This is very amusing lark--except that something like it (laws against defaming the head of state) have been used against political enemies in places where we would not wish to live. I saw that satirical Onion article today; the possibility had occurred to me a day or so ago. It is interesting--and more than slightly unsettling--to see that others have had the same worrisome thought. (Google for "trigger warning" to see that this issue is real and is apparently common.)
So, which seems more likely?
- He resents a slight, and, realizing that legislation could fix that, (eventually) signs into a law a bar against disparaging a sitting president.
- He resents a slight, and, realizing that legislation could fix that, weighs the damage and decides that such an action would be entirely too petty, too undignified, and too much against what our system has long been assumed to represent, both here and abroad, and lets it go.
Should we be worried? Republicans have been a bit casual about news reportage and our freedom to express opinions (or, indeed, to report observable facts). This kind of law would not be entirely out-of-character for them or for him. I think we should worry--and I have no idea what to propose.
And there is this:
If things are _not_ as bad as they seem, what is it that is likely to prevent the worst? What prophylaxis is in place? What would stay the hands of people who think that they have finally more or less won it all, and have nothing to fear from any direction?
Is this actually the _end game_ of a longstanding program to subvert & pervert of our system? Is Trump our time's short-sighted isolationist and probable Nazi Charles Lindberg ("America First!" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lindbergh#Isolationism_and_America_First_involvement>)? If these are true, what can be done?
Trump seems to get very little sleep. He admits as such--or claims it. I am confident that very little money would be required to buy a computerized mechanism that would cache tweets composed during the day for issue in the small hours--just so one could give the impression of being perpetually awake. In fact, I think this already exists for e-mail. (I have said for years that if I were in a position of authority I absolutely would use such a system.)
Unfortunately, this claims seems to be true; Trump gets very little restful sleep.
I have been saying for some months that sleep deprivation could explain a lot about Trump's erratic behavior; now I see that others have been saying much the same thing.
The Huffington Post (various authors):
March 2016 <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-bulkeley-phd/donald-trump-the-sleep-de_b_9413588.html>.
CNBC January 2017 <http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/17/donald-trump-is-poster-child-of-sleep-deprivation-arianna-huffington.html>.
On the other hand <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/02/donald-trump-s-4-hour-sleep-habit-could-explain-his-personality.html>. Except that it is unlikely that Trump carries the efficient sleeper gene mutation; those people don't seem nutty as a result of sleep deprivation. Or he has both that advantage and some offsetting disadvantage.
Does the cause really matter much?
But now it's personal <http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/08/trumps-nordstrom-attack-blurs-politics-and-personal-business.html>.
Mark_
