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.
Let's look at actual cases:
Thom Hartmann - still on radio; new books coming out all the time.
http://www.thomhartmann.com
Ed Schultz Show - still on radio, and now on TV (Schultz was never on Air America)
http://www.bigeddieradio.com/
Randi Rhodes - still on radio
http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/
Stephanie Miller - like Schultz, never on Air America, and still on radio
http://www.stephaniemiller.com/
Al Franken - now in the Senate
Rachel Maddow - now on TV
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/
New progressive talkers are cropping up, e.g. Norman Goldman. Progressive talk radio stations continue, e.g. AM1090 Seattle KPTK.
Air America had a bad business model. Radio insiders tell me they were staffheavy, focussing on writing rather than entertaining, lively "talent". IMO this might work for the corporately funded NPR or Saturday Night Live, but radio is all about the on-air talent most of which (you'll note from the list above) ran their own operations or graduated to the Senate. It's worth noting that, unlike Fox, AAR didn't have a wealthy backer willing to loses millions of dollars for nearly a decade before turning a profit. AAR brought some nice publicity to progressive radio and its alumni include 1 more successful senator than Fox, but its departure just makes it another American in economic trouble.
It was a good experiment but nothing lasts forever.
http://rewinn.blogspot.com/2010/01/progressive-talk-radio-outgrows-air.html
@Quark, perhaps you may want to fly your flag upside down, I believe that is the appropriate way to signify that you believe our country is in distress.
While reading about the recent Supreme Court travesty, I found out that the ACLU wrote a friend of the court brief in support of the Citizen Untied vs FEC. http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commi...
I am outraged that the ACLU would support corporate personhood and not support natural persons. What were they thinking? Did the ACLU think they would have the same cash to dump into elections as Exxon? They say they have 500,000 members (499,999 as I just cancelled my membership this morning) so there is no way they can compete with big corporations. I also found out that unions wrote a friend of the court brief. Thanks guys for contributing to this abomination.
Contact the ACLU and voice your displeasure with their actions.
Good-Bye Air America. A noble concept, yet poorly executed. I thank them for shining a light on progressive talk radio. If not for them, I as so many others may have never found such programs like Thom's.
In short, in a lot of ways I would say they did succeed in their original mission; showing America that there is an alternative to the right wing sound machines.
Is it legal to fly the flag at half mast without federal endorsement? If so, that's what I will be doing from now on. (Maybe even if it's NOT legal!)
The Supreme Court decision
* If corporations are persons, will they next get the right of free association and will this lead to the invalidation of anti-trust laws?
* When corporate money floods in to buy ads won't this 1) drive up the cost of the ads 2) fill up the available time slots for the ads. Both of these will have the consequence of squeezing out human speech. If the time slots are limited Media corporations will be in the position of choosing who's ad will run.
* Will media corporations next argue that they can refuse to run ads because it is counter to their political views?
I was surprised to read that the ACLU supported the decision. I would like to hear their argument.
Is there a legal (not practical) possibility that the federal government could create laws of incorporation that supersede state laws?
Last night (as I tossed and turned in bed) I had an epiphany of sorts.
I've have heard time and again how Obama's been playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers.
When I first heard it, it sounded clever, then after awhile I thought well which side of the board is he playing?
Now I realize, its great that he's a great chess player and all, but you don't use a shotgun to kill a fly, you don't bring a foil (no matter how great a fencer you are) to a gun fight. So perhaps Mr. Obama needs to get back to the checker board and stop all that "King Me!" talk coming from the republicans.
I am not satisfied with all the punditry about the "lessons of Massachusetts" It is the perfect example of blind men describing an elephant. There were many factors --Lefties say it was a referendum on Obama because he is not progressive enough. Righties say it is a referendum on Obama because he is too liberal. Pollsters say it is about opposition to health care on both sides (strange because Mass already has a functional universal health).
to paraphrase Paul Weyrich
"It isnt about the issues. It never was about the issues. To the extent that a candidate can obscure the issues the better they do. "
We all know Coakleys campaign was moribund as everyone notes and Browns was energetic.
Even if not the media would never let her get traction
Scott Brown has intimate media connections - his wife is a popular Boston news anchor Gail Huff 10-15 yrs --totally integrated into the Boston media establishment. His daughter Ayla is a big local media star as a singer (American Idol) and as a starting basketball player with Boston College. She has a HUGE following among young people. Coakley was trashed constantly on talk radio--trashed for jailing sex offenders and trashed for letting them go for instance.
Then there were the demographic factors with low minority turn out and huge suburban turnout. There was the craving for the leadership of a strong truck driving handsome WHITE man.
The last thing the election was about was about issues.
The
I had something to post yesterday, but was sidetracked when I was informed I had to take a new “recurrent training” course that the airline cooked-up to replace the one I just took two months ago. Besides having only marginal relation to the work I do at the airport, the software maddeningly featured a photo of a lavatory waste guy (who works for a different vendor) posing as if he was actually working, and not in hibernation somewhere which was his usual posture. One portion of the course discussed human failings that effected efficient work habits, and how to counteract these failings. One of the “Dirty Dozen” was “complacency.” When I completed the course and resumed my usual laborings, I observed one effect of complacency; out on the ramp, a gaggle of emergency vehicles, police, and Port of Seattle “observation specialists” surrounded a disabled little tug and a behemoth of a lousy airline food catering truck; apparently the tug had been “T-boned” when the driver turned into the onrushing truck he didn’t know was behind him, and was apparently seriously hurt. The fact of the matter is that since there are no mechanical traffic signals and few defined “roadways,” the ramp often resembles an ant colony after being stepped on; “common sense” and self-preservation are the principle guides to one’s driving behavior. Not that there is a constant danger of accidents from this apparent chaos; they rarely occur, but accidents are bound to happen when one becomes “complacent” in such an environment.
The election placing a Republican in Ted Kennedy’s senate seat could also be said to be the result of complacency. Who would have thought that the Kennedy seat would go to a man who was in direct opposition to everything Kennedy stood for? Obama and the Democrats apparently didn’t do their own polling to see what trouble they were until too late. They probably thought “Hey, that’s Kennedy’s seat. Only an insane voter would vote for a Republican.” Well, they forgot one thing: Ted is dead (forgive the pun). It isn’t his seat anymore, and no one from the clan seems prepared to carry on. Martha Coakley was, as they say, no John Kennedy, or Ted Kennedy for that matter. She just thought she was someone who was entitled, and those “independent” voters “showed her”—and Obama and the rest of the Democrats—that they wouldn’t be ignored, if only for bigoted, irrelevant reasons rather than actual understanding of the issues. If this can happen in the most “reliable” of blue states, then complacency is something the Democrats can ill afford going forward. They can’t afford to continue to appear weak and confused.
Thom said the Massachusetts’ vote was a “perfect” storm of disaffection from teabaggers and union members, although it can be argued that teabaggers always were—and still are—anti-Obama fanatics with no real agenda except to be anti-Obama, while it is difficult to believe that union members would be so naïve as to vote for someone who is for more tax cuts (and who, pray tell, would be the beneficiaries of those cuts?) and “little” government that would be completely emasculated against the power of the corporate oligarchy? Has it come to this, where in a reliably “blue” state that hasn’t elected a Republican to the Senate since 1972 should fall for the same tired old failed line that Republicans have been feeding us since the 1920’s? Or perhaps did all those Irish-American voters get over their brief glimpse of racial harmony and suddenly remember their long-time racial prejudice?
The Republicans have been pushing a simple-to-understand line for voters who don’t want to think too much about what government is doing as long as it doesn’t intrude on their lives or make it noticeable worse. Obama and the Democrats have failed to simplify their message for simple people; clearly they should have proposed mentally-undemanding concepts like a $500 billion dollar infrastructure restoration program with specific projects, financial regulation that used existing regulatory powers instead of stumbling through senate roadblocks, and proposed something like Thom’s Medicare E. But because the senate health care bill is so convoluted and incomprehensible, and the fact that in taking so long to germinate people naturally assumed it had to be terribly flawed, that many people just don’t know what it all means. Since people are suspicious of what it all could mean, those with health care coverage and like it have a difficult time caring about people who don’t have insurance (how many of you encountered someone who asked you for a quarter, but you said you didn’t have one, even though you had a pocketful of change?). The “me generation” hasn’t quite exhausted itself; that may be why even though it is too early to know the effects of the stimulus package or how exactly the current senate health care proposal (if passed) will precisely effect people’s health care options, negative assumptions are being made in response to “What will it mean for me” instead of “my” country.
