Recent comments

  • Cocktail Science   11 hours 17 min ago

    I have a 12 year, 15 year and 18 year of bowmore-whisky- and they're all good. The 15 year is aged in sherry casks. Balvenie Doublewood is aged in port casks then sherry casks and it's quite tasty, too. The Bowmore comes in 3 pack so I've been taste testing, 15 then 18 then 12. Then the last time 18, 15, 12. There are other packages of 4 and 5, different brands and different ages.

    Something else from Scotland, Hendricks Gin theunusualtimes is great for extra dry martinis. Infused botanicals like Bombay Sapphire has as well make complex flavors in both, shaken not stirred.

    btw, I've mentioned before that whenever I happen on a new word I inevitably see it again the next day or so, sometimes twice more. Ren posted a quote with 'stultifying' and I liked that but cannot remember hearing it before. It's in the Hendricks site, about one day or so after I first saw it. I posted a quote from a Kindle book by ____ Hand, his book is how coincidences happen all the time and are not that unusual. I saw a word on the same day I posted on coincidences and the next day a coincidence occurs. Laborisgood calls it cosmic breadcrumbs.

    One other thing, the single malts go good with chess. My brother-in-law and I play without a chess clock but our games get better as we freely top our glasses up. He likes Macallan, a Speyside single malt. The Bowmores are Islay.

  • Politics is obscene. Why can't we relegate Statism to the dustbin of history?   12 hours 5 min ago
    Quote Dr. Econ:
    Quote jrodefeld:
    Quote Dr. Econ:
    Quote al3:

    Libertarianism wishes the "natural elites" to rule over the peon masses. Wall Street is the "natural elite." Thus libertarianism wishes Wall Street to rule over the peon masses. Our only hope to neuter the "natural elite" is government. Sometimes that does not work well, like now, but it's our only hope. Otherwise Hans-Hermann Hoppe's dire world of a few "natural elites" and millions of powerless peons is realized.

    Quote jrodefeld: What do you mean "rule"?

    Rule is accululating resources and wealth and capturing most of the gains of trade, while others will live in poverty and dispair.

    Quote jrodefeld: Libertarians favor individual and equal human rights. The equal right of all persons to be free from aggression. In that context, what does "rule" even mean?

    Favor? yes, they 'favor' it. But leaving this in the hands of courts does not make it so. For example, 65% of murders go unsolved.

    A cynical person would say that Libertarians hate individual and equal human rights.

    Quote jrodefeld: ...any natural elite will simply be comprised of a group of intelligent and accomplished individuals who command respect and admiration from their peers owing to their accomplishments and wisdom.

    They will simply accumulate wealth, and their progeny may not be intelligent or accomplished at all. In fact, many will simply be lucky, being in the right place at the right time.

    In a market economy, any wealth earned by entrepreneurs will be transient. Without any mechanism for cartelizing and monopolizing, new entrepreneurs will always be undercutting the market share and wealth of the capitalists.

    This is false for two independent reasons:

    1) Once you own an asset, you can own it forever, earning the rate of return on it. For example, your 401k, Mit Romney's carried interest.

    2) Competition, in general, can only occur when the entrepreneur has the talent, knowledge, information, technology and capital to compete, and you have dimishing returns to scale. Not everyone can be an entrepreneur. As technology increases in complexity and scale, it becomes impossible to compete and make profits 'transient'.

    The "wealthy" are not a permanent class of specific individuals who, once they attain a certain threshold of wealth, they are untouchable overlords lording it over the poor serfs. That is not how things work in a market economy.

    Yes, once you own an asset, which in the case we are discussing involves libertarian just property acquisition theory, you have the right to own that property forever. You give up that property by giving it away, trading it for other property or abandoning it.

    All of us have that right. Once you buy a car and pay it off you too have the right to own that car forever. But you're owning that car doesn't take away from anyone else since you voluntarily contracted to acquire that car. The car dealership or seller benefitted by selling you the car and you benefitted by buying it.

    The wealth that a "rich" person achieves in the libertarian society is much the same. By voluntarily contracted with other people or mixing ones labor with unowned natural resources, a person acquires wealth. But they also make others wealthy on the way up. Everytime they trade for other property, the party(s) they are trading with voluntarily necessarily anticipate being made better off through the transaction. This is what is known as an a priori truth.

