How George W. Bush screwed this generation of college students...
By Thom Hartmann A...
Every kid in America could have a free public college education right now if George W. Bush hadn’t been such a war monger. In early 2001, prior to the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban government in Afghanistan issued an edict to ban opium cultivation in that nation, saying it was a violation of Islam. (Opium is the raw material for heroin.) And it worked pretty well.
In 2000, roughly 4,500 metric tons of opium was produced in Afghanistan. In 2001, that number plummeted to less than 1,000 metric tons. The price of heroin went up around the world, and the number of addicts – particularly in Europe, Russia, and America – dropped. The Bush administration was so impressed by the decrease in opium production that it gave $43 million to the Taliban, to encourage a continued halt on opium production.
While $43 million may not seem like a lot, it’s important to put it in context. At the time of the deal, Afghanistan’s total GDP was just $2 billion, putting it at the bottom of the global GDP rankings. It was, literally, the poorest country in the world. So, for the Taliban, $43 million was a lot of money. George W. Bush’s decision to fork over $43 million to the Taliban to help curb drug trafficking, use, and abuse was actually a good choice, and a smart policy.
Now fast forward to the days and weeks after 9/11. On October 14th, 2001, a senior Taliban leader, Deputy Prime Minister Haji Abdul Kabir, sent an official offer to Washington, saying that the Taliban would be willing to hand over Osama Bin Laden to a third-party country, if the U.S. stopped the bombing of Afghanistan. Kabir said that, “If America were to step back from the current policy, then we could negotiate. Then we could discuss which third country.”
But Bush, the same man who, just months earlier, had handed over a small fortune to the Taliban government, rejected this latest offer of cooperation. Instead, he took up a “scorched earth” policy and bombed Afghanistan back into the stone ages. Bush’s decision to invade Afghanistan has cost our country over $713 billion since 2001. And that number is rising by the millisecond. In fact, every hour, the war in Afghanistan is costing We the People another $10.17 million.
The Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden on a silver platter, but we said no, and now it’s cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. But what if George W. Bush had taken up the offer from the Taliban, and even sweetened the deal like he did with the opium?
What if he did something similar to what he had done just months before, and offered to give the Taliban money, if they promised to cut down on terrorism and on al Qaeda’s presence and influence in that nation? We could have given the Taliban $2 billion, enough to double the nation’s GDP and make everybody in the country twice as wealthy, and it still would have only been a drop in the bucket compared to what we’ve spent on the war in Afghanistan.
And, if we had done that, we would have saved ourselves enough money to provide a free public college education to every single eligible student in America. As The Atlantic points out, according to Department of Education data, public colleges across America collected $62.6 billion in tuition from undergrads in 2012.
That means that the federal government would only have had to spend $62.6 billion to help make public college tuition free for every student in America in 2012. That’s less than 11% of what we have spent on the war in Afghanistan. The bottom-line here is that George W. Bush had a chance to get America’s priorities right, and he failed. Fortunately, he’s not in Washington anymore.
So now, instead of spending trillions of dollars on prolonging the Bush legacy of unjust wars, we should be spending those trillions on the things that will make America great again, like giving every eligible student in America a free public college education.
Comments
#2
Got bud! Bud and bud, what a combo! Hodor!!!! But, I'm glad they got rid of that little snit of a king..Jeffrey...he was such an irritating pip squeak!
#3
Palindromedary ~ All good points. I think what you said helps to explain Matt's contention that all his students want is to be rich. That is a desire that is fostered by TV. They want riches because that is what is sold to them. To fall short, which 99% obviously will, is failure.
I love your analogy of how only the good guys can shoot straight. So hilarious when Clint Eastwood walks openly into a hail of gunfire fearlessly and armed only with a hand gun and manages to pick off everyone hiding behind something who have shotguns without being shot once.
The same can be said of every stereotype festered by our lying media. There is nothing depicted on TV that has any foundation in reality. You can go all the way back to the 1950's with "Leave It To Beaver." The artificial depiction of a functional middle class nuclear family. There is nothing functional about a nuclear family. It is a relatively new state of existence that came about as the result of the industrial revolution. The nuclear family lacks social cohesion and it's members tend to repel each other. As a result it is not functional. Yet, the media paints the picture in our minds that it is not only functional; but, completely normal. No wonder our society is so completely dysfunctional on so many levels. It is built on a foundation of pure BS.
It seems that our media has the cards stacked against all of us. No matter what we do, how hard we try, or even how successful we are, we will always be failures in the eyes of the media. How much easier is it to control a bunch of whipped dogs who already feel inadequate like there is something wrong with them and they aren't even normal, than it would be to control a bunch of self empowered citizens who are full of self respect and self confidence? Hmmmmm?
#4
I wonder if I could say something useful. I'll probably make an ass of myself - again - arriving late to the conversation and having only skimmed the previous posts.
Dave, your analysis of the causes of skyrocketing tuition is a theory Thom rejects - although I don't necessarily but am also not completely convinced of it. Presuming it's true I don't think it's a problem government can't fix if it wants to and continue to subsidies - or pick up the entire cost - of education. It's been done throughout Europe at least since WW II and has yielded none but stellar results. Thus, I consider it a matter of too little government intervention not too little. Halfway measures always result in the worst of both, if not all, possible worlds.
Democratic government doesn't "intrude", it acts on behalf of the people rather than elites. Elites decry democratic government because it checks their power. You seem to have really swallowed their line - hook and sinker too.
Your figures are wrong. As of 2006, 81% of first time college students enrolled full time for the duration of their studies graduate within 6 years. Of those enrolled part time 19% graduate within 6 years. Of both groups together 55% graduate in 6 years. Until recently, college attendance and graduation was so prevalent that, as far as the job market was concerned, not having a college degree made the same disadvantage as did not having a high school diploma 40 years ago.
#5
ChicagoMatt, this is ChicagoMark. I don't agree that "the purpose of college is to separate yourself from everyone else", at least not in the way I think you mean it. I think college is for what the Army used to claim as its purpose, to allow you to "be all that you can be", to realize all your potential to be and contribute all you can. If you must distinguish yourself in college you should by your academic performance not by having rich parents.
I have indeed noticed that you kids born in the '80s, since the Reagan Era, seem to have accepted the "greed is good" mantra pretty uncritically. So much so that it seems "the air you breathe", unquestionable to you like the fact of the Sun's rising in the East and setting in the West. Even lefties of your age group seem to have that problem.
You seem different from other millenials in that you don't seem "post racial". I'm Generation X in Chicago and I positively love Chicago for its diversity and have no trouble feeling kinship with other racial and ethnic groups and most people I know feel the same way. They are really small barriers to overcome - if you try.
We'll have to come with another theory as to where your self centeredness comes from.
#6
Another thing I've noticed about my students and their "greed is good" desire to be rich even at their young age - they tend to make fun of poor people. Not all of them, but the majority of them. When we do creative writing exercises, there are a lot of homeless people in their stories, always the butt of jokes. They joke about their classmates growing up and living in cardboard boxes while they themselves live in mansions.
I'm not sure if this is normal for students at this age (since they tend to take everything lightly), or if this is a new phenomenon. These students are now the second generation to live under Reaganomics - most of their parents are in their 30s or 40s. Just something to think about.
#7
ChicagoMatt ~ Well said, and most provocative. The obesity epidemic in this country must have a simple explanation and a simple cure. Otherwise it wouldn't be such an isolated problem in the grand scheme of things throughout history. Personally I believe Industrialization is behind the root cause of this problem. However, a well thought out show by Thom would be very interesting indeed to shed more light on this totally preventable problem. I second the motion.
#8
Every year I try to teach two nonfiction books to my students. And every year one of those books is "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Pollan, which explains a lot about the modern food industry. It changed the way I feel about food, but fortunately I have the means and the ability do most of my shopping in the organic section of the grocery store, and prepare my own meals. Pretty much any food that comes to you in a box, or through your car window, is bad for you. And for a large portion of the population, that is their only option. I think people from both the left and right sides of the political spectrum can agree to that.
But here's where we're going to disagree: the solution to the problem. But that's probably a topic for another blog post.
#9
Matt, I commend you for your honesty. That was way more personal information than anyone should feel obligated to share on this forum. Much appreciated. - AIW
#10
I know some of the other reasons for my self-centeredness. It's come up in therapy sessions before. This may sound weird, but when you really think about it, it starts to make sense: I am and always have been a large guy, both tall and wide. I was taller than my second-grade teacher. I finally topped out at 6'6", which would be good if I wasn't also overweight.
ANYWAY, my freakish physique precluded me from a lot of the normal social milestones growing up. I had very few friends. Couldn't get a woman to agree to a date with me until I was 21, after two years of working out to lose a total of 140 pounds gave me the confidence to approach a woman. Ended up marrying that woman. She is the only person I've ever done anything with, including kissing. Ok, maybe that's a little TMI.
So, according to my psychiatrist, missing those normal social milestones during my teenage years made me feel like I was separated from society - feelings I hold to this day even though I have a successful marriage, career, and three beautiful children. Seeing everyone have more success than me during my formative years - success with their social lives that is - has made me strive for more success than them later in life.
Yes, I know I sound like a whiney, immature loser. But I'm going for honesty here.
I honestly feel like there is a direct connection between the rising obesity rates, and rising levels of Conservativism in the last 30 years. Being physically separated from your peers leads to mental separation throughout your life. I hope I'm making sense...
ps - Thom, if you happen to read these things, that might be a good thing to discuss on your show. It also fits in well with the "corporations are evil" mantra Progressives have. Corporations that control the food supply and put sugar in EVERYTHING - sugar that is more addictive than cocaine - are just a culpable for the health problems they cause as tobacco companies are.
Part of what shifted my political idealogies slightly to the left was watching my father die of diabetes-related health issues at age 59. Fortunately, I've been able to break the diabetic cycle in my own life so far, thanks to my weight loss. I sincerely think that my father's death at a relatively young age is due, partially, to food company practices.
#11
Quote ChicagoMatt:Another thing I've noticed about my students and their "greed is good" desire to be rich even at their young age - they tend to make fun of poor people. Not all of them, but the majority of them.
ChicagoMatt ~ That is most disturbing, indeed. This very well may be the result of Reaganomics. However, it could also be the result of immature guilt and the position of privilege--as well as a plethora of other issues. They might just be belching forth what their parents feed them.
What I would suggest to you--since you already appear to have a course that includes writing--is to have a poetry contest. Give your students say two weeks to compose the best poem they can on any subject that strikes their fancy. Ask them to dig deep for creativity and tell them that the top five poems will be read and posted in class for the duration of the semester/year. A cheap and easy way to make them dig deep and deliver on their most hidden emotions; and, make them share and contemplate them.
If the result warrants, tell them you could not decide which is best because everyone did so well. Then read and post them all in class. The call is yours to make.
This might reveal more of what your students are really feeling than any essay contest ever could. Food for thought.
#12
Thank you. It's always easier to be honest when you're also anonymous online, I think.
I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed this - but it seems to me that the more your physical self fits into societal ideals (young, fit, etc...), the more you tend to lean left politically. Colleges and Hollywood both lean heavily to the left, because they are full of people who physically look like what society has taught us is the ideal body type.
Conversely, it seems, the further you stray from that ideal, and the further isolated you are from being social, the more likely you are to lean to the right politically.
Or maybe I'm wrong. I can only atest to my own observations.
#13
I teach all Language Arts, Social Studies, and Religion for the middle school, and May happens to be when I do the poetry unit. This is mostly for two reasons: 1. Poems are shorter, just like the student's attention spans just before summer break, and 2. It gives us a chance to go outside and write.
#14
Matt- Your perspective on food industry practices and the role that had in your father's death really resonates with me. And you deserve congratulations for your incredible weight loss; no easy feat, along with thwarting diabetes.
However I must disagree with the connection you draw between body mass and political affiliation. Michael Moore isn't exactly svelte. Romney is no fat boy, nor are either of the Bushies, or Paul the Pipsqueak Ryan. - AIW
#15
Quote ChicagoMatt:Another thing I've noticed about my students and their "greed is good" desire to be rich even at their young age - they tend to make fun of poor people. Not all of them, but the majority of them. When we do creative writing exercises, there are a lot of homeless people in their stories, always the butt of jokes. They joke about their classmates growing up and living in cardboard boxes while they themselves live in mansions.
Actually, the "greed is good" youth culture was created by the Reagan/Bush neocon PR machine in the '80s. Lionizing robber baron wealth and greed while fomenting villification of and hatred for the poor and homeless was part of a Maoist styled "Cutural Revolution" - only from the Right - intended to dismantle the New Deal by first dismantling the '60s' and Great Depression Era culture of empathy for the poor and outrage at injustice. It resulted in the young adopting very superficial values and acquiring tremendous status insecurities. Before that, the young not only didn't hate the poor and homeless but even admired the Woody Guthrie or hippy road bum type and often tried to ape or emulate them.
I don't think body type determines political ideology. The athletic, "jock" types tend to be conservative and intolerant while some overweight people may be more lefty and more empathic toward the poor and racial minorities after having been rejected outsiders themselves.
Sometimes, though, that can cut both ways as people having felt spat upon and shat upon can sometimes look for someone else they can shit upon to get even with the world, as it were. Relatively powerless racial, ethnic, religious and other groups have traditionally served as scapegoats for that purpose. Thus, Jean Paul Sartre called Anti Semitism "the poor man's snobbery" and the KKK was started, not by rich Southern plantation owners but by poor Southern "white trash".
ChicagoMatt, you keep thinking about these things and keep trying to find ways to defeat your self centeredness and I think you might find you're not as self centered as you thought.
#16
Before that, the young not only didn't hate the poor and homeless but even admired the Woody Guthrie or hippy road bum type and often tried to ape or emulate them.
In my generation, and even today with my own students, the hippie culture of the 60s is seen as a failure, mocked, and considered hypocritical. (It's easy for people like John Lennon to sing about living in an ideal world, when he has all of the resources he could ever need.)
Also, since I have music on the mind, I feel like the political polarization that I grew up in mirrored, or was mirrored by, separating musical tastes. Correct me if I am wrong, but back in the 60s, didn't most people listen to the same kinds of music and enjoy the same pop culture? In my lifetime, besides living in different areas and thinking differently, different races and other groups watch different TV shows, listen to different music, get their news from different sources, etc... Which leads back to my feeling that I have NO connection with the majority of my countrymen. Well, we are protected by the same military and use the same currency. But other than that, what do we have in common? Not even language anymore.
#17
Matt, your generation and the younger generation are simply brainwashed by the corporate media. Their myopic, one-dimensional view of the Boomer generation is no surprise. Until people learn to think independently, I don't see much hope for any meaningful progress towards a better world for everyone.
By the way, the music of the sixties was very diverse: folk, blues, jazz, soft rock, hard rock, country rock, bluegrass…
I hate to break it to ya Matt, but thanks to media consolidation, your "news" all comes from the same source: corporate fascists, spoon-feeding y'all the same old corporate BS. If you feel no connection with the majority of your "countrymen", their mission of divide-and-conquer has been a stellar success. - Aliceinwonderland
#18
Alice -- BRAVO!
#19
Matt, your generation and the younger generation are simply brainwashed by the corporate media. Their myopic, one-dimensional view of the Boomer generation is no surprise. Until people learn to think independently, I don't see much hope for any meaningful progress towards a better world for everyone.
I think we found something we can agree on - distrust of the media. I, of course, think the media has a liberal bias. It seems that you think the media has a pro-corporate bias.
And, as I think we have established, the entire idea that a better world for everyone is the goal doesn't jive with the thinking of many of us younger folks. A better world for myself, my family, and my immediate neighborhood, yes. The rest of the world? Not my problem. In fact, trying to "help" the rest of the world seems to just cause more problems.
My current bad mood is probably coming through. Sorry about that. These students are bouncing off the walls readyer for summer, and we have another month still....
#20
Quote ChicagoMatt:I, of course, think the media has a liberal bias.
ChicagoMatt ~ Just what media are you talking about, present Radio show excluded? Please specify which channels and which shows have a liberal bias? From what I see--and I've spent 20 years more than you observing it--is that the vast majority of the media is Reich Wing skewed. It has been that way since the 70's.
Personally I have to agree with everyone else on this blog--you are a classic example of Faux News brainwashing. Please correct me if I'm wrong with some specific examples and some facts. Show me what I can watch that is liberal biased so I don't have to seek out the furthermost corner of the internet for this blog.
Quote ChicagoMatt:A better world for myself, my family, and my immediate neighborhood, yes. The rest of the world? Not my problem.
ChicagoMatt ~ No man is an island. If you think all you need to survive is a nice house, family and neighborhood I might suggest you lift your head out of the sand and realize that you are very much dependant on the entire world for your simple survival. Young people who talk like you would be the first casualties if they were ever stranded on a deserted island. Can you gather your own food, build your own shelter, or even start your own fire without civilization supporting you every step of the way? No, you probably can't can you? Better get real and realize that you are nothing without society supporting you. The least you owe in return is to give a damn about where that support comes from. We are all in the same boat and if one part of it sinks, the whole thing sinks.
