Category: Transcripts

Pete Aguilar is A “Phony Democrat” Says Howie Klein

  • Republican Congressman Gary Miller is easy pickings
  • Represents San Bernadino
  • Is a “lunatic” says our guest Down With Tyranny’s Howie Klein
  • DCCC hopes to challenge Miller by running “a phony Democrat” says Howie Klein
  • Elois Reyes should get the Democratic Party’s nomination say Klein.

Howie Klein is the founder and Treasurer of the Blue America PAC, which raises money for progressive candidates throughout America. He also writes the Down With Tyranny blog.

Listen to the original broadcast

David: Howie Klein, the mid-terms are this year. You write that the single most vulnerable, Republican Congressional seat in America is California 31, located right here in San Bernardino, California. Republican Congressman Gary Miller holds that seat.

Congressman Steve Israel runs the DCCC. Howie Klein says Israel is way too conservative and has no idea how to help the Democratic Party win back the House.

Congressman Steve Israel runs the DCCC. Howie Klein says Israel is way too conservative and has no idea how to help the Democratic Party win back the House.

Howie: Gary Miller is a very, very wealthy realtor from Arkansas, and he came to California to take part in Civil War reenactments. He plays a Confederate general in Civil War reenactments. He’s become very, very rich. He’s a really corrupt guy. He’s been a Congressman for a long time, although not in that district. He got redistricted out of his own district and thrown into this district. It’s a minority-majority district. So most of the people in the district are either Latinos, Asians, or African Americans. So you would think that a Democrat would win there.

David: You write on your Down With Tyranny blog that he’s a lunatic. Is he a lunatic because he reenacts Civil War battles as a Confederate soldier? Why is he a lunatic?

Howie: He’s in one of the most heavily Latino districts in America and is vehemently anti-immigration reform. He’s against Social Security. He wants to repeal Medicare. This guy is from another generation, from another decade, from another century. He’s very, very, very not California. I mean, I don’t even know that he belongs in a backwood district in Arkansas.

Congressman Gary Miller is a "lunatic" according to our guest Howie Klein

Congressman Gary Miller is a “lunatic” according to our guest Howie Klein

David: The DCCC, the more centrist Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, run by your good friend Congressman Steve Israel, is once again running Pete, is it Aguilar? How do you pronounce it?

Howie: Don’t worry. He wouldn’t be able to pronounce it anyway. He doesn’t speak a word of Spanish.

David: Your Blue America PAC is running Eloise Reyes in the upcoming primary. Who is Eloise Reyes?

Howie: She’s from Colton, California. She’s a community activist and the first woman Latina to start her own law firm in the inland empire. She comes from a large family. She and her brothers and sisters were literally picking onions with her family to go through school. And she put herself through law school as well and then started a firm in Colton. And now she’s running for Congress. She is a Progressive. That is in great contrast to Pete Aguilar. He would call himself a Moderate. I would say he’s a Conservative.

David: The DCCC in the primary will be running Pete Aguilar. I read the Cook Political Report, Howie. It’s the most trusted name in government. Pete Aguilar also, according to the Cook Political Report, he pulled himself up by his bootstraps. He’s Hispanic. He worked in the City of Redlands cafeteria and Redlands youngest elected councilman ever. So he obviously comes from poverty, according to the Cook Political Report, the most trusted name in government. He has a deep connection to working families. Sounds to me he’s a Democrat who can win. What’s your problem with Pete Aguilar?

The DCCC hopes to run Pete Aguilar even though Aguilar is a phony Democrat according to Howie Klein.

The DCCC hopes to run Pete Aguilar even though Aguilar is a phony Democrat according to Howie Klein.

Howie: So the Cook Report is really only good for one thing, and that’s for telling you what’s going to happen in an election that took place the day before. They really got the story wrong about Aguilar. I don’t even know where to start. You ask so many questions, and you are wrong, they are wrong about every one of them.

David: Okay. First of all, he’s the youngest councilman ever elected in the city of Redlands.

Howie: Well, let’s start with the fact that he wasn’t elected. He was appointed. The City Council of Redlands, which is all Republicans, needed a fake Democrat who would go along with all their crazy ideas, so that they could claim to be bipartisan. So they picked a bank lobbyist, Pete Aguilar. As a bank lobbyist, was giving money to Republicans and wound up helping to drive that bank, the Arrowhead Bank, into bankruptcy. So he was appointed to the City Council. And he also says that he is the mayor. Well, he is the mayor, but he was appointed as well. He is the frontman for these Republican real estate interests, who control the city council.

David: He must come from poverty.

Howie: His father is a somewhat wealthy, gas industry executive. So he does not come from poverty. And then you had also said something about him being Hispanic. Meanwhile, the DCCC is looking desperately to find a tutor to teach him Spanish, since he can’t speak Spanish and has been challenged to debate in Spanish and can’t do that.

David: DCCC ran him two years ago, correct?

Howie: That’s right, and he lost because he can’t relate to the people there.

Howie Klein's Blue Americas PAC wants Eloise Reyes to get the Democratic Party's nomination instead of Aguilar.

Howie Klein’s Blue Americas PAC wants Eloise Reyes to get the Democratic Party’s nomination instead of Aguilar.

David: You know, you’re being a little rough on the guy. According to the Cook Political Report, the reason he lost two years ago was he was mourning the death of his father.

Howie: Yes, he did tell that to the Cook Report, and it was confirmed to them by Steve Israel, the head of the DCCC. But guess what? There’s a guy named Herman Aguilar, who happens to be Pete Aguilar’s father, and is campaigning for him right now. He isn’t dead. He was never dead. You know what? Maybe he was dead. But if he was dead, he came back to life, because he’s alive now, and he’s doing fine.

David: So the Cook Report did correct that, right?

Howie: They did not correct it. Of course they didn’t correct it. Go to the Cook Report, and they report that he lost his election because his father died and he was too distraught to campaign. But his father is alive and campaigning for him right now.

David: Howie Klein, the most trusted name in government and politics. He is the founder and Treasurer of the Blue America PAC, and his Down With Tyranny blog is a must-read. Thank you, Howie Klein.

Listen to the original broadcast

What do you think? I would like to hear your comments. Please offer them up down below:

Read More »

2 Docs on 2 Inspirational Women

  • Michael Snyder reviews two docs.
  • “Mercedes Sosa.”
  • “Maiden Trip.”

Listen to the original broadcast

David: Michael Snyder is our resident film critic. Every now and then he stops by with documentaries that all of us should be catching. He has two for us today — “Maiden Trip” and “Mercedes Sosa.” So tell me about “Mercedes Sosa, was it so-so?

Michael: It was so good. She is, in fact, the most influential Argentine singer and songwriter. Unfortunately, she passed away back in 2009, but over a 50 year plus career she had an amazing impact. The subtitle of this documentary is “The Voice of Latin America.” She was terribly influential. She was known as “La Negra,” popular throughout Latin America, won some Latin Grammys, also reached outside the continent and became a very important figure in a movement that was known as “Nueva Cancion,” I guess the “new song.”

Michael recommends this new doc on singer Mercedes Sosa.

Michael recommends this new doc on singer Mercedes Sosa.

These people were like very, very hip to folk-trad in Latin America, but they also had a real sense of populist importance supporting the disenfranchised. This woman was very, very outspoken against a lot of the dictatorships in Latin America, and she was known and beloved throughout the continent. She got in trouble because of her refusal to back down in a lot of situations like that. She sung her songs, stated what she wanted to state, and was, again, incredibly beloved.

This movie, in addition to featuring her in her own voice on camera throughout parts of her life, also has interviews with the likes of David Byrne and Milton Nascimento and other performers that may not be as well-known in the U.S.

David: David Byrne from the Talking Heads?

Michael: David Byrne from the Talking Heads, who was a great exponent of Latin American music and has made a couple albums, one of which is absolutely off-the-hook great. One of his solo records is devoted purely and utterly to a series of different styles of Latin music that he interprets beautifully, I may add. This movie is worth seeing, and if you’ve never heard of Mercedes Sosa, by all means get a chance to watch this movie and learn about someone who was brave and courageous and incredibly talented and was a wonderful singer and songwriter.

David: “Maiden Trip”?

Michael: “Maiden Trip” is another movie about a very brave woman, but a very young woman. At 14 years old, a young Dutch girl named Laura Dekker decides, after learning how to sail with her father since childhood, she decides that she’s going to take a solo trip in a boat around the world. A sailboat circumnavigating the globe and the only person on board is 14-year-old Laura Dekker. It’s an amazing tale of determination and bravery and pluck. This girl also had to fight the authorities with her parents in order to get the approval to do this. There are scenes set in the court. You have a little backstory here and there told through some footage from her younger years, and she had cameras on the boat by herself and she did all these video selfies during her trip.

Michael also raved about Maiden Trip.

Michael also raved about Maiden Trip.

David: It was controversial?

Michael: She’s controversial insofar as the government did not want her to make this trip. They thought it was child endangerment on some level.

David: Sending a 14-year-old girl in a boat around the world by herself?

Michael: They didn’t send her. She wanted to go.

David: I won’t even let my daughter go to the 7-Eleven after 7:00 in the evening.

Michael: Well, this movie “Maiden Trip” is basically a collaboration between Jillian Schlesinger, the director, and little Laura Dekker, who does all this video on the boat. One thing that should be clear here that Laura Dekker, in addition to doing this, comes from a broken home. Her mother and father divorced, and at one point her mother and sibling meet up with her in one country. She would stop in various ports of call. She was in the Galapagos Islands. She went to a lot of really different, cool places, French Polynesia, South Africa, and of course Australia.

David: She’s 14 though!

Michael: Well, I think she maybe even turned 15 at one point. This was a couple years ago. She’s no longer 14. But the idea of a 14-year-old girl traveling the world, traveling the globe in a sailboat by herself is a little daunting, but her assurance on a boat, her comfort zone, her capabilities as a sailor are way beyond her years.

David: Well, I’m appalled that you would recommend this movie.

Michael: No, you’re always looking for a way to kind of undermine something inspiring. I think it’s something internal. I think it’s just something you really don’t like the idea of people doing something when it’s easier for you to just sit and criticize in your sound booth.

David: A 14-year-old girl, that’s child endangerment.

Michael: No, not when you’re this adept. It’s inspiring. She’s confident. She’s talented. She did it.

David: She can’t wait till she’s 18?

Michael: Well, you know what? If you were her dad, I think she might have asked for emancipation at 14. What I don’t like, there’s something called “bull-crit” when people start talking about something after they haven’t seen it.

David: Well, a 14-year-old girl should not be sent around the world on a boat by herself, unless it’s a Disney cruise.

Michael: You know, you’re just making a great mistake because this is not what happens here.

David: Well, if any kids are listening, it’s my responsibility. If you’re a child, do not go sailing around the world in a boat by yourself.

Michael: It’s very, very exciting and very inspiring. It’s called “Maiden Trip,” and it’s available right now.

David: Thank you, Michael Snyder.

Listen to the original broadcast

What do you think? I’d like to know. Please join the conversation below by offering up your comments.

Read More »

Two Docs, One on Iraq, One on Egypt

  • Michael Snyder looks at 2 documentaries.
  • The Unknown Known
  • And The Square

Listen to the original broadcast

David: Michael Snyder, our resident film critic, stops by every once in a while to recommend documentaries that we should all be catching. Today, you have two for us, The Square and The Unknown Known directed by Errol Morris. The Unknown Known stars the matinee idol and Defense Secretary who brought democracy and liberation to Iraq, and things are going swimmingly over there lately, Donald Rumsfeld. Tell me about The Unknown Known.

Michael Snyder: The heinous Donald Rumsfeld. Hey, hey, the opinions expressed here are mine.

Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense in 2003 and planned the invasion of Iraq.

Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense in 2003 and planned the invasion of Iraq.

David: The views here expressed are those of KPFK management and the listeners.

Michael Snyder: How dare you put words into their mouths when I have plenty from my own. Errol Morris is a terrific documentary filmmaker who directed a movie called The Fog of War about Robert McNamara’s career and one of the most controversial wars in the history of the United States, the Vietnam conflict.

David: We should point out Vietnam was controversial. The war in Iraq was not controversial. Everybody agrees it was the worst thing this country has ever done.

Michael Snyder: Certainly came out over time that it was a war waged behind a fallacy. It’s said…

David: You mean a lie?

Michael Snyder: Well, say what you will, but Donald Rumsfeld has had a career in Washington as a bureaucrat.  Has served a variety of Presidents during that career and seemingly thinks he has never done a wrong thing or made an error in the entire history of his professional career.

Any inquiries that are made, whether they’re about the morality of the war in Iraq or certain things that were done in previous administrations, are met with a very glib, confident and, I think one person said ‘sphinx like demeanor,’ particularly when Rumsfeld is caught in a contradiction – which happens on a couple of occasions in the course of the film. The camera is trained directly on him. He must have ice water in his veins. It’s a remarkable and chilling…

David: Any remorse, any remorse?

As President Reagan's special Middle East envoy, Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein in 1983.

As President Reagan’s special Middle East envoy, Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein in 1983.

Michael Snyder: …chilling look… It seems that he has none. There is a period where he talks about visiting wounded veterans in the hospital. He seems to weep crocodile tears. I really wonder how this man sleeps at night. But, then again, watching him in the cold unflinching gaze of the camera’s eye it’s probable that he has no problem sleeping.

David: Does he weep for the 1,000,000 Iraqis who died?

Michael Snyder: Next to no remorse. Basically, he doesn’t seem to have any kind of regrets whatsoever about everything that happened…

David: If he had to do it over again would he still go in?

Michael Snyder: I believe so. You know, again, Errol Morris does what he can to get as much as he can out of Rumsfeld on camera. Music by Danny Elfman, by the way, that’s very effective, and there’s a lot of archival footage throughout. It was very compelling.

Rumsfeld also served as Defense Secretary under President Ford.

Rumsfeld also served as Defense Secretary under President Ford.

David: Is there anything sympathetic about Rumsfeld? There was something sympathetic about McNamara in The Fog of War…

Michael Snyder: No. It appears that there’s virtually nothing sympathetic about Rumsfeld in this movie.

David: You know, those two cops in Orange County were acquitted yesterday for murdering a homeless guy. Apparently, it’s next to impossible for a cop to do time for murder. It’s impossible for a defense secretary in this country to be wrong or brought up on charges of war crimes.

People with the most lethal power in America rarely, if ever, get tried for murder. Yet, our prisons are filled with 2,000,000 Americans, but they don’t seem to find room for cops or defense secretaries. Onward!

The Square

Michael Snyder: Well, this is sort of the flip side. The Square is a documentary all about Tahrir Square which is where many of the demonstrations and the most significant rallies have occurred during this period of time basically over the past ten years or so.

Director Jehane Noujaim has done an amazing job telling the story, and this is a very complex one, by utilizing first person accounts. The very, very different people, including an actor, Khalid Abdalla, who was in United 93 and The Kite Runner.

images-13

Protestors in Egypt’s Tahrir Square are the subject of The Square.

One of the most amazing things about this film, other than the frankness with which the interviewees reveal their feelings and try to explain the why and how of what they’ve done, is you still walk away from this thinking this is a riddle wrapped in a conundrum. On one hand they wanted to overthrow Hosni Mubarak and his repressive regime and bring about democracy. In order to accomplish that the military had to take control.

So, you have a junta in charge. Then, when democracy comes to the fore and you have a choice– the choice is between a regime just like Mubarak’s or the totally nonsecular theocratic regime of the Muslim Brotherhood. It’s like you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you do.

In any case, it was a very compelling and educational experience to watch this film for me. As we know, in the summer of 2013 Morsi, who was brought in basically as kind of a figurehead with ties to the Brotherhood, was overthrown. Where do we go from here in Egypt? That’s the question.

David: Where do we go from here? What about the silent majority? There are extremists on both sides in Egypt, but there are more people in the middle. Are they being represented?

Michael Snyder: I believe that the folks being interviewed in this movie are more centrist than you would think. They’re not crazy radicals. They want to bring democracy to Egypt.

David: Yes, democracy. We had a jury in Orange County vote, and they acquitted those cops. Maybe some cultures aren’t ready for democracy, like ours. Thank you, Michael Snyder.

Michael Snyder: You’re welcome, David.

Listen to the original broadcast

What do you think? I’d like to hear your thoughts, so please share you comments below.

Read More »

America’s Killing Prisoners Again

  • The family of Dennis McGuire, the convict executed last week, is suing Ohio.
  • They claim McGuire’s death constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
  • Witnesses say McGuire took nearly a half hour to die.
  • Spent much of that time choking, gurgling and gasping for air.
  • Lawyers for the family are also suing Hospira, the makers of the lethal injection drug 

Listen to the original broadcast

David Feldman: For more on this the Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center, Richard Dieter, joins us. Thank you for taking time to be with us, Richard.

Richard Dieter: Well, thank you for having me.

David: You’re saying that Americans still favor the death penalty. They just don’t trust the government to carry it out right.

Richard: They don’t have a philosophical or moral objection to the death penalty. It’s not the act of executing somebody who’s done some terrible crime that disturbs them. But they know that in practice that sometimes it’s going to make mistakes, and the cost of executing an innocent is just too high. We don’t need it. We have an alternative, life without parole, and even that is less costly and certainly less risky than the death penalty.

Dennis McGuire's family is suing Ohio after it took him nearly 30 minutes to die last week.

Dennis McGuire’s family is suing Ohio after it took him 30 minutes to die last week.

David: What other countries in the industrialized world still have the death penalty?

Richard: Well, China has it, and they’re kind of moving into the industrialized world. They’re the world’s largest numbers of executions. Japan has it. Very few. I mean, some of the countries in the Middle East like Iran and Iraq, and Pakistan have it. But all of Western Europe and Canada, Mexico, Australia, I mean, all of our main allies do not have it. Really, only a few use it, and we’re, U.S., in the top five in terms of executions in the world even though our numbers have come down.

David:  Not every state has the death penalty. Do more states in America have the death penalty than don’t have it?

Richard: Yes, and I think you’re right to point that out. I mean, many people outside the U.S. think, ‘Well, why does the U.S. have it?’ Well, some states do and some states don’t, and it’s a changing number. But right now 32 states have it. 18 states have abolished it. But you take a typical year like 2013, only nine states carried out an execution. Only 15 states had even a death sentence.

So most of our states did not use the death penalty. Most haven’t used it in five years, in terms of executions. California has not had an execution since 2006, over seven years. Much of the country is not using it regularly. Over 80% of the executions are in the south, majority in Texas and Florida. It’s a pretty isolated thing.

David: How much of the weight is being carried by Texas? If you take Texas out of the mix, do we have capital punishment in America?

Richard: Not in any real way. I mean, one execution maybe in a year in a state, 20 executions in the country amidst 14,000 murders. It’s just complete symbolic unreality or myth that we would have it, and even Texas, the numbers are more than any other state. They had I think 15 executions this year, but their numbers are coming down. So even they are using it less than they used to.

Fewer and fewer Americans support the Death Penalty and are starting to favor life without parole according to our guest.

Fewer and fewer Americans support the Death Penalty and are starting to favor life without parole according to our guest.

David: One-third of all executions in the United States…

Richard: Yeah, by one state. One state. Texas.

David: …come from Texas.

Richard: Yeah. It’s over 500 executions there.

David: Is there a uniform way of carrying out these executions? Or does each state do it differently?

Richard: It’s uniform in the sense that all states use lethal injection as their primary means. Some vary the drugs a little bit, and some give, like California, give an inmate a choice. But they’re not forced to have any method except lethal injection. A few times someone could actually choose something like the electric chair or the gas chamber. It happens very rarely.

But if they don’t make any choice, if they leave it to the state, it’s lethal injection. Same in the federal system. Same in the military. So, lethal injection is the prevailing and almost exclusive means of execution.

David: When did lethal injection become the sole form of execution? Because I remember Old Sparky in Florida.

Richard: Right. It’s been a very gradual process. Florida didn’t change until about the year 2000 when the electric chair was going to be brought up to the Supreme Court and they didn’t want their punishment to be struck down. But Texas started it in 1982. That was the first one.

The electric chair was last used in 2000.

The electric chair was last used in 2000.

So over a period of about 20, 25 years, states gradually gave way and got rid of the electric chair, the gas chamber like existed in California. Go back further it was hanging. Now, I don’t think any of those methods would be allowed to be enforced on anyone. It would be considered so unusual as to be cruel and unusual if a state adopted it as their method.

David: California doesn’t have executions because they can’t decide on what kind of drugs to use for the lethal injections. There’s a shortage of one drug because the maker refuses to ship it to the United States. What drug is that and what country does it come from?

Richard: Well, the drug sodium thiopental was used in California, and it was used all over the U.S. The maker of that drug, as you said, has stopped making it. Sodium thiopental is not available in the U.S. anymore.

David:  The company stopped making the drug because they didn’t approve of its use?

Richard: Yeah. Basically, they didn’t say they were opposed to the death penalty. But they said that they actually were manufacturing this drug in Italy and the workers did not want their product to be used in executions. Italy as a country opposes the death penalty. So there were economic connections to this. But the company said, ‘Look. We don’t make this drug for killing. We make it for operating rooms, anesthetic purposes. We disown its use in executions, and as a matter of fact we’re going to stop making it altogether.’ So it’s not available for any purpose in the U.S. right now.

David: That’s part of a cocktail, that drug. There are two drugs that are injected into the inmate?

Hospira is being sold for selling the lethal injection drugs to Ohio.

Hospira is being sued for selling the lethal injection drugs to Ohio.

Richard: That was the standard, yes. It was sodium thiopental, which put you to sleep, followed by two drugs that really performed the act of killing. One stops the heart, potassium chloride, and one stops your breathing. That was pancuronium bromide. But states are shifting away from that. Texas, for example, just uses one drug. Ohio, Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, all of whom had executions recently, they’ve all used just a single drug. That’s the anesthetic pentobarbital, that in sufficient dosages not only puts you to sleep, but puts you to death.

The problem has continued in terms of obtaining the drug. So this drug is made by another European company that doesn’t want it used. So states have had to turn to something called compounding pharmacies in the U.S. These are unregulated small operations that will mix up one drug at a time. But they’re reliability has not been perfect. They have produced contaminated drugs that killed people accidentally in the past year. A meningitis outbreak was caused by drugs from compounding pharmacies.

So a good dosage or a pure dosage of this drug would cause death probably painlessly. An adulterated dose, or a weak dose, might cause death to be lingering, 10, 20 minutes maybe. Someone might have an adverse reaction. It’s a new drug for this purpose, and therefore it’s a bit of an experiment right now. We don’t know what possible mistakes could arise, especially if it’s, say, contaminated or impure.

David: Is there a pharmaceutical code of ethics in the United States?

Richard: I think so. I’m certainly not an expert on that. But there’s even an organization of compounding pharmacists who stress in their code of ethics commitment to the health of the patient. It mentions it over and over again, and of course the patient in the executions is the defendant who is about to be executed. So his concerns are not theirs.

Some compounding pharmacies have said they don’t want their drug to be used in executions. But it hasn’t been universal. Some are providing these. So I think there’s some sense that, ‘Well, this is not medicine. We’re just providing the chemical, so to speak. We’re not providing a medicine for restoring health. We’re just doing something for state purposes. But it’s not medicine.’ But this is a big debate in the medical field.

Guards, not doctors, administer the lethal dose to the prisoners, according to our guest.

Guards, not doctors, administer the lethal dose to the prisoners, according to our guest.

David: Is there money to be made compounding…

Richard: No.

David:…lethal injection?

Richard: You know? Sure, a little bit. But, as I said, we had 39 executions in the U.S. So one company, even if it all came from one company, that’s such a small percentage of anybody’s business that the only thing it does is that states are obviously big buyers for other purposes. If maybe you cooperate with them in providing this execution drug, you’re a reliable supplier for other things.

But states are having to pay for these drugs. But the amounts of money are more like $1,000, which sounds like a lot. Except, one death penalty case if you look at the legal cost is in the realm of a couple million dollars. So to carry it out with a $1,000 drug, even though that’s exorbitant, is pretty small in the big picture of things.

David:  These drugs, you write as of November of 2013, are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.

Richard: The compounding pharmacies were not regulated by the FDA up until November of 2013 when Congress passed a law. Nothing to do with the death penalty. It’s just because of the contamination from these drugs in the last year. So now there’s FDA, starting literally this month, some regulation. Whether they’re going to demand that compounding pharmacies only do things for the health of patients remains to be seen.

But they have not yet visited all of these compounding pharmacies that are supplying the drugs for the executions that occurred this month in Texas and elsewhere.

David: This would be the first time in American history that the tools by which we execute prisoners would be under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Nobody was regulating ropes…

For the first time in American history the FDA has the power to regulate the means by which we execute prisoners.

For the first time in American history the FDA now has the authority to regulate the means by which we execute prisoners. So far it remains quiet.

Richard: Right.

David: …or electric chairs, or rifles.

Richard: That’s correct.

David: But now the federal government is regulating the drugs used to execute prisoners.

Richard: Yeah. They may do that. They haven’t done that yet. They were asked to regulate the drugs that were used, say, back in the 1980s when the supply was from the U.S. So there were drugs being used and a suit was filed against the FDA for not controlling it. The FDA said, ‘Look. We don’t want anything to do with it.’ The U.S. Supreme Court looked at that and said it was okay that they not get involved in that.

But now we’re talking regulation not just of drugs, but of an industry or the makers of them. So they may have to get back involved.

David: Does every state require a doctor to administer the lethal dose?

Richard: No. In most states it’s not a doctor. The only role the doctor might have would be to confirm that death has occurred after the lethal dose has been given. So you have people that are called part of the medical team. But they’re not doctors. They are trained guards who know how to find a vein, know how to insert an I.V., know how to pump a drug through the I.V.

But if anything goes askew, they’re not anesthesiologists. They don’t know when consciousness has really in-depth occurred. They don’t know when brain death has occurred, etc. Doctors, of course, mostly don’t want to have any part in it. Even confirming death has been challenged because if the person is not dead it’s sort of green light to keep executing them.

David:  No doctor in America administers the lethal dose?

America is one of the few industrialized nations that still has the Death Penalty.

America is one of the few industrialized nations that still has the Death Penalty.

Richard: Well, I couldn’t say that for sure. There certainly have been some doctors in the past who have mixed the drug, who have checked for the vein. The American Medical Association has said doctors are not to participate. But that’s an advisory opinion. It’s not binding. So doctors are free to do some role in executions. Although, they would probably want their names kept secret.

So I can’t say that no doctor. As a matter of fact, I think some doctors have participated more. But I can say that reading all of the latest protocols that are coming out, you find that doctors have almost no role. The rules say something like, ‘This person could either be a nurse, emergency medical technician, or a doctor, knowing that it’s probably not going to be a doctor.

David: But there’s always a doctor present?

Richard: Even that I couldn’t say always happens. But that’s the norm in these executions. Prisons have doctors who are there for many purposes. If inmates get sick or die, doctors play a role, coroners…

David: Are the lethal injections being administered by public health professionals, nurses, EMT people, or prison guards?

Richard: Prison guards. No. It’s definitely prison guards, and they’re often not forced into that. They’re allowed to back out if they have an objection. But they’re trained guards. So they may work in the infirmary. They may have taken courses in locating veins in the person’s arm, etc. But it’s not medicine. They’re trained in sort of being assistants to doctors. But then you take the doctors and the anesthesiologists out of the picture and they’re more or less on their own.

But to be sort of brusque about this, the goal is that the patient dies, not that the patient survives. So, a little ineptitude is masked by what’s at stake here, which is not to be perfect, but just to get it over with.

David: Well, there are always observers. People have to…

Richard: Yeah.

David:…bear witness to the execution.

Richard: Yeah, that is true.

David: I always thought that was to ensure that it wasn’t cruel and unusual punishment.

Our guest says more and more Americans no longer trust our criminal justice system to execute only the guilty.

Our guest says more and more Americans no longer trust our criminal justice system to execute only the guilty.

Richard: Well, it’s certainly to give the public, in whose name this is being done, eyes and ears into what’s happening. Because the idea of, ‘Well, just trust the government, then it’ll be fine,’ is just not the American way. So the media, defense lawyers, even sometimes a representative of the general public is allowed to view.

Now, they don’t determine that something is cruel and unusual. But their testimony has been presented to courts who are being asked to decide if something was cruel and unusual.

David: I do remember Old Sparky, I don’t even want to talk about it, where the guy’s head was on fire and he was still alive. There have been stories where they can’t find the vein and they can’t determine whether or not the prisoner is dead, and he appears to be in pain. Are there consequences for the state if they administer the death penalty in a cruel and unusual way?

Richard: There hasn’t been that kind of determination. I mean, there certainly have been prophylactic rules from the court that you can’t go ahead and do this. But I don’t know of a ruling that said, ‘That was a cruel and unusual punishment.’ There have been mistakes made, and the courts have said, ‘You’ve got to fix whatever led to that mistake. But this was an error. You didn’t deliberately set the guy’s head on fire. You didn’t deliberately have that needle fall out of his arm in the middle of the execution and the drug spilled on the floor, and it all took an hour.’

These things have happened. But they haven’t been ruled cruel and unusual, even though to the common understanding that’s certainly what they were. But cruel and unusual is a legal term meaning the state with all its power goes ahead and tortures you and makes purposeful mistakes. If that happens, sure. The state would be…

David: We’ve been talking with Richard Dieter. He’s the Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center. Richard, have they done any studies on what capital punishment does to the people who perform it?

Richard: There certainly has been testimony from chaplains who have witnessed the guards and what happens to them, and some of them really having psychological problems afterwards, wardens who have said this. Certainly, lots of anecdotal evidence that it takes its toll. The lethal injection thing is part of a set of problems of the death penalty that makes the public skeptical of the whole system.

The whole thing takes so long, has so many delays, errors, states running around trying to find drugs and turning to back room pharmacies. The whole thing has a bad taste right now, and that’s why I think we’re seeing less use of it.

David: Richard Dieter is the Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C. Thank you for your time.

Richard: All right. Well, good. Thank you.

Listen to the original broadcast

What do you think? I’d like to know. Please share your comments below.

Read More »

Can America Shoot A Missile Out Of The Sky?

 Ever since President Reagan spoke of a Star Wars defense system, the pentagon has been pursuing a nuclear shield to protect us from incoming missiles. As Iran and North Korea continue to develop long range nuclear weapons that could strike the United States, nearly thirty years and one trillion dollars after President Reagan set America on a course towards an anti missile defense what is our anti ballistic missile capability? Can we even shoot a missile out of the sky? For more on this we talked with Hayes Brown who covers national security issues for ThinkProgress.org.

Listen to the original broadcast

David: Where does it stand in the multilateral negotiations with North Korea vis-a-vis their nuclear weaponry?

Hayes: Not great. The six party talks have been frozen for years now. The US wants the six party talks, they want the multilateral system with Russia, China, Japan, South Korea backing them up, whereas North Korea wants direct talks with the US as an equal and that’s not just something that we’re willing to go for.

Mutual Assured Destruction was the subject of  Director Sidney Lumet's 1964 classic "Fail Safe" starring Henry Fonda.

Mutual Assured Destruction was the subject of Director Sidney Lumet’s 1964 classic “Fail Safe” starring Henry Fonda.

David: And is China helping us now? Or where do they fit in in all of this?

Hayes: China is interesting. China doesn’t want North Korea to collapse because that’s a couple of million starving North Koreans on their border, but at the same time it’s kind of nice to have this buffer between them and South Korea as well as having a gnat in the United States’ face. So they keep them going, but we have seen them smack them around a little bit when they step out of line too far, like you see them agree to more and harsher sanctions on North Korea, for example, after the last missile test back in the December of 2012.

On March 23, 1983 President Reagan unveiled SDI, the strategic defense initiative, which some say bankrupted the Soviet Union.

On March 23, 1983 President Reagan unveiled SDI, the strategic defense initiative, which some say bankrupted the Soviet Union.

David: North Korea claims to be building an ICBM that could reach Alaska. How close are they to building an ICBM that could actually hit us?

Hayes: Good question. It depends on how much you believe what they say. According to North Korea, they’re really close, but many of the models of the design that would be the ICBM to reach us are actually fake. The ones they tout around and parade, they’re not actually real. They’re very, very clever models. So it’s a toss-up and that’s, again, one of the scariest things about North Korea. It’s so hard to know what’s real and what’s not.

David: Well, it’s also hard to know what’s real and what’s not with the United States. Because I read now that President Obama is installing his anti-ballistic missile system in the Pacific to shoot a North Korean ICBM out of the sky, but I’ve never read of America having an anti-ballistic system that can shoot a North Korean missile out of the sky. I always hear that we’re testing these rockets that can shoot other rockets out of the sky, but they never seem to work. But most Americans assume we have an anti-ballistic missile system, but we don’t.

Hayes: Not a true anti-ballistic missile system in the sense of like the SDI and Star Wars and all that Reagan promised us. We do have a system called THAD, T-H-A-D, which helps you try and shoot down those missiles that they moved to Guam during the last North Korea scare last year. While they wouldn’t be able to shoot down a big boy missile, they are helpful in helping protect some of our assets in the region.

The Missile Defense Agency was establish during the Reagan administration.

The Missile Defense Agency was establish during the Reagan administration.

David: ‘Helpful in protecting our assets in the region.’ Because I always read about how moving our ABM system from Eastern Europe to the Persian Gulf and now to Guam and I keep looking for proof that we actually have the capability to shoot a missile out of the sky. I don’t see it. I know Israel has Iron Dome which works sometimes, but doesn’t really, and I remember in 1991 reading about Israel’s capabilities to shoot Saddam Hussein’s Scud missiles out of the sky, but then Bill Safire from the New York Times did some great reporting on this. He reported on the Patriot missiles. The Patriot missiles supposedly could shoot Scud missiles out of the sky and it turns out they did nothing during the First Gulf War.

