HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » RC » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 20


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: North Dakota
Home country: US of A
Current location: Kansas City MO
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 25,592

About Me

It does not matter where in the political spectrum one adheres. The same rules of right and wrong, good and evil applies to everyone. Our greatest danger of extinction comes from those that think the rules do not apply to them. www.timws.com

Journal Archives

Do you really want more say in how you are treated?

You are absolutely correct, it is about power.
So do what the Republicans did, starting 30 some years ago.

Get elected to the local school boards
Run for dog catcher or any other low level local elected office
Run for city council
Work your way up to the State Legislature
From there to Congress.
To the Presidency

Any elected office looks good on the resume. Build on it. It will take time, quite possibly more than 30 years. Build the foundations as you go for those that follow.
Along the way maybe you can stop the wars. Institute Single Payer, Universal Health Care and all the rest of what this country is missing that other countries takes for granted.
There are no instant answers to the problems we all face in this country. Your children will need to finish the job you start. You may be surprised at the support you will have from husbands, brothers, sons, male friends and even strangers.

You want to level the playing field? This is how.

We do need a second party.

A Liberal and Progressive Democratic Party. A real Democratic Party, representative of the people. Not the party of DINO's we have now.
With the DLC takeover of the Democratic party complete, moving to the Right far enough to Replace the Sane part of the Republican party (hence the Clown Car of Presidential candidates that is left of the Republican Party).
The DLC was dissolved last year because its job was done.

Evidence of lack of tolerance by some and misuse of the Alert

I agree, it was a benign graphic of a trash can. The poster was stating an opinion, punctuated by the graphic.
With action such as hiding the post, is it any wonder people are saying and leaving? For some, posting in Help & Meta-discussion and General Discussion is becoming a form of Russian roulette. It should not be.
There is no consistency anymore. Some of us thinks there should be more tolerance and discussion and others that think any difference of opinion on their pet topic, should be faulted and alerted on for no other reason than the alerted on, was not agreeing well enough with some self appointed group.

For those looking for a "Clean" version of the text for the SOTU last night


It took some hunting to find this.
You can print it to PDF for safe keeping and easy look up.
I use CutePDF Writer. It saves the text for easy copy and paste.

Follow the Leader

Always Strive to Be a Better You - Charismatic Leaders and Ego

As you consider those leaders past and present, what are the characteristics that define them? What makes them great? Are they effective because of situational work, interpersonal dealings, general intelligence, content expertise, or perhaps a little of each? Do they possess that je ne sais quoi that we hear so much about but really don't know how to spell?

As you engaged in that quick exercise, your mind probably raced with thoughts of wonderful leaders from your own life, mixed with some great historical leaders, and sprinkled with a few outstanding leaders about whom you have heard but know very little. That last group probably consisted of rather charismatic personalities -- Chrysler chairman Lee Iacocca or former Boston Celtics basketball coach Red Auerbach, for example.

Some might caution us against blindly following charismatic leaders -- those who can woo the room, whip the crowd into frenzy, and entice an emotional reaction out of any situation. Michael Fullan, for instance, warns us that "Charismatic leaders inadvertently often do more harm than good because, at best, they provide episodic improvement followed by frustrated or despondent dependency," and, worse still, "they are role models who can never be emulated."

We respectfully add a caveat, by cautioning against the blind following of any leader, charismatic or otherwise.

The Wave will intrigue readers from the beginning. It is a story based upon actual events that took place as the result of a History class experiment in a California high school in 1969. Ben Ross, a high school history teacher, begins his usual unit on World War II with a film strip depicting the horrors that occurred in Nazi concentration camps. His students have mixed reactions to the film. Among them, Laurie, a popular student, raises questions that the teacher cannot answer and states that this type of event could never happen again. The teacher concocts an experiment to illustrate to his students just how this type of blind following can easily happen, even in their own school. It begins simply enough as a game in his history class but soon the students want to spread their new found discipline to other areas of the school including the school's football team. As time passes, the other teachers, administration, and a handful of students become more concerned with the effects of the Wave, the term given to the experiment. Eventually, Mr. Ross must also acknowledge that things have gone too far and must devise a plan to put an end to the fast-spreading craze. In the end, the students learn a valuable lesson about blindly following a leader.

The fluid, readable style allows secondary students to understand the text, while still engaging adult readers with a fascinating story. In addition to bringing to life a pivotal piece of history, the novel raises questions about contemporary issues and attitudes as well as the power of persuasion and group versus individual psyche. The Wave brings its characters to life. It is well suited for high school or middle school students because it addresses the issues of peer pressure and the fine line between fitting in and blindly following the crowd. It illustrates how quickly people can be convinced that their individual rights are not really important and how important it is for some people to feel as though they are accepted as part of the group. This book is rich in discussion topics and may be used to connect language arts and social studies/history


Why would people rather blindly trust their leaders, instead of look up their history and learn from the past?

not talking to any country in particular *usa* *cough* new nazi's
why is being a "nerd" such a bad thing? why not know what the government is doing? why let them get so powerful, and overrun by the same private bankers who funded nazi germany? and why can't we ask these questions? why is it humanity never learns from history, why keep on making the same mistakes? the tonkin gulf incident is just one example of the united states not having a problem with false flag attacks, yet even with the viewpoints of thousands of qualified people, people still blindly follow the 911 story? sorry stories; there were too many, it didn't seem like the government was sure on that 1; and why do we praise beef? the world is messed up but people would rather avoid the issues at hand and continue letting their retrospective systems commit atrocities, hasn't history taught us how easily the system can go down? why is it a good thing to be dumbed down and not know anything? and has humanity always been so stupid? if america has the best interests at heart why do they allow china and india to continue with child slavery, letting their people consume the products of innocent crying starving dying children? the american empire is spreading, other nations believe if they **** the u.s off, they'll be attacked; who are the real terrorists?
terrorism 1:the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
but what is terror? terror is violent or destructive acts, such as bombing commit by groups intended to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands, so what's a terrorist?
america cause a million ground zero's that never reached your earholes;
the taliban? american created; hey help us against the soviets please, they'll take over the world!
the wars over? binladden asks for money to rebuild and asks for peace, but america would rather bomb it, and label them terrorists for retaliating;


SAT: to question the ideas and decisions of those in positions of authority

The German teachers during the Nazi period were also the epitome of how people in positions of authority could be mistaken. These teachers played an essential role in shaping the mindset of young German. However, what the teachers passed down to the students were nothing but hatred and prejudice against the Jews. They led the students to believe that the Jews were inferior and that they did not deserve to exist. These prejudiced teachers had nurtured generations of xenophobic Germans who enlisted or took part in condemning the existence of the Jews in one way or another when they grew up. If the teachings of these teachers had been questioned, there would have been considerably less unfounded hatred towards to Jews.

Lastly, the grand Ponzi scheme caused by Bernie Madoff serves as a painful reminder for us that blindly following a leader without questioning his belief and actions would engender severe consequences. Madoff was the CEO of a stock-market company and the senior financial advisor of many companies; his voice was highly trusted. This allowed him to make profits for himself from the gargantuan amount of investment and lose all of it, causing millions of Americans become broke and out of jobs after just one night. The financial crisis was so severe that even other economies in the world also collapsed, like a Domino effect. Had Madoff's unscrupulous actions been questioned sooner, such debilitating situations could have been avoided.

Overall, a careful analysis of all the above cases shows us that even though having a good leader is important, we should not blindly follow his decision. Questioning their ideas and decisions is a good way to make sure that our leaders are on the right track. After all, we would thrive if we heed the wise words of a capable and morally upright leader, and questioning the leaders' ideas and decisions helps us decide whether our leaders are the ones we need.


Blindly follow the leader, again, and its shocking

U.S. social psychologist Stanley Milgram performed a controversial but important experiment in human behavior beginning in the early 1960s—his famous “obedience to authority” experiments (the Milgram Experiments). Now, in the 2000s, the experiment is repeated.

Dr. Milgram found that a majority of people will blindly obey an authority figure even when it comes to hurting other people.

While at Yale University, Milgram conducted a series of experiments starting in 1961 under the guise of testing punishment and learning.

Milgram used three groups of people, one group he called the “teachers” (participants) and the others he named as the “learners” (victims) and the “authority figures” (experimenters).


When following the leader can lead into the jaws of death

For animals that live in social groups, and that includes humans, blindly following a leader could place them in danger. To avoid this, animals have developed simple but effective behaviour to follow where at least a few of them dare to tread – rather than follow a single group member.

This pattern of behaviour reduces the risk of imitating maverick behaviour of an individual as the group recognise that consensus is better than following someone that goes it alone.

The study was carried out at the University of Leicester, by Ashley J. W. Ward now at the University of Sydney and in collaboration with David J. T. Sumpter of Uppsala University; Iain D. Couzin of Princeton University; Paul J. B. Hart of the University of Leicester and Jens Krause of the University of Leeds. It is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The research was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council.

Dr Ward, formerly of the University of Leicester, led the study. He said: “Social conformity and the desire to follow a leader, regardless of cost, exert extremely powerful influences on the behaviour of social animals, from fish to sheep to humans.


Land of the Blind

Land of the Blind is a dark political satire, based on several incidents throughout history in which tyrannical rulers were overthrown by new leaders who proved to be just as bad, if not worse, and subtle references are made to several such cases. The title is taken from the saying, "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."[1]

"Land of the Blind" had its world premiere in competition at the International Film Festival Rotterdam, and was the Opening Night Gala film at the 2006 Human Rights Watch Film Festival in London. Its U.S. premiere was in competition at the 2006 Tribeca Film Festival. The film sparked intense reaction during its festival run, attacked by both left and right, each of which saw the film as a critique of its position.


And still no one is talking about Living Wage Jobs.

Only jobs. Comparing some jobs that pay a little better, against part time, minimum wage, no benefit jobs. Not really much of an improvement.
For an actual recovery, we need Living-Wage-Jobs with benefits. That is not happening. They are not even talking about it. Just jobs.
Even if everyone had one or more 'just job', there still would not be much of a recovery. Without Living-Wage-Jobs, wiht everyone having a 'job', we could still end up at the bottom of third world status.

We are being had here people. We are being fed the notion jobs is enough. Working 25 hours a week is not much of an improvement over working 20 hours a week.

Whenever jobs are mentioned, bring up Living-Wage-Jobs. Ask "Where are they?"

There is a reason I hyphenate 'Living-Wage-Jobs'. To tie Living, Wages and Jobs together. For the working class, none of those can stand alone and survive.

Why would anyone sane vote for, let alone support anyone the Republican Party has put up for

President since 2000?

The Republican Party, the party or NO!, the party that has brought us 2 wars off the books, record debt and deficits through tax cuts and corrupt war mongering, high joblessness though outsourcing our Living wage jobs to reward CEO’s with billions, while doing their best to rip up the safety net programs designed to help those very people made destitute by their party’s actions. The party whose stated mission is to make Obama a one term President, instead of working to repair the damage to our country their Sociopathic political platform has caused?
Why do people vote against their own self interests to elect these greedy multimillionaires that are working to bankrupt the rest of us?

Someone from the way, far extreme Left. You know the actual political Center, as recognize by

the rest of the world.

This country is so far to the Right, most people in this country have lost sight of where Center really is.
For instance, Obama is not a Liberal at all. He just kinda ran as one. He never governed as one.
But because the Loony Right is defying gravity by being suspending in mid-air off the far right cliffs, anything with ground under it is taken as center or even Liberal.

All it takes anymore, is if you are not within jumping distance of the cliff, you are labeled as a Liberal. We, as a country need to get back to the real Political Center.
It will be a long journey.

The purpose of the government is to provide services for "We the people..."

The purpose of the government is to provide services for "We the people...". From the Federal level down to the local level. Services such as clean water, law enforcement/protection, Fire protection, public education, Building and maintaining public roads and streets (including snow removal), and in most countries Universal Health Care. And a whole host of other services most people never even think of, that make our lives healthier, safer and easier.
Taxes pay for these services. When everyone pays for their fair share, we all benefit from the services government provides.
When government is starved of operating funds because of excessive tax cuts, especially tax cuts for those most able to pay, as we have now, those most in need are hit disproportionally harder.

I can imagined Deb Kiel (R-MN) http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/224845/ is one of those fortunate people that are not wanting for material things. Unlike the people she is hurting by her myopic reduction of the services she does not use or need. Cuts that leave her with more at the expense of the rest of us that depend on those government services.

Local government have very few options for operating funds. The property tax in most cases is the only source of operating funds allowed by statute.
Up until the year of 2000 or so, the States received funds back from the Federal level, which redistributed them down to the county and local level. Under the Bush Administration that source pretty well dried up. The states and local levels had no choice but to raise the taxes that they could.
The real problem now is not that the government spends too much, the problem is that those most able to afford to, do not pay their fair share, so government can provide the statute mandated services in the first place!

Governments from the Federal level down to the local level are mandated by law to provide certain services. They have been starved for so long they cannot provide those services any longer. But cutting these services for the people is counter productive. It makes things worse. Those same Well-To-Do people that benefit the most from the tax cuts, are also acting to ship our Living-Wage-Jobs over seas, resulting in high unemployment, foreclosures, bankruptcies, lack of basic health care, etc., which in turn create more people that are in need of the services that government is mandated to provide for "We the people...", but now cannot because of the lack of proper operating funds.

The real answer it to RAISE taxes on those that can most afford it, not cut services even more for those that need those services the most. Get our Living-Wage-Jobs back into this country and reverse the last 12 years of the Republican orchestrated swan dive into 3rd world status for the United States.

Another large source of funds is going to funding our deadly aggression against other countries, under the guise of "Fighting Terrorism". We are the world worst terrorist country. Just ask the people in the Middle East.
That money could be better spend rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure in this country. Providing hundreds of thousands to Living-Wage-Jobs, that will get this country out of the Bush Administration caused recession.

Our Constitution mandates providing for the general welfare of the "We the people..."
It is time our government gets back to adhering to the wording and meaning behind those words in our Constitution. The alternative is the destruction of the United States as a country.

A alternative the Middle East would be grateful for, because we would have to get out of their countries and leave them alone, as we could no longer afford to make new terrorist to justify prolonging the war on terrorism.

And that would be the best Christmas present we could give them.
Merry Christmas.

Socialized Medicine and what Michele Bachmann really wants to eliminate, not in any way what she...

Socialized Medicine and what Michele Bachmann really wants to eliminate, not in any way what she thinks

The proper definition of socialized medicine, and it's only proper use, is to define a system where the governments OWNS the hospitals, and where physicians and staff are CIVIL SERVANTS ( I.E. the government tells them where to work and when they work and who their patients are).

When hospitals are not owned by the government and physicians are in private practice, this is not socialized medicine, whether hospital and physician bills are paid by the government or by an insurance company death panel.

When the government pays physician and hospitals bills while hospitals are not owned by that government and physicians are in private practice, this is a single payer system, NOT socialized medicine.

This means that:

Medicare is a single payer system and not socialized medicine. Physicians and patients make medical decisions. Patients choose their doctors.

Medicaid is a single payer system and not socialized medicine. Physicians and patients make medical decisions. Patients choose their doctors.

Canadian health care is a single payer system and not socialized medicine. Physicians and patients make medical decisions. Patients choose their doctors.

The Affordable Care Act is neither a single payer system nor socialized medicine, since insurance company bureaucrats are still wedged between Americans and American physicians. Insurance company bureaucrats still make the medical decisions for those Americans and still overrule the medical opinions of those American physicians. Insurance company bureaucrats still decide which few Americans can see a physician and which physician they can see, if any, and who gets treated and what treatment they get.

Insurance-run health care is a system where insurance company bureaucrats are wedged between Americans and American physicians. Insurance company bureaucrats make the medical decisions for those Americans and overrule the medical opinions of those American physicians. Insurance company bureaucrats decide which few Americans can see a physician, which, if any, physician they can see, insurance company bureaucrats decide which Americans get treated, and insurance company bureaucrats decide what treatment that Americans get.

The only socialized medicine in North America, and thus, the only thing that Michele Bachmann says she'll eliminate, is American military and DVA health care, leaving the military and Veterans to die or to go to Canada to get health care, as 2 million Americans already do, because insurance company bureaucrats say that they can't see a doctor in the United States or insurance company bureaucrats say that they can't get the health care they need in the United States.

It is a lie that any more than a handful of Canadians each year go to the United States for health care. It is the truth that over 2 million Americans a year stream across the border into Canada to get the health care that insurance company bureaucrats deny them in the United States.

Having American insurance company bureaucrats wedged between Americans and American physicians is the main, and almost only, reason why Canadians live 3 to 4 years longer than Americans.

Having American insurance company bureaucrats wedged between Americans and American physicians kills 45,000 Americans each year, who would be alive if they lived in Canada, where every single Canadian can see a doctor in Canada, and every single Canadian can, and does, get whatever health care they need in Canada.

Every Canadian, rich or poor, and regardless of age, get far better health care in Canada than the average middle class American gets in the United States, accounting for the fact that Canadians are healthier and live longer than Americans.

Notable: (source US Central Intelligence Agency Fact Book- 2010)
From an E-mail I received this morning. Notice the source above.

I used to date a Canadian who lived in Winnipeg. Liz had a major bronchitis episode one night. She managed to get to a phone and call a friend who took her to the emergency room. From there, Liz spent 3 days in the hospital. Liz's cost? $10.00 co-pay for some antibiotics. No other co-pays. That was it. No charges for the emergency room. No charges for the Hospital stay, doctor visits. How much would that have cost someone down here, even with insurance?
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 20