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.
argo95540 ~ Kind of a day late and a dollar short my friend. However, I took the liberty of posting the link on todays blog. Hope you don't mind. And thank you!!
A petition by argo95540 to stop the TPP. Please sign everyone. Thanks argo95540.
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/stop-the-trans-pacific
What I think is this I'm tried of reading or hearing AMERICAN NEWS MEDIA report every strom, car wreck, murder, mass murder, war being the "WORST EVER RECORDED IN THE DAWNING OF THE HUMAN RACE!!!" Tommorrow a strom will hit and the AMERICAN NEWS MEDIA will report, "THE WORST STROM RECORDED IN WORLD HISTORY!!!" The AMERICAN NEWS MEDIA ""LOVES"" DRAMA, and Americans LOVE to be feed this DRAMA, because they don't have a LIFE. JAMA reported that The United States of America is the most over medicated Country in the World. over half of the American Population is taking some form of PROZAC to deal with their LIVES. If the United States of America is the Greatest Country in the World then why do U.S.CITIZENS have to intoxicate and take DRUGS to live here. It reads like a BAD MARRIAGE to me.
Aliceinwonderland ~ Wow! What a coincidence? That sure didn't take long. It looks like we were both right about George Zimmerman. You in that he was an unpredictable violent psychotic; and, me in that if that was true it would only be a matter of time till Karma got him. Wallah!
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/18/justice/florida-george-zimmerman-arrest/
His recent behavior really makes me rethink what happened with Trayvon. I admit I may have been very wrong about the man.
An interesting interview with his ex wife:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/26/justice/shellie-zimmerman-interview/index.html
I assumed this thread was dead, but I returned here on impulse whilst waiting for my printer to print an 8X10 color photograph. All I can say is "wow!"
Not much I can add save to repeat what I said before, which is that Mr. Hartmann's use of the term "royalist" obscures that our problem is capitalism, which is not only killing us but our planet as well.
What I did not say is what the post-New-Deal history of the United States proves beyond any possibility of refutation -- that capitalism cannot be reformed or successfully regulated. This is because capitalism is precisely as I describe it -- infinite greed elevated to maximum virtue -- which means it is the conscious rejection of every humanitarian principle our species has ever articulated. This in turn means that capitalism is the closest approximation to absolute evil our species has yet produced. Indeed it is directly analogous to cancer, which means it must be surgically removed from the human body-politic before it destroys not only humanity but wipes out the entire planet on which humanity has evolved.
If others do not yet agree, I have no problem with our differences, merely because I am firmly convinced time and history will eventually prove me right.
There's also a bit of historical irony in Mr. Hartmann's choice of "royalist" as a pejorative. In Britain, it was the crown -- not the nobility -- that emerged as the protector of the common people against feudal privilege. This is why, at the time of the American Revoilution, there was such a huge schism in the colonial population. Many colonials, my own paternal ancestors among them, believed the rebels' primary purpose was to give the business and slave-plantation aristocracies the same unlimited power the feudal nobility had possessed before the British royal families' strategically savvy support of the commoners gradually brought about the emergence of a strong central government and, ultimately, a comparatively democratic parliamentary system. (Though it's something of an aside, it was the fact the British people were never disarmed -- note for example the militia of archers with which Britian won at Crecy and Agincourt -- that compelled the crown to turn to the people for support in the struggles with the feudal nobility, which gave Britian the roots of parliamentary democracy just as the disarmed state of the common people enabled the emergence of royal tyranny everywhere else in Europe.) In any case, I find the imprecision of using "royalist" rather than calling evil by its proper name -- capitalism -- serves no one but the One Percent, whose intent is to ensure not just our confusion and disunity, but to impose the Orwellian manipulation of vocabulary (and ultimately of psycholinguistic reality), intended to deny us the intellectual tools by which we might otherwise reason ourselves out of the resultant impasse.
Mr. Hartmann is both a leader and a journalist, and one of the obligations shared by journalism and leadership is to clarify rather than obfuscate. Alas, in the ACA piece he does the latter. Were he an everyday citizen, I would surely not criticize him so vehemently, and I probably would not criticize him at all.
That said, this is undoubtedly the longest, most elaborate Internet thread in which I have yet participated, and it is unquestionably the most civilized as well. Many many thanks to all, (And yes, I will check back again to see if it continues to grow. Even if it does not, a link to it will go up on my blog next week, which I resumed yesterday with a post that is more about humanitarian potential than political factionalism.)
Again, my gratitude. This is truly Internet discussion at its best.
Loren Bliss
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/stop-the-trans-pacific
Let our voices be heard. THIS IS WRONG FOR AMERICA. Democracy cannot flourish and be maintained in secrecy. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW AND TO OPPOSE THIS. As patriotic Americans we must oppose this and protect our economy and our future.
Re Pelosi's "pass it to tell what's in it:" Recall that the bills passed by the House and Senate, if not identical, must go to a reconciliation committee. So the final provisions of the ACA could not be read until that procedure was complete. IMHO the process places too much power in too few hands but thems the rules and Pelosi was correct in her statement. Too bad the media couldn't/wouldn't clarify.
My apologies for sounding presumptious and patronizing. It was meant as a bit of sarcasm, since the tax code is such a behemoth. Now that the whole thing is online, it makes it much easier to search for information and fully understand what the actual tax laws say.
When I said "exempt from the income tax", I did not mean they were exempt because of the amount of their "Income", I meant that most people are exempt, because their earnings are not among the class of "wages" that are taxable as defined by the US Code. You may want to look up the definition of "wages", "employer", and "employee" in the US Code 26, Section 3401 to see what I mean, or, I could paste them in at the end to make it easier. :)
The link that I included points to an article written about the 16th amendment. A large number of people seem to think that the 16th amendment created our existing tax system in 1913, but the income tax was created in 1861, modified in 1862. The 1862 version is the original code still in force today (along with many updtaes and changes). The 16th amendment was just another modification to the tax code, but it did not create the tax system, nor did it authorize a blanket tax on everyone and all that comes in.
Again, my apologies for offending you.
Link to the 16th amendment article: http://losthorizons.com/Documents/The16th.htm
US Code 26, Section 3401 - Definitions
(a) WagesFor purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash... (d) EmployerFor purposes of this chapter, the term “employer” means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person(c) EmployeeFor purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.
Yes, the world needs to act fast. Unfortunately, it should have acted fast a decade ago. Even if the world banned all fossil fuels tomorrow, and mandated that Industrial Hemp replace all petroleum industry products we would still have to ride out decades of increasingly catastrophic weather before we could hope to see the light at the end of the tunnel. The eco-system just doesn't respond that fast. However we do not have that excuse.
I have not heard Thom call himself a capitalist although he has a very narrow definition for "capitalist", i.e., someone who makes ALL their income from investments - or, as I would describe it, from other people's labor. I've heard him on more than a few occasions call himself a socialist - although he qualifies that a bit by calling himself a "democratic socialist" which to him means someone who believes in capitalism highly regulated and controlled by democratic government. I'm going to post a blog article on this site on the historical nuances of the implementation of Marxism and socialism. It might help us to come to agreement on the definitions of some terms and so make discussion simpler.
Marc- Sorry about the poor choice of words. "Emotional" is too personal. But I do believe a truthful, honest media is a basic need- for a functional democracy. - AIW
Aliceinwonderland ~ A longing for realness and substance is something that we both share; and, I doubt we are alone. I'm not sure if I would call that an "emotional need" or a "basic need." Nevertheless, point well taken.
Marc, let me clarify this "emotional need" mentioned in my previous post. A hunger for realness, for substance, is all it is. Gettin' harder to come by. - AIW
chuckle8 ~ Thank you. I have immensely enjoyed it. If you're only on #33 you have a long way to go. There are great contributions by everyone on this blog. You ain't heard nothin yet. Enjoy!
Chuckle, I agree 100%. Without "Move To Amend" accomplished, anything else is but a pipe dream.
AIW -- Thom is on Free Speech TV and for a while the only source for Thom in LA
Dan -- For me this is one of your best blogs.
Global -- Isn't Wikipedia the worst resource on earth? Thom speaks of his tour of the Heritage Foundation and that every computer screen (around 25 in a work area) had the wikipedia page displayed. I assume the workers at the foundation were modifying Wikipedia as fast as they could to make the 1% proclamations seem reasonable. Is this not the site where they had Paul Revere riding for the British after Sarah P said it?
Aliceinwonderland and Loren Bliss ~ I couldn't agree more with Alice on this one; although, I feel no emotional need to believe in anyone other than myself. Therefore, perhaps my opinion might be somewhat more objective. Thom is known to be an exceptional philanthropist in the extreme. If his work with autistic children, starving Africans, his meetings with the Pope and the Dali Lama mean nothing to you, I suggest you read any of his plethora of prolific sociological, historic, scientific and philosophical books he's written for the cause. Surly prolific writings on our current socioeconomic and political paradigm resonates with the venerable Loren Bliss. I'm sure that he above all people must realize and appreciate the fact that profit alone does not motivate or inspire the type of vast contributions to society that Thom Hartmann, or Loren himself, have made in their lifetime. Certainly it does nothing to motivate the vast charitable contributions that Thom has and continues to make. Toadyism is the result of selfish and monetary motivations and ambitions that override philanthropic ones. As a noted humanitarian yourself Loren you should realize that more than anyone else. If you are indeed capable of seriously thinking that Thom Hartmann is a toady for anyone, then I might suggest that you don't know him very well. To know him well is to know better. With all due respect Loren you should be able to see that, because, as the saying goes, it takes one to know one.
global -- The derivative (margin or whatever) is of more concern than the value..
