H2O Man
H2O Man's JournalThe Meaning of Words
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean ——neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master ——that's all."
-- Lewis Carroll; Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There/Chapter VI
A young person asked me why the defendant's legal team does not attempt an "insanity defense" in his criminal trials? I said because any qualified person evaluating him would conclude that he is not mentally ill -- rather, he is a sociopath who knows right from wrong, and delights in breaking social norms and laws.
As I handed her the money to pay for my new Rx, she asked me how they determine if a person is insane? I explained there was a ruling in England in the mid-1800s about a hit before her great grandmother was born, though she was born a long, long time ago. A man named M'Naghten believed that catholic priests and tories were a threat to his safety. To protect himself, he decided to kill the Prime Minister, but mistakenly killed another man. His attorney convinced the jury M'Naghten did not know right from wrong, so he was found "not guilty." But he was held in a mental institution for the rest of his days.
A federal court decision in the mid-1950s known as the Durham Rule held that there were inadequate tests -- including M'Naghten -- that could determine if a defendant was "criminally insane." Because Durham was ill-defined, and left the door open to using addiction as a form of insanity, it was put to sleep after about twenty years. In modern times, the Model Penal Code test has been largely used, which reduces the number of successful insanity defenses.
The only option the defendant's legal team might have gone with is the Irresistible Impulse Test, which holds that though a mental illness does not keep the accused from knowing right from wrong, they just can't help themselves. But since the defendant in this case is using his legal woes as his presidential campaign and fund-raiser, I asked, would such an attempted defense not reduce his support in both areas?
"No," she said with knitted brow. "They are like 'sovereign citizens.' You can't reason with them. They will support him no matter what." She shook her head as she handed me the Rx and my change. Then she smiled and said, "I hope you feel better." Being old, I lifted the bag of medicine, and said, "With this, it's sure to get better. Can't get much worse than now."
On the drive home, I was thinking about a case where a judge was concerned about a sovereign citizen's ability to help his lawyer in his defense. During a pre-trial hearing, the judge quoted from chapter six of "Through the Looking Glass." Maybe, I thought, we are entering a time where new definitions are to be made. Then, suddenly, I understood that I needed to keep my eyes on the road and my hands upon the wheel.
Here Comes the Sun
“If we had no winter, the spring would not be so pleasant: if we did not sometimes taste of adversity, prosperity would not be so welcome." -- Anne Bradstreer
I read some people's thoughts on how many maga people might be outside of the courtroom on Monday. They will be tiny orange buttons on a large paisley shirt that will pop off as the criminal trial of the former president gets underway once the jury is seated.There will be, of course, media coverage of the crowds that gather.
More important will be who is inside the courtroom. Obviously, the defendant, the lawyers on both sides, and Stormy Daniels. But there is more. Several people who the defendant despises will be seated in the audience, smiling at the defendant. A psychological profile of the defendant, focusing largely on his behaviors in court, suggest this will increase the chances of his acting out.
At first, this may be limited to when he leaves court, as well as his late night posts on the internet. But eventually he will have difficulty staying quiet when two of the witnesses take the stand to testify against him. We know his legal team will attack Cohen on cross-examination, but that will be more difficult with Ms. Hicks.
With both witnesses, the defendant will think they have betraued him, which increases the chances of his acting out. Add to that his fear of their testimony that supports the D.A.'s other evidence.
As always, the defendant has said he will testify. While the chances of this are remote, one can hope that he actually does. But the chances of his taking the witness stand are near zero. Thus, he will try to make a statement without ever taking the stand. The judge will deny this, until he has the right to speak at sentencing.
Now, I know some people are wondering if the documents case will be heard before the preliminary fights end and the main event (WW3) officially begins. Since the Las Vegas oddsmakers haven't addressed that question yet, I'll limit my comments to the document case.
I know that many good people question if Mr. Smith should try to have Judge Cannon removed. Her most recent response to Mr. Smith's filing concerning the "PRA defense" is viewed as evidence of her favoring the defendant -- who is not charged with violating the PRA. An associate told me that it is important to recognize that Cannon is "not the sharpest knife in her drawers." She suggested people think about the glaring error she made in her infamous jury questionaire.
Mr. Smith and his team, she said, always have charted every possible motion by the defendant's legal team, and every ruling that Cannon may make. More, they prepare an outline of their response options for every possibility. In order to be assured of a positive ruling from the 11th Circuit, they need more than her potentially giving the defendant a "PRA defense" once the trial is underway.
Hence, Mr. Smith will submit a motion in limine, requesting that Cannon not allow the defense to introduce evidence about the PRA. Cannon will deny the motion by late May. Then Mr. Smith goes to the 11th Circuit, which will overrule her, and may replace her on the case.
Jumping DJ
If you start at about 2 minutes in on this, it details the defendant attempting to nicjname himseld "Honest Don." This was approximately three weeks ago. I saw three clips on the news where he described himself as such. Each time, his facial expression had the satisfaction common among sociopaths when they think they have gotten over.
I had hoped that Seth Meyers would have researched this a bit more, until I recognized that he wasn't old enough to be familiar with the reference. I'm not only old enough to recognize it, but have invested the three minutes it took me to get these links. Add to that my understanding of the sociopathic mind, and I have a brief OP that I think is factual.
As a boy, the defendant's favorite cartoon was "Beany and Cecil." This featured a character called "Dishonest John," an imitation of Dudley Do-Right's enemy Snidely Whiplash on "The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show." The defendant reportedly loved Dishonest John, because the character reminded him of his father.
When the Mattel games "Jumping DJ" came out in 1962, the defendant would play it for hours. Since he had few friends and always cheated, he ended up playing it by himself.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/348043877450563091/
There is a rumor that the defendant wanted one of the Bobbleheads he is peddling to reflect his love of, and identification with, Dishonest John.
Light & Darkness
“A coward afraid of light is more coward than a coward afraid of darkness!”
― Mehmet Murat ildan
There are certain people that I listen closely to, including the gentleman quoted above. I first became aware of him from his biography of Gandhi. Generally speaking, when this happens, my friends and associates put up with my insisting, "You need to read this."
Over the past two decades, this has come to include pointing out the writings of certain community members to my friends and associates who "lurk" here from time to time. One example is Botany, who has added value to DU as long as I can remember. Here is an imporant example:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=18830454
There are, of course, different levels of cowardice. The defendant is at the lowest level, because he fears light being shined on his criminal behaviors. He attempts to delay this in court, and to distract the public with his rants. Including in these rants, of course, are the dog whistles meant to either intimdate his targets of abuse, or to signal to his unhinged followers to harm the target ...... exactly what we see in Botany's article.
We know the defendant self-identifies as the "don" of his organized crime family. Until 2020, his daughter Ivanka served as the underboss, or deputy director of white collar crime. Michael Cohen had served as consigliere for about a decade before the defendant took the White House. Next in line are the caporegimes, who are in charge of about 15 to 20 soldiers. Since 2021, the son known as defendant, junior has attempted to replace Ivanka, including by greasing his hair in an attempt to ape his fantasy version of a mobser.
It is important to recognize that pre=presidency, only three of these characters had actual dealings with the mob: the defendant, Ivanka, and Cohen. Junior and Eric certainly encountered the real deal, but did not have authority to make any important business dealings. Becausethe defendant, Ivanka, and Cohen were limited to domestic mobsters, in 2016 they brought in Paul Manafort.
Thus, when Russian "lawyer" Natalia Veselnitskaya sought the June 16, 2016 meeting at Defendant Tower, Junior was not capable of making deals on his own. He brought in Ivanka's shadow Jared, and Paul Manafort -- since Paul had more international criminal contacts than the sum total of the defendant's family organization.
It would be Manafort's connections to Russian organized crime/ military intelligence that put the defendant in the White House. In the jungle, Malcolm X taught, there are hunters, and those who hunt the hunters. We witnessed the hunters of hunters when Robert Mueller indicted thirty four individuals and three companies, including five of the defendant's associates and campaign officials.
Mr. Mueller disrupted the defendant's "indirect" ties to Russian crime/intelligence. Cohen, when he realized that loyalty was a one-way street leading to the defendant, would help disrupt some of the domestic ties. It's not that Russia did not attempt to assist the defendant in 2020, just as they are in 2024. Putin still seeks the defendant to be a caporegime, in charge of white collar crime, the end of support for Ukraine, and the destruction of the rule of law in the United States. But he recognizes that the defendant is unlikely to win an election.
After his crushing defeat in the 2020 election, the defendant was in a hurry to have 60+ court cases heard. This did not result in success on his part, and so the planning for January 6 began to take shape. The quality of the defendant's operation was rather low when compared to actual intelligence operations, as it depended on "has beens" and "never was" individuals prone to having oil leak down their faces. The actual insurrection depended upon milia groups, and while destructive, it was a failure.
More than 1,230 of the maga troops have been indicted on federal charges. Around 859 cases have been adjudicated, with about 500 resulting in prison sentences. Thus, try as he might, the defendant will find the militia members will "stand down and stand by" in November. This leaves him with a loud, nasty mouth that spouts threats, hoping that the unhinged "lone wolf pups" will protect him.
The coward does not want his crimes to be subjected to light. Our job is to shine light upon them.
#Nine Passengers
"We are faced with evil. I feel rather like Augustine did before becoming a Christian when he said, ' I tried to find the source of evil and I got nowhere. But it is also true that I and a few others knew what must be done if not to reduce evil at least not to add to it.' Perhaps we cannot prevent this world from being a world in which children are tortured. But we can reduce the number of tortured children. And if you believers don't help us, who else in the world can help us with this?" -- Albert Camus
I saw some recent news about Ruby Franke. She previously had a podcase called "8 Passengers" about families and parenting. I had never heard of her until last August 30, when she was arrested along with her therapist, Jodi Hildebrant. They were charged with torturing Franke's children.
Both spent several months in jail, before being convicted and sent to prison. In general, somen's prisons do not tend to be as violent and dangerous as men's prisons. However, even moreso than Ruby and her therapist coming from a very different social class than most other inmates, the fact they were convicted for torturing children puts them at the highest risk for being attacked. If not, they will likely be shunned by other prisoners. For crimes against children are easily recognized as the lowest of the low.
Because it was Good Friday, at least when I started reading Camus, I had started with reading from "A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr." (Edited by James Washington; Harper & Row;1986). The 676 pages include speeches as well as his writings. I read two of his presentations: his eulogy for four children, and his most important speech opposing the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam war.
The first, of course, came after the KKK bombed the 16th Street Church in Birmingham, killing four little girls on September 15, 1963. The second was perhaps his greatest speech, "A Time to Breal Silence (Beyond Vietnam)" at the Riverside Church on April 4, 1967. In that war, like all others, children were wounded and killed by American bombs.
Those were the things I pondered while growing up. What would make a group of men bomb a church? Did our military draft young men to fight in war, because they hadn't matured beyond their high school days when they did whatever the coach asked? At what point does a sense of personal responsibility for one's actions come into play? Does it in everyone? How many steps away from the action does a person say no to torturing children" If your tax dollars are funding the torture and murder of children?
My generation was met with the contempt and violence of much of older generation when we said no to that ugly war, racism, and sexism. One of the things I remember is found in "The Eloquence of Protest: Voices of the 70s" (edited by Harrison Salsbury; Houghton Mifflin; 1972). It is a letter from a father, Dr. Paul williamson, of Mississippi, to his son, a college student. He wrote that if he protested the war, he deserved to be killed, just like the "revolutionaries" at Kent State.
Now, I was a young person at this time. So I couldn't figure out bombing churches or anywhere else, especially if there were children who would be killed or injured. Still can't. Or parents and grandparents who became furious and insulting of young people proresting such things. Even saying your kid deserves death for exercising his Amendment 1 rights, saying that threatened the country.
Basketball legend and philosopher Bill Russell said something when I was young, that I hope to never forget: "Pick your enemies carefully, because they are who you risk becoming the most like." Now I'm a grandfather, and find myself wishing more of my generation remembered what Mr. Russell said. I hear many my age complain about political-social rallies of young people, as if exercising Amendment 1 is a bad thing. Ignoring what Johnny Cash called "the lonely voice of youth," while expecting them to listen to us in a one-sided conversation.
Sanctimonious
" I made the pont that the liberals had stood with Clinton while the DLC people had deserted him and described the miserable (Joe) Lieberman as a 'sanctimonious prick.' Hillary said, 'Well, he is cartainly sanctimonious,' but showed no eagerness to pursue this line of thought." -- Journals 1952 - 2000 ; Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.; Penguin, 2007, page 837.
This discussion between Arthur and Hillary took place at at White House event well before Al Gore was the Democratic Party's presidential nominee. Thus, they were not talking about Joe Liberman as a potential choice for vice president. Indeed, they agreed on a word that, dating back to the early 1600s, has never been a compliment.
