Tag Archive for 'author'

“Founding Faith: Providence, Politics and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America”

Published
by
Wilson
on June 11, 2008
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

I thoroughly enjoy history. I remember the first time someone tried to convince me that Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were “born again Christians.” That phrase has a fairly specific meaning in today’s America, and I knew that neither Jefferson, nor Washington were “born again” as I understood the term 20 years ago. People can believe what they will or what they want, but when you screw with history, you are no friend of mine. I remember when all the church schools started teaching kids (mine included) that our “Founders” were all Bible toting Christians who made sure America was founded as a Christian nation based on Christian principles. I didn’t have the time, nor the desire, to refute this malarky.

Finally, someone has written the book that I needed back then, “Founding Faith”, by Steve Waldman. Waldman is the Founder of beliefnet.com, the largest spiritual web site, dedicated to helping people in their spiritual walk whether it be Christian, Islam, Buddhist, Hindu or whatever. In this interview Steve explains the impossibility of referring to the faith of our Founding Fathers as if they were one homogenous group who believed just alike. They were anything but. Just as people today cannot agree on matters of religion and faith, our Founding Fathers, and the colonies from which they came, were all over the place. Don’t you remember? Puritans had their state, while Quakers had theirs, Catholics theirs, and they sent all the debtors to Georgia.

So what does this have to do with today? As Steve points out, there are those today who invoke the “faith of our fathers” to argue that these ancestors never intended for their to be a separation of church and state. If you repeat this a thousand times, it still will not be true.

Steve’s purpose in writing the book is probably a little more altruistic than my purpose in interviewing him. His desire is for each of us to have a better understanding, historically and practically, about the relationship between religion and government, separation of church and state. My purpose is much more sinister: to squish underfoot the idea that church and state should not be separated.

Actually, if there were a consensus among the Washingtons, Jeffersons, etc., it was that the federal government should stay the heck away from religion, while the states could put you in jail if you didn’t attend church on Sunday. You have to remember the guys that came up with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights intended it to apply to the federal government, only. So back in those days if the State wanted everyone to attend church, nothing in the constitution prohibited them from passing such a law. They had some pretty weird laws back then. By today’s standards they were harsh, cruel laws which would shock most of us by today’s standards. Things change! Thank the Lord!

It took the Civil War and the Fourteenth Amendment for the “freedom of religion” of the First Amendment to apply to the States. Of course, the States didn’t give up their monopoly on religion just because the Fourteenth Amendment was passed and that is why ever since 1868 the courts have had to deal with a progression of cases which emphasize the tension between the original intent of the First Amendment and the restrictive intent of the Fourteenth Amendmant.

Maybe this explains why all (at least as far as I can recall right now) the laws that try to make us do religious things (like pray in school and at graduation) are state laws, not federal. It’s that old state power trying to exert dominance over the freedom granted to the individual under the First Amendment. If we could understand and appreciate that this supposed controversy over separation of church and state, is really a battle between us (as free individuals) and the state (that stupid entity that can’t get the garbage picked up on Monday), we might realize that this is a battle I (us) (we) (the individual) am supposed to win!

I think our Founding Fathers understood this, much, much better than we do. They prized individual freedom over everything else. They fought a losing battle and won against all odds because they preferred freedom to tyranny.

Tell me again. Why do you want to pass a law that makes me listen to you pray?

If you want to have some fun and find out more about the religion of Jefferson or Washington or Madison, just go to Steve’s archive about our Founding Fathers. You will be amazed at what those crazy guys were thinking!

 
 Steven Waldman, Founder BeliefNet.com [32:06m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (256)

Opening the Floodgates: The Purpose of “Immigration Reform”

Published
by
Wilson
on December 13, 2007
in Podcast
. 1 Comment

Kevin Johnson is an attorney, a law professor, an author and a proponent of open borders. He teaches at the University of California, Davis. He has written many books on the issue of immigration.

He was recently in Atlanta, speaking at Emory University. He caught my eye with an article he wrote that was published in The Sacramento Bee.

