The Donald Affair: Trump Blasts O’Reilly

Everybody, from highbrow political analysts to unknown bloggers (I may be somewhere in-between) are throwing in their finest political analysis possible to make sense of what I would call “The Donald Affair”, the incongruous rise of a mogul within the party of the elite, threatening said elite but rendered untouchable by their own voters which they can’t now control. It’s a class-war within the GOP.

Trump blasts O'Reilly: Fox News haven for 'Trump haters'

Trump blasts O’Reilly: Fox News haven for ‘Trump haters’

What makes the ‘Donald Affair’ so fascinating is  that it is the conservative voters, not the progressives, waging a class war against the elite, INSIDE the elites’ own house, the GOP. And the fun part of this comedy is watching the GOP struggling to keep their house from being ransacked by the pitchforked mob in a T-shirt.

That word, class-war, is the one element avoided by the mainstream media, mainly because it is taboo in this nation of ours. They will have you believe that the Donald ‘problem’ is just a manifestation of popular culture gone awry, the love for the ‘famous’, anger about Washington insiders and illegal immigration. But consider the use of the word ‘elite’ by these outraged conservative voters.

The word ‘elite’ has never been dripping from their mouth as much as it is now. Until his run for the presidency,  ‘elite’ was a word used by the ‘liberals’, a sound that produced immediate attacks on them, for it (wrongly) stood, until now and according to the conservatives, for hatred of the wealthy.

Now, the conservative voters, and some democrats, have ‘embraced‘ the word ‘elite’ with a virulence not shown by the ‘liberals’ before them. Heck, the conservatives are showing more hatred of the ‘elite’ than we ever thought them capable of, and more than us progressives because at least THEY are doing SOMETHING about the elite. They are making the elite and the GOP CEOs TREMBLE.  You would have expected this show of ‘disrespect‘ for the elite to come from the democrats, not from the conservative voters. In that sense, I salute ye, conservatives.

But there is more to this ‘Donald Affair”.  Consider that, while there is open hatred of the ‘elite’, that elite is just a word, an abstraction, an elite without a face. As long as it stays like that, the elite is in trouble because it represents a ‘generalized’ hatred, not a particular one against one person. And yet, putting a face to it TODAY is a bad idea too because we have those elitists showing their real hearts: the guy who increased the AIDS pill from $13 to $700, the peanut king incarcerated for 28 years for the crime of ‘greed’, as the judge called it.

People are not blind. They are just tired of being screwed up by the powers that be.

That’s why the Donald has become an icon, an avatar representing that generalized hatred. He represents “hatred against the INSIDERS”, which is another generalization. Who are the ‘insiders’, what does that means, “insiders”, and how does it shows?

The pro-Donald knows what It means: that the elite has bought our misleadership in Congress and the White House with their lobbyists and PAC donations, and it shows in policies harming the middle class and condoning the criminality of the Wall Street and corporate elite. The ‘anti-migration’ focus is just the nerve where all that buying and criminality ends for them: we have illegal immigration because there are no jobs here and the corporations prefer to hire the cheap Mexican workforce. It all comes back to the economy.

The Donald Affair will stay in the annals of political history of this nation as one of the most interesting episodes, the one that promised the beginning of the shaking down by the electorate of the two political parties: the Trumpists and the Bernies.

Good luck to you all. Don’t let your movement be taken like the ORIGINAL Tea Party by the Koch brothers.

Shutter Island: Moral Therapy, Lobotomies and Mental Illness in Hollywood

Shutter Island, the movie (2010 directed by Martin Scorsese, with Leo DiCaprio and Ben Kingsley), presents an accurate but superficially treated part of the history of the modern psychiatric institution. To make matters worse, somehow the public did not catch the importance of that history in the flick; they were and continue to be thrown off by the question about what was DiCaprio’s character real mental state. It is promoted as a horror movie, which it is, consequently the historic part is lost in the shuffle. I must say parenthetically that this is, in my view, Leo’s best performance, and I have never been a fan of his.

One of the issues treated in the movie is the relation between violence and mental illness. “Treated” is a misnomer, more like ‘used’ to advance the thriller part of the plot. Nevertheless, the correct part of the history of psychiatry is the reference to the two different philosophies of mental illness in the 1800s relating to the treatment of violent people. Each developed its own treatment modality approach, vying to control the emerging business of mental health treatment.

One view, the ‘moral therapy’ approach, is represented in the movie by Ben Kingsley’s character (no spoiler: from the beginning of the movie we know he is a psychiatrist). His character could be a stand for Sammuel Woodward, the doctor who tried to reform the treatment of the mentally ill at the newly created (1833) psych hospital Worcester State Hospital in Massachusetts. This is not in the movie. The pro-surgery approach is represented by Max von Sydow’s character.

