Thom, I just listened to your show from yesterday, and last week I noted that you were slipping on your interviews with right wingers, but your conversation with Kerry Lucas was very well done. You did a good job pointing out some of the absurdity in her arguments, but you also treated her with respect and had a legitimate debate.

Just wanted to catch you doing something good!

Murder, Death Penalty: A rose by any other name... the outcome is the same.

KMH, funny how we use the Commandmentsand the Bible verses that fit our needs.

If a prisioner is sentenced to death by a jury of his peers, then people should also be available in a pool to be picked for execution by his peers service. How many fewer death penalty judgments would be made?

The professor was pitifully unprepared. Murder, like torture, is unambiguous.

BTW, that segment was only audible for less than a minute. Is there anybody at KPOJ that is able to listen to what is being aired?

If the death penalty is meant as a deterrent to behavior that is destructive to the social fabric, ie murder, can we implement it against corrupt corporations, executives and politicians whose business practices, lobbying, and votes have directly and adversely affected our social fabric for the last 30 years?

I'm not exactly in favor of the death penalty; I'm on the fence. But it seems weird to me that the first kind of homicide people want to outlaw is the kind that comes after a careful consideration of the facts, rather than those that happen in the heat of the moment: soldiers may kill people that wear the wrong uniform, police may use lethal force against people who look like they're about to do something violent, and citizens may "defend their homes" from burglars under the make-my-day law (as it's called in Colorado). Why are those more moral than weighing evidence dispassionately to decide whether someone should die?

The only case in which I can really argue for the death penalty is treason committed by releasing state secrets. You never know if they have more secrets to release and even people in prison have ways of getting things done.

My father was telling me that there were two things that he learned in school that he thought students today would benefit from. One is the Athenian Oath - how we should treat our community. The other was the poem Abou Ben Adhem - understanding people are not that different, Also, we agreed that the golden rule is much more effective then the 10 commandments and doesn't cross the Church/State divide.

The Athenian Oath
We will never bring disgrace on this our City by an act of dishonesty or cowardice.
We will fight for the ideals and Sacred Things of the City both alone and with many.
We will revere and obey the City's laws, and will do our best
to incite a like reverence and respect in those above us
who are prone to annul them or set them at naught.
We will strive increasingly to quicken the public's sense of civic duty.
Thus in all these ways we will transmit this City, not only not less,
but greater and more beautiful than it was transmitted to us.

Abou Ben Adhem
by Leigh Hunt
About Ben Adhem (may his tribe increase!)
Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace,
An saw, within the moonlight in the room,
Making it rich, and like a lily in bloom,
An angel writing in a book of gold.
Exceeding peace had made Ben Adhem bold,
And to the Presence in the room he said,
"What writest thou?" Then vision raised its head,
And with a look made of all sweet accord,
Answered, "The names of those who love the Lord."
"And is mine one?" said Abou. "Nay, not so,"
Replied the angel. Abou spoke more low,
But cheerly still; and said, "I pray thee then,
Write me as one who loves his fellow men."

The angel wrote, and vanished. The next night
It came again with a great wakening light,
And showed the names who love of God had blessed,
And lo! Ben Adhem's name led all the rest.

Do unto others and you would have them do unto you.

I don't know how the Republican Party can get its footing back, but I know how they can start. Start by keeping their feet out of their mouths. The problem is that putting their feet in their mouths seems to be a reflex.

We should make the people who believe in the death penalty financially support the families damaged by the loss of that bread winner. Send their children to college, pay for their homes, health care, food.

No argument. If you do it, you pay. If you don't believe in paying for it, you don't do it.

As for you republican callers from Rush's show? See ya in 2010. You're done.

Isn't it interesting that pro-life people generally support the "death" penalty?

About the "ugly republican" caller who exhibited such willingness to murder innocent people wrongly accused... Is he not an accessory to the crime of murder. And wonder if it was himself or someone he loves wrongly accused. Can't these people imaging the possibility of this affecting them personally at some time?

No No No Thom...

You are mistaken... I missed the callers name, but I have long agreed with his sentiments. I've even posted them on this page.

You constantly have conservative guests on your show, sometimes 2 or 3 a show and many over and over again. But progressive guests are few and far between. And when you have them on, it's usually on topics on which there will be little if any disagreement.

But make no mistake about it, there are credible people on the left who would be willing to come on your show and have much to offer your audience.

I've felt for a long time that you want to be seen as the voice of the left. That's odd when you sometime call yourself the "radical middle". And I have to wonder if you avoid having more progressives (and more progressive) guests on your show so your conservative side won't be revealed.

I'[ve heard you say that there is no Left in this country, but then you used a definition that only would include groups like the Socialist or Communist Parties as the left. Today's left isn't like that. It's fragmented. That's one of its major weaknesses. But that doesn't mean that there is no Left.

If you don't think there are people who are to the left of you and willing to come on your show, listen to Democracy Now! or any of the Pacifica radio stations. You can do that online.

Shame on you for the way you responded to the caller who asked you have more progressive guests on. The DUMP BUTTON is a coward's tool. As soon as he started his point, you cut him off and declared yourself just about as left as it gets.

Topics you're not very left on:

1) Israel/Palestine: You're totally and shamefully biased in favor of Israel. I really don't think you can face the truth of the situation there. Let me give you an example. You almost never mention Israel's treatment of Palestinians. On the day you interviewed Amy Goodman about her book, Amy had around 5 stories in her headline stories about Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians.

2) Capitalism vs Socialism: You say you're not afraid of the word "socialism" but you are if the word "Democratic" doesn't precede the word socialism. You don't want the government making your shoes.

3) Economic Fairness: You make no bones about the fact that you favor well regulated capitalism. But to you it's perfectly fine for a CEO or corporate owner to be paid 30 to 40 times more than the companies workers. Don't you think there are a lot of people to the left of you on that issue.

4) Illegal Immigration: You're too nice and may think you'll get too much flak from your listeners if you said round up the illegal immigrants and throw them out of the country. So instead, you say we don't have an illegal worker problem, we have an illegal employer problem. Crack down on the employers and the illegal immigrants will leave. I call that a starve them out strategy. You feel they''d rather starve in their country than here. And you invoke the name of Cesar Chavez to support your position. When you have, I've asked you, on this blog, to have Dolores Huerta, the co-founder of the United Farm Workers as a guest because I know she doesn't agree with you. So far, you haven't. Why?

5) AMERICA'S ROLE IN THE WORLD: You're aware of the way the United States has conducted itself in world affairs. You know about the work of Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, John Perkins, Stephen Kinzer and many more. You choose to see the United States as the "good-guys" and disregard this well known history.

That's just a partial list of topics that there are many credible and well spoken people who are to the left of you. But it seems you don't want the less informed members of your audience to know that.

So instead of having informative and valuable guests who are to the left of you, you continue your ritual of repetitive word wars with your conservative guests.

It was shameful the way you dumped the caller who asked that you have some more progressive guests. And then you told us that you do a fine job of representing the views of the left. I hope you didn’t hurt your arm patting yourself on the back. Is that what you call your humble opinion?

Please, please repeal Prop 13 for commercial enterprises and corporations. (There are very few small homeowners still eligible for Prop 13 relief.)

Back to a progressive tax system!!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/19/cafferty.bush.administration/inde...

Jack Cafferty gets it.

Hi Thom,
I know you're talking about the death penalty, which i am totally against, I thought you and your listeners might be interested in an e mail i recieved from my congresswoman. Rep. Chellie Pingree wrote me to let me know about a bill that she is co-sponsoring, which is for expanding Medicare to all Americans. Its HR 676, so maybe if all of your listeners, and web viewers write their members of congress and urge them to vote for this bill.

Below is what TPMuckraker is reporting about the CIA-Pelosi controversy at http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/source_eit_term_wasnt_....
Thom Hartmann's discussion of the EIT incident was much better and appears to have been a scoop on everyone else.
But it is regrettable that his show is not available in archives and there apparently is no transcript, so the invaluable discussion may be lost. What Thom and Lamar Waldron discussed about the history of CIA lying and connecting it to the EIT should be made available for wide distribution to inform the public, which the media are unlikely to do.
If nothing else, Thom and/or Waldron should publish something covering their research and analysis into this incident, which could help to expose the deceit of the CIA.

UPDATED: Source: "EIT" Term Wasn't In Use When Pelosi Was Briefed
By Zachary Roth - May 19, 2009, 12:27PM
Here's yet another reason (as if more were needed) to doubt that that CIA briefings document perfectly reflects what lawmakers were told about torture back in the early days of the war on terror.

Almost every briefing described in the document -- including the September 2002 Pelosi briefing that's directly at issue -- refers to "EITs," or enhanced interrogation techniques, as a subject that was discussed. But according to a former intelligence professional who has participated in such briefings, that term wasn't used until at least 2006* (see correction below).

That's not just an issue of semantics. The former intel professional said that by using the term in the recently compiled document, the CIA was being "disingenuous," trying to make it appear that the use of such techniques was part of a "formal and mechanical program." In fact, said the former intel pro, it wasn't until 2006* (see correction below) that -- amid growing concerns about the program among some in the Bush administration -- the EIT program was formalized, and the "enhanced interrogation techniques" were properly defined and given a name.

The former intel professional, no partisan defender of Democrats, faulted Nancy Pelosi for not pressing harder in the briefing to determine exactly which techniques had and hadn't been used. "The extent to which members ask questions should drive what's going on," said the former intel pro. "It's your job to ask."

Still, the impression created by the CIA, and by Republicans looking to use the document to damage Pelosi, is that as early as 2002 there was a universally agreed upon definition of enhanced interrogation techniques (the document, remember, doesn't say that waterboarding was mentioned during the Pelosi briefing). In reality, it appears, the term, and the techniques it encompassed, occupied a far murkier realm.

*Correction: A Nexis search which we should have done earlier shows that the term "enhanced interrogation techniques" was used by CIA from June 2004 onwards. That month, the Associated Press reported:
The CIA has suspended use of some White House-approved aggressive interrogation tactics employed to extract information from reluctant al-Qaida prisoners, The Washington Post said.
Citing unnamed intelligence officials, the newspaper reported in Sunday's editions that what the CIA calls "enhanced interrogation techniques" were put on hold pending a review by Justice Department and other lawyers.

So the use of the term does indeed appear to have coincided with the emergence of widespread concern about the use of such techniques, and it doesn't seem to have been in use when Pelosi was briefed in September 2002. But clearly the term was in use two years earlier than we originally said.

#

In the last call at the end of Hour 1 Thom said that Gandhi was not assasinated.

He was, after 5 attempts, they were successful on the 6th:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Mahatma_Gandhi#Assassination

My solution to the problem of the death penalty is that if someone innocent is put to death (discovered after the fact of course) then the original DA, and prosecutor(s), the appeals DA and prosecutor(s), anyone in charge, loses all rights to hold a government job, with the loss of benefits. So if the original prosecutor is now state senator when it is discovered that the death penalty case they were in charge of person was innocent, well they are out of office. This would reduce the death penalty cases to ones were you have 100% proof, and if they are not sure, no death penalty.