It is Thursday night and I am headed to Cleveland, but I wanted to post this interview before I left. I do not have time right now to comment on it as I ordinarily would, but this interview is one that you should listen to if you have any interest or concern in the “illegal alien” vs. “immigration reform” issues. You should also read the article in the Sacremento Bee.

Kevin is a proponent of open borders, what he sometimes refers to as permeable borders. You can listen to the interview and decide for yourself, but the important thing that I want to point out is this: Kevin makes it clear (at least to me) that the purpose of “immigration reform” is never going to be to build a fence. It will never be about securing our borders. It is never going to be to enforce the immigration law. It is never going to be about validating 10 to 12 million people who entered the country illegally. All of these are just stepping stones to the ultimate goal: OPEN BORDERS!

Kevin will tell you that America needs workers from the other side of the border, more than the 10 to 12 million here already. Kevin will tell you that just like the European Union, our uniting with Mexico would be good for the economy. Kevin will tell you that it is impossible to enforce the immigration laws and therefore a waste of time, just like Prohibition. Kevin will tell you that you can’t keep them from coming to America with a fence so why not embrace the idea of open borders.

Kevin will tell you a whole lot of things that sound reasonable. But what Kevin will not tell you is the truth about OPEN BORDERS. He will not admit that Mexico is a corrupt little country that has absolutely nothing to offer America except cheap labor, exploited and exploitable labor, the kind of labor that we had a century ago. They passed NAFTA and our American manufacturing industry went South. With open borders, they just want to bring the cheap worker north to the American jobs.

It is truly scary to me to think that there are leaders in this country who seriously contemplate a North American Union, who would even consider uniting this great country with a poor excuse for a democratic nation, or who would think that a steady flood of cheap labor from Mexico is just what the American worker needs.

Cheap labor! Think about it! The rich might want it, but they are less than 1% of the population (or somewhere in there). Big corporations and small employers might want it, so they can save a dime. But, I guarantee you, if you make anyone crossing the border legal and eligible to work, it will not be long before they will take the jobs Americans do want to do, because they will do them for a wage that is un-American, but far more than they can earn in that corrupt and poor little country south of the border.

I recommend you take a few minutes to visit American for Sovereignity. You don’t have to agree with everything anyone says about this issue, including me, but I suggest you not swallow “immigration reform” just because some politician tells you it is the right thing to do or the only thing to do.

This exact same thing happened with NAFTA and now just about everyone realizes we were duped. These lovers of cheap labor know that at some point, even if it was a bad idea, it goes too far and you can’t undo it. That is exactly what they want when it comes to open borders. Step by step, until it has gone to far and no one can stop the ultimate goal of open borders.

If you think I am wrong, prove it. I am ready for another interview!

 
 Kevin Johnson, Author, Lawyer, USC Davis [31:10m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (318)

Should Women Fight in Combat?

Published
by
Wilson
on December 10, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

It may not be politically correct, but Kingsley Browne raises some legitimate concerns about the wisdom of women in combat in his new book, Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn’t Fight the Nation’s Wars.” Kingsley is a Professor of Law at Wayne State University and teaches about discrimination in the workplace.

More than 80 women have been killed in Iraq and more than 500 wounded, some seriously. Some of them were performing support roles and some were in the thick of combat. I must admit that thinking about a women lying bleeding and maimed on the road to Baghdad, makes me cringe. I can’t imagine looking at some of the recent WWII movies like “Saving Private Ryan” with women on the front line getting blown to bits. Is this difference in reaction, just me? Is it discrimination? Or is it just the way we are as men and women?

The obvious point that Kingsley makes is the fact that in virtually every other job that involves physical exertion, there tends to be an almost natural division of jobs between the sexes. Why are most trash collectors men? Why most nurses women? Why most farmers men? Is it a matter of discrimination, or just a natural preference of one type of job over another. The point is that we don’t see a need to encourage women to go into jobs that they generally do not choose, so why is the military so concerned about eliminating the same kind of distinctions in job assignments between men and women, particularly in combat zones.

In the name of equality, we are placing women is situations where their physical strength is an obvoius negative factor in their performance. Women may well be able and willing to drive support vehicles in a combat zone where the threat of death is real. But, if and when that ambush comes, no amount of desire and courage will necessarily allow a woman to lift the 500 lbs. of vehicle that is crushing her comrade to death. Thus, it is hard to deny that the presence of a woman in such a situation may make a tangible difference in survival.

And then there is the situation where the safety of a woman is threatened in a combat zone. Can we deny there is a natural tendancy for the male to protect the female. In a combat zone, if an injured comrade were a man, he might be left to deal with a threatening situation on his own. In the same situation, additional risks might be taken to protect or extricate a woman from danger. A mission could well be jeopardized by the presence of a woman and this is not a negative reflection on either sex, as much as it is a recognition of that inherent difference between the sexes.

Kingsley highlights three generally recognized differences between the sexes:

1. Physical ability and strength. While each is trained as a soldier, training standards recognize the difference between the sexes. Women are not expected to perform to the same level of strength as a man. Just as training is different, performance is difference because strength still matters in the military.

2. Psychological differences such as the willingness to take risks. Women, as a rule, have higher levels of fear. Men generally have a higher tolerance for pain. Women are naturally more compassionate, with higher levels of empathy. The differences might result in different outcomes in any particular combat situation. And what of the trauma of killing another individual? As Kingsley points out, women are going to react differently than men to the experience of killing another human being. We might well expect women to experience higher incidences of PTSD than men as a result of the combat experiences.

3. Effects on groups. Units exposed to combat situations generally develop higher levels of cohesion than non-combat groups. Males bond differently in all male groups than in mixed groups. Men trust individuals with masculine traits. Women generally do not make men feel safer. In mixed groups men tend to compete with each other for status in the eyes of the woman. Trust is the center of cohesion in a combat group and the greater the danger the greater the level of trust needed to maintain group cohesiveness. Thus, in those situations where group trust and cohesion may make the difference, the presence of a woman may have a negative impact and thus the ultimate outcome may be different.

According to Kingsley, women comprise about 11% of the troops sent to Iraq and 2% of people killed, which suggests that this innate difference between men and women in combat situations is recognized in reality. The push to have more women in combat may arise from women in the military. It is well known that combat experience is seen as a necessity to advance a military career. As more and more women join the military, they want the same opportunities for advancement and command as men and they know that combat experience is important to promotion. Thus, it may be difficult to avoid involving more and more women in combat situations.

 
 Kingsley Browne, Author [28:06m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (177)

“Forget the Die-Its; Learn to Live-It”

Published
by
Wilson
on December 9, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

Just in time for consideration as a New Year’s Resolution is Karen Knox’ new book, “Forget the Die-Its; Learn to Live-It.” I can’t read a diet book, but this book may be something different. Karen seems more concerned about getting me to understand what different foods do to the body, than teaching me how to count calories. In fact, this book isn’t about counting anything, no calories, no carbs, no fat grams. No, this book is about something else altogether.

Karen’s approach is that I should learn to live it. She points out that our tastebuds are addicted to the sugars and other foods we eat (crave). We all recognize that we have been trained by commercial advertising to eat this or that and all the bad things we have learned are showing up in our overweight kids. So Karen’s focus and goal is to educate us, to get us to learn why we eat and why certain foods are better than others.

Karen recommends that everyone read “The China Study” by T. Colin Campbell which she describes as a comprehensive study of the relationship between food and disease. Karen says that if we learned and understood the science behind food, we might make different choices about what we eat. For example, she says that science proves that the higher the consumption of animal products, the higher the rate of disease in a particular population.

Rather than discussing calories and carbs, Karen talks about “micro-nutrients.” What the heck is a micro-nutrient? The things you need, not the things you need to avoid. Like vitamins and enzymes. The simple truth is that plant products have much more of the nutrients we need than do meat products.

A good illustration of the relationship between food and disease can be seen with the blood. Blood needs to be slightly alkaline. Meat, however, is acidic. So when you pack your body with meat, your acid level goes up and in order for the blood to retain its alkalinity, the body uses calcium. And where does it get the calcium? Our bones? The result: depending on your age, diet etc., you may be losing bone density.

Karen believes we have taken the real purpose of food, providing fuel for the body, and made it subservient to something entirely different: what tastes good and what we like. Of course, we like what we eat because it tastes good and it tastes good because that is the way we have learned to eat. We can learn to eat a different food and have a different diet and it will taste just as good. If we ate foods that provided the best fuel, the micro-nutrients, we wouldn’t have to worry about weight. Our weight would take care of itself.

So how are we going to L-E-A-R-N?

L - Lifestyle: she’s talking about longterm changes, not just losing 20 or 30 lbs. or more;
E - Exercise: do you understand why exercise is important (metabolism);
A - Attitude: stinking thinkin’ or positive outlook;
R - Rest: how important it is;
N - Nutrition: not calories and carb counting.

Karen has organized her book into 12 chapters, one chapter each month, one aspect of a healthy lifestyle each month: water, plant-based versus animal-based programs, fasting and prayer, fiber and the real “bread of life”, the truth about protein, ideas for children, exercise and sunshine, rest, eliminating garbage foods. sugar sabotage, being thankful, and setting goals.

The rest is up to you. See you back here next December.

 
 Karen Knox, Author, "Forget the Die-Its; Learn to Live-It" [29:02m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (163)

Will We Ever Have “Freedom From Oil?”

Published
by
Wilson
on December 4, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

I do not understand gas and oil. Oil is almost $90 per barrel crude and about $3.10 a gallon in the car. I thought the world was supposed to end when it reached $50 per barrel. I thought I was paying $3.00+ per gallon when it was $50 per barrell. I know damn good and well it doesn’t cost any more to pump it out of the ground today than it did a couple of years ago. So how come it’s almost $100 per barrell?

But why dwell on something you can’t do anything about i.e., the current price of oil? Congress surely isn’t going to do anything about it. Never has, never will. So let’s focus on tomorrow. How do we get away from being subservient to oil? To answer that question, I wanted to interview someone who has a plan. David Sandalow is an expert on energy, a former Assistant Secretary of State and a Senior Director on the National Security Council staff. Now, he is a Senior Fellow on Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institute. His current book is “Freedom From Oil: How the Next President Can End the United States’ Oil Addiction.” David is dead serious about reducing our dependence on oil. You can read the book or visit the Freedom From Oil, but regardless, you need to get your heart, mind and soul set to live with less oil.

David is ready to do his part. He has a prototype car that he plugs in every night, charges the battery and drives up to 30 miles without ever burning a drop of gasoline. Think about the independence such a vehicle could provide to all those people who drive less than 30 miles a day to and from work. But you can’t buy David’s car, at least, not right now, but he expects it and others to be available in 3 or 4 years. Check out the Chevy Volt.

I remember the “oil crisis” during the Carter Administration and the long lines at the pump. What I really don’t understand is why, 30 years later, we are virtually no further along weaning America from its dependency on oil. Remember all those years ago when we all thought we were going to have to ride around in small cars. The next thing I know, I am buying a SUV. But, this is not my fault!

I think the problem has been a total failure of leadership, political leadership, corporate leadership, any and all kinds of leadership. Our leaders never chose a direction away from oil dependence. This is a bipartisan failure, Democrat and Republican. But, what is done is done. Blaming all or any of them is not productive and doesn’t save a drop of gas. (In fact, it may give you gas to think about it!)

David’s goal is to encourage us to chose the road out of this dilemma. He tells the story of the American General commanding the western forces in Iraq who wondered why he had to endanger the lives of his men and women delivering fuel to run electric generators. Surrounded by an abundance of wind and sun, he requested generators that could run on these alternative sources of energy. The Pentagon is working on it. You would think they would have thought of this one after 1991 or at least after they started painting all their vehicles tan for fun and sun in the wind and sun of the deserts of the Middle East.

David sees hope in solving the dependency problem because of two basic differences between today and the past. First, while this has always been tagged as a national security issue, national security has changed since 9-11. Today, it is easier to image oil producing countries like Venezuela and Iran intentionally depriving us of oil and attempting to disrupt our economy. Second, there is a lot of money to be made by companies that solve the problems associated with global warming. It is precisely because there is money to be made that we will be able to solve the problem. Making money motivates.

He mentions meeting with Newt Gingrich and Howard Dean on separate occasions and both offering the same essential solution: a massive, Manhatten type project to develop alternative fuels and alternative energy sources.

It seems the problem for consumers is the lack of available choices. Our market economy gives us thousands of choices with regard to most things we want to buy, except when it comes to cars. When it comes to cars, we basically have one choice: buy something that burns oil. He points to Brazil which has replaced about half its fuel consumption with ethanol. If Brazil can do it, why can’t we? Simple, a lack of leadership.

How long will it take to obtain this freedom from oil? David says a generation, 20 years. Why? Well, there are about 240 million cars on the road in America and we can’t afford to just scrap them. They will have to wear out. (Based on the longevity of cars, I estimate that all cars on the road today will be ready for the scrap pile by April 1, 2010, so I am not sure why it will take 18 more years.)

According to my calculations, about the time we achieve independence from oil, social security will go bust, and I will be wearing diapers. But at least David gives me hope that my grandchildren will have a greater appreciation for conservation and preservation than my generation.

 
 David Sandalow, Author, Freedom From Oil [24:45m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (176)

Capitalism and the Stock Market: Speculation vs. Investment

Published
by
Wilson
on December 2, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

If you are concerned about the financial security of America, or if you think the stock market is a place to make a quick profit, or if you don’t understand investing in general, this interview with John C. Bogle may be of benefit to you. Without question, he has earned the right to comment on capitalism. John Bogle was a pioneer in mutual funds. He founded The Vanguard Group in 1954. In 2004 he was named by Time Magazine as one of the 100 most powerful and influential people in the world. A man who has been on the cutting edge for years, he also blogs.

He likes to be called “Jack” and he is the kind of person that gives someone like me, a small-town radio host, the same opportunity as Bill Moyers or CNN. In fact, he may have given me more. To show you what kind of person Jack is, I have to tell you that I started this interview several weeks ago, but 5 minutes into it, the transmitter at the radio station failed and we had to reschedule. Jack was unphased. He was happy to take the time to set it all up again. I was amazed. Still am!

He is also an author. I had seen his interview in September wth Bill Moyers regarding his recent book, “The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism.” He has written another book recently, “The Little Book of Common Sense Investing: The Only Way to Guarantee Your Share of Stock Market Returns.” And, he has written many more.

I do not think this interview does justice to the scope and breadth of Jack Bogle’s wisdom. He understands the good side of capitalism and he captures with clarity and insight where capitalism has gone wrong. Capitalism used to be about markets and products, providing what people needed and selling the best product that money could buy. Somewhere in the past, capitalism sought to benefit the worker and to reward him for his loyalty and industry. Where are these qualities in the capitalism that rules the world today? Gone! Gone with the wind!

Why? Because capitalism has lost its focus and now serves the CEO, the financial managers, the Wall Street stock broker, not the owners, the shareholders. The forcus is on making money by any means and if laying off hundreds of employees to turn a quick buck is necessary, that is all in a days work. CEOs and corporate boards scratch each other’s back with exhorbitant compensation packages that, in reality, create a conflict of interest between those in control of a corporation and those who own it.

I am not an investor. I do not understand the stock market. I do not understand day traders. If I knew that Jack Bogle was handling my investments, I wouldn’t have to worry about whether or not I was being lied to, tricked or sold down the river. I cannot begin to do justice to his comments. I can only be thankful that at least one billionare cares about the security of the common man.

If you want to know his advice for sound investing, you will just have to listen to the interview. And, read the book!

 
 John C. Bogle, Author and Investment Expert [30:29m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (161)

“Race: A History Beyond Black and White”

Published
by
Wilson
on November 27, 2007
in Podcast
. 1 Comment

It is hard for me to discuss “race” in a meaningful way. Like most whites, I would swear that I am not prejudiced, and yet, as a lawyer I see people get screwed everyday at the hands of people who would also swear they are not prejudiced. I have no reason to believe I am any more capable of being objective than they are. I get confused about who can say this word or that word, and who can joke about or criticize this or that conduct based on some perceived racial characteristic.

In this interview Marc Aronson discusses this not so simple question: “What is race?” His new book about race deals with the issue of race from an historical perspective. Actually, according to Marc, this idea of racial (color) discrimination is a relatively modern one and it may be one that is unique to America. Consider this: Of the 10 to 12.5 million slaves abducted from Africa, less than 4% were brought to America. The overwhelming majority, 96%, went to Brazil and the Caribbean. Why? The surgar plantations? So why does the social aftermath of slavery seem to be so different when comparing the US to Brazil or a Caribbean nation?

You will have to read the book and form your own opinion, but one point Marc makes is this: The civil rights movement resulted in legislation that swept away, virtually overnight (okay, a little literary license here), the public exhibitions of racial prejudice. However, it did nothing to change our private expressions of racial prejudice. In fact, it seems there was an unwritten rule that racial prejudices were not matters to be discussed, just denied. They were not issues for us to understand, just excoriate.

Compare the racial sins of Germany in its treatment of Jews. Marc points out that after the fall of Hitler the German people not only transformed the public display of discrimination, but they also sought to understand how it had happened, how individuals fell prey to such strong racial prejudices, and in addition, the struggle through which they dealt with them after the war. As a nation, we have not had this introspective analysis of our own feelings and experiences. We simply subjugate the racial rumblings and deny they have a right to exist. Have you ever read a book devoted to someone’s struggle in overcoming racial prejudice in America? I don’t mean the two paragraphs that explain the before and after, I mean the struggle! It is almost like it wasn’t a struggle, it was just a decision and once decided, it was over, done with.

Obviously, it can’t be that easy. So, a lot of our current struggles with “race” is probably the result that we never went through any national therapy.

According to Marc, race is an 18th century phenomenon that replaced religion as the standard by which people judged themselves superior to others. In the days of Rome, that superiority was determined by whether or not you were free or a slave. Slavery in Rome was not associated with race, but depended on whether you were poor and sold into slavery by your family or whether your community had been conquered by the guys in short dresses with swords. After Rome, the church’s influence in society made religion the standard by which people were judged to be good or bad. And then, along came America with a novel idea: All men are created equal! Social status and religion were discarded, but not color. Race conveniently provided the judgmental standard: black, red-man, yellow horde.

Did you know the 1795 Naturalization Act described the qualifications for a person to become a naturalized US citizen? Those qualifications: (1) free, and (2) white. The law remained on the books until 1952. “Americaness” was “whiteness” even before there was a “colored bathroom.”

Does Marc have a way out of this racial mental illness? Read the book!

 
 Marc Aronson, Author, Race [10:07m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (423)

Robert Kuttner: “The Squandering of America”

Published
by
Wilson
on November 12, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

Robert Kuttner is a co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect magazine. While he writes on a variety of subjects, he focuses on economic policy, both domestic and international. He also writes a syndicated editorial column, which was awarded the John Hancock Award for excellence in business and financial journalism. Robert has also won the Jack London Award for labor journalism.

In his new book “The Squandering of America” he explores the history, the politics and the social forces that have turned the American Dream into a pipe dream for many Americans. In this day and time when everything seems screwed up, backwards, and headed down the wrong road generally, the word “squandering” sums up exactly how I feel. Seven years ago, I was dumb and happy and thought America was in pretty good shape. Today, I am disgusted, frustrated and regularly mad as hell. While this turn of events snuck up on me, it seems overnight, Robert was ahead of the curve. He wrote “Revolt of the Haves: Tax Rebellions and Hard Times” in 1980. I can’t say I have read that one, but I can imagine the plot, considering the fact that 27 years later, I am living it.

To put it bluntly, Robert thinks we (Americans) are in trouble. We don’t like to hear this. We much prefer to believe the soft lies from the people in power or who want to be in power. It’s like the water shortage in Atlanta. The critical nature of the crisis surprises and concerns most of us and who do we turn to for the solution: the people that either created the problem or ignored the problem at a time when it could have been solved. If responsibility is the theme of the day, why is no one being held responsible about anything?

It is obvious that Robert believes a lot of the current problems are the result of government’s failure to regulate business. In years past, we blamed government for being inefficient, wasteful and incompetent. This led to a general disdain for government regulation and a reliance on the free market to correct itself. Now, it is not the general ineffectiveness of government that is the problem, it is the fact that government simply isn’t involved.

You don’t have to look any further than toys from China. The Consumer Product Safety Commission which should be protecting our children from crappy toys is underfunded and understaffed because we prefer less government and tax cuts. The crazy thing is that the Acting Chairwoman (Acting?) told Congress the Commission didn’t want more money or more authority. Now that is a mentality that should be foreign to us, but half of us in this country think it is just great to eviscerate government. Tell that crap to the kids that died from the lead poisoning!

Think about it. If we didn’t have government regulation, your water might not be fit to drink, your car might not have air bags and your medicine might kill you. Regulation is not a bad thing. Bad regulation may be. Inefficiency may be. But, we threw the baby out with the bathwater. Government waste and inefficiency are not legitimate reasons to abandon any and all regulation.

According to Robert, Reagan began this experiment in the ability of the free market to regulate itself. It is an experiment he thinks has failed. The free market has turned Wall Street into a casino, where people don’t invest so much as gamble. The subprime mortgage scandal is the free, unregulated market at work.

The answer to this squandering is new leadership. Robert obviously favors Democrats over Republicans, although he isn’t convinced the DP is strong enough to lead us in a new direction. He doesn’t think Democrats have been looking out for the little guy. He points to the ‘06 election and successful campaigns like that of Jim Webb for Governor of Virginia to support his contention that people want leaders who are concerned about the plight of the middle class. According to Kuttner, Webb started out running to the right of the incumbent, George Allen, and changed his positions as he campaigned and began to understand the frustrations of the middle class.

In the presidential race, Kuttner doesn’t see Hilliary and Barack as sufficiently distancing themselves from the power brokers of Wall Street to steer the country in a new direction.

He seems to be encouraged by John Edwards who is not taking money from Wall Street and has accepted public financing of his campaign. I get the feeling that he thinks Edwards has found the right message, but he may not be the right candidate. The $400 haircut problem.

You can read a summary of the book’s chapters or listen to the interview, but whatever you do, realize that until we get the money out of politics, things probably will not change.

 
 Robert Kuttner, Author, The Squadering of America [28:04m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (151)

Which Do You Prefer: Polarization or Common Ground?

Published
by
Wilson
on October 23, 2007
in Podcast
. 1 Comment

I have hope! I have hope that Rush Limbaugh is an old, aging fad. I have hope that Bill O. will soon be only a memory. I have hope that Ann Coulter can overcome brain death. I have hope that more and more Americans are getting fed up with the name calling, the dirty tricks, as well as the hatred, both real and feigned.

And at least some of this hope is because guys like Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel, one a conservative, the other a liberal, have put what I have been thinking and feeling into a book, “Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That Is Destroying America.” They also write a column in USA Today called “Common Ground.”

In this interview Beckel admits that 20 years ago he and Thomas were themselves polarizers. Now, he sees the politics of polarization coming to an end. This doesn’t mean that suddenly everyone will be in agreement. It doesn’t mean changing political philosophy. But ultimately, it should mean a renewed appreciation for discussion and the ability to compromise. Compromise used to be important in American politics until issues came to be viewed in the light of right versus wrong and compromise became a sign of weakness, a sign that your position must not be right because you are compromising. This idea is so much crap and it is killing us.

Who are these polarizers? Bob names names: Tom Delay (No Retreat, No Surrender) on the right, and Harry Reid on the left are two politician examples. But most of them may not be politicians, at least not the elected kind. These are the special interests, the lobbyist, the corporate interests that want to make sure we remain divided so we don’t solve one of our problems: them! Why do you think that when anyone tries to solve the health insurance problem, all you hear is “socialized medicine.” You never hear a proposal to solve the problem because they don’t want the problem solved. The make money as long as it is unsolved.

And then there are the bottom feeders: Ann Coulter, the voice of hate and Michael Moore, who Bob says selectively edits his films to achieve maximum polarization. For these guys, polarization sells and we are the ones buying most of the time.

And then there are the organizations like Dobson’s Focus on the Family, on one side and Move On.Org. on the other. There are many, many more.

And then there are the myths created by the polarizers to prove that we are polarized. Bob’s two examples: Red State vs. Blue State and the Culture War. The media and the political advisors have convinced us that we live in either a red state or a blue state. And yet, Ohio, labeled “red” has a Democrat for Governor and one Democratic Senator. New Hampshire, labeled “red” has a Democratic Governor, a Democratic legislature, and two Republican Senators.

If I live in a “blue” state, I can view Ohio and New Hampshire as being part of the opposition, even though they are clearly not more red than blue.

As for the culture war, where is it? We don’t tote guns in the street like in Iraq. The biggest culture war that most American families are actually aware of is the argument about what to watch on TV.

Some of this problem is our fault. We don’t want to listen for more than a minute or two. We don’t want to hear the other side of an argument. We don’t want to moderate our position or give credit to the opposition for a good idea. We want to be right and we want to be on the winning side. And worst of all, we are the ones who nitpick every word the other side utters, and resent the fact they do the same. How else can you explain the greatest deliberative body in the history of the world, the Congress of the United States, wasting the time to debate a resolution condemning what a free Americans say. I don’t care whether you like Rush or MoveOn, if that is all Congress has got to talk about, they need to find another job.

The Democratic base is maybe 20% of American voters, the Republican base 30%. That leaves half of us somewhere in the middle and the middle will prevail, but only when candidates come forward that give us viable alternatives to the ones committed to polarizing influences. When an actual election results prove that polarization no longer works and will get a candidate defeated, not elected, things will change. I hope 2008 is that election year that we, the middle, take control of America back from the polarizers, from the extremists.

Our job is to make them understand. The only way to do that is to vote. The only way to know who to vote for is to find out about all the candidates (at least more than one) and make an informed decision regarding your choice. Republican, Democrat or Independent, when America votes smart, we will get smart politicians, not tricky ones.

 
 Bob Beckel, Author [27:45m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (161)

The Merchant of Death! Illegal Arms and the Iraq War

Published
by
Wilson
on September 18, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

When I talk to someone like Stephen Braun, National Correspondent for the L.A. Times, I realize how far removed I am in South Georgia from the realities of a world I know nothing about and can scarce contemplate its existence: illegal arms trading. Guys like Viktor Bout, the Merchant of Death, just don’t do much business at our local Lowes. I even understand Bout was the inspiration for Nicholas Cage’s character in Lord of War

Former Russian GRU or KGB agent turned international arms trader, owner of a fleet of planes, boss to hundreds of employees, and protected by the Russian government, Viktor Bout, is the Sam Walton of arms deals. According to Braun, Viktor didn’t just sell arms to the Taliban and African dictators, after his fleet of planes delivered the goods, they were loaded with whatever products were available for transport to make the return trip profitable as well.

This guy has been banned from international travel by the UN, and yet, that doesn’t stop him from his base of operations somewhere in Russia. Within a maze of corporate names and documentary subterfuge, Viktor has even done business with the US in Iraq, being paid $60M to fly supplies.

Even though he has most certainly provided arms to Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other bad, bad people, he apparently has value to the US in Iraq. The US is supposedly working to keep him off the list of mercenaries whose assets are frozen for supplying arms to Liberian dictator, Charles Taylor. Bout has served so many governments and conflicting interests that apparently there is always someone wanting to protect him.

It just bothers me that we pay people like this to do things for us. I just can’t appreciate this fake morality of the Bush administration that condemns people for wanting to dispense condoms, but has no problem paying killers that want to dispense people. It makes me wonder if Viktor has stock in Halliburton.

 
 Stephen Braun, Author [27:04m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (170)