Thought for the Day

Boris Johnson, on leaving St Thomas's Hospital in London-

"On Saturday, the PM issued a statement thanking the National Health Service staff at St. Thomas' Hospital. "I can't thank them enough. I owe them my life," he said.

In a video statement posted online on Sunday, Johnson personally named some of the health care workers who looked after him, including two nurses -- one from New Zealand and one from Portugal -- who stood by his bedside "for 48 hours when things could have gone either way."

"I have today left hospital after a week in which the NHS has saved my life, no question," Johnson said in the video. "It's hard to find the words to express my debt."
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/12/u...gbr/index.html

The President cannot force states to open businesses. The Commerce Clause is in Article I and permits Congress to pass laws in order to regulate interstate commerce. Congress is not allowed to delegate its authority to the Executive Branch. Furthermore, it's not clear that Congress would be able to pass a law forcing states to open businesses. During the Affordable Care Act case Republicans argued that one reason the Act couldn't be passed under the Commerce Clause is that it didn't regulate commerce but instead created it. They construed the power given to Congress as being regulatory, meaning that you can define the parameters of commerce and prohibit certain activities but not force anyone to engage in it. When the Affordable Care Act passed, the contested portion called the individual mandate was passed under Congress' power to tax.

Either way, the President does not have Commerce Clause power because we're a nation of laws and it's Congress that passes laws. There's also something called the dormant commerce clause. I'm not going to bore you with a basic application but in essence it prohibits states from passing laws that, even in the absence of federal legislation, interferes with Congress' regulatory ability. Anyhow, under that analysis states always have the ability to pass laws protecting their citizens' health, welfare, and safety.

Yes I'm bored or I wouldn't have written this.

Proof that the devil is always in the detail, something that one is not surprised has escaped the attention of your President, who, as a devout Christian cannot be tempted by the devil but resists him at all times.
Don't be bored, Bronofan, you have enlightened me and probably a lot of others too. Now, about them pesky Governors...

If for the sake of argument, the President can prove that Covid 19 originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, does this not exonerate the 'wet market' in that city where it has been assumed the virus began?

On the one hand, this would undermine the claim that the 'exotic' species that were being sold in the market have been the source of the virus, but on the other hand it would not -to me and others- justify the continued sale of pangolins, bamboo rats and other forms of meat to the public.

But what if the market was the source, does this not suggest that all 'open markets' are vulnerable because their produce is on sale in a way that cannot prevent them being infected from airborne germs and bateria, be the market Wuhan, Paris, London, San Francisco and so on?

Maybe it is time for a review of open markets -everywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

If for the sake of argument, the President can prove that Covid 19 originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, does this not exonerate the 'wet market' in that city where it has been assumed the virus began?

On the one hand, this would undermine the claim that the 'exotic' species that were being sold in the market have been the source of the virus, but on the other hand it would not -to me and others- justify the continued sale of pangolins, bamboo rats and other forms of meat to the public.

But what if the market was the source, does this not suggest that all 'open markets' are vulnerable because their produce is on sale in a way that cannot prevent them being infected from airborne germs and bateria, be the market Wuhan, Paris, London, San Francisco and so on?

Maybe it is time for a review of open markets -everywhere.

---

I guess while hygiene is always going to be a problem among markets that sell any type of animal,especially in crowded, cramped and sometimes unclean condition...and putting aside for the moment, the fact that there are also unsavory folk selling endangered species (or exotic endangered species parts) at ‘some’ of wildlife Markets...it seems that some animals are simply more likely than others to carry a deadly virus...https://www.discovermagazine.com/hea...ebola-and-sars

...still, any type of market selling produce, live or otherwise, should be held to stringent rules of hygiene. I just don’t believe that a large portion of them are.

Thanks for the link to a fascinating article, Fred. I think -I hope we are moving into a new era of self-awareness in regard to public hygiene.

Last year before Christmas I had to use the toilet in the Mall in town, and while I was washing my hands I noted three men who were at the urinals but left without washing their hands. The entrance to the Gents is by an L-shaped corridor so there were no handles on doors to touch, but I do find this aspect of male behaviour worrying, but these days if I had suggested to the men that they wash their hands before leaving I think I would have got a volley of verbal abuse, so I hope this is one area of behaviour that people now realize they must change. And, in contrast to some public places, the Mall toilets do have hot water, soap and dryers that work.

