Any consideration for booking Writer /Author Malcolm Gladwell on the Thom Hartmann Show?

Gladwell does excellent work in deconstructing “human behavior” and yielding best-sellers?

How would Gladwell deconstruct the current social, economic, and political landscapes?

Wisconsin has been in Fiscal Crisis for TWO YEARS. and only now when under serious threats the Unions agree to pay more. Here's what you're all supporting. Wisconsin teachers get pensions that pay two to three times what Social Security pays for the same wage rate. They get it at 53 not 67 like SSA and they paid 6/10th of 1 percent to get this, not 6.2%. Wisconsin isn't just broke it's deeply in debt and the property taxes are sky high. My father paid $400 in 1980 for a 3 bdr home, today it's $10,000 that's a 25 fold increase in a period of time inflation only increased 3 fold. Years ago, I met a retired machinist on a $18,000 pension forced to pay $7,000 in property taxes for another 3 bdr home. Most of the money went to schools and pensions. Millions of seniors have been forced to move out and no one ever talks about this, because it's not the story you all want to tell or even hear about. BTW many of the Union retirees with these fat pensions ironically move down to Non Union Southern States to pay much lower property taxes.

Thom,

I heard the conversation you had with John Nichols. If there is a criminal investigation into Walker, could the use of political power to control the citizens at the behest of a private corporate interest borderline treasonous behavior?

-Adam.

I think these stats need to be repeated over and over again!!!!!

http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2011/02/22/no-strong-teacher-unions-lower-satact-scores-any-correlation/

Only five states do not have collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal.

Those states and their ACT/SAT rankings are as follows:

South Carolina – 50th

North Carolina – 49th

Georgia – 48th

Texas – 47th

Virginia – 44th

Vince,

To your point, I heard a study was done on women to ask if they would stop having sex for a year to be thin. I cannot remember the results (it was a TYT clip by Ana) however, I thought to myself, you want to be thin? that just requires a lack of food... But thin (which is a sign of poverty in a socioeconomic way!) and abstinent (a religious moral issue and with STD's a personal moral issue). I am disgusted that a woman would say 'yes.' Less food and more sex would probably help a woman lose weight faster. So I think people are now willing to accept a lower standard of living without even knowing it.

Also, I am a mathematician and I too look forward to teaching my knowledge to people who wish to imbue it. Keep talking! We need people with brains to participate in the civil rhetoric of politics and teaching.

-Adam.

Universal Soldier by Buffy Sainte-Marie

He's 5 foot 2 and he's 6 feet 4
He fights with missiles and with spears
He's all of 31 and he's only 17.
He's been a soldier for a thousand years

He's a catholic, a Hindu, an atheist, a Jain
A Buddhist, and a Baptist and Jew.
And he knows he shouldn't kill
And he knows he always will Kill you'll for me my friend and me for you

And He's fighting for Canada.
He's fighting for France.
He's fighting for the USA.
And he's fighting for the Russians.
And he's fighting for Japan
And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way.

And He's fighting for democracy,
He's fighting for the reds
He says it's for the peace of all.
He's the one, who must decide,
who's to live and who's to die.
And he never sees the writing on the wall.

But without him,
how would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone
He's the one who gives his body
as a weapon of the war.
And without him all this killing can't go on

He's the universal soldier
And he really is the blame
His orders comes from
far away no more.

They come from him.
And you and me.
And brothers can't you see.
This is not the way we put an end to war

REPUBLICANS ARE SOCIAL DARWINISTS -- they believe the government should help the rich live long and prosper! THE government should let the rich exploit the working classes until they die from hard work and exhaustion!! AND should let the poor die off from starvation and disease because they will never amount to anything and are a drain on society!!!

The seeds of Social Darwinism were actually planted before the publication of Darwin's "The Origin of Species"(though of course the name didn't originate until after). Herbert Spencer, the father of Social Darwinism as an ethical theory, was thinking in terms of elitist, "might makes right" sorts of views long before Darwin published his theory. The concept of adaptation allowed Spencer to claim that the rich and powerful were better adapted to the social and economic climate of the time, and the concept of natural selection allowed him to argue that it was natural, normal, and proper for the strong to thrive at the expense of the weak. Whether it be humans, races, or the state, Spencer's thoughts were clear: "If they are sufficiently complete to live, they do live, and it is well they should live. If they are not sufficiently complete to live, they die, and it is best they die." In its simplest form, Social Darwinism follows the theory of "the strong survive," even in human issues.It is the application of the theory of natural selection to social, political, and economic issues. According to Social Darwinism, those with economic, physical, and technological strength flourish and those without are destined for extinction. This theory was used to promote the idea that the white European race was superior to others, and therefore, destined to rule over them.

""Social Darwinism is a belief, popular in the late Victorian era in England, America, and elsewhere, which states that the strongest or fittest should survive and flourish in society, while the weak and unfit should be allowed to die. The theory was chiefly expounded by Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), whose ethical philosophies always held an elitist view and later received a boost from the application of Darwinian ideas such as adaptation and natural selection.

According to Darwin's evolutionary theory, nature is a "kill-or-be-killed" system. Those that cannot keep up are either left behind or cut off. The strong survive, and those best suited to survival will out-live the weak.

Social Darwinism was used to justify numerous exploits which we classify as of dubious moral value today. Colonialism was seen as natural and inevitable; people saw natives as being weaker and more unfit to survive, and therefore felt justified in seizing land and resources. Finally, it gave the ethical nod to brutal colonial governments who used oppressive tactics against their subjects.