Al Gore had picked Warren Christopher to conduct his VP search. Arthur suggested two good choices -- George Mitchell and Chris Dodd. But Christopher picked Lieberman, who Gore would telll Schlesinger had been his 4th on the list. Arthur expressed his outrage:
"Lieberman is not only sanctimonious but a hypocrite -- the 'conscience of the Senate' got there by defeating a fine liberal Lowell Weicker in one of the nastiest campaigns in recent history. Lieberman is also president of the Democratic Leadership Conference, the Republican wing of the Democratic party ...." (page 847)
"Joe Lieberman, though he refrained in his acceptance speech from attributing his nomination to the personal intervention of the Almighty, cannot keep his wretched sanctimony out of the campaign. On 27 August he gave a speech in Detroit declaring that belief in God is the basis of morality and the American republic.One wonders why the Founding Fathers did not bother to mention God in the Constitution. 'As a people,' Holy Joe opined, 'we need to reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and God's pirpose.' Lincoln had it better in his second inaugural, 'The Almighty has his own purposes.' " (page 850)
Schlesinger details phone calls, meetings, and social events where party members discussed their unwillingness to vote for the Gore/ Lieberman ticket due to Joe's being the potential vice president. He names names, something that dispels the myth that it is the left wing of the party that refuses to vote for our nominees. Some say they will vote for Ralph Nader. Arthur, who describes George W. Bush as "a frightened ventriloquist's dummy," suggests that the republican ticket couldn't do much harm in four years in office.
Perhaps the most savage comment on how his friends viewed Lieberman came in a discussion with Philip Roth, who said, "I am considering issuing a statement: 'Mr. Roth is not available forinterviews. He has gone to the hospital to have his foreskin sewed back on'." (page 847)
All of this was from when Holy Joe was still a Democrat, if in name only. In my opinion, he played as significant a role in the election's outcome as the corrupt Supreme Court. I think the world would be very different if Al Gore had been president. I do not think that 9/11 would have happened, for example ...... not because I subscribed to the paranoid LIHOP nonsense that was common back when. Rather, he would have paid attention to all of the warning signs.
I do not rejoice at the death of any human being. That's not to say I wouldn't be pleased to learn of the death of, say, Putin. Or his top helpers, for I won't know until that happens. But it is to say that even in his biggest role as a Democrat, Joe Lieberman was terrible. And he became contaminated by the bitterness that saturated his being after the Democratic Party rejected him.
Difficult Things
"All noble things are as difficult as they are rare." -- Spinoza
A series of four angry phone calls greeted me this morning. I'll skip to the last one, from my cousin, who was very unhappy with the news about the court decision that cut his bond by 68%. I reminded him about our conversation last night, when I suggested he not count the defendant's chickens before they came home to roost.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/ny-appeals-court-reduces-trumps-bond-civil-fraud-case-175-million-vict-rcna144659
This did not, of course, make him happy. He continued to express his belief that the defendant has never been held responsible for his actions. I said that I'd send him the link to a page that documented that among the 4,000+ law suits he has been involved in, he has lost quite a few of the most important ones. I added that I did not think this history had been taught in the infamous Defendant University, although I am confident that E. Jean Carroll would agree with me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_and_business_legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump
Now, this doesn't not mean I agree with the ruling. I don't. But I did not find it to be at all surprising. As a NYS resident, I've wished that we had as good of higher state courts as New Jersey traditionally has had. I could go on a long rant about past corruption, but will instead say that today George Conway gave the best explanation of why this isn't as terrible a decision as I know it to be.
I try to never post/link to anything by (former) republicans. I am not friends with them. But I recognize that we share a concern about the defendant & maga cult. Thus, for example, I've had communications with Sarah Longwell for years, as it provides me with ways to approach conversations with republicans I know in real life.
Despite being familiar with previous issues with past NYS Attorneys General, I want to say that I have complete confidence in Letitia James. If anyone can change the ruling in higher state court, it is this lady. Now, in my long life, I have rarely had that level of trust in anyone in political life.
"How the fuck," I have been asked recently, "can you be confident that anything good can take place?" This reminds me of around 50 years back, a conversation I had with Rubin. He said that "everything under the sun is exactly as it should be, or it wouldn't be." Being young and angry, carrying an enormous chip on each of my shoulders that were almost as fat as my head, I pointed out numerous injustices -- including his legal case.
