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.
Thom Hartmann is certainly capable of turning against Barrack Obama and I've seen him do it more than a few times although he always seems to forgive him and come back to a friendly position toward him. Perhaps he has an emotional need to believe in Obama or, more likely, he's aware that Obama and his administration's people do, in fact, listen to him and are influenced by him and his media broadcasts and webcasts and thus he tries to keep a friendly tone to his discourse
The term "royalist", I think, is appropriate for a couple of reasons. The super rich, 1%, capitalist class and their wannabes do, in fact, seem to be trying to return us to a feudal social order. They seek to privatize government and government policy making it, effectively, their own personal property and they are a nation unto themselves, they have no loyalty to America or their nation of origin. Someone of the 1% class, for example is far less likely to socialize with, befriend or marry someone of another class than someone of another natonality or ethnicity. They are returning us to a state where class hegemony is a matter of inherited privilege.
Also, it is better not to use the language of the far left when speaking about the issues. Studies have shown that if you go door to door polling for opinions asking about each item of the socialist agenda separately (national healthcre, labor power, women's equality, etc.) you wil get a very positive response but if you say the word "socialist" it's all over, they don't want any of it. The word "socialist" is so demonized that most people are socialists without realizing it. So keep it mainstream in your verbeage and you'll reach more people.
That's why Thom's program is more worthwhile than some more academically pure media organs. Thom's show actually reaches the blue collar worker and thus is useful for movement building. The academically pure lefty media projects talk some wild lefty shit sometimes or real academic shit and the blue collar worker is put off by that or just doesn't decipher it and then some Bill O'Reilly type who talks their language comes along and they join the Republican Party.
Mary, how succint! I concur. - Alice I.W.
Marc - Aw... gosh dang it, you've literally made me cry! That said, it does seem as though we bring out the best as well as the worst in each other on this blog. - AIW
Aliceinwonderland and Loren Bliss ~ I don't know if either of you will ever read this; but, I was just overwhelmed with the urge to check back to see if there was anything else happening on this thread; and, I'm so glad I did. Let me just say that between the two of you--post #54 and #55 to be exact--that I believe I've just read the two most helpful, insightful, and informative posts I have ever read on this blog. I must say I agree with every word. Well said! Thank you both. I hope you don't mind if I borrow from those posts in the future. It is so much food for thought; and, quite frankly, has left me quite speechless...
The Trans-Pacific Partnership should be referred to as the Trans-Pacific PIRATE SHIP.......And should be sunk before it has a chance to leave the dock.
Aliceinwonderland ~ Thanks for the reassurance. Also thanks for your side of the discussion. I had no idea Mr. Z had such a "personality disorder." Personally, I do my best to limit my exposure to such miserable people. I can't say I have much experience with such types of personalities at all. I'm very grateful for that. You might remember such individuals here totally caught me off guard and left me with a rather shall we say perplexed reaction. After hearing what you've learned I have to admit that my suspicions that the man is actually guilty may have taken another flip flop. To me, such individuals are quite the mystery. I can't for the life of me understand what makes them tick.
However, what I suspect, what is admissible evidence in a court, and what really happened are not necessarily the same things. In a court, as you know, the burden falls on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed. The sad fact in this matter is that the chief witness in this case is conveniently no longer able to testify. The system has flaws, but it is the best system possible; and, I don't want to change it. In the Zimmerman case the prosecutor had a daunting task. From what I saw, he did everything possible to trip up Zimmerman and failed. A case is only as good as the evidence. In this case, despite our emotions, there was absolutely no concrete evidence to suspect that anything Mr. Z said was a lie. And, even if your suspicions are right, Mr. Z could have simply told the truth without incriminating himself. What his intent was wasn't on trial. Only the facts of what happened were.
As far as Zimmerman is concerned--if your suspicions are right, and I'm sure they are--the man still has to stand trial in the court of Karma. As I have learned in the past that is a court in which no one escapes justice. I am sure that it is only a matter of time before Mr. Z brings about his own judgement. He will fall by his own hand of stupidity. In the same way O.J. brought about his own judgement, Mr. Z will undoubtedly bring about his. (By the way, O. J. was another person who I was sure was guilty right up to the time I watched the trial and then flip flopped. Remember, all the defense has to do is to raise the slightest doubt and the accused walks. A good defense attorney is a wizard at raising that doubt.) Nevertheless, I firmly believe that you can escape the imperfect judgement of men rather easily; but, you can never escape the truth that lies in your own heart.
