It should be painfully clear to even the most reality-blind politicians that the private sector has no interest in creating jobs; they are quite content sitting on their mountains of cash until wages fall low enough -- due to massive unemployment -- for them to hire more labor. Working people cannot afford the patience or the low wages. The jobs' crisis demands that governments on the city, state, and federal level create jobs' programs similar to the programs enacted during the last great depression. But not just any jobs will do.  

Given that our society is facing an energy crisis and a related environmental crisis, only a green jobs program will do. This means not only fixing dilapidated bridges and roads, but investing massive amounts of money in alternative energy -- solar, wind, hydro, etc. -- while improving and expanding alternative forms of transportation -- high speed trains, buses, electric cars, etc. It also means massive investments in home and building weatherization, recycling infrastructure, public education campaigns, research and development for alternative energy, and a variety of other measures that will help fundamentally change our culture's relation to the environment, all of which will create massive amounts of jobs.  

Obama's stubborn refusal to do anything of substance for labor, the unemployed, and environmentalists creates an opportunity for these groups to work closely together for a better world. Because politicians are refusing to respond to society's most pressing needs, new tactics need to be employed. Lobbying politicians and organizing small rallies cannot have the same effects they once did.    

read more