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.
Why not also tackle it from the other end. Why has the cost of education gone up so much? I don't think the education is better. I would like to see how much the cost to educate a child from K to 12 has increased after Reagon. Get that cost down as well.
Stop the milatary spending as well of course. But I think you will need that savings to pay to service the massive debt you have taken on and you still have three more years of Obama. So count on three trillion more. The US pays about 220 billion a year to service the National debt. That is if interest stays below 2.5%. If you didn't have any debt you would pay off all the students loans in less then five years with the interest savings. Just saying. Of course my ways of paying for education would take some kind of sacrifice. So it will never happen it is way easier just to take on more debt as Liz Warren suggested.
Matt and Alice ~ I just want to point out again that I consider the "Pledge of Allegiance" as an equally offensive act to require amongst children. I'm not sure how you both feel but in my opinion that "Pledge" is nothing more than psychological child abuse. It is the forcing of the swearing of an oath on an age group that is not yet at the age of consent to swear an oath by any other law. Personally I object far more to the "Pledge of Allegiance" than I do to public prayer. At least in public prayer adults are involved who have the reasoning ability to object. Children do not!
ChicagoMatt ~ I place this question to you. How do you reconcile forcing a child or anyone else to swear an oath of any kind after hearing this scripture.
I have always wondered how Catholic School teachers in particular manage to reconcile that conflict of interests?
Chi Matt -- Your replies seem to ignore the "We the People" part of our form of government. "We the People" feel it is an absolute necessity to indoctrinate our children in "We the People".
Matt, this isn't "suddenly" a problem. It has always been, at the very least, a potential problem to be kept at bay. In today's environment, it is a real problem. And no, it's not "impossible" to escape "someone's" belief system when belief systems are left out of the protocol altogether... as well they should be in places like schools and courthouses. - Alice IW
P.S. the final paragraph of your post isn't making sense. A church isn't a person. You're asking "if a church decided that it MUST open every meeting with an invocation as part of it's..." - ["its" not "it's", English instructor!] - "...religious dogma, does that mean that person..." [WHAT person?!] "...should be excluded from holding office?"
That makes sense. So then do you see the resentment that people who still live a more agriculturally-based area (i.e. the "country") have towards people in cities? Do you see why someone in rural Kansas might "vote against their best interests", as Thom likes to say, not because of some conspiracy by the 1%, but just out of resentment/spite. Aren't they just as mad at the changes around them as everyone else?
When I was growing up in a small Southern town, the blacks (40%) and whites (60%) got along just fine.The only people we resented were the "Yankees". My friends who still live there still talk about how these "New York types" keep retiring and relocating down there for the nice weather and friendly people, but then they try to change the culture that's already there (no more nativity scenes in the public square). That, plus the retired "Yankees" tended to build much bigger houses, which drove up everyone's property values.
Thanks again, Marc. You're such a sweetheart, always so eager to help us with your expertise, and I really appreciate it.
Luckily for me, South Coast Printers is only a short driving distance, within the range of my errand route and at a convenient location. So.... good-BYE cardridge pirates!! (Nyah-nyah!) And I'm spreadin' the word, folks; y'all don't have to keep getting ripped off for goddam ink. Try it, you might like it! - Aliceinwonderland
Matt,
Interesting question. I was quite conservative into my late thirties. But my exposure to many cultures (Moving out of west Texas to Hawaii, living in Mexico in '94), began to add up to major changes in my outlook. To make it short, I think societies have no right to assume that they are superior, even "primitive" cultures have much to teach others. A variety of books are potentially helpful. Study of language, semantics, statistical theory, logic, systems theory, religions, propaganda techniques and any philosophers that catch one's fancy help us see things from a broader perspective and question simple answers.
Yes, behavioral changes in society (subcultures) are, I believe, the mark of youth in any society with enough wealth and freedom to indulge and differentiate themselves. Shock among the elders?---of course. However, I do not see Rush/Hannity as conservative in the earlier sense of the word. Read Bill Buckley to get a taste of conservative thought that wished to preserve the good and to receive change in a guarded fashion. R/H are, I think, more properly thought of as reactionaries. To oppose reasonable change, such as a reaction to the dangers of climate change, does not bode well for the conservative movement or any society in which they have significant influence. Thanks for your contribution to this conversation.
I have two responses to that:
1. I could argue that every public school indoctinates their students. Not acknowledging the existence of a God is a form of Agnosticism. Any parent could make that argument - that teaching their students something that goes against their beliefs is indoctrination. Serving certain foods, letting students pass out Valentines, having Saturdays and Sundays (Judeo-Christian Holy Days) off every week, those are all forms of Indoctrination if you get sensitive enough about it. What if someone from a strictly religious culture objects to their child being taught by a woman? Someone's rights/beliefs are going to have to give way.
2. Suppose my school wasn't parochial. There are private, non-religious schools in Chicago. Would you support parents having the right to send their tax dollars to that school along with their children? Suppose my school took down the crosses and didn't go to mass every week. If this school was just like a public school in every way except the class size and the union. Would you support it then?
Aren't we all basing our beliefs on our own experiences? I am a product of public education. The Catholic Church and my school has been very good to me, but I joined as an adult. It's my understanding that it's changed A LOT in the last 30 years. (like the rest of the world.)I've had people in Chicago yell at me from the street corner and tell me I was "living a lie" when I went into Holy Name Cathedral (the big one here). I don't know what they hoped to accomplish by that, other than making themselves feel better. But whatever.
If, for 230-plus years, town halls have been opening their meetings with invocations, and now, suddenly, it's a problem, doesn't that make it seem like the non-believers are forcing their views on people? Isn't it impossible to escape SOMEONE'S belief system.
Or, if a church decided that it MUST open every meeting with an invocation as part of it's religious dogma, does that mean that person should be excluded from holding office?
Aliceinwonderland ~ That is probably the best bet. It all comes down to cost per copy. You'll have to factor in gas and time to go to the local printer; however, if your monthly volume isn't that high you're probably getting the best deal possible. Besides, if you're running your prints with toner as opposed to ink you're certainly also getting the best quality. Well done!!
ChicagoMatt ~ They most certainly are. As such if anyone of them got up at a public event and started to broadcast their beliefs they should be cordially escorted out as well. However, the simple fact of the matter is that the discussion or mention of any personal beliefs are not required for the function of public events. They are only required by organizations of personal belief systems for proselytizing those beliefs. Therefore any such mentioning should be strictly banned at all times--in the same way vulgar language is banned from public events. Of course, private events are another story. Public proselytising of any kind should be limited to the street corner; and, I personally find even that annoying; however, I'm willing to compromise that far.
ChicagoMatt ~ If I may interject myself. Sociology is one of my passions. The answer is yes. The reason is because of the economic structure of an industrial economy and it's direct impact on the formation of the family and culture. The opposite is an agricultural economy. The first is know by the sociological term Gesellschaft and the second is called Gemeinschaft. To be as brief as possible, the family unit in a agricultural economy is an extended family. Extended families have extremely strong social cohesion--the bonds that keep members together. These bonds also keep all aspects of each generations culture together as well. That is why grandchildren in an extended family usually enjoy the same mores and music as the grandparents.
In the industrial economy the small nuclear family has social cohesion (bonds) that are extremely weak. Members actually tend to repel each other. There are also far less members of the family in order to sustain any steady mores or cultural identity. (Remember, music is just one part of a culture.) For this reason the children always establish their own culture; and do so usually by adopting whatever is popular amongst their peers at the time. The only requirement is that it is a culture of their own and be clearly separate from mom, dad and grandpa. This phenomena used to be referred to as "the generation gap." You see, because of the lack of strong social cohesion at home in the nuclear family, in order to survive, children have no choice but to bond with other children. We call that "peer pressure." The way they look at is that eventually their parents will kick them out of the house; however, their friends will always be their for them and always understand them. They find that they must bond with their peers at all costs to survive. It is actually a basic psychological need. That is why it is so powerful. It is a social ill little can be done about short of reverting our economy back to an agricultural based one. I doubt that is going to happen any time soon.
I hope that helps answer your question.
Republicans have NEVER been afraid of voter fraud. If they had been, they'd have thrown away ALL the ballotts from our military personnel, instead of just the ones with African-American sounding names.
Republicans believe the only way they can get back in the White House is to discourage ethnic voters from showing up at the polls. And when that doesn't work, they force them to stand in line - in the rain, in the hot sun, in the snow, and in areas where they will likely be hit by traffic.
Sadly, it's the Republicans who wave the Flag and do every under-handed thing they can behind that flag to make sure only the right and white people in GOP Districts have an easy time casting a vote.
Imagine how much more respected the GOP would be if, when they changed voters' requirements, they had gone to the homes of the elderly, disabled, the hospitalized, the nursing homes, and assisted all those who had previously voted in elections across the 50 states, and helped them acquire the I.D. needed to do this simple task...
Kindness is not one of the GOP's finer points. I doubt that any of them would even think of to make this kind of gesture to loyal Americans who do not have "Republican" listed as their Party.
ChicagoMatt ~ I'm sorry. I haven't' been very clear have I? When I say "empower" people the last thing I am talking about is using public funds to send them to your church to be indoctrinated into organized religious nonsense. That is the most "disempowering" thing you can do to someone--especially a child. It has no impact on the livelihood at all and only causes them deep personal confusion.
Remember, I'm a product of both parochial and public education. If I had it all to do again I would go public all the way. Better environment, better resources, better equipment, better education, and no religious indoctrination. Children should never be fed only one side of any unprovable belief system. That is child abuse. Obviously the Roman Catholic Church has a proud tradition of having no problem with child abuse. Only when a person becomes an adult are they capable of making their own informed personal belief choices.
When I say "empower" people I mean curing our unemployment problem by forcing huge corporations to return our manufacturing base to this country. I'm talking about strengthening and encouraging labor unions for all types of labor markets. I'm talking about free housing, job training and increasing job skills in unemployed adults as a free service by the state. I'm talking about raising the minimum wage so people don't have to drain our commons just to be able to afford to have a job. That "empowerment" requires the full resources of "We the People" and should never be pawned off or referred to any "private" source. It is the private sector that has caused all these problems in the first place in order to minimize labor costs in order to maximize profits. The private sector has no interest in "empowering" anyone other than itself. The private sector needs to be muzzled and kept on a short leash as a fundamental part of the "empowerment" process. Only "We the People" share the vested interest of "empowering" each other.
Do you feel that, perhaps, as good as the Progressive agenda may be, they push people away when they start mocking people's religious beliefs? Beliefs which, for some, are held closer to their hearts than any political leanings? If a little over 80% of Americans believe in some sort of diety/afterlife (I hate to use the word Religion, because Atheism is also a religion), do you think people like the two plaintiffs in the recent Supreme Court ruling on prayer in town council meetings actually push people further to the Right?
Yes, I know the righties use this as a wedge issue to divide us. There is a reason they use it. It works. The same way lefties use class envy - it works.
Or, to do the antethesis, do you think that, as good as a Conservative agenda may be, they push people away by attacking undocumented workers?
Chi Matt -- You really need to read more. A good one "Do not Ask what Good We Do: Inside the US House of Representatives" by Robert Draper.
Mr. Draper describes the meeting amongst top republicans in the Caucus Room Restaurant on Jan 20, 2009; the night of Obama's inaugration. The content of the meeting was to make Obama a one term president by blocking everything he proposed (I may have a detail twisted a little). I think the 390 filibusters during Obama's 1st term is evidence they were not just talking. Later, I remember a congressman (R) was drinking too much and mentioned he could not support a jobs bill because it would make Obama look good.
The Powell memo, whose pages were stamped confidential, sent out to the 1% in 70's is another example of some reading you need to do. I know you have said you plan to read the "Crash of 2016" where this is described. I am just saying it wil improve your eyesight to see the people around you being screwed into a life of hardship.
DAM -- You need to join the real world (LOL).
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and he will sit all day in a boat drinking beer.
Chi Matt -- Thom points out, often, how churches solving the poverty problem does not work. The 1% love that solution and push it.
The factual points that Thom points out are how dedicated South America has been dedicated to helping the poor and how insufficient it is. The other point that I can remember that Thom uses is that the 5 billion the republicans cut from the food stamp program (they wanted to do 32 billion) is equal to the sum total of all the charitable work that churches have done (some of these details may be off due to senior moments).
After several years of only having time to read the novels I teach, which all have to be at a 10th-grade reading level or lower, I am finally going to have time to read something for myself this summer. That is, after so many years of teaching War of the Worlds, Time Machine, Book Thief, etc... I finally have them memorized enough to teach them without re-reading them every year.
Since you're implying that you are at least 70 or so years old, ckrob, and you are obviously politically and culturally aware, I have a question. Do you see any similarities between the way your parents' generation reacted to your generation's value system, and the way your generation reacted to the generation's values after it?
Like, for example, were old-timers in the 50s really shocked by Elvis' dance moves, the way it is portrayed in the movies? (Forrest Gump). Did they really call Rock-and-Roll "The Devil's Music"? And, if so, does that seem analogous to the "brainwashing" that 30-somethings like me are sometimes acused of? Are Conservative talkers (Rush, Hannity, etc...) sort of like the Rockers of the 50s, spouting a value system that the generation before thinks is evil?
Or am I way off?
Along the same lines, being a teenager in the 90s, I grew up listening to stuff that was actually called "Shock Rock" The stuff that my students - the generation after me - listen to now seem positively tame. I'm only "shocked" by how un-shocking it really is.
Matt, I'm sure that you're a very nice guy to your family, friends and pupils, and quite amiable to those who know you. But I sincerely believe the ideology you espouse is a major factor in what is destroying this country. - AIW
A potentially unlimited life means more time to accumulate wealth and buy a government rule that there should be no minimum wage. The poor would be serfs, dependent on the all powerful who would, unlike the serfs, have unlimited access to the marvels of science/technology. (Here's a recipe for blood in the streets with technology making the outcome very uncertain.) I read a lot of Wells around sixty years ago and then moved on to Huxley. (Therefore my rather dark view of where we're headed.) For a more tech-sophisticated dystopia you might enjoy Daemon by Daniel Suarez.
Aside: unlimited lifespan was one of the things that made the founders appropriately paranoid about corporations.
I really am sincerely sorry if I'm offending you Alice. For what it's worth, my personal vote doesn't matter where I live. IL isn't exactly a swing state.
Isn't that the Conservative argument against welfare? Isn't one of their talking points that Democrats love welfare because it makes people dependent on the government? Why not empower people with school vouchers? Give them the power to choose where their kids get to go to school?
We don't only serve other Catholics. We serve anyone in need. They don't even have to come to the church - we deliver meals to people who can't leave their houses too.
Couldn't one argue that it is the non-religious who are "inflicting" their beliefs on others by making people change the way things have been done since the founding of the country? Isn't lack of faith (Atheism, secularism, Agnosticism, etc...) also, in itself, a religion viewpoint?
Then what about all of those other "benign" religious/state crossovers I listed? Like I keep saying, where does it all end? Should we prevent people from putting religious bumper stickers on their cars, if they intend to drive those cars on taxpayer-funded roads? Those roads are public places, and the people behind those cars might get offended by looking at something they don't believe in.
Here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/08/three-townships-vote-to-s_n_184680.html
In this case, the "small group of yahoos" is, according the the article, are the voters in three entire cities which overwhelmingly passed the referendum to get the hell out of Cook County because of its sales tax.
The article also points out that,
Meaning that those enlightened Progressives that run Chicago don't care so much about the "will of the people" in these cities, so much as they care about their money.
Since you're local, you've probably had a chance to drive down Lake Cook Road sometime. (For you non-locals, that's the road that separates the more Conservative Lake County from the more Liberal Cook County.) I'll admit, it's been awhile since I've been up that way. But, back in 2010, I used to drive that road every day. On the North side of the road, the Lake County side, all of the stores felt compelled to advertise their lower tax rate. And I'll bet they were taking business from their Cook County counterparts. That the people voted with their wallets to give less money to the government.