PS Please don't ask me about my experience with O. J. That was a really long time ago and I don't remember the details. All I remember was that my opinion was changed. I tend not to let emotions get in the way of my opinions. I try to be as objective as possible. In that way, my opinions are easy to change when the given facts change. I hate to admit I was wrong; but, I hate being wrong even more.
Agents are not simply concealment these ways from the defense attorneys representing alleged criminals, they are concealing truth supply of data from prosecutors and judges moreover.
Online News Point
According to Reuters, some specialists say that this follow violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a good trial, because it prevents those defendant of against the law from accurately difficult the validity of the proof given against them. Former federal decide metropolis Gertner same, “It is one factor to form special rules for national security. standard crime is totally different. It appears like [these law enforcement agency agents ar phonying up investigations.” Latest Pakistan News
Of course we're still friends, Marc, but we'll just have to disagree on this one. And I strongly disagree. In other people's homes, on their TV screens, I caught glimpses of the Zimmerman trial. I also read articles about it as well as hearing Democracy Now's version of the story. The fact is, Mr. Z was a disaster waiting to happen. This man had a long history of violent behavior, includng domestic violence. Even after the asshole was aquitted, the violence didn't stop. During some kind of family squabble, he punched his father-in-law in the face. His wife, last I heard, was suing for divorce. This guy is nothing but trouble. He is clearly a bully and a predator, as well as a racist; just your all-around trouble magnet.
Mr. Z stalked that kid, who tried to get away from him, at least initially. I guess it's kinda hard to outrun an SUV, or whatever Mr. Z was driving that night. Frankly Marc, I think it's incredible that you'd be so judgmental of what a 17 year old kid would do while caught in such a scary, threatening encounter as this, at no fault of his own, after being hunted down like some sort of game animal by this predator. Mister Z somehow decided Trayvon was a criminal... Based on what? Walking while black, in a gated neighborhood?! Just mindless knee-jerk assumptions of Mr. Z's, that a black teenager didn't "belong" in that particular neighborhood, and therefore had to be up to no good. Assumptions based on nothing. And let's not forget all those phone calls Mr. Z made to the police, before killing Trayvon, when they told him to back off and leave the kid alone; advice Mr. Z chose to disregard. Innocent, my foot. Had Zimmerman taken the advice of the police in the first place, Trayvon would still be alive.
Anyway Marc, there is simply no way you're going to convince me that stalking a perfect stranger at night without provocation, then confronting him with a gun, didn't amount to premeditation. I don't know every miniscule detail of the case, or who took the first swing; no one really does. But no doubt, Trayvon was terrified. Who wouldn't be?! Whatever he did during that fatal encounter had to have been in panic, a futile effort at self defense. As I see it, Trayvon did absolutely nothing to cause his death.
I totally get it, Marc, how the media exploits these cases without giving a flippin' damn about black people. I see how racism gets used as just another wedge issue by the corporate media, along with abortion, gay marriage, guns and so forth, all to keep us distracted, divided and clueless while the oligarchs plunder away. But that doesn't change the fact that for black teenagers nowadays, this country remains an unsafe place to live, a virtual war zone. Black kids in America are way more likely to end up dead by violent means or in jail than their white counterparts. Maybe this is a symptom of a much bigger problem, rather than an isolated issue. But it deserves to be acknowledged by us white folks honestly and with due respect; certainly not trivialized as less-than-urgent, or minimized in any way.
Guess I'm talked out for now. Anyway Marc, we don't have to agree all the time. You're still one of my favorite blog buddies. Life goes on... (SIGH) - Aliceinwonderland
Aliceinwonderland ~ That's a long story. Here goes. When I first heard the story I, like most people, assumed George Zimmerman was guilty of a hate crime. Everything the media said suggested that was an open and shut case. (To tell you the truth at first I did my best to avoid the story and participating in discussions about it because quite frankly senseless racial violence makes me sick to my stomach.)
One day I had the task of taking my vehicle in for regular maintenance. The appointment was early in the morning and I made the mistake of not bringing a book with me. While I sat in the waiting room the television was broadcasting the trial of George Zimmerman. I was stuck watching it for two and a half hours. During that time I heard enough evidence to convince me that Zimmerman was innocent. That is innocent of cold blooded premeditated murder. I thought he was guilty of aggravated manslaughter. His main mistake began when he got out of his vehicle and pursued the "suspect." Unfortunately, other than being stupid that isn't really a crime; yet, it is enough for me to discount the "self defense" claim.
