DOTS DAY TO DAY

In yesterday's blog post, I used the word "cult," repeatedly, in relation to DJT and his followers. So, today, I thought I'd follow it up with the basic characteristics of a cult, so you can decide, for yourself, if these characteristics fit DJT and his followers. Cults are characterized by several distinct features. 1. Charismatic Leadership: Cults often revolve around a charismatic leader who demands unquestioning loyalty and is considered infallible. To his followers, which include most Republicans, in my view, DJT has something that captivates them. Charm? charisma? That must be it. I'm not a follower, so I don't think he possesses either one, but that's a matter of personal opinion. What DJT's followers say is he is infallible. Nothing he says--lies, half truths, alternative facts, and proof to the contrary fails to move them. They continue to follow him. As for absolute loyalty, there's no question that he demands it. We saw this, often, duri

Threats seem to be everywhere nowadays, so I want to talk about threats in the political world, and some of their immediate and more lasting consequences. DJT's rhetoric, reflected both in his campaign rallies and his social media posts, seems to be becoming darker by the day, the closer we get to November 5th, 2024. I don't think that is an accident. I believe much of it is a planned strategic response. DJT has always been an attention seeker, hasn't he? He used to act out in class, and was finally sent off to military school by his father. Maybe Daddy wanted to avoid all that conflict? Maybe it was too scary for Mommy? Maybe Daddy wanted to help DJT evolve into a more likable and less volatile person? Less of a rule breaker and attention seeker? Sadly, I don't think any of this has worked. We're seeing aggression on the campaign trail and in social media posts, just as we saw, almost daily, during DJT's time in the White House. I call it threats. Victims of th

Not sure why I woke up with this on my mind today, but I probably shouldn't be too surprised. A woman's right to reproductive healthcare, including abortion care, is something extremely important to me, because it means a woman's right to decide what does or doesn't happen to her body, bodily autonomy--something, lets not forget, men have always had. I don't believe anyone has tried to control a man and prohibit a man from having a vasectomy, if he chooses to have one. Conversely, women, throughout the centuries, have often been prohibited from choosing and accessing safe reproductive healthcare, including abortion care, and often necessary abortion care in order to save their lives. This is nothing new. In the US, we've recently had at least two women die because the right to abortion care has been severely restricted or banned, outright, in several red states. Here's how the US took a huge backward lurch in protecting the rights of women, just in case any

On October 2, 2024, a redacted version of Special Counsel Jack Smith's brief in the Donald Trump election subversion case was partially unsealed, possibly breathing new life into the DOJ's case. A ruling by the US Supreme Court, earlier, determined that, now former President Donald Trump, could not be prosecuted for official actions taken by him while in office, giving him immunity from prosecution for those actions. As a result, the Special Counsel had to reconstruct the case, in light of the SCOTUS decision, and the brief mentioned here was filed. Without getting into the appellate process or evidence specifics, I want to comment on what I have learned about certain aspects of this brief and Jack Smith's arguments set forth therein. What follows is my own take on the subject and events, as I understand them, based on what I have read, and not on any personal connection or personal knowledge beyond that. I'm a concerned US citizen, and I am concerned about maintaining