Sunday, November 17, 2013

SELFISH OR SOCIOPATH, DOES IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

FROM JONATHAN TURLEY'S BLOG


Selfish or Sociopath, Does It Make a Difference?

Submitted By: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
In recent years many studies have come out  that have made the case that a high proportion of CEO’s of major companies are sociopaths. At the end of this blog I’ll provide a number of links that discuss this, some from major conservative business magazines. We do know that from 1% to 3% of humans are sociopaths sharing all of these 10 characteristics:
#1) Sociopaths are charming. #2) Sociopaths are more spontaneous and intense than other people. #3) Sociopaths are incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse. #4) Sociopaths invent outrageous lies about their experiences. #5) Sociopaths seek to dominate others and “win” at all costs. #6) Sociopaths tend to be highly intelligent #7) Sociopaths are incapable of love #8) Sociopaths speak poetically. #9) Sociopaths never apologize. #10) Sociopaths are delusional and literally believe that what they say becomes truth.”http://www.naturalnews.com/036112_sociopaths_cults_influence.html
495px-Donald_Trump_by_Gage_SkidmorePaul_Ryan--113th_Congress--Mitt_Romney_by_Gage_Skidmore_7Now the problem with the definition of Sociopathy is that there can be a good deal of subjectivity in making the diagnosis, absent a clinician interviewing the subject. After all many people are charming, spontaneous, invent lies, try to dominate others and speak “poetically” and that doesn’t make them sociopaths. The subjectivity comes in trying to determine whether a given person is incapable of feeling guilt, shame, remorse and is delusional. A trained clinician may be able to do this via an intensive interview, but the nature of this disorder is such that even a trained clinician can be fooled by a sociopath. Rather than argue back and forth about the negative effects of CEO sociopaths on this society as the root of so much dysfunction, my readings this week suggest another theory that would provide a simpler explanation of why it seems that so many in this country have so little compassion and empathy for the less fortunate among us. We need not deem them sociopaths, but people who are simply removed from the misery that they inflict. The apocryphal story of Marie Antoinette’s “let them eat cake” may well characterize those who control most of this country’s wealth. It may be why some are sincere philanthropists, yet show such disdain and lack a sense of responsibility for the suffering that they cause. Let’s explore this further.
“Scrooge has come early this year. We’re kicking our Tiny Tim’s. This holiday season, kids in America’s poorest families are going to have less to eat. November 1 brought $5 billion in new cuts to the nation’s food stamp program, now officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
Poor families will lose on average 7 percent of their food aid, calculates the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. A mother with two kids will lose $319 over the rest of the current federal fiscal year. The cuts could cost some families a week’s worth of meals a month, says the chief at America’s largest food bank. More cuts are looming. A U.S. House of Representatives majority is demanding an additional $39 billion in “savings” over the next decade. Ohio and a host of other states, in the meantime, are moving to limit food stamp eligibility.” http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Are-Heartless-People-Simpl-by-Sam-Pizzigati-Greed_Teaparty-Teapartiers-131104-969.html
The author Sam Pizzigati, writing at http://www.opednews.com , goes on to enumerate some of the actions being taken that will hurt parts the of  the American people that are least able to defend themselves against the depredations of poverty and hunger. This country which is so fond of creating metaphoric wars against objects of perceived fear like “Drugs” and “Terror”, has also had metaphorical “Wars” declared against “Poverty” and “Hunger”.  The latter died due to the entanglement in Viet Nam monopolizing government funds. The paradigm this era’s “War on Something” may actually have been transformed in a “War for Something,” because what it seems we now have is a “War for Poverty” and a “War For Hunger”. Some examples:
“Today’s brazen heartlessness toward America’s most vulnerable actually goes far deeper than food stamp cuts, as a new Economic Policy Institute report released last week documents in rather chilling detail.
Four states, the report notes, have “lifted restrictions on child labor.” In Wisconsin, state law used to limit 16- and 17-year-olds to no more than five hours of work a day on school days. The new law erases these limits.
Other states are cutting back on protections for low-wage workers of all ages. Earlier this year, the new EPI survey relates, Mississippi adopted a law that bans cities and counties in the state “from adopting any minimum wage, living wage, or paid or unpaid sick leave rights for local workers.”http://www.opednews.com/articles/Are-Heartless-People-Simpl-by-Sam-Pizzigati-Greed_Teaparty-Teapartiers-131104-969.html
There are those of course representing a particular conservative mindset, that would argue that ending “child labor restrictions” are actually a good thing, because they allow children in poverty to rise above their situation through work. The history of child labor in this country would give lie to this. The impetus for passing these laws that  defenestrate “child labor restrictions”, comes from companies paying the minimum wage, or less, to people who are looking for any kind of job. The young are seen as a source of  pliable,cheap labor that can be easier controlled and made more fearful. Unless one is quite extraordinary, being stuck at the minimum wage, or less, ensures rather than provides an escape from poverty. We of course have those “lift themselves up from their bootstraps” types like former Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan, who used himself as an example of this because he worked in a McDonald’s after his father’s death. He didn’t elaborate though that he came from the wealthiest family in his home town and that his father’s estate provided more than ample sustenance. Considering that after graduation from College Ryan was secured a job in the office of Wisconsin’s U.S. Senator and from then on has always worked either in government or for Conservative lobbying organizations, the congressman has done very little “bootstrap pulling and much string pulling to get work. Very few people “lift themselves up by their bootstraps” and those few exceptions do prove that rule.
The “War for Poverty”, as I like to call it, doesn’t only affect children and teenagers. Its cost cutting howitzers are also trained upon this nation’s elderly:
“The sick and elderly aren’t faring all that well either. In Arizona, the governor proposed a health-insurance cutoff that would have tripped some patients up right in the middle of their chemotherapy. Texas is considering Medicaid cuts that could end up closing 850 of the state’s 1,000 nursing homes.”
It seems we have reached a point in America where the notion of a community of citizens, bound by common destinies has been replaced by an “everyone for themselves” attitude, that is inexplicably endorsed heartily by all too many supposedly “devout Christians.” They have made the notion of “Christian Charity” a relic of the past.  As with Mr. Ryan our new Deities have become Ayn Rand and Gordon Gekko. For someone of my age, whose parents became adults during the “Great Depression”, this is not the America I grew up in, or at least not the image of America that was fostered during that “Depression”, and during and after World War II. The 2010 elections seem to have seemed to accelerated the process of our nation becoming one that extols selfishness and rewards greed.
“America’s current surge of mean-spiritedness, observes Gordon Lafer, the University of Oregon author of the EPI study, essentially erupted right after the 2010 elections. In 11 states, those elections gave right-wingers “new monopoly control” over the governor’s mansion and both legislative houses.
Lafer links this right-wing electoral triumph directly to growing inequality. A widening income gap, he explains, “has produced a critical mass of extremely wealthy businesspeople, many of whom are politically conservative,” and various recent court cases have given these wealthy a green light to spend virtually unlimited sums on their favored political candidates.
This spending has, in turn, raised campaign costs for all political hopefuls — and left pols even more dependent on deep-pocket campaign contributions.
But America’s new heartlessness reflects much more than this turbocharged political power of America’s rich. An insensitivity toward the problems poor people face, researchers have shown, reflects a deeper psychological shift that extreme inequality makes all but inevitable.
The wider a society’s economic divide, as Demos think tank analyst Sean McElwee noted last week, the less empathy on the part of the rich and the powerful toward the poor and the weak. In a starkly unequal society, people of more than ample means “rarely brush shoulders” with people of little advantage. These rich don’t see the poor. They stereotype them — as lazy and unworthy.” http://www.opednews.com/articles/Are-Heartless-People-Simpl-by-Sam-Pizzigati-Greed_Teaparty-Teapartiers-131104-969.html
It is a closed circle that is driving and justifying the ever widening economic divide in this country. The wealthy elite never see the poor and the disadvantaged in this country. They are separated from them by their wealth and because of that, only are able to view them through the lens of self serving abstractions. They are catered to by armies of servants who of necessity treat them obsequiously for fear of their jobs. When one lives a life of pampered privilege it becomes difficult to understand why, or how, people live otherwise. One who is to the manor born naturally grows up with a sense of entitlement and many of our American religious leaders cater to that assuring them that God has bestowed blessings upon them since they are worthy. Conversely, of course, those who live in poverty and deprivation must deserve their fate and their state must be also ordained by God.
Forgetting for a moment the politics involved, didn’t we see just that in Mitt Romney’s run for the President. From what I’ve seen of the man, I don’t believe that Mitt is a sociopath. I believe he genuinely loves his wife and family. I believe he has feelings for his religion and feelings for his friends. I believe that even in some abstract way he cares for the plight of those less fortunate. Mitt though, can serve as the poster boy for those elite who are driving this new American attitude and by his own uttering’s he reveals how his attitudes arose. Romney was born into the “royalty” of the Church of the Latter Day Saints (LDS) and thus from his first realization of life was a privileged person. His father George, a successful Automobile Executive was a very rich and very doting father. Mitt and his wife to make themselves seem more like average American’s discussed with no iron their “struggles” when he was in school and had to “only” live off of his stock portfolio. Rich people hate to live of the principal. His father of course paid for his education. After school his father gave him $10 million to buy into Bain Capital and from there his fortune grew and grew, convincing him that through hard work “anyone” can make it in America. Can we really blame Mr. Romney for his disdain for the 47% of Americans who are not “producers” like himself? Isn’t it obvious that when Romney gave advice to young “men” starting out as entrepreneurs to “borrow” $20,000 from their fathers and start their business, that he sincerely believed this a viable option for most Americans? If we extrapolate Romney’s attitudes to a whole class of the American elite, Koch Brothers anyone, we can see that one doesn’t have to be a sociopath to respond as a sociopath towards those less fortunate.
