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.
ChicagoMatt ~ Oh God yes! You are perhaps the first person I've met who hasn't seen that movie. It was definitely Mel Brook's masterpiece. Brilliant writing, acting, hilarious, and almost prophetic. He even wrote the title music. Sadly, compared to Blazing Saddles, Spaceballs was somewhat pathetic. That's the price you pay for creating a masterpiece. It casts a shadow on everything else you do.
By the way, if you haven't yet I would also suggest checking out, "The Jerk" and "Idiocracy." Other similar masterpieces. Aside of the entertainment aspect of these comedy classics they also offer a provocative perspective on our modern culture that you might appreciate.
Aliceinwonderland ~ That works for me. If fact, I don't disagree with one word you said. I just think we need to be careful with labels.
Scientists were once puzzled by how a planet can form out of dust in space. They learned how when an astronaut in orbit pulled out a bag in a weightless environment and started to see the contents coalesce. Apparently in a free environment neighboring particles attract each other into clumps. Mystery solved.
I've noticed the same phenomenon with people. When they are gathered together they tend to form groups. Those groups tend to label themselves for distinction and identity. The force behind the cohesiveness is more of a natural need to bond than one of shared philosophy. It is important that we always remember that the groups associated with the label are still composed of separate entities. Personally, I believe that the bonding of the group outweighs the philosophy of the group. People will say and do thing that they don't necessarily believe in simply because the need to belong outweighs the need to be right.
I'm the opposite. My need to be right outweighs my need to belong. That is why I don't label myself or belong to any groups. I can't see putting myself in a box and letting others do my thinking for me. I like to give myself lots of wiggle room.
The characteristics you associate with "conservativism" is correct--now. Thirty years ago it wasn't. A hundred years before that they were the exact opposite characteristics that they are now. In fact, you only have to go back 8 years to see a massive difference. Back then, this party that wanted to shrink government expanded it exponentially with the DHS and the NSA. 20 years before that this party that wants government to stay out of our lives started the War on Drugs and an all out effort to ban abortion.
My point is that when hypocrisy is rampant and certain definitions simply are not consistent, labels can be very misleading and self defeating.
As long as you don't mislabel youself feel free to use labels as you wish. After all, words are only tools. As long as you use them; and, they don't USE YOU!
Chuck - It's not about blocking the WHOLE sun. Just enough to counteract the effects of too much carbon in the air, which traps the sun's energy on Earth. The way they describe it, it would be a cloud of millions of small mirrors in space - you wouldn't be able to see it from Earth or anything.
Alice - Even if we stopped burning every fossil fuel today, the damage to the atmosphere is done and we will need a way to un-do that. Waiting for nature to take its course and get that carbon out of the atmosphere will take centuries.
Marc - You're the second person to make a Blazing Saddles reference for me this week. I've never seen that movie, but I do know it's a Mel Brooks film. I've only seen one of his movies - SpaceBalls. Perhaps I should add Blazing Saddles to my summer "things to do" list, for the cultural capital aspect of it.
There was a good opinion article on MSNBC two weeks ago about the unfortunate truth about environmentalism - it doesn't matter much what the USA does now, unless the BRIC countries do the same.
They should come up with some sort of "carbon footprint" data that would go on things you purchase, like nutritional information does now. So you could look at something, see how much pollution was made during the manufacture and transportation of the object, and decide if you still want to buy it. That would encourage companies to pollute less, just like it encouraged companies to make healthier foods available to consumers.
Hey guys! Ready for a little comic relief? This morning I found a message from Rand Paul in my inbox, with a petition to "do away" with the IRS! My reply: "Since you hate government so much, have you considered a change of occupation?" - AIW
Marc, once you get down to "categories" versus "labels" you're splitting hairs, in my opinion. What do you think labels are supposed to distinguish?
There are two basic world views and belief systems that have divided this country, to a large degree, for as long as I can remember. Those on the conservative side are more self-oriented, of the so-called "strict father" mindset. They tend to be skeptical and distrustful of others, particularly those who differ from themselves in certain key ways and areas. They have an authoritarian, patriarchal world view and value system. They think we shouldn't have a commons or a safety net, or a government to protect it. They hate government and would shrink it down to nothing if they could get away with it. They value competition over cooperation. Empathy is not their strong point. They think we should each just be "on our own", fending for ourselves… you know, sink or swim, the "law of the jungle…" They vote for candidates like Raygun, Bush Junior, McCain and Romney. They feel entitled to cheap labor and low taxes.
Okay maybe this is a stereotype. But conservatives tend to have many if not all these attitudes and opinions. They're "me" oriented. They want to live in a "me" society where self interest is everyone's exclusive aim. They are in favor of privatizing things like healthcare, education, the post office, fire department and the media. These people would like to take us all back to a socioeconomic system that kept propertied white males at the top of the heap.
On the other side of that fence are those of us who'd rather have a "we" society; one that's more inclusive, more open, with a safety net and a commons shared by all. We believe in the importance of social mobility, opportunity for all who wish to better their lives. We value cooperation over competition. We're anti-authoritarian and don't live in fear.
As long as this ideological divide persists in American society, I will continue using labels like "liberal", "progressive", "conservative", "neocon" and so on. Saves me the trouble of elaborating like I've done in these preceding paragraphs. Just a little communication device; no big deal. I realize certain people disapprove of labels, but I'll use them as long as they work for me. When I decide they no longer work for me, then I will stop using them.
I've mentioned numerous times how it bugs me that we persist in defining ourselves and each other by how much wealth we possess or lack; i.e. our "worth"; our "ordinariness" or "extraordinariness" according to what we have, not who we are. It grates on me how we are said to "earn" whatever we are paid, no matter how much or how little, as if a CEO "earns" $9000 bucks an hour or fifty million a year. All that is offensive to me and I wish people would frame it differently.
Oh well. I can't make others comply with my rules either, Marc! Life goes on. - Aliceinwonderland
Of course, Oligarch is not a label. it is by definition a category of leadership. When we define our words it is imperative that we define them well. Poor definition of words is one of the things that is leading to our demise.
ChicagoMatt ~ I got a better idea! Why don't we just take a lesson from "Blazing Saddles" and just make a bunch of fake people? We could--overnight--repopulate the Earth with fake people. Wouldn't that be much cheaper and far more easier than making a bunch of fake trees?
Seriously, if you really want to know the God given solution to this simple problem you should examine my own personal blog:
THE HEMP SOLUTION
Aliceinwonderland ~ Yes, they are! IHowever, if you look at the dictionary definition of all these 'labels' you will love them all. Liberal and Conservative all look great on paper. it is the way they are misused that tears us apart. Because it tears us apart I don't like any of them.
In order to preserver over all this discord that is being spewed our way we need to rise above this petty nonsense. That is precisely why I favor discarding all these petty labels in favor of the greater good. Until we as a people do this, we will never be able to rise above our petty differences. We will never be able to see the forest for the trees. We will be forever doomed to accept the will of our overseers.
ChicagoMatt ~ Then you would be wrong. I'm not familiar with "corporal and spiritual works of mercy" of the Catholic church. If you think I need to be then you missed my point altogether. As Jesus said, the good works of man need no help other than the help provided from God. That is a paraphrase for a scripture that you obviously don't get.
The only real solution is phasing out fossil fuel and the technology dependent on it. Anything else is just a band-aid. Sorry to rain on anyone's parade... - AIW
Matt, I don't like the ACA's individual mandate either. But comparing that to "forced" union membership is ridiculous. So-called health insurance is a for-profit bogus racket; unions are non-profit organizations existing solely to protect worker rights. Big difference! - AIW
Matt, you did not clarify that you were talking about this particular thread as opposed to the whole website. Given the topic Thom introducted, what do you expect?
You keep submitting the same argument repeatedly; that if we were to take all the money away from the 400 richest people (or whatever) in this county and split it between the rest of us Americans it would only be a small amount. Okay. So what. - AIW
Chi Matt -- Why do you want to get rid of the enegy source we need the most -- the sun. I still like Thom's solution the best -- an ever increasing carbon tax.
Politically fair -- Why do keep quoting the repug playbook? Cosmetically, I could agree with you. However, I think the best hope of fighting against the 0.1% is "card check". Every democrat in the senate voted for it in 2009. Every repug voted against it, thus enabling the filibuster. You can be a nice republican and point out every stupid thing the dems do wrong. That would certainly assure we will never get a filibuster proof senate.
SHFabian -- You need to listen to L Randall Wray. Thom repeated the interview on Friday.
.Are you trying to get rid of the only jobs program we have going?
I was talking about this particular thread, not the whole website. There was a lot of wealthy-class-bashing, which makes sense given the topic of Thom's blog.
According to Forbes, the top 400 richest people in the USA are worth a combined 2 Trillion dollars, or roughly the same as the entire GDP of Russia.
