MONDAY: Elon Musk isn't a nut!

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2025

There's no such technical term: For the record, Elon Musk isn't "a madman" or a nut. As we detailed this morning, there are no such technical terms.

The same can be said for Donald J. Trump. On the other hand, in this morning's print editions, the New York Times was reporting this:

Top Security Officials at Aid Agency Put on Leave After Denying Access to Musk Team

The two top security officials at the U.S. Agency for International Development were put on administrative leave on Saturday night after refusing to give representatives of Elon Musk access to internal systems, according to three U.S. officials with knowledge of the matter.

And the agency’s chief of staff, Matt Hopson, a Trump administration political appointee who had started his job days ago, has resigned, two of the officials said.

[...]

Mr. Trump, returning to Washington from his home in Palm Beach Sunday evening, disparaged the agency, telling reporters traveling with him that it was run by “radical lunatics.”

“We’re getting them out, and then we’ll make a decision,” he said.

He also praised Mr. Musk as “very smart.”

A few hours later, Mr. Musk said that Mr. Trump believed that the agency should be shut down.

“None of this could be done without the full support of the president,” Mr. Musk said on an X Spaces event. “I went over it with him in detail, and he agreed with that we should shut it down. I want to be clear. I actually checked with him a few times. I said, “Are you sure?’ ‘Yes.’ So we’re shutting it down.”

Mr. Musk has posted a series of messages in recent days expressing fury at the aid agency and voicing conspiracy theories about it.

“USAID is a criminal organization,” Mr. Musk wrote on Sunday in a social media post that many aid workers saw as confirmation the agency would soon be absorbed into the State Department and that some viewed as a potential threat to their personal safety. “Time for it to die.”

According to these public officials, neither of whom is insane, USAID is "a criminal organization." As it turns out, it's an organization which has been run by a bunch of "radical lunatics." 

For the record, the Times was quoting one of several social media posts from the man who isn't a nutcase. Yesterday, Musk authored such posts as these:

"USAID was a viper's nest of radical-left Marxists who hate America."

"USAID is evil."

“USAID is a criminal organization. Time for it to die.”

"USAID is a criminal organization."

As any very smart person would do, he was trying extra hard to articulate his key point.

Yesterday, Kevin Drum explained Musk's concern about this evil viper's nest. We link, you decide:

Here’s how USAID ended up in Trump’s crosshairs

[...]

What account[s] for Trump's specific fury toward USAID? Most likely, he was influenced by Elon Musk, who has been raging against the agency on Twitter, calling it a "a viper’s nest of radical-left marxists who hate America"¹ and later declaring, "USAID is a criminal organization. Time for it to die." Yesterday, Musk acolytes stormed into USAID headquarters demanding access to security systems and personnel files. They were turned back, but eventually got in after a couple of top security officials were put on leave.

Whew. But why is Musk so exercised about USAID? This is where things get murky, but it turns out Musk is a big fan of a guy named Mike Benz, a far-right provocateur, white supremacist, and all-around conspiracy crank...

Kevin's account continues from there. Meanwhile, there was Chrystia Freeland, on today's Morning Joe, using such language as this with respect to the tariffs which are being slapped on Canada. Over at Mediaite, David Gilmour provided a transcript and tape:

This really is utter madness. And, you know, from our [Canadian] perspective, the key thing here is you guys are engaged in this colossal act of self-harm. These tariffs are going to make life more expensive for Americans. You have put a tariff on the gas we sell you, so gas is going to be more expensive. You have put a tariff on the food that you are buying. That’s a tax on groceries, they’re going to be more expensive. We have now the United Steelworkers, the American Farm Bureau, the Chamber of Commerce, all saying this is going to hurt America. Stock futures are down.

You are hurting yourselves. You are taxing regular Americans. And we are going to fight back. And Canada is your biggest market. Canada is a bigger market for US exporters than China, Japan, the UK and France combined.

For Americans. like, your businesspeople, right? The customer is always right, and your customer is really angry at you. The whole country is behind the retaliation the prime minister has announced so now we are going to tax American exporters who are trying to sell us stuff. That means Americans are going to lose jobs.

So this is really—it is self-mutilation. America is hurting itself. We think that it is utterly crazy. And we’re also really, really angry at you.

Presumably, Freeland was speaking metaphorically when she used such terms as "utter madness" and "utterly crazy" with respect to the conduct of Trump.

Who the heck is Chrystia Freeland? We're so old that we can remember when she was a journalist and a regular guest on Hardball.

Freeland was always a bit too bight for that particular program. Today, she's a member of Canadian parliament who hopes to succeed Justin Trudeau as PM. Before she called Trump crazy and mad, she explained how the tariffs will affect our two countries. 

We aren't saying that she's right. We aren't saying she's wrong. 

We promise to stop being snarky about this serious topic. But for today, we'll only say that we were struck by the (obviously colloquial) language Freeland chose to use.

MADMEN: "Madman" isn't a technical term!

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2025

The silence has been a surrender: A far as we know, "madman" isn't, and has never been, a technical clinical term.

As far as we know, it isn't a term that's used within the fields of psychiatry or psychology. As far as we know, it isn't a term that's used within any branch of medical science.

"Madman" is a term of art—a part of colloquial discourse. As far as we know, no one in the medical field ever says that Person X is a madman, or even a madwoman, not even if the person in question lives in Chaillot, a part of Paris, France. 

(In French, the corresponding term seems to be "la folle." As far as we know, medical practitioners never use that term.)

"Madman" is a part of colloquial discourse. In its place, medical practitioners might be inclined to say that some such person is "mentally ill"—or then again, possibly not! Consider what we learn from the planet's leading authority on matters of mental health.

That authority does offer a lengthy discussion which carries this heading: "Mental health." That said, the same authority offers no corresponding submission headlined as "Mental illness."

Instead, the authority matches its lengthy entry on "Mental health" with an equally lengthy entry on "Mental disorder." Regarding the term in question, the reader is quickly told this:

Mental disorder

A mental disorder, also referred to as a mental illness, a mental health condition, or a psychiatric disability, is a behavioral or mental pattern that causes significant distress or impairment of personal functioning. A mental disorder is also characterized by a clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotional regulation, or behavior, often in a social context. Such disturbances may occur as single episodes, may be persistent, or may be relapsing–remitting. There are many different types of mental disorders, with signs and symptoms that vary widely between specific disorders. A mental disorder is one aspect of mental health.

The causes of mental disorders are often unclear...

According to that passage, a "mental disorder" is also referred to, presumably by medical specialists, as a "mental illness." Somewhat similarly, the reader is also quickly told this, right there at the start of paragraphs 5-7 of the submission in question:

The definition and classification of mental disorders are key issues for researchers as well as service providers and those who may be diagnosed. For a mental state to be classified as a disorder, it generally needs to cause dysfunction. Most international clinical documents use the term mental "disorder," while "illness" is also common. 

According to the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), published in 1994, a mental disorder is a psychological syndrome or pattern that is associated with distress (e.g., via a painful symptom), disability (impairment in one or more important areas of functioning), increased risk of death, or causes a significant loss of autonomy; however, it excludes normal responses such as the grief from loss of a loved one and also excludes deviant behavior for political, religious, or societal reasons not arising from a dysfunction in the individual.

DSM-IV predicates the definition with caveats, stating that, as in the case with many medical terms, mental disorder "lacks a consistent operational definition that covers all situations," noting that different levels of abstraction can be used for medical definitions, including pathology, symptomology, deviance from a normal range, or etiology, and that the same is true for mental disorders, so that sometimes one type of definition is appropriate and sometimes another, depending on the situation.

Even this early in the discussion, it's getting complex in here! 

That said, it sounds like there's nothing "wrong" with the familiar term, "mental illness." On the other hand, we're told that the alternate term, "mental disorder," is used more frequently around the world.

It still sounds like either term is pretty much OK. However, if you click ahead to another long entry within that same authoritative source, the reader is now told something different. 

Below, you see language from that third lengthy entry, an entry whose heading is shown below:

Classification of mental disorders

The classification of mental disorders, also known as psychiatric nosology or psychiatric taxonomy, is central to the practice of psychiatry and other mental health professions.

The two most widely used psychiatric classification systems are chapter V of the International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition (ICD-10), produced by the World Health Organization (WHO); and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5), produced by the American Psychiatric Association (APA).

[...[

Most international clinical documents avoid the term "mental illness," preferring the term "mental disorder." However, some use "mental illness" as the main overarching term to encompass mental disorders. Some consumer/survivor movement organizations oppose use of the term "mental illness" on the grounds that it supports the dominance of a medical model. The term "serious mental impairment" (SMI) is sometimes used to refer to more severe and long-lasting disorders while "mental health problems" may be used as a broader term, or to refer only to milder or more transient issues. Confusion often surrounds the ways and contexts in which these terms are used.

At long last, our guide has acknowledged a bit of "confusion" surrounding the complexities of the conceptual wilderness into which we've now agreed to wander. Beyond that, we're also told that most international clinical documents avoid the term "mental illness!" 

Most clinical documents avoid that term! In some venues, the term "serious mental impairment (SMI)" may be preferred, we're now told. 

Alas! As with everything else in our struggling world, "Confusion often surrounds the ways and contexts in which these terms are used." 

The confusion and complexity seem to be general, or so it now seems we've been told. And that's certainly true within the world of American journalism with respect to the concepts at hand.

In the world of American journalism, practitioners routinely speak of "mental illness" when discussing certain types of behaviors, including instances of violent "street crimes" committed by people who are said to be homeless, or who are perhaps unhoused. 

On the other hand, practitioners never speak of "mental illness" when discussing the peculiar behaviors and crazy statements of major public officials. For better or for worse, it simply isn't done.

For better or worse, our journalists don't speak of "mental illness" with respect to such people—and they don't speak of "mental disorders" either. With respect to such prominent people, the use of such language has long been forbidden by the unwritten rules of the guild.

Does "mental illness" (or some such condition) even exist in the world? We may briefly sample that question before the week is done.

But according to journalistic tradition, no such condition can be said to exist in the world of major public officials. That's true no matter how wildly disordered their behaviors, and their endless public statements, may endlessly seem to be.

No major public official can be said to be gripped by a mental illness, or even by a mental disorder! Similarly, no such person can be said to be a madman, or even a nutcase or nut.

Such prohibitions may be creating a major problem with respect to the public discussion of some current public officials. For example, is it possible that Elon Musk is a clinical nutcase? Is it possible that the current commander, Donald J. Trump, fits within that same rubric?

For the record, the questions we're asking are totally academic—are totally theoretical. No such behavior will ever emerge within the mainstream press, no matter how disordered the behavior of these people may seem to become.

Our questions are purely theoretical. At most, someone will be "telling this with a sigh / Somewhere ages and ages hence."

With that basic point acknowledged, is it actually possible? Is it possible that a major, well-known public official could be gripped by a "mental disorder?" 

A system-wide silence has been maintained with respect to such questions. That system-wide silence is being maintained even now, as it starts to look like the nighttime assault has begun. 

The system-wide silence is being maintained. We'll close today with one more theoretical question:

Is it possible that the refusal to ask such obvious questions will qualify, in the end, as yet another "mental disorder" within this vale of tears?

Tomorrow: We expect to lose most of the day tomorrow. For a tiny overview of our (purely theoretical) concerns about the commander and the satrap, see this afternoon's report.

("A satrap served as a viceroy to the king, though with considerable autonomy." If you doubt that representation, you can just click here.)

SUNDAY: Brooks expands journalistic language!

SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2025

It's the stupidity, Stupid: In this morning's New York Times, David Brooks is taking an important step in a new direction.

He's extending, or seeking to extend, the possibilities found within our journalistic language. Headline included, his column starts like this:

The Six Principles of Stupidity

This was the week in which the Chinese made incredible gains in artificial intelligence and the Americans made incredible gains in human stupidity. I’m sorry, but I look at the Trump administration’s behavior over the last week and the only word that accurately describes it is: stupid.

Brooks starts by apologizing for his surprising language. We think that step was appropriate. We'd call it a good idea. 

Brooks says he's sorry for what's coming next. But then, he goes ahead and pops the cork on his unusual choice of words:

He employs a rarely used term. He says there's only one word for recent behavior by the current commander. Here's the word for which he apologizes:

The key word he uses is "stupid."

We ourselves have often noted the need to activate certain types of forbidden journalistic language:

We've often said that we need to introduce the language of "mental illness" into the journalistic discourse. Starting tomorrow, "mental illness" will be our theme all through the course of the week.

Of late, we've also noted the fact that our journalistic traditions make it hard for journalists to describe certain behaviors for what they are—for being blindingly stupid. In his column, Brooks is pushing forward toward that new frontier.

By tradition and practice, journalists don't talk a lot about people, actions or ideas being "stupid." That helps explain today's apology by Brooks. It also helps us understand the value of the direction in which he points in his column—a column which, at fuller length, actually starts like this:

The Six Principles of Stupidity

This was the week in which the Chinese made incredible gains in artificial intelligence and the Americans made incredible gains in human stupidity. I’m sorry, but I look at the Trump administration’s behavior over the last week and the only word that accurately describes it is: stupid.

I am not saying the members of the Trump administration are not intelligent. We all know high-I.Q. people who behave in a way that’s as dumb as rocks. I don’t believe that there are stupid people, just stupid behaviors. As the Italian historian Carlo Cipolla once put it, “The probability that a certain person be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.”

And I am certainly not saying Donald Trump’s supporters are less intelligent than others. I’ve learned over the years that many upscale Democrats detest intellectual diversity. When they have power over a system—whether it’s academia, the mainstream media, the nonprofits or the Civil Service—they tend to impose a stifling orthodoxy that makes everybody within it duller, more conformist and insular. If Republicans want to upend that, I say: Go for it.

I define stupidity as behaving in a way that ignores the question: What would happen next? If somebody comes up to you and says, “I think I’m going to take a hike in a lightning storm with a copper antenna on my head,” stupidity replies, “That sounds like a really great idea!” Stupidity is the tendency to take actions that hurt you and the people around you.

The administration produced volleys of stupidity this week...

After apologizing, Brooks includes a few disclaimers:

He isn't saying that members of the new administration are unintelligent. (Although some certainly may be.) Also, he isn't saying that the commander's supporters are dumber than everyone else.

He also seems to say that many of us in Blue America have trafficked in The Stupid too. That's a very important point. We'll list some specifics below.

That said, let's ponder this:

Is it true? Did the Trump administration "produce volleys of stupidity this week?"

That, of course, is a matter of judgment. As he continues, Brooks presents examples of alleged stupidity with which some people won't agree.

From there, he goes on to present what his headline promises—six "principles of stupidity." You may or may not agree with his list—but in our view, the gentleman is suddenly pruning trees in an appropriate vineyard.

The Stupid is all around us at this point in time. Our journalists never say so, but The Stupid is one of the central organizational principles of modern American "journalism."

For starters, we're thinking of the organizational principle called "segregation by viewpoint." Here's the obvious question we've raised this very week:

What's the point? What's the point of assembling four-member panels on "cable news" TV shows if every member of every panel is going to agree with every word every other member has said?

(That's exactly right should be the official corporate motto at Fox.)

Plainly, that practice is designed to create an illusion—the illusion that some sort of "discussion" is taking place. 

What's actually taking place is an act of preapproved corporate messaging. Judged on a journalistic / informational basis, the creation of those pseudo-discussions is an amazingly stupid act—an imitation of life.

That said, The Stupid has been running wild—and not just on the commander's team, and not just in Red America. As Brooks suggests, The Stupid has been on a roll in Blue America too.

Over the past four years, our own Blue versions of The Stupid helped send the commander back to his perch in the White House. We refer to the ways we Blues earned our way out, to such manifestations as these:

Our failure to see that something seemed to be wrong with President Biden. (Or perhaps, our refusal to give voice to what we were able to see.)

Our failure to see the apparent lunacy of what seemed to be happening at the southern border. (Or our refusal to discuss that unexplained state of affairs.)

Our failure to discuss the problems which seemed to be involved in various aspects of "the cost of living." Our astounding, single-minded focus on the desire to frog-march Donald J. Trump to prison, which we used as a way, on our own cable shows, to avoid discussing the actual apparent problems which everyone else could see.

Also, the endless clown shows which were tangled up in what had come to be known as "Woke." Those clown shows were endlessly tangled up in Blue, even in the bizarre (and weirdly ugly) insertions of black characters into the recent Dylan film—weirdly ugly insertions we've seen no one in Blue America notice or discuss.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep—but we humans are inclined to veer toward behaviors which are perhaps a bit "stupid."

Our journalists need to be able to talk about those endless manifestations. It's generally wiser to veer toward the gentler word "dumb," but The Stupid has been running wild, and not just Over There.

Also this, concerning the WHO: Two fact checks have appeared concerning what the commander said about the WHO. (See yesterday's report.)

We sighed when we read each fact check! We expect to discuss those offerings on Tuesday, a day on which we're scheduled to lose a large chunk of time.

Tomorrow, we start a week in which we'll be discussing "mental illness." Full disclosure—we'll be catching your eye with a (colloquial) term which is even more racy than that!

The commander keeps saying the darnedest things, about an array of topics! What should journalists think about that? What should their fact-checks look like? What should their conventions of language permit such people to say? 

Is "something wrong" with the person in question? What kinds of science are journos avoiding when they keep refusing to ask?

SATURDAY: Commander hears and tackles the WHO!

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2025

Is a modern American Samson tearing the pillars down? In the realm of children's books, Horton famously heard a Who. 