I have also noted in the town's three supermarkets, that fresh pastries, such as croissants, bread rolls, and sweet pastries such as muffins and tarts that were on open display before, are now packaged in transparent bags, something I think should have happened a long time ago.

Markets are attractive places the world over, be it for their fruit and veg, their meat and fish, and the 'street food' stalls which is often the only reason why outsiders go -in London, Borough Market on a Satuday morning has a lot of street food stalls as well as produce, and may attract more tourists as is also true of Portobello Road in Notting Hill, but I do wonder if these open stalls have a future, though in Portobello Road there is a lot of antques/junk rather than food.

Are we going to to become more sensitive to what happens in our urban spaces? I think we must, though there is also the potential for social conflict if identifiable social groups are ostracised or unwelcome in public spaces -adopting a procedure for public safety could become an instrument of public discrimination. We have to be careful in all the things we do.

I throw out this idea even though it does not appear to have any life in it - a Government of National Unity the USA.

In the UK we have not had as many Coalition Governments as they have had on the Continent but we have had them, the most obvious being the National Government and Wartime Coalition that lasted with various personnel changes from 1931-45, and the most recent being the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition of 2010-15 which was a matter of expediency because no party had overall control of the House of Commons.

In the US there are some similarities to the UK -House Representatives and Senators represent a Place, not a Party, but differences, so that the Executive Power is separated into the Office of the President. Thus, most of the literature that I have found tends to limit discussion of coalition poitics to Congress, where if there have been Coalitions they have been loose 'Coalitions of Interest' rather than bi-partisan politics operating at every level. Oddly, such coalitions in the US ought to be easier to organize precisely because the party system is weaker and less co-ordinated than it is here.

Here is a legal view which limits itself to these bi-artisan coalitions of interest but I think is wrong to argue that the option for a more comprehensive form of Coalition politics is limited because of the 'District' basis of political representation-
https://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files...SFUNCTION1.pdf

And this article pleads both for a multi-party system on the basis of what the Founding Fathers wanted, but also fails to address the topic as I present it-
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/19...ican-democrat/

For the idea I am proposing is a Government of National Unity in which the President, even if his or her VP is of the same party, selects for Cabinet posts a range of people chosen because they are from different parties -ie A Democrat President chooses Republicans and Independents to be various Secretaries (State, Education, Energy etc), but also Congress puts together a cross-party organization -say a Special Committee to process national decisions in Senate and House-, while the President brings Governors and even Mayors into a National Council so that there is a 'one size fits all' public policy structure which at the very least ensures the eye-watering trllions of dolars being raised is spent on the USA, not just some of its citizens.
The job is thus for all to work with the President, as National Leader, on the basis that the only way -or the best way for the US to see itself through this crisis is to set aside the differences which to outsiders makes the US look increasingly dysfunctional.

So far, so daft, because it seems inconceivable that Mitch McConnell will even contemplace such a thing -but maybe this is how the Democrats can break the impasse, if they can wean enough 'moderate Republicans' away from the members of their party who they do not feel they relate to. In doing so, this 'National Plan' would, or could isolate the extremists and expose them for their lack of relevance. For what is crucial is that in presenting this as an option, in November, American voters could be confident that if they vote for, say, Biden, they are not voting for a Partisan Democrat who eulogizes 'America', but assembles a team that truly resembles it.

In the UK we were facing a break-up of the Union because of Brexit, and though I think that Northern Ireland may go in the next 10 years, I am now less confident of an independent Scotland because I think the SNP is in big trouble and may not even survive in its current form if Alex Salmond sues the party as he has said he will. I see too that there is little sign of Coalition politics ending in Germany and Italy, while France poses an unusual problem as I don't think it has ever been so divided while having such weak party representation at the same time.

