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.
Global warming is a natural occurance. We must remember weve had an ice age and the earth changes naturally. Have we had an effect on this? I say probably. But the earth will do as it is naturally intended to do regardless of how much political garbage is spouted about it.
Chi Matt -- I think its formal name was "Employee Free Choice Act".
Chi Matt -- When you speak of individualism, I hear free markets. Is that what I should hear?
I think all those decisions (smoking pot, sex with students, polygamy etc) should be made by an informed public. Anyone have any ideas how we can inform them?
Matt, I think these conservative red states like Mississippi ought to secede from the union and have their own goddam country. They are a drain on the rest of us. Now that slavery is no longer in existence (at least in its initial, institutionalized form with total subjugation and no compensation), I really don't give a damn what the southern states do. No skin off my ass. Divided we fall?! They are nothing but divisive. - AIW
Matt, what does rich-versus-poor have to do with abortion & childbirth being women's exclusive domain? That "parallel" just doesn't cut it for me. It doesn't explain why people who can't get pregnant should have any business dictating what those who can should be doing about it. The United Nations gets it; they've declared denial of abortion is tantamount to torture. Especially in a country such as ours that is so hostile to single motherhood, punishing those who give birth out of wedlock; where such things as maternity leave, affordable childcare and accessible healthcare are not even guaranteed to U.S. citizens! It places too great a burden on women of childbearing age and punishes them for a biological characteristic inherited at birth. Men don't have to deal with any of that, therefore it's none of their business what women choose to do with their bodies. Some people (men in particular) seem to think we should be treated as incubators for the unborn, as if our needs and aspirations had no relevance. If they don't support a women's right to choose, they can keep their opinions to themselves.
As for this rich & poor thing, which you insist on dragging into this discussion, here's my take on it. If we want to live in a real democracy, we have to have a political system where every vote counts regardless of the size of each voter's bank account. Otherwise we're living in a plutocracy. When you say the rich are paying a "disproportionate" amount of the cost of government, you are simply out of touch with reality, since that has not been the case for decades. As Thom Hartmann has pointed out time and again, and as some of us in this forum keep pointing out, rich people have benefitted more from our socioeconomic system than the rest of us; they use various aspects of our infrastructure more than the rest of us; therefore they should pay more. (DUHHH.) That seems a perfectly reasonable concept and therefore, one I embrace. Arguing about something like that seems akin to arguing about whether the sky is blue. A waste of my precious time.
No Matt, I don't have children. But the society I live in, like all societies, must have an educated population in order to function, which affects my life as much as anyone else's. (Duh.) No I'm not gay, but I am a supporter of gay rights because I believe in fairness. No I'm not black, but I support socioeconomic equality and integration in public and private life because I know for a fact that we are one race, called the human race, and that xenophobia has no place in a civilized society. No I'm not physically handcapped, but I think public facilities should be accessible to all, not just the able-bodied. No I'm not a squirrel or a raccoon, but I think the natural habitats of wildlife should be protected and that even the rights of non-humans should be respected.
See where this is going, Matt? If you water down the focus of a debate past a certain point, it becomes meaningless. - Aliceinwonderland
"It's not fair to tell boys to stop being overly-masculine, unless you tell girls to stop being overly-feminine," Matt says. "Want guys to stop carrying guns in public, even if just a manifestation of their inner masculinity? Then tell women to stop doing things that make them feel feminine too."
Any guy who needs a gun to feel "masculine" must have a small-penis complex. He definitely has a problem. There are plenty of appropriate, non-bullying, non-threatening ways to express masculinity, such as through athletics, getting buffed at the gym, dressing in masculine attire, etc. etc. etc. Why guns? And what's the point of flaunting guns in public; to make it crystal clear that you can kill anyone anytime, if they rub you the wrong way or whatever? Is that your idea of "masculine"? Gimmie a break.
People can express their gender identities any way they want. Long as it isn't harmful, or threatening harm, I've got no objections. Bullying is where I draw the line: hitting, slapping, punching and other kinds of abuse. And unless someone's got a damn good reason to display a gun in public, such as living in a war zone, then why do it? Lots of people flashing their guns in public is a sure-fire way to create a war zone, where one isn't warranted.
I am sick to death of Americans' obsession with GUNS. I find it both obnoxious and tiresome. Just a lot of macho, wild-wild-west, hot-air posturiing over nothing. - AIW
No argument, Matt! Not where polygamy fits the description you just gave it. However when it manifests as one man with several wives, as it has with certain religious cults I've heard of from time to time, and some of those "wives" are young girls below the age of consent, I've got a problem with that. - AIW
The people of Mississippi could make the argument that, just like the Taliban, they live in a place that was once its own country (the CSA), and the USA invaded and imposed its will on them.
I know that sounds stupid. I'm just saying it for rhetorical purposes. If you think, like Thom, that the Taliban have a legitimate grievance against the USA, then you must see that the more Conservative and rural areas of this country have legitimate grievances as well.
Someone from the Taliban saying, "It is part of our culture to have women cover their hair in public, and who are you to say it is wrong?" is not that far from someone in Mississippi saying, "It's part of our culture to pray at graduation. Who are you to say it's wrong?"
Alice - we're actually agreeing on something. I'm all for legalizing drugs. And prostitution. And anything else between consenting adults.
I also think the natural progression of the gay rights movement, which is drawing to a close because it's winning, will be for a polygamy-rights movement. If you believe, like I do, that two men or two women should be allowed the legal protections of marriage, why not three or more people as well? If my wife and I want to legally bind ourselves to another couple, and we are all able-minded adults, then why shouldn't we be able to? Or, if a man or woman want multiple spouses, why not? Like the guy on Sister Wives. If those three or four women all want to be legally married to the same man, and get the government benefits that come along with marriage, they should be able to.
Very true. We are all products of our experiences.
Also something everyone can agree on - distrust of the media.
You hit on one of the fundamental differences between the baby boomers and other generations - the feeling of collectivety. When did baby boomers start to be called that, anyway? When you were young, did you feel a connection to the rest of your generation, because you were all sort of the same age and had shared values? And shared experiences?
My generation has none of that. Everything is individualized for us, from the news, to music, to books, to TV shows. We are very much living on cultural "islands". And we don't look at what our generation as a whole is "producing", but what we, as individuals, are doing with our own lives.
I realize I may be voicing the ultimate triumph of the elitist Conservative wave of the 80s - the destruction of any real collectivety that could organize and upset the status quo. If this really is some conspiracy of the elites, it worked.
The trend I've been seeing for the last ten years or so has been a return to the way things were before the 60s. In some parts of life, at least. Take Whole Foods, for example. They caught on to and exploited the desire for natural foods. What is that but "the way things were in the 50s"? Or the PSAs I hear urging people to eat dinner together at a table, without a TV on. Again, just like it was before the 60s. Or the PSAs urging fathers to stay in and participate in the lives of their children. Or the environmentalist mantra of reducing and reusing. Are these not all variations of throwbacks to the 50s and earlier?
But, again, there isn't nearly as much collectivety as a generation now as there is with the baby boomers. When I get to the end of my productive days, and it comes my time to reflect on the world I'm leaving behind, I will not think about the legacy of my entire generation.
Very true. We all start off "female". Only later during fetal development do the ovaries descend and become testes for boys. That's why the tubes that connect the testes to the penis run up a considerable way through the body first - like a hose that has been dragged by one end - as the ovaries became testes, they dragged the cords with them.
And that's today's science lesson.
But getting back to my point - yes, there is a lot of grey area and different degrees of "masculine" and "feminine". But it's not fair to tell boys to stop being overly-masculine, unless you also tell girls to stop being overly-feminine. Want guys to stop carrying guns in public, even if it just a manifestation of their inner masculinity? Then tell women to stop doing things that make them feel feminine in public too.
This sounds like that billionaire in California who got so much flack a few months ago for claiming that the votes of the rich should count for more than the votes of the poor, since the rich are paying for a disproportionate amount of the government. Why not apply this logic to everything: If it doesn't involve you, personally, then your opinion doesn't matter, right? If you're not paying property taxes, then you don't get a say in the public works that those taxes pay for. Don't have school-aged children? Then why have an opinion on how schools are run? Don't live in a place where they are fracking? Then why have an opinion? Not gay? Then stay away from the Pride parades. And so on... Speaking on behalf of the unborn is no different than speaking up for the rights of any other voiceless group.
But, we both know, abortion is not really a topic worth talking about, since minds are already made up.
You do have to hand it to the righties, though - they never consider something "settled", even if the Supreme Court says so. Abortion was "settled" in the 70s? Tell that to the states passing laws against it today. The legality of the ACA was "settled"? Let's keep voting to repeal it anyway.
Righties can hold a grudge better than anyone else.
How can it not? That's easy - not enough people are pissed off or paying attention. For every one person who is angry enough to protest, how many dozens more look for release and escape in more carnal pleasures? (Sex, drugs, booze, video games, etc...)
I think this is at least part of the reason for an easing of marijuana laws. Letting people get as high as they want, so they forget how crappy their lives are. And years down the road, when they are middle aged or close to retirement and have nothing to show for it, they will blame themselves and their own bad choices, not a system that was rigged against them from the start.
DrRichard - I do love 60s music. Except the Beatles. I don't see what the big deal is about them. I'm listening to Jefferson Airplane at the moment.
That touches on another thing that righties like to bring up because it scares people my age: the looming burden that the baby boomers are going to put on social services as they age and retire. Every Social Security statement I get has to remind me that my retirement age is higher than my parents. Currently, according to them, I can start collecting full retirement when I am 67. I will not be surprised at all if they move that goalpost away from me when I get close to it. Which is why I am not counting on having it at all. I look at it like a tax, not like something I might actually benefit from some day. (But also, my father, both of my grandfathers, and all of my uncles died before making it to 60. So I've always got that in the back of my mind as well - now, in my mid-30s, I already have more yesterdays than tomorrows. I find it comforting for some reason.)
Public worker pensions are the same way. The message I keep getting is, "You have to pay now for promises politicians made to government workers years ago. Those workers are now retired, and there are a lot of them. So even though you're paying more and more, you're not getting any more services. Those politicians who made those promises are long gone. And, the real kicker, when your time comes, there probably won't be anything left for you. So good luck with that."
It's also interesting that you use the word "rot" in this context. That's something that both sides of the political aisle like to talk about - how rotten things are today. But that's all I've ever heard. And, like Alice who says she gets sick of hearing Conservatives talk about how inept the government is, I get sick of hearing about how things are worse today than they were in the past. So I focus on the positives, put a smile on my face, and do my best to be happy, if for no other reason than spite.
There you go! You're catching on:))
Sandlewould, it's good to hear from you again. Been awhile! Missed you!
The very thought of someone like Hitler having access to today's technology is enough to make me shudder. Technology by itself is neither good or bad; it's only as good or bad as the people who use it.
Tonight on Democracy Now, I heard Sgt. Bergdahl's story, and it saddens me. My heart goes out to that young man and his family. I often wonder what it would take to convince today's crop of impressionable young people that enlisting for military service isn't such a great idea.
I don't know what channel you were watching, but as you've described it, that "interview" sounds pathetic. What else can we expect from corporate media, after all?
"Is the heart and soul of America dead?" you ask. I can't resist answering your question with another question: Did America ever have a heart or a soul in the first place? Given the events we've witnessed in our lifetimes, let alone the historical facts, I have to wonder… - AIW
Matt suggests, regarding drug prohibition, that we "think of the other law[s] we should change. Speeding, underaged drinking, gun ownership and concealed carry, bigomy or polygamy, prostitution, praying in schools, etc…"
You've really outdone yourself this time, schoolteacher. That's one of the lamest arguments I've seen you cough up yet! So full of holes…
Sorry you lost someone to "drugs", whatever they were. The fact that she started with pot doesn't prove anything where pot is concerned. Some people, by virtue of addiction-prone personalities or heredity, are incapable of indulging in any kind of mind-altering substances without it taking over their lives. That is unfortunate. However it doesn't justify prohibition. What business is it of the government's, or law enforcement's, what I or anyone else wishes to do in private or among consenting adults with similar tastes? Whose safety are we jeopardizing? Whose rights are we trampling on, Matt? Because that's really what these laws should be for, enabling us all to coexist peacefully, with a minimum amount of strife. The less that people are victimized by the behavior of others, the more peacefully they can coexist together in a society, and the more civilized that society is. It's really that simple. Laws should exist to help prevent us from hurting one another, which should be the bottom line…. but isn't. Not in today's world, where money trumps all else.
My personal habits, and my friend Nancy's personal habits, and my cousin Kevin's personal habits, are not your concern. Nor should they be the concern of the police or the court system, because they affect nobody but me, and Nancy, and Kevin. So this stuff we're using isn't illegal because we're jeopardizing anyone's safety, nor is it illegal because we're trampling on anyone's rights, or causing a public annoyance.
Please don't misunderstand me, Matt. I'm not announcing to the world that I am a pot smoker; I'm being hypothetical here to make a point. Whether I smoke pot or not is nobody's business. It needn't concern anyone else for reasons I've already stated. My point is that since pot prohibition isn't protecting anyone's safety, security, peace and quiet or whatever, and since pot prohibition has no moral justification, it is not a legitimate law. It exists solely for the purpose of keeping the corporate elite in control, so that they can continue to profit off of us, our needs and wants and personal habits. We're their livestock as it were, their "cash cows".
Sounds rhetorical, doesn't it! And preposterous; right, mister schoolteacher? Well, it isn't. I could easily substantiate these assertions with historical facts. I could write a very long post, just explaining the real motives behind pot prohibition, with enough historical anecdotes to support my thesis. But it's been a very long day; I'm kinda tired. So for now, I'll simply clarify that the only reason pot and hemp are illegal is because (1) the oligarchs can't monopolize and control it; therefore they can't profit from it, and (2) the oligarchs don't want the many products made from pot & hemp to be in direct competition with those raw materials and finished products they can monopolize, which protects their expected profits and bottom line… at the expense of our freedom, autonomy and privacy.
There is not even a legitimate health argument that can be made against marijuana. No one has ever died of a marijuana overdose. There are no statistics on lung cancers caused by marijuana either. Even from that angle, prohibitionists haven't a leg to stand on.
I think a similar argument can be made regarding prostitution. Any activity that involves two consenting adults, where there are no victims, should not be treated as a crime. I happen to find the whole idea of prostitution rather revolting, but I'll still defend that choice for anyone wishing to partake in it. Prostitution, like pot, has been around for millennia; they're not going to go away just because you or anyone else disapproves. And why should they? Who the hell are you to tell other people what they can or cannot do, anyway?
Now for the grand finale, I'll get to your other examples. Speeding kills. (Got an argument for that, Matt?) Underaged drinking also has been known to have lethal consequences. (Since adolescent brains are not fully developed, alcohol is more toxic to that age group.) Guns kill, don't they? All activities and/or objects with the potential of harming or killing people warrant laws that regulate them, which benefits everyone individually and collectively.
"Bigomy" (spelled "bigamy", English teacher!) should be a crime because you're hurting another person by marrying that person illegitimately, under false pretense. This can have injurious legal consequences as well as cause significant emotional harm. Such abuse definitely warrants criminal status. (Polygamy? That's a little more complicated; let's save polygamy for another discussion.)
Praying in schools? Come on Matt, we've already gone the rounds with that one. Wanna get into another tug-of-war over the separation of church and state? Sorry, I'm in no mood for that. Like I said, it's been a long day. - Aliceinwonderland
Matt, anyone who is a teacher by profession must adhere to boundaries, such as not getting romantically involved with one's students. It is simply inappropriate. The fact that the teacher was only in her twenties, or that it was a lesbian relationship, is irrelevant. What makes it a breach of ethics is that it violated the teacher-student boundary. I'm surprised that you put so little, if any, emphasis on that, which to me, stands out as the only relevant issue here. - AIW
[Initially following Marc's #21 post, directed at Matt as an afterthought:] YEP! There you have it. Ain't karma great. Like a boomerang it circles around, soars waaay up, then back down again to hit you in the head. In that sanitized little psuedo reaity of faux fiction, you know-it-alls won't even see it coming 'til you get smacked with the same ugly reality as the generations before you. Chances are, the majority of you will spend the rest of your lives up to your eyeballs in debt. Oh well. But since you're so much smarter than us older folks, I'm sure you'll have no trouble adapting to indentured servitude while those billionaire welfare queens have the last laugh. - AIW
Hey Saulys, I just read it. Excellent.
Wake up, Matt. - AIW
How differently Hitler might have fought his war if he’d had access to the digital age and drones...how much more covert if cyberspace and global corporate-military alliance allowed him to control German media to the extent that most Germans had no idea what their nation’s military were being ordered to do in their name. Imagine if a Nazi soldier, ordered to commit atrocities by his commanders, found the strength to allow the bandages of denial to fall from his eyes- to see the truth behind the Nazi regime. This soldier, having not only the courage to put down arms and stop the killing of innocents, also had courage enough to apologize to the ‘enemy’ for his actions as well as the actions of the Nazi war machine. Indeed, just as the Third Reich would have called for him to either be left to rot as a POW or be tried for desertion, or even treason for daring to speak against his government, most in our government and corporate media seem to be indirectly calling for the same for Sgt. Bergdahl. Quoting a leading Democrat as reported by Amy Goodman:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein: "I did have a call last night from the White House and they apologized, he apologized."
Reporter: "Are they acknowledging that the law was broken in that apology?"
Senator Dianne Feinstein: "I didn’t ask for that. I mean, it was obvious."
What corporate force has the above quoted reporter so cowed that the first question asked was as stated instead of being something like, “Is there any news of when Sgt. Bergdahl might be coming home”? As a Nation, do we really want to demand the President’s apology for negotiating the release of an American POW- especially since the 5 prisoners traded were likely held at GTMO contrary to our Constitution as well as international law and have not actually attacked the US?
Legally under the National Defense Authorization Act, the President should have given a month’s notice to Congress. So we are told. Ethically, in my humble opinion, he acted correctly. After all, how ethical is it for the CIA to pay the Taliban in order to gain access to transit routes so they can turn around and fight the Taliban? Is it not ethical to trade prisoners, most likely internationally unlawfully held, for an American soldier? As famously said by Paul in the New Testament; “...the letter of the law kills, but the spirit gives life.” Isn’t it time we look at the ethics (spirit) instead of the letter (law)? Shouldn’t we instead be asking ourselves as people, whether or not our laws are constitutional and/or just, instead of letting the corporate State slip laws like the NDAA past us without media scrutiny or public debate? Is the heart and sole of America dead?
I hope not. However, since American government now solely represents multi-national corporations, it has no heart or soul and it knows little if any borders with regard to loyalty or conquest. The Supreme Court may have ruled that Corporations are ‘persons’ with the same inalienable rights as people have, (or are supposed to have) under the constitution, but as we all know, they are not people. As such they are terrified that Bo Bergdahl’s courage and truth might escape his lips and reach the ears of the People...unleashing an international torrent of discontent and dare I say, rage against the corporate board that sits on the Supreme Court, the execs in Congress who fraternize with their corporate buddies within the dirty energy-money-media-military industrial complex and the CEO that sits in the White House. Sadly, the American People will get caught in the fray. They must not succeed in dividing us, instilling images in our psyches of those who use a moral compass and find the courage to act from their hearts as weak and deserving of punishment instead of heroic and deserving of highest honor. I for one, am not buying the lie. I love the People of this country. I wish I could say the same of it’s current Government, which sadly appears to be wholly corrupt. The American People no longer have a representative government and should we try to create one, the hammer of fascism will surely crush many- but peacefully and non-violently, try we must!!
In this case, I think you're right.
I think it was just a coincidence.
Palindromedary ~ So do you think it was just a coincidence that Thom decided to focus today's show on the topic you brought up just yesterday; or, maybe he read your post?