Hi folks I'm David Pool - Thom's producer. This is a new section for "on air" questions for Thom to answer on the radio. Please don't post comments to the questions in this section. I will be removing any comments posted.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Thom Hartmann,

Is this true?

I received the following e-mail, in my my spam folder:
______________________
### URGENT: Proposed rule requires federal permission to fly in U.S. and abroad...Hearing tomorrow. ###



From: Dstacey
A hearing is set for tomorrow on a proposed rule that in effect says that you will not be able to fly on commercial flights without first getting government permission.

"If you can, please attend the TSA hearings on Thursday (Grand Hyatt Washington, 1000 H Street, N.W. beginning at 8:00am). If you can´t attend in person, you have until October 22, 2007 to submit written comments through the Docket Management System (http://dms.dot.gov). The docket number is TSA-2007-28572."

Here is the notice of the hearing which explains the proposed rule:
http://www.dailykos.com:80/storyonly/2007/9/17/9846/64393

And here is an article that gives background on this odious proposal:
http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p102/484384.pdf



The Nightmare of DHS´s *Secure Flight*



by Blue Patriot Woman



Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:34:23 AM PDT


Buried in the September 5 issue of the Federal Register, was a notice that this Thursday, September 20, the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) will hold public hearings on their ¨Secure Flight Plan.¨ (http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p102/484384.pdf)

Come with me into a nightmare world where American citizens will have to obtain permission from the government before they can travel by air in the U.S.
Blue Patriot Woman's diary :: ::

Your government (meaning the Department of Homeland Security) is up to no good.

Beginning in February 2008, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will implement their ¨Advance Passenger Information System (APIS),¨ the gist of which is that you will need permission from the United States Government to travel on any air or sea vessel that goes to, from or through the U.S. The travel companies will not be able to issue a boarding pass until you are cleared by DHS. This applies to ALL passengers, US citizens and visitors alike. And how do you get said permission to travel? That´s for your government to know and you to never find out.

Now TSA proposes to do for domestic travel what APIS will do for international routes. That´s what I said: the new TSA rule would require that you obtain PERMISSION to travel within the U.S.

Here is the summary of their proposed rules, which seem so reasonable, couched as they are in the blandness of governmenteez [emphasis added].



The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to assume from aircraft operators the function of conducting pre-flight comparisons of airline passenger information to Federal Government watch lists for international and domestic flights.


[snip]



This rule proposes to allow TSA to ... receive passenger and certain non-traveler information, conduct watch list matching ... and transmit boarding pass printing instructions back to aircraft operators.


[snip]



TSA would do so in a consistent and accurate manner while minimizing false matches and protecting privacy information.


Right. And I have a bridge in Brooklyn...



We propose that, when the Secure Flight rule becomes final, aircraft operators would submit passenger information to DHS through a single DHS portal for both the Secure Flight and APIS programs. This would [result] in one DHS system responsible for watch list matching for all aviation passengers.


Don´t you feel great knowing that your government will use economies of scale to protect you?

Edward Hasbrough (http://hasbrouk.org/blog/)states that these rules are more insidious than merely complying to demands for ¨Your papers please.¨ He states,



The proposal ... require[s] that travellers display their government-issued credentials not to government agents but to airline personnel (staff or contractors), whenever the DHS orders the airline to demand them. But since the orders to demand ID of [certain passengers] will be given to the airline in secret, ... travellers will have no way to verify whether ... demands for ID are actually based on government orders.


Think about that: you will not be allowed to verify if the person demanding your papers is actually authorized to do so. In addition, the airlines or their contractors (or sub or even sub sub contractors) have the right, under the proposed rules, to do anything they like with your personal information including:



keep copies of your passport ... as long as they like, use it, publish it, broadcast it, sell it, rent it, or pass it on to whomever they please.... [T]hey would have no obligation to get your permission for any of this.


Aside from the privacy issue, this is the DHS. Their past performance is an indication of future returns and we can look forward to true travel nightmares beginning February 19, 2008. Just think about the mess that occurred when CBP demanded that travelers to Canada and Mexico have a passport. Multiply that by orders of magnitude to imagine what travelers will be facing.

If you can, please attend the TSA hearings on Thursday (Grand Hyatt Washington, 1000 H Street, N.W. beginning at 8:00am). If you can´t attend in person, you have until October 22, 2007 to submit written comments through the Docket Management System (http://dms.dot.gov). The docket number is TSA-2007-28572.

The Identity Project at Papers Please (http://www.papersplease.org/wp/) is working to prevent your government from robbing you of your right to privacy in your movements.

On Fox News they are railing against the upcoming speaking engagement of the Iranian leader at Columbia University, there first response is to curtail free speech, but what would be the correct response to a propagandizing tyrant? Wouldn't it be better to set up some form of debate where my fellow New Yorkers could teach him the meaning of a democratic check on power? Say wouldn't that work with our beloved leader too? It would be easy to debate a c- student of economics!

At the Take Back America Conference which was held this past summer in Washington D.C., a symposium on the new and 'counter' progressive media carved out a place for bloggers, Air America and progressive voices.
The question kept returning to listenership-particularly corresponding to traditional 'right-wing' media.
Isn't the truely real question one of 'variety'?
To that end, I would like to hear Thom shift more frequently, and clearly between macro issues, like nuclear proliferation, and micro issues, like penal reform.

With the UAW strike being called this morning I have mixed feelings. First I am glad they are making a stand, management was intrangient, however management also has the upper hand. They could if forced move more production out of the US and make a larger profit. Certainly we all need to make a stand in this global labor market but the question is how? How do we internationalize domestic labor struggles? WE are told that we are the most productive workers in the world. That is because of agreements that have increased the hours in the work week for meager gains in salary. How much more can we give back before we realize that we have to internationalize our demands?

There is an article in Oct 2007 Harper's Magazine titled "General Strike". It's not referring to GM but to a nationwide general strike on Nov 6, 2007 to protest the Bush regime, especially the Iraq War:

http://harpers.org/archive/2007/10/0081720

What are your thoughts?

Hi Thom-- love your show! Sadly, I can't listen to you live but I download your podcast every day.

Anyway, last Friday you mentioned the Democrats who voted against Cornyn's nonsense anti-MoveOn ad resolution as worthy of praise for standing up against it when half of their fellow Democrats inexplicably voted for it. I initially thought so too... until I realized that Barbara Boxer proposed a similar amendment that not only explicitly condemned the MoveOn ad, but then lumped it in with the smear tactics used against Max Cleland and John Kerry. Clinton voted against the Cornyn's resolution but voted FOR the Boxer resolution, which I actually find worse than the original one that passed.

