The latest numbers for Fox News!

WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 2024

An elegy for Troy: How clownish is the American discourse, in ways which generally go unreported and undiscussed?

How clownish is it? Consider two recent snapshots of the American "cable news" landscape.

We'll start with the latest viewer ratings—the Nielsen ratings for July. Below, you see the start of Zachary Leeman's report for Mediaite. We're even going to leave in the part about "the key (and coveted) demo:"

Fox News Earns Highest July Ratings Ever During Bonkers News Month, More Than Triples CNN Viewers

Fox News posted another ratings win for the month of July, which marked its most-viewed month ever with Jesse Watters taking the top spot, according to data from Nielsen Research Center.

The gain in viewers occurred during a month filled to the brim with breaking news...Fox was by far the most watched program in cable news for all of these events. Out of the highest 100 cable news telecasts, Fox News scored 99 and MSNBC scored one.

Overall, Fox brought in more than triple the viewership in daytime and primetime that CNN did.

In daytime programming, Fox News averaged approximately 1.9 million viewers, more than 260,000 of those in the coveted 25-54 demo. CNN meanwhile averaged 523,000 viewers and 111,000 in the key demo.

In primetime, Fox averaged around 3.5 million viewers (approximately 500,000 in 25-54 demo), while CNN brought in 856,000 (a little over 200,000 in key demo).

On MSNBC, daytime programming averaged 721,000 viewers (82,000 in key demo) and primetime shows brought in about 1.2 million viewers (82,000 in key demo).

In primetime, Fox had roughly three times as many viewers as MSNBC (AKA, Court TV). 

With respect to individual programs, Leeman really knows how to make it hurt: 

Jesse Watters Primetime earned its highest rated month since Watters premiered in the 8 p.m. timeslot, bringing in 4.4 million viewers...[Watters]' program beat The Five’s running streak as the number one watched Fox show. The Five averaged 3.9 million viewers...

[...]

Greg Gutfeld’s Gutfeld! continued posting big wins, pulling in its largest audience for the month. Primetime hosts Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity also nabbed a large portion of the audience, bringing in 3.3 million and 4.3 million viewers, respectively.

Full disclosure! We find it so painful to watch the cleverly packaged but fatuous Watters that we rarely do so at this point. As for the brilliants newsery of the 10 p.m. Gutfeld! program, this was the lineup this past Monday night, with the termagant himself on vacation:

Gutfeld! program: July 29, 2024
Tyrus (guest host): Former NWA heavyweight professional wrestling champion 

EC3: Current NWA heavyweight professional wrestling champion
Kat Timpf: performs as a comedian
Joe DeVito: performs as a comedian
Reagan Charleston: Reality television personality known for appearing on Southern Charm New Orlean

It was the perfect lineup for primetime news! Two professional wrestlers, two comedians, one reality TV blur.

In the program's opening segment, it fell to this collection of yokels to pretend to discuss a hot allegation—the allegation that Google has been deliberately trying to keep us the people from reading about the recent assassination attempt.

Of one thing you could feel sure—none of these flyweights had the slightest idea what they were talking about.

They did know what they were doing! As a group, they were delivering propaganda messaging on behalf of the corporate entity from whom they receive their checks.

This is the state of our flailing nation's primetime "cable news" culture. Also, is Jill Biden f*cking Hunter yet? Gutfeld explicitly asked that question last week, though his producers did step in to bleep the termagant's verb.

This is the state of our nation's failing political culture. We almost think we hear an elegy, but nobody says a word!

Millions of people watch this show. The Last Word, not so much!

Yet to come: Has anybody seen Jason Zinoman, he of the New York Times?


ELEGY: We interrupt our discussion of Them...

WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 2024

...to present this discussion of Us: How did it happen that Sandra Smith did such a ridiculous thing?

It isn't that she wouldn't call the Democratic Party by its actual name when speaking in her own voice. That long-standing prohibition is pathetic and childish enough.

Mugged by a simple twist of fate, Smith took the game one step further. She refused to say "Democratic Party" even when pretending to read a written statement by a major political figure!

Even then she refused to say its name! At some point, an anthropological question arises:

How did she ever get this way? What explains such childish (yet widespread) behavior?

We'll return to that question tomorrow. This question involves a discussion of Them. For today, we'll compose a discussion of Us.

With that as our goal, we direct you to a new post by Kevin Drum. The post concerns a recent tweet by  Kimberlé Crenshaw, one of the progressive world's major academics.

Professor Crenshaw's post is related to the recent (horrific) shooting death of Sonya Massey. For reasons we'll try to explain below, the post in question says this:

CRENSHAW (7/30/24): Black women make up less than 10% of the population, yet when it comes to killings by police, we make up a 3rd of them, with the majority unarmed. And that’s exactly what happened with Sonya Massey. 

Say what? Everybody makes mistakes, but this one approaches (colloquial) insanity. Here's the bulk of Kevin's post, headline included:

In the past three years, one unarmed Black woman has been killed by police

[...]

It's Kimberlé Crenshaw, a longtime law professor at UCLA and Columbia who's influential and extremely well known as a pioneer of intersectionality.

And yet she wrote a post that isn't within light years of being right. She must know that by now, but she hasn't deleted the post or corrected it. According to the Washington Post's database, here are police killings over the past decade:

[Graphic]

Black women make up 0.85% of all police killings since 2015. Not one-third. Here's the armed/unarmed breakdown (not counting six undetermined cases):

[Graphic]

Sonya Massey is the only unarmed Black woman killed by police in the past three years. Overall, unarmed Black women made up about 11% of the total among Black women, not a majority. Not even close.

Kevin closes by saying this: "Kimberlé Crenshaw is way too famous and influential...to post recklessly incorrect stuff like this. Where does it come from?"

We'll answer that question below. First, we'll offer one (minor) word of caution about the statistics from the Washington Post's Fatal Force database, which Kevin uses as his source.

The Fatal Force site received a lot of attention after it appeared in 2015 / 2016. It was part of the progressive world's reaction to several high-profile shooting deaths, especially that of Michael Brown in August 2014.

In 2016, the Post was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for the work of this site. But interest in this topic has waned, and so apparently have the resources the Post devotes to the site.

As we've noted in the past, the site has become much less user-friendly—and much less informative—in the past few years. Its format is harder to use than it once was, and it now includes a lot of incidents for which it hasn't identified the race of the victims.

At present, the site headlines this fact

"The Post has tracked 9,929 fatal police shootings since 2015." 

That's a lot of people! That said, the site now lists the race of 12 percent of those people as "unknown" (1,149 people). Fairly clearly, the Post has devoted less effort to compiling such information over the past several years.

We offer that as a possible warning about the perfect accuracy of data drawn from this site. When Kevin says that Sonya Massey is the only unarmed Black woman killed by police in the past three years, we can't say we're entirely sure that this claim is accurate (though it certainly could be).

That said, Kevin's basic point is groaningly accurate. The professor's post is over the border and into the realm that could be described as (colloquially) insane. 

That said, our major thought leaders in Blue America have behaved in such ways quite routinely. For a similar example, consider Karen Attiah's recent column for that self-same Washington Post.

Karen Attiah is a good, decent person. Her column appeared this Monday—and as with Crenshaw's post, it was directly connected to the shooting death of Sonya Massey.

Full disclosure! Attiah's column is nowhere near as divorced from basic statistical reality as is Professor Crenshaw's post. The column appears on the Post's web site beneath this dual headline:

The senseless police killing of Sonya Massey is a call to action
Harris should lead on the intolerable pattern of Black women being fatally shot by police.

In our view, Attiah includes some horrifically il-advised campaign advice for Candidate Kamala Harris. That's a matter of judgment, of course—but we were struck by this part of her column, and by what we saw when we followed the link she provided:

ATTIAH (7/29/24): Though Massey posed no apparent threat (a breakfast bar separated the kitchen from the family room where Grayson leveled his weapon), the deputy then shot the unarmed mother in the face. Seconds later, according to the video, Grayson refused to call for medical aid.

There is something particularly odious about the mixture of murder and the mundane. Black women are killed in their homes by police officers while doing the most banal of domestic activities. Massey, dressed in a robe and pajamas, was shot while taking a pot off the stove. Atatiana Jefferson was killed in Fort Worth in 2019 while playing video games with her nephew. In 2020, Breonna Taylor was killed by Louisville officers executing a no-knock warrant. She had been asleep next to her boyfriend.

A study published by The Post in 2020 found that nearly 250 women had been killed by police in the United States since 2015—89 of them in their home or the home of someone they knew.

[...]

The harsh reality is that police brutality and racism against Black women never take holidays.

Nothing in those statistical claims can be said to be false. Also, it's certainly true that the fatal shooting of Sonya Massey, fully captured on videotape, takes us well past anything a person would expect a sensible police officer to do.

Still and all, we were struck by Attiah's statistics. She writes that, as of 2020, "nearly 250 women had been killed by police in the United States since 2015," and that 89 of those women had been killed "in their home or the home of someone they knew."

