THE MILITARIZATION OF SPACE is going full speed ahead. What else can you define the use of satellites for long range bombing decisions and the use of drones but the first step? Now, under the guise of efficient energy needs, they will take LASERS into space. There is a point where we can carry our pro-science position too far, forgetting that being pro-science should not entail being pro-Dangerous Applied Science, pro-Bad Science, pro-immoral science, pro-Corporate Science for Profit, pro-Tyrannical Science, or whatever name describes best the unnacceptable decisions the few make in developing and applying science to all of us.

Fear is the weapon of mass destruction that elites use to control people.Even the banksters do what they do out of fear of losing money and power. We need to honor the traditions of the American peole who have stood up to the fear-mongering, ie the civil rights, women's rights, antiwar activists of our history and our present-day human rights activists, and say NO to fear. No one can oppress you without your permission.Just say NO,we refuse to buy into your fear..

Regarding "space program": Seems to me that the government did the initial Moon research and that is all the corporations wanted the government to do. Now the Moon is to be the property of the corporate mining industrialists. Isn't this what sci-fi writers of Western Civilization have been putting out there for years?

@ Mathboy,
I agree about your P.S., I'm not sure or clear about what you mean with your preceding remarks however. I must be slow today. Maybe it is Wednesday?

Are religious cults destroying democracy? YES! The cult of laissez-faire capitalism teaches that people should worship the gods of powerful corporations and that the evil devil of government should stay out of their profits! If we want to take back our country we need to prove that this cult is a con.

Josh - You sound like another big government liberal.

Your point makes sense to me.

Thom I have been listening to your show on 92.7FM Chicago since last July when I separated from the Army. You cover a lot of great topics except I haven't heard to many actually related to service members or veterans. A couple weeks ago there was some discussion over a female soldiers custody of her child with a deployment conflict. Anyways I would love to hear something about all the veterans who are separating from service trying to take advantage of the Post 9/11 GI Bill. If you are unfamiliar with this new GI Bill it is different from the Montgomery GI Bill in that you receive a housing allowance and a stipend for books. This new GI Bill went into effect 01Aug2009, or so they say. I was registered and ready for classes by the end of June 2009 which means the VA had three months to "process" my claim. I did not receive the promised housing allowance until late October almost three months into my fall semester. It is the same story with every veteran I know around the nation. Why has no one been talking about this? Of course there are many other priorities out there but this is ridiculous! You may be wondering why I am writing about this now since this happened last fall. Well it is a new semester which apparently to the VA means they have to go over every single claim again. Spring semester 2010 for me started on 21 January and now it is 01 February. Thought it was pay day but I was wrong. Should have learned my lesson last fall and saved rations so I can live. Better yet how am I suppose to even go to school if I can't buy gas to drive there. You would think that once you got into the VA system and was continuing enrollment with the same College each semester there would be no gap in payments. On top of this I am 60% disabled from the VA for PTSD and other service connected disabilities. What a great way for me to cope with the stresses I already have from combat having to worry over how I will feed myself day by day. Please start talking about this and bring it to the attention of America.
I think I have a solution to the unemployment problem as well. Take the economic growth package funds the banks are paying back and hire enough workers just to process VA claims.

Now would be a good time for the President to issue an executive order requiring the Pentagon to "buy American", as a matter of national security.

Partly this would be so our foreign competitors have less of a stranglehold on our military; partly it would be to get jobs back in America. It's a two-fer!

Mark

The big difference is Canada's economies are to scale with ours. Their regulations are similar to ours. The same cannot be said for Mexico.

If those two black guys standing outside a polling place were holding sticks, aren't they protected by the 2nd Amendment?

Or is the problem the reichwing has with it ... that they were NOT carrying guns?

I’m not sure what Barack Obama’s televised chit-chat with House Republicans accomplished, other than exposing once more the fallacy of “working” with these people; any useful idea that helps working people is simply too far to the left for Republicans, and whatever “ideas” that they might have are apparently contained in a 27-page booklet that more-or-less compiles right-wing talking points over the past year; the “devil,” as they say, is in the details, and Republicans—as the president repeatedly insinuated—need to focus on details rather than talking points.

But I don’t care about that now. A couple of Fridays ago, a caller, voice quaking palpable detestation, made immigrant workers the axis of his complaint against businesses, and Tom thought his view was wonderful. I intended to comment on it the following Monday, but decided to let it slide; I have more than once wrote here about my rejection of Thom’s giving aid and comfort to xenophobes and bigots—which is what he did the last time he attended a “convention” in Washington, D.C. concerning immigration-cum-anti-“Mexican” free-for-all. But this past Thursday, during an interview with a teamsters’ representative, the issue of farming out car-hauling to cheaper, non-union transport came up. Was it a shock that the villain of first rank that came to Thom’s mind was “Mexican?” Not to me; I’ve heard too often before.

The Teamsters representative, to his credit, refused to join Thom in this bit of blatant scapegoating. He is probably aware of the fact that unlike Canadian truck drivers, Mexican truck are still not allowed to travel beyond 25 miles of the border, a bald violation the NAFTA agreement. There was a brief and limited experiment with a few Mexican companies permitting long-haul, door-to-door access in the U.S., but this was discontinued in a spending bill last year. “Safety” issues are always cited, but political expediency is the real reason. If jobs and not prejudice was the unions’ and teamsters’ sole issue, then why focus on Mexicans drivers and not Canadian? And since we’re on the issue of unions, while it would be of some benefit if everyone was a member of a union, although economies of scale make it tough row to hoe, in the global economy. On the other hand, so-called “right to work,” is often referred in disparaging terms, but not entirely deserved, since in most union settings, hiring discrimination is a matter of fact. Oh, and by the way, if only something like 10 percent of the American workforce is currently unionized, that leaves an awful lot of non-union whites to car-haul, and in all probability that they are the ones who are doing the hauling.

So if it isn’t Mexican national car-haulers, then who could Thom be talking about in such a derisive, mean-spirited manner? “Mexicans” in the generality living in the U.S.? Does he mean the 28 million Latinos in this country (of whom 17 million are of Mexican extraction) who are U.S. citizens, and the about 4 million who are currently eligible for naturalization? When people talk about “Mexicans” it is often meant as a kind of slur, and certainly meaning to box them in an “alien” setting. And this despite the fact that the entire southwestern portion of this country offers ample evidence of the very reality of its Spanish heritage. At this point, I think a recently-concocted fallacy should be “cleared-up.” The term “ethnically-based” prejudice seems to become a popular catch-phrase among whites (because it makes them seem less guilty), and by blacks who want to be “top dog,” of victimization, I suppose. But enough of such hypocritical, self-serving posturing. When people think of a “Mexican,” they are thinking of people who are either wholly or partly indigenous Indian, and these people are no more an “ethnicity” than Native Americans or Barack Obama. Skin color and non-Caucasian features is what people gut react to. Let’s call it what it is: racism. Racism, and not his “ethnicity,” was the motivating factor behind the killing of Luis Ramirez in Shenandoah, PA, and a federal grand jury recently found evidence of the involvement of indicted law enforcement officers (including the Shenandoah police chief) in aiding and abetting the killers; shades of Neshoba County, Mississippi. Obama no doubt was referring to this case in his State of the Union address when he announced that the Justice Department was going to take hate crimes more seriously than the previous administration.

I would like to think that Thom’s attitude is a product of listening to his xenophobe friends who somehow see the “Mexicans” as the root cause of all their problem that cannot be directly attributed to “big government,” and not something that has always exists somewhere in dark corner of his mind that occasionally exits his mouth in the most disturbing fashion. But his reflexive scapegoating of “Mexicans” without basis of fact might suggest the latter. I wonder if Thom has ever employed a Latino, since he makes no pretense to be sensitive to the effect of the things that he says or how they are taken. I also must say I his leftist compatriots on the radio rarely share this failing of his.

Other issues seem to confound Thom; certain uncomfortable facts include: the U.S. charges on average 2 percent in tariffs on imports. In makes absolutely no sense whatever to conclude that our trade with NAFTA and CAFTA partners accounts for all of this. It is because so many countries have been given “most favored nation status” that the government only has a list of those who are not on it? Can Paul Begala be right in refuting Thom’s single-minded focus on the overweening evils of NAFTA? What does it all mean? It means that unlike the member nations of NAFTA and CAFTA, the countries that we have given MFN status have no obligation or rules to follow when it comes to allowing U.S. exports into their country. China, for example, has repeatedly violated GATT rules for the most arbitrary reasons; a recent example is charging the same high tariff rates on imported car parts as an imported car if enough imported parts are used in its manufacture. China also illegally charges high tariffs on U.S.-made auto engines, because of arbitrary size restrictions. The only country that benefits from high tariffs in NAFTA, on the other hand, is the U.S., whose farmers are protected from Mexican produce.

In regard to illegal immigration, there are intelligent ways to talk about it; you just don’t hear about it here, just as you wouldn’t on a typical right-wing station (Begala did say that Thom was sounding like a Republican). California actor-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in fact may be an illegal citizen; his legal status was an issue (briefly) during his campaign, although it was little noted by the mainstream media. It does appear that at the very least that under current statutes he would have been an illegal alien during the 1960s and 70s, when he was in the country flexing his steroid-bloated physique. But in anycase, the U.S. work visa program, which for all practical purposes discriminates against Mexican workers while allowing European and Asian “guest” workers to take high-wage jobs (funny how pundits only worry about who’s getting the low-wage jobs) is largely to blame for the illegal alien problem. There were illegal aliens here when unemployment was 4 percent, which most economists consider normal turnover. 23 million new jobs were created during the Clinton administration (compared to 3 million during the Bush administration), and there was doubtless some necessity for many employers to hire people without inquiring into their legal status. I once read of an (essentially) anti-Mexican town hall meeting somewhere in which a white man told a farmer that he had no problem traveling a 200 miles and sleeping in a car or ramshackle billeting to pick vegetables—if he was paid $30 an hour. Such rhetorical outbursts are, of course, nothing more than counterfeit blustering, and on the face of it unproductive as well as having no basis in reality. I have already told the story of how a local horse racing track had a problem finding people to work as grooms after an inexplicable failure to grant work visas to their usual Mexican guest workers, who seemed to be the only people willing to do the work. After spending $6,000 on advertising in local trade publications, only two “natives” responded to the ads, and neither wanted to do the work; luckily, after three months, the work visas were inexplicably granted to the Mexican grooms. How many businesses in the same situation can stay in business for three months without because they couldn’t find “natives” willing to do the work? If employers could count on a guest worker program that made a micron of sense, illegal workers would have a much harder time finding work here.

Thom doesn’t have to live with the effects of insensitive, dehumanizing insinuations that are often based on deliberate misinformation to advance a populist “cause,” but I do. People who are predisposed to prejudice have negative gut reactions first, and think later; I have often had this experience with police, particularly when I open my mouth and “big” words in unaccented English come out. 30 million people are not “aliens” in this country, but people who regard themselves as Americans. Instead, what we have local California politicians who are “proud” to be racists at an anti-“Mexican” rally—and the back of the hand that I often hear from Thom and some of his callers, insulting in its blanket scapegoating and dehumanization. Individuals may have faults, but applying faults to whole groups (as the “mainstream” media is want to do? Thanks to Thom, I am continuously aware that I live in a different world with a different set of priorities than his and most of his listeners, and that prejudice exists even in the “progressive” world, and that bigotry lives, and racism never dies.

I have noted many, many instances here where I have experienced behavior and actions that can only be explained by stereotyping and prejudice. I’ll add to that the fact that I have filed several complaints against bus drivers working for King County Metro, for behavior that I believe derives from an entrenched discriminatory attitude at Metro; in 17 years of riding buses I have never seen a Latino bus driver. I once heard a black bus driver angrily tell another that Latinos must think that they are “on top” because of census tabulations that put their number higher than blacks. On top of what, society’s dung heap? On one occasion, I was waiting at a stop when the driver deliberately sped past me while I waited at the designated stop point, only hitting the breaks some 40 feet further to the curb; one passenger evacuated the bus, and the door was slammed shut as soon as she stepped off. The bus immediately pulled out. Just one small problem: I had caught-up to the bus, and my arm was wedged in the door, and I was dragged a few feet. Since there were witnesses, the driver was obliged to stop and open the door, and he spent the next 10 minutes profusely apologizing after I informed him I would be filing a complaint, since this might be a firing offense. But then again, animals don’t have rights humans are bound to respect.