Sure, it's one thing to call the GOP on their hypocrisy, but to compare what MoveOn is trying to do (telling the truth in a hard-hitting way to bring about an end to a senseless war) to what the GOP slime machine did to Cleland and the Swiftboat lies about Kerry is reprehensible.

To get a sense of which Democrats are true political warriors, you'd need to see who voted against both the Cornyn AND the Boxer resolutions. Clinton does not make that cut.

When are our Democratic leaders going to get it?!? Whether or not we agree 100% with all the elements of progressive movement, we need to all stick together -- or at least NOT join in attacks by the GOP -- in order to stop the far right-wing from dominating the national conversation.

Something else has happened with the switch from a demand based economy to a supply based economy. Business culture has changed. While working I see it and it urks me beyond belief. The goal is to make a customer want a product, not to make a product that customers need. There's been a whole cultural shift to something I somewhat despise. The problem is I can't quite put a finger on what that something is and what specifically has caused it. I'd like to know Thom's perspective on the cultural impact of the economic switch being discussed today. Perhaps he can provide some facts that will help me understand that something that I can't identify.

I heard a new Democratic Party talking point the other day on the Rachel Maddow show from a progressive pundit attempting to explain away the democrats' spineless behavior in funding Iraq at a tune of $124 bn and possibly more to come. The explanation is that the pres. has an obscure backdoor the 1861 Feed and Forage act to continue funding the war and if Congress refuses to do it republicans will still be able to fund their war plus they can paint the dems as not funding the troops.

This is a complete misrepresentation of the facts.
A) $124 bn is far more than the funds necessary to sustain military operations in Iraq for the rest of the year let alone for shorter time: the surge cost $8.7bn and according to the DOD they needed to restore the $1.6bn for the Navy and Air Force personnel funds before the end of the year. $124bn is WAAAAY more that this. It looks more like funding for another war.

B) The 1861 law can be used to force the president to start withdrawals because it still requires Congressional oversight and appropriations after the fact and it limits the scope and the amount available. It is certainly unprecedented to take hundreds of billions under the Feed and Forage law. There is Supreme Court precedence and CBO opinion about the scope of the monies that can be spent under this law and the pres cannot claim that the troops have no money for day to day operations.

Please discuss this on your show to make sure dems cannot hide behind it! Thanks.

For Brunch with Bernie: Shouldn't it be a priority to effect immediate reforms in the federal administration of our Constitution, given the lack of full credibility of U.S. elections at present? To do their jobs, our soldiers need energy and sufficient rotations, and enthusiasm and enough equipment.

Thank you. AP newservice reported on September 27 that brain-injured vets are slipping into economic hardship. I feel that the tone of the article means they don't get what the brain is for or about in a person-it was cold and un-compassionate! My question is: what 'goes' first about our brain, that makes us unique?

I've recently read a book called "'They take our jobs' and 20 other myths about immigration" by Noam Chomsky's daughter professor Aviva Chomsky. After reading this heavily researched book I recognized a few of the arguments I heard from Roy Beck in the past and frankly on Thom's show as well, as incorrect. Perhaps it would be interesting if Thom took her on, or just admit that he's a human being and as such even he makes a mistake every now and then

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=6B216254B1CE45BA

Increasing numbers of folks are adding to sites on the internet-or blogging. What credentials are necessary, and what might be a tried and true career path for writers who want to become part of this 'new media'?? tx.

Thom- Really did not understand your response to the question of Israeli nukes. You told the caller it was a false analogy to compare Israel and Iran's nuclear programs. In what sense is the analogy false? You seemed to imply that because Israel had a better democracy and does not use threatening verbage. To me these points seem less significant than those of a country that will not even admitt to having weapons, refuses to enter international agreements on having them, and has a much longer list of violations of international law.

Thom, today you were talking about the rights of First Nations people (ie native Americans) in the United States. Does that mean that you are going to have Phil Fontaine, chief of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) on your show soon? Phil Fontaine speaks out on both national and international issues. Or are you doing the warm up to have Ron Allen or Joe Garcia on your show?

Phil Fontaine
http://www.afn.ca/article.asp?id=487

"The National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Phil Fontaine, and the President of the National Congress of American Indians, Ron Allen, today signed an historic political accord which will allow both organizations to work together and develop closer relationships in areas of mutual interest and concern." - Assembly of First Nations and the National Congress of American Indians

A question about trains in the US, either to ask Rbt Poole (knowlegeable guy), or Thom might know himself:

I once heard a story about passengers from Maine to NYC being obliged to get off in north Boston to continue their commute from South Station, ostensibly because Cambridge would not allow diesel trains to pass through. I do not know if it's true. I also heard that the Europeans laugh at us over such anomalies. Seemingly they would not allow local jurisdictions to intefere with national tranport policy like that. Curious, if true.
Any ideas?

I would like to hear Thom's opinion on the EU Charter on Minority Languages (1992) and the fact that most multicultural countries recognize more than 1 co-equal official language. In Finland for ex Swedish is an official language because swedes lived in the territory of that country from the very beginning. Switzerland has 4 official languages, reto-romansh is spoken by 35,000 people only, yet there is federal money available for their language needs in government buildings in southeastern cantons, as well as their education and cultural needs such as radio/tv stations etc.

In Germany romani, the gypsy language is an official minority language, yet Thom's example of Germany is disturbing to me given the historical differences between a homogenous country like Germany with its history of nationalism going back centuries and a diverse society like the US, Switzerland (federal democracy since 1291!) or Finland.

For instance why couldn't spanish speaking people have the same rights english speaking people enjoy given the fact they were in Texas, California etc from the very beginning?!

I also think it's foolish to undermine social cohesion with unnecessary nationalism or nativism, given the fact that English is the de-facto worldwide official language of science, business and technology anyway; people will learn english if they are given the chance and economic means.

I think it's far more important to have a country where people want to live regardless of their language, than 1 which creates refugees worldwide like Germany did 50 years ago and the US is starting to do today. Please don't make the right wing's job easier!

Hi,
I'm brand new at message boards and I think the "folder" I added for a request for someone to talk on the show about Calif Secretary of State Debra Bowen's research into voting machines ended up elsewhere instead of here - so, I'm repeating my suggestion that Thom interview someone from UC Berkeley or Irvine or another knowledgable person (preferably not a Calif govt. employee?) to discuss what was done and what was observed and what is happening in other states.

