Monthly Archive for September, 2007

The Creature from Jekyll Island! Huh?

Published
by
Wilson
on September 30, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

If you think the “Creature from Jekyll Island” is a character in a horror film, think again. The “Creature” is the Federal Reserve System which was the brain child of a group of “mad” financiers who gathered together under the relatively carefree name of The Jekyll Island Club. You know them as the Morgans, the Rockefellers, and all those other rich bankers from the North that had more money than god.

The author of Creature, G. Edward Griffin, is a political commentator and documentary filmmaker who has no love for the Federal Reserve. This is the ultimate conspiracy theory. After the Bank Panic of 1907, the bankers got together and under the ruse of the Federal Reserve System gained virtual control of the American Monetary System. The main thing they did was create money. They did it by creating credit. For example, if you and I loan our money to a friend, we can’t loan more money than we have. However, under the Federal Reserve System a bank may have $10 in assets (investments) and yet be able to loan $90, many times the investment. The Federal Reserve System created instant money, just not for you and me. It’s the banks that get to reap the benefits of loaning more money than they have. According to Griffin, it’s all because we created the Federal Reserve, a system designed and created by the bankers to regulate the banks in the way the banks wanted to be regulated.

The plan was hatched in 1910 at Jekyll Island and it took until 1913 for Congress to pass the necessary legislation, The Federal Reserve Act. The leader of the effort was Republican Senator Nelson Aldrich, (Rhode Island) the whip in the Senate and chairman of the National Monetary Commission. I wonder if ole’ Senator Aldrich died rich? He died 2 years later in 1915.

Even presidential candidate Ron Paul has called into question the monopoly of the Federal Reserve.

There is a lot of conspiracy in this interview, as well as the book. Do you believe in conspiracies? The more I try to find out what is going on, the more I believe that money controls this country and every part of it that wields power. That is conspiracy enough!

 
 Edward Griffen, Author [28:21m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (85)

Melissa Harris Lacewell: Hillary Can’t Win?

Published
by
Wilson
on September 29, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

Melissa Harris Lacewell is an Associate Professor of Politics and African American Studies at Princeton University. I wanted to discuss the significance of the 2008 Presidential Race in the context of electing or failing to elect the first woman or the first African American as president. Melissa gives her views on this issue and a lot of others.

Melissa doesn’t think that women are particularly focused on electing a woman as much as they are concerned about a candidate’s stand on specific issues, such as peace over war. While men are overwhelmingly Republican, women are fairly equally split between the Democracts and Republicans.

Melissa has some strong opinions about the Democratic ticket. Her Dream Team: Obama/Edwards, although she thinks Edwards/Obama is more likely to win. She’s a little put out with those people who think that Obama isn’t black enough or that Obama and Edwards don’t have the international experience necessary to be president. She points out that when people voted for a change in 2000 they weren’t voting for a George Bush that they felt capable of fighting terrorists or starting two wars. They were voting for someone that they thought would continue the relatively good times economically. The point: You never know what issues and decisions a candidate will face after election, so you best focus on overall qualifications for integrity and competence.

Melissa says that according to the polls, Hillary can’t win. Hillary is the conservative force (she was once a Republican) behind the contemporary Democratic party, as opposed to a proponent of the populist Democratic Party. Everyone believes a Democrat is going to win in 2008, no matter who it is. Melissa says this is correct according to the polls, except for one thing: Hillary always loses.

It is for this reason that all the top Republicans are branding Hillary as the next president, kind of like reverse psychology. If they can get the Democrats to nominate the one person who can’t win, they win–again. All I can say is, if the Democrats nominate Hillary and she doesn’t win, I am definitely going to join the Unity Party.

We also discussed Drew Westin’s book “The Political Brain” in the context of the Democratic candidates’ recent cop-out in responding to the question of whether or not they could commit to having all American troops out of Iraq by the end of their first term. Melissa says that, unfortunately, they are just being Democrats.

On Congress’ low approval rating, Melissa sees the 2006 mid-term elections as a referendum on Bush. The message: We can’t vote Bush out so we will vote his supporters out of office. She points out that people in general hate/blame Congress, but love their own Congressman. Thus, the low approval rating may not mean much in predicting the outcome of the 2008 elections.

Melissa believes the idea that the Democrats will ever be able to win without Dixie is wrong, that the future of the Democratic Party lies with its ability to win back the South.

She does think that as a result of the Katrina fiasco the Republicans have lost much of whatever Black support they had. The recent snubbing of the PBS/Tavis Smiley debate certainly hasn’t helped.

 
 Melissa Lacewell, Professor, Princeton [26:37m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (78)

Meet Soffie Thigpen, The First Female Captain in the Georgia State Patrol!

Published
by
Wilson
on September 29, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

Soffie Thigpen would probably be the last person to think much of her recent promotion to Captain, just another day at work and another part of the job she has been doing for 25 years. Nevertheless, Soffie is the first female to make the rank of Captain in the Georgia State Patrol. She is the liason between GEMA, Homeland Security and the GSP.

Soffie began her career with the GSP in 1983 in Donaldsonville, Georgia. Just like every other Trooper, she began with training, and then more training. And then you get the car, the fast car! Once a Trooper, always a Trooper. Soffie stills takes a turn at the wheel when the GSP is out in force on holidays and special events.

I wanted to ask Soffie about this nice trooper I met the other week that gave me this little yellow slip of paper. I am sure it was a mistake, but if forgot to mention it.

According to Soffie, the GSP is in the process of building up the force and now may be a good time to sign up if you’re looking for a career opportunity with great benefits, including retirement.

I can only say that I have had the pleasure of meeting several Troopers “on the road,” I have always found them to be courteous and professional. Of course, I also try to be courteous and professional with them, as well. I never try to make up an excuse for my speeding and never act like they ought to know better than to stop me.

Remember, the next time you get stopped, they are just doing their job.

 
 Soffie Thigpen, First Female Captain, Georgia State Patrol [28:37m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (63)

What Do Amino Acids Have in Common with Alcohol and Drug Abuse?

Published
by
Wilson
on September 27, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

All I can remember about amino acids from biology class is that they are the building blocks of protein–whatever that means. Now, I learn that amino acids are being used to treat alcoholism and drug abuse. Science and medicine just never cease to amaze me!

Mike Sanders, the Founder and CEO of ExecuCare, has brought amino acid therapy for drug treatment to Georgia. Mike was addicted to alcohol, OxyContin and Xanax, and when he sought treatment he found IV amino acids in Slidell, LA. Now, 2 years later he has opened his own treatment center in Norcross.

We all know people who have “checked in” for treatment. Some go for a few weeks, leave, and go for another few weeks, leave, and go for…. Others actually stay for that 28 (or is it 30) day program that we all hear is the absolute minimum needed to accomplish anything permanent. And then, there are those who do it right and sign up for 6 or 7 months. Well, how would you like to trade all of that for a 10-day outpatient program?

This is how the website describes the method:

Developed by Dr. William Hitt more than 20 years ago, the Neurotransmitter

Restoration (NTR) treament utilizes a special formulation that contains amino acids, minerals and vitamins. These formulations are administered intravenously over a 10-day period by a registered nurse under a doctor’s supervision.

At ExecuCare ARC, we treat the physical form of the disease by restoring normal brain function. The NTR treatment is the process in which the brain’s neurotransmitters are brought back into balance, allowing the brain to function as it did prior to the physical dependency on alcohol or drugs. This treatment speeds up the healing process and eliminates cravings while minimizing withdrawal symptoms.

More than 15,000 patients have been treated with a better than 80% success rate.

If amino acids, minerals and vitamins can suppress cravings for alcohol and drugs, it is just a matter of time before someone finds out what works for other addictions. It’s just more proof that most of our problems really are in our head, our brain actually.

All I can say is listen to the interview and if you know someone who has an addiction problem, give them a heads-up and let them decide if this is something that might help them.

 
 Mike Sanders, ExecuCare [29:08m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (108)

Judge Charles W. Pickering: “A Price Too High”

Published
by
Wilson
on September 24, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

You may remember Judge Charles W. Pickering, whose recess appointment by President Bush to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals infuriated liberals, since the Senate had already rejected his nomination. He wrote a book about his experience in the nomination process, “A Price Too High,” which I heard him discussing on C-SPAN a few weeks ago. While he was accusing his opponents of distorting his record on civil rights etc., I was intrigued by his opinions about liberal activist judges and their failure to properly interpret the Constitution according to its true meaning. My goal in interviewing Judge Pickering was to try to understand exactly how conservative judges achieve this ability of interpretation and liberal judges don’t or can’t or won’t.

Unfortunately, I do not think I accomplished my goal. I simply could not follow Judge Pickering’s logic. This is about all I could discern from his argument: If conservatives agree with a court’s decision, then the interpretation is in accordance with the true meaning of the Constitution. If they don’t agree, then an activist liberal judge has hijacked the Constitution and legislated a liberal philosophy. He did admit that conservative judges made bad decisions in 1857 (Dred Scott on slavery) and 1896 (Plessy v Ferguson on separate but equal).

This interview convinces me that Kipling was right: “Oh East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet…” Even though I am a lawyer, I will be the first to admit that I am very naive when it comes to the judicial system. When I went to law school I was impressed with the wisdom of the Warran Court when it made controversial decisions back in the ’60s. I, like a lot of people, thought that at some point the Supreme Court went a little too far in protecting the criminal from being convicted, but that is why I thought over a period of time the Court would swing like a pendulum, back to the middle. I am sure, just like Judge Pickering, I am a product of my upbringing. Liberal or conservative, I always thought that judges could or should transcend their personal views and rule based on the idea that the law is the law. Even though Judge Pickering espouses the same belief, I don’t think he and I are talking about the same thing.

Judge Pickering and I did agree that the mistake America made as a result of Roe v. Wade was to politicize the nomination of judges, to establish abortion as a litmus test for judges. Over the years the litmus test has been expanded to include gay marriage, prayer in schools, the pledge of allegiance and a few other things. However, Supreme Court appointments were, at times, controversial even before Rowe.

Judge Pickering does have a solution to this problem and I agree with him for the most part. The solution: amend the Constitution! Truthfully, that is exactly what the Constitution provides. If you don’t like Rowe v Wade, don’t politicize the judiciary, get your supporters together and pass a constitutional amendment to overrule the Supreme Court. Congress has passed many laws to overrule Supreme Court decisions; it is just that abortion would require a constitutional amendment.

Judge Pickering points out that until the 1970s the US averaged passing one amendment to the Constitution every 11 years. He also said that there had been no amendments since 1971 (26th Amendment, Voting Age 18), but the 27th Amendment passed in 1992 restricting pay raises for Congress. I am sure we all remember the Equal Rights Amendment that was submitted to the states for ratification and failed. Funny, but that was a liberal proposal.

It all makes me wonder why in all these years since Rowe, the Congress has not submitted to the states a constitutional amendment on abortion. I am sure there may be many reasons, but I think there is a good chance that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want this issue resolved. Just keeping the controversy stirred up and focused on judges and the courts insures that certain segments of the voting population will be lined up on one side or another.

Can you imagine the important things we could focus on in this country if the abortion issue went away?

 
 Judge Charles W. Pickering, Author [30:39m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (77)

Do You Eat “Real Food?”

Published
by
Wilson
on September 22, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

With all the bad food coming out of China, wouldn’t it be nice to have one a “local grocer” again. You know, the one who knows your name and what you like to eat! I grew up walking 3 blocks to Joe Chance’s grocery for meats and canned goods. We grew, picked, shelled and my mother put in the freezer all the vegetables we needed between seasons. During the season everything was fresh and good.

Well, if Nina Planck has her way, we would make an effort to develop local farmers’ markets, with small farms growing real food and making real products. Nina is an expert on farmer markets and operates markets in Virginia and London and sure seems to know what she is talking about. We’ve got more farmers’ markets here in Georgia than I realized until this interview.

When it comes to food and diet, Nina recommends we eat “Real Food,” which also happens to be the name of her book on the subject. And what is real food? Why, it’s the food we’ve been eating for hundreds and thousands of years. Not this stuff that is manufactured by factory farms so that a chicken is fattened in a few months and antibiotics are given to livestock. They say it is safe, but I am not sure I trust anything the FDA or the USDA puts out, except maybe the yearly calendar.

Ahh! Real Food! You know like real milk. We didn’t have a cow, but some of my friends did and I will never forget drinking warm milk right out of the factory, I mean utter. Even Abbott and Costello knew how to milk a cow!

She also comments on the Vegan Diet and notes there has never been a culture that survived on fruits and vegetables without eating some animal or animal product (milk and eggs). She has real concerns about a strict vegetarian diet, particularly when it comes to babies. Atlanta had a tragedy in 2007 when a baby died from lack of nourishment on a vegan regimen.

Ever heard of the Niman Ranch? Now there’s a farmer and a market!

And why don’t we have more emphasis on locally grown foods? The big grocery companies don’t want us shopping at the farmers’ markets. But, locally grown food and farmer markets are increasing. Sounds like something worth looking into.

 
 Nina Planck, Author [30:03m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (70)

SCHIP Funding: What’s The Problem?

Published
by
Wilson
on September 21, 2007
in Podcast
. 1 Comment

SCHIP funding is one of those government things that most of us don’t understand, except in simple terms, which often end up being nothing more than sound bites. For Democrats it’s “Healthcare for Kids.” For Republicans it something like “Entitlement Program” or “Increased Taxes.”

Maybe this interview with Congressman Nathan Deal (GA 9th) will be of some help. The program itself was started during the Clinton Administration (you know, back when we had a budget surplus) and expires at the end of this month, September. At the beginning $40 million was allocated for the entire program. Let me see, at 50 states, that’s $800 million per state for 10 years or $80 million a year per state. Of course, I am sure those puny little states with less than a million people, like Wyoming, didn’t get as much money. Anyway, the states got the money in a block grant to spend as they thought best.

As I understand it, the block grant was a set amount determined by some formula. The formula was not particularly fair. States (like Georgia) that did a good job enrolling kids, got penalized and states that didn’t do so good, got more money. As usual, the funding makes no sense. Anyway, as we all know, Georgia ran out of money earlier this year and the state legislature had to deal with the problem when the feds refused Sonny’s plea for “Mo’ Money.”

The program was apparently intended to provide some form of coverage to poor kids whose parents earned less than 200% of the poverty level. I am told that means a family income of about $41,300 which I really don’t understand because I thought the poverty level was a lot less than $20,500. Maybe, that figure is a family of four.

According to Congressman Deal, the program had gone berserk, with states like New York raising the qualifying income to 400% of the poverty level. And then there was New Jersey that had adults on the rolls. Apparently, there weren’t any restrictions in the program that prevented any state from changing the qualification requirements. I don’t know enough to justify these situations, except that I would certainly believe it costs more to live in New York than Georgia, so maybe the poverty level there should be higher. As for New Jersey, well, if it’s a block grant, why can’t we just let the state deal with it. It makes no sense to blame the entire program on these aberrations. You know, deal with it.

I think the real issue, as always, is money. According to Congressman Deal, the Republicans want to add $5 billion to the yearly funding and the Democrats want to add more. I got confused over the exact amount, so I won’t say anything other than that the Democrats wanted to increase it more. According to Congressman Deal, there is a study that establishes that $5 billion a year is enough to cover all the children in America that fall within that original 200% of poverty level. I just don’t know, but it must not be that clear-cut.

I find it hard to believe that $5 billion more will take care of all the kids when you consider the increase in health care costs over the last 10 years, not to mention the increase in our poplulation. But the Bush Administration is adament that its proposal is enough.

Also, according to Congressman Deal if the SCHIP program is expanded to include higher and higher levels of income, it is going to start affecting private insurance. I guess that means that the more people that qualify for help in getting health insurance for their kids, the less the insurance companies get. Now, there is the rub!

The Congressman and I did pretty good until he started talking about Nancy Pelosi getting support down in Lyons, Georgia. At that point it got a little testy. Oh well, it comes with the territory.

 
 Nathan Deal, Congressman GA-9th [29:02m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (80)

On Certainty!

