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.
I have solidified my belief in the real America with the reading of two articles - Stephan Lendman's article, "A Culture of Violence" and Ray McGovern's article, "Christians largely mum on torture."
We should not be surprised that the American people who claim to be a Christian people have accepted assassintion squads. Assassinations and torture are truly the American way.
The Obama Administration needs to listen to the Thom Hartmann Show on health care reform. Medicare is universal health care for all. Why try to reinvent the wheel?
I was unable to comment on Monday's show so here is my dummying down of American education comment.
Both American and foreign CEO's agree that they would prefer to hire foreign educated workers. American educated workers for the most part learn rote learning and they do not know how th think, discern, and do trial and error problems. On standardized tests teachers have been teaching to the test and not challenging students to think for years. This trend started in the early 1970's.
This is the most sensible option I have heard yet, but then I'm partial, since I've been asking about it for months now.
I found work that I could do despite my physical disability, but that locks me out of any reasonable chance of health care.
Here's a fun cartoon comparing single-payer healthcare insurance run by government to our fire protection.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jng4TnKqy6A
Since we've been on the subject of healthcare, if you are like me and don't have health insurance--which means you must stay healthy and treat yourself with herbal remedies---here is a terrific supplier of herbs and some very useful videos on how to create your own tinctures and syrups.
Tinctures take six weeks to make, so it's good to start now. Elderberry syrups you make and use right away- they only last two weeks in the refrigerator-- but using it may ward off flus and colds and might help if you get the flu.
I've purchased enough herbs for the fall and winter for 50 dollars. I love the whole process, having pretty jars full of herbs and remedies in my cupboards, the aroma of herbs, and the fun of making the tinctures and syrups. Plus it feels like anarchy to be your own doctor. Herbs have antioxidants and other vitamins and minerals that allopathic medicine doesn't have, too. And because your body is better at using what it needs of whole herbs, doses don't have to be so exact.
You have to do your reading, though, because they are powerful and some have toxic properties, or shouldn't be mixed with certain things, but there are so many resources for learning about them. And you can always see a naturopath first and then order the bulk herbs. If you make the recommended remedies yourself, they are much more affordable.
On one of the videos, an herbalist shows you how to make $100 worth of valerian ticture for example for around $15 or less.
Anyway, Mountain Rose is a terrific, reasonably-priced supplier and here are some fun videos for making remedies.
http://www.youtube.com/user/mountainroseherbs
Business and Media institute is a front for Brent Bozell's Media Research Center. mrc.org has a link to businessandmedia.org.
i have a question on taxes.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/taxes-crisis-recession-opinions-columni...
in this article it states that corporate taxes are high because the corporation pays a tax and then the shareholders pay a tax. Isn't that two different things? Why would that be considered as 2 items that should be added together to determine the rate?
When income tax is spoken of for wages, the sales tax isn't automatically added as an additional surcharge! Am I making the right analogy???
Help please!
B-Roll. Thank you very much for keeping in mind that I prefer to speak for myself. I appreciate that greatly! And If I want to post links to previous comments I've made, I'll be sure to do that, too, as I imagine others will as well. I would hate to feel as if big brother were living amongst us.
Since you have become so fascinated by what I have to say, here's a short story I wrote.
http://www.dublinquarterly.com/11/f_llong.html
And as far as my opinion of you. Rest assured I have no opinion of you whatsoever. I rarely think of you.
"The corporate grip on opinion in the United States is one of the wonders of the Western world. No First World country has ever managed to eliminate so entirely from its media all objectivity - much less dissent.
"Of course, it is possible for any citizen with time to spare, and a canny eye, to work out what is actually going on, but for the many there is not time, and the network news is the only news even though it may not be news at all but only a series of flashing fictions..." : Gore Vidal
Loretta,
I will try to keep that in mind. As I explained, I only wrote my comment because DDAy expressed concern that he/she might have been part of what had upset you and you had suggested in your post that you wouldn't be participating here for a week.
