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

Cal33

Profile Information

Member since: Sat Jun 13, 2009, 06:39 PM
Number of posts: 4,940

Journal Archives

Elizabeth Warren asks Adj. Gen. Holder, why not investigate the big bankers!

Elizabeth Warren's letter to Adj. Gen. Holder asking him why haven't
the executives of big banks that practiced fraud on the American people
even been investigated.

It's 14 months between now and Nov. 2014. Going at this rate, Sen. Warren
will have fired up enough people to speak up and demand that more
progressive and liberal politicians run for office. I believe there are many
liberals in pink states who don't run because they feel the chances of winning
are too low. Some of them will be encouraged to run, and they will be less
timid about sounding progressive, because more Dems. will want them
to be so.

If anyone can turn things around, Elizabeth can, and will. I wouldn't be too
surprised if Democrats should win both houses of Congress in 2014 !

She sure must be sick and tired of all the timidity among the ranks of our
Democratic politicians!

Go! Warren! Go!

http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/18154-elizabeth-warren-reads-riot-act-to-holder-for-not-prosecuting-big-bank-mortgage-fraud

Do the English think of themselves as God's blessing to mankind? I ask this question because

recently an American tennis fan congratulated an Englishman when finally a Briton, Andy Murray,
had won the Wimbledon championship for the first time in 75 years! Do you know what the
the Englishman said? His reply was, "Yes ..... but he is not English!" Andy Murray is Scotch. I
suppose the Englishman looked upon him as a "colonial." He and too many Englishmen still have
the mentality of people from the 18th and 19the centuries, still thinking in terms of
"pure Englishmen" and "colonials."

Can you imagine the subtle, not-so-subtle, and blatantly open snubs and put-downs still going on
in the social and business worlds of the UK today? And among "pure Englishmen" themselves,
their society is still being separated by barriers according to class from the blue-blooded nobility to
the city slum dwellers. And today, the situation is complicated by the large numbers of non-white
immigrants from the far-flung countries of their former world-wide empire.

Can you blame the Scots for wanting to secede from the UK?

Let's take a closer look at what a "pure Englishman" is. The first known settlers in England
probably were the Celts. Around 400 BC, the ancient Romans conquered and colonized
"Britannia," as they called that land, and they stayed there for 4 centuries. And Roman armies
were known to have Nubian soldiers. Nubians were black Africans. So, there was already a
mixture of some Italian and a little of black African genes in their ancestry even before the
Christian Era.

The Viking pirates had been raiding the coasts of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales also for
centuries.

In the 5th and 6th Centuries A.D. there was a heavy influx of the Angles and Saxons into
England. These were Germanic tribes, and many of them were fleeing from the Huns (an
Asian tribe) who had conquered much of Germany at that time. The Anglo-Saxons warred
with the Celts, who retreated further west into Wales and Ireland, and north into Scotland.

In 1066 William the Conqueror from Normandy, France, conquered the land and became the
King of England. His descendants (among whom was Richard the Lion-Hearted of the
Crusades fame). The Plantagenets remained for 200 years, and French was the spoken language
at the English Court. And the Normans despised their defeated subjects, the Anglo-Saxons.

The English language we have today is a mixture of Celtic, Latin, Scandinavian, German and
French. There may be others that I have missed.

The "pure Englishman?" Hah! They're deluding themselves. There is no pure anything. There
never was.

I wish the Scotch people good luck, whatever results from their present problems with
the "pure English."

Many Democrats prefer Clinton over Warren for president because the Clinton name is already

well-known. It's true that this will be a great help in winning the election, but I think
more should be looked at than name-recognition alone. We should also consider the
candidates' philosophies of governance. Just read the message in this thread describing
what Warren is like at work in the senate. She doesn't take any nonsense from anyone
and doesn't allow herself to be bullied by anybody. quality !!]. Furthermore, she is anything but shy about standing up for what she wants to
get done for the American people. Right now she is working on (1) Student Loans.
(2) Breaking Up the Big Banks (and here she's got Republican Sen. John McCain, no less,
on her side).

