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.
bobbler ~ As someone who has studied the teachings of Christ to some length I can testify that the average "Christian" I have run into doesn't have a clue. Most who proudly oppose marriage equality don't have a clue that Jesus preached that his followers never swear an oath of any kind. Therefore, even heterosexual marriage is anti-Christian. Your average "Christian" would attack you if you told them that because they don't already know it.
Guess they had to take what they could get.
http://www.bcca.org/ief/climate_what.html
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/the-shrinking-arctic-ice-cap-ar4
http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Tipping-Point--Our-Climates-Point-of-No-Return
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_the_Arctic
Kend ~ There you go! Studies, tables, models, graphs, articles, and lots and lots of very disturbing pictures. Of course, these disturbing facts do not take into account the potential disaster that Thom is talking about if the huge volumes of methane stored in the permafrost were released. That would make these projections look like a picnic.
Please try to familiarize yourself with the facts before you open your mouth. Your constant restatement of the same clueless rhetoric is very tedious.
oh geeez here we go again. It just never ends. What global warming? Can someone please show me these studies that show the earth is warming and by how much. All I see is billions being spent and no improvement or results on anything. Except of course the bank accounts of environmentalists. They are doing very well. Talk about corperate welfare.
Tellio- I agree with 95% of your post, except for one point. I'd still rather Obamacare stay intact, at least for now, because it gives individual states the option of devising systems of their own. Under Bernie Sanders' leadership, Vermont has already established a single-payer system, made possible under the provisions of Obamacare. If that is successful and saves tons of $$$, other states will inevitably be jumping on the single-payer bandwagon. Long as Obamacare makes it easier for states to adopt single-payer, I'm all for Obamacare. As Thom has pointed out time & again, this could ultimately open the floodgates for Medicare For All. This is how Canada's system became part of the commons. It started in one province, then spread. If Thom's prediction proves accurate, we could have Medicare For All within a decade. And then... POOF! No more Welfare Queen Billionaire healthcare-aparteid parasites, sacrificing sick people on the altar of Big Money while sucking the life's blood out of our economy!
In the meantime, I refuse to pay into this for-profit extortionists' junk insurance con game. I've already made do without healthcare for a long time now. Much as I hate gambling with my life, it's a gamble whether I sign up or not. I might as well gamble for free, then! At least I have the satisfaction of knowing I've contributed nothing to Mister CEO's fifth mansion in Bermuda. - Aliceinwonderland
P.S. Marc, you'd already posted your comments when I first posted this. You make many excellent points. Thank you, buddy! Well said.
telliottmbamsc ~ Wrong! The ACA is riddled with flaws but is a giant step in the right direction. First, it has the immediate benefit of dramatically lowering low income premiums from $1-2K/mo to around $50-200/mo. That puts more people on the role and saves everyone money in many ways. Secondly, it ensures essential care to those who really need it by banning discrimination because of pre-existing conditions. Third, it compels insurance companies to spend at least 85% of the revenue generated on actual health care; thus, limiting overall profits. Finally, it has a hidden stipulation that allows individual States to use the Medicaid funds made available to fund statewide Single-payer instead of the ACA. That, my friend, is the only way the ACA should every be "killed." The only major problem--which we both agree on--is that it allows private for profit insurance companies to continue to participate instead of abolishing them completely.
Of course, that may only be a temporary problem. As President Obama said when he shot down the Single-payer idea. "Single-payer" would be too disruptive to the current system." I believe what he intends to do with the ACA is to slowly wean us off the for profit insurance industry and substitute it for Single-payer on a State by State basis; thus, giving the States and the insurance industry time to adapt without any catastrophic changes to the economy or the insurance employees way of life. I also believe that opposition to the ACA originates at the top of the insurance industry by those executives who stand to lose the most in easy profits that they extort from the public by denying healthcare to the most needy of the population and price gouging the rest. These vampires need to be stopped and I am in full support of any means by which to drive a stake into their greedy black hearts.
You can argue until the cows come home that the ACA "is shit and should be killed." However, until you come up with a better idea that may lead to Universal Single-payer health care for all, all you are doing is beating a dead horse. Personally, I don't particularly like anything other than what was promised in the original campaign platform either. However, I also demand change. The ACA--if nothing else--is that critical change that this country needs. If something better comes of it, all the better. To tell the truth, I firmly adore the idea that tax payer subsidies are going to fund this program. That alone, by any name, is an answer to my hopes and prayers. Tax money used to care for citizens health. Nice ring to it, don't you think? Sounds much better to me then tax payer money going to subsidize the oil industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the auto industry, the GMO industry, the spying industry, the military industrial complex, or the illegal international war industry. As far as I am concerned you can cut all those subsidies and use the windfall to pay for the ACA/Obamacare. Money that is much better spent.
Thom is very right folks. Although the South Central US emissions of methane do not match the level of methane emissions that lead to the Permian Mass Extinction they do contribute significantly to the overall global warming that could trigger the Permian Mass Extinction level release of methand in the frozen permafrost. This is not pseudoscience folks. We do need to take this matter very seriously and act; and, act fast.
Aliceinwonderland ~ I would be honored! Please, count me in!
ObamaCare is shit and should be killed but ALEC is trying to kill it for the wrong reason.
The American People deserve a Single-Payer system. HealthCare for ALL! The American People deserve real heatlhcare and NOT Obamacare - a system that is an unnecessarily costly special interest cluster fuck that doesn't even ensure everybody, and has negative consequences to the economy.
When People yell in favor of ObamaCare all I hear is them yelling to Washington "SCREW ME! SCREW ME!"
ObamaCare is velvet fascism. Wrap an act of government privatization (wealth concentration) with something you can argue is a good thing (e.g. increasing the number of insured People) and you can get People to digest it easier. But make no mistake - the pros of the program are dwarfed by the size of the cons being committed. But a fascist govt's job is to obfuscate that fact. And that includes creating a culture where those who critize the program are logged out public forums.
And how about the question: Should "luxury, well-to-do lefties" be allowed to pass judgement on a govt law whose consequences will probably never really effect them? Like the consequences of the government overfeeding$$$ a corrupt industry. If your wealthy it is more likely as not that ObamaCare doesn't really effect you. And like a costly war, any consequences of ObamaCare$$$ on other aspects of government goods and services won't really effect a luxury lefty either. The demand for prudence out of our government is negatively related to the wealth of the Democrat - if your rich you don't care, but if your poor....you will be made to feel any consequences of a fiscally profligate government. Similarily, if you are poor you - and not so much the luxury lefties - will feel the consequences of any acts by your government that increases the corporate overlords control over America.
"Healthcare Freedom Act"? Boy, that's a stretch. More like the "Death Panel Extortion Act". You could call it the "Pay And Die Anyway Act", or "Thin The Herd Act".... HaHaHaHaHa! - AIW
All right Marc, I've done my civic duty! Thanks for the forest service's contact info. I'm posting my letter to them:
To whomever concerned,
I am writing to express my outrage at the prospects of fracking in the George Washington National Forest. With each passing year, more and more of our precious wild country is sacrificed at the alter of Big Money. I implore you, as guardians of this national treasure, to resist Big Oil's attempts at defiling it by upholding the ban on drilling. We are counting on you to assert the authority entrusted to you. This would have a devastating, ruinous impact on the forest's geological & biological integrity, from which it might never recover; not to mention the danger it poses to the water supply of the DC Metro area.
Please do not cave in to the demands of the fossil fuel industry. This land belongs to us all, as citizens of this country. It is a vital part of an ecosystem we, and all creatures of the earth, depend upon for survival. Over the past few decades the fossil fuel industry has gotten too big for its britches; it's time they're brought back down to size before they do more damage to this country than they already have. They've no legitimate claim to our national forests. What's more, if corporate interests trump everything else including public health and safety, we are all in serious trouble.
Sincerely...
- Aliceinwonderland
Yep "bobbler", I concur: Jeeeeezzzzzzz! Some people are so full of contradictions, it's like... HELLO, anybody home? Ideological dyslexia....
Marc, I don't care if the Repubnuts are listening to my sentiments. It still feels good to take a nice little dump in their reply box. Just the comic relief it brings you makes it well worth the effort. - AIW
This law would be to "Healthcare Freedom" as "Citizens United" is to citizens. More corporate anti-social marketing hype. This is like when Republican posters to online fora use a handle such as "alldemocratsaredopes" or something like that.
Marc, you've misunderstood my premise. Admittedly, I could've worded it a little more precisely. I didn't mean that only democratic countries should be able to join. I said a nation need only exist to qualify for inclusion; that this worldwide governing entity would have to be a democracy representing all member nations regardless of how each nation governs itself. So actually, we are in agreement.
If I decide to run for prez in 2016, I'll take you as my running mate. You can be vice prez. Whuddia think? - AIW
Aliceinwonderland ~ I see what you mean. "Domestic" problem was a rather bad choice of words. I should have said "national" problem. "Domestic" has too many other connotations.
However, I really like your suggestion of establishing international human rights through the U.N. I forgot about mentioning that institution. In fact, that would be the only way to properly enforce human rights on another nation from an external authority. All member nations would agree to that central authority--and to the rights guaranteed within--in order to join the organization and enjoy it's benefits.
Now when you say "It would have to be democratic..." if referring to member nations, I don't agree with that. Any nation that agrees to the fundamental terms of the central authority of the U.N. should be welcome to join. If the U.N. is ever going to be effective in fighting world wide discrimination it is going to have to refrain from committing discrimination itself. Also, the U.N. is more effective with more member nations. One thing the U.N. is going to have to practice as well as it preaches is that diversity is normal and healthy; and, acceptance, toleration, and equality of that diversity is always in the best interest of everyone.
However, if you meant that the U.N. itself would have to be Democratic, we are in full agreement.
# If anyone thinks for one minute that the Republican Reich Wing isn't anti-life, or anti-people, kindly explain why they deliberately turned the stars on their logo upside down, honoring Satan just when George W. Bush was elected?
BOBBLER: ~~~~~~ Since republicans do the exact I opposite of the teachings of Jesus (feed the poor, healthy sck, etc), it is entirely appropriate to ponder if republicans are satanists (because they do the opposite)..
What is a miracle, is why this is not F'n obvious to Christians who vote republican. Can they really not even know the basic teachings of Jesus?
Jeeeeezzzzzzz
Aliceinwonderland ~ It is wonderful that you keep responding to the "Repubnuts" that way. However, I hate to break the new to you, but the Reich Wing are full of talkers. Listening is not their forte. They only hear one voice, and that ain't you or me. Strangely enough I seriously doubt you are the only source of those sediments. Nevertheless, I applaud your reply's. They fill my heart with tidings of joy. So please keep it up, strike the harp, and join the chorus. As I understand it, every time someone tells a "Repubnut" to "Kiss mah royal ass," an angel gets his wings. Joy to the world!
I'm still getting e-mails from the Repubnuts requesting donations, several times a week. And I keep e-mailing 'em back saying "Kiss mah royal ass!", or some variation on that theme. - AIW
Marc, I agree with about 90% of your response. However you seem to assume that I'm suggesting the USA set those universal standards and enforce them. No way! You're damn right; we've no moral high ground. Crimes against humanity committed in our names could fill a book. Our "leaders" have some gall defining "morality" for other nations or cultures to abide by. To have any legitimate claim to such authority, it would have to be an entity like the UN (hopefully more effective, with more clout!), representing all nations worldwide. In order to qualify for membership, a nation need only exist. It would have to be democratic, at least as I envision it, with each country having equal say regardless of size.
I can't help but wince whenever I hear the abuse of women tagged as a "domestic" problem. It is not confined to families and life in the home; it is also very public, is multicultural and multinational and has a long, ugly history. I know you don't mean it this way, Marc, so don't take it personally, what I'm about to say... but to me the word "domestic" sounds too narrow in this context, thus trivializing and minimizing the issue.
I don't mean to turn this into a long discussion about sexism. I've made my point and am satisfied with that... - Aliceinwonderland
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/24/1258135/-Obama-just-launched-single-payer-in-America?detail=email#
http://www.policymic.com/articles/70549/vermont-wants-to-be-the-first-state-with-universal-health-care
If anyone thinks for one minute that the Republican Reich Wing isn't anti-life, or anti-people, kindly explain why they deliberately turned the stars on their logo upside down, honoring Satan just when George W. Bush was elected?
If you are at a loss for an explanation might I suggest it is because they either believe that they are worshipping Satan; or, they believe they are Satan. There is really no other explanation; otherwise, they would have proudly, publically announced the reason when they did it.
It isn't necessary to believe in Satan to believe that other people believe in Satan. The best way to understand and predict the behavior of others is to understand what they believe in. If you look at the GOP from the perspective of a bunch of Satanists--essentially a bunch of self absorbed, hypocritical, paranoid sociopaths; who, believe there is a supernatural deity that sponsors their sordid ideals--then understanding their actions and statements makes much more sense. How can anyone feel guilt or remorse when they believe they are serving a God?
Aliceinwonderland ~ Very true! Well said! I share your concerns. However, it is important that we stick to the prime directive of non interference. National sovereignty must be respected no matter what the circumstances. Sorry to borrow that directive from Star Trek however it applies nicely into any situation of violation of sovereignty.
In addition, the United States is in no position to dictate civil rights to anyone. Up until the later part of the last century women were treated horribly here. Minorities even worse. Two centuries ago women were tortured and burned by over zealous Church officials who wanted to rob them of their property. Today we attacked the government of Iraq and overthrow one of the only countries in the region that had the highest report card grade for respecting the rights of women. We also supported the government of Saudi Arabia. Palindromedary spent years in that country and can testify to the horrors he witnessed there against women.
My first point is that women's rights are a very important issue. Nevertheless it should remain a domestic issue. We still have a long way to go in this country until women and minorities achieve the equal rights and opportunities that they deserve. It is here we should worry about that issue and let other nations take care of their own problems. It is our success that is the greatest and best way that we can inspire, influence and shame other cultures into imitation of our example.
My final point is that I agree with Mark Saulys. The treatment of women mentioned by Kend is another Red Herring. Simply, it has nothing to do with the international issues that are being resolved. We must concentrate on nuclear war prevention and not allow domestic problems to cloud our thinking. Were we to try to accomplish too much at once, we would fail at accomplishing anything at all. The lives of the citizens of the middle east take precedent over the rights of the individual. There is no such thing as a perfect society; and, if we were to claim to be such it would not be too difficult for the Iranians to pick any of the plethora of human rights abuses that the United States is currently guilty of to blow off any potential deal. In a nut shell, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
I share your concern over those poor women who live under such tragic conditions. Yet as long as we have men and women being tortured in Gitmo, and killed arbitrarily all over the globe, any attempt to criticize other societies is only going to elicit laughter. We must focus on getting our own house in order before we can ever hope to influence the houses next door. Nevertheless, I share your hope for the future. I too hope and pray we both can see those rights become reality in our lifetimes. Please continue to dream; and, thanks for sharing that dream with us.
Mark S says, "... but you don't wanna force your will on another society and tell them how to run their culture" and "It is, in fact, a violation of their human rights to appoint yourself their boss and to define, let alone enforce, a universal standard of human rights. There needs to be a better way."
You've done a fine job illustrating your point with examples. And I agree... nothing to argue with, far as that goes! But I will say this, comrades: I've a huge problem with the way my gender gets treated in certain cultures. I'm talking about cultures where women have no legal rights, are denied an education, denied the most basic level and means of personal autonomy; where they can be beaten and raped on a regular basis, without consequence to the abusers, and their lives are completely expendable; need I go on?
Cultural autonomy & integrity are fine, Mark, but abuse is where I draw the line. I'm sure there are plenty of people quick to argue that "abuse" is some sort of subjective term, that different people have different concepts of what "abuse" is... and blah-blah-blah. But nobody can convince me that kind of shit (battering, rape, denial of legal rights and personal autonomy) ain't abuse. Personally, I don't give a flip what cultural or religious tradition is used to "justify" or rationalize the abuse. Because it still is abuse. Hardly conducive to anything positive, let alone a civilized world.
Perhaps a compromise might be reached, such as a universal right to food, water, clean air, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education; plus a few "negative rights" such as a right to not be tortured, beaten or raped... or subjected to war; how 'bout that?! If upheld, such universal standards would be a huge improvement for the quality of life experienced by countless millions, worldwide. I doubt I'll see it in my lifetime, but I can dream can't I? (SIGH) - Aliceinwonderland
DAnneMarc and Mark S -- Very well said by both of you.
It's just further proof that the Republicans firmly believe those who are unable to work because of disability or illness should just drop dead. They only want healthy slaves.