So, this past weekend, our ‘leader’, the one who refuses to take responsibility for his decisions, the deaths of the soldiers under him, the people he grifted, the ones he refused to pay for doing the job he hired them for…where was I going?
I could spend days just ranting about all of the horrible things this so-called ‘man’ has done, but then I’d never get anything done. Sound familiar?
Anyway, our ‘leader’ tweeted out unsubstantiated claims that Former-President Barack Obama wiretapped the building he lived in while staying in New York City prior to the inauguration.
Ignoring the fact that wiretaps cannot be ordered by the president, a restriction placed to keep authoritarian dictators with delusions of grandeur and extreme self-importance from spying on whoever they want…where was I going?
Oh, right! Former-President Barack Obama could not (legally, anyway) order a wiretap on anyone.
Wiretaps are ordered only when illegal activity of a certain caliber is suspected by the FISA Court, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, part of the Judiciary branch of the US Government, which the Executive branch, the President, has zero control over.
If, indeed, there were wiretaps, it would be because a) Former-President Barack Obama broke the law and placed the wiretaps himself; b) there was just cause for those wiretaps to be ordered; or c) there were no wiretaps.
Moving on from this, these tweets exhibit, in my amateur opinion (though I am fairly accurate when I assess things), paranoid delusions (Paranoid Personality Disorder) and a compulsive need to be the constant center of attention (Histrionic Personality Disorder).
I’ve linked the descriptions to those two disorders for a reason: read them yourself and make your own conclusions; don’t just take my word on it.
“But why hasn’t anyone else, any experts, said this before?”
One, they have, however, due to the American Psychiatric Association’s ethics code, specifically what is informally known as the Goldwater Rule, “armchair diagnoses” are deemed unethical.
As a whole, I do understand this, and, to a point, agree with it. What’s to stop any professional from just going out and publicly attaching a diagnosis on any individual?
Two, because of this rule, psychiatrists are at risk of losing their licenses, the thing they went to school for years for, their careers and livelihoods, if they break this rule.
On the flip side, when does that end? How far are we supposed to let things get before we can speak out against it? Obviously, we shouldn’t be ‘triggered’, but…we shouldn’t stick our heads in the sand and ignore the bad things either.
And why is it that we go to experts, people who have studied their field for years, who practically breathe the subject of which they have an expertise on, why is it that we go to them for everything, climate change, economics, politics, history, mathematics, literature, etc. so on and so forth, but not for this?
Why is there that double standard? Is it because of the stigma attached to mental health issues? Is it because of the Goldwater Rule?
Why is it that we can ask a climate science expert what they think on a certain political figure’s policy on climate science, which is most often also their personal view, but we can’t do the same for mental health experts?
You would think that we would trust the experts’ opinions on their expertise; we do for everything else. Why not this?
I realize that I’m asking the same thing over and over, but that’s due to my inability to understand why things are the way they are when it seems so obvious that they should be another way. It’s just logical. More than that, it’s smart.
To get a bit personal for a moment, I have clinical depression and generalized anxiety disorder. I have, in the past, had panic attacks due to my GAD. I also have hypertension (high blood pressure). You can imagine my terror when my heart rate started rising randomly and pumping hard; I thought I’d been having a heart attack.
I’ve been on medication for my hypertension for years now; I’m 22. Last year, I lost my job and my depression returned in full force, this time accompanied with heightened GAD symptoms.
I had, for a few years prior, had anxiety, but never really noticed; it had been background noise, mostly. However, upon losing my job, it became worse; much worse. What used to be rare, ‘minor’ panic attacks became frequent panic attacks that scared me.
It scared me so much that I went to my doctor and told him what was going on, that I thought I’d been having issues with my hypertension or my heart. He left the room for a moment and came back with a prescription for anti-anxiety medication.
It helped, but not enough, so I went back a month or so later and got a higher dosage.
I have since switched from that to something that helped more, and from that to something that had less side effects that was also for my, yet again, returning depression, following the election.
I didn’t just ignore what was right in front of me; I consulted an expert; and because of that, I feel better than I have in years.
Despite my rising stress levels due to this administration and the fears it brings each and every day.
That’s part of why I’m doing this blog: as a way to cope; and also, as a way to educate those who may not know what’s going on or why it’s even important.
So many people didn’t have proper, factual knowledge this past election, and because of that, we’re where we are now: with a president who is mentally unfit to lead.
And we’re stuck, at least for the moment, because those that have the knowledge and expertise to say this are inhibited by fear of losing what they’ve worked for their entire lives. For doing their duty as American citizens to uphold the values of this country.
And that is, wholly, un-American.
As is having a leader who is unfit to lead due to the mental incapabilities to do so.
“America is great because America is good.” Those are the words of a very wise woman; an expert in her field, the field that is American Politics.
No one is going to be perfect. No one is going to 100% agree with you. Everyone is going to have flaws.
