The Supreme Court Thinks That Corporations Are People but Women Aren’t

As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, we’re still in the 19th century when it comes to women’s rights. In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court today ruled that for-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby can discriminate against their female employees by denying them birth control coverage as required under Obamacare as long as those corporations believe that doing so “violates” their religious beliefs.

According to the Court, “closely-held” corporations like Hobby Lobby are protected by a 1993 law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act - a law that protects people - let me repeat, PEOPLE, as in homo sapiens sapiens - from having “substantial burdens” placed on their religious beliefs.

There are a lot of things to talk about when it comes to the Hobby Lobby case - the fact that Hobby Lobby’s arguments weren’t based in scientific fact, the fact that Hobby Lobby actually invests in companies that make the very same birth control it says goes against its religious beliefs, the fact that it’s more than ready to pay for male birth control procedures like vasectomies, the fact that much of what they sell comes from China, the home of forced abortions - you name it.

All of these things are important and show just how insane and fundamentally hypocritical the Court’s decision really was. But in the end, the most damning thing of all about today’s ruling is that it shows that one branch of our government, the Supreme Court, believes that the "rights" of non-breathing, definitely-not-alive corporations trump the rights of the 51 percent of the population which has a uterus.

If you thought that American society had moved beyond the idea that women were property or even just second-class citizens, then think again. The Hobby Lobby decision is just more proof that while women can now vote, the most powerful people in our country are still stuck in the 19th century. They just can’t wrap their heads around the idea that women are - you know - real people who deserve the same rights as men.

Not much, apparently, has changed since 1873, the year that the Supreme Court ruled that despite the 14th Amendment giving all “persons” equal protection under the law, Illinois could prevent Myra Bradwell from joining the bar because she was a woman whose proper place was in the home, someone who had “no legal existence separate from her husband.”

Make no mistake about it: If the Hobby Lobby case was about the right of a Jehovah’s Witnesses-owned business to deny its male workers coverage for blood transfusions, it never would have gotten this far. It’s only because the American right and its handpicked cheerleaders in the Supreme Court don’t think women deserve the same rights as men that Hobby Lobby turned out the way it did.

If you can give me another reason, I’ll consider it. But as far as I’m concerned, the furor about the birth control mandate and the Hobby Lobby case was, for conservatives at least, always about the fact that the issue at stake was a woman’s right to control her own body.

Obviously, the court’s ruling on Hobby Lobby today could have been a whole lot worse. The justices did, after all, at least have the courtesy to say that their decision shouldn’t be seen as a go-ahead for other corporations to start doing whatever they want because their “religion” says so.

But I won’t mince words. The Hobby Lobby ruling was a loss for everyone who thinks women are actual people and a win for everyone who thinks that corporations and rich bosses should dominate society at the expense of everyone else.

Comments

Loren Bliss's picture
Loren Bliss 8 years 23 weeks ago
#1

Alice: re connection, probably the best way is for you to join LinkedIn, a professional networking service, through which many friends, colleagues and I have stayed in touch for many years. It's free, and you as a published writer would surely qualify. Another way might be through my organizational involvements (National Writers Union, 15 Now Tacoma, etc.). (If you already belong to NWU, you could probably get national headquarters to forward a snail-mail note to me, though I'd recommend you call and ask first.) Also, I'm very active with 15 Now and I'll ask some of my younger, more computer-savvy comrades for their suggestions. Oh, yeah -- you could also write a comment for the TypePad edition of my blog -- one that will never be published. With TypePad, comments always come to me for my approval before they're posted, which means I would edit it (or obliterate it completely) to keep your email address concealed.(Do NOT use the Blogger edition as it does not offer the same controls as TypePad does.) Hope to hear from you soon!

LB

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 8 years 23 weeks ago
#2

Okay OU812, I'll answer the original clueless question. Under a single-payer system, no one would have to depend on their job to get healthcare. This would eliminate the problem of employers cherrypicking what kind of healthcare their employees can and can't have, or forcing their religious laws down the throats of the non-religious. (Duh.) Had you read my previous posts, you would have found the answer to "yor" question already.

