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.
And I repeat, no skin off my ass.
. . . and it was the Democrat Party of the early 1940s that forced FDR to replace Henry Wallace with Harry Truman in the 1944 election, a product of the privately financed political machine that ran the Democrat Party in those days. A monumental act that replaced perhaps the smartest man that had ever served in Washington with a political hack changing the future history of this country, but not for the better ! Wallace had strong support to run for the top office in 1948 under an independent label but hit the same wall that independent office seekers have always encountered in this dominant two-party system !
Thom, I don't know the right way to get this topic into your queue (I'm new to your site) but really need to discuss Scott Walker and the Koch brothers. Your program yesterday (second hour) was right on the mark..by the way, Scott's trademark is his Harley-Davidson (made in Wisconsin, of course). Our resistance to his rule lives on in the Solidarity Sing Along; we've done well over 1000 consecutive weekday manifestations of our disregard for his and his legislators' shenanigans. We do this by singing at the top of our lungs in the center of the capitol building, the rotunda, for one hour (12 noon to 1 p.m.) songs of labor, civil rights, and specially crafted humorous songs about the Emperor Scott. Drives 'em nuts. How do we get this (Wisconsin's stand-up, fight-back) started as a topic? Because I cannot grope my way through your complicated site--I just signed up for podcasts last week--could someone please email me some guidance on this?
Martina Rippon
martina2323@gmail.com
Let me repeat. legal Marijuana will be regulated and taxed, and all the rhetoric in the world won't change that fact.
Let me repeat. legal Marijuana will be regulated and taxed, and all the rhetoric in the world won't change that fact.
OU812, it's the Repuiblican bill that's gonna keep it illegal to keep a plant in your back yard. It's like they're trying in Washington, they gotta keep everything in control of the oligarchs.
OU812, you can brew your own beer, ferment your own juice and distill your own liquor, you just can't sell it without a liscence. Moonshine is illegal only in dry counties - that are so numerous in Appalachia.
Regulation is a good thing if it's not abused for political and revenue purposes (which only happens now because of Grover Nordquist cutting off the states and therefore the states then cutting off the counties and municipalities of funding, go back to taxing Wall Street, billionaires and big business and it won't happen).
Yes, they're very much like the Bush administration. In fact George W. Bush was quite unhappy with our previous administration because the Liberals refused to send troops into Iraq. However, when the Conservatives took power, Harper and Bush got along very well -- both being conservative oil men and both being hawkish on military issues. In fact, Harper joked that he was George Bush's "Mini-Me," in reference to the Austin Powers movies. This also marked the first time Canada saw US-style election shenanigans, like the robocall/poll location scandal and new voter ID requirements (despite no historical evidence of voter fraud or any past contraversy in Canadian elections).
That's not to say Harper's win wasn't legitimate, it was, but he didn't get the majority of the vote. It was a combination of low voter turn-out coupled with public outrage over the scandals of the previous administration and a three-party system, which split the vote, that enabled Harper to take office.
Our next election is in November. It will be interesting to see if Canadians have had enough. Judging by what I'm reading online, I'd say there's a good chance the Liberals will get in. But the damage done by the current administration will have long-lasting, and in some cases permanent, damage to our environment, economy, and standing in the world.
I might prefer Venezuelan oil to Canadian. Since Chavez they equitably distribute the profits from their oil.
Kend has a lot personally invested in the tar sands oil operation. He has told us so on this blog and and asked us to speak in support of his investment.
He's alright, he's just on a lot of bullshit. Once you know that about him you can get along with him okay.
The point is, we gotta leave oil and that tar sands stuff in the ground . Obama said he would make his decision according to the impact on climate change.
It is already known how many degrees the burning of that oil sands stuff will raise the temperature of the planet if it's consumed. Doesn't matter where they ship it to get burned.
Not like were gonna slide it past Mother Nature and get away with it without consequence somehow.
It sounds like the "W" Adm. against the anti-invade-Iraq people who came around to as many little candlelight gatherings they could find, to harass those of us who didn't want a 2nd war in 2002. We were families, some with tiny babies, holding candles... and here came these thugs in top-of-the-line cars hurling bottles and threats/slurs/nasty language at us when all we were doing was singing patriotic songs and praying for Peace.
