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.
Makes sense. Add a Black president with a Muslim sounding name, and the general feeling that America is no longer run by heterosexual white men (and race is what those on the bottom fall back on when they have nothing else to show). Throw in the ridiculous right wing perception that president's a weak Socialist (i.e. "Commie" to the uneducated), mix with a constant barrage of lies and paranoia from Fox and those far beyond it. And finally toss with a longstanding antipathy against "Eastern liberal elites" such as Palin has used, It's no surprise that what comes out is violent and unstable.
And you're right about Reagan; his Big Lie was that he'd bring back "the good old days." But, like Bush's lies about Iraq, those who bought in would rather blame somebody else than admit they were fooled, or go face the con man who fooled them. Again, getting scared and angry people even more whipped up is exactly what the "leaders" of the right do well. And if some of them go from figuratively to literally brandishing a weapon...well, they can say it's not their fault.
And what came of all of that hope? Are things any better in those areas? I can only speak for my own city. The answer is no, things are not better. It is sad to me that there are people who, if they were just entering the workforce when Reagan was elected, would now be in their 50s and who, this entire time, have been waiting for the Democrats they keep electing to change things for them. To continue to do the same thing over and over (elect Democrats), and expect different results, is, as you know, the definition of insanity.
The solidly Red areas of the country continue electing Republicans for the opposite reason. They don't want change. They like things the way they are.
I'm going to say something that will piss off just about everyone on here, as if I haven't already. It may be something you've heard before too, but your quote here brought it to mind. It has been my experience, as a 30-something guy, that "this generation" (people younger than the baby-boomers) have been hearing their entire lives how great things were in the 50s and 60s, and how much things suck now. Then, when we're looking for people to blame, we point to the baby boomers and the 60s counter-culture in particular. Hippies, "free love", Vietnam protests, etc - that's the moment when things started going downhill. For all of the crap conservatives get for being "all about me, me, me"... look at those people - the baby boomers who, in their teens and 20s, went totally hedonistic and didn't think of the consequences. "I want to smoke whatever I want, sleep with whoever I want, not worry about the future, and expect all of my needs to be provided by the government."
How many of you on this blog are baby boomers who want the economy of the 50s and 60s, but the social freedoms of today? Doesn't that seem like you're cherry-picking the parts of society that you like? Do you see how younger people might look at the 60s counter-culture as a failure, and its members as self-centered? You all like to pinpoint Reagan and the conservative movement of the 80s as the turning point, but wasn't that just a reaction to the liberal movements of 10 years earlier?
Ok, I'm not verbalizing that as well as I intend to. But I'm going to post it anyway. Bash away...
On this we agree. It is what it is. The best thing you can do is, as an individual, try to take care of yourself.
Chi Matt --
. Individualism has never helped any society in the course of human events. Darwin in his "Origin of Species" observed that all higly evolved species got there through love and co-operation. However, individualism is the snake oil the 1% try to sell to the masses. So you think the poor people should look to Daddy Koch for a handout. Where is the individualism in that?Where do you think reagonomics hit the hardest? For the 13 weeks of the last 5 years when the dems were in control, the life of those impoverished areas saw the most hope. Do you think anyone in their right mind could look at the voting record of the repugs and think it would lessen the poison of reagonomics?
That's kind of the point I was trying to make, I think. If we were more open and instructional with guns the way that we are with sex ed now, the "taboo" factor would go away. It'd be like, "Wow. That person has a gun. So what." Sort of like sexual situations on TV now don't even phase us anymore, because we've been so exposed to it.
Marc - In my child development graduate classes, which I took in the mid to late 2000s, we learned that there is a lot of backlash and rethinking of the "gender roles are societal, not instinctual" studies of the 60s, to which I think you are refering. There are a plethora of studies and books out there now that claim, in a gender-neutral vacuum, boys will still end up more agressive, and girls more nurturing.
One anecdote I remember in particular was a study where a group of 3-year-old children who had been raised as gender-role-neutral as possible were given traditional boy and girls toys to play with. The result? The girls took the toy cars and tucked them into beds like they were children, and the boys took the dolls, built towers out of blocks, and pretended like the dolls were monsters, knocking over the towers.