But the US looks increasingly fragile, and I am not sure how the Democrats, if they want to win in November, can do it without persuading Republican voters who detest the leader of their party to vote for them instead, and it seems to me that instead of the tired political rhetoric about national unity, politicians need to replace it with a practical plan that actually does commit to a cross-party coalition at every level- the Executive, the Legislatures, and the States. It sounds crazy, but maybe it is the only rational way out of the crisis--??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I throw out this idea even though it does not appear to have any life in it - a Government of National Unity the USA.

---

A Democrat president can appoint moderate Republicans to cabinet posts, as has been done several times in the past. That seems more feasible than a formal coalition. You could also have a standing council of federal and state leaders, which is what we've had in Australia for a long time, and which was transformed into the National Cabinet to coordinate decisions on the coronavirus. It would be more unwieldy in the US though, because there are 51 leaders rather than 9.

I doubt that you can really expect much beyond that for the same reason that very few Republicans have been willing to stand up to Trump - they know it would end their careers because the Republican base would turn on them. They will only turn against Trump if it looks like he is going to lead them to a crushing defeat, in which case the Democrats won't need them.

unpopular opinions - mental health treatment is bullshit because they try and reinforce conservative conformity. by merely being on this site, most professionals reckon we're "ill". they can go fuck themselves.

and that Trump is a good guy who will beat Biden and only says/does what most Americans secretly think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

A Democrat president can appoint moderate Republicans to cabinet posts, as has been done several times in the past. That seems more feasible than a formal coalition. You could also have a standing council of federal and state leaders, which is what we've had in Australia for a long time, and which was transformed into the National Cabinet to coordinate decisions on the coronavirus. It would be more unwieldy in the US though, because there are 51 leaders rather than 9.

I doubt that you can really expect much beyond that for the same reason that very few Republicans have been willing to stand up to Trump - they know it would end their careers because the Republican base would turn on them. They will only turn against Trump if it looks like he is going to lead them to a crushing defeat, in which case the Democrats won't need them.

---

I know it is a weak argument, but I do think there must be doubts about this 'base' since Covid 19 started, because I am sure some of them must now know someone, maybe from their own family who has either died from Covid 19 or fallen ill, and I don't think all of them can blame it on China.

The key to re-election in 2020 was always going to be the economy, but now that the economy is in deep trouble, willl that 'base' remain solid? My point is that there has been a degree of alienation in the Republican party that the Demoocrats could exploit while trying to rescue their own base from its lukewarm faith. By creating a synthetic coalition, could the appeal to a broader mass of voters succeed? Maybe not, but is it worth trying?

Consider what has happened with Brexit, and the way in which it split the Conservative Party so that it is not the same party as it was from 1832 to 2016- then consider the fact that Labour's identity crisis post-Blair so weakened it as to make it incapable of Government, a task that it has so far failed to achieve, while the days of the SNP's supremacy in Scotland may be numbered. Yet these changes to the foundations of Liberal Democracy have not produced a coherent alternative at any level. It is as if the parties entrusted to manage capitalism have not only failed at management, the opposition has failed to offer a vision of something else that does not look like all that went before. I can thus understand the anger of 2016, but anger is a limited basis for political success, and I think across the Atlantic, voters want something more, and something different.

But where are the visionary politicians who are committed to radical change?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holzz

unpopular opinions - mental health treatment is bullshit because they try and reinforce conservative conformity. by merely being on this site, most professionals reckon we're "ill". they can go fuck themselves.

---

If I take issue with this claim, it is because of the two people I know who work in mental health, both would say that their priority is to prevent a patient or a client from harming themself or other people.

Psychiatric illnesses cause the person suffering from them enormous distress. People with these disorders often seek treatment not because the mental health field pathologizes difference but because the disorders interfere with daily life and impair functioning. This is true for all of the recognized neuroses and psychoses from panic disorder to social anxiety disorder to depression to bipolar disorder and its subtypes and finally schizophrenia. A schizophrenic hallucinates and/or has delusions, which are not merely differences in personality but a qualitative difference in the way they experience reality.

It's true that if someone is eccentric a layperson might ask what mental health condition afflicts them, but a psychologist or psychiatrist might say, "Nothing." Being different is not a disorder.

There is some discussion about whether what holzz is saying is valid in the case of personality disorders, though many of these personality types involve very severe emotional limitations that are destructive to other people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

If I take issue with this claim, it is because of the two people I know who work in mental health, both would say that their priority is to prevent a patient or a client from harming themself or other people.

