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.
The more and more you want to believe in President Obama; the harder they make it. It really does seem like that they are testing the limits of how far the base will go.
Not much farther!! What team are they on?
Thom,
You said a few weeks ago that, " Progressives are mad at the Obama because they didn't get what they want." Correction: No, we got what we didn't want:
Did Net Neutrality Just Get Knifed in The Back?
By Om Malik Aug. 4, 2010, 6:00pm PDT
" A long time ago, I offered to make a bet with a friend that when commercial interests would collide with the broader interests such as network neutrality, Mountain View, Calif.-based Google would do what any large company does: do what is right for its commercial interests. I should have made that bet. I would have won.
Today, news emerged that Google has reached an agreement with Verizon over Internet traffic management. It is the first step in what would amount to the slow asphyxiation of network neutrality. While Verizon and Google are keeping mum, in response to the news, Federal Communication Commission said: “The broad stakeholder discussions continue to actively include Google and Verizon.” The FCC is in closed-door conversations with different players — from Internet companies like Google to carriers such as Verizon and AT&T.
According to the Washington Post:
Google and Verizon’s agreement would prevent Verizon from offering paid prioritization to the biggest bidders of capacity on its DSL and fiber networks, according to the sources. But any promises over open-Internet access wouldn’t apply to mobile phones, the sources said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the companies have not officially made their announcement. According to the sources, Verizon and Google have met separately to come to an agreement they will tout as an example of successful self-regulation.
Politico offers more details:
Sources familiar with the agreement tell Politico it would prevent Verizon from blocking traffic, but would allow it to prioritize certain traffic—such as premium services that would speed up movie downloads, for example – as long as doing so does not harm consumers.
This agreement shouldn’t come as a surprise. The two companies are becoming increasingly close of late. Google is trying to make Android a major player in the mobile world. One of the company’s closest partners in this effort, in the U.S., is Verizon Wireless. It would therefore make sense that the two will come to some sort of an agreement. The news has clearly riled up a lot of folks in Washington, D.C. Free Press President and CEO Josh Silver said:
“Two of the largest companies – Google and Verizon – have reportedly agreed to abandon consumer protections, filter content and limit choice and free speech on the mobile Internet. If true, the deal is a bold grab for market power by two monopolistic players. Such abuse of the open Internet would put to final rest the Google mandate to ‘do no evil.’ The financial interests of Google appear to have finally trumped its belief in policies to preserve the open Internet. A deal with Verizon cements its market power, and could make it more difficult for new app developers and software entrepreneurs to reach consumers.”
A coalition of public interest groups that included Public Knowledge, New America Foundation, Media Access Project and Free Press issued this statement:
As the major public interest groups in Washington involved in the struggle to protect an open Internet, we are united in our dismay about an agreement reportedly reached by Verizon and Google. It is unseemly and inappropriate for two giant companies to decide the future of the Internet and how Internet will work for millions of users. It would be inappropriate for Congress and the FCC policy makers to use this agreement as the basis for public policy.
“The public and policymakers should not be fooled. This agreement cannot be enforced by any governmental agency and will provide no protection against the types of abuse we seen from large Internet Service Providers. The Internet belongs to all of us, not to Verizon and Google. There is widespread public support for an open Internet.
“We call on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to abandon its ‘negotiations’ with Google, Verizon and other large companies. Instead, the Commission should move ahead with legally enforceable, binding rulemaking that would govern not only the open Internet, but also ensure the Commission’s authority to reform Universal Service, and to make policy in cybersecurity, privacy, device compatibility and other critical issues involving broadband services.”
"Corrupted by wealth and power, your government is like a restaurant with only one dish. They've got a set of Republican waiters on one side and a set of Democratic waiters on the other side. But no matter which set of waiters brings you the dish, the legislative grub is all prepared in the same Wall Street kitchen." - Huey Long
Somehow the tremendous inequality between the rich and the poor, and the disproportionate distribution of wealth where the top few percent own most of it, has to be remedied. Perhaps there is a talented bookwriter out there who could appeal to the masses while at the same time illumine them that we are all, essentially, being screwed. Perhaps a strong voice, although recent history is littered with good men, who once given the power, ..............Perhaps a brilliant internet blogger who would communicate the big secret (we are all being screwed) at a grass-roots level. Perhaps a romantic revolution in outrage over the desecration of the earth. Something has got to give, cause the times are truly dark now.
@nacygm the I assure you the Senate will do something... however, they'll make it worse not better.
Careful what you wish for... you may just get it.
N
the senate should work on changing filibuster rules then, along w/the 14th amendment...the senate ought to do SOMETHING!!
#33 Nancy: I know that the Obama administration wants to spy on us more, not less. I'm just saying that I hope conservatives don't feign outrage since most of them supported George W Bush's spying. Because it would be hypocritical and I know they don't want to be hypocritical.
anyone who take that "I have nothing to hide" attitude, like the woman on Thom's show yesterday. "a little surprise in my soap wouldn't bother me" to paraphrase; my jaw dropped when I heard that bit of ignorance.
Olbermann's words of Palin came to mind - "that woman is an idiot"
@Thom: All foods are chemicals. That doesn't mean they work for us as nutrition. We're not smart enough and just too smart for our own good.
the Obama admin DOES want to track us too. Thom's been talking about it all day. I'M AGAINST THAT TOO!!
My BIGGEST disappointment in this admin is that it has not undone any of the "backdoor" broken rules that W, dick & other war criminals of the previous admin are guilty of breaking.
this admin has helped the cons push their agenda (inadvertently? or not) since they took office WAY MORE then the progressive agenda.
I cry for my country every day.
The WSJ on Corporate Tracking Transgressions:
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703977004575393121635952084.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703977004575393173432219064.html
http://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2010-08/microsoft-fight-between-revenue-and-privacy-money-1-privacy-zero
http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/telecom/internet/feeling-paranoid-maybe-its-because-advertisers-are-watching-every-move-you-make-across-the-net
I am not Windows 7 and this is not my idea . . .
When incomes are high enough to purchase production...economies thrive and small business thrives. When it isn't, things begin to tank and rounds of layoffs begin.
The U.S. has utilized credit in place of wages to keep the economy functioning.. Credit is maxed out. Stagnant wages can no longer sustain the credit.
Billion dollar bonuses aren't spent...the bulk of them are thrown into financial paper. An extraction of money from the real economy most people live in..Billion dollar bonuses spread among the other employees of the firms would find its way into consumption...the stimulation of production, services and jobs.
Huge disparities of income...income not spent, ultimately throws economies into a downward spiral. That's been so ever since the invention of money. Our tax policy used to address that. with high taxes on income above the equivalent of around $10,000 a day....putting the money back into the real economy through government expenditures, social safety nets, etc. rather than having it sucked up by Wall Street...
.
@Jeanie the concept is one of power relationships. The "if you don't have anything to hide ..." crowd ignores the idea of relationships between the government and the goverend. The "if you don't have anything to hide" gambit is to assert power over you. I.E. "Prove to me that you are not committing a crime."
If it was perfectly ok for George W Bush to spy on Americans for any reason he saw fit (i.e. for "terrorism", loosely defined), it is also perfectly ok for Barack Obama to do so as well.
Conservatives cannot have it both ways.
I remember so many callers to this and other shows insisting that they had nothing to hide, so what was the big deal? I wonder if they still feel the same way if the Obama administration is the one wanting to track them.
The rules of the Senate had been changed to allow a "gentleman's" filibuster that doesn't require the senator to command the floor and speak forever.
I've got a novel idea...why doesn't Mr. Reid make the republiCONS actually FILIBUSTER??!!! He hasn't tried that yet!!
@nathnlee: The intent of the tax act was to have a pretext for prosecuting people who could not comply with the law without self-incrimination.
Timothy Leary was involved in the court cases.
Taxing drugs in a manner that does not cause self-incrimination only requires that the tax is not tied to prohibition.
If we want to have sane policies, then decriminalize consumption of things that may lead to medical problems.
@Gene Savory: Not my point.
My point is that the Feds HAVE taxed Pot in the past — and if you notice, that was a Tufts Dental School.
Here's another: http://www.siegelauctions.com/zoom/imageviewer.php?url=http://www.siegelauctions.com/2007/934/2751.jpg
So it's not like there isn't a precident (sp?) for this, at one point they recognized a whole pot industry.
The jobs of the future for the middle class that will grow are police and military as our country sinks further into economic dispair. Police and military are very middle class, yet they mostly vote against for Republicans and againt their own middle class needs. Police and military are necessary to protect the interests of the financial elite and to keep revolutionary middle at bay
Marijuana was the Loco Weed that Latinos smoked and therefore cut into tobacco taxes and the choice of Africa American musicians due it being cheaper and caused less disability than alcohol when they were playing in Jazz Clubs. Gallo Wine was pissed off that the Demon Weed was hacking into the sales of tallboys (which were designed to fit into the breast pocket of those poor folk who were ‘homeward bound” and the poor alcoholic hiding their – Hoboes). This was never more a “problem” than when the non-white folk dressed up in their Zoot-Suits and went dancing . . . Sometimes (oh horror of horrors) with Caucasian girls.
Damn, I have gotta dig out my copy of Reefer Madness and watch it tonight.
@nathnlee: The marihuana tax act was declared unconstitutional because it required those possessing weed to buy a tax stamp and therefore admit to the governemnt that they were committing a crime.
Asset forfeiture laws, which allow the state to confiscate autos, bank funds, and homes, do not need any real proof. Police departments thrive on their easily gotten property. Seems like the confiscations are a real morale booster for at least some people. Those who have been on the losing side are not compensated in any way.
Even getting a DUI in a car that does not belong to you can cause that automobile to be taken away from it's owner.
Such a deal!
It seems the free trade policy which Democratic president bill clinton set the stage for, is at the heart of "How can this be?" I tried to see it's benefits when he was pushing, pushing during his presidency. i never really could, but one can see the results. It seems equally destructive to the overall life of the country as the recent court decision to equate corporations with people. So shame on William Jefferson Clinton, political shape shifter, wanton oportunist, spineless democrat. Architect of the destruction of the middle class.
To place blame fairly, It was Reagan and Ford who were asleep at the wheel when Japan started marketing their cars, televisions, and VCR's at below market cost which, as a result, put the American companies out of business(at least TV and VCR). This was a huge blow to American productivity and exports at the time. It was only later that Clinton came along and sold his presidency to the corporations pushing, pushing his Free Trade Agenda .
It's not like the Fed haven't taxed pot before — consider this image of a Marijhuana Tax Revenue Stamp:
http://www.siegelauctions.com/zoom/imageviewer.php?url=http://www.siegel...
The only problem with an "endless death spiral of a circular argument" is that it is recursive and is useful in procuring money and attention for the prohibitionists.
Lots of money to be made. See: Harry Anslinger for a very succinct and self-serving history.
Well that's an impressive number of people held in prison for drug offenses Thom, but Chabot said that their was less than 1% of the people in prison for distributing pot (so their aren't many convicted pot dealers in prison). Of course if that's the argument he want to put forward, that their aren't many pot related prisoners, then fine, why not legalize, I can only assume by his numbers, not very many people participate in using it.
N