Cowards

[Time for change]

When I was a young boy my grandfather told me that all bullies were cowards. I believed him because he was my grandfather and I knew that he was very intelligent, but I didn’t understand what he had told me. I knew that bullies were mean, but I couldn’t understand how he figured that they were cowards.

I’ve thought about this for decades, but I never understood it until, over the past five years I’ve observed the most ruthless bunch of thugs ever to have led our nation. I don’t claim to totally understand it even now, but I understand it a lot better than I ever did before.


Since cowardice is a negative concept it is best understood by first considering its opposite counterpart, which is bravery.

If a person sees another person in danger and tries to rescue that person, especially at considerable risk to him or herself, then that person is acting heroically. Generally speaking, the hero acts because he or she cares a great deal about the welfare of someone else.

One of the best examples of a hero on a national scale is Martin Luther King. Dr. King devoted his life to trying to right wrongs and thereby to provide an opportunity for a better life for millions of Americans. He did this at considerable risk to himself of being jailed or killed, and eventually he died for his efforts. But even if his commitment to civil rights and justice posed no risk to himself, he would still be a hero for what he did.

Abraham Lincoln was a hero because he hated slavery and he used the power of the Presidency to give thousands of slaves their freedom and outlaw slavery in the United States forever.

And George McGovern was a hero because of his commitment to end the Viet Nam War, which had claimed tens of thousands of American lives and perhaps a million Vietnamese lives, for what McGovern saw as no apparent purpose. Though his bid for the Presidency was a miserable failure, his efforts to end the Viet Nam War probably resulted in a considerable shortening of that war and therefore the sparing of the lives of tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent people. McGovern’s political career was soon over, but I’m sure that he would be the first to agree that his efforts were worth the cost. McGovern later said that opposing the Viet Nam War as a junior U.S. Senator took more courage for him than the bombing missions he flew in World War II.

Enough examples of heroism. What all of these heroes have in common is that they care deeply about people and they are willing to make personal sacrifices to help give the people that they care about the opportunity for a good and decent life.

That’s what bravery is all about: Caring about one’s fellow humans enough to have the courage to overcome one’s fears and do something to help. And if you don’t think that courage is primarily about caring then ask yourself what other good reason there would be for having it or for admiring it.


A coward is the opposite of a hero

Does that mean that a coward is someone who is fearful of danger?
No it doesn’t. Almost all normal people are fearful of danger.

Then is a coward someone who tries very hard to avoid danger?
Not at all. Most sensible people try hard to avoid danger when they sense that it is present.

Then what about someone who sees someone else in danger and refuses to help because they don’t want to put themselves at risk?
I say that not even that defines a cowardly act. After all, history shows us that most people fall into that category. You certainly wouldn’t call such a person’s actions heroic. But neither would I call them cowardly. This example falls somewhere in between the two extremes.

A coward is less than that. A coward is someone who combines fearfulness and uncaring to such a large degree that he or she would actively hurt people to ameliorate his or her fears.

For example, a man who beats his wife or children whenever they say something that annoys him is a coward.

And a person who, sensing the slightest possibility that another person might hurt him, decides to act violently and preemptively against that person, just to avoid that risk, is committing a cowardly act. If that person in such a situation intentionally kills the other person, then that magnifies his cowardice. And if a person kills several hundred people in order to lessen the slightest risk to himself, then the magnitude of his cowardice is huge indeed. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Saddam Hussein are good examples of huge cowards of this type.

But what if the coward commits these acts, not because of fear of bodily harm, but for some other reason? For example, what if a man who is the leader of a country decides to preemptively invade a much smaller and weaker country because of the natural resources that that country has? Or because this would be a good opportunity for the leader to award contracts or material goods to his friends? Or just to set up military bases in that other country?

I say that that would exhibit as much cowardice as if the coward invaded the other country preemptively because of a fear of violence from the other country. In fact, in the example where the smaller weaker country poses no physical threat to the stronger country, the act of preemptively invading that country is even more cowardly, since there is much less of an excuse for the many thousands of lives that will be lost or ruined as a result of the consequent war. In that case, the leader is destroying lives just to enhance his own pleasure or comfort or whatever. The point is that the leader in question just doesn’t give a damn about how many people get hurt or die in order to serve his own ends. Are such actions committed out of fear? I believe that they are. The leader is so fearful that he can’t bring himself to care about anything other than his own comfort and glory. I can’t think of anything more cowardly than that.


When the coward is the leader of a powerful country the results are especially tragic

In these situations, the coward’s need to prove his manliness has great potential to result in war. As Lieutenant General Newbold recently wrote (See post by DeepModem Mom), the decision to invade Iraq “was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions”. I would add to Gen. Newbolds remark “…. and just don’t give a damn about the lives that are consequently destroyed”.

But it’s not just war that the Head Coward needlessly leads his people into.

Consider a hypothetical example where a man who has no skills, knowledge or aptitude for leadership whatsoever is placed into the leadership of a powerful country by a large group of power brokers.

Such a man may be so stupid or naïve as to superficially believe that he earned his position by virtue of his own qualities or achievements – but deeper down inside himself he knows damn well how he acquired his exalted position and what he needs to do to maintain it. Consequently the obsequiousness that he shows towards those powerful people who put him in office knows no bounds. Though he is in a position with the potential to do more good or more harm than anyone else on earth, his only concern is that he please those to whom he owes his power, and that he seen as strong and powerful in the eyes of the world and himself.

Such a man is likely to undertake actions which lead to the degradation of the life-preserving resources of the earth, merely to please his puppet masters and make himself look strong.

Such a man is likely to exhibit such callousness towards the citizens of his country that millions of his countrymen and women and children enter into poverty and homelessness every year.

And in the face of a natural disaster, the Head Coward has so little concern about those less fortunate citizens who have too few resources to protect themselves that he will consider it more important to use government rescue workers for photo opportunities than to proceed with their job of saving the lives of those in need. And he will make every excuse in the book to avoid using the resources of the federal government to help those people.


And what about the Head Coward’s followers?

I would have to say that when the cowardly actions of a nation’s leader lead to death and destruction from all those things that I mentioned above, then those who knowingly aid that leader to accomplish his goals are also committing cowardly acts. For the leader can’t do those things alone.

Therefore, those who vote for the leader’s continuing hold on power, if those voters do so out of the same fear or other motives that motivate the cowardly leader, are also cowards. In fact, the cowardly leader absolutely counts on such enablers in order to continue to hold power so that he can continue on his destructive path.


But how does all this explain why bullies are always cowards?

There are many explanations for this. First of all is the fact that in order to get what he wants regardless of the cost (to others, that is), the Head Coward sometimes has to aggressively and preemptively take what he wants from other people, or even kill them. That is almost the definition of a bully.

But there is also another very important explanation for this.

Cowards know deep down inside who they are, and they can’t stand that. They would be humiliated if other people saw them as the cowards that they are. So, they do what they can to avoid being labeled a coward.

They think that by acting tough and bullying other people they will come to be seen as being “strong”, and therefore other people won’t recognize them as a coward.

And that strategy often works. In fact, it works much more often than it should – or would work if people were more perceptive.

For example, the coward can strut around in a military uniform even though he isn’t a member of the military. Or, if he owns a baseball team, he can have baseball cards printed with his picture on them, though he doesn’t play baseball on the team. These are some of the more harmless little tricks that the coward can use.

But there are also much more destructive tricks that cowards use to make themselves appear brave and strong.

Torture is something that our Head Coward believes is particularly manly. So he lets it be known that he does not approve of treating the prisoners softly. His follower cowards get the message and make sure that they don’t disappoint him.

“BRING ‘EM ON” says the Head Coward, in reference to the small country that he intends to invade. Wow, that’s impressive! The Head Coward’s minions provide videotape of the Head Coward challenging the enemy to “BRING ‘EM ON”. That certainly makes the Head Coward look brave.

At least until one realizes that the Head Coward is twenty thousand miles away from the enemy whom he is challenging.

So who is the Head Coward asking to “Bring on”? Oh, he’s daring his enemies to try to kill the soldiers whom he sent to die for his glory, and for whom he cares so little that he refuses to supply them with adequate body armor.

Would the Head Coward challenge his enemies to fight him if there was any chance that they could get to him? Well, let’s look at it like this. The Head Coward is surrounded by such tight security forces that the only people who are allowed within a thousand feet of him are people who kiss his ass and have promised to never even disagree with him, let alone try to hurt him. After all, what if someone asks the Head Coward a question that he is unable to answer intelligently? That would make him look stupid.

Hmmm. Exactly what IS the Head Coward risking when he beats his chest and says “BRING ‘EM ON”?


What would be the most cowardly act of all?

The most cowardly act that I can think of would be for the leader of a very powerful country to preemptively attack another country with nucular weapons when other, non-violent and non-destructive and more appropriate alternatives were available to deal with the perceived problem. Such an act would demonstrate an extreme indifference to the lives of other people, as well as a pathological need on the part of the leader to prove his manliness.

In the mind of such a coward, such a wantonly destructive act would earn him a legacy as one of the great conquerors of all time. The deaths of millions of fellow human beings would mean nothing to him. In fact, he might even get a kick out of it. And it would be so easy for him. All he would have to do is give the order and it’s done. It would be almost as if he was God. Or as if he was carrying out the wishes of God. And it would preclude the need for all those messy negotiations – for which he has no competency anyhow.


Lastly, I have to tell you why I think this is so important

I didn’t mean to make this sound so preachy.

You may not believe this after reading this post, but I am in general a non-judgmental person, and I do not wish harm to the people I have spoken about in such vehemently insulting terms.

But our country is in the midst of an extraordinarily dangerous crisis right now, and I feel that much more people need to be seeing and describing our situation as it is.

Everybody admires a hero, and nobody wants to be associated with a coward. Therefore, nobody would admittedly actively work to enable (or vote for) a coward to represent his or her country.

But cowards work very hard to disguise their cowardice, and the cowards who currently lead our country have convinced millions of Americans that they are heroic and strong, rather than cowardly leaders.

So it is absolutely crucial that millions of additional Americans learn to recognize the wantonly destructive acts of cowards as the cowardly acts that they are, rather than be fooled into thinking that those acts are heroic and will save them from the harm that they fear so much.

If that does not happen before too long, the United States of America is likely to go the way of the Roman Empire, the Nazis, or any one of the other empires that have ruled the world in the past, and humanity is likely to go the way of the dinosaurs.

[fooj]

1. Spot on!

But cowards work very hard to disguise their cowardice, and the cowards who currently lead our country have convinced millions of Americans that they are heroic and strong, rather than cowardly leaders.

Peace.

[Time for change]

17. Yes, I think that's the bottom line

It's very sad, but true.

[sojourner]

2. long post....but you're onto something i think

[0007]

15. I think it is spot on!

[sojourner]

20. me too...but cuz I'm a "researcher" at heart I more consider

it a good notion that could use some basic research to support it. and I was pretty pooped yesterday -- so the article tried my patience with its length. lazy me sometimes. :eyes:

[Time for change]

23. Basic research

I'm a researcher at heart to, in fact that's what I do for a living.

This was meant as an opinion piece, in that all of the facts that I allude to are fairly well known and documented, and what I have done is to interpret those facts in a particular manner.

The idea of doing research to bolster those opinions is intruiging to me, but I am not quite sure how one would go about that. If you have any ideas on that I would be very interested.

I am in the midst of reading a book now called "Bush on the Couch", by Justin A. Frank, who is a psychiatrist. Many of the ideas I discuss in the OP have some similarity to what he writes about, with the major exception that he does not use the word "coward", since that is not a psychiatric term.

It's interesting that I thought of this now, because I did not consciously use his ideas in my OP, though in retrospect it is certainly possible that I may have used some of them unconsciously.

[sojourner]

30. research...

well, of course a researcher has ideas about research.

good ideas? that's a different matter :)

but off the top of my brainy little head, one could look into the correlation (if any) between fearfulness and a lack of care for others, and maybe start to look at where that intersection leads. does it predict a particular sort of personality? certain behaviors?

maybe there's a relationship between the factors you mentioned and sociopathy.

also could look at (experimentally) whether those with the aforementioned characteristics are more likely than others to engage in self-aggrandizing behaviors (at the expense of others) vs others with either less or none of those characteristics.

do i get to be co-author on the article that comes out of these ideas? (yep, a real researcher all right). :)

edited to fix emoticons :eyes:

[Time for change]

31. Psychology is a very under-developed scientific field

compared to physical sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, etc.

My recollection of a psychiatry course that I took was that there was very little agreement even among the experts.

One of the big obstacles to research in that field is, how do you know what people are thinking? How do you study lying, for example, when nobody is likely to admit that they are a liar? You talk about studying fearfulness, but how do we know when people are fearful? Maybe the more fearful they are the less likely they will be to admit it. And anyhow, I doubt that fearfulness has a negative correlation with bravery. I don't believe that courageous people are less fearful than other people necessarily -- they just do a better job of overcoming their fear, or they handle it in constructive rather than in destructive ways.

But having said all that, I really do believe that the issues I discuss in this OP are valid. But these are issues that fit somewhere between the boundaries of philosophy and science and aren't necessarily amenable to pure science.

Anyhow, here's what Dr. Frank has to say about Bush in the book I told you about (It strikes me how similar this is to many of the things I said, even though he doesn't use non-clinical terms such as "coward".):

Bush's fear of appearing weak, however, affects more than his stance on gay marriage. A wide variety of his domestic policies punish elements of society whose weakness reminds him unconsciously of his own, just as his familiar bravado attempts to drown out his feelings of self-doubt.

In my opinion that defines a coward: He deals with his fear by hurting other people. But psychiatrists don't use words like that, I think mainly because it has moral connotations.

[sojourner]

40. i have read at least excerpts of the book you speak of...and i get it

totally.

as to measurement of characteristics (like fear), and the "underdevelopment" of the psychology as a science, i'd take issue with that statement, but i'll save it for another time.

i feel there is a good deal of sense in what you have posited. especially with regard to fear. i agree that it is NOT lack of fear that creates courage. it is another quality that acts as a buffer to the fear, and when activated that "something" enables reasoned, caring action. love would be my word for it. love of someone other than oneself. or maybe faith (not using it in the religious sense, here)...a knowing that fear is temporary, while the actions one performs are pretty much ever-lasting (until someone figures out how to reverse time)...or maybe it's a combination.

and the cowards do have fear. you said it yourself. but they LACK that buffer, hence they try to fool themselves and everyone around into thinking they are big, brave, heroic through actions that only create a mirage of power -- through force -- and thus end up harming others (whether deliberately or simply through the omission of caring).

edited for spelling.

[Time for change]

43. Very well said sojourner -- I have little doubt that you are correct

about that - though I don't know if it could be proven scientifically (at least not any time in the near future).

[sojourner]

44. ...thanks, but it was your ideas i started with...as to measurement....

we can measure (with some confidence) introversion/extroversion; general abilities such as language, problem-solving, spatial manipulation; depression; attachment style (just to mention a few)...all qualities having to do with traits expressed in our daily lives.

our measurement of attachment style, for example, allows for really powerful predictions about behavior in relationships. (interestingly one of the four attachment styles was labeled "fearful" - and in studies i was involved in, when we saw/read an answer written in response to a provided scenario, if that response was highly aggressive in nature, we could predict before looking that the response was from an individual categorized as "fearful". thus, in spite of scholarly debates about psychologists committing the nominal fallacy and jawing on about reification errors, i have seen that measurement CAN be done and that it CAN be a good predictor as well as an aid to explanation of behavior.

but as a social psychologist i also place great value on the experiment, in which one can test hypotheses in real life situations or in lab simulations manipulated by the experimenter. a little creativity is all you need to start to be able to imagine how to measure and test a plethora of human traits and other behaviors.

end of lecture.......(sorry can't help myself!) :shrug:

[Time for change]

45. Very interesting

My father was also a psychologist, and when I was young we had many arguments about psychological issues.

I realize that psychological measurements can be done, but I'm also very inclined to look at the limitations of psychology.

I once seriously considered going into the field myself, but I found that the disagreement within the field was more than I could handle. Still, sometimes I look back on it and think that making a living as a psychologist or psychiatrist might have been a fascinating experience.

[Time for change]

19. Yeah, I didn't want to make it so long but

there were a lot of things that I wanted to talk about.

[sojourner]

21. happens when we let it build up -- lots of good thinking going on there!

[undergroundpanther]

3. Good post!

Bullies wear a mask of sanity,to hide the fact they are sociopaths. Bullies don't care.They are predatory and parasites.Because they can't do they bully to make sure no one knows what they are. Charisma .appearances,lies and P.R. are the bullies best friend.
All bullies seek to create a culture around themselves that is TOLERANT of bullies and that shows them preferences. Bullies are exploiters of group dynamics,social power and the'norms' of a culture. They win popularity contests because they are so shallow and fake.They can fake empathy on cue.

Bullies have personality and conduct disorders and they should NEVER be trusted or tolerated in any society . Our society has glorified bullies over time with the culture of"cool" and Independence and toughness and bootstrap pulling hogwash.So people to feel accepted by such a cold culture have learned to see their own limits, sensitivity,courage,integrity etc as "weak" traits.

I wish all bullies,authoritarians and sociopaths would just die off.
They are the manipulators abusing power,telling lies,stealing for profits,gambling the markets,starting wars,and traumatizing others..
If we who are not sociopaths fail to find a way to keep sociopaths and bullies away from power,to recognize them and not tolerate them, and stop giving them trust or social power we are doomed to pay the price these mad incompetent evil hearted shit heads in human suits,have heaped upon us because we so want to believe they are not as evil as they are.We have to tear away the mask of sanity and take the power and bring it to public accountability.A fish like social power structures always rot from the head down. Time to cut out the rotten ones...no matter how great THEY think they are.And how many people are duped by the bullies threats ,fake empathy and his cowardly charade that hides the evil character he has under that well crafted fake persona..

[Time for change]

5. "predatory parasites" "shallow and fake" "crafted fake persona"

All very appropriate characterizations that could have been added to the OP.

But they're here with us to stay for quite a while. So all we can do is minimize the harm that they intend to do to us.

As you say, "If we who are not sociopaths fail to find a way to keep sociopaths and bullies away from power,to recognize them and not tolerate them, and stop giving them trust or social power we are doomed to pay the price..." So true.

And I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that so many of us so badly don't want to believe that they are as evil as they are. And unfortunately, that's a good part of the problem.

[Alamom]

12. Agree.... Sociopaths abound in our current administration

Sociopath (Antisocial Personality Disorder)

not learning from experience
no sense of responsibility
inability to form meaningful relationships
inability to control impulses
lack of moral sense
chronically antisocial behavior
no change in behavior after punishment
emotional immaturity
lack of guilt
self-centeredness

People with this disorder may exhibit criminal behavior. They may
not work. If they do work, they are frequently absent or may quit
suddenly. They do not consider other people's wishes, welfare or
rights. They can be manipulative and may lie to gain personal
pleasure or profit. They may default on loans, fail to provide child
support, or fail to care for their dependents adequately. High risk
sexual behavior and substance abuse are common.
Impulsiveness,failure to plan ahead, aggressiveness, irritability,
irresponsibility, and a reckless disregard for their own safety and the safety of
others are traits of the antisocial personality.
>
Unfortunately, most people with Antisocial Personality Disorder
reject treatment. Therefore, recovery rates are low.



http://www.9types.com/wwwboard/messages/18332.html

[Time for change]

18. I'd say that fits our administration quite well

It's a very dangerous situation when sociopaths have at their disposal the military power of the most powerful country in the world ever.

It's so unfortunate that they're not recognized for what they are by more people, but when most news that people receive comes from the corporate media, that is quite a barrier to being able to make sense of what is going on.

[mousie]

4. BRAVO!!!! Great post!!! :)

[bleever]

6. Lincoln Steffens, famous for exposing the corruptions of government

and corporations, wrote of an encounter with James B. Dill, who was architect of a series of laws in New Jersey that allowed and promoted the system of corporate trusts later busted by legislation in Theodore Roosevelt's administration. Dill described the necessity of putting low-level clerks in the position of being "dummy" directors in the 1890's this way:

"Wall Street is young. England has her nobility and old families and decaying rich houses to choose her 'guinea pigs' from; we have to wait for the sons of our rich old families to grow up and be college bred to take orders, punishment, and ask no questions."

This president represents the maturation of the farm system for such 'guinea pigs'. His 'leadership' is brilliantly displayed for what it truly is by this superbly well-thought and -written post.

[Time for change]

8. That's very good bleever

A parallel from the Guilded Age. Yeah, it really does sound quite similar.

"As no questions". That does sound like what they're trying to get us all to do. If you ask too many questions you're a "conspiracy theorist".

[nicknameless]

7. So true. Bullies *are* cowards.

"All cruelty springs from weakness."
(Seneca, 4BC-AD65)

IMO, the best online source of information on the issue of bullies and bullying is http://www.bullyonline.org
They address bullying in a variety of settings, such as school, workplace, family and neighborhood.
They provide an overwhelming wealth of info on the topic.

From myths about bullies (http://www.bullyonline.org/schoolbully/myths.htm)

a) bullies select a victim who is physically less strong than they are, for bullies are always cowards
b) bullies select victims who have a mature understanding of the need to resolve conflict with dialogue and who won't turn round and kick the bully
c) bullies select victims who have a low propensity to violence - which is what parents and society instil in and demand of children
d) targets of bullies go to enormous lengths to resolve conflict with dialogue not realising that bullies are too disordered, dysfunctional, aggressive and immature to respond to dialogue
e) targets of bullying go to enormous lengths to resolve the conflict with dialogue often without the assistance of adults and sometimes in spite of the adults who by their failures and inactions condone the bullying (bullies are adept at manipulating the perceptions of adults, especially those adults who lack knowledge, experience, wisdom and emotional maturity)
f) bullies are weak people - normal healthy people don't need to bully
g) bullies are dysfunctional, disordered, aggressive and emotionally retarded which they reveal by their compulsive need to bully
h) bullies are irresponsible people who refuse to accept personal responsibility for their behaviour and the effect of their behaviour on other people
i) bullies prey on people with a kind heart

Myth: Bullies are tough people
Truth: Bullies are weak, cowardly and inadequate people who cannot interact in a mature professional manner and have to resort to psychological violence (and, with child bullies, physical violence) to get their way. Only weak people need to bully.

http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm

Introduction to the serial bully

Embittered by an abusive upbringing, seething with resentment, irritated by others' failure to fulfil his or her superior sense of entitlement, and fuelled by anger resulting from rejection, the serial bully displays an obsessive, compulsive and self-gratifying urge to displace their uncontrolled aggression onto others whilst exhibiting an apparent lack of insight into their behavior and its effect on people around them.
<snip>

On edit: Removed a stray letter.
Note: This website is from the UK (spelling differences).

[Time for change]

9. Thank you for the sites

I had no idea that something like these existed.

"Bullies are too disordered, dysfunctional, aggressive and immature to respond to dialogue". That is so on target.

I wonder how many Americans recognize their pResident in those words?

[nicknameless]

10. That site is extremely helpful.

They even address health impacts of being bullied.
"The injury to health caused by prolonged negative stress including fatigue, anxiety, depression, immune system suppression, IBS, aches, pains, numbness and panic attacks"

http://www.bullyonline.org/stress/health.htm


Their description of the "Serial Bully" appears to fit the entire administration.

[Time for change]

13. Yes it is -- I think that the type of "serial bully" that particularly

fits here is:

The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath

Also known as the corporate psychopath, workplace psychopath, industrial psychopath and administrative psychopath.

Motivation: power, gratification, personal gain, survival
Mindset: manipulation, deception, evil
Malice: high to very high; when held accountable, off the scale

Jekyll & Hyde personality
always charming and beguilingly plausible, especially to those who are capable of protecting or enhancing the sociopath's position
excels at deception (this must never be underestimated, but always is)
excels at evasion of accountability
is extremely and successfully manipulative of people's perceptions and emotions (eg guilt and anger)

This description seems to me to be so close to our entire administration. But I stopped copying it when I got to the part that said "silver tongued". That didn't quite seem to fit.

[nicknameless]

33. Definitely not "silver tongued".

It seems that he can be pretty slippery though -- fake charm, giving everyone nicknames, etc.

Other bully descriptions paint the picture of inept individuals.

# has poor communication skills, poor interpersonal skills, poor social skills
# has poor language skills, and uses almost exclusively negative language with few or no positive words; is often limited to parroting fad phrases and regurgitating the latest management jargon

That serial bully description page surely does seem to fit this administration.

A few more:

# is spiritually dead although may loudly profess some religious belief or affiliation
# often has a hatred of a sector of society, eg ethnic minorities, disabled people, etc
# has a cavalier attitude to Health and Safety
# an unwillingness to conform to the rules of society: thinks that rules, regulations, procedures and the law do not apply to them - but insists that others adhere rigidly
# wraps himself or herself in a flag or tradition and usurps others' objectives, thereby nurturing compliance, reverence, deference, endorsement and obeisance; however, such veneration and allegiance is divisive, being a corruption for personal power which exhibits itself through the establishment of a clique, coterie, cabal, faction, or gang

[Mythsaje]

11. I had to chuckle a little at this...

"...targets of bullies go to enormous lengths to resolve conflict with dialogue not realising that bullies are too disordered, dysfunctional, aggressive and immature to respond to dialogue."

While this is definitely true, there's something that many people may not realize. Bullies can be confused and thrown off their game by a good line of b.s. An odd change of subject, rather than trying to play as if they're rational people, can defuse a situation.

I know it sounds weird, but it's one of the things I've noticed that can break up bullying behavior. Doing or saying something so out of context that their internal dialogue, the justifications they come up with for their behavior, gets thrown out of whack.

[Time for change]

22. Do you think that it would be useful to approach Bush on this basis?

[nicknameless]

29. What a great tactic.

Sounds like it derails them.

;) :thumbsup:

[Raksha]

50. Damn, that section on the sociopath is so accurate

I not only identified the pResident (who seems to be a textbook case), but specific situations resulting from the described traits. Some examples from the bulleted list of traits and behaviors:

"is adept at offering weak and inadequate people the positions of power, control, security, influence or respect that they crave but who lack the necessary competencies to achieve - such people are unaware that their consequent dependence on the sociopath makes them permanent manipulatees, pawns and expendable agents of harassment." {"Brownie, you're doin' a heck of a job!")

"manipulates others into making fools of themselves in situations where they cannot back down or from which they cannot withdraw - these people become increasingly susceptible to further manipulation and are then trapped as pawns in the sociopath's game." (Colin Powell's shameful "presentation" at the U.N.)

"at all times restricts the actions and rights of others (especially those holding the sociopath accountable) whilst aggressively protecting his or her right to do anything without being hampered by social norms or legal requirements." (The NSA illegal eavesdropping)

"pursues endless vindictive vendettas against anyone perceived as a threat or who attempts, knowingly or unknowingly, to identify or reveal or expose the sociopath, or who makes efforts to hold the sociopath accountable." (Joe and Valerie Wilson)

I'm not sure when this description was written, but the author not only described Dubya perfectly but came close to writing five years' worth of headlines! That's downright spooky, but what's even more spooky is that we seem to have become a nation of enablers. True, people are FINALLY starting to wake up, but just what the hell took them so long?


http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm#Sociopath">Source

[nicknameless]

53. Eerily familiar, isn't it?

The entire page on Serial Bullies seems to be a description of this administration.

[KyuzoGator]

14. Small gripe: Lincoln really didn't hate slavery all that much.

He was much more concerned with preserving the Union (and the resource supply chain from the South) than he was about freeing slaves.

But good post nonetheless.

[Time for change]

16. Thank you -- There is some controversy on this issue

mainly because Lincoln was often careful, for political reasons, not to let the full extent of his anti-slavery opinions be clear.

Nevertheless, more recent and thorough biographies make it clear that his feelings against slavery ran very deep. That is not to say that preserving the Union was not also extremely important to him, and that might have been a priority for him above ending slavery. But both were very important him.

And despite his efforts to subdue his anti-slavery views in public, he wasn't entirely successful in that. The South knew very well what his views on the subject were. Why else would his ascension to the Presidency cause their almost immediate succession from the Union?

A very good biography that goes into this in great detail is "Lincoln" by David Herbert Donald.

[Guaranteed]

34. It seems as if, if that was the case, then he wouldn't

have done what he did.

Our union damned near fell apart.

But, you're right, he was very concerned about that.

[understandinglife]

24. "But cowards work very hard to disguise their cowardice, and the cowards

... who currently lead our country have convinced millions of Americans that they are heroic and strong, rather than cowardly leaders."

True. And, as you note, they need to be exposed for all to see.

Recommended.


Peace.

[Time for change]

26. Keep on working to expose them ul

:patriot:

[Uncle Joe]

25. Excellent post Time for change! Another sign of a coward for example

is someone too afraid to let the people's votes be counted in an honest fair election. I believe it's because they have a severe empathy deficit and to have true courage requires empathy. If you can walk in another person's shoes or moccasins, you are much more likely to have courage when it counts. If you see your self as separate from someone else for whatever superficial reason, skin color, religion or lack there of, class or income status, mental or physical disability, or maybe just the new kid on the block, you are more likely to exhibit the traits of a coward.

Kicked and recommended!



:kick:

[Time for change]

27. Thank you Uncle Joe - I believe that you are absolutely right about that

It's hard to see how one could have courage without empathy. And even if that was possible, what good would it be?

[Raksha]

38. Courage without empathy is not possible.

I read your note (after reading the OP and the rest of the string) and it suddenly flashed on me that the ultimate hero of Western culture is the one about whom it was said: "God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten son..." Think about this one for a minute, whether you "believe" the story or not: His courage was because because his empathy was absolute. The two are not separate and can never be separate.

For the record, I'm Jewish and therefore don't literally believe the story. But it would be impossible for anyone to miss the point.

[Time for change]

39. Yes, I agree that courage without empathy is impossible

And I believe that Bush supporters have totally missed that point, or else they are totally fooled by him.

[DemReadingDU]

28. Good post, thanks for sharing your thoughts

[nicknameless]

32. Chickenhawk

* hid from military service.

* hides from American citizens’ opposition
by running to his Daddy’s friends to deliver the first election to him,
by having election-theft devices “count” the votes,
by carefully screening his audiences,
by lining his travel route with bulldozers (!),
by creating “free speech zones” that corral dissenters where he won’t have to see or hear them,
by trying to destroy the middle class who would oppose him.

* tries to insulate himself from Congressional opposition
by using recess appointments,
by using signing statements,
by signing a bill that didn’t pass,
by concealing information.

* hides from fallout of his actions
by having big money friends bail him out,
by having appointees declare his illegal actions “legal”.

Fearing the truth getting out, * distributes VNRs and talking points to the media.

Fearing dissent, * illegally uses the NSA to dig up dirt on those who would dare to oppose him.

How many have I left out? All are signs of cowardice.

[Time for change]

37. Yes, chickenhawks - we're thinking along the same lines

I wrote something about them a little while back:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=98114

[nicknameless]

41. What a great OP. So on target.

And so chilling when one considers that these unbalanced individuals are at the controls.

You probably read General and President Eisenhower's quotes about war on http://www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.org
Very genuine, thoughtful and moving. He so clearly stated how people, who have experienced war firsthand, really feel.

What a contrast to those, who so gleefully shed the blood of others, in their vain attempts to prove their manhood.

[Time for change]

42. What great quotes by Eisenhower about war and dictatorship!

I've read a biography on him and I recall his warning about the military industrial complex, but I don't recall him expressing those ideas.

It's too bad that he isn't around today. I do disagree with some of his actions as President, but in light of those quotes in the above link one would have to believe that he would have quit the Republican Party by now and become a Democrat, if not started a new party of his own.

[nicknameless]

46. I would really appreciate hearing what Eisenhower would say

about this maniacal cabal. He surely would have dropped that hopelessly corrupt party and spoken out.

There are two more good Eisenhower quotes in the video at the link in my signature.

[stepnw1f]

47. Eisenhower Seems to Have Had a Liberal Bend (nt)

[nicknameless]

48. Yes. He was largely a humanitarian.

So unlike the greedy misanthropes who comprise much of today's GOP.

[Raksha]

51. Well, his son John Eisenhower was quite public

in his refusal to support the Chimp. I consider that a pretty strong indicator of what his father would think.

[stepnw1f]

52. That's Important to Know

To know the good from the bad.

[Guaranteed]

35. One more recommendation.

I have no respect for bullies.

[Time for change]

36. Yes, I don't thnk that there are too many DUers who have much respect

for our pResident.:evilfrown:

[July]

49. Fascinating concept, and one point about Gen. Newbold.

I enjoyed reading this, it's helped me to clarify my thoughts a bit.

I wanted to add, though, that I believe the general you quote ended that statement with "-- and never had to bury the results." In other words, he did say what you thought he should add. Not sure I have the quote exactly right, but I think it's pretty close (I read it this morning).

[Time for change]

54. Thank you July - it's always good to hear

that I help clarify someone's thoughts.

Regarding Lt. General Newbold's quote, I believe that my suggested addition conveyed something different than what the General intended, even with the last part of his quote that you add.

Newbold's observation, which includes the last part of the quote that you note, was that Bush's casual attitude towards war is typical of those who have no experience with war.

What I wanted to add, which I don't believe was intended by Newbold's quote, even including the last part, is that the casual attitude that this administration exhibits towards war has to do not only with the fact that they have no experience with it, but the fact that they don't give a damn about the dangers of war because those dangers don't affect them directly.

We had seven Presidents during the 20th century (Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Roosevelt, and Clinton) with no military experience, plus another who was exempted from combat experience though he was in the military (Reagan), and none of those, with the possible exception of Reagan (with his constant fueling and illegal funding of the conflicts in Central America), exhibited an enthusiastic attitude towards war like Bush does (though Wilson, Roosevelt, and Clinton brought us into wars, those wars were already in progress when we entered them, and our involvement probably helped substantially to shorten those wars and reduce their toll in lives lost).