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.
My thoughts about Socialism, (and one on Fascism) today:
The word Social evokes pleasant feelings for me. I think Ice Cream Social sums it up. People enjoying each others company while eating Ice Cream. If Fox News covered the event they would no doubt report it as being a gathering of the American Socialist Party.
If being a Socialist means you care about others, share with each other and be fair with each other , thats what I learned from my parents and at Kiindergarten by the time I was 4 or 5. It was a good way to live then and it's still a good way to live today.
If Corporations are now people (persons) it's impossible for Fascism to ever exist in America even though Fascism is exactly what Corprate People have been, are creating. 60 years ago America traveled half way around the world to fight in a war to stop Fascism.
Decembers Child
--
Decembers Child
I have seen foods that display on labels that they are fructose free, so some food companies are aware of public opinon. Dr. Oz has come out against this in the past year or so and I watch labels and stay away from it as much as possible, as do others I know. If we can get a discussion going on our media about this, maybe we have a chance to get it out of our foods, along with antibiotics in animals.
Can we just call it malneutrition caused by soil depleting industrial/Monsanto farming, already?
Do that and we can begin to heal the earth and ourselves.
Spagnicolously ugly?
Totally stumped.
Watch "Forks Over Knives" if you haven't already.
Nutrition before corporate profit.
TOO MUCH CAPITAL?
Really the question to ask these all-taxes-bad people is, "is it possible to have too much capital"?
This is the situation that leads to bubbles, and huge income inequity, and bubbles. There are valid times to decrease taxes, and times to increase taxes. When there is insuficient money to spur needed investment, then taxes need to be lower, when wealth is being put into potential bubbles, not working towards real growth, then taxes are too low.
Robert in Denver
A fun cartoon about cell phones and cancer: http://xkcd.com/925/
Thom,
I hope someday you merge your past with the current autism community. I have often wondered why you never get involved with the current autism debates. I understand how nasty it is but I also know how much clarity and understanding you would bring to the scientific wasteland of the vaccines and food versus autism debates.
The autism battleground has become World War 1 trench warfare. People like me have removed themselves from the front because of shell-shock (my eye started twitching) but I have this drive to spread the truth which never lets go. Someday I will have to get back into the trench for our little ones who are doing the real suffering.
Tim, I would never be so stupid as to claim that a lack of proof against something is proof in favor of it. But thank you for the information.
I know Thom is in favor of the truth, but in my opinion his mindset isn't skeptical and scientific enough. He has been a proponent of homeopathy and the idea that cell phones cause brain cancer (and of course, as an atheist, I disagree with him on religion), so I run any claims that he passes on to us listeners through my BS detector, as I do with anyone else.
Excellent post Tim.
It's hard in this corporate-controlled media world to convince people to do their own research. They fail to realize every step of the study process is corporate controlled, from the CDC to the Lancet .
This does not mean the whole process is all corrupt as much as it means it can directed in a particular direction.
Mathboy, you might want to remember that Thom is a stickler for the truth. If you are implyiing that it has been PROVEN that mercury can NOT cause autism, that is in fact not a true statement. There are studies touted by the CDC that conclude that they (the CDC, who mandate, promote and distribute mercury containing vaccines) could not glean enough evidence out of large epidemiological studies (which can not prove a negative anyway) that would link vaccine mercury with autism, but in NO WAY do they conclude that it could not cause autism.
There are numerous studies that show how mercury could be causal in some cases of autism. Look up research by Dr. Richard Deth of Northeastern University or Dr. Boyd Haley of Kentucky to start with. Check out this link: http://www.iatp.org/documents/study-links-autism-with-industrial-food-environment
For an independant review of the CDC studies regarding mercury and autism go to http://fourteenstudies.org/. Readers of this post should be prepared to see further comments discrediting these good doctors and the 14 studies website - I can only suggest you just do the research and learn for yourself.
I'd be happy to call Republicans fascists. Fascism is all about giving businesses (and their rich owners) more rights than individual humans, so it's perfectly accurate.
Since those retro drinks came out, I've been wondering if HFCS promotes tooth decay less than sucrose. But the other health problems of HFCS probably outweigh that, especially if the autism thing is true. Teeth can be replaced, brain function can't.
I have noticed major soda companies selling what the call retro versions of their drinks. Pepsi and 7UP have been selling such drinks that use real sugar and not Hi Fructose Corn Syrup. Not sure if that qualifies as making them healthier, but it does seem like they are testing the market to see if there is profit to be made from not using Hi Fructose Corn Syrup in their products.
N
That's confusing. That statement implies that autism is caused by mercury and arsenic poisoning, and yet those have not been proven.
Your phony "70%" aren't in that Chicagoan article.
The correct figures are 46% vs 54% -- 54% are FOR Obamacare!
If you tell me I'm too young you're like an old Ford T-model of the 1920s, considering itself a safer car for streets of 2012.
(I GOT RHYTHM came out 1930)The message is timeless: Fussy old people, trying to tell younger people how they should live are NOT appreciated. Not invited, not around our door. Old-fashioned old people who hate to change, naturally become isolated and lonesome. Old people who are open and tolerant are welcome to young people. It has always been that way : you guys disqualify yourselves.
Your queer message is: "We old people know better, you young people change thinking to that of old people." What a laugh!
Clarissa, read a book on Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Castro, or any other totalitarian and see how giving government too much power always ends up. We "right-wing extremists" believe in the power of the individual. We also believe that with that concept comes sociatal responsibilities. You "naive" left-wing extremists want us to become subjects, we prefer to remain citizens.
Why does a right-wing extremist wast time on a liberal blog? What do you expect? You guys are really very gullible, naive people. That's why you always vote for those right-wing nuts. LOL
Government is to protect the weak. Your "handicapped people" simply need to be protected by law. Same goes for children and old people who can't help themselves. Anything else leads to a society just as humane as cannibalism.
You know, there are even people out there who would legalize murder. Let the strongest and meanest decide who has a right to live. Libertarian ideas exactly aim in this direction.
The insane presidential candidates are all to see in the Republican Party. Whoever doesn't get these people are entirely insane, need their heads examined. This already proves your queer right-wing propaganda bunch of hooey.
So now you want to devolve to "no I'm not you are" type of arguments 'The Real World'? Well I'm glad you did a good job of convincing yourself of being right... at least that's one.
But go ahead and move on, no one is asking you to waste time anyway.
N
Humans invented government to control the chaos of greed and brutality. They had to, since they flat-out suffered too much. People just have to learn, it doesn't work without government. Libertarian dreams of a world without government are childish -- it leads back to nothing but chaos. History shows, humans actually get this by the experience of pain. Americans seem to learn slowly, so it probably takes more pain to make them get it. The question is how much of our own chaos are we able to take...
Other countries are already regulating corporate greed. We just have to look there, it works fairly well. Even in Christian-Conservative governed countries like Germany.
What is "regulation from a government of by the people"?? If people voted for Bush, this was government voted in by the people. You cannot claim the government makes mistakes, but the 99% are always right. No, "we the people" make terrible mistakes too. The common sense isn't always right. And if we vote in the wrong representatives, because we are careless and don't watch out enough, we have to blame ourselves.
Americans have to learn, they're responsible for their votes and non-votes. Non-voters are the last to complain!
A better system as our Congress has not been invented yet. We have to organize the political differences of 313,343,000 citizens, which is impossible to imagine. Don't anybody tell me this is changed easily and they have an idea how to easily reorganize it.
A Bush era song I made.
Holy War Makers by Black Güero
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDObuah8NyY
Exerpt from ---- History of the Supreme Court of the United States
Under Chief Justices Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth ( 1789-1801 ), the Court heard few cases; its first decision was West v. Barnes ( 1791 ), a case involving a procedural issue. The Court lacked a home of its own and had little prestige, a situation not helped by the highest-profile case of the era, Chisholm v. Georgia, which was immediately repudiated by the Eleventh Amendment.
The Court's power and prestige waxed during the Marshall Court ( 1801-1835 ). Under Marshall, the Court established the "principle of judicial review," including "specifying itself as the supreme expositor of the Constitution" ( Marbury v. Madison ) and made several important constitutional rulings giving shape and substance to the balance of power between the federal government and the states ( prominently, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, Mc Culloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden ).
The Marshall Court also ended the practice of each justice issuing his opinion "seriatim," a remnant of British tradition, and instead issuing a single majority opinion. Also during Marshall's tenure, ( although beyond the Court's control ), the impeachment and acquittal of Justice Samuel Chase in 1804-1805 helped cement the principle of judicial independence.
My question in this, where did the Marshall court derive the power to establish the "principle of judicial review," and to "specify itself the supreme expositor of the Constitution?"
You can't have a thoughtful argument with someone who isn't thoughtful. You've convicted this man already so why waste my time.