Last week, a certain commander—he may also be a nutcase!—wrestled the WHO to the ground.

The WHO in question here is the World Health Organization. Our story starts with a news report from the New York Times on the day the commander took office:

Trump Withdraws U.S. From World Health Organization

President Trump moved quickly on Monday [January 20] to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization, a move that public health experts say will undermine the nation’s standing as a global health leader and make it harder to fight the next pandemic.

In an executive order issued about eight hours after he took the oath of office, Mr. Trump cited a string of reasons for the withdrawal, including the W.H.O.’s “mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic,” and the “failure to adopt urgently needed reforms.” He said the agency demands “unfairly onerous payments” from the United States, and complained that China pays less.

According to the commander—he may also be a Samson—the WHO had been demanding "onerous payments" from Us. The WHO had been requiring that They pay much, much less.

For that reason, the commander had announced his plan to take a hike from the WHO. The Times report didn't attempt to state any numbers regarding those onerous payments.

This Times report never appeared in print editions. Apparently, it wasn't deemed important enough. Online, the Times report does include this correction:

A correction was made on Jan. 21, 2025: An earlier version of this article incorrectly described the WHO’s $6.8 billion budget. It is the organization’s biennial budget, not annual.

One years? Two years? Was it "close enough for journalistic work?" In this vale of tears, had it seemed to make a big difference?

At any rate, the commander had quickly announced his plan to abandon the WHO. One day later, CNN added some numbers to the mix:

What is the World Health Organization and why does Trump want to leave it?

[...]

There is also a financial aspect to Trump’s animosity. The president has previously said that the US contributes around $500 million a year to WHO, compared to China’s $40 million, despite its far larger population.

As he signed Monday’s executive order, Trump was asked whether, as president during Covid-19, he appreciated the importance of agencies like WHO.

“I do, but not when you’re being ripped off like we are,” he replied.

The commander said we were being ripped off—and CNN cited his numbers. But were his numbers accurate?

Within a very lengthy report, CNN made no attempt to say. On January 27, it fell to a reporter at the Fox News site to take the story further. 

Regarding those numbers, the commander had gone on and on, then on and on, at a Las Vegas rally. As you scan the Fox News report, please note the reference to the fact check from NPR:

Trump open to considering re-entry into World Health Organization: 'They'd have to clean it up'

President Donald Trump said he was open to potentially rejoining the World Health Organization (WHO), just days after he signed a Day One executive order that withdrew the U.S. from the international group.

During a rally at Circa Resort & Casino in Downtown Las Vegas, the president told those in attendance that it was unfair a country like China, with a population much greater than the U.S., was only paying a fraction of what the U.S. was paying annually to the WHO.

"We paid $500 million a year and China paid $39 million a year despite a much larger population. Think of that. China's paying $39 million to have 1.4 billion people, we pay $500 million we have—no one knows what the hell we have, does anyone know? We have so many people pouring in we have no idea," Trump told rally goers on Saturday.

"They offered me at $39 million, they said 'We'll let you back in for $39 million,' they're going to reduce it from [$500 million] to [$39 million], and I turned them down, because it became so popular I didn't know if it would be well received even at [$39 million], but maybe we would consider doing it again, I don’t know, they have to clean it up a bit." 

An analysis of national contributions to the WHO from NPR found that the U.S. pays for roughly 10% of the WHO's budget, while China pays about 3%.

[Bracketed insertions by Fox News]

The commander had said he might beat back his great anger and walk back his stand. First, though, the WHO would have to offer a better deal regarding those crazy payments.

Meanwhile, there you saw the specific numbers the commanders had been citing. It was much as CNN had said:

Thanks to the rip-off by the WHO, We had to pay $500 million. Meanwhile, They gained admission to the WHO for only $39 million.

To its (minor) credit, the Fox News report had cited an NPR fact-check. As of a few days ago, we were still unable to find any other fact-checks of those numbers. With this, as with so much of his madness, Blue news orgs had decided to let the commander's angry claims go.

Fox News linked to the NPR fact-check. At this site, we'd already seen it—and sure enough! When we reviewed it, Sad!

We'd already seen the NPR effort. Eventually, it offers a surprise:

Assessing Trump's claim that U.S. pays 'unfair' share of dues to WHO

Newly inaugurated, President Trump took a set of thick, black sharpies on Monday [January 20] and signed a flurry of executive orders—including one that has people in the global health community deeply concerned. That order would withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization, a U.N. global health agency the U.S. helped found in 1948.

As he penned his name to the order, Trump began by saying, "Ooh, that's a big one." He then offered a set of spontaneous remarks about the rationale behind the withdrawal, which focused on what he and his team perceive as an unfair allocation of dues.

He noted that the U.S. pays WHO $500 million annually compared to China's $39 million contribution. But Trump raised the point: Should the U.S. pay so much more than China when its population (1.4 billion people) is way larger than the American population (341 million estimate by the Census Bureau).

"Seemed a little unfair to me," he said.

[...]

The World Health Organization receives funding from two pots. The first is a set of assessed contributions from its nearly 200 member states. Each assessment is determined by the United Nations and based on a country's "capacity to pay," which involves both the size of its population and wealth. Member states vote to approve the assessments at the World Health Assembly every other year. For the years 2024-2025, WHO says that number has been set at $264 million for the U.S. and $181 million for China.

Say what? According to the WHO, the actual numbers differ from those the excited commander had blared. 

"For the years 2024-2025" (whatever that means), the actual numbers were now said to be this:

Us: $264 million 
Them:  $181 million 

According to the NPR fact-check, that's what the WHO said. Meanwhile, are those numbers accurate? As with CNN, so too here:

The NPR fact-check never attempted to say. 

For the record, the fact-check had been composed by a "freelance contributor" to a minor NPR site. And from there, the NPR fact-check drifted off into what we would regard as a conceptual La-La Land.  

You can review where it went for yourself. We'd call the conceptual cluelessness massive from that point on.

(Frankly, we weep when we see it! When we see that this seems to be the best our own Blue America can do at this (very late) date.)

In conclusion, we offer a summary:

The commander had leaped into action, assailing the rip-off by the fiendish WHO. Below, you see the numbers he constantly cited—and you see some (possible) alternate facts:

Numbers according to the commander:
Us: $500 million 
Them:  $39 million 

Numbers according to the WHO:
Us: $264 million 
Them:  $181 million

Which set of numbers is accurate? We know of no sign that anyone cares. But if the WHO's numbers are accurate, the commander had done it again!

Is the commander also a madman? Beyond that, is he possibly a Samson, tearing the pillars of the American project down?

Is the commander also a Samson? Is he a stone-cold nut?

Is the commander a nutcase? Over here in Blue America, does anyone actually care enough to actually try to find out?

Discourse on method: We last searched for fact-checks earlier this week. More than a week after the commander's initial action, only that NPR effort appeared. 

As that fact-check continues, we regard its reasoning as remarkably hapless. This seems to be the best we massively self-impressed Blues are able to do at this point.

Is a Samson pulling the pillars down? What keeps us from floating a "yes?"

FRIDAY: Sean Hannity ended his show with a promise!

FRIDAY, JANUARY 31, 2025

A flyweight took over from there: Last evening, on the Fox News Channel, Sean Hannity ended his "cable news" program as he always does:

HANNITY (1/30/25): Let not your heart be troubled. Why? Greg Gutfeld is up next to put a smile on your face. Have a great night!

Just like that, the 60-year-old Gutfeld was up. After accepting applause from the studio audience, this was the first way he put that smile on our faces:

GUTFELD (1/30/25): Danish scientists have discovered a patch of 66 million-year-old vomit that is being hailed as a national treasure.

That beats us! In America, all we had was an 81-year-old piece of crap in the White House.

[LAUGHTER, APPLAUSE]

As he typically does, he opened with a short string of such jokes. 

The theme of his second joke? Joy Behar is too fat.

The theme of his third joke? The five (5) women of The View aren't sexually attractive. 

The theme of his fourth joke? Governor Pritzker (D-Ill.) is too fat.

After a Chappaquiddick joke, the mirth continued. After several jokes whose themes we couldn't quite decipher, the theme of his eighth joke was this:

CNN's Brian Stelter is too fat.

This is who, and this is what, these idiots actually are. Blue America's unimpressive elites have never come up with a way to report or discuss this societal problem.

Inevitably, he closed with a "nailing the nanny" joke. This is who these flyweights are. Also, this is the world we've enabled.

WORK SONGS: Achilles was singing his favorite songs!

FRIDAY, JANUARY 31, 2025

So was Campos-Duffy: On page A1 of today's print editions, Elisabeth Bumiller gets it right in the New York Times.

Bumiller is reporting President Trump's demented behavior at yesterday morning's press event. His madness has never been more apparent. Her news report starts as shown:

What Caused the Crash Into the Potomac? For Trump, It Was Diversity.

On the morning after a devastating midair collision of an American Airlines plane and an Army helicopter that sent 67 people, not one of whom survived, into the icy waters of the Potomac River, President Trump stood behind the White House lectern and for a brief moment did what presidents do.

He called it “a tragedy of terrible proportions.” He said “we grieve for every precious soul that has been taken from us so suddenly.” He took solace along with the nation, he said, that the journey of the 67 souls ended “in the warm embrace of a loving God.”

But then, as Navy divers continued their search for bodies in the Potomac, the president transitioned into some of the most extraordinary public statements he has ever made...

Was "transitioned" a puckish choice of words? 

We can't tell you that. But as she continued, Bumiller did a surprisingly good job reporting the madness of this Lear-adjacent king. And make no mistake:

As of this morning, the madness is general over the culture—and the madness is undisguised. It was there yesterday as the president droned insipidly on and on, but also as Kash Patel staged his astonishing, dimwitted performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In fairness, the madness is general, around the clock, on the corporate messaging entity known as the Fox News Channel. As we've been noting this week, it was present last Sunday morning as Rachel Campos-Duffy sicced the hounds of hell on "Fauci," who she said is responsible for "millions of deaths."

"Fauci" has had his protection pulled by the commander. Campos-Duffy was playing with a ring of fire as she littered the countryside with an array of extremely stupid remarks, all of them in support of her attacks on the man who "deliberately" took all those lives. 

Blue America's journalistic and academic elites have never come to terms with the existence of this moral / intellectual / journalistic madness. They've never found the way to describe this moral / intellectual / journalistic disorder—this cultural madness—as it actually is.

That said, the madness is active around the clock—and this is the nighttime assault on our own sacred Troy, the nighttime assault Professor Knox described in 1990.

Professor Knox described the scene on the evening when "sacred Troy" finally fell. Our American society, vastly imperfect as it has been, is currently being sacked in a broadly similar manner.

The sheer stupidity is everywhere within this angry assault. Angry flyweights are storming the gates. So it was when the Achaeans finally broke through sacred Troy's towering walls. 

That brings us to one of our favorite scenes in literature.

Full disclosure—at this site, we aren't "well read!" But for today, let's recall the time when Achilles was singing his favorite songs, as the various employees do on the Fox News Channel.

At a time of cultural destruction, a person might seek the consolations of literature. Below, you see the favorite passage to which we refer. We'll set the scene in this manner:

After ten years of war, mighty Achilles, the fast runner, has retreated to his tents in a fit of pique.

He's been refused his choice of the young women who have been stolen from neighboring towns. And so he's now refusing to fight—and without his greatness as a "warfighter," the Achaeans will never be able to conquer sacred Troy.

(For the record, what has occasioned this braindead war? Helen ran off with Paris, the feckless son of King Priam. She has been living with Paris as his wife. The Achaeans have spent ten years dying in the dust outside Troy over this perceived insult to their gender politics.)

Achilles is sulking in his tents. Eventually, Agamemnon, lord of men dispatches Odysseus, the wily tactician, to persuade him to set his anger aside and return to the wars.

It's at that point that the scene in question occurs. The scene could have been drawn from our own current headlines.

Odysseus trembles as he approaches Achilles' tents. Upon arrival, he finds the mighty warrior singing his favorite songs.

Homer never wrote in English. This translation of the Iliad is by Professor Fagles:

Book 9: The Embassy to Achilles

[...]

So Ajax and Odysseus made their way at once 
where the battle lines of breakers crash and drag, 
praying hard to the god who moves and shakes the earth 
that they might bring the proud heart of Achilles 
round with speed and ease.
Reaching the Myrmidon shelters and their ships,
they found him there, delighting his heart now, 
plucking strong and clear on the fine lyre— 
beautifully carved, its silver bridge set firm— 
he won from the spoils when he razed Eetion's city. 

Achilles was lifting his spirits with it now, 
singing the famous deeds of fighting heroes.
Across from him Patroclus sat alone, in silence, 
waiting for Aeacus' son to finish with his song.
And on they came, with good Odysseus in the lead,
and the envoys stood before him. Achilles, startled, 
sprang to his feet, the lyre still in his hands, 
leaving the seat where he had sat in peace. 

And seeing the men, Patroclus rose up too 
as the famous runner called and waved them on: 
“Welcome! Look, dear friends have come our way—
I must be sorely needed now—my dearest friends 
in all the Achaean armies, even in my anger.”

We love various elements of that passage. Quickly, let's tick them off.

Where the breakers crash and drag: As he walks along the shore, Odysseus trembles at the thought of confronting the angry Achilles. 

In the present day, so it has gone for many people assigned to talk sense to the current deranged commander. We think, for example, of Attorney General William Barr, trying to convince the crazy sitting president that he actually did lose the 2020 election to Candidate Biden.

According to a wide range of reports, many others have suffered in the minutes and hours before they tried to talk sense to this craziest man. Also, in the long span of time in which he made them listen to his endless list of memorized grievances.

Achilles was lifting his spirits: When he arrives at Achilles' tents, Odysseus finds the mighty warrior lifting his spirits in song. 

More specifically, he's "singing the famous deeds of fighting heroes," an assignment Campos-Duffy and her corporate friends perform on a regular basis. 

Achilles is "plucking strong and clear" on a lyre he has stolen from an earlier city he overran and plundered. When you see the stupid (and dangerous) statements advanced by tribunes like Campos-Duffy, these Fox employees are also, in effect, singing their favorite songs of war.

Quite often, their songs make no earthly sense. But all the friends know the words to the songs, and they endlessly sing them together.

Across from him, Patroclus: Across from Achilles sits Patroclus, with whom he is irretrievably locked in an early bromance. The same towel-snapping occurs today when the dual flyweights, Gutfeld and Watters, break in on the imitations of discourse being staged on the Fox News Channel messaging vehicle, The Five.

Such braindead example of human bromance have never died. Suzanne Scott assembles the flyweights best equipped to perform them.

Achilles, startled, sprang to his feet: Now for the comic relief! Has anyone ever been so startled by some other person's sudden appearance that he literally "sprang to his feet?" 

We would assume that the answer is no. But there the picture sits, right there in the western world's first poem of war. It has remained a staple of Saturday morning cartoon shows from that day right up to this.

He must be sorely needed: Odysseus is widely respected within the ranks of the Achaeans. He's one of the trusted elders who intercedes when Agamemnon, lord of men suffers his recurrent emotional meltdowns, just as the commander does in the present day.

As Odysseus appears on the scene, the brooding Achilles expresses joy at the idea that he's "sorely needed." The furious warrior is finally getting some respect. 

According to many reports, this is the embassy Donald J. Trump has been waiting to receive ever since his youth in Queens, where he and father were looked down on by Manhattan's elites. He's currently performing the final act of his revenge on these elements, much as a clinically disordered person might be inclined to do.

We love the remarkably modern portrait of Odysseus trembling as he approaches Achilles' tents. We're amused by the picture of Achilles pleasuring himself with the songs which celebrate earlier violent behavior.

We especially love the language Fagle fashioned, in which "the breakers crash and drag." And remember, Achilles remains a wonderfully manly man:

This entire act of lunacy has been created by his rage—his rage at being denied the sexual services of the kidnapped young woman of his choice. So our imperfect human culture stood at the dawn of the West.

Starting Monday, we'll be examining the "madmen" (and madwomen) of the current firmament. They crawl all over the Fox News Channel. We think the time has come to say their names and to report their behavior.

Last Sunday morning, there sat Campos-Duffy—a genial presence, though only among her own. But who on earth is Campos-Duffy?

Setting aside the consolations of literature, we'll try to tell such tales.

Achilles was singing his favorite songs. Last Sunday, so was Campos-Duffy, as two flyweights looked on. 

This same thing is happening now: In 1990, Professor Knox described the nighttime assault which occasioned the fall of Troy.

The same thing is happening now. Our timid, unimpressive Blue elites haven't come close to finding a way to describe what's happening.

This was Knox's account of what happened then. The same thing is happening now:

PROFESSOR KNOX (1990): The whole poem [known as the Iliad] has been moving toward this duel between the two champions, but there has never been any doubt about the outcome...And the death of Hector seals the fate of Troy; it will fall to the Achaeans, to become the pattern for all time of the death of a city. 

The images of that night assault—the blazing palaces, the blood running in the streets, old [King] 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....

Those are the things which happened back then. Our Blue elites lack the language, but the same thing is happening now.

Achilles was singing his silly war songs. That's what they do on Fox.

THURSDAY: Governor Walz was back on TV!

THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 2025

And so was "Tampon Tim:" We couldn't help thinking of True Grit—more specifically, of the Coen Brothers' 2010 adaptation of the highly regarded Charles Portis novel.

Midway through the film, its admirable young heroine, evading the ferryman, rides Little Blackie across "a river of some width" into the Choctaw Nation—metaphorically, into an uncharted land.

At a tender age, she's gone there in pursuit of justice. This morning, the commander's astonishing press event took us across a different river and into a very strange land.

We thought back to the endless string of addled events he conducted during the first Covid year. Today, his rumination was possibly even more disordered than the string of ruminations he churned out at that time.

Then too, there was last evening's edition of the Fox News Channel's pseudo-discussion TV show, The Five. In this past month, it was the most watched TV show in "cable news," by a rather substantial margin.

We direct you to a tease by Judge Jeanine midway through last evening's program. 

Governor Walz was back in the news, having been interviewed on a CNN program. Governor Walk was back in the news—and so was "Tampon Tim." 

Judge Jeanine issued her tease. This is the garbage can the Fox News Channel pries open each night, on this and other programs

JUDGE JEANINE (1/29/25): Anyway, up next: Tampon Tim is back and giving advice to Democrats.

So announced the judge. When the gang returned from a commercial break, the silliest boy in all of cable started the segment as shown:

WATTERS: Remember Tampon Tim Walz? Kamala's jazz band's failed VP wannabe is back and handing out advice to a Democratic Party that according to the Times is getting frustrated by President Trump's "flood the zone" strategy...

Judge Jeanine is 73 years old. Within her head, Governor Walz had been back on TV, and so too for Tampon Tim.

Judge Jeanine is 73; this is all she has. Also, this is the business—perhaps more correctly, the imitation of life—the Fox News Channel has chosen.

Fox pries the lid off the can every night. The Times averts its gaze.

Fuller disclosure: Watters actually said, "Democratic Party." It might be time for Suzanne Scott to call him in for a bit of a chat, or perhaps for a mild reprogramming.

WORK SONGS: Why would they be concerned about Bobby?

THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 2025

One worker had no idea: Yesterday afternoon, hours before the plane disaster, Robert F. Kennedy was being discussed on the cable show, Deadline: White House.

The nominee had completed a weirdly hapless performance at the first of his confirmation hearings. At 5:11 p.m., Tim Miller—he's a former Republican strategist—shared his favorite story about the person in question.

Warning! When Miller spoke about Kennedy Jr., he used some challenging words:

MILLER (1/29/25): To me, the worst of all the RFK stories is, he said himself that when he goes on hikes and he sees mothers with small children, he confronts them and tells them not to vaccinate their children. 

Like, that is the behavior of a madman—an insane person.

Say what? Has Kennedy ever said any such thing? Yesterday, in this detailed report, CNN tried to claim that he has:

RFK Jr.’s litany of controversial views to come under scrutiny in Senate confirmation hearing

[...]

NBC News senior reporter Brandy Zadrozny noted Thursday that when Kennedy was asked on the “Health Freedom for Humanity” podcast in 2021 how parents should respond to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention schedule of immunizations for children, which his questioner described as “insane,” he responded by encouraging people to join him in telling strangers not to vaccinate their babies.

“For many, many years, I think parents were so gaslighted, and they were scapegoated, and they were vilified and marginalized, so that even parents of kids who were very, very badly injured, knew what happened to their kid, but they were just reluctant to talk about it. And I think now those days are over,” Kennedy said.

“We—our job is to resist and to talk about it to everybody. If you’re walking down the street—and I do this now myself, which is, you know, I don’t want to do—I’m not a busybody. I see somebody on a hiking trail carrying a little baby and I say to him, ‘Better not get him vaccinated.’ And he heard that from me. If he hears it from 10 other people, maybe he won’t do it, you know, maybe he will save that child.”

Kennedy repeated later in the podcast: “If you’re one of 10 people that goes up to a guy, a man or a woman, who’s carrying a baby, and says, ‘Don’t vaccinate that baby,’ when they hear that from 10 people, it’ll make an impression on ‘em, you know. And we all kept our mouth shut. Don’t keep your mouth shut anymore. Confront everybody on it.”

So claimed CNN. Meanwhile, you can see the nominee say that yourself, simply by clicking here. 

(For the record, Kennedy Jr. isn't a busybody. He's just someone who says things like that to young parents he doesn't know when he sees them on hiking trails.)

Also this:

For whatever reason, for better or worse, Kennedy Jr. has said a million such things in the past. (Until such time as he starts insisting that he actually hasn't!)

Some rather tough language is on display in the statements we've posted above—first in the Health Freedom for Humanity podcast, then on Deadline: White House. As a courtesy, we'll assume that Miller may have bene speaking colloquially when he said that the behavior he described was the behavior of "a madman"—of someone who is "insane."

For the record, our own assessment would pretty much have to be this:

Speaking on a non-clinical basis, Kennedy Jr. has possibly seemed to be severely disordered during the full extent on his life.

In his defense, we'd point to the trauma which may imaginably result from seeing your uncle shot and killed on national TV when you're ten years old, followed by the experience of seeing your father shot and killed, in a similar way, less than five years later.

Can such experiences possibly leave a young person (colloquially) "insane" or "disordered?" 

Not being medical specialists, we don't know how to answer that question. But Kennedy's routinely bizarre life history almost seems to speak for itself. That includes his bizarre sexual conduct, which "legacy media," for whatever reason, have generally agreed not to report, discuss, explore or assess. 

Two days ago, his cousin Caroline took us out beyond that. She spoke about the chickens and mice. She spoke about the drug dealing.

At any rate, there was Miller, citing one of the three million unusual past behaviors by the nominee. These odd behaviors are quite well known—unless you're watching someone like Rachel Campos-Duffy on an imitation of life like the Fox News Channel.

Last Sunday morning, there she sat, making remarks about "Fauci" which strike us as almost insanely irresponsible. 

Did she have the first freaking clue what she was talking about? If she'd been challenged by a knowledgeable interlocutor, could she have defended her remarkable statements—including her amazingly stupid claim to instant certainty, right from the jump, about the alleged lab leak? 

We'll guess that she quite likely couldn't have done that. That said, there's no earthly chance that she'll ever be so challenged on Fox & Friends Weekend, where she has labored, for almost four years, as one of the show's co-hosts.

Last Sunday morning, she sat in her standard position on the tuffet, accompanied by two of her friends. As we noted on Tuesday, a call of the roll reveals this:

Fox & Friends Weekend, 1/26/25
Rachel Campos-Duffy: co-host, Fox & Friends Weekend
Charlie Hurt: new co-host, Fox & Friends Weekend
Jason Chaffetz: former congressman (R-Utah); Fox News contributor

So sat the Fox News Channel Work Song Gang—that day's Stepford Singers. As they sang their tribal war songs, Campos-Duffy—she of the genial demeanor among her own—was even willing to say something as blindingly stupid as this:

CAMPOS-DUFFY (1/26/25): It's interesting because you have Tulsi Gabbard and Bobby Kennedy, who are also Democrats.

HURT: Exactly.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: So what do they do with that, and what exactly is it that they don't like about these guys? In the case of Bobby, they don't like that he's against Big Pharma and big corporations. 

And Tulsi Gabbard—you know, she's someone who's willing to give peace a chance. I guess that's not a Democrat [sic] value any more.

So sang the multimillionaire "cable news" field hand. 

She didn't have the slightest idea what they didn't like about "Bobby!" As early as 6:06 on a Sunday morning, this is the pablum Red America is fed by "work song gangs" of this type.

Is Robert Kennedy Jr. "insane?" Miller may have been speaking colloquially, though then again possibly not.

In Campos-Duffy herself disordered in some major way? Or is she simply a true believer? Is it possible that she simply does what she does for the cash?

We can't answer those obvious questions. 

Next week, as we return to our MADNESS theme, we'll be sharing more of Campos-Duffy's biography. But make no mistake:

Even now, as we type today, our failing nation has long since crossed the border into the realm of the madness. 

At any rate, there you saw the kind of "sifting" these work song gangs provide. Viewers of programs like Fox & Friends Weekend will never be exposed to the full range of facts about the great men and women the God-chosen commander has nominated for service here on this earth. 

(Also, such viewers will never be exposed to the full range of facts about anything else! That's how the sifting works.)

As for the commander himself, he was saved by Campos-Duffy's "lord and savior, Jesus Christ." Along with two other friends (one of whom was Pete Hegseth), she finally copped to that sectarian assessment on the Sunday morning after the assassination attempt in Butler.

(Stating the obvious, she's fully entitled to her view. Within the norms of American journalism, it's a slightly unusual framework.)

Who or what is Campos-Duffy? In the simplest formulation, she's a highly genial presence (among her own) who's willing to put "Fauci's" life at risk. Also, who says she doesn't have the slightest idea why anyone would have reservations about the wonderful "Bobby."

She can't imagine why that would be! She has no earthly idea!

For the record, Tulsi" isn't a Democrat; she left the party in 2022, which was her perfect right. But last Sunday, the field hand was singing one of her (many) favorite work songs—and as she did, she reminded us of one of our favorite scenes from all of literature

Full disclosure—we aren't "well read." But we'll share that scene tomorrow.

Tomorrow: Democratization and madness

WEDNESDAY: What did he say and when did he say it?

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 29, 2025

He "probably did say that!" What did Robert F. Kennedy Jr. say and when did Robrt F. Kennedy Jr. perhaps or possibly say it?

Senator Bennet (D-Col.) was trying to find out! At Mediaite, David Gilmour provides the videotape, and he's done some transcription.

What did Kennedy Jr. say? In fairness, a simpler question might be this—what hasn't the gentleman said? Below, you see the first Q-and-A as Bennet and Kennedy chatted:

BENNET (1/29/25): Did you say that Covid-19 was a genetically engineered bioweapon that targets Black and white people, but spared Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people?

KENNEDY: I didn’t say it was deliberately targeted. I just, I just quoted an NIH funded, an NIH published study—

BENNET: Did you say that it targets Black and white people, but spared Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people?

KENNEDY: I quoted a study, your honor. I quoted an NIH study that showed that—

BENNET: I’ll take that as a yes. I have to move on, Mr. Kennedy. 

He didn't say it was deliberately targeted! As he tried to explain, or perhaps as he pretended to do so, Senator Bennet—who was now being addressed as "Your Honor"—declared that he had to move on.

So it goes in congressional hearing, Senate and House, thanks to the way the questioning is conducted:

Each solon is given a short chunk of time in which he can pose his questions. This creates a strong incentive against letting the witness speak. Also, witnesses may sometimes tend to try to kill time, knowing the solon's time will soon come to an end. 

That said, did Kennedy make the statement in question? Based on that truncated exchange, we'd say it may be a bit hard to tell.

So it goes with congressional hearings. That said, when Kennedy Jr. is the witness, it may end up going like this:

BENNET (continuing directly): Did you say that Lyme disease is highly likely a materially engineered bioweapon? 

I made sure I put in the "highly likely." Did you say Lyme disease is a "highly likely militarily engineered bioweapon?"

KENNEDY: I probably did say that...

"I probably did say that!" So said this particular witness, in one of the all-time, comically bad, congressional hearing answers.

Senator Bennet interrupted Kennedy again, then continued along. These were the next two exchanges:

BENNET: Did you say that exposure to pesticides causes children to become transgender?

KENNEDY: No, I never said that.

BENNET: Okay, I have the record that I’ll give to the chairman, and he can make his judgment about what you said. 

Did you write in your book it’s undeniable that African AIDS is an entirely different disease from western AIDS. Yes or no, Mr. Kennedy?

KENNEDY: I’m not sure if I made that—

BENNET: Okay. I’ll give it to the chairman. Mr. Kennedy.  And my final question...

Kennedy said he hadn't said the one thing. He didn't seem sure, once again, about the other comment. He didn't seem sure once again—though once again, he was cut off.

This isn't a great way conduct such hearings. That said, rational procedures have long since ceased to exist here on these dying shores.

WORK SONGS: Was the vaccine "good for us?"

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 29, 2025

At Fox, that claim was a "lie:" On it came, right there last Saturday night, right on the Fox News Channel. 

On came the TV show called The Big Weekend Show. The program comes close to being the dumbest of the channel's weekend fare. 

Four field workers were sent to the set. Soon, the field hands were swinging their hammers and singing their channel's work songs.

Panelists, The Big Weekend Show, 1/25/25
Brian Benberg:  Co-host, The Big Money Show. Childhood friend of Pete Hegseth
Molly Line: Rotating host, Fox News Live
Lisa Boothe: Fox News Channel contributor
Gianno Caldwell: "Political analyst," Fox News Channel

Near the end of the hour, it was Lisa Boothe's turn to sing. 

With one voice, the workers were praising the commander's decision to release the last few classified files concerning three major assassinations. As they praised the greatness of his decision, these chyrons appeared on the screen

"EVERYTHING WILL BE REVEALED"
TRUMP DECLASSIFIES JFK, RFK, MLK JR ASSASSINATION FILES

At long last, we the people were going to be fully informed!

The panelists were in agreement about the greatness of the decision. Unanimity of viewpoint is the basic organizational principle behind this imitation of life.

The Stepford Singers were duly impressed. Then, Boothe offered this:

BOOTHE (1/25/25): Well, isn't it ironic that the guy who was labeled a threat to democracy will be the one who restores faith and confidence in government through some of these actions as well? This is what we need. We need transparency...

I fully support what he's doing here, and especially after being lied to tremendously throughout Covid. I think these actions will help restore faith in government. And so good for President Trump!

Say what? We the people were "lied to tremendously" all through Covid? So the Fox News contributor said. As you can see if you watch the full tape, the other hands quickly fell in line, singing the same corporate song.

We could be wrong, but it's our impression that Boothe has toughened her pundit stance within the past (highly partisan) year. Sometimes, Suzanne Scott may perhaps direct the hands to do that. 

At some point, we'll show you what the New York Times once meekly reported concerning Scott's session with Greg Gutfeld. At the time, he was still a critic of Donald J. Trump, whom he quickly came to adore. 

At any rate, the Big Weekend discussion continued along from there. Caldwell lavished praise on Boothe for the courage she has shown in daring to discuss the Covid lie. Boothe was soon saying this:

BRENBERG: There was a time in America where, I think there was a high level of trust in our institutions. And we said, maybe for security reasons some things ought to stay where they are.

We don't live in that moment right now.

BOOTHE: Because we realize, when the government told us that, it was a lie. It was about protecting the government, not about protecting the American people.

So I think the jig is up. People are onto it. They know it's a lie, just like with Covid. 

"Go get the shot—it will be good for you." No, it wasn't!....

And then we look at it, and what was it all for? It was to protect Dr. Fauci's own culpability and the gain-of-function that he was funding at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. 

There's more to see as the hands sing this song. But there the lyric was again:

It was a lie when we were told that the Covid vaccine was good for us. It was a lie designed to protect Dr. Fauci.

To her credit, Boothe still uses the honorific when she sings this corporate song of war. She's still willing to call him Dr. Fauci, even as she spreads an astonishing claim about the Covid vaccine, and about the motive behind the "lie" about the vaccine's value.

In a different setting, under challenge, do you believe that the likable Boothe could defend her startling claims? Do you think she could capably defend her claims in the face of a dissenter or sceptic?

For ourselves, we'd make no such assumption. But on the Fox News Channel, on a Saturday night, the driving beat goes on.

Thanks to the work of the angry commander, Dr. Fauci's security detail has now been withdrawn. That's been done even as field hands like Boothe step forward singing this song. And please understand this key point:

Everyone else will agree with such claims when they're made on a program like this. 

Fox News has assembled a cast of thousands (of Stepfords), each of whom can be trusted to sing the corporation's mandated songs. In even a slightly rational realm, this practice would raise an obvious question:

Question! What's the point of assembling a four-person panel if all four of the workers are going to say the same things? 

Answer! The otherwise peculiar practice creates an imitation of life! In this case, it created the illusion that a group discussion was taking place. Needless to say, the children who form this misleading chorale are all being paid for their service. 

Does democracy possibly die in the dumbness? Over on the Fox News Channel, a long list of hands like Brenberg and Boothe are putting that claim to the test. 

With that claim in mind, let's get clear on what Boothe (and the others) said:

They said the Covid vaccine wasn't "good for" the people who received it.  They said it had been a "lie" when public officials said different. 

In fact, we the people "lied to tremendously," the four workers said. They said the officials had told this lie to cover up for (Dr.) Fauci. 

Twelve hours later, a clown car staffing Fox & Friends Weekend arrived at the Fox News Channel set.

A genial presence emerged from the car. As we noted on Monday, she smilingly told Red America that "Fauci" was deliberately "responsible for millions of deaths."

None of the other weekend friends challenged or questioned her statement. Not unlike the famous Homey, these field hands don't play it that way.

Tomorrow, we'll return to the set of Fox & Friends Weekend. With Dr. Fauci, but also with General Milley, the commander is taking protections away, and the workers are happily singing these dangerous songs.

Final point:

None of this will be discussed at Blue America's favorite spas. Relentlessly, we self-impressed but compliant Blues have labored to earn our way out.

Also tomorrow: Back to the WHO

TUESDAY: He also clattered about a "valve!"

TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2025

King Lear saves Cali again: He makes so many odd remarks that they tend to be quickly forgotten. 

In this morning's report about the commander, we forgot to cite the news report, from last Friday's Washington Post, about the shape of (California's) water.

There the commander went again! Headline included, the Post's report started as shown:

Trump says a ‘valve’ can solve California’s water woes. Experts say it’s not true.

It’s one of California’s thorniest problems. The nation’s most populous state is full of sprawling cities, vast farmland, rich ecosystems—and it must decide how to divide scarce water resources among them.

But for President Donald Trump, the solution is simple: Turn a valve and more water will flow.

“Los Angeles has massive amounts of water available to it,” Trump said at a news conference Tuesday. “All they have to do is turn the valve.”

As Trump prepares to visit wildfire-ravaged Los Angeles on Friday, he has offered different theories for how Southern California could get more water to fight fires. He is blaming a minnow-size fish, claiming that water can be diverted from Canada, and suggesting that a single valve could be turned to solve the state’s water woes.

Trump said during a Fox News interview on Wednesday that California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) “can release the water that comes from the north.” 

Exactly one week ago, that's what the commander said.

Forget about turning a "very large faucet," his recommendation from early September, when he was still just a hopeful. This time, the commander said the Golden State should simply "turn the valve!"

It sounded like a great idea—a simple solution to an alleged problem. To appearances, the brilliant commander had done it again—but the report continued directly as shown:

“There is massive amounts of water, rainwater and mountain water that comes through with the snow, comes down as it melts. There’s so much water they’re releasing it into the Pacific Ocean,” Trump said.

But experts say solving the drought-stricken state’s water scarcity isn’t so simple.

“The president is injecting himself into a difficult, complex situation that people have been working on for” years, said Tom Holyoke, a Western water politics expert at California State University at Fresno.

“There is no ‘valve,’” he added.

So it goes with these experts today!  Indeed, it's as we noted this morning:

Back in September, one expert had said that there's no such thing as a "very large faucet" which could release water from Neptune (or from some comparable locale). Now, the Post had found another expert—and this joker was trying to say that there is no magical valve! 

Citizens, can we talk? 

Starting with Caligula and his Senate-ready horse, history, legend and literature have gifted us with a succession of addled rulers of this familiar type:

There was Caligula and his steed. There was Lear, who refused to listen to the one daughter who was trying to tell him the truth.

Even on the plains outside Troy, Agamemnon, lord of men was persistently melting down at various moments of truth. Routinely, he was rescued from his lunatic conduct by the intercessions of such seasoned elders as Nestor, king of Pylos' sandy harbor, and Odysseus, the wily tactician.

Are we former Americans now in thrall to the madness of our own King George? We asked that question two weeks ago—and according to the Post's report, there's no such thing as that valve!

Tomorrow: In search of that $500 million

WORK SONGS: Rev. Davis was washed in the blood of the lamb!

TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2025

Campos-Duffy keeps playing with fire: The workers were swinging their nine-pound hammers quite early this past Sunday morning.

Their work songs help make the hours pass as they perform their labors. Some are paid millions of dollars per year for the eight hours of labor, per week, they provide for The Man:

Fox News Channel Work Song Gang, 1/26/25
Rachel Campos-Duffy: co-host, Fox & Friends Weekend
Charlie Hurt: new co-host, Fox & Friends Weekend
Jason Chaffetz: former congressman (R-Utah); Fox News contributor

This past Sunday, at 6 a.m., all three seemed highly convicted. As field work goes, the pay is quite good. It's the blinding stupidity which makes this "cable news" program such a compelling watch.

The workers agree that they'll all sing the songs handed down by the bosses. No prescribed lyric will be left behind. 

Starting at 6:04 a.m.—on a Sunday morning, no less!—this giant clown call was heard:

CAMPOS-DUFFY (1/26/25): Pete Hegseth, congratulations! He's out. And some of the senators who didn't vote for him voted for Rachel Levine. 

It's just kind of incredible if you really think about it. If you remember Rachel Levine from HHS. Thinks—he thinks she's a woman. He thinks he's a woman, I guess.

CHAFFETZ: Yeah! They voted for Fauci! They voted for a lot of these people, and then— Their support is just mystifying to me, because I think they made a great case. 

Also John Ratcliffe, excited to have him as the CIA director. He's out and in that position and then immediately releases a report that I found fascinating and I know we're going to talk about a little bit later.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Yeah! I guess it did— It did come out of the lab!

CHAFFETZ: Yeah! And the CIA—that was the CIA under Biden. That's what they came up with!

CAMPOS-DUFFY: I didn't even—I didn't need to be in the CIA to know that one! [Laughs]

HURT: Exactly. They have a firm grasp of the obvious.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Yeah. [Laughs]

HURT: This is a great CIA we have here. But it is kind of interesting...

And so on from there. You'll have to look up Dr. Levine for yourself. She's a recurrent figure of ridicule among field hands of this type.

To watch that performance, you can just click here. Let's set the scene a bit further:

Hurt may be the dumbest mofo in the whole Fox News Channel stable. Campos-Duffy is extremely genial, even at 6 o'clock on a Sunday morning, just so long as she's with her own.

You can see the claptrap, and hear the delighted laughter, just by clicking that link. The claptrap continued all morning. 

The program runs for four hours. It's the sheer stupidity of this "cable news" show which makes it such a compelling watch. 

Question: Were there confirmation votes for Dr. Fauci at any stage in his long career? 

We don't know the answer to that. We do know what the workers were talking about with respect to that new CIA report.

Singing one of her usual songs, Campos-Duffy said she'd known it all along! That said, the CIA itself doesn't claim to know what's true about the origin on Covid-19. Politico headline included, here's what the new report said:

CIA now says Covid-19 is more likely to have originated from a lab leak

The Central Intelligence Agency said Saturday that it’s more likely a lab leak caused the Covid-19 pandemic than an infected animal that spread the virus to people, changing the agency’s yearslong stance that it couldn’t conclude with certainty where the pandemic started.

The agency made its new assessment public two days after former Republican lawmaker John Ratcliffe was sworn in as its new leader.

“We have low confidence in this judgement and will continue to evaluate any available credible new intelligence reporting or open-source information that could change CIA’s assessment,” an unnamed CIA spokesperson wrote in an email sent to reporters Saturday.

The statement didn’t include any additional details about what led the agency to change its assessment and whether it had intelligence that would add weight to the theory that the virus had leaked from a research lab in Wuhan, China.

The “CIA continues to assess that both research-related and natural origin scenarios of the Covid-19 pandemic remain plausible,” the statement said.

Even now, the CIA's new assessment is being offered with "low confidence." Each scenario "remains plausible," the CIA now says.

The CIA was giving voice to "low confidence." But at the clown show staged by the Fox News Channel, the confidence of one multimillionaire worker was quite high. 

The wealthy field worker was swinging her axe as directed by the people who own her. As we noted yesterday, this clown car performer was soon singing such lyrics as these:

CAMPOS-DUFFY: ...Red flag? Hello! And also, the Wuhan lab was doing Covid and coronavirus studies. Like, duh? 

"I'm not in the CIA—and I knew this right way!" this undisguised circus clown said. The CIA still doesn't know—but this millionaire field hand does!

Campos-Duffy is full of true belief. She knows the words to all the songs she and her co-workers sing.

Also, as she has revealed on this program, she truly believes in "our lord and savior, Jesus Christ." (As do more than two billion other people, all around the world.)

There's nothing "wrong" with that widely held belief. But this particular believer also he also tends to play with rings of fire. 

As we noted yesterday, she likes to tell every crackpot in the nation that "Fauci," as she prefers to call him—no first name, no honorific—is directly responsible for millions of deaths.

It's much as we told you on Sunday. The late Reverend Gary Davis was happy to say that his soul had been "washed in the blood of the lamb." 

As the leading authority notes, the Rev. Davis was born "black," in rural South Carolina, in the year 1896. Given the world he was forced to negotiate, we ourselves are glad to know that he came to have the experience he describes in this stunningly compelling performance, as Pete Seeger and the very young Donovan are seen looking on.

That said, Campos-Duffy often seems eager to see "Fauci" washed in a different volume of blood. It's astounding that a person of such amazingly bad judgment is being paid millions of dollars to swing this hammer in this way on a major "cable news" program. 

It's even more astounding that, as this clown car keeps rolling along, every major news org in Blue America has agreed to avert its gaze from what is happening there.

The clown car just kept rolling on all through Sunday's four hours. We'll return to that car wreck tomorrow.

For today, we'll take you to the latest post by Kevin Drum. His post concerns the latest tweet from the sitting commander. The tweet appeared late last night:

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

The United States Military just entered the Great State of California and, under Emergency Powers, TURNED ON THE WATER flowing abundantly from the Pacific Northwest, and beyond. The days of putting a Fake Environmental argument, over the PEOPLE, are OVER. Enjoy the water, California!!!

So the (possible) madman tweeted. As you can see by clicking this link, this was Kevin's reaction, headline included:

Donald Trump: I ordered military to turn on the water in California

What in God's name is Trump talking about here?

[Text of last night's tweet]

This is beyond weird. It's hallucinatory. And even if it were somehow true that the Army TURNED ON THE WATER, California doesn't get any water from the Pacific Northwest or beyond. We get it from our very own Sierra Nevadas.

Is Trump really and truly losing it? Or does he figure he can just say anything he wants for the rubes? Or what?