#21
Matt, how do you substantiate the claim that our media has a "liberal" bias? I hear this all the time and I think it's ridiculous. How about some examples? Because last I heard, media consolidation has put our media in the control of an ever-shrinking circle of corporations, and keeping the public informed is not part of the corporate agenda. Ninety percent of talk radio is neocon bullshit. CNN hides behind the pretense of being liberal, more than it actually is. FOX is wall-to-wall neocon fascist bullshit. MSNBC is pretty liberal. PBS has been receiving more corporate funding and predictably, has grown more conservative. CBS and NBC… nothing special; certainly nothing resembling "liberalness".
Like it or not, our fate is more intimately tied to that of the rest of the world's thanks to globalization. If your generation and those younger than you don't understand that, it is you who will ultimately suffer the consequences of your ignorance. I hate to be so blunt, Matt, because despite your views, you come across as a decent guy. But as a schoolteacher you are in a unique position to influence young minds, which is an awesome responsibility. And it would serve you - and your students - to learn more about the world we live in, how it operates and whose interests it actually serves. If you take a closer look, the reality you find will have little resemblance to what gets dished out to you on the boob tube. Maybe this is why we are a nation full of boobs. And from what you have described, your students are well on the way towards becoming the next generation of sheeple. - Aliceinwonderland
#22
Marc, I'd already posted my reply to Matt before getting around to reading your post. We sure are on the same wavelength a lot of the time! - AIW
#23
Off the top of my head, I see the coverage of the LA Clippers owner fiasco as an example of liberal media bias. They took something that was trivial - an old man who held an old man's views - and made it the headline for like four days. Did his worlds really effect ANYONE? No. But it fed into their liberal, anti-rich white guy, race-baiting message. In the meantime, here in Chicago, there are about 40 shootings every weekend, which actually does effect real people, and it only gets a brief mention in the local news.
I also think that the media does a lot of covering for Obama - ignoring international stories that make him look bad, like the continuing war in Syria, the invasion of the Ukraine, and what's going on in Egypt. And never mentioning the fact that his ultra-high (I think 97 percent) vote margin among Blacks was clearly racially motivated, but always insinuating that anyone who opposes him is doing partially because of his race.
I urge you to look at the election night coverage from the 2004 election and the 2008 election on youtube. Look how the same TV anchor reacted to Bush's victory and Obama's victory. Listen to their tone, look at their body language. They acted like Bush's election was a funeral, and Obama's election made them downright giddy.
Don't even get me started on Bengazi. (Comon - you knew I would bring that up.)
I am well aware that Fox News has a right-wing bias. The majority of their viewers know that. But they see it as balancing out the left-wing bias of the other channels. And, to their credit, they found an unexploited market, (people who didn't trust the regular news), and exploited the hell out of it.
For the record, I only watch about 15 minutes of TV a day. I try to catch the first half of the national news, and that's it. Usually ABC, sometimes NBC. I haven't had a chance to watch any Fox or other cable news since my third child was born in November.
That's why I like progressive radio - I can do it AND clean the house/grade papers/change diapers at the same time.
#24
chiMatt -- Race, as well as, abortion and etc are not liberal issues. Those are issues for single issue voters. The republican party is for the 1%. The only way they can get any of the 99% to vote for them is with those single issues that voters will support against their own economic interests. You may have noted that when republicans were in control in the 2000's they never voted for an abortion bill that might pass. When they had a democratic senate that would ignore them they passed an abortion bill over and over again.
Media supporting liberal issues would be spending more time on climate change, more democrats than GOP on sunday morning tv, supporting any issue that benefits the bottom 20% over the top 20%, higher tax rates on the rich, the failure of austerity throughout the world, the failure of supply side economics etc.
#25
Matt, there is nothing "trivial" about a public figure spewing racist hate speech over the public airwaves. Only one who has (knowingly or unknowingly) enjoyed the benefits of white privilege his entire life would characterize such a thing as "trivial". The lack of class consciousness and the warped social values of your privileged pupils is a direct consequence of a media that is anything but "liberal". You bet racist rhetoric affects people, as Trayvon Martin's family (and other families like them) could easily attest to. It feeds into a status quo that makes it okay to use unarmed black teenagers for target practice.
You paint black voters with mighty broad strokes, Matt. I seriously doubt you have enough contact with black people to make such an assertion with any authority. And please, give us just one reason why anyone of African American descent would want to vote for someone like McCain or Romney! I'm listening…
You're damn right Bush's "victory" was a funeral… for DEMOCRACY. Because the American people did not elect George W. Bush. That was a stolen election, stolen by those black-robed neocons of the Extreme Court. By contrast, Obama's victory (at least initially) seemed like the triumph of the people over the oligarchs. And electing our first black president was an event of great significance. (As to Obama's performance since then…. well, that's a whole other discussion.)
The people who watch FOX "news" have been determined to be even less informed than those who watch no news at all, so pervasive are FOX's lies and distortions. You think it's to their credit that they've exploited the ignorance of the public with their toxic drivel?! I think it's criminal.
I'm glad you're listening to progressive talk radio now. Maybe you'll learn a thing or two. Judging from your posts, you've got a helluva lot more to learn. - Aliceinwonderland
#26
Quote ChicagoMatt:Off the top of my head, I see the coverage of the LA Clippers owner fiasco as an example of liberal media bias. They took something that was trivial - an old man who held an old man's views - and made it the headline for like four days. Did his worlds really effect ANYONE? No.
ChicagoMatt ~ Yes they did! They affected not only everyone who dispises racism in this country, they also affected everyone on his team and all of their fans. Are you insinuating that antibigotry is a liberal characteristic? If so, then you are ultimately claiming that bigoty and the acceptance of it is a Reich Wing characteristic. Personally I think the media covered it so much simply because it was so outrageous and unbelievable that anyone who's carreer involves so much racial diversity would ever be so cold, calous, hypocitical and offensive to stick his foot in his mouth that far without the slightest thought as to what he was saying. You say he just had a typical, "old man's views." Where do you get your mind set that those views are typical of old people. You won't find one "old man" on this blog who shares that idea; or any of those twisted views. One of the things I hate about the Right is their total acceptance and embracement of racism and their total hypocritical denial of it.
Quote ChicagoMatt:I also think that the media does a lot of covering for Obama - ignoring international stories that make him look bad, like the continuing war in Syria, the invasion of the Ukraine, and what's going on in Egypt.
Son, if you haven't been paying attention, and obviously you haven't, the media downplays and distorts all of our leaders war activities abroad--especially the illegal ones. They flat out refuse to even entertain the idea that 911 was an inside job. In that respect you are right. However, in concluding that this is a "Liberal Media" plan is naive at best.
Quote ChicagoMatt:And never mentioning the fact that his ultra-high (I think 97 percent) vote margin among Blacks was clearly racially motivated,
Are you even remotely serious? Fine. Here's a bombshell for you. Every white Presidential candidate before Obama shared 100% of the white vote. What does that mean? Duh! Absolutely nothing!
My conclusion so far is that you are a first class bigot. You have just proven that fact by showing your true colors. Here's another bombshell. I'm a white guy who voted twice for Obama. Do you think my vote was racially motivated or motivated to keep McCain and Romney the hell out of the White House? Was my vote and all the votes of all the other white people who voted for Obama racially motivated? Only a first class bigot believes that race alone is the only reason for doing something.
Quote ChicagoMatt:Don't even get me started on Bengazi.
Benghazi? Please go on about Benghazi! What a perfect example of why you are so so wrong. Benghazi was nothing other than a media stunt perpetrated by the Right Wing Media. It was pure propaganda BS. How does that story in any way support your "claim?"
Quote ChicagoMatt:I am well aware that Fox News has a right-wing bias.
Finally you said something we can all agree on.
#27
Quote ChicagoMatt:In my generation, and even today with my own students, the hippie culture of the 60s is seen as a failure, mocked, and considered hypocritical. (It's easy for people like John Lennon to sing about living in an ideal world, when he has all of the resources he could ever need.)
Hypocritical they were not, in my view, rather, they exposed the hypocrisy of conventional society which the neocon cultural counter revolution of the '80s then, once again, embraced. I don't doubt that you mock them, as I said before, your materialistic, avaricious and superficial values are antithetical to theirs.
Quote ChicagoMatt:Also, since I have music on the mind, I feel like the political polarization that I grew up in mirrored, or was mirrored by, separating musical tastes. Correct me if I am wrong, but back in the 60s, didn't most people listen to the same kinds of music and enjoy the same pop culture? In my lifetime, besides living in different areas and thinking differently, different races and other groups watch different TV shows, listen to different music, get their news from different sources, etc... Which leads back to my feeling that I have NO connection with the majority of my countrymen. Well, we are protected by the same military and use the same currency. But other than that, what do we have in common? Not even language anymore.
You are correct that there is no mass media anymore, everything is "subscriber only" now and nobody is hearing the same thing. We are atomized, separated and isolated and are hardly a society anymore, hardly have a common culture. Can you, for example, name last summer's big hit popular song? There is no such thing anymore. I remember when the Beatles released a new single it was big news. Everybody was listening to it and talking about it. You'd be be bopping down the street listening to it with your transistor radio to your ear and somebody would drive by with their window rolled down and you'd hear the same song because they were listening to the same station.
Shit doesn't hit the fan like it used to, you couldn't have a Watergate scandal today, for example, like you could then. The conservatives are listening to conservative media and lefties are listening to lefty media and each are getting a different angle to the exclusion of all others. The lefties and conservatives are each getting a different spin on everything,and even different facts. Someone who listens only to either lefty or righty media is likely completely unaware of certain facts or occurances that the other side hears and is talking about. We're all in our own little worlds now with fear and distrust of everybody else.. Now we just need everybody to have a gun and what could possibly go wrong?
#28
[qoute=ChicagoMatt]
And, as I think we have established, the entire idea that a better world for everyone is the goal doesn't jive with the thinking of many of us younger folks. A better world for myself, my family, and my immediate neighborhood, yes. The rest of the world? Not my problem.
[/quote]
I don't know Matt, quite a lot of young people I've met at Occupy and elsewhere are as idealistic as we were - and as many of us still are. They all want to help everybody and make the world better for all and sundry. They certainly don't have the "don't give a shit" attitude you seem to have.
Quote ChicagoMatt:In fact, trying to "help" the rest of the world seems to just cause more problems.
I don't believe that's true - unless you try to decide for people what's good for them. But if you just don't care then you just don't care.
Anyway, nothing could be worse than leaving the world to its own device or to the nefarious.
#29
♬ Imagine there's no ...... ♫
#30
Hah-HAH! Couldn't resist could ya.... ya fink! - AIW
#31
I know, I'm bad!
#32
A bigot is, by definition, someone who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people or ideas. I copied that from Merriam-Webster. I don't strongy or unfairly dislike anyone. I don't dislike the media, I just ignore them. Based on some of the reactions I've gotten from my posts, and the way that some people on here seem to dislike anyone who doesn't agree with their way of thinking, some introspection is in order.
To straightaway label the 60 million people who voted for Romney in 2012 as "idiots" or "nutjobs" because they think differently than you is bigotted.
I thought about it all night, and one of the things that really bothers me about the way Donald Sterling is being treated is that he's being publically and universally condemned for having a view that isn't popular. It's almost like he's being publically tried for "thought crime". You think differently? Get him! It sets a dangerous precedent. How long until they come after other people's reputation and possessions for thinking differently?
