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.
sandlewould: Only problem with that is that the corporate controlled media will only cover what they want you to see. And for that the infiltrators will create scenes of token violence that the media will concentrate on. The police will still tear gas people and use their rough shod violence against peaceful demonstrators.
I keep thinking about how the demonstrations went in Ukraine when the police just stood there hiding behind their shields while the demonstrators hurled everything they could find at the police. Who ended up winning that contest? The demonstrators! What a difference! In America, we have cowering demonstrators being beaten by a few police that don't hide behind shields. Do the demonstrators really think that by getting their heads cracked by the police that it is going to make a difference? Do they really think that they will gain the empathy of the majority of the people...and to what end?...to vote for yet another Democrat? Yet another lying politician that will end up stabbing us all in our backs?
Now if all those police were overwhelmed by the demonstrators and had THEIR heads cracked, for a change, it might send a very strong message to the ruling elite that the lambs are not going to take it anymore. Yes, it would escalate...and the major media would try to color it in a way that made the demonstrators look bad. But they do that anyway! The reason why the 1% can get away with their crimes is because they are not scared one bit that the docile American people will object physically..like they do in other countries. Will they even be moved to boycott certain products if a boycott is called? And just how effective would a boycott be if it wasn't an organized massive boycott? A boycott is a lot safer than trying to have a dumb shootout with the police. But then, is a boycott now considered, by the NDAA, a "terrorist" action?
As long as "they" can keep you from physically rebelling or hurting their profit margins "they" are not worried that their course of unmitigated exploitation of the masses will change.
How was it possible that so many millions of people were rounded up, put on box cars, and murdered in Nazi death camps? All done by a few Nazis with guns and a few snarling German Shepherds. The crowds could have easily taken those few Nazis...beat the crap out of them...but they all resigned themselves to the lies that they were just being resettled. And the rumors of death camps that went around..people chose not to believe them...they just went along with authority figures. But, eventually, a few of them figured it out and rebelled. It was an exemplary show of force that said "No, you're not going to push us around so easily!"
Lies keep people submissive and subverted. The problem is recognizing the lies. But, no one can, effectively, act alone. That's stupid! That's suicidal! What those two people did in Las Vegas was dumb and suicidal. It just gives the opposition fuel for their propaganda wars that serves the interests of the ruling elite. They would love it if we all did not have any guns at all so that we could never effectively rebel no matter how horrible things get. It just provides the "shock factor", like 9/11, to run and hide under the "protection" of those agents who are setting us all up for our downfall...our total subjugation.
I did mean to say not. I could re-read them before touching send:) Thanks for catching it.
Perhaps you meant Republicans have NOT run Chicago since Lincoln left?
At any rate, the Dems have run Chicago for most of the last Century.
Oh You Ate One too: What I meant by "Thank the Republicans for that" was the destruction of American jobs since Reagan. I believe it has been more of a right-wing, conservative mentality to cut back on wages and benefits and offshore our jobs. They've also cut back on schools and libraries and left the city's streets a breeding ground for mischief and mayhem. Kids, whose parents that have been torn apart by poverty and dread and hopelessness have no other place to turn but the gangland ridden streets.
But, I do agree that some Democrats are not much better. After all, they (the politicians..Republicans and Democrats) are all sucking on the capitalist corporate sow's teats, aren't they? There really isn't much difference between the Republicans and Democrats when it comes to dangling from the strings of their puppet masters...the ruling elite.
There really isn't much difference when it comes to their Machiavellian tactics against the 99%. They'll tell us what we want to hear and then they stab us in the back. Obama is a prime example of that. One difference may be that at least the Republicans tell us up front that they are going to screw us. But what they do is rile up the fears and hatred of their sheeple flock by using diversion tactics like obtuse and relatively irrelevant unimportant things. They stir up the irrational fears and hatreds over side issues that have nothing to do with what is really important for the majority of the population.
On the other hand, it seems to me that the Democrats have done some of that as well...they take on issues that have meaning to only a small section of the population and claim victory for the whole population. But what they fail to do is secure victories on things that are really important for the majority of the population. And the one major thing they try to claim that they accomplished was the ACA...but that was originally a Republican plan to begin with...and it was a sell out of the American people to the insurance companies. They dropped the ball entirely on single payer which would have immensely benefited everyone far more than the ACA plan. But, of course, the insurance company puppet masters would not have been pleased with a single payer plan. Their already fat cat top execs and shareholders would have to compete with lowly paid government administration people and they would no longer be able to keep milking us dry, and being the profit maximizing death panels that they have been.
Yes, there are many very crooked Democrat politicians as well as Republican ones. But most all are bought off by the wealthy ruling elite. And, I believe that any politician that doesn't play ball (ie: take bribes) risks going the way of JFK. Unfortunately, the cards are stacked against honest politicians. That may be part of the reason why so many, perhaps, would-be honest politicians buckle under the immense threat from the real shadow government behind the facade of our fake government.
There really is no such thing as a real democracy when the few rich and powerful control the politicians. It certainly is not a "representative democracy" because the elected politicians don't really represent the majority of the people. That's why I say the only way things can change is if the people go way beyond voting...massive boycotts, massive demonstrations, etc.
...Perhaps...I am fighting back by NOT fighting. I am working on an urban CSA, redefining what it means to protest ...peacefully. When we go to D.C. waving our fists in the air and angrily demanding justice, the noise falls on deaf ears and only serves to further harden what little heart is left on Capital Hill. What if we waved flowers in the air, marched slowly, quietly and thoughtfully carrying signs that promoted our causes, yet were also inspirational? What if, instead of chanting angry slogans at police, the OWS protestors silently made compassionate eye contact w/ police while offering them their flowers, quietly standing their ground with love and compassion. This is how Gandhi would have done it. True...the fascists might end up mowing them down w/ impunity...but instead of the media using protestors' anger to portray them as demanding brats, they'd be hard pressed to ignore their moral high ground. When I was 8 and asked for anything, I always had to ask nicely. If I carried a sign that said "Demand Ice Cream Now!" I would have been ignored...granted, I still might have been told 'no' had I carried a sign that said "Ice Cream, Please?"...at least I would have been noticed. When Protestors wave fists in the air and shout, chanting slogans that the 1% find tiresome at best and down right obnoxios at worst, how can we expect to be heard? The 1%, who truly view the 'average' person as 'less than' and undeserving, are only less likely to sympathize with aggressive "non-violent" protestors.
Yes, it seems that the right is going harder right as the whole of the country is going left.
Palindromedary--sometimes your insights are brilliant. For most of the posts on this thread you go to great lengths to say how there is no difference between democrats and republicans. Then, in the previous post. You say "Thank the Republicans for that" as a reason for the shootings and joblessness in Chicago. WTF. Republicans have ran Chicago, or Illinois since Lincoln left. Be consistent, your creds suffer otherwise.
I really do not think American strategy will work all the time. I am going to do something which will open up people’s eyes.
Chicago Matt: I think certain places tend to lose their shock factor when many deaths happen all the time in those places. And especially if you don't live there. How many people in the US get shocked that hundreds of people in other places in the world get killed in a day...especially the Middle East? A drone that massacres several dozen people at a wedding party in Iraq or Afghanistan may not even amuse or sadden someone in the U.S. even for a moment. It's ho-hum...so what else is new? But if that drone did the same thing in the U.S. then the citizens in the U.S. would get upset. Or, if the Taliban or Al Qaida manages to kill, or even just capture, a few American soldiers, then we're all upset and shocked. Maybe if those Chicago area shooters had decent paying jobs they wouldn't be out in the streets shooting people. Thank the Republicans for that!
As for "fitting a narrative"...what?... we can't do what the right wing media machine does all the time? I don't think we do it enough.
