B-Roll

Well you better be very attentive to your sweetie this weekend:-)

I hope this doesn't offend you, but maybe you should ask Thom what he thinks instead of putting so many words in his mouth, though. I know this blog situation kind of leads to that, but I'm not sure I would appreciate all of your assumptions, if I were him. I was kind of hinting that with my earlier post.

Loretta,

Thanks for the kind words and for reading my long posts.

I apparently wasn’t clear about my list in Part Two. Most of the people I listed weren’t on Thom’s show to talk about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. In fact, I don’t know if they’ve all been guests on Thom’s show. I haven’t heard all of them. I listed them as examples of important progressive people who share many common views with Thom, but who have been willing to openly oppose Israeli policy, while Thom acts as an apologist for Israel if he mentions the conflict at all.

Of the people I listed, I only recall Cynthia McKinney, Jimmy Carter and Dahr Jamail talking about the conflict at all.

He talked to McKinney because she’s a friend and the Israeli navy had rammed a boat she was on (trying to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza, mainly medical supplies and toys for children).

Jimmy Carter was on to discuss his book “Palestine: Peace not Apartheid” and the situation in that region. Thom’s roll was to soften Carter’s criticism of Israel. (At least that’s my memory of it.)

Darh Jamail was recently on to discuss Afghanistan. The time he was on to discuss the Israel/Palestine situation was when Peter B. Collins filled for Thom.

So, while it’s true that Thom has many guests who are critical of Israeli policy, that’s not what he discussed with them. You’d never know their views on that topic from Thom’s from listening to Thom’s show.

In fairness, I do have to say that Thom did try to have a balanced show early in early January during the Israeli assault on Gaza. Thom had Jeremy Ben-Ami the executive director of J Street on as a guest. J Street is a fairly new group set up to counter the power of AIPAC. It’s pro-Israel but also pro-peace through negotiations. A day or two later he had Ben-Ami back along with Ray Hanania, a Palestinian-American journalist, radio talk show host and comedian. I think Thom had been a guest on Hanania’s radio show and found him to be moderate enough to fit well with his own positions. The problem with Hanania is that he has affiliations with Fatah or one of it’s organizations. So he is more anti-Hamas than anti-Israeli policy. So you had Thom who puts most of the blame on Hamas and Hanania who put most of the blame on Hamas and Ben-Ami who blames Hamas along with the Israeli government.

I won’t go into all of the details, but remember what I wrote in part one. At the beginning of the assault Israel reported that most of the casualties were of military age. Thom, sounding pensive repeated that claim. But what is military age? Do you just kill people of a certain age? I will admit that Thom probably wasn’t aware that one of the first targets was the Islamic University where almost everyone was of military age. Near the end of the assault, Thom was concerned that Israel’s attack on Gaza was bad for Israel’s public image. Around 1400 Palestinians killed (between 300 and 400 being children), 40,000 buildings destroyed and Thom is concerned about Israel’s image. What should its image be? Don’t you think that displays a bias?

I think that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict may be the issue that is Thom’s absolute worst. He just can’t make himself criticize Israeli policy. He couldn’t possibly not have come across the facts. His reluctance might be partly motivated by fear of bring the wrath of pro-Israel groups on himself, but I think it has more to do with his emotional attachment to Israel. How deep and how far back it goes I don’t know, but here’s an interesting fact that I imagine very few remember. Unless I was hallucinating, and I believe I may have heard him say it twice, Thom said that the first language he spoke was Yiddish. I kid you not. He never explained it. But I remember him saying it at least once, maybe twice. I don’t think that matters, unless it partially explains his emotional connection to Israel in some way. What does matter is that he plays the roll of an apologist for Israeli policy. I think that’s what has made Rasta so angry at Thom. But I don’t know. Maybe Rasta is just angry or has other psychological issues.

Here’s a resource you may find informative. http://www.annainthemiddleeast.com/

It’s the website of Anna Blatzer, a young Jewish-American woman who went to the West Bank to find out for herself what was going on. Much of what she found is now on her site and does presentations to. You can find portions of her talks on YouTube. Her whole presentation might be there in chunks.

I think the whole or majority of her presentation might be there in the form of commentary accompanying her photos. So look at the photos and read the commentary. But I’d also recommend watch her on YouTube to see what a kind and gentle person she is.

Near the bottom of the photo page is a picture of some maps with a caption “Maps & Media” below it. Click it, look at each map and read the commentary. It’s very informative.