The defense, with the recorded evidence and witness testimony provided, did an excellent job of proving that Trayvon physically attacked Zimmerman after Zimmerman confronted him. After they did that I realized that Zimmerman was going to walk. Watching the trial changed my opinion 180 degrees. Remember, originally I--like you--assumed Zimmerman was guilty as charged. Unlike many people I made that assumption on the facts that were presented to me. I firmly believe that many of the people who believe he was guilty wanted to believe he was guilty. They wanted a scapegoat. They wanted blood for blood. They didn't care about the facts. Go back and listen to some of the posts here on that topic. Some insisted that everyone lied and made up their own likely scenarios that had nothing to do with the facts, reality, or logic. And that door swung both ways too. Many people I've spoke with that believed Zimmerman was innocent didn't have a clue as to why as well. It was just because he was white and that was the color they were betting on. It was really quite an amazing Cultural phenominon. Loren Bliss's Moron Nation. That's why most of the people I've discussed what I've learned with don't want to hear or believe the facts. They already know "the truth" and don't need any facts to cloud that. Very disturbing; although, in many ways, I can see where they are coming from. Nevertheless Alice, I think that I can assure you that if you were to see the evidence in that courtroom like I did, with your objective mind, you would have changed your mind too.
Like I said before--Zimmerman was guilty of aggravated manslaughter. I don't know if I would have called it self defense because he had no business getting out of his car in the first place. It wasn't like he was walking home minding his own business when Trayvon attacked him--it was he who was chasing Trayvon. If I was on the jury I wouldn't have bought the "stand your ground" defense in this case. You don't chase a man with a gun and end up shooting him when he confronts and attacks you and not call that a crime. However, it certainly wasn't premeditated first degree murder by any means. Perhaps I was mistaken if I had said he was completely innocent. Sorry for the misunderstanding. In my opinion he was only innocent of the charges against him.
Of course I do understand how the system can tie the hands of the jury. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. It is a handicap that is designed to protect the wrongfully accused from the full fury of the system. It is truly a shame that the system doesn't equally protect everyone like it did Zimmerman; especially, in the case of black men. That is a fact that is irrefutable. In this case the jury was walking a very thin line between jurisprudence, lack of solid evidence, racial tension, and revenge. Considering the circumstances, I think they did a fairly good job.
In the end, this tragedy was the result of two people who both made bad decisions that were to some degree or another quite probably fueled by racial tension. Racism is a form of hatred; and, hatred of any kind has a way of making people stupid. If Trayvon did the smart and logical thing like run as fast as he could to his relatives house he would still be alive. If George thought clearly, stayed in his car and waited for the police Trayvon would still be alive. To be brutally honest turning to confront a stranger in the dark at night is just as stupid as Zimmerman getting out of his car. Sometimes it takes two to tango.
In that light, I can also say that in the recent case Ranisha was no angel either. Driving around after smoking weed with three times the legal limit of alcohol in her system showed that she had little respect for human life as well. What would have happened if she ran over and killed some innocent people with her car that night? It was very possible you know. She did crash her car. I suggest we all remember that little fact when the media tries to turn this story into a circus frenzy of racial hatred. I hope and pray that doesn't happen. I've seen enough protest on the streets about stupidity and not enough about tyranny. (By the way, the mere fact that the media actually covered the Trayvon Martin riots and protest should send up a red flag that the whole story was a Red Herring.) Oh, well, enough of blaming the victims. I really hate to do that. Makes me feel like the very people I detest. I hope that answer wasn't too shocking. Still friends?
I truly hope your right Alice. time will tell.
Kend, your constant rants about how much healthcare is going to cost us have gotten SO OLD. Again, it is willful ignorance, and neither I nor Marc or Mark S. will let you get away with it.
If you really wanna know how we can pay for healthcare in this country, try reading the excellent article Marc posted about a week ago, on that very subject. I'll include it here for your convenience:
An article by Physicians For A National Health Care Program
"Medicare for All" would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study wrote: Upgrading the nation’s Medicare program and expanding it to cover people of all ages would yield more than a half-trillion dollars in efficiency savings in its first year of operation, enough to pay for high-quality, comprehensive health benefits for all residents of the United States at a lower cost to most individuals, families and businesses.
