Cold and COVID

My son got a head cold a few days ago, and dutifully went off and got Covid tested.  Came back negative.  Only lasted a few days. 

I seem to have developed one myself now.   No headache or pains:  just "normal" post nasal drip that I often get as the first sign of a head cold.   Throat's not really sore, just a bit irritated like you get with post nasal drip.

I'm suspecting it's not really worth get Covid tested.    I've managed to avoid the swab so far.  

What do you think?   

By the way:  I am an AstraZeneka resister.   Covid barely exists in Brisbane, with (I think) several days this week of no new cases; so it's not as if we are in the midst of a Delta outbreak.

I appreciate that you have to be very unlucky to get the blood clot problem from the vaccine:

In its latest weekly Vaccine Safety Report, the TGA said there have been 87 cases of clotting from the 6.1 million doses of AstraZeneca administered in Australia.

but that's one in 70,000 or so - and even though only a few of them have died, it seems those who get it still end up in hospital for weeks, and it's a very serious condition.  (I am not even sure whether they ever fully recover - the old guy who turned up on 7.30 a couple of weeks ago was out of  hospital but still on blood thinning drugs.)

When the virus isn't really circulating in my local city, and don't need to travel anywhere for a while, I don't really see it worth the risk of taking a medicine that carries a risk of making me seriously ill itself.

Don't get me wrong - if any other vaccine were available I would be in the line up as soon as possible.  

But in my circumstances (more so than if I were a resident of Sydney or Melbourne) I don't think holding off for now to wait to see if Pfizer will soon be available is unreasonable.

Who would want a country full of such nuts anyway?

Floods in China

I find it hard to believe that the people in the train were not in a bigger panic.   Very extraordinary scenes, worthy of a disaster movie:

As for floods and climate change, I wrote this back in 2013: 

...I have been saying since the extraordinarily widespread Australian floods of 2011  that increased flooding and drought may well be the first climate change effect which really becomes very clear and convinces government and voters that serious action on CO2 needs to be taken.  Recent events suggest I may be right. 

I remain unimpressed

I like most space things, and think a permanent lunar base would be a worthwhile endeavour.

But these suborbital flights taken by billionaires are just joy rides for the rich.   Last night, I started watching live the preparation for Bezos's flight, and thought the countdown was paused at 15 mins.  I went and had a shower and by the time I got to bed, the capsule was back on the ground.   

The brief bit of freefall at the top of these rides seems hardly worth it - going for a ride on a "vomit comet" plane could achieve that, and give a much longer overall time to bounce off walls.

If the point is to see the curvature of the Earth and a black, space-like sky, I still think a high altitude balloon ride may be better value.  A much, much longer viewing time, too.

I also think that one of these suborbital flights will crash soon enough, and the market for them will dwindle pretty quickly. 

I don't like being cynical of high tech, rocket related stuff; but on this, I am.

People got around

Is it just me, or are others sometimes surprised to read of how far people would travel in the days when travel was not easy?    I just read a short piece about the Todaiji temple in Nara, which noted that although Japan had its isolation period, it wasn't so disconnected from the rest of Asia before that.   In particular, the Great Buddha statue inside it was the subject of an consecration ceremony that had many guests.   This is the brief description:

A rite to consecrate a newly created Buddhist image is called an eye-opening ceremony. In the year 752, thousands of important monks and court, civil and military officials from around the known world were invited to the commemoration ceremony.

It is said to have been a huge, cosmopolitan affair with representatives from Persia (Iran), Silla (Korea), the Tang Dynasty (China), Vietnam, Central and Southeast Asia and other places in attendance.

The Indian monk Bodhisena invited the spirit into the Buddha by painting the pupils on the eyes of the statue. International music and dances were performed, and it was one big bash!

The story of the influential Indian monk who did the ceremony is expanded upon in this article.

Actually, I see from another site that maybe it was a retired emperor who did (or shared?) the eye painting.  History is so unreliable:

The Great Buddha and Tōdai-ji temple were consecrated in 752. The “eye-opening” ceremony was attended by visitors from the Asian continent. The 17,000 attendees included monks and nobles from Japan, as well as monks and dignitaries from China, Korea, and India. Of course, the reigning Empress Kōken was there. So was her father, the retired emperor Shōmu. Shōmu played an important role at the dedication. As the person most responsible for the building of the statue and temple, he held the paintbrush as the statue’s eyes were painted. This rite was seen as an invitation to the spirit of Buddha to enter the statue (Morimoto 2002).

Anyhow, my point is:  this was a big ceremony with quite a lot of people who had travelled from very far away.   Pretty impressive.

 

Drama at home

The ABC is currently heavily promoting a new (what I think is) light drama series "The Newsreader".  Here's the synopsis:

ABC and Screen Australia are thrilled to announce production is currently underway in Melbourne on the six-part drama series The Newsreader.  Produced by Werner Film Productions (Riot, Dance Academy) and created by Michael Lucas (Five Bedrooms, Offspring), The Newsreader is set in the maelstrom of a commercial television newsroom in 1986.

Starring Anna Torv (Mindhunter, Secret City, Fringe) as Helen Norville, a notoriously difficult star anchor determined to build credibility and Sam Reid (Lambs of God, The Hunting) as Dale Jennings, a diligent young reporter, desperate for a shot at the desk. Together, they’ll cover an extraordinary chain of breaking news including the shock of the Challenger explosion, the misbegotten hype of Halley’s Comet and the global terror of Chernobyl. From messy beginnings, a deep bond is formed that will upend their lives and transform the very fabric of the nightly news bulletin.

It looks pretty dull from the trailer.

But it did make me think:   why do I find Australian drama so unconvincing?   

I can find Australian comedy very funny and good to watch - both the sketch comedy (Micaleff continues to have the funniest - and only - political comedy around), and the more whimsical, character based humour of something like Rosehaven or Fisk.  Even some silly Australian sitcoms I can find funny (not many, mind you.)    And that's not to say there are no comedy failures - I have written about how underwhelming I found Benjamin Law's The Family Law, and how my reaction to Please Like Me was to kind of dislike Josh.  (Gay content creators do get a special privileged run in Australian funded comedy, I'm sure.) 

But Australia drama has always left me completely cold.    It never feels very realistic to me.   

I don't feel completely alone in this - because one of the funniest things in Mad As Hell has always been their mocking takes on the ABC's drama series.   

How does this happen?   Do Australian drama writers all go through the exact same training?  Do they all know each other (it is, presumably, a small community.)  Is it the pool of producers is so small all the stuff they are interested in is the same.   But they just seem to have the special ability to write stuff I find doesn't feel like the world I live in.    I don't know how they do it...   

Money wins

No one really trusts that Michael Wolff all that much, but apparently the interviewer agreed that there are several sources to back him up on Rupert hating Trump:

Michael Wolff, the author of Landslide and two other bestselling books about the Trump administration, has claimed Rupert Murdoch “hates” Donald Trump.

“Rupert hates Donald Trump,” the author told CNN’s Reliable Sources. “Hates him – but Rupert loves money.”...

Wolff said Jason Miller, a former Trump spokesman, backed his reporting. He also insisted that whatever Murdoch feels about Trump, he knows where his interests lie.

“At any rate, the Rupert Murdoch thing is I reported that at that point the decision desk got in touch with Lachlan Murdoch, Lachlan Murdoch called his father, his father said to go with this report, obviously including quite a fetching obscenity directed at Trump.

“How do I know this? I’ll give you the background here. The fact is that I am Rupert Murdoch’s biographer … who was given enormous access to him. I am well-sourced throughout the company and throughout his family, so therefore I know that this happened. My sources are extremely good and without a doubt on this point.”

The CNN host Brian Stelter, who has also written a book about Fox News and Trump, said “there are a lot of sources of say Rupert despises Trump. So why is Fox still so attached to him? Why do you think he hasn’t changed Fox’s editorial strategy?”

“I think that there are two worlds going on here,” Wolff said. “There’s Rupert Murdoch’s world … [and] the Fox network has moved its business model or the Fox News network to an old Trump model, that’s where the money comes from. Would Rupert Murdoch have an alternative to that, that would supply that much money?

“Rupert hates Donald Trump. Hates him. But Rupert loves money. Those are two warring things.”

 

 

Thailand and ghosts

Even a bad foreign film can sometimes be an interesting experience due to what you learn about that country's culture.   That's pretty much how I felt about Pee Mak, a Thai film on Netflix that was apparently a big hit in its native country and has some respectable reviews.

It's actually not very good - a comedy version of an old and very well known Thai ghost story.    In the first ten minutes or so, I thought the comedy might work, but it gets progressively worse:  it soon devolves into pretty low grade slapstick stuff.  There are occasional laughs still, but I think for Westerners, it's pretty strained.   

But nonetheless, while looking at Thai movies as a category on Netflix, I realised that the country must really into ghost stories in a big way.   It seems like most selections have a supernatural theme.

And yeah, there is a Wikipedia page devoted to Ghost in Thai culture, as well as an article at Vice about ghosts and superstitions around Chiang Mai, which begins:

Belief in ghosts, spirits, and superstitions are rife in Thailand. Concern for keeping supernatural beings happy affects everything from personal practices to politics to the real estate market. Even the country's current leader, Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha, boasts about his collection of magical amulets, whose power he purportedly relies on for his success.

Most Thais will freely admit that they believe in phi (the Thai word for ghost), and many citizens identify as animist, a belief system that says everything has a spirit—from a rock to a house to a dead person—and that these spirits must be placated, or there will be consequences. 

According to the author interviewed by Vice, it affects Chiang Mai on a large scale:

There are also malicious ghosts, known as ithaygo, the ghosts of bad death. These ghosts are what I wrote my book about and why an entire section of buildings in Chiang Mai are abandoned.

It all started during the 1997 economic crisis. There wasn't enough money to finish buildings being built at the outer edges of the city or to pay the workers, who were mostly Burmese migrants. These projects were abandoned. No one ever officially lived in those buildings—yet they had ithaygo. People saw shadowy figures inside and some got sick just walking past them.

There was talk that the Burmese migrant workers had squatted inside and died. That was where the bad energy came from. Thais still won't live in that part of the city.

So, ghosts affect the real estate market?
Yes, in Chiang Mai this belief formed an empty donut around the city. You have the city itself and the first ring of housing developments that were being built during the '97 crisis. Many of them have never been officially finished or occupied.

The post-recovery ring of developments is outside of that and Thais bought apartments there. Thai people believe they will be unlucky if they live in a place of misfortune. It doesn't even have to be actual misfortune, it can be potential misfortune. To put it in Thai terms, a lack of progress—a project that stalled part way through—will continue to block current progress.

I have been to Bangkok once, just on 2 or 3 days stopover in my 20's.   Maybe I was jetlagged, but there is not much about the visit that I recall now.   Certainly, no sordid action for which the city was famous was sought, or offered, but I do recall it was a pretty nice hotel I stayed in and some of the food was very spicy.    I haven't seen photos I must have taken there for a long, long time.   But, now that I think of it, a framed silk embroided bird which I gave my Mum, but is now back in my house, must have come from that visit.   I was looking at it the other day and thinking it hasn't faded and still looks quite nice.

On boredom

A rather interesting article in the Washington Post, with the headline explaining what it's all about:

Boredom’s link to mental illnesses, brain injuries and dysfunctional behaviors

Amongst other things I learnt from it, I hadn't realised that an increase in proneness to boredom is a common feature of head injuries:

A harrowing personal experience triggered Danckert’s fascination with boredom as a teenager in Australia.

His older brother, Paul, crashed his car into a tree, suffering a fairly severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Even as his other injuries began to heal, something in Paul had shifted. Frustratingly, he no longer got any enjoyment out of drumming and other activities that he used to love — to him, they were downright boring.

When Danckert trained as a clinical neuropsychologist years later, he treated a number of young men who had head trauma similar to his brother’s. Out of curiosity, he asked them whether they experienced more boredom now than before the accident. Every single one of the men said yes.

“To me, that added up to something sort of organic that has changed in the brain, something that is making it more difficult for these individuals to engage effectively with the world,” he said. “I was fascinated by that and wanted to try to understand it more.”

In a 2013 study, Danckert discovered that the connection between brain injury and boredom went beyond mere anecdotal evidence. He surveyed 52 patients who had suffered either mild, moderate or severe TBI, finding that the presence and severity of head trauma predicted levels of boredom proneness.

The exact mechanism remains unclear, but Danckert suspects it might have something to do with damage to an area of the brain that helps represent value and reward. The orbitofrontal cortex, a part of the frontal lobe that sits just above your eye sockets, is commonly affected in TBI and known to be dysfunctional in patients with depression.

“It may be the case that, having damaged this area, things just don’t seem to have the same kind of value to patients,” Danckert said. “When things lose value or meaning, there’s a good chance that you will be bored by them.

I guess it's a case of the development of anhedonia - the inability to feel pleasure - that is behind it?

There are other points made in the article that were interesting:

The poet and philosopher Lucretius described the plight of the Roman rich in his most famous work, “On the Nature of Things,” as he flees from city house to country home to escape a lingering sense of dissatisfaction. In the fourth century, theologian Evagrius Ponticus warned his fellow monks about the “noonday demon,” a passing feeling of exhaustion and listlessness brought on by the monotony of life.

Of course, in the case of monks, I wouldn't be surprised if they had been awake since 4.30 am and really were exhausted by midday!

One (very modern) irony is whether the internet, by making the vicarious experience of everything from sex to travel so readily available, is making people more prone to boredom by reducing their engagement with the actual experiences.  Maybe the vicarious experience isn't exactly boring, but ultimately becomes unsatisfying.

I think I have been lucky to have low boredom proneness:

More recent research has explored boredom as an inherent trait — known as boredom proneness — which has a whole host of negative associations. People who experience boredom more frequently and with greater intensity are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol, gamble compulsively, binge-eat, drop out of school, drive recklessly and suffer from anxiety or depression. Studies conducted during the coronavirus pandemic also found that individuals high in boredom proneness had a greater tendency to break the rules of social distancing.

“There’s a distinction between in-the-moment feelings of boredom — what psychologists refer to as ‘state boredom’ — which isn’t good or bad,” said psychologist James Danckert at the University of Waterloo. “If you’re high in boredom proneness, however, there really aren’t any positives to be associated with that. It’s not good for your mental health to have this sort of chronic sense of being disengaged or disconnected with the world.”

The article does not talk about something I think relevant to the topic - the extent to which religious belief may affect proneness to boredom.   I mean, put a highly religious person who believes they can engage at any time with a meaningful communication with (or at least, towards) their deity in solitary confinement, and they may presumably cope much better than a person who thinks they are alone in their mind in the universe.   Worked well for George Pell recently...

Anyway, the whole article is good and worth reading.

 

 

The German/Belgian/Dutch floods

Perhaps the single best collection of incredible flood video I have seen is this one from the BBC - although there are some other good examples around:

 

 All of the climate scientists I have seen commenting on it have been very reasonable - pointing out that they have yet to do the "attribution to climate change" calculation, but they have been warning for decades that the additional water in the warming atmosphere (and the additional heat when its not raining) means both more intense rainfall when it does rain, plus more intense (and rapid, I think) drought.

Of course, climate change denialists can still be readily found to say "They never predicted this.  And what is it - more flood or more droughts - you can't have both."

 

Nuance, but it's all bad

If you are interested, he does comment more after this tweet to explain his attitude towards using "fascism".

Tourist visit noted

A conclusion to that very weird story from last year

People who carefully read this blog might recall a post last year about a young man in Brisbane who decided to provide a castration service to men who wanted it.   (To be honest, it makes me feel a bit queasy just imagining this.)

It turns out he's been in jail for a about a year, waiting for a sentence for "malicious acts with intent", and has now been released on probation for another 3 years.

Two of the guys on whom he had performed this gruesome service spoke up for him:

Judge Jones told the court the two men involved had provided "positive" victim impact statements, with one saying the procedure had been a "great benefit to his health and wellbeing".

Judge Jones read victim impact statements to the court. 

"I am eternally grateful to Ryan for enabling me to enjoy life," he read.

Judge Jones said the younger man had wanted all of his sexual organs removed ever since he was a child because he "wanted to be a eunuch".

 And how does one locate someone willing to help you achieve this end?:

The court was told King met the men, a 26-year-old from New South Wales and a 66-year-old from Victoria, on a eunuch-interest website, and the two surgeries occurred at a motel in Logan and a hostel in Brisbane.

 Am I brave enough to Google that topic?   I presume it might be like those pro-anorexia sites - all people trying to turn a mental issue into something unobjectionable.

Anyway, I had forgotten that in my post last year I had found some 2004 research on what motivates  men who want to be castrated.   You can refresh your memory, too, at the first link in this post.

Actually, I see now that a Melbourne based researcher has studied this too (about a decade ago):

Professor Wassersug is researching the motivating factors behind the modern day voluntary eunuch.

“At the moment there are probably over 600 in Australia and interest in and access to voluntary castration here and around the world is growing because of the Internet,” he says.

 “Some of these men have a non-specific Gender Identity Disorder, others a Body Integrity Identity Disorder, and some have extreme sadomasochistic paraphilias (fetishes),” he says.

“The common theme is that they are opting to change their fundamental identity as male – they wish to be emasculated but do not want to be female.”

Other motivating factors, according to Professor Wassersug who has conducted a review of personal histories from 200 voluntary eunuchs include sexual abuse as a child, having witnessed the castration of animals in their youth, having been threatened with castration in their youth and having a strict religious background that condemned sexuality.

Professor Wassersug’s area of research is providing valuable insight into unfamiliar parts of the human condition and in an area of science that has been too long ignored.

“What we are discovering is a tangle of motivating factors which are not being addressed by the medical profession at all – and it needs to be,” he said.....

 

Wassersug and colleagues have been posting questionnaires on the Internet a to understand more about this little discussed area.

Among 178 castrated individuals who have responded to the questionnaire, only 37% had received surgery from medically qualified professionals.

“We are talking about a highly educated population who want to get sexual urges under control. They don’t actually identify themselves as wanting to be a eunuch.”

‘Many who have undergone voluntary castration are neither informed, nor prepared, for the plethora of additional long-term side effects of castration,’ he added.

“Worse still, because they are not discussing these issues with their doctors, they often seek the services of people who are not medically qualified for free or at costs below those of medically qualified personnel. Some of the would-be eunuchs end up in emergency rooms as a result.

The same survey has discussed voluntary castration with 108 ‘underground cutters’, some of whom are experienced in surgery but are putting their clients at risk because of inadequate equipment and procedures.  

What is even more disturbing is that nearly a quarter of the voluntarily castrated men did their own surgeries,” he said.

Good grief:   surely those 108 "cutters" weren't just in Australia?   What a world.

Brexit and farms

I was a bit surprised by this story on Euronews - not because it shows a bad consequence of Brexit, but more because I didn't imagine you could have such a lush looking capsicum farm in England:

More on Tucker

Why does Rupert Murdoch, who virtually pushed everyone else in Britain out of the way to be one of the first to get a COVID vaccine, let his American wingnut outlet's star continue to talk up vaccine fears, when he too has had it:

Also, Tucker's jumped on the election fraud bandwagon (about Georgia) again this week - with claims immediately thoroughly debunked in the real media.

Rupert Murdoch, who could stop this but doesn't, is an appalling person.
 

The ever non-reliable Tucker

The Washington Post has a profile of Tucker Carlson (one he did not co-operate with), and its take on him is best summarised (accurately in my opinion):

“He has positioned himself as the presentable face of White grievance,” said Joseph M. Azam, who resigned in late 2017 as a senior vice president of News Corp., which, like Fox, was controlled by the Murdoch family, because he objected to the company’s tolerance for what he felt were Carlson’s hateful views and other commentary. “He’s on mainstream media, he’s dressed in a suit, he speaks in a way that people see as eloquent and informed, and he’s super confident in what he’s saying.”

But the one anecdote which I have notice people tweeting about is his lies about his first grade teacher:

His mother had left the family. He was raised in La Jolla, in San Diego, by his wealthy father, Richard Carlson, a prominent Republican who worked in the Reagan administration, oversaw Voice of America and married an heiress to the Swanson frozen food family. From the door of his childhood home, Tucker Carlson overlooked La Jolla Beach and Tennis Club, in one of the country’s most expensive communities.

He attended the elite La Jolla Country Day School, where a woman entered his life whom he grew to detest. It was his first-grade teacher, whom he referred to in his book as Mrs. Raymond. He caricatured her as “a parody of earth-mother liberalism” who “wore long Indian-print skirts. . . . She had little interest in conventional academic topics, like reading and penmanship.” He recalled her sobbing theatrically at her desk, saying, “The world is so unfair! You don’t know that yet. But you’ll find out!”

Carlson said he just wanted liberals to “stop blubbering and teach us to read. . . . Mrs. Raymond never did teach us; my father had to hire a tutor to get me through phonics.” Thus, Carlson says, he began his sojourn as a conservative thinker, questioning the liberals who he said were all around him, exemplified by his first-grade teacher.

Which is all rather shocking to Marianna Raymond, 77, who remembers Carlson as “very precious and very, very polite and sweet,” and said she had no idea, until contacted recently by a Washington Post reporter, that her former student had ridiculed her as a key to understanding him.

Raymond said in an interview that she never sobbed at her desk, didn’t wear an Indian skirt and didn’t advocate her political views. She said that not only did she teach Carlson reading at La Jolla Country Day School — with a student body that was “very affluent and White” — but that she also was then hired to tutor him at his home.

“Oh my God,” she said, when informed of Carlson’s attack against her. “That is the most embellished, crazy thing I ever heard.”

No wonder Fox News lawyers argued in a court case that no one should believe what he says - he's just a blowhard.

Carlson is very popular with the white grievance folk over at Catallaxy, by the way.

 Update:  an interesting thread on this on Twitter:

 

Some memeing been done

 

More on fascist friendly approaches to democracy

So, there are a few books coming out about the Trump election loss, and WAPO has run extracts from one on of them in which we learn:

Finally, Election Day had arrived. The morning of Nov. 3, 2020, President Trump was upbeat. The mood in the West Wing was good. Some aides talked giddily of a landslide. Several women who worked in the White House arrived wearing red sweaters in a show of optimism, while some Secret Service agents on the president’s detail sported red ties for the occasion. Trump’s voice was hoarse from his mad dash of rallies, but he thought his exhausting final sprint had sealed the deal. He considered Joe Biden to be a lot of things, but a winner most definitely was not one of them. “I can’t lose to this f------ guy,” Trump told aides. 

Tick off the narcissism box.   Next:

Around noon, his detail whisked Trump across the Potomac River to visit his campaign headquarters in Arlington, where campaign manager Bill Stepien and the senior leadership briefed Trump in the conference room. Stepien outlined what to expect that night — when polls closed in each battleground state, how quickly votes should be tallied and which states would probably have the first projected winners. He explained that because of the huge number of mail-in ballots in many states, it might take long into the night for votes to be counted. Patience was in order.

Stepien explained to Trump that in many battleground states, the first votes to be recorded were expected to be in-person Election Day votes, which could lean Trump, while mail-in votes, which were likely to heavily favor Biden, would be added to the tally later as those ballots were processed. This meant that the early vote totals could well show Trump ahead by solid margins.

“It’s going to be good early,” Stepien told the boss. But, as he cautioned the president, those numbers would be incomplete and the margins probably would tighten later in the evening.

So, he had full warning of what would happen with the count.   

We get an account of how he went off his brain when Fox News called Arizona for Biden:

“They’re calling it way too early,” Oczkowski told Trump. “This thing is close. We still think we’ll win narrowly — and not just us. Doug Ducey’s modeling people show us winning.” Ducey, Arizona’s Republican governor, and his political team had kept in close contact with Trump’s aides.

That hardly reassured the president. “What the f--- is Fox doing?” Trump screamed. Then he barked orders to Kushner: “Call Rupert! Call James and Lachlan!” And to Jason Miller: “Get Sammon. Get Hemmer. They’ve got to reverse this.” The president was referring to Fox owner Rupert Murdoch and his sons, James and Lachlan, as well as Bill Sammon, a top news executive at Fox.

Trump’s tirade continued. “What the f---?” he bellowed. “What the f--- are these guys doing? How could they call this this early?”

Oczkowski again tried to soothe the president. “They’re calling this way too early,” he said. “This is unbelievable.”

Giuliani pushed the president to forget about the Arizona call and just say he won — to step into the East Room and deliver a victory speech. Never mind that Meadows had earlier snapped at Giuliani and said the president couldn’t just declare himself the winner.

Talk about your fascist entitlement to power frame of mind - both from Trump and Giuliani.

Does Trump's reaction make any sense, apart from showing how fragile his narcissism makes him?   Getting Fox to reverse the call would obviously make no difference in the long run - either they were right, or would be proved wrong, and Trump could have gloated later.

I laugh at the image of Trump's dimwitted, entitled, sons losing it:

Eric Trump, who the night before had predicted to friends that his father would win with 322 electoral college votes, flipped out in the Map Room.

“The election is being stolen,” the president’s 36-year-old son said. “Where are these votes coming from? How is this legit?”

He yelled at the campaign’s data analysts, as if it were their fault that his father’s early leads over Biden were shrinking. ”We pay you to do this,” he said. “How can this be happening?"

Eric Trump, through a spokesperson, insisted that he did not berate campaign staff, as described by witnesses.

Donald Trump Jr. said, “There’s no way we lose to this guy,” referring to Biden.

 And then Trump went out and immediately declared it a fraud on national TV.   

Nancy Pelosi's reaction is so accurate:

Pelosi watched Trump’s speech in horror. “It was just a complete, total manifestation [of] insanity,” she recalled in the interview.

“It was clear over that four-year period that this was not a person who was on the level — on the level intellectually, on the level mentally, on the level emotionally and certainly not on the level patriotically,” she said. “So for him to say what he said, I wouldn’t say was [as] surprising as it might have been if we hadn’t seen the instability all along.”

David Frum on post election Trump fascism

I think this is an important and well argued article by David Frum that Trump and his supporters are going down a clear fascist path, and it's time to call it that.

Some extracts:

The Trump movement was always authoritarian and illiberal. It indulged periodically in the rhetoric of violence. Trump himself chafed against the restraints of law. But what the United States did not have before 2020 was a large national movement willing to justify mob violence to claim political power. Now it does.

Is there a precedent? Not in recent years. Since the era of Redemption after Reconstruction, anti-government violence in the United States has been the work of marginal sects and individual extremists. American Islamic State supporters were never going to seize the state, and neither were the Weather Underground, the Ku Klux Klan killers of the 1950s and ’60s, Puerto Rican nationalists, the German American Bund, nor the Communist Party USA.

But the post-election Trump movement is not tiny. It’s not anything like a national majority, but it’s a majority in some states—a plurality in more—and everywhere a significant minority, empowered by the inability of pro-legality Republicans to stand up to them.  

I like this paragraph:

Two traits have historically marked off European-style fascism from more homegrown American traditions of illiberalism: contempt for legality and the cult of violence. Presidential-era Trumpism operated through at least the forms of law. Presidential-era Trumpism glorified military power, not mob attacks on government institutions. Post-presidentially, those past inhibitions are fast dissolving. The conversion of Ashli Babbitt into a martyr, a sort of American Horst Wessel, expresses the transformation. Through 2020, Trump had endorsed deadly force against lawbreakers: “When the looting starts, the shooting starts,” he tweeted on May 29, 2020. Babbitt broke the law too, but not to steal a TV. She was killed as she tried to disrupt the constitutional order, to prevent the formalization of the results of a democratic election.

 And towards the end:

In his interview on July 11—as in the ever more explicit talk of his followers—the new line about the attack on the Capitol is guilty but justified. The election of 2020 was a fraud, and so those who lost it are entitled to overturn it.

I do not consider myself guilty. I admit all the factual aspects of the charge. But I cannot plead that I am guilty of high treason; for there can be no high treason against that treason committed in 1918.

Maybe you recognize those words. They come from Adolf Hitler’s plea of self-defense at his trial for his 1923 Munich putsch. He argued: You are not entitled to the power you hold, so I committed no crime when I tried to grab it back. You blame me for what I did; I blame you for who you are.

 Trump’s no Hitler, obviously. But they share some ways of thinking. The past never repeats itself. But it offers warnings. It’s time to start using the F-word again, not to defame—but to diagnose.

Peter Doherty getting cranky

He makes good points: