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.
chuckle8: Yeah, the anti food labeling interests sent cards in the mail with a picture of President Obama on the front and a Green sounding name...and bid us vote for the propositions all of which agreed with the green party...except the food labeling one which it was against. They are very tricky!
Kudos Palindromedary!
Excellent points.
However, you fail to mention the problem isn't women or children in combat, the problem is combat. The task at hand is eliminating violent confrontation, not resupplying replacement for those casualties incurred.
Stay on course! Aliceinwonderland was right, there is no place for war in a civilized society!
I can't even understand what the conversation is about when people talk over one another...say like in the panel discussions that Thom has...I usually just don't even watch them...what's the point. They should put each person in a soundproof box with a mic that is controlled externally and each person given a few minutes to say his/her piece and they cut off their mic at a very precise time limit. No exceptions.
Well, one might think I was trying to be funny but think about it...they now essentially are saying that they are giving women the opportunity to go to battle right along with the men...equal opportunity right? But is that the real reason? Or is it that our government has been such a bad and aggressive government that they, once more as in Vietnam, are not winning hearts and minds right here at home. Maybe recruiters are having a much harder time suckering new recruits. And it has been much worse than Nam because the troops in the Middle East have had to pull several tours...while in Nam they usually only pulled one. Maybe no one wants to join the military any more and maybe that's why they need anyone they can get...women...children? And that's why they had to force soldiers to do multiple tours.. Just wait till they lower the age for joining the military...they'll use some selling point like they did in "giving women the opportunity" like it was some grand equalization ploy. They just need the cannon fodder and they don't care how they get it. Besides it being a political ploy.
Yes, there are some women who can be pretty tough..but it's not the norm. You can occasionally find an example (as Aliceinwonderland gave about the martial arts woman in a motel beating up a potential rapist) but most women are not material for competing against most men in combat...especially hand to hand combat. In fact, they could very easily be a liability on the battlefield. Again, yes, there are exceptions to the norm. And what kind of woman would want to go into battle anyway...to kill people? What kind of a man?
But also, as Ken stated, and I've also read this..that rape in the military is a really, really big problem..something like over 800 rapes? When women are there, in a constant life threatening situation, how can you really expect all men to act in a manner that would be the same as if other men were there instead?
Some men may make fatefully wrong decisions, in just trying to protect the woman soldier. Or have natural sexual feelings that can translate into something that may not have happened if that soldier was a man.
I am constantly seeing things on TV or the movies that show women, even frail women, being able to physically fend off attacking men....really big muscular men. I always think...how preposterous! But, many people who watch these TV programs and movies...perhaps impressionable people who can't seem to grasp reality, form very unreliable and unreasonable ideas about what is possible and what is not.
Agreed David Abbot! However, I might submit that an opponent yelling incoherently over someone only supports that other persons point of view. Only when the incoherent person is supported by a base of people whose base fears are being exploited does such a strategy pay off.
Yeah, Thom called that libertarian a piker. I think Thom was being nice. I would have called that guy something else.
If I had a radio show I would have a rule: one person talks for two minutes (or whatever), and then the other talks for the same amount of time. If either of us talks longer than that amount of time, his microphone gets turned off. No one gets to just yell louder and longer, thereby preventing any chance of a fair exchange of points of view.
You are so right Aliceinwonderland. Randy Rhodes knows what she is talking about, having served herself.
Besides I agree most wholeheartedly with your controlling metaphor, " I do not believe there is any place for war in a civilized world. "
Perhaps one most unfortunate step in achieving this ends in the modern world would be making combat accessible to women and children. Certainly women and children are eligible to be victims; why not combatants as well?
Certaily, out of all the personal physical confrontations I have been evolved in, the only times I've had my rear handed to me was in a fight with a woman. Their combat potential is totally underestimated in my humble opinion.
Personally, I'd prefer to stand toe to toe with Hulk Hogan or Mike Tyson than with any lady during that "special" time of the month. I hope you don't take that the wrong way because I'm quite serious. The idea that they may be packing weapons of mass destruction does not swag my fears one bit!
Certainly, if such a Warrior Princess was on my side, I can certainly say I feel safer.
Perhaps I only endorse such progress is because I think that sending our ladies and children into battle is the only way we as a country will realize that what you initially said is true, "I do not believe there is any place for war in a civilized world." When you get down to it, Alice, that is the bottom line isn't it?