That’s the chief finding of a new fiscal study by Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. There would even be money left over to help pay down the national debt, he said.
"Medicare for All" would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study wrote: Friedman says his analysis shows that a nonprofit single-payer system based on the principles of the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, H.R. 676, introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., and co-sponsored by 45 other lawmakers, would save an estimated $592 billion in 2014. That would be more than enough to cover all 44 million people the government estimates will be uninsured in that year and to upgrade benefits for everyone else.
“No other plan can achieve this magnitude of savings on health care,” Friedman said.
"Medicare for All" would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study wrote: “These savings would be more than enough to fund $343 billion in improvements to our health system, including the achievement of truly universal coverage, improved benefits, and the elimination of premiums, co-payments and deductibles, which are major barriers to people seeking care,” he said.
"Medicare for All" would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study wrote: Over the next decade, the system’s savings from reduced health inflation (“bending the cost curve”), thanks to cost-control methods such as negotiated fees, lump-sum payments to hospitals, and capital planning, would amount to an estimated $1.8 trillion.
"Medicare for All" would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study wrote: Friedman said the plan would be funded by maintaining current federal revenues for health care and imposing new, modest tax increases on very high income earners. It would also be funded by a small increase in payroll taxes on employers, who would no longer pay health insurance premiums, and a new, very small tax on stock and bond transactions.
“Such a financing scheme would vastly simplify how the nation pays for care, restore free choice of physician, guarantee all necessary medical care, improve patient health and, because it would be financed by a program of progressive taxation, result in 95 percent of all U.S. households saving money,” Friedman said.
Friedman’s findings are consistent with other research showing large savings from a single-payer plan. Single-payer fiscal studies by other economists, such as Kenneth E. Thorpe (2005), have arrived at similar conclusions, as have studies conducted by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accountability Office in the early 1990s. Other studies have documented the administrative efficiency and other benefits of Canada’s single-payer system in comparison with the current U.S. system.
Friedman’s research was commissioned by Physicians for a National Health Program, a nonprofit research and educational organization of more than 18,000 doctors nationwide, which wanted to find out how much a single-payer system would cost today and how it could be financed.
Alice...Thank you.
Blessed be.
Loren
How is it that some people can work 16 hours a day and still find time to participate in these blogs? I work 0 hours a day, because I am retired, although I have other things to do ...but nothing like dedicating 16 hours a day actually working. The employers would all be nothing if they didn't have their employees to make money for them.
Employers need to get off their high horses and egoistical and egotistical, self-congratulatory, braggadocio pulpits and fess up to the fact that none of them would be worth "spit" if it wasn't for their employees making all the money for them. But "spit" is just about what the employers want to contribute to their worker's well-beings. Just because someone "gets lucky" in getting an offer that puts them into a position of controlling others in the endeavor of making money doesn't mean that they are especially worthy of it any more than any of his/her peons are. He is only "just luckier than they are". And don't think your employees don't know this already. It's something they won't tell you up front. But they know. It's what they are thinking but won't say to your face. They'd likely get fired.
Makes one wonder why the secretaries are not the CEOs or owners of some businesses instead of the simpletons who hires them. Much of it has to do with various things like a super ego, good luck, being in the right place at the right time with the right ambitions, being calculating and devious, and perhaps even being lucky enough to inherit enough money to get started in running one's incipient empire.
Loren, the feeling's mutual. As to your name, Loren it is, from now on.
Namaste. - AIW
DAnne, seriously are you kidding me. First of all people in bigger house pay for the infrastructure when they buy the house then they pay more property taxes. So you know weathly people don't use the bathroom more. Just because I make more doesn't mean I have a bigger responsibility to the commons. That's what you want And believe. I do believe in the more you make the more you pay but there should be a cap of about 35%, here in Canada we have a 50% cap a little highrr than I lIke but then again we get FREE health care.
I guess every time this comes up it bothers me that anyone thinks there are untitled to my hard earned money. It just doesn't seem right to me.
what is missing now a days is because we pay soooooo much in taxes not as many people donate there time and money. Most feel they gave enough through there taxes. Here in Alberta all of our air ambulances are funded with donations Nobody pays for those rides. I personally donate every year to them because I believe in it. When I bitch about taxes it isn't the roads and healthcare I am bitching about it is one of 500 government "department of we don't need it" I hate paying for. I am tired of money tax dollars to stupid studies we don't need. They just did one on if teenagers drink will they be more likely to have sex. Come every teen age boy knows the answer to that.
Alice...No need to apologize for "such length" when it's as thought-provoking as your posts invariably are.
Your point about Mr. Hartmann's explorations of the psycholinguistic manipulation used against ACA is a good one. But because those disclosures appear in the context of a far greater Big Lie -- specifically the concealment of how Obama betrayed supporters of the public option -- they merely identify Mr. Hartmann's piece as the very best, most skillful sort of propaganda, which acquires its potency by including large elements of truth. While I knew Mr. Hartmann was certainly more favorable toward the president than I am -- I often refer to the presidential shape-shift as a transition "from Obama the Orator to Barack the Betrayer" -- I was frankly shocked by the ACA article. It was only after I read it a second time (to make certain I had not somehow misunderstood) that it occurred to me to describe it as "toadying."
Nevertheless, however one chooses to describe its flagrant untruthfulness, I think its greater significance is as the opening gun of the 2014 congressional election campaign. What it tells us is how that campaign will be waged -- with a combination of brazen lies and total avoidance of the real issue, which is specifically how capitalism, unfettered by the death of the Soviet Union and the co-optation of China, no longer makes any effort to conceal its Ayn Rand savagery. The result -- the total subjugation of the USian people (methodically worsening poverty combined with the equally methodical destruction of the socioeconomic safety net and the imposition of a fascist police state Heinrich Himmler would envy) -- has so terrified and enraged the electorate, they are sure to do what they did in 2010: vote for the Republicans merely in the hope the new devil might be a little better than the old devil. Had the Democrats not turned "change we can believe in" into the biggest Big Lie in USian political history -- had they kept even one of Obama the Orator's three main promises (single payer/public option health insurance; passage of the Employee Free Choice Act; restoration of our constitutional rights) -- 2010 would have been a Democratic landslide instead of a Republican blitzkrieg.
The only way the Democrats could win the 2014 campaign is by proposing resurrection of the New Deal, but their corporate masters will not allow that, so their only alternative is to hide their infinity of betrayals beneath a smokescreen of lies -- precisely the methodology implicit in Mr. Hartmann's ACA piece. Meanwhile the Republicans present themselves as the party of the wrecking ball -- "vote the bastards out." When there is no other alternative, when the only certainty is that life will get infinitely worse no matter who is elected -- the Samson option of pulling down the temple (even on one's own head) becomes profoundly appealing, witness 2010.
Having lived for a long while in rural Washington state, I know the Samson-option logic all too well: "Ain't a nickel's worth of difference between the two parties anymore, which means we're gonna get fucked whoever wins. So we might as well vote Republican. At least they'll let us keep our guns."
To understand such sentiments, one needs to recognize that firearms in the rural U.S. -- where law-enforcement response times can run up to an hour, where the presence of bears and cougars place humans below the top of the food chain, and where one 40-cent .30-'06 round can kill the deer, elk or moose that will keep a family in meat for up to an entire year -- are still vital survival tools. In other words, especially given the Democratic Party's repeated attempts to impose forcible civilian disarmament, the seemingly self-defeating votes of the rural working class for the Republican candidates are in fact votes to retain the ultimate means of survival -- something urban Democrats and other such progressives repeatedly fail to comprehend.
In this context, the only other option is the creation of a truly viable third party -- a socialist party with (A)-a platform that recognizes the concerns of the urban proletariat and the rural peasantry* are all equally valid and (B)-the ability to explain itself with the eloquent simplicity sufficient to mobilize the most maliciously dumbed-down population in human history. But of course the Ruling Class, with its total-surveillance secret-police apparatus, will never allow such a party to come into being. Thus the very best we voters can do is vote for one of the existing third parties merely as an act of protest, recognizing as we vote that if the party had any real potential for success, the Ruling Class would order its destruction forthwith.
Disclosure: I too voted for Obama twice and with the same lesser-of-two-evils rationale. But I now realize the Democratic Party is truly beyond redemption -- that it can never be liberated from its Wall Street captivity. Hence in future presidential elections I will either vote for a third party candidate -- probably Socialist Workers -- or write in "none of the above."
By the way, Alice: "Mr. Bliss" was my father; I'm just plain Loren. That said, thank you for your part in the most energizing Internet discussion I've had in many years; like you, I am delighted when responses require real thinking. Thanks again!
_________
*With the death of family farms and the displacement of tens of thousands of full-time agricultural workers by machinery, there is in fact a new USian peasantry that survives on subsistence agriculture, hunting, fishing, odd jobs, food stamps, etc. I have no idea how large it is, but I can attest to its reality. Whatever the numbers involved, the new peasantry adds to the existing USian peasantry of migrant agricultural workers and First Nations peoples.
Marc, that's an excellent, well-thought-out reply. You make many valid points. In fact, there's virtually nothing in that long post I can see to argue with. So please let me explain where I was coming from, and what fueled the kind of response I'd given your previous post. I'll keep this as brief as I can.
What fueled my agitation was remembering a post you'd made months ago, during my sabbatical from this blog. Even when I wasn't participating, I still would take occasional peeks just to see what y'all were up to. Sometime last spring or maybe earlier, you'd stated you thought Zimmerman was innocent. It made my head explode. Not only that, it completely baffled me.
That aside, Marc, I still agree with everything said in your last response. Should you choose to explain what convinced you of Zimmerman's "innocence", I'd be very interested in what you have to say. But I'm not trying to make it mandatory. We're on the same page most of the time anyway. - Aliceinwonderland
Mr. Bliss, I see what you mean, how Thom Hartmann characterizes the ACA and its origin. As Thom describes it, you'd think the ACA was a robust, honest effort of Obama's to "curb" the evils of for-profit healthcare "insurance". Yeah right. I too am at odds with that interpretation.
Months before Obama was first elected, while he was still running for office, the Hightower Lowdown had an article describing in detail the amount of money the health insurance industry had poured into his campaign. This caught my attention at the time. I vividly recall not having a good feeling about it.
I want you to understand, Mr. Bliss, that I am no Obama fan. Yes I voted for him twice, but not with any real enthusiasm; only because I felt trapped into voting the lesser evil, in this rigged two-party system we have. I've had many serious issues with Obama and do not trust him as our president. I do not share Thom's apparent faith in Obama's motives behind the ACA.
To illustrate my point, I'll never forget this video clip we watched on Democracy Now, during the heat of that 2009 healthcare debate. It showed Obama's speech where he attempted to justify establishing ACA instead of universal single-payer. Here was our "yes-we-can" president preaching all this jive shit like "We can't tear it down and start over from scratch!" and blah-blah-blah... as if expanding Medicare to cover everybody, cradle to grave, was somehow equivalent to reinventing the wheel. President Obama must have known full well that expanding an already existing tax-supported system would hardly be "starting from scratch"! (Or however he worded it at the time.)
But what really stands out in my memory of this interlude was Obama's body language, which in this case I observed in his facial expression throughout that speech. It's a certain slack-jawed look people get when they're jiving you. It can be quite subtle. Yet to me it is so obvious, as it was in this instance. As I watched the president giving that speech I remember thinking, "You bastard!" Of course, after that Lowdown article, I wasn't exactly shocked. But it sure was a disgusting thing to watch. "Yes we can" had morphed into "No we can't", and it was nothing but horse shit. It certainly failed to convince me that this president was on our side, that he really believed people's health should trump the interests of private profit in his policy decisions. Looking at this man's face right then, I saw right through the facade. What I saw was the face of a bullshitter (or "betrayer", as you'd prefer it said).
I'll never forget the facial expression of another black man, younger and darker than the president, sitting in the audience's front row just a few feet from where Obama stood. Throughout that lame-ass speech, he looked so bewildered. Oh if only I'd been there with a camera! It was priceless. Looked like he could hardly believe the bull crap spewing out of Obama's mouth. I'd say the odds are, this young man voted for him too.
To me, it was disappointing but hardly an ah-ha moment, observing all this. Given Obama's track record, I'd have been more surprised had the president showed some spine and stood up to the insurance "industry" in our behalf. No such luck. So here we are stuck with the ACA instead of single payer, due (at least in part) to the fact that our "yes-we-can" president was already bought'n paid for by the health insurance industry... before he was even elected!
I get that, Lauren. Barak the betrayer.
I agree, Mr. Hartmann cuts Obama more slack than you or I, in his judgment of him as well as the ACA. Still, I think it's taking quite a leap to then conclude from this that Thom is a "toadie" for Obama. Here is where our points of view diverge. I can't judge Thom H. so harshly for this oversight as you do. And far as the question of "royalist" versus "capitalist" is concerned, it's a non-issue, simply a matter of terminology. They both mean the same thing, referencing the elite robber barrons. Roosevelt used the term "Royalist" and not to his discredit. He must have been doing something right because the corporate fascists planned a coup against him... which, fortunately for our parents and grandparents, never came to fruition. Anyway that, and not the American Revolution, is what the term "royalist" brings to mind, for me at least.
As for Thom's article, most of it rings true; again, at least for me it does. Under that emboldened heading "Fox News Gets In The Game", Thom does an excellent job identifying, describing and analyzing those relentlessly insidious word games, played by corporate fascists to a gullible audience of low-information media consumers to get them up in arms against the public option. Made me crazy, just those glimpses we got on Democracy Now back then. Anyway under the aforementioned heading, Thom highlights how craftily designed the corporate media's messages were; how they took bits & pieces of reality - like death panels, which are real, and that labyrinth of bureaucracy, just as real, that everyone fears and hates - and in their propaganda, turned it around to sound as though healthcare reformists somehow invented these evil rotten tactics; the very abuses the public suffers from now, a direct consequence of the monopoly these parasites have on our healthcare system! Even with no basis in logic, such lies are not a hard sell on those fed a steady diet of craftily designed corporate drivel. Thom does a beautiful job pointing out tactics used by the corporate fascist noise machine to distract & placate the public, handily misleading an audience largely comprised of a citizenry so ignorant, so utterly brainwashed, one need only replace the word "public" with the word "government" to get them to reject something they could otherwise have supported. I saw it with my own eyes and knew what these master manipulators were up to. It was exactly as Thom describes it. I vividly recall how crazy-making it was, witnessing all that.
There's one other thing I would change, other than Thom's general take on the ACA. I wish he would avoid referring to people as "consumers" in the context of healthcare. That's the language of corporatists who want us all getting used to viewing healthcare as a business, rather than as a public service, a necessity that belongs in the commons. As Thom himself points out, in that same article, there's much power of influence to be had just in one's choice of words.
As to the reality about the ACA, we can at least take heart that some people get it. For example, the very first post to appear in the blog following Thom's article, which reads as follows: "Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but hadn't Obama already made a backdoor behind-the-scenes deal with the health insurance industry not to include a public option, all the while leaving Nancy Pelosi swinging in the wind when she declared a public option to be an essential part of the health care bill?" Uh-huh.
Sorry to have gone at such length. I get carried away at times. With you it's easy, as it is with anyone who makes me think. Been fun swapping notes with you. - Aliceinwonderland
Kend ~ Again, you are mistaken. The more money you make in wages the greater demand and responsibility you have for the commons. Perhaps 90% could be negotiated. Anything above 50% at a certain level will have the desired effect. Higher personal income also drains the commons at a faster rate then lower income. A person living in a studio apartment in the ghetto doesn't use the sewer, street maintenance, lighting, garbage, and police patrols like someone living in a 5 bedroom house in a wealthy residential neighborhood. You know I can't for the life of me understand what goes through the mind of someone like you. Do you have no concept of how lucky you are and how dependant you, your family, and your property is on the commons? My father would routinely work overtime to get into your level of income. Then he would have a cow when he got his paycheck and saw the majority of the pay increase disappear as a result of his higher tax bracket. It would force a normal man to settle for regular time work; thus, increase the demand for the labor force. (ie create jobs.) Unfortunately my father wasn't an "normal" man. Neither are you. Like you higher taxes did nothing to stop him from going back for more. You want to work that much harder then you have to shoulder the tax burden that comes with the higher pay. So does everyone else. My father accepted it. Why can't you? Get used to it. Stop whining like a school girl. Very immature!
Kend ~ That is the most short-sighted, greedy, and clueless question I have ever heard. I don't benefit from your hard work, society does. Are you telling me that your only motivation for putting in those long hours is to fill your pockets? You feel no need whatsoever to serve your community? You don't even feel that you owe anything to the society that has made your wealth possible? If so it amazes me that you have been able to run a successful company because putting yourself in you customers shoes is an essential skill required for success. Kend, you are obviously drinking the Reich Wing Kool Aide that claims that every man is an island and it's every man for themselves. Wake up my friend. You live in a society; and, whether you want to admit it or not, you depend on that society for every nano bit of sustenance in your life. The fact of the matter is that every penny you pay in taxes comes right back to you in services and resources that make your lifestyle possible. Wake up and smell the coffee--you are not an island, and if you were truly left to fend for yourself you would be dead before sunset.
Kend ~ Now it is you who are confusing business with personal taxes.
Kend ~ You are right! People like me do need people like you. However, you need people like me far more than people like me need people like you. The last thing people like me need are greedy parasites who suck up our limited resources and money and don't want to pay their fair share of the burden. We need people like you who are willing to carry their own weight. People like you--who are really like you--we need like we need a hole in the head.
Kend ~ Oh, boo hoo! The owner of our company pays more than $1K/mo for coverage per employee and that doesn't even come close to what you get with your tax contribution. Nothing you've mentioned is covered with our coverage either Our employees have had a $5K deductible to pay for any service. That includes simple office visits and all the other services that you take for granted. Fortunately that debacle is ending with the ACA and our new insurance is a bit more practical. We are told that thanks to the ACA the quality of coverage should increase while the price should decrease in the future. The owner of our company doesn't whine about any of this much worse situation than what you are talking about. Of course he is a man about it and not a sniveling little brat.
The contents of the ACA. Where released just a few weeks before the vote. Hardly enough time to read it properly before the vote. It didn't matter what was in it they would have passed it anyway. Didn't Nancy Pelosi say you have to pass it to find out what is in it.
you are going to get your universal health though no matter how many lies where told to get you to vote for it. I warned you, if you think health care is expense just wait until it's free. The bottom line is everyone will have health care. i have to admit something had to be done it is crazy that everyone wasnt covered. I am just saying you have no idea what that is going to cost you. That is if you are working of course. If your not it is truly free.
Kend, try a different subterfuge, surely you can do better than that. You couldn't begin to compare ACA to TFPP. ACA was negotiated and worked out openly. The media reported on its progress constantly. The information was available for the public to access and the media reported on it and it was passed only after much negotiating with Congress. Anybody who didn't know about it just didn't bother to look or didn't even listen to the news.
The contents of TPP aren't even revealed to MEMBERS OF CONGRESS and, yeah, it's hard for you to comment on something you know nothing about, it's hard for Congress to critically appraise and negotiate and approve or disapprove of something they know nothiong about and it's hard for the American (or Canadian) people to give consent to something they know nothing about.
The fact that noone knows anything about it, if nothing else, IS the issue regardless of the contents and any reasonable person would have to conclude that there must be something very not kosher with the contents for it to be kept so quiet.
Anything else, Kend?
The TPP is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever devised (because it's being written by the big transnational companies), and it prompted me to write formal letters to my senators and congressional representative. I also phoned their offices and sent individual email messages to them. It has to be stopped.
Sadly, it shows that President Obama is a corporatist at heart and that he doesn't care about democracy. Either that, or he's hopelessly out of touch with what's going on.
This guy from the Caller, getting some face time here, is a new face in bullshit artistry. His job clearly is to mislead and confuse the public. What a transparent fraud.
DAnne. You are doing what you get mad at me for. If you are talking about business taxes that is a whole new animal. I was talking about personal taxes. I personally don't use anything anymore than anyone else. Why does paying more taxes come with the territory. That is my whole argument . Why should you benefit from my hard work.
As far as business taxes believe me I pay. I pay for a business licence , corporate taxes, a racking permit, fire inspection permit, sprinkler permit, corprorate vehicle inspections, corperate vehicle plates, hydraulic inspecttion permits, higher utility rates for corporations,, dangerous goods permit, don't even get me started on the accounts I have to pay for just to count the money I make.
what I have learned on this blog is although the left hates people like me. You need me. You need me to risk ever thing I owned and work endless hours to subsadise you so you can go to your 7.4 hour a day jobs with your 5 weeks holidays. you need me to worry all night long so you dont have to. But it is just never enough. You have the RIGHT to everythiing I have and you won't be happy until you get everything I have. 90% of my money at any level is insane.
As far as Canadian universal health care. I pay for that in the massive taxes I pay. We all do as we should. the government does make any money they just spend Ours. I also pay about $200 per employee per month for addition coverage. Remember we just have basic care from our provinces. That doesn't cover meds, eye care, dental, ambulance, etc. most Americans think we get free health care here it isn't free unless you don't work.