Patriot missiles are designed to shoot incoming missiles out of the sky and are made by Raytheon.  During the first Gulf War we were told they protected Israel from Iraq's Scud missiles, but later reporting by the New York Times says otherwise.

Patriot missiles are designed to shoot incoming missiles out of the sky and are made by Raytheon. During the first Gulf War we were told they protected Israel from Iraq’s Scud missiles, but later reporting by the New York Times says otherwise.

Hayes: A good part of warfare is trying to make sure the other side thinks you’re tougher than you are. On the other hand, some of these smaller systems like on the Aegis ships, which were also moved into the region during the last North Korea scare, have had some success in actually proving themselves to be a good defense system, not against  the larger ICBMs, but against short and mid-ranged missiles, they have proven themselves to be pretty decent at what they do.

David: Some people have even questioned my patriotism for questioning our anti-ballistic missile defense system, because it’s telling the enemy that we’re vulnerable. But the people who were patriotic in the run-up to World War II, the French said they had a Maginot Line that was impenetrable and to question it would be unpatriotic. The French were convinced they had what amounted to an iron dome to protect them from the Nazis and Hitler said, ‘Yes, our tanks cannot penetrate the Maginot Line so we’ll just fly over it,’ which they did.

Hayes: Or go around them.

David: Yeah, they flew over it. So a false sense of security can be pretty dangerous. Do you think it’s unpatriotic to question whether or not we have an anti-ballistic missile system?

Hayes: No, not at all. I actually don’t think it’s unpatriotic to question whether they’re worth the cost. Actually they tend to be expensive systems and they do tend to require a lot of testing before they’re proven to be accurate. I’m not saying we should cut all missile defense, I’m saying that we should spend our money wisely on it.

David: Up until Reagan, we lived under ‘mutual assured destruction’ and Reagan didn’t like that idea. I don’t think anybody did. But I don’t think there’s any evidence to suggest that we can do anything after a country has nuclear capability. Once they have missiles I think it’s a stalemate.

The Patriot missile is manufactured by the American defense contractor Raytheon.

The Patriot missile is manufactured by the American defense contractor Raytheon.

Hayes: For the most part, until there’s either a change of government or there’s a change of heart. I mean there have been instances in the past where governments have given up the bomb. South Africa gave up the bomb, Brazil was close and they stopped all pursuit of it after their right-wing dictatorship fell. So it’s entirely possible to see some future where North Korea is able to give up it’s nuclear weapons, but that time is not in the near future unfortunately.

David: Right. But I’m talking about the efficiency of our alleged anti-ballistic missiles. If we had anti-ballistic missiles that worked, then we wouldn’t be so afraid of Iran enriching uranium.

Hayes: Right. Our missile-defense systems aren’t necessarily designed to be anti-ballistic missiles. The big threat is the long-range, the intercontinental ones that Iran doesn’t have capability of yet, North Korea does not have the capability of yet. So what we do have though is the ability to shoot down some of these smaller short and mid range missile systems and that’s what we’re really seeing moved into place and what we see Russia getting all up into arms in eastern Europe and what we see moving into position whenever North Korea raises their hackles.

Israel claims that their Iron Dome missile shield has 90% accuracy.

Israel claims that their Iron Dome missile shield has 90% accuracy.

David: Okay. I would love to see any proof of that because I follow what goes on in Israel and the Iron Dome and those rockets that Hamas fires from the Gaza Strip into southern Israel . . .

Hayes: Right, no one thinks that any defense system is ever going to have a 100% success rate, but compared to what the damage would have been without Iron Dome, I think it’s doing its job pretty decently. And I think that’s the theory with most of these defense systems that we see in place regarding North Korea, that 100% stoppage is not possible, but it’s better than 0% and I think we’re above that point.

David: Right. The Patriot missiles, during the First Gulf War, had 0% accuracy according to Bill Safire of the New York Times. They achieved absolutely nothing, but we were fed a lie that our Patriot missiles had come to Israel’s rescue when Saddam Hussein was lobbing the Scuds there and we later learned that the Patriot missiles don’t work, but there was a lot of money to be made.

Hayes: I haven’t read that Safire piece, so you know more than me on this one.

David: Well, I find that really interesting, and I’m not trying to be arrogant here.

New York Times Columnist Bill Safire, seen here getting the Presidential Medal of Freedom, wrote a series of articles questioning whether or not the Patriot missiles actually did what they were supposed to during the first Gulf War.

New York Times Columnist Bill Safire, seen here getting the Presidential Medal of Freedom, wrote a series of articles questioning whether or not the Patriot missiles actually did what they were supposed to during the first Gulf War.

Hayes: No, it’s fine.

David: Because nobody has. But I remember the Gulf War, I remember Benjamin Netanyahu wearing a gas mask, he was the spokesman for Israel at the time. He was praising America for saving Israel and how great the Patriot missile was that was shooting these evil Scuds out of the sky. And then a couple of months later, Bill Safire, a conservative, looked into it and said the Patriot missile did absolutely nothing to prevent the Scud missiles from landing on Israel and that story kind of got buried. It’s even hard to Google and find. If you look for it, kind of hard to find. And I wonder, so there’s misinformation coming from North Korea and there’s misinformation coming from the United States when it comes to these missile programs. And I say this as a patriot, not as an investor in the Patriot missile, but I do say this as somebody who loves America and knows that the Maginot Line, that false sense of security, can be very dangerous.

Hayes Brown covers national security issues for ThinkProgress.org.

Listen to the original broadcast

What do you think? Can America shoot missiles out of the sky? Is this a capability we should pursue, no matter what the cost is? I’d like to hear your ideas. Please make your voice heard by leaving your comments below.

Read More »

Corrupt GOP Congressman Buck McKeon Quits

Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Republican Congressman Buck McKeon, representing California’s 25th District, announced today that he would not be seeking a 12th term. Here to give us a look back at the 75 year old’s illustrious past is Buck McKeon’s biggest Champion, the founder and treasurer of the Blue America Pac which raises money for progressive candidates around the country, Howie Klein.

