Thom, the massacre at the southern black college I was referring to when I called your show today was the Orangeburg massacre of February 8, 1968 in which two students of South Carolina State University and a local high school student were killed and 28 demonstrators were wounded when eight South Carolina Highway Patrol officers fired carbines, shotguns and revolvers into a crowd of about 150 demonstrators for 10-15 seconds, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangeburg_massacre.  I apparently remembered it wrongly as having a death toll that was much higher.

The Chicago Police, in my opinion, are close to being a model of professionalism. Say what you would about Mayor Richard M. Daley but he did professionalize the police department. He raised their pay and required four years of college to get on the force. Dealing with them now is like dealing with uniformed social workers.

Of course, I'm white and some African American friends of mine have experienced something opposite to that. Nevertheless, Mayor R. M. Daley tried, in various ways, to show that he was "not your father's Mayor Daley" and one of them was to proffessionalize the police. Thus, when the Democratic National Convention came back to town in 1996, Daley showcased his new police department and the cops were walking around like they had their hands tied behind their backs when some demonstrators pulled some theatrical stunts.

That was also the first time, I believe, the "Free Speech Zone" was implemented. A fenced off section, remote from any happenings of the convention and hidden from the view of the general public. Some small park in a residential area at least a half a mile away from the United Center, where the convention was held - was designated as a place where demonstrators can assemble peacefully (or we could've been violent, there was nobody and nothing there within those fences that we could harm with any violence) and bring their grievances - to no one. Where they could freely speak - and not be heard, as appeared to be a precondition for freedom of speech.

The Chicago Police also initially strongly supported the Occupy Movement in Chicago (until some very immature, adolescent elements within it, with very infantile foolishness, initiated an FTP (Fuck The Police) campaign just because, just because of their adolescent rebellion against surrogate parents and all forms of discipline. It was a constant fight to keep that element (Black Block et al.) from running the movement into a ditch.

The Chicago Police were also very supportive of the labor protests that were going on at the time, including the prototype for the "Fight for Fifteen" demonstrations that were going on then, in the Fall of 2011, which I got a chance to participate in. I didn't participate in last week's demonstrations but I'm sure the police were very supportive of those in Chicago (I mean, they make arrests even when they support you - and when you're intentionally engaging in civil disobedience you want to be arrested, it's part of the theater - but instead of taking you to the station and booking you they take the paddy wagon around the corner, write you citations or tickets and let you go, allthewhile giving you words of praise and encouragement).

Thus the Chicago Police are getting close to being something of an example of what a police department should be. I mean, the system still sucks and their function is to enforce the system and the status quo but if there's an optimum way of doing that they're getting close to it.

Then again, they sometimes seem to be in favor of some change, at least in a limited degree.

And you believe the police? This guy didn't and with good reason. He had just defied the police because they were giving him an order and it prudent of him to refuse. What do you think would have happened to him if he had taken them into his house away from the eyes of the neighbors?

We are -- or were -- protected by rights in our Constitution for this very thing. This exact situation. If they thought there was a fugitive in his house, they could have gotten a warrant. No time? There was time. they could have posted a cop outside to prevent the "fugitive" from "fleeing" and gotten a search warrant based on evidence that a judge would have to approve.

You reall need to go back and read (or perhaps read for the very first time) the Constitution. You need to read some American history -- real American history. You need to read some world history and how other countries have been taken over by dictators and the military and the police.

It's shameful that a (grown? -- or are you a "girl") has reached adulthood and does not know any of this. This is why our country is in peril -- it's not outside terrorists. It's those inside our country who are pushing to double down on the police state and people like who who think that's OK.

And I am very sure you are not Black.

There is a clear double standard for gun fruits and other citizens in America. We protect our gun fruits and let them freely murder openly and give them good jobs after they kill. The NRA is filled with killers who got away with murder at it's very top. There is a sickness upon our land and it's called the NRA! Not since NAZI Germany has so much hate been openly spewed by so many--------

Good point that (1) fines are not enough. But not just oil companies but anybody who alters nature for profit should first pay (2) an Ecology Security Deposit (like how we pay deposits before leasing an apartment) and buy (3) Restoration Insurance (like how we buy car insurance before driving on public roads). Further, polluters should buy (4) permits to emit byproducts that can cause harm, just like a promoter must buy a permit to stage a loud concert. These four charges alone would make oil extraction, indeed most industry, not profitable, according to the UN.

Yet most fundamentally, the most powerful charge that society could oblige land users to pay are Land Dues or land taxes. The amount would be the annual rental value of the location. Because market-rate rents tally much more than fines, deposits, premiums, or permits, the Land Dues (or taxes) that collect the rents would have much more impact. The main change is that resource extractors would abandon marginal site, sparing much nature, and concentrate on prime sites, getting more from less.

While recovering the socially-generated values of sites and resources, government could quit levying counterproductive taxes on our earnings, purchases, and buildings. While society has a valid claim to the worth of Earth — something everyone has a right to and its value is something society as a whole generates — it’s hard to craft a moral argument for those taxes that punish our efforts.

Along reforming taking, government could reform spending, and quit paying corporate welfare while instead disbursing a dividend to the citizenry.

To top it all off, we could go back to the days before government limited the liability of businessmen for free or a pittance and instead requrie them to negotiate contracts with suppliers, investors, workers, etc. Then we solve not just our environmental problems and our economic ones at the same time. Called geonomics, it has worked wherever tried. More at Progress.org.

What harm were rthe policemen doing when they were just trying to find a fugitive, and had been told the pe rson was in this man's apartment?

That would be amazing - if we could pull it off. If most workers (not just fast food) were unionized, we would already have this. The problem is that there is sick paradigm that feeds on itself. It goes like this:

1- Union workers are just lazy, trying to get something for nothing and willing to destroy a business to get their way.

2- People are unwilling to "buy" into solidarity. If a strike is called, people are angry at the strikers, for the inconvience caused, and refer back to #1, and

3- people believe that if wages go up, prices will skyrocket, causing hardship on everyone else, and

4- that wages of non management workers are the main cost of (every) business - and any increase will just put all the small mom and pop places out of business, thus proving #1.

I am NOT saying this is true - but I am saying most people believe it to be true, and that people act on what they believe to be true, (and don't confuse me with facts!) ie. Climate change, the earth is 6200 years old, vaccanations do more harm than good...

Who inserted "un" in front of "till"? "Till" is a word, and it means the same thing as "until". What's not a word is " 'til ". That's from a mistaken interpretation of "till" as a contraction of "until".

RichardofJeffer... ~ Personally, I love the idea; and, I think the American people will too. Remember how much they embraced Ralph Nader and his consumer advocacy? This is not too different of an approach than that. Basically, it takes the power of the market away from the producers and puts it where it naturally and rightly belongs--in the hands of the consumers.

The only problem I foresee is the fact that the producers have invested a fortune of their windfall in manipulating the market through commercial advertising. This is a huge hurdle to overcome. They have corrupted the natural flow of the market so much that they can actually dictate what people want through advertising. Through advertising they can convince even the most educated among us into believing that we need something that we actually don't really need; and, that if purchased, we probably might not even ever use. However, if Ralph Nader could overcome this obsticle, I have every faith that so can we!

That is why I particularly like your idea. It is a way to level the playing field and return scrutinization and rationalization to the consumer. It is, in a way, nothing more than Ralph Nader on steroids. A National Consumer Union is a long time coming; and, I firmly believe that once introduced in our society, the healthy and progressive impact that it would have on every aspect of it would solidify it as a long term, truly American institution that would be here to stay. As such, it would only be a matter of time till the idea grew and spread abroad--as most truly American institutions seem to do. When that happens it might just spark the end of industrial flight as we know it.

Quote RichardofJeffer...:I always find an unwillingness to even consider an idea very frustrating.

Very well said! I share the feeling!

Due to the fact that in between the Intracoastal Waterway and the Atlantic Ocean a large, one can look forward to the opportunity to revel in the essence Miami luxury condominium of what it means to live a tropical paradise.

Aliceinwonderland, I wish my composition was more convincing, because I believe this is a real solution to our nation’s problems and the world in general. Consumption drives the world markets and it also drives American domestic and foreign policy. If the people of the country used their collective buying power to control consumption and a campaign to educate the public, to curve commercialized manufactured consumerism based on desire not practicality, the control of markets would fall into public consent (democracy).

I have three reaction to my idea of consumer unions. First, people like yourself, see it as a sensible idea. Second, people are very skeptical and apply wild assumption to the concept, and the third, People are completely indifferent. I always find an unwillingness to even consider an idea very frustrating. The problems with most conservative ideology is that it’s locked into a narrow prospective with little penetration but I’ve found that the democratic spectrum of thought has a lot more acceptance but suffers from exclusion of outside prospective that don’t fit into democratic orthodoxy.

I hope the reason my ideas on consumer unions doesn’t have a broader appeal, to what I consider like-minded people like Thom Hartmann followers, has to do with my presentation and not the worthiness of the idea, because I believe it might be the best chance for the American public to organize in such a fashion to be affective against the state and private institution that want keep mindless consumption a American way of life.

Off topic:

Were the Dems actually to get it together, they should collectively run on the question: "Should the Repubs be rewarded with more power after obstructing governmental functioning for the last six years when the nation needed action on" (list here)? Add the tally of filibusters for the six years compared to the rest of American history and legislation sent to the other house of congress which was not acted on. Truman did pretty well running against a 'do-nothing' congress. It just needs to be clear to the uninformed voter which party was doing the obstructing of what. Sounds like a topic for a national TV blitz by Obama and the DNC. They've got less than two months.