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.
Chi Matt -- Thank you for all the insight. Now, it will take me sometime to reply, and I want to.
Yes the repugs are responsible for all those things. You need to read "The Spirit Level". 30 years of reaganomics and you are bitching that 13 weeks could not cure it. If you were not following the republican playbook to the letter, I might listen better.
Chi Matt -- As a member of "We the People" it certainly is Thom's place to state his opinion on what people's worth to society is. We the People should determine if the appropriate profit motives are being given by our economic system. Based on our current healthcare system I think we could easily come to the conclusion that the profit motive should not be applied to our healthcare system; especially, the healthcare insurance part of our healthcare system.
Thom has pointed out that most new medical devices are being invented by Germany, and most new medicines (not those that make a molecular change to protect patents) are coming from Switzerland.
Have you heard Thom's description of how most of the VA's current problems were caused by the introduction of profit motive into waiting list accounting?
Not at all surprised by this decision but this could be the best thing to happen for those of us in favor of "Medicare For All".
Obamacare was nothing more than a windfall for the private insurance industry. This ruling clearly shows that the private sector, with the full support of our Supreme Court, can not protect womens' rights.
Perhaps everyone can now begin to understand that only the Federal Government can fairly distribute health care to All Our Citizens, unless, of course, the Supreme Court continues to ignore the separation of church and state in our constitution!
All American Women need to be outraged by this decision and should again focus on "Medicare For All"!
Palindromedary ~ Chuck is a perfect example of selective critical thinking. He has started with a foregone conclusion and works his way backwards selectively cherry picking facts and notions to support the conclusion. The entire suggestion of not having enough time to look at on the scene photos because of the possibility that they were doctored is a classic example of cognitive dissonance.
No offense to Chuck but I really don't think he realizes how ridiculous that sounds. He is literally blinding himself to factual evidence so that he can believe a fairy tale.
Another example is his constant citing of the substation under building 7. He cites it but doesn't explain how it has anything to do with the collapse. He suggests that it is the electrical power passing through the station that explains everything. He fails though to cite how that power caused the collapse. Obviously, if that station exploded at full capacity knocking out the supports at the time of the collapse three things would have happened. First, there would have been a deafening blast and a huge visible fireball erupting from under the building. Secondly, a definative shock wave would have been recorded miles away on seismometers. Finally, there would have been a huge blackout over a large section of Manhattan. Obviously none of those things occurred and therefore he is beating is a dead horse.
Also he cites that because this never happened before we don't know that this couldn't have happened the way the official story claims it did. A very flimsy piece of speculation indeed to denounce the testimony of a multitude of scientist, architects, engineers, and the first hand accounts of eye witnesses.
I mention this awesome display of illogic Palindromedary, because unfortunately many people in our country think the same way. Why rock the boat when it's not on fire? The scary thing is that Chuck represents one of the more brighter and gifted examples of this dysfunctionally thinking group. I say, good luck to you my friend trying to enlighten any of them.
WIC stands for "Women, Infants, Children". That was the first welfare program that came to mind, because I know someone on it, and the grocery stores sometimes label specific items as "WIC Approved". In IL, the last time I checked, WIC used a coupon-book system. Those coupons books were, of course, easily sold for less than face value in cash. They used to be available on craigslist, but now I think that's one of the terms that website filters out.
I'm all for helping people who are down on their luck. But will you admit that some people take advantage of these safety nets? That some people actually have children in order to get the benefits? That some people aren't so "down on their luck" as they "put themselves into those positions by their own actions."And I'm not really so much outraged as I am bitter. For a variety of reasons. I've been thinking about the best way to word it for a week now, and I still can't seem to verbalize my thoughts the way I like, but here goes nothing. If you're in a bad mood, don't read this. It will make it worse, but it's how I think:
I am a straight, Christian, white, educated, affluent, middle-aged male. I didn't start off educated or affluent, but I played by the rules, sacrificed a lot (mostly my social life), and now I've made it. Throughout my school years (80s and 90s) and college years (00s), I've had teachers and professors telling me how, in the past, men like me created pretty much every problem in the world. They don't use those exact words, but the message is clear: "It's your and your ancestors' fault." (It doesn't help that I have British ancestry and grew up in the South.)
