Etiquette



DP Etiquette

First rule: Don't be a jackass. Most people are good.

Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.

Thursday, July 2, 2026

Break The Cycle --Short Story (Satire)

 

Break the Cycle

He was thirty-seven, engaged, and allegedly fine.

“Allegedly” because, over wine one night, Mara leaned across the table and said, not unkindly, “I love you, but you’re not… here. You’re a million miles away half the time.”

“I’m right here,” he’d protested, tapping the table.

She shook her head. “Physically, sure. Emotionally? Radio silence. I think you need to become more self-aware. More present. Maybe talk to someone.”

He laughed it off. Then spent three nights awake, feeling something that might have been dread or indigestion, and finally bought a copy of Psychology Today at the corner newsstand,  like a man buying contraband.

The ad almost found him on its own.

SHORT-TERM THERAPY / PSYCHOEDUCATION
Learn to identify, articulate, and own your feelings in precison work including:
affect labeling, guided imagery, controlled exposure to internal states.
Overcome emotional avoidance. Gain clarity. Break the cycle.

He stared at the phrase precision work until the letters blurred.
Short-term. Psychoeducation. Break the cycle.

Mara wanted him more self-aware. This—he told himself—was him trying.

He circled the ad twice.


Protocol 1: The Rock

The office was smaller than he expected. No couch, just two chairs, a plant that looked surprisingly alive, and a framed print of a mountain range that might have been Switzerland or stock photography.

She was already seated when he arrived. Mid-40s, calm eyes, a mild smile.

“Short-term therapy,” she said, after he’d stumbled through his reasons. “Psychoeducation. Precision work around feelings. That’s what you’re hoping for?”

“Yeah. I feel stuck,” he said. “Mara says I’m distant.”

“Stuck,” she repeated. “Close, but I’d call that avoidance. Let’s see if we can stay with what’s underneath. I’d like to try a guided imagery exercise with you. Okay?”

He nodded, because that seemed like the correct behavior.

She asked him to close his eyes and picture himself at the base of a hill.

“There is a rock,” she said. “About the size of a backpack. Heavy, but liftable. You pick it up and carry it up the hill to me. I’m waiting at the top.”

He could see it: the rock, the hill, her silhouette at the crest.
His arms tensed around nothing.

“Walk,” she said softly. “Bring the weight to me. Don’t drop it, don’t rush it. Stay with the feeling in your body. That’s unprocessed affect.”

He imagined trudging. In his mind, it took a few minutes, maybe less.

“Good,” she murmured. “You made it. Now I’m rolling the rock back down. Watch it. There it goes.”

He watched. In the image, the rock clattered away from him, sounding heavier than it had felt to carry.

“Now you go down and get it. Let’s try again. This time, the rock is a little heavier. Notice that.”

The second climb took longer. His shoulders hurt, though they were resting on the arms of a chair in a small office.

“Good,” she said again, same tone. “I’m rolling it down.”

By the third, the rock had doubled in size and his imaginings had begun to lag. Time stretched, each step separate, deliberate.

“Stay with it,” she said. “You’re learning to tolerate difficult, unnamed emotion. Patience with what you’ve always dropped.”

He felt his jaw clench.

On the fifth repetition, the hill extended. She didn’t say how, exactly. She just noted, “The distance is a little longer this time. You’ve carried this feeling for years. See if you can stay with the weight.”

He tried to tell himself it was an exercise. His legs felt tight anyway.

“How far is it?” he asked, eyes still closed.

“Longer than before,” she said. “That’s what matters. Don’t distract yourself. Just carry.”

By the seventh climb the hill had become, without comment, a road. Then a coast. Then, when she next spoke, “You’ve been carrying this for miles. Decades. This is your interior life. Notice how impossible it feels, and keep going.”

His body responded like someone who’d actually been walking: a subtle tremor in his calves, a twitch in his fingers, a hollow ache in his chest.

“Good,” she said, as he imagined arriving at some unseen summit. “You stayed with it. That’s progress.”