But someone who is mentally fit is always, always, better than someone who is not, especially when the latter has cognitive deficits that inhibit their ability to understand the world at large.
And we need to speak about this. We need to let our experts spread information on their expertise in a clear way.
The Goldwater Rule doesn’t prohibit the experts of their field from speaking on the issues, but it does prohibit those experts from connecting those same issues with those they have not personally interacted with.
While it is a good standard, when it comes to someone who has such a huge impact on millions, of people, I believe it should be suspended.
When it comes to someone who is very much in the public eye, I believe it should be suspended.
When it comes to someone who very clearly has mental deficits, I believe it should be suspended.
When all three of those apply, of course it should be suspended.
Right off, that’s going to anger a lot of people.
Too bad. Them’s the breaks and they’re facts, not ‘alternative facts‘ (which are lies, BTW).
“The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the “separation of church and state.”
Remember that quote from this post about the First Amendment being attacked? Well, it’s time to expand on that like I said I would.
So, our country has what you call (and is stated above, in our constitution) “separation of church and state“. As stated above, that means that the government cannot pass legislation to establish an official religion, meaning that, while you can argue that the US has roots that come from Christian beliefs, it is not a Christian nation.
And it never will be. At least, not without ceasing to be the USA.
There’s also another part of that statement, saying that the government won’t pass legislation showing preference over one religion over another.
Now, clearly, if you’ve been paying attention at all in the last, oh, forever, that’s not been held true. Meaning that, pretty much since its inception, the United States has been violating its own constitution.
These violations have slowly been rolled back, but over the last decade or three, there’s been a bit of a snag… A snag called the religious right.
Also known as the evangelical right, the religious right (herein referred to as RR) is primarily made up of Christians who seek to impose their will and religious beliefs onto others. I could put it more delicately, but that’s what it is.
When you look at civil rights specifically, it becomes more and more clear that this is what’s happening.
With women’s rights, the right to vote, choose her healthcare, make choices about her body, etc. so on and so forth, opponents to these basic freedoms are almost always combatted with religious beliefs. (I’m going to stick with the ones I know best, so the right to vote is, unfortunately, not going to be discussed in-depth.)
- Control of healthcare, specifically, but not limited to, birth control (including permanent birth control in the form of a hysterectomy).
- Back in 2014, Hobby Lobby, the craft store, brought a case to court in an, unfortunately successful, attempt to stop being required to pay for women’s healthcare if they chose to use contraceptives.
- They argued under the principle that, because the owners of the company are religious, the law that mandated them to provide health insurance (the Affordable Care Act) was prohibiting religious freedoms, which would be in violation of the First Amendment. However, because HL is a corporation, which is very clearly not a human being, this is somewhat baffling.
- Now, yes, corporations are given certain rights and protections. However, religion should not be one of them. Religion is an individual belief system; not a set of bylaws. Moreover, you cannot refuse to hire someone on the basis of religion.
- Choices for one’s own body. (This one also has to do with birth control, albeit in the form of abortion – which is only technically birth control.)
- Combatants of abortion, purveyors of the anti-choice* movement, often tout religious morality as a reason to prohibit a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body.
*They are anti-choice, not ‘pro-life’. More on this in a future post.
These are two of the biggest issues with women’s rights. Also a huge issue is the pay gap between women and men, but if I get into that, I’m going to be here for hours.
(Note: I’d planned to speak about LGBTQ+ rights, but decided not to simply because of time and because I could, and plan to, make an entire post about this very large swath of issues.
I also plan on making a post expanding on my post about feminism with a more in-depth look at women’s rights. I just had a thought with that post and accomplished it. Also coming up is a post about POC (specifically Black) rights; that’s a very large, important issue that deserves its own post.)
So, back to the issue of how the RR wants to impose their will and beliefs on you.
Hobby Lobby brought up a court case citing religious freedom in order to skirt around a mandate that required them to treat women like human beings and provide them health insurance that covered them adequately.
Far and wide, opponents of allowing women to decide what they want to do with their bodies, cite religious morality in attempts, sometimes successful, sometimes not, to bar women from having full autonomy over their bodies.
Getting back to the main issue at hand, when you look at these examples, just two of many, it becomes increasingly clear that the US has been, sometimes successfully, disregarding the Constitution by using religious beliefs to make laws, in clear violation of the Establishment Clause.
Look at the recent Muslim ban: the Trump Administration attempted to bar people coming from seven Muslim majority countries and putting Christians in those countries ahead in the priority list.
Again, clear violation of the Establishment Clause. Which is why it was shut down by judges.
I don’t really have a point to this post, to be perfectly honest with you. I could go on and on and on, citing parts of our history, times when laws were made that violated the Constitution and when they were (or weren’t) found unconstitutional, but I’d be here for days. Literally.
I’m also trying to keep these posts on the short-ish side and I’m already approaching 1000 words. (Sorry. Gotta keep it real.)
I guess, if I had to make a point for this post, I’d say this: we still have a lot further to go. And, unfortunately, with the current Administration, it’s much more likely that we go backwards rather than forwards.
The clock never stops ticking. The fight never ends. But, still, we persist.
[This post is a direct copy of a post I made on my personal Facebook regarding this article.]
This is incredibly telling on how people ACTUALLY feel about the Affordable Care Act.
If you’re against the ACA, why?
Is it because your premiums have gone up?
That’s not the ACA, that’s the insurance companies. Obama and the Dems HAD to take out provisions they had in the Act that would PREVENT insurance companies from raising premiums in order to even get the ACA viewed by Congress.
Why is that?
Because the Republicans refused to even bring it to the floor without that. Because the Republicans care about money above all else. They don’t care about you or me; they care about their donors.
Now, are the Democrats perfect in this regard?
Absolutely NOT, but they’re BETTER.
The same problem regarding corporate corruption is present in the Dems as in the Republicans, but it’s nowhere NEAR as rampant or common. Not to mention, the Democrats actually want to make things BETTER for people, as a majority.
(Side note: if you come at me with “the lesser of two evils is still evil”…WTF are you even saying? So, because we can’t get PERFECT, we shouldn’t try for BEST WE CAN? Yeah…no. You’re a shitty human being if you can’t understand that.)
Are you against the ACA because you own a small business and can’t expand while also providing your employees health insurance?
Well…you have a point; I’m sorry, but that’s too bad. Wait for a while and THEN expand. Treat people like humans.
You don’t WANT to wait to expand?
Well…you’re kind of a greedy asshole and a shitty human being.
That’s kind of YOUR problem, not your employees’. You should work on that and try being a better person.
NOW! There’s a really simple solution to this: ‘free’ healthcare for everyone.
“But who’s going to pay for it?!”
Uh…everyone. We’re all going to pay for it. Just like Social Security. It would be an added tax.
BUT BEFORE YOU GET ALL UP IN ARMS ABOUT IT BEING A ‘TAX’:
It would TECHNICALLY be a tax, but, if you look at it another way: it’s one less bill you have to keep track of each month that you would have been paying anyway.
“But what if something happens and I can’t afford [insert]?!”
That’s the point: you WILL be able to afford it. Because you HAVE insurance that FUNCTIONS in practice, not just in theory.
“But some people are sicker/get hurt/etc. and I don’t! I don’t want to pay for them!”
Well…again, you’re kind of a shitty human being and you should get that checked out, but let me explain how it could work.
So, yes, obviously there are some people who have more medical necessities than you may or may not have; and, yes, technically, you WOULD be contributing to their healthcare; BUT, they’re also contributing to YOUR healthcare. It’s all coming from the same place. NO ONE will be without health insurance or be unable to go to the doctor when they need to. INCLUDING YOU!
That’s how this WORKS!! We ALL help each other because WE’RE ALL HUMAN.
Back to the money issue, in order to keep health premiums down, the tax/bill, it would come with a provision that would get rid of tax cuts for the richest people in the country; the people who make millions.
“But that’s taking their money away!!”
No; it’s not. It’s taking the money they SHOULD HAVE been paying in TAXES to begin with, that they WEREN’T, and making them PAY THOSE TAXES.
Now, listen here: these people, the richest of the rich, DO NOT have to pay taxes past a certain point, simply because they make X amount of money.
EVERYONE ELSE, you, me, that person that you don’t like, ALL pay a percentage of taxes.
We get some of it BACK; some each year, such as income tax, and some when we retire, which is Social Security (which, by the way, is THE most popular program that the US has SINCE ITS INCEPTION).
These people, again, the richest of the rich, DON’T HAVE to pay that same percentage. They get CUTS to their taxes, the rate they pay, simply because they. make. more. money.
How is that fair? That’s why our deficit (spending) and debt is so high! We’re, essentially, PAYING for them to MAKE MORE MONEY without getting anything back.
Republicans try to disguise this under the issue of “job creation”, stating that these people, with these tax cuts, will hire more people to work. Only…that’s not true. At all.
These people take this money that they SHOULD HAVE paid in taxes and KEEP it, NOT hire more workers. Then, they turn around and FUND those same Republicans (and Corporate Democrats) to keep them in office so that they can KEEP those tax cuts and even GET MORE TAX CUTS.
Our entire system is corrupt.
[EDIT: I forgot to include this comment that I’d put in the FB post after sharing it.]
DT, the 45th, is the EPITOME, the very ESSENCE, of that corruption. And so many people fell for it because “he says what’s on his mind”.
NO! He said WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR.
He exhibited overt racism (“They [Mexican immigrants] are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.”), sexism (<NOTE: THIS IS SEXUAL ASSAULT “I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful… I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything. […] Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”> Another: “You have to treat ’em [women] like shit.”), torture (“If it doesn’t work, they [military captives] deserve it anyway.”), and so, SO much more, I can’t even list it all; I’d be here forever.