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.
Thom, I just got around to listening to that NPR clip about that AT&T/DirecTV merger. And I'm with you; I tend to be very distrustful of any news clip that attempts to shed a positive light on something like this, the next phase of media consolidation. Just more of the same old corporate bullshit. Here's a classic example illustrating why I've lost interest in NPR. They ain't what they used to be.
Between that and privatized schools and for-profit healthcare ad nauseam, we're all screwed.
Thank you Thom, for calling it what it is. - Aliceinwonderland
Marc, we gotta be careful in discussing Native Americans. They were a menagerie of cultures and religions. I never claimed that they were athiests. But their concepts of "God", contrasted with Christianity's version, was like night & day.
Anyway I gotta hand it to ya Marc, for a Christian you're pretty friggin' cool. You definitely are an original, and an independent thinker to boot.
Sleep tight my friend... - AIW
The public schools have been starved to death! And then you assholes blame public schools for not measuring up. Makes me fucking crazy. It's all part of the Master Plan to PRIVATIZE EVERYTHING! Gone are the days when each and every child is guaranteed an education, regardless of socioeconomic status, regardless of mental and/or physical health. Any child judged to be too much of a "problem" is simply discarded. If that isn't "screwing someone over for life", I don't know what is. It sucks no matter how you slice it or dice it, Matt. Shit wrapped in gift paper, tied with a little bow, is still shit.
Nobody's advocating handing out "ribbons" to "everyone". You are constantly twisting the meaning of our statements.
This is just like the Tea Party infiltrating Congress, filling congressional seats with all these empty suits hellbent on bringing our government to a screeching halt, running this country right into the ditch, then declaring that government is "evil", that government "can't do anything right" and let's have the private sector do it all instead! It's called fascism.
This whole privatizing agenda makes me sick.
One last thing before I turn in for the night. The Native Americans were not atheists. They were very devout believers in God. They called it The Great Spirit; yet, it was simply their perspective of God. Personally, I feel their religion was just as valid as any other. In fact, I believe it was wiser, superior, more genuine, and closer to God than anything coming out of the East. Eastern religions are more about greed than God. The Native American religions are some of the very few in the world that I would have loved to take part in; and, hopefully one day will have the opportunity.
With that, Nighty Night!
Aliceinwonderland ~ I never liked the patriarchal slant on Eve either. That is why I carefully left her rib and encounter with the serpent out of the conversation. I guess any story that old is going to be tampered with by someone with an agenda. I just like to find the sound moral lessons in these stories and toss the nonsense.
I also agree with the Native American assertion. However, it is based on the behavior of the Christian representatives at the time and not God. Nevertheless, if I were in their shoes I would have certainly came to the same conclusion. I think it was Gandhi who once said, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians." I agree with that too.
Aliceinwonderland ~ If you must know, God didn't make humans slow. He made them in his image. One day with God is a thousand years with mankind. We are slow learners by our own standards. By the standards of God we are still children; and, the class isn't over yet.
It isn't God's fault because His end's always justify His means.
Obviously, an atheist may understand that concept; however, I doubt they believe it. That's just fine too. After all, we're just hypothetically speaking to explain a very relevant moral from a very ancient myth.
Remember Marc, I am an athiest! And that was meant to be a joke. But just for the hell of it... if "God" made humans, then why did "God" make humans such slow learners and why is this not "God's" fault? And what's the point of making fruit only to forbid it?!
I can't get over this twisted idea of Eve having been created from Adam's rib. What a fantasy. That's just patriarchy's inability to digest reality: that man is created in the womb and that females are the gateway to life and - heaven forbid - there's a heap of power in a woman's ability to slam that gate shut at will, if she so desires.
Native Americans rejected the Christian god for being angry and punitive. I think they were on to something. - AIW
Matt, did you bother to read the posts under that article? The first one says: "Only insane people like slavery. Employment is nothing but slavery. We don't live like human beings, we live like mindless insect drones or machines. Standing there doing the same repetition every week of our lives. And for what? To manufacture more & more useless plastic junk that takes up all our space. What exactly is there to like about slavery/employment/domination?"
Here's another one: "Got to wonder how valid this survey is - those in Canada who work in the private sector are not that happy and I can't imagine that they're is such a high percentage as stated in this article. I actually recently quit my job because after reading multiple articles from quitornot.com and cnbc.com, I realized just how awful my job actually was and I'm thankful for quitting!"
And another: "slave wages, no benefits, no union protections, part time hours, no healthcare, no retirement, no vacations, and being insulted as lazy moochers by the arrogant thugs in the republican party and their delusional tea party enablers. what's not to like about working in america."
And another: "Loyalty on both sides is dead. After a few years you are usually considered too big an expense, even if you prove yourself to be good."
And another: "I don't think a survey of 8000 people between 7 countries accurately describes the realities."
Frankly, I'm very skeptical of that article. In light of how many highly-paid occupations have disappeared via outsourcing, automation, etc. ad nauseam, I find it extremely difficult to believe that only 15% of Americans hate their jobs these days, especially when half the jobs in this country are low-wage grunt work with no healthcare, no childcare, no overtime pay, no vacations, no maternity leave; no sick time even!
Anyway Matt, I see little point in continuing this discussion. Like so many of our discussions, it's going nowhere. You've got your version of reality, I've got mine, and back and forth we go. Got other fish to fry... - Aliceinwonderland
Aliceinwonderland ~ I can agree with all your statements about licensing pot and not involving health care. You made some very good points.
However you are wrong in assuming that I'm suggesting God makes mistakes. Allow me to explain. First lets assume for a second that God is real and the creation story isn't just a myth. God by nature must have known before he prohibited the forbidden fruit that mankind would not be able to resist the temptation to eat of it. After all isn't God supposed to be perfect and immortal? Isn't he supposed to see all time past and future? The only logical conclusion is that it must have all been part of the BIG plan. You remember the forbidden fruit was from the "Tree of the knowledge of good and evil."
It is the responsibility of any good father to teach his children well. Therefore I have to conclude that God wanted and fully intended mankind to learn that lesson from the beginning. However, like any good father he did not want to be responsible for causing the pain that goes along with that lesson. The same way a parent might intentionally let a child burn themselves or fall down to learn why getting burned and falling down are bad things, God wisely set up mankind for their own downfall. He knew that paradise was not the classroom to teach the lesson of good and evil. He also knew that by prohibiting he was setting mankind up for an irresistible yearning. In this way, with one command, God taught mankind both the knowledge of good and evil and the lesson of prohibition. At the same time he washed his hands of all the consequences by giving full warning beforehand and putting the full blame on mankind. Personally, I've always admired the compassion and cunning of that lesson plan. Apparently, mankind is still learning these lessons. It is not God's fault that mankind is a slow learner.
Henceforth God does not make mistakes--mankind does!
PS Sorry for the theological/philosophical discourse; however, you asked the question. Also, thanks for asking the question!
I didn't say you said that. I said Thom said it, in the last paragraph of his column.
That's in my reply to Marc above. Although, in all honesty, I found a wide variety of polls about workplace satisfaction. The numbers were all over the place. The worst one I found said that two-thirds of dislike their jobs.
I am curious to know from you and the other baby-boomers on here, just what an educator's job should be? I always saw my job as preparing students for what comes next, which in my case is high school. And the high school teacher's job is to prepare students for college. My track record so far shows that I am a really great educator, if that is what I am being measured against.
What's wrong with that? What's wrong with pulling out a student from a failing public school - a student who could do much better in a private school? We should deny that student a chance, because not every student gets that chance?
Let's use that argument in another area of "the commons": healthcare. People die every day waiting for organs, right? But some people are chosen to recieve the few organs that there are, so those people get to live. But with the "no cherry-picking" argument, no one should be allowed to get an organ transplant until everyone can get one. Shared misery for all, even when there was a way out for some.
So it's more acceptable to force academically talented students who can't afford private schools to waste away in a faiing public school. For what? So the other students in their school don't feel bad about being left out? Screwing a kid over for life like that, to spare some other kid's feelings, is not right. It's a preschoolish, "everyone is a winner and everyone gets a ribbon" way of looking at things.
Matt, don't put words in my mouth!! Where did I suggest passing laws to force people to work less and consume less?! That's quite a leap from "striving towards" something, wouldn't you say? All I'm suggesting is that our system be more accommodating towards that end, for all who wish to actualize it in their own lives.
You seem to assume we liberal thinking people are a bunch of control freaks. Don't you know the difference between liberalism and authoritarianism? Maybe you oughta try looking those words up in the dictionary. If you bothered to do so, I think you would find them to be polar opposites.
And if you bothered to do the research, I think you'd find that in today's job market, the vast majority of workers are unhappy with their jobs. I challenge you to prove otherwise.
There is no such thing as "unskilled" work, Matt. That's elitist fucking bullshit.
The teens you speak of, born long since the "Raygun revolution", have experienced no other reality than mallignant capitalism and its side effects. I pity them. They don't know what they've been missing.
It deeply saddens me that higher ed has declined to what amounts to little more than a jobs training program; that the main motive for going to college anymore is the desire to make more money. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that we've evolved into a society of cultural illiterates, with the apparent blessing of "educators" like yourself. - AIW
Sorry. Late May is a busy time for teachers, and it takes me like 20 minutes to write a single reply sometimes. But thank you for the compliment.
Our students take the same standardized tests as their public school counterparts. Well, the High School Placement Tests at least, which is the big one for this age group. The median wage is comparable to public schools as well, but only because we offer schoalships to low-wage families. No private schools at all, or just no parochial schools? How about home-schoolers? Could parents who choose to home-school their own children get paid to do it? That would fix several problems at once: unemployment, school over-crowding, and quality of education. The smaller the class, the better the quality, typically. Home-schooled students outperform all other students in most areas.Im glad you bring this up. This isn't a black/white issue. There is a lot of grey area of people who "like their jobs well enough" or "don't like what they do, but like the pay."
While scanning the internet for stats to backup my retort (which is what takes me so long sometimes), I found this little article:
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3021789/everyone-in-the-world-hates-their-job...
That article posts statistics from a Monster.com survey of workers all over the world which shows that:
53% of Americans like or love their jobs
31% of Americans like their jobs "well enough"
15% of Americans dislike or hate their jobs.
While that 15% may include low-skill and low-wage workers, it could also include the opposite. I suspect there are a few corporate execs or lawyers who, deep down, HATE what they do, but love those paychecks. I, personally, know a close-to-retirement teacher who hates her job, even though she is a well-paid tenured public school teacher.
Chuck, your last post has me totally confused. How can it be a "fact" that raising the top tax rate to 90% would result in rich folks paying "less" in taxes? You're not making sense. - AIW
An afterthought: Marc's point that "God prohibiting Adam & Eve to eat the apple" and "what a disaster that turned out to be...." Are you suggesting God makes mistakes?! That's heresy! Off with your head!!
I'm going to preface this with an apology if it comes across as mean. I don't intend it that way.
Then, by all means, do that. I knew some people in college that lived that kind of lifestyle. They were very cool people and I thought they were on to something. I also try to consume less and live more in my own little way. But telling other people (or, as Thom suggests, passing laws to force other people) they should try to live that lifestyle because you think it is the right thing to do puts you in the same boat as Evangelical Christians, right? Telling people that you "have the answers" and everyone should "join you for their own good"?You've said that before, and that can easily be said of you as well. Alice doesn't like her job, so therefore most other people must not like theirs either? The "status quo" might not be working well for Alice, so therefore the whole thing has to be done away with.