Chicago Matt: I don't smoke or drink either! But, the rest of what you said is most likely true as well. Clockwork Orange.
chuckle8: But when are you going to stop following the ruling elite playbook? The ruling elite owns both parties and they use the Republicans as battering rams and the Democrats as sneaky sellouts to the people...either way the ruling elite gets what it wants. It wants to keep people so beguiled, fearful, and confused by using the Democrats to sell false hope and foster the illusion that all they have to do is vote in enough Democrats and everything will be alright. But it will never be alright..the Dems may try to keep the illusion going by trying to convince us that they made some headway but when you look at just what they accomplished, it is just trivial slop compared to what they could have done had they really been on our side. The ACA was a sellout to the insurance companies. We could have had a single payer system but the Obama regime dropped that idea immediately. They should have used their moment of power to really stick it to the Republicans. But, as DAnneMarc said:
The Obama regime went on to fuel the war machine in the Middle East killing more civilians. They went on to cracking down on whistle-blowers. They continued to create a system that spies on civilians that have nothing to do with terrorism. They continued to support the NDAA and changed the wording to where they could target even US citizens for assassination. You can't tell me that Obama or other democrats are not part of the plan to totally subjugate each and everyone of us for their corporate elitist masters. They are just as guilty as the Republicans but they just use different tactics.
And what did our great expenditures of fortune and lives in the Middle East wars get us? What did we really accomplish? Last I heard the Taliban and Al Qaeda are moving back in to take the reigns of power in those countries. While we move out...they move back in! What a waste! We should have left those country's strong arms stay in charge of those countries. We meddled and it cost us dearly. We never seem to learn. But the military industrial complex are richer and stronger than ever. This country is looking more like the old Soviet Union or Nazi Germany.
As it was in Vietnam...(we, the people, and the people of Vietnam, lost that war...but the military industrial complex won. All those companies used a long protracted war they never intended to actually win so that they could screw the American taxpayers out of their wealth)...so too was it so in the Middle East. The whole idea was to wrangle and amass great fortunes from the people. Now, they are moving once again toward creating another staged enemy...our old "enemy"...Russia. There has always got to be an enemy to scare the people out of their wealth and feelings of peace and safety. That's how they manipulate people.
9-11 was just such a manipulation and it worked beautifully for them. Despite all of the obvious, glaring, indications that 9-11 was not just an operation planned outside of the U.S. by Osama bin Ladin and carried out by Muslim hijackers, it still has many people believing just that. Just the way those WTC towers fell at near free fall speed should be a glaring clue to everyone that 9-11 did not happen the way they got everyone to believe it happened.
And I would add to DAnneMarc's list that Obama should have demanded a real investigation into 9-11 not headed by some flunky that was a good friend of Condoleeza Rice...not done by clueless goofball politicians but by independent investigators who had an inkling of science...and physics...and architecture. No testimony would be omitted as it was in the 911 Commission. And none of it should be withheld from the public on any grounds...including the often misused "national security".
Thom - over 40 people were shot and four killed this weekend alone in Chicago. That's a pretty standard weekend around here. And this is just one of many solidly-blue, crime-ridden urban areas. Why are you focusing just on the shootings in Vegas? Because it fits your narrative? Two police officers and one armed citizen were killed, and yes, that's a horrible thing. What do the victims in Chicago - mostly young, poor, and minorities - have to do to get the same attention?
Suing the board for repayment of lost stock value is step two. Firing the board is step one.
Employers can sue employees, if those employees cost the employer enough money (by doing something illegal) to make it worthwhile. If, for example, a truck driver is caught selling stock out of the back of their truck, and a dollar amount can be put on the total value of the items stolen, the employer can sue that person as an individual for damages.
On a related note, when I worked retail, we were told very plainly that if we did something that harmed a customer, their property, or another worker, the company would not give us legal protection. That is, we could be sued personally for things that we did while on the job. If I was helping a customer load something into their car, and I dropped it on their foot, I could be personally liable. I always thought that was a little shady on their part.
