what will happen in another 10 years? slaveholders in people wanting free labor will be running over kansas. we will be pushed out you will be in a civil war they warned the united states. but i have to say in conclusion right away is starts to haunt people in ohio with the generation that saw this happen and they were troubled the indians took get much better. there was the chief called the squire grey eyas did wind they were crying he said why? are we christians?
maybe that would convert them for a little bit but you don't just get into paradise without be judged. they both weight of the other side but they were haunted and felt terrible so recounting to the history is the beginning of the 20th century it is those that are haunted by this. i am convinced because people like my ancestors ancestors, somebody is losing something somebody is gaining something. my ancestors came from ireland. i have more catholic and jewish and sisters coming from poland and a group
coming from the tiny little town looking for lenient and they follow the shawnee and the hogs as to this day not history of the past but of the huge democracies but we only if the field and at the expense of someone else and we never live side by side with each other. we are promoting democracy around the world and sometimes i think that is of marble statue you put on a shelf it is the collision of people. so i will leave you with how i ended the book it troubles me to this day. what makes history so challenging is that so many
people were forgotten time is woven together by tragedy remains the suffering often gives rise to the triumph of another quick as factory workers and city dwellers you were left behind intel be have figured out a way for americans to live side-by-side but never at the expense of someone else's life. we will be left wondering squire gray eyes who is in kansas city as the consequences of the tragedy's will ever be resolved. [applause] >> no time for questions?
which will reach every house is a run in your house with a record player i'll is very into electronics. my bill to a little radio station and not hold. when i was 16 i got a job in the radio station i did that six weeks bin to bin got a job in the country western station number one station in the area. as a weekend d.j. i thought i hated it and i loved it.
as a teenager in the '60s i worked there for a year than they did a show for the top 40 and with back and did news seven years then i got added that in 2002 thanksgiving we were living in vermont and all the way to michigan for thanksgiving it was just shawn kennedy repeating itself on the 14th hour drive doing a live remote from habitat for humanity that no liberal will get this house which offended my sensibilities but i thought half the country votes democratic roughly.
not like we are totally read there has to be a market for the left-wing version so i wrote the op-ed for common dreams called talking back to talk radio. i have been in the business i know how works. this is how you do it from the business point of view in their programming point of view and pointed out there. then resold and ad agency in atlanta so we were retired i thought it would be fun to try it out to putting my money where my mouth was we fallon a radio station in vermont put me on the air two hours saturday morning for a few months i did a the
morning show calling it that john deere tractor was still available. but i made a tape and took that to the only progressive radio station in america. they picked me up and put this on 29 stations and sirius satellite radio and then when they needed a job they ask me to come to chicago they had read my article thinking of starting a network based on what i talked about then they started air america and after one year of competing with them, maybe two years they started to syndicate my
show. ring of fire was the other at the time the only two shows that were owned by the host. >> host: why did air america ago under? >> it was the mixture but the biggest was undercapitalized. fox news, roger ailes had signed off on a proposal for the lead g.o.p. tv their route nixon cannot raise the money and murdoch lost $100 million per year for about five years before they made any money so maybe shawn kennedy lost 400 million that isn't a
failure after the fifth year it caught an audience now they make a lot of money but when they declared bankruptcy they have gone through $17 million over a five or six years period. particularly when the business model is a radio station so to be undercapitalized was the biggest and there were management problems and programming issues that i thought they were creating programs more like televisions and radio. but the biggest is they ran out of cash. >> host: you mentioned yourself as a serial of entrepreneur. >> yes. as 17 a stereo repair shaded lawn dash repair shop it was
in the back we called it the electronics with a tv antenna and the guy who owned it the head shot by rented a shelf $25 a month people would bring in equipment bin to take it home and fix it in then to go percentage and we grew out of that so we moved down the street with four technicians and employees and my soon-to-be wife was my bookkeeper. the first business i ever owned and then after that we
started the advertising agency and then be moved to new hampshire and restarted day travel agency resold in 1986 we moved to germany with their kids working with a nonprofit organization and then we as had the company that i sold and restarted the radio show that it was going to be a hobby now i do four hours of media every day.
>> host: when did you start? my mom was an english major graduated from ms you this, and her aspiration was to be a writer the way people today think of movie stars and my dad had 20,000 books in the house he had organized a library. i started writing as a young teenager ahead 56 rejection slips of paper in my bedroom wall mostly for poetry and short stories but i just kept doing it.
now have around 25 books in print. >> host: the book where is first was about attention deficit. >> i had written others before that but thankfully they were not published the first is a practice but yes. that was the product that i was the executive director of the residential treatment facility and my wife was the program director so my job was to raise money for publicity for the administrative staff. but i noticed for charlie all the kids called hyperactive it was called hyperkinetic children back then.
in 1978 there was the book published by your child is hyperactive and proposed the food additives that the children were reacting to with allergies. he was a pediatric allergist so he had a bias period we did a study of kids on his diet and of the 34 we could have one kid to turn on and off like a light switch and he had siriasis it seemed to make it worse for a small subset there is that allergy connection. but the other way is brain wiring so i published on that about 1980 on the
hyperkinetic syndrome suggesting it is not a disease but a way to have your brain wired then one of our children was diagnosed in high-school in the '80s and the psychologist said forget about going to college you should become a car mechanic you are good with your hands. by the way work on the foreign cars because the pay is better you can make more money. he wanted to go to college now he has tears that is a terrible way to describe this aware wrote my first book is essentially to my son to say you're not broken. you have a different skill
set but there are a lot of people in your tribe. now he has a master's degree in science and a business of his own god bless him. in the neck became a national best seller. >> host: who are we talking about? he is the poster child for adt if he didn't it would be united states of america. >> probably ben franklin it has been a while. there is a different perception and i profiled a few people thomas, edison, richard burton a famous explorer
with his bouncing around and what not. >> ben franklin never held one job more than three years in reinvented himself over 30 times to complete the changes profession moved all over the world. easily bored. i think a dd with a person of a zero iq but franklin was a genius it can be a useful combination i think it canfor everybody. >> was eac real entrepreneur? >> definitely. yes. inventor writer and publisher he helped to create united states of america. >> host: but about
jefferson? >> i wrote that book because i kept encountering revisionist history pitcher trivia about jefferson there was a resurgence largely after 9/11 but there were a couple of historians who were suggesting that he was a bible thumping christian said there were several well organized groups and the number of other myths that i thought were important to knock down and tell the story of what he did and
what he was promoting. >> you talk about living in new hampshire discovering jeffersonian material. >> it was vermont and that is what really got me. time passes. we bought the house to thousand one. -- 2001 in the attic worse -- was a couple of boxes horrible weather damage with no value they just left them there there is a bunch of newspapers from 1930's 10 or 20 volume set collective writings of thomas jefferson that was only published once 1909 by the memorial
association with his personal diaries and letters all of this stuff i was retired better spent one year living inside his brain but then i read all of this stuff in a completely contradicts what i have learned and i realize there is something to be said for the objective voice in history to think about austerity of his own reputation. so that also let me led to writing the book the first draft became on equal protection but they would be
the late fall or early winter. england was suffering through a serious recession. so for some reason most think it was attacks increase but the stock was almost all owned by parliament and the east india company was going down the tubes because of the recession and they had a monopoly in most businesses in the united states team is what everybody drink. nobody drink coffee every other block had a tea shop it was a cultural center. so the act was the largest
corporate tax cut in the history of the world not only did they have over 10 billion pounds but a massive amount in stock they already paid taxes on. it was a tax cut and then to sell that interest america and was from the dutch trading company was brought to illegally think going back so they decided to undercut it. some to bring that super
discounted t into the devastates then they freaked out and started a huge campaign to block the tea from coming and in then that led to enact a of the and vandalism they vandalized three of the ships quietly and respectfully interestingly enough. but it was george rowntree there was a long title. in fact, he came up with the phrase boston tea party because they had all sworn
an oath of silence to each other and pretty much everyone else was dead because he was 17 when he participated so he wrote the book and it was remarkable it was an act of vandalism against the largest corporation in the world say if he was horrified but after the boston tea party he stopped talking about how to be a good citizen he had a separation that led straight through to 1776 of america was founded on therica results of power. host: that is what youou w write in unequal protection was provoked by the misbehavior of a corporation the nation was founded from the corporate power. >> it is true.