    Also, once you own property, you still have to continue participating in the economy and earning more income or else you will eventually consume whatever wealth you have. That continued income has to come from voluntary transactions. If people voluntarily withdraw their dollars and stop buying whatever it is that the wealthy person provides, the fact that they own a lot of property will not protect them in the long run. Without continued revenue streams, they will eventually have to sell off their property.

    Finally, you are attributing a helplessness to people that is foolish. Nearly everyone has the ability to be entrepreneurs in some capacity. Workers have the ability to organize and pool their resources to start new ventures. Without laws forbidding economic arrangments, the people have a lot more power than you recognize.

    Quote Dr. Econ:
    Quote jrodefeld: It is even less likely that the wealth of the talented and accomplished will be passed on to their children and grandchildren. There is a saying "from rags to riches to rags in three generations". Yes, rich parents will pass on their money and maybe their business to their children but without the talent and foresight of their parents, they are likely to squander much of the money that is given to them, with the result that they fall back down to middle class again with more accomplished people taking their place.

    They are likely? I didn't delete this paragraph, but I should have. Your argument - like so many - are often this kind of superficial, rhetorical, nonsense. As long as the rich don't have more children - which is more likely only now, there is nothing stopping them from keeping their wealth indefinitely. without doing anything productive at all. That is the wonder of owning capital under capitalism.

    Quote jrodefeld: If they have to seek wealth through voluntary transaction, what is the problem? Their wealth is gained in proportion to the value they provide for others.

    They accululate resources and wealth and capturing most of the gains of trade, while others will live in poverty and dispair.

    You are assuming that the wealthy will compete away their excess profits, but that is a ridiculous assumption under a capital and technologically intensive economy.

    Honestly, where do you get these sorts of ideas? You have bought into a comic book version of crude Marxism or something close to it. Without the central coercive monopoly called the State, you think that a small number of businessmen, the 1%, will just somehow get all the "stuff" and be able to keep that property indefinitely while they continue to screw over the poor and working class while providing nothing of value to consumers.

    This is so absurd it is hardly worth responding to at all. All I can say is you should go back to the beginning at study Economics 101 because this is not at all how societies function in the real world.

  • fairdebates.com   12 hours 34 min ago

    1992 was the last time you heard a 3RD party voice in the Presidential Debates.

  • And Gilmore makes 17...   13 hours 44 min ago

    Cartoon character oligarch versus toxic clown oligarch... Whup-ti-friggin' do.

  • Sandra Bland was Targeted   14 hours 44 min ago

    You obviously haven't seen the full tape which shows him going by in the opposite direction when she is doing nothing wrong. He does a U-turn and chases her. She pulls over, as she tells him, because he was coming up so fast she was getting out of his way. Everything is fine until he tells her to put out her cigarette, which is a nonsense order. Then they both get belligerent, but that's not an arrestable offense. He is allegedly a trained professional who knows how to de-escalate a situation. He even told his superior he had tried to. Right! Where and when? He was the main escalator.

  • 6TH WORLD MASS EXTINCTION UNDERWAY ?   14 hours 50 min ago

    Why is nuclear the only option? My city is powered by 100% renewable energy. Sure we use fossil fuel for heating, but even that may go the way of the dodo when all of our renewables are fully online.

  • If elected, would Hillary build the Keystone XL?   14 hours 57 min ago

    Also let's not forget that Hillary voted for the Iraq War, and I don't buy the "That was the military intelligence we had at the time!" excuse anymore.

    The only good thing Mrs. Clinton tried to do when Bill was in the White House, was try to get universal heatlh care reform passed, but the Republicans stood in her way just as they did with President Nixon over 20 years earlier. Settling for the Affordable Care Act, even Obama couldn't get a public option!

    Hillary would not only be bad for this country -- and certainly the lesser of two evils if we're stuck with her on the Democratic side, but she would be even more ineffective as President than Barack Obama has been.

