KICK. Many thanks for the link

Marsh Family sings "Hitler wasn't Socialist," answering idiot far-right politicians. They are genius.

The comments at YouTube are worth a read — many from Germans thanking the Marshes for pointing out the current gaslighting.

I am watching my recording of Nicolle Wallace & at the moment half an hour in. Anyone who missed this...

…and is still saying nobody is doing anything, they seriously do not know what they are talking about.

That is all. Back to Figluzzi and Weissman, the decapitation of the FBI, and the pushback.

Thank you for your sheer eloquence, bigtree. Too many to count are acting as our own worst enemy...

Your phrase “what the fuck did they think would happen? “ just about sums it up.

QUOTE
Most of the same people dragging Dems today are the same people who thought attacking Dems in the last election was fine

...with 'why don't they do this?' or, 'why didn't they do that?

Or Joe Biden is old. Or, why doesn't the U.S. president end the Israeli assault in Gaza. On and on, from one whinge to the next about our own candidate.

What the fuck did people think was going to happen when party leaders and other used their elevated platforms to whine and moan about Joe Biden until he stepped aside?

What the fuck did they think was going to happen leaving the VP with just three months to campaign? And, even then, dragging on the VP with endless projections.

Now we're in a fight where the actual villain is in office and there's no campaign or election within reach, and we have people just leaning into Democrats, instead of attacking republicans, all the while telling us how ineffective Democrats' messaging has been.

They're complaining about messaging, as if publicly dragging Democrats is some sort of opposition to republicans. It's not, and it's actually exploited by people whose interest and entire mission is to divide Democrats among ourselves. It's been that way for decades now.

I pay a lot of attention, and I can confidently say that our Democratic leadership may not be doing that brilliant thing you thought of, but they are, essentially, their own political operation. They are not standing still. They have not been silent. They have been waging their opposition any way they can manage in the minority.

We didn't provide them with enough members to do anything but talk, but, nonetheless, there are people dragging Democrats for stepping out and informing their constituents of what republicans are doing, and urging US to get out and confront the republicans who are in complete control of both houses of Congress and the presidency.

Republicans control the legislative agenda, and they have enough votes to pass almost anything with their own membership. We're basically in a protest/defensive mode at this point; not just Americans, but the people we managed to advance into office.

There will be lawsuits filed, but that's the ONLY direct influence Democrats will have until we have a chance in the midterms to take back control of the legislature. The only power they have is the elevation of their offices and their voices.

When they write a letter demanding the president do something, or demanding he desist, that's their job, and speaking truth to power is the ONLY one we equipped them for in the last election.

THAT's the game right now. Not whether someone didn't say what's in someone else's head, but what they are actually saying. We need to confront our legislators we elected where they actually stand, not where we imagine they should be.

We forfeited any real power of demanding things from our national legislators, because we sent them there neutered and functionally ill-equipped, so, functionally ineffective.

But some people are thinking there's something they can whip out of the wreckage of the election Democratic voters squandered away, by dressing up the minority they engineered for us in Congress like they're actually the ones on power and authority and punching them until they bruise and bleed.

Again, you have to just use that imagination that pretends Democrats have some magic solution they're refusing to deploy, and think of all of the people out there who've never valued a robust and united Democratic party who think this is their moment to tear the party apart, as if they had the ability to put a robust and united opposition party back together again.

Long and short? I know Democrats are speaking out because, I bother to look, read, and listen to more than the teevee news and twitter. We need to amplify those efforts, because we can't organize a resistance with gaslighting and resentment toward our own people.

Our elected Democrats make their efforts, and we endeavor to build on those. Makes sense, unless we intend to nominate ourselves for the legislature. Makes little sense supposing they aren't doing anything because you don't see it on the news.

More folks need to take the time to find out what they're saying and doing and amplifying the advocacy coming from our elected officials. I've seen Raskin, Warren, Jeffries, and countless others, including the unfairly maligned Schumer, all of them out EVERY DAY since the inauguration with their advocacy.

Yes, you have to go look because, the teevee news won't cover them. With the platforms that people use to spread cynicism about out Democrats, they could be piggybacking on the advocacy of our Dems. It's there, they just have to look for themselves. It sucks, but that's the resistance game.

We are the ultimate engines of our democracy; not just the people we manage to elect.

This is legislating time, and we don't have the votes to control anything. What our Democrats in Congress need are our voices in opposition to REPUBLICANS and against what Trump and his maga henchmen are doing to the nation.

