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.
My apologies all. I'm somewhat swamped the next few weeks. No cause for concern. I'll happily rejoin the cause ASAP. Till then, "Happy Blogging!!" DAM
Aliceinwonderland ~ First let me apologize. I've been very busy the last few days. Second. let me assure you that you are wasting your breath. This Matt is a shill. Not your typical right wing low brow shill like Kend, but a much more educated and functional shill. Nevertheless, a textbook shill; and, probably a higher paid one at that.
My reasoning is first and foremost that he completely contradicts his own perspective whenever he opens his mouth. After all, what teacher in their right mind would ever attack the commons. That is the best perspective for education that has ever existed. That embodies fingertip access to every book ever written. Remember, I've got over 10 years experience under my wing with parochial schools. I've never met any teacher who would ever assault Net Neutrality. It clearly goes against the fiber of anyone who ever seriously teached. Yet this bozo openly attacks this most fundamental learning tool like it somehow was not an "entitlement" to every person.
In this country we are suffering from a surplus of greedy bastards. That is most evident in our medical--pay or die--system. The hippocratic oath??? Where is it?? Whenever you have a profit or nothing system you can count on having people who just don't give a crap about their fellow human beings. That is the case in this situation. Matt just doesn't give a crap. The rest of us do. I would suggest that we save our energies to argue amongst ourselves and leave Matt and his ilk to be the loan senseless voice in the wilderness that they aspire to be... ie. ignore them. We can make so much more progress on our own by ignoring this sophomoric, balderdash nonsense. DAM
Oh yeah Matt! You can pay for better water, better sewer, better fire department, better doctors, and you can pay to commute on better roads than the ones traveled by the poor. And oh yes, you can choose to pay for a better lawyer too! Try telling that to the next motel maid, waitress or homeless person you encounter.
Before the automobile was invented, nobody depended on cars; before the telephone was invented, nobody needed a phone to function either. So fucking what. So it is with computers and the internet. You conveniently sidestep the simple fact that each of these milestone innovations changed society, which is why we depend on them now, and not by "choice". Our infrastructure and way of life are tied to these inventions more intimately than some of us might have preferred. It is what it is, however, making it necessary to adapt regardless of how we might feel about it.
Pompous, selfish, callous, holier-than thou… you conservatives make me sick. I've bloody had it with this "you're-on-yer-own-and-you-git-what'cha-pay-for, me-first, I-got-mine-and-screw-you, me-me-me" fucking mentality, along with that "guvmint is evil" mantra pushed by you guys so relentlessly, to sell us all on privatization. That's not the kind of world I want to live in. Along with the majority posting here, I flat-out reject that ideology and worldview. We'd prefer a culture based more on cooperation than competition, a "we" society not a "me" society where everyone can function and thrive and stay connected and no one goes hungry. Norway, Sweden and Denmark all figured that out, and ya know, their people are way better off because of it. What's good enough for them is good enough for us. Because without guaranteed healthcare there is no freedom. Without food security there is no freedom. Without shelter there is no fucking freedom. You can add mobility to that list. And without open channels of communication available to everyone, where we all can express ourselves freely, regardless of income, social status or whatever, "freedom" is just an abstraction.
It's corporate bloody fascist, this message you keep hammering at us Matt, along with a few others popping up here from time to time, and we're not buying it. - Aliceinwonderland
Wheeler is being disingenuous in holding a sign touting an "open Internet" when, in reality, he is instituting a "pay-to-play" Internet.
If that is the case, there should be no charge for calling someone overseas. Making me pay to talk to anyone in the world is somehow a violation of my free speech. In fact, I shouldn't even have to buy the phone in my house to make that call. Phones should just be issued to everyone on Earth.
That makes it sound as if you didn't have freedom and speech and discourse until the internet existed. And that the 15% of Americans who choose not to get it, or can't afford even the basics, somehow don't have freedom of speech and discourse. I disagree. And I keep coming back to the same question - when did the internet switch from being a fun thing for those who could afford it, to a basic "utility"? Was it when a simply majority of Americans had it?
Thom's not talking about people being kicked off of the internet. He's talking about companies who use the internet allowing people and other companies to pay more for faster service.Highways are part of the commons, but people can pay more for nicer cars to use on them.
Airports and the FAA are part of the commons, but people can pay extra for better service there.
Stadiums are part of the commons, but people can pay extra for better service there.
The post office is part of the commons, but you can pay extra for better service there too.
Thanks for your input, Palsimon. I couldn't agree more. Why should everything we do have to translate into an opportunity for someone to make a buck? Can't we have ANYTHING that's open and free to the public, without some corporation barging in and taking over?!! I think the internet has been a marvelous venue for us to share ideas, perspectives, opinions, information and knowledge; why do these oligarchs have to mess it up? What gives them the bloody right?!!! As if stealing our government wasn't bad enough... What are we gonna do about it? - Aliceinwonderland
P.S. Matt, you've drunk the privatizers' kool aid. And as an "educator", you're passing it on to the next generation. Such a pity.
P.P.S. Corporate fascists hate free speech.
you asked when speedy internet access became a right. I suggest that the first Amendment should prohibit monopolies on speech and debate. The internet is, in fact, a public utility.
You also suggest older people don't care about the internet and don't use computer. Hog Wash! I am 75 years old and I, like many, many of my friends the same age, do literally ALL their political activity over the internet with their late model computers. Just because people get old does not mean they become uneducated. A lot of uneducated young people do not use computers either. Where did you get the idea the elderly don't want internet service.
