Wednesday October 21 2009
Hour One: Thom challenges John Lott on net nuetrality - If we don't have to pay extra for police or fire why should we pay extra for the internet? www.johnrlott.blogspot.com
Hour Two: "Everything You Know is Wrong - about curing cancer?" Actress/author Suzanne Somers talks to Thom about her new book "Knockout" www.suzannesomers.com
Hour Three: "Should taxpayers save the news from the Big Six?" Thom challenges Dan Gainor of the Business and Media Institute www.businessandmedia.org
I had an opportunity to watch Frontline’s “The Warning.” We need more Brooksley Born’s in our government. Greenspan, Larry Summers, and Rubin were deeply involved in the 2008 meltdown of our economy that started in 2006. Greenspan says he was wrong. What good will an apology mean with Americans losing their pensions, savings, investments, and whatever else they possessed. Larry Summers is now in the Obama’s administration. Unless there is significant regulations on our banking and financial institutions will have ongoing meltdowns from time to time, such as every fifteen years or so. Trusting our politicians and our government is an impossibility!!!
In Erik Ericsons’ (sp) book, “The Eight Stages of Human Development” every stage starts with Basic Trust for the baby and child with the parents and relatives. At age 45 or so the eighth stage should have been reached with Integrity. With all the crooks in our government there are many politicians and government employees who are in key positions and they are 45 years or older. Our government has no Integrity. Our nation can no longer trust any of these people in government.
Louis Tice of the Pacific Institute in Seattle, Washington uses the book, “The Eight Stages of Human Development,” to develop his theories on Team Development and Corporate Development. With lack of Integrity in the United States and in the world so rampant, how can we have a viable United States and a viable world? We live in a country and in a world of crooks, banksters, gangsters, coons, and thugs!!!
The featured story on the front cover of Tuesday’s USA Today is another example of how the media fails in its responsibility to question propaganda meant to deflect attention from troublesome topics, such as the continuing problem of excessive lethal force by police. The story was allegedly about how police in Denver are being trained to avoid the appearance in racial profiling; but the “training” addressed this issue not in the slightest. Rather than confront stereotypical or prejudicial attitudes an officer might have, the training was just an excuse to justify lethal force under apparently any circumstance in which the officer feels “threatened,” regardless of the true nature of the threat.
The example of this training given was of a white police officer confronting an agitated black man in a hospital emergency room; we don’t know exactly what he is agitated about. The white officer tells him to calm down; the black man reaches for something in his back pocket. The officer has only a split second to make a “life or death” decision—that is, concerning his life. Pop, pop, pop, pop. Four shots from his 9mm pistol drops the black man stone dead; “lucky” for him, the black man has a knife. No one shot to disable him, just kill him. The examiner tells the officer he has “passed” the audition. But one suspects that the officer would have “passed” even if the black man was only pulling out a comb. This has been shown to be the case over and over again.
The use of excessive lethal force has nothing to do with racial profiling; a couple weeks ago I wrote here about an intoxicated white man who was tasered in his car, which caused the car to lurch forward which gave the cops an excuse to pump seven bullets into his body; the man’s family filed a lawsuit just to begin the process of getting answers. The use of excessive lethal force by police is always excused by demonizing the victim; the fact is that people who are shot by police are often not in the process of committing a crime or armed in a manner the puts an officer’s life in jeopardy. The ultimate issue, of course, is why do we have police on the street who think kill first, and disable second, and why do we allow it to continue.
Racial profiling, which was not in fact addressed in the “training,” continues unabated. I recall a time when I was waiting in my car during evening rush hour for through traffic to pass so that I could make a left turn; I noticed that there was no cars passing in the through lane to my right. Suddenly I heard cars honking; I looked over my right shoulder and I observed a Kent police car sitting behind me in the through lane, and a line of irate drivers were waiting for him to move. When he realized that I knew what he was up to he moved on through. Through long experience it was clear to me what his intention was: he was waiting for me to turn into traffic so he would have an excuse to pull this “Mexican” over. A couple days after this incident, I observed two cops force a bespectacled black driver into a parking lot; while one officer patted him down, the other stood behind the car with his hand on his holster. And then they just left, leaving the black man to wave his arms about in the air—“What the (bleep) was that about?”
