HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Cal33 » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Sat Jun 13, 2009, 05:39 PM
Number of posts: 6,031

Journal Archives

More than 300 former campaign staffers and organizers for Pres. Obama have signed on to letter to

Elizabeth Warren asking her to run .....

Many are volunteering to work for her, but she has yet to give any sign of even considering
to make such a move.


One way of improving the quality of police officers:

Stories of police brutality seem to be popping up all over the country of late. I remember
having read not long ago that police departments have the practice of hiring as police officers
applicants whose IQs are 102 to 104. They do not hire applicants with higher IQs because
these tend to get bored with the job, and too many of them quit before long. It takes a lot
of money to train police officers, and their quitting early becomes too expensive.

An IQ of 100 is smack in the middle, or 50 percentile. So 102 to 104 is very slightly above
average. Could this be one of the reasons for the wave of police over-reactions in situations
that require good judgment?

We all know that police officers have to use good judgment in dealing with people, and quite
often life-and-death situations are involved in their work. Intelligent people tend to have
better judgment than less intelligent ones. But police departments don't hire those with
higher intelligence because of the reason described above.

Perhaps if they hired as policemen only those with an IQ of at least 110, the number of police-
connected deaths might come down? If more intelligent applicants are given to understand
that the chances of promotion for doing a good job are excellent, as well as other incentives
(such as being allowed to do other more interesting jobs, in addition to working their beat)
they would be more willing to stay.

I think we should have as police officers those who are more intelligent and have better
judgment than average. Plain average is simply not enough.

Which is more important, money or human lives?

Sen. Sanders unveils his 12-point economic plan. I guess he is serious about running for president.

He is one of the people I am in favor of. Officially he may be an Independent, but he is more
Progressive than many a Democrat, and he has consistently voted with the Democrats on the
Progressive side.

He is stating loud and clear here on what's wrong with the American economy, and how to go about
correcting them. He is very much in sync. with Elizabeth Warren:


"Who's Afraid of Elizabeth Warren?" Here' a very challenging article by H. Nolan, and it's followed

by some equally challenging comments (a dozen so far). There is also an interesting link to a poll.


E. Warren, "Enough is enough," when Obama appointed another banker Antonio Weiss as Under Sec'y to

the Treasury. Weiss was heavily involved in helping firms to move overseas in order to avoid paying taxes.
Warren is the only one who has spoken out against the large numbers of Wall Street people appointed by
Obama into the Treasury as well as other government departments.

We need more people in government with the courage she has. We're having too many spineless showcases
in recent years. No wonder our country is falling apart.


Who Controls our Government? The Psychopathic Corporate Elites of America. This is a very thorough

article written by two authors, one of whom is a psychoanalyst who has treated many
Wall Street CEOs over the years. Highly interesting reading!


America is half-starved to death for a source of news that is truly INDEPENDENT from

influences of all shapes and forms.

It's obviously quite clear to all that the news media have a tremendous impact on
informing, misinforming, as well as exposing or hiding facts from the general public.

We also know that 90% of the news media are Republican-owned. This is one of
the issues that has given the Republicans an incalculable political advantage over
the Democrats. There is not much we can do to successfully counteract the
Republicans' twisted info, half truths and outright lies. In short, it helps them to win

Running a news media company (newspaper, magazine, TV, radio ..... ) is an
expensive enterprise. It will be very costly, especially at the beginning. It will also
take a long, long time before any profits can be expected.

There are many wealthy Democrats who are known to be philanthropists. It occurred
to me that if they were to join together and combine their resources, couldn't they
start up a news media company (and a very large one at that) that would be totally
INDEPENDENT of any outside influence, and spread REAL NEWS, the truth, and also
counteract any and all misinformation that have been deliberately spread by dishonest
news sources?

This could help to defeat the present one-sided lopsided nonsense and garbage that
has been dished out as news, and which has been used to brain-wash and dumb down
the American people for the past half-century. It is also destroying our democratic
way of life - which is exactly what the 1% Oligarchy is doing. These psychopaths
are trying their best to rule the world and make it into their own private fiefdom!

What would DU members here think of making up a suggestion of this nature? If
one wealthy Democrat could be found who would be interested in this idea, s/he
would probably know others, and these in turn would know still more others, who might
be persuaded to join.

I would like to bring up this as an idea only, and leave it entirely up to those who
would be willing to participate. If it should become a great and prosperous company
in the future - more power to them. Our democratic way of life will have been preserved.

The American people are half-starved to death for want of real, true and accurate
information, because this situation has been foisted on them by the Oligarchs who see it
as a means of getting to their own selfish greedy way.

I'm just tossing out an idea to be discussed.

To all those who think Elizabeth Warren too inexperienced in politics to take a leadership

position, or couldn't possibly be tough enough, just look at the link below. She openly opposed
the White House's pick of another Wall Streeter for the Treasury Department. Obama is quite
well known for the numbers of them he has picked.

Has any old-timer Democratic congressman dared to do anything like this? Warren is always
for the little guy, and she isn't afraid of speaking her mind whenever she feels something amiss
is happening. We need more people like her. There are too many politicians of the other stripe
around. We are stifling and she is like a breath of much needed fresh air!


For the first time a member of the Oligarchy has been indicted for 29 coal-miner deaths! It's

about time. He is accused of putting profits before the lives of coal=miners.


Elizabeth Warren may be considered for leadership position in Senate. I sure hope so. I

would be all for it, if she should replace Reid -- although this would be out of the question at
the present time, I suppose. The middle-of-the-roaders have had a long time to prove
themselves, and they have failed. It's high time for a change.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »