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.
IN THE "JUST WHAT WE NEED" DEPARTMENT ---
"Comcast in talks with GE to form cable group using NBC's assets"
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c2873e0e-aee9-11de-96d7-00144feabdc0.html
"Comcast is in talks with General Electric to create a new venture that would combine NBC Universal and the content assets of the top US cable operator, people familiar with the negotiations said."
Remember when Comcast was taking MSNBC off the basic cable line-ups in selected markets over the past few years? All of a sudden, people couldn't watch Countdown or Rachel Maddow unless they paid more.
I think nothing good can come of this, though I hope I'm wrong.
MADDOW ON PAWLENTY
Rachel has uncovered disgraced Republican operatives and former Bush officials in Pawlenty's "dream team" run for the White House. I hope she does more stories on Pawlenty. There's a lot of THERE there (video):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show#3313...
B Roll,
That has occurred to me, too. However, you COULD argue that, in their world, the right-wing crazies don't want the government to pay for ANYONE's healthcare. So, I say, the government shouldn't pay for THEIRS, whether it is their employer or not. In their way of thinking, if they don't like it, they can look for another job. (The argument would be more logical, and at least as compassionate as THEY.)
When Thom interviewed Michael Moore, he asked a question as to why there was so little demonstration. Michael Moore felt that the people were in a state of despair. The people had such high hopes and Obama has failed the people. It is the same old, same old.
Alan Grayson, a Congressman from Florida is becoming an American hero. We need more Alan Graysons in America.
Mary T
I think we have a tendency to over analyze and interpret sometimes. I think that the horrific nature of The Holocaust in an era in which the world had world wide news media, plus the determination of Jews to make sure the world know had more to do with it than any attempt by the U.S. to cover its trail.
In addition, The Holocaust provided the impetus for the creation of the state of Israel, so the connection was intentionally made stronger.
It’s odd (or not) that even when Barack Obama talks tough—such as in regard to Iran’s secret mountain retreat for its nuclear shenanigans—right-wing talk seems congenitally incapable of giving him the slightest credit. Obama, it seems, didn’t talk as tough as the leaders of Britain and France; according to the right, this is a sign of “weakness.” That may be the cynical Iranian impression of Obama’s initial offer of unconditional talks, which Iran has made little effort to reciprocate. But the Wall Street Journal is wrong in its contention that Obama undercut the Bush/European “strategy” of threatening sanctions against Iran; sanctions have produced zero results, demonstrated by the fact that Iran metaphorically thumbed its nose at the world by constructing the Qom site—which was in fact known to exist by the Bush administration. On the other hand, Obama’s decision to scrap the unproven Bush/Cheney land-based missile defense “shield” in Poland, whose only purpose seems to be to reassure NATO’s eastern European partners fearful of Russia, should have the effect of removing a needless point of contention with Russia. But whether this will persuade the Russians to reciprocate by hardening its line toward Iran is still an open question. Such is the mess that Bush/Cheney left Obama to fix.
Iran wants to be the Muslim world’s superpower, which makes it a threat to Israel and the West’s access to oil-producing countries. Russia, which must be held responsible for supplying the Iranians with nuclear technology knowing the nature of the regime, has yet to deal with the fact that Iran’s quixotic pretensions threaten its own power in the region; perhaps it believes that permitting Iran to be a thorn in the side of the U.S. is in its interest for now—forgetting that a rogue Iran isn’t in the Western Hemisphere. China, on the other hand, would rather stand on the sidelines (perhaps for the same reason), while it merely backs watered-down sanctions against North Korea and its attempt to acquire nuclear weapons. China is partial to the fact that North Korea is its most dependent trading partner, and prefers to maintain Kim Jong-Il in power because it doesn’t want to see the country (such as it is) collapsing in chaos and upsetting the political and military status quo on the peninsula. The problem for China, of course, is that Kim plays by his own rules and can't be controlled; the fact that a powerful China is his patron and protector suggests that his nuclear bomb ambitions (while his people starve) does rather have a mental imbalance angle.
Meanwhile, why are we still in Afghanistan? This country already had an opportunity to enter the modern world after its defacto independence from Britain in 1919; its king, Amanullah Khan, was (like Turkey’s post-Ottoman ruler Kemal Ataturk) was impressed by western advances and used his initial popularity to attempt to force modernization on the country (to include compulsory public education for girls as well as boys). But his efforts proved to be unpopular, and shortly after the country was devastated by an anti-modernization rebellion, Amanullah was forced to abdicate in 1929. Little has changed since then. Democratizing Afghanistan is a shibboleth, so what are we doing there? It doesn’t have oil, or any other resources we want. I heard a right-wing radio talker claim that we could wipe out the Taliban tomorrow if we wanted to, but the jelly-like liberals want to get out now. Funny how it isn’t explained how wiping out the Taliban would be done, since Bush and Cheney couldn’t figure it out. Also seldom mentioned is that the Taliban isn’t the only militant Afghan entity we have to fight; even our “friends” amount to little more than deals with the Devil. Given the corruption of the current Kabul “administration,” why doesn’t the U.S. just make a deal with the Taliban: give-up Osama Bin Laden (if he’s still alive), start negotiations that offers to allow them to participate as a sanctioned political party, and then get the hell out. The only other reason for the U.S. to remain is to have forces on the ground as a “deterrent” to Iran’s ambitions, but is that worth the lives of U.S. forces?
Thom
You and some others have been making the claim that our elected representatives who oppose "socialize medicine" enjoy the benefits of receiving their "socialized medicine". I'm surprised that it has occurred to you that what they actually get is "employer based insurance". It just so happens that their employer is the government.
TORONTO (Reuters) - Canada outperforms the United States in health outcomes but is well behind global leaders like Japan in overall health of its population, a Canadian report released on Monday showed.
The annual report card by the Conference Board of Canada ranked Canada 10th out of 16 developed countries, with a "B" grade. The United States was the worst performer, placing 16th and earning a "D" grade.
"Canada has been at the center of much of the debate on U.S. health care reform. Since Canada ranks ahead of the United States on all but one indicator of health status ... it is clear that we are getting better results," Gabriela Prada, director of health policy at the Conference Board, said in a statement.
"But when we look beyond the narrow Canada-U.S. comparison to the rest of the world, Canadians rank in the middle of the pack in terms of their health status," Prada said.
Most of the data on which the report card was based is from 2006, the group said.
President Barack Obama has pledged to reform the country's healthcare system, which is expensive and leaves millions of Americans without coverage. Canada, with its single-payer government-run system, is often held out as an example to be praised or derided by U.S. critics.
The Conference Board, which has been issuing the report card since 1996, ranked the 16 countries according to 11 criteria, including life expectancy, mortality due to cancer, circulatory diseases, respiratory diseases, mental disorders, as well as infant mortality and self-reported health status.
Japan was once again the top-ranking country. Switzerland, Italy, and Norway also earned "A" grades.
"B" grades were given to Sweden, France, Finland, Germany, Australia and Canada, while Netherlands, Austria and Ireland earned a "C" grade, the report showed.
Along with the United States, Denmark and the United Kingdom got "D" grades.
Canada and the United States both earned "A" grades on self-reported health status, ranking first and second, respectively, among the 16 countries.
Canada ranked higher than the United States on all of the mortality measures except for mortality due to cancer, a criteria for which both countries earned a "B" grade.
The Conference Board said top-performing countries achieved better health outcomes on broad actions such as environmental stewardship and health promotion programs that focus on changes in lifestyle, along with education, early childhood development, and income to improve health outcomes.