Thanks - Sorry for my mixup

Randi Rhodes just had a "caller" who questioned the "Democrats" view of capitalism and (obviously a Republican) said, paraphrased, "Democrats are Against Capitalism." I am old enough to have taken Economics classes before Reagan virtually threw out words like Oligopoly that used to imply that government regulation was indicated/needed. Randi had no specific book to suggest to the caller that states a realistic economic view in keeping with Democratic values.

Could Thom come up with (suggest to us) a non-intimidating "economics" book(s) that teaches our high school and college kids (and older adult listeners) TRUE economics (i.e. Demand-side driven....) like we used to read?
Maybe an interview with someone who can explain economics theories in simple terms to the less economics-educated viewers might be nice, too. Here in California, our Democratic legislators obviously had not learned of Oligopolies when they de-regulated the energy industry, precipitating the "crisis" that overthrew Davis.

One percent of gun shops sold 57% of the guns used in crimes.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/firestar/video.html

Thom - I didn't really state everything the way I wanted to this morning with my call on 9-11. So to go back to my experience with talk shows and others regarding 9-11. When debates arise on 9-11 information, most talk shows and other venues in this country identify only one important fact. And that fact is to question the story is to be a 9-11 truth nut, and therefore now longer worthy of a conversation. Your veracity to hold a serious conversation is guilty by association with those "conspiratorial types". This in the movement is referred to as "psychopathologizing". This meaning that there are people that are predisposed to a condition that causes them to be paranoid and irrational towards their government and whose opinions are therefore invalid (an apparent result of the condition). To what degree this might be the case is only part of the question here, another point is that arguments of this type belong to a certain epistemological category. It is a category of knowledge that must make an inference about human behavior, and a guess at human intentionality. Worse yet, these are the type of estimates of human behavior that are extremely broad in their scope. They do not make estimates about probable intentions of humans in a definable case, but rather sweep away millions of people's opinions with a broad stroke of a generalization.

There is another epistemological category,to look at the events, and that is "empiricism". Clearly events at the crash sites lend themselves to an empirical analysis of facts, and this a quantitatively superior to broad inferences on human intentionality. So what I am saying is,if there is still an objective standard for reasoned analysis left from my philosophy classes, those standards told us empirical facts take precedence over judgement on the character of an individual. If we are in a court case, we do not take estimates about character over forensic evidence, so why would we change our standards regarding 9-11. Reasoned analysis first looks at facts with the highest probability of being true, and estimations of human intentionality are usuallly not high on this list. Yet that is completely backwards from the attitude of those who wish limit discussion on 9-11 before it ever starts.

Second, where are those that adhere to the principle of investigative relevance and principle in the search for truth?? In other words why aren't we hearing from some segment of our population that believes in looking at the evidence is a primary responsibility towards having an opinion on the subject, reaches a conclusion that the official story is believable enough, but will still protest against the limiting of debate. Why is no one out there saying "yes more more discussion because these 9-11 truth people are dead wrong" After the History Channel's most recent production on 9-11, I posted on your boards this exact question- Isn't any one concerned who has dug into the facts of 9-11 and conclude the official story is believable, not going to complain about the fact that the real questions aren't being talked about by H.C?

I think the conclusion to be drawn is that there are few such people in our society Thom, and this suggests that we have an extreme polarization of those who will look at the evidence versus those who feel to look at the evidence is to admitt mental pathology. Perhaps this is an extreme characterization, but to call what is going on as anything short of a "treason of rationality" is inappropriate. This does not mean I recommend any sort of lasting contempt towards those who restrict discussion, and in fact I support that we strive for the least amount of destructive contempt in our attempts to open the discussion.

A final point on rational frameworks or "principals" if you like, is the irrational or unprincipled involvement of the progressive media towards the restriction discussion of this issue. The suggestion being that the progressive media would have a core principal to discuss "any issue" that was being raised by a significant amount of its audience. Anything short of that would be a censorship of progressive principals. The only exception might be that if the "issue" held by a fair percentage of the audience held was in violation of some other objective standard or principle. For example, if a percentage began to espouse violence in gaining political ends, we could assume violence is a violation of principals and may choose not to air the views of such a group on this principle. But in the case of 9-11, we seem to be breaking the principle that you can't believe too nasty of things about your government. I don't believe that one should be in the playbook.

So Thom my point is that you and others will look not only about the facts about the events of 9-11, but also look at the facts of how this discussion is being handled. I think the answer is absolutely clear that something dangerous happening to our rational sensibilities. Even if it turns out 9-11 was just like they said, there is still separte issues of the way information was held by the government, and how we as a society did not talk about it in a rational way.

Thanks
Matt Grantham
Napa

The draft Gore website has the transcript of the video you showed today 10/12/07 at
http://draftgore.com/exec_power.htm
You may want to share this with your listeners who have downloads that are too slow for videos.

Thom, yesterday I heard you say something, to the affect, that after the bushes get out of office, the American people would need to reconcile and forgive. Did I hear you right? Did you say forgive?

If they are not prosecuted, they will simply come back. We forgave after Nixon was caught. We forgave after Reagan was exposed. What was the result? We got all the same criminals and more with the bush coupe. The bushes will come out of all this more powerful and more wealthy then every before. What makes you think that they are going to stop their criminal activities, simply because they are temporarily out of power? We can NOT afford to forgive because if we do, and they suffer minimal repercussions, as they did after Nixon and Reagan, they will come back in an even more destructive and powerful form.

The only way to deal with these sociopaths is to punish them. If they are not punished, they will return.

Thom you can NOT advocate simply forgiving these criminals without the punishment, from fair and legal processes, they deserve.

They will return repeatedly, each time escalating their behavior, until they are corrected and held accountable for their crimes.

Thom -Regarding your discussion on religion and atheism. I believe my thoughts are similar to yours. As a Philosophy major I often found myself siding with the Christians on the discussions on mind/body discussions, or what might be called agency. Usually referred to as the "ghost in the machine" from Descartes. The arguments are lengthy, but in some ways it has been defined by how well science can predict perceived reality. In other words things like brain-mapping are considered valuable proofs against the idea of immaterial agency. In my opinion this framework is fraught with problems.

Perhaps the biggest problem for what might be called realist, mechanist, or determinist viewpoints is that of free will. For if we posit a Laplacian metaphysical reality, it precludes any standard conception of an active agency that has "free will." This can be an even bigger problem for conservatives who wish to "punish" an agency that has shown either poor moral values, or has made an immoral "choice". Both require an "agency".

