IMITATIONS: The Fox News Channel doesn't exist...

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2024

...if you read the New York Times: Kevin Drum is more sanguine about tomorrow's debate than we are.

(Important note to the New York Times. The debate is scheduled for tomorrow night. It won't take place "next week.")

Kevin has a prediction about tomorrow's event. At this site, we don't.  We aren't saying that his prediction is wrong. 

For the record, though, here it is:

My prediction for Thursday

Oh, you'd like a prediction about Thursday's debate? Happy to oblige. I predict that it will go normally. Trump will blather and lie while Biden will answer questions coherently with occasional enunciation problems. It will not swing voting intent by more than 1% or so.

Also, the moderators will ask at least one question about whatever the Supreme Court did that morning. I'm hoping it's about Chevron so we can find out if Trump has any idea what Chevron deference even is.

That prediction was posted on Monday. It could turn out to be right.

For ourselves, we're much less clear about what's going to happen. We do know this:

Neither one of these horrible candidates ought to be on that stage. Also, there will be nothing "normal" about a debate in which these are the two major candidates. 

More on that ugly assessment tomorrow. For today, let's look at a news report in this morning's New York Times—a news report which mistakenly says that the event in question will take place "next week."

Can anyone here play this game? Last Friday, the report to which we refer appeared online at the Times. As of that time, tomorrow's debate was indeed slated for "next week."

This morning, the report has finally appeared in print editions, lacking an adjustment to that scheduling note. Everybody makes mistakes, but the New York Times has been making this type of mistake with some regularity of late.

According to the Times web site, the report appears in today's print editions, though only on page A14. In our general view, it concerns the major topic in play at tomorrow night's event.

We refer to endless, around-the-clock claims that President Biden is in the grip of "senility" or "dementia." As of this morning, the New York Times seems to be saying that such claims are false. 

Headline included, the Times report starts as shown:

How Misleading Videos Are Trailing Biden as He Battles Age Doubts

President Biden has many adversaries in this year’s election. There are his Republican opponent, former President Donald J. Trump, and the independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

And then there is the distorted, online version of himself, a product of often misleading videos that play into and reinforce voters’ longstanding concerns about his age and abilities.

In the last two weeks, conservative news outlets, the Republican National Committee and the Trump team have circulated videos of Mr. Biden that lacked important context and twisted mundane moments to paint him in an unflattering light. 

The report then cites three video clips which do, in fact, seek to "paint [President Biden] in an unflattering light." According to the Times report, the videos are "misleading." They've created a "distorted" picture of the president.

Those assessments by the Times may be accurate. Meanwhile, sad:

According to the Times report, the videos have been circulated by "conservative news outlets, the Republican National Committee and the Trump team" itself. After describing the video clips, the Times offers this comical account of what is being claimed about President Biden:

A New York Times review of these videos found that some scenes were cut short and taken out of context, while other clips were cropped in a way that omitted crucial details when compared with additional footage.

Campaigns and political groups have long disseminated damaging videos of their opponents, sometimes misleadingly edited ones.

But the flurry of clips released this month is a fresh reminder of the steep, multifront and evolving challenge that Mr. Biden, 81, faces in convincing voters that he is spry enough to serve another term. As polls show a close race, many Americans harbor doubts about his fitness—and selectively sliced snippets from his routine public appearances are fueling those worries and sending conspiracy theories spiraling across social media.

According to the Times report, President Biden faces the challenge of convincing voters "that he is spry enough" to serve another term. 

That's comical, but also sad. Citizens, can we talk?

The entities which are pushing those clips aren't claiming that President Biden isn't sufficiently "spry." But so it goes as Blue America's most famous upper-class newspaper tries to avoid the aggressive, around-the-clock challenge emerging from below.

According to the Times report, the videos have been circulated by "conservative news outlets, the Republican National Committee and the Trump team" itself.

Along the way in the Times report, the New York Post is cited by name, several times. Meanwhile, how strange:

No other "conservative news outlet" is cited by name at all.

No other "news outlet" is ever cited by name! That would include the Fox News Channel, which has been broadcasting aggressive attacks about the president's supposed senility and dementia through such gruesome broadcast vehicles as the primetime Gutfeld! program.

The channel has been pushing these claims day and night. But only the Post is named.

Long ago and not so far away, sacred Nietzsche described the so-called "slave revolt in morals." As a mere freshman in college, we were assigned to read the texts in question. 

The leading authority on the gentleman describes this matter as shown:

Friedrich Nietzsche

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844 - 1900) was a German philosopher. He began his career as a classical philologist before turning to philosophy...

Nietzsche's work spans philosophical polemics, poetry, cultural criticism, and fiction while displaying a fondness for aphorism and irony. Prominent elements of his philosophy include his radical critique of truth in favor of perspectivism; a genealogical critique of religion and Christian morality and a related theory of master–slave morality.

[...]

Slave revolt in morals

In Beyond Good and Evil and On the Genealogy of Morality, Nietzsche's genealogical account of the development of modern moral systems occupies a central place. For Nietzsche, a fundamental shift took place during human history from thinking in terms of "good and bad" toward "good and evil."

The initial form of morality was set by a warrior aristocracy and other ruling castes of ancient civilizations. Aristocratic values of good and bad coincided with and reflected their relationship to lower castes such as slaves. Nietzsche presented this "master morality" as the original system of morality—perhaps best associated with Homeric Greece. To be "good" was to be happy and to have the things related to happiness: wealth, strength, health, power, etc. To be "bad" was to be like the slaves over whom the aristocracy ruled: poor, weak, sick, pathetic—objects of pity or disgust rather than hatred.

"Slave morality" developed as a reaction to master morality. ... [Nietzsche] associated slave morality with the Jewish and Christian traditions, as it is born out of the ressentiment of slaves. 

Etcetera, and so forth and so on. As we said, we were assigned those difficult texts. We're fairly sure we read them, or at least that we tried.

You can't blame us for having perused those tests. You'll have to blame Stanley Cavell.

(For the record, we prefer the "slave morality"—until it spins out of control.)

At one point, we thought of the furious "slave revolt" as we watched Gutfeld! last night. It came to mind as the horrible Charly Arnolt spoke—but then too, there was comedian Rich Vos, a good guy who we knew a tiny tad at least three decades ago.

This afternoon, we'll show you what those warriors said on last night's Gutfeld! program. For now, we'll only say this:

True to the ways of the aristocratic class, the New York Times is refusing to report the fury of the assault on its sector—the fury of the assault from below on grotesque programs like Gutfeld!

The Times is willing to name the New York Post. It seems to believe it can run and hide from the Fox News Channel.

With respect to President Biden, we will tell you this:

We regard hm as a terrible candidate—as an insult to the tradition, such as it ever was. We regard the other candidate as apparently (severely) mentally ill—but that's a matter the New York Times and other such orgs have agreed we must never discuss.

The Times won't mention the one possibility. Today, it glosses the other.

Most strikingly, it refuses to name the Fox News Channel. This is the way aristocratic elites have tended to crash and burn.

Will President Biden "answer questions coherently" during tomorrow night's debate? We aren't entirely sure that he will. We can't predict that he won't.

For whatever it may be worth, we regard that as the primary question which will be answered tomorrow night. That said, we regard this debate as an abomination—as a rank imitation of life, not unlike the Gutfeld! program.

We'll offer more on that ugly viewpoint tomorrow. For now, we'll assure you of two key facts:

First, the imitation of life in question will not take place "next week." 

Also this:

When the event in question takes place, a furious assault will ensue—a relentless assault from below.

This afternoon: Night after night after night

Termagant cites what Cuomo said!

TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 2024

We can't say his statement is wrong: Last Friday evening, former governor Andrew Cuomo guested with Bill Maher. on Bill's HBO show, Real Time. 

During the program's Overtime segment, they discussed the recent New York City criminal trial of former president Donald J. Trump.

Oof. Midway through their exchange, Maher described a major downside to the recent trial:

MAHER (6/21/24): The trial in New York, the one he got convicted for, was the greatest fundraising bonanza ever. He is now—he was lagging behind Biden, and now he’s pulled quite a bit ahead. That trial was the greatest reason people had to send their checks for five, ten, 25, whatever dollars to Donald Trump. 

So I mean, look, it’s a—it’s a Hobson’s choice always with him, because he’s always guilty. Yeah. It’s not like he’s not guilty of any of these crimes, but the repercussions might be worse.

For ourselves, we wouldn't necessarily agree with the claim that Trump was guilty of some sort of crime in that matter. That said, the fund-raising repercussion pretty much speaks for itself.

Bill noted an unfortunate downside to the Gotham "hush money" trial. What Cuomo said in their exchange was much more fundamental. 

Before, then after, Bill's observation, the former governor said this:

CUOMO: The two trials in New York—New Yorkers said, 66 percent said the justice system is politicized. And there's nobody in New York who likes Trump. And still, 66 percent said the justice system is politicized.

That's why I think he's not paying the same price for these verdicts, because they believe it is political. And you want to talk about a threat to democracy—when you have this country believing you're playing politics with the justice system, and you're trying to put people in jail or convict them for political reasons, then we have a real problem.

MAHER: [Remarks on fund-raising bonanza, then this:]

...I was always with you on the one in New York, the hush money trial. I don’t think they should have brought that one. It was just always going to look like a sex case, and people were always just going to look at it that way.

CUOMO: That case, the attorney general’s case in New York, frankly, should have never been brought. And if his name was not Donald Trump, and he—if he wasn’t running for president, I’m the former AG in New York, I’m telling you, that case would have never been brought.

And that’s what is offensive to people. And it should be, because if there’s anything left, it’s belief in the justice system.

To watch the full exchange, in order, you can just click here. (Move ahead to minute 6.)

For the record, it isn't clear which case Cuomo was talking about. Was he talking about the "hush money" case—the criminal case brought by D.A. Alvin Bragg? Was he talking about the civil fraud case brought by Attorney General Letitia James?

Given the context created by Maher's remarks, it isn't clear what case Cuomo was talking about. It is clear that he was saying that at least one of those cases was brought for political reasons. 

That isn't true just because he said it. But the fact that he said it is being widely bruited on Fox.

In Blue America, we won't be told that Cuomo offered this assessment. It isn't true just because he said it, but we Blues will be shielded from the task of having to think about what he said.

A certain termagant was pimping this matter on his primetime "cable news" program last night. He was also talking about Nancy Pelosi's alleged misuse of Botox—he does that pretty much every night—and he was talking about President Biden "sh*tting his pants," another favorite fantasy topic.

On balance, the termagant strikes us as sadly (and weirdly) disordered. So is a great deal of what we get told, and shielded from hearing, over here in Blue America, over here within our own aggressively segregated land.

According to Cuomo, at least one of those trials was an inappropriate political hit. In all honesty, we can't necessarily say that his assessment is wrong.

IMITATIONS: Big star continues to imitate life!

TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 2024

This is your nation on Fox: For what it's worth, we disagree with the bulk of critical opinion concerning the film in question.

The film in question is Do the Right Thing. It appeared in 1989. 

As a general matter, the film was widely praised by the critics. As the leading authority on the film explains, a weather forecast sets the scene, at the start of the film, for what is going to follow:

Do the Right Thing

Do the Right Thing is a 1989 American comedy-drama film produced, written and directed by Spike Lee....The story explores a Brooklyn neighborhood's simmering racial tension between its African-American residents and the Italian-American owners of a local pizzeria, culminating in tragedy and violence on a hot summer's day.

A critical and commercial success, the film received accolades, including Academy Award nominations for Best Original Screenplay and Best Supporting Actor...In 2022, the film was ranked the 24th greatest of all time in Sight and Sound magazine's decennial poll of international critics, programmers, curators, archivists and academics. It has since been featured on many other lists of the greatest films of all time by numerous critics.

As the film begins, a local D.J. gives the forecast for the day—"over 100 degrees." The sweltering heat provides a bit of dramatic context for the mayhem to come.

We rented Do the Right Thing a few years ago. We found it unwatchably tedious. That said:

"At the time of the film's release, both Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert ranked the film as the best of 1989," the leading authority reports. "Later, each ranked it as one of the top 10 films of the decade."

That wasn't our assessment. But in our occasionally rational world, it's well known that assessments offered in good faith will, on occasion, differ.

(Full disclosure: We guested with Siskel, long ago, on Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect program.)

We thought the film in question was tedious. That said, it remained quite hot in New York City over the weekend which just passed. This set the stage for our flailing American nation's latest imitation of life.

Briefly, a bit of background:

By the end of last week, it was already hot all along the east coast. As we noted on Sunday, the biggest star of our nations most watched "cable news" channel offered this bit of reporting at the start of Friday evening's imitation of a news show:

GUTFELD (6/21/24): The heat wave continues in the East. It's so hot Nancy Pelosi had to put on her backup face.

[PHOTO OF PELOSI APPEARS]

It's so hot she had to replace the stick up her ass with an ice pop.

[LAUGHTER, APPLAUSE] 

[...]

It's so hot Jerry Nadler sold the shade under his ass to the highest bidder.

It's so hot he filled his sports bra with Haagen-Dazs. So hot he put a Klondike bar under each testicle

Seriously! 

It's so hot Rachel Levine called in the National Guard to fan his nuts.

So it went, at the start of this primetime "cable news" program, at 10 p.m. last Friday night.

We'd be inclined to describe those remarks as an "imitation of life." More specifically, we'd describe them as an imitation of human life—as an imitation of the kind of discourse in which we humans have long pretended to engage.

"Man [sic] is the rational animal," a famous figure is widely said to have said, long ago by the Aegean. At least here in the western world, we've pretended from that day right up to this that his claim, as understood, was in fact basically accurate.

Thanks in large part to the "democratization of media," performers like the termagant have made it possible for others to see how delusional that widespread pretense has been. For ourselves, we would offer this assessment:

Here within our flailing nation, we've been conducting an obvious imitation of discourse for at least the past forty years. As of last night, it had been still hot in New York—and the termagant set out to display the accuracy of our assessment.

It had still been hot all along the east coast! Believe it or not, here's the way the termagant started last evening's primetime news program:

GUTFELD (6/24/24): Happy Monday, everyone!

So Washington officially hot 100 degrees for the first time in almost eight years. It was so hot, President Biden is decomposing at twice the normal rate.

It was so hot, Jerry Nadler filled his pants with all 31 flavors. 

It was so hot, instead of Botox, Nancy Pelosi injected her face with soft serve.

The nightly Pelosi Botox report! So began the primetime news program—but at that point, a change-up:

GUTFELD (continuing directly): And it was so hot, Barack Obama moved back to Kenya.

[AUDIENCE GROANS]

What? I don't know. I don't get it!

Our provisional assessment? Nothing is too dumb or too crass for this corporate-owned imitation of life. Soon he was offering the observation shown below, concerning reported advice that President Biden needs to smile at Thursday's night imitation of a debate:

GUTFELD: There is a downside to Joe smiling...If he holds the smile for more than eight seconds, we'll all assume he [BLEEP] his pants.

As the termagant offered this observation, the camera jumped to panelist Jonathan Turley. The Fox legal analyst was plainly embarrassed, to his obvious credit. 

We'll offer one more assessment. Based on past behavior at Fox, we'll assume the missing word was BLEEPed because it wasn't "pooped."

That helps explain Turley's embarrassment. Also, it helps display the extent to which last evening's show was an insult to human capability—an imitation of human life.

So it went at the start of this latest imitation of life. In fairness, this imitation of commentary is part of the wider imitation of discourse which is being conducted on the other cable news channels, but also in our biggest newspapers, as a flailing nation pretends to ready itself for Thursday evening's imitation of a political discussion / debate.

"This whole trial is out of order," Al Pacino once thoughtfully said. We'd be inclined to say the same thing about our nation's sprawling imitation of discourse, and therefore of human life.

As a nation, we keep pretending this isn't happening. Plainly, though, it is.

For the record, we have no idea why the 59-year-old TV star in question is obsessed with Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a minor figure within our current imitation of Congress. That said, it always comes back to the private parts of the termagant's targets, and to thoughts about human waste.

So it goes, night after night, then night after night after night. At the higher-level news orgs, the people who went to the finest schools insist on averting their gaze.

Fuller disclosure!

Yesterday morning, around 6:30, we suddenly thought of Abraham Lincoln as we watched Morning Joe. We thought of the way that moral giant emerged from the obscurity of the American wilderness, boasting one year of formal schooling—had inexplicably emerged as one of the greatest writers and moral thinkers in modern history.

We thought of Lincoln as we watched a little-known 22-year-old woman speak on Morning Joe.  Out of nowhere, her presentation emerged from the unbearable tedium of that morning's previous pseudo-discussion. 

We'll show you what that young woman said before the week is done. We'll link you to tape of what she said. Also, we'll link you to tape of a report on Kentucky PBS, late last year, about this startling young person.

Once in a while, such moments emerge from the endless imitations of life. That said, we're also forced to tell you this:

As last evening's program continued, the termagant made some perfectly decent points about the moral and intellectual squalor found within our own Blue America as we Blues conduct our own highly tribal imitation of discourse.

Tomorrow, we'll look at some of those points. But make no mistake:

Yellow submarines to the side, we're all living inside an imitation, pretty much all the way down.

Tomorrow: Termagant quotes Governor Cuomo. Also, praises Snopes

Four states, three demographic groups!

MONDAY, JUNE 24, 2024

Reading scores, Grade 8: Last Saturday, Kevin Drum surprised us with a post about California's public school students. More specifically:

How well did California's eighth graders perform on the most recent NAEP reading test? Compared to their peers from other states, it seemed to us that the Cali kids had performed surprisingly well:

DRUM (6/22/24): Among the 50 states, California ranks 13th in reading for white students and 9th for Black students. (But a weaker 22nd for Hispanic students.)

As one of Kevin's graphics notes, nine states didn't have enough black kids to produce a representative sample, given Naep procedures. That means that Cali's kids came in 13th among the total 50, ninth among 41.

On balance, Cali's kids did pretty well. We got to wondering about the way Cali's scores compared to those from some other major states. We decided to look at four such states—two of them red, two blue.

A bit of nostalgia was involved. Here are some of the data we churned:

Average scores, Grade 8 reading, 2022 Naep

White kids:
U.S.: 267.11
California: 268.69
New York State: 273.14
Texas: 263.85
Florida: 264.92

Black kids: 
U.S.: 242.77
California: 245.42
New York State: 246.41
Texas: 246.71
Florida: 246.91

Hispanic kids: 
U.S.: 249.81
California: 249.32
New York State: 248.03
Texas: 248.21
Florida: 259.98

We see no particular bombshells there. For all Naep data, start here.

Quickly, a basic point:

According to a very rough rule of thumb, ten points on the Naep scale is often said to be the rough equivalent of one academic year. 

That's a very rough rule of thumb, but it gives you a general idea of what those statistical differences might (roughly) suggest. And yes, that includes the differences in average scores between those three demographic groups within those four large states.

A bit of nostalgia was involved in this effort. We thought back to the days when it was still possible to imagine that someone, somewhere, actually cared about something resembling this.

Those days are long, long gone. A large amount of pretense may have been involved in the expression of such apparent concerns. 

Still, you could still pretend.

Today, the public discourse is all about who can seem to be more senile, depending on the way you edit tiny bits of videotape from their recent public appearances. On balance, our discourse is an undisguised, rolling clown show—a gong show all the way down.

In some ways, the most interesting information we collected involved the demographic distribution of the eighth graders in those four large states. The Naep provided these data:

Student population, Grade 8, 2022 Naep
White / Black / Hispanic kids

U.S.: 45% / 15% / 29%
California: 18% / 4% / 58%
New York State: 40% / 16% / 30%
Texas: 28% / 12% / 51%
Florida: 35% / 21% / 36%

Just to be clear:

According to the data from the Naep, California's grade 8 population in 2022 was 18 percent white, 4 percent black, 58 percent Hispanic.  With respect to the other jurisdictions, you can take it from there.

(The last we looked, they were all good, decent kids. That includes the kids who may have lost their way due to mistreatment, anguish, stress, disorder, abuse, neglect.)

At one time, it was possible to imagine that someone somewhere actually cared about what occurs in our public schools. Back in the 1960s, Jonathan Kozol arrived on the scene, and this (briefly) became a major topic within the liberal world!

Not long ago, our nation's journalistic thought leaders were still pretending to conduct discussions of such matters. As everyone must surely know by now, those days are gone, long gone.

Not to forget these kids: But what about Asian ancestry kids? Citizens, thank you for asking:

Average scores, Grade 8 reading, 2022 Naep

Asian ancestry kids:
U.S.: 281.07
California: 282.97
New York State: 277.49
Texas: 286.07
Florida: 272.59

At one time, this sort of thing seemed like a matter of interest. Those days are gone, long gone.

IMITATIONS (OF LIFE): This Thursday, we stage our latest event!

MONDAY, JUNE 24, 2024

Our latest imitation: We've never known why Imitation of Life was called Imitation of Life.

On the most literal level, the well-regarded 1959 film carried that name for an obvious reason. It was a remake of a well-regarded 1934 film of the exact same name.

That film, in turn, had been an adaptation of Fannie Hurst's 1933 novel, Imitation of Life.  The evocative title—Imitation of Life—was passed on, down through the ages. 

On Thursday night, we within our failing nation will be staging, and will be consuming, our own most recent imitation of life. At present, the people who pretend to be journalists are pretending to discuss that upcoming imitation of life.

Why were the novel and the subsequent films called Imitation of Life? We still don't know, but the leading authority on the later film thumbnails it in this manner:

Imitation of Life (1959 film)

Imitation of Life (1959) is an American drama film directed by Douglas Sirk, produced by Ross Hunter and released by Universal International. It was Sirk's final Hollywood film and dealt with issues of race, class and gender.

[...]

In 2015, the United States Library of Congress selected Imitation of Life (1959) for preservation in the National Film Registry, finding it "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant." (The 1934 version of Imitation of Life had been added to the National Film Registry in 2005.)

[...]

Though it was not well-reviewed upon its original release and was viewed as inferior to the original 1934 film version–many critics derided the film as a "soap opera"–Imitation of Life was the sixth highest-grossing film of 1959, grossing $6.4 million...[One critic] wrote that, in contrast to the novel, this film and the previous film had received "far more critical attention." With a wider audience, the second film became "more famous" than the first.

In 1959, somewhat improbably, Imitation of Life "dealt with issues of race, class and gender." That may help explain why it received so much critical attention, some of it dismissive.

Having said all that, we're still not sure why the film, and the original novel, were called Imitation of Life. In certain ways, Hollywood may have attempted to fashion the 1959 film as a fairly standard type of imitation of discourse:

Imitation of Life (1959 film)

[...]

In the 1950s there was increased activism in the Civil Rights Movement, with milestones such as the Brown v. Board of Education US Supreme Court case, and the Montgomery bus boycott gaining national attention. In addition, more women had been working during and after World War II. At the same time, the writers acknowledged that racial discrimination and its inequities were still part of society.

They created a plot line in which [the Lana Turner character] becomes a Broadway star by her own talents, with Annie assisting by being paid to serve as a nanny for Lora's child and general household manager. Producer Ross Hunter also was cannily aware that these plot changes would enable Lana Turner to model an array of glamorous costumes and real jewels, something that would appeal to a female audience. 

Lana Turner's wardrobe for Imitation of Life cost over $1.078 million, making it one of the most expensive in cinema history to that time.

In a highly improbable addition to the plot, the Lana Turner character turns into a big Broadway star! Come see Miss Turner's stunning wardrobe and jewels, the producer may have been whispering into the public's ear.

Did that constitute an imitation of discourse—a distraction from the challenging heart of the film? Each citizen, whether Red or Blue, is going to have to decide.

But what we'll see this Thursday night will be a full-blown imitation—a well-disguised imitation of human intellectual life. The same can be said of the pseudo-discussions which are now being broadcast about Thursday night's imitation of a debate.

Thursday's event will feature two imitations of American political leadership. The current imitations of discourse are being conducted by a wide array of imitations of journalistic thought leaders, Red and Blue alike.

As we ingest this rolling imitation of a functioning democracy, we think of what Michael Moore said at the 2003 Oscars. On stage at that high-profile event, the gentleman offered this:

MOORE (3/23/03): I've invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us, and we would like to—they are here. They are here in solidarity with me because we like non-fiction.

We like non-fiction, and we live in fictitious times.

We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects a fictitious president.

We—We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons.

Whether it's the fictition of duct tape or the fictitious [sic] of orange alerts, we are against this war, Mr. Bush!

Employing a lovely turn of phrase, Moore spoke that night of "fictitions." Twenty-one years later, we're inclined to say that our culture has advanced to the point where we're all living inside a full-blown imitation of life.

(Back then, it was Moore who was alleging "fictitious election results!" Today, one of our imitation candidates insists on making that unsupported claim about our last election.)

In a brilliant joke from the dead-and-gone Soviet Union, a public employee of the Soviet state was said to make this wickedly sage observation:

We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.

Today, within our own imitation of life, it may work more like this:

They pretend to discuss an election and we pretend to listen. 

On the whole, the people cast in the role of journalists are on the air, every day and then all night, pretending that nothing essential has changed. In our view, the time has come to abandon that pretense. 

The time has come to drop that pose. Also, we'd have to say this:

It's no longer clear that there's any known way "back out of all this now too much for us."

This afternoon: Out of nowhere—where you'd least expect it!—a brilliant presentation

SUNDAY: Reportedly, it was this hot in the east!

SUNDAY, JUNE 23, 2024

Our nation's ongoing dysfunction: Friday evening, at 10 o'clock, the termagant started fast. 

It had been very hot in New York. For that reason, he opened his program with a bit of topical humor:

GUTFELD (6/21/24): The heat wave continues in the East. It's so hot Nancy Pelosi had to put on her backup face.

[PHOTO OF PELOSI APPEARS]

It's so hot she had to replace the stick up her ass with an ice pop.

[LAUGHTER, APPLAUSE] 

That's how the termagant started.

For the record, how hot was it in the east? Reportedly, it was this hot:

GUTFELD: It's so hot Jerry Nadler sold the shade under his ass to the highest bidder.

It's so hot he filled his sports bra with Haagen-Dazs. So hot he put a Klondike bar under each testicle

Seriously! 

It's so hot Rachel Levine called in the National Guard to fan his nuts.

That's the way the termagant started his primetime "cable news" program. These observations had all been delivered by 10:03 p.m. 

When it came time for his nightly comment on Joy Behar, he compared her this time to a cow.

(We're withholding the link for a reason. Click ahead to 10:07 p.m. if you choose.)

For the record, the termagant is 59 years old. He comes from a sunny land. 

His angry and disordered conduct has been normalized by the silence of everyone else, none of whom want to tangle with Fox. That said, this is American cultural carnage. It airs in primetime weekday nights.

In truth, it had been very hot in the east. The termagant, such as he is, was simply reporting the facts.

SATURDAY: Fun and games on Fox & Friends!

SATURDAY, JUNE 22, 2024

The death of a 12-year-old girl: If there were some such thing as very bad people, these would be very bad people.

Starting in today's 6 o'clock hour, they got busy proselytizing viewers of Fox & Friends Weekend, a gruesome propaganda vehicle on the Fox News Channel.

Viewers of this morning's show heard Barack Obama described as "our shadow president." They heard a chuckling discussion of an amusing sign in Florida—signs which direct this slogan at new arrivals from blue states:

DON'T FAUCI MY FLORIDA

You can't get dumber than these people are. On the other hand, you can be fairly sure that they're going to try. 

DON'T FAUCI MY FLORIDA, the alleged signs allegedly say. Insanely, it turns out that the clever slogan in question dates to merchandize produced by Florida's governor in 2021, back before his White House campaign crashed and burned.

Don't Fauci their Florida! In prime time shows this past week, Fox News colleagues like Watters and Gutfeld staged performative acts in which they seem to encourage physical violence against this killer of millions. So it goes on this insane "cable news" channel, as more elegant orgs like the New York Times reuse to comment or judge.

Back to this morning's performance:

You can't get dumber than these people are, but they're going to try. More than anything else, this morning's performers continued to pound away at an Associated Press news report which appeared late Thursday afternoon.

In the past two days, this short, initial AP report has been widely pseudo-discussed on Fox News Channel programs. So has the vicious crime the AP was starting to report, with special attention devoted to the AP's initial headline, which only referred to "men:"

2 men arrested in strangulation of 12-year-old Houston girl whose body was found in a creek

HOUSTON—Two men who were seen on surveillance footage with a 12-year-old girl before her body was found in a Houston creek earlier this week were arrested Thursday in her death, police said.

Johan Jose Rangel Martinez, 21, and Franklin Jose Pena Ramos, 26, each face a charge of capital murder in the killing of Jocelyn Nungaray, police said. The medical examiner has determined that her cause of death was strangulation.

It was unclear if the two suspects had attorneys yet to speak on their behalf. Their names were not listed in jail or court records as of Thursday afternoon.

Jocelyn’s body was found in the shallow water of a creek early Monday morning. Police have said that she sneaked out of her nearby home the night before.

Police said that surveillance footage showed the men meeting up with Jocelyn before walking to a convenience store with her.

There wasn't much more than that to that initial AP report. As of the time the report was filed, the two suspects had just been arrested. As you can see in the report, little more was known about the two men at the time.

There's no reason why this vicious crime shouldn't have been reported and discussed. It's been widely discussed on the Fox News Channel because, as it turns out, the two suspects are, in fact, "Venezuelan nationals who entered the United States illegally in March." 

Who are we quoting in that passage? We're quoting the Associated Press, which filed a second, more informative news report yesterday afternoon, more informative headline included:

Capital murder charges filed against 2 Venezuelan men in the death of a 12-year-old girl in Houston

[...]

The two men are Venezuelan nationals who entered the United States illegally in March, according to a statement Friday from the U.S. Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Martinez was arrested March 14 and Pena on March 28, both by U.S. Border Patrol near El Paso, Texas, about 670 miles from Houston, the statement said. Both were then released with orders to appear in court at a later date. How they traveled to Houston has not been revealed.

According to court documents filed Friday, the suspects allegedly lured the girl under a bridge and remained with her there for more than two hours. They allegedly took off her pants, tied her up and killed her before throwing her body in the bayou, a Harris County prosecutor wrote in a court filing.

The ugliness of this crime has become more clear. Meanwhile:

As of yesterday afternoon, the legal status of the two suspects had been reported by the U.S. Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Accordingly, it had also been reported by the Associated Press.

Back to the other very bad people, the ones we watched on the Fox News Channel this morning:

This morning, the very bad people in question were still clucking and wailing about that original AP report. The AP is refusing to tell its readers that the two suspects were here illegally, these clucking corporate idiots continued to claim

Yesterday, a wide array of performers on this channel had engaged in this keening and wailing. By this morning, the keening and wailing were completely bogus—but so what?

The keening and wailing continued this morning at a high-decibel level. Yesterday's second news report went unmentioned as the friends continued to assail the AP for refusing to report the men's legal status.

Briefly, let's be fair:

As of this morning, it's entirely possible that the three friends in question didn't know anything about this second AP report. No serious person can seriously claim that people like these typically know what they're talking about when they go on the air and start their aggressive promulgation of pre-approved corporate script.

It's entirely possible that Rachel, Charlie and Will didn't know about yesterday's AP report. That said, they're part of a deeply destructive "journalistic" arrangement which has helped create two Americas out of what used to more closely resemble one.

At any rate, Rachel, Charlie and Will outdid themselves this morning. They did so with their keening and wailing about the way the AP refuses to reveal the suspects' legal status—long after the AP had done that very thing.

Please don't make us transcribe their clowning behavior! But to see a minor first example at 6:26, you can just click here. At 7:00, Brother Cain started the program's second hour with this gong-show effort:

CAIN (6/22/24): It's the 7 a.m. hour of Fox & Friends Weekend, starting with this:

Houston residents, holding a vigil to honor a 12-year-old girl allegedly murdered by illegal immigrants. But the Associated Press? They won't mention those details.

As Cain declaimed, up on the screen went a photo of the original AP headline—the original AP headline from that first, brief news report. 

To see where the clowning went from there, you can click this link to see the hapless Charlie Hurt screen that original headline again, as he complains about the way the AP refuses to tell you the truth.

Knowingly or otherwise, MSNBC's Joy Reid played a similar game with a similar story earlier this week. For a partial report from Mediaite, you can just click here.

 Needless to say, Reid's grossly misleading report has been widely discussed on the Fox News Channel in the past few days. Reid may not have known how bogus her presentation was at the time she aired it. Whether she knew what she was doing or not, her bogus report has been widely discussed on Fox.

Just a guess: This morning's misstatements by the channel's three friends won't be discussed there at all.

Given the basic shape of our vastly imperfect human nature, there's no way to avoid behavior like this. Rather, there's no way to avoid such behavior once you've accepted "segregation by viewpoint" as the basic organizing principle of your nation's journalism.

Once that structure has been normalized, corporate entities will pay large salaries to willing enablers, Red and Blue alike. We can always say that The Others are worse than Us. But at this time, each of our leading "cable news" entities have spun out of control.

Over there in Red America, there they were, this very morning, still pimping the headline from Thursday's initial AP report. The trio of friends gamboled and played, and played the fool, in line with their employer's basic business model.

 We'll have more on this matter next week. For today, we'll close with this point:

As of this morning, we find no sign that the vicious murder of this 12-year-old girl has ever been mentioned by the New York Times. 

Most likely, it's better to say nothing at all than to say the soul-draining things the three Fox friends have now said. That said, Red America has been pushing this broader topic very hard in the past week. 

Over here in Blue America, is the broader topic being disappeared? Also, is it a serious topic—an important topic which actually should be reported and discussed?

Is a serious topic possibly being disappeared? Inevitably, so it will go when "the new segregation" reinvents us as Two Different Worlds.

PROPHECY: Gutfeld delivers the latest threat!

FRIDAY, JUNE 21, 2024

The rage of the sick angry child: The latest implied threat was delivered, just last evening, on the Gutfeld! program.

We refer to implied threats against Dr. Fauci. As we noted yesterday, a silly chimp name named Jesse Watters performed the first of these behaviors on Tuesday afternoon's edition of the gong-show "news program, "The Five.

Are we merely imagining this fellow's performance as a type of threat? By clicking here, you can see the performance yourself. 

As we noted yesterday, the silliest hireling in all of Fox News pounded his right fist into his left palm as he staged his performance. As he engaged in this braindead gesture, he suggested what should be done to the killer Fauci:

WATTERS (6/18/24): They're treating this guy like royalty. He should be really [SMACK] put the screws to.

So said a failing nation's silliest child, smacking his fist into his palm as a type of braindead suggestion.

So it went with the vacuous Watters! Last night, a certain termagant seemed to accept the Implied Threat to Fauci Challenge.

It happened in the first two minutes of his primetime "cable news" program. By way of establishing cultural context, we'll included the closing line of the termagant's previous comment:

GUTFELD (6/20/24): ...There's no better word than "feces." It's my mantra when I meditate.

In a recent interview, Dr. Anthony Fauci fears that someone could kill him. 

Here's some advice, Fauci: Just stay home.

After a delayed applause break, the termagant aimed his middle finger directly at the camera. This would help other disordered minds know that the termagant really meant what he had just said.

In fairness, this impressive middle-finger salute was pixilated by the termagant's owners. His next bit of commentary started like this:

GUTFELD (continuing directly): In Ohio, a defense attorney has been reinstated after being penalized for pooping in a Pringles can...

This is the way this idiot's tiny mind actually functions. Consider:

In the first two minutes of last night's show, he made references to President Biden's embalming fluid (and to his hearse), but also to Dr. Rachel Levine's panties and to Rep. Jerrold Nadler's balls.

His nightly joke about Nancy Pelosi's face would come at 10:05. For the record, the termagant is 59 years old (!), and he hails from a sunny land.

This is the way this overwrought fellow functions. He works under cover of darkness:

No one wants to tangle with the Fox News Channel! For that reason, this garbage can is opened each night, on a prime time "cable news" program, without a word of notice from the more civilized people who remain behind the high walls of our own Blue nation and of their own professional guild.

We'd score the termagant's presentation last night as a type of implied threat. Somewhere, some other disordered being may see what Watters and Gutfeld have done, and that person will consider the possibility of engaging in some additional act.

Over on Blue America's channel, the children pump our own tribe's propaganda, aimed directly at us. For forty years, we Blues have been too unintelligent to understand the way this game is played—the way this destructive game has actually worked.

"This whole court is out of order," Al Pacino once said.

The same is true of the "national discourse" which underlies the functioning of the realm we refer to as "our democracy." 

That whole clownish discourse has been out of order for decades, but our corporate pundits won't tell us that. 

Some of them may not understand that fact. But also, they're very well paid.

Back at the dawn of the west, a furious band had spent ten years laying siege to Troy. As our first great poem of war begins, the rage of Agamemnon, lord of men, triggers the rage of Achilles.

It was all about who owned which women. The violence proceeded from there.

The rage of the termagant was on full display on last night's "comedy program." 

(Clownishly, it was so described last night by Kat Timpf. It's always possible that she doesn't know better.) 

The rage of the termagant was on full display. Over on the other channel, the pundits crouched behind high walls, like the more civilized residents of Troy.

In Book Six, before he returns to the battle, Hector engages in a memorable scene with Andromache, his generous wife. For purposes of today's discussion, the scene begins right here:

At that, Hector spun and rushed from his house,
back by the same way down the wide, well-paved streets
throughout the city until he reached the Scaean Gates,
the last point he would pass to gain the field of battle.
There his warm, generous wife came running up to meet him,
Andromache the daughter of gallant-hearted Eetion
who had lived below Mount Placos rich with timber,
in Thebe below the peaks, and ruled Cilida's people.
His daughter had married Hector helmed in bronze.
She joined him now, and following in her steps
a servant holding the boy against her breast,
in the first flush of life, only a baby,
Hector's son, the darling of his eyes
and radiant as a star.

Hector is joined by his generous wife, but also by their darling son, "radiant as a star.". 

Hector tells Andromache why he has to return to the fighting. After that, we encounter one of the most famous scenes in all of western literature:

In the same breath, shining Hector reached down
for his son—but the boy recoiled,
cringing against his nurse's full breast,
screaming out at the sight of his own father,
terrified by the flashing bronze, the horsehair crest, 
the great ridge of the helmet nodding, bristling terror—
so it struck his eyes. And his loving father laughed,
his mother laughed as well, and glorious Hector,
quickly lifting the helmet from his head,
set it down on the ground, fiery in the sunlight,
and raising his son he kissed him, tossed him in his arms,
lifting a prayer to Zeus and the other deathless gods:
"Zeus, all you immortals! Grant this boy, my son,
may be like me, first in glory among the Trojans,
strong and brave like me, and rule all Troy in power
and one day let them say, 'He is a better man than his father'
when he comes home from battle bearing the bloody gear
of the mortal enemy he has killed in war—
a joy to his mother's heart."

So Hector prayed
and placed his son in the arms of his loving wife.
Andromache pressed the child to her scented breast,
smiling through her tears. Her husband noticed,
and filled with pity now, Hector stroked her gently,
trying to reassure her, repeating her name...

Civilized values, decency, exist behind Troy's famous walls. 

Hector and his generous wife are able to share a laugh as they delight in their darling child. Hector is filled with pity for his generous wife.

Civilized values exist inside Troy, but the warrior ethic prevails. When Hector prays to the deathless gods, he prays that this baby boy will become a joy to his mother by coming home with the bloody gear of the people he's killed in battle.

We still haven't shown you the most telling part of this extended scene. We refer to the passage in which Hector offers one additional prophecy:

It isn't just that "sacred Troy must die." In yet another accurate prophecy, Hector tells Andromache, in rich detail, what her personal fate will be when that disaster occurs.

The sexual politics which rules the Iliad is deeply entrenched within our nation today. The sheer stupidity of our own Blue America's recent conduct is an artefact of that politics.

We had to hear Stormy tell her story before we could know how to vote! The Achaeans wanted to get Helen back, and we had to hear about that!

We had to hear Stormy tell her story! When a population has agreed to descend to that level of stupidity, can any good outcome result?

"The day will come when sacred Troy must die," Hector said. "Priam must die and all his people with him."

When we awoke last Saturday morning, we were thinking of those sacred lines. A great deal remains to be said about the rhyming which may be lurking inside those famous lines.

Next week, though, we finally have it. Next week, it happens:

Debate!

The Five were sure it wasn't them!

THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 2024

Also, Greg Gutfeld got something right: On Tuesday afternoon, four members of the cast of The Five were sure it wasn't them. As a matter of fact, they were adamant.

The White House had begun to claim that Red American orgs were airing misleading videotape about President Biden.

Four members of The Five were scandalized. Greg Gutfeld responded first:

GUTFELD (6/18/24): When we see something, we vet it. The media does not. They are the engine behind their hoaxes. They are lucky we don't match their dishonesty. We could. We don't.

We don't have to, because basically we don't have to make up crap. Apparently, though, they hold us to a higher standard than they hold themselves. Only they can cheat. because they believe they have a moral high ground and that moral high ground allows them to do anything immoral they want...

They can say anything. They can lie, because they have the moral high ground. The most dangerous person is one that excuses their bad actions in the name of the good, especially when the good never materializes.

WATTERS (smirkingly): Very well said, Greg.

GUTFELD: Thank you, Jesse.

Several minutes later, Judge Jeanine went off. Harold Ford has said he doesn't like it when either side engages in misleading presentations. 

Ford serves as one of the program's punching bags. Judge Jeanine had a better idea:

PIRRO: You know, when you talk about both sides? I don't think it's both sides. The political correctness started with the Democrats. when they wanted us to say things in certain ways... All the Democrats do is say you've got to shut up. You can't say it that way and you mustn't change that...The only thing that's going on is Joe Biden is losing his mind, stumbling, mumbling and tripping. That's all.

The four panelists were quite sure—nothing misleading is ever said on a program like The Five. Comically, The Five is a program where "fair and balanced" has come to mean four dogmatic Red American pundits beating up one lone Democrat.

Four on one is the definition of "fair and balanced" on this "cable news" program! In the very next segment, Watters was pounding his right fist into his left palm, suggesting that this is what should be done to the demonic Anthony Fauci.

("They're treating this guy like royalty. He should be really [SMACK] put the screws to," the silly fellow scarily said, suggestively pounding his fist.)

The four panelists were adamant—nothing misleading or erroneous has ever emerged from Red America's side of the aisle. But in the midst of all the clowning, Greg Gutfeld broke every rule in the book:

He made a valid point!

He has now been stating his point for several days, on The Five and on the Gutfeld! program. You can see him make the point Tuesday afternoon on The Five, as the segment came to an end.

His presentation started like this. Sadly enough, this overwrought presentation is basically valid:

PIRRO (6/18/24): ...The only thing that's going on is Joe Biden is losing his mind, stumbling, mumbling and tripping. That's all.

GUTFELD: Jesse, can I make one simple point? That Joe Biden ran on one simple fake fact, that Trump called Nazis "fine people." 

When anybody called that out on the media and said it wasn't true, they were putting their careers in danger. There were only a handful of people that said, "Trump didn't say that. Trump didn't say that." And still CNN, and other networks, would run for it. If you called it out, you got harassed. So this is bullsh*t.

As you may recall, the endlessly cited phrase in question was "very fine people on both sides." That said, Gutfeld's overwrought complaint is basically well founded.

Yesterday afternoon, on The Five, he went into more detail, some of which was helpful. Basically, the highlighted statement is accurate:

GUTFELD (6/19/24): ...The fact is, all of the Trump hoaxes have turned out to be false. All of the Biden mishaps are obviously true. 

So I'm going to go back, because I sound like a broken record, to the "fine people" hoax. The was the media / Democrat op that edited Trump's words to make it sound like he said Nazis were fine people...Any journalist could have looked at this transcript and debunked it, but they didn't.

Gutfeld went on and on in overwrought fashion, but the highlighted point is valid. In the transcript in question, Trump clearly said, two or three times, that he wasn't including white nationalists or the like in the "very fine people" comment.

Gutfeld's highlighted statement is accurate! Any journalist could have reviewed the transcript and seen that Trump made those statements. Indeed, journalists should have done that.

We ourselves have done a full presentation of this matter several times. But we the people of Blue America are every bit as unsuited to running "our democracy" as are the people of Red America, the neighbors and friends Over There.

We humans are good at building tall buildings—tall building which rarely fall down. Also, when you hit the light switch on the wall, the lights almost always come on.

We the humans are much less skilled at almost everything else. By temperament and basic wiring, we're poorly suited to the complex task of engineering a serious discourse within what we call "our democracy."

As humans, we instinctively know that our own tribe is intelligent, honest and right. We also know that those found in the other tribe are stupid, dishonest and wrong.

Four of The Five play this game every day. But it isn't just done on Fox.

We humans! We simply aren't built for the tedious task of trying to run "our democracy." We Blues have displayed this shortcoming again and again. It isn't just the four irate folk who strut and fret and expound Over There.

PROPHECY: That trial may have cost Donald Trump a few points!

THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 2024

Helen meets Stormy Daniels: For the record, the current prophecy won't be tested if President Biden wins re-election.

We refer to the prophecy widely advanced across the realm of Blue America—the prophecy according to which Donald J. Trump's return to the White House would produce an end to "our democracy."

Will President Biden win re-election this year? Without question, he certainly might!  In a new poll from Fox News, he's moved ahead of Candidate Trump by two points nationwide. 

That said, riddle us this. In that same detailed survey, substantial majorities of both parties made this declaration:

The future of democracy is "extremely important in deciding [their] vote for president." 

Democrats said it—but so did Republicans! Here are the actual numbers:

Percentage of respondents saying the future of democracy is "extremely important" in deciding their vote this year:
Democrats: 74%
Republicans: 64%

Republicans are saying it too! How about the percentage of voters saying that the future of democracy is "extremely important" or "very important?" Those numbers look like this:

Percentage of respondents saying the future of democracy is "extremely important" or "very important" in deciding their vote this year:
Democrats: 92%
Republicans: 86%

"Time passed, and now it seems, everybody's having that dream!" We're quoting the early Dylan there, but let's be clear:

In this case, that dream, and its attendant prophecies, may of course be accurate. More specifically, if Candidate Trump makes his way to the White House, it may turn out that "our democracy"—such as it is—will indeed be doomed, or at least will be badly impacted.

At any rate, everybody seems to be saying that "our democracy" hangs in the balance. As to what we the people mean by that, this lengthy report by Fox News offers a bit of detail:

Three in 10 voters say debate performance will be extremely important to their vote for president, and by a 5-point margin more think Trump will win next week’s debate. A few more Democrats (9%) think Trump will win than Republicans (6%) say the same about Biden.  

The survey asks voters what comes to mind when they hear about threats to the future of American democracy and, by a wide margin, more think of the threats as the end of certain "rights and freedoms" than the end of "free and fair elections" (53%-30%), and that holds true among Democrats, Republicans and independents.  

By a 23-point margin, more think Hunter Biden’s gun trial (79%) was fair than Trump’s hush-money trial (56%). Four percent say Hunter’s conviction led them to change their support in the presidential race toward Trump or a third-party candidate, while 5% say Trump’s conviction caused a shift in their support to Biden or someone else.

Go figure! We the people believe all kinds of things. We're frequently willing to say those things if someone actually asks.

At any rate, Democrats fear for our democracy, but Republicans fear for it too. That said, the prophecy issued by Blue America's pundit class won't be tested if President Biden wins re-election. 

(If the president wins re-election, the rage of people like Steve Bannon will perhaps be tested instead. The shinola may start to hit the fan when the candidates battle next week.)

For ourselves, we have a greater personal affection for noble Hector's earlier prophecy—for the prophecy issued in Book Six of the Iliad, the western's world's first great work of literature.

The storytelling is brilliant and clear in that "poem of war." So is the nature of human concern at that point in time. 

Famously, that poem starts with "the rage of Achilles." In his introduction to the Robert Fagles 1990 translation, Professor Knox offers a concise account of Achilles' fury—of the rage which drives the fictional events which unfold in the twenty-four books of the poem.

As Professor Knox explains, the poem begins with a different prophecy. We apologize for one choice of words:

The incident that provoked Achilles' rage took place in the tenth and final year of the Achaean attack on Troy...The rage of Achilles—its cause, its course and its disastrous consequences—is the theme of the poem, the mainspring of the plot.

Chryses, a priest of Apollo, whose daughter has been carried off by the Achaeans in one of their raids, comes to the camp to ransom her. But she has been assigned, in the division of the booty, to the king who commands the Achaean army, Agamemnon, and he refuses to give her up. Her father prays for help to Apollo, who sends a plague that devastates the Achaean camp. 

Achilles, leader of the Myrmidons. one of the largest contingents of the Achaean army, summons the chieftains to an assembly. There they are told by the prophet Calchas that the girl must be returned to her father. Agamemnon has to give her up, but demands compensation for his loss. 

Achilles objects: let Agamemnon wait until more booty is taken. A violent quarrel breaks out between the two men, and Agamemnon finally announces that he will take recompense for his loss from Achilles, in the form of the girl Briseis, Achilles' share of the booty. 

For almost ten years, the invading Achaean armies have been waging a siege against the wealthy walled city of Troy. In this brief summary, Professor Knox describes one part of the "toxic masculinity" which lies at the heart of this ancient poem.

The word "booty" strikes us as profoundly unfortunate. More directly, the Achaeans have been raiding area villages, seizing girls and young women to be held as sexual slaves. 

The rage of Achilles is provoked when Agamemnon, lord of men—forced to surrender the young woman he has taken—announces that he is going to seizes Achilles' sexual slave instead.

Meanwhile, why have these lunatics spent ten years conducting a siege of Troy in the first place? The events in question lie outside the text of the Iliad, but Professor Knox offers this account of the original offense:

There are in the poem two human beings who are godlike, Achilles and Helen. One of them, Helen, the cause of the war, is so preeminent in her sphere, so far beyond competition in her beauty, her power to enchant men, that she is a sort of human Aphrodite. In her own element she is irresistible. Every king in Greece was ready to fight for her hand in marriage, but she chose Menelaus, king of Sparta. 

When Paris, the prince of Troy, came to visit, she ran off with him, leaving husband and daughter, without a thought of the consequences for others. Her willful action is the cause of all the deaths at Troy, those past and those to come. When she left with Paris she acted like a god, with no thought of anything but the fulfillment of her own desire, the exercise of her own nature. But when the Iliad opens she has already come to realize the meaning for others of her actions, to recognize that she is a human being. She criticizes herself harshly as she speaks to Priam...

Helen had been married to Menelaus—the son of Agamemnon and an Achaean prince. Ten years before the start of the Iliad, she decided to run off with Paris—a prince of Troy, one of King Priam's sons.

The loss of Helen was perceived as a blow to Achaean honor. The legion of lunatics down by the shore have been fighting and dying for almost ten years trying to get her back.

This was the sexual politics which lay at the heart of human striving at the dawn of the west. Moving right along:

In the most recent poll from Fox, Candidate Trump may have lost a few points in the wake of his criminal trial in New York. That trial turned on the claim that he had engaged in consensual sex, on one occasion in 2006, with a woman who wasn't his wife—with our own struggling nation's top "porn star."

If we squint a bit and tilt our head, we think we see a certain similarity between these two stories:

Way back when, the Achaeans were willing to fight and die over control of Helen. Thousands of years later, we Blues were willing to say that we needed to hear Stormy Daniels tell her story—share "her truth"—about that one consensual event before we could know how to vote in the 2016 election.

The fate of our democracy, such as it is, may now turn on that ridiculous claim. Our thought leaders in Blue America, such as they are, have been willing to advance that embarrassing claim, with no apparent sense of embarrassment, again and again and again in the course of the past year.

We think we hear a type of rhyme when we consider these two stories. When we hear the sounds of those rhymes, we almost start to think we see a type of truth behind the idea that we humans aren't mature enough, even now, to conduct a serious "democracy."

Back to Professor Knox:

In 1990, all those millennia later, he was oddly fashioning Helen's decision to run off with Paris as "the cause of all the deaths at Troy." The "willful action" of Paris himself came in for no such appraisal.

How far had our sexual politics come by the time that appraisal was offered? When Greek citizens heard the Iliad sung, they heard Helen herself offering that same appraisal. We start with "the old men of the realm" catching sight of the world's most beautiful woman in Book Three of the poem:

So they waited,
the old chiefs of Troy, as they sat aloft the tower.
And catching sight of Helen moving along the ramparts,
they murmured one to another, gentle, winged words:
"Who on earth could blame them? Ah, no wonder
the men of Troy and Argives under arms have suffered
years of agony all for her, for such a woman.
Beauty, terrible beauty! 
A deathless goddess—so she strikes our eyes!
But still,
ravishing as she is, let her go home in the long ships
and not be left behind, for us and our children
down the years an irresistible sorrow."

The old men blamed Helen for the years of agony; the noble King Priam did not. Addressing her as "dear child," he tells her he "holds the gods to blame for bringing this war upon me."

This is the kind of conduct which separates Trojan civilization from the toxicity down by the shore. That said, Helen has internalized a type of sexual politics:

And Helen the radiance of women answered Priam.
"I revere you so, dear father, dread you too—
if only death had pleased me then, grim death,
that day I followed your son to Troy, forsaking
my marriage bed, my kinsmen and my child,
my favorite, now full-grown,
and the lovely comradeship of women my own age.
Death never came, so now I can only waste away in tears..."

Helen assails herself, even more sharply, at other points in the poem. Right here, at the dawn of the west, a certain familiar sexual politics seems to be in play.

In our view, a certain "hall of mirrors" connection links our embrace of Stormy Daniels to the ten-year siege of Troy. Today, as then, it almost strikes us this way:

In the end, the only thing we humans actually care about is the question of who gets access to the women. 

We don't need no stinking "issues." In the end, we only care about matters like that. 

So it went in the siege of Troy, but also in the silly, embarrassing criminal charges lodged against Donald J. Trump. So it went in the ludicrous claim that we needed to know if he had engaged in consensual sex, on that one occasion ten years before, before we could know how to vote.

Red America's thought leaders are routinely just this side of insane. But it seems to us, if you know how to squint, that Blue America's vaunted thought leaders are a giant embarrassment too.

How did we ever reach this place? Also, who has been more ridiculous in the past forty years, Red thought leaders or Blue?

Tomorrow: "A [democracy], if you can keep it."

Possibly well worth watching!

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 2024

Willie Mays, in the beginning, playing stickball with the kids: The MLB Network posted the video three years ago, on the occasion of his 90th birthday.

Buck O'Neil provided the recollection. 

It was video of the very young Willie Mays, way back in the very beginning, out in the street with the neighborhood kids, then off to the coffee shop.

"They'd knock on my window at 9 o'clock," the subject of the video said: 

Stickball and Ice Cream with Willie Mays 

Such was the headline placed on it. 

"We didn't have any losers," he said. Video evidence offered.

Greg Gutfeld actually gets something right!

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 2024

And yes, you read that correctly: Is it possible that "our democracy" has already died? 

Is it possible that it has died in the manner of The Sixth Sense? In a way where it's dead and gone, but we are unable to notice?

As a matter of basic theory, everyone knows that a democracy is more than a bunch of elections. Eventually, the leading authority on the system gets around to the familiar highlighted point:

Democracies may use many different decision-making methods, but majority rule is the dominant form. Without compensation, like legal protections of individual or group rights, political minorities can be oppressed by the "tyranny of the majority". Majority rule involves a competitive approach, opposed to consensus democracy, creating the need that elections, and generally deliberation, be substantively and procedurally "fair"," i.e. just and equitable. In some countries, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are considered important to ensure that voters are well informed, enabling them to vote according to their own interests and beliefs.

In some countries, freedom of the press is considered important. Its purpose:

To ensure that the voters in a democracy get to be well informed.

As a matter of basic theory, you may need a competent press to maintain a functioning democracy. In our country, we have a 59-year-old former editor of Stuff offering a joke like this on a primetime weeknight program on our most-watched "cable news" channel:

GUTFELD (6/19/24): Speaking of the Clintons, Bill and Hillary will headline a fund-raiser for Biden later this month in Virgina.

Hillary hopes to raise money, while Bill hopes to raise an erection.

As you can see by clicking this link, the termagant was at it again! For the record, it happened at 10:01 p.m.

That was the termagant's second joke. His first joke had turned on the premise that Hillary Clinton may murder Kamala Harris so Clinton herself can run for VP with President Biden this year. 

In his second joke, he turned to his favorite topic—an imagined state of arousal.  By joke 5, hitting his stride, he was offering this:

GUTFELD: Dr. Fauci bragged in a recent interview about turning down a $7 million a year job in the private sector. 

He thought about taking it, but it didn't offer him the opportunity to kill millions of people. 

So it went last night! One more joke about Governor Hochul's laughable face and the termagant transitioned to the evening's first topic for truncated pseudo-discussion.

In Annie Hall, Alvy Singer owned all the books which had "death" in the title. On this prime time "news" program, the termagant owns all the jokes which turns on death or murder or on accusations of murder; on claims that disfavored women are too fat, too old, or simply too ugly; or on braindead dreams about penises—preferably, Hunter Biden's—in a state of erection.

It would be hard to be dumber or more pathetic. And yes, to borrow from Ezra Pound, and yet this is us.

If our most-watched "news channel" functions that way, is it possible that "our democracy" has already died? Is it possible that the death has already occurred, whether anyone has noticed or not?

We'll let Gutfeld throw that out for discussion by his collection of former VJs and professional wrestlers! Last night, his four-member panel included Tyrus, "a former NWA Worlds Heavyweight Champion," but also Chael Sonnen, "an American submission grappling promoter, mixed martial arts (MMA) analyst, and retired mixed martial artist."

If a primetime program of that type gets peddled as news and no one notices, could that mean that our own version of "sacred Troy" has already died?

For today, we offer a tip of the hat to Mediaite's Colby Hall for his thoughtful, thoroughly sensible essay about the current functioning of MSNBC. His essay appears beneath the headline shown below. We think the essay is nuanced and sensible, sane and thoroughly fair:

The Media Labeled Fox News ‘State Run TV’ Under Trump. Is MSNBC Getting a Pass Under Biden?

That's the headline on Hall's piece, in which—for the record—he has nothing good to say about what takes place at Fox. 

Sadly, we're forced to score the essay as fundamentally sane and balanced. That said, back over to Fox:

The termagant was in his normal zones as he opened last evening's program. That said, he had made an accurate statement five hours earlier, in his other role as co-host of The Five.

Yesterday, that program's panelists took turns saying that only the liberals distort the news. It's simply never done on Fox, and certainly not on The Five!

Tomorrow, we'll transcribe some of those wonderfully comical comments. We'll also show you the text of something the termagant said—and yes! His statement was perfectly accurate, and his criticism was perfectly fair!

In our view, Colby Hall was tough but fair in his critique of Blue America's dreary, declining "cable news" dreamscape. One day before Hall's piece appeared, Greg Gutfeld lodged a stone-cold accurate complaint, right there on The Five!

On The Five, he had no wrestlers to back up his claim. We'll do that right here, on the morrow.

PROPHECY: Has "our democracy" already died?

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 2024

The Iliad meets The Sixth Sense: Once again, we're prepared to admit it:

We awoke on Saturday thinking of a set of immortal lines.

As of yesterday, we were regretting the fact that we did! But as we first admitted on Monday, the lines in question came from Book Six of the Iliad, with Hector telling Andromache, "his generous wife," why he had to return to the battle which was raging on the plains outside Troy:

And tall Hector nodded, his helmet flashing:
All this weighs on my mind too, dear woman.
But I would die of shame to face the men of Troy
and the Trojan women trailing their long robes
if I would shrink from battle now, a coward.
Nor does the spirit urge me on that way.
I've learned it all too well. To stand up bravely,
always to fight in the front ranks of Trojan soldiers.
winning my father great glory, glory for myself.
For in my heart and soul I also know this well:
the day will come when sacred Troy must die,
Priam must die and all his people with him...

As November's election approached—as next week's debate approached—we awoke on Saturday morning thinking of Hector's prophecy. Also, we thought of a corresponding prophecy, one widely heard in today's Blue America:

If Candidate Trump returns to the White House, "our democracy" itself may die.

("Our democracy," such as it is—such as it ever has been.)

By yesterday, we were sorry that we had decided to focus on those rhyming prophecies. 

What may be coming to our own Blue America is hard to discuss. As we noted on Monday, here's what happened to sacred Troy after Hector was slain by Achilles, with his body dragged through the dust behind the rage-filled warrior's chariot:

The whole poem has been moving toward this duel between the two champions, but there has never been any doubt about the outcome. The husband and father, the beloved protector of his people, the man who stands for the civilized values of the rich city, its social and religious institutions, will go down to defeat at the hands of this man who has no family, who in a private quarrel has caused the death of many of his own fellow soldiers, who now in a private quarrel thinks only of revenge...

The images of that night assault—the blazing palaces, the blood running in the streets, old Priam butchered at the altar, Cassandra raped in the temple, Hector's baby son thrown from the battlements, his wife Andromache dragged off to slavery—all this, foreshadowed in the Iliad, will be stamped indelibly on the consciousness of the Greeks throughout their history, immortalized in lyric poetry, in tragedy, on temple pediments and painted vases, to reinforce the stern lesson of Homer's presentation of the war: that no civilization, no matter how rich, no matter how refined, can long survive once it loses the power to meet force with equal or superior force.

According to legend, so it went when sacred Troy died—when the more civilized Hector fell to the powerful, rage-filled warrior who had only revenge on his mind.

As every later Greek citizen knew, Hector's prophecy in Book Six turned out to be accurate. Our current, rhyming prophecy starts to be tested on CNN next Thursday night.

Here in Blue America, we perceive ourselves to be the more "refined" of our nation's dueling civilizations. We picture ourselves as the ones who embody the "civilized values" of the Iliad's Troy, while our fellow citizens in Red America are the ones who have aligned themselves with a man who (in effect) has no family, has caused the death of many of his own fellow soldiers, who now in a private quarrel thinks only of revenge.

T our ear, a lot of rhyming is going on in the present circumstance. Also, we'll admit it! We're fascinate by the varied "sexual politics" on display in that first "poem of war."

In modern parlance, Troy's civilization is portrayed as the civilization of "family values." By way of contrast, the invading Achaean armies embody a civilization of "toxic masculinity."

In his lengthy introduction to the 1990 Robert Fagles translation, Professor Knox sketches the contrast. In this passage, he's discussing Hector's speech to Andromache, the speech we've briefly excerpted above:

[Andromache] begs him to cease fighting in the forefront of the hand-to-hand battle on the plain, to adopt a defensive strategy and command from the walls. Hector's sad reply reveals his tragic dilemma. His feeling for her prompts him to accept her suggestion but he cannot do it. He is the leader, the commander, as his name suggests: Hector means "Holder." He is the one who holds the Trojan defense steady by his example and he must fight in the front ranks. In any case, the standards of martial valor by which he has always lived will not permit it.

[...]

But deep in his heart he knows that the effort is futile, that Troy is doomed. He realizes what that will mean for her and hopes that he will not live to hear her cries as she is led off to slavery. He is distracted from this dark vision of the future by the terrified cries of his own baby son, who recoils screaming from the bronze-clad man who moves to embrace him. Forebodings of the future, no matter how well-founded, have to be brushed aside if life is to go on, and Hector now speaks in more hopeful terms as he prays that his son will grow up to be a greater man than his father and then comforts his sorrowing wife. This scene reveals the greatness of Hector as a complete man; we see not only the devotion of the warrior who does his duty and fights for his people, even though he knows that they are doomed, but also his greatness as a husband and father—a striking contrast with the atmosphere of the armed camp on the shore.

The scenes in question must be among the greatest ever hatched by the western world's collective intelligence. But in that account by Professor Knox, we see the clash of civilizations in the Iliad applied to the realm of sexual politics, with Hector portrayed as a loving husband and father, Achilles as a rage-filled, highly toxic killing machine.

For ourselves, we think that Professor Knox overstated the greatness of Hector's sexual politics—his greatness "as a complete man." More on that before the week is done. For now, we'll leave it at this:

Here in Blue America, we tend to portray our nation's current culture clash in terms which resemble those lodged in the quoted passage. 

Good God! How we've been inclined, down through the years, to flatter ourselves for our stances in our nation's culture wars, and to flatter no one but ourselves!

Meanwhile, without providing a spoiler alert, we've given away the outcome! After sacred Troy dies, noble Hector's generous wife is dragged away in slavery. Nor does the horror end there:

Their baby son—"the darling of his eyes and radiant as a star"—is thrown to his death from the high walls of the defeated city.

Hector's sister is raped in the temple. Priam is butchered at the altar, in line with his noble son's prophecy. 

The more refined, more civilized society dies at the hands of the angrier, more primitive gang of lunatics who have been gathered at the shore, demanding that they get Helen back.

What will happen if President Bidne can't hold his own next Thursday night? Within the context of modern framing, Blue America's rhyming prophecy foresees a similar end for "our democracy," such as it ever has been.

We still want to show you the lines in which Hector and Andromache converse in Book Six, in the several famous scenes which occur before Hector rejoins the battle. (He returns home safely that day.)

We still want to suggest that the sexual politics of that scene brilliantly echoes our own today—our own sexual politics, to the extent that we in Blue America have ever had any such creature.

We Blues! Persistently, we flatter ourselves with the idea that we possess such civilized values. For today, we'll leave it at this:

"Our democracy," such as it ever has been, has already died!  It died in the pages of our childish journalism over the course of the past forty years, as we denizens of Blue America persistently failed to see what was occurring.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but those of us in Blue America are "people people" too. We aren't the brilliant, superior, civilized beings of our fertile imaginations

There's nothing wrong with that! But as in The Sixth Sense, so too here:

"Our democracy" is already dead! It's been dead for quite a while. We just aren't able to see this!

Tomorrow: We soldier on

Everyone loves what the Chief Justice said!

TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 2024

"Truth pirate" stymied by Roberts: As a general matter, we have an unfavorable view of Lauren Windsor and her surreptitious audiotapes.

Windsor may be completely sincere in her self-celebrated role as a "relentless truth pirate." That said, our general view would be this:

God save our floundering Blue America from the (well-intentioned) efforts of people like Windsor! 

In fairness, we'll also say this:

Everyone liked what Chief Justice Roberts said when he was surreptitiously taped by Windsor this year. As has been widely noted, he took the appropriately judicious view. 

The Chief Justice didn't know he was being taped—but that didn't seem to matter! As you can see from the (amazingly brief) tape which Windsor has released, her first question went like this:

WINDSOR: I just want to ask something. I want to be totally appropriate with the, you know, jurisprudence of it all. 

But you know, just to be totally candid, like how do we get America back to a place of like, really, like less polarization? Because I feel like the Court is undergoing this period of turmoil. Like, people don't trust in, I think—just the, like this is like the last bastion of, I think, like public trust, and how do we get back to that?

The trap had been set for Roberts! By now, almost everyone has agreed that he adopted the appropriate stance.

In what follows, we'll drop a brief comment regarding press coverage of the Court. Here's the rest of the exchange, as recorded by Windsor:

ROBERTS (continuing directly): I wish I knew. I don’t know...I really don’t know. 

I mean, ordinary people—"ordinary" isn't the right word. American citizens in general need to work on this, to try to heal this polarization, because it’s very dangerous. I do believe it's very dangerous.

WINDSOR: I think it's taking us to the brink of, you know, very serious and perhaps, like non-repairable rifts in the country. I for one am someone like, I support your ruling on Dobbs. I support like— 

I am very pro-life. But like, you know, I don't know how we bridge that gap. You know, like how do we get people—

ROBERTS: I wish I knew. I wish I knew. I don't know. It's not—I don't think it's something we can do.  

WINDSOR: But the Court can't do anything [unintelligible]?

ROBERTS: We have a very defined role, and we need to do what we're supposed to do. But this is a bigger problem. This is way above us. So, I wish I knew the answer, I do.

Chief Justice Roberts is pro-life too—but he skillfully slid past the bait! He bemoaned the nation's polarization, even concerning abortion rights, but he said it isn't the role of the Supreme Court to fix situations like that. 

(Or like, you know, something like that. The exchanges on these tapes are so brief that it's hard to say exactly what has been said.)

"We have a very defined role," the Chief Justice said, "and we need to do what we're supposed to do."

"This is way above us," he added. He said polarization is a problem, but solving that problem isn't a task which falls within the Court's purview.

Everyone loves what Roberts said when he was taped by Windsor! But as you may already know, that isn't a transcript of Windsor's (very brief) Q-and-A with Chief Justice Roberts.

In fact, that's the transcript of her (very brief) exchange with Justice Alito back in 2023. His statements were so anodyne that she didn't release the tape or transcript at the time. For unknown reasons, she stuck this year-old transcript on the end of the tape of her extremely brief recent exchange with Alito—their extremely brief Q-and-A from 2024.

Did Alito make crazy statements this time around? On balance, we'd have to say no. But at times like these—at times of tribal polarization and fear of defeat—members of warring tribes are prepared to believe whatever negative thing they're told about whatever some targeted figure has said. 

So it has gone with this bombshell report from this high profile "truth pirate." 

The woods are lovely dark and deep, but our flailing nation has been playing this type of game for a very long time now. On balance, it has worked poorly for Blue America's interests. That said, our behavior isn't likely to change.

In our view, this has been the latest unhelpful "creative paraphrase" show. On balance, these endless shows have worked very poorly for progressive and liberal interests. Your mileage, of course, may differ. 

You can watch Windsor's amazingly brief chunks of tape, from 2023 and 2024, just by clicking here.

Warning! You'll be hearing a lot of verbiage from Windsor, much less from Alito himself!

We know, we know—you disagree! So these episodes tend to go. Do we need to find ways to do better?