I think there is a generational gap between life goals and how college plays into that between people on either side of the Reagan Revolution. We've discussed this before, but if you ask most people my age, I'll bet they would say that the point of college is to separate yourself from the unskilled masses and get a job where you're making a lot of money. And, in turn, making that money will bring you some level of enjoyment. I KNOW base don what my students tell me that this is how teens feel today. But for baby boomers, college seemed to be more about self-actualization and possibly giving back to society. Those are both great things, don't get me wrong. But they work a lot better in a world with high demand for both skilled and unskilled labor. Since there is very little demand for unskilled labor nowadays, the self-actualization takes a backseat to financial security.
Marc, I agree about legalizing everything. We own our bodies; this concerns our money and our lives; there are no victims, except as a consequence of prohibition. The reason I put all the emphasis on pot is for the simple reason that pot is the only one of various drugs on the black market that is virtually harmless. Therefore there is no legitimate argument against legalizing it. That said, I need to also acknowledge the fact that there's no argument that can be made against legalizing heroin or cocaine (to cite but two examples) that could not also be made against keeping alcohol & tobacco legal.
I only advocate the licensing of pot as an alternative to prohibition. I'm just being realistic, Marc. It's an inevitability that pot will be legalized sooner or later. But I think it's highly unlikely that pot will be taking a giant leap from the black market and medical marijuana clinics directly to the produce section of your local grocery store. What a pipe dream! (Pun intended.)
You needn't convince me that pot is less harmful than anything else people use to get high. I pointed that out in my last post already. If it was legal and actually affordable, I think many people would be more inclined to eat it than smoke it, eliminating any health risks.
The only point you've made where I disagree is the suggestion that anyone be stuck with extra out-of-pocket expenses for healthcare, even if an illness is the direct consequence of a person's bad habits. Either we have a single-payer system or we don't. I'd rather that no one ever have to look at an ugly-ass medical bill for any reason, including bad habits like smoking. I think a much more appropriate way to deal with the problems associated with alcohol and tobacco use would be to make these products prohibitively expensive. If tobacco cost as much as pot currently does ($200 an ounce), it would raise enough money to cover whatever medical expenses are incurred from using that product. The bulk of the money could be put in a special fund to cover the cost of such illnesses. It would also be a way to track consumption, if records are kept on the purchases of these products.
I think that basically, Marc, you and I are on the same page with this issue, even if we differ on some of the logistics. - Aliceinwonderland
P.S. Let me remind you, not everyone who gets lung cancer is a smoker.
Chuck - I've heard Thom say in the past that in the 60s people were predicting a 16-hour workweek by the year 2000, but just the opposite happened. People now work more. He, of course, as always, blamed the "elites". I think it is more of a variety of factors, mostly too much cheap labor and automation driving down the value of a non-skilled person's work hour. I've also heard Thom talk about laws in Europe that limit people to one single job with no more than 30-35 hours worked per week. (I can't remember if he was talking about current times or in the past.) Either way, he was saying it like it was a good thing. But doesn't that just stifle motivated workers from getting ahead? In my early 20s, I routinely worked 55-60 hours per week. I liked having the extra money. Who is the government to say that people shouldn't be allowed to do that if they want to?
Aliceinwonderland ~ By the way, forget licensing pot. That stuff should be sold next to broccoli in the supermarket to anyone 18 and over. We already know more than enough about pot to know that it is more healthy to use than anything else. It should be encouraged to be used as a food because the long term effect on lungs isn't quite yet understood; and, may never be understood unless we legalize it.
Aliceinwonderland ~ I believe the only way to really end this stupid war on drugs is to legalize everything. We could have fair and reasonable regulation of substances that have proven to have an impact on health. For instance, I would support licensing people who want to purchase dangerous substances like heroin, cocaine, tobacco, and alcohol for personal recreational purposes. Like a car license, the applicant would simply have to learn about and pass a test on the drug desired. That way we could assure people know what they are doing before they do it. Also, we would be able to track the amount of consumption as well as record any and all health consequences for society to better understand these drugs and even better inform the masses. If people want to volunteer as guinea pigs they should be allowed to; however, society should benefit from the expense and sacrifice.