Now to be fair I know and have known people who started in life with very little and have built wonderful careers and became wealthy via their own efforts. Having become successful on their own, they have little sympathy for others who are not able to rise above their own poverty. I may not agree with their social views, but they are good people and their success was hard won, so they’re my friends nonetheless. Conversely, I also know and have known people who have inherited businesses from their parents and were quite successful in managing/expanding it. Many of these are quite concerned about the conditions of those less fortunate and act upon their sympathies. The reality is that among my friendships and acquaintances there is no one that even rises to the level of wealth had by Romney, the Koch’s, the Walton’s, the Mellon’s, the Scaife’s. People such as these live in a totally different and inaccessible world to me and to most of the people I’ve known in my life. These people representing a small percentage of American wealth and privilege have been the driving forces behind today’s “War On Poverty”.
‘Defenders of inequality typically do their musings at a high, fact-free level of abstraction. CNN columnist John Sutter last week brought America down to inequality’s ground level, with a remarkably moving and insightful look at the most unequal county in the United States, East Carroll Parish in Louisiana.
In East Carroll, the rich live north of Lake Providence, the poor south. The two groups seldom interact. East Carroll’s most affluent 5 percent average $611,000 a year, 90 times the $6,800 incomes the poorest fifth of the parish average. Such wide income gaps, Sutter shows, invite “gaps in empathy.”
“Looking across Lake Providence from the north,” as he puts it, “can warp a person’s vision.”
One example of this warped vision: East Carroll’s rich see food stamps as an “entitlement” that rots poor people’s incentive to work. Yet these same affluent annually pocket enormously generous farm subsidies. In 2010, East Carroll’s most highly subsidized farmer grabbed $655,000 from one federal subsidy alone. The average food stamp payout in the parish: $1,492 per person per year.” http://www.opednews.com/articles/Are-Heartless-People-Simpl-by-Sam-Pizzigati-Greed_Teaparty-Teapartiers-131104-969.html 
East Carroll Parish in Louisiana is a microcosm of the conditions throughout our country. We see those that consider themselves the “producer” in this country missing totally the point of how they have had their own form of entitlement, in this instance farm subsidies, which as most students of politics know have become almost impossible to eliminate even though the bulk of the subsidies go to our huge Agri-Business industry. Providing a complement to Mr. Pizzigati’s article was another one that I read this week at http://www.opednews.com  by Paul Bucheit which was titled: “How the Supperich Are Abandoning America”
“As they accumulate more and more wealth, the very rich have less need for society. At the same time, they’ve convinced themselves that they made it on their own, and that contributing to societal needs is unfair to them. There is ample evidence that this small group of takers is giving up on the country that made it possible for them to build huge fortunes.
They’ve Taken $25 Trillion of New Wealth While Paying Less Taxes
The 2013 Global Wealth Databook shows that U.S. wealth has increased from $47 trillion in 2008 to $72 trillion in mid-2013. But according to U.S. Government Revenue figures, federal income taxes have gone DOWN from 2008 to 2012. Even worse, corporations cut their tax rate in half.
American society has gained nothing from its massive wealth expansion. There’s no wealth tax, no financial transaction tax, no way to ensure that infrastructure and public education are supported. Just how much have the super-rich taken over the past five years? Each of the elite 5% – the richest 12 million Americans — gained, on average, nearly a million dollars in financial wealth between 2008 and 2013. http://www.opednews.com/articles/How-the-Super-Rich-Are-Aba-by-Paul-Buchheit-Billionaires_Capitalism_Greed_Wealthy-131104-612.html
There is literally so much supporting material for the fact that the economic fortunes of the wealthiest American’s have grown exponentially since the beginning of our new century that all one has to do is Google it. At the same time there has been this unprecedented growth in wealth, those who most benefitted from it have paid less and less taxes, while deriving benefits from government programs such as the “oil subsidy”.  In the 50’s and 60’s when only the affluent could really afford to fly the term “Jet Setter” developed for those who were wealthy enough to travel to Europe, or Bali, on a whim. There developed a culture of those people who lived their lives bathed in sybaritic luxury and could nonchalantly suggest to their friends to meet them in Paris for the weekend. As the separation of Americans on the basis of wealth has grown the “Jet Set” has become what is really the “Expatriate Set” who have homes all over the world and indeed consider themselves to be “Citizen’s of the World” rather than just plain Americans. Is it any wonder than that when they deign to even think of those less fortunate then themselves? Many of those thoughts are laden with disdain against those “unwashed masses” many of who they would see as readers of this blog.
“For the First Time in History, They Believe They Don’t Need the Rest of Us: The rich have always needed the middle class to work in their factories and buy their products. With globalization this is no longer true. Their factories can be in China, producing goods for people in India or Europe or anywhere else in the world.
They don’t need our infrastructure for their yachts and helicopters and submarines. They pay for private schools for their kids, private security for their homes. They have private emergency rooms to avoid the health care hassle. All they need is an assortment of servants, who might be guest workers coming to America on H2B visas, willing to work for less than a middle-class American can afford.
The sentiment is spreading from the super-rich to the merely rich. In 2005 Sandy Springs, a wealthy suburb of Atlanta, stopped paying for most public services, deciding instead to avoid subsidizing poorer residents of Fulton County by hiring a “city outsourcer” called CH2M to manage everything except the police and fire departments. That includes paving the roads, running the courts, issuing tickets, handling waste, and various other public services. Several other towns followed suit.
Results have been mixed, with some of CH2M’s clients backing out or renegotiating. But privatization keeps coming at us. Selective decisions about public services threaten to worsen already destitute conditions for many communities. Detroit, of course, is at the forefront. According to an Urban Land Institute report, “more municipalities may follow Detroit’s example and abandon services in certain districts.”
As this year draws to a close we again see a battle shaping up in Congress, led by the “Tea Party” controlled House over cutting both Social Security and Medicare. The conservative propaganda machine abetted by a corporate media has turned these programs into “Entitlements”, when they are really insurance funds. Not one of those in Congress trying to choke off these programs will ever have to rely upon them in their old age, nor will the corporate sponsors, of which most of our Congress people have become “wholly-owned subsidiaries.”
“They Soaked the Middle Class, and Now Demand Cuts in the Middle-Class Retirement Fund. The richest Americans take the greatest share of over $2 trillion in Tax Expenditures, Tax Underpayments, Tax Haven holdings, and unpaid Corporate Taxes. The Social Security budget is less than half of that. Yet much of Congress and many other wealthy Americans think it should be cut. These are the same people who deprive the American public of $300 billion a year by not paying their full share of the payroll tax.”
However, those clamoring for these cuts among the elite believe they are justified in paying less taxes because they “made it on their own” and this reflects a false, self-serving view of the historical realities:
“They Continue to Insist that They “Made It on Their Own”. They didn’t. Their fortunes derived in varying degrees – usually big degrees – from public funding, which provided almost half of basic research funds into the 1980s, and even today supports about 60 percent of the research performed at universities.
Businesses rely on roads and seaports and airports to ship their products, the FAA and TSA and Coast Guard and Department of Transportation to safeguard them, a nationwide energy grid to power their factories, communications towers and satellites to conduct online business, the Department of Commerce to promote and safeguard global markets, the U.S. Navy to monitor shipping lanes, and FEMA to clean up after them.
Apple, the tax haven specialist, still does most of its product and research development in the United States, with US-educated engineers and computer scientists. Google’s business is based on the Internet, which started as ARPANET, the Defense Department’s Advanced Research Projects Agency computer network from the 1960s. The National Science Foundation funded the Digital Library Initiative research at Stanford University that was adopted as the Google model. Microsoft was started by our richest American, Bill Gates, whose success derived at least in part by taking the work of competitors and adapting it as his own. Same with Steve Jobs, who admitted: “We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.”
Companies like Pfizer and Merck have relied on basic research performed at the National Institute of Health. A Congressional Budget Office study reminds us that The primary rationale for the government to play a role in basic research is that private companies perform too little such research themselves (relative to what is best for society).”
What we see now is a world where businesses and the wealthy that own them, consider themselves multi-national, which means they are untied to any government and owe no government their allegiance. What goes unmentioned though, as expanded upon above, is that the source of wealth for many of our “elite” and the corporations they control is in our case the American government which they’ve captured. The same America that had to bail out the banks and Wall Street from the results of their own excesses and the same country that goes to war to protect their private oil interests.
As a Final Insult, Many of Them Desert the Country that Made Them Rich: Many of the beneficiaries of American research and technology have abandoned their country because of taxes. Like multinational companies that rationalize the move by claiming to be citizens of the world, almost 2,000 Americans, and perhaps up to 8,000, have left their responsibilities behind for more favorable tax climates.
The most egregious example is Eduardo Saverin, who found safe refuge in the U.S. after his family was threatened in Brazil, landed Mark Zuckerberg as a roommate at Harvard, benefited from American technology to make billions from his 4% share in Facebook, and then skipped out on his tax bill. http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/How-the-Super-Rich-Are-Aba-by-Paul-Buchheit-Billionaires_Capitalism_Greed_Wealthy-131104-612.html My thanks for this article go to commondreams.org.
The some of the Elite of this country, whether inherited, or self-made believe that the rest of us exist merely as appendages for their comfort. They view the great mass of us with disdain. Their world-view is self-serving and self soothing and from my perspective they are entitled to believe anything they choose to believe. What they are not entitled to in my opinion is to play a being “Robin Hood” in reverse. They have taken and taken from the American people, they control our government and this need to stop. I’m neither a socialist, a communist, nor a fascist. I don’t believe in an enforced equality of wealth in society. What I do believe in is a society that treats everyone equally before the law. I believe in a society that is empathic towards all of its members. I believe in a society that cares for, nurtures and protects all of us. Perhaps I am a Utopian at heart in my beliefs. Whatever I am though, my anger at the way this country is being stolen from its citizens by powerful people who take but never give, is great. You all can have plenty of money and still take care of your responsibilities to society as a whole. That is why I suspect something more is afoot. Our corporatist elite has the money and has the control, what they seem to really want it to have the total subservience of all who they think themselves the better person. This is not necessarily a sociopathic disorder, but the difference between these points of view and sociopathy is so minimal as to be ignored.
Submitted By: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger.
Articles on CEO’s being sociopaths:

