[begin recorded segment]You are going on report for a set of blogging errors.
What?! [hide rumples similar to raising eyebrows around all five eyes]
You made Trump sound mentally ill. You used diagnostic terms.
No-oo. [confused gill arrhythmia] I haven't given him a diagnosis. I can't. I'm not a doctor. I HAVE used words like 'tendency' as a description, but those CAN describe sane people. Where is THIS coming from, anyway?
The writer Margaret Sullivan in the Washington Post, who you have noted as having "mostly reasonable opinions" and "journalistic skill" pointed out that journalists are not psychologists and should not sound like they are, perhaps not even in the op-ed section.
That's responsible of her to mention. I don't think he's mentally ill, though. Well--let me qualify that--he could be, but it doesn't matter.
Why question the relevance?
It matters because the way he misbehaves is the problem. He could be insane and still be a good president.
How could that be accomplished? By definition, a mentally ill person is less capable.
By acting how people agree he should act. If he believed he was Grover Cleveland or Jefferson or Reagan? He could be delusional and act like a wonderful president. It would be better if he WAS mentally ill.
Why would that be better?
Because if he were mentally ill, treatment might help. Ain't NO pill gonna fix him.
Your error report is now retracted.
Ohhhh. THANK you. [sarcastic gill movement, indicative of lost patience] I'm going for a deep swim. [exits lair]
[end recorded session, upload, disconn--
I'm here to learn. About you, about me. I'll try to keep limiting myself to mostly just one question a day, since that seems to be the preference here. Don't call the men in black; there won't be any trouble here. I'm not after your silly launch codes--it's sociological! Please comment. Let me learn about you all. EU visitors beware of potential cookies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment