October 10, 2016

Oct. 21, 2016

Saturday, Oct. 22, 2016
Click above to read and make comments on Daily Kos

I can’t find any Kos stories about Jessica Drake, the client of Gloria Allred who is the 11th woman to accuse Donald Trump of sexual misconduct.
He can’t deny knowing her because she has a photo of the two of them together.
Rather than excerpting biographical sections from her up to the minute Wikipedia profile which ends with ...
On October 22, 2016 Drake and attorney Gloria Allred held a news conference where Drake accused Republican presidential candidate and businessman Donald Trump of sexual misconduct and of offering her US$10,000.00 to join him in his suite during a golf tournament in Florida in 2006.
While her life story is unusual among the 11 women what she does share with the 10 others is that like them she comes across as highly credible…. credible, sincere, engaging, and likable. 
Trump stood on hallowed ground today and announced that he was going to sue every woman who dared to lie about him. It occurred to me, and the commentators on MSNBC, that he just might not have all that much time to engage in 11 lawsuits (and likely countersuits) while still being president.
I thought perhaps he could do his presidential work in the wee hours of the morning, though it might be difficult to schedule meetings at 1:00 AM.  But then I realized this would impinge on his Tweeting time.
It’s amazing to me, hell, it’s amazing to all my friends and to — well I assume each and every Cossack —  that three-quarters of Republicans polled by YouGov don't feel that sexual assault attacks by Donald Trump would disqualify him from the presidency.

I was surprised to see that the little piece I wrote below and posted on Daily Kos last night got moved to the Most Shared list and stayed on for 24 hours and was shared an Facebook 1,224 times.

Friday, Oct. 19, 2016
Evening update:

Just letting everyone not watching Rachel know about this.  Another example of her stellar research staff.  They discovered that somebody plagiarized his best joke from an R.J. Matson cartoon (see www.rjmatson.com/… for more of his work) which was on Roll Call.

The New Yorker article begins with this...

The media is even more biased this year than ever before. You want the proof? Michelle Obama gives a speech and everyone loves it. It's fantastic. They think she's absolutely great. My wife Melania gives the exact same speech and people get on her case. And I don't get it. I don't know why. And it wasn't her fault. Stand up, Melania. Come on. She took a lot of abuse. Oh, I'm in trouble when I go home tonight. She didn't know about that one. Am I OK? Is that OK?
Here’s the joke video: www.msn.com/...

The New Yorker article ends with this.

How highly Rachel is regarded? Awhile back she got a night before exclusive about the first Newsweek bombshell. Tonight she got an exclusive from the next New Yorker which has an article praising Hillary.  

Writing has always been a passion of mine. Since my wife died six years ago it has been therapy. Before I moved to Oregon two years ago I wrote a regular online column for the daily newspaper. When I moved here I started a little website to share my thoughts and activities with my friend, immodestly registering the URL halbrown.org (dot com wasn’t available).
Daily Kos was one of the five or six liberal websites I’d been reading for years. However it was only on March 23rd that I thought of a story (called diaries back in the day) I wanted to share. It was about the idea that Arnold Schwartzenegger would make a lot better candidate than Trump. Hardly anybody read it.
It wasn’t until I wrote about Bernie that, as judged by the number of comments (many angry and insulting), a fair number of Kossacks read it (see screenshot).
After that I was hooked. Most of us, if honest, will admit that we like the affirmation that comes when Kossacks like what we read. Before long I was posting a story a day.  In the past two weeks I often posted two a day.


When Newsweek teased the first Newsweek bombshell and Rachel reported it in advance of publication, I put a story on about it that night, and I felt good because I helped out because it had over 40,000 Facebook shares.
I speculated whether this story would have an impact so I put a poll on. 5,888 of you took the poll. The results are an interesting reflection of our reader’s opinions and reality based cynicism. (see right)
All this is coming to an end. After the election there will be less and less to write about.  


Sometimes I think of a story when I am falling asleep, sometimes when I wake up in the middle of the night.  Last night I woke up and thought that Hillary effectively learned to get under Trump’s skin. I thought she had to be taught to d this unnatural behavior by the psychologists advising her. Sadism comes naturally to Trump. I got the image of Hillary being told he has to take away a child’s favorite toys while he is playing with them.
I came up with the imaginary response after the first debate: “He made me do it, I didn’t want to do it, I didn’t want to do it.” (Of course it’s a perverse version of the classic Patsy Kline song.) Not enough for a Kos story.


I recognize the dozen or so Kos staffers whose stories make the left scroll-down. I also recognize by name 10-20 story writers on the left column, and check several times a day to see that the latest pieces posted in “Recent Stories.”
When I’ve posted a story I also look to see how far down the column my story has fallen.
All this brings me to the serious personal quandary I will face.  Because I spend at least two hours a day writing about politics, what will I do to fill this time?
It’s been difficult enough watching MSNBC alone, watching historic events like the debates without my wife… she’d have been in the kitchen in sight of the TV baking cookies… but I could groan and lament in her direction.
I think and still get choked up remembering the historic events we shared together — the moon landing, Bobby Kennedy getting killed, 9-11 — now I rely on my online Kos community. 
I was thinking I may take on a new challenge that suited me, perhaps buying the top-of-the line $450 Photoshop and learning to use it. 


Knowing myself what I will probably to is just go up to Waterfalls Cafe, the coffee shop at the senior community where I live, earlier in the morning. At least I’ll have people to talk to.

Thursday, Oct. 18, 2016

About a month ago I bought a package of AA and AAA batteries from a gypsy woman who was selling them in front of the supermarket for about half what I’d pay for Duracells or Energizers. 
She said they would be the best batteries I ever had, truly amazing, I’d have to see what they could do to believe it. 
The haggard woman with her piercing eyes was ripping me off, I was sure; but I found myself handing her a fiver and took the batteries. 
They’ve been in my drawer until just now when the remote for my two year old Samsung TV finally petered out. 
I figure what the hell, I’d try the gypsy batteries. I put them in the remote, pointed it at the TV, and pressed the red on button.  Nothing happened for a few seconds.
Then I slight shock went up my hand and arm and I felt light headed. I smelled ozone in the air. The dogs started whining.
Then the TV turned on to MSNBC, where it is set all of the time.  They were discussing the election. 
Then they cut away to a Trump rally. 
Only instead of Trump on the stage there was a six foot slug with a fish mouth making loud gurgling sounds. 
Now I understand!
Yup…. so far the first thing I saw online was this:

Clinton Got Trump To Take The Bait. Again.

And this time, it got “nasty.”

It’s Weds. night post debate…
what I may write about tomorrow is this:
Projection is a psychological defense. It is unconscious. With Trump who knows whether it is or not. But you can count the ways he attributes characteristics of himself to Hillary. He calls her a liar. A nasty woman. He can’t call he a sex fiend so instead he says her husband is.

This is a preview for the few if any people reading this tonight. These are older panoramic photos which I will use as day dividers.

This is the very first panorama I took with a the new iPhone which enabled you to do this. It came out so good I had it enlarged and professionally framed.

Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2016
Dirty Tricks Dept:
But for the final debate, Hillary Clinton’s campaign wants a different setup, according to two people with direct knowledge of the situation who requested anonymity to speak candidly about debate negotiations.
That’s because at the previous debate, on Oct. 9 in St. Louis, the Trump campaign had an elaborate plan to parade three women who accused Mr. Clinton of sexual assault and rape into the family seating area and force Mr. Clinton to shake their hands as he crossed the room.
Had the Trump campaign succeeded, Mr. Clinton would have come face-to-face with the women on national television, a potentially humiliating and excruciating encounter. However, the Commission on Presidential Debatesintervened, and the women — Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey — never came close to Mr. Clinton.  NEW YORK TIMES 

What the hell is Project Veritas?

Above: From Hardball, people carrying signs in the background include someone with a sign for Project Veritas.

You may have seen these too: someone carrying a sign saying “Project Veritas” over the shoulders of MSNBC commentators when that are outdoors reporting on the sites of the debates.  Sometimes it takes a little work to get around a group or organizations own web pages to get the scoop on who they really are. 
To save you clicking on their website, let me tell you that what is currently features on their website is  their claim of full of  “proof” that the Democrats are rigging the election. 
Fortunately there’s a website called Sourcewatch, run by the legitimate and respected Center for Media and Democracy:
The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) publishes SourceWatch, this collaborative, specialized encyclopedia of the people, organizations, and issues shaping the public agenda. SourceWatch profiles the activities of front groupsPR spinnersindustry-friendly expertsindustry-funded organizations, and think tanks trying to manipulate public opinion on behalf of corporations or government. We also highlight key public policies they are trying to affect and provide ways to get involved. In addition, SourceWatch contains information about others who help document information about PR spin, such as reporters, academics, and watchdog groups. Launched in 2003, SourceWatch now has 72,246 articles, as of today, thanks to interested contributors like you, and over six million new visitors to its pages a year and many returning visitors who rely on our articles regularly.
Thanks to their well researched and footnoted article we now know that Project Veritas is the brainchild of  “ James O'Keefe, a right-wing provocateur known for a series of deceptive videos attacking targets like Planned Parenthood and ACORN, a community organizing group.”

Sourcewatch’s pages mimic the layout of Wikipedia, and the numerous other Wikis. This has proved to be a good format because by now it is so familiar and easy to read and navigate.


It ends as follow:
Project Veritas' October 2016 election-related sting videos (embedded above) reveal tidbits of selectively and (likely deceptively edited) footage absent of any context in which to evaluate them. Unless his organization releases the footage in full, undertaking a fair assessment of their veracity is all but impossible.
Last year Mother Jones had an excellent expose on James O’Keefe:
James O'Keefe, the conservative provocateur, has been on the prowl in Colorado, the setting of a close Senate race between Democratic incumbent Mark Udall and GOP Rep. Cory Gardner, as well as a nip-and-tuck governor's contest. Last week, O'Keefe and two of his collaborators tried to bait Democratic field staffers into approving voter fraud involving Colorado's universal vote-by-mail program, according to three Democratic staffers who interacted with O'Keefe or his colleagues.
Democratic staffers in Colorado recently came to believe they were the subject of an O'Keefe operation after campaign workers became suspicious about would-be volunteers who had asked about filling out and submitting mail-in ballots for others. Recently, the 30-year-old O'Keefe has targeted the Senate campaigns of Arkansas Democrat Mark Pryor and Kentucky Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes by filming undercover videos of staffers or the candidate.
More stories from the MoJo archive on James O'Keefe:
So, now you know.

Tuesday, Oct. 18, 2016

Without eye witnesses and physical evidence most sexual assault cases boil down to a he said — she said situation once it can be confirmed the the opportunity for the assault existed.

I can’t wait until I no longer have to listen to these Trump surrogates.

As I write on MSNBC, A.J. Delgado is spinning out that former PEOPLE writer Natasha Stoynoff claimed it happened to friends but says she could have made it up. Of course, she’s probably pretending not to be conversant with the fact that in the majority of cases like this which end up being prosecuted the testimony of contemporaneous accounts relating that the victim told people after the fact about the incident.

I bet she never thought she and her magazine would be on news shows about a major election scandal?

Now PEOPLE has published the names and accounts from six people who lend credence to Stoynoff’s claims. There are of course two claims. One is that Trump forced himself on her and the other that she ran into Melania Trump on Fifth Avenue.  Donald Trump has denied the first and Melania the second.
To refresh your memory, considering we have to sort one incident out from the others, here’s how Stoynoff describes what Trump did to her:
In her story, Stoynoff recalled taking a tour of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate before the incident took place. “We walked into that room alone, and Trump shut the door behind us. I turned around, and within seconds he was pushing me against the wall and forcing his tongue down my throat,” Stoynoff, 51, described, adding that Trump also told her, “We’re going to have an affair, I’m telling you.”  people.com/...
Five people are now recounting how Stoynoff talked to them shortly after the assault and described what happened to her former journalism professor, Paul McLaughlin.  According to PEOPLE, he said she “called him in tears looking for advice the very night of the harrowing encounter. However, he cautioned her to remain quiet in fear of how Trump may retaliate.”
 Here’s another example, this  from a colleague at PEOPLE, Nancy Green:
“In an early conversation we had in her office, she told me about what happened with Donald Trump,” Green said. “She was shaky, sitting at her desk, relaying that, ‘He took me to this other room, and when we stepped inside, he pushed me against a wall and stuck his tongue down my throat. Melania was upstairs and could have walked in at any time.’
“She talked about her shock, and wondered why it had happened, if she had done anything wrong. I assured her she hadn’t. She was also angry that he had forced himself on her, that she was glad someone had interrupted him, because he was surprisingly strong.”
The other part of this story is relatively insignificant in and of itself. But it speaks to the issue of the veracity of  Stoynoff and Melania Trump.
Stoynoff describes meeting Melania later year: “I actually bumped into Melania on Fifth Avenue, in front of Trump Tower as she walked into the building, carrying baby Barron. ‘Natasha, why don’t we see you anymore?’ she asked, giving me a hug.”
 In her account of the assault she also mentioned how she ran into Melania Trump on Fifth Avenue in New York.  Melania denied this ever happened, and says she never knew Stoynoff. In this case there was an eye witness, her good friend Lisa Hertz, who members being there during the accidental encounter:
“They chatted in a friendly way,” Herz, who met Stoynoff in college, says. “And what struck me most was that Melania was carrying a child and wearing heels.”
What all this distills down to is a strong confirmation that at least one allegation of Trump’s assaulting women meets the criteria used in cases that actually come to trial that often result in convictions.  If one is true, it suggests the all of them are true because they are so similar to each other, and to the behaviors Trump has bragged about.
Addendum: Who could have predicted that PEOPLE would become a major player in this election? For that matter, who would have predicted that Access Hollywood and The Howard Stern Show would figure in a major scandal.?

I began to study psychology when I was 15 and first read Freud. I was an undergraduate psychology major and got my masters in social work on the clinical track. I worked 40 years as a psychotherapist diagnosing and treating people with a wide variety of mental health problems. As director of a mental health clinic and clinical supervisor I was familiar with thousand of patients.
Nowhere have I come across a person with the personality of Donald Trump. I have tried to diagnose him but he defies standard diagnostic categories because he exhibits characteristics of so many diagnoses from the DSM and in addition has paraphilias (groping, toucherism, and possibly  frotteurism) and pathological lying (which isn’t even a listed disorder). Megalomania, obsession with the exercise of power, especially in the domination of others, isn’t in the DSM and of itself isn’t a psychiatric disorder. Trump’s oral impulsivity is unusual if not unprecedented in a presidential candidate. I could go on, but all this leads up to his apparent believing in tin-foil hat dire conspiracy theories.
The latest wrinkle in his diversionary tactic from the sexual allegations is, of course, his claim that the elections are rigged despite having no rational evidence that this is true. And the latest wrinkle in this is that 1.8 million dead voters are going to vote for Hillary.
What can anyone, whether a clinician or a lay person, make of this?  
Damned if I know.

Monday, Oct. 16, 2016
Evening edition:
Melania in CNN interview with Anderson Cooper which will be aired at 8PM EST.
Melania Trump is going to be interviewed this evening… or the already taped interview will be aired, since I just saw a segment of it. 

She’s being trotted out, the loyal wife, to counter the accusations against the lewd mouthed groper. 
What she said, in her pleasantly accented English with, often charming bad grammar was that 1) the host egged her husband on and 2) it was just boy talk. 
"No. No, that's why I was surprised, because I said like I don't know that person that would talk that way, and that he would say that kind of stuff in private," Melania Trump said. 
"I heard many different stuff -- boys talk," she said. "The boys, the way they talk when they grow up and they want to sometimes show each other, 'Oh, this and that' and talking about the girls. But yes, I was surprised, of course.” www.cnn.com/...
I am not attacking her for being less than fluent in colloquial dirty talk English, but I suspect she is.
Somebody ought to translate what Trump said into Slovenian in the interview. 
Unless you count the laughing at what he said, nobody egged her husband on to talk in the way he did about both his desires for unwanted and unexpectedly touching female erogenous area (groping, frotteurism, and toucherism) and his actually acting on these desires and impulses.
It is shameful that having already used and abused women to satisfy his own needs, he is ding this with his wife.  She is a victim. As Trump sometimes ends his Tweets: SAD!
Quotes of the day from my former senator (when I lived in Massachusetts)
Appearing with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Sunday at a rally for Hillary Clinton in Denver, Warren tore into the real estate mogul by calling him a “selfish little sleazeball” and a “pathetic cheapskate” who doesn’t deserve support from anyone who had previously backed Sanders’ primary campaign. 
“Trump said he was excited for a housing crash because then he could swoop in and buy up more real estate on the cheap,” said Warren, referring to comments Trump made ahead of the 2008 recession
“What kind of a man does something like that?” she continued. “A small, insecure money-grubber who cares about no one and nothing but himself. A man who will never be president of the United States.”  from Huffington Post
Hillary’s new online bully ad:

Sunday, Oct. 15, 2016
Man stopped, harassed, arrested by police for walking while black. Heres what YOU can do.
I saw this reported on Huffington Postwhich linked to the Edina, MN police website. Briefly, all this man, Larnie Thomas, was doing was walking by the side of the road. What transpired is a clear demonstration of abuse of police power. Fortunately a woman, Nancy Rowes, who happens to work as a mediator, made a video of the entire episode with plainclothes police officer Lt. T.F. Olson.
She told the Minneapolis Star Tribune:
 she stopped to watch and film because she “was watching something that I didn’t think was very fair.”
Rowles said Thomas wasn’t upset with the officer at first but grew more agitated during the incident.
“I don’t fault him for being agitated,” she said. “I’m a mediator, and I see people all the time be upset in ways that aren’t very pretty. We’re human. It’s the job of the police to deal with it in a good manner, not the [one] who is being falsely accused.” www.startribune.com/...


The 34 yr. Thomas was arrested by a second police officer who arrived, lights flashing and siren blaring, in an ummarked black SUV.  He immediately got out of his vehicle and told Thomas he was under arrest even though Lt Olson hadn’t said one word to him about doing this. 
Clearly this could have escalated and we can only wonder what would have happened if the bystander wasn’t recording the incident.
What YOU can do is help make the video on the Facebook page go viral. Just click Share on the police Facebook page or anywhere on Facebook.  You can also share my story on Facebook and Twitter.
This is from the local paper:
"I witnessed and videoed this earlier today," reads the description in Rowles' video.
"I passed by a man who was walking on the white line of the shoulder of the street. There was construction and it was obvious that the sidewalk was not available right there so he was hugging the right side as far as he could go. I went around him and noticed in my rearview mirror that an unmarked SUV turned on police lights. The officer pulled in front of the pedestrian to cut him off and proceeded to accuse him of walking in the middle of the street."
"I’m not against the police,” Rowles told the Star Tribune. “I was against what he was doing.”  patch.com/… 
The woman, later identified by the local paper as Janet Rowles, making the video was asked by the police to identify herself. She complied. However this brings up the question as to whether, not being suspected of any crime, she had to or not. I looked it up: 
The relevant Supreme Court cases are Terry v. Ohio and Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada. In Terry, the court said that law enforcement can stop a person and conduct a frisk if the officer has a reasonable suspicion (which is less than probable cause) that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person “may be armed and presently dangerous.” This may extend to asking you to identify yourself as it is a kind of investigation.
In Hiibel, the police were investigating a report of a possible crime. They approached Hiibel, who was parked in a car. Hiibel repeatedly refused to give his name, and was subsequently arrested. Nevada had a stop and identify law, which was used to convict him. The Supreme Court determined that these laws are constitutional, so long as they require officers to have reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. However, if the person believes that providing their name would be incriminating, it’s possible that fifth amendment protections might still apply. But if police are not investigating and have no reasonable suspicion, then you do not have to give your name.  Read more

Many of us won’t even look at Salon as we check out the usual websites offering opinion on politics in addition to Daily Kos: Daily Beast, Politco, Slate, Think Progress, Buzzfeed, and Vox for example. I still do since I like Digby and Marcotte. So that’s why I read their lead story by D. Watkins. He is “an Editor at Large for Salon, professor at the University of Baltimore, founder of the BMORE Writers Project, author of "The Beast Side: Living (and Dying) While Black in America" and "The Cook Up: A Crack Rock Memoir."
He writes about Hillary:
As a black millennial myself and a person who was personally affected by that 1994 crime bill, I’m not excited about Hillary Clinton. I know she wasn’t the president back then, but she touted the bill as if it were her own. She was aware of the gross number of African-Americans who were unfairly targeted and incarcerated, and she still called it a success until it became politically unpopular. I can’t vote for Donald Trump, because he’s substance-less, even on top of the fact that black people weren’t allowed to enter many of his earlier rallies ­­– one was even punched in the head by some white geezer for showing up — and just like Hillary, he pivots whenever necessary. The rapper Nas had a great line to sum up a previous presidential election, that actually fits this one better: “Who you gonna elect — Satan or Satan?”  From Salon
Here’s the comment I wrote (one thing I like about Salon is that you can put a photo in your comment):

When I saw this live I wondered about Bernie’s ability to handle an unanticipated interruption with grace, not to mention, political savvy.

I think your brain has been burned by feeling so much of the Berne. Satan vs. Satan? You are stretching for a meme and it is false hyperbole. What’s more, you know it. Shame on you, Prof. Watkins. I know what I saw when the women from BLM came onstage with Bernie the first time and he wasn’t exactly welcoming. 
The notion that Bernie is representative of the progressive future and Hillary of the past ignores that facts that she served as Obama’s secretary of state and at the worst she represents a continuation of the Obama administration. Hilary or Bernie, how different would they be on Supreme Court appointments? Really, on going after Wall Street and corporate excesses? On jobs, on education…  but this just isn’t a more or less equal vs. equal between liberals because Hillary has far more foreign policy knowledge and experience. Most of us shudder at the thought of Trump sitting across from foreign leaders, friends or foes. But I just don’t see Bernie as someone I’d choose over Hillary to sit in that chair.
I was pleased to see I wasn’t alone among the first people to comment:
Basho36 minutes ago
Best lines of the day:
“Who you gonna elect — Satan or Satan?” 
"when he was approached and challenged by Black Lives Matter, [Bernie] was intellectually curious enough to listen"
"Millennials . . . can spot the phoniness from a block away"
Our political system is in critical condition:  Republicans suck.  Democrats don't suck quite so bad, but they suck, too.
You millennials are the future, just about my only hope.  Don't blow it.  Don't lose your idealism as you grow older.  
And welcome to Salon.  I want to hear your voice.
towpath291 hour ago
I'm not the biggest fan of hillary but I do know she's much better than you make her out to be. Just to make your point doesn't mean you get to downplay her accomplishments.
Splint Chesthair1 hour ago
"Millennials have access to too much technology — they’ll fact-check on the spot in 0.8 seconds and they don’t have the patience to be sold the same dream over and over again. "
Splint Chesthair1 hour ago
"Bernie spoke to people, not at them. When he didn’t understand an issue, like when he was approached and challenged by Black Lives Matter, he was intellectually curious enough to listen, in an effort to solve the issue at hand."
You sure about that?  Because I seem to recall him not bothering to return calls to black constituents in Vermont, a state with one of the highest black incarceration rates.  Sounds to me like he was entirely uninterested in the BLM phenomenon until they forced it on him.  If you don't believe that, here is his "intellectual curiosity" on display in April 2015:
This is a man who clearly knew that BLM existed but couldn't be assed to do any research.  Until BLM showed up at his doorstep.
And when you say ...
"Hillary’s good with black talking points, but not good with black people."
... I have to ask, in all seriousness, whether you have looked at the evidence.  Because not only did blacks support Hillary in crushing overwhelming numbers, there are countless stories of her actually listening to blacks -- listening tours and the like -- and the mothers of BLM victims have been campaigning for Hillary precisely because she made the time for them.
Basho34 minutes ago
Do you get paid by Correct-the-Record or do you just do this for free?  Maybe you didn't get the last memo:  The Clinton campaign wants you to quit insulting Sanders voters and millennials.
Yahzi1 hour ago
If you think Hillary Clinton is uninspiring, you are an idiot.
If you watched Hillary put up with the most disrespectful raving lunacy ever played out on a Presidential debate stage, and yet keep her cool and focus on doing the people's work, and are not inspired, you are a f******* idiot.
Take your tired Crooked Hillary memes and shove them where the sun don't shine. That s*** won't play in 2017.

Sat., Oct. 14, 2016

On 7 October, as the political world convulsed from the revelation that Trump had bragged about kissing and groping women without their consent, Cathy Heller, 63, was sitting in her New York home fielding incredulous emails from a friend.
“I keep thinking about how he treated you,” her friend wrote, hours after showing Heller the tape. “Obviously not an isolated incident.”
It was a story Heller had told many friends and family members over the years, but is only now telling in public. Some 20 years ago, she claims, when she met Donald Trump for the first and only time, he grabbed her, went for a kiss, and grew angry with her as she twisted away. “Oh, come on,” she alleges that he barked, before holding her firmly in place and planting his lips on hers. Read at The Guardian 

I added the text in red.
From Daily Beast: As women continue to come forward with disturbing sexual harassment tales about Donald Trump, a former Norwegian model has accused the Republican nominee of going on an “excruciating” rant about women’s breasts at a White House Correspondent’s Dinner in 1993. Vendela Kirsebom, a former Sports Illustrated cover model, told The Daily Mail she had to ask organizers to move her after Trump, who was sitting next to her, continued to make “vulgar” and “sexist” remarks about women’s bodies throughout the night. “He talked about big breasts, small breasts, how one was better than the other and the differences between them,” she recalled. “His main focus was breasts and the sizes of women's bodies. Fat women were not real women in his opinion. … He basically said if you are not attractive and beautiful, then you don't have any purpose as a woman.” Vanity Fair editor-in-chief Graydon Carter, who handled seating for the event, said he recalled Kirsebom coming over to him “almost in tears” and begging to be moved to a different table. Trump had spent most of the night assessing women’s bodies and “asking how they measured up to those of other women,” Carter told The Daily Mail.

Trump has to know that many more women are in the wings trying to overcome their stage fright so they can come forward with accounts of how he molested them. He probably won’t remember many of them. There were so many, how could he?
He may be ignorant enough, so consumed with hatred of the media, to think that when day or two passes without another woman leveling a charge through a newspaper or her lawyer he can rest easy.
As was noted on Lawrence O’Donnell by a Washington Post reporter  this evening,  Karen Tumelty (the reporter who broke the story about Kristin Anderson in the nightclub) and other reporters there are working on allegations brought to them by other women.  
Trump may not grasp that before such stories are made public by a newspaper or lawyer, arduous investigation is done to assure the story can be verified at the least by the victim contemporaneously  reporting the incident to friends or family. The hope of course is that there were witnesses, but it is unlikely Trump would have risked this behavior in front of anybody.
Newspapers and lawyers like Gloria Allred, who has offices in New York and Los Angeles, have large enough staffs experienced with cases like this. Allred is representing The Apprentice contestant Summer Zervos.
What we know from the Bill Cosby case, and the case of the Boston priests who abused boys, is that after the first victims come forward the floodgates are gradually opened and before long there is a many more instance are revealed. If you saw the movie “Spotlight,” which is about how the Boston Globe’s Spotlight reporting team we see how they first learned of a few cases, and during the course of an extensive investigation discovered to their shock that sexual abuse among Boston priest was rampant. 
What we don’t know is whether there is a woman, or women, holding back now because they were actually raped by Trump.  It would be most difficult to reveal this for several profound reasons, including being attacked for not reporting it when it happened. There are also lots of reasons a woman may be reluctant to put herself in the public eye. Shame is probably the main reason. Fear is another. Already it’s been reported that  Mindy Macgillivray, the woman he groped at Mar-a-Lago, says she and her family have been harassed to much since she gave her interview to the Palm Beach Post she’s leaving the country.  
My guess based on what we know about Trump, about what he brags about, and about how the instances with the women who have made allegations mirror his claims, is that when the numbers come out Trump may very well have exceeded 51, the number of known victims of Bill Cosby.
We only have a short time before the election. This may spur women who haven’t come forward to do so. I think by election day the number will be in the 50-60 range.
The awful irony of all this is that when you read my title, you knew exactly what I meant.
Addendum: Read the two stories today about Trump and narcissistic rage because as these stories overwhelm the news and the women Trump may very well have such a reaction. My story is “The escalating danger of Trump’s narcissistic rage” and WeeMama’s story is “Narcissistic rage on the national stage.”
Friday, Oct. 14, 2016
The escalating danger of Trump’s narcissistic rage

Now that yet two more credible allegations of sexual improprieties and assault have come out about Trump, bringing the total to 10, I have to wonder what will happen as Trump has to defend himself against behaviors he knows are true.  He has denied ever meeting any of the women recounting his undated sexual advances; but he can’t claim that about the the latest one since they clearly knew each other.
It is in his nature to counter-punch.  This is what he will do. That’s on the outside, on the inside psychological defenses are at work but we can only make educated guesses as to what they are.  This isn’t all that relevant because we know that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.  
I’ve written about what the final straw, which bombshell, would break the back of Trump’s campaign. That has happened. The campaign camel has a broken back and four broken legs. But now I wonder what will happen when Trump continues to blame Hilliary and an imaginary evil conspiracy  including nefarious (possibly Jewish) banks, the press, and even establishment Republicans. What will his brainwashed supporters do. And as a clinician, I wonder what will happen to Trump himself.
You don’t have to be a psychotherapist like me to conclude that Trump is an extreme narcissist. The DSM-5 is so easy to use laymen can make the actual clinical  diagnosis themselves.
I want to get this online quick, so I apologize for republishing excerpts from what I wrote on August 22nd — with one addition which I will put here rather than at the end.
 I am now consulting with several other psychotherapists to see if they think that someone with a personality make-up like Trump has would be susceptible to a psychotic break when he finally realizes that he has lost any chance of becoming president.  As a clinician who was never interested in learning about narcissistic personality disorder in depth until Trump, this is all new to me. 
Because Trump is such an extreme narcissist and has so much of his self-worth invested in winning the election, we need to understand narcissistic injury and narcissistic rage. We must understand what happens when circumstances drive extreme narcissists into a state of rage, and consider what might happen when one has the power to influence and persuade a significant portion of the population to act out.
"Narcissistic rage is the response of a narcissist to anything they perceive as a threat to their ego, their control or their power. It is usually intense, out of proportion, often random and is used to manipulate."
This is what we can expect: "And at the same time the narcissist may also be plotting how to get revenge on the person who dared to challenge them. So the person gets twice the punishment...!"
Instead of his directing his rage against only person (Hillary Clinton) he may direct it against the system.
Politico published a disturbing article today:
What if Trump won't accept defeat?
In it conservative radio host Charlie Sykes wrote about how Trump is leading his supporters to believe that the election is rigged against him and the the polls are also rigged. Sykes says: emphasis added.
“There’s a sizable portion of his fan base that will believe these things, and it’s toxic to our democracy,” he continued. “You’re basically taking ideas and voices that have been on the fringes — justifiably — and Donald Trump is bringing them squarely into the mainstream and weaponizing them. This is something we’ve not had to confront before. At one time there were responsible voices that would have drawn some lines that would have kept these voices from dominating our discourse, and they don’t exist now.”

Read more: www.politico.com/...   
Their last paragraph gives me pause, to say the least!
"My hope is that if he loses big, anyone who’s not a racist nationalist says ‘Never again’ and the racist nationalists just retreat to their basements where they belong. But my fear is that Bannon and Trump uniting could be about them looking to do something long-term that would ensure this fringe element remains.”
I wrote the following in August, but now we know he is encouraging those who are so angry they want to act out. In fact as of this morning reporters we booed and shout at when the press pool entered his rally. 
I think a Trump loss even if he doesn't absolutely nothing to encourage it, there will be a real feeling among the farthest fringe that they are been given license to act out on their feels of white entitlement. The more Trump encourages them by ranting about how he lost because the system was rigged, the more he throws gasoline on the rage of zealous supports who are possibly mentally unstable supporters. These the risk of this rage turning into a flaming and dangerous fury.
It should go without saying what could happen when unstable people feel empowered to act on their anger.  Trump has made me afraid, and I no long fear what will happen if he wins, I fear what will happen when he looses.

From searching  pictures for angry Trump

Psychology Today: Rage—Coming Soon From a Narcissist Near YouHell hath no fury or contempt as a narcissist you dare to disagree with, tell they’re wrong, or embarrass

  • Control freaks
  • Irritability
  • Short fuses
  • Low frustration tolerance
  • Argumentative
  • Need to have the last word
  • Unable to lose
  • Won’t take “No” for an answer
  • Quick to anger if you don’t accommodate them
  • Quick to being aggressively defensive if you call them on any deficiency, fault or responsibility
  • Can’t apologize or if do, can’t do it sincerely
  • Rarely say, “Thank you” or “Congratulations”
  • Don’t feel or demonstrate remorse
  • Feel entitled to enthusiastic and appreciative approval, adoration, agreement and obedience
  • Gloat in victory, sullen in defeat
  • Quick to rage if you humiliate 
Below, emphasis added:
What is really at the core of narcissists is an instability in their ability to feel and sustain feeling bigger, larger, smarter and more successful than everyone else which they need to feel stable.  And just as Hamlet’s mother said, “the lady doth protest too much,” “the narcissist doth brag, scorn, talk down, primp and belittle too much” in order to continually prove to the world and themselves that they are larger than life.  This is not to increase their self-esteem as much as it is to continually spackle the holes in their core that lead to a feeling of instability—and that, if not spackled, will lead to brittleness followed by fragmentation.
Narcissistic rage occurs when that core instability is threatened and furthermore threatened to destabilize them even further.  Not unlike a wounded animal being the most vicious (because they think the next wound would kill them), narcissistic rage occurs when narcissists believe the next insult/assault to their grandiose based stability would shatter them.
Friday, Oct 14, 2016 · 3:08:10 PM PDT · HalBrown
Psychotherapist Neil Friedman writes to me:
 I think he is suffering his narcissistic injury all the time but has developed quite an efficient and effective system of defenses to keep it covered. . .at least covered enough so as not to expose to much about his wounds. . . What will happen when the wall he has built (did the Mexican's pay for it) around his aggrandized sense of self comes crumbling down is anybodies guess, but we can safely say it won't be pretty. and all the kings horse and all the kings men. . .

This personal account on Huffington Post “Heroin Is Like Licking The Breath Of God” reminded me of one of my closest college friends.

Paul Berger was my friend. He was my roommate in 1961 at Michigan State when the university made an effort to recruit a large number of freshman from New York with its excellent secondary education system because, frankly, they wanted to raise the acadmeic level of the students. 
Paul was from White Plains, 10 miles down route 22 from Mt. Vernon where I live. Paul was a lingust who
I was pretty naive in 1961. Paul was reckless
 in his risk taking. I remember he once had
 sex under a blanket with a woman acquaintance
  in the lobby of the dormitory dining room.
 By 1969 my wife-to-be were living together
 in an old farmhouse outside Mason, Michigan.
was already fluent in five languages. He was on the swim team. He was also a confirmed non-conformist bordering on an anarchist who before long was a frequent guest of the Dean of Students who warned him that his behavior would get him expelled. 
He flouted every rule, although he never hurt anybody. His behavior with women was Trumpian -- he would sometimes just walk up to a woman and embrace her and kss her on the lips. But the things that got him in trouble were along the lines of sitting down at empty table in the Union luch-room and eating the leftovers. He called this progging, a word he coined.
Eventually he was not only exprelled but had a no trespass order so he couldn't cross Grand River Avenue, the street that seperated town from gown.
Paul then went on to wander around Europe where his language skills were put to good use. He told me he slept under bridges in Spain and, although always attracted to women considered himself bisexual and said he “turned tricks with men” to make money.
Eventually Paul moved to New York City.
Once when my wife to be and I were living together Paul came to visit to get away from the lure of herion. He said he'd been "chipping." By that he meant he wasn't using it that heavily. 
We talked about what the experience of being on heroin was like and I will never forget what he said: “it is like being totally loved.”
This fits with what Richard Farrell wrote in Huffington Post:
There is nothing on this planet more euphoric than sticking a needle into my vein, watching the blood register like a snake slithering quietly before it strikes its prey, slowly pushing down on the plunger, feeling the warmth moving up into my shoulder, exploding into a head-to-toe rush the instant the white liquid hits my heart. It’s without a doubt, a hundred times more exhilarating than that millisecond right before you explode in a massive orgasm. 
I’m in love. Nothing can stop me from getting heroin. I will rob you. I will manipulate you. If my mouth is moving, I am lying. I don’t care who you are or what kind of history we had together. You are nothing to me. Heroin is my god.
Paul stayed with us for a month and without too much physical discomfort kicked the habit.
As far as I know he stayed clean and when he went back to the city he got a job as a cab driver, married, and had children.
Tragically his I.V. heroin use caught up with him and when he was in his fifties he died of hepatits C.

Mike Pence Won’t Answer An 11-Year-Old Girl’s Question About Donald Trump Objectifying Women

He made it about foreign policy.

There was a Girl Scout troop, came to our station the other day for a tour, and afterward, there was an 11-year-old girl who told our staff, and she said this completely unsolicited. She was talking about Donald Trump’s words in campaign commercials. She said this: “When I hear those words and look in the mirror, they make me feel bad about myself.” Again, she said that totally unsolicited. What would you say to that 11-year-old girl?
Pence: “Well, I would say to any one of my kids and any children in this country that Donald Trump and I are committed to a safer and more prosperous future for their family. The weak and feckless foreign policy that Hillary Clinton promises to continue has literally caused wider areas of the world to spin apart, the rise of terrorist threats that have inspired violence here at home, and we’ve seen an erosion of law and order in our streets. And we’ve seen opportunities and jobs evaporate and even leave Ohio and leave this country. I would say to any of our kids that if Donald Trump and I have the chance to serve in the White House, that we’re going to work every day for a stronger, safer and more prosperous America.”
Thursday, Oct. 13, 2016
Evening edition:

Chris Mathews just noted that Trump used “slings and arrows” in his rally today, quoting Hamlet. Chris, amused, says “my God, who is this guy quoting Hamlet” and then he went on from memory to recite the verses above.  Watch video clip of Trump here.
Trump said "I take all of these slings and arrows gladly; so we can have our country back.” 
In other words, he is saying he will take all the weapons being thrown at him to save the country for his supporters. He want to convert the image of standing up to “malicious attacks,” as he called them, like a soldier in ancient times being bombarded by rock and arrows.


What Chris Mathews didn’t say is that Trump has no idea what Hamlet was talking about.
Hamlet says these lines feeling so despondent that he is contemplating suicide and his own death, and wondering whether death — perchance to dream — would be worse than living. 
The “to be or not to be” soliloquy is the most famous from all of Shakespeare, if not the most well known from all of literature.
Here’s what educator  William Delaney has to say about why this is:
I think it is entirely possible that Shakespeare wrote the “To be or not to be” soliloquy as a separate piece expressing his own personal feelings about life and death and then put it away in the bottom drawer, as writers will do, until he found a convenient spot for it when he was writing his play Hamlet. What is important in this soliloquy, and what explains its great popularity, is the truths it tells about human existence, not what it reveals about the character of the moody Prince. We have all personally experienced some of the slings and arrows Hamlet complains about, just by being alive and having to deal with people and struggle to keep a niche in the crowded, competitive world. And we have all felt discouraged and wondered whether existence was really worth the trouble.  Reference
Another explanation:
What Hamlet is musing on is the comparison between the pain of life, which he sees as inevitable (the sea of troubles - the slings and arrows - the heart-ache - the thousand natural shocks) and the fear of the uncertainty of death and of possible damnation of suicide.
Hamlet's dilemma is that although he is dissatisfied with life and lists its many torments, he is unsure what death may bring (the dread of something after death). He can't be sure what death has in store; it may be sleep but in perchance to dream he is speculating that it is perhaps an experience worse than life. Death is called the undiscover'd country from whichno traveller returns. In saying that Hamlet is acknowledging that, not only does each living person discover death for themselves, as no one can return from it to describe it, but also that suicide os a one-way ticket. If you get the judgment call wrong, there's no way back.  www.phrases.org.uk/...
Trump quoting Shakespeare is insane enough. His not knowing what the hell he is talking about is Trump being Trump.
Two of my Time covers:
Current Time, my suggestion for next week, and after the election.

It’s another great front page for the New York Daily news which has had many of them about Trump. This  is about a story that could eclipse all the others about women coming forward with traumatic accounts of Trump sexually assaulting them. That is because this is about a child.
I think they decided to emphasize the story about the 10 year old girl quite deliberately. And emphasize it they did with huge typeface and a lascivious looking Donald Trump. 
​The language is lawsuit proof: HE HAD EYES FOR A 10-YEAR-OLD. He saw, he said. It’s indisputable since it’s on video tape.
The top heading calling him a perv certainly fits with this revelation. No doubt some men among his supporters don’t think anything he did makes him a sleazy perv, even his barging in on naked 15 year olds at Miss Teenage America (unless it was their daughter).  
On the bottom is the headline about the  4 women accusing him, after all that’s old news.
The editors know that some boorish men admire Trump being able to get away with this actually engaging in the locker room bragging from the bus. However,  ogling a 10 year old — leering at her — and saying he has a fantasy of having sex with dating her when she’s 20 is another matter. 
These misogynistic men would probably beat up someone who said this about their daughter. 
The primary  heading calling him a perv certainly fits with this — some men among his supporters don’t think anything he did makes him a sleazy perv, not even his barging in on naked 15 year olds at Miss Teenage America (unless one of them was their daughter).
Crystal ball time:
My hunch is that no matter what comes out Trump will be Trump. He seems to have reacted with fury. Remarks are being convey to the press that he is ready to go to war with the media. There have been threats of suing the media and the women making the accusations. If anyone in his inner circle tries to suggest he withdraw he will fire them. 
He will lash out in narcissistic rage until the bitter end, and it will be a bitter, bitter end. And tragically it won’t end after the election. His hardcore supports represent the potentially dangerous unbelly of our society. To call these people a basket of deplorables is to minimize the risk to civil order that they represent.
The People Magazine story will add fuel to the fire. It is a graphic account of an attempted rape.
He can’t deny he said it, it’s on video tape!

Wednesday, Oct. 12, 2016
The following, after even more revelations of Trump’s abuse of women, I thought this would be something to hope for tomorrow:

Willamette Week is a weekly liberal tabloid format alternative newspaper known for it’s exhaustive coverage of the cannabis scene as well as local politics.
Willamette Week (WW) is an alternative weekly newspaper and a website published in Portland, Oregon, United States, since 1974. It features reports on local newspoliticssportsbusiness and culture.
Willamette Week is the only weekly newspaper to have had one of its reporters, Nigel Jaquiss, win a Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting.[2] It is also the first newspaper to have won a Pulitzer for a story first published online.  Wikipedia

“Our readers have a great affection and fondness for Donald Trump,” editor-in-chief Dylan Howard said in a recent interview. “It’s a readership that is disenfranchised. They do not like the political establishment. They see Donald Trump as someone who will champion their cause, just like the National Enquirer has championed their cause for many decades.”
In 2011, shortly after Trump announced he would not run for the Republican nomination for president, the Enquirer published an article headlined, “Millions Implore Donald Trump to Reconsider New Presidential Run.” Eventually, Trump obliged. And soon after he declared his candidacy last summer, he gave Enquirer readers a world exclusive, in which he explained why he was running. “I am the only one who can make America great again!” he wrote. From www.bloomberg.com/...

 My friend just brought me a copy here in the coffee shop at Willamette View, the liberal senior place where I live (shown in photo), and the first thing I thought was that the National Enquirer was having a psychotic break. 
The cover is laid out in National Enquirer format with their usual typeface, colors, and sensational headlines. The only difference is that instead of making hateful and outrageous claims against Hillary, it is all pro-Hillary.
Of course, the National Enquirer is 100% in the bag for Trump. It’s been reported that he and Enquirer publisher David Pecker are good friends.
The sensational headlines in Willamette Week are their real sentiments. They compare this election to an episode of Duck Dynasty. They are all in for Hillary.

Trump is a bully, a predator, and a silver-spoon racist who asks his supporters to join him in the sewer. What's most frightening about his candidacy is how many people are willing to sink to his level.
Trump is a pestilence and not even the second-best candidate running for president. Despite his gaffes, Libertarian Gary Johnson would be better. For all her arrogance and pseudo-scientific drivel, Green Party candidate Dr. Jill Stein also makes Trump look like an apprentice.
Yet there is reason for measured optimism that America can recover from this repulsive election. That's because Hillary Rodham Clinton ranks among the steadiest, most experienced and capable people ever to seek the White House.

They write:
The 2016 presidential race has been one of the most exhausting shouting matches in recent memory.
The ruckus appears to be obscuring what elections are about: creating a marketplace of ideas so voters can choose among those candidates and proposals that offer the best hope for the future.
In some ways, this year's marketplace looks more like a half-stocked convenience store. It offers, in Donald Trump, the least-qualified, least civil presidential candidate we hope we'll ever see, and a candidate of extraordinary qualifications (and considerable flaws) in Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Some ideas about what to write about the election are kind of bouncing around in my mind. While it’s midmorning for the majority of you it’s just after 6:00 AM here in Portland (the one where it’s 6:00AM). The coffee cup is on it’s first Keurig. 
I woke to the great map top of the page on Kos…www.dailykos.com/... and found a graphic to express how I felt about it.
I’m not sure about the words Trumpageddon and Trumpocolapyse because I’d use those to describe what it would be if Trump won. Of course Trump would at some mental level perceive this landslide loss this way. 
On the news now just briefly was the idea of sending people to Mars who would never return. Alas I won’t be alive when they do it. If it was possible now and Trump won I’d try to sign up if my dogs could come along. 

Mind freeze...

A morning thought was what Obama pillow talk must be like when they discuss Donald Trump, the man responsible for the birther movement. 
I imagine Michelle waking up and saying “Barak, you’ll never what I dreamed you did to Trump.”
What I’d give to hear about that dream.
If I was tasked to provide therapy for the Obama family now it would be play therapy. I’d have them freely draw what they’d fantasize happening to  Trump, or make PlayDough figures of him and have go with the playroom kid’s tool set.


As I write this the TV is showing a discussion of Alex Jones and his paying people to disrupt Clinton rallies. I handle this by writing that he and his miserable hoards are disgusting paranoid evil miserable cesspool dwelling trogoldytes.
Hell, my recommendation as a therapist for any of you who is overwhelmed by Trump and worries that he might just win and talking it out with like-minded friends isn’t doing it for you, try the play therapy.
PS: Check out my friend Howard Covitz’s story “Call It By Its Right Name”
www.dailykos.com/…  This remind me of another health way to deal with your feelings engendered by Trump which even psychotherapists like Howard and I find helpful : writing about it on Daily Kos. I should have thought of this right off, since I was engaged in doing it as I was writing this story. In fact, journal/writing therapy is well recognized and was something that helped me cope after the death of my wife.

Wednesday, Oct 12, 2016 · 7:07:37 AM PDT · HalBrown


Psychoanalyst Covitz explains why Trump is like a dangerous stalker.
5 votes
Tuesday, Oct. 11, 2016

In his OpEd today, David Brooks writes about “the essential loneliness” of Donald Trump in “Donald Trump’s Sad, Lonely Life.” Brooks say he sometimes find himself “experiencing feelings of deep sadness and pity” as he pictures Trump as a deeply isolated and lonely person.  As a psychotherapist I feel no sadness or pity for Trump. I have no sympathy for the Devil. Why should I?
Brooks writes: 
 Trump seems incapable of that. He is essentially adviser-less, friendless. His campaign team is made up of cold mercenaries at best and Roger Ailes at worst. His party treats him as a stench it can’t yet remove.
He was a germophobe through most of his life and cut off contact with others, and now I just picture him alone in the middle of the night, tweeting out hatred.
Trump breaks his own world record for being appalling on a weekly basis, but as the campaign sinks to new low after new low, I find myself experiencing feelings of deep sadness and pity.
Imagine if you had to go through a single day without sharing kind little moments with strangers and friends.
Imagine if you had to endure a single week in a hate-filled world, crowded with enemies of your own making, the object of disgust and derision.
You would be a twisted, tortured shrivel, too, and maybe you’d lash out and try to take cruel revenge on the universe. For Trump this is his whole life. 
Brooks has his own psychological analysis:
Trump continues to display the symptoms of narcissistic alexithymia, the inability to understand or describe the emotions in the self. Unable to know themselves, sufferers are unable to understand, relate or attach to others.
To prove their own existence, they hunger for endless attention from outside. Lacking internal measures of their own worth, they rely on external but insecure criteria like wealth, beauty, fame and others’ submission.
In this way, Trump seems to be denied all the pleasures that go with friendship and cooperation. Women could be sources of love and affection, but in his disordered state he can only hate and demean them. His attempts at intimacy are gruesome parodies, lunging at women as if they were pieces of meat.
Don’t worry if you had to look up alexithymia. I did too even though it is considered a psychiatric term. It means simply difficulty in experiencing, expressing, and describing emotional responses. 
​I forgive you for skipping the more technical definition:
Alexithymia is a personality construct characterized by the inability to identify and describe emotions in the self. The core characteristics of alexithymia are marked dysfunction in emotional awareness, social attachment, and interpersonal relating. Furthermore, individuals with alexithymia have difficulty in distinguishing and appreciating the emotions of others, which is thought to lead to unempathic and ineffective emotional responding. Alexithymia is prevalent in approximately 10% of the general population and is known to be comorbid with a number of psychiatric conditions.
I added to my psychological assessment of Trump’s overall this morning after I read about his inability to understand what other people would find funny:
This is about how difficult it was for writers to work with him when he was the subject of a Comedy Central roast.
“One thing that stuck out to me during rehearsal,” Larsen (executive producer) said, “is he would always poll the people around him if they thought it was funny. He never really seemed to have a grasp on what was funny and why it was funny. He was always looking at others to validate if it was funny.”
“I have done this a long time and nobody blacks out punchlines,” said Jesse Joyce, one of the writers. Scrapping punchlines represents “a classic lack of an understanding of how a joke works,” he added.
What people find amusing tell us a lot about them. The meanness of Trump, his taking pleasure in other people’s discomfort or pain which could be defined as sadistic is illustrated by this:
Trump made a few lackluster attempts at cracking wise. He changed a joke meant to slam MacFarlane from: “The only way you’ll ever draw a crowd is with a pencil.” Trump’s revision: “The only crowd you’ll attract is flies.”


My morning story here is “Here’s proof trump can’t act normal because he doesn’t know what normal is.” It is worth reading if this interests you.
I could treat Donald Trump if he became my client because I would engage in the intellectual discipline of empathy. It would be difficult. For most therapists, I’d say for all effective therapists, empathy comes naturally. But there are rare instances where you really have to work on putting yourself in a client’s place so you can, as the saying goes, walk in their shoes.
For example, I’ve had abusive men in therapy who had little insight and blamed their wives for their own behavior, but I still had to try to grasp their experiential world. When some of the men were Trump-like in having little ability to appreciate the pain (emotional especially) they were causing their wives, all I could try to do was work on convincing them that behavioral change would benefit them if they valued their marriage and family.
When I was working in a clinic I knew that their wives were in therapy with a colleague who was counseling them so they had the self-esteem to get out of the marriage.  I can’t count the times when I had men drop out of marital couples therapy because they felt I was siding with their wives. However, when men and women (or in a few cases same sex couples) were both willing to admit they needed to change, my success rate was excellent. I could tell what the chances were by whether or not they both came in willing together for the first session. In all modesty I was a very good marriage counselor.
There’s about as much chance of my becoming Trump’s therapist as there is of a Zombie Apocalypse. Besides I’m retired and would have to renew my license, and he couldn’t afford my fee.

If Trump has lost Fox News… 

Shep Smith Wonders If ‘Almost Fascist’ Trump Has Another Agenda

He says the GOP nominee’s vow to jail Hillary Clinton “might have been bordering on unconstitutional.”

In trying to understand Trump, these are tellings view of some aspects of his psychological make-up which we didn’t know before: Heres another:

 "He never really seemed to have a grasp on what was funny and why it was funny. He was always looking at others to validate if it was funny.”

 There are two parts to this. One is not knowing what was funny (speaks to lack of empathy but much more), and looks to others to tell him what was funny.  Much more here:

The Inside Story Of Donald Trump’s Comedy Central Roast Is Everything You Thought It Would Be

The 2011 event is a window into the mind of the Republican nominee for president.

Clips from the roast here.

Some Trump deplorables.

Monday, Oct. 10, 2016

On Lawrence O’Donnell clips of the dozens of times Trump snorted in the debate and wondering if he had a sinus infection or was on coke.
On Rachel tonight:
Word of the night “how skeevy do the reports on Trump have to get?
And at a Women for Trump rally at the RNC HQ.

The sign holder was interview afterwards

Ya gotta wonder:
I listened to the exchange with Cooper on the radio and without being distracted by visuals it was more disturbing and reprehensible, and unhinged in a way that my psychotherapist friends and I can’t figure out — from a neurological perspective nobody can figure out what’s wrong with his brain… does he have weird seizures under pressure? We have put our collective psychoanalyst minds together on the content of his ISIS escape. To go in a split second from minimizing what he said on the bus to ISIS cutting people’s heads off and drowning them in cages and ranting on about that until brought back to the subject. Then back on the bus topic he avoids answering the question about whether he ever did any of the things he bragged about he uttered a lot of blather before said he did not. I think he was working up the guts to make that lie and reckless fool realized that he had to lie — although he hinted that other women may make allegations which he would deny.
A Freudian could say that his instantly leaping to the example of beheading could symbolize unconscious castration anxiety. This using the example of being drowned in a cage could symbolize death in the womb.

Comment here

Huffington Post called Trump a “monster schmuck.”   It is true that he is a monstrously contemptible and detestable person who is the captain of the basket of deplorables.
However, there are two meanings of the word “schmuck” which most adults familiar with Yiddish slang know.
One is the simply the dictionary definition which is how the word is commonly used, i.e., a foolish or contemptible person, or as Wiki defines it:
 "Schmuck", or "shmuck", in American English is a pejorative term meaning one who is stupid or foolish, or an obnoxious, contemptible or detestable person. The word came into the English language from Yiddish (שמאָק, shmok), where it has similar pejorative meanings, but where its original and literal meaning is penis.[1]
However the second meaning from it’s Yiddish origin is penis. I obviously don’t know the size of Trump’s penis, although it would be pleasant to discover from the wacky Doctor that he needs Viagra.  I just want to call him a little big schmuck because it puts him in his place in two ways.
 It is interchangeable with saying a man is a prick. I know from personal experience that some Jewish adults thought it was vulgar in the fifties.  It was commonly used as a minor insult — he’s a jerk, he’s a prick, he’s a schmuck, were all pretty much interchangeable—  among my Jewish peers and as a general putdown by lots of other kids, girls as well as boys.
Since Trump when mocked for having short fingers assured us that in the other department he was well endowed.


This is yet one of the extraordinarily surreal aspects of Trump’s candidacy. Can you believe that a major news source would have the headline “Donald Trump defends the size of his penis?”
We can thank Marco Rubio for bringing this aspect of Trump out (from CNN Politics)
"He's always calling me Little Marco. And I'll admit he's taller than me. He's like 6'2, which is why I don't understand why his hands are the size of someone who is 5'2," Rubio said in Virginia on Sunday. "And you know what they say about men with small hands? You can't trust them.”
Trump responded by saying:
"Look at those hands, are they small hands?" the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination said, raising them for viewers to see. "And, he referred to my hands -- 'if they're small, something else must be small.’ I guarantee you there's no problem. I guarantee.”
Trump is one of those insecure males who enjoys bullying and being his version of machismo. 
He is a man who wants everyone to admire him because he has a big penis.
While we know from the expert analysis of his hand size based on a cast made for the Madam Tussard Wax Museum his hand size is in the lower 25% for men.


While I can find no science to correlate hand (or foot) size with penis size, we know that urban legend and school yard wisdom has it that one can do this. 
That Trump “would go there” suggests, not necessarily that he is embarrassed about the size of his penis, though it could, but that he feels he needs to assure people that he is a manly man in every way. 


And then there’s this 


Here’s some of what psychoanalyst Howard Covitz (who also writes stories on Daily Kos) has to say about penises:
Rule 1. Men need to carry a moniker like Hose or Rod or Dick or, of course, Donald. Think of all the great Donalds you know ... starting with me. Don't ... I repeat Don't ... Don't ever let your son think his name is Rinse, Jr. Try calling him Hose'emDown-Don (long names with lots of initials do the trick).  My Dad used to tell me every morning: Hose'em Down, Don and then he'd chuckle. So, that's Rule 1. and really important. 
Rule 2. From an early age, teach your son what to call little girls. The Little Guy must come to realize that being a Guy has power. Calling your sister, Sis, is for Sissies. That Dokteur (Freud) from Vienna said that boys need to have pride in their penises ... Phallic Narcissism, he called it. 
What help most  are two things:
Teach your little guy that he has the biggest penis since Alex Phallics, the First Prince of the Weimar Republik and no other man's is as big. To settle the matter, tutor him in calling his boy playmates by endearing names like ... Little, Lyin', Crooked, Wee-Wee-Macher and Phyllis.  He's gotta learn early how to make other guys feel small.

Etymology of Schmuck

In the German language the word Schmuck means "jewelry, adornment".[2] The etymology of the pejorative meaning is a matter of some disagreement.
The lexicographer Michael Wex, author of How to Be a Mentsh (And Not a Shmuck), writes that the Yiddish term and the German term are completely unrelated. "Basically, the Yiddish word comes out of baby talk," according to Wex. "A little boy’s penis is a shtekl, a 'little stick'. Shtekl became shmeckle, in a kind of baby-rhyming thing, and shmeckle became shmuck. Shmeckle is prepubescent and not a dirty word, but shmuck, the non-diminutive, became obscene."[3]
According to Leo Rosten in "Hooray for Yiddish!", the pejorative use of the German "schmuck" derives from Schmock, which is closer to the original Yiddish word: and the transition of the word from meaning "jewel" to meaning "penis" is related to the description of a man's genitals as "the family jewels".[4]
The Online Etymology Dictionary indicates that the term derives from Eastern Yiddish shmok, literally "penis", from Old Polish smok, "grass snake, dragon",[5] but Rosten cites Dr. Shlomo Noble of the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research as saying that shmok derives from shmuck, and not the other way around.[6]


Because of its generally being considered a vulgarity,[6] the word is often euphemized as "schmoe", which was the source of Al Capp's cartoon strip creature the "shmoo".[7] Other variants include "schmo" and "shmo".

In Jewish-American culture

In Jewish homes in the United States, the word normally has been "regarded as so vulgar as to be taboo".[8] Lenny Bruce, a Jewish stand-up comedian, wrote that the use of the word during his performances in 1962 led to his arrest on the West Coast, "by a Yiddish undercover agent who had been placed in the club several nights running to determine if [his] use of Yiddish terms was a cover for profanity".[9]
In The Joys of Yiddish, Leo Rosten wrote: "Never use schmuck lightly, or in the presence of women and children", which was a common view among Jewish people who felt a connection to the language, and who still viewed it as an obscene reference to a penis.[10]

In popular culture

Although schmuck is considered an obscene term in the Yiddish, it has become a common American idiom for "jerk" or "idiot". It can be taken as offensive, however, by some Jewish people, particularly those with strong Yiddish roots. Allan Sherman explained in his book The Rape of the A*P*E* that, if a word is used frequently enough, it loses its shock value and comes into common usage without raising any eyebrows.[11]
The term was notably used in the 2010 comedy film, Dinner for Schmucks, in which the plot centered on a competition among businessmen to see who could invite the biggest idiot to a monthly dinner. In her review of the film for the New York Times, film critic Debbie Schlussel took issue with the movie's use of the term "schmuck", and with its use of Yiddish at all, adding: “The more correct title would have been ‘Dinner for Schlemiels'.”[12] She added, "At The New York Times, where the word is still considered potentially offensive, the title of [the] film may be mentioned only sparingly. Still, advertisements for the movie would probably pass muster", and suggested that the main characters in the film might be more appropriately called "shmendriks".[12]

This blog has moved to a new address

  This website is migrating Due to a problem with this platform, Google Blogger, I have moved my blog to WordPress and given it a new addres...