Donald Trump grabbed a new lifeline. Speaking at a rally in Charlotte, North Carolina, on October 15th, he raised a hand as if to take an oath and declared: “I am a victim!” The great business tycoon, the one and only man who could fix America and make the place great again (trust me, folks), was laying claim to martyrdom -- and spinning another news cycle. “I am a victim,” he declared, “of one of the great political smear campaigns in the history of our country.
I have admired your writing for years, be it on war and its horrors, on other countries' cultures and the merit of seeing them, or now, on the truly alarming candidacy of Donald Trump. Your history of the domestic abuse and suffering of females at the hands of people like him, reminding us of that 30 years ago case in New York, was so appropriate. Women have faced threats and intimidation and yes, violence for so long at the hands of men like T, and still, "We Rise"! And will continue to do so, as long as writers and activists champion, advise, comfort and call out this treatment, and brave women stand up to help end it. For our daughters...and theirs and theirs, .And for the sons, too..
"Two lessons lurk in this story, one old and one very up to date. First, it’s a reminder of how much women at that time, even after a great wave of feminism, still blamed women (including themselves) for whatever happened to them at the hands of men; second, a man with a character like Steinberg’s is not the kind of guy you want to choose for high office -- or any office at all."
Slightly off topic, but there is another lesson here too. Ordinary people should probably not be on juries--they go with their gut feelings too often and ignore factual evidence in favor of whatever emotion they are harboring. I remember on jury I was on and people were trying to convict the defendant based on the fact that he wore a beard, looked suspicious, and "probably did it" even though there was no evidence. From then on--zero trust.
The citing of the Steinberg/Nussbaum affair here is a rather well conceived review in the writer's lead up to the Trump problem. I remember the whole and sordid episode. We didn't have facile connectivity to world events and accompanying opinions in that day, although I was playing a minor development roll in the magical new form of information exchange and could see it coming. Most of the garbage newspapers - NY Daily News, The NY Post, etc - sensationalized the entire event and concentrated on Ms. Nussbaum. I hadn't yet read the Dr. Hervey Cleckley study of psychopathy, a very severe mental and social disorder. Reading Kurt Vonnegut got me to doing such reading a few years later. I followed the events in the trial in the NYT, which was still a relatively decent newspaper. I had a great deal of compassion for Ms. Nussbaum, having paid some attention to the lead up to the death of Steinberg's and Nussbaum's ward Lisa.
To make a long story short, in my opinion the psychological and physical state of Ms. Nussbaum was minimally, if at all, culpable in promoting Lisa's death. Nussbaum was railroaded, demonized, and sensationalized by the press. The Courts failed her as well. Rather than being incarcerated, she should have received the physical and psychological care her condition called for.
I have learned from reading up on the narcissistic - psychopathic conditions after studying Cleckley's and other related writings. Narcissism and Psychopathy are the more mild and most severe manifestation of the same disorder. Anders Breivik represents the most severe example of the disorder while Trump and H. Clinton represent the mildest; the latter two are just a couple of run of the mill narcissist.
What's with the title? Trump called HRC a 'nasty woman' which she is. Reading about two dreadful males who are connected in the writer's mind but not in the real world is unhelpful. And we already know about Trump's history and attitudes. The inference of the piece is that since Hillary is female, she's the victim (and we should vote for her). I'm not voting for either one.
And Clinton claims a vast right wing conspiracy. She is a victim too. The power of victim hood.
Clinton is a woman and she is nasty. An uncontroversal statement becomes newsworthy because ...?
This article is indicative of problem journalists .. Both sides suck ... This choosing of a perceived lesser evil is to choose evil ...
So are we to support Hillary and compliment Cecile because of PP? Yet Hillary is okay with killing hundreds of babies and other innocent people in these endless wars? Where is the consistency in this?
Jones nails the sickening sociopathy of A Donald, and is spot on in praising the bravery of the women who have exposed it by recounting their horrific experiences with him
But lauding Her Travesty as a "fighter", and all the female Republicans who found it politically expedient to finally break with their nominee, speaks to a blind spot inherent in the expression of identity politics.
I could care less whether an office seeker is female (or black or queer et alia)
I care about what they're going to try to do for women, minorities and every other "other".
The only identity that matters to me is the hue of their humanity.
For the sake of the rest of us USA, get yourselves a Constitutional Monarchy. At least they breed for good manners and get a decent education.
Nasty Woman War Monger vs. Nasty Groper
There, I fixed the headline for you.
Who is less likely to have broken the law: misogynistic Trump or security flaunting Hillary? Have we finally come to this, reduced to choosing a national leader based on the lesser of illegal offenses he or she is alleged to have committed? If they are guilty, they will pay the price soon enough. What we want to know is whether the candidate can be trusted to tackle the problems we face.
Articles like this steer us away from consideration of truly grave and urgent issues facing the nation, indeed all humanity, present and future. As such, they perform a disservice to our common good.