Archive for buzzflash

Banishing the Poor, Unemployed and Working Class from the Mainstream Media Implies That They are Worthless

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

media news incorporated democracy

Your Daily Dose of BuzzFlash at Truthout, via my pal Mark Karlin;

How often do you come across an article or a television news story that presents a poor person in a positive light?  Or for that matter when do you read about or see a story on an unemployed individual or the challenges of a working class American whose salary is receding as the stock market soars? [...]

In short, if you are not a member of the economically made, political or corporate elite, you generally don’t appear in the news. You are voiceless, faceless. The reality is that you are not news; your existence is hardly worthy of note, with the obligatory exception of an occasional “gee it’s tough to live like this” profile of a “welfare mom” or person unemployed and looking for work for three or four years. [...]

Otherwise, in urban areas, the only regular stories you see about the poor is the knife and gun coverage of violence [...]

Some union members are well into the middle class, but even labor gets short shrift by the corporate mainstream media.  Why? Many reasons, but one of the big ones is that the owners of news “machines” in America are generally not keen on unions.  They cut into their media conglomerate profits.  So why promote the union viewpoint?

But there’s another key point to remember.  News that relies on advertising for revenue and profit – which is almost all the news media …– are shaped as conduits for advertisers to deliver to a defined market.  And guess what? Poor and low income people don’t have the money to make them a desirable advertising audience (with some exceptions) for big media. So why write articles about them in the corporate media? [...]

To many in the society, their mere presence on earth blights the landscape of the prosperous.

Please read the entire post here.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

Looks Like Wall Street Is Starting to See the Dollar Signs in Legalizing Pot

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

legalize pot marijuana smaller

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Jamen Shively, former Microsoft executive who wants to create America’s first national marijuana brand and wants to become “the Starbucks of pot,” spoke to MSNBC’s Chris Jansing:

Jansing:

The nation’s retail marijuana market is estimated at $30 billion. Maybe you have a different number. that’s what I’ve seen. Washington state’s marijuana consultant– I didn’t even know they had one– but says he fears that you, personally, are seeking to profit off others’ addiction. What do you say to him?

Shively:

Well, first of all, marijuana is not physically addictive. And since the only business that we intend to get into is cannabis, and we do not intend to get into the business of any addictive drugs, he’s simply flat-out wrong in that regard. As far as Mr. Kleinman’s assertion that I’m seeking to profit, guilty as charged.

And with that, a few snippets from Your Daily Dose of BuzzFlash at Truthout, via my pal Mark Karlin:

Barron’s, the conservative financial news weekly published by Dow Jones, chose as its June 1st cover story an article that basically states the case for legalizing marijuana.

Coming from a publication that symbolizes the driving-force of Wall Street – financial data and investment prospects— the prominent placement of the story pondering marijuana legalization is a boost to those seeking to end its prohibition.

Although Barron’s journalist Thomas G. Donlan also offers a few of the arguments against legalization, the article virtually advocates for an end to the criminalization of pot. For Barron’s it is just good business: for the private market and for cash-strapped governments. [...]

Not only will law enforcement personnel be freed up, legalization would save imprisonment costs that run – on the low end of the range — $25,000 per incarcerated individual per year.  It will also offer more opportunity to persons of color, the primary group put in jail for marijuana violations. [...]

Perhaps of more significance in terms of assessing which way the wind is blowing in public sentiment is this Barrons revelation:

Whether Congress realizes it or not, a good number of citizens want the problem fixed. The same Pew study that found a majority of people favoring legalization also found that 60% of Americans think the federal government should not enforce its prohibition in states that permit marijuana use. And 72% agreed with the proposition that federal enforcement of marijuana laws is not worth the cost.

[...] Barron’s is one of the bibles, along with The Wall Street Journal, of the heavy Wall Street hitters. [...]

Seeing things in dollars and cents starts to get the attention of a publication such as Barron’s – and ultimately the business class that pulls the strings in DC.

Please read the entire post here.

marijuana can't we all just get a bong

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

Wall St. “Too Big to Fail” Banks and Corporations Are the Real Takers: Count the Ways

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

chart vulture income disparity inequality smaller

Your Daily Dose of BuzzFlash at Truthout, via my pal Mark Karlin:

The takers are on the loose, mugging most of the American population and destroying a vital economy and representative democracy in the process.  They break the rules, think only of themselves, and take unaccountable advantage of decent people in society. [...]

Who are the takers in our society? The corporations who make record-breaking profits at a time when workers are enduring decreased (adjusted for inflation) pay or losing their jobs – and the too big to fail financial institutions who take advantage of an all but monopoly-hold on our money supply.

The following are just a few examples of the takers in action.

Banks: …These banks aren’t banks: they are financial entities with tentacles that control DC to ensure lack of regulation, which allows them to take and take and take from those of us who actually labor for a living.

Agri-business: First they came and squeezed so many of the small farmers out of business.  Now they are taking away our fundamental human right to own and farm the basic grains of life: seeds…. You can’t be more of a taker than one who steals the agrarian seeds of life and forces payment for them throughout the world.

Logo Brand Corporations: …Logo brand corporations take our dollars, increase their record profits, hire exploitative labor sub-contractors in financially desperate nations – and they make relatively minor financial investments in building the domestic US economy.

Predatory Venture Capitalists: Mitt Romney represented the ultimate $250 billion dollar venture capitalist blood sucker on the US workforce and economic structure.  All he did was implement strategies to take companies down, sell off their parts and decrease labor costs.  [...]

Corporate Intellectual Capital: Who provides the education that allows companies such as Apple, Microsoft, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman to prosper?  Do they pay for the education of their workers?  Not a chance. The public school system – and public and private colleges – are the fundamental basis of the brain power behind US corporations.  [...]

They are the 1% freeloaders, freeloaders on a society that provided everything they needed to become the ultimate gilded grifters.

Please read the entire post here.

george carlin corporate rich v poor inequality

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

Senate Republicans Want to Destroy the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Elizabeth Warren Created

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

blocked i can haz unblock

Your Daily Dose of BuzzFlash at Truthout, via my pal Mark Karlin:

Count the ways that the GOP in Congress is still trying to destroy the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). There are so many that you would need a calculator.

Start with the holding up through a — you got it – yet another “threatened” filibuster of the appointment of Richard Cordray as official head of the agency.  Currently, he is only in the position as a recess appointment.  This limits his power, term and implementation of the full consumer protection law that was enacted as part of the Dodd-Frank legislation, which the Republicans loathe, as weak as it is. [...]

Reid, in what now is a tired toothless threat, says that he may end the non-filibuster/filibuster by reducing a closure vote to merely needing a majority and not 60 votes. [...]

Meanwhile, the consumers are already benefiting from the CFPB, even if in its weakened stake, and from regulation of financial legislation in the Dodd-Frank law [...]So until Cordray … is confirmed by the Senate, the right of consumers to be protected from predatory financial institutions and banks hangs by a thread. All because 43 GOP Senators — who represent roughly only about a third of the US population because they are mostly from states with relatively small numbers of voters — have signed a letter opposing not just Cordray (remember Obama dumped Elizabeth Warren who designed the agency due to GOP opposition), but any Obama nominee to head the agency [...]

A “take no prisoners” Republican caucus is defying two-thirds of the US population, a majority by anyone’s standards, by merely scaring Harry Reid for the umpteenth time with a filibuster that never occurs because Reid won’t call their bluff. [...]

Why the Democrats don’t take the ball and ram it to the goal post may be more a testament to the power of corporate and financial institutions over Congress than to Reid’s craven capitulation.

Please read the entire post here.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

NYC PBS Pres. Freaks Out Over Documentary Critical of Koch Bros., Offers David Koch Unprecedented Rebuttal

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

koch cartoon

Your Daily Dose of BuzzFlash at Truthout, via my pal Mark Karlin:

Thom Hartmann recently wrote an extremely widely read article on how the Public Broadcasting Service has evolved into a sometimes self-censored television network, in large part because major donors represent the 1% who would be the subject of discussion when it comes to economic concentration in the hands of a few.

Hartmann entitled his commentary, “The Corporate Dictatorship of PBS and NPR.” The primary example Hartmann offers of how critical analysis necessary for formulating public policy is de facto censored concerns how PBS dropped the funding of a documentary called “Citizen Koch.” [...]

Enter Alex Gibney, who won a 2008 Academy Award… Gibney filmed a documentary for WNET, “Park Avenue: Money, Power and the American Dream” that focused on one of the wealthiest residential buildings in New York City: 740 Park Avenue.

According to Jane Mayer, who had written about the Kochs before in a celebrated New Yorker article in 2010, it would be difficult to do a film about 740 Park Avenue without examining the Koch empire that created their wealth, as well as their political activities. What did WNET President Neal Shapiro do when he realized that “Park Avenue” might offend David Koch? Why, he called him and offered him a rebuttal, a roundtable discussion, a written response: anything that would appease a 1% donor who was on the board of the station (Koch has since quit) and was about to give a bundle to WNET. [...]

Gibney was told that the most pressing problem was Charles Schumer, the Democratic senator from New York. Schumer’s staff had called WNET, arguing that “Park Avenue” falsely accused the Senator of supporting tax loopholes for hedge-fund managers. Gibney double-checked his research and stood by his interpretation. [...]

[T]he WNET battle over “Park Avenue” clearly intimidated, according to Meyer’s New Yorker Piece, other documentary makers in terms of what appeared to be a growing PBS bias to protect wealthy donors and board members from on-air criticism.

Please read the entire post here.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

Alberta Tar Sands Oil Is Already Flowing and Leaking Into the United States

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

tar sands oil handful

Your Daily Dose of BuzzFlash at Truthout, via my pal Mark Karlin:

[T]he House passed a bill that is a power grab by the big oil companies, TransCanada pipeline, and Canada to build a fourth more direct Keystone XL pipeline to Steele City, Nebraska.  It would increase capacity and profit, but it is not necessary for the tar sands oil to flow in the US; it already is.As Politico reported on the House vote, “The House approved legislation Wednesday to green-light the Keystone XL oil pipeline (the fourth optional segment), giving Republicans a messaging victory heading into the Memorial Day recess.”

It’s a symbolic victory — and an assertion of big oil power — because Alberta Tar Sands oil is already flowing into the US as revealed by two prominent branch line leaks in Arkansas and Michigan.

On April 29, InsideClimateNews ran a story asking about the toxic Alberta Tar Sands spill in Arkansas:

… When did the pipeline begin leaking? When and how did the oil company find out about it? How quickly did the company act? How much oil spilled from the pipeline’s 22-foot-long gash? And what condition was the line in before it ruptured? [...]

Native American activist Winona Duke recently wrote an op-ed in the Duluth News Tribune warning of expanding the Enbridge pipeline, which is already carrying Alberta Sands oil into the US:

Tar sands oil is 16 times more likely to breach a pipeline than regular crude oil, according to a February 2011 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the National Wildlife Federation, Pipeline Safety Trust, and the Sierra Club. [...]

One more time: Enbridge could nearly double how many barrels per day flow through those pipeline veins of the Alberta Clipper. Now consider our ecosystem. Wetlands are like sponges; they soak up everything: the good, the bad and the oil spills. [...]

In the Keystone pipeline case, the administration granted a special permit to TransCanada. The waiver allows the proposed pipeline to operate at 80 percent of the minimum yield strength of the pipe rather than the maximum of 72 percent required by federal regulations….

[...] The contention of [a] reader with a knowledge of the oil industry is that TransCanada has said it will not transport Alberta tar sands oil unless the new larger capacity northern pipeline is built.

But why then is there a widespread belief that tar sands oil is already being stored up in Cushing, Oklahoma, the Keystone Pipeline hub, pending the opening of the southern leg? [...]

It is already happening. Ask the residents of cities in Arkansas and Michigan for a start.

Please read the entire post here.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

Wake up call: Keystone Pipeline Nears Completion This Summer as Carbon-dioxide Reaches Record Levels

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

tar sands pipeline Photo via Wikipedia

(Photo: Wikipedia)

Your Daily Dose of BuzzFlash at Truthout, via my pal Mark Karlin:

Yes, regardless of the earnest civil disobedience of groups and individuals protesting the 4th phase of the Keystone XL Pipeline, the reality is that within a month or two, tar sands oil from Alberta will be mainlining its way to Houston and Port Arthur, Texas.

How can that be, you ask, when President Obama has not yet made an official decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline?

The answer is simple: he has.

When Obama approved what is known as the southern leg of the pipeline the spigot was opened to transport the climate-killing tar sands oil to refineries and ports in Texas – and facilities along the way.  The only issue outstanding is whether Obama will approve a northern branch of the Keystone XL Pipeline that will be more profitable and deliver much more volume than the current stitched together pipeline that is nearing completion.  The southern leg of the pipeline that runs from Cushing, Oklahoma, to Houston and Port Arthur in Texas should be fully constructed, with oil flowing, before Obama might even decide on the northern “express” leg that is a more direct and lucrative option for its owner, TransCanada. [...]

The reality of the nearly finished pipeline dispels the notion that the pending Obama decision about the northern leg of Keystone XL might forestall the ruinous carbon dioxide emissions created by tar sands processing is dismaying.  But it can also be a wake up call that even the most laudable goals to save the planet can become the victim of a diversionary shell game. [...]

What most US citizens don’t know – including most progressives – is that when the southern pipeline segment starts flowing with tar sands oil in a short while, the fuse will have already ignited the bomb.

Please read the entire post here.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email