Thanks again for taking the time to read my posts.

P.S.: You won’t believe this but this is my totally rewritten short version of my reply to your comment.

P.P.S.: Yes, these posts did take a lot of time and there’s a very sweet young lady who isn’t real pleased with my lack of attention to her.

Rahm Emanuel is not the problem in the White House regarding healthcare reform. Rahm Emanuel is a SYMPTOM of the problem in the White House. While treating the symptom can bring some measure of relief; it often allows the disease to run its course unchecked usually leaving death to be the ultimate cure. The issue regarding healthcare reform in the White House is:

President Obama is not Progressive. President Obama has NEVER been Progressive. President Obama is a wishy-washy, mediocre, just-right-of-the-middle-of-the-road, pro-corporatist centrist.

We have gotta work to cure that.

I'm afraid I got John Nichols into a little hot water a while back. I attended aweekend seminar presented by the MN Progressive Caucus of the state's Democratic Party.

Nichols gave a talk in which he said it was imperative that voters elect the most progressive candidate for U.S. Senator possible. After the talk, I asked Nichols how well he knew Al Franken (which it turned out later, he knew Franken fairly well, tho he didn't admit it at the time that I asked him about it.)

I pointed out to Nichols that there were much more progressive candidates than Franken running for that office. I mentioned several examples of this and tried to engage him in conversation about it. He quickly excused himself and didn't seem interested in exploring the subject.

I mentioned this on a local Air America program. Franken or his supporters must have been listening and contacting Nichols because Nichols was later effusive in his support for Franken.

One thing that I noticed was that whenever you talk about the natural monopoly with health care, the right always mentions food, because we also need it to survive. We cannot refuse to buy food as it is a necessity to life. However, food insurance already exists. It is called the FDA. We have collectively decided that we must have food to survive and that we want assurances that the food is safe to eat, so we created a government insurance program to protect us from bad food. Now all we need is a government insurance program to protect our bodies from illness and such.

If case you didn't see the healthcare forum yesterday I wrote an article on my blog

http://www.portlandlivingweird.blogspot.com/

During the forum I realized that there truly are many many people terribly afraid of losing their coverage and having to opt for a public plan. Obama has a very thin tightrope to walk. I feel badly about speaking so harshly about Ron Wyden, now, because he has been in the lead for insurance reform which is one of the the most important pieces of this complicated process. Ron Wyden is also responsible for helping to keep LNG out of Oregon.

Common Sense 2009 -

"The Real War Is Not Between the Left and the Right. It Is Between the Average American and the Ruling Class "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-flynt/common-sense-2009_b_264706.html

What an ignorant comment made by mr. Cortez. Being an American is supposed to be proactive, not sit back and let the government do whatever it wishes. Perhaps that's what you were used to in your country, but that's not how it's done here.

The Case of Rasta and Rasta’s Case

(This is a two part post. The first part is an examination of Rasta’s claim that Thom wants the Palestinian people exterminated. The second part is a list of people who have been guests on Thom’s show, are well though of by Thom or both, and their views on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.)

Part One – Is Thom biased towards Israel?

Ever since Rasta began posting on this blog, people have been insulting and ridiculing him. A few have tried to reach out to him and suggest he try to be more rational in his posts. I hoped that he could be reached, but suspected that he couldn’t. I won’t play amateur psychologist. I don’t know the cause for his uncontrollable rage, but I feel he should either be ignored or treated with compassion.

But what if we dialed down his hyperbolic rage and his extreme statements? Is there any truth in his charges (when dialed down)?

He accuses Thom Hartmann of being a blood thirsty Zionist supporter bent on the extermination of the Palestinian people. That’s obviously absurd. Thom is a decent man who has risked his life and safety to help other human beings in dangerous places. Like all of us, he has biases, some of which he might not even recognize.

It’s obvious to me, that Thom has a definite pro-Israel bias. When he isn’t able to avoid the issue, he acts like an apologist for Israeli policies. Some examples:

He’s frequently used the term “Muslim crazies”, he’s occasionally used the term “Christian crazies” and rarely used “Jewish Crazies” and that was clearly as an afterthought as an attempt to be fair.

At the beginning of the Israeli attack on Gaza at the end of 2008 and beginning of 2009, Thom said about the early casualty reports that it has been reported that most of the casualties were of military age. It sounded to me like he was channeling Donald Rumsfeld. It was the policy of the American military in Iraq to treat Iraqi men from teenagers to mature adults (military age) as terrorist suspects. “Military age” has a large and flexible range, but one fact that Thom left out, maybe didn’t know, was that among the targets at the beginning of the attack was the Islamic University in Gaza. University students tend to be of “military age”.

At the end of the attack, Thom expressed great concern, you could hear it in his voice, that Israel’s military actions were very bad for Israel. His opinion was that it was bad public relations for Israel. Around 1400 Palestinians were killed during Israel’s military assault, around 300 to 400 of them children, around 40,000 building were destroyed including United Nations schools and much of the already insufficient infrastructure and Thom’s concern was that it was a public relations disaster for Israel. To me, that’s perverse.

Thom tells us that he reads both the Jerusalem Post and the Haaretz to get both sides. So he reads a conservative Israeli newspaper and a liberal Israeli newspaper. He apparently doesn’t see the need of Palestinian or Arab sources.

He occasionally mentions that Iran approached the United States through a Swiss Ambassador and Ohio Representative Bob Ney offering (among other things) to recognize Israel’s right to exist, based on its pre-1967 war borders and to stop funding Hamas and Hezbollah. But I can’t recall him ever mentioning that the Arab League has offered the made that same offer several times since 1996, including in recent years.

As a final example (I could give more), we’ve heard Thom lament the good old days when he and his friends could freely drive around the West Bank but that’s not the case now. He made no mention of the fact that a 30 minute trip can take a Palestinian hours because they’re constantly stopped at checkpoints even to go from one Palestinian village to another and they can only go through the checkpoints at certain hours. This is the case even in medical emergencies. Sometimes they’re not even allowed to finish their trips.

When it comes to Israel, it seems that Thom becomes like the three wise monkeys. He acts like he sees no evil, hears no evil and, even if he does, he speaks no evil. I believe that Thom has an emotional attachment to Israel because of his close Jewish friends (including Israelis), the work he’s done there.

On a recent trip to Africa, a very undiplomatic Hillary Clinton scolded a Congolese student for having the temerity to bruise her ego. The student, who said afterwards that he was referring to what Obama thought about China’s increasing influence in Africa—which should be of concern to the U.S.—was misinterpreted as a referring to what Bill thought. Hillary burst out "You want me to tell you what my husband thinks? If you want my opinion, I will tell you my opinion. I am not going to be channeling my husband." This was just the opening salvo of Clinton’s gender crusade, spending more time being diplomatic with village women than addressing the root of all evil in Africa—economic instability.

Many African observers have criticized the U.S.’ focus on cultural issues, and the sending of “aid” merely to avert humanitarian disasters—which only promises that such disasters will continue. Clinton’s pet African project—preventing rape as a war tool—is admirable, but it is only a symptom of the larger issue of the lack of economic opportunity for the masses. The Congo is one of the richest countries in the world in terms of natural resources, yet the populace sees almost none of these riches, which instead go to fill the pockets of warlords, finance conflict and otherwise benefit foreign economies. While Clinton focused her energy on opportunities for women (like Oprah’s Leadership School for Girls, where the motherly matrons physically and sexually-abused the girls under their “care”), China is promising to help build roads, schools, hospitals and electrical grids in exchange for access to resources.

Hillary Clinton’s response was clearly an expression of her bruised ego. She needed Bill to resolve the North Korea hostage issue, and Joe Biden and others have been tasked to attend to other high profile diplomatic cases. Why? Is it because Hillary, who has a history of being “undiplomatic” in her interactions with people she views as “enemies,” has allowed this trait to be a problem for her in her current role?

Quark,

Please don’t think there’s any animus on my part or towards you or even Thom on this topic. People have the right to believe what they will. However, I don’t like Thom defining the non-belief of atheists as a religion and calling atheists who speak about their view or criticize religious or spiritual beliefs “evangelical”. I don’t recall him labeling astronomers or physicists “evangelical”. Don’t they try to win people over to their views?

I think I may have been listening to Thom longer than you have (not to pull rank) and I may have heard things you haven’t. Thom used to say that if a word ended in “ism” it was a religion. That might (tragically) make autism the fastest growing religion in the world.

While Thom labels un-closeted atheists evangelical, he often expresses his spiritual and pseudoscientific ideas on the show. He asks listeners to pray for or “send light” to people he cares about who are having a health crisis. Now he says that he favors tax exemptions for people leading a monastic life (for the most part men) because he believes that their sitting in meditation improves the world in some manner. But he said he no longer supports churches (and temples, mosques?) getting the same tax benefits. He’s saying that the government should favor practitioners of his spiritual beliefs over practitioners of other beliefs and traditions. Isn’t that contrary to the spirit of the First Amendment?

You wrote that when you talk about a subatomic level, you’re talking about something as basic as E=MC2. This is just a minor point and I could be wrong, but I don’t know that Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity (E=MC2) has much if any application to the subatomic level. Part the reason I’m replying later than I wish is that I did a search for explanations of the Special Theory of Relativity and clicked on close to 50 links (a few wouldn’t load) and I searched for the word “subatomic” and it only came up twice and seemed to be related to quantum physics. (For the record I searched for “sub” so I might find it as “subatomic” and “sub-atomic”).

Of course, we know that energy and mass can be converted into each other. And yes we are matter and we convert matter into energy. Most of the energy we create is heat, some is motion and some is biochemical. You can call the recycling or living matter an afterlife if you wish. That’s physical. But I don’t expect that my thoughts or my spirit/personality will continue after I’m gone, unless it’s in the memories of others or the effect I may have had on their live or as my archived comments on the Internet.

If you want to call the energy of living creatures “life force” you can. My impression of that term is that it’s more of a spiritual concept than a physical concept. Even if it’s intended to mean a synthesis of both, I would reject it because of the spiritual implication. We are part of the universe, that’s not the issue. The question is whether there is a spiritual force that permeates the universe and that we’re connected to. Thom thinks so and I think not.

Your example of yogis being able to affect their heart rate and body temperature is interesting. It’s an example that there’s a mind/body connection. Similar things can be accomplished with hypnosis. But what verifiable evidence is there that they can become more in tune with a spiritual force that can only be experienced subjectively.

Is there any proof that we can use our minds to affect things outside of our bodies? Some people think so and point to experiments showing that prayer can affect medical outcomes, but those experiments have been criticized for their methodology. The largest experiment that I know of came to the conclusion that prayer didn’t work.

You may have heard of the Chinese practice of Qi Gong which is a meditative practice, in some ways similar to Tai Chi. Some practitioners of Qi Gong claim that they can channel energy through their bodies into the bodies of others. They claim that this energy can be used to heal. They would demonstrate their powers by using this energy to move the limbs of a person at a short distance from them.

This claim was tested experimentally. A Qi Gong (aka Chi Kung) master and a person would be in the same room. The subject would be lying down on a bed or table and the Qi Gong master would apparently be able to move the subject’s limbs from a distance by making movements with his body. The movements of the Qi Gong master and the subject seemed to be coordinated. Then the next phase of the experiment took place. As agreed to by the Qi Gong master, a curtain was put between the master and the subject so they couldn’t see each other. At that point, the synchronization between the actions of the master and the subject were lost. It worked when they could see each other but didn’t when he couldn’t. There was a similar experiment with a horse reputed to be able to answer math questions by tapping his foot on the ground. He answered correctly when he could see his owner, but not when he couldn’t. In that case, it seemed that the owner would make subtle, maybe unconscious, movements that the horse picked up on.

You express your opinion that you keep an open mind about things and that entertaining possibilities doesn’t scare you. Some people who believe in things that can’t be objectively proved often assume that people who don’t are closed minded or even frightened by the possibility of what they don’t believe in. I guess that’s true in some cases. A spiritual dimension doesn’t scare me; I just don’t believe in it.

I hope in my case, my skepticism is rational and fact based and that I require a higher level or maybe different kind of proof than some believers. You seem to be taking the position that “maybe” is a good standard of proof. If we can’t prove it’s wrong we can believe that it’s right. That’s one of Thom’s arguments.

I heard Thom say that he holds his spiritual beliefs because they make him feel good. If that worked for me, pizza and ice cream wouldn’t be fattening. The problem there is that it can be tested empirically.

I do have a spiritual side, but it doesn’t have to do with any kind of cosmic consciousness of the universe. It’s in some things that resonate with me in a special way. Watching waves roll into shore at the ocean, feeling the breeze and hearing the sounds. Seeing the colors of sunsets and sunrises. Holding someone special in your arms or maybe just touching their hand or cheek. Maybe the most amazing is the existence of a little tiny person who feels comfort in your presence so they crawl to be close to you. When they can walk they want their little hand in yours and you walk at their pace. That’s as spiritual as it gets for me and the way I see the world it’s all I need.

Now look what you’ve done! You’ve turned me into an evangelical atheist.