Originally Posted by Justin '77

Sociopaths aren't incapable of living outwardly-normal lives. It just takes a bit more effort for them. But in any case, healthy people aren't able to coldly and deliberately make a life of mass-slaughter of other people. Such a thing cannot coexist with a normal human capacity for empathy -- 'temptation' only gets you so far, and it's not nearly so far as that.

People can easily compartmentalize their behavior depending on if somebody is considered "us" or "them". That is a basic aspect of human behavior, what Hannah Ardendt called "the banality of evil", not sociopathy. Do you think the majority of Germans in 1940 were sociopaths? Do you think all the Americans who support these strikes are sociopaths?

Originally Posted by Odin

People can easily compartmentalize their behavior depending on if somebody is considered "us" or "them". That is a basic aspect of human behavior, what Hannah Ardendt called "the banality of evil", not sociopathy. Do you think the majority of Germans in 1940 were sociopaths?

The majority of Germans neither participated in, nor caused to be committed, murders. That's the difference between the banality of evil and a pathological lack of capacity-to-empathize. Surely you recognize those as qualitatively different things?

Originally Posted by Odin

Going by his personal life, I highly doubt Obama is a sociopath. He has just succumbed to the "ends justify the mean" temptation.

To have credibility as a leader he had to take decisive, if lethal and unorthodox, actions against terrorists who weren't going to quite and weren't going to turn themselves in. He had to take risky choices (often some that I disagreed with at first) to rescue the economy.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

To have credibility as a leader he had to take decisive, if lethal and unorthodox, actions against terrorists who weren't going to quite and weren't going to turn themselves in. He had to take risky choices (often some that I disagreed with at first) to rescue the economy.

Love the rank hypocrisy here. Of course George W. Bush also took decisive and unorthodox actions against terrorism during his tenure. You lefties complained about his wiretapping, enhanced interrogations etc at length but find (less Deb C who is at least consistant) having a "kill list" just fine and dandy.

I guess waterboarding is not ok, but outright assassinations are?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

To have credibility as a leader he had to take decisive, if lethal and unorthodox, actions against terrorists who weren't going to quite and weren't going to turn themselves in. He had to take risky choices (often some that I disagreed with at first) to rescue the economy.

Isn't it sad that a so called *leader* has to kill to gain credibility? We as a society have bought into the Roman military mindset. There are so many other ways to show legitimate strength.

I see violence as a major weakness. We may never know what true strength looks like in a president because we as a society have bought hook, line and sinker, into the militaristic worldview. There have been numerous negotiations and actions that have led to peace but those are never held up as a measure of strength. Violence does not require the same degree of imagination and invention.

In 1989-90 alone, fourteen nations underwent nonviolent revolutions, all of them successful except for China.

Here are just a few examples of non-violence:

In Alagamar, Brazil, a group of peasants organized a long-term struggle to preserve their lands against attempts at illegal expropriation by national and international firms (with the connivance of local politicians and the military). Some of the peasants were arrested and jailed in town. Their companions decided they were all equally responsible. Hundreds marched to town. They filled the house of the judge, demanding to be jailed with those who had been arrested. The judge was finally obliged to send them all home, including the prisoners.

During the Vietnam War, one woman claimed seventy-nine dependents on her United States income tax, all Vietnamese orphans, so she owed no tax. They were not legal dependents, of course, so were disallowed. No, she insisted, these children have been orphaned by indiscriminate United States bombing; we are responsible for their lives. She forced the Internal Revenue Service to take her to court. That gave her a larger forum for making her case. She used the system against itself to unmask the moral indefensibility of what the system was doing. Of course she "lost" the case, but she made her point.

During World War II, when Nazi authorities in occupied Denmark promulgated an order that all Jews had to wear yellow armbands with the Star of David, the king made it a point to attend a celebration in the Copenhagen synagogue. He and most of the population of Copenhagen donned yellow armbands as well. His stand was affirmed by the Bishop of Sjaelland and other Lutheran clergy. The Nazis eventually had to rescind the order.

Too often we are fed the importance of military aggression as the only solution. In fact, it is those very acts of violence that fuel more acts of violence.

Most main stream historians will teach how *strong* and how the mighty military is the only way. There are also numerous other historians that point to alternatives to violence.

Non-Violent Revolutions By Era:

http://www.servinghistory.com/topics/Non-violent_revolution::sub::List_Of_Nonviolent_Revolu tions_By_Era

Had Christianity not been co-opted by the Roman Constantine after 300 years of Christians living the word and actions of the man Jesus, we may still see more value in not killing another human being, than slaughter as a way of flexing ones muscle. Of course, no one really wins when people are murdered and their families seek revenge. Violence is an never ending Merry-Go-Round. This is why we see turnings. If war and drones are our means of solving world problems, history just is repeating itself.

When Christianity became the Roman religion, that was the beginning of the end to what the non-violent Jesus was all about.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

The majority of Germans neither participated in, nor caused to be committed, murders. That's the difference between the banality of evil and a pathological lack of capacity-to-empathize. Surely you recognize those as qualitatively different things?

Complicity and silence in the face of evil is nearly as bad as the evil itself.

In any case I think the label of sociopath or psychopath is way over-applied to world leaders.

here is the DSM requirement for a diagnosis of Anti-Social Personality Disorder:

It is characterized by at least 3 of the following:

1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.
2. Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.
3. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them.
4. Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.
5. Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
6. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.

Of all US presidents since 1900 only one has at least three of those, GW Bush.

Well, a year ago lots of progressive posters were assuring us that the Wisconsin recall would be the start of a great progressive upheaval. Not. I don't know that Citizens United is definitely to blame for this result, but the comparison with Dred Scott is a good one and they are in fact quite similar, except that Citizens United is worse. Essentially Dred Scott said that no state or territory could keep slavery out of their borders. That was the real significance of it and the reason the Republicans benefited from it in the North. Citizens United basically says no jurisdiction can keep oil money out of its elections. The whole Republican effort of this 4T is to remodel the nation along the lines of the South/Southwest, and it's working.

I'm not happy to be proven right in the things I've been saying now for two years, but the right is, for the moment, definitely in the ascendant.

Targeted Propaganda Campaign Follows Targeted Killing Campaign

If this is true, it is astounding. The government has an obligation under international law to distinguish combatants from noncombatants – and, as far as reasonably possible, to avoid causing noncombatants harm. Direct targeting of noncombatants is a war crime; indeed, it is the prototypical one. It surely need not be explained that the government's obligation is to distinguish combatants from noncombatants while they are still alive, not after they have been killed. A "shoot first, ask questions later" policy is entirely inconsistent with international law, not to mention morally grotesque.

The other aspect of the New York Times story that warrants more attention has to do with the way the story was assembled. Becker and Shane report that they interviewed "three dozen" of President Obama's current and former advisors. These advisors supplied them with granular detail about deliberations inside the White House, quoted (or paraphrased) conversations between the president and senior officials, and discussed tensions between various agencies – most notably, the State Department and the CIA.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/06/07-5

Originally Posted by Odin

Complicity and silence in the face of evil is nearly as bad as the evil itself.

In any case I think the label of sociopath or psychopath is way over-applied to world leaders.

here is the DSM requirement for a diagnosis of Anti-Social Personality Disorder:

Of all US presidents since 1900 only one has at least three of those, GW Bush.

Bill Clinton has at least 4. If not more.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Isn't it sad that a so called *leader* has to kill to gain credibility? We as a society have bought into the Roman military mindset. There are so many other ways to show legitimate strength.

Osama bin Laden was no innocent man. In a perfect world he would have been captured and put on trial for a series of mass murders culminating in 9/11, or in an unlikely act of contrition he would have turned himself in to some country that lost citizens to 9/11. Fugitives from justice are always at risk of the worst from law enforcement.

I see violence as a major weakness. We may never know what true strength looks like in a president because we as a society have bought hook, line and sinker, into the militaristic worldview. There have been numerous negotiations and actions that have led to peace but those are never held up as a measure of strength. Violence does not require the same degree of imagination and invention.

We are stuck with a militaristic worldview because of the ethical and intellectual weaknesses of George W. Bush, a President more intent on establishing his own vainglory than on solving the menace of terrorism. I can say this -- if political leadership must resort to military measures for lack of viable alternatives, then it had better do the dirty work of war with due foresight and competence. I find it hard to see any ethical difference between sacrifice one's own innocent people and sacrificing those of another country.

In 1989-90 alone, fourteen nations underwent nonviolent revolutions, all of them successful except for China.

...which I much admire and endorse. Such (except for the crackdown in China and the mad failure of a crackdown in Romania) is the right way to make history. It is best for all involved -- including the Old Regime whose members are best understood as failing to understand how wrong they were -- whether Honecker or Pinochet. Non-violence isn't always available for those severely wronged; the Nazis were clearly intent on annihilating the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto and the Polish gentiles during the second Warsaw uprising largely of gentile Poles.

Here are just a few examples of non-violence:

In Alagamar, Brazil, a group of peasants organized a long-term struggle to preserve their lands against attempts at illegal expropriation by national and international firms (with the connivance of local politicians and the military). Some of the peasants were arrested and jailed in town. Their companions decided they were all equally responsible. Hundreds marched to town. They filled the house of the judge, demanding to be jailed with those who had been arrested. The judge was finally obliged to send them all home, including the prisoners.

A wonderful example of non-violent resistance to a dictatorial regime and economic corruption. Nobody can doubt that pacifistic responses to evil are often as courageous as armed resistance.

During the Vietnam War, one woman claimed seventy-nine dependents on her United States income tax, all Vietnamese orphans, so she owed no tax. They were not legal dependents, of course, so were disallowed. No, she insisted, these children have been orphaned by indiscriminate United States bombing; we are responsible for their lives. She forced the Internal Revenue Service to take her to court. That gave her a larger forum for making her case. She used the system against itself to unmask the moral indefensibility of what the system was doing. Of course she "lost" the case, but she made her point.

Philosophically and morally correct if technically in violation of the tax code.

During World War II, when Nazi authorities in occupied Denmark promulgated an order that all Jews had to wear yellow armbands with the Star of David, the king made it a point to attend a celebration in the Copenhagen synagogue. He and most of the population of Copenhagen donned yellow armbands as well. His stand was affirmed by the Bishop of Sjaelland and other Lutheran clergy. The Nazis eventually had to rescind the order.

For this reason Denmark was the only part of the Nazi Empire to avoid the Holocaust. (It also helped that the Danish government, which had some uncharacteristic measure of independence, compiled its own list of vulnerable Jews who could be arrested with little notice and deported... to safety in Sweden). Non-violent resistance to Nazi militarism and racism occurred elsewhere, but it usually resulted in the death of those captured.

Non-violent resistance to political evil is possible when the opposing leadership lacks the will to crack down with violence. Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Vaclav Havel would have become unknown martyrs had they had to resist the likes of Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam.

...I have no problem with Occupy America. Our economic and political system is horrifically corrupt and in danger of becoming more so. That it is inconvenient for some politicians that I like is the least of anyone's problems. Democratic politics are not supposed to be convenient for entrenched elites or especially for people who show the desire to transform democracy into a sham (here I speak of people like Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, and Dick Armey, among others). The time to fight tyranny and dictatorship is before it entrenches itself. Surely you have seen the likes of Rick Scott and Scott Walker; they may seem like buffoons now, but just imagine either with 'special powers' to crush dissent on behalf of people who want their wealth or bureaucratic power to be the only power that matters in America.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Bill Clinton has at least 4. If not more.

Aside from having the sexuality of an alley cat, Bill Clinton is OK.

I conflate Obama's dilemma with LBJ's: Since he was presiding over the most "socialistic" expansion of government in American history up to that point, LBJ could not afford to be seen as "soft on Communism" in his foreign policy; similarly, due to numerous characteristics of his up to and including his own middle name, Barack Obama cannot afford to be seen as "soft on (Muslim) terrorism" - hence the actually accelerated drone strikes from the Bush years and the Soprano-style "whacking" of bin Laden.

Originally Posted by Odin

Complicity and silence in the face of evil is nearly as bad as the evil itself.

Makes for a nice slogan, but the reality is that while standing by silently as a killer goes to work in front of you is something perfectly conceivable for a healthy person, actually murdering a person with your own hands and being able to live with yourself afterwards takes a special sort of sickness.

here is the DSM requirement for a diagnosis of Anti-Social Personality Disorder:

Of all US presidents since 1900 only one has at least three of those, GW Bush.

Of course, you had a much closer personal relationship with all those guys than I did, so I've got to defer to your superior knowledge of their inner souls. But I'd think that based on the scant evidence afforded by an outsider's view of behavior alone, pretty much every president since I can remember at least seemed very much to display 1,5, and 6.

If this is true, which it looks as if it is, we are even more screwed than I originally thought.

Obama Trade Document Leak

WASHINGTON -- A critical document from President Barack Obama's free trade negotiations with eight Pacific nations was leaked online early Wednesday morning, revealing that the administration intends to bestow radical new political powers upon multinational corporations, contradicting prior promises.

Promises? Seriously? I'm beginning to believe that he is as owned by the corporations as Romney. Is he now the deceiver-in- chief?

The

leaked document

has been posted on the website of Public Citizen, a long-time critic of the administration's trade objectives. The new leak follows substantial controversy surrounding the secrecy of the talks, in which some

members of Congress

have complained they are not being given the same access to trade documents that corporate officials receive.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1592593.html

Amazing what can happen when activists keep pressure on the president. Instead of making excuses for a president who breaks his campaign promises, these activists held him accountable and won. Imagine that.

"The more fear confrontational activism can put into the heart of the political class, the better"

The imperatives of political pressure

Like LGBT activists, Latinos continously pressured Obama, and now have an important victory to show for it.

Throughout the Obama presidency, one of the most vocal and demanding factions in the Democratic Party base has been activists for gay and lesbian equality. They repeatedly protested at Obama events and even at the White House, complained loudly about Obama’s broken promises, and even threatened to boycott Obama’s re-election campaign by withholding donations. In light of that ongoing confrontationalism, as well as the importance of gay voters (and especially gay donors) to the Democratic Party, it’s no surprise that their agenda has been repeatedly attended to by Obama, as he engineered the successful repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell, ordered his DOJ to stop defending the constitutionality of DOMA, and then finally “evolved” to an Election-Year endorsement of same-sex marriage.Latino activists have been as confrontational and unwilling to fall into line as good, compliant partisan soldiers. They publicly protestedObama’s record number of deportation, complained about his immigration policies, loudly accused him of “betrayal,” and expressed subsstantial disapproval for him in polls. Thus, five months before the election, we have this today:

MORE: http://www.salon.com/2012/06/15/the_...ical_pressure/

The problem here is that Obama is moving left on the wrong issues. Or I should say the less-than-crucial issues. All of this is culture-wars stuff -- gay marriage, immigration. Cool that he's doing it, but he's showing himself here to be a typical corporate Democrat, appealing to the left only on issues that don't offend the corporate masters. What about trade? What about labor rights? What about education? What about breaking up the big banks? What about rectifying the gross imbalance of wealth and income? If he were to move left on those things, he would absolutely guarantee his reelection in a landslide.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The problem here is that Obama is moving left on the wrong issues. Or I should say the less-than-crucial issues. All of this is culture-wars stuff -- gay marriage, immigration. Cool that he's doing it, but he's showing himself here to be a typical corporate Democrat, appealing to the left only on issues that don't offend the corporate masters. What about trade? What about labor rights? What about education? What about breaking up the big banks? What about rectifying the gross imbalance of wealth and income? If he were to move left on those things, he would absolutely guarantee his reelection in a landslide.

I don't know. He'd pick up votes in California, likely enough. It would get him labelled as a flip-flopper, though.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The problem here is that Obama is moving left on the wrong issues. Or I should say the less-than-crucial issues. All of this is culture-wars stuff -- gay marriage, immigration. Cool that he's doing it, but he's showing himself here to be a typical corporate Democrat, appealing to the left only on issues that don't offend the corporate masters. What about trade? What about labor rights? What about education? What about breaking up the big banks? What about rectifying the gross imbalance of wealth and income? If he were to move left on those things, he would absolutely guarantee his reelection in a landslide.

You make some very good points. I suppose he could also be reigning in some of the Left who were becoming very discouraged with his leaning too far to the Right. Maybe it was more of a tactical vote decision, I'm not sure.

But as you mention, the real proof of his working for "we the people" will be how far he is willing to challenge Wall Street and major corporations who are masters of so much of our government. So far, Obama is appearing more like soul mate with the industry, than with the people he vowed to serve.

Originally Posted by Deb C

You make some very good points. I suppose he could also be reigning in some of the Left who were becoming very discouraged with his leaning too far to the Right. Maybe it was more of a tactical vote decision, I'm not sure.

But as you mention, the real proof of his working for "we the people" will be how far he is willing to challenge Wall Street and major corporations who are masters of so much of our government. So far, Obama is appearing more like soul mate with the industry, than with the people he vowed to serve.

I think a lot of his base would come home if he would stop going along with the methods of the Bush administration that hurt human rights, like what is happening with Guantanamo which he promised to close. Prisoners from Yemen can't be released only because they are from Yemen. Things like that.

And he needs to do more unilateral actions that make congress unhappy. Congress blocks anything and everything he wants to do that would help his re-election. He needs to do more to help people with foreclosures, and anything else he can think of that would boost the economy. He needs to do what he can without congress. And he needs to campaign against the tea party congress and get them out if he wants to do anything else in his second term, except unilateral actions and foreign policy adventures.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

I conflate Obama's dilemma with LBJ's: Since he was presiding over the most "socialistic" expansion of government in American history up to that point, LBJ could not afford to be seen as "soft on Communism" in his foreign policy; similarly, due to numerous characteristics of his up to and including his own middle name, Barack Obama cannot afford to be seen as "soft on (Muslim) terrorism" - hence the actually accelerated drone strikes from the Bush years and the Soprano-style "whacking" of bin Laden.

It takes a card away from the red state militarist Republicans, that is true; although technically his middle name has nothing to do with (Muslim) terrorism.

Money for thee MIC

Originally Posted by layoffdaily

Lockheed Martin (LMT), Boeing Co. (BA) and Northrop Grumman (NOC), the top three defense contractors, may lay off thousands of workers ahead of the November presidential election if Congress fails to reach an agreement on how to address the deficit before then, according to The Wall Street Journal.

This is not an idle threat. Defense contractors employ about 1 million workers and are major employers in Ohio and other battleground states. The reverberations from the job cuts would be serious, as they would impact suppliers and businesses that depend on them.

Defense contractors are already facing $487 billion in cuts over the next decade that were approved as part of last year’s Budget Control Act. They may face more than $50 billion in additional cuts over the next 10 years since Congress was unable to agree on a plan to reduce the deficit.

“Unless Congress changes the law, those cuts take effect at the beginning of January,” according to the Journal. “Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has urged Congress to reverse the cuts, but industry observers say they don’t expect lawmakers to begin serious discussions over how to avoid the defense cuts until after the November elections.

Will they love you in December as they do in October?

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Money for thee MIC



Will they love you in December as they do in October?

Supply and Demand. Less military goods produce, less workers needed.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Money for thee MIC



Will they love you in December as they do in October?

The article sounds like a full fledged threat by the MIC. If they don't get what they want, they will make, the already growing again unemployment, even worse. I see an image of this giant war machine demanding to be fed in spite of so many citizens struggling to get by.

Obama administration to stop deporting some young illegal immigrants

This is HUGE. Obama has secured the Latino vote for at least a generation. The GOP must either dump the bigots or else become irrelevant. As things are, demographics are not on the Republicans' side, this is why their racism has become so blatant and hysterical since Obama was elected.