We start with this obvious note: Attiah is suddenly talking about all women when she offers those statistics—not about black women. 

We'll also note this obvious fact:

Whatever their race or gender may be, people can be endangering the life of a police officer even when they're in their own home, and even if they're in the home of someone they know.

In that sense, we're already dealing with a possible dollop of misdirection. But how about that pair of numbers—250 and 89? Within the context of American carnage, just exactly how large are those numbers?

How large are those numbers? When we clicked Attiah's link to that study from 2020, this is what we found:

Nearly 250 women have been fatally shot by police since 2015

[...]

Since The Washington Post began tracking fatal shootings by police in 2015, officers have fatally shot 247 women out of the more than 5,600 people killed overall. 

[...]

Of the 247 women fatally shot, 48 were Black and seven of those were unarmed.

At least 89 of the women were at their homes or residences where they sometimes stayed. And 12 of those women killed at home were shot by officers who were there to conduct a search or make an arrest.

Since 2015, Black women have accounted for less than 1 percent of the overall fatal shootings in cases where race was known. But within this small subset, Black women, who are 13 percent of the female population, account for 20 percent of the women shot and killed and 28 percent of the unarmed deaths.

According to the 2020 report, more than 5,600 people had been shot and killed by police since the Fatal Force site got its start. Of that number, 247 were women and 48 were black women.

According to the report in question, only seven of those black women had been unarmed. Presumably, that's (at least) seven shooting victims too many, bit it's hard to know how data like those are being cited as the backstop to the column Attiah composed.

Karen Attiah's a good, decent person. Presumably, so is the editor who waved her column into print.

The world is full of good, decent people! Professor Crenshaw's a good, decent person, but she authored a post which is crazily inaccurate—and, as Kevin noted, she didn't seem to be rushing to correct it or take it down.

Within our violence-saturated society, a lot of people get shot and killed by police officers. Many of them were presenting direct danger to police officers or to someone else.

Some others, like Massey, were not.

Attah's column seemed to suggest that black women somehow get singled out for such treatment. Do other types of unarmed people get shot and killed in their homes?

Attiah didn't ask. One day later, Professor Crenshaw's post took us into the land of the (colloquially) insane.

Over here in Blue America, our thought leaders have been doing such things a fair amount of the time—and over there in Red America, they frequently notice such things. That helps explain why we've sometimes told you that, as matters currently stand, it's almost impossible for people on the Fox News Channel to be totally wrong.

(In fairness, they frequently try.)

Kevin wanted to know where (colloquially) crazy posts come from. Anthropologically speaking, we have your answer right here:

They come from our wiring as humans. As human beings, we're people people, and this is the way we tend to react to matters of high emotion.

With respect to endlessly tragic matters of "race," we'll close by noting this:

Long ago but not far away, our benighted ancestors brought forth upon this continent a culture in which the concept of "race" would play a central and brutal role. 

Also this, as can be seen all over the world:

Once a disordered culture has been put into place, it's very, very, very hard to undo what has been done.

This brings us back to Sandra Smith. In fairness, her recent conduct seems mundane when compared to the professor's post.

That said, what she did was very strange—and it's part of a defiantly childish political culture. Who in the world is Sandra Smith?

Tomorrow, we'll let the analysts ask.

Tomorrow: Why in the world would Sandra Smith refuse to read that text?


Is this whole culture out of order?

TUESDAY, JULY 30, 2024

The heartlessness is right here: "This whole trial is out of order," Al Pacino famously said.

Reportedly, it's one of Hollywood's most misquoted remarks. In our view, the statement should be borrowed more often, given the fact that so many elements of our culture are wholly out of order.

Candidate Vance is getting smacked for his "childless cat ladies" remark. This letter to the New York Times captures the type of diffuse anger and heartlessness lodged in such flippant dismissals:

To the Editor:

JD Vance, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, said in 2021, “We’re effectively run, in this country, via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too.”

I would say this to Mr. Vance:

I was a childless cat lady: three cats, no kids.

I thought fertility was a given. There was no medical reason I couldn’t have children. Yet it did not happen. Three cats. A great career. No kids.

I was, in effect at 38, a “childless cat lady.”

I pursued fertility treatments. Treatments that many Republicans want to ban.

I had painful tests, surgeries, running to the lab—five vials of blood drawn every day at 6 a.m.—then rushing to work for a minimum 12-hour day.

Childless cat lady lawyer. Meow.

I had one fabulous child at 38 with I.V.F. She was a triplet, but I lost my daughter’s siblings.

I was pregnant three other times. I lost two other babies at four months. I needed a D and C: same procedure as an abortion. If I didn’t have the surgery, I would have died.

Another lifesaving procedure that Republicans seek to criminalize.

So, Mr. Vance: I embrace “childless cat lady.” I was one, yet I was at all times a highly effective litigator in a large and dynamic practice. I did not sit at home and bemoan my childless state.

I can promise you this, Mr. Vance: Women will look askance at voting for you and the former president.

The letter comes from Melville, New York. It's beautifully composed.

That said, also this:

As we noted this morning, we've been re-perusing Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis, which we speed-read in a local bookstore back in 2016, when it created a splash. 

All in all, the book received strong reviews from the major mainstream news orgs. From this vantage point, it strikes us as remarkably tedious, and as a bit of a cry for help.

After the Republican Convention, we mentioned Usha Vance's surprising reference to the "childhood traumas" she said her husband had experienced and had managed to overcome. Those traumas stemmed from what seems to have been an astonishing volume of what we'd call childhood neglect and abuse. 

Has her husband overcome those childhood traumas? Late in his book, in Chapter 14, Vance describes his attempt to come to terms with his emotional problems during his second year at Yale Law School.

After four years in the Marines, this was his sixth year away from the astoundingly dysfunctional family within which he'd been a toddler, a child and a teen. This is part, but only part, of what he writes at that point:

I tried to go to a counselor, but it was just too weird. Talking to some stranger about my feelings made me want to vomit. I did go to the library, and I learned that behavior I considered commonplace was the subject of pretty intense academic study. Psychologists call the everyday occurrences of my and [his sister] Lindsay's life “adverse childhood experiences,” or ACEs. ACEs are traumatic childhood events, and their consequences reach far into adulthood. 

[...]

I thought a lot about myself, about the emotional triggers I’d learned over eighteen years of living at home. I realized that I mistrusted apologies, as they were often used to convince you to lower your guard. It was an “I’m sorry” that convinced me to take that fateful car ride with Mom more than a decade earlier. And I began to understand why I used words as weapons: That’s what everyone around me did; I did it to survive. Disagreements were war, and you played to win the game.

I didn’t unlearn these lessons overnight. I continue to struggle with conflict, to fight the statistical odds that sometimes seem to bear down on me. Sometimes it’s easier knowing that the statistics suggest I should be in jail or fathering my fourth illegitimate child. And sometimes it’s harder—conflict and family breakdown seem like the destiny I can’t possibly escape. In my worst moments, I convince myself that there is no exit, and no matter how much I fight old demons, they are as much an inheritance as my blue eyes and brown hair. The sad fact is that I couldn’t do it without Usha. Even at my best, I’m a delayed explosion—I can be defused, but only with skill and precision. It’s not just that I’ve learned to control myself but that Usha has learned how to manage me. Put two of me in the same home and you have a positively radioactive situation. It’s no surprise that every single person in my family who has built a successful home—Aunt Wee, Lindsay, my cousin Gail—married someone from outside our little culture. 

That self-portrait appeared in 2016. On the whole, the book strikes us as remarkably tedious, but it's also a portrait of the deep-seated harm that can be done when a "motherless child" is subjected to eighteen years of neglect and abuse and dysfunction.

"I continue to struggle with conflict...Even at my best, I’m a delayed explosion." 

Vance published that self-portrait when he was 31. Eight years later, he's been nominated for vice president of the United States. He's running with a badly disordered person who was raised by a sociopath—or so wrote that gentleman's niece in a best-selling book, and she holds a doctorate in clinical psychology.

(That doesn't necessarily mean that her assessments are correct.)

Our advice regarding Vance remains unchanged. First, though, here's another passage from a bit later on in his book:

Not long ago, I had lunch with Brian, a young man who reminded me of fifteen-year-old J.D. Like Mom, his mother caught a taste for narcotics, and like me, he has a complicated relationship with his father. He’s a sweet kid with a big heart and a quiet manner. He has spent nearly his entire life in Appalachian Kentucky; we went to lunch at a local fast-food restaurant, because in that corner of the world there isn’t much else to eat. As we talked, I noticed little quirks that few others would. He didn’t want to share his milk shake, which was a little out of character for a kid who ended every sentence with “please” or “thank you.” He finished his food quickly and then nervously looked from person to person. I could tell that he wanted to ask a question, so I wrapped my arm around his shoulder and asked if he needed anything. “Y—Yeah,” he started, refusing to make eye contact. And then, almost in a whisper: “I wonder if I could get a few more french fries?” He was hungry. In 2014, in the richest country on earth, he wanted a little extra to eat but felt uncomfortable asking. Lord help us.