>> one of the themes is that we were not the aristocracy the white bin were not necessarily rich landowners. >> that is one of the most fascinating things i got out curve reading jefferson intended digging deep into the history thinking what would jefferson to the myth of the rich founders. there is of a couple of good histories about that. the wealthiest man was john hancock. his net worth in $2,004 would be $700,000 it was not mind boggling rich.
they had fancy houses for standards of birth america but favored the esquires house in the u.k.. they were not rich there were rich people ask the johnson family for example, who had a castle on the hudson several hundred african and several hundred european slaves and nights at the round table there were a number of families like that but that family fled to canada after the revolution -- during the revolution so jefferson died bankrupt washington died bankrupt medicine is having problems just among the slave owners favor the principal asset that is a
terrible part of our history but jefferson worked aggressively to try to stop slavery in his early 20s trying to end slavery in virginia and then they passed a law if anybody freed a slave the slave would be arrested and have two years of hard labor then sold back into the slave market. >> host: from your bookd the crash of 2016, history tells us when the foundation's is hollowed outtu there will pretend all is well. for the rich and understand what is happening is a
fairly typical cycle starting the children's village it was a vegetarian program so we had some prominent vegetarians on our board we would just make dinner together and stand with dash step in talking she would tell me stories and sent to joe kennedy was the perennial object of firstborn and she would talk how he got out of the market they knew the crash was coming i thought that was interesting it seems to be our recycling fact now.
you said -- to save occurred when barack obama became president we hope to be the beginning of the end. at the time we were losing 750,000 jobs per month. with the hundred million dollars stimulus the one-third was tax cuts but it just started us out of what we were experiencing but they couldn't get a second or a larger one i do think they said it was a $2 trillion hole we passed within $800 billion package.
it was not enough every didn't change the fundamentals we didn't break of big banks or break up glass-steagall we did not change the derivative markets to make them more transparent or stop them all together. at the time in 2007 before the crash in the neighborhood of eight or $9 trillion magical securities that derive their value is from their assets when million dollars worth of mortgages in the insurance policies that is what aig was doing with the $100 million debt and then
and then $900 trillion that was just out there. when that collapsed it was massive. to get down to around 34 trillion nobody is sure of the numbers but now we're back up best guess is we have derivatives. we didn't these so that has not stopped and it will happen again only worse. >> host: where the economic loyalist? >> is an acknowledgement from franklin roosevelt and my favorite of his speeches was the acceptance speech in
philadelphia as i recall to say out of this industrial order it is fairly predictable but dave would rise to take control so she went after them. it was the big money fat cats and who fought fdr and day are crashing our economyle. right now. >> host: when the rich are taxed the economies prosper when the taxes for the rich are cut the people
suffer and the economy's turn into casinos. >> if you look at the time in the united states win the middle-class coming here is the thing if we measure prosperity will get the numbers like the gdp or the stock market those are not the numbers we should look out but how healthy is the middle-class? so what has happened is with this massive deregulation it has been collapsing steadily i have this up close and personal in the '70s. by business partner recently passed away we were making a lot of money in fact, it was a side business of the early
tea company we were selling chancing -- ginseng and made 1 million literally my cpa said you were getting close to the tax breaks stop taking money out because that is an asset and grow the company is to keep taking it out it is peso i did we added another product line and cruz the company. that is what happened in the '70s with the top tax rate was 90% or something back then the average ceo made 30
times i made six times what the employees were making and there was a reason for that. because of huge taxes so pay them well they all had insurance and other benefits with mental health care and rebuilds a day care center. it was a corner but it works. and then we pump that many doubt that the guy at the top if there is a high tax level but our economy is so
different now not -- now. >> host: welcome to booktv our monthly program where we invite one author to talk about his body of work. tom hartman he is the author of 25 books we will talk about them over the next three hours in showing the covers but this is interactive so here are several ways to do so.
>> less than 2 billion but to a billion dollars is job change for the health-insurance industry right now for the pharmaceutical industry it is walking around money for the oil industry. these large corporations can now say to any politician in america we will make you and you will be where you are forever he will have a good job or we will destroy you and they can make good on that threat out is that good for america? >> start with the fact that was not my intent. >> i am not blaming you for that but that is the outcome what do we do now? we agree that is not a good thing. >> i believe the more speech the american people are smart enough to understand and i give them credit to
so it is a protected first amendment free-speech. in time has proven that out. the there all owned by their rich people and the big corporations is in jeb bush has many. you can go through the list. if they lose the billionaire backing they have to bail out. even on the democratic side with the notable exception is the senator. >> you talk to bernie sanders of a regular basis? >> he came on our program in
vermont and took calls. my wife was the call screener at that time all we looked for to not let them on the air if they were drunk or profane. and recall it lunch with bernie we have been doing that every friday since 2004. but he would say this is what i believe if he didn't know the answer he would say i don't know but he would
come back next weekend say somebody called about this last week. and i am just amazed and impressed by senator sanders >> host: you often interview people you don't agree with? >> more often. yes. but talk radio is a couple of different categories in this goes back to the early articles one is a guest driven show that is more popular with television than radio but it is only as good as the guest and you cannot always get a great guest to do call ins but then it is only as a good measure callers you have a news driven show and if he ever
crisis ratings go up then they fall or a host driven show and in the modern era we have that. when we put the show together we decided the host driven show because i knew radio and the topics so then people slow down for fist fights and carbide's so you want to make it interesting so i respect most of the people on the other side. my father was an eisenhower republican activist. >> goldwater republican? >> my dad went door-to-door for goldwater i have read the book year earlier i was convinced the state
department was communist in three years later the vietnam war completely changed my political perspective so from the time i was 16 through 2006 we fought like cats and dogs about politics for the first couple of years he threw me of the house but did refigure out how to do this without hurting our relationship and my dad died a republican. his two favorite pictures we were sitting with him when he was dying and as he would draw his last breath i looked across the bed in the living room of the wall were the two pictures shaking hands with pope john paul ii
in georgia view bush on the aircraft declaring mission accomplished. so i learned you could have the knock down drag out the still respect them and love them so that is of a trademark of my shows and to bring home will sides also it is good for the viewers and the listeners they could hear besides hiking year david saying at 1 inch more speech that is fine but to save the american people are smart enough, the ftc to the allies in the advertising of that was true then the industry that i worked in for a decade would not exist if advertising didn't work nobody would do it but it
does change people's minds have to spend $1 billion you will shift opinion whether that should be done solely by the benefit of large corporations is my fundamental disagreement with david who voted for citizens united. >> i am not altogether certain i know those that i like and their friends with there are some that love to do hit pieces on the but one was pretty straightforward as senator whitehouse called
for denial the same way that tobacco companies were prosecuted. and that was a successful prosecution so i went on the air to debate with a conservative over climate change denial to save you put up the money to get out the message then you should be in jail and they did a piece of that. they were criticizing me but it was an honest portrayal but then somebody else did a hit piece but it was illogic chain on the air but it was completely dishonest the
first one i talked about on the air and credited dr. as long as you spell my name right the second i ignored. >> host: they're willing to come on the show? >> yes. regularly many years i know many of them quite well. >> from your book cracking the code it is written in a new language every word means what it says and you say my aim of the book is to give you the tools to tell the story well. >> that book started off with linguistic programming which is a construct. but it was a political year.
but i wanted to be a political hand guide. that is why it is called cracking the code. not only does how language works but how you use it. >> the classic example is that the estate taxes and the death tax it shifts the frame. >> but that was effective. >> and continues to be until much later the early research into what would call people -- cause people to turn against it and it
was effective. >> host: this facebook comment. >> you are simply the best you can tell you have done your homework will americans vote for a jewish senior citizen that most people feel would make america great again? >> a question that was posed to me fall 2007 by a the number two guy in the democratic party in california or maybe los angeles he came on my program and said this is one clinton and obama were fighting it out and said we can talk what we like about the first black president nobody will vote for a guy with very little experience
only in the senate two years is little they ms. hussain. this will not happen. we have to get out there. we have to support hillary clinton. no way will barack obama become president. guess who is president? [laughter] i think it is entirely possible america will vote for a 70 something jewish senator with a new york accent because what he says is right this is what i learned in vermont if you drive around northeast england it is solid red in the election year there is of bush for president of bernie for congress he
consistently carries 20 percent of the vote he was reelected with 74 percent of the vote and vermont is not the hippie haven but if you get outside those two cities with rent state it republican country they have embraced him. >> host: why did you move to washington? >> with an opportunity to do a tv program. the what the -- the russians wanted to get into the water with algeciras and i said i
have always owned by own show i will not be an employee i have to have editorial control the contract and if you're willing to go with those terms i had this conversation earlier with one of the networks who were not willing to do that you are the employee or not. if they said we will give you your own show and we will carry your show. it was fun. deal was try something new. >> it is still on the year? >> one-hour show mine is on radio stations around the country and is also simulcast.