She started off in the Senate seven months ago as a star figure and is more well-known
than many of her senior colleagues who have already served several terms. This is a
delicate situation and will continue to remain so for some time to come, but she seems
to be handling it well thus far. There are more of them who admire and are in awe of
her than those who disapprove. The GOP senators, of course, detest her. Their fear of
her is plainly showing!

For those of us Democrats who think that Hillary Clinton is a far better-known person,
well, it's true at the moment. But there are 3+ years to go before November, 2016, and
Warren, at the rate she is moving, will have accomplished far more in bringing to the
American people's awareness the severe problems that are facing our nation. She will
introduce legislation to correct them, and she will not hesitate to publicize it -- loud and
clear-- when the GOP senators will do their best to block them. She is not shy about
placing blame on where the blame is due. After all, it is the truth. And, like Harry
Truman, she is not afraid of telling the truth.

Like many other Democrats, I think of Hillary Clinton as a middle-of-the-roader. Should
she decide to run and win, we'll be having more of the same as what we've been having
from Obama, so far. Should Clinton win in the primaries, I'd vote for her over any
Republican. However, in the long run I don't think there can be any real change with a
middle-of-the-road philosophy, and win against the Republicans as things now stand.
Just look at Obama. He gives in perhaps 75% and receives 25% whenever he is
bargaining with the GOP. For the health of Democracy in our country, this is like dying
a slow death. It's only a question of time -- unless we change. I hope I am wrong,
but it doesn't look like Obama is going to change suddenly in the 3+ years that are left.

Elizabeth Warren is a Progressive, Liberal DOER. And we need a Progressive, Liberal
DOER right now to shake up the masses of people who simply don't know what's going
on in our country, and in the world at large.

We need NEW BLOOD, and Elizabeth Warren is that NEW BLOOD we have been hoping
and praying for, ever since GW Bush became president in January. 2001.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/312397-elizabeth-warren-ruffling-feathers-early-in-clubby-senate

Here's an article about what Elizabeth Warren is like at her job in the Senate: She is tough!

She doesn't take any nonsense from anybody, even though she has been at her job for only
7 months. But she can also be warm and friendly.

It's a rather long article, but a highly interesting one. The author also wrote that
"Warren also topped Hillary Clinton in a straw poll of attendees at the Take Back the
American Dream conference that took place in Washington last month."

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/312397-elizabeth-warren-ruffling-feathers-early-in-clubby-senate

Some Dems. think that if the GOP were ended, all the political problems in our country would be

solved. Believe me, they will be solved -- but only temporarily, then they will start again. Just take a look at history, there have always been ups followed by downs, again and again, right up to the present time. This is the way it has always been, at least, since the past 6,000 years of written history.

I think one of the main reasons is that between 2 and 4 percent of the general population is made up of people with "anti-social personality disorder" (or "sociopaths"). They are simply just there, just as some 5% of the general population is left-handed. They, too, are just there, and have always been there. The difference is that left-handed people don't harm others or commit more crimes any more than the right-handed ones. But sociopaths do.


People are usually attracted by and gravitate to those professions where their particular needs and desires can be more easily met and satisfied. This also applies to sociopaths, who simply love to acquire money and power in order to have control over the lives of others and use people as tools for their own benefit. They are ambitious, aggressive and will let nothing stand in their way to achieve what they are after. There are two well-known areas where money and power in huge amounts can be obtained:

A. Business executives: Corporations usually promote those employees who bring in the most profits. It also happens that those executives who are the most ruthless in their business dealings (and are smart enough not to get caught), are the ones who make the most profit for their companies. So, they have the best chances of being promoted. I'm willing to bet that the percentage of sociopaths among the higher business executives is considerably more than the 2% to 4% in the general population.

B. Politicians are well-known to speak from both sides of their mouths, and they do have power over others, even when they're supposed to be serving them. Most of them are fine people, but here again I'm also convinced that the sociopaths among them number more than the 2% to 4% found in the general community.

I am sure sociopaths are found in every profession, but the above two are probably the biggies. Naturally, prisons have the highest concentrations of them, since they are the ones who show the greatest disregard for the rights of others, and are also the ones who most frequently break the law.

Having a defective conscience, they don't feel badly about harming someone else. Lacking a sense of morality, they are not guided by it -- much like a two-year-old. The difference is that a two-year-old does not yet have any concept of morality, but a sociopath will hardly ever have an effective one. This is explained more in detail below.

A sociopath can learn that certain actions could land him in jail. He avoids them, not that he feels they are wrong, but because he doesn't want to be caught and punished. He is not capable of putting himself in someone else's shoes and see things from the other's point of view, but he can be made to do something out of fear. This explains why he so often uses the tactic of fear and intimidation to get what he wants -- these being the main things he, himself, responds to. By the same token, if he feels confident enough of being able to avoid being caught, he will continue any action -- even a criminal one -- as long as it serves his purposes. He feels no guilt or shame, neither pride nor honor. He may acquire an intellectual concept of the meaning of the words, but these, too, are used by him only for his own advantage.

Psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg, who died some 30 years ago, is the author of the present-day widely used theory of the development of morality in children, who pass through successive stages of moral growth:

Stage 1: small child. To him it's "right" when he does what he is told by authority figures, and anything is also the right thing to do if it can help him to avoid punishment.
.............

Stage 5: the "Social Contract level" where the older child begins to understand the concept of individual rights, and follows laws as prescribed by the society in which he lives, and

Stage 6: the last and most advanced, where the adult individual is now being guided by his own conscience, which has developed according to universally accepted principles. An example of a Stage-6 universally accepted principle is "Reciprocity," which has become a part of the individual's conscience.

Reciprocity is aptly described in the biblical injunction, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." Sociopaths have never reached this last stage, their moral development having been arrested at an earlier and more primitive one. Many have not reached Stage 5. And, not surprisingly, there are some rather bright and well-educated adults who have never developed beyond the small-child stage (Stage 1). These are the big galoots who enjoy taking orders from above, and enthusiastically march in lock-step when told to do so by their superiors. It's right when authority figures tell them so.

This could explain why they can exploit and abuse others without any sense of shame or remorse. They might not even understand what the fuss is all about when the offended party complains. However, they do object -- and very loudly -- when they, themselves, have been taken advantage of.

THE IMPORTANT POINT: They do not see any connection between their being abused by others, and their own abuse of others. This is one of the "defects" in their consciences. And I wonder if this could also be a cause for the radical and seemingly irreconcilable differences between the logic and reasoning of the sociopath and that of the non-sociopath. The very way they think and feel seems to be so different.

Intelligence does not play much of a role here. Sociopathy most likely developed as a combination of genetic inheritance plus environmental influences while growing up. So, can a sociopath really be blamed for being the way he is? I think not. But the fact remains that he can and does harm other people. And these other people also have the right to be protected from the sociopath's misdeeds.

Unlike those with neurotic disorders, people with personality disorders do not suffer from anxiety or inner discomfort of any kind. They don't feel that anything is wrong with their behavior or themselves, and so do not seek therapy voluntarily, although sometimes they are required by the court to have counseling with mental health professionals.

I've recently read that a lab test has been devised that can objectively detect sociopathy in people. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is used. When the average person is shown a movie of cruelty, brutality, torture...etc..., the center for unpleasant emotions in his brain becomes aroused. And because of the increased brain activity, more blood goes to that particular area. This shows up in the MRI as an enlargement of the arteries supplying more blood to that part of the brain. Since the sociopath feels little or no compassion for others in pain, his MRI shows no such change. And this identifies him. Or, if he is also a sadist and enjoys the cruelty shown, the "pleasure center " (which is in a different area of the brain) becomes aroused. This is also identifiable in the MRI.

Is it possible that this might lead to a compulsory testing of all future candidates for high positions, whether public or private? Hardly! Why not? They may be helpful, but they are not fool-proof. People can be taught how to beat these
tests. And there is also the question of the invasion of one's civil liberties.

The upshot of all this is that as long as there are too many sociopaths holding positions of power, there will always be
trouble of all varieties, shapes and sizes -- including world wars. And we have reached a stage of technology where another world war could spell the end of the human race. We simply can't afford to have another one.

I see some possibility in one area (of course, there are bound to be others around, too) where something could be done to improve the problem of sociopathy : Scientists have identified 4 or 5 genes in the genetic make-up of sociopaths. Perhaps some time in the future they will be able to manipulate the genes, so that all future babies will be born without this taint, and the curse of sociopathy will be erased from the face of the earth.

I see the present-day GOP as a degenerate form of the Old GOP, and both are the result of having sociopaths in
positions of power. The GOP is the effect, and the presence of SOCIOPATHY is the CAUSE. Bringing an end to the effect will leave only a temporary result. In order to have a permanent result we'll need to treat the cause.

Just look up "Sociopathy" or "The GOP and Sociopathy" in the Internet, and you will see hundreds of thousands of articles on the subject. I know the American Psychological Association and The American Psychiatric Association do not
make official political statements. But this question arises in my mind: "But do they have a limit? For example, even
when self-destruction is staring at us in the face?" Will they not speak out even then?




Big banks trying to crush Credit Unions through influencing Congress.

Big banks are trying to crush Credit Unions by influencing Congress to pass laws
to stop the tax-exempt status that credit unions need in order to survive.

Yes, the self-same banks that brought our nation to economic disaster and needed
government bail-outs in order to survive.

Let's let Congress members know they had better leave credit unions be -- or else
they'll be looking for new jobs come their next election time.

http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/18073-monopolistic-too-big-to-fail-banks-try-to-crush-credit-unions-as-competition-by-removing-tax-exemption

30 companies had a combined profit of $163+ billion, but paid less than zero taxes. I.e.,

they had a tax liability of MINUS 10.6 billion. The American middle-class gets
hammered. And we, the American people are basically doing nothing about it.
In fact, few of us even know anything of the above. I certainly didn't.

And there are thousands of companies doing the same thing. If the super-rich
paid the same rate of taxes as the middle-class did, there wouldn't have been
a national debt to begin with.

So, are we going to let this nonsense and insanity go on forever?

It's high time that we, the middle-class, banded together in a united front
and DEMAND that the super-rich pay the same rate of taxes that we do.
And we must keep on making this demand loud and clear until it actually
gets done.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/abolish-the-income-tax-you-wont-believe-who-is-getting-away-with-paying-zero-taxes-while-the-middle-class-gets-hammered

SmileyRose: Crossing Over is a new birth, like a flowerbud blossoming out in all its beauty & Glory



Dear Rose:

Thank you for such a warm, loving, sincere and generous message. It
is a gift that comes right from your heart, since each and everyone of
us will be facing the same thing you are going through -- the
difference is only a question of time. My sister is receiving hospice care
at home. She, too, doesn't have much time left.

To tell you something about myself: I follow no particular religion, but
I do have a philosophy of life which is sometimes called "Spirituality."
There are no dogmas and no doctrines. We only accept what resonates
within ourselves. The reason is this: What resonates within us is what
we are ready to accept at that particular time. We each are at some
level of spiritual development. At age 20 I thought differently from the
time I was 10. At 40 I thought differently from the time I was 20, etc...
The same thing applies spiritually. We are all growing and continue
changing at our own pace -- hopefully for the better. We come across
new ideas every now and then. What we might not accept today, we
could very well accept another time. Unlike fear-based religious sects,
there are no threats of any kind -- ever. The emphasis is on love.

I believe that we all are souls using a temporary physical body to
experience and learn whatever we came on earth to experience and
learn. Our physical body comes with, or soon acquires, an ego -- the
selfish human part, which we have to learn to deal with. Our souls
are all portions of the One Spirit -- God, if you will. The major
religions also teach that we are made in the "image and likeness" of
God. Hence, we are all One. There are no "others." Whatever we do
to "others" we are also doing to ourselves.

When asked what is the opposite of life, most people would answer
"death." But isn't "birth" the opposite of death? The minute one is
born, each further minute one lives is a minute closer to death, when
the body finally dissolves and returns to the elements of nature.
Spirit, on the other hand, does not die. Life or spirit has no opposite.
Spirit, without a body, returns to its true home.

I also believe that while on earth, the way we think, feel and behave
is greatly influenced by our body's wants and needs. When separated
from the body, the soul is freed from those not-always-pleasant wants
and needs. It probably will heave a great big sigh of relief -- like
getting rid of a millstone from around one's neck.

I think it would be of benefit to frequently remind yourself that you will
soon be in that state where all earthly pains and difficulties are over;
and that you will be where all of us would like to be, and will be, some
day. Soon you will already have made it! Soon you will be reborn into
the world of spirit, our true home, where we all belong.

For those of us still on earth, it will take a little while longer, and then
the real we, all our loved ones and friends, will be together again, and
much more intensely and consciously together than we are, and have
ever been, on earth. When you cross over, it will be like a tiny flower-
bud, a delicate blossom opening up and unfolding in all its beauty,
splendor and glory!!! (Please click the link below).

http://www.flixxy.com/life-of-flowers.htm#.UGsuc5jA82y

Peace, love and blessings,

Cal33

For those who feel racialy superior, know this: there is little to feel superior about.

How many of us would readily admit that we've practiced genocide against
Native Americans? In 1800 the estimated population of Native Americans
in North America was 20 million. Today, more than 2 centuries later, Native
Americans in North America number less than 5 million. And during these
2 centuries, the population of every other racial and ethnic group has
increased by at least 10 to 20 times.

Guns vs. bows and arrows -- How fair a fight was that? It was sheer
slaughter! The Native Americans were defending their own land, the Europeans
were the aggressors. It was a question of might is right. This, too, is human
nature. Throughout history bigger and stronger nations have always conquered
and colonized weaker and more "primitive" ones. What percentage of our schools teach the truth as it really was?

England had been a colony of ancient Rome for 400 years. Today, northern
Europeans (the English in particular) feel superior to the southern Europeans
(and to everybody else), when it was the Romans and the Greeks who gave them
their written language. Some people have never noticed that all the languages
in Western Europe use the same Roman alphabet, and in Eastern Europe the same Greek alphabet -- with some additions and variations. Central and northern Europeans had never developed a written language of their own.

If we looked at history, over the millenia, nations do rise to the top and
fall to the bottom. Each one has its turn at being Numero Uno. Then they
fall and rise again. The position of Numero Uno is a very temporary one!

The Germany of today tells its school children all about what Hitler had done:
how he had connived and succeeded in grabbing power, his wars of aggression,
concentration camps, mass murder, genocide, the likelihood of Hitler himself
having been one-eighth Jewish ..... the whole ugly works ..... no hideous
details spared.

On the other hand, many Americans don't even know that the American Indians
had come close to becoming extinct. During the Frontier Days, local frontier
governments were paying $25 for every Indian scalp (man, woman and child)
brought in. It was barbarous! Nothing to be proud about, is there? Perhaps the Indians learned about scalping from us? Nobody wants to even think about this -- let alone admit anything. We are all too eager to point our finger at the other guy. I think I'll stop right here.

How long will it take us humans to evolve into something less greedy and vicious still remains to be seen -- if we don't self-destruct first, that is.


































I believe that many become atheists as a reaction (whether consciously or not) to

some unpleasant experiences they have had with religionists -- oftentimes
with clergymen of that particular religion. Example: A friend of mine was
attending church one Sunday when he was 18 or 19. The preacher was
saying that those who did not accept Christ would be condemned to hell.
Someone asked, "What about those who have never even heard of Christ?"
The preacher said, it couldn't apply to those who have never heard of
Jesus. Another asked, "What about Gandhi? He knew about Christianity."
The preacher replied that Gandhi was in hell.

Well, my friend was a great admirer of Gandhi. He couldn't believe his ears.
He went up to the preacher after the service and spoke with him about
Gandhi. The preacher insisted that Gandhi was in hell. My friend became
an atheist on the spot, and has remained one ever since.

Jasana, just keep on being the way you are. To me you are one of those
spiritual people who are practicing as their conscience tells them to. And
each one of us is at some level of development. We do change with time
according to our ability as we experience and learn more. There are no rigid
doctrines to follow. We just do what we can. If more people did what you
are doing, the world would have been a far better place than it is now. Well,
it isn't. You seem to be accepting that too, while continuing to be the way
you are, Just keep it up.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »