Keeping up my promise to put good photos of Hillary Clinton on this blog.
NB: I have come to the conclusion that Donald Trump ought to take a strong sleeping pill every night, say around 10 pm.
On last week's "town hall meeting" (which these are not), he threatened to punish his opponent because she is running against him. He showed himself to be lawless, but he will first thnig put her in jail. Need I say that's not democracy. A court of law after scrutinizing her and her email intensely found there was nothing indictable done. Last night's tweets from Trump included threats to retaliate against Republicans who are unendorsing him.He promises to immediately set about destroying our republic.
He can set up a dictatorship: for example, go to violent war if he wants to. He has said he will grab the natural resources of other countries: Iran's oil. Consider how he can replace the present generals and appoint those who will do all his bidding. There are people who would do this for a promotion and all that brings.
It would have left me shaking to watch his viciousness and this spectacle of him stalking behind Hillary Clinton. We must not legitimize this man. Anyone who is unwilling to say those endorsing Trump are endorsing something deeply harmful that they know is deeply harmful are in effect legitimizing him.
On last night's debate, he threw further crucial wrenches into the machinery of democracy. First he will not honor the results of an election. Were this the 17th century he'd go to war, himself rig an election, throw his opponents in jaill. Or simply go to war if the other side won. He revealed that beneath the pretenses of claimingin voter fraud and claiming Obama has no US birth cetfificate is the real fundamental objection he has to democracy. He said sections of the population should not have the right to vote. Rightly,,Clinton responded: "That's horrifying.' He brought Obama's half-brother to the arena: in his and his followers' estimation Obama is illegitimate because he's black. Having black man who is a relative there pointed that out. Citizens United made money equal free speech, Hobby Lobby is eroding a fundamental right to toleration for other religious groups, other ethical beliefs. He'd appoint supreme court judges who would begin to destroy the right to vote for everyone, the right to live and believe according to individual belief systems (as long as they are not murderous of other people). He'd do what he could to repress the press: "opne the libel" laws.
Fascism is profoundly against democracy. Friom an article by Christopher Hedges article on Sheldon Wolin's inverted totalitarianism:
"Fascism, at its core, is an amorphous and incoherent ideology that perpetuates itself by celebrating a grotesque hypermasculinity, elements of which are captured in Trump’s misogyny. It allows disenfranchised people to feel a sense of power and to have their rage sanctified. It takes a politically marginalized and depoliticized population and mobilizes it around a utopian vision of moral renewal and vengeance and an anointed political savior. It is always militaristic, anti-intellectual and contemptuous of democracy and replaces culture with nationalist and patriotic kitsch. It sees those outside the closed circle of the nation-state or the ethnic or religious group as diseased enemies that must be physically purged to restore the health of nation." (thanks to my friend, Diane, who quoted this and described its context when we were discussing Virginia Woolf's Three Guineas)
When the newspapers treat the two candidates as equivalent, when they report incessantly about him, they legitimize him. Some newspapers do not, but most two and just about all TV news shows.
The New York Times tells us to read Shakespeare's Richard III: I am again and again told "good people are going to vote for Donald Trump. In my view, they are not good if they are going to vote for him; among the explanations Stephen Greenblatt does not offer directly but indirectly: we are like those votiing for a sociopath: we don't want to see those voting for such a man as out of their character making this horrible choice -- we too are drawn irresisibly to normalize and find good.
If you don't want to click, here are the five reasons a nation can end up governed by a sociopath offered by Greenblatt out of Richard III:
Prof Greenblatt is a superb reader of shakespeare. The Times provides a picture and one is reluctant to put an actor portraying Richard III before a reader as some readers do identify the actor with the character so I'll just copy their cartoon:
Yesterday we learned of how at age 59 and showing off to others, Trump described how he meant to behave towards a woman (predatory, gross, mean); he was at the time married to the present wife. He gropes women's vaginas because (he says) they react with favor towards him. Here is a step-by-step, remark-by remark description of this video. This week several women have come forward to show this was no boasting: whenever he meets a woman he wants, he goes after her physically. He says they are lying -- two have corroboration; a man who was silenced by Trump's lawyers has said Trump assaulted him over a business deal.
Trump today re-accused the five young black men whose lives were ruined when they were accused of raping a white girl in Central Park. Not just the DNA but other evidence has proved they didn't do it: I saw an elderly black man being released: pathetic, lost 30 years of his life. We now know police kill black men so when they confessed having been beat up, they were in danger of their lives. I'm told the remark about the black men came from him having to "excuse" himself from in effect wanting to rape a woman; his crazy logic was to say, see these 5 black men did it.
Cartoon at the time when Trump said, "there has to be some form of punishment" for women who have an abortion without the husband's persmission I have read how he pressured his second wife into having an abortion and she resisted and today her daughter is the very raison d'etre of her life.
The story that emerged after the first Republican debate that after a Miss Universe contest for which Trump provided much of the funds (and probably made a large profit) was how he fat-shamed someone who had won. He mortified, humiliated and needled her in public and privately to the point she became bulimic
Anorexia often is triggered by a scene of public mortification or humiliatin. I've been told by a few girls that they trace the start of the starving by some incident of public mockery over their body,public competition. One girl told me the coach would put in a row the shirts girls wore to show who had the largest size. The coach (a woman) would attach names and numbers.
A couple of articles on how he "fat-shamed" women. As a person who is a recovering anorexic and who knows so many many women who while not anorexic and not buliminic nonetheless have suffered a great deal due to the reality their bodies are not at all like the body image continually falsely photographed. Or the women who for a time manage to get their bodies to resemble Barbie dolls faintly as they smile compliantly. He funded these beauty contests. What harm this man spreads everyway we look
To say this man is a moral moron does not come near the dangerous man he is for all women
I've no reason to believe that the people dressing up as scary-clowns, menacing, and terrifying enough US campuses and other places to be reported in newspapers has a yellow wig. But no one describes what the clown outfit is like. I suggest that this eruption out of the psyche of the US is a manifestation of fear of Trump, what he could and would do were he given the enormous power of the Presidency. It has now spread to the UK.
I'm not the only person who has seen the connection by far: here is a news story from South Carolina. Here is a cartoon alluding to Trump and those intending to follow him to Armageddon on his terms:
We might like to read or see filmed horror novels, but we don't want to find ourselves in one.
Instead of parchment, suppose emails -- and tweets, at 3:30 am where the person had real power:
David Kay Johnston
I wrote to Mark Gertler who is the person one sends these emails to, something like this:
Dear Sir, There is a difference between even-handedness and bending over backwards to the point you support a candidate by not telling the truth. The other night Paul Solman had on the broadcast for the first time a man who has written a thoroughly-research book on Trump, showing among other things his long history of fraud, of lying, and now he recently wrote an article about what we know about this man's taxes. Solman treated him hostilely. In effect Solman defended cheating on taxes. He defended behavior that was indictable. The interviewee said that there is a difference between shady practices by someone who is not running for president and someone who is. Solman looked unimpressed.
I've listened over the months to Shields and especially Shields, attack Clinton for what are in comparison personality issues and political maneuvring well within the norms of politics. Brooke has made it plain he is "never Trump," but to listen to him on some weeks he regards her remiss behavior as the equivalent of Trump's. Endless complaints about her and then they turn round to excuse and "understand" him. Only in the last two weeks has Shields come out and treated Trump with the seriousness a presidential candidate ought to be and thoroughly described what he is.
Judy Woodruff will sit and try to excuse the delusional voting of the Trump people, never once pointing out the difference between what is and what these people imagine. Never have I seen her come near the issue of misogyny. Shame on her as a woman. I suppose I ought to make a blog too about the difference between even-handedness and bending over backwards to support a crook. They are helping to elect this man.
Gwen Ifill. Does she care more about her career lest the least fair comment about black women -- often the mothers, sisters, daughters of the black men regularly killed in the streets hurt her chance at whatever. I wonder if Charlene Hunter-Gault was hired to say in her suave tactful way as if meditating what Ifill demurs at. Ifill does regularly interview African-American people.
I have the highest respect for Hari Sreenivasan. Has he at any point reported on the effect of Trump's anti-immigrant stance? precisely because he is a man whose background is not European he should be forthright.
When it comes to Trump this news organization loses sight of their duty as news people to report straight what is.
i did not say that Trump has not deigned to appear on their show. He has treated them with utter contempt, pretending they are not there even. What do they expect will happen if he should become president? When someone pisses in your face, do you say it's raining?
The man Solman interviewed is a a Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative journalist, David Cay Johnston, who’s been reporting on Trump since the late ’80s. He’s also the author of a bestselling book, The Making of Donald Trump.
Listening to replays of swatches of the debate I suggest the man is not wholly sane: his remarks on Miss Universe are a tissue of irrational loathing: he seems to have had the opportunity to hound and harass her and did so. I was with two women yesterday who when we brought up anorexia and discussedTrump's cruelties: this young woman now works for Clinton and says due to Trump's behavior she became anorexic and bulimic. She is now chubby and he called her some awful name -- referring to her body on Fox News. Can someone tell me what Trump has to do with Miss Universe pageants? why is he an authority? why would he have known this girl and been revulsed by her -- and revulsed her in turn.
After having experienced another blow in the friendship realm (from my attempts to build a new life as a widow), one of my friends sent me the following important article published yesterday (!) by Jane Brody from the New York Times:
Of the entire group, only 8 percent of the bereaved individuals were in good shape for all five indicators of resilience studied, while 20 percent were not resilient in any of them.
Given that 92 percent of participants experienced declines in one or more areas of functioning, the researchers concluded that it is wrong to define resilience “based on a limited set of measured outcomes.” In fact, they added, people who lost a spouse may have difficulties beyond those assessed in this study, like problems at work or general feelings of loneliness.
All told, the findings showed pronounced differences from what has been generally believed about how resilient people are to the loss of a spouse. It depends on the particular aspect of life in question.
Most important to resilience in the face of bereavement were how vulnerable or protected surviving spouses felt and how well they functioned in their everyday roles, Dr. Infurna said in an interview.
He and Dr. Luthar described three factors that influenced overall resilience: 1) Reliable comfort – having someone to confide in or lean on in times of trouble, and being able to get help from other people when needed; 2) Social connectedness – whether their physical health or emotional problems interfered with social activities like visiting friends and relatives and interacting socially with neighbors or groups, and 3) Daily functioning – having difficulties with their normal activities because of emotional problems like depression or anxiety.Where would I be without my cat companions? The picture is there as a symbol of how much pet and other friends can help (which Jane Brody talks about). We are ever going on about cats: dogs are good companions too. Sometimes I long for a dog too nowadays. Can certainly my Net friends sustain me, are my support groups.
Just for some cheer,
Somehow this evening things are not looking good in Lake Woebegone; nonetheless I'm keeping up my promise to put photos of Hillary Clinton on this blog where to me she looks appealing. There may soon come a time when I won't be able to write blogs freely.
This appeared in today's Washington Post:
Since I last wrote, Obama gave a noble speeches to the UN.
In my neighborhood until today I was the only one for several blocks around to have an election sign. Mine reads: Clinton/Kaine (for president/vice president). About a block and one half away the same sign with a third name for the local democratic incumbent to the House of Representatives appeared. By this time in previous years there would have been other signs; by this time two of my near neighbors had Romney or (before him) McCain signs. Now nothing. I hope at least they are ashamed.
People everywhere are dreading that Trump, a dangerous ignorant crook will win the general election. A swell of dread comes up from the news shows, from talk among people I come across. Let me urge everyone who read this blog to vote, and vote for Hillary. If you think your state is safe for Hillary, it may not be. Don't let this disaster happen
I like the photos of Hillary where she is not artificially smiling. But that's not why I am adding this photo of her onto the others I've put on this blog. I'm told the woman is now wearing full body armor and that is why she became dehydrated. Look at her body in that outfit. She does look very stiff.
From USA Today (Sept17, 2016)
A few weeks ago a an August rally in North Carolina, Trump suggested that armed citizens could stop a hypothetical president Clinton from putting justices who favor gun control on the Supreme Court.
"Take their guns away," Trump said. "She doesn't want guns. Let's see what happens to her. Take their guns away. It would be very dangerous."Why does no one arrest Trump for inciting violence against Hillary Clinton?No republican even condemns these threats, they do not mention them. Imagine what the woman feels when she puts on this body armor. He is torturing her.
The analogy is that of a man who threatens his ex-wife or girl friend, who throws out half-threats. The police cannot arrest him for words; he must act on it. Trump is abusing her the way men have abused women since women were able theoretically to get police protection. Does no one care? that he knows intuitively how to abuse a woman and not bring police down on him.
This is so horrible -- it's beyond minimal decency; it's unsafe for her. But he's not her husband; she is an important person now and in wide public life. What are the authorities afraid of? Is it really they are afraid of the type of white male who took over the Oregon center some months ago -- the militia let them stay there for months, and one white man only was killed. Had that been black people, Indians, the compound would have been attacked almost immediately.
Trump is like Hitler inciting his brown-shirts.