TQ White II

Donald Trump is mentally ill. Like, Three Faces of Eve mentally ill. Instead of being forced to kiss his aunt's corpse, he had the brutal insanity of Fred Trump running a house where no kindness was allowed, no kindness ever shown, no one cared about the children at all except to encourage personality destruction at any sign of weakness.

Donald Trump is really living in an alternate reality, like one of Eve's alternate personalities. He not only cannot but does not believe that losing exists for him. Just as Eve's personalities were able to refer to each other as if they were real, for Trump, reality does not include him losing.

To have that as part of his world is to court the end of his ego, not in the grandiose sense, in the sense of his ability to see or know himself. His underlying psychological state is that he would cease to exist as a person if he ever lost. He exists, therefore he wins.

It is sick but it is more tragic than anything else.

ARTICLE HERE

The term essential involves a calculation of risk and benefit. Campgrounds are housing for some category of people, their owners will go broke without customers and as outdoor facilities, the are very, very low risk.

Risk in this case derives from some combination of proximity, time and expected behavior.

People pass through liquor stores and banks for minutes at a time. Same with most businesses characterized as non-essential. That lowers the risk a great deal. From that perspective, you cannot distinguish them from grocery stores.

While I think it's ridiculous, my insurance company considers acupuncture a sufficiently important health service that they pay for it. That puts them on the positive side for benefits. Though the experience takes time, as a medical business, mask compliance is expected to be high. Lower risk.

Churches are like bars. People go there, stay a long time and engage in risky behaviors. Any mask that is not professionally fitted is going to allow plenty of virus laden particles out of each person when they are speaking in tongues, singing or whatever other stuff they do.

Close proximity means that someone else can readily (again, unless the mask is professionally fitted it's a risk reduction) not elimination) that someone stands a decent chance of inhaling it.

Further, liquor cannot be made at home. Nor can food or bicycle parts. God, otoh, can be worshipped anywhere. Your imam can council you with zoom. The calculation of essential includes, or should include, whether or not the good or service can be made available otherwise.

Also, the economic harm to the proprietor. Synogogues might have a claim of harm over high holiday ticket sales (an appalling practice) but I've not heard of many others selling tickets for services.

I think that Sunstein is right. This is not an important advance of conservatism. It is much less awful than decisions for Hobby Lobby, Little Sisters of Intolerance, etc.

However, it does signal two awful things. First, it shows zero deference to local authorities in dealing with a life threatening pandemic. (If this was in the future and the test positivity rate was not skyrocketing around the country, a different balance would occur even to me.)

It was implemented as a preliminary injunction exempting religious types from public safety rules. This is usually done based on some idea of irreversible harm. They have just said, "Sure you say you're so-called scientists say this is important to avoid death but death is only bad if you can't go to church." Fuck off, atheists, live in their pandemic.

Second, the establishment clause has become like the second amendment, a death wish for democracy. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act has to be repealed for democracy to function. Gun control has to be possible. We have to find ways to stop these lunatic interpretations of the constitution.

None of this will happen because the Supreme Court, while not signaling a new conservative extremism today, has signaled that human lives do not matter compared to observing the faith. They have made clear that practicality plays no role in their justice. It's easy to imagine that the machine gun prohibition that was perfectly legal in the nineties will be overruled if it happens today. I have no doubt that it is now legal to shout Fire! in a theater.

They have signaled that they think it just and fair that all of us die for principle, even insane ones, as long as you can tie it back to something they love. Freedom of religion never seems to include my freedom to worships zero-religion unimpaired.

i'll add finally that they also chose to prohibit this as a preliminary injunction done without a fact record. Had they asked, Cuomo's experts could doubtless have explained real facts instead of my ignorant and imaginary rationales. The emergency isn't dying sick people. The emergency is that people can't go sing religious songs at each other. It ridiculous.

The real emergency is right-wing religious nuts taking over our country.

Donald Trump made clear for every moment of his campaign that he hates Democrats. That he has no political philosophy beyond domination. His campaign rhetoric was vicious in a way not heard in our lives.