In passing, a question:

When older people go out to lunch with a younger person they don't know, do they really ask if they can share the younger person's milk shake? Do they wrap an arm around the young person's shoulder while asking if there's anything he needs?

We're just asking! (We aren't always convinced of the perfect accuracy of every anecdote in this book.) 

Having said that, now this:

There are a lot of Brians out there. There are also a lot of 15-year-old JDs. Keeping that in mind, we've often mentioned this fact down through the years:

In Blue America, we tend to feel amazingly sure that we're the smart and decent and moral people. That said, our big news orgs pay amazingly little attention to the country's underserved children. 

At the Times, they worry about Gotham's (fewer than) one percent—about the handful of kids who might end up at Yale—and they rarely seem to show much interest in anyone else. Nor do thought leaders, here in our own Blue America, seem to notice this wide-ranging lack of interest.

That's a brilliant and beautiful letter to the Times. Meanwhile, is this whole culture out of order? For starters, is it possible to comprehend how astoundingly stupid our discourse has now become? 

(More on that to follow.)

Is this whole culture out of order? Do we possibly need a new Great Awakening? We're going to guess that it possibly is, and that we possibly might.

As for us Blues, we actually aren't super-smart and no, we aren't super-caring. We'd all be better off around here if we were a bit less sure of ourselves.

Regarding Brother Vance himself, we'll stick with the heart of our prior assessments:

Pity the (motherless) child, we've said. Vote against the (diffusely angry, possibly struggling) man.


ELEGY: Candidate Vance broke a time-honored rule!

TUESDAY, JULY 30, 2024

Broadcaster Smith did not: Will Candidate Harris end up winning this year's election?

There's no way to be sure. On the one hand, she carries a lot of "baggage." On the other hand, she'll be running against Donald J. Trump.

Today, in his weekly Conversation with Gail Collins, Bret Stephens lays out a long list of reasons why he doesn't plan to vote for Candidate Harris.

He also won't be voting for Candidate Trump—but the possible pitfalls for Candidate Harris do go on and on. Midway through his lengthy list, the center-right Stephens found himself challenged by his center-left colleague:

Harris vs. Trump Is Taking Shape. And Then There’s Vance.

[...]

Gail: And when you’ve got a choice between a woman who you don’t agree with about taxes and spending versus a man who’s shown himself perfectly capable of trying to overthrow the government if he loses, the options are pretty obvious.

Bret: That was pretty much my reasoning when I cast my votes for Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden: two liberal Democrats who nonetheless struck me as safe pairs of hands, particularly when it came to world affairs.

I just don’t have the same faith in Kamala Harris. She’s given no indication that she can run a campaign or an office competently, much less a country. She frequently speaks in inanities. Her contribution to fixing the border crisis was less than zero—in fact, she publicly denied there was a crisis. I doubt she strikes fear in the hearts of the tyrants in Tehran, Beijing or Moscow at a moment when all of those dictatorships are on the march.

That wasn't the start of his list of objections, nor had he reached the list's end. How many voters will see it this way? We have no idea.

Harris is a largely accidental candidate; her opposite number, Candidate Trump, is basically unelectable. If you squint and if you cover your ears, an elegy for our flailing nation's way of life may be dimly audible here.

Other voters may see it the way Stephens does; most other voters may not. But when it comes to the merits of Candidate JD Vance, Collins and Stephens seem to agree. 

Here's what the twin tyros said:

Gail: ...Speaking of vice presidents, am I right in feeling JD Vance has already become a political disaster area?

Bret: As in Dan Quayle with a brain or Sarah Palin with a beard? His job is to present himself as a smarter and more articulate version of Trump. So far, he’s just been a younger and meaner one. His stupid jibe against “childless cat ladies” may come back to haunt him on Nov. 5, not least among the 46 million American women who are childless. He would not fare well against [Senator Mark] Kelly in a debate.

The pair seem to agree about Candidate Vance. As they continued, they also agreed that Senator Kelly (D-AZ) would be a strong running mate for Harris.

Candidate Vance has been getting battered stem to stern in recent days. Thanks to this digital version of Hillbilly Elegy, we've been re-perusing his largely tedious, mammoth best-seller, and our judgment remains intact:

 Pity the mistreated child. Defeat the weirdly angry lost man.

That would be our own assessment. For the record, many neighbors and friends—fellow citizens all—disagree with our view.

Yesterday afternoon, we commented on Vance's latest attempt to describe the problem our nation faces thanks to its "childless cat ladies." He was interviewed—and he was challenged—on the Fox News Channel!

To review the carnage, you can just click here.

Trey Gowdy didn't seem to be thrilled with his party's candidate for vice president. His disapproval seemed to be quite clear.

That said, we want to be fair! Along the way, breaking the very first rule in the book, Candidate Vance could clearly be heard saying this—and yes, it's right there on the tape:

VANCE (7/28/24): ...If you look at the full context of what I said, it is very clear that the Democrats have tried to take this out of context and blow it out of proportion, which is what they always do, Trey, because they don't have an agenda to run on themselves.

And if you look at what the American people are most concerned about, Trey, it's not an out-of-context quip that I made three years ago. It's the fact that Kamala Harris, the border czar, opened the American southern border. It's the fact that the Democratic Party has become explicitly anti-family in some of their policies. In fact, you just heard Kamala Harris, in a surfaced clip recently, talk about how it was a bad idea to have kids because of climate change anxiety. 

So what I'm really trying to get at here, Trey, is that it's important for us to be pro-family as a country...

Believe it or not, that's what he actually said! Briefly, let's review:

We know of no reason to believe that Candidate Harris was ever in charge of establishing policy at the southern border. Presumably, that's what the term "border czar" will seem to suggest.

(Full disclosure, as an elegy sounds: Blue America's journalists simply aren't sharp enough to perform that fairly obvious translation of that catchy term.)

Presumably, Vice President Harris wasn't in charge of setting border policy. Also, that isn't what Harris actually said about having kids in that recently surfaced video clip.

Candidate Vance was wrong on those points in that, his response to Gowdy's initial challenge about his "cat ladies quip." When Gowdy challenged him a second time, his claims about what "the left" has been doing became even more absurd.

That said, credit where due—and yes, he actually said it! As he spoke with Gowdy that night, the candidate broke the very first rule in the book:

Appearing as the Republican nominee to serve as vice president, he referred to the other party—and when he did, he actually called it by its actual name:

"The Democratic Party has become explicitly anti-family in some of their policies." 

That claim strikes us as absurdly far-fetched. But he referred to the other party by its actual name! Democratic Party, he somewhat weirdly said!

What can explain this slip? It may have been his inexperience showing—it may have been the latest mistake by a novice candidate. It may have been a simple slip of the tongue, a nervous error committed in the face of an unexpected assault.

That said, the candidate had broken one of the basic rules in his adopted party's book. He had called the Democratic Party by its actual name! As a distant elegy has seemed to sound in the background of our nation's clownish non-discourse, everyone has known the rule:

Red America's official "thought leaders" aren't supposed to do that!

The prohibition against this behavior stretches back at least several decades. We don't know when this childish behavior got its start, but we can recall Chris Matthews, hosting Hardball, offering occasional complaints about this practice, at least two decades back.

In theory, no, it doesn't matter—it doesn't matter that these flyweights engage in this flyweight behavior.  But these people do engage in this flyweight behavior on a reliable, round-the-clock basis—and that explains the dilemma facing the Fox News Channel's Sandra Smith on Sunday, July 21.

We laid it out for you yesterday. There she sat, co-anchoring an hour-long, BREAKING NEWS program about President Biden's announcement that he was withdrawing from the White House campaign. 

Along the way, Smith was asked to read one part of the subsequent statement which was released by Vice President Kamala Harris. That's when the mandated childishness hit the fan,

Zounds! Part of Haris' written statement appeared right there on the Fox News Channel screen. Smith was now directed to read the words which appeared on the screen, creating a moment of truth.

A lesser figure might have panicked; Smith knew what to do. Below, you see what appeared on the screen—and you see the version Smith read:

As seen on the Fox News Channel's screen:
“I am honored to have the president’s endorsement and my intention is to earn and win this nomination... I will do everything in my power to unite the Democratic Party—and unite our nation—to defeat Donald Trump."
             VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS

Those are the words which appeared on the screen. But when Smith was charged with reading those words, this is what she said:

As read by the Fox News Channel's Smith:
“I am honored to have the president’s endorsement and my intention is to earn and win this nomination... I will do everything in my power to unite the Democrat Party—and unite our nation—to defeat Donald Trump."

She seemed to know that, by the rules of the game, she wasn't allowed to say it. By the stunningly childish rules of the game, she seemed to know that she isn't allowed even to read the other party's actual name—even as the name of that party sat right there on the screen!

In theory, no—it doesn't matter that this experienced Fox News anchor knew what she had to do. It doesn't matter that she did what she has learned to do through seventeen years of employment at this remarkably clownish "news channel."

It doesn't matter that she did what she did, but we almost thought we heard an elegy off in the distance as she engaged in this conduct. Beyond that, it seems to us that a much larger lesson may be lurking—a lesson about the American project, and even about we the self-satisfied denizens of our own Blue America.

Who is the world is Sandra Smith? Who in the word, at age 43, agrees to behave this way?

Due to their inquiring minds, our analysts wanted to know! They mentioned the death of sacred Troy, then quickly turned to matters which are a bit nearer at hand.

Sacred Troy must die, Hector said. His famous prophesy was famously uttered to Andromache, his generous wife.

(As Homer has recorded the scene, they delighted in their darling son as they spoke. Soon thereafter, when sacred Troy fell, their darling son was thrown to his death from their city's high walls.)

Has our own alleged culture already died? Are those of us, in Red and Blue America both, simply too unskilled, but also too childish, too dumbly tribal, to make this alleged experiment work?

Has our own alleged culture already died without anyone noticing—without anyone composing an elegy to memorialize its death? Were the producers of The Sixth Sense trying to tell us this?

The analysts wondered who this person could possibly be—the person who wouldn't even read the name of the other party.

She could be the world's nicest person, we said. But we gave them permission to Google.

Tomorrow: Last evening, impossibly stupid—but also, broadcast to millions


Cat lady critic encounters tough pushback...

MONDAY, JULY 29, 2024

...from a (somewhat) surprising source: Last evening, a funny thing happened to JD Vance, the "childless cat lady" critic.

Last night, he encountered a bit of fairly stern pushback. It came from a (somewhat) surprising source.

We say the pushback was surprising because it was offered on a Fox News Channel program. We say it was only somewhat surprising because the program in question was Sunday Night in America with Trey Gowdy.

In our view, Gowdy's weekly 9 p.m. show stands second in line, behind only Special Report, as a reasonably straight-shooting Fox News Channel program.

That doesn't mean that we agree with Gowdy on a wide range of issues. All in all, we probably don't.

It does mean that Gowdy began his program last night by challenging Vance, at some length, about his "childless cat lady" remarks. In this news report for The Hill, Nick Robertson does a decent job reporting what Gowdy said and did right at the start of his program:

Fox News host challenges JD Vance on ‘childless cat lady’ remarks

Fox News host Trey Gowdy questioned Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) on Sunday over a past remarks from the VP candidate criticizing people who are “childless” and calling Vice President Harris a “cat lady” in an insult that has resulted in bipartisan blowback.

Gowdy, himself a former congressman, defended those without children in the opening monologue of his show. He shared a story of meeting a pair of Catholic nuns who prayed for his friend, who was expecting a child, after spending the day together in an airport.

“And it’s not just Catholic nuns. Some of the finest people I know don’t have children,” Gowdy said. “Teachers and guidance counselors and lawyers and doctors, and they love other people’s children enough to teach and guide and protect and minister to them. Some people choose not to have children. Others desperately want them, but they can’t.”

“The American people are forgiving, if we ask,” he added before welcoming Vance on the show.

Was Gowdy suggesting that Vance should ask forgiveness for his remarks? That may have been what he meant.

At any rate, that's the way Robertson starts his report for The Hill. So far, his report is factually accurate.

You can see Gowdy's entire opening monologue—indeed, you can watch his whole interview with Vance—simply by clicking here. Let's just say that, right from the start, he wasn't exactly heaping praise on his party's nominee for vice president.

After that opening monologue, Gowdy introduced Vance. As his report continues, Robertson offers a somewhat inaccurate account of what happened then:

Vance did not apologize for the comments, originally from 2021, instead accusing Democrats of being “anti-family.” 

“If you look at what the left has done, they have radically taken this out of context and in fact, aggressively lied about what I’ve said,” Vance said. “The left has increasingly become explicitly anti child and anti family. They’ve encouraged young families not to have children at all, because of concerns over climate change.”

That first paragraph is perfectly accurate. It's true! Vance didn't apologize for his remarks—and he did accuse Democrats, though not "the left," of being "anti-family."

In fact, Vance went a bit further than that in his response to Gowdy's initial challenge. Below, you see the bulk of that initial response. 

This is the bulk of what Vance said. Warning! Some of what he said here is plainly inaccurate:

VANCE: ...If you look at the full context of what I said, it is very clear that the Democrats have tried to take this out of context and blow it out of proportion, which is what they always do, Trey, because they don't have an agenda to run on themselves.

And if you look at what the American people are most concerned about, Trey, it's not an out-of-context quip that I made three years ago. It's the fact that Kamala Harris, the border czar, opened the American southern border. It's the fact that the Democratic Party has become explicitly anti-family in some of their policies. In fact, you just heard Kamala Harris, in a surfaced clip recently, talk about how it was a bad idea to have kids because of climate change anxiety. 

So what I'm really trying to get at here, Trey, is that it's important for us to be pro-family as a country,,,

For the record, that isn't what Harris actually said in that recently surfaced clip. Nor is there any reason to believe that Harris has ever been in charge of overall border policy in a way which is suggested by the pleasing term, "border czar."

In that initial response, Vance kept calling Gowdy "Trey," possibly trying to trigger a sense of tribal solidarity. That said, Vance didn't drop any L-bombs in this, his initial response.

But then, it actually happened! As Robertson's report continues, he notes the way Gowdy reacted to Vance's initial statement.

Good lord! After Vance's initial response, Gowdy reacted by challenging Vance all over again:

Gowdy again challenged Vance over the comments, pointing out that Condoleezza Rice, Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and George Washington are among American leaders without children.

Yikes! Gowdy didn't simply move on; he challenged Vance again! It was in Vance's response to this second challenge that he complained about "the aggressive lying" supposedly engaged in by "the left:"

VANCE: ...That's not what I said, Trey. If you look at what the left has done, they have radically taken this out of context and aggressively lied about what I said...The left has increasingly become explicitly anti-child and anti-family. They have encouraged young families not to have children because of concern about climate change...

It was here, in response to Gowdy's second challenge, that Vance dropped his bombs about the way "the left" has "radically taken [his quip] out of context" and has "aggressively lied."

Full disclosure! Last evening, Senator Vance wasn't being challenged by Democrats or by "the left." He was being challenged—twice!—by the Fox News Channel's Trey Gowdy, who plainly seemed to be offended by the earlier unkind remarks.

As we watched, we were amazed by what a lost soul Vance seems to have become. That said, also this:

As we watched the start of this program, we were reminded of an impression we've developed in the past few months. It seems to us that Gowdy, with whom we often will disagree, seems to run the most respectable prime time program on Fox.

Special bonus coverage: Last night, Gowdy ended his program with an interview with former Olympian Dominique Dawes, a very impressive person. To watch that segment, click here.

As the program ended, we wondered this: 

Is it in any way that Dominque Dawes can be talked into running for president?


ELEGY: A Fox News host obeyed a key rule!

MONDAY, JULY 29, 2024

"[Adult behavior] must die:" A funny thing happened to Sandra Smith, age 43, during a recent broadcast.

At present, Smith serves as co-anchor of America Reports, a Fox News Channel program. Each weekday, the program is broadcast from 1-3 p.m. Eastern. John Roberts is Smith's co-host.

That said, the recent broadcast to which we refer occurred on a Sunday afternoon. It occurred on Sunday, July 21, during the 4 o'clock hour—and as Smith performed a tribal duty, one analyst thought she heard an elegy, a "poem or song for the dead."

The incident to which we refer occurred at 4:14 p.m. This is the way it went down:

The way the event went down:

A few hours earlier, President Joseph R. Biden had announced that he was withdrawing as a candidate for re-election. In the process, he'd endorsed Vice President Harris for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

Soon thereafter, Harris had released a written statement declaring her intention to seek her party's nomination.

As this major news unfolded, Smith and Roberts were sent on the air to co-anchor a BREAKING NEWS broadcast. Brought on by a simple twist of fate, Smith's moment of truth soon arrived.

Zounds! It arrived when Smith—as noted, she's 43 years old—was asked to read part of the text of Harris' written statement.

Dear God! Through some giant miscalculation, Smith's producers had posted one actual part of that actual statement right there on the TV screen! Below, you can see the passage in question—the actual text from Harris' statement which Fox News viewers were now being shown.

In a flash, an awkward fact became clear. In her written statement, Vice President Harris had referred to her political party by its actual name!

Part of her statement was clearly visible. It sat right there on the screen! 

Smith would now be forced to read it. Here you see the excerpt in question, just as you can see it at this link:

As posted by Smith's producers:
“I am honored to have the president’s endorsement and my intention is to earn and win this nomination... I will do everything in my power to unite the Democratic Party—and unite our nation—to defeat Donald Trump."
             VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS

Oof! That excerpt from Harris' longer statement appeared right there on the screen! Now it fell to Sandra Smith to read what Harris had written.

This produced an obvious problem. Before we report what Smith did, let's take a look at the record:

Now for the rest of the story:

Sandra Smith has been working for Fox ever since 2007. 

She started at the Fox Business Network, at the time of that channel's launch. She's been co-hosting programs on the Fox News Channel since at least 2014.

As such, she knows the basic rules of the road. One of those rules says this:

If you want to work for Fox, you must never refer to Vice President Harris' party by its official and actual name.

Like everyone else at this "cable news" outfit, Smith knows that basic rule! You must never refer to the Democratic Party by its official and actual name! At a certain "cable news" outlet, it simply isn't done!

Smith had been placed in a difficult spot, but she knew what had to be done. And so, even with the text of Harris' statement sitting right there on the TV screen, this is what Sandra Smith said as she read Harris' statement:

SMITH (7/21/24): We have a statement from Vice President Kamala Harris she just put out:

“I am honored to have the president’s endorsement and my intention is to earn and win this nomination... I will do everything in my power to unite the Democrat Party [sic]—and unite our nation—to defeat Donald Trump."

Yes, that's what she said—even as the text of Harris' actual statement sat right there on the screen. To watch this childish behavior being performed, you can just click here.

No, it doesn't exactly matter—but we want to make sure that you understand the phenomenon we're describing. The relevant facts would be these:

A review of the relevant facts:

The name of the party to which Harris belongs is "The Democratic Party." There's no real question about that fact. To fact-check that claim, click here.

When Harris released her written statement, she said she was going to do everything in her power to unite the Democratic Party. Yes, that was the name she used—and no, it doesn't end there! 

When producers at the Fox News Channel posted part of her statement right there on the screen, they accurately transcribed what Harris had actually written! 

In fairness, that was an obvious mistake on their part. It saddled the aforementioned Smith with an unfortunate moment of truth.

Those were the actual facts of the case—and right there on their TV screens, Fox News viewers could see it! They could see what Vice President Harris had said—what she'd released in written form. They could see it right there on the screen:

 I will do everything in my power to unite the Democratic Party...

That's what Vice President Harris had said—and that's what it said on the screen! But Smith is employed by a propaganda machine, and she understood the childish rule of her employer's game.

Hillbilly elegy, one analyst said, adopting a mournful tone. Yes, she spoke a bit ironically—but we felt we knew what she meant.

Sacred Troy must die! That's what Hector of the shining helmet said to Andromache, his generous wife, way back at the dawn of the west.

Sacred Troy must die, he accurately prophesied. With people like Sandra Smith kicking around—with our finer thought leaders averting their gaze—could it be that our own nation's sacred culture has already been lost?

In fairness, it doesn't exactly matter that Smith quickly decided to do what she did. In fairness, it doesn't exactly matter—except that, on balance, it does!

We almost thought we heard an elegy—a poem for the dead. That's what we almost thought we heard.

Could it possibly be that our hearing is world-class and good?

Tomorrow: She subs on Fox & Friends


SATURDAY: After the friends cited Animal Farm...

SATURDAY, JULY 27, 2024

...they mooed and they brayed on command: Can Candidate Harris win this election?

Almost surely, it's too early for polling to be highly significant. That said, we'll look at some new polling results below.

First, we'll offer this:

Candidate Harris is a bit of an accidental nominee. She'll be running against a Republican nominee who is, by any traditional measure, essentially unelectable. 

She'll also be running against a lot of positions she adopted in 2019, during her run for the 2020 Democratic nomination. (She left that race in early December 2019.)

Beyond that, she'll be running against a powerful propaganda / dumbness regime—a propaganda / dumbness regime which operates like this:

EARHARDT (7/27/24): Thanks for coming on! I know you told our producers—you said Kamala Harris thinks that our kids belong to the government. And if you hear Donald Trump's speech, he thinks that our kids belong to us, the parents. 

What's your reaction?

DEANGELIS: That's right! Kamala the Communist thinks your kids belong to her and the government...

So it went in the 6 o'clock hour of today's Fox & Friends Weekend. After receiving a prompt from the maddening, vacuous Ainsley Earhardt, a reliable guest gave viewers an unlikely account of what "Kamala the Communist" thinks.

(As an aside, might that suggest where Candidate Trump will end up? Where he may end up as he seeks the most cartoonish way to refer to the woman whose first name he still can't seem to pronounce?)

Ainsley Earhardt primed her guest. He took her cue and he ran. 

That said, it can get extremely dumb on "cable news" shows like the program in question. Sadly, that's one more fact which, in accord with prevailing law, cannot be expressed within the discourse created by our upper-end press corps.

With regard to today's new swing-state polling, Fox News reports that Harris is ahead by 6 points in Minnesota (52-46). The new polling says this about the three other states which were surveyed:

New Fox News poll of four swing states:
Pennsylvania: Harris 49, Trump 49
Michigan: Harris 49, Trump 49
Wisconsin: Trump 50, Harris 49

So says the new Fox News poll. On Fox & Friends Weekend, no one noticed or tried to explain the extremely high response rates reflected in those numbers.

Regarding the way polling tends to get reported, consider this! Here's the start of the report from the Wall Street Journal about the Journal's new national poll, dual headline included:

Harris Erases Trump’s Lead, WSJ Poll Finds
Two candidates are effectively tied after Biden’s exit shakes up race

The presidential race between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump is essentially tied, according to a new Wall Street Journal poll that shows heightened support for her among nonwhite voters and dramatically increased enthusiasm about the campaign among Democrats.

The former president leads the current vice president 49% to 47% in a two-person matchup, but that is within the margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. Trump held a six-point lead earlier this month over President Biden before he exited the race and backed Harris.

The race is "effectively tied," the headline says—or it may be "essentially tied." In fact, this new national survey shows Trump with a two-point lead—but the Journal's reporters tell us that's within the margin of error.

Trust us: You'd be hard-pressed to find a single reporter who could explain the endless intricacies of that statistical artefact. 

Our journalists often say that a poll like that shows a "statistical tie."  We'd say that poll shows a "statistical two-point lead for Trump," with all the uncertainties that nationwide sampling is heir to.

Our journalists stumble ahead as they will. At any rate, it's much too early for these new surveys to tell us much about where this contest will take us.

Harris is a bit of an accidental candidate. Trump is an unelectable candidate—but his apparent mental / psychological / cognitive disorder is of a type the upper-end press corps has agreed we must never discuss.

And yes, dear God, the propaganda is vast! Consider the spectacular dumbness which was sold this very morning in the second hour of Fox & Friends Weekend by regular weekend friend Pete Hegseth, along with Earhardt, a regular weekday friend, and one more substitute host.

The spectacular dumbness concerned the way the GovTrack site once rated the political leanings of then-Senator Harris. In the actual Fox News report from which this trio of stumblebums worked, the alleged problem was laid out as shown, dual headline included:

Webpage that rated Kamala Harris the 'most liberal' senator in 2019 suddenly disappears
Harris was ranked 'most liberal compared to all senators' in a 2019 report card published by GovTrack

GovTrack, an organization that tracks congressional voting records, confirmed to Fox News Digital it had removed a 2019 web page that ranked Kamala Harris as that year's "most liberal" U.S. senator sometime within the last two weeks.

The self-described "government transparency website" scored Harris as the "most liberal compared to all senators" in 2019, outranking Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren at the time. 

But the web page with the ranking, which was widely covered in news reports during the 2020 election, was recently deactivated. The link now displays a "Page Not Found" message. The Internet Archive shows the page was deleted sometime between July 10 and July 23, with some on X claiming the page was still up on July 22.

Outrage! According to the (factually accurate) Fox News report, GovTrack has removed a page which ranked Haris as the most liberal of all 100 senators in calendar year 2019.

According to the (factually accurate) report, that particular page has "disappeared" at that particular web site. 

Now for the contribution of the propaganda / dumbness regime! Before we show you the rest of that (accurate) Fox News report, here's part of the way this morning's trio of tools reacted:

EARHARDT: GovTrack now took it down. GovTrack took this off their website now.

CHARLES HURT: It's all you need to know about the media. They're all the same! You know, they keep popping up with new media products in Washington. They're all the same! They're all the same people and they all think the same way.

HEGSETH (after a reference to reading Animal Farm with his children):

...They all just change it! They just rewrite it! That's exactly what's happening right now! Time to sanitize, time to scrub. She's the nominee, we all need to get in line. Rewrite the headlines! Disappear the website! Get rid of the GovTrack! She never held this position. 

It's not going to stop. Thankfully, people are not dumb...

EARHARDT: That's why it's so important for you the voter to know the issues.

Speaking of Animal Farm, that's the way the animals brayed about what GovTrack has done!

GovTrack has scrubbed the truth from its site! These media people are all just the same! It's not going to stop!