I think this relates to what you are talking about because this is the primary philosophical question that considers an afterlife. Other science related to the topic of subjective reality,regards agency, mind, or soul, would be that of quantum physics and Einsteinian relativity. Quantum physics posits it likely the possibility of parallel universes or multiverses. Relativity poses real questions about whether time itself can be comprehended as a separate entity from matter which seems to be a subjective experience. Dark matter also poses such a fundamental problem in explaining the universe that again it fails to support a clear mechanist model.

Those who wish to support mechanist models fail to recognize that subjective experience is fundamental, or primary in relationship towards scientific observation. While it may be that there are many common denominators in subjective experience, this commonality does not reduce it's primacy in the formation of scientific analysis.

The idea of why an organism "feels" anything is really outside of scientific explanation. Mechanists can make estimates about how certain stimuli will result in corresponding mental states, but this argument misses the point. It stresses that stimuli will result in a mental state, but it really says NOTHING about how the mental state is realized. There is no sense of location to experience. Many in this culture suppose that it must be located in the brain since that is the relay center of the nervous system, yet any connections in this area can only be made by reports of subjective experience and then trying to place a coresponding brain state to match this experience. There seems to be a fundamental difference between the physical world and experience itself, and it is my opinion that all the advancement of science will never break through this divide. Your reference this morning of the idea of not knowing the color red is a famous example of this idea.

Since I mentioned Color and I heard you mention the idea in your comment this morning about the properties of waves, a little more on the subject. With color we seem to have two contradictory conceptions of color at the same time. We have the experience of color, and at the same time we have the scientific construction of the properties of light waves that seem to have no necessary relation to the experience of color. Science cannot prove that the experience color is the same. Negations are not proof, but examples of areas where science is powerless is an powerful explanatory force in and of itself

You spoke about South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission last week as a model for the US after the bushes have finished with our country. As discussed in Naomi Klein’s book The Shock Doctrine, that is a very flawed model.

Did you know that many of the very same people involved in that commission are (and were) very unhappy with the outcome?

Desmond Tutu said this after unveiling the report by the commission:

quote:

Can you explain how a black person wakes up in a squalid ghetto today, almost 10 years after freedom? Then he goes to work in town, which is still largely white, in palatial homes. And at the end of the day, he goes back home to squalor? I don't know why these people don't just say, 'to hell with peace. To hell with Tutu and the truth commission.'

Yasmin Sooka, one of the jurors on the commission and head of South Africa’s Foundation for Human Rights, said if she had the process to do over again,

quote:

I would do it completely differently. I would look at the system of apartheid - I would look at the question of land, I would certainly look at the role of multinationals, I would look at the role of the mining industry very, very closely because I think that's the real sickness of South Africa...I would look at systematic effects of the policies of apartheid, and I would devote only one hearing to torture because I think when you focus on torture and you don't look at what it was serving, that's when you start to do a revision of the real history.

The commission was a failure. The commission recommended a onetime 1% solidarity tax on corporations to pay reparations. Mbeki rejected it. The South African government continues to pay the apartheid debt. In the first year, it cost the new government $4.5 billion in servicing the debt left behind by the white ruling elite. Compare it to the $85 million total the government ultimately paid out to more than 19,000 victims of apartheid killings and torture.

We need to do better than South Africa did. We can learn from their mistakes but we should never repeat them. We will be left with a giant debt run up by the bushes. We need to hold those corporations that stole the money accountable. Yes, the victims of bush's torture, spying and politically motivated legalized attacks need to be compensated but even more, we need to address the cause of it.

Does Thom Know that Ted Kennedy called Barack "Osama" a while ago?...



peace...

PLEASE HAVE THOM DISCUSS FUNDING THE WAR --
IS IT POSSIBLE FOR THE DEMOCATS TO USE THE MOTIVATION OF SEEKING FUNDING FROM OTHER COUNTRIES TO EMPHASIZE BUSH'S LACK OF DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS IN A COLLABORATIVE FIGHT AGAINST "TERRORISM" ...

Basically displaying Bush tactics to have the US control the war and the "profits" and Thom could emphasize how the Democrats could use this to stop funding the war because Bush can't even get other countries to sacrifice their children's "money" for the effort to combat Terrorism.

Thanks

I'd like to get feedback from you and perhaps Sen. Sanders with regard to the SCHIP bill. Have either of you had the pleasure of enjoying a good cigar and perhaps know, admired and perhaps be related to someone who enjoys such a hobby?
It seems to me that attempting to provide for the uninsured by way of taxing an industry you hope will eventually disappear, (since the ultimate goal is to reduce smoking) seems counter productive. As you reduce the number of smokers, you end up with less revenue to tax, therefore less money for the program. I don't understand why either of you would want to punish tobacco users anyway, when in fact, by suspending the govt's expeditures in a certain occupation for a mere 3 months is enough to cover the supplement. Should we start taxing companies that provide us goods that make us fat, lazy, stupid and perhaps ugly? I'd like to hear your response on your 11/2/07 am program. Thank you.

Considering the discussion on healthcare and waiting for operations (and the unfounded assertion by Thom's earlier guest that people get the healthcare they need) here is an article referenced on DailyKos earlier today....



Fleeing Abroad for Health Care

Daily Kos
10/29/07 7:48 PM
Meteor Blades
Health care
From Sunday's Daily Mail;

Record numbers of Britons are travelling abroad for medical treatment to escape the NHS - with 70,000 patients expected to fly out this year.

And by the end of the decade 200,000 "health tourists" will fly as far as Malaysa and South Africa for major surgery to avoid long waiting lists and the rising threat of superbugs, according to a new report.

The first survey of Britons opting for treatment overseas shows that fears of hospital infections and frustration of often waiting months for operations are fuelling the increasing trend.

A year ago, you could read this at WebMD:

Dismayed by high surgical costs in the U.S., increasing numbers of American patients are packing their bags to have necessary surgery performed in countries such as India, Thailand, and Singapore.

"This is not what is sometimes snootily referred to as 'medical tourism,' in which people go abroad for elective plastic surgery," says Mark D. Smith, MD, MBA, president and chief executive officer of the California HealthCare Foundation in Oakland.

Today's "medical refugees," the term Smith uses in an article published in the Oct. 19 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine, are going to foreign countries for lifesaving procedures such as coronary bypass surgery and heart valve replacement, and also life-enhancing procedures such as hip and knee replacementknee replacement.

"People are desperate," Smith tells WebMD. "This illustrates the growing unaffordability of the U.S. health care system, even to people who are by no means indigent."

And there was this 18 months ago in Time:

Whiplash was just the first agony that Kevin Miller, 45, suffered in a car accident last July. The second was sticker shock. The self-employed and uninsured chiropractor from Eunice, La., learned that it would cost $90,000 to get the herniated disk in his neck repaired. So, over the objections of his doctors, he turned to the Internet and made an appointment with Bumrungrad Hospital in Bangkok, the marble-floored mecca of the medical trade that--with its liveried bellhops, fountains and restaurants--resembles a grand hotel more than a clinic. There a U.S.-trained surgeon fixed Miller's injured disk for less than $10,000. "I wouldn't hesitate to come back for another procedure," says Miller, who was recovering last week at the Westin Grande in Bangkok.

With this surgical sojourn, his first trip outside the U.S., Miller joined the swelling ranks of medical tourists. As word has spread about the high-quality care and cut-rate surgery available in such countries as India, Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia, a growing stream of uninsured and underinsured Americans are boarding planes not for the typical face-lift or tummy tuck but for discount hip replacements and sophisticated heart surgeries. Bumrungrad alone, according to CEO Curtis Schroeder, saw its stream of American patients climb to 55,000 last year, a 30% rise. Three-quarters of them flew in from the U.S.; 83% came for noncosmetic treatments. Meanwhile, India's trade in international patients is increasing at the same rate.

And there's this from today's Ezra Klein:

America is actually driving the medical tourism industry that some Britons are taking advantage of. The growth of foreign treatment centers aren't a result of the failings of the British health care system (of which there are many). They're a result of the cost of American health care, and the huge numbers of sick individuals we price out. You'd think, paying two-and-a-half times what the Brits do for health care, that we could all access care, and wouldn't need to fly to India. But you'd be wrong. The Brits also have a bad health care system, but theirs is, on the bright side, very, very cheap. Ours isn't.

You don't have to go far to find someone - George Bush, for instance - who will spout the typical propaganda: America has "the best health care system in the world." True enough if you're a Congressperson or hoi oligoi who can afford to pay for treatment at one of the nation's top medical centers. But, compared with other nations in the developed world, the U.S. does a rotten job of delivering good care to hoi polloi. As plenty of us know firsthand, even Americans with fairly decent health coverage often find it hard to get the treatment the "best health care system in the world" should be providing. When it comes to delivery, the American health care system is a disgrace an outrage.

Hello Thom, This is off topic, maybe a good one for general discussion.

Just for fun I was reading the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act H.R.5122 to research the slashing of the Posse Commatitus (spelling?) act


But I love this..

SEC. 1077. INCREASED HUNTING AND FISHING OPPORTUNITIES FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES, RETIRED MEMBERS, AND DISABLED VETERANS.



“(c) Recreational Activities on Santa Rosa Island- The Secretary of the Interior shall immediately cease the plan, approved in the settlement agreement for case number 96-7412 WJR and case number 97-4098 WJR, to exterminate the deer and elk on Santa Rosa Island, Channel Islands, California, by helicopter and shall not exterminate or nearly exterminate the deer and elk.”

So we are using government helicopters and current members or vets to take joy rides, not just killing but eradicating deer and elk from the Channel Islands? Awesome use of our money.

Thom, I just got through reading "The People's History of The United States," by Howard Zinn, and have come away with a new understanding of our history that I have never gotten anywhere else. I highly recomend this book to all. I would say most of our populace don't know and don't really care about US History and civics. You can see it in the papers and blogs because they don't understand that the people have had to fight for the right to have 8 hours days and good working conditions, they just have no idea. It has always been the working poor and middlea class against the rich and will always be a fight to have decent working conditions and income. At 60, I lost my job due to globaliztion and still unemployed because the company I worked for for 25 years wouldn't hire me back because I make to much money and was a union supporter. One part of the problem, as I see it, is that our schools don't teach US History and civics. So when are schools going to start teaching these subjects so that our future citizens understand what our forfathers went through to make this great nation what it is? "Give me Liberty or give me death" Dan

Caught the mention of the near-monopolies in banking and oil. Thought I'd bring up the near-monopolies in FOOD, though I realize it might be off-topic. I think Kraft owns over half the brands on the shelves, sometimes seemingly competing brands. Might be a little off-topic today, but might be a good idea for later.

Doesn't this give the Congress the authority to help peopole????

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:

“ The Congress shall have power …To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

I heard Hartmann use the phrase "battered wife syndrome" to describe the Dems as it relates to "The Art of the Hissy fit" syndrome. A more accurate frame might characterize Democratic voters as the "battered wife" as it relates to the broken promises of the party.

It appears you threw your vote away if you thought the Dems were getting us out of Iraq.

Threw your vote away on environmental sustainability.

Threw your vote away on Impeachment.

Threw your vote away on protecting our freedoms from the unchecked Patroit Act.

Threw your vote away for a Living Wage for the poor.

My question is why does not Hartmann tell the truth instead of spinning things on behalf of the Democratic Party?

As a Newbie, I'm glad the Forum has some standards of civility for posters. I have visited other forums, and the ones without any moderators to try and limit abusive behavior, had lots of problems with forum trouble makers that often spoiled the forum experience.

Thom I would like you to discuss Guiliani's quality of life policing when he was mayor in which thousands of minorities were sent to jail for maximum sentences for essentially nuisance crimes or minor drug offenses. These arrests were essentially fishing expeditions through which some who were guilty of serious crimes were incarcerated while many who were guilty of nothing but being black (The conviction rate for whites vs. blacks charged with the same crime was 14:1)saw some jail time. There is one other aspect of this style of policing that I would like to ask you about. What is the role of quality of life policing on the mentally ill population in NYC and other comunities that practiced this tactic? Was this the point at which the local jails across the country became the replacement for mental hospitals and rehab clinics? And finally what is the candidates policies regarding minorities, minor drug offenders, and the mentally ill filling up our jails at a cost considerably more than if community services were provided for these individuals?

Thom, i am frankly appalled by your position of no drivers license to illegals. You sounded like a reasonable man till now. I might not understand your position however, could you please elaborate on it?

The way I see no society can afford 12 million illegal people because it's destabilizing to social order and the economy. So there are 2 solutions:

A) round up and deport 12 million people.
B) start legitimizing illegals while taking steps to eliminate the root economic causes of migration.

A) is a way to police state and the Real ID act is a good illustration of that. If on the other hand you make it hard for 12 million people to integrate in society you essentially enable A).

What am I missing and what's your solution for those 12 million already in the US?

Unless I missed a discussion on the show about this article last week, I'd like to suggest Thom talk about this one soon:

Bush's Lap Dogs: What Happened to DC's Watchdogs?
By Tim Dickinson
Rolling Stone

Wednesday 31 October 2007

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/110407D.shtml

While your audience is certainly aware of Bush/Cheney's dismantling of government oversight in so many departments these last 7 years, reading what they have done to the inspectors general within the executive branch, all in this one article is, in my opinion, quite horrifying - and I've only read half of it so far! I think more people need to know about this one. Thanks - Amrita

Thom, raising taxes on fuel is not the way to go because it will pass it to the consumer--unacceptible. I would rather see a 15% reduction in military spending, then take that money and invest it into alternative energy spending, electric cars etc.. We can use technology to change our future as we see it happening now. This would really kick start our commitment to change and if we had a leader that sold this to the American people as alternative to war, the American people would buy. We are waiting for that person, and one of those could be Gore. He was a supporter of NAFTA,a poluter policy and bad for workers rights; he could redeem himself by using this idea to gain our respect and vote. Lead, follow,get out of the way, Lee Icoca, once said, we could show our committment to the country as well as the world. If is time for that man, woman, to stand up and capture our hearts and minds.

Feinstien and Shumer signed off on water boarding and if they went against this nomination they would be outed as supporters of it, and possibly leading to Bush's indictiment. You need to state the truth and stop talking around the gutles Democrats that support the administration's war effort. The party has sold out to the neocons and are no better. They are shamefull.

A Steeply PROGRESSIVE Tax on Fuel Consumers not on Fuel Subsidisers, will lower the burden on the two lower classes while reducing consumption, which will drive up supply. And Then, And Then...

When discussing this, please use the context of voluntary simplicity married to putting renewable energy subsidization ahead of nonrenewable subsidization.

How desireable is this AG position when the nominee is backed by an unpopular pres, at a time when there are investigations going on from a congress who's interested in impeachment?
It seems that the Dems just need someone to set the stage for such(or possible indictments)by looking for someone who will enforce those whitehouse subpoenas. Then again in the real world....

Happy Anniversary!
Hi Thom,
Do you agree that we could safely assume that if George Mason (VA delegate to the Fed. Convention) were alive today he would view the current crop of Neocons as the oppressive Aristocracy he warned against? If so, do you feel (like him) that it came about due to an inherent weakness in the Constitution or because these Neocons have illegally usurped it?

Hello Thom.

A recent 60 minutes featured a lives of the rich and famous type article on venture capitalist Tom Perkins, founder of Genentech. Below is a link to a blog entry on how Genentech squelched the only drug that so far has been of any use in treating ALS (aka Lou Gehrig's disease) I think it would be very helpful to some very desperate people if you were to call attention to this issue on your show.
Please read the blog entry- Ben describes it all better than I could. I also think this is an excellent support for some of the ideas you promote about health care and drug corporation greed. Thank you.

http://indestructiblefilm.com/blog/?p=110#comments

Thom, I was wondering if you could invite professor Michael Hudson of UMKC to your show to talk about the economy. He is Dennis Kucinich's chief economic adviser and I think all of us listening to the show would benefit from his unique perspective on what happened in this country since August 1971 when Nixon decided to abandon Breton Woods. There is a lot of talk nowadays about what should be done to fix the mess Bush got us into and I think the professor has some real interesting ideas.

http://www.michael-hudson.com/
http://www.michael-hudson.com/books/superimperialism.pdf

Thom, I'd like to hear your feedback on the following...

In regards to the bitter lady who referred to Hillary with "how are we gonna beat the bitch?"...

If someone on the "Left" had made an equivalent remark, the media would have swamped us with reports and opinions on how it reflects the "angry, Bush-hating Left," and the Right Wing, likely Malkin, would already have posted the name & address of the offending supporter across their websites, including the phone number of their employer -- urging their followers to contact the company to let them know they have a terrorist supporter in their employ.

But we've heard little to nothing regarding the rampant Clinton-hatred on the Right, nor any relating this to the myriad of studies presenting Right Wingers as authoritarian and intolerant.

-----

What I wonder about, though, is how this media pressure applied to the Left effectively creates and maintains a buffer, or rift, between Democratic politicians and those grassroots groups who are their core support -- and that includes Air America Radio. Do Dem politicians avoid coming on Air America because they know that the media will characterize it as effectively cavorting with the scientifically-facilitated love child of Joseph Stalin and Osama bin Laden?

Rant off.

Thanks for listening/reading, depending on your mode.

I would love to hear Thom interview Al Rantel. He's a radio host at KABC in LA. This guy is a big time Reagan supporter and says that we need to go back to the Reagan economy policies. I just think that Thom can have a lot of fun with this guy.

http://www.kabc.com/sectional.asp?id=12389

Thom. Yesterday (11/21) I heard you mention that Congressional Authorization for the Iraq war stipulated that Bush must give proof that Hussein was connected to the 9/11 attacks. I believe you said that Bush sent a letter doing just that in the prescribed 60 day period. Where can I find documentation of this? Thanks. You have a wonderful show and provide an excellent service. Ron in Reno.

Looking at Raymond Lotta's web sites, it's shocking to see what these Maoists believe - an article by Lotta claims that Mao's genocide didn't happen!

Lotta is a wingnut - I don't know if we should expose him to see who we should avoid while doing activism or hope he goes away. (And Bob Avakian's group, the Revolutionary Communist Party, is a cult of personality.)

Thom - aren't the people like Raymond Lotta to the Left like Stormfront or similar neo-Nazi groups are to the Right?

Authoritarianism and denial of genocide and democide by their group is one common thread - neo-Nazis deny the Holocaust; Maoists deny the democides during the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, as well as the ethnic cleansing of Uighurs and Tibetans, and the repression of Falun Gong.

Possible "lighter side" of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

Pertaining to your conversation with Odette Wilkens and the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act...if I understand this correctly, the next time the FDA issues a recall of tainted meat - it, and therefore Mr Bush, as the ultimate responsible party over that agency - can be declared a terrorist organization?? Hmmmm....might have legs...

Working in Toronto for a German/French based company, the end of the calender year is approaching and it is next to impossible to get hold of colleagues in europe as they scramble to use up what's left of their 4-6 weeks minimum vacation time.

I am told that workers in Germany as soon as they hit age 27 receive 6 weeks vacation.

Consider this that in Canada and the U.S. we generally start at 2 weeks, sometimes 3 weeks vacation.

To reach 4 weeks takes perhaps 10-12 years of employment with the same employer.

Was is Thom's take on this? Is the NA worker exploited or the work conditions in europe too soft. What do he think is behind all these numbers?