I disagree with a lot of the Democratic principles, but I live in a VERY "blue" area - Chicago. If some of my unpopular-in-this-area thoughts became public, will they come after me, my reputation, and my possessions? I get nervous just by being one of the few houses around without a pro-union sign in my front window.
I really hope I'm not coming across as offensive. (I always tell my students - conveying tone in writing is very tricky.) I'm trying to be as cordial as possible.
#33
quite a lot of young people I've met at Occupy and elsewhere are as idealistic as we were - and as many of us still are
I'm glad you bring up Occupy Wall Street. I see a lot of similarities between those people, and the people who are currently occupying the area around Clive Bundy's ranch. Thom said something similar in one of his posts. Both groups are angry with a system that they think isn't listening to them.
I don't believe that's true - unless you try to decide for people what's good for them.
But that's exactly what the government does to me - it decides what is best for me, with or without my consent. Social Security? I can't opt out of it, for my own "benefit". Obamacare? Everyone must join, even if you don't want to, because we know best what you need. Medicare / Medicaide? Same idea - The government telling me what is best for me.
#34
Quote ChicagoMatt:I'm glad you bring up Occupy Wall Street. I see a lot of similarities between those people, and the people who are currently occupying the area around Clive Bundy's ranch. Thom said something similar in one of his posts. Both groups are angry with a system that they think isn't listening to them.
The difference is the right wing militia are uninformed and misinformed. They rally to the very agenda of the corporations and against the one thing that can save them, democratic government or, IOW, the American people, organized. Misinforming and misdirecting the public is an old technique of the PR business and forming phony grassroots, or "astroturf" movements is a common method for it. The Tea Party is a great example. The Tea Party gets its marching orders from people like the Kochs but the rank and file members have no idea and are brought into the movement for many of the same reasons we and Occupy are brought into lefty movements, corporate kleptocracy and money corrupting politics. But while Occupy was genuinely addressing the true issues and true causes of the problem theTea Party members were redirected by Koch type think tanks to further help the corporations and actively oppose their own well being.
Quote ChicagoMatt:But that's exactly what the government does to me - it decides what is best for me, with or without my consent. Social Security? I can't opt out of it, for my own "benefit". Obamacare? Everyone must join, even if you don't want to, because we know best what you need. Medicare / Medicaide? Same idea - The government telling me what is best for me.
Matt, I think you've been redirected. There are some things that are, for all intents and purposes, objectively "good for you". Why, for example, would anyone want to opt out of Social Security? Maybe, in some purely abstract, putative sense you are being denied a "freedom to choose" but its a freedom to choose to harm yourself. It reminds me of some of the initial arguments against Obamacare when people were getting a better plan but conservative pundits were decrying that those people were being denied, essentially, a "freedom to choose" a worse plan. It was like, "Yeah Thom, what if they don't want decent healthcare?". Some things are not genuinely controvertible.
In any case, in a society like ours, we choose, democratically, what to do and what priorities to keep and sometimes some of us can't get everything we want so that someone else can get something more important. We all, through a democratic process, come to decide what those priorities will be and there will be times when you won't get everything you want - maybe many times, depending on what you want. That, however, isn't tyranny. That's just having to share the world and the society with others and will happen in any society, and, hopefully, you will live in a democratic society where you and everybody can participate equally in the decision making process and have equal influence on what the decisions will be. That's better than an undemoratic society where elites decide what's good for you (which is really, most undoubtably, what's good for them rather than what's good for you and, probably, at the expense of what's good for you) - and whether or not you realize it, that is the kind of society you are advocating for due to your redirection by the Kochs (the elites).
In any case, self centeredness and selfishness are sicknesses and not good for anyone, you or anyone else, but you have been "redirected" by the Kochs and their surrogates to think that they are, again, because your selfishness is good for them, not for you.
#35
Matt, I think you've been redirected. There are some things that are, for all intents and purposes, objectively "good for you". Why, for example, would anyone want to opt out of Social Security?
I respect your opinion, but I would opt out of social security if possible. If I read my SS statements correctly, I can begin collecting at age 67. That's two years later than it was for my parents. My father died at 59. His father died in his 50s. My other grandfather died in his 20s. I know my health. I know I am highly unlikely to see 60. I also see my paycheck, and think of what I could do with that money that social security has taken.
Plus, (here comes the "privledged class" part, so prepare yourself), I have a private retirement account with my wife. Assuing I make it to 55, we will have about $5 million waiting for us.
Of course, that's just Social Security retirement we're talking about. Not SSDI. My mother collects SSDI for nerve damage in her legs. The amount she collects is less than the amount I pay. Why not cut out the middle man and just let me pay her directly?
If the Republicans ever get control of Congress and the Presidency again, they would be wise to take away the automatic payroll deductions. People would still have to pay SS, Medicare, Income Tax, etc... But make everyone actually sit down and write out the checks every two weeks. You're see a massive pro-small-government shift once people had to do that.
#36
Matt, I can only speak for myself. But it's your views that I dislike, not you personally. I don't happen to know you well enough to like or dislike you as an individual. However given the divergence of our points of view, some tension is inevitable. If you can't handle it, no one is forcing you to participate on this forum. I'm not suggesting you leave, but only that you accept the inevitable. I think it's probably a healthy thing to challenge one another this way; it makes us think, prompting us to re-examine opinions and ideas we normally take for granted.
In the first of your two current posts you point out: "A bigot is, by definition, someone who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people or ideas." But then you defend Donald Sterling, a bigot by that very definition. The guy made some ugly, offensive comments about a group of people distinguished only by skin color, which is a genetic characteristic nobody chooses, that is inherited at birth. Call that fair? Yet you dismiss this obvious display of bigotry as merely a "view that isn't popular". Publicly tried for "thought crime"?! Gimmie a break. Frankly, Matt, I find this extremely hypocritical. According to you, racism is just an "unpopular opinion" while those who condemn and marginalize racists are the "bigots". Huh? Hello…
Only a recipient of unearned white privilege could sound this clueless.
Sterling is (or was, until his racist rant) the owner of a team of professional athletes, some of which are black. And he was profiting from the performance of those athletes. When one steps into the public arena (as Mr. Sterling did when he "purchased" that team), there is a certain responsibility that goes with it: to conduct oneself with dignity and treat others in a dignified manner. Is that expecting too much? Apparently so. But I'm gratified that for once, a big-mouth bigot has consequences to pay for his publicly aired hate speech.
The reality, Matt, is that white people still dominate the culture as well as the economy of this society, giving more white-skinned individuals way more access to media exposure than blacks. Consequently white racist bigots get the microphone all the time. We hear it in sports, in scenarios like this Bundy spectacle in Nevada; even from Congress! It's fairly common to hear whites trashing blacks over the public airwaves, while blacks have no comparable platform from which to respond. You call that fair? - Aliceinwonderland
#37
I think it's probably a healthy thing to challenge one another this way; it makes us think, prompting us to re-examine opinions and ideas we normally take for granted.That's why I'm here - to get and give some different views. We Conservatives (I hate that label), we're not all evil. Most of us aren't in militias, just like most of you aren't out there banging drums on Wall Street.
But then you defend Donald Sterling
I'm not defending what he said. I'm only lamenting the "pitchforks and torches" treatment he's getting.
#38
Matt, what people dish out comes back to them. Donald Sterling is getting exactly what he deserves. I call it karmic justice. You call it what you like. - AIW
#39
Quote ChicagoMatt:If the Republicans ever get control of Congress and the Presidency again, they would be wise to take away the automatic payroll deductions. People would still have to pay SS, Medicare, Income Tax, etc... But make everyone actually sit down and write out the checks every two weeks. You're see a massive pro-small-government shift once people had to do that.
I think they might get "redirected" to pro small government but they would be wiser to be inspired to pro bigger government as the only real reason they'd be upset is that they'd have to be bothered with writing checks every two weeks when that's what government offices are for. Social Security is a very popular government function. Most seniors will start a fist fight with you if you suggest ending it.
Presuming everything you are telling me is true - and it does sound a little straining to credulity, i.e., that you are paying more than your mother is receiving as Social Security is, essentially, an insurance plan and a premium being greater than a payout of a claim sounds far fetched (An SSDI payout is usually about $700 per month, you mean, are paying more than that in Social Security tax?) - Social Security is better for society than what you are suggesting. It's an example of what I was talking about, you not getting everything you want so that someone else can get what they need and as a result, neither you nor anyone else will have to go without what they need.
Social Security is, essentially, a group insurance plan and much more affordable and much more fair than any private plan. The example of your mother still strains my credulity but for the example of your father, that's how insurance works. We, as a society, democratically decided it would be good to implement it. Anyway, before recent Republican noise making, Social Security was paying out at 62 and there was talk of having it pay out beginning at age 58. You can thank the Republican flim flam machine for stopping that.
#40
Matt, why are you not in the classroom right now? This is Friday and not a holiday, and even here in the Pacific time zone it's heading towards the middle of a workday. Just askin'... - AIW
#41
Matt, as much as I don't like his statements and think, personally, that his views are inappropriate for the NBA and pretty much anywhere, I think I agree with you that the action of the NBA against Donald Sterling amounts to the policing of a thought crime, especially so because his statements were made privately and weren't intended for the public, and I don't think I approve of it. We don't have to like him for them and I think boycotts and the like would be fine but I don't think the NBA should act against him for what are, essentally, his private thoughts.
We don't have to like him and can strongly and actively dislike him and force him from League in that way but he can have his private thoughts and we don't have to approve of them.
If they were public statements I'd think differently.
#42
Quote ChicagoMatt:Most of us aren't in militias, just like most of you aren't out there banging drums on Wall Street.
I don't think we should join militias but I do think we should all be banging drums on Wall Street. I don't mind saying - in unfortunately characteristic braggadose fashion - I've done a fair amount of drum banging myself in the financial district of Chicago (La Salle and Jackson, you know).
#43
Mark, I respectfully disagree, altho it slipped by me that those statements were private. However I have to wonder, how private were they if caught on tape?
At any rate, I still think the guy deserved what he got. Racists habitually marginalize others; why shouldn't they themselves be marginalized?! What goes around comes around.
We choose what to think and believe, while no one chooses the skin they're born with. - AIW
P.S. Keep bangin' those drums!!
#44
I am in the classroom. The students are making "get well" movies on their Ipads for a student in another grade who was diagnosed with cancer. I SHOULD be grading some papers, but I am enjoying this blog too much. Glad I finally found a place where people actually read each other's posts and provide useful insite - so much better than the usual "everyone's shouting, no one's listening" blogs I've encountered in the past.
But you are right, back to work for me...
#45
I've done a fair amount of drum banging myself in the financial district of Chicago (La Salle and Jackson, you know).
Last Black Friday, my friend went to Wal-Mart early in the morning to protest the way they treat their employees. It was supposed to be an organized protest, but only a few people showed up, so they just went home. I felt kind of bad for him. It sent him into a depression which he still hasn't really recovered from.
Anyway, are there any plans for protesting this summer? And, I've always wondered this, do the people you encounter when you are out there - the bystanders, not the other protesters - do they generally support you, ignore you, or look at you with contempt?
Years ago I remember seeing a story about how French truckers protested something by parking their rigs at intersections, and walking away from them. Try that in Chicago - it would get everyone's attention. :)
If I had the time, I would protest all of the speed cameras in my neighborhood.
#46
Matt, I'm glad you're enjoying this blog.
If speed cameras in your neighborhood is the worst thing going on in your life, you're doing pretty good. - AIW
#47
Presuming everything you are telling me is true - and it does sound a little straining to credulity, i.e., that you are paying more than your mother is receiving as Social Security
I should have been more specific. It is my understanding that she gets about $200 a month from SSDI, for a problem she has with her legs that keeps her from working. She is only 60, so no SS Retirement income yet.
All my life I've been told (yes, I know this is probably more right-wing propaganda), that Social Security was never meant to be a sole source of income for retirees, but many people now treat it that way. I've also had it drilled into my brain that, if I do make it to that age, what I end up getting out of it will not be enough to live off of, so I should always have a private, second source of income.
I guess that leads back to the "Individualism" vs "Collectivism" part of the polarizing political debate.
#48
Quote Aliceinwonderland:Matt, why are you not in the classroom right now? This is Friday and not a holiday, and even here in the Pacific time zone it's heading towards the middle of a workday. Just askin'... - AIW
Aliceinwonderland ~ Wow! We must be on the same beam. I just asked the same question on the latest blog. Apparently our private school teacher has the time to comment and read posts on several blogs all at the same time. Cushy job if you ask me. I'm off today and am pressured just to keep up with everything--mostly stuff from Mr. Matthew. When I work I might have a minute or two to check out what is going on but rarely do I post. It's just too time consuming. And I don't even have several kids to look after. Further reason why I would never return to a private school. Too much distraction.
#49
Chi Matt -- Mark S and Anarch cop out (I know, I know) come closest to saying how I think you should perceive the current political debate. I assume everyone here agrees that the USA experiment is encapsuled in the first 3 words of the constitution "We the People". Another version of these words is that we want the 99% to make the rules by a majority opinion not the 1%. Your "individualism" vs "collectivism" political debate is propaganda by the 1% calling what they want as individualism and what the 99% decide upon democratically as "collectivism". In my opinion, the core freedom we have above all other freedoms is the freedom for the 99% to decide the rules of the game.
One observation that supports what I am saying is the tea party vs OWS. The tea party, which one might call individulism (small govt), funded by the 1% had buses provided for them, big screen TVs and no police harassment. OWS on the other hand could not even use audio at their gatherings. The worst thing is that if they step off the curb they get arrested. The reason that is so bad is that the arrest almost always involves a body cavity search at the local holding cell. At the Chicago PD some years back, that involved video taping of the search.
#50
WOW Chuck, that's quite a double standard, the contrasting ways teabrains and occupiers get treated... isn't it! Wow-we. And body cavity searches!! Sounds like a variation on the rape theme, especially with video taping. Only difference is, men get raped too. I guess you could call that "equal opportunity" in some perverse form.
To call this a democracy is to be out of touch with reality. - Aliceinwonderland
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Images of Thom
From Screwed:
"If we are going to live in a Democracy, we need to have a healthy middle class. Thom Hartmann shows us how the ‘cons’ have wronged this country, and tells us what needs to be done to reclaim what it is to be American."
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann channels the best of the American Founders with voice and pen. His deep attachment to a democratic civil society is just the medicine America needs."
From Screwed:
"The powers that be are running roughshod over the powers that OUGHT to be. Hartmann tells us what went wrong — and what you and I can do to help set American right again."
I suppose the messages that we are constantly being sent through TV programs and movies are to make people think they can get rich automatically without much effort. Of course, some people do get rich without any effort. They are born with a silver spoon in their mouths...they inherit their money. Others turn to crime and become drug pushers. I wonder how many young people look up to drug pushers who are seen to ride around in fancy cars and who wear expensive jewelry. They see politicians being bought off by corporations and realize the laws only apply to the poor and not to the wealthy.
TV and movies, who are trying to sell products..making people want more than they can afford... also foster illusions that just don't work in the real world. The 110 pound, very good looking movie star, beats the crap out of some muscular Hodor* hunk of a guy that towers over them.
*Hodor...the giant in the TV sequel Game of Thrones..one of my favorite TV shows.
All the "good guys" are such good shots while the "bad guys" never hit anything.
That Russia Today or Al Jazeera are propaganda machines but all those US "news" channels are telling us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is pretty obviously a lie.
The "Truth, justice, and the American way" illusion has been drilled into everyone's heads since the first Superman movies back in 50s and 60s. Now, it's Captain America with virtually the same messages of propaganda.
Maybe John Kerry and Obama should make their next propaganda appearances in a Captain America or Superman costumes...though I think Goofy or Wily Coyote are more fitting costumes for them. That war criminal, baby Bush, dressed up as a fighter pilot..then lied to us about "Mission Accomplished". But, even then, I suspect they wouldn't be any more of a laughing-stock than they are already. Their obvious, two-faced nonsense... their hypocrisy about Ukraine when the US was, itself, behind the initial overthrow of the legitimate Ukraine government... is so obvious to many of us that have listened to them...it is almost comical. But it's really not funny..it's pretty scarey...they play a very dangerous game that could result in a world-wide disaster.
But then, some day in the future (if there is a future), some film maker will create a dramatization for TV on how Obama and Kerry, sitting by the Presidential fireplace or gazing out the window with somber demeanors contemplating their bold standoff of Communist aggression upon Ukraine, with patriotic music playing, they greet us with "Seig Heil! We are the rulers of the world, as we deserve to be!" Flashbacks of JFK's Cuban Missile Crisis ghosts in the background. And a narrator telling us just how close the world again came to total nuclear war.
And the communal, government provided TV set, to be used only for propaganda news (that everyone is gathered around because the economy is such that one can no longer afford to buy one's own TV sets) announces that the war between Eurasia and East Asia is ongoing. And a vodka commercial flashes on the screen to which cues every viewer to take another swig followed by cheers! Seig Heil! Seig Heil! Seig Heil!
Ok, it's time for another toke on the spliff. ;-> Later, dudes!