---

No, it's not.
It's about enforcing their morals.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...sions-pandemic

Odd how Europe is the most affected from this.
The lizard shape-shifters hate Europeans, seemingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holzz

No, it's not.
It's about enforcing their morals.

---

Anorexia kills- so what is your moral judgment- go ahead and die because I/society cannot impose my conservation of life ideology, Christian or otherwise, on you? Anorexia is not a normal condition, its treatment seeks to return the person affected to a condition of life in which whtever the source of their problem is, it is not expressed through starvation. It does not mean that the person concerned must change the way they dress, the music they listen to, their voting preference. They can be as eccentric as they want to be, but in order to be they must be alive.
Szasz and Laing make interesting reading, but may not always offer the best practical therapy for specific cases. And have you not in your posts, made a moral judgment?

it's all a conspiracy theory.
what defines a "normal" person?
they actively disregard their own practices, and just use their own personal belief systems.

https://markets.businessinsider.com/...0-3-1028994637

https://www.resolutionfoundation.org...rus-in-the-uk/

https://www.politico.eu/article/coro...escue-package/

This Africa one is interesting. Most African countries export raw materials. Less Western demand for cocoa, or precious metals, will fuck their economies. It would fuck developed countries with large agro sectors too like the US.

https://www.arc2020.eu/effects-coron...al-production/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holzz

it's all a conspiracy theory.
what defines a "normal" person?
they actively disregard their own practices, and just use their own personal belief systems.

---

I think you are confusing the difference between 'normal' behaviour and 'manageable' behaviour. Mental health is a mixture of clinical and moral judgment so that that 'this behaviour is not normal', is not as important a statement as 'this behaviour is causing harm to this person, and may harm others'- it is on balance more clinical even though it must contain a moral ingredient because all thought requiring a judgment does. Therapy has the intention of reducing the opportunity for harm, and then making an attempt to understand why harmful behaviour is taking place and seek to manage it so that the person concerned can stop it.

I think a good way to separate what the field of psychiatry should be trying to treat is to look at some disorders in detail. Let's examine the difference between obsessive compulsive disorder and obsessive compulsive personality.

The obsessions and compulsions a person with obsessive compulsive disorder experiences are ego dystonic. This means the person with ocd may feel compelled to touch something three times in order to stave off disaster but is aware that the compulsion is irrational. They may wash their relatively clean hands a dozen times to get rid of contamination but know they've washed their hands enough after one washing. To the person with the disorder the need to carry out the compulsion is burdensome but the inability to carry it out can in the short term causes severe distress. This is not a mental illness simply because touching things a magical number of times is culturally abnormal but because of the impairment and distress it causes to the person suffering from it. The person with ocd also has great insight into the lack of logical nexus between their compulsions and their goals.

Compare this to someone who has an obsessive compulsive personality or who is otherwise described as "perfectionistic". They may sleep with a room temperature of 68 degrees because they think it's the perfect temperature for good sleep. They may drink one and a half cups of coffee because they think it's the perfect amount. But they aren't compelled to do anything burdensome just to assuage feelings of anxiety and inner tension. If they have to sleep at 67 degrees it may not be optimal but it's far better than 74. They may be different from the norm and others may find them particular or difficult but they would not have an illness whereas the first person does.

It is a relevant consideration for psychologists to ask themselves whether they are enforcing cultural norms or treating maladaptive, distressing psychological conditions. I have no doubt that psychology done poorly carries forward cultural judgments, but most mental illness involves thinking and behavior that is different from what is typical by type rather than degree and experienced as painful to the person with the condition.

it's a mistake for BoJo to release the lockdown.
maybe open food places, and parks, or allow shopping centres to open.
not full on as it is normally.
Not with the highest death rate in Europe.

If he wants another term in office, then people WILL remember how he handles this. Any empathy he got for being on death's door (which I don't think is a lie since I doubt NHS staff would go along with this "conspiracy". Well I hope not....) would diminish.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...-uk-russia-spt

ms. c - it was my fault - i didn't need to fuck your things up. my demons, my fault, my responsibility. i got triggered and it's my past and my own demons.