During yesterday's final segment I kept waiting for a single word to be uttered which would define what was being debated. In talking about the application of hate crimes, that word which cried out for being spoken was MOTIVE. One caller alluded to it by mentioning the word intention. Right-wingers and conservatives almost always look to put everything in a neat little slot and then move on confident in their superior judgment. They abhor shading and see things as either black or white. Having to consider the shadings inherent in considering motive only complicate the certitude they seek. Judicial process is paramount to the conservative and justice is only a happy accident when it is encountered. This is a fundamental difference in how each camp views the world. Complexity is to be not only avoided in the conservative world view but it is to be dismissed as being soft, immoral, and false. Of course this all changes when the microscope of public opinion is turned on them. Just consider the recent cases of Diaper Dave Vitter or Sen. Mike Ensign. Black & white judgments are no longer adequate or fairly employed when their tit is in the wringer. For liberals and progressives motive matters when sitting in judgment of an act. For the right, it is too much intellectual work.
Students at the University of Toledo have a table outside the Student Union with a petition for a public option in health insurance. One column is 'I will call my representative' - check that and a student speed dials March Kaptur and hands you the phone. Great idea! Pass it around. I'm going back to suggest they change to George Voinovich - Marcy is already in the public option column.
Thom, your "anti-Net Neutrality" guest is speaking complete nonsense.
As a PC tech of over 25 years, one users "downloading" does NOT "slow down" other users (unless they are on a shared-bandwidth connection like cable, which has NOTHING to do with "Net Neutrality".)
The "anti" argument is that all that bandwidth hogging costs money to provide, and they want to be compensated for it. It has NOTHING to do with the "transfer speed" of other users. (if anything, it may only affect the amount of time it takes them to "connect".)
The other issue, Thom, is the fact that many people are now making a full time income online. Big corporations don't like that - we're no longer beholding to them for jobs. If they could slow down Internet service, it would hinder the efforts of "little" people trying to make a living online - and would play right into the interests of the corporations.
Thom, keep in mind the word "neutrality" when debating these idiots. What does "neutrality" have to do with "transfer speed"?
What Net "Neutrality" means is that if one customer is trying to access my tiny blog and another customer is trying to access Disney.com, currently, both sites get the same ("neutral") priority. What the corporations want is for THEIR sites to receive priority when two customers are accessing different sites at the same time. Small sites get "put on hold" while visitors to "big" sites receive priority, so their page requests receive attention "first", and the blog-visitor must wait.
Thank you Thom for hitting it right on the head with your explanation of Net Neutrality.
The ultimate Game-Theory Moral I see here;
If they advocate for something, it is because they have some manipulative plan to gain more power over the rest of us with in mind, that they simply create an alter-motive cover-story to snow us with, and presto we're all chasing their made-up geese, and no one is the wiser.
'Cept us I guess.
NET –NEUTRALITY: The portal and search sites are bottle-necking and diverting access to sites outside of their desired point of view (or paid support) by streamlining access to their preferred version of propaganda.
I recommend clicking on: http://www.freepress.net/ and signing up for their news letters.
Without "Net neutrality", how would a "small" site ever compete with already big companies that get high priority?
Where would YouTube be today if we didn't have "Net Neutrality" when it began?
Two of my favorite public people are Thom Hartmann and Bill Maher. I cringe however whenever either one of them starts talking about medicine. Both have a somewhat eccentric view of medicine. Add Suzanne Somers to the mix and I can count on hearing half-baked carried to a new extreme in regards to rational scientific discourse. Be very skeptical people, your chances of getting accurate and responsible medical information here, based on verifiable data and scientific review might actually be better if you were to consult Tom Cruise or perhaps Sarah Palin.
Prediction: Suzanne Somers will use a curious term...i.e. " whole body cancer". Nonsense.
“Darwin Awards” aren’t for plain stupidity.
The “Darwin” Award rewards someone for benefiting mankind by removing themselves from the gene pool through their own stupidity.
Typically, the winner must die to be eligible, but on rare occasions, simply wounding themselves in a manner that assures that they will never pro-create, can allow a living person eligible for the award.
But ordinary stupidity doesn’t make you a “Darwin Award” candidate, it makes you a Republican. :)
The two most heinous words in the healthcare debate: “Under Sixty-Five”.
Echoes of George P. Lakoff and his book "Moral Politics" . . .
We leave next month for Ghent, Belgium where Dave will have hip resurfacing, similar to hip replacement but less invasive and he'll have more mobility after the surgery. We will save over $60,000.00 by doing this. United Health Care pays $4050.00 per hip surgery. We are like so many Americans, poor health insurance but do not qualify for government assistance.
@Mena --- can you share your story more broadly - we need to have more true stories like yours! If you don't blog, please consider at least http://stories.barackobama.com/healthcare/
Hmmm ... $4050 MIGHT actually cover the Anesthesiologist's charge. :(
Does Dan Gaynor (the Business & Media guest) think there is no problem, or does he simply unable to come up with a solution?
If he thinks media concentration is no problem, then just say so plainly!
Telephone - Internet - Broadcasting ... the commodity in question is all ONE THING, whether it's over a wire or via the "ether". Among techno-geeks like myself, it's known as BANDWIDTH ... that part of the spectrum over which your "signal" is transmitted.
It's somewhat different for print media - the only bandwidth required for the consumption of print is the availability of space in your brain to receive the message,and the willingness to utilize that space to absorb new ideas and concepts.
OH! - new ideas ... THAT'S what the rethugs object to, isn't it??!!
I heard a discussion with Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, over the weekend. He said that while the EFF was completely in favor of net neutrality, FCC regulations to insure net neutrality might be the camel’s nose under the tent. They’re concerned that the FCC might not stop with regulating the Internet there.
He also said that they’re concerned that major telecom companies (that lobby the FCC every day) might be able to use FCC regulation of the Internet to their advantage. As an example, he said that AT&T has asked the FCC regulate Google Voice because it blocks (or is somehow incompatible) with some AT&T service.
He said that everyone interested in the topic (including Congress) are waiting to see what the FCC comes up with next week.
You can hear the interview at
We will go to the President's website. We asked UHC if they covered colonoscopys and they said yes according to the policy in Nov. Then Dave had a MRI the following Feb. UHC only play for one procedure and that was the cheaper MRI, we had to pay $3,000.00 to the hospital and doctor. When the back doctor suggested physical therapy, asked if we could do yoga instead and he said yes. PT here is $125.00 an hour and we pay $50.00 for six yoga practices. We attended the health town hall meetings and there is more support for reform than our elected officials think.
There are few simple pleasures which I savor more than a good cup of coffee and a thick Sunday morning newspaper over which conversation flows between traded sections. Over the years, the conversations and coffee has improved but our local paper has faded and grown weak. With the addition of WiFi our laptop has been allocated space at the breakfast table too. We welcome the many choices made available by it's technology but no keyboard or screen will replace` the touch and smell of virgin newsprint for us. The type of leveraged buyout Thom has so often has lamented resulted in the slow demise of our local newspaper. The dismantling of our democracy by the corporatists and casino capitalists is holistic and near complete. If they get the Net, then it is the game-set-match.
Just heard your conversation with Suzanne Sommers and I glad that someone finally is letting this woman speak about the truth of cancer! I can tell you from personal expericene that what she says about cancer is true! I have a fiance that was diagnosised with "heavy metal/chemical poisoning almost five years ago. He first went to conventional doctors who did nothing but run test , bill his insurance and were never able to detemine what was going on ( thought they would never have know, even if he had died!). Finally, I found a doctor in Bellevue WA who treats people for what he calls "Occupational Illinesses. He was able to determine that his symptoms were directely related to his over exposure to chemicals and heavy metals from the type of work he had done for years! ( he had owned a automotive/glass business) He had done a lot of welding, glass and metal fabrication. He was diagonised with having over " normal" amounts of lead, mercury, nickel, aluminium and thorium. He had to stop doing his work ( that he had done for 22 years) or face the fact that he would die from cancer within 3 to 6 months. He had to have all of his " mercury filled fillings" removed and replaced with porcelain, start a treatment of "Chelation", (which they use in other countries to treat cancer- look it up) change his diet to all organics, not eat anything with corn, wheat, and soy in it ( to take a load off of his liver so it would heal naturally) don't drink coffee or alchol, unless we knew how it was grown or processed. No shellfish or bottom fish either, because of the mercury content. He had to take a mix of herbs and vitamins to help pull the metals out of his body too. The biggest help though was exercising. He had to exercise at least 1 to 2 hours everyday to help "sweat" the poisons out of his system , which he loved doing. We had been mountain bike racing prior to his illiness. Also, I believe that Lance Armstrong did a lot of exercise and Kelation treatment with his cancer treatment - look it up! He has followed this routine now for almost 5 years. When he first went back after six months for a checkup the doctor was astounded at how different he looked and how much better his lab results were. He is actually heathier now than he has been most of his life. My point to this whole story is that Suzanne is right about having a healthy diet and exercise and life style to prevent and cure cancer. There is no "magic pill" or fix to get rid of cancer, but there are natural cures and treatments that the "Big" pharma's and Insurance industries DO NOT want us to use. So, they try to down play these people who come out and speakup for them and try to make people believe that they are just a bunch of "Crazy people" who don't know what they are talking about. There is a great book " The Field" written by a highly intelligent woman, Lynne McTarrgart. In this book she talks about how a world renowned biophysics, Fitz Albert Popp, discovered how the herb, European Mistletoe cured a terminal ill woman of cancer. Like Suzanne said on the show, he only gave her this herb treatment with no chemo or radiation. Within one year she was cured. If a person looks on the internet for " mistletoe", you will find that they have been using this herb in europe to treat people for cancer for many years. I get so angry when I hear these "Cancer experts" in this country rag on people who offer alternative treatment. They act like eating well, living well and using what the natural world gives us is a bunch of hogwash!!!! to treat our illnesses. I think that the people in other parts of the world, who have been doing this for "THOUSANDS OF YEARS" may know a thing or two on how to treat " disease". Our society is so hooked on a "quick-fix" for everything that we are willing to sacrifice what is so precious to us, our FREE WILL to choose our treatment for a better life. I hope that Suzanne can make a dent in this corporate owned healthcare, and hopefully save some peoples lives. If people would just take the initative and choose for themselves how they want to treat their illiness and not allow the "norm" to control them, "think outside the box", then maybe the so called " healthcare" industry ( thats the problem they have made it into an industy to make LOTS OF MONEY off of) would not be controlling us now!!!
It occurs to me that the capacity of the intenet has been increasing with technological improvement. Isn't it feasible to assume that at some future point, capacity will reach near infinity, eliminating the arguments over who gets priority on the internet highway?
As for the present, if AT&T is investing in its own network and wishes to ensure priority on its media services over others, shouldn't it have that right? And since AT&T will want to keep its customers, wouldn't it be market-driven to ensure that its network is built big enough to make everyone happy by ensuring adequate speed for all users?
Ultimately, the goal should be placement of fiber to every residence and business, since fiber provides the greatest capacity for broadband. Other countries are far ahead of us in providing broadband service. We should take steps to catch up.
I thank Suzanne Somers for her work and for challenging the cancer industry.
My partner had Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and Chemo/Radiation was everything he always feared it would be. It was awful, but it DID work, he is 3 yrs in remission. I can't imagine anyone having to go through that torture if they didn't have to.
My partner's grandmother had terminal lung cancer in the early 80s. She underwent chemo because her family insisted. It did not work, and she suffered needlessly during her last months. Had this test been available to show the chemo would not work I bet they would not have pushed her into treatment.
In Erick Ericksons’s book, “The Eight Stages of Human Development,” the last stage is Integrity. If 50% of our population is over 45 years of age and 90% of the 50% lack Integrity, then we are a nation that lacks Integrity; we cannot be trusted; and we have corruption in our heart. We are truly an evil nation.
Re: Hate Crimes
If there shouldn't be consideration as to whether a crime was committed with the intent to cause terror to a group, then other special circumstances should not matter either. For example, crimes against police officers, the President or Federal workers.
DSL and cable capacity planners plan for the worst-case peak hours and need to throttle bandwidth hogs back only if network performance is compromised so that average users remain unaffected. Any pay scheme that attempts to collect from, for example, people doing music downloads, in proportion to number of bytes will do nothing to improve network performance and is just an attempt to maximize profit. It would be like punishing truck drivers who intentionally drive their short hauls at night when there is less traffic or perhaps better, charging airline passengers based upon their weight rather than the number of seats they need...the plane is going to fly for any overall passenger makeup and it would just be a way of gouging people by charging for individual capacity when network capacity is not threatened.
The other side of the anti-net-neutrality scam is that they want to slice and dice the Internet, creating artifical barriers that you would then be charged to cross. For example, AT&T would strike agreements with site and content providers on their networks and you would be able to access them for free. Anyone outside of their programming suite and you would be charged extra to "go outside" their artificially created barrier.
This defies the intent and purpose of the inherent universality of the Internet which was created initially for military then public use with government funds, our tax money. Access providers know that a perversion that more closely resembles limited broadcast television and cable is more lucrative. When you trap the audience and give them fewer choices then the advertising dollar increases. However it gets better than that once they do away with net-neutrality because not only do they increase profit from content providers they can also charge "viewers" for content. They win two ways and it has nothing to do with their network performance which is handled just fine in other ways.
There is nothing but greed and deceptive arguments behind the opposition to net neutrality and they are getting slicker all the time. I found it entertaining when they propped Alaska's old Ted Stevens up who then sounded like my 95 year old grandmother talking about the net...he didn't even have a clue of what the words he'd been told to say really meant.
Somewhere in the access provider's upper echelons men in suits are talking right now about how they might benefit from an artificially induced shortage or calamity on the heels of which they might be able to usher in the perversion of the Internet that they envision.
When I think about FOX TV news, it brings to mind the old children's story about letting the fox to watch over the hen house. Perhaps it's like the fox with his fellow carnivores starting up a corporation called Fox and Friends and convincing the farmers at a town hall meeting to relax because they will take care of the hens and inform the farmers whose livelihood depends on the hens what they need to know or not know so they won't worry and Fox and Friends will be if there is ever any problems.