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.
Thanks, Thom, for (as usual) putting Ryan's proposal in perpective. It is amusing to me that on the Sunday so-called-news programs, Ryan "sanitized" his proposal by concentrating on the consolidation of various programs, and trotting out the usual "the-states-can-do-this-better-than-the-Federal-Government" arguement.
Indeed, the truth hurts! In fact, "stupid" perfectly sums up everything that comes out of the right. It is, after all, what the right is fertilized with. Let's take a moment to look at SAT/ACT scores and how they relate to red states vs blue states. First thing we see is that all red states, with the exception of Virginia, all average two digit IQ scores with Virginia barely breaking 100. All blue states, on the other hand, with the exceptions of Michigan and Oregon, are 100 or better. Michigan and Oregon also dipped down to 99. However, the chart linked to below shows the true dramatic difference in IQ scores per state. So we see a definite dumbing down with red vs blue states. Also, another correlation is between the percentage of college graduates per capita per state which is coincidentally directly proportionate to the percentage of Democratic voters per registered voter. Other interesting statistical data shows that red states also have a higher divorce rate and a higher percentage of the population per capita that is dependent on welfare.
So the facts do indeed show that people who vote Republican tend to be dumber, less educated, more unemployed, and come from a greater percentage of dysfunctional families then voters who tend to vote Democratic. It is no wonder that these people lack a basic understanding of society and economics when their basic understanding of themselves and the world is so limited and flawed. It is also no wonder that these people tend to repeat the same mistakes, elect the same representatives, and willfully believe anything they are told without the simplest rational questioning of authority. No wonder Republican leadership wants so desperately to destroy free education. Clearly, a well educated electorate is their greatest threat to power! Keeping their constituency dumb, uneducated, unemployed, and unable to improve themselves is their best bet to stay in office. It is a shame that their constituency doesn't have the wherewithal to see that for themselves.
http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/16/states-with-the-highest-c_n_682195.html#s119081&title=Illinois__587
http://www.businessinsider.com/red-states-are-welfare-queens-2011-8
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/21/divorce-study_n_4639430.html
Like Paul Ryan I grew up Catholic and attended a Catholic Grade School. In was influenced by stories of St, Francis of Assisi, and in the mid sixties influenced by the writings of Thomas Merton. As I remember the fifties and sixties it seemed there was an attitude or feeling of connection among common people. Yes times in my little town were financially challenging, and while self preservation was of paramount consideration, so was empathy for ones neighbor because we were all in it together.
uring the seventies a new philosophy began to emerge with a more pronounced notion of winners and losers. One was either a mover and shaker, or boehemian. Beohemians did not require new status symbols and took comfort in other persuits of happiness or comfort. Motivation to succeed financially, became an obsession while separating ones self from the "losers" was more evident by status in the community. It became despicable, even anti American to not excell maniacally. My parents were responsible caring people who worked hard, saved their money, and never used credit cards. They lived in the same house for 50 years and worked to keep it up. It was an old well kept and humble home that was neat and tidy but without all the stuff and my parents were looked down upon generally as being unambitious. What my parents were in reality were responsible and empathetic. They helped their neighbors when they needed to, kept their noses clean, and were ethical and conservative democrats who didn't feel the need to place excessive financial stress on themselves or encourage that sort of livesyle on others. No one ever envied their lives or their possessions, but lots of people should have.
I see where the attitude of winners take all and everyone else is a loser has had a negative impact on us all. We have created a negative, prejudice, condescending, society who are anything but empathetic. They beoieve they have a god given right to over consume resources, control public opinion and attitude, define objectives and goals based upon their own flawed opinions and beliefs, and determine who eats first at the table and the seating and serving order. We have set up a social system in this nation where success has alot to do with social class and attitude. If that philosophy is not WELLFARE than I don't know what is. No where in society does ther exist this system through media and hype where those who need help the least recieve it the most, and where those who are in the most need of assistance and opportunity are looked upon with destain. We really need to foster an attitude of inclusion to the American Dream but instead we have an attitude of exclusion. Paul Ryan most definitely considers himself and those like him exclusive. I consider Paul Ryan misguided.
"kloro"- Not only am I familiar with "The Sociopath Next Door" (having read it), but in the past I have recommended it. Thank you for mentioning it. I only wish the public would learn enough about these predators to stop voting them into office. - AIW
Two points. First, the key to what Thom's writing about is the relationship between nature and nurture. Yes, we're born with predispositions, but experience can modify the way those predispositions are realized. Think about Lakoff's work with cognitive mapping.
Second, might be worth remembering the book and documentary based on it, The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power, by Joel Bakan, Abbott, and Achbar. This is about, not the corporate or political kahuna, but the SCOTUS's "corporate person." The works ask the question, "If a corporation is a person, what kind of person is it?" The answer? A psychopath.
[The work was originally done over a decade ago. However, a special school version has just recently been completed.]
It really isn't necessary to consult neurological studies to know that the powerful aren't motivated to care. Anyone can see that when someone gains power their values change. It's simply a matter of convenience. Before you abhored unchecked, tyrrannical authority, now you like it.
That's why lefties become neocons when they finnish school, start careers, start making money and join the upper classes. That's why the Democrats and labor movement are victims of their own success. Workers started making money, entered the middle class (petit bourgeuoisie), started buying stock and voting Republican.
That's why Occupy was leaderless - so that they wouldn't plant, within their movement, the seeds of the next tyrranny like so many other revolutionary and reform movements before them had.
It's a cop out to refer to neurological studies, is someone now to say that it's necessary to be a neurologist to address philosophical questions? Neurology is ultimately irrelevant, it essentially doesn't tell us anything we don't already know about life and people - and that hasn't been known for generations since the dawn of humanity.
It reminds me of when I was a young undergraduate studying psychology and sociology and was absolutely enamoured with it, wanted to tell everybody about it and thought I knew better than everyone else because of it.
One time I was explaining something to an old man who'd worked hard hard all his life and never had much formal education. I don't remember just what I was explaining but it was one of those real obvious observations of commonplace phenomena that psychological and sociological jargon cause to sound so sophisticatedly theoretical and arcane. When I was done explaining the old man looked at me and said, "Boy, you sure don't go to school for nothin'!" and the whole room of older workmen busted out laughing.
This blog is pretty widely read and has an influence on quite a relatively large number of people - as blogs go - or you wouldn't be so concerned with it, OU (I ain't gonna eat one).
Never mind - to use words of Emily LaTella of SNL.
OU812, there is nuance to everything and to dismiss everyone who criticizes our current system as having a victim complex is to really broad brush it and miss the always present nuance. Lefties do sometimes take the "victim of society" shit too far (though I wouldn't put anybody on this blog in that category) but that doesn't mean there isn't genuine injustice, abuse, exploitation and victimization. The "victim complex politics" on the left occurs not too frequently but much more so than Id like it to. It comes more from upper or middle class lefty academics than the poor and working class "victims" they purport to speak for - and it pisses me off because it hurts the credibility of claims of genuine victimization in the eyes of the general public and gives a pretext for righties like you to dismiss our arguments. That's really my only problem with it. I don't think it meaningfully harms society in any way other than it hurts our movements in that way.
Incidentally, all politics in America is victimological. While we were partying in the '70s celebrating our victories of the '60s, big business and the wealthy, who were beaten back by those victories, were busy planning on how to win it all back from the people. They hatched a strategy that was implemented in the late '70s and early '80s that entailed charecterizing the rich and powerful as the victims of society - as absurd as that may seem - together with some divisive campaigns of crypto racism and stigmitization of the poor that were put with the contextual background of that new victim complex of big business and the rich high and mighty.
Big business and the rich, it was said, are egregiously put upon victims because they have to pay taxes and obey regulations that force them to contribute to - and not only take from - society - and to consider - and not harm - the well being of their fellow citizens. It's all PR sham and scam and is well documented in places like the smoking gun video - with only recently obtained audio - of Lee Atwater explicitly laying out the strategy and in the work of investgative journalists like Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber exposing of the multi billion dollar, big business PR industry.
Also OU (I ain't gonna eat one), I'd caution you from using personal anecdotes as evidence for your argument rather than publicly verifiable or at least publicly scrutinizable events and narratives as anybody can say anything here and there's no way to check it. Although none of us may say it, I guarantee you that most of us doubt the veracity some of the convenient claims of some of the commentors here whom we haven't gotten to know and trust the genuineness of - particularly when they are patently untruthful on other points.
Stout's book (yes, I've read it) was published over 8 years ago. Thom's referring to a study just completed.