So says Kevin (more below). With respect to ourselves, full disclosure:

Way back in early September, we tried to fact-check this topic. At that time, Candidate Trump had spoken in a panoramic oceanfront setting in Rancho Palos Verdes (southern Los Angeles County). 

At that time, he spoke about turning "a very large faucet" somewhere to turn all the water loose.

At that time, major news orgs let the statement go. They do that with many of the strange remarks made by this strange person. 

After wasting a lot of time, we couldn't get clear enough on the actual facts to bring his matter to your attention. But the puzzling statements have continued, with the "massive faucet" Trump wanted to turn sometimes described as a wheel.

Back in September, a CBS affiliate in Oregon eventually published a fact check concerning that very large faucet. Accurately or otherwise, here's how that fact check started:

Expert: Trump’s ‘large faucet’ that can divert water from PNW to LA doesn’t exist

PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — If it were up to former President Donald Trump, Los Angeles would enjoy “more water than you ever saw” by diverting water from the Columbia River to Southern California, he suggested.

Trump told reporters between campaign fundraisers in Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif. on Sept. 13 that, if elected, he would turn on “a very large faucet,” that he claims could send millions of gallons of water from the Pacific Northwest to Los Angeles.

“You have millions of gallons of water pouring down from the north, with the snow caps and Canada, and all pouring down,” Trump said in the press conference just after an hour into it. “And they have, essentially, a very large faucet, and you turn the faucet, and it takes one day to turn, and it’s massive … and you turn that, and all of that water goes aimlessly into the Pacific. And if you turned it back, all of that water would come right down here and right into Los Angeles.”

One of the potential problems with the Republican presidential nominee’s plan is that his system for channeling that water from the Pacific Northwest to Southern California doesn’t exist, Oregon’s state Climatologist Larry O’Neill told KOIN 6 News.

“There is indeed no such diversion system and none has been seriously proposed that I am aware of,” O’Neill said.

You can read the rest of the fact-check yourself. Last night, the faucet seemed to be back in action. Indeed, the U.S. army had turned it!

Did the commander's tweet make sense? Right there in SoCal, Drum's answer seems to be no. He seemed to say he has no idea what this nutcase is talking about.

For ourselves, we'd moved ahead to a fact check of the commander's repeated remarks about the way the United States has been ripped off by the World Health Organization:

Here's the way a recent report at the Fox News site described that allegation, dual headline included:

Trump open to considering re-entry into World Health Organization: 'They'd have to clean it up'
'We paid $500 million a year and China paid $39 million a year,' Trump told rally goers Saturday

During a rally at Circa Resort & Casino in Downtown Las Vegas, the president told those in attendance that it was unfair a country like China, with a population much greater than the U.S., was only paying a fraction of what the U.S. was paying annually to the WHO.

"We paid $500 million a year and China paid $39 million a year despite a much larger population. Think of that. China's paying $39 million to have 1.4 billion people, we pay $500 million we have—no one knows what the hell we have, does anyone know? We have so many people pouring in we have no idea," Trump told rally goers on Saturday.

"They offered me at $39 million, they said 'We'll let you back in for $39 million,' they're going to reduce it from [$500 million] to [$39 million], and I turned them down, because it became so popular I didn't know if it would be well received even at [$39 million], but maybe we would consider doing it again, I don’t know, they have to clean it up a bit."

An analysis of national contributions to the WHO from NPR found that the U.S. pays for roughly 10% of the WHO's budget, while China pays about 3%.

And so on from there. This report quoted the commander's repeated claim about the (alleged) $500 million from the United States, as compared to the (alleged) $39 million from China. 

It also cited an NPR fact-check. Tomorrow, we'll visit that astoundingly bungled attempt at a fact-check.

This is the shape of the broken world with which we the people are left. Tomorrow, we'll return to the silly work songs a clown like Campos-Duffy sings for eight hours every weekend, in unison with other hands.

The Reverend Davis said his soul had been washed in the blood of the lamb. Campos-Duffy almost seems to want to see "Fauci" washed in the blood of himself.

Two weeks ago, we asked a basic question. Quoting something the commander had said, we asked this:

In what world wouldn't a comment like that be viewed as the work of a madman?

Major Blue orgs are still ducking that question. Yesterday, the commander directed the army to turn the "very large faucet." Tomorrow, we'll visit what he keeps saying about the WHO.

 On Fox & Friends Weekend, the tired field hands—self-assured workers like Campos-Duffy—make it clear that they know the words to all of Ole Massa's songs. 

When it comes to the origin of Covid-19, the CIA still isn't sure. This one particular TV hand has been quite sure all along!

With respect to "Fauci," she insists on playing with rings of fire. Devoted to her lord and savior, she's been playing that very dangerous tune for a very long time now.

Tomorrow: Mote topics from Sunday's clown show

MONDAY: Gail Collins went to the Dylan film!

MONDAY, JANUARY 27, 2025

Bret Stephens on DEI: Gail Collins says she went to the Dylan film—but in her new Conversation with Bret Stephens, she doesn't say whether she liked it.

Stephens says he's planning to see the film. But in his new Conversation with Collins, he spends a substantial chunk of time saying what he doesn't like about the Trump White House sequel so far.

What doesn't Stephens like? "The list is so long," he says. Then he provides this list:

Trump Explodes Out of the Gate

[...]

Bret: The Jan. 6 pardons were awful. So was the pardon of Ross Ulbricht, the founder of an online drug market. Withdrawing Secret Service protections for Mike Pompeo and John Bolton and other former members of his administration is disgraceful and will haunt him if Iran makes good on its efforts to kill them. The sale of Trump crypto tokens is tawdry and unethical, at best, though very much on brand for the purveyor of Trump Steaks.

Gail: Love that one.

Bret: The effort to revoke birthright citizenship and overturn 160 years of jurisprudence on the 14th Amendment is abominable, though I was glad to see a Reagan-appointed federal judge immediately denounce the move as “blatantly unconstitutional” and temporarily block it. Looking forward to the Supreme Court following the judge’s lead, 9 to 0.

Gail: Yes! Yes!

Bret: We should not have Hegseth as defense secretary; in fact, we should never have a defense secretary who can’t get a single member of the opposing party to vote for him. And the idea that Elon Musk has an office in the White House when he has billions of dollars of business before the federal government is appalling.

I’m probably forgetting something, but yeah, there’s a lot not to like. And yet—

Gail: Oh, no, don’t “and yet” me.

For Stephens, a man of the center right, the list goes on and on. 

Awful? Disgraceful? Tawdry? Unethical? Abominable and appalling? 

Stephens, a man of the center right, finds a great deal not to like! And yet, by that time he assembles that list, he has already said this:

Bret: Any thoughts on Trump’s orders ending D.E.I. programming in the federal government?

Gail: The idea that government agencies should try to stress diversity, equity and inclusion in hiring decisions was heir to the historic fight for desegregation in civil service. Reformers argued that Americans of all races tended to do well if they came from middle-class families with ties to their communities and that the next step should be programs to open up educational and employment opportunities for everybody else.

Seems very appropriate that the administration pushing back is one that tends to regard political loyalty as the most important criterion for almost any job.

Bret: The central problem with D.E.I. is neither diversity nor inclusion. It’s the word “equity,” which in theory ought to mean simple fairness but in practice meant pervasive racial and gender gerrymandering based almost exclusively—and unconstitutionally—on considerations of group identity rather than individual qualifications. It also led to the creation of D.E.I. bureaucracies in thousands of institutions, from universities to corporations, whose employees too often acted as Soviet-style political commissars, enforcing all kinds of intrusive orthodoxies that tried to dictate not only how other employees or students were supposed to act but also how they were supposed to think and speak.

Anyone who has sat through a D.E.I. training seminar—by turns saccharine and scolding, treacly and tendentious—knows what I mean. It just turned people off, including a lot of well-meaning people who are all for inclusivity as a value. Trump getting rid of it is the best thing he’s done in office so far, as far as I’m concerned.

At this site, we've never "sat through a D.E.I. training seminar." But we've read the books and we've scanned the brochures. On that basis, we feel fairly sure that we know what Stephens is talking about.

In that exchange, Collins offers the lofty ideas behind the fundamental concept of "DEI." Stephens moves in a different direction. In effect, he's saying something like this:

There's no such thing as a good intention which can't be unwisely pursued.

For ourselves, we wouldn't know how to evaluate an order as sweeping as the one Trump has issued. How many good programs are possibly being thrown away, along with some which may resemble the portrait Stephens offers?

That said, we'll take a guess:

Blue America almost surely lost quite a few votes thanks to some of the dumber applications of this theoretically good idea. Simply put, we Blues aren't anywhere near as smart as we persistently claim to be. We've proven this again and again with respect to these topics, and we continue to do so.

Before the week is done, we'll offer a brand-new example. Every time some of this unhelpful folderol hits the fan, a Trump voter gets his wings.