Recent comments
ADHD: Hunter in a Farmer's World
Thom Hartmann has written a dozen books covering ADD / ADHD - Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder.
Join Thom for his new twice-weekly email newsletters on ADHD, whether it affects you or a member of your family.
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.
Find discount perfume, discounts on leading brands of cheap women
" How many times must a citizen look up before they can really see the sky?????"
Thanks Thom for sharing this one.
buy soundcloud followers
buy soundcloud reposts
I will definitely share this to my friends.
buy facebook subscribers
buy facebook likes
ProfDocSJTpese ~ It is not feasible that gun manufacturers do not bare some responsibility for the harm their products create. If I manufactured a button that could make anyone disappear; and, then sold that button to someone who used it, am I not at least in part responsible for the disappearance of the people who suffer as a result? Is it not reasonable to assume that when I manufactured the button it was my intent to make people disappear?
We hold cigarette, drug, and automobile manufacturers liable for the indirect negative effects that using their products have on people. Should we not therefore also hold other manufacturers equally responsible for the direct negative effects that using their products have on people?
It seems to me that this is a no brainer. If you manufacture a weapon like a AR-15 that is designed to create as much carnage as possible in a short period of time; and, someone uses it for just that purpose, you should be held legally accountable. Remember, the firearms at the time of the founding fathers consisted of flintlock--one shot at a pop--rifles. Rapid fire weaponry was way off. Laws must change with the times. That is why the Constitution has the Amendment provision in the first place.
Loren Bliss ~ You have certainly laid out an airtight argument. I must say that I have to agree with every word. However, I too am motivated by keeping hope alive; so, I hope you don't mind me challenging your conclusion a bit. Revolutionary change aside there is one more factor that can be involved to effect regime change. I feel compelled to add one little detail I think you left out... (5)-An unforeseen--natural or otherwise--element of fate. Although such an ingredient isn't necessary for a straight up successful rebellion to occur, such an ingredient can easily help to forment regime change; and, when you get down to it, that is all a rebellion is really designed to do anyway.
There are natural examples of this occurring throughout history. Ancient floods for example have lead to the toppling of empires and the relocation of nations. Famines, drought and pestilence have also toppled empires without the use of hands or swords. Pompeii was destroyed by a volcano. Sodom and Gomorrah allegedly by asteroids. Egypt by droughts, and floods.
Internal gluttony and moral depravity destroyed Rome. The thousand year Third Reich fell by underestimating the tenacity of the Russian people. The unstoppable army of Napoleon was devastated by cold weather. The mighty Native American tribes that inhabited the East Coast and successfully fought off an invasion by the Viking army were erased from the map with a plague; an enemy too small for them even to perceive.
Today we are aware of the potential threat of a plethora of game changers that could occur at any moment. Through Geology we know of earthquake faults in very vulnerable places. Through Climate Science we are aware of the potential for world wide floods and famines from our own use of fossil fuels. Through the science of Helioseismology we are aware of solar flares and their potentially deadly impact on our power grids. Through Astronomy we are aware of the potential for a space rock to suddenly cause disaster on a global scale; and, our inability to properly predict it coming in time to prepare. Any one of these unknown potential threats could have a devastating effect on our political paradigm and change the current regime in the blinking of an eye.
Yet, all these unknown potential elements pale in significance to the known ones of today. In the Canary Islands off the coast of Africa is a volcanic island with a mountain teetering on collapsing into the ocean. It is estimated that all it would take is a small seismic event or eruption to trigger the fall. Once that is done, a mega tsunami will be released that is estimated to destroy the East coast of the United States. It is not a question of if it will happen, it is a question of when it will happen.
The national park of Yellowstone in Wyoming, the heartland of America, is the caldera of a Super Volcano that is well overdue for eruption. The event would leave the planet in a nuclear winter for several years and blanket most of our nation under several miles of volcanic ash. It would destroy our crops, lead to a famine, kill millions with inhalation of volcanic gases, and destroy our infrastructure. It is not a question as to if it will happen, it is a question of when it will happen.
One little planet changing natural disaster has already happened in March of 2011. An earthquake off the shore of Japan and the resultant tsunami destroyed several nuclear power plants at Fukushima. Ever since then the plants have been releasing several million gallons of radiated water into the ocean. Some scientist have claimed that this disaster could eventually render our hemisphere of the planet uninhabitable. Of course, the true results remain to be seen; however, they don't look good.
All natural and foreseeable elements considered, perhaps the wildest card in the mix is human behavior. Although true to some extent that human behavior is natural and therefore understandable and predictable using the scientific method, there are so many variables involved that it is almost impossible to predict under all circumstances possible. It has been my personal observation that any given human--regardless of education or personal mental disabilities--will display some skill or talent unique to them. It also has been my observation that given a big enough challenge that people will form strong unifying bonds almost instantly without asking questions, in order to overcome the challenge.
The other factor of human behavior that is highly unpredictable is environment. In an ever changing environment some people have a Darwinistic advantage over others. Surely a Billionaire with many resources at their disposal and a society that is rigged to support those resources is no match for the average man on the street. However, if you were to take that Billionaire out of their mansion and put them on the street, suddenly they become as vulnerable as anyone else on the street. Perhaps even more so because they lack the street smarts that the people who live on the street have developed over time as a matter of survival. Environment alone can mean everything. A great white shark flopping around on the plains would become a quick meal to a tiger. However, the situation would be reversed quickly if that tiger found himself flopping around in the ocean.
As far as prevailing technology is concerned the one thing I've learned from history is that everyone at anytime in history is falsely convinced that they know everything. If the history of technology has taught us anything it should be that the more we learn the less we know. If this simple paradox is not true then why do we spend Billions of dollars every year on super colliders and space telescopes? The more we learn, the more we know we don't know. One thing I think is certain is that we will never know everything there is to know. I do not believe in an infallible technology. As a technician somewhat versed in state of the art technologies as well as the their evolution I can assure you that the more complex any technology is, the more vulnerabilities it has.
Considering what we know, and history, I don't think it is wise to underestimate people or discount future events. If history tells us anything, some of the biggest losers in history owe their defeats to doing just that. As my mother used to say, "Things always have a way of working themselves out." She was usually right.
If George W was left out of the loop regards to extraordinary, enhanced interrogation in order to protect the executive , as we go down the chain of command to get to the bottom of it , why is it that Donald Rumsfelds name is not as yet mentioned. Pres. Bush aside, Rumsfeld was the public face in support of "enhanced interrogation" so what did he know, what didn't he know and what did he know that he did not inform the executive in order to protect the president ?
As always, I think Thom has some good points, but is missing some other points.
For example, what about the push for every student to go to college? By the time I was in high school 20 years ago, the rule was EVERY student needs to go to college. Now, even having a 4-year degree is considred "basic". I had to get my M.A. in order to get a good position. With so many way over-qualified people in the job market, the regular schmoes don't stand a chance. Like many of you (I suspect), I have friends with B.A.s who have given up looking for jobs in their fields, and are working their way up the retail ladder now, having been in a retail position for so long.
The destruction of the traditional family goes hand-in-hand with the destruction of the middle class, either as a result of, or a factor of, each other. Think about everyone you know who is still in the middle class: how many are still with their first spouse? A signficantly higher proportion than your lower-class friends, most likely. Either a lack of money causes family strife (possible), or family strife causes a lack of money (also possible). But there is no denying that it is much easier to get and stay in the middle class if you're also in a stable relationship.
Also, an interesting side-note about credit card debt: During my college orientation in the late 90s, Visa gave us all free Cubs tickets if we signed up for a credit card. Of course we all did. And, being 18 and stupid, I ran up a balance quickly. They kept upping my limits, I kept paying as much as I could. But now, almost 20 years later, and with an excellent income, I still have a hard time getting out of credit card debt. I still have that same Visa account from college - with a limit high enough to buy a new car outright. It's just a fact of life for me and my friends - never carry cash, charge everything, and expect to have a balance month-to-month.
Smart move on Visa's part - getting us so young.
I think Willie W is right, more or less. Yes, there are schemes and machination to control us, but it's more about indifference than deliberate attacks against American society. I do believe the vast majority of Americans are deliberately undermined, but that's just a byproduct of a state capitalist system. Keep the consumers buying and not thinking . I am not sure who said it first, I heard it from Gore Vidal, paraphrasing - it ain't hate that's the opposite of love, it's indifference.
Excellent point, Docten.
Reply to #15: Matt, religion belongs in church. Science belongs in school. That's not me pushing a personal agenda on anybody; that's the separating of church and state, one thing the founding fathers of this country got right. And I for one would like to see it upheld.
There are many religions practiced in this multicultural, multiethnic country of ours. To teach the doctrine and mythology of one particular religion in school (unless it's a religious school like a Catholic school) isn't appropriate or fair to the kids who come from other religions, or no religion at all. - Aliceinwonderland
AIW, obviously, as I stated to DanneMarc, “ordinary” people must organize into democratic institutions like citizen unions or, as I advocate for, consumer based unions, however we organize, this must be done by the people. The political class has rarely acted willingly on its own, especial when it comes to public benefit.
I don’t see how voting for Elizabeth Warren, who supports Israel’s illegal occupation of the Palestinian people, will help change foreign policy? I’m having trouble with the reasoning.
All great movements in the US has come from external pressure (the public) pushing the ruling class, normally out of fear, to allow for temporary change in government policy. I don’t agree with your assessment of the Vietnam War, however, Civil Rights, labor movements and women’s suffrage all come out of dedicated public pressure. Politicians looking for opportunity and a constituency may have championed these causes, but I would imagine most political support comes out of necessity over actual solidarity.
In your last post, you’re making the point that mass movements affect change on government. I don’t see why people have to wait for a politician in order to organize into public democratic institutions using collective influence to seek change in our system of government. The people are more than capable of organizing without legislative help. AIW, I am puzzled by your statement “how are we the "ordinary" citizens ever going to achieve the sort of collective action you're describing without politicians legislating and enacting the kinds of policies that re-empower us?”
We should be organizing as a society to counter or protect legislation, not waiting on a politician to inspire mass civic action through a bill, amendment or anything like that, that’s just not going to happen.
Sen. Warren might be an honest player in the Senate and might be a real champion for the people, however, her stance on Israel or any military intervention outside of actual defensive measures isn’t going to get my vote. I have a loose criteria, but on this matter, I’m not going to be pragmatic.
Republican domination happened years ago in the DNC with political hawks like the Clinton's taking the national stage. Obama is economically to the right of Ronald Reagan on most issues and he’s not much better on military interventionism. I’m not trying to be provocative or argumentative for the sake of it. I honestly believe the things I type; an honest liberal thinking person has no political option within the two major political parties. We have to re-discover the courage as a people to organize against the coming tide of corpo-fascist ideology wrapped in personal freedom, anti-unionism and economic domination, and a lot of other bad ideas to further segregate, isolate and dominate society here at home, in America, and around the world.
Of course. He was also right to shoot Trayvon Martin, who was the reason George was out there in the first place. At his death, Trayvon, of Miami, was in possession of some of the jewelry stolen from homes in Sanford. Trayvon was in a "magnet" school for "at risk youth", formerly known as reform school. He got there by beating up his school bus driver. He got a suspension from there for selling pot and hot jewelry. The real question is: What the fright is wrong with Jeb Bush's Florida? Suspension for misbehaving in Reform School? I bet everyone on death row would take that deal. I think that after beating up the bus driver he should have gone straight to a medium security prison. Thank God for George Zimmerman; I wish he were my neighbor.
Roland
Aliceinwonderland ~ (Reply to #31) I couldn't have said it better myself. I certainly hope you are right; and, definitely feel the same way.
Willie W, I respectfully disagree.
Reply to #27: HT, I like your perspective because it gives me just a glimmer of hope. Loren could be right; we could be headed right for the abyss, just a blink away from falling through that big black hole into eternal oblivion where extinction awaits us. However I prefer to hold onto the fantasy that at some point enough people will wake up so that collectively, we can give Humpty Dumpty the ole heave-ho and get on with life. It might not be based on reality, and I might not live to see it, but at least it keeps me getting out of bed in the morning. - AIW
I don't believe they plotted to destroy the middle class. I do believe they took every advantage to acquire as much money as the system would allow, with no particular interest or goal set for how it would effect us. We're just collateral damage.
Green Party leaders encourage Bernie Sanders to run as Green Party candidate
Here's Green Party petition for Bernie Sanders as Green Party candidate
https://www.change.org/p/bernie-sanders-run-for-president-in-2016-as-a-g...
Green Party facebook page urging Bernie Sanders to be Green Party candidate
https://www.facebook.com/Bernie.Sanders.Go.Green
Watch Green Party Green TV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bGnSxgU684&list=UUJAvfgs4nK3Viu5HXZxv_b...
Yes, Coca Cola, Walmart, McDonald's etc along with American Tourist and chain hotels will move the communist out and cause an upheaval in Cuban society. Hopefully the Cubans will be better off in the long run.
Agreed. Interviewing him in a challenging way accomplishes more to raise awareness than freezing him out.
It was particularly disturbing that the guest made his case by citing the fact that we don't interview people convicted of crime. To the extent that's true, it's not good for democracy. The public has an interest in understanding why some people break its laws -- if for no other reason, to come up with more effective ways of preventing this. But sometimes it can mean realizing the law violated was a bad idea to begin with.
By design? no...classes of people, as do individuals in any class, have only themselves to blame for their condition. History repeats itself often enough to serve as a warning, a too often ignored warning.
Every advertisement is a lie. Every sales pitch is first and foremost presented to benefit the seller. America's middle class sold itself to debt- gotta have a bigger house than necessary, a better car, insurance, pharmaceuticals, surround sound maxsize flatscreen, phone apps, prisons to alleviate my fear of someone whom I've been told to be afraid (add your own distraction that keeps your neighbor from considering the local and global consequences of his choices).
My favorite example arises every time there is a third party nominee for an elected public service position. I hear this too often: "Sure! he/she makes a lot of sense and I agree with their vision, but they have no chance of winning the election, so I must vote for someone with a [poll determined] chance."
We get what we pay for. e.g. states spend more energy on STEM programs and testing than programs that require critical thinking - programs necessary to insure the continuation of current corporate priorities.
Now, give your kid a pill and tell him to settle down and pay attention. We either want him to buy our next techno-gadget or develop our next next techno-gadget.
If the first casualty in war is the truth, the first victim of torture is logic.
Agreed. Informative labeling will tell you what's in a food item but needn't say how it was added. Someone with a turbot allergy has an interest in knowing whether a crate of tomatoes express a turbot protein. But that interest is satisfied with a label saying "Contents: tomatoes, turbot protein." The prospective buyer doesn't care whether the protein was sprayed on the tomatoes, infused in the seeds or the soil they're planted in, or added by means of recombinant DNA.
You're both right. Although Cuban state capitalism represented an improvement over the *status quo ante*, it's become a dead end. Resumption of movement toward real socialism requires the reappearance of real class politics, which this development may facilitate.
One that was forgotten here:
In the 1980's the Reagan Administration eliminated the tax deduction for Credit Card Interest. We were sold it by the banksters and the Right Wing elitistist that mostly the wealthy posessesed credit cards. But their design to take down wages and give us easy credit to lessen the blow all at once but gradually it would make sure average people would would go into debt just to stay afloat and maintain their current living status as our wages were attacked, and our jobs were shipped out of the country. The banksters are borrowing money at less than 1% now issuing credit cards, and raising credit card rates to people with really good credit to well into the mid 20% levels. And it's legal. That use to be called loan sharking. But as usual the Right wing bankster hypicrits still call it loan sharking only for lower level loan issuers or lower class people who threaten to eat some of their profits.