As I've already stated, I only referred to comments you'd posted here between last Friday through Sunday and I gave the link to that page so anyone who wanted to could see exactly what you wrote in your own words.
Whatever you think of me, I still appreciate your efforts in the cause of health care reform.
Over the weekend CNN was pitching “Romney Care” as a “compromise” plan for healthcare reform, while the Seattle Times did the same for the local co-op Group Death (I mean Group Health). CNN skirted the details of Massachusetts’ healthcare reform, failing to point out that plans under the insurer of last resort, Commonwealth Care, can still be an extremely expensive proposition for previously uninsured people required to buy coverage, but who otherwise could not afford it or would be denied coverage by other insurance providers. While there is a sliding scale for premiums based on ability to pay, there is still the potential for massive out-of-pocket expenses if you have the temerity to get sick. Furthermore, the plan has had budgetary issues, and tax increases to help relieve costs have been predictably opposed. One thing the plan has had a "positive" effect on is exposing just how great the shortage of primary physicians is.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration is continuing the insensible policy of trying to win over enough Republican lawmakers to make the claim that it is seeking a “bi-partisan” healthcare reform plan. Why, why, why? When the Republicans were in power, does anyone think they gave a damn about “bi-partisanship?" Not to my knowledge. Who cares what Orin Hatch thinks; the Republicans used the reconciliation ploy several times without once considering the hurt feelings of the Democrats.
The Democrats simply do not get it. The people respect strong, decisive leadership. If it is strong and decisive and unwavering, people will actually believe that leadership knows what the hell it is doing, or at least has a plan. I hate to say it (and I hope I'm wrong), but I am increasingly convinced that Obama and the Democrats will be completely and hopelessly indecisive and divided when the time of decision comes.
Obama likes the Lincoln analogies; well, here’s another one (at the risk of being “pedestrian”): in the 1860 presidential election, the Democratic Party was so bitterly divided between northern and southern wings that the party fragmented into several different parts, with only the North supporting the “official” Democratic Party candidate, Stephen Douglas. Although Lincoln won less than 45 percent of the vote (almost all of it in the North) he handily won the Electoral College. Many Northerners abandoned the Democratic Party in favor of the Republicans, because they were for the most part of the same mind in opposing the concept of a minority of slaveholding Southerners controlling the destiny of the country.
Now, we still have a fragmented Democratic Party and a united Republican Party. The Democrats reconstituted themselves after the Civil War, since the extension of slavery was no longer a dividing issue; Democrats didn’t start to fragment again in a significant way until Truman started having strange ideas, like desegregating the military, which disturbed the sensitivities of the Dixicrats. The problem today is that any issue that changes the status quo is a divisive issue, and Blue Dog Democrats are (let’s face it) Republicans under another name, who don’t like change. If they are not this, then I wish they’d just come out and tell us what they believe in that makes them "Democrats." In the meantime, Obama should—no, must—forget about lawmakers with an “R” after their names and focus on the challenge of “bi-partisanship” within his own fragmented party.
B-Roll: thank you for summing up what you believe Thom's comments to mean. You will never again have to sum up what you think my comments mean because you can simply ask me. And I will be forever grateful to you if you do just that. Thank you
Here is one of the most sensible discussions on healthcare reform that I've ever heard.
http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13
On Fresh Air Terri Gross interviews TR Reid who traveled around the world seeking care for a bum shoulder. He sums up all of the different versions of healthcare provided by the countries he visited, and from his travels, he came up with four categories of health coverage. Medicare--(named and created by Canada); NHS-- Britain; non-profit private insurance --Germany; and third world care (Out of pocket, trade, or stay sick and die). He maintains that the US system is inefficient partly because we have all four types of care in our one country.
One of the most interesting parts of the discussion was how Taiwan's liberal progressives were able to gain universal care for their citizens by insisting that it is indeed a moral imperative.
It's a very intelligent, witty, interesting discussion with a little bit of ayurveda thrown in too.
Reid's one mistake is comparing Germany's insurance coverage to our own. Germany's insurance companies are non-profit and it would be illegal for them to be otherwise. That's why their system works.
Posted by AZAFVET on Huffpost
Imagine 2009
Imagine no co-payments
It's easy if you try.
No doctor bills to break us
Or rejections to make us cry.
Imagine all our neighbors
Living without pain.
Imagine no deductibles
It isn't hard to do.
Prescription drugs for healing
And hospitalizations too.
Imagine all Americans
Living their lives in health.
You may say that I'm a Dreamer
But I'm not the only one.
I hope someday you'll join us
And the Health care payer will be just one.
Imagine no pre-existing conditions
I wonder if you can.
No need for approvals or referrals
And no Insurance Scams.
Imagine all our citizens
Sharing health for all.
You may say we're all dreamers
But we're not the only ones.
If our elected officials will hear us
Our insurance payer would be just one.
Well, reiterating what I said in my last comment (and it's actually a surprise to me that he thought I 'd respond to his Friday comments, since I've never directly responded to anything he's said before), history is simply what it is. B Roll would prefer to "sex it up." I suspect that B Roll thinks what I recounted was "pedestrian" because he simply has no idea of it, and being presented with reality it's a problem for him.
Loretta,
You wrote that I’m putting words in your mouth. I don’t think I did. Let’s look at the situation.
The second post on today’s blog is from you. In it you wrote:
“I think I will take a little break from the belittling, arrogant, egoism creeping up on this blog from a few commentators who think they are right and don’t seem to have much room for opinions other than their own…”
DDay was concerned that he/she might have written something that upset you. Since you said you were going to take a break from the blog and ended by telling us to “Have a terrific week”, I think it was fair to think you were planning to not participate for several days, maybe even a week. If you held to that intention, you wouldn’t be able to answer DDay.
Therefore, I posted a comment so DDay wouldn’t feel guilty. I said CLUES to what you were upset about MAY be found on last Friday’s blog. Then I mentioned the topics you took issue with from that blog. I didn’t say those comments were definitely what upset you; I suggested that they might have been because you commented on those posts specifically.
I thought there was a good chance that your first post today may have been in regards to Mark’s post, but since you didn’t specifically mention it, I didn’t mention it in my comment. That’s the opposite of putting words in your mouth.
You wrote:
“you think you can make assumptions about what other people feel or believe and act as if the assumptions you make are true.”
I think that may be called reading people and may even be part of being empathetic. There are people who have a lot of ability to understand where other people are coming from and others who have very little. I do think I’m fairly good at it, although I DO NOT assume my “assumptions” (instincts) are necessarily correct.
I remember the first book I read on my own (not for school) was called something like “Understanding Other People”. I’ve had an interest in how people think since I was young. And based on past performance, my instinct was that Mark might respond to my posts, although I didn’t quite expect such a pedestrian retelling of the Israeli version.
I’ve already told you why I didn’t mention Mark’s post even though I thought you might have been reacting to it. Now I’ll tell you why I thought your comment might have been in regard to Mark’s post. You wrote a very positive response to my two part post about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Mark’s post was obviously in response to my posts, and since you liked my post, I “assumed” you disagreed with his. Turns out, I was right, but I didn’t mention it in my response to DDay, because you hadn’t mentioned Mark’s post.
By the way, I totally agree with you that Mark’s version of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict isn’t the only version. In fact, though he may call it a “dispassionate knowledge of history” which he juxtaposes against what he calls the views of “passionate” pro-Palestinian advocates, he really has a very limited and biased view of the history of the conflict as well as of the current situation.
As for your belief that I was putting words in Thom’s mouth, again I disagree. In my posts on the Friday blog, I wrote things I’ve actually heard Thom say. It’s not worth the time to go through archived shows and listen to hours of programming to find the exact words, but I probably could. It would just take a long time.
Maybe you’re referring to my interpretation of the meanings of Thom’s comments and how he approaches the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. You seem to not like that I say he has an obvious pro-Israel bias.
Notice that unlike Rasta, who thinks Thom wants the Palestinians exterminated, I never wrote that Thom has an anti-Palestinian bias, only that he has a pro-Israeli bias. That’s a big difference, and there are several examples of me saying that Thom is a good decent man.
I’ve been listening to Thom since he took over this timeslot from Al Franken around two-and-a-half years ago. I’ve heard his frequent use of the term “Muslim crazies” while almost never using the term “Jewish crazies” although many of the religious settlers do heinous things. I’ve heard him put the problem at the feet of the Hamas and the Palestinian people for electing a majority Hamas parliament. I’ve heard him want to share the blame equally in situations where the majority of the blame belongs to Israel. He doesn’t even fully understand the dynamics of that election and thinks “3 cups of tea” could have solved everything.
These are some things that led me to the conclusion that Thom has a pro-Israel, not an anti-Palestinian, bias.
I hope this helps you understand why I wrote the things I wrote, both about why you might have posted your first comment today and why I think Thom has a pro-Israeli bias. But if you want to think I’m putting words in other people’s mouths, there’s not much more I can say about it.
I have to admit that I find it interesting that B Roll would claim that I am being overly sensitive concerning the atmosphere of racism, discrimination and civil rights violations that permeates around the immigration "debate" (and anyone "suspected" of being an immigrant) that the SPLCenter and other organizations have done extensive research to expose. And yet on the other hand, he has no problem in refusing to address the terrorist activities of Hamas (the chosen representatives of the people of Gaza); he defacto accepts it as business-as-usual. I don't care how he sugar-coats it. Let's not forget that the reason Gaza has been cordoned-off is because of the series of suicide bombings that killed hundreds of Israelis after the failure of the Rabin/Peres peace initiatives. If B Roll wants to make common cause with this Rasta guy, he has to live with it; the Israelis shouldn't have to.
mstaggerlee -
I just saw your comment that you understood instantly that Mark's first post on today's blog was a reaction to Rasta's posts. I think you're wrong.
I'm sure that Mark's post was mainly aimed at a series of about 4 long posts I made on the subject on last Friday's blog. He just lumped me in with Rasta by referring to "one or two commentators"
I know you've said that your Jewish and had briefly taken issue with at least one of Rasta's posts, so you may not like my comments. If you wish to read them they are at
http://www.thomhartmann.com/2009/08/16/friday-august-21-2009/#comments
All together they're probably a few thousand words.
DDay:
I don't know what Food Fascist or you said today should "inflame" me, although apparently a few people seem to think that some of what I said at first blush is--even when I try to be "dispassionate" as in my opening post.
Back at you Food...At the risk of inflaming Mark I'd like to call you a Mensch, but it might be construed as too pro Israel to employ Yiddish, besides I don't know very many Arabic/Palistinian words. It's happened again...I've given myself a headache. I need a drink and some weasel stole the cork outa my lunch. Cheers
In regard to textbook changes, I would agree that it is completely inappropriate and a disservice to our children to deprive them of knowledge of the various political, social and cultural conflicts that have shaped this country. And unless they go to college and study history as a discipline, even then knowledge of history (let alone American) is rather thin and restricted to what people decide interests them. That the Texas textbook board wants to excise Cesar Chavez is particularly intriguing to me, since he is virtually the only Hispanic that textbook writers deemed worthy to including in a textbook by name. I saw him speak in front of the Capitol building in Sacramento in 1990, sharing the podium with Gerry Brown and Jesse Jackson--speaking against, curiously enough, a proposal to limit health care benefits for public employees.
Debbie is an Ellen Radner in training! Good work reporting! - Pharma the enemy.
mstaggerlee, and DRichards: Beautiful wise words and peacemaking.
Do those who hate the government hate America? They certainly hate the American government- Consider Wacko, TX is pronounced Wack oh
DDay- I am right there with you, bro. I cannot imagine a Hartmann Show rule in which the fundamental action is to just ignore those we are trying to get to communicate with us. The sterotypical snooty 'we're too good for them so just ignore them or 'do not feed the trolls' liberal belongs at NPR. Thom teaches us daily to engage with those who disagree while not requiring us to be stiff shirts about it. Have fun DDay- !