"On Thursday Trump said at the White House: “What they did, what the Obama administration did, is unprecedented … and I hope a lot of people will pay a big price because they are dishonest, crooked people. They are scum, human scum.” "

Americans are Human Scum, its women are Dogs.

When are the Democrats going to use the words of this man to highlight their campaign to remove him from office? Even knowing that Nixon and LBJ were foul-mouthed in private cannot match the astonishing public insult and abuse that has become part of the discourse of American politics -it has never happened before as far as I know, and not even Boris Johnson on a bay day comes close -Is it not time for the Democrats -somebody- to make the President's relentless insults and abuse, his attacks on the USA the major issue with which to confront him and Murdoch's minions on Fox News?

https://blogs.imf.org/2020/04/14/the...at-depression/

worst recession since the Great Depression?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

"On Thursday Trump said at the White House: “What they did, what the Obama administration did, is unprecedented … and I hope a lot of people will pay a big price because they are dishonest, crooked people. They are scum, human scum.” "

Americans are Human Scum, its women are Dogs.

When are the Democrats going to use the words of this man to highlight their campaign to remove him from office? Even knowing that Nixon and LBJ were foul-mouthed in private cannot match the astonishing public insult and abuse that has become part of the discourse of American politics -it has never happened before as far as I know, and not even Boris Johnson on a bay day comes close -Is it not time for the Democrats -somebody- to make the President's relentless insults and abuse, his attacks on the USA the major issue with which to confront him and Murdoch's minions on Fox News?

---

Once again the Clueless Buffoon Donald Trump can't keep Barack Obama's name out of that foul mouth of his. and his latest comments show that he has a very unhealthy obsession with the previous administration and loves to blame them for his failures as a leader. and is pissed off that the previous president is still more popular than he'll ever be and he doesn't like it. and has been abusing his power over the last 3 years to undo everything Barack Obama has done. The Democrats already tried to remove him from office by impeaching him earlier this year, but the Senate Republicans decided to keep him in office. and completely agree it is for the Democrats to make the president's relentless insults and abuse, his attacks on the United States the major issue to confront him and Murdoch Minions on FOX News {Propaganda News Channel} and get him out of office by November 3rd. and the Republican Party to grow a pair and do the same.

It is depressing to see so much bad language from people in positions of power becoming part of the public discourse.
Today we have the absurd evaluation from the President that the invesigation into his 2016 campaign team's links to the Russians amounts to -
“The biggest political crime in American history, by far!”

In addition, retweeting stuff from someone called Buck Sexton, the aim is to completely re-write the history of that campaign so that facts become fiction, straight out of 1984. Thus, in spite of the fact that the campaign team had over 100 meetings with Russians close to Putin, and in spite of the fact that Obama warned his successort that Flynn was vulnerable to accusations of complicity in breaking the law, now we are told Sexton claims that
" Barack Obama “used his last weeks in office to target incoming officials and sabotage the new administration”."
Then he describes Andrew McCabe as
-"“a dishonorable partisan scumbag who has done incalculable damage to the reputation of the FBI and should be sitting in a cell for lying under oath”.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-michael-flynn

It is not just the foul language that is giving this discourse such an ugly, even desperate tone. It is the fact that it runs completely counter to the beliefs that we assume are fundamental to the religious beliefs of the Vice-President and the 'Evangeical Christian' base, and thus the President himself, if they truly believe GOD gave them a new redeemer to save the USA from the hell into which it was being taken by a Black Man.

For the one cardinal value so absent from all this discourse is the Forgiveness that is at the heart of the Christian message. We hear the language of resentment and vengeance, but not one word of love and certainly not of forgiveness. The humility that forgiveness requires appears to be so distant from the character of the President there is no hope of him ever expressing it.

Indeed, it is being argued that the arguments over 'mail-in' voting will become part of a refusal, should he lose the 2020 election, by the 45th President to concede to the 46th and to thus challenge the outcome if it doees not result in his victory. The danger is that resentment is aso a driver of violence, with the chilling prospect that this particular President, and many of his supporters don't care what happens, may even desire to see the existing political system fall apart in a riot of refusal and violence.