In almost every novel I was forced to read in school, men like me were the antagonists. In almost every movie or play we were forced to watch in school, it was the same. If you are a white guy with money, you must have done something evil to get it. You MUST be stepping on the backs of people not like yourself.
In short, I'm supposed to somehow feel guilty for who I am and what I have achieved. I reject that notion entirely.
Warning: This will really piss you off if you're still reading. You know what would help make me more Progressive? A simple "thank you."
Instead of, "You lack compassion because you have more than most," how about a "thank you for putting more into the tax pot in the first place."
Or, "thank you for working your way into a position where you can afford more in taxes. You made good choices (not drinking, doing drugs, getting a girl pregnant before we were ready, doing well in school, working from the age of 16, etc....) and now, because of those good choices, you have a good job and can pay more into the system."
Or, "thank you for making that luxury purchase, which both employs people AND puts more money into the sales tax pot than a cheaper purchase."
Or, "thank you for working at and sending your students to a private school while at the same time paying a disproportionate amount of property taxes into the failing public school system. We need you to put your children and your students on the right track to become doctors and lawyers and other high-tax-paying professionals, because our public school system sure as hell isn't doing it. So thank you."
I feel like, particularly living in Chicago, the Democrats both want me to pay more in taxes, which I do by making and spending more of my own money, but also want to turn less fortunate people against people like me. They want the benefits of relatively wealthy or upper-middle class citizens, but also want to demonize us.
Carbon tax sounds great, but considering the risk of climate change to mankind, I'd prefer a total government takeover of the energy sector. Then make "Green," the law of the land.
Chicago Matt: Ok, Me Comprende!
No other steel building has ever come straight down like that due to fires....and there have been way more intense fires burning for a lot longer time in those buildings. Like I said before, the designers designed these buildings to absorb the impact of a jet liner with tanks full of jet fuel. These airliners had far less than full tanks by the time they hit the WTC buildings.
All of the beams, horizonal, braces, and vertical were all covered with SFRM (Sprayed-on Fire Retardant Material) as you can see in the links to the Videos I gave.
So now, are you trying to say that all of the photos that have been out since 9/11 were photoshopped? Which ones do you believe have been photoshopped?
Have you gone to the web site ae911truth.org and checked out what they have to say? I don't think they would photoshop photos or edit the videos on that site. The original videos and photos have been around a long time and if any photoshopped or edited video ever did show up, they can be compared to the already existing media.
I have already expressed my doubt about photos of that white van that had a mural of a plane crashing into the WTC towers that those "dancing" Israelis had. Although, there was an audio of the NYC Police communications that said there was such a van that had such a mural on it's side.
But it was no surprise to many people that the WTC towers were going to be rammed by planes. Even a young school child, a couple of days before 9/11, was asked by his teacher why he was staring at the WTC Towers (as the school had a line of site to the Twin Towers). He told his teacher that planes were going to crash into them.
Well connected people, some politicians, were told not to fly on that day because something big was going to happen. Many people who worked in the WTC towers called in sick that day...many more than usual. And Bush sure didn't look too surprised when he was interrupted reading to a 1st grade class.
Besides the one I mentioned with the internal defibrillator that kept my father alive an extra two years, I think pretty much any heart procedure, cancer treatment, obesity surgery, etc... can be traced back to the profit motive. Why are there so many options when it comes to heart disease? Because there's a big market for it. Why are there so few options when it comes to rare diseases? There is no money in it.
In fact, the government had to build in a profit motive for rare disease research:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Drug_Act_of_1983
I guess I've been pretty lucky so far in that all of my problems have been common ones, with lots of treatment options. All of them provided by different companies in competition for all of the "customers" with the same health issue.
Someone should tell Thom that it's not his place to determine other people's worth to society. It's kind of a dangerous precident. That's not too far away from determining someone is "worthless" to society.Palin - of all of the regulars here, you seem the most worried when it comes to electronics and government snooping. That's why I thought of you.
Pal -- The WTC being built different than any other building before or since, does not explain they way they collapsed straight down. At least it does not explain it to me. However, it does mean that one cannot use the line of reasoning that since no other building has collapsed like the WTC that it therefore was a controlled demolition.
Due to photoshop and video editors, I really do not want to waste my time looking at pictures.
With regards to patting on the back, I thought the only person on this blog that I have a hard time finding a disagreement with ss AIW.
Chi Matt -- I think there is significant evidence that the profit motive does more damage than good. I remember Pfizer being fined $2 billion for knowlingly killing people. Ms Washington wrote a book about pharma not developing any new drugs. They find it more profitable to just change the molecular structure a little to keep their patents alive. There are a lot more examples. Do you have any examples where the profit motive may have helped?
Thom occasionally asks`if there is anyone who actually is worth a billion dollars based on their contribution to society. My candidate is Jonas Salk. I do not believe the profit motive drove him.
Palindromedary ~ Now you're making me hungry!
Building 7 Implosion--The Smoking Gun of 9/11
http://www.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/344-building-7-implosion-the-...
Here is a scene from inside of the WTC1 building, in 1995, that shows the beams covered with asbestos fire retardant.
Skip to minute 3:00 for the scene. See the side panel for a lot of other videos that show other floors as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Devadpwgcaw
Here's a video from the 85th floor of WTC2. This video was shot on March 8, 2002....5 months before 9/11. Looks like there was a program underway to remove the old asbestos. The guy mentions the beams having been cleaned..then goes on to show beams that had not yet been cleaned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uotoNAxmI2o
Well, thank you, DAnneMarc, I learned a new word..Venire. I was on a Venire and didn't even know it! Maybe the Venire should come from people who volunteer rather than from people picked from random. I would really hate, and be torn, to vote against someone who is being accused of a crime that I didn't believe should be a crime in the first place.
I haven't been keeping up with what the World Cup is all about. I am not much interested in sports as a spectator. I used to be very active in sports but never watch sports on TV. I've heard tiny bits about FIFA being a fascist rip off but don't really know what that's all about.
Flying Spaghetti Monster....ummm, now, I'm getting hungry. Eateth of my flesh? Sounds good with turkey meat balls .
And by the way, Chuckle8, the sub station was built before WTC7 and was put there for the purpose of supporting WTC7. It was designed to be a safer and more solid base support than without it.
Also, I've read debunkers try to say that Nist has claimed that the vertical beam support #79 was the first beam to weaken and collapse and that it would have taken 9 pounds of dynamite to cut it. But, they say, there was no evidence of windows being broken and squibs shooting out which they believe would have happened if 9 pounds of dynamite was used to cut the beam. But they overlook the possibility of nano-thermite used in conjunction with smaller amounts of conventional explosives. They also overlook the fact that they have belittled the idea of explosives having caused the many squibs shooting out of WTC1 and WTC2. So, which is it? In the WTC7 case they try to say that demolition, which would have used dynamite, couldn't have happened because there were no squibs. But in the case of WTC1&2 there were very obviously, as caught on video, a number of squibs... but they say that isn't evidence of explosives. Problem is with the video of WTC7 collapse...the camera angle was such that other buildings blocked the view of windows on that side of the building at the lower levels. So, how could they know that the windows weren't blown out showing squibs?
All of those beams had been sprayed with a fire retardant...asbestos...so it just doesn't make sense that any of those buildings came down like that due to fire. Even NIST said that the fire in WTC7 wasn't hotter than 750 degrees F...which is way below the point of weakening steel beams. Even if there was no insulation on the steel beams, the fire wasn't hot enough to weaken steel beams.
DAM -- The unique structure of the WTC was described by a caller to Thom. I think he said he was one of 200 signers to a report that said more investigation needs to be done. In the LA area we have had several explosions that have killed fireman and destroyed buildings. Several days later after some analysis they come up with explanation of some electrical substation causing it. These are very small substations compared to the one under bldg 7.
With the existence of photoshop, I would be interested in what you or anyone can call a fact.
Palindromedary ~ I've spent my fair share of time in Jury Duty too; and, this is what I would change if I had my way. I would completely eliminate the process of 'venire'. This is the process used to 'discover the truth'. It is intended to eliminate anyone who has prejudice in any way toward the trial. I think this is bull $h!t on steroids.
The founding fathers expressed in the Constitution that the accused should be entitled to be tried by a JURY OF THEIR PEERS. What exactly is that; and, what is it not. Many feel that it is a jury of people who have no idea what is going on. I disagree! A jury of peers should be people selected from the same community at random. It should never be contested regardless of the experiences of the members. In fact, members who have prior experience represent the best candidates for the job. I would chose a jury by lot and nothing else.
As far as the FSM and his wrath is concerned just look at the World Cup and the latest total devastation of Mexico at the hand of the Netherlands. Here you have the most obedient Catholic nation in the world vs a bunch of hedonistic pagans. (Personally I find the Netherlands to be the liberal and progressive Capital of the world. However, that's just me. I certainly can't speak for all Christians.) Nevertheless, after all the time, money, and effort spent by Mexicans in their worship and church support, when push came to shove and they needed that last 20 degree shove in a free kick for a ball by their God, that God blew them off.
As far as I am concerned, THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER RULES!!!
AIW -- I think that metric thing might be a male thing. You want everyone to have healthcare, I want a 100% of the people to have healthcare.
It seems to me that medicare was a step towards universal healthcare. I think one of the proposals while it was being created was to lower the eligibility age every five years or so.
I am not so much in love with the "New Deal" and "Great Society" as I like to compare their real world results to that of reaganomics.
chuckles8: I've long ago stopped reading Popular Mechanics since they came out with their faux scientific report on 9/11.
All those buildings were designed to take a crash of a jet liner carrying a full load of fuel and the subsequent fires from such crashes. Just because they were designed differently than previous steel buildings doesn't explain why those steel buildings came straight down at near free fall speed when the crashes and fires were way up near the top. It doesn't explain how a jet fuel fire, from less than full tanks, that burned up within about 3-5 minutes leaving just an office fire, that could not possibly have been hot enough...or burned long enough to create temperatures necessary to even weaken steel sufficiently to cause a structural failure even at that level. The planes crashed into one side, and the top part didn't even bend over toward the side of the jet entry, as one would expect. How can all those lower, supporting levels crumble without having lost, through some mechanism (like a fire intense enough to weaken them)? It looked just like demolitions because they were demolitions. And Building 7 was not of the same design as the towers anyway yet it crumbled the same way that the towers did except it didn't even get hit by a plane.
I don't know why you keep bringing up a substation...what the heck would that matter, anyway?
The Brits conducted a study of an 8 story steel building, even without any kind of insulation around the beams which exposed the beams to more heat than without the insulation. They let those fires rage for a lot longer than the WTC buildings and they didn't show any kind of malformation due to weakening of the beams.
The WTC tower's beams had insulation around them...which was a problem in another way...it was asbestos.
It had long been realized that the WTC buildings contained dangerous asbestos and that it would cost a fortune to clean it all up. True, an airliner crashing into the building would have scraped some of the asbestos off of the beams (but only at the crash site and not on the entire level) and would have caused the beams to absorb more heat...but that would have been only on some of the beams. And the building, if the fires were hot enough (which they weren't) then the top part of the buildings should have buckled over toward the direction of where the planes crashed.
What caused all of that molten steel to collect in the basements? The jet fuel and office fires could not have melted steel like that.
In WTC7, since there was a "gaping hole" in the south side, why didn't WTC7 fall over to that gaping hole side...why did it come straight down? Demolition specialists would never put explosives on just one side and expect it to come straight down.
Could it be that all tall buildings, especially in New York, are pre-wired for demolition in the event some catastrophic accident happens? It would make sense from the standpoint of trying to prevent those tall buildings from tipping over and taking out a lot of other buildings. I sure wouldn't want to be working in a tall building that was pre-wired for demolition. Yes, the people in the tall buildings would be killed if they had not been given enough warning and time to evacuate. But think of how many people could be killed when those building topple over on top of them...think of the extra costs involved in damage to the other buildings that get destroyed.
But giving those people a warning to get out of the building wouldn't make a "terrorist attack" such a psychological mind f#ck would it? The people in those buildings were told just to stay where they were. People wanted to leave, some did, but many obeyed orders to stay put.
Chi Matt -- I asked if there was a difference between individualism and selfishness. You answered that "We the People" is selfishness. Can I have an answer to my question?
In an answer I gave to AIW, elsewhere, I think our economy should be measured by the DOW, the GDP, the median wage (inflation adjusted) and the number of jobs. You seem to want to measure the economy by the number of moochers. By my metric the "New Deal" is great, and by your metric reaganomics is great. By my metric reaganomics is awful, and by your metric the "New Deal" is a little bit bad. Why do you like your metric?
bobcox -- The proposal is to tax and rebate. The population will provided extra cash through the rebate. They do have the choice to buy gasoline (e.g. at $20 gallon) or buy an electric car and solar panels on their roof.