Thom Hartmann is always encouraging us to "get involved"..and it looks like Craig Bush is doing just that...I think it would be good for us all to see Craig Bush on the Thom Hartmann show to tell about how he is fighting almost insurmountable odds to change the future of Santa Cruz for the better. The only thing I know about desalination plants is the massive structures I saw when I lived and worked in Saudi Arabia. I can understand the need for something like that in the wasteland that is Saudi Arabia that hardly ever gets any rain...but in Santa Cruz?
And, as Craig pointed out at his web site...the one desal plant they had in Santa Barbara ended up costing their citizens a whole lot of money just to have it fall apart, contaminate, and now they are trying to get rid of it.
The more than 8000 signatures he managed to get from Santa Cruz citizens shows that he is really serious about this. And I hope he does get voted onto the Santa Cruz city council. Good luck, Craig! And Thom Hartmann...please have Craig on your show!
Thanks Ken! I deeply appreciate that!
DeAnneMarc - I respect your opinion. You, like Alice are apparently intelligent, and you both express your points of view with sincerity. We all have different perspectives on what happens in the World. It is almost scary, but I think I have developed a habit of making comments on Hartmann's Blog! I must be getting old and in need of the stimulation of being controversial!
Thanks guys I get it and yes it does sound like it isn't needed anymore. You all did a great job explaining it. Here we are still a member of the commonwealth, we still have some stupid things we do as well. Although most of it is ceremonial.
Palindromedary, indeed you are very funny! Unfortunately you are probably very correct as well. Historically, that's exactly what Hitler did. Whoops! There I go again! Sorry, Ken!
Ken, quite frankly, you make me feel like I'm walking on egg shells! Not very productive for this forum!
Palindromedary - Very funny! You do have a sense of humor!
Alice - As I have stated, if a woman can accomplish to pass the same rigorous regimen as men, then they should be given a shot. As the Secretary of Defense stated in his press conference, there will be no change to the requirements of performance by the Military. And the PBS report also mentioned that a retired general believed this is just another social experiment and there have been many that have failed in the past. As far as my gender bias, I raised my daughter as a single parent and supported her through college, her certification as a teacher and her time while she earned her Master’s degree. I have always told her I would support her in any decisions she makes about her future and her life. Whether it is as a teacher of our children or a Marine. I would have supported her decision. So you can stow away your remarks about how I view the female gender. I have not encountered any other parent who has supported their daughter emotionally and physically as I have and I take a great deal of pride in this. So if you’re implying in your remarks that I am gender bias your wrong. Even the Secretary of Defense said, “if the women are qualified and meet the requirements they will be accepted". And I believe that has been the jest of my remarks when it comes to women serving in combat roles. Have a good night
On women in combat...they'll be going after children next!
How the electorial college works...YouTube video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUS9mM8Xbbw&list=PLqs5ohhass_QZtSkX06DmWO...
The Trouble with the electoral college...YouTube video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k&list=PLqs5ohhass_QZtSkX06DmWO...
What if the electoral college is tied...YouTube video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHEDXzOfENI&list=PLqs5ohhass_QZtSkX06DmWO...
Alice - I respect your choice of not wanting to take a pledge to the flag. We are all from different mindsets and from my High Schools days I have always been active in the process of political science and the activities of the government. I supported the War in Vietnam and I still believe we originally believed there was a necessity to stop the progress of Communism in the Far East. I was willing to serve in the capacity the military gave me. I have no problem with people disagreeing with the War; I only have problems with the citizens of this country using the men and women who served their country as targets of their hated of the government. In my eyes these men and women served a noble cause and should be respected for their sacrifices. From the cooks who fed our troops to the officers who flew missions to support our people in country, they all deserve our respect. I do not ask nor expect people to agree with the policy, but I do expect them to acknowledge that these warriors performed an honorable mission when asked to do so by our government. And for someone as No Fraud to say there were no situations where our servicemen and women were spat on is not only insulting, but comes from a person who did not serve during those difficult years, is not acceptable to me as a veteran of war. We are allowed to have different opinions because we live in a land that allows us to do so without persecution. As I have aged, I see how the government has been corrupted by the money and power that controls Washington. But, I do remember a time when corruption was less apparent and when individual citizens could and did make a difference in our society for the good of the whole. As the next generation of my family comes into this world, I too fear democracy has been sold to the highest bidder and it may take political and physical action by the citizens of our nation to restore dignity and honesty to our political system. I hope we will not have to rely on physical actions to restore our nation to what it once was and can be again, but if that is the only avenue left open to us I hope we are victorious in the end.
No Ken, I am not "jumping for joy". I do not believe there is any place for war in a civilized world. Aside from that, I think your comment about Obama making policy decisions as a "Blackman" rather than as President are presumptuous at best.
As for women being combat-worthy, today I heard Randy Rhodes give a long list of countries that already have women serving in combat; a list that includes Germany, Israel and (if my memory serves me) Canada. This is nothing new.
Your opinion on this issue is consistent with your general attitude on gender issues. As for the prevalence of sexual assaults in the military... well, it only goes to show that gender hatred is still alive and well in the Twenty First Century.
By the way... years ago I watched a movie about a female stunt artist who happened to also be accomplished in martial arts; karate, if I remember correctly. One night when she was checking into a motel, some guy eavesdropped on her while she was assigned a room. Later that night he broke into her room while she was sleeping and pounced on his intended prey. She awoke to find this stranger on top of her holding a knife at her throat. She kicked the holy crap out of him, and minute later he was lying in a heap on the floor. I still get goose bumps thinking about that rapist wannabe who got what he deserved! After this gal was done with him, the police hauled him off to the slammer where he belonged. - Aliceinwonderland
I feel the same way Aliceinwonderland. I had a problem with the "Pledge of Allegiance" as well. (OH MY GOD, PLEASE SKIP THIS POST KEN) LOL Here I go again. Before you get mad, I'M SORRY!!
But personally, I have always felt that requiring children to swear an oath of ANY KIND, before the age of 21, and involuntarily, was MASS CHILD ABUSE!
Sorry again Ken, I stand by that one. Despite the fact that I fly our flag in my home and carry my fathers military honors flag in my car with me.
I also feel that swearing an oath of allegiance to any inanimate object is in violation of the first Commandment.
I think we too readily confuse the flag for what it stands for.
Alice in Wonderland - You must be jumping for joy and excited over the news that Obama has decided to allow women to participate in combat with male troops. I believe it was a political decision not a military decision. In order for women to enter the ranks of combat troops in the Marines and Army, one of two things will have to happen.
1. They will have to allow women to have a different set of physical requirements to pass basic and advanced combat training. No women at this point in time or a very small percentage of women have been able to pass these physical tests of strength and endurance that the male recruits are required to pass.
2. Or they will have to lower the standards for everyone that they presently now have, to allow women to pass the same physical and endurance tests as the male recruits.
I believe Obama made this decision not as a President, but more likely as a Blackman who hates any sign of discrimination, even if the discrimination is there to adhere to a higher standard of readiness and ability for the fighting combat troops in the Military. If a woman can pass the rigorous requirements now in place and there are no changes put into place to ensure that women can perform up to the same standards, then I agree they should be allowed to fight in combat situations. But there are still other issues the military will have to deal with if women are accepting into combat situations where they are required to be combat ready 24/7 and that issue deals with the hormonal changes women experience every month, as well as housing and sexual assaults. There were 800 reported cases of sexual assaults in the Military last year and that accounts for only those reported to the command. If I say anything more I will be seen as a sexist who dislikes women, which could not be farther from the truth in my regards of the female gender.
As you might expect from me, I, like many officers that were interviewed do not agree with the President’s decision and feel it will lead to a lower quality of readiness and will have affects down the road on our military that have not been addressed by this decision by the Commander in Chief of the Military. Only time will tell if we are correct or we are wrong.
I've also heard from good sources that the one of the main primary reasons for the existence of the electoral college is to ostracize the average citizen from the voting process. Back then the vast majority of people were considered uneducated and irresponsible. Their opinions were not considered valid; and, in fact were considered to be a threat to the community if factored into government. The electoral college was a means to insure that only wealthy land owners would have a say in how the country was governed. Only land owners had a stake, education, and vestment in the best interest of the community. Back then, only land owners were allowed to vote, and all other citizens knew their place.
According to "2950-10K": "The Senate might as well be honest with we the people...... just go ahead and crown one of the Kochs King of the United States and give the Teabaggers something real to revolt about." And I couldn't have said it better!
I have always had a problem with the hypocrisy in American politics. It was the Vietnam War that opened my eyes. I have not recited the Pledge of Allegiance since I was fifteen years old. Not only do I refuse to speak those words; I won't even stand up for this insipid ritual. I don't care if I'm the only one in a crowded room who remains seated.
My husband must have been on the same wavelength, because he also opted out of the Pledge while still in high school. We both got chastised and threatened by our teachers for non-compliance, but to no avail. - Aliceinwonderland
Yes and Yep a doodle!
gerrymandering by anyone is wrong, the electorial college is no longer necessary, popular vote serves our democracy well... i am getting so tired of the fight between right and wrong...
Hi Ken. You sure are right, rage happens. It can happen to anyone. Even the best of us. Good to have you back buddy! You've been missed!