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.
I want to vote again.... I missed that it was a Yes/Yes option. Picked the first, would prefer the second!
I think it is no accident that some can refuse to accept demonstrable evidence when it conflicts with their beliefs. It is the harmful side of faith as a orientation to life.
Looking for a term to describe the coal and other dirty energy barons---how about POPS--Purveyors of Poison or Purveyors of Pollution?
There are also: Princes of Pollution and Princes of Poison--still AKA POPS.
When most people these days become seriously ill, they turn to medical science to treat their illness. But, when the planet Earth becomes ill, the Republicans and their corporate buddies would have us turn to faith healers.
Common sense would tell you that you can only piss in the pool so man times before it becomes unfit to use.
I may be having a technical problem with the blog
DHB -- I just want to remind everyone again that we were just one vote short in the senate in 2009-10 from passing the Employee Free Choice Act. Every democrat voted for it and every republican voted against it. Please vote democratic because it can make a big difference.
DHBranski -- Be very careful. The 1% remember that the poor and the middle class got to together to fight back. They are trying everywhere possilbe to influence people to write blogs like you did. I don't remember any cheering when Clinton changed welfare as we know it, repealed the glass-siegle (sp?) act,, passed NAFTA etc. The only cheering came from the 1% on national TV (since they owned it)>
My first question is where was the word pollution removed from? I kind of like the differentiation of pollution and climate change. That allows me to think of pollution as the substances (e.g. ozone, carbon monoxide etc) the kill you directly. Climate change implies a substance like carbon dioxide that kills you indirectly over a longer period of time.
I have had so many discussions with my boyfriend about global warming. Yes, he believes in it, but that's not the problem. When I talk about the need to switch to non-polluting, renewable energy, he says that oil, coal, and gas will remain too important and that it will take too long to develop those technologies enough to really make a difference. I don't think so. If we HAD to switch, I think this sector could make amazing progress in this field, faster than most people think.
We would probably not have made the moon landing possible had the challenge to be first not been made. Europe has developed cars that get amazing mileage due to the high price of gasoline; but of course, such autos are not available on the American market even though Ford and other American auto makers are making them! The sad thing is that the oil giants could put some of their profits into alternate energy and build themselves a huge new market - they can afford it. But I guess they would rather plow that money into propaganda trying to convince us (and Kend) that climate change does not exist. What a sad state of affairs.
I hear ya Nora. No end to the word games. - AIW
The WORLD BANK doesn't take into account Climate Change when it backs projects?
The World Resources Institute did a report on the WORLD BANK's bad track record:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/07/world-bank-climate-change_n_510...
The IPCC report summary was based on BELIEF in the MODELS created and their projected results.
If you listen to this interview, you can clearly hear that BELIEF in the COMPUTER MODELS is the basis of the conclusions about the predicted results of "Climate Change". http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/101654 Since when is Science based on BELIEF alone?
I am totally discomfitted by
o The dropping of the word 'POLLUTION' [something CREATED by a POLLUTER, please note!] and the adoption of this P.R. term "Climate Change" which requires so-called fixes oddly separate from the Industrial Polluter and his Pollution -- those so-called fixes being
o TAXES on consumers,
o higher rates on consumers (who, by the way, have no control over their utility providers -- as the situation in even fairly progressive California proves!), and
o diversion of monies to (unregulate-able?) shell games like CAP AND TRADE and the EXCHANGE which has made some Rich People even richer!
o Not to mention the explosion of GEO-ENGINEERING profiteering -- the edges of which are now being revealed in all their experimental insaneness. Even though the Geo-Engineers' Persistent Contrails stripes in conjunction with HAARP technology have been OBVIOUS for years -- and the resulting metallic sky haze has replaced the wide blue yonder in many places, which creates that stuffy greenhouse effect, drought conditions in the new-fangled persistent stationery high and extreme and unstable weather in adjacent areas, an effect that many claim IS Climate Change. Man-made 'global warming' indeed -- made by the profiteering enterprise of GEO-ENGINEERING WEATHER MODIFICATION, imo.
If BELIEF in Computer Models alone determines whether or not the conditions being termed 'Climate Change' are permanent phenomena, then GET READY to be told that BELIEF in GEO-ENGINEERING EXPERIMENTS is going to bring back normalcy!
Regarding Thom's point above about NOAA: Discussing the 'weather' isn't the compromise here. It is the discussion of POLLUTION itself which has become forbidden, and this taboo is observed by Reps and Dems alike! Because if one speaks to the POLLUTION problem, then one must address who the POLLUTERS are directly and bear down on them. And the POLLUTERS don't want that!
I think the POLLUTERS would prefer we accept without question the Computer Models and buy into the shift away from Pollution and relate instead to the bizarre single indicator carbon dioxide (like the thermometer billboard put up to indicate if the high school sports fund is meeting its fund drive goal!). How easy now for the Polluters to shift to the consumers the P.R.-tested Simplistic Idea about an individual 'carbon footprint' being at fault and wellll, here are the carbon dioxide levels prove it, folks! No matter the TONS of POLLUTANTS the Industrial Polluters refuse to control! No matter the freedom to pollute continued as fossil fuel mining and transport EXPLODES all over our country and the world! Profit from Pollution cannot be abated. Only the end consumer is responsible. And if you happen to live in California, you'll see how your utility company plans to deal with that: The smaller consumer who conserves will be charged a HIGHER rate than the bigger consumer of energy because, wellll, the bigger consumer still gets a discount for using more product and, so, will pay a LOWER rate for their proflagate consumption!
The Profit from Pollution Crowd must like the fact that the term "Climate Change" has replaced reference to the reality of POLLUTION.
Guy McPherson's prediction of approaching human extinction is nonsense, and he knows it. He bases this claim on "evidence" from either Malcolm Light, a retired petroleum geologist whose writing has not been peer reviewed, or from a blogger who calls himself "Sam Carana" who makes no claim to be a scientist of any kind.
No real climate scientist has published anything like what McPherson is saying, so ignore him.
But don’t ignore climate change. It's real, and threatens to destroy many of us.
DHBranski, while I see a lot of truth in your last post, I still really appreciate Ms. Metcalfe's perspective. Her third paragraph from the bottom beautifully illustrates the reason I've been self-employed virtually all my working life. Seems a given that if you're female, you're just a cheaper pair of hands. - AIW
I disagree. Men want all women to work full time outside the home while maintaining 100% of the traditional mother/wife workload. When the going gets tough, many men get going -- right out the door, leaving their responsibilities behind them. The womren are then single parents. Single parents who are male are regarded as virtually heroic, while single parents who are female are regarded as something inferior. For many, a single job loss can throw them and their children into poverty. At this point, their fellow women look at them with disdain. The majority of America's poor are women, and it certainly isn't because they aren't trying hard enough. With this generation, women have been very deeply divided by class, middle class against the poor.
Unions have largely been phased out since 1980 or so. Middle class jobs have continued to be broken down into pt. time, bottom wage labor, prison labor, workfare labor, etc. Few are able to form or benefit from union jobs. Those in unions are the elite today, and as tends to be true of the elite, they are oblivious to those left behind as the US shipoped out a huge portion of our working class jobs (since Reagan). This generation explicitly rejected the progressive economic agenda. From FDR to Reagan, the US reached its height of wealth and productivity primarily as a result of our socioeconomic policies and programs. These programs enabled millions through the years to keep their families housed and fed during periodic economic downturns, so that they could get back on their feet. We then reversed course, doing the opposite, and the US has been on a downhill slide since, falling behind all of the modern nations in virtually every respect. We chose not to learn from our own history. As unions disappear and the middle class is phased out, we will, indeed, once against be two nations, rich and poor.
Yes, we need to get our Unions back. And we need to stop the Republicans from forcing women back into the Stone Age. There is nothing more the Republicans would like to see than Little Women - at home, raising babies, cleaning the house, cooking meals - because women no longer have the opportunity to get a college education. They detest the fact that we have access to birth control and cancer screenings. They don't want us to have updated information about our bodies. THIS is what the GOP wants. They want just the men to have all the high-paying jobs, and women at home in aprons, getting pregnant every year with no way out.
Not all women were ever born to be mothers. Not all women were born to get married and stay focussed or satisfied inside a household. THIS is what scares the GOP. They see women moving right on up in the world, leading large companies, staying single or (shudder!) childless, having sex whenever the women want, and this goes against their manlihoods and their interpretation of whatever religion they believe.
This is all about CONTROL. They want to go back to the forties and '50s... but they forget that in those days, Unions were getting strong and leveling the playing field for men in all walks of life. And when they talk about the Greatest Generation, they forget that when the men all went off to fight WWII, women had to go to work to support the family, wearing pants to work on the A-Bomb, and that's when women learned they could do more, excel more, and become something which had previously been just wistful thoughts. They don't remember how things were and how they became afterward... they remember it the way they want to remember it... and I have worked too hard for lower wages in my life to stop and let them reshape the world into what they would like it to appear.
In my very first long term job, I was making $325.00 a month, and I was training men who came to the company with two years of college or more. The men's salary was $475 to start, and at the end of their 90-day training period, they were given a raise to $550.00 per month while my salary stayed the same for the entire first year, with only a 10% increase at the beginning of the second year of employment. Salaries were secret then. None of us were supposed to ever discuss what we made with anyone else; to do so was grounds for termination. It was my male supervisor who tipped me off to what was going on, because he had tried to get a higher wage for me, and he was told I was just a single kid who'd fall in love and get married one day soon; the Company had no reason to invest extra money in me, regardless of how many hours I worked in a day and on weekends, to train people and still keep my regular daily duties at the top of performance levels.
No, we're NOT going to allow them to shove us back into the kitchen or the nursery if we don't want to be there. And with strong Unions again, we all can make good wages and the poor will be less. Women are just as strong-hearted as men, and when it comes to out-foxing the foxes, we're bright enough to do that again, too.
So bring back the fairness. Bring back the Union jobs. We will take back our rights to be educated and choose if and when we want to marry and have families. We will put the old men in their respective places - out of our heads, out of our bodies, and into retirement. That's what will make America strong for everyone, again.
The idea of "two America's is once again popular (as it was in the early-mid 1960s). However, it is a false discussion today. Today, there are three separate America's -- poor, working and middle class, and rich. Each time that the richest few gained the upper hand in the past, to the harm of the country, the poor and middle class ultimately united to push back, to everyone's benefit. This time around, the middle class and poor were pitted against each other. A massive portion of our working class jobs have been shipped out since the 1980s, and the middle class cheered as Clinton wiped out poverty relief. America's poverty crisis was virtually censored out of the media, mainstream and "progressive" alike. Predictably, the rich are now doing to the middle class what the middle class did to the poor. The middle class continues to shrink. One certainty about poverty is that the longer it is ignored, the deeper and wider it grows.
Depends what course you are taking. You can go to universities and ask them if they have any photography classes that you can take part time, explain your situation... Or if it doesn't need to be professional you can just buy a camera and go shoot pictures. The school you go to will provide you with all the information you need, questions or concerns you may have
nature photography course pune
Martian light photo
http://www.chron.com/news/strange-weird/article/NASA-photo-captures-stra...
In the next photo, it is clear that the sun is coming from the direction behind the mountain (ie: from strait ahead..a little to the right). I wouldn't believe that it was a reflection off of a rock but I could believe that it is a reflection off of something very reflective...like maybe a piece of NASA junk? or how about a flying saucer? ;-}
http://www.chron.com/news/strange-weird/article/NASA-photo-captures-stra...
And how about this lizard on mars? Looks more like rocks to me.
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Blogger-claims-c...
And is this a growing organism that grows out of those holes in the rock? It sure looks like some kind of fungus to me. Two photos of same area spaced just days apart. That doesn't look like just another rock to me.
http://www.chron.com/about/article/Scientist-sues-NASA-over-mysterious-M...
http://cosmology.com/LifeOnMars.html
http://brainmind.com/
I don't know if it does or doesn't but I'm not going to press it. Who ever did that Fluffy photo (and I don't even remember what the original name of it was) was pretty talented...I thought. I remember first seeing it about 8 or so years ago.
Oh, well.
I'll offer this about Americans standing up and demanding a sharing of our wealth. Unions, unions, and more labor unions.....it's the time tested way to level the economic playing field. In addition we need to repeal free trade agreements and of course return to pre Reagan tax rates
Reaganomics cannot coexist with organized labor and the billionaires know it. Unions raise the bar for everyone, not just their members, and we tend to vote progressive. Reaganomics is the antithesis of organized labor......Reaganomics is simply a race to a third world finish line for the vast majority. So in my opinion, seizing power in our workplaces is a good way to start the progressive economic revolution.
The fact is, Reaganomics is not a failure for them. For them it's just like it should be, if anything, not unequal enough. They are happy as can be so they won't change anything unless they're forced.
yes but B O will not . Another problem is run for profit corp prisions who have a strong incentive to put folks in prison for having pot. Thom Why do you recommend RT aka Russian TV ?
The voice of the People is centered in the vote. It is truly the People speaking to the government. If money is suggested to be speech, that corruption can be used by the wealthy to suppress the People's will as expressed in the electoral process. Not only does combined money/speech give the rich a disproportionate share of the debate, it will eventually saturate the media and crowd out all other speech and views not their own. The free exchange of ideas, so dear to the founding fathers, will be destroyed along with our representative democracy which depends on it.