He opened his eyes, drained, surprised to find himself still in a static chair.

“How long was that?” he asked, throat dry.

She glanced at the clock. “Forty minutes.”

He stared. Forty minutes, and in his chest, it felt like years.

“Short-term work,” she assured him. “You’re learning patience with your internal weight. Next time, we may increase the distance a little.”

As he left, his stride felt off by half a second, like he was walking with something heavier than his own body.


Protocol 2: Almost

The second session was scheduled two weeks later. He felt oddly relieved when her text confirmed the date—like a rock briefly set down.

“I want to look at how you handle not getting your way,” she said, once they’d settled in. “Life’s disappointments, blocked gratification. Sound relevant?”

He thought of half-finished conversations with Mara, jobs he hadn’t applied for, the way he avoided certain phone calls.

“Yeah,” he said. “I guess.”

She smiled. “We’ll do a simple exercise. I’ll bring you to the brink of something wanted, then stop. Your task is to notice the frustration and stay with it without scrambling to fix it. Ready?”

He swallowed. “Okay.”

They built it slowly. That first week, the thing “wanted” was vague—a sense of relief at finishing a difficult story he was telling about his childhood. She guided him there with questions, then glanced at the clock and said, “We’ll have to stop there. Let’s leave it as is.”

He walked out, unsettled but tentatively proud: he had not demanded an answer, not begged for more time.

The second time, the spacing shifted. Three weeks. She texted, last minute, to confirm.

“I’d like you to picture something closer,” she said in that session. “Something you really want that feels almost in reach. Maybe Mara. Maybe the feeling of being understood. Hold it right at the edge.”

He chose, quietly, the image of Mara’s face when she smiled like he’d done something right. He brought it close enough to almost touch.

“That’s it,” she said. “Stay with that edge. Notice the urge to grab it. Don’t move.”

His chest tightened. The urge was almost physical.

“Okay,” she said suddenly, glancing at the clock. “We’ll stop here for today. You did well with your frustrated desire.”

He sat there, every muscle expecting an extension, time spilling forward where she saw a boundary.

“That’s… it?” he asked.

“For now,” she said. “Between now and next time, just notice when you’re almost getting what you want and don’t. Be curious. Let yourself hang there a little.”

The next time was five weeks out.

In between, he found himself catching that moment constantly: hand reaching for Mara, her phone ringing to drag her away; a project nearly finished when his boss shifted priorities; a friend half-promising to meet and never texting back. Each moment stopped at the brink, and instead of moving on, he lingered there, as instructed.

The third session built the edge sharper. She had him imagine her promising a crucial piece of feedback, some final “insight” about who he was and why he sabotaged things.

“You’re right there,” she said. “You can almost hear it. Feel that?”

He nodded, fists tight.

“Good,” she said. “Let’s end here.”

He stared at her.

“I thought—”

“You tolerated that beautifully,” she said. “You didn’t demand closure. That’s acceptance work.”

His heart kept waiting anyway.

At the end of the session, she didn’t offer a date.

“I’ll text or call about next time,” she said, straightening the papers on her lap. “I want to space it out a bit more. Let you sit with the not-knowing.”

He nodded, trying to look therapeutic, not desperate.

He spent that evening refreshing his messages, then the next day, then three weeks. Each notification triggered the same physiological spike—expectation with no object.

Her call never came.

Some nights, lying beside Mara, his body felt tuned to a frequency of almost: almost asleep, almost comforted, almost reassured. Always waiting for something slightly out of reach.

When Mara asked what was wrong, he said, “I think I’m learning to accept not getting my way.”

She looked at him like he was describing a car accident as “road practice.”


Protocol 3: Name and Tame

When, after two months of silence, he finally messaged to ask whether they were still working together, she responded with a brief: Yes. We’ll do one more round. Come in next Thursday at 3.

He arrived with his jaw already aching.

“This one is about clarity,” she said. “Naming what you feel with precision. You said you feel ‘stuck.’ Let’s refine that.”

He sat forward. “I feel stuck,” he repeated.