I also contend that the elderly people may have more wisdom to impart to the public than younger people have, considering their years of experience on this earth.
Equality of opportunity to voice one's opinions and to communicate with others on this planet is essential to liberty and justice we supposedly all want in any society.
Oh, great to see ya buddy!!
chuckle8 ~ Yeah, I agree with Aliceinwonderland, thanks!! I didn't know that either, and am too stunned. Plze, keep the insight coming.
Matt, as usual you miss the point. This issue concerns freedom of speech and discourse. The end of net neutrality not only means lousy service to those not favored by Comcast, etc.; it's also a problem of censorship. And this means corporate control over even more aspects of our daily lives.
I agree with Chuck (post #4); our tax dollars built the internet, and anything that our tax $$ paid for should belong to us, not some privately owned corporation.
"Kgraff" (post #6) makes another excellent point: that if our internet service was as good as Europe's and Asia's, fast lanes versus slow lanes would not even be an issue.
This whole idea of "the commons"; i.e. an infrastructure owned by everyone and no one, that we all have equal access to, just doesn't seem to register with you. - Alice IW
All law students taught Supreme Court judges are gods?! That's scary.
WOW Chuck, that I didn't know! I'm stunned. Thanks for enlightening me to these significant, uh, details... Okay, I guess they're not quite worthless...
Yes, you are welcome - in fact we could use some more people who share this sentiment - they ain't coming from the land of Mao!
I think Reaganomics is one of many factors. Interestingly, today in my social studies class, we started talking about Johnson's War on Poverty. (We only have two more weeks of school, so I am FLYING through the last chapters of the book. This happens every year.) Anyway, There was a sentence in the book that said that, starting in the early 60s, manufacturing jobs left the cities, at the same time many immigrants moved into the cities, and white moved out (white flight). The books said Johnson vowed to change all of that, and then my students asked, "What happened? It's still like that." They had a good point...
Goodhearted Thom Hartmann is often wrong, as is the case here. The Ugly American in Burdick's 1958 novel was the GOOD GUY, which was an intentional irony; a facially ugly farmer from Iowa retires to Southeast Asia to teach the villagers how to raise chickens Iowa-style and sell the eggs; much of the book has to do with the interference by U.S. & local bureacrats with the 'ugly' man's Peace Corps-like intentions. Further State Department blunders escalate to civil war ... Farmer Bundy is no 'ugly American' hero, farmer Bundy is a traitor.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Farmer-Bundy-Is-A-Traitor-by-G-E-Nordell-BLM_Cattle_Cliven-Bundy_Constitutional-Rights-140429-615.html
If we hadn't let our infrastructure lag behind what is available in Europe and Asia there would not be a need for fast lanes. It is just another way to bleed consumers and silence dissent while providing poorer service.
It's occurred to me lately that with the advance of corporate monopoly, we are moving backwards, not forwards. Even with the internet and the original dial up connections, if this passes the vast majority will be priced out of any reasonable internet speeds so in a sense our voices will be stilled. Corporate voices are becoming louder and louder and ours quieter and quieter and they will not be satisfied until we are all deaf and mute.
Chi Matt -- First a response to your general question and then a comment on the internet.
Natural monopolies (water, electricity (can you imagine competition among power lines), natuaral gas etc.) should all be under government regulations. Those regulations should be decided democratically and not by who has the most money.
With regards to the internet, our tax dollars built it via NASA and DOD. I think anything that is bought by our tax dollars should rightfully belong to us.
Chi Matt -- Thom Hartmann and Phylis Schafley agree on hating SCOTUS. What more proof do you need it would be a good building block. On the other side of this power struggle, per Mike P. all law students are trained that SCOTUS members are gods.
AIW -- Every blue dog voted for card check, Every blue dog voted for eliminating tax deductions for sending jobs overseas. Every blue dog voted for the disclose act. Every blue dog voted for imposing penalities on China for currency manipulation. Not one repug voted for any of these acts. I still say it is the repugs and only the repugs that are responsible for the bad economy.
Chi Matt -- Do you think anyone on this blog disagrees with you? The cause is where the disagreement is. You seem to imply raising taxes and fines are the reason. I assume everyone else agrees with me that it is reagonomics.
At what point does a new technology, like high-speedy internet, become a right of all Americans? Is there some threshold of people who have it, before it becomes a "necessity"? (That's a sincere question, not sarcasm.)
According to the Pew research center, currently, about 15% of American adults never go online, mostly by choice. This, of course, includes a lot of older Americans. I personally know three people - ages 54, 61, and 90 who don't even own computers. By comparisson, only about 5% of Americans do not have a microwave. They are stuck doing their cooking the slow way. Should we also pass laws forcing microwave companies to give their products to those who do not have them?
The idea that you should, if you want to, be able to pay for a better version of something that is considered a "ultility" doesn't seem that odd. People can pay for "better" electricity by installing solar panels and back-up generators. People can pay for "better" drinking water by installing water softners and filters at home. You can pay for "better" gas if you choose, "better" food, and even a "better" lawyer in court if you choose.
In all likelyhood, today's internet speeds will be considered slow a decade from now. Does that mean, if you have today's speeds a decade from now, that you are somehow having your rights taken away? Which brings me back to my original point - when did speedy internet access become a right?
Another money making scheme by the MUTUAL ADMIRATION SOCIETY OF NARCISSISTIC CORPORATE CEOs to keep themselves on top and push the little guy farther down.
WOW Matt... a post you've written that I actually can agree with! Amazing…