>> you can find links to all of that with all of the spellings. >> host: let's take some calls from our listeners. the first from san diego. >> caller: i am so delighted mr. hartmann is on the air iom a volunteer with a community radio station networking for social justice and we carry his show and we're so grateful we can bring it to the san diego audience. where the political climate is changing from a conservative population to more liberal we appreciate
the lunch with bernie but i have three questions. in light of the most recent shooting is there something in them the dna of america for celebrities to say this is something we don't like? second, i wonder i keep hearing that people have short attention spans talking about some of the programming and community radio stations in the length of coverage we give things can i disagree. i credit people with being more interested then just trying to encapsulate so how do you feel?
>> host: we will leave it there we have a lot of callers. >> guest: with regards to the shooting and don't think there is anything unique called that causes us to disproportionately murder each other. i do agree we are awash with guns so somebody who is crazy or violent during pre- or suicidal remember suicides is the biggest cause of death by gun. just reached over to grab a gun it is over fast. boris this young man who shot up if you have 15 guns you can do a lot of damage. . .
things that conservatives things are in place. if you have have to have liability insurance to own a gun. it probably would not be particularly expensive, but if you have three duis, i'm guessing the insurance actuaries, or conviction for domestic violence or you robbed a liquor store three years ago, i'm guessing they would say it's going to be $4000 per year for your liability insurance. so what we would see his marketplace putting pressure on just like we see with drunk drivers, they jack up your insurance rates. that is where i would start actually, along with closing the gun loopholes. i don't think there's anything
unique in it. we have watching wall-to-wall coverage the last couple of days. i think i was watching msnbc the other day, the host was slowly, painfully -- we don't know yet, and all the stuff. can't can't you say, and other news around the world, let's go now to the refugee crisis, or something. but we live in a if it bleeds it reads world. which it did not used to be. when i was doing news in the 70s, because of the fairness doctrine which did not require if you have a liberal on you have to have a conservative on. the essence of the fairness doctrine is that your license will not be renewed if you do not program in the public interest. the principal way the television
was by carrying news. as a a new reporter at a local station, are new station lost money for the station. that was the license for the station. the 1987, reagan stopped enforcement of the fairness act. within six months, cbs had moved their news, the vice president of news to work under the vice president of entertainment. the turn their news to vision into a profit-making and within a year the two networks did the same. and now it is all for profit. that is why we have phone statement instead of real news. they feel like that's what's going to draw the most. >> host: i am flipping through your books, i remember reading that you don't think the fairness doctrine is necessary.
>> guest: i don't think the way the fairness doctrine was characterized, and to some extent if the television statement editorialized, and said we think bernie sanders is a terrible guy, then the fairness doctrine required after the editorial someone would come out say no bernie sanders is a decent guy. back in the day, the tv stations used to do editorials. there were some balance in that. in terms of gas, i see nothing wrong with the station carrying conservative or progressive programming all day long. i don't want the government involved in telling us how to program. i think the role of government, historically historically is like the role of the nfl, you have a game of politics, the game of business, basically activities we participate in, and unlike a football game. if there's 100 yards on the field, here field, here are the rules, here's the punishment for breaking the world.
the rule of the game prior to 1987 was in a way to encourage actual news that a well educated populace. since 1987, the rules in the game of news have been completely changed. now we get the news that makes most profit for those delivering the news to us. whether that is the fact that nbc also owns nbc universal, so instead of news tonight we're going to talk with the latest star of the universal movie. everybody does this. i do not thank it serves our democracy well. >> host: sean and battleground, washington washington please go ahead with your question or comment. >> caller: tom, it's almost been 30 years since michael moore made his documentary, roger me and he went on to make for
columbine and the point he made there was that it is not gun-control it is about our social safety net, how most industrialized countries have better safety nets. it just seems that we witness this slow motion train wreck with the destruction of the middle class. the cheaters are prospering, no one has been punished and sent to jail for the wall street takedown of the economy. the same can be said for the invasion and occupation in iraq. richard wolf was a regular regular guest on your show, he makes the point that americans no longer have any leverage against the bureaucracy. were not needed as consumers as new markets open up overseas, could you please talk about the tom hartley acted how americans no longer have leverage to fight back against wall street. go bernie. >> caller: hartley -- prior to
1935 units do not have federal protection. so if you are unionizing in a company that hired other strike buster groups, you had a really good chance, and a lot of people died in that movement. particularly the tween 1870s when we began industrializing the united states in the 1930s. with the act in 1935, the national labor act unions became legal. unions are democracy in the workplace, therefore i think very important work with. in 1946, for the first time since the election of 1932 the republicans took control of congress for two years. they pass the taft-hartley act
which blew a big hole in the side of the wagner act that allowed individual states to opt out of the union protection for the wagner act and become a right to work, i call it right work for less states. this was largely confined to the deep south for most of our history since 1947. now, scott walker did it in wisconsin, in case again indiana. this was the beginning of the war on labor by working people in the united states. then it went on steroids with the reagan administration. if you look at the history of productivity and workers wages, the george washington administration to the ronald reagan administration, those two members climbed in concert with each other. as workers were more productive
and made more money for their employers, they made more money themselves. then, 1981 you see the lines diverge. productivity lines diverge. productivity goes up, we just let now. wages right now are below 1980 when reagan came into office. this is the natural consequence of that. in 1971, in response to large part of ralph nader he said these books create a consumer movements and these consumers are trying to regulate our businesses. they're trying to politicize our businesses. we need to fight back. traditionally business has not been political, business needs to become political, you need to set up think tanks, an organization that will take up the judiciary, congress, take control of political parties, we need to gain control over the
media. he went through this list, in my book the crash of 2016 i summarize the memo and there's a whole chapter on it. i see that is the starting point of the modern fast right now deregulation of the banking regulation that fdr put in place and 1935. between that and so called, free trade where we are basically the only country in the developed world that no longer protects our workers. it used to be everybody did it with tariffs. that was proposed by alexander hamilton in 1791 in his report on manufacturers. it is adopted in large part by congress and tariffs, which are taxes on ported goods, this is what trump talks about when that
car hits the border they'll be a 35% tax on a coming into the united states. that's called a tariff. tariffs provided 100% of the revenue that supported the federal government of the united states from 1787 when we officially started as a country until the civil war. 100%. from the civil war until world war one it was two thirds of revenue. from world war i until world war ii it was one third of our revenue. during that period of time and up until the 80s, our average tariff rates fluctuated between 20 and 30%. the theory was, as hamilton laid out it the makeup parachutes from connecticut with a dollars worth of labor or you can make it somewhere else cheaper and when the shoes come into mexico will hit them with a 57 tax, so it is going to cost you the same if you make them anywhere in the
world so you might as will make them here. we used used to make shoes, blue jeans, clothing, chairs, now we do not make any of that stuff. or very little of it. because we did away with our tariffs. other developed countries, you look at china, taiwan, which is a developing country, south a developing country, south korea, japan, all of the european countries, they had in the background something they could use when they said they would drop their tariffs. so the u.s. u.s. average tariff is around 2%. so we have all dropped our tariffs. so they use their back tax, value added tax as a functional tariff. the way that tax works, is every time you add value to a manufactured good use pay a small tax. so when some iron is converted to steel there's a small tax, can bring it into a car door
there's a small tax, converted into into a car, there's a small tax, so in germany the average back tax on a car 17%. german taxpayers pay that. so the way they use this, and all the countries are doing that except us, we are like the village idiots. i find myself channeling donald trump way more than i would like to. but he is right on these things. what they do is say okay if you want to ship a mercedes from germany to the united states we will give you a 17% rebate because you're not a german, if you want take an american car and cell and in germany, we are going to put a 17% tax on that. that's essentially an import tax. when you combine the two you have a 34% functional tariff.