At the time that Spencer began to promote Social Darwinism, the technology, economy, and government of the "White European" was advanced in comparison to that of other cultures. Looking at this apparent advantage, as well as the economic and military structures, some argued that natural selection was playing out, and that the race more suited to survival was winning. Some even extended this philosophy into a micro-economic issue, claiming that social welfare programs that helped the poor and disadvantaged were contrary to nature itself. Those who reject any and all forms of charity or governmental welfare often use arguments rooted in Social Darwinism.

Social Darwinism has been used to justify eugenics programs aimed at weeding "undesirable" genes from the population; such programs were sometimes accompanied by sterilization laws directed against "unfit" individuals. The American eugenics movement was relatively popular between about 1910-1930, during which 24 states passed sterilization laws and Congress passed a law restricting immigration from certain areas deemed to be unfit. Social Darwinist ideas, though in different forms, were also applied by the Nazi party in Germany to justify their eugenics programs. With the development of the notion of eugenics — not only could you prevail over the unfit by making war on them, but you could improve the breed by applying "enlightened" notions of selection and genetics.

At its worst, the implications of Social Darwinism were used as scientific justification for the Holocaust. The Nazis claimed that the murder of Jews in World War II was an example of cleaning out inferior genetics. This view embraced the assumption that the strong were superior, and thus ordained to prevail. Social Darwinism applied to military action as well; the argument went that the strongest military would win, and would therefore be the most fit. Casualties on the losing side, of course, were written off as the natural result of their unfit status. Thus, if two countries were to make war on each other, the victor was biologically superior to the loser. It was therefore right and proper for that victor to subjugate or even eliminate the inferior opponent. Not only was survival of the fittest natural, but it was also morally correct. Indeed, some extreme Social Darwinists argued that it was morally incorrect to assist those weaker than oneself, since that would be promoting the survival and possible reproduction of someone who was fundamentally unfit. A second way pseudo-evolutionary concepts were applied to human interaction was in the development of cut-throat capitalism in the United States. Here the ideology was that the cream naturally rose to the top; the successful made a lot of money simply because they were superior to the unsuccessful. Those who found themselves in poverty were poor because they were intrinsically inferior. It provided a justification for the more exploitative forms of capitalism in which workers were paid sometimes pennies a day for long hours of backbreaking labor. Social Darwinism also justified big business' refusal to acknowledge labor unions and similar organizations, and implied that the rich need not donate money to the poor or less fortunate, since such people were less fit anyway. This political philosophy resisted suggestions like universal education, welfare, minimum wage; in short, anything which interfered with the business of the "superior" ascending to the top of the heap and squashing the unfit beneath their expensive shoes.""

http://www.allaboutscience.org/what-is-social-darwinism-faq.htm

http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh4.shtml

I am really interested to know if there is a connection with Koch industries and the Bush family. G.H.W. Bush signed Executive Order #12803 which is an order to privatize the entire federal government. It says:

Sec. 2. Fundamental Principles. Executive departments and agencies shall be guided by the following objectives and principles: (a) Adequate and well-maintained infrastructure is critical to economic growth. Consistent with the principles of federalism enumerated in Executive Order No. 12612, and in order to allow the private sector to Provide for infrastructure modernization and expansion, State and local governments should have greater freedom to privatize infrastructure assets.

This is a bit freaky to me. I know that Homeland Security is private and does not have to answer to any elected officials. Also, I know that there was a case filed along the lines of the 'freedom of information act V. intellectual property rights.' Dibold (who owns/programs, and records election votes) is some 40% of the digital voting machines. The brother of the man who owns that company owns a company that is responsible for another 40% of digital voting machines. After Bush Jr's re-election, citizens wanted to know about the digital security programmed into the machines - but the 'intellectual property rights" of a corporation out weighted the 'freedom of information act.' This is suspicious because an MIT professor in cryptography got a copy of the source code extracted from Dibold and said he would not feel comfortable giving a student (assuming it was a homework problem) a F. he would ask the student to withdraw! So even our voting system is private... ergo, the security of our voting systems is not even security.

http://www.waterindustry.org/12803.htm

Wow! This really is about money and power. This is about the Republican party making certain the Democratic party loses it's major funding source; unions. Once unions are essentially obliterated, so is the infrastucture they have to organize and raise funds. It is also stripping others of the power to prevent unilateral decisions on selling off essential resources in the State of Wisconsin. After hearing this, go to TPM for more details included in this legislation.

While it's hard to find a quid pro quo smoking gun in this conversation, it is damning enough that the governor of a state who is presumably busy doing the peoples business has 20 minutes to give to an OUT-OF-STATE "constituent", especially when he whines about protesters coming from out of state.

If Scott Walker and his cronies win I think this is the beginning of the end of America as we know it. Even if they lose this battle they are not going to give up trying to subjugate the people. When it does happen I wonder if these fascists have thought out their strategy for controlling the most heavily armed civilian population in the world. And Thom is dead wrong if he thinks the military will obey an order to bomb a major city if a full scale revolt was happening. I think everyone in this country is waiting for the spark that will set off a full scale revolt against the government. We all know that they have gone too far with their 'enabling acts', oh i mean patriot acts and stealing all of the countries wealth and telling us to tighten our belts and blaming us for this crisis. The Wisconsin ordeal and yes even the rage of the astroturf teabaggers has been simmering since Bush seized power in his bloodless coup.

John Nichols is great! I am so happy to hear that I am not the only one to hear to the unethical dialogue that Ian had with Scott Walker yesterday. Thom, please keep us updated on ANY criminal investigations as time unveils details.

-Adam.

P.S.

Isn't it unethical to not meet with the union leaders but to take a phone call from a Koch???