Is Barbieland its own self-contained multiverse? Barbie contains more questions than answers

Warning: Many Spoilers Ahead for the Barbie movie.

In “Barbie,” Gloria, played by America Ferrera, is having an existential crisis in the “Real World,” which results in her daughter’s old Barbie doll “Stereotypical Barbie,” reflecting her very out-of-place emotions and concerns in Barbieland, sending Stereotypical Barbie, played by Margot Robbie, on a journey of self-discovery.

But why is there only one Stereotypical Barbie?

When we see Barbieland, we see every variation of Barbie doll in the Barbie universe. There’s Doctor Barbie, President Barbie, Physicist Barbie, and so on. There are also multiple variations of Ken, and side characters like Midge the Pregnant Barbie and Allan, Ken’s friend. But there’s only one of each of them. None of the Kens or Barbies look exactly alike. There only appears to be one Stereotypical Barbie, one Beach Ken, etc. etc. But we know from the plot that this Stereotypical Barbie is tied specifically to Gloria. She’s the Barbie Gloria played with with her daughter Sasha when she was younger. So where are all the millions of other Stereotypical Barbies that all the other kids played with?

The only conclusion possible is that we are in Barbieland Prime, and this Barbieland is one of a million parallel Barbielands, one for each Stereotypical Barbie doll that Mattel produced. This gives rise to another question. Are each of the other Barbies in a Barbieland Universe tied to a girl in the real world, or only one? And if it’s each one, how does the multiverse decide which Barbies will populate which universes? In other words, does the Prime Universe Doctor Barbie owned by Real World Girl A live with the Stereotypical Barbie owned by Gloria because the two Barbies came from the same toy store, or because Gloria and Real World Girl A who owns Doctor Barbie Prime live in close "Real World" proximity to each other? Or are all the Barbies in this particular Barbieland toys of Gloria's daughter? Do poor kids create Barbieland Universes populated only by one or two Kens and Barbies?

The Midge Problem

Then there is the problem of Midge. Midge is the “Pregnant Barbie,” who we learned was discontinued because the concept was a little too disturbing. This means there are fewer Midges out there than other Barbies. Does that mean that certain Barbielands have Midges and some don’t? If each Barbieland Universe represents one child's toy collection, this works fine. But if different Barbieland Barbies in the same universe have different "Real World" owners, this is a problem. Are there Barbielands with Midges who aren’t tied to people in the “Real World?” Or does Midge ONLY appear in Barbieland prime and represent all Midges in the Real World?

(Fun fact: Any guesses who the father of Midge's baby is? Here's a hint: It's not Ken!)

Mattel World

The “Real World” presents another problem. It doesn’t seem like it can really be “our” world. The “Board of Directors” of Mattel is a caricature. They’re all clueless men, when in reality Mattel’s BOD is roughly half women. They dance and run like action figures/dolls. They effortlessly travel back and forth between their world and Barbieland, and they also know the “correct” Barbieland to travel to when seeking Stereotypical Barbie Prime.

I propose that Mattel World is not “our” world at all, but a hub universe around which all the Barbieland Universes are connected, while also having some connection to “our world,” so that what the Barbies do in Barbieland affects the owners of their dolls in the Mattel World Universe, which in turn affects those dolls and their owners in our actual real world.

Other Universes

So if the Barbieland/Mattel Multiverse is its own distinct multiverse within the omniverse, where does that leave related Universes/Multiverses? For example, does the Mattel Universe also connect to other universes where Mattel toys are real, such as the Big Jim Universe or the American Girl Universe? And are these also self-contained multiverses, with a universe for each toy produced or purchased? What about the Toy Story Universe? We know that Barbie exists there. Is the Toy Story Universe a Barbieland Universe, far from Barbieland Universe Prime, where “Barbie Reality” has been distorted due to cosmological distance? Or is the Toy Story Universe part of its own multiverse adjacent to the Barbieland Multiverse?

I’m certain that all these questions and more will be answered in “Barbie 2.” Until then, we can only speculate.

A Mind Is a Terrible Thing to Change

Much debate has emerged in recent years about the ability to change minds. We see articles on how to change others’ minds, how to change your own mind, why people do or do not change their minds, and so on. One thing people seem to be able to agree on is that once someone has settled upon a belief, changing their mind is nearly impossible. There are numerous studies that verify this and show that not only do people not change their minds when presented with contrary information, this information usually makes them even MORE intractable, MORE convinced that their opinion is the right one. How can this be?

Most social scientists explain this through the idea of Cognitive Dissonance. This is a state of mind where your actions and beliefs do not line up, or where you are required to hold two contrary beliefs at the same time. For example, people may be uncomfortable making out a will or buying life insurance, because of a belief that they are going to live forever, or people may know smoking causes lung cancer, but find themselves addicted to smoking.

Cognitive Dissonance and You

When it comes to mind-changing, cognitive dissonance often occurs because your brain has literally formed pathways based on what you believe. Let us say, for example, that you believe Donald Trump is a narcissistic con artist whose only interest is personal gain. If a report came out that Trump has secretly been donating millions of dollars to orphanages all throughout the country, and that he has so zealously guarded his tax returns and financial information in order to keep this secret, there is no way your brain would allow you to believe it. Your first thought would be “Is this a FOX News story? It’s probably made up.” If it appeared in multiple media outlets, you might think “all the media is pandering to Trump now” or “someone must be blackmailing him to help those orphans” or “he knew the information would be leaked all along,” or “the orphanages are a tax shelter,” anything but that Trump did something altruistic.

Because if you did accept that Trump did something altruistic, it would severely hamper your brain’s ability to process new information. If I was wrong about Trump, something I was so sure about, how can I know I’m right about anything? What is the point of gathering information and drawing conclusions if a new piece of information can completely shatter it? It would be much better to believe one outlandish “fact” (e.g. they aren’t real orphanages), than to have to reevaluate all the conclusions you have made up until this point.

Naturally, it works the other way. If a Trump supporter is confronted with the fact that Trump settled a fraud case for 25 million dollars with the people he conned with a fake University, it’s much easier to say “well CNN made that up” or to just assume it’s a lie and never investigate, then to start from scratch and say, how can Donald Trump, who cares about us so much, who gave up his high-paying job and easy life to lead us, have done something so wrong? Have I been wrong about him? Have I been wrong about the Republican party that nominated him? Have I been wrong about every friend and family member who I trusted who has said Trump is a hero? You can see why most people have little investment in objectively analyzing new information.

The problem, of course, is that these new pieces of information are not cumulative. The next time you hear something pro or anti-trump, depending on where you stand, you won’t put it with that last piece of contrary information to “build a case.” That last piece of information has already been dealt with. It’s gone. The only thing that could potentially change your mind is a single piece of information so massive that it is impossible to ignore. For example, if Trump’s son were to deliver a video live on FOX News showing him handing over a top-secret document to a Chinese national. Even then, you might decide that Trump was always good up until that point, and was just pushed over the edge by harassing liberals. Or you still might decide that the video was faked, and it's Junior who went bad.

Is it Good to Be Open-Minded?

Now, when people’s intractability in mind-changing is discussed, it is usually presented as a flaw. e.g. “People are so stupid they can’t recognize facts.” Furthermore, when people are interested in changing minds, they are usually really interested in changing the minds of others, not their own.

While I personally like the idea of being open-minded and being able to change my mind when presented with new information, I also accept that being obstinate about your positions, while frustrating, is adaptive. Having a changeable mind may have a long-term benefit, but in the short term, it’s better to be close-minded. You don’t have to experience dissonance, and you don’t have to have conflicts with your peer group, which presumably feels the same way about most things that you do. You can argue with people who disagree with you and feel good and confident that you are on the right side, and you’re not going to change their minds either way anyway, so you don’t have to worry about bringing someone into an incorrect position.

“But changing minds is the way to make the world a better place!” Is it? The main way changing minds can make a better world is if it translates into major physical real-world change, and this rarely happens. Progress usually occurs by force. Environmentalists argued with fossil fuel advocates until they were blue in the face for decades, but it’s only due to the fact that people can finally feel the world heating up that change is starting to occur. An individual changing the mind of another individual, when it happens, just like an individual vote, has a negligible effect on a macro level.

“But that’s short-term thinking! It's just instant gratification! Instant gratification is stupid!” Again, I say, is it?

In Defense of Instant Gratification

In the Stanford Marshmallow Experiment, researchers, eager to study the benefits of delaying gratification, presented children with a scenario. The child was given a marshmallow to eat. They were told, however, that if they could wait 15 minutes, they would get two marshmallows. Some kids waited, some kids ate the marshmallow right away.

The participants were then followed for years, and it was discovered that the children who waited and got the two marshmallows did better in life. They had higher SAT scores, lower obesity, better social skills, and other benefits.

This experiment was used to justify delaying gratification, to suggest that the kids who delayed employ better life strategies, and that you too, can have a better life by delaying gratification.

So why do so many of us go for the short-term route? Why do we spend money instead of saving it? Why do we overeat instead of getting in shape? Why do we ignore climate change? Are we stupid? Are we greedy? Do we just completely lack self-control?

Well, no. Because you see, the Stanford Marshmallow Experiment is not the end of the story. Years later, researchers did a follow-up study in which before presenting the marshmallows, participants were exposed to either reliable or unreliable experiences. For example, they were given a few crayons to draw with, with the promise that the researcher would bring a bigger box of crayons in a little while. For some, the bigger box came, for others, it didn’t. Unsurprisingly, the ones who did not get the promised bigger box were much worse at delaying gratification.

This version of the experiment much better models the condition most of us live in. We opt for short-term rewards over long-term rewards because the long-term rewards are not guaranteed. I could spend the next five years meticulously recycling and only buying sustainable products, and then the Russians could start a nuclear war. I could suffer through the rigors of quitting smoking just to die of COVID. I could scrimp and save every extra penny only to have that savings wiped out by a stock market crash or a medical crisis. We choose short-term benefits because we live in an increasingly uncertain world, and we’re afraid of suffering for nothing.

So, bringing this back to the idea of mind-changing. Mind-changing is hard work. You could break down all your preconceived notions and build them back up again, only to get new information that shatters your rebuilt schema. Or worse, only to discover that nothing has changed. After all, if you are confident that America is deteriorating into fascism, and you convince one person that you are right, all you have done is doomed another person to helplessly watch the inevitable descent.

So, what do we do? Do we stop trying to change people’s minds? Do we stop exhorting ourselves to be open-minded? As to the first, I would say it depends. If it makes you feel good to expound upon your position, then go ahead and keep doing it. But know that if someone has already made up their mind, no argument, no matter how fact-laden, no matter how well-reasoned, is going to change it. If you want to change actual minds, your only chance is to present your case to young people who may still be forming opinions, or to people who genuinely haven’t made their mind up about certain issues.

As to changing your own mind? I would say if you don’t want to, don’t be so hard on yourself about it. There are a lot of short-term benefits to being close-minded and the payoff for changing your view is far from guaranteed. If you are really motivated to be an objective person, and finding the actual truth has value to you (finding the actual truth, not confirming that what you already believe is the actual truth), then go ahead and stay open-minded and accept the consequences.

Tips for staying open-minded:

1. Always accept that you could be wrong about anything—that there could always be a piece of information you don’t have.
2. Your beliefs MUST be falsifiable—that is to say, you must be able to imagine a condition where you would concede that you are wrong about something, and then be able to prove to your satisfaction that that condition does not currently exist.
3. Beware confirmation bias--don't only look at sources you know will confirm your belief. Seek out contrary opinions and sources you are not necessarily inclined to agree with.
4.  Practice arguing the position from the other side. People really believe things that you do not. If the argument you come up with feels weak and like something no one could possibly believe, you are probably not examining the best possible counterargument.
5.  Don’t have an ego. It’s okay to be wrong about things. People are wrong all the time about all sorts of things. It doesn’t mean you’re stupid, or a bad person.