Mark S -- Where did you go to school? That is a wonderful school. I cannot believe that most of the sheeple went to a school like yours.
AIW -- Medicare for all sounds great. I don't disagree with anything you (i.e. Freidman) say. The problem is that to enable medicare to be passed originally we had to salute the top 1%. The AMA made us write the medicare law as a fee for service system. Just switching it to a managed care system should cut its cost in half The template for this system is the Mayo clinic. Also, we need to be able to negotiate drug prices. Of course, to make any of this happen we need to eliminate the influence of the top 1%. It seems to me the best way to eliminate the influence of the 1% is the "Move to Amend" organization.
Mark & Marc, you both make excellent pointa about various factors that could be influencing Thom's public demeanor, as well as his handling & interpreting of the issues. And Loren, if you haven't already, do read posts #60 and #61. To that I would add a suggestion from a previous post of Marc's, that perhaps Thom has a natural optimism which could also be influencing his view regarding President Obama.
Loren, I still think you're way too hard on Thom. While I wholeheartedly agree with your points regarding Thom's take on the ACA, I can't swallow the notion of Thom being another toadie out to mislead the public. Granted, most media personalities would fit that category! But not Thom.
To be honest, guys, I will confess here and now, I have an emotional need to believe in someone like Thom as I percieve him: a public figure devoted to a purpose much larger and greater than himself, whose main motivation isn't financial gain and/or ego gratification. I think I've made a good choice here. Thom Hartmann's contributions to the betterment of the world and humanity are already substantial. And I have learned a lot from him. His blog has enabled us to connect and learn from one another as well.
Viewing Thom's role, relative to the media landscape in general, I see a light in the darkness. There aren't too many of those, especially now. What few there are deserve our encouragement and support, whatever form that takes. In these troubled times they are a desperately needed lifeline, to some semblance of sanity as well as to reality. We shouldn't take them for granted. - Aliceinwonderland
Kend -- From what I have observed I think more was known about the ACA then any law passed in recent history. Obama and the repugs had a live TV discussion about the details of ACA before it was passed. No changes could be made to the ACA behind closed doors because Scott Brown was elected, so any changes would have made it possible for the repugs to filibuster the result.
Mark Saulys ~ I think you nailed that one. Bravo! Not only does that describe Thom to a tee it also accurately describes many of us including myself. After all, say what you want about President Obama, he is the only game in town. As such you certainly don't want to completely alienate your only "hope." I understand that Loren would cast all kinds of doubt on that source of hope. I can't say I blame him. His three campaign promises that he reminds us that Obama the Orator promised tend to cut me to the soul everytime I think of them--especially his promise to protect, defend, and restore the Constitution. Let's face it, he didn't just promise that to all of us, he swore an oath to God to do that. Lying to man is one thing, shucking and jiving the Creator is quite another. Yet, I must remind myself--as I'm sure Thom and many others do--that the man still has three years to make good on that promise. Surly I should hold my tongue until he seals his own fate in that matter. As they say, it isn't over until it is over. I'm sure that is the way Thom the optimist sees it. It certainly is the way I see it. If Barack the Betrayer choses to break that contract, so help him God.
As far as the term "Capitalist" versus "Royalist" is concerned I'd like to think of one as an extreme version of the other. Thom has on more than one occasion admitted to being a "Capitalist" himself. I do believe that he believes "Capitalism" and the "free market" to be very benign systems of sustenance. Certainly it is with men like Thom Hartmann running the show. I tend to look at "Capitalism" like a Cancer. When it is kept in check it is something that you can spend a lifetime living with in a relatively symbiotic relationship without any problems. It is when Cancer gets out of check that it becomes destructive to the entire organism and has to be eradicated. It is this out of check Capitalism that I believe deserves the title Royalism. For it is an out of check Capitalist who presumes to be greater than the whole; and, as such, proceeds along a path without regard to the well being of the whole; and, like a malignant Cancer, becomes completely oblivious to the fact that without the health of the whole organism, the entire body--including the Cancer--dies. Therefore, when Capitalism reaches the level of Royalism it should be looked at like a malignant Cancer; and, treated as such.