Meanwhile, blows from both the right and the left have left Obama teetering in the ring, having been given the kind of advice that may be Bill Clinton’s secret strategy for destroying the man who ended his wife’s presidential aspirations (because Bill “owed” her for the humiliation he put her through). The attacks from both sides clearly have had their effect; if the left had chosen to bite their tongues and throw their unqualified support behind the health care bill (like the now MIA Randi Rhodes was apt to do), would Democratic and independent voters have a different opinion on the “success” of the Obama agenda? Maybe. The truth is that there has been little more than hand-wringing to counteract the incessant attacks and misinformation from the right. No doubt with some justification the progressive left is disappointed with Obama and senate Democrats; but is outright discouraging voters who would then abandon the Democrats only a year into Obama’s term the right strategy? If Obama and the Democrats listen to the mendacious likes of McCain—which they may very well do if they continue to listen to Clinton and his allies, then the silver lining progressives hope for may well become a silver bullet.
Does yesterday’s Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited campaign contributions by corporations and unions mean the death march of democracy as we used to know it? Will the two-party system soon become a thing of the past? Obviously corporations have much deeper pockets than unions, so it would likely mean that members of both parties will to have to slave to the will of corporations on some level. Perhaps the two-party system will survive only in terms of social philosophy and foreign policy, but on economic policy parties will do only do what the corporations tell them is in the country’s “best interest.” The distinction between country and corporation will be blurred yet further. And what else should we expect? Did anyone hear Scott Brown support regulation of the financial industry? I didn’t, and the people who voted for him certainly were not thinking about it. Is this what foolish people deserve to suffer? In any case, the decision made a mockery of logic, because just because the owner of Wal-Mart gives all his money to Republican candidates hardly means that the majority of his low-wage, non-union, low-benefit employees support Republicans.
In other developments yesterday, John McCain now says that the Democrats have no alternative but to listen to the Republicans; frankly, I am only aware of one definition for the words “no” and “nothing,” but if he knows alternative meanings from an alternate universe, I wish he’d explain them to us.
Well we have about one week left for Jan 2010. I'd say pound for pound its proving to be worse than 2009 (and I thought 09 was a terrible year).
Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on SCOTUS Ruling
Video:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olb...
Rep. Alan Grayson's new petition website:
www.savedemocracy.net
Alan Grayson Discusses his 5 Bills on Countdown
Video:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olb...
DDay,
I think the link to the page you mentioned is no longer available. Can you find the page thru your computer's "history" and post the URL?
Remarks by Senator John Kerry on His Opposition to Judge Roberts' Nomination for Chief Justice.
Below are Senator John Kerry's full, prepared remarks on the floor of the Senate today on the upcoming vote on Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States.
http://kerry.senate.gov/cfm/record.cfm?id=246192
"In addition to what I do not know, what I do know about Judge Roberts is very troubling. I know that in the early 80's while he worked in the Department of Justice and White House Counsel's Office, Judge Roberts took an active role in advocating on behalf of Administration policies that would have greatly undermined our civil rights and civil liberties.
For example, Judge Roberts argued against using the "effects test" to determine whether section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was violated. Instead, he believed an "intent" test-requiring proof of a discriminatory motive-should be required, regardless of the fact that many victims of discrimination would be unable to prove a real discriminatory intent and therefore unable to enjoy the protections afforded by the Act. In some cases, the effect of Judge Robert's intent test meant that disenfranchised individuals had to prove the motive of long dead officials who crafted the election rules. That is a foolish standard when it comes between citizens and their constitutionally protected right to fair representation in our democracy. "
"
Now, some may argue that Democrats should vote for Judge Roberts because he is the best nominee we could expect from the Administration. I cannot vote to confirm the next Chief Justice of the United States simply because the next nominee to the Court may be even less protective of our fundamental rights and liberties or less dangerous to our national security. Frankly, I am not sure how I would make that determination given the limited record before me. Some may argue that Democrats should vote for Judge Roberts because of his resume. I, however, do not think that should be the test. A Supreme Court Justice needs more qualifications than an impressive resume. They need compassion and sensitivity. They need an understanding of the consequences of their decisions and how they further our democratic traditions. "
I wrote a piece this morning that I thought would end up on this page. Somehow it ended up on Highlights of the Show Jan 18 thru 22. Daily topics doesn't boot until later...lately. I hope some will be interested enough to find it. It is too long to re-type here again. It recounts this past week. I think it is worthwhile...you be the judge. The Revolution has begun! Will true patriots join the battle?
