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.
MontanaMuleGal- I love your blog name, and your avatar makes me smile each time I see it.
I agree with everything you've said, to a point. Your anger and frustration are amply justified. I'm as fed up as anyone in this forum with our two-party system. However as I've pointed out time and again (ditto "chuckle8", in many of his posts), the Dems and Repubs are not identical. One need only check the voting records of all congresspeople from both parties, shown in detail by Project Vote Smart, to see this. The plutocrat-fascists want us to think both parties are the same so that we'll stay home on election day and not vote their sorry asses out of office. Please don't get suckered into that mindset; if you are, you're only shooting yourself in the foot. - AIW
What I don't understand is why a church would even be motivated to run a hospital, unless they wanted to (AHEM!) impose their religious rules and restrictions on women of childbearing age.
Goat-On-A-Stick, I agree that jury nullification can be quite the balancing act. My husband once got himself excused from jury duty by telling the judge, on no uncertain terms, exactly what he thinks of this stupid marijuana law. However I'd take the other approach, in the hopes of letting some pothead beat the rap and walk free. I would get immense satisfaction from that. We've got too many people languishing in prison who should never have been there in the first place. I hope one day to have an opportunity to exercise this power of dismissal; not only sparing someone the grief and hardship of incarceration, but depriving this private for-profit prison system another victim to use as a "cash cow". - Aliceinwonderland
I sure wish more people would wake up to what the Republicans are all about. Those guys are dangerous. They've nothing to offer us but hardship, decay and death. All they do is serve the masters while obstructing every conceivable thing that could benefit us, our environment... anything that matters.
By the way, PD- what the hell are you talking about? What's this "7.12a" business anyway?! Sounds like Greek to me. - AIW
Is Truecrypt going the way of Lavabit? Don't trust the recent version 7.2, especially.
http://cryptome.org/2014/05/truecrypt-testing.htm
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/28/truecrypt_hack/
http://truecrypt.sourceforge.net/
https://github.com/warewolf/truecrypt/compare/master...7.2
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/29/truecrypt_analysis/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztpm8QUISkk
Although, if you still have older versions than 7.2...like the last version of 2012...7.12a you may still be safe in using 7.12a. It is possible that the NSA, frustrated at their inability to penetrate Truecrypt 7.12a encrypted hard drives, may have just laid their heavy hand upon developers of Truecrypt and this resulted in the very odd recent warnings about 7.2. Perhaps they are trying to scare people out of using Truecrypt altogether and chasing people into seeking other encryption sources like Bit Locker or others...who many of us already suspect may be compromised by the NSA anyway. May be a way of scaring people, herding them, into using compromised encryption that have weak encryption or back door keys.
https://www.grc.com/misc/truecrypt/truecrypt.htm
ChicagoMatt ~ Let me put it this way, if a government run institution wants to allow a religious organization to provide a requested service to its clients then it should be allowed. However, there should be no restriction of any other religion as well. Freedom of religion shall not be infringed upon. However, that religious organization should never receive money to run a government institution.
You are right, if a church is running a hospital and receiving public funds to do so CLOSE IT DOWN or TAKE IT OVER. Then, you can let that same church open up a chapel somewhere in that hospital's basement. Priests who volunteer can perform last rites as requested.
That is a red herring, Michael. The fact that everybody knows the government, and private contractors acting under color of law, are systematically violating the Fourth Amendment does not make it legal. It only makes the Attorney General's failure to prosecute those crimes unforgiveable, fully informed complicity. Likewise for Secretary Kerry's childish words yesterday about Edward Snowden. It is John Kerry who has betrayed his country, not Edward Snowden.
The NSA's illegal, unwarranted surveillance has never been shown to have prevented any violence, terrorism nor otherwise, and so exposing the NSA's criminal activity cannot have done any harm. Snowden only "undermined" criminal abuses of power which have never done anything to advance either domestic tranquility or the national defense. Although apologists for the NSA do appeal to your terror when they claim that illegal surveillance "keeps you safe," in fact there is not even a trade-off, as in the famous saying about trading our essential liberties for some temporary security, you scoundrel. We are not even getting more security in exchange. We are just being deprived of our right to be secure in our papers and effects, in exchange for nothing whatsoever.
Thom - there you go again...
Pretending as though we Americans live in a democracy; that our "two-party" system is really two parties and that one of those parties represents the average American; and that Obama is working on behalf of the average American and not the corporatocracy.
Obama is the neocons' good ol' boy, and he was put into power because he would do as they say and never stand up to them; plus he would appease people who identify as "liberal" who apparently cannot see (or still refuse to believe) that he is a tool of the wealthy elite.
Or, perhaps, it is members of the (now dead) liberal class, which Chris Hedges has so well defined, which are doing well financially (universities, journalists, unions, entertainment industry, politicians, the church) and who continue to define themselves as "liberal," when in truth, they are not. They have been bought off with corporate money.
Effective propaganda, using enhanced PR tactics, has made so many US citizens believe they are, indeed, superior. Sadly, the ability of feeling "superior" is certainly one of mankind's tragic flaws.
Something no one is talking about: as was mentioned on your show, a potential juror could be denied based upon him even knowing about jury nullification. Combine it with the fact that if you clearly state you are against a law that the case is about, they will probably not let you become a juror, it seems almost impossible to both support jury nullification AND be a perfectly honest juror when asked questions during the jury interview process.
Everytown.org makes sending the "Not One More" postcards very easy. For those who are not able to be out and about.
Send a Postcard to Your Elected Officials Now
Both Harvard and Yale have churches on their grounds, so we can't give them one cent of government money, right? Most universities have student religious clubs, so any student who got any money from the government would have to sign an agreement saying they wouldn't join those clubs, right?
Better stop spending government money on religious-run hospitals while we're at it. Can't have any grey area at all between church and state. I don't know about where you live, but about half of the hospitals around here are run by Catholics. They get direct federal funding, AND they accept Medicare and Medicaid. We need to put an end to that right now - separation of church and state and all. Those poor and underserved neighborhoods where those hospitals are - those people will just have to figure something else out.
Also we're going to need to fire any military chaplain or other religious figure on the government payroll. On a ship or overseas and want to celebrate your religion? Tough. About to die and need a priest to confess to, because you honestly believe it matters? Sorry. We were not allowed to pay that guy to be here, or give him space on our ship or base, since it's government property.
"American Exceptionalism" is nothing more than the U.S. version of the Nazi "Master Race."
(Hi, Alice. Been busy as hell; can't stay long tonight either. But as always, thank you. Means a lot.)
"American Exceptionalism." It's a phrase without a specific definition until placed into the context made by the presenter. Reminds me of thhold western notion of John Wayne pulling himself up by his own bootstraps, but another egocentric but false premise. In a larger sense, it is the romantic notion of individualism, often the wreckless disregard of others to accomplish something difficult.
American Exceptionalism - like any "ism" is but an collection of ecltic morays and judgements - without a single aim or purpose. It's great a great political motivational line whether used in the positive - or detractor. It is an emotion with when reflecting on the accomplishments of a nation.
Yes, it was the exceptionalism as a nation who defeated Facism. The post war years of rapid economic growth, a commitment to education, science, landing a man moon the moon, and a fledging movie star could become president.
Exceptionalism isn't an aircraft carrier or ICBM missiles. The exceptionional ability to destroy the planeNoah's no redeeming value.
Exceptionalism is floundering as the nation has idenity and purpose. More is spent on prisons than k-12 education. Productivity has doubled in recent decades while earns are flat. Corporations have consolidated into "too big to fail or jail."
Our healthcare ditribution, availability, and costs is the rosé of any western nation.
so I ask, what is it that makes us so exceptional? I really miss feeling that way....
rich in folsom
Good point, Kend! And I like your sense of humor.
LOL Alice, what are the odds of me helping you with spelling. I am buying a lotto ticket.
It’s Time to End All Drug Testing
In his blog, Mr Hartmann makes the assertion that drug testing should be done away with “There is little proof that drug tests do anything other than make testing companies rich”. If Mr Hartmann is trying to make the point that drug testing is ineffective he does it rather poorly. Mr Hartmann further implies that it is not possible for a workplace to come up with a reasonable testing regime – again he is wrong.
Mr Hartmann states “What you do on the weekends and in the privacy of your own home is your business and your business alone…” I sometimes get this comment from workers that I ask to undertake a drug test. My counter is usually along the lines of “Well if you can show up here clear of any substances taken in your time – you’re gonna be fine and have nothing to worry about.” Mr Hartmann also later states “Most importantly, though, drug testing cuts at the core of our right to privacy”
I seem to recall a risqué comedian telling story about a girl informing her boyfriend that she was “a little bit pregnant”. This presumably humorous line resonates with me in relation to talk around privacy, to be more specific - breaches of privacy. Is there no such thing as a small breach of privacy or can we willingly give up our right to privacy in certain situations?
Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights gives people the protection from “arbitrary interference with their privacy…” (United Nations, 1948). This raises the question, is my workplace drug testing policy an arbitrary intrusion or is it part of a coherent policy that workers understand and are aware of when signing up to work for us? Are employers making an unethical intrusion into a person’s privacy? The word “arbitrary” is of interest in this discussion – and are there circumstances whereby a person is happy to divulge extra information about themselves?
Ethical theory would consider where is the greater good? Kantian theory would apply it’s “universal law” approach. Would it be alright if breaches of privacy were the universal law? I would suggest not. Kant has at the heart of his theory the issue of treating people as the ends – not the means to an end. Essentially meaning we can’t simply trample over people to achieve our goals.
Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also states “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”. I take security of person to include the safety from physical harm. The New Zealand Human Rights Commission confirms this point when they state, “The right to security of the person protects physical integrity, which has traditionally taken the narrow focus of protection from direct physical trauma.” (New Zealand Human Rights Commission),
So while privacy is important, I believe there is a greater consideration here. I believe the right to be physically safe is the greater good.
When discussing drug testing with my plant manager, we go over the point of our testing – we are testing for impairment. We want to know if a worker is putting themselves and their workmates at risk. I believe it’s easy to make an argument for a drug testing program in a safety sensitive environment – but who can define a workplace that is not safety sensitive? Is a school a non safety sensitive workplace? Is a retail store a non safety sensitive workplace?
In the case of The Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU) vs Air New Zealand (2004), the EPMU had a victory against widespread drug testing, limiting Air New Zealand to testing workers in safety sensitive areas. Law firm Simpson Grierson make the point, “Among the main points upheld the court ruled ‘Privacy Act 1993 principles will be a useful guideline in determining the reasonableness of a drug and alcohol policy, so far as issues of privacy are concerned...Work in 'safety-sensitive' areas will also affect the reasonableness of the policy” (Simpson Grierson, 2008).
One of the points Mr Hartmann fails to illuminate is that of the non drug-taking majority. The vast majority of workers actually pass their drug tests without any concerns and will partake in our testing programme without hesitation. These are the workers that tell me how pleased they are that we have are striving to keep the plant drug free and that they feel safer knowing the guy or girl next them is not high.
I believe a well considered substance abuse policy should include.
What we need to do away with is drug testing that breaches privacy principles, is based on a poor company policy and that is poorly applied in the workplace. A well constructed and written policy that is fairly applied is a great tool in achieving a safe workplace.
Thanks Kend. I didn't know the correct spelling, and the dictionary was no help. If ya can't even get the first couple letters right, you're plumb out of luck.
Marc, you make a good point about how much time we actually have spent quibbling with idiots. But today when I discovered Sherrie's little poop pile, right under Thom's introductory post, all I could do was plug my nose and run. I'd just had it out with Matt over privatized education and was already pretty saturated. I've had my bullshit quota for the week.
So hey my friends, if ya wanna tango with Sherrie, go right ahead; have at it! But this time, I think I'll pass. - AIW
P.S. Loren Bliss, where are you?! I'm hungry for some inspiration, and you never disappoint.
Alice it is "Canuck" unless of course you are making fun of me. I think "kanook" is a Eskimo word for, I hate a Canadian bloggers named Kend and please don't be embarrassed America has done a lot more good then bad. But I won't lie. I always have Canadian flags on everything to let everyone know I am Canadian. Why not everyone loves us. Well except on this blog.
ChicagoMatt ~ Sorry. No public funds can ever go for anything with a particular religious slant... That is "favoring an establishment of religion." It is forbidden by the Constitution and for good reason. Now if you are suggesting using public funds to finance higher learning academic institutions that don't have any leaning toward an "establishment of religion"--like Yale or Harvard for instance--then we might just agree on something. Personally I think education is a right and not a privilege. Public financing should cover all academic education from kindergarten to grad school. The only exception are schools run by an "establishment of religion." They can never be eligible!
Having more students in my class via vouchers would just be more work for me, not any extra income. If anything, I have a "vested" interest to have fewer students. I'm just offering a solution that would actually help real students, in the real world, and in the near future if it were put into action.
- And not all private schools are parochial.
- And attending Mass at a Catholic school isn't mandatory anymore. You can sit it out if you want. You don't even have to be Catholic to come to a Catholic school.
- And the relgious program I teach is actually called "World Religions". Granted, we spend a disproportionate amount of time of the Abrahamic religions. My students are always very curious about Jews and Muslims. I do my best to teach them about Eastern religions as well, but since I myself am no expert, there's a lot of just reading from the book and watching movies for those units.
Aliceinwonderland ~ "Quibble with idiots?" Please correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like that is all we do.
I liked what Obama also said in that same speech about how, even though we have the biggest hammer (military), we don't have to go around driving down every nail. Finally. I'm tired of paying for the world's police department. It's someone else's turn.
I am only vaguely familiar with value-added testing. But what I have read of it makes it seem like a mathematical trick that school districts are using to make themselves look better on paper, while not actually producing better results in real life. Can't blame them - schools can actually be closed and teachers fired if they don't meet certain criteria under "No Child Left Behind". Every now and then you hear about a group of teachers who get caught changing student's answers on standardized tests, to protect their own jobs. Again, can't really blame them. They can only do so much with what they are given. It is unrealistic to think that EVERY student can do algebra, read Shakespeare, etc...
No. We are specifically told to NOT teach to any standardized test. The students take it one morning in March, and that's it. The only instruction I give them for the test is how to fill in a bubble. And yet, they still rank in the 80-ish percentile when compared to students around the nation who take the same tests. The public school students down the street usually hoover around the 50-ish percentile. Those teachers can lose their jobs over that, which is not right.
When I think about value-added testing for awhile, I realize it's kind of liek the school districts are giving up, throwing their hands in the air, and saying, "these kids will NEVER break though the 80th percentile, so let's just change the way we look at the same numbers to make ourselves look better."
Chuck, Historywriter, Dianhow… your sentiments are spot-on, but you needn't waste your breath. Sherrie's post (#2) does not warrant the dignity of a response. Ignore her. We've better things to do than quibble with idiots. - AIW
First of all, as an English teacher, I just want to congratulate you on using not one but TWO ACT-level vocab words in a single sentence. I'm guessing you're an avid reader, since that's where most vocabulary- acquesition comes from.
Second of all, you're falling into a Progressive mindset that, while well-intentioned, is also very egotistical. The thought that "I'm here to help save these people from their situation, even if they didn't ask for or want my help, because I know better than them what is best for them." It's the Progressive White Knight, here to save the day, that I've talked about before.
I was actually thinking about you two weeks ago during the McDonalds HQ protests. Did you have any involvement with those? They were the first or second story on the local news that night. They said about 1,500 people showed up to protest, but they didn't say how many were McDonalds workers, and how many were just marching in solidarity.
They also said that the McDonalds shareholders just moved their meeting somewhere else. It seems like that's the view that a lot of people in positions of power take to protesters today - the same view that a parent might have of a child having a temper-tantrum. Kind of a "fine, get it out of your system, so you feel better and we can go on with our lives" kind of thinking. I could be wrong, but wouldn't you have to go back to the 60s to find a protest that actually had a measurable impact on public opinion or policy?
The Khmer Rouge, for example...
Thom, your basic point about exceptionalism is spot-on, one I can fully embrace. However I would not be too quick to praise President Obama. Our president talks a great game about our "legal traditions" versus indefinite detention and so on. But this is the same president who signed indefinite detention into law, who keeps a mafia-style hit list, arbitrarily tagging men & boys in certain countries as "enemy combatants", even targeting American citizens for assassination without charge or trial. He uses more drones to murder innocents abroad than Bush did. He persecutes and imprisons whistleblowers while the criminals they expose skate free. His deeds have never been aligned with his actions.
When I was in Australia years ago (October & November of 1999), Australians often asked if I was Canadian. Turns out that Americans on the West Coast speak a dialect closely resembling the Canadian accent. I felt so embarrassed by my U.S. citizenship, I was tempted to lie and tell them yes, I'm "kanook". This country's homicidal foreign policy, not to mention its disregard for the wellbeing of its own citizens, makes it a fucking disgrace. Certainly not anything I would want to be associated with.
As for Republicans getting "with the program" to close GTMO, dream on Thom! I'd love to be wrong, but it's when I'd most love to be wrong that I'm generally the most accurate in my assessments.
I wish I could say with a straight face that America is special. I guess it can be said we're special, all right; in a negative sense anyway. We have the biggest military in the world while at the same time, we rank lowest in upward mobility of all developed nations. We have the highest per-capita statistics on obesity and diabetes while our healthcare system is a goddam joke. Even our voting rights are under attack. You know this as well as I do; in fact, Thom, you've actually enlightened me to some of it. Considering all this and more, we've got a long way to go before we can claim anything "special" about America. - Aliceinwonderland