To better understand this ‘struggle’ of approaches, I recommend you read the book The History and Politics of Community Mental Health by Murray Levine. This is a MOST read book for anyone interested in that topic. You can read about ‘moral therapy’ on pages 16 to 21. While you wait to get the book, you can try reading  those pages here: a sampler of the book at Barnes and Noble.

The part that I find superficial is this:

There is no mentioning that the failure of the ‘moral’ approach in the US was due to the sabotage inflicted by the pro-surgery faction on the work been done by Woodward, not because the compassionate-humanistic approach failed in itself.

In that battle for the business of mental illness, the pro-surgery attacked any effort that proved efficient without having to torture or submit a person to the cruelty of lobotomies. In the case of Woodward’s work,they flooded the hospital with the most violent patients at a time when the hospital didn’t have the financial resources to deal with the influx. In addition, as we know today, there are ‘different’ levels of mental ‘dysfunction’. Mr. Woodward was focusing first on those who were less ‘psychotic’. The inability to ‘calm’ the aggressive patients led to them calling the approach a ‘failure’.

Shutter Island

But in the movie, we see ‘competition’ between them as a fair one, with the pro-surgery literally sitting there waiting to see if Ben’s approach works. At the end, we are left with the feeling that ‘moral therapy’ is a TOTAL failure and that there is no other alternative than to go the way of the scalpel.

The only one who makes the connections in the movie about the ‘competition’ and immorality of the pro-surgical approach is Leo’s character, but it all gets lost in the ‘detective’ story, in the horror itself.

And then there is the question with which the movie ends:

which is worse

To be or not to be lobotomized, that is the question.

The real question they are asking is about the benefits of psycho-surgery: would you prefer to live as a ‘monster’, a violent mentally ill person, or to be lobotomized and live as a “good man”, i.e., as a zombie? The question actually is one for ‘society‘, not for the individual with mental illness. No one in his or her ‘right or bad’ state of mind would choose to be a zombie: no one on either mental state, PERIOD, especially if it is done without his consent.

But as important as that is, is the assumption that you become “a good man” with lobotomy or drugs. The moral judgment about the ‘goodness’ of a person becomes unnecessary when a human being is turned into a zombie against his will, as we see in the movie with the many patients roaming the grounds. That person stops to be a human being without the capacity to judge his or her actions.

Psycho-surgery as a solution to mental illness, violent or not, shouldn’t even be a question, not on these ‘modern’ times after the horrific history behind that practice.

The moral question should have been: Is it morally right to dehumanize a person against his will so he or her is not a threat to a few? There are other relevant questions but it would be a spoiler for those who have not seen the movie. For example, can the person who committed the crime be considered “a monster”?

Psycho-surgery is live and well. With modernization comes the re-packaging of it with ‘new’ tools and ‘research’ to make the ‘appropriate corrections’  for past ‘mistakes’. The tools always change, the attitude always remain.

I recommend this movie for those of you interested in the topic. Watch it and make your own conclusions. It is a time well spend, the movie is good.

Conservative group trying to mount anti-Trump ad campaign

This is a long article worth reading in its entirety.

This is an extract:

So you can see why the Internet lights up when Donald Trump tosses Jorge Ramos from a presser and tells him “mine’s bigger than yours” (Trump was referring to his heart, but again, whatever). All of Trump’s constant bragging about his money and his poll numbers and his virility speak directly to this surprisingly vibrant middle American fantasy about a castrated white America struggling to re-grow its mojo.

…In the elaborate con that is American electoral politics, the Republican voter has long been the easiest mark in the game, the biggest dope in the room. The people who sponsor election campaigns, who pay the hundreds of millions of dollars to fund the candidates’ charter jets and TV ads and 25-piece marching bands, those people have concrete needs. They want tax breaks, federal contracts, regulatory relief, cheap financing, free security for shipping lanes, antitrust waivers and dozens of other things.

All you have to do to secure a Republican vote is show lots of pictures of gay people kissing or black kids with their pants pulled down or Mexican babies at an emergency room. Call it the “Rove 1-2.” That’s literally all it’s taken to secure decades of Republican votes, a few patriotic words and a little over-the-pants rubbing. While we always got free trade agreements and wars and bailouts and mass deregulation of industry and lots of other stuff the donors definitely wanted, we didn’t get Roe v. Wade overturned or prayer in schools or balanced budgets or censorship of movies and video games or any of a dozen other things Republican voters said they wanted.

Trump Valued Saving His Mother Very Low

New Yorkers may remember the news about the assault on the Donald’s elderly mother on November 1, 1991. He had to be prodded  by the media to reward the hero who chased the young criminal (the son of a Railroad executive) who left her badly injured during the robbery. How much did the Donald estimated was the value of his mom’s life at that time, with inflation factored in?  A DINNER at the PLAZA!!

He didn't even had to pay for the dinner: it probably counted as 'expenses'. Geez!

He didn’t even pay for the dinner: it probably counted as ‘expenses’. Jeez!

Hey, even I had lunch there in the 90s when I was just a lowly mental health case worker.

Somebody said that

“The value of things depend on our attitude towards them.”

The Donald showed us how much he valued the life of the man (in need of a job) who risked his life to save Mommy Trump, and the price he thought worth for saving her life. The saddest part of the affair is that the hero was so totally blinded by being next to an elitist-god, that he could not notice that his life meant nothing to his ‘patron’ and that the dinner invitation was an act to appease the media, which was demanding for the Donald to reward  the hero. He would have shown no gratitude where it not for the press. You see, we are here to serve the elite, they can’t be bothered with gratitude. Time is gold, and blinking for compassion may cut into the  profits.

If this type of questionable moral attitude from a self-called billionaire (is he really?) towards a person who sacrificed his life out of compassion to save this man’s own mother is not enough to explain his outrageous behaviors today, attacking anyone who gets on his way and women and poor people struggling to survive, we need to check our beliefs about what counts as moral and immoral attitude.

This man has NOT grown a heart for you. It is an illusion to think that he is campaigning to “make America great again”.

He only wants to aggrandize himself and rip bigger profits.

PS: I think there was something about him giving a menial job to the hero after the dinner,  but I can’t find the article. If you find it, please post it here.

Solutions to Mass Murders: The Lone Wolf Theory, Gun Control and the Buddhist sutra 19

This is from my other blog. The post is related to mental health, it discusses a Buddhist meditation technique to reduce those nasty thoughts of ill will and hatred that tend to show up uninvited. Some can get out of control, which is the point of the discussion. But mostly they are inoffensive, yet a stain in our mind that keep us busy away from good thinking and intentions.


U.S. Said to Seek Records of New York Anticorruption Panel

From the NYT, this gem of a quote from our distinguished NY State governor, referring to the commission, as he was addressing (reassuring) our ‘honest’ corporate gurus:

“It’s my commission. I can’t ‘interfere’ with it, because it is mine. It is controlled by me,” he said last month, according to Crain’s New York Business.”


This was part of my comment in 2013 when the ‘commission’ was obliterated:

“Well, the shelf-life of morality keeps getting shorter.”

“NYT: Cost of Being Mayor?” Vs ‘Mayor cost to us?’

This NY Times article, Cost of Being Mayor? $650 Million, if He’s Rich, seems like a eulogy to departing (finally!) NY City billionaire mayor Bloomberg. Mama mia! So much $$$ and wealth thrown here and there for everybody who came in contact with this billionaire man who chose to be the mayor of the financial center of the world for FREE, without personal desires to enrich himself!

Funny thing, how much did it cost New Yorkers to RECIPROCATE such generous handouts? The NYT doesn’t mention that in that article. We know that we lost tons of money in corruption, from Mr. B’s pals in Wall Street (WS). City Time’s is an example. He even said we should continue doing business with Mazer, he protected that man unabashedly.

We know that Bloomberg entered city hall in 2001  with a measly 4 billion dollars. He’s leaving with over 20 billions. He and his billionaire pals of WS  were the only ones who year after year increased their  profits in the city despite the increased in poverty around them.

Political contacts are everything in finance. Consider this:

2–If Bloomberg were publicly traded, its stock likely would have taken a dive this week.his company, which sells terminals to Wall Street banks and employees in finance on which it delivers its financial pricing data and journalism. There are now two fewer investments banks buying Bloomberg terminals, not to mention the thousands of finance workers who also will lose their jobs–and their terminals–this year.

It probably was good business for him to be the mayor. He didn’t have that contract with WS before he became mayor. As he is leaving, whatever extra he gave WS on the side for doing business with him (the sky is the limit to imagine what they got from our money and resources), it is gone with him. That’s why there are “fewer banks buying his terminals“, because they know the deal will be over with the new mayor. It’s common knowledge that POLITICS makes politicians wealthier, if they know how to play the pawns.

Consider this too: Bloomberg’s quiet investments in Sharia Finance: an ulterior motive in backing Ground Zero’s Victory Mosque?

Thanks to Mr. B, we New Yorkers are poorer. All that wealth seems to have been transferred to him and his pals. Where else could it have gone, it had to go somewhere if the city is getting poorer? Tax breaks for all billionaires by ‘investing’ in philanthropy, sheltering their money in Caribbean islands (Noticing New York) . Mr. B invested in our public libraries, that’s why he can tell them to close whenever he says so. Now he wants to sell the buildings for profit.

If you are ever interested on how mythology and the cult of the billionaire hero is created, study the propaganda that the main stream media (MSM) printed about this capitalist mayor through out those 12 years.

ANyone who believes that a capitalist like  Bloomberg works as a mayor without self-interests, without intentions to enrich himself by using the city’s resources, should read ONLY the MSM articles promoting him. Don’t venture outside the MSM or else your illusions about the goodness of the capitalist will be destroyed. Hold tight to them illusions, dear Bloomberg follower.