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.
Thanks Aliceinwonderland.....It was a struggle to post that very personal comment about my running partner, Liberty, but after reading Thom's blog, I felt obligated to say something. I couldn't agree more with your organic approach to diet...I'm still working on that direction in my own life. Pura Vida!
Palin they didn't take it from anyone. They earned it. Poeple worked for them and got payed. Of course there are a few crooks out there in all business including government and unions but the majority of business owners pay and treat employees well that is why union membership is Declining
You are dead wrong. Most wealth is created by playing fair.
Overtaxing the rich does work! Just look at the Eisenhower days where the wealthy had to pay a much higher tax rate than those at the bottom. Just as there should be a decent minimum wage, there should also be a maximum income ceiling for everyone so that no tiny percentage of the population can accumulate obscene wealth. A truly progressive income tax would do that. It is really the death of democracy when 1% of the population owns most of the means of production and income.
And I don't know of anyone promising that their foods, organic or non-organic, are free of radioactivity. Maybe we should all buy Geiger Counters and take them to the grocery stores or farmer's markets with us. Remember all the above ground nuke tests in the 50s and 60s, Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island and the latest...Fukushima accidents? That radioactive stuff lasts way longer than several generations .. some hundreds of thousands of years. We are all being slowly mutated by radioactivity...by microwaves applied to the brain through cell phones and microwave ovens and other devices. I wonder how many organic-conscious people are risking brain cancer through the use of their cell phones? They'll go out and spend hundreds of dollars..or perhaps way more over many years radiating their brains yet they are so touchy over the food they eat! I agree that we are all being poisoned one why or another. Most of us will most likely die of cancer some day...if we don't die of heart attacks first. It's inevitable! And there will always be someone there to stick their money-sucking proboscises into our bank accounts to drain us dry by feeding us lots of fear and promising to make it all better with their special snake-oil.
Aliceinwonderland: Yes, I agree with you totally! In fact, in my first mention of this link (in #21) I did point out that very rebuttal that you mentioned. "I don't know... do we believe this guy or, perhaps, the very last comment by a Reader objecting to what Barrett says?"
And yes, the rebuttal makes some very good points as well...thanks for showing them. I probably should have myself...although I tend to believe Dr. Barrett mostly.
I don't think that all organic farmers are quacks..there are likely some who are very dedicated and sincere and honest....and they may very well be selling produce that contains fewer chemicals. But there are also those, I believe, who are not so honest and merely rip people off. But just how do you know which ones are honest? We can't even trust our own government to be honest enough to enforce honesty. And I am getting very cynical about doctors and the medical profession. So, since I don't trust alternative snake-oil salespeople and I don't trust the medical profession...I guess I am if a real dilemma. I think the medical professions have pretty much lowered themselves, right down there with the alternative snake-oil hype-sters. As a matter of fact, have you noticed all of the snake-oil guests on the Dr. Oz show? I don't watch it all the time but it seems to me that it has become a real circus. Perhaps Dr. Oz often gives some good advice but I sure wonder about all those walk on guest "professionals". Oh, yes, I forgot...you don't watch TV. Good for you! Most of it is trash anyway! I don't watch it very much, myself...just a few favorite entertainment programs...and RT, Link, and FSTV.
Palin, I honestly don't know what to believe. Most likely there is truth to the doctor's claim that an "organic" label is no guarantee you're getting something genuinely organic, or pesticide-free. But on the other hand, I don't trust doctors. And I definitely don't trust the friggin' USDA!
I don't know if you noticed, but beneath the doctor's essay is a rebuttal which I believe makes some very strong arguments. If you're going to present the doc's case, we might as well get the other side of the debate:
From an "organic food" fan: "In regards to your comment that organic food is not healthier or safer for you (comments on 'juicing') I must say, that is complete BULLSHIT. If you want to eat food that is coated in pesticides, plastic, and vegetable wax, FINE. But don't tell people that farmers who don't use pesticides are QUACKS. For example, the Web page of the Hartzler Family Dairy—details the history of a company dedicated to pesticide-free food and animal products; I thought you'd like to know there are professional businessmen and worldwide organizations interested in organic farming techniques, as opposed to just a few 'QUACKS' who like to overprice their produce. If you check out the site you'll see not all people who prefer organic food are tree-hugging vegetarian wackos who should be dismissed as nutty 'quacks'. It is people like you, medical professionals (who should know better) who group organic food with true quackery (like curing cancer with magnets) that really endanger the health of this nation. Granted, this IS America, and you have every right to eat what you want, and even to say you think organic food is overpriced, but don't group organic farmers with 'quacks' just because they prefer not to use pesticides. Honestly, is it so nutty to think we would be better off eating food that ISN'T full of chemicals and additives, preservatives and artificial colors? I feel sorry for you. You are so blind to the threat of toxins in your food that colon cancer will probably sneak up on you. You'll tell the doctor, 'But I ate a low-fat diet; but I drank my Metamucil everyday; but I stayed away from red meat,' but it won't matter. You will subject yourself to chemotherapy (because, being in the medical profession, THAT's the only thing that cures cancer, right?). You'll get sicker and sicker from pumping even more toxins in your body, and when it finally sinks in that maybe you didn't know everything, it will be too late to save you. It's too bad you don't think before you eat. You're fueling your body with poison on a daily basis."
But Kend, who did the wealthy "just take it from"? They took it from the masses of worker's labor. It's time the workers took some of it back...in fact, it's time they took it all back and throw some of those conniving capitalist-pig criminals in jail. Everyone takes risk...bank robbers take risk...carjackers take risks...gamblers take risks...and sometimes they pay off..sometimes they get away with it. That doesn't make it right! There's nothing holy or sacrosanct about taking risk...especially if that risk is about leveraging someone else's well being in order to make yourself shamelessly wealthy. People don't get rich by playing fair or being nice. They get rich by taking unfair advantage of other people.
I didn't have time before, but here are a few quotes from Quackwatch.com
By the way, you should check out Stephen Barrett, MD on Wikipedia.
"The weed and pest-control methods to which this refers include crop rotation, hand cultivation, mulching, soil enrichment, and encouraging beneficial predators and microorganisms. If these methods are not sufficient, various listed chemicals can be used. (The list does not include cytotoxic chemicals that are carbon-based.) The proposal did not call for monitoring specific indicators of soil and water quality, but left the selection of monitoring activities to the producer in consultation with the certifying agent."
" For raising animals, antibiotics would not be permitted as growth stimulants but would be permitted to counter infections. The rules permit up to 20% of animal feed to be obtained from non-organic sources. This was done because some nutrients (such as trace minerals) are not always available organically. Irradiation, which can reduce or eliminate certain pests, kill disease-causing bacteria, and prolong food shelf-life, would be permitted during processing. Genetic engineering would also be permissible."
"Many consumers who "fork over a little more" believe that the foods themselves are more nutritious, safer, and tastier. But the USDA proposal itself noted that, "No distinctions should be made between organically and non-organically produced products in terms of quality, appearance, or safety." In other words, no claim should be made that the foods themselves are better—or even different! Some consumers believe that buying "organic" foster agricultural practices that are better for the environment."
Although, in Oct. of 2002 the USDA rules were revised again..this time they say that organic foods cannot have been irradiated nor genetically modified. Better, but many studies have shown that there is no nutritional difference between organic and non-organic foods. There is a slight difference in pesticide content..non-organic having higher levels but not exceeding the government limits. It's important to note that not even organically certified foods are without some pesticides. Remember, there's an exceptions phrase that allows the use of antibiotics and chemicals and still be labeled organically certified. And, of course, there is the question of just how well the USDA and/or the so-called organic certifiers..the inspectors..are enforcing the rules..or are they susceptable to being bribed like all the other governmental entities?
"Nevertheless, if you want to pay extra for your food, the U.S. Government will help you do so. Violators of the rules can be fined up to $10,000 per violation. But organic "certification," no matter what the rules, will not protect consumers. Foods certified as "organic" will neither be safer nor more nutritious than "regular" foods. Nor is there any logical reason to conclude that they have any special disease-curing properties. They will just cost more and may lessen public confidence in the safety of "ordinary" foods. Instead of legitimizing health nonsense, our government should do more to attack its spread."
I personally believe that not only do we, as consumers, have to put up with the poisons that agribusinesses will put into their products, but we also have to watch, and be very skeptical of, claims of "organically certified" foods as well. There have always been "snake-oil-hucksters" promising the benefits of their products, whether it is in alternative medicine practices or vitamins and supplements or in claims of the merits of "organically certified" foods. And there will always be suckers that fall for it...leaving them the poorer... and the hucksters the richer.
Remember Gary with ownership comes risk. i would bet that many of these wealthy poeple lost a lot of money at different times In there business. I my self have had many months where everyone got paid but me. Don't assume all businesses make money all the time. That is why the Hartmann's of the world would rather just take it from the wealthy. There is no risk this way.
Here's an interest viewpoint: "Organic" Foods: Certification Does Not Protect Consumers" by Stephen Barrett, MD. It runs down the history of the attempt to "certify foods as organic". It's been modified over the years. I don't know... do we believe this guy or, perhaps, the very last comment by a Reader objecting to what Barrett says?
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/organic.html
Interesting that he pointed out a company, now defunct, in Florida that was trying to sell the public on their "organic" foods that had "healing effects".
Thom Hartmann consistently fails to realize that the income gains of the 1 percent, that far out distant the earnings of the labor workers, is due to the fact that they are the wealthy owners of our nation's wealth-creating, income-producing productive capital assets, held legally by the shareholders (them) of corporations. In other words, they are rich not because of their labor input but because of their ownership interests in the non-human factor of production that is largely and increasingly responsible for how products and services are made and delivered.
Until the Hartmann's of the world and other media and economic and social justice advocates wake up to this reality and begin to advocate for broadened ownership of private sector capital assets among the 99 percent who are now propertyless or under-capitalized, economic inequality will persist and worsen. What is needed are policies that will un-rig the system and provide equal opportunity for EVERY child, woman and man to acquire ownership stakes in FUTURE wealth-creating, income-producing capital assets with the earnings of capital. So that they do not have to deny themselves consumption or accumulate past savings and pledge personal equities (none of which the 99 percent possess) as security, we need to provide insured, zero-interest capital credit loans to finance the FUTURE productive sector repayable in the FUTURE earnings of the new capital assets to be formed.
OWNERSHIP is the key, yet Hartmann and others ignore this reality, even though they should be intelligent enough to understand that the rich are rich not because of their labor contributions but because of their productive contributions of tools and machines and other physical capital assets that they own.
Hartmann needs to study and support the Agenda of The JUST Third Way at http://foreconomicjustice.org/?p=5797, Monetary Justice at http://capitalhomestead.org/page/monetary-justice, and the Capital Homestead Act at http://www.cesj.org/homestead/index.htm and http://www.cesj.org/homestead/summary-cha.htm. See the full Act at http://cesj.org/homestead/strategies/national/cha-full.pdf.
All depends on who owns the NY Times. I hate to be a cynic, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
The democrats and Bernie would do themselves and the rest of the country a salvation by suppressing voter suppression! Namely Ohio.
over taxing doesn't work. Just look at Detroit and New York. People with money will just leave.
Organic food is already labeled "Certified Organic." If it isn't, it may have been grown organically, but not qualified as Certified. This was a move the growers made because there were too many cheaters who call things "organically grown" or "organically produced" whose prices beat true organic growers out of the market. The Certification requirements were years in the making. That is why the food costs more- it takes 5 years to become a Certified Organic producer and following very stringent regulation and requirements.
There is also a big difference between "All Natural" and "Certified Organic." All natural does not have to be produced "organically."
I know, yeah great. You have to pay extra to not eat poison. Speaking of which, our immune systems might target cancer cells better if we don't drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes.
Sorry men, but even beer counts. The medical definition of alcoholism is 3 ounces of any type alcoholic beverage consumed on a daily basis, according to the Merck Manual.
The new York times could get the ball rolling on educating the masses about climate change.
What is that background noise we always hear at press conferences? It should no longer be the popping of flash bulbs, but that's the best I can come up with.
If the U.S. currency gets revalued, I'd like to simultaneously increase the factor between dollars and cents to, say, 10,000. (Obviously, the term "cent" would no longer make sense, so I'll use "penny".)
When grocery shopping, or even furniture shopping, prices would just be in pennies. Only when you get into the level where you take out a loan would you use dollars. Even so, we could add another level at another factor of 10,000, which would be useful for expressing amounts in the federal budget and national debt. So let's use "shilling" for 10,000 pennies, and "dollar" for 10,000 shillings, while revaluing the penny by a factor of ten. (The funny thing here is that the abbreviations, D-S-P, are the reverse of those for the British pounds-shillings-pence, where the abbreviation for pence was "d" from the Roman correlate "denarius".)
My last shopping trip: 939 pennies
Ford Focus MSRP: 16.81 shillings
Median household income: 51.371 shillings
New house: about 300 shillings
New NFL stadium: about 40 dollars
Annual federal spending on education: 7,148 dollars
Annual federal budget deficit: approximately 49,180 dollars
National debt: approximately 1,965,800 dollars
mathboy: Thank you for your astute observations and corrections! :-)
The quote doesn't say "realize", it says "accept".
It also doesn't say "one decade from now". "In the next decade" means "at some time between now and a decade from now".
I don't think it will take the next decade to realize that! It's already blatantly obvious to most people now. And, probably in just a matter of a year or three the masses may very well get way beyond expecting politics, as usual, to change things. Know what I mean?!!
The Deep State has a "Giant Vacume Cleaner" and boy do they clean up good!
"Please don’t get me wrong: I’m not trying to be pro-nuclear. I’m just pro-arithmetic."
— David J. C. MacKay, Professor of Natural Philosophy, in the Department of Physics, at Cambridge University
BOOK REVIEW: Sustainable Energy — Without the Hot Air
http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id...
No not at all. The social security system is flawed. I have seen that in all aspects of social security people get insufficient security.