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.
For some strange reason, both my "choices" are "Yes! no taxation without representation!". Yes, they should be a state and have a vote even though the "votes" are rigged against them getting a "representative" who's not "Owned" by big coroprations and some very wealthy people. The working class has virtually no representation in this government.
The "choices" offered here are just like those I see at "votting" time, no real choice at all.
I must say, I thought this was a pretty interesting read when it comes to this topic. Liked the material. . . . . ESPANOL
Black man? The guy's a half breed, like most of us. I think he played that like a fiddle. A real "soul brother" would certainly have had more empathy for the plight of the poor.
Outback ~ Agreed. But I'll go one further. I think the reason a black man was allowed to enter the white house was to give the Republicans a leader that they would appear to be justified in intimidating and bullying to the point of getting away with treason. I don't think the Republicans hate him because he's black, I think the love him because he's black.
Unfortunately, I foresaw this possibility when he first announced his candidacy. I said, I'd love to see a black man in office; but, now is not the right time. We need someone who has the full support of everyone; and is not easily intimidated. A black man in the white house is something I always wanted to see. I guess I made a bad compromise. At least I'm glad to hear I wasn't alone.
Philip Henderson - I'm certain you're right when you state "I think the problem the Republicans are really stuck on is having a black man in the White House". In fact I'll go so far as to say that a lot of white independents and Democrats are struggling with their own prejudice. I can tell you though, that as an old white guy in a red state I voted for your man, and I'm sorry to say, I've watched him piss it all away. I don't attribute that to race - just individual character. I'll tell you straight up that I abhor bigotry, and think anyone stupid enough to stand in the way of the inevitable changes that have taken place in this country since MLK will be steamrolled. But the real issue here is whether we will collectively make good decisions going forward. We haven't so far.
Palindromedary ~ When I buy Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) I don't even assume it's chicken.
akunard ~ Great point! The issue of slavery should have been dealt with before the Constitution was ratified. States with slavery should never have been invited into the union until slavery was abolished. What a boneheaded mistake our founding fathers made just to save time and pass the buck onto the next generation. Shame on them.
What hypocrisy as well to allow slavery under the jurisdiction of the Bill of Rights. Thats a total of 71 years of the Constitution not being enforced and the States were allowed to violate Federal law. Some precedent! 71 years of unconstitutional slavery and some people here think the States never got to do their own thing? It is the Fed that cherry picks what laws it wants to enforce and which ones it wants to ignore. The ability of the Fed to do this is at will is the problem!
Anyone who buys Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) doesn't assume that Colonel Sanders actually prepared and cooked it for them do they? The same could be said of blogs like this one. I suspect that whoever actually posts the blog is not actually the one whose name is on it. I think both of the Hartmanns would be very much more careful about the spelling errors and grammatical mistakes that we often see. But, of course, I could be wrong. I imagine that Thom and Louise are both pretty busy with their main television shows and would farm out their blog to some lowly employees... whose name we may never know.
You need to see the movie "Lincoln" those functional idiots out voted and bought off the Democrats in order to free the slaves. And I bet that is a fact that PhilpHenderson does not like.
If states dont want want fedral law, maybe they shouldnt get federal funds either.Just sayin
historywriter wrote ~ "Federal law has since 1789 trumped state law. ALWAYS. It's been repeatedly upheld."
That's true. However, that flawed stipulation in the constitution lead to a bloody Civil War in less than a century; and, history is on the precipice to repeat itself. All over the same mistake. If anything in the Constitution has to change The States need more jurisdiction over themselves. Federal law must remain supreme when it involves enforcing the Bill of Rights, Civil Rights, Equal Rights, Commerce, Public Welfare, and the General Defense; but, thats it. The Fed exists mainly to defend the individual from organized powers. The States, Counties, and Cities should be able to Govern all other Public Affairs as they see fit. Without the Authority to do so these agencies become ineffective in their charge to Govern. Too much centralized power weakens the Union and does not strengthen it.
Thousands of years of Roman Empire history trumps two centuries of American history.
Thom attracts people who think for themselves and don't blindly agree with anything he says. I doubt he would want it any other way. He's not always right you know.
Here are a couple of thoughts on the "gun control" issue. I hope those of you out there that frame the whole question as one of "gun nuts" versus responsible citizens favoring sensible limits on the instruments of death - period, will try to get your heads around.
First, the issue of familiarity. Let me begin by explaining that I currently live in a rural state (Idaho) but that I was born and raised in a different environment (Seattle). So I made a conscious transition thirty five years ago from a person that was totally unfamiliar and unexperienced with fire arms to somebody quite comfortable around them. This second phase represents almost half of my lifetime. I evolved from a "city guy", a little nervous around guns, to a person quite at home with the concept. Why? I moved to the woods, well away from the presumed protection of law enforcement because, as a practical matter, it doesn't exist in rural communities, at least as a deterrent to crime.
I have to tell you that I was even more freaked out by my first chain saw, but when I realized that it couldn't hurt me unless I did something really stupid, I got used to that too. One of the things that seemed obvious to me was that if I had guns in the house, my kids should be educated as to their destructive potential. For that reason I conducted my own firearms safety course with my four kids. We would go out behind the house, one on one, and blow up 2 liter coke bottles filled with water with my 30-06 hunting rifle. They'd do the shooting. I'd point out the shock waves in the plastic shards to them. Then we'd shoot a fresh head of cabbage and watch it explode into confetti. I'd explain that this is basically what would happen to a human skull if hit with that kind of energy. This exercise was critical, I feel, to the respect they developed for the awesome destructive potential of fire arms. Not a one of them was ever at risk, I feel, of picking up one of dad's guns and playing with it. None of my kids turned into a hunter (and neither did I). My two youngest boys today own fire arms and the older of the two Is a target shooting enthusiast and an expert at reloading ammunition, something I got him into. I don't see anything "nutty" about any of this. And I want to assure you that I was always far more paranoid about that chain saw, when it came to letting the kids use it, than I was about guns.
OK, so are you thinking "yeah, this guy handed a deadly weapon to his kids and has inured them to the implications of guns as killing machines"? Well let me ask you if you're a little more comfy handing the keys to your family sedan to your sixteen year old? If you are, I suspect the whole thing boils down to your comfort level with automobiles. The idea of a two ton vehicle hurtling through space at a hundred feet per second isn't somehow intrinsically frightening because, after all, cars weren't invented to kill people. Nonetheless, something on the order of 35,000 deaths occur each year from automobile accidents, many of which can be ascribed to things like alcohol, road rage, texting ....
Think about it. Is your visceral response to guns and gun violence logical, or maybe just a tad emotional? And can you possibly see the position of people who view guns as just another tool without demonizing them as fanatics?
John Bauerie wrote ~ "Was it not Reagen that took away funding for and closed the mental institutions, putting these people on the street."
You are absolutely right, my friend. Addressing this issue is the first thing the Government should be doing to address this problem. Immediately jumping on the gun control bandwagon makes about the same amount of sense as attacking Iraq for the actions of citizens of Saudi Arabia. Give me a break! Who can blame the Red States for seeing this as an assault on their civil liberties. Hell, its an assault on all of our civil liberties.
It does nothing to solve the original problem; that, as you've stated so well, was created by President Ronald Reagan. If you ask me this whole charade is nothing more than a clever shell game just like you said, probably with an agenda so well put out by LorenBliss a few posts ago; destroy the union, and blame it on the radical, trigger happy teabrains and a black President. Vilify the Red States, confiscate all guns in a mock revolt, divide, conquer and dominate the whole country under Corporate run territories, and reap the profits of a police run slave labor state. The big problem. I think its a bad bet they could pull that off. I think they will learn the people aren't as stupid as they think. The powers that be are so removed from common reality they live in a fantasy dream world. I think their fantasy bubble is going to burst some day!
Thom and Louise: How do you attract these people? What is it, they come aboard to bash your views, believing somehow their facts are truer than yours and their opinions and history are more accurate or something.
Federal law has since 1789 trumped state law. ALWAYS. It's been repeatedly upheld. The states cannot do something that is unconstitutional and get away with it. If Mississippi decided to make their people of color three/fifths of a person again, they can't. The Constitution overrides them. The gentleman who claims that the feds are usurping states' rights--they are fading away--is simply wrong. There has been no "fading away"; this is the way the Constitution has set it up and it has been upheld many times.
Here's one remark by somebody: "Obama and company are using every trick in the book to come down on law abiding gun owners and dealers, knowing full well that this won't make one bit of a difference in the illegal procurement and use of fire arms."
What are those tricks? Oh, and you forgot to mention that he's trying to take your guns away. Although he hasn't shown one iota of interest in doing so and has repeatedly affirmed that the 2nd Amendment gives the populace the right to bear arms. The right of anyone to bear any kind of arms and guns and assault weapons for whatever reason without anyone checking to see if they are criminals, terrorists (I believe the NRA forbid the government from taking guns away from terrorists), mentally ill, wildly insane, mentally retarded, felons -- I don't know that any category of person is restrained. The 2nd amendment is ambiguous at best; it refers to a well regulated militia. That sure doesn't sound like any of you guys, out freelancing with guns and ammunition. I get the feeling you are not well regulated about anything. And you should go back and read Thom's column on what the "well-regulated militia" REALLY meant in those times--a euphemistic way for states to allow local governments to keep blacks and slaves powerless and terrified.
There's so much more. As a historian, I recommend you go back and read REAL history--not the stuff the NRA feeds you (by the way, Hitler DID NOT take away Germans' guns when he was elected)>
Residents in DC should have representatives in Congress. I don't know if it being it's own state is the way, or if the residents should be rolled in to VIrginia and Maryland for residents and voting rights.
I support these Red States bucking the Feds. The Federal Government is wrong in it's attempts to restrict guns. It doesn't even address the problems rationally. By pursuing this course of action they do give the impression that they have a hidden agenda to take our guns away. The Federal Government is attempting to violate its own Constitution and the Red States are saying they won't go for it. Good for them.
The problem with managing a huge sprawling Empire like the United States is delegating authority. The Roman Empire did this masterfully and lasted centuries. Leaders have to realize that localities know what is best for their own communities. All they need from the Fed is help regulating commerce, provide common defense, and enforce trading law with their neighbors so that their businesses can prosper. They don't need to be dictated to on how to live.
In Rome the local Governors gave sweeping powers to heads of localities. They provided security, regulated commerce and collected taxes. People felt safe and comfortable. The economy thrived and citizens were content. Forcing ever stricter laws down the throats of the populace breeds contempt. It also sows the seeds of revolt.
It's a shame history has taught our leaders so little about how to effectively run the Government. It's also a shame that the powers that be have envisioned an unattainable Empire. What a tremendous waste of time, money and resources.
Quite frankly, in my opinion, the Fed should be listening to the state Governors instead of threatening them. After all, the Fed serves the States. We the People! I think we all need to remember that!
Don't forget, the Fed is also trying to overturn laws passed by the States legalizing marijuana. What a giant leap backwards that would be! Instead they should be following the States lead!
Gun registration shell game. Question. I am no expert but when I hear the gun advocates changing the subject of gun registration to blaming the mentally ill memories of the 80s bounce back. Was it not Reagen that took away funding for and closed the mental institutions, putting these people on the street. This also eliminated a path for the care of generations after the 80s?
Palindromedary ~ You are so right about the Bible. I wish I was familiar with the Koran so I could elaborate on that as well. But I'll just stick to the Bible.
The Bible is like Drone technology. In the right hands it can do wonders. Drones can be used for search and rescue missions, to fight fires, deliver emergency materials to disaster victims, to name but a few benevolent uses. In the wrong hands it becomes one of the most insidious weapons of evil ever conceived.
As someone who originally approached the book to exploit it for the good cause I could see how much potential for misuse exists in it's pages. Most so-called devout believers don't even read the damn thing themselves. Some of the most heated arguments I've had with people when I mention a teaching is that they can't believe its there. Apparently that would conflict with what they have been taught in church. I don't really get along with church goers for this reason. It's also a major reason I stay away from the place.
However, I doubt the world would be any better without religion. Though thats a matter of conjecture. Considering base human nature, I suppose people would just find some other stupid excuse to kill one another. A world without money, however, that's another story.
Loren Bliss - That's an interesting thesis. But how will this come about without the blessing of the puppet masters? Do you think they already have this outcome planned? And what's the timeframe? Or will it all come to pass through the degeneration of existing structures (nations) and naturally reorganize in this way?
Palindromedary ~ Thanks for sharing those most interesting experiences. Basically I've drawn the same conclusions;-}
Right on, ptg0! Couldn't agree more!
After SchoolTeacher enters the shed and finds that Sethe had slaughtered her own children, so as not to be taken back to SweetHome, tears run down the arrogant hypocrites' cheek. He sneered "Animal!" And he left.
Scene in the movie "Beloved" based on a book written by Toni Morrison
One of my favorite movies...I still cannot get over the excellent acting done by all of the actors and actresses in this movie. Oprah Winfrey, Danny Glover, and Thandie Newton.
The implicitly secessionist stunts being pulled by the states of the Old Confederacy and the theocratic Middle West underscore what I have believed for many years, which is that as the formerly unifying infrastructure deteriorates, so will the federal union itself fall apart. Indeed the war against government implicit in Ayn Rand capitalism may have as its clandestine purpose the deliberate acceleration of the impending collapse. The ultimate goal, of course, is to create a society in which all power belongs to the corporations, much as -- in Medieval Europe and particularly the Holy Roman Empire, all power lay with the baronies.
Hence I foresee North America ruled by corporate money but divided into at least five nations: the Pacific Northwest Confederation (Alaska, British Columbia, Northwest Territories, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Northern California); Verro Mexico (Mexico, New Mexico, Arizona, Southern California, parts of Texas); the North American Confederation (the remainder of Canada plus New England, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and maybe Maryland); the New Christian Confederacy (same as the old Confederacy plus West Virginia and Kentucky), and the United Christian States of God's America (all the remainder, most like Nebraska and North Dakota by plebiscite, other more civilized places like Michigan and Minnesota by theocratic conquest and genocidal elimination of all non-believers). Which defines the state of permanent warfare between God's Own Alliance (the two theocracies) and the avowedly secular North American Alliance (the two confederations).
Verro Mexico meanwhile will be sensibly neutral, content to see its former oppressors tear themselves apart until such time as the Union of Latin American Socialist Republics -- Verro Mexico and everything to the south -- invades to pick up the pieces and in most places is welcomed as a liberator.
(Clip this and save it so your grandchildren can test the accuracy of my predictions.)
It looks to me like the real terrorists are both republicons and democrats. It is time to flush the toilet of both turds.
As they say, it takes two to tango. When you consider that the U.S. has been at war for all but 8 years since 1776, I dont think this could have occured without democrats support. As a matter of fact numerous democrat scum bags supported bush's illegal wars and policies and obama is still working harder to keep the endless war record intact than he is creating jobs for the saps that elected him.
Obama is just another bush of a different color.
I guess the Chinese are pretty accurate when they call the U.S. war mongers.