Published
by
Wilson
on September 20, 2007
in Blog
. 0 Comments

A friend of mine who is into poetry sent me a poem that did not seem to be a poem, at least not in the sense of iambic pentameter, which is the way I was taught. Anyway, I decided to post it even though it is a little out of my comfort zone. Maybe someone will straighten me out on poetry, ’cause I sure didn’t get it in high school. (Please ignore the punctuation, I was not sure how to do it.)

I am certain of this:
that I am not certain of this.
Certainty is not the same as knowing.

But I long to be certain of the things
that cannot be known, both the deep
and shallow things of life.

Many are certain but they do not know.
They listen to the part that suits their inner hearing
and claim they are certain they have heard.

Hearing is such a difficult thing, of that
I am certain, and even when I hear without doubt
my mind creates uncertainty against all my wishes.

Being uncertain is not a way of life,
But a condition of existing. It tires me
to think about certainty in a world that is not.

And the thing of which I am most certain
Is that I am not troubled by uncertainty
Until I encounter someone who is–certain that is.

It is rather like seeing the largest diamond,
Or a magic trick, or a couple in love.
To see and yet know it is beyond your reach.

The greatest uncertainty is to know you are right
And yet the powers that govern, claim to
know they are right about things that were not certain when they were like me.

And if I doubt the certainty they claim to know,
I must form an argument to repel their certainty,
As if uncertainty did not exist without proof

And all this time it was me who thought
That it was certainty that required the proof of the pudding.
For uncertainty survives the most certain of things.

Fred’s Man in Georgia!

Published
by
Wilson
on September 20, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

Sen. Chip Rogers (R-21) has just accepted the position as Executive Director of presidential hopeful, Fred Thompson’s Georgia campaign. In this interveiw I try to get Chip to tell us Georgians why Fred is the man.

We cover the issues from the Iraq War (which Chip still likes to call that War on Terror!), to yesterdays defeat of the Democrat’s effort to do something to bring the troops home for a rest, to immigration, to health care and then throw in a few Georgia topics as well.

Red state, red state, red state. I don’t want to give up the fight for the Democrats in ‘08, but Fred is going to be tough to beat in this state–unless he makes a mistake, maybe a big one at that.

At least Chip and I both hope that Fred’s entry into the race will diffuse some of the divisive issues that have monopolized state and federal politics too much since the 2000 race. You know the ones: abortion, gay rights, religion and the like, all issues which this country needs to solve in some manner, once and for all.

 
 Senator Chip Rogers (R-21) [27:54m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (73)

The Cost of Free Trade: The American Worker and Standards

Published
by
Wilson
on September 19, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

David Sirota is a political journalist and author of “Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Government Conquered Our Government and How We Take it Back.” David is one of those voices in the wilderness tryiing to get us to wake up and do something to take back this country from the lobbyists.

I wish I could blame all the power of lobbyists on the Republicans, but I am afraid the need for money infects both parties and most candidates. In the current race, John Edwards is one of the few candidates in contention that has taken a strong stand against taking money from lobbyist and PACs.

And I still catch my breath when I realize that NAFTA passed under Bill Clinton. Boy was he wrong about NAFTA! NAFTA did a lot to the American worker, but nothing for him.

Something is wrong, bad wrong in this country and I am glad to say that it took the unbelievable abuses of the system by Bush and the Republicans to make me care. Well, now I care! In this interview David and I cover a lot of territory about the problems, but the point to be made is the solution.

We have got to get our politicians off the lobbyist teats. The answer is ultimately to realize that when it comes to politics, free speech means the right to buy a politician. Get rid of the right to buy them and we just might discover some real politicians. You know, the ones that have the guts to stand up for what is right! The ones that can do what is right without worrying about losing monetary support for re-election.

We have allowed this system of legalized bribery long enough. You can lobby without making campaign contributions. Common cause, AARP and other public interest groups lobby on the strength of their positions, not the thickness of their wallet.

What we need:

1. Publically funded elections.
2. Ballot access for more parties especially on the local and state level.

When both Democrats and Republicans have to face ordinary people running for public office without a monetary advantage, each of us will get a lot more respect from our elected officials.

 
 David Sirota, Author [30:51m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (79)