Donald Trump made clear, well before he took office, that he had no thought of being a 'president for all Americans'. He disparaged liberals, made fun of us and openly embraced the 'snowflake' and 'liberal tears' memes. He promised to jail our candidate.

And, he lost the popular vote.

The "he's not my president" meme of that era was well deserved and completely, extremely, diametrically different from the views of the Trumpsters.

Then, we were reacting to abuse, actual and predicted. To cheating in the campaign that was obvious to most of us and proven later to be correct. Trump made clear his intent to never allow a single compromise that would benefit my side.

Joe's rhetoric was, by historical standards before Trump, anodyne and respectful. He rejected the very idea of cheating. He has been clear every single moment of this campaign that he hopes to find a way to work with those who oppose him.

And he won the election, both popular and electoral college, decisively and fairly.

The disprespect and skepticism shown to Joe Biden and his election victory are based on pure fabrication, undeserved without an ounce of truth. It is a cynical invention to inspire hatred about a person who has been clear that he has benign intentions toward the opposition.

Comparing it to the chagrin we expressed about Trump's viciousness, the dishonesty of his campaign and his attitude about us liberals, is, well, it is truly awful.

The people who are 'rejecting' the legitimacy of Joe Biden's election, who are taking a 'not my president' attitude about him, are un-American. It is a vile, anti-democratic viewpoint.

The righties are trying to compare our rejection of Donald Trump with their intention to reject Joe Biden. As with most things, the comparison they make ignore reality.

Donald Trump made clear from his inauguration speech that his vision of America is one where his supporters get their way and everyone that disagrees deserves nothing other than contempt. He never allowed a provision in a bill that favored by the opposition. He laughed at the idea of compromise or collaboration. He encouraged shitheads like you to treat those who disagree with contempt.

Joe Biden has made clear that he is very concerned about the interests of those who disagree with him. He has spoken to their fears and invited them to the table. We will see how that plays out.

From the first, Trump made clear that he was going to do nothing to make me like him. He loved the "liberal tears" meme. From the first, Joe has eschewed the idea that political opponents are enemies.

Joe intends to be their president, too. He wants to try to do things that make it possible for opponents to feel welcomed and to satisfy their needs where he can find a way to do so in compromise.

Me? I think that's naive, I think Trumpsters mostly *are* enemies who will eventually try to kill us. Still, it is the diametric opposite of Trump's attitude toward me.

When I said Trump is not my president, I wasn't only expressing my view, I was observing his.

In just a few days, the right is coalescing on the idea embodied by repeating our assertion that Trump was "not my president". Commentators on the right compare our outrage at Trump's ascension to theirs about Joe as justification for their upcoming disparagement.

It is not right. There are facts. Calling mexicans rapists, ridiculing handicapped people, disrespecting war heroes, etc, are not in the same category of disagreement as "I don't like socialism."

They try to pose it as us being unable to accept disagreement. It is not. It is not disagreement to fight a person who is raping a woman on the street. Attacking that person to stop the rape is not an endorsement of violence. It is a necessity under extremis.

I can disagree with a right winger who thinks that women should have fewer rights and accommodations. I am not 'disagreeing' when I see a man raping a woman on the street and try to stop it.

Comparing their disagreement with Joe's liberalism with Donald Trump's lies, racist acts, calls for violence and sending troops into American cities or putting children in cages, is simply silly.

There are two parts for me. Anger and respect. At first, my difficulty was trying to sit at a table of friends and not have her be the focus of my rage over Trump's ascension. It was hard to be polite (that last refuge) knowing that she had chosen, despite my explanation of the meaning, to bring this horror into my life.

It was also hard to respect her and, for me, friendship, the real kind, hinges on respect. When I spoke to her, I thought, you stupid idiot. I thought, you really don't have the ability to care about mexicans or others in need. I thought, you're incapable of understanding the consequences to the environment. I thought, you are so self-involved that you would make this choice.