86 Responses to “Selfish or Sociopath, Does It Make a Difference?”

  1. leejcaroll1, November 16, 2013 at 12:33 am
    As always Mike beautifully put and true. As you look at what the repubs and tea party and Koch want (and apparently a large portion of the wealthy and wealthy elite including SCOTUS, is to turn back the clock to the days of work houses and children having to work because this is good for their spirits and encourages them.
  2. Otteray Scribe1, November 16, 2013 at 1:06 am
    Perhaps it would help if we explained the differences and similarities between the sociopathic and psychopathic personalities. Both represent aspects of the Antisocial Personality Disorder, as defined in the DSM. Generally speaking, the sociopath is less malignant than the psychopath. Whereas the true psychopath is functionally less capable of empathy, the sociopath can be empathic. Also, psychopathy is more likely to be hard wired and the result of genetics. Sociopathy is more likely to be a learned set of behaviors. The link above takes you to a side by side comparison of how the Antisocial Personality Disorder is defined by the DSM-IV and the new DSM-5.
  3. Mac1, November 16, 2013 at 2:31 am
    Those using populism to gain power are no less sociopathic. In fact, in recent years, the politician who best got that list is William Jefferson Clinton.
    However, there’s a different study the yields more light on the reality……Power itself reduces empathy……And that’s just the Tea Party or Republicans as some of the partisans might want to believe……If you want to seek power to make the world a better place, by the time you gain power your priorities often change. Power corrupts.
  4. Blouise1, November 16, 2013 at 3:45 am
    From Mac’s post above … I read the link and found the last sentence encouraging:
    “The good news, Keltner says, is an emerging field of research that suggests powerful people who begin to forget their subordinates can be coached back to their compassionate selves.”
    I know many “partners” of powerful people who have assumed that role in the relationship. There are many names for it … keeping one humble, saving the soul, the no-man/woman, even… the jester.
  5. BarkinDog1, November 16, 2013 at 6:59 am
    Thank you for the definition. I have a neighbor who meets all ten criteria. I just thought he was wacky and intolerable and needed to be pushed off the boat dock. There is no longer a need to call him a itshayHead. He is the head of the class of sociopaths.
  6. Dredd1, November 16, 2013 at 7:29 am
    Otteray Scribe 1, November 16, 2013 at 1:06 am
    Perhaps it would help if we explained the differences and similarities between the sociopathic and psychopathic personalities. Both represent aspects of the Antisocial Personality Disorder, as defined in the DSM. Generally speaking, the sociopath is less malignant than the psychopath. Whereas the true psychopath is functionally less capable of empathy, the sociopath can be empathic. Also, psychopathy is more likely to be hard wired and the result of genetics. Sociopathy is more likely to be a learned set of behaviors. The link above takes you to a side by side comparison of how the Antisocial Personality Disorder is defined by the DSM-IV and the new DSM-5.
    ===========================
    I hear that.
    Now hear this. ;)
    Mike S approached the subject from a global perspective, in more ways than one, in that he looked at it like a satellite orbiting a globe while taking pictures from many angles.
    Yet he and all of us have to use defective nomenclature sometimes, because our language and experience have not defined words well enough that our nomenclature strengthens our ability to express an analysis as clearly as we would like.
    I think you hit the nail on the head with the matter-of-degree and observable dynamic method of analysis.
    By that I mean, using Mike S‘s words as well as yours, I see the meaning of “selfish”, “sociopath”, and “psychopath” as places on a highway on a map of our individual private as well as our public lives.
    One progresses from selfish to sociopath to psychopath based upon one’s environment and the choices made while interacting with that environment.
    Even in the “hard science” physics “teleology” mucks up the nomenclature with both too-strict definitions mixed with loosy goosy definitions.
    It is a struggle to keep the nomenclature pure in most every discipline.
    But when we control our selfishness, which we all experience, then we can prevent our morph into a sociopath.
    If we don’t and consequently become a sociopath, there is still a chance to escape, via better choices, and go back to having a socially acceptable degree of selfishness.
    If we don’t go back to normal selfishness with a better choice regimen, but instead choose to remain a sociopath, then sooner or later we risk morphing into the degree of selfishness a psychopath inhabits.
    With no way back from there.
    So, “selfish”, “sociopath”, and “psychopath” are words in a nomenclature which describes a progression in an anti-social direction, which ends up hurting us as well as others.
    That is what Mike S is getting at, and the examples he utilized show us that our culture is developing and exhibiting a dangerous degree of selfishness.
  7. Samantha1, November 16, 2013 at 8:07 am
    For less than $5, one can fill up a crock pot with nourishing staples and eat for an entire week. This is about the same amount of money that the government pisses away on a bag of potato chips for the poor. It’s no mystery that food prices doubled right after the government increased SMAP funding, or that healthcare costs have 10-folded since the 90s spending spree for Medicaid. Already, we’re seeing food prices decline as a consequence of government cuts. This translates into an income raise for every consumer, a loss for every greedy food corporation, headed by CEOs who dine on GMO-free food while jamming frankenfood down the necks of every consumer. The more you cut, the more you hurt these evil psychopaths, the more you benefit consumers
  8. Oky11, November 16, 2013 at 8:29 am
    He speaks pretty fast, but I found it interest, especially towards the back half with the footage of this police state training to kill zombies.
  9. hskiprob1, November 16, 2013 at 8:29 am
    1. sociopathic and psychopathic individuals in positions of power.
    2. separation of people in ivory towers with the real world.
    3. hierarchal political system the promotes theft and coercion
    4. religiously taught self righteousness, cronyism, ostracism and promotion
    5. failing economic system – US losing world reserve currency status coupled with largest debt in world history.
    6. Unconstituted government. – The number of abrogations of our Constitution without proper Constitutional ratification.
    7. ______________________
    8. ______________________
    Fill in the blanks
    The reasons and explanations are obviously abbreviated.
  10. Tony C.1, November 16, 2013 at 8:32 am
    Dredd says: One progresses from selfish to sociopath to psychopath
    No. Psychopathy is essentially genetic; people are born without the ability to feel empathy, remorse, guilt or sympathy.
    One does not “progress” from sociopathy to psychopathy, any more than one progresses from having straight hair to wavy hair to curly hair. You can indeed arrange people’s natural hair shape on a spectrum based on the shape of the cross-section, that does not mean people with circular cross sections can progress toward more elliptical cross sections or vice versa.
    Selfishness and sociopathy are both malleable and may well be taught and untaught. Psychopathy is not, it is a mutation in the organization of the brain that is quite harmful to society but apparently quite beneficial to the reproductive success of those people born with it. Much like parasites can severely harm or kill their victim while wildly succeeding in their own reproductive goals.
  11. Tony C.1, November 16, 2013 at 8:49 am
    Mike S: I posted a reply that seems to be in WordPress limbo…
  12. Jill1, November 16, 2013 at 9:01 am
    Mike,
    Do you think that Obama has any of the qualities you mentioned?
    Personally I have seen him have a “tendency” towards lying, murder and torture along with the willingness to impoverish a vast swash of our population.
    I do think of Obama as a conservative, but I don’t think things divide so easily into conservative and liberal at this time.
    If you can’t see the truth, you can’t confront it and you will never be able to oppose injustice.
  13. Elaine M.1, November 16, 2013 at 9:03 am
    Tony C.,
    I found your comment in the spam filter.
  14. Otteray Scribe1, November 16, 2013 at 9:19 am
    Tony C.,
    Thanks for fleshing out the comment I started last night. As you note, the psychopath is born that way. “Bad seed” genetics. The sociopath is usually a learned response. One can sometimes work with sociopaths, because any learned behavior can be unlearned, provided the subject is willing.
    Unfortunately, sociopathy often earns so many positive reinforcers in society that it is a hopeless task to try and modify their behaviors and belief systems. For example, they get elected to office, acquire money and power, get the nice homes, trophy wives (or husbands) and otherwise enjoy the perks of what is often criminal behavior.
    Dr. Stanton Samenow, author of Inside the Criminal Mind, points out that a true psychopath can often be identified as early as four years old. They are simply wired up wrong in the womb. While both can fit into the DSM diagnostic category of Antisocial Personality Disorder, the two conditions are different–not on a direct continuum.
  15. Elaine M.1, November 16, 2013 at 9:20 am
    Mike,
    Excellent and thorough post about the richest of the “haves in this country!
    *****
    Walmart CEO’s Retirement Plan 6,200 Times Bigger Than Workers’ Plans: Study
    The Huffington Post | By Maxwell Strachan
    Posted: 11/15/2013
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/15/walmart-retirement-pension_n_4283341.html
    Excerpt:
    Think Walmart’s CEO-to-worker pay ratio is high? You ain’t seen nothing yet.
    Walmart CEO Mike Duke’s retirement package of more than $113 million is nearly 6,200 times bigger than the average 401(k) balance of a non-executive Walmart worker, which was $18,303, according to a new analysis by Dana Lime at NerdWallet, a personal finance site.
    That dwarfs Walmart’s infamous CEO-to-worker pay ratio, a source of controversy for the company in the past. Duke, who pulled in $20.7 million last year, made 305 times more than the typical Walmart manager and 836 times more than the median Walmart worker’s salary, according to the NerdWallet study. A separate report earlier this year by the salary information site PayScale pegged the CEO-to-worker pay ratio at 1,034.
  16. Elaine M.1, November 16, 2013 at 9:24 am
    Why Are Children Working in American Tobacco Fields?
    Young farm workers are falling ill from “green tobacco sickness” while the industry denies it and government lets it happen.
    By Gabriel Thompson
    November 12, 2013
    http://www.thenation.com/article/177136/why-are-children-working-american-tobacco-fields
  17. Tony C.1, November 16, 2013 at 9:25 am
    Thank you, Elaine.
  18. Tony C.1, November 16, 2013 at 9:43 am
    Samantha: The more you cut, the more you hurt these evil psychopaths, the more you benefit consumers
    You mean, the more you benefit consumers that do not need any help paying for food. The more you hurt those that do not have jobs and cannot afford to get jobs because they have others to care for. Like children, or disabled siblings or elderly parents suffering dementia that cannot be left alone. Minimum wage doesn’t pay enough to cover day care or a nursing home.
    By focusing on the middle class instead of the people the SNAP program is actually intended to help, you conclude that the middle class and above would be financially better off not helping the destitute, poor, unemployed, or mentally or physically disabled.
    Duh. None of us that advocate for SNAP ever said it would be free. I doubt you can actually produce 14,000 nutritious calories a week for $5. There may be alternative approaches that would produce drastic savings, but it will never be free to prevent starvation and malnutrition. The question isn’t what costs the average consumer the least while ignoring all consequences to the lower class. The majority of us are not willing to just let people in dire circumstances starve.
  19. Elaine M.1, November 16, 2013 at 9:44 am
    Mike,
    Selfish? Sociopaths? Greedy pigs? A rose by any other name…
    Remember the Campaign to Fix the Debt? It’s an attempt to redistributie “wealth” in a reverse Robin Hood way:
    What You Should Know about the Campaign to Fix the Debt and the CEOs Involved in Deficit Talks
    http://jonathanturley.org/2012/12/10/what-you-should-know-about-the-campaign-to-fix-the-debt-and-the-ceos-involved-in-deficit-talks/
    Excerpt:
    Have you heard about the Campaign to Fix the Debt? It sounds like an initiative that our country needs at this time. Mark MacKenzie, president of the New Hampshire AFL-CIO, said the campaign “presents itself as a grassroots, bipartisan organization that is committed to lowering our debt. It sounds good, especially in today’s environment of extreme partisanship and political maneuvering.” Mackenzie warns, however, that Fix the Debt’s “major contribution to the conversation over the fiscal cliff is that while the George W. Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations should be off the table, Americans’ retirement security and health care most definitely should [not] be.”
    The Institute for Policy Studies claims that the Fix the Debt initiative is driven by business and is actually using the fear of going over the fiscal cliff “as a cover for tax-code changes that would damage our economy.” The institute found that Fix the Debt “has raised $60 million and recruited more than 80 CEOs of America’s most powerful corporations to lobby for a debt deal that would reduce corporate taxes and shift costs onto the poor and elderly.”
    Scott Klinger, co-author of a report produced by the institute titled The CEO Campaign to “Fix” the Debt said, “The ‘Fix the Debt’ CEOs are trying to pass themselves off as noble leaders who are willing to compromise in order to save America from financial ruin. In reality, the campaign is a Trojan horse concealing massive corporate tax breaks that would make our debt situation much worse.”
    Here are some of the findings of the institute’s report:
    - The 63 Fix the Debt companies that are publicly held stand to gain as much as $134 billion in windfalls if Congress approves one of their main proposals — a “territorial tax system.” Under this system, companies would not have to pay U.S. federal income taxes on foreign earnings when they bring the profits back to the United States.
    - The CEOs backing Fix the Debt personally received a combined total of $41 million in savings last year thanks to the Bush-era tax cuts. The top CEO beneficiary of the Bush tax cuts in 2011, Leon Black of Apollo Global Management, saved $9.9 million on the Bush tax cuts. The private equity fund leader reaped $215 million in taxable income last year just from vested stock.
    - Of the 63 Fix the Debt CEOs at publicly held firms, 24 received more in compensation last year than their corporations paid in federal corporate income taxes. All but six of these firms reported U.S. profits last year.
    The Institute for Policy Studies says that “corporations leading this campaign are contributing to Americans’ retirement insecurity by funneling enormous sums into their CEO retirement accounts while underfunding their employee pension funds.” It released another report titled A Pension Deficit Disorder: The Massive CEO Retirement Funds and Underfunded Worker Pensions at Firms Pushing Social Security Cuts.
  20. Anonymously Yours1, November 16, 2013 at 9:54 am
    Excellent……
  21. Oxa1, November 16, 2013 at 10:10 am
    Seriously, diagnosing an individual without even interviewing them is the height of unprofessional, unethical conduct.
  22. RWL1, November 16, 2013 at 10:14 am
    Mike S.,
    I don’t know why, but I thought about the book that I read a long time ago, ‘Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology, and Human Nature’ (1984) by Lewontin, Rose, & Kamin, when I read your article.
    OS,
    There is an ongoing debate about psychopathy’s genetic standing. Environmental factors do play a significant role……
    Dredd,
    Really? Does the DSM 5 state that there is a progression from selfishness, to sociopath, then to pyshcopath? Or is this your humble, IMO? I am not critizing, just wanting to know?
  23. Mike Spindell1, November 16, 2013 at 10:17 am
    So many pithy comments makes my response hard to choose. OS does indeed have it right that psychopaths are born, whereas sociopaths are created via their environment (broadly speaking). Dredd gets it that my point was more global than the psychology of it alone. Jill’s question on the President also ties in nicely, because I tend to agree with Mac’s statement that “power decreases empathy”, which I would deem true except in the case of the most extraordinary of humans.
    To further elaborate on Jill’s question, I believe that the act of running for high office itself tends to corrupt people, as does obtaining that object of desire. As my father used to put it “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Considering the platform Obama initially ran on and his performance since, I think one can see that he has fallen afoul of the peril of political power. Yet I think his behavior is somewhat of an enigma because he is a person occupying a high office, who hasn’t understood how to use the power of that office positively to effect some of his failed campaign promises/premises.
    The corruption of power is I think the curse of trying to run a democratic society. The nature of a political campaign is such that the candidate becomes swept up in the frenzy of winning and can easily lose the sense of what caused them to run in the first place. In my only political candidacy for the Presidency of my Union, I became so hungry for victory that I found myself selling out many of the ideals that caused me to run in the first place. After my loss, which was devastating I re-examined in my mind what happened and who I had become during my run. I felt shamed, embarrassed and chastened by the “campaign person” I had allowed myself to become. Consequently, I gave up any aspirations I had regarding a carer in politics.
    Admittedly, this is a personal insight that I began to apply to my observations of the political process. However, since afterward it led me to my own psychotherapy to begin to understand my behavior and later to becoming a psychotherapist, I think there is some validity to viewing my experience macro-cosmically. For most of us chasing the chance at “victory” and “success” can lead us down a sociopathic path if we are not aware, which gets back to my main point. What is being done to our society by certain people is so damaging for the overwhelming majority of us, that it really doesn’t matter how we clinically define them. The outcome of their actions can be harmfully sociopathic, even if they are personally “nice” people.
  24. Mike Spindell1, November 16, 2013 at 10:24 am
    “Already, we’re seeing food prices decline as a consequence of government cuts. This translates into an income raise for every consumer, a loss for every greedy food corporation, headed by CEOs who dine on GMO-free food while jamming frankenfood down the necks of every consumer. The more you cut, the more you hurt these evil psychopaths, the more you benefit consumers”
    Samantha,
    A tactically brilliant, but factually flawed justification for these draconian cuts.
    If I ever got caught on videotape murdering someone, I would want someone with your mindset defending me. It rises to the level of the case of the child who murdered his parents and threw himself on the mercy of the court as an orphan.
    Your premise is I take it, that these SNAP cuts were made to help poor people and punish agri-business. How noble of the Republicans.
  25. Elaine M.1, November 16, 2013 at 10:38 am
    Mike S.,
    We cut money to the SNAP program for the poor–but have no problem giving farm subsidies to billionaires.
    *****
    Forbes Billionaires Reaped Millions in Farm Subsidies
    Founders of Microsoft, Chick-fil-A, DISH Network, and Charles Schwab Corp., among recipients
    11/7/13
    http://www.ewg.org/release/forbes-billionaires-reaped-millions-farm-subsidies
    Excerpt:
    Washington, D.C. – At least 50 billionaires or farm businesses in which they had a financial interest benefited from $11.3 million in traditional farm subsidies between 1995 and 2012, according to a new analysis released today by the Environmental Working Group (EWG). Congress, meanwhile, has proposed changes to the federal farm bill that could well increase their haul of taxpayer dollars.
    The billionaires profiting from farm subsidies were identified by matching the September 2013 Forbes 400 list, which ranks the richest Americans by their net worth, with EWG’s Farm Subsidy Database, which tracks farm subsidy spending by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
    The list of billionaires who cashed in on farm subsidies includes:
    – Paul Allen (Net worth: $15.8 billion), co-founder of Microsoft
    – Charles Ergen (Net worth: $12.5 billion), co-founder of DISH Network
    – Philip Anschutz (Net worth: $10.3 billion), owner of Anschutz Entertainment Group and co-founder of Major League Soccer
    – Leonard Lauder (Net worth: $7.6 billion), former CEO of the Estee Lauder Companies Inc.
    – Jim Kennedy (Net worth: $6.7 billion), chairman of Cox Enterprises
    S. Truett Cathy (Net worth: $6 billion), founder of Chick-fil-A
    – Leslie Wexner (Net worth: $5.7 billion), CEO of L Brands Inc., which owns Victoria’s Secret
    – Charles Schwab (Net worth: $5.1 billion), founder of brokerage firm Charles Schwab Corporation
    – Penny Pritzker (Net worth: $2.2 billion), U.S. Secretary of Commerce
  26. doglover1, November 16, 2013 at 10:40 am
    It’s quite easy to perceive of laborers as the makers and the wealthy as the takers. We need to more widely use those terms in that context.
  27. RWL1, November 16, 2013 at 10:41 am
    Samantha,
    What Tony said (I really want to agree with Mike S, but he is too harsh on you. Mike S., assumes that you know what it is like to live in poverty or in a low-income status. Therefore, these lazy, rich off of welfare sociopaths, should be looking forward to minimun wage jobs or something else. I will give you the chance to explain why you think taking away $36 a month from the poor is helping to trim the imaginary federal deficit).
  28. Dredd1, November 16, 2013 at 11:12 am
    Tony C. 1, November 16, 2013 at 8:32 am
    Dredd says: One progresses from selfish to sociopath to psychopath
    No. Psychopathy is essentially genetic; people are born without the ability to feel empathy, remorse, guilt or sympathy.

    ====================================
    Your self-authentication is outdated once again:
    As you can see in the video … Dr. James Fallon informs us that he is arguably a “successful psychopath”, and that he was informed that he is a sociopath because of some of his behavioral characteristics, genetic map, and revelations via PET scans.
    Never-the-less he says, he is an average good guy, and I believe it.
    I think this because he knows that our genetic theories are half-baked, and that knowledge in this area is growing by leaps and bounds away from conventional teaching …
    (One Man’s Junk Gene Is Another Man’s Treasure Gene?). Check out an expert’s lecture on the issue:
  29. rafflaw1, November 16, 2013 at 11:14 am
    Great job Mike. The amazing part of this to me is that the same people who claim that programs like SNAP are harming the poor by making them dependent have no qualms about accepting the government’s largesse for their companies and farms, as Elaine’s links pointed out. Hypocrisy, to say the least.
  30. Dredd1, November 16, 2013 at 11:17 am
    Otteray Scribe 1, November 16, 2013 at 9:19 am

    Thanks for fleshing out the comment I started last night. As you note, the psychopath is born that way. “Bad seed” genetics.

    ===========================
    That is not the case according to these experts:
    00:00 – “One of the most crazy making yet widespread and potentially dangerous notions is ‘oh that behavior is genetic’” (Dr. Sapolsky).
    01:00 – “nothing is geneticaly programmed” (Dr. Maté).
    01:30 – “the whole search for the source of disease in the genome was destined to failure before anyone even thought of it” (Dr. Maté).
    02:24 – “some of the early childhood influences … affect gene expression, actually turning on and off different genes to put you on a different developmental track” (Dr. Wilkinson).
    02:45 – “[childhood] abuse actually caused a genetic change in the brain” (Dr. Maté).
    03:28 – “a few thousand individuals were studied from birth up into their twenties, what they found was that they could identify a genetic mutation, an abnormal gene which did have some relation to the predisposition to commit violence, but only if the individual had also been subjected to severe child abuse” (Dr. Gilligan).
    05:30 – “run with the old version of ‘its genetic’ and its not that far from history of Eugenics, and things of that sort, and it is a widespread miscoception and a potentially dangerous one” (Dr. Sapolsky).
    05:44 – “one reason that the sort of biological explanation for violence, one reason that hypothesis is potentially dangerous, it is not just misleading, it can really do harm, is because if you believe that, you can very easily say ‘well there’s nothing we can do to change the predisposition people have to becoming violent, all we can do if someone becomes violent is punish them, lock them up or execute them, but we don’t need to worry about changing the social environment that may lead people to become violent, because that’s irrelevant’” (Dr. Wilkinson).
    06:28 – “the genetic argument allows us the luxury of ignoring past and present historical and social factors. In the words of Louis Menand who wrote in the New Yorker very astutely:
    “It’s all in the genes”: an explanation for the way things are that does not threaten the way things are. Why should someone feel unhappy or engage in antisocial behavior when that person is living in the freest and most prosperous nation on Earth? It can’t be the system! There must be a flaw in the wiring somewhere.”
    … which is a good way to put it. So the genetic argument is simply a cop-out that allows us to ignore the social and economic and political factors that in fact underlie many troublesome behaviors” (Dr. Maté).
    07:25 – “addictions are usually considered to be a drug related issue, but looking at it more broadly, I find that addiction is any behavior that is associated with craving for temporary relief and with long term negative consequences along with an impairment of control over it so that the person wishes to give it up or promises to, but can’t follow through” (Dr. Maté).
    08:10 – “The addiction to oil … at least to the wealth and to the products made accessible to us by oil … look at the negative consequences on the environment we are destroying the very Earth that we inhabit for the sake of that addiction. Now these addictions are far more devastating in the social consequences than the cocaine or heroin habits of my … patients. Yet they are rewarded and considered to be respectable. The tobacco company executive that shows a higher profit will get a much bigger reward … doesn’t face any negative consequences legally or otherwise … in fact is a respected member of the board of several other corporations … but tobacco smoke related diseases kill 5.5 million people around the world every year. In the United States they kill 400,000 people a year” (Dr. Maté).
    09:05 – “And these people are addicted to what? To profit, to such a degree are they addicted that they are actually in denial about the impact of their activities, which is typical for addicts, is denial. And that is the respectable one. It is respectable to be addicted to profit no matter what the cost. So what is acceptable and what is respectable is a highly arbitrary phenomenon in our society. And it seems like the greater the harm the more respectable the addiction” (Dr. Maté).
    09:35 – “There is a general myth that drugs in themselves are addictive, in fact the “War on Drugs” is predicated on the idea that if you interdict the sources of drugs you can deal with addiction that way. Now, if you understand addiction in the broader sense we see that nothing in itself is addictive. No substance, no drug is by itself addictive. And no behavior is by itself addictive” (Dr. Maté).
    (The It’s In Your Genes Myth). The video I indexed about is here:
  31. RWL1, November 16, 2013 at 11:22 am
    Great articles Elaine,
    I hope this will give Samantha something to think about.
  32. Dredd1, November 16, 2013 at 11:23 am
    Otteray Scribe 1, November 16, 2013 at 9:19 am

    Dr. Stanton Samenow, author of Inside the Criminal Mind,

    ===========================
    Thanks for citing experts so I can tell where you are coming from (other than your own opinion).
    That book was published in 1984.
  33. James Knauer1, November 16, 2013 at 11:28 am
    Excellent piece, Mike. Once people get past a certain power level, others become afraid to tell them, “N-O”. Or in America’s case, “we’re seating grand juries.”
  34. Dredd1, November 16, 2013 at 11:37 am
    RWL 1, November 16, 2013 at 10:14 am

    Dredd,
    Really? Does the DSM 5 state that there is a progression from selfishness, to sociopath, then to pyshcopath? Or is this your humble, IMO? I am not critizing, just wanting to know?
    =========================
    Nomenclature is the issue you address.
    “Selfish”, “sociopath” and “psychopath” will not mean the same thing in a professionally developed nomenclature.
    Here is a forensic psychiatry blog discussion:
    The age old debate of psychopathy versus sociopathy is not one that can be answered easily. This is mainly because the words are often used interchangeably, and even when the terms are clearly defined by one scholar, another may disagree and choose to use the term in an entirely different fashion. Looking up these terms in dictionaries can lead to more confusion as the definition for psychopathy may include the word sociopathy in its description and vice versa!
    While I realize that contributing another discussion on this subject will not close the broader argument, I think it will help clarify how I use the terms here on the Forensic Focus blog, which will, at the very least, hopefully help readers understand what I am referring to. I try to use research as my guide in defining and applying these terms to my discussions, rather than the popular usage that is sometimes tossed about in the media.
    (Sociopathy vs. Psychopathy). It is a bit like the “teleology” problem in evolutionary biology which led to the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, a decade-long attempt to clean up the nomenclature evolutionary biologists misused.
  35. Dredd1, November 16, 2013 at 11:43 am
    Mike S writes:
    “#10) Sociopaths are delusional and literally believe that what they say becomes truth
    The subjectivity comes in trying to determine whether a given person is incapable of feeling guilt, shame, remorse and is delusional. A trained clinician may be able to do this via an intensive interview, but the nature of this disorder is such that even a trained clinician can be fooled by a sociopath.
    My question is “how would this differ with a psychopath”?
  36. hskiprob1, November 16, 2013 at 12:29 pm
    How are we to know if one person is willing to work harder than another and how are we to know if one person does not wish to work as hard as another. I have worked with many people throughout my life and there are those that are willing to work much harder than others and their are lazy people that are the takers. Wealth does not necessarily have anything to do with the equation. Some people are just born into wealth and do not know any better and some people are just willing to work their asses off. There are givers and takers at all levels of the socio-economic scale.
  37. nick spinelli1, November 16, 2013 at 12:35 pm
    We are told, and seem to understand, that feeding animals in National Parks is illegal because it makes the animals dependent and @ risk to starve in the winter when there are no humans to feed them. Now, I have said I support SNAP and know there are people who need assistance, particularly children. And, I’m a person who believes people are more important than animals. That said, if you don’t think we are making many people dependent, just like wildlife in National Parks, then you’re just denying reality. The question that needs to be asked is what type of political sociopath wants to make people dependent upon them for food, and what is their motivation.
  38. Elaine M.1, November 16, 2013 at 12:36 pm
    hskiprob,
    “There are givers and takers at all levels of the socio-economic scale.”
    True. But why do we have so many extremely wealthy people in this country who keep trying to cut themselves ever bigger slices of the financial pie–to the detriment of many average hardworking folks? These members of the 1% are already financially secure and don’t need more money to keep themselves in their luxurious multi-home lifestyles.
  39. hskiprob1, November 16, 2013 at 12:44 pm
    Everyone tries to maximize their wealth. That is not necessarily greed.
  40. Dredd1, November 16, 2013 at 12:54 pm
    nick spinelli 1, November 16, 2013 at 12:35 pm
    … That said, if you don’t think we are making many people dependent, just like wildlife in National Parks, then you’re just denying reality. The question that needs to be asked is what type of political sociopath wants to make people dependent upon them for food, and what is their motivation.
    ============================
    The most dependent are those who do not need the help but take it in the trillions anyway (big military, big pharma, big agriculture, big oil, big chemical, etc.).
    What was that about “straining at a gnat but swallowing a camel”?
  41. nick spinelli1, November 16, 2013 at 12:58 pm
    Dredd, I rail against military waste all the time and I know it is exponentially more money. However, I’m not talking money. I say spend ALL THE MONEY NEEDED to help people who need it.
  42. nick spinelli1, November 16, 2013 at 1:00 pm
    Big Pharma is one of my pet peeves, we’ve discussed that several times.
  43. Elaine M.1, November 16, 2013 at 1:03 pm
    hskiprob 1, November 16, 2013 at 12:44 pm
    Everyone tries to maximize their wealth. That is not necessarily greed.
    *****
    When you’re attempting to take away/minimize Social Security, Medicare, and other benefits that the less wealthy depend upon in order to enrich yourself–I’d call that greed.
  44. hskiprob1, November 16, 2013 at 1:33 pm
    If I do not want to give my money to someone that greed?
  45. Elaine M.1, November 16, 2013 at 1:40 pm
    hskiprob 1, November 16, 2013 at 1:33 pm
    If I do not want to give my money to someone that greed?
    *****
    Did you mean to address that question to me?
  46. Oky11, November 16, 2013 at 1:46 pm
    We’ve all known people that like to collect things. We humans collect all kinds of things, old cars, pickups, train, planes, bottles of hot sauce, shoes, everything.
    I knew a lady that collected shoes, I think she had about 4-500 pairs before she stopped.
    What would we think of her behavior if she’d collected 5000? 500,000?
    What if she had collected 50 billion pairs?
    What if in order to maintain a growing collection of shoes she started stealing from people, committing financial frauds of all kinds & knowingly having people murdered all so she could keep her collection & keep it getting bigger
    What if she had collected 1.7 Trillion pairs of shoes & had borrowed 79 Trillion $$$ by the use of fraudulent financial securities?
    Would you hang out with that kind of lady, the shoe collector?
    What if the collector was a collector of dollar bills & their names where Warren Buffet, the Koch Brothers, Jamie Dimon, the owners of Wal Mart Monstanto, etc….
    Would you really hangout/do business with those type of people/corporations?
    Didn’t we as a nation used to bring lunatics like that up on criminal charges?
    I’ve seen the definitions of what sociopathic and psychopathic were many times & I’ve let them fade away the past few years.
    The reason for forgetting was only interested in tracking one, the sociopath. And someone I know is related to a Wallst/DC type family with an extra large number of current & past known sociopaths from that family.
    He’s been engaged in fighting against them most of his life & his definition of what they are, what a sociopath is very simple:
    Sociopath: A person that would put their own mother in a microwave oven & turn it on just to make a buck.
    That’s the definition I think I’ll keep using.
  47. Oky11, November 16, 2013 at 1:57 pm
    Hope you’all find time catch Prof. Turley’s comments from the other day.
    JT’s using the written/spoken word to convince the rational to maintain the Rule of Law.
    Most all of us argue for the same.
    The trouble is the key players we are arguing against are ill-rational & they will remain so.
    Just like back in school days when we attempted to reason with the school yard bullies not to beat us up. And just like then some of us now will figure out a way to stop those bullies.
    **Oky1 1, November 16, 2013 at 6:27 am **
  48. hskiprob1, November 16, 2013 at 2:01 pm
    Yes. If I think it is better to teach a person how to fish rather than give him a fish, I’m greedy?
  49. hskiprob1, November 16, 2013 at 2:07 pm
    The Rules of Law has long ago been thrown out by the ruling oligarchy. All one must do is go down the list of Bill or Rights and seen how many Constitutional protections have been unlawfully abrogated.
  50. Elaine M.1, November 16, 2013 at 2:12 pm
    hskiprob 1, November 16, 2013 at 2:01 pm
    Yes. If I think it is better to teach a person how to fish rather than give him a fish, I’m greedy?
    *****
    How did you infer that from what I wrote?
  51. Dredd1, November 16, 2013 at 2:23 pm
    nick spinelli 1, November 16, 2013 at 12:58 pm
    Dredd, I rail against military waste all the time and I know it is exponentially more money. However, I’m not talking money. I say spend ALL THE MONEY NEEDED to help people who need it.

    Big Pharma is one of my pet peeves, we’ve discussed that several times.
    =====================
    A man after my own heart.
  52. Oky11, November 16, 2013 at 2:44 pm
    **“Scrooge has come early this year. We’re kicking our Tiny Tim’s. This holiday season, kids in America’s poorest families are going to have less to eat. November 1 brought $5 billion in new cuts to the nation’s food stamp program, now officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. **
    Yes Mike S,
    It’s despicable & there are those doing it here in Oklahoma associated with the tea party. Karl Rove/Koch Bros wing I guess, rotten aholes whom ever they are because the same time they’re give more tax breaks to major corps! Creeps!
  53. Mike Spindell1, November 16, 2013 at 2:46 pm
    ‘We are told, and seem to understand, that feeding animals in National Parks is illegal because it makes the animals dependent”
    Strange analogy from someone with sympathy.
  54. Dredd1, November 16, 2013 at 2:51 pm
    The luddites in the House who are waging a war on the poor and middle class, basically and inter alia, have a problem with nomenclature on another issue too (How Fifth Graders Calculate Ice Volume – 2).
    “Extent” cannot mean both “square” and “cubic” at any time, especially at the same time.
    If you don’t know what cubic is you are going to be square.
    Sociopath and psychopath cannot mean the same thing either.
    Why is one molecular machine driven (genetic) and the other not?
    The same behavior described by two different words for clarity’s sake?
    Yeah, that’s the ticket.
  55. Dredd1, November 16, 2013 at 2:55 pm
    hskiprob 1, November 16, 2013 at 2:01 pm
    Yes. If I think it is better to teach a person how to fish rather than give him a fish, I’m greedy?
    ==========================
    No, but very unaware.
    There are no fish to catch, and you should know that.
    You are cruel, then, not greedy.
    Big difference.
  56. Dredd1, November 16, 2013 at 2:59 pm
    Oky1 1, November 16, 2013 at 1:46 pm
    That’s the definition I think I’ll keep using.
    ======================
    Fine.
    You are not a licensed professional.
  57. Elaine M.1, November 16, 2013 at 3:07 pm
    Mike Spindell
    1, November 16, 2013 at 2:46 pm
    ‘We are told, and seem to understand, that feeding animals in National Parks is illegal because it makes the animals dependent”
    Strange analogy from someone with sympathy.
    *****
    And from someone who claims to support the SNAP program.
    What makes people dependent upon programs like food stamps is poor wages and lack of jobs.
  58. hskiprob1, November 16, 2013 at 3:14 pm
    Somebody please help this poor ignorant soul. Dredd, this is a metaphor for teaching people how to do a job and care for themselves. If we stopped taxing the poor and middle class they will once again, as they once did in this country, take care of themselves. I have taken care of a severely mentally challenged brother for all my life and telling me I’m cruel, when you no nothing about me makes you the cruel piece of shit. I just got back for the hospital taken a friend of the family some necessities.
    My grandmother came to this country in 1903 at the age of 3, no father, not welfare and very little money. Her mother and 5 other siblings all under the age of 18, lived in a cabin in MN and all lived past the age of 90. People of course paid little in taxation and therefore they could care for them selves. The government did not give welfare to anyone because America believed in the protection of individual rights. It obviously wasn’t perfect but it was obviously better than it is today for the majority with over 48 million people requiring government assistance just to be able to feed themselves.
  59. Oky11, November 16, 2013 at 3:20 pm
    ** Dredd 1, November 16, 2013 at 2:59 pm
    Oky1 1, November 16, 2013 at 1:46 pm
    That’s the definition I think I’ll keep using.
    ======================
    Fine.
    You are not a licensed professional.**
    Dredd,
    Please inform me when a “Licensed Professional” bags one of those thieven, raping, murdering Wallst/City of London Bank/Insurance co aholes & gets him behind bars for an extended period of time & I’ll sing high praise of that “Licensed Professional”.
    In the mean time I & others will continue to attempt to chase those Commie/Nazi basstard down without a global govt hunting permit.
    I’m not write here today to take the APA to task though it’s easy to do.
    I appreciate OS’s efforts here & I see he’s doing a pretty fair job at holding the APA’s feet to the fire.
  60. Otteray Scribe1, November 16, 2013 at 3:35 pm
    Dredd,
    You have no idea where I am coming from. I am now in my fifth decade of working with all kinds of socially deviant criminal types. I think by now I no longer qualify as a dilettante, unlike some folks around here.
    I cited Samenow, and it is true that he first published “Inside the Criminal Mind” in 1984. That book was based on an earlier work by Samenow and Yochelson about how criminals think, published as a massive two-volume set, “The Criminal Personality.” I have both volumes. After Dr. Yochelson died, Samenow continued their research into how criminals think. Samenow revised and updated “Inside the Criminal Mind” in 2004, to reflect the latest research findings and thinking in the area. I have that volume as well.
  61. nick spinelli1, November 16, 2013 at 3:35 pm
    The poor economy is indeed a major factor in people needing SNAP. So are disabilities, elderly w/o pension and/or no SS, etc.. However, there are people who fit the National Park analogy I gave. Some folks don’t see it, or want to see it. Most people see it and get the analogy. C’est la vie.
  62. Oky11, November 16, 2013 at 3:42 pm
    Mike S,
    Excellent piece of work you’ve done, as usual.
    One thing that stands out to me is the Tparty, their words & their actions.
    We all know politicians of all strips lie to We the People all the time.
    It’s interesting to me the difference of Former Rep., Dr Ron Pauls long held political positions as I’ve often noted that I & others support most of those positions. IE: 66-75% of them.
    From remembering back his words claim he doesn’t support harming the poor’s food benefits, SSI & Medicare, etc.
    He does go on to say he would support debate on finding ways to reform those bureaucracies suppling the benefits.
    What stands out to me is the huge difference between the original Tparty type guy Ron Paul set against the positions of those claiming to be following in his foot steps.
    Even his own son Rand Paul seems to be morphing away from his dad’s positions. I assume Rand is doing so to broaden his political alliances into a national power base.
    (Gerry Falwell’s so called University, please Rand, really, you’re that desperate to win?)
  63. Oky11, November 16, 2013 at 3:52 pm
    OS,
    btw, I’m haven’t finished yet with the dsm.pdf you provide. I was just part of the way though & was thinking my definition just simplified what the APA had written.
    You sourced your material on this issue, where as I choose not to.
  64. Dredd1, November 16, 2013 at 3:55 pm
    Otteray Scribe 1, November 16, 2013 at 3:35 pm
    Dredd,
    You have no idea where I am coming from … I cited Samenow, and it is true that he first published “Inside the Criminal Mind” in 1984 … Samenow revised and updated “Inside the Criminal Mind” in 2004 … I have that volume as well…
    ===================================
    The problem with the U.S. political dynamics involved in this Mike S post, is that individual psychology is conflated with the group psychology which Freud spoke of.
    That is a problem because the group psychology which Freud spoke of has not yet been developed, even though this Mike S post alludes to group delusion.
    As it must in this context I would add.
    But the group psychology Freud spoke of is not favored:
    If the evolution of civilization has such a far reaching similarity with the development of an individual, and if the same methods are employed in both, would not the diagnosis be justified that many systems of civilization——or epochs of it——possibly even the whole of humanity——have become neurotic under the pressure of the civilizing trends? To analytic dissection of these neuroses, therapeutic recommendations might follow which could claim a great practical interest. I would not say that such an attempt to apply psychoanalysis to civilized society would be fanciful or doomed to fruitlessness. But it behooves us to be very careful, not to forget that after all we are dealing only with analogies, and that it is dangerous, not only with men but also with concepts, to drag them out of the region where they originated and have matured. The diagnosis of collective neuroses, moreover, will be confronted by a special difficulty. In the neurosis of an individual we can use as a starting point the contrast presented to us between the patient and his environment which we assume to be normal. No such background as this would be available for any society similarly affected; it would have to be supplied in some other way. And with regard to any therapeutic application of our knowledge, what would be the use of the most acute analysis of social neuroses, since no one possesses power to compel the community to adopt the therapy? In spite of all these difficulties, we may expect that one day someone will venture upon this research into the pathology of civilized communities.

    Men have brought their powers of subduing the forces of nature to such a pitch that by using them they could now very easily exterminate one another to the last man. They know this——hence arises a great part of their current unrest, their dejection, their mood of apprehension.
    (MOMCOM’s Mass Suicide & Murder Pact – 5). Well, that makes one thing clear … why society has not developed what Freud envisioned, and hinted was a real need.
    It is an inconvenient psychology, so, next …
  65. Dredd1, November 16, 2013 at 3:58 pm
    nick spinelli 1, November 16, 2013 at 3:35 pm
    The poor economy is indeed a major factor in people needing SNAP. So are disabilities, elderly w/o pension and/or no SS, etc.. However, there are people who fit the National Park analogy I gave. Some folks don’t see it, or want to see it. Most people see it and get the analogy. C’est la vie.
    =========================
    So, are you in search of the “there are people” people, or have you found them?
    “Most people see it and get the analogy.”
    Sounds like you have some convincing numbers.
    Care to smoke ‘em with us?
  66. Oky11, November 16, 2013 at 4:13 pm
    **Mr. Turley talks about “calling things by their right name” as a definition of wisdom. Then this word game on contracts is Orwellian. **
    Nick S, points this out from another thread.
    And I agree with JT & Mike S on this issue.
    All I can do is to trust what my personal opinion is based on the info I have at the time.
    The alien creatures I’m speaking of are not low level socially deviant criminal types. They are the small group of the worst of the worst that set at the very top of what’s commonly know as the elite class.
    The only studies I’ve seen are from 1st hand accounts from those directly involved in dealing with them.
    These people are not like the search for the Zodic killer/killers/Son of Sam, Jack the Riper type, they’re a far worst public menace & we know their names & yet they continue to freely walk among us.
  67. bill mcwilliams1, November 16, 2013 at 4:34 pm
    sociopaths are usually uneducated, unemployed people who do NOT try to ingratiate themselves to those whom they wish to hurt. They act whenever they feel they’ve been insulted. they tend to be loners with few friends.
    psychopaths are usually educated, employed, and spend a lot of time trying to gain the trust of their intended victim. UNLIKE sociopaths, they carefully plan their attacks. Socopaths act on the spur of the moment.
  68. Oky11, November 16, 2013 at 4:49 pm
    **by Effie Orfanides – in 40 Google+ circles
    Nov 7, 2013 – A new body part has been discovered by doctors in Belgium. … See also. Top News. Two Belgian surgeons have discovered a new human … **
    While we’re entertaining the issue of what the difference between a sociopath and psychopath is I’ll throw this out for OS, et al.
    As noted in the news above the medical community isn’t closed to new discoveries, ie: they just found a new body part on humans. Same with the APA, they change definitions all the time.
    I also often see people brag in public that they are proud to be greedy, I hope they are not trying to impress me & really just how greedy are they?
    This is from a personal experience, as I’ve mentioned I used to enjoy raising German Shepards, still do if I could.
    I noticed one day what I believe is the difference was between a sociopath, psychopath & a normal person is.
    1. A psychopath is someone who will kill a box full of puppies for no reason at all because he’s a bat sheeet crazy lunatic.
    2. A sociopath is someone just as much of a crazy lunatic as a psychopath, but he can control himself & he kills the box full of puppies for no other reason then the greed of making money from it. He understands exactly what he did & why.
    3. A normal doesn’t want to kill the box full of puppies for any reason, but after taken the pups to a vet finds out that a dog disease has infected the pups & the property. The pups will die a slow & painful death anyway so the owner, with great sadness has to decide to be merciful & put the pups down.
    I still feel sad about the pups, but that’s life.
    Some could claim my opinion is anecdotal, yes but that’s what my research & personal experiences leave me believing.
  69. Oky11, November 16, 2013 at 5:02 pm
    OS,
    I’m amusing myself with my thoughts on my handling of this issue.
    I’m writing what my opinion is 1st & then going back & checking other info hoping I’m somewhere in the ball park on small important prices of it.
    Please don’t let me work on your airplane engine using this method of bolting the parts together 1st & then later checking the assembly instructions after you’ve taken off. :)
  70. Dredd1, November 16, 2013 at 5:07 pm
    Oky1 1, November 16, 2013 at 5:02 pm
    OS,
    I’m amusing myself with my thoughts on my handling of this issue.
    I’m writing what my opinion is 1st & then going back & checking other info hoping I’m somewhere in the ball park on small important prices of it.
    Please don’t let me work on your airplane engine using this method of bolting the parts together 1st & then later checking the assembly instructions after you’ve taken off. :)
    ======================
    Yep.
    Just imagine the nomenclature.
  71. Dredd1, November 17, 2013 at 6:37 am
    Note this:
    Contemporary understanding of the pervasive interplay of genetic and environmental influences in determining behavioral outcomes of various kinds argues against the likelihood that any psychiatric condition, including psychopathy, is entirely “born” or “made.”Rather, based on what is known about related conditions, it seems likely that (a) psychopathy has multiple etiologies and (b) constitutional influences will both shape and be shaped by environmental influences (Waldman & Rhee, 2006).
    (Sage Journals, “Psychopathic Personality, Bridging the Gap Between Scientific Evidence and Public Policy“). It is not so that the psychopaths who make their way into government, then oppress the weak, are born that way in terms of genetics.
    The astute doctors who are practitioners, which I posted videos of up-thread (Dr. Fallows, Dr. Maté, Dr. Wilkinson. Dr. Sapolsky, Dr. Gilligan), indicate that psychopaths are not born that way because of genetic configuration.
    Which means that our society develops them, beginning with how mothers take care of the fetus, how the world treats them, and their personal individual choice and practices during their life.
    It is all “fixable” in other words.
    A kinder, gentler nation will have fewer psychopaths.
  72. Dredd1, November 17, 2013 at 6:54 am
    Mike S posited an alternate view:
    Rather than argue back and forth about the negative effects of CEO sociopaths on this society as the root of so much dysfunction, my readings this week suggest another theory that would provide a simpler explanation of why it seems that so many in this country have so little compassion and empathy for the less fortunate among us.
    The photos show people who are experiencing power, by wealth, and by being in a government office.
    Two recent studies indicate that education and exposure to power will alter the person’s brain or mind:
    Even the smallest dose of power can change a person. You’ve probably seen it. Someone gets a promotion or a bit of fame and then, suddenly, they’re a little less friendly to the people beneath them.
    So here’s a question that may seem too simple: Why?
    If you ask a psychologist, he or she may tell you that the powerful are simply too busy. They don’t have the time to fully attend to their less powerful counterparts.
    But if you ask Sukhvinder Obhi, a neuroscientist at Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario, Canada, he might give you another explanation:Power fundamentally changes how the brain operates.
    Obhi and his colleagues, Jeremy Hogeveen and Michael Inzlicht, have a new study showing evidence to support that claim.

    In 1776, Adam Smith famously wrote: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”
    Economists have run with this insight for hundreds of years, and some experts think they’ve run a bit too far. Robert Frank, an economist at Cornell, believes that his profession is squashing cooperation and generosity. And he believes he has the evidence to prove it.
    (Abiotic Evolution: Can It Explain An Origin For The Toxins of Power? – 2). The two separate studies offer another view of how the brain changes in a particular educational environment as well as an environment of power.
    The old adage “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” comes to mind.
  73. BarkinDog1, November 17, 2013 at 7:43 am
    The inclusion of Donald Trump in the mix of sociopaths was misplaced. He is one or two up the alphabet so to speak and is a psychopath. A psychopath is further down the insanity trail so to speak and must be handled with handcuffs and leg chains. That is why he is called The Donald. He is one of a kind in NYC and not to be immolated. Mutilated maybe.
  74. Dredd1, November 17, 2013 at 9:55 am
    After growing up in a wealthy family Chris Hedges now has this perspective:
    The inability to grasp the pathology of our oligarchic rulers is one of our gravest faults. We have been blinded to the depravity of our ruling elite by the relentless propaganda of public relations firms that work on behalf of corporations and the rich. Compliant politicians, clueless entertainers and our vapid, corporate-funded popular culture, which holds up the rich as leaders to emulate and assures us that through diligence and hard work we can join them, keep us from seeing the truth.
    (Truth Dig, emphasis added). More argument for the germ theory of government perhaps.
  75. hskiprob1, November 17, 2013 at 10:18 am
    Dredd, you appear to have some keen insights into the socio-economics of our world, like the post above but then you sometimes say things that contradict that insight. We both know that we have been bombarded by various political memes, and yet you seem to fall prey to some of them. I’ll be more specific as I read your future posts. I don’t want to go back and uncover them.
  76. hskiprob1, November 17, 2013 at 10:21 am
    @Dredd, It just like that comment you made to me yesterday, I believe and give a lot to the less privileged I just don’t want government making those decisions for me using my money.
  77. Dredd1, November 17, 2013 at 10:49 am
    hskiprob,
    I tend to quote experts and yes sometimes they have differing views which conflict to some degree.
    But I share the sources so you and others can know for yourselves.
    My knowledge or opinion alone is not intended to be either ultimately persuasive.
    Or offensive.
  78. Samantha1, November 17, 2013 at 11:39 am
    “A kinder, gentler nation will have fewer psychopaths.”
    You mean, as in enslave me to pay for the health care of a junk-food nation?
  79. Jill1, November 17, 2013 at 12:02 pm
    The public strikes back:
    And who said: “I’m getting really good at killing people”?
    Answer: That would be the president.
  80. Samantha1, November 17, 2013 at 12:24 pm
    “Your premise is I take it, that these SNAP cuts were made to help poor people and punish agri-business. How noble of the Republicans.”
    Actually, my promise is that if you get rid of the big-business, big-government psychopaths, you get rid of the inflation that destroys families and children. In rural Ukraine, for example, where kitchen-gardens supply 90 percent of nourishment for all families, there is little need for a predatory healthcare industry. Likewise, there is no need for a greedy insurance industry (government hospitals, like police agencies and public roads, serve everyone). Nor a legal system infested with vampires. It goes on. All this translates into an economy where everything cost 10 cents on the dollar compared to the US. Of course, this is all rapidly changing as psychopath have been hard at work transforming Ukraine into a Western economy model, eventually emslaving every producer to support the yeast-like expansion of psychopaths and predators.
  81. RTC1, November 17, 2013 at 12:53 pm
    Mike,
    Great article, as usual.
  82. RTC1, November 17, 2013 at 1:24 pm
    Skip,
    “Somebody please help this poor ignorant soul.”
    ————————————–
    You could help us help you by making more sense when you post. I’m sure you’re clear on your meanings when you write, but it’s not always the case for the rest of us.
    Here’s something I did get, though, and it’s a point your friend DavidM made on another thread, which is how your grandmother came to this country, orphaned with no support system, and lived to a ripe old age, doing just fine without any of the social safety measures that higher taxes support. DavidM claims that he lived on a food budget of $7 a week and survived perfectly well.
    You know, people managed to survive the atom bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and lived for many years to tell about it. But just because someone survived an atomic bomb doesn’t mean we should put anyone else through that experience.
    Your grandma lived long. Now, it could have been genetics or it could have been due to living in a cold weather climate, where live expectancy has been shown to be higher, but there’s no telling how much better her life would have been if there had been a better social system in place. Ironically, 1903 was a time when there was a great deal of agitation for social programs in this country.
    I think your like one of these snotty rich kids who’s had it easy for so long that you take the security and stability of our social systems for granted; you’ve not only forgotten what the struggle was about, you’ve forgotten there was a need for struggle.
  83. Tony C.1, November 17, 2013 at 2:35 pm
    hskiprob: Yes. If I think it is better to teach a person how to fish rather than give him a fish, I’m greedy?
    Yes. Is there a reason you cannot do both, feed somebody so they don’t starve while teaching them to fish? Why is it one or the other?
    Besides, part of what we “liberals” want to do is make education free, which is precisely “teaching them to fish,” but the selfish routinely condemn free public education as theft, too.
    As a liberal, I think all sorts of trade schools should be free, paid for by the public; we all benefit from a stronger economy and less desperation if everybody can learn to do what they want to do and are best at. How is teaching somebody to weld different than teaching them to fish? Or teaching somebody how to safely operate a bulldozer, or build a cabinet?
    And while we are teaching them to fish, wouldn’t that be pointless if they cannot afford to eat, and cannot afford to attend class because they are to busy stacking boxes to earn money for food and shelter?
    You can (metaphorically speaking) teach them to fish and give them fish to eat, and in the end increase the total supply of caught fish, and make fish cheaper, and make them more productive and good tax payers so your share of “teaching them to fish” is minimized by a larger pool of skilled fisherman that contribute with you, and therefore a much smaller pool of unskilled people that need to be fed.
    The way to minimize the welfare we have to pay a generation from now, and for all generations, is to strategically pay more welfare now that acts as an investment in future self-sufficiency.

    Leave a Reply

    No comments:

    Post a Comment