TUESDAY: Sitting president spots the scum...

TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2025

...then continues from there: The Daily Beast is reporting a poll. For ourselves, we probably wouldn't call its results "devastating" or a "bombshell," but the Beast's report starts like this:

Devastating Poll Shows Trump What Americans Think of His Bombings

A bombshell CNN poll found that a clear majority of Americans disapprove of President Trump’s decision to launch airstrikes in Iran.

The poll found that 56 percent of Americans disapproved of [Saturday's] military action in Iran, while only 44 percent were in favor. It also found that 58 percent of those surveyed believe Trump’s actions will make Iran a bigger threat to the U.S.

The vast majority of Democrats (88 percent) and most independents (60 percent) said they opposed the strikes, while most Republicans (82 percent) broadly approved. But just 44 percent of Republicans said they strongly approved of Trump’s actions—a much smaller cohort than the 60 percent of Democrats who strongly disapproved.

Just to be clear, the featured question was this:

What is your view of the US decision to take military action in Iran?

Plainly, the question seemed to refer to Saturday's military strike, not to possible "military action" in general.

For our money, we'd generally prefer to see polling numbers cut against President Trump by a larger margin than 56-44. This second question did produce a larger negative split:

Do you think this US military action will make Iran [more of a threat / less of a threat] to the US?

Responses there broke in favor of "more of a threat" by 58-25. Opinion on that could change, of course, depending on what does or doesn't come next.

CNN asked another question—a question we think is instructive. That question went like this:

How much do you trust Donald Trump to make the right decisions about US use of force in Iran?

We regard that as a very good question. Rightly or wrongly, for better or worse, respondents broke down like this:

How much do you trust Donald Trump to make the right decisions about US use of force in Iran?
Great deal / moderately: 45%
Not much / not at all: 55%

More simplistically, 45% basically trust his decision making; 55% basically don't. Given where the Daily Beast report went next, we'd call that a bit of a win for the selling of President Trump.

Here's the way the Daily Beast report continued:

The poll results were featured in a segment on CNN at 6:40 a.m. ET on Tuesday. Within 20 minutes, Trump furiously lashed out at the network while speaking to reporters on the White House lawn as part of an explicit tirade, slamming CNN as “scum.”

Ranting about reports from CNN and MSNBC that his airstrikes may not have completely destroyed Iran’s nuclear stockpiles, Trump fumed: “CNN is scum. And so is MSDNC ... It’s all fake news. They should not have done that. Those pilots hit their targets, those targets were obliterated, and the pilots should be given credit. They’re not after the pilots, they’re after me.”

Obviously, no one is "going after the pilots." But so said President Trump.

Over and over, again and again, everyone seems to be going after President Trump if you let him tell it. We can't help wondering what a (carefully selected) medical specialist would say about this endless pattern of behavior, but we do know this:

Given prevailing rules of the game, no news org is going to ask.

To a remarkable degree, large elements of Red America's current elites are driven by fury and rage. Of course, if western literature began with the Iliad, it began with a lengthy profile of fury and rage as expressed by a furious, rage-filled group of extremely angry men.

For ourselves, we don't have a lot of confidence in President Trump's future decision making. In what we would regard as a tragedy, his erratic behavior routinely spills with rage, as happened again today. 

We refer to this Truth Social post. It concerns three Democratic House members, with a certain "Palestinian" senator thrown in:

Truth Details

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

Stupid AOC, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of the "dumbest" people in Congress, is now calling for my Impeachment, despite the fact that the Crooked and Corrupt Democrats have already done that twice before. The reason for her "rantings" is all of the Victories that the U.S.A. has had under the Trump Administration. The Democrats aren’t used to WINNING, and she can’t stand the concept of our Country being successful again. When we examine her Test Scores, we will find out that she is NOT qualified for office but, nevertheless, far more qualified than Crockett, who is a seriously Low IQ individual, or Ilhan Omar, who does nothing but complain about our Country, yet the Failed Country that she comes from doesn’t have a Government, is drenched in Crime and Poverty, and is rated one of the WORST in the World, if it’s even rated at all. How dare "The Mouse" tells us how to run the United States of America! We’re just now coming back from that Radical Left experiment with Sleepy Joe, Kamala, and "THE AUTOPEN," in charge. What a disaster it was! AOC should be forced to take the Cognitive Test that I just completed at Walter Reed Medical Center, as part of my Physical. As the Doctor in charge said, "President Trump ACED it," meaning, I got every answer right. Instead of her constant complaining, Alexandria should go back home to Queens, where I was also brought up, and straighten out her filthy, disgusting, crime ridden streets, in the District she "represents," and which she never goes to anymore. She better start worrying about her own Primary, before she starts thinking about our Great Palestinian Senator, Cryin' Chuck Schumer, whose career is definitely on very thin ice! She and her Democrat friends have just hit the Lowest Poll Numbers in Congressional History, so go ahead and try impeaching me, again, MAKE MY DAY!

Yes, that's what he posted. 

At this site, we regard that apparently uncontrollable anger as a human tragedy—as a tragic loss of human potential. We also regard it as a reason to be concerned about President Trump's future decision-making.

Sadly, he keeps going back to that cognitive test, apparently not knowing how dumb the reference is. 

For ourselves, we think AOC's call for a third impeachment didn't exactly make sense. That said:

Forty-five percent of respondents told CNN that they expect that the man who keeps churning "Truths" of that type will make decent future decisions. Somewhere within that number, we almost suspect, our own tribe has failed to connect.

Our literature begins with a portrait of rage. It leads onward toward the fall of Troy—to a vicious and violent outcome.

In the present instance, our sitting president spotted the scum, then continued along from there. We regard this as a human tragedy. Many others trust this man.

THE PLAYERS: He says that he said, "Don't go in!"

TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2025

Except he didn't say that: Last Friday, in Morristown, New Jersey, there he went again!

Almost surely, the decision to bomb Iran had apparently already been made. As a possible part of a multifaceted feint, the president was heading off for a relaxing weekend at his Bedminster country club.

After landing at Morristown Municipal Airport, the president took questions from reporters. For unknown reasons, NBC's Vaughn Hillyard tossed him a misleading softball about his position, way back in 2002, on the impending war in Iraq.

By our lights, Hillyard's presentation was grossly misleading. In his response, the president took it and ran:

HILLYARD (6/20/25): Twenty years ago, you were skeptical of a Republican administration that attacked a Middle East country on the idea of questionable intelligence of weapons of mass destruction. How is this moment different with Iran?

TRUMP: ...I was very much opposed to Iraq. I was—I said it loud and clear, but I was a civilian, but I got a lot of publicity. But I was very much opposed to the Iraq war, and I actually did say, "Don't go in. Don't go in. Don't go in."

I actually did say, "Don't go in," the president said.

Except he didn't say that. He didn't say any such thing in the run-up to the war in Iraq.

Journalistically, this matter was litigated long ago, back in the day when Candidate Trump made his first ran for the White House. At that time, it became obvious that he hadn't opposed the war in Iraq, and certainly not in the full-throated way he still likes to say he recalls.

More than twenty years later, there the president went again! The next day, the attack on Iran's nuclear sites proceeded, with the president stepping forward to claim a degree of success which may or may not have occurred.

("Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.")

The day before the strike on Ira, he stood on the tarmac in New Jersey. 

I said it loud and clear, the president said. I actually did say, "Don't go in. Don't go in. Don't go in."

In fact, he didn't do any such thing. And he didn't actually say that.

How will history judge Saturday's attack on Iran? Assuming "history" exists in the future, the bombing attack may be judged as a major geopolitical success.

Or then again, possibly not! That will depend, at least in part, on the judgments and the decisions which are made from here. 

Were Iran's enrichment facilities completely obliterated? Everyone seems to agree that no such assessment can be made at this point. But whatever may have happened to those facilities—even if the facilities have been destroyed—the major players who got us here are going to remain.

President Trump will stay in place; so will Vice President Vance. So will the president's cabinet members and his informal advisers.

The mainstream press corps will stay in place. So will the various players seen on the Fox News Channel.

The Democratic Party will still be there, with its officials inclined to argue about tangential legalisms. And we denizens of Blue America will still be in place, perhaps failing to see, right to the end, the ways our own imperfect judgments helped create a world in which President Trump, and his associates, will be making the major decisions as this matter moves forward.

President Trump remains unchanged. So does the problem he seems to have with the task of making accurate statements.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth will, most likely, remain—and it's as we showed you in yesterday's report. In a move straight outta Orwell, he offered this, on Sunday morning, in the wake of the attacks:

SECRETARY HEGSETH (6/22/25): Thanks to President Trump's bold and visionary leadership and his commitment to peace through strength, Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated.

Many presidents have dreamed of delivering the blow to Iran's nuclear program and none could until President Trump. The operation President Trump planned was bold and it was brilliant.

[...]

President Trump said, No nukes. He seeks peace, and Iran should take that path. He sent out a Truth last night saying this: "Any retaliation by Iran against the United States of America will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed tonight." Signed, "The President of the United States, Donald J. Trump."

President Trump had "sent out a Truth!" Incredibly, that's what Hegseth actually said.

Incredibly, that's what he fellow actually said. In the process, he invented a new piece of Orwellian language.

("He is such a boy," a young Bulgarian woman once said. As we noted yesterday, we kept flashing on her words in the wake of Hegseth's statement.)

At least for now—and possibly for much longer than that—the bombing mission on Iran has changed the shape of the American discourse:

We're so old that we can even remember the political murders in Minnesota! Beyond that, it's as we noted in Saturday's report. We can even remember the day when Vice President Vance engaged in this astonishing bit of ugly political conduct:

Vance Blames L.A. Violence on California Democrats and Disparages Padilla

Eight days ago, Senator Alex Padilla was forcibly removed from a news conference and handcuffed by federal agents after he interrupted Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, at the Wilshire Federal Building in Los Angeles.

At the same building on Friday, Vice President JD Vance disparaged Mr. Padilla for engaging in “political theater” and called him by the wrong name.

“Well, I was hoping Jose Padilla would be here to ask a question, but unfortunately, I guess he decided not to show up because there wasn’t the theater,” Mr. Vance said during a news conference in response to a reporter. “I think everybody realizes that’s what this is. It’s pure political theater.”

Mr. Vance’s spokeswoman later said that he misspoke when he said the senator’s name.

[...]

Later Friday, a spokeswoman for Mr. Vance said the vice president misspoke when he said Mr. Padilla’s name.

“He must have mixed up two people who have broken the law,” said Taylor Van Kirk, the spokeswoman.

Jose Padilla is the name of a man who was convicted of terrorism conspiracy in 2007 after being arrested in Chicago on suspicion of planning to set off a radioactive dirty bomb.

Astonishing! A person could always imagine that the Vice President had misspoken unintentionally when he bungled the senator's first name.

The astonishing statement by the press spokesperson lay any such thoughts to rest. It also serves to remind us of the vast cultural problem our flailing nation still faces.

Bombs have fallen in what may come to be seen as an historically significant mission. Or then again, possibly not!

The way the current situation plays out will depend, in very large part, on future decisions made by people like Hegseth and Vance—and of course, by President Trump himself.

Should those of us in our flailing nation have confidence in what will come next? It seems to us that the answer is no. In fact, imperfect judgment flows like a mighty stream from elements of the American nation—and that even include us Blues.

Some facilities in Iran are gone, but the major players remain. As we noted yesterday, the Middle East is "a story without an ending." There is still no way to know how events will unfold from here.

Some sites are gone, but the story remains. As the week continues, we'll continue to offer some thoughts about the deeply flawed American tribes who do, in fact, remain.

This afternoon: We owe you reports from last week

Tomorrow: Bluster and fury


THE PLAYERS: "It's a story without an ending!"

MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2025

The Bulgarian woman's tale: On Saturday, we closed our post with this remark:

Within two weeks, one of the people we've mentioned today has a major decision to make.

As it turned out, the person in question had already made that decision! This morning, The New York Times' David Sanger starts his report on the aftermath like this:

Officials Concede They Don’t Know the Fate of Iran’s Uranium Stockpile

A day after President Trump declared that Iran’s nuclear program had been “completely and totally obliterated” by American bunker-busting bombs and a barrage of missiles, the actual state of the program seemed far more murky, with senior officials conceding they did not know the fate of Iran’s stockpile of near-bomb-grade uranium. 

“We are going to work in the coming weeks to ensure that we do something with that fuel and that’s one of the things that we’re going to have conversations with the Iranians about,” Vice President JD Vance told ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, referring to a batch of uranium sufficient to make nine or 10 atomic weapons. Nonetheless, he contended that the country’s potential to weaponize that fuel had been set back substantially because it no longer had the equipment to turn that fuel into operative weapons.

The situation is somewhat murky, despite what the president said. Or at least, that's the assessment Sanger offers—and Sanger is as sober, and as experienced, as our mainstream journalists ever get.

For better or worse, the president decided to go ahead with Saturday's attack. That said, the situation is somewhat murky, Sanger says—and the major players remain in place to deal with whatever comes next. 

Did President Trump perhaps overstate the situation? With a tip of the cap to the invaluable Rev, here's part of what the president said in the brief address to which Sanger refers:

PRESIDENT TRUMP (6/21/25): Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated. Iran, the bully of the Middle East must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier. 

Borrowing from Twain, reports of that complete and total obliteration may have been greatly exaggerated—or at least, so Sanger has said. In closing, the president added this:

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Tomorrow, General Caine, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth will have a press conference at 8:00 AM at the Pentagon, and I want to just thank everybody, and in particular, God. 
I want to just say we love you, God, and we love our great military...

Does anyone think that the president holds actual religious beliefs? We'd be inclined to say that, as perhaps a bit of a pretender, he doesn't seem to have mastered the talk at this point.

President Trump remains. During Sunday morning's press event, Secretary Hegseth said this:

SECRETARY HEGSETH (6/22/25): The order we received from our Commander in Chief was focused, it was powerful, and it was clear. We devastated the Iranian nuclear program. It's worth noting the operation did not target Iranian troops and Iranian people.

For the entirety of his time in office, President Trump has consistently stated, for over ten years, that Iran must not get a nuclear weapon. Full stop. Thanks to President Trump's bold and visionary leadership and his commitment to peace through strength, Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated.

Many presidents have dreamed of delivering the blow to Iran's nuclear program and none could until President Trump. The operation President Trump planned was bold and it was brilliant...

When it came his turn to speak, General Caine went with "just the facts." Some have said that Secretary Hegseth may have been cheerleading a bit.

The bombs have dropped, but the principal players remain, with their strengths and their weaknesses. Along the way, the secretary even said this:

HEGSETH: President Trump said, no nukes. He seeks peace, and Iran should take that path. He sent out a Truth last night saying this: "Any retaliation by Iran against the United States of America will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed tonight." Signed, "The President of the United States, Donald J. Trump."

The president "sent out a Truth last night?" Has anyone ever fashioned some such statement? 

The secretary seems to have coined a new term, From now on, whenever the president posts on his site, his statement will be known as "a Truth!"

(The capitalization was rendered by Rev—in our view, correctly. The Iranian regime includes a Supreme Leader—but as we'll see as the week proceeds, our own White House may be tilting that way too.)

We don't mean this as a criticism of President Trump's decision. We're inclined to agree with the assessment according to which the White House was confronted with two possible choices, each of which was bad.

We don't mean what follows as a criticism of the decision. We mean it as a bit of a warning:

The decision has been made, but the major players remain. The major players remain within the White House, but within our own Blue America too.

Two weekends ago, we happened to watch Casablanca again. The famous film had briefly popped up for free through On Demand. We regard it as the greatest accidental masterwork in all of western literature.  

As always, the famous film triggered reactions it hadn't triggered before. Today, especially as we think about what Secretary Hegseth said, we keep flashing on what one of Casablanca's secondary characters says at obe point about her very young husband.

We refer to the young Bulgarian refugee, Annina Brandel, who, like almost everyone else in the film, is hoping to find a way to reach a magical destination—America. Midway through the film, she asks the Humphrey Bogart character if she should agree to do a very bad thing in order to get an exit visa for herself and for her husband—her husband of only eight weeks.

She doesn't want to do this very bad thing. But along the way, she says this:

ANNINA: But M'sieur, if he never knew, and the girl kept this bad thing locked in her heart—that would be all right, wouldn't it? 

RICK: You want my advice?

ANNINA: Oh yes—please.

RICK (bitterly): Go back to Bulgaria.

ANNINA (pleading): On, but if you knew what it means to us to leave Europe—to get to America 

(PAUSE) 

Oh, but if Jan should find out! He is such a boy. In many ways, I am so much older than he is...

You may recall how this situation plays out. But we keep thinking of the highlighted statement when we think of Hegseth's cheerleading this Sunday morning. 

He is such a boy, the young Bulgarian woman says. We keep flashing on that (loving) statement when we think of Hegseth's presentation.

In the present context, Saturday's bombing mission may, on balance, be judged to have gone extremely well. But this is a story without an ending, and the major players remain. 

That includes Secretary Hegseth along with President Trump. It also includes the major players in Blue America who are struggling to find a way to assess these events.

The young woman in that famous scene said her husband was "such a boy." She doesn't mean it as a criticism—but we've been flashing on that statement as we think about what we saw Secretary Hegseth do and say yesterday morning.

Where have all the flowers gone? As he continues, Sanger raises a similar question about Iran's uranium:

SANGER: Satellite photographs of the primary target, the Fordo uranium enrichment plant that Iran built under a mountain, showed several holes where a dozen 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrators—one of the largest conventional bombs in the U.S. arsenal—punched deep holes in the rock. The Israeli military’s initial analysis concluded that the site, the target of American and Israeli military planners for more than 26 years, sustained serious damage from the strike but had not been completely destroyed.

But there was also evidence, according to two Israeli officials with knowledge of the intelligence, that Iran had moved equipment and uranium from the site in recent days. And there was growing evidence that the Iranians, attuned to Mr. Trump’s repeated threats to take military action, had removed 400 kilograms, or roughly 880 pounds, of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity. That is just below the 90 percent that is usually used in nuclear weapons.

The site sustained serious damage, but the uranium remains? 

"This is a story without an ending." The Bogart character repeats that statement several times during the course of the Oscar-winning film.

Casablanca was an accident—colloquially, a gift from the gods. It was meant to be a front-line film, but the studio had no idea that it was crafting a masterpiece as filming struggled along.

Its spectacular ending was only devised in the days before filming ended. The film was being composed on the fly, and a miracle somehow occurred.

As of today, Iran is a story without an ending. We don't mean that as a criticism, just as a matter of fact.

A few sites are gone—but as with the uranium, the major players remain. We refer to principals like President Trump and Secretary Hegseth, but to Blue America's leading players too. Can we place our faith in their good judgment as matters unfold from here? 

President Trump "sent out a Truth." That's what one of the players said!

As this week proceeds, we'll look at the people, Red and Blue, who will be the decision-makers as the successor to a legendary nation—as the successor to Casablanca's "America"—responds to whatever comes next.

"It's a story without an ending," the Bogart character says. The screenwriters fashioned a brilliant ending. Will the world be that fortunate here?

Tomorrow: For starters, this person remains

The young wife's heartfelt tale: With apologies for the colorization—to watch the full scene from Casablancayou can just click here.

SATURDAY: "Darkest mysteries come into focus?"

SATURDAY, JUNE 21, 2025

All except for this: "The universe’s darkest mysteries are coming into focus."

That's what the New York Times headline said. Inevitably, we were intrigued.

For better or worse, here's the fuller pair of headlines. The headlines sit atop a lengthy report for the section called Science Times:

The Universe’s Darkest Mysteries Are Coming Into Focus
As the Vera C. Rubin Observatory surveys the night sky, astrophysicists expect to unlock the secrets of dark matter, dark energy and cosmic phenomena that go “bang!”

Inevitably, the report leads readers into the mysteries of so-called "dark energy" and "dark matter." Into things that go "ou-boum" in the night—as in Forster's Marabar Caves in A Passage to India.

As far as we know, nothing in the Times report is scientifically invalid in any way. But to our ear,  reports of this type take us where the vast bulk of Times readers can't possibly hope to follow.

Such reports tend to go boom in the night. They make us readers feel that we're coming to understand the cosmos when we're actually doing no such thing. It's a way of replacing religious forms of cosmology with their secular first cousins.

All in all, whatever! A larger mystery has been unfolding right before our American eyes, to the extent that we're willing to look. For starters, it's captured in these headlines from the latest batch of news reports at Mediaite:

Trump Complains He Should Have Won FIVE Nobel Prizes By Now But ‘They Only Give Them To Liberals’

‘Listen to Her Spew Off!’ Jessica Tarlov Sends Trump Into Full Fox Meltdown, Claims ‘MAGA is Complaining BIG LEAGUE!’

‘That’s a Serious Crime’: Musk Accuses Top Trump Aide of ‘Breaking the Law’ – Maybe Being Russian Spy

Trump Calls for Special Prosecutor for Alleged Election Fraud in 2020—Claiming He Won in a ‘LANDSLIDE!’

Trump Fumes the U.S. Has ‘Too Many Non-Working Holidays’ On Juneteenth: ‘It Must Change’

New Smartmatic Filing Reveals Fox News Staffers Admitted Election Claims Were ‘So F***ing Cray’ and ‘MINDBLOWINGLY NUTS’

President Trump and Elon Musk and Fox News staffers oh my! 

Is it real or is it Memorex? With respect to President Trump, do these tirades stem from actual beliefs, or are they simply examples of the latest (deliberate) distractions?