I am new to chat rooms, forgive my ignorance. I just signed up on the chat room and found myself alone in there, talking to myself. Here I have copied & pasted my last comment: PG&E, the local power company, runs an ad that I find objectionable esp. as it runs on the so-called "green" station that runs the thom hartmann show. It talks about how changing to fluorescent light bulbs or energy saving water heaters will be equivalent to taking some huge number of cars off the road (300,000?). This is fraudulent for two reasons. First, it doesn't say how much GAS would be saved, that would be a legitimate statistics -- instead it mentions "taking cars off the road" but doesn't say for how long/how many miles. Therefore it's a worthless statistic. Second, it gives the impression that people do not need to cut back on energy consumption, just change to fluorescent bulbs then go on your merry way! Keep on driving all those miles, in the smug knowledge that you've already done your part. People need to understand that we have to cut back on consumption. We can do it - we just came off an era (well, we are still on it) of building monster houses and buying SUVs. Is Thom H the person to shoot down this notion that we can buy off our obligation by donating a few dollars to some org. that plants trees or by changing a light bulb? I hope so.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Sue N,

Hi cali55,

If you were all alone, you probably went to the member's chat room attached to this message board.

The main chat room which Thom is in during the show is at http://thomhartmann.org/Web/chat.shtml . You'll have to register again for that, I'm afraid, as it is hosted separately.

Sue, I'm trying to track down a story I heard discussed on Thom's show today, about an Alabama governor who alleged he was electorally defrauded of reelection and was later put in jail by the republican mafioso machine. Can't recall his name. Thom said it was on Raw Story. I just went there and can't find anything about it. Any ideas?

Don Siegelman, Democratic governor of Alabama from 1999 to 2003.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/The_Permanent_Republican_Majority_1125.html

Aside from Siegelman, would you also consider the former Qwest CEO, Joseph Nacchio, to be a political prisoner -- or is the opinion jury still out on his claims of political persecution/prosecution?

see: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/10/hbc-90001415

Re: the Iran NIE and the "What/When did Bush know?" timeline...

As Thom has noted, Keith Olbermann has speculated that pResident Bush was informed of the perspective the NIE was to take sometime between August 6th and 9th, given the change in Bush's terminology on the issue of Iran seeking nuclear weapons, beginning on August 9th.

However, I'm not sure this is the only, or most likely scenario.

Another possibility -- one that accounts for Larry Johnson's and other's comments that the Administration has been working to suppress the NIE for a year -- is that Bush wasn't informed of any new intelligence between August 6th and 9th... but that he was then informed by Mike McConnell or others -- given a heads-up -- that portions of the NIE would be made public and that, specifically, the public would be informed of the intelligence that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

It is my belief that Bush was informed, between August 6-8th, that the NIE, despite his Administration's efforts to suppress it, was going to be made public -- one way or another -- and so Bush negotiated a delayed release of the report, in order to give his Administration time to develop and roll-out a new Iran narrative... shifting from "Iran is developing nuclear weapons" to "Iran must be prevented from obtaining the knowledge on enriching uranium."

Just speculation on my part, but speculation, in my opinion, that better accounts for the Administration's reported year-long attempts to suppress the NIE.

what happened to the line breaks in this thread? makes it real hard to read when the lines are a foot and a half wide.

I have no idea why cali55's message caused the lines to be so wide. I copied the post, put it in a simple text editor to remove any invisible formatting, and copied it back, and it worked.

Who pulled the Hartmann is a SHILL for AIPAC thread, and why? It is disturbing when we are having an important discussion about the arbitrary limitations on freedom of discussion and debate on Thom's show, to have this thread peremptorily eliminated, with no explanation.

It is a sad reminder to me that the left is not without its hypocrisy, when it comes to advocating a "democratic marketplace of ideas," "free thinking" and "free expression," and the like. I have found this tendency all over the left -- whether it be Amy Goodman's inexplicable refusal to cover 9/11 issues or the grave issue of peak oil, and similar things with Common Dreams.org, where, in Stalinist manner, they have edited out article messages that go too deeply into the fact that 9/11 was an inside job. Indeed, most of the so-called "left" media has been missing in action on the mountain of evidence showing 9/11 was an inside job; hence the rise of the well deserved term, "left gatekeepers."

This is a good place to remind everyone that the left is full of its petty despots, "minders" who feel they are entitled to arbitrarily circumscribe debate.

Here's my question:
Can you please not over-exagerating the benefits of biofuels?

Promising some sort of a Dues ex Machina from Biofuels is very disturbing, especially from someone as well-read as yourself.

quote:

Specifically, here's one of your radio broadcasts which I take issue with:
__________________________

A caller was raving about how wonderful hemp is as a fuel.
Hartmann replied that Hemp was one of the best ways to get biodiesel.

That statement couldn't be farther from the truth.

Hemp is actually one of the worst ways to get biodiesel.
Hemp is worse than Soybeans. Which is already pretty bad.

Certainly hemp would be a good replacement for cotton, twine, and raw materials in general.
But saying it's good to use as a fuel is simply Wrong.
___________

Then Hartmann said that Brazil gets half of their liquid fuel from Ethanol.

No thats not true. Brazil get almost all their liquid fuel supply from Petroleum.
Primarily from drilling Petroleum off the coast.

Perhaps what we need to "learn" from Brazil is how they consume 7x less liquid fuel than the average American. Because our Fuel Economy standards certainly could use a rehaul...

Anyways incase you'd like a more indepth commentary, here's one of my responses to a Corn Ethanol expert.
As well as a thread on this forum where I originally brought this subject up.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: GreyFlcn,

Good points, although I couldn't open your first link. Instead of hyping and exaggerating the benefits of biodiesel, we should be launching a massive national and international program of energy conservation and development of renewable sources of energy, to avert the potentially catastrophic future we are currently drifting toward as a result of our nation's failure to come up with an energy policy that addresses the imminent reality of peak oil--the inevitable decline in extraction of oil globally, coupled with sharply rising demand for oil.

Production of biodiesel fuel tends to be an net energy loser. As for ethanol, it's mostly just being hyped because of the powerful agribusiness constituency for it, but it too is a net energy loser. Cornell U. professor David Pimentel performed a net-energy analysis of ethanol and found that an acre of corn ultimately yields, on average, 328 gallons of ethanol. It takes 1,000 gallons of fossil fuels to plant, grow, and harvest this quantity of corn. Additional energy must be used in distilling the ethanol. In sum, 131,000 BTU are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol, which has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. This gives ethanol an EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) of roughly .59, meaning a 41% loss of net energy.

quote:

Originally posted by GreyFlcn:

quote:

Originally posted by memory_hole:
Good points, although I couldn't open your first link.