Consequently, I'd also support strong enforcement of anyone who uses such a license to purchase drugs for other people who don't have one. That crime should carry a very stiff penalty. Of course, I don't see that law becoming an issue as long as we make the drugs readily available to anyone who wants them.
I would also support coordinating this information with a single payer health care agency--when one comes into existence--whereas if someone with a license was warned that smoking cigarettes--for instance--can cause lung cancer and did so anyway, it should automatically increase their out of pocket expenses if they acquire lung cancer. In fact, I would even support an increase in that individuals personal income taxes to cover that eventuality. It is also time people actually pay for the consequences of their actions. Consequently, if someone decides to quit and renounce their license, they should be equally rewarded with restoration of all their benefits--provided they quit before they get sick.
It is unwise to prohibit! When you do so, you only increase the things appeal exponentially. This example is played out in the creation myth of the Book of Genesis with God prohibiting Adam and Eve to eat of the apple. Look at the disaster that turned out to be. Not unlike the disaster of Prohibition of the 30's. The time has come for humanity to grow up and permanently prohibit all prohibition.
Thank you Chuck, for pointing that out. You just spared me the trouble.
Sorry Matt and Marc, you both missed the boat on this one... - AIW
P.S. Right on, Marc! You rock. And let me remind you prohibitionists "out there" that murderers, rapists, stalkers, child molesters, kidnappers and other violent offenders often do way less time in the slammer than pot smokers... if they're convicted at all. Meanwhile we've got war criminals still skating free, along with those bankster toadies who nearly trashed this economy and foreclosed on millions of homeowners. Our so-called "legal justice system" is a goddam joke. - AIW
Oooohhhh….. Hashish oil brownies; DOZENS OF THEM… Oooohhhh… Heinous crime!
Seriously "Extra", if we don't want 19-year-olds in the business of selling mind-altering pastries to pay the rent, then the only logical solution is to end pot prohibition. Tax it, regulate it and be done with it.
Aside from that, hash oil is no big deal. It's just a product extracted from the weed; a little harder on the lungs perhaps, but the same psychoactive ingredient. When eaten rather than smoked, it's safer than ANY drug, prescription or black market. That pregnant neighbor of Jacob's was just a no-count busybody, too stupid to know better than to make a big, loud fuss over nothing. The only risk is jail, for those selling and consuming the stuff.
Pot prohibition is bullshit. It's also unenforceable. These gestapo control freaks can keep on busting hundreds of thousands of potheads each year while seizing and slashing and burning into oblivion.... it doesn't even scratch the surface of what's available. People will continue doing whatever they please, no matter how hard the authorities try to thwart this industry. Pot is here to stay, whether the oligarchs like it or not. That's why it's being decriminalized, in state after state. I hope I live long enough to see this bogus, corporate-fascist piece of legislation eliminated for good. It's ruined lots of lives, and all for NOTHING.
By the way, were you aware that the vast majority of drug deaths in the USA (by a wide margin) are from legal shit; pharmaceuticals, alcohol and tobacco? So much for the "health" argument against ending pot prohibition. Let's get real. Lawmakers couldn't care less about our health; otherwise we'd have universal health care, trans fats would be outlawed (along with GMOs) and the FDA wouldn't be asleep at the wheel... to cite just a few examples. - Aliceinwonderland
Chi Matt -- Nazism is not Facism. Fascism is the merging of state and corporate interests. Nazism is a cult (just ask Thom). Of course, to know this you need to a dictionary published before 1980. In the '80s a multi-national corporation bought Meriam-Webster and eliminated that merging of state and corporate interests from the definition of fascism.