Listen to the original broadcast

David: Howie.

Howie Klein: Yes.

The House Armed Services Committee's ranking Republican  Rep. Howard McKeon, R-Calif. is the most corrupt politician in Washington, according to our guest Howie Klein.

The House Armed Services Committee’s ranking Republican Rep. Howard McKeon, R-Calif. is the most corrupt politician in Washington, according to our guest Howie Klein.

David: You must be devastated by this news because for years you have written on your ‘Down with Tyranny’ blog that Congressman Buck McKeon is a degenerate gambler who owes money to Las Vegas potentate Sheldon Adelson. You accused Congressman Buck McKeon’s family of reaping a fortune lobbying for the defense industry while their dad sits atop the powerful Armed Services Committee. So, as you choke back tears, tell me is Buck McKeon not running for re-election for personal reasons? Is he cashing in to go be a lobbyist for the defense industry? Or is he afraid he just can’t win?

Howie: Yes, yes, yes yes. Everything that you just said is yes.

He is the single-most corrupt person in Congress and he’ll be joining his family lobbying firm, he’ll deny that, just the way he denied that he was going to be resigning. I’ve been writing he would be resigning for almost a year now.

David:  Why is he stepping down?

Howie: The demographic in the district is changing drastically. It’s much, much bluer now, it’s much more Hispanic now, and it’s much younger now. And Buck McKeon doesn’t fit in there.

He’s an old white Mormon, he’s like a fossil of some kind.

So, he probably couldn’t have won again and he has done very, very badly for himself financially. He’s in debt, he loses homes. His business went bankrupt. His personal financial life is a disaster. He’ll be 76 when he gets out of Congress and he knows he’s got to make some money now. And he can.

He has very, very good connections with the military industrial complex. He is the founder and the chairman of the Drone caucus. Those people have given him more money than any other member of congress and they will continue doing that as he’s lobbying.

He’s picking the guy who will be succeeding him as the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Other people will fight him but he’s trying to pick Mac Thornberry from Texas, to succeed him and Thornberry is as big a shill as he is to those interests.

David:  He’ll be able to lobby him for the defense industry.

Howie: Right, which is what he plans to do. He’ll deny that but that’s exactly what’s going to happen.

Howie Klein reports that McKeon is a degenerate gambler who owes money to Casino Magnate Sheldon Adelson, pictured here.

Howie Klein reports that McKeon is a degenerate gambler who owes money to Casino Magnate Sheldon Adelson, pictured here.

David:  You’ve written for several months that he owes money to Sheldon Adelson because he’s a degenerate gambler. Do we know if he’s paid back those bets?

Howie: No, he denies that he owes any money to Sheldon Adelson. But I know that he does from a number of sources. I expect that maybe it will start coming out now. But we’ll see what happens. It would be illegal for him to owe that kind of money to Sheldon Adelson and not report it.

My theory is that he was giving Sheldon Adelson inside information.

Remember Buck McKeon gets up in the morning and he gets the same National Security Briefing that the President of the United States gets. Sheldon Adelson, none of his money is coming from Las Vegas. He loses in Las Vegas. His money comes from Macau. He is completely indebted for his fortune to China and they are very interested in the stuff that McKeon hears every morning so I’m sure that Adeslson is not squeezing Buck McKeon to pay back the money.

David: You write on your ‘Down With Tyranny’ blog that there is now a civil war within the Republican Party for Buck McKeon’s seat. Who’s running?

Howie: McKeon is trying to bring in his own successor.

This guy Tony Strickland, former State legislator, but the republicans in that district detest Strickland. They see him as a carpetbagger and also as a very, very corrupt guy.

So, they recruited their own candidate, State Senator Steve Knight. The problem with Steve Knight is he is the single most right wing politician in the State of California. There is nothing more right-wing than this guy, it’s frightening. So, here we have a very very corrupt Republican backed by McKeon who’s also very right wing, and then the most right-wing California politician, who’s not backed by McKeon, and they’re already going at each other in a big, big way. There’s a huge civil war going on which is going to amp up in a very big way.

David: And who’s going to win the primary?

Howie:  Between those two it’s very, very hard to say. I mean, who would win between a shark and an alligator?

Howie is supporting Dr. Lee Rogers the democrat who almost beat McKeon in the last election cycle.

Howie is supporting Dr. Lee Rogers the democrat who almost beat McKeon in the last election cycle.

David:  You’re supporting, Lee Rogers, Dr. Lee Rogers on the Democratic side.

Howie:  Lee Rogers, who was the National Spokesperson for the American Diabetes Association, he runs like 8 hospital programs. He is a renowned surgeon who goes all over the world giving lectures about how to save people’s limbs who have diabetes so they don’t have to amputate their limbs. That’s his specialty and he’s known as the foremost expert in the whole world on that. And he’s running for Congress. He’s someone who wants to actually go in there and fix the Affordable Care Act in a way that’s going to make some sense. Very, very sensible guy.

David:  And that’s California’s 25th District no democratic primary challenge there.

Howie: Remember we have that jungle primary now so everybody jumps in together. So, there’s will be a number of Republican and a number of Democratic all running together. But the three names that we just talked about, Strickland, Lee Rogers, and Knight those are the three people that are in it for real. There are other joke candidates, people running because it will help them and their career in the comedy industry for example. like some girl literally ran last time because she thought it would help her sell tickets because she’s a stand-up comedienne.

David:  I got to go file my papers to run for office. Howie Klein, thank you very much.

Howie: My pleasure, it was fun.

Listen to the original broadcast.

Howie Klein is founder and treasurer of the Blue America PAC and writes the Down With Tyranny blog.

Read More »