Other mutual friends (though they eventually have followed suit, albeit less decisively) were present at the final conversation and were shocked at my assertion that realizing that this woman had supported Trump was on a moral plane with finding out that a male friend had raped someone.

I explained, after she left the table, that finding out that a person had done such a would change the way I saw him forever, irrevocably. Knowing that under his (presumably pleasant) appearance was a person who could disregard the hurt and damage, who could disrespect decency, who had the ability to do such a thing, would make it so that I could never talk to the person without an internal dialog of rage.

And so it is with Trumpsters. I will, of course, be polite to her when others are around. I have seen this woman several times. I ask after her children and say 'glad to hear it' when she says her life is ok.

But here's there real reason I cannot be friends with Trumpsters.: I am not glad to hear they are ok. They have done terrible damage, with malice aforethought to our country and to the people in it, to the children who were ripped from their parents arms and put in concentration camps, to the environment, to the very fabric of society. I want them to suffer for

I am not glad to hear they are ok, I want them to suffer, and the fact that she, that Trumpsters, put me in a position to say and feel that, to be a person who says and feels that, is unforgivable.

Dear Everyone,

If you are suffering covid fatigue, feeling like, "Hell, I haven't gotten it so far. I'm youngish. Lots of people have minor experiences. I'm youngish and would likely survive. I think I'll go to a nice, distanced restaurant because I have to get out of my fucking house."

DON'T DO IT!!!

Turns out that a significant percent (like ten or fifteen) of people are still messed up months later. Pulmonary embolism. Glaucoma. Diabetes. And lots of other stuff.

But the most common is that "their most debilitating persistent symptom as impaired memory and concentration, often with extreme fatigue". Fatigue in this case includes sleeping twenty hours a day. Also inability to work.

I note that it is not unusual for virus infection to have long term implications. Herpes, for example, is very often a lifelong disease. Starting out as a few blisters, reappearing as a stress illness (including foggy cognition) and even as shingles in old age.

The analogous life consequences for covid19 is not known but this article suggests an alarming possibility.

My wife and I are covid isolation absolutists. Even so, as winter approaches, I have thought that maybe a couple of my main friends could come into the house. You are probably thinking such things, too. Don't do it.

This is nowhere near over.

More details here: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2771111

10/15/20

Savana Guthrie was also on fire. She took absolutely no crap from Donald Trump. Unlike the other moderators, she was definitely fact checking the conversation. Further, she was not tolerating dissembling or changing the subject. In every case, she came back at him sharply, factually and with a fabulous willingness to keep Trump on the subject of the question.

As good as she was, Trump was terrible. He said a ton of dishonest, stupid stuff (85% of mask wearers get covid19?!!!). He managed to squeeze in most of his usual idiocy, complaints about Obama, etc.

He was self-aggrieved, angry, defensive, dumb. His idea of a plan is, "it's going to be beautiful, much better". The guy is a full blown dope.

A highlight is that, asked if condemned aAnon's assertion that the Democratic party is a pedophile sex cult, he wouldn't. He said he doesn't know about aAnon - an incredible idea for the leader of the free world but that they are 'very much against pedophilia and so am I'.

So, given the chance to condemn the Proud Boys, he basically encourages them. Give a chance to condemn one of the most bizarre and awful conspiracy groups, he found something to like.

Asked about Dreamers, he completely ignored the gigantic human tragedy and went on a dishonest rant about how bad immigrants are, how until Savior Don got here we had "no borders". The fence, all the crap. It was breathtaking.

As decent and human as Joe Biden seemed in his town hall event, Trump was smirking, sweaty and glib. Where Joe was respectful and responsive, Trump treated the questioners as peops. Joe was smart, detailed and knowledgable. Trump was emotional, manipulative and dumb.

The contrast could not be greater.

10/15/20

What a night!!!

Joe Biden was on fire. He was smart, thorough, patient, human. He revealed intelligence and command of facts that rivals my dear Liz Warrent. He was simply superb.