Rank Country Grade
1 Japan A
2 Switzerland A
3 Italy A
4 Norway A
5 Sweden B
6 France B
7 Finland B
8 Germany B
9 Australia B
10 Canada B
11 Netherlands C
12 Austria C
13 Ireland C
14 United Kingdom D
15 Denmark D
16 United States D
Source: The Conference Board of Canada
(Reporting by Andrea Hopkins; editing by Peter Galloway)
B Roll:
You are right about word possessiveness -- although I feel that the use of "civil rights" is far less controversial than the use of "holocaust" in our national conversation.
I just fired off an e-mail to Maddow (and Hardball too) to make a point I formed after researching the word "holocaust" via four different hardcover dictionaries I have at home (editions that span 1959 through 2003).
My point?
The evolution of the American definition of the word "holocaust" over six decades makes me wonder whether our country is trying to downplay our own violence committed on the planet (nuclear holocaust perpetrated TWICE less than 50 years after annihilating the Native American populations) by elevating Hitler's? Just a thought.
Quark
I'm actually not chuckling. I think most of these conversations are an incredible waste of time. There are so many incredible progressive out there with profound insights and vast experience, but there isn't time them because Thom believes it's important to have these dialogs.
What dialongs? At best, we have two people throwing ideas at each other like mud pies. These guests aren't sincere and thoughtful people interested in sharing and testing their ideas. They're well paid propagandists who are going to spout the party line close to 100% of the time.
If this pedagogical technique was working you'd expect that Thom would be getting calls reporting of successes at family gatherings or at the legendary water cooler. I don't remember hearing call like that but I do remember heairng calls from people who complain about having family members or friends who they can't get through to.
The reason many listeners think Thom is doing such a great job in these debates is that they hear Thom saying things they agree with. Right wing listeners aren't going, "Damn, we lost that one. They think their guy prevailed.
If this is modeling it's like what we often see on TV. The high stepping skinny model comes down the runway in her emaciated beauty and then... well we've all seen what happens.
Mary T
It's an unfortunate fact of our lives that certain words have been appropriated by certain groups who guard them jealously.
"holocaust" is such a world and has been made into a proper noun, which many Jewish people feel should only be used to refer to the actions of the Third Reich. The right wingers can only make it an issue because some powerful forces in the Jewish community have taken offense at ti being used in any other way.
Many other groups use the word "holocaust" to refer to mass scarle killings of their people and usually don't get much flack, e.g., American Indians, African-Americans and Armenians, though some may not like their using the term. But generic use often gets criticism.
But this whole brouhaha is another case of artificial rage on the part of the Republicans who are only interested in waging political war against the Democrats and economic war against average Ameicans.
Possessiveness about words isn't limited to the world "holocaust". Many African-Americans feel that they have ownership of "civil rights" and resent it when other groups, i.e., woment and especially gays use it. They feel like these other groups are riding on the backs of their people and usurping the gains they made through hard struggles.
This was something the opponents of Proposition 8 in California. They thought that when they framed "gay marriage" as an issue of "civil rights" that the black community would understand and support their position. But the truth is that many in the black community take great offense at that framing.
People rationalize more than they are rational.
Re: Conversations with right-wing crazies... B-Roll, I can hear you chuckling in the background...
@Mary T & Quark: You both spoke my feelings pretty darn well.
@ B. Roll: Thank you. Warning!: Useful is a word seldom associated with my musings.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/congress-health-care-clinic/story?id=87...
Mena,
The conversations never go anywhere. They're not really conversations (that is, what I would call a conversation --- open to give and take on both sides.) Instead, they all seem to follow the same pattern, ending with Thom's tolerance. Great, I'll try to be the tolerant adult and just let the intolerant child babble on.
What an exercise in futility.
DDay
I will respond to your post about your theory today when I have time. It is fun, and hopefully useful, to ponder these questions.
@Richard L. Adlof: I admire your unequivocal style. It's muscular yet refreshing, what with all the pussyfooting common to so many on the Rive' Gauche. OOPS...Using the French idiom to clothe the meaning of liberal is an example of pussyfooting in itself.
@ B. Roll & Mena Sprague: I wish Thom would devote or set aside more time for his discussions. Anything worth doing is worth doing right. Most right-wingers have unfortunately adopted the tactics of rudeness and bombast when debating the left. It's been tolerated for way too long. Being polite and hoping for embarrassment to dampen their incivility is ineffective and lame. we have watched this crap for more than a decade. Better to achieve a draw by matching them when forced by circumstance, (when on Fox). However, when in control of the format, (as Thom is on his show), the outcome is unsatisfying for the audience. When time is so constrained it becomes a contest of who can talk over the other, rather than a more satisfying contest of ideas.
I think Thom does a better job than most, if not all, by offering provocative, intelligent and timely discourse with great grace and patience. BUT For the most part, the one segment debates with ideologues on the right are usually, mostly, noise.
Quark, I'll have to disagree with you on Thom's guests, providing a different point of view is enlightening. The guest was bogarting the conversation as most Republicans do. I admire the way Thom took much needed control of the conversation.
Kim,
Your call echoed my sentiments re: the uselessness of trying to talk to cult members (who need deprogramming!), in so many words. Thanks!
Mary T,
Yes! I don't think the "crazy right" has a leg to stand on 'til they behave the way THEY want to be treated! What immature, misanthropic excuses for human beings!
John's call just now about the word "holocaust" ... he just spoke for me. I take offense to the offense to Rep. Grayson's use of the word in his comments to the House. The word holocaust is totally legitimate to be used outside of the horrible events of the first half of the 20th century. Why we grant this word such an exalted and limited use is a continued source of frustration to me.
My Merriam-Webster (11th edition) has TWO definitions for the word holocaust before it gets around to mentioning what Nazi Germany caused.
Please, can we all agree -- what Hitler did was inexcusable and not to be repeated. We get that. Now can we move on and act like adults and stop this phony posturing that everyone in the media takes regarding a single word. It's wrong, and Rachel Maddow was wrong to make such a big deal of it. In fact, I was embarrassed for her; it was a cheap shot against the congressman, and it plays right into the hands of the Rethugs.
Thom,
You may be interested in listening to the podcast of the following:
"Do 'Buy American' policies work?"
In an Oxford-style debate, six experts discuss whether Buy American and Hire American provisions actually work.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/09/29/midday2/
Have we noticed how three people have talked over Thom and then accused him of talking over his guests and him. The CRAZIES are calling in today. When are we going to organize???????
We hear it over and over again, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.
That’s not the definition of insanity. It was a quip Albert Einstein made that has been repeated so many times that many people believe it actually is the definition.
One thing I found refreshing on Tuesday and Wednesday was the absence of the fruitless duels with well paid right wing propagandists that Thom feels are so important. But today is Thursday and Thom couldn’t wait getting back into the fray.
Did anyone learn anything from Thom’s bickering with Scott Wheeler? What was the point? I agree with the (right wing) caller Steven that Thom was rude. Maybe we could learn something about the thinking of the right wing if he would be allowed to finish his thoughts. It seems the only thing Wheeler was allowed to do was change the subject. Wasn’t the topic supposed to be “Could the Fairness Doctrine really ’shut down’ talk radio?!”
I know Thom is extremely busy, but I wish he would listen to some of his conversations with his right wing pals to see if they’re really worth the time he devotes to them.
If this was supposed to be modeling, I think it’s time for Thom to move on to some “fancy pageant walking”.
Here we go...
"Pawlenty files PAC forms, fills out political team"
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/10/01/pawlenty-files-p...
St. Paul, Minn. — Gov. Tim Pawlenty will file the official paperwork to form his political action committee today.
My comment: Beware America. Pawlenty ran Minnesota into the ground with the same policies as Bush ran the country. He is a scary package with the face of a poker player.
@MARK: Seriously? USA Today veers left? Have you ever read a single issue? USA Today has never been more than the pictorial version for semi-literates of the fusion of People Magazine and the Wall Street Journal.