Tag Archive for 'author'

“The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder” by Vincent Bugliosi

Published on October 30, 2008 in Podcast. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , .

I interview a lot of people that have made the rounds on the network and cable talk shows, but Vincent Bugliosi is not one of them. The guy that prosecuted Charles Manson for murder cannot get an interview in the mainstream media about his new book “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.” Boycotted, blackballed, whatever it is, what he has to say, the powers that be do not want to hear it.

Why? According to Bugliosi: FEAR! Fear of the “Right.” It is this fear, that has protected Bush from impeachment by Democrats since 2006. Fear is why Nancy Pelosi declared, before the Democrats won control of Congress, the Democrats would not seek to impeach Bush. Maybe, after November 4th we, as a nation, can cast off fear and focus a little more on hope and justice. It is precisely this atmosphere of fear that will be the eternal and despicable legacy of the Republican Right scrawled across the face of the American Constitution. A free people living in the greatest democracy the world has ever known, live with more fear than a paranoid schizophrenic on LSD! Who would have thought it possible?

Bugliosi lays out an open and shut case that Bush knowingly lied to Congress and the American people when he and his cronies suckered us into the Iraq War. (Of course, some of you out there won’t believe this is true.) Months before Bush’s intelligence source, the CIA, told him Iraq (Saddam) did not represent any immediate threat. Weeks before the war began, Bush was asking how he could provoke Iraq into starting the war. But the worst thing George Bush did was to release an intelligence report supporting his claim for war, after he deleted the report’s conclusion that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction and was not a threat to anyone, other than the Iraqi people.

But that is not the whole story. Believe it or not, this story will live or die come November 4, 2008: Election Day! Do you know about candidate for Attorney General in Vermont? Charlotte Dennett has made a campaign promise: If she is elected Attorney General of Vermont, she will appoint Vincent Bugliosi a Special Prosecutor to indict, try and convict George W. Bush for murder.

Sounds like a plan to me.

As Vincent says and I believe: No one, including the President of the United States, is above the law.

Court TV will make millions, no billions!!!!

Vincent Bugliosi, Author and Attorney [ 31:47 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (819)

“Unsettled: The Problem of Loving Israel”

Published on October 27, 2008 in Podcast. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , .

If you are an American, you must be for Israel, or at least that is the way it seems. It is certainly political suicide to speak ill of Israel. Please note, my reference is to the nation of Israel, not the Jewish religion. We tend to equate the two, even though there is a larger percentage of Arabs as citizens of Israel, than African Americans citizens of America.

Author Marc Aronson is Jewish. Many of his family live in Israel. Marc visits often. In his book “Unsettled: The Problem of Loving Israel” Marc says that Israel is, today, dealing with the issues of segregation and discrimination toward “Arab citizens of Israel” that America dealt with 40 years ago. These are not Palestinians living in the occupied territories, like the West Bank or Gaza. These are Arabs whose families have lived in the State of Israel since its creation in 1948. They vote and can even hold public office, though they rarely do. The only thing they don’t do is serve in the Israeli Army.

Is Israel only for Jews? Should non-Jews leave? Is there something wrong when an ethnic group comprising 20% of the population owns only 4% of the land? Is Israel pursuing policies that relieve these growing pressures or which obscure them until they erupt?

Marc explores the attitudes and contradictions of a persecuted people who are or should be dealing with issues of discrimination and persecution of Arab citizens. The question is to what extent does this contradiction bode good or evil for the ulitmate future and security of Israel? Marc’s point is not to criticize, but to point to a gathering storm, for just as surely as these issues caught up with America 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, they will linger within Israeli society until they are dealt with, either constructively or destructively.

The subtleties and complexities of these issues have discouraged me from even attempting to boil down this emotional journey into a few sentences. If you love Israel or have a problem loving Israel, read the book! It will make you think.

Marc Aronson, Author [ 30:44 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (781)

Ron Suskind’s “The Way of the World”

Published on September 18, 2008 in Podcast. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

I don’t get to read every book whose author I interview. I read every word of this one. It should be required reading for anyone who is thinking about voting Republican in November.

In “The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism” Ron Suskind provides insight into the real world that George W. Bush has created, as well as the real world Bush does not understand, the Muslim world.

Ron demonstrates through the lives of real people, one of them a baker from Iraq, how the Republicans, in concert with Bush, have sacrificed our moral leadership in the world in return for a war we can’t win, torture we can’t reveal and lies we can’t admit. The baker is sick and dying in Guatanamo, having been there years without any semblance of justice. If you can’t appreciate the hypocrisy of Bush’s hollow and deceitful concept of justice at Guantanamo, then I just don’t know whether there is any hope for you.

In addition to the injustice done to a baker, the book reveals how Bush intentionally (through his dirty, little helper, Cheney) torpedoes a British anti-terrorist sting operation in order to get a headline about terrorist activity just before the 2006 elections. Why? To scare the American people with a revelation about terrorism and influence their vote.

Read about how Bush, months before invading Iraq, ignores two reliable Iraqi sources of intelligence developed by the British that said without qualification that Saddam had no WMD’s. He just didn’t want to admit it for fear of what Iran might do. These sources were ignored by Bush, not because of credibilty problems, but solely because Bush and his cronies did not want to hear anything, even the truth, that might interfere with their intention to invade Iraq, no matter what.

Read about how the Bush Administration, months after the invasion, fabricated a letter in order to justify what they had done. The President of the United States having to stoop to the level of a petty criminal is just infuriating. Talk about serious mental problems, these guys have it.

Most importantly, read how the rest of the world, not just Arabs and Muslims, view an America that is morally corrupt, hypocritical and which has abandoned its founding principles of equality and freedom.

I can’t begin to summarize the revelations in this book. It is an easy read. If it doesn’t change your view of the Bush Administration, then all I can say is that I hope you live long enough to see the truth.

Ron Suskind, Author, The Way of the World [ 31:03 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (808)

Of CorsI Wrote “Obama Nation”

Published on September 12, 2008 in Podcast. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

Jerome Corsi made the rounds on all the talk shows promoting his new book, “The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality.” Corsi seems to have a particular interest in people that run for president. You may remember him. In the last presidential election he wrote “Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry.” He is still proud of that one. I didn’t like the attack on Kerry, so I decided to see if I could find out if this was just another smear campaign or was there something sinister about Obama that I needed to know.

Corsi is currently a reporter with World Net Daily, a conservative so-called, news website.

I asked Corsi what he wanted everyone to know about Obama. His reply was surprisingly mundane. The two things we got around to discussing were that Obama was liberal (actually, Corsi says “leftist liberal) and he was going to raise taxes on 90% of Americans.

Corsi’s book has resulted in anti-Corsi websites and publications which contend that many of his allegations are false. Corsi essentially admitted that there were some errors in his book, but said the attacks focused on minor discrepancies, and not the major contentions. It seems obvious in talking with him that he loves the controversy; it sells books, gets him interviews and makes him rich. Can’t say I blame him, but neither can I say this guy is a serious historian.

I don’t know about the errors, but I didn’t consider it a revelation to find Obama being accused of being a liberal or a leftist liberal, or that he might raise taxes (but, I don’t think it will be on 90% of working Americans). Hell, I am one of the most conservative people I know (used to be a Republican) when it comes to waste and efficiency in government, but I am also a liberal, a damn big liberal when it comes to me versus corporate America. People should win that struggle, not corporate America. The problem in this country is we like simple name tags for complex issues.

As for raising taxes, Americans may never admit it, but somebody better raise somebody’s damn taxes. Bush tax cuts haven’t kept the economy out of the toilet and this administration has made deficit spending a thing to be proud of. Either we pay more in taxes or our kids and grandkids do. We are the ones who allowed this, and I think this generation ought to pay the bill, not my kids.

Of course, that kind of talk is heresy. All Corsi has to do is say “Obama is going to raise taxes!” and half the brains (actually, a little more than half) in this country go dark, no further thought, just total blind acceptance that this must be true and must be bad.

I am reading Corsi’t book, but have not finished it. I try to be read books that I am probably not going to like to see if there is anything in them that I consider valid or worthwhile. So far, I think this one is not worth my time, but that is probably due to the fact that I am suspicious of Corsi’s purpose. Sorry, Jerome, but the purpose of the book is not to make anyone stop and think, just to stop thinking. The sad thing is that many Americans, too many, prefer the latter to the former.

But Corsi says he is no Republican. He is a supporter of the Constitution Party which is nothing more than the right wingingest of Republicans manipulating the constitution without a clue as to what it means to anyone but themselves. But, that is another interview.

Jerome Corsi, Author, Obama Nation [ 27:18 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (933)

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

Published on June 11, 2008 in Podcast. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , .

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 [ 32:06 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (1149)

Opening the Floodgates: The Purpose of “Immigration Reform”

Published on December 13, 2007 in Podcast. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

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 [ 31:10 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (1329)

Should Women Fight in Combat?

Published on December 10, 2007 in Podcast. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , .

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 [ 28:06 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (975)

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

Published on December 9, 2007 in Podcast. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , .

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" [ 29:02 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (676)

Will We Ever Have “Freedom From Oil?”

Published on December 4, 2007 in Podcast. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , .

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 [ 24:45 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (686)

Capitalism and the Stock Market: Speculation vs. Investment

Published on December 2, 2007 in Podcast. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , .

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 [ 30:29 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (719)