She tilted her head. “Close, but not quite palpable. I’m hearing avoidance. Why are you stuck?”

He frowned. “I’m not sure. I just feel—”

“Mmm. I’m hearing anger behind that,” she said. “Can you feel it? Try saying, ‘I feel angry.’”

He hesitated, then tried it on. “I feel angry.”

“How is that different from ‘stuck’?” she asked gently.

“It’s… sharper,” he admitted. “More… real.”

“Good,” she said. “Let’s keep going.”

Over the next forty minutes, she adjusted the words by degrees, always in the same pattern: his vague term, her refinement, his reluctant adoption, his gradual conviction.

“I feel sad.”
“Sad is broad. I’m hearing heartache. Try that.”

“I feel heartache,” he said, and felt something twist in his chest to fit the word.

“I feel frustrated.”
“Frustrated is surface-level. I’m hearing futility. It’s like carrying that rock for miles and realizing the hill never ends.”

He swallowed. “I feel futility.”

It went on.

“I feel dependent on Mara.”
“Dependent is soft. I’m hearing dependent as a noun, as in someone being held up emotionally by another person or party. Say, ‘I feel like a dependent.” He repeated it,  then went on.


“I feel jealous.”
“Jealousy is part of it, but I’m hearing resentment. You resent her for asking you to change.”

He repeated it, slow: “I resent her.”

Each substitution landed like a stamp; his body adjusted to match.

“Notice what happens,” she said, watching him. “When you use the precise word.”

“I feel… more real,” he said. “Like I see what I’ve always been, instead of pretending.”

“Exactly,” she said. “You’re breaking the cycle of vague avoidance.”

The session ended without ceremony. No summary, no “this is what we’ve done.” Just the quiet closing of her notebook and the soft reminder that she would “be in touch about next steps.”

On the way home, he rehearsed his new vocabulary silently, like conjugations in a foreign language.

Heartache. Futility. Resentment. Dependent. Jealousy. Forsaken.

By the time he reached his building, his shoulders were twitching with a phantom weight and his thoughts had the smooth, confident tone of a brochure delivered door to door.


The Breakup

Mara waited until he was sitting.
He was already half-turned toward the door, as if bracing for a load that wasn’t there.

“You don’t seem like yourself lately,” she said.

“That’s inaccurate,” he replied. “I’m accessing previously avoided resentment.”

She blinked.

His copy of Psychology Today lay open on the coffee table, an ad circled twice, the page worn at the edges from being touched.

“I mean you’re… tense,” she said. “Always waiting for something.”

“That’s expectation work,” he said. “I’m practicing staying with wanting and not getting.”

“You stare at your phone all night.”

“That’s part of the protocol. I’m learning to inhabit the build-up without relief.”

She laughed once, dryly, then stopped when he didn’t.

“I just wanted you to be more present,” she said. “More honest about your feelings.”

“I am,” he said earnestly. “I can identify heartache, futility, jealousy, and dependent longing with much more clarity now.”

She stared at him.

“You sound like a deranged brochure,” she said.

“It’s called psychoeducation,” he said gently.

She looked at his hands. His fingers twitched, pinching some invisible edge, like he was still balancing the rock.

“When I touch you, you flinch,” she said.

“That’s just the body remembering the exercise,” he replied. “It means it worked.”

“No,” she said softly. “It means you’re miserable.”

“Miserable is too vague,” he said. “It’s more like… sustained futility with spikes of jealousy.”

He sounded faintly proud, like he’d finally gotten the answer right on a test.

“This was supposed to help us,” she said.

“It did,” he answered. “I can see now that you’re central to my resentment pattern.”

“Jesus.”

“That’s not a blame statement,” he added quickly. “It’s descriptive.”

She wrapped her arms around herself.

“I don’t want to be your ‘pattern,’” she said. “I wanted to be your partner.”

“Partners co-create avoidance,” he said. “The modality helped me see that.”

“So what does that mean… for us?” she asked.