What a miserable week. Let's review the lowlights: Tuesday, January 19th...Massachusetts voters are in a snit about the way things are going, angered because of the back-room deals and fecklessness of the ruling party so they collectively decide to cut off their noses to spite their faces by electing a centerfold poser of independence. "Brown 41", (yes it is related to "Brown 25" from the old movie: "Groove Tube") The liberal lion of the Senate turns in his grave.
Wednesday, January 20th,...The Appeaser in Chief abandons yet another public servant for the crime of being open to union representation. Senator Jim Demented, from South Carolina, does another victory dance while celebrating Waterloo.
Thursday, January 21st,....Black Thursday...the day that democracy began to die...SCOTUS, by a vote of 5 to 4 slit the throat of the people's voice and ceded their power to special interests. Overturning more than 100 years of precedence and ignoring the principals of Stare Decisis, this most activist of all courts, began to replace our cherished democracy with a plutocracy. The legacies of Thomas Paine, Sam Adams, and our founders have been replaced by Citizens United, a corporation. Meanwhile, Democratic politicians were reported to be scurrying around the Halls of our Capitol like frightened mice.
Later Thursday afternoon, we learned that Air America Radio had filed for Chapter 7...liquidation. Icing on the cake. The coup is proceeding nicely.
First you weaken the opposition , then you silence them, then you kill'em.
So here we are...the morning after. Like Keith Olbermann kept asking on "Countdown" last night, "What are you going to do about it?" Typing on keyboards and relying on the Internet ain't gunna cut it. One of my favorite characters from history is Sam Adams. He was the primary rabble rouser and prime architect of getting the people agitated, activated, and motivated to throw off the chains of tyranny. It was his spark which ignited the Revolution more than any other single person. Where is our Sam Adams?
Chances are, without a unifying clarion voice like Sam Adams, the masses will stand idly by, chewing their cud, waiting to see what happens. Many will scoff at those who wail, calling them "Chicken Little". "The sky is not falling", they'll say, "this is a good thing, it's a victory for free speech!." Many craven Democrats will agree. If ever there was a chance for the Democratic Party to stand for something...this is it. There is no compromise or appeasing this threat. The battle lines are now drawn, opponents to our shared values are massed and on the move. Who will join the battle? The DLC Democratic middle will not. The Blue Dogs will not. The Tea Party will not. It is up to us to start the revolution. We must go to the streets. We must practice civil disobedience, and make the establishment uncomfortable. They, (our opponents), have the money but we have the truth and right on our side. Most importantly, we potentially have the numbers. If we build it...They will come.
I have been reading and writing on this blog for almost six months now. i have come to admire the knowledge, wisdom, and decency of those who come here. The first Revolution began in a few small taverns in North Boston. There is no reason we cannot begin here...people of a like mind...people who cherish their liberties and individual freedoms....people who hold the gifts and promises of our fore father's work dear. Yesterday I included the first part of a Thomas Paine quote on this blog roll. I left out the second half. Today It seems useful. Dec 23, 1776 "These are the times that try men's souls.......
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheep, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value."
What are we going to do about it? Any ideas? Lets put our heads together and join hands. One idea: February 21st. is a Sunday. maybe we should organize and promote a vigil for democracy and individual freedoms, opposed to all forms of tyranny, in front of our federal Court Houses in each community each month on the 21st. Come armed with press releases recounting the history and our fore father's views about the dangers of corporate hegemony. Or are we too afraid and lazy to take real action? The Tea Baggers aren't.
Here is something a very smart man, Dana Paxton, posted on Facebook: "Here's an idea: why don't ALL the citizens of this country incorporate, as say, as The American People Corporation? Then we could share the rights and powers of today's great corporations. We wouldn't need political parties any more. We could buy whatever laws we wanted. We could outbid anyone we wanted to. We could fire the CEO, and elect new board members at will. What do you think?"
Thomm, I used to catch your program on the am 1090 in Seattle a couple times a month. Those few programs intrigued me so much that I decided to subscribe to your podcast. I can now proudly claim I am a Thomm Hartman show junkie. Thank you for opening my eyes. The purpose of my email is the supreme courts decision today to remove all barriers against corporate donations to politicians. Now, I've become a bit more savvy in todays political decisions (thanks to you and other progressive talk shows), and I was completely unaware of this. Not only am I disgusted beyond explanation that our judicial branch would pass such a blatantly corporatist law, but that NO ONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT IT. They snuck another one past us. I'm sorry Thomm, but Canada has never looked so nice. I know things aren't perfect there but at least their court systems pull this shit (pardon my language), and they have universal health care. Thank you for all that you do Thomm. I look forward to your program every day.
Hey people....you're being way too intellectual about this. this is much simpler and more heinous than that. This reeks of Rove and Scalia. I understand the move was strategized last year. The whole point of this is, in essence, Mr. Rove inspired if not Rove directly looking to see where power can be brought to bear to impose the neoconservative ideology on America by force. This move is directly a move to give the advantage to the conservatives. We have to acknowledge Fox News has been effective in using the media to manipulate ill informed and gullible Americans. This adds an entirely new dimension to the game. Rupert Murdoch and the WSJ are already celebrating this decision in suppor of "free speech." Obama the Whimp needs to give up this BS. "team of rivals" dream. The conservatives of today are not interested in his ovations. The only game they will ever play is the no holds barred we are mortal enemies game - no matter the cost to America. Billions of dollars in personal income for them are at stake for them with every presidential election, and all the history shows that they wills stop at nothing to win that opportunity - they have demonstrated election fraud, politization of the judicial, fear and warmongering, trickle down economics, andy and every strategy to fill their pocketbooks. These are evil people. I used to think not, but the more I look, the worse it gets...
Hey hypsypops, do you remember the song "Hey, I Bought Me a Senator!"? I think if we pool our money, maybe 250 million of us donating 2 bucks each might buy two. Collect all 50 pairs, and you're a winner! Then appoint some real Supreme Court Justices, or add two new ones. It seems the species of honest justices needs some more new members, lest they go extinct.
Thom,
Let's post " Congressman for sale" on ebay with all corporate bidders welcome. Or hey why stop there "Government for sale". Did the ruling say foreign corporations can contribute to a senator or other official? It may have to go on the millionaire ebay site though just so you can't buy them too cheaply.Just my 2¢
Hypsypops
Hello Thom!
Great program on the bad ruling by the high court. I think it's interesting how the corporatist right-wing justices on the supreme court speak pseudo-prophetically about the protection of freedom of corporate speech they want, but completely ignore our right to fair elections. The ninth amendment states "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." It's obvious to all what the problems is - money buys influence, and sways elections - those who have more of it to spend on ads, contributions, and lobbyists will have very good odds of getting what they want, often to the detriment of the citizenry as a whole, and to those honest business living by higher ethical standards. The moneyed investors in essence are voting multiple times, using their money indirectly to buy votes, and to weaken government's role as the arbiter of fair play. And while freedom of speech is important, as we loose honest government, we loose those protections of our rights that government is set up to protect, including individual free speech. So, I believe the right to Fair Elections (& thus Fair Contests for Office), including equal access to the media for qualifying candidates, is an essential right by which all other rights are protected. A limit on contributions to no more than what the working class citizen can afford after paying all the bills seems reasonable as a start. A citizen's advocate that acts as a go-between for any interest group lobbying Congress or the President needs inclusion, such that an added check and balance is put into place. Equal access to the public airwaves before an election, since the broadcast spectrum is a commons to which broadcasters have been granted a special privilege to use, and they owe the country use of those frequencies during critical times, to which the citizenry is entitled a fair opportunity for viewing candidate broadcast time.
To unravel the gordian's knot and find the beginning of the line, I think we need to start with getting honest candidates elected by a combination of forces: (1) more grass-roots information on where the money is going and what it is buying, voting records, and real legislative results, (2) a non-profit dedicated to amassing numerous small contributions to use as a carrot to qualifying candidates who eschew special interest and big donor money in favor of a broad swath of support in the district. and (3) publicly shaming those who take the big lumps of money, to heighten awareness of the candidate's true behaviors, and to act as a lever to dissuade them from taking the bribes.
What would Ray McGovern have to say about that?
(continued from above)
THE QUESTION: ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT JUSTICES ARE APPOINTED FOR LIFE, THERE MUST SURELY BE A CLAUSE IN THE LAW SOMEWHERE IN CASE THEY LITERALLY LOSE THEIR MINDS, E.G. ALZHEIMERS, OR SCHIZOPHRENIA. WHAT IS THIS CLAUSE?
We citizens should then mobilize to invoke it when SCOTUS takes completely insane (not merely run of the mill, anti-democratic soak-the-poor(and middle class) but really insane rulings, like this.
Please let us know what this clause is, Thom,
Thanks,
-E.D. (EconomicDemocracy.org)