The Pledge Drive continues! If you enjoy this blog, and can afford it, please click on the “donate” button below! Thanks!
If you thought Chuck Tingle’s version of the Clinton-Trump debate last night was surreal, well, take a look at what Dilbert creator and wannabe master persuader Scott Adams has to say about it.
Unlike some of Trump’s superfans, Adams is willing to admit that, yeah, Hillary kind of won the debate, at least by normal debate standards.
Clinton won on points. She had more command of the details and the cleaner answers. Trump did a lot of interrupting and he was defensive. If this were a college debate competition, Clinton would be declared the winner.
But Adams thinks this “victory on the 2D chess board” doesn’t really matter, because in his mind, apparently, Trump is playing some kind of 95th Dimensional mashup of Chess, Cribbage, and Hungry Hungry Hippos, or something. And in this game, Trump is the clear winner.
“Clinton won the debate last night,” Adams explains. “And while she was doing it, Trump won the election.”
IS YOUR MIND BLOWN YET
On the off chance that your mind is not, in fact, blown, let’s look at exactly why Adams thinks Trump is the real victor in this game of 95th Dimension Chesscribbippos.
As he sees it, Hillary needed to prove to skeptical Americans (or at least to Dr. Adams) that she’s healthy. And she failed.
Clinton looked (to my eyes) as if she was drugged, tired, sick, or generally unhealthy, even though she was mentally alert and spoke well. But her eyes were telling a different story. She had the look of someone whose doctors had engineered 90 minutes of alertness for her just for the event.
Huh. This is your takeaway from a debate in which Trump sniffled so much that people started to wonder if he wasn’t hopped up on the cocaine?
Some will say Clinton outperformed expectations because she didn’t cough, collapse, or die right on stage.
But that’s not enough for Adams, who raises the serious medical question: Is Hillary’s smile kind of weird?
Clinton’s smile seemed forced, artificial, and frankly creepy. … My neighbor Kristina hypothesized that Botox was making her smile look unnatural. Science tells us that when a person’s mouth smiles, but their eyes don’t match the smile, they look disingenuous if not creepy. Botox on your crow’s feet lines around your eyes can give that effect. But whatever the reason, something looked off to me.
CLEARLY UNQUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT
Trump, by contrast, was the perfect model of health and handsomeness! Well, not entirely.
To be fair, Trump’s physical appearance won’t win him any votes either. But his makeup looked better than I have seen it (no orange), his haircut was as good as it gets for him … .
But Trump didn’t WIN THE ELECTION LAST NIGHT just by being somewhat less orange than usual. He showed what a calm, cool, and collected customer he is.
Trump needed to solve exactly one problem: Look less scary. Trump needed to counter Clinton’s successful branding of him as having a bad temperament to the point of being dangerous to the country. Trump accomplished exactly that…by…losing the debate.
Wait, what?
Trump was defensive, and debated poorly at points, but he did not look crazy.
MASSIVE WIN
And pundits noticed that he intentionally avoided using his strongest attacks regarding Bill Clinton’s scandals.
You actually think he lost the debate … on purpose?
In other words, he showed control. He stayed in the presidential zone under pressure. And in so doing, he solved for his only remaining problem. He looked safer.
As I put it in a tweet to Adams last night (you’ll have to forgive my typo):
Yeah, Trump throwing a tantrum as the same exact moment he was attacking Hillary for having a bad "temperament" was super duper reassuring. https://t.co/RQnRLxd66C
— David Futrelle (@DavidFutrelle) September 27, 2016
Trump definitely looked presidential, not at all like a giant petulant baby who shouldn’t even be in the same city as the nuclear codes.
BLINKING SARCASM.GIF
The most memorable moments of the first debate: Clinton laughs off Trump’s temperament barb https://t.co/NW6ToTCDFS https://t.co/IR90V9KcLc
— POLITICO (@politico) September 27, 2016
Ladies and gentleman, Donald J. Trump! https://t.co/H9Uy8yzNYZ by @RiosJose559 via @c0nvey
— FLOR DO DESERTO (@FlorDeserto) September 27, 2016
https://twitter.com/peterwsinger/status/780607277938147328
https://twitter.com/CCW000/status/780897508310458368
Oh, wait, that last one isn’t Trump. Hard to tell sometimes.
And here’s the latest Pledge Drive capybara, with a friend:
@Shiriki
Finished. That Alex kid is my fuckin hero. The lack of follow up hearings or review or whatevs is blowing my mind right now. I need to eat something…
Testing testing…1 2 3 testing….
ETA: for some reason the site isn’t letting me post a link to this, but if anyone goes to the USA Today website, their editorial board published an editorial (9/30/2016) on why they’re against Trump winning the election. They don’t normally endorse or reject candidates, in case anyone was wondering about that.
Thanks Kat!
Yes, I am not a member. They are my employer only. The Pastor was just appointed as an interim and brought me (hired) and the two different guys, both with their own criminal records, over (as volunteers).
The Secretary is married to the President. Her default answer is ‘talk to my husband.’ But I’ll see if he can tell me who is on the council.
There are children. I am concerned that this arrangement is a parole violation. (I found her name and number and put it somewhere safe at home)
@Eli
Haven’t got any advice that you haven’t already been given, but all my best. Unfortunately, I don’t hold out much hope that the church hierarchy will do anything about this; I’ve known of way too many similar cases and their lack of resolution.
EDIT:
@Skrikiri
Argh!!! I haven’t been able to finish it yet, but it’s appalling.
@Skrikiri
When MRA’s fantasize about a system that caters to them, this is what I imagined, unlike my imagination this horror show of a court system is very, very real. Those lawyers’ mentalities of “man knows best” is the exact sort of shit that helps keep the Family Courts in Australia the way it is now. Then again it’s not just them, it’s everyone involved that doesn’t care one bit of the spouses and children and instead sympathize with the abusers.
My heart goes out to all those affected by these monsters of humanity and those able to endure long enough to combat and reform the Family Court System.
It’s just… gah! The entire horror just seeps under my skin like a swarm of death-rats and then there’s pain. Like, FUCK. And it is from 2015, so it is not exactly over and done with yet.
@Skiriki
That article was so horrific and horrifying. I had to keep taking breaks and that makes me feel bad, because those poor children have to live with it all day every day.
@my stuff
Spoke to Prez. Thanks to all who recommended that. He said they hired me and they stand by me whatever I decide.
Awesome!
@eli
That’s great news. It’s good to know that they are on your side.
@eli
I’m not sure what that means. Can you elaborate?
Also, the more I think about this, the more I realize that the minister has not thought this through.
He has a duty to protect his parishioners. He also has a duty to make sure that the church grows — or at the very least doesn’t lose parishioners — and a duty to make sure the church doesn’t get sued.
Can you imagine the headlines if the worst happened?
Can you imagine the exodus from the church?
Can you imagine how quickly that church would fold?
And so on.
@eli
For names of the council members, check the church’s newsletter or its website. Their phone numbers or email addresses should be listed in the newsletter and maybe on the website.
For any reader who’s interested in purchasing The Gift of Fear, just scroll over to the right margin (and up) and click through. If you buy it from this source, David Futrelle, who owns this blog, will get a small cut.
@eli
Yay! If you feel up to it, keep us posted 🙂
@Kat
I absolutely hear what you are saying. And I agree that this direction is damaging. I believe that’s why I felt everything caving in on me during the meeting on Saturday.
I agree that he has not thought this through. I’ve been working in churches for a long time and as much as anyone would wish better, the scripture itself provides justification for protecting men like the ones I now have to work with. The prodigal son story is not one of my favorites. The son who stays home and is true and faithful is not given favor when the ‘sinner’ returns. The pastor is a wealthy, successful, former member of this church returning; the two players are from families with wealthy, successful fathers. All of us, pastor, players AND me are from a ‘better’ part of town going to a small, struggling congregation in a stricken and struggling community. I am sure if I had offenses much slighter than theirs, I would not be welcome (pastor never would have approached me at all).
You raise very good questions. I plan on talking to Pastor and raising exactly these issues. This is a congregation that has lost 10% of their members to death in the last year. I’m not in a growth industry here and I’m honestly not too bothered by that. I’m a musician first and a parish musician to pay the bills. I’m sick of churches coddling and hiding those who abuse within their ranks and it’s every church, from the largest to the tiniest, the 1% to the 99%.
So it’s the fact that even though the ink is barely dry on my contract, that the president is expressing that he is behind me, gives me courage to raise an objection to something that I had no inkling I would be dealing with at all just a few sweet hours ago.
Sadly, I don’t think any of this would ever lead to any headlines whatsoever and that is, perhaps, the worst part of it all.
@ eli, seconding Kat:
My two cents: it sounds supportive, but in another way it sounds as if they are trying to place all responsibility for any decisions about this on your shoulders.
Do they mean that if you are unwilling to work with these people, they will not be taken on as volunteers?
Do they mean that if you specify conditions under which you are willing to work with them (say, only if other people are also present), they will meet those conditions?
Do they mean that if you say whether or not they should be in the presence of women or children, they will follow your policy?
Do they mean that if you decide to contact the parole officer and ask whether its appropriate for the sex offender to work in this capacity, you are doing that as an agent of the church?
As employers and as a church they have a duty to face up to these decisions and accept responsibility for them, and to know where the law stands on them.
They cannot delegate them to you. I’m concerned if there is any backlash or resentment from these men, the blame could end up heaped on you unless the church makes it very clear that they are acting according to ethics and the law, not on your ‘whims’.
They need to be aware of the rights of volunteers, parishioners, and staff, and their responsibilities to them and to the law.
@Croquembouche
We crossed. Also very good questions and points. I’m taking all of this in and very seriously.
Fingers crossed for ya, @eli. Good luck!
@ eli, it’s a sticky situation. These men also have rights, including rights to privacy – I have no idea what their privacy rights are as regards their criminal histories, but the church absolutely should know. It’s a complex balance, but exemplifying moral and ethical behavior are supposed to be a primary function of their industry, aren’t they?
@Croquembouche. I would hope that exemplifying moral and ethical behavior would be a primary concern of churches. And the men do have rights (which paradoxically is why I’m asking you all for advice and not people I know who also know them).
That does, however, make me think of some people I could and should probably consult, who I had not considered before.
@eli, disclosing people’s criminal histories to their fellow employees is like disclosing their medical histories. Even if its considered common knowledge, if it’s not done for legitimate safety reasons, it’s gossip. Another area the church should be very aware of their responsibilities to all parties.
Glad you’ve thought of some other people whose input would be useful!
Fingers crossed it all goes well.
The church doesn’t necessarily have to disclose to the congregation the reasons why there are restrictions or an outright prohibition on these men volunteering in certain capacities at the church.
I am a family law attorney. Reading about what’s been happening in Australian family courts (and I read the whole thing in one go) I can’t say I’m surprised at what’s going on there but I can say it disgusts me and there needs to be more people working to put a stop to such dangerous and harmful practices that further victimize children already going through some very major emotional/physical ‘shit’, not to mention the need for some serious regulation of so-called single experts if the courts wish to insist they continue to rely on them to make such major, life-altering decisions. If they lack the experience with children and child abuse issues, maybe they’re not the right single expert to have doing a report that is for family court cases!
And perhaps the legal professionals who are involved in cases that are heard in family court need to have some changes made to add required and evidence-supported continuing education on domestic violence and child abuse (because we can’t teach people empathy, we can teach them they have to act ethically or find a different occupation though).
@eli
Yeah, that story has always baffled me too.
Maybe this will help in your dealings with church members:
Bible Verses on Abuse & Violence
http://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/bible_verses.html
@Roger
*****
Ooh, that’s a nasty cough you’ve got. And with asterisks!
I have no idea what you mean by “all Trump supporters are motivated by racism.” What does my argument have to do with that argument? Just to be clear, I didn’t make the argument that all Trump supporters are motivated by racism. I look forward to your very clear clarification, which I’m sure will clear up this mystery.
Although you don’t admit it, you’ve obviously conceded that I’m right about Trump: He did indeed mean to say that Hillary came out against the TPP immediately after he did because she was copying him. Also, you’ve conceded that Trump was alleging that he could read Hillary’s mind — but in fact, he can’t.
Glad you conceded those points: they were ridiculous.
Now you say that Trump’s allegation about why Hillary changed her stance on the TPP was merely a “suggestion.”
Sure, yeah, a forceful, vehement, loud suggestion.
And you say that it’s not fair to call it a lie.
Dude, that’s the point I made.
You deny that making the suggestion was morally questionable.
Morally questionable? Heck, no. But I am gonna need to see a demonstration of his psychic powers.
Then you say that he can throw this “suggestion” out there and we can decide how valid it is.
Yes, of course he can. He just did!
And we can decide how valid it is. That’s what we’re doing!
Is the “suggestion” that Hillary changed her stance on the TPP because she was copying Trump a good use of Mister Trump’s time in the presidential debate? Is it respectful of the intelligence of the audience?
Absolutely.
The man is the producer-director of the most popular reality TV show ever, Presidential Campaign 2016! And he knows what it takes to get that kind of rating — drama! tackiness! absurdity!
It’s worth noting that the prodigal son does not get his inheritance replaced. He took it and squandered it, and now it’s gone forever. The father does not take the faithful son’s inheritance and split it again to give the prodigal more money.
There is a parallel here in your situation: these men have squandered their right* to a place of prominence in the church and they don’t get that back just because they come back into the fold. That’s gone forever. They get to come back and be welcomed, but they don’t get to come back and go straight back into full favor.
*Note that I don’t think anyone has a “right” to a leadership role in the church, but from what you describe they come from a privileged background where they probably believe that they have such a right.
@ eli
Glad you’re heading towards some sort of solution. And yeah as you probably guessed, that’s one of my most recommended books.
@ msexception
Do you have CPD over there? Here we have to do 12 hours a year training in areas relevant to our areas of practice. There’s no set syllabus but obviously family court people tend to end up covering things like that.
Similarly our judges have to be ‘ticketed’ in various areas of law. So they do get some specialist training.
As for experts (we have single joint experts too) they have to abide by certain conditions set out in our Civil Procedure Rules. That doesn’t necessarily rule out the mavericks, but it does impose at least some standards.
Although we have similar problems in our family court system perhaps the greatest protection for kids is that not only can they have their own lawyers and a guardian ad litem, the courts here take a ‘vote with their feet’ approach to contact, once they’re considered ‘Gillick competent’ (old enough to understand and make rational decisions). That can be from quite a young age. Obviously if the decision is ‘this parent let’s me bunk off school and smoke’ then the court might interfere, but generally if kids decide on their own contact arrangements the courts won’t enforce any orders to the contrary.
It’s still an imperfect system but family law is an inherently difficult area.