When I order myself a cup of gourmet coffee at one of those fancy cafes, I love having a thousand-and-one choices! When I need healthcare, I don't want "choices"; I just want the best care medical science has made possible in the 21st Century!

Tah-tah. It's been lovely chit-chatting with you, but I really must go now. - AIW

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 8 years 23 weeks ago
#3

Thank you Loren, for such helpful suggestions!!! I'll get my tech-savvy hubby to help me figure it out. - AIW

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 8 years 23 weeks ago
#4

Vegasman- Excellent point! Thank you!

Ou812's picture
Ou812 8 years 23 weeks ago
#5

i want the best care medical science can provide as well. We just disagree on how you get it. I'll stick with the system we have, and you may want to consider it as well. We will NEVER in your or my lifetime have single payer in this country.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 8 years 23 weeks ago
#6

Never, OU?! I don't think so. The status quo is simply unsustainable, and there are too many of us pushing for single payer. Just wait 'til you have a crisis; then you'll see for yourself how great this system is (not)!

The less healthcare you get, the more MONEY they get to keep! Sucker... - AIW

Ou812's picture
Ou812 8 years 23 weeks ago
#7

I don't have a victim mentality, like you do. As I said in my very first post here, many months ago. politics is for a person who has a zest for changing life, but lacks a zest for living life. I'm not into politics:)

by the way Alice, I could have Medicare tomorrow if I choose too. I have the mandatory coverage required at age 65 but since I have private medical insurance, I opted out of Medicare. My choice, I like choice.

ChicagoMatt 8 years 23 weeks ago
#8
The EMPLOYEE is paying for everything. Health benefits are part of the entire compensation package--not a bloody handout.
A compensation package that was forced onto the employer by the ACA. What if the government passed a law that said employers MUST provide guns and ammo to their employees, for national defense reasons? Wouldn't Pacifists for whom guns are against their moral code be allowed to sue the government and opt-out of the law?

I haven't heard any story yet about a single employee leaving their job because these four abortion-inducing drugs will not be included in their health insurance, so they will have to pay for them themselves, if they want them. I'm sure some Progressive is out there looking for that one person who they can say did in fact leave their job because of this. And, if that happens, I'm equally sure that Hobby Lobby will have no problem finding a replacement.

and they own their health--for profit health care
The law says they only have to provide it. You don't have to take it. You can find your own or, like a lot of people, get covered under your spouse's plan.

And they don't have to provide you with a job in the first place. That's one of the biggest problems I have with Progressives - they never seem to be satisfied. They want jobs, so they get them. But those jobs don't pay enough. Or they don't have enough benefits. Or they pollute too much. Or they don't provide maternity and paternity leave. Or the CEO makes too much. Or they're outsourcing some of their positions. And so on...

I wonder, after being on this blog for two months, and listening to Thom and other Progressive radio shows for about four years, if any Progressive has actually experienced happiness and contentment. All I see are complaints. Whatever is done, it's never good enough. Something tells me if they ever got single-payer healthcare and a $15-per-hour minimum wage, they would still just want more. It never ends. The entire platform is built on the notion that "Your situation isn't fair, and people with more than you owe you..."

ChicagoMatt 8 years 23 weeks ago
#9
The belief that a fertilized egg is human, with rights equal to the person carrying it, is a patriarchal notion that needs to go bye-bye.
Animals aren't human either, but they have rights. You can get fined and do jail time for dog fighting. Actually, you can get fined and do jail time for killing a fertilized turtle egg.

And, if someone kills a pregnant woman, that person can be charged with double homicide.

And, NO ONE is saying a woman can't have these pills. The law says that closely-help companies (small family-owned businesses that grew larger but stayed in the family) don't have to pay for it via their ACA-required insurance packages.

what matters to me is freedom; the freedom of all people to live their lives as they see fit,
Any employee who wishes is free to get their own pills, or find a different company that offers them in their package.

nothing could be more private in anyone's life and therefore, it is not for their employers (or the government) to restrict in any manner, shape or form.
I agree. And they aren't restricting it at all. Just not paying for it.