I AM going to concur with the previous comments based on the work done by Dr. Clive Boddy of Nottingham Trent Univ., 2011.The Corp. Psychopaths Theory of the Global Financial Crisis. ...Scientists believe that 1% of the general pop. is psychopathic. Meaning that there are 3 ml. moral monsters among normal U. S. citizens. There is emerging evidence that this frequency increases within upper management of modern corp. ( I would venture this includes the Millionaires in Congress.) Normally we think of sociopaths as working in isolation, but power is very hierarchical in nature.... wealthy and powerful people believe you are automatically smarter, stronger, and better than others if you achieve worldly riches. By teaming up with the wealthy and powerful and accepting your position in the hierarchy, you can become even more wealthy and powerful. ( Birds of a feather.) I AM happy to recommend the book "THE SYNCHRONICITY KEY", chapter 5, " The Global Adversary" as my reference.
I think that Thom may have it backwards. Also, he omits any reference to what is far more relevant research. Bottom line, sociopaths are born that way. And their lack of empathy frees them from conscience in regards to human beings. With this freedom they are able to gain the kind of destructive power over human beings which is one of their characteristics.
There is a book well worth reading on this subject: The Sociopath Next Door. It is written by a psychologist who has made a career of working with people damaged by emotional relationships with sociopaths. Her stories are invaluable for gaining an insight into the general relationship between human and sociopath. She also provides a good survey of the relevant clinical studies. Especially interesting are the studies which propose what is now almost universally accepted by researchers, i.e., that the sociopath is born without the neurological wiring necessary for empathy with humans. (It shd be said here that researchers also find that nurture has a role in determining how this lack will manifest itself, and that sociopaths sometimes turn out to be positive contributers to human society.)
I think one can reasonably argue that the sociopath is different from us as to species and is a predator of our species. I think with absolute certainty that the idea is a very good working hypothesis for dealing with them.
I hope you're right, Chuck.
AIW -- You might make a good standup comic after all. --c8
AIW -- How far do we have to fall? I think there is a couple of historical examples you could contemplate. At the turn of century (the last one), the poverty level percentile was 90%; currently we are around 20%. The 90% poverty level was able to motivate people to do something. Teddy and Taft fiercely enforced the anti-trust laws. In 1932, the unemployment rate was around 33% (currently, we are aroung 6%). That rate motivated the people to elect an overwhelmingly democratic congress and FDR.
Those examples point out that the human species may not fit into the boiling frog analogy.
So, to follow that point further, corporate czars show the same pathology. That may be why they work so well toward the same psychopathic goals. "I'm getting mine, to hell with the little folks!"
A lack of empathy is one of the distinctions of a psychopath. And our Congress has been taken over by psychopaths. Have a nice day.
Yeah Chuck, it figures. Talk about cherry-picking! - AIW
Whether or not freedom from religion is what the founders hand in mind, as opposed to freedom of religion, I consider freedom from religion - and athiesm - my God-given right. - AIW
Excellent point, Chuck! Couldn't agree more.
Pal -- You need to read the book "Nature's God" by Matthew Stewart. He shows how our country was founded by a bunch of atheists. The clergy of the day were unnerved. They tried to cover up what they were by calling them deists. A quote from the LA times book review on 6/29/14
"It's become a conservative commonplace to argue that the Constitution establishes freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, but Stewatrt's eloquently argued book makes a stong case the freedom from religion is precisely what America's founders had in mind."
DAM -- Where did you get video tapes from the middle ages? Are you sure they walked 10 feet away from all children, or was that a propaganda piece from the sadists that like to boil people in oil?
That being said, I think I would cheer the father and what he did. That is justice at the visceral level When "We the People" get involved in the justice, I agree with what Mmnn says.
DAM -- I have a couple of neighbors I would like to tattle on. You may even know them -- Chevron and Caltrans. Running sprinklers while it is raining I would consider a complete waste of water. However, filling a swimming pool to help the general health of a community, I would not consider a waste of water. How would a metering system know the difference?
DAM -- First, I will repeat. I essentially know nothng I just say what Thom says. He said they ran a controlled test to see how much pot smoking increased lung cancer. To their surprise, they found the pot smoking group had a lower incidence of lung cancer. They also noticed that the pot smokers had less occurence of other kinds of cancer. Since the study set out to show the harm of smoking pot, the results were probably not widely distributed.
I was recently reminded of the incident in which billionaire Bill Gates was surprised when his vaccination program (charity) for Africa wasn't working. Why? They didn't have electricity and refrigeration to keep the vaccines viable. Gates had never noticed that his wealth was based on his company's use of our nation's commons. He was boggled by the fact that the infrastructure the reich-wing doesn't want to pay for is a necessary condition for a functional society.