So the creatures brayed. Meanwhile, here's the rest of what was reported in the (accurate) Fox News report from which these llamas were working:

When reached by Fox News Digital, GovTrack founder Joshua Tauberer said the page was removed because the company adopted a policy "several years ago" to end its single-year ratings of lawmakers to only do ratings based on Congressional sessions, which are two years.

"We determined that the limited data available in a single year was not sufficient to create a reliable portrait of the activity of legislators, particularly given the ebbs and flows of the legislative calendar, and therefore did not serve as a useful tool to our users and the American public," Tauberer said. "We subsequently took down the previously-published single-calendar-year statistics for the same reason."

Tauberer confirmed to Fox News Digital that the page was removed sometime in the last two weeks, but did not give a specific date. Asked why the pages weren't removed when single-year report cards were abandoned years ago, he said, "I was focused on more impactful aspects of our work."

Tauberer said the organization was still publishing report cards based on two-year congressional sessions and pointed Fox News Digital to Harris' existing 2020 web page, which ranked her ideology as the "most politically left compared to Senate Democrats" for the 116th Congress. She was ranked the second most liberal in all the Senate behind Independent Sanders. 

At some point in October 2020, GovTrack changed its ranking language from "most liberal" to "most politically left."

There's a bit of a jumble in that part of the report. But while GovTrack removed the ranking for 2019 alone, it still displays its more inclusive ranking for the full 116th Congress—its more inclusive ranking for 2019 and 2020 combined.

For that two-year congressional session, GovTrack ranked Senator Harris's ideology as most politically left among all Senate Democrats. According to GovTrack, she trailed only Sanders among the entire Senate—and those rankings still sit there on the GovTrack site, as the three Barnyards would have known if they'd done even minimal homework.

The more inclusive rating is still right there. In all their mooing and braying, the animals didn't mention that fact to the voters they claim to serve.

Full disclosure! The llamas on the Fox News Channel bray this way around the clock. We'd say the reference to Animal Farm was apt, though perhaps a bit misdirected. 

At any rate, according to the GovTrack ranking while still sits there for perusal, Senator Harris was the most politically left among all Senate Democrats in that 116th Congress. She was second most liberal in the Senate, trailing only Sanders.

That's part of the record this somewhat accidental candidate will have to navigate. She'll also have to navigate the barnyard behavior of tools like Earhardt, Hegseth and Hurt, with publications like the New York Times politely averting their gaze.

We'll leave you on a hopeful note. Peggy Noonan has changed her mind about Candidate Harris. She has offered this new assessment:

"I had long thought Kamala Harris couldn't beat Donald Trump. That's wrong. She can."

Noonan's essay appeared in the Wall Street Journal. It's summarized here, at Newser.

In her launch, Harris "demonstrated talent and hinted she may be a real political athlete," Noonan wrote. We'd love to see that suggestion work out. At this point, it's too early to know.

There's one thing of which we can be sure. The animals will continue to moo the way animals moo.  The llamas will continue to bray about "Kamala the Communist."

Their names are Earhardt, Hegseth and Hurt. Our finer journalists won't say a word as their relentless mooing and braying shows who we secretly are.


MyPillow, Overstock fail to relent!

FRIDAY, JULY 26, 2024

True Belief marches on: The news report appeared online on July 20, in the New York Times. 

It provides the germ of an anthropology lesson, but also a lesson in logic. For starters, the news report ran beneath this dual headline:

The Voting Machine Conspiracy Theorists Are Still at It
Patrick Byrne, Mike Lindell and other Trump supporters who made baseless assertions that Dominion Voting Systems rigged the 2020 election are using court cases to keep spreading lies about the company.

Those are the headlines atop the report. Here are the first four paragraphs:

Nearly four years later, zealous supporters of former President Donald J. Trump who promoted the conspiracy theory that Dominion Voting Systems had rigged its machines to rob him of the 2020 election are still at it.

Even though Dominion has aggressively defended itself in court, a network of pro-Trump activists has continued to push false claims against the company, often by seeking to use information gleaned from the very defamation lawsuits the firm has filed against them.

The network includes wealthy business executives like Patrick Byrne, who once ran Overstock.com, and Mike Lindell, the founder of the bedding company MyPillow. Both have sought without credible evidence to put Dominion at the heart of a vast conspiracy to deny Mr. Trump a victory.

It also includes a pro-Trump sheriff from southwest Michigan, a former election official from Colorado and Mr. Byrne’s own lawyer, who is facing charges of tampering with Dominion machines and who once worked alongside Mr. Trump’s legal team in claiming that the company was part of a plot to subvert the last election.

Remarkably, Lindell and Byrne "are still at it." Joined by a pro-Trump sheriff and a former official, they continue to pound away at the machinations of Dominion Voting Systems.

We'll recommend two approaches to the material we've posted. Thew first approach involves a collection of somewhat related terms. In order of appearance, the terms in question are these:

Baseless assertions
Lies
False claims
[The absence of] credible evidence

You can even add "conspiracy theory." Our notes would go like this:

Presumably, a "baseless assertion" will generally resemble an assertion which is made in the absence of "credible evidence." One question would go like this:

How does a "baseless assertion" differ from a "false claim?"

Moving right along:

Presumably, every "lie" will involve a "false claim." On what basis can we assert that a "false claim" is a "lie?"

Also and even this:

Can a "baseless assertion" turn out to be true? How about a "conspiracy theory?" In the face of such complexifications, we always think of Gene Brabender, the 20th century's greatest anthropologist. As recorded by Jim Bouton, his most famous remark went like this:

Where I come from, we only talk so long. After that, we start to hit.

Those questions stem from the old puzzler, "What's in a word?" Now we turn to a different set of ruminations:

Is it possible? Is it possible that Lindell and Byrne still believe that the last election was somehow stolen by something done by Dominion? 

Is it possible that they actually believe some such thing? That they therefore aren't actually "lying?"

We don't know how to answer that question. We'd love to see journalists speak to medical / psychological specialists about such matters. That said, if history has taught us anything, it teaches that they're likely to speak to the Easter Bunny first.

Full disclosure! We've all been exposed to a major anthropological lesson over the past dozen years. The apparent lesson is this:

Especially in highly fraught circumstances, you can get a whole lot of people to believe almost any damn fool thing. 

With that, one last question comes to mind:

Is it possible that a nutcase like Donald J. Trump is actually one of those people? Is it possible that he actually believes the baseless assertions he makes?

Full disclosure: As we noted this morning, we studied under Professor N. That's probably why we're so sharp.

THE REVOLT: Submission grappling promoter expounds!

FRIDAY, JULY 26, 2024

The tools do this every night: Who in the world is Chael Sonnen? 

Below, we'll start to answer your question, possibly for the second time. First though, riddle us this:

Who the heck was José  Ortega y Gasset? Also, what did he say in his most famous book, The Revolt of the Masses? It's a book whose intriguing title has lately been troubling our dreams.

Did we ever read The Revolt of the Masses? If so, it would likely have been in our sophomore year in college. 

We prospective philosophy majors had all fled the department after taking Phil 3 from a certain 25-year-old professor. We ourselves spent a year in exile in European History & Lit. 

As for Ortega y Gasset, we finally decided to look him up after watching Sonnen last night. The leading authority on his life tells us this:

 José Ortega y Gasset

José Ortega y Gasset (1883 – 1955) was a Spanish philosopher and essayist. He worked during the first half of the 20th century while Spain oscillated between monarchy, republicanism, and dictatorship. His philosophy has been characterized as a "philosophy of life" that "comprised a long-hidden beginning in a pragmatist metaphysics inspired by William James, and with a general method from a realist phenomenology imitating Edmund Husserl, which served both his proto-existentialism (prior to Martin Heidegger's) and his realist historicism, which has been compared to both Wilhelm Dilthey and Benedetto Croce."

Good lord! Apparently, though, one author did say that, though only once, in a book. 

Moving right along, what about that alleged revolt? Here's part of the way the authority thumbnails Ortega's most famous book:

The Revolt of the Masses

The Revolt of the Masses (Spanish: La rebelión de las masas) is a book by José Ortega y Gasset. It was first published as a series of articles in the newspaper El Sol in 1929, and as a book in 1930; the English translation, first published two years later, was authorized by Ortega.

[...]

In this work, Ortega traces the genesis of the "mass-man" and analyzes his constitution, en route to describing the rise to power and action of the masses in society. Ortega is throughout quite critical of both the masses and the mass-men of which they are made up, contrasting "noble life and common life" and excoriating the barbarism and primitivism he sees in the mass-man.

He does not, however, refer to specific social classes, as has been so commonly misunderstood in the English-speaking world. Ortega states that the mass-man could be from any social background, but his specific target is the bourgeois educated man, the señorito satisfecho (satisfied young man, or Mr. Satisfied), the specialist who believes he has it all and extends the command he has of his subject to others, contemptuous of his ignorance in all of them.

You can make of such things what you will. The authority includes this excerpt from Chapter 8 of Ortega's once-famous text:

The Fascist and Syndicalist species were characterized by the first appearance of a type of man who "did not care to give reasons or even to be right," but who was simply resolved to impose his opinions. That was the novelty: the right not to be right, not to be reasonable: "the reason of unreason."

— Chapter 8, "Why the Masses Intervene in Everything and Why They Always Intervene Violently"

You can make of that what you will. Also, you can look up "syndicalism" yourself. 

For the record, Ortega never had the chance to watch American "cable news." He never watched a single program on our flailing nation's "cable news" channels. 

He never got to do that! Had he watched the Fox News Channel last night, he ould have seen the aforementioned Sonnen—the person you see thumbnailed below—presented asc some sort of political analyst.

Below, we'll tell you how it went. Here is Sonnen's thumbnail:

Chael Sonnen

Chael Sonnen (born April 3, 1977) is an American submission grappling promoter, mixed martial arts (MMA) analyst, and retired mixed martial artist. Beginning his MMA career in 1997, Sonnen competed for the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), where he became a top contender in both the light heavyweight and middleweight divisions and challenged for both the UFC Light Heavyweight and UFC Middleweight Championships. Sonnen has also fought in World Extreme Cagefighting, Pancrase, and most recently for Bellator MMA. Sonnen is often considered one of the best mixed martial artists never to have won a major MMA world championship and one of the sport's greatest trash-talkers.

In 2014, Sonnen began working as a MMA analyst for ESPN and two years later, in July 2016, founded Submission Underground (SUG), his own submission grappling promotion.

We're omitting the passage about the incident in the Las Vegas hotel corridor back in 2021. As best we can tell, the attendant lawsuits continue.

In short, Sonnen is a "submission grappling promoter" and a former mixed martial artist. Last night, in his latest appearance on Fox, he was also cast as a political / social analyst.

To our eye and ear, he came across last night as an extremely speedy, somewhat borderline possible semi-nutcase. 

Needless to say, he appeared on the Gutfeld! program. Last evening, this was the panel of analysts:

Gutfeld! panel: Thursday, July 25, 2024
Chael Sonnen: Submission grappling promoter. 
Tyrus: Former professional wrestling champion. Performs as a comedian.
Kat Timpf: Performs as a comedian.
Jamie Lissow: Performs as a comedian. 
Greg Gutfeld (host): 59 years old. Performs as a comedian. 

So it went! Three comedians, joined by one former professional wrestler and one submission grappling promoter. This collection had been assembled to spend an hour, in primetime, conducting political and cultural analyses on our struggling nation's most-watched "cable news" channel.

"Revolt of the masses," someone once said. Not that there's anything wrong with it! 

In fairness, we also thought of Ortega's book title when we watched the first hour of Fox & Friends this morning. In our view, MSNBC is bad enough, but something resembling that alleged revolt seems to take place on the Fox News Channel during quite a few hours each day.

Last night, Sonnen had been deposited in the chair occupied this past Monday night by a 23-yea-old model and actress who has recently begun to "dabble in political commentary." This is the way the clown car rolls on this particular "cable news" channel, as our nation seems to seek a way to follow behind "sacred Troy."

Last night, Sonnen struck us as someone who may have ingested seven or eight too many Red Bulls before the taping began. You can assess his first presentation simply by clicking here

(For the record, he seems to think the vice president's first name is "Kuh-MALL"—two syllables only.)

In the modern lexicon, what happens on this nightly, primetime "news" show might be described as the revolt of the flyweights—but also, of course, as the recitation of the corporate tools.

The analysts all know what to say, and they all proceed to say it. Everyone recites the views of the corporate entity signing their checks. 

They all know what they're paid to say, and they seem eager to say it. (We can't say that MSNBC totally differs from this.)

You can watch Sonnen by clicking that link. That said, we've been discussing the Monday night Gutfeld! show, and we'll return to that debacle as we finish our report.

More specifically, we'll look at the "conspiracy theories" which were possibly whispered that night as the assortment of jugglers and clowns recited the scripts of their paymaster. Indeed, a person could almost think that it started with Gutfeld himself. 

He had started that evening's program by wondering if Hunter Biden will now start "dating" the first lady. (On Tuesday evening's show, his altered his presentation. His verb of choice was now "f*cking.")

He started with the "dating." After that, the rage-infested fellow explained how to pronounce the Vice President's name.

It isn't KAHMA-ala, he helpfully said. The pronunciation is "IDIOT."

This rage-infested corporate tool is 59 years old! We each went to high school right there in San Mateo—we ourselves at Aragon High, he at Tom Brady's Serra.

We can't imagine how a person so filled with rage can emerge from such a sunny land. But if some such "mass man" does so emerge, the Fox News Channel will find him!

Back to those possibly whispered conspiracy theories. Did the rage-filled host kick-start the fun? At 10:07 p.m., on Monday night, the termagant offered this:

GUTFELD (7/22/24): Now, there could be something else going on here. Is there more to Joe dropping out than we know? Does it have something to do with Butler, Pennsylvania? 

I'm not suggesting the Dems tried to have Trump killed, of course...

But remember. Secret Service Director Cheatle was on Jill Biden's security detail. Jill reportedly pushed for Cheatle to get that top job. 

They're a perfect pair—a DEI hire gets a shot, and a phony doctor can give you first aid. 

But what if, when resources are allotted, favorites are played with experience and manpower? It's pretty clear that the White House didn't take threats to Trump seriously. Could this have been negligence by derangement—a shared antipathy for Trump?

So it went, as he struggled to avoid suggesting that the Dems tried to have Trump killed. He was merely asking—asking if President Biden's withdrawal from the campaign had something to do with what happened in Butler that day.

The termagant never doubled back to explain what he meant by that question. In fairness, he instantly said he wasn't suggesting that the Dems tried to have Trump killed—though that, of course, is a time-honored way to float the thought that maybe they possibly did.

So the termagant said, early on, after talking about Hunter "dating" Jill, and after helping us know how to pronounce the VP's name. The guy can keep it up all night, and he typically does.

That said, other members of Monday's panel may have seemed to be floating other theories of the conspiracy kind. It started in an innocuous way, possibly picked up steam:

Dr. Drew Pinsky, 65, grew up with every discernible advantage. He chooses to appear on Gutfeld! all the same.  

By 10:13, he was flatly misstating the contents of the 25th amendment. He then built upon his misstatement, telling us what "you can imagine": about the reason why President Biden stepped aside. 

For the record, "you can imagine" lots of things. On this occasion, Dr. Pinsky did.

"Where do they find people like this?" one of the analysts asked. We don't know, but by 10:17, this same Dr. Drew was lodging a complaint about the Biden administration.

"They're causing conspiracy theories to break out," the privileged potentate comically said. 

As we noted yesterday. the 23-year-ol model who is now dabbling took her turn at 10:33 p.m. "I've been called a conspiracy theorist all day," she said. 

From there, she proceeded to show several million viewers why such things had been said.

That said, it was the former professional wrestler who took the cake this night. At 10:35 p.m., the giant blob of protoplasm started by offering this:

TYRUS: Again, this is the DIE. The biggest questions that should be there is the coincidences that are just too ridiculous to ignore. 

He proceeded to list the coincidences that are just too ridiculous to ignore. In doing so, he seemed to create a speculation about the complicity of "Dr. President Jill" in the recent assassination attempt directed at Donald J. Trump.

It was all amazingly clear to Tyrus. None of the other analysts spoke up—and then at 10:39 p.m., the former professional wrestler and current savant was suddenly back for more:

TYRUS: We still don't know who ordered Afghanistan. It's the same person (pretends to cough)—Dr. President Jill. It's like the same person!

No one else spoke up. On this show, the first lady ordered Afghanistan back in 2021. By the next evening's Gutfeld! program, the termagant/host was saying he hopes she isn't "f*cking" her son.

So goes the nightly revolt, as directed by the aging señorito satisfecho. As this nightly revolt unspools, Blue America's finer thought leaders politely avert their gaze.

We'll close by citing a few other books:

More than a decade ago, we began to quote a prophetic statement by the classicist Norman O. Brown. Brown was very hot in the 1960s, on the basis of two books which we actually did read, or at least attempted to read:

Major books by Norman O. Brown 
Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History (1959)
Love's Body (1966)

Brown is rarely mentioned today. Back then, he was very hot. Upon his death in 2002, the New York Times published this lengthy obituary, testifying to his earlier influence.

More than a decade ago, something Brown once said began to trouble our dreams. We thought it must have come from one of his books, but as this memoir attests, it actually came from a Phi Beta Kappa Address he delivered at Columbia in 1960.

We don't know how we knew about that obscure address. That said, as best we can tell, the murky statement in question went like this:

BROWN (5/31/60): I sometimes think I see that societies originate in the discovery of some secret, some mystery; and end in exhaustion when there is no longer any secret, when the mystery has been divulged, that is to say profaned... 
And so there comes a time—I believe we are in such a time—when civilization has to be renewed by the discovery of some new mysteries, by the undemocratic but sovereign power of the imagination, by the undemocratic power which makes poets the unacknowledged legislators of all mankind, the power which makes all things new.

For the record, we have no clear idea what that actually means. That said, Brown seemed to suggest, even then, that our society was "ending in exhaustion." 

He said our civilization needed to be renewed by the discovery of a new mystery, "by the undemocratic power which makes poets the unacknowledged legislators of all [hu]mankind."

Brown sought the aid of the poets. We've thought this week of Carl Sandburg, the poet and the biographer. 

We've thought about the passage in Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years in which the president-elect journeys back to Coles County, Illinois to say goodbye to his step-mother—to Sally Bush Lincoln, the person who had been able to see, when Lincoln was young, that her stepson was very different.

In his famous biography of Lincoln, the poet described their last meeting:

SANDBURG: The next day Lincoln drove eight miles out to the old farm along the road over which he had hauled wood with an ox team. He came to the old log house he had cut logs for and helped smooth the chinks; from its little square windows he had seen late winter and early birds.

Sally Bush and he put their arms around each other and listened to each other’s heartbeats. They held hands and talked; they talked without holding hands. Each looked into eyes thrust back in deep sockets. She was all of a mother to him.

He was her boy more than any born to her. He gave her a photograph of her boy, a hungry picture of him standing and wanting, wanting. He stroked her face a last time, kissed good-by, and went away.

She knew his heart would go roaming back often, that even when he rode in an open carriage in New York or Washington with soldiers, flags or cheering thousands along the streets, he might just as like be thinking of her in the old log farmhouse out in Coles County, Illinois.

The sunshine of the prairie summer and fall months would come sifting down with healing and strength; between harvest and corn-plowing there would be rains beating and blizzards howling; and then there would be silence after snowstorms with white drifts piled against the fences, barns, and trees.

So spoke the poet biographer; so ended this brilliant chapter. In Sandburg's portrait, the sunshine of the prairie summer—and with it, the world of the "common man"—would be there in Lincoln's heart, even when he was being cheered by thousands in giant East Coast parades.

Ortega's "mass man" isn't the American average person. Over here in Blue America, we badly need a poet who can help us regain our connection to the world of people who didn't go to Harvard or Yale or Brown. 

We need to renew our civilization! Or are we the only people who are able to watch cable TV each night?

Over at the Fox News Channel, they assembly a gang of flyweights and clowns to go on the air each night. Each night, the jugglers and clowns proceed say the things they're paid to say. 

Our own thought leaders, in their greatness, choose to avert their gaze. We Blues continue to talk to ourselves, as we've been doing for years.

Sonnen? He's a submission grappling promoter but also, just perhaps, a bit of valuable tool. In the course of his daily life, he may be the world's nicest person.

That said, is the first lady f*cking her son? Did she order Afghanistan? Was she imaginably involved somehow in the assassination attempt?

Has the first lady been f*cking her son? Inquiring minds are encouraged to wonder. Timpf, who plays the thoughtful cast member, sits on her ascot and stares.


They took the car keys from President Biden!

THURSDAY, JULY 25, 2024

They've left the bombs in Trump's hands: In the case of President Biden, it was fairly easy for the press corps to identify the apparent problem. 

It looked like a type of problem which everyone had seen before, if only in classic films like Driving Miss Daisy or Under Golden Pond.

It looked like a type of "senility" or possibly "dementia." It looked like the type of problem which—as everyone persistently said—makes you take the keys away from an aging parent.

President Biden's apparent affliction seemed fairly easy to name. In the case of former president Trump. it has been much harder for our journalists to name his apparent or possible affliction.

The gentleman makes crazy statements with regularity, like the ones we noted yesterday afternoon. That said, he seems to be full of energy—and yes, he actually can complete sentences. He does so much of the time. 

Bowing to an ancient prohibition, our news orgs agreed that no one should discuss the possibility of some sort of severe mental illness. And so our major scribes—they aren't always especially sharp, and they aren't overwhelmingly honest—decided to brand Trump a LIAR and pretty much leave it at that.

That leaves us with a ranting person offering rants like the ones we mentioned yesterday. Also, it leaves us with a major, highly intelligent journalist writing am essay like the one Anne Applebaum just offered.

Applebaum is a very important journalist and author. She watched Trump's convention address, and she said she found it baffling. 

Eventually, he "digressed into pure gibberish," she says in her piece for The Atlantic. Here are the two examples she cited, exactly as they appear in The Atlantic, major typo and all:

They’re coming from prisons. They’re coming from jails. They’re coming from mental institutions and insane asylums. I—you know the press is always on because I say this. Has anyone seen The Silence of the Lambs? The late, great Hannibal Lecter. He’d love to have you for dinner. That’s insane asylums. They’re emptying out their insane asylums. And terrorists at numbers that we’ve never seen before. Bad things are going to happen.

Another:

In Venezuela, Caracas, high crime, high crime. Caracas, Venezuela, really a dangerous place. But not anymore, because in Venezuela, crime is down 72 percent. In fact, if they would ever in this election, I hate to even say that, we will have our next Republican convention in Venezuela because it will be safe. Our cities, our cities will be so unsafe, we won’t be able—we will not be able to have it there.

Applebaum described those excerpts as "pure gibberish." We can't really say we know why.

We aren't vouching for the accuracy of those presentations, which occurred shortly past the one-hour mark in one brief part of Trump's endless address. 

We aren't vouching for those presentations. As far as we know, Trump was making a set of (highly familiar) claims which are basically bogus.

Fact-checkers have widely stated that the picture he was painting there simply isn't accurate. But that doesn't mean that the statements are gibberish. They're part of a perfectly coherent set of claims which the candidate makes all the time—a perfectly coherent set of claims which seem to be grossly inaccurate.

What is Trump claiming in those excerpts? He's saying that governments in countries like Venezuela are emptying out their prisons and sending their criminals here.

Also, he's saying that governments are emptying their "insane asylums" and sending those people here. He's even supplying statistics about the drop in crime which has allegedly happened in countries like Venezuela. 

Alas! Fact-checkers have routinely said that his claims are unfounded and / or simply inaccurate. They've said that his statistics seem to have been made up. 

That said, it's easy to see what the gent is claiming. Why would someone as sharp as Applebaum describe those presentations as "gibberish?"

Before we proceed any further, at least three typos lurk in Applebaum's two examples. Here's what Trump actually said in that second example:

In fact, if they [the Democrats] would ever WIN this election—I hate to even say that—we will have our next Republican convention in Venezuela because it will be safe. 

Candidate Trump said "win," not "in." You can see that at the 67-minute mark of the C-Span videotape of his speech

As presented in The Atlantic, that second example didn't seem to make sense.  After correcting the typo, Trump's (very familiar) statement strikes us as easy to follow. The first example in The Atlantic also includes at least two typos, as you can see at the C-Span video's 65-minute mark.

That's amazingly sloppy work on the part of The Atlantic. Moving right along:

Presumably, Trump's statement about holding the next convention in Caracas wasn't mean to be taken literally. In fact, you can hear the audience laughing at several familiar parts of those two presentations.

Adjusting for such considerations, Trump was painting a familiar if inaccurate picture. He was claiming that our nation is being overrun by gangs of criminals and psychiatric patients who are being shipped here from foreign lands.

Why did those presentations strike Applebaum as "gibberish?" We have no idea. But beyond that, there lurks a larger question:

Is there something wrong in Donald Trump's head? If so, what is it?

Way back in 2017, Dr. Bandy C. Lee, a Yale psychiatrist, edited a best-selling book which carried this ominous title:

The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 37 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President 

Rightly or wrongly, the medical specialists who contributed essays to the book claimed that Trump was, or seemed to be, (severely) mentally ill, in a way which was said to be dangerous. With the book's publication, the inevitable happened:

Major news orgs agreed that such claims must never be discussed. 

The book was therefore disappeared. Later, our journalists were willing to discuss President Biden's possible "dementia," as was completely appropriate. But they've never been willing to discuss the (fairly obvious and tragic) possibility outlined in Dr. Lee's best-selling book.

Instead, they settled for calling him a LIAR. Also, at a fairly recent point, they began saying that Trump was exhibiting the same signs that had become apparent with President Biden. As they struggled to make that case, they ignored the larger, more obvious problem.

Our journalist settled for calling him a LIAR. But what if it's worse than that? 

Applebaum watched his convention address and called those excerpts "pure gibberish." We don't know why such a prominent and intelligent person would settle for that diagnosis.

It's easy to see what Trump was saying in the excerpts Appelbaum offered. But why was Trump making those overwrought claim—and why does he persistently make claims which are even crazier?

Applebaum's guild has never been willing to puzzle that out. They've been willing to take the car keys from Biden while leaving the bombs in Trump's hands!