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.
Chuck, your scanner & cartridge purchasing experience really rang my bell. For years I've noticed how cheap printers are and how they gouge us for the ink. I was paying $20 for these little teenie ink cartridges that probably wouldn't fill a thimble, yielding less than twenty pages of script per cartridge. It is a huge rip-off. I did some calculating and figured out that it was costing me about 75 cents per page. That's seven times what it cost me to put my stuff on a flash drive, take it to the local printer's and print it there. I also do this with our digital photos now. Saves me TONS of money as well as a plenty of aggravation, as our printer had given me a lot of grief as well, malfunctioning and cranking out lots of stuff that went right into the trash.
Anyway Chuck, when your $125 cartridge runs out, you might want to consider this as an option. - Aliceinwonderland
Matt,
Thanks for the last point in your post about genetic testing. Here's an area that our society will have to deal with, due to scientific development. AND we'll have more of these issues coming faster and faster due to our massive increase in the rate of accumulation of scientific knowledge. Implications for moral thought, law and legislative lag are overwhelming.
You mean it's your undeveloped social side due to your isolation because you bought into the right wing myth of the isolated individual, `a la Robinson Crusoe.
AIW -- The first settlers in MA were forced out of their country of origin because they themselves were restricted from being as tyrannical as they wanted to be. The settlers in Virginia were placed there by the a monopoly, British East India Company. Both sets of settlers were so bad that a couple 100 years later Jefferson knew that his new country had to codify restrictions against theocracy and plutocracy.
Chi Matt -- Government doesn't want to spend your tax dollars on PR. Anyone whose has dealt with a health insurance company will want the government to take over every phase of their life.
I think a bunch of Thom's hassle is because he changed states.
I was surprised when I went to Office Depot to buy a scanner and an ink cartridge, 03A, for my laser printer. The scanner was $80 and the ink cartridge was $125.
Chi Matt you are the one responsible for the length of this blog, I, for one, want to thank you.
chi matt -- We are trying to change that world.
That is the world you were born into. We are trying to change the world (actually just the US) to the one we were born into. A world with average tariffs of 30%, at least a little enforcement of the anti-trust laws, a top tax rate of 91% with the rich paying less in taxes etc.
Chi Matt --- The media is controlled by the1%
What about if 80,000 plus people show up for a rally like that in North Carolina for Moral Mondays and no media shows up? What if 200 tea partiers show up and all the media is there? What does that mean?
I read your blog about your experience at the DC DMV, and I'm in shock. In MN, all I have to do is give the clerk my expiring license. They they check my eyesight and take my pic. I pay, and I'm out the door. No wonder it takes the DC DMV so long to renew driver licenses. Why? If you have a valid license, the renewal process should be easy. I love your show. I either catch you on Free Speech TV or listen with TuneIn.
A very well-thought-out and well-written article Thom, but you're kind of giving fire to the Republican mantra that "government can't do anything right" with your DMV story. During the debates about the ACA, the DMV (here we call it a Secretary of State's office) was used by right-wingers as an example of what government-run healthcare would be like. They would show long lines full of disgruntled people at the DMV, with captions like, "Imagine this was your doctor's office" or "are these the people you want in charge of your health"? I know they were being hyperbolic and ignoring the role that insurance companies play in healthcare, but it worked.
Imagine how many people would support single-payer healthcare if they had GOOD experiences at the DMV, one of the few places many Americans have direct contact with the government.
Will said ckrok
Matt, you are wasting my time. This discussion is going nowhere. I'll not spin my wheels arguing with someone clueless enough to insist that workers are (or should be) content getting paid $8.00 an hour with no benefits. Why don't you try living on that if you think it's so great. After a few months, report back to me. Until then, I'm done with this debate. I've had my fill of your condescending attitude, mindless generalities and stupid remarks. - AIW
Matt, I already demonstrated how you trivialized the issue of child abuse in the Catholic church by quoting your dismissive comment about it. Has nothing whatsoever to do with Catholic charity. The Catholic church's rigid rules regarding sexual behavior is the source of the problem; in this case, the celibacy standard imposed on priests. Human sexuality is not something that disappears, as if one could simply wish it away. When you try suppressing it, it only becomes distorted, which can manifest in really ugly and evil ways such as the molestation of a child. I find it morally reprehensible, how the church tries minimizing this or covering it up.
I'm unimpressed by that radio show caller's glib remark, paraphrased in the last paragraph of your post, about abortion and what it would supposedly take to make liberals "pro-life". Not funny, at least to me. There are many reasons women need to terminate pregnancies. It's a very serious issue, and the lack of respect with which it is treated only reflects this culture's patriarchal bias. "Pro-life" is such a sanctimonious term anyway, bordering on propaganda. It's just an example of word games conservatives play, in an effort to inject their point of view into everyday language. It implies that those of us supporting freedom of choice for women are "pro-death", which couldn't be farther from the truth.
As Thom describes in his introductory post, we are well on our way to becoming a Third World nation. As life for us here in America becomes more difficult, a women's right to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is even more critical. - Aliceinwonderland
Progressives are so sold on this "employers are out to get the employees" idea that they see themselves as some sort of white knights, out there saving the "wage slaves" from their masters. Nevermind if those "wage slaves" may be perfectly happy the way they are.
It's a lot like evangelical Christians in that regard - standing in front of an abortion clinic, "saving" a woman from making a "unforgivable sin". They sincerely believe that the Devil is out there, making people do bad things, and it is up to them to save people from themselves. Progressives are the same way - their "Devil" is anyone who has an income they consider "too much".
Maybe, because I am in a good mood when I go into a store, I project my emotions onto the clerks. Maybe they seem to be happy and content because I am. Then again, maybe Progressives are doing the same thing. They are unhappy with their lives, and they project it onto the people they see. "I'm not happy with $8 an hour, so NO ONE can EVER be happy with $8 an hour." Or, "My personal financial situation isn't the way I wanted it to be, so it MUST be some grand conspiracy by the elites to keep me down. It can't possibly be bad luck or bad choices on my part."
Or, "If only a few thousand people show up to this protest, in a city of millions, then it must be because of some conspiracy/media blackout/brainwashed masses/people voting against their own self-interests, and not a simple lack of interest in my cause."
Matt- Once again you are trivializing this issue of church & state. This is about way more than a simple matter of listening or not listening to something "in a room". The danger is of the Christian church imbedding itself into our institutions and having more influence on civic matters affecting all of us, not just Christians, and controlling more of the workings of society. This would give the Christian church way too much power, resulting in its ability to impose more of its rules and standards of conduct on the rest of us whether we are Christian or not. It poses yet another threat to democracy and our ability to reclaim it. So you see, there's much more at stake than what one hears in "a room" somewhere, that one would rather not be subjected to. There's a reason our forefathers were so adamant about keeping church & state separate. We trivialize it or ignore it at our peril.
The first settlers who arrived here, hundreds of years ago, were driven out of their country of origin by this kind of tyranny and it is the LAST thing we need here and now. - AIW
What "good people" are you referring to, Matt; the employer class, or the employee? Because I guarantee, they'd give very different answers. - AIW
How did I trivialize that? I just pointed out that other "issues of consequence", like the Church's significant outreach to the poor, get ignored by the media.
For what it's worth, the rule about priests not being able to marry is part of Catholic tradition, not Dogma. The Pope can change it any time, and I wish he would. The number one thing that keeps boys from going into the priesthood is the desire to have a wife/family. If they just changed that one rule, I'll bet there would be a swell of new priests.
I heard a caller on a talk radio show say once (I'm paraphrasing), "If there is a gay gene, that would mean that there can be a genetic test to find it. Let people start doing that test in utereo, like they do for Downs Syndrome, and giving parents the option of aborting a fetus that carries the gay gene, and see how quickly liberals become pro-life."
I could counter, again, with "judge not..." But I could do that for anything, so it's a circular argument.
Backing up a bit to the actual Supreme Court ruling, how is saying something that doesn't apply to someone in the room, that they are perfectly free to ignore, equal "inflicting" it on that person? "Inflicting" it so much that it requires a trip to the Supreme Court. I refer back to my list of other things that could be seen by some as "inflicting" religion on people.
At work, I have the ability to see the transition as immature children turn into mature adults. And when I hear adults say things like, "I'm offended that the people around me were praying, and I don't believe in that stuff," it sounds very immature to me. It's the equivalent of "Jon is looking at me funny!" Or "Jamie won't let me into her club!"
It crosses the line between legit Constitutional issues, and childish nit-picking.
Answering questions with questions - always a good debate move. I teach it to my students, along with "taking away your opponant's main point before they get to say it", and "making your opponant agree on something basic, then attaching your argument to that agreement." Sometimes, when I am listening to Thom, I cringe when they get right-wing callers that get painted into a rhetorical corner that way. Conservative talkers do it to their left-wing callers too.
That's why this forum is so great - gives people time to think and formulate well crafted retorts.
Anyway, back to the point. If the government is the ONLY option, what level of government should determine the "fair" amount. If big cities want to have higher minimum wages, which some of them do, why should that level be imposed on small towns? If the good people of New York want a $15 per hour minimum, and the equally good people of Birmingham, AL, want $7.25, who decides which one is more "fair"?
Matt,
Francis has been a very refreshing breeze. As organizations age they all tend to ossify, so we need a reformation every so often. It's usually equivalent to Sisyphus' efforts with about as much accomplished, however. My concern is that the good people you describe have had little impact on our 'democratic' government whereas the largely non-religious nation of Sweden, for example, has done much better for its poor than we have although we're much wealthier. I guess I would feel better if we didn't have so many people in such need that they depend on churches for food. (Our church supports a free pantry so I do not oppose such efforts.) Regarding molestation by priests, the situation was compounded by decades of cover-up. Thanks for your comments, C. Krob
MY GOD VERSUS YOUR GOD
My God accepts the existance of other Gods,
and expects me to do the same.
Your God denies the existance of other Gods,
and expects you to do the same.
My God unconditionally loves all people,
and expects me to do the same.
Your God irrationally hates some people,
and expects you to do the same.
My God admits His imperfections,
and accepts my imperfections.
Your God denies His imperfections,
and punishes you for your imperfections.
My God is honest and forthright,
and expects me to be the same.
Your God is a liar and a hypocrite,
and allows you to be the same.
My God loves and accepts your God,
and expects me to do the same.
But I can't, I just can't.
Steven Robert Cooper
Its my pleasure to read about your experiences which are great, overwhelming and touchy. I loved it and I for knowledge from it.
Government was supposed to serve the people, and one of its most important roles was protecting the weak from the strong via regulations and so forth... that is, prior to this hostile corporate-fascist takeover! But Marc is right; it's the government's job and responsibility to set boundaries around the employer-employee relationship; boundaries designed to protect workers from exploitation and abuse. Since Reagan took office, and arguably prior to Reagan, the government has been neglecting that part of its job. So we still have waitresses busting their fannies for two bucks an hour, and franchises committing wage theft, and Walmart employees forced by necessity to apply for welfare. Nowadays it seems that when it comes to work, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. If working doesn't get someone out of poverty anymore, why work at all? What's the point? - AIW