I'm going to see if I can find some of those studies online now. Next time you're at a bookstore, check out the parenting section and see how many books are about raising boys to celebrate their masculinity.
I think it's always been this way. Consider that those at the very bottom of our social pecking order are single mothers -- the women who accepted their responsibilities for their children to the best of their abilities, as opposed to all those single fathers who merely walked away from their own sons and daughters, not wishing to be "burdened."
Well, there's the old saying that (put simply, if crudely), men need guns when they don't have balls. That said -- We're just seeing the inevitable consequences of the Culture of Dumb that took hold with the Reagan era; anti-education, unquestioning obedience, coerced comformity, etc. What has been so bizarre about recent decades is the fact that, every step of the way -- from Reagan's deregulation to Clinton's NAFTA/welfare "reform" and workfare replacement labor -- the middle class has embraced the very policies that are so successfully phasing them out. Maybe it's for the best, in the long run. This generation looked at the policies and programs that were in place from FDR to Reagan, which took the US to it's height of wealth and productivity, and decided to reverse course, doing just the opposite. The results were entirely predictable. There's really nothing we can do about it at this point. Those who don't grasp what has happened feel cheated and panicked, and they cling to their guns in a desperate effort to give themselves a sense of power and relevance.
Excellent points, Marc.
I'd just like to add how crazy it is, that we shield kids from sex so much more than from violence. How ironic is that?! Creating life is more taboo than damaging or destroying it?!! What does that tell us about our culture? And as if that wasn't crazy enough, we have all these nincompoops declaring themselves "Pro-Life".
"Coo-coo. Coo-coo. Coo-coo. Coo-coo...." as in LOONEY TUNES! - AIW
ChicagoMatt and Aliceinwonderland ~ I don't think boys tend to fight anymore than girls do. Sociological studies show some African tribes where the woman is the warrior and hunter and the man stays home, cooks and makes cloths. The roles are completely reversed and that is the norm. There is nothing innate about behavioral development. Boys in our society tend to fight because they are taught to do so by their parents, TELEVISION, and their peers. Girls likewise learn to play with dolls, wear dresses, and cook in the same way. Although children may have an innate sense of right and wrong, everything else is learned.
Further studies have shown that human children are some of the least instinctual animals in the entire animal kingdom--having to learn virtually everything about survival virtually through their entire childhood. During this period they are completely dependent on their parents. In comparison a infant chimpanzee is a genius.
The fixation and phallusation of guns is a trait that is learned at a very young age the same way young girls are taught to fixate on shoes. Remember, we as a society simply don't shield our children from exposure to violence the same way we do exposure to sex. Therefore, they pick up on it and identify with it quite regularly. In essence we teach them how to fight before we teach them how to make love. I think this poor quality of child rearing is a glaring factor behind the phenomena that Thom is talking about.
As far as sex is concerned, as I recall it has always been the man who was responsible and expected to initiate the gesture. As I also recall, neither sex had a problem with the desire for sex; however, girls were usually taught that it was their job to just say "no."
Absolutely spot ot Thom. Here in Australia, we responded to a massacre at Port Arthur by getting the guns off the street in one way or another. It is the only thing John Howard got right. Now however, the powerless in our society have what I call "weapon dogs". These are the staffordshire and bull terriers. They are very strong and aggressive dogs, often found in fighting rings. From time to time, these dogs end up savaging people and it's especially galling when small children are attacked.
But you are right Thom. When people feel powerless, they will seek some way to address that feeling, whether it is a gun or a weapon dog. The really bad part is that the people who feel powerless, take out their frustrations and anger on the wrong people. They tend to hurt others of the same social strata as themselves rather than those who have actually CAUSED the problems; the very rich, the politicians and the corporations.
Matt- So you think it's stupid to tell boys not to throw punches at people! Testosterone is no excuse for violent, socially unacceptable behavior. I don't give a flip what their "bodies & hormones" are "telling them"; they need to learn to handle conflict in a civilized manner. They've no right to put their hands on someone without an invitation, especially when the intent is to do harm. That is WAY over the line. Testosterone is no excuse for bullying.
And what's that got to do with "nurturing" behavior anyway?! Nurturing isn't harmful. Punching is. And in case you haven't noticed, girls can be violent too.
You've made another silly assertion: "Telling teenage boys to stop being violent is like asking teenage girls to stop having sex." Unless those girls are lesbians, they're not engaging in sexual activity without boys' equal participation. Seems to me that sexual behavior is an issue for ALL teenagers, not just girls.
Matt, your notions about gender are a little (AHEM) old-fashioned. AND presumptuous. Not all boys are interested in guns; some couldn't care less about guns. Yet you insist that all boys should be required to visit shooting ranges. Since when did machismo become mandatory? And not all girls have any use for dolls either.
Stop compartmentalizing people! - AIW
This brings up an interesting point. Our society also tells boys that it isn't ok to settle their problems with fighting. But is that really fair? If testosterone compels men to throw a punch (or own a gun), and we tell boys from an early age that punching is wrong, why don't we do the same for girls? If a girl is playing with a doll or seems to be drawn towards nurturing her younger siblings, why don't we tell her to stop? It sounds stupid, but isn't it equally as stupid to ask boys to stop doing what their bodies and hormones are urging them to do?
Telling teenage boys to stop being violent is like asking teenage girls to stop having sex. How successful has that been? It's ironic and unfair that the most progressive school districts will hand out condoms and teach girls about safe sex, but won't even consider a field trip to a gun range for the boys.
I saw an article discussing ADHD and parent ages. There is not much sensitivity to the woman's age. There is more sensitivity to the man's age because of accumulated changes to the stem cells that create sperm. The number of mutations in 'some' of the sperm starts to jump after about age 18, and the doubling period is somewhere in the range of a year. So waiting even another year is going to increase the frequency of abnormal sperm, and the rate of conditions like ADHD.
Nick
Again, I think we have a generational difference of opinions here. When I see things like that, my mind immediately jumps to "the person in the passenger seat must be the supervisor, who was probably a token promotion or is related to someone in the waste management office." Safety is a concern for the unions, but keeping their own jobs is more important for them. Back in the 50s and 60s, didn't unions do everything they could to stop factory automation? Even if a machine could do the job safer and cheaper, it would mean laying off a union employee, so they wouldn't let it happen.
There was a story here about the unions that work at McCormick Place, a big convention hall downtown. During trade shows, vendors were not even allowed to plug in their own extension cords. They weren't special cords - just regular 3-prong cords and outlets. But they had to wait for a union electrician to come and plug things in for them. For safety? Or to keep union guys employed? So officials from the trade shows began complaining, and some of them moved their entire shows to non-unionized places, like Atlanta and Las Vegas. (Legal prostitution and gambling probably didn't hurt either.)
Here's a great but lengthy article about it:
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20110611/ISSUE01/306119980/contractors-trade-associations-squeeze-convention-exhibitors-at-mccormick-place
Poor people hate the cops because they protect the interests of the affluent. The affluent also pay the majority of the cop's salaries. So, if you're a cop, where is your motivation to give a damn for the poor? I wonder if cops on patrol in high-crime areas even bother enforcing some laws if they see them being broken. "We have a report of someone spray-painting garages in the alley... I'll get to it when I get to it... The people on that block don't want me there anyway."
A lot of people like to bash cops until they need them.
And the only logical result of this is a continuation of the status quo. Society isn't going to change on the kind of scale necessary to end this cycle. But individuals can change themselves to benefit from society's current structure. Hence, individualism is the way to go.
The bluest of the blue areas - inner cities - also tend to be the most impoverished. You would think that after generations of voting for the same party and getting no where with it, people in those neighborhoods would start looking for alternatives. If I were a billionaire Republican (like a Koch), I would make a deal with people: I will open X amount of factories and hire X amount of people in Chicago within a week of the election if my guy gets elected. Bribery? Yes. But is it any worse than Democrats promising to improve the lives of the poor cycle after cycle, but not delivering on it?
The usual self-absorbed congressman will think, "I made it here with the current system, so why should I change it? Besides, it's not like it's my own money."
chuckle8 ~ I too agree about economic inequality; however, throwing more police at the problem isn't going to solve anything. In fact, at best it would only help increase our already overgrown prison population. The fact remains that there is nothing that police alone can do about economic inequality.
That said, recently, and probably in the future, our city government has laid off a lot if much needed police officers. For that reason, along with a crime problem that stands to get worse, we do need more police officers now. However, not much more than we already had before the cuts. What we really need is an economic stimulus package to help reduce economic inequality. That is where the real improvements need to be made.
Marc, thanks for starting my day with a nice belly laugh! A little of that neo-con BS goes a long way. Especially when the source is a wienie-sucking bimbo.
ChicagoMatt ~ Honestly I don't know any more about garbage service than you do--which makes me uniquely qualified to respond to your comment. I'm sure the city isn't throwing workers at a task. If there are four men on the truck I'm sure there is a good reason. Let me tell you why I would like to keep them right where they are.
Early in the morning when I go to work I often run into these garbage truck crews on my way to the freeway. You can't avoid them since they have to block residential streets with a huge truck in order to do their job. Getting around them can be quite tricky and dangerous. Wasted time waiting behind a slow moving truck means more frantic driving on the way to work. The less time they spend sitting and blocking traffic the less dangerous the situation is for everyone involved. Therefore, the more people they have scattering out and collecting garbage at a time, the faster they can get out of the way of me and my neighbors. Having four people doing the job is much faster than one man and helps make life safer for everyone. Well worth the investment if you ask me!
I'm sure the waste management company and the city feels the same way. In any job safety is always the No. 1 concern. It is also the main focus of Labor Unions.
PS Your comment about crazy people on the internet is so spot on!
WOW Chuck! How cool is that?! It's not nice to mess with Mother Nature. Revenge is sweet.
Matt, the residents in the poorest neighborhoods hate cops for a REASON. Cops are in the business of protecting the interests of affluent and rich Americans, not the poor. And poor folks know it. Cops don't treat them with the respect other Americans take for granted. What goes around comes around.
On a separate but related topic, each time I see a protest in the streets turn violent, it's usually the cops who are being violent. Time and again, we've witnessed peaceful protestors being assaulted without provocation. The message comes across crystal clear: "Get back in your pens, peasants, and shut up!"
So you think Democrats are misleading us into falsely believing this system is rigged against us?! Not on the planet where I reside. It is unfortunate that so many Americans watch faux fiction rather than real news; otherwise more people might have a grip on reality, enough to understand who the real enemies of democracy are. - Aliceinwonderland
My point, Matt, is that even in the humblest of professions, there's more to it than meets the eye. Unless you've done the work yourself, or have a friend or family member who's done the work and filled you in on the logistics, you're in no position to judge what that work should entail or how it should be done.
By the way, regarding your second post (#28): no argument! Have a nice day. - AIW
OU812 ~ Well certainly there is some great evil influence out there that is ruining our country. However, whether it is a 103 year old antiChrist Ronald Wilson (666) Reagan or the Grinch that stole Christmas remains to be seen.
Personally, I have to hand it to you Neocons. You really take the cake. I haven't seen a group of people so eager to simply pull facts straight out of thin air to support some of the most ridiculous notions I've ever heard since I was in first grade.
Pray tell where you got that story? Can you provide even one citation as to it's accuracy?
A simple google search turned up nothing about any Richard Slocum actor. An image search showed no one even bearing a slight resemblance to RR. Surely anyone who was an aspiring actor at some time in their life would have had at least one press releases.
Please save the BS for BS blogs.
Just what we need an actor pretending to be an actor. How about a politician pretending to be a leader?
Google Images for Richard Slocum
Google Search for Richard Slocum
Google Search for Richard Slocum Reagan impersonator
I think that, in the past, more beat cops may have been helpful. But not as much today. Not with the anti-police culture that permeates many of the worst neighborhoods. Plus, would you want to be the cop walking the streets in those neighborhoods, knowing that the people there have zero respect for you, your position, and what you stand for?
I agree that most of the problems of society can be attributed to income inequality. I also think the Democrats are doing their best to make people feel like they don't have a chance or the wealthy are out to get them, in order to drive more voters to the left. I don't see any real, practical solution other than individuality. At this point, no matter who is in charge, the other side of the aisle will fight them tooth and nail. For any real change, you would need like 80% or more popular support in the country. When was the last time something like that happened?
This is why I love the internet - My exposure to totally crazy people is greatly improved.