The event tonight was a polite conversation. Joe was able to speak at his own pace and complete his sentences. Watching him, I was able to see his adaptation to his stutter. It seems clear to me that his (previously annoying) habit of numbering his statements is a way of dealing with his stutter. You could see him almost mechanically pausing to reassert control over his speech when he got excited or ahead of himself.

I think that a reason that I previously considered him to be second rate is that the conventional political debate is completely inappropriate for a person with a stutter. That he was willing to participate in such a thing is evidence of intense courage and determination. Fortunately, the ability to engage a heated argument is not a skill that is useful for a president.

He was remarkably responsive to the questions. Mostly eschewing the usual practice of treating the question (and questioner) as, at best, mere inspiration for another explosion of boilerplate platitudes, he answered each inquiry with superb detail, organized and with an amazing ability to include specifics relevant to the person.

I cannot tell you how strongly I feel a turnaround in my regard for Joe Biden. His clear headed decency was marvelous. His command of the facts and of his plans was, considering what I've thought of him before, astonishing.

But mostly, I liked him so much. He was kind to the questioners. Responsive to the issues. Decent in his characterization of those who don't like him.

I will also note was reluctant to disparage Trump. There were a couple of occasions where he talked about things that were bad about his administration but he was completely free of negativity.

This guy is the essence of 'presidential'.

So, I said something like, "Don't be such a bunch of pussies" in response to concerns about working extra hard for some project. Though I never really thought of it as a a reference to other uses of the word pussy, it didn't sit well with me.

I wondered on Facebook to some friends who care about words if 'pussy' was a gendered disparagement. DId it refer at its root to women or felines? I inquired for alternatives.

I learned things. tl;dr: From now on, I will say, "Don't be such a bunch of wimps!" I will not be using pussy or sissy ever again. Nor will I be using the suggested poltroon or pusillanimous or caitiff.

Pussy was first found in print in 1583 referring a sweet and amiable woman. It was, in fact, a compliment. They think that it referred to supposed virtues of a kitten. It took over a hundred years to be used as a reference to genitals _or_ cats (in fact it referred to rabbits long before it was used for cats).

Sissy was a later usage (mid 1700's) that derived from sister and, in the late 1800s was used as disparagement for effeminate men. That is the very essence of a gendered slur.

Both sissy and pussy were references to homosexuality very shortly after they first appeared and long before, in the case of 'pussy' the word referred to genitals (without negative connotation). Also, in the case of pussy, it was used to compliment the gentleness of a gay person.

Bottom line, sissy is the worst offender since it went directly from referring to a sister to being used to say a man was bad because he resembled a woman.

Pussy is more complicated. It did not get used as a disparagement until the middle of the 1900's, ie, a very recent usage for this very old word. Still, those years have definitely turned it into a gendered slur.

One of my friends suggested 'caitiff'. Turns out it's a very old word dating to the early 1300's. It originally meant prisoner or captive but very quickly came to be disapproval with a strong implication of immorality and wickedness. I'm guessing it was a reference to the criminal nature of people who were prisoners. The latest reference in 1870.

Wussy dates back to 1977; it's root, wuss, to '76. The OED speculates that it was a casual portmanteau of wimp and pussy.

Wimp dates to the early 1920's. It appeared almost simultaneously as a disparagement meaning weak, feeble or "wet" (?!) and, apparently separately, meaning "woman or girl". The latter without negative connotation.

Another suggestion that I love is 'pusillanimous' but whenever I have used it the laughing pretty much killed the impact. Still, a great word.

Poltroon? Pretty much the same. Interestingly, both of these are quite old (1400-1500's) and both mainly meant cowardly but a poltroon is worse, adding wickedness. Non-gendered but laughably archaic.

For now I'm going to say that pussy is definitely gendered as is wussy and it's worse cousin, sissy. Wimp arguably not but it's not perfectly clean either. Probably it's the closest to a winner so far.

I suppose "Don't be such a pussy!" and "Don't be such a wimp!" are pretty much equivalent both in meaning and impact but the latter says it without a strong sexist reference. I guess it works.

It is really weird that every contemporary disparagement I can think of is based on using women as the epitome of weakness. I really hate that.