How to Talk to Your Conservative Friends and Relatives About Gun Control

 

There has just been another mass shooting. I won’t say which one, so this blog post will remain evergreen since there will certainly be many more. That being said, it’s time to demand that all your NRA-loving, GOP-supporting friends and relatives finally abandon their zero-tolerance policy on gun control and hold their chosen representatives accountable. To help, here’s how you counter all their ridiculous arguments as to why less gun control, not more, is the answer.

The criminals don’t obey gun laws. These shooters won’t care about gun control. At least this way the victims can get their own guns and have a chance. (If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns)

This is probably one of the most common arguments against gun control that is trotted out, and the one that can stand the least scrutiny. To debunk this one, just have your gun-loving friend substitute any other crime for gun possession.

“We can’t outlaw murder! Serial killers aren’t going to obey that law! At least if we legalize murder, law-abiding citizens will have the chance to murder the criminal before a criminal murders them!”

“We can’t outlaw drunk driving! Drunks aren’t going to care if there’s a law if they want to drive! At least this way, law-abiding citizens who want to drink a little before they drive home won’t have the drunks ruin their night!”

“We can’t outlaw theft! The burglars aren’t going to stop stealing because there’s a law! At least this way, we can legally steal our stuff back!”

You get the idea.

I need to defend myself and my family

You are much more likely to see you or your family killed or wounded if you have a gun than if you don’t. Studies show:

People successfully defend themselves with guns in less than 1% of crimes in which there is contact between a perpetrator and a victim.

Having access to a gun doesn’t better protect people from being injured during a crime compared to other protective actions like calling law enforcement or fleeing the scene.

Someone with a gun is four times more likely to be shot in an assault.

Firearm access triples the risk of suicide death and doubles the risk of homicide.

Firearms make it five times more likely that a victim will be killed in a domestic dispute.

Places like Chicago have stringent gun laws and they have more gun deaths than anywhere

Conservatives like to trot out this one because it is so much the opposite of the truth that it feels true. In fact, gun violence in Chicago rose after gun laws were weakened, and even though their gun laws are still stricter than many others, most of the guns in Chicago come from neighboring Wisconsin and Indiana, which have very weak gun laws. Furthermore, no other country has as lax gun laws as the US, and no other country has our level of gun violence.

The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

No. When Gabby Giffords was shot in Arizona, the shooter was subdued by unarmed samaritans. In fact, the “good guy with the gun” showed up late and almost killed one of the subduers.

The good guy with a gun in Buffalo ran up against the shooter’s body armor, and ended up just as dead as the other victims.

Good guy with a gun Jemel Robertson subdued a shooter at Manny’s Blue Room in Robbins, Illinois. While he held the shooter at bay, police arrived and shot Jemel dead. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you what color he was.

The 2^nd Amendment says I have the right to own however many guns I want of any kind no matter what!

It doesn’t. The text of the 2^nd Amendment reads “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

First of all, this is a conditional statement. It’s like saying “The pool being full of water, the right to swim and dive shall not be infringed.” If the pool is no longer full of water, the second part doesn’t apply. A well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state, hence, everyone doesn’t need to have guns.

Furthermore, even that bastion of conservatism, Antonin Scalia, ruled in DC vs. Heller that the 2^nd Amendment doesn’t give everyone unrestricted access to weapons of war. He specifically ruled that the amendment only applies to the type of weapon that one could reasonably expect a person of that time to own, such as a handgun or a standard rifle. Not an AR-15.

Finally, the words “well-regulated militia” have importance. Well-regulated means restrictions, as appropriate, can apply, and militia, as defined by the Constitution, does not mean you and your buddies out in the woods, but a group of volunteer soldiers ready to be called into service BY THE GOVERNMENT, to allow states to protect themselves. (Article I Section 8). Basically, if you are not in the National Guard, the state doesn’t have to allow you to have a gun.

Also it’s worth noting for your Strict Constructionist friends that there’s nothing in the Constitution that requires states allow guns to be bought or sold.

There you have it. Clear and logical refutations of all your friends’ and family’s pro-gun arguments for them to ignore at the next reunion!

The Arc of the Moral Universe

 

Two court cases captured the attention of Americans on all sides of the political spectrum this month, the trials of Kyle Rittenhouse and of Travis and Greg McMichael and William Bryan. Two different verdicts that I think illustrate that in some cases, the American system of justice still works.

Many of those whose political inclinations lean left were outraged by the verdict in the Rittenhouse case. They have accused the Judge, the jury, the lawyers, and everyone but the Bailiff in this case of being biased and racist, despite the fact that the victims in this case were white. The reality is, that while no one can say to what extent certain individuals are racist, racism was not the determining factor in this case.

Our judicial system is designed to give even the most loathsome individuals the same protection as those we love. This is what happened in the Rittenhouse case. Those on the left find Rittenouse to be a villain as much as those on the right find him to be a hero, but justice does not care either way. Justice is blind. We don’t like the idea that a kid can walk the streets with an assault rifle whenever he wants (the fact that he was underage is a separate issue. If he were 18 we would feel the same way). We don’t like the idea that if a person feels threatened in the street, they can shoot the person they feel threatened by. We especially don’t like the understanding that if that kid were black, he would likely be gunned down himself or arrested by the cops before he ever got a chance to defend himself. But none of these things can be factors in court if someone is to have a fair trial, and that’s what Kyle Rittenhouse got. He got a presumption of innocence, and the prosecutor failed to prove that his actions were not self-defense beyond the high standard of reasonable doubt. You don’t have to like it, but you should appreciate it. Some will find that suggestion offensive because the law is not applied fairly to all people. I’ll get to that.

Look, in contrast, at the McMichaels/Bryan case. These men subjected Ahmaud Arbery to what was essentially a 21^st century lynching. They hunted this poor man down like a dog. Greg McMichael’s defense was essentially “he looked like a dirty, sketchy, black kid.” These men were found guilty of multiple counts of murder, not because the judge, or the jury, or the lawyers were anti-white racists. 11 out of the 12 jurors were white. They were found guilty because the same system that applied to Kyle Rittenhouse was applied to them, and under that standard, the prosecution showed that these men murdered Ahmaud Arbery. The system worked.

Again, a lot of the outrage over Kyle Rittenhouse is the idea that he got off because he was white. There’s no question that white people enjoy privilege in our criminal justice system. But look at the two cases. The man whose victims were white was acquitted, and those whose victim was black were convicted. Doesn’t quite fit the narrative.

The outrage is justified. We’ve heard a lot of talk about Critical Race Theory over the last few months, and ironically, the right has been looking for it in the wrong place. It has been fully on display in our courts. There’s not an aware human being in this country that doesn’t know that if a black kid had crossed state lines and attended a BLM protest with an AR-15, his fate would have been very different. We all have a sense that even if he made it to court, a conviction would have been almost certain. It’s also clear that it took way too long to bring the McMichaels’ to justice. But these are problems with the legislature, and a legal system that is rooted in racism, not with the way justice was applied in these two cases.

The law that allowed the McMichaels to feel justified in hunting down Ahmaud Arbery, the Citizens Arrest law, previously in effect for over 150 years, has been repealed. This is what we should focus on. Here is a law that illustrates critical race theory. No black man in Georgia could ever in history have gotten away with approaching a white man with a gun with the intent of making an arrest. No black man should ever have to accept a non-law enforcement white man approaching him with a gun with the assumption that a legal arrest is about to take place. It was a law rooted in systemic racism and as a result of this case, it was repealed. That is the kind of justice we should be focused on. One may have cause to hope that laws against open carry of assault rifles in Wisconsin and in particular laws against underage carry will be strengthened in the wake of the Rittenhouse trial. It’s an iffy proposition. The NRA is strong, but we can hope. However, as disappointed as I am that Kyle Rittenhouse walks free today, and even worse, as some kind of right wing icon, I remain steadfast in my belief that the justice system worked in both of these cases, and that, we as a society must work to fix the system’s racial inequities, not throw it away when we don’t get the results we want.

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.

Why Simone Biles Represents Everything That’s Wrong With America (It's not what you think)

 

On Tuesday, Simone Biles, after a poor performance on the vault, suddenly and shockingly withdrew from the Olympic All-Around Team Gymnastics competition, citing mental health issues. 

Biles’ decision immediately turned into a political football, with those on the right predictably calling her a quitter who doesn’t respect our country and someone who embodies the Millennial and younger generation’s “everyone should get a trophy” egalitarian (dare I say “socialist?”) attitude.

Those on the left responded, if anything, even more strongly, insisting that Biles, the most decorated and successful gymnast of all time, is the undisputed GOAT and owes nothing to a bunch of armchair athletes who criticize others to cover up their own inadequacy. Those questioning Biles’ decision were just as predictably called racists and misogynists once again abusing their privilege.

Even Kerri Strug (who famously pushed through the pain of a broken ankle to land her final vault as part of a US victory in the 1996 Olympic Games) was dragged back into the limelight for the controversy, with those taking issue with Biles’ decision pointing to her as an example of someone with the true heart of a champion, an inspiration to young women and girls everywhere, while the pro-Biles camp reframed Strug as a victim of a draconian Eastern European coach willing to destroy as many young girls as necessary to get what he wanted, while Biles is the real Olympic hero for standing up to the tyranny of patriarchal sport.

The point is this. The Olympics, at one time, were supposed to represent hope. The hope that if we all, Russian or American, Arab or Israeli, man or woman, Black or white, young or old, could put aside our differences in the spirit of non-violent, friendly competition for two weeks, we could have lasting peace throughout the world.

While that idea was a little pollyanna-ish, there’s something to it. Even if it didn’t work on an international level, or at least, not for long, it worked internally. In the past, when it came to the Olympics, all of America was on the same side, at least as far as we knew. We all collectively cheered when Kerri Strug landed that vault. We all rejoiced when Team USA beat Team USSR at the “Miracle on Ice.” During the Olympics, regardless of our differences, we were all Americans.

Now, it’s possible that this image was an illusion. It’s possible that during each Olympics, while we all had a public face of unifying support, some faction of Americans were seething at some injustice or other behind the scenes, decades safely removed from the revealing spotlight of social media. But even the ILLUSION was worth something. The perception that it was possible for all Americans to come together for some common cause meant something.

We no longer have that illusion because it is no longer true. We can’t even all get on the same side against a devastating killer virus, let alone for an Olympic athlete.

In Biles’ absence, Sunisa Lee stepped up for the Americans, helping the USA secure a silver medal in the Team competition and winning the Individual All-Around. In another time, another era, this would have been the story. The only story. Americans have each others’ backs. If one of us falls, the others will be right there to pick them up and press on. 

We are no longer worthy of that narrative.

Why is this the case? What has happened over the last 20 years to turn us into a country where we just can’t all get along? There seems little point in trying to find out, as that analysis would immediately become just as polarized as our reality. Liberals will point to FOX News propaganda pushing America to the right, Conservatives will accuse Academia of pulling it to the left. The real question is can anything be done about it?

Short of an intergalactic alien invasion or a mutated virus so deadly it kills off the side that is polarized against defending itself against it, it’s hard to imagine what that would be.

In the meantime, I’ll still be watching the Olympics and cheering for Team USA. Who’s with me?

"Cognitive Dissonance"

The other day, I posted a query to my Facebook feed about who were the worst types of Trumpers. Amidst the obvious choices of wealth fetishists, racists, overgrown frat boys and the like, I offered the option to write in your own.

One person replied: “Cognitive dissonance.”

What he meant was that it is human nature to become intractable about one’s opinions, especially those we hold strongly. That for most people, once you convince yourself of a position, evidence to the contrary is so disturbing to your psyche that you are more likely to dismiss it, explain it away or repress it than consider it fairly. The worst type of Trumpers are those who won't admit who he is to themselves.

But the more I thought about it, the more I felt that if those were the worst type of Trumpers, it wasn't because of their cognitive dissonance, it was because of our own.

We see Trump wallowing in corruption. We see his 40-year history, a matter of public record, of cheating on his taxes, his wives and his contractors, of lying literally hundreds of times a week. We see that he is barely literate, that he has no understanding of the position he holds nor has he any interest in learning.

We see him committing fraud to the tune of millions of dollars over and over again, and wonder not just how he ever could have become President, but how millions of people will respond to these charges with something on the order of “Yeah, well, what about Hillary and Obama?” despite the fact that neither of them has been stained with any kind of scandal even approaching what happens to Trump in an average week. Despite that both boast a long record of public service while he has had none, and that their professional conduct compared to his has been impeccable.

We could accept, perhaps, if those people simply proclaimed they didn’t care for Obama’s politics or even that they didn’t like the idea of a woman with power. But to suggest somehow that Hillary Clinton should be behind bars while Donald Trump should be in charge of the entire country? It is literally impossible to fathom what twisted logical gymnastics one could have gone through to arrive at such a conclusion.

But that’s the rub, isn’t it? I suspect that most of these people applied no logic at all. They got it in their head that Trump is the right guy for them and that was the end of it. They suffer no cognitive dissonance because they are quite effective at discarding logic and reason when it comes to Trump. 

But the rest of us have no such luxury. We work ourselves into a rage trying to figure out how a human being with access to basically the same kinds of neurons, synapses, sulci and gyri as we could have come to the conclusion that Trump is at all competent, let alone someone appropriate for ultimate power.

They happily trot down the lane in their MAGA hats and their “Hillary for Prison” T-shirts, blissfully oblivious to the fact that crony after crony of Trump’s inner circle has been indicted or jailed, completely indifferent to the fact that people with years of dedicated service to our country have cried out that this man is unequivocally and gruesomely abusing his power, dismissing these brave souls as hoaxers or “never Trumpers,” while the rest of us are tearing our hair out wondering what we’re missing. 

Cursed with the ability to reason and respect for scientific inquiry, we have to consider the possibility, however remote, that they may be onto something, while they get to just decide that we hate America, are somehow not real, or are brainwashed by “fake news.”

It doesn’t seem fair. We desperately want to say, “well, they’re just idiots,” or, “there are a lot of horrible people in America,” but something nags us about the idea that tens of millions of people with whom we share citizenship are just stupid or terrible. Meanwhile, they seem unfazed by the absurdity of the idea that half the population of the country actively hates it here and is trying to destroy it from within.

Well, I’ve thought about it a lot and I’m here to tell you that we’re not crazy. Trump really is what we think he is and there are really people who will never care, for a variety of reasons that include some unholy cocktail of wealth fetishism, racism, power fantasies, fear of cognitive dissonance and…eye of newt, I guess. I’m afraid the best thing we can do is to dismiss the ones that cannot be reasoned with and hold fast to the ones that can, the way our ancestors dealt with bears and sabretooth tigers, and try to hang on until the winds of change blow our way again.

Trump Supporter's Guide to Sleeping at Night

When Trump does something horrible, like publicly ask a foreign country to investigate his political opponents or tell women of color in Congress to "go back where they came from," or pay off a pornstar to stay quiet about his adultery and then lie about it, refer to the following menu:

Choose as many as apply:

A) He didn't do it. Fake News

B) He did it, but it only seems wrong because failing left-wing media outlets make it sound worse than it is.

C) He did it, and it was wrong, but as long as he's keeping the gays/abortionists/immigrants in check, he can do whatever else he wants.

D) He did it, but he had to do it to Keep America Great

E) He did it, but the Democrats made him do it because they hate him.

F) He did it, but it doesn't matter because something that Obama/Hillary/Biden did was much worse (even if we don't know EXACTLY what that something is. Something about Benghazi or Kenya).

G) He did it, but it's good because it's making the liberals crazy.

H) He did it, but he didn't mean it, he was just making a hilarious (racism/treason/totalitarianism) joke.

I) He did it, but you only care because you hate him.

J) No, YOU'RE the racist!