Daily Topics - Wednesday December 30th 2009
By Louise
Warm Welcome to our newest radio station KWAI 1080 AM in Honolulu, HI (where it's expected to be 82 degrees today!!)
Hour One - Are we asking the wrong question about how to stop terrorism?
Plus - What makes someone like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab become a terrorist? Nasir El Rufai, former Nigerian VP and current opposition leader www.hks.harvard.edu/about/giving/masonat50/profiles/el-rufai
Hour Two - Why are you and I still supporting slavery and dictatorships?
Hour Three - New Year's Resolutions - Liberal vs. Conservative Dan Gainor www.businessandmedia.org
Comments
#2
From Greg Palest's article.
Supreme Court's Ruling Would Allow Bin Laden to Donate to Sarah Palin's Presidential Campaign
http://www.alternet.org/story/144502/
Waiting for the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which could come down as early as Tuesday. At issue: whether corporations, as "unnatural persons," can make contributions to political campaigns.
Well, kiss that small-donor revolution goodbye. If the Supreme Court votes as expected, progressive list serves won't stand a chance against the resources of new "citizens" such as CNOOC, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation. Maybe UBS (United Bank of Switzerland), which faces U.S. criminal prosecution and a billion-dollar fine for fraud, might be tempted to invest in a few Senate seats. As would XYZ Corporation, whose owners remain hidden by "street names."
Thom may have talked about this, I just wanted to post this info.
#3
Mark,
I guess I DID miss Thom's remarks regarding Saudia Arabia/Yemen and U.S./Mexico. (I had a phone call that took me away from the show for some time.) I merely interpreted (incorrectly, apparently) your comments.
At face value, I also fail to see the comparison. I will listen to the third hour again and see if I can understand the comments better.
Meanwhile, I'm sorry. I gave you a knee-jerk reaction to one of the "hot buttons" that usually set me off.
#4
OK, Mark,
I just listened to "hour 3" again. My first (and only reaction, actually) was that Thom was referring to Yemen being to Saudia Arabia what Mexico is to the U.S. is that he was speaking geographically so people who aren't familiar with that part of the world would understand its proximity to another country whose location they might know.
I guess it depends upon one's "filters" and "hot buttons" as to what one "hears." (I think so much political dialogue gets reinterpreted or misinterpreted due to one's "reading between the lines." I disappoint myself when I discover that I've done this, but, then again, from whose experience can I draw to try to understand but myself? I just have to try to be aware of the room for error or misinterpretation. Or perhaps some good-hearted soul will also try to gently enlighten me! LOL)
#5
mark - the second note brings up two issues.
one - police are biased. it is a fact. they deal with the dregs of society on a daily basis and that is the filter (borrowing quarks excellent term) of their view to all their interactions! I have known a few, they have serious issues much like any racist only stronger.
two - you have a viewpoint that you are beat upon and others are unable to understand your pains. i live near detroit. i know ALL about racial ups, downs, twists and turns. don't give me this deep inside you are a racist. You pulled that out of your ass and thru it at me but I said nothing to deserve that. I expect an apology!
going to a BUSINESS meeting and having the room go silent when you speak about a actual issue pertinent to the discussion and having sound resume when you stop talking - ignoring what you said because women should not be working or making decision - acting like some one passed gas and is barely allowed in the room due to the absolute minimum of tolerance. those are the Reagan 'guys'. Reagan told them women were taking their jobs, etc. etc.
i've met blacks who don't believe that racism is anthing but black vs white -- no jews, no mexicans, no other group!
When a police officer approaches me - I am polite and cooperative. extremely polite. yes, sir. no, sir. let me get that, sir. Anyone who is not is risking problems and harassment. Even so, it is not a guarantee that it can be avoided. You can act passive but if you 'feel' aggressive - the police officer will 'read' that. It may not be what should be, but it is the way it is.
#6
sorry about the misspellings above.
what i was trying to get across, and marc ignored, is that we often think that others are judging us when much of the time people are so wrapped up in themselves that they barely know we are there. yes, police are different, but the 'feelings' we project are not. Sadly, the 'feelings' we project are not subtle. If you are angry, mad or upset about something, those around you think it is directed at them. so either you pick up 'bad vibes' or give off 'bad vibes' at the wrong time or place. Just as the blond haired, blue eyed middle easterner wouldn't be racially profiled and could pass easily, the truth is not always the most outstanding thing in a situation.
The old saying 'you can't judge a book by its cover' is very important to remember about dealings with other people. it is easy to see the differences, but not so easy to see what is common or the views.
Those that consider themselves "human" as opposed to black, white or purple polka dotted, are no different then those that consider themselves black, white or purple polka dotted. Just as those that have joined blacks, women or other groups to obtain their rights or justice have no markings that brand them as seeing themselves as part of more then a narrow group.
when you start talking, it gets messy! that isn't necessarily the 'bottom' answer! strive for common ground and understanding!
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Images of Thom
Thom & Louise at a "private audience" with His Holiness Pope John Paul II at his summer palace, Castle Gandolfo, Italy
From Screwed:
"I think many of us recognize that for all but the wealthiest, life in America is getting increasingly hard. Screwed explores why, showing how this is no accidental process, but rather the product of conscious political choices, choices we can change with enough courage and commitment. Like all of Thom’s great work, it helps show us the way forward."
From Unequal Protection, 2nd Edition:
"Beneath the success and rise of American enterprise is an untold history that is antithetical to every value Americans hold dear. This is a seminal work, a godsend really, a clear message to every citizen about the need to reform our country, laws, and companies."
From Screwed:
"Hartmann speaks with the straight talking clarity and brilliance of a modern day Tom Paine as he exposes the intentional and systematic destruction of America’s middle class by an alliance of political con artists and outlines a program to restore it. This is Hartmann at his best. Essential reading for those interested in restoring the institution that made America the envy of the world."
Regarding community owned sports teams I appreciated the point one of the commentators made that most communities only own the debt incurred to build the stadium for the privately owned teams. The reason communities take on such debt is that it is "good" for the communities that do so. The good that it does in terms of actual dollars in the pocket as acknowledged by all economists that look into the matter is that real estate values are increased. This is good for all property owners but not good for everyone else, i.e. renters whose rents go up. A little understood fact regarding this kind of "good" is that it is only the land portion of real estate that is increased in value and not the value of improvements. This may not be well understood but it is not that hard to figure out.
So we usually see real estate interests promoting public expenditures to pay for sports stadiums. Since it is not likely that we well ever be able to force community ownership of privately owned sports teams a simple and more doable thing to do would be to require all public expenditures and debt incurred to build stadiums or otherwise subsidize privately owned teams to be paid out of taxes on real estate and in particular by taxes on land values. This would give pause to every property owning sports fan to think twice whether they really want to subsidize their teams. Fine if they do; they just won't be getting an unearned bump in property values and rents that ultimately have to be carried on the backs of their non-property owning fellow fans. Even if I am a sports hating property owner my property value still goes up. There is no such consolation for the sports hating guy who rents the house and business next to mine.