As you learn from that Mediate report, Elon Musk made his latest inaccurate claim as he blared about that alleged Russian spy. Beyond that, he's the key player in this new column from Nicholas Kristof:

The Waste Musk Created

[...]

I’ve been traveling through Sierra Leone and Liberia to gauge the impact of Trump’s closing of U.S.A.I.D., to see how bad things have gotten since an earlier trip through South Sudan and Kenya. Here’s what I see: Children are dying because medicines have been abruptly cut off, and risks of Ebola, tuberculosis and other diseases reaching America are increasing—while medicines sit uselessly in warehouses.

After Elon Musk boasted about feeding U.S.A.I.D. “into the wood chipper” over a weekend, he claimed that no one had died as a result. Secretary of State Marco Rubio repeated that claim just last month.

So I challenge them both: Come with me on a trip to the villages where your aid cuts are killing children. Open your eyes. And if you dare to confront actual waste and abuse—the kind that squanders lives as well as money—join me in the village of Kayata, Liberia, where in April a pregnant mother of two, Yamah Freeman, 21, went into labor...

And so on from there. With respect to that young Liberian woman, we'll have more information below.

Kristof's unusual values and unusual degree of dedication take him into parts of the world where few major journalists go. Just to refresh you, Elon Musk—who plainly seemst o be disordered—isn't just the guy who made that prophetic "wood chipper" remark." 

He's also the guy who said the following to Joe Rogan this, earlier in the year:

“The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy..."

Has that statement been taken out of context? For fuller context, click here.

To our own (non-medical) eye and ear, it seems fairly obvious.  It seems fairly obvious that something seems to be fundamentally wrong with Elon Musk. 

Such situations always involve a tragic loss of human capability and potential. Such situations are always tragic—but still and all, there it is.

Is it possible that "something is wrong" with President Trump? How about with Vice President Vance, but also with at least one member of his staff?

Vance Blames L.A. Violence on California Democrats and Disparages Padilla

Eight days ago, Senator Alex Padilla was forcibly removed from a news conference and handcuffed by federal agents after he interrupted Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, at the Wilshire Federal Building in Los Angeles.

At the same building on Friday, Vice President JD Vance disparaged Mr. Padilla for engaging in “political theater” and called him by the wrong name.

“Well, I was hoping Jose Padilla would be here to ask a question, but unfortunately, I guess he decided not to show up because there wasn’t the theater,” Mr. Vance said during a news conference in response to a reporter. “I think everybody realizes that’s what this is. It’s pure political theater.”

Mr. Vance’s spokeswoman later said that he misspoke when he said the senator’s name.

[...]

Later Friday, a spokeswoman for Mr. Vance said the vice president misspoke when he said Mr. Padilla’s name.

“He must have mixed up two people who have broken the law,” said Taylor Van Kirk, the spokeswoman.

Jose Padilla is the name of a man who was convicted of terrorism conspiracy in 2007 after being arrested in Chicago on suspicion of planning to set off a radioactive dirty bomb.

Did Vance (accidentally) misspeak when he misstated Senator Padilla's first name?

Everything's possible, even that! Later, Vance's spokeswoman sought to make things right by comparing the California senator to a convicted terrorist, while seeming to say that each of the two Padillas have (somehow) broken the law.

Where do creatures like these come from? What explains their astonishing conduct?

We've got your "darkest mystery" right there! That mystery is all around us as the American nation continues to come apart.

The mystery is all around us! It has spread all over the conduct on Fox. It escapes the White House through a fire hose which leads to President Trump.

What explains the unusual behavior of the people in question? What explains the behavior of Vice President Vance? Of his astounding spokeswoman?

For better or worse, our big news orgs have agreed not to ask. Within two weeks, one of the people we've mentioned today has a major decision to make.

Regarding Kristof's column: Yamah Freeman, age 21, went into labor in Liberia. Because of some of the things Musk has done, she never made it to the hospital. 

Because of some of the things Musk has done, there was no longer an ambulance to take her there. As neighbors tried to carry her there, she died along the way.

Is something wrong with Elon Musk? Our journalists still refuse to approach that mystery from the (fairly obvious) medical / mental health point of view.

Next week: Even as we adopt a new focus, we'll show you what was said on the Fox News Channel about last weekend's horrific events in Minnesota. (Remember them?)

We'll show you what was said last Sunday. That will include two of the dumbest presentations we've ever seen on a TV "news" program.