I used to listen to Thom for about 90 minutes, when I had a longer commute. Then I got about 30 minutes per day. Now that they switched his time, I'm lucky to get 15. I may have to start doing the podcast.
On a related note, the new guy in Thom's old slot is not good. Whoever made this decision needs to rethink it.
I know I keep making these connections, but it's hard not to - what you just said sounds like something an extreme right-winger might say. Or one of these survivalists who are just waiting for societal collapse. Cheering it on even. Or even a white supremecist. "We aren't large yet, and you don't hear much about us, but it's coming..."
Of course, I hope the calamity that Thom thinks will bring about a Progressive movement never comes. And, if it does come, do you think the Libertarians would see an equal swell in their movement? Left-minded people will look to the government for help, and right-minded people will blame the government for the situation in the first place.
Palin - We agree on something. We should celebrate this moment of unity. If you were here and I were still a smoker or drinker, I'd offer you one.
I think even Rush would agree with this. He frequently talks about the need the Democrats have for a "permanent underclass". They want the poor to vote for them, but they also want the poor to stay poor, so they will keep voting for them. If the Democrats achieved their campaign promises, no one would need them anymore.
DAM and Palin -- I wish you would stop following the repug playbook. The dems were in control for just 13 weeks of the 104 weeks before those mid-terms. The plan hatched in the caucus room was in full force for 91 of those 104 weeks.
I do not consider changing a job loss of 700,000 jobs per month to a 200,000 jobs per month gain a small crumb. The ACA and consumer protection agency were far from perfect, but were not small crumbs.
This blog from time to time (or all the time) is where the perfect comes to destroy the good.
Chi Matt -- As long as you are researching it anyway the following statement is interesting
This legal requirement came about from charter mongering. Before charter mongering they also had to benefit the public good of the state.
If the shareholders have to sue the board to get something done, that does not sound like the shareholder is an employer.
Chi Matt -- I am mostly just a loudspeaker for Thom. You would not have to look up very much if you listened to every hour of Thom.
Of course, the progressive movement is not very large yet. We are currently just trying to give warning of what is to come. Since all the media, except Thom and FSTV, want the masses to be calm, you will not hear much. The strong progressive movements of the past had much worse conditions. In 1900 the 90th percentile of income was at the poverty level. I think the current poverty level is the 20th percentile. The 1933 progressive movement was inspired by 33% unemployment level. We are currently no where near that. Thom's book the "Crash of 2016" is about that. Thom is predicting that crash will bring about the strong progressive movement whose whereabouts you keep asking about. Ravi Batra's book "The New Golden Age" gives the same message.
On this blog we keep telling everyone that those conditions are coming due to Reagonomics. We would all like to avoid that crash.
Publicly-held companies are legally required to act in the best interest of their shareholders, which generally means making them the most money. If a company's board intentionally does something that costs the shareholders money, the shareholders can sue. If, for example, the CEO of WalMart suddenly gets a conscious and decides to give every employee a 100% raise, not only can he be fired, but he can be sued by the shareholders.
PS, I said "100% raise" instead of $15 an hour minimum, because you'd have to raise everyone else's incomes proportionately, which some people forget.
With how much the workplace has changed over the years, as we've moved from a manufacturing to a service economy.
In my retail experience, there were two basic types of employees - the people who were making a career out of it, and the people who were just biding their time until something better came along / they finished school / summer was over, etc... There were just enough promotions for the "career" types to keep them content. Dangling the possibility of becoming a store manager, which for my chain meant 60-hour workweeks for about $60,000 per year, was good motivation for most people.
Safety, which is one of the things unions fight for, isn't really a pressing concern for your average retail employee. It's in the store's best interest to keep you safe anyway, so you don't sue. The biggest safety hazard was a customer attacking you, and nothing a union could do would stop that.
And everyone, from the District Managers down, are just following the orders from the corpoate office. It's hard for the average employee to get mad at people they never even see. You may think your boss is an asshole, but to think he is part of some big conspiracy to keep you down seems a little far-fetched. The managers are just trading their time for a wage like everyone else at the store.
How can you prove someone needs less of their own income? Unless you go into the research to find that form the beginning? Like, designing the experiment to give you the results you want. I get nervous when people start talking about how much other people "need". It makes the person saying it seem very judgemental. Just because I, personally, can't afford a luxury car, I don't go around telling other people they don't need it as well.
I do admit that wealthier people are more dependant on the commons. Bill Gates, for example, wouldn't have anything if not for the roads that delivered his product, the power lines that enable it, etc...
Chuck - of all of the regulars on this site, you make me do the most research. I'm sitting here, trying to enjoy my summer vacation, and then you bring up things like "Charter Mongering", and I have to go look it up, read a bunch of sites, etc... It's like having a second job. Bravo.
Of course, I think this is true of most online "research" - it's too easy just to find facts that back up the notion you went into the search with in the first place.
Assuming Progressives are right - that there is a conspiracy against the working class and they alone (The Progressives) are smart enough to see through it, then yes, ignorance might just be bliss. Judging from Thom's blogs and the comments, it seems a lot of you are very unhappy. I'd like to see Thom write a positive blog for a change.
Ok. I'll post this in case anyone else is reading.
Of course I've heard of them - I listen to Progressive radio. Do you know how many protesters there were at any of these things? I think the Moral Mondays protests had the biggest crowds, mainly because they had church backing. (I've said before, Progressives get their message across best when they focus on morality.)
The recent fast-food protest at the McDonalds Corporate Headquarters just outside of Chicago, was the first story on the news that night. They said that about 1,500 people showed up, and the helicopter video seemed to show that as well. 1,500 people, in a metro area of under 10 million? That's less than the crowd at a movie theater on the opening weekend of a movie. Do you see why I think the majority of people are happy or at least content? What makes more sense - there is a huge evil elitist conspiracy to keep the crowds down at the protests, or the majority of people don't care enough to show up?
If someone reading this can point me towards a website with stats on Progressive protests, preferably with pictures, I would appreciate it.
chuckle8 ~ I have to side with Palindromedary on this one. I was there too. I remember clearly what I expected Mr. Obama and the Democrats to do as soon as they got in office. Here's what I would have done. Executive order declaring the Patriot Act illegal and unconstitutional. Immediate withdrawal of all troops from the middle east and a close of Gitmo. An initiative to completely repeal the free trade agreement. A plan to undo the Bush tax cuts. A full investigation and arrest of all Bankers involved in crashing our economy. (I'd even tried to make that fine justice example into a public spectacle.) Immediate bills written to institute national single payer health care--as promised in his campaign platform. A full investigation of the Bush administration for any and all unconstitutional war crimes--also, as promised in his campaign platform.
Instead, what did we get. We got a bunch of deers stuck in the prevailing headlights that were afraid to do anything substantial. It was obvious. You could hear the blind fear in their voices whenever interviewed. I'm so sure you could rattle of a list of small crumbs that they tossed our way; yet, the fact of the matter is that we got shafted and it was blatantly obvious. That was quite clear to me by week 6. Thats when I became officially disgusted. If utter failure to even propose any of the issues above is the best this party can do with a fully loaded three branches of government than Palindromedary is absolutely correct--they are completely worthless. From what I saw it was quite obvious that these assholes didn't really even expect to win. Their new found powers surprised and scared them into becoming completely docile. Obviously I am not alone in my gross disappointment; otherwise, the following election wouldn't have expressed so much complete disdain for the Democrat's performance. Let's face it Chuck, if these Democrats lived up to their promises they never would have been skunked in that midterm like they were by the Tea Party.
chuckle8 ~ Well there you have it. If scientists are periodically intrigued by this question then no doubt this caller was full of BS. I can only assume his agenda was anti climate science?
It wouldn't be the first time I heard someone talk about the benefits of CO2 in the air and how great it would be for plants.
http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/roots.php