So the Texas Legislature is back at conjuring up new ways to disenfranchise the people—that’s you and me. Find out what is really going on at the Capitol as Wyatt interviews an expert on just that topic. GUEST: Alex Winslow – Executive Director of Texas Watch (Austin, Texas) Tweet Listen To The Audio Podcast: Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your...

One headline described how an Arizona gun store owner posted a sign saying that those who voted for President Obama are “Not Welcome” in his store. SEE IT HERE! While another headline, also from Arizona, told of a woman who ran over her husband with a car because he didn’t vote for Romney. Ouch! SEE IT HERE! Have you noticed that politics has really become personal in the last decade? Amazingly, it is now a badge of honor for many to wave the flag of their party while castigating their very neighbors for wearing the Scarlet Letter of the other party. It isn’t funny and it isn’t cute. Instead it is driving a wedge between human beings on issues of personal preference. Ladies and Gentlemen, our society is not more civilized for drawing irrational lines in the sand merely to defend a notion that exists solely in the eye of the beholder. Science cannot determine the “correct” political party any more than it can determine what makes a woman beautiful, or what the objectively best food is. The simple fact is that going to war over politics is just as stupid as battling to prove that beef tastes better than chicken. Simply put, things upon which reasonable minds can differ cannot, as a matter of law, be considered objective—for example, political preference. (What’s that? I can hear someone in the audience telling me that anyone who doesn’t believe as he does isn’t reasonable, so his differing opinion doesn’t count. Okay, I am going to excuse this brainiac to consider what he just said—let’s the rest of us move on.) The pitch I am making is that it is okay to think differently than your neighbor. To do so is, or used to be, the major hallmark of the American way of life. But now the water has turned to cider and hate and vilification are unceremoniously shining through. Political signs now appear at places of business—once a major societal taboo for fear of alienating paying customers. I wrote of this “civil discourse” disappearance last year as a commentary which appeared in three major newspapers: San Antonio Express-News Corpus Christi Caller-Times Houston Chronicle As if to prove the point that civility in politics is disappearing, responses I received to that article ranged from bad language calling me a rabble-rouser, to outright threats to my safety. Exactly which party do you suppose gets all lathered up if they don’t get exactly what they want—even if the result is that of a democratic vote?  Hmmm.  Want a hint? Just click here. By the way, if you are getting red in the face and physically mad by simply reading this blog post, then...

So the election is over and the Democrats hold two-thirds of the legislative making process (the Presidency and the Senate), and the Republicans hold one-third (the House of Representatives). But don’t worry, the House Republicans won’t let a little thing like a national referendum on policy get in the way of protecting the right of billionaires to make even more while paying less in taxes. Oh no. The popular vote for the President and his very clear platform to raise taxes on the uber-wealthy doesn’t count. Rather than getting in line and gearing up to do America’s business, Republican leaders are already forming an obstructionist platform to hurt every American and point the finger at the Democrats. Just listen to Mitch McConnell who said that the burden is now on the President to submit legislation that will pass in the House of Representatives. How ridiculous! The message from America’s voters was to grease the gears to get this country moving again, not find new ways to throw a pipe wrench into the works. News flash: Being an obstructionist doesn’t work for anybody. Such cry-baby tactics are despicable. Former first lady Barbara Bush said it best. “They won. Get over it.” Right now we need all of Congress on deck to help row this nation to stability. And those who would rather pout with their arms crossed while the other 2/3rds of the Congress put their backs into the oars should be ashamed of themselves. Our nation deserves...

A year ago on this show (November 27, 2011) we focused on the legal dangers of generic drugs after the US Supreme Court’s absurd ruling which gave absolute immunity to the manufacturers of dangerous generic drugs. The basis of the court’s decision was that generic drug manufacturers are only copying the dangerous brand name drug. How about giving immunity to serial killers as long as they are only copying the work of a previous serial killer? Pretty absurd. This ruling makes about as much sense as investing in Arizona coastal real estate. But now we have to pay attention not just to the legal dangers of generics, but the medical ones as well. For years generic drug manufacturers have boasted that their drugs are EXACTLY the same as the brand name. To “prove” it, such companies point to the fact that the FDA requires them to use the same chemical formulation (or recipe) as the brand name drug. Well, this always made me suspect because it takes more than a recipe to get it the same. Many times I have used grandma’s cookie recipe—and followed it completely—but the cookies still weren’t like grandma’s. Now there is support for my hypothesis. The New York Times recently reported that one particular generic drug was found not to act in the same way as its brand name counterpart. In response, the director of the FDA’s office of generic drugs said the report “has actually prompted a change in [the FDA’s] policy,” and that the agency would look more closely at the techniques used by generic manufacturers. How are they going to do this? Position “recipe monitors” in every laboratory? And how effective will they be? Without grandma in the kitchen herself, the cookie baking process just isn’t the same. To do otherwise is like directing a brain surgery via Morse code. If you’ve got the answer, let me know. But for now, I have a headache. I think I’ll go take some Motrin…no, Wal-buprofin…argh! Which is it? For the November 27, 2011 episode of the Wyatt Wright Show dealing with generics, go here: http://www.wyattwrightshow.com/podcast/generic-drug-manufacturer-immunity-part-1/ For the New York Times Article, go here:...

Time and time again Mitt Romney has professed his vision to get the federal government out of state business. What is state business? Well, virtually everything, according to his campaign. At the top of Mr. Romney’s list of programs that need to go are federal assistance programs—including FEMA, the federal agency that oversees the cleanup and mitigation of damages caused by natural (and unnatural) disasters. So, let me pretend for a moment that I have a WWRD bumper sticker on my car and ask the tough question: What Would Romney Do if he were currently President? To help figure it out, let’s take a simple multiple choice exam 1. What would President Romney have done to assist in the days preceding the arrival of the storm? a. Commanded his legions to hit the ground and position themselves for a quick post-storm response. –OR– b. Issued an Executive Order to New England states to “Duck and Cover.” 2. After watching the storm coverage on Fox News (which explained it as an act of God to punish the Democrats), what would President Romney have said on the telephone to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie? a. Help is on the way. Tell me where to send it and how much. –OR– b. Tell the Governor that this is New Jersey’s problem, not America’s problem, and suggest that the state should rename the “Jersey Shore” to the “Jersey Sore.” So here’s the answer key: If Romney picks both “b” answers, then he is directly in line with his base and will have proved himself to be a trustworthy man who meant every word in his campaign promises. He will have also proven himself to be a heartless plutocrat whose only allegiance is to his tax bracket and not the lives of those who live outside of his bubble. Not very American. If Romney picks both “a” answers, then he is making the morally correct American decision, while at the same time exposing himself as a snake oil salesman who will lie and manipulate in his campaigns just to get elected. So if we vote for Romney we have to hope like crazy, with our fingers crossed, that he emerges from behind the campaign veil as just that one shining version of the Romster we might each prefer. Who knows, we could get Godzilla, but we could always get Mothra. Or…and are you ready for this…we could simply elect an American who doesn’t flip flop, does what he says he is going to do, and is not beholden to the special interests of corporate America. Hmm, what a choice. Too bad I can’t check in with a Zen-like spiritual being who can existentially rise...