Some of those very same cars and voices harassed our neighborhood fund gatherings when we were campaigning for Obama... and they did that in broad daylight with ittle Brownies and Girl Scouts present. No class; no respect.
Len Ferns makes a good point about the East/West rivalry in Canada. The western-most provinces have traditionally had little representation in Ottawa.
The tables finally turned, at least for Albertans, when the Conservatives took office. It's understandable that Albertans are going to enjoy the attention and prosperity heaped upon them by Harper and his policies. But make no mistake -- Harper respresents the tarsands, not the West.
If Alberta is Canada's answer to Texas, then British Columbia would be California. BC doesn't have tarsands. It's a diverse land of mountains, deserts, rainforest, and ocean beaches. This means that most people -- even the pro-corporate provincial government -- are concerned about the environment to some extent. This makes them more of a thorn in Harper's side than anything. He would like nothing more than to run pipelines from the tarsands to the West coast, as they can't get our oil off to China fast enough.
There are several pipelines being proposed in Canada right now, and they're being met with just as much opposition as the Keystone XL is in the United States -- much of that opposition is coming from British Columbians and First Nations groups (aka Native Indian Bands).
The following was originally posted by DdC. I don't think he would mind me recycling it here. After all, facts are facts! This is for all you people who get so self righteous about pot smokers who drive stoned:
MARIJUANA AND DRIVING
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said a 20-month survey of drivers in 2013 and 2014 found that while drinking dramatically raises the chance of a crash, there was no evidence that marijuana use is statistically significant in boosting wreck rates.
No evidence marijuana leads to higher crash risk
In fact, the NHTSA didn’t seem to be too happy about reporting their own study’s results. Check out the tortured language in their release (released on a Friday afternoon naturally): Here’s the study.
Drivers stoned on marijuana test their driving skills
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw1HavgoK9E&feature=share
So back to our drivers, and the issue many mothers are now concerned about: children having a new intoxicant to afflict their driving skills. How did the ‘impaired’ volunteers actually do? Well at a certain point, the substance had an undeniable effect on their ability to navigate a vehicle sensibly. But they all maintained surprising control, even at incredibly excessive levels of marijuana consumption. Moreover, unlike drunk drivers, they were very much aware of their state and agreed they were not on top of their game. Without over-indulging, it seems people’s critical thinking can be trusted more with a few hits than a couple of drinks.
Cannabis use and Driving
"A single glass of wine will impair your driving more than smoking a joint. And under certain test conditions, the complex way alcohol and cannabis combine to affect driving behaviour suggests that someone who has taken both may drive less recklessly than a person who is simply drunk". ~ New Scientist March 2002 Crancer Study, Washington Department of Motor Vehicles "Simulated driving scores for subjects experiencing a normal social "high" and the same subjects under control conditions are not significantly different. However, there are significantly more errors for alcohol intoxicated than for control subjects"
What if Police Say They Smell Marijuana?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxVuBHMKSuU
Know your rights when dealing with police. Flex Your Rights Associate Director Scott Morgan discusses your legal rights in the event that police claim to smell marijuana.
Drug mishandling may have tainted 40,000 cases
"As someone who spent 35 years wearing a police uniform, I've come to believe that hundreds of thousands of law-enforcement officers commit felony perjury every year testifying about drug arrests." - Joseph McNamara, former San Jose Chief of Police
NIDA and drugged driving
As usual, the only “facts” they’re interested in are those that oppose drug use in any way, and even then they’re not really concerned about whether they are actually facts.
http://cdn.humormadness.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/1055.jpg
So Grandpa Dave, put THAT in your pipe an' smoke it! - AIW
Please ignore Kend. He's most likely working on behalf of the oil companies and does not speak for Canadians. Most of us don't want these pipelines running through our provinces or your states any more than you do.
Thom is correct in his assesment of the situation, and the citizens of Canada receive no benefit or royalties whatsoever from the tarsands, unless you happen to work for an energy company in Alberta. Even the cost of gas here is outrageously high when compared to other oil-producing nations.
If you take the time to read the comments from the public on websites like the CBC news, you'll see that people are extremely unhappy with the current government and their so-called economic policies. We're also sick of this man going around the world denying climate change and saying he's speaking on behalf of Canadians, when in fact most Canadians are concerned about climate change.
From the CBC news website:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/climate-change-survey-reveals-canadians-...
"A new Environics poll suggests a majority of Canadians worry about climate change and how it will affect their children and grandchildren.
The survey of 2,020 people revealed 50 per cent of respondents are "extremely" or "definitely" concerned about a changing climate, and 78 per cent of those fear the kind of legacy it will leave for future generations.
Among the findings, the poll suggests the percentage of Canadians who believe in the scientific fact of climate change continues to edge up — to 63 per cent in 2014 compared to 60 per cent last year. One in 10 remain skeptical about the science."
Unfortunately, the party next in line is the Liberals. Despite the name, they are not "liberal" in the American sense, but rather neo-liberal or corporatist. With endless scandals, broken promises, and backroom deals, they've practically run British Columbia into the ground. That said, I'd take Justin Trudeau (son of Pierre Trudeau) any day over Harper. Unfortunately, the NDP are terrible at messaging, and it will be decades before the Green Party has any serious clout.
Until the average citizen expects better from their government (the J-curve I believe it's called), Canada will continue to struggle under misguided economic policies centered around devaluing our currency and selling off our raw natural resources for pennies on the dollar (not to mention clubbing baby seals over the head for their skins), rather than investing in high technology and green energy.
In Canada, there is some difference between Mineral Rights and Oil and Gas Rights.
That may explain some oddities in the above comments, but suffice it to say, Oil and Gas rights belong primarily to each of the provinces, and only a small percentage to the federal government. This has been the subject of a long and tedious war between Alberta and much of the rest of Canada. Our current Prime Minister is from Alberta and his family ties involve oil and gas.
Some Canadians support the tar-sands...some don't...But the freedom to say you don't support the tar sands appears to be under attack. Canada is definitely going against the global grain that is trying to move away from fossil fuels.
Climate change critics applaud that, and environmentalists are globally embarrased by it.
As far as Royalties are concerned, the benefits do not appear to be distributed equally throughout the country and they are generally not social benefits, but more like tax breaks to those least likely to actually need them.
This argument can also become a very left-right argument.
As far as royalties are concerned, Norway would appear to manage it's oil resources far better than Alberta...ie (genuine public programs, that would appear to be socialist to Albertans).
I write Albertans (not Canadians), because this argument is always about Norway's management of the resource versus Alberta's management of the resource. This is a long and painfull (east-west) fight in Canada, but it seems to go un-noticed that Alberta is a province and Norway is a country...something Albertans should reconcile with. For historic reasons, Alberta still appears to really detest sharing their oil wealth with the rest of the country - like Canada is a foreign land of quasi-socialist lay-abouts. Alberta has some old wounds that were probably not well dealt with, but one can't help but see Canada's current Prime Minister as a bit of an Albertan seeking revenge. (and perhaps a free-market white-knight with an evangelical twist???)
I am being a bit unfair here, but you might say this attitude clash in Canada is something like the percieved divide in American thinking between the old stereotypical Texas and the old stereotypical Vermont.
These are Interesting Times in Canada...curse and all!
Thanks Marc!
Reply to #26: Grandpa Dave, pot is NOT a hallucinogen. I’ve been smoking the stuff for nearly fifty years and not once have I hallucinated under the influence. I don’t know where you get your “facts” but it seems apparent you haven’t smoked the stuff yourself, or you would know better than to post bullshit like this.
Ah, and that old “kids” argument. If teenagers want to smoke the weed, they’re gonna get it whether it’s legal or not. Since it remains illegal for underage kids to buy the stuff, it’s no more available to them now than it was before pot was legalized.
Habitual pot use connected to psychosis?! Gee that’s news to me. I’ve known literally thousands of potheads in my lifetime and a majority of these people have lived functional, responsible lives. Even if that statement were true (which I doubt), it would pertain to a tiny minority of users, which is no reason to make it illegal for everyone. Far as parents of children are concerned, pl-EEEEEEZE! Haven’t we heard enough about children, in this context?!!! This has nothing to do with children. I’ve known lots of people who grew up with alcoholic parents and were horrifically abused by those parents, yet I don’t hear anyone hollering to bring back alcohol prohibition.
Pot sales have heavy state taxes? So what.
The argument about drivers impaired by pot is completely bogus. I will post separately on that issue. And by the way, THC metabolites remain in one’s system for roughly a month, so its presence in blood or urine is no indication of “impairment”.
Just the same old crap I’ve been hearing for decades. Ho-hum. - AIW
Calling environmentalists or for that matter any citizen that disagrees with the greed of the Economic Royalists, "extremists," is a word the truly extreme right wing Teabaggers, public employees like Tom Reed for example, have used to descibe their moderate democratic opponents in campaign mailings. So apparently this is a another example of upside down world both here and in Canada. The Fascists best defense is always staying on offense.
The most recent poll I saw three months ago, indicated the percentage of Americans who favor the Kochstone pipeline was at 57%. That's because the Oil Barons have their Teapublicans calling it a job creation bill and of course the media is paid to pass this bald-faced lie along to gullible citizens. The truth is only 500 to 1400 temporary construction jobs would be created. Climate change facts would drop that figure of 57% down to single digits overnight if we had a responsible media.... that is. The Teapublicans have a lot of gaul to call opponents of the pipeline, "job creation obstructionists," seeing how they have spent the last seven years blocking all real job creation efforts by the Democratic Party.
Yep, debt clock is just the t-securities which, as I said before, can be paid back by sending the amount in the purchaser's Fed t-securities account back to the purchaser's checking account. It's an obsolete law because there is no need to create t-securities to cover the so called "deficit". The "deficit" is an obsolete term also and, as I said above, doesn't equate to a personal deficit (not earning enough income to cover our bills).
The "fundamental" you describe above relates to micro-economics. Our conversation is about the macro-economics. I said that "The federal debt and federal deficit are not fundamentally connected." In other words, they are not related to or effect one another.
Yeah, one could look at the current situation in the Ukraine, and make a educated guess that the natural gas industry is influencing US foreign policy. Government policy is dictated by the agenda set by the wealth interest of each respective country - there are exception to this rule.
Follow the money stupid to bastardize a phrase by Slick Willy Clinton.
Kend ~ If BIG oil had a reputation for being the slightest bit responsible for their actions your financial arguments might make some sense. However, since the huge recent disaster in the Gulf, and BP's refusal to be responsible--perhaps inability to be responsible--people are starting to get pissed off and take notice. Not only does the mega giant, BP, get away with killing it's own workers through negligence, they permanently pollute an entire ecosphere and ruin the livelihoods on every sea based business on one of our nations most beautiful and productive coastlines; as well as, deprive every consumer from enjoying the bounties and beauty produced and provided by those areas.
BP walks away from any responsibility for the catastrophic damages they caused through blatant negligence with a mere $42 Billion fine. Then, we learn this fine is tax deductible and the victims of the crime get hit with paying 80% of that bill on top of all the other damage done to them. Do you think we're pissed off, yet. Duh!!
So you say this pipeline that transports oil sands to the gulf is safe because it's in a pipe. These pipes burst all the time you know. Just how do you plan on transporting this sludge to other countries across the already polluted gulf? In a balloon? By carrier pigeon? Up your ass? Who's gonna clean up the mess when the pipe inevitably bursts? The Royal Canadian Mounted Police? The Tooth Fairy? YOU! Wise up Pal, we're not that stupid; and, we've had just about enough of your dirty, filthy product. We know the truth now. That was the price BP ultimately paid was making one thing perfectly clear to everyone: WE ARE THE ONES WHO ARE LIABLE; and, guess what? WE DON'T BUY IT ANYMORE. Thank you!
http://jimhightower.com/node/8553#.VOawW_nF9id
Since everything about the EU has been a 'fudge' from the word GO, the EU will do whatever is necessary ultimately to accomodate Greece. Furthermore, Germany which is historically not a 'well-loved' nation in the EU , will not want to add to its "domineering" reputation by pushing the 'little guy' over the cliff. On top of that, a Grexit could usher in extreme right parties which are waiting in the wings. Unlike the US , many European right wing parties oppose draconian auterity programs as in France, Italy, Portugal, Spain. So, I believe, a deal will be done.
Isn't Nebraska still voting no on xl? Probably price not met yet.
Aliceinwonderland ~ Please allow me to provide that "long, long list."
http://thehempsolution.blogspot.com/
Here's a great video of interviews with Texas protesters that demonstrates the mind numbing effect FOX News has had on that population. To call it stunning, is to put it lightly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckqrudsDi6A