in both directions. that is while these countries are running huge at trade surpluses and we are running 600 to 800 billion-dollar deficit. it flipped flipped in the 80s when reagan came into office. we were the worlds largest creditor, we imported raw materials, we imported iron or, we, we imported what, and we manufactured things out of it. where the largest importer of raw materials in the world's largest exporter finished goods. that's a sign of a healthy economy and we had a net positive trade balance. we were accumulating money from other countries so we are investing in other countries, which some people decried as colonialism. by the end of the herbert walker bush era we have become the
world's largest debtor, the world's the world's largest importer of finished good and now we ship coal, iron or, or, and what to china and they ship us back computers, furniture, and you name it. i think our trade deficit with china is around $200 billion per year. the consequences that now one seventh of all assets in the united states are owned by foreigners. if you end up -- the rest of the world is ending up with roughly $600 billion in surplus dollars because we borrowed from the chinese and about their stuff. we got the stuff, they got the dollars. where do you do you spend dollars? here ultimately. so a few nights ago i was at the for the general assembly, we had in the walter history, it just
got up by the chinese. not that i am trying to promote gina phobia, i just don't think it's a good thing thing when one seventh of your country is no longer owned by your countrymen and women. that's a long response. >> host: from your book, rebooting the american dream, 11 ways to rebuild your country, you listed alexander hamilton's 11-point pamper american manufacturers. those strategic proposals built the greatest industrial powerhouse the world had ever seen and after more than 200 successful years were abandoned only during the administration of ronald reagan, george hw bush w bush and bill clinton, and remain appended to this day. here is the cover of the book, rebooting the american dream if you are interested in reading about. this text for you, thom hartmann, why are citizens united not okay but unions are
entirely political? also, should unions should unions be taxed 35% my corporations question marks. >> guest: interesting question. first of all, unions are not-for-profit organizations so they do not generate a profit, so there would be nothing to tax. secondly, citizens united and unions, unions, i'm guessing the question was should unions be able to run ads in favor of or opposed to candidates the same as general electric can or other companies can. my answer to that is, no. i don't think that any corporation, unions are corporations even though they are nonprofit corporations. i don't think any corporation should have rights guaranteed under our constitution.
i think that would work to the benefit of unions, actually. if we were to say we are going to reverse citizens united and not just for corporations but unions as well, the taft-hartley limited unions activity dramatically. right now if you pay union dues, if you are in a union there are two things you pay that union -- my dad worked in a union machine shop for 40 years, to my of my brothers have been you shop stewards, you pay the union dues which basically pay for the lawyers who represent you if you are in dispute with your employer, negotiators who negotiate your pay package and those kind of things. then you can also pay political action funds, it's typically not called that but that is what they are.
that second category of payments are voluntary. you can simply some cases opt out in other cases opt in but you can say to the union, you may not use my money for politics, and i'm not going to give you my money for politics. a lot of people do that. frankly i don't have a big problem with that. i think unions should be represented their workers, but the way this benefits unions is that, if you were to say that at&t and the union, both can't engage in political activity it anymore, they can order congressman, they can't run television advertisement. so now the president of at&t sent a letter to his employee sense, we think romney is the best presidential candidate, you should get out and help them, what is the average employee going to do? that's not going to influence
me. on the other had, i, a union is a democracy, take the 50% boat of the employees to create the union, a 50% to dissolve the union, if the union is going to take any political position, and, and has to be the majority, the majority vote. so when the union holds an election to decide who are we going to represent or what are we going to do, or ask their members what we should do. you see this right now with people wondering if they should endorse hillary or bernie, when that happens the union, even if they do not put a penny into that campaign you now have the union -- of the union sends out a letter to the membership and says 50 or 60, or 70% of our members will endorse bernie, i
think it's one of the largest unions, even if they don't spend a penny in the political world, they now have probably at least half of their members who are willing to show up and help out, they'll do it my dad i did in 1964. they will go door-to-door and share message with people. because it's a democracy, because it is a group that is interested, that is there for each other rather than for just the employer. >> host: next call, there's a noise coming out of the ceiling here. adrian is in houston, texas. adrian, things were holding you are on with thom hartmann. >> caller: thank you, my brother lives in california, he talks about tom all of the time. i'm glad to talk to him. when he mentioned glass -- elizabeth warren was the only
person who had ever brought this out. when the crash happened in 2008, that is the first thing that came to my mind. glass steagall, that was a slippery slope. does he think we will ever see anything like it? let's not leave nafta out of this, they screwed up the economy. it's why we are mac, all of us because we don't feel like there's a dime's worth of difference. >> caller: glass steagall, for for people who do not know what we're talking about, and the early 30s either 1933 or 1935, the glass-steagall act separated investment baking from retail banking. one of the things that provoke the great crash and made it so bad, the weeks franklin roosevelt became president,
every, every bank in the united states failed. it was an amazing thing when you think about it. the reason it was so bad is that banks were also casinos. they were running start gambling operations, everyone was getting in on it leading up to the great crash of 29. when those operations went out, the checkbook, savings, savings operations went down, all of those kind of things. my mother's family was fairly prominent in the 20s, they lost everything in the crash of 29. the bank that had all of their money said sorry we don't have your money anymore. this happened to millions of americans. what glass-steagall did, was said that the boring banking business which is basically the lubrication for an economy, to have a checking checking account, savings account, get business loans in a mortgage, that is now going to be done in one area of banking, the old fashion, boring, banking.
it is predictable, and predictable. the gambling stuff, you want to engage in the stock market, go to a broker shot. go to a bank that is an investment bank. you had the the rise of the merrill lynch's, and the rise of a bank, bank. they were kept separate up until 1999 or 2010 way of enron -- there two things he wanted he wanted to speculate energy is a commodity and he could not. he wanted to be able to get the banks off his bank. he had 800 different holding companies and was shifting money around. hiding his losses. banks were catching on to him. he wanted to own his own bank. graham was on his -- there's two
pieces of legislation, one led to the deregulation of commodities and led to this whole derivative thing that we're talking about earlier. the second was graham versus bliley which repealed the glass-steagall i act. this glass-steagall act has kept us from having a banking crisis since 1935, instead its work, it's time to retire. if he had made that argument in 1950 or 1960 on the floor of the senate when their senators who are live in 1929, they would have left him off if they do not run them off with a pitchfork. but because -- what they say is when the last man remembers the horrors of the great war dies, the next great war becomes inevitable. we do not remember the genesis of the awful stuff.
everybody was dead who remember the great crash of 1929. so the banks and gimlet houses merged away right back where we were in 1929. senator sanders called for a reinstatement for the glass-steagall act, i think we need to do that. it's very important. i don't remember his second point, i'm sorry, do you peter? >> caller: we are going to move on. >> host: what one book written by you or anyone else gives the best information on income inequality? this is the text. >> caller: probably, screwed. >> guest: screwed was a book that i wrote a few years back about the plight of the middle-class. and how we got here, although here, although the crash of 2016 has a lot of that material, and screwed i tried to get back to the first principles. i went all the way back to the origin of the economy and
democracy. russo, thomas jefferson, the enlightenment, right up until today. >> host: jon, in florida florida please go ahead with your question or comment. >> caller: good afternoon. i always hate waiting because there's so many other questions i want to ask. just a few comments if i may, i grew up in a democratic household. my father belonged to a union, now i am a flaming conservative. i always love the margaret thatcher quote that said social socialism is great until you run out of other people's money. as far as the right to spend money for elections, that is critical thinking, it's not taught anymore. i i was taught critical thinking growing up in the 1960s. >> guest: you're making the argument that if someone runs an ad on television that says hey
if you take this pill it will carry of this, it doesn't tell you that it may also cause that. that we can critically think our way out of being my two and a television at? >> caller: don't you see all that little fine print and the guy talking a thousand miles per minute. but your eyes might pop out. driving is a privilege not a right. >> guest: actually it authorizes congress to build roads. it is in the constitution. >> guest: that has nothing to do with driving. >> caller: the right that their arms are in the constitution also. >> guest: in order to maintain a well regulated militia. >> caller: i thought we are going to get off on the right foot here. anyway my question to you is, and i will give you a clue i'm from connecticut i would like to reduce him quickly.
the quotas, and extracting the principles what jesus taught, we should have to strip off the artificial in which they have been muffled. they'll be found, remained the most sub- line and pennell event code of morals which is ever been offered to man. that is a letter from thomas jefferson in 1813 to john adams. i'm not saying that jefferson was the greatest christian of all times. >> guest: have you ever read the jefferson bible? 's he cut out all the miracles. that book is still in print by the way. >> caller: how do you explain what i just read you. >> host: john, we are going to leave it there. thank you for participating today. >> guest: it's true, jesus taught moral principle. it is also true that this is part of our dna. as as a
species, alters them is natural to us. in six month old babies you see them unhappy when one baby is given more than another baby in their presence. fairness is in our dna. socialism is an art dna for lack of better web senate. there are tribes all over the world who have never heard of jesus but who live in a very ultra stick fashion. this is what amazed me by reading jefferson's works. when he was a child, his his father was a surveyor in virginia, at the time, probably 90% of virginia was indian territory. his father spoke five different indian languages. jefferson would travel with his father. he would live with the native americans. he was so impressed by their high moral character, he writes about it over and over again. at one point he dances around the edge of thinking that maybe
the native americans were actually genetically superior to the white europeans. this is when it was used as an excuse to sway yourself, stuff that we would laugh at an hour be disgusted by. in either either case he was so impressed by the native americans. saying something nice about jesus does not make one a christian. jefferson was very clear that the prods of the clergy as he referred to it, probably probably 40 or 50 times in his various letters were one of the big crises that could face america. jefferson and madison had a series of interesting letters in 1787 when jefferson was in france and jefferson was helping right the constitution. madison went jefferson's protége.
madison was a presbyterian, he was a christian, jefferson was a ds, openly, not a christian. disbelieve that some intelligence brought the universe into being and then to step back. that god does not interfere with day-to-day life but everything that came out of something is sacred and divine. so a ds would see the world as alive and sacred but would not pray to anyone to do anything. prayer was not a part of being a deist. anyhow, jefferson and madison had this correspondence were madison was concerned that if government ever started subsidizing churches or even providing them with very specific protections, this turned into quite a discussion that the churches would become
corrupted. madison was very concerned about christianity, he did not wanted to become corrupted. jefferson, on the other hand was concerned about a priest becoming president or a member of congress. he thought members of the clergy should be banned from political service. he never came out and and it but he was very concerned about it. he was concerned that religion would corrupt government. so is government going to cropped religion or religion corrupt government? so during the first few weeks of presidency in 18 oh nine, he vetoed -- he put into place the first welfare program which was to pay for the poor houses in washington, d.c. the federal government paid for this directly. the george washington administration and through adams
and then congress passed a law saying those money would be routed through the churches in the churches would take over that function. that was james madison's first veto. he said no. is that we are knocking to get federal money to the churches, it will corrupt the churches. this set a precedence. it was not going to happen. so, now we look back at this naïve debate they were having about which is more dangerous, the churches taking church is taking over government or influencing government, or government funding the churches and changing their essential nature and character. >> host: thom hartmann is our guest. david is in florida, please go ahead. >> caller: good afternoon peter. sorry missed you when i was in washington. two things, number one at the
beginning of the program mr. hartman, you mention they started your talkshow and box and talk radio. talk radio on fox came into existence in reaction to nbc, cbs, and abc having a monopoly on this distribution from the left. so let's go back to the beginning. alright, that's number one. number one. number two, i would like you to contrast how conservative speakers are treated on campus these days with the way bernie sanders was treated at liberty university. not exactly a passion of leftism when he spoke there. i think that gives you a good insight that those -- how
liberals act these days. >> guest: i'm not sure what the question was but it's a nice creation story about fox news. i don't think it's accurate. you could say, if you think the facts are liberal then yeah, the news is all liberal. if you want to promote something that is not backed like hey let's pretend that the climate is not warming up. let's let's pretend that tobacco does not cause addiction or cancer, which was a generation ago but these kind of conservative positions, let's pretend the warm vietnam was a wonderful thing. if you want to add your own facts, and they are not really flax, fine. i think. i think one of the reasons why liberals generally do better on college campuses then conservatives is because many of
the conservative positions are basically antiscience, anti- fact. tried to claim that the world is 6000 years old, try to deny a global climate change and global warming and the science behind. the republican party in the united states is the only political party in the world, in the world that says global warming is not happening. talk to conservatives, i have done it, i went to denmark and spent a week there, i interviewed the top conservative politicians in the country. i would say, you're conservative, you must deny that global warming is happening. no, we know it's happening. you're conservative, you must take the national healthcare system. oh no, i don't want to do with that. you're conservative, you must want to do with fact that when people want want to go to college in denmark they actually get a stipend intuition is free.
all know, i went to that. what makes you conservative? the answer? the answer is, we don't want any more immigrants. if you're conservative in europe, you're basically anti- immigrant. the other thing that concerns me increasingly, is that politicians and media that identify themselves as conservative art really shows for large corporations and wealthy people. the goal is to get the average working person to think and behave the opposite of their own best interests. to support reaganism, to support nafta, captor, and shaft. which bill clinton played a big role in. it was considered conservative. the fact that wages have planned all these years, kirk in 1951 in the conservative mind, the bible for the conservative, my father made me do it. it was fascinating.
it was the book that started buckley going. it's still important and danny conservative. essentially in the book he said this middle class which is growing in 1951, if this middle class gets too big, you'll get social upheaval. you'll see people who were previously marginalized and it might even get violent. everyone said, this is crazy, then in the 1960s the birth control pill was legalized, by 1966 it was widespread. that led to women having significant troll of their own body saying wait a minute, we we would like equality in the workplace as well. you're the civil rights in the 1960s, african-american saying we want rights, the beginning of the gay rights movement,
stonewall, and all of that. you had young people saying no i'm not going to go to vietnam. defined their own government. that's exactly what russell kirk predicted. conservatives look at this and say oh my god -- and it's always in response to police violence in the inner cities, it's why detroit is all in flames. conservative says russell kirk was right we have to reduce the middle class so people don't feel free to go out right. in 1960, i was on the streets when police were throwing teargas at us. the essence of the whole thing was, i pay for my college tuition working as a part-time dj making 2035 cents per hour
working it as a dishwasher and changing tires and pumping gas. you could work your way through college. my wife wife worked her way through college working as a waitress. we felt empowered. if we're out in the streets protesting the policies of our governments, we do not feel that we would be wiped out and the rest of our lives to be destroyed. nowadays, if you had 20 or 30,000 dollars in college debt, you're only halfway through your college career and you get in trouble for protesting and i have a police record, kick it credit, and so on. the lockdown on dissent in the united states have been german in the large part by economic since the 80s. that was the essence of reaganism in my opinion. you can set it has led to a more stable society.
the big classic difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals suggest -- and i'm going all the way back to john mark and thomas jefferson who said the u.s. constitution should be revised every 19 years, which is one generation. liberals would say that social change up it is in a positive direction should go forward and go for as fast as possible. they said -- conservatives are all in favor of cause of social change but they wanted to go gradual, incremental incremental and not in a disrupted fashion. both of those arguments, both of those worldviews are legitimate. what i think is a modern tragedy is that the word conservatives have been hijacked.
my father was a conservative. dwight eisenhower ran in 1956, either go to your google machine and go to 1956 republican party platform. dwight eisenhower ran for reelection on a platform that said, we have expanded social security, we have increased social security payments, we have added more than 2,000,000 people million people to social security. we have expanded union rights. we have expanded union members. we are building a highway system across the country, i can't thank frankly -- bernie was on my program a few months ago was talking about this. he said, i don't want to quote burn, quote quote myself. i can't think of any position that bernie is holding right now that eisenhower would not have
supported. that's how much -- i think america has always been an eisenhower kind of country. today not be referred to as the democratic socialism or central after, whatever. i think both parties have moved so far to the corporate side, to the billionaire side to represent their interests that the average working person is like, and screwed. here we are out in the middle of nowhere. so that's i think bernie pulls 20% of the republican poll in vermont, reliably. if you had a healthy middle class you had a healthy economy. >> host: we're talking a book to be with author and radio talk show host, tom hartman. his most recent books include rebooting the american dream, 11 ways to rebuild their country,
the tom hartman reader came out in 2011, the crash of 2016 came out in 2013. the last hours of humanity, warming the world to extinction, about, about global warming also in 2013. the american revolution of 1800, how jefferson rescued democracy frontier and am passionate what this means today. fortieth anniversary of that came out in 2014. death in the pines which happen to be a novel. >> guest: which i wrote about 14 or 15 years ago. >> guest: we. >> host: we been talking about bernie sanders, we want to show a little bit of the tribute chatting on your show. then we will show you tom hartman's answers to a few of my paper thanks. our show will continue live in a few minutes. >> i've said that you can boil
the entire economic system into two words, cheap, labor. >> that's right. i think that we have got to do as a nation, i know where the last days of a very intense campaign and all kinds of ads are going on the air. i think we have to calm down a little bit. one of the questions we should ask is what ronald reagan asked in 1980. are you better off today than you or four years ago? and the answer for that, for those who are millionaires and billionaires, if you're not concerned about the future of your country, you not worried by your kids and your grand grandkids, i can understand that you're voting for bush. if you are an ordinary, working person, you have a president of the united states who has changed federal labor standards
♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> host: tom hartman, who is jack vance and what is chai? >> guest: jack vance is a science fiction writer. he also used to write for a detective, he is red and other things. his science fiction is spectacular. from the time i was able to read i have been a science-fiction junkie. jack vance, just recently passed away. his writing is of such extraordinary caliber that i consider it literature, not just science-fiction. it is just brilliant writing. i own every book he has ever written. i have been collecting his stuff
since i was in my 20s. when my add book was published in 1986, tim underwood who is the owner of underwood books who publish the book, was also publishing jack vance. i did not know that. one day i was on the west coast in the bay area until coming up and said i'm going up to his house for dinner, would you like to join me? this is 15 or 20 years ago. they said well jack vance, so i went to dinner and got to know him and his wife norma, son john, it was amazing. when we're living in atlanta, jack went to florida, he was becoming blind at that point in time, his wife drove into florida to accept the grandmaster science
science-fiction, one of the top science-fiction awards. they stopped at our house and stayed there for three days. jack, in my office wrote me into one of his last books. i just love his writing. if someone asked me what i was reading then i sent it was shined by jack vance. i'm rereading parts of it so things. >> host: your publisher, for the most part as a group called. >> guest: they publish most of my economic and political books. another publish the crash of 2016. >> host: that was the only one i could find. >> guest: random house published one of them. focus your energy was published by penguin, i can keep it all
straight. >> host: did you choose? did you choose to go to barrett kohler for some reason? >> guest: it's a really good publishing company. my agent established our relationship with them. they even have a foundation, good works. they're based in san francisco as i recall. they just really care about books. they care about authors, they take good care of their authors. they keep books and prints. they haven't gone full corporate >> host: we asked you, what were your favorite books that you have written? what are they? >> guest: i think that probably a few of the consequential books that i've written that i have had or had the potential to have
impact is the one i wrote in the 90s about oil. oil was captured 300 million years ago as plant material. it was about the end of the era of oil. a book called walking your blues away which is like a do-it-yourself psychotherapy book in which, in doing the research for that i discovered astonishing thing about sigmund freud that i think anyone else has ever known. i think that book has potential to actually change a lot of psychotherapy and what is going on. >> host: what did you discover about sigmund freud? >> guest: it goes back a little bit. when i studied about nlt and add called healing add, he talked
about how when we have bad memories, painful memories, or any kind of memory actually we store them in specific places. if i were to ask you peter what colors the floor in your kitchen at home? what color is it? >> host: it's would spee2's so you just look down into their right, so that's where that memory is stored at. it's part of our brain that is physically. a person may store memory over here, another over here, sometimes we store them as feelings which weekend storm here, or here. so it richard had developed was a technique where you would move
the location of the memory. he concluded that the place that the memories stored as part of a giant filing system in the brain. the filing system actually has a method to it, the method is emotion. so, we tend to store things in particular places based on the emotions. the way it works is when we falsely been night, there is a one-day scratch pad it's called the hippocampus. it is not no time beyond now. at night when we sleep, what we drink, the hippocampus for this is the most widely accepted theory of what goes on, the hippocampus hippocampus is dumping the day's activity into the brain. stumping to process to figure out what to keep, what to throw away, what, what to store. we call this streaming. it seems confusing and prime open really the brain is storing
by emotion not by logic. with ptsd is that someone experiences something so horrible, the death of a comrade and work, car accident, people who are witnesses to the shooting in oregon. that police officers who had to look at the bodies, they go to sleep in your hippocampus says if it happened today and the rest of the brands that i can handle that. hang onto it for another day. say wake up the next day and that memory is just and seven happened that day. talk to someone with ptsd and they will say, 20 years ago this happen to me. but i remember remember it like it was this morning. that is the one consistent characteristic of true ptsd.
so it richard said was, that memory in the hippocampus is associated with memories and the rest of the cortex. if you can start breaking those down into component pieces, the brain can absorb them take them out of the hippocampus and and the ptsd. the way he did it was he would say, we'll take a memory and just change its place. for example, if you'll think of some minor irritation that you have had in the last couple weeks. >> ..
>> no, not at all. >> all right. >> you don't get to play talkshow host. [laughter] >> if you can get people to move their memories the meaning of the memories changes because they go to a different filing place. this is gone from god-awful horrible experience to that was kind of funny. the way that he would do this is good people move their eyes back and forth. also in your eyes crossed the midpoint your shifting from one hemisphere the other. and the hippocampus is brainstem, the whole brain. i am hyper simplifying, but they goal is to fully integrate these horrible memories so that they can be appropriately processed. by moving eyes back and forth you are smearing the
memory around the brain in a way that it can be dealt with. typically it is changing. so when i start digging into this reintegration. it has been years since i wrote about it. basically a person sits in front of another person and says watch my finger while you're thinking about that horrible event. they change very rapidly. i was demonstrating this and there was a fellow there who had been in vietnam, guy my age and was responsible for airlifting out people who are wounded.
they were on a mountain and a horrible firefight. no vietcong around. he calledbecause of the rescue choppers. they came in, landed, loaded up. he came out of the jungle and body parts train down. he started stopping. in fact he was on 100 percent disability, i've been unable to work for decades because three or four times a day he would burst into tears he is his memory was still today's memory. i sat him down and went through this. move it around. and after about four to a three minute rounds of doing this the memory is lost.
it's funny how i've been torture myself all these years. this is more than a decade ago. i had an e-mail from last year. i knew when i was a kid i studied hypnosis. the medical hypnotist. and so went back to the history of hypnosis and it started with a guy named friends anton messmer. he was an austrian. and he discovered that if he does finger he was able to
solve, hysteria was a big issue which we would call ptsd today. and it has all kinds of physical manifestations. dwarfism physically vulnerable. he concluded that it was the moon. one hand up in the air and the other hand will be directing that energy. it became incredibly famous. built -- ben franklin went over to france. they invited messmer down. he taught this to ben franklin. they spend days working on this. centers all over europe. a big deal. but he was -- it seems kind of weird. in 1834 there was a scottish psychologist who said this was nonsense.
this has to be offered to your something command i'm going to prove it has nothing to do with the person. not to simple hypnosis. so then he followed the history of this. , studied many, many years ago hundred studies and hysteria, the work that they co-authored. it was his breakthrough book. and in that book and in numerous other papers he said i use hypnosis. i use it diagnostically and therapeutically.
i use it to relax people, when they were telling their stories,, moving a finger back and forth in front of the face. it was bilaterally cousin numbering to have to shift. while experiencing. he was having fabulous success. he wrote a book about it. and then in 1898 some might say. course of using cocaine. for the next six or seven years he was using cocaine. the book is still in print. heprint. he was convinced i cocaine was the solution everything. after a couple of years he himself was time to experience cocaine psychosis. he saw that it was not working account with the oedipus complex in 1901.
insert itand said it has to do with the relationship with mother and father. and then in the early 19 not teams to develop this will talk therapy thing. never able to get that mojo back and have the kind of success he was 1998. when he finally committed suicide he was rather embittered and depressed and i'm happy and as people who go through years of freudian therapy candidate. why did he stop? and i started looking through literature and cannot find any way. i was fascinated by a comment that abraham lincoln made to harriet beecher stowe when he met her in 1861. she wrote uncle tom's cabin. 1843 or 48 command it was the most widely sold call widely read book in the world.
and he said, you are the little lady who started the war which to a large extent have a greater truth. so that got me curious. maybe i would like to go back and read a couple. there was a book published in 1898 by john wrote the three musketeers. he had written this book, and itbook, and it was the 2nd best-selling book in the entire 19th century or more. trilby. the story was that of the 60 -year-old girl in france who was a model in our studio and therefore artists and
one of them was according to the book and archetypical jew. described it as a negative character. this menu hypnosis. and he hypnotizes young woman. and taught her how to sing. it would have the desert night. audiences loved. he would take the money still in a state of hypnosis and at the end of the book to finally figures out going on, breaks the psychic bond and both of them die. his name was bengali.