As taxpayers, we are always forced to pay for things we don't believe in: imperial war mongering and subsidies to fossil fuel, to list just two examples. Gee wouldn't it be nice if we could pick and choose where our tax money went!
We're not talking about taxes. We're talking about a for-profit business. Hobby Lobby can choose any insurance provider it wishes. But all of those insurance providers were forced by the ACA to include abortion pills. There was the conflict.

And, like you and I, Hobby Lobby has zero say in what its tax dollars are spent on.

We really need to break this connection between healthcare and employment

Didn't the ACA make that connection law? Before that, employers provided health insurance as a bonus, to attract employees. But individuals were always free to go get their own damn insurance. It's Obama and his law that forced this issue.

An egg is no more a human than a seed is a tree. Get over it.

At what point in your existence did you become a "human" with full legal rights? When you were born? You were still completely dependant upon others for your survival. Are the severely disabled or comatose also not humans, since they cannot survive on their own either?

You're kind of stuck on this "men are out to get me" anti-patriarchy theme. But there might be a little truth to that. Maybe men are jealous that we don't ever get the option of deciding someone's life or death legally.

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 8 years 23 weeks ago
#10

DAM -- How naive was Obama to promise he could do anything. It is the congress, not the prez. You say "Barack the Betrayer". I say Obama the innocent Optimist.

DAnneMarc's picture
DAnneMarc 8 years 23 weeks ago
#11
Quote OU812:Give me your source for 50,000 deaths/year for those who can't afford health care.

OU812 ~ The popular source for that data is this Harvard study entitled, "New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage" and is dated September 17,2009:

Havard Study

Quote Article:The study, conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance, found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993.
Quote Article:Steffie Woolhandler, study co-author, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance, noted: “Historically, every other developed nation has achieved universal health care through some form of nonprofit national health insurance. Our failure to do so means that all Americans pay higher health care costs, and 45,000 pay with their lives.”

“The Institute of Medicine, using older studies, estimated that one American dies every 30 minutes from lack of health insurance,” remarked David Himmelstein, study co-author, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance.

“Even this grim figure is an underestimate — now one dies every 12 minutes.”

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/

ChicagoMatt 8 years 23 weeks ago
#12

Also, it wasn't until the government stepped in that you were required to have health insurance. Before that, you were free to go to the hospital and just pay for whatever you needed done, thus denying the evil for-profit health insurance companies your hard-earned dollars.

Something my father pointed out to me once, and which I still wonder about to this day: How come a doctor can't just tell me how much something will cost? A dentist can tell me ahead of time. But if I have a non-life-threatening situation, like I've thrown out my back, which I do a lot, how come I can't just call around and get prices from each doctor? All they will tell me is the copay.

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 8 years 23 weeks ago
#13

flyguy8650 -- How do you reconcile what SCOTUS clarified today with what you said? They said their ruling could be applied to all 20 types of contraceptives. I think this ruling fits in with your libertarian views. They said the 1% have the freedom take all the money (see above) from the 47%.

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 8 years 23 weeks ago
#14

L Bliss -- Having read your blogs, I have a hard time guessing why this site would not welcome you with open arms.

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 8 years 23 weeks ago
#15

AIW -- Please do not call it "a mere body part". I love it too much.

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 8 years 23 weeks ago
#16

AIW -- Have you ever tried going into the chat room and asking SUEN if you can exchange email addresses securely with other posters? Palin probably can probably do it. However, if he tells us how, then no one would be secure.

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 8 years 23 weeks ago
#17

OU -- To quote Thom the place you go is to the ballot box.

DAnneMarc's picture
DAnneMarc 8 years 23 weeks ago
#18

Quote ChicagoMatt:What if the government passed a law that said employers MUST provide guns and ammo to their employees, for national defense reasons?

ChicagoMatt ~ More hypothetical hogwash! Instead of speculating on ridiculous scenarios why not just focus on the fact that this debacle never would have happened with single payer. The government is the best ticket to handle health care--no one else. The government has a special provision built into it that prevents it from making a law that respects any establishment of religion. That law forces the government to provide health coverage equally to everyone without any discrimination for any reason. Because of the way the government is set up and the constitution is written, were health care services every to be perverted by some obscene special interest group We the People would be able to pull in the reigns quickly with our justice system. It ain't perfect, however it is bound by the letter of the Constitution; and, even in this miscarriage of justice it is that stipulation of the Constitution, together with the top heavy bureaucracy of the for profit health care system and its unholy alliance with corporations and all other manner of special interest groups that made the problem possible.

Don't get me wrong. In a way I'm glad all this crap is hitting the fan. It's the only way to motivate this country to switch to single payer. Natural evolution at it's best sometimes feeds on conflict and hardship.

Quote ChicagoMatt:The law says they only have to provide it. You don't have to take it. You can find your own or, like a lot of people, get covered under your spouse's plan.

And they don't have to provide you with a job in the first place. That's one of the biggest problems I have with Progressives - they never seem to be satisfied. They want jobs, so they get them. But those jobs don't pay enough. Or they don't have enough benefits. Or they pollute too much. Or they don't provide maternity and paternity leave. Or the CEO makes too much. Or they're outsourcing some of their positions. And so on...

I wonder, after being on this blog for two months, and listening to Thom and other Progressive radio shows for about four years, if any Progressive has actually experienced happiness and contentment. All I see are complaints. Whatever is done, it's never good enough. Something tells me if they ever got single-payer healthcare and a $15-per-hour minimum wage, they would still just want more. It never ends. The entire platform is built on the notion that "Your situation isn't fair, and people with more than you owe you..."

ChicagoMatt ~ Wow! What kind of a CHRISTIAN are you anyway? Obviously you and I believe in a completely different God. Please keep your 'God' away from mine. Well, I'm not even going to waste my time with any kind of a response other than that to your selfish, apathetic, callous and clueless tirade. All I'm gonna say is, Hey everybody, read this, and get a load of this guy!

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 8 years 23 weeks ago
#19

AIW -- I think it is relevant for you to use some interesting numbers. 50% of all bankruptcies are cause by health related issues. In 50% of those cases they had health insurance. It seems to me that condition is a dagger in the heart of entrepreneurship.

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 8 years 23 weeks ago
#20

OU -- You certainly would. However, the people paying to clean your house would have more lawyers than the person cleaning the house. Now, if wehad more lawyers than the insurance companies the US healthcare system might be functional.

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 8 years 23 weeks ago
#21

OU -- Interesting that you are using Wikipedia as your reference. Did you hear Thom's story about his tour of the heritage foundation? One the work areas he went by had every screen logged into wikipedia. They were probably creating all those stories about Paul Revere helping British to support Sarah's ignorant comments.

Here is a link that seems to show most everything you are saying is made up.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-the-us-healthcare-syste...

DAnneMarc's picture
DAnneMarc 8 years 23 weeks ago
#22

Asside from the health and political implications of this botched SCOTUS decision is the imediate impact on population. We, as a responsible and enlightened species need to take seriously the problem of overpopulation and act now to encourage pregnancy planning as much as possible. We need only look as far a China to see the consequences of irresponsible family management.

Quote Huffington Post:Overpopulation remains the leading driver of hunger, desertification, species depletion and a range of social maladies across the planet. Recently, a spate of op-ed essays have filled the pages of some of world's top newspapers and blogs -- from the Guardian to the New York Times -- challenged this view, declaring that overpopulations is not, nor has ever been, a problem. To make progress in the most recent round of the age-old debate between technological optimists and Malthusian realists, it's important to establish criteria and characterize consequences.
Quote unomaha website:Problems associated with overpopulation. China has the highest population in the world, encompassing 1.2 billion or twenty one percent of the world's population (P.R.B. 7). China faces serious social and economic problems associated with overpopulation in the years to come. Overly populated regions lead to degradation of land and resources, pollution, and detrimental living conditions. The Chinese government has tried to find a solution to the problem of increasing population with moderate success.

China's population control policy. The Chinese government has used several methods to control population growth. In 1979, China started the "one child per family policy" (Juali Li 563). This policy stated that citizens must obtain a birth certificate before the birth of their children. The citizens would be offered special benefits if they agreed to have only one child. Citizens who did have more than one child would either be taxed an amount up to fifty percent of their income, or punished by loss of employment or other benefits (Hilali 10). Furthermore, unplanned pregnancies or pregnancies without the proper authorization would need to be terminated (Hilali 9). In 1980, the birth-quota system was established to monitor population growth(Jiali Li 563). Under this system, the government set target goals for each region. Local officials were mainly held responsible for making sure that population growth totals did not exceed target goals. If target goals were not met, the local officials were punished by law or by loss of privileges.

Other population control methods. Other methods that have been used by the Chinese government to restrict rising population totals include birth control programs and economic changes. In the early '80's, sterilization target goals were set and made mandatory for people who had two children (Hilali 19). At its peak in 1983, tubal ligations, vasectomies, and abortions amounted to thirty-five percent of the total birth control methods (Hilali 20). In addition, the economy changed from primarily one of agriculture to industry (Hilali 22). The government used this to its advantage; spreading the view that economic growth would hinder population growth (Hilali 22).

We now have a chance to encourage and enable people to make responsible choices with their bodies, families, and future. If we do not take advantage of this oportunity, and proceed as right wing "Christians" would have us, the future we all have to look forward to is already painted for us on the streets of Beijing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alon-tal/overpopulation-is-still-t_b_3990646.html

http://maps.unomaha.edu/Peterson/geog1000/Sidebar/ChinaPop.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHQN_vWhzPo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG-meaGqg-M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKhsPO6yYko

Google Images For Overpopulation


Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 8 years 23 weeks ago
#23

OU812- If you're not into politics, then what are you doing on this forum? This forum is all about politics.

I don't believe you know me well enough to determine what kind of "mentality" I have, outside of my positions on the various socio-political issues discussed here.

Since you're not into politics and have such a "zest" for life, perhaps you could find yourself a "zestier" blog full of "zestier" people who'd rather discuss more meaningful, "zestier" kinds of things like sports, the weather and celebrity gossip.

Would you like fries with your choice, or a salad?

Have a "zesty" day! - AIW

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 8 years 23 weeks ago
#24

Yeah Matt! Before the evil government stepped in, we were "free" to go to the hospital's emergency room and get mediocre care from stressed-out, sleep deprived practitioners who don't know doodily-do about us and our health histories. And unless our pockets were deep, we were then "free" to be left stone broke and hounded by debt collectors. And if our medical issue was real serious, maybe even foreclosure as an added bonus.

Gee thanks for the clarification! I feel so much better now. - AIW

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 8 years 23 weeks ago
#25

Chuck, I'm actually familiar with those statistics. But I heard it was 75% of bankruptcies, caused by medical bills, involving people who were actually insured. Either way, you're damn right that it drives a dagger through the heart of entrepreneurship! (At least in the context of healthcare, it does.) But don't try telling that to "OU812". It seems all that nitrate-contaminated, processed meat has calcified her brain, because nothing seems to sink in. Perhaps I should desist from arguing with her, since all it does is waste my time. Ditto Matt the Rat. (Sorry... couldn't resist!) There's just something about these right-wing "Christians" that brings out the worst in me. - AIW

P.S. Marc, I hear ya. You and Matt worship different gods. I never cease to be amazed by all these sanctimoniously religious, spiritually bankrupt individuals.... the "Anti-Christ" incarnate!!!

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 8 years 23 weeks ago
#26

Hey Sandles, check out the next thread (re: the methane scare); post #19!

Vegasman56 8 years 23 weeks ago
#27

Today’s action by the Supreme Court of United States of America is not following the Constitution of United States. This spiritual tyranny that is forced upon the company’s employees should be a warning to us all, that the owners of this company freedom of religion is being rammed down the American public throat, with the disregard of other peoples own religious beliefs, their general health care and security.

The Conservative Christian Fundamentalists they are trying to establish their version of a theocracy that the founding fathers have rejected and seen it as a threat, and that would limit their version of freedom for this country.

I have found some writings of what the founders had in mind on religion for this country.

·

“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”

~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789

· “Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.”
~Founding Father George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792

· The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams

· I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799

· “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814,

· · The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State.”

~Founding Father James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432, quoted from Gene Garman, “Essays In Addition to America’s Real Religion”

This is where I found information

35 Founding Father Quotes Conservative Christians Will Hate

jiminfantino's picture
jiminfantino 8 years 23 weeks ago
#28

ChicagoMatt -

Then why does the Catholic church recommend the rhythm method for controlling pregnancy amongst married couples? The rhythm method most often than not results in a fertilized egg that cannot implant and subsequently dies. According to non-seculars, that is also murder. Should Hobby Lobby deny all family planning from their insurance, even those that promote this method?

It may be a religious argument, but if so, it's not well thought out. The SCOTUS missed that. They also missed the part of the bible where god promotes abortion for defiled women. It's in Numbers 5:21. The bible is therefore ambiguous about abortion at best. So, does a religious argument work even if it's just made up? If I don't want to pay for insurance for black people because I think my religious has given them the mark of Cain, does it matter that I'm wrong? Or is the claim of belief all that is necessary to discriminate?

jiminfantino's picture
jiminfantino 8 years 23 weeks ago
#29

If indeed the government passed a law that companies had to hand out guns and ammo as part of a health insurance package, some companies would object on religious grounds. In that case, would the SCOTUS provide a similar exception on religious grounds? Who knows. 1st and 2nd ammendments in conflict there?

Like it or not, there are laws that govern employers. Lots of them. You can't hire someone and not pay them. You can't chain your employees in the basement at night, like you can in China. You can't discriminate based on various factors. Because we passed those laws (yes, I think we are the government ultimately)

Seems like you don't agree with much of the standing employment laws. Progressives don't agree with others. That doesn't mean the laws don't exist. You can't just do whatever you want as an employer. Laws are there to balance individual freedom with the common good. It's a bit childish to whine about Progressives debating where they want that balance to lie, when you just want to balance it differently.

DAnneMarc's picture
DAnneMarc 8 years 23 weeks ago
#30

For all you right wing "Christian" "Right to Lifers" out there who appreciate the fact that a fertilized egg eventually becomes a person we got a great deal for you. We have a lump of coal. Eventually it will become a diamond. If you act now during this special limited time offer you can have this future diamond for the low, low price of $19.99. That's right one future 19 carat, $100,000 diamond for only $19.99. It also comes with a no questions asked money back guarantee. If--in the next 10,000 years--you are not completely satisfied we'll refund all your money. But wait, there's more!! If you act now, we will also throw in an Acorn seed and a Pine cone. That right, not only a diamond but an Acorn and Pine tree for the low, low price of $19.99. How can you afford not to act now? If, in 10,000 years, you chose to return the diamond we will still refund your money in full and you can keep the trees as our personal gift. Don't wait! Act now! This offer ends when the next victim dies from not having access to health care. That's only 12 minutes away.

Sorry, offer is now void!

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 8 years 23 weeks ago
#31

Marc, you crack me up.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 8 years 23 weeks ago
#32

I feel compelled, for the first time since posting here, to make a public apology. My "Matt the rat" comment constituted a personal attack and was completely out of line. This is precisely what I've criticized Ken Ware for, time and again. I hate being a hypocrite, so I thought I'd wipe the slate clean once and for all. - Aliceinwonderland

Thom's Blog Is On the Move

Hello All

Today, we are closing 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.

From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom is a national treasure. Read him, embrace him, learn from him, and follow him as we all work for social change."
Robert Greenwald, political activist and founder and president of Brave New Films
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann is a literary descendent of Ben Franklin and Tom Paine. His unflinching observations and deep passion inspire us to explore contemporary culture, politics, and economics; challenge us to face the facts of the societies we are creating; and empower us to demand a better world for our children and grandchildren."
John Perkins, author of the New York Times bestselling book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
From Screwed:
"Hartmann speaks with the straight talking clarity and brilliance of a modern day Tom Paine as he exposes the intentional and systematic destruction of America’s middle class by an alliance of political con artists and outlines a program to restore it. This is Hartmann at his best. Essential reading for those interested in restoring the institution that made America the envy of the world."
David C. Korten, author of The Great Turning and When Corporations Rule the World