As the Commander-in-Chief abandoned Command in January, and appears to have abandoned the campaign against Covid 19 on a 'what the hell, let 'em die' basis, so the language of politics deteriorates into vicious slander and accusation, while elevating resentment, vengeance and contempt for the law to the status of convenient and normal rhetoric.
Boris Johnson may give his darker purpose some literary flair, what we have in the US is just dirty, vulgar and pernicious in its determined attempt to destroy the public faith's in Government, the Rule of Law, and ultimately, the Truth.

relaxed lockdown?
is it worth the risk of escort meet-ups? hmmmm.

on one hand, the police won't catch you, now that there is "unlimited exercise" outdoors.
But then it isn't social distancing.
i get the feeling more will risk it.

The risk factor is on the 'other side of the mountain' -an epidemic normally follows a clear trajectory, the first cases surging to create a large mass of infections which rise until a combination of therapies and declining hosts reduces the rate of infection. The details of the plan the Johnson Government released yesterday are confusing some people in the detail, but the broad trajectory to gradually relax restrictions is the right one, and for all the flaws in the Goverment's management of the crisis, from the negect of care homes -on a par with the neglect of safety at Grenfell Tower- the sloppy sometimes non-existent provision of PPE to frontlne staff, and the paucity of testing, tracing and tracking for the general population, means the risk facor is due to the lack of knowledge of how this virus is going to behave.
Will it decline as the hosts decline due to distancing strategies?
Will the relaxation of rules enable the virus both to persist, albeit in fewer new infections, or worse, mutate and infect previously less vulnerable groups such as young children?
We also do not yet know if there are long term effects on survivors, such as lung damage and related illnesses -Boris Johnson does not look 100% though fatigue in his case may also be due to a baby crying at 3am.

The calculation appears to be that the majority of the population are safer now than they were but that risks remain, and without doubt the costs of shutting down the economy have already worsened the recession the UK was sliding into because of Brexit.
That said, I think the majority of people -but I don't know how large the majority is- remain committed to staying at home rather than putting themselves and others at risk.

Compare that to the relaxation taking place in Russia where cases are still on an upward curve, and the worthless rubbish that the spewed out of the US President's mouth when he declaimed "We have met the moment and we have prevailed,” on the day when recorded deaths in the US passed 80,000.

The President is a cretin, and utterly indifferent to human suffering.

The comparison may be inevitable but one compares the vanity of an incompetent fool in the US, to the simplicty of the language, the sincerity of compassion, the the composure of Jacinda Ardern. One appears to be blessed, the other is a curse. New Zealand may have just got lucky, but I wonder, if people could choose, if they would prefer a leader like her to the superstars of stupidity who occupy Presidential Palaces and Prime Ministerial residences across the world.

Trump being "racist" to that reporter.
Well, what the f do people expect?
He's been POTUS for a ew years. could well be POTUS until his maximum two terms extends (unless he gets the GOPs in Congress to amend the Constitution).
He's a boorish ass.
How the media always go irate over every "negative" thing he says. Get over it. he won't change!!!
What he said was wrong, don't get me wrong. She wasn't rude to him, and he made a borderline racist insinuation.

But then he's like an uncle with no filter, who embarrasses people at family functions. just get over it and move on.
And considering the Democrats are in a shit position, the media has until 2025 to get used to it...
Just pray he doesn't change the Constitution to alter the two-term amendment.

No. We refuse to normalize this ignorant asshole's bigoted behavors. Overlooking your uncle's boorish behavior at a holiday diner is one thing. To overlook the President's racism is to justify it in the eyes of others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

To overlook the President's racism is to justify it in the eyes of others.

---

Especially when it is reflected in his policies; eg immigration policy and winding back efforts to combat violent white supremacists or police shooting of blacks. Some people have even argued that it partly explains his unwillingness to take the coronavirus seriously. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...howing/611389/

https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1260450147256975363?s=20

no surprises

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

No. We refuse to normalize this ignorant asshole's bigoted behavors. Overlooking your uncle's boorish behavior at a holiday diner is one thing. To overlook the President's racism is to justify it in the eyes of others.

---

I never really understood when people say the media is taking the bait. They can either ignore Trump insulting an Asian woman based on her heritage or they can treat it as an outrage. As you say, to ignore it is to treat it as a new normal, which is not what we should aspire to. Of course, there are all sorts of illusions people have about racial justice that are often intended to make themselves feel better.

Do people respond the same way to black people dying as they do to white people being shot or dying of a disease? The answer is no. This sort of racism, unconscious though it sometimes is, has been the norm for society since there's been an America and persists without Trump reigniting more obvious forms of it. There was an article about a black woman in her early thirties who had covid-19 who was told by EMTs that she couldn't breathe because she was having a panic attack. When they asked her what her goals were in order to take her mind off of her "panic attack" she said, "not to die." She was not taken to the hospital and died a day or two later.

There are videos being circulated in right wing circles of Ahmaud Barbery walking into a construction site. It looked entirely harmless and of course was irrelevant because he was murdered, but it's the kind of mind trick Republicans want to play in order to treat his death as less than tragic. He wasn't just a young man jogging who was accosted by crazed racists who proceeded to execute him. To them, he must have been up to no good and so he should be presented as dangerous after he's dead.

We are going to have to unwind the damage Trump has done to the public discourse but as a country we're also going to have to deal with the racism that's there and has always been there. Anyway, the Atlantic article says it better than I can. But I just wanted to chime in that I definitely think part of the callousness we're seeing in the Republican response to Covid-19 reflects their dehumanization of minorities who have been disproportionately affected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holzz

Trump being "racist" to that reporter.
Well, what the f do people expect?
He's been POTUS for a ew years. could well be POTUS until his maximum two terms extends (unless he gets the GOPs in Congress to amend the Constitution).
He's a boorish ass.
How the media always go irate over every "negative" thing he says. Get over it. he won't change!!!
What he said was wrong, don't get me wrong. She wasn't rude to him, and he made a borderline racist insinuation.

But then he's like an uncle with no filter, who embarrasses people at family functions. just get over it and move on.
And considering the Democrats are in a shit position, the media has until 2025 to get used to it...
Just pray he doesn't change the Constitution to alter the two-term amendment.

---

Are you just hoping we'll all ignore your usually ignorant trolling behaviour rather than calling it out as well?...:shrug

people know what kind of person he is. if he wins the election, then this tactic of shaming him isn't working.

https://thenextweb.com/gaming/2020/0...download-play/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holzz

people know what kind of person he is. if he wins the election, then this tactic of shaming him isn't working.

---

Reporters write articles about what is newsworthy regardless of whether it achieves some political objective. Reporters are not election strategists. What is newsworthy? How prominent is the person involved? How significant is what they said or did? Is it a departure from the norm?

Even three and a half years after Trump was elected, it's newsworthy that a U.S. President is openly denigrating an ethnic minority at a press conference. Was this something Obama did? Bush? Clinton? Bush Sr? Reagan? Carter? Ford? Even Nixon would only say these sorts of things in private, which is not much better but harder to report and less shameless.

There's also the fact that if this became normal in the U.S. it would be considered abnormal everywhere else, given that expressions of bigotry are stigmatized in most countries.

As far as Trump winning elections, however slight his margin of victory, it does point to a problem with political tribalism. His supporters like him despite the fact that he has no integrity, lies constantly, and behaves like a child. He is provably corrupt and incompetent and it matters more to them that he dislikes people they also dislike. They've given up on the idea that a society doesn't have to be a zero sum game and that a President can enact policies that benefit everyone. He is a referendum on the very idea of having a society.

And the point of these articles is the same narrative as itg was when he was running for office. as in "we can't allow this bigot and uncouth man to be POTUS!!" well he IS POTUS.and he may well be for some time. The "calling him out" angle is tired, and ineffectual, as it doesn't stop his base from voting for him. It won't stop foreign countries or businesses dealing with him or the USA, since it's still the superpower.
They need a new angle if they really want to dissuade him or their supporters. The European attitude - which I share incidentally - is that he's a cunt but then we have no choice but to deal with him.
Bush Jr. for me was worse, since he invaded a country with to date no cause. Trump has done nothing on that scale - well yet.