that's the way it worked. and the principal readers of the book were women. and probably 95 percent work. in the book he describes -- it is a page and a half description. and it is exactly the technique that segment for was using. all these horrible things will happen. watching the office of the jewish psychiatrist right on screen. as a result in my opinion, and, and i have nothing other than historical timeline the back this up, hypnotism just vanished in 1998. because i believe. it took 70 years for her to
come back. really aggressively promoting medical hypnotism in the united states. the technique, i was teaching and doing a kind of consulting practice of telephone mostly the psychologist also to site and therapist. and i started with many of the therapists who would call me up and say hello i do this or that? instead of paying me my hourly rate if you ask saw your patience to try something simple and let me know what happened i would appreciate it. have them go for a walk. my 1st question, ptsd is not new. 10,000 years ago we go out to hunt the woolly mammoth
in the woolly mammoth the ties -- decides to take outside. he'll be pretty bummed out and traumatized, but he has to walk 5 miles back. so could it be that the process of walking in the opposite and swing, this is bilateral. the process was a way to heal the brain because we are self-healing mechanisms if we cut ourselves as a scar hear from my cat a week ago. ) now it's all healed up. why wouldn't our brain be self-healing? maybe that mechanism is walking because it is bilateral. heavy patients go for a 20 minute walk everyday and while they're walking think about the crisis they are dealing with. and when i started getting back from these folks was we are seeing clinical resolutions and so at that
point i was like okay, i have to share the story. it is basically how to do yourself psychotherapy. >> a little over an hour left with our guest. we will also show you all the different ways you can get a hold of us. thank you for holding. you are on with author thom hartmann. >> one new line speak with you. i used to listen to you in
was conventional wisdom. the public sector is what we all collectively owned, administer, and should be done for the good of all, natural monopolies are appropriate government functions. the military. the most socialist of all. housing, medical care of everything. on the other hand held think any american mostly minor bluejeans pushes car computer for government. that would be communism. nobody wants that. i do think that we have wondered now as a consequence in large part of this kind of reagan a stick theory that government can
do no right in the private sector always is right which is both of those canards are demonstrably false. wandered into the area of privatizing things that should not be privatized. the epa having to hire a private for profit contractor to look in to the old goldgold mine with a have this bill a couple months ago. what is a for profit company doing this before? which means the company will be looking for every corner they can cut. i am not sure is dangerous stuff they should be having it done that way. first commandment is to clean up mindsets. government employees. the government employees are steadily cut over the years. should be smaller than what
is. and so you end up with the head snowden's of the world. taking money from the government to do what should be a government function. just speaking for myself have gone way too far in this privatization mania and there are things the government can and does do well. and number two we should be looking at this area of natural monopolies. bring cable tv in your house, typically one. telephone service, typically one. coming out of your house, and the water. these are natural monopolies. they should either be not-for-profit or government entities.
lower costs because theycost because they have to skim 20 pey millions of dollars. and because their mission statement is not clear to make money but we are here to make sure you have reliable electricity. the city of portland one of the by. we will not sell it to a government entity. so locked into this mindset, the free market". new line so free market, zero capitalist entrepreneur. and i thinki think it is time for us to have
conversation. the fundamental principles of how we organize our economy and way of life. the distinction between capitalism and free enterprise is an important one. they call themselves conservatives. how much money did you make your investments. capitalists as a person who invests the money and lives of their investment. somewhere in the last 50 years we decided that was a noble thing that we would give them a different tax rate and people like you and me who work for a living. uri could run up against a 39%a 39 percent tax rate.
capitalists have a maximum 20 percent capital gains tax. their income is the ceiling the 20 percent. ronald reagan said it was crazy. do you think a millionairea millionaire should pay a lower income tax rate than the bus driver? the kids audio flow and he said you're right. and for one year during the reagan administration the capitol gains tax was identical. they are not that many capitalists. probably fewer than a couple hundred thousand who are living offense. the money and the companies. >> they did not see a dime's worth of difference between parties.
>> i think i don't remember what i wrote about 3rd parties. [laughter] >> it has been more than a decade since i wrote that before in the neighborhood. one thing that i do believe right now and this is why i think it's a novel is not true that al gore cost ralph nader the election but it is widely believed. typically what happens is there parties in the harming the mainstream party that is closer to them. going to run in the democratic primary. god bless them. >> alternative parties have an important place and
politics. ideas and nexus points for activism. that does not mean that they are an alternative to the two mainstream parties when election time rolls around. >> i am consistent in my philosophy. the green party and libertarian party a great and that they stir conversationsstart conversations on the edges that move into the major parties. i don't think it is great when politicians say you can do it republican or democrat. a district that would vote democratic is up with a republican member of congress. a district that would typically elect a republican ends up with a democrat is libertarian party was super active. a level becomes problematic.
>> scott in san diego. go ahead with your question or comment. >> good morning. you are the brightest guy on talk radio today. you have heart and smarts which are two things that are in short supply. here is my question. your association with bernie sanders goes back decades. it is safe to say that you have gotten to know him well as a politician and human being. so what is something about senator sanders that most voters don't know that if they did no it they would understand why he would make an awesome pres. and as of right now how would you gauge his chances of being nominated and elected. >> with regard to his chances, i just don't know. these things are very difficult to predict.
with regard to who is bernie, i will tell you a quick story. when we were 1st talking about him being on the show he had been on the program a couple times. which is a break in the format of my show. bernie becomes the show. usually it is calling me instead of calling bernie. we were going to get together and burlington talk there is not showing the restaurant and bernie's guy shows up in bernie comes in like a whirlwind with his hair askew on the phone mere sitting there and he comes over and have since down as is really kemal be than 30 minutes. i'll be there and hang up
the phone and as waitresses walking by. evaluate your senses bradley several check in. he says right now. i've got a run. so she roseruns up to the kitchen and we sat down. ibm just announced their layoff 300 people. their assembling a group of people and further factory and a half hour for demonstration. i have got to be there. that is the one only time i've ever had a meal with bernie. is all business. i don't know is human being individually. i've never been to us all more news family. he is so committed to his work and his nation that it always seems to come 1st from what i can see. >> catherine ormond beach florida.
>> a wonderful show. like most americans i i support commonsense regulations. >> going to hang up because she calls and all the time with different names and always talks about the same issue. she doesn't really have the conversation that we like to have i guess. so i apologize for that. chicopee massachusetts. >> how are you. >> i lovei love c-span. >> me to. >> i like the different perspectives. tom, i enjoy listening to you. i guess my thought here is over the years i have become more conservative. >> what is that mean? >> for me meaning for example to find liberals to
be much more bigoted. >> conservatives to you means that you have become more tolerant and want to be more inclusive with regard to people of color. >> i have always felt that way. i lived in africa for a couple of years. i was a volunteer at a time when the peace corps was kicked out of tanzania. and i have been around, done some traveling and really do enjoy people i like to see people do well. but i think maybe the biggest thing, because there is so much talk, i found i just got a little more conservative on my opinions. i did not like what's her
name percyher cle not being allowed to speak at brandeis university. i thought that was terrible. >> ii don't know who that is what you're talking about. >> do you listen to tom hartman's radio show? >> no, i haven't. i am listening this afternoon. >> we appreciate your listening. i want to follow that up with an e-mail. from pam in birmingham alabama. this might be part of it. an earlier caller. democratic administration. it makes no difference which party is in power. what can we do to change minds and hearts. >> this is a problem for the democratic party.
talks about this in his book couple years ago back in the late '80s, in fact rather than quoting let me just put this in my own words. reagan had declared war on organized labor. appointing the 1st anti- labor in the history of the united states. and as labor was collapsing in their assets face was a unions are getting smaller they were less wealthy. and so some strategic democrats were looking around going okay. the union money is going away. what is next. the republicans have
survived living on the party -- on the side of big business. but the democrats have been the party of labor. now we can belabor anymore. there are some businesses that are less toxic than others. instead of being the party of the tobacco industry has become the party of the banks. businesses that everyone expects. talked about going on in arkansas and sitting down and saying your going to join me in this thing. we're going to take on the democratic party and rebranded essentially. and that is what happened.
the democratic party has become by and large the party of something. and this is where bernie sanders is making a turn away from this. the republicans be the party of the billionaires in the corporation. when us people that will send to abortion. i don't know if it's a conservative or liberal position. i am not sure. out of these become partisan issues. an evangelical christian. evangelical christian. what does that have to do with politics? what has happened is that the party representing a very small slice and doing a good job of representing a small slice of 1 percent of america can get elected if
they were simply to say we are the party of the billionaires, the transnational corporations. nafta was mostly republicans democrats were opposed. and a very simply said we are the party of big business. instead they go, 15 million evangelical christians. 20 million homophobes. hundred million races. 30 million people who hate abortion. they take these issues that don't her big business that the billionaires (patootie about. we are here to take strong positions. it has become a coalition like the way the parliamentary governments are governed. and i think that -- and thus
people say okay. i guess if i am opposed to abortion or an evangelical christian i must be there for the republican. it is unfortunate bifurcation our politics, and unnecessary one. democratic party once they start selling out they don't stop. all the progressive caucus is the largest are second-largest they still are consistently marginalized. my shake of the democratic party enough that they go back.
>> the most profound comment. i don't know why america thinks just around the world when you got something really good and you don't have to for some people they will steal it. the international organization that i mentioned. he started talking politics and he made that comment. said it was the perfect -- perfect comedians timing. they will steal it. and that is what is happening.
they are stealing back the countries. it is a brilliant statement and one of the chapters. >> i will be as quick as i can talking about the democratic and republican parties and also a little earlier he said that the extremes are moving more toward the corporations to endcommand that brought to mind to me a quote from mussolini, fascism should be more appropriately be called corporatism because it was a merger stating corporate power. and i feel the burn and i am
aa political junkie. this just is not leave my mind. and i wanted to know who could comment on that. >> i would be glad to. i call it the southern hemisphere, southern hemisphere asian free trade agreement. it really is the southern hemisphere asian free trade agreement. i am opposed to all of them. the fascism, this is a word that was invented by giovanni gentile and you probably was the origin of the quote, but mussolini said that repeatedly.
and when he took over italy and dissolve the parliament and instead of having the equivalent the largest corporation in each district send their representative. literally 270 renamed. harry lewis wrote about this forty-four. and if they can then control the agency which makes the rules they will have
underneath this went on the surface, missy. the generated. they are eating leftovers of the dolphins. wherever they saw dolphins the new pull them all up in the dolphins and i. the humane society settlements require online fishing. down went to new york. i made this law. their mental, smart, let's have humane fishing.
you can have that law. an unfair restraint of trade. our product shows what can be sold. there going to change our laws. there are hundreds of examples. basically the lowest common denominator always good for the consumer policies are going to become law by the corporations themselves. trying to overturn united states lawmaking.
the conservative argument was that surrender some. and it was. we gave up our rights and said we will monitor work without the body of nations saying yes you can do that. they said wait a minute. we are the united states. we answer only to ourselves. zero, tpp, nafta, they are just fine, wonderful. and that is my point. it no longer means defending the constitution. they put this patina on it to make it seem like the average guy could move forward. it is the only way they can win elections.
>> please tell us the name of charles book by the mdr like. >> is called walking your blues way. >> thank you. i love you and enjoy you so much. what can the average person do to really change things about what is going on middle-class just a step-by-step, e-mail, protest, and, and i still feel like i'm in the same place. >> the norwegian economist, a lot of years he suggested
the tipping.surprised some of this when a certain percentage in the neighborhood of 20 or 25 firmly believe something fell outside the mainstream of how society is going with the society will change to accommodate. we saw this with the reagan revolution. cutting taxes and corporations. as reagan did, and it was a small group, but they were able to convince enough people to basically flipped. have conversations with difference.
indicate your friends and your name. i would say the same thing the republicans. we all should become -- evangelist is too strong a word. when you have the facts on your side. >> my name is kelly. love your show. >> i became a vegetarian i was 16 that would've been 67 in response to the vietnam war lasted nonviolence. and within the year that i had gotten into tm and other spiritual practices that led
me to conclude that is also more ethical and living and so i've been a vegetarian or since. i think you can make an argument that eating small fatty fish periodically like once aa week, there was a study like a voice here you can find. i'm not sure. but there was aa study of nordic population and they found the people who ate small fatty fish one serving once a week or more had better cognitive abilities as they age past 50 absolutely was eating maximum how that will be the one caveat which i'm sure as every vegetarian and vegan
the country. pairing, sardines, that kind of thing. that is the only i feel great. they raise her kids vegetarian. it works. walking lightly. food density. the more of food is, like you take a hundred pounds of grain and end up with a pound of beef. that is denser food. as we have shifted to denser and denser food we are starting to have weight problems. i suspect there's something there. when i eat vegan i feel lighter. >> who is mr. stanley?
>> he was -- he was the pastor of the temple of detroit, 456 ledyard street. used to be the governor's mansion. and a big old building. i became a student of 17. went through a couple years of learning. this is a christian organization that had some very loose ties to the orthodox cost church of egypt. and became the united states in 1920s. who's on the famous tv show and i. mr. stanley prescribed. and when mr. semi dock for a
couple years we became -- own zone of the hurricane pastors for the church. >> are you a coptic christian today? >> if i had to choose and affiliation, sure. >> what is the difference between mainstream christianity and coptic christianity? >> along with me in the bunch of 12 other people. the nominations that are willing to entertain.
it is not a stress up and look all pompous like the official orthodox. >> eric is calling in. >> good morning or afternoon, gentlemen. we get to discuss her books and length and get off the daily politics. i wanted to know what your takeaways now that we have a lot of years of data on the add adhd voice that were heavily medicated and a knee-jerk reaction. i was one of the the 70s. you see manifestations in their labor life particularly trying to balance their own brain chemistry later, medication, depression comeau what is
your take away in terms of that? and also i carry a message however i encounter a kid i take him aside is a lesson, this is an advantage. you can do a lot of things that nobody can do. you have powers that they don't have. find those in use those. >> excellent questions. consequences of med school. my hypothesis. when my son went through this and provoked sort of like with the hypnosis stuff it occurred to me that prior to the arab cultural revolution we were all hunter gatherers. and in a hunting gathering society -- add is
the deer is more me that he will be harder to catch. you don't have time for that. instant decision. and literally the textbook and dictionary definition of impulsivity his behavior preceding cognition. the need for high levels of stimulation and arousal. i think it will go out there with the things they want to eat meat and find lunch. what kind of person would do that? someone who is not intimidated. the best would be the people who love that. adventure. that is add. those are hunters. but then when the farming revolution came along the skills of the opposite of what you needed farmers. you go out and playing your we and sit there.
>> the one who is a need for someone who is a farmer i can sit here. i don't need a lot of arousal level make impulsive decisions and then when the harvest comes in going on picking bugs out plants day after day, hour after hour, week after week, month after month and that then became putting a bolt on another are not vulnerable. we all became farmers. we all became farmers. one. and along the industrial model that henry ford pioneered our schools are
structurally hostile to the kind of brain wiring them brought the human race to where it's at. ben franklin and thomas edison. both of whom dropped out of high school. thomas edison was kicked out when he was 17 years old. that is why i say they produce stimulation. now there stimulated science exam pay attention. the question is if you're going to have a farmer -based classroom the medicated kids enough? i believe the mechanism has to do with dopamine in this
scientific explanation. i personally believe and have seen this in kids have seen. and personally think that failure in school is more destructive to a child and taking stimulant. time may prove me wrong but i am not abort those stimulant medications. i have tried them myself. i knowi know i can focus better when i take them. i just don't like the way i feel. like a lot of people got caught up, these are stimulants and they bring them down or stabilized.
we once had a bookkeeper to screw up our taxes year after year, cosmo close friend of mine. finally i sat him down and said -- he was so add. what should i do? you should be a salesman. he shifted and became a salesman for accounting services and grew the firm and stops growing up my taxes. it was a wonderful thing. that said i would say that providing medication is step but i don't think it's the optimal stuff. the optimal step is to reinvent our schools. that is one of the crusades,
most comprehensive one is the adhd right now back to the history of the school, queen theresa of austria the late 17 hundreds, early 18 hundreds or parents would were parents will bring their children and have the unit was been in the coffin the other half they would be educated. education was our government paid. the spinning ofthe spinning of the cloth was how they pay for the education. over time the change to a public school model. i go through all of that. >> you are on book tv. >> hello. my question is, you do support bernie quite readily and ii do think he is a good
person and i have always followed his programming on your program. but i don't think i could vote for him and the reason this is for the drone program. he is very strongly militarily involved with the drone program. and i cannot vote for him. thank you for your time. >> i've never heard him speak highly. probably the best website. the support bernie sanders.