Everything is a direct result of yesterday, Rubin said. And yesterday was a direct result of the day, week, month, year, decade, and century before. And so on. The only things that can change, he noted, are human beings ..... and when people change, everything around them changes. This includes the potential for both good and bad.
When Joseph Campbell spoke of "the Hero's Journey," each time that person finds him/herself at their darkest hour, it is then that they understand the only thing they can change is their self. When they do, it is when they can bring about change. Now, few can be the hero. But we can all recognize that our country -- our society -- is at the time when the danger of darkness is the greatest.
That leaves but two options. One is to embrace the darkness, in ways ranging for compition to express the most extreme outrage, to saying it's all too much, I quit, guess I'll go eat worms. The other is to recognize that the best thing that you can do is to do everything to elect Joe Biden and other Democrats. Focus energy on that. And once we get that done, we will be in position to bring other much needed changes.
Keep Hope Alive
" Catastrophizing is a cognitive distortion that prompts people to jump to the worst possible conclusion, usually with very limited information or objective reason to despair. When a situation is upsetting, but not necessarily catastrophic, they still feel like they are in the midst of a crisis."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/catastrophizing#:~:text=Catastrophizing%20is%20a%20cognitive%20distortion,the%20midst%20of%20a%20crisis.
We are in a historic struggle that goes beyond what, in theory, would be an election contest between a Democrat and republican candidate for president. As a "historic struggle," it will involve stumbling blocks, set-backs, disappointments, and frustrations. Without these things, it could not possibly be defined as a "historic struggle," now, could it?
It would instead be "business as usual." But this is truly a struggle between democracy and dictatorship. The foundation stone of democracy is the rule of law. For the first time in our nation's history, a former president is facing both criminal and civil charges. Those criminal charges are at both the state and federal levels. And we all want to see him convicted, for these are serious crimes that threaten democracy.
In order to decrease the chances of the defendant facing consequences, your and my enemy wants to increase the catastrophizing among Democrats. They want us tired, discouraged, and thinking like Eeyore and behaving like Chicken Little. They are the phantoms that Carlos wrote about in "Journey to Ixtlan," seeking to trick you into believing lies.
During the months to come, you can expect to see misinformation and disinformation flowing out like endless rain into a Russian gutter, across the internet. Do not step in it. So not argue with it. Do not repeat it.
Even on a good forum, we sometimes see one of our friends expressing doubts about the future, and even catastrophizing. For it is a human trait, that we all might be prone to once in a while. For example, if your doctor has a serious look on her face, and says she needs to order some tests. Or if you are really tired, and didn't fully read an article, but are reacting to a headline. Maybe you are doing your taxes, have the television on, only only hear a bit of a report, and your kid is asking you about cursive writing. Or you are intoxicated on alcohol, pot, mushrooms, and/or LSD. Could happen to any of us.
The thing is, catastrophizing isn't a good thing for Democrats. Look what it has done to what was once the republican party. Has not the defendant convinced his maga cult that everything is either terrible or tragic? And that only he can fix it? If you don't believe me, try telling some shit stain wearing a maga hat that things are getting better, a little better all the time with President Biden in office. They will tell you it couldn't get much worse.
We are in a historic struggle. There will be tough times and bad things that are real. We need to be accurate, focused, rational, and strong. That makes it better in tough times, and at our best we can not lose. We need to be at our bests. And kick the shit out of the maga cult.
Bend the Arc
Bend the Arc is one the the most important social-political groups that I've ever known of.
"In an appearance on extremist Sebastian Gorka's podcast yesterday, Trump accused Jews who vote for Democrats of hating their own religion.
"We don’t take voting advice from a man whose embrace of white nationalism has put our lives in danger over and over again. The future Trump and his followers want is one where our multiracial Jewish community, immigrants, and all others targeted by white supremacy can’t be safe. .....
"Bend the Arc is leading the Jewish fight to defeat Trump in 2024, and it will take all of us to win."
https://www.bendthearc.us/trump_gorka_podcast
A Car Wash
I was just thinking ...... if when the defendant was talking about the entire country experiencing a blood bath if he loses in November, he really was speaking about the auto industry ........ does that mean Katie Britt was talking about a car wash when she said, "Never forget, we’re steeped in the blood of patriots who overthrew the most powerful empire in the world"?
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Dec 29, 2003, 08:49 PMNumber of posts: 73,528