Assuming you could take everything from every one of them, which you can't because that's they net worth, not their actual cash, but if you could do it, you would have enough to give every American a little over $6,000. That's just a one-time payment. I suppose that would help people for awhile. Then what? Once that money is gone, then you're going to have to go down a notch on the economic ladder and take from those people, and so on and so on. It wouldn't stop until we hit the average, which would be individuals with about $40,000 in net worth.
Chuck - I honestly wish the Dems would try that. They would lose any relgious voters they still had, and that money would never actually make it to social services in high enough amounts to change anything. It would just be thrown into the general fund and pissed away on interest payments for all of the borrowing the state is currently doing.
That's why I'm not too worried about a populist uprising or Progressive or Socialist revolution or anything like that anytime soon. The status quo will be maintained, because the majority of people either don't care or aren't educated enough to pay attention anymore.
For a lot of Thom's proposals to happen, like the Move to Amend, you would need large amounts of Americans who: 1. Understand the issue, 2. Are on his side with the issue, and 3. Have the time and energy to do something about it.
Quite a mountain to climb in today's America.
The only thing I don't like about the ACA is the same thing most people complain about with it - the individual mandate. That's also people's chief complaint about unions - being forced into them. It's hard to find anyone who likes being forced to do anything. Even if it benefits them in the long run. It's like trying to feed vegetables to a child - yes, it's good for them. But the fact that they are being forced to do it just makes them hate it more.
There is actually a great opportunity for compromise that both sides are missing here: Single-payer healthcare in exchange for single-payer K-12 tuition. Go to any hospital you want, public or private, and the government pays. Go to any school you want, public or private, and the government pays. Everyone gets something they wanted, and two of the biggest issues facing our nation are made better.
I agree, but real trees aren't going to be able to do this alone anymore. The fake ones look like giant version of air purifiers you can get from Brookstone for your house.
The other options they talked about in the article revolved around directing sunlight back out into space, or stopping it before it got here in the first place, with mirrors.
Giant mirrors in space could do two things: direct sunlight away from Earth, or direct sunlight into the ocean, ahead of a hurricane, to warm water in a path that would direct the hurricane away from land.
Yes, it's sad that's it's coming to this. But also really cool from a scientific standpoint. I'm more confident now that my grandchildren will have a livable planet 100 years from now.
Kend -- When Bush was in office we were losing 700,000 jobs a month and increasing number each month. dubya was spending a trillion a year also, but he kept the war spending off the books. Obama put the war spending back on the books and started creating 200,000 jobs a month.
That statement might have some believability if it were not for Jude Winnewski. Jude published the repug plan in the NY Times in the 1970's. The plan said when repugs are in office spend as fast as you can and lower taxes. When a dem comes into office, starting bitching about the debt. raygun came into office and tripled the national debt. Repugs were responsible for 84% of the debt when Obama came into office. Since most of the repug policies are what we are currently operating under, the debt continues to increase during Obama's terms. Incidentally, the Jude plan is called the 2 Santa Claus Theory (it should be called one Santa Claus with two unpaid for gifts -- tax cuts and wild spending (e.g. star wars))
AIW -- Thanks for helping to avoid printing the dem voting record again. Only 17% of the people know that the repugs run the house. That is scary. I wonder how many of that 17% know that the house dems represent 1.5 million more voters.
Chi Matt -- Now if we could only get those politicians to take away all those tax breaks they give to religious organizations. With that extra revenue we would expand the social services to take care of that overcrowding.
Chi Matt -- Have you listened to the hour of Thom with L Randall Wray? I noticed Thom liked it so much that he repeated it on Friday. In a nutshell, he was saying too many economists are focused on dollars vice worth.
.I think that is what republicans say about dems to distract from what the dems are really wanting. The dems are really wanting the billionaires to do their fair share. They want them to avoid paying taxes by investing in America.
Chi Matt -- Very sneaky how Rush describes the increase in the tax base. There are at least two ways to describe the tax base increase. One way is that the number of people paying taxes increased. I would guess that is how Rush would want you to think the increase in the tax base occurred. The second way is the way I think it happened and incidentally agrees with your description. The second way to describe the tax base increase is that more income was exposed to the lower tax. I think the facts say that the top earners paid 2 to 3 times more in income taxes when the rate was lowered. I think that set of facts supports the second way. I think your description of coming out of hiding is accurate. Unfortunately the place it was hiding was in the infrastructure of the businesses of the top earners. At the lower tax rate they took it out of that hiding place and sent it to new hiding places e.g. Swiss bank accounts (Credit Suisse was just prosecuted for providing their secret hiding place) and the infamous Cayman Islands.