We're ALL in the resistance now, both the public and the Democrats we were able to elect. All of us are out of power right now, and the ONLY course that will right this sinking ship is to unite, bail, and hopefully in time, regain the helm.

-Ron

Bookmarking! Good review -- it's been ages since I called Washington DC. Thanks!

QUOTE
A Democratic friend of mine sent me this essay on what we should be doing right now.

It's not copyrighted, so I'm posting the whole thing. It's great advice!

Debi Jackson

FOR THOSE OF YOU LOOKING TO TURN YOUR despair INTO ACTION, here's some advice from a high-level staffer for a Senator.

There are two things that we should be doing all the time right now. (In addition to online petitions or emailing.)

1) The best thing you can do to be heard and get your congressperson to pay attention is to have face-to-face time — if they have town halls, go to them. Go to their local offices. If you're in DC, try to find a way to go to an event of theirs. Go to the "mobile offices" that their staff hold periodically (all these times are located on each congressperson's website). When you go, ask questions. A lot of them. And push for answers. The louder and more vocal and present you can be at those the better.

2) But those in-person events don't happen every day. So, the absolute most important thing that people should be doing every day is calling.

YOU SHOULD MAKE 6 CALLS A DAY:
2 each (DC office and your local office) to your 2 Senators & your 1 Representative.

The staffer was very clear that any sort of online contact basically gets immediately ignored, and letters pretty much get thrown in the trash (unless you have a particularly strong emotional story — but even then it's not worth the time it took you to craft that letter).

Calls are what all the congresspeople pay attention to. Every single day, the Senior Staff and the Senator get a report of the 3 most-called-about topics for that day at each of their offices (in DC and local offices), and exactly how many people said what about each of those topics. They're also sorted by zip code and area code. She said that Republican callers generally outnumber Democrat callers 4-1, and when it's a particular issue that single-issue-voters pay attention to (like gun control, or planned parenthood funding, etc...), it's often closer to 11-1, and that's recently pushed Republican congressmen on the fence to vote with the Republicans. In the last 8 years, Republicans have called, and Democrats haven't.

So, when you call:

A: When calling the DC office, ask for the Staff member in charge of whatever you're calling about ("Hi, I'd like to speak with the staffer in charge of Healthcare, please&quot — local offices won't always have specific ones, but they might. If you get transferred to that person, awesome. If you don't, that's ok — ask for that person's name, and then just keep talking to whoever answered the phone. Don't leave a message (unless the office doesn't pick up at all — then you can — but it's better to talk to the staffer who first answered than leave a message for the specific staffer in charge of your topic).

B: Give them your zip code. They won't always ask for it, but make sure you give it to them, so they can mark it down. Extra points if you live in a zip code that traditionally votes for them, since they'll want to make sure they get/keep your vote.

C: If you can make it personal, make it personal. "I voted for you in the last election and I'm worried/happy/whatever" or "I'm a teacher, and I am appalled by ——-," or "as a single mother" or "as a white, middle class woman," or whatever.

D: Pick 1-2 specific things per day to focus on. Don't rattle off everything you're concerned about — they're figuring out what 1-2 topics to mark you down for on their lists. So, focus on 1-2 per day. Ideally something that will be voted on/taken up in the next few days, but it doesn't really matter — even if there's not a vote coming up in the next week, call anyway. It's important that they just keep getting calls.

E: Be clear on what you want — "I'm disappointed that the Senator..." or "I want to thank the Senator for their vote on... " or "I want the Senator to know that voting in _____ way is the wrong decision for our state because... " Don't leave any ambiguity.

F: They may get to know your voice/get sick of you — it doesn't matter. The people answering the phones generally turn over every 6 weeks anyway, so even if they're really sick of you, they'll be gone in 6 weeks.

From experience since the election: If you hate being on the phone & feel awkward (which is a lot of people) don't worry about it — there are a bunch of scripts (Indivisible has some, there are lots of others floating around these day). After a few days of calling, it starts to feel a lot more natural.

Put the 6 numbers in your phone (all under P – Politician.) An example is Hawley MO, Politician; Hawley DC, Politician; Schmitt MO, Politician; etc., which makes it really easy to click down the list each day.

Some great scripts posted daily — https://chopwoodcarrywaterdailyactions.substack.com/
Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/ruth.mendum/posts/pfbid0tgT2DJcDLhSxj2ENZvZnNQiXtPxMGha5fTB97UaQRFfduBYwDu1goSYVBZdbQ3HZl

H2O Man: saving to my files 5 years down the line

DU Exclusive: Interview with Dr. Bandy X. Lee ! [View all]

Recently, I had a conversation with DU community member “Mike 03” about Yale Professor Bandy X. Lee's book, “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump.” Originally published in 2017, this important book featured the contributions of 27 psychiatrists and mental health experts. Last year, an updated and expanded version was published, which features contributions of 37 psychiatrists and mental health experts.

When my daughter Chloe gave me my copy of the book, she said that while she knew I did not want to have any books on Donald Trump in my library, she believed that this one was essential reading. From the moment I read the book's dedication – to Dr. Lee's Grandfather and Mother – I knew that I'd have difficulty putting the book down. And while I have since added a few other books that expose the madness of the Trump presidency to my library, I recognize “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump” to be by far the most important.

During my conversation with Mike 03, , I decided toask Dr. Lee if she might take part in an interview for this forum. For if you want something important done, ask a busy person. They are most likely to do important things. I would like to thank Dr. Lee ….for the book, her appearances in the media to discuss the topic, and for this interview. I hope that community members will thank her, and read and discuss her book.



Q: Dr. Lee, as you would expect, there are people who feel depressed and discouraged about the process and outcome of the Senate’s impeachment trial. They are anxious about our country’s future. Others recognize that while the House impeachment was a significant victory, that the president is now more likely to engage in dangerous ways. In that context, can you please explain the “duty to warn” that has resulted in your speaking out?

A: It is entirely understandable that people are feeling depressed and discouraged; that he is more likely to engage dangerously is correct from our perspective, also. The error, from our view, has been in trying to solve a mental health problem through a purely political approach, which is why we petitioned the Congress to consult with us (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-mental-state-impeachment-psychiatrist-petition-congress-a9232386.html). We had cautioned that impeachment could go either way: psychologically, delaying impeachment was risky, because it would cause a sense of unlimited power and impunity to balloon. A rapid progression after delay then maximized the potential for paranoia and narcissistic rage, while the combination of impeachment and acquittal now has created conditions that would heighten the drive for revenge. With each failure to contain the president psychologically, there has been an expansion of dangers as well as worsening of symptoms. We can learn from this experience and recognize that a nuanced, psychological understanding of the situation is paramount—even if political processes are the only interventions we have for psychological limit setting and containment, which are still a lot.


Q: In 1973, Erich Fromm published “The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness.” In it, Fromm detailed how certain social factors, combined with specific personality types found in those in power at the time, create fertile ground for what he referred to as “malignant narcissists” to rise to the top. Do you see instances – saying, putting children in steel cages on the southern border – in our society that concern you?

A: Traumatizing children in a way that will breed injury and violence for society concerns me a great deal! Erich Fromm understood dynamically what I have been studying statistically and epidemiologically. I have always conceived of this presidency as a reflection of the poor state of collective mental health in our society. In fact, I have been fearing this result for about twenty years while watching public mental health decline and what I call “structural violence” increase. Structural violence, such as economic inequality, is one of the most potent causes of behavioral violence, be it homicides, suicides, or warfare, and when the groundwork is laid for a culture of violence, people will be attracted to a leader who does them violence. It was not time to be complacent because homicide rates were declining, even as suicides were rising. My research has been mostly about “connecting the dots,” which I am making great use of now. We have become locked in a vicious circle, where the more violence powerful people do to the population, the more vulnerable it becomes to manipulation and attraction to violence in ways that give violent people more power. It is an abusive relationship cycle at societal scale.



Q: Older people such as myself remember the publisher and an editor of “Fact” being sued for a story that questioned Senator Barry Goldwater’s stability during the 1964 presidential election. This was in spite of the Senator’s wife telling reporters that he had previously suffered a “nervous breakdown.” The “Goldwater Rule” kept this general topic from being reported upon for many years. There are potential dangers in diagnosing someone the clinician has not met. This raises a question: is it possible that what an expert sees in the media, including films of speeches and press conferences, and legal documents, might be more accurate sources of information than the self-reporting of those being evaluated with the Hare Checklist? (This is not to suggest that Senator Goldwater was in that group.)

A:This is absolutely correct. We must distinguish the quality and reliability of information, not just discount all media as a source. For certain impairments, such as personality disorders that cause others suffering but are not bothersome to the self, it is far more accurate to have reports from the person’s acquaintances, the sworn testimony of close associates, and external, direct observation of behavior. If the media presentation is not all staged but shows reasonably candid moments, actual interactions with other people, extensive coverage, and progression over prolonged periods of time, then it can be one of the best sources of information. Interviews, on the other hand, are known to be harmful in some cases, especially when a person is trying to present oneself in the best light and hiding important information. The most dangerous individuals are charming or manipulative, and even the most seasoned clinicians are fooled in a one-hour interview.
“The Goldwater rule” is problematic on many fronts: it should have been invalid since 1980, when our diagnostic system changed from reliance on introspection to observation of external behavior. It also treats the public figure like a patient, when our responsibility is to actual patients and to society, not to public figures we are not treating. Finally, currently it has no exceptions, which means it is the only rule in medicine where danger—an emergency—exception does not apply. This means you must violate the core tenets of medical ethics, and the humanitarian goals that all health professionals pledge to, in order to keep with this one “rule”.



Q: Do those people who are malignant narcissists, psychopaths, or sociopaths ever have periods of psychosis when under extreme pressure?

A: Psychosis is defined as detachment from reality, and since malignant narcissism, psychopathy, and sociopathy can be seen as defects in coping mechanisms, extreme pressure will make them more prone to psychotic spirals. For example, extreme narcissism can lead one to have such difficulty coping with normal human limitations, that one must create an alternative reality where one is superhuman, an expert in all fields, and even heaven-sent. Psychopathy or sociopathy can lead one to believe one is “the walking dead” to help explain the hollowness one feels inside.



Q: Do those referenced in prior question have the capacity for insights on how others view them? Are they capable of experiencing self-doubt or guilty feelings?

A: Insight and empathy are often what individuals with these disorders are missing. Because they have not developmentally gone beyond the stage of distinguishing between “me” and “not me,” other people are merely extensions of themselves or instruments to use for their purposes. They experience self-doubt or guilty feelings through projection: in other words, they perceive the anxiety they feel inside—such as doubt, confusion, and fear—as danger coming from the outside. Unfortunately, attempts to escape or to defeat that feeling translates into attack perceived enemies or, if they are lacking, to seek scapegoats.


Q: If such a person were to be found “not guilty” in a trial for a crime they definitely committed, are they more likely to engage in other anti-social behaviors in the future?

A: Absolutely. Because they are lacking in self-control, if the control does not come from the outside, they will keep pushing their limits. Setting firm boundaries of behavior, and consistently returning with immediate and commensurate consequences for behavior that violates those boundaries, is one of the most important ways to deal with such defects. Trying to elicit remorse, insight, or understanding about one’s behavior will not work. Trying to get them to understand objective laws or rules of fairness will not work, either, for everything will be predicated around the self and whether it benefits or pleases the self.



Q: It was reported that some of the contributors to “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump” were scheduled to meet with elected officials in Washington, DC. When Democratic floor manager Adam Schiff spoke during the impeachment trial, he summed the president’s personality up quite well. Do you think elected officials fully recognize the threat the president poses?

A: We directly met with groups of lawmakers in December 2017 and January 2018, and they were already “fully on board,” as they told us then. In fact, they showed great concern, and many of them stated that the president’s access to nuclear weapons was of particular concern. Whereas we were looking to lawmakers for a solution, astonishingly, they seemed to be looking to us! Mostly Democrats, they said they could not do anything without being the majority party, while Republicans either would not express how they truly felt or would refuse to meet with us (even though their concerns seemed to be well-known behind the scenes). The lawmakers encouraged us to continue educating the public, for, if public opinion shifted, then they could act.

When we went to the media, however—and the media were extremely responsive at the time—the American Psychiatric Association stepped with press releases and articles, stating we were being unethical and practicing “armchair psychiatry,” using psychiatry as a “political tool” for “self-aggrandizing purposes.” It even mobilized the New York Times to state that psychiatrists need not be heard from, and, after this, press inquiries dried up instantly and almost permanently. Thus, by the time the Democrats had the majority in the House, the topic could no longer even be spoken about, and our situation was worse than before. Our book, however, was distributed by citizen groups to all members of the Senate and a substantial portion of the House. When members of the public approach lawmakers about the book, most say they have at least heard about it, if not read and have avidly recommended it to colleagues.



Q: On MSNBC’s “The 11th Hour with Brian Williams, Columbia University’s John McWhorter told a story about Trump that he leaned from a reliable source. As a teen, Trump hung a small child out of a window by his ankles, and enjoyed the child’s suffering. Would such behaviors add to or reinforce your thoughts about him?

A: It is not a surprising anecdote, and consistent with the story of throwing rocks at an infant neighbor when he was a child, and punching a music teacher in the face while in primary school. Those with psychopathic or sociopathic tendencies enjoy others’ suffering, as they envy others for having something that they lack. The human ability to sense others’ feelings, to care about one another, and to do things that help rather than harm others, is something they do not have. Everyone has this, no matter one’s background, personality quirks, or lifestyle—unless one is a psychopath or a sociopath—and this exclusion from the communion of human beings can be very painful. Instead of facing this inner feeling, they transfer the pain onto others, which manifests as cruelty and pleasure at others’ suffering.



Q: In 2019, the updated edition of “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump” was released, with insights from 37 psychiatrists and mental health experts. Has the year that followed changed your mind on the threat he poses?

A: Not at all. As expected, the psychological dangers we saw translated into social, cultural, political, and global dangers through the office of the presidency. He followed exactly the course we predicted, on the timeline we estimated. Not only that, we have gotten so good at predicting his actions, we sent in a letter of warning to the Congress (https://dangerouscase.org/urgent-letter-to-congress/) three days before he withdrew troops from northern Syria and caused the massacre of our Kurdish allies. We sent in another warning about an impeachment proceeding without guardrails
(https://dangerouscase.org/petition-to-the-judiciary-committee/), and one month later there was the assassination of Qassim Soleimani of Iran. We warned of the continued need to contain the psychological dangers (https://dangerouscase.org/urgent-communication-to-congress/), and now the president is on a revenge spree against those who lawfully testified against him and pardoning criminals while declaring himself the law of the land. Because someone with his condition grows worse in a position of power, no matter what—whether you give into his pressures for more power or try to restrict him does not matter—we have not seen the worst yet.



Q: For those who are feeling depressed and anxious about current events, do you have any suggestions?

I have often said that “the Resistance” is like the immune system of the body: we must replenish ourselves, know our target, and keep healthy! We should take mental hygiene seriously and practice it regularly. It may sound strange, but this means setting boundaries to protect our personal and leisurely lives. Far from being selfish or complacent, doing the things we enjoy and giving time to our loved ones are all a part of responsible action. Allot in advance a reasonable time for the fight, and do not go beyond it. When in it, use the time intelligently and creatively—and this includes listening to the mental health experts! What is exhausting to others is what mental health professionals deal with on a daily basis, and we ourselves protect our mental health through boundaries while treating the sickest individuals! Correctly understanding what is happening is most of the battle, and there are proven techniques for managing the difficult behavior we see. Even if some methods cannot be applied to a president, the principles still apply, and there are lots of things that the public can do. In fact, if only one recognized that true power rests with the people, and the posturing and bullying are actually façades—or fake power, like the Wizard of Oz—the people could achieve a great deal!

When Dobbs was passed, I cried for 3 days. But when I *read* Dobbs, I went ballistic...

Everything is on the line. The commonalities are adults making personal decisions about who they love and about their sexual behavior, including contraception.

Alito referenced a 12th Century Christian monk and a 16th Century witch-hunting British jurist, and — in a not at all final smack down of non-fanatics — threw Roe back to the 50 states, letting “States’ Rights” rear its ugly head once again. Thomas, in his concurrence, must have looked in a mirror before deciding to leave Loving vs Virginia out.

So what's to stop another court from going after other unenumerated rights by employing the same legal framework that was used to overturn Roe v. Wade?
Justice Samuel Alito for one tries to allay that concern in the lead Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization opinion, taking care to distinguish abortion from other rights, only to have Justice Clarence Thomas pull the rug out.

“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote in concurrence. “Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”
For court watchers, almost as notable as the hit list of cases the conservative justice explicitly names was the one he left out. Loving v. Virginia — which in 1967 established a right to interracial marriage — was cited by every other opinion in the Dobbs case when discussing substantive due process.

https://www.courthousenews.com/thomas-didnt-mention-interracial-marriage-and-thats-worth-talking-about/

Thanks for this. Saving article to file.

This is awesome. I'm saving the info at your link. Thx, DBoon.

Who watches Rachel any more? Who watched her tonight? I ask because some DUers keep asking...

…or rather demanding to know, are the Democrats doing because in the questioners’ opinion the Democrats are doing zilch nada nothing.

So I ask, in the kindest way possible — please watch Rachel Maddow. She answers your questions — in detail. Including things like pushback, blowback — and trumpGOP’s backpedaling. She namechecks Indivisible.

Thank you for your attention.