Which link was that? I just tested them all out.

this one, http://greyfalcon.net/oilvsethanol.png

Although i just tried and it worked. Bottom line is there are no substitutes for our precious oil; the best way to spend a barrel of oil is to SAVE it. We need a rational policy to use the remaining oil to transition to a lower-energy-intensive future, ramping up solar, wind, and geothermal sources, and above all, CONSERVATION.

Hi folks, don't forget that this thread is for questions for Thom on air, not discussions, and the posts in it are periodically cleared down to make room for new questions. Please continue your discussion in another thread, and copy across anything you want to keep.

I would like Thom to interview Dr. John McDougall regarding an article he wrote last December. The article talks about the UN's study "The Long Shadow of Agriculture." In the study, the UN has identified agricultural practices as a bery significant source of greenhouse gases and pollution.

I know Thom has mentioned that he is a vegetarian (perhaps even a vegan?), and we need to get the meme out there that if we quit eating meat and all animal-derived foods, we can save the planet.

The article link is here:
http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2006nl/dec/truth.htm

Dr. McDougall's site is www.drmcdougall.com

Thanks.

Scott

Leaders, soldiers and lay folks develop into adults by relying upon strong, clear images in their mind, of past problems. The scope of people's lives is often informed by the experience of having solved them.

However, as we grow to adulthood, and aspire to roles consistent with who we are, society criticizes those who have overcome alcoholism or drug abuse, or identity crisis, or familial dysfunction. At the same time networks of programs exist to help these individuals achieve their potential.

Some of our proud leaders, and others, may be reluctant to accept their shortcomings or faults and exist in misery and suffering, without seeking help to be happy, and healthy.

Both President Bush, and Vice-President Cheney have admitted their experiences in overcoming alcohol abuse, and yet they have not together, explained their experience and how AA's Twelve Step Program can be used to improve people's lives. Soon, in the New Year, would you conduct a program including Alcoholics Anonymous' Network? For those healers, are able to change the minds of alcoholics, who had begun to think that alcohol was important in their lives?

Hi, Mr. Hartmann!
We have heard of the caucases in Iowa. Why should we NOT be apprehensive concerning upcoming primaries?

Hi Thom - I just wanted to follow up on my phone call on direct democracy from last Friday. The idea was basically that we need to have ways of showing our representatives what the wishes of their constituency is on various issues. I had suggested that the Internet is possible means to the end of making visible the will of the constituency. You responded that was too big a burden to place on the representatives. And I agreed that whatever system we apply, it should not be run by the representative's office.
In some sense the representatives office would play a role, since indeed the effort of the project is to inform the representative on the will of the electorate. However, this does not require that the representatives need to be involved in the process that delivers the will of the electorate. And indeed the process would be quite flawed with such a potential conflict of interest at stake.
Once upon a time we had a media that described the public's concerns in the world, we could therefore have confidence that we understood issues and how our representatives worked towards the electorates wishes in regard to those issues. But as we now see the electorates ability to either understand the world, or it's ability to impact the political process seem at all time lows. It is time for a new intimacy with our representatives, but it requires we as communities find ways to discuss the political issues that effect our lives in new ways. Step one is being seen. And in a way all I am arguing for is citizens to have a stronger sense of being seen.

Sorry Thom- one last effort to summarize. Clearly you and I are talking a similar language in that we both beleive greater citizen involvement is the key. Perhaps what we differ in is that our visions are different for what that would look like.
I am suggesting it must include revoloutionary new ways to transmitt the will of the electorate towards our represenatives. Elections as they atand, even if we could be confident of vote totals, are not enough to get us out of this. Our abilities to network with one another as citizens have changed, it is time that our political possibilities reflect that new ability.

Thom,

The points made by Lawrence, who called you last Thursday morning, were excellent. He questioned your oft-repeated defense of the need for a "well-regulated" capitalism by saying that the nature of capitalism is such that the corporate monopolies inevitably find ways to undermine any and all meaningful regulation, through corrupting politicians, buying media, etc.

You asked him what his alternative to capitalism was, rightly pointing out the failure of the Soviet system. He suggested cooperatives - consumer cooperatives, and more importantly, worker cooperatives, i.e., worker-owned businesses. It didn't seem like you disagreed with him on the merits of this idea, although you said that one problem with this is that in a society of worker-owned co-ops, there is then insufficient capital accumulated to fund massive industrial projects like auto plants.

As is so often the case, the annoying bumper music signalled the end of a very important discussion, just when it was getting started.

I agree with Lawrence. I think capitalism is an inherently destructive system which will ultimately destroy the whole planet if people do not "wake up" en masse, to its cancerous nature. We need to outgrow the mindset and conditioning that causes us to see it as benign, "natural" or normal. It is not natural or normal; it is more like a cancer. Everyday we witness the failure of democratic political institutions, globally and nationally, to meaningfully regulate these monstrous corporations, many of the biggest of which are far wealthier than most nation states.

As for capital accumulation in society of worker-owned co-ops, why couldn't the tax base itself provide plenty of capital accumulation to fund auto plants, roads, electric trains?

Personally, I have nothing against small-scale capitalism, so long as it has to compete with worker-owned cooperatives. But stock markets are inherently negative, as they encourage corporate behavior that is reckless. Absentee ownership always encourages irresponsibility.

Thom,

Please explain to me how a gasoline cooperative will enable me to fill my car up.

Why did Senator Clinton feel the need to make the request to seat Florida's delegates just a few days BEFORE the Florida primary?

Couldn't this move be seen as pandering, as an effort to skirt the "no campaigning" agreement, knowing that the request would be given widespread coverage on local news in Florida*, painting Hillary Clinton in a favorable light and as a "friend of the Florida voter"?

* I'd be interested in seeing a news story on just how much coverage this request *did* get in Florida's news media. Might it not have had an effect on the vote margin? And, if so, how close to the line of "campaigning" did it come? Was it an explicit or ethical breach of the agreement?

Consider the following sampling of news stories just 3-4 days before the Florida primary...

• Palm Beach Post; Saturday, January 26th
  
• WFTV Orlando; Saturday, January 25th
  
• WPTV West Palm Beach, January 25th
  
• Orlando Sentinel, January 25th
  
• Ocala Star-Banner, January 25th
  
• The Nation blog; John Nichols, January 28th
  
• The Nation blog; John Nichols, January 29th

Couldn't the request have been made AFTER the Florida primary?

I think the answer is obvious, however the campaign might respond. Chalk another one up in the "do anything" column.