  • 6TH WORLD MASS EXTINCTION UNDERWAY ?   15 hours 6 min ago

    Of course there are stress related injuries, needlessly evacuating people because outdoor radiation levels reach 20 mSv. Whereas a popular beach in Guarana Brazil people love it, laying in the radioactive sand getting up to 800 mSv per year. Called the health city by Brazilians, widely believed in the well proven fact of radiation hormesis. Low levels of radiation actually stimulates the immune system.

    brazil 2012: sunbathing on radioactive beaches, 30-50 uSv/hr on beach in Brazil vs Fukushima towns called uninhabitable by rabidly anti-nuclear NRC director @ 1 uSv/hr:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvgAx1yIKjg

    No reports in the mainstream media on all the carcinogens, toxins, heavy metals, deaths, lifetime of pain and suffering on all the burn victims from Lac Magentic oil fire. Actual 47 horrific deaths. I would rather live through, johnny-on-the-spot, 100 Fukus than one Lac Magentic. According to the MSM Lac Magentic is nothing to worry about, but FUKU, with zero radiation deaths is really scary.

    I get 33,800,000 hits on Google for Fukushima. Lac Magentic I get 1790 results. You can sure tell Big Oil's influence on the MSM.

    And ZERO coverage in the MSM about the Mud Volcano in Indonesia caused by Natural Gas drilling 13,000 homes destroyed, 12 dead and will continue for another 80 years.

    Pretty mickey mouse worrying about some easily preventable discomforts in Fukushima, when we face the spectre of 10 meter seal level rise due to global warming destroying all the coastal cities in the world. Probably in excess of $1000 trillion in costs. And over a billion lives.

  • Does The Constitution Prohibit Secession Without Stating It?   15 hours 22 min ago

    Looking more into the South Carolina Nullification crisis of 1832... SC went far beyond attempting the nullification of a federal law... but was openly threatening secession if the federal government tried to enforce the law in question. This could easily have been the start of A Civil War... only this time not about slaves but tariffs...

    Here is an excerpt of the nullification ordinance SC passed... from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/ordnull.asp

    And we, the people of South Carolina, to the end that it may be fully understood by the government of the United States, and the people of the co-States, that we are determined to maintain this our ordinance and declaration, at every hazard, do further declare that we will not submit to the application of force on the part of the federal government, to reduce this State to obedience, but that we will consider the passage, by Congress, of any act authorizing the employment of a military or naval force against the State of South Carolina, her constitutional authorities or citizens; or any act abolishing or closing the ports of this State, or any of them, or otherwise obstructing the free ingress and egress of vessels to and from the said ports, or any other act on the part of the federal government, to coerce the State, shut up her ports, destroy or harass her commerce or to enforce the acts hereby declared to be null and void, otherwise than through the civil tribunals of the country, as inconsistent with the longer continuance of South Carolina in the Union; and that the people of this State will henceforth hold themselves absolved from all further obligation to maintain or preserve their political connection with the people of the other States; and will forthwith proceed to organize a separate government, and do all other acts and things which sovereign and independent States may of right do.

    Andrew Jackson's address to Congress... is an interesting rebuttal... and is much too long to quote in length from... but some passages stand out

    Without adverting to the particular theories to which the federal compact has given rise, both as to its formation and the parties to it, and without inquiring whether it be merely federal or social or national, it is sufficient that it must be admitted to be a compact and to possess the obligations incident to a compact; to be " a compact by which power is created on the one hand and obedience exacted on the other; a compact freely, voluntarily, and solemnly entered into by the several States and ratified by the people thereof, respectively; a compact by which the several States and the people thereof, respectively, have bound themselves to each other and to the Federal Government, and by which the Federal Government is bound to the several States and to every citizen of the United States." To this compact, in whatever mode it may have been done, the people of South Carolina have freely and voluntarily given their assent, and to the whole and every part of it they are, upon every principle of good faith, inviolably bound. Under this obligation they are bomb (sic?) and should be required to contribute their portion of the public expense, and to submit to all laws made by the common consent, in pursuance of the Constitution, for the common defense and general welfare, until they can be changed in the mode which the compact has provided for the attainment of those great ends of the Government and of the Union. Nothing less than causes which would justify revolutionary remedy can absolve the people from this obligation, and for nothing less can the Government permit it to be done without violating its own obligations, by which, under the compact, it is bound to the other States and to every citizen of the United States.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/ajack001.asp

    There's more, of course. But it is an interesting discussion on the Constitution.

  • Putin Prepares Russia for War with West; Shuts Down U.S. National Endowment for Democracy   15 hours 24 min ago

    Ultimately we have three axis of power in the world:

    1) Bankster owned Western nations, led by the $USA$ & Europe

    2) Russia

    3) China

    There are also odd countries like Argentina, Peru, Venezuala, Cuba etc that aren't licking the Bankster/America's boot, but they are too weak to do much in the world. Is it inevitable that these three groups will slug it out sometime? The Banksters really just want to squeeze, push and buy Russia into submission.

  • If elected, would Hillary build the Keystone XL?   15 hours 28 min ago

    Okay folks, it's easy...her husband believes in corporate trade so she will stand with TPP. She won't say anything about KXL so that's the answer, she's an advocate. And for kicks the notion of "Glass Stegiel" ...her husband stopped it so she won't help to reinstate surely.

    Hillary is a corporate candidate and that's all. We'd be foolish to elect her as President.

  • If elected, would Hillary build the Keystone XL?   15 hours 29 min ago

    Clinton will do whatever her corporate masters tell her to do. Her job is to spin that to make the public believe its in their best interests.

  • Are cops stupid or psychotic?   16 hours 33 min ago

    It appears cops are both stupid and psychotic . . .although there is more that they are capable of -

    “We called for help and they killed our son”: Out-of control ..

    www.salon.com/.../“we_called_for_help_and_they_killed_our_son... Salon

    Jan 28, 2014 - Two police officers used a taser to subdue Vidal, who weighed 90 pounds. The situation, says Wilsey, was under control. But a third officer, ...

    On January 4 in Boiling Spring Lakes, North Carolina, Mark Wilsey called 911 because his stepson Keith Vidal, 18, was threatening his mother with a small screwdriver. Vidal, a schizophrenic, had no history of violence, but in this case his family needed help. Two police officers used a taser to subdue Vidal, who weighed 90 pounds. The situation, says Wilsey, was under control. But a third officer, Bryon Vassey, showed up and quickly—within 70 seconds—shot him. “We called for help and they killed our son,” said Wilsey.

    The killing recalls last month’s killing of Dixon Rodriguez, a mentally ill man whose mother had called 911 in Perth Amboy, New Jersey. In recent months, the police have injured or killed a notable number of people. Some were suspects; others posed an alleged threat to police. Some were armed; others weren’t. Only a few hours into 2014, Chicago police had shot four in two different incidents. On January 7th in Philadelphia, Darrin Manning, a 16-year old black boy, had emergency surgery for a ruptured testicle after a stop-and-frisk by two white officers: Thomas Purcell and a woman the department hasn’t identified.

    If it seems to you that the police are becoming more violent, you may be right. In 2011, Los Angeles County police shot to death 54 people, some 70 percent more than in 2010. Between 2008 and 2013, the number of people shot by Massachusetts police increased every year. In 2012, police in New York City shot and killed 16 people, nine more the previous year and the most in 12 years. In 2012, Philadelphia police shot 52 people—the highest number in 10 years.

    But whether these statistics reflect a national trend is, at this point, an unanswerable question.

    That’s because many of the country’s 17,000 police departments don’t release information on use of force by police, and the federal government makes no serious effort to collect it. While the government gathers and releases extensive information about violence by citizens, it conceals information about violence by police.

    “Excessive force by police is one of the big problems,” says Brigitt Keller, executive director of the National Police Accountability Project, who cites as causes the militarization of the police, persistent impunity, and a mythology that exaggerates the dangers police face and deters public officials from challenging them. “I believe the problem is getting worse,” Keller says, “but it’s hard to say for sure without comprehensive information.”

  • Are cops stupid or psychotic?   16 hours 34 min ago

    Solution may be easy .Design a personality inventory/profile that all police applicants must take. .If done well, even the few intelligent ones wouldn't be able to disguise their sociopathy.

  • Fort Sumter: Who Started The Civil War?   16 hours 39 min ago
    Quote Maine:
    Quote ulTRAX:

    So if the CSA expropriates federal property... and initiates violence against the peaceful soldiers in the fort... the CSA is justified in an attack on the grounds they can claim/invent a threat, and US government was NOT justified in responding to the theft of its property or the murderous attack on its men even if they have a legal right to be there.

    Right. You're obviously assuming the Union has a right to have soldiers there in addition to a right to its property, both statements being the question of this very debate.

    Hey, SC turned over the land SO IT WOULD BE A MILITARY BASE. So please adjust your arguments to incorporate the obvious. So far you continue to debate strawmen.

    Quote Maine:I say they do not have a clear right to the property because at the very least, - the constitution says nothing about who gets what in the event of a secession. It's like a marriage without a prenup only worse - and even if they hold that property right (IF they do) I say they do not have a right to have soldiers at that fort if the CSA says they don't.
    Leaving aside that secession seems to be illegal given the powers given to the federal governments... where did the CSA ever get the right to expropriate federal properties? Even if secession were legal, and the US didn't care... it was still an act of aggression to seize these properties without permission. Either way... there were numerous acts of aggression by the CSA before Sumter...

    Quote Maine:Of course you'd be right that the Union would have a right to defend itself if the fort were truly theirs. Unfortunately that claim will strain under the fact that it is a fort inside enemy territory.
    The CSA was certainly the ones acting aggressively insuring there'd be conflict.

    Quote Maine:You know, if the Union weren't such warmongers and they appreciated peace they would have turned the fort into a post office or something benign like that. Instead the provoke a situation by sending reinforcements.
    More neoconfederate nonsense. The CSA had expropriated federal properties for months, then fired on Sumter... and the North were the war mongers? I've already gone over the sections of the Constitution and posted the Insurrection Act... the federal government had a legal right to act given the provocation.

    Quote Maine:As usual you have no ability to debate nuance as you see everything in black and white terms.

    ROTF. Hey, it's YOUR claim secession was legal that fell apart just as your claim the states seceded to "escape northern tyranny". Yet you cling to the belief to support secession is the ONLY proper libertarian view. Odd, since these states... original 13 and newer ones voluntarily signed on to the Constitution which then legally limited their options... committing them to deal with conflicts WITHIN the constitutional framework. We already know you're willing to give the CSA a pass on slavery, expropriating properties, armed aggression... and now contracts are also to be shed in your pursuit of secession as the highest value. Your contradictions just keep piling up...

  • Sandra Bland was Targeted   17 hours 1 min ago

    Yes, you are. At least you admit it! ;-}

  • Women are FORCED to throw out tampons & maxi pads but you can keep your guns? Nice go'in TEXAS!   17 hours 4 min ago

    Good ole Texas, what'd they do, a bodily cavity search of all females entering the capitol that day?

  • Putin Prepares Russia for War with West; Shuts Down U.S. National Endowment for Democracy   17 hours 7 min ago

    Seems similar to RT

  • Women are FORCED to throw out tampons & maxi pads but you can keep your guns? Nice go'in TEXAS!   17 hours 10 min ago

    Yeah your vote will count the next time you get pregnant main-liner.

  • Women are FORCED to throw out tampons & maxi pads but you can keep your guns? Nice go'in TEXAS!   17 hours 13 min ago

    Hey Zoe, yuz guys can always use gun cleaning patches! Those can serve the purpose can't they? ;-}

  • DON'T EAT SEA FOOD   17 hours 23 min ago

    Where have all the graveyards gone?
    Gone to flowers, everyone.
    Oh, when will they ever learn?
    Oh, when will they ever learn?

    Japan: Fukushima 50 Expected to Die Within Weeks?

    Benefits of Marijuana: Acute radiation syndrome
    - Reduced Nausea
    - Increased appetite
    - Reduced vomiting
    - Weight gain
    - Sleeping aid

    Medical Marijuana and Radiation Therapy
    Countless studies have shown that marijuana is effective for lessening the effects of cancer and radiation treatment.

    Scientists Re-Re-Re-Discover Cannabis Stops Metastasis In Aggressive Cancers!

    Marijuana" Can prevent Cancer

    Endocannabinoids

    Ganja 4 Banned Nerve Gas Used on Yemeni Protesters

    Reply: A Day in the Life of A Dementia Sufferer
    "Coming up at eleven," local TV newscasters around the country were breathlessly promising: "how pot could save your life!" The disclosure that marijuana's prime active ingredients can shield human beings from brain damage...

    Hemp 'Eats' Chernobyl Waste (crude oil spills?)
    The blast heavily contaminated agricultural lands in a 30 km radius around the reactor. The few people still living there must monitor their food and water for radiation. However the combination of a new technology (phytoremediation) and an old crop (industrial hemp) may offer the Ukraine a way to decontaminate it's radioactive soil.

    Omega 3: Fish v Hempseed Oil
    Hemp Oil vs Fish
    Cannabis Seeds:The Most Nutritionally Complete Food on the Planet

    Labeling GMOs
    Hemp Oil vs Franken Fish
    Just in the past year, 20 states have introduced bills to label GMOs. Alaska was the only state that passed a simple bill to label genetically engineered fish only. Special interest groups were able to stop labeling laws from being enacted. Really, who is running this country? A WIN in CA will be a WIN for the ENTIRE NATION.

    Michael Pollan: "Cannabis, The Importance of Forgetting
    Why did this plant make THC in the first place, THC being the main psychoactive
    ingredient? It certainly wasn’t so people could get high. Marijuana did not
    produce THC so we could change our consciousness. It probably produces chemi-
    cals for its own purposes, and these are still unknown. There are theories. One is
    that THC helps protect the plant against insects. Another theory is that it helps
    protect against ultraviolet radiation. You find more THC as you go up higher in
    elevation and you have more UV rays. Another is that it’s an aid to help the plant
    defend itself against predators.

  • Labor Leader Joins Bernie Sanders Campaign!   17 hours 29 min ago

    I'm not sure but I don't want to take any chances that they would consider corporate democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

    That was the 2nd email I sent to him. Until I actually hear who they are going to support, I will continue my crusade to get Teamsters to support Bernie. Teamsters support would be a VERY BIG DEAL!

    If anyone else here is a Teamster or member of another union PLEASE start to contact your General President and others about supporting Bernie Sanders. Send the information like his plan. Links to his campaign site or links to speaches. Do what ever you can to help him win!

  • Labor Leader Joins Bernie Sanders Campaign!   17 hours 29 min ago

    This year reminds me more and more of the 1968 campaign, and especially now that there's talk of Biden getting into the fray. He's sure to bleed some support from Sanders. As a prediction I'll say it's likely Biden will come in when it things look the shakiest for Clinton.

    If I'm right I'll be very disappointed in Biden, it'll mean he has sold out once and for all.

  • Women are FORCED to throw out tampons & maxi pads but you can keep your guns? Nice go'in TEXAS!   17 hours 32 min ago
    Quote Zenzoe:
    The action, if it had been carried out, would have been a symbolic comment, mirroring the childish, patriarchal imperative driving anti-reproductive health and choice for women. That is, they wanted to match the JUVENILE MIND SET THAT WAS ABOUT TO WIN AGAINST REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR WOMEN. (but didn't, not in the end, at least not yet)

    I don't want to infer incorrectly from your comments. So, tell me— you’re okay with governments denying women’s Constitutional right to reproductive health and choice? You think governments should be in the business of controlling what women do with their bodies?

    More to the point, you think it isn’t juvenile for male legislatures to try to control women?

    I can see the case for right to life and right to choice being approximately equal. On a virtue basis I think the case for right to life is a little bit stronger. On a consequentialist basis, I would say the right to choice is a little bit stronger.

    In the end, I probably wouldn't raise an objection to another state or country policies unless there was something either highly illogical or highly offensive going on.

    In my own state/country I would prefer to not permit abortions since humans do have a right to life, there's no sense in trying to demarcate the starting point for life except at inception, and in weighing the right to life against the woman's right to her property (body), the right to property can be put on hold for a few months. This holds in all cases (including incest) but excluding rape. Therefor, if a woman did choose to abort a baby she would be charged with murder, and her only defense would be that she was raped.

    That about sums it up although there are surely other important details.

  • If elected, would Hillary build the Keystone XL?   17 hours 35 min ago

    I hope she really gets called out on BOTH of those issues (KEYSTONE XL AND TPP) that she refuses to discuss. They are important issues and we deserve an answer!

    BERNIE.......PUT HER FEET TO THE FIRE......MAKE HER TALK!

    SHE WILL BUILD IT I JUST KNOW IT and she doesn't want to say it!!!! She KNOWS it would upset the environmentalists. She's trying to make us happy with her "every home will have solar" but IT'S NOT WORKING WITH ME!!!

Currently Chatting

Community Archive

“Rebooting the American Dream.”

Thom Hartmann Here with an excerpt from my book “Rebooting the American Dream: 11 ways to rebuild our country.”
-----
My radio show has a mission statement. We don’t say it on the air, as it sounds a bit pompous, but it’s the metric against which we measure our work: Saving the world, by awakening one person at a time.