“It means you’re stepping out of the role,” he said.

She squinted at him.

“I’m breaking up with you,” she said.

“Yeah,” he said after a beat. “That fits.”

“Is that all you have to say?” she asked.

“I wish you well,” he said. He paused. “From a distance.”

She swallowed.

“Do you even care that I’m leaving?” she asked.

“Care is fuzzy,” he said. “I feel a mix of heartache and clarified resentment.”

She picked up her bag. He watched the movement with the distant attention of someone observing a test run.

“You don’t seem sad,” she said.

“Sadness is pre-treatment language,” he said.

She moved to the door, then paused.

“You said you wanted something short-term,” she said. “Remember?”

“Yes. ‘Brief psychoeducational protocol,’” he said.

“It wasn’t,” she said.

“It still isn’t,” he replied. “I’m waiting for her to schedule the next session.”

“She’s not calling,” Mara said.

“That’s part of the work,” he said.

“No,” she said. “That’s just… abandonment.”

“Exactly,” he said, and gave a small, strained smile, like he was proud of naming it correctly.

“I hope someday you get yourself back,” she said quietly.

“I think this is who I am now,” he said.

She stepped into the hall.

His hand was already reaching for his phone, checking for a notification that wasn’t there, jaw ticking with the tiny, invisible movement of someone readjusting a load on his shoulders.


Break the Cycle

Weeks later, alone now, he sat in a coffee shop with a half-eaten sandwich and a jitter in his leg that wouldn’t leave.

He’d stopped expecting the therapist’s call, or told himself he had. Still, every vibration from his phone sent a small flash through his chest—anticipation without object.

There was a newspaper by the sugar packets. Someone had left it folded open.

He reached for it, more to occupy his hands than his mind, and his eyes slid down the page.

SHORT-TERM THERAPY / PSYCHOEDUCATION
Learn to identify, articulate, and own your feelings in precison exercises:
affect labeling, guided imagery, controlled exposure to internal states.
Overcome emotional avoidance. Gain clarity. Break the cycle.

He frowned.

The wording sparked something under his skin, like static. Affect labeling, guided imagery, controlled exposure. Precison exercises. Overcome avoidance. Gain clarity.

His jaw twitched.

The name under the ad was not hers. Different therapist. Different address.
Same font. Same order. Same promise.

Same typo in the word precison—sitting there like a small, familiar scar.

He stared a moment longer than normal, then told himself he was being dramatic. Practices probably shared language. Modality, whatever. That was just how the field worked now. Protocols, manuals, standardized scripts.

His pencil hovered over the page.

He felt a heaviness in his arms, like he’d picked something up again.

Slowly, almost gently, he circled the ad.

“Clarity,” he murmured, as his finger traced the words like a mantra. “Control. Clarity. Control.”

Outside, the city moved on: people carrying visible bags and invisible weights up hills no one had named.

The ad’s tagline, in small print, sat just beneath the therapist’s credentials:

Break the cycle.

He stared at it, feeling something tighten and then smooth out inside his chest.

Then he folded the paper, slipped it into his bag, and finished his sandwich, already planning his next short-term work.

Tuesday, June 30, 2026

MAGA’s authoritarian, kleptocratic agenda nears completion

Trump v. Slaughter obliterates anti-corruption protections

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Trump v. Slaughter vastly increases Trump’s power to politicize and corrupt independent federal agencies. This decision is the culmination of decades of radical right authoritarianism in its long‑running mission to accelerate the transfer of wealth and power from the public to a small, entrenched authoritarian elite. For decades, legal firewalls like the 1935 USSC decision in Humphrey’s Executor ensured that regulators enforcing antitrust, financial, labor, and consumer‑protection laws could resist direct presidential retaliation when they crossed powerful corporations or donors. By obliterating those protections, the Court has effectively turned federal agencies that once mediated between public and private interests into powerful, unstoppable instruments of presidential patronage and corruption. This is exactly the kind of legal and governmental environment where authoritarian wealth and power accumulation and authoritarian politics thrive.

This decision gives Trump new power to finish corrupting the federal government’s enforcement machinery and to continue gutting already weak anti‑corruption and pro-civil‑liberties laws and regulations. Chairs and commissioners at the FTC, SEC, CFPB, NLRB, and other independent bodies now serve at the absolute pleasure of a president who has repeatedly framed regulators, inspectors general, and prosecutors as enemies when they investigate his allies or business interests.

The effects of this USSC decision are absolutely predictable. Meaningful law and regulation enforcement at the federal level has ended. Federal agency leaders now know that aggressive action against monopoly corruption, dark money abuses, and aggressive surveillance will cost them their jobs is they piss Trump off. However, “morally flexible” bureaucrats who work to protect Trump and protected elite interests will be rewarded. Over time, wealth and power will flow upward. Lax to non-existent antitrust law enforcement, permissive financial regulation, and weakened workplace protections are coming with a vengeance. Political power is now concentrated in an utterly corrupt presidency that is fully aligned with the richest and best‑organized individuals and business sectors is America.

The danger to honest, transparent government and democracy is profound, not abstract. Sure, independent agencies were never perfectly insulated from special interest capture, but their at least partial autonomy created possibilities for public‑minded officials to resist corrupting influences from both corporate pressure and White House interference. That autonomy is now gone. When it is inconvenient to Trump or his elite allies and donors, federal laws will not be enforced. Provided they keep Trump on their side, Trump’s donors, media allies, enablers, and favored industries are free to feed at the public interest trough. They can freely steal, embezzle, waste, and grift, without limit or federal law interference.

What used to be core rule‑of‑law functions in antitrust regulations, securities fraud, consumer finance, labor rights, and personal privacy, are now sources of special interest power. That obliterates one of the last institutional buffers protecting ordinary Americans and the broader public interest.


The unitary executive legal theory

For context, this USSC decision in Trump v. Slaughter is based on an authoritarian, radical right legal theory called the unitary executive theory. That legal theory holds that the president alone has absolute power to hire and fire all executive branch federal employees for any reason or no reason at all. According to the MAGA version of the unitary executive, Congress cannot pass laws to protect regulators, prosecutors, or watchdogs from presidential retaliation or special interest corruption. Current laws require a president to fire protected federal employees for cause, i.e., corruption, incompetence, unreasonable waste, or malfeasance.

Before congress established a degree of independence from corrupting special interest and White House influences, the federal government was much more corrupt than after protections for federal employees were written into laws. The USSC upheld those protections from corruption in its 1935 Humphrey’s Executor decision. Humphrey’s Executor was a key point in how the federal government tried to protect the public’s interest from both presidential and special‑interest corruption. Now those protections are completely or almost completely gone.

Info sources: Link, link, link, link, link, link, link, link, link

Q: Are legal, policy and advocacy experts mostly correct to characterize Trump v. Slaughter as one of the most important and most corrupting and anti‑democratic Supreme Court decisions in modern US history, or is this just a tempest in the teapot?



It didn’t really take a crystal ball to see this monster coming for our democracy and rule of law – lots of experts saw this horror coming because they knew Trump and his USSC are completely corrupt

Monday, June 29, 2026

Trump’s kleptocracy and public infrastructure

Gordie Howe bridge that connects
Detroit MI with Windsor Ontario

Decades ago, Canada and Michigan started to set up a deal to build a new bridge to allow increased traffic and commerce to flow more easily across the border. The old bridge was too small and obsolete. After decades, the new bridge was built and finally to ready to open this month. The bridge sits on the busiest US-Canada trade route.

Canada agreed to design, build, finance, operate and maintain the bridge and related infrastructure through a fixed‑price public–private partnership. It is publicly owned jointly by Canada and Michigan. The Canada–Michigan Crossing Agreement provides for tolls in both directions get collected on the Canadian side to reimburse Canada’s upfront costs. The bridge is co‑owned by a binational International Authority with equal representation from Canada and Michigan.

Canada negotiated a waiver under US “Buy America” rules so both US and Canadian steel could be used. That part of the deal allowed Michigan to qualify for up to $2.2 billion in US federal matching funds for other transportation projects. That amounted to bonus money for Michigan beyond the bridge itself. The bridge will improve supply chains, reduce congestion, and enhance trade. Both Michigan and Ontario economies will significantly benefit.

Trump says it’s a bad deal

A Trump social media post derailed the opening of the new bridge. He says its a bad deal because of excuses such as (1) the bridge lets Canada take advantage of America, and that the US must be fully compensated before it opens, (2) the US should own at least half of the bridge, share authority over what crosses it, and get a share of toll revenue, with the current Canada-Michigan ownership structure being unacceptable, and (3) the bridge might favor Canada more than the US, without citing any evidence. Trump claims he is concerned only for the welfare of the American people.

The real reason he blocks the new bridge opening

Trump was paid $1 million by the owner of the old obsolete bridge, the Maroun family. If the new bridge opens, the old bridge’s toll revenue would drop a lot. The Maroun family is desperate to stop the new bridge from being used. To directly lobby Trump, billionaire Matthew Moroun (a Detroit resident) met with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. That meeting occurred some hours just before Trump’s threat to block the new Gordie Howe bridge. That most recent lobbying effort was part Moroun’s long‑standing efforts to block the new bridge. Matthew Moroun’s $1,000,000 contribution to MAGA Inc. was made a in the weeks before Trump’s public obstruction threat.

Q1: Is Trump a liar and kleptocrat who uses flimsy, inadequate excuses to block the new bridge in return for a bribe, or is Trump really acting only out of legitimate concerns for the welfare of the American people, with the $1 million having nothing to do with this?

Q2: Should the new bridge be destroyed and rebuilt with more or only American-sourced materials, or should it be demolished and never rebuilt because . . . . . MAGA!!?

Info sources: Link, link, link, link, link

Sunday, June 28, 2026

Following wealth and power flowing from the public interest to special interests

Trump and MAGA politics are focused on accumulating wealth and power for favored elites and their interests. The accumulation is by any means that works, legal or not, harmful or not. The goal is to replace democracy, the rule of law, and civil liberties with a mixed authoritarian, kleptocratic regime consisting mostly of dictatorship, oligarchy and Christian nationalist theocracy, tinged with a significant helping of hyper-aggressive Zionist theocratic influence. Trump's and MAGA's authoritarian damage to government, society, pro-democracy institutions, the rule of law, civil liberties, inconvenient science and expertise and the law have been grievous. It's getting worse, not better. The evidence is overwhelming. Link, linklinklink, link, link, link, link, link, link, link

Examples of recent coverage of MAGA's slow coup help convey the myriad ways in which rich and powerful people and entities are eating their way through the heart of our democracy, laws, civil liberties and the protections they used to operate under. One example is Trump using his power, legally or not, to fire federal employees and replace them with corrupt, incompetent loyalists.


Corrupting the federal government

A NYT article (not paywalled), White House Secretly Swayed Board Meant to Stop Civil Service Politicization, discusses core MAGA kleptocracy, dictatorship and oligarchy goals. By getting rid of competent, honest federal employees and replacing them with inexperienced, unqualified, somewhat independent Trump loyalists the rule of law and democracy are further subverted. The whole point of not politicizing the federal employee workforce was to keep government honest. Installing partisan loyalists who serve the dictator above the law and the public interest neuters the federal law, allowing corruption to take over in the vacuum the absence of law creates. Trump's concept of the "best people" are people loyal to Trump, not to the rule of law or the public interest. Link, link

As usual, MAGA propaganda spins this. MAGA's deflection and lie here is that this makes federal employees responsive to the will of the people. The lunatic idea is that Trump will use his power to fire federal employees, even for no reason at all, to serve the public interest. Before this, those employees were primarily serving the public interest. Now they serve the tyrant, his enablers and